Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-13
Observation-Disclosures.
Rev. Father McEIligott Replies to Rev. Mr.
Dryden.

den wOul0 lnOeSO DC unduSheiauio ny iAS-
I had DIR. Adam Clarke's words before me
when penned my article published in
Tuesdays REGISTER. 1t was the state
ment contained in these words which in
duced DIR. Wissman 10 write his admirable
little volume in refutation Of the assertion
made by Clarke. The learned author
proved the assertion of Clarke TO be false
by producing over forty Syriac or
Syro- Chaldaic words Shich bear the
meaning of ito represent" ITO be figure
Of" &c. This answer appeared so over
whelmingly convincing that Horne, who
had copied Clarke, expuuged that asser-
ton from his seventh edition. He could
not do otherwise and preserve his reputa-
ton for honesty. DR.. Lee, professor oil
Oriental languages at Cambridge, in his
Prologomena to Bagster's Polyglot Bible,
acknowledges tina: his friend, Mr.. Horne,
was decidedly wrong in making such an
assertion. DIR. Wiseman's work appeared
in 1923; DR.. Adam Clarke died in 1882.
Had Dr. Clarke issued another edition of
his commentaries, j have no doubt
that he himself would have made like
correction. No word in Syriac to express
"to represent" etc Why, DIR. Wiseman
shows that st. Ephem, the oldest of the
Syrisc fathers, in his commentary on the
book of Deuteronomy, uses the substantive
verb ito be- only SIX times in the sense Of
ito represent" whilst he uses words mean
ing Ito be a figure OF, etc seventy times!
He also quotes Dionysius Bsrsalibaeus, an
old Syriac writer and not Catholic, who
uses this expression: "Tbey are called
and are the body and blood Of Jesus
Christ i'll truth and not figura
lively" He shows that the old Syriac
writers sometimes so crowd together words
and phrases signiiying figures, signs, DC (,
that it is impossible TO translate them into
any modern language Yet this is the Ian
gusge that has not even one such word J!
Joseph, interpreting dream, says:
THE seven kline are seven years." Daniel,
interpreting his vision, says: And the ten
horns are,ten kings" our Lord, interpreting
parable, says: "The field is the world;''
st. Paul, explaining the allegory upon
Hagar and Sarah, says: "These are the two
COVENANTS" st. John, explaining vision,
says: The seven stars are the angels Of the
seven churches" &C., &c therefore argues
Rev. Mr.. Dryden after DR.. Clarke, Oar
Lord, when not interpreting dreams, Wis
ions, allegories, or parallels, but institut-
ing the great Sacrament of the Christian
religion, must mean, when He says, This
is my body" "This is only an emblem of
my body!" Credat Judaeus Apollo non
ego. Rev. Mr.. ID. again insinuates that
Fsber's Difficulties of Romanism was writ
ten a. refutation of DR.. Wiseman's
work on the Eucharist. This is not
true. Faber's Preface will show
that it was written rs an answer
to Bishop Trevern's Amicable Discuss
ion. As matter OF fact, Wisemau's work
was published subsequently to Faber's
that is, the Horae Syriacse in 1923 aud his
Lectures at a still later date, whilst Faber's
Preface is dated September II, 1925 The
Philadelphia Edition of Faber (lS40) con-
tains no reference to Wiseman. But this
is of little importance, as it is his argu-
ment as alleged by Rev. Mr.. d, that l am
dealing with.
Wiseman says and says truly that two
material objects, cannot be identical"
This Rev. Mr.. ID l., after DR.. Clarke, pro-
nounces theological suicide. Indeed
This principle does indeed amply refute the
theory of Luther, who maintained that
the bread is the body OF Christ; but as the
Catholic Church teaches, that after the
conservation, the bread is no longer pres
ent, but the body of Our Lord; and as
therefore we do not identify two material
objects, tail to see the point of the
Clarke Dryden argument. Will Rev. Mr..
d. explain il?
Rev. Mr. D. says, 1.-THE Apostles ate the
body of Christ" and then he asks: "What
BODY did they eal?" As Christ has but
one body the question needs no answer
When Rev Mr.. d. reiterates his nom
sense about our crushing Christ's body and
crunching His bones, he should remem-
her the graphic picture he heard the Bishop
draw OF one like Rev. Mr.. ID. sitting in
the room where the Apostles were aSsem-
bled after Our Lords Resurrection, and
feeling his hair stand on end and his blood
run cold when he heard the tearing and
crushing of the Savior's flesh and the
crunchiug OF His homes as His body forced
its way through the impenetrable wood of
the closed doors Perhaps that was only
phantom Of body Or perhaps Rev.
Mr.. d. will deny that Christ could COM
municate to His body before His resur-
rectun qualities with which he aid
invest it after His resurrection! One thing
is certain that Rev. Mr.. d. will persist in
entertaining the crude notions Of the men
of Capharnaum about the manner in which
Christ is pleased 10 give us His flesh TO eat
and His blood to drink. Why, too, may
ak, does he in his commentary on John,
chapter VII, loose sight of the 9Th verse;
"After this" that is, after the pretended
explanation adopted by Rev. Mr.. ID +,
'many Of mis- disciples went back and
walked no more with Him" Msnifestly,
they were not OF Rev. Mr.. DPS opinion
for they abandoned Christ because they
pc rsisted in imagining, like Rev. Mr.. ID
that Christ could not devise any means by
which He would feed them on His own
flesh and hood, except by giving them that
flesh and blood in the gross manner of
common meat and drink.
In Rev. Mr. DPS first letter March 7th)
he says: This monstrous heresy tran
standardization originated in the
Council of Constautinople in 754, and the
first treatise published upon this subject
was that of Paschasious, IN Benedictine
monk in S3l. As,there was no Council held
at Constantinople in 754, that
part Of the statement must he
erroneous. In his lecture last Sunday Rev.
Mr. d. informed mis- hearers that it was
Pope Innocent III. who made the dogma
of ransubstantiation. Now, Innocent III.
was Pope from 1893 to 1916. Evidently
your readers, Mr.. Editor, will be some
what confused by statements seeming, at
least, 80 contradictory. But if Christians
of earlier ages did not believe that the
Eucharist was the true body Of Christ how
could the fathers have declared that it was
not only not sin to adore Chrst's flesh,
present in the Eucharist, but that it was q
sin not to adore it. See, amongst others,
st. Augustin, comment on Ninetieth
Psalm.
All that Rev. Mr. d. seys about Papal
iufallibility, etc, being irrelevant is pur-
p0sely passed over. Why will he thus fly
off from the subject? He himself says the
subject now under discussion is transub-
sanitation. Why then introduce Papal
infsllibility, the confessional, civil and re-
| ko T EI;tnr