Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 199, 26 April 1848, Page 4

Original Correspondence.

To the Editor of the New Zealander. Sir,— ln reply to my charge against the Romish Church for deny me; tha f the Word of God it the only, and the sufficient rule of faith and pnctiee, Mr. O' Reily gayt •• it has no other rule, but maintfliiis that the Divine word is equally respectable whether written, or unwritten"— and he refers to three passages in Saint Paul's writings for proof. But the word used by St. Paul, according to the Lexicons, signific, precept, instruction, or ordinance delivered, either orally, or in -writing, and he could only therefore refer to the instructions he had given to them by preaching and writing. What he had communicated orally, must have agreed with what he wrote— he could not contradict himself. As to the passage in St. John, referred to by Mr. OR., it simply informs us that— " many things were done by Christ that are not written." But how does tbis prove that we are bound to receive the traditions of any man that likes to say he has received a reTelation from God. Where then is the unwritten word to be found ? The written word it in the Bible. The Protestant version of the Old and New Tebtaments contains the only looks that have been received as Canonical by the Church of God from the beginning. But where are the traditions ? This remßins a profound secret after the scrutiny of ages. They are not to be found anywhere authenticated. Does Mr. OR. say they are in the keeping of the Church of Rome i Her authority is naught, because mi ing, as we have demonstrated, upon an un« scriptural basis and false asiuntption. Will he refer ut to the Fathers ? Many of them contradicted and condemned the doctrine of tradition. Irenaus, Mr. O'R's favorite author, say«— > " We have not known the economy of our salvation by others than those by whom the Gospel first came to us ; which they first preached, and by the will of God delivered in writing, to be the pillar and foundation of our faith." Trrtullian writing against Hermogenes, who held the eternity of matter, says—" If this be not written, let Hermogenes fear the woe which belongs to them who add or detract.'' Jerome against Helvidius says — •' As we deny not that which is written, so we refuse those which are not written. Everything that we assert, we mutt shew from the Scripture." Where, then, does Mr. OR. find his traditions ? But he says the unwritten word is "equally respectable with the written word :" We deny the assertion (I,)— Because the unwritten word it without evidence of Us authenticity — it can furnish no proof that it came from God. But the written word carries with it the most convincing proofs that it is of God. It appeals to prophecy and miracles to attrst its truth. (2,)— Because the unwrtten word is self-contradic-tory. Some traditions are inconsistent with others, and many directly contradict the inspired word. Romanistt themselves do not agree— hence the many controversies they have had. Take one instance, the controversy amongst them on the immaculate conception. Those who support it allege that they have the consent of neaily the universal Church. On the other hand Cajetan brings the irrefragable testimony of fifteen Fathers a?ainst it, othert bring no less than two hundred, and Bardeilus adduces nearly three hundred. To this array of witnesses the supporters of the doctrine reDlv. that some havi been brought in falsely, and

that .the multitude of witnesses is of little avail, seeing their opinions may be traced to some individual Doctor. Thus they contend and decide nothing.— (Bishop Taylors Dusuasiont from Popery.) But the Scriptures of truth harmonize in every part— one writer does not contradict another, though wiitin? in a different age and pla (i e, all agree on the great doctrines of lalvation, and thus 'prove that the same Holy Spirit inspired the whole. (3) Tradition is not equally respectable, because it is without authority. Romanists themselves are not H»reed as to tlie .irnount of authority it possesses. The Counc 1 of Trout snys it i" equal to the written word, some Il'irouh Divines say tint it is inferior, as Grrsnn ctnrt Lyia, otliPis again say that it is siip a rinr, as Lindunus, who tells us that — "Traditions are the mou ceitain foundations of faith— that the Scripture is a nose of wax, a dead and killing lettei, without life, a shell without a kernel, a leaden rule, a wood of thieves, a shop of hrret c«." Do not these contradiction! in the pretended infallible Church, utterly destroy the authority of traditions ? But the authority of the written word is indisputable— it can imperatively command our faith and obedience. To say that the oral traditions of the Romish Church are equally respectable to the written word of God, i» to concede an important point to the infidel objector, by undermining the evidences of the Holy Bib'e— and ifMi.O'R. would support and defend the truth of Christianity, he should at once retract his asseitton. Mr. OR. snyi that I ask whether "the Church doei not blot out the second Commandment ?" Not so, my letter asks no such question. The enquiry refers to the