TESTIMONY OF S. PAUL TO S. PETER'S PRIMACY.
In leaving the Gospels and the Acts we quit those writings in which
we should expect, beforehand, that divine government to be set
forth, which it pleased our Lord to establish for His church. In
exact accordance with such expectation we have seen the institution
of the apostolic college, and of S. Peter's Primacy over it,
described in the Gospels, and the history in the Acts of its
execution and practical working. Both institution and execution have
been complete in their parts, and wonderfully harmonise with each
other. But in the other inspired writings of the New Testament,
comprising the letters of various Apostles, and specially of S.
Paul, we had no reason to anticipate any detailed mention of Church
government. The fourteen Epistles of S. Paul were written
incidentally on different subjects, no one of them leading him to
set forth, with any exact specification, that divine hierarchy under
which it was the pleasure of the Lord that His Church should grow
up. Moreover, it so happened that the [1]circumstances of S. Paul's
calling to be an Apostle, and the opposition which he sometimes met
with from those attached to Jewish usages, caused him to be a great
defender of the Apostolic dignity, as bestowed upon himself, and
continually to assert that he received it not of men, but of God.
Had there, then, been no recognition at all of S. Peter's superior
rank in the Apostolic College to be found in his writings, it would
not have caused surprise to those who consider the above reasons.
And proportionably strong and effective is the recognition of that
rank, which, though incidental, does occur, and that several times.
If, then, S. Paul, being so circumstanced, selected expressions
which seem to indicate a distinction of dignity between the Apostles
and S. Peter, they claim a special attention, and carry a double
force. Now on putting these together we shall find that they show
not merely a distinction of dignity, but a superior authority, in
Peter.
The first are four several passages in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, in all of which S. Peter holds the higher place, and in
two is moreover mentioned singly, while the rest are mentioned only
in mass. These are the following, "Now this I say, that every one of
you saith: I indeed am of Paul; and I of Apollo; and I of Cephas;
and I of Christ." Again: "All things are yours, whether it be Paul,
or Apollo, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things
present, or things to come, for all are yours, and you are Christ's,
and Christ is God's." Again, "Have we not power to carry about a
woman, a sister, as well as the rest of the Apostles, and the
brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" And once more: "That He was seen
by Cephas, and after that by the eleven."[2] First, we may remark
that the place of dignity in a sentence varies[3] according to its
nature: if it _descends_, such place is the first; but if it
_ascends_, it is the furthest point from the first. Now in the first
instance the discourse ascends, for what can be plainer than that it
terminates in Christ, as in the supreme point? "Every one of you
saith, I indeed am of Paul, and I of Apollo, and I of Cephas, and I
of Christ;" so S. Chrysostome observes, "It was not to prefer
himself before Peter that he set him last, but to prefer Peter even
greatly before himself. For he speaks in the ascending scale:" and
Theodoret: "They called themselves from different teachers: now he
mentioned his own name and that of Apollo: but he adds also the name
of the chief of the Apostles."[4] As plain is this in the second
instance, where S. Paul, developing his thought, "all things are
yours," adds, "whether Paul, or Apollo, or Cephas," or if that be
not sufficient, "the world" itself, which, carried away in a sort of
transport, he seems to divide into its parts, "or life, or death, or
things present, or things to come, all," I repeat, "are yours:" but
only, you are not your own, "you are Christ's, and Christ is God's."
In all which, from human instruments, who plant and water, he rises
up to God, the ultimate source, the beginning and the end. Stronger
yet is the third passage, for being in the very act of setting forth
the dignity of his own Apostolate, "have we not power," he says, "to
lead about a sister, a woman, as well as the rest of the Apostles,
and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Now, whether "the rest of
the Apostles" here means, those who, in the looser signification are
so called, as "the Apostles of the Churches," and "Andronicus, and
Junias--who are of note among the Apostles,"[5] or the original
Twelve, the ascending scale is equally apparent. For why is Peter
distinguished by name from all the rest? Why alone termed by his
prophetical name? S. Chrysostome, again tells us why. "Look at
Paul's wisdom. _He puts the chief the last. For there he puts that
which was strongest among the principal. For it was not so
remarkable to shew the rest doing this, as him that was chief, and
had been entrusted with the keys of heaven._ But he puts not him
alone, but all, as if he would say, whether you look for inferiors,
or superiors, you have examples of all. For the brethren of the
Lord, being delivered from their first unbelief,[6] were among the
principal, though they had not reached the height of Apostles, and,
therefore, he put them in the middle, with the highest on the two
sides:"[7] words in which he seems to indicate that Peter was as
excellent among the Apostles, as they among the rest of the
disciples, and the Lord's brethren.
