Thomas Comber in his work entitled A Companion to the Altar. Or, an Help to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s supper, By Discourse and Meditations upon the whole Communion Office, presents an extensive reflection on the Eucharist.  The edition of 1675 will be used in this case study to assess Comber’s theology of the Eucharist.

In The Introduction to A Companion to the Altar, Comber speaks of the Communion service in general, saying:

“Whatsoever benefits we now enjoy, or hope hereafter to receive from Almighty God, are all purchased by the Death, and must be obtained through the Intercession of the Holy Jesus.  And for a perpetual memorial hereof, we are not only taught to mention his name in our daily prayers, John 14. 13 & 15. 16. but also commanded by visible signs to Commemorate, and set forth his Passion in the Lord’s Supper, 1 Cor. 11. 26. wherein by a more forcible rite of Intercession we beg the Divine Acceptance.  That which is more compendiously expressed in the Conclusion of our Prayers [though Jesus Christ our Lord] is more fully and more vigorously set out in this most holy Sacrament; Wherein we Interceed on Earth in Imitation of and Conjunction with the great Intercession of our High Priest in Heaven; Pleading here in the Vertue and Merits of the same Sacrifice, which he doth urge there for us.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: i-ii).

Here are clear statements of moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice.  The Eucharist is a perpetual memorial, therefore continuing past the events of Calvary, whereby visible signs are used to commemorate the passion of Christ in the Eucharist.  The Eucharist identifies with the perpetual offering of Christ in heaven, since it ‘imitates’ and is in ‘conjunction’ with the heavenly intercession of Christ.  The two, the earthly and the heavenly, are not separated but linked in a realist way.  On earth the offering of Christ is pleaded, in the merits and virtue of Christ’s sacrifice and in heaven the same offering is also pleaded by Christ.  This suggests moderate realism, since the pleading is not in a re-iteration of the sacrifice, but in merit and virtue.  The nature of Christ’s sacrifice and his pleading in heaven is present in the Eucharist, but in a moderate realist fashion.  The events of the pleading, in heaven and on earth, are different in a localised sense, but it is the same offering that is pleaded in both.  This has much in common with the notion of instantiation and the moderate realist presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, by nature, in the power of the word or logos.

When he speaks more specifically about the idea of sacrifice in the Prayer of Consecration, Comber says:

“And where is it more proper to set forth that one all-sufficient Sacrifice in all its glories, than here [i.e. in the Prayer of Consecration of the Eucharist]?  Where we come peculiarly to celebrate it with our highest praises, and to make an everlasting memorial thereof: If we regard the persons for whom this was done, it is a Sacrifice, if we respect him that did offer, it is a free Oblation, if we consider him to whom it was offered, it is a Satisfaction, a perfect Oblation, and a sufficient Sacrifice.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 245).

Here Comber is speaking in very realist terms.  In what sense then does he call the Eucharist a sacrifice, a free oblation, a satisfaction, a perfect oblation and a sufficient sacrifice?  It seems that it is not in any immoderate sense, since he also says:

“Let none therefore mistake, or imagine we are about to Sacrifice Christ again (as the Roman Church falsly teacheth) for that is not only needless and impossible, but a plain contradiction to St. Paul, who affirms, that Jesus was to be offered but only once, Heb. 9. 26  Chap. 10. 10 & 12. and by that one oblation he hath for ever perfected them that are sanctified, ver. 14. so that there needs no more offering for sin, ver. 18.  And besides, if we think that in this Sacrament Christ is daily offered up, it seems, we do not believe that which he did on the Cross to have been sufficient, and so we should exceedingly derogate from that most meritorious Sacrifice, to which we pretend to do honour by this Commemoration. … Wherefore we do deny this Communion to be any new sacrificing of Christ. … This is only a memorial which the Lord hath delivered to us instead of a Sacrifice. … The Sacrifice need not be reiterated, it is sufficient to remember it with Eucharist and Thanksgiving. … Let no man deceive you, for Christ on the Cross assured you, that the work of expiation was then finished, there is nothing left for you now to do, but only to pray that these outward Elements may be blessed as to convey unto you the benefit thereof.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 245-247).

