Original Correspondence.

New Zealander, Volume 3, Issue 201, 3 May 1848, Page 3

Original Correspondence.

To ike F.iUtor of the Neiu Zealander. Srrt, — Mr. O'Reily's remarks on Transabstantiation are as fine si specimen of rigmarole as I ever met with on any subjoc'. He certainly utters dark sayings. I cm find nothing in the long conudoiceialion of sentences he h.is thrown together, like a lucid or tangible argument. Perhaps he intended to be as mystified as he could. liut we Protoitants lore light. Our Holy Chiiotianity is light— it knows nothing of mysticism, and we cannot find our way when thin? 1 ' lire so shrouded in darkness. But it would appear that Uomanism " loves darkness rather than light." # Hence it worships in an unknown tongue, it forbids the people to read the Bible for themselves, and defends its practices in language not easily understood. I have however endeavoured lo analyze this mystified production, ami I find it made ay of self -contradiction, false interpretations of Scripture ; direct contradictions of the inspired word, and gross absurdities. 1. We have a statement maile that is afterwards flatly contradicted. We are teld that Christ, iv iuttitutinE; the Holy Sacrament, " was substituting the reality instead of the figure— and that it would have been out of place to pive unto a sign the name of the thing signified." And before Mr. OR. has finished, he directly contradicts this and says—that in the Mass " we have a real representation of our Blessed Saviour, and a commemoration ot his sactifice." Now, though it may be within the reach of an infallible Church to reconcile thingi that directly contradict each other, yet, we Protestants have no knowledge of uny rule that allows of two couverse propositions comporting with each other. According to Protestant logic, one or other must be abandoned. And I would advise Mr. OR to abandon the former because it is false, and retain the latter, for it alone contains the truth of God on this nibjeet. 2. We have leveraJ/a/se inlet pretutions of So ipttii c. (1) Is the meaning put on our Lord's words—" Tins is my body'' — by laying the emphasis on the word this. On such a rule of Scripture interpretation, Mr. OR. might make the Bible say almost anything. We have no right to nuke the Scripture speak our views by taking a single word in a sentence, and twisting it to iuit our own purposes. We must take the whole passage, and explain it by tfic analogy of truth — Scripture is the best interpreter of its ovm moaning, and ono passage must be collated wiih another, in order to a correct interpretation. Apply this rule in the case before us— \ Christ paid " This is my body, and this is my blood, of tlw Now Testament," Sic, and after He had said this, adds—" But I say unto you I will not drink, henceforth, of the fruit of the vine," &c. Now, if our Lord had really changed the elements into hi* own " body, blood, bones, soul and Divinity," as asserted by the Romish Chuich, would He still have called the wine "ihe fruit of the vine? 1 ' Could He have done so truthfully ? He ought to have said, aocording to Mr. OR.,—" 1 will not drink my own blood, until the day I drink it new," &c. But Mr. OR. cays, in the examples quoted, illus - tifitivc of our Lord's figurative mode of speaking — " There is a likeness and an analogy between the sign and the thing signified"— but none between the bread aud the body of Je»ui Christ. What does he mean ? That Jesus Christ is more like " a door," or a " vine," than Hei» like "bread?" What trifling with the Sacred Word ! (2.)— -The next passage quoted i 3 Acti xiii, 2, which Mr. OR. renders—" They being offering sacrifice to our Lord." But the Rhemiih version, and the Douay version, both authoriied by the Romish Church, render the passage as the Protestant version renders it—" As they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting." So do all the versions that I have been able to consult. Nor does the word he would translate " offering a sacrifice," bear the least relation to sacrifice, as the Lexicons testify. It is a rendering of the passage that has not the least authority, and cannot be supported. (3.)— The Apostle to Corinth, is next misinterpreted. 1 Cor. x, 16—" The cup of blessing which we bless (i.e., for which we bless God, or give thanks) is it not the Communion of the blood of Christ? 