Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-14
MISREPRESENTATION.
Rev. Dir. Dryden Replies to Rev. Father
McElliRott.

Ksin and written by Mr.. John McElligott
appeared in your paper on the 18th inst
to which / now reply. l am truly glad Il
learn that Mr K. is conyslescent, although
still unable to perform the functions Of hi
Office. The toLe of Mr.. Nee g last article
is quite different from that of the second
II would seem that he, too, is coming Il
his senses. Bat in my reply i desire t.
say, here ard now, that l shall take NJ
notice Of any reference MI. Nee. may
make to the recent controversy between
Mr.. K. and myself If Mr. Kahn desires
to renew the former discussion then LEI
him come out and show his face, and i
be is too cowsrdly to do this, certainly nj
is unworthy of the least consideration
When he found that he was going to th'
wall; and that the cherished heresy OF hi:
Church was about to be exposed, in order
10 prevent such exposure and shield him
self, ne raised cloud of dust and retired
ingloriously from tie field. And,
now II he desires to try his
hand again, he should have the manl;nsss
to stand in his own place and not hid,
himself behind the person of John McEli
gott. Mr.. Nee. says when he made TIE
statement that Dr. Wiseman had proved
the position of DR.. Clarke to be false, be
had before him at the time the words Of
Dr.. Clarke which I citsd in my first ar
ticle. But this Is only another evidence
of Mr.. Noes towering self-conceit and
shameless sudscity. repeat d.. Wise
man, the boosted paragon Of Mr.. Nee put
the knife to his own throat and committed
a theological suicide az George Stanley
Fsber, B. D. has clearly shown. Mr.,
Wiseman says that two material objects
cannot be identical. But Mr.. Nee says
that Catholic Bishops and Priests are all
able to change bread into the real body Of
Christ, and wine into His corporal blood
He says that our Lord when He instituted
the Sacrament changed the bread and
made it His identical body. This is what
Mr.. MeElligott processes to believe and
this is the plain teaching Of his church.
But the body possessed by our Lord
on that occasion was q material body, and
if Mr.. Nee. denies this, then he is to
be classed with the hereto Msrcion, who
held that Christ's body was only a
phantom. Bat on the other hand if Christ
possessed material body, land Tertullisn
says He did, then when He changed the
bread into His body, it ia evident to every
one that the two material objects, Ii. e.
His body and the bread, became identi-
cal; but DR.. Wisemsn says this is impossi-
bic. 1t was at this point in his career
that the learned DR.. W. made fatal at
tempt upon his own life, and still Mr.. Me-
Elligott has the unblushing impotence 20
insinuate that DR.. Clarke is mistaken and
DR.. Wiseman is infalhble (?) authority.
And he further asserts that the dogma OF
infallibility is irrelevant to the question,
when his catechism expressly declares
that '"ThOse only who teach and bslieye
as the Pope does belong to the Church OF
Christ" And who does not know
that the dogma of infalhoility, is
the very foundation stone upon
which the whole fabric Of Romauism
is built. Then face Mr.. Nee. with the
same question and demand an answer
Was Honorius infallibls? DoPin says;
This will stand for certain, then, that
Honorius was condemned, and Justly, too,
as hereto by the sixth General Council
Now if Honorius was fallible (DuPin says
be was), then Innocent III. was fallible,
and he Ii WAS that foisted the moustrous
dogma Of trsnsubstsntstion upon the
Church. 1t was az the fourth Lsteran
Council in 1915 that this impsrious Roman
pOntif, without consulting anybody, im-
posed this monstrous heresy upon Christ
iaps and made il an article of faith. 1t
was not the work of the Council, but the
infamous work of this arrogant and tyran-
uical Pope. And l offer in evidence Of
this the testimony OF DuPin. In his Ec-
clesiastical History, vol. 2. p. 449, he says:
1T is certain these canons were not made
by the Council, but by Innocent III who
presented them ready drawn up, and or
dered them to be read, and that the prelstss
did not enter into any debate upon then,
but that their silence was taken for an sp-
pIobation?" Matthew Paris, writing on
the same subject, says: The Pope him
self having delivered an exhortatory ser
mon, recited to the council seventy chap
tiers or canons, which seemed tolorable to
some Of the prslates, but grievous to
others" Aud yet Mr.. McEiligott has the
brazsn eArontery to stand up before an in
telligent public and say the question of
Pspal infallibiity is irrelevant Let the
people now Judge of this matter. Mr..
MeE in referring to my article of March
It'll, says: There was no council held at
Constantinople In ISL" Du Pin, in his
Ecclesiastical history, vol. 2, p. SO, saws:
Constantine Leo's son called council in
754 at Constantinopie composed of 3$S
Bishops Ii began in February and ended
in August" The same writer also in
forms rs that this council made decree
against the use and worship of imsges and
that a greater part of the Eastern churches
received and executed this decree. And
now let the Public also pass judgment
upon this point. It's quite easy
to understand why the Church of Rome
rejects this council. asked Mt McElli-
gott in my inst article if the disciples ate
the body of our Lord what body did they
est? And now call public attention to
the fact that Mr.. Nee evsdes the ques-
ton by answering Christ has but one
body" When Christ instituted the sac
rament he possessed living material body.
On the cross and in the sepulchre his body
was hfeless, broken body. But after his
he assumed his gloriied body
Now I ask again what body did they eat?
Was it his living material body? But bow
could they eat the living body OF the Mas
ter and swallow il down their threats
while the Saviour was still standing before
them2 How could they eat bis broken
body before his death? And how eould
they eat his glorifed body before he as
sumed il? This is the problem that Mr..
Nee. must 4 solve, and I shall
keep it right under his nose
until he either furnishes the solution
Or Acknowledges his utter failure. And
anless Mr.. MCElligott docs furnish tie
solution, we must Of necessity conclude
hat all who claim 70 ba shla Tn ehanya