• J= .

SOURCES OF CHRISTIANITY

TERTULLIEN'Streatise

OF THE prescription AGAINST THE HERETICS.

introduction? CRITICAL TEXT AND NOTES

by

R.F. REFOULE C.P.

translationby

P. DE labroiolle

Pages 7 (first page) to 87

with apersonal translation into English interleaved

The book goes on to page 165, but 88 to 152 are the Latin text and aFrench translation of it, and 153 to 165 are indices, and these are not

reproduced here.

One review is appended after page 87

^ -J .IV,.-

SOURCES CHRl'iTIENNES

Collection dirigec par 11. de Kiibnc, S. J., el J. Danie!ou, S. J.Secretariat de Direction : C. Mondcserl, S. J.

•N" 46

TERTULLIEN

INTRODUCTION, TEXTK CHITIQUE, F.T NOTES DE.

R. F. REFOULE, 0. p.

41

TRADUCTION DE

P. DE LA3RI0LLE

I.BS EDITIONS DU CERF, 29, bd de la Touit-MAUuounc, PARIS

1037

TABLE DES MATlilRES

P.",-OS

Preface7 !•

Introduction j^

If. Lus JiiiioLiqiics ci la Jiible 14JTI. r/Argiinicnt de Pi cscriplion ............'"IV. Tradition, Regie do foi cl, KcriUirc. . 'V. Influence cL siirvivance du De praescriptione

vr. Maiiii.scriU ct JjidlLionsVir. Plan dii Be pracscriplionc

t

I. Occasion dii traits ^ [:i

20 I-15

(if)t̂

7(5

82

BlBLIOCIiAl'lIIE

SiGLES ET AbrEVIATIONS

TraITE de la PRE.SCniPTION. TeXTE ET TraDUCTION.Index.

liuk-x .scrijjliiraireIndex analytique .

85

•87

88

153

153

157

IIL OBSTAT :

Paris, 23 Janvier d9a6fr. V. HHIUS, 0. P.

fr. J. PliRlNELLE, 0. P.

NIHIL OnSTAT

Paris, le 31 Janvier lOoOF. AMIOT, ss.

IMI>niMI POTEST

Paris, le 23 Janvier 1956fr. V. DUCATTILLON, 0. P.

prieur provincial.

IHPRIM.VTUR ;

Paris, le le-- fevrier 1936PIILRlIE GIR.\RD, ss.

vie. gen.

PREFACE

Le De praescriptione haereticorum de Tertullien cstuna-nimement considere comme son chef-d'ceuvre. «Le plusvigoureux ct le plus durable, avec YApologcdquc, do tousIcs ouvragcs dc Tertullion «, ccrit par exemple le P. J. Le-breton Pierre de Labriolle s'exprime de la meine fa^on :«L'un des plus vigourcux et des plus puissamment char-pentes des ecrits de Tertullien »Dans son reeent trailede Patrologie, J. Quaslcn le designe comme le «plusacheve, le plus caracteiislique cX le plus valable des ecritsde Tertullien »^ Enfin, le professeur Ch. Mohrmann lepresente comme «un sommet dans 1activite litteraire dcTertullien » ^

Apres de tels eloges, il paraitra peut-ctre ctrange quela seule traduction frangaise dc ce traite ^ due PierredeLabriolle et epuisee depuis de nombreuses annees, n ait

1. J. Lebreton, in Flicre ct Maktin, Histoire de I'JlgUse, t. 2, Paris,191S, p. 176.

2. Pierre de Labhiolle, Hisloire de la Littcralure laline dirilicnne. Pans,1920, p. 119.

3. Joiianncs Quasten, Patrologij, vol. 11, Utrecht, 1953, p. 272.4. Tertullianus, Apologelicum cn andere Geschriltcn..., ingelcid, vcrtald

en tocKciiciit door Ch. Mohrmann, Utrecht, 1951, p. Lxviii.5. La traduction de A. de Genoude, Paris, 1852 (introuvable, du reste)

est sans valeur.

PREFACE.

The Praescriptione Hacreticorum by Tertullien, is unanimously considered to be his masterpiece. "It^is with theAngelique the most vigoroux and durable of all of T^tullien's works", so writes the P.J. Lebreton . Pierre de ^Labriolle expresses himself in a like manner; One of the most vigorous and best fashioned of Tertullien's writings ,In his recent treatise of patrology, J._Quasten describes it as the "most complete, the most characteristic, andmost valuable of Tertullien's writings" Finally, professor Ch. Mohrmann presents it as:"a summit in Tertullien'sliterary activity" 4.

Following such eulogies, it may seem a little strange that this only french translation^, due to Pierre de Labriolleand out of print for many years had /

-J

• 1

M'rr

preface

pas etc recditee >. Et pourtant I'ouvrage est redevenu plusaciucl quo jarna,s. De tous cotes, thcologiens catholiqueset Protestants s'efTorcent, dans une perspective oe^njquo, da preciser le role de la tradition dans la vie deEgl.se et les rapports, entre Ecriture et Tradition =Et

tout naturellement ils sont amenes ainterroger les Peresles plus anciens

C'est >1 cette etude commune qua nous voudrions con-ibuor pour notrc part en mcttant &la disposition das

heolog.ens celte nouvelle edition duZ)« pracscnp^one eten la faisant preccder d'une Lrcve analyse de la demarche

Term hen. Dans ce travail, nous avons cherche i tenircompte des travanx les plus recents, cn particulicr de la^hese de J. St.rnimann qui, croyons-nous, a fait faire unproves decisif a I'mterpretation de cet ouvrage ^

'ous tenons aussi a exprimer notre reconnaissance htous ccux qu. nous ont aide, d'une fagon ou d'une autre,cnns notre travail. Nous voudrions remercicr en partieu-

Ic DBorleffs et le doccnt Lundstrom qui nous ont aideans le choix de logons particulicrcmcnt difficiles, le lec-

.nen,o.K.e)^JI'It^^Ti'l dc yelZndTlTcnw a"T'^cnhet Kulholichmeon ; Danio. j..sk,s.

listoni;, .Scn/j/iirc fi„a' rr«f/i/,V,n, ].om!oii l5 • i-r vf.v r •^7>a^/,on 6-e,VrckrisUn,unu in Sn,ai,m 'ccncraK

dcfcL'i^lLef/etT' travaux on ce domaino au cours

PR^:FACE 9

teur G. Claesson qui nous a communique quelques pagesde son index complet des ceuvrcs de Tertullien (en preparation), d'Alverny, de la Bibliothcque nationale, lesRR. PP. SafTrey et Verheijen qui ont accepte de lire pournous a la lampe quartz quelques passages de YAgohardi-nus. Nous devons egalcmcnt beaucoup aux RR. PP. Ca-melot et Dewailly qui ont eu I'obligeance de revoir notretexta et de nous faire part de leurs observations. Gracek eux tous, nous espcrons etre parvenu li retrouver, aussifidelemant que possible, le texte, la pensee et la demarchede Tertullien.

Nous remercions enfin M""® do Labriolle et M. J. Picard

qui nous ont autorise h reprendre la traduction de Pierrede Labriolle, parue jadis dans la collection «Textes etDocuments » dirigee par H. Hcmmer et P. Lejay.

Lund, le 30 novembre 1955.

8.

not been re-issued ^ And yet this work has become more actual than ever. Theologians on both sides Catholic andprotestant alike are*striving, to specify in an ecumenical perspective the role of the tradition in the life of theChurch and the rapports between Scripture and Tradition . So, quite naturally they turn to the most Ancient Fathersfor answers.

It is to this common study that we wish to contribute by placing this new edition at the disposal of Theologiansofthe De Praescriptione and preceding it with a short analysis of Tertullien's course. We have in this work takenaccount of the latest works, in particular of J. Stirnimann's thesis which, so we believe, makes a great contributionin the interpretation of this work.

We are grateful to all the kind people who in one way or another have helped in this task. We wish, in particularto thank Dr. Borleffs and the docent Lundstrom who have helped us in the choice of particularly difficult lessons,,the reader G. Claesson who kindly loaned us a few pages from his complete index of Tertullien's works (in preparation)Miss d'Alverny from the National Library, the RR. PP. Saffrey and Verheijen who kindly agreed to read for us (by theQuartz lamp process) a few passages from the Agobardinus. Likewise^ we'-'owe-ac-lot t^ R.-R.Camelot and Dewaillywho obliged us in reviewing our text and importing their observations. Thanks to them all, we hope we have recoveredas faithfully as possible the text,.-the meaning and Tertullien's course.

Finally, our thanks to Mrs. de Labriolle and M.J. Picard for permitting us to reproduce Pierre de Labriolle'stranslation, formerly shown in the collection "Texts and Documents" managed by H. Hemmer and P. Lejay*

Lund,.30th November 1955.

INTRODUCTION

I. Occasion du traiU.

Le De praescripiione haereticorum, comme la plupart dcsautres trait6s cle Tertullien, lui fut dict6 par une preoccupation pastorale, celle d'un «homme d'figlise qui se sentcharge d'Smes ct qul a mesiir6 la faiblesse des ames dontil est responsablc »^ Selon sa propre expression, « il lui futimpos6 par la condition dcs temps presents »(1, 1). II s'agis-sait pour lui de'dcfendre la foi des simples Chretiens, desrudes, comme il les appelle parfois aillcurs -, contre lesseductions dcs hiresies, et de freiner un inquietant mouve-ment de ddfections parmi les chrdticns. A partir du milieudu 11'= sieclc, en effet, les sectes ])OrcHif[ucs, scion le motd'Irende, se mircnt i « sortir de terre comme des cliampi-gnons »=. La phipart ne tarderent pas disparaitre, maisquelques-unes connurent un progrfes si rapide qu'au tempsde Tertullien elles 6taient presque aussi r6pandues que lagrande £ghse, I'figlise catholique. Tertullien cnvisageaitmeme comme possible que dans un proche avcnir la tradition herctique d'un Marcion, par example, remplit le mondeentier

1. p. on LAnnioixi!, Terlidlicn, Dc pracscriplione Jmerelicorum, Paris, 1007,Introduclion, p. xxx.

2. Cf.De res. car., 2 (111,28-3-1), Adu. Marc., I, 9 (III, 300, 25), Ada. Prax.,2(111, 230,S),Scorp., I (1,145,11), Dc bapt.,1,1 [sur IcsensdcsabrfiviaUons,I, II ou I!I, cf. p. 85],

3. Adii. haer., I, 29, 1 (id. HAnvr.Y, p. 221-222).4. Ado. Marc., V, 19 (III, 613, S-9). Cf. Justin, Apol., I, XXVI, 5. Sur

I'cxpunsion dcs scctcs gnostiques, cf. G. Bardy, La thtlolofjie dc VJ^glisc desuint Irittie all concilc de Nicdc, Paris, 1947, p. 23-29; A. Hahnack, Die.'lissi

INTRODUCTION

REASON FOR THE TREATISE.

