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

Dryden's Second ReJoinder.
With your permission, now reply to
the criticisms OF Rev. John McElligott,
which appeared in your paper on the Itch
inst And although this article ia signed
by Rev. Mr.. Nee. 1t is quite evident 70
everyone who has read and taken the pains
to scrutinize this production, that it Ii the
work of Bishop Kahn. The learned ~
Bishop has by no means recovered from
that state of mental aud moral prostration
produced by an overdose OF Louis Ellles
DuPln. His many friends are becoming
quite anxious about him, and, indeed, Tot
a few despair Of his final recovery. It's 10
be hoped, however. that his severe athic-
ton will not prove fatal. In this contro-
yersy do not for ct that am writing for
an intelligent people, who are fully COM
petent to weigh the facts presented, and as
| have already said, am content to abide
their decision. Were il the prerogstiye OF
Rev. McE to pass upon the merits of my
argument, he would deal with il alter the
same manner that the ConnCil of Constance
dealt with that of John Huss. But the
thoughtful, intelligent and religious
portion of this community will,
know, appreciate my motives and
the force Of my argument. In the
last effusion of Rev. Nee. he resorts as
usual to sOphistcy and abuse to deceive
the public and save his lost cause. He
affirms that Ii was the real body OF Christ
that the Disciples ate IN the Eucharist
and in order to avoid the dilemma, which
l presented, be resorts 10 qui6bling and
thus shows 20 the public that he is hard
pressed. asked if the disciples ate the
Lords body what body did they eat? Was
it the material body they saw standing
before them? Was it our Lords broken
body? or was il his giOrified body that he
gave his disciples - eat on that occasion
And now let the public take note, Rev.
Nee. answers by saving 1T ia his real
true body that is present IN the Eucharist,
but in some supernatural manner" and
then he asks the question "WIl Rev, Mr..
d. deny that this is impossible?' This
question he follows with another, VIZ
WAS not that sacred body glOrifed on
Tabor in the mystery Of the tTanstigura-
tion?" / answer yes, Christ WAS trans
figured on Mt. Tabor and this fact is clear
ly taught in the Scriptures, but nowhere
WtllD tue lluS " Sho OAbO % ~
said that he WAS TRANSPORTED at
the table when he instituted the Holy
Sacrament. The inspired writer's were
perfectly familiar with the scene on Mt.
Tabor, but they knew nothing about that
marvellous change at the supper-table, with
which Rev. Mr. McEiligott seems to be 60
familiar.
Mr.. Nee. would have his readers be-
lieye that the Master vas TRANSPORTED and
Rlorifed on the night of His betrayal,
when st. John expressly says, that ''Jesus
was not vet giorifed." Now l ask, which
is correct, the statement Of st. John, the
Evangelist, writing under divine iuspira.
ton, or the declaration Of Rev McEE And
has Mr.. Nee. the impotence aud impiety
to contradict the sacred record? He would
have his readers bslieye that the disciples
ate the glorifsd body Of the Master before
His crucifxion, when in fact He did not as
sume il until after His resurrection. Aud
I would say in reply to my worthy friend,
sSwhsn ynu cannot bring your argument
to right conclusion, you hy to the power
Of God" So spske Cicero, the phlloso-
pher, TO the hereiies Of his day.
To saw that a thing is impossible to be
done. we mean that il is naturally inpos-
sib,s, And if an alleged fact is possible
only upon the superstition of miracle,
and If such n miracle Is no where affirmed
in the Scriptures, then it is the greatest
piece Of folly and presumption for k>V.
Mr. Nee to make such an Affirmation.
And | need not say here that the gentle
man in attempting TO maintain proposi-
ton that involves so many contradictions
and outrages reason, hy falling back on the
omnipotence of God, and raising the cry Of
miracle" is guilty of manifest absurd
ity. II the Rev. gentleman is able to
change bread into the body of our Lord,
then let him show that fact by his works.
When Moses changed the water into blood
il hid the eleas1ts and appearance OF
blood. When Christ changed tie water
into wine it had the peculiar qualities and
appearances of wine. Bat Mr.. Nee and
Bishop X. say when they change bread
into the body Of the Master and wine into
His blood that they still retain the appear
snces of bread and wine. Who / ask can
believe that Catholic Bishops and Priests
are empowered by God to perform suea
L - ao.(v,i faaka an tbfso I think it was