SOURCE: "Tertullian's Argumentation in De praescriptione haereticorum 20, 1ff.," Vigiliae Chris-tianae, Vol. 31, No. 1, March, 1977, pp. 35-46.

[In the following essay, Bastiaensen probes Tertullian's rhetorical strategies in his writings against heresy.]

Tertullian's De praescriptione haereticorum does not cease to arouse the interest of the scholarly world. Not to mention other problems, up to this day the dispute continues about the important term praescriptio: has it a juridical background, as Mr. Michaelides maintains, in accordance with many previous commentators,' or is it a more general term of argumentation and discussion, as Mr. Fredouille thinks?² In view of this and other disagreements we may foresee for some time to come the continuing of the discussions on Tertullian's treatise. In those discussions inevitably will keep coming up questions concerning the interpretation of chapter 20ff., as this section of the work, in particular the end of chapter 21, still has not yielded all its secrets. In the next pages a cautious attempt will be made to outline the course of the argumentation from 20,1 onward and, within this cadre, to establish more specifically the exact meaning of the last paragraphs of chapter 21.³

Tertullian starts by alluding to a number of doctrinal points concerning God, the Son and the Son's mission. It is a repetition per summa capita of chapter 13, where the regula fidei of the orthodox church had been described. This regula contains the essential elements of the catholic faith: the existence of only one God, the mission of the Son, who preached the faith and announced the kingdom of heaven, who was put to death and rose from the grave, who sent the Spirit, and who one day will come to bestow on the elected eternal life and the promised heavenly things. The main points of this regula, then, are reproduced here but, the context now being a context of discussion, their truth is left in suspension not to contravene the rules of logic: Christus Jesus, dominus noster, permittat dicere interim, quisquis est, cuiuscumque deifilius, cuiuscumque materiae homo et deus, cuiuscumque fidei praeceptor, cuiuscumque mercedis repromissor. It must be noted, for that matter, that in chapter 20ff. concrete doctrinal points as such are not the object of Tertullian's demonstration. In accordance with the general plan of his work he seeks the justification of the catholic faith by tracing it back to its origin, not by discussing its contents. The allusions of 20,1, therefore, are more or less accidental, provoked by the recollection of the regula fidei from chapter 13, but couched in such a way as to demonstrate the author's impartiality at the start of his argumentation.

In 20,2 this argumentation begins properly. It starts with an exposé of mainly historical character, presenting the facts the demonstration has to rely on. In broad outline the exposé (20,2-9) is as follows:

Christ entrusted the doctrine of faith, inhering in his mission, to the apostles; the apostles, in their turn, promulgated it in the face of the Jewish and heathen world by founding communities and assigning them as depositaries of this doctrine, the apostolic churches. These churches have handed and still do hand it over to new communities, which by receiving it became and become apostolic churches themselves. So, all churches are, in fact, one apostolic church; they form a brotherhood and live in communion with one another on the basis of the one faith handed down from the apostles.

These facts being established, Tertullian proceeds to draw up a twofold claim, which claim, in its turn, will prepare the way for the proof that only the catholic faith is in possession of the truth. We use the word 'claim' to render Tertullian's praescriptio-praescribere: (21,1) Hinc igitur dirigimus praescriptionem: si dominus Christus Iesus apostolos misit ad praedicandum, alios non esse recipiendos praedicatores quam Christus instituit …; (21,3) quid autem praedicaverint … praescribam non aliter probari debere nisi per easdem ecclesias quas ipsi apostoli condiderunt. Whether the use of praescriptio-praescribere has a juridical background or not,⁴ it is clear both from the general sense of the term and, with regard to this passage, from the prohibitive character of the subordinate clauses (non esse recipiendos; … non aliter probari debere) that the idea of 'necessity', 'inevitability' is foremost in Tertullian's mind. Not in a moral sense, as an 'obligation' imposed on human free will, but as an unavoidable logical step, a thesis, a claim, which nothing can prevent to arise from the historical facts.