Of the superiority contained in the fourth passage, we have spoken
above, under another head: and, therefore, proceed to much more
remarkable testimonies of S. Paul.
In the epistle to the Galatians, S. Paul has occasion[8] to defend
his Apostolic authority, and the agreement of the Gospel which he
had preached with that of the original Apostles. After referring to
his marvellous conversion, he continues, "immediately I condescended
not to flesh and blood; neither went I to Jerusalem to the Apostles,
who were before me, but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to
Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to visit
Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the
Apostles I saw none, saving James, the brother of the Lord." At
length, then, S. Paul goes to Jerusalem, and that with a fixed
purpose, "to visit Peter." But why Peter only, and not the rest of
the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord?[9] Why speaks he of
these, and of James himself, besides, as if he would intimate that
he had little care of seeing them? No other answer can be given to
such queries, than is shadowed out in the prophetic name of Peter,
and contained in the explanation of it given by Christ Himself,
"Upon this Rock I will build My Church."
For, to prove this, let us go back once more to witnesses beyond
suspicion, who wrote a thousand years before the denial of Peter's
Primacy began. The Greek and Latin Fathers see here a recognition of
his chief authority. Thus Theodoret, "Not needing doctrines from
man, as having received it from the God of all, he gives the fitting
honour to the chief." Theodoret follows S. Chrysostome, who had
said, "After so many great deeds, needing nothing of Peter, nor of
his instruction, but being his equal in rank, for I will say no more
here, still he goes up to him as to the greater and elder:" his
equal in the Apostolic dignity, and the immediate reception of his
authority from Christ, but yet his inferior in the range of his
jurisdiction, Peter being "greater and elder." And he goes on, "he
went, but for this alone, to see him and honour him by his presence.
He says, I went up to visit Peter. He said not to see Peter, but to
visit Peter, as they say, in becoming acquainted with great and
illustrious cities. So much pains he thought it worth only to see
the man." And he concludes, "This I repeat, and would have you
remember, lest you should suspect the Apostle, on hearing anything
which seems said against Peter. For it was for this that he so
speaks, correcting by anticipation, that when he shall say, I
resisted Peter, no one may think these words of enmity and
contention. For he honours the man, and loves him more than all. For
he says that he came up for none of the Apostles, save him."
Elsewhere, S. Chrysostome, commenting on the charge, Feed My sheep,
asks, "Why, then, passing by the rest, does He converse with him
(Peter) on these things?" And he replies, Peter "was the one
preferred among the Apostles, and the mouth-piece of the disciples,
and the head of the band: _therefore_, too, Paul then went up to
visit him _rather than the rest_."[10] Tertullian, the most ancient
of the Latins, says, "then, as he relates himself, he went up to
Jerusalem for the purpose of becoming acquainted with Peter, that
is, according to duty, and the claim of their identical faith and
preaching:"[11] the _duty_, which Paul had to Peter; the _claim_
which Peter had on Paul. In the fourth century, Marius Victorinus
observes: "After three years, says he, I came to Jerusalem; then he
adds the cause, to see Peter. For if the foundation of the Church
was laid in Peter, as is said in the Gospel, Paul, to whom all
things had been revealed, knew that he was _bound_ to see Peter, as
one to whom so great an authority had been given by Christ, not to
learn anything from him."[12] The writer called Ambrosiaster, as his
works are attached to those of S. Ambrose, and contemporary with
Pope Damasus, (A.D. 366-384) remarks, "It was proper that he should
desire to see Peter, because he was first among the Apostles, to
whom the Saviour had committed the care of the Churches." S. Jerome,
more largely, says, "not to behold his eyes, his cheeks, or his
countenance, whether he were thin or stout, with nose straight or
twisted, covered with hair, or as Clement, in the Periods, will have
it, bald. It was not, I conceive, in the gravity of an Apostle, that
after so long as three years' preparation, he could wish to see
anything human in Peter. But he gazed on him with those eyes with
which now he is seen in his own letters. Paul saw Cephas with eyes
such as those with which all wise men now look on Paul. If any one
thinks otherwise, let him join all this with the sense before
