Laud’s theology of the Eucharist is principally found in a work called A Relation of a Conference between William Laud, then Bishop of St Davids, now Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and Mr Fisher the Jesuit, which was published in 1639 (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860, Volume II).  In the Conference Laud rejects transubstantiation, saying that:

“Transubstantiation …. was never heard of in the primitive Church, nor till the Council of Lateran, nor can it be proved out of Scripture; and, taken properly, cannot stand with the grounds of Christian religion …” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 306).

“The primitive church never … nor did it … dream of a Transubstantiation, which the learned of the Roman party dare not understand properly, for a change of one substance into another, for then they must grant that Christ’s real and true body is made of bread, and the bread that changed into it, which is properly Transubstantiation; nor yet can they express it in a credible way, as appears by Bellarmine’s struggle about it, which yet in the end cannot be, or be called, Transubstantiation, and is that which at this day is a scandal to both Jew and Gentile, and the Church of God.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 364-365).

What Laud seems to be saying here is that there are forms of transubstantiation, and that some of these forms, such as Bellarmine’s, cannot be properly called transubstantiation.  Bellarmine was a Jesuit and a cardinal whose writings on the Eucharist were debated by Andrewes in a work entitled Response to Cardinal Bellarmine (Andrewes, Works, edn. Wilson and Bliss, 1841-54, Volume VIII – see the Andrewes’ case study 1.16).  Laud seems to be suggesting that there are some parts of the doctrine of transubstantiation which may in fact be accepted.  Perhaps by this he is pointing to moderate realism while at the same time rejecting any immoderate or carnal realist doctrines.  Aquinas’ understanding of transubstantiation was one of moderate realism, where he specially rejected any immoderate or carnal concepts of presence and sacrifice (Douglas, 1999: 29-31).  There were however other forms of transubstantiation which were immoderate, arguing that the physical and historic body of Christ was present in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and that Christ was re-immolated in the Eucharist (Douglas, 1999: 35-36, 50-55).  Aquinas’ view clearly rejects both of these forms of immoderate realism and affirms a spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  This is moderate realism.  Laud seems to agree with this moderate view of realism.  This conclusion can be supported by the way Laud comments on Bellarmine’s work where Laud says:

“The conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ is substantial, but after a secret and effable manner, and not like in all things to any natural conversion whatsoever.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 322).

He also says that if Bellarmine:

“ … had left out ‘conversion’, and affirmed only Christ’s ‘real presence’ there, after a mysterious, and indeed an ineffable manner, no man could have spoken better.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 323).

It seems therefore that Laud’s chief objection to the doctrine of transubstantiation is not that it argues Christ is really present, rather it is that the doctrine defines the manner of the presence too closely.  Laud is content to say that Christ is really present in the bread and wine, a significant admission of the givenness of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but that the manner of the presence is mysterious, secret and ineffable.  Laud seems to have no difficulty with the idea of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but considerable difficulty with the idea that the substance of the bread and wine is transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ, with the substance of the bread and wine being gone, but the accidents remaining.  For Laud therefore there is something positive about the doctrine of transubstantiation since it points to a real presence of Christ in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, but there is a difficulty with the manner of the presence.  Indeed for Laud there is “the true substantial presence of Christ” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 326-327) in the Eucharist and the Church of England “believes and teaches the true and real presence of Christ in the Eucharist” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 328).  Laud however, qualifies these comments about Christ’s substantial presence in the bread and wine of the Eucharist, by referring to the belief that the faithful communicant receives the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist in a spiritual manner.  He says:

“ … in the most blessed Sacrament the worthy receiver is by his faith made spiritually partaker of the ‘true and real body and blood of Christ, truly and really’, and of all the benefits of His passion.  Your Roman Catholics add a manner of this His presence, ‘Transubstantiation’, which many deny; and the Lutherans, a manner of this presence, ‘Consubstantiation’, which more deny.  If this argument be good, then, even for this consent, it is safer communicating with the Church of England than with the Roman or Lutheran; because all agree in this truth, not in any other opinion.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 320-321).

On the question of eucharistic sacrifice Laud argues that:

“As Christ offered Himself up once for all, a full and all-sufficient sacrifice for the sin of the whole world, so did He institute and command a memory of this sacrifice in a Sacrament, even till His coming again.  For, at the end of the Eucharist we offer up to God three sacrifices: One by the priest only, that is, the commemorative sacrifice of Christ’s death, represented in the bread broken and wine poured out.  Another by the priest and the people jointly, and that is the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for all the benefits and graces we receive by the precious death of Christ.  The third, by every particular man for himself only, and that is the sacrifice of every man’s body and soul, to serve Him in both all the rest of his life, for this blessing thus bestowed on him.  Now, thus far these dissenting Churches agree, that in the Eucharist there is a sacrifice of duty, and a sacrifice of praise, and a sacrifice of commemoration of Christ.  Therefore, according to the former rule (and here in truth too) it is safest for a man to believe the commemorative, the praising, and the performing sacrifice, and to offer them duly to God, and leave the Church of Rome in this particular to her superstitions, that I may say no more.” (Laud, Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: II, 339-341).