The claim is a twofold one, bearing on the apostles as the only authorized preachers of the faith and on the apostolic churches as its only authorized depositaries. The double application does not prevent Tertullian from seeing it as one single claim, as appears from 22,1, where he gives the heretics an opportunity to attack hanc praescriptionem. Indeed, as we shall see further, the heretics' attack on hanc praescriptionem (from 22,2 onward) is a twofold one, on the apostles and on the apostolic churches; in other words, it corresponds exactly to the twofold claim. As Tertullian uses the singular: hanc praescriptionem, he apparently sees the claim as one in spite of its twofold application.⁵

The substance, then, of 21,1-3 might be rendered as follows:

Hence we draw up this claim: as preachers of the doctrine of faith only the apostles can be held true; as witnesses to what they preached only the apostolic churches can be held true.

Next follows the crucial passage (21,4-22,1), which in the original text reads:⁶ (21,4) Si haec ita sunt, constat perinde omnem doctrinam, quae cum illis ecclesiis apostolicis matricibus et originalibus fidei conspiret, veritati deputandam, id sine dubio tenentem, quod ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit, (21,5) omnem vero doctrinam de mendacio praeiudicandam quae sapiat contra veritatem ecclesiarum et apostolorum Christi et dei. (21,6) Super est ergo uti demonstremus, an haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus de apostolorum traditione censeatur et ex hoc ipso ceterae7 de mendacio veniant. (21,7) Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa: hoc est testimonium veritatis. (22,1) Sed quoniam tam expedita probatio est ut si statim proferatur nihil iam sit retractandum, ac si prolata non sit a nobis, locum interim demus diversae parti, si quid putant ad infirmandam hanc praescriptionem movere se posse.

The interpretation of the first two paragraphs of this passage seems to offer no problems. The author states that the claim of 21,1-3, establishing the apostles and the apostolic churches as the only intermediaries in the handing down of the faith, provides us with a touchstone to divide between true and false doctrines. This is about what he says:

If the claim drawn up above is correct, then the logical conclusion must be: such doctrinal systems as agree with the convictions of the apostolic churches must be considered to be in the right; they undoubtedly contain that which was revealed by God and transmitted through Christ and the apostles. On the other hand, any system holding convictions against the doctrine of the apostolic churches—doctrine proved by its transmission from God through Christ and the apostles—must be prejudged to stem from falsehood.

Then follows the last step in the argumentation, the application of the touchstone, demonstrating the truth of catholic doctrine. After a preliminary observation in 21,6, the proof is formulated in 21,7. But, on the face of it, the passage 21,6-7 is rather obscure. It needs a close examination, in which the next paragraph (22,1), too, must be included, as it is intimately connected with 21,6-7. Even a look at 22,2ff. and the ensuing chapters will be necessary, for this section results from and, consequently, throws light upon, the argumentation in chapter 21.

We start with a paraphrase of Tertullian's text, as we understand it, accompanying the different paragraphs with a few words of comment. Next, to justify our interpretation, details of the text will receive particular attention.

21,6. The way to divide between true and false doctrines having been found (21,4-5), Tertullian states he is in a position now to demonstrate that truth is on the side of catholic doctrine:

The result from the foregoing is the possibility for us to demonstrate that our system—the doctrinal contents of which we have given above⁸—really does go back to the apostles and eo ipso the other systems do come forth from falsehood.

21,7. Finally, then, the demonstration. Applying his touchstone Tertullian proves in a few words that catholic doctrine is right:

We are in communion with the apostolic churches (which implies that we share their convictions); this communion is lacking in all the other systems; so, in contrast with them, we are in possession of the truth.

22,1. This proof, the author says, is so clinching that the only way for the heretics to escape defeat is to try and cut at the proofs support, at the claim, that is, which in a former stage of the argumentation had established the authority of the apostles and the apostolic churches:

This demonstration is such an efficient one that it makes further reasoning superfluous; let us, therefore, as if we had not produced it, give an opportunity to the opposite side to express whatever point they feel capable of raising to invalidate our claim.

