A guide to an Irish gentleman in his search for a religion

Front matter

PNZOLORIGAL SeTMIDARY,

PRINCETON, N. J:

OF PHILADELPHIA, PA.

Preface

INTRODUCTION .

CHAP.

CHap.

CHAP.

CuHap.

CuHap.

CHAP.

CHAP.

CHAP.

CHAP.

CHAP.

I, Errors incident to unprovided Travel— Apostolical Fathers—Clemens, Jonatius—Unwarranted inferences from their writings

II. Eucharist—-Necessity of defining Doctrine— Churches of Rome and of England E

I1!~Testimony to Religious Truth—Scripture— Fathers—Jerome— Edinburgh Review

EV. Testimony—Councils—Creeds—Liturgies— Fathers—Ignatits—Justin Martyr :

V. Testimonies unsatisfactory where not fully © stated—Augustine’s Rule of Interpretation— HKrasmus— Pascal : : :

VI. Discipline of the Secret—Calumnies against early Christians—Impostures of Heretics

VII. Testimonies—Councils—Creeds— Liturgies —Canon of the Mass now observed in Ireland

VIII. Scripture—-Cyril of Jerusalem—-Sixth Chapter of St. John—1 Epistle to Corinthians, c. 11. . ° : : :

IX. Transubstantiation compared with our Lord’s Incarnation—the Trinity—-Church of Rome cruel : :

X. Tradition—Council of Trent, Ireneeus, Protestant Doctrine—2 Thessalonians :

CHAP.

CHAP.

CHAP.

CuHap.

CHAP.

Cuap.

CHapP.

CHAP.

CONTENTS.

XI. Unbroken Succession—Baronius, Spondanus, Bellarmine—Papal Chair—Right of Private Judgment—Gregory Naziazen, Jerome— Exclusive Salvation—Creed of Pope Pius— Council of Trent, Scriptures—Dr. Murray— Dr. Doyle ° :

XII. Infallibility. Scripture not to be adduced by Roman Catholics, because its meaning has been left unsettled— Erasmus—Jerome—Chrysostom. False translation—Creed of Pius IV.

XIII. Infallibility—Abuse of Freedom—Valentinians—Rationalists—Infallible Guide not ascertained— Bellarmine— Augustine— Canonical Books of Scripture—-Jerome—-Council of Trent . .

XIV. Resemblance between the Church of Rome and the Church of the Fathers—Lights— Incense, &c.—Worship of Relics, &c.---Basil--- Origen--- Chrysostom : : :

XV. Ancient Faith of Ireland—Singular Method of Defence—Church of Ireland etic Baronius——Lanigan——Adrian’s Grant

XVI. Council of Trent bears testimony to the corruption of Romish Doctrine, and does not reform it--Index Expurgatorius-_-Catechism—— Missal

XVII. Termination of Trent Council—Confession of Incompetency—Reformers—Luther— Calumnies against him—Cranmer— Hildebrand Canonized : °

XVIII. Church of Ireland—Testimony to its doctrine contrasted with. the testimonies afforded by the Church of Rome---Peculiar character of the Church of England ‘ ;

Concluding Address to the Roman Catholic Reader

Appendix

298 330 341

PREFACE.

Ir is hoped, that but little apology will be required to justify the appearance of the following pages. “Ts there not a cause?” * After an attack upon our venerable religion, of a character such as the following pages shall sufficiently expose, some defence would, naturally, be looked for on the part of the Clergy of the established Church. Whether the defence here offered be worthy of the cause, it will be for others to judge. The public are fully aware of the very short time within which it has been prepared, and the author confidently expects that it will be received with all reasonable indulgence. %

* 1 Book of Samuel, chap. xvii. verse 29.

il PREFACE.

Not that he is desirous that his errors, if he has fallen into any, should be excused or palliated, or that his deficiencies, and of these he is fully conscious, should be overlooked ; but, he earnestly hopes that the reader may not mistake the inaccuracy, incidental to hurried composition, for weakness of argument, or imagine, that if, in the course of one short month, he may not have entirely succeeded in exposing the weakness or unravelling the sophistry of the ingenious author of the Travels of an Irish Gentleman, the propositions contained in that popular work, should be considered as established because they may not, in these pages, have received a sufficiently satisfactory refutation.

