ST PAUL'S FAMOUS REBUKE OF ST PETER. 71 alleged and approved by St Augustine, applies this passage: " For," says he, "neither Peter, whom the Lord first chose, and uponwhomhe built his church, when Paul afterward contested with him about cir- cumcision, did insolently challenge or arrogantly assume any thing to himself, so as to saythat he held the primacy, and that those who were newer and later apostles ought to obey him; neither despised he St Paul because he was before a persecutor of the church ; but he ad- mitted the counsel of truth, and easily consented to the lawful course whichSt Paul maintained, yielding, indeed, to us an example both of concord and patience, that we should not pertinaciously love our own things, but should rather take those things for ours which sometimes are profitably and wholesomely suggested by our brethren and col- leagues, if they are true and lawful.' This St Cyprian speaks upon supposition that St Peter andSt Paul were equals, or, as he calls them, "brethren and colleagues," in rank co-ordinate; otherwise St Cyprian would not have approved the action, for he often severely inveighs against inferiors taking upon them to censure their superiors. " What swelling of pride," says he, " what arrogance of mind, what inflation of heart is it, to call our superiors and bishops to our cognizance1"2 St Cyprian, therefore, could not conceive St Peter to be St Paul's governor or superior in power; he, indeed, plainly enough, in the fore-cited words, signifies that in his judgment St Peter had done "insolently and arrogantly" if he had assumed any "obedience" from St Paul. St Augustine, also, in several places of his writings, makes the like application of this passage.' The ancient writer contemporary to St Ambrose, and passing un- der his name, argues in this manner: " Who dared resist Peter the first apostle, to whom the Lord did give the keys of the kingdom of heaven, but another such a one, who, in assurance of his election, knowing himself to be not unequal to him, might constantly dis- prove what he had unadvisedly done ? "` It is, indeed, well known that Origen, and after him St Chrysos- tom and St Jerome, and divers of the ancients beside, conceived that St Paul did not seriously oppose or tax St Peter, but did only do it seemingly, upon confederacywith him, for promoting a good design.° Nam nee Petrus, quern primumDominus elegit, &c. Cypr. Ep. lxxi., adQuint. 2 Quis enim hie est superbies tumor, gum arrogantia animi, qum mentis inflatio ad cognitionem suam præpositos et sacerdotes vocare!Cypr. Ep. lxix. 3 Aug. cont. Don. de Bapt., ii. 1, 2; Ep. 19. 4 Nam quis eorumauderet Petro primo apostolo, cui claves regni ccelorum Dominus dedit, resistere, nisi alius talis, qui fiducia electionis sure, sciens se non imparem, con- stanter improbaret quod ille sine consilio fecerat?Ambr. in Gal. ii. 9. Paulus Petrum reprehendit; quod non auderet, nisi se non imparem sciret.--Bieron. vel alias quis ad Gal. citatus a Grat. Caus. ii. qu. 7, cap 33. "Paul reprehended Peter; which he would not have dared to do, had he not known himself to be equal to bim." ° S. Cyril. cont. Jul., lib. ix. p. 325; Chrys., tom. v. Or. 59; oiz dsra ''uxñs, Aug., Ep. xi., &c.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=