indicated, that the Apostles contributed nothing to each other. For
even in that he seemed to go to Jerusalem, in order that he might
see the Apostle, it was not to learn, as having himself too the same
author of his preaching, but _to shew honour to the first
Apostle_."[13] Our own S. Thomas sums up all these in saying, "the
doctor of the Gentiles, who boasts that he had learnt the Gospel,
not of man, nor through man, but instructed by Christ, went up to
Jerusalem, conferred concerning the faith _with the head of the
Churches_, lest perchance he might run, or had run, in vain."[14]
These last words lead us attentively to consider the passage which
follows in S. Paul. At a subsequent period the zealots of the law
had raised against him a report that the Gospel which he preached
differed from that of the Twelve. At once to meet and silence such a
calumny, he tells us that "after fourteen years, I went up again to
Jerusalem, with Barnabas, taking Titus also with me. And I went up
according to revelation, and," assigning the particular purpose,
"conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,
but apart with them who seemed to be something; lest, perhaps, I
should run, or had run, in vain." Then, having proved the identity
of his doctrine with that of those who "seemed to be something,"
that is, Peter, James, and John, though to him they "added nothing,"
he specifies Peter among these, and proceeds to draw a singular
parallel between, on the one hand, Peter, as accompanied by James
and John, and himself, as working with Barnabas and Titus. If we set
the clauses over against each other, this will be more apparent:--
When they had seen that As to Peter was that of
to me was committed the Gospel the circumcision,
of the uncircumcision,
For He who wrought in Wrought in me also among
Peter, to the Apostleship of the Gentiles,
the circumcision,
[15]James, and Cephas, and Gave to me and Barnabas
John, who seemed to be the right hand of fellowship;
pillars,
where it would appear that James and John stand in the like relation
to Cephas, as Barnabas and Titus, just before mentioned, to Paul.
And S. Chrysostome, who, it must be remarked, reads Cephas, and not
James, first, as do some manuscripts and many Fathers, observes,
"where it was requisite to compare himself, he mentions Peter only,
but were to call a testimony, he names three together and with
praise, saying, 'Cephas, and James, and John, who seemed to be
pillars.'" And further, Paul "shows himself to be of the same rank
with them, and matches himself not with the rest, but with the
leader, showing that each of them enjoyed the same dignity,"[16]
that is, of the Apostolic commission, and the divine cooperation.
And Ambrosiaster explains the parallel: "Paul names Peter only, and
compares him to himself, as having received the Primacy _for the
founding of the Church_, he being in like manner elected to hold a
Primacy _in founding the Churches of the Gentiles_, yet so that
Peter, if occasion might be, should preach to the Gentiles, and Paul
to the Jews. For both are found to have done both." And presently,
"by the Apostles who were the more illustrious among the rest, whom
for their stability he names pillars, and who were ever in the
Lord's secret council, being worthy to behold His glory on the
mount," (where Ambrosiaster confuses James, the brother of the Lord,
with James the brother of John,) "by these he declares to have been
approved the gift which he received from God, that he should be
worthy to hold the Primacy in the preaching of the Gentiles, as
Peter held it in the preaching of the circumcision. _And as he
assigns to Peter for companions distinguished men among the
Apostles, so he joins Barnabas to himself; yet he claims to himself
alone the grace of the Primacy as granted by God, like as to Peter
alone it was granted among the Apostles_.[17]
Now Baronius proves that the above words cannot be taken of a
division of jurisdiction, and that the singular dignity of Peter is
marked in them. "For as a mark of his excellence Christ Himself, who
came to save all men, with whom there is no distinction of Jew and
Greek, was yet called 'minister of the circumcision,' by Paul, (Rom.
xv. 8,) a title of dignity, according to Paul's own words, for
theirs was 'the adoption of children, and the glory, and the
testament, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and
the promises,' while 'the Gentiles praise God for His mercy,' But
just as Christ our Lord was so called minister of the circumcision,
as yet to be the Pastor and Saviour of all, so Peter too was called
the minister of the circumcision, in such sense as yet to be by the
Lord constituted (Acts ix. 32,) pastor and ruler of the whole flock.
