The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1863-09-17

(English) church expresses it. that Jesrs was % born
OF the Virgin Mary Of her substance"
We thank Mr.. Mason for referring to the sec
ond article of his o,cn English church; for we
fully believe that =. The Son, lrhich as the ,cord
Of the Father, begotten from everlasting Of the
Father, The rery and eternal God. Of one sub
stance uith the Father, took mans nature an the
romb of the blessed Virgin of her substance; 50
thai t,co ,eho1e and perfect natures, that is TO sag,
The Godhedd and Manhood. mere jciaed together
IN one person" Here again the Son OF God is
represented as acting he took mans nature.
Does Mr.. Mason believe that the Lord Jesus was
both God and man? If 50, how was he made
Of the Old material substance Of man - We
know that the scripture says - he became flesh
(Juhn I'D but this means nothing more than
that he became man. Where then is our error?
In his efforts to avoid the Eutychian heresy,
Mr.. Mason has fallen into another equally bad.
In that same unchanged form [having flesh
and bones lie assembled up into heaven.-See
Sermon, p. 9. Saint Paul assures us Il Cor.
Is 80 and following verses) THAT flesh and
blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God :"
that, we shall not all sleep, but we shall all
be changed - the natural body will be changed
lnJO Il spiritual DOuS. IL LOT. 1O'1t) NJ,
the Saviour's body in heaven is not of flesh and
blood. 1t is not less glorious than the bodies of
his redeemed people. We hope that Mr.. Mason
will look well to his own foundations, before
he again accuses US of heresy.
An error, such as yours, called the Eutychian
heresy, was condemned by the Sd General Council Of
the undivided church Mt Ephesus. | hope. sir. you
will reconsider this matter.
If we held the decisions of Councils to be of
any great account especially if we pretended to
follow them in the gratuitous charging Of heresy
upon those who disagreed with us we should
try TO quote them correctly. Mr.. Mason's libra
nv, however deficient in Hebrew books, is GER
tainly not wanting in books which might have
told him that the Third General Council held
at Ephesus in ADJ, had nothing to say about
the Eutychian controversy, which had not arisen.
That Council had its hands full in dealing with
Nestorianism and Pelagianism, which were con-
demned before the arrival Of the Greek bishops,
who, when they came, set up Il secession Council
under John of Antioch. After long controversy
both parties appealed to the Emperor, who de-
cided which was the genuine Council. An
undivided church % But perhaps Mr.. NJ.
was thinking of the famous Synod OF EphesuS,
held in 449, a very different affair from the
Third General Courcil at Ephesus. If the
church was undivided, that Synod Was not.
Dioscurus, the President Of that Council, by
violent measures. compelled the bishops to pro-
nounce in favor of the Eutychian heresy. The
bishops opposed to Euiyches were obliged to
escape. and Fiuvian, their leader, was cruelty
scourged By the soldiers. The Council was a
scene of disgraceful violence, which earned for
it the name of a meeting Of robbers.
1t was the Fourth General Council at Chalce-
don. held in 45l, Gust twenty years after tie
Third General Council at Ephesus,) that an
nulled the acts of the Rnbber Synod of Ephesus,
and condemned Eutvches. We HAVE RECON
sIDERED THE MATTER!