William Wake rejected the assertion made by Abraham Woodhead in his pamphlet of 1687 (Two Discourses concerning the Adoration of our B. Saviour in the H. Eucharist) that Anglican theology did not teach the doctrines of a natural presence of Christ in the Eucharist to be adored (see the Aldrich case study (2.2) for details of the debate between the supporters of Roman Catholicism and the Church of England) .  Wake in a reply to Woodhead published in 1687 stated that:

“Whilst we thus oppose the errors of some by asserting the continuance of the natural substance of the elements of bread and wine in this Holy Eucharist, let not any one think that we would therefore set up the mistakes of others, as if this Holy Sacrament were nothing more than a mere rite and ceremony, a bare commemoration only of Christ’s death and passion.  Our Church indeed teaches us to believe that the bread and wine continue still in their true and natural substances, but it teaches us also that it is the body and blood of Christ which every faithful soul receives in that Holy Supper, spiritually indeed and after a heavenly manner, but yet most truly and really too.  The primitive fathers, of whom we have before spoken, sufficiently assure us that they were strangers to that corporeal change that is now pretended; but for this divine and mystical, they have openly enough declared for it.  Nor are we therefore afraid to confess a change, and that a very great one too, made in this Holy Sacrament.  The bread and the wine which we here consecrate ought not to be given or received by any one in this mystery as common ordinary food.  Those holy elements which the prayers of the Church have sanctified, and the divine words of our Blessed Saviour applied to them, though not transubstantiated, yet certainly separated to a holy use and signification, ought to be regarded with a very just honour by us; and, whilst we worship Him whose death we herein commemorate, and of whose grace we expect to be made partakers by it, we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the types and figures by which He has chosen to represent the one and convey to us the other.  Thus therefore we think we shall best divide our piety if we adore our Redeemer in heaven, yet omit nothing that may testify our just esteem of His Holy Sacrament on earth, nor suffer the most zealous votary for this new opinion to exceed our care and reverence of approaching to His Holy Table.  We acknowledge Him to be no less really present, though after another manner than they, nor do we expect to communicate of His body and blood with our souls than they who think they take Him carnally in their mouths.” (Wake, A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the Two Great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 467-468).

Wake clearly denies immoderate realism, but at the same time denies that the Eucharist is a ‘mere rite or ceremony’ and ‘a bare commemoration’.  While the natural substances of the bread and wine are not changed, Wake affirms that that the body and blood of Christ is really received in a spiritual and heavenly manner, and that this manner of receiving the body and blood of Christ is as real as any other.  The idea of change in the elements can only be conceded in relation to their use.  They are changed from a common to a holy use.  This change occurs by the prayers of the Church and the dominical words of Jesus, which sanctify the elements.  They are in this way separated to a holy use.  Worship is due to Jesus alone, but the elements are to be regarded with honour because of their use and signification.  It is important to note that Wake affirms that Christ’s death is commemorated in the Eucharist and that the grace of Christ is conveyed by the types and figures (‘we ought certainly to pay no little regard to the types and figures by which He has chosen to represent the one [the commemoration of his death] and convey to us the other [the grace of Christ]’).  This is a clear indication of moderate realism in Wake’s theology of the Eucharist.  The elements are worthy of regard because they commemorate Christ’s death and convey his grace.  Clearly the sign and the signified are linked.

In another passage he speaks again of the real presence, saying:

“To state the notion of the real presence as acknowledged by the Church of England.  I must observe, first, that our Church utterly denies our Saviour’s body to be so really present in the Blessed Sacrament as either to leave heaven or to exist in several places at the same time. … Secondly, that we deny that in the sacred elements which we receive there is any other substance than that of bread and wine distributed to the communicants, which alone they take into their mouths and press with their teeth.  In short, ‘all which the doctrine of our Church implies by this phrase is only a real presence of Christ’s invisible power and grace so in and with the elements as by the faithful receiving of them to convey spiritual and real effects to the souls of men.  As the bodies assumed by angels might be called their bodies while they assumed them, or rather, as the Church is the body of Christ because of His Spirit quickening and enlivening the souls of believers, so the bread and wine after consecration are the real but the spiritual and mystical body of Christ’ [A quotation from Answer to T.G.’s Dialogues, published in 1679 and quoted here by Wake].  Thus has that learned man, to whom T. G. first made this objection, stated the notion of the real presence professed by us; and that this is indeed the true doctrine of the Church of England in this matter is evident not only from the plain words of our twenty-eighth Article and of our Church Catechism, but also from the whole tenor of that Office which we use in the Celebration of it.” (Wake, A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the Two Great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 468-469).