'Ihe bread (not the body,) which we break, it it not the Communion of the body of Christ ? St. Paul makei no alteration in the word, but itill speaks of the wine ai the cup, and the bread, as bread— after the bleating, i.e. after what the Romiih Church calls the consecration, even after it is broken, with Paul it i« still bread. It does not appear that he ever dreamt that there was a conversion from bread to th« real body of the Saviour. The passage is clearly misunderstood by Mr. OR. Mr. O'R's interpretation of the 2lst verse of the same chapter—" Ye cannot drink of the Lord, and the cup of devils," ifi a strange perversion. He says the Apostle is carrying on a contrast between heathen ritei and the Holy Sacrament. But how can he support such an assertion ? St. Paul is warning them against idolatry — " Flee," says he, " from idolatry"— (l4th verse) and to enforce his exhortation! he tells them they cannot be both idolaters and Christians at the same time, that if they mingle in heathen ceremonies, their Christian profession is vain—" Ye cannot (do both) drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils." And in this supposed contrast Mr. OR. says — " there must be a common principle of similarity." What ! a similarity between a heathen sacrifice and the Holy Sacrament ! Surely a man professing to be & successor of Peter and Paul, never intended thui to degrade the most solemn institution of our Divine religion 1 He must have entirely lost fcightof the natural result of such a position, lam charged by my respected friend with being profane, and though I would not retaliate, yet 1 must remind him, that by instituting such a comparison, he most seriously diihonors our common Lord,

and gives to the ftnemirs of truth fire t occasion tn blaspheme. Of all intention to do so, I fully nctjmP him. (4.)— The next misinterpretation we have ison buKc x.\ii, 19.—' I Do this in remembrance of me." Here, again, Mr. O'R.jlays the emphasis on the word Do, and construes it in his own way. Do it, according to his meaninn is, chinge the bread and vine into my Wody anil blood. Rut how different Ik the meaning of the passage when ft plain common-sense interpretation ig given. *« And He took bread, and ga\ c thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, Thi> is my body, which is given for you — this do in iememl>r«r.ce of me." Do w hat ? Why, observe thw institution— oaC bread and drink wine— not offering it us a^aeiihec, hue eat itan.l drink it in commeniomuon of ir.y death. (s.)— And to support the IvocuMi vieiy of t!a»sul>statiti.ttion by miracle, the 28th chapter of Madhcw, and 18th verse is quoted, which read itl.us — " A.nd Jesus came unto them Buying, AH power is given unto me, irt Heaven and in earth." Here, nays Mr. OR. we behold (he Apostle 9 vested with power in Heaven and iv earth," to do it— to create the Lord Jesus out of biead. But when did the Apostles claim mi ••I' powci ? \Vh°u did they assume equality with the. Son of GoJ ? Mi - OR. applies to the Apostles and then to the Priests cf Home, language that Christ spake of Himself, and that f never can be adopted by a creature. Such a liberty with the Word of God, and the prerogatives of the Divine Being, I did not expect any man would dale to take. 3. We have several contradictions of Holy Scriptuiei tti Mr. O'R's letter. (I.) That tlu-ie is a iesil sacrifice m the Muss without shcdilmft of b'ooO. It is an unbloody Ruciiticc, we are told. But St. Paul says, 11 Without shedding of blood there cm ho no remission." Whom shall we believe, Paul or Mi. OR. ? (2.) It is asserted that " the greatest ol all miracles" is wrought in the mass. -But the Scripture-; j never represent it as a in'racle at al! ; nor do thevgivs ministers of the gospel, since the days of the aposllo*, the least authority to pretend to such gift 1 ;. " Two things," sayi Archbishop Tj'lotson, ".uc necesssi/ to a miracle, that there ihould be a "niparnatii'-al effect wrought, and that this effect be evident to hense. Now that such a change as is pretended m TransuhsUniiation should really be wiought, and that there bo no sign of it, is a thing very wonderful , hut not to sense, for our senses perceive no change; and that a thing should remain to all appearance juafc as it was, hutU nothing at oil of wonder in it. We wonder, indeed, when we sec a strange thing done ; but no mau wonders when he sees nothing done." When Moset changed his rod into a serpent, there was a miracle, a i supernatural effect evident to sense. The rod did not retain all its accidents ; if it had, the Egyptians would not have believed Moses against their own eyes. He might have contended that his rod was be come a serpent, but they would have denied his unfounded assertion. But Mr. O'lt. profeuei to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Chribt, while all the accidents of bread and wine remain ! (3.) It is again asserted that " St. Paul offered the sacrifice of the mass." Of course Mi. OR. means a Popish mass. Compare St. Paul's account, in 1 Cor, r chaps, x. and xi., wiih the Uomhli ceremony. PauL used a language the people undetstood, and torbid the use of unknown tongues in Divine worship. The Romish