Alexander Nowell wrote three catechisms – a ‘large’, a ‘middle’ and a ‘small’, with the small catechism being published in 1572 and closely resembling that found in the 1549 BCP (as printed in Ketley, 1844: 121-124).  It is argued that Nowell could therefore have been the author of the Catechism in the 1549 prayer book (Pullan, 1900: 207; Daniel, 1913: 441; Neil and Willoughby, 1913: 403; Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 985) although this is disputed, as Nowell was only a school teacher in 1549 and it is considered unlikely that the bishops would have entrusted such an important task to him (Blunt, 1903: 428).  Other possible authors for the Catechism in the 1549 BCP are Bishop Ponet and Bishop Goodrich (Daniel, 1913: 441; Neil and Willoughy, 1913: 403).  James Hartin has argued that the traditional attribution of this early catechism to Nowell is almost certainly wrong and suggests Archbishop Cranmer as the most likely author, with Ponet and Goodrich as other possible authors (Hartin, 1988: 158).  For further discussion of the catechism as it appears in the various prayer books see the case study of John Overall.

Despite this conjecture there remains Nowell’s Large Catechism which was approved by Convocation in 1563 and printed in 1570 (Nowell, A Catechism, edn. Corrie, 1853).  The Catechisms of Nowell were apparently held in high regard as Corrie comments that, “We may judge of the high estimation in which these works were held, when we learn from the various injunctions, &c. put forth at that time by public authorities, that no Catechisms were allowed to be used by clergymen and schoolmasters except one or other of Nowell’s” (Corrie, 1853: vii). 

In this larger catechism Nowell makes reference to the Eucharist in a question and answer format between a master (M) and a scholar (S).  In the Catechism the following is found:

“M   For what use? [Referring to the Eucharist]

S   To celebrate and retain continually a thankful remembrance of the Lord’s death, and of that most singular benefit which we have received thereby; and that as in baptism we were once born again, so with the Lord’s Supper we be always fed and sustained to spiritual and everlasting life.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 212).

This question and answer seems to suggest that Nowell subscribed to some form of moderate realism in the Eucharist in relation to the sacrifice of Christ.  In line with the various editions of the prayer book (BCP, 1549, 1552, 1559) he makes the comment that the Eucharist is a continual remembrance of Christ’s death.  The idea however that the Eucharist ‘celebrates’ the thankful remembrance of the Lord’s death is found only in the BCP (1549), the prayer book associated with a less reformed and more Catholic doctrine of a eucharistic presence and sacrifice.  The Prayer of Consecration in the BCP (1549) says:

“O God heavenly Father, which of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesu Christ, to suffer death upon the cross for our redemption, who made there (by his one oblation, once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction, for the sins of the whole world, and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to celebrate, a perpetual memory of that his precious death, until he coming again. … Wherefore, O lord and heavenly Father, according to the Institution of they dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesu Christ, we thy humble servants do celebrate, and make here before thy divine Majesty, with these holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make.” (BCP, 1549, Prayer of Consecration, edn. Ketley, 1844: 88-89).

This moderate realist notion of eucharistic sacrifice was not found in the prayer books that succeeded the BCP (1549), that is, the BCP of 1552 and 1559.  This word ‘celebrate’ suggests the idea of anamnesis, that is, making the effects of Christ’s death present and effective in the Eucharist.  The 1552 and 1559 prayer books speak only of our Lord’s command “to continue, a perpetual memory of that his precious death” (BCP, 1552 and 1559, Prayer of Consecration).  Nowell’s notion of eucharistic sacrifice therefore seems more realist than the official liturgies of his time and than other Anglican writers, such as Jewell, Sandys or Grindal, since Nowell speaks of the Eucharist as a means by which people ‘celebrate’ as well as ‘remember’ the death of Christ.

It must be recognised though that Nowell is careful to deny any suggestion that Christ is offered in any immoderate fashion in the Eucharist for the sins of people.  This is addressed in the following question and answer:

“M   Of this that thou hast said of the Lord’s Supper, meseems, I may gather that the same was not ordained to this end, that Christ’s body should be offered in sacrifice to God the Father for sins.

S   It is not so offered.  For he, when he did institute his supper, commanded us to eat his body, not to offer it.  As for the prerogative of offering for sins, it pertaineth to Christ alone, as to him which is the eternal Priest; which also when he died upon the cross, once made that only and everlasting sacrifice for our salvation, and fully bequeathed us by the Lord himself, which we chiefly do in the Lord’s Supper.

Despite this denial Nowell seems to nonetheless suggest again a moderate realism in relation to eucharistic sacrifice.  His catechism says:

M   Then I perceive that the holy supper sendeth us to the death of Christ, and to his sacrifice once done upon the cross, by which alone God is appeased toward us.

