"Not my feet only, but also my hands and my head" (Jn xiii. 8 ff.). "Yet will I not deny Thee" (Mt. xxvi. 35, etc.). "Why cannot I follow Thee even now?" (Jn xiii. 37).

The same impulsiveness led him to ask constant questions. Why say the Scribes that Elias must first come?" (Mt. xvii. 10). "Speakest Thou this parable unto us or even unto all?” (Lk. xii. 41). "How oft shall my brother sin against me and I forgive him?” (Mt. xviii. 21). "We have left all...what then shall we have?" (Mt. xix. 27). "What shall be the sign of Thy Coming?" (Mt. xxiv. 3; Mk xiii. 3). Who is to be the traitor? (Jn. xiii. 24). "Lord, whither goest Thou?" (Jn xiii. 36). "Lord, and what shall this man do?" (Jn xxi. 21).

But that same impulsiveness made St Peter the spokesman of the rest in confessing Christ. "Of a truth Thou art the Son of God" (Mt. xiv. 33). "Lord, to whom shall we go? Thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Jn vi. 68-69). That confession may have been based upon impulse rather than settled conviction, and so was received without comment by our Lord— but when (Mt. xvi. 16) St Peter made the same confession in answer to a definite test of their faith our Lord bestowed a special blessing upon him. "Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church." The "rock" has been variously explained to mean (a) the truth just asserted by St Peter, (b) St Peter's faith, (c) St Peter's character as typical of the other Apostles, who with the prophets are described as the foundations upon which the Church is built (Eph. ii. 20; cf. Rev. xxi. 14). But if the words are understood in a more personal sense they may mean that St Peter is to support the first stones of the "ecclesia," the new Israel of God, as we find that he did in the earlier chapters of Acts. A Rabbinic legend, commenting on Numbers xxiii. 9 with Isaiah li. 1—2, uses similar language of Abraham: “As soon as God perceived that there would arise an Abraham He said 'Behold I have found the "petra" upon which to build and lay foundations'" (see Chase, Hastings' D. of B., iii. 795).

St Peter is also made a "steward" of the kingdom to whom the keys are entrusted (cf. Isaiah xxii. 22) and the "scribe" who has authority to "bind or loose," declaring what God has pronounced to be obligatory or otherwise. But in Mt. xviii. 18 the

same power of "binding" or "loosing" is conferred upon all the Apostles.

But with all his faults St Peter was specially dear to his Master, as may be seen from the prayer that his faith might not fail and the charge to strengthen his brethren (Lk. xxii. 32), the pitying glance in the hour of his shame (Lk. xxii. 61), the special message about the Resurrection (Mk xvi. 7). He was the first of the Twelve to see the Risen Lord (Lk. xxiv. 34; 1 Cor. xv. 5), and finally on the lake side St Peter greatly forgiven proved how greatly he loved, and was entrusted with a share in the Good Shepherd's own work and learned that he should glorify God by sharing his Master's fate in death (Jn xxi. 15 ff.).

In the Acts of the Apostles St Peter seems at once to take the lead among his brethren. He proposes the election of a new Apostle (i. 15 ff.) and was the spokesman on the Day of Pentecost. In the successive stages of the development of the Church traced by St Luke, (a) Jerusalem, (b) Judaea, (c) Samaria, (d) “unto the uttermost part of the earth" (i. 8), St Peter takes the initiative. He, with St John, performs the first miracle (iii. 1—8) and acts as spokesman when they are tried by the Sanhedrin (iii. 11 ff.). He asserts his primacy in the first visitation of judgment (v. 1-11). Although all the Apostles are described as working "signs and wonders," St Peter's personality seems to have created the greatest impression, so that his very shadow was thought to bring healing (v. 15). When the Apostles were imprisoned and miraculously released St Peter again acted as spokesman before the Sanhedrin (v. 29 ff.).

The persecution which followed St Stephen's martyrdom scattered the Christians but thereby extended the Gospel to Samaria, and in that stage again St Peter with St John is sent by the Apostles to superintend this new development and set his seal upon the work begun by Philip (viii. 14 ff.).

Again in the period of rest which followed St Paul's conversion St Peter undertakes a missionary tour "throughout all quarters" (ix. 32) and healed Aeneas at Lydda and Tabitha at Joppa (ix. 33-43).

But the greatest conquest of all still awaited him. It was by his mouth that "God made choice among them that the Gentiles should hear the word of the Gospel and believe" (Acts x., xv. 7).

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 with 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