4. _Peter as the first Pope in Rome._ With the establishment of Peter's primacy and his presence in Rome, it is certainly warrantable to conclude that he perfected the organisation of the Church there and served as its head until his death, when he appointed a successor. Clement (96) and Ignatius (115), Dionysius (170) and Irenæus (190), Commodion (250) and Lactantius (d. 330), all in speaking of Peter and Paul as founders of the Roman Church, always name Peter first. Ignatius spoke of the "presidency" of the Roman Church under Peter, and Tertullian (b. 160) asserted that Jesus gave the keys to Peter, the "Bishop of Bishops" at Rome, and through him to the Church. Origen (d. 254) called Peter "the Prince of the Apostles" and "the great foundation of the Church." All the earliest lists of Popes began with Peter and indicate the transmission of his power.[82:1] Cyprian (d. 258) gave the complete statement of the primacy of the Roman bishop and the unity of the Church through Peter and Jesus.[82:2] This sums up, essentially, all the proofs offered in support of the Petrine theory, and constitutes, it must be confessed, a powerful and consistent case. It is necessary now, in the next place, to look at the evidence offered in opposition to the Petrine theory. For the sake of clearness, this evidence will be given under the four heads just employed: 1. _Peter's primacy._ The famous passage, "Thou art Peter," etc., correctly interpreted, does not warrant a belief in Peter's primacy. "Peter" may mean "rock" ("cephas"), but it here refers to Christ, not Peter, or to Peter's confession, just made,[82:3] or to Peter's faith, or to Peter merely as a type of all the Apostles.[82:4] Furthermore the commission to "bind" and to "loose" and the promise connected with it were not intended exclusively for Peter but for all the Apostles[83:1]; Peter stood only for a type.[83:2] The change of Peter's name does not carry with it any special significance. Peter himself never mentioned his primacy in his speeches or writings,[83:3] and nowhere else in the New Testament is it distinctly stated or recognised by others. Whatever natural capacity for leadership Peter may have possessed, it cannot be proved that he received an official primacy. Such a position would have conflicted likewise with the supremacy of Jesus.