Tractatus de apostasia

XVIII INTRODUCTION.
Ambrose, Jerome, all use the same language; and Augustine calls the
Eucharist Christ's Body only in a certain way (i.
e.
figuratively).
John of Damascus says the bread and wine are joined to Christ's
Body; and his example of a live coal, as wood united with fire, shows
his position still more clearly. Even the words of this Saint, that
'the bread and wine are not a type, but the very body and blood of
Our Lord', are to be understood in a figurative sense. A quotation
from St. Ambrose, and a remark against the glossators who explain
this Saint in the wrong way in several places, close the chapter.
Ch. IV. Continuation of the general thesis. After a protest
against any authority but Holy Writ in matters of faith, the author
brings in an argument which, under different forms, recurs very often
in the book. Is what we see Christ's Body? If the adversaries answer
Then how can what we see be an accident without
Yes, he says:
substance? Is Christ's Body an accident? And he points out (at least
he does so in other places) the abject entity of an accident, which
is lower than the vilest of substances, and less perfect than the worst
poison: thus making
of those who answer in the affirmative heretics
of the most blasphemous sort. If, on the contrary, they answer No,
then they admit that the visible and felt Sacrament has a nature
which is not identical with Christ's Body; and this nature Wyclif calls
the nature of bread. This argument is subtle and deserves attention,
on account of the great stress our author lays upon it, and because,
under another form, it may be and often has been used by philosophical
controversialists. A man sees his friend in a mirror; being asked whom
he sees, he answers, 'his friend'. The reply comes, 'Then your friend
is only an image'. Or, 'Is this statue made by you'? — 'Yes'. 'Then
you have made a piece of marble'. This class of arguments Aristotle
calls fallacies Tiaga to 6v^s(h]xbg. And such arguments are very
common indeed in metaphysical matters. Take, for instance, the
subject of debate between Realists and Idealists at the present day:
"What we perceive is only a modification of ourselves; now, what
we perceive is the world; therefore, the world is only a modification
of ourselves". It is clear that in any of these cases, to answer simply
Yes or No, would be to stand committed to self-contradiction. We have,
however, no interest in enquiring what the distinctions of Wyclif's
opponents may or may not have been. On the other hand it is right,