The Wheeling daily register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1864-1878, 1878-04-19
Reply TO Bishop Kain On the
Eucharist.

You go into an orchard: you pluck
what you suppose to be an apple. You
look ~ it: 1t has the appearance OF an
apple. You taste it: it has the flavor st
an apple. You smell it: it has the scent
OF al apple. You feel il: it feels like an
apple. Hence, you infer, under all the
circumstances, that it is an apple; and
Low could you infer any thing else? But
while you are deliberating, Bishop kain
comes along and says: Only friend,
what have you there?" Your answer is,
IAN apple" "YOu are rignt,' says the
Bishop; "but am priest o! the Livir g
God, and have power from Him to turn
thst apple into pork" Il don't believe
it," you say. await moment" say
the Bishop, "until l have time to pro-
uouuce few words over it, and you
shall see" The words are pronounced,
ard the fruit is again subjected to the
the same test of the senses US before, with
the same result. Now you begin to doubt
either the Bishops verscity, or his sanity,
or both. But he insists that the
apple has actually been changed
into pork, and that it is pork
and nothing else. Then you begin TO
suspec. that the Bishop takes you tor =
fool. You then turn upon your heel
as any sensible man woodland go your
way, the Bishop looking after you, and
denouncing Gods vengeance upon you
as a wicked un believer.
Now, il any one will look at the above
| for q moment, he will see that it is a fair
illustration of the course pursued by the
Pspa hierarchy in regard TO the Elcha-
rst Before the act OF conservation, the
communlcant examines the bread and
wine, and his senses and reason tell him
that they are bread and wine. Alter
conservation, ne examines again, and
finds them precisely the same, "No,
says the priest, "they are changed; the
bread has become flesh, and the wine
has become blood" "But," you say, my
senses and my reason teach me different
ly snd how'can be otherwise iuformedT
lie says You must believe 1t. l am q
Priest of the Most High God, and cnjoin
upon you to believe it under pain of
e5ernali idsmnation." "Ho! he! say you
then 1 will be Protestant
In proof of his theory, the Bishop re-
fers to John vi, 81. 69. But if the reader
will be at the trouble of looking At the
passage referred to he will find nothing,
either in the text or context, TO warrant
the conclusion that our Lord had there
any reference whatever to the Last
Supper; and the supposition that the Jews
rightly understood his meaning, because
"they went back" Is certainly not very
complimentary to the Bishops "bOGsted
logic" Did not they misunderstand
him on other occaslons2 for instance,
when he spoke of destroying the
temple" meaning "his bodyP Did they
not "go back on him in that instance,
most savagely2 and did this prove that
thev understood him right? Was not
his whole life and character entirely mis-
understood by them2
But what seems most remarkable In
this CONF ection is, the manner in which
ne refers to "verse 64' (63) ss "pre-
tended solution" without even quoting
the words; whereas it is the real key to
.he whole passage. We do not wonder
that the Bishop. by failing to quote the
words, p lsy ed shy of this remarkable verse
| l63) But as a dimness OF vision may
nave come over his eyes at the time, we
will kindly supply his deficiency
The words are: at is the spirit that
quickeneth; the f,sh profteth nothing;
the lDords that l speak unto you, they
are spirit, and they are life" Wat.
would 1.-The flesh profit nothing If il
were indeed the flesh of Christ? Is thr
the teaching OF Rome2 trow not. But
the meaning of the passage in question
evidently is, tAst our Lord wss speaking
of the words of Divine truth under the
figures of bread and meat, flesh and
| blood.
Not having completed the discussion
and not wishing to burden your column:
with lengthy articles, we Will defer what
we have to say on the ordinance Of the
Lords Supper itself for another issue oi
/ your paper. LATIMER,