George Bull in discussing the Eucharist speaks of “the prayer of oblation of the Christian sacrifice in the Holy Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper” (Bull, Sermon xiii, Prescribed Forms of Prayer, edn. Burton, 1827: I, 333) as being of ancient origin.  The Eucharist for Bull is therefore both a prayer of oblation and a Christian sacrifice.  The ancient form however, argues Bull, has been improperly changed.  In criticising the Roman Catholic Church he cites as examples of this improper changing: the cup being removed from the people (Bull, Sermon xiii, Prescribed Forms of Prayer, edn. Burton, 1827: I, 344) and the doctrine that Christ is fully present in only one of the elements (that is, the bread) (Bull, A Vindication of the Church of England, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 180-181).  Against this, Bull argues that “it is the bread only that doth sacramentally signify and exhibit the body of Christ, and the wine only that doth sacramentally signify and exhibit the blood of Christ” (Bull, A Vindication of the Church of England, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 180).  Bull denies the doctrine of transubstantiation and affirms that the bread and wine “after the words of Consecration still remain in substance the same, … that is, bread and wine (Bull, A Vindication of the Church of England, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 185).  Whilst immoderate notions of presence are denied, moderate notions of presence are affirmed in the words ‘sacramentally signify and exhibit’.  Christ’s body and blood are signified and exhibited in the bread and wine, but not in any fleshy or immoderate fashion.  The words of institution (This is my body/blood) must therefore be interpreted in a figurative sense and not a true or proper sense (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 253).  This meaning Bull explains in Christ’s words as: “What I do now is a representation of My death and passion” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 253).

In relation to sacrifice Bull argues that “that which doth not perfectly represent and set forth the death and passion of our Lord is no perfect Sacrament” (Bull, A Vindication of the Church of England, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 180).  The sacrament of the Eucharist therefore must represent and set forth the death and passion of Christ.  At the same time he also denies that in the Eucharist there is any “true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice for the living and the dead” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 250).  Bull therefore denies any immoderate realism in relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist, but at the same time admits that it contains a prayer of oblation and is a Christian sacrifice.  Christ’s death and passion is set forth and represented in the Eucharist, but not in any immoderate sense.  Any suggestion “that in the Eucharist the very body and blood of Christ are again offered up to God as a propitiatory sacrifice for the sins of men” is considered to be “an impious proposition, derogatory to the one full satisfaction of Christ made by His death on the cross, and contrary to express Scripture” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 250). 

Despite this Bull admits that the Eucharist is frequently called an oblation and a sacrifice by the ancient fathers, but any such use is in the sense of “a reasonable sacrifice, a sacrifice without blood” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 250).  Further he describes the sacrifice of the Eucharist as a “commemorative sacrifice” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 250).  Such commemorative sacrifice is not:

“a bare remembering, or putting ourselves in mind of Him.  For every sacrifice is directed to God, and the oblation therein made, whatever it be, hath Him for the object, and not man.  In the Holy Eucharist therefore, we set before God the bread and wine, as ‘figures or images of the precious blood of Christ shed for us, and of His precious body’ (they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy), and plead to God the merit of His Son’s sacrifice once offered on the cross for us sinners, and in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us.” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 250).

The Eucharist is clearly more than mere remembering.  It pleads the once only sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and by it the heavenly benefits of Christ are bestowed.  This is moderate realism in the sense of anamnesis or memorial remembrance.  The benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are pleaded by the Church in the present and the benefits of that sacrifice are available in the present in the Eucharist.  This is clearly more than mere remembering, but delivery of gift in the Eucharist.  Christ is the object of any eucharistic sacrifice, since it is Christ’s sacrifice that is pleaded.  The sacrifice is not pleaded for the benefit of human beings, but as an oblation to God, whereby human beings plead the merit of Christ’s sacrifice.  In so doing however, the benefits of the sacrifice are available to people in the present.  All this is an expression of moderate realism.

The sacrament of bread and wine Bull sees as a rite appointed by Christ to give thanks and to make supplication to God in the name of Christ (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 251).  “This Eucharistical sacrifice, thus explained, is indeed λογικη υσια, a reasonable sacrifice” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 252).

Bull’s argument concerning the Eucharist is therefore that it is “an αναμνησι, or commemoration, by the symbols of bread and wine, of the body and blood of Christ, once offered up to God on the cross for our redemption” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 255).  This means that “it could not therefore be then thought an offering up again to God of the very body and blood of Christ, substantially present under the appearance of bread and wine; for these two notions are inconsistent, and cannot stand together” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 255).  While Bull, citing the evidence of the ancient Church Fathers and liturgies refers to the bread and wine as “antitypa, ‘correspondent types’, figures, and images of the precious body and blood of Christ” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 255), he also recognises that ancient use speaks of the bread and wine of the Eucharist as becoming and being made the body and blood of Christ by virtue of the consecration.  He says:

“Some of the most ancient doctors of the Church, as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, seem to have had this notion, that by and upon the sacerdotal benediction, the Spirit of Christ, or a divine virtue from Christ, descends upon the elements, and accompanies them to all worthy communicants, and that therefore they are said to be, and are the body and blood of Christ, the same divinity, which is hypostatically united to the body of Christ in heaven, being virtually united to the elements of bread and wine on earth.” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 255).

While he admits these ideas, he sees them as distinct from any notion of transubstantiation and argues that the ancient writers did not use this language in the sense of transubstantiation.  Bull’s position seems to be that of moderate realism, however he modifies this in his discussion of some of the traditional practices associated with the Eucharist.  In regard to the elevation of the host he says, for example, when speaking of the practices of the Church of Rome, that:

“ … the worst ceremony of all is the elevation of the host to be adored by the people as very Christ Himself under the appearance of bread, whole Christ, εανπωπο God and Man, while they neglect the old sursum corda, the lifting up of their hearts to heaven, where whole Christ indeed is.  A practice this is which nothing can excuse from the grossest idolatry but their gross stupidity, or rather infatuation, in thinking that a piece of bread can by any means whatsoever, or however consecrated and blessed, become their very God and Saviour.” (Bull, The Corruptions of the Church of Rome, edn. Burton, 1827: II, 310).

Bull’s language here is in agreement with a moderate realist analysis.  He speaks of moderate realism in terms of a divine virtue and a hypostatical union between the bread and wine of the Eucharist and the body and blood of Christ.  This suggests that Christ’s nature as word or logos is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  There is no fleshy or immoderate presence but there is a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, expressed as moderate realism.  Clearly however, he does not see the bread and wine, especially in the elevation, as worthy of adoration.  The bread and wine of the Eucharist are called the body and blood of Christ, with the same divinity being virtually united to the elements of bread and wine on earth, but they are not the actual fleshy body and blood itself, since that, together with the divinity (the whole Christ) is in heaven.  Bull’s opposition to the elevation seems to rest on what he states is a belief that the fleshy Christ is present, and elevated, in the host.  This however, does not detract from his earlier stated position that the divinity of Christ is virtually united to the bread and wine in the Eucharist. 

Bull’s writings on the Eucharist indicate that he adopts a moderate realist approach to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice.  He denies immoderate realism, yet speaks of the virtue of Christ’s divinity being united to the bread and wine in the Eucharist, as they become or are made the body and blood of Christ.  He also states that the benefits of Christ’s death and passion are bestowed in the Eucharist and that the sacrifice of Christ is pleaded in the Eucharist as memorial remembrance or anamnesis.