Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-09
THE FIFTH
[oontiaasd from FoxrtA Page.l

original construction of the sentence. Who
can think for q moment, that the Saviour
meant to say, ''This body Is My bodY?
And how could the disciples believe they
were eating the body Of Christ, when they
saw Him before theu? And If 81 st. Paul
informs Us, the bread represents the
''6rokm body OF Christ, how was it posi-
bic for the disciples to believe that they
were eating His broken body and shed blood
while the Saviour was still alive? But
they tell Us it is the Sayiour's gtOrgfed
body that il eaten in the Sacrament But
what are we 10 understand by the "glOri-
ned body' of Christ? Evidently the
''glorifed body was the body which the
Saviour assumed after bis resurrection and
before or at the time Of His ascension. Then
how was il possible for the disciples to eat
His ''gloriAed body" before His cruciixion
and resurrection? 1t is evident TO every
one that at this time the Master had no
glorifed body to be eaten. For st. John
expressly says that ''Jesus uds not gel
slOrifed." These are only q few Of the
many difficulties which must be met by
those who insist upon a literal ~interpreta-
ton.
II is, indeed, blasphemous to suppose
that the disciples crushed thu body Of
Christ with their teeth and swallowed his
flesh and blood down their Threats, and
yet this they must have done if the doctrine
of trapsubstantiation be true. Then, 50
far as the words Of the institution are con.
eerned, we can reach but one conclusion.
The language is a figure, and the bread and
wine were employed by the Saviour to
represent his saerificial death upon the
cross, where his body was to be broken and
his blood to be split for "the remission OF
sins" It was bread that the Saviour took,
blessed aud broke. 1t was this bread that
he gave TO his disciples. IL was bread and
gins that the disciples received, and they
ate the bread and drank the piRe. We
find nothing here in support of the doc
trine Of transubstantiatioD, but on the
contrary there is abundant evidence OF the
truth OF Protestant teaching upon ths sub
ject. But again, we are referred t the
sixth chapter of the Gospel according 10
st. John. 1t is asserted that this passage
supports the peculiar views of the Romish
Church on the subject ofthe holy Eucharist.
And if upon examination We find this to
be true, then We shall be compelled
to acknowledge the truth and accept the
situation. The passage of Scripture cited
is the conversation which our Lord had
with the inhabitants Of Capernapm. Aud
while some Roman Catholic teachers cite
this chapter in proof of their doctrine,
they seen to forget that many OF their
most prominent and able writers deny that
this passage has any reference to the Eu-
charist whatever. Albsrtinus, in his work
on the Eucharist, book / page 800, men
tons no less than thirty OF that church
who reject the appl cation of this chapter
to the subject under consideration. And
in the list which he gives he names tro
Popes, four Cardinals, trO ArChbistopl,
fire Bishops, and a number of doctors and
professors Of divinity. We can well uu.
derstand why some Romanists should seek
to eyade the torcs Of this passage, for it
not only upsets the practice Of ''commun-
ion in n kind, " but it overturns the doc
trine Of Christ's corporal presence" in the
holy sacrament. But while some in that
Church deny its application others admit
it, and offer it in evidence of the real
presence" II / mistake not, q certain
Catholic prelste OF our city recently
spent an hour and Q half
in ~leoturipg upon this conversation Of
Christ, and upon it, he constructed on
argument in support of the dogma Of his
church. Then let Us glancs at this pas
sage of scripture and see whether we can
hud here any traces oftrsnsubstantiation.
The Saviour had fed the five thousand
with the lo1ves and fishes, aad when they
saw this wonderful miracle, they s id
This is ofa truth, that prophet that should
come into the world" And the people
who witnessed this miracle were about to
take the Master by force AMI make him
king, but when Jesus perceived this. he
sent his disciples away in q boat, and he
vent up into q mountain alone. And we
are told that on the following day the
Of Christ. They found him on the oppo'
site side Of the sea with his disciples.
And when he saw the crowd be SAID, "Ye
seek me, not because ye saw the miracles,
but because We did est OF the loaves, and
were filed" He then said to the people
''Labour not for the meat which perisheth,
but that meat which endureth unto ever
lasticg life" He then referred to the
mauna with which their fathers were fed
10 the wilderness, and ia this conuec-
ton declared himself to be the
dread Of life.n He said to them
''tha bread that ] will give is my lesh,
which / will give for the lie Of the world"
The Saviour made reference here to His
sacrifGial death; the giving OF himself
upon the cross for the 'Iife Of the world"
But, we are told, the Jews strove among
themselves aud said: How can this man
give US his fish TO eat?" Our Lord saw
that they had misinterpreted His words,
hut instead of stopping to explain He add
ed, Except 20 cat the flesh Of the Son Of
man and drink His blood, We have no life
in you" 'For my flesh is meat indeed,
and my blood is drink indeed" And
MANY Of His disciples who heard this said:
This il q hard saying; who can hear itP"
The difficulty which the Jews here expert
eneed grew out OF the fact Of a literal in
ter probation. They supposed that they
were to eat the real flesh Of Christ aud
drink His blood. But it is evident that
the Ssviour's languages here, as elsewhere,
il fguratiye. He was speaking Of the ben
eits of His atonement, which are offered
to ia in the Gospel and are to he received
By faith. He uses the terms bread"
meat, :" ''eat" and drink" in a figura'
tive sense, and this He expressly declares.
He says, HE that cometh to me shall
never hunger and ''he that believeth
in me shall never thirst" He does
not say, He that eate:h my flesh
shall never hunger" and he that
drinketh my blood shall never thirst"
He says "he that cometh to Me" and ''hs
that believeth on Me-" shall never hunger
ard thirst. Now it il evident that the
terms never hunger" add never thirst"
have a spiritual Specification, then it fol-
lows that the ''edting' and drinking" are
spiritual acts. But again He says As the
living Father hath sent Me and / lire by
the Fdtker: 30 he that eateth Me, even he
shall live by Me-" Now He sfirms that
as He Lives by the Father" so we are to
live by Him. Bat how does Christ 'live
By the Father" He lives by His union
with the Father; for He says ~ am in the
Father, and the Father in Me-" So, in
like manner the Christian receives spirit
usl life and strength, not by eating His
flesh and blood in the Eucharist, but by
union with Christ, and this spiritual union
is set forth under the figure of the vine and
the branches. His command is abide in
Nc ~ and He add ttso shal We be NV dis