Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 195, 12 April 1848, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of Vie New Zealander. Sir Your last Saturday's article hai created some surprise. It appears to many not to be in keeping with the reserve and moderation which generally characterises the New Zealander, and which you yourself have always openly professed. We can undcrstnnd the motives of your contemporary, in trying to persuade the colonists that they are sitting on a volcano, or powder mine, with a lighted match, but it is difficult to conceive what can have induced you to join in the same cry. Depend upon it, Sir, the country is now as safe as ever it was from any general rising of the natives. Occasional and partial outbreaks at at Wanganui, must be expected for tome time to come ; but 1 cannot bring mvselr to believe that Lord Giey's Instructions can have wrought the ex'ensive mischief you speak of. At this present moment, the Governor is bupposed to be on the best possible terms with Heki, the leader of the malcontents, to whom a flour mill is about to be presented, us a free gift, and whom we should not be in the least surprised to see walking in Auckland very shortly, availing himself in all confi deuce of his Excellency's invitation. I am, Sir, yuur'i, &c » X.. Auckland, April 10, 1848. [Our own surprise, on reading X's letter, was equal to his, when he read the Saturday's article. Nothing certainly could have been farther from our inclination, or intention, than to suffer any thing of an inflammatory character to appear in th<? columns of this journal ; of which, the steadiness with which we have all along opposed every attempt to create excitement, ought to be a sufficient proof. We referred back however to the article in question with some misgivings, lest through carelessness in writing on a delicate and touchy subject, it might have been open to such a charge ; and were re-assured by finding that misconception had been guarded against with unusual, but not unnecessary care. If X will sacrifice a few moments by reading the article once again, his opinion may possibly undergo a change. We said, that these signs in the sky— acknowledged by all who are willing to see, —were only portents as yet ; that there was no immediate danger of threads being put into action. We spoke of the disinclination of the natives to take the initiative in aggression ; of the remedy for impending evils that would presently arrive from, home — for we have a right to assume that Earl Grey will be the first to rectify his own errors, so soon at they shall have been pointed out to him ; that he will act consistently with honour and national faith — and of the affection which the Maories still felt for their teachers and early guests. We stated, that the real ground for apprehension consisted, not in any likelihood of an immediate rising, but in the increasing suspicion with which they view our motives, and in the peculiar turn of thought which obtains among them more itiongly clay fay day. X must be fighting with a shadow ; such observation* «■ thoi<» wt» made »r» aurcly moro calculated to allay, than to excite the fears of the colonists.— Ed. N. Z.]

To the Editor c/7/ie New Zealander. Str,— l regret to perceive the acerbity of feeling and profaneness of language which your " Protestant' correspondent displays in bis lust letter. The poet's astonishment that so great wrath should abide in celestial bosom i should cease, were he to transmigrate and tuke possession of ths uneasy body of some Religkiniats, without the peaceful harbour of the Church. Although, indeed, this uneasiness is indicative of a coming hartnlessness, as Naturalists inform us, that the very contortions and emissions of a certain viviparous creature, are good omens of its speedy innocousness. Sincerely wishing that this may be the case, and especially as the intervention of Sunday may, it is trusted, give rise to more hallowed feelings in ireful bosoms ; it is, therefore, in this glad hope that I -beg to approach your correspondent once more, having' firstly Jreely tendered my personal pardon for the hluth wbich suffused o'er my cheek, ai a Christian, when I found him careering through our most sacred mysteries, where the angels would fear to tread, with a levity and scoffing quite Unbecoming the character of the bumble Chiistian. Although his thesis, Mr. Editor, would seem to be fashioned on the model of the ancient scholastic de ttnni re, <J*c about every thing that can be known, and something more ; yet with God's help and blesiing, I hope to follow him through the essential parts of his misconceptions, and set our doctrines in their majestic grandeur befo.e the eyes of the sincere among our beloved dissentient brethren, and for such alone do I write, fie it known, then, by this respected minister of Methodism, that the simplest child could inform him that our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. This is, indeed, indisputable ; for God appointed Him head over all the Church, (Eph. i, 22), but since our Lord's ascent into heaven, he is invisible to us ; and the question now is, whether he did not before he left the earth, appoint a vicar or deputy, to be visible head in his place. From Scripture it is manifest that he did, and that St Peter was the person on whom he conferred this high dignity. In the first place let it be remembered, that the name of the Apos'le was originally Simon. The moment he appeared before our Saviour, he received from him a