It is hoped, that this defence will exhibit but little appearance of controversial bitterness. It may be truly stated, that the author was more anxious that his words should impress conviction, than carry confutation; and that any little triumph as an antagonist, which he may have imagined himself entitled to claim, was not: thought of in comparison with the deep and the overpowering interest which he felt in the spiritual welfare of his Roman Catholic brethren. His hearty desire has been to lay before them such a statement of the case between their

PREFACE; lil

Church and that which is, as yet; by law established in these countries, as might lead to a candid reconsideration of the great questions at issue between them; convinced, ashe is, that nothing but patient and unprejudiced attention, on their part, is necessary to lead them from the errors of their ways, and cause them to adopt, respecting the Church of England, the language which Peter addressed to our Lord, when he said, ‘*to whom shall we go but to thee, for thou hast the words of eternal life.”

There are those who may suppose that the author has been unnecessarily parsimonious of the language of reproof, and, that the flippancy, the virulence, and - invective which are not sparingly scattered through the pages of “the Travels,” required severer animadversion. Against such censurers, he comforts himself with the belief, that the cause of truth will. not suffer because it has been mildly vindicated ; and he would respectfully submit, whether, the importance of a speedy, as well.as an effectual answer to the work in question being taken into account, he has not judged more wisely in addressing the reason, than in appealing to the passions of his readers. He has not written to gratify the resentment of angry Protestants, but, to satisfy the judgment of reflect-

1V PREFAC E.

ing Roman Catholics; and, if he may flatter himself with having so far succeeded as to induce them to reexamine, ina spirit of fairness, the grounds upon which their Church lays claim to the spiritual authority which she exercises, he is well content to leave to his accomplished adversary the unenvied and unmolested enjoyment of the honours which are his due for the sportiveness of his wit, the sprightliness of his narrative, the keenness of his sarcasm, and the brilliancy of his declamation.

There is one omission, for which the author expects, not merely pardon but favorable acknowledgments. He has not offered his guidance through the daring impieties of rationalism. For the discovery of truth, it was not necessary to explore all the haunts of blasphemy. Those, whose steady minds qualify them for such perilous enquiries, have a guide, whose rare endowments, and sound principles, must render his escort universally acceptable. Is it necessary to name Mr. Rose? |

Introduction

PuBLIc attention has recently been directed towards a very popular Work, in which religious controversy is invested with unwonted attractions, “Travels of an Irish Gentleman in search of a Religion.” A brief outline of the Traveller’s tale, would seem to furnish the most appropriate introduction for the following treatise.

Some time inthe year 18—, a young Irish Gentleman, a student in the University of Dublin, although a member of the Church of Rome, was smitten with love of a rich benefice, offered, on certain insinuated conditions, to his acceptance. He must, it is scarcely necessary to add, if he would secure the coveted opulence, embrace, at least outwardly, the Creed of the Church of England; and to this, when the vision of wealth was first presented to him, he could not be reconciled. The inopportune reluctance by which he was embarrassed, did not vl INTRODUCTION.

arise from any attachment to the religion of his fathers. On the contrary, he appears to have distrusted his Church; and, when he heard it represented as “‘a system of damnable idolatry, whose doctrines had not merely the tendency but the prepense design, to encourage imposture, perjury, and all other monstrous crimes, he was already prepared, by the opinions he had himself formed of his brother papists, to be but too willing a recipient of such accusations against them from others. Though as man and as citizen he rose indignantly against these charges, yet, as Catholic he quailed inwardly under the fear that they were too true.’* When such misgivings could not liberate him from the tyranny of ‘that scrupulous point of honor which had kept him wedded for better for worse to Popery,’+ it is not wonderful that the attractions of Ballymuddragget ‘were too feeble to deliver him from his unhappy, -and, (considering ‘the characteristic ingenuousness of early youth,) unnatural alliance.

Better days arrived. The: “disabling statutes,” (which his ‘scrupulous honor” had: converted into edicts forbidding: God to work the miracle of his conversion, ) were repealed; and he rejoiced, , as all generous natures would rejoice, in the freedom to lay down the splendid hypocrisy of his previous life, and, without prejudice to his worldly reputation, become a follower of the truth. He had, even in the time of his darkness, “‘ knelt nightly to his pray-

* Travels, Vol. I. p. 4, 5. + Ibid. p. 5.

