John Cosin, like Jeremy Taylor, seems to have modified his views on the Eucharist over a period of years.  Cosin earlier in his life was associated with high church beliefs in regard to the Eucharist, but he seems to have become more associated with central church views in his later years (Dugmore, 1942: 70).  Despite this he continues to present a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist.

In the Articles of Enquiry used in his visitation of the Archdeaconry of East Riding of York in 1627, Cosin, as Archdeacon, asked this question regarding the action of the priest in relation to the consecrated elements of the Eucharist:

“Doth he deliver the body and blood of our Lord to every communicant severally.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: ii, 12).

Here it seems that Cosin considered the body and blood of Christ was given to the communicant in the Eucharist.  Since the bread and wine were the things delivered, it seems probable to conclude that Cosin meant that the body and blood of Christ were delivered to the communicant in or with the bread and wine.  At the very least Cosin was suggesting a strong identification between the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.  Such a view is that of the high church party and is distinguished from that of the central church party, where receptionism was prominent.  Receptionism suggests that the body and blood of Christ is present more in the act of communion and less objectively in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Both views are based on moderate realism, however receptionism limits the presence to a particular point in time.

Other evidence suggests that Cosin’s early views on the Eucharist were those of the high church party.  Cosin’s defence of Montague’s realist views on the Eucharist (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855, ii, 17-81) expressed in Montague’s books, A Gagg for the New Gospel? No. A New Gagg for an Old Goose, and Appello Caesarem: A Just Appeal from the Two Unjust Informers (see Montague case study) suggests an association with high church views.  Montague has been identified with the high church party (Dugmore, 1942: 46).  Cosin also prepared in 1627 a Book of Hours for the ladies at the Court of Queen Henrietta, that had elements suggesting a high church view of the Eucharist (A Collection of Private Devotions: in the Practice of the Ancient Church, called the Hours of Prayer: as they were after this Manner published by Authority of Queen Elizabeth – 1560, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855, ii, 83-331).  Horton Davies comments that the Collection was both notable and controversial and pointed towards the rapid growth of the high church movement in the Church of England during the early years of the reign of Charles I (Davies, 1996a: II, 93).  In general the Collection contained material suggestive of the high church position, including:

“ … practical instruction on prayer, forms of prayer, the Calendar, the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, the Decalogue, the Seven Sacraments (while insisting that Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are ‘the two principal and true Sacraments’), and it lists the Spiritual Works of Mercy, and the Corporal Works of Mercy.  It also contains abbreviated forms of the seven canonical hours of prayer, collects for the major festivals, the Seven Penitential Psalms, prayers before and after receiving the ‘Blessed Sacrament’ and prayers to be used at Confession and Absolution, as well as forms for the sick and dying.” (Davies, 1996a: II, 94-95).

As a specific example, the Collection contained a hymn to be used at the consecration that said in part:

“Christians are by faith assured

That by faith Christ is received,

Flesh and blood most precious:

What no duller sense conceiveth,

Firm and grounded faith believeth,

In strange effects not curious.

Guided by His sacred orders,

Heavenly food upon our altars

For our souls we sanctify.”

(Cosin, Collection of Private Devotions, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855, ii, 273).

The hymn suggests a strong view of the real presence of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  The language used is realist, suggesting that the presence of Christ in the heavenly food is on the altar and that this is sanctified in the Eucharist. 

The contents of the Collection were strenuously criticised by the Puritans, who viewed the material as indicative of Cosin’s desire to turn the Church of England back to the Roman Catholic Church (Davies, 1996a: II, 96).

In 1635 Cosin became Master of Peterhouse at Cambridge.  Here he began a program of introducing ceremonial and furnishings that brought the worship of the chapel to the Laudian level of outward or ‘bodily’ devotion.  The Puritan William Prynne described Cosin’s innovations in this way:

“A glorious new altar was set up, mounted on steps, to which the master, fellows, schollers bowed, and were enjoined to bow by Dr Cosins, the master who set it up.  There were basons, candlesticks, tapers standing on it, and a great crucifix hanging over it.” (Prynne, Canterburies Doom, 73, 74, in Dugmore, 1942: 104).

These innovations all suggest a high church view of the Eucharist and as such brought Cosin into conflict with the Puritans.  As a result, following petition to the House of Commons, he was sequestered from all his benefices (Dugmore, 1942: 104).  He subsequently left England and by order of the king became chaplain to the members of Queen Henrietta’s household in France who were members of the Church of England. 

Later in his life however, Cosin seems to have moved more towards a central church position in relation to the Eucharist, associating the body and blood of Christ with the use and office of the Eucharist, and less obviously with the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  Cyril Dugmore suggests that after the Puritan Revolution and during the period of the Restoration following 1660, Cosin adopted central church views on the Eucharist (Dugmore, 1942: 91).  Horton Davies describes Cosin’s views on the Eucharist in the period after the Restoration as that of ‘dynamic receptionism’ (Davies, 1996a: II, 297).  Christ was certainly present in the Eucharist in a dynamic manner, but the presence was associated more with the use and the reception than with the elements of bread and wine.

