Herbert Thorndike in a work published in 1659 and entitled An Epilogue to the Tragedy of the Church of England, being a Necessary Consideration and Brief Resolution of the Chief Controversies in Religion that divide the Western Church; occasioned by the Present Calamity of the Church of England: in three books, viz. of I. The Principles of Christian Truth; II. The Covenant of Grace; III. The Laws of the Church (edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV) presents material related to the Eucharist.  In this work Thorndike denies various opinions regarding the Eucharist, that is, transubstantiation, Zwinglianism, Calvinism and Lutheranism.  He goes on to argue, in opposition to these opinions:

“that the bodily substance of bread and wine is not abolished nor ceaseth in this Sacrament by virtue of the consecration of it.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 6).

Thorndike’s view is that while “the nature and the substance of the bread and wine” remain “in the Sacrament of the Eucharist even when it is a Sacrament, that is, when it is received”, it is also the presence “of Christ’s body and blood, brought forth and made to be in the Sacrament of the Eucharist by making it to be that Sacrament.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 11).  This occurs he argues in the way the supernatural conjunction and union of two natures occurs in one person of our Lord, such that:

“when the name of Christ’s body and blood is attributed to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, … God would have us understand a supernatural conjunction and union, between the body and blood of Christ, and the said bread and wine, whereby, they become as truly instruments of conveying God’s Spirit, to them who receive as they ought, as the same Spirit was always in his natural body and blood” (Thordike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 12).

This accords well with the notion of instantiation found in moderate realism, such that for Thorndike the nature of Christ’s body and blood is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in the same way that it was in Christ’s natural body and blood.  Clearly there appears to be a strict identity between the instantiation of the universal (the nature of Christ’s body and blood) in both instantiations (the eucharistic and the natural) even though the particulars (the bread and wine on the one hand and Christ’s body and blood on the other) are not strictly identical.  This is precisely the argument advanced by David Armstrong when he speaks of universals being therefore strictly identical in their different instantiations (Armstrong, 1997: 27).  Armstrong says: “The demand that universals be strictly identical in their different instances, the ‘powerful truism’, entails that for two instantiations of the same universal, the sameness of type involved must be strict identity” (Armstrong, 1997: 28).  Clearly the particulars of the Eucharist (the bread and wine) and the particulars of the natural body and blood of Christ are not strictly identical for Thorndike (or according to Armstrong’s analysis) but the universal (the nature of Christ) is strictly identical in both instantiations.  All this is firmly based on moderate realism which Thorndike describes as “both unions being the same” and “by virtue of the hypostatical union” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 12).  There is a harmony here between Thorndike’s moderate realist analysis of what is happening in the Eucharist and modern philosophical reflection (such as can be found in the work of David Armstrong) which examines the distinction between realism and nominalism to both moderate and immoderate degrees.

He also clearly rejects the idea that the nature of the bread and wine does not remain in the Eucharist, but at the same time affirms that the body and blood of Christ is present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist in a mystical representation, saying:

“Supposing the bread and the wine to remain in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, as sense informs and the word of God enforces; if the same word of God affirm there to be also the body and blood of Christ, what remaineth but that bread and wine by nature and bodily substance be also the bodily flesh and blood of Christ by mystical representation (in that sense which I determined even now) and by spiritual grace?” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 22).

The idea of ‘representation’ he also applies to the sacrifice of Christ, saying:

“Which kind of presence you may, if you please, call the representation of the sacrifice of Christ, so as you understand the word ‘representation’ to signify, not the figuring or resembling of that which is only signified, but as it signifies in the Roman laws, when a man is repraesentare pecuniam who pays ready money: deriving the signification of it a re praesenti, not from the preposition re; which will import, not the presenting of that again to a man’s senses, which once is past, but the tendering of that to a man’s possession, which is tendered him upon the place.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 20).

In the Eucharist therefore the presence and sacrifice of Christ is said to be not only figurative or symbolic, but the ‘possession’ of the person who receives.  Therefore he argues that:

“ … the body and blood of Christ should be sacramentally present in and under the elements (to be spiritually received of all that meet it with a living faith, to condemn those for crucifying Christ again that receive it with a dead faith), can it seem any way inconsequent to the consecration thereof by virtue of the common faith of Christians, professing that which is requisite to make true Christians, whether by a living or a dead faith?” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 38).

