At what time was Linus, said to be the successor of Peter, made Bishop of Rome? The last trace we have of him, he was with Paul, in Rome, in the fall of A. D. 65. After this we know nothing of him, except from vague and more than doubtful tradition. According to Irenaeus, it was when Peter and Paul were in Rome together, after they had laid the foundation of the church at that place. Paul went to Rome for the first time in A. D. 61, where he remained to the spring of A. D. 63. We have shown that during this time Peter was not there. Paul remained absent until the summer or fall of A. D. 65, and soon after his return was committed to prison. In A. D. 64, Peter was in Babylon, two thousand miles away. As Irenaeus is the founder of the story, and the only authority in subsequent ages, when it was that Linus was appointed over the church of Rome as the successor of Peter, it devolves on those who pretend to believe him to show when it was that Peter and Paul were together in Rome, laying the foundation of a church, or anything else. This can never be done; and if not, it destroys the first link in the Apostolic chain, and what is left is worthless.

The importance attached to Clement as the third Bishop of Rome will be a sufficient excuse for a critical examination, as to who he was, when he lived, and the position he occupied. The authority that Clement was Bishop of Rome is the same we have in any other case for links to keep up the Apostolic succession; for Irenaeus not only supplies an Apostle from whom to start, but also the intermediate links in the chain, to the time of authentic history. In this he finds great assistance in his ready invention of traditions, which we are required to believe without question, for fear of incurring the sin of unbelief, and subject ourselves to being called slippery eels, trying to evade the truth. The x following is his language: "The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed Apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the Apostles still echoing (in his ears), and their traditions before his eyes." (IrenÆus, book iii. chap. 3, sec. 3.)

It may be affirmed with confidence, that we know nothing of the person who is called Clement, and made third Bishop in the Church of Rome. If he had held the office at the time it is claimed he did—the latter part of the first century—it would have been in the power of Irenaeus to give us a full account of him: when he took the office, and when he died; for if he had been a real character, there must have been persons living, at the time Irenaeus flourished, who had seen and known him, so that the historian had ample material to inform posterity of everything which related to the life of the third Bishop. But he gives no information—does not give a date—or the source from which he derives his authority, but has left the world to grope in darkness ever since. We have his word, and that is all.

It is impossible that a person should fill an office of importance in the church in Rome, at the end of the first century, without leaving some tangible evidence that he had once an existence; but Clement, like a shadow, passes over the earth, without a single mark of any kind to prove he ever lived. There is a dispute, as to when and how he died. Some say he was banished into the Crimea by Trajan, and there suffered martyrdom by drowning. Others that he died a peaceful death, A.D. 100. There is nothing known about him, and for that reason, everything which concerns him is variously stated. This could not be, had he been a real character in history. It is only fictions of the brain that elude you, when you attempt to grasp them.

We are not told when he first filled the office which it is claimed he did. Eusebius states, that he succeeded Anacletus in the twelfth year of Domitian's reign, A. D. 93. Cave, in his life of Clement, from the best light he could get, adopted the conclusion of Dodwell, that he became bishop about A. D. 64 or A. D. 65. The reason of this confusion is readily explained. The Clement referred to by Paul has been made to fill the place of an imaginary Clement at the end of the century—a person who only existed in the brain of Irenaeus; and in trying to fix time and dates, the real and imaginary Clement create confusion. Irenaeus has purposely left the subject in darkness, as he does the time when Peter went to Rome, and John to Asia. Dates are always fatal to falsehood and misrepresentations. The real Clement is referred to by Paul in the fourth chapter and third verse of the epistle to the Philip-pians, which was written from Rome in A. D. 63. This is the only notice that is taken of him, and he is made the third Bishop of Rome by Irenaeus, simply because his name is found among others in one of Paul's epistles, as it was in the case of Linus, who was made first. Who was it that wrote the letter to the Corinthians ascribed to Clement? We cannot tell who wrote all, but we can who did write a part. The address of this letter by a person who, it is claimed, was at the time a Bishop, to a church outside the city, which, it was said, appealed to him for advice, is the first bold attempt, on the part of the See of Rome, to enforce an acknowledgment of the supremacy of the Papal authority. Can any reason be given why the church at Corinth, during the first century, should appeal to Rome for advice on any subject? The church at Corinth was the oldest, and after Paul's death knew of no higher authority than itself. There are no signs of a church to which an appeal could be made to the end of the century, except those manufactured by the aid of tradition, which do not deserve to be mentioned when men mean to be serious.

