_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? [Sidenote: _St_. Peter, _though at_ Rome, _not Bishop of_ Rome.>]