Bishop Thomas Brett was probably one of those, together with Bishops Collier and Deacon, who were responsible for the Nonjurors’ Liturgy of 1718 (Grisbrooke, 1958: 95).  He was principally a liturgist, however, his theology of the Eucharist is set out in his works.  In a work of 1720, entitled A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, used by the Christian Church in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist: particularly the ancient, viz. the Clementine, the Liturgies of S. James, S. Mark, S. Chrysostom, S. Basil, &c. Translated by several hands.  With a dissertation upon them, shewing their usefulness and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and interpolations, Brett speaks of the theology of the Eucharist, saying:

“I do not believe the Bread and Wine to be annihilated, and the Substance of them, the Accidents remaining, to be changed into the natural Body and Blood of Christ, which was born of the Virgin Mary, suffered on the Cross, and is now in Heaven, which is the doctrine of the Church of Rome.  Neither do I believe with the Lutherans, that the Substance of the Bread and Wine remaining, the very individual Body and Blood of Christ is by a certain Ubiquity so united and incorporated with them, as to be eaten and drunk by the Faithful in the Lord’s Supper.  Neither do I believe with the Calvinists, that the Body and Blood of Christ, which are now in Heaven, are Sacramentally or in an inconceivable Manner, united to the Bread and Wine, so as to be received together with them by the Faith of the Communicants.  But I do believe the Bread and Wine to be the only Body and Blood appointed to be received in the Eucharist.  And I believe them to be made this Sacramental Flesh and Blood, that is, the full and perfect Representative of his Body and Blood, his very Body and Blood in Power and Effect.” (Brett, 1720: 169).

Here Brett rejects both transubstantiation and consubstantiation, along with the Reformed eucharistic doctrine.  At the same time, however, he affirms that the bread and wine of the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ, given and received in the Eucharist.  This body and blood of Christ he describes as sacramental flesh and blood, that is represents Christ’s body and blood and that it is Christ’s body and blood in power and effect.  This seems to be a clear rejection of immoderate realism and an affirmation of moderate realism.  Sign and signified are linked, without any fleshy notions of presence.

In another work, entitled The Christian Altar and Sacrifice.  A Sermon, Shewing that the Lord’s Table is a Proper Altar, and the Sacrament of the Eucharist a Proper Sacrifice, published in 1713, Brett speaks more of ‘representation’, stating:

“How is the Lord’s Body there to be discerned?  It cannot be meant of the literal, natural Body of the Lord, as the Church of Rome blasphemously teaches; … How then can the Lord’s Body be discerned otherwise than by Representation?  For it be still Bread and Wine, even at the very time it is to be eaten and drunk, as St Paul clearly declares it to be, and yet the Body and Blood of Christ is there also to be discern’d or seen, as the same Apostle also teaches, then must the Bread and Wine fully and perfectly represent the Body and Blood of Christ, and we must believe it to do so, and discern or see it by the Eye of Faith, that is, by that Belief which is founded on the Word of God. … The Bread and Wine therefore representing Christ’s Body as broken, and his Blood as shed and poured out from it, can by no means represent, much less really be, the very individual glorified Body of Christ now in Heaven, and Personally united, not only to the Human Soul, but also to the Divine Nature.  But it plainly represents Christ’s Body as given, that is, offered or sacrificed for us; for so our himself appointed it to do saying, This is my Body which is given, or offered for you.  It is evident therefore from the very Institution, that the Bread and Wine in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, represent Christ’s Body and Blood as given, offered or sacrificed for us; and are so full and perfect Representatives thereof, that our Lord thought fit to give to the Bread and Wine the Name of His Body and Blood.  The Consequence of all this is, That the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist do by the very Institution represent the sacrifice of Christ’s Body broken, and his Blood shed.” (Brett, 1713: xiii-xv).

Representation then, does mean representing Christ’s actual body and blood in heaven, rather it means, representing Christ’s body and blood as given, offered and sacrificed.  Again this cannot be meant in a fleshy or immoderate fashion, and Brett clearly rejects his understanding of any such form of presence in the Eucharist.  The presence however, is real (‘there to be discern’d or seen’).  The real presence of Christ therefore cannot, for Brett, be limited to any fleshy presence.  The real presence of Christ must have a much firmer foundation than that, and for Brett, that foundation is faith in the Word of God.  The knowledge of this lies in the Institution of the sacrament, as found in the Word of God.  Brett, like the other Nonjurors and like Johnson (Case Study 2.11), draws specific attention to the Institution of the Eucharist as the offering of Christ’s body and blood.

