Church of Rome whom he supposed and perhaps the Romans might give it out so to have the same Founders every Countrey almost in process of time such is the Natural Itch of Ambition and Vainglory in Man pretending to have been Converted by some Apostle or Illustrious Name though often times the Preaching of the Gospel amongst them was like it self by very mean and as to Outward Glory or Fame Contemptible Instruments But from this Testimony of Eusebius we may Rationally Collect That in his time Peters being at Rome was but a dark kind of business provable only by Reports and such odd Testimonies of a few Obscure Authors that have as little Weight as Clearness But how then came the same afterwards to be so generally Entertained and Believed and several of the Fathers to call Rome St. Peters Chair To this may be Answered That the Bishops of Rome after Constantine had raised them to a high degree of Wealth and Reputation puft up with Ambition from their presiding over the Imperial City began to aspire above their Brethren and first Claim'd a Primacy and Right of Receiving Appeals from all parts not Jure Divino or as Successors to St. Peter but as Granted to them by Councils and to that purpose forged two Canons on the Famous Nicene Council as is mentioned before but finding themselves Cut short and Baulkt therein by the sagacity of the Council of Carthage they cast about to derive a Supremacy over all other Churches from an higher Title and Observing Peter to have been one of the most Eminent Apostles and some Words to have been spoken to him by our Saviour that might Colourably be wrested to Intimate as if he had some kind of Superiority over or greater Priviledge than the rest they would have it believed That he was the Founder of their Church and though sometimes they joyn'd Paul with him because the Scriptures gave such Illustrious Testimonies of his pains there yet for the most part Peter without the least Countenance from but rather against the Tenour of Scripture had the greater Vogue and Preference and knowing the Mobile are easie to be deceived with Names and Titles and apt to frame Idaeas of things past from what appeared at present they gave out That he was Bishop of Rome To this purpose they press'd all the Fragments of Antiquity into the Service Papias's Conjecture was made an Authentick proof and this saying of Eusebius and his hear-says must pass for Vndoubted Evidence Yet not therewith Content abundance of other Writings were Counterfeited under Antient Venerable Names as I made appear before and thus in short time the story might gain Credit And Whenever any of the Fathers though Unwarily deceived by a Spurious Tradition or the Common Vogue not thinking it perhaps a matter much worth Enquiring into as not dreaming what strange Inferences would thence be made in after times spoke thereof in a stile Accommodated to Vulgar Opinion and call'd Rome St. Peters Chair or her Bishop Peters Successor this was filed as a fresh Testimony of the Truth and Certainty of the matter of Fact Having once gain'd this point that it was believed That Peter Preach'd at Rome which they call'd his being Bishop there They proceeded further to pretend That not only Peter had a Soveraign Power confer'd upon him but that the same was derived to them as his Successors And so Thou art Peter I will give thee the Keys I have Pray'd for thee Here are two Swords c. became sufficient Arguments both that Peter was Prince of the Apostles Vicar of Christ and Chief Governour of the Universal Church And that he being so Dignified and Bishop of Rome all the succeeding Bishops of that See being his Successors must be Invested with the same Authority And consequently That the Church of Rome was the Mother and Mistress of all other Churches and is Infallible and the only Catholick Church That the Pope has a direct Soveraignty over all the World in Spirituals and indirect in Ordine ad Spiritualia c. All which being Closely and Vigorously though Gradually pursued in Ignorant tures and especially after the Roman Bishops by the favour of Pâ—â—cas the Traytor had gain'd the Title of Vniversal and an Ascendent over a great part of the Christian World when every thing tending to the Honour and Advantage of that See met with Encouragement and the Roman Bishops only were Capable of bestowing Preferments and all were Snibb'd and Crusht that durst offer any thing that displeased them 't is no wonder if for many Ages scarce any at least whose Writings yet remain for we know who had then the keeping of all Libraries durst openly controvert or deny St. Peters being at Rome and Bishop there Since this was a Blow at the Root and struck effectually at the Popes Supremacy Infallibility and other Pompous Claims which are all founded