evidence. There was a time when persons belonging to different creeds
made it almost a case of conscience to affirm or deny _a priori_ those
facts, according to their acceptance or rejection of the tradition of
any particular church. This state of feeling is a matter of the past, at
least for those who have followed the progress of recent discoveries and
of critical literature. There is no event of the Imperial age and of
Imperial Rome which is attested by so many noble structures, all of which
point to the same conclusion--the presence and execution of the apostles
in the capital of the Empire. When Constantine raised the monumental
basilicas over their tombs on the Via Cornelia and the Via Ostiensis;
when Eudoxia built the Church ad Vincula; when Damascus put a memorial
tablet in the Platonia and Catacombos; when the houses of Pudens and
Aquila and Prisca were turned into oratories; when the name of Nymphae
Sancti Petri was given to the springs in the catacombs of the Via
Nomentana; when the 29th of June was accepted as the anniversary of St.
Peter's execution; when sculptors, painters, medallists, goldsmiths,
workers in glass and enamel, and engravers of precious stones all began
to reproduce in Rome the likeness of the apostle at the beginning of the
second century, and continued to do so till the fall of the Empire--must
we consider them as laboring under a delusion, or conspiring in the
commission of a gigantic fraud? Why were such proceedings accepted
without protest from whatever city, whatever community--if there were
any other--which claimed to own the genuine tombs of SS. Peter and Paul?
These arguments gain more value from the fact that the evidence on the
other side is purely negative."

This is one of those practical arguments which are always more
interesting than those which depend upon theories and opinions. However,
there are many books on both sides of the question which may be
consulted. We are content to follow Signor Lanciani. The special sanctity