William Forbes writings on the Eucharist are contained in his book entitled, Considerationes Modestae et Pacificae Controverseriarium de Justificatione, Purgatorio, Invocatione Sanctorum, Christo Mediatore, et Eucharistia, which was published in 1658.  The following quotations on the Eucharist are taken from this book.

“The opinion of Zwingli, which the divines of Zurich tenaciously maintained and defended, namely, that ‘Christ is present in the Eucharist only by the contemplation of faith; that there is no place to be given here to a miracle, since we know in what way Christ is present to His Supper, namely, by the quickening Spirit, spiritually and efficaciously; that sacramental union consists wholly in signification’, etc.is by no means to be approved, since it is most clearly contrary to Scripture and the common opinion of all the fathers.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, i, 2, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 471).

Forbes is clearly rejecting the Zwinglian conception of the Eucharist.  He does this on the basis of Scripture and the fathers of the Church.  He goes on to say:

“The holy fathers … most firmly believed that he who worthily receives these mysteries of the body and blood of Christ really and actually receives into himself the body and blood of Christ, but in a certain spiritual, miraculous, and imperceptible way.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, i, 2, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 471).

Concerning the presence of Christ in the Eucharist, Forbes expresses a realist view, arguing that the body and blood of Christ is really received, but he does this using the language of moderate realism.  The real and actual presence is in a spiritual, miraculous and imperceptible manner.  He does not however argue that the presence of Christ is in the bread and wine, but rather that it is in the receiver in a real and actual manner.

“The opinion of those Protestants and others seems to be most safe and most right, who think, nay, who most firmly believe that the body and blood of Christ are really and actually and substantially present in the Eucharist, but in a way that the human mind cannot understand, and much more beyond the power of man to express, which is known to God alone and is not revealed to us in the Scriptures, a way indeed not by bodily or oral reception, but not only by the understanding and merely by faith, but in another way known, as has been said, to God alone, and to be left to His omnipotence.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, i, 7, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 471).

In this passage Forbes once again affirms the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, going so far as to say that the presence is a substantial presence.  The manner of this presence is beyond human understanding and explanation.  The presence of Christ in the Eucharist has for Forbes a givenness about it, since it is, he says, not only dependent on faith, but on the power of God.  The presence of Christ in the Eucharist cannot therefore be said to be confined to faithful reception alone, but must exist apart from the act of receiving.  Immoderate realism is denied since Forbes argues that the presence is not received by bodily and oral reception.  It is important to note again that Forbes states that Christ is really present, but the presence is said to be in the Eucharist.  The presence is not associated with the bread and wine of the Eucharist specifically, but more generally with the Eucharist.  Moderate realism continues to be expressed however, since Forbes argument indicates that the body and blood of Christ can be said to be instantiated in the Eucharist.

“In the Supper by the wonderful power of the Holy Ghost we invisibly partake of the substance of the body and blood of Christ, of which we are made recipients no otherwise than if we visibly ate and drank his flesh and blood.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, i, 27, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 471-472).

This passage clearly indicates that Forbes theology of the Eucharist is compatible with the notion of the nature of Christ being instantiated in the Eucharist.  Here he argues that the ‘substance’ of Christ’s body and blood is received by the communicant, and that this receiving of the substance is the same as if the communicant were to receive his actual flesh and blood.  Forbes is not arguing here for an immoderate realism and suggesting that the actual flesh and blood of Christ is consumed in the Eucharist.  Rather it seems that he is using the word ‘substance’ to indicate that something (the nature of Christ) is present in both the Eucharist and the actual body and blood of Christ, and that therefore the communicant receives this ‘substance’ or nature when the Eucharist is received.  This is compatible with the notion of instantiation and moderate realism.

“As regards Transubstantiation, many Protestants very perilously and too rashly deny that God is able to convert the bread substantially into the body of the Lord.  For Almighty God can do many things above the understanding of all men, nay, even of angels.  All indeed allow that what implies contradiction cannot be done.  But inasmuch as the particular case it is not clear to any one what the essence of each thing is, and therefore what implies and does not imply a contradiction, it is certainly a mark of great rashness, on account of the weakness of our blind understanding, to prescribe limits to God, and stubbornly to deny that He can do this or that by His omnipotence.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, ii, 1, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 472).

