of his pretended Successors to an uncontrouled Authority, and universal Jurisdiction; a Foundation infinitely too weak for such an immense Superstructure. [Sidenote: _How little regard paid to them by some Popes._] And here I cannot help observing the little Regard that the Popes themselves have shewn to Tradition, though received by the greatest Lights of the Church, when it did not promote the Honour or Interest of their See. Of this we have a glaring Instance in a parallel Case; for as St. _Peter_, according to Tradition, travelled to _Rome_, so did St. _Paul_, according to Tradition, travel into _Spain_: the former Tradition was received by the Writers I have quoted above, and the latter by some of the same Writers, _viz._ by _Cyril_ of _Jerusalem_[17], and _Jerom_[18], and by _Athanasius_[19], _Chrysostom_[20], _Theodoret_[21], _Gregory the Great_[22], and many others; yet such a Tradition was rejected, perhaps justly, by Pope _Innocent_ I. who would not allow St. _Paul_ to have ever been in _Spain_[23]. Have we not an equal Right to question, or even to deny, St. _Peter_’s having ever been at _Rome_? Are not the Authorities at least equal on both Sides? Why then must the Travels of one Apostle be looked upon as an Article of Faith, and those of the other be deemed fabulous? [Sidenote: _No Mention in the Scripture of St._ Peter_’s having ever been at_ Rome.] 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. [Sidenote: _St._ Paul,