ST. JOSEPH'S CHURCH.

Evening Star, Issue 3166, 14 April 1873, Page 2

ST. JOSEPH'S CHURCH.

To the Editor. Sir,— Last Sabbath evening I went to the above specified church. The Bishop preached a sermon on Transubstantiation, It was a very logical dissertation on that venerable dogma. Step by step in the progress of the argument, the Doctor appealed to the ip-ds-sima verba of Christ, as recorded in the New Testament—notably, in St. John’s Gospel, vi. chapter. There ‘‘our Divine Redeemer” painfully'' and frequently asserts that “he is the living bread which came down from heaven. If any man eat of this bread he sha’l live for ever.” To show that tills was no metaphor, he added, “ And the bread that I will give is my llesh, which I will give for the life of the world.” The Jews at Capernaum could not understand such a monstrous dogma. '1 hey said, “ How can this man give us his flesh to eat? ” But Christ —as the Bishop argued very plausibly aud even forcibly—if he did not mean what he said literally, would, as an honest man, have explaiued to his audience what the words really did mean. Oa the contrary, he reiterates again and again, the asserti n, “Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in yoq ” Again, it is a fine qua non of salvation, thp dogma of Tranaubstiuitjatiop j for “our DHine Kedeemer” kgahiadds that “Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ; aud I will raise him up at the last day.” Statement after statement to the effect that “ he that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him ; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed,” follows each other in rapid aud alarming succession. Those utterances are reputed to have been delivered in the synagogue of Capernaum. Evidently they oiK-uded many, for we read that “ many of his disciples walked no ruMi’e with IffthA

These disciples, according to Keble, Newman, and the Oxford Tractarians generally, were the first Protestants, One would have naturally expected that “our Divine Redeemer” would have vouchsafed some explanation on such a dark point. But, no ; not a syllable. Contrariwise, he turns round to the remaining disciples, and says, “ Will ye also go away ?’’ 'The intrepid Peter responded thus, “ Lord, to whom shall we go; thou hast the words of eternal life.” As if he had said, according to Dr Moran, “Lord, thou hast said it, and we must believe it, however hard it‘is tor pur comprehension. I must say that I never heard the sublet more fairly, forcibly, and even logically explained than it was last night by Bishop Moran.

Nay more, I must say that the man who accepts the dogma of the Incarnation can have no ground in reason to reject the other dogma of Transubstantiation. Both dogmas set reason a-gaping. We must accept them as articles of faith, but by no means try to reconcile them to reason. It requires considerable moral pluck to stand up in the nineteenth century aud as* sort that we must actually eat the flesh and drink the blood of God—“our Pmoe

deemer or go to hell. t Dr. Moran is evidently sincere in his belief, as his personal deportment, while preaching, abundantly makes evident. He is certainly no timeserver or sycophant; he soundly rated the drunkards and “the whiskey drinkers,” and sternly exhorted every good Catholic who professed to be a Christian to partake during “ holy week” of the Sacrament of the Holy Communion, and to do penance and attend confession. I care not what a man’s belief is, only let him be sincere. 1 would be rejoic’d to find pastors of other folds similiarly determined, without fear or favor, to “reprove, rebuke, and exhort” backsliders from their faith and ordinances. As I entered the vestibule of the church, I beheld one of the local pastors or priests standing over the offertory. Methinks this habit might be adopted by Protestant ministers ; for many who pay liberally for spurious amusements, pass by the plate and coolly enter the church, and never dream of supporting the ministry. To a Protestant eye, the only offensive spectacle in a Catholic Church is the ecclesiastical millinery—what Carlyle styles the “ church tippets.” But this is a secondary matter. The sermon in itself was exi client, and even orthodox, if we accept the Words of Christ as set forth copiously in the Gospel. St. Joseph’s congregation is, 1 believe, the best disciplined body of believers in Dunedin They are olearlv given to understand that, if they will he Catholics, they must walk up to the rules of the Church This is, at least, manly. As the celebrated Scottish sceptical philosopher said, “Our most holy religion rests not on reason, but on faith ; and he who believes in it is conscious of a perpetual miiacle within himself which subverts all the principles of his understanding ” Therefore, the duty of the believer is simple, “ Believe and be saved for, as the Apostle says, “He that doubtetb is damned.” If men will not conform to the laws of their Church, let them go their way; like the Capernaum disciples of whom we read, that “ many walked no more xvith Christ.” The doctrine insulted their proud reason, and, therefore, they “went back,” and we hear no more about them. In church phraseology, they went to perdition. They heard the gospel from the mouth of “our Divine Redeemer,” and they laughed it to scorn, and now they have their portion in the Fiery Lake. J. G. S. Grant. April 7.