tained its lawfulness, alleged the passages in the Epistles to Timothy and Titus, in which St. Paul enjoins that Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, shall be mas yuvaiko's avopes,—that is, according to the interpretation generally received in Tertullian's time, men who had been only once married. They contended, therefore, that, as this restriction applied only to the Clergy, Laymen were at liberty to contract a second marriage. To evade this inference, Tertullian has recourse to the following argument:" Do not," he says, "suppose that

5 1 Tim. iii. 2, 12. Titus i. 6. Bishops and Priests who contracted a second marriage, were sometimes degraded. Usque adeo quosdam memini digamos loco dejectos. De Exhort. Castit. c. 7. Compare de Monogamiâ, c. 11. Our author, however, complains that there was great laxity of discipline on this point. Quot enim et digami præsident apud vos, insultantes utique Apostolo? De Monogamiâ, c. 12.

6 De Exhort. Cast. c. 7. referred to in Chap. I. note 6.

I now give the whole passage. “Vani erimus, si putaverimus, quod Sacerdotibus non liceat, Laicis licere. Nonne et Laici Sacerdotes sumus? Scriptum est, Regnum quoque nos et Sacerdotes Deo et Patri suo fecit. Differentiam inter Ordinem et Plebem constituit Ecclesiæ autoritas, et honor per Ordinis consessum sanctificatus.-(There is an ambiguity, in the latter clause of this sentence, which must be differently translated, according as honor is referred to Ecclesiæ or to Differentia inter Ordinem et Plebem. I have adopted the former sense, though by no means certain of its correctness. I conceive the allusion to be to the higher seats occupied by the Clergy, apart from the Laity, in the places of religious assembly. In the Tract de Fugâ in Persecutione, c. 11. Tertullian makes a distinction between Christians majoris et minoris loci; apparently meaning the Clergy by the former,

what is forbidden to the Clergy is allowed to the Laity. All Christians are priests, agreeably to the words of St. John in the Book of Revelations-Christ has made us a kingdom and a priesthood to God and his Father.' The authority of the Church and its honor, which derives sanctity from the assembled Clergy, has established the distinction between the Clergy and Laity. In places where there are no Clergy, any single Christian may exercise the functions of the priesthood, may celebrate the eucharist, and baptise. But where three, though Laymen, are gathered together,

and the Laity by the latter. So in the Tract de Baptismo, c. 17. Sed quanto magis Laicis disciplina verecundiæ et modestiæ incumbit, quum ea majoribus competant.)—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 suâ fide vivit, nec est personarum acceptio apud Deum. Quoniam non auditores legis justificabuntur a Deo, sed factores, secundum quod et Apostolus dicit. Igitur si habes jus sacerdotis in temetipso, ubi necesse est, habeas oportet etiam disciplinam sacerdotis, ubi necesse sit habere jus sacerdotis. Digamus tinguis? digamus offers? quanto magis Laico digamo capitale est agere pro sacerdote, quum ipsi sacerdoti digamo facto auferatur agere sacerdotem? Sed necessitati, inquis, indulgetur. Nulla necessitas excusatur, quæ 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. Bennet, in his Rights of the Clergy, &c. has bestowed a whole chapter on this passage.

7 So the word offers must, I think, be translated in this passage.

there is a Church.

Every one lives by his

own faith, nor is there respect of persons with God; since not the hearers, but the doers, of the law are justified by God, according to the Apostle. If, therefore, you possess within yourself the right of the priesthood to be exercised in cases of necessity, you ought also to conform yourself to the rule of life prescribed to those who engage in the priesthood; the rights of which you may be called to exercise. Do you, after contracting a second marriage, venture to baptise or to celebrate the eucharist? How much more heinous is it in a Layman who has contracted a second marriage, to exercise the functions of the priesthood, when a second marriage is deemed a sufficient ground for degrading a priest from his order? But you will plead the necessity of the case as an apology for the act. The plea is invalid, because you were not placed under the necessity of marrying a second time. Do not marry again, and you will not run the hazard of being obliged to do that which a Digamist is not allowed to do. It is the will of God that we should at all times be in a fit state to administer his sacraments, if an occasion should arise."-We are very far from meaning to defend the soundness of Tertullian's argument in this passage, We

quote it because it is one of the passages which have been brought forward to prove that he did not recognise the distinction between the Clergy and Laity; whereas a directly opposite inference ought to be drawn. He limits the right of the Laity to exercise the ministerial functions to extraordinary cases; to cases of necessity. Were they to assume it in ordinary cases, they would be guilty of an act of criminal presumption, as he indirectly asserts in the Tract de Monogamiâ; where he pursues the very same train of reasoning, in refutation of the same objection. That he recognised the distinction between the Clergy and Laity, is further proved by the fact, that among other accusations which he urges against the Heretics, he states that they conferred orders without making strict enquiry into the

8

8 Sed quum extollimur et inflamur adversus Clerum, tunc unum omnes sumus: tunc omnes Sacerdotes, quia Sacerdotes nos Deo et Patri fecit; quum ad peræquationem disciplinæ sacerdotalis provocamur, deponimus infulas, et impares sumus." De Monogamiâ, c. 12. We may, however, infer from this passage that in Tertullian's day the validity of the distinction was occasionally questioned.

9 Ordinationes eorum temerariæ, leves, inconstantes. Nunc neophytos conlocant, nunc seculo obstrictos, nunc Apostatas nostros. De Præscriptione Hæreticorum, c. 41., and in the same chapter, Nam et Laicis sacerdotalia munera injungunt. In the Tract de Idololatriâ, c. 7. Tertullian complains that the artificers of idols were admitted into Orders; Adleguntur in Ordinem Ecclesiasticum Artifices Idolorum.

qualifications of the candidates; and that they not only allowed, but even enjoined the Laity to assume the sacerdotal office, and administer the ceremonies of religion. In shewing that the distinction was recognised by Tertullian, we have incidentally shewn that it was generally recognised in the Church; this indeed is implied in the very words Clerus and Ordo Ecclesiasticus, which frequently occur.

Be

But what, it may be asked, is Tertullian's meaning, when he says that the distinction between the Clergy and the Laity is established by the authority of the Church? fore we can answer this question, we must ascertain what was his notion of the Church; and for this purpose we will turn to the Tract de Præscriptione Hæreticorum, in which he takes a rapid survey of its origin and progress. 10 Christ," he says, "during his residence on earth, declared the purposes of his mission, and the rule of faith and practice, either publicly to the people or privately to the disciples, of whom he attached twelve more immediately to his person, intending that they should be the teachers of the Gentiles. One of them

66

10 c. 20. Compare cc. 32, 36. Si hæc ita se habent, ut veritas nobis adjudicetur quicunque in eâ regulâ incedimus quam Ecclesia ab Apostolis, Apostoli a Christo, Christus a Deo tradidit. c. 37.