[Sidenote: _Whether_ James _the Apostle was Bishop of_ Jerusalem.]
But St. _James_, say the Popish Writers, though an Apostle, was appointed Bishop of _Jerusalem_; and why might not St. _Peter_, though an Apostle, undertake the Episcopacy of _Rome_? It is surprising they should lay so much Stress as they do on this Objection, since they must know it to be grounded on an Uncertainty; as _Eusebius_ the greatest Antiquary of former Times[44], _Hegesippus_ the most antient Historian[45], _Epiphanius_[46], _Jerom_[47] _Gregory of Nysse_[48], _Chrysostom_[49], and many others, reckon _James_ Bishop of _Jerusalem_, not among the _Apostles_, but the Seventy Disciples. Of the same Opinion among the Moderns, are _Grotius_[50], Dr. _Hammond_[51], _Valesius_[52], _Blondel_[53], and _Salmasius_[54]. The last of these saying, after his positive and confident manner, _It is certain that he was not one of the Twelve_, I may at least say, it is not certain that he was; and consequently the Objection can be of no considerable Weight. But allowing him to have been one of the Twelve, as some of the Antients seem to think[55], there was a special Reason, why one of the Apostles should be appointed to reside at _Jerusalem_, that City being the Metropolis, the Fountain, the Centre of the Christian Religion; our Faith had there had its Birth; the Church was there very numerous, consisting of many Thousands of believing _Jews_[56]; and thither resorted great Numbers of those of that Nation, who were converted to Christ in other Countries. On these Considerations it might seem expedient, that a Person of the greatest Authority should preside there. But there was no special Reason why an Apostle should constantly reside at any other Place, nor does it appear that any did: St. _Peter_ especially could not reside at any one Place, since to him, as _the Apostle of the Circumcision_, was committed the Charge of converting the dispersed _Jews_ in all Parts of the World.
[Sidenote: _What meant by the_ Apostolic See, Chair, Throne, _&c._]
As for the Appellations of the _Apostolic See_, _Chair_, _Throne_, &c. given by the Antients to the See of _Rome_, they import no more than that it was erected by an Apostle; for they are bestowed indiscriminately on all the Sees, in which Bishops had been placed by the Apostles; _viz._ of _Ephesus_[57], of _Smyrna_[58], of _Alexandria_[59], of _Corinth_, _Thessalonica_, _Philippi_[59], &c. The Title of _Apostolic See_, common to many, was, in Process of Time, by the Ambition of the Bishops of _Rome_, appropriated to their own. They had, as they thought, till the Year 1662. a pregnant Proof not only of St. _Peter_’s erecting their Chair, but of his sitting in it himself; for till that Year, the very Chair, on which they believed, or would make others believe, he had sat, was shewn and exposed to public Adoration on the 18th of _January_, the Festival of the said Chair. But while it was cleaning, in order to be set up in some conspicuous Place of the _Vatican_, the Twelve Labours of _Hercules_ unluckily appeared engraved on it. Our Worship however, says _Giacomo Bartolini_, who was present at this Discovery, and relates it, was not misplaced, since it was not to the Wood we paid it; but to the Prince of the Apostles St. _Peter_[60]. An Author of no mean Character, unwilling to give up the holy Chair, even after this Discovery, as having a Place and a peculiar Solemnity among the other Saints, has attempted to explain the Labours of _Hercules_ in a mystical Sense, as Emblems representing the future Exploits of the _Popes_[61]. But the ridiculous and distorted Conceits of that Writer are not worthy our Notice, tho’ by _Clement_ X. they were judged not unworthy of a Reward.