Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-18
MISREPRESENTATION.

10 TIE Edffor o. TIC Re9tstr:
SIR:-Another effusion Of sophistry and
abuse iospired by Bishop John ]. Kain
aud written by Rev. John MeElligott ap.
peared in the last issue of your paper, "a
which I now reply. In this controversy
have had but one purpose in view, name
ly, TO repel the attack made upon Protest
antism. by Roman prelate Of our city,
who is nov hiding himself behind the per
son of Rev. McEliieott. For the lass
several years Bishop Kain has walked the
streets of Wheeling as an ecclesiastical
pugilist defying the Protestant clergy 70
come out and defend their faith. And
when met with the authorities of his own
church, be WAS unable to sustain himself
by his sopbistry, and in order to get ont of
the corner in which he had placed himself,
he raised the shout of iguoramus and re-
treated from the field under heavy fire.
And be has since found willing servant
in the person of Rev. John McEiligott,
who obediently writes down and
gives TO the public what his mas
ter is pleased 10 dictate. And I
desire to say further. the Romish
Church has never been willing 20 trust the
public in any matter pertaining to faith
and morals She holds that we are all in
Judges in such matters aud yet
Rev. McElligott has the brazen impudence
to appeal 60 the public! On the other band,
We hold that the people are competent to
Judge, and we furnish them with the plain
facts and are willing to accept their verdict.
In his last article Rev. Nee spNaks Of my
statements upon this subject ~ ''irrele-
vsnt," "gsuzy imposition" " ''cosrse decls-
nation Misrepresentation, "inaccu-
racies," contradictions, etc etc, and
this is the kind Of logic which ne employs
to prove my uttei ances TO be false aud his
position TO be true. But am glad Rev.
John McElligott is not the judge iu this
case, but an intelligent public, who are not
30 ignorant rs Rev. McE. would have us
believe. My lectures and articles upon this
subject are in the hands Of the people and
I only ask that they read and pass upon
their merits and / am perfectly willing
TO abide by their decision. Rev Nee.
says the Jewish Passover, with its types
aud figures, finds it's realization only
in the Romish doctrine of .ransubstantia-
ton. This is the teaching OF his master,
Bishop K =, in his third Lenten lecture, the
falsity Of which exposed in my first arti-
Gle, published in the REGISTER March 7th.
l shall not repeat here the argument which
| have already advanced in refutation of
this unscriptural position. / would sim
ply refer the reader 10 the issue Of the REG
IsTHR cited above.
Rev. Nee cites st. Paul In support Of
the cherished heresy of his church. Now.
St. Paul, after recitipg the words of the in
Stitution, in the 11th chapter Of First
says, For a. often as ye eat
Of this bread and drink this cup, ye do
show the Lords death till he come"
After the words of conservation have been
recorded, three times the Apostle speaks { {
the bread o. bread, not the flesh of Christ;
he speaks Of the wine ~ the cup and not
the blood of Christ. And now repeat,
st. Paul here completely overturns the
OF Romanists and leaves them no
ground whatever upon which to stand.
Under this master stroke of divine
truth Gods inspired Apostle demolishes
forever this dogma of the dark ages.
And now let the public Judge of this point.
Rev. NICE. also re!ers TO the ancient
Liturgies to prove the antiquity of this
dogma, aud answer by saying, when
church makes use of corrupted documents
to prove her teaching, she Acknowledges to
spsS1 the SStla asses ssss ses b i hard
that is truly appalling. On this point /
would refer the reader to that part Of my
sixth lecture, which appeared in the REG
IsTER on the 18th inst And then let the
public judge whether have shown myself
TO be in bad faith in this controversy, as
Rev. McE. has had the brazen effroutry to
assert; or whether Rev. McE and his mas.
ter Bishop X. have not tried to deceive
the people by citing corrupted documents
in proof of their position. The gentleman
also persists in asserting that have mis-
the teaching Of his Church
upon this subject, and In reply 10 this
shameless assertion, which Ii made for NO
other purpose than to mislead The people,
and reflect upon myself; / here offer the
language found in the Catechism Of his
Church.
Question-"What Is the Holy Euchar-
ist2' Answer-''The Holy Eucharist is
the Body aud Blood, the Soul and the Di-
vlnity, of Jesus Christ, under the appear
ances OF bread and wine"
Question-"What did Christ mean when
He said TO tine Apostles, DO this for q
commsmoration Of me-" Answer-'He
empowered and commanded the Apostles,
and through them the Catholic bishops and
priests, to change bread and wine into His
body and blood"
shall now leave the public 10 deter
mine whether or not have misrepressnt-
ed the teaching OF the Romish Church.
Let the people take these words from the
Catechism and Judge accordingly and not
the shameless assertions made by Rev.
McE. to shield himself and prevent the
exposure of the foolish and hsretical teach
ing of his Church. Again, / call public
attention TO the fact that Rev. NICE. evsdes
the two questions which propounded TO
him end repeated in my last article.
ask again, was Honor'us infslli-
ble? Du Pin ays he WAS hereto and
Rye. EcE. must prove that he
was not or else see this cherished
dogma of his church fall to the ground un-
SUPPORTED. If Honorius was fallible then
Innocent III was fallible, and IL was this
ilnperious Pope that usurped the authority
as I have shown and fo!sted this heresy
upon the church. Rev. McE. must answer
this question or else stand confOunded aud
convicted in the presence of this commu-
nifty. The gentleman nOw admits that
there wss Councii held at Constantinople
iu 754, but denied it until adduced the
testimony of DuPin. Let the people take
note of this fact and then determine
whether or not Rev. Nee. has acted in
good faith. He insinuates that in men
tioning the three dates, 754, S31 and i215,
have been guilty Of misrepresentation.
Let rs zee. In 754, at the Council OF Con
stantinople, The first traces OF this heroy
are TO be found. In 631 Paschzsius wrote
the first treatise ever written upon the
subject, and thus for the frst time brought
tbis dogma to public notics. Aud il was
not till 1915 that Innocent III sue
ceeded in imposiDg this -heresy upou the
Church as an article Of faith. Now, ask