Chinch of Rome, not to the Church— The Church of Christ, and the Church of Rome, I hold to be wide ai the poles asunder. He expresses his surprise that a Methodist Preacher should have such an idea of the Christian religion. But he forgets that a Protestant charges Ihe religion of Rome— not the Christian religion — w ith mutilating the Word of God. Why does he perpetually confound the two, and assume that the Church of Rome 11 the Church of the Living God ? All Protestants deny that she is so, became she is devoid of the marks of God's Church. This is the question, with which we started. He should piove that she io so, and not beg the question, taking foi granted that which is the subject of one controversy, and then drawing his conclusions fiotn false premises. What he sa>s is tiue of Christ's Church, but not of the Romish Church. She teaches not •♦ the doctiines He delivered," but " teaches for doctrines the commandments of men." She abides not by the "sacraments He instituted," but adds five of her own making. She " governs not the faithful by the spiritual authority which Heoidained" but rules with a rod of iron, takes away the light of private judgment, and demands implicit obedience to the dogmas she may be pleased to teach. A Church constituted as ChrUt'n is, could not suppress a command of God, but the Romish cliui eh does so. Mr. O'R's quotation being witness, for nearly the whole of the 2nd command is suppressed, a mere 'et cetera' being added to the first. But he says, " the scriptures are silent as to which is Ist and which is 2nd." Granted. But the (Scriptures say there are 10. Deut. 4, 13, and to make up the number, the Romish cbutcli dividei the tenth into two. " All the words" of the two commandments " are put into one," we are told, " because they relate to the same thing." But is it not clear that the Ist relates to Mental or Theoretical Idolatry, and the 2nd is against making and worshipping images, and it is strictly expunged, because condemnatory of the practice of the Church which bows down befoie such things. To justify the worship of images Mr. OR. refers to those passages in the old Testament, that speak ofhe Cherubim But what countenance do these give to image worship. The Cherubim were never seen by the people at all. They were in the" holy of Holies" to which the peo pie had no access. And the High Priest alone entered but once a year. They could scarcely be seen by him for the place was dark. Did he ever address the Cherubim ? No, but God who dwelt between them, who promised to answer from the mercy «eat f the open space between the cherubim. There was no likeness or iindge of anything to be addressed, and how image worship can be defended from such passages we are at a loss to conceive. Mr. OR. wishes to make a difference between bowing down and adorin-, and says we are only " forbid to adore." " Thou shall not bow down thyself to them" is the precept. Et. 20. 5. The pretended use is, to represent the person they worship, hence they have images of God, of the Trinity, of Christ, of the Viigin,&c. How does this pretence free the practice from the sin of idolatry? What ever worship is given to God, or Christ, or the 6aints, it first given to the image and from the image it passes to the person intended. A heathen gives the same reason for the worship of his idol. He worships it not as' his god, but as the representation of his god, or the residence of his god. But Scriptuie denounces the practice. " What profiteth the graven image that the maker lheieofhathgraven.it? Woe unto him that saith to the wood awake—to the dumb stone arise, it shall teach. Behold it is laid over with gold and silver and there is no tiuth at all in the midst of it." Habukuk 3 18,19. "To whom then will ye liken God, or what likeness will ye compare unto him." Isa, 40. 18. "God is a spirit, and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." John 4, 24. On the subject of the Sacraments Mr. OR. says he «• believes the Holy Catholic Church far beyond this Methodi.t Preacher." I dare say he doei, but that does not prove that Christ instituted seven Sacraments. I believe the Word of God far beyond either Methodist Preachers, or Councils, or Popes, or Fathers, and as the New Testament enjoins but two Sacramenti, I believe that the Church of Rome hai grossly departed from Christ* Institutions. St. James is quoted in support of Extreme Unction, one of the Romish Sacraments. Compare the Ajiostle'i with the RomUh doctrine. James directs that the tick person shall be anointed in reference to his cure, but Romish Priests anoint the s ck while in the agonies ol death, never while there is th« least hope of life. The Apostle orders it for the cure of the body, they apply it principally to the cure of the soul, concprning which St. James gave no directions. What is said of forgiveness is to be referred to faith and prayer, not to the anointing. The Apostle recommends it only to be applied in some cases, they use it in all — therefore, St. Jamix'i anointing, and that of the Church of Rome arc two thing!. On the subject of withholding the cup from th< laity, Mr. Q'ft, again talKi of the custom of thi

