The Elk advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Elk Co., Pa.) 186?-1868, 1867-01-03

Uou. InS WuSI De pam 10 Tue uuleSJ
comprehension. But Mary has the
right, NOT TO be merc1M to the sinner,
but to ask Almighty God to be mcrcitul
to him. And here must charge you
with either misunderstanding my Ian.
guage or with misrepresentiug it. In
your seventh letter we read " You say
'to her does not belong the attribute of
justice and SO the sinner laden with
crimes and transgressions will stand a
better chance of obtaining forgiveness"
Now, my dear Sir, | said no such thing,
and any child who read my letters with
ordinary care will tell you so. You
have interpolated, into my language,
words of your own which give it an en-
tirely different meaning. You have
quoted two disconnected parts of sen.
tences instead of the whole. From
your rendering it would be inferred that
| wished to elevate Mary to an equality
with Almighty God that ] accorded
to Him the attribute Of justice and to
her that Of mercy, so that if the sinner
feared to trust himself into the hands OF
God, he could appeal to Mary, and that
she, entirely independent of Almighty
God, would be merciful to him. Can
anything be more preposterous than this
attempt to ascribe such meaning to my
words, when l gave you so explicitly
the position of Mary as held by the
Church? What I did say when speak
ing of the sinner was this: Casting
himself at the feet of Mary and begging
hcr to iatercede for him, begging her,
pure and undetiled, to ask her son to
suspend this justice and allow her to
exercise her attribute of mercy" that is
that Mary would beg Almighty God to
suspend his justice for time and allow
her to exercise her privilege of interces.
sion in behalf of the sinner. To show
further that, in your quotation, you did
not present my meaning, will cite
from my first letter But the church
does not consider Mary the equal of Al
mighty God she does not believe, nor
does she teach, that she has the power
of forgiving sins and she would severely
rebukc any of her children who would
pray in that manner to her, and thus
insult Almighty God who alone has the
power OF forgiveness" Your dialogue,
though exhibiting traces of very fine
dramatic talent does not contain any
arguments on the subject, and, there
fore, can be passed over. With regard
to satisfying the justice of God, l very
much feaI that if mercy lent no. her aid,
not one Of US would be saved. With
regard to why believe in the invoca.
tion of saints, whether because | believe
it to be beautiful or whether because
believe it to be true is not, my dear sir,
for you 20 decide. | must say, however
that | am very mnch led to doubt yom
sincerity in regard to your inquiries
when l compare these passages from
your letter to the editor lam willing
to learn from anyone, and wish to be
corrected Of any errors in regard to SC
important a matter as prayer. If there
is any mode of communicating with the
faithful Of past ages, | would not be
ayerse to asking prayers of that valiant
soldier of the cross, who did not use t.
fight like man beating the air." and
81 do not deny that there may be evi
dence of this, but have never seer
any, and ask for information," with tn,
following, from your last letter to me -
"The idea that God who so loved tn,
world, that He gave His only begotter
son, that whosoever believeth in Hin
shall not perish, that Christ who lovec
the world and gave Himself for it
should need the intercession of Mary t
make them willing to forgive repent:n!
sinner, is so preposterous that it shoul'
come only from those who ale 'eneme
OF the cross of Christ
Comparisons" it is said, gar
odious," but | think this one peculiarl
SO, How does it come that you find
doctrine so preposterous which onl
few weeks ago you were willing to be
lieve might be teue, and about whicl
you begged for information There j
sad discrepancy here, and ! yer
much fear it was the desire of whettin
your polemlc weapons, the cacoethe
scribendi, or perhaps the desire to az
pear in print, and not an earnest longin
for truth, "as the heart pants afte
fountains of WATER" that led you t
make your inquiries. In reply to you
! belief that you are justified in withhold
: ing your assent from a doctrine whic
you deem so " shadowy," l can only sa
that you have applied for information
you have received it and have seen fit t
dissent from it, it remains now for otl
; ers to decide as to whether you are ju
tilted in denying it, or l in believing !
This letter then closes our correspor
J deuce. That it has fallen upon barre
soil in your case | regret; perhaps son
few seeds have fallen upon good groun,
which will spring up and "yield fruit
! hundred fold" MEDICUs.
' No taxation without representation