INTRODUCTION. Vil ers, with a degree of trust in God’s mercy and grace, at which a professor of the five points would have been not a little seandalized,’* and which, if the trust were sincere, forms an inexplicable contrast to the insincerity of his religious professions. Henceforth, however, he is free to profess what he believes.. He can discharge his duty towards God without violating the more sacred obligation to his honor; and, as it was not unreasonable to anticipate, the triumph in which he welcomed the tidings of emancipation, was accompanied by a resolution to manumit himself; as, ‘‘with something of the ascendancy strut already perceptible” he exclaimed “ I will be a Protestant.’’+ In his determination to abandon the Church of Rome, the~young Traveller was wholly uninfluenced by the sordid motives which had, upon a former occasion, nota little disturbed him. He resolved to seek, not the most lucrative, but, “ the most approved species of Protestantism ;’ and, instead of directing his search to the articles and liturgy of the Church in which he could find great gain, took sincerity for his guide, and determined that his religion should be “of the purest and most orthodox pattern.”{ His search was not prosperous. He discovered that some Protestant communions did not maintain opinions ~which were held by certain divines in the primitive Church, that all were not exempt from tenets in old time accounted heresy, and he was unable to discern in the Ritual of any, that attractive paganism which

* Travels, Vol. I. p. 9. + Ibid. p. 5. t Ibid. p. 11.

Wao. INTRODUCTION.

was, in ancient days, excused as a device to win Heathens from their idols, and which, where there are no more heathens to allure, the Church of Rome has still the boast of retaining ;* he was not satisfied with the Lutherans or the Rationalists of Germany, with the Calvinists of Geneva, or with various misrepresentations of the Church of England; and, as the only resource from doubt or unbelief, he surrendered himself to an authority, which, for the purpose of guarding the faith, places reason among ’ those vanities and sinful lusts to which the renunciations in baptism should be extended.

An enterprise thus begun, continued, and ended, may very naturally be supposed to have suggested the compilation of a treatise like that here presented to the reader. Whatever may be thought of the conclusion at which the young Traveller arrived, he seems, by his own report, to have commenced his voyage of discovery without due preparation, and to have prosecuted it with more of ardor than judgment. An exposure of his errors may be of use, if it served no other end than to prove, that in an enquiry, confessedly the most momentous to which human faculties can be directed, providence and circumspection are more necessary than genius, and that even sincerity itself.is not more truly indispensible.

GUIDE

TO AN

IRISH GENTLEMAN.

Chapter I

Errors incident to unprovided Travel---Apostolical Fathers--- Clemens, Ignatius-- Unwarranted inferences from their writings.

In probable matters, testimony, in order to have its real purport ascertained, must be compared with each of the conflicting statements which it is to discredit or establish. The young Irish Traveller appears to have been uninstructed by this obvious truth, and the manifold errors, with which his pages are disfigured, seem no more than the natural consequences of his forgetfulness or neglect. ‘ From the opinions he had himself formed of his brother Papists,” he entertained the darkest suspicions against the Popery that now is; of Protestantism, his imaginings appear far more favorable; of neither B does he pause to enquire if his judgment is correct, while, in a spirit far more adventurous than that of the eastern critic, who, in order to “ convey with clearness his opinion” of the poem which had provoked his envy, found it necessary to take a review of all the stories that had ever been related, the precipitate young man opens at once the venerable tomes of long-departed saints, and seems to expect, that the deficiencies of his wilful ignorance are to be miraculously supplied, and that, so soon as he has ~ ascertained the doctrines which Hermas, and Clement, and Ignatius teach, it shall be given him to know, what sect, in modern times, embraces or condemns them.

The issue of such an adventure might have been foreseen. A miracle was not vouchsafed for the encouragement of rashness, and, the young traveller’s unacquaintance with modern systems continuing, he often fancied that he had discovered exact conformity, where there was no more than accidental and imperfect resemblance, and, where he found Catholic doctrine declared and practised, he trembled, as if he had detected Popery.

