He telleth forth the storie begun in the last chapter, and how he reprehended Peter, 15. and
then specially vrgeth the ensample of the Christians Iewes, who sought vnto Christ for
iustification, and that by warrant also of their Law it-self, as also because otherwise Christ's
death had been needles.
1. THEN after fourteen yeares I went vp againe to Hierusalem with Barnabas, taking Titus also with
me.
2. And I went vp according to reuelation: and conferred with them the Ghospel which I
preach among Gentils, but apart with them that seemed to be some-thing, lest perhaps in vaine I should
runne or had runne.
3. But neither Titus which was with me, whereas he was a Gentil, was compelled to be
circumcised:
4. but because of the false Brethren craftily brought in, which craftily came in to
espie our libertie that we haue in Christ Iᴇꜱᴠꜱ, that they
might bring vs into seruitude.
5. To whom we yealded not subiection no not for an houre, that the truth of the Ghospel
may remaine with you.
6. But of them that seemed to be some-thing, (what they were some-time, it is nothing to
me.
*
Deu. 10,17.
God accepteth not the person of man) for to me, they that seemd to be something, added nothing.
7. But contrariewise when they had seen, that to me was committed the Ghospel of the
✟
See the marginal Annotation Rom. 2. v. 25.
prepuce, as to Peter of the circumcision
8. (for he that wrought in Peter to the Apostleship of circumcision, wrought in me also
among the Gentils)
9. and when they had knowen the grace that was giuen me, Iames and Cephas and Iohn, which
seemed to be pillars, gaue to me and Barnabas the right hands of societie: that we vnto the Gentils, &
they vnto the circumcision:
10. only that we should be mindful of the poore: the which same thing also I was careful to doe.
11. And when Cephas was come to Antioche, I resisted him
✟
κατὰ πρόσωποκ.
That is, in presence, before them al, as Beza himself expoundeth it. Yet the English
Bezites to the more disgracing of S. Peter, translate, to his face, No. Test. an. 1580.
in face, beacause he was
reprehensible.
12. For before that certaine came from Iames, he did eate with the Gentils: but when they
were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them that were of the circumcision.
13. And to his simulation consented the rest of the Iewes, so that Barnabas also was led of
them into that simulation.
14. But when I saw that they walked not rightly to the veritie of the Ghospel, I said to
Cephas before them al: If thou being a Iew, liuest Gentil-like and not Iudaically, how doest thou
compel the Gentils to Iudaize?
15. We are by nature Iewes, and not of the Gentils, sinners.
16. But knowing that
*
Ro. 3,19.
20.
man is not iustified by the workes
✟
By this & by the discourse of this whole epistle, you may perceiue, that when iustification
is attributed to faith, the workes of Charitie be not excluded, but the workes of Moyses law:
that is, the ceremonies, Sacrifices, and Sacraments therof principally, and consequently al
workes done merely by nature & free-wil, without the faith, grace, spirit, and aid of Christ.
of the Law, but by the faith of
Iᴇꜱᴠꜱ Christ; we also beleeue in Christ Iᴇꜱᴠꜱ, that we may be iustified by the faith of
Christ, and not by the workes of the Law: for the which cause, by the workes of the Law no flesh shal be
iustified.
17. But if seeking to be iustified in Christ, our selues also be found sinners; is Christ
then a Minister of sinne? God forbid.
18. For if I build the same things againe which I haue destroied, I make my self a
preuaricatour.
19. For I by the Law, am dead to the Law, that I may liue to God: with Christ I am nailed
to the crosse.
20. And I liue, now not I; but Christ liueth in me. And that that I liue now in the flesh,
I liue in the faith of the Sonne of God, who loued me, and deliuered himself for me.
21. I cast not away the grace of God. For if iustice be by the Law, then Christ died in
vaine.
ANNOTATIONS.
Cʜᴀᴘ. II.