Brett also argues against the doctrine of transubstantiation, describing it as unintelligible, and stating:

“For the representation cannot be the Person Represented; the Thing signifying, cannot be the Thing signified: For the very Notion of a Representative implies something distinct from that which is Represented by it. … For if the Representation of Christ’s Body and Blood be there offered; then it is most certain Christ himself cannot be there offered; for the Representative of Christ’s Body and Blood be there offered; then it is most certain Christ himself cannot be there offered; for the Representative of Christ cannot be Christ, any more than a Man’s Proctor or Attorney can be himself.” (Brett, 1713: 20-21).

Here Brett expressed moderate realism in relation to the eucharistic sacrifice.  The sign cannot be the signified, but the sign represents the signified.  Christ is not offered again in the Eucharist in any immoderate sense. 

In another work entitled A Discourse concerning the Necessity of discerning the Lord’s Body in the Holy Communion, With a Preface, Giving an Account of the erroneous Opinions of the Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists, upon this Subject, published in 1712, Brett also set out his theology of the Eucharist.  Here he said:

“ … it is impossible the Bread should be converted into that individual natural Body; But the Holy Ghost descending upon, and operating in the Bread and the Cup, may give it a quickening, life-giving Virtue, and so make it Christ’s Body in Power and Effect; and it may then as properly be called Christ’s Body and actually be so. … This quickening Virtue therefore being communicated to the Eucharistical Bread and Cup, that Bread and Cup being eaten and drank by us, and so incorporated with our Bodies, communicates such a quickening Virtue to them, as shall raise us again to a joyful Resurrection at the last Day.  For it is the Spirit that quickeneth; the Flesh profiteth nothing.  Therefore there is no need of eating or drinking the natural Body and Blood of Christ for this Purpose; his Sacramental or Spiritual Body, that is, Bread and Wine mixt with Water, made his Body and Blood in full Power and Effect by the Operation of the Holy Ghost, is as effectual by Virtue of his Institution, as his natural Body and Blood could be.” (Brett, 1712: xvii-xviii).

For Brett it was the power of the Holy Spirit that was an essential aspect of the consecration of the bread and wine.  This conclusion, argued Brett, had considerable support from the witness of the early church.  He wrote in his 1720 A Collection of the Principal Liturgies that:

“ … the primitive Church understood the Words of our Saviour, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing, to denote that the Flesh and Blood, which whoever eat and drank, should have eternal Life, should have his quickening Spirit communicated to them,  because without it the bare Flesh could be of no Advantage for that purpose.  And as the Flesh and Blood he there spoke of was his sacramental Body and Blood which he afterwards gave to his Apostles, and commanded them and their Successors to give the same to all under their Charge ‘till his coming again; therefore the primitive Church did understand that the Holy Ghost descended on the sacramental Body and Blood of Christ, to infuse into them this quickening Virtue; without which, material Elements could have no quickening Virtue.  And therefore they supposed not the Elements to be fully consecrated and made the Body and Blood of Christ in Power and Effect, that Flesh and Blood which communicated eternal Life to the worthy Receivers, ‘till they had prayed that the Holy Ghost might come down upon the Elements, and make them the body and Blood of Christ; because his Descent upon them, and Operation in them and with them is that alone which can make them the Food of eternal Life, since, as our Saviour expressly teaches, It is the Spirit that quickeneth, the Flesh profiteth nothing:” (Brett, 1720: 131-132).

The power and effect of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is clearly a spiritual matter for Brett.  He specifically rejects the notion that the ‘flesh’ is of value, and emphasises the value of the spiritual presence.  This does not mean that the spiritual presence is not seen as being real, since Brett describes how the Spirit ‘makes’ the bread and wine, the body and blood of Christ.  The bread and wine are not ‘made’ the body and blood of Christ in any fleshy way with a change of substance, but rather in power and effect.

Again he states, in an earlier work, a moderate realism, saying:

“The substance of the Bread and Wine and Water still remains; the Elements are changed indeed sacramentally or spiritually, but not substantially; they still remain the same natural Substance, as well as the same Accidents.” (Brett, 1712: 10).

