Augustine's Multiple References to Peter as the "Rock": a Response to Rome's Defenders

This is an addendum to my earlier blog entry: What Was Augustine "Retracting" on Peter, The Rock, and Mathew 16? That entry exegetes Augustine's likely final statement on his interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19.  His later view was that Peter was not the "Rock" the church was founded upon (he admits in his earlier writings he did put forth the opposite view that Peter was the "Rock" the church was founded upon). Augustine's later view is contrary to the modern view espoused by Rome's defenders, for instance, this apologist says, "Only Simon, among all the other personages of the New Testament, received a name change (cf. Matt. 16:18-19). This signified his status as the "rock" upon which Christ would build his Church." Who's correct, Augustine or modern Roman Catholic apologists? 

In response to Protestants bringing up Augustine's later view, some of Rome's defenders have located a number of times Augustine referred to Peter as the "Rock," This webpage states, "Far from repudiating the Catholic understanding of Matt 16:18, I will provide testimony from Augustine to show he interpreted Matt 16:18 in various ways during his life and not exclusively equating "this rock” with Christ Himself." What I've noticed in the quotes they've mined out is the distinction Augustine himself makes between his earlier and later writings on Peter and the "Rock" is blurred or non-existent.

This blog entry will go through their basic list and demonstrate the quotes that most clearly show Augustine referring to Peter as the "Rock" the church was built upon represent his discarded earlier view. The quotes from later in his life do not clearly demonstrate adherence to the earlier view. Certainly Augustine was a great theologian, but he was not an infallible theologian. I would not be at all surprised if he erred in consistency, went through a transition period, or if extant manuscripts contain errors making his comments fuzzy. When I did go through the basic texts being brought forth, it was clear Augustine shifted his view on Peter and the "Rock."

This is the basic list that will be scrutinized below. There are number of variations on this list as the quotes have journeyed through cyber-space over the years. It appears the cumulative case method of citing various statements from Augustine throughout his life is put forth to downplay Augustine's clear later view.  I contend Rome's defenders therefore are spoof-texting Augustine's writings, hiding the very distinction he refers to in the Retractationes. Let's work through each quote. 

1. “Number the bishops from the see of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail.”Psalmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51

Documentation: "salmus contra partem Donati, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51." I suspect this quote may have been taken from Scott Butler's book, Jesus, Peter & the Keys, p. 250 (Butler's entire book is found here). Butler's text reads, 

Butler's documentation would explain what the cryptic "GCC,51" reference means: Dom John Chapman, Bishop Gore and Catholic Claims (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903, 51. Chapman appears to be responsible for this particular English translation.  Other English renditions precede his (simply Google search 19th Century books with the phrase, "Number the Bishops even from the very seat of Peter"). Regardless of the documentation rabbit trails of Rome's defenders, the Latin text is: "Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede et in ordine illo patrum quis cui successit, videte: Ipsa est petra, quam non vincunt superbae inferorum portae," (PL 43, 30).

This quote comes from A.D. 393-394. It's from roughly the same time period as the lost treatise Augustine mentions in the Retractationes and strongly appears to be representative of his earlier viewpoint. It's not from a treatise per se, but from a hymn Augustine wrote in response to Donatist hymns being sung, therefore not an actual argument or exegesis, merely a passing lyrical phrase (Augustine also mentions it in The Retractations).  "Augustine of Hippo writes in the Retractations that he composed his Psalmus contra Partem Donati (393) as a retort to the rhymed "psalms" which Donatist congregations chanted, and that he had intended his own Psalm for chanting in his congregation (source). This 19th Century writer presents a lengthy argument suggesting that even with Augustine referring to Peter as the "Rock" in this hymn, it does not equal Rome's version of an transmission of an infallible papal office. 

2. “Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from their own hands, have been given to the Church.” Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51

Documentation: "Christian Combat, 31:33(A.D. 397), in JUR,3:5." If one begins with the later part of the reference the entire reference becomes clear.  "JUR,3:5" refers to William A. Jurgens, The faith of the Early Fathers vol,3, 51. This text says, 

Jurgens mentions the quote comes from Augustine's "Christian Combat (A.D. 396 and 397)" and the location is "31,33." Jurgens appears entirely responsible for this particular English translation, therefore this is the likely source of this popular cut-and-paste. The Latin text of the quote can be found in De agone christiano (PL 40:307). The Christian Combat can be found in a complete English translation, with the quote found here.  Augustine says,

(33) Let us not heed those who deny that the Church of God can remit all sins. Failing to recognize in Peter the ‘rock,’ these unhappy souls have accordingly lost possession of the keys; they are unwilling to believe that the keys of the kingdom of heaven have been given to the Church. These are the people who condemn as adulteresses widows who marry, and who boast that theirs is a purity superior to the teaching of the Apostles. If they would only acknowledge their own names, they would call themselves ‘wordly’ [mundanos] rather than ‘pure’ [mundos]. For, by their unwillingness to be corrected when they have sinned, they have simply chosen to be condemned with this world [mundo]. 

These heretics do not preserve the spiritual health of those to whom they deny forgiveness of sins. They take away medicine from the infirm, forcing their widows to be consumed by the heat of passion, when they will not permit them to marry. Certainly these heretics are not to be accounted wiser than the Apostle Paul, who preferred that widows should marry, rather than be so consumed by passion. 

"Peter the 'rock'" is merely a passing comment. Based on the year it was penned (A.D. 396 - 397), it's within probability that Augustine is holding his earlier view. Note though that while Peter is the "rock," the keys of the kingdom have been given to the church and he also links his detractors think their teaching is superior to that of the Apostles, not just Peter.  This is clarified though in 30:32, "it is not without reason that, among all the Apostles, it is Peter who represents the Catholic Church. For the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given to this Church when they were given to Peter," and speaking of Peter's denial of Christ: "We see that pardon was granted to Peter, who represents the Church... "

3. “For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: — Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were known.”
To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298

Documentation:  "To Generosus, Epistle 53:2(A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:298." "NPNF1" refers to 

A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,  vol. 1. Here is page 298. The text being cited is from a letter from 400 A.D. Augustine, with the Donatists in view. He refers to Peter as "bearing in a figure the whole church" and referred to as the "Rock," yet though again another passing reference, reflective of his stated earlier view. 