Whence S. Leo, 'out of the whole world Peter alone is chosen to
preside over the calling of all the Gentiles, and over all the
Apostles, and the collected Fathers of the Church, so that though
there be among the people of God many priests and many shepherds,
yet Peter rules all by immediate commission, whom Christ also rules
by Sovereign power.'"[18]
The parallel, then, drawn by Paul between himself and Peter,
distinctly conveys that as he was superior to Barnabas and Titus,
and used their cooperation, so was Peter among the Apostles, and
specially the chief ones, James and John, as their leader and head.
For what is the meaning of the words, "He who wrought in Peter to
the Apostleship of the circumcision?" Was the Apostleship of the
circumcision entrusted to Peter only? It needs no proof that it was
also entrusted to James and John, nay, Paul himself immediately says
so, "They gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship,
that _we_ should go unto the Gentiles, and _they_ unto the
circumcision." Why then does Paul so express himself as to intimate
that the Gospel of the circumcision was given to Peter only? For the
same reason that he said that to himself "was committed the Gospel
of the uncircumcision," and that God "wrought in me also among the
Gentiles." Now Barnabas likewise had been[19]separated by the Holy
Ghost Himself for the Gentile mission; Barnabas, too, and Titus
were discharging the office of ambassadors for Christ among the
Gentiles: "that _we_," Paul says, not I, "should go to the
Gentiles." The terms, therefore, used by Paul both of himself and
Peter, do not _exclude_ the rest, but express the _superiority_ of
the one named singly before the rest, as if he alone held the
charge. Their fittest interpretation, then, will be, "The Apostles
saw that the Gospel of the uncircumcision was no less given to me
_above_ the rest, than the Gospel of the circumcision to Peter
_above_ the rest; for He who wrought in Peter _above_ the rest in
the Gospel of the circumcision, wrought also in me _above_ the rest
in the Gospel of the uncircumcision." But what can set forth S.
Peter's dignity more remarkably than to exhibit him in the same
light of superiority among the original Apostles, as S. Paul was
among S. Barnabas and his other fellow-workers?
Further confirmation of this is given by the argument with which he
refutes the calumny urged against him of disagreement with the
Apostles. For while he appeals to them _in general_, and to his
union with them, he likewise _specifies_ the point which favoured
that union. It was the parallel between himself and Peter, as we
have seen; it was the exact resemblance between his mission and that
of Peter, which was the cause of their joining hands: they approve
Paul's Apostleship because they see that it follows the type of
Peter's.
And other words of Paul which follow, prove not only the point of
his own cause, but the source of Peter's singular privileges. "But
when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face,
because he was to be blamed: for before that some came from James,
he did eat with the Gentiles; but when they were come he withdrew,
and separated himself, fearing them who were of the circumcision.
And to his dissimulation the rest of the Jews consented, so that
Barnabas also was led by them into that dissimulation. But when I
saw that they walked not uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, I
said to Cephas before them all, If thou being a Jew livest after the
manner of the Gentiles, and not as the Jews do, how dost thou compel
the Gentiles to live as the Jews?" For why did Paul here censure
Peter _only_? By his own account not only Peter, but the rest, and
Barnabas himself amongst them, set apart as he was by the Holy Ghost
to preach to the Gentiles, did not defend Christian liberty, as they
ought to have done. Why, then, does he single out Peter among all
these, resist him to the face, and so firmly censure all, in his
person? No answer can be given but one: that by this dissembling of
Peter the zealots of the law gathered double courage to press
against Paul their calumny of dissension from Peter, and to infer
that he had run in vain, from the indulgence which Peter showed;
that Peter's authority with all was so great that his example drew
the pastors and their flocks alike to his side, and that it was
requisite to correct the members in the head. From this S.
Chrysostome proves that it was really the Apostle Peter, which some,
as we shall soon see, denied: "For to say, that I resisted him to
the face, and to put this as a great thing, was to show that he had
not reverenced the dignity of his person. But had he said it of
another, that I resisted him to the face, he would not have put it
as a great thing. Again, if it had been another Peter, his change
would have not had such force as to draw the rest of the Jews with
him. For he used no exhortation, nor advice, but merely dissembled,
and separated himself, and that dissembling and separation had
power to draw after him all the disciples, _on account of the
dignity of his person_."[20] Again, another writer of the fourth
century tells us this: "Therefore he inveighs against Peter alone,
in order that the rest might learn in the person of him who is the
first."[21] It was, then, Peter's primacy, and the necessity of
agreeing with him thence arising, which led Paul to resist him
publicly, and, disregarding the conduct of the rest, to direct an
admonition to him alone. "So great," S. Jerome tells us, on these
two passages, "was Peter's authority, that Paul in his epistle
wrote, 'Then after three years I went to Jerusalem to see Peter, and
I tarried with him fifteen days.' And again in what follows, 'After
fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, taking
Titus also with me. And I went up according to revelation, and
conferred with them the Gospel which I preach among the Gentiles,'
_showing that he had no security in preaching the Gospel, unless it
were confirmed by the sentence of Peter and those who were with
him_."[22]
But this passage,[23] concerning the reprehension of S. Peter by S.
