tures has relieved me of uncertainty by giving me limits. I am not to speak to you of the Roman claim of supremacy, or absolute and infallible authority over all Christianity. That is indeed the form which the claim now takes; but others will speak to you of that, of its character, its growth, its present audacity; and will show you, I am sure, its real hollowness. But before the claim to supremacy went a claim to the Primacy; and the two things are very different. St. Peter may have been first of Apostles, chief, first on the roll, first in honor, first as by his own impetuousness and their yielding to it, to be the spokesman for the rest; and yet have, as it can be clearly shown, not the least degree of authority over them, nor any distinctness of office.

When the Ambassadors from foreign nations meet in Washington on some state occasion, that one who has been longest in residence, from whatever nation he may be, great or small, always has the precedence of place and honor. In our own House of Bishops, among the officers of the army and of the navy, and in all like relations, there are those who by courtesy, by custom, by general consent, sometimes expressed by rules of order, hold priority in honor over others, without any official difference or any authority whatever over the equals whom they thus precede. One may be "primus inter pares." So leaving the question of

supremacy to those who may speak to you afterwards, the question of Primacy, as related to St. Peter and the See of Rome is to be in our thoughts now.

Immediately the subject seems to take shape in several questions. Was nere an absolute uniformity and equality in all the relations of the Twelve among themselves? Or were there some distinctions of place, honor and work? What was the position of St. Peter among the Twelve? If any peculiarity is noted, was it personal, dependent upon his personal characteristics or special circumstances? Or was it in any way official? Was it permanent throughout his history as recorded in the New Testament, or does it seem to pass away? Is there any proof that Primacy of any kind was ordained by our Lord? Any evidence that it was exercised? Did St. Peter ever claim it? Did the others ever acknowledge it? How did the early Christian writers think upon these points?

And passing now to the second part of our subject, its relation to the See of Rome, the questions arise: Is it certain that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome? If so, in what years? If he had any Primacy, is there any evidence that it was to pass by succession? Could he transmit it? Did he transmit it? Did the See of Rome have and exercise any Primacy from the first? If so, was it

acknowledged from the first as by our Lord's command, and as transmitted by St. Peter? Or was it as growing out of other special relations and conditions? And for all these questions, Holy Scripture, history and the words of the early Fathers must be our evidence.

But I am not going to try your patience by following out all these questions minutely. Those who wish to do so will find most helpful guides in the works of Littledale, Gore and Puller, of our own day, and of Barrow and other mighty masters of older English theology. I give them here as suggesting the outline or direction of thought which will govern what I have to say. Some of them I may ask you to look at carefully; for some I must ask your acceptance of conclusions most fully proved by the writers before named.

You will observe that the subject, as I have outlined it in questions, seems to suggest a historical method of treatment; and without binding myself to keep absolutely to historical order, I think it will be most helpful to keep it in view.

First of all, the Twelve were not upon the same absolute level in every respect. There was an order in their choosing and appointment; there was order and there was distinction in the way in which they were paired together. There were differences in our Lord's treatment of them individually, as when, on more than one

occasion, He chose the same three to be with Him for some special act and incident. There were sometimes designations for special duty, and we may be sure that our Lord did not make such designations at random. Judas was named to be purse-bearer or treasurer. Perhaps that very eagerness for having and keeping money, which grew into his awful sin, may have suggested the designation. For some reason in St. Philip's character, the Lord made him spokesman for the Twelve and their representative when He fed the multitude. For some like reason St. Philip was spokesman again when he said, "Lord, show us the Father and it sufficeth us"; and again he seemed conspicuous when certain Greeks sought to see the Lord. For certain peculiarities, St. Thomas was sometimes, and once unhappily, prominent. For some noble qualities our Lord singled out St. John for His very highest marks of affection and confidence; and in like manner there were instances in which St. Peter comes into prominence, and he, too, sometimes unhappily. When the list of the Twelve is given by three of the Gospel writers, the first name is that of Peter; and St. Matthew begins by saying distinctly, "The first, Simon, which is called Peter"; though the others simply name him. And why first? Naturally and simply, it might be, because he was the first called to apostleship in order of time.

This has been disputed, and it has been claimed that St. Andrew was the first called. True, St. Andrew was first called as a disciple; but there were many disciples who were not Apostles. And when the call came out of discipleship into apostleship, St. Peter was the one first called. "Peter and Andrew and James and John" were already disciples and followers when the Lord came to them at their nets, and said, "I will make you fishers of men"; and in that preliminary call St. Peter is the first named. And it was some time after that, when the more formal and solemn setting apart of the full company was made after the night of preparatory prayer, and again St. Peter was first appointed in order of time. But there is not, there or elsewhere, the slightest indication that in our Lord's purpose, or by His act or word, any distinction of office or any shade of difference in authority was made between St. Peter and the rest of the Apostolic company. Not an act nor a word to give him any power over them. They were all called and appointed to the very same office, on the same occasion, and with the very same words. Why, then, should our Lord choose and name him first in order? It may be possible, without claiming any strong assurance, to think that our Lord, who read men's hearts and knew what was in man, saw in that first-called Apostle the qualities which would make him prominent