22,2ff. Consequently, from 22,2 onward, Tertullian makes the heretics raise objections against the claim of 21,1-3. This claim being twofold: 1) only the apostles can be considered as legitimate preachers of the faith, 2) only the apostolic churches are depositaries of the contents of their preaching, the author has the heretics make a twofold attack—only, of course, to be rebutted by him. In 22,2-27,1 they cast doubts on the apostles' knowledge of the entire doctrine of the faith (22,2-25,1) and on their willingness to hand it over without restriction (25,1-27,1), in 27,1-37,1 on the capability of the churches to receive and to preserve in its original purity the preaching of the apostles.⁹

These objections proving null and void, the conclusion remains that the claim establishing the authority of the apostles and the apostolic churches is fully operative. This, then, secures the validity of the thesis that communion with the apostolic churches is the mark of truth. And, as a result, the last step, too, is legitimate: the agreement with the apostolic churches puts the catholics in the right, whereas the heretics, on account of their disagreement, are left in the wrong.

It remains for us to elucidate some details in the text of 21,6ff.

First of all, we must account for our interpretation of superest in Superest … uti demonstremus ('the result … is the possibility for us to demonstrate'). In point of fact, the impersonal use of superesse with a consecutive nuance is frequent in deductive argumentation. This particular nuance proceeds from the idea of exclusion the expression superest implies. Often the logical process of exclusion is explicit: so in Tertullian Adversus Hermogenem 16,4: Exclusa itaque materia … superest uti deum omnia ex nihilo fecisse constet; Adversus Marcionem 4,10,6: Atque ita discutiendum cuius hominis filius (Christus) accipi debeat, patris an matris. Si ex deo patre est, utique non ex homine; si non est ex homine < patre >, superest ut ex homine sit matre; si ex homine < matre >, iam apparet quia ex virgine;'0 see also De anima 21,3; De pudicitia 13,23-25; Adversus Marcionem 2,10,1; 3,20,7, and elsewhere. But the idea of exclusion may also recede into the background, leaving the consecutive nuance master of the field. The following texts may be quoted in which this process is on its way, or has altogether come, to completion. In Adversus Marcionem 4,15,7 Tertullian rejects Marcion's thesis about the two Gods, the God of the Old and the God of the New Covenant: nec erit iam discrimini locus, quo duo dei funt, sublatoque discrimine supererit unum deum renuntiari. In De resurrectione mortuorum 6,6 the author draws a comparison between the sculptor Phidias modelling a statue of Jupiter from ivory and God modelling man from clay: 'must we conclude', he says, 'that we find more attractive the creation of a god by man than the creation of man by God?': Phidiae manus Iovem Olympium ex ebore molitae adorantur …; deus vivus et deus verus quamcumque materiae vilitatem nonne de sua operatione purgasset et ab omni infirmitate sanasset? An hoc supererit ut honestius homo deum quam hominem deus finxerit? In Adversus Marcionem 4,28,7 the paradoxical consequences are put forward of Marcion's thesis that Christ has nothing to do with the God of the Old Covenant, the 'Creator': 'if Christ disapproves of the Creator's severity towards those who blaspheme his Spirit and deny his Christ, then, in due consequence, the Spirit of that God may be blasphemed and his Christ denied with impunity': Aut si et per haec (Christus) severitatem eius (= Creatoris) infuscat, non remissuri blasphemiam et occisuri etiam in gehennam, superest ut et illius diversi dei impune et Spiritus blasphemetur et Christus negetur et nihil intersit de cultu eius deve contemptu et, sicut de contemptu nulla poena, ita et de cultu nulla speranda sit merces. In De monogamia 3,2 Tertullian infers from the Apostle's preference for celibacy that married people, too, should consider living in continence: Bonum, inquit, homini mulierem non contingere. Ergo malum est contingere. Nihil enim bono contrarium nisi malum. Ideoque superesse ut et qui habeant uxores sic sint quasi non habentes, quo magis qui non habent habere non debeant. Taking these texts into account," the conclusion seems justified that in the text of De praescriptione, too, the consecutive purport is predominant: superest uti demonstremus is equivalent to sequitur uti demonstremus.

