Passing now to the times covered by the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles, I am confident that it will appear on full study that a Primacy of forwardness and of accepted leadership, but not of superior authority in St. Peter, continues up to a certain definite point, and then absolutely disappears. That definite time is the placing and recognition of St. James (probably the son of Alpheus, commonly called "the Lord's brother ") in distinct official superiority, as Bishop of the Mother Church in Jerusalem. In all mention or acts of the eleven or twelve, up to that point, there is not the slightest trace of any recognition or thought of St. Peter's official superiority by the rest; there is no trace of his own assertion of it in word or act; there is no evidence there or elsewhere in Holy Scripture that he himself had any thought at all of any such official pre-eminence; and in all the after history others exercised in word and deed a power of government, of authority, of discipline, of organization and of authoritative teaching, far beyond anything that appears in Peter.

It is one of the difficulties of this subject that the study of it has been confined too much to the passages which especially name St. Peter or allude to him, or seem to bear upon his exercise of official power. And the texts for these things are not many. But there is another side. What is

said of the other Apostles? Of their official position? Of their claims to controlling authority; even to the very highest authority? What is said of the recognition and acceptance of these claims? And of their own decisive acts based upon them? The mere reading of these passages would go far beyond the time permissible for this lecture. And yet, if these passages, as I hope they may be, could be gathered, analyzed, arranged, systematized, so as to bring out in Scripture words the whole story of Apostolic authority and Apostolic action, I believe it would need no further argument to set aside completely any claim to an official or divinely-given Primacy for St. Peter.

Beginning with the first chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, where our Lord, not yet ascended, meets with and instructs His Apostles, there is not an atom of evidence that any idea of St. Peter's Primacy was in our Lord's thought. There is certainly the plainest evidence that nothing which the Lord said or did suggested thought of such Primacy to the rest of the Apostles. He does not single him out from the rest by the slightest token. He did not instruct St. Peter and bid him instruct the rest. "He gave

command unto the apostles whom he had chosen"; "Commanded them that they should not depart, etc." "They asked of him, Wilt thou, at this

"He answered

time restore the Kingdom?" them." "Ye shall receive power"; "Ye shall be witnesses." They are the Apostles in a body to whom He speaks. Let me here give you again and more fully the statement of the Roman Archbishop Kenrick: "Whilst our Lord was on earth, He alone was Head of the Church; and Peter, although he was leader, had no authority over his brethren. At that time his precedency was rather of order or rank than of jurisdiction and government; but it was wisely so ordained that he might be prepared for the high office to which he was to be elevated." Confessedly then, he was not "elevated to that high office" while our Lord was on earth. When was he "elevated to that high office"? Where are the words of our Lord, and where His acts? Where His declaration to the other Apostles or to the Church, after our Lord's Ascension? Surely on that great Day of Pentecost, when the Apostles "received power" as promised, if one of them received more power than the others, or was "elevated to a higher office," that divinely-given rule for the authentication of human ministries must come in. "No man taketh this honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." And we look in vain, where most of all it was needed, for the slightest word or act of divine declaration telling the

Apostolic band or the Church that one of their number was elevated to an office above the rest.

Let us look for evidence then in the record of Apostolic action up to the time when St. James appears as Bishop of Jerusalem and presides in their Councils. First, St. Peter presides in their meeting in the upper room, and as chairman suggests and takes order for their action. When in any board or authorized body there is a vacancy, it is the chairman who at the proper time announces it and declares the time come for filling it and bids them prepare their ballots. This is just what St. Peter does. He announces the vacancy left by Judas, declares the business next in order to be the filling of that vacancy, and tells them to choose the man. St. Peter does not choose two. The eleven choose them. Of these two, St Peter does not claim the present Papal power of selecting one, but the choice is left to be determined of God by lot. Then comes the Day of Pentecost. They were all filled with the Holy Ghost and spake with tongues. "Then Peter standing up with the eleven," i. e., clearly not alone and not as in authority, but as one of the now recompleted band of Twelve, took his familiar place as spokesman. And the thousands who heard so understood it. They saw both the leadership and the equality; and they said, not unto Peter alone, but to Peter and the rest of the

Apostles, "Men and brethren, what shall we do?" And when they were baptized, they continued "in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship."

I omit mention of miraculous acts, because all Apostles wrought miracles alike; but as the result of the miracle wrought by Peter and John together at the Temple Gate, they were arrested. Released by Annas and Caiaphas, they went at once to the assembled Apostles and made report to them. And they joined in a united prayer, lifting up their voice with one accord, and were all filled with the Holy Ghost. Barnabas in sincerity lays his money "at the apostles' feet." Ananias in hypocrisy does the same, and St. Peter, the forward spokesman up to this time, speaks his condemnation, as St. Paul did it with equal effectiveness upon Elymas the Sorcerer and upon the incestuous man at Corinth. "By the hands of the apostles were many signs and wonders wrought." The people, by reason of the conspicuous miracle at the Temple Gate and St. Peter's habitual forwardness, seem to look to him as eminent in working of miracles, and seek to lay their sick where his shadow can touch them; but the inspired writer of their acts knows no difference in miraculous power, and records more instances by others than by St. Peter. If St. Peter's shadow could be proof of Primacy and power, why not St. Paul's handkerchiefs?