4. Peter's Character. — However difficult it might be to present a complete sketch of the apostle's temper of mind, there is no dispute as to some of the leading features ; devotion to his Master's person (John xiii, 37), which even led him into extravagance (John xiii, 9), and an energetic disposition, which showed itself sometimes as resolution, sometimes as boldness (Matt. xiv, 29), and temper (John xviii, 10). His tempera- ment was choleric, and he easily passed from one ex- treme to another (John xiii, 8. For a parallel be- tween Peter and John, see Chrysost. in Johan. horn, lxvii, 522). But how could such a man fall into a re- peated denial of his Lord ? This will always remain a difficult psychological problem ; but it is not necessary on this account to refer to Satan's power (Olshausen, Bibl. Comment, ii, 482 sq.). Whsn Jesus predicted to Peter his coming fall, the apostle may have thought only of a formal inquiry; and the arrest of Christ drove from his mind all recollection of Christ's warn- ing words. The first denial was the hasty repulse of a troublesome and curious question. Peter thought it not worth while to converse with a girl at such a moment, when all his thoughts were taken up with the fate of his Master ; and his repulse would be the more resolute, the more he wished to avoid being driven by the curious and pressing crowd out of the vicinity of the beloved Saviour. The second and third questions compelled him still to deny, unless he would confess or leave the place ; but the nearness of the Lord held him fast. Besides they are the questions only of 1 curious servants, and he is in danger, if he acknowl- edges his Lord, of becoming himself the butt of ridi- cule to the coarse multitude, and thus of failing in his purpose. Thus again and again, with increasing hesi- tation, he utters his denial. Now the cock-crowing reminds him of his Master's warning, and now at length he reflects that a denial, even before such unauthorized inquiries, is yet really a denial. In this view some think that Peter's thoughts were continually on his Master, and that possibly the fear of personal clanger had no part in influencing his course. The expression fall of Peter, often used, is in any case rather strong. For various views of this occurrence, see Luther, on John xviii; Niemeyer, Charakter, i, 586 sq.; Rau, Pra- tt rita nd narration. Evang. de summa P. temeritate (Er- langen, 1781) ; Paulus, Comment, iii, 647 sq. ; Henne- berg, Leidensgesch. p. 159 sq. ; Miseellen eines Land- predigers (Glogau, 1799), p. 3 sq. ; Greiling, Leben Jesu, p. 381 sq. ; Rudolph, in Winer's Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. i, 109 sq. ; and Bellarmine, Controv. de Benit. ii, 16 ; Martin, Diss, de Petri Denegatione (Monaster, 1835).
5. PauVs Dispute with Peter. — With reference to the occurrence mentioned in Gal. ii, 11, from which some have inferred that Peter was not wholly free from the servile fear of men, we may remark that the case is altogether different from the preceding, and has much to do with the apostle's dogmatic convictions. It is
known that the admission of the heathen to the Church was strange to Peter at first, and that he could only be induced to preach to them by a miraculous vision (Acts x, 10 ; xi, 4 sq.). Then he was the first to bap- tize heathen, and announced in unmistakable language that the yoke of the Mosaic law must not be placed on the Gentile converts (Acts xv, 7 sq.). But it is quite supposable that he was still anxious for Chris- tianity to be first firmly rooted among the Jews, and thus he seems after this occurrence to have turned his" preaching exclusively to the Jews (comp. Gal. ii, 7), his first epistle also being intended only for Jewish readers. The affair at Antioch (Gal. ii, 12) seems to show that he still wavered somewhat in the conviction expressed in Acts xv, 7 sq. ; if, indeed, as appears to be the case, it was later than the latter. For even if Peter found it necessary to respect the prejudices of the party of James, still the necessity of firmness and consistency cannot be denied ; although, on the other hand, we must not confound Peter's position with that of Paul. It is known (comp. Euseb. i, 12, 1) that in the early Church many referred the entire statement to another Cephas, one of the seventy disciples, who afterwards became bishop of Iconium, and nearly all the Catholic interpreters adopt this expedient. See Molkenbuhr, Quod Cephas Gal. ii, 11 non sit Pctrus Ap. (Monaster, 1803). See against this view Deyling, Observatt. ii, 520 sq. On another view of the church fathers, see Neander, Pjlanz. i, 292, note. It appears from the fact that at Corinth a party of Judaizing Christians called themselves by his name, that Peter was afterwards recognised as head of this class, in dis- tinction from the Pauline Christians.
6. As to the time of Peter's journey to Rome, the Church fathers do not quite agree. Eusebius says in his Chron. (i, 42) that Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius Caasar, after founding the first Church in Antioch ; and Jerome, in his version, adds that he remained there twenty-five years, preaching the Gospel, and acting as bishop of the city (comp. also Jerome, Script. Eccl. p. 1). Yet this statement ap- pears very doubtful, for three reasons : (1) Because, although we learn from Acts xii, 17 that Peter left Jerusalem for a time after the death of James the el- der, yet he certainly cannot have left Palestine before the events recorded in Acts xv. (2) Because the mention of the origin of the Church in Antioch, con- nected by the fathers with Peter's journey to Rome, cannot easily be reconciled with Acts xi, 19 sq. (3) Because, if Peter had been bishop in Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, and afterwards when he was prisoner in Rome, we should expect the former to contain words of greeting to Peter, and the epistles written from Rome similar messages from Peter ; the more as these epistles are very rich in such messages ; but nothing of the kind appears. We may well doubt, too, whether, if Peter had been bishop or even founder of the Roman Church, Paul's principles and method (see Rom. xv, 20, 23 sq. ; xxviii, 2 ; 2 Cor. x, 16) would have allowed him to write this epistle to Rome at all. Eusebius seems to have drawn his account from Clem- ens Alexandrinus and Eusebius (Euseb. //. E. ii, 15), the former of whom quoted from a remark of Justin Martyr (Apol. ii, 69), which rests upon an accidental error of language; this father referring to Simon the Magician an inscription which belonged to the Sabine- Romish deity Semo (Hug, Einleit. ii, 69 sq. ; Credner, Einleit. i, 529 sq. Comp. Schulrich, De Simonis Af.fa- tis Roman. Misen. 1844). Now Peter had once pub- licly rebuked this Simon (Acts viii, 18 sq.) ; this fact, connected with the inscription, gave rise to the story of Peter's residence in Rome under Claudius, in whose reign the inscription originated. After this detection of the occasion which produced the record in Eusebius, it is truly wonderful that Bertholdt (Einleit. v, 2685) should defend the account, and found a critical con- jecture upon it. Further, the Armenian Chronicle of