THE "CATHOLIC, BUT NOT A PAPIST."

Southland Times, Issue 1610, 26 July 1872, Page 3

THE " CATHOLIC, BUT NOT A PAPIST."

Six,— l am not only surprised but I very much regret that yonr correspondent, " A Catholic, but not a Papist," has not more respect for the feelings of his Protestant brethren. He 13 6I« pected at all events to have as much respect for their feelingß as I have. Now I will show in this very brief letter that he has not. In his letter which appeared in your issue of July 19th, he tries to explain away common facts of history. No educated or sensible man ever attempts such a thing. By way of contradicting Luther's own account of the " devil tempting him to discontinue j the mass," he offers the following absurdity as hia reason and explanation, viz. — " that the devil never tried to dissuade Luther from the mass, but endeavored to drive him to despair by pointing out that if the Bible waß right, the mass must be rank idolatry." What a subtle distinction! Now, granting for a moment that interpretation of Luther's very plain and unmistakeable words to be correct, your correspondent's argument would go this far and no farther, viz., — that the devil was trying to turn Martin Luther from idolatry in order to drive him to despair. Such a loss of time would be hardly worthy of the devil, who generally makes good uae of his time, or at least does not lose time. Now, don't you think that the devil would let Martin alone, and be very well satisfied with idolatry, and not tempt him to give up the mass if he (the devil) believed the mass to be idolatrous, as your correspondent professes to believe. The idea of the tempter bringing idolatry and the Bible thus into collision, and tempting a man to give up the darkness of the former, so that he would nofc see fche truth of the latter, is, I confess, one of the most preposterous and extraordinary ideas 1 ever knew to come from the cranium of a rational animal. I give him credit for the idea. I know 'tis original. I thought Protestants considered idolatry as great an evil as any other. I wonder did your correspondent intend to pay us the compliment of endeavoring to prove that despair is a greater evil than idolatry — than even the idolatry of the mass. I said I would show tbat I had more respect for the feelings of Protestants than your correspondent. This is evident from the fact that he tempts me to publish the private life of Martin Luther, which is, to say the least of ifc, neither creditable to Protestantism, nor any proof that it has a divine sanction or origin. On 31st March, 1519, Luther, in s letter to the Pope, speaks in the highest terms of the Roman Church, and of the Pope's sacred authority ; and that " he acknowledges most' explicitly that this Church rules over all, and that nothing in heaven or in earth is superior to it, save only Jesus Christ our Lord." Ten days later he writes — " lam not sure whether the Pope is Antichrist himself, or only the Apostle of Antichrist ! " There is a more remarkable feature in the private character of Luther, which, for the gate of delicacy, and the feelings^ of the neighbor, I shall not allude to. I mention the above fact to show how fickle Luther was. Every one who has read history, and wishes to see every side of the question, S's Protestants pretend they do, and do with a vengeance as regards Scripture, is aware of the prideand temper of unbending obstinacy for which he was so remarkable through life. The story is told, I don't know how true, thafc in hia schooldays he used to get whipped 15 times of a morniug. It would have been better for Luther, not to say more honest, never to have said mass, for according to his own account he must have been committing sacrilege for a very long time. He does not hesitate to tell us he entered the priesthood from unworthy motives. He says — " When T said my first mass at Erfurdt, I was all but dead, for I was without faith ; it was unjust, and too great forbearance in God, that the earth did not at the time swallow up both myself and the bishop who ordained me." I give these facts of history to show how absurd your correspondent is to be calling them in question. The value of his assertions about " Romish schools" teaching " lies," is easily seen by anybody who has read this correspondence, and remembers what I have proved in reference to schools and lies in connexion with the Protestant church. Why does not your correspondent stick to the main question at issue, or if he is afraid of theology, why does he pretend to know so much about it ? Sure, no argument can be brought to a point with one who goes on like the Jumpers. Your correspondent no doubt remembers that class of gentlemen ; they did not care about sticking to a pomt — were ignorant — and probably in blissful ignorance — of the eight rules of Logic. — Yours, &c, J. CiBDBH".