S   It is most true.  For by bread and wine, the signs, is assured unto us, that as the body of Christ was once offered a sacrifice for us to reconcile us to favour with God, and his blood once shed, to wash away the spots of our sins, so now also in his holy supper both are given to the faithful, that we surely know that the reconciliation of favour pertaineth to us, and may take and receive the fruit of the redemption purchased by his death.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 215).

The Eucharist ‘sendeth us to the death of Christ and to his sacrifice once done upon the cross’, suggesting that the signs of bread and wine convey what they signify such that the signified is ‘given to the faithful’ in the Eucharist and the fruit of Christ’s death are received in the Eucharist.  This appears to be moderate realism.

Nowell however, while presenting a moderate realism in relation to the sacrifice of Christ as it is found in the Eucharist, carefully distinguishes between the parts of the sacrament in a manner very suggestive of nominalism.  The Master and the Scholar have this exchange about the two parts of the sacrament:

“M   Dost thou say that there are two parts in this sacrament also, as in baptism?

S   Yea.  The one part, the bread and wine, the outward signs, which are seen with our eyes, handled with our hands, and felt with our taste; the other part, Christ himself, with whom our souls, as with their proper food, are inwardly nourished.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 212).

“M   And dost thou say that all ought alike to receive both parts of the sacrament?

S   Yea verily, master.  For sith the Lord has expressly so commanded, it were a most high offence in any part to abridge his commandment.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 213).

“M   Why would the Lord have here two signs to be used?

S   First, he severally gave the signs both of his body and blood, that it might be the more plain express image of his death which he suffered, his body being torn, his side pierced, and his blood shed, and that the memory thereof so printed in our hearts should stick the deeper.  And moreover, that the Lord might so provide for and help our weakness, and thereby manifestly declare, that as the bread for nourishment of our bodies, so his body hath most singular force and efficacy spiritually to feed our souls: and as with wine men’s hearts are cheered, and their strength confirmed, so with blood our souls are relieved and refreshed; that certainly assuring ourselves that he is not only our meat, but also our drink, we do not anywhere else but in him alone seek any part of our spiritual nourishment and eternal life.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 213).

“M   Is there then not an only figure, but the truth itself of the benefits that thou hast rehearsed, delivered in the supper?

S   What else?  For sith Christ is the truth itself, it is no doubt but that the thing which he testified in words, and representeth in signs, he performeth also in deed, and delivereth it unto us; and that he as surely makes them that believe in him partakers of his body and blood, as they surely know that they have received the bread and wine with their mouth and stomach.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 213).

Nowell clearly distinguishes the outward sign from the inward sign.  The outward sign of bread and wine represents the body and blood of Christ, but Nowell in no place suggests that the body and blood are present in or through the bread and wine.  It seems that there is no sense of a realist instantiation of the body and blood of Christ in the bread and wine in Nowell’s writing, although he states plainly that Christ’s body and blood is received in the Eucharist and that the Eucharist is more than a figure.  The means for the reception of the body and blood of Christ is faith since he says “that he as surely makes them that believe in him partakers of his body and blood” (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 213) and at the same time he carefully distinguishes this from the reception of bread and wine with the mouth and stomach.  It must be concluded that in relation to the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist Nowell is expressing a nominalist conception, although he is clear that Christ is truly received by the faithful.  This reception of Christ seems to be quite separate from the outward sign.

“M   Sith we be in the earth, and Christ’s body in heaven, how can that be that thou sayest?

S   We must lift our souls and hearts from earth, and raise them up by faith to heaven, where Christ is.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 213).

Nowell, in this question and answer, picks up on a theme used by Cranmer and other reformers such as Jewell, that is, the heavenly communion of the faithful.  The body of Christ is in heaven and the faithful lift themselves by faith to heaven where Christ is.  Any idea of an immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist is denied since the real presence (that is the physical presence) of Christ is seen to be in heaven.

Nowell goes on to speak about the role of faith in the Eucharist:

“M   Sayest thou then the mean to receive the body and blood of Christ standeth upon faith?

S   Yea.  For when we believe that Christ died to deliver us from death, and that he rose again to procure us life, we are partakers of the redemption purchased by his death, and of his life, and all other his good things; and with the same conjoining wherewith the head and the members are knit together, he coupleth us to himself by secret and marvellous virtue of his Spirit, even so that we be members of his body, and be of his flesh and bones, and do grow into one body with him.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 212-213).