Cosin’s views on the Eucharist seem to have moderated from the high church to the central church view while he was in France during the period of the Commonwealth (Dugmore, 1942: 105).  Evidence for this is found in a sermon preached in France on the Sunday after Ascension in 1651 where Cosin speaks of the nature of Christ’s presence after the ascension.  In this sermon he says:

“ … a cloud came over Him and took Him out of their sight. … it parts Christ’s presence clean from us … this cloud has taken His bodily and fleshly manner of being here, from among us all.  It is His spiritual presence that we must hold to now, and that is as real a presence as any His body or His flesh ever was, or ever can be. … by His spirit He can be everywhere, truly and really everywhere, where it pleaseth Him; and so with us.” (Cosin, Sermon XIX, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855, i, 270-271, 274).

There seems to be some change in thinking evident here, as compared with earlier statements regarding the Eucharist and the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Earlier, in the Visitation Articles and in the Collection, Cosin spoke of a real presence strongly associated with the bread and wine in an objective and localised manner.  This may be as Geoffrey Cuming suggests because in his early life Cosin “leant decidedly towards to the Roman Church” (Cuming, 1961: xv).  In the quoted sermon however, he seems to place greater weight on a spiritual real presence and avoids associating the real presence with the elements in a localised and given manner.  This is suggestive of a movement away from high church to central church thinking.  It may be that Cosin’s experience of life in France during the period of his exile and “his discovery of Continental Protestantism led to a marked change in his position, and he returned to England in 1660 a central churchman.” (Cuming, 1961: xv).  It should be noted that there is no suggestion of an immoderate realist presence in either the earlier or later writings, but there is a change suggested in the manner of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist, from the high church real presence associated closely with the elements on the altar, to the central church position of dynamic receptionism where the presence of Christ is more associated with the use and office of the Eucharist and less with the elements of bread and wine.  Both the earlier and later period it should be noted are suggestive of a moderate real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, however the later period is a less localised presence than the earlier.

Cosin wrote in 1652 while in France a work entitled Regni Angliae Religio Catholica.  This work was intended to provide a description of the Church of England’s doctrine for those living outside England.  In this work Cosin says that the Church of England rejects:

“… the fable of Transubstantiation” and “the repeated sacrifice of Christ to be offered daily by each priest for the living and the departed.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 347).

In describing the Eucharist in the Church of England he says that the ancient ceremonies, prayers and vestments are retained and that when the priest says the Prayer of Consecration he “blesses each symbol, and consecrates them to be the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ” and that the kneeling communicants “adore Christ, not the Sacrament”.  The Eucharist is described as “the solemn Eucharist or sacrifice of praise of the Church, offered to God Most High as a commemoration of the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ once for all offered on the cross.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 357-360).  Immoderate notions of presence and sacrifice seem to be rejected but moderate notions of a real presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist are affirmed.  Horton Davies argues that even though there was some movement in Cosin’s views, from a high church to a more central church position, there was a desire in him for more than the position of dynamic receptionism allowed.  This ‘more’ he suggests is focused on the doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice (Davies, 1996a: II, 298).  The moderate realist views on eucharistic sacrifice expressed by Cosin in the quotations cited in this paragraph suggest that this may well be the case.

In another work entitled A Paper Concerning the Differences in the Chief Points of Religion betwixt the Church of Rome and the Church of England, not published until 1705, Cosin, in referring to the differences between the Church of Rome and the Church of England, said in relation to the Church of Rome:

“That the priests offer up our Saviour in the Mass as a real, proper and propitiatory sacrifice for the quick and the dead; and that whosoever believes it not is eternally damned:

That in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole substance of bread is converted into the substance of Christ’s body, and the whole substance of wine into His blood, so truly and properly as that after consecration there is neither any bread nor wine remaining there, which they call Transubstantiation and impose upon all persons under pain of damnation to believed.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 333).

When he speaks of the agreements between the Church of Rome and the Church of England Cosin says that the two churches are in accord:

“In commemorating at the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ’s body and blood once truly offered for us:

In acknowledging His sacramental, spiritual, true, and real presence there to the souls of all them that come faithfully and devoutly to receive Him according to His own institution in that holy Sacrament.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 336).

Cosin is in these differences and agreements denying immoderate realism in relation to the eucharistic presence and sacrifice and affirming moderate realism in relation to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice.  He denies that the Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice but not that there is a commemoration of Christ’s sacrifice in the Eucharist.  He denies the doctrine of transubstantiation but not the doctrine of a spiritual, true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

In 1656, while still in France, Cosin wrote a work called Historia Transubstantiationis Papalis.  This work was not published until 1675, three years after his death.  In this work Cosin presents what he sees as the doctrine of the Church of England regarding the Eucharist in opposition to that of the Church of Rome.  Several quotations will be used to show his views. 

