Sed contra: quia hoc fuit post acceptam gratiam Spiritus Sancti; sed post gratiam Spiritus Sancti nullo modo peccaverunt apostoli. But it might be objected: this took place after they received the grace of the Holy Spirit; but after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin in any way. Respondeo. Dicendum quod post gratiam Spiritus Sancti nullo modo peccaverunt mortaliter apostoli, et hoc donum habuerunt per potentiam divinam, quae eos confirmaverat. Ps. LXXIV, 4: ego confirmavi columnas eius, et cetera. Peccaverunt tamen venialiter, et hoc fuit eis ex fragilitate humana. I Io. I, 8: si dixerimus, quia peccatum non habemus, scilicet veniale, ipsi nos seducimus, et cetera. I answer that after the grace of the Holy Spirit the apostles did not sin mortally, and this gift they had through the divine power that had strengthened them: I have established the pillars thereof (Ps 74:4). Yet they sinned venially because of human frailty: if we say that we have no sin, i.e., venial, we deceive ourselves (1 John 1:8). Quod vero dicitur in Glossa: restiti ei tamquam par, dicendum est quod Apostolus fuit pro Petro in executione auctoritatis, non in auctoritate regiminis. Concerning what is said in a certain Gloss, namely, that I withstood him as an adversary, the answer is that the Apostle opposed Peter in the exercise of authority, not in his authority of ruling. Ex praedictis ergo habemus exemplum: praelati quidem humilitatis, ut non dedignentur a minoribus et subditis corrigi; subditi vero exemplum zeli et libertatis, ut non vereantur praelatos corrigere, praesertim si crimen est publicum et in periculum multitudinis vergat. Therefore from the foregoing we have an example: to prelates, indeed, an example of humility, that they not disdain corrections from those who are lower and subject to them; to subjects, an example of zeal and freedom, that they fear not to correct their prelates, particularly if their crime is public and verges upon danger to the multitude. 78. Consequenter cum dicit priusquam venirent, etc., manifestat ea quae dixit. Et 78. Then when he says, for before some came, he manifests what he has said. primo hoc quod dixit eum reprehensibilem esse; First, that he said he was to be blamed; secundo vero hoc, quod dixit Petrum reprehendisse, ibi sed cum vidissem, et cetera. second, that he rebuked Peter, at but when I saw. Circa primum tria facit. As to the first he does three things. Primo ostendit quid Petrus sentiebat; First, he shows what Peter’s opinion was; secundo quid faciebat, ibi cum autem venisset, etc.; second, what he did, at but when Cephas had come; tertio quid inde sequebatur, ibi et simulationi eius, et cetera. third, what resulted from it, at and to his dissimulation. 79. Dicit ergo circa primum, quod Petrus sentiebat legalia non esse servanda. Et hoc facto ostendebat, quia priusquam venirent quidam, Iudaei scilicet zelantes pro legalibus, a Iacobo, Ierosolymitanae ecclesiae episcopo, edebat, scilicet Petrus, cum gentibus, id est, indifferenter utebatur cibis gentilium; et hoc faciebat ex instinctu Spiritus Sancti, qui dixerat ei quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, ut habetur Act. X, 15, ut ipse ibidem sequenti cap. dixit Iudaeis, qui contra eum insurrexerunt, quia cum incircumcisis comedisset, quasi rationem reddens. 79. He says therefore, as to the first point, that Peter felt that legalism ought not be observed. This he showed by the fact that before some came, namely, Jews zealous for the law, from James, bishop of the church at Jerusalem, he ate, namely, Peter did, with the gentiles, i.e., without compunction he ate the food of gentiles. He did this through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit who had said to him: that which God has cleansed, do not call common (Acts 10:15), and as he himself in the following chapter said in answer to the Jews who rose up against him, because he had eaten with the uncircumcised. 