Paul, has afforded so signal an instance "of the unlearned and
unstable wresting Scripture to their own proper destruction,"[24]
that we must dwell a little longer upon it. First, the Gnostics and
the Marcionites quoted it to accuse the Apostles of ignorance, and
to favour their own claim to a progressive light. In Peter, they
would have it, there was still a taint of Judaism. Next Porphyry,
who "raged against Christ like a mad dog,"[25] tried by this passage
to weaken the authority of the Apostles, and to convict Paul of
ambition and rashness, who censured the first of the Apostles and
the leader of the band, not privately, but openly before all, as S.
Chrysostome and S. Jerome tell us. Julian the apostate succeeded
these, and tried, by means of Paul's contention with Peter, to bring
discredit on the religion itself. For who, he asked, could value a
religion whose chief teachers were guilty of hypocrisy, ignorance,
and ambition? And in complete accordance with the spirit of these,
all, who, since the sixteenth century, have attempted to impugn S.
Peter's prerogatives, have rested their chief effort on the
exaggeration and distortion of this reprehension. "This," says
Baronius, "is the stone of stumbling, and rock of offence, on which
a great number have dashed themselves. For those, who without any
diligent consideration have superficially interpreted a difficult
statement, have gone so far in their folly as either to accuse Paul
of rashness for having inveighed against Peter not merely with
freedom, but wantonness, or to calumniate Peter as a hypocrite, for
acting with dissimulation; or to condemn both, for not agreeing in
the same rule of faith."[26]
In most remarkable contrast with these stand out three several
interpretations, which prevailed in early times, all differing from
each other in points, but all equally careful to maintain the
dignity of Peter, and to clear up the conduct of Paul. First, from
S. Clement of Alexandria in the second century up to S. Chrysostome
in the fourth, we find a number of Greek writers asserting that it
was not the Apostle Peter, who was here meant, but another; S.
Jerome gives their reasons thus: "there are those who think that
Cephas, whom Paul here writes that he resisted to the face, was not
the Apostle Peter, but another of the seventy disciples so called,
and they allege that Peter could not have withdrawn himself from
eating with the Gentiles, for he had baptized Cornelius the
centurion, and on his ascending to Jerusalem, being opposed by those
of the circumcision who said, 'why hast thou entered in to men
uncircumcised, and eaten with them?' after narrating the vision, he
terminates his answer thus: 'If, then, God hath given to them the
same grace as to us who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I
that I should withstand God?' On hearing which they were silent, and
glorified God, saying: 'Therefore to the Gentiles, also, God hath
given repentance unto life.' Especially as Luke, the writer of the
history, makes no mention of this dissension, nor even says that
Peter was at Antioch with Paul; and occasion would be given to
Porphyry's blasphemies, _if we could believe either that Peter had
erred, or that Paul had impertinently censured the prince of the
Apostles_."[27]
But this interpretation, contrary both to internal evidence and to
early tradition, and suggested only by the anxiety to defend S.
Peter's dignity, did not prevail. Another succeeded, supported by S.
Chrysostome, S. Cyril, and the greatest Greek commentators, and for
a long time by S. Jerome, even more remarkably opposed to the
apparent sense of the passage, and only, as it would seem, dictated
by the same desire to defend the dignity of S. Peter, and the
conduct of S. Paul. Admitting that it was really Peter who was here
mentioned, they maintained that it was not a real dissension between
the two Apostles, but apparent only, and arranged both by the one
and the other, to terminate the question more decidedly. S.