2. Conferred with them.)
S. Paul confereth with S. Peter and the rest, for trial of his doctrine.
Though S. Paul were taught his Ghospel of God and not of man, and had an extraordinarie calling
by Christ himself, yet by reuelation he was sent to Hierusalem to conferre the said Ghospel which
he preached, with his elders the ordinarie Apostles and Rulers of the Church, to put both his
vocation and doctrine to their trial and approbation, and to ioyne in office, teaching, and
societie or communion with them. For there is no extraordinarie or miraculous vocation, that can
seuer or separate the person so called, in doctrine or fellowship of Christian life and religion,
from the ordinarie knowen societie of God's people and Priests.
The heretikes submit their doctrine to no trial of Bishops or Councel.
Therfore whosoeuer he be (vpon what pretence soeuer) that wil not haue his calling and
doctrine tried by the ordinarie Gouerners of God's Church, or disdaineth to goe vp to the
principal place of our religion, to conferre with Peter and other pillars of the Church,
it is euident that he is a false Teacher, a Schismatike, and an Heretike. By which rule
you may trie al your new Teachers of Luther's or Caluin's schoole: who neuer did nor euer
durst put their preaching to such conference or trial of holy Councel or Bishops, as they
ought to doe, and would doe, if it were of God, as S. Paules was.
2. In vaine.)
The approbation of S. Paules doctrine by Peter and the rest, was very requisit.
Though S. Paul doubted not of the truth of the Ghospel which he preached, knowing it to be of the
holy Ghost; yet because other men could not, nor would not acknowledge so much, til it were
allowed by such as were without al exception knowen to be Apostles & to haue the spirit of truth,
to discerne whether the vocation, spirit, & Ghospel of Paul were of God, he knew he should
otherwise without conference with them, haue lost his labour, both for the time past and to
come. He had not had (saith S. Hierom) securitie of preaching the Ghospel, if it had not
been approued by Peter's sentence & the rest that were with him. Hiero. ep. 89. c. 2. See Tertul.
li. 4. cont. Marc. nu. 3. Therfore by reuelation he went to conferre with the Apostles at Hierusalem,
that by them hauing his Apostleship and Ghospel liked and approued, he might preach with more
fruite. Wherin we see, this holy Apostle did not as the seditious proud Heretikes doe now a-daies,
which refusing al man's attestation or approbation, wil be tried by Scriptures only.
No absurditie that the Scriptures be approued by the Churches testimonie.
As also we may learne that it is no such absurditie as the Aduersaries would make it, to haue the
Scriptures approued by the Churches testimonie: seeing the Ghospel which S. Paul preached (being of
as much certaintie and of the same Holy Ghost that the Scriptures be) was to be put in conference
and examination of the Apostles, without al derogation to the truth, dignitie, or certaintie of
the same. And the cauilling of Heretikes, that we make subiect God's Oracles to man's censure, and
the Scriptures to haue no more force then the Church is content to grant vnto them, is vaine and
false.
The Church maketh not Canonical Scripture, but declareth that it is so.
For, to beare witnes or to giue euidence or attestation that the preaching or writing of
such, is true and of the Holy Ghost, is not to make it true: no more then the Gold-smith or
touch-stone that trie and discerne which is true gold, make it good gold; but they giue euidence
to man that so it is. And therfore that disputation also, whether the Scripture or the Church be
of greater authoritie, is superfluous: either giuing testimonie to the other, and both assured by
the Holy Ghost from al errour: the Church yet being before the Scriptures, the spouse of Christ,
and proper dwelling, temple, or subiect of God, and his graces: for the which Church the Scriptures
were, and not the Church for the Scriptures.
The Scripture & Church compared together for antiquitie, authoritie, &c.
In which Church there is iudicial authoritie by
office and iurisdiction to determine of doubtful questions touching the sense of the Scriptures and
other controuersies in religion, & to punish disobedient persons. Of which iudicial power the
Scriptures be not capable; as neither the truthes and determinations of the same can be so euident
to men, nor so agreable and fit for euery particular resolution, as diuersitie of times and persons
requireth. Certaine is the truth, and great is the authoritie of both: but in such diuers kinds, as
they can not be wel compared together. The controuersie is much like as if a man touching the
ruling a case in law or giuing sentence in a matter of question, should aske, whether the iudge,
or the euidence of the parties, be of more authoritie or credit. Which were as friuolous a
dispute, as it were a disordered part for any man to say, he would be tried by no other iudge but
by his owne writings or euidences. With such triflers and seditious persons haue we to doe now
a-daies in diuinitie, as were intolerable in any prophane science or facultie in the world.