“The bread and the cup are in no way changed in substance, or removed, or destroyed; but they are solemnly consecrated by the words of Christ for this purpose, that they may most surely serve for the communication of His body and blood. … The words both of Christ and of the Apostles are to be understood sacramentally and mystically, and no gross or carnal presence of the body and blood can be supported by them. … It was the design of Christ to teach not so much what the elements of bread and wine are in their nature and substance as what they are in signification and use and office in this mystery; since not only are the body and blood of Christ most suitably represented by these elements, but also through their instrumentality Christ Himself by His own institution is most really presented (exhibiteatur) to all, and is sacramentally or mystically eaten by the faithful. … None of the Protestant Churches doubt the actual (reali), that is, the real (vera) and not imaginary presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist; nor is there any reason for suspicion that in this matter they have the smallest degree departed from the Catholic faith.  For it is easy to produce the consent of reformed writers and Churches by which it can be most clearly shown to all who have intellects and eyes that they are all most tenacious of this truth and that they have not in any way departed from the ancient and Catholic faith.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 16-19).

In this passage Cosin denies both immoderate realism and transubstantiation, stating that there can be no gross or carnal presence of Christ in the bread and wine.  Bread and wine though, following consecration are seen to serve as the communication of Christ’s body and blood.  There is no change in the substance of the bread and wine but there is a change in signification, use and office.  This change is not just that of representation, but the bread and wine are ‘through their instrumentality Christ Himself’.  In the Eucharist Christ is presented in a sacramental and mystical manner, which is actual and real.  It needs to be noted though that Cosin here places emphasis on the signification, use and office of the bread and wine.  It is the instrumentality of the elements that he describes as the means of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist.  There is a movement away from any form of presence in the bread and wine, both in an immoderate and moderate realist sense. 

In discussing this further Cosin uses the analogy of deeds to an estate to explain how what is locally absent may yet be really and truly given and received.  He says:

“Assume a testator were to deliver from his hand into the hands of his heir title deeds or documents, adding these words, ‘Receive the house which I leave to you’, no one would suppose that paper document to be the very house made of wood or stone, nor yet would anyone think on that account that the testator had spoken obscurely or falsely.  Clearly in the same manner Christ delivered to His disciples the sacred symbols, sanctified by His words and prayers, like seals attached to this writings of the New Testament.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855, iv, 58).

The view expressed here is quite some way from the Articles of Visitation of 1627.  Instead of speaking of the body and blood of Christ being delivered to the communicant, Cosin now speaks of sacred symbols being delivered.  The level of realism in relation to what is delivered and how it is delivered is lessened, although the gift received is still seen to be the body and blood of Christ.  In the 1627 Articles the body and blood of Christ is seen to be delivered into the hands of the communicant as a real presence with or in the bread and wine, whereas by 1656 in the Historia, sacred symbols are delivered as a seal of the real presence of Christ, which now seems to be less located in the elements and more in the use.  This accords with Horton Davies suggestion that Cosin in his later life expressed a view of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist which could be described as ‘dynamic receptionism’.  Christ was seen to be really present, but the presence was in the use and office of the sacrament, that is present for those who communicate in the act of communion, rather than a localised and given presence in the elements.

This does not mean that Cosin is arguing for something other than a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist since he also says concerning the words of institution that:

“Those words which Our Blessed Saviour used in the institution of the Blessed Sacrament of the Eucharist, This is My Body, which is given for you, This is My blood which is shed for you, for the remission of sins, are held and acknowledged by the Universal Church to be most true and infallible; and, if any one dares oppose them, or call in question Christ’s veracity, or the truth of His words, or refuse to yield his sincere assent to them except he be allowed to make a mere figment or bare figure of them, we cannot, and ought not, either excuse or suffer him in our Churches; for we must embrace and hold for an undoubted truth whatever is taught by Divine Scripture.  And therefore we can as little doubt of what Christ saith, My Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink indeed, which, according to St Paul, are both given to us by the consecrated elements.  For he calls the bread the communion of Christ’s Body, and the cup the communion of His Blood. (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 155).

Cosin is clearly arguing for a real presence of Christ’s body and blood given by the consecrated elements, but this seems more related to their use than to any objective presence of Christ in them.  The elements are more than ‘a mere figment or bare figure’, and the body and blood of Christ is seen to be ‘given’ to the communicant in the bread and wine following consecration and the recitation of Christ’s words of institution.  It is the manner of this presence that is crucial here.  Some further examples of Cosin’s writings may help to clarify the nature of this manner.

