But, clear as this is on the face of the narration itself, fresh light is shed on it by the fact that S. Chrysostome observed and recorded this very conclusion. For why did Peter alone arise? Why was he the first and the only one to speak? "Both[18] as fervent, and _as one entrusted by Christ with the flock_, and _as the first of the choir_, he ever first begins to speak." Why does he allege prophecy? First, that he might not seem with human counsel "to attempt a great matter, and one fitted for Christ:" next to imitate his Master, "he always reasons from the Scriptures." "Why did he not singly ask of Christ to give him some one in the place of Judas?" Because "Peter had now improved," and overcome his natural disposition. But "_might not Peter by himself have elected?_ Certainly: but he does not so, that he may not seem partial." "Why does he communicate this to them," the whole number of the names? "That the matter may not be contested, nor they fall into strife: for" (he alludes to the contention of the Apostles for the primacy,) "if this had happened to themselves, much more would it to the others," that is, the candidates to succeed Judas. Then he points out to our admiration "Peter doing this with common consent, nothing[19] with authority, nothing with lordship," where we must note that the _abuse_ of a power is only to be feared from one who really has that power. For again he says, "he first acts with[20] authority in the matter, _as having himself all put into his hands_, for to him Christ said, 'And thou in thy turn one day confirm thy brethren.'"