Translations such as 'It remains that we demonstrate',¹² in my opinion, miss the point in that they announce the demonstration as something new, something not naturally proceeding from the foregoing. In Tertullian's superest uti demonstremus no foreign element is hinted at; on the contrary, the demonstration is announced as a logical consequence of the thesis drawn up in the two preceding paragraphs.

Another point to discuss is the turn of phrase demonstremus an … censeatur. Instead of a more regular construction, like the accusative with infinitive, Tertullian uses the conjunction an with a dependent interrogative sentence. From the point of view of classical grammar this might seem startling, but in Tertullian's usage it is by no means uncommon. The strong affirmative value of this construction with an is due to the fact that an in Tertullian often assumes the significance of nonne. This use of an is found in independent phrases, where an often asks for the reader's assent in exactly the same way as classical nonne does. We may refer to De praescriptione 8,10: an qui scit se intus fuisse et foras actum, is potius pulsabit et ostium novit?; Adversus Marcionem 3,18,7: Moyses … cur aereum serpentem ligno impositum pendentis habitu in spectaculum salutare proposuit? An et hic dominicae crucis vim intentabat?'3 But in subordinate clauses also this affirmative an appears. So in Adversus Marcionem 1,10,2: maior popularitas generis humani … deum Moysei … norunt; etiam tantam idolatria dominationem obumbrante, seorsum tamen illum quasi proprio nomine 'deum' perhibent et 'deum deorum' et si deus dederit' et 'quod deo placet' et 'deo commendo'. Vide an noverint quem omnia posse testantur. Nec hoc ullis Moysei libris debent. 'Evidently they know him', as Mr. Evans' translation has it.¹⁴ Likewise De resurrectione mortuorum 36, Iff.: Videamus nunc an et Saducaeorum versutiam elidens (Christus) nostram magis sententiam erexerit… Habes igitur dominum confirmantem adversus haereticos Iudaeorum quod et nunc negatur apud Saducaeos christianorum, solidam resurrectionem. 'Did not Christ, by refuting the Sadducees' subtleties, confirm our opinion?' And very near to our passage De patientia 5,3: Consideremus igitur de inpatientia, an sicut patientia in deo, ita adversaria eius in adversario nostro nata atque comperta sit, which amounts to saying: 'As patience cannot but be God's attribute, so impatience cannot but be the devil's.' Other instances can be found in Ad nationes 1,14,3; De pudicitia 6,6; Adversus Marcionem 4,25,11, etc. We are faced, therefore, with a particular feature of Tertullian's language, in which the author, by means of an interrogative clause, provokes the reader's agreement with what is his strong personal conviction. It is an emotionally conditioned and forcefully expressed affirmation, characteristic of Tertullian's passionate style.

There is a textual problem in the second half of 21,6. In the version of the Agobardinus, the highest-ranking manuscript, the phrase reads: Superest ergo uti demonstremus an haec nostra doctrina … de apostolorum traditione censeatur et ex hoc ipso ceterae de mendacio veniant. The other manuscripts have a second an inserted before ceterae. Their reading is adopted by most of the editors, but Rauschen, Martin and Kroymann follow the Agobardinus.'¹⁵ One can see the latters' point. As appears from 21,4-5, the words ceterae de mendacio veniant are to such a degree the logical consequence, better still the counterpart, of haec nostra doctrina … de apostolorum traditione censeatur, that a second an must be considered useless and, in view of the insertion ex hoc ipso, even positively awkward. Ex hoc ipso does not mean 'in the same way', but 'in consequence of this'; the demonstration, therefore, bears, not on a twofold, but on a single object, the apostolic origin of the catholic faith, which necessarily implies the spurious character of the other systems. Yet, on the face of it, the object is a composite one, and a copyist could easily feel called upon to supplement the supposedly wanting conjunction. I take it, therefore, that Rauschen et al. rightly choose the text of the Agobardinus.

