Barrow - BX1805 .B3 1852

72 ST PAUL'S FAMOUS REBUKE OF ST PETER This interpretation, however strained and earnestly impugned by St Austin, I will not discuss, but only shall observe, that it being ad- mitted does rather strengthen than weaken our discourse; for if St Peter were St Paul's governor, it makes St Peter to have consented to an act in all appearance indecent, irregular, and scandalous. And how can we imagine that St Peter would have complotted to the impairing his ownjust authority in the eye of a great church? Does not such a condescension imply in him a disavowing of superiority over St Paul, or a conspiracy with him to overthrow good order? To which purpose we may observe that St Chrysostom, in a large and very elaborate discourse, wherein he professes to endeavour "an aggravation" of the irregularity of St Paul's demeanour, if it were serious,' does not lay the stress of that aggravation upon St Paul's opposing his lawful governor, but his only so treating a co-apostle of such eminency ;neither, when to that end he designs to reckon all the advantages of St Peter beyond St Paul, or any other apostle, does he mention this, which was chiefly material to his purpose, that he was St Paul's governor: which observations if we carefully weigh, we can hardly imagine that St Chrysostom had any notion of St Peter's supremacy in relation to the apostles.' In fine, the drift of St Paul, in reporting those passages concern- ing himself, was not to disparage the other apostles, nor merely to commend himself, but to fence the truth of his doctrine, and main- tain the liberty of his disciples against anyprejudice that might arise from any authority that might be pretended in any considerale re- spects superior to his, and alleged against them; to which purpose he declares, by arguments and matters of fact, that his authoritywas perfectly apostolical, and equal to the greatest;even to that of St Peter, the prime apostle; of St John, the beloved disciple; of St James, the bishop of Jerusalem; the judgment or practice of whom was no law to him, nor should be to them, farther than it consisted with that doctrine which he, by an independent authority, and by special " revelation fromChrist," preached unto them, Gal. i. 12. He might, as St Chrysostom notes, have pretended " to some advan- tage over them," in regard that he " had laboured more abundantly than they all;" but he forbears to do so, "being contented to ob- tain equal advantages."' Well, therefore, considering the disadvantage which this passage Chrys., tom. v. Or. 59, Kai yelp al , Tat, xarnyopiar rai ¡aeiova ,rn , &c. 2 '0; Dais, poor l'OEX:e áv nErp0V .rav xanyopiav áv, raoxeuavapcivou, ó naüao; gaivnrar Sapva- Xiaç rai ás.tpraxivrraç .roi; vuvaaraaró).,s a syopmv, &c. "So that is no advantage to me, if, when Peter has confuted the charge, Paul appear to accuse his fellow-apostle boldly and inconsiderately." = Ka? Taúrn taiXiara q, oivraaró?.ar trXeat,exríra;, arepieetrapor ya2p aima -v ixovriara, Qwoiv, á).aá Tla; a'v xaraoxauç'ar rarrro, áxt' tiyasg rá ira ¢'spar.Chrys. in Gal. i. 1.