John Jewell is considered one of the intellectual leaders of the English Reformation (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 738).  During the reign of Mary I he fled to Europe where he lived for various periods of time in Frankfurt, Strasbourg and Zurich, experiencing the life and effects of the Reformation in Europe.  Jewell’s eucharistic beliefs may well have been modified by his contacts with Strasbourg and Zurich, but at the same time he is not likely to have abandoned all he had learnt from Cranmer and Ridley (Dugmore, 1958: 228).  On his return to England under Elizabeth I he was made Bishop of Salisbury in 1560.  He became a strong supporter of the Anglican settlement and opposed the extremes of both Roman Catholics and Puritans, taking a stand firmly with the Fathers of the first six centuries (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 739).  Jewell’s writings on the Eucharist are set out in various places, principally in a sermon preached at Paul’s Cross in 1560, in his Letters to Dr Cole concerning the sermon, also of 1560, various correspondence with Thomas Harding and in his Apology or Answer in Defence of the Church of England, originally published in 1562.  In the Apology Jewell sets out to prove that a general Reformation was necessary and that local churches, such as the Church of England, had the right to legislate through their own synods.  A protracted controversy with Thomas Harding (1516-1572), a defender of the Papacy, followed the publication of Jewell’s Apology.  Harding published A Confutation of the Apology of the Church of England in 1565 (Harding, 1565, Confutation, edn. Ayre, 1848) and this was answered in turn by Jewell in 1565 with A Reply to Harding’s Answer (Jewell, Reply, edn.Ayre, 1845) and in 1567 in a work entitled A Defence of the Apology of the Church of England, Containing an Answer to a certain Book lately set forth by M. Harding, and entitled, A Confutation &c (Jewell, Defence, edn. Ayre, 1848).  In the Defence Jewell reprints large sections of Harding’s Confutation and proceeds to defend his Apology against Harding’s criticisms.

Jewell preached a sermon at Paul’s Cross in November, 1559, repeated it at court on 17 March, 1560 and again at Paul’s Cross on 31 March, 1560, which was the Second Sunday before Easter (Works, Ayre, 1845: 3).  In this sermon he spoke of the Eucharist, arguing that when something given by God is abused, the best course of action is to return to the original for the purposes of reformation.  He therefore uses the account of the Lord’s Supper found in Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, to argue for reform of the Eucharist to correct abuses, just as Paul had argued that the Corinthians correct abuses by return to what he had received from the Lord (Jewell, Sermon at Paul’s Cross, 1560, edn. Ayre, 1845: 3-8).  Jewell’s agenda is clear: the Latin Mass and its accompanying theology is an abuse which can only be corrected by a return to the pure sources, that is the Bible and the primitive church of the first six centuries after Christ (Jewell, Sermon at Paul’s Cross, 1560, edn. Ayre, 1845: 5).  He goes on to speak of some of the abuses in detail: the use of Latin instead of the common tongue, withholding the chalice from the people, the canon of the mass, the adoration of the sacrament and the use of private masses (Jewell, Sermon at Paul’s Cross, 1560, edn. Ayre, 1845: 8-21).  Jewell consistently argues that the consecrated sacrament is not the body of Christ, since the body of Christ can only be present in heaven.  For Jewell this means that no adoration can be done towards the sacrament since the sacrament is only a figure of Christ and Christ is not there.  He argues in this way, expressing a nominalist separation of bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood:

“The body of Christ, sitting above all heavens, is worshipped of us, being here beneath in earth.  Therefore the priest at the communion, before he enter into the holy mysteries, giveth warning unto the people to mount up with their minds into heaven, and crieth unto them, Sursum corda: Lift up your hearts. … The eating thereof and the worshipping must join together.  But where we eat it, there must we worship it; therefore must we worship it sitting in heaven. … Christ’s body is in heaven: thither therefore must we direct our hearts; there we must feed; there must we refresh ourselves; and there must we worship it.” (Jewell, Sermon at Paul’s Cross, 1560, edn. Ayre, 1845: 12).

This does not mean however that Jewell is opposed to any reverence being directed to the sacrament of the Eucharist, since he says:

“Neither do we only adore Christ as very God, but also we worship and reverence the sacrament and holy mystery of Christ’s body; … But these things we use and reverence as holy, and appointed or commanded by Christ; but we adore them not with godly honour, as Christ himself.” (Jewell, Reply, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1845: 514).

