_Seventh Circumstance._--At the end of the first epistle of Peter, namely 1 Pet. 5:13, are these words: “The church that is at Babylon, elected ... saluteth you.”
How could Peter send a salutation from the church at Babylon, unless he was with it in Babylon at that time? But if he was in Babylon, he was not at Rome, unless he had two bodies; of which we do not read anything, nor have we any reason to believe it.
_Eighth Circumstance._--Those who hold that Peter was bishop at Rome, make no distinction between the words _apostle_, or messenger, and _bishop_, or overseer; yet there always has been a marked difference between the office of an apostle and that of a bishop.
The office of an apostle was to travel from one country to another, yea, through the whole world, and preach the Gospel to those who had not yet heard it; without being bound to any particular place or church, as appears from Matt. 28:19; Mark 16:15.
On the other hand, the office of a bishop or overseer was to watch over, care for, feed and govern, as a shepherd his flock, a particular church, unto which the Gospel had been already preached, and which had accepted faith and the sign of holy baptism. Compare Acts 20:28 with 1 Tim. 3:1–5; Tit. 1:5–7.
Now, it is a fact, that properly not the latter, but the former office was enjoined upon Peter, for he gives himself the first mentioned name--apostle (see 1 Pet. 1:1 and 2 Pet. 1:1); for which purpose Christ himself had chosen him, Luke 6:13,14, and sent him out, as can plainly be seen in the last chapter of Matthew and of Mark.
How could it be then, that Peter sat as bishop of the church in the city of Rome? and, what is still more--for a considerable number of years! unless it be said that Peter abandoned his charge, and accepted another office and ministry than the one to which he was called; which it would be difficult to prove, since nothing is mentioned of it in Holy Writ.
_Further Remarks on the foregoing circumstances_--If one should confine himself solely to the testimony of the holy Scriptures, not accepting anything else as worthy of belief, it could in no wise be shown that Peter was ever at Rome; but, since the holy Scriptures do not relate all that has happened, the testimony of some accepted authors of that time may be recognized as credible, as far as their testimony is not contrary to what is expressed in holy Scripture.
We have shown from the apostolic writings, that during the time Paul wrote his epistles in the prison at Rome, and also during the whole period that he (Peter) was preaching in foreign countries, Peter was not in Rome, but in Jerusalem, Antioch, Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and in other places where the Jews were scattered. This we have plainly shown, first by six arguments, and then by eight circumstances, derived from the holy Scriptures. But as to where Peter was, or how he died, after Paul wrote his last epistle from Rome, the Scriptures are silent.
Hence the testimony of those writers whom we have just mentioned cannot well be contradicted; who maintain, that Peter shortly before his death came to Rome, and there laid down his life for the doctrine of the Evangelical truth; without mentioning anything there about his bishopric, much less, popedom.
DISCORDANCE OF PAPISTIC WRITERS. 1. WHETHER PETER WAS AT ROME. 2. HOW LONG HE WAS BISHOP THERE. 3. WHO FOLLOWED HIM.
The common tenet of the papists is, that Peter sat as the chief bishop upon the Roman throne; yet the authors whom they adduce for this purpose greatly differ. For, as respects his arrival in that city, some fix it in the year 41 after Christ; others in the beginning of the reign of the Emperor Claudius; others in the second year of this same Claudius; others in the fourth year; others in the beginning of the reign of Nero; others in the fourteenth year after Paul’s conversion, etc., as is noted in Ireneus, Orosius, Damasus, Hornantius, Th. Aquinus, The Lives of the Saints, etc.