In the following passage Cosin speaks of how the body and blood of Christ are present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  He confirms that the body and blood of Christ are united to the bread and wine in a sacramental manner, and that it is in this manner that Christ is really presented in the Eucharist.  Cosin says:

“The result is that the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally united to the bread and wine in such a way that Christ is really presented (exhibeatur) to believers, yet not to be considered by any sense or by the reason of this world, but by faith resting on the words of the Gospel.  Now the flesh and blood of Christ are said to be united to the bread and wine because in the celebration of the Eucharist the flesh is produced and received together with the bread, and the blood together with the wine. … The papists hold it an article of faith that in the Eucharist the substance of the bread and wine is annihilated, and that the body and blood of Christ takes its place. … The Reformed are of very different mind.  Yet no Protestant altogether denies the conversion or change of the bread into the body of Christ, and similarly of the wine into His blood.  For they know and acknowledge that in the Eucharist by virtue of the words and blessing of Christ the bread is wholly changed in condition and use and office; that is, of ordinary and common, it becomes our mystical and sacramental food; whereby they all assert and firmly believe that the real body of Christ itself is not only signified and represented in a figure, but is also presented (exhiberi) in actual fact, and is received in the souls of those who communicate worthily.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 46).

Cosin’s words above at times seem very realist in their use.  He says for example that the flesh and blood of Christ are united to the bread and wine and that ‘in the celebration of the Eucharist the flesh is produced’.  In view of the fact that he has denied a carnal and fleshy presence of Christ in the bread and wine in other places, this immoderate realist sounding phrase, ‘flesh and blood of Christ are said to be united to the bread and wine’, must be interpreted with some care.  It seems that what he means here is that there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine and no annihilation of the substance of the bread and wine (that is, transubstantiation), but that there is a change in condition, use and office.  What was common bread and wine, following consecration, becomes mystical and sacramental, where there is representation in figure and presentation in fact.  Once again this description focuses on use and office, in the sense of dynamic receptionism.  The presence is real but not in any immoderate sense and not in a localised sense in the elements.  The question that needs to be asked then is what is the nature of the flesh that is presented in the Eucharist.  The following quotation seems to address this question.

“The reformed Churches place the constitution (formam) of this Sacrament in the union of the sign with the thing signified, that is, the presenting (exhibitione) of the body and blood of Christ, the bread remaining bread and being dedicated to sacramental uses, whereby these two so become one by the appointment of God that, although this union is not natural or substantial or personal or local (by the one being in the other), yet it is so well adjusted (concinna) and real that in the eating of the consecrated bread the real body of Christ is given to us, and the names of the sign and of the thing signified are reciprocally changed, and what is of the body is attributed to the bread, and what is of the bread is attributed to the body, and they are together in time, though separated in place.  For the presence of the body of Christ in this mystery is opposed not to distance but to absence; and absence, not distance, prevents the use and enjoyment of the object.  Hence it is clear that the present controversy between the reformed and the papists can be reduced to four heads: first, concerning the signs; secondly, concerning the thing signified; thirdly, concerning the union of the signs and the things; fourthly, concerning the participation in them.  As to the first, we differ from them, because they make the accidents only to be the signs, while we regard the substance of bread and wine as the signs in accordance with the nature of Sacraments and the teaching of Scripture.  As to the second, we do not say that which they through misunderstanding our opinion ascribe to us.  For we do not say that only the merits of the death of Christ are signified by the consecrated symbols, but that the real body itself which was crucified for us, and the real blood itself which was shed for us, are both represented and offered, so that our minds may enjoy Christ no less certainly and really than we see and receive and eat and drink the bodily and visible signs themselves.  As to the third, since the thing signified is offered and presented (exhibetur) to us as really as the signs themselves, in this way we recognise the union of the signs with the body and blood of the Lord, and we say that the elements are changed into a different use from that which they had before.  But we deny the assertion of the papists that the substance of bread and wine disappears, or is changed into the body and blood of the Lord that there is nothing left but the bare accidents of the elements, which are united with the same body and blood.  Further, we deny that the Sacrament outside the use appointed by God has the nature of a Sacrament so as to make it right or possible for Christ to be reserved or carried about, since He is present only to those who communicate.  Lastly, as to the fourth point, we do not say that in this holy Supper we are partakers only of the death and passion of Christ, but we join the ground with the fruits which come to us from Him, declaring with the Apostle, ‘the bread which we break is a Communion of the body of Christ, and the cup a Communion of His blood’, yea, in that same substance which he took in the womb of the Virgin and which He raised on high to heaven; differing from the papists in this only, that they believe this eating and union to take place bodily, while we believe it to be not in any natural way or in any bodily manner, but none the less as really as if we were joined to Christ naturally and bodily. … The assertion of the papists that Christ gives His body and His blood to be taken and eaten with the mouth and teeth, so that it is devoured not only by the wicked who are devoid of real faith but also by mice, - this we wholly deny with our mouths and our hearts and our minds.” (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: iv, 48, 49).

