Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 194, 8 April 1848, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the New Zealandcr. Sir,— ln your number of Satuiday last, I find a letter by the Rev. J.J.P. O'Reily, intended as a defence of the account, published in a previous number, respecting the consecration of a Romish Church in this city ; the arrogant assumptions, and un criptural statements of which were examined and refuted in my letter of the 29'h ultimo. On this second communication of Mr. O'Reiiy, I have to submit the following remarks .— 1. He asserts that nothing wai said in my last "that can in the least disturb his conclusions :" of this your readers can judge for themselves. 2. He next pretends to explain the meaning; of his former statement — " that the primitive rites of Christianity has just for the first time been introduced on thii desert shore ;" but in his explanation nothing is explained, he simply repeats what he had before written, and still assumes that the Romish Church is pre. eminently, if not exclusively, the Church of Christ. He tells you, quietly enough, that he had no intention to argue the point. This is very probable ; for when a man takes such tfiound as he lias taken, he must feel that his portion is not tenable, and that ho has no argument to support him. And it is very evident from Mr. O'Reily's last letter, which is nothing but a tissue of mystified assertions, misinterpretations of Scripture, and self-evident contiadictions. He makes no attempts to refute the arguments advanced in my last. Let us examine the claims of his Church to be ''the Bride of Christ, His holy and glorious Church, not having spot nor wrinkle, nor any such thing." It is tery clear that this passage of Scripture, which is thus applied to the Church of Rome, was intended by Saint Paul for the whole body of believers, which is the true Scriptural idea of the Church of Christ, as that body shall be presented in the last day, cleansed from sini purged from error, free from formality, hypocrisy, and worldliness, and can have no application whatever ta the Romish Church, destitute as she is of every Scriptural characteristic of the Church of Chiiit. —What are the Scriptural marks of His Churck ? (1) The Church of Christ is " built on the foundation of the Apostlei and Prophets."— Eph. ii. 20. That is upon the doctrinei teuigut by the Prophets in the old Testament, and the Apostles in the New. It regards the word of God ai the only, and the sufficient rule of faith and practice, it neither adds to nor t«kes from the inspired word, accordiog to the Divine command— ",Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, nor shall ye diminish aught from it."— Deut. iv. 2. Does the Chuich of Rome bear this mark ? Does she not add vain traditions to the Sacied Word? D,oeß not Mr* O'Reily do to when lie wishes, ai in his last latter, to support unscripiural practices by the writings of the Fathers ? And, does not his Church blot out the ■■aroad Commandment from the cecalogue f and withhold the Scriptures from the Laity ? Are these marks of Christ's Church? (2) The Church of Christ, acknowledges Christ along as the head, it is •' built on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ Himself being the chief corner- stone." " Fur the husband is the head of the wife, even at Christ is the head of the Church."— Eph. v. 28. "One is your master, even Christ."— Mat. xxiii. 8. But the Church of Rome acknowledges another head— she acknowledges the l J ope, whom she styles — " Universal Father," and regards infallible, directly contrary to Christ's command — " Call no man on earth your Father, for One is your Father, which is in Heaven."— Mat. xxiii. 9. (3) The Church of Christ administers and receives the Ordinances of Christ. These are Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. "Go ye, therefore, and teach all na-« tioni, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."-"Mat xxiii. 