Tractatus de apostasia

INTRODUCTION. XXXV
without the miracle that Wyclif everywhere asserts. Perhaps some
Wyclif student may be able to point out where my exposition falls short,
if it does fall short; for after all, he may have been inconsistent. —
The chapter closes (p. 224 — 233) with an appeal to the authority of
several of the early Fathers, in support of Wyclif's doctrine.
Ch. XVII. This is not a debate, though it of course contains
much debatable matter. It reads much like a supplement or appendix.
Its principal feature is an account of the gradual additions to the
Mass, and the writer's opinion of them; with much against Friars,
Orders, perpetual vows, and the power of the Pope. These last being
mostly repetitions of what was said before,
further notice. Before examining the ceremonies of the Mass, Wyclif
relates a legend about an old monk who doubted whether bread was
I can dismiss them without
Christ's Body, until convinced by a miracle (p. 246 — 247). He then
returns to the main question, and states that the Mass at first consisted
only of the Lord's Prayer and of the words of consecration, and
was said in the evening. The hour was soon changed; one pope
ordered the whole Psalter to be sung before Mass (this was probably
the origin of the Canonical Hours); another compiled an antiphonarium
and introduced the Kyrie Eleison; another brought in the Gloria
in Excelsis; others were the authors of various tracts, hymns, and
prefaces, and ordered the Credo and the Agnus
Dei to be chanted.
Wyclif by no means approves of these innovations, though
his tone
is very reserved. If it is a sin now to change the established form
of Mass, what was it then to have changed the form that Christ
established? All these rites may be aids to piety, but it would be
better if we could do without them. The argument of Solomon's
temple, if urged, would allow burnt- offerings in our churches.
Ceremonies are too much thought of in these days, and the spirit
is held of too small account (p. 247 — 25o). Wyclif, concluding De
Apostasia, throws down a challenge to the Nominalists, or 'signworshippers'.
This doctrine will be given to the public; let them
also produce theirs.
If we set aside the strange distinction on p. 2i»3, perhaps given
to avoid a serious difficulty, I think we may come to the conclusion
that the Realist Wyclif and the Nominalist Berengarius held objectively
the same views on the Eucharist, and onlv varied in their manner
c*