ed that the destruction of the chief shepherd would involve
the dispersion of the whole flock; therefore they redoubled their fury
against the Prince of the Apostles, just as her modern enemies concentrate
their shafts against the Pope, his successor. Does not this incident
eloquently proclaim Peter's superior authority? In fact Peter figures so
conspicuously in every page that his Primacy is not only admissible, but
is forced on the judgment of the impartial reader.

What are the principal objections advanced against the Primacy of Peter?
They are chiefly, I may say exclusively, confined to the three following:
First--That our Lord rebuked Peter. Second--That St. Paul criticised his
conduct on a point not affecting doctrine, but discipline. The Apostle of
the Gentiles blames St. Peter because he withdrew for a time from the
society of the Gentile converts, for fear of scandalizing the
newly-converted Jews.(166) Third--That the supremacy of Peter conflicts
with the supreme dominion of Christ.

For my part I cannot see how these objections can invalidate the claims of
Peter. Was not Jesus Peter's superior? May not a superior rebuke his
servant without infringing on the servant's prerogatives?

And why could not St. Paul censure the conduct of St. Peter without
questioning that superior's authority? It is not a very uncommon thing for
ecclesiastics occupying an inferior position in the Church to admonish
even the Pope. St. Bernard, though only a monk, wrote a work in which,
with Apostolic freedom, he administers counsel to Pope Eugenius III., and
cautions him against the dangers to which his eminent position exposes
him. Yet no man had more reverence for any Pope than Bernard had for this
great Pontiff. Cannot our Governor animadvert upon the President's conduct
without impairing the President's jurisdiction?

Nay, from this very circumstance, I draw a confirming evidence of Peter's
supremacy. St. Paul mentions it as a fact worthy of record that he
actually _withstood Peter to his face_. Do you think it would be worth
recording if Paul had rebuked James or John or Barnabas? By no means. If
one brother rebukes another, the matter excites no special attention. But
if a son rebukes his father, or if a Priest rebukes his Bishop to his
face, we understand why he would consider it a fact worth relating. Hence,
when St. Paul goes to the trouble of telling us that he took exception to
Peter's conduct, he mentions it as an extra