John Johnson was not himself a Nonjuror, although he expressed similar views to many of the Nonjurors, and remained in contact with the leading Nonjurors throughout his life.  The Nonjurors maintained that the heirs of James II had the succession and not William and Mary of Orange.  Nonjurors therefore refused to sign the oaths of allegiance when William and Mary ascended the throne, and as a consequence they were deprived of their positions within the Church.  Johnson however, signed the oaths regarding William III and Mary II’s accession and remained within the Church of England during his life.  Johnson’s substantial work on the Eucharist was entitled The Unbloody Sacrifice and Altar Unvailed and Supported, in which the Nature of the Eucharist is explained according to the sentiments of the Christian Church in the first four centuries, Proving that the Eucharist is a proper material Sacrifice, that it is to be offered by proper officers, that the Oblation is to be made on a proper Altar, that it is properly consumed by manducation, and was published in parts, with the first part published in 1714 and the second in 1718.  A complete second edition containing both parts was published in 1724.  The title gives plenty of information about the contents and teaching of the work.

Johnson’s argument in The Unbloody Sacrifice is that the early Church Fathers often called the Eucharist a sacrifice in the sense that it was an unbloody, rational and spiritual sacrifice, and by this they did not mean “a mere mental figurative sacrifice” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 87) but a true material sacrifice (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 89).  For Johnson the material sacrifice in the Eucharist meant a real sacrifice, although this did not mean a fleshy or immoderate re-iteration of the sacrifice of Calvary.  This was so he argued since it was wrong to think that nothing without life and blood could be called a sacrifice (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 40) and therefore anything offered at an altar, whether alive or not, is truly a sacrifice (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 81).  Johnson picks up these ideas in his full definition of sacrifice which is as follows:

“Sacrifice is, 1. some material thing, either animate or inanimate, offered to God, 2. for the acknowledging the dominion and other attributes of God, or for procuring divine blessings, especially remission of sin, 3. upon a proper altar (which yet is rather necessary for the external decorum than for the internal perfection of the sacrifice), 4. by a proper officer, and with agreeable rites, 5. and consumed or otherwise disposed of in such a manner as the Author of the sacrifice has appointed.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 71)

These five points Johnson specifies are necessary for a sacrifice.  He also states that the Eucharist possesses all five and is therefore a ‘proper sacrifice’.  He explains these five points more fully saying:

“That material bread and wine, as the sacramental body and blood of Christ, were by solemn act of oblation in the Eucharist offered to Almighty God in the primitive Church, and that they were so offered by Christ Himself in the institution.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 86).

“That the Eucharistical bread and wine, or body and blood, are to be offered for the acknowledgment of God’s dominion and other attributes, and for procuring divine blessing, especially remission of sins.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 360).

“That the Communion Table is a proper altar.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 402).

“That bishops and priests are the only proper officers for the solemn offering and consecrating of the Christian Eucharist.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 418).

“That the sacrifice of the Eucharist is rightly consumed by being solemnly eaten and drunk by the priest, clergy, and people.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 441).

Johnson in his discussion of the Eucharist also describes it as expiatory, propitiatory and a proper sacrifice, saying:

“ … this sacrifice is to procure divine blessings, and especially pardon of sin.  In the first respect it is propitiatory, in the second expiatory, by virtue of its principle, the grand sacrifice.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 384).

Cyril Dugmore (1942: 143) in his analysis of Johnson’s views on sacrifice argues that Johnson saw Jewish meal-offerings as a type of the Eucharist (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 82) and that the Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 443-445), but not in the way that Cudworth and Patrick used this expression (see Cudworth Case Study – 1.21 and Patrick Case Study – 2.15).  Cudworth and others, such as Patrick:

“maintained that the Eucharist is a feast upon the sacrifice offered once only on the Cross, and denied that the sacrifice is offered in the Eucharist.  Upon this supposition [i.e. Johnson’s], Christ made a feast upon the sacrifice before the sacrifice had been offered.  Moreover, if the consecrated bread and wine were not offered by Christ as the representatives of his body and blood, and are not now so offered by the Church, then it cannot be said that the Eucharist is a feast upon a sacrifice without maintaining the conversion of bread and wine into the substance of Christ’s body and blood, i.e. Transubstantiation.” (Dugmore, 1942: 143 on the basis of Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 5).

