Richard Crakanthorp has been described by Cyril Dugmore as a central churchman, with much in common with the eucharistic doctrine of the Puritans (Dugmore, 1942: 58).  These central churchmen, Dugmore asserts, presented a more moderate view of the Eucharist than other Caroline High Churchman, such as Laud and Andrewes (Dugmore, 1942: 56).  These central churchmen:

“all believed in the spiritual reception by faith of Christ’s body and blood; they maintained that there is no change in the bread and wine except in the sacred use to which they were appointed; that the sacrifice in the Eucharist is a ‘sacramental representation’, commemoration, and application of the real sacrifice of the cross; that it is the crucified body of Christ now in heaven which is spiritually partaken; and that the wicked do not eat the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament.” (Dugmore, 1942: 57-58).

Crakanthorp’s most famous work is entitled Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae contra M. Antonii de Dominis, D. Archiepiscopi Spalatensis, Injurias (cited in Stone, 1909: II, 280).  In this work Crakanthorp presents an extended argument against transubstantiation and rejects de Dominis’ assertion that: “The real and bodily presence of the Lord’s body and blood is in the most holy mysteries of the Eucharist is to us most certain” (de Dominis, cited in Dugmore, 1942: 58).  In answer to this assertion Crakanthorp says:

“Let us see how beautifully you prove that you are not idolaters in this [Eucharistic adoration].  You say, ‘The real and bodily presence of the body and blood of the Lord in the most holy mysteries of the Eucharist is to us most certain’.  Good heavens, ‘most certain’?  Concerning this you have not the certainty of faith, which is infallible.  One might well discuss with you whether it is moral certainty; yet the ‘certainty’ you have here is hardly conjectural.  For listen to what I shall say seriously, and undertake to show by most sure and clear proofs when there is need.  You have no certainty at all either that he who consecrates is a priest, or that he is baptised, or that he intends to do what the Church does, or that Transubstantiation is possible. … No one of these things do you know certainly and infallibly, nor can you know any one of them without a special revelation.  I add that you either know or can know that it is not in accordance with Scripture, or the decrees and writings of the councils or fathers for six hundred years after Christ, or sense, or any reason, for the bread to be transubstantiated into the body of Christ; nay, the Scriptures and councils and fathers which I have cited, and reason and sense, assuredly show that the bread is not transubstantiated into the body of Christ.  Yet you are ‘most certain’ concerning the bodily presence of Christ in the Eucharist, though your ‘certainty’ is not derived from Scripture, nor from the testimony of the ancient fathers, nor from sense, nor from reason; but about this you are cherishing an opinion that is merely vain, and is foolish and impossible, and paying court to it as the idol of your hearts.  But what is your excuse for your idolatry?  You say, ‘We adore with real worship the body of Christ lying hid under the species, which is in itself adorable, because of the personal union’.  Well and significantly have you said, ‘lying hid’.  For a surety it lies hid from the eyes of the body, the eyes of reason, the eyes of men, the eyes of angels, the eyes that are glorified, the eyes of others, the eyes of Christ Himself. … Tell me seriously, do you adore that hidden body of Christ ‘in itself’?  Is it ‘in itself’ adorable with worship?  Take care lest you be men-worshippers, and come under the anathema of the holy Council of Ephesus. … Your words ‘We adore the body of Christ itself’, have a bad sound.  I warn you, if your mind is right, to let your words be also.  In matters of faith I don’t want tricks about words.  Say then (what I think you meant) ‘We adore Christ Himself, whose body is present in the species’.  But there is something else which I very much want explained.  Are we to think that the body of Christ itself is under the species, and that for this reason the body of Christ lying hid in them is to be adored by you in the host more than the deity of Christ lying hid in bread and in wood and in stone and in a priest and in any man to be adored in them?  The reason of your adoration is the presence of the Godhead, because Christ who is God lies hid there.  Since then there is the same reason for adoration in the other things of which I spoke, since Christ who is God is really and actually in bread and in stone and in any man, who do you not fall at the feet of any priest, of any man, that you may show worship to Christ, in that He is God, in all these you are most certain; concerning the presence of Christ, in that He is Man, in or under the species of bread you are most uncertain.” (Crakanthorp, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ch lxxi. Sections 2-5, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 281-282).