Laud is therefore arguing that the eucharistic sacrifice is more than that of praise and thanksgiving.  The commemorative sacrifice, as he terms it, and which he says is offered up by the priest, is clearly not a re-iteration of the once only sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.  Any such immoderate view is dismissed as superstitious.  The eucharistic sacrifice that is offered up therefore, seems to be a commemoration of the historic sacrifice, but not a re-iteration of it.  The language that Laud is using here is that of moderate realism.

In A Speech Delivered in the Starr Chamber on Wednesday, the XIVth June, MDCXXXVII, at the Censure of John Bastick, Henry Burton, & William Prinn; Concerning pretended Innovation in the Church by the most Reverend Father in God, William, L. Archbishop of Canterbury his Grace, [Online] Laud also speaks of matters relevant to his views on eucharistic doctrine.  Laud rejects the idea that the bishops have introduced innovations that advance the cause of the Roman Catholic Church (Laud, Speech in the Starr Chamber, 1637: 8, Online).  Instead he argues that the use of bodily worship, such as bowing and reverencing, was ordered by the Canons of the Church of England (see Canon VII of the Canons of 1640, quoted in Staley, 1903: II, 90-91).  The Puritans had accused Laud of Popery (sic) in the reverence and bows that Laud and the bishops paid to the altar.  The accusations of the Puritans are detailed in Staley, 1903: II, 77, 79, 80-83).  Laud answers this criticism by saying:

“One thing sticks much in their stomachs, and they call it an Innovation too.  And that is. Bowing, or doing Reverence at our first coming into the Church, or at our nearer approaches to the Holy Table, or the Altar (call it whether you will) in which they will needs have it, that we worship the Holy Table, or God knows what.  To this I answer.  First, that God forbid we should worship any thing but God Himself.  Secondly, that if to Worship God when we enter into his house, or approach his Altar, be an innovation, ‘tis a very old one.  For Moses did reverence at the very door of the Tabernacle, Num 20.  Hezekiah, and all that were present with him, when they had made an end of offering, bowed and worshipped (2 Chron. 29: 29).  David calls the people to it with a Venite, O Come let us worship, and fall down, and kneel before the Lord our Maker, (Psalm 95: 6).  And in all these practices (I pray mark it) ‘tis bodily worship.  Nor can they say, that this was Judaical worship, and now not to be imitated.  For long before Judaism began, Bethel, the House of God, was a place of Reverence (Gen. 28: 17 &c.)  Therefore certainly of, and to God. …. Therefore even according to the Service Book of the Church of England, the Priest and the People both are called upon, for external and bodily Reverence and Worship of God in his Church.  Therefore they which do it, do not innovate.  And yet the Government is so moderate (God grant it be not too loose therewhile) that no man is constrained, no man questioned, only religiously called upon, Venite, Adoremus, Come, let us worship.  For my own part I take myself bound to worship with Body, as well as in soul, when ever I come where God is worshipped. (Laud, Speech in the Starr Chamber, 1637: 15, Online).

Laud’s belief was that outward forms of worship, in regard to say the altar, were permissible for Christians, in that they did not worship the altar, but God.  The reverence towards the altar has special significance in relation to Laud’s theology of the Eucharist.  Horton Davies comments that from the time of Hooker to that of Laud there was an increase in the claims made for churches and their fittings.  Churches:

“ … are not merely convenient, or their fittings dialectically valuable, or the encouragements from the example of others worshipping, or even the place where angels join with humans in worship, but they are places of God’s presence and most fully in the Body and Blood of Christ in the Eucharist centred on the elevated and enclosed altar.” (Davies, 1996b: 17). 

This analysis helps to explain why Laud paid such careful attention to the altar, and it also helps to explain why the Puritans, who were opposed to any bodily worship, should object to his acts of reverence. 

Laud however, connects his comments on bodily worship with the Eucharist specifically, whilst at the same time employing sarcasm against those Puritans who are accusing him of innovation, saying:

“And you my Honourable Lords of the Garter, in your great Solemnities, you do your Reverence, and to Almighty God, I doubt not, but yet it is Versus Altare, toward his Altar, as the greatest place of God’s residence upon the earth.  (I say the greatest, yea greater than the Pulpit.  For there ‘tis Hoc est Corpus meum, This is my Body.  But in the Pulpit, ‘tis at most, but; Hoc est Verbum meum, This is my Word.  And a greater reverence (no doubt) is due to the Body, then to the Word of the Lord.  And so, in relation, answerably to the throne, where his Body is usually present; then to the Seat, whence His Word useth to be proclaimed …).  And this Reverence ye do when ye enter the Chapel, and when you approach nearer to offer.  And this is no innovation, for you are bound by your Order, and that’s not new.  And idolatry it is not, to worship towards God towards His Holy Table; for had it been idolatry, I presume Queen Elizabeth and King James would not have practised it, and not in those Solemnities.  And being not idolatry, but true Divine Worship, you will, I hope, give a poor priest leave to worship God, as yourselves do.  For if it be God’s worship, I ought to do it as well as you: And if it be idolatry, you ought not to do it more than I. (Laud, Speech in the Starr Chamber, 1637: 16, Online).