The expression de apostolorum traditione censeatur points to the past, to the period, that is, in which the apostles handed down to the churches what they themselves had learnt from Christ. Apostolorum traditio denotes the act and moment in which the apostles entrusted the faith to the churches:¹⁶ at that moment the truth of christian doctrine entered history. Censeri in the meaning of 'to take its origin', 'to proceed' is particular to Tertullian's vocabulary, as has been amply demonstrated by Professor Waszink.¹⁷ In our passage the parallelism with de mendacio veniant is illustrative. For both apostolorum traditio as referring to the past and censeri in the sense of oriri we may quote Adversus Marcionem 1,21,4, where Tertullian defends against Marcion the identity between the God of the New Testament and the God of the Old, the 'Creator'. At the time of the apostles, he says, that identity never was questioned. Quodsi post apostolorum tempora adulterium veritas passa est circa dei regulam, ergo iam apostolica traditio nihil passa est in tempore suo circa dei regulam, et non alia agnoscenda erit traditio apostolorum quam quae hodie apud ipsorum ecclesias editur. Nullam autem apostolici census ecclesiam invenias quae non in Creatore christianizet. As for apostolica (apostolorum) traditio, there is a slight difference with our passage in that traditio, here, instead of the act of handing down the doctrine, denotes more this doctrine itself, but the reference to the past is clear enough: in tempore suo. In apostolici census ecclesiam the substantive census (= origin) obviously corresponds to censeri.

In 21,7 the short sentence Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis, quod nulla doctrina diversa constitutes the proof, announced in the preceding paragraph. It is a critical phrase, and it is the more deplorable that the translations proposed by the various editors and commentators are in striking disagreement. Most authors supply est in the subordinate clause and take doctrina in the sense of 'teaching', 'doctrine', 'contents of the faith', 'point of doctrine'. So Holmes, who translates: 'We hold communion with the apostolic churches, because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs."¹⁸ Kellner-Esser and Christine Mohrmann,'¹⁹ on the other hand, add a verb like facit and, understanding doctrina as 'a doctrinal system', 'a religious opinion and its adherents', they render: 'We hold communion with the apostolic churches, which is not the case with any of the divergent opinions (i.e. the heresies).'

This last translation seems to me decidedly preferable. As has been pointed out above,²⁰ doctrine as such, the contents of the faith, is not at the heart of Tertullian's demonstration. The only place in his work where it receives full attention is chapter 13, as the author gives the regulafidei of the orthodox church. In 20,1, at the start of his argumentation, he alludes, as we have seen, to some points of this regula, but only in passing, not as an essential part of his reasoning. This reasoning runs along historical and factual lines, prescinding from any doctrinal discussion and concentrating only on the origins of the catholic and the heretical systems. True, in 21,6 the regulafidei is mentioned again, but once more in passing and in a significant context: haec nostra doctrina cuius regulam supra edidimus. Evidently the relative clause cuius regulam supra edidimus refers to the description of christian doctrine, the regula fidei, of chapter 13. In consequence doctrina cannot mean 'the contents of the faith', but must have the sense of 'a doctrinal system', 'a belief: 'our belief the contents of which we have given above'. To this nostra doctrina, then, in 21,6 corresponds nulla doctrina diversa in 21,7.²¹ The confrontation, opposing in 21,6 the catholic and the heretical beliefs (haec nostra doctrina v. ceterae doctrinae), continues in 21,7: (nos) communicamus v. (nulla) doctrina diversa. In Holmes's translation this confrontation is ignored, which, in my opinion, makes his rendering come dangerously near to a meaningless phrase.

Communicamus cum ecclesiis apostolicis also needs a word of explanation. Tertullian says: 'We live in communion with, we belong to the brotherhood of the apostolic churches.' The expression, probably, refers to 20,8-9, where the characteristics of this brotherhood are described: Probant unitatem (ecclesiarum) communicatio pacis et appellatio fraternitatis et contesseratio hospitalitatis. Quae iura non alia ratio regit quam eiusdem sacramenti una traditio. Now, one might argue that the author overstates his case: as it is a question of belief, only a sharing of convictions is required. But in Tertullian's eyes the common christian belief works out in the social and charitable functionings of christian life. Sincere brotherhood presupposes unity of faith: eiusdem sacramenti una traditio. He only shares the doctrine of the apostolic churches, who is tied to them by bonds of friendship and mutual obligation. As the heretics have severed these bonds, they have lost contact with the churches' faith and, consequently, with the faith of the apostles: they cannot possibly possess the truth.

