Original Douay–Rheims AnnotationsGalatians 2
English College of Douai–Rheims
Read Galatians 2 in the BibleGalatians 2:6
Added nothing.
◦ The Gospel and preaching of S. Paul was wholly of God, & therefore though it were put to the Church's probation, as gold is to the touch stone: yet being found in all points pure, nothing could be altered or amended therein by the Apostles. Even so the Scriptures which are indeed wholly of the Holy Ghost's inditing, being put to the Church's trial, are found, proved, and testified unto the world to be such, and not made true, altered, or amended by the same. Without which attestation of the Church, the holy Scriptures in themselves were always true before: but not so known to be, to all Christians, nor they so bound to take them. And that is the meaning of the famous sentence of S. Augustine Cont. ep. fund. c. 5. which troubleth the Heretics so much. I would not believe the Gospel (saith he) unless the authority of the Church moved me.
- ◦ The Scriptures always true in themselves, are so known to be by the Church.
Galatians 2:7
To Peter of the circumcision.
[1] We may not think, as the Heretics deceitfully teach, that the charge of the Apostles was so distincted, that none could preach or exercise jurisdiction but in those several places or towards those people or provinces only, whereunto by God's appointment or their own lot or election, they were specially designed. For, every Apostle might by Christ's commission (Mat. 28. Go, and teach all nations) use all spiritual function through the whole world, yet for the more particular regard & care of provinces, & for peace & order sake, some were appointed to one country, & some to another: as, of the other Apostles, we see in the Ecclesiastical histories, and for S. Peter & S. Paul, it is plain by this place & other, [2] that to them as to the two chief and most renowned Apostles, the Church of all Nations was given, as divided into two parts, that is, Jews and Gentiles: the first and principal being S. Peter's lot, that herein also he might resemble our Saviour, who was sent namely [3] to the lost sheep of Israel, and was properly [4] the Minister of the Circumcision: the second being S. Paul's, whom Christ chose specially to preach to the Gentiles: Not so for all that, that either he was limited to the Gentiles only, (whom the Acts of the Apostles report, in every place, first to have entered into the Synagogues & preached Christ to the Jews, as he wrote also to the Hebrews & ever had special regard & honour to them:) or Peter so bound to the Jews only, that he could not meddle with the Gentiles: seeing he was [5] the man chosen of God, by whom the Gentiles should first believe, who first baptized them, and first gave order concerning them. Therefore the treachery of Calvin [6] [7] is intolerable, that upon this distinction of the Apostle's charge, would have the simple suppose, that S. Peter could not be Bishop of Rome (so might he bar S. John from Ephesus also) nor deal among the Gentiles, 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 fellow's compass. And which is further most seditious, he exhorteth all men to keep fast the foresaid compact, and rather to have respect to S. Paul's Apostleship, than to S. Peter's: as though the preaching, authority, and Apostleship of both were not a-like true, and all of one Holy Spirit, whether they preached to Jews or Gentiles, as both did preach unto both peoples, as is already proved, and at length, partly by the daily decay of the Jewish state and their incredulity, and partly for that in Christianity the distinction of Jew & Gentile ceased after a season: [8] both went to the chief city of the Gentiles, and there founded the Church common to the Hebrews and all nations, Peter first, and Paul afterward. And therefore Tertullian saith, de præscript. nu. 14. O happy Church, to which the Apostles poured out all doctrine with their blood! Where Peter suffereth like to our Lord's Passion, where Paul is crowned with John (Baptist's) death.
- 1 The Apostles' commission general through the world, & yet peculiar to certain provinces.
- 2 Jews and Gentiles specially committed to the two principal Apostles. Neither Peter only of the Jews, nor Paul Apostle of the Gentiles only.
- 3 Mat. 15.
- 4 Ro. 15.
- 5 Act. 10. & 15. v. 7.
- 6 Calvin's foolish reason that Peter was not B. of Rome, & his derogation from Peter's Apostleship.
- 7 Calv. li. 4. c. 6. nu. 15. Instit.
- 8 The Church founded at Rome by S. Peter and S. Paul.
Galatians 2:9
Gave the right hands of society.