The De Praescriptione Hacreticorum, like most of Tertullien's other works, was inspired by a pastoral pre-occupation,that of a "Man of the Church", who feels that he is a custodian of Souls, and knows the extent of weakness, of thesesouls, for which he is responsible. It was imposed upon him, due to the conditions of those days (1-1) He tookit upon himself to defend the faith of the simple Christians,-the uncouth, as he sometimes calls them , againstthe seductions of the Heresies, and to slow down a disquieting movement of defections among the Christians. In effect,from the start of the middle of the second century these sects, according to the words of Ireneeseemed to sproutfrom the earth like mushrooms. Most of them soon disappeared, but some of them, enjoyed a progress so rapid that,in TCrtullien's time, they were almost as widespread as the Great Church, the Catholic Church. Tertullien even foresawthe possibility that in a near future, the heretical tradition of a Marcion for example might fill the whole world. /

12 INTRODUCTION

Ces heresies representaient pour I'figlise uii vdritableclanger, d'abord parce qu'elles sc posaient comme ses rivales,et surtout parce .qu'elles raffaiblissaicnt inWrieurement, enrecrutarit la plupart de leurs adeptes parmi les chrdtiens \Tertullien notait par exemple « qu'ellcs tirent toute le.ur .force de la faiblessc de q«clques-uns,,mais qu'ulles sont sansvigueur contre une foi vigoureuse » (2, 3) EHes faisaientd'ailleurs preiive d'une inddniable habilete pour rdpandrelours idecs, les camouflant sous le couvert de forinulesambigues, semant le doute et le scrupule dans les esprits,pour 0persuader avant nicme d'instruire»En lisant aujour-d'hui les fragments gnostiques parvenus jusqu'ii nous, nousavons peine i comprendre I'emprise exerc6c par ces dlucu-brations : dies nous semblent si dtranges que leur seul exposedevrait, croyoiis-nous, sufTire ii les refuter \ Pourtant, cnfait, elles ne laissaient pas indifferents les esprits d'alors,mcnie les meillcurs. C'est qu'elles se trouvaient en harmonicavec r« esprit du temps «, dont elle.-; ctaient le produit, ets'cfforfaient de donner rdponse aux problemes qui preoc-cupaient les philosophes et les fid^jlcs : I'origine du mal,cclle de la matiire, la raison de la descente de Fame dansle corps, la revolte des anges et leur r61e aupres des hommes,etc. Ces questions s'imposaient tel point que, malgr6 I'in-terdiction d'Irdnde et de Tertullien, Origfene croira devoir en

1. Siir I'aposlosie ct rattirance du gnosticismc, cf. G. BAnoY, La conversion ail chrislianisme clurant les premiers sidcles, Paris, 1947, ch. VIII, L'Apos-tasic, p. 30C-313. — Les gnostiques se scraient en particulier re:rut^s, sinous cn croyons Origene, parmi les ciir6tiens doucs d'une certaine culturc.Cf. OniGENE, in Joli., 11. 8 (G. C. S., Origenes, Bd. IV, ^d. E. Preusciikn,p. 105).

2. Cf. De bapl., 1, 1, De poen., 2, 3.

3. Les valentiniens, observe Tcrlullicn, profcssent la foi commune dansles aml)iiiultes d'une laiiKue ft double sens. C'cst alors qu'il ajoute ; «Habcntartificium quo prius persuadont quam edoceant • Adu. Val., 1 (HI, 178;G-12). — Cf. iHiiNiii:, A(Ju. liaer.. Ill, 15, 2 (ed. Sagnard, p. 272-273), etc.

4. Adu. Val., G (III, 183, 1-7). II ajoute : «et si ridebitur alicubi, materiisipsis satisnet • (il^i

12.

These heresies presented a real danger to the Church, firstly, because they posed as its rivals,.but, mostly becausethey weakened it internally, by recruiting the greater part of their adepts from among the Christians. Tertulliennoticed for example, that',' they draw all their strength from the weakness of a few, but that they are powerless againsta strong faith" (2-3). They also showed proof of an undeniable aptitude for spreading their ideas by hiding themunder the cloak of ambiguous formulae, sowing doubt and fear in the minds in order to "persaude, without firstinstructing" 3. Nowadays,.in reading some of the gnostic fragments to reach us, we find it hard to understand,.thehold exercised by these elucubrations. They seem so strange to us, that their exposure, alone, should, we think,suffice to refute them.4. Yet, in fact they did not leave minds of that time indifferent, not even the best ones.'It was because, they found themselves in harmony with the "spirit of the time" of which they were the product, andtried to answer, some of the problems which preoccupied the minds of the philosophers, and the faithful, such as:The origin of Sin, that of the substance, the reason for the descent of the Soul into the body, the rebellion of theAngels and their role vis-a-vis men etc. 5. These questions were so assertive that, in spite of interdiction on thepart of Irenee and of Tertullien, Origen feels duty-bound to recommend their examination, in order that finally, anorthodox answer be obtained, i.

These heresies also impeded the missionary impetus of the church, because it, seen from the outside, risked to appear,like just another sect,.among many, more important numerically, no doubt, but of the same nature as the others. TheGnostics, on the other hand, willingly supported this confusion, in order to profit 2. from it. In so doing, theygave the pagans an easy pretext for putting the Christians in the same category as the philosophers and "inferred fromthis diversity, the failure of Truth 3," At any rate, the Transcendance of the Revelation found itself bedimmed.

Thus a refutation of these heresies was imperative. It is true that already at the beginning of the third century therewas no lack of these refutation. But as long as a danger is not removed, is it not then proper, to continually forgenew weapons in order to ward it off? Moreover, Justin, Theophilus of Antioch, Meliton of Sardes, 'Irenee all had writtenin Greek only. The Latin language did not yet possess any equivalent of their writings, and yet it was the language inalmost exclusive usage in Africa. Tertullien could thus not ignore so necessary a task, and to which he seemed to becalled. 4. Son of a roman officer from Carthage, he became a convert to Christianity about 190 - 195 A.D. and immediatelyput to the service of the church his talent, and his culture 5., a culture so extenave, it will gain him Jerome'sadmiration, and which Vincent de Lerins will compare with that of Origen 6. Between the years 197-2GO A.D. alone, he /

14 INTnODUCTION

avait fait paraltre toute une scrie d'opuscules apologdtiquesou philosophiques En particulier son Apologetique avaitattird I'attcntion, en revelant son temperament cle pole-miste. II se devait maintenant de reduire k ndant les arguments des her^tiques.

II. Les h6retiques et la Bible.

A. Les deux types d'heresie.

Tertullien se trouvait en presence de deux formes d'h^re-sie, I'une representee par Marcion ct son disciple Apelle,i'autre, la gnose proprement dite, repandue par Valentin etses 6mules. Encore que les points de contact ne manquentpas entre le marcionisme et les systfemes gnostiques, desdiderences fondamentales perniettent de les distinguer ^

Marcion pretendait nc pas inn over mais seulemcnt reformer, retrouver la foi chretienne telle qu'elle existait avantd'avoir dtd alteree par le legalisme juif=. Interprdtant lecliristianisme ik la lumi6re de I'^pltre aux Galates *, il croyait

1. Pour la chroiiologie des oau\Tcs dc Tortullicn, cf. P. Monceaux, op.Ci7„ p. 193 ss., suivi par Cir. Mohrmann, l^erliillicLnus, Apologe/iciim cn on-dcre Gesc/iri/ten uil TertuUiamis' voor-montanislischen Tijd^ Utrccht, 1951,p. LVjii-Lix, O, BAitDKNMiiWKit, Gcscfiiclitc der altkirchlichen Literature2" Aufla^:., Tribourg (i. Drisgiiu), 1914, p. 392-393.

2. A. IlAiiNAai, ]\Iarcion, Das Euangeliiirn uornfremden Gott^ 2® 6d., Leipzig, 1924, p. 18, 196-198, reclajne pour Marcion une placc a part, cn dehorsdu mouvcmcnt gnostiquc. II fondc sa revendication avant tout sur le carac-t6re purcmunt biblique ct a-philosophique du marcionisme, Voir la mise aupoint dc E. C. Hlackmann, Marcion and his influcnccy London, 19'1S, p. 82-87 ; R. Sr:EDiiRG, Lclirbuch der Dogmemjcschichle^ 4® i;d., t. I, Bale, 1953,p. 312-313.

3. «Alunt enim Marcioncm nori tarn innovasse regulam scparatione legisct evixngclii quam retro adiiltcratam rccurassc »(Adu. A/orc., I, 20 (III, 315,14-16).

4. Cf. Adu. Marc., IV\ 3 (Tlf, 427, 17-19). — G'cst pourfiuoi Ton a souvcntrapproclic J.uUicr dc Marcion. HAnsAcrc

14-''

publishes a whole series of apologetical or philosophical pamphlets. His Apologetique in particular had attractedattention, in revealing his temperament as a polemist. He now had to reduce to nothing, the arguments of the heretics.

II. The heretics and the Bible.

A. The two types of heresy.

Tertullien found himself in the presence of two forms of heresy, one represented by Marcion and his disciple Apelle.the other, properly called the gnose, spread by Valentine and his emulators. Though there is no shortage of contact-points between Marcionism and the gnostic systems, some fundamental differences permit us to distinguish them.

Marcion pretended not to innovate, but merely to reform, to restore the Christian faith to what it originally was,before being altered by the jewish legalism. Interpreting Christianity in the light of the epistle to the Galateanshe thought he could discern in the teaching of the church, of his time,.a contamination of the grace by the law. Butthese two motives seemed to him,, not only distinct, but incompatible, strangers to one another. In his fundamental work,the Antithesis, he proposed to prove that the interpretation of the Ancient Testament was so irreconcilable with thatof the New, they werein^t only totally separate, but attributable to two different Gods. The first came from the Creatorto whom were attributable matter and the body, and towards which Marcion and the Gnostics shared the same contempt.The New Testament, on the other hand, was a gift from the unknown God revealed in and by Jesus Christ,• Mafcion, evendated his alteration of the true spirit of Christianity back to the time of the Apostles, and in this sense exploitsthe difference between Peter and Paul at Antioch. He concluded from this, that all which in the New Testament, recalledthe Old,-or even supposed it, in whatever way it might, was due to a Judaic interpolation. Thus, "fashioned or cuthe, the Scriptures with his sword"for to/adapt them to his system. Of the Gospels he kept only that of Luke, butwith various amputations, thus the Gospel of the infancy. Of other writings in the New Testament he accepted in his Canononly the great epistles of Paul but, with a.certain number of suppressions or amendments. He spared nothing, assuresTertullien ironically, except Philoemon's note.

Valentine co

16INTRODUCTION

adapter a son systeme. Des fivangiles, il ne gardait quecelui de Luc, avec diverses amputations, dont I'evangile deI'enfance. Des autres derits du •Nouveau Testament, iln acceptait dans son canon que les grandes dpitres de Paul,bien qu'avec un certain nombre de suppressions ou d'amen-dements ^ I] n'avait epargnd, assure Tertullien ironique, quele billet Philemon 2! ^ i

Valentin se comportait tout autrenient avec les ficritures.II les gardait pcu pris dans leur intdgralitd, mais s'il lesdpargnait, c'est qu'« il accommodait, je ne dis pas les ficri-tures k son systfcme, mais son systeme aux ficritures »(38,10 ; 17, 2-3) 3. Les travaux rdcents, appuy^s sur les derniiresdccouvertes de manuscrits gnostiques,'confirment ce juge-ment de Tertuliien La gnose, enparticulier la gnose valen-tmienne, nous apparait de plus en plus comme un systfemecomposite, unc « sorte de pot-pourri »^ melant des Elements Chretiens d'autres apports d'origines diverses. « Lagnose valentinienne, dcrit par exemple F. M. Sagnard, apuis6 ses elements caracteristiqucs dans I'ambiance de1epoque : philosophic courante, traditions religieuses, et lesa adaptds comme elle a pu ^ la rdvdlation chrdtienne »Amsi la gnose, dans son inspiration premi6re, n'est paschretienne G. Quispel pouvait rdcemment ecrire, peut-

1. DCS (!pitres do saint Paul, il ne gardait que les suivantes et dnns rordresuuant : C. haer.. Ill, 2 : • Ils pr6tendent, fcrit-il cntre autres, surpas-scr en sagesse non sculement les presbytrcs mais les apotres, et avoirtrouv6 la Viritd sans alliagc »(trad. SACNAnn, « Sources Clu'eticnnes », n" S-t,p. 101).

