Jews in those countries. Tradition, however, asserts his presence in Rome. Its evidence shall be examined. But if the inquiry be deferred till the close of the volume, we shall be better qualified to estimate its value.

In writing this history, I shall proceed as if I were writing the history of England. As I should detail all that is known of England in the successive reigns, under the titles of the successive kings, so I shall mention all that is known of the Roman Church in each episcopate, under the title of the bishop in whose episcopate the events occurred. So obscure, however, is the early history of the Roman Church, that the lists of its first bishops vary, not only in the order of the names, but also in the names themselves. In the writings of Irenæus (A.D. 180), there is a list representing the order as Linus, Anencletus, Clement; while in the writings of Tertullian, who is said to have lived about thirty or forty years later, there is a statement that Clement was ordained by St. Peter. This contrariety shows, even if the writings could be relied upon as genuine, how uncertain, in those early days, was the knowledge of the descent of the Roman episcopate. If the dates usually assigned to these bishops be correct, this last ordination is impossible, since St. Peter is said to have died about A.D. 66, and Clement is said not to have been bishop of Rome till A. D. 91. A difference also exists in the names of the early bishops: a Cletus is mentioned, as well as an Anencletus. The real facts will

probably never be ascertained; and, if known, would be of but little importance, since, with the exception of Clement, the prelates are mere names.

Having premised these remarks, the usual order and dates of the succession of the Roman bishops will be generally adopted. If a different date be in any case assumed, the reason will be given.

BISHOPS OF ROME.

I. LINUS (A.D. 66-78).

NOTHING is known of Linus, or of the Roman Church during his episcopate. He is conjectured to have been the individual mentioned by St. Paul at the close of his second letter to Timothy.*

II. ANENCLETUS (A.D. 78-91).†

Nothing is known of Anencletus. But there are three spurious letters attributed to him, forming part of a collection called the Isidorian. Two of them are directed to all bishops, and one to the bishops of Italy. As they are notoriously spurious, they do not require particular notice.‡

* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 2.

† Ibid. 15.

These forged letters of the Roman prelates, which may be found in the Councils, commence with Anencletus. Their main objects were to induce a belief, that the Roman bishop for the time being was the divinely appointed head of the Universal Church; that, from the very earliest times, he had been consulted and appealed to by all the Churches in Christendom;

III. CLEMENT (A.D. 91-100).

Several writings have been attributed to Clement. One only, however, is admitted to be genuine, and even that is supposed to be interpolated. It is a letter from the Roman to the Corinthian Church, in reply to one which the latter had sent, stating that they were torn by divisions, and that some of the Corinthian clergy had been factiously removed from their office. Tradition asserts that Clement wrote the reply of the Roman Church, showing the evils of strife and envy, and the duty of repentance, love, humility, and obedience.

All

Clement's letter was extant in the days of Eusebius; and he says that from the resemblance of its style and ideas to the Epistle to the Hebrews, Clement had been supposed by some to have translated Paul's letter from the Hebrew into Greek.* trace of this letter had been lost to the modern Church until the year 1628, when Cyril Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, presented the very ancient manuscript of the Old and New Testaments, now known as the Codex Alexandrinus, to Charles I. At the end of it was found, as is sup

and that he had been in the constant habit of issuing his decrees both to particular Churches and the Universal Church. These letters are always insisting that there lay an appeal from the sentence of every provincial synod to the Roman See. If the reader wishes to know more about them, he may see at the commencement of the "Proofs and Illustrations" in this volume, the account given by the learned and accurate Mosheim. * Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iii. 38.

posed, the long lost letter of Clement to the Corinthians; and also a fragment of a second, which, according to Eusebius, was not acknowledged as genuine in his day.

Many other works are improperly attributed to Clement, as, the Apostolical Canons, the Apostolical Constitutions, the Recognitions, the Clementines, and an epitome of the two last works; also, some epistles to James, the brother of our Lord, beside other letters.

Clement has been supposed to be the convert of that name mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to the Philippians.*

During the supposed period of this episcopate, Domitian was emperor of Rome. He commenced a persecution against the Christians, generally called the second, in which, beside many others, Flavia Domitilla, niece of Flavius Clemens, his relation, and one of the consuls, was sent into exile.† Nothing further is known of Clement.

IV. EVARISTUS (A. D. 100-109).‡

None of the proceedings of this prelate are known. Two of the spurious Isidorian letters are attributed to him.

* Euseb. Hist. Eccl. iii. 15.

† Ibid. 18.

Ibid. 34.