4. “When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, ‘Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.’ (Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76.

Documentation: "Homilies on John, Tract 11:5(A.D. 417), in NPNF1,VII:76." This is another reference to  A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church,  volume 7. Here is page 76. The crucial aspect of this citation for Rome's defenders is the year "A.D. 417."  This would be a quote from seventeen years past the previous quote. Unfortunately, Augustine simply mentions Peter being called, "that Rock," with no indication that the building of the church is intended to rest on Peter. The text states, 

If thou be without God, thou wilt be less; if thou be with God, God will not be greater. Not from thee will He be greater, but thou without Him wilt be less. Grow, therefore, in Him; do not withdraw thyself, that He may, as it were, diminish. Thou wilt be renewed if thou come to Him, wilt suffer loss if thou depart from Him. He remains entire when thou comest to Him, remains entire even when thou fallest away. When, therefore, He had said to His disciples, “Will ye also go away?” Peter, that Rock, answered with the voice of all, “Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life.” Pleasantly savored the Lord’s flesh in his mouth. The Lord, however, expounded to them, and said, “It is the Spirit that quickeneth.”

5. “And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, ‘Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,’ saith, ‘Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.’ Why therefore ‘Satan’ is he, that a little before was ‘blessed,’ and a ‘Rock’ ?” In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223

Documentation: "In Psalms, 56[55]:14[PL 36, 656] (A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:223." This is a more complicated reference because someone cross referenced NPNF1 VIII:223 to the Latin text: PL 36, 656 ( "PL" stands for "Patrologia Latina")  The quote begins in column 656 and concludes in 657. It's not at all clear that in this quote from A.D. 418 Augustine is expressing his earlier view. Here is a broader context:

The Lord to His disciples was speaking of His Passion that was to be. Peter shuddered, and saith, “Far be it, O Lord;” he that a little before had said, “Thou art the Christ, Son of the living God,” having confessed God, feared for Him to die, as if but a man. But the Lord who so came that He might suffer (for we could not otherwise be saved unless with His blood we were redeemed), a little before had praised the confession of Peter.…But immediately when the Lord beginneth to speak of His Passion, he feared lest He should perish by death, whereas we ourselves should perish unless He died; and he saith, “Far be it, O Lord,  this thing shall not be done.” And the Lord, to him to whom a little before He had said, “Blessed thou art, and upon this Rock I will build my Church,” saith, “Go back behind, Satan, an offence thou art to Me.” Why therefore “Satan” is he, that a little before was “blessed,” and a “Rock”? “For thou savourest not the things which are of God,” He saith, “but those things which are of man.”  A little before he savoured the things which are of God: because “not flesh and blood hath revealed to thee, but My Father which is in the Heavens.” When in God he was praising his discourse, not Satan but Peter, from petra: but when of himself and out of human infirmity, carnal love of man, which would be for an impediment to his own salvation, and that of the rest, Satan he is called. Why? Because to go before the Lord he willed, and earthly counsel to give to the heavenly Leader. “Far be it, O Lord, this thing shall not be done.” Thou sayest, “Far be it,” and thou sayest, “O Lord:” surely if Lord He is, in power He doeth: if Master He is, He knoweth what He doeth, He knoweth what He teacheth. But thou willest to lead thy Leader, teach thy Master, command thy Lord, choose for God: much thou goest before, go back behind. Did not this too profit these enemies? “Turned be Mine enemies backward;” but let them not remain backward. For this reason let them be turned backward, lest they go before; but so that they follow, not so that they remain.

6. “Peter, who had confessed Him as the Son of God, and in that confession had been called the rock upon which the Church should be built.” In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251

Documentation: "In Psalms, 69:4[PL 36, 869] (A.D. 418), in Butler, 251." Working backward, "Butler, 251" refers to Scott Butler's book, Jesus, Peter and the Keys, page 251. Butler's book says, 

Also cited is PL 36, 869, which was taken from Allnatt's  citation by Scott Butler. It appears to me that Allnatt is responsible for the English translation being utilized of "Petrus, qui paulo ante eum confessus est Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus est petra, supra quam fabricaretur ecclesia." This spoof-texted version of the quote says it's from "A.D. 418," but Allnat says A.D. 400. Granted, this source point out that the dating Augustine's writing on the expositions of the Psalms "are largely hypothetical." It would be the responsibility of Rome's defenders to explain why they're using a later date when the source the quote was taken from indicates A.D. 400 (therefore another example of Augustine's earlier view).  The Latin text reads, 

Nam quod optatum est modo persecutoribus cogitantibus mala, dixit hoc ipse Dominus Petro. Praecedere quippe quodam loco Petrus voluit Dominum. Loquebatur enim Salvator de passione sua, quam si non suscepisset, nos salvi non essemus; et Petrus qui paulo ante eum confessus erat Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus erat Petra, supra quam fabricaretur Ecclesia, paulo post Domino dicente de futura passione sua, ait: Absit, Domine; propitius esto tibi, non fiet istud. Paulo ante, Beatus es, Simon Bar Iona, quia non tibi revelavit caro et sanguis, sed Pater meus qui in coelis est: modo repente, Redi post me, satana. Quid est, Redi post me? Sequere me. Praecedere me vis, consilium mihi dare vis; melius est ut consilium meum sequaris: hoc est, Redi retro, redi post me. Antecedentem compescit, ut retro redeat; et appellat satanam, quia vult praecedere Dominum. Paulo ante, Beatus: modo, Satanas. Unde paulo ante, Beatus? Quia non tibi, inquit, revelavit caro et sanguis, sed Pater meus qui in coelis est. Unde modo, Satanas? Quia non sapis, inquit, quae Dei sunt, sed quae sunt hominum.

It's interesting to note that NPNF, First series, vol. VIII does not include the sentence being cited by Rome's defenders. Why? I have no idea as to why the  text was edited, and no footnote documents the deletion. It does make sense though why Rome's defenders would only cite the Latin text and Butler'a book. NPNF reads:

For that which had been desired but now for persecutors thinking evil things, the same the Lord Himself said to Peter. Now in a certain place Peter willed to go before the Lord.…A little before, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father which is in Heaven:” now in a moment, “Go back behind Me, Satan.” What is, “Go back behind Me”? Follow Me. Thou willest to go before Me, thou willest to give Me counsel, it is better that thou follow My counsel: this is, “go back,” go back behind Me. He is silencing one outstripping, in order that he may go backward; and He is calling him Satan, because he willeth to go before the Lord. A little before, “blessed;” now, “Satan.” Whence a little before, “blessed”? Because, “to thee,” He saith, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it, but My Father which is in Heaven.” Whence now, “Satan”? Because “thou savourest not,” He saith, “the things which are of God, but the things which are of men.”