Immoderate realism is here denied.  Christ’s sacrifice is not re-iterated in the Eucharist.  The work of the cross was sufficient and there is no need for a new sacrifice.  The sacrifice of the Eucharist can therefore only be a memorial of Christ’s sacrifice, but this is no mere bringing to mind of a past event for Comber, rather it is an offering of Eucharist and thanksgiving.  Indeed the sacrifice of the Eucharist is an effective means of grace, since by it, the blessed elements ‘convey into you the benefits’ of Christ’s sacrifice.  The memorial is “a perpetual memorial” whereby the Church moves “our Lord to sanctify these Elements, because we celebrate this mystery in obedience to his Command: Do this (saith he) in remembrance of me … and we are bid to show forth the Lord’s Death till he come”.  Christ therefore “will make these Symbols to be his Body and Blood to us, because we are about to receive them purely by his Order, no doubt he will establish that which he hath wrought for us.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 247).  The memorial and the presence of Christ is real as the symbols ‘be his Body and Blood’ and the grace of Christ by memorial and presence ‘will establish that which he hath wrought for us’.  The signs and signified are closely associated, and the grace of Christ is effectively conveyed by the signs to those who receive them.

Comber speaks of the offertory (i.e. before the Prayer for the Church in the 1662 Prayer Book) stating first that it concerns the offering of alms.  He says:

“ … by his Authority our Church invites us to give Alms so often, whether there be a Communion or no: For this is now the only real offering which Christians can make, and is instead of those vast oblations and costly sacrifices which the Jews did ever join with their Prayers.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 54).

The offertory in the Eucharist however, does not end here, since he says on the next page:

“ … our Saviour … directs us to bring our gifts hither to the Christian Altar, Math. 5. 23, 24 and St. Paul hath joined the Sacrifice of Alms to that of Eucharist, Heb. 13. 15, 16. which our Saviour himself first practised.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 55).

The offertory then for Comber expresses both the giving of alms and serves as a reminder of the offering of Christ.  The offerings presented on the altar were clearly more than money, since Comber, in speaking of the practice of the early Church states that: “they brought Bread, Wine, Oil, Milk and Honey and of all kinds of God’s Creatures, and presenting them with great Devotion did agnize him Lord of all.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 56).  In view of this citation of evidence it seems strange that he makes no comment here about the bread and wine being placed on the altar (as the Prayer Book directs) as part of the offertory in the service in Holy Communion.

When he discusses the Prayer of Humble Access in the Communion service, which comes just before the Prayer of Consecration, he says in relation to the words:

“Grant us therefore gracious Lord, to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his body, and our Souls washed through his most precious blood, that we may evermore dwell in him and he in us.  Amen.” (BCP, 1662: Prayer of Humble Access).

That Christ:

“ … hath appointed this Blessed Sacrament, on purpose to purify us and unite us to our Saviour.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 238).

The Eucharist therefore is an effective and Christ-given means of giving grace and bringing people into unity with Christ.  This being so he then says:

“In vain therefore should we desire in the following Prayer of Consecration that these Elements should become the body and blood of Christ, if we did not first pray that we might worthily receive them.  There must be a change in us, or else though Christ’s natural flesh and blood were here, and we should eat and drink thereof everyday, we could not partake of Christ.  It is our eating with Faith and penitence, love and holy purposes, that makes it to be Christ’s body and blood to us; most wisely therefore hath the Church ordered, that before we pray for the Consecration of the Symbols we should desire to be Consecrated our Selves.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 238-239).

The role of faith, penitence, love and holy purpose is significant for Comber, since it is by these, along with the change in the communicant, that the Elements become the body and blood of Christ.  Even if the natural body and blood of Christ were present in the Eucharist and received each day, this would be in vain, without the change in the communicant by faith.  In so arguing Comber is really denying that the natural presence of Christ’s body and blood is in the Eucharist and therefore denying immoderate realism.  He must therefore be affirming moderate realism when he speaks of the consecration of the symbols such that they become the body and blood of Christ.