19. " For I received of the Lord, that which also I delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the tame night in which He was betrayed, took bread, and when He had given thanks He brake it, and said. — Take, eat, this is my body whioh is broken for you. This do in remembrance of me. After the qarne manner, also, He took the cup, wh,en He had supped, saying — This cup is the, new Testament in my blood, this do ye as oft as ye drink it, jn remembrance of me." — 1 Cor. xi. 23, 25. Mo other Sacraments are mentioned in the w^rd of God, and these two are all that the true Church of Christ administers. But the Church of Rome has departed from Christ's insiitutiom, she has seven Sacraments instead of two, five of which are of man's invention. Besides, she withholds the cup from the Laity, and thus breaks Christ's command — " Drink ye all of it !" Iv fact she does not administer the Lord' supper at all — not one of the Laity, since 1215, have reoeired it within her pale. How then can she clam to be the spouse of Christ ? (4) The Church of Christ worships God only. She obeys the word ot God — '' Thou tiialt not make to thyself any graven image, or the likeness of anything that is in Heaven above, or on the earth beneath, &c , thou shalt not bow down thyself to them nor serve them." — Ex. xx. 4, 5. But the Church of Rome teaches her members to bow down before images, to pray \o the Virgin Mary, and to the Saints, and to worship the Host, which is nothing but a piece of bread— -consequently wants this mark also of the Church of Christ. (5) And lastly, the Church of Christ recognizes only one Mediator between God and man, according to Saint Paul—" There is one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus."— l Tim. ii. 5. But the Rotnish Church has many Mediators. She requests Mary, whom she styles — •» Mother of God," to intercede with her ion, and the Apostles and Saints are prayed to as mediators, in direct opposition to the word of God. On what ground then does Mr. O'Reily assume that the Church of Rome is the Bride of Christ— holy, glorious, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing:" I fear if eyer the had any union with the Redeemer, she has long ago violated her marriage vows, and Christ cannot look upon her but as an apostate Church, polluted, guilty, disobedient, and deeply stained with the blood of his Saints, whom she has persecuted to death for their adherence to the truth. " And upon ber foreaead is written— Mystio Babylon the Great, Jthe Mother op Harlots, and Abominations or iHfi EAR T H,"HR«Y»xjiii 5,

3. Mr. O'Reily next refers to my remarks on tin sacrifice of the Mass, and regrets that I cannot rcgan it as a rite of primitive Chriitianity because it was be stowed upon us by our nurtyred Tutor, by whom he means our Lord Jesus Christ ; and which, by the way, is a loose and unscripturul way of writing. Now, here we are at issue again— that Christ instituted the holy Communion as a commemorative rite I readily acknowledge, but that it is a real bacrifice I unhesitatingly deny, for two simple reasons, such a notion is contrary both to Scripture and common sense. (1) It is contrary to Scripture. Mr. O'Reily evidently assumes that the words used by our Lord— "thw is my body, this is my blood," are to be taken literally, whereas lip must know that it is an ordinary figurative wav of speaking. Suppose I take him a picture of Wellington in Cook's S- 1 raits, and say— this is Wellington. Would he believe that the picture is the place itself, and persuade himself that he is at home, while his senses convince him that he is still in Auckland. Would he not understand me to mean, this represents it ? Did not our Lord s.ieak just as Joseph spake when he said " the seven kine are (i.e. represent) seven years," and as the Angel spake when he said—" the ten lions are (i. c. signify) tea Kings," and did not Christ say of Himself — "lam the door,'* but who understood Him literally, or supposes He was thereby changed into a piece of wooJ ? " I am the vine," He also said, but does not everybody understand Him to be speaking figuratively ? Why, then, make this the only exception to a general rule ? especially when everything relating to tins Institution proves that Christ spoke figuratively. The Romish doctrine of Transubstantiation is too monstrous and al)Burd to find any place in Holy Scripture. But Mr. O'Reily asserts that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice — he says — " Nothing is wanting to make it a true and real sacrifice," " that it renders God more propitious to us, 1 ' and that "hence they call it propitiatory." Where is the Scripture that suppoits such a doctrine ? There is no foundation for it either in our Lord's institution of the rite, or in any other passage of Holy wiit. Nothing that Chi ist says has any leference whateser to the sacrifice of the Mass. "He took