Our last remark concerns the kind of retrograde step the reasoning makes in 22,1. The author, in a curious move, more or less disregards the proof he has given, irrefutable as it is, and from now one, for many chapters to follow, concentrates on the attacks the heretics make against the claim, i.e. against the proof's presupposition. The proof itself, obviously, is not foremost in Tertullian's mind; it is, of course, an essential element in the discussion, and as such it has received proper attention, but, all in all, it is disposed of without much circumstance. The claim, on the contrary, is the author's real concern; he spends the remaining part of his treatise chiefly to establishing its validity (chapter 22-37). In this context the expression hanc praescriptionem in 22,1, perhaps, deserves some attention. It has been set forth above that it refers to the claim drawn up in 21,1-3.²² Now, the use of the pronoun hanc suggests that the proof deduced from, and subsequent in the text to, the claim has not really been present in the author's mind. On the contrary, he was preoccupied by the heretics' questioning of the proof's guarantee, the authority of the apostles and the churches. It is this questioning which he intends to deal with, convinced that, once this resistance is shattered, victory over heresy is all but won.

Notes

¹ D. Michaélidès, Foi, Écritures et Tradition, ou Les 'Praescriptiones' chez Tertullien, Collection Théologie 76 (Paris 1969) passim; a rich bibliography, on pp. 154-162, presents the older works.

² J.-Cl. Fredouille, Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique (Paris 1972) 195-234. In the course of his exposé Mr. Fredouille also discusses the related problem of the exact title of Tertullian's treatise: instead of the traditional De praescriptione haereticorum he proposes De praescriptionibus adversus haereses omnes: see 228ff.

³ In Refoulé's edition 21,6-7; cfr. R. Refoulé, Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera I, Corpus Christianorum, series Latina 1 (Tumholti 1954) 203. In Kroymann 21,6-7 constitutes the first part of 22,1; the second half of 22,1 coincides with Refoulé's 22,1; cfr. Aem.Kroymann, Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera II, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum 70 (Vindobonae et Lipsiae 1942) 25. The difference certainly has something to do with a divergence of interpretation: is superest ergo uti demonstremus (21,6; 22,1 in Kroymann) a conclusion resulting from, and therefore linked with, the foregoing, or is it the beginning of a new phase in the argumentation? Kroymann's arrangement of the text presupposes the second opinion. In my view, as will appear further on, Refoule's arrangement is preferable.

⁴ See introduction of this paper.

⁵ In 35,1 and 44,3 the plural praescriptiones appears. Whichever the reason for the plural in these passages, it remains that in chapter 21-22 the singular is a matter of fact. Whether there is a difference of meaning between the singular and the plural, remains for us undecided.

⁶ We follow the division of the text adopted by Refoulé: see note 3.

⁷ Reading of the Agobardinus, the best manuscript, against an ceterae of the other witnesses: for the justification of our choice, see below. Other textual uncertainties in the passage do not seem to be of any consequence for the interpretation.

⁸ In chapter 13, where the regula fidei is formulated; see p. 35 f.

⁹ In chapter 27 and 28 the author specifically has in mind the orthodox churches, which took possession of the apostles' preaching in incorrupt form; from 29,1 to 35,1, with a reverse of the medal, the heretics are intended: they came too late for the inheritance, or else their inheritance proved a sham; in chapter 35 and 36 the emphasis is again on the churches, which are truly apostolic, whereas the heresies are degenerations. Against several commentators we hold with Michaélidès that in chapter 27 to 37 Tertullian still refers to the claim of chapter 21 and does not introduce new claims (praescriptio novitatis, praescriptio longi temporis, etc.). His reasoning, probably, is less complicate than some would have it (see Michaélidés, o.c., 45 and 55-70, with further references).