This letter, like everything else suspicious, has no date. We can fix the date with almost entire certainty to every letter written by Paul, and there is no reason why a date should not be given to the one to the Corinthians, except that there is something wrong about it, and a date would expose the fraud. Archbishop Wake supposes it to have been written soon after the termination of the persecution under Nero, between the years A. D. 64 and A. D. 70, Lard-ner refers it to the year A. D. 96. (Chevallier H. E. Introduction.) The writer of this epistle was careful to leave no internal evidence by which its date could be determined, and what there is of that character is inserted apparently to mislead or afford grounds for dispute.

We have a right to demand the letter of the Corinthians to Clement, to which his is the answer; for it is more probable that a letter received at Rome of so much importance would be preserved, than one sent away into a distant country. We not only have not the letter, but we cannot learn what it was about. There can be no doubt of the early date of the letter, for it makes no allusion to the Gospels, and was written during the lives of the first fathers of the church, such as Polycarp and Ignatius. It has but little of the odor of the second century about it.

From all the light we can collect on this perplexing question, we would say that the letter itself was written by some of the early fathers, and made afterwards, with some alterations, to conform to the purposes for which it was wanted—that is, the entering wedge of Papal supremacy. It is evident that Irenaeus is attempting to make the Clement of Paul take the place of a creature of his own creation, and thus impose upon the world, as he did in the case of John and Mark.

In manipulating the letter he provided for Peter in Rome and Paul in the Occident. In naming the successors to Clement, Irenaeus says: "To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him Telesphorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherus does now, in the twelfth place from the Apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth."

Including Linus and Anacletus, here are twelve traditional bishops in succession. Why traditional?

For the reason that most of them, and all, except the three last, are not real or historical characters.

Commencing with Nero, about the time when the tradition commences, and coming down to, and including Commodus, cotemporary with Eleutherus, there are thirteen emperors, one more than the number of Bishops in the same time, and history gives the time when each was born, when each became a ruler, when each ceased to reign, the manner of his death, and the qualities for which each was distinguished. It was an age of chronology, when dates of important events were as carefully preserved as in our own day; and yet Irenaeus has failed to give a single date in connection with his twelve traditional Bishops. We do not even know there was such a tradition, except that he says so, and we are very certain that there was no church in Rome to preserve it, if there was.

This vagueness and uncertainty—where certainty, if the statements were true, could be easily attained, but easily exposed, if false—must have been used with great effect, by the philosophers of the third century, against Christians, for it forced Eusebius to fix up dates for each of these traditional bishops. He makes each appear in order, like so many shadows, and he reminds us, as he goes through the roll, of the showman in a panorama, who explains each figure as it takes its place on the canvas. What Irenaeus dared not do in the second, Eusebius dared do in the fourth century. On such subjects, his whole history proves, he had no scruples; and he admits, indirectly, that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace of religion.