Receiving the body and blood of Christ by faith is a matter of assent of belief for Nowell.  It is by belief that the faithful are coupled and conjoined to Christ and so receive the benefits of his passion.  This is achieved through the power of Christ’s Spirit.  The language Nowell uses here is quite realist (‘we be members of his body, and be flesh of his flesh and bones, and do grow into one body with him’) but in view of his other comments on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, it seems that this language applies chiefly to an ecclesial dimension, whereby the faithful communicant is joined to the body of Christ, the Church.  This interpretation seems to be confirmed by the answer to the following questions where Nowell speaks of being members of Christ being grafted into his body by Baptism.

“M   Dost thou then, that this conjoining maybe made, imagine the bread and wine to be changed into the substance of the flesh and blood of Christ?

S   There is no need to invent any such change.  For both the Holy Scriptures, and the best and most ancient expositors, do teach that by baptism we are likewise the members of Christ, and are of his flesh and bones, and do grow into one body with him, when yet there is no such change made in the water.

M   Go on.

S   In both the sacraments the substances of the outward things are not changed; but the word of God and heavenly grace coming to them, there is such efficacy, that as by baptism we are once regenerate in Christ, and are first, as it were, joined and grafted into his body; so, when we rightly receive the Lord’s Supper, with the very divine nourishment of his body and blood, most full of health and immortality, given to us by the work of the Holy Ghost, and received of us by faith, as the mouth of our soul, we are continually fed and sustained to eternal life, growing together in them both into one body with Christ.  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 214).

M   And sayest thou that there are no less strait bands of conjoining in the supper?

S   In the Lord’s supper both that communicating which I spake of is confirmed in us, and is also increased, for that each man is both by the words and mysteries of God ascertained that the same belongeth to himself, and that Christ is by a certain peculiar manner given to him, that he may most fully and with most near conjunction enjoy him, insomuch that not only our souls are nourished with his holy body and blood as with their proper food, but also our bodies, for that they partake of the sacraments of eternal life, have, as it were by a pledge given them, a certain hope assured them of resurrection and immortality, that at length Christ abiding in us, and we again abiding in Christ, we also, by Christ abiding in us, may obtain not only everlasting life, but also the glory which his Father gave him.  In a sum I say thus: as I imagine not any gross joining, so I affirm that same secret and marvellous communicating of Christ’s body in his supper to be most near and strait, most assured, most true, and altogether most high and perfect.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 214-215).

In these questions and answers Nowell denies that there is any change in the substance of the bread and wine, thereby denying transubstantiation and any immoderate notions of presence.  The benefits of Christ and his death are present by faith, not by bread and wine.  This however, does not deny the efficacy of the Eucharist, since it is in this context that assurance of faith occurs.  The ‘peculiar manner’ by which Christ is given to the faithful is not by ‘any gross joining’ but through the power of God and faith.

“M   Of this that thou hast said of the Lord’s Supper, meseems, I may gather that the same was not ordained to this end, that Christ’s body should be offered in sacrifice to God the Father for sins.

S   It is not so offered.  For he, when he did institute his supper, commanded us to eat his body, not to offer it.  As for the prerogative of offering for sins, it pertaineth to Christ alone, as to him which is the eternal Priest; which also when he died upon the cross, once made that only and everlasting sacrifice for our salvation, and fully bequeathed us by the Lord himself, which we chiefly do in the Lord’s Supper.

M   Then I perceive that the holy supper sendeth us to the death of Christ, and to his sacrifice once done upon the cross, by which alone God is appeased toward us.

S   It is most true.  For by bread and wine, the signs, is assured unto us, that as the body of Christ was once offered a sacrifice for us to reconcile us to favour with God, and his blood once shed, to wash away the spots of our sins, so now also in his holy supper both are given to the faithful, that we surely know that the reconciliation of favour pertaineth to us, and may take and receive the fruit of the redemption purchased by his death.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 215).

M   Why dost thou not grant that the body and blood of Christ are included in the bread and cup; or that the bread and wine are changed into the substance of his body and blood?

S   Because that were to bring in doubt the truth of Christ’s body; to dishonour to Christ himself; and to fill them with abhorring that receive the sacrament, if we should imagine that his body either to be enclosed in so narrow a room, or to be in many places at once, or his flesh to be chawed in our mouth with our teeth, and to be bitten small, and eaten as other meat.”  (Nowell, A Catechism, Edn, Corrie, 1853: 216).

Nowell’s Catechism presents a puzzling mixture of both realism and nominalism.  In relation to eucharistic sacrifice he expresses some moderate realist notions, but in relation to eucharistic presence he seems to be nominalist.  There seems to be no easy way to explain this.  What it does suggest though is that realism in a moderate form was present, in relation to sacrifice at least, in the 1560’s when this Catechism was written and at later times when the Catechism was an accepted form of instruction.