The flesh that is presented in the Eucharist, for Cosin, seems to be identified in a union between the sign (bread and wine) and the things signified (the body and blood of Christ).  This union and therefore the flesh presented, as Cosin says, is not a local or immoderate flesh, but a real flesh or body of Christ nonetheless which is given to the communicant.  This is so since ‘what is of the body is attributed to the bread’ and ‘they are together in time, though separated in place’.  The body of Christ is therefore present, not absent.  With the immoderate sense of realism excluded, it seems that Cosin is arguing for a moderate sense of realism.  The nature of the body and blood of Christ (the thing signified) is instantiated in the bread and wine (the signs).

Cosin also presents a moderate realist view of sacrifice in the Eucharist.  He argues that the real body and blood of Christ are not only signified, but they are also represented and offered in the Eucharist.  Again this sounds as if it could be immoderate realism, where the sacrifice of Calvary is re-iterated or re-offered in the Eucharist.  This however, seems not to be the case, in light of Cosin’s denial of any carnal or local notions in the Eucharist and since he argues that the offering and presenting can only be said to happen because of the union between the sign and the signified.  The sacrifice of Christ at Calvary (the signified) is therefore instantiated in the Eucharist (the sign) through a union of the sign with the signified, not in the immoderate sense but in the moderate sense of realism.  It is the talk of a union between the sign and the signified that indicates moderate realism and the notion of instantiation and which at the same time excludes any immoderate notions of realism.  The sacrifice of Christ is presented (instantiated) in the Eucharist, not in any local sense or by re-iteration (immoderate), but by the idea of a union between sign (the eucharistic offering) and the signified (the offering of Christ at Calvary).  This is the language and the idea of moderate realism.

A set on notes on the Book of Common Prayer is also preserved in Cosin’s writings.  In these notes he makes comments concerning the Eucharist.  The following passages are cited:

“Christ can be no more offered, as the doctors and priests of the Roman party fancy Him to be, and vainly think that every time they say Mass they offer up and sacrifice Christ anew as properly and truly as He offered up Himself in His sacrifice upon the cross. … Without shedding of His blood and killing Him over again no proper sacrifice can be made of Him, which yet in their Masses the Roman priests pretend every day to do.” (Cosin, Notes of the Book of Common Prayer, in Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 333).

“We do not hold this celebration to be so naked a commemoration of Christ’s body given to death, and of His blood there shed for us, but that the same body and blood is present there in this commemoration (made by the sacrament of bread and wine) to all that faithfully receive it: nor do we say that is so nude a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving but that our prayers also added we offer and present the death of Christ to God, that for His death’s sake we may find mercy, in which respect we deny not this commemorative sacrifice to be propitiatory.  The receiving of which Sacrament, or participating of which sacrifice exhibited to us, we say is profitable only to them that receive it and participate of it; but the prayers that we add thereunto, in presenting the death and merits of our Saviour to God, is not only beneficial to them that are present, but to them that are absent also, to the dead and the living both, to all true members of the Catholic church of Christ.  But a true, real, proper, and propitiatory sacrificing of Christ, toties quoties as this Sacrament is celebrated, which is the popish doctrine, and which cannot be done without killing of Christ so often again, we hold not, believing it to be a false and blasphemous doctrine, founding ourselves upon the Apostles’ doctrine, that Christ was sacrificed but once, and that He dieth no more.” (Cosin, Notes of the Book of Common Prayer, in Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 336).

True it is that the body and blood of Christ are sacramentally and really (not feignedly) present when the blessed bread and wine are taken by the faithful communicants; and true it is also that they are present but only when the hallowed elements are so taken, as in another work (the History of the Papal Transubstantiation) I have more at large declared.  Therefore whosever so receiveth them, at that time when he receiveth them, rightly doth he adore and reverence His Saviour there together with the sacramental bread and cup, exhibiting His own body and blood unto them.  Yet, because that body and blood is neither sensibly present (nor otherwise at all present but only to them that are duly prepared to receive them, and in the very act of receiving them and the consecrated species together, to which they are sacramentally in that act united), the adoration is then and there given to Christ Himself, neither is nor ought to be directed to any external sensible object, such as are the blessed elements.  But our kneeling, and the outward gesture of humility and reverence in our bodies, is ordained only to testify and express the inward reverence and devotion of our souls towards our blessed Saviour, who vouchsafed to sacrifice Himself for us on the cross, and now presenteth Himself to be united sacramentally to us, that we may enjoy all the benefits of His mystical passion, and be nourished with the spiritual food of His blessed body and blood unto life eternal.” (Cosin, Notes of the Book of Common Prayer, in Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 345, 346).

“The Eucharist may be an allusion, analogy, and extrinsical denomination, be fitly called a sacrifice, and the Lord’s Table an altar, the one relating to the others, though neither of them can be strictly and properly so termed.  It is the custom of Scripture to describe the service of God under the New Testament, be it either internal or external, by terms that otherwise most properly belonged to the Old, as immolation, offering, sacrifice, and altar.” (Cosin, Notes of the Book of Common Prayer, in Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 347-348).

