And truly, if we examine narrowly into this matter, the former Tradition will appear no less groundless to us, than the latter did to that Pope: for, in the first place, neither St. Peter himself, nor any of the Sacred Writers, give us the least Hint or Intimation of his having ever been at Rome. We are told of his being at Antioch, at Jerusalem, at Corinth, at Babylon[[24]]; but of the great Metropolis of the Empire, where he is supposed to have fixed his See, not the least Mention is made. And may we not from that Silence question, to say no more, his having ever been there? I know that by Babylon, from whence St. Peter wrote his first Epistle[[25]], Eusebius,[[26]] Jerom[[27]], the Venerable Bede[[28]], Oecumenius[[29]], and Grotius[[30]], understood Rome; but this is a bare Conjecture, and no better grounded than that of others, who thought that by Babylon was meant Jerusalem[[31]]. The learned Doctor Pearson, Bishop of Chester, seeing no Occasion here to recur to a figurative Sense, is of Opinion, that the above-mentioned Epistle was written not from Babylon in Chaldæa, which then lay in Ruins, but from Babylon in Egypt; and no Man has taken more Pains to make the World believe, that St. Peter preached at Rome, and founded that See[[32]]. But, in this Controversy, the Silence of St. Paul in particular, if duly attended to, must be thought, by every unbiassed Man, a far more convincing Proof of St. Peter’s not having been at Rome, than all the Authorities that have been yet alleged, are of his having been there. |St. Paul, in the
many Letters he
wrote from Rome,
never mentions
St. Peter.| For that Apostle, while at Rome, had frequent Opportunities of mentioning his fellow Apostle, and fellow Labourer; and yet, naming several others, he is quite silent as to him. From Rome he wrote to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the Philippians, to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Philemon, without ever mentioning Peter, or sending any Salutation from him; nay, it is certain, that St. Peter was not at Rome when the Apostle of the Gentiles wrote to the Colossians; for, mentioning Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Marcus, and Justus, he adds, These alone, my Fellow-workers unto the Kingdom of God, who have been a Comfort unto me[[33]]. Peter was not there, when St. Paul wrote his second Epistle to Timothy, where he says, At my first Answer no Man stood with me, but all Men forsook me[[34]]: nor was he there immediately before St. Paul’s Death, when the Time of his Departure was at hand; for he tells Timothy, that all the Brethren did salute him; and, naming Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, and Claudia[[35]], he omits Peter, whom we may thence conclude not to have been there. And yet it is a received Tradition in the Church of Rome, that St. Peter was then not only in that Metropolis, but confined and bound in the same Prison with St. Paul. As that Apostle, in writing from Rome, sends no Salutations from Peter, so in writing to Rome he greets many others, but never mentions him[[36]]. Now who would not sooner chuse to reject such Traditions, than to suppose St. Paul guilty of such an unfriendly and unaccountable Omission?
St. Peter, though at
Rome, not Bishop
of Rome.>
From what has been hitherto said, every impartial Judge must conclude, that it is, at least, very much to be doubted whether St. Peter was ever at Rome; but, allowing him to have been there, it still remains to be proved, that he was Bishop of that See. This the Sticklers for the Papal Authority spare no Pains to make out, being well apprised, that the Whole of their Cause lies here at stake; and yet I find nothing alleged by them in so material a Point, but a few misinterpreted Passages out of the Ecclesiastical Writers: for the right understanding of which it is to be observed, that such of the Antients as called Peter Bishop of Rome, and Rome the Place, the Chair, the See of Peter, meant no more than that he was Superintendent of that Church, that he founded it by converting Men to the Faith, and erected the Episcopal Chair, by appointing the first Bishops. That this was their true Meaning, is apparent from what we read in Ruffinus; who, having mentioned Linus, Cletus, and Clemens, as succeeding each other in the See of Rome, while Peter was still alive, thus accounts for their Episcopacy: They were, says he, appointed Bishops by Peter, to the end that, they taking upon them the Episcopal Charge, he might be at Leisure to discharge the Duties of his Apostolical Office. And this, he tells us, was not a Notion of his own, but the common Opinion[[37]]. Irenæus speaks to the same Purpose: The Apostles, says he, founding that Church, delivered the Episcopal Office into the Hands of Linus[[38]]. Hence the most antient Writers, who lived nearest the Fountain of Tradition, never stile St. Peter Bishop of Rome, but only say, that, by ordaining Bishops, he founded that Church[[39]]. |In what sense
St. Peter and
St. Paul stiled
Bishops of
Rome.| St. Peter therefore was not Bishop of Rome in the strict Sense, to which that Word is now confined, but in the more large Sense, of which I have taken notice above: and in that St. Paul has as good a Claim to the high-sounding Titles of Pope, Bishop of Rome, &c. as St. Peter, since, together with him, he is said to have founded that Church. The Popes indeed will not allow him that Honour, nor condescend to reckon him among their Predecessors; but Epiphanius and Eusebius have been more complaisant; of whom the former says, Peter and Paul were the first at Rome, both Bishops and Apostles[[40]]; and the latter speaking of the Succession of the Bishops of Rome, Alexander derived his Succession in the fifth Place from Peter and Paul[[41]]. Both therefore were Bishops of Rome, or neither; both in the Sense of the antient Writers, but neither in that, which is now annexed to the Word Bishop. |The Duties of a
Bishop and an
Apostle incon-
sistent.| And truly the Office of an Apostle, and that of a Bishop, as the Word is now understood, are incompatible. An Apostle, says Chrysostom[[42]], is charged with the Instruction not of any particular Nation or City, but of the whole World; but a Bishop must reside, says the same Writer[[43]], and be employed in one Place: and therefore St. Peter, who knew these two Duties to be inconsistent, if he was ever at Rome, committed there, as he did in other Places, the Episcopal Charge to others, and pursued his Apostolical Office, which required a more extensive Care.
