Mary I died in November, 1558 and was succeeded on 17 November, 1558, by her half-sister, who became Elizabeth I.  In a Proclamation issued by Elizabeth on 27 December, 1558, the existing services (Latin Mass) were allowed but in English (Queen Elizabeth’s Proclamation to forbid preaching, in Gee and Hardy, 1896: 416-417) as a temporary measure until other forms of worship could be authorised.  The purpose here was to give concession to all sides in the disputed area of religion.  Those favouring the Latin Mass, reintroduced under Mary I, were allowed to use this service for a time and as did the new queen (Elizabeth I) in her chapel (Procter and Frere, 1929: 94).  Elizabeth however required certain significant modifications.  The Spanish Ambassador, de Feria, reported on the celebration of the Eucharist in the Queen’s Chapel at Christmas time in 1558, stating that:

“On the Sunday of Christmastide the Queen, before going to Mass, sent for the Bishop of Carlisle (Ogelthorpe), who was to officiate, and told him that he need not elevate the Host for adoration.  The bishop answered that she was mistress of his body and life, but not of his conscience; and so she heard Mass till after the Gospel, when she arose and left, so as not to be present at the Canon, and adoration of the Host, which the bishop elevated as usual.” (de Feria’s account, cited in Gee, 1902: 62-63).

If this account is to be trusted it implies that Elizabeth was clearly opposed to the adoration of the host, although she was presumably comfortable to be present at the Latin Mass and to approve its theology without the elevation for the purposes of adoration.  The Venetian Ambassador reported in January, 1559 that “the Queen would appear to continue in the religion professed by her sister” (cited in Gee, 1902: 65).  Elizabeth’s coronation took place at Westminster on 15 January, 1559 with all the old ceremonial.  The bishops wore copes and mitres and incense, holy water and the pax were used.  The mass was sung but without the elevation (Gee, 1902: 66).

The Reformers were familiar with the English services of Edward VI and some apparently used the 1552 Book of Common Prayer in England before any new service was authorised by parliament (Clay, 1847: xi).  The use of the services of Edward VI seem to be implied by Elizabeth’s Proclamation of December, 1588 (Gee, 1902: 64).  The continued use of the Mass by the new Queen was not however accepted by all in the spirit of compromise that she intended.  John Jewell writing to the reformer Peter Martyr in Zurich in a letter dated 2 April, 1559 complained: “If the Queen herself would but banish it [the Mass] from her private chapel, the whole thing might be easily got rid of.  Of such importance among us are the examples of the princes.” (Jewell, Zurich Letters, 1558-1579, edn. Robinson, 1842: 18-19).  Elizabeth initially favoured the reintroduction of the 1549 BCP (Stone 1904: 114) but was prepared to accept the 1552 BCP, with some modifications, in order to reach a compromise between all parties.

Parliament met to discuss revision of the Prayer Book on 25 January, 1559.  An Act of Uniformity was passed by the parliament on 28 April, 1559 (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 458-467), whereby the 1552 Book of Common Prayer was authorised for use.  The return to the 1552 book was by no means unanimous since the Act met with strenuous opposition in the House of Lords, even though it passed easily in the Commons (Stone, 1909: II, 203-204).  Many of the clergy were less than enthusiastic about the use of this book (Clay, 1847: xii).  Convocation meeting in January, 1559 had asserted the three propositions put to Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer at their trials in 1554.  These propositions asserted that the real presence of the natural body and blood of Christ was under the species of bread and wine, the lack of any substance of bread and wine remaining after the consecration and the propitiatory sacrifice of the Mass.  These propositions were agreed to by the bishops. (Stone, 1909: II, 202).  Henry Gee argues that the affirmation of these propositions by the bishops was a protest against the Communion service in the 1552 BCP (Gee, 1902: 83) and accordingly a protest against any view which denied a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  The debate on the 1552 BCP was delayed until after Easter, 1559.  While some bishops continued to oppose its introduction vigorously (see the speech of Bishop Scot printed in Gee, 1902: 236-252) on the grounds that the 1552 Communion service contained no oblation, no real sacrifice and no consecration performed or intended (Gee, 1902: 102-103), when the vote was taken in the House of Lords, the Act of Uniformity of 1559 (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 458) was only narrowly passed with a majority of three votes, thereby abolishing the Latin mass and approving the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559 (Gee, 1902: 102). 

Despite the varying opinions, the 1552 BCP became the authorised form of common prayer, but with some significant modifications in regard to the Eucharist.  These changes in 1559 were deliberately intended to include a more Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist at Elizabeth’s wish (Stone, 1900: 119).  Elizabeth I had for example, declared to the Spanish ambassador, de Feria that “she held that God was really present in the Sacrament” (Stone, 1900: 113).  In her Injunctions of 1559 Elizabeth spoke in realist terms about “the blessed communion of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ.” (Injunctions of Elizabeth I, 1559, in Gee and Hardy, 1896: 427).  In relation to the wafer bread to be used at the Eucharist the Injunctions refer to “these mysteries, being the sacraments of the Body and Blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” (Injunctions of Elizabeth I, 1559, in Gee and Hardy, 1896: 440).  Elizabeth’s hesitancy concerning the elevation of the host may suggest that she was wary of any adoration of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist which suggested immoderate realism, but at the same time it seems that she was firmly convinced of Christ’s presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist as moderate realism.

There were changes in the words of administration, such that the words of the 1549 BCP were combined with the words of the 1552 BCP.  In 1549 the words of administration had read:

“The body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve they body and soul unto everlasting life.

The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ which was shed for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting life.”  (Ketley, 1844: 92).

