suffrages nor pronounced the decision. It is a dis- puted point whether the meeting between Paul and Peter of which we have an account in the Galatians (ii, 1-10) took place at this time. The great major- ity of critics believe that it did, but this hypothesis has serious difficulties. L-ange (Das apostolische Zeit- alter, ii, 378) fixes the date about three years after the council. Wieseler has a long excursus to show that it must have occurred after Paul's second apos- tolic journey. He gives some weighty reasons, but •wholly fails in the attempt to account for the presence of Barnabas, a fatal objection to his theory. (See Der Brief an die Galater, Excursus, p. 579.) On the other side are Theodoret, Pearson, Eichhorn, Olshausen, Meyer, Neander, Howson, Schaff, etc. The only point of real importance was certainly determined before the apostles separated, the work of converting the Gentiles being henceforth specially intrusted to Paul and Bar- nabas, while the charge of preaching to the circumcis- ion was assigned to the elder apostles, and more par- ticularly to Peter (Gal. ii, 7-9). This arrangement can- not, however, have been an exclusive one. Paul al- ways addressed himself first to the Jews in every city; Peter and his colleagues undoubtedly admitted and sought to make converts among the Gentiles. It may have been in full force only when the old and new apostles resided in the same city. Such at least was the case at Antioch, where Peter went soon afterwards. There the painful collision took place between the two apostles ; the most remarkable, and, in its bearings upon controversies at critical periods, one of the most important events in the history of the Church. Peter at first applied the principles which he had lately de- fended, carrying with him the whole apostolic body, and on his arrival at Antioch ate with the Gentiles, thus showing that he believed all ceremonial distinc- tions to be abolished by the Gospel — in that he went far beyond the strict letter of the injunctions issued by the council. That step was marked and condemned by certain members of the Church of Jerusalem sent by James. It appeared to them one thing to recognise Gentiles as fellow-Christians, another to admit them to social intercourse, whereby ceremonial defilement would be contracted under the law to which all the apostles, Barnabas and Paul included, acknowledged allegiance. Peter, as the apostle of the circumcision, fearing to give offence to those who were his special charge, at once gave up the point, suppressed or dis- guised his feelings, and separated himself not from com- munion, but from social intercourse with the Gentiles. Paul, as the apostle of the Gentiles, saw clearly the consequences likely to ensue, and could ill brook the misapplication of a rule often laid down in his own writings concerning compliance with the prejudices of weak brethren. He held that Peter was infringing a great principle, withstood him to the face, and. using the same arguments which Peter had urged at the council, pronounced his conduct to be indefensible. The statement that Peter compelled the Gentiles to Judaize probably means, not that he enjoined circum- cision, but that his conduct, if persevered in, would have that effoet, since they would naturally take any steps which might remove the barriers to familiar in- tercourse with the first apostles of Christ. Peter was wrong, but it was an error of judgment: an act con- trary to his own feelings and wishes, in deference to those whom he looked upon as representing the mind of the Church ; that he was actuated by selfishness, national pride, or an}' remains of superstition, is nei- ther asserted nor implied in the strong censure of Paul. Nor, much as we must admire the earnestness and wis- dom of Paul, whose clear and vigorous intellect was in this case stimulated by anxiety for his own special charge, the Gentile Church, should we overlook Peter's singular humility in submitting to public reproof from one so much his junior, or his magnanimity both in adopting Paul's conclusions (as we must infer that he
| PETER
did from the absence of all trace of continued resist- ance) and in remaining on terms of brotherly com- munion (as is testified by his own written words) to the end of his life (1 Pet. v, 10 ; 2 Pet. iii, 15, 16). See Paul.
From this time until the date of his Epistles we have no distinct notices in Scripture of Peter's abode or work. The silence may be accounted for by the fact that from that time the great work of propagating the Gospel was committed to the marvellous energies of Paul. Peter was probably employed for the most part in building up and completing the organization of Christian com- munities in Palestine and the adjoining districts. There is, however, strong reason to believe that he visited Cor- inth at an early period ; this seems to be implied in sev- eral passages of Paul's first epistle to that Church, and it is a natural inference from the statements of Clem- ent of Rome (First Epistle to the Corinthians, c. 4). The fact is positively asserted by Dionysius, bishop of Cor- inth (A.D. 180 at the latest), a man of excellent judg- ment, who was not likely to be misinformed, nor to make such an assertion lightly in an epistle addressed to the bishop and Church of Rome. The reference to collision between parties who claimed Peter, Apollos, Paul, and even Christ for their chiefs, involves no op- position between the apostles themselves, such as the fabulous Clementines and modern infidelity assume. The name of Peter as founder, or joint founder, is not associated with any local Church save those of Corinth, Antioch, and Rome, by early ecclesiastical tradition. That of Alexandria may have been established by Mark after Peter's death. That Peter preached the Gospel in the countries of Asia mentioned in his First Epistle appears from Origen's own words (jctmjpvictvai totKtv) to be a mere conjecture (Origen, ap. Euseb. iii, 1, adopted by Epiphanius, Har. xxvii, and Jerome, Catal. c. 1), not in itself improbable, but of little weight in the absence of all positive evidence, and of all personal rem- iniscences in the Epistle itself. From that Epistle, how- ever, it is to be inferred that towards the end of his life Peter either visited or resided for some time at Baby- lon, which at that time, and for some hundreds of years afterwards, was a chief seat of Jewish culture. This of course depends upon the assumption, which on the whole seems most probable, that the word Babylon is not used as a mystic designation of Rome, but as a proper name, and that not of an obscure city in Egypt, but of the ancient capital of the East. There were manj' inducements for such a choice of abode. The Jewish families formed there a separate community; they were rich, prosperous, and had established settle- ments in many districts of Asia Minor. Their lan- guage, probably a mixture of Hebrew and Nabathae- an, must have borne a near affinity to the Galilsean dialect. They were on far more familiar terms with their heathen neighbors than in other countries, while their intercourse with Judaea was carried on without intermission. Christianity certainly made considera- ble progress at an early time in that and the adjoining districts; the great Christian schools at Edessa and Nisibis probably owed their origin to the influence of Peter ; the general tone of the writers of that school is what is now commonly designated as Potrine. It is no unreasonable supposition that the establishment of Christianity in those districts may have been specially connected with the residence of Peter at Babylon. At that time there must have been some communication between the two great apostles, Peter and Paul, thus stationed at the two extremities of the Christian world. Mark, who was certainly employed about that time by Paul, was with Peter when he wrote the Epistle. Sil- vanus, Paul's chosen companion, was the bearer, prob- ably the amanuensis of Peter's Epistle— not improbably sent to Peter from Rome, and charged by him to deliver that epistle, written to support Paul's authority, to the churches founded by that apostle on his return. See Peter, Epistles of.