This passage is a clear statement of moderate realism from Wake.  He denies that Christ can leave heaven to be in the Eucharist or that Christ can be in more than one place at a time in his natural body.  He also denies that there can be any other substances in the elements than the natural substances of bread and wine, but he affirms, quoting from the Answer to T.G.’s Dialogues, that ‘Christ’s invisible power and grace’ is ‘in and with the elements’ at the time of receiving.  This is a crucial sentence.  Wake, in approving the words of the quotation, is arguing that Christ is ‘in’ and ‘with’ the bread and wine, not in any local or immoderate sense, but by Christ’s invisible power and grace.  This is a statement of moderate realism, closely aligned to the notion of instantiation of Christ’s nature in the elements.  The invisible power and grace of Christ (or Christ’s nature as word or logos) are instantiated in the bread and wine.  Clearly Wake is linking sign and signified, in relation to both the use and celebration of the Eucharist and the elements as well, not in an immoderate sense, but certainly in a moderate sense of realism. 

Wake also addressed the question of real presence in a discussion of Zwingli’s doctrine of the Eucharist as it was raised in Woodhead’s pamphlet.  He also spoke of Christ’s presence with people in terms of title deeds.  This is revealed in the following passage:

“I know but one objection more that is, or can be, offered against what I have said, and, which having answered, I shall close the point, ‘For, if this be all the Church of England understands when it speaks of a real presence, namely, a real sacramental presence of Christ’s body and blood in the holy signs, and a real spiritual presence in the inward Communion of them to the soul of every worthy receiver, will not this precipitate us into downright Zwinglianism, and render us after all our pretences as very Sacramentaries as they are?’  Indeed, I am not able directly to say whether it will or no, as to this matter.  But yet, first, if by Zwinglianism he means that which is more properly Socinianism, namely, a mere commemoration of Christ’s death, and a thanksgiving to God for it, it is evident it does not, forasmuch as we positively confess that in this Holy Sacrament there is a real and spiritual grace communicated to us, even all the benefits of that death and passion which we there set forth.  And this, or something like it, I find sometimes to have been maintained by Zwinglius.  But now, secondly, if by Zwinglianism he understands such a real presence as denies only the co-existence of Christ’s natural body now in heaven at the same time in this Holy Sacrament, but denies nothing of that real and spiritual Communion of it we have before mentioned, this is indeed our doctrine, nor shall we be ashamed to own it for any ill names he is able to put upon it. … I shall close up this discourse of the real presence acknowledged by us in this Holy Sacrament with a plain familiar example, and which may serve at once both to illustrate and confirm the propriety of it.  A father makes his last will, and by it bequeaths his estate and all the profits of it to his child.  He delivers it into the hands of his son, and bids him take there his house and his lands, which by this last will he delivers to him.  The son in this case receives nothing but a roll of parchment with a seal tied to it from his father; but yet by virtue of this parchment he is entituled to his estate performing the conditions of his will and to all the benefits and advantages of it; and in that deed he truly and effectually received the very house and lands that were thereby conveyed to him.  Our Saviour Christ in like manner, being now about to leave the world, gives this Holy Sacrament as His final bequest to us; in it He conveys to us a right to His body and blood, and to all the spiritual blessings and graces that proceed from them.  So that as often as we receive this Holy Eucharist as we ought to do, we receive indeed nothing but a little bread and wine into our hands, but by the blessing and promise of Christ we by that bread and wine as really and truly become partakers of Christ’s body and blood as the son by the will of his father was made inheritor of his estate; nor is it any more necessary for this that Christ’s body should come down from heaven, or the outward elements which we receive be substantially turned into it than it is necessary in that other case that the very houses and lands should be given into the hands of the son to make a real delivery or conveyance of them, or the will of the father be truly and properly changed into the very nature and substance of them.” (Wake, A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the Two Great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 469-470).

Wake effectively exploits the various positions taken in regard to Zwinglianism to dispute with Woodhead.  At the same time he denies that the position of the Church of England is nothing more than a mere commemoration of Christ’s death and a thanksgiving for it.  Wake affirms that for the Church of England the view must be that there is real and spiritual grace communicated in the Eucharist.  Following his analogy to the last will of the father given to the son, Wake applies this to Christ, the Church and the Eucharist.  Here in a crucial sentence he again affirms that Christ is present in the bread and wine.  He says, ‘We receive indeed nothing but a little bread and wine into our hands, but by the blessing and promise of Christ we by that bread and wine as really and truly become partakers of Christ’s body and blood’.  The sign, the bread and wine, is clearly linked to the signified, the body and blood of Christ, in a moderate realist sense.  Christ coming to earth in any natural or immoderate fashion does not achieve this.  The manner of Christ’s presence and the reality of the benefits of the sacrifice are present by Christ’s invisible power and grace.  This presence Wake speaks of in relation to Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist is that of moderate realism.