new name. " Thou art Simon, the son of Jona, thou shalt be called Cephas," (John i, 42). The true interpretation of Cephas is rock, though in the version made use of by our dissentient brethren is done, probably— to elude the argument drawn from this change of name. Now, why did our blessed Lord give to him at first sight, before Simon had done or said anything to elicit it, this name of Rock ? The mystery was disclosed later, when in consequence of Peter's confession, he said to him in Hebrew, words equivalent to the following, " Thou art rock, the rock on which I will j build my churcb." He then proceeded thus, " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven," (Matt, xvi, 18, 19)* The power of binding and loosing was afterwards conferred on the other Apostles, but not the keys, the badge of the chief officer in the household. They were granted to Peter alone. At the miraculous draught of fishes, figurative of the gathering of the nations into the church, when Peter, with his partners Jamel and John, forsook all and followed our Saviour, it wag the bark of Peter whLh Jesus entered in preference ; it was Peter whom he ordered to let dowa the net tor o draught, «nd to Feter (hat he

" Fear not ; hencelorlh thou shalt catch men : that it, ihult be a fisher of men, (Luke v, 10). From that period we find him always mentioned as the first, and the leader of the others ; to him is given the charge that he confirm his brethren, (Luke xxii, 32), and the office *>f feeding both the lambs and t.he sheep, (John xxi, 15, 16). After the aicension of our Lord, we find him acting ai the head of the whole body, at the election of Matthias, (Acts i) ; in preaching the Gospel to the Jews, (Acts ii, 3) : in rebuking Ananias and Saphira, (Acts v.) ; in calling of the Gentiles, (Acts x.) ; and in the council at Jerusalem, (Actsxv). AH these passages and proceedings demonstrate in Peter a pre-eminence in rank and authority above the other Aposiles. Now, if Christ, when he established his Church gave to it * visible Head, who could have au'hority co change that form of government afterwards ? Whatever reason there might be, why Paer should be invested with authority over his brethren, the other Apostles, the same will require that the successor ot Peter should be invested with authority over his brethren, the successors of those Apostles. It is idle to require proof from Scripture on such matters, because me Scripture treats not of them. We nwy glean from the inspired writers a few detached and imperf ct notices of the form of Church Governmeut which was established in their time; but not one ot them fully drsenbes that form, nor alludes to the form which was to prevail in time to come. For sut.h matters we must have recourse to tradition ; and iradiiion bears amp c testimony to the superior authority of the successor of St. Peter. For, s-»ys St Leneus (Ano 167), " It is necessary that all the Church — that is, the faithful wherever they are — should conform to (be in communion with) the Church of Rome, ou account ot her superior chiefdom," (Adv. Hoer. iii, 3). But so thick do objections run, that I had just omitted noticing one, viz.,— That, "of the Word of God being the ouly and the sufficient rule of faith and practice," &c. The Catholic Church, I answer, hat no other rule but the Word of God, but she maintains that, that divine word is equally respectable whether written or unwritten, and in thU view is she borne out by the inspired Apostle, (2nd Thess. ii, 14,) "Theretoie, brethren, standfast, and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our Epistle." (See, also, 2nd Tlieis. iii, 6 ; Ist Cor. xi, 2 ; 2nd Tim. ii, 3 ; John xx>, 25). Grotius, in his treatise on apostolical tradition, happily illustrates this practice. '• There was of old," says he, " a question raised whether under the name of women, whom Paul would have to be veiled, virgins were also to be comprehended ? The Scripture was ambiguous, because the vrord woman is of different significations. But Tertullian solves the difficulty— • Observe," says he, " the custom of the Church unto which Paul wiote, at Corinth ; Virgins ever since that time "•ere veiltd." The custom of the Church in baptizing infants, gays St. Augustin, is not to be disregarded, nor to be deemed superfluous ; but were it not of apostolical Tradition, it should not be admitted, (De Gen. ad Lit. lib. &c, 23). Your correspondent asks, whether the Church does not blot out the second commandment from the decalogue. What an idea this individual, (whom I am informed is a Methodist preacher), must have of the Christian religion. God has sworn to protect his Church, sad promised her chief Pastor, that he would defend her against all the efforts of hell to corrupt or destroy her. " Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt, xxi, 18). This Church was then unfailingly to subsist, never weivj her Pastors to fail, they were to be diffused over all nations, teaching the doctrines of faith which were delivered by Christ, administering the &acr«naenti, which were ins'ituted by Him, and governing the faithful by the Spiritual authority which w«s ordained of Christ. This Church was unfailingly to have numbers of faithful in all nations believing and professing the same doctrines of faith, participating in the Communion of the same Sacraments, and was to be governed by the same Spiritual authority, (See John xiv. 13, 16, 26). Now, notwithstanding these promises on the part of God, this gentleman has, let us hope, the