Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1881-06-20

occurred 10 tne nina OF plOuS nun, engage
IN the somewhat dangerous pastime of lool
believes that last Thursday every processio
had the body and blood, bones and nerve
OF Jesus Christ; nay, they believe that ever
Sunday upon the altars of their churches ma
be found the body and soul of the Savior. Th
basis IN philosophy by which the churcl
has explained the dogma, is the exploded nc
tion of the middle ages, that to body ther
were certain accidents which could remain al
ter the body was essentially changed. Th
theory is not that after the consecratio
the appearance of the water only is present
but that the substance of the wafer is change
into the body and blood, bones and nerves
OF the Savior. The claim is, that the essenc
OF the bread is changed, but that the accident
of the bread remain. The worlds thought ha
no place to-day for any theory of absolute &C
cidents. It is utterly grotesque and fancifu
in an age of exact thought
Second-The theory may be scientificall
| shown to be false. We are asked not to mocl
at this dogma, because God is omnipotent
and could change the wafer as described.
In reply, say, we do not discuss the ones
divine transactions in the world is entlrel,
different. Miracles are worthless unless the
can be substantiated to the senses.
And this is true in any age. Th
eyes! which Christ cured were change,
in fact and FORM The bodie
which he raised from the dead could be differ
entlated from mere corpses. Miracles, in tht
time OF their working, were not draugh
upon faithSbut confirmation of it.
Faith was sometimes a prerequisite to
miracle, but a subsequent necessity. Here
all is changed; the wafer after its consecra
ton, has the same properties it had before
NO analysis, however minute, can disclose
shadow of difference. Here we have miracle
proposed to us which cannot be scrutinized
The burden Is too heavy to be borne. TIL,
divine method is wholly reversed.
If this doctrine be true, how different from
the treatment of Thomas, who was bidder
reach forth his hands and handle for himself
this dogma is proven scientifically false; fol
1t asserts the actual presence Of the bones ant
nerves of Jesus Christ, and the closest scruti
ny reveals after the conservation, just what
was there before, i. e., flour and water. It il
defiance of all culture, and no pretense o.
mystery or sanctity can shield the dogms
from the contempt it deserves.
No objection caa be urged against the sup
posed change, from the fact of a concealed
method in the change. The process of al
most no event can be completely traced We
do not, therefore, ask how this can be done
or demand any explication of the method
transformation takes place at all.
The Romanist usually puts up man oil
straw at this point, and appeals to the senti
ment of reverence.
say, take your man of straw away.
The point is this: You say you have upon
your altar the body and blood, bones and
nerves of Jesus Christ; chemistry says that
you have only flour and water believe the
chemist and not the priest.
Third-The appeal to scripture is fallacious
The institution of the Lords supper took
reveals its memorial character. His body was
not yet broken when he said: "Take, eat, this
is my body"
The symbolic character of Christ's words
may be clearly understood by his whole teach
ing method.
"He that receiveth you, receiveth me-" said
the master.
Not in substance surely, but in spirit.
"Where two or three are gathered there am
in the midst" not because wafer is turned
/ nto God but by his spiritual presence. And
as to the meaning of these passages there is
never any doubt, nor would there be of the
saying, "This is my body" except to bolster
up worn out superstition. just as plausi-
bly, could the sacrament of the vine be sup
ported from the words, II am the vine.''
A very pretty ceremonial might be gotten
up with a cOnsecrated vine, and the priests
fixed up as branches. / commend the sugges-
tion to the moonstruck fancies of some mod
ern Juliana. And then the "door" festival
might not be overlooked, from the words ~
am the door," Let Juliana try this. On the
basis of the tenth of John, a "sheep festival''
ought be worked, and that would fit in well to
the genius for procession. The Roman church
is Acknowledged to be pre-eminent for cere-
monials, and the possibilities are not by any
means exhausted.
All this will show you the absurdity of the
literal method of Interpretation, when fgura-
tive language is manifestly used. In addition
to the words used in the institution of the
Lords supper, the Romanists rely upon the
conversation recorded in the sixth chapter of
John: Except ye eat the flesh of the son of
yourselves. He that eateth my flesh and
drinketh my blood hath eternal life. And 1
will raise him up at the last day, for my flesh
is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed''
"Now," says the Romanist, "we accept the
words of Christ" Well, in the first place,
there is no good reason for thinking that these
words refer to the eucharist at all, for
they were not found in connection with
the Passover, but with a discussion of
the miracle of the loaves and fishes. But, in
the second place, if this does refer to the
IlpUS UuC hOudu CuulCu UGLY IL Ill DTdC-
tice in every communion, for this speaks of
the body and blood of Christ, but the Roman
church gives only the bread to the laity, and
withholds the cup, so that the laity of that
church are sure to go to hell, if the church is
right about this passage.
For centuries the Roman church gave the
cup to the laity, but withheld it, as they say,
because the wine was sometimes spilled.
Rather slight reason for Withholding the
real blood of Christ from the lips and heaven
from the souls Of the laity.
Suppose the real reason is to be found in
that constant movement in the Roman Catho-
lie church to exalt the clergy at the expense
of the laity.
But to recur to the text, we do not PROFOUND
the query of the Jews, as the Romanist af.
firms, Chow doth he say this?'' We only
read the entire chapter.
The disciples in their materialism and blind
ness had put upon the words the Romanist
Interpretation, and they murmured, "This is
a hard saying"
But Jesus Christ called them fiom their
grossness and their dullness, with the expla
nation: "It is the spirit that quickeneth; the
flesh profiteth nothing; the words that have
spoken unto you are spirit and are life." The
Romanist stops in the unenlightened and un-
taught condition OF the disciples. Would thai
they might push on to the great truth: "the
flesh profiteIh nothing"
Fourth The fathers are also brought forward
to support the Roman position. But that tht
fathers are conflicting and contradictory on
many points is admitted by the Romanists
They are not claimed to be infallIble by any
body. They are not as good judges of thes
matters as are modern scholars.
The world has a wealth of knowledge en-
tirely unknown to the days of the second
third and fourth centuries. l should rathe
trust DR.. Ellicott, or Cannon LiddeH, or DR.
Whedon, than Clement, or Origen, or Ter
tullian. There is great deal o
humbug about the right Of tn
fathers. So the Romanists hold that no doc
trine holds without the unanimous consent o
all the fathers. We will make short work o
this matter.
Says Tertullian: "Christ, taking bread an
distributing it to his disciples, made it hi
body, saying, this is my body; that is, tn
figure of my body."'
without the explanatory clause it woul