6. Added nothing.)
The Scriptures alwaies true in themselues, are so knowen to be by the Church.
The Ghospel and preaching of S. Paul was wholy of God, and therfore though it were put to the
Churches probation, as gold is to the touch-stone; yet being found in al points pure, nothing
could be altered or amended therin by the Apostles. Euen so the Scriptures which are indeed
wholy of the Holy Ghosts enditing, being put to the Churches trial, are found, proued, and
testified vnto the world to be such, & not made true, altered, or amended by the same. Without
which attestation of the Church, the holy Scriptures in themselues were alwaies true before:
but not so knowen to be, to al Christians, nor they so bound to take them. And that is the meaning
of the famous sentence of S. Augustin Cont. ep. fund. c. 5. which troubleth the Heretikes so
much: I would not beleeue the Ghospel (saith he) vnles the authoritie of the Church moued
me.
7. To Peter of the circumcision.)
The Apostles commision general through the world, & yet peculiar to certaine Prouinces.
We may not thinke, as the Heretikes deceitfully teach, that the charge of the Apostles was so
distincted, that none could preach or exercise iurisdiction but in those seueral places or
towards those peoples or Prouinces only, wherunto by God's appointment or their owne lot or
election, they were specially designed. For, euery Apostle might by Christes commission (Mat.
28. Goe, and teach al Nations) vse al spiritual function through the whole world.
Iewes and Gentils specially committed to the two principal Apostles.
Neither Peter only only of the Iewes, nor Paul Apostle of the Gentils only.
Yet for
the more particular regard and care of Prouinces, and for peace and order sake, some were appointed
to one countrie, and some to another: as, of the other Apostles, we see in the Ecclesiastical
histories, and for S. Peter & S. Paul, it is plaine by this place & other, that to them as to the
two cheefe & most renowmed Apostles, the Church of al Nations was giuen, as deuided into two
parts, that is, Iewes, and Gentils: the first and principal being S. Peter's lot, that herein
also he might resemble our Sauiour, who was sent namely to the lost sheep of Israel, and
was properly *the Minister of the Circumcision: the second being S. Paules, whom Christ
chose specially to preach to the Gentils: Not so for al that, that either he was limited to the
Gentils only, (whom the Actes of the Apostles report, in euery place, first to haue entred
into the Synagogues and preached Christ to the Iewes, as he wrote also to the Hebrewes and euer had
special regard and honour to them:) or Peter so bound to the Iewes only, that he could not
meddle with the Gentils: seeing he was **the man chosen of God, by whom the Gentils should first
beleeue, who first baptized them, and first gaue order concerning them.
*Mat. 15.
Ro. 15.
**Act. 10. & 15. v. 7.
Calu. li. 4. c. 6. nu. 15. Instit.
Caluin's foolish reason that Peter was not B. of Rome, & his derogation from Peters
Apostleship.
Therfore the treacherie
of Caluin is intolerable, that vpon this distinction of the Apostles charge, would haue the simple
suppose, that S. Peter could not be Bishop of Rome (so might he barre S. Iohn from Ephesus also)
nor deale among the Gentils, as a thing against God's ordinance and the appointment between him
and S. Paul: as though thereby the one had bound himself to the other, not to preach or meddle
within his fellowes compasse.
The Church founded at Rome by S. Peter and S. Paul.