Church of Christ, as thou?h it were one witk the Church of Rome. 1 fully agree with him, that " the Church of Christ is a diligent guardian of the doctrinei entrmted to her, never changts aught in them, diminishes nothing, adds nothing." And because the Church of Rome hat been so unfaithful, "changed" 10 much, " diminiihed" so unsparingly, and " added" so largely, I conclude that she is net the Church of Christ. We are told that " the Scriptures in many place make no mention of the cap •," but lie must first prove th it the passages he quotes refer to the Lord's Supper at all. we believe, with the exception of the one in l«tCor. x. 17, do not- And if the passage in Cor. be examined wiih the context, surely Mr. OR. will not bay that St. Paul withheld the cup, when he thus addresses the Corituhiani, " Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of devils," 21st ver. But " the ancient church allowed of communion of one kind and practised it on many occasions." Does not-this mode of stating the thin? tacitly confeis that the practice was an innovation ? The ancient church «• allowed," did not command, but allowed it to some who contended for it. " Practised it on many occa~ sions," not universally, as it must have done had Christ so ordained. What »re the facts ? Why just what Mr. OR. intimates in the above remark. Christ said, " Drink ye all of this," and the church adminittered in both kiuds till the 15th century. It was th* council of Constance that summoned sufficient cou race to directly violate Christ's command. It decreed as follows : " Although Christ instituted after mpper, and administered this venerable sacrament under both kind-, of biead and wine— and, although iv the primitive church this sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds—we command under the pain of excommunication, that no priest communicate the people under both kinds of bread and wine. w (Cone. Constan. a.d. 1414, lets. xu>)> This is faithful ; it first acknowledges that Chrift ordained it, then solemnly breaks bis command. It was the primitive custom to obey Chritt, but we decree rebelliou against him. This is easily understood. And this was one of the Infallible Councils ! " Add to all this," says Mr. OR. " tha unerring, nets of the Church of God," not, of course, the Church of Rome, for she has most egregiously erred, at the decree of the council of Constance proves. Then we are reminded, that to hear the Church is to hear C rist. To hear what Church ? The Church of Rome? When Christ uttered these words she had no existence. No more than the Church of England, or the Church of Scotland. He had no reference to any particular Church, but to the exercise of wholesome discipline among all true Christians. This passage is often abused by men who love to lord it over God's heritage. Hear tho Church, says Rome, on p*in of excommunication ! Hear the Church, sayi a party in the Anglican Establishment, or be left to uncovenanted mercy 1 Each regarding his own particular Church as the Church. And men are at a loss. The doctrine of Scripture is, Hear Christ and submit to the discipline of Churches so far as it accord* with His Word. The Invocation of Saint* in the Church, of Rome, is defended by Mr. OR. after hi« fashion* i. c., by quotins? several texts that have no relation to the subject. We are referred to Luke xvi, 9 : read it. " And I •ay unto you, Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of unrighteousness, that when ye fail they may receive you into everlasting habitations." And Ist Cor. xii. 8, " For to one it given by the word of wisdom ; but to another the word of knowledge by the •arne tpirit." Will Mr. OR. tell vi how these Scriptures prove that we ought to pray to saints and angels, " We have communion with them," and •' they have power over the nations," it is urged. Be it to. But can we have no communion vrirh them but by worshiping" them, snd caunot God employ them as his mestci * gen without Mr. OR. inferring that we are to pray to them ? I see no necessary conneation whatever. But how does Mr. OR. know that the saints he addreisei are in heaven ? Many an individual of very questionable piety has been canonized in the Romish Church. Moreover to pray to a saint Uto make him equal with God, it is to make him Omnipresent and Omniscient. Here are numbers praying to the Virgin Mary every day in different pans of the world. Do they not suppose her Omnipresent, by addressing her in distant places at the same time, and thui raiie her to a divinity? And is not this Idolatry? Does it not render to the creature the worship that belongs to Gud alone ? I was rejoiced to find Mr. OR. so fully and so clearly declaring his faith in " one Mediator," and his persuasion that in Christ alone is salvation. This it pure Gospel. But how soon was my rejoicing cut short, when, on reading a little further, 1 found au ! attempt to fritter away this glorious truth by introducing other mediators. I account for this inconsistency by suppoiing that Mr. OR. is one of those whose judgment is more enlightened than his creed. The light of Scripture seems occaiionally to shine on his mind, but its beams are shorn by the myiticism that