John Bradford’s writings include sermons, meditations and examinations and these will be used to assess the position he adopted in relation to the Eucharist.

In A Sermon on the Lord’s Supper, written in 1554, Bradford argues that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrament “wherewith we be conserved, fed, kept, and nourished to continue in the same family” and that this sacrament of the Lord’s Supper is also known as “the body and blood of our Saviour Jesus Christ, broken for our sins and shed for our transgressions” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 82).  Bradford goes on to set out his purposes in writing this sermon as being: to examine who instituted the Lord’s Supper, what is the thing that was instituted and to what end was it instituted (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 83).  In answer to the first purpose Bradford acknowledges that it was Christ who instituted the Lord’s Supper (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 83-84). 

In answer to the second purpose (What is the thing that was instituted?) Bradford begins by assuring his listeners that what is seen, smelt, tasted, handled and reasoned about in the Eucharist is bread and wine.  For him “the substance of bread and wine remaineth in the sacrament after the words of consecration (as they call them) be spoken” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 84).  He denies that transubstantiation should be believed and denies that the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church regarding the Eucharist, especially “sacrificing propitiatorily for the sins of the quick and the dead” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 85) is true.  The Roman view, says Bradford, “is not the sacrament of Christ’s body, nor the Lord’s supper” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 85) since it does not allow for the substance of the bread and wine to remain after the consecration.  The implication to be drawn from this comment must be that Bradford is rejecting the idea that in the Eucharist there is a change in the substance of the bread and wine (that is, transubstantiation).  It is Bradford’s opinion on the witness of Scripture and some of the Fathers that Christ took and gave ‘bread’ and “called bread ‘his body’, as he called the cup ‘the new testament’” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 86).  In quoting the Fathers (e.g. Irenaeus, Augustine and Chrysostom) Bradford states that these Fathers:

“affirm it [the sacrament of the Eucharist] to ‘consist of an earthly thing and of an heavenly thing’, of ‘the word and of the element’, of ‘sensible things and of things which be perceived by the mind’.  But transubstantiation taketh clean away ‘the earthly thing’; and so maketh it no sacrament.  And therefore the definition of a sacrament full well teacheth that bread, which is ‘the earthly thing, the sensible thing, and the element’, remaineth still, as St Austin saith, ‘The word cometh to the element’; (he saith not, ‘taketh away the element’); and so it is made a sacrament.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 87). 

This is an important statement, since it is here that Bradford seems to be affirming a link between the sign (the earthly element) and the signified (the heavenly thing).  It is, according to Bradford’s view, the ‘word’ coming to the element that makes it a sacrament.  Clearly it is this type of realist linking of word to the element that is of crucial importance for Bradford.  This realist linking is however, lessened when Bradford goes on to say:

“Now in the Lord’s supper this similitude is, first, in nourishing, that, as bread nourisheth the body, so Christ’s body broken feedeth the soul: secondly, in bringing together many into one, that, as in the sacrament many grains of corn are made ‘one bread’, many grapes are made one liquor and wine; so the multitude which worthily receiveth the sacrament are made ‘one body’ with Christ in his church: last of all, in one unlikely likeliness or similitude, that, as bread eaten turneth into our nature, so we rightly eating the sacrament by faith turn into the nature of Christ.  So that is plain to them that will see, that to take the substance of bread away is clean against the nature and proportion of a sacrament.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 88).

The ‘likeliness’ and ‘similitude’ is a linking between the sign (the bread) and our nature but not specifically, in this particular passage, between the sign of bread and the signified (the nature of Christ).  Bread, he argues, turns into human nature by being consumed and people turn into the nature of Christ by rightly eating the sacrament by faith.  This passage seems to break the link between the sign (bread) and the signified (the nature of Christ) and establish a link between the right eating and the nature of Christ.  This appears to be receptionism, where there is a dependence on the right eating with faith, and so this seems to distance Bradford’s analysis from a realist linking of the signs in the Eucharist with the signified body and blood of Christ that is apart from any moment of reception.  This seems to be in complete contradiction to the previous passage which suggested linking of the earthly and the heavenly by the coming of the word to the element. 

