Daily Republican., 1878-11-07

And walk alone once more.
| ------~-~->~----
| For the Republican.
Bishop Beck~P's Sernoa Critteise d
MEssRs. EDITORs.-A few words with
references to the speech made In 81. Pc.
ter's X. C.Church on Sunday last, may
not be inappropriate, AZ although, not
conveying any instruction..to It's hearers
yet II not referred 10 II might seem a.
II the arguments w-rs conclusive. The
meeting was held 70 enable Bishop
Becker to prove that the remarks made
by Bishop Lee in his sermon on the
previous Sabbath regarding the Romish
Church were false and deserving CT rr-
buks. E@sF#f ~"t
In reference 10 Bishop Becker's argu-
ment regarding thr antiquity and au.
thority Of the Romish church, discus.
sion would be worse than useless. as
from our different standpoints We could
never agree, but at last | may refer TO
The subject Of the discourse in reference
to assertions complained Of.
lst. That the Romish church Is a soul
blighting and soul crnshinp,, despotism.
Despotism, according to bishop Beckrr's
own de6nition, means one man power
1t may he mild and just, or the reverse
yet none the less OF d.spotism, and
what can be more Of a despotism than
the position assumed by the head Of the
Roman church uncontoll-d in all his
actions, untrammeled In his deer es.
except as he claims by God, who has
not in the past and DOS not now al
ways check wickedness hut allows il
apparently to flourish. Psalm 81, 81.
Psalm ~. That 1t is soul blighting and
soul crushing, what further proof can
We require than the teachings Of & .
church which debars its members both
priest and layman from any exercise Of
their own will, conscience, or desire.
Take as illustration of this Bishop
l,.cker's own words. at Is not free
for me TO make my views the guide Of
my path 10 ettrssitv." What more or
stro Esr proof can We have of Its soul
crushing and soul blighting natur.
than the assertion of the Roman Cath
olic Bishep of Delaware, that he call
not use his own reason, he cannot act
AS Lir col,sci-nu- dictates, nor can he
believe any thing requisite to his sal
vation save and except his superior
permits him to believ. who in turn is
permitted by the one above him and
thus up to the Rsa.an pontiff himself.
Regarding the doctrine of transub
sanitation j feel deep sorrow that 1t
would seem at all necessary to say
single word. Vixen our Saviour said
this n my body, he used the expression
fguratively, as he used many other
similar expressions, thus, John 18th c.,
lst g., / am the true vine, &C., John
10th C 9th w., 4 am the door, &C., John
10Th c., 18th ", am the good shep-
herd, H.. Will any one assert that our
Saviear intended Us 20 understand that
hs was vine, or door, or shepherd,
except in Il fgurative sense, and If We
do understand all these passages, why
not the one first referred to, this is my
body st Paul in lst Cor. llth c., 23d
", says: "For have received of the
Lord that which also delivered unto
you. How that, &c." and in the 26th
", "For az often AZ ye eat this bread
and drink OF this cup ye do show the
Lords death till he come" Here our
Saviour speaks OF the bread after he
had given thanks, brake and gave to
lis Disciples, and we can s.e in the cup
a. at present consecrfed that in con-
tains wine, 1t smells like wine, it tastes
like wine, and moreover it will intoxi-
. slts.
Our Saviour desires us TO use our
senses else how would he say to his
disciples wAe.n atfriglrt4d at his appear.
ance among them after his rssurrec
tion, Luke, 24c: 39v: "Behold my
hands and Gset that il is, ! myself
handle me aud see, &c. Again verses
AZ and 43: "And they gave him a
piece of br0itsd fish and OF an honey
comb and he took it and did eat before
them." Again John 2Oc. 27v: speak
ing to Thomas our Saviour says "Reach
hither thy finger and behold my hands,
&c, &C." This fgurative language
ab0unds in both the old and new Testa-
ments as in Gen, l1c:"God calls the cir
his covenant, whereas /.
was but the token of that covenant,
again Exodusl2e, llv. God speaks of the
sacrifice of the Pasehal lamb thus: at
is the Lords passover" whereas 1t
was merely the memorial or emblem Of
it. Christ himself declares the mean.
ing of this eating and drinking when
he says "whosoever cometh unto me
shall never hunger, whosuever believ-
eth on me shall never thirst.
Is it not therefore more consistent
with christian teaching, reason and our
Saviour's almost invariable habit of
teaching in parable and figures to un,
lerstand the words Of our Saviour as
to say the bread which he
gave them was the sacrament, the sign
and the memorial of his body broken
for our sins, than to understand them
rs the R0mish church teaches that it is
the proper body and blood Of Christ.
Moreover the scriptures teach us that
[ 'hrist offered himself upon the cross to
he a Precipitation lor our sins, once for
all, and yet in the sacrifice of the mass
rs taught by the Roman church Christ
is daily offered up.
We may dismiss the prayers to the
Virgin AID the Saints without any COM
nent, as merely part of that stupen
1ous system which helps to coerce its
members TO that unity which Bishop
Becker boasted of so much, the very