And which is further most seditious, he exhorteth al men to keep
fast the foresaid compact, and rather to haue respect to S. Paules Apostleship, then to S. Peters:
as though the preaching, authoritie, and Apostleship of both were not a-like true, and al of one
holy Spirit, whether they preached to Iewes or Gentils, as both did preach vnto both peoples, as
is already proued, and at length, partly by the daily decay of the Iewish state and there
incredulitie, and partly for that in Christianitie the distinction of Iew and Gentil ceased after a
season, both went to the cheefe citie of the Gentils, and there founded the Church common to the
Hebrewes and al Nations, Peter first, and Paul afterward. And therfore Tertul. saith,
de præscript nu. 14. O happie Church, to which the Apostles powred out al doctrine with their
bloud! Where Peter suffereth like to our Lord's Passion, where Paul is crowned with Iohn
(Baptist's) death.
9. Gaue the right hands of societie.)
Al Catholike Preachers and Pastours must communicate with Peter and his Successours
There is and alwaies ought to be, a common fellowship and fraternitie of al Pastours and Preachers
of the Church. Into which societie whosoeuer entreth not, but standeth in Schisme and
separation from Peter and the cheefe Apostolike Pastours, what pretence soeuer he hath, or whence
soeuer he chalengeth authoritie, he is a wolfe, and no true Pastour. Which vnion and communion
together was so necessarie euen in S. Paules case, that, notwithstanding his special calling of
God, yet the Holy Ghost caused him to goe vp to his elder Apostles to be receiued into their
fellowship or brotherhood. for it is to be noted, that SS. Peter, Iames, and Iohn were not sent
to S. Paul, to ioyne with him or to be tried for their doctrine and calling, by him: but
contrariewise he was sent to them as to the cheefe & knowen ordinarie Apostles. They therfore
gaue Paul their hands, that is to say, took him into their societie, and not he them. And S.
Hierom's rule concerning this, shal be found true to the worlds end, speaking of S. Peter's
Successour: He that gathereth not with thee, scattereth. Ep. 57. And in another place for the
same cause he calleth Rome, tutissimum Communionis portum, the most safe and sure hauen of
communion or societie. Ep. 16. c. 3.
The heretikes ridiculous argument against Peter's preeminence.
And wheras the Heretikes by this also would proue
that Peter had no preeminece aboue Paul being his fellow Apostle, it is ridiculous. As though al
of one fellowship or brotherhood be alwaies equal; or as though there were not order and
gouernement, superiorietie and inferioritie, in euery societie wel appointed. And they might
perceiue by this whole passage, that Peter was the special, and in more singular sort the Apostle
of the Iewes, though Iames and Iohn were also: as S. Paul is also called in more singular sort
the Apostle and Doctour of the Gentils then S. Barnabas, and yet they were both a-like taken here
into this societie, as they were both at once and a-like segregated into this ministerie, and
ordered together Act. 13. It is a poore reason then to say or thinke, S. Peter not to be
aboue S. Barnabas neither, because of this societie and fellowship vnto which he was receiued
together with S. Paul.
11. I resisted him.)
The Heretikes malitiously derogate from S. Peter.
Wicked Porphyrie (as S. Hierom writeth) chargeth S. Paul of enuie & malapert boldnes, and S.
Peter of errour Proœm. Comment. in Galat. Euen so the like impious sonnes of Cham, for this,
and for other things, gladly charge S. Peter, as though he had committed the greatest crimes in the
world. For, it is the propertie of Heretikes and il men, to be glad to see the Saints reprehended
and their faults discouered, as we may learne in the writings of S. Augustin against Faustus
the Manichee, who gathered out al the acts of the holy Patriarches, that might seeme to the
People to be worthy blame.
Paules reprehension of Peter teacheth vs the zeale of the one, and humilitie of the other.
Whom the said holy Doctour defendeth at large against him: as both he, and
before him S. Cyprian, find here vpon this Apostles reprehension, much matter of praising
both their vertues: S. Paules great zeale, & S. Peters wonderful humilitie: that the one in
the cause of God would not spare his Superiour, and that the other, in that excellent dignitie,
would not take it in il part, nor by allegation of his Supremacie disdaine or refuse to be
controled by his Iunior. Which of the two they count the greater grace and more to be imitated.