Later in the same sermon however Bradford returns to the theme of linking the signs of the bread and wine with the signified body and blood of Christ in what is a realist manner.  He says concerning Christ’s words at the institution of the Lord’s Supper:

“Now his words be manifest and most plain.  ‘This’ saith he, ‘is my body’; therefore accordingly should we esteem and take and receive it.  If he had spoken nothing, or if he had spoken doubtfully, then might we have been in some doubt.  But in that he speaketh so plainly, saying, ‘This is my body’, who can, may, or dare be so bold as to doubt it?  He is ‘the truth’ and cannot lie: he is omnipotent and can do all things: therefore it is his body.  This I believe, this I confess, and pray you all heartily to beware of these and such like words, that it is but a sign or a figure of his body; except you will discern betwixt signs which signify only, and signs which also do represent, confirm, and seal up, or (as a man may say) give with their signification. …But in the other signs, which some call exhibitive, is there not only a signification of a thing, but also a declaration of a gift, yea, in a certain manner of giving also. … In the Lord’s supper the bread is called ‘a partaking of the Lord’s body’, and not only a bare sign of the body of the Lord.

This I speak, not as though the elements of these sacraments were transubstantiate (which I have already impugned); either as though Christ’s body were in the element, either were tied to the element otherwise than sacramentally and spiritually; either that the bread, water, and wine may not and must not be called sacramental and external signs; but that they might be discerned from significative and bare signs only, and be taken for signs exhibitive and representative.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 93-94 ). 

Here there is a linking between the sign and the signified on the basis of Christ’s words.  The sign, ‘this’, is clearly more than a ‘bare sign’ but one that gives signification by representing and exhibiting Christ’s body and blood.  The sign is said to declare the gift, in the sense that the sign is exhibitive of the signified.  Transubstantiation is excluded, but the sign is linked with the signified in a sacramental and spiritual manner in such a way that the sign exhibits and represents the signified.  This description seems to be based on realism.  The linking however has nothing to do with the outward appearance of the sacramental sign, but much to do with the words of Christ.  If Christ said it then it must be so.  This linking becomes even plainer when Bradford speaks of the Fathers again, saying:

“For with great admiration some of the fathers do say that the bread is changed or turned into the body of Christ, and the wine into his blood, meaning it of a mutation or changing, not corporal, but spiritual, figurative, sacramental, or mystical; for now it is no common bread nor common wine, being ordained to serve for the food of the soul. … Not that I mean any other presence of Christ’s body than a presence by grace, a presence by faith, a presence spiritually, and not corporally, really, naturally, and carnally, as the papists do mean; for in such sort Christ’s body is only in heaven, ‘on the right hand of God the Father Almighty’, whither our faith in the use of the sacrament ascendeth, and receiveth whole Christ accordingly.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 94-95). 

Immoderate realism seems to be excluded by Bradford, since he argues that “we by faith spiritually in our souls feed on Christ’s broken body, do eat his flesh, and drink his blood, do dwell in him and he in us, but without transubstantiation” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 89).  It is transubstantiation, argues Bradford, that breaks the link between the sign and the signified, since if transubstantiation is accepted “then Christ’s natural body must needs be in many places” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 90).  In opposition to this, Bradford is arguing, along with the Fathers, that there is a change or a mutation in the signs of bread and wine such that they are turned into or changed into the body and blood of Christ, not in an immoderate but a moderate sense of realism (by faith, by grace and spiritually).  Moderate realism, with a linking of sign and signified seems in this passage to be clearly suggested.  Not referring to the bread and wine as Christ’s body and blood is in opposition to Christ’s words, and adopting such opposition results in what Bradford sees as “the contempt of the sacrament in the days of king Edward” which has resulted in “these plagues upon us presently” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 96).  Bradford is therefore arguing that any theology of the Eucharist which lessens the sense of the bread and wine being called the body and blood of Christ is problematic.

One of the problems to which Bradford refers is those people who argue in the following way:

“‘Why to call the sacrament Christ’s body, and to make none other presence of Christ than by grace or spiritually and to faith … is to make no presence at all, or to make him none otherwise present than he is in his word when it is preached: and therefore what need we to receive the sacrament, inasmuch as by this doctrine a man may receive him daily in the field, as well and as much as in the church in the celebration and use of the sacrament?’” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 96). 