While this English translation says:

What he needs is to believe in Christ, and follow him; for what the psalm requests for those who harbor evil intentions is what the Lord himself ordered Peter. There was an occasion when Peter wanted to get ahead of the Lord. Our Savior had been speaking about his passion; if he had not accepted it, we should not have been saved. Just before this Peter had confessed him to be the Son of God, and for that confession he was called the Rock, on which the Church was to be built. But immediately afterward, when the Lord was speaking about his forthcoming passion, Peter protested: Far be it from you, Lord, have some pity for yourself. This will not happen. Only a moment ago Peter had been told, Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah, for it is not flesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven; but now, suddenly, he is commanded, Get behind me, Satan (Mt 16:22. 1 7.23). What does get behind me mean? Follow me. You want to rush ahead of me, you want to give me advice. It would be much better for you to follow my advice. This is what "Go back, get behind me" implies. He curbs the man who rushes in front,and makes him take his place in the rear; he calls him Satan because he wants to go one better than the Lord. A minute ago Christ called him blessed; now he addresses him as Satan. Why did he deserve to be called blessed? Because it is notf lesh and blood that revealed this to you, but my Father, who is in heaven, said Jesus. Then why does he now deserve the name Satan? Because you have no taste for the things of God, but only for human things.

7. “And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.” In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418), in NPNF1,VIII:513

Documentation: "In Psalms, 104[103]:16(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:513." NPNF1,VIII:513 can be found here. If this text is actually from A.D. 418, Augustine is not expressing his earlier view. In fact, in the context, Augustine say Christ was the "Rock":  

15. But think not that those “fowls of heaven” follow their own authority; see what the Psalm saith: “From the midst of the rocks they shall give their voice.” Now, if I shall say to you, Believe, for this said Cicero, this said Plato, this said Pythagoras: which of you will not laugh at me? For I shall be a bird that shall send forth my voice not from the rock. What ought each one of you to say to me? what ought he who is thus instructed to say? “If anyone shall have preached unto you a gospel other than that ye have received, let him be anathema.” What dost thou tell me of Plato, and of Cicero, and of Virgil? Thou hast before thee the rocks of the mountains, from the midst of the rocks give me thy voice. Let them be heard, who hear from the rock: let them be heard, because also in those many rocks the One Rock is heard: for “the Rock was Christ.” Let them therefore be willingly heard, giving their voice from the midst of the rocks. Nothing is sweeter than such a voice of birds. They sound, and the rocks resound: they sound; spiritual men discuss: the rocks resound, testimonies of Scripture give answer. Lo! thence the fowls give their voice from the midst of the rocks, for they dwell on the mountains.

16. “Watering the mountains from the higher places” (ver. 13). Now if a Gentile uncircumcised man comes to us, about to believe in Christ, we give him baptism, and do not call him back to those works of the Law. And if a Jew asks us why we do that, we sound from the rock, we say, This Peter did, this Paul did: from the midst of the rocks we give our voice. But that rock, Peter himself, that great mountain, when he prayed and saw that vision, was watered from above.…

What Was Augustine "Retracting" on Peter, The Rock, and Mathew 16?

Did Saint Augustine think that Peter was "the Rock" of Matthew 16:18 the church was founded upon? Towards the end of his life, Augustine looked over the scope of his literary output and put together a critique of his own writings, entitled Retractationes (in English popularly known as "retractions," but better understood as corrections, reconsiderations, revisions). He included an explanation of his view of Matthew 16:18, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." Basically, Augustine says his earlier view was that the church was founded upon Peter, "the rock" and his later view was that Christ was the rock the church was founded upon. 

While this particular section from the Retractationes  is all over the Internet, I haven't found many instances of carefully working through the context. Protestants generally use the comment to demonstrate Augustine's later view doesn't line up with modern Roman Catholic argumentation about the papacy. Rome's defenders have a few different ways to handle the quote. One way suggests harmonizing Augustine's different positions by saying he was dealing with different issues so emphasized different things. Another way says he ultimately was agonistic on the exact meaning of Matthew 16:18. Another way says as a good Roman Catholic, Augustine maintained his earlier view to stay in harmony with the church. Yet another way simply ignores the details of Augustine's view on Matthew 16:18 and argues for Peter's papal primacy based on other writings from Augustine. 

I think, therefore, there are enough interpretative and historical ambiguities in the statement worth taking a close look at.  Augustine's view in the Retractationes is sort of like a football run in different directions depending on who has the ball. I've noticed polemicists on both sides using this quote without actually taking the nuances into account. I've also come across some weird truncated versions. For instance, this defender of Rome only cites "In my first book against Donatus I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock" and completely leaves out the rest of the statement! On the other end, I came across a non-Roman Catholic webpage that left off the last sentence, "Which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose." Highlighting one aspect of the quote or leaving out aspects of it is not a proper way to use Augustine's words. Let him say exactly what he said, not what you want him to say.

Let's first take a look at the statement from the Retractationes. Augustine writes,

[In my first book against Donatus] I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him whom Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter, having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art the rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom (even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these two interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose. [Document 156- Retractationes, Book 1, Chapter 21. A.D. 427. [source]

Latin text: 

Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus. In quo dixi in quodam loco de Apostolo Petro quod in illo tamquam in petra fundata sit ecclesia; qui sensus etiam cantatur ore multorum in versibus beatissimi Ambrosii ubi de gallo galli-naceo ait Hoc ipsa petra ecclesiae Canente culpam diluet; sed scio me postea saepissime sic exposuisse quod a Domino dictum est Tu es Petrus...meam, ut super hunc intelligeretur quern confessus est Petrus dicens, Tu es Christus filius Dei vivi; ac sic Petrus ab hac petra appellatus personam ecclesiae figuraret, quae super hanc petram aedificatur, et accepit claves regni caelorum. Non enim dictum est illi Tu es petra, sed Tu es Petrus; petra autem erat Christus quem confessus Simon, sicut eum tota ecclesia confitetur, dictus est Petrus. Harum autem duarum sententiarum, quae sit probabilior, eligat lector. (PL32,618)

Alternate English text:

ONE BOOK AGAINST A LETTER OF THE HERETIC DONATUS (Contra epistulam Donati heretici liber unus) 

(1) In this same period of my priesthood, I also wrote a book against a letter of Donatus who, after Majorinus, was the second bishop of the party of Donatus at Carthage. In this letter, he argues that the baptism of Christ is believed to be only in his communion. It is against this letter that we speak in this book.