Here he says that the body and blood of faith is present ‘in’ and ‘under’ the elements and that even those who have a ‘dead faith’ receive it in some way.  This suggests that for Thorndike, there is an objective givenness of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, which is independent of the faith of the communicant.  This is a statement of moderate realism.

The consecration of the elements, Thorndike argues, is effected by the use of prayer and not by the specific words, ‘This is my body’ and ‘This is my blood’.  This, he argues, is so since Christ made the elements to be his body and blood by the use of prayer and since the ancient liturgies also agree that the use of prayer is the means of consecration, not specific words (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 50-68).  Thorndike goes on to elaborate this idea in the following passages:

“If it can be any way showed that the Church did ever pray that the flesh and blood might be substituted instead of the elements under the accident of them, then I am content that this be counted henceforth the sacramental presence of them in the Eucharist.  But, if the Church only pray that the Spirit of God, coming down upon the elements, may make them the body and blood of Christ, so that they which received them may be filled with the grace of His Spirit; then it is not the sense of the Catholic Church that can oblige any man to believe the abolishing of the elements in their bodily substance: because, supposing that they remain, they may nevertheless become the instrument of God’s Spirit, to convey the operation thereof to them that are disposed to receive it, no otherwise than His flesh and blood conveyed the efficacy thereof upon earth.  And that, I suppose, is reason enough to call it the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, that is to say, as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist.  It is not here to be denied that all ecclesiastical writers do with one mouth bear witness to the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  Neither will any of them be found to ascribe it to anything but the consecration; or that to any faith but that upon which the Church professeth to proceed to the celebrating of it.  And upon this account, when they speak of the elements, supposing the consecration to have passed upon them, they always call them by the name, not of their bodily substance, but of the body and blood of Christ which they are become.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 69).

Here Thorndike denies any immoderate realism in relation to the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist.  It is the Spirit of God coming upon the elements that makes them the body and blood of Christ.  There is no sense in which the flesh and blood of Christ is substituted for the elements, such that the bodily substance of the elements is abolished.  The elements, by the power of the Spirit, become the instruments of God to convey the efficacy of Christ’s grace on earth in the Eucharist.  The elements may therefore be called the body and blood of Christ, not in the immoderate realist sense, but in the sense of moderate realism. 

In relation to change in the elements, Thorndike says:

“The fathers … all acknowledge the elements to be changed, translated, and turned into the substance of Christ’s body and blood; though as in a Sacrament, that is, mystically; yet therefore by virtue of the consecration, not of his faith that receives.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 73).

While the elements remain in their natural substance, they are nonetheless ‘changed, translated and turned’ into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, not in an immoderate sense (fleshy) but in a moderate sense (sacramentally).  The way in which this occurs remains mystical, but nonetheless real.

In this important passage, Thorndike speaks of the elements becoming Christ’s body and blood.  He says:

“The canon of the Mass itself prays that the Holy Ghost coming down may make this bread and this cup the body and blood of Christ.  And certainly the Roman Mass expresses a manifest abatement of the common and usual sense of the body and blood of Christ unto that sense which is proper to the intent and subject of them who speak of this Sacrament; when the Church in the consecration prays, ut nobis corpus fiat dilectissimi Filii Tui Domini nostri Jesu Christ, ‘that they may become the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, to us’.  No man, that understands Latin and sense, will say it is the same thing for the elements to become the body and blood of Christ as to become the body and blood of Christ to those who receive; which imports no more than that which I have said.  And yet there is no more said in those liturgies which pray that the Spirit of God may make them the flesh and blood of Christ to this intent and effect, that those which received them may be filled with the grace of His Spirit.  For the expression of this effect and intent limits the common signification of the words to that which is proper to this action of the Eucharist; as I have delivered it.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 76-77).

