14. Pre-Eminence of the Bishops of Rome.--The distinctions of rank among the bishops of the Christian church first arose largely through the opulence and civil importance of the respective cities and provinces over which they presided--the membership of the church and its wealth usually bearing a just proportion to the size and civil importance of the city in {145} which it was located. It is not surprisingg, therefore, that the metropolitans and patriarchs also struggled for pre-eminence upon the same basis. That basis gave the bishop of Rome great advantage; for, as stated by Gibbon, "the Roman church was the greatest, the most numerous, and, in regard to the west, the most ancient of all the Christian establishments, many of which had received their religion from the pious labors of here missionaries." The fact, too, that for so many ages Rome had been the capital of the great empire led men naturally to give pre-eminence to the church established there. 15. Another thing which went far to establish the supremacy of the bishop of Rome was the tradition that Peter, the chief or "prince" of the apostles, had founded that church; that he became its first bishop; that the bishops succeeding him succeeded to his apostleship and to whatever of pre-eminence he held over his fellow apostles; and that pre-eminence, it is claimed, amounted to the right of presidency over the universal church. 16. Objections to the Claims of the Bishop of Rome.--That Peter, aided by Paul, did found the church at Rome there is little cause to doubt. It is also true that Peter was the chief or president of the apostles; that to him had been given the keys of the kingdom of heaven.[51] But that he became the bishop of Rome, or that the bishops of Rome succeeded to the apostleship and to that power which made him the president of the universal church of Christ, we cannot allow. 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 {146} 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]