bread and blessed it, He gave it to His disciple?, saying — Do this in remembrance of me," &c. jjßut where does lie give the least intimation that He should ofl'er up Himself — or when did Hecomniand His Church to offer Him up to God the Father in the sucrament of the Eucharist? Did He present Himself at His last supper, body, soul, and Divinity, a true sacrifice to God, or did He not i If not, how then shall we ihre to pretend to offer Him up in our Sacrament ? If He did, as Mr. O'Reily says, to what purpose did He afterwards expire tipo'i the cross as a sacrifice ? (Elliotts Delineation of Romanism, p. J79 ) Nor has any other inspired writer penned anything, that supports this doctrine, but Sit. Paul has written much that directly contradicts it, especially in his Epiatle to the Hebrews. He says that Christ "by one offering h<ith perfected for ever them that are sanctified," chap, x, verse 14 ; and as though he toresaw the error I now combat, he says, ''Nor yet that he should o(Fer himself often as the High-priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others. For then musthe ofteu have suffered since the foundation of the world ; but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. For us it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment . so Christ was once offered to beat the am ot many." chap, x, v. 25, &c. Aie not these words diiectly opposed to the continual offering pretended to be oft'ered in the Mass ! Christ according to this, suffers every time the Mass is observed. According to Mr. O'Rdlly, he is qrucified afresh, aud offered in sacrifice a thousand times a day. Again, the Apostle says that " without shedJing of blood, there is no remission," chap, ix, v. 22, but there is no blood aheJ in the Mass of the ltomish Church how then can it be asserted that it is propitiatory, or a real sacrifice. The fact is, the. M iss sacrifice necessarily implies a rejection of the One Sacrifice of Christ. His offdimg was either a perfect and sufficient atonement or it was noc. Those who say it was not, plainly reject the Gospel testimony, — those who say that it was, and yet plead the necessity of another, — of a sacufice daily, repeated in order to render Gjd more propitious as Mr. O'Reilly says, contradict themselves, and without the honesty of the avowed infidel, they put themselves upon the same fooling and equality with him, reject the sacrifice of Christ. (Protes. ii, p. 101 ) Nor am I alone in my views of scripture on this subject. If Mr. O'Reily will consult Cardinal Bellarruine, a writer of his own church, he will find him saying, " The oblation which follows consecration belongi to the integrity of the sacrifice, but not to its essence; this is proved by oue Lord not having made any oblation nor even his apostles, in the beginning, as we have demonstrated from Gregorj." Is not this tantamount to saying that the Romish Church now offers in the Masi an oblation contrary to the example of Christ and his Apostles ? Cardinal Baromus also acknowledges that the EucharUtical sacrifice is an unwritten tradition, of which consequently there is no mention made in the Gospel. (Elliotts Delineation, p. 178.) Jeremy Tayloi says that " all the world knows that by their own purtiss, by Scotus, Ocharo, Biel, Fishi r, Bishop of Rochester, and divers others whom Bellarmine calls most learned and most acute men, it wag declared that the doctrine of Transubstantiation is not expressed in the canon ot the Bible." Tiiese Cardinals flatly contradict the Council of Trent, and Mr. O'Reily contradicts these Cardiiuls. O Rome! where is thy boasted unity and infallibility ? (2.) The doctrine of the Mass(sacrifice is opposed to reason and common sense. What am 1 required to believe ? Why, that by virtue of the words ipoken by the pries', " the Son of God is placed on the holy altar," so says Mr. O'Reily, and is this " consonant to reason," that a man can by his simple word turn a piece of bread into the Son of God, and thus create his Creator? How repugnant to reason. Yet, accordm to Mr. O'Reily there he is " vested with all the signs which represent his deith," " present on the altar underthese appearances of death." What signs ? What appearancei of death does the wafer present? Does it b'eed ? Doei it groan beneath a sense of Divinj wrath ? Does it struggle with death and say it i 9 finished ? or what signs are presented ? What shocking and revolting absurdities