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter; “On him as on a rock the Church was built.” This idea is also expressed in song by the voice of many in the verses of the most blessed Ambrose where he says about the crowing of the cock: “At its crowing he, this rock of the Church, washed away his guilt.” But I know that very frequently at a later time,3 I so explained what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” n and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But "the rock was Christ,” in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter, But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable. [The Fathers of the Church, a New Translation, vol. 60 (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1 (90-91)].

Another Alternate English text can be found here.

I see 4 basic sections to this statement from Augustine. 1) A recollection of his previous view, 2) A mention of Ambrose's view 3) An accounting of Augustine's later view, 4) A final ambiguous conclusion.  

1. Recollection of Augustine's Previous View

 Augustine first mentions what earlier work of his appears to be under the "revising" knife. In this case, it is his writing "In my first book against Donatus" ("Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus"). According to all the historical sources I utilized, they uniformly say this book no longer exists. This is not the only place where Augustine critiques Contra Epistulam Donati haeretici, liber unus. The entry continues and Augustine points out more aspects of this writing that need to be corrected. 

Augustine affirms that his earlier view was that the church was established on Peter, the "Rock."  Augustine saw this earlier interpretation and literary location of it so important he needed readers to be aware of it, and that it was not consistent with his later position.  It's unfortunate this early book is missing. It would be interesting to see the extent of Augustine's comments on the issue and why this particular book was singled out. This source points out this may be the only writing from Augustine "directed against the man who is thought to have given his name to the Donatists" and that several treatises from Augustine are missing against the Donatists. 

Note carefully that Augustine speaks here of "a certain passage" rather than passages. One source using this quote says it may be the only instance of Peter being referred to as the "Rock." Some of Rome's defenders though have located other places in Augustine's writings in which he does equate Peter being the Rock. It appears to me this list of instances originated on this webpage (a cut-and-paste of it can be found here). Let's work through these examples. 

An example from roughly the same time period as the lost treatise comes from another similarly anti-Donatist writing: Psalmus contra partem Donati (393-394).  It's not from a treatise per se, but from a hymn Augustine wrote in response to Donatist hymns being sung, therefore not an actual argument or exegesis, merely a passing lyrical phrase (Augustine also mentions it in The Retractations). Another early passing "Rock" reference is found in De agone christiano (The Christian Combat) (396-397), found here. Again, it is simply a passing inference.  In a letter from 400 Augustine, again with the Donatists in view, refers to Peter as "bearing in a figure the whole church" and referred to as the "Rock," yet though again another passing reference.  In another comment from 400 A.D., "Petrus, qui paulo ante eum confessus est Filium Dei, et in illa confessione appellatus est petra, supra quam fabricaretur ecclesia" (Pl 36,869. cf. Allnatt,  11- 12), similar to the previous, just a passing reference. All of these references appear to testify to Augustine's earlier view discussed in Retractationes. 

Rome's defenders also mention later comments from Augustine equating Peter being the "Rock" the church was founded upon... but these refences aren't so clear.  A comment in Augustine's Homilies on John, Tract 11:5, in NPNF1,VII:76 occurs seventeen years later (417 A.D.), but simply mentions Peter being called, "that Rock," with no indication that the building of the church is intended to rest on Peter. Similarly with Augustine's 418 A.D. comment on Psalm 56 in NPNF1,VIII:223: it's not at all clear that Augustine is expressing his earlier view.  Another "that rock" comment occurs in a 418 A.D. writing (NPNF1,VIII:513), again, not clearly expressing the earlier view.  I think we can safely take Augustine at his word that early on (at least those of 393-400 from the quotes I checked), he did indeed say Peter was the "Rock" the church was founded upon. If he used the word "Rock" later (according to the examples from Rome's defenders that I checked), I see no clear-cut contextual evidence the earlier meaning was intended. Granted Augustine was a great theologian, but he was not an infallible theologian. I would not be at all surprised if he erred in consistency, went through a transition period, or if extant manuscripts contain errors.  

 

2. "Ambrose: When the cock crowed, the rock of the church washes away his guilt"

Augustine mentions Ambrose as regarding Peter as the "Rock" with a similar interpretation to his first book against the Donatists. If you're unfamiliar with the hymn, what Augustine is saying may not make much sense, "When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin." Is it that the "rock of the church," Peter the pope, when crowing, absolves from sin? No, it's a poetic rendering of Peter's denial of Christ (Matthew 26 Mark 14, Luke 22,  John 18).

 This source documents Augustine's mention of Ambrose as, "Ambrose, Hymn I (MPL, XVI, Col. 1409): Exameron V, xxiv, 88 (CSEL, XXXII, p. 201)." "Hymn 1" refers to Aeterne rerum conditor. The hymn does have allusions to Peter as the Rock: "The encouraged sailor’s fears are o’er, The foaming billows rage no more: Lo! E’en the very Church’s Rock, Melts at the crowing of the cock," or in another English translation, "Because of him the sailor gathers strength and the expanse of sea grows mild. when he, the herald, crowed, the Rock himself, the foundation of the Church, washed guilt away by his weeping." The "washed away guilt" is a reference to Peter's denial of Christ and the crowing rooster.  Augustine is attributing the hymn of Ambrose popularizing Peter being the "Rock" the church was founded on, "sung in the mouths of many." 

