A Curious Omission in Tertullian

Tertullian is a puzzle of sorts - an enigma if you will. He is a heretic (a Montanist) who is convinced that his belief in Montanus as Paraclete is utterly orthodox! He thinks Irenaeus is on his side and all the fathers of the Church. Yet at the very same time he points the finger at the Marcionites and other heretics in a way that one would not expect from a heretic. One would expect heretics to have the fellowship of minorities banding together against repressive authority. But again Tertullian thinks he belongs to the 'original' Catholic Church!

We will leave this aside and instead notice that Tertullian makes an explicit reference to 'apostolic thrones' without mention of Alexandria. Near the end of the Prescription Against the Heretics he writes:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,—a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed [Prescription XXXII]

Yet it is patently obvious that this is not the way Marcionite churches operated. Metrodorius says explicitly that instead of many (mythical) apostles setting in a variety of urban centers, all Marcionite bishops received their authority from Marcion.

So if we avoid Tertullian's subtle rhetoric we stumble upon the curious omission I mentioned at the beginning of this post. Tertullian first goes on to say:

Let the heretics contrive something of the same kind. For after their blasphemy, what is there that is unlawful for them. But should they even effect the contrivance, they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles, will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory, so the apostolic men would not have inculcated teaching different from the apostles, unless they who received their instruction from the apostles went and preached in a contrary manner.

Yet let's stop right there and think about St. Mark for a moment. Is St. Mark considered to be an apostle by the Roman Church? No. Elsewhere Tertullian lumps him together with Luke as a companion of the apostles (one who in Irenaeus' version of Acts is ultimately rejected by Paul). So it is quite possible that St. Mark could - at least theoretically - fall into the category of a non-apostolic founder of a tradition.

So Tertullian continues:


To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine. Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith. [ibid]

So again we ask, could a Church based on the authority of St. Mark pass Tertullian's test and be called an 'apostolic community'? No, most certainly not.

This is demonstrated again after a brief description of the various 'heresies' which takes up the next two chapters Tertullian picks up his argument that the heretics were not founded by apostles and then

For since they deny the truth of (our doctrine), they ought to prove that it also is heresy, refutable by the same rule as that by which they are themselves refuted; and at the same time to show us where we must seek the truth, which it is by this time evident has no existence amongst them. Our system is not behind any in date; on the contrary, it is earlier than all; and this fact will be the evidence of that truth which everywhere occupies the first place. The apostles, again, nowhere condemn it; they rather defend it,—a fact which will show that it comes from themselves. For that doctrine which they refrain from condemning, when they have condemned every strange opinion, they show to be their own, and on that ground too they defend it [ibid XXXV].

Yet notice that a discussion of 'apostolic thrones' immediately comes up which is the clincher:

Come now, you who would indulge a better curiosity, if you would apply it to the business of your salvation, run over the apostolic churches, in which the very thrones of the apostles are still pre-eminent in their places, in which their own authentic writings are read, uttering the voice and representing the face of each of them severally. Achaia is very near you, you find Corinth. Since you are not far from Macedonia, you have Philippi; you have the Thessalonians. Since you are able to cross to Asia, you get Ephesus. Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves).

Here is what is so puzzling about this statement. Tertullian was certainly writing in the third century. Coptic tradition makes absolutely certain that Demetrius was seated on an 'apostolic throne of St. Mark' in Alexandria. There can be no doubt about this. Nor indeed that at least by the time of Demetrius' successor (I think it was much earlier) the one who sat on this throne was called 'Pope' or Papa.

So here's my dilemma.

How could Tertullian - who is 'of Carthage' in Africa - omit the ancient tradition of Mark in Alexandria. Indeed 'the African Church' is mentioned by Tertullian but only in terms of servitude to the authority of European Sees in what immediately follows:

See what she has learned, what taught, what fellowship has had with even (our) churches in Africa! One Lord God does she acknowledge, the Creator of the universe, and Christ Jesus (born) of the Virgin Mary, the Son of God the Creator; and the Resurrection of the flesh; the law and the prophets she unites in one volume with the writings of evangelists and apostles, from which she drinks in her faith. This she seals with the water (of baptism), arrays with the Holy Ghost, feeds with the Eucharist, cheers with martyrdom, and against such a discipline thus (maintained) she admits no gainsayer. This is the discipline which I no longer say foretold that heresies should come, but from which they proceeded. However, they were not of her, because they were opposed to her. Even the rough wild-olive arises from the germ of the fruitful, rich, and genuine olive; also from the seed of the mellowest and sweetest fig there springs the empty and useless wild-fig. In the same way heresies, too, come from our plant, although not of our kind; (they come) from the grain of truth, but, owing to their falsehood, they have only wild leaves to show.[ibid XXXVI]

So I ask you - am I stretching the proper understanding of this material when I say that St. Mark is taken by the Catholic community to have the same subordinate relationship with Peter that Tertullian holds his African church has with Rome? Am I noticing too much when I point to Alexandria's omission and their 'stubborn pride' in not wanting to bow down to Petrine primacy? The idea is clearly supported in Dialogues of Adamantius ...