The third chapter of the Travels offers no unfair specimen of the manner in which the young gentleman conducted his enquiries, and of the errors into which, for want of that knowledge which was an indispensible pre-requisite, he was unhappily misled. It contains the recital of his earliest discoveries and the expression of his amazement at having made them. ‘‘ Marvellous to me,” he writes, ‘“‘ most marvellous were these discoveries. A pope, relics of saints, apostolical tradition, and a corporal eucharist, all in the first ages of the church—who could have thought it?* To this question the proper answer should be—all who have read the history of the church ;—but if the young enquirer was deceived into a notion that where a tradition or a relic was named, a doctrine resembling that of the Church of Rome was, of necessity, indicated, not the testimonies of the fathers, but his own undistinguishing ardour betrayed him. Protestants do not deny the existence of popes, especially in an age when the hame pope was bestowed on every bishop, but they strenuously deny the truth of the Romish doctrine as it respects the bishop of Rome ;—Protestants doubt not-that relics will be preserved and loved as memorials of the honored dead, although they oppose the Romish doctrine that they should be worshipped ;—unwritten tradition, Protestants are confident, conveyed important truths, although, they are also confident, it is not of equal authority with Scripture, and that a corporal eucharist may be named, they are as free to acknowledge, although they may esteem the term coarse, as they are steadfast in condemning transubstantiation. Let it be permitted, for the benefit of future enquiries to have expressed these acknowledgments. Are they inconsistent with the testimonies by which the young traveller appears to have been so painfully embarrassed ?

“Great was my surprise, not unaccompanied, I own with a slight twinge of remorse—when in the person of one of those simple apostolical writers, I found that I had popped upon a pope—an actual pope! —being the third bishop, after St. Peter, of that very Church of Rome which I was now about to desert for her modern rival.”’+ It is not difficult to believe, that one who felt “ great surprise” when he learned, that there was a Bishop of Rome in very early days, must have been singularly unprepared for the course of enquiry on which the young traveller had entered. Indeed, it would scarcely be presumptuous to affirm, that such surprise would better grace that class of controversialists, who challenge their adversaries, to deny, that St. Paul wrote an epistle to the Romans, or to prove, that he addressed any exhortation to the Protestants. . .

Disproportionate, however, to the occasion, as the traveller’s remorse and surprise appear to have been ;. when seen in connection with the documents which provoked them, they seem still more unaccountable. ‘ There was still,” he writes, “ enough of the Papist lingering in my heart to make me turn over the pages of Pope St. Clement with peculiar respect, and I could not but see that, even in those simple, unpolemic times, when the actual exercise of authority could be so little called for, the jurisdiction of the See of Peter was fully acknowledged. A schism, or as St. Clement himself describes it, a foul and unholy sedition having broken out in the Church of Corinth, an appeal was made to the Church of Rome for its interference and advice, and the epistle which this holy father addressed to the Corinthians in answer, is confessedly one of the most interesting monuments of ecclesiastical literature that have descended to us.” The epistle of Clement is the evidence that ‘in those simple, unpolemic times” when ‘a foul and unholy sedition broke out in the Church of Corinth,” “the jurisdiction of the See of St. Peter was. fully acknowledged.” How comes it, that a single passage from the eulogised epistle, or from any similar document, is not quoted? How comes it, that the young traveller, in this abstinence, follows exactly the example of a well-known controversialist, who alludes to the epistle of Clement to the Corinthian Church, but studiously withholds from his. readers the knowledge of a single syllable of its contents. When a practised polemic refers to an obscure document, and relies on the indolence ‘of modern days for its remaining obscure, it is a matter of no difficulty to understand that he is labouring in an unhappy vocation, and one does not hesitate long, about giving his conduct its proper name. But when an ingenuous young man, an Irish Gentleman, adduces, as favorable to a Romish doctrine, an epistle, which, were there not better proof abounding, would be produced as a strong argument against it, and omits the quotation of any one expression by which his singular inference could be justified or excused, it is difficult indeed to understand his allegation and his omission, and to give the proceeding a name which shall be at the same time appropriate and respectful.

or)

The epistle of Clement is, as it has been described, an interesting monument of ecclesiastical literature, and, although it deals not a little in fable, assuming the story of the pheenix as true, and arguing from the metamorphoses of that bird in favor of “the resurrection,” it contains many a charitable exhortation and many a Christian precept, but not a single expression which asserts or implies a title on the part of a Roman, or any other bishop, to exereise jurisdiction or authority over churches having their own episcopal superintendant. Beside, it is to be observed, the epistle quoted as that of Clement, is not written in his name. It purports to be addressed by “the Church of God which is at Rome, to the Church of God which is at Corinth,” and does not once allude to the office, the authority, or the name of the honored individual who is its reputed author.* And yet it was written on an occasion which impe-

