Daniel Brevint published a work on the Eucharist in 1673 entitled, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice.  This work made such an impression on John and Charles Wesley that they used an abridged form of it as the Preface to their hymn collection entitled Hymns on the Lord’s Supper (1745). 

Brevint described the Eucharist as “one of the greatest mysteries of godliness” and “a great mystery, consisting of Sacrament and Sacrifice.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 82).  When speaking of the elements Brevint said that they “are far more than an ordinary figure” and that the sacrament “makes the thing which it represents, as really present for our use, as if it were newly done”.  The fact that Brevint speaks of the bread and wine as representing the ‘thing’, is suggestive of moderate realism.  There is no sense in his writing of a fleshy or immoderate notion of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.  He does however, state that the bread and wine “besides their ordinary use, bear as it were on their face the glorious character of their divine appointment” – “How deep and holy is the mystery.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 82-83).  Clearly the bread and wine remain in their natural form, but in addition to this they have an additional ‘character’ given them by God.  The communicant receives this additional ‘character’ and becomes a “partaker of Christ in another manner, than when we only hear his word” and therefore in the Eucharist we “seek not a bare representation or remembrance.  I want and seek my Saviour himself, and I haste to this Sacrament … with a full persuasion, that these words, this is my body, promise me more than a figure: that this holy banquet is not a bare memorial only. … Indeed in what manner this is done I know not.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 83).  Brevint is here rejecting any view which sees the bread and wine of the Eucharist as bare figures or the Eucharist as a bare memorial.  For him Christ is present in the Eucharist and Christ’s sacrifice is remembered in a dynamic manner.  He therefore describes the Eucharist not only as a sacrament but also as a sacrifice.  His writings on the sacrifice suggest that he considered the Eucharist as a memorial remembrance in the sense of anamnesis.  The effects of Christ’s sacrifice are available in the present, since Brevint suggests that in the Eucharist it is as if ‘it were newly done’.  Brevint’s writing presents a moderate realism where sign and signified are clearly associated with one another.  Brevint also describes the Eucharist as ‘an authentic Memorial” and that Christ at the Last Supper did “ordain this Sacrament, as a holy Memorial, Representation, and Image of what He was about to suffer” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in Wright, 1989: 304).  For Brevint this memorial, representation and image has great significance for Christian people who look upon them in the Eucharist, since he says:

“ … this Bread, this Wine, the breaking of the one, the pouring out of the other, and the Participation of both; this sacred Mystery might expose to faithful Beholders as a present and constant Object, both the Martyrdom and the Sacrifice of this crucified Saviour, giving up his Flesh, shedding his Blood, and pouring out his very Soul for the Expiation of their sins.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in Wright, 1989: 304).

The sign and the signified are clearly linked here in a moderate realist fashion, for both the eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice of Christ.  This is expressed in another passage when he says:

“ … these Signs and Monuments, besides their ordinary Use, bear withal as it were on their Face the glorious Character of their Institution from above, and with this Institution the most express Design that God hath thereby to revive in a manner, and to expose to all our Senses, his Passion and Sufferings as if they had still their true Being (as they have still the same virtue).” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in Wright, 1989: 306).

Brevint’s position here is that the signs maintain their ordinary use, that is they remain bread and wine, but they also bear a ‘glorious character’ derived from the Christ and the institution of the Eucharist.  The Eucharist therefore is able to ‘expose to all our Senses’ Christ’s passion.  This exposure is real, for Brevint, since in the Eucharist it is as if the passion and suffering of Christ is present in its ‘true Being’, but in fact is present only by its virtue.  ‘True being’ implies immoderate realism (that is, the fleshy presence of Christ and a re-iteration of the sacrifice of the cross) whereas ‘virtue’ implies moderate realism, in that Christ is present and the sacrifice is offered in the power of its nature or virtue.  Brevint is clear that the presence and sacrifice are real in the Eucharist, but they are real in a moderate realist sense only.

When Brevint speaks in another place of the presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist he says:

“Christ’s body and blood have everywhere, but especially in this sacrament, a true and real presence. … This great and holy mystery, communicates to us the death of our blessed Lord, both as offering himself to God, and as giving himself for man, as he offered himself to God, it enters me into that mystical body for which he died … as he offers himself to man, the holy sacrament is, after the sacrifice for sin … the table purposefully set, to receive those mercies that are sent down from his altar.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 83).