The communicant is told to respond to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist with reverence.  Comber says:

“O let us then revere this Ordinance which hath so divine an Author, on which the Image of God is so plainly stamped; let us with a mighty affection embrace our dying Saviour’s love who was so much afraid we should forget him, and so desirous to be ever with us: let us cheerfully go on without doubts or fears, knowing that he who hath bid us Do this, is able to make it, whatsoever he will, or whatsoever we need; let us not startle at the difficulty of this Sacramental change, but rest satisfied in the power of the Author and Enjoyner: let us call on him earnestly, and then believe that he will so be present by his Spirit, and his Grace, as that we shall feel the virtue and efficacy thereof from time to time, from one Communion to another, even till we come to see him unveiled, and face to face at his coming again in glory.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 248).

Comber here states that the very ‘Image of God’ is stamped on the Eucharist.  The Eucharist is therefore worthy of reverence.  The power of God, through Christ and the Holy Spirit, is here affirmed, so that in ‘this Sacramental change’ God can make the Eucharist whatever he will.  Comber is aware of how closely he steps here to implying that the sacramental change could be interpreted as a change in the substance of the bread and wine, and so he tells his readers not to ‘startle at the difficulty’ of any notion of change.  Comber is careful to deny that there is any substantial change implied in what he is arguing, since he says:

“We behold the Creatures of Bread and Wine, and we know them to be as yet no more.  But we desire they may be made the body and blood of Christ to us; that although they remain in substance what they were, yet to the worthy Receiver they may be something far more excellent, which nothing can effect, but that word which made all things out of nothing. … And in this manner he hath chosen to communicate himself, therefore we may cheerfully request, that by the receiving this Bread and Wine, which he hath chosen, we may become partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood, for St. Paul assures us, the Bread thus blessed is the Communion or Communication of Christ’s Body: There needs no real change in the substance of the Elements, for this participation is not by sense but by Faith. … By Faith we lay hold upon him, as the only satisfaction for our sins, and then the Power of God doth by these Symbols communicate our Lord unto us, and convey unto our Souls all the salutary benefits of that great expiation.  We have all the real effects, the virtue and the comfort of receiving Jesus, though we do not tear his flesh with our teeth: And if it may please God to make us partakers of the benefits of Christ’s Passion, we will not inquire into the manner, but we will believe, because we feel the effects, and rejoice in the graces that flow from him; nor shall we desire more.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 250-251).

Faith is clearly the key for Comber.  It is by faith that the communicants ‘lay hold upon him’ and receive the benefits of his expiation.  Moderate realism is affirmed here since the signs are clearly the means by which the presence and the benefits of Christ’s passion are conveyed.  It is important to note that Comber speaks of the elements becoming ‘something far more excellent’, that this is achieved through the power of ‘that word which made all things out of nothing’.  It is the ‘word’ that brings about the sacramental change in the elements.   Immoderate realism is denied since there is not substantial change in the elements and no re-iteration of the sacrifice of Christ.  At the same time however, the elements are made something that they were not before the consecration. 

Comber following on from this, comments on the doctrine of transubstantiation, as he understands it.  He first comments that the ancient liturgies did not use this doctrine in their forms of consecration.  He acknowledges that they pray that the Holy Spirit may descend upon the elements and “make that Bread (so they still call it) the Body and that Cup the Blood of Christ” but he also states that this “may be done without any real change in the Elements themselves.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 258-259).  Therefore he concludes that: “Transubstantiation is not to be believed” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 260) setting out his reasons for this.  He says, displaying a lack of knowledge of what the doctrine of transubstantiation actually says, that:

“ … it is needless for us to expect to eat the natural flesh of Christ here, where we come to seek a spiritual Union with him by Faith, and an interest in his Death, to which the eating his flesh would nothing conduce.  Again it is contrary to the nature of a Sacrament where the visible part must remain (as the water in Baptism doth) to be a foundation for the inward and spiritual grace: And further since the Heavens must contain Christ’s Body to the end of the World, it is impossible it should be but one, and yet many, in several places at once, always whole, yet often broken, received entire by every person, and yet then at the right hand of God, existing before, yet Created by the Priest: We must deny our Reason as well as our Senses, if we can believe so great and absurd Contradictions: Nor is it imaginable if this were the intent of our Lord’s words, how he was then alive and sitting at the Table could break and give himself, or be eaten, and yet remain entire, and finally since we see, and feel, and taste it to be only Bread and Wine as to the substance still, unless we will deny this great foundation of all our notions, yea and our faith also, we must not give credit to the strange and monstrous conceit: Yet still we do believe that every duly disposed Communicant doth receive really the Body and Blood of Christ, in and by these Elements, but it is by Faith and not by sense. … and although the manner be mysterious, yet the advantages are real, and the effect more certain than if we eat or drink his natural flesh and blood.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 260-261).

Comber shows ignorance here in his understanding of transubstantiation.  He wrongly ascribes to the doctrine the statement that the natural flesh and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine, by change of substance (an immoderate realism), when in fact the doctrine does not say that the natural flesh and blood of Christ are present, but that the substance of Christ’s body and blood (whatever it is) is present with the accidents of bread and wine remaining (a moderate realism).  Despite this there is nonetheless an important affirmation of moderate realism in Comber’s words.  He affirms that the body and blood of Christ are really received, ‘in and by these Elements’.  The manner for this real presence and reception is through faith and not through senses.  Despite this the symbols are seen to have the body and blood of Christ ‘in’ them and it is ‘by’ them that Christ’s body and blood are received.  This is moderate realism where the sign is seen to covey the power of the signified. 

In discussing the Prayer of Consecration in the Prayer Book, Comber speaks of the Eucharist as an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ saying:

“God hath provided his own dear Son, whose blood being already spilt, is so efficacious and all-sufficient that there is now no need of any other, but this unbloody sacrifice to be offered, and that in memorial of that great Sin-offering which taketh away the sins of the world, 1 Pet. 2. 5.  And for this purpose Christ himself hath appointed these Creatures of Bread and Wine, ordaining that because they are designed to express so great a Mystery they shall have a peculiar Consecration.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 241-242).

The reference to an ‘unbloody sacrifice’ indicates that there is no immoderate or bloody sacrifice intended here and that moderate realism is intended, yet it is affirmed at the same time that the unbloody sacrifice is offered as a memorial of the historic sacrifice.  The unbloody and the bloody sacrifices are clearly linked as sign and signified.  The bread and wine are described as being ‘designed to express’ the mystery of the Eucharist through their consecration.  This consecration occurs through “the words of the Priest over this mysterious food of our Souls” in imitation of Christ, who “did not deliver this Bread and Wine until he had consecrated it by giving thanks”, yet “it is not the power of the Priest, but the efficacy of the Author, which makes the Elements to become sacramentally the body and blood of Christ.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 242-243).  The elements are here described as ‘becoming’ the body and blood of Christ sacramentally, that is, in the manner of moderate realism.  There is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, but the bread and wine are no longer ordinary bread and wine, but sacramentally Christ’s body and blood.  ‘Becoming’ therefore implies sacramental change and not change in substance.  This sacramental change is brought about by beseeching God “to sanctify these Elements, that they may be his body and blood to us, because the divine appointment hath made them to be the means, whereby we may become partakers of the benefits of that Holy Passion.” (Comber, A Companion to the Altar, 1675: 245).  Here Comber seems to echo the invocation in the Prayer of Consecration found in the 1549 BCP, which invokes the power of the Holy Spirit so that the bread and wine ‘may be unto us’ the body and blood of Christ (Ketley, 1844: 88).  Considering the date of Comber’s work (i.e. 1675) some 126 years later, this is a remarkable affirmation of moderate realism in the form of an epiclesis.  No Prayer Book after 1549 (i.e. 1552, 1559, 1604 and 1662) included an invocation or epiclesis, with such a phrase as ‘may be to us’ and therefore Comber is arguing for not only consecration by rehearsal of institution narrative and dominical words, but also by the sanctification of God, so that the bread and wine ‘may be to us’ the body and blood of Christ sacramentally.  The use of any form of invocation would be associated with a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist.  Clearly by the use of the word ‘sacramentally’ Comber is, at the same time, ensuring that no immoderate meaning can be taken here, suggesting that the bread and wine ‘may be to us’ Christ’s natural body and blood. 