“This is a plain oblation of Christ’s death once offered, and a representative sacrifice of it, for the sins, and for the benefit, of the whole world, of the whole Church; that both those which are here on earth and those that rest in the sleep of peace, being departed in the faith of Christ, may find the effect and virtue of it. … And in this sense it is not only a eucharistical, but a propitiatory, sacrifice. … Why should we then make any controversy about this?  They love not the truth of Christ, nor the peace of the Church, that make these disputes between the Church of Rome and us, when we agree, as Christian Churches should, in our Liturgies: what private men’s conceits are, what is that to the public approved religion of either Church, which is to be seen in their liturgies best of all?” (Cosin, Notes of the Book of Common Prayer, in Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 119, 120).

“It is confessed by all divines that upon the words of consecration the body and blood of Christ is really and substantially present, and so exhibited and given to all that receive it; and all this not after a physical and sensual but after a heavenly and invisible and incomprehensible manner: but yet remains this controversy among some of them, whether the body of Christ be present only in the use of the Sacrament and in the act of eating, and not otherwise.  They that hold the affirmative, as the Lutherans in Conf. Sax. [the Saxon Confession, see Stone, 1909: II, 30-33], and all Calvinists, do seem to me to depart from all antiquity, which place the presence of Christ in the virtue of the words of consecration and benediction used by the priest, and not in the use of eating of the Sacrament, for they tell us that the virtue of that consecration is not lost, though the Sacrament be reserved either for sick or other.” (Cosin, Notes of the Book of Common Prayer, in Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 131).

Cosin in these notes on the Book of Common Prayer clearly rejects immoderate realism in relation to presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist.  He does this in several places (e.g. v, 131; v, 333; v, 336). 

At the same time he affirms that in the Eucharist there is no ‘naked’ commemoration, but that there is a real presence in the commemoration ‘made by the sacramental bread and wine’.  He also affirms that there is no ‘nude’ sacrifice in the Eucharist, that there is more than the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, and that there is an offering and presentation of the ‘death of Christ to God’.  It is this sense of offering, not immoderate but moderate, that Cosin argues that the commemorative sacrifice of the Eucharist is propitiatory.  This is so he argues, because the sacrifice which is exhibited in the Eucharist is effective in presenting the death and merits of Christ to God.  Any sense of offering an actual propitiatory sacrifice is denied since this would involve killing Christ again (immoderate realism) and would deny that Christ died only once, as the Scriptures affirm.

Cosin does however, seem to limit the presence of Christ to the taking of the ‘blessed bread and wine’ (v, 345, 346).  It is in the taking and receiving that Christ is really present and adored, ‘together with the sacramental bread and wine’.  At the time of receiving and taking, Christ’s body and blood is exhibited and adored, not in the bread and wine, but together with the bread and wine.  This corresponds with the idea of uniting the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ, as discussed above.  This is not immoderate realism since Cosin states that Christ’s body and blood is not ‘sensibly present’.  Rather the body and blood of Christ is sacramentally united to the act of taking and receiving the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  This is the language of dynamic receptionism in a moderate realist sense where the body and blood of Christ is instantiated and received in the act of taking and receiving the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Cosin’s involvement in the work of revising the Book of Common Prayer (1662) was extensive.  Geoffrey Cuming argues that John Cosin, together with Matthew Wren, is “the most copious contributor to the Prayer Book since Archbishop Cranmer.” (Cuming, 1961: xv).  Cosin was greatly influenced in the work by his association with Bishop John Overall and it may be that Cosin’s ‘First Series’ of annotations on the Prayer Book (Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 1-176) were originally the work of Overall (Cuming, 1961: xiii).  Cosin for example, like Overall, favoured the model of the Eucharist in the 1549 BCP, where the Prayer of Oblation is made part of the Prayer of Consecration, with the sanctification of the bread and wine by the work of the Spirit and memorial remembrance or anamnesis associated with the elements and their consecration.  The 1552, 1559 and 1604 editions of the BCP had not followed this practice and had instead placed the Prayer of Oblation after the receiving of Communion, lessening notions of a real presence and sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist, and limiting the function of the Prayer of Oblation to that of praise and thanksgiving for a past, completed event (the death of Christ at Calvary) and a bringing to mind of that past event in the present.  The pattern was also followed in the 1662 BCP when it was published.  Cosin’s view, as was that of Overall, clearly exceeded these limitations and proceeded in a distinctly more Catholic direction, within the overall framework of dynamic receptionsim.  This more Catholic direction was expressed by Cosin in his suggested amendments to the Book of Common Prayer that have become known as The Durham Book (Cuming, 1961: xxii).  Cosin’s work has been carefully analysed by Geoffrey Cuming in his detailed analysis of The Durham Book and its sources (Cuming, 1961).

