From Tertullian's quote as posted by markomalley:
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed. Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind.
From this statement, we see that an Apostolic See was planted in Rome by St. Peter. Only the Apostles or their successors (the bishops) could consecrate a bishop. We do know that St. Clement regarded himself the successor to St. Peter in this regard based upon his writings.
There is more evidence that Simon Magus had the 25 year bishopric in Rome leaving a Christian cult behind when he died than there is that Simon Peter was there at all, much less a bishop there.
Yet modern historians (many of whom have no reason to support mainstream Christianity) seem to have missed this point; very curious indeed.
Then Tertullian disagrees with Irenaeus who says that Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first bishop of Rome --- not Clement. So who is right?
And many church historians say that until the middle of the 2nd century, the churches everywhere, even in Rome, were managed not by a single bishop or presbyter, but by a college of presbyters.
Yet modern historians (many of whom have no reason to support mainstream Christianity) seem to have missed this point; very curious indeed.
Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, even Eusebius never missed it. Eusebius even complained that the disciples of Simon Magus, almost 300 years after his death, were pouring into the church of his day bringing their heresies and idolatries with them.