80. Quid autem faciebat, ostendit hic Paulus dicens, quod cum erat cum Iudaeis, subtrahebat se a consortio fidelium qui fuerant ex gentibus, adhaerens Iudaeis tantum, et congregans se cum eis. 80. What Peter did Paul now shows, saying that when he was with the Jews, he withdrew from the company of the faithful who had been converted from the gentiles and adhered to the Jews alone and mingled among them. Et ideo dicit cum autem venisset, scilicet a Iudaea, subtrahebat se Petrus a gentibus conversis, et segregabat se ab eis. Et hoc ideo, quia erat timens eos, qui ex circumcisione erant, id est, Iudaeos, non quidem timore humano sive mundano, sed timore caritatis, ne scilicet scandalizarentur, sicut dicitur in Glossa. Et ideo factus est Iudaeis tamquam Iudaeus, simulans se cum infirmis idem sentire; sed tamen inordinate timebat, quia veritas numquam dimittenda est propter timorem scandali. Therefore he says, but when they had come, namely, from Judea, Peter withdrew from the converted gentiles and separated himself from them. This he did because he was fearing them who were of the circumcision, i.e., the Jews, not with a human or worldly fear but a fear inspired by charity, namely, lest they be scandalized, as is said in a Gloss. Hence he became to the Jews as a Jew, pretending that he felt the same as they did in their weakness. Yet he feared unreasonably, because the truth must never be set aside through fear of scandal. 81. Quid autem ex hac simulatione sequebatur, subdit dicens, quod simulationi eius, scilicet Petri, consenserunt caeteri Iudaei, qui erant Antiochiae discernentes cibos, et segregantes se a gentibus, cum tamen ante simulationem huiusmodi hoc non fecissent. 81. What resulted from this dissimulation he mentions when he says that to his dissimulation, i.e., Peter’s, the rest of the Jews consented who were at Antioch, discriminating between food and separating themselves from the gentiles, although prior to this act of dissimulation they would not have done this. Et non solum illi consenserunt Petro, sed ita fuit illa simulatio in cordibus fidelium, ut etiam Barnabas, qui mecum erat doctor gentium, et contrarium fecerat et docuerat, duceretur ab eis in illam simulationem, subtrahens se ab eis, scilicet gentibus. Et hoc ideo, quia, secundum quod dicitur Eccli. X, v. 2: qualis est rector civitatis, et cetera. Et ibidem: secundum iudicem populi, et cetera. And not only did they consent to Peter, but such was the effect of that dissimulation upon the hearts of the faithful that Barnabas also, who along with me was a teacher of the gentiles and had done and taught the contrary, was led by them into that dissimulation and withdrew from them, namely, from the gentiles. And this on account of what is said: what manner of man the ruler of a city is, such also are they that dwell therein, and, as the judge of the people is himself, so also are his ministers (Sir 10:2). 82. Consequenter cum dicit sed cum vidissem, etc., manifestat ea quae dixerat de reprehensione sua, qua Petrum reprehendit. 82. Then when he says, but, when I saw, he explains what he had said concerning the rebuke with which he rebuked Peter. Et circa hoc tria facit. As to this he does three things. Primo ponit causam reprehensionis; First, he gives the reason for the rebuke; secundo reprehendendi modum; second, the manner of rebuking; tertio reprehensionis verba. third, the words of the rebuke. 83. Occasio autem reprehensionis est non levis, sed iusta et utilis, scilicet periculum Evangelicae veritatis. Et ideo dicit: sic Petrus reprehensibilis erat, sed ego solus, cum vidissem quod non recte ambularent illi qui sic faciebant ad veritatem Evangelii, quia per hoc peribat veritas, si cogerentur gentes servare legalia, ut infra patebit. 83. The occasion of the rebuke was not slight, but just and useful, namely, the danger to the Gospel teaching. Hence he says: thus was Peter reprehensible, but I alone, when I saw that they, who were doing these things, did not walk uprightly unto the truth of the Gospel, because its truth was being undone, if the gentiles were compelled to observe the legal justifications, as will be plain below. Quod autem recte non ambularent, ideo est quia veritas, maxime ubi periculum imminet, debet publice praedicari, nec fieri contrarium propter scandalum aliquorum. Matth. X, 27: quod dico vobis in tenebris, dicite in lumine. Is. XXVI, 7: semita iusti recta est, rectus callis iusti ad ambulandum. That, they were not walking uprightly is so, because in cases where danger is imminent, the truth must be preached openly and the opposite never condoned through fear of scandalizing others: that which I tell you in the dark, speak in the light (Matt 10:27); the way of the just is right: the path of the just is right to walk in (Isa 26:7). 