The Durham Book was an attempt by Cosin to present a revised Book of Common Prayer that could be used following the Restoration of Charles II to the throne in 1660.  During the winter of 1660-1661 Cosin used a folio copy of the Prayer Book of 1619 to make his changes and recommendations, going about his work by writing in and deleting material.  Besides the 1549 Eucharist, Cosin’s sources may have included Bishop Wren’s work on the Prayer Book (Advices), the Scottish eucharistic liturgy of 1637 and his own notes on the Prayer Book (Particulars) (Cuming, 1961: xviii).

The chief features of the eucharistic liturgy of The Durham Book were indicative of this movement in a more Catholic direction of worship and ceremonial.  They included:

•A rubric directing the placing of the altar in the upper part of the chancel against the east wall of the church (Cuming, 1961: 132-135).  From the time of the 1552 BCP onward the table had been ordered to stand in the body of the Church, or in the chancel (Ketley, 1844: 265).  This arrangement lessened any association of the Eucharist with pre-Reformation liturgical practice.  Cosin’s rubric however reversed this arrangement and returned the table to its traditional place against the east wall of the church.

•The presentation of the collection of money together with the elements of bread and wine at the altar, with the instruction that “the Priest shall offer up, and place the Bread and Wine in a comely Paten and Chalice upon the Table” (Cuming, 1961: 146).  The sentences used at this point in the Eucharist derive from Bishop Andrewes and The Scottish Liturgy of 1637 (see Cuming, 1961: 140-143) and refer to the offering of material objects to God.  Cuming observes that in The Durham Book and its sources, “The increased prominence given to the Offertory is found on all hands.” (Cuming, 1961: 147).

•The elements are directed to be ‘ordered’ so that the celebrant may more easily take them into his hands (Cuming, 1961: 162).  This indicates that the manual acts (eliminated in BCP 1552) are again to be used.  In fact these are ordered once more in the Prayer of Consecration (Cuming, 1961: 166).

•Wafer bread is allowed if so desired (Cuming, 1961: 184).  Such a use was not found in the prayer books following the 1549 BCP.  A return to wafer bread is indicative of a more Catholic flavour for the Eucharist.

•The consecrated bread and wine remaining after the administration of Communion is ordered to be consumed reverently in the church after the blessing (Cuming, 1961: 184, 186).  Previous practice as directed by BCP, 1552 was that remaining bread and wine, both consecrated and unconsecrated, could be taken by the curate for his own use (Ketley, 1844: 283).  The implication of this 1552 BCP rubric was that any presence of Christ in the Eucharist was restricted to the administration, and that following the administration there was no longer any presence of Christ associated with the bread and wine.  Cosin’s rubric in The Durham Book indicates that all consecrated bread and wine should be consumed reverently, thereby heightening the sense of presence in the elements.  Cosin also refers to the bread as ‘holy bread’ following consecration, suggesting that following consecration the bread has a heightened nature (e.g. Cuming, 1961: 170) worthy of special reverence.

•Christ death is frequently linked with mention of sacrifice in The Durham Book (Cuming, 1961: 148, 152, 164, 178).  The Eucharist was said to ‘celebrate’ and ‘make … memorial’ whilst having the ‘blessed Passion and Sacrifice’ ‘in remembrance’ (Cuming, 1961: 176, 178).  This notion of memorial remembrance or anamnesis is associated with not only a more Catholic but also a more moderate realist idea of Christ’s sacrifice being instantiated in the Eucharist.

•The consecrated bread and wine are described as the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ (e.g. Cuming, 1961: 154, 172, 174, 178).  Cosin’s view seems to have been that the body and blood of Christ were “sacramentally and really” but not “sensibly” present (Cosin, Works, edn. Sansom, 1843-1855: v, 345).  It is in this realist sense that the Agnus Dei used in the 1549 BCP is restored in The Durham Book (Cuming, 1961: 176).

•Cosin also places the Prayer of Oblation immediately after the Prayer of Consecration (Cuming, 1961: 168) thus restoring the form of the traditional Canon.  Cosin observes that the placement of the Prayer of Oblation after the Prayer of Consecration accords with ancient practice and the nature of the sacrament, saying that such placement “would be more consonant both to former precedents, and the nature of this holy action” (Cuming, 1961: 169).  Cosin also states that this placement was the practice of Bishop Overall, for whom he acted as chaplain.  Cosin says: “I have always observed my Lord and Master Dr Overall to use this oblation in its right place, when he consecrated the Sacrament, to make an offering of it (as being the true public sacrifice of the Church) unto God, it by the merits of Christ’s death which was now commemorated, all the Church of God might receive mercy etc. as in this prayer: and when that was done he communicate the people, and so end with the thanksgiving following hereafter.  If men would consider the nature of this Sacrament, how it is the Christians Sacrifice also, they could not choose but use it so too.  For as it stands here it is out of place.  We ought first to send up Christ unto God, and then he will send he down to us.” (Cuming, 1961: 171).