prietts pray in a tongue that is not understood by the people. Paul had no " incense,'' no " bells," no " crossings," no relics, holy bones, or blessed gar-» ments of saints. Js it so in the chuich of Rome * Paul brake the bread, and always gave it to the people, and told them to eat it. Mr. OR,. and his brethren •orn^ times don't give it to the people at all, but praythat an angel may carry it to heaven as an offering for «n. (See Mass Book.) Paul gave the cup to all present ; in the chinch of Rome lhe cup is withheld from all but lhe piiests. Si. Paul says, " A 6 often as ye eat this bread and^diink tins cup, ye do allow the Loid's death till he come." But Mr. O'lt. contends that he is come, and ik really present on the altar. St. Paul gave the bread to the communicants to be eat^n, and they ate it. The priest often locks up in a boy, that, which he calls our Lord's body, and worships as such. Paul never, at the sacrament, confessed Ins sins to the virgin or the saints, and asked them to intercede for him j but the pi iests of the chuich of Rome do so. And lastly, Paul never taught, that iv the euchanst he olleicu" a propitiatory sacrifice for both (lie living and the dead j but in the Mass of the Romish church, it is tended that such a sacnfice is offered. How, then, can Mr. O'lt. say that Paul ever offered a Popish mass? He strictly followed the example of his Muster, and maintained the simplicity and purity of Christ's oidinance. The chinch o£ Home has not done 6o ; nor is there the least similarity between a mass sacufice and the prao tice of the apostle. 4. We have in Mr. O'R/s letter the grossest absurdities. (1.) The doctrine of transubstantiation is on©of the greatest absurdities that ever the world heard of. ''Jesus took bread," &c, says the evangelist, i. c. t his body, says Mr. O'lt. If so> Christ was dead and alive at the same time. A live Christ, transformed his own body into a sacrifice, took his own body into his hands, brake himself into pieces, gave portions of himself t> each of his disciples, who ate «he whole of him, then poured his own blood into a cup, and gave it to them to drink, while he i attained alive the* whole time, and stood looking at the whole ceremony. Unless we are prepared to believe this gross absurdity, it is impossible that our Saviout 's words, " This is my body," can be taken ia a literal sense. (2.) It is absurd to require a man to lay aside his reason ; nay more, it would be sinful to do so. For the right use of reason we shall have to give account in the day of judgment. To lay it aside, would be to bury the talent in the earth. Yet this is demanded by Mr, O'll. Intellect is to be subjected to these mysteries. But though God requires us to receive many things in nature and i evolution that leuson cannot comprehend, )et, he never propounds anything to our faith that contradicts oi destioys our iea&on ; or why endow us with leasouuig powers at all ? (3.) We (ire not to depend on oui senses. The e)e is a perjurer as to the realities of matter, why depend on its testimony ?" sa)s Mr. OR. Can anything be moie absurd ? On such a principle there is an end to certainty on all subjects-. I see a wide waste of wateta, my eves testilY that it is the ocean, but " the eye is a pei j»i ci ;" it may be dry land, I see the earth's satellite} my eyes certify that it is the moon walking m brightness j but " the eye is not to be depended on," it may be a Glouoesteishne cheese. I fancy lam alive ; but if lam to reject the tobnmonv of my senses, 1 may have been dead and hiuied yews ago, In f.ici, if such a doctune be line,

everything we sene ' nce ' lr > or feel '"^ be dece P~ tion we can be assured of nothing. To prove this absmd position, Mr. OR. says the Jews called Chi ist the " Cai pouter's son, yet lie was not the carpenters son." Rut it only moves that those Jews weie just like the Romish priests. They said this in opposition to leason, and in denial of th*-ir censes. Cln ist MMon«-h.t miracles to prove that he was the Son of God ; and though they saw Ins miracles, yet they wilfully perverted truth, and lefuscd to believe. "He did not," sa)s Mi. OR., " give to the eye the ie*lity of the master." Did he not? The Sciiptuie says he did. His, humiliation, it is tiue, was deep ; it was so in lovo to us. But lie never laid aside the 6igns of his Godhead. " The cainal e)e" was not deceived, though Mr. OR. says it was ; but the carnal heart was perverse and unbelieving. In the case of the Jews, as in the case of the Romish priests, the senses were denied to cany their own point. '•Objections but touch the accident," says Mr. j OR., thus contending for the .