3. Augustine's Later View

Augustine compares these two meager mentions of Peter being the "Rock" to his "frequent" different interpretation that the "Rock" is Christ, not Peter.  He spends much more time explaining the second view. There's nothing in the sense of a repudiation, but rather a description of his later consistent position. Footnote #3 in the alternate translation utilized above mentions only one instance of Augustine's later view, Sermon 76.1.1. There Augustine states, 

1). The Gospel which has just been read touching the Lord Christ, who walked on the waters of the sea;1 and the Apostle Peter, who as he was walking, tottered through fear, and sinking in distrust, rose again by confession, gives us to understand that the sea is the present world, and the Apostle Peter the type of the One Church. For Peter in the order of Apostles first, and in the love of Christ most forward, answers oftentimes alone for all the rest. Again, when the Lord Jesus Christ asked, whom men said that He was, and when the disciples gave the various opinions of men, and the Lord asked again and said, “But whom say ye that I am?” Peter answered, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to Him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.”2 Then He added, “and I say unto thee.” As if He had said, “Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;’ I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.’” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called3 from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.

Augustine immediately goes on to say in point 2: "For men who wished to be built upon men, said 'I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,' who is Peter. But others who did not wish to be built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, 'But I am of Christ.'"  A number citations from Augustine could be presented at this point to corroborate Augustine's testimony. Rather than reinvent the wheel, this source and this source present a number of Augustine citations affirming the later view of Augustine (though some of the specific dates are unclear to me in some of the utilized citations).  A profound strength of these later citations is they are not passing references like those used to support the earlier view Rome's defenders bring forth. One thing I could not locate from my cursory search of Augustine's writings is any mentions of Peter and his relation to the word "Rock" after the writing of the Retractationes (427). Augustine died a few years later. 

4. "However, the reader may choose which of these two notions is more plausible"

Augustine concludes, "But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." If the Retractationes  from Augustine did not include the last sentence, the entire pericope would be easier to interpret.  Of the Protestant sources I checked, the interpretation is similar: Augustine was correcting his earlier view, maintaining his later view, and finally concludes allowing his readers the choice which one was preferred. This seems to be the easiest and most consistent reading of the text. This source makes pertinent observations:

The fact that [Augustine] would even suggest that individual readers could take a different position is evidence of the fact that after four hundred years of church history there was no official authoritative Church interpretation of this passage as Vatican One has stated. Can the reader imagine a bishop of the Roman Catholic Church today suggesting that it would be appropriate for individuals to use private interpretation and come to their own conclusion as to the proper meaning of the rock of Matthew 16? But that is precisely what Augustine does, although he leaves us in no doubt as to what he, as a leading bishop and theologian of the Church, personally believes.

Granted, I know that sometimes the easiest solution (in this case, interpretation) is not always the correct one. I learned that from my many years of searching out Luther quotes and their interpretive conclusions. I'm willing to hear what Rome's defenders have to say: convince me the easiest reading is not the correct interpretation.  From a cursory search, here's what I found being offered as an alternate explanation.   

 This old source makes the following Roman Catholic leaning observation: 

This is interesting, because it shows that Augustine couldn’t make a decision as to whether Peter or Christ was the rock upon which the church was founded. He had earlier held the former point of view, and Lagrange thinks that the former interpretation would be best, because, as a good Catholic, he follows the interpretation Of the Catholic Church at the Vatican Council, which upheld that view.  

Contemporary Roman Catholic interpretations I cobbled together for this entry tend to present even more complicated explanations.  This other defender of Rome states:  

Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified “this rock” with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated “this rock” with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, ‘Peter having been named after this rock ‘(Retractations1:21).

Trent Horn of Catholic Answers offers, 

Checking Horn's source, Merry del Val offers yet another layer to Rome's response: "Augustine does allude to what he wrote when he was young, as requires correction: but it is also true that he adds in the same sentence that he does not assume even now that what he is writing will be without blemish. He does not say that he prefers a different translation, but only suggests another." 

Rome's defenders are obviously not unified in their explanations of Augustine's final statement. Their explanations amount to, "I know it looks like this, but it could (or does!) mean that." Of the examples above, the first simply assumes Augustine went along with what the late Vatican council held, the second obfuscates by having Augustine adhere to multiple interpretations, the third claims Augustine simply provided an "alternative of what the words could mean," and the last insinuates that even the older Augustine could be mistaken. That Rome's defenders produce multiple interpretations of the text speak against any of their interpretations. If there was a unified body of an alternative interpretation to the obvious, then I think they could be taken more plausibly. 

Conclusion

I see a few interpretive choices here based solely on the text itself. First, Augustine is negating his earlier view, confirming his later view, and then informing his readers they can choose which one they like. Second, Augustine is explaining his earlier view, explaining its difference with his later view, and then telling his readers he doesn't know which one is correct and they can pick which one they like.

As I read the brief context of this statement, Augustine says his earlier view was that "the Church is founded upon [Peter] as upon a rock," and then expresses his current view. He says of his later view, "But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words..." etc. Note the word, "frequently."  Even in this present context, he spends more time explaining the second view. I've not come across any meaningful documentation that his later view changed or that affirms or corroborates his final view of Matthew 16:18 was either ambiguous or agnostic. In his honest appraisal of his life's work, he was aware of the discontinuity between the two views and suspected (or knew) others saw it as well. Add in the fact that interpreting Matthew 16:18 according to his earlier view was popular during his lifetime, that he contrasted the two views and allowed his readers freedom of interpretation makes sense. 

Augustine on Peter and the Rock issue of the Papacy claims

• Augustine

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same:

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

 [See discussion below on the Latin word, "Retractationes", which is more accurately translated as something like "Review and Corrections" or "Corrections" or "Reconsiderations".]

Augustine held the Roman church and its bishop in high regard, but he had a non-papal view of church government. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno comments:

"Elsewhere I have argued in detail Augustine's views of authority in the Church and that, in my opinion, the council [not the Pope] was the primary instrument for settling controversies....I believe that Augustine had great respect for the Roman church whose antiquity and apostolic origins made it outshine by far other churches in the West. But as with Cyprian, the African collegial and conciliar tradition was to be preferred most of the time." (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 79)

From Jason Engwer's "Catholic, but not Roman Catholic" series, preserved by "Peace by Jesus" at http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_vs_papacy.html#Augustine

Addendum: (July 2, 2016)

Scott Windsor pointed out about the Latin word "Retractationes", that it does not mean "Retractions", but more like "Review and Correct":  

From the combox:

Scott,
Thanks for your comments. I take your word for it on the Latin word, as I looked around some to confirm it; and as far as I can tell, you are correct. It seems the Latin means more like "Review and Correct"

Thanks for the link, and I will use some of that from William Jurgens, unless someone else comes along and convinces me that this is not accurate. It seems accurate to me.