Bradford rejects such a position and argues that the presence of Christ in the sacrament is not carnal or natural, but it is, by Christ’s words a presence nonetheless, where the bread and wine become or are changed into the body and blood of Christ.  Indeed he argues at a later point when he returns to the suggestion of Christ being present in the word with no need of the sacrament, that “the same meat is offered in the words of the scriptures, which is offered in the sacraments; so that no less is Christ’s body and blood offered by the scriptures, than by the sacraments” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 100).  The presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist is no less than any presence found in the scriptures.  Such an interpretation is in harmony with the idea of instantiation.  Christ’s body and blood is to be represented and exhibited (instantiated) in different particulars of which the scriptures and the Eucharist are two.

Bradford however believes that the nature of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist is of much importance since he argues:

“that there are in the perception of the sacrament more windows open for Christ to enter into us, than by his word preached or heard.  For there (I mean in the word) he hath an entrance into our hearts, but only by the ears through the voice and the sound of the words; but here in the sacrament he hath an entrance by all our senses, by our eyes, by our nose, by our taste, and by our handling also: and therefore the sacrament full well may be called seeable, sensible, tasteable, and touchable words. … Even so by the perception of the sacraments a Christian man’s conscience hath more help to receive Christ, than simply by the word preached, heard or meditated.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 101). 

Bradford’s words are suggesting that Christ as the supreme and universal presence is present in more ways than one, thereby suggesting different instantiations of the universal – in the word and in the Eucharist.  This is seemingly an expression of moderate realism.

The manner for this happening Bradford says, “the world cannot learn, nor any that looketh in this matter with other eyes, or heareth with other ears, than with the ears and eyes of the Spirit and of faith” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 96-97).  There is no corporal sense of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and so awareness of the presence is not possible by the corporal senses of people, “yet this absence is not an absence indeed but to reason and to the old man [human nature]; the nature of faith being a ‘possession of things hoped for’.  Therefore to grant a presence to faith is not to make no presence at all but to such as know not faith” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 97).  Despite the element of receptionism that creeps in here, whereby the presence is not known to those who know not faith, the realism appears to be maintained nonetheless.  Christ is present by grace, but “not only a signification, but also an exhibition and giving of the grace of Christ’s body” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 97).  The presence of Christ in the Eucharist seems to be much more than a mere bare sign and more acute in the sacrament than in the hearing or preaching of the word.  The sign is linked with the signified through the exhibiting and giving of the grace of Christ’s body with all its benefits.  These benefits Bradford describes saying:

“We teach these benefits to be had by the worthy receiving of the sacrament, namely, that we abide in Christ, and Christ in us; again that we attain by it a celestial life, or a life with God; moreover that by faith and in spirit we receive not only Christ’s body and blood, but also whole Christ, God and man.  Besides these we grant, that by the worthy receiving of this sacrament we receive remission of our sins and confirmation of the new Testament.  Last of all by worthy receiving we get by faith an increase of incorporation with Christ and amongst ourselves which be his members.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 99). 

The receptionism returns here with the talk of the worthy receiving, but for Bradford this seems to be mixed with a linking of the sign and the signified such that Bradford wishes to affirm the Reformed receptionist doctrine but at the same time he is unwilling to deny the realist linking of sign and signified.  Indeed at one point he argues that, “the coupling of Christ’s body and blood to the sacrament is a spiritual thing” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 99) with no need of a carnal presence.  The ‘coupling’ of the sacrament as sign with the signified body and blood of Christ occurs in a spiritual manner, but nonetheless there is still a ‘coupling’ or linking of the sign with the signified in what appears to be a realist frame of reference where sign and signified are linked.  Bradford supports this conclusion by saying:

“ … though in the field a man may receive Christ’s body by faith, in the meditation of his word; yet I deny that a man doth ordinarily receive Christ’s body, by the only meditation of Christ’s death or hearing of his word, with so much light and by such sensible assurance (whereof, God knoweth, our infirmity hath no small need), as by the receipt of the sacrament.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 101).

Bradford does not deny that Christ is present through the preaching of the word, but he affirms at the same time that Christ is received in the Eucharist ‘with much light’ and ‘by such sensible assurance’ as is found in sacrament.  This is clearly a statement of realism.