It will be noticed that he gives no authority for his dates, for the reason that he has none. Irenaeus could find none in the second century. It is not probable Eusebius would be any better supplied in the fourth. It is evident he went to work and divided the whole time in which it is claimed the twelve Bishops lived, between them, so as to make each appear at a given time, marked by the accession of the emperors who reigned during the traditional era. We will give his statements as he makes them himself:—

"After Vespasian had reigned about ten years, he was succeeded by his son Titus; in the second year of whose reign, Linus, Bishop of the church at Rome, who had held the office about twelve years, transferred it to Anacletus." (Ecc. Hist., book iii. chap. 13.) "In the twelfth year of the same reign, after Anacletus had been Bishop of Rome twelve years, he was succeeded by Clement." (Ib., book iii. chap. 4.) "In the third year of the above-mentioned reign (Trajan's), Clement, Bishop of Rome, committed the episcopal charge to Euaristus, and departed this life, after superintending of the divine word nine years." (Ib., book iii. chap. 34.) "About the twelfth year of the reign of Trajan, Euaristus had completed the eighth year as Bishop of Rome, and was succeeded in his episcopal office by Alexander." (Ib., book iv. chap. 1.) "In the third year of the same reign (Adrian's), Alexander, Bishop of Rome, died, having completed the tenth year of his ministration. Xystus was his successor." (Ib., book iv. chap. 4.) "And Adrian being now in the twelfth year of his reign, Xystus, who had now completed the tenth year of his episcopate, was succeeded by Telesphorus." (Id., book iv. chap. 5.) "The Emperor Adrian, having finished his mortal career after the twenty-first year of his reign, is succeeded by Antoninus, called Pius, in the government of the Romans. In the first year of this reign, and in the eleventh year of his episcopate, Telesphorus departed this life, and was succeeded in charge of the Roman church by Hyginus." (Ib., book iv. chap. 10.) "Hyginus dying after the fourth year of his office, Pius received the episcopate." (Ib., book iv. chap. 11.) "Pius dying at Rome in the fifteenth year of his episcopate, the church was governed by Anicetus." (Ib., book iv. chap. 11.) "It was in the eighth year of the above-mentioned reign, to wit, that of Verus, that Anicetus, who held the episcopate of Rome for eleven years, was succeeded by Soter." (3., book iv. chap. 19.) "Soter, Bishop of Rome, died after having held the episcopate eight years. He was succeeded by Eleutherus." (Ib., book v. Introduction.) "In the tenth year of the reign of Commodus, Eleutherus, who had held the episcopate thirteen years, was succeeded by Victor." (Ib., book v. chap. 22.)

We give a list of the emperors, and the time of accession of each to the government of the Empire, commencing with Vespasian, coming down to the time of Commodus:

The following tabular statement shows the year in which each Bishop took the office, according to the statement of Eusebius, and the number of years which each held it:—

From A.D. 69, when Linus became Bishop, to the tenth year of Commodus, when Victor succeeded Eleutherus, the true time is one hundred and twenty-one years. The time, taking the period assigned to each traditional Bishop, is one hundred and twenty-three years. In making a dead calculation under the circumstances, while we would not expect to find any gross mistakes, we would expect to discover enough to detect the true character of the work, for truth can never be so skilfully counterfeited, but that we can readily distinguish it from that which is false and spurious. The difference between the skilful counterfeit and the genuine bill is often slight, so much so that none but experts can detect it; but it is this difference which termines its character.

If the time occupied by the Bishops had fallen short two years, we might account for it on the principle of an interregnum; but where the time is in excess, it is proof of a blunder or mistake, on the part of some one who is engaged in a dishonest employment.

Clement became Bishop in A.D. 91, and filled the office for nine years. This leaves his successor to take his place in A.D. 100, whereas he took it in A.D. 101, one year after the office was vacant. Euaristus took the office in A.D. 101, held it eight years, to A.D. 109; his successor took his place in A.D. no, leaving a gap of one year. Telesphorus became Bishop in A.D. 129, and served eleven years, which would leave the office vacant in A.D. 140; but his successor takes it in A.D. 138, two years before the death of his predecessor. Anicetus took the office in A.D. 157, and served eleven years, to A.D. 168. His successor, Soter, took the office in the eighth year of Verus, which would be A.D. 169. Here is a clear gap of one year.

