For that venture of faith, even in spite of his Master's worldwide commission, St Peter's impulsiveness was barely prepared. His old habit of contradiction is seen in his protest against "anything common or unclean" (x. 14). But no sooner did he learn that God was "no respecter of persons" than he boldly vindicated his action in baptizing Cornelius and his companions at Caesarea. The door was thus opened to the Gentiles and the final stage of world-wide development had begun. Here St Peter's primacy as a pioneer seems to have been completed. His courage and steadfastness had given solid support for laying the foundations of the Church, and from that time the work passed chiefly into other hands.

These events probably took place very soon after St Paul's conversion (c. 34 or 35 A.D.), and apparently Jerusalem was for some years longer St Peter's headquarters. He was the only Apostle present, except James the Lord's brother, when St Paul visited Jerusalem three years after his conversion (Gal. i. 18). On that occasion the Christians were at first afraid to receive St Paul until Barnabas brought him to the Apostles and told the story of his conversion and subsequent work in Damascus (Acts ix. 26).

Shortly before the death of Herod Agrippa in 44 A.D. St James was martyred and St Peter imprisoned. Being released by an angel he left Jerusalem and "departed to another place” (xii. 17). The tradition that he then went to Rome seems certainly inconsistent with the evidence of St Paul's Epistles.

A very wide-spread tradition represents St Peter as the founder and organizer of the Church in Antioch, and he may probably have made Antioch a centre for mission work among the Syrian Jews as an "Apostle of the Circumcision" (Gal. ii. 7).

We next hear of him at the Apostolic Conference at Jerusalem in A.D. 49 (or ?51). On that occasion St Paul had a private conference with St Peter, St John and James the Lord's Brother as the reputed "pillars" of the Church. It is possible that they may have suggested some compromise, such as the circumcision of Titus (Gal. ii. 3), as a concession to Jewish prejudices. But to this St Paul would not agree, regarding it as a breach of principle to circumcise a Gentile like Titus, despite his prominent position. Ultimately the three leaders fully accepted St Paul's

position, and at the public conference (Acts xv. 7-11) St Peter acted as spokesman. He reminded the Assembly that he himself had been selected to admit the first Gentile converts. By bestowing the gift of the Holy Spirit upon Cornelius and his companions God had confirmed that new departure, and had placed Jews and Gentiles on the same level, purifying their hearts by the gift of faith instead of demanding the bodily purification of circumcision. It would therefore be tempting God to impose upon Gentiles the yoke of the Law, which the Jews themselves had found insupportable. In fact the Jewish disciples themselves had learned to depend for salvation not upon the Law but upon faith in the free grace of the Lord Jesus. As a result of this speech St James, the Lord's brother, who presided at the Conference as the resident head of the Church in Jerusalem, proposed that Gentiles should not be required to adopt circumcision or observe the whole Law. It was however thought wise to impose certain restrictions upon them, by demanding that they should abstain from meats offered in sacrifice to idols, from fornication, and from blood or meat containing blood. (On the meaning of these regulations, see Hort, Judaistic Christianity, pp. 71 f., Lake, Earlier Epp. of St Paul, pp. 48 ff.).

It was probably soon after this Conference that St Peter himself came down to Antioch (Gal. ii. 11). Remembering perhaps the vision which had bidden him to "call no man common or unclean” and anxious to "give the right hand of fellowship" to St Paul's work, St Peter at first mixed freely Iwith the Gentile Christians and shared their meals. Such a step was, not unnaturally perhaps, regarded with some apprehension by the stricter Jewish Christians at Jerusalem. They had no doubt regarded it as an extremely liberal concession to exempt Gentiles from observing Jewish customs. But, if leading Jewish Christians, like St Peter, were now proposing to abandon their own customs and adopt those of Gentiles, they felt that unnecessary liberality was being shewn, which would inevitably distress or even alienate the Jewish majority in the Church, without conferring any real benefit upon the Gentile minority. James, the Lord's brother, would naturally be appealed to by his flock. On a previous occasion some of them had unwarrantably claimed his authority in endeavouring to impose the Law

upon Gentile Christians at Antioch and he had been obliged to repudiate their action (Acts xv. 24). But now he may have thought it wise to send a cautious warning to the more impulsive St Peter that his liberal policy was causing great offence to Jewish Christians. Thereupon St Peter and the other Jews, even including Barnabas, withdrew from eating with the Gentiles. Such vacillation seemed to St Paul to be a real breach of principle. He realized that Gentile Christians would inevitably feel that they were regarded as inferiors so long as they were uncircumcised, and would either become a separate Church or feel bound to observe the Law as necessary in order to obtain full recognition in the Church, even though it might not be essential for salvation. Thus St Peter's action was virtually reimposing the Law, and implied that those who had deliberately abandoned it were committing a transgression. Yet it was to seek justification in Christ that they had done so, and thus Christ would be the cause of their sin, which is impossible. There is no evidence to shew how St Peter received this protest. Probably he accepted the principle laid down by St Paul, but as his own mission was specially to "those of the circumcision" he would seldom have any cause to act upon it. Thus the Judaizing opponents of St Paul, exaggerating St Peter's position, set up a rival party at Corinth who claimed to be followers of Cephas. Silas at any rate, though himself one of the delegates from the Church at Jerusalem, must have cordially supported St Paul, otherwise he would not have been selected as the companion of his second Missionary journey. Barnabas must also have speedily repented of his temporary vacillation, as St Paul originally invited him to accompany him. But if, as is not improbable, St Mark was among the Jews who "withdrew" at Antioch, this may have confirmed an impression, produced by his previous withdrawal from the first Missionary journey, that St Mark was not yet in full sympathy with St Paul's attitude towards Gentiles.