3. Cf. La conclusion de Tepitre de PtolemSe i Flora : « Si Dieu le pcrmet,vous recoNTCz plus tard des eclaircissenicnts plus pricis... quand vous aurci:

jugOe digne de connaitre la tradition des apotrcs, tradition que nousa'J"i nous avons refue par voic de succession » (trad. Quispel,

16.

adapt them to his system. Of the Gospels he kept only that of Luke, but with various amputations, thus the Gospelof the Infancy. Of other writings in the New Testament he accepted in his Canon only the great epistles of Paul but,with a certain number of suppressions or amendments. He spared nothing, assures Tertullien ironically, except Philoemon'snote.

Valentine comported himself quite differently with the Scriptures. He kept them almost in their integrality, but if hespared them,: it was because he "accommodated, I am not saying, the Scriptures to his system, but his system to theScriptures" 38, 10; 17,2-3. Recent works, based on the latest discoveries of gnostic manuscripits, confirm Tertullien'sjudgment. The gnose, in particular the Valentinian gnose, appears to us more and more like a composite system a"sort of lotch-potch", mixing into Christian elements, other contributions of diverse origins. "The Valentinion Gnose,writes for example F.M. Sagnard has drawn its characteristic elements from the ambiance of the age: Current philosophy,religious traditions, and has adapted them as best it could, to the Christian Revelation." Thus, the gnose, in itsprimary inspiration, is not Christian. G. Quispel wrote recently may be with some exaggeration, if it concerns theValentinians gnose in its original form; "Gnose without.Christianity, is gnose".

In order to justify their interpretations,.the gnostics at times pretended that their founders had received a Charismasimilar to that of the apostles, but above all they were putting forward ideas of secret traditions, confided by Christto a few apostles in particular, which only the gnostics had received or integrally preserved. According to them, Christ It.;had in fact given a double teaching, one destined for the masses of the public, the other for the initiated few thesmeelvesthe "Gnostics". Most of them referred to secret writings containing the true revelation. The vanentinians /

.:.rj

18 INTRODUCTION

niens se prdvalaient ainsi cl'un iSocngile de Verite, peut-etreune cles premieres ceuvres de .Valentin S appeld ainsi paropposition aux Qiiatre £vangiles"consid6res coinme n'offrantqii'une doctrine de qualitd infdrieure destinde aux « psy-chiques »

Comme les niarcionistes, les valentiniens ddployaient unincontestable talent pour tircr cux les ficritures, jouer surrambiguite des mots, grouper les textes et les adapter enfonction de lenr doctrineTertullien, comnie avant luiIrdnde, prete i leur dialectique une «habiletd ddmoniaque ».II leur rcconnait dgalcment unc grande aisance dans les discussions ; « Ils mcttcnt cn avant Ins Jicritures et, par leuraudace, font tout de suite impression sur quelques-uns.Dans le combat, ils fatigucnt les forts, ils sdduisent lesfaibles ; ils laissent en les quittant un scrupule au cceur desmddiocres » (15, 2).

B. Les deux milhodes de conlroverse.

Pour rdfuter de tels adversaires, le ddfenseur de l'£glisepouvait d'abord clierclicr ii ddmontrer i'iiiconsistance deshcrcisics. Puisque ces doctrines se donnaient comme chr6-tiennes et se rdclamaient de la rdvclation du Christ, il suffl-sait de manifester leur ddfaut de conformity avec les Ecri-

1. L'allriLiuUon h Valentin n'cst pas prouveSe, mais si cct 6crit n'est pasde lui, il vicnt d'un dc acsdisciples Inimfdiats et doit avoir etfi r(!digo aiitfurdc 150. Cct J^vnngilo a ett rctronvtf, ily a une dizainad'annijcs(101 j), parmiIcs iTiatuiscrits di; Nag H:nuina.ii et sera proehaiiicmcnt lidit^. Cf. K. Puecket G. QuisruL, Les t^.crit:; qnostiques dii Codex Jimgj in Vigiliaf. ChristianaCtVIII (1951), p. 1-51 (voir p. 31 et 30 pour la datation et rattrli)ution), etles Otudes de It. I'utcr.ir, G. QuispiiL et W. C. Unnik, traduites.et fidittespar F. L. Citoss, The Jung Codex, I.or.don, 1055. — Cf. Tallusion d'Jrtoiiei cct (!crit. Adv. iiaer., Ill, 11, 0 (ed. SAfiN.'.ni), p.

2. H. Puiicii ot G. QL']SM;r., Lcs dcrils

Inevitablement la discussion se prolongerait a rinfini et

prendrait une tournure de plus cn plusteclinique qu'un simpleChretien serait bien incapable de suivre. Celui-ci risqueraitde rentrer chez lui encore plus inquiet et plus indecis (IS, 2).De toutes facons, le defenseiir de r£glise devait renoncer CiI'espoir d'obtenir par cette voie un avantage decisif.

1. or. De praesc., 28, 2 ;'10,7;Adw. Pn!2.,20(in, 2(13, 11-12); De res. car.,M (in, 72, 1), 39 (81, IS-ig)-, Adu. Marc., IV,2(111, 426, 7), V, 1 (509, 9).I! parle de probare ex scripturis : Ado. Marc., V, 1 (569, 21) «dum non pro-!=i.Ttur nisi dc inslrunicnto creatoris •. — Adv. Prax., 11 (III, 212, 10 et.22-

De car. Chr., 6 (II. 206, 51 et OG); Adv. Marc., V, 1 (571, 8-0).'1. .Idu. hc.cr.. Ill, 2, 3 ((Sd. Sagnaiid, p. 101).3. Adu. Marc., IV, -1 (III, 128, 22-2-i).

18.

were thus availed of a Gospel of Truth, perhaps one of the very first works by Valentine, thus called, in opposition tothe Four Gospels which were considered as only offering a doctrine of inferior quality, destined for the "psychics".Like the Marcionists, the Valentinians.also displayed an incontestable talent for taking advantage of the Scriptures,by.playing upon the ambiguity of words, grouping the texts, and adapting them to the function of their doctrine.Tertullien, like Irenee before him, concedes to their dialectic a 'demoniacal cleverness'. He equally, acknowledgestheir great fluency in discussions; "cT-hey:..p.ut.i:th;elScrip,turfes fri^rsty-aiidybytheirl'audacity, instantly make an impressionon some. In combat, they weaken the strong, seduce the weak; in parting they leave a scruple in the heart of themoderates" (15,2).

*•

B. The two methods of controversy.

To refute such adversaries,.the defenders of the Church could first of all seek to demonstrate the inconsistency ofheresies. Since these doctrines purported to be Christian and referred to the revelation of Christ,.it sufficed tomanifest their default of conformity with the Scriptures, these being the instrumenta, means of proof of the revealedtruth. This method was traditional, and Tertullien himself during the whole of his lifetime never ceased using it.But he was perfectly aware of that method's limitations. The principal inconvenient of this type of argumentationwas its length. It required the examination and refutation of each particular system and, from inside of each system,that of each doctrinal points. It is significant that Tertullien, to refute Marcion, should have thought it a must,to write five big books in order to do so. A considerable work-load as Tertullien admitted to himself, and wliiich ledonly to derisory results and, in no proportion to the effort spent. "In making the Scriptures a battleground,.victoryrisks to be no-one's, uncertain or unsafe. For there is no question that the adversaries cannot return" (19.1) Ireneehad observed that,, already his rivals were sneaking about like snakes, and ready to reveal themselves on all sides. Iffor example. He T.ertullien, objected to Marcion that, he Tertullien, possessed the true Gospel of Luke, he would expectMarcion to protest, and revindicate the truth for his own. If we then reproached him,, of having falsified and interpolated his texts,.Marcion, would deny it, purely and simply, by pretending that on the contrary if was Tertullien himselfwho was making use of altered texts. Would we thus succeed in proving that such a doctrine of the Valentinians couldnot refer or quote from the true interpretations of the Scripture, these would invoke other secret traditions (25,3).

Inevitably the discussion would prolong itself to infinity and take a turn, more and more technical, which the averageChristian would be, quite unable to follow. And would certainly risk getting back home even more worried and confused(18.2). In any case the defender of the church would renounce any hope of obtaining through this medium any decisiveadvantage./

.

20 introdi;c;ti()N

Pour sorLir cle cctle impasse, Tortullicn chei'clia done uneautre tacl:ic[nc, a la fois plus simple et plus efricacc. II cruten (lecouvrir une, preciscment celle qu'il exposa clans le Depraescriplione haereliconim, I'un de ses premiers traites etI'un des plus brillants. Selon les termes de Paul Monceaux,11 debutait par un coup de maitre en renouvelant la m^thodede combat K

III. L'argument de Prescription.

A. L'argiimc.nl dc prescription dans le droit romain.

Lc titre du traite est empruntc au vocabulaire techniquedu droit romain. Pour comprcndre la portee de I'argumcnt,bien que Tertullien garde ici une grande liberty d'interprd-tation, il convicnt done d'avoir present I'esprit les grandeslignes de la ])roc('(lurc roinainc

A I'cpoquc dc Tcrtullien, Ic droit romain connaissait unedouble; procedure, I'unc dite procedure formulaire, la secondcprocedure extraordinaire.

