Thomas Wilson expressed views on the Eucharist that were very similar to those of the Nonjurors.  He did not however become a Nonjuror and remained within the established Church of England as a bishop.   

Wilson’s views on the Eucharist emphasised the receiving of spiritual blessings, such as pardon, grace and salvation.  He also emphasised proper meditation at the time of receiving.  One of the meditations he suggested says:

“I adore thine infinite mercy and goodness, blessed God, for that Thou hast given Thy Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, not only to die for us, but to be our food and sustenance in this holy Sacrament.” (Wilson, A Short and Plain Instruction for the Better Understanding of the Lord’s Supper, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: IV, 393).

The Eucharist was for Wilson an effectual means of spiritual food and sustenance, and he believed that:

“All Christians are bound at the peril of their souls to observe this ordinance of Christ.  The blessings which attend the worthy receiving of this Sacrament are invaluable; no less than the pardon of all our past sins: the continuance of God’s Holy Spirit; the increase of His graces here, and eternal happiness hereafter. (Wilson, Sermon ix, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: II, 108).

Wilson’s defined the Eucharist in these words:

“ … that very ordinance” “which Jesus Christ Himself appointed on purpose to keep us in remembrance of what He has done and suffered for us, that our own death, whenever it shall happen, may be a comfort to us, and when nothing in this world, nothing but a firm faith in Jesus Christ, can support or comfort our dying spirit.” (Wilson, Sermon xxvi, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: II, 294).

When he spoke of the consecrated bread and wine, he said:

“These being pledges to assure us that, as certainly as bread and wine do nourish our bodies, so do these seal to us all the benefits which Jesus Christ hath purchased for us by His sacrifice and death.” (Wilson, A Short and Plain Instruction for the Better Understanding of the Lord’s Supper, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: IV, 393).

He also says regarding the bread and wine:

“Let a man, I say, be never so unlearned, yet he will easily understand that he is not to look upon and receive this bread and wine as common food, but as holy representatives of Christ’s body and blood, made such by an especial blessing of God.” (Wilson, Sermon lxxvi, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: III, 277).

In regard to the offering in the Eucharist, Wilson says:

“ ‘Do this’, that is, this that I do, offer bread and wine as a sacrifice to God (when consecrated).  They could not offer His real body, but only His sacramental body, as a memorial of His real body. … When the bread and wine are by consecration made the sacramental body and blood of Christ, we have then a sacrifice to offer which is worthy to be received and to prevail with God. … The power of the Holy Spirit accompanies these elements, and makes them effectual means of grace and salvation. … Christ’s spiritual body, that is, made such by the Spirit of God.  Not by the faith of the receiver, for they were such before.” (Wilson, Sacra Privata, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: V, 339).

Wilson is of the view that there is an offering of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.  The sign (bread and wine and the eucharistic sacrifice) is closely associated with the signified (the body and blood of Christ and the offering of Christ at the institution) in a moderate realist sense.  The signs are more than ordinary food and the offering in the Eucharist is real and received by God.  The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is an objective presence, not dependent on the faith of the receiver.  Clearly he is distancing himself from any receptionist view.  At the same time he clearly denies any immoderate realism since he says that the real (i.e. natural body and blood of Christ) could not be offered in the Eucharist.  The offering of the sacramental body and blood, associated with the signs of bread and wine, is indicative of moderate realism in the Eucharist. 

As with the Nonjurors, such as Deacon, and as with other Anglican theologians (e.g. Johnson), Wilson also connects the offering with the institution and not with the death of Christ at Calvary.  He says:

“The priest by doing what Christ did, by prayer and thanksgiving, by breaking the bread and pouring out the wine, obtaineth of God that these creatures by the descent of the Holy Ghost become after a spiritual manner the body and blood of Christ, by receiving of which our souls shall be strengthened and refreshed, as our bodies are by bread and wine.” (Wilson, Parochialia, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: VI, 20-21).

Wilson confirms this by saying that:

“He then, at that instant, [that is, at the institution of the Eucharist at the Last Supper] gave His body and blood as a sacrifice for the sins of the world.  He then offered as a priest Himself under the symbols of bread and wine, and this is the sacrifice which His priests do still offer.  And let it be observed that Jesus Christ did this before He was apprehended, when He was at His own disposal; it was then that He offered Himself a sacrifice to God.” (Wilson, Notes on the Holy Scriptures, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: VI, 174, 643).

Wilson here indicates that the priests of the Church are continuing and offering the same sacrifice that Christ offered at the institution of the sacrament.  The offering of the sacrifice was clearly at a time prior to slaying of Christ on the cross and it is this offering, at the time of the institution, that he says, the priests continue to offer in the Eucharist.  Wilson does however in another place quantify the offering of the priests as “a spiritual sacrifice to God” (Wilson, Sacra Privata, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: V, 160).  Despite this it seems that by ‘spiritual’ he means that the offering of the priest in the Eucharist is no less real than the offering of Christ at the Last Supper.  By aligning the offering with the institution and not with the slaying he avoids (as do the Nonjurors and Johnson) the implication of fleshy or immoderate realism and re-iteration of the sacrifice of the Calvary.

In a realist passage, Wilson, speaks of the time of the consecration and advises the use of the following meditation:

“Immediately after the Consecration.  We offer unto Thee, our King and God, this bread and this cup.  We give Thee thanks for these and for all Thy mercies, beseeching Thee to send down Thy Holy Spirit upon this sacrifice, that He may make this bread the body of Thy Christ, and this cup the blood of Thy Christ; and that all we who are partakers thereof may thereby obtain remission of our sins, and all other benefits of His passion. … May I atone Thee, O God, by offering to Thee the pure and unbloody sacrifice, which thou hast ordained by Jesus Christ.” (Wilson, Sacra Privata, in Bishop Wilson’s Works, edn. Parker, 1847-1868: V, 74, 75).

Bishop Wilson presents a moderate realist view of both the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.  He words suggest however, that in the Eucharist, by the offering of the pure and unbloody sacrifice, there is atonement.  There is no suggestion here however, that he is in any way adding to the atonement of Christ on the cross, since the offering he speaks of, is the offering of the institution and not of the slaying.  The atonement that Wilson speaks of here is in the form of moderate realism and does operate in any way which suggests a re-iteration of any fleshy or immoderate death of Christ on the cross.  His view is very similar with that of the Nonjurors (e.g. Deacon – Case Study 2.8) and with others writing at the same time (e.g. Johnson – Case Study 2.11).