In another work of Comber’s, published in 1686 and called The Church Catechism.  With a Brief and Easie Explanation thereof, Comber speaks again of his theology of the Eucharist.  He prints the Prayer Book Catechism on the left hand page and on the right hand page asks and answers questions which explain the meaning of the Catechism questions and answers.  In speaking of the nature and parts of a sacrament, Comber affirms that the sacraments are “signs of inward and spiritual grace”, that they are the “means to convey grace to the Soul” and that they are “Pledges to assure us, that the Graces signified shall be conveyed to Believers”.  He also affirms that the eye sees the outward part of the sacrament but the inward part can only be discerned by faith. (Comber, The Church Catechism, 1686: 27).  In speaking of the end and use of the Lord’s Supper, Comber states that Christ is not offered up as a sacrifice to his Father in the Eucharist, but that the Eucharist is “a lively representation of that Sacrifice of himself offered upon the Cross once for all” and that the Eucharist “was ordained to revive in us the memory of Christ’s death, and of the benefits purchased for us thereby” (Comber, The Church Catechism, 1686: 29).  The outward part of the Eucharist is stated to be bread and wine, but he denies that the substance of the bread and wine is changed by consecration into the substance of the body and blood of Christ (Comber, The Church Catechism, 1686: 29).  Comber here seems to show more understanding of what the doctrine of transubstantiation teaches, since he does not state as he did in A Companion to the Altar that transubstantiation teaches that Christ’s natural flesh and blood is present in the Eucharist.  In discussing the inward part of the Lord’s Supper, Comber affirms that “the bread broken in the Lord’s Supper, signify the Body of Christ broken upon the Cross for us” and that “the Wine poured out represent his Blood shed for us”.  Further he states “believers feed on the Body and Blood of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, as truly and really as they do on the Bread and Wine”.  This however is not “done after a Corporal or Carnal manner” but “after a Spiritual manner, while by Faith they apply to themselves the benefits of Christ’s death”.  These benefits are seen to be the nourishing and strengthening of souls and comforting and refreshing of them.  Souls are “as truly and really hereby strengthened and refreshed, as our Bodies are by Bread and Wine” (Comber, The Church Catechism, 1686: 31).  The presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist is seen to be real, but its effectiveness is dependent on the faith of the person who receives communion.  Comber therefore states that people who are “ignorant, unbelieving, or unthankful” (Comber, The Church Catechism, 1686: 32) do not partake of the comforts of the spiritual food of the Eucharist.  Furthermore those who are “injurious, malicious, and uncharitable” do not receive  “pardon or grace from God in this Sacrament” (Comber, The Church Catechism, 1686: 32).  Although the presence is real it is dependent on the faith of the receiver for the full operation of its power.

Comber’s theology of the Eucharist is that of moderate realism.  He clearly affirms that Christ’s is really present in the Eucharist and that the body and blood of Christ is received in and by the elements.  The Eucharist is also seen as a sacrifice in that it is a perpetual memorial of the sacrifice of Christ, once offered for all on the cross, but now pleaded on earth in the Eucharist, as Christ also pleads it in heaven at the throne of God.  Sign and signified are linked with one another in Comber’s theology, with the bread and wine conveying the sacramental body and blood of Christ and the memorial of the sacrifice conveying the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice to the communicants.  The linking of sign and signified with the signs conveying grace mark Comber’s theology of the Eucharist as that of moderate realism.  Notions of immoderate realism are denied as being of no worth and notions of moderate realism are affirmed as efficacious signs of God’s grace.