Bradford continues this theme of linking the sign and the signified as he returns to the examination of the reasons for instituting the sacrament of the Eucharist.  Here he says: “I have told you that it is not simply bread and wine, but rather Christ’s body, so called of Christ and to be called and esteemed of us” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 102).  By this however, Bradford does not mean that it is Christ’s literal body and blood, but rather Christ’s body broken and blood shed (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 102).  There can be no immoderate realism in the Eucharist according to Bradford, either in relation to Christ’s presence or sacrifice, since the literal body and blood is not present in the Eucharist nor is the literal body and blood broken and shed in the Eucharist.  It is Christ’s body and blood, already broken and shed that is present and remembered in the Eucharist.  This occurs by the ‘coupling’ of the sign and the signified in a moderate realist fashion.  This means, says Bradford, that a person should “be no less certain that now Christ and you are all one, than you are certain that the bread and wine is one with your nature and substance after you have eaten and drunken it” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 105).  The presence of Christ, the bread and wine and the person receiving the sacrament are all one, with the eating and drinking being clearly associated with Christ and human nature and substance.

In relation to the third and last reason for Christ instituting the Eucharist Bradford argues that because of human nature, “very full of dubitation and doubtings” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 105) there was a need for the sacrament so that people might “have in memory the principal benefits of all benefits, that is, Christ’s death; and that we might be on all parts assured of communion with Christ, of all kindness the greatest that ever God did give unto man” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 106).  Christ himself, says Bradford, instituted the sacrament telling people to ‘Do this in remembrance of me’.  Paul in his writing affirms the same, assuring his readers that “The bread which we break, is it not the partaking (or communion) of the body of Christ?  Is not the cup of blessing which we bless the partaking (or communion) of the blood of Christ?’.  He therefore says:

“Only a little will I speak of the commodities coming unto us by the partaking and communion we have with Christ.  First, it teacheth us that no man can communicate with Christ but the same must needs communicate with God’s grace and favour, wherethrough sins are forgiven.  Therefore this commodity cometh herethrough, namely, that we should be certain of the remission and pardon of our sins: the which thing we may also perceive by the cup, in that it is called ‘the cup of the new Testament’.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 106).

Bradford’s choice of words here is very important.  Clearly the Eucharist is the means by which Christ’s death is remembered, but it is not merely a bringing to mind of these benefits, since Bradford speaks of certain ‘commodities’ which come to people who partake in the communion (i.e. communication with Christ and God’s grace and favour and the forgiveness of sins).  It is in the partaking that this takes place, suggesting a realist identification between Christ’s death and the remembrance of it in the Eucharist.  This is clearly moderate realism in relation to the contextualisation of Christ’s death in the Eucharist in a way that is real, but not carnal or immoderate, and which communicates certain spiritual commodities.  This is made even clearer when Bradford argues that:

“No man can communicate with Christ’s body and blood but the same must communicate with his Spirit; for Christ’s body is no dead carcase.  Now he that communicateth with Christ’s Spirit communicateth, as with holiness, righteousness, innocency, and immortality, and with all the merits of Christ’s body; so doth he with God and all his glory, and with the church, and all the good that ever it or any member of it hath, or shall hath; for which causes’ sake, the supper used to be called of the fathers eucharistiam, ‘a thanksgiving’.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 106-107).

Communication with Christ in the Eucharist is not a matter of a literal or immoderate presence (‘dead carcase’) but a spiritual matter where all the merits of Christ are available by means of the partaking or communion as moderate realism. 

