Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1888-04-16
TRANSFORMATIONS.
Rev. Father McEllIgott Replies 10 Rev.
MIR. Dryden.

10 GRc E0aeOT " ueS 1leytoteFs
SIR:-The Rev. Mr.. Dryden seems to
think that he cen palm off on your readers
O column of most irrelevant matter e. a
mastery refutation Of our doctrine Of the
Real Presence and Transubstantistiop He
imagines that your readers have not brains
enough to detect this gauzy imposition. He
is mistaken. The general reader has more
intelligence than Rev. Mr.. d. is willing to
credit him with. He is fully competent
to discriminate between sound reasoning
and coarse defamation. Before that class
of the reading public land they form the
great majority, place this condensed
statement of the Catholic position, and Of
Rev. Mr.. DPS Misrepresentation, inaccu-
rscies and contradictions The Holy
Eucharist must contain Christ's true body
and blood, together with His soul and Di-
vinity; for in that case only does it fulfill
the most solemn typical obseryapces of the
Old Law. II, for instance, the Jewish Pas.
cal feast was, as Rev. Mr.. D. himself ad
mits, a typical sacrifice, pointing out the
Lamb of Gcd slain for the remission of
sins, the Eucharist must be one contain
ing that very Lamb so slain for
our Precipitation; and not the
substitution Of one figure for
another; bread and wine for the Pascal
lamb. If the Jews had the shadow, we
must have the reality foresbadowed. Every
allusion made in the New Testament to the
Lords Supper represents it to Us, not as
figure, but as the reality Of Chrlst's body
and blood. "Unless you eat the flesh of
the Son Of man, and drink his blood"
&c ; Take and eat: This is my body
This is my blood" so speak all the
sacred Egangelists st. Paul uses the same
lsngusge, denouncing as worthy Of damna
ton, those who profane the body and blood
of Christ in this Sacrament. Whilst there
fore the Catholic doctrine rest on the
plain and oft-repested declarations of the
word Of God, the opponents ofthis doctrine
resort for arguments to some incidental
word or phrase, in which properly ex-
planned, Catholics can zee no cuntradic-
ton whatever to the simple dec.
laTations Of the Inspired writers.
Then there is the unanswer
able historical argument. which at
tests the fact that such has been the be-
lief Of the Christian Church from Apps
tolic days; the most learned Protestsnts,
! like Grotius, Leibnitz &c, bear
ing testimony that all the early
! Liturgies contain this doctrine, and
thereby certify to the faith of the first
Christians as shown in their solemn ser
vices There is, too, the fact that at this
day, for one Christian who denies the Real
! Presence, there are more than four who
believe it. Here is an array Of proofs on
which the Rev. Mr.. Dryden's coarse de-
estimation Cf intelligent and conscientious
Christian readers. Has not Rev. Mr.. D.
shown himself TO be in bad faith
throughout this controversy? Let
us see. Having been brought
to task for misrepresentiug our doctrine
by asserting that priests claim the power
of changing the bread into the soul and
divinity Of Christ, he cody asks your
readers whether they can see any differ
euce between these two propositions:
Bread is changed into the flesh of Christ"
and BREAD is changed into the Divinity
into God?" Such question never sprang
from an honest mind or heart. Fully
aware of the Catholic doctrine, that
though Christ's body is really present in
the Eucharist, it is present not in a ma
ural but supernatural manner, he
continues to argue as If We b.
lieved just the reverse, and that
consequently we must bruise and tear His
sacred body in the sacramental manduca-
ton. IA this honestP II Rev. Mr.. D. as
serts that material object cannot be pres-
ent in more places than one, at the came
time, be contradicts the ableSt scientists of
our day. Is he their superior in kaowl-
edge2 He tries 10 throw dust into your
readers eyes by referring again to DR..
Wisemsn's theological suicide. Let us
put his learned argument into the form of
ssyllogism. Two material obj ects cannot be
identical; (Wiseman'sprinciple). But in the
Eucharist, the bread is transubstantiated
into the body OF Christ, so that after the
conservation the material substance of
bread no longer exists, but is replaced by
the substance OF Christ's body. The
Church's doctrine Therefore, concludes
Rev. Mr.. D., according to our doctrine the
bread and the body of Christ are identified,
they are one and the same material Oh
iect. He greately undertakes the intelli-
geuce OF your readers, Mr.. Editor, if he
fancies he can make them be-
lieve that his conclusion flows from
the premises given. Can he be in
good faith when he argues after that
manner? He once told the readers of the
REGISTER that our doctrine originated in
the year 75i; now, without word of
apology, be tells tn m it originated in 1915
"a mistake Of only 46l years. Conld
man as familiar as Rsv. Mr.. ID. is with the
growth ard development of Christian doc
trine, have made such a blunder through
Ignorance ] was aware that pseudo
synod was GonYoked in 75i by the IconO-
elastic Emperor Constantine OOprouymus,
and that its proceedings were condemned
by the Seventh General Council held
in 7S7. Not single patriarch
could be induced to attend this meeting
But this is not Ia our point! Did ever
that go called Synod introdtlaa tlh.aisub-
stantistisE, or did i- mol? VIII Rev. Mr..
u. give elessn-cut answer Will he con-
dsSseHS1 TO remove from your readers the
and tell for certain which is the true dsts
of the introduction into the church OF this
monstropa Eeresy? Was it 75i, or was it
12l5f Or was the SyRGd of ?24 speaking,
after all, by proxy through Innocent III.
in 1875? Again, with tina proofs before
his eyes which Oriental scholars
have for half century accepted a. most
rsfutiug the assertion Of DR.
Adam Clarke, viz. Tbat in the oriental
languages no word or form OF wards is
found to express certain idea, yet he con-
tinues to parade that false assertion, OF
which itH authors, were they living o,day,
would bS keertily ashamed. Is this
mark Of honest argsmeatation-of good
faith? Rev Mr.. d. asserts that Martin
Luther II jected the heresy of ,ransubstan
tiation. Did Luther regard it as heresy
"A nonstgous heresy which none but
the ignorant and supersttious pretend TO
believer II go, the Rev. Mr.. d. must
brand the founder Of protestanism with
gro. sest hypocrisy; for he writer, de Cap
Bah, that be permits that opinion to be
held provided it is not urged as an article
of fsith. Was Rev. Mr.. DIS assertions
made through ignorance or bad faith? The
Rev. Mr.. Dryden IL msSi unfortunate
when he attempts (which he has TSrely
done to lay down any positive teaching
~