Clearly Jewell sees the sacrament as worthy of worship and reverence but not in any immoderate realist fashion.  The physical or carnal body of Christ is not seen to be present for worship in the Eucharist.  Realism appears to be denied in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Jewell’s doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice is also apparent in this sermon.  He denies any immoderate realism in relation to sacrifice, where Christ would be re-offered in any way.  He says concerning the priest’s words and actions in the Latin Mass:

“ … that he offereth and presenteth up Christ unto his Father, which is an open blasphemy. For, contrariwise, Christ presenteth up us, and maketh us a sweet oblation in the sight of God his Father.” (Jewell, Sermon at Paul’s Cross, 1560, edn. Ayre, 1845: 9).

Realism for Jewell in regard to eucharistic sacrifice is in relation to the faithful or the eucharistic community being offered up and joined with Christ in heaven and not in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist or the actions and words of the priest.  Jewell expresses realism in regard to the eucharistic sacrifice, but only in relation to the eucharistic community of the faithful as it is administered.  It is the ministration of the sacrament that concerns Jewell’s doctrine of the eucharistic sacrifice and the following passages help to make this point.  Jewell says:

“This sacrifice notwithstanding is revived, and freshly laid out before our eyes, in the ministration of the holy mysteries. … by way of a sacrament he is offered every day unto the people, not at Easter only, but every day. … For if sacraments had not a certain likeness of the things whereof they be sacraments, then should they indeed be no sacraments. … Thus is the sacrifice of Christ’s passion expressed in the holy ministration; and yet not as M. Harding imagineth, by any action there done by the priest alone, but by the communion and participation of the people; … This sacrifice of Christ on his cross is called the ‘daily sacrifice’ not for that it must be renewed every day, but for that, being once done, it standeth good for all days, and for ever.” (Jewell, Reply, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1845: 167).

In this next passage, realism concerning the eucharistic community is clearly apparent:

“And the ministration of the holy mysteries, in a phrase and manner of speech, is also the same sacrifice; because it layeth forth the death and blood of Christ so plainly and so evidently before our eyes. … As the ministration of the holy communion is the death and passion of Christ, even so and in like sort and sense may the sacrifice thereof be called Christ. … Thus may the sacrifice of the holy communion be called Christ; to wit, even so as the ministration of the same is called the passion and death of Christ.” (Jewell, Reply, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1847: 726).

The offering up of the eucharistic sacrifice is seen to be of ancient origin, however any immoderate notions of realism are denied.  The realism expressed here is of a moderate type.

“Thus we offer up Christ, that is to say, an example, a commemoration, a remembrance of the death of Christ.  This kind of sacrifice was never denied; but M. Harding’s real sacrifice was yet never proved.” (Jewell, Reply, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1847: 729).

Jewell is distinguishing between the sacrifice that is immoderate or fleshy and bloody and that which is moderate or unbloody.  Jewell’s realist sounding language is not meant in any immoderate or fleshy manner.  This unbloody sacrifice he states is the sacrifice of prayers and other devotions.  He says:

“For this cause the sacrifices of prayers and other like devotions are called unbloody, for that they require no fleshy service or shedding of blood, …, but are mere ghostly and spiritual, and stand wholly in the lifting up and elevation of the mind.  In like manner the ministration of the holy communion is sometimes of the ancient fathers called an ‘unbloody sacrifice’; not in respect of any corporal or fleshy presence that is imagined to be there without blood-shedding, but for that it representeth and reporteth unto our minds that one and everlasting sacrifice that Christ made in his body upon the cross. … This remembrance and oblation of praises and rendering of thanks unto God for our redemption in the blood of Christ is called of the old fathers ‘an unbloody sacrifice’ … This kind of sacrifice, because it is mere spiritual, and groweth only from the mind, therefore it needeth not any material altar of stone or timber to be made upon, as doth that sacrifice that M. Harding imagineth in his mass. … In these respects our prayers, our praises, our thanksgiving unto God for our salvation is called an unbloody sacrifice.” (Jewell, Reply, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1847: 734-735).

