Therefore, he did this. For he also circumcised Timothy, who was born of a Jewish mother, because of the scandal of the Jews, willing, not coerced, so that through him he might show that he did not condemn those [practices] but did not impose them on the Gentiles as necessary for salvation. But after he circumcised Timothy with this indifference that I have often recommended and which I think you now appropriately understand, certain Jews, who did not lay down the old skin and therefore wanted to circumcise the Gentiles, said that without those sacraments salvation could not be for them. Hence also a heresy arose: for even today there are some who believe in Christ and circumcise their sons, believing that without those sacraments they cannot have salvation. When, therefore, through this indifference of devotion, not of necessity, he had circumcised Timothy, as I said, some of them, placing salvation in those [practices], which displeased Paul, for which he rebuked Peter, began to boast to deceive others, that Paul also holds this. They said: "What we say, he also believes, that without these sacraments there can be no salvation. For if he does not believe this, why did he circumcise Timothy?" When Paul heard this, who had done this out of freedom, not necessity, because of the scandal of the Jews, not for the salvation of Timothy, he saw that they had taken occasion for different preaching and for raising a bad suspicion against Paul, and he did not want to circumcise Titus. It appears, however, why he wanted the one, why he did not want the other. He wanted the one because of the scandal of the Jews, he did not want the other because of the occasions of those who wrongly believed.
The truth was vigorously defended by Paul.
And see how he clearly and evidently commends this in his letter. "But neither Titus," he says, "though he was a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised like Timothy." And as if it were said to him: "Why was Titus not compelled to be circumcised, when Timothy, who was similarly a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised?" Why? Do you want to hear? Because of the false brothers secretly brought in who had slipped in to spy on our freedom. In the circumcision of Timothy, therefore, there was no necessity, but freedom; in Peter, however, necessity was reproved, not freedom. "Because of the false brothers," he says, "who had slipped in to spy on our freedom, so that they might bring us into slavery." "They," he says, "wanted to bring us into slavery by making freedom a necessity, to whom we did not yield submission even for a moment." Why? "So that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you." What is the truth of the Gospel? That the Jew should not be forbidden at that time, and the Gentile should not be compelled; the sacraments of the Jews should not be condemned by the Jews nor imposed on the Gentiles. What is the truth of the Gospel? That one can reach salvation through Christ without those sacraments. This they denied, to which Peter hypocritically consented. Hence it is added: "Other Jews acted hypocritically with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy." But when I saw, he said, that they were not acting in line with the truth of the Gospel, as he said there: "So that the truth of the Gospel might remain with you." You hear the truth commended everywhere, and you suspect deception everywhere, even among the apostles. He saw therefore that they were not acting in line with the truth. He saw moreover that the Gentiles thought those sacraments were necessary for their salvation. This is not the truth of the Gospel. These are no longer necessary for salvation: perhaps they were once necessary when they foreshadowed Christ to come. The petrine knife was necessary once, before the rock itself came.
Great in Paul is confidence, great in Peter is patience.
When I saw, he said, that they were not walking rightly according to the truth of the Gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all: I said to Peter: Paul to Peter, the lesser to the greater, the follower to the predecessor; and I spoke both to Peter and in front of them all: great confidence, but great his patience. Since you have made them attentive, let us hear what you, Paul, said to Peter, and where. Let us understand what you did, what you arranged, since you never wanted to be deceitful. I said, he said, to Peter in front of them all: "If you, being a Jew"—what does "being a Jew" mean? To whom it was allowed to observe those things indifferently—"live like a Gentile and not like a Jew"—since before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles—"if you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew," he ought to have continued and said: "How do you now keep Jewish practices?" He did not say this, but where he was reprehensible, from where these matters were stirred, from where he was zealous for God, attempting to remove the obstacle from the Gospel, he said this confidently, he said this in front of them all: "If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile, how do you compel the Gentiles to Judaize?" "You compel," he said, "to Judaize." I have already said how, by agreeing with those who said that the Gentiles could not otherwise be saved, "you compel the Gentiles to Judaize." Paul did not do this when he undertook purifications with certain people; he did not compel the Gentiles to Judaize when he circumcised Timothy according to that indifference, because both circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing; he did not compel the Gentiles to Judaize. And lest he be believed to compel them, he did not circumcise Titus; Paul did not compel the Gentiles to Judaize. He himself did not do this, and therefore he rightly reprimanded Peter because he himself did not do it.
