St. Peter: His Name and His Office,
by Thomas W. Allies
LONDON: RICHARDSON AND SON, 172, FLEET STREET;
9, CAPEL STREET, DUBLIN; AND DERBY.
MDCCCLII.
(1852)

St. Peter: His Name and His Office, is an 8 chapter work by Allis, which is Catholic, and basically this is a defense of Roman Catholicism claim that they alone are the true Church of Christ.

CONTENTS of St. Peter: His Name and His Office,

1. To Peter,
2. Prince of the Apostles,
3. The Rock of the Church,
4. Against Which the Gates of Hell Shall Not Prevail,
5. The Bearer of the Keys,
6. The Binder and Looser On Earth and in Heaven,
7. The Confirmer of His Brethren,
8. The Shepherd of the Fold.
From the Editor David Cox
These contents do not appear to correspond correctly to the actual chapters, therefore I have restructed the table of Contents (below) to conform to the actual chapters.
1. St. Peter, His Name, and His Office as set forth in Holy Scripture
2. Education and Final Designation of Peter to be the Ruler who should confirm his brethren
3. The Investiture of Peter
4. The Correspondence and Equivalence of the Great Texts concerning Peter
5. St. Peter’s Primacy as Exhibited in the Acts
6. Testimony of S. Paul to S. Peter’s Primacy.
7. S. Peter’s Primacy involved in the Fourfold unity of Christ’s Kingdom
8. Summary of Proof Given for S. Peter’s Primacy.

PREFACE.

The present work took its rise, and is largely drawn, from the very learned Father Passaglia’s “Commentary on the Prerogatives of St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, as proved by the authority of Holy Writ,” which was published in Latin, in 1850. The eighth and ninth chapters are, indeed, translations, respectively, of the twenty-seventh of his first book, and the first of his second book. And as to the rest, my obligations are more than I can specify. I owe, on the other hand, many excuses to Father Passaglia, for while I have only partially observed his order in treating the subject, I have considered his whole work as a treasure-house of learning, whence I might draw at my pleasure “things old and new,” adapting them, as I thought good, to the needs of the Protestant mind, as familiar to me in England. Thus I have not scrupled to translate, to omit, or to insert matter of my own, according to my judgment. It seemed to me of paramount importance to present to the English reader the whole chain of scriptural [Pg viii]evidence for the Primacy and prerogatives of St. Peter. This chain of evidence is so strong, that, when I first saw it completely drawn out, it struck my own mind, brought up in the prejudices of Protestantism, with the force of a new revelation. I put to myself the question; is it possible that they who specially profess to draw their faith from the written Word of God, would refuse to acknowledge a doctrine set forth in Holy Scripture with at least as strong evidence as the Godhead of our Lord itself, if they could see it not broken up into morsels, like bits of glass reflecting a distorted and imperfect image, according to the fashion of citing separate texts without regard to the proportion of the faith, but presented in a complete picture on the mirror of God’s Word? This picture is thus complete and perfect in Father Passaglia’s work. Yet the form of that work, no less than its bulk, the scrupulous minuteness with which every opposite interpretation of so many adversaries in modern times is answered, as well as the fulness with which every part of the subject is treated, made me feel that a simple translation would not be tolerated by the impatience of a population, which has little time and less mind for studies of this character. I have pursued, therefore, the humble task of popularising, so far as I could, Father Passaglia’s work, omitting, as I trust, no essential part of the argument, and grouping it under different combinations, each of which might be in turn presented to the eye, and so more readily embraced.

The importance of the argument, as it affects the Papal Supremacy, which is but a summary of the whole cause at issue between Protestantism in every shape, and the Church of Christ, cannot be overrated. If St. Peter be already set forth in Scripture as the Head and Bond of the Apostolic[Pg ix] College, if he be delineated as the supreme Ruler who succeeds our Lord Himself in the visible government of His Church on earth, there becomes at once the strongest ground for expecting that such a Ruler will be continued as long as the Church herself lasts. Thus a guiding clue is given to us among all the following records of antiquity. Tradition and history become illuminated with a light which exhibits all objects in their due proportion and true grouping, when they are shown to be but the realisation of what the Incarnate Word, His Church’s one only Lawgiver, decreed from the beginning, set forth not only in prophetic image, but distinct command, and stored up in words of such exceeding power, that they bear the whole weight of the kingdom of God, stretching through all ages and nations, without effort or pressure. And if ancient writers speak in no doubtful tone of St. Peter’s prerogatives, yet clearer, more emphatic, and soul-piercing, as we should expect, are the words of God Himself, appealing in man’s form to the mind and heart of man, whom He had created, and was come to redeem, and to knit into one eternal monarchy.
A subsequent part of the argument, namely, that the Bishop of Rome is successor of St. Peter, has been treated by the author in another work, “The See of St. Peter the Rock of the Church, the Source of Jurisdiction, and the Centre of Unity,” specially in the fifth section, which ought, logically, to be preceded by this treatise. It is there proved that not only the Christian Fathers, as individual writers and witnesses, but the ancient Church in her universal Councils, did, with one voice, from age to age, regard the Pope as sitting in St. Peter’s chair, which is proof enough, and all that can in reason be demanded, that the[Pg x] prerogatives given to St Peter as Head of the Church were, in the belief of the Church, and in full accordance with our Lord’s own promise,[A] continued on to his successors, and are as imperishable as the life of the Church herself.

