It should also be remarked that, whenever the Evangelists have occasion to mention _some_ of the Apostles, Peter being one, he is ever put first. Thus Matt., "He taketh unto Him Peter, and James, and John his brother;" and Mark, "He admitted not any man to follow Him, but Peter, and James, and John, the brother of James:" and "Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew asked Him apart:" and "He taketh Peter, and James, and John with Him:" and Luke, "He suffered not any man to go in with him, but Peter, and James, and John, and the father and mother of the maiden:" and "He sent Peter and John:" and John, "There were together Simon Peter, and Thomas, who is called Didymus, and Nathaniel, who was of Cana in Galilee, and the two sons of Zebedy, and two others of His disciples."[8] This rule would seem to be invariable, though James and John are not always mentioned next after him. An attempt has been made to evade the force of these testimonies, by giving as a reason for Peter being always thus named first, that he was the most aged of all the Apostles, and the first called. Even were it so, such reasons would seem most inadequate, but unfortunately they are neither of them facts. For as to age, antiquity bears witness that Andrew was Peter's elder brother. And as to their calling, S. Augustine has observed, "In what order all the twelve Apostles were called, does not appear in the narrations of the Evangelists, since not only not the order of the calling, but not even the calling itself of all is mentioned, but only of Philip, and Peter, and Andrew, and of the sons of Zebedy, and of Matthew, the publican, termed also Levi. But Peter was both the first and the only one who separately received a name from Him."[9] As it may be conjectured from the Gospels that Christ said to Philip first of all, "Follow Me," Joh. i. 44, he has the best right to be considered the first called. Now the two classes of facts just mentioned, as to the mode in which the Evangelists speak of Peter in combination with the other Apostles, prove directly and plainly his _Primacy_, while they do not _directly_ prove, save Matthew's title of _First_, nor are they here quoted to prove, the _nature_ of that Primacy, which rests, as we have seen, on other and more decisive texts.