In 1552 the words became:

“Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in they heart by faith with thanksgiving.

Drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.”  (Ketley, 1844: 279).

In the 1559 BCP the combined form became:

“The body of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul into everlasting life: and take and eat this in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and feed on him in thine heart by faith, with thanksgiving.

The blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was shed for thee, preserve they body and soul into everlasting life: and drink this in remembrance that Christ’s blood was shed for thee, and be thankful.”  (Clay, 1847: 195).

The realist words of 1549, said as the bread and wine were administered, were significantly altered in 1552, removing them and exhorting the communicant to remembrance.  What ‘this’ meant in the 1552 words is not specified thus reducing any likelihood of a realist interpretation.  ‘This’ could simply be the bread and wine in the 1552 and not the body and blood of Christ.  Such a conclusion could scarcely be reached in the words of 1549 where the words ‘the body of Christ’ and ‘the blood of Christ’ were said as the bread and wine were administered.  The words of 1559, as a combination of 1549 and 1552, were a compromise between those who advocated the doctrine that Christ’s body and blood was the consecrated sacrament (realist) and those who denied it (non-realist) (Stone, 1909: II, 204).

Two matters, one a deletion and one an addition to the 1559 BCP do however, give some indication that the Eucharist in that book was leaning towards the realist direction.  The Declaration of Kneeling or the Black Rubric (Ketley. 1844: 283) added to the 1552 BCP was omitted in the 1559 BCP.  This rubric specifically denied any real and essential presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacramental bread and wine.  There was therefore no specific denial of the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist as a result of this deletion.  A rubric was also added to the 1559 BCP at the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer.  This rubric said:

“And here it is noted, that the minister at the time of the communion, and at all other times in ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by authority of parliament in the second year of the reign of king Edward the VI according to the act of parliament set in the beginning of this book.”  (Ketley, 1844: 53).

The book referred to as being in use in the second year of the reign of Edward VI was of course the 1549 BCP.  The addition of this rubric in the 1559 BCP therefore meant that eucharistic vestments and other ornaments of the church, usually associated with a realist theology of the Eucharist, were ordered.  These had been specifically denied in the 1552 BCP in the rubric before Morning and Evening Prayer (Ketley, 1844: 217).  The Elizabethan Act of Uniformity also ordered the use of the ornaments as at the second year of the reign of Edward VI and added the words that they should be used:

“until other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the queen’s majesty, with the advice of her commissioners appointed and authorized, under the great seal of England, for causes ecclesiastical, or of the metropolitan of this realm.”  (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 466).

It is important to note that these modifications are not seen to be doctrinally significant by all writers (e.g. Beckwith, 1987: 267) since he argues that none of the changes went back behind the 1549 BCP.  Henry Gee concludes that even if there is some uncertainty about the meaning of the ‘second year of King Edward’ the ornaments ordered for use in the Elizabethan Prayer Book of 1559 “cannot have been less than those of the book of 1549 and they may have been more” (Gee, 1902: 135, note 1).  Indeed Gee goes on to say that: “on any interpretation ‘vestments and copes’ were lawful by the Ornaments Rubric” (Gee, 1902: 138, note 2). 

Stone however, concludes that these changes have implications in regard to a realist theology of the Eucharist, saying:

“This retention of the Eucharistic vestments is some importance in view of Guest’s [a bishop] criticism of the use of them; and the change in the words of administration in combining those that were associated with the doctrine that the consecrated Sacrament is the body and blood of Christ with those which were most congenial to the deniers of this doctrine may be taken as significant of the policy which was to mark the reign of Elizabeth.”  (Stone, 1909: II, 204).

Despite the addition of the rubric ordering the use of the vestments, it seems that it was not followed strictly, as is indicated by Archbishop Parker’s Advertisement of 1566, where only a surplice and a cope are ordered (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 470).  Despite this the practice of the Queen suggests otherwise.  In October, 1559, for example, a wedding was held in the Chapel Royal.  The Spanish Ambassador, Quadra described the marriage, saying:

“The Queen ordered the marriage of one of her lady-servants to take place in her own chapel, and directed that a crucifix and candles should be placed upon the altar, which caused so much noise amongst her chaplains and the Council that the intention was abandoned for the time; but it was done at vespers on Saturday, and on Sunday the clergy wore vestments as they do in our services, and so great was the crowd at the palace that disturbance was feared in the city.  The fact is, that the crucifixes and vestments that were burnt a month ago publicly are now set up in the Royal Chapel, as they soon will be all over the kingdom, unless God forbid, there is another change next week.” (cited in Gee, 1902: 150-151).

It seems only possible to conclude that there was a great deal of variation, both in official statements and in actual practice (see Gee, 1902).  This seems therefore to suggest that there may also have been a great deal of variation in eucharistic theology as well – some favouring a realist theology and some not.  In order to judge this the works of authors contemporary to the BCP of 1559 need to be consulted.  This has been done in the various case studies of this project and these suggest that both moderate realism and nominalism were part of the eucharistic theology at this time (see the case studies for Hooker – 1.7, Herbert – 1.26, Andrewes – 1.16, W. Forbes – 1.23, Jackson – 1.28 and Nicholson – 1.33, which present a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist and those of Bayly – 1.17, Grindal – 1.14, Hales – 1.24, Perkins – 1.12 and Sandys – 1.13, which present a nominalist theology of the Eucharist).  These writers who were writing at the time of the 1559 BCP and its almost identical successor (the 1604 revision of the BCP) present a picture of theological diversity in relation to the Eucharist as used in the 1559 BCP, and so support the idea that there was variation in thinking about the philosophical and theological assumptions underlying the Eucharist at this time.