Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 193, 5 April 1848, Page 2

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor oj the New Zealander. Sir, — In a recent number of your journal, "a Protestant" justly animadverted upon theunscripturaiand 6Ui>eralitii/Us aunu acu & wuich ihe «?riiei ot ilic ac-

count of the consecution of the Roman Catholic Chaptl, appended to his narrative of that ceremony ; and on Saturday last, the Rev. Mr. O'Keiiy, man eluboidtc letter, a tempts to explain and defend what had been advanced, and to refute objections of "A Protestant." If Mr. O'Reily's epistle had been intended for the perusal of " A Protestant," only, I should not have presumed to offer any remarks thereon, being quite satisfied that the " Protestant is ab'e'ti uVfend the validity of his objections. -But a-> Mi. O'Reily has so constructed his sentences as to give them a general application, and lias written, apparently, for the conectionand information of the Whole Protestant community, I think it quite nccessiuy for tlie Rev gentleman to be made acquainted with the fact, that the doctrines advanced by the wiiter of the account of the Consecration, were not considered un sci iptural and superstit oub by the " Pro'estam" alone, but that many Christian people considered them in the same light. I do not know for certain who " A. Protestant" is, but judging from his letter, I conceive it probable that he is a Clergyman as well as Mr. O' Keily, and theiefore I am the more desirous to give the latter gentleman an opportunity of knowing the views and fuulinga of the Protestant Laity. Perhaps Mr. O'Reily is not aware that the Protestant Luty, generally speaking, take nothing for granted, simply because the Clergy assert it. They are accustomed to read and judge for themselves, and never pin their faith upon the sleeve of t he Episcopal gown. They have be n taught to iespect their Ministers, and "esteem them highly in love for their work's sake," but not to regard them with a blind devotion. Not so the flock who feed in tbe pastures of Rome. They, geneially speaking, entertain a superstitious veneration for their Clergy, and are ready to believe anything and everything because the Priest says it. I know of many who ftel ho extraordinary anxiety about securing the blessing of God, but whe attach the highest imponancs to the blessing of the Priest. Such a -ystem is doubtless agreeable to the Romish hieraichy, as it is by this means that their power and influence is perpetuated, and this system is nourished and strengthened by such imposing and myst ea! conjurations as accompanied the consecration of the Roman Catholic Chapel, whereby the truth of God is veiled, and the eyei of the people diverted from the simple doctrines of thy Gotpel. No douat the people of Mr. O'Reily's charge will rend his explanation with admiration, and give implicit credence to all that he has said ; but not so the Protestant Laity : they will test the Rev. gentleman's assertions by the written word, and reject ai " old wives' fables," all that is not in accordance with the " law and the testimony." Having p esumed your previous correspondent to be not only a Protestant but a Clergyman, I shall leave him, if he thinks it worth his while, to separate the gold from the dross, and show how Mr. O'Reily has managed to encumber and cloak ♦lie glorious doctune of the atonem nt, with the rubbish of human traditions, mid content myself with a formal objection to the assumption with which Mr. O'Re.ly set out. The Rev. gentleman after alluding to the consecution <'f the Roman Catholic Church, and to the objections of your correspondent, " A Protestant," against the asset tioii that— -" the primitive i ites of Christianity, were, it may be for the first time, introduced on this destrt shore," goes onto say that "it was meant to convey thereby (quite abstractedly and with no intent of argu- j ing with our dissentient brethren,) that the Bade of Curist, His holy and glorious Church, having nor spot nor wrinkle, nor any such thing, that this His spouse, hid used these ceremonies," &c. By this it is evident that Mr. O'Reily claims for his communion the distinctive appellation of the Churck—iho Di ide ofCln isl. To this assumption I object. Will Mr. O'lteily permit me to explain the meaning attach >d to the word Cimrch, by enlightened laymen of the Protestant faith? By the Church, the Bride of Christ, they understand the innumerable company of men, in all ag?s of the world, of all nations, and people, and tongues, who, having been taught by the Spirit of God, "the plague of their own hearts," and who having been convinced of their own helpless lo t condition, have believed the word which God hath given of His Son, and have fled to the Saviour for pardon — who, being renewed in the spirit of their minds, have given evidence of their fa t!i by their woiks— living godly, righteously, and sootr y, hi this present evil world, witnesses of the truth— epia tics of Christ, read and known ot all ni'.n — ofbuch, and of sucli only, is the Church composed. And wherever those are found, whether in the pale of Rome or Greece, whether b-rbariun, Scythian, bond or free— whether conforming, or non-con!orming to established BVBtems, it matters not, they ate irembers of Christ's Church— and having run their allotted c«u se, andfuifi'led their respective places in the Church-militant on earth, are translated by death to the Church triumphant in Heaven. As in the diys of Israel's defection, when even to the searching eye of the Prophet there appeared to be no exceptions to the general delinquency, and when he thought that there were none who did " remember, and seek after God,'' he was assured that the Lord had still a Chuich in Israel, and that He had reserved to Himself seven thousand who had not bowed the knee to B da | — s0 it j s believed that there have been, and still are, those, who, notwithstanding their outward identity with a conupt system, fear God and work rightej ousnesi, and are consaqueuily membres of the Church of Christ, and it is fondly hoped that Mr. O'Reily, j though connected by office with a system of error, is j one of those who have " washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Limb." While, therefore, it is not denied that individual members of the Roman communion may be, notwithstanding: the many crrori of their system, true mem hers of Christ's church, still it ii not admitted that the Roman Catholic Church, collectively, and as a visible body, i< enabled to assume the distinctive chaiacter ot the •• Bride of Christ, the Holy Glorious Church." The Scriptures teach that Christ's church is composed of men who bear Christ's image ; but what does history and observation tench respecting the mass of those who have composed the Church of Rome ? Chriitasthe head and exemplar of his church, was, when on earth, holy, harmless, and nndeliled, and he looks for the same characteristics in his members throughout all time. But what do«s histoiy «ay of the visible heads and high dignitanei of the Romish communion? Were not many of them monsters of iniquity, whose lives aie records of the most revolting abonV nations ? And during a long succession of years were not the people who followed these blind guides immersed in ignorance, and degraded by vice ? Was the Church of Rome, whtn clothed with power, and riding upon the high pa es of the earih, harmless as well as holy ? Are not her garments dyed in ihe blood of the saints and martyrs. Let the fires of Smithfie'd, the massacres of Paris — the ruthless peisecutious that- followed the Waluenses, and various other monuments of Romish mercy heir witness! When the hieraic'iy of Rome, and the masses of her adherents shall exhibit in doctrine the simplicity, and in practice the purity of the go-pel of Christ, then she may apply to herself in her visible and collective_capacity Uw distinctive chatac.cr of the