Bradford in this extensive sermon speaks of the Eucharist in both a sense which clearly supports realism, linking sign and signified by referring to a ‘coupling’, but at the same time he makes other comments which suggest a more receptionist notion of Christ’s presence in the sacrament.  The importance of Bradford’s sermon lies in the fact that as a Reformer from the earliest period of the English Reformation he, like Ridley, is expressing a eucharistic theology which is realist.  This expression of a moderate realist theology at this early stage of the English Reformation suggests that any argument, which argues for an exclusive nominalist theology of the Eucharist as normative from the earliest years of the English Reformation, must be seriously questioned.  Bradford’s position in regard to the Eucharist also suggests that any position which advocates that a moderate realist theology of the Eucharist is an invention of later times (e.g. by the Caroline Divines or the members of the Oxford Movement) must also be seriously questioned.  Bradford’s writing has much in common with the realist expressions found in the writings of both Nicholas Ridley and Hugh Latimer.  This is not surprising when it is noted that Bradford was “a chaplain and friend of Nicholas Ridley” (Preface to Writings of Bradford, edn. Townsend, 1848: x) and a person of whom Ridley himself said: “I thank God heartily that ever I was acquainted with him, and that ever I had such a one in my house” (Ridley, Letter to Berneher, in Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 380).  In a letter to Bradford, Ridley tells him that he has looked over his papers (the Sermon of the Last Supper which Bradford had specifically sent to Ridley for his comments), made small changes and then goes on to describe Bradford’s work and pen as giving God glory (Ridley, Letter to Bradford, Works, edn. Christmas, 1841: 363-364).  Clearly Ridley approved of what Bradford was saying.  Latimer also expresses positive views of Bradford calling him “that holy man” (Latimer, Works, edn. Corrie, 1844/1845: II, 258).  Clearly these two early Reformers had a positive opinion of Bradford and were willing to acknowledge his worth and the worth of his views.  Bradford, along with Ridley and Latimer, represents a position taken by early Reformers in England, who accepted a moderate realist doctrine of the Eucharist, but did not accept it as transubstantiation.  Bradford, and the others are also opposed to immoderate realism in the Eucharist.

Some other writings of Bradford are useful in an assessment of his eucharistic theology.  In a Meditation on the Lord’s Supper (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 260-263) Bradford describes the Eucharist as: “This heavenly banquet (wherewithin thou dost witness thyself, O sweet Saviour, to be ‘the bread of life’ wherewith our souls are fed unto true and eternal life and immortality) grant me grace so now to receive, as may be to my singular joy and comfort” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 260).  The Eucharist is described as the way Christ witnesses himself, so supplying ‘joy and comfort’.  As such Bradford’s meditation remains suggestive of a moderate realism.  Bradford goes on to link the signs of the Eucharist more closely with the signified presence of Christ, saying:

“The signs and symbols be bread and wine, which are sanctified in thy body and blood, to represent the invisible communion and fellowship of the same.  For, as in baptism thou, O God, dost regenerate us, and as it were engraft us into the fellowship of thy church, and by adoption make us thy children; so, as a good householder and Father, thou dost afterwards minister meat to nourish and continue us in the life whereunto thou ‘by thy word has begotten us’.  And truly, O Christ, thou art the food of the soul: and therefore our heavenly Father giveth thee unto us, that we being refreshed in communicating of thee might be received into immortality.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 260).

The signs are described as being ‘sanctified’ in Christ’s body and blood, in what seems a clear instance of moderate realism.  This instantiation of Christ’s body and blood in the signs is a mystery, but nonetheless the mystery does:

“exhibit and give unto us a figure and image hereof in visible signs: yea, as though thou paidest down present earnest, thou maketh us so certain hereof, as if with our eyes we saw it.  And this is the end wherefore thou didst institute this thy supper and banquet, namely, that it might confirm us, as of thy body once so offered for us that we may feed on it, and in feeding feel in us the efficacy and strength of thy one alone sacrifice; so of thy blood once so shed for us that it is unto us a continual potion and drink, according to the words of thy promise added there, ‘Take, eat, this is my body which is given for you’.  So that the body which was once offered for our salvation were commanded to ‘take and eat’, that, while we are partakers thereof, we might be most assured the virtue of thy lively death is of force in us. … O wonderful consolation which cometh to the godly hearts by reasons of this sacrament!  For here we have assured witness that thou Christ art so coupled unto us, and we so engrafted in thee, that we are ‘one body’ with thee; and whatsoever thou hast we may call it our own.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 260-261).

The ‘figure’ and ‘image’ is given in visible signs in a manner that is as certain as if it was visible, says Bradford.  Further the body once offered is said to be fed on, and it is in this feeding that the efficacy and the strength of Christ’s sacrifice is received.  The body once offered is partaken of in the Eucharist such that the virtue of Christ’s death is in those who receive the sacrament.  The consolation given of Christ, ‘coupled unto us’, comes via the sacrament, such that whatever Christ has, those who receive the sacrament also have.  This seems to be a realist analysis both of Christ’s presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist.  This conclusion is confirmed by Bradford’s next paragraph where he says:

“Of all these things we have so assured witness in this sacrament, that we ought without all wavering to be so sure that they are exhibit and given unto us, as if with our corporal eyes we did see thee, O sweet Christ, present in visible form, and with our very hands touched and handled thee; for this word cannot lure or beguile us, ‘Take, eat, drink: this is my body which is given for you: this is my blood which is shed for the forgiveness of your sins’.

