Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-28
,rapaubs,aptiatiop s.. Justin. Tsrtullian,

consent OF the fathers! Inat
claimed them all, and vet her5
are six who rise up aud contradict him to
his face. Rev. McE., following the ex-
ample of Bishop Kahn tried hard to put q
lie in the mouth of st. Justin, but like his
m ter, the Bishop he has s;gnally failed.
II the public will read carefully tbs
whole discussion they will find that in
every article l made my opponent contra
dict both himself and the Apostles
Here is one of the many contradictory
of which the Rev. gentleman
has been guilty during this controversy
He said our Lord was glorified and trans
figured st the supper table when st. John
expressly says, "Jesus was not yet glori-
fed" l asked the gentleman if the dis
cipleS ate the Lords body what body did
they eat? He sought to evade this ques-
tion, but kept it right under his nose
and pressed him for an answer. He then
said it was the Masters gloriied body and
glorifed blood. That is, that the
glorified body of Christ is body OF
flesh and blood, when St. Paul de-
clares positively that flesh and blood can
not inherit the Kingdom of God" Now
ask who is mistaken the Rev. NICE. or
Gods Inspired Apostle? Let the public
codple this fact with that wonderful
at the Supper table OF
which the four Evangelists, and st. Paul
aud St Peter say not word, and they
must of necessity conclude that the Rev.
gentleman's equal as q scholar and theolo'
gian is nowhere to be found.
We have shown that the four senses,
sight, taste, smell and touch declare the
bread after conservation to be bread and
the wine 10 be wine. But my op'
ponent, who is the embodiment OF
all wisdom, says our senses are
not to be trusted, that is God
gave them only to mIslead and de,
ceiye us. Again, he has informed the
public that the wine after conservation is
the real blood of Christ, that is that the
blood will tempt q man to COM
NIT suicide, send him to a drunkard's
grave ard shut him up forever in the
depths of hell He has told us, following
the teachings of his Church, that every
cIumb c. the bread contains the whole
Christ, body, soul and divinity. That is
that the whole Christ can he held III
the beak of a canary bird, eaten by a
fly or swallowed by a church mouse.
This not only shows the falsity of this
cherished dogma of the Church of Rome,
but it shows also that such teaching is alb
solutely ridiculous and blasphemous. To
prove the antiquity of this dogma the Rev.
ereud gentleman referred me to the Liturgy
falsely attributed to st. James, and in re,
ply adduced the testimony of Dupin and
others, proving this liturgy to be forg'
ery, committed by some unknown person
10 the fifth century. He referred t.
the Greek Church in proof Of his doc
trine, but l adduced the testimony
of Mr.. Claude and Dr.. Basire showing
that even as late as the middle Of the
Seventeenth Century, the Greek Church
nowhere taught the doctrine of transub
sanitation, also proved by DIR. Clarke
M'Clintock and Strong, that the Malabal
Church kaew nothing of this dogma til
the Sixteenth Century, when the emisarie:
of the Pope by craft ard cruelty destroyed
the ancient creed of that church, ant
forced upon them this monstrous heresy
And let the public remember that the Rev
gentleman never attempted to disprovt
these statements. repeated them again ant
again, keeping them constantly before hin
but he let them alone; and he may
'thank his stars" that he did. Rev
Nee. refers to DIR. Elliott and brands hi
work as compilation OF mutilated anC
adulterated texts" l have told the
public who DR.. Elliott was and his work il
pronounced by the ablest scholars of to
day "a ''unrivalled in English literature
as a storehouse of fscts and arguments. ,
And if Rev. McElligott had one tenth thu
brains of Dr.. Charles Elliott, he would
have conducted this controversy witt
much greater skill, and achieved some
thing perhaps for himself and church.
The public will remember that one
David Barry, of Powhatan, rendered
Father McEllig0tt valuable service in thi!
long continued discussion. Mr.. Barry IL
his article published in the REGIsTER OF
the 2lst inst says: IL will observe tha
I have seldom read any argument that sc
shamelessIy disregarded the rules of evi
dsnce as did his (Dryden's) attempted re
plies to Bishop Kahn and Father McEili
gott." When / read this was anxious Il
learn something Of this master of dialectics
Add, upon inquiry, found that he was {
Liquor Inspector" And now leave tb,
public to determine whether he is not 6
better judge of whisky than of either dia
lectics or theology. Bot isn't it amusing
to see Liquor Inspector" assisting Rev
Father McElligott in discussing the ques
ton of the Holy Eucharist. II these TIVE
gentlemen are not very careful they viii
get their whisky and theology badly
mixed. David Barry may be able to tel
what per cent. Of strychnine is contained
in a cask of liquor, hut it is eviden
that neither he nor Father McElligot
is capable of discussing the doctrine
of transubstantiation. Bat the Rev
John McElligott, following the exampl,
of David Barry, says: 'Rev. Mr.. d. ha!
shown himself unworthy Of the attention
of any man, whose aim in the arena of 20
lemics is the vindication OF tSath by Eon
est straightforward means" l dom
know how this may strike the public, bu
it sounds to me very much like David
Barry. When the Rev. gentleman begar
this controversy he no doubt fancied tha
he had an easy task before him, but h
soon found that his opponent was ready
to meet him upon his own ground
and by the presentation of facts
and arguments exhibit the false teaching
of his church aud defend the Protestant
faith. And / desire to say just here the
Rev. McElligott having failed in his logic
resorts to the most shameless misrepresen'
tations in order to shield himself and hide
his ignorance from the public. He has the
brazea impudence to stand up before taii
intelligent people and say that in this con
troyersy have rejected the principles OF
Professionalism. now hurl this charge
back into the very teeth of my opponent
branding it as a falsebood bare faced
and audacious. What evidence docs
this gentleman furnish to sustain this
sriey0us charge. He refes to sy llogisn
which his master, Bishop Kahn arranged
aud which il specimen OF that gentle
mans whole argument. The major prem
ise is Whatever doctrine any Christian
couscie<aiously believes to be taught in the
Bible, that doctrine he is bound TO accept
as Gods uneTing revelation" Now
say that the man who asserts that this il
Protestant teaching is either ignoraat o.
thesubject upon which he presumes to writ
or CONFLICTS himself of willfnl misrepreSen
tatiop. That premise" as arranged BE-
Bishop Kahn and cited by his 'scho'
makes Nom for .syery heTesy that ha,