The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-02-27
THE SECOND LECTURE
ABOUT NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS.,
OF the Loutsn Course. Delivered by 1t. Rev.
BiShOp Knin Yesterday Afternoon.
What Luther and Calvin Thought.
Catholic Doctrine OOutraStsd.

body in the Lords Supper.
Bishop Kahn first gave short resume Of
the first lecture, in which "LutherS SIREN
uous and persistent advocacy Of Christ's
bodily presence in the Lords Supper" had
been exposed. Hence 1t was inferred that
Protestants have almost universally de-
parted in this point OF doctrine from the
faith Of him whom they all recognize IS
ths loader in the work they qualify as
the glorious Reformation Of the church OF
Christ. But, remarked the Bishop, Luther
and his co.workers soon realized that It
was far easier to protest against the au.
thority Of the Roman Catholic Church
than il was to establish any other system
TO supplGnt 1t.
at was not long before the disintegrst-
| ing principle, introduced by the retormers
a. he conversions Of their new religions,
was found to produce its necessary con-
sequences. II the Bible were the only rule
Of faith, what right had Luther or
any other reiormer to claim obedience to
his own interpretations Every doctrine
began to be criticised, queltioned, denied.
No wonder the mystery OF Chists
real presence shared the fate
Of every other scriptural tecching.
Il was now Luther's time to protest
against what he did not hesitate to brand
as glazing innovations on the time
honored faith Of Christians and downright
hsresies against the teachings oil Gods
Holy Word. In this, oil course, he was
guilty Of manifest contradiction; since
those who dared to differ from Doctor
Martin Luther were only acting out con.
sistently the fatal principle which he HIM
self had endorsed. Some few Of the many
strange interpretations given to the words
| Of Christ in the institution Of the Lords
Supper by those who opposed the teach.
fngs Of Luther, will be exposed ct the
close Of this lecture; but arst Of all let the
Catholic doctrine be clearly set forth.
The Catholic Church has ever taught
that by the words OF blessing or Go1seCEa.
ton pronounced by duly ordained priest,
the substance OF the bread Is changed into
the substance OF the body Of Ohrist-a
change called tranauhssantlatioR. Che re-
pudistes the absurd notion her enemies
have not Dlushed 10 impute to her, viz:
that the bread Ia converted into the gonl
and even into the divinity OF Christ. OF
course the whole Christ must be present,
wherever his body is; but this Is not the
effect OF transubstautiation, but Of bis In.
carnshou. The inCsegalt traDsmutati0ns
Of one substance into another going on in
nature, aye, in man himself, are like 80
many protestations against those who pre-
tend that such substantial changes are
impossible. But, 1t is objected, do not
our senses testify that even after the con-
seCration they can discover nanght but
what they detected bstoreP Yes, and
thus far their testimony ia true. For the
senses witneas to only the external quail.
ties or outward appearances, not to the
reality that underlies these appear
sDcas. But the church teaches precisely
what tho senses te1tity, viz: that the eI.
ternal phenomena are those ot.bEead and
wine; or as the Catechlsm puts it: The
sacrament Is the body and blood oil Christ
under the species or appearances Of
bread and vine. II ID our reason which
draws the inference that where certain
external qualities are perceived byl
the sensss, under sucn qualities
there must be such or such sub.
stance or reality. But in the case
OF this sacrament, Christs own
explicit declaration stops in to correct the
Judgment our reason would otherwise be |
Justified in pronounCiug, and warna Us |
that here the underlying substance Is no |
longer bread, but his own body. Looking
on Chriat's human form, men we're right |
in concluding on the testimony Of their |
senses that He was man; but II they had |
disregarded the convincing evidences He |
gave Of His divinity, and further inferred
on the testimony oil their senses, that He
was mere man, they would have erred
against their own reason. So with the
ChrlstiNn who believes. Christ to be God
bis enlightened reason dictates the imper-
alive duty Of accepting Christ's word:
This is my body rather than his own
Judgment: 'This Is only bread A COM
mon objection still heard among the IN.
learned Is, that no body can be in two
places, much less in many places, at
the same time. This objection rests
OF course upon the now exploded notion
that extension is identical with, or at least
essentisfto all bodies. But where Is the
philosopher to-day OF any repute, whether
in the school Of physics or Of
metaphysics, who holds such a
theory2 On the contrary, all
sgree that unextended ioIcs Is the very
essence Of all substances. This being Rd-
mitted, where Is the impoesibility or alb.
surdity Of Christ's natural body being In
many places at the same time2 Lswes,
himself, ! think, an agnoStiO, says in his
Philosophy, p. AS: at has been said that
the Creator Himself could not make
body without extension, for such body
is impossible. The phrase should be:
SUCH body Is impossible for Us to con.
ceiVe.' But our iHdissouble associations
are no standards Of reality. That we can
not conceive body without extension 10
true, but that, because we cannot con-
ceive 1t, the contrary must be false, is pre-.
posterous.' Moreover, In the Holy Sac.
rament, it Is not the natural, but the
glorihed body OF Christ that ia present.
Can anyone who believes st. Paul's de-
scription (Cor. iv, 42-44) doubt that our
own bodies, when Rloriled, will have this
same prerogativs?
"As stated last Sunday, Luther, willis!
insisting on the real presence Of Christ's
body In the Eucharist, denied that 1t was
present after the manner taught by the
Catholic Church, f.e., by trauguhstanttatto1
or the conversion ofthe bread and wine into
the body md blood Of Christ. He main
tanned that there was no change wrought
in the conseerated elements; that the body
OF Christ and the bread were both present.
As long as he said that the body Of Christ
was with, in or under the breed, his
teaching was Ineligible, though not con.
tanned In. the words OF the Institution, as
Zuinglians and Catholics urged against
him. But when, az in the Articles Of
smAlcaId, he identifies our Lords body |
with the bread and teaches that the bread
is Ohrist's body, his assertion must appear
to most pernons manifest contradiction.
Between the ohurch's doctrine Of trausub.
sanitation and Luther's coEeubstantla.
ton, there Ia wide difference. By our
doctrine, there Is q real change Of sub.
stance; by the Lutheran doctrine there 10
no change, for the bread still remains; by
our doctrine there Is only one substance
present, and that Ia the BnhRtanna Of JaBug