21, North Bank, Regent’s Park, September, 1852.
[Pg xi]

FOOTNOTES:

[A] Matt. xvi. 18.—”Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” i. e., as founded on that rock. The foundation and the superstructure coexist for ever.

EXTENDED TABLE OF CONTENTS.

CHAPTER I.
THE NAME OF PETER PROMISED, CONFERRED, AND EXPLAINED.
The Church the finished work of the Word Incarnate 1
Unity and visibility enter into the Church’s idea, as set forth in its several types 2
Visible headship also part of this idea 5
Christ on earth in two capacities, as founder and ruler,—Double selection among the disciples, first of twelve, then of one 6
Statement of the question at issue in this treatise 7
First mention of Peter, the name promised 8
Meaning of the name, stone 9
The name conferred 11
Name explained, and promises attached 12
Classes of names given in Scripture 16
Parallel between Abraham and Peter 17
Source of pre-eminence in both, association with Christ 23
Instances of such association 26
Interpretation of S. Chrysostome 27
Summary 28

CHAPTER II.
EDUCATION AND FINAL DESIGNATION OF PETER TO BE THE RULER WHO SHOULD CONFIRM HIS BRETHREN.
Education of Peter in the Theology and Economy 29
Preference shown to him in witnessing the Transfiguration 30
Also in the Agony; and the raising the daughter of Jairus 32
The receivers of the didrachma come to Peter 34
The answer of Christ, and what is involved in it 35
Interpretation of our Lord’s action by Origen and S. Chrysostome 36
Question of the Apostles to which it leads 37
Answer of our Lord, designating a thief 38
Our Lord in two capacities; 1, as Founder, 2, as Ruler of the Church 43
The Church unchangeable in her form 44
She had one ruler from the beginning.—Immense and continually growing importance of this our ruler 45
The Primacy which He designated, one of real power 47
Translation of the discourse to Peter 48
Confirming used of the three Divine Persons 51
Nature of the charge, Confirm thy brethren 52
Meaning of the term confirm 53
Scope and harmony of our Lord’s discourse in Luke xxii 56
Corollaries from the charge to confirm the brethren 59-63
[Pg xii]

CHAPTER III.
THE INVESTITURE OF PETER.
What our Lord had done up to His resurrection 64
Further disposition of powers after His resurrection 65
Special care to prove the resurrection to Peter 66
Fulfilment of the Lord’s promises to the Twelve, in the bestowal of their legislative, judicial, and executive powers 68
Subsequent exercise of these powers by the Twelve 69
Fulfilment of the special promises to Peter in the bestowal of the legislative, judicial, and executive powers of the Primacy 70
Force of the Lord’s title, the Shepherd 72
Importance and extent of the charge conveyed by this title 74
Force of the circumstances under which it is conveyed 76
S. Ambrose, S. Chrysostome, Theophylact, S. Leo, and S. Basil on the text 79
S. Cyprian adds the Primacy to the Apostolic equality 81
Force of Follow thou Me 82

CHAPTER IV.
CORRESPONDENCE AND EQUIVALENCE OF THE GREAT TEXTS CONCERNING PETER.
Difference in the mode of speaking of persons indicates a difference of rank—The phrase, a person “and they that were with him.” 84
S. Peter first in all the Apostolic catalogues 86
Synthetical view of the whole evidence 89
Distinct spheres of S. Peter and S. John 91
Peter wrought into the whole Gospel history 92
The Primacy defined by the three great texts: first, Matt. xvi. 18 94
Paraphrase of Matt. xvi. 18 95
Corollaries from it 96
Our Lord’s answer to the question, who was the greatest? 100
The text, confirm thy brethren 101
Our Lord’s conduct to Peter, after His resurrection, the counter part to that before it.—Comparison of what is given to the Apostles, and what to Peter 102
The joint force, identity, and reciprocal relations of the three texts 104
1. They are appropriated to Peter only.
2. Priority of time is assigned to him.
3. Their equivalence.
4. They indicate a sovereign and independent authority.
5. Their definiteness.
6. The ordinary government of the Church contained in them.
7. Peter made in them the continuous principle of power.
8. Peter made the type and efficient cause of visible unity.
These conclusions borne out by Cassian in Gaul 111
By Maximus of Turin, in Italy 112
By S. Isidore in Spain, and summed up by Pope Gregory II. 113
[Pg xiii]