Chrysostome[28] sets forth at great length this opinion: "Do you
see," says he, "how S. Paul accounts himself the least of all
saints, not of Apostles only? Now he who was so disposed with
respect to all, both knew how great a prerogative Peter ought to
enjoy, and reverenced him most of all men, and was disposed towards
him as he deserved. And this is a proof. The whole earth was looking
to Paul; there rested on his spirit the solicitude for the Churches
of all the world. A thousand matters engaged him every day; he was
besieged with appointments, commands, corrections, counsels,
exhortations, teachings, the administration of endless business; yet
giving up all these, he went to Jerusalem. And there was no other
occasion for this journey save to see Peter, as he says himself: 'I
went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter.' Thus he honoured him, and
preferred him to all men." Suspecting, too, that an accusation
against Peter's unwavering faith, might be brought from the words,
"fearing those of the circumcision," he breaks out, 'What say you?
Peter fearful and unmanly? Was he not for this called Peter, that
his faith was immovable? What are you doing, friend? Reverence the
name given by the Lord to the disciple. Peter fearful and unmanly!
Who will endure you saying such things?'"
Now compare[29] together these two interpretations of the Greek
Fathers with that of the reformers and their adherents since the
sixteenth century. A more complete antagonism of feelings and
principles cannot be conceived. I. There is not a Greek Father who
does not infer the singular authority of Peter from the first and
second chapter of the epistle to the Galatians. There is not an
adherent of the reformers who does not trust that he can draw from
those same chapters matter to impugn S. Peter's Primacy. II. The
Greek Fathers anxiously search out every point which may conduce to
Peter's praise. The adherent of the reformers suppresses all such,
and seems not to see them. III. If anything in Paul's account seems
at first sight to tell against Peter's special dignity, the Greek
Fathers are studious carefully to remove it; the adherents of the
reformers to exaggerate it. IV. The Greek Fathers prefer slightly to
force the obvious meaning of the words, and to desert the original
interpretation, rather than set Apostles at variance with each
other, or admit that Peter, the chief of the Apostles, was not
treated with due deference. The adherents of the reformers intensify
everything, take it in the worst sense, and are the more at home,
the more bitterly they inveigh against Peter.
Now turn to the third interpretation, that of the Latin Fathers.
They admit both that it was Peter and that it was a real dissension,
but they are as anxious as the Greek to defend Peter's dignity. Thus
Tertullian:[30] "If Peter was blamed--certainly it was a fault of
_conduct_, not of _preaching_." And Cyprian:[31] "not even Peter,
whom first the Lord chose, and upon whom He built His Church, when
afterwards Paul disagreed with him respecting circumcision, claimed
aught proudly, or assumed aught arrogantly to himself, saying that
he held the Primacy, and that obedience rather was due to him by
those younger and later." And Augustine: "Peter himself received
with the piety of a holy and benignant humility what was with
advantage done by Paul in the freedom of charity. And so he gave to
posterity a rarer and a holier example, that they should not
disdain, if perchance they left the right track, _to be corrected
even by their youngers_, than Paul, that even _inferiors_ might
confidently venture to resist _superiors_, maintaining brotherly
charity, in the defence of evangelical truth. For better as it is on
no occasion to quit the proper path, yet much more wonderful and
praiseworthy is it, willingly to accept correction, than boldly to
correct deviation. Paul then has the praise of just liberty, and
_Peter of holy humility_: which, so far as seems to me according to
my small measure, had been a better defence against the calumnies of
Porphyry, than the giving him greater occasion of finding fault: for
it would be a much more stinging accusation that Christians should
with deceit either write their epistles, or bear the mysteries of
their God."[32]
Now, to see the[33] fundamental opposition between the Greek and
Latin Fathers, and the reformers, let us observe that, though there
are three ancient interpretations of this passage, differing from
each other, the first denying that the Cephas so reprehended by
Paul, was the chief of the Apostles, the second affirming this, but
reducing the whole contention to an arrangement of prudence between
the two Apostles, and the third maintaining the reality of the
reprehension, yet all three have in common the reconciling Peter's
chief dignity with the reprehension of him, and the two latter,
besides, are much more careful to admire his modesty, than Paul's
liberty, and make the most of every point in the narration setting
forth Peter's Primacy. On the other hand the reformers use this
reprehension as their sharpest weapon against his authority, praise
Paul's liberty to the utmost in order to depress that authority,
hunt out everything against Peter, and pass over everything for him.
It is equally evident that their motive in this runs counter to the
faith universal in the Church during the first four centuries; and
that their inference cannot be accepted without rejecting all
Christian antiquity, and the very sentiments expressed by Paul
himself, as we have seen, towards Peter.
