Abstract

William Ockham and John Wyclif develop strikingly different accounts of the Eucharist in the light of strikingly different metaphysical assumptions. Ockham assumes that God can create or annihilate any other actual being without creating or destroying anything not a part of it and so that God can annihilate a substance while preserving its real accidents. Wyclif supposes that to annihilate a being is to annihilate not only its accidents but everything in its Porphyrian tree. Ockham takes being to be univocal, Wyclif allows that there might be distinct ways of being. Both attempt to negotiate difficult terrain between their metaphysics and the theological orthodoxy of their time but with quite different results. While Ockham admits that consubstantiation (the co-presence of the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ) is the most rationally defensible of the alternative accounts of the Eucharist available to him, he strives to develop an account both consistent with his metaphysics and with a plausible understanding of transubstantiation. Wyclif begins with a similar project but in the end concludes that consubstantiation is the best account of the Eucharist.