In that thou biddst us ‘take’, thou wouldst signify unto us that it is ours.  In that thou biddst us ‘eat’, thou wouldest we know that it is made ‘one flesh’ with us.  In that thou sayest it is ‘thy body given for us’, ‘thy blood shed for us’, thou wouldest that we should learn both to be not only thine now, but also ours; for thou tookest and gavest both not for thy commodity by for ours.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 261-262).

Christ is not only ‘exhibited’ but ‘given’ in the Eucharist.  What is signified to people is given to them.  This is a clear expression of moderate realism.  Indeed Bradford argues that the sense of the sacrament rests on the proposition that “it would little help us to have thy body and blood distributed now, except they had been given for our redemption and salvation” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 262).  This means then that “by the bread and wine therefore they are represented, that we might learn that they are not only ours, but also that they are destinate and appointed unto us for the seal of spiritual life” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 262).  The giving of the body and blood is real and it seems that the giving is linked with the bread and wine in a realist manner.  Bradford is careful not to suggest that the giving of the body and blood is by any carnal or immoderate means and he asks that God will grant that “we stick not in the corporal things” but that “we may arise to the consideration of spiritual things hereby accordingly” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 262).  He concludes, speaking of these spiritual things, with the plea:

“Grant, good Lord, therefore that I may truly consider and know the principal parts of the sacrament not to exhibit and give the body simply and without further consideration, but rather to obsign and confirm that promise, wherein, as thou didst witness thy flesh to be food indeed, and thy blood to be drink indeed, by which we are fed unto everlasting life, so thou affirmeth thyself to be ‘the bread of life, whereof whoso eateth shall live for ever’.

And that this thing might be brought to pass, thy sacrament doth send us to thy cross, O Christ, where this promise was performed, and most fully on all sides accomplished: for we cannot to salvation feed on thee or eat thee, O Christ, except thou hadst been crucified; and this we do when with lively sense we apprehend and catch hold on the efficacy of thy death.  For, though thou call thyself the ‘bread of life’, yet dost thou it not by reason of the sacrament, but because there was such a one given to us from the Father, and because thou didst give thyself such a one, by taking part with us in our mortal nature, to make us partakers of thy divine immortality; by offering thyself ‘a sacrifice for us’, to take to thyself our malediction; and pitifully to pour on us thy blessing, by swallowing up death by thy death, and by raising up to glory and incorruption this our corruptible flesh which thou tookest on thee, through thy resurrection.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 263).

These spiritual blessing are clearly not brought about by the sacrament, as Bradford admits, since it is not simply a matter of physical body, but they are clearly identified with the Eucharist.  This identification is a spiritual (even metaphysical) means since ‘thy sacrament doth send us to thy cross, O Christ, where this promise was performed’.  The benefits of the cross are promised to us and confirmed by the event of Christ death, sacrifice and resurrection, but there is, argues Bradford another way of doing this.  The talk of the incarnation establishes the principle of instantiation here.  He states, importantly:

“So then it remaineth that we should apply all this unto us: and this we do, as by thy gospel, so no less but rather more clearly by thy holy Supper, where, as thou offerest thyself unto us with all thy benefits, so we by faith receive the same.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 263).

In the Eucharist then, all Christ’s benefits, achieved by his offering on the cross, ‘we do’, ‘no less but rather more clearly by thy holy Supper’.  The Eucharist is clearly identified with the offering of Christ and it is by the Eucharist that the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice are received.  Christ’s presence and sacrifice are instantiated in the Eucharist in a moderate realist sense.  All this seems to be adequately confirmed in the last few sentences of the meditation when Bradford says:

“Grant me therefore to mark well that this sacrament is not the thing that maketh thee to begin to be ‘the bread of life’; but that this maketh thee so to us, by making us to call to mind that thou wast made ‘the bread of life’, for us continually to feed on; and by giving to us a taste and savour of that bread, that we might feel the virtue of the same bread.” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 263).