Laud is arguing that bodily worship is appropriate towards the altar since this is the place where the Eucharist is celebrated, and that the altar is worthy of greater worship than the pulpit.  Here is accusing the Puritans of giving greater reverence to the pulpit, as the place where the sermon is preached, but at the same time not wanting to reverence the altar where the body of Christ is present.  His previous statements suggest that any presence of Christ at the altar would not be an immoderate or fleshy presence, but a moderate, spiritual, real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  Laud is also accusing them of double standards, since they themselves as members of the Order of the Garter are required to bow before the altar.  The use of bowing to the altar by the Knights of the Garter is confirmed in Samuel Pepys’ diaries (see Staley, 1903: II, 106).

Laud also cites Jewell to support his view saying that:

“Bishop Jewell will come to help me there.  For where Harding [see Jewell’s Reply to Harding’s Answer, cited in the Jewell case study, Article 3, Division 29] names divers ceremonies, and particularly bowing themselves, and adoring the Sacrament, I say, adoring at the Sacrament, not adoring the Sacrament; there Bishop Jewell … approves all both kneeling and the bowing, and the standing up at the Gospel (which as ancient as it is in the Church, and a common custom, is yet fondly made another innovation … And further the Bishop adds, That they are all commendable gestures, and tokens of devotion, so long as the people understand what they mean, and apply them unto God.” (Laud, Speech in the Starr Chamber, 1637: 17, Online).

Laud’s policy of restoring the altar to its traditional position at the east end of the Church, facing north and south, and the placing of a railing around the altar, was also criticised by the Puritans as an innovation which advanced Popery.  The Reformers’ custom had been to place the altar in the chancel, facing east and west, thus lessening any suggestion of a priest sacrificing at the altar.  Laud argued that he was doing nothing more than what was the common practice in Cathedrals and Royal Chapels (Laud, Speech in the Starr Chamber, 1637: 17-18, Online) by replacing altars in their traditional positions against the east end of the church.

In a volume of private devotion published in 1667 after his death (Summary of Devotions Compiled and Used by Dr William Laud) Laud affirms the spiritual real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and denies any immoderate or fleshy notion of Christ’s body and blood in the Eucharist.  In this work Laud says in his devotions in relation to the Eucharist:

“O Lord, into a clean, charitable, and thankful heart give me grace to receive the blessed body and blood of Thy Son, my most blessed Saviour, that it may more perfectly, cleanse me from all dregs of sin.”

“Behold, I quarrel not the words of Thy Son my Saviour’s blessed institution.  I know His words are no gross unnatural conceit, but they are spirit and life, and supernatural.  While the world disputes, I believe.  He hath promised me, if I come worthily, that I shall receive His most precious body and blood, with all the benefits of His passion.  If I can receive it and retain it (Lord, make me able, make me worthy), I know I can no more die eternally than that body and blood can die, and be shed again.”

“How I receive the body and blood of my most blessed Saviour Jesus Christ, the price of my redemption, is the very wonder of my soul, yet my most firm and constant belief upon the words of my Saviour.”

“Lord, I have received this Sacrament of the body and blood of my dear Saviour.  His mercy hath given it, and my faith received it into my soul.  I humbly beseech Thee, speak mercy and peace unto my conscience, and enrich me with all those graces which come from that precious body and blood, even till I be possessed of eternal life in Christ.” (Laud, Devotions, in Works, edn. Scott and Bliss, 1847-1860: III, 72-75).

Laud’s theology of the Eucharist speaks of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.  He clearly rejects transubstantiation, but as Dugmore concludes, “no other categories of thought had yet been discovered in which to express the truth of that ‘real presence’ which they firmly believed.  Thus, Laud, who was not a profound theologian, never stated clearly what it was that he adored in the Eucharist.” (Dugmore, 1942: 50).  It could be concluded therefore that Laud’s theology of the Eucharist was inconsistent and undeveloped despite its insistence on a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and its high opinion of ceremonial and ritual.

Despite this conclusion it must be noted that Laud’s theology of the Eucharist was markedly different from that of Cranmer and other Reformation leaders.  Cranmer did not believe in any real presence of Christ, nor any sacrificial character, specifically associated with the elements of the Eucharist.  Laud clearly did believe in this real presence and sacrificial character in the Eucharist.  Jardine Grisbrooke comments that:

“ … like Andrewes, Laud is beginning to break free; he recognises that the commemoration of a sacrifice is in a sense the sacrifice itself, although he does not describe the Bread and Cup as truly and really the Body and Blood of Christ without qualification.  Laud’s doctrine is without doubt the classical Anglican teaching of the seventeenth century.  The vital point is that to Laud – as, indeed, to Calvin and Hooker – there is something holy about the elements themselves, in virtue of their use; and it was precisely this that Cranmer was concerned to deny, and which the Communion Service of the English Book of Common Prayer was designed by him to exclude.” (Jardine Grisbrooke, 1958: 17).

Laud’s theology of the Eucharist speaks of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and is based on realist philosophical assumptions to a moderate degree.