dom of
Peter, when the presidents began to be designated _bishops_, an attempt
was made to settle their order of succession, [331:1] the result was by
no means satisfactory. Some of the earliest writers who touch
incidentally upon the question are inconsistent with themselves; [331:2]
whilst they flatly contradict each other. [331:3] In fact, to this day,
what is called the episcopal succession in the ancient Church of Rome is
an historical riddle. At first no one individual seems to have acted for
life as the president, or moderator, of the presbytery; but as it was
well known that, at an early date, several eminent pastors had belonged
to it, the most distinguished names found their way into the catalogues,
and each writer appears to have consulted his own taste or judgment in
regulating the order of succession. Thus, it has probably occurred that
their lists are utterly irreconcileable. All such genealogies are,
indeed, of exceedingly dubious credit, and those who deem them of
importance must always be perplexed by the candid acknowledgment of the
father of ecclesiastical history. "How many," says he, "and who,
prompted by a kindred spirit, were judged fit to feed the churches
established by the apostles, it _is not easy to say, any farther than
may be gathered from the statements of Paul_." [331:4]

About A.D. 139, Telesphorus, who was then at the head of the Roman
presbytery, is said to have been put to death for his profession of the
gospel; but the earliest authority for this fact is a Christian
controversialist who wrote upwards of forty years afterwards; [332:1]
and we are totally ignorant of all the circumstances connected with the
martyrdom. The Church of the capital, which had hitherto enjoyed
internal tranquillity, began in the time of Hyginus, who succeeded
Telesphorus, to be disturbed by false teachers. Valentine, Cerdo, and
other famous heresiarchs, now appeared in Rome; [332:2] and laboured
with great assiduity to disseminate their principles. The distractions
created by these errorists seem to have suggested the propriety of
placing additional power in the hands of the _presiding presbyter_.
[332:3] Until this period every teaching elder had been accustomed to
baptize and administer the Eucharist on his own responsibility; but it
appears to have been now arranged that henceforth none should act
without the sanction of the president, who was thus constituted the
centre of ecclesiastical unity. According