In reply to Harding’s criticisms of Jewell’s understanding of the Eucharist, Jewell says in what seems to be quite realist terms:

“He [Harding] knoweth well we feed not the people of God with bare signs and figures, but teach them that the sacraments of Christ be holy mysteries, and that in the ministration thereof Christ is set before us even as he was crucified on the cross; and that therein we may behold the remission of our sins, and our reconciliation with God; and as Chrysostom briefly saith, ‘Christ’s great benefit, and our salvation’.  Herein we teach the people, not that a naked sign or token, but that Christ’s body and blood indeed and verily is given unto us; that we verily eat it; that we verily drink it; that we verily be relieved and live by it; that we are bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh; that Christ dwelleth in us, and we in him.  Yet we say not, either that the substance of the bread and wine is done away; or that Christ is let down from heaven, or made really or fleshly present in the sacrament.  We are taught according to the doctrine of the old fathers, to lift up our hearts to heaven, and there to feed upon the Lamb of God.  [Several Fathers are cited here, i.e. Chrysostom and Augustine.]  Thus spiritually and with the mouth of our faith we eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, even as verily as his body was verily broken, and his blood verily shed upon the cross. … Indeed the bread that we receive with our bodily mouths is an earthly thing, and therefore a figure, … but the body of Christ that thereby is represented, and there is offered unto our faith, is the thing itself, and no figure. … To conclude, three things we must herein consider: first, that we put a difference between the sign and the thing itself that is signified.  Secondly, that we seek Christ above in heaven, and imagine not him to be present bodily upon the earth.  Thirdly, that the body of Christ is to be eaten by faith only, and none otherwise. … For we place Christ in the heart, according to the doctrine of St Paul: M. Harding placeth him in the mouth.  We say, Christ is only eaten by faith: M. Harding saith, he is eaten with the mouth and the teeth. … it be better to use this word ‘figure’ [than] these new-fangled words, ‘really’, ‘corporally, ‘carnally’ &c.” (Jewell, Reply, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1845: 448-449).

The word ‘ministration’ in the above quote is significant.  For Jewell the presence of the Christ in the Eucharist is not in the bread and wine, but in the gathering of the people together to administer and receive the sacrament, that is the ministration.  It is in this context that they are joined to Christ and Christ is joined to them, by faith.  This occurs not in the earthly Eucharist but in heaven as the communicant seeks the body of Christ above.  The realism of Jewell here refers to the eucharistic community as it encounters the presence of Christ in heaven. 

Jewell’s view regarding Christ’s presence with the faithful distinguished between Christ’s presence as a man and Christ’s presence as God.  He says:

“ … the same Christ, though he be absent from us concerning his manhood, yet he is ever present with us concerning his Godhead.” (Jewell, Apology, 1564, edn. Ayre, 1848: 59).

For Jewell it seems that any notion of immoderate realism is excluded.  Christ cannot be present on earth or in the Eucharist in the same way that he was present in the person of Jesus (the manhood).  This means that all carnal notions of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist are excluded for Jewell.  For Jewell a physical body can only be present in one place, that is, heaven, and cannot therefore be physically present in any other way or place, such as the Eucharist (Jewell, Apology, 1564, edn. Ayre, 1848: 59). 

Harding in his criticism of Jewell’s views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, interprets Jewell as saying:

“ … that the body of Christ, wherein he ascended into heaven, and sitteth at the right hand of the Father, is so absent from earth, as it may not be believed to be present in the sacrament of the altar.”  (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 253).

Harding’s view, in opposition to that of Jewell, is that the body of Christ in the Eucharist is not after the nature of a body or the condition of nature (that is, its physical nature) but by the almighty power of his word  (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 254).  This point seems lost on Jewell as he frequently asserts that Harding means by ‘real presence’ a physical or fleshy presence.  Harding however is arguing that although Christ is not present in the Eucharist in “the nature of a very body, yet may it please him to do with his body, being God no less than man, that which is besides and above the nature of a body”  (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 254).  Harding takes no account of Jewell’s notion of presence (that is, Christ body present in heaven and so unable to be present on earth) and speaks of a metaphysical understanding of presence (that is, Christ is present by divine power in a way that is not physical).  Harding at the same time makes his rejection of immoderate realism plain by saying that although Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist by divine power, “Christ is no more present here among men, as he was before his death, in form and shape of man, in such wise as we see him live on the earth”  (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 254).  Harding’s view is that of moderate realism although this remains unacknowledged by Jewell who interprets Harding’s view as that of immoderate realism.