Augustine wrote The Retractationes (also known as Retractationum) between 426-427.

His purpose was to clarify and enhance his previous efforts to explain and defend them.

As the patristic scholar, William A. Jurgens, explains,

English-speaking authors usually avoid the problem of what the title means by the simple expedient of referring to it by its Latin title, Retractationes. When it is mentioned in English and in the English translations now available it is invariably referred to as Retractations or Retractions. The first is an affront to English and the second is incorrect. Actually, Augustine had very little to retract, and the meaning of Retractationes is Reconsiderations, Revisions, Second Thoughts, or, as I have called it, Corrections. With the Corrections, Augustine again invented a new literary genre: a summation and criticism of his own writings. He had originally intended to include in his review his books, letters, and sermons. But when he had completed the review of his books in 426 or 427, he was persuaded to publish the whole work as it then stood. (The Faith of the Early Fathers [Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1979] 3:163)

Dr. White's article that deals with the issue you raised. (if that is what you meant by your link - the link is different now. see below)

Did he use the words "Rome has spoken?" No, but he did say Rome responded (sent rescripts) and then stated "causa finita est" (the cause is ended, or the case is closed). He obviously accepted the decision made by the pope.  (Scott Windsor, Sr.)

Except in Augustine's time, he would not have used "Pope" in the sense of jurisdictional authority - that claim comes much later. As far as I know, all presbyters/bishops / ministers (in other areas around the Christian world in the early centuries, not just the bishop of Rome.)  were called "papa" or "father", meaning "spiritual father", as in 1 Cor. 4:15-17 and 1 Timothy 1:2, 1:18, etc.

Dr. White's relevant section of that excellent article: ( Also Linked below) 

The final words of the sermon, then, in which we find the key phrase (placed in bold), are in reference to this heresy, this error (Pelagianism), and its denial of grace. I simply point out that throughout the sermon you have had one source of authority cited over and over again: Holy Scripture. No quotations of Popes or prelates, just Scripture. With this in mind, we come to the actual passage:
10. What then was said of the Jews, the same altogether do we see in these men now. “They have a zeal of God: I hear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.” What is, “not according to knowledge”? “For being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and wishing to establish their own, they have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.” My Brethren, share with me in my sorrow. When ye find such as these, do not hide them; be there no such misdirected mercy in you; by all means, when ye find such, hide them not. Convince the gainsayers, and those who resist, bring to us. For already have two councils on this question been sent to the Apostolic see; and rescripts also have come from thence. The question has been brought to an issue; would that their error may sometime be brought to an issue too! Therefore do we advise that they may take heed, we teach that they may be instructed, we pray that they may be changed. Let us turn to the Lord, etc.
It is a measure of the utter desperation of the Roman position to have to make reference to such things, in our opinion. The topic is not the bishop of Rome nor the authority of Rome. It is obvious, beyond question, that Augustine’s point is that Pelagianism is a refuted error. It is not refuted because the bishop of Rome has refuted it. It is refuted because it is opposed to Scripture. Two councils have concluded this, and the bishop of Rome has agreed. From Augustine’s position, the error has been exposed and refuted. If only those who are in error would come to know the truth! Augustine exhorts his hearers to teach the gainsayers, and pray that they may be dissuaded from their errors.
This then is the context and content of Sermon 131 of Augustine (which is, btw, Sermon 81 in the Eerdman’s set, pp. 501-504 of volume VI for those who wish to read the entirety of the work). It is now painfully obvious that to place the words “Roma locuta est, causa finita est” in quotation marks and attribute them to Augustine in the context of Papal Infallibility is simply inexcusable. But, there is more to the situation than that. For history shows us that Augustine would never have uttered such words in the context Keating alleges. How he responded when Zosimus became bishop of Rome and attacked the North African churches for condemning Pelagius proves, to any person even semi-desirous of fairly dealing with Augustine’s position, that Augustine did not view the bishop of Rome as the infallible leader of the Christian Church. But to appreciate fully the depth of the error of Roman Catholic controversialists at this point, we must take a few moments to study the history.  (James White, "Catholic Legends and How they Get Started", see link below.)

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2000/04/11/catholic-legends-get-started-example/

Roman Catholic commercial video during Papal visit

I noticed this Roman Catholic commercial video being played a lot recently on Fox News.  Seems the timing was to go with the visit of Pope Francis.  (Jorge Bergoglio)



This is a very well done video for the time that it takes.

Problems:
1.  It assumes "catholic" is the same as "Roman Catholic". (without even mentioning the phrase, "Roman Catholic")
2.  It subtly claims the Roman Catholic Church compiled the Bible.  This is false.  The early church testified, affirmed, discerned, discovered, and put under one "book cover" which texts were "God-breathed"/ inspired.  (2 Timothy 3:16)  They called themselves "catholic" in the sense of "universal" / "according to the whole" / able to grow in all nations and cultures (Revelation 5:9), but it was not the same church doctrinally that today claims the Papacy, Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Indulgences, Marian dogmas, Marian piety, praying to Mary, praying to statues and icons, denial of Justification by Faith Alone at Trent, etc.
3.  It claims Peter was the first Pope.
Many problems with that.  See below in Dr. White's lecture on the Dividing Line.
4.  The mention of "sacred tradition", in addition to the written Scriptures.
5.  claimed 2000 years of an unbroken line of shepherds.

There may be other problems, but those are the 5 that stuck out to me.

Dr. White did an excellent DL yesterday, on Sept. 23, about the current Pope and Papacy:



Take note of the 5 things that Roman Catholics have to prove as true all at the same time in the last half of his lecture.

The closing Scripture verses Dr. White pointed to were from Acts 20:17-32.  Acts 20:32 - "And now I commend to God and the word of His grace, which is about to build you up and to give the inheritance among those who are being sanctified."

Some other things about the Papal visit of Pope Francis.  It seems, from what I have read, that President Obama and/ or the White House staff deliberately invited a bunch of homosexuals, trans-gender activists, and Roman Catholics for abortion, in order to cause this Pope some discomfort, or embarrass him, or give him a message, or protest his views on same sex marriage and abortion.  That is shameful, IMO.  His statement's on homosexuality have been weak and unclear, but as conservative RC's have pointed out, he has not changed church doctrine on that issue.  I can appreciate and respect the Roman Catholic Church's stand against abortion and stand for marriage as one man and one woman, etc.

