Henry McAdoo argues that William Nicholson’s views on what happens in the Eucharist are based on the notion of relationship.  It is this view, says McAdoo, which gives him appeal in the modern day, since he interprets what happens in the Eucharist in personalist and not in entitative terms (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 88).

Nicholson in 1655 published a work entitled A Plain Exposition of the Church Catechism.  A second edition entitled An Exposition of the Catechism of the Church of England, was published in 1686 (edn. Parker, 1844) and it is this second edition that is referred to in this case study. 

Nicholson speaks of the sacraments in a general way in a realist manner.  He says:

“That God by His Son did redeem the world, is taught in the Creed.  In this part [that is, this part of the Catechism] is taught how God by the Sacraments doth present, exhibit and seal to us that redemption.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 150).

Nicholson’s view therefore seems to be that the redemption of Christ is presented, exhibited and sealed by the sacraments.  This is moderate realism since the nature of the redemption of Christ is presented, exhibited and sealed in the sacraments in a way similar to the notion of instantiation.  Christ is instantiated in the sacraments, not in any immoderate sense, but in a real way nonetheless.  Sacraments, Nicholson describes, as “the means instrumental, and ordinary seals, by which God hath promised to convey and assure Christ’s merits unto us, and commanded us in this way to receive them.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 151).  The sacraments are seen to be effective means of receiving the grace of Christ and as such they are more than bare signs separated from what they signify.  For Nicholson the grace of Christ (the signified) is conveyed by the sacraments (the sign).  Indeed Nicholson refers to the sacraments as “visible marks by which God gives notice of His approach, and purposeth to impart the vital or saving grace of Christ to all that are capable thereof.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 151).  The source of the grace imparted, however, is God, not the sacrament itself, since Nicholson also says:

“Which grace a worthy receiver partakes of, not from any natural or supernatural quality in the Sacrament, but from God Himself which is the Author of the Sacraments; it is received from Him, and not from them.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 152).

For Nicholson there is no immoderate realism in the sacraments where the grace of Christ is seen to be present in a fleshy manner, yet the grace of Christ is however represented in the sacrament. 

In discussing what he calls the true knowledge of a sacrament, Nicholson reflects on the sacrament as a visible sign.  He mentions:

“1.  The matter of the Sacrament, that whereof they outwardly consist, and of the secret grace which is represented.  For it is a ‘visible sign of an invisible grace’.

2.  The essential form, consisting in that relation, which that sign hath to grace, or grace to that sign, which generally ariseth not out of the elements themselves, but from the institution; so it was ‘ordained’.

3.  The efficient cause, or who it was this ordained them; it was Christ.  ‘Ordained by Christ himself’.

4.  The end or final cause.

1.  ‘To be a means whereby we receive grace’.

2.  ‘To be a pledge to assure us thereof’.”

(Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 153).

The grace of Christ is represented in the sacraments with the essential form of a sacrament being ‘that relation’ which exists between sign and grace or grace and sign.  The ‘relation’ does not arise from the elements but from the institution of the essential form.  The relation nonetheless involves the sign and the signified and it is this relation which marks Nicholson’s sacramental theology as realist.  This is made clear as Nicholson says:

“This grace is altogether inward, it is spiritual; the soul only of him that hath it sealed to him is conscious to it; but outwardly and visibly it is conveyed unto him by these external elements, symbols, and signs, or images.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 154).

and

“The form of the Sacrament consists in relation, which is a mutual respect betwixt the sign and the thing signified; … For in these there is such a mutual union and reference of one to the other, that the one term being removed, the other is removed also; … They stand and fall together.  It is so in this case, take away the signs and there will be no Sacrament; and take away the thing signified, though the outward sign be there, yet they represent and seal nothing.

The reason is because both want that to which they relate.  The relation then is the mystical union and conjunction of these two, which is neither natural, nor local, nor yet corporal, but merely sacramental; of which, if you shall ask a reason, no other can be given, but because Christ hath ordained it should be so.  For the Sacraments are that altogether, and nothing else, which God by the word of His divine institution doth testify He will have them to be.  As therefore our union with Christ is wholly mystical, so also in the Sacrament the union of the things and the signs is altogether mystical and spiritual, and depends merely upon Christ the ordainer’s will and counsel.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 154-155).