* Tt is worthy of remark, that, of late days, the Church of Rome refers to this epistle of Clement as a substantive witness in her favor, while, in times when the controversy with her was better understood, she appears to have been contented with endeavouring to weaken the force of the evidence it was said to bear against her. In reply to such arguments, as, that, if Clement or any other individual possessed supreme or even what is now esteemed episcopal authority, his name should have appeared, Cotelerius, of the Sorbonne, answers, “ Because it was the common wish of the apostolic church to see the church of the Corinthians at peace, and the concord which was evident in the form of the epistle would be a strong incentive.” Quoniam totius apostolicee ecclesie commune votum erat, pacatam cernere Corinthorum ecclesiam, a Petroquoque Pauloque

IRISH GENTLEMAN. ‘a ratively demanded the exercise of every righteous power by which evil could be averted. A ‘foul and unholy sedition” had broken out. A representation of the evil was made to the seat, as it is now described, of supreme authority. Had the power or jurisdiction of the Roman See been, at that day, such as has since been claimed for it, surely it is reasonable to conclude, that, in so perilous an emergency, it would have made itself felt, and that, after having recited what was to be believed or to be shunned, it would pronounce a curse on all who should disobey ;—or, at least, that it would assert for the Bishop of Rome an equal power with that which was exercised by the Apostle Paul, and command that the Cerinthians themselves should put away the authors of offence.

Nothing can less resemble the texture of a Papal Rescript or Bull, than Clement’s interesting epistle. It is mild, modest, and persuasive, urgent in entreaty, abundant in reasoning, as a fraternal admonition should be, and, as becomes a fraternal admonition, arrogating nothing on the ground of mere authority. It recommends the study of the Scriptures, ‘the true oracles of the Holy Spirit,” it directs the especial attention of the Corinthian Churches to the Epistle of St. Paul, ‘in which he admonished you concerning himself and Cephas, fundatam, ingensque futurum erat Corinthis incentivum ipsa Romanorum simul scribentium concordia.” Patr. Apostol. The Corinthians were to be influenced by the example of Roman concord, not ty the authority of the Roman See.

and Apollos, because even then ye had formed par- _ ties,” and, instead of denouncing any who should resist its injunctions, utters the following christian and charitable exhortation: ‘‘ Who, among you, is generous; who is merciful; who is full of love; let him say, if sedition, and discord, and schism have arisen on account of me—I depart—I go wherever you desire.” This is the injunction of Clement, and (instead of pronouncing a curse on one who departed from Corinth, because he could not accommodate - himself to the religion of the place,) he adds, that he who shall have adopted such a course “shall have great honor in the Lord, and every place will receive him.” If this be the language of popery, it were much to be desired, that the modern advocates and organs of that calumniated system, would condescend to receive and to use it.

The other doctrines by the discovery of which, on © the first day of his search, the young traveller was surprised and agitated, have, as their voucher, an epistle of Ignatius, a martyr and Bishop of Antioch, whose testimony is adduced, also, in corroboration of the papal pretensions. He addressed the Church ‘‘which presides in the place of “the Roman region,’* thus limiting, so far as his testimony can have weight, the jurisdiction of the Papal chair,

* The original of the epistle of St. Ignatius has not been found, the earliest copy is a latin version. The place of the Roman region extends so far as the jurisdiction of the preefect of the city was recognised. Within this the «regionary deacons” ministered.---See Baronius Ann. 112-5.

within bounds, which, were pure doctrine taught in the Churches they enclosed, many enlightened Protestants would not desire to narrow; but, to the bewildered faculties of the young Hibernian, over whom amazement seems to have cast a glamour, an epistle, of which the superscription limits the presidency of the Roman Church to congregations in a particular district, and which no where names or alludes to the Bishop of Rome, is read as if it ascribed not presidency but supreme power, and this, not to the Church which it addresses, but to the Bishop whom, even by a salutation, it never once acknowledges. It would be almost unpardonable to dwell any longer on a matter like this, or to offer formal proof that ‘the Chureh presiding in the place of the Roman Region” is not. synonymous with “a Pope or a Bishop of Rome presiding over the whole Christian world.” *

“In speaking of the Docete, or Phantastics, a sect of heretics, who held that Christ was but, in appearance, man—a mere semblance or phantasm of humanity—Ignatius says, They stay away from the eucharist and from prayer because they will not acknowledge the eucharist to be the flesh of Christ, that flesh which suffered for our sins. ‘Now when it is considered that the leading doctrine of the Docetz was, that the body assumed by Christ was but apparent, there cannot be a doubt that the particular opinion of the orthodox to which they opposed themselves, was that which held the presence of Christ’s body in the

* Travels, &c. Vol. 1. p. 16.

