may be brought forward to throw light on the ground of Peter's rank, as first of the apostles. It is no more than fair to remark, however, that some points of this inquiry have been very deeply, and at the same time, very unnecessarily involved in the disputes between Protestants and Papists, respecting the original supremacy of the church of Rome, as supposed to have been founded or ruled by this chief apostle.
Of the many suppositions which might be made to account for Peter's priority of station on the apostolic list, it may be enough to notice the following: That he was by birth the oldest of the twelve. This assertion, however boldly made by some, rests entirely on conjecture, as we have no certain information on this point, either from the New Testament or any ancient writer of indisputable credit. Those of the early Christian writers who allude to this matter, are quite contradictory in their statements, some supposing Peter to be the oldest of the apostles, and some supposing Andrew to be older than his brother;—a discrepancy that may well entitle us to conclude that they had no certain information about the matter. The weight of testimony, however, seems rather against the assertion that Peter was the oldest, inasmuch as the earliest writer who alludes at all to the subject, very decidedly pronounces Andrew to have been the older brother. Enough, then, is known, to prevent our relying on his seniority as the true ground of his precedence. Still this point must be considered as entirely doubtful; so doubtful that it cannot be considered as proof, in the argument.
The oldest Christian writer, who refers in any way to the comparative age of Peter,
is Epiphanius, bishop of Cyprus, as early as A. D. 368. In his great work against
heresies, (book ii. vol. 1, heresy 51,) in narrating the call of Andrew and Peter, he
says, "The meeting (with Jesus) happened first to Andrew, Peter being less than
him in age," ([Greek: mikroterou ontos tô chronô tês hêlikias].) "But afterwards, when their
complete forsaking of all earthly things is mentioned, Peter takes precedence, since
God, who sees the turn of all characters, and knows who is fit for the highest
places, chose Peter as the chief leader ([Greek: archêgon]) of his disciples." This, certainly,
is a very distinct assertion of Peter's juniority, and is plainly meant to give the idea
that Peter's high rank among the apostles was due to a superiority of talent, which
put him above those who were older.
In favor of the assertion that Peter was older than Andrew, the earliest authority that has ever been cited, is John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, about A. D. 400. This Father, in his homily on Matthew xvii. 27, (Hom. 59,) says that Peter was a "first-born son," ([Greek: prôtotokos].) In this passage, he is speaking of the tribute paid by Jesus and Peter for the expenses of the temple. He supposes that this tribute was the redemption-money due from the first-born sons of the Jews, for their exemption from the duties of the priesthood. But the account of this tax, in Numbers iii. 44-51, shows that this was a tax of five shekels apiece, while that spoken of by Matthew, is called the didrachmon, a Greek coin equivalent to a half-shekel. Now the half-shekel tax was that paid by every Jew above the age of twenty years, for the expenses of the temple service, as is fully described in Exodus xxx. 12-16; xxxviii. 26. Josephus also mentions this half-shekel tax, as due from every Jew,
