Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-16
REV. NJ. F. DRYDEN,
His Sixth Lecture Upon the Doctrine ,
Transubstantiation.

|
cred the sixth Of bic series of Sunday even
ing lectures, to his congregation. Follow
ing is the full text of bis discourse:
Wecome now to resume the argument on
the subject Of Transubstantistion which
was begun in our lsst lecture. Those who
teach this dogma claim in support Of their
peculiar views the authority of the Bible
and the unanimous consent Of the Fathers
As Protestants we deny their claim and
call upon them for the proof, and until the
proof is furnished we shall be compelled to
hold that their teaching upon this subject
is false aud heretical. ! cite here the Lam
guage Of the Council of Trent, at decrees,
that no one, relying on his own skill shall
presume to interpret the said
sacred Scripture contrary to that sense
which holy mother Church, whose 1t Is to
Judge of the true sense and Interpretation
of the Holy Scriptures, hath held and doth
hold; or even contrary TO the unanimous
consent Of the Fathers" Now 1t is evil
dent 10 everyone that those who teach the
corporal presence" Of Christ In the holy
Eucharist, if they would establish their
position and make good their boast
ed claim must show couciuslveiy
that they have upon this subject the
authority of Gods word and the unani-
nous consent Of the fathers. II 1t can be
shown that this doctrine is unscriptural,
then it follows that their teaching must
be rejected as false. Again, if it should
be granted that they have upon this sub
ject the authority of the scripture, and
this we deny if they have not alss the I'M
animous consent OF the fathers, then &C.
cording TO their own rule, their claim falls
to the ground unsupported. But we have
already shown that the doctrine OF Chrisrs
corporal presence" is nowhere to be found
in the Bible, and before We proceed fur
Their, let us sum up the Scripture proof al
ready adduced. Aud frat, we have shown
that when the Saviour uttered the words
of the institution this is my body" this
is my blood" that he used a common
figure of speech, which, because OF the
barrenpess Of the language he was coin
PEELED TO employ in order to be uuter-
stood by bis disciples Aud as DR.. Clarke
has been cited by the other side, l shall
here produce his testimony upon this
point. shall quote from new edition
of "Clarks's Commentary" which con-
taus the final corrections made by the au-
thor. In commenting on the words of
the institution as recorded By st, Matthew,
he says, "But let it be observed
that, in the Hebrew, Cbaldee and Chaldeo-
Syriac languages, as used in the Bible,
there is no term which expresses to mean,
signify, denote, though both the Greek
and Latin abound with them; hence the
Hebrews nee figure and say lit is" for
"it siguifies." Then the author adds,
"That our Lord neither spoke Greek nor
Latin, on this occasion, needs no proof
1t was, most propably, in what was
formerly called the Chaldaic, now the
Syriac, that our Lord conversed with his
disciples" He then refers to the fact that
we have complete versions Of the Gospel in
this language, and in them most probably
the precise words spoken by the Master on
this occasion. Aud now offer the words
of the Syriac version. Aud here they are,
haaau pdsree, this is my body" handu
dtmee," This is my blood" Now these
are the words of the Syiiac version, and
the Greek is verbal translation. And
the Saviour, speaking in the vernacular Of
the people, used these words to express
this represents my body" and this
represents my blood" And while we are
quoting from Dr. Clarke it would be in
point to add that the author has shown
in this connection that the Syrian Church,
on the Malabar coast, never held, or
even heard Of the doctrine Of transubstan-
tiation till 1899. when Don Alexis Menezss
and the Jesuit Fransic Reg invaded that
church and by the most shameless tricks,
brides and impostuIes forced upon the pso
pie, already severely oppressed, the mon
strous dogmss of Rome. But We return to
the subject, and realfirm that the language
Of the Saviour is q figure, and that those
who hold the contrary must face the insur- .
mountable difficulties growing out of a
literal Interpretation. They say that on
the occasion of the institution the disciples |
ate the Lords body. And if so, then what
body2 II could not have been tie body |
which was then before them. How could |
the disciples believe they were eatirg a /
body, consisting of blood, bones, sinews,
&c, when ut the same time they saw the !
Master before them? How could they cat .
his glorifed body before He had assumed
it? For st John says Jesus was not .
yet glorifed." These are only few of
the endless difficulties to be explained
by the advocates of Christ's corporal
presence" We have clearly shown
that the conversation of our Lord,
as recorded in the sixth chapter OF
John is TO be interpreted according to the
6}rd yerse where Christ declares his Ian
guage to be figurative, He said 81. il the
Spirit that quickeneth; the flesh prod.eth
nothing; the words that speak unto you,
they ore spirit, and they are life" This
was regarded as the key to the
eutire passage by Tertullian, Or
igen, st. Jerome, Eusebius aud
SSheerss, whose Testimony we have already
And its quite evident to every
one that the Church Of Rome in rejecting
the opinion and teaching of these fathers
violates the very rule Of faith which she ,
has set up and Of which she 20 arrogautly ,
boasts And 30 far as the writings Of st.
Paul are concerned, the Apostles testi-
mony contradicts and completely over
turns the doctrine of characterization
For after reciting the words of the institu-
ton in the eleventh chapter of !. Corin-
thiaus, three times the APOSTLE speaks Of
the bread as bread, and OF the wine, as
the cup. And certainly he could not
have used this Language had he believed
that the elements we're changed into the
body and blood Of Christ Then
accepting the word OF God as the only {
sufficient and iufallible rule OF 4
faith, as Protestants we are compelled {
to iect such teaching as having no claim
upon our faith. And as DR.. |
Wiseman has been set up az prodigy of
learning, it would be well to remind the {
public in this connection, that DR.. Wise.
man has been met and conquered on his
own ground and with his own weapons. s
As proof cite the words Of George STAN {
ley Fsber. He says: at is curious
in the history Of the human ,
mind, that go clever man az DR.. Wise
nan shoqld have such an extraordinary
prop misty to theological selEdestruction." {
DR.. Wisemsn admitted the principle, that
Two material objects could not be identi-
al. Then it follcws, that the msteri Il
bread in the Eucharist could rot be iden- I
.ical with the material body of Christ.
And on this point Fsber wisely remarks,
IN the question Of Characterization, {
haa ,,,slxl fh..1on.n,l