The Eucharist is not the thing that achieves the benefits of Christ’s death (as the idea of offering the mass for the living and the dead as a propitiation for sins would imply, that is, as immoderate realism) but the Eucharist is the means by which people know the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice.  The Eucharist ‘maketh thee so to us’ as an instrumental cause.  This making known is not a simple remembering by bringing a past event to mind as an act of memory, but a continual feeding where the virtue of Christ is known.  Christ’s sacrifice is not repeated or added to in the Eucharist (immoderate realism), but its power and benefits are instantiated (made known) in the Eucharist, such that those who partake in the Eucharist receive the benefits of Christ’s death in a real, yet spiritual manner (moderate realism). 

Some more of Bradford’s thinking on the Eucharist is revealed in his correspondence.  In a Letter on the Mass (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 389-399) written on 2 September, 1574, to Richard Hopkins (Sheriff of Coventry at the time and later imprisoned) and others at Coventry, Bradford distances himself from the Roman Catholic mass, describing it as an “antichristian and idolatrous service” and “the rose-coloured whore of Babylon’s filthy mass-abomination” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 390).  Speaking of Roman Catholics he says that the mass is the way “they would avoid the cross” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 391) suggesting perhaps that the idea of repeating the sacrifice of Christ in the mass was in some sense intended to be an avoidance of and a means of being superior to the cross.  Such immoderate realism appears for Bradford, to detract from the association with the cross which the Eucharist provides, and instead indicates a seeking after self, contrary to what he describes as the practices of the catholic church, “for it maketh the priest that saith mass God’s fellow and better than Christ, for the offerer is always better or equivalent to the thing offered” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 392).  Bradford also expresses some contempt for what he sees as unnecessary outward forms of worship.  Christ’s word allows for “no massing, no such sacrificing, nor worshipping of Christ with tapers, candles, copes, canopies, &c.  It alloweth no Latin service, no images in the temples, no praying to saints dead, no praying for the dead” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 393).  Clearly the outward forms of traditional catholic worship meant little to Bradford, but despite this he expresses a theology of the Eucharist in terms suggestive of moderate realism where sign and signified are coupled or linked.  What seems apparent is a distinction between philosophical theology and outward piety.  While Bradford seems to express a theology based on a philosophical position of moderate realism, he does not seem to value outward forms of piety associated (in later times) with such a theology of the Eucharist.  This may help to explain the position of some modern commentators (e.g. MacCulloch, 2001a) who argue that the early English Reformers adopted a strongly Protestant or Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist.  These commentators base their arguments for the rejection of a moderate realist eucharistic theology on the rejection of outward forms alone.  MacCulloch argues that the theology of the Eucharist changed in the times of the Caroline Divines (e.g. Andrewes, Cosin, Hooker and Laud) with these Divines advocating more use of splendid liturgical forms in the shape of church furnishings, rituals and vestments for the priest.  In opposition to this view however, it could be argued that, while the outward forms became more splendid by the time of say Andrewes and Laud (early 17th Century), the underlying philosophical position expressed in relation to the Eucharist was essentially moderate realism in both the writings of people such as Bradford and Ridley from the sixteenth century and Andrewes and Laud from the seventeenth.  These later Caroline Divines were expressing the same or very similar eucharistic theology of some of these early English Reformers such as Bradford and Ridley, using the same philosophical concept of moderate realism, but unlike the earlier Reformers, they used more developed (and Catholic) outward forms of worship.  Bradford’s expression of moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist seems to be maintained by these later English Reformation Caroline Divines, even if his austere liturgical forms are not.  The Caroline Divines did not, for example, favour the austere 1552 Book of Common Prayer, and preferred a return to the style of the earlier 1549 liturgy or to even more primitive models which involved the use of liturgical words and forms of worship more closely associated with catholic tradition (see case studies on the Prayer Books and the Caroline Divines).