There is a notion of ‘change’ in Brett’s writing, but the change is not related to the substance of the bread and wine.  The change that he speaks of is a ‘sacramental’ or ‘spiritual’ change, with the substance of the bread and wine remaining with their outward appearance maintained.  Immoderate realism is here clearly rejected and moderate realism is affirmed.

In relation to the eucharistic sacrifice he says:

“Now by an Oblation or a Sacrifice, we understand a Reverend and Solemn Presentation of some visible material Gift, to the God we worship, and whereby we honour and acknowledge him to be God and Lord, which being so presented or offered, is afterwards to be put to no common Use, but to be disposed of, and consumed in such manner as our God has appointed: And the Place whereon we offer, present, or lay this material visible Gift or Element, is that which we therefore call the Altar; because this Element or Gift being there laid, from that Moment becomes God’s peculiar Property, and is no more common, nor can after that Time he put to any ordinary Use, unto which before it might have been applied.” (Brett, 1712: 2-3).

The elements of the Eucharist are offered to God, as an oblation and sacrifice, and therefore they are no longer ordinary bread and wine.  It is for this reason that they cannot, in Brett’s opinion be used for ordinary or common use.  The linking of the sign with the signified here in indicative of moderate realism in the eucharistic theology of Thomas Brett.

Brett concludes that the oblation of the elements is an essential part of the institution of the Eucharist, saying:

“Now if we minister the Holy Communion according to the Institution, as Christ himself ministered it, we must offer the Bread to God: For so Christ did; he first offered the Gifts or Elements of Bread and Wine, by presenting them to God and giving Thanks, thereby acknowledging his Father to be God and Lord, and also consecrated the Elements, or separated them from all common Use; so that they could not after be disposed of, otherwise than according to Divine Ordinance, and so he disposed of them, by giving them to his Disciples to eat and drink as representative Body and Blood.” (Brett, 1713: 11).

He also comments on the use of the word ‘do’ in Christ’s command, saying:

“Christ … plainly made a Sacrificial Oblation of the Bread and Wine to God, he first presented them to him as an Offering, … and then Consecrated them to represent his own Body and Blood; and having done so he disposed of them to be eaten and drank, as the Sacrifices sometimes were in the Holy Place in which the Oblation had been made.  And we are commanded to DO, or make this Sacrifice or Oblation in Remembrance of him.  For the Word which is here translated DO, is frequently used in the Holy Scriptures, to signify the offering a Sacrifice; … Our Saviour therefore commanded us to DO this, and thereby plainly enjoyned us to make or offer a Sacrifice as he had done.” (Brett, 1713: 13).

Any discussion of eucharistic sacrifice, derives for Brett, from the example of Christ, who offered bread and wine to God at the Last Supper (giving thanks).  This action of Christ, the ‘do’, is the clear direction for the Church to also ‘do’ or offer the sacrificial oblation of bread and wine in the Eucharist.

Brett though, was clearly putting forward a moderate realist position in relation to eucharistic sacrifice, since he says:

“Since the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrifice perfectly representing by Virtue of its Institution, that great and truly meritorious Sacrifice of Christ himself, so that the Bread and Wine which we offer is accepted in the sight of God, as the very Body and Blood of his only begotten Son, and as such is communicated to us, that whensover we rightly and duly make this Oblation, we set before God the Memorial of his Son’s Death, put him in Mind of that meritorious Sacrifice which has made full, perfect and compleat Satisfaction for the Sins of the whole World. … So when we set before God the Memorial of his Son’s most meritorious Sacrifice, we plainly engage and induce him to confer on us all the Mercies and Graces purchased for us by that All-sufficient Sacrifice: As Pardon of Sin, Reconciliation to God, Union with Christ, a Pledge or Earnest of Eternal Life, and Grace and Strength to enable us to work out our own Salvation.” (Brett, 1713: 35-36).

The writings of Thomas Brett present his theology of the Eucharist.  This theology seems to be based on a moderate realist notion of eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice, where sign and signified are linked.  Any immoderate notions of a fleshy presence of Christ or a fleshy re-iteration of Christ’s sacrifice, are denied, and moderate realist notions of both a eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice are affirmed.