84. Modus autem reprehendendi fuit conveniens, quia publicus et manifestus. Unde dicit dixi Cephae, id est, Petro, coram omnibus, quia simulatio illa in periculum omnium erat. Tim. V, 20: peccantem coram omnibus argue. Quod intelligendum est de peccatis manifestis, et non de occultis, in quibus debet servari ordo fraternae correctionis. 84. The manner of the rebuke was fitting, i.e., public and plain. Hence he says, I said to Cephas, i.e., to Peter, before them all, because that dissimulation posed a danger to all: them that sin, reprove before all (1 Tim 5:20). This is to be understood of public sins and not of private ones, in which the procedures of fraternal charity ought to be observed. 85. Cuiusmodi autem verba Apostolus dixerit Petro, cum eum reprehenderet, subdit dicens si tu Iudaeus cum sis, etc., quasi dicat: o Petre, si tu cum Iudaeus sis, natione et genere, gentiliter et non Iudaice vivis, id est, gentium et non Iudaeorum ritum servas, cum scias et sentias discretionem ciborum nihil conferre, quomodo cogis gentes, non quidem imperio, sed tuae conversationis exemplo, iudaizare? 85. The words the Apostle spoke to Peter when he rebuked him, he adds, saying, if you, being a Jew, by nature and race, live after the manner of the gentiles and not as the Jews do, i.e., if you observe the customs of gentiles and not of Jews, since you know and feel that discriminating among foods is of no importance, how do you compel the gentiles, not indeed by command, but by example of your behavior, to live as the Jews do? Et dicit cogis, quia secundum quod Leo Papa dicit validiora sunt exempla quam verba. In hoc ergo Paulus reprehendit Petrum, quod cum ipse esset instructus a Deo, cum Iudaice prius viveret, ne postea amplius cibos discerneret Act. X, 15: quod Deus sanctificavit, tu ne commune dixeris, ipse contrarium simulabat. He says, compel, because as Pope Leo says, example has more force than words. Hence Paul rebukes Peter precisely because he had been instructed by God that although he had previously lived as the Jews do, he should no longer discriminate among foods: that which God has cleansed, do not call common (Acts 10:15). But now Peter was dissembling the opposite. 86. Sciendum est autem quod occasione istorum verborum, non parva controversia est orta inter Hieronymum et Augustinum. Et secundum quod ex eorum verbis aperte colligitur, in quatuor discordare videntur. 86. It should be noted that these words occasioned no small controversy between Jerome and Augustine and, as their writings clearly show, they are seen to disagree on four points. Et primo in tempore legalium, quando scilicet servari debuerunt. Nam Hieronymus duo tempora distinguit, unum ante passionem Christi, aliud post passionem. Vult ergo Hieronymus quod legalia ante passionem Christi viva essent, id est, habentia virtutem suam, in quantum scilicet per circumcisionem tollebatur peccatum originale, et per sacrificia et hostias placabatur Deus. Sed post passionem non solum dicit ea non fuisse viva vel mortua, sed, quod plus est, ea fuisse mortifera, et quod quicumque post passionem Christi ea servavit, peccavit mortaliter. First, as to the time of the legal justifications, namely, when they should have been observed. For Jerome distinguishes two periods, one before the passion of Christ and one after. Jerome’s opinion is that the legal justifications were living before the passion of Christ, i.e., had validity, inasmuch as original sin was removed through circumcision, and God was pleased with sacrifices and victims. But after the passion they were, according to him, not only not living i.e., dead, but what is more, they were deadly, so that whoever observed them after the passion of Christ sinned