•An epiclesis or invocation of the Holy Spirit is also inserted in the Prayer of Consecration stating that “by the power of thy Word and Spirit vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy creatures of bread and wine.” (Cuming, 1961: 166).  This follows the pattern of the 1549 BCP and the Scottish Liturgy of 1637 although the 1549 BCP and Scottish Liturgy of 1637 words “that they may be unto us the body and blood of thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ” (Ketley, 1844: 88 and Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, 2001: 16) are significantly not used.  Such an omission accords with the previously expressed views of dynamic receptionism, where it is in the use that Christ is present.  Whereas the 1549 and the 1637 eucharistic liturgies are suggestive of a change in the elements through the power of the Word and Spirit, that is, ‘may be unto us’, the eucharistic liturgy of The Durham Book does not make this suggestion.  The power of the Word and Spirit is invoked over the bread and wine and they are blessed and sanctified so that those who partake of them may also partake of the body and blood of Christ, but the invocation and the blessing and sanctifying is not solely associated with the heightened form of the bread and wine alone as they certainly are in the 1549 form of words.  In The Durham Book form of words, the invocation and the blessing and sanctifying are also associated with the receiving and the partaking, thereby following the pattern of the prayer books following that of 1549, that is, 1552, 1559 and 1604.  The words of The Durham Book are as follows: “and grant that we, receiving these thy creatures of Bread and Wine, and by the power of they holy Word and Spirit vouchsafe so to bless and sanctify these thy Gifts and Creatures of Bread and Wine, that we receiving them according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ’s holy institution, in remembrance of Him, and to shew forth his death and passion, may be partakers of his most blessed Body and Blood:” (Cuming, 1961: 166).  The notion of ‘receiving’ as the means of the eucharistic presence did not enter into the English prayer books until the eucharistic liturgy of 1552 (Ketley, 1844: 279).  Clearly the form of words in The Durham Book is more Catholic in nature than the prayer books succeeding that of 1549, but it nonetheless lessens the idea of a heightened efficacy of the bread and wine and any sense of an objective presence of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist, whilst favouring a receptionist notion.  Cosin’s wording is certainly that of a moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice (‘shew forth his death and passion’).  Cosin’s wording, in relation to eucharistic presence is also that of moderate realism, but any objective presence in the bread and wine is tempered by dynamic receptionism.  Nonetheless Cosin’s form of words, in relation to both eucharistic presence and sacrifice, represents a significant advance in the Catholic direction on the prayer books following that of 1549.

Although the changes in the eucharistic liturgy of The Durham Book were less high church than the positions adopted by say Andrewes, Laud and Thorndike, they were Catholic in nature and moderate in realism.  The fact that many of Cosin’s suggestions outlined above were not taken up by Convocation in the 1662 BCP, suggests that they were considered too high church and too Catholic to win favour.

Cosin acknowledges that some terms used in regard to the Eucharist (e.g. immolation, offering, sacrifice, altar) have their origin in the Old Testament.  These terms when used in the New Testament in regard to the Eucharist, are used in the sense of ‘allusion, analogy and extrinsical denomination’.  Although these terms are used they cannot be strictly applied in any discussion of the Eucharist.  The sense in which Cosin uses these Old Testament words is in the sense of moderate realism.  The distinction between ‘strict’ and ‘allusion/analogy/extrinsical’ seems to be in accord with the same distinction Armstrong uses in his philosophical scheme when he speaks of the distinction between ‘strict identity’ or ‘numerical identity’ and ‘identity in nature’ (Armstrong 1989, 1995, 1998).  Strict identity involves immoderate realism, where identity in nature involves moderate realism.  Cosin’s moderate realism refers to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as ‘really and substantially present’ and ‘exhibited and given to all that receive it’, but not ‘after a physical and sensual’ manner (immoderate realism).  Rather Cosin states that the manner of the presence is ‘after a heavenly and spiritual and incomprehensible manner’.  Clearly Cosin is excluding immoderate realism, where Christ is present in a fleshy manner and where his sacrifice is re-iterated, but at the same time he seems to be excluding nominalism.  The presence of Christ and the sacrifice in the Eucharist is real and given, united together with the bread and wine.  More than this he argues that Christ is real and given in a substantial manner.  By substantial he appears to mean what has been described above as ‘identity in nature’ (moderate realism) as opposed to any strict or immoderate realism.  Although he refers to the presence as heavenly and spiritual he also calls it true, real and given.  Cosin’s use of ‘heavenly and spiritual’ seems to mean more than other Anglicans who separate the bread and wine from the heavenly and spiritual presence in a nominalist framework (e.g. Cranmer in Defence and Answer at the time of the Reformation and Davies (2001a, 2001b, 2001c)) in the modern period).  Both Cranmer and Davies separate the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ, by locating the presence of Christ in the heavenly and spiritual sphere (nominalism), whereas Cosin unites the bread and wine with the body and blood of Christ in a heavenly and spiritual manner (realism).  Cosin’s writing and work of revision lends much support to the idea of moderate realism in the Anglican eucharistic tradition expressed as dynamic receptionism.