Dans la procedure formulaire, I'instance 6tait divisee endeux phases : I'une se passait in jure devant le preteur et setcrminait par la Ulis contcstatio, c'est-t\-dire la rddac'tion dela forniule. L'autre phase avait lieu plus tard devant le juge.La formule (sous sa forme la' plus simple) comprenait aumoins la nomination du juge, I'indication de la question

t

1. P. Monceaux, op. cit., p. 30-i. i'

2. Siir rargiimcnt dc prescription cn droit romain, outre les ninnucls dc ;droit roinniti (pnr excmpic ccux. dc P. GiRAr\r>, Manuel l^limentairc dc droit ;romain, 5" Od., l^iris, 1911, p. 102'J ss.; iSd. Cuq, Manuel dcs inslimtionf; /iiri- 1diques des roniains, 2" 6d., Paris, 102S,p. 8G2 ss.), voir .1.Stiunimanx, Die --Pracscriptio TcrtnUians im Liclilc dt\^ nimisdien Ficchts und der TherAogie(coll. « Parndosis •, 3), Frihourg cn Siiissc, lO-lO, spc-cialcmeut p. 11-27; -Jean-Leon Almi*., L'arguninnt dc prescriplinn dans le droit roinain, en apolo-Qt'liquc et cn tlu'ologie dogmaliquey OLlasva, 1010, sp(!*cialcnicnt p. 39-55 ;A. Beck, Ri'imiaches Hecht bei Teriullian und Cyprian^ Eine Stiidie zur frOhcn •Kirchenrechtsgeschichlc, in Schriflcn dcr Kiinigsbcrger Gelchrlen Gesellschaft,Geisteswisscnschaft Klasse^ 7 Jahr., HeTt 2, Halle a. d. Saalo, 1930, p. S5 ss..P. DE Labuiollp:, Uargumcnt de prescription^ in Reuue d'histoire et de litl^-rature rcliQieusCt XI (1906), p. 40S-514 (resiinid dans Tintroduction de r,mais c'cst uniqucmcnt pour Tobligcr a statuer sur un argument ct a ne pasIf? trailer par prctcriUon. Kn realitc, Ic juge ne pent sortir des limites dc ladcinande (il ne pent, par cxemple, slatucr ultra petita), mais aucunc formuJeprcalable ne lui tracc de limitcs. — La prescription roniainc n'etait doneqii'iinc dimcuUe prtalable qui tcai'lail la prouvc dont le demandcur comp-*ui»t se servir..

3. I Quand il comparait devant Ic magistral, Ic defcnseiir lui dcmandaitt'c dieter au jugc dclcgue cct ordre conditionncl ou prescription, ea res aga-f'if quo la prescntc intention ne soit examinee (jue si cllc n'a pas deja•fV d-.«.c;n«c (pracscriptio rci judicatae) ou ne portc prejudice aucunc autre

20.

To let out of this impasse, Tertullian then looked for another, a more efficient and simpler tactic. He thought he foundone, precisely the one he would expose in the De Praescriptione haereticorum, one of his first Treatises, and one of themost brilliant. According to Paul Monceaux, he was starting off with a master stroke, in renewing the method of Combat.

III. The argument of Prescription.

A. The argument of prescription in the roman right or Roman Law.

The title of this Treatise is borrowed from the technical vocabulary of roman law. To understand the import of theargument, well though, Tertullien protects here a great freedom of interpretation, it follows then, to bear in mindthe great lines of Roman procedure.

In Tertullien's time, the roman law recognised a dual procedure, one called the formulary procedure, the other theextraordinary procedure.

In the formulary procedure, the solicitation was divided into two phases: The one took place in Jure before the Praetor,and was terminated by the litis contestatio, that is to say the drawing up of the formula. The other phase took placelater before the judge. The formula (in its simplest form, included at least the nomination of the judge, indicationof the question posed (intentio), finally the 'condemnation' in conditional form. The judge had to verify the just causeof the request and, according to cases either,, condemn the defendant, or absolve him. But accessory parties could invokethe formula for redress, in particular that of prescriptions, and of exceptions.

The prescriptions, as the name suggests, were clauses placed at the head of the formula following the nomination of t-ejudge, but preceding the ,intentio, clauses expressed either in favour of the appellant (actor) permitting him to limitthe object of his request in such a way, that the judge could apply the statute to only one part of his right, or infavour of the defendant. Thus the prescriptions reserved the instance where the latter would oppose either anotherjudicial principle check-mating the former, or factual circumstances necessitating the setting aside of the principle(for example) the prescription resulting from a certain priod of time. The defendant could thus, in certain casesescape the condemnation, even though the cause of the plaintiff was proper or justified./

22 INTRODUCTION

Au temps clc Tertullien, seiiles Ics prescriptions pro adorerestaient en vigueiir ; colics en faveur du ddfendeur (pro reo)etaient tombies en ddsuetude et rcmplacces par les exceptions. A la difT^rence de la prescription qui dvitait que lefond nieme de I'afTaire futaborde, VcxcepUo ne niait pas direc-teinent la pretention a laqiielle onI'opposait. Leplus souventmeme, elle en supposait le bien-fond^, mais die lui opposaitun fait distinct qui ccartait la condamnalion, comme parexemplc un accord prealable des parties, la crainte, le dol,etc. \

Dcs la fin du 11° siccle, cctte procedure ordinaire se trou-vait en regression dans les provinces, sinon i Rome =; die ydtait supplantec par la cognatio extra ordinem, la procedureextraordinaire, qui deviendra la seule prpcddiire du dernierctat du doit romain. Le reprCsentant de I'autorite (gouver-neur de province, prefet imperial) reiidait lui-meme la justice entre les particuliers, en dehors des formes regulieresdes instances civiles. Tons les pouvoirs dtaient concentrdsentre ses mains. C'dtait lui qui citait, organisait I'instanceen disposant d'une assez grande liberte, jugeait et faisaitexecuter. Dans cette procedure, comine dans la precedcnte,le ddfendeur pouvait faire valoir devant le fonctionnaireimperial des prescriptions et des exceptions, et meme avecune plus grande liberte, car il n'dtait plus lie par une for-niulc. Celles-ci n'ctaient plus rien d'autre que des

22^

In Tertullien's time,.only the prescriptions pro actore, remained use ; those in favour of the defendant (pro reo)had fallen into disuse and were replaced by thee, exceptions. In comparison to the prescrijxion which, avoiAd goinginto every single detail of the affair, the exeptio did not directly ideny the pretension on viich it was being oposed.Most ofen tt would suppose its just cause,.but it would oppose it a distinct deed, or fact,.which set aside the condemnnation in cases like a prior understanding on the part of the parties concerned, or in cases of fear, fraud etc

Since the end of the Second century, this ordimry procedure found itself in regression in the provinces, if not in Rome;it was being supplanted by, the, •Gognatio extra ordinem, the extraordinary procedure, which^-wilLbecome the sole procedurein the fest stage of the roman right. The representative of authority i(Pr6;vincial Governor or Imperial prefect) himsdfadministered justice between the parties concerned, without the usual forms of civil instances. All th powers wererested in him. It was he, who cited, organised the instance, with aliberal degree of freedom of action, and adjustedthe instance, v/and folibwrits execution. In this procedure, as in the preceding one, the defedant could teSbify in frontof the Iitperial offical of prescriptions and of exceptions and, .with an even greater freedcm of so doing for he.was no longer bound' by a formula.These were nothing else, buth (ends or means of non-receiving) of objections. Id they were verified, they resulted in shortening.the reportby avoiding that the cause of the defendant was not taken into consideratian.

The prescriptions most frequently invoked were based on a time-limit fixed by the legistlation. Thus in a matter of materiaionial right, a law(lex Julia) on adultery had established a time-limit of 5 years,

24 INTRODUCTION

du reste pour Tcrtullien de se rcfcrer. aux institutions dudroit remain aiors en vigueur en Afrique, et non pas k cellosdes (ipoques antdrieures ou mcme a celles encore en usagei Rome ^ ?

Nous devons toutefois eviter de nous laisser abuser parce vocalDulaire juridique. Tertullien, la suite le montrera, negarde de la procddure romaine que le cadre et I'idde gene-rale de prescription, car il transpose cet expedient juridiquedans le domaine thdologique et lui donne un contenu toutdifferent. Son innovation se borne i presenter de fa?on ori-ginale un argument theologique dej^ invoqud par quelquesPeres du ii^^ sifecle, en particulier Irdnde et Cldmentd'Alexandrie

B. L'argumenl du De praescriptione.

Pour donner k sa poldmique contre les hdrctiques i la foisplus d'originalit6 et plus d'eclat, Tertullien recourt done kune sorte de mise en scfene juridique 11 prdsente la discussion comme le ddroulement d'un proces ou les hdrdtiques

1. Co caractcre antiformolistc dcs prescriptions do Tertullien n'a, knotreconiiaissance, 616 reconnu (|iie par J. Slirniinaiin.

2. Mais ceiix-ci lie Tavaicnt fait qu'eii passant. Cf. IreniSe, Adu. hacr..Ill, 4, 2;Clement D'Ar.nxANDRiu, Stronmles, VII, 17 (P. G., IX, 518-.55 2)«Que Icurs conveiiticules humaitis soient puliiis de rfiglise catliolique iln'est pas besoin de longs discours pour leprouver. L'enseignement duSau-veiir, an temps de son avinement, a com.ncnc6 sous Auguste et a prisn,> au milieu du ri-ne de Tihfire ; renseigiiement des apotres du Sei-neurs'aclicve avoc le ministerc de Paul sous Noron... Ce n'est quc plus tard, autemps de rempcreur1tadrien, ciu';ipparaisscnt lei invcnteurs d-|icrcsies ct ilscnnlmuent jiis

24.

then, for Tertullien to refer himself to institutions of roman law then in force in Africa, and not to those of earliertimes nor even to those still in usage in Rome.

We must at all times avoid letting ourselves be abused by this judicial vocabulary. Tertullian, as will be shown shortly,keeps of the roman procedure only the framework, and tte general idea of prescription, for he transposes this judicialexpedient into the theological domain> and gives it a quite different meaning,. His innovation limits itself to presenting in an original way, a theological arument already previously invoked some Fathers of the second century, inparticular Irenee and Clement of Alexandria.

B. The argument of the De praescritpione.

In order to give his polemic against the Heretics, all at once, more originality, and more polish. Te±ibullian thus,.resorts to a sort of judicial stage production. He presents the discussion, like the unfolding of an action where theheretics.would play the role of plaintiff, and Himself that of advocate fot the defendant,;meaning the Church. As forthe role of the judge, he leaves it to each of his readers.

.*•

The question to determine, is the following: " To whom belongs the possession of the Scriptures?. Tertullien notes-that the Heretics make us of them, as if they were theirs so as to give a semblance of authority to their systems. Andit is precisely this right, which he intends to contest them. All the while cleverly planning to reverse the roles,and taking the defendant's part for himself. He thus, presents himself as having always been the possessor of the Scriptures; it is then the heretics who come to dispute his right and trouble his pcsession, by.invoking in an abusive manner,the Old and the New Testaments. He figures out another way of enlarging the debate, by coupling to this question, anothera more general one; " Who can lay claim to the true doctrine revealed by Christ, to whichtthe Scriptures refer?", for, headds, these where it will appear that the abode of the truth of the doctrine and of the Christian faith is, there also,will be the Scriptures" (19.3). He thus, makes the possession of the Scriptures, a corollary to that of the true doctrine.

But even, before the pleading had reached the heart of the matter, he presents prescritpions, otherwise called objections,or ends of non-receipt, which must in themselves suffice to set aside the pretension of the Heretics, without the necessityof having to examine themr-more clos£iy. JEertullien^has ^.uch^.confideneet in has _arg.ument that he dares to assure;" Theproof is so ea^ that-.-nolsQoher .isc-itcbro.ughtctoi.ii'gh.-t thajtv.it-be'ars ;of no-reply".. (§2.1).