mortally. Augustinus vero distinguit tria tempora. Unum tempus ante passionem Christi, et concordans cum Hieronymo, dicit, isto tempore legalia viva fuisse. Aliud tempus est post passionem Christi immediate, ante gratiam divulgatam (sicut tempus apostolorum in principio), in quo tempore dicit Augustinus legalia mortua fuisse, sed tamen non mortifera Iudaeis conversis, dummodo ipsa servantes, spem in eis non ponerent, ita quod etiam ipsi Iudaei ea servantes tunc non peccarent. Si vero in eis spem posuissent, quicumque conversi ea servantes, peccassent mortaliter, quia si posuissent in eis spem, quasi essent necessaria ad salutem, quantum in eis erat, evacuassent gratiam Christi. Aliud tempus dicit esse post veritatem et gratiam Christi divulgatam, et in isto tempore dicit ea mortua et mortifera omnibus ea servantibus. Augustine, on the other hand, distinguishes three periods. One period was before the passion of Christ and, in agreement with Jerome, he says that during that period the legal justifications were living. Another was the period immediately following the passion of Christ, before grace was promulgated (as the time of the apostles in the beginning); during this period, says Augustine, the legal justifications were dead but not yet deadly to the converted Jews, so long as the ones observing them placed no hope in them. Hence the Jews observed them during that period without sinning. But had they placed their trust in them when observing them after their conversion, they would have sinned mortally; because if they placed their trust in them so as to believe that they were necessary for salvation, then, as far as they were concerned, they would have been voiding the grace of Christ. Finally, he posits a third period, after the truth and grace of Christ had been proclaimed. It was during that period, he says, that they were both dead and deadly to all who observed them. Ratio autem dictorum est, quia si Iudaei statim post conversionem fuissent prohibiti ab observantiis legalium, visum fuisset eos pari passu ambulare cum idololatris, qui statim ab idolorum cultura prohibebantur, et legalia non fuisse bona, sicut nec idololatriam. Et ideo instinctu Spiritus Sancti permissum est, ut legalia modico tempore servarentur ea intentione quae dicta est, ut per hoc ostenderetur legalia tunc bona fuisse. Unde dicit Augustinus quod per hoc ostendebatur quod mater synagoga cum honore deducenda ad tumulum erat, dum non statim post passionem Christi legalia prohibita sunt. Quicumque vero non eo modo ipsa servaret, non honoraret matrem synagogam, sed eam extumularet. The reasoning that underlies these statements is that if the Jews had been forbidden the legal observances right after their conversion, it might have seemed that they had previously been on an equal footing with idolaters, who were immediately forbidden to worship idols, and that just as idolatry had never been good, so too the legal observances. Therefore, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the legal observances were condoned for a short time for the reason given, namely, to show that the legal observances had been good in the past. Hence, says Augustine, the fact that the legal justifications were not forbidden right after the passion of Christ showed that the mother, the synagogue, was destined to be brought in honor to the grave. But whoever did not observe them in that manner would not be honoring the mother, the synagogue, but disturbing her grave. 87. Secundo discordant praedicti Hieronymus et Augustinus de observatione legalium quantum ad ipsos apostolos. 