The presence of Christ in the Eucharist is a ‘true and real’ presence and Christ’s sacrifice is offered on earth as it is offered in heaven.  The Eucharist on earth is also seen to be a reflection of the heavenly altar, a thought common in the writers of the time, for example, Jeremy Taylor.

He makes these points again saying:

“So let us turn our eyes and our hearts toward Jesus our eternal high priest, who is gone up into the true sanctuary, and doth there continually present both his own body and blood before God, and all the true Israel of God in a memorial.  In the meantime we, beneath in the church, present to God his body and blood in a memorial, that under this shadow of his cross, and figure of sacrifice, we may present ourselves in very deed before him.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 83).

Christ presents his body and blood to God in heaven and on earth the church presents his body and blood as a memorial.  The pleading of the sacrifice takes place in heaven and on earth.  Brevint is careful though to avoid any immoderate notions of sacrifice in this description of the Eucharist.  He does this by speaking of the Eucharist as a ‘shadow’ of Christ’s cross and a ‘figure’ of Christ’s sacrifice.  The words ‘shadow’ and ‘figure’ are however, suggestive of moderate realism, with the sign and the signified being associated with one another but not equated.

Brevint emphasises mystery in his writing, arguing that the eucharistic presenting of Christ is mystery, the manner of the presence is mystery and the elements themselves are also mystery.  Despite this emphasis on mystery, Brevint outlines a threefold content of the Eucharist, saying:

“And these three make up the proper sense of those words, Take eat; this is my body.  For the consecrated bread doth not only represent his body, and bring the virtue of it into our souls on earth, but as to our happiness in heaven bought with that price, it is the most solemn instrument to assure our title to it. … [Christ] delivers into our hands by way of instrument and conveyance, the blessed sacrament of his body and blood; in the same manner as kings use to confer dignities … and as fathers bestow estates … so the body and blood of Jesus is in full value, and heaven with all its glory in sure title made over to true Christians, by that bread and wine which they receive in the holy communion.” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 84).

Brevint here has made a clear substitution of ‘value’ in place of ‘substance’ (McAdoo and Stevenson, 1997: 84).  The value is given through the receipt of what is put into the hands of the communicant, that is, the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Sign and signified are closely associated in the work of Daniel Brevint.  His theology of the Eucharist is therefore classified as being moderate realist.  The ‘value’ is not of a fleshy or immoderate substance, but rather of the real presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist.

In conclusion, the following passage from Brevint will be quoted at length to show the ‘degree of devotion’ Brevint thought appropriate to the Eucharist.  Brevint says:

“ … a discreet and pious Beholder must needs look on these Ordinances with these three Degrees of Devotion.

The first is when he considers those great and dreadful Passages which this Sacrament sets before him.  I do observe on this Altar somewhat like the Sacrifice and Passion on my Saviour.  For thus the Bread of Life was broken; thus the Lamb of God was slain; thus his most precious Blood was shed.  And when I look upon the Minister who, by special Order from God his Master, distributes this Bread and this Wine, I conceive that this verily God himself hath both given once his Son to die, and gives still the Virtue of his Death to bless and to save every Soul that comes unfeignedly to him.

The second is an Act of Adoration and Reverence when he looks upon that good Hand that hath consecrated for the Use of the Church the Memorial of these great Things.  I cannot without some degree of Devotion look on any Object that in any wise puts me in mind of the Sufferings of my Saviour; and if I did perceive but any Cloud, somewhat like them, although it were but casual, I would not neglect the Accident that had caused that Resemblance.  But since the good Hand of my God hath purposely contrived it thus, to set before me what I see; and since by his special Appointment, these Representatives are brought in hither for this Church, and among all the rest for me; I must mind what Israel did when the Cloud filled the Tabernacle.  I will not fail to worship God as soon as I perceive these Sacraments and Gospel-Clouds appearing in the Sanctuary.  Here I worship neither Sacrament nor Tabernacle, but I will observe the Manner that Moses, David, and all Israel have me to receive poor Elements with, after the Institution of God hath once raised them to the Estate of great Mysteries.  Neither the Ark nor any Clouds were ever adored in Israel, though some brutish Heathens sometimes thought so: but sure it is that the Ark was considered quite otherwise than an ordinary Chest, and the Cloud than a Vapour, as soon as God had hallowed them both to be the Signs of his Presence.  Therefore as the former people did never see the Temple or the Cloud, but that presently at that Sight they used to throw themselves on their Faces; I will never behold these better and surer Sacraments of the glorious Mercies of God, but as soon as I see them used in the Church to that holy Purpose that Christ hath consecrated them to, I will not fail both to remember my Saviour who consecrated these Sacraments, and to worship also my Saviour whom these Sacraments do represent. 

