SHOWING THAT THE BREAD
REMAINS BREAD AFTER CONSECRATION
[INQUIRY] I
pray you, now, to explain how it is that the bread remains bread after
consecration, for many declare that if they had believed thus, they would never
have observed the ceremony as they have done.
On a subject of this nature,
we must attend to the words of Scripture, and give them absolute credence. And
the words of Scripture tell us that this sacrament is the body of Christ, not that it will be, or that it is sacramentally a figure of the body of Christ. Accordingly we must, on this
authority, admit, without reserve, that the bread, which is this sacrament, is
veritably the body of Christ. But the simplest layman will see that it follows,
that inasmuch as this bread is the body of Christ, it is therefore bread, and
remains bread, and is at once both bread and the body of Christ. Again, the
point may be illustrated by examples of the most palpable description. It is
not necessary, but, on the contrary, repugnant to truth, that a man, when
raised to the dignity of lordship or prelacy, should cease to be the same
person. The man, or the same substance, would remain, in all respects, though
in a certain degree elevated. So we must believe that this bread, by virtue of
the sacramental words, becomes, by the consecration of the priest, veritably
the body of Christ, and no more ceases to be bread, than humanity ceases, in
the instance before supposed; for the nature of bread is not destroyed by this,
but is exalted to a substance more honoured. Do we believe that John the
Baptist, who was made by the word of Christ to be Elias, (Matt. 11) ceased to
be John, or ceased to be anything which he was substantially before? In the
same manner, accordingly, though the bread becometh the body of Christ, by
virtue of his words, it need not cease to be bread. For it is bread
substantially, after it has begun to be sacramentally the body of Christ For
thus saith Christ, “This is my body,” and in consequence of these words, this
must be admitted, like the assertion in the eleventh chapter of the gospel of
Matthew, about the Baptist: “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias.” And
Christ doth not, to avoid equivocation, contradict the Baptist, when he
declares, “I am not Elias.” The one meaning that he was Elias figuratively, the other, that he was not
Elias personally. And in the same
manner it is merely a double meaning, and not a contradiction, in those who
admit that this sacrament is not
naturally the body of Christ, but that this same sacrament is Christ’s body figuratively.
Concerning the assertion made
by some hardened heretics, that they would never have celebrated the ordinance
had they believed this, it would, indeed, have been well for the church, and
have contributed much to the honour of God, if such apostates had never
consecrated their accident, for in so
doing they blaspheme God in many ways, and make Him the author of falsehood.
For the world God created they straightway destroy, inasmuch as they destroy
what God ordained should be perpetual—primary matter—and introduce nothing new
into the world, save the mendacious assertion, that it pertains to them to
perform unheard of miracles, in which God himself certainly may have no share.
In fact, according to their representations, they make a new world. What loss
would it have been, then, if heretics, so foolish, had never celebrated an
ordinance, the proper terms of which they so little understand, and who are so
ignorant of the quiddity of the sacrament they observe and worship?
With regard to the points
touching the truth of the belief, that this sacrament is bread, let heretics be
on the watch, and summon up all their powers; for He who is called Truth,
teaches us (Matt. 6) to pray that he would give us our daily, or
supersubstantial bread. And according to Augustine, on this passage in our
Lord’s sermon on the mount, by daily bread, Christ intends, among other happy
significations, this venerable sacrament. Are we not, then, to believe, what
would follow, viz. that if the sacrament for which we pray is our daily bread,
then in the sacrament there must be bread? In the same manner the apostles
recognised Christ with breaking of bread, as we are told in Luke 24. And
Augustine, with the papal enactment, De Con. Dist. III. non omnes, tells us that this bread is this venerable sacrament. Or
are we to doubt its following, that the apostles having known Christ in the
breaking of this bread, therefore that seeming bread must have been bread? Our
apostle, likewise, who takes his meaning from our Lord, calls this sacrament
the bread which we break, as is manifest in 1 Cor. 10, and often again in the
following chapter. Who then would venture to blaspheme God, by maintaining that
so chosen a vessel could apply erroneous terms to the chief of the
sacraments,—especially with the foreknowledge that heresies would take their
rise from that very subject? It is impossible to believe that Paul would have
been so careless of the church, the spouse of Christ, as so frequently to have
called this sacrament bread, and not by its real name, had he known that it was
not bread, but an accident without a subject; and when he was besides aware, by
the gift of prophecy, of all the future heresies which men would entertain on
the matter. Let these idiot heretics say, and bring sufficient reason to prove
their statements, what this sacrament, which their falsehoods desecrate, really
is, if not the holy bread. As was said above, Christ, who is the first Truth,
saith, according to the testimonies of the four evangelists, that this bread is
his body. What heretic ought not to blush, then, to deny that it is bread?
We are thus shut up, either
to destroy the verity of Scripture, or to go along with the senses and the
judgment of mankind, and admit that it is bread. Mice, and other creatures, are
aware of this fact; for according to philosophers, they have the power of
discerning what is good for them to eat. Oh, if believers in the Lord will look
on, and see. Antichrist and his accomplices so strong as to have power to
condemn and persecute even unto death, those sons of the church who thus yield
their belief to the Gospel, yet certain I am, that though the truth of the
Gospel may for a time be cast down in the streets, and be kept under in a measure
by the threats of Antichrist, yet extinguished it cannot be, since he who is
the Truth has said, that “heaven and earth shall pass away, but that his words
shall not pass away!” Let the believer, then, rouse himself, and demand
strictly from our heretics, what the nature of this venerable sacrament is, if
it be not bread; since the language of the Gospel, the evidence of our senses,
and arguments that have in their favour every probability, say, that so it is.
For I am certain, that even heathens, who make their own gods, are perfectly
aware of what they are in their own proper nature, though they pretend that a
portion of divinity is bestowed upon them supernaturally by the highest God of
all. The believer, therefore, hesitates not to affirm, that these heretics are
more ignorant, not only than mice and other animals, but than pagans
themselves; while on the other hand, our aforementioned conclusion, that this
venerable sacrament is, in its own nature, veritable bread, and sacramentally
Christ’s body, is shown to be the true one.[1]
[1] De
Wycliffe, J. (1845). Tracts and Treatises
of John de Wycliffe. (R. Vaughan, Ed.) (pp. 138–141). London: Blackburn and
Pardon.
