On Monogamy.

 Chapter I.—Different Views in Regard to Marriage Held by Heretics, Psychic, and Spiritualists.

 Chapter II.—The Spiritualists Vindicated from the Charge of Novelty.

 Chapter III.—The Question of Novelty Further Considered in Connection with the Words of the Lord and His Apostles.

 Chapter IV.—Waiving Allusion to the Paraclete, Tertullian Comes to the Consideration of the Ancient Scriptures, and Their Testimony on the Subject in

 Chapter V.—Connection of These Primeval Testimonies with Christ.

 Chapter VI.—The Case of Abraham, and Its Bearing on the Present Question.

 Chapter VII.—From Patriarchal, Tertullian Comes to Legal, Precedents.

 Chapter VIII.—From the Law Tertullian Comes to the Gospel.  He Begins with Examples Before Proceeding to Dogmas.

 Chapter IX.—From Examples Tertullian Passes to Direct Dogmatic Teachings.  He Begins with the Lord’s Teaching.

 Chapter X.—St. Paul’s Teaching on the Subject.

 Chapter XI.—Further Remarks Upon St. Paul’s Teaching.

 Chapter XII.—The Explanation of the Passage Offered by the Psychics Considered.

 Chapter XIII.—Further Objections from St. Paul Answered.

 Chapter XIV.—Even If the Permission Had Been Given by St. Paul in the Sense Which the Psychics Allege, It Was Merely Like the Mosaic Permission of Div

 Chapter XV.—Unfairness of Charging the Disciples of the New Prophecy with Harshness.  The Charge Rather to Be Retorted Upon the Psychics.

 Chapter XVI.—Weakness of the Pleas Urged in Defence of Second Marriage.

 They will have plainly a specious privilege to plead before Christ—the everlasting “infirmity of the flesh!”  But upon this (infirmity) will sit in ju

Chapter VII.—From Patriarchal, Tertullian Comes to Legal, Precedents.