The current Pope's opposition to the death penalty ( I have never understood that, even for first degree murder, since I started hearing about that from the time of John Paul 2) and leftist views of the borders, illegal immigration, global warming, and capitalism are revealing.

Addendum:  The Debate on the Papacy that Dr. White had with Mitch Pacwa in 1998:

5 Reasons to seriously doubt the Papacy

http://bnonn.com/5-reasons-to-seriously-doubt-the-papacy/

And more:

http://michaeljkruger.com/were-early-churches-ruled-by-elders-or-a-single-bishop/

13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy

13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy over at Triablogue:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-papacy.html

https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-papacy/

John Bugay over at Triablogue, has an excellent summary here of the Papacy issues.  

Because of space, and the purpose to keep to a one page sheet evangelistic tract, it may be hard to include these other issues:

I would add:  (this is not a criticism of John's article, just some other points that came to mind after I read through his summary.)

14.   that Peter himself calls himself "fellow-elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. no heirachy of mono-episcopate or papacy idea.

15.  Also, if Peter had a successor, a bishop of Rome as infallible successor, he would have said, "listen to him, who will be able to remind you of these things (spiritual truths)" or "he is the living voice, who will be able to stir up your sincere minds", etc. in 2 Peter 1:12-18; but instead, Peter points them to his letter/scripture - 3:1 - this is the second letter by which I am writing to you in order to stir up your sincere minds" - same idea in 2 Peter 1:12-18 - knowing that he is about to die, he is diligent to put forth effort to stir up their sincere minds - (diligent by writing the letter from prison before his death.)

16.  I would distinquish between the RC idea of infallible succession of person and office (bishop/ mono-episcopate) to Peter vs. the biblical idea of appointing qualified elders - as in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 3.  ( maybe need more details on # 5 - the quote by Oscar Cullman about the principle of succession. Does Cullman explain the difference between the Roman Catholic claim of infallible apostolic succession in the successors of Peter and other church bishops  vs. the Biblical idea of appointing qualified elders in each local church? - Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3:1 ff, ?)

17.  Some kind of an explanation of "papa" (father) and acknowledge 1 Cor. 4:15-17 and 1 Timothy 1:2 as something that existed - calling someone a spiritual father - one who led a person to Christ and /or taught them the gospel and discipled them in the Scriptures as a young Christian, etc. And that existed in the early church in all the churches as all ministers/elders/ later development into "priest" were considered and called "papa"/father (spiritual father), so bishops and elders of other areas were called "papa", such as Cyprian in Carthage and Athanasius in Alexandria - even today, the leader of the Coptic Church in Egypt is called "Pope". The point is, "Pope" was never an exclusive term only for the bishop of Rome, but was used for all ministers in all churches. (until centuries later)

Even if Peter did die in Rome, it does not establish any such thing as a Papacy or Pope or even mono-episcocy

From an earlier post in the com boxes.  I have edited some of it.

John, (an Eastern Orthodox commentor) reminded us of Cyprian's statement -

Thanks for that reminder about what Cyprian wrote about "custom without truth, is an ancient error".
Very helpful and true.

"Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error."

Cyprian, Epistle 73, 9. (against Stephen, bishop of Rome)

 Ken said...

All,
Even if Peter died in Rome, it does not establish any such thing as a Papacy or Pope.

There is no such thing is a Pope or Papacy in the 27 books of the NT.

Also, the earliest writings affirm that a college/plurality of elders and the office of bishop is the same office. The names of elder and bishop is interchangable in the NT and earliest writings of the early fathers.

1 Clement 42-44  ( 96 AD)  - 2 offices - 1. elders and overseers are the same and 2. deacons

Didache 15     (70 - 120 AD ?)  2 offices 1.  overseers/bishops and 2. deacons


Philippians 1:1 - 2 church offices - 1.  overseers (episcopas, bishops) and 2.  deacons

Acts 14:23 (the apostles appointed elders for each church)

Titus 1:5-7 - verse 5 - appoint elders for each city - verse 7 - elders are the same as bishop/ overseer/ episcope


Also, James Swan pointed out that the evidence for Rome is that it did not have a mono-episcopate until much later. ( I Clement, Shepherd of Hermas, Peter Lampe's book and work; John Bugay wrote a lot in this area also, both here and over at Triablogue. see at the Addendum below)

Moreover, NONE of the earliest churches had a mono-episcopate. They all had a plurality of elders at first.

Ignatius (writing around 107-117 AD, ?) is the first evidence of the mono-episcopate, and seems to be where that custom/practice started.

Acts 20:17 - called the elders of the church in Ephesus

Acts 20:28 -the elders are to shepherd (Pastor, feed and guard) the flock of God, which God has made you overseers

1 Peter 5:1-4 - Peter calls himself fellow elder
and exhorts the elders to shepherd the flock and to act as overseers.

Babylon of 1 Peter 5:13 could be a cryptic reference to Rome, or the original Babylon of the OT in Mesopotamia, or Babylon could be a metaphor for apostate Jerusalem.

It seems that Ireneaus, Tertullian, Hegessipus, and Eusebius are reading a mono-episcopate office back into the first century by their "bishops list" of only one bishop appointed by Peter or other apostles in other areas.

The big question for me is how strong is the tradition that both Peter and Paul were executed by Nero around 67 AD in Rome, Peter by being crucified upside down, and Paul by being beheaded.

Addendum:
Thanks to John Bugay for adding the passages from the Shepherd of Hermas to the early witness that each church had a plurality of elders and not a mono episcopacy until later.  The earliest church history is elders for each church.  This also proves John Henry Cardinal Newman's statement wrong, "to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant". The clear reality of the earliest church government being a college of elders proves Newman was wrong.

The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church.” (Vis 2.4)

Hermas also notes that these elders fight amongs themselves over primacy (meaning no one had it), and that they, themselves "have no instruction":

Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

Addendum 2:
Algo reminded me of an earlier link I made over to a very thorough article by Brandon Addison.  We appreciate the Roman Catholics at Called to Communion for allowing such an article there. 
The Quest for the Historical Church, by Brandon Addison

http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2014/03/the-quest-for-the-historical-church-a-protestant-assessment/

Study of Matthew 16:18 - Peter and the Rock

Some resources on studies on Matthew 16:18, Peter and the Rock, the Papacy, etc. ; linked to over at my other blog, "Apologetics and Agape".  