-bsutdity that j bodies may exist without their accidents, and aooidents without their subjects ; 00 that ihe*e may lie whiteness, without anything white-, sweetness, without anything sweet, &c. A ph)sieian in Fiance, of the Roman communion, being I pressed with this difficulty, htimomonsh said, ■ " The Fatheis of Tipiil deserved to lie condemned to subsist upon the accident* of bread so long as I they lived, for intioducing so great a difficulty as j this into their faith." And now, Mr. Editor, I think I have followed Mr. OR, pretty closely through his rigmarole, and leave it for you and your readers to say whether he has succeeded in finding so great tin absurdity as tiansubstantiation in the Word of God. And as to Justin Maityr, as quoted by Mr. OR., ii is clear, from the words he quotes, that he did not believe it. "We do not receive these tilings as common bread, and common dnnk ;" a proof that he regarded them as bread and wine ; though not covunon, but uncommon bread and wine, because devoted to a sacred purpose. Mr. OR. calls it ludicrous to quote Bellarmine against transubstantiation ; but it is much easier to" do »o, than to prove that my quotation is false. In the conclusion of Mr. O'R's letter, be disposes of all Pi otestant Churches, and of Christian Ministers of every denomination, in the usual style of Popish arrogance, cuts them all off at a stroke, by denying that they have any part in the fabulous, unbroken succession from Peter. Alas for the Anglican Church ! And for the Presbyterian, the Wesley an, the Independent, the Baptist and Moravian Churches ! And for the whole of ibe Continental Churches, if Mr. OR. be correct, In his estimation there is 110 Church but that of Rome. She alone has antiquity on her side, and has comedown fiom Christ. And he says of myself—" His Society dates its existence fiom 1729." Hut Mr. OR. must allow me to correct his error. His opponent in the p)esent controveisy is a inembei of a Chinch that dates its origin, not ft om 1729, but fiom the days of Cln Ist and His Apostles. A Church that is " buUl on the foundation of Apostles and Prophets, Jesus Christ, Himself (and not the Pope of Rome,) being the rlnef corner-sJone." A chui cli, in which " the pure Word of God is preached, and the true Sacraments duly administered." Let me ask Mr. OR. in the earnestness of Aw own conscience, can Aesay thus much for himself ? What answer can he conscientiously give to the Great Master for having taken away the Word of Life, " and taught for doctrines the Commandments of men ?" He may boast of the antiquity of his Church, if he likes, but its own histoiy shall confront and refute him. Does not the umveisal testimony of history go to prove that Popery is a novelty— an innovation ? Let us make a Catechism, and let History supply the answeis, and let Mi . OR. commit it to memory, that he may be saved from making unfounded assertions in future. (l)_When was the title of Universal Bishop, first assumed ? Answer—ln 600, or 607, by 80. uiface 111, who, though he knew that his predecessors had declaied, that w hoever should assume it was a " rival of Satan in pride," and the forelunner of antichrist, yet, took it to himself. (2)— When was the Supremacy of the Pope decreed ? Answer— By the Council of 1215, the fouithof Lateran. (3)— When was i* iirsi decreed that the Laity should have no wine at the Sacrament ? Answer In 1414, by the Council of Constance. (4)— When was a belief in Transubtantiation first considered necessary for a Christian ? Answer—ln 1215, by Pope Innocent 111. (5) — When was linage-worship adopted as an article of faith ? Answer—ln 787, by the Council of Nice. (6) When was Purgatory made an article of Faith ? Answer — la 1488, by the Council of Florence. (7)— When were Indulgences authorized, seven Sacraments made binding, and the Canon of their Scriptures, apocryphal &c decided? Answer— .Not until 1563, by the Council of Trent. (8.)— Where then is Mr. O'R's authority for claiming on behalf of the Romish Church, that she be legarded as the onfif true Church f Answer—He is without authority, for Seiipture, and the Councils of his own Church, unite in testifying that the dogmas of Popery me innovations, and were no part of primitive Christianity. If Mr. OR. wishes to have ray views of the succession, he shall have them. There is a tiue succession, and its evidences are,— (l) Apostolic doctrine. (2; Apostohc faith and practice. (3) Apostolic zeal, and success in bringing sinners to God. Wheresoever I find these three maiks, whether in the Anglican Chinch, among Wesleyans, Pi esby ter ians, independents, or Roman Catholics, I am quite satisfied that the individual who piesents such credentials, ism thereof succession. I care not whether a Bishop or a Presbytery has ordained him to the work. As to the fable of an unbroken line from Peter, it is impossible to trace it, and highly discreditable to be connected »itlv it. (1)( 1 ) It is impossibte to trace it. Mr. OR. comfoits hjioseH with the idea of ascending from the Pope to Peler, f.-om Peter to Cnrist, from Chi is! to Jewish Pnebts, from Jewish Piies.s to Moses, fio-n Moses to the Patriarchs, from the Patrimcli» to il.c beginning of the world ! But why stop hei c <: He might as w ell have ascended to Augels and then $0 eternity ! Where has he got