While Forbes does not advocate the doctrine of transubstantiation, he does concede that nothing is beyond the power of God and that humans do not have full understanding of what the essences are in the Eucharist.  He seems to take a neutral stance on transubstantiation, not agreeing with it, but at the same time not excluding it from God’s power.  He does say however, in regard to transubstantiation that:

“Transubstantiation is not of faith, nay, is contrary to the Scriptures and the more ancient fathers, yet it is by no means to be condemned as heretical.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, iii, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 472).

Although Forbes does not provide any detail concerning why transubstantiation is contrary to either the witness of Scripture or the early fathers, he is not arguing for its adoption.  It seems that he does however, allow that others have explained the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist in this manner and that this is not heretical, even if it does not have support from Scripture or fathers.  Indeed Forbes argues that those who argue for transubstantiation have presented excellent cases to refute the criticism of their doctrine.  He says concerning this that:

“The reasons by which the more rigid Protestants seem themselves to have proved most clearly that each doctrine, both that of the Romanists and that of the Lutherans, is contrary to the articles of the faith and therefore heretical, impious, and blasphemous, have been abundantly refuted both by the maintainers of these opinions and by others who are anxious for the unity of the Church.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, I, iv, 12, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 472).

Concerning the Roman Church and its practices regarding the Eucharist, Forbes argues that while some are unacceptable, if these were removed there would be little difficulty.  He says:

“Take away the abuse of the modern Roman Church in reserving the host, which has been consecrated once for all, in ciboria for processions and theatrical pomp, as a thing which, not less apart from Communion than in Communion itself or in relation to it, it is the real and substantial body of Christ, and continues such as long as the species endure (on the corruption of which, if so be, the body and blood of the Lord cease to be there); and this controversy may be removed without condemning the practice of the ancient Church as to reservation, which was then usual.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, II, ii, 6, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 502).

Forbes does not therefore seem to have any difficulty with the practice of reserving the bread and wine of the Eucharist, as was practised by the early Church, but does have difficulty with the use of the consecrated host in ritual practices apart from the Eucharist.  Here then Forbes begins to associate the presence of Christ in the Eucharist with the elements, stating that the real and substantial body and blood of Christ continue to be in the elements which are reserved.  Forbes’ moderate realism is indicating that the nature of the body and blood of Christ is instantiated in the bread and wine of the Eucharist.

Not only does Forbes refer to errors of the Roman Church, but he also refers to errors of some Protestants.  He says:

“Gigantic is the error of the more rigid Protestants who deny that Christ is to be adored in the Eucharist with any but inward and mental adoration, and contend that He is not to be adored with any outward rite of worship, as by kneeling or some other position of the body.  Almost all these hold wrong views about the presence of Christ the Lord in the Sacrament, who is present in a wonderful but real manner.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, II, ii, 8, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 472).

Forbes argues against the view that there is nothing to worship in the Eucharist in the outward sense.  The implication of what he says is that Christ is really present in the sacrament and that he can be adored in an outward way, although Forbes in this passage does not specifically link these outward forms of worship with the bread and wine.  He does however, address the question of the bread and wine and outward worship in the following passage:

“As regards the first assertion of Bellarmine about venerating the symbols with a kind of lesser worship, we admit it.  But as regards his saying that the adoration of supreme worship, though in itself and properly it is due and given to Christ, yet belongs also to the symbols insofar as they are apprehended as one with Christ Himself whom they contain, and whom they cover and conceal like garments, it is false and is contrary to the opinion of many others.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, II, ii, 9, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 472).

Here Forbes states that veneration of the symbols, that is the bread and wine, is acceptable, but that this is a lesser kind of worship than the supreme worship given to Christ.  He also argues that the supreme type of worship given to Christ cannot be given to the symbols and that any argument which suggests an immoderate realism is false.

