mitted that it might be multiplied in a virtual sense, as He can be said to be present in every part of his kingdom. It was quite possible, he said, that the bread might be converted and yet remain the same bread—just as the paschal lamb remains a lamb when it is made a sacrament and figure of Christ. The bread becomes Christ figuratively, virtually, and tropically, but not corporeally, or even with the body which Christ now wears in heaven.[1] It is more accurate to say that Wyclif defined transubstantiation than to say that he denied it.
That some of these ideas, or the manner in which they are stated and illustrated, should have shocked both such as had not thought the question out and such as, having thought it out, would have preferred that Wyclif should have shown himself a little more squeamish in dealing with it, is not to be wondered at. Amongst the latter may have been Dr. Rygge—if this member of Berton's Council is to be identified with the future Chancellor; which seems, indeed, a little improbable. But, if it were so, he would not by any means be the only prominent man of his day whom Wyclif contrived to win over from the ranks of his enemies.
The inquiry into Wyclif's new teaching was held by the Chancellor and twelve doctors in the Augus-
- ↑ Wyclif, said S. T. Coleridge, "was much sounder and more truly Catholic in his view of the Eucharist than Luther. And I find, not without much pleasure, that my own view of it, which I was afraid was original, was maintained in the tenth century—that is to say, that the body broken had no reference to the human body of Christ, but to the kara noumenon, or symbolical body, the Rock that followed the Israelites."—(Table Talk.)
