Tertullian recorded that the Marcionites had a large,
widespread and well organized and independent network of Churches and bishops
before the end of the 2nd Century (Against Marcion 4:4). Tertullian said,
“Marcion’s heretical tradition has filled the entire world” (Against Marcion
5:19). Hard to imagine that the Marcionite Church had grown so fast if it only
started in 144 AD (the date the bishops of Peter in Rome excommunicated
Marcion)! It was likely that the Marcionite church was larger than the Catholic
church at one point and it is said that it continued to grow even after the
death of Marcion! May I submit to the reader that it is far more likely that
the date for the beginning of the Marcionite church is what must be wrong,
rather than the claim that this church broke world records in growth! The
answer is that this church was exactly what it claimed to be: the church
founded by the Apostle Paul! (And, therefore, the Pauline bishops in Rome, we
can assume, would not have been a part of the excommunication of Marcion!)
In the first and second century there was a great conflict
between Paul and Peter, and between the disciples of Paul and the disciples of
Peter. The Christians on the side of Paul believed that the Christian Faith is
for all people, not just for Jews. The Christians on the side of Peter said
that to convert to the Christian faith you must be circumcised because they
considered Christianity to be a sect of Judaism. To those Petrine Christians,
any uncircumcised bishop would be considered a false bishop; in fact, he would
even be considered a false Christian!
Early canon law in the Catholic Church (which is said to be
based on early traditions passed down from the apostles) says that it is
absolutely forbidden to have more than one bishop in one city (Canon 8 of the
1st Ecumenical Council). And yet in the city of Antioch there is a record that
indicates that there were two “first” bishops in that city at the same time.
One was bishop Euodius who was ordained by Paul, and the other was bishop Ignatius
who was ordained by Peter! (Apostolic Constitutions, Book 7, chapter 46)
This Paul vs. Peter division is also hinted at in the city
of Rome itself. Early authorities indicate that the first bishop of Rome was
Linus and that he was ordained by Paul, not Peter. Cletus (or Anacletus), the
second bishop of Rome, was likewise ordained by Paul. Clement, ordained by
Peter, is listed third or forth in many lists made of bishops of Rome, but
early authorities have him as first, as though there were no true bishops in
Rome until one came from Peter! Jerome said, “Clement . . . the fourth bishop
of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus,
although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle
[Peter]” (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III, Chapter XV).
If more Catholic historians would allow themselves to assume
that there were two jurisdictions of bishops in Rome, one of Paul and one of
Peter, at the same time, just as was most likely the case in Antioch, this
would provide an answer also to why it seems impossible to set dates for the
reign of the first bishops of Rome![1]
[1]
Additional notes:
A French Roman Catholic historian, Alexander Natalis,
commented: “From this indeed it is understood that St. Ignatuis was ordained
bishop of Antioch by St. Peter, that he might discharge the Episcopal office in
that city for a time, but not up to his death. That I may assert this, I infer
from a conjecture which I drew from Book VII of the Apostolical Constitiutions.
We read there, c, 46, Euodius was created bishop of Antioch by St. Peter and
Ignatius, so by St Paul, not indeed one after another, but at the same time.
Which, indeed, I conjecture, was then done when the dissension was excited
among the believers who were of the circumcision and those who had come to the
faith from the Gentiles. Then Euodius remained in that sacred office, to whom
Ignatius willingly yielded as Clemens did to Linus in the church at Rome.”
(Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 15, Page 589).
Clementine literature on Clement:
“But about that time, when he [Peter] was about to
die, the brethren being assembled together, he suddenly seized my hand, and
rose up, and said in the presence of the church: Hear me, brethren and
fellow-servants. Since, as I have been taught by the Lord and Teacher Jesus
Christ, whose apostle I am, the day of my death is approaching, I lay hands
upon this Clement as your bishop; and to him I entrust my chair of discourse
even to him who has journeyed with me from the beginning to the end”.
(Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII, Chapter II).
The Clementine literature indicates that Clement was
with Peter “from the beginning to the end”, and Peter then ordained Clement
bishop of Rome. It has to be the case that this was so while, at the same time,
both bishops Linus and Cletus (both ordained by Paul) were bishops in Rome!
Rufinus of Aquileia commented:
“There is a letter in which this same Clement writing
to James the Lords brother, gives an account of the death of Peter, and says
that he has left him as his success or, as ruler and teacher of the church.
Linus and Cletus were Bishops of the city of Rome before Clement. How then,
some men ask, can Clement in his letter to James say that Peter passed over to
him his position as a church-teacher. The explanation of this point, as I
understand, is as follows. Linus and Cletus were, no doubt, Bishops in the city
of Rome before Clement, but this was in Peters life-time; that is, they took
charge of the episcopal work, while he discharged the duties of the
apostolate”. (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series II, Vol. III, The Preface
to the Books of Recognitions of St. Clement).
The explanation proposed by Rufinus of Aquileia
assumes that all the bishops of Rome (whether ordained by Paul or by Peter)
followed one after the other in a single line of succession. This assumption
forces the dates of the reign of Clement to such a late time that it is not
very likely that Clement could have been with Peter “from the beginning to the
end”. A far better explanation is that the bishops ordained by Paul were not
accepted as true bishops by Peter and his bishop-successor Clement; and that
there were two jurisdictions of bishops in Rome, one of Paul and another of
Peter, overlapping each other.
Tertullian on Clement:
“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”. (Ante-Nicene Fathers,
Vol. III).
Celsus, who debated with Origen, understood
“Christians” to mean primarily Marcionite Christians, which is an indication of
how widespread Marcionism was at that time. (Justin, Apology, 1.58) Justin Martyr,
in his “First Apology”, chapter 26 said, “Marcion, a man of Pontus, who is even
at this day alive, and teaching his disciples to believe in some other god
greater than the Creator. And he, by the aid of the devils, has caused many of
every nation to speak blasphemies, and to deny that God is the maker of this
universe, and to assert that some other being, greater than He, has done
greater works.” This quote, attributed to Justin Martyr, implies that by the
mid second century Marcion was an old man who had been preaching for a
considerable time, with great success!