on that Pretence Touching which what need I say more But briefly sum up the state of the whole matter If St. Peter's being Bishop of Rome or so much as ever there be not provable by Scripture nor any other Convincing Arguments but whatever can be said for it is easily Answered and rendered not so much as Probable If the Witnesses of the story are at Open Wars and Contradictions in the Circumstances yet all pretending to a most punctual Exactness and the Learned'st and most Subtle Advocates of the Party Sweat in vain to Invent even so much as Colours to Reconcile them If from Scripture and History and a due Comparison of all Circumstances it is improbable to the highest Degree That ever Peter was at Rome much more that he was Bishop thereof If the story depend on Counterfeit Authors or such as justly are of little Credit and abundance of shameful Forgeries have been invented and made use of to support it If it be Derogatory to the Honour of St. Peters Memory to assert it In fine If it be no difficult task to apprehend and shew by what Methods and Degrees it might be advanc'd to popular Credit and for what Ends If I say all this be made appear and how far this brief Disquisition may be satisfactory that way is left to the Judicious Unbigotted Peruser and Posterity to Determine I conceive the old Out-cry of Great is Diana of the Ephesians The Noâ—â—e of St. Peters Chair and Peters Successors will henceforth abate so newhat of it's Influences or indeed signify very little unless it be to Expose their Confidence that Use it However If any shall still be Amus'd and Prevail'd upon by those Empty Sounds and Vnravell'd Charms I may perhaps admire their Faith or rather pitty their Weak Credulity but must crave leave to say That till my Reason is better satisfied which with the Uttermost Diligence and Impartiality I have endeavoured It shall have no Room in my Creed And so Reader Farewell FINIS An end of Controversy desirable By what obstructed The occasion of this Discourse *
expresly tells us Euodius was its first Bishop And so far likewise from affirming that St. Peter was Twenty five years Bishop of Rome that he does not say he was Bishop of Rome at all but only that Peter having first founded the Church of Antioch went to Rome Peter's being Bishop of Rome Twenty five years is none of Eusebius's Testimony there being not a Syllable to that purpose in the Original Greek in which Language he wrote but those words were foisted into the Latin Copies which are very much Interpolated and corrupted as may be seen by Scaliger's Animadversions Hence that Learned Roman Catholick Valesius publickly acknowledges Sciendum est Eusebium Apostolos in Ordine Episcoporum minime Numerare That Eusebius did not rank the Apostles in the Order of Bishops Nay 't is plain that those Ancients who speak of Peter's being Bishop of Rome do use the word Bishop in a large sense to imply that during his abode there which upon Papias's conjecture and vulgar same they supposed he Preach'd unto and took care of that Church For the same persons do no less affirm That Paul also was Bishop of the same Church at the same time which cannot be understood but in such a large sense as aforesaid Hence Ruffinus says Linus Cletus fuerunt ante Clementem Episcopi in Vrbe Roma sed superstite Petro videlicet ut illi Episcopatus Curam Gererent iste vero Apostolatus Impleret Officium Linus and Cletus were Bishops in the City of Rome before Clement but whilst Peter was yet alive They performing the duty of Bishops and He attending to the Office Apostolical In which words tho he who flourisht towards the end of the 4th Century takes for granted Peter's being at Rome yet he plainly distinguishes the Apostolical and Episcopal Offices and refers them not to one but several persons and so denies that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome naming two others who govern'd that Church in that capacity during his life time Let us consider Cui Bono to what purpose serves this Assignment of a fictitious Episcopacy to Peter Whatever Priviledges could attend his person were bestowed upon him either as a Believing Disciple of Christ or as an Apostle As such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven were given unto him As such he was commanded to feed the flock of Christ as such Christ promised to build the Church on the Faith he professed as an Apostle he with the rest had the care of all Churches that is as far as every one was able committed unto him As an Apostle he was Divinely inspired and enabled infallibly to reveal the mind of Christ Now all these things belonging to him as a Believer and Apostle I desire to know what further Priviledg could accrue to him besides as Bishop of any particular place were it either