CHAPTER V.
PETER’S PRIMACY AS EXHIBITED IN THE ACTS.
Division of the Acts into history of the Church universal, and of S. Paul in particular 114
Gospels, history of the Head; Acts, of the Body 115
Execution of Christ’s promises declaratory of their enactment 116
General proof of this as to the Primacy in the Acts 117
1. Peter oftener mentioned than all the rest put together.
2. The leading part assigned to him.
3. Peter mentioned directly; the rest obliquely 118
4. Peter answers for all the Apostles 119
5. Luke records Peter’s actions and speeches in full.
6. The first part of the Acts may be called the history of Peter 120
I. Particular proof—Election of a new Apostle 122
S. Chrysostome’s comment on this 124
Peter’s conduct in defending the rest on the day of Pentecost 125
Third and fourth speech of Peter.—Summary of the first four chapters 128
II. Proof from junction of authoritative teaching and miracles 129
Resemblance between Peter’s miracles and Christ’s 131
Peter the chief figure among the Apostles as Christ before 133
III. Peter presides over the different steps in propagating the Church 134
Peter’s part in the conversion of Samaria 135
IV. Peter receiving the Gentiles in the person of Cornelius 137
Things to be noted in this reception concerning Peter.—Peter murmured
against by some of the circumcision 142
S. Chrysostome and S. Gregory upon his conduct 143
V. S. Peter exercising supreme judicial power over Ananias 144
VI. S. Peter exercising supreme visitatorial power 145
VII. S. Peter’s supreme legislative authority in council 147
The consent and joint action of others do not impugn the supremacy 148
Tertullian’s testimony as to his authority here, and that of S. Jerome and Theodoret 150
VIII. Contrast between the mode in which the imprisonment of Peter, and that of James and Paul is mentioned 151
Summary of the testimony to Peter in the Acts 153
His Primacy magisterial, judicial, and legislative.—Its institution compared with its exercise 154
No opposition offered to it 155
The mystical headship contrasted with the visible 157
[Pg xiv]

CHAPTER VI.
TESTIMONY OF S. PAUL TO S. PETER’S PRIMACY.
Detailed mention of the Primacy not to be expected in S. Paul’s Epistles: but an incidental one occurs often 159
Four notices of Peter in 1 Ep. to Cor. 160
Paul’s visit to Peter Gal. i. 16 162
Theodoret, Chrysostome, Tertullian, Mar. Victorinus, Ambrosiaster, S.
Jerome, S. Thomas Cant. on this passage 163
Paul’s second visit.—Parallel between Peter with James and John on the one hand, and Paul with Barnabas and Titus on the other 165
The censure of Peter by Paul, Gal. 2 169
S. Chrysostome’s and S. Jerome’s remarks 170
Misuse of this passage by ancient and modern heretics 171
Contrast of the three ancient interpretations with those of modern heretics 172
Fundamental opposition between the Fathers and the Reformers 176

CHAPTER VII.
THE PRIMACY OF PETER INVOLVED IN THE FOURFOLD UNITY OF CHRIST’S KINGDOM.
The person of the God-man the principle of headship in the Church 178
Testimony of the Fathers to this 179
Fourfold unity resulting from this headship 181
First unity of mystical influx 182
The second unity of charity, whose efficient principle is the Holy Spirit.
—Third unity of faith, whose efficient principle is the Holy Spirit acting through the visible hierarchy 183
Set forth by S. Paul also 185
Headship of mystical influx does not obviate the creation of an external hierarchy 188
Fourth unity of visible headship.—This the root and efficient principle of the visible hierarchy 190
The one body is complete 192
The unity of a college not sufficient to express our Lord’s personal unity 193
Positive teaching corresponds to the inherent notion of the Church 194
The Father in the holy Trinity what Peter’s see is in the Church 195
Summary of this fourfold unity 196
Importance of S. Peter’s office hence resulting 197
[Pg xv]