Once again the power of the Holy Spirit is the means for the bread and wine becoming the body and blood of Christ.  There is, says Thorndike, a proper sense in which this ‘becoming’ is understood.  He distinguishes between ‘becoming the body and blood of Christ’ and what he sees as the proper sense, that is, ‘becoming the body and blood of Christ to those that receive’.  This means that for those who receive the elements, following the prayer of consecration, where the Holy Spirit has been invoked over the elements, the elements become the body and blood of Christ and the person who receives them receives the grace of Christ’s Spirit.  This again is a statement of moderate realism since Thorndike is distinguishing between an immoderate sense of becoming (fleshy) and a moderate sense (for those who receive). 

“As it is by no means to be denied that the elements are really changed, translated, turned, and converted into the body and blood of Christ (so that whoso receiveth them with a living faith is spiritually nourished by the same, he that with a dead faith is guilty of crucifying Christ), yet is not the change destructive to the bodily substance of the elements, but cumulative of them with the spiritual grace of Christ’s body and blood; so that the body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament turns to the nourishment of the body, whether the body and blood in the truth turn to the nourishment or the damnation of the soul.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 81-82).

Here Thorndike again argues for moderate realism.  The change brought about in the consecration of the elements is not destructive of their bodily substance (bread and wine) but cumulative, in that the substance of bread and wine remains, but the spiritual grace of Christ’s body and blood is also in and under the sacrament.  Therefore there is both nourishment of the body (by the natural substance of the bread and wine) and also nourishment (or damnation) of the soul (by the body and blood of Christ).

In relation to eucharistic sacrifice, Thorndike makes the following comments, connecting the idea of eucharistic sacrifice with the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the consecrated elements:

“Having showed the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist because it is appointed that in it the faithful may feast upon the sacrifice of the cross; we have already showed by the Scriptures that it is the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross in the same sense and to the same effect as it containeth the body and blood of Christ which it representeth; that is, mystically and spiritually and sacramentally (that is, as in and by a Sacrament) tendereth and exhibiteth.  For seeing the Eucharist not only tendereth the flesh and blood of Chirst, but separated one from the other, under and by several elements, as His blood was parted from His body by the violence of the cross; it must of necessity be as well the sacrifice as the Sacrament of Christ upon the cross.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 98-99).

Eucharistic sacrifice seems, for Thorndike, to be realist to a moderate degree.  The faithful ‘feast upon the sacrifice of the cross’ in the Eucharist, but they do this to a mystical and spiritual degree.  The sacrifice of Christ is represented in the Eucharist as the body and blood of Christ is represented, mystically and spiritually.  Immoderate realism seems to be excluded by Thorndike, since he does not advocate any sense of a fleshy or physical presence or sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.

Thorndike uses the terms ‘propitiatory’ and ‘impetratory’ in relation to the Eucharist, arguing that there are four parts to eucharistic sacrifice.  These are: the oblation of the unconsecrated elements at the offertory; the intercessory prayers in union with the heavenly prayer of Christ; the consecration of the bread and wine; and the dedication to God of those who receive the sacrament (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 106-118).  In discussing the first part (the oblation of the unconsecrated elements at the offertory) he says:

“Those species, set apart for the celebration of the Eucharist, are as properly to be called sacrifices of that nature which the Eucharist is of (to wit, commemorative and representative) as the same are to be counted figurative under the Law from the time they were deputed to that use.  This is then the first act of oblation by the Church, that is, by any Christian that consecrates his goods, not at large to the service of God, but peculiarly to the service of God by sacrifice; in regard whereof the elements of the Eucharist before they are consecrated, are truly counted oblations or sacrifices.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 107).

The Eucharist is here referred to as both a commemorative and representative sacrifice and the elements, before consecration, are oblations and sacrifices, because they are offered to God.

