84

ART. IV.-St. Peter, his Name and his Office, as set forth in Holy Scripture. By THOMAS W. ALLIES, M.A., Author of the "See of St. Peter," &c. London: Richardson and Son. 1852.

THE exposition of his orthodoxy, which the work under the above title presents, has earned for the author whatever credit or discredit he may attach to a leadership of the Ultramontane sect; and has, at the same time, added another to the many proofs which certify the accuracy of the remarks so often made respecting the fervour of neophytes. Whoever seeks in this work for that thankful humility, which a deep conviction of escape from a supposed danger ought to inspire, will seek in vain. Instead, we find indications of that "bitter zeal" which hesitates not to impute to others motives upon grounds which charity will not recognise as sufficient. In such a spirit does Mr. Allies venture upon the following observation respecting the reason why the Papal supremacy is disowned in England:-" But the fixed purpose of defending their schism and their determination to reject the primacy urged them to deny that unity in the whole Church was ordered and provided for by Christ."

We do not propose to follow the example here set by Mr. Allies; nor, indeed, does the task of commenting upon his composition require a severer censure than may be administered by a perfectly fair and candid discussion of his chief arguments in favour of the theory which he maintains. Of the general character of his book, it will suffice to observe that his style is involved-that there is a constant repetition of the same things-and that he seems to aim at overpowering and harassing the mind into a compliance with his views, rather than to win the conviction of an unbiassed intellect.

As an instance of his mode of reasoning the following may be regarded. Having cited the words of St. Luke xxii. 32, "But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not, and when thou art converted confirm thy brethren," he states (p. 55):

"This charge was given after that, by the prayer of Christ, the privilege had been gained for Peter's faith that it should never fail. Hence that faith is become, in virtue of such prayer, the infallible standard of evangelical truth......It follows that all the faithful owe to it obedience. And Peter's authority rests on a double title-external of mission-internal of spiritual gift; the former contained, in the words of Christ the Legislator, And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren :' the latter, in the words of Christ the Be

6

stower of all gifts, But I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not.'

Now, when Mr. Allies states that "a privilege has been gained for Peter's faith that it should never fail," he ventures upon more than the text will warrant. The prayer of our Lord was not for Peter's faith, but for Peter himself, evidently referring to the prevarication of which he was guilty at the time of our Lord's trial. The same mercy which called Peter to the service of Christ is promised to preserve him from continuing in that apostacy into which there was reason to fear he would fall through that impetuosity of temper and vain confidence in his own power and talents which are so prominently apparent in the history of his career before the descent of the Holy Ghost had made him more sensible of his weakness, and had imparted to him strength to fulfil the apostolate to which he was commissioned. Our Lord did not state that Peter's faith should never fail, but that "thy faith fail not ;" and the repentance of Peter, after his denial, satisfies all that was promised. The most that can be deduced from the prayer of our Lord is that eventually Peter would be found amongst the faithful. It is impossible to doubt that the perseverance of Peter in the faith of Christ, after his denial, was a personal mercy bestowed upon him by our Lord; nor is there a word to indicate that any permanent "privilege" was intended, or that "his faith is become......the infallible standard of evangelical truth," much less for the inference that "all the faithful owe to it obedience." For, indeed, how can such results be even comprehended? How can a personal gift to Peter be a "standard of evangelical truth?" God alone can be a dard of evangelical truth," and the "faith" in Him which was mercifully bestowed upon Peter was, at the same time, bestowed upon others who seem to have so prized it, or to have exhibited such indications as seemed to render unnecessary a special prayer for their perseverance in its profession. Again: what possible clear meaning can be attached to the words, "All the faithful owe to it obedience?" The term “faithful,” in its plain and accustomed meaning, implies one who believes in Christ. To Him all men, but peculiarly the " faithful," owe obedience. The manner of doing so is pointed out in the plainest words. No Christian can fairly plead ignorance of the duty and of the way to fulfil it. But when "the faithful" are told that they "owe obedience" to "Peter's faith," it can by no means be called a captious pro

66

stan

ceeding to ask what is the precise nature of this duty? How is it to be fulfilled? Obedience to Peter's faith! To "obey" a law enjoined by suitable authority is easy to comprehend; but what is meant by "obeying" the faith of Peter? The "faith" in question was clearly a spiritual gift promised to be continued to Peter upon a certain trying occasion. How is "obedience" to it to be fulfilled by others? When, again, Mr. Allies asserts that "Peter's authority rests on a double title-external of mission, internal of spiritual gift"-he plainly means to convey the idea that "Peter's authority" is something distinct from any attribute of the other apostles or disciples of Christ; and yet it is made to rest on titles which are common to all the apostles! It cannot be denied that each of them, like Peter, received "mission" (Matt. xxviii. 19); and also "spiritual gifts" (Acts ii. 4). To rest upon such grounds a claim to special "authority" is, to say the least, not consistent or logical.