Jewell in his reply to Harding seems incapable of grasping Harding’s notion of a divine but real presence, in the sense of moderate realism since for Jewell any realism is limited to the lifting up of the heart to the heaven and the joining of the faithful to Christ there.  He criticizes the logic of what Harding says by arguing that:

“Hereof we may conclude that the body of Christ you have imagined to be grossly and carnally in the sacrament, forasmuch as by your own confession it hath neither quality, nor quantity, nor form, nor place, nor proportion of body, therefore … it is no body. … Christ’s body doubtless is now most glorious, as being the body of the Son of God, endued with immortality, and full of glory; yet notwithstanding it is a body, and therefore in one place, … and not in many.”  (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 259-260).

Body for Jewell is an empirical concept only, being possible in gross and carnal ways alone and therefore restricted to one place.  The metaphysical concept of a real, yet spiritual and divine body of Christ, present in the Eucharist, is not seen by Jewell as being in any way possible.  The word of contention for Jewell does seem to be ‘body’ in the sense of ‘flesh’ since he says:

“The flesh of Christ is doubtless in (one) place: the Godhead of Christ is for ever in every place.”  (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 263).

The Godhead is present in every place, but not the body, since body or flesh is only seen as possible in a physical and empirical sense. Godhead and body seem for Jewell to be two separate entities with no possibility of a presence of the Godhead in any material thing on earth even though it is present in every place.  This analysis is clearly suggestive of nominalism.

Concerning the sacraments in general Jewell says:

“ … we allow the sacraments of the church, that is to say, certain holy signs and ceremonies, which Christ would we should use, that by them he might set before our eyes the mysteries of our salvation, and might more strongly confirm our faith which we have in his blood, and might seal his grace in our hearts.  And those sacraments, [here Jewell lists and states agreement with the catholic fathers] do we call figures, signs, marks or badges, prints, copies, forms, seals, signets, similitudes, patterns, representations, remembrances, and memories.  And we make no doubt, together with the same doctors, to say, that those be certain visible words, seals of righteousness, tokens of grace; and do expressly pronounce that in the Lord's’supper there is truly given unto the believing the body and blood of the Lord, the flesh of the Son of God, which quickeneth our souls, the meat that cometh from above, the food of immortality, grace, of Christ; by the partaking thereof we be revived, we be strengthened, and be fed unto immortality; and whereby we are joined, united, and incorporate into Christ, that we may abide in him, and he in us.”  (Jewell, Apology, 1564, edn. Ayre, 1848: 62).

Harding is caustic in relation to this statement by Jewell.  He says:

“In your the Lord’s supper, celebrated by the ministers of your own creation, there is not given the body and blood of the Lord, neither to the believing or the unbelieving.  For at the celebration of your schismatical supper, no consecration being done, nor faith of the church, nor right intention had, nor Christ’s institution observed, what deliver ye to your communicates but a piece of bread and sip of wine?” (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 449).

Harding is ascribing not only a lack of legitimacy to the Anglican Eucharist, but also a lack of any real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Harding dismisses Jewell’s explanation as “a certain holy (as it were) and solemn eloquence, … as though he had a reverent and godly opinion of it.” (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 450).  Further he sees the Anglican Eucharist as a “poor sign or token” where is offered “to the unlearned their fair cups full of venom, anointing the brims with honey of sweet and holy words, the rather to poison them.” (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 450).

Jewell replies to Harding by ridiculing the notion of a real presence.  He says:

“For they can point with their fingers and say, ‘Here is Christ’, and ‘There is Christ’.  Behold, in this pyx are three Christs, in that five, in that seven, in that more.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 451).

Jewell admits no notion of a real presence, but insists that any presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist must refer to the physical Christ as an empirical thing, and if referring to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist then it must of necessity be found in many places and be physical and carnal.  This concept cannot be admitted by Jewell.  Neither also it seems can any spiritual real presence in the Eucharist be admitted either.  The presence of Christ is restricted to heaven and accessible only by faith.  Jewell distinguishes here between the thing and the thing signified, saying:

“We say that a creature is a creature; that a sacrament is a sacrament, and not God.  We say with St Augustine: ‘The sacrament is not our Lord, but the bread of our Lord’.  Again St Augustine saith: In sacramentis videndum est, non quid sint, sed quid significant: ‘In sacraments we must consider, not what they be indeed, but what they signify.’”  (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 455).

For Jewell the signified cannot be the thing.  The signified is the bread and wine and that is on earth.  The thing is the body and blood of Christ and that is in heaven.  This is a clear denial of realism in relation to the bread and wine and Christ’s body and blood and an affirmation of nominalism in regard to the Eucharist on earth.  Realism for Jewell in the Eucharist is restricted to the notion of incorporation into Christ by the eucharistic community as it encounters Christ in heaven, Christ being in them and they in him.