Other evidence will now be considered in order to assess Bradford’s eucharistic theology more fully.  In a report entitled Disputation or Talk Between Master Bradford and Dr Pendleton (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 541-544) Bradford admits that the reasons for his condemnation were his denial of transubstantiation and of the receiving of Christ’s body in the Eucharist (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 542).  Specifically Bradford puts the case that he is distinguishing ‘nature’ from ‘substance’ in his denial of transubstantiation, saying “I expounded natura not for the substance: ‘as … the nature of an herb in not the substance of it, so the bread changed in nature is not to be taken for changed in substance; for now it is ordained, not for the food of the body simply, but rather for the food of the soul’” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 543).  For Bradford it seems that the nature of a thing relates to something other than a substance and his denial of transubstantiation rests on the argument that the substance of the bread is not changed in the Eucharist, but the nature is.  The bread remains bread in substance, but clearly it is something else in nature, following consecration presumably, more than or different from what it was before.  In the same way he distinguishes accidentia from res.  If accidentia are properly res, then says Bradford, accidentia mean an earthly substance is in the sacrament, such that the continued existence of the bread cannot be denied (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 543).  This seems to be consistent with a view that advocates no change in the substance, but the continued presence of the substance of bread and wine in the Eucharist, following consecration.  What Bradford means by ‘nature’ here is unclear, but it seems that he means something other than ‘substance’.  For Bradford, the substance of bread remains (i.e. the element continues to be bread after consecration) but the nature is changed.  Perhaps this is further indication of Bradford’s use of moderate realism.  By change in ‘nature’ it may be that Bradford means that the bread identifies with the universality of Christ’s body and blood in a way that it did not before the consecration.  The bread could therefore be said to instantiate the body and blood of Christ, in the sense that its nature now identifies with the universal, but this does not mean that the substance of the bread is changed, nor that the body and blood of Christ is present in the eucharistic elements in a carnal or immoderate realist manner.  Such a conclusion on the scant evidence available in the Disputation must remain conjecture, but it does seem in relation to Bradford’s earlier Sermon on the Lord’s Supper, that such a conjecture may be reasonable.  As such the Disputation may well be additional evidence of Bradford’s use of philosophical position of moderate realism in relation to the Eucharist.

Bradford’s views on transubstantiation are revealed in another work entitled Certain Reasons Against Transubstantiation, Gathered by John Bradford, and Given to Doctor Weston and Others, (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 544-550).  Here Bradford presented the argument that the view of the Eucharist before the doctrine of transubstantiation was defined (in Bradford’s view at the Lateran Council in 1215) was a true view but that the view of the Eucharist after the doctrine of transubstantiation was defined, was false.  The implication here is that the definition of the doctrine of transubstantiation changed the doctrine of the Eucharist.  Further, Bradford argues that words of Christ in relation to the Eucharist are “figurative” (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 545) and as such deny the legitimacy of transubstantiation.  He also argues in relation to Christ’s words:

“That the Lord gave to his disciples bread, and called it his ‘body’, the very scriptures do witness.  For he gave that, and called it his ‘body’, which he took in his hands, whereon he gave thanks, which also he brake, and gave to his disciples; that is to say, bread. … But inasmuch as the substance of bread and wine is another thing than the substance of the body and blood of Christ, it plainly appeareth that there is no transubstantiation”. (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 545).

For Bradford the doctrine of transubstantiation does not agree with the early teaching of the apostles of Christ or the teaching of the early churches, but is rather an invention of the Church in a certain period and is not the truth (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 546). 

Weston in reply to Bradford’s points argues that though the word ‘transubstantiation’ was only used in recent times and not from the earliest times, yet the idea or the ‘thing’ was and has been present and believed in the Church since Christ’s institution of the sacrament (Weston in Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 547).  Bradford disagrees with this opinion, arguing that the ‘thing’ (the philosophical doctrine) is as new as the ‘word’ (i.e. transubstantiation) (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 547).  Weston also denied that Christ spoke figuratively in the Last Supper, however Bradford replies that even though a person may speak figuratively this does not mean that this person lies, that is, that the meaning of ‘figurative’ is not real (Bradford, Writings, edn. Townsend, 1848: 547).  Such an analysis is consistent with moderate realism, since even though the bread and wine are figures of Christ’s body and blood, they can effectually instantiate the nature of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.

Bradford’s writings on the Eucharist whilst not entirely consistent, for the most part seem however, to express a moderate realism.  Sign and signified are said to be coupled or linked in such a way that the sign instantiates the signified where sign can mean the bread and wine and those who receive it.  Whilst Bradford rejects transubstantiation and the idea of any change in the substance of the bread and wine, he does not reject the idea of a change in nature.  It is talk of a change in nature that is suggestive of moderate realism.  Bradford’s thinking, along with that of Ridley, demonstrates that a strain of moderate realist eucharistic theology was present in the early period of the Reformation and not an invention or addition to the Anglican eucharistic tradition at some later time.