How do protestants respond to apostolic succession?

**How do protestants respond to apostolic succession(the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles) ?** Pope Clement I > “Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they > appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be > the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, > for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . > . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would > be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having > received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already > been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if > they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” > (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]). Hegesippus > “When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was > Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him > Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance > of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” > (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]). Irenaeus > “It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to > know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has > been made known to us throughouart the whole world. And we are in a > position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the > apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither > knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about” (Against > Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]). Etc...