After the ancient examples of the patriarchs, let us equally pass on to the ancient documents of the legal Scriptures, that we may treat in order of all our canon.  And since there are some who sometimes assert that they have nothing to do with the law (which Christ has not dissolved, but fulfilled),40    See Matt. v. 17. sometimes catch at such parts of the law as they choose; plainly do we too assert that the law has deceased in this sense, that its burdens—according to the sentence of the apostles—which not even the fathers were able to sustain,41    See Acts xv. 10. have wholly ceased:  such (parts), however, as relate to righteousness not only permanently remain reserved, but even amplified; in order, to be sure, that our righteousness may be able to redound above the righteousness of the scribes and of the Pharisees.42    See Matt. v. 20.  If “righteousness” must, of course chastity must too.  If, then, forasmuch as there is in the law a precept that a man is to take in marriage the wife of his brother if he have died without children,43    Deut. xxv. 5, 6. for the purpose of raising up seed to his brother; and this may happen repeatedly to the same person, according to that crafty question of the Sadducees;44    See Matt. xxii. 23–33; Mark xii. 18–27; Luke xx. 26–38.  Comp. ad Ux., l. i. men for that reason think that frequency of marriage is permitted in other cases as well:  it will be their duty to understand first the reason of the precept itself; and thus they will come to know that that reason, now ceasing, is among those parts of the law which have been cancelled.  Necessary it was that there should be a succession to the marriage of a brother if he died childless:  first, because that ancient benediction, “Grow and multiply,”45    Gen. i. 28.  Comp. de Ex. Cast., c. vi. had still to run its course; secondly, because the sins of the fathers used to be exacted even from the sons;46    See Ex. xx. 5; and therefore there must be sons begotten from whom to exact them. thirdly, because eunuchs and barren persons used to be regarded as ignominious.  And thus, for fear that such as had died childless, not from natural inability, but from being prematurely overtaken by death, should be judged equally accursed (with the other class); for this reason a vicarious and (so to say) posthumous offspring used to be supplied them.  But (now), when the “extremity of the times” has cancelled (the command) “Grow and multiply,” since the apostles (another command), “It remaineth, that both they who have wives so be as if they have not,” because “the time is compressed;”47    Comp. de Ex. Cast., c. vi. and “the sour grape” chewed by “the fathers” has ceased “to set the sons’ teeth on edge,”48    See Jer. xxxi. 29, 30 (in LXX. xxxviii. 29, 30); Ezek. xviii. 1–4. for, “each one shall die in his own sin;” and “eunuchs” not only have lost ignominy, but have even deserved grace, being invited into “the kingdoms of the heavens:”49    Matt. xix. 12, often quoted.  the law of succeeding to the wife of a brother being buried, its contrary has obtained—that of not succeeding to the wife of a brother.  And thus, as we have said before, what has ceased to be valid, on the cessation of its reason, cannot furnish a ground of argument to another.  Therefore a wife, when her husband is dead, will not marry; for if she marry, she will of course be marrying (his) brother:  for “all we are brethren.”50    Matt. xxiii. 8.  Again, the woman, if intending to marry, has to marry “in the Lord;”51    1 Cor. vii. 39. that is, not to an heathen, but to a brother, inasmuch as even the ancient law forbids52    “Adimit;” but the two mss. extant of this treatise read “admittit” =admits. marriage with members of another tribe.  Since, moreover, even in Leviticus there is a caution, “Whoever shall have taken (his) brother’s wife, (it) is uncleanness—turpitude; without children shall (he) die;”53    Lev. xx. 21, not exactly given. beyond doubt, while the man is prohibited from marrying a second time, the woman is prohibited too, having no one to marry except a brother.  In what way, then, an agreement shall be established between the apostle and the Law (which he is not impugning in its entirety), shall be shown when we shall have come to his own epistle.  Meantime, so far as pertains to the law, the lines of argument drawn from it are more suitable for us (than for our opponents).  In short, the same (law) prohibits priests from marrying a second time.  The daughter also of a priest it bids, if widowed or repudiated, if she have had no seed, to return into her father’s home and be nourished from his bread.54    Lev. xxii. 13, where there is no command to her to return, in the Eng. ver.:  in the LXX. there is.  The reason why (it is said), “If she have had no seed,” is not that if she have she may marry again—for how much more will she abstain from marrying if she have sons?—but that, if she have, she may be “nourished” by her son rather than by her father; in order that the son, too, may carry out the precept of God, “Honour father and mother.”55    Ex. xx. 12 in brief.  Us, moreover, Jesus, the Father’s Highest and Great Priest,56    Summus sacerdos et magnus patris.  But Oehler notices a conjecture of Jos. Scaliger, “agnus patris,” when we must unite “the High Priest and Lamb of the Father.” clothing us from His own store57    De suo.  Comp. de Bapt., c. xvii., ad fin.; de Cult. Fem., l. i. c. v., l. ii. c. ix.; de Ex. Cast., c. iii. med.; and for the ref. see Rev. iii. 18.—inasmuch as they “who are baptized in Christ58    Gal. iii. 27; where it is εἰς Χριστόν, however. have put on Christ”—has made “priests to God His Father,”59    See Rev. i. 6. according to John.  For the reason why He recalls that young man who was hastening to his father’s obsequies,60    Matt. viii. 21, 22; Luke ix. 59, 60. is that He may show that we are called priests by Him; (priests) whom the Law used to forbid to be present at the sepulture of parents:61    Lev. xxi. 11.  “Over every dead soul,” it says, “the priest shall not enter, and over his own father and over his own mother he shall not be contaminated.”  “Does it follow that we too are bound to observe this prohibition?”  No, of course.  For our one Father, God, lives, and our mother, the Church; and neither are we dead who live to God, nor do we bury our dead, inasmuch as they too are living in Christ.  At all events, priests we are called by Christ; debtors to monogamy, in accordance with the pristine Law of God, which prophesied at that time of us in its own priests.

CAPUT VII.