See also The Church of Rome at the Bar of History, by William Webster
http://www.amazon.com/Church-Rome-at-Bar-History/dp/0851517102/ref=pd_sim_b_3?ie=UTF8&refRID=0281M43FC8CV71VXE3EX

And:  Holy Scripture:  The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith, Volume 2, by William Webster (volume 1- by David King, and volume 3 are excellent also)
http://www.amazon.com/Holy-Scripture-Historical-Reformation-Principle/dp/1893531031/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_y

The Matthew 16 Controversy, by William Webster
http://www.amazon.com/The-Matthew-16-Controversy-Peter/dp/1879737256

Patristic references to Matthew 16:18, Peter, and the Rock, compiled by William Webster

Luther: Are Those Who Defend the Roman Church Christians?

An interesting study is Luther's change in attitude to the Roman Church and those who remain in her. I've covered this topic before: Myth #11: Luther thought that the Roman Church was no longer a true Christian Church.

As a supplement, here's a quote from Luther from 1541. These are strong words from Luther directed at those who defend the Papacy:

Here they might say and probably will say, “Why do you depict us shamefully as a new, apostate church, when we have baptism, the sacrament, the keys, the creed, and the gospels, just like the ancient church from which we derive? Haven’t you already admitted above that we, as well as you, derive from the ancient church?” I answer, “It is true, I admit, that the church in which you sit derives from the ancient church as well as we, and that you have the same baptism, the sacraments, the keys, and the text of the Bible and gospels. I will praise you even further and admit that we have received everything from the church before you (not from you). What more do you want? Are we not devout enough? Will you not call us henceforth unheretical? We do not regard you as Turks and Jews (as was said above) who are outside the church. But we say you do not remain in it but become the erring, apostate, whorelike church (as the prophets used to call it), which does not remain in the church, where it was born and brought up. You run away from this church and from your true husband and bridegroom (as Hosea says of the people of Israel [Hos. 1:2]) to the devil Baal, to Molech and Astaroth. Do you understand that?” I will explain.
You were indeed all baptized in the true baptism of the ancient church, just as we were, especially as children. Now if a baptized child lives and then dies in his seventh or eighth year, before he understands the whorelike church of the pope, he has in truth been saved and will be saved—of that we have no doubt. But when he grows up, and hears, believes, and obeys your preaching with its lies and devilish innovations, then he becomes a whore of the devil like you and falls away from his baptism and bridegroom—as happened to me and others—building and relying on his own works, which is what you whoremongers preach in your brothels and devil’s churches; whereas, by contrast, the child is baptized to rely and build on his one dear bridegroom and Lord, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us. It is as if a devout man were to bring up a poor, young, servant beggar girl as his future bride and become betrothed to her, and she were to keep herself pure until she came to womanhood, and then turn her attentions elsewhere and look at other men who pleased her better, and let herself be persuaded by them and become passionately desirous of them, thus abandoning her true, devoted bridegroom, who had rescued, nourished, educated, clothed, adorned, and treated her well, and let herself be made a whore by everyone. This whore, who before was a pure virgin and dear bride, is now an apostate, erring, married whore, a house-whore, a bed-whore, a key-whore, being the mistress of the house, having the key, the bed, the kitchen, the cellar, and everything at her command. Yet she is so evil that beside her the common unattached whores, the pimp-whores, the whores of the field, the country, and the army are almost holy. For she is the true arch-whore and the true whore of the devil.
Of such a whore Hosea speaks, and Ezekiel indeed does so much more coarsely, in fact almost too coarsely, in chapter 23. You should read that if you want to know what kind of a whore your church is. For this is what I mean when I call you an apostate, erring whore—you who were baptized as children in the dear Lord and even lived some years like the ancient church. But when you grew up and reached the age of reason (as I and everyone else have done), you saw and heard the lovely ceremonies of the papal church, and also its glittering profit, honor, and power, yes, its magnificent holiness, the mighty worship, and all the yarns about the kingdom of heaven. Then you forgot your Christian faith, baptism, and sacrament, becoming the diligent pupils and young little whores (as the comedies say) the procuresses, the arch-whores, until you old whores once more make young whores. Thus the church of the pope, indeed, the church of the devil, grew, transforming many of Christ’s young virgins, who were born in baptism, into arch-whores. This, I hold, should be said in German, so that you and everyone can understand what we mean. For if you hold these innovations of yours to be a joke—you who neither have a God nor honor him—then it is something terrible and abominable before God. It is idolatry, murder, hell, and every calamity, which God cannot bear, so that he will damn the arch-whore for eternity.
St. Peter prophesies about that when he speaks of you, that is, of such new prophets and churches in II Peter 2 [:18–19], “For, uttering loud boasts of folly, they entice with licentious passions of the flesh men who have barely escaped, and who must now walk in error. They promise them freedom, forgiveness, and indulgences, but they themselves are slaves of corruption.” And again, “For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overpowered, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, the dog turns back to his own vomit, and the sow is washed only to wallow in the mire” [II Pet. 2:19–22]. That is what you are, and that is what I was. There you have your new apostate erring church sufficiently described in German and portrayed clearly enough for you to see. We acknowledge not only that you have, with us, come from the true church and been washed and made clean in baptism through the blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, as St. Peter says here, but also that you are in the church and remain in it. Indeed, we say that you sit and rule in it as St. Paul prophesied in II Thessalonians 2 [:3–4], that the accursed Antichrist would sit (not in the cowshed), but in the temple of God. But you are no longer of the church, or members of the church, for in this holy church of God you are building your own new apostate church, the devil’s brothel with limitless whoredom, idolatry, and innovation, by which you corrupt those who have been baptized and redeemed along with yourselves. And you swallow them down through the jaws of hell into the abyss of hell itself, with a countless multitude, along with the terrible wailing and deep sorrow of those who see this with spiritual eyes and recognize it.

Luther, M. (1999, c1966). Vol. 41: Luther's works, vol. 41 : Church and Ministry III (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald and H. T. Lehmann, Ed.). Luther's Works (41:207). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.