Antioch or Rome If the Romanists will shew us any body succeeding Peter in the enjoyment of those extraordinary Priviledges before mentioned they must bespeak such person to succeed him in his Apostleship and not in his pretended Bishoprick For whatever Authority Power or Jurisdiction Peter had over all Churches in the World or whatever unerring Judgment in matters of Faith the same belonged unto him as he was an Apostle long before he is fancied to have been the Bishop of any particular place so that if it were necessary that some one should succeed Peter in his Episcopacy Why not much more necessary in his Apostleship And then why was it not needful that Paul should have a Successor as well as Peter and John the survivor of all the rest of the Apostles as well as any of them Again If we must believe the Bishop of Rome to be Peter's Successor it will I hope not be unlawful to enquire wherein And therefore I demand 1. Doth the Pope succeed St. Peter in all that he had in Commission and was empowered to do in reference unto the Church of God Doth he succeed him in the manner of his Call to his Office Peter was called immediately by Christ in his own person The Pope is Elected by the Conclave of Cardinals concerning whom their Office Priviledges Power and Right to choose the Successor of St. Peter there is not one syllable either in Seripture or any Monuments of pure Antiquity for divers hundred years and how many times the Cardinals have been Influenc'd by powerful Strumpets Baronius himself has inform'd us and how much in latter Ages to this day the Factions of several Princes prevail cannot be unknown to any that is not a stranger to History and the Modern Transactions of the World 2. Doth the Pope Succeed Peter in the way and manner of his personal Discharge of his Office and imployment Not in the least For Peter in the pursuit of his Commission and Obedience unto the Command of his Lord travel'd to and fro Preaching the Gospel and planting and watering the Churches of Christ in Patience Self-denial Humility Zeal Temperance and Meekness whereas the Pope Reigns at Rome in ease exalting himself above Kings and without taking the least pains in his own person for the Conversion of Sinners or edification of the Disciples of Christ 3. Doth every Pope or Bishop of Rome succeed Peter in his personal qualifications which were of such extraordinary advantage to the Church of God in his days viz. His Faith Love Holiness Light and Knowledg This cannot with any modesty be alledged since the best Historians of the Roman Cast confess many Popes to have been grosly Ignorant and flagitiously Wicked 4. Doth the Pope succeed Peter in the way and manner of Exercising his Care and Authority towards the Churches of Christ As little as in any of the rest For Peter did it by his Prayers for the Churches by his personal Visitation and Instruction of them by his Writings Divinely inspired for their direction and guidance according to the Will of God But the Pope proceeds by Bulls and Consistorial Determinations executed by Intricate Processes and Officers unknown not only to Peter but all Antiquity and whose Ways Orders Terms and Practices St. Peter himself were he here again upon Earth would as little understand as approve 5. Doth the Pope succeed Peter in his personal Infallibility Let the Romanists agree if they can amongst themselves upon an Answer to this Question Or doth he succeed him in his power of working Mirales I do not hear that his present Holiness pretends to that Talent tho Pope Gregory 7. seems to have had some inclinations that way when he was wont to scare the people by shaking fire out of his sleeve as Cardinal Benno relates the Story Lastly Doth the Pope succeed Peter in the Doctrine that he taught It hath been prov'd a Thousand times and we are ready when ever call'd upon to demonstrate it again That he doth not but hath added to detracted from and many ways perverted it Wherein then doth this Succession of the Pope to Peter which
undoubtedly according to these Authorities he was the next Successor But yet Optatus lib. 2. contr Parm. and St. Augustine Epist 165. rank Linus next after Peter and next not only Cletus but Anacletus and after all these Clement as the fourth or if you will include St. Peter the fifth Iraeneus lib. 3. cap. 3. tells us that Peter and Paul Constituted Linus the first then Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome That Anacletus succeeded him and that Clemens was the third Bishop of Rome Onuphrius marshals them thus Linus eleven Years three Months and twelve Days Clement nine Years four Months and twenty six Days Cletus six Years five Months and three Days And after seven Days Vacancy Anacletns twelve Years two Months and ten Days and to solve