A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

4. The Scripture is utterly silent of any such thing as Peters going to Rome. Other journeyings of his it records, as to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesarea, Antioch. Now it was no way material that his coming unto any of these places should be known, but only in reference unto the things done there by him; and yet they are recorded. But this his going to Rome, which is supposed to be of such huge importance in Christian Religion, and that according to Onuphrius falling out in the middest of his other journeyings, as it must do if ever it fell out, is utterly passed by in silence. If it had been to have such an influence into the very being of Christianity as now is pretended, some men will be apt to think, that the mention of it would not have been omitted. 5. Paul in his Epistle to the Roman•, written a good while after this imaginary going of Peter to Rome, makes no mention of him, when yet he saluted by name those of chief note and dignity in the Church there. So that undoubtedly he was not then come thither. 6. The same Apostle being at Rome, in the reign of Nero, in the amidst of the time allotted unto the abode of Peter there, never once mentions him in any of the Epistles which from thence he wrote unto the Churches and his fellow labourers; though he doth remember very many others that were with him in the City. 7. He asserts that in one of his Epistles from thence, which as I think sufficiently proves that Peter was not then there; for he says plainly that in his trial he was forsaken by all men, that no man stood by him, which he mentions as their sin, and prays for pardon for them. Now no man can reasonably think, that Peter was amongst the number of them whom he complained of. 8. The Story is not consistent with what is expressly written ⟨p. 174⟩of Peter by Luke in the Acts, and Paul in his Epistle to the Galatians. Paul was converted unto the faith about the 38th year of Christ, or 5th after his Ascension. After this he continued 3 years preaching the Gospel about Damascus, and in Arabia. In the 40th or 41st year of Christ he came to Jerusalem, to confer with Peter, Gal. 1. which was the first of Claudius. As yet therefore, Peter was not removed out of Judea:

4. The Scripture is utterly silent of any such thing as Peters going to Rome. Other journeyings of his it records, as to Samaria, Lydda, Joppa, Caesaria, Antioch. Now it was no way materiall that his coming unto any of these places should be known, but only in reference unto the things done there by him; and yet they are recorded. But this his going to Rome, which is supposed to be of such huge importance in Christian Religion, and that according to Onuphrius falling out in the middest of his other journeyings, as it must do if ever it fell out, is utterly passed by in silence. If it had been to have such an influence into the very being of Christianity as now is pretended, some men will be apt to think, that the mention of it would not have been omitted. 5. Paul in his Epistle to the Roman, written a good while after this imaginary going of Peter to Rome, makes no mention of him, when yet he saluted by name those of chief note and dignity in the Church there. So that undoubtedly he was not then come thither. 6. The same Apostle being at Rome, in the reign of Nero, in the amidst of the time allotted unto the abode of Peter there, never once mentions him in any of the Epistles which from thence he wrote unto the Churches and his fellow labourers; though he doth remember very many others that were with him in the City. 7. He asserts that in one of his Epistles from thence, which as I think sufficiently proves that Peter was not then there; for he saies plainly that in his triall he was forsaken by all men, that no man stood by him, which he mentions as their sin, and prays for pardon for them. Now no man can reasonably think, that Peter was amongst the number of them whom he complained of. 8. The Story is not consistent with what is expresly written