ST PAUL'S FAMOUS REBUKE OF ST PETER. 69 how liable such words were to be interpreted in derogation to St Peter's due prerogatives. But it is no wonder that St Paul, in St Peter's absence, should thus stand on his own legs, not seeming to mind him, whenas, in immediate transactions with him, he demeaned himself as his fellow, yielding to him no respect or deference, as to his superior; for, When St Paùl went to Jerusalem, tohave conferencewith St Peter and other apostles, who were chief in repute, he professes that "they did not confer [impart] any thing to him," Gal. ii. 6, so as to change his opinion, or divert him from his ordinary course of practice, which was different from theirs. This was, it seems, hardly proper or seemly for him to say if St Peter had been his sovereign; but he seems to say it on very purpose, to exclude any prejudice that might arise to his doctrine from their authority or repute,their authority being none over him, their repute being impertinent to the case: for " whatsoever," adds he, Gal. ii. 6, " they were, it maketh no matter to me; God respecteth no man's person ;" the which might well be said of persons greater in common esteem, but not so well of one whowas his superior in office, to whose opinion and conduct, as of his judge and pastor by God's appointment, he owed a special regard. Again: St Paul at Antioch, observing St Peter, out of fear and policy, to act otherwise than became the simplicity and sincerity of Christians, to the prejudice of " evangelical truth," charity, and liberty, against his own judgment and former practice, drawing others by his pattern into the same unwarrantable course of be. haviour, did " withstand him to the face;" did " openly reprove him before all, because he was blamable," Gal. ii. 11, 14; did, as Pope Gelasius I. affirms' (to excuse another pope misbehaving himself), " worthily confute him;" did, as St Augustine often affirms and urges, in proof that the greatest persons may sometimes err and fail, "correct him, rebuke him, chide him."2 Which behaviour of St Paul does not well consist with the " sup- Vide P. Pelag. II., spud. Bin., tom. iv. p. 308, in Epist. ad Eliam. Nunquid ideo nut ilia ejus sequenda sunt, gum merito ejusco-apostolus ejus facta redarguit. Gelas. I. de Aneth., apud Bin., tom. iii. p. 645. 2 Apostolo Paulo monstrante et corrigente. Aug. cont. Creston., i. 32, ii. 32, Ep. 19, de Bapt. cont. Don., ii. 1, 2. Correptus, cont. Don., ii. 1; objurgavit, Ep. 8. qui de minore causa conversationis ambiguæ Petro ipsi non pepercit. Tert., v. 3, contra Marc. who for asmaller matter of doubtful conversation spared not Peter himself." Cum laudetur etiam Pauli minimi apostolorum sana ratio atque libertas, quod Petrum apostolorum primum adductum in hypocrisin, et non recta via incidentem ad veritatem evangelii fidenter improbans, in faciein illi restitit, eumque coram omnibus coram ob- jurgavit.Fac. Her.,viii. 6. " Whereas the sound reason and freedom even of Paul, the least of the apostles, is commended, in that when Peter, the chief of the apostles, was carried away with dissimulation, and walked not in a right way, according to the truth of the gospel, he boldly disapproved, withstood him to the face, and reproved him openly before all."
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=