The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-03-07


OF AYius, that Cbrist's divinity was de-
fned; but no orthodox Christian tmSg;;
ines that even before that definition and
from the very beginning, the divinity Of
Chris. WIS not believed. The aane 10
true OF the real preten and trAngub;,
stantiation. When. these doctrines bad
been denied, the Church so!emnly de:
fined them, and placed the brand oil
beresy on the opposite teachings.
seCond-The lengthy exposition given
by "a Lutheran" Of Luther's teaching, is,
90 far SO 1t Soee, almost word for word q
repetition Of my own exposition Of his
teaching. 1t certainly confirms my own
pointed inference that the great mass Of
Plotestants to-day do not hold the doc
lrine Of the real presence taught 80
s.reuuouHly by him, whom they honor as
the leader in the go.called Reformation,
and It only emphasizes my question:
"Why have they rejected 1t"
Third-Itis not easy to SEQ in what re-
speCt his doctrine as thus expounded diff
iers from what Ia understood by consult
stanigtiou, which, in previous commupt.
cations, ! have not only defined bnE do.
scribed. Therefore, Ghsll not repeat. l
did not inpute to Luther, Osisndet's alb
surd doctrine OF q hyposiGtiC union be-
tween the euGharistiC bread and the saCrG.
mental body Of Christ; for this Luther re-
pudiated. But your correspondent seems
10 reject the term ConsubstantiRtioD solely
on tue ground that at implies cirCum.
ecribed or local inclusion" Let us avoid
"subtle sophistries." Did Luther Rttfih.
ute ub.quity to ChrisPs body2 II 80, IL
this to be UNDERWOOD in this seDB8
that Chtist's body is everywhere present,
and not only in, or under, or with the
Euchsristic bread? II this be go, what is
the special purpose or advantage Of The
sacramentsl presence Of that Sacred body?
II not, then the proposition that OhrisL's
body is really present together with the
broad, must CiTCumscribs that presence
and Con6ue 1t to the consecrated elo'
ments. Otherwise, it seems to me, that
VIC could say OF an unconsecrated loaf Of
bread put upon the altar, that Christ's
body was with, in, under it just Rs truly
as we could predicate tho presence Of his
body with, in or under the coDseCrated
elementE.
Fourth-There are, however, two per-
tinent remarks wish to make in refer
enCe to Luther'g doctrine. Frat, Luther
taught not only that tho body Of Christ Is
with the bread, but that the bread is
Ohrist's body. He Gays: ~ firmly be-
lieve, not only that the body OF Christ is
in the bread, bat that the bread is the
body Of Christ" de Gap. Bsb,) Such,
too, Is the teaching OF the sixth article OF
smalCald. Does not this mean that the
two substances, the substance Of bread
and the substance Of Ohtist's body are
as it were, welded into
one substance, as iron and FIRE are com.
mingled by heat? My illustration is
L1ther's, SO that he seems TO admit this
My second remark is that
in his work, De Cap. Bah, Luther several
times allows that the Catholic doctrine Of
tranaubatantistion may be held. Is this
not equivalent 10 an admission that his
own teaching may be erroneous?
Fitth-Your correspondent Is no doubt
fully aware that by teaching transubstan-
tiation, tho Catholic Church does not a3.
sumo, any more than Lutherans do, to
solve the mystery-how Christie body is
present in the Eucharint.
Certainly It is not there In It's natural
state, but in some supernatural manner
transcending the powers OF man to con.
ceiVe. II Professionals, in eRrnesssearCh OF
our doctrine, would consult our own
standard works, such as the CateChiBm Of
the Council oil Trent, they would discover
that our doctrine is something very differ
emit from tho crude, grose, CRrnsl notions
they not unirsquently impute to us. The
contains indeed the very body
Of Christ, but present Tin supernatural
and indispensable manner" It the came
body that set at defiance the physical lava
oi grsyilation by walking on the water and
Of impenetrsbility by passing, as spirit,
through the stone vault OF the sopulchre
and the closed doors. II is Ohrist'a true
but glorihed body, setting now at defiance,
he laws OF space and extension. It Ia, II |
you choose, his EpiriLuRliZsd body that is |
,iyeM and eaten in the Holy Eucharist |
But this ia, Of course, 3 very different
hing from eating his body, Ga some will
have II, spiritually or by faith. How
here can be such q spiritual eating Of |
Jhrist's sbasnt body, it Ia hard to imagine.
L Is manifegtly absurd to talk about per-
orming the bodily acts Of eating and
thinking by any operations Of the mental
II spiritual faculties. The sacrament 10
eaten, that is taken by the mouth for sul-
enance, whether spiritual or corporal,
matters not, l ask communicate, who
las eaten the sacrament: "Hsvs you
,aten the body OF Christi" He says,
Yes" remark, "Then that body was
'eally present and taken into your mouth"
He answers: mo" "Dld yon thon est
ghat was not really present and received
nto your mouth2' He answers me,
Yes, but II was eaten by faith" Ire
mark that faith ia belief, and belief 10 not
,ating. l can understand what 1t is to
believe by faith, and what It Is to eat by
he mouth; but never could understand
Vhat eating by believing meant, and
FEVER found any person who could ex.
,lain what it meant. l easily conceive
hat God can change the bread into the
,ody Of Christ, leaving still the appear
mes OF bread to the new substance; when
receive that sacrament, cat the body Of
Jhrist. l can conceive the Lutheran doc
rins which requires also the power Of God
o place the body OF Christ together with
he bread; the Lutheran can cay that he
ats the body Of Christ together with
read. / can conceive the Zninglisn doc
rino which says there Is no change. and,