¹⁰ We follow the reading proposed by Kroymann and adopted by Refoulé in Tertulliani Opera I, 563; Moreschini only adopts the conjecture matre (C. Moreschini, Tertulliani Adversus Marcionem [Milano-Varese 1971] 184); Evans rejects the insertion of both patre and matre (E. Evans, Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem. Books 4 and 5 [Oxford 1972] 298). Whichever the right reading, it remains that superest is clearly a pivotal word in the argumentation: 'the only possible conclusion is … '

¹¹ We are indebted, for tracing them, to Claesson's precious lexicon: G. Claesson, Index Tertullianeus. Q-Z (Paris 1975) 1590. After Tertullian this use of superest lives on: many instances in Lactantius' Divinae institutiones: see 1,23,1. 11,44; 3,3,7f.; 7,8,1, and elsewhere. A consultation of lexica on philosophical writing prior to Tertullian (Lucretius, Cicero, Seneca) did not yield anything conclusive.

¹² P. Holmes, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers III (New York 1903) 252, followed by J. Quasten, Patrology. II. The Ante-Nicene Literature after Irenaeus (Utrecht-Antwerp 1953) 271. Likwise de Labriolle: 'Reste donc a demontrer' (P. de Labriolle-R. Refoulé, Tertullien. Traité de la prescription contre les hérétiques, Sources Chrétiennes 46 [Paris 1957] 115) and Kellner-Esser: 'Wir müssen also nur noch den Beweis liefem' (A. Kellner-G. Esser, Tertullians apologetische, dogmatische und montanistische Schriften, Bibliothek der Kirchenväter 24 [Kempten-München 1915] 327).

¹³ For other instances of this use of an in independent sentences, see G. Thörnell, Studia Tertullianea II (Uppsala 1920) 2, n. 1.

¹⁴ E. Evans, Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem. Books I to 3 (Oxford 1972) 27.

¹⁵ G. Rauschen, Tertulliani Liber de praescriptione haereticorum, Florilegium Patristicum4 (Bonnae 1906) 32; likewise in the second edition, procured by J. Martin (Bonnae 1930) 21 (Rauschen's text is adhered to by de Labriolle: P.de Labriolle, Tertullien. De praescriptione haereticorum [Paris 1907] 44, but in Refoule's new edition of de Labriolle's work the reading with an is adopted: de Labriolle-Refoulé, o.c., 115); Aem. Kroymann, Tertulliani Opera II, 25. For the manuscript evidence and the other editions, see Refoulé, Tertulliani Opera I, 203.

¹⁶ One might even ask if apostolorum traditio does not mean 'the handing over (by Christ) to the apostles', but, probably, Tertullian refers to what happened between the apostles and the churches. As for the general sense, there is no difference between the two interpretations.

¹⁷ J. H. Waszink, Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani De anima (Amsterdam 1947) 282.

¹⁸ In The Ante-Nicene Fathers III, 252f.; the translation is copied by Quasten, Patrology, 271. Likewise de Labriolle: 'parce que notre doctrine ne diffère en rien de la leur' (de Labriolle-Refoulé, o.c., 115), adopted by Michaèelidès, o.c., 55 and Fredouille, o.c., 226.

¹⁹ See Kellner-Esser, o.c., 327; Christine Mohrmann, Tertullianus. Apologeticum en andere geschriften uit Tertullianus' voor-montanistischen tijd, Monumenta Christiana I,3 (Utrecht-Brussel, 1951) 156.

²⁰ See p. 35f.

²¹ Similar is the meaning of doctrina in 21,4-5: omnem doctrinam quae cum … ecclesiis apostolicis … conspiret …, id … tenentem quod ecclesiae ab apostolis, apostoli a Christo, Christus a deo accepit; omnem … doctrinam … quae sapiat contra veritatem ecclesiarum; in the whole passage not points of doctrine are meant, but the systems that contain them.

²² See p. 39; for the use of the singular, see p. 37.