Page:John Huss by Hastings Rashdall (1879).pdf/39

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Section IV.

THE CHARACTER OF JOHN HUSS, AND HIS POSITION AS A REFORMER.

“On Transubstantiation,” says Dean Milman, (notwithstanding the subtleties of his adversaries), the Communion in one kind, worship of the Saints and of the Virgin Mary, Huss was scrupulously, unimpeachably orthodox.”^[1] Thus far Dean Milman’s judgment upon Huss’ theological position may be upon the whole accepted, though perhaps not without some reservation.^[2]

As to the Communion in one kind, it is true that Huss was orthodox, if by that is meant that he accepted the doctrine of Concomitance.^[3] But he distinctly supports the practice of lay communion in both kinds, as desirable if not obligatory.^[4] To speak of the “Worship of the Saints and of the Virgin,” is to use language which few Romanists would recognise as a correct description of the practices of their Church. The intercession of Saints and of the Virgin, Huss firmly believed in:^[5] and in his

↑ “Latin Christianity,” book xiii., chap. ix.
↑ Huss accepted the orthodox formula as to Transubstantiation on the strength of the dogma of the accidens sine substantia. The Realists held that there was a “substance” in class of things represented by a generic name which made that thing what it was, apart from the qualities perceived by the senses, which were called “accidents” of the thing. After consecration, the “substance” of the host was the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the “accidents”—powers of affecting the taste, touch and sight—remained those of the bread and wine. Huss adhered rigidly to this doctrine, and hence disapproved of many of the popular expressions which were used with regard to the consecrated bread. He objected to its being said that the Body of Christ was tasted or handled or seen. He refused, though required to do so by his Diocesan, to give up applying the term “bread” to the host after consecration, on the ground that the word “this” in the words of institution could only mean “this bread.” In his assertions of the dogma, he constantly uses such qualifications as these: “Sufficit multis sanctis credere et sufficit indoctis et simplicibus Christianis informatione carentibus ampliori,” “sacramentaliter,” “mysterialiter,” “in sacramenti mysterio.”—De Cœna Domini, Opera, vol. i., fol. 39. All these expressions show that his views were far removed from the grossness of the popular view of Transubstantiation. He dwelt little upon the miraculous aspect of the Sacrament, which to his adversaries was everything,—far less than many Anglican upholders of the doctrine of the Real Presence; much upon its commemorative value.
↑ In this respect he was once able to retaliate the charge of heresy upon his Diocesan, who had directed his clergy to preach that after consecration “nothing but the body of the Lord remains in the bread, and nothing but the blood of the Lord in the wine.”—See the “Ordo Procedendi” drawn up by Huss, in Palacky’s “Documenta.”
↑ Fol. 42.
↑ Fol. 148, 149. The Virgin is there called the “reparatrix humani generis et porta cœli . . sine cujus suffragio impossibile est salvari aliquam peccatorem.”—Quoted by L’Enfant, vol. i., p. 434.

F

[1] “Latin Christianity,” book xiii., chap. ix.

[2] Huss accepted the orthodox formula as to Transubstantiation on the strength of the dogma of the accidens sine substantia. The Realists held that there was a “substance” in class of things represented by a generic name which made that thing what it was, apart from the qualities perceived by the senses, which were called “accidents” of the thing. After consecration, the “substance” of the host was the “substance” of the Body and Blood of Christ, but the “accidents”—powers of affecting the taste, touch and sight—remained those of the bread and wine. Huss adhered rigidly to this doctrine, and hence disapproved of many of the popular expressions which were used with regard to the consecrated bread. He objected to its being said that the Body of Christ was tasted or handled or seen. He refused, though required to do so by his Diocesan, to give up applying the term “bread” to the host after consecration, on the ground that the word “this” in the words of institution could only mean “this bread.” In his assertions of the dogma, he constantly uses such qualifications as these: “Sufficit multis sanctis credere et sufficit indoctis et simplicibus Christianis informatione carentibus ampliori,” “sacramentaliter,” “mysterialiter,” “in sacramenti mysterio.”—De Cœna Domini, Opera, vol. i., fol. 39. All these expressions show that his views were far removed from the grossness of the popular view of Transubstantiation. He dwelt little upon the miraculous aspect of the Sacrament, which to his adversaries was everything,—far less than many Anglican upholders of the doctrine of the Real Presence; much upon its commemorative value.

[3] In this respect he was once able to retaliate the charge of heresy upon his Diocesan, who had directed his clergy to preach that after consecration “nothing but the body of the Lord remains in the bread, and nothing but the blood of the Lord in the wine.”—See the “Ordo Procedendi” drawn up by Huss, in Palacky’s “Documenta.”

[4] Fol. 42.

[5] Fol. 148, 149. The Virgin is there called the “reparatrix humani generis et porta cœli . . sine cujus suffragio impossibile est salvari aliquam peccatorem.”—Quoted by L’Enfant, vol. i., p. 434.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]