the matter as well as he can makes the said Linus only as a suffragan Bishop under Peter and reckons the said eleven Years three Months and three Days attributed to Linus to be in Peter's Life time who he says was for the most part absent from Rome save only twenty six Days which he survived after Peter and then was Martyr'd during which 26 Days he was not chief Bishop neither but only a Coadjutor to Clement as he had been to Peter For saith he Clement was the immediate Successor in chief to Peter and held the Chair for nine Years four Months and twenty six Days and then and not before came Cletus and he sate six Years five Months and three Days as Soveraign Bishop though for twenty Years and upwards he had been Chorepiscopus Suffragan Bishop or Coadjutor under Peter and Clement whose Successor was Anacletus c. You see what pains this Learned Man is at to render the story Uniform But as this is a new Invention for neither Platina nor the Ancients mention a word of suffraganship in the Case but make Linus as substantial a Pope as any of the rest so it agrees not with that account that Bellarmin gives of that matter for he saith That Peter indeed left the Episcopal See to Clement but when he was dead Clement out of Humility refused to sit therein as long as Linus and Cletus lived who had been Peter's Coadjutors in the Episcopal Office and so actually Linus succeeded Peter Cletus to Linus and Clement to Cletus tho some Authors because Clement was appointed Successour name him first To which I Answer That as the other was but the surmise of Onuphrius so this is but the Nude Averment of the Cardinal and both the one and the other in it self improbable for if Peter had just cause to Elect Clement then Clement could have no just Cause to reject the Office imposed If Peter were appointed by our Lord to Govern all the Churches in the World no doubt he was fit and enabled to discharge that Office And what need he then have two Coadjutors to Rule the particular Church of Rome Or why would he take upon himself the Bishoprick of Rome from whence he was so often to be absent and thereby give a dangerous Precedent of NON-RESIDENCY and trusting to the Care of Delegates in the Government of the Church Or if he must have help would not Paul at least after he came to Rome have been as good a Coadjutor as either Linus or Cletus Again If Peter thought Clement most worthy to succeed him why was he not Constituted at least an equal Suffragan Bishop with the other two before If Linus and Cletus had been worthy of that Honour they would no doubt have shewn their humility no less in Reverencing St. Peter's last Will and Ordinance than Clement did his in urging Peter's Antecedent Fact of admitting those two his Assistants Or why did not Clement declare such his Humility whilst Peter was alive that he might have Constituted and Consecrated another Successor Or why in his Letter to St. James does he not take notice how and on what score he had declined that Office which Peter so formally conferr'd upon him Or in a word If Peter did so solemnly invest Clement with the Government of the Church and Institute him his Successor by imposition of Hands and making him sit down in spight of his Modesty in his own Episcopal Chair and yet after Peter's Death Linus and Cletus did hold and actually Exercise the same successively for above twenty Years does it not follow That the two first Bishops of Rome next after St. Peter were unlawful as having no due Call or Title but guilty of Vsurpation from which no pretence of Clement's Humility can excuse them For who Ordain'd them Or how could they duely become capable of that Dignity The Sixth Question Was Peter Bishop of Antioch before he went to Rome Answ Yes Seven years says the Pontifical and so says Platina and 't is the common Vogue of those that mention his being at Rome But No says Onuphrius and is very warm in the point Ad Initium secundi Anni Imperii Claudii Petrum Judaea nunquam Excessisse ex Actis Apostolorum Paeuli Epistola ad Galatas Apertissime constat idem in Chronico refert Eusebius ego alibi multis Rationibus probavi c. That Peter never stirr'd out of Judea till the beginning of the second year of the Reign of Claudius is most certain and evident from the Acts of the Apostles and Pauls Epistle to the Galatians Eusebius in his Chronicon asserts the same and I says he have proved it elsewhere by many Reasons Now in this second year of Claudius all the Authors that mention Peters being at Rome affirm he arrived there How then could he before that have sat seven years as Bishop of Antioch But from the Testimony of most Antient Authors I says the said Onuphrius have settled the Business thus That in the Tenth year after Christs Passion which was still the Second