CHAPTER VIII.
SUMMARY OF THE PROOF GIVEN FOR S. PETER’S PRIMACY.
Points in question, generally, inequality in the Apostolic College:
specially, the appointment of one over the rest; resolution of these tried by four examinations:—1. Into the words and acts of Christ; which relate to the Apostles.—2. Into those which seem to mark the institution of a singular authority.—3. Into the mode of writing used by the evangelists.—4. Into the history of the rising Church.—A concurrence of these four points would prove the two questions 200
The analysis of what has been written shows this concurrence 201
Twelve arguments from what has been written, proving the inequality of
the Apostolic college, and Peter’s Primacy 203
What is the force and nature of the Primacy.—Six proofs establishing this to consist in superior jurisdiction 209
Enquiry into the end and purpose of the Primacy: for the knowledge of the intention and purpose equivalent at least to a negative rule, ascertaining what must be given to it 212
Three classes of reasons, typical, analogical, and real, ascertain for us this purpose.—1. Typical. Parallel of Peter with Abraham and its results 213
Parallel of Peter with Judah and its results 214
ii. Analogical. Analogy of body, house, kingdom, city, and fold, and its results.—And of universal, and each particular Church on one hand, and Primate and bishops on the other 217
iii. Real, whether educed from texts containing the institution of the Primacy, or from the inherent properties of the Church.—1. Educed from texts 219
2. Educed from properties of the Church; first, its identity; secondly, its unity; thirdly, its catholicity; scriptural setting forth of unity 220
Further illustration from Protestant opinions of the Church’s unity.—
A. First, that of Anglicans, of unity in particular Churches, but not in the universal Church, represented by Dodwell 222
B. Second opinion, set forth by Vitringa, of distinction between the necessity of internal and that of external unity 225
C. Third opinion, of agreement in fundamentals 232
Two causes of this being held, one theoretical, the other practical.—The former stated 233
The practical cause 234
Reasons educed, thirdly, from the Catholicity of the Church, with which the Primacy is bound up.—Catholicity has two parts, one material and one formal 236
The material part, amplitude and extension.—The formal part, not only negative, but affirmative.—Negative, as expelling from the one true Church all heretics and schismatics: testimonies to it 237
Affirmative, at making a coherent body with members and articulations 238
Testimonies to the mode of this coherence, in Irenæus, Cyprian, and
Tertullian, and the other Fathers, summed up in S. Leo 239
Hence answers to the question whether the doctrine of S. Peter’s Primacy is contained in the creed.—It is involved in one Catholic Church 243
[Pg xvi]

CHAPTER IX.
THE NATURE, MULTIPLICITY, AND FORCE OF PROOF FOR S. PETER’S PRIMACY.
Different sorts of proof.—1. The principal here used, and the subsidiary.—Their joint force 246
Hence, I. The nature of the answer required to it.—2. The proof, if unanswered, demonstrates the Primacy to be revealed 247
3. Enquiry into the certitude of the proof used 248
I. Force of the proof in itself and absolutely.—Two conditions requisite, and here found, authenticity of the documents, and clearness of their evidence.—Number and harmony of scriptural testimonies to the Primacy 249
The parallel of Julius Cæsar 250
Collateral proof, supporting that of the holy Scriptures, so that the whole consists in the harmony of these four:—1. Scriptural documents.—
2. Ancient witnesses.—3. Analogy.—4. Facts of Christian history, in fourteen distinct classes 251
Prodigious force of this compound proof 256
No counter religious system producible by Greek, Anglican, or pure Protestant, but mere negation and objection 257
II. Force of the proof comparatively with other doctrines: comparison with the texts on which Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists severally rely 259
Retort that all but Catholics are opposed to our interpretation; answer, that from Catholics alone we are to gather the truth 260
Yet all protestants not agreed in opposing our interpretation and reasons why their opposition is of little moment 261
Compare, likewise, opposition to the Church in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries 264
And again the conduct of Lutherans and Anglicans in maintaining their own distinctive texts.—But what, then, are the true criteria of documentary evidence? They are four:—
Internal {and immediate {4. Verbal.
{ {2. Real.
{and remote 3. Analogical.
External 4. Agreement of witnesses 265
1. Comparison carried through verbal criterion, between the texts alleged
by us, and those of Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists 266
2. And through the real criterion, or that of the subject matter, greater in the proofs for Peter’s prerogatives than in those for the real presence, or the Divinity of Christ, on account of the difficulty of grasping the object in the latter cases 267
As to the superiority of bishops over presbyters, the proof severed from that of the Primacy sinks into nothing: considered with it, it is of the same character, but weaker 268
Accordingly, the criterion from the subject matter is stronger for Peter’s Primacy, than for the superiority of bishops over presbyters, for the real presence, and for the Divinity of Christ.—Sum of both these criteria, verbal and real, in favour of Peter’s Primacy, over these three doctrines 270
Appeal hence arising to Lutherans, Anglicans, and Calvinists.—Comparison with the inferior evidence for other received doctrines 271
3. The third criterion of analogy: force of this in favour of Peter’s Primacy from three heads:—1. The divine institution of bishops.—2. The unity of the Church.—3. The Catholicity of the Church 272
4. Fourth criterion of witnesses.—Immense force of this criterion, both as stated by the fathers, and shewn by Protestants in their own conduct 274
Witnesses unanimous in favour of the Primacy 277