290 A VINDICATION OF THK ANIMADVERSIONS ON FIAT LUX.
cross." You may easily discern the uncertainty, at least, of that story, which this learned man can give no countenance unto but by multiplying improbable imaginations to shelter one another. For, — (1.) Who ever said that Peter came from Rome to come up to the council at Jerusalem, when it is most manifest, from the story of the Acts, that he had never before departed out of Judea? And this council being granted to have been in the sixth year of Clau- dius, as here it is by Onuphrius, quite overthrows the tradition of his going to Rome in his second. (2.) The aljode of twenty-five years at Rome, as thus disposed, is no abode indeed; for he con- tinued almost twice as long at Antioch as he did at Rome. (3.) Here is no time at all allowed unto him for preaching the gospel in Gala- tia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, which certainly are not pro- vinces of Europe; in which places Eusebius, Hist. lib. iii. cap. 1, Origen, and all the ancients, agree that he did attend unto his apostleship towards the Jews, and his epistles make it evident. (4.) Nor is there any time left for him to be at Babylon, where yet Ave know he was. So that this fancy can have no countenance given it without a full rejection of all that we know to be true in the story. 4. The Scripture is utterly silent of any such thing as Peter s going to Rome. Other journeyings of his it records, as to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Csesarea, Antioch. Now, it was no way material that his coming unto any of these places should be known but only in refer- ence unto the things done there by him, and yet they are recorded; but this his going to Rome, which is supposed to be of such huge importance in Christian religion, and that, according to Onuphrius, f;\lling out in the midst of his other journeyings, as it must do if ever it fell out, is utterly passed by in silence. If it had been to have such an influence into the very being of Christianity as noAv is pre- tended, some men will be apt to think that the mention of it would not have been omitted. 5. Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, written a good v/hile after this imaginary going of Peter to Rome, makes no mention of him, when yet he saluted by name those of chief note and dignity in the church there; so that, undoubtedly, he was not then come thither. 6. The same apostle being at Rome in the reign of Nero, in the midst of the time allotted unto the abode of Peter there, never once mentions Mm in any of the epistles which from thence he wrote unto the churches and his fellow-labourers, though he doth remember very many others that Avere with him in the city. 7. He asserts that, in one of his epistles from thence, which, as I think, sufficiently proves that Peter was not then there : for he says plainly that in his trial he iv as forsaken hy all men, that no man stood by him ; which he mentions as their sin, and prays for pardon for them. Now, no man can reasonably think that Peter
PEINCIPLES OF PAPISTS ON THE UNITY OF FAITH. 291
was amongst the number of them whom he complained of. 8. The story is not consistent Avith what is expressly turitten of Peter hy Luke in the Acts, and Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. Paul was con- verted unto the faith about the thirty-eighth year of Christ, or fifth after his ascension. After this he continued three years preaching the gospel about Damascus and in Arabia. In the fortieth or forty- first year of Christ he came to Jerusalem, to confer with Peter, Gal. i. ; which was the first of Claudius. As yet, therefore, Peter was not removed out of Judea. Fourteen years after, — that is, either after his first going up to Jerusalem, or rather fourteen years after his first conversion, — he went up again to Jerusalem, and found Peter still tliere ; which was in the fifty-second year of Christ, and the thirteenth of Claudius. Or if you should take the date of the fourteen years mentioned by him shorter by five or six years, and reckon their be- ginning from the passion and resurrection of Christ, which is not im- probable, then tliis going up of Paul to Jerusalem will be found to be the same with his going up to the council from Antioch, about the sixth or rather seventh year of Claudius. Peter was then yet cer- tainly at Jerusalem, — that is, about the forty-sixth year of Christ; some while after you would have the church to be founded by him at Rome. After this, when Paul had taken a long progress through many countries, wherein he must needs spend some years, returning unto Antioch, Acts xviii. 22, he there again met with Peter, Gal. ii. 1], Peter being yet still in the east, towards the end of the reign of Claudius. At Antioch, where Paul found him, if any of your wit- nesses may be believed, he abode seven years. Besides, he v/as now very old, and ready to lay down his mortality, as our Lord had showed him; and, in all probability, after his remove from Antioch, spent the residue of his days in the eastern dispersion of the Jews. For, — 9. Much of the apostle's work in Palestine among the Jews was now drawing to an end; the elect being gathered in, troubles were growing upon the nation: and Peter had, as we observed be- foi-e, agreed with Paul to take the care of the Circumcision, of whom the greatest number by far, excepting only Judea itself, was in Ba- bylon, and the eastern nations about it. Now, whether these and the like observations out of the Scripture, concerning the course of St. Peter's life, be not sufficient to outbalance the testimony of your disagreeing witnesses, impartial and unprejudiced men may judge. For my part, I do not intend to conclude peremptorily from them that Peter was never at Rome, or never preached the gospel there ; but that your assertion of it is improbable, and built upon very ques- tionable grounds, that I suppose I may safely conclude. And God forbid that we should once imagine the present faith of Christians, or their profession of Christian religion, to be built upon such uncer-