Having now stated the two sides of the question here still remains the duty of making the historical summary from the sources available, namely, both the canonical and apocryphal books of the New Testament, and the traditional evidence in the Church Fathers. The New Testament, as the most important source of information, reveals Peter's birthplace,[85:1] occupation,[85:2] marriage,[85:3] call by Jesus,[85:4] and elevation to apostleship.[85:5] It shows the conspicuous leadership of Peter in the apostolic college--indeed, a primacy which Jesus Himself recognised,--yet leaves the character of that primacy and the power to transfer it to a successor open to question. The New Testament evidence does not give any clue to Peter's movements after Paul's notice of him in Galatians ii. except the reference in 1 Peter, which naturally, but not literally, interpreted might indicate that he was in Rome (Babylon). It likewise affords very scanty grounds, therefore, for believing that Peter first established the Church in Rome, or that he was the first Bishop of Rome, or that he conferred his power upon a successor. Traditional evidence, on the contrary, is more favourable to Peter's presence in Rome. No one can possibly doubt that the Petrine theory was generally believed in western Christendom at least after the third century. Prior to the third century, there are many streams of testimony which converge in positive support of at least a portion of the Petrine theory: 1. The official lists and records of the Roman Church, some of which must rest upon earlier sources, accept the whole question as proved and recognised generally. 2. The transference of Peter's remains to a new resting place in 258 shows that the tradition was definite and unquestioned early in the third century. 3. The writings of Caius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian indicate that the theory was accepted in Asia, Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome at the same period. 4. A passage from Irenæus, who probably used the official documents in Rome and who may have known St. John and his companions, carries the legend back to the second century. 5. The testimony of Dionysius of Corinth (d. 165), Papias, and Ignatius (d. 114) carries the belief back through the second to the first century. 6. The clear testimony of Clement of Rome makes a connecting link at the close of the first century. Hence when the various pieces of evidence--the official sources, the monumental testimony, and the writings of the early Fathers,--which are independent and consistent, are combined they form a solid body of proof, which is practically irresistible, that Peter was in Rome. Likewise the absolute absence of any rival tradition from other cities adds greatly to the probability.