Hutchinson speaks of the Eucharist in a work published in 1550 called The Image of God or Layman’s Book (Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 11-208) which was intended to be, as the second part of the title indicates, a manual of religious instruction for the laity (Bruce, 1842: vi).  He discusses how Christ is present in the Eucharist, saying:

“There is great altercation now-a-days, whether God be in the sacrament or not: he must needs be there, for he is in all places.  But whether is he there by his divinity, or humanity? … I dare not say that he is there after his humanity, lest I be a false prophet; for this is spoken of his humanity, not his divinity.  Touching his divinity, I say unto you, good people, Lo, here is Christ, and there is Christ; for it is here, there, in the town, in the city, in the chapel, in the church, and wilderness, and every where, as I have declared. … This false doctrine, then, is nothing else but to teach Christ’s body after his ascension to be upon the earth, visibly or invisibly.”  (Hutchinson, The Image of God, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 33-34).

Hutchinson is distinguishing between the divinity and the humanity of Christ.  The humanity of Christ is not in the Eucharist, but his divinity is, ‘in all places’.  Christ’s body, that is his physical body, cannot, says Hutchinson, be on the earth or in the Eucharist in any form, but clearly he is of the view that the divinity of Christ is in all places, presumably in the Eucharist as well.

How then does Hutchinson see that the body of Christ is received?  He argues in this way:

“You will ask me then, whether we receive Christ’s body?  Yea, truly, from heaven, from the right hand of the Father; not out of bread, nor in the bread.  For unless we eat his flesh, and drink his blood, we shall not dwell in him; we shall not rise at the last day; we shall not have eternal life. … When Christ said, ‘This is my body’, he ordained a sacrament, that is, he gave the name of the thing to the sign; so that notwithstanding, the matter, nature, and substance of the sign remaineth: unless the substance remain, the bread is no sacrament.  For sacraments, saith St Augustine, are so called of the similitude of those things to which they be sacraments.  Take away the matter, the substance, and the nature of bread and wine; and there remaineth no more similitude.” (Hutchinson, The Image of God, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 36-37).

The sign is clearly distinguished from the thing signified, and it is only the name of the thing signified that is applied to the sign.  This is an expression of nominalism.  There is no presence of Christ in the bread and wine since they bear only a ‘similitude’ between these elements and Christ’s body and blood.  There is no gift within the bread and wine, yet Christ’s body and blood is received from heaven.

Hutchinson points to three similitudes in the Eucharist, arguing that:

“ … there must be three similitudes in this sacrament: a similitude of nourishing, a similitude of unity, and a similitude of conversion.  The similitude of nourishing is this, that, as bread and wine do nourish our bodies and comfort our outward man, so the body and blood of Christ be the meat and food of our souls, and do comfort our inward man.  And the similitude of unity is this, that, as the loaf of which we eat was made of many corns of wheat, by the liquor of water knoden into dough, and yet is but one loaf, and as the wine was made of the juice of divers grapes, and yet is but one cup of wine; so all they that eat Christ’s body, and drink his blood, being many, are made one body and one flesh by the liquor of charity and love; the mystical body of our Saviour Christ, which is his church, not his natural body: for the bread is a sacrament not only of Christ’s natural body, but also of the congregation and mystical body: … The similitude of conversion is this, that, as the bread and wine is turned into the substance of our bodies, so, by the receiving of Christ’s body and blood, we are turned into the nature of them; we are changed and made bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh. … These similitudes must be in the bread and wine, or else they be no sacraments. … These similitudes be in the very substance and inward nature of bread and wine, not in the outward shew of accidents, which do neither nourish, neither are they changed, neither have any similitude of any unity.” (Hutchinson, The Image of God, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 37-38).

This passage speaks of similitude, but not in the sense that bread and wine instantiates the body and blood of Christ.  Christ’s body and blood is not received in the bread and wine, rather the body and blood of Christ is received in the context of the church as the communicant is made part of Christ’s mystical body.  Bread and wine is not converted into Christ’s body and blood, rather as the communicant receives the sacrament they become part of Christ’s body and blood.  This becoming part of Christ’s body and blood depends on a change or conversion of the communicant’s body into what Hutchinson seems to suggest is the very flesh of Christ (‘we are changed and made bones of his bones, and flesh of his flesh’).  This is very realist language, bordering even on the immoderate sense of realism.  Whereas Hutchinson rejects any realism in relation to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, he accepts it in relation to the communicant and Christ’s mystical body, the church.

Hutchinson rejects transubstantiation (Hutchinson, The Image of God, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 41) but at the same time does not deny that the “holy communion giveth life, destroyeth death, quickeneth our bodies, lighteneth our souls, banisheth sin, and increaseth virtue”. (Hutchinson, The Image of God, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 41).  While he argues that there is no change in the substance of the bread and wine, he affirms at the same time that the holy communion (note not the bread and wine) are effective means of God working in the lives of people.  The working of God and the effect of that work is related to the ministration of the sacrament and not to the elements of bread and wine.

Hutchinson also speaks of the Eucharist in Three Sermons on the Lord’s Supper (Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 209-288).  Here Hutchinson argues that Christ’s body and blood are received by faith alone (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 241) and that this spiritual and sacramental ‘receipt’ has the promises of Christ attached to it (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 243).  Note Hutchinson argues that the promises are attached and not contained in or instantiated in the bread and wine.  The sacrament therefore is rightly known as ‘eucaristia’, since the appropriate response to the spiritual and sacramental ‘receipt’ is thanksgiving (Hutchinson, Sermon III, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 284-285). 

