To establish the Pope’s _claim_ of rightful successorship to St. Peter, we must obviously establish the FACT that _St. Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome_. For, since, so far as _foundership_ is concerned, St. Peter founded _many_ Churches: the mere circumstance, even if the circumstance were ever so well established, of his having _founded_ the Roman Church, would no more constitute _the Roman Bishop_ heir to his regalities, than the same circumstance would convey the same privilege to _the Bishop of any other Church_ similarly _founded_ by St. Peter. Whence it is quite clear: that, in no method, save that of _The regular succession of one diocesan Bishop to another diocesan Bishop in the same episcopal See_, _each Bishop inheriting the duly transmitted authority of his predecessor_, can any intelligible case be made out for the Pope’s alleged successorship to Peter in the pretended office of Christ’s supreme Vicar. Accordingly, as the Romish Clergy well know and confess, this precise matter is the very hinge, upon which turns the whole of the present question. WAS, OR WAS NOT, THE APOSTLE PETER THE FIRST DIOCESAN BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CHURCH? We have here before us a simple question of FACT: and doubtless, like every other simple question of FACT, it must be determined by historical testimony. 1. _Negatively_, then, we may safely say, that the alleged fact of _Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate_ is altogether incapable of substantiation through the medium of evidence. Not a single writer of the three first centuries gives the slightest intimation, that _Peter was the first diocesan Bishop of Rome_. But, if the alleged fact cannot be established from the writers of the three _earliest_ centuries; it is obvious to the meanest capacity, that it can never be established from the interested fictions of _a later_ period. 2. We may, however, advance beyond _negativeness_: though even _that_ were amply sufficient; for no man can be justly required to admit an alleged fact, without so much as a shadow of historical substantiation. _Positively_, we can say: that, in the writers of the three first ages, not only is there no testimony to be found _for_ the asserted fact of _Peter’s diocesan Roman Episcopate_, but we are absolutely encountered with direct testimony _against_ it.