Nicholson here affirms that grace is conveyed by the outward symbols.  It is the relation between the sign and the signified that is the form of the sacrament.  This relation is a ‘mutual union’ where the sign cannot be separated from the signified and remain the sacrament.  Clearly the notion of a sacrament for Nicholson is much more than a sign to remind someone of the presence or sacrifice of Christ in the case of the Eucharist.  In words similar to Hooker, Nicholson speaks of conjunction, whereby the sign and the signified relate to each other.  This is the language of moderate realism.  Immoderate realism is excluded since Nicholson says that the union and conjunction is not natural, local or corporal, but sacramental.  By sacramental it is clear that he means more than bare symbols dependent on the faith of the recipient.  The union or conjunction seems to have the character of mystical and spiritual presence between ‘the things and the signs’ and Christ.  This is moderate realism and seems to relate well to the notion of instantiation of Christ’s nature put forward in this thesis.

In describing the purpose of the sacraments, Nicholson says they represent, exhibit and seal (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 155).  He describes these three purposes more fully as follows:

“1.  They represent and set before our eyes under corporal and visible elements what Christ hath done for us.  For example, the bread broken, Christ’s Body crucified; and the wine poured out, His blood shed for us.  And in this respect they are called signs and monuments of His love; signs of heavenly things.

2.  But this is not all, for they exhibit also.  In them that grace is truly given, which by the signs is represented.  All indeed receive not the grace of God that receive the Sacrament of grace.  But by them grace is offered to all the Church, though exhibited only to the faithful; for upon the performance of this order He actually makes over and conveys so much grace and favour unto us as at that time is useful for us; such is pardon for sin, reconciliation to, and acceptance of, our persons, strength to do what He requires; of all which the Sacrament is a means, canalis gratiae, ‘the conduit-pipe of grace’.

3.  They are pledges to assure us of this grace.  For the Sacrament is as it were a pawn left us by God in the hand of the minister, to give us acquiescence and ground of confidence that the graces promised shall be surely performed.  Of which that we doubt the less, it is called a seal.  For God, not content with the general offer of His promises, out of His mere mercy hath though fit to seal them to every particular believer, having a regard thereby to their infirmity.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 155-156).

For Nicholson sacraments represent what Christ has done for people.  The representation of Christ’s body is in the bread broken and the blood shed is represented in the wine.  The grace of God is exhibited in the sacraments and conveyed to the recipient in the sacrament.  The sacrament is described as a ‘conduit-pipe’ whereby the grace of God is sealed for each person who receives the sacrament.  This representation, exhibition and sealing of the signified in the sign is moderate realism. 

In the Exposition Nicholson speaks of how Christ is present in the Eucharist.  He says:

“Now if it be demanded how so small a piece of bread, or a spoonful of wine can produce this effect? the answer is easy, that it proceeds not from the elements, but from the will and power of Christ, who ordained these to be means and instruments for that end.  They remain in substance what they were; but in relation to Him are more.  It is spiritual bread and spiritual wine, so called, not so much because spiritually received, but because being so received, it causes us to receive the Spirit, and by the power of the Spirit as man may be enabled to do all things.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 188). 

It is the relationship between the elements and Christ that changes the bread and wine, but this does not refer to any change in the substance of the bread and wine.  The change is one of relationship or use and this is what McAdoo calls ‘personalist’.  The elements remain what they were in substance, that is, bread and wine, but in relationship to Christ, they are more, that is, means and instruments of Christ’s presence and power in the Eucharist.  This change in relationship is distinguished from any change in substance, or what McAdoo calls ‘entitative’.  Indeed Nicholson argues that theories related to a change of substance in the bread and wine, such as transubstantiation, “clearly take away the relation, and the essence of a Sacrament.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 180).  This does not mean however, that Nicholson sees the elements as bare figures.  In speaking of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist Nicholson speaks of a real presence, saying that “such a real presence must be admitted, or else the communicant receives nothing”. (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 179).  It is in relationship to Christ that the elements are more, not in any sense another substance, but another sense in relationship and use.  Further Nicholson speaks, with obvious references to the Catechism of the Book of Common Prayer (‘verily and indeed taken and received’) of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saying:

“For what is here represented, is verily and indeed taken and received.  It is on all hands confessed that in this Sacrament there is a true and real participation of Christ, who thereby imparts Himself, even His whole entire Person, as a mystical head, unto every soul that receives Him, and that every receiver doth thereby incorporate and unite himself to Christ as a mystical member of Him, and of them also, whom He acknowledges to be His own.  This though mystically, yet it is truly; though invisibly, yet it is really done.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 183).