But this is not the chief point to be attended to in the statement of Mr. Allies. It will be seen that he deliberately alters the common text of the holy Scriptures in the passage he cites. The words, "And when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren" (Luke xxii. 32), Mr. Allies gives thus-" And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren." The Douay version, which is that alone recognised by the Roman ecclesiastical authorities in England, presents the passage thus:-" And thou, once converted, confirm thy brethren." Mr. Allies very candidly owns that the words in the common readings above given will not bear out the argument that authority or supreme jurisdiction over the other apostles was conveyed to Peter thereby. The admission is one only creditable to himself. It does not really affect the truth of the matter, since it is impossible that any one could, without previous opinion or inclination to discover such a dogma, perceive, in this passage of St. Luke, the smallest support for such a theory; and, yet, it is the chief foundation upon which the maintainers of what are styled the "prerogatives of Peter" rest their argument. That Mr. Allies regards it as of primary importance is clear from the pains he takes to give such a form to the text as may, in his estimate, more consistently bear out the doctrine which his work was intended to uphold. To us it appears his effort is decisive of the whole question involved in his book. His words occur in the form of a note upon the extract already given above. They are as follows:

"As far as the words by themselves go, it is the opinion of the best

commentators that they may be equally well rendered,

6

And thou, when thou art converted; or, And thou in thy turn, one day,' &c. But as it is impossible to bring a discussion turning on a Hebrew idiom conveyed in a Greek word before the English reader, we must here restrict ourselves to the proof arising from the sense and context. And here one thing alone, among several which may be urged, is sufficient to prove that the sense preferred in the text, And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren,' is the true one. For the other rendering supposes that the time of Peter's conversion would also be the time of his confirming his brethren; whereas this was far otherwise. He was converted by our Lord looking on him that same night shortly after his denial; and immediately went out and wept bitterly.' But he did not succeed to the charge of confirming his brethren till after our Lord's ascension. It must be added that the collocation of the original words καὶ σὺ ποτὲ ἐπιστρέψας στήριξον, is such as absolutely to require that the joint action indicated by them should belong to the same time, and that an indefinite time expressed by TOTÈ. Now, this would be false according to the rendering, And thou, when thou art converted, confirm thy brethren,' for the conversion was immediate and definite-the confirmation distant and indefinite: whereas it exactly agrees with the rendering, And thou in thy turn, one day, confirm thy brethren (p. 55).

Now, if the best commentators regard either rendering of the passage as equally good, the concurrent testimony of the English versions authorized by the Churches of England and Rome would, to those for whom Mr. Allies specially composed his book, be conclusive in favour of the reading which he alleges cannot be consistently used to support the claims put forth in behalf of the "prerogatives of Peter." The deduction of Mr. Allies respecting the time for the complete fulfilment of the prayer of our Lord is, it is almost needless to add, entirely unfounded. There is nothing in the language of our Lord inconsistent with the conclusion that the repentance of Peter, after the denial which must have scandalized his brethren, was the promised means and occasion of confirming those who were scandalized by his prevarication: nay, more, the context will scarcely admit any other conclusion.

But there seems to be no fair reason for reading σε ποτέ ÉTIOTρépas" as meaning " in thy turn one day." Even the commentators who mention the view do not insist on it. If Mr. Allies had ventured to furnish some ground from analogy for his version, it might be useful to enter more at large upon the subject. At present a reference to a passage in holy Scripture, where the word "Topéfas" occurs in the very same sense as in St. Luke xxii. 32, will meet all that is required. In the Psalm lxxxiv. 6, are the words, " eos, qu

66

ἐπιστρέψας ζωώσεις ἡμᾶς ” which is a literal rendering of the

-where the Almighty is en הֲלֹא אַתָּה תָּשׁוּב תְּחַיִּינוּ IIebrew

treated to repent or turn aside from His wrath; the "

ἐπιστρέψας

being perfectly similar in sense to the "émioTpéfas" or conversus, or "being turned" or "converted." The word means, in fine, a turning oneself to a better state of mind, and is applied by the Psalmist to the Almighty in the same way that in hundreds of passages of holy Scripture human passions and attributes are assigned to God-not that such are really meant to be signified as appertaining to Him—but to suit the capacity of man in treating of the Deity. It was scarcely permissible to Mr. Allies to evade the discussion of the words upon the ground of their being a Hebrew idiom. He undertook to place before his readers the results of his scriptural investigation into the question of the "Primacy of Peter," and it would have been very excusable if, in such a case, philological learning had been put into requisition. We are persuaded that the result would not tend to advance the cause which he has undertaken; and it is only just to suppose that had he "drawn out," to use his own words, the true meaning of "TоTÈ ÉTIστρÉvas," he would, upon the chief support of his theory, have displayed a modesty and a diffidence which in another portion of his work does him so much credit. In his chapter entitled "Summary of the Proof given for St. Peter's Primacy," he states-"Now we seem to have proved absolutely what we proposed hypothetically;" and it is very true that seem to have proved were the strongest terms that the logic of Mr. Allies would justify.

66

66

1

Another point in the argument of Mr. Allies merits attention. It is that which regards the payment of the tribute by our Lord, recorded thus by St. Matthew xvii. 24, 27:

"And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute-money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your Master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? Of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? Of their own children or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money; that take and give unto them for me and thee."

Mr. Allies remarks upon this passage (p. 34):

"St. Matthew records the incidents of the officers asking for the