as an example of moderation, not only to hold the meeting at Jerusalem, but to endeavour to secure James's adhesion, as far as possible, to their common teaching and practice. practice. The above will be found to represent the opinions of the Fathers, who remark on the obstinacy and effrontery of those Jewish Christians who would not yield to the apostles; and see in Peter's conduct, but a fresh proof of his consideration and humility. Their opinions will be found to vary as to who actually presided in that assembly, though the weight of their authority is in favour of Peter being here also the mover, the judge, and the author of the decree.

Summary. The evidence from the Acts may, therefore, now be easily summed up. Peter acts, on all occasions, as the Head. Everywhere he takes the lead, and the rest gather round him as their centre. They act with him indeed, but he initiates all, suggests all, and takes the prominent part in all. The facts that establish this are too clear and evident to need repeating. Throughout, he also is the Teacher; and where any new point has to be developed from the doctrine of Christ, it is Peter who deduces it; as witness the election of Matthias; the reception of the Gentiles into the Church; and the observance, or rather the cessation, of the ceremonial law: all points of magnitude, but the second and third especially, and so utterly unexpected and strange, that they seemed at one time to threaten a schism in the Church. Further, his teaching and discourses are the means emphatically of propagating, and making converts to, the Gospel and this is so fully recognized, that many would have us see in this, the fulfilment of Christ's promise that Peter should be the rock and foundation of the Church; not observing that Christ did not say, that Peter should build the Church, but that He, Christ, would build the Church upon

him. Again, his miracles are recorded at length by the author of the Acts, who draws special attention to the wonderful powers which he possessed. But besides all this, it is he who exercises the dread power of binding and loosing and judging in the case of Ananias and Saphira, and Simon Magus. Indeed, so prominent and preeminent is the part of Peter, that it would be a very easy task to compare it, reverently but truly, with that of Christ in the Gospels, with all the difference, of course, between the founder and lawgiver, and His interpreter, and servant.

The Epistles.

A few sentences will suffice on these. The character of the Epistles is such, that we shall look in vain to them, as a rule, for any detailed account of the government of the Church. Those Epistles were written generally from what seem local and accidental circumstances; and they meet the emergencies that arise, and but little more. The Epistles of St. Paul are of this character, if we except one, if even that be an exception, that to the Galatians. It may also be further remarked, that St. Paul is so often engaged in asserting and vindicating his own mission and apostleship, that he insists but little on the mission and position of others. We may, therefore, confine these remarks to his reproof of Peter, of which so much is said and made, in the Epistle named above.

Now, there is a very ready and effectual answer to this supposed difficulty, so far as the Fathers are concerned as commentators, and so far consequently as their evidence bears on the matter before us. They will be found to have taken three different views of this question. The first is, that the Cephas of the Galatians is not the Cephas of the Gospels:

the second, that the whole was a collusion agreed upon between St. Peter and St. Paul, for the sake of the peace of the Church: the third, that Peter is the Cephas of the Gospels and of the Galatians, that the reproof of Peter was genuine and real; but that herein we see St. Peter's humility, and St. Paul's boldness and zeal for the purity of Evangelical discipline. They admit Peter's error, but declare it to be, as it was, not one of doctrine, but of conduct. Either of these interpretations not only removes all difficulty, but tends, more or less directly, to shew their conviction of St. Peter's preeminence. There are many other remarks which might be made on this subject, but as they will, like the above, be found in the extracts from their works, what has been said will be sufficient.

PART I.

COMMENTARY BY THE FATHERS,

ON

ST. PETER'S PLACE IN THE NEW

TESTAMENT.

ST. JUSTIN, GREEK CHURCH, A.D. 139.*-"One of His disciples, previously called Simon, He surnamed Peter, because he recognized Him to be Christ the Son of God,' according to the revelation of the Father. (Matt. xvi.) And we, having Him described in the records (Memoirs) of His apostles, who also call Him Son, have perceived that He is even before all creatures, having proceeded from the Father by His power and will; who is also styled, in the writings of the prophets, by one mode and another, Wisdom, and the Day, and the East, and a Sword, and a Stone, and a Rod, and Jacob, and Israel."-Dialog. cum Tryph. n. 100, p. 554, Galland. 1.

"I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise Thee. Ye that fear the Lord, praise Him; all ye, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; let the seed of Israel fear Him.'

*The dates and order of Gallandius, Bibl. Vet. Patr. Venet. 1765, are, as far as available, followed throughout.