How then does Jewell view the sacrament of the Eucharist.  He says:

“We say the eucharistia, the supper of the Lord, is a sacrament, that is to wit, an evident token of the body and blood of Christ, wherein is set, as it were, before our eyes the death of Christ, and his resurrection, and what act soever he did whilst he was in his mortal body; to the end we may give him thanks for his death, and for our deliverance; and that, by the often receiving of this sacrament, we may daily renew the remembrance of that matter, to the intent we, being fed with the body and blood of Christ, may be brought into the hope of the resurrection and of everlasting life, and may most assuredly believe that the body and blood of Christ doth in like manner feed our souls, as bread and wine doth feed our bodies.” (Jewell, Apology, 1564, edn. Ayre, 1848: 62-63).

In relation to the bread and wine he argues:

“We affirm that bread and wine are holy and heavenly mysteries of the body and blood of Christ, and that by them Christ himself, being the true bread of eternal life, is so presently given unto us, as that by faith we verily receive his body and blood.  Yet say we not this so, as though we thought that the nature of bread and wine is clearly changed, and goeth to nothing; as many have dreamed in these later times, which yet could never agree among themselves of this their dream.  For that was not Christ’s meaning, that the wheaten bread should lay apart his own nature, and receive a certain new divinity; but that he might rather change us, and … might transform us into his body.” (Jewell, Apology, 1564, edn. Ayre, 1848: 63).

The Eucharist for Jewell though, is no empty ceremony since he says:

“And in speaking thus we mean not to abase the Lord’s supper, or to teach that it is but a cold ceremony only, and nothing to be wrought therein (as many falsely slander us we teach).  For we affirm that Christ doth truly and presently give his own self in his sacraments; … and in his supper, that we may eat him by faith and spirit, and may have everlasting life by his cross and blood.  And we say not, this is done slightly and coldly, but effectually and truly.  For, although we do not touch the body of Christ with the teeth and mouth, yet we do hold him fast, and eat him by faith, by understanding, and by spirit. …. For Christ himself altogether is so offered and given us in these mysteries that we may certainly know that we be flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones; and that Christ ‘continueth in us, and we in him’.  And therefore in celebrating these mysteries, the people are to good purpose exhorted, before they come to receive the holy communion, to lift up their hearts, and to direct their minds to heaven-wards; because he is there, by whom we must be full fed, and live”. (Jewell, Apology, 1564, edn. Ayre, 1848: 63-64).

The ‘mysteries’ where Christ is received are heavenly, the ‘sacrament’ where Christ is not received is earthly.  This is a nominalist separation of self-enclosed entities.

Harding, coming from a realist position in relation to the sacrament, finds it difficult to accept Jewell’s views since for him there are no words to indicate that the body of Christ is to be found in the Eucharist as Jewell describes it.  Harding says:

“ … ye seem to say nothing else touching the eating of our Lord’s body, but that the body of Christ remaineth in heaven, and that we must send up our souls thither, to eat it there by a certain imagination, which ye call faith: … and he that believeth in Christ so as ye teach eateth his body and drinketh his blood.  For your gospel to eat the body is nothing else but to believe in Christ.  If this be true, then is your supper superfluous. … When we speak of this blessed sacrament, we mean specially the thing received to be the very body of Christ, not only a sign or token of his body.”  (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 465-466).

Harding is therefore distinguishing between a sacrament and the thing of the sacrament, arguing that the one participates in the other.  He distinguishes these by saying that:

“The form of bread and wine, which is seen, is the sacrament, that is to say, a sign of the holy thing: for a sacrament, besides the outward shape which it representeth to the senses, causeth another thing to come into knowledge.  The thing of this sacrament is of two sorts, the one in the same contained and signified, the other signified and not contained.  The first is the body of Christ, born of the virgin Mary, and his blood shed for our redemption; the second is the unity of the church in those that he predestinate, called, justified and glorified: which church is Christ’s body mystical.  So that here are three distinct things understanded: the one is a sacrament only; the other a sacrament and the thing; the third the thing and not the sacrament.  The first is the visible shape or form of bread and wine; the second is the proper and very flesh and blood of Christ; the third his mystical body.  And as there be two things of this sacrament, so there also be two ways or means of eating; the one sacramental, after which both good and evil eat the true body of Christ; they to salvation, these to damnation; the other spiritual, after which the good only do eat.” (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 466).

