because he was to be blamed;" Gal. 2:11; and that he severely and
publicly reprehended him, because "he constrained the Gentiles to be
circumcised;" by seeing how the common disciples of the church of
Jerusalem made no scruple of reproving Peter, because "he went in
unto men uncircumcised, and did eat with them," Acts, 11:3; how they
required from him an explanation of his conduct, and how the apostle
hastened to justify himself, by relating to them exactly how the thing
had happened. Finally, by observing that "when the apostles which were
at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, _they
sent_ unto them Peter and John." Acts, 8:14.

"There can be no doubt," thought I, as I perused and re-perused all
these testimonies, "that Peter was in every respect equal to the other
apostles; that he had no superiority nor jurisdiction over them. Had
he been, had he thought himself, or had others thought him, the prince
of the apostles and sovereign pastor of the church, would he have
called himself an elder like unto the other elders? Is it possible
that St. Paul would have declared himself to be 'not a whit behind
him;' that he would have 'withstood him to his face,' and blamed him
publicly? Is it probable that mere believers, common members of the
church, should have ventured to dispute with him, to require an
explanation of his conduct, or that he should have thought it
necessary to satisfy them by giving one?[6] Is it likely that he would
have been sent by the other apostles, or have received their orders,
when it would have been his part, had he been their chief, to command
and to send them?"

[Footnote 6: The popes, his pretended successors, have not been so
obliging; they have been always solicitous to make their authority
felt.]