[1] There is and always ought to be, a common fellowship and fraternity of all Pastors and preachers of the Church. Into which society who so ever entereth not, but standeth in Schism and separation from Peter and the chief Apostolic Pastors, what pretence so ever he hath, or whence so ever he challengeth authority, he is a wolf, and no true Pastor. Which union and communion together was so necessary even in S. Paul's case, that, notwithstanding his special calling of God, yet the Holy Ghost caused him to go up to his elder Apostles, to be received into their fellowship or brotherhood, for it is to be noted, that Ss. Peter, James, and John were not sent to S. Paul, to join with him or to be tried for their doctrine and calling, by him: but contrarywise he was sent to them as to the chief and known ordinary Apostles. They therefore gave Paul their hands, that is to say, took him into their society, and not he them. And S. Hierom's rule concerning this, shall be found true to the world's end, speaking of S. Peter's successor: 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 haven of communion or society. Ep. 16. c. 3. [2] And whereas the Heretics by this also would prove that Peter had no preeminence above Paul being his fellow Apostle, it is ridiculous. As though all of one fellowship or brotherhood be always equal, or as though there were not order and government, superiority and inferiority, in every society well appointed. And they might perceive by this whole passage, that Peter was the special and in more singular sort, the Apostle of the Jews, though James and John were also: as S. Paul is also called in more singular sort the Apostle and doctor of the Gentiles than S. Barnabas, and yet they were both alike taken here into this society, as they were both at once and alike segregated into this ministry, and ordered together Act. 13. It is a poor reason then to say or think, S. Peter not to be above S. Barnabas neither, because of this society and fellowship unto which he was received together with S. Paul.
- 1 All Catholic preachers and Pastors must communicate with Peter & his successors.
- 2 The heretics' ridiculous argument against Peter's preeminence.
Galatians 2:11
I resisted him.
[1] Wicked Porphyrie (as S. Hierom writeth) chargeth S. Paul of envy and malapert boldness, and S. Peter of error. Prooem. Comment. in Galat. Even so the like impious sons 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 property of Heretics and ill men, to be glad to see the Saints reprehended and their faults discovered, as we may learn in the writings of S. Augustine against Faustus the Manichee, who gathered out all the acts of the holy Patriarchs, that might seem to the people to be worthy blame. [2] Whom the said holy doctor defendeth at large against him. as both he, and before him S. Cyprian, find here upon this Apostle's reprehension, much matter of praising both their virtues: S. Paul's great zeal, and S. Peter's wonderful humility: that the one in the cause of God would not spare his Superior, and that the other, in that excellent dignity, would not take it in ill part, nor by allegation of his Supremacy disdain or refuse to be controlled by his junior, 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 upon whom he built the Church, when Paul disputed with him of circumcision, challenged insolently or arrogantly took any thing to himself, saying that he had the Primacy, and therefore the later Disciples ought rather to obey him. ep. 71 ad Quintum. nu. 2. And S. Augustine ep. 19 c. 2 in fine. That (saith he) which was done of Paul profitably by the liberty of charity, the same Peter took in good part by holy and benign godliness of humility, and so he gave unto posterity a more rare and holy example, if at any time perhaps they did amiss, to be content to be corrected of their juniors, then Paul, to be bold and confident: yea the inferiors to resist their betters for defending the truth of the Gospel, brotherly charity always preserved. [3] By which notable speeches of the Doctors we may also see, how frivolously the Heretics argue hereupon, that S. Peter could not be Superior to S. Paul, being so reprehended of him: whereas the Fathers make it an example to the Superiors, to bear with humility the correption or controlment even of their inferiors. Namely by this example S. Augustine ( 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 Heretics, could not, nor would not have been offended to be admonished & reformed in that point by his fellows or inferiors, much less by a whole Councel. We have learned, saith he, that Peter the Apostle, in whom the Primacy of the Apostles by excellent grace is so preeminent, when he did otherwise concerning circumcision than the truth required, was corrected of Paul the later Apostle. I think (without any reproach unto him) Cyprian the Bishop may be compared to Peter the Apostle. howbeit I ought rather to fear lest I be injurious to Peter, for who knoweth not that the principality of Apostleship it to be preferred before any dignity of Bishop whatsoever? But if the grace of the Chairs or Sees differ, yet the glory of the Martyrs is one. [4] And who is so dull that cannot see, that the inferior, though not by office and jurisdiction, yet by the law of brotherly love and fraternal correption, may reprehend his superior? Did ever any man wonder that a good Priest or any virtuous person should tell the Pope, or any other great Prelate or greatest Prince in earth, their faults? Popes may be reprehended, and are justly admonished of their faults, and ought to take it in good part, and so they do and ever have done, when it cometh of zeal & love, as of S. Paul, Irenæus, Cyprian, Hierom, Augustine, Bernard: [5] but of Simon Magus, Novatus, Iulian, Wicleffe, Luther, Calvin, Beza, that do it of malice, & rail no less at their virtues than their vices, of such (I say) God's prelates must not be taught nor corrected, though they must patiently take it, as our Saviour did the like reproaches of the malicious Jews, and as David did the malediction of Semei. 2 Reg. 16.
- 1 The heretics maliciously derogate from S. Peter.
- 2 Paul's reprehension of Peter, teacheth us the zeal of the one, and humility of the other.
- 3 It proveth nothing against Peter's superiority, that he was reprehended.
- 4 The superior may be reprehended or admonished of the inferior.
- 5 Heretics' reprehension of Catholic Bishops is rather railing.
Reprehensible.