This means that Johnson, along with the Nonjurors concluded that Christ, “did, as a Priest, offer His Body and Blood in the Eucharist, under the pledges of Bread and Wine” and “that He was afterwards slain as a Sacrifice on the Cross.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 39).  Johnson supports this by saying:

“ … we have the express words of Christ Jesus Himself … that He did, in the institution of this Sacrament, actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood; and that He commanded His Apostles to do the same.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 160).

The question must be asked: In what sense did Johnson intend that Christ did ‘actually offer Bread and Wine to God, as His mysterious Body and Blood’ and in what sense does he mean that his Apostles should do the same?  Does Johnson imply an immoderate realism here?  The answer must be sought in another passage from Johnson’s writing.  In another passage from The Unbloody Sacrifice, Johnson affirms that:

“We are so far from believing, that Christ literally offers Himself in the Eucharist, that we do not believe Him to be personally there present in His human nature.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 201).

Clearly Johnson is denying any form of immoderate realism.  Christ does not literally offer himself in the Eucharist, in the sense that there is a re-iteration of his death, where he is once again slain on the altar.  Such gross concepts are completely rejected.  This means that Johnson must be affirming a moderate realist sense, since his words suggest realism, but in a sense apart from that of an immoderate or carnal degree.  Johnson’s view seems to be that the sacrifice of the Eucharist is real, but it is not a bloody sacrifice, such as that which occurred on the cross.  The proof of this, for Johnson, lies in the assertion that Christ offered his own body and blood at the Last Supper, as a feast upon the sacrifice to come.  It is this feast upon a sacrifice that Christians continue in the Eucharist.  The sacrifice for Johnson is clearly more than a mental reminder of a past and completed event.  The eucharistic sacrifice for Johnson is true and real, as well as expiatory and propitiatory and for the remission of sins, but not in any fleshy or immoderate sense.  By the eucharistic sacrifice the faithful receive the benefits of Christ.  The eucharistic sacrifice is therefore clearly linked to the historic sacrifice but it is not the same thing.  The sign of the sacrifice is linked to the signified for Johnson in a moderate realist sense.

Johnson also addresses in the question of the eucharistic presence of Christ in his discussion of the unbloody sacrifice.  He says that:

“The Bread and Wine are not the Body and Blood, in themselves considered [i.e. actually], nor merely by their resembling or representing the Body and Blood, but by the inward invisible power of the Spirit; by which the Sacramental Body and Blood are made as powerful and effectual for the ends of religion, as the natural body Itself could be if It was present.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 201).

Johnson is here expressing a moderate realist position in relation to eucharistic presence.  Christ is present, not in a fleshy or immoderate fashion, but by the inward and invisible power of the Spirit, and this means of presence is as powerful and effectual as the natural body.  The Spirit makes the bread and wine as powerful as the natural body and blood of Christ, through the Spirit’s power.  Sign and signified are clearly linked.  This is moderate realism.

Johnson also refers to the witness of the early Church Fathers, saying:

“The ancients … believed the material Bread and Wine to be the spiritual Body and Blood of Christ, on account of the presence and invisible operation of the Holy Ghost, in and by those elements … the Holy Ghost, at the prayers of the Priests and people, is in a peculiar manner present and imparts a secret power to the Sacramental Body and Blood, by which they are made to be in energy and effect, though not in substance, the very Body and Blood Which they represent.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 267-268).

Here he is saying that the material elements are the spiritual body and blood of Christ through the operation of the Holy Spirit, which gives a certain power to the elements, so that they become the very body and blood of Christ.  Notice that Johnson speaks not of the ‘sacramental bread and wine’ but in a realist manner, of the ‘sacramental body and blood’.  In qualifying this however, he says:

“Though the Eucharistical elements are not the substantial Body and Blood; nay, they are the figurative and representative symbols of them; yet they are somewhat more too; they are the mysterious Body and Blood of our ever-blessed Redeemer.  By the mysterious Body and Blood … I mean neither substantial nor yet merely figurative, but the middle between these extreme, viz. the Bread and Wine made the Body and Blood of Christ by the secret power of the Spirit; and apprehended to be so, not by our senses, but by our faith, directed and influenced by the same Holy Spirit; and made the Body and Blood in such a manner as human reason cannot perfectly comprehend.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 323).