87. Second, the aforesaid Jerome and Augustine disagree on the observance of the legal justifications with respect to the apostles. Hieronymus enim dicit quod apostoli numquam secundum veritatem servabant legalia, sed simulaverunt se servare, ut vitarent scandalum fidelium qui fuerant ex circumcisione. Et hoc quidem modo dicit simulasse Paulum, quando persolvit votum in Templo Ierosolymitano, ut habetur Act. XXI, 26; et quando circumcidit Timotheum, ut habetur Act. XVI, v. 3; et quando a Iacobo monitus quaedam legalia suscepit, ut habetur Act. XV, 20. Et hoc quidem facientes non deludebant alios, quia faciebant hoc, non intendentes legalia servare, sed propter aliquas causas, sicut quod quiescebant in sabbato non propter observantiam legis, sed propter quietem. Item abstinebant ab immundis secundum legem, non propter observantiam legis, sed propter alias causas, utpote propter abominationem et aliquid huiusmodi. For Jerome says that the apostles never really observed them but pretended to do so, in order to avoid scandalizing the believers who had been of the circumcision. He says that even Paul made this pretense when he fulfilled a vow in the Temple at Jerusalem (Acts 21:26), and when he circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3), and when on advice from James he observed some of the justifications (Acts 15:20). But in so doing the apostles were not misleading the faithful, because they did not act with the intention of observing the justifications but for other reasons; for example, they rested on the sabbath, not because it was a legal observance, but for the sake of rest. Likewise, they abstained from food legally unclean, not for the sake of observing the legal justifications but for other reasons; for example, on account of an abhorrence or something of that nature. Augustinus vero dicit quod apostoli servabant ipsa legalia, et hoc intendentes, sed tamen non ponentes in eis spem, quasi essent necessaria ad salutem. Et hoc quidem licebat eis, quia fuerunt ex Iudaeis. Ita tamen quod haec servarent ante gratiam divulgatam; unde sicut eo tempore alii Iudaei conversi sine periculo servare poterant, absque eo quod in eis spem ponerent, ita et ipsi. But Augustine says that the apostles observed the legal justifications and intended to do so, but without putting their trust in them as though they were necessary for salvation. Furthermore, this was lawful for them to do, because they had been Jews. Nevertheless, they observed them before grace was proclaimed. Hence just as certain other Jews could safely observe them at that time without putting any trust in them, so too could the apostles. 88. Tertio discordant de peccato Petri. Nam Hieronymus dicit in simulatione praedicta Petrum non peccasse, quia hoc ex caritate fecit, et non ex aliquo timore mundano, ut dictum est. 88. Third, they disagree on the sin of Peter. For Jerome says that in the dissimulation previously mentioned, Peter did not sin, because he did this from charity and, as has been said, not from mundane fear. Augustinus vero dicit eum peccasse, venialiter tamen, et hoc propter indiscretionem quam habuit, nimis inhaerendo huic parti (scilicet Iudaeorum) ad vitandum eorum scandalum. Et validius argumentum Augustini contra Hieronymum est, quia Hieronymus adducit pro se septem doctores, quorum quatuor, scilicet Laudicensem, et Alexandrinum, Origenem et Didymum excludit Augustinus, utpote de haeresi infames. Aliis vero tribus opponit tres, quos pro se et pro sua opinione habet, scilicet Ambrosium, Cyprianum, et ipsum Paulum, qui manifeste dicit, quod reprehensibilis erat Petrus. Si ergo nefas est dicere in Scriptura Sacra aliquod falsum contineri, non erit fas dicere Petrum reprehensibilem non fuisse. Augustine, on the other hand, says, that he did sin, although venially, on account of the lack of discretion he had by adhering overmuch to one side, namely, to the Jews, in order to avoid scandalizing them. But the stronger of Augustine’s arguments against Jerome is that Jerome adduces on his own behalf seven doctors, four of whom, namely, Laudicens, Alexander, Origen, and Didymus, Augustine rejects as known heretics. To the other three he opposes three of his own, who held with him and his opinion, namely, Ambrose, Cyprian, and Paul himself, who plainly teaches that Peter was deserving of rebuke. Therefore, if it is unlawful to say that anything false is contained in Sacred Scripture, it will not be lawful to say that Peter was not deserving of rebuke. Et propter hoc verior est opinio et sententia Augustini, quia cum dictis Apostoli magis concordat. For this reason the opinion and statement of Augustine is the truer, because it is more in accord with the words of the Apostle.