In relation to the second part (the offering of prayers) Thorndike says:

“After the consecration is past, having showed you that St Paul hath appointed that at the celebration of the Eucharist ‘prayers, supplications, and intercessions, be made for all’ estates of the world and of the Church; and that the Jews have no right to the Eucharist (according to the Epistle to the Hebrews) because, though eucharistical, yet it is of that kind of blood whereof is offered to God within the veil, with prayers for all estates of the world, as Philo and Josephus inform us: seeing the same Apostle hath so plainly expounded us the accomplishment of that figure in the offering of the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross to the Father in the highest heavens to obtain the benefits of His passion for us; upon earth of that which is done there: these things, I say, considered, necessarily it follows that whoso believes the prayers of the Church made in our Lord’s name do render God propitious to them for they are made, and obtain for them the benefits of Christ’s death (which he that believes not is no Christian), cannot question that those which are made by St Paul’s appointment at the celebration of the Eucharist, offering up unto God the merits and sufferings of Christ there represented must be peculiarly and especially effectual to the same purposes.  And that the Eucharist may very properly be accounted a sacrifice propitiatory and impetratory both in this regard – because the offering of it up to God with and by the said prayers doth render God propitious, and obtain at His hands the benefits of Christ’s death which it representeth – there can be no cause to refuse, being no more than the simplicity of plain Christianity enforceth.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 107-108).

Prayers are seen to be the means by which the Eucharist is propitiatory and impetratory, and since they are offered to God in the Eucharist they obtain the benefits of Christ’s death.

When speaking of the third part (the consecration) Thorndike says:

“Having maintained that the elements are really changed from ordinary bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ mystically present as in a Sacrament; and that in virtue of the consecration, not by the faith of him that receives: I am to admit and maintain whatsoever appears duly consequent to this truth:- namely, that the elements so consecrate are truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, inasmuch as the body and blood of Christ crucified are contained in them, not as in a bare sign, which a man may take up at his pleasure, but as in the means by which God hath promised His Spirit; but not properly the sacrifice upon the cross, because that is a thing that consists in action and motion and succession, and therefore once done can never be done again, because it is contradiction that that which is done should ever be undone.  It is therefore enough that the Eucharist is the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross, as the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross is represented, renewed, revived, and restored by it, and at every representation is said to be the same thing with that which it representeth; taking ‘representation’ here, not for barely signifying, but for tendering and exhibiting thereby that which it signifieth. … Let us therefore have the nature of a sacrifice so soon as the consecration is past.  It shall have that nature improperly, so long as it is not the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross; though truly, so long as the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth. … I will not grant that this sacrificing (that is, this consecrating the elements into the sacrifice) is an action done in the person of Christ: though they are agreed that it is done by the rehearsing of the words of Christ.  For the rehearsing of Christ’s words is not an action done in the person of Christ; nor do I take upon me His person whose words I recite.  And I have showed that the consecration is done by the prayers of the Church immediately; though these prayers are made in virtue of Christ’s order, commanding to do what He did, and thereby promising that the elements shall become that which He saith those which He consecrated are. … Having proved the consecration of the Eucharist to be the production of the body and blood of Christ crucified, or the causing of them to be mystically present in the elements thereof, as in a Sacrament representing them separated by the crucifying of Christ; and the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross being necessarily propitiatory and impetratory both; it cannot be denied that the Sacrament of the Eucharist, inasmuch as it is the same sacrifice of Christ upon the cross (as that which representeth is truly said to be the thing which it representeth), is also both propitiatory and impetratory by virtue of the consecration of it, whereby it becometh the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 112-117).

In this passage Thorndike states that elements are mystically changed from the state of ordinary bread and wine to the body and blood of Christ and that this change does not depend upon the faith of the receiver.  The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist has therefore an objective character in the bread and wine, not being any mere sign.  Further Thorndike argues that the consecrated elements are ‘truly the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross’ in the sense that Christ’s body and blood ‘are contained in them’.  Having said this he is careful to exclude any immoderate realism since he also says that the elements are ‘not properly the sacrifice upon the cross’.  The presence of Christ’s body and blood and the sacrifice of Christ is ‘represented, renewed, revived, and restored’ in the Eucharist.  This strong expression of realism must however, still be considered to be moderate, since the proper sense (fleshy and physical) of both presence and sacrifice is denied.  For Thorndike the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is one of ‘nature’, following the consecration.  The nature is described as being an ‘improper nature’, that is, not a physical, fleshy or immoderate presence and sacrifice, but at the same time the nature of Christ’s presence and sacrifice means that ‘the Sacrament is not empty of that which it signifieth’.  This idea of an ‘improper nature’ could be termed moderate realism since it is not a strict identity.  It equates to could be described as the notion of Christ’s nature as word or logos being instantiated in the Eucharist in a moderate realist sense.  Thorndike’s ‘proper nature’ equates with immoderate realism and his ‘improper nature’ equates with moderate realism.  Immoderate realism is clearly excluded by Thorndike since he says that he will not grant that the sacrificing in the Eucharist is ‘an action done in the person of Christ’, but moderate realism is affirmed.  Thorndike’s conception of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist seems to be in agreement with the notion of moderate realism and to lend support to the existence of such a model in the Anglican eucharistic tradition.