[1] The Heretics hereof again infer, that Peter then did err in Faith, and therefore the Popes may fail therein also. To which we answer, that howsoever other Popes may err in their private teachings or writings, whereof we have treated before in the Annotation upon these words, [2] That thy faith fail not: it is certain that S. Peter did not here fail in faith, nor err in doctrine or knowledge. for it was conversationis, non prædicationis vitium, as Tertullian saith. de præscript. nu. 7. It was a default in conversation, life, or regiment, which may be committed of any man, be he never so holy, and not in doctrine. S. Augustine and whosoever make most of it, think no otherwise of it. But S. Hierom and [3] many other holy fathers deem it to have been no fault at all, nor any other thing than S. Paul himself did upon the like occasion: & that this whole combat was a set thing agreed upon between them. It is a school point much debated betwixt S. Hierom and S. Augustine ep. 9. 11. 19. apud August.
- 1 S. Peter's error was not in faith, but in conversation or behaviour.
- 2 Luc. 22, 32.
- 3 * See S. Chrysost. Theophyl. &c.
Original Douay–Rheims Annotations — English College of Douai–Rheims. CC0 1.0
Galatians 2:2
Conferred with them.
[1] Though S. Paul were taught his Gospel of God and not of man, and had an extraordinary calling by Christ himself, yet by revelation he was sent to Hierusalem to confer the said Gospel which he preached, with his elders the ordinary Apostles and Rulers of the Church, to put both his vocation and doctrine to their trial and approbation, and to join in office, teaching, and society or communion with them. For there is no extraordinary or miraculous vocation, that can sever or separate the person so called, in doctrine or fellowship of Christian life and religion, from the ordinary known society of God's people and Priests. [2] Therefore whosoever he be (upon what pretence so ever) that will not have his calling and doctrine tried by the ordinary Governers of God's Church, or disdaineth to go up to the principal place of our religion, to confer with Peter and other pillars of the Church, it is evident that he is a false teacher, a Schismatic, and an Heretic. By which rule you may try all your new teachers of Luther's or Calvin's school: who never did nor ever durst put their preaching to such conference or trial of holy Councel or Bishops, as they ought to do, and would do, if it were of God, as S. Paul's was.
In vain.
[1] Though S. Paul doubted not of the truth of the Gospel which he preached, knowing it to be of the Holy Ghost: yet because other men could not, nor would not acknowledge so much, till it were allowed by such as were without all exception known to be Apostles & to have the spirit of truth, to discern whether the vocation, spirit, & Gospel of Paul were of God, he knew he should otherwise without conference with them, have lost his labour, both for the time past and to come. He had not had (saith S. Hierom) security of preaching the Gospel, if it had not been approved by Peter's sentence and the rest that were with him. Hiero. ep. 89. c. 2. See Tertul. li. 4 Cont. Marc. nu. 3. Therefore by revelation he went to confer with the Apostles at Hierusalem, that by them having his Apostleship and Gospel liked and approved, he might preach with more fruit. Wherein we see, this holy Apostle did not as the seditious proud Heretics do now a days, which refusing all man's attestation or approbation, will be tried by Scriptures only. [2] As also we may learn that it is no such absurdity as the Adversaries would make it, to have the Scriptures approved by the Church's testimony. Seeing the Gospel which S. Paul preached (being of as much certainty and of the same Holy Ghost that the Scriptures be) was to be put in conference and examination of the Apostles, without all derogation to the truth, dignity, or certainty of the same. And the cavilling of Heretics, that we make subject God's Oracles to man's censure, and the Scriptures to have no more force than the Church is content to grant unto them, is vain and false. [3] For, to bear witness or to give evidence or attestation that the preaching or writing of such, is true and of the Holy Ghost, is not to make it true: no more than the Goldsmith or touch-stone that try and discern which is true gold, make it good gold, but they give evidence to man that so it is. And therefore that disputation also, whether the Scripture or the Church be of greater authority, is superfluous: either giving testimony to the other, and both assured by the Holy Ghost from all error: [4] the Church yet being before the Scriptures, the spouse of Christ, and proper dwelling, temple, or subject of God and his graces: for the which Church the Scriptures were, and not the Church for the Scriptures. In which Church there is judicial authority by office and jurisdiction to determine of doubtful questions touching the sense of the Scriptures and other controversies in religion, & to punish disobedient persons. Of which judicial power the Scriptures be not capable, as neither the truths & determinations of the same can be so evident to men, nor so agreeable and fit for every particular resolution, as diversity of times and persons requireth. Certain is the truth, and great is the authority of both: but in such diverse kinds, as they cannot be well compared together. The controversy is much like as if a man touching the ruling a case in law or giving sentence in a matter of question, should ask, whether the judge, or the evidence of the parties, be of more authority or credit. which were as frivolous a dispute, as it were a disordered part for any man to say, he would be tried by no other judge but by his own writings or evidences. With such triflers and seditious persons have we to do now a days in divinity, as were intolerable in any profane science or faculty in the world.