Hooper’s view on the Eucharist are set out in his book Answer to the Bishop of Winchester’s Book (In Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 96-247).  Hooper’s book was published in Zurich and dated 1547.  Hooper sets out the purpose of his book as seeing whether:

“Christ ever taught this doctrine, that in the sacrament of his holy supper he meant any alteration, or transubstantiation of the bread into his very natural body, and the wine into his very natural blood, (as my lord of Winchester teacheth in his book), or not.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 112).

In examining this question Hooper states that Christ’s nature, both human and divine, is one, and that:

“ … the one nature of Christ, very man, is taken out of the world, and shall not be in the world till the great day of judgment. … [and therefore it is] contrary unto the word of God, that the same body may be naturally and corporally under the form of bread.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 113).

Hooper’s interpretation of the words, Hoc est corpus meum was that:

“ … the bread was no more the body, nor the wine his blood, than Christ was a lamb, as John called him, Ecce agnus Dei, qui tollit peccata mundi, John i.  So, though he said the wine was his blood, and the bread his body, he meant none otherwise but that it represented his body; and he that corporally, with true repentance, did eat of that corporal bread and corporal wine in faith, did eat spiritually Christ’s body and blood.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 115).

Furthermore Hooper argues that the word est has the meaning ‘represents’ or ‘figure’ and does not mean fit (made).  Accordingly Hooper suggests that those who propose the doctrine of transubstantiation interpret Hoc est corpus meum to mean ‘This is made my body’.  The view which Hooper supports is rather the meaning, ‘This represents my body’.  In addition Hooper argues that hoc does not refer to the bread and wine but to the action of the whole supper (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 116-123).

When he comes to define a sacrament Hooper dismisses all notions of mediation.  He says:

“The office of a sacrament is this: to shew unto us outwardly that the merits of Christ is made ours, for the promise sake which God hath made unto those that believe; and these sacraments by faith doth applicate and apply outwardly unto him that in faith receiveth them the same grace, the mercy, the same benefits that is represented by the sacraments, but not so by the ministration of the sacraments, as though they that receive them were not before assured of the same graces and benefits represented by the sacraments. … but they be testimonies of promise, and declare unto us for an infallible verity, and unto the church of Christ, that we be the people that God hath chosen unto his mercy, and that by faith we possessed before Christ; and in faith, friendship, and amity with God we receive these sacraments, which are nothing else but a badge and open sign of God’s favour unto us, and that we by this livery declare ourselves to live and die in his faith … But he that supposeth to make Christ his, and all Christ’s merits, by the receiving of the outward sign and sacrament, and bringeth not Christ in his heart to the sacrament, he may make himself assured rather of the devil and eternal death. … For the sacrament maketh not the union, peace, and concord between God and us, but it ratifieth, stablisheth, and confirmeth the love and peace that is between God and us before his promise sake.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 127-128).

Hooper therefore defines the Eucharist in this way:

“It is a ceremony instituted by Christ, to confirm and manifest our society and communion of his body and blood, until he come to judgment.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 175).

According to this definition it follows that the “body of Christ is only in heaven, and nowhere else” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 192).  Hooper declares that the ‘one nature’ of Christ is taken out of the world (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 113).  Nature is not seen to be a metaphysical concept but a purely empirical one.  He therefore denies any realist understanding of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, since Christ can only be present in heaven.  Hooper declares that the witness of Scripture must “let this false imagination of Christ’s body pass, that they speak of to be in the sacrament, … be they realists or formalists.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 193).  It is interesting to note that Hooper uses the word ‘realist’ and denies that such an idea can be any part of the understanding of the Eucharist.  Hooper is clearly distancing his eucharistic theology from realism and advocating a nominalist view of the Eucharist although he does not use this term.

What then is the manner of Christ’s presence according to Hooper?  He declares it in these words:

“Though Christ be absent bodily from his church, yet with his aid, help and consolation, he is present in spirit, which sufficeth until the end of the world, where as we shall see his glorious body indeed really and corporally that now have but a sign and sacrament thereof, which sufficeth to keep that holy sacrifice in memory, and is profitable, so that the christian man may be well instructed what difference is between the sign and the thing represented by the sign, and taketh not the one for the other.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 194).

For Hooper then the sacrament is a sign, but it seems a bare sign, not an effectual sign in the sense that Cranmer and Ridley describe it.  In his definition of sign Hooper says:

“A sign is a thing subject to the senses, whereby is remembered the thing signified by the sign.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 194).

It seems though that the sign is just that, a sign of memory and has no power of mediation or realist link between the sign and what it signified.  Hooper emphasises his definition and goes on to say:

“And whatever virtue be represented by the sign, yet must we judge of the sign according unto the nature of the sign.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 195).

Further he argues that there can be no sense in which the sign contains within it the thing signified and the reality (the thing signified) is received apart from the sign and the sacrament.  The body and blood of Christ can therefore only be received by faith and not by signs and sacraments.  For Hooper:

“No sign, inasmuch as it is a sign, can be the sign of the thing meant by the sign. … So these signs in the sacraments, because of God’s promise and contract made with his church, are tokens that God will give the thing signified by the sacraments.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 196).

It is therefore:

“The Spirit of God by faith maketh present the fact past, … and this sacrament is a memory thereof, and not the thing itself; though it be the manner of the Holy Ghost in the scripture, to call the signs by the name of the thing signified by the sign.” (Early Writings of John Hooper, Edn. Carr, 1843: 210).

It seems clear from Hooper’s words here that the sign cannot be the signified thing in any sense (immoderate or moderate) and that each are separate entities in a nominalist analysis.

The influence of Reformed sacramental theology (especially that of Zwingli) seems apparent in the writings of Hooper.  His frequent correspondence with Reformed leaders such as Bullinger, attest to his belief that he favoured their views (see Zurich Letters, edn. Robinson, 1846, 1847).

Hooper’s eucharistic theology seems to be based on philosophical assumptions of nominalism where there is separation of sign and signified, such that the sign does not instantiate the signified and each exists as a self-enclosed entity.  The sign in the Eucharist functions as a reminder or aid to memory only and does not convey the signified to the communicant.