Hutchinson argues further in relation to faith and eating and drinking the body and blood of Christ that:

“To eat Christ’s flesh and drink his blood is to believe that the Son of God took on him our humanity; to believe that his body was nailed upon the cross, and that his blood was let forth and shed for the remission of our sins, for our transgressions and offences, and to repose us into his Father’s favour again, who was displeased with us.  To teach us this, he calleth himself the bread of God, that came from heaven to give life unto the world: which chapter is a manifest probation of this matter, that his flesh is never eaten, neither in the sacrament nor without the sacrament, but only by belief.” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 241).

There is a clear distinction, a nominalist distinction, in Hutchinson’s work, between the historic death of Christ and any remembrance of that death in the elements of the Eucharist.  There is no participation of Christ’s body and blood or the effects of his death in the elements, although he does concede a participation of Christ’s body and blood in the faith of the communicant in the ministration of the sacrament.

Eating and drinking by faith alone however, raises a question, that is:

“If Christ’s [flesh] be eat only by faith, how is that true which I rehearsed out of Chrysostom, that we are transformed into Christ and made his body, non solum per fidem, ‘not only by faith’, sed reipsa, ‘but also really, truly, and effectually’?” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 244).

Hutchinson answers the question in this way, saying:

“You shall understand, well-beloved in the Lord, that when we receive Christ in faith, that this receipt joineth and coupleth us effectually and really unto Christ.  Not only our hearts and minds, but also our bodies and flesh be purified, be washed, and cleansed by this receipt, so that Christ our head and Lord dwelleth and abideth in us hereby, and nourisheth and feedeth us continually with faith in his blood and with the comfort of his holy Spirit; making us lively, holy, and very members of his mystical body.  This is the effect and meaning of Chrysostom’s words, in which he affirmeth that we are made the body of Christ really, truly, and effectually.” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 244-245).

The presence of Christ’s body and blood is not to be found in the bread and wine of the Eucharist but in the faithful.  It is this ecclesial dimension which Hutchinson emphasises, whereby the faithful are joined and coupled with Christ in the sacrament by faith.  In this sense alone Hutchinson admits some realist concept, whereby Christ dwells in the faithful, and are made to be Christ’s body, really, truly and effectually.  No such realism can be found in Hutchinson’s discussion of the sacrament and the elements of bread and wine.

Despite all this Hutchinson argues that the sacrament of the Eucharist is no bare sign.  He says:

“The bread of which Christ said, ‘This is my body’, and the wine which he affirmeth to be his blood, be not bare and naked metaphors, as the aforesaid phrases are, but they be sacraments of his honourable body and comfortable blood; …” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 236).

Sacraments therefore for Hutchinson are, following Augustine, “a visible, a sensible, and an outward sign or token of an invisible grace or benefit (Hutchinson, Sermon II, edn. Bruce, 1842: 237).  Sacraments are also “figures and similitudes of the benefit and grace which they do represent and signify”. (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 237).  This means that if:

“ … the bread of which Christ saith. ‘This is my body’, be a sacrament, as cannot be denied, then it hath the name of Christ’s body because of some similitudes … and not because of any transubstantiation: that is to say, it is a sensible and an outward sign of his holy flesh; and the wine likewise is a sensible sign of his honourable blood, without any mutation, change, or alteration of the natures and substances wither of bread or wine.” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 237).

In line with the nominalist framework being used by Hutchinson, the names of bread and wine are said to be changed but the nature of the bread and wine is not changed.  Therefore Hutchinson concludes that:

“When our Saviour Christ affirmeth bread to be his body, and wine to be his blood, he ordaineth a sacrament; that is, he giveth the name of the thing to the signs of bread and wine, so that notwithstanding the matter, the nature and substance of the signs do remain and continue.  Unless their substance and natures do remain, I say unto you, bread and wine can be no sacraments.” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 238).

In another passage Hutchinson speaks of the similitude and how Christ’s body is present in the Eucharist.  He says:

“And this similitude declareth very aptly and fitly how his body and blood are present in his holy supper.  The body and blood of Christ be in his holy supper, as thy house, with thy garden and other commodities, is in thy lease, which thou hast by the college seal of Eton or of Windsor; or as thy living is in thy patent, which thou has confirmed and ratified with broad seal of England.  The words of Christ’s supper be, as it were, a lease or patent.  The sacrament is, as it were, his broad seal and his stamp, to certify the weak faith, that God the Father doth love and favour thee, and dwell in thee by the grace of his holy Spirit, for his sake.  Thy house and garden be not locally, not really, nor corporally, in thy lease; but effectually and sufficiently for thy profit and commodity.  So Christ’s body and blood be in bread and wine.” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 251-252).

Christ’s body and blood can be said to be in the Eucharist and even in the bread and wine, but not in any local, real or corporal sense.  Christ’s body and blood is in the bread and wine effectually and sufficiently, as property is contained in a lease document, not locally but effectually.  Christ’s body and blood cannot be present in any local, real or corporal sense since:

“Christ’s flesh is to be honoured in heaven, not in the form of bread and wine; in glory, and at the right hand of God the Father, not in the sacrament.  It is honoured by coming to his supper, and by obeying his precept, ‘Take, eat and drink of this all’; by receiving of the sacrament, not with elevation of hands to bread and wine, or with knocking, or with kneeling before bread and wine.  His blood and body are honoured, even as they are drunk and eaten: that is, by faith in them, and by giving thanks to him for his dishonour and death, …” (Hutchinson, Sermon II, Works, edn. Bruce, 1842: 255).

Roger Hutchinson’s views on the Eucharist suggest that the basis of his theology is nominalism.  He clearly distinguishes between the sign and the thing signified and argues that the body and blood of Christ is not present in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, except through the analogy of a lease.  There is no suggestion of any moderate realism in Hutchinson’s writings relating to the body and blood of Christ and the bread and wine of the Eucharist.  There is however, some realism in regard to the body and blood of Christ being present in the faithful and in the church, Christ’s body.