Christopher Sutton’s devotional writings were very popular and were written with great fervour.  In his most used work, Godly Meditations upon the Most Holy Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, published in 1613, he sought to argue a position of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist that was midway between that of transubstantiation and Zwingli.  He deprecates controversy, but at the same time argues that although consecration of the bread and wine in the Eucharist brought about no change in their substance, it radically altered their use.  John Henry Newman approvingly reissued a new edition of Sutton’s book in 1838 and wrote the preface.  The book was popular with the Tractarians (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 1326).

The following quotations from Godly Meditation will help to establish his views concerning the Eucharist.

“Consider the divine wisdom of the Son of God, who respecting our weakness hath conveyed unto us His body and blood after a divine and spiritual manner under the forms of bread and wine.” (Sutton, Godly Meditations, IV, 3, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 290).

Consider the high and worthy effect of this heavenly food, which is not so much changed into the substance of the eater as it does rather change the eater into the substance of it; the meat being divine doth make us also divine.” (Sutton, Godly Meditations, IV, 5, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 290).

“Now of long time, yea, too long, O holy Christ, have we Christians contended about Thy holy institution; from the fathers to Thy Apostles: yea, O blessed Saviour, we come with all reverence, and let us come hand in hand, to consider the first pattern instituted by Thyself.  And here first, le the devout Christian call to mind that He that said of the wine, ‘This is My blood’, and of the bread, ‘This is My body’, said also of St John the Baptist, ‘This is that Elias’, and of Himself, ‘I am the door’, ‘the true vine’, etc.  These – ‘Receive My covenant in your flesh’, ‘By Baptism we are buried with Him’, ‘Being many, we are one bread, one body’ – are usual phrases in Holy Writ.  Again, what more meet than in a spiritual food to admit a spiritual sense?  ‘We did all eat of the same spiritual meat’, saith the Apostle.  Was it not given after supper, and in small quantity?  It is the Spirit that giveth life.  I go forward, but by the way this pious consideration gathered out of the words of Christ our Saviour concerning His own institution doth easily show that to be the nourishment of our souls which is delivered in the Lord’s Supper, and doth withal manifest the great excellency thereof.  From the words of Christ I come unto the Apostle St Paul, a good interpreter of the same words, one who wanted not care of stirring up the Corinthians to reverence and devotion about this mystery.  Now, what saith the Apostle?  He commands no adoration; he speaks not a word of Transubstantiation; but only showeth the dignity thereof in showing both the Author and the end. … To break off the mentioning of the fathers, lest in multiplying their names we might seem ambitious, we hear them all, as it is meet, speaking with great reverence of so great a mystery: but for disputing or reasoning about Transubstantiation we hear not a word.  Let their writings be read over, and read over again, and we shall find that they admit of a change, but what a one?  of the substance?  nothing less; for it remains the same: of the use?  it is right, for sure in the Lord’s Supper it is heavenly and divine.  Whereas oftentimes in the fathers we meet with the words ‘nature’, ‘substance’, applying them to the efficacy of the Sacrament, we are to understand that by these words they intended, first, to draw the people from the outward signs to the substance, and next to kindle in their affections both reverence and love.  Antiquity therefore is silent in the plea or the defence of Transubstantiation.  Sure, yea, most sure it is that the figurative speeches of ancient fathers do in no way patronise this paradox.  The sobriety of the same fathers let us, their posterity, their praise and imitate. … We acknowledge that the dignity of this Sacrament is greater than words can express, yea, than the mind of man is able to conceive.  If any will exact the efficacy of these five words, For this is My body’, we answer, It is a great mystery.  Truly we give, and that justly, great respect and reverence to the Holy Eucharist; for whereas bread and wine are elements naturally ordained for the sustenance of the body, by the power of divine benediction they do receive a virtue that, being received of the faithful, they become nourishment of the soul, nay, they become means whereby we are sanctified both in body and soul, and are made the members of Christ.  But Christ, some say, in express words calleth the bread His body, and the wine His blood; true, in express words also He calleth Himself a rock.  Right well saith Eusebius Emisenus, ‘Comest thou to the Sacrament, consider there the body and blood of Christ: wonder at it with reverence, touch it with thy mind, receive it with the hand of they heart’; do not say with the Capernaites, Master, how comest Thou hither?  but with the disciples asking no question be glad thou doest enjoy Him.  He is honoured in this mystery that was once offered upon the cross.  Yea, but how can this be that Christ sitting at the right hand of God in heaven should dispose of His body to us poor inhabitants of earth?  Take here the answer of the angel Gabriel, The Holy Ghost hath overshadowed it.  ‘From hence’, saith St Bernard, ‘to search is temerity, to know is life eternal.’  Is it not a hard saying, ‘Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of God’, etc.?  It is a hard saying to them that are hard of believing.  The disciples hearing of their Lord and Master, ‘Take, eat, this is My body’, they take, they eat, asking no question. … The Capernaite hearing dreameth of eating naturally, grossly; the godly are assured of eating spiritually, and yet withal really. … The sun remains a splendent body, though bats and owls cannot endure it; the Holy Sacrament remains an unspeakable mystery, though the carnal man doth not perceive it.  In this case silence is the safest eloquence, and the best expressing is not to express.  A godly meditation is safer than a Socratical disputing. Discourse of controversy doth often abate devotion; discourse of piety about the mystery is sweeter than the honey or the honey-comb. … To take a survey of the beginnings and progress to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, … one Berengarious in the year 1028 was the first that came upon the stage to act this tragedy, by him were kindled such sparks as after brake out into great and fearful flames. … In the year 1040 Berengarious abjured his former assertions: were his later thoughts the wiser?  This I stand not to discuss, dispute it that will.  The Church in the meanwhile, who ought to have followed the counsel of St Paul to Timothy in suppressing questions that cause strife, did clean contrary in adding more and more daily a multitude of questions so long that those sparks kindled by Berengarius began to increase, and set all as it were into a most hideous combustion. … The Council of Lateran … promulgated a new and unheard of doctrine of Transubstantiation. … After this the question comes to be handled by the Master of the Sentences, whom the school divines do follow. … At one time the doubt is about the power of God, at another about His will; now of the existing of substance with accidents, then of accidents with a substance; sometimes of annihilating of former natures, sometimes of transelementing the same.  In this chaos there is nothing found certain save that uncertain dream of Transubstantiation. … The Church of Rome was happy while it enjoyed the presence of this holy mystery, had she known her own happiness for a thousand years together there was never heard of the name of ‘ubiquity’, ‘sacramentary’, or the like; no division of the East against the West Church, or the West against the East; all agreed about the truth of this holy mystery; but when once men would press into depths inaccessible, rend away the veil, and intrude themselves in to the Holy of Holies, good Lord, with what a spirit of giddiness were they whirled to and fro. …In this mean space all things now tossed and turmoiled there arise upon the contrary part a kind of men prone and apt not so much to the alteration as indeed to the utter ruinating of things. … Is the Communion celebrated well?  A badge it is of our profession, a familiar assembly of guests, a remembrance of somewhat passed: Take ye, eat ye, stand ye, there is no other gesture required than what is used at public meetings; what need any mention of the body of Christ, which was broken and given for us, of the blood of Christ, which was shed for us?  Take ye, eat ye, drink ye: - O blessed Paul, if thou didst live, thou wouldst tell these men they ought upon fear of judgment to discern the Lord’s body. … Albeit then the manner be not of us over curiously inquired or searched after, yet the same presence of Christ is acknowledged which Christ Himself would have to be acknowledged.  We say with St Ambrose that there is not taken from the bread the substance thereof, but that there is adjoined the grace of Christ’s body after a manner ineffable. … Concerning the controversy about the Holy Eucharist, between two extremes, whereof we have heard, let us embrace the means, let us with sincere faith apprehend the truth; apprehending, let us keep it; keeping, let us adore it with godly manners. … Let us forbear on both sides needless and unprofitable disputes.  Unless thou, Lord, hadst said it, ‘This is My body, This is My blood’, who would have believed it?  Unless thou hadst said, O holy Christ, ‘Take, eat, drink ye all of this’, who durst have touched it?  Who would have approached to so heavenly a repast, hadst Thou not commanded it, hoc facite, ‘do ye this’; but Thou commanding, who would not joyfully come and communicate?  Let us then hold captive human reason, and prepare ourselves unto the fruit of this heavenly manna.  Unnecessary disputes bring small profits; we may with greater benefit wonder than argue.  Then are the works of God most truly conceived when they are devoutly admired.” (Sutton, Godly Meditations, LXX. 3, 4, 7-14, 18-24, 27, 32, 35-37, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 290-293).