are involved in this doctrine! is it a sacrifice, then where is the suffering ? Can there be a sacrifice without ? and can the wafer suffer and bleed ? It is, as Dean Swift has said, a doctrine, the belie/ of which makes everything elie unbelievable. So contrary is it to reason and common sense. But after all that Mr. O'Reily has said, he at length turns round, and contradicts the whole, by telling us that the " shedding of blood is of course but mystical, wd death intervenes only by represenution." Then how jan it be a real sacrifice ? can a thing be a mere representation of something else, and at the same time be the very thing itse f ? Yet Mi. O' Reily says as much, —it is both a real sacrifice aud a representation of a gacnfi.ee,— again, he says it is a " sacrifice of commemoration." This is a virtual giving up of the point, if it be commemorative, then it cannot be a Bacrifice IUBt presented, but a commemor^iun of swactluug

previously don*. 3u* Mr. O'Reily, sayc th^t the,. Councilor Trent teacheo, " thaUhiß sacrifice was only instituted to represent that 'which was once offered upon the cross,— to peroetizate the, memory of if o " Why then does he contemi tfiafe sp 13, a.real sacrifice, unless he wishes to contradict ifca^Councilaud expose himself to its anathemas' 1 And now I tbink it io wjy t'jf/Uo indulge ite/egret; And I do most sincerely rsjjret that the prieots and members of the Koiul-h chnwir ( shgujd" so tenaciously hold to a doctrine so widely opposed to rfoly Scripture, and so contrary to common sense, and' I would strongly recommend them all diligently lo search the Scriptures of truth, that they may see" ffbsther thc\e things are 60." 4. Mr. O'Reily next refers to the lawfulness of ceremonies, to which I reply that when scriptural, they are lawful, but that such as were practised at the consecration of the church in question were s>o, is yet unproved. As to the pisiagpi of Scripture he quotes in support of his precious relics, I find nothing in any of them giving the least countenance lo the ridiculous practice of exhibiting old rags and old bones, and paying to them divine honours. Wliut kind of honour did King 1 Josiah pay the bones of the prophets, did lie fall down and worship them? or d'd he give a leg to one and an arm to another, to be deposited in their places of worship ? Not he. He simply said, " let them alone, let no man move his bones, so they let his bones alone." To Mr. O'Reily and all the priests of the Romish Church, I would say, go and do likewise, — let them alone, — leave the banes in the dust. As to the woman who touched the hem of the Savioui's garment, what in the name of common sense had she to do with relics ? was Christ's gtrment a relic ? where did he get it? from the tombs of the prophets, or whence came it ? Was it not by the power of Christ that she was healed, and not by anything in the hem of his garment ? Nor does the other cisc quoted give any moic countenance to the absurd and foolish pracuces touching relics. I would recommend Mr. O'Reily to listen to St. Augustine who 6ays, "there aie idle monks who, at the instigation of Satan, rob the graves of the martyrs and others for gain," and adds "we ought not to be as the pagans who worship dead men because in their life time they obliged the world with temporal benefits " 5. The last subject referred to in Mr O'lleily's letter is the burning of incense, and he gives us a pompous paragraph on the vision of the Apocalypse. He fancies he sees a pope on a throne in htaven, and 24 priests crowned with gold surrounding him, which he conjures up to help him to seek for tapers and the incense, and in the Bth chap, he finds a reference to a Jewish custom of offering incense while the people prayed. But he forgets, it indeed it ever occurred to him, that the imagery employed in this mysterious book, is all taken from the Jewish temple and its worship, and that all the ceremonies of that great dispensation have passed away, and we have no authority from the New Testament to make it a model for our worship under the Christian dispensation. But many of the ceremonies of the Church of Rome seem to be a mixlure of Paganism and Judaism, without the least warrant from the New Testament, and therefore it is that I still maintain that the rites obseived at the consecration of the Romish Church were not the " rites of Fiimitive Christianity." I am- &c, A Protestant. April 5, 18 IS.