From what has been hitherto said, every impartial Judge must conclude, that it is, at least, very much to be doubted whether St. _Peter_ was ever at _Rome_; but, allowing him to have been there, it still remains to be proved, that he was Bishop of that See. This the Sticklers for the Papal Authority spare no Pains to make out, being well apprised, that the Whole of their Cause lies here at stake; and yet I find nothing alleged by them in so material a Point, but a few misinterpreted Passages out of the Ecclesiastical Writers: for the right understanding of which it is to be observed, that such of the Antients as called _Peter_ Bishop of _Rome_, and _Rome_ the _Place_, the _Chair_, the _See_ of _Peter_, meant no more than that he was Superintendent of that Church, that he founded it by converting Men to the Faith, and erected the Episcopal Chair, by appointing the first Bishops. That this was their true Meaning, is apparent from what we read in _Ruffinus_; who, having mentioned _Linus_, _Cletus_, and _Clemens_, as succeeding each other in the See of _Rome_, while _Peter_ was still alive, thus accounts for their Episcopacy: They were, says he, appointed Bishops by _Peter_, to the end that, they taking upon them the Episcopal Charge, he might be at Leisure to discharge the Duties of his Apostolical Office. And this, he tells us, was not a Notion of his own, but the common Opinion[37]. _Irenæus_ speaks to the same Purpose: _The Apostles_, says he, _founding that Church, delivered the Episcopal Office into the Hands of_ Linus[38]. Hence the most antient Writers, who lived nearest the Fountain of Tradition, never stile St. _Peter_ Bishop of _Rome_, but only say, that, by ordaining Bishops, he founded that Church[39]. [Sidenote: _In what sense St._ Peter _and St_. Paul _stiled Bishops of_ Rome.] St. _Peter_ therefore was not Bishop of _Rome_ in the strict Sense, to which that Word is now confined, but in the more large Sense, of which I have taken notice above: and in that St. _Paul_ has as good a Claim to the high-sounding Titles of _Pope_, _Bishop of_ Rome, _&c._ as St. _Peter_, since, together with him, he is said to have founded that Church. The Popes indeed will not allow him that Honour, nor condescend to reckon him among their Predecessors; but _Epiphanius_ and _Eusebius_ have been more complaisant; of whom the former says, Peter _and_ Paul _were the first at_ Rome, _both Bishops and Apostles_[40]; and the latter speaking of the Succession of the Bishops of _Rome_, Alexander _derived his Succession in the fifth Place from_ Peter _and_ Paul[41]. Both therefore were Bishops of _Rome_, or neither; both in the Sense of the antient Writers, but neither in that, which is now annexed to the Word _Bishop_. [Sidenote: _The Duties of a Bishop and an Apostle inconsistent._] And truly the Office of an Apostle, and that of a Bishop, as the Word is now understood, are incompatible. An Apostle,