Page images
PDF
EPUB
[ocr errors]

"it to be an object to the senses of men, the "substance of the elements remains unchanged." (p. 296.) Our Article, then, may be popularly true, but philosophically false. On this latter point, English Churchmen merely withhold their judgment. "In refer

ence to that more subtile explanation, which "was designed by Aquinas, they simply withhold their judgment." (ib.) Meanwhile, a compromise is considered possible. "The different

[ocr errors]

meaning, which Aquinas and the other "Schoolmen attach to the word substance, "produces a verbal contradiction between them " and the Church of England." (p. 127.) The Archdeacon himself evidently considers it nothing more than verbal.

"The more subtile sense," he says, "of the word "substance, which had become familiar in Theology, was employed by the Council of Trent, when it de"clared its mind in opposition to the Lutheran doctrine "of Consubstantiation." [Was that all to which the Council objected? Queen Mary's Popish counsellors carried it much further.] "So that, when the Church of "Rome speaks of change of substance, there is no reason "why she may not be understood to refer to the Res "Sacramenti, or that which is not an object to the senses. If the question were understood in this way, the contradiction would be verbal rather than real; in language, and not in thought." (p. 128.)

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

Then there is no reason why the two

Churches should not shake hands to-morrow -or rather, they are bound to do so,-acknowledging that they have been like the two knightly combatants, who contended about the colour and metal of the shield, only because they viewed it from opposite sides. Then we may all innocently embrace in thought the Decree which asserts Transubstantiation; and at the same time subscribe our Article which condemns it, in language; the Decree expressing philosophical truth, the Article, popular sensation. What pity, that we should have been at mortal strife so long on a point, where all the difference is verbal! What pity, that our martyrs died at the stake, and their persecutors had the guilt of killing them, for a matter which after all was but a strife of words!

Let us not be deceived. The martyrs knew well what it was they denied, and what it was they held. They were deeply acquainted with the Theology of the Schoolmen. Even old Latimer was stronger in Duns, than Wolsey's own chaplain-as was amusingly seen, Strype informs us, on a particular occasion, in the Cardinal's presence. No, the Reformers knew all that could be said. They were, as we have before said, under bond-the heaviest of all

bonds-not to decide hastily, or on imperfect consideration. Death stared them in the face, while examining the subject. But Scripture and Reason compelled them to decide truly, and to accept of no evasive mode of explaining away the difference between the true and the false view. They might, doubtless, have saved their lives by adopting a verbal quibble and they were perfectly aware of this, -but they would not. They disdained to do it, as honest men -as those who had to give account at a far higher Tribunal that that of Mary and her counsellors.

§ 46. DOCTRINE OF BULK.

So much for the Archdeacon's attempt to reduce the controversy concerning Transubstantiation to a question of philology. Nor does the actual experience of the Schoolmen encourage us to adopt their metaphysical view of Substance and Accidents. For an unexpected difficulty presented itself. Facts are stubborn things,-and it seems to have been an ascertained fact that the consecrated elements had the power of nourishing. At any rate, it was a matter of Church belief; for in the Breviary there is somewhere, we have read,

an account of a saint, who subsisted entirely on the wafer from Ash Wednesday to Ascension Thursday. We may conceive how puzzling this property of the accidents of bread and wine conveying nourishment to the human frame, must have been to those who took the Schoolmen's view of the Real Presence. What says the Archdeacon ?

66

66

"It has been disputed, whether the System of Aquinas "really implies, that the elements retain the power of "nourishment; and therefore whether the elements, con"sidered as objects of sense, can still be said to be present. For the process by which the digestive organs supply the body with nourishment is one of which the "" senses can take note. Now Aristotle, and the School66 men after him, taught that food nourishes through the "transference of its substance to the thing changed. But "then Aquinas and his followers maintained, first, that "Christ's body does not nourish our bodies in the Holy “Eucharist (Opusc. lix. 6; Summa iii. 77. 6; Catechism "Trid. Pars ii.), and secondly, that our bodies are "nourished by the visible elements (Suarez de Sacr. 66 Disp.; Cat. Trid. ib. 39)." (p. 295.)

Here was a difficulty insuperable to all common apprehension. Substance alone, Aristotle taught them, has the power of nourishing. The only substance present, according to their view, was Christ's Body—and it was profane to think that Christ's body could serve this purpose. Yet something in the elements was acknowledged to have the power. What

could it be? The answer is curious, and presents a triumph of human courage and ingenuity under desperate circumstances. It is Bulk! This was pronounced to be the nutritive quality left in the elements. If ever men were rescued wonderfully and critically from what the Americans call " a fix," it was the Schoolmen on this occasion. Bulk came to their aid, like the "deus ex machinâ." But let us hear this from the Archdeacon, who could sympathize with the poor Schoolmen in their difficulty, and rejoice with them in their deliverance:

"For this (the fact of nutrition) Aquinas accounted "by saying, that after consecration Bulk took the place "of the Substance; or in other words, that when the "substance was said to be changed, the term substance 66 was not to be understood in so wide a sense as that in "which it was employed by Aristotle. Vide Opusc. lix. "4. Summa iii. 77. 6." (p. 295, note.)

One feels that there is a slight touch of dis honesty in this, on the part of the Schoolmen. It makes one doubt, whether there are any real believers in pure Transubstantiation, in the world. But let us not be hard upon the perplexed philosophers-though they were not quite faithful to Aristotle. The Archdeacon defends them :

"The Schoolmen were not bound to adhere rigidly"

« PreviousContinue »