In other terms, Tertullien believes Himself able to demonstrate, without the aid of the Scriptures that these do notbelong to the Heretics (38.1). _

Which then, are these end of Non-receipt that are so decisive? Modern authors are far from agreed as to their numbers, andtheir nature. According to a long admitted opinion and shared for example, by G. Esser, K. Adam, A. d'Ales, and B. Atltamer,the De Praescritpione contains three prescriptions;; a praescriptio veritatis :(ch.20.30). a praescriptio principalitafeis(or novitatis (ch. 31-35) and a prescription;':/

26 INTRODUCTION

proprielalis (cli. 36-40) D'autres auteurs estimaient qu'iln'y avait k proprcmcnt parlcr qu'iiiie prescription, la longiiemporis pracscriplio, accompagnce ccpeiidant d'argumentssubsidiaires. Ainsi Mgr Frcppcl- "P. Monccaux, P. de La-briolie, G. Bardy P. Batiffol,' qiii ])our sa part refusaitceltc fafon de voir, dccouvrait dans cc traite trois argumentsprincipaux : unanimity dans la foi (28, 3), assistance deI'Esprit Saint (38), succession apostolique (36) mais uncseiile prescription au sens strict, colle de nouveautt; ou pos-terioritu Selon Hiinteman, Tertnllien presenterait quatreprescriptions, la premiere expostfe dans les chapitres 21-40,et les trois autres dans les trois derniers chapitres qui, pour-tant, les

26.S""

piroprietatis (chr. 36-40). Other authors estimated, that there was only one proper prescription to speak of,the longie Temporis praescriptio, containing however many subsidiary arguments. Thus Mgr. Freppel, P. Monceaux,P. de Labriolle, G. Bardy. P. Battifdl who for his part refused to see tt that way, discovered in this Treatise threeprincipal arguments; unanimity in the Faith (28.3), assistance of the Holy Spirit (38), apostolic succession (36)Though only one prescription in the strict sense, that of novelty or posteriority. According to Hiinteman, Tartullienpresented four prescriptions, the first one exposed in Chapters 21-40, and the other three,in the last three chapterswhich, however, will enounce them without any judicial form. One of the latest commentators on this Treatise, theP.Allie, inspired by the Wallenburch brothers, dutch controversists of the 17th Century, enumerates about ten prescriptions,the principal ones being the following: Fundamental prescritpion of possession {praescriptio Longi Temporis), that ofunity or doctrinal consensus, of Aucientness and of Newness, and that of apostolicity. Finally, according to D. vanden Eynde, Tertullien would test two arguments, one direct, the positive titles of the churches in the apostolic Heritage,the other indirect, the novelty of heresies.

Such a diversity of opini)n risks, at first glance,to appear rather disconcerting. It attests in any case that the DePraescriptione consitutes an inexhaustible arsenal of arms, for controversists of all times. But can we hope to recover orrediscover Tertullien's thought and his proper argumentation? The surest method consists, in confronting the results ofa precise analysis of the De Praescriptione with the allusions to this Treatise which we can find in the otherworks ofTertullien.

We have said, that in about forty texts, TLrtullien avails himself of the term praescriptio in the judicial senseoofthe word. A dozen of these passages, present such striking resemblances with the Treatise De Praescriptione, that we cannotdoubt that there and there Tertullien evokes the same argument. Besides,- these similarities have never put in question.In three of these, the prescription in presented by Tertullien as an end of non-receipt valid against all the Hersisis.Finally in two instanceshe refers to another Treatise which has developed or will develop this proof with more amplitude,and that Treatise can only be the De Praescriptione. /

INTRODUCTION

Or, dans tons ces cas, TertuIIicn se borne a invoquer la nou-veaute des heresies ou, si I'on prdfere, leur posteriorite parrapport a I'figlise. La lemporis raiio S le testimonium lem-porum le iemporis ordo ' siilTit, afTirme-t-il, c'l faire prcju-ger I'erreur de leiir doctrine. De plus, chaque fois qu'il veutfonder cetargument, il fait appel au nicine principe general;«Est vrai ce qui est premier, est falsifie ce qui est post^-rieur »••, ou : «Dans la meme mesure oil I'erreur n'est quala corruption de la verite, il est necessaire qua celle-ci precede I'errcur » ^

A ses yeux, cet argument est suffisant at ddcisif, plus eiTi-cace meme que celui de catholicity. Car, dit-il, menie au casoil Marcion parviendrait k ramplir I'univers de sa doctrine,celle-ci n en restcrait pas moins postdrieure at ne pourraitdone sa prevaloir du nom d'apostolique Ralevons cettederniere expression r^vdlatrice. Elle sumt poser le debat^ son veritable plan, lo plan theologique. Ce n'est pas I'an-ciennete d'une doctrine, mais son apostolicite qui, en definitive, constitue le critcra de sa vdrity \

Dfes I'ApoIogctique, il esquissa cette preuve : «Vite et sanspaine, nous opposons une fln da non-recevoir ^ ces falsifications de notre doctrine et nous leur disons que la saule regiede la vdritd ii'est autre que celle qui vieiit du Christ, trans-mise par sas propres conipagnons. Or il sera facile de prou-ver qua tous ces novateurs leur sont de beaucoup poste-rieurs »

usi siimus. . —Rclever encore Adu. Marc., Ill, 1 (377, IS)qui renvoie indi-rcctement au Dc praesc. ct Texprcssion soleo d'Adu. Herm., 1 ct Adv. Marc..V, 19.

1. Adu. Maj-c., IV, 4 (III, -128, 25).2. Adu. Mara., V, 10 (III, 27).3. Ado. Marc., IV, 5 (III, •1?,2, S-Ci).4. Adu. Mfirc., IV, 5 (ill,.•1,12, 11-12).5. Adu. Mivc., IV, 4 (III, -128, 27-129, 7).6. Adu. Marc.. V, 19 (III, Gi;j, S-13).7. Ccfondcnicnt dc inprescription de nouveaut^n'a pasochapp^ a O.Bar-

DE.N-nEWEn qui ccrit justcment (op. cil., p. 406) : . Es handclt sicli aber inIctzer Linie inimer nur urn cine Einrede, die pracscriptio nouilatis, d. i. dieEinrede dcr mangelnden Apostolizitat. Die anderu Einreden .sind abieitun-gen Oder Folgcrungcn. • .

8. Apol, 47, 10 (trad. J. P. Waltzing, id. Budi, p. 99-100).

L'.\r>GUMENT DE pnESCKirTlON 20

Quclques annees plus Lard, peut-etre dans line premiereredaction del'Arfycrsus Marcionem, il reprend cet argument:« Sera considere comma hercsie, ce qui est introduit apres,et sera tenu pour vdrite, ce quiadte transmis depuis 1originepar la tradition. Mais un autre livre etablira contre les here-tiquas cetta thfese, que, meme sans discuter leurs doctrines,on doit les convaincre d'etre tels au moyen de la prescriptionde nouveaiild »

Cet argument est facile ct rapide II substitue en effct ala critique ditaillee des doctrines une preuve d'ordre liisto-rique aisee i produire. Toutefois, Tertullian sa rend compteque, pour davenir plainement efficace, celte preuve indi-recte (bien qu'en soi sufTisanta) exige sa contrepartie : lamanifestation du caractere apostolique des figlises. C'estcetta demonstration d'ordre historique qu'il esquisse dans

• un passage c61ebre de VAdvcrsus Marcionem ^ : «Bref, s'ilest evident que ca qui ast plus ancien est plus vrai, et plusanclen ce qui ast depuis le commencement, et depuis lecommencement ce qui remonte aux apotres, il deviendraegalement Ovident que la doctrine transmise par les apolrcs'est celle qui est conscrvce religieusement dans les Cgiises(fondees par) les apotres. Voyons done de quel lait lesCorinthiens ont ^tc nourris par Paul, scion quelles regiesfurcnt repris les Galatas...» Dans la suite- du passage, Ter-tulllen fait allusion kVOrdo episcoporuni qui permet, a partirdes eveques actuels das sept villes mentionnees dans 1'Apocalypse, de remonter jusqu'a FapStrc Jean. Tertulllcn faitdone appel la fois au consensus doctrinal des Cglises apos-toliques et a la succession des dvcques, garantie de I'aposto-licite das Eglises. Celle-ci nes'identifie pas a I'apostoliciLe dela hierarchic. Les Eglises sont apostoliques par tout ccqu'elles sont, laurs traditions, leur doctrine, leur culte. Maisla continuity da la hi6rarchie etant plus facile constater eth prouver que celle da la doctrine, il est tout naturel que

1. Adv. Marc., I, 1 (202, 3-S) (trad. P. Mgncf.au.x iegcrcmont inodiflOc).2.. Expedite: Apnl., 47, 10 ; tacilUme:Adu.Marc., Ill, 1 (III, 377, 15-10).3. Adu. Marc., IV, 5 (HI, 430, 11-19). Cf. Adu. Mcwc., I, 21 (318, :

• K\l:ibc cruu :ili(|uam (eccicsiain) c\ tnis apostoiici census et oiiduxcris... •Oliji qui pent apporlcT cettc prcwvc est sur de roinporlcr.

•

28.

\\

\ ^

Since, in all these cases, Tertullien limits himself to invoking the novelty of heresies or, if we prefer, theirposteriority in rapport 'to the Church. The Temporis ratio, the testimonium Temporum, the Temporis ordo suffice, heaffirms, to pre-judge the error of their doctrine. Moreover, each time he wishes to test this argument, he refers tothe same general principle: "Is true that which is first, is falsified that which is posterioror: "By the same measurewhere the, error is only a corruption of the Truth, it is necessary that it precedes the error".

In his estimation, this argument is sufficient and decisive, even more effective than that of Catholicity. For, sayshe, even in the case where Marcion succeeded in filling the Universe with his doctrine, it would not make it any lessposterior, and could not thus prevail in the name of Apostolic. Taking up this last revealing expression. It sufficesto restore the debate to its true plan, the theological plan. It is not the Ancientness of a doctrine but its apostolicitywhich, in the definitive, constitutes the criterium of its truth.

Since the Angelique, he outlines this proof: "Swiftly and without difficulty we oppose an end of non-receipt to thesefalsifications of our doctrine and we tell them the sole proof of the truth, is none other than the one from Christ,and transmitted by his proper companions. Thus it will be easy to prove that all these innovations' are much posteriorto them."