“See how easy and clear is our explanation of Christ’s words.  Christ took bread; He blessed the bread; by that blessing or prayer He consecrated it to this holy, lofty, heavenly, and mystic use, that it should be a sign not only signifying but also effectual and bestowing His body to believers instrumentally but spiritually.  Of this bread so blessed, consecrated, and changed by the blessing of Christ … from common and ordinary use to this sacred and heavenly use He said, ‘This is My body’; this which I have taken, which I have broken, which I have consecrated, ‘This is My body’ … Because it is most certain that the bread is not the body of Christ properly speaking, it necessarily follows that the words of Christ are not literal but figurative and tropical, and that the bread was called His body by Christ because it is a sacred sign not only signifying by also bestowing the real body of Christ on believers instrumentally but spiritually. … There is not change in the substance, as there is none in the stones of the altar, or in a man elevated to the priesthood, or in water sanctified for Baptism; but the change is only accidental in the use, in the effect, in the power, in the office of the bread and wine, as is the change in the stones, in a priest, in the water of Baptism.” (Crakanthorp, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ch lxxii. Sections 9, 19 and ch lxxiii. Section 23, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 282).

Crakanthorp in speaking of the eucharistic sacrifice allows a commemorative sacrifice in the Eucharist.  He says:

“From what we have said about your Transubstantiation two, besides many others, consequences follow.  First, the sacrifice of the Mass is not really a propitiatory sacrifice, as the Council of Trent defines, and your men teach; but it is only Eucharistic and commemorative.  A properly propitiatory sacrifice is one which makes God propitious to sinners of its own force without relation to anything else, and obtains the forgiveness of sins and the grace of God of its own merit, value, price and worth. [Darwell Stone comments at this point in his use of this material from Crakanthorp that “this sentence entirely, though probably unintentionally, misrepresents the Tridentine teaching.” (Stone, 1909: II 283) and refers the reading to the actual teaching of Trent (Stone, 1909: II, 96-100).]  Such a sacrifice there never was or will be except Christ alone, offering His body and blood to God on the cross.  He Himself, and no one besides Him, is ‘the propitiation for our sins’ [1 John 2: 2].  Christ is not in the Eucharist bodily, as we have already shown; and therefore His body and blood cannot be offered except in a figure and by way of commemoration.  Therefore that which is offered actually and by the hands of the priest in the Mass cannot be really and properly a propitiatory sacrifice.  Neither is there in the Mass any real and properly so-called sacrifice, not such as the Council of Trent defined and your men with one mouth profess.  This is laid down as one of many requisites to the essence of a real and properly so-called sacrifice, and it is put in your own definition, that ‘what is offered to God is changed’; that is, as Bellarmine himself explains, ‘It is wholly destroyed, that is, it is so changed that it ceases to be that which it was before’, in such a way that ‘not only its use but also its substance is consumed’.  And in what way the substance of that which is offered is to be consumed he explains according to the differences in the things which are offered. … See now on the showing of your Cardinal either that, if Christ is not really and actually slain, there is no real and proper sacrifice in the Mass, or that, if He is really and actually slain by the priests, your priests are really sacrilegious and slayers of God. … The second consequence of which I spoke is the Church of Rome is really idolatrous, and all those who belong to it are properly and formally idolaters.  For you adore with the service of worship the Eucharist and that body which is contained under the species of bread and wine.  That this body is in substance nothing else than bread and wine has already been abundantly shown.  Therefore you give to bread and wine, that is, to creatures, the worship and service which are die to the Creator alone, than which there is nothing more properly idolatry.” (Crakanthorp, Defensio Ecclesiae Anglicanae, ch lxxiv. Sections 1-3, cited in Stone, 1909: II, 282-283).

Crakanthorp’s view of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist was one that was figurative, not literal.  In this way he denies any form of immoderate realism in the Eucharist, regarding Christ’s presence.  He does however, argue that by consecration the elements are changed, in that what was previously intended for a common and ordinary use of bread and wine, is now intended to a sacred and holy use.  The elements are seen to be the means or the instruments by which the body and blood of Christ are given to those who receive communion in a spiritual but not corporal fashion.  This is a statement of moderate realism.

In relation to sacrifice in the Eucharist, Crakanthorp similarly expresses a position of moderate realism.  He denies that there is a propitiatory sacrifice but says that there is a eucharistic or commemorative sacrifice.  This eucharistic or commemorative sacrifice is clearly distinguished from any propitiatory or fleshy sacrifice in the Eucharist.