rely chiefly upon St. Irenæus, Tertullian, and Eusebius to prove this.
Now, Eusebius expresses himself thus: "After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, Linus was the first that received the episcopate at Rome."[1] "Clement also, who was appointed the third Bishop of this Church, (Rome.)"[2] "After Anencletus (or Cletus) had been Bishop of Rome twelve years he was succeeded by Clement."[3] "After Euaristus had completed the eighth year as Bishop of Rome, he was succeeded in the episcopal office by Alexander, the fifth in succession from Peter and Paul."[4] Thus it makes no difference to Eusebius whether he places Paul before Peter, or Peter before Paul, when he speaks of the foundation of the Church of Rome. The bishops are the successors of the one as well as of the other, and neither of them is counted among the Bishops of Rome. St. Irenæus has nowhere said that Peter had been Bishop of Rome; he even asserts the contrary in a most incontestable manner. He expresses himself in substance as follows: "The blessed Apostles, (Peter and Paul,) when they founded and organized the Church of Rome, gave to Linus the episcopate, and the care of governing that Church. ... Anencletus succeeded Linus; after Anencletus, Clement was the third, since the Apostles, who had charge of this episcopate."[5]
St. Peter and St. Paul founded and organized the Church of Rome, but it was Linus who was made the first Bishop, even during the life of the Apostles. Observe that Peter and Paul are here coördinated by the holy doctor. Thus if we prove the episcopate of St. Peter at Rome by the text quoted, we also prove that of St. Paul by the same text. Rome would then have had two Apostle-Bishops at one and the same time.
