most amply authenticated.

It is not so with the system of Romanism; as nothing can be weaker than
the historical basis on which it rests. The New Testament demonstrates
that Peter was _not_ the Prince of the Apostles; for it records the
rebuke which our Lord delivered to the Twelve when they strove among
themselves "which of them should be accounted the greatest." [329:1] It
also supplies evidence that neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church of
Rome; as, before that Church had been visited by the Apostle of the
Gentiles, its faith was "spoken of throughout the whole world;" [329:2]
and the apostle of the circumcision was meanwhile labouring in another
part of the Empire. [330:1] When writing to the Romans in A.D. 57, Paul
greets many members of the Church, and mentions the names of a great
variety of individuals; [330:2] but, throughout his long epistle, Peter
is not once noticed. Had he been connected with that Christian
community, he would, beyond doubt, have been prominently recognised.

There is, indeed, a sense in which Peter may, perhaps, be said to have
founded the great Church of the West; for it is possible that some of
the "strangers of Rome," [330:3] who heard his celebrated sermon on the
day of Pentecost, were then converted by his ministry; and it may be
that these converts, on their return home, proceeded to disseminate the
truth, and to organize a Christian society, in the chief city of the
Empire. This, however, is mere matter of conjecture; and it is now
useless to speculate upon the subject; as, in the absence of historical
materials to furnish us with information, the question must remain
involved in impenetrable mystery. It is certain that the Roman Church
was established long before it was visited by an apostle; and it is
equally clear that its members were distinguished, at an early period,
by their Christian excellence. When Paul was prisoner for the first time