Whether James the
Apostle was Bishop
of Jerusalem.
But St. James, say the Popish Writers, though an Apostle, was appointed Bishop of Jerusalem; and why might not St. Peter, though an Apostle, undertake the Episcopacy of Rome? It is surprising they should lay so much Stress as they do on this Objection, since they must know it to be grounded on an Uncertainty; as Eusebius the greatest Antiquary of former Times[[44]], Hegesippus the most antient Historian[[45]], Epiphanius[[46]], Jerom[[47]] Gregory of Nysse[[48]], Chrysostom[[49]], and many others, reckon James Bishop of Jerusalem, not among the Apostles, but the Seventy Disciples. Of the same Opinion among the Moderns, are Grotius[[50]], Dr. Hammond[[51]], Valesius[[52]], Blondel[[53]], and Salmasius[[54]]. The last of these saying, after his positive and confident manner, It is certain that he was not one of the Twelve, I may at least say, it is not certain that he was; and consequently the Objection can be of no considerable Weight. But allowing him to have been one of the Twelve, as some of the Antients seem to think[[55]], there was a special Reason, why one of the Apostles should be appointed to reside at Jerusalem, that City being the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion; our Faith had there had its Birth; the Church was there very numerous, consisting of many Thousands of believing Jews[[56]]; and thither resorted great Numbers of those of that Nation, who were converted to Christ in other Countries. On these Considerations it might seem expedient, that a Person of the greatest Authority should preside there. But there was no special Reason why an Apostle should constantly reside at any other Place, nor does it appear that any did: St. Peter especially could not reside at any one Place, since to him, as the Apostle of the Circumcision, was committed the Charge of converting the dispersed Jews in all Parts of the World.
What meant by
the Apostolic See,
Chair, Throne, &c.
As for the Appellations of the Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, &c. given by the Antients to the See of Rome, they import no more than that it was erected by an Apostle; for they are bestowed indiscriminately on all the Sees, in which Bishops had been placed by the Apostles; viz. of Ephesus[[57]], of Smyrna[[58]], of Alexandria[[59]], of Corinth, Thessalonica, Philippi[[59]], &c. The Title of Apostolic See, common to many, was, in Process of Time, by the Ambition of the Bishops of Rome, appropriated to their own. They had, as they thought, till the Year 1662. a pregnant Proof not only of St. Peter’s erecting their Chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for till that Year, the very Chair, on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shewn and exposed to public Adoration on the 18th of January, the Festival of the said Chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous Place of the Vatican, the Twelve Labours of Hercules unluckily appeared engraved on it. Our Worship however, says Giacomo Bartolini, who was present at this Discovery, and relates it, was not misplaced, since it was not to the Wood we paid it; but to the Prince of the Apostles St. Peter[[60]]. An Author of no mean Character, unwilling to give up the holy Chair, even after this Discovery, as having a Place and a peculiar Solemnity among the other Saints, has attempted to explain the Labours of Hercules in a mystical Sense, as Emblems representing the future Exploits of the Popes[[61]]. But the ridiculous and distorted Conceits of that Writer are not worthy our Notice, tho’ by Clement X. they were judged not unworthy of a Reward.
St. Peter how, or
by whom, placed
in the See of Rome.
But to return to our Subject; it may be inquired, If St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, who placed him in that See? Did our Lord appoint him? Did the Apostles name him? Did the People chuse him? Did he assume it himself? To these Queries no Answers have been yet given, but such as are so ridiculously weak, that it is not worth my while to relate them, nor the Reader’s to hear them. Bellarmine, in one Place, positively affirms, that God commanded St. Peter to fix his See at Rome[[62]]; but elsewhere contents himself with saying, It is not improbable that God commanded St. Peter to fix his See at Rome[[63]]. Is it is no more than not improbable, it is uncertain; it may be a mere Conjecture, a Dream.
Other Bishops of
Rome appointed
by St. Peter.