creeds and councils hare thrown around the simple truth. And hence, though convinced there is but " one Mediator," yet he must seek for more because" the Church of Rome employs more. " A mcd ator," says he, quoting St. Paul, " is not of one, but God it one j" i. c.. a mediator signifies a middle person, there mutt necenarily be two parties, or there can be no place, or use for a mediator. Rendered by some, '* Now a mediator supposes two parties, of which God it one." No support here for multiplying mediators. But Moies nod Jeremiah were me-iiators, it is urged. Granted; but in what sense? Not in their own inherent right and merit, as though they atoned for sin. But by the Romish Church the Virgin and others are regarded as possessing merits on the ground of which they can cltim talvation for their worshippers. " We beseech thee, 0 Lord, by the merits of thy saints, whose relics are here, and of all thy saints, that thou wouldst vouchsafe to forgive all my offences," it the language employed in the Mass. Can this be defended from God's word ? As to the Virgin, it is enough to say«that Scripture never styled her the Mother of God. (How such language grates on one's ears I) She was the mother of our Lord's human nature. Nor did Christ ever exalt her above others on this account. " Blessed ii the womb that bare thee," said one, " and the paps which thou hast sucked." And he said, "Yea, rather blested are they that hear the word of God, ani keep it." Luke xi., 27, 28. On the character of John Wesley the world has given its verdict. All sects have acknowledged him a pattern of meekness and Christian charity. John Wesley a pprbecutor I I should think Mr. OR. i» the first person who ever dreamt of preferring such a charge against himOn the character of Daniel O'Connell the Romish Church itself has pronounced. It must hare regarded him as »<nan of no ordinary attainments in tin, for it has had masses taid on hit behalf all over the world. Now as a Church claiming to be infallible cannot be supposed to do that which it unnecessary, the inference is, that she regarded her faithful son as being deeply stained, and certain to be long, tottintf 1p

pmgatorr, unless the most strenuous efforts were made to obtain his speedy dismission to a hap-* pier clime. As to O'Connell's letters to Wesleyans, we have lead Me Afee's reply, and lecommepd it for Mr. O'R.'s perusal. Catholics, we ate told, have " never persecuted in virtue of their principles." Let then councils declare. How did the council of Constance treat John Huss ? The Kmperor Sigismund gave him a safe conduct, but the council decided that no faith was to be kept with heretics, and burnt him because he objected to withhold the cup from the laity. Let the curses, the persecuting Bulls, the sentences of excommunication, that have issued from popes and councils testify ! Let the Book of Martyrs bear witness! Let the •otils of the murdered Hamilton and Wishart c^ Scotland, of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley of England, from " beneath the altar" speak ! Let the mes of Smithtield, St. Bartholomew's Day in Paris, the Spanish iiimada, the crusades against the and Albigensis, and the horrors of the infernal inquisition, be bummoued to give evidence r And let Ireland, too, bear testimony ! Ireland, quoted by Mr. OR. as an example of toleration ! What says the dreadful massacre of 1643 ? Did Romanism in Ireland '• leave men to the dictates of their own conscience," when to encourage that btutal massacre of the heretics, the murderers were made to believe that they would obtain eternal lite without passing through purgatory ? Was it because Roman Catholicism is so " aveise to all persecution," that Pope Urban VIII. gave plenary indulgence and i emission of sin to all who had a hand in that cruel butchery I And is it because Romanism in Ireland has lost her ancient persecuting propensities that the priests have revived in the 19th century the practice of denouncing the disobedient from the altar, till the imperial legislature is compelled to make such conduct a felony, to prevent the ruinous consequences ! What spirit possessed Piiest M'Caithy, of th« parish of Donoughmore, when, on the 30th July, One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fortyseven, he met John Buckley, a distributor of Bibles and Testaments in the employ of Rev. J. Rogenon Cotter, on the Queen's highway, and gave him a severe flagellation with the butt of his whip, and scattered his Bibles, Testaments, and tracts about the road. (See the Cork Constitution ) A fine specimen of the tolerance o£ Irish Catholicism I And is it a spirit of charity and benevolence that has brought the lame practice to the colonies of these Southern Seas, and Sydney has been lately greeted with such " euphonious" sounds ? Would that the signs of the times were less ominous in reference to the unchanged spiiit of the Church of Rome! Would that evidence could be found to testifythat she is changed J Gladly would we pen it, loudly would we rejoice over her improvement I I must begj another corner in your next, to notice the remaining points in Mr. O'R.'s letter. And remain, yours, &c., A PROTESTANT.