'put on flesh ?"-"Surely, he put it on," is Tertullian's answer, "for as God is eternal, we must also believe that he is immutable, and incapable of being formed (into another substance). But transfiguration is a destruction of that which before existed: whatever is transfigured into another thing, ceases to be what it was, and begins to be what it was not." This passage, says Pamelius, makes for transubstantiation. By what process of reasoning he arrived at this conclusion, we are utterly at a loss to conceive. Tertullian evidently means to say that if the Word had been transfigured into flesh, either the divine nature would have been entirely destroyed, and the human alone would have remained-or a third 139 nature have arisen from the mixture of the former two, as the substance called electrum from the mixture of gold and silver. In either case the substance, which is transfigured, disappears; and that, into which it is transfigured, is alone cognizable by the senses. Whereas according to the doctrine of transubstantiation, the bread, the substance which is changed, remains

139 Si enim sermo ex transfiguratione et demutatione substantiæ caro factus est; una jam erat substantia Jesús ex duabus, ex carne et Spiritu, mixtura quædam, ut electrum ex auro et argento; et incipit nec aurum esse, id est, Spiritus, neque argentum, id est caro; dum alterum altero mutatur, et tertium quid efficitur, c. 27.

in appearance, while that into which it is changed, the body of Christ, is not seen.Pamelius takes another opportunity of enforcing the doctrine of transubstantiation, in commenting on a passage in 140 the first Book against Marcion, from which an inference directly opposed to it, may be fairly drawn.From what has been already said, it is evident that the Roman Catholic custom, of withholding the cup from the Laity, was unknown to Tertullian; and that both the bread and the wine were, in his day, alike offered to the communicants.

141

One other rite of the Church still remains to be considered-that of Marriage. Bingham infers, apparently with justice, from a passage in 142 the Tract de Monogamiâ, that the parties

140 Non putem impudentiorem, quam qui in alienâ aquâ alii Deo tinguitur, ad alienum cœlum alii Deo expanditur, in alienâ terrâ alii Deo sternitur, super alienum panem alii Deo gratiarum actionibus fungitur, de alienis bonis ob alium. Deum nomine eleemosynæ et dilectionis operatur, c. 23. sub fine. Tertullian is here contending that, if the doctrine of the Marcionites was true that the supreme God who sent Christ was not the God who created the world-then it would follow that he had most unjustly appropriated to his own uses the works and productions of another.

141 Book xxii. c. 2. Sect. 2.

142 c. 11. Qualis es id matrimonium postulans, quod iis a quibus postulas non licet habere-ab Episcopo monogamo, a presbyteris et diaconis ejusdem sacramenti, a viduis quarum

sectam

were bound in the first instance to make known their intentions to the Church and obtain the permission of the Ecclesiastical Orders. They were also bound to 143 obtain the consent of their parents. 144 Parties marrying clandestinely ran the hazard of being regarded in the light of adulterers or fornicators. That marriage was esteemed by the Christians a strictly religious contract, is evident from a passage in the second Tract ad Uxorem; in which Tertullian expresses his inability to describe the happiness of that marriage, which is cemented by the Church, is confirmed by prayers and

145

sectam in te recusâsti? Et illi plane sic dabunt viros et uxores, quomodo buccellas. (Hoc enim est apud illos, Omni petenti te dabis,) et conjungent vos in Ecclesiâ Virgine, unius Christi unicâ sponsâ.

143 Nam nec in terris filii sine consensu patrum rite et jure nubunt. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 9.

144 Ideo penes nos occultæ quoque conjunctiones, id est non prius apud ecclesiam professæ, juxta mochiam et fornicationem judicari periclitantur. De Pudicitiâ, c. 4. He applies a similar title to marriages contracted by Christians and Heathens. Hæc quum ita sint, fideles gentilium matrimonia subeuntes stupri reos esse constat, et arcendos ab omni communicatione fraternitatis. Ad Uxorem, L. ii. c. 3. quoted in Chapter V. note 315.

145 See Chapter V. p. 397. Unde sufficiamus ad enarrandam felicitatem ejus matrimonii, quod ecclesia conciliat, et confirmat oblatio, et obsignat benedictio, angeli renuntiant, Pater rato habet? c. 9. The words ecclesia conciliat may either mean, "when both the parties are Christians," or "when the sanction of the Church has been regularly obtained," or may embrace both meanings.

oblations, is sealed by a blessing, is announced by angels, and ratified by the Father in heaven. He mentions 146 also the custom of putting a ring on the finger of the female, as a part of the rites, not of marriage, but of espousal, intended as an earnest of the future marriage. He speaks of it as observed by the heathens, but in terms which imply that he deemed it perfectly innocent. In the 147 Tract de Virginibus velandis, the kiss and the joining of hands are noticed as parts of the ceremony.

148

Tertullian, as we have seen, states that a Christian, named Proculus, cured the Emperor Severus of a disorder, by anointing him with oil. It may be doubted whether we ought to infer from this statement that a practice then subsisted in the Church, of anointing sick persons with oil, founded on the injunction in the Epistle of St. James. This, however, is certain, that the practice, if it subsisted, was directly opposed to the Romish Sacrament of Extreme Unction; which is administered, not with a view to the recovery

146 Quum aurum nulla norat præter unico digito, quem sponsus oppignerâsset pronubo annulo. Apology, c. 6. See also de Idololatriâ, c. 16.

147 Si autem ad desponsationem velantur, quia et corpore et spiritu masculo mixtæ sunt, per osculum et dexteras, &c. c. 11.

148 Ad Scapulam, c. 4. referred to in Chap. I. p. 55.

of the patient, but when his case is hopeless.

We have had frequent occasion to allude to a passage in 149 the Tract de Coronâ, in which Tertullian mentions a variety of customs, resting solely on the authority of tradition. Among them is the practice of making the sign of the cross upon the forehead, which was most scrupulously observed by the primitive Christians: they ventured not to perform the most trivial act, not even to put on their shoes, until they had thus testified their entire reliance upon the cross of Christ. The 150 Pagans appear to have regarded this practice with suspicion, as a species of magical superstition.

151

In our remarks upon the testimony afforded by our author's writings to the existence of miraculous powers in the Church, we said that the only power, of the exercise of which specific instances are alleged, was that of exorcising evil spirits. 152 This power, ac

149 c. 3. See the Scorpiace, c. 1. quoted in Chapter II. note 8.; where the practice is described as a protection or remedy against the bite of poisonous animals.

152 Apology, cc. 23. 37. 43. De Animâ, c. 57. De Spectaculis, c. 26. De Idololatriâ, c. 11. De Coronâ, c. 11. De Exhortatione Castitatis, c. 10.

4