thttich of Christ. But till then ihe must bear the title imnniitt'il up>m her frontlet by fie Holy Ghost— the " Mysteiy ol iniquity, and the mother of abominat ons." Mr. O'Reily has taken an unwarrantable liberty with the "judicious Hooker.' 1 He has endeavouied to make il appear that the ceic-i ony of the officiating pnest personifying the Saviour ut the con<.e<i ation, v\,is n rite the pinpiiuty of which nuy be proved fionx the writ.nus of Hooker, anil in proof be quotes the tollowinic fiom that celebrated divine: — "The Church wished, amidst the general fcailnes and cold heartedness of man, to secure and pcr t ietuite m ceitiin spoti those natural observances ol hcaifcfclt piety, whuh if our nature was perfect would be our I only ociupation and delignt in overy plhc. It is natural, nnd iheieore right, tor man to appioach His Maker, as he would approach an eailh.'y *-oveiei"n nith nothing of s< rdidnei* or neglert, with more tlun ! decency, with much of splendour, not, perhaps, when lie comet alone »s a penitent sumer, but when he stands b lore God in t! c company of tluc Oliu'di I whu h is the representative of God upon Earth" j And then the reveienl yenllenun obser\es "We see iiy ihe latter norda that Hooker had no misgivingas to tlie Clmrch (U'tsonating the Redeemei.'' I muJt beg to differ with M . O'Ruly. I see, it i 3i 3 true, that Hooker iud no misgiving: as to the Church representing the Redeemer, but I S tc not ing about the Church's persowfuati'm of (lie Redeemer. The distinction is most impoiiaut Hooker meant tint lire Church, in her charm ter repicsents the Redeemer, and this is the language of tiuth. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord." But in tho life which Mr. O'Reilly is attempting to support by ihe opinion of Hooker, the yuest was i.ot representing the character of the Redeemei, but personifying him, and impiously assuming the pierogative. II jo Ler cannot bu quoted to support such an uiuctiptural and dangerous cerei naony. Mr. O'Reily lias added a great deal about the Eucharist and ihv real presence, and helms succecdui in mystifying !m subject, and, as usual, bw> fl.d 10 the folios of the Faiherb whence to deiive txamples m point. I . bliall not Htleniut to enier into this part the subject, by disputing the favorite dogma of the Romish Church, transubstmtiation, but simply remark that Protestant laymen believe that there is a swi'ct harmony between the doctuues and observances of Christianity and human reason; and theiefcre they cannot believe vr hat is neither taught in Scripture nor atte&ted by leJson. And, in conclusion, with respect to the authority of the Fathers, Mr. O'Reily will rcrhaps permit me to ask it he has ever been Isaac Taylors " Ancient Christianity ;" if not I ihould adv^e him to peruse it carefully. He will there find finm evidence taken from theFatheia themselves, that however we may revere the character of ibeir puny — tor many of them were doubtless huly men— we should hardly go to them lor sound wisdom aud discreef judgment. I am, Sir, yours, &c LAICUS. April, 4, 1818,