Some years later, perhaps in a first issue of the Adversus Marcionem, he takes up this argument: "Will be considered asheresy, that which is introduced after, and taken for Truth, that which has been transmitted since the beginning by thetradition. Though another book will establish the following thesis against the heretics, that without even discussing theirdoctrines we must convince them, of their being such, by reason of the prescription of Novelty". This argument is easyand rapid. It substitutes in effect, from the detailed critique of doctrines a proof of historical order easy to produce.Yet Tertullien is well aware that,, to become fully effective, this indirect proof (Well though it be sufficient) requiresits counterpart: The manifestation of the apostolic character of the Churches. It is this demonstration of historicalorder which he outlines in a famous passage of the Adversus Marcionem. "Briefly, if it is evident that, that which ismore ancient, is more true, and more ancient that which is since the beginning, and since the beginning that whichdates back to the apostles, it shall become equally evident that the doctrine transmitted by the apostles,.is that whichis religiously preserved in the churches (Founded by) the apostles. Let us see then of what milk the Corinthians werebeing fed on by Paul, according to what rules were the Galateans retaken...In the rest of the passagesalludes to the Ordoepicoporum which allows, starting with the actual Bishops of the seven cities mentioned in the apocalype to go right backto the apostle John. Tertullien thus all at once refers to the doctrinal consensus of the apostolic churches and tothe succession of bishops, as guarantee of the apostolicity of Churches. This does not identify itself with theApostolicity of the Hierarchy. The churches are apostolic, by all that they are, their traditions, their doctrine andtheir cult. But the continuity of the hierarchy being easier to examine and to prove than that of the doctrine, it isquite natural that /

30 INTKODUCTION

Tcrtullien en vicnne k faire cle la premiere le signe de I'apos-tolicite cics figlises et cle Iciirs traditions \

II faut cependant avoiier que dans leDepraescriptione, cetargument ne se degage pas avec i'evidence qu'on attendait.C'est que Tertiillien, comme J. Stirnimann nous sembleI'avolr dtabli de fapon definitive, suit un plan soigneusementelabord =mais assez complexe 11 pose d'abord I'objet duddbat : « A qui attribuer la vdritable doctrine, h laquellese rapportent les Ecritures ? » II declare alors qu'il convientde trailer ce sujet methodiquement en rdpondant aux quatrequestions suivantes ;

De qui ?Par qui ?Quand ?A qui ?

vicnt la doctrine par laquelle on devient chrdtien ?(19). D6sle chapitre 20, il repond brievement ; « Cette doctrine vient

Du Christ

Par les apotresApres I'AscensionAux figlises apostoli(iues. »

Lcs hdrdtiques ne mettaient en doute ni la premi6re ni latroisieme de ces rcponses. Par contre, quelques-uns niaientpratiquement le charisme d'apostolicite en plafant leurspropres docteurs au-dessus des apotres ou en supposant queies ap6l.reseiix-mGmes (ou certains d'entre eux) avaient ddfor-me la doctrine du Christ. La plupart, tout en reconnaissanten thf'.orie le rdle des apdtrcs, ddnongaient la deviation desfiglises et pretcndaient revenir au christianisme primitif.

C'est pourquoi, au ciiapitre 21, Tertuliien, se rdfdrant kses rdponses du chapitre 20, dleve une double prescriptiondestinC'c barrer la route aux hdrdtiques :

1) Le Christ n'a rdveld sa doctrine qn'atix apolrcs.

1. Cf. ICS rellRxions clc Cli. Journet dans L'^glise dii Verbe Incarni,t. 1, 1" dd.. Paris, 1011, p. CC0-CG2.

2. Comme dans I'ApoIogdtiiiue, cf. J. Loutz, TertuUian als Apologet, t. 2,Munstcr (Wcstf.), 1!)2S, p. 153, note 2.

3. Voir p. 82 le plan d

30.

Tertullien makes of the first, the symbol of the Apostolicity of the Churches and of their traditions.

It has to be admitted however, that in the De Praescriptione this argument does not disengage itself with the evidencewe expected. It is that Tertullien, as J. Stirnimam seems to us to have established in definitive fashion,.follows acarefully elaborated; "but complex enough plan. At first he poses the object of debate. To whom attribute the truedoctrine, to which the scriptures refer?" Then he declares that it is proper to treat this subject methodically, byanswering the four following questions.

From Whom

By "WhomWhen.

To Whom;

comes the doctrine by which one becomes a Christian? (19). Since chapter 20, he answers briefly "This doctrine comes

From Christ.

By the Apostles.After the Ascension.

The apostolic churches.

The Heretics were not putting in doubt neither the first nor the third of these answers. For a start some practicallythe Charisma of apostolicity, by placing their own doctors above the apostles, or by supposing that the apostles themselves(or some of them) had deformed the doctrine.of Christ. Most of them whilst acknowledging in theory the rule of theapostles, denounced the deviation of the churches and pretended to refer to primitive Christianity.

That is why in chapter 21 Tertullien to his answers from Chapter 20 raises a double prescription destined to bar the wayto heretics.

1.' Christ has revealed his doctrine to the apostles only.

2. The apostles have confided it only to the churches, founded by them. Al'l the rest of the pleading refers to adefence of these two prescriptions against the objections of the heretics.

1. He must from the start defend his first prescription against the two following difficulties: a) the apostles hadnot known all; b) The apostles had not transmitted all.

2. In the second prescription, the adversaries objected that the churches had misunderstood the teaching of the apostles,and that the heretics had only re-established the truth. Tertullien develops his second answer with a certain amplitude,which visibly forms the heart of the Treatise. At the start he invokes a direct argument. The unanimity in the faithof/

30 cont'd/

of the apostolic churches, then an indirect one, that of the posteriority of the Heresies which he defends in turn againstthe eventual instance of the Heretics, according to which they too would refer back to apostolic times. 'Bertullien then,puts forward the fact of the apostolic succession as guarantee of the real continuity between the apostles and the churchesof this day. He then defies the heretics to be in a position of presenting arguments of the same weight. The conclusiondegages itself; The heretics do not possess the true doctrine of Christ and the apostles, and thus have no right to thescriptures.

Such a plan lacks neither of rigour nor of logic. It remains however somewhat puzzling, which explains the divergenciesof interpretation of modern authors. Because the

32 INTRODUCTION

ment fonclamcntal clu traite, celiii qiie Tertullien pr^sente 'aillcurs comme la praescri'pUo novilalis S n'est explicltement ;enonce qu'au chapitre 29, sans nom special clu reste, et n'ap-parait que comme une defense de la seconde prescription duchapitre 21.

En reality, Tertullien n'a pas change d'idee. II suffit pours'en convaincre de lire attentivement le d6but du chapitre 22 ;11 serait facile de presenter, imiiiddiatemcnt, assure-t-il, lapreuve de la seconde prescription, et celle-ci ne souflriraitplus alors aucune riipliquc. Mais 11 en retarde I'expose pourpermettre ^ ses adversaires de produire leurs arguments. 11est done evident qu'aux yeux do Tertullien la prescriptiondu chapitre 21 et I'argument de posteriorite d^veloppe auchapitre 29, d'une certaine fafon, n'en font qu'un. End'autres termes, I'argument de nouveauld ou posteriority nefait que prcciscr davantage la prescription d'apostolicit6 desJigliscs. Les deux se conditionnent mutueliement. II n'y adone aucune contradiction entre ce que nous dit Tertulliendans VAdversus Marcioncm ou leDe came Chrisii et les rdsul-tats fournis par une analyse mdthodlque duZ)epracscriptione.II convlent seulement de ne pas se laisser derouter par unartifice do presentation, qui a I'avantage de permettre unexposiS colidrent des doctrines her^tiques, de montrer claire-ment les points essentiels de la foi catholique remis par ellesen question, et de les rcSfuter avec plus d'6clat.

C. Prescriplion longi temporis ^ ?

Divers auteurs, nous I'avons vu prdcedemment, ontnaguire interprets I'argumentation du De pracscriplionecomme une transposition, dans le domaine th(5ologique, dela longi temporis pracscriplio. A priori, cette hypothfese n'arien d'invraisemblable, car les historiens du droit font d'or-dinaire renionter cette prescription aux empereurs Septime

1. Adu. Marc., I, 1 (292, S).2. A la bililiographie clonnfie au debut des sections pr6c^dentes (p. 20.

note 2 ct p. 2 t, note 3), ajouter J. Partsch, Die longi temporis praescriptioim klassischen romischen Recble, Leipzig, 1906.

L'AnOUMENT DE PRESCniPTION 33

Severe ct Caracalla, aiix alentours des ann^es 193-199 '.D'institution recente, due en partie a un empereur d'ori-gine africaine, elle se pretait, semhle-t-il, a une utilisationapologetique de la part do Tertullien. C'etait Ijien dans samaniere ! Meme une fois reconnu que Tertullien, dans Ictraile De praescripiione, ne ddveloppe queles deux prescriptions d'apostolicite, il est permis encore de se demander s'ilne fait pas au moins allusion i I'argument de « possessionprolongcSe et continue ». Des auteurs comme J. Partscli,J. Stirnimann, sans oser I'afTirmer de fafon absolue, sontfavorables cette hj'pothese.

Le droit romain, d6s la Loi des Douze Tables, avait etablisous le nom (i'usucapio qu'un citoyen romain pouvaitar,qu(?rir la « propriete » d'une chose susceptible de droitprive il la suite d'une « possession » continue d'un an pourles meubles et de deux ans pour les immeubles. Ce moded'acquisition Stait rcservi? aux seuls citoyens romains. Maismcme k leur profit, I'usucapion ne pouvait porter sur deschoses non romaines, sur des fonds provinciaux notamment.

Quand Rome se fut agrandie, le besoin se fit vite sentirde "completer cette institution et d'imaginer un autre moded'acqiiisition en favour ties peregrins et pour les fonds provinciaux. Tellc fut I'origine de la longi leniporis (ou lontjueposscssionis) pracscriplio.

Comme son nom I'lndique, elle fut sans doute d'abordun moyen de defense dcnne au possesseur contre les actionsr6elles des tiers, une clause niise en tete de la formule. Des-tiii6e fi combler une lacune du systime de I'usucapion, ellerestait soumise aux memcs conditions que cclui-ci, soit ;1) un juste titre d'acquisition, justiis titiiliis, 2) un certaindelai, 3) Tabsonce de dol, de violence, ct la bonne foi. Maisdie en differait quant la longueur du delai, porte dix ansentre presents et vingt ans entre absents, ct quant a Feffct :die ne confcrait pas la propri^le et no doniiait que le droit der(.-|iousscr les reclamations des tiers. Qucbiu'un venait-il, par

1. Cf. J. PAHTSr.it.op. lOS ss.; J. Stijinimann, op. ci7.,p. .T1 ; 11.Clq,rii., p. 2S7 ss. ToiiUfois ccrUiiiis .Tiilriirs sniil nidiiis anirm.itifs. l.e rcs-(!?•C.;ir;ic;illa du ."ifl dOccuibre I'.i'.l cii r sl In ]irciiiif;rc .ittestation coiuuie,

cfl'c iirc-cripiioii ;mr;\it pu Miiparailre plus lut.

Ti (.'lyriirtr Itcrctifjlies. 3

32.

fundamental argument of this Treatise, the one that Tertullien presents elsewhere as the praescriptio novitatis, is notexplicity enounced until chapter 29, without any special name from the rest, and only appears as a defence of the secondprescription from chapter 21.

In reality lb rtullien has not changed in idea. It suffices, .to convince ourselves of it, to read attentively the beginningof chapter 22; It would be easy to present immediately, he assures, the proof of the second prescription, and it wouldthen no more suffer any reply. But he delays the expose, to permit his adversaries to produce their arguments. It isevident,.that in the eyes of Tertullien the prescription from Chapter 21, and the argument of posteriority devloped inChapter 29 are after a fashion, but one. In other terms, the argument of Novelty or Posteriority only specifies all themore so,.the prescription of apostolicity of Churches. The two condition themselves mutually. There is then nocontradiction between what TXrtullien tells us in the Adversus Marcionem or the De Carne Christi and the results furnishedby a methodical analysis of the De Praescriptione. It is only proper not to let oneself be led astray by an artifice ofpresentation, which has the advantage to permit a coherent expose of heretical doctrines, to show clearly the essentialpoints of the Catholic Faith, and put to question by them, and to refute them more brilliantly.

