17. Our first reason for saying that Peter was not bishop of Rome is that the office of apostle and bishop are not identical. If Peter presided at all over the church at Rome he did so by virtue of his apostleship, not by becoming its bishop; but as his apostleship would give him the right to act in minor offices of the church—on the principle that the greater authority includes the lesser—he may have presided for a time over the church at Rome.
18. Our second reason is that according to the very best authority on the subject, one Linus and not Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Irenaeus writing in the second century, says:
The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul] then, upon founding and erecting the church [at Rome], committed the office of administering the church to Linus. Of this Linus, Paul speaks in the epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus [An-a-cle-tus], and after him in the third place from the apostles, Clement received the bishopric.[[52]]
From this it plainly appears that Peter and Paul organized a church at Rome, and as in other cities they appointed a bishop to preside over it. Peter no more became the bishop of Rome than he did of the church at Jerusalem, or Paul of Antioch, Ephesus, or Corinth.
19. The bishop of Rome did not succeed to the apostleship of Peter, much less to the pre-eminence which he held among the apostles; and that for the very good reason that the office of bishop and that of apostle, as remarked above, are not identical. It would require an apostle to succeed an apostle, and as there is no account of an apostle being ordained to succeed to Peter's office, we conclude he had no successor. Here we might let the matter rest, but it will be proper to notice the arguments which are made by those who contend that the bishops of Rome are the true successors to the office and mission of the Apostle Peter.
20. Scripture Basis of the Claims of the Bishop of Rome to Pre-Eminence.—On one occasion Jesus said to his disciples, "Whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered, * * * Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." To this Jesus said: "Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."[[53]] He then gave to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven—power to bind and loose on earth and in heaven. The argument is that since Peter, some time before this, had been given the name Cephas, which means a stone,[[54]] therefore when Jesus said, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church," it is claimed that he meant than on Peter he would build his church.[[55]]
21. That this is a clear misconception of the scripture is apparent. If Messiah had meant to found the church on Peter, how unfortunate that he did not say, Thou art Cephas, a stone, and upon thee will I build my church! etc. But he did not. He first assured Peter that the knowledge he had received that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God, was received by revelation from God—"And I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock [principle] will I build my church," etc.; i.e., upon the principle of God revealing to men that Jesus was the Christ[[56]]—on the principle of revelation.
22. Another passage quoted in support of the theory that the apostles had successors in the bishops of Rome is found in the following: Jesus after his resurrection said to his apostles:
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore and teach all nations; * * * and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the world.[[57]]
This is the argument—