I needed no more evidence to be thoroughly convinced that all which is
taught by the Romish church of the supremacy of St. Peter, and of
the sovereignty of the popes, his pretended successors, was a fable
destitute of the slightest foundation; at all events, a doctrine no
more to be found in the Gospel than that of purgatory.

If I were surprised at this, I was no less so when I observed, that in
the whole New Testament there was not one word which gave reason to
imagine that St. Peter had ever preached, or had even ever been, at
Rome, where the Roman Catholics assert, and believe as an article of
faith, that he was the first pope. The Acts of the Apostles maintains
the most profound silence on this subject, and affords no ground
whatever for the supposition. All the Epistles leave it equally in
darkness. Those of St. Paul to the Galatians, to the Ephesians, to the
Philippians, to the Colossians, the second to Timothy, and the Epistle
to Philemon, all written from Rome at different periods, and that to
the Hebrews, written from Italy, make no mention of Peter's being
there. In the last four, the apostle speaks of his companions in
suffering, in labour, and in the work of the Lord, but says not a word
of Peter as being with him. Undoubtedly he would have mentioned him,
as he mentions Tychicus, Onesimus, Aristarchus, Demas, Prudens,
Livius, Claudia, &c. had he been at Rome; but neither his name, nor
any allusion to his abode in the capital of the world, is to be
discovered in any part of St. Paul's Epistles. In my opinion, there is
no proof of his ever having been there, much less of his having held
the bishopric. Finally, his own two Epistles furnish no evidence for
such a supposition: the first, and in all probability, the second
also, is written from Babylon, 1 Peter, 5:13, and addressed, not to
the Romans, but "to the strangers (that is to say, the converted Jews)