Harding decries those who see the only form of eating in the Eucharist as a spiritual form of eating, since they admit figures but not truth and shadows but not things (Harding, Confutation, 1565, edn. Ayre, 1848: 466). 

Jewell replies that while Harding decries the absence of any mention of a real presence in Jewell’s writing or in the Anglican liturgy, there is as much mention of real presence in his work and the liturgy as either Christ or the apostles made or as was made in the primitive catholic church (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 466).  By way of reply to Harding’s criticisms however, Jewell makes the following admission, on the basis of evidence cited from the early Fathers: “Thus is Christ’s body present, not really, nor in substance, but only in mystery” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 467).  He also says at a later point:

“Thus, therefore, the thing that we see with our bodily eyes is the very nature and substance of the bread; but the thing that we see with our faith is the very natural body of Christ sitting in heaven, and represented unto us in the mysteries.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 515).

Clearly Jewell seems to be denying any immoderate realism, where Christ is physically or carnally present in the Eucharist, but not it seems a mystical presence of Christ’s body.  The mystical presence is the heavenly presence and this presence is the very body and blood of Christ.  The mystical presence is accessed by faith as the communicant lifts heart and mind heavenward.  This admission seems to be a moderate realism, since the natural body and blood of Christ is represented to the communicant in the mysteries and not eaten in some carnal or physical manner during the heavenly experience.  The sacrament has no moderate realism but the mysteries do.  The mysteries are not the sacrament, but the mysteries are experiences in the ministration of the sacrament as the communicant lifts heart and mind heavenward.  The conclusion of a moderate realism becomes more apparent when Jewell says: “ … we be made partakers of the divine substance of Christ in the receiving of the holy mysteries, yet the substance of the bread therein remaineth still” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 468).  Jewell however is careful to insist that it is the sacrament that is received and not the body.  He does this by saying:

“We believe that Christ was born in the very substance of our body, that he died, that he was buried, that he rose again, that he ascended into heaven in the same body, and that he ‘sitteth at the right hand of God the Father’.  This sacrament of that body is it that we receive with our mouths.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 469).

Jewell stops short of any final admission of a realism in relation to the presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist.  He says: “Thus is Christ both absent and present; present in majesty, absent in body.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 486).  It is the sacrament that is received, not the body of Christ.  God’s grace is the means by which “we are changed into the body of Christ, that is represented by the sacrament.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 469).  The bread is not changed but the faithful are.  Jewell says that “the element or outward creature both ‘remaineth’ and is ‘changed’.  It remaineth in proper and plain kind of speech: it is changed unproperly, that is to say, by the way of a sacrament or a mystery.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 500).  For Jewell there can be no change in substance of the bread and wine (transubstantiation) since he says: “Thus the bread ‘remaineth’ ; and thus it is ‘changed’.  It remaineth in substance: it is changed in mystery.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 500).  The change is one of quality only and not of substance (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 503).  What then is the ‘mystery’ for Jewell, to which he refers (see above quotes from Defence, pages 467 and 468).  It seems that the mystery is that the faithful are changed into the body of the Christ, since it is Christ who lives in them.  The body of Christ is not in the bread but in the faithful as a mystery.  This ‘mystery’ or incorporation into Christ was alluded to in his Sermon at Paul’s Cross, preached in 1560 where in discussing the Eucharist as it had been set forth by St Paul in 1 Corinthians 11, states:

“And as touching the sacraments, whereas St Paul had appointed them the holy mysteries of the breaking of Christ’s body and shedding of his blood, that they [the faithful] should all eat and drink together with fear and reverence in remembrance of his death and passion, and so cleave together in brotherly charity, as being all the members of one body ….” (Jewell, Sermon at Paul’s Cross, 1560, edn. Ayre, 1845: 3).

He also says:

“ … we are really and corporally joined and united unto Christ, not only by the mysteries of the holy supper, but also by faith, by baptism, by the Spirit of God, by love, and other ways. … we are joined together and tempered with Christ, not only by the holy mysteries, but also by the sacrament of baptism and by faith.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 494). 