Referring to the early Church fathers Forbes argues that the notion of ‘offering’ and ‘sacrifice’ were often used in relation to the Eucharist.  This use however, Forbes sees as a moderate realist use of the notion of eucharistic sacrifice since he argues that the sacrifice and offering in the Eucharist is by way of commemoration and representation.  Immoderate notions of sacrifice are denied and the moderate notion of memorial remembrance or anamnesis is advocated since he argues that it is by the presence of Christ on the holy table that the ‘virtue and grace of this perpetual Victim may be efficacious and helpful to His Church for all necessities of body and soul’.  Clearly Forbes sees the benefits of Christ’s sacrifice being available in the present in the Eucharist on earth.  In these matters he says:

The holy fathers say very often that the body of Christ itself is offered and sacrificed in the Eucharist, as is clear from almost numberless places, but not in such a way that all the properties of a sacrifice are properly and actually preserved, but by way of commemoration and representation of that which was performed once for all in that one only sacrifice of the cross whereby Christ our High Priest consummated all other sacrifices, and by way of pious prayer whereby the ministers of the Church most humbly beseech God the Father on account of the abiding Victim of that one sacrifice, who is seated in heaven on the right hand of the Father and is present on the Holy Table in an ineffable manner, to grant that the virtue and grace of this perpetual Victim may be efficacious and healthful to His Church for all the necessities of body and soul. …  Assuredly, in every real sacrifice that is properly so called it is necessary that the victim should be consumed by a certain destructive change, as Romanists themselves universally admit.  But in the Mass the body of Christ is neither destroyed nor changed, as is clear.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, III, i, 10, 12, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 472-473).

The words ‘present on the Holy Table’ indicate that for Forbes the presence of Christ in the Eucharist is both real and on earth, whilst maintaining that Christ in body remains present in heaven.  The real presence of Christ on earth in the Eucharist is in a manner that humans do not fully understand, but nonetheless the presence is real and it is by this presence, on the holy table, that the sacrifice of Christ is commemorated and represented in a real way.  The above passage speaks plainly of a real presence of Christ in the Eucharist on earth and of a eucharistic sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist on earth whereby the benefits of Christ’s passion and death are received by the communicant in the Eucharist in the present on earth.  This description of both eucharistic presence and sacrifice is that of moderate realism, where both the presence and sacrifice of Christ is instantiated in the Eucharist in the present on earth.  It is this view of moderate realism that Forbes sees as being present in some members of the Roman Catholic Church since he says:

“The more moderate Romanists rightly affirm that the Mass is not only a sacrifice of thanksgiving and service or honour, but that it can also be called hilastic or propitiatory in a sound sense, not indeed as if it effected the propitiation and forgiveness of sins, for that pertains to the sacrifice of the cross, but as impetrating the propitiation which has already been made, as prayer, of which this sacrifice is a kind, can be called propitiatory.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, III, ii, 2, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 473).

Along with those he describes as ‘moderate Romanists’ Forbes affirms that the Eucharist is first a sacrifice of thanksgiving and service or honour, and secondly propitiatory.  Forbes use of propitiatory in relation to the Eucharist is not in any immoderate sense, that is, he does not mean that the Eucharist effects propitiation or the forgiveness of sins, since that can only apply to the historic and fleshy sacrifice of Christ at Calvary.  Forbes use of propitiatory here is in the moderate realist sense that he describes as ‘impetrating the propitiation which has already been made’.  This is done as prayer and the sacrifice in the Eucharist is a kind of the once only sacrifice at Calvary.  This being so, Forbes argues, the eucharistic sacrifice can be called propitiatory since it shares the nature of the sacrifice.  Forbes is arguing that the nature of Christ’s sacrifice, its benefits and effects, is instantiated in the Eucharist, made real in the lives of the communicants in the present, not in the fleshy manner of a re-iteration of the once only sacrifice, but as memorial remembrance.  This is clearly compatible with moderate realism.

Forbes goes on to support this view in another place, and then links the sacrifice of the Eucharist and the effectiveness of its benefits in the present, not only with the living but with the departed.  He says:

“The