- ting the apostolic reign of Peter from this very occasion, as above
fixed, and running over various imaginary acts of his, during the tedious seven years for which the story ties him down to this one spot. Among many other unfounded matters, is specified the assertion, that from this city during the first year of his episcopate, he wrote his first epistle, which he addressed to the believers in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia,—the countries which are enumerated as visited by him in his fictitious tour. This opinion is grounded on the circumstance of its being dated from Babylon, which several later fathers understood as a term spiritually applied to Rome; but in the proper place this notion will be fully discussed, and the true origin of the epistle more satisfactorily given. Another important event in the history of the scriptures,—the writing of the gospel of Mark,—is also commonly connected with this part of Peter's life, by the papist historians; but this event, with an account of the nature of this supposed connection, and the discussion of all points in this subject, can be better shown in the life of that evangelist; and to that it is therefore deferred. These matters and several others as little in place, seem to be introduced into this part of Peter's life, mainly for the sake giving him something particular to do, during his somewhat tedious stay in Rome, where they make him remain seven years after his first journey thither; and give him here the character, office and title of bishop,—a piece of nomenclature perfectly unscriptural and absurd, because no apostle, in the New Testament, is ever called a bishop; but on the contrary, the office was evidently created to provide a substitute for an apostle,—a person who might perform the pastoral duties to the church, in the absence of its apostolic founder, overseeing and managing all its affairs in his stead, to report to him at his visitations, or in reply to his epistolary charges. To call an apostle a bishop, therefore, implies the absurdity of calling a superior officer by the title of his inferior,—as to call a captain, lieutenant, or a general-in-chief, colonel, or even as to call a bishop, deacon. During the life-time of the apostles, "bishop" was only a secondary title, and it was not till the death of all those commissioned by Christ, that this became the supreme officer in all churches. But the papists not appreciating any difficulty of this kind, go on crowning one absurdity with another, which claims, however, the additional merit of being amusing in its folly. This is the minute particularization of the shape, stuff, accoutrements and so on, of the chair in which bish-