Here it seems Johnson is keen to distance himself from an accusation of a fleshy or immoderate presence of Christ in the elements or in the Eucharist, but at the same time to affirm the reality of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements and the Eucharist.  One of the important matters to consider here is that, for Johnson, the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of Christ through the faith of the receiver or through the use and ministration of the sacrament, but through the power of the Holy Spirit working on them.  The presence of Christ in the bread and wine is therefore an objective presence, not dependent on the subjective state of faith in the recipient.  Clearly receptionism is no part of Johnson’s scheme.  The real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the elements of bread and wine is the realist basis on which his scheme is based.  Indeed Johnson commented upon the idea of spiritual eating and drinking in the following way, saying, “I look upon as a doctrine, especially as it has of late years been managed, subversive of, or extremely endangering, not only the Eucharist, but the very foundation of all discipline in the Church and even of the Church itself” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 302).  Clearly Johnson did not believe in any notion other than a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and it was for this reason that he approved of reservation of the sacrament.  The effect of the consecration was permanent and in no way restricted by the faith of the communicant.  The bread and wine remained the body and blood of Christ and therefore holy, outside the Eucharist as well as in it (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 342).  Adoration of the presence of Christ in the sacrament was also acceptable to Johnson, since he says that people are “not worshipping what is seen and passes away, but what is believed and understood” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 315).  The following passages, by way of conclusion, exemplify Johnson’s beliefs regarding a moderate view of the eucharistic presence and sacrifice.  Regarding the eucharistic sacrifice Johnson says:

“That which renders the Eucharist the most excellent and valuable sacrifice that was ever offered except the personal sacrifice of Christ, is this, that the bread and wine then offered are in mystery and inward power, though not in substance, the body and blood of Christ.  This raises the dignity of the Christian sacrifice above those of the law of Moses and all that were ever offered by mere men.  As it is natural bread and wine, it is the sacrifice of Melchizedek and of the most ancient philosophers: as it is the sacrifice of the sacramental body and blood of Christ, it is the most sublime and divine sacrifice that man or angels can offer.” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: II, 86).

In relation to the eucharistic presence Johnson says:

They [the primitive Church] believed the Eucharist to be made the body and blood, not by faith of the communicant, but by the power of the Holy Ghost, or divine benediction, imparted to it by means of the invocation (I mean perfectly and finally imparted by this means, not exclusively of the words of institution and the oblation).  And this I suppose fully appears from those authorities above cited; and, if any doubt of it, I must desire him to give himself the leisure of reviewing the passages produced to show that the ancients esteemed the symbols to be made the body and blood by the supervening energy of the Spirit, and those under the last head, which prove that they thought the words of institution, the oblation, and invocation to be effectual for rendering the elements the spiritual mysterious body and blood.  And this further appears from their way of distributing the Communion, which has before been mentioned.  The administrator affirms what he gives to be the body or blood without any certain knowledge whether the receiver had faith or not; the receiver answers ‘Amen’, and by this gives his assent and consent to the affirmation of the administrator, before he had actually received what was held forth to him.  And indeed, if the Eucharist were not the body and blood before distribution, it could not be made so by any post-fact of the communicant; for faith can give existence to nothing, cannot alter the true nature of things.  But I apprehend that this may be further proved from the practice of the primitive Church in reserving some part of the Eucharistical bread and wine; for this proves not only that they thought it the body and blood without any respect to the faith of the receiver, but that its consecration was permanent and remained after the holy action was at an end.  What was not received by any at the Holy Table could not there be made the body and blood by the faith of the communicant; and yet, if they did not believe it to be the body and blood, for what purpose should they reserve it?” (Johnson, The Unbloody Sacrifice, in The Theological Works, edn. Parker, 1847: I, 341, 342).

Johnson’s theology of the Eucharist is based on moderate realism, both in relation to the eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice.  The sign and the signified are clearly linked in his thinking, with both the presence and the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist being seen as true and real.  The scheme that Johnson is based on moderate realism with reference to the notion of instantiation, where the nature of Christ’s presence and sacrifice is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist and in the eucharistic sacrifice.  Johnson’s theology emphasises the power of the Holy Spirit in transforming the bread and wine by invisible power and grace.  For Johnson the bread and wine are seen to remain in their natural substances and the sacrifice in the Eucharist is not a fleshy re-iteration, but a feast upon the sacrifice in the way Christ offered it at the Last Supper. 

Johnson’s work The Unbloody Sacrifice suggests that his eucharistic theology is based on the philosophical assumptions of moderate realism.