Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-12
TRANsUBsTANTIATION.
Rev. Mr. Dryden Replies to Rev. Father
McEnigott.

|
John McElEgott, criticising my lecture on
the subject of transubstantiation, which
was published in the REGISTER on the 9Th
ard 10th. And this criticism was followed
by another from the same gentleman on
the 18th inst. And now with your per-
mission shall reply to these structures OF
Mr.. Nee. Bat l would ask first for my
friend Bishop K. What has become Of
John ]. Kahn, Bishop of Wheeling? Has
he recovered from his severe illness? |
suppose he is still indispossd and has called
upon Mr.. McElligott to take his place.
Mr.. McElligott's criticisms are about as for
chile as Mr.. K. g logic. In considering the
words used by our Lord in institutiog the
Eucharist, / affirmed that his language
was figurative. j showed that when he
said This is my body" This is my
blood" he used Q common figure
of speech, which we are told
By scholars, he was compelled to
use because of the barrenness of the
Language in which he spoke. But Mr.. Nee.
informs the public that DR.. Wiseman has
proved to the world that this is false. l
would answer that he proved this to be
false, in the same way that he proved
Reconsideration to be true. DR.. Wise
man admitted the principle that two ma
terra, objects cannot be identical. Then 1t
follows that the material bread in the Eu-
charist cannot be identical with the mate
rial body Of Christ. And on this point
Faber says 'Dr. Wiseman has committed
q theological suicide" The same author
adds: Zone attempt OF this suicidal de-
scrip;ion, which respects the discourse at
Capernaum shall hereafter have occasion
to notice" And he also mentions another
attempt of The same description made by
Dr. Wiseman in writing on the words OF
the institution. Certainly a man who has
such a propensity to theological self
destruction is indeed poor authority on any
subject.
Bat Mr.. Nee. Gays that DR.. Wiseman
has shown the position taken by DR..
Adam Clarke and Others TO be false
would remind that gentleman that
Dr.. Clarke has never made theological
attempt upon his own life. And now /
shall quote DR.. Clarke upon this subject
aud let the public judge whether my point
was well taken. In commenting on the
words of the institution "a recorded by st.
Matthew he says: "But LET it be observed
that in the Hebrew, Chaldee and Chaldeo-
Syriac languages, as used in the Bible,
there is no term which expresses to mean,
| signify denote, hence the Hebrews use
figure, and say 1T is for it signifies. -
He then cites numerous passages of scrip
ture whtre this figure is thus employed
"TEe seven kline are Ii. e. represent) seven
years." "Fhe ten harns are Ii c. represeut)
ten kings" &c. He also adds: "In Matt
1926, 81, the words in the Syriac version
are 'kanau pagree,' This is my body,
'hanau demee,' This is my blood Of
which forms of speech the Greek is YER
bal translation; nor would any man, even
in the present day, speaking i'll the same
language, use other terms than the
above to express, This represents my
body, and this represents my
blood?" And now let the public
decide whether Mr.. MCE. 8 criticism is TO
be regarded as having any force. The
gentleman snys misrepresented the teach
ing of his Church on this subject. He
denies that Catholic priests have power TO
change bread and wine into the soul and
divinity of Christ, but declares that they
are able to change bread and wine into
His body and blood. Now suppose we &C.
cept the gentleman's explanation, does
this relieve the difficulty I need not say
that the Apostles claimed no such power.
St. Paul, in the 18th chapter of CORN
thisns, after reciting the words Of the
institution, three times speaks of the bread
as bread, and the wine as the cup. 1t is
quite evident that the Apostle knew moth
ing of that mOnstrous change Of elements
taught by the Church of Rome. They tell
US that the disciples ate the Lords body
in the Eucharist. But what body did
they eai? 1t was certainly not the body
that stOOdsbefore them. How could the
disciples take the body of Christ in their
hands, crush it with their teeth and swal-
low it down their threats while the
Saviour was still alive? And how could
they eat His broken body before the cruel
fxiOn? And how could they eat His glori-
fed body before He assumed il? For ST.
John expressly declares that Jesus was
not yet glorifed" No, the Romish Church
can never explain these difficulties. The
most that she can hope to do is TO take pos
session of the minds and COusciences of men
and thus force upon them her monstrous
teaching. The dogma oftransubstantiatiOr
like the dogma of infsllibility, outrages
reason and common sense. / turn TO the
Roman Catholic catechism and find these
questions and answers: oath question,
what do we learn from this answer"
Answer, That those only who teach and
believe as the Pope does belong TO the
Church of Christ" Question 18th, Are we
bound to believe in the infalhbility of the
Pope" Answer, eve are bound to believe
this article of faith as firmly as any other
article; to deny it il the sin of heresy -
Romanists claim that their Church is infal-
lible, but when they come to determine the
seat of iufallibility they are hOpeleS sly d.
vided. Some place it in the Pope, others
in the Council without the Pope, Others in
the Council with the Pope at its head, aud
Others in the church as q whole. And
yet, with unblushiDg impudence, they
profess to believe one and the same thing.
Was Honorius infallible? Forty-two years
after the old mans death he was con-
demned as q hereto by the Council Of
COnstantinople, held A. d. $50. And Du
Pin in bis ecclesiastical history, vol. III D.
16, says: This will stand for Ger
tain, then, that HOnorius was con-
demned, and Justly, too, as a
hereto by the sixth General Council"
But it is said by some in reply, "Houorius
was deceived in that matter, " but this only
proves that he was not infallible. Again,
1 ask, how could those pops be infallible
who confirmed the DEGREES OF Constance and
Basil, when the DEGREES of these Councils
maintain that Popes are fallible, and that
Council has superiority over Popes? Aud
yet We are told the Pope is infallible, and
that the Roman Catholic Church cannot err.
If she teaches that bread and wine are
changed into the real flesh aud blood OF
Christ, We must not stop to question her
teaching, but accept the mODstrous heresy
and believe it. But Mr. McE. informs US
that Martin Luther, the founder of Prot
estantism, always maintained hat the
doctrine of Christ's corporal absence from
the Holy Eucharist is unscriptural and
her.tical." answer that Martin Luther
never had the brsz.n impotence 10 claim
4 ,f.ll 4 Ia l.