Concerning the length of time he was bishop, there is not less disagreement; as also in regard to how long he was absent from his bishopric sojourning in other places. Cortesius writes of eighteen years, Onuphrius of seven years; but the general opinion among them is, that he sat twenty-five years upon the chair governing their church; although some flatly oppose it. See the last mentioned three authors.
Touching the person who succeeded him in his bishopric, there is much confusion and uncertainty in what is said concerning this subject. Some write, that Clemens succeeded Peter; as Septimus Florens Tert.; others, that Linus followed him; as Ireneus, Eusebius, Epiphan., etc., _De Praes 32. 1. Contr. Jov._; others, that Linus discharged Peter’s office two years before the death of the latter; as Damasus, etc.; others, that Peter ordered that Clemens should succeed after the death of Linus; _In Pontific_. _Petr. etc., Clem. in Epist. ad Jacobum, etc._; others, that the chair of Peter was vacant while Linus and Cletus lived, Clemens, who was ordained by Peter as his successor, not being willing, as they say, to occupy the chair in their lifetime; which is testified to by Bellarminus; others that Linus occupied the chair eleven years after Peter’s death; see Eusebius; others, that Linus died before Peter, and, consequently was not his successor in the bishopric; see Turrianus, Sophronius, etc.; others, that Anacletus succeeded Peter, and Clemens, Anacletus. See _Homil. de Agon. Pet. and Paul. In Chron. in Anno Clem._; others, finally, that Peter and Linus were bishops simultaneously in the city of Rome; yet so, that Peter was the superior, and Linus, the inferior bishop. See Ruffinus, Sabellicus, Turrianus, _In vita Petri_.
OF THE RISE OF THE POPES AFTER THE YEAR 606, AS ALSO OF THE INTERRUPTION OF THE SUCCESSION OF THE SAME.
Besides, that in the first three centuries after the death of the apostles, nothing was known in the Roman church, as regards rulers of the same, but common bishops or overseers, until the time of Constantine the Great, and from that time on to the year 600, only archbishops and patriarchs, but no popes, till after the year 606, when, by the power of the Emperor Phocas, the Roman Bishop Boniface III. was declared and established the general head and supreme ruler of the whole church;--the succession also of the following popes was interrupted by many important occurrences, with respect to the manner of the papal election as well as to the doctrine and the life of the popes themselves, as also with regard to various circumstances pertaining to these matters. Of this an account shall presently be given.
NOTE.--Besides what we have mentioned in our account of holy baptism, for the year 606, of the rise and establishment of the Roman pope, there is also found, concerning the cause of the same (in the _Chronijk van den Ondergang der Tyrannen_, edition of 1617, book VII., page 211, col. 2), this annotation: When the patriarch at Constantinople reproved the Emperor Phocas for the shameful murder he had committed, or would not consent to, or remit it, while the bishop of Rome winked at, or excused this wicked deed, the Emperor Phocas, in his displeasure, deprived the church of Constantinople of the title, _Head of Christendom_, and, at the request of Boniface III., conferred it upon the Roman church; which was done amidst great contentions, for the eastern churches could not well consent to it, that the see of Rome should be considered by everybody, and everywhere, as the head and the supreme (of the) church. Compare this with _Platinae Reg. Pap. fol. 123; Fasc. Temp. fol. 122; Pol. Virgil, lib. 4. cap. 10; Hist. Georg. lib. 4; Conrad. Oclutar. fol. 15; Tract, called, Ouden en Nieuwen Godt. lib. 1; M. Zanchij Tract. Pap. fol. 41; Zeg. Chron. Rom. Pap. fol 132_.