If Paul wrote something false in the letter, what truth will be retained?
But I will propose that he did this, even though it is not found or proven; I do not say this according to myself, but according to some, so that I may say for the moment, let us think that Paul did what Peter did, and that Paul criticized Peter for the same thing he himself had done: they would have been more easily corrected than allowing the detestable moth, that is the lie or suspicion of a lie, as a malignant worm to gnaw at every letter of Scripture, feared lest it persuade us that Paul lied in his canonical epistle, which he commended to the Church propagated by posterity. I ask you: fear this evil; let us all fear, lest we all later weep in vain. This is not a light evil: I warn you, fearing to frighten. Forgive my concern: we speak to you more rarely than you wish. They whisper to those who find your ears ready whenever they want - we are not permitted to speak often and from this place -, I do not say they malign in their minds, I do not do them injury, but beware of the erring, and deal with them in such a way that they themselves might rather be corrected, not that you be corrupted by them. For when they say to you: "Peter did this in pretense, Paul criticized him in pretense; Paul did not write the truth in his epistle that Peter was to be blamed; Paul did not write the truth in his epistle that he saw them not walking uprightly toward the truth of the Gospel; Paul did not write the truth in his epistle that Peter compelled the Gentiles to live as Jews, but everything was done in pretense," what truth will we hold, what page will we not suspect of lying?
In divine Scripture, feigned speech is not admitted.
Behold, humans, we are oppressed by the most evident authority, and scarcely do we yield to the thundering and flashing truth! Where shall we go? What shall we do when perhaps I say to someone: "It is good to marry, but it is better not to marry, as the Apostle Paul wrote," if the condemner of marriage says to me: "Paul indeed condemned marriage, but he wrote this dissimulatingly, because the truth itself could not be endured by the weak; since continence is imposed laboriously, therefore he said: It is good to marry, for he knew it was bad to marry"? How do you prove that Paul was lying when he said: He who gives in marriage does well? "How do I prove it?" he says: "how he lied when he said: When I saw that they were not walking correctly toward the truth of the Gospel - for Peter was not walking correctly toward the truth of the Gospel -; how I said to Peter in the presence of all: If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how do you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews? - for Peter was not truly compelling the Gentiles to live like Jews. Just as Paul dissembled these things, so also, when he saw that the excellence of virginity could not be endured by carnal men, he said: He who gives in marriage does well. He was doing one thing, pretending another." If these things are so, where shall we go? What oracles shall we inquire? For the divine words in the canonical scriptures should be commanded to us as oracles indeed are. Is deceit to be feared there, where truth is found, where truth is presumed? I beseech you: foresee this little worm, to beware of it; do not admit it to the chamber of your heart. If you admit it, unless you quickly shake off the garments, you will find nothing whole there.
On the Divine Authority of the Scriptures.
I said what I thought with great concern needed to be said; I retained your love for a long time, your concern held me for a long time. Everything written in the holy canonical books, we who debate and write books, write far differently, we write by making progress, we learn daily, we dictate by investigating, we speak by knocking. Certainly, I do not rest, as much as I can, wherever I can be useful to the brothers, both by speaking and by writing. I advise your love, from me, unto me, not to want to regard any book or debate of anyone as canonical Scripture. In the holy Scriptures, we learn to judge; in our writings, we do not disdain to be judged. Indeed, it is to be chosen and this rather ought to be desired from two options, that either by writing or by speaking we may speak the truth, that we may never err. But since fulfilling this is difficult, therefore the canon has another foundation, like the heaven where the luminaries of the Scriptures are placed, as between the waters and the waters, between the peoples of the angels and the peoples of men: those above, these below. Let us hold the Scripture as Scripture, as God speaking; let us not seek a wandering man there. For the canon was not vainly instituted in the Church: this is the office of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, if anyone reads my book, let him judge me: if I have said something reasonable, let him follow not me, but the reason itself; if I have proven this by the most evident and divine testimony, let him follow not me, but the divine Scripture. If, however, one wants to criticize something I have correctly said, he does not do rightly, but I am more irritated by such a praiser of mine who takes my book as if it were canonical, than by him who criticizes things in my book that should not be criticized. I ask you: although I see you are attentive and almost very recent, as if you have just begun to hear, yet I do not want to say anything more, so that you may strongly hold on to what I said last. Turned to the Lord, etc.