In discussing the fourth element (dedication to the service of God) Thorndike says:

“Hereupon ariseth a fourth reason why this Sacrament is a sacrifice; to wit, of the bodies and souls of them who, having consecrated the goods to God for the celebration of it, do by receiving it profess to renew that consecration of themselves to the service of God according to the law of Christ, which their Baptism originally pretended.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 118).

“Breaking, pouring forth, distributing, eating, drinking, are all parts of the sacrifice; as the whole action is that sacrifice, by which the covenant of grace is renewed, restored, and established against the interruption of our failures.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 119).

The sacrifice which is dedication to the service of God is linked with the elements of the Eucharist in a realist sense.  It is through the outward breaking, pouring, distributing, eating and drinking that the grace of Christ is known in the Eucharist.

The objective nature of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is emphasised by Thorndike in these words:

“If from hence any man would infer that, seeing the Sacrament of the Eucharist (that is to say, the body and blood of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the consecration) is a propitiatory and impetratory sacrifice for the congregation there present, for their relations, and for the Church, therefore it is so, whether they proceed to receive the Eucharist or not; therefore it is so, whether they proceed to offer up the Eucharist present by their prayers for the necessities of the Church or not; therefore it is so whether they pray with the Church or not; the consequence will straight appear to fail; because those reasons which make it such a sacrifice make it so in order to the receiving, or to the offering of it by prayers of the Church in behalf of the Church.” (Thorndike, Works, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: IV, 120-121).

Here Thorndike defines the Eucharist first of all as ‘the body and blood of Christ crucified there present by virtue of the consecration’ and then goes on to say that it is both propitiatory and impetratory for those who are present, whether thy receive the sacrament or not.  Clearly this means that the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is independent of the faith and prayers of those who are in attendance.  The presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist has for Thorndike therefore, an objective givenness, which he has stated elsewhere not to be a fleshy or physical presence and sacrifice.  The realism he speaks of here is that of moderate realism.

This idea of an objective presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist is also spoken of in another of Thorndike’s works, called The Reformation of the Church of England better than the Council of Trent, written between 1670 and 1672 (edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: V).  In this work Thorndike states that he believes the sacrament can be reserved for the benefit of the sick or dying.  He says:

“Thus far I will particularise as concerning the Eucharist, that the Church is to endeavour the celebrating of it so frequently that it may be reserved to the next Communion.  For in the mean time it ought to be so ready for them that pass into the next world that they need not stay for the consecrating of it on purpose for every one.” (Thorndike, The Reformation of the Church of England, edn Haddan, 1844-1854: V, 578).

Thorndike also agrees that it is right for “reverence” to be “tendered to our Lord as present in the Sacrament”, and further he states that adoration of our Lord in the sacrament is acceptable “when it passes the streets in order to Communion”, since “it may be then so well understood that it may be then but due devotion to that great office”. (Thorndike, The Reformation of the Church of England, edn. Haddan, 1844-1854: V, 585-586).  Both of these references imply that the presence of Christ in the Eucharist remains outside the reception of the bread and wine and that the presence is continuing outside the Eucharist.  The nature of this continuing presence, as reservation for the sick and dying and as passing in the streets, is still though that of moderate realism.  The ‘improper nature’ of Christ’s presence and sacrifice (that is, the moderate realist presence and sacrifice) is for Thorndike a continuing presence and sacrifice outside the Eucharist, as the nature of Christ, but not as a ‘proper nature’ or immoderate realist presence and sacrifice.  It is in this sense that Thorndike’s writing expresses a moderate realism in relation the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Anglican eucharistic tradition.