From the quotations above it seems that Sutton’s view is that Christ’s body and blood is given to the communicant, spiritually and under the forms of bread and wine (IV, 3).  This assertion both denies immoderate realism and makes a clear association between the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood.  It does not seem to be straining Sutton’s meaning to say that Christ’s body and blood is instantiated in the bread and wine in a form of moderate realism.  The manner of the presence is spiritual but nonetheless given with the elements.

Any change in the ‘heavenly food’ (IV, 5) is in relation to the substance of the eater, rather than the substance of the bread and wine.  It is because of the divine power of the ‘heavenly food’ that those who eat also become divine.  The ‘heavenly food’ therefore cannot be a bare token or sign, but rather an effectual means and conveyer of grace.  Any change in the substance of the bread and wine is denied, but change is assigned to the bread and wine in regard to their use (LXX).  In addition to this statement Sutton also admits of the bread and wine, that through “the divine benediction they do receive a virtue that being received of the faithful, they become the nourishment of the soul, and are made members of Christ” (LXX).  Clearly for Sutton the bread and wine, following consecration, are no longer ordinary bread and wine.  Indeed he argues, using Ambrose as the authority, that while the substance of the bread and wine is unchanged “that there is adjoined the grace of Christ’s body after a manner ineffable” (LXX).  The bread and wine has joined to it Christ’s grace.  Grace is therefore effectually given and received in the bread and wine.  It is, says Sutton, a mystery how this occurs, but it is nonetheless something that is to be accepted.

Sutton’s views concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine is that of moderate realism.