C. Prescription longi TemporiSv?i

Various authors, as we have noticed before,>have latterly interpreted the argument of the De Praescriptione as aTransposition, in the theological domain of the longi Temporis Praescriptio. A priori this Hypothesis has nothing,improbable, because legal historians do ordinarily date this prescription back to the Emperors SeptimusrSeverus andCaracalla, round about the years 19 3-199. Of recent institution, due partly to an emperor of African origin, itlent itself to an apologetical utilisation on Tertullien's part; For it certainly was his way. Though once recognisedthat Tertullien in the Treatise De Praescriptione develops only the two prescriptions of Apostolicity it is permittedto ask ourselves if he does not at least make allusion the argument of "prolonged and continuous possession" Authorslike J. Partsch, J. Stirnimann without daring.to affirm it in an absolute manner favour this hypothesis.

The roman right, since the Law of the Twelve Tables had established under the name of usucapio, that a roman citizencould acquire 'ownership' of something susceptible of private right, following the continued 'possessionof it for ayear (in the case of household goods, and 2 years in the case of Real estates. This mode of acquisition was reservedfor Roman citizens only. But though to their profit the usucapion, could not affect non-roman things, notably onprovincial grounds.

When Rome had expanded, the need was soon felt to complete this institution and to envisage another mode of acquisitionin favour of peregrines and the provincial grounds. Such was the origin of the longi Temporis (or longae possessionis)praescriptio.

As its name indicates, it was without doubt firstly, a means of defence given to the possessor against the real actions -of third parties,.a clause put at the top of the formula.Destine to fill a gap in the system of the usucapion, it wassubject to the same conditions as the following; Be it: 1) a just title of acquisition, justus titulus, 2) a "ce-r^delay, 3) the absence of deceit, of violence, and the good faith. But it would differ as to the-length of delay, up

between presents, and 20 years between absents, as to its effect: It did not confer the property, and onlygave the right to reject the claims of thirdVarties. If someone came, for / P Y' "nxy

34 INTRODUCTION

exemplc, i roclainer tel bien-fonds. comme lui appartenant,Ic clcfendcur pouvait repousser cclte action en faisant valoirqu'il avait rcel!cmentposs6dece bion de fapon continue pendant le d(ilai 16gal. II pouvait bien I'avoir poss(5de plus long-temps, mais le juge ne s'interessait qu'.'i la pdriode des dixou des vingt dernifcres ann^'es, suivant le cas.

Bicn que Tertullien ne fasse allusion cette prescriptiondans aucune autre de ses oeuvrcs, il est pcrmis de se deman-der s'il n'en est pas question au chapitre 37 du De prae-scriplione. Au debut de ce cliapitre, il tire les consequencesde sa ddnionstration. II estime qu'il a sumsarnrnent defendusa cause et il conclut : « Puisque la vdrit6 doit nous etreadjugOe en partage..., nous dtions bien fondes k soutenir queles lidrctiqiies n'ont aucun droit sur les ficritures. » Arrive

ce point, il pourrait s'arreter l;~i. Sa plaidoirie est pratique-ment achevtfe. II poiirsuit n6aninoins son argumentation,coninie pour (^eraser plus surcment ses adversaires. II n'ap-portc en vi^rite aucun argument nouveau, 11 se rdfire .'i ceiixdes chapitres precedents ; posteriorite des heresies, aposto-licite des origines des tglises, peut-etre succession aposto-licjue. Mais il les expose sous uii ^clairage nouveau.

II prisente d'abord le cas de la possession des ficritnrescomnie analogue cclui dc la possession d'une res, d'undomaine par exemple, d'une foret ou d'une source, ifparlcdc « possession », non de propriety. Les precisions qu'ilfournit ensuite montrent que cettc possession remplit lesconditions requises par la loi pour la validity de la longitcmporis pracscriptio. La loi exigeait un juste titre ; Tertuliieninvoque les oriyincs jlrma^, un dclai de dix ou vingt ans :lui, il possede ce bien dc date aiitremcnt ancicnne, il le pos-sede depuis le ddbut, c'est-a-dire depuis les ap6tres. IIn'6voquc pas explicitement la bonne Toi, Peut-etre, supposeJ. Stirnimann, parce quo la loi ne I'exigeait pas encore ounc la montionnait pas. En tout cas, les chapitres precedentsont sufllsammcnt dclaire les lecteurs sur la mauvaise foi deshdrdtiques K

1. Volr I'analysc du vocabulalrc de cette section par J. Stirnlman'n, op.c»7., p. 100-12G.

l'argument de prescription 35

L'abondance des termes juridiques, concentrds en quelqueslignes, leur similitude avec ceux de la longi iemporis prae-scriptio, rendent done plausible ici une application de cetteprescription.

Batiffol, cependant, objecte que TertuHien (parlant aunom des iSglises) ne se borne pas iseprevaloir d'une possession ininterrompue, faute dc pouvoir presenter un titre depropridte, mais produit la preuve pleine et directe de sondroit dc propriete. 11 se donne en effet comme hcritier desap6tres. 11 n'a done pas faire.appel i la prescription depossession qui le dispenserait de cette preuve ^

En rdponse ii cetto objection, ne pourrait-on pas pourtantexpliquer la demarche de Tertullien de la fafon suivante ?Reprenant les arguments des chapitres precedents, I'auteurles proposerait dans une perspective telle que d'eux-meniesils evoquent ^ I'esprit la longi temporis praescriplio. MaisTertullien se bornerait ici ^ une simple allusion. Par contre,quand il en vient £i produire son juste titre et fait valoir undroit dc propriete, il abandonnerait son premier argumentk peine csquisse pour repartir sur la nouvellc idee d'heri-tage. L'Eglise, en eflet, cst la famille de Dieu, et les Ecrituressont Ic « bien de famille » que chnque generation transmct

la suivante, avec charge dc Ic transmeltre k son tour inte-gralement \ Les hereticpies n'appai'tonant pas cette famillc,ils n'ont done aucun droit sur I'heritage. Les ap6tres les ontd'ailleurs desherites d'avance.

Ainsi tant par la voie de la possession continue quo parcelle du droit d'heritagc, les pretentions des heretiques setrouvent definitivement repoussdes. Juridiquement meme,ils n'ont plus le droit d'intenter de nouvelle action concernant

1. p. Batifi'OL, L'Uglhe naissanlc..., p. 320-330.2. Lo tcrmo tccliniqiic employfi par Tcrtulllcn cst cclui de fiddicommis.

C(. J. STinNtMANN, op. ci/., p. 118-119 ; A. Bi;ck, op. cit., p. 111-115. Lc fidci-

34.

example to claim some propetty, as belonging him, the defendant could reject this action on the grounds that he hadgenuinely possessed the goods or property in a continuous way during the legal delay or time limit. He may well havepossessed it longer, but the judge was interested only in the period of the Cast 10 or 12 years, according to.case.Though Tertullien makes no allusion to this prescription in any of his other works, let us ask ourselves if there isreally no question of it in Chapter 37 of the De Praescriptione. At the start of that chapter he sums up the consequencesof his demonstration. He estimates that he has sufficiently defended his cause, and he confludes; "Since the Truthmust be adjudged to us in proportion...., we were well grounded in sustaining that the heretics do not have any rightto the scriptures". Having reached this point, he could stop there. His pleading is practically achieved. He pursueshis argumentation nonetheless as though to crush his adversaries even deeper into the ground. Indeed, he does notintroduce any new argument. He refers himself to those of preceding chapters: posteriority of heresies, apostolicityof the origins of churches, perhaps apostolic succession. But he shows them in a new light.

First of all, he presents the case of the possession of the Scriptures as analogous to the possession of a (res), ofa domain for example, of a forest, or of a source. He speaks of "possession", not of propriety. The precisions whichhe then furnishes show that this possession fulfills the conditions required by the Law, for the validity of the longiTemporis praescriptio. The Law required a just title; Tertullien invokes the origines firmas, a time-limit of ten ortwenty years; Him, he possesses this reality of date, otherwise Ancient, he possesses it since the beginning, that isto say since the apostles. He does not explicitly evoke the God - Faith; Perhaps,•supposes J. Stirnimann, becausethe Law did not yet require it, or made no mention of it. In any case the preceding chapters, have sufficientlyenlightened readers, regarding bad or wicked Faith of the heretics.

The abundance of jiadicial terms, concetrated in a few lines, their similitude with those of the longi Temporis praescriptio,thus renders plausible here, an application of that prescription.

Battifol,.however objects that Tertullien (speaking in the name of the Churches) does not limit himself to claiming theuninterrupted possession, short of being able to a title of propriety, but produces the full and direct proof to hisright of propriety. In effect he passes himself off as heir of the apostles. Thus he does not have to appeal to theprescription of possession, which would dispense him to this proof.

In response to this objection,.could we not then explain Tertullien's proceeding in the following manner? Taking upthe arguments, the author would propose them in such a perspective that of their own they evoke in the mind the longiTemporis Praescriptio. But Tertullien would here restrict himself to a simple allusion. As a set-off, when it comesto producing a proper deed, and contend a right of propriety, he would abandon his first argument,-barely outlined, tocomment on the new idea of Hereitage. The Church is in effect the family of Christ, and the Scriptures are the "familygoods" which each generation transmits to the next, with charge of transmitting it in turn integrally. The Heretics,not being part of,that family have thus, no right to the heritage - Besides, the apostles had already disinherited thembeforehand.

Just as much as by right of continued possession, and equally so by the right of heritage, the pretensions of theheretics, find themselves definitively rejected. Even judicially, they no longer have the right to start a new actionconcerning. /

• t

36 INTRODUCTION

les Ecrituresi. Le chapitre 37 se refererait clone bien ^ lapraescriplio longi temporis, qiioique de facon acciclentelle etsans que Tertullien exploite cclte preiive. Mais cette simpleallusion suffit pour que ses lecteurs soient con\aincus de lavaleur de sa cause.

D. Fondement el valeur des prescriptions de Terhillien.

On a souvent rclev6 les dcrniires lignes du De praescrip-iione, qui annoncent une rdfutation d^taillde de plusieursheresies. On a voulu y voir comme un aveu de Tinemcacit^de la nouvelle methode abr(5gee.=. De fait, cette declaration,

I'issue d'une longuc plaidoirie destinde k prouver precise-ment qu'il est inutile d'engager une controvcrse avec leshdritiques, risque depasserau moins ponruneinconsequence.Tertullien le coinprit et chercha hii-meme prdvenir I'objec-tion. Dans VAdversus Marcionem, par exemplc, il s'excusede son entreprise en falsant valoir que s'il se bornait h tou-jours invoquer son argument juridique, on pourrait le soup-fonner dc craindre la discussion ^ S il consent a « relacherIc nceud des prescriptions », pour un instant, c'est une concession qu'il fait h ses adversaires ct qui tdmoigne dc saconfiance en sa cause '. Parfois du reste, il le reconnait, ladiscussion peut instruire et prdmunir quelques chr^tiens ^P. de Labriolle remarque tr6s justementque Tertullien. dansses autres traites fait souvent allusion i des prescriptionsmais qu'il n'en parle que comme d'une machine de guerrequ'il tient en rdserve. II pourrait certes en faire usage, maisil prdfere la laisser en arriire du champ de bataille parce qu'ila d'autres moyens d'obtenir la victoire et aussi parce qu'jlne veut pas laisser croire scs adversaircs qu'il se d^fie dela bonte de sa cause

En d'autres tcrmes, I'argument de prescription est en lui-

1. Hn vcrtu du priiicipe : bis dc euuem ic ne sit aclio, la contestation des. heretiqiies cst ainsi repowssc'c une fois pour toutes.