of Claudius tho' towards the end of it St. Peter after his deliverance out of Prison having spent a year in Preaching along the several Countreys in his Journey towards Rome did Arrive at that City on the Eighteenth of January From whence to the time of his death was about Twenty-five years But four years after viz. the Seventh of Claudius the Jews being banish'd by an Edict he was forced to leave Rome and Returned to Jerusalem Agrippa for fear of whom he fled out of Judea being now dead There he was present at the Apostolical Council and death of the Blessed Virgin from whence leaving the Apostle James at Jerusalem he went to Antioch and there remained seven years until the death of Claudius and beginning of the Empire of Nero when with Mark the Evangelist he Return'd to Rome and Re-Establish'd the decaying Roman Church appointed Linus and Cletus his Suffragan-Bishops or Delegates and Admonish'd Mark to write his Gospel After which he Travell'd almost throughout all Europe and Returning to Rome with the Apostle Paul when Nero was worrying the Christians as Authors of the great Conflagration that happened
that is upon the Church of Rome I will build my Church And in the 3d Epistle The Church of Rome is the Hinge and Head of all Churches for as the door is turned about on the Hinge so all Churches are ruled by the Authority of this Holy See and not to be tedious in numerous Instances the effect of all is That all those good humble men whose Names are abused to these Letters are made to say of themselves this much We are the Vniversal Bishops We are the Heads of the whole Church Appeals from all Places ought of right to lye before us We cannot Err We may not be controul'd for it is written The Disciple is not above his Master c. Can any man perswade himself that those godly Fathers that were daily in jeopardy of their Lives and put to Death for Preaching and professing the Christian Religion which condemns nothing more than Pomp vain-Glory and Ambition had either Leisure or Inclination to write Letters up and down the World fill'd with such Imposthumated Extravagancies 2. The stile of these Letters is remarkable as well as their matter they are pretended to be originally written in Latine and why not if from Bishops of Rome whose mother Tongue was at that time Latine and that too not yet degenerated but famous for its Elegancy and understood through a very great part of the then known World But in these Decretals instead of the purity of the Roman Phrase you shall familiarly encounter such expressions as these Persecutiones patienter portare Peto ut pro me Orare debeas Episcopi Obediendi sunt non Insidiandi Ab illis omnes Christiani se Cavere debent c. Wherein there is nothing of the Congruity or Natural Idiom of the Latine Tongue And shall we think that for 300 years and more there was not one Bishop of Rome that could write true Latin at a time when the common people there Men Women and Children did speak the same as their common Language It is a Text of the Popes own Law Falsa Latinitas vitiat Rescriptum Papae False Latin spoils the Popes own Bull or Writ if so the Credit of these is gone Indeed their Voice hewrays them and shews they were Coyn'd in a far latter Age when after the Gothic Incursions into Italy Barbarisms had overran the Roman Tongue as well as error and ambition the Roman Church 3. The absurdities and false Chronology of these Epistles loudly proclaims them to be Antedated and spurious as St. Clemens informs St. James of the manner of St. Peter's Death yet it is as certain as any thing we have of those times and St. Clemens undoubtedly knew it That James was put to death 7 years before St. Peter Anacletus whom some make next Successor to Peter willeth and straitly chargeth That all Bishops once every year do visit the Threshold of St. Peter 's Church at Rome Limina Petri touching which besides the absurdity of such an injunction whereby most part of the Bishops throughout the World must have spent all their time in trudging to and fro to Rome 't is observable that there was not then nor for a long time after any Church built there in the Name of St. Peter Zepherinus Epist 1. saith That Christ commanded his Apostles to appoint the 72 Disciples but St. Luke Ch. 10. testifies That Christ himself appointed them Antherus Ep. 1. makes mention of Eusebius Bishop of Alexandria and of Faelix Bishop of Ephesus yet was neither Eusebius nor Foelix either Bishop or Born all the time that Antherus lived Fabianus writes of the coming of Novatus into Italy yet 't is clear by St. Cyprian and Eusebius That Novatus came first into Italy in the time of Cornelius who succeededed this Fabianus Marcellinus Epist 2. ad Oriental saith That the Emperor might not presume to attempt any