A commentary of M. I. Calvin upon the Epistle to the GalatiansA commentarie of M. I. Caluine vpon the Epistle to the Galathians

In this place one man, not rashly, not with an unlawful boldness, but according to the power and authority granted him of God, doth rebuke Peter before the whole Church: and Peter doth submit himself obediently to the rebuke. nay rather the whole disputation of these two Chapters, was nothing else then a manifest overthrowing of ⟨p. 37⟩that tyrannical supremacy, which the Romanists do babble to have been founded by the law of God. But if they will have god to be the author thereof, they must needs then forge a new scripture. And if they will not have him to their professed enemy: of necessity they must wipe out these two chapters out of the holy scripture. Because he was worthy of reprehension.) The greek Participle signifieth reprehensus, that is, reprehended, but I am out of doubt that it is put in stead of the Noun, for him that deserveth a just reprehension. for whereas Chrysostom doth interpret it thus, That that complaint and the accusation did arise of others, truly it is a cold or weak exposition. For it is often used of the Greeks, to give unto participles the signification of nouns, the which every man seeth to agree to this place. and hereof a man may readily gather, how unapt the exposition of Hierome and Chrysostom is, who thought the Apostles of a set match to have played this part or prank before the people. Neither do these two words [Greek or Hebrew] help them, which signify that Peter being reprehended to his face had never a word to answer. Whereas Chrysostom doth judge, that they, to avoid offence, would have talked together privately, if they had had any dissension, it is of no weight: for other small offences were little to be regarded in respect of this most pernicious offence, because the Church (by this) should be divided, because (by this) the Christian liberty was in hazard, because (by this) the grace of Christ was overwhelmed. openly therefore must this open or public sin be reprehended. The chiefest argument or reason whereto Hierome leaneth, is to be frivolous and vain. Why would Paul have condemned [saith he] in an other, that which he counteth praise worthy in himself? for he boasteth that to the Jews he was become a Jew, 1. Cor. 9.20. I answer, That Peter did far otherwise.

In this place one man, not rashly, not with an vnlawfull boldnes, but according to ye power and authoritie graunted him of God, doth rebuke Peter before the whole Church: and Peter doth submit himselfe obediently to the rebuke. nay rather the whole disputation of these two Chapters, was nothing else then a manifest ouerthrowing of