Chapter VII.—Even the Old Discipline Was Not Without Precedents to Enforce Monogamy.  But in This as in Other Respects, the New Has Brought in a Higher Perfection.

Why, moreover, should we not rather recognise, from among (the store of) primitive precedents, those which communicate with the later (order of things) in respect of discipline, and transmit to novelty the typical form of antiquity?  For look, in the old law I find the pruning-knife applied to the licence of repeated marriage.  There is a caution in Leviticus:  “My priests shall not pluralize marriages.”32    I cannot find any such passage.  Oehler refers to Lev. xxi. 14, but neither the Septuagint nor the Vulgate has any such prohibition there.  I may affirm even that that is plural which is not once for all.  That which is not unity is number.  In short, after unity begins number.  Unity, moreover, is everything which is once for all.  But for Christ was reserved, as in all other points so in this also, the “fulfilling of the law.”33    Matt. v. 17, very often referred to by Tertullian.  Thence, therefore, among us the prescript is more fully and more carefully laid down, that they who are chosen into the sacerdotal order must be men of one marriage;34    Comp. 1 Tim. iii. 1, 2; Tit. i. 5, 6; and Ellicott’s Commentary. which rule is so rigidly observed, that I remember some removed from their office for digamy.  But you will say, “Then all others may (marry more than once), whom he excepts.”  Vain shall we be if we think that what is not lawful for priests35    Sacerdotibus. is lawful for laics.  Are not even we laics priests?  It is written:  “A kingdom also, and priests to His God and Father, hath He made us.”36    Rev. i. 6.  It is the authority of the Church, and the honour which has acquired sanctity through the joint session of the Order, which has established the difference between the Order and the laity.  Accordingly, where there is no joint session of the ecclesiastical Order, you offer, and baptize, and are priest, alone for yourself.  But where three are, a church is, albeit they be laics.  For each individual lives by his own faith,37    See Hab. ii. 4; Rom. i. 17; Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38. nor is there exception of persons with God; since it is not hearers of the law who are justified by the Lord, but doers, according to what the apostle withal says.38    Rom. ii. 13; Eph. vi. 9; Col. iii. 25; 1 Pet. i. 17; Deut. x. 17.  Therefore, if you have the right of a priest in your own person, in cases of necessity, it behoves you to have likewise the discipline of a priest whenever it may be necessary to have the right of a priest.  If you are a digamist, do you baptize?  If you are a digamist, do you offer?  How much more capital (a crime) is it for a digamist laic to act as a priest, when the priest himself, if he turn digamist, is deprived of the power of acting the priest!  “But to necessity,” you say, “indulgence is granted.”  No necessity is excusable which is avoidable.  In a word, shun to be found guilty of digamy, and you do not expose yourself to the necessity of administering what a digamist may not lawfully administer.  God wills us all to be so conditioned, as to be ready at all times and places to undertake (the duties of) His sacraments.  There is “one God, one faith,”39    Eph. iv. 5, 6. one discipline too.  So truly is this the case, that unless the laics as well observe the rules which are to guide the choice of presbyters, how will there be presbyters at all, who are chosen to that office from among the laics?  Hence we are bound to contend that the command to abstain from second marriage relates first to the laic; so long as no other can be a presbyter than a laic, provided he have been once for all a husband.

CAPUT VII.

0921C

Cur autem de pristinis exemplis non ea potus agnoscamus, 0922A quae cum posterioribus communicant, de disciplina et forma vetustatis ad novitatem transmittunt? Ecce enim in veteri lege animadverto castratam licentiam saepius nubendi. Cautum in Levitico: Sacerdotes mei non plus nubent (Lev. XXI, 14). Possum dicere, etiam illud plus esse quod semel non est. Quod non unum est, numerus est. Denique, post unum incipit numerus. Unum autem est, omne quod semel est. Sed Christo servabatur, sicut in caeteris, ita in isto quoque legis plenitudo. Inde igitur apud nos plenius atque instructius praescribitur, unius matrimonii esse oportere (Tit. I, 6) qui alleguntur in ordinem sacerdotalem. Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos. Sed dices: Ergo caeteris licet quos excipit . Vani erimus, si 0922B putaverimus quod sacerdotibus non liceat, laicis licere. Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est: Regnum quoque nos et sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit (Apoc. I, 6). Differentiam inter ordinem et plebem constituit Ecclesiae auctoritas, et honor per ordinis consessum sanctificatus. Adeo ubi ecclesiastici ordinis non est consessus, et offers, et tinguis, et sacerdos es tibi solus. Sed ubi tres, Ecclesia est, licet laici. Unusquisque enim sua fide vivit, nec est personarum acceptio apud Deum; quoniam non auditores legis justificantura Deo, sed factores, secundum quod et Apostolus dicit (Rom. II, 11, 13). Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est; habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. 0922C Digamus tinguis? digamus offers ? Quanto magis laico digamo capitale est agere pro sacerdote , 0923A cum ipsi sacerdoti digamo facto auferatur agere sacerdotem ! Sed necessitati, inquis, indulgetur. Nulla necessitas excusatur, quae potest non esse. Noli denique digamus deprehendi, et non committis in necessitatem administrandi quod non licet digamo. Omnes nos Deus ita vult dispositos esse, ut ubique sacramentis ejus obeundis apti simus. Unus Deus, una fides, una et disciplina . Usque adeo, nisi et laici ea observent, per quae presbyteri alleguntur, quomodo erunt presbyteri, qui de laicis alleguntur? Ergo pugnare debemus ante laicum jussum a secundo matrimonio abstinere , dum presbyter esse non alius potest, quam laicus qui semel fuerit maritus .