Eucharist to be veal. It is evident that a figurative or unsubstantial presence such as Protestants maintain, would, in no degree, have offended their anti-corporeal notions, but, on the contrary, indeed, would have fallen in with that wholly spiritual view of Christ’s nature which had led those heretics to deny the possibility of his incarnation!!” This passage has been quoted in full, because it did not appear reasonable to require of any reader that he should, on secondary evidence, ascribe to the young ~ traveller such inaccuracy in reasoning. The Docete accounted it blasphemy to teach that Christ had a real body, and yet it would have fallen in with their ‘< view of his nature” to join in the commemoration of a real body given for our sins, areal blood-shedding, and a real death and passion. Had the argument been, that they who denied Christ’s body on the cross, must also have denied its presence on the altar, a champion of the Church of Rome might have found the reasoning inconveniently correct, but, to say, that men might, consistently and naturally, set forth a sign of that, which, they maintained, should not be signified because it could not be, is to form a conclusion directly at variance with the premises from which, by some inexplicable process, it is extorted.*

+ The Docetee did not all refrain from the Holy Communion. Some received the sacrament not as a commemoration of Christ’s death and passion, but as a type of their mystical union with God. This was not unknown to the author of “the Travels” who was aware of another circumstance also, of which he does not appear to have made the use which might have

IRISH GENTLEMAN. iE

The other part of the argument from Ignatius, that in which, by accusing heretics of denying, he may be regarded as, in his own person, affirming, the doctrine of the real presence, shall be in due time considered. For the present it may be sufficient to remind the reader, that many preliminary matters must be decided before the judgment of the martyr can be thoroughly understood. For example— Did he write literally? What is the eucharist— Does that term signify the visible elements? Does it mean outward participation? Does it mean an inward and spiritual grace? Before the expression of Ignatius can be fully understood, all these questions must be answered. In a word, whether his testimony favor the doctrine of the Roman or the been expected from a young and ingenuous enquirer. He writes, note to p. 177, vol. I. « To the Marcionites of the next. age who had also their eucharist, though believing with the Docete that Christ’s body was but apparent, it was urged as an argument both by Irenzeus and Tertullian that in owning the sacrament of the body and blood, they confuted their own opinion. Will it still, after this be contended that the ancient Christians did not believe in the reality of the presence.” The reader will be better able to answer when he has before him the arguments which these early writers employed. “ Irenzeus argues that matter must have been framed by God the Father, otherwise heretics “in offering what according to us are his creatures show him covetous of what is not his own.” He contends, that matter is capable of a resurrection, adopting a similar argumentum ad hominem. « As,” (he assumes the admission, ) “ bread which is of the earth, receiving invocation of God, is no longer common bread, but Eucharist, consisting of two natures an earthly and a heavenly, so also our bodies receiving Eu-

Reformed Church cannot be known, until the doctrine held by these communions respectively has been, at least partially, described and comprehended. To afford this indispensible information shall be attempted in the ensuing chapter; the remainder of the present must be devoted to the other doctrines for which Ignatius is called to answer ; those respecting relics and tradition.

“On turning to an account of the martyrdom of this same father, I fell upon a_no less glaring specimen of popish practice. Ignatius, as is well known to all readers of Martyrology, was delivered up to be devoured by Lions in the Amphitheatre at Rome. After the victim had been dispatched, the faithful deacons who had accompanied him on his journey, charist are no longer corruptible, having hope of a resurrection.” (Iren. lib. iv. c. 34.) The argument of Irenzeus not only admits the continuance of the bread, but would, under a supposition that the substance of bread departed, be an absurdity. The reply would then be obvious: since the bread, when blessing has come upon it ceases to exist, so also shall our bodies cease to be ;---and to the former allegation heretics would reply,---nay, we do not esteem God covetous of what is not his own, since we offer not bread, but Christ his blessed Son. The argument of Tertullian is still more clear and decisive. “‘He made it, (the bread) his body, saying this is my body, that is, THE FIGURE OF MY BODY, but there could not “be a figure, unless there had been a real body.” Lib. 4. Cont. Mar. C. 40. Now let the reader answer the question, and let him reflect on the simplicity of this most credulous young man, who could be persuaded that the Marcionites found it practicable to believe in transubstantiation, although they conceived it impossible that Christ could have a body.