thing against the Gospel yet was there then no Emperor that own'd or understood the Gospel Marcellus writes to an Heathen Tyrant and charges him very gravely with the authority of St. Clement And whereas St. Luke Ch. 3. sets forth how John advised the Soldiers to be content with their Pay Meltiades quite alters the story and names Christ instead of John divers the like Incongruities may frequently be met with in these Epistles 4. If these Letters had been real Where did they lye hid 4 or 500 years or upwards Who after so long a burial was able to demonstrate their sincerity How came the Decretals of the Bishops of Rome first of all to be heard of and found by no body can certainly tell who in a corner of Spain T is evident neither St. Jerome or Gennadius nor Damasus nor any Ancient Father ever alledged any of them and consequently we may conclude knew nothing of them Nay the former Bishops of Rome never insisted upon them when they might have been very serviceable as for example at the Council of Carthage held An. 418. by 217 Bishops amongst whom the great Augustine was one where two pretended Canons of the Council of Nice sent thither by Zozimus then Pope to give colour of Right to his receiving of Appeals from Foreign Provinces were detected to be forged and so the claim of the Bishop of Rome rejected and his Ambition and ill practice smartly reproved by Letters as by the Acts of the said Council yet extant appears Now had Zozimus known or dreamt of such a number of Decretals sent abroad by his Predecessors wherein their Right of Vniversal Headship Appeals c. was so plainly derived and asserted all along down from St. Peter himself and that not by the Canon of any Council but by Absolute Divine Right undoubtedly he would have produced or referr'd unto them rather than stoop to so poor and shameful a shift as that of two counterfeit Canons But that you may the better judge of the Genius of these Decretal Epistles I shall here present you with the effect of two of them which particularly relate to our present subject The first a Letter pretended to be wrote by St. Clemens to St. James wherein an account is undertaken to be given of Peter's last words and how he solemnly appointed the said Clement his Successor in which after a tedious Harangue as from St. Peter's mouth concerning the Dignity and Excellency of the Roman Chair he proceeds thus When he St. Peter had said these things in the midst before them all he put his hands on me and compelled me wearied with shamefacedness to sit in his Chair and when I was sat I beseech thee said he O Clement That after as the Debt of Nature is I have ended this present Life thou wouldest briefly write to James the Brother of our Lord after what sort thou hast been a Companion unto me from the beginning even to the end of my Journey and my Acts and what being a sollicitous Hearer thou hast taken from me disputing throughout all the Cities and what in all my Preaching
forth to meet us c. But we hear not a word of Peter's either coming or sending to Paul which undoubtedly if he had been Bishop there he would have done nor would St. Luke have neglected to record it But the third day after Paul sending for the chief of the Jews and reasoning with them about the Faith they answer'd him thus We will hear what thou dost think for touching this Sect the Christians it is every where spoken against and when at a day appointed Paul had preached unto them the Jews fell at variance about it for some Believed and some Believed not All which shews that the Jews at Rome had heard very little of Christ before Pauls arrival which could not have been if Peter the peculiar Apostle of the Circumcision had then or for a matter of fourteen years ever since the second of Claudius or indeed for any time before been at Rome and Bishop there In the Third and Fourth years of Nero two whole years says the Text Acts 28. 30. Paul continued a Prisoner at large at Rome after his coming thither Now that Peter was not in any of that space there we rationally conclude not only because Nicephorus L 2. Ca. 3. saith That during all that time St. Paul lived by the labour of his Hands whereas if Peter had been there in his Pontifical Dignity he would certainly have caused him to be better provided for but especially for that in the several Epistles written by Paul from thence in that time partly and partly perhaps some time after for how much longer he continued at Rome than after the said two years elaps'd we have no certain account he no where makes mention of Peter which if Peter had been look'd upon as Soveraign of the Church and his being Bishop of such a Place a matter of so great Importance could never have been especially since Paul had often very just occasion to have taken