If Jewell can be classified as a moderate realist then it can only be in this way, that is, the faithful being the body of Christ.  In no way does he admit moderate realism in relation to the bread and wine and the body and blood of Christ.  In fact he says: “ … neither is Christ’s body the sacrament, nor is the sacrament Christ’s body.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 471).  He also says: “

“So great difference is there between the sacrament and the body of Christ.  The sacrament passeth into the belly: Christ’s body passeth into the soul.  The sacrament is upon earth: Christ’s body is in heaven.  The sacrament is corruptible: Christ’s body is glorious.  The sacrament is the sign: Christ’s body is the thing signified.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 472).

For Jewell there can be no moderate realism in relation to Christ’s body in the Eucharist since he denies that the divine nature of Christ is present in the Eucharist and he denies that the sign instantiates the signified in any way.  What is presented is Christ’s death and it is to this that the faithful are joined or incorporated as the body of Christ.  He says:

“Thus in the holy mysteries there is presented unto us, not the divine nature of Christ, whereby he is equal to the Father, but his death and humility, whereby he abased himself, and was made equal to us.  This is the spiritual meat and drink, and the only feeding of the soul. … Thus in the holy mysteries we eat and drink the sacrament of Christ crucified in the humility of his flesh.  But his divine nature in Godhead and majesty cannot be represented or expressed by any sacraments.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 493).

“For a man may have Christ verily present, although he have him not in his mouth. … For as Christ offered his body spiritually to our faith and spirit, even so spiritually by our faith and spirit we receive it.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 529).

“Now, as the body of Christ is seen, so is it touched; and, as it is touched, so is it eaten.  But it is not seen with bodily eyes; it is not touched with bodily fingers. … Therefore the body of Christ is not eaten with the bodily mouth, but only by faith, which is the spiritual mouth of the soul.” (Jewell, Defence, 1567, edn. Ayre, 1848: 531).

In denying that the divine nature of Christ is represented or present in any sacraments, Jewell is also denying any realism, either moderate or immoderate, in relation to the presence of Christ’s body in the bread of the Eucharist.  Moderate realism implies that the nature of Christ is instantiated in the Eucharist, not in a carnal or physical manner, that is strict identity, but in loose manner, that is by nature.  Jewell admits realism in that the faithful are incorporated into Christ and he in them, but denies it as regards the presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  He speaks of a presence in heaven, but not in the bread of the Eucharist.  He speaks of eating the body of Christ, but only by faith.

It seems from examining the literature surrounding Jewell’s views of the Eucharist that his realist view in regard to incorporation of the faithful into the body of Christ is not widely commented upon, although Kenneth Stevenson argues that Jewell “is strong on eucharistic presence and remarkably precise of eucharistic sacrifice” (Stevenson, 1986: 156).  This suggests an important finding since Jewell is arguing for realism in the Eucharist in regard to the presence of Christ in eucharistic community.  In modern times the presence of Christ in the eucharistic community in a realist way is seen to be an essential aspect of the eucharistic presence, as is the presence of Christ in the word, the president and in the bread and wine.  Christ is instantiated in the faithful as the eucharistic community.  This has been described as a multiple presence (see Douglas, 1999: 15-17).  It may be that some of the commentators on Jewell (e.g. Stone, 1909 and Dugmore, 1958) have presented Jewell’s views narrowly in relation to a denial of any real presence in the bread and wine, and ignored his realist views in relation to the eucharistic community.  Jewell’s realist views of the presence of Christ in the faithful or the eucharistic community are an important, perhaps overlooked, aspect of thinking in the Reformation Anglican theology of the Eucharist, suggesting that nominalism was not so strongly entrenched as some views suggest (e.g. Sydney Doctrine Commission Report, 1996 and Doyle, 1995, 1996, 1997a, 1997b and 1998).  Whereas nominalism seems apparent in relation to the presence of Christ in heaven on one hand and in the bread and wine of the Eucharist on the other hand, that is, as two are self-enclosed entities, realism seems apparent in relation to the presence of Christ being instantiated in the eucharistic community, albeit as the community raises itself to heaven.  Such a conclusion suggests that realism was present as part of the Anglican eucharistic tradition at the time of the Reformation as was nominalism.  It also denies the suggestion that realism was totally rejected by the Reformers either as a return to Medieval theories of eucharistic presence.  It also denies the theory that realism in the Eucharist was an invention of the Caroline divines or the Oxford Movement (as is suggested by MacCulloch, 2001b).  If Reformation thinking is in any way an arbiter of what is proper in the Anglican eucharistic tradition, then on the basis of Jewell’s theology of the Eucharist, realism forms part of that tradition, as does also nominalism.