preaching at Jerusalem, changed his course at Antioch, his conduct would have appeared to those Jews to proceed from fear of Paul, and his disciples would have condemned his excess of pliancy. And this would have created no small offence; but in Paul, who was well acquainted with all the facts, his withdrawal would have raised no such suspicion, as knowing the intention with which he acted. Wherefore Paul rebukes, and Peter submits, that when the master is blamed, yet keeps silence, the disciples may more readily come over. Without this occurrence Paul’s exhortation would have had little effect, but the occasion hereby afforded of delivering a severe reproof, impressed Peter’s disciples with a more lively fear. Had Peter disputed Paul’s sentence, he might justly have been blamed as upsetting the plan, but now that the one reproves and the other keeps silence, the Jewish party are filled with serious alarm; and this is why he used Peter so severely. Observe too Paul’s careful choice of expressions, whereby he points out to the discerning, that he uses them in pursuance of the plan, (οἰκονομίας) and not from anger. His words are, “When Cephas came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face, because he stood condemned;” that is, not by me but by others; had he himself condemned him, he would not have shrunk from saying so. And the words, “I resisted him to the face,” imply a scheme for had their discussion been real, they would not have rebuked each other in the presence of the disciples, for it would have been a great stumblingblock to them. But now this apparent contest was much to their advantage; as Paul had yielded to the Apostles at Jerusalem, so in turn they yield to him at Antioch. The cause of censure is this, “For before 71. Cyril. Alex. in Julian. ix. fin. Gregor. in Ezech. ii. Hom. 6, 9. Ambrosiast. in loc.) S. Austin is influenced in his judgment of the transaction by an anxiety lest disingenuousness and duplicity should receive countenance from the apparent example of an Apostle; S. Chrysostom and S. Jerome by affectionate reverence for the memory of so great a benefactor and so exalted a saint. Vid. Justinian, in loco. [In earlier life Chrysostom had himself practiced such a “scheme,” as that which he here attributes to Paul. In order to induce his friend Basil to be consecrated as a bishop he made on him the (false) impression that he himself had already been consecrated.] Neander (Life of Chrysostom p. 22.) says: “In the first book of his work on the Priesthood Chrysostom defends the principle that a falsehood is permitted for a good object. An invention which has for its sole object the ad- vantage of another is rather an οἰκονομία (the word he uses in expounding our passage.) This lax view respecting truth was not peculiar to Chrysostom but was consonant with the prevailing spirit of the Eastern Church. There were a few exceptions however to this view, among whom were John of Lycopolis in Egypt, and Basil of Cæsarea who says του κυρίον διαφορὰν ψεύδους οὐδεμαίν εκφήναντος. Schaff says (Prolegomena p. 8): “Origen, Jerome and Chrysostom explain the offense of this collision away by turning it into a theatrical and hypocritical farce, shrewdly arranged by the Apostle for a purpose. In this respect the modern standard of ethics is far superior to that of the Fathers and more fully accords with the spirit of the New Testament.” [We may add that Chrysostom’s view gains nothing; for to save one Apostle from the charge of unpremeditated hypocrisy, he makes both guilty of premeditated hypocrisy.—G.A.] 40 Galatians 2:1,2