2. Voir fiuelquesappreciations rfiunies par J. L. Allie, op. cit., p. 99-101.3. Adv. Marc., I, 1 (III, 292, 10).4. Adu. Marc., I, 22 (31S, 18-20).5. Adv. Prax., 2 (III, 229, 20-22).6. P. DE Ladriolle, op. cit., Introd., p. xxx-xxxi.

L'ARGUMENT DE PRESCRIPTION 37

meme sufRsant et d6cisif, mais, dtant donn6 ce que sont leshommes et lepeu deprise que les arguments logiques ont surleurs esprits, il est pratiquenient n^cessaire d'y jomdre unerefutation particuliere de chaque heresie. Tertullien pour-tant ne met nullement en doute la valeur intrinseque desa methode. A ses yeux, clle constitue bien une fm de non-recevoir valable une fois pour toutes.

Si nous voulons aujourd'hui apprccier objectivement lavaleur de ces prescriptions, nous devons naturellemcnt dd-passer leur aspect juridique pour prendre en considerationleur fondenient rdcl.

La premiere prescription se fonde sur le charisme d apos-tolicitd, autrement dit sur la plenitude des dons dii Saint-Esprit, refus par les apStres pour fonder rfiglisc, selon lapromesse du Christ (22, 9-11). Tertullien insiste souvent surla mission du Saint-Esprit (13, 5 ; 20 ; 44). Les apotres I'ontrefu de fa^on toute spdciale, puisque le Paraclet fut leurdocteur ; « La doctrine devait nous arriver par les apotres,et aux apfitres par le Saint-Esprit »(8, 14-15). Ce charismeest unique, dtroitement rattache au fait unique du Christ.Le vocabulaire ici est, a lui seul, significatif. Tertullien,conime tous les autres Pferes, reserve le nom d'apotre exclu-sivement aux Douze et a saint PaulC'est a eux, dit-il,que le Christ eonfia I'fivangile une }ois pour toulcs Precherun nouvel Evangile, ou meme corriger et interpoler les6vangiles reyus, c'est done s'arroger le titre et la fonctiond'ap6tre ^ C'est pourquoi dans le De came Chrisli et dansVAdversus Marcionem, Tertullien iiiterroge ironiquement

1. L'usage restera constant jusqu'i la fin du Moycn-Ayc : ct.L. M. De-wailly, Notes siir I'hisloire de Vadjcclif apostolique, in MiHanges de ScienceReUgieusc (Lille'), 19-18, p. 1-13-116.

2. 'It, 9 : •semel ...rcgulae doctrinam apostolis meis dclcgaveram.» Cf. Debapt., 12. 4 ; Adu. Marc., IV, 13 (III, 457, 25-20); IV, 2 (-12G, G-S).

3. DCS sentiments siniilaircs aninieiit I'auteur ajionyme du Contre Artc-mon, dont G. Bardy place Vaetivitfi littfiraire vers 235. II soiiligne^ dcla fa-ton suivanle le crime des artemonistes, qui ont os4 Interpoler ies licritures :«Ou bien ils ne croient pas que les ficritures divines ont et^ dites par leSalit-Esprit, et ilssont infidiiles ; ou bien ils s'estiment etix-mfimes plus sages

lo S;iint-Esprit, ct que sont-ilsd'autre que des deraoniaques ? • (Citepari'.vsi-.nr. Hist. I£ccL, V, XXVIII, 18, trad. G. Bardy, coll. . Sources Clire-

», n' 41, p. 7S-70).

,

36.

The Scripture. Chapter 37 refers itself rather appropriately to the Praescriptio longi Temporis t^though in a somewhataccidental way, and without Tertullien having to exploit this proof. But this simple allusion suffices for the readersof it,.to convince themselves of the value of itscause.

D. Basis and Worth of Tertullien's Prescriptions.

We have often mentioned the last lines of the De praescriptione, which announce a detailed refutation of several heresies.We have wanted to see it as an admission of the ineffectiveness of the new abridged method. In fact,-this declarationissues into a long pleading destined to prove precisely that it is of no use to engage a controversy with the heretics,risks to pass for an inconsequence at least. Tertullien understood it, and he himself tried to anticipate the objection.In the Adversus Marcionem, for example, he excuses himself for his enterprise by maintaining restricted himself to alwaysinvoking his judicial argument, he could be suspected of fearing the discussion,. if he consents to (slacken the knotor tie of the prescriptions" for an instant, it is a concession he makes to his adversaries,.and which testifies tohis confidence in his cause. He acknowledges that the discussion can at times instruct and forewarn, some Christians.Remarks, de Labriolle, and justly so, that Tertullien in his other works often refers to prescription, but speaks ofthem as of some kind of war machine, which he keeps in reserve. He could certainly use it, but prefers to leave it behindthe battlefield, for he has other means of obtaining victory, also because he does not want his adversaries to thinkthat he is in defiance of the goodness of his cause.

In other terms,.the argument of prescription is in itself sufficient and decisive but, knowing what men are, and thevery small impact that logical arguments register in their minds, it is practically necessary to enjoin it with aparticular refutation of each Heresy. Tertullien however, puts in no doubt the intrinsic value of his emthod. In hiseyes it properly constitutes an end or means of non-receipt valid once and for all times. If we want nowadays, toappreciate objectively the value of these prescriptions, we must naturally look beyond their judical aspect, and takeinto consideration their true basis.

The first prescription is based, on the Charisma of apostolicity, otherwise said on the plentitude of gifts from the HolySpirit, received by the Apostles the found the church, according to Christ's promise (22,9,11) Tertullien often insists onthe mission of the Holy Spirit (13,5: 20;44). The apostles received in a very special way, since the Paraclete wastheir doctor. The doctrine came to us through the apostles, and to the apostles from the Holy Spirit (8,14,15). ThisCharisma is unique, intimately bound to this unique act of Christ. The vocabulary is here in itself significant.Tertullien, like all the other Fathers, reserves the name of apostle exclusively for the Twelve and St. Paul. It isto them, says he, that Christ confided the Gospel for once and for all times. To preach a new Gospel, or even to correctand interpolate the Gospels received, is-thus to assume the title and the function of apostle. This is why in the,DeCarne Christie and in the Adversus Marcionem, Tertullien ironically /

- "--r*

• i

38 INTRODUCTION

Marcion : «Es-tu apotre M »et I'assimile lui et ses disciplesk ces(t pseudo-ap6tres »(4,4) dont parle saint Paul (11 Cor.,11, 13), parce qu'ils contrefont'les np6tres (30, 17) =. II n'y aqu'un Evangile, celui du Christ, quo celui-ci remit auxap6tres pour qu'ils le transmettent au monde entier. Pr6-tendre critiquer les apdlres revient done h critiquer le Christlui-nicme

En rdsumd, la pr^tention des hdr^tiques implique ou bienune d(!faillance du Saint-Esprit, iqui, malgrd la promesse duChrist, n'aiirait pas conduit les apdtres toute v($ritd, oubien une nouvelle incarnation du Christ. « Qu'ils prouventqu'ils sont de nouveaux apStres, qu'ils disent que le Christest descendu une seconde fois, qu'il a 6t6 de nouveau cru-cin6... » (30, 15).

La deuxicme prescription se fonde elle aussi sur la presence du Saint-Esprit dans I'Eglise. L'lSglise, pour Tertul-lien comme pour les P6rcs dcs ii» et iiio sifecles, est au sensfort du mot«la maison ^ le troupeau deDieu '», le«temple »,la inaison de I'Esprit Saint '». Dans IcDepudicilia, 11 6criramemc que « I'figlise est I'Esprit lui-meine ®». L'action de

1. Adu. Marc., IV, (Ill, 130, 4-5); De car. Ch., 2 ai, lUl,15-192, 20);Ado. Mure., IV, 9 (-llO, 17-19).

2. Adu. Marc., IV. 5 (IIJ, 131, 21).3. Adv. Marc., IV, 3 (III, 428, 7) : «Christum iam accusat nccus.indo

quos Cliristiis clcgit... •4. Dc pud., 7. 20 (I, 233, 17-18).5. De imd., 7, G (I, 231, 6-7).C. Adu. .Marc., HI, 7 (III, 388, 9-10) : «Spiritalo tcmphim •; ibid. (38C,

21-23) ; Dc mnn., S (OiiULEn, I, p. 773), Dc pud., 13 (I, 210, 8-9). AllleursTcrliillieii ccrit quo le .Snint-risprit cst Ic sage architectc qiii iiliHc I'figlisc,c'csl-,i-dire Ic temple dc Dicu : Adu. .Marc., l U, 23 (•117, 5-7). (Cf.1 Cor . S10 ss.).

7. Adu. Val., 3 (III, 179, 15) : «Nostrae columbao domus. »Cf.F. J. Dol-CEn, Unserer Taiibe Jlaus. Die Lagc dcs clirisllichm Kultbaues nach Terlul-liun, in .1. C., II (1930), p. •(I-SO, spuciaiemcnt p. -10-18.

8. De pud., 21, 10 (I, 271, 3-5) : i Ipsa ccciesia proprie et priiicipaiitcripse est spiritus, inquo cst trinitas unius divinitatis, pater et filiiis et spiritiissanctus. »— Siir I'cccii;siologie do TertuIIicn, vo;r I'fitudeclairvoyante, niai-grC- qiieiques cxagerations et gaiichissemcnts, de Erich Altendo'hf,EinlieilundIleilirjUcit derKirclie, Berlin-Leipzig, 1932, p. 19-24. —NoterqueI'eccia-siologie duDepiidieilia cstmontanistc ct trfis post&ieure auDepraescriptione.11 convient done d'^viter des rapprochements trop hitils cntre ces dcujtouvTages.

L'aRGUMENT DE PRESCIUPTION 39

I'Esprit Saint semble se restreindre aux limites de I'figlisevisible. Les juifs, les paiens, les htfrotiques sont dehors(cf. I Cor., 5, 12; I Thess., 4, 12, etc.), les chrcticns sont chezDieu (8, 8-10) ^ Dc la mome fapon que le corps est I'instru-ment de I'ame, I'figlise est I'instrument de I'Esprit Saint.Celui-ci agit par la sainte figlise, per sanclam ccdesiam, scionla formule du symbole alors cn usage Carthage -. Supposerque les sacrcments administr^s par les £glises apostoliquesaient cess6 k un moment d'etre cfTicaces, reviendraitadmettre que le Saint-Esprit ait a un moment donne aban-donn6 ces figlises (28,1), ^qui Dieu I'avait donne pour veillcrsur elles et les conduire i?i la vcrite (29, 3-4). Dans ces conditions, si les Eglises apostoliqucs au cours de I'liistoire ontd6vi6, il faut ndcessairement conclure une dcfaillance duSaint-Esprit, ou bien pr6tcndre qu'ellcs ne furcnt jamaisrien de plus qu'une institution humaine, bref qu'ellcsn'6taient pas le « temple du Saint-Esprit ».

Pas davantagc, il n'est conccvable qiic Ic Saint-Espritpuisse contredire I'enseignement du Christ. II n'est que levicaire du Chr