notice thereof As in that to the Galatians where Paul being inforc'd to assert the Authority of his Doctrine and Apostleship which some sought to impair speaks much of the former acquaintance between him and Peter but not a word of seeing him at this time when Peter's Testimony by subscription or otherwise would readily have satisfied those Opposers or Paul instead of all the Arguments he makes use of might have said no more then this Here is Peter the Prince of the Apostles Bishop of this City which he has chosen to be the fountain of Eclesiastical Jurisdiction and infallible Judge of Controversies to the Worlds end who does at this instant own and allow my Apostleship and give me the right hand of Fellowship Nay Paul in these Epistles does not only omit to mention Peter but uses Words that in effect deny his being then at Rome As in that to the Colossians which must be Written about this time because therein mention is made of Demas as being then with Paul who afterwards forsook him as appears in the second of Timothy having told them that Aristarchus his Fellow Prisoner and Marcus Sisters Son to Barnabas and Jesus called Justus who are of the Circumcision saluted them Colos 4. 10. 11. He adds These only are my fellow-Helpers which I understand of those of the Circumcision to whom he had just before restrain'd his speech for presently he mentions Epaphras Luke and Demas who possibly might be Greeks unto the Kingdom of God who have been a Comfort unto me To Philemon he sends Salutations from the same Persons and calls them again his fellow-Labourers Now was Peter supposing too that he long before and at that time was Bishop of Rome Inferior to these Was he not worthy to be Named Were the Salutations the Benedictions of the Apostles not to be expected At my first Defence I take it to be before Nero at this time we are Treating of saith the same Apostle No man stood with me but all men forsook me 2 Tim. 4. 16. Can we imagine with any kind of sobriety that Peter was then at Rome Whether St. Paul departed from Rome immediately after the said two years of his being a Prisoner at large is not specified in Scripture but 't is reasonable to believe that in that space having so well Planted the Gospel there he might as soon as opportunity would admit Travel into other Parts to disseminate the same glad Tidings and especially in Spain which Countrey it appears Rom. 15. 24. he had long before designed to Visit some Authors say that not only he but St. Peter too was in our Britain which I take to be as true as that Peter was Bishop of Rome But very plain it is that Paul did again return to Rome and was there not long before his Death for in his second Epistle to Timothy he Writes I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand c. Ch. 4. 6. Now as it appears both by the Subscription and Circumstances that this Epistle was Dated from Rome when Paul was brought that is in danger or ready shortly after to be brought before Nero the second time so 't is agreed that Paul suffer'd near the End of Nero's Reign but at that time Peter was not at Rome for Paul very Mournfully complains V. 10. Demas hath forsaken me having loved this present World and is departed into Thessalonica Crescens to Galatia Titus into Dalmatia only Luke is with me Therefore do thy diligence to corie shortly unto me and bring Mark with thee for he is profitable unto me for the Ministry If only Luke were with him at Rome then Peter was not there nor do we hear a syllable of his two pretended Suffragans Linus and Cletus If Peter had been there at that time what need of such earnest sending so far as Ephesus for Timothy Nor had Peter been at Rome in any of the Intermediate Years after Pauls first Arrival as may be Collected from that Passage in Tacitus where Relating how Nero endeavoured to cast the Odium of Burning of Rome which happen'd near the end of his Reign upon the Christians he takes notice that then or about that time that Sect had began to Revive again or encrease more than for some years before which may well be understood in this sense That the Christians who during Pauls absence had somewhat declined did now at his return begin to Re-flourish and Multiply But if Peter in that Ten years space or thereabouts of Pauls Absence had been at Rome exercising his Episcopacy there could have been no place-for that Observation of the Christian Religions REVIVING which supposes a Decay for some years before at that Particular Juncture CHAP VII Objections answer'd and one Argument added That we cannot without great Dishonour to St. Peter imagine him to have been Bishop of Rome as is pretended TO avoid this plain deduction from Holy Scripture Cardinal Bellarmin is forc'd to use a great deal of Pains and Art and thus at