It was intended that the time assigned to the Bishops should correspond with the true historic period, and be 121 instead of 123 years. There are three years of vacancies, and a lap of two years in the case of Telesphorus and Hyginus. If we deduct this lap, it will stand one hundred and twenty-one, the true time.

Eusebius meant well and intended no offence to chronology, but blundered, and in fixing twelve dates only makes four mistakes. During a time when accuracy of dates is more important than at any other, there seems to have been less care exercised than in the same space of time in any period of history; and indeed, since the foundation of Rome, over seven hundred years before Christ, to the end of the empire, there have not been so many mistakes and contradictions as to dates which relate to successive rulers, as during this period of one hundred and twenty-one years. But such is the difference between true and genuine, and false and spurious history.

Of the twelve traditional Bishops of Irenaeus, Telesphorus is selected for the honors of martyrdom. No period in Roman history could have been selected more unlikely and improbable for the death of a Christian Bishop at Rome on account of his religion, than the reign of Antoninus Pius. Not one drop of Christian blood was spilt in Rome during his reign of twenty-three years. Not only was there no blood spilt in Rome, but he forbade the persecution of Christians in the provinces by an express edict. A modern writer, speaking of him, says: "Open to conviction, uncorrupted by the vain and chimerical philosophy of the times, he was desirous of doing justice to all mankind. Asia propria was still the scene of vital Christianity and cruel persecution. These Christians applied to Antoninus, and complained of the many injuries they sustained from the people of the country. Earthquakes, it seems, had lately happened, and the pagans were much terrified, and ascribed them to the vengeance of Heaven against Christians." (Milner, C. H., vol. I., page 100.)

Here follows the edict of the pious Emperor, addressed to the enemies of the Christians: "As to the earthquakes which have happened in past times, or lately, is it not proper to remind you of your own despondency when they happened, and to desire you to compare your spirit with theirs, and observe how serenely they confide in God? You live in practical ignorance of the Supreme God himself—you harass and persecute to death those who worship him, Concerning these same men, some others of the provincials wrote to our divine Hadrian, to whom he returned answer, that they should not be molested unless they appeared to attempt something against the Roman government. Many also have signified to me concerning these men, to whom I have returned an answer agreeable to the maxims of my fathers. But if any person will still persist in accusing the Christians merely as such, let the accused be acquitted, though he appear to be a Christian, and let the accusor be punished." Set up at Ephesus in the common assembly of Asia.

Is it possible that Telesphorus was put to death in Rome under the mild and gentle reign of such a man?

If the persons who are named by Irenaeus as Bishops were real and not fictitious, how is it that there was not something done or said by some or all of them, so as to connect them with the events which transpired during their lives? They lived, if they lived at all, during the most eventful period of Roman history. It was during the period of the civil war, when Rome was reduced to ashes—when the Jewish nation was almost destroyed by the legions of Titus, Jerusalem rendered a desert place, and the victorious armies of Trajan added Armenia, Mesopotamia, and Assyria to the Empire. During a period of seventy years, filled with the most exciting scenes and mighty events the world has ever known, we have at least nine Bishops in Rome, whose presence is no more felt in the history of the times, than so many men who were dead and quietly resting in their graves. They do not even cast their shadows on the earth.

The first person on the list of these traditional Bishops who steps forth into the light, so that we see something real and tangible, is Anicetus. Hegisippus says, "After coming to Rome, I made my stay with Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus." Taking the foregoing data as correct, Anicetus held the office of Bishop about A. D. 157. If the statement of Hegisippus is true, which we are inclined to believe, not because he says so, but because it is probable, he is the first person who had ever seen and talked with any of the traditional Bishops of Irenaeus, and he is tenth in order of succession. But it is not until we come to Eleutherus that we have a historic character, whose acts can be traced and found in the history of the times. Here we part company with spectres and deal with real life; but as we leave an age populated by phantoms, we enter into another stained with forgeries and fraud.