For neither Peter (saith S. Cyprian) whom our Lord chose the first, and vpon whom he built
the Church, when Paul disputed with him of circumcision, chalenged insolently or arrogantly tooke
any thing to himself, saying that he had the Primacie, and therfore the later Disciples ought
rather to obey him. ep. 71. ad Quintum. nu. 2. And S. Augustin ep. 19. c. 2. in fine. That
(saith he) which was done of Paul profitably by the libertie of charitie, the same Peter tooke in
good part by holy and benigne Godlines of humilitie, and so he gaue vnto posteritie a more rare and
holy example, if at any time perhaps they did amisse, to be content to be corrected of their Iuniors,
then Paul, for to be bold and confident: yea the inferiours to resist their betters for defending
the truth of the Ghospel, brotherly charitie alwaies preserued.
It proueth nothing against Peter's superioritie, that he was reprehended.
By which notable speaches of the
Doctours we may also see how friuolously the Heretikes argue hereupon, that S. Peter could not
be Superiour to S. Paul, being so reprehended of him: wheras the Fathers make it an example to
the Superiours, to beare with humilitie the correption or controlement euen of their inferiours.
Namely by this example S. Augustin (li. 2. de Bapt. c. 1.) excellently declareth, that the B.
Martyr S. Cyprian, who walked awry touching the rebaptizing of them that were christened of Heretikes,
could not, nor would not haue been offended to be admonished & reformed in that point by his
fellowes or inferiours, much lesse by a whole Councel. We haue learned, saith he, that Peter
the Apostle, in whom the Primacie of the Apostles by excellent grace is so preeminent, whom he did
otherwise concerning circumcision then the truth required, was corrected of Paul the later
Apostle. I thinke (without any reproch vnto him) Cyprian the Bishop may be compared to Peter the
Apostle; howbeit I ought rather to feare lest I be iniurious to Peter. For who knoweth not that
the principalitie of Apostleship it to be preferred before any dignitie of Bishop whatsoeuer? But
if the grace of the Chaires or Sees differ, yet the glorie of the Martyrs is one.
The superiour may be reprehended or admonished of the inferiour.
Heretikes reprehension of Catholike Bishops is rather railing.
And who is so
dull that can not see, that the inferiour, though not by office and iurisdiction, yet by the law of
brotherly loue and fraternal correption, may reprehend his superiour? Did euer any man wonder that
a good Priest or any vertuous person should tel the Pope, or any other great Prelate, or greatest
Prince in earth, their faults? Popes may be reprehended, & are iustly admonished of their
faults, & ought to take it in good part, and so they doe & euer haue done, when it commeth of
zeale & loue, as of S. Paul, Irenæus, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustin, Bernard: But of Simon Magus,
Nouatus, Iulian, Wiclefe, Luther, Caluin, Beza, that doe it of malice, & raile no lesse at their
vertues then their vices, of such (I say) God's Prelates must not be taught nor corrected, though
they must patiently take it, as our Sauiour did the like reproches of the malitious Iewes; and as
Dauid did the malediction of Semel. 2. Reg. 16.
11. Reprehensible.)
S. Peter's errour was not in faith, but in conuersation or behauiour.
The Heretikes hereof againe inferre, that Peter then did erre in faith, and therfore the Popes
may faile therin also. To which we answer, that howsoeuer other Popes may erre in their
priuate teachings or writings, wherof we haue treated before in the Annotation vpon these
words, *That thy faith faile not: it is certaine that S. Peter did not here faile in faith,
nor erre in doctrine or knowledge. For it was conuersationis, non prædicationis vitium, as
Tertullian saith de præscript. nu. 7. It was a default in conuersation, life, or regiment,
which may be committed of any man, be he neuer so holy, and not in doctrine. S. Augustin and
whosoeuer make most of it, thinke no otherwise of it. But S. Hierom and **many other holy
Fathers deeme it to haue been no fault at al, nor any other thing then S. Paul himself did
vpon the like occasion: and that this whole combat was a set thing agreed vpon between them.
It is a schoole point much debated betwixt S. Hierom and S. Augustin ep. 9. 11. 19. apud
August.
*Luce 22,32.
**See S. Chrysost. Theoph. &c.