his infoiimttion? Perhaps he has Adam's Journal and Ahiuham's register, and the records of the Jews, among his precious relics ! But m what a | position lie places our blessed Lord ! To support I this figment of the imagination, he must make Je- I sus Chust to receive his ministry from Jewish Priests ! How derogatory to the Saviour's claims to be Divine ! But how does he trace'it from Peter downwards? We have shewn clearly that Peter nevei was supreme, never was Bishop of Rome, hence the fiist link in his chain is bioken; And if even it were «t anted that Peter was lhst, Who was second ? Some say Clement, othors Linus, others Cletus ; but nothing can be ascertained. Respecting the thud, the confusion is greater still. Because the Roman Catalogues must be filled up, Cletvt is put in. Nor is it more clear who was fourth. And as we descend, difliculties increase. Sometimes we find a vacancy— St. Peter's chair empty for 70 yeais at once. Sometimes as many as four pretenders at one time, the cleverest at deposing, and poisoning, and murdering his rivals, gaining the victory. On one occasion, there uas a Pope at Home and another at France, at the same time, cuising each other most fear fully. Winch wai the true link in the clmm ! 0 Sii J Historic evidence of any " unbroken line" of descent from Peter to the Pope, utterly faiis. (2). I should not like to be linked to Peter by the Popedoin, because of its most disreputable and wicked character. "What a series—what a tradition—what a succession !" exclaims Mr. O'll , « suspended in ecstacy" on his chain. What a series, indeed! A series of wickednesses, of schiims, of factions, of poison, of murders, of wars and bloodshed, of all that degrades human nature, and disgraces the religion of Christ! "As the lion is known by his claws, so let us learn to know these men (the Popes) by their deeds," says the " Homily" for WhitSnnday. Then it relates some of their crimes. As of Pope Alex, HI, who trode the empeior under his feet ; Pope Paschal 11, who caused a son to tarnish big father to death ; Boniface VIII, who " obtained his seat like a fox, reigned like a lion, and died like a dogj" and "Pope Joan, the harlot, who was delivered of a child in the high street going solemnly in procession." (See Ser' mons or Homilies appointed to bereadinChurches ). Nor sha 11 tue writings of the Fathers of the Anglican Church alone be adduced in evidence. Hear Cardinal Baronius, one of the great champions of Popery. Speaking of the 10th century, he says, "Oh, what was then the face of the holy Roman Church ? How deformed [ When harlots, no less powerful that, vile, bore the chief sway at Rome, and at their pleasure changed sees, appointed bishops, and (which is horrible to mention) did thrust into St. Peter's chair their own gallants,— false Popes !" Platina and Howell, in their histories of the Popes, charge Liberius with arianism j Marcelhuus with sacrificing to idols ; Sylve»ter with necromancy I Sixtns IV. with issuing Licenses for Brothels « Alex. VI. with incest \ John XIII. as being contaminated with every vice ; and others as guilty of all kinds of wickedness, Wh at a SERIES — VfHAT A TRADITION — WHAT A SUCCESSION ! Mr. OR. it quite welcome to all the authority such men can give to his ministry, to all the comfort he piofesses to derive in the contemplation of his unbroken line, and to all the credit that results from stich an association— to his ecstacies 1 leave him. But I should hide my face in the dust were I compelled to trace my connection with the Apostolic Church through such a medium. And now having replied to Mr. OR.9 last, I trust lie will be quite satisfied that he overstepped the bounds of truth and modesty, and charity, too, when he claimed for the Church of Rome the sole right to be regarded as the Church of Christ, 1 had no wish for controversy, but I should have been ashamed of our Protestantism, and of our Christianity, too, had no man lifted up his voice in the cause of truth. My heart's desire and prayer to God is, that the ministers of the Church of Rome may soon see and abandon their errors, that the hindrances, which that Church has ever thrown in the way of the spread of pure Christianity, may be removed, that so the Lord's way " may be known upon the earth, aud bis saving health among all nations." lara,your's,&c, A PROTESTANT.