Year: 1873




their awful trust, and shall desert US in this con-
met between truth and error-as q OF their num-
per nave already done-we, OF the laity. in humble
reliance on God, must carry on and complete this
great work all the same. May the Holy Spirit en-
ngnten the hearts and consciences OF ali plous
Church. and enable them TO decide this moment0us
question solely and entirely with view to the
glory OF God and the eternal welfare OF their fellow
men. PROTESTANT.


DIR. Ever and Observation-Disclosures.
To THE EDITOR OF THE HERALD:-


In your issue OF yesterday DR.. Ever in his card
on "Transubstantiation," writes thus us:-'This is a
technical word too much misunderstood TO war
rant its use as an equivalent for the doctrine or
the real objective presence OF Christ in the
Eucharist as set forth by the Prayer Book and
other standards OF the Anglican Church." In the
matter OF ''taklng things for grantedn DR.. Ewer's
theological appetite Is simply lerocious. viii any
OF your readers kindly name the exact theologian
who anywhere afiirms 'stransubstantiationn to
be the equivalent OF the real presence? When
was going to school the doctrine OF the
Eucharist comprised transubstantation and
the real presence, the latter comprising or
supposing the former as the means or mode by
which the Divine Power causes one substance to
take the place of another, the accidents OF the
former substance remaining intact and unchanged.
That DR.. Ever should chaie at the word stransub
stantiation" as ''rellc OF medieval barbarism"
Is conceivable, for ours is progressive age. But
does the Doctor think it logical to adhere to a
tenet oil Christian faith and repudiatc the special
theological term or verbal form with which Christ
endom has for centuries associated that tenet? 1t
Is to be supposed, moreover, that the Doctor
would not wantOnly cast away the foul water with
out having first secured the fresh. Will he have
the goodness to say what is his Improvement
on the word 'stransubstantation" as term
avn ccinuf fIa total oba nft ~
bread and wine into the substance OF the true body
and blood of Jesus Christ. And as it is one OF the
technicalities OF science additionally, but not
necessarily. associated with the Latin tongue and
first adopted when the Latin was both the popular
and scientific language OF Western Christendom,
will the Doctor be so kind as to name any two
words or fewer or more words in the Latin, which
can express a total change Of one substance into
another more clearly, more pithiIy and more in
accordance with the logical construction of Ian
guage than the words 'tras," e., over or beyond,
and 'tSubstGnti0" !" l. e., substance 7


The Doctor did not use the word; he tell us be-
cause it is technical word" Is not that the
very reason why the good man should have used
it2 Is 1t not precisely because it is theological
technicality that the Doctor should have been
heoSsca9 Rse Sciences have
each their accepted terminology, the neglect Of
which makes 1t painful to the scholar to have to
hold or listen to a conversation on any branch OF
them. 1t Is very Babylon. Does the Doctor cry
Surrender to the geOlogist the chemist and the
dreamy metaphysician, and play renegade to the
the questionable Signs OF the times that
churchmen should be found ready to
fOregO the dignity OF religious conversation and
bring down the theological chair to the level Of a
sort OF sublimated twaddle 1t is to be doubted If
the gallant ''tar' could so easily abandon the
slang or the masts and ropes without jeopardiZing
the ship. One OF the best safeguards OF correct
nerence to words OF characteristic propriety and
perspicuity. To play fast and loose with this prin-
ciple is to do ones best towards the unhallOwed
work OF unsettling the foundations OF all Christian
belief In the popular mind. or all others, dlvines
alone are respOnsibly committed TO by principle
and profession.


The Doctor did not use the word "transubstanti-
alton" at all, because 1t Is too much misunderstood.
Admitting 1t is at times misunderstood, Will the
Doctor name the one technical term in any branch
OF science which Is not open to this stupid ODjec-
tons The Doctors argument If 1t means any
thing, means that two wrongs make right be-
cause there are vast numbers who do not or can
not or Will not learn the proper meaning OF words
therefore things should not be called by their
proper names, Because they who know no better
will say, for instance, 'sparrOwgrass, therefore
the horticulturist and gentlemen generally
had just as well not insist too
eagerly on asparagus" Because the
which any man who wishes can learn the exact
meaning OF, not the ordinary Inheritance OF
the uneducated, therefore the painters-from
Clmabne to Muller-are entirely at sea-


The truth Is, the worthy Doctor cannot name one
scientific technicality in sacred or profane science
which is half so well known among all classes Of
Christians as this one much abused dogmatical
term or "transubstantiatiOn. There is not a
holman in the Fourth ward-not excepting Mr.
Van Metre hmsef-but knows all about II. No
body knows better than the Doctor that the more
one reflects on ''transuDstantiation" the nearer
he approaches the quintessence OF Romanism:


DELTA.