simplicity of asking whether a Cliurchso constructed, does not suppress a commandmeut of God ? Now let me remark to him, that the first commandment of the Decalogue in the Catholic Church begins with the words, " I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and out of the house of bondage," &c. These words begin at the second verse of the twentieth chapter of Exodun, and end at the sixth. All these words are put into one commandment, because all relate to one and the same thing, and the Scripture is silent as to which is the first, second, or third commandments ; nor do these words, " Thou shalt not make any graven thing," forbid the making of images, but only the making of idols ; that is, they forbid making images to be adored, or honoured as gods : as it is declared in theie words, " Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them." So that the words, " Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing," &c, are only an explanation of the foregoing words, »• Thou shalt not have strange Gods before me." We, therefore, with St. Augustin, make of them but one commandment. And as to Images, Pictures, or Representations even in the House of God, and in the very Sanctuary, so far from being forbidden, they are expressly authorized by the word of God. (See Exod. xxv, 15— xxxviii, 7; Num. xxi, 1, 8, 9 ; Ist Chron. xxviii. 18, 19 ; 2nd Chron. iii, 10). I know, indeed, that it has been asserted that the Catholic translators have substituted in the above text, (Exod. xx), adore, for bow down. But the objection is naught; for the Piotestant translators themselves have repeatedly rendered the original word in the Hebrew by the English verb to worship, and not to buw down, (see Exod. iv, 31 ; xii. 27 ; xxxii, 8). Again, he objects that theie are but two Sacraments. I believe the Holy Catholic Church far beyond this Methodist preacher, and she assures me that there are seven, and that I may refer to but one out of the seven. I read in St. James, v, 14, "Is any man sick amongst you ? Let him bring in the priests of the Church, aud let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord, and the prayer of faith shall save the sick man, aud the Lord will raise him up, and if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him." Here we find all the constituents of a Sacrament, we have the outward sign, and the grace of forgiveness of sin attached to its usage, and all commanded by an Apostle. Whoever, therefore, repudiates the divine rite, repudiates a divine means of grace. He asks whether the cup be not withheld from the laity ? I may premise, that in the belief of our Methodist friend, were even this the case, the spiritual loss thereby could be but little, as iv his estimation it is a mere drop of wine. But, indeed, ai St. Vincent of Lerius, says, ''The Church of Christ, a diligent and careful guardian of the doctrines entrusted to her never changes aught in them, diminishes nothing, adds nothing," (Commonitor, c. xxiii). Now we know that the Holy Scripture of which this Church has been the faithful guardian, tnat this Sacred Scripture in many places, while speaking of the Holy Communion, makes uo mention of the cup, (see St. Luke xxvi, 30, 31; Acts ii, 42, 46— xx, 7 i lit Cor. x. 17). We also know that the Scripture promises life eternal to those that receive in one kind, (St, John vi, 51; 57).

We know, too, that the ancient Church most certainly allowed of communion of one kind, and practised it on many occasions. (See Tertullian 1. 2ad uxorem, c. v. St. Denis, of Alexandria. Epist. ad Pabium. Antioch recorded by Eusebius 6 b, Hiitor. c. 34 — St. Cyprian 1. de lapiis— St. Basil Epi. 269. St. Ambrose de Satyro Fratie. Paulinus in veta Ambrosie). And many learned Protestants have acknowledged, that there is no command in Scripture for all to receive in both kinds. See Luther, in his Epistle to the Bohemians. Spalatenses de Rep. Ecclei. 15.c 6. Bishop Forbes, b2, de Eucharista cl, 2. White, Bishop of Ely, Treatise on the Sabbath, p. 97. Bishop Montague, Orig. p. 97 ; add to all this, the unerringness of the Church of God, as recorded in the Sacred Scriptures, where we are told thatgin hewring Her we hear Christ himself. "He that heareth you, heareth me," &c. (Lukex. 10. So that a Christian Ims naught to fear when conforming himself to the authority and practice of the Church of God : but very much in pretending to be wiser than this Church, or making a scruple or hearing and obeying her spiritual guides. I have a' ready in the last letter shewn that the baints pray jfor us, and assist us by their prayers. I shall now add these further indeies to the Sacred Volume on this head, (Luke xvi, 9 ; Ist Cor. xii, 8 ; Rev. v, 8). We havp. a communion with them, (Heb. 22, 23). They hare power over nations, (Rev. ii, 26, 27). The Chui cli of Cnrist, says he, recognizes only one Mediator between God and man. Then follows a quotation from the Apostle St. Paul. 