The third, which is the Crown and the Completing of the two others, is such a vigorous and intense Act of Faith as may correspond to the great End which our Saviour aimed at when he instituted this Sacrament.  The main Intention of Christ was not here to propose a bare Image of his Passion, once suffered in order to a bare Remembrance: but over and above to enrich this Memorial with such an effectual and real Presence of continuing Atonement and Strength as may both evidently set forth Christ himself crucified before our eyes, Gal. 3: 1, and invite us to his Sacrifice, not as done and gone many Years since, but as to expiating Grace and Mercy, still lasting, still new, still the same that it was when it was first offered for us.

…. Therefore this Sacrifice being such, the holy Communion is ordained to set it out to us as such, that is, as effectual now at his holy Table as it was then at the very Cross: and by the same Proportion the Act of the worthy Receivers (besides Remembrance and Worship) must needs be this; first to elevate their Faith and stretch their very Souls up to the Mount, with the Blessed Virgin who stood nearest the Sacrifice; or at least with the Disciples who looked at some Distance: and then look up to the Victim, to Jesus the Everlasting Mediator of the Everlasting Covenant, and to the Blood of Sprinkling that Speaks yet and craves for better Things (Pardon and Blessing) than Abel’s did.  Heb. 12: 24.  Here Faith must be as true a Substance of those Things past which we believe, as ‘tis of those Things yet to come which we hope for: Heb. 9: 1.

At the Approach therefore of this great Mystery, and by the Help of this strong Faith, the worthy Communicant being prostrated at the Lord’s Table as at the very Foot of his Cross shall with earnest Sorrow confess and lament all his Sins, which were the nails and spears which pierced our Saviour. …. How dreadful is the Place!  How deep and holy is this Mystery?” (Brevint, The Christian Sacrament and Sacrifice, cited in Wright, 1989: 306-309).

This passage, quoted at some length, is worthy of reproduction.  Brevint indicates here that there are three degrees of devotion in the Eucharist.  In the first the signs are clearly associated with the signified: the bread with the body; the wine with the blood; the memorial with the sacrifice.  In all the signs the virtue of the signified is seen to be present and available, since God ‘gives still the Virtue’.  In the second degree of devotion Brevint speaks of adoration and reverence, both towards the ‘things’ (that is the signs) and towards the signified (that is, Christ).  The adoration and reverence is not worship of the signs but worship of Christ.  Nonetheless the elements are seen to be ‘raised’ to ‘the Estate of great Mysteries’.  Like the Ark was not an ordinary chest, the bread and wine of the Eucharist are not ordinary bread and wine, but ‘Signs of his Presence’.  The third degree of devotion relates to the image and memorial in the Eucharist.  Brevint sees this as more than a bare bringing to mind, but as an ‘effectual and real Presence of continuing Atonement and Strength’.  Clearly the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice (atonement and strength) are seen to be present and available in the Eucharist.  Indeed Christ crucified is said to be ‘before our Eyes’ and the sacrifice is lasting, new and the same as it was on the cross.  By this Brevint does not mean any immoderate realism, since he states that the eucharistic sacrifice is ‘not as done and gone many Years since’, but he is clear that the power or virtue of that sacrifice is present in the eucharistic celebration, being ‘as effectual now at his holy Table as it was then at the very Cross’.  This means that the sacrifice of Christ is not a completed and past event only, but that it has both present and future relevance and power.  Brevint’s theology here is that of moderate realism, where the sign and the signified are linked.  He also uses realist terminology to emphasise his meaning.  Words used include: elevate, victim, sprinkling, substance, prostrated, and nail and spears that pierced, and as used these powerfully convey his meaning.  These very realist sounding terms must however, be interpreted in the totality of what he is saying, and that is the manner of moderate realism.