After this incident we have no knowledge of St Peter's movements for several years, except an incidental notice (1 Cor. ix. 5) that his wife accompanied him on his mission work.

The existence of a Cephas party at Corinth affords no sufficient grounds for supposing that St Peter himself visited Corinth, though it may have given rise to the tradition mentioned by

Dionysius Bp of Corinth (c. 170 A.D.) that St Peter and St Paul both worked in Corinth (Eus. H. E. ii. 25).

The tradition that St Peter visited Pontus and other provinces of Asia Minor, mentioned by Origen (Eus. H. E. iii. 1), Epiphanius (Haer. xxvii. 6), the Syriac Doctrine of the Apostles and the Acts of Andrew, is probably only based upon the opening salutation in 1 Pet. and is not supported by other references in the Epistle to the evangelization of those districts.

Antioch in Syria is described as a special centre of St Peter's work. Thus Origen (in Luc. Hom. vi.), possibly borrowing from a second century list of Antiochene Bishops, describes Ignatius as "the second Bishop of Antioch after the blessed Peter" (cf. Eus. H. E. iii. 36). Chrysostom and Theodoret also connect St Peter with Antioch, and later tradition describes him as having been Bishop of Antioch for seven years. The Clementine Romance, despite its Ebionite inventions about the supposed hostility of St Peter towards Pauline teaching, seems itself to have originated in Syria, and is probably correct in making that district one of the chief centres of St Peter's activity.

Rome. St Peter's work and martyrdom in Rome are attested by evidence so early, so wide-spread and so unanimous that even the most determined opponent of Papal claims could not dispute it with any success.

For a full discussion of the evidence Dr Chase's Article in Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible, and Lightfoot, Clement of Rome, ii. pp. 481 ff. should be consulted.

Clement of Rome (chapter 5) (c. 95 A.D.) seems to select the martyrdoms of SS. Peter and Paul because they took place in Rome.

Ignatius of Antioch (c. 115 A.D.) (ad Rom. c. iv.) says "I do not command you as Peter and Paul"-again probably selecting the two Apostles who had worked in Rome.

Papias of Hierapolis (c. 130 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. iii. 39, cf. ii. 15) probably described 1 Pet. as written from Rome (see p. xxviii). Dionysius of Corinth (c. 170 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. ii. 25) describes St Peter and St Paul as visiting Italy and suffering martyrdom. Irenaeus of Lyons (c. 190 A.D.) (Haer. iii. 1) says "Matthew published a Gospel...while Peter and Paul were preaching and founding the Church in Rome." (Haer. iii. 3) "The Churches of

Rome founded by the two most glorious Apostles Peter and Paul..........They entrusted the ministration of the bishop to Linus... after Linus Anencletus, after Anencletus in the third place from the Apostles Clement is elected bishop.”

Clement of Alexandria (c. 200 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. vi. 14) says "When Peter had preached the word publicly in Rome the bystanders...exhorted Mark to write out his statements."

Tertullian of Carthage (c. 200 A.D.) is the earliest writer who describes the mode of St Peter's death and places it in the reign of Nero at Rome. He also (de Baptismo 4) speaks of those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber and (de Praescriptione 32) says that Clement was ordained by Peter.

Gaius the Roman presbyter (c. 200-220 A.D.) speaks of the tombs of St Peter and St Paul as still existing at the Vatican and the Ostian Way (Eus. H. E. ii. 25).

Origen of Alexandria (c. 250 A.D.) (Eus. H. E. iii. 1) says that St Peter was crucified head downwards at Rome. This last detail is also found in the Gnostic Acts of Peter, which possibly originated in Asia Minor in the second century and contain also the "Domine quo vadis?" legend and the story of St Peter's conflict with Simon Magus in Rome. The Catholic Acts of Peter, which contain similar details, cannot in their extant form be earlier than the fifth century.

The date and duration of St Peter's visit to Rome.

Eusebius (H. E. ii. 14) describes St Peter as coming to Rome in the reign of Claudius and there contending with Simon Magus, "the author of all heresy," and (ii. 17) he mentions a report that Philo in the reign of Claudius became acquainted at Rome with Peter who was preaching there.

The Chronicon of Eusebius (? based upon Julian Africanus, c. 221 A.D.) in the Armenian version assigns St Peter's visit to Rome to the third year of Caius 39-40 A.D. and adds that he remained there as "antistes" of the Church twenty years, but in a later passage the martyrdom of Peter and Paul at Rome is placed in the 13th year of Nero, i.e. 67—68 a.d.

Jerome places St Peter's arrival in the second year of Claudius 43—43 A.D. and says that he held the bishopric 25 years, placing the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in 68 a.D.