But as to the reprehension itself, it would seem to have been not on
a point of _doctrine_ at all, but of _conduct_. S. Peter had long
ago both admitted the Gentiles into the Church, and declared that
they were not bound to the Jewish law. But out of regard to the
feelings of the circumcised converts, he pursued a line of conduct
at Antioch, which they mistook to mean an approval of their error,
and which needed, therefore, to be publicly cleared up. Accordingly,
Peter's fault, if any there were, amounted to this, that having,
with the best intention, done what was not forbidden, he had not
sufficiently foreseen what others would thence infer contrary to his
own intention. Can this be esteemed either a dogmatic error, or a
proof of his not holding supreme authority? But the _event_ being
injurious, and contrary to the truth of the Gospel, why should not
Paul admonish Peter concerning it? But very remarkable it is, that
he quotes S. Peter's own example and authority, opposes the
antecedent to the consequent fact, and maintains Gospel liberty by
Peter's own conduct. S. Chrysostome remarked this. "Observe his
prudence. He said not to him, Thou dost wrong, in living as a Jew,
but he alleges his former mode of living, that the admonition and
the counsel may seem to come not from Paul's mind, but from the
judgment of Peter already expressed. For had he said, Thou dost
wrong to keep the law, Peter's disciples would have blamed him, but
now, hearing that this admonition and correction came not from
Paul's judgment, but that Peter himself so lived, and held in his
mind this belief, whether they would, or would not, they were
obliged to be quiet."[34]
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Passaglia, p. 206.
[2] 1 Cor. i. 12; iii. 22; ix. 5: xv. 5.
[3] Passaglia, p. 124-6.
[4] S. Chrys. in 1 Cor. Hom. 3, n. 2. Theodoret on text.
[5] 2 Cor. viii. 23; Rom. xvi. 7.
[6] John vii. 5.
[7] In 1 Cor. Hom. 21. n. 2.
[8] Passaglia, p. 208.
[9] Gal. i. 16-19.
[10] Theodoret and Chrysostome on the text, and on John, Hom. 88.
[11] De Praesc. c. 23.
[12] Comm. in Gal. i. 18. Mai nova collectio. Tom. 3.
[13] Ambrosiaster and S. Jerome on the text.
[14] S. Thomas Cant. Epist. Lib. i, 97.
[15] An argument has been drawn by some against S. Peter's primacy
from S. Paul here placing S. James first. Now as to this we must
remark that some most ancient manuscripts, and the original Latin
version, read "Peter, and James, and John," and that this is
followed by Tertullian, Chrysostome, Ambrose, Ambrosiaster,
Augustine, Theodoret, Jerome, Irenaeus, Gregory of Nyssa, and
Cassiodorus, of whom Jerome is the more important, in that he had
studied so many ancient commentaries before writing his own. But
supposing that the vulgar reading is the true one, Peter's being
once placed by S. Paul between S. James and S. John will not
counterbalance the vast positive evidence for his primacy. Those who
wish to see the probable reasons why S. James was here placed first,
may consult Passaglia, b. 1, c. 14, who treats of the question at
length. Perhaps S. Paul, narrating historically a past incident,
recalled them to his recollection _in the order of time_, in which
they received him: and S. James, residing constantly at Jerusalem,
might very probably have seen him first.
[16] S. Chrys. in Gal. c. 2.
[17] Comm. on Gal. ii. 7, 8.
[18] Baron. Ann. A.D. 51. Sec. 29. S. Leo. Serm. 4.
[19] Acts xiii. 2.
[20] Hom. on, I resisted Him to the face, n. 15.
[21] Ambrosiaster on Gal. ii. 14.
[22] Epist. inter. Augustin. 75, n. 8.
[23] Passaglia, p. 217.
[24] 2 Pet. iii. 16.
[25] S. Jerome.
[26] Ad. Ann. 51, Sec. 32.
[27] S. Jerome on Gal. ch. 2.
[28] Homily on the text, I resisted him to the face, n. 8, Tom. 3,
p. 368.
[29] Passaglia, p. 232.
[30] De Praese. c. 24.
[31] Cyprian, Ep. 71.
[32] Ep. 82, n. 22.
[33] Passaglia, p. 240.
[34] Hom. on text, n. 17.