'Ihis is superfluous; 1 was, thankk to God, well aware and deeply impressed, I humbly hope, with this consolatory and glorious idea of our blessed Lord ; and that long previously to having ever thought of controversy between myself and a Methodist preacher. For, in truth, I have lived nearly seven years on thsse shores without a word of contention having passed between myself and our beloved dissentient brethren. It is not, but that I often pitied and regretted their errors— errors, which I trust in God are, in many cases, involuntary, and therefore pardonable — but my mind bears me witness that mine wat a pity of love, and not of acrimony and bitterness. There is then, indeed, but one Supreme and Glorious Mediator, in whose name alone is salvation. "Neither is thrre lalvation in any other." "For there is no other nBme under heaven given to men whereby we must be saved," (Acts iv. 12). Thus for us, as St. Alphonsus Ligueri. a modern Italian saint, says, " There is no hope of salvation but in the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence (says he) St. Thomas and all Divines conclude, that since the promulgation of the Gospel it is necessary, not only as a meant of precept, but also as a means of salvation, (necessitate mcdii), to believe explicitly that we can be saved only through our Re deemer." Therefore, in the strict and absolute sense of tut; word, there is but •• one God and one Mediator of God and men, the Man Christ Je*us :" (To Timothy, eh. ii, 5 Cath. ver ). But this same inspired Apostle had said before in his Epistle to the Galatians, eh. iii, and 20tn verse, and mind this Epistle is most probably bujtposed to be the Apostle's first in the order of time. In this Epistle, then, he emphatically says, " Now a Mediator is [not of one ; but God is one." The law was delivered by angels speaking in the name and person of God to Moses, who was the mediator, on this occasion, between God and'the people. Jerenvas, too, was a mediator. He must learn why the blesied Virgin is called and is the Mother of God. The reason is, because she is Mother of Him who is God. She ib called Mother of God in the Angelical Salutation which the Church recites to her honour, and the words Mother of God were added by the Church as a profession, that Christ it truly God . and, consequently, that Mary, his mother, is tmly the Mother ot God ; and all tms lus been decided against certaia heretics who denied both truths. (Council of Ephesui, 431). He talks of persecution, yet it is a trite and a true proverb, that people who live in glass houses should throw no stones. It is well known that Wesley, his quite recent founder, was 6tamed with this crime, fiom an early age in his career. The great O'Conuell, over whose grave Europe and the civilized world weeps, proved it a few years ago, in three elaborate letters, which he addressed, as well as I can recollect, to a gentleman of ihe Methodist Society, rejoicing in the euphonious name of Jacob burning. That men have unhapp'ly persecuted one another is a truth. But thanks to heaven, persecution u no dogma of his Religion, of whom it w«s said, ♦• A bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not extinguuh." The Ca. thohc Church puts before her children the example of Ist. Martin, who would not communicate with a Spanish Bishop, because of his seeking to put the Priscillian heretics to death. The maxim of the Canon Law, is. that she abhors blood. (Ecclesia abhoret Sanguine). But notwithstanding these principles of mildness, Catholics ba\c, as others, unfortunately persecuted, nut in viituc of their religion, but because like others they were trail and erring moitals. All Religious Societies have unhappily persecuted, if we except it may be the Quakers, but the Catholic Church never did so by virtue of her principles, which are averse to all persecution on account of Religion. We have an illustnous example ot civil toleration in Ireland, for thrice restoied to power she persecuted no individual on account of his Religion, but leit him to worship in freedom the Almighty according to the dictates of his conscience. The Edinburgh Reviewers have shewn, a few years back, that all the Reformers when they got mto power, were persecutors. And History, which has cleared up so many false notions in our days, attests and proves that the Catholics, as a body, have persecuted infinitely less than any other form of Christianity. And it shews that they themselves have been the victims, and thrice often most innocent ones, of the crudest persscution. Nor, indeed, bat it scarcely erer totally subsided, as might easily be shewn, were time to allow of it. But as sincere Christians, let us mutually give and ask pardon for our own sins against C bar ty, that divine virtue, which should cause us to see in every human being the image of God and a brother. But, I am persuaded, that where any Sec*, whether of Christians or of Infidels, is found under a Catholic dominion, separated fiom the great body of the Catholic Church but upon mere Itsligious questions, without teaching any principle inconsistent with the fundamental laws of morality, or the peace of society, that it it equally the part of prudence, of juttice, and of charity, not to persecute them in any shape whatsoever, nor to attack them with any other sword than the bword of the spirit, which is the word of God. He quotes from the xvii of Revelations, 5 v., and I am awaie of the nonsense which he would fain infer from it. But the Babylon spoken of, in this chapter of Revelation, is either the city of Satan in general ; or if this place be to be understood of any particular city, then does it mean Pagan Some, which at that time, and tor three centuries afterwards, persecuted the Martyrs of Jeius, as the same book of Revelation) attests. It was then the prinicpal teat both of empire and of idolatry.— l remain, sir, yours, &c, Joseph J. P. O'Reily, Catholic Paitor. (E. I. Auckland, April B ih, 18-18. [Tha remaining objections shall be answered in the following number, as it were too much to require utpie ipwc from the kiud Editor— J, J, P, Q'R,3