The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-02-27
die gMteLEiqsnteE.
oalssl 70. % ,sa 9, Y0art.sa.h s.Iss..
RIGHT RAY. pIsaoP KAN
Responds to ga Luthoran'b" Remarks on
TransubsIAatiAtIon.


Responds to "a Luthoran'S" Remarks OF
TFAnSubstAutiAtion.
10 " Rdhor Of hs IhislIis@Sn.
sR:-Ths Lutheran minister who fur.
nishsd the Communication contained In
this mornings INTELnaKNcER, charges me
with "coDfounding Luthsr's doctrine Of
the real presence with the Roman Oatho.
Lie doctrine Of TransubBtAntiation." This
charge l deny. In my lecture on last
Sunday evening, l stated the very reverse,
viz: that Luther denied characterization
and taught onsubstantiAtion-a statement
mean 10 repeat Tomorrow afternoon.
From what source did that minister derive
bis iniormRtionP Not certainly from any
published synopsis Of my lecture that I
have seen.
etsted Just what this minister himself
admits, namely, that Martin Luther held
and propsgGted the doctrine Of the real
presence Of Christ's body and blood in the
EuChsriAt. Your correspondent, however,
adds thGt the great body Of Lu!herans
throughout the world, still teach and con.
tess this same doctrine. OF this fact, 1
confess, was not certain.
But your correspondent only emphA-
sizes my argument; and for this thank
him. argued: Martin Luther persist
emily taught the real presence. Now,
ss the recognized leader Of that sixteenth
century movement to reform and purify
Christ's Holy Church, he cannot be sup.
posed by his admirers, the great bulk Of
Professionals, TO have taught doctrine
that Ii unScIipturRl, absurd, idolAtrous.
But 1t Is iu Just such terms. that the great
mass OF Protestants to-day qualify the
doctrine taught by,Martin Luther. The
puzzle then lie, was Luther TiEhtP-for II
so, modern Professionals are certainly
wIoDg. But II these are right, Luther was
wrong despite the glowing eulogies con.
slantly passed upon him as the heaven
inspired author OF the Reformation.
Y0ur correspondent has also advanced
several arguments in support OF consub.
sanitation, /. O., that both the bread and
the body OF Ohrist are present in tina
Eucharist. The Sacramentarians as we'll
az the Catholics denied this, for the very
good reason that Christ does not say, 'My
body is with this bread" but "this," this
thing hold in my hand, sis my body"
They justly argued that It was absurd TO
say, as Luther did, that the bread was his
body, since two material substances can.
not DO identified. II st. Paul calls the
Eucharist "bread," Catholics see no diff
Guilty in that expression, because the Sa.
crament retains all tho outward appear.
ances OF bread, and for that reason may
be called bread with Just as much pro-
priety as the angels in Gen. XIX. are called
men, because in outward appearance like
men. Our Lord himself tells us Just what
that bread is: "The bread that will give
is my flesh" But this Lutheran minister
must know that consistency was very little
priced by the founder OF his church.
Whilst Martin Luther invsighs very
strongly in some places against the doc.
trine Of trausnbstantiasion, at other times
he is willing to concede that this doctrine
may be held. shall quote only one sen.
tence in proof OF this assertion.
The edition Of Luther's works in my
library was published at jena A. D. 1900
In the ID Vol. p. 264 b. in the Treatise
on the Bsbyionish Captivity Of the
Church." after arguing ii favor Of CONSUL.
etantis.ion as sgsinst characterization.
he writes: ~ permit others, however, to
follow the other opinion, provided that
they do not urge us to accept their opin.
ions as srtiCles Of faith" This looks an II
Luther himself was not quito as posiLive
in his own views, aa the Grafton minister
would have the public to believe. When
have concluded my Lsnten course, my
hearers will be better able to judge
whether the qualification Of "snbtls
aophistry" Is a. applicable 10 the plain
teaching Of our church as tits to the vague
and absurd opinions Of some others.
'JoHN ]. KAHN,
Bishop Of Wheeling.
Rhctling, February %, 1888.