Post vetera exempla originalium personarum, aeque ad vetera transeamus instrumenta legalium Scripturarum, ut per ordinem de omni nostra paratura retractemus. Et quoniam quidam interdum nihil sibi dicunt esse cum lege, quam Christus non dissolvit, sed adimplevit, interdum quae volunt legis arripiunt; plane et nos sic dicimus decessisse legem, ut onera quidem ejus, quae secundum sententiam Apostolorum nec Patres sustinere voluerunt, concesserint; quae vero ad justitiam spectant, non tantum reservata permaneant, verum et ampliata: ut scilicet redundare possit justitia nostra super Scribarum et Pharisaeorum 0937C justitiam. Si justitio, utique et pudicitia. Si ergo, quoniam in lege praecipitur, ut quis fratris sui uxorem sine liberis defuncti in matrimonium adsumat, ad suscitandum fratri suo semen, idque saepius evenire in unam personam potest secundum callidam illam quaestionem Sadducaeorum, ideo et alias putant permissam frequentiam nuptiarum; intelligere debebunt primo rationem ipsius praecepti, et ita scient illam rationem jam cessantem ex eis esse quae evacuata sunt legis. Necessario succedendum erat in matrimonium fratris sine liberis defuncti. Primum, quia adhuc vetus illa benedictio decurrere habebat: Crescite et redundate (Gen. I, 28). Dehinc, quoniam patrum delicta etiam de filiis exigebantur. Tertio, quoniam spadones et steriles ignominiosi 0937D habebantur. Itaque, ne proinde maledicti judicarentur, 0938A qui non naturae reatu, at mortis praeventu orbi decessissent, ideo illis ex suo genere vicaria, et quasi postuma soboles supparabatur. At ubi et Crescite et redundate evacuavit extremitas temporum, inducente Apostolo (I Cor. VII, 29): Superest, ut et qui habent uxores, sic sint, ac si non habeant, quia tempus in collecto est (Jer. XXXI, 29); et: Desiit uva acerba, a patribus manducata, fitiorum dentes obstupefacere: unusquisque enim in suo delicto morietur; et spadones non tantum ignominia caruerunt, verum et gratiam meruerunt, invitati in regna coelorum, sepulta lege succedendi in matrimonium fratris, contrarium ejus obtinuit non succedendi in matrimonium fratris. Et ita, ut praediximus , quod cessavit valere, cessante ratione, non potest alii argumentationem 0938B accommodare. Ergo non nubet defuncto viro uxor, fratri utique nuptura si nupserit. Omnes enim nos fratres sumus: et illa nuptura in Domino habet nubere, id est, non ethnico, sed fratri; quia et vetus lex adimit conjugium allophylorum. Cum autem et in Levitico cautum sit: Quicumque sumpserit fratris uxorem, immunditia est, turpitudo, sine liberis morietur (Lev. XX, 31); sine dubio, dum ille prohibetur denuo nubere, et illa prohibetur, non habens nubere nisi fratri. Quomodo ergo Apostolo conveniet et Legi, quam non in totum impugnat, cum ad epistolam ipsius venerimus, ostendetur. Interim quod pertineat ad Legem, magis nobis competunt argumentationes ejus. Denique prohibet eadem, sacerdotes denuo nubere (Lev. XXXI, 14). Filiam quoque sacerdotis 0938C jubet viduam vel ejectam, si semen non fuerit illi, in domum patris sui regredi, et de pane ejus ali. Ideo, si semen non fuerit illi, non, ut si fuerit, denuo nubat: quanto magis enim non nubet, si filios habeat! sed ut, si habuerit, a filio potius alatur quam a patre, quo et filius praeceptum Dei exsequatur, Honora patrem et matrem (Lev. XXXI, 13). Nos autem Jesus summus sacerdos et magnus Patris, de suo vestiens (quia [Gal. III, 27] qui in Christo tinguuntur, Christum induerunt), sacerdotes Deo Patri suo fecit secundum Joannem (Apoc. I, 6). Nam et illum adolescentem festinantem ad exequias patris ideo revocat, ut ostendat sacerdotes nos vocari ab eo, quos lex vetabat parentum sepulturae adesse: Super omnem, inquit, animam defunctam sacerdos non introibit, 0938Det super patrem suum, et super matrem suam non contaminabitur (Lev. XXII, 13). Ergo et nos hoc 0939A interdictum observare debemus? non utique. Vivit enim unicus pater noster Deus, et mater Ecclesia; et neque ipsi mortui sumus, qui Deo vivimus; neque mortuos sepelimus, quia et illi vivunt in Christo. Certe sacerdotes sumus a Christo vocati, monogamiae debitores ex pristina Dei lege, quae nos tunc in suis sacerdotibus prophetavit.