When Nicholson speaks of the change in the elements he says:

“That which is more material to know is the change of these, which is wholly sacramental, not in substance, but in use.  For they remain bread and wine, such as before in nature: but consecrate and set apart to represent our Saviour’s passion, and exhibit and seal to a worthy receiver the benefits of that passion.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 177). 

This is a crucial passage.  Nicholson seems to be putting a view of moderate realism in the Eucharist in relation to the elements and the sacrifice of Christ.  Christ is present not only ‘in’ the Eucharist but ‘in’ the elements (see quote below from Exposition, page 179 below).  The elements remain unchanged in substance but Christ is present in them.  This is clearly moderate realism, where the nature of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, with the substance of the elements unchanged.  The means of the presence is instantiation, whereby the elements are changed in use and relationship.

Nicholson defines the words ‘presence’ and ‘real’ in the following passage and relates the use of these words to the Eucharist.  He says:

“Christ is said to be present four manner of ways:

1.Divinely, as God, and so He is present in all places. Whither shall I fly from Thy presence?  I, the Lord, fill heaven and earth.

2.Spiritually, and so is He present in the hearts of true believers.  Christ dwells in our hearts by faith.

3.Sacramentally, and so is He present in the Sacrament, because He hath ordained the Sacrament to represent and communicate Christ’s death unto us.  The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ, etc.?

4.Corporally; so present in Judea in the days of His flesh.

And as the word ‘presence’, so the word ‘really’, is diversely taken: for sometimes,

1.It is opposed to that which is feigned, and is but imaginary, and imports as much as ‘truly’.

2.It is opposed to that which is merely figurative, and barely representative, and imports as much as ‘effectually’.

3.It is opposed to that which is spiritual, and imports as much as ‘corporally’ or ‘bodily’.

We then believe Christ to be present in the Eucharist Divinely after a special manner, Spiritually in the hearts of the communicants, Sacramentally or relatively in the elements.  And this presence of His is real, in the two former acceptions of ‘real’; but not in the last, for He is truly and effectually there present, though not corporally, bodily, carnally, locally.” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 179).

The great value in what Nicholson has done lies in the categorization of the views in relation to both ‘presence’ and ‘real’.  He does not reject the presence by means of faith, so important to the early English Reformers, and therefore admits the ‘spiritual’ presence.  At the same time he also admits a ‘Divine’ and ‘Sacramental’ presence.  These three, spiritual, divine and sacramental are all manners in which Christ is present in the Eucharist and also examples of moderate realism, whereby the nature of Christ is instantiated in ‘all places’, in ‘the hearts of true believers’ and in ‘the sacrament’.  Christ is present divinely in the Eucharist, spiritually in the hearts of the communicant and sacramentally in the elements.  It is these three manners of the presence which make Nicholson’s view on the Eucharist realist to a moderate degree.  At the same time he excludes any immoderate realism, excluding a ‘corporal’ presence as the means whereby Christ is in places, people and sacraments.  In the same way Nicholson argues that the ‘real presence’ of Christ in the Eucharist is ‘true’ and ‘effectual’, but not ‘corporal’ or ‘bodily’.  Christ is really present in the Eucharist, in the communicants and in the elements, and the effects of his death are known in the Eucharist, but this is in the form of moderate realism only, with any form of immoderate realism being excluded.

Nicholson’s idea of a ‘divine’ and ‘spiritual’ presence would probably have been accepted by most of the early English Reformers, such as Cranmer.  In the same way his statement that there is no change in the bread and wine except in the use to which they are put (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 176-177), would have struck a cord with Cranmer and others.  The third manner of the presence however, that is, the sacramental manner (Christ being present in the elements), does not coincide with the theologies of these early Reformers, especially Cranmer.  Although both Cranmer and Nicholson speak of Christ being present in the sacrament, they do so in quite different manners.  Nicholson’s interpretation of the sacramental presence is in the use and the elements, while Cranmer’s is in the use or the ministration alone (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 3).  Cranmer was careful to exclude any sacramental presence in the elements and any notion of change in the elements, apart from what he called a “sacramental mutation” (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844, 319).  By ‘sacramental mutation’ Cranmer seems to mean something quite different from Nicholson’s use of a sacramental manner of presence.  Whereas Nicholson uses the sacramental manner of the presence to speak of the presence of Christ in ‘the Sacrament and in the elements relatively’, Cranmer uses sacramental to speak of the use of the sacrament only, that is the ministration.  Whereas Cranmer sees a sacramental mutation in relation to the use of the sacrament, in that Christ is present to the faithful communicant as the bread and wine are received, Nicholson speaks of sacramental presence in the Sacrament and in the elements and expresses a ‘givenness’ of gift that is certainly not found in Cranmer.  Nicholson distinguishes ‘sacramental’ change in nature from ‘divine’ and ‘spiritual’ change in nature, but Cranmer, by ‘sacramental mutation’ seems to mean that the change in nature is a “spiritual feeding and supernatural nourishment from heaven” (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844, 319).  Cranmer uses sacramental in the sense of divine and spiritual, whereas Nicholson seems to distinguish the three manners of the presence distinctly.  Cranmer admits “alterations of natures” (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844, 319) but only in the ‘divine’ and ‘spiritual’ manners, not the ‘sacramental’, saying that the “sacramental mutation declareth the supernatural, spiritual and inexplicable eating and drinking, feeding and digesting, of the body and blood of Christ, in all them that godly, and according to their duty, do receive the sacramental bread and wine” (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844, 319).  Cranmer seems to admit only the divine and spiritual manner of the presence and to reject the corporal manner of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Nicholson admits the divine, spiritual and sacramental manner of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and rejects the corporal manner, and so his view of the sacramental presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is at variance with that of the earlier Reformers, such as Cranmer, and represents a significant development into moderate realism, not usually found in the early Reformers.  Nicholson’s exclusion of a ‘corporal’ presence as a manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, makes it clear that his ‘sacramental’ presence involves no corporal or bodily presence of Christ – or an immoderate realist presence, as the model proposed in this study has termed it.  Clearly he is in agreement with Cranmer here, in excluding this manner of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but not in the manner of the sacramental presence.

Nicholson’s system of classification for ‘presence’ and ‘real’ also gives some clues as to his views on eucharistic sacrifice, since he says, as quoted above, that the sacramental presence, not only represents, but also communicates Christ’s death to the faithful in the Eucharist.  Indeed Nicholson argues that in the Eucharist “we have Christ crucified before our eyes, represented lively before us as upon the cross” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 176).  In view of his exclusion of a corporal sense of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist, this crucifixion ‘before our eyes’ must be in a moderate realist sense.  This seems to be confirmed by the use of the word ‘represented’.  He also says the purpose of the Eucharist is not only “to represent our Saviour’s passion” but also to “exhibit and seal to a worthy receiver the benefits of that passion”. (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 177).  This is moderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist.  The effect of Christ’s death being communicated in the Eucharist in the present is anamnesis.  The benefits of Christ’s death are made known in the Eucharist ‘effectually’ and ‘truly’.  In no way does Nicholson see any place for immoderate realism in relation to the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, since he specifically excludes any corporal notion of either ‘presence’ or ‘real’ in relation to sacrifice.

Nicholson’s contribution to the Anglican eucharistic tradition is significant and represents a clear and cogent analysis of the real presence (Davies, 1996a: II, 295).  His views fit well with the idea of instantiation and moderate realism.  Indeed Nicholson describes the Eucharist as “the conduit” (Nicholson, Exposition, edn. Parker, 1844: 187) of grace.  It is in the Eucharist that the grace of Christ is instantiated.  Perhaps the greatest contribution that Nicholson makes is to distinguish ‘real presence’ from ‘corporal presence’.  Earlier Anglican writers, such as Cranmer, seemed incapable of doing this, and frequently used ‘real presence’ to mean ‘corporal or bodily presence’ (Cranmer, Defence, edn. Duffield, 1964: 79).  Nicholson’s approach clearly distinguishes the ‘real’ from the ‘corporal and bodily’ and so places ‘real presence’ within the notion of moderate realism, whilst at the same time excluding any suggestion of an immoderate presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.