Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-26
THE RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.

THE RELIGIOUS DISCUSSION.
Rev. Father McEllIgott Replies to Rev. Sir.
Dryden.
To ~ Editor Of Lhs Reoixtr:
SIR Now that my Rev. opponent is
on record for misrepresenting the teaching
OF 81. Justin, on the Holy Eucharist, the
public sees what manner Of man, have
had 10 deal With in this controversy. The
Rev. w. Ulfert, Lutheran minister, who
has few, if any superiors as q philologist
in this eitJ, and Professor Roemer, the
honored Principal of the Linsly Institute,
have given their decisions to the public
From these decisions, it has become evil
dent that my Rev. opponent hiss been
misleading the public in his quotations
| from the Fathers When at his own re-
quest, met him ut the REGISTER Office
to verify his quotations., he produced
Elliott's Romanism, an obscure compila-
ton Of mutilated and adulteIated texts,
which he could not even support by DR..
Coxe's revised translation of the Fathers.
How could he conscientiously leave the
public under the impression that he had
the Fathers in tho original texts, when he
had not? He must have made an act of
faith in the infallibility of DR.. Elliott as
translator, or he would not have convicted
himself before the public, as utterly ignorant
of the Language in which st. Justin wrote.
Yet this IL the man who has been posing
during this controversy as paragon OF
patristic learning, etc etc. Now think
the public will sgree with me, that Rev.
Mr. d. has shown himself unworthy Of the
attention of any man, whose aim in the
arena polemics is the vindication of truth
by honest, straightforward means. This
will appear evident from the manner in
which he has conducted this discussion.
[ entered upon this controversy Us Chris
tan end Catholic, willing to stand By my
principles, and hoping that the Rev. Mr..
D., who posed aS the champion of Protss-
tant Christianity, would stand by HE.
Has he done so? The record shows that
be has not, but has rejected the principles
of Professionalism, and even of Christianity
whenever it suited his purpose.
Let me give an example. Bishop Kahn
in his reply OF March 18th to Rev. Mr.. D.,
made use in syllogistic form Of the argu-
ment known to logicians Is the argumentUm
dd R0miRela / shall here reproduce the
syllogism, so that every one may see the
force of the Bishops argument and also the
manner in which it was met by Rev.
Mr.. d.
First premise: Whatever doctrine any
Christian conscientiously believes to be
taught in the Bible, that doctrine he is
bound to accept rs Gods unerriDg revela-
ton. Second premise: But the doctrine of
the Real Presence and Trsnsubstantiation
is conscientiously believed by millions up
on millions of Roman Catholics to be taught
in the Bible. Therefore, these millions
upon millions of Roman Catholics are
bound to sceept that doctrine as Gods uu-
erripg revelation. How did Rev. Mr.. d.
meet this argument? He denied the first
premise of the syllogism-boldly pro-
claimed that q Christian who eonscien-
tiously reads the Bible is not bound to &C
eept it So Gods unerring revelation. Was
he sincere when he made this astounding
concession? Or did he not thus ruthlessly
rae to the ground the whole fabric of
Professionalism in order to extricate
himself from the dilemma into
which his folly had driven him?
Perhaps this is the reason why the
reverend gentleman whom he so snxiously |
awaited at the REGISTER Office on last |
Thursday failed to appear. But, Rev. Mr.. |
D., seeing the egregious b.under he made |
in the wholesale denial of the Prot |
estant principle private Interpretation
Of the Scriptures-professed repentance, |
a. is shown by his referring to The Bible in |
later communication rs theCourt OF appeals |
But is there any warrant for thinking that |
be would discuss the question even on this |
ground? Or would he not again shift his |
position when he,thought it necessary? Sup
pose should ask: Ii Methodist minister |
were to preach TransubStantiatior, would |
he be arraigned for heresy? When aIrsigu-
ed, would the Bible be placed before him
and his fellow ministers, and hidden to
opel its mouth and to speak? II hidden |
would it obey? Or rather does not the
Rev. Mr.. ID. know very well that the case
would be tried by living Judges-perhaps
the Conferences; and that it would be these
JUDGES who would interpret the Scrip
lures and apply their Interpretation to the
case before them? In other words, Rev.
Mr.. D. knows, that while it may sound
reverential to Gods Holy Word TO call it
the Court of last resort, 10 practice u Is
the living representative of the Methodist
Church, who wonld decide the doctrinal
point ut issue, Just as Is done In the
Catholic Church. Our Supreme Court
must be guided in It's decisions by the
and the laws, but to thence
infer that the Constitution and the laws
are the Court is sheer nonsense. Has Rev
Mr.. d. given rs any reason to think that
he would be honest enough to admit the
force of this plain reasoning? Iauswer no,
if we are to Judge by his conduct through
ont this controversy. He hsgrantly mis-
the Chatholic doctrine Of
ut time when he him
Self told us that he had the Catholic Cate
chism in his possession. He said that
Catholic priests claimed the power to
change bread and wine into the soal and
divinity Of Jesus Christ. This assertion is
an unmitigsted fslsehood, and the shabby
manner in which he attempted TO justify
himself for uttering it was on par with
his now notorious ''by proxy" explana-
lion CD. The public has seen what kind
Of honesty Rev. D. has prscticed in his
quotations from the Fathers. When he
was calling all Catholic priest ''pious
fauds'' and ecclesiastical jugglers' he
should have been careful not TO lay himself
open 10 the charge Of Juggling texts.
Cut I have said that my Rev.
opponent, not satisfied with ahan-
Joining Professionalism, has even
rome a step further and taken up hisssand
N inAdel ground. Let me prove this. He !
,as more than once thus argued against
rransubstantiatioL: II the consecrsted
wafer is the body Of Christ, then monse,
r a bird, or dog, that devours the Host
eyours the flesh and blood of God. But
his would be blasphemous. Now if there
Q any force in such en- argument, and, Of
curse, Rev. ID. viii contend that there is, i
means this: To say that mouse, or J
OF, or bird, could devour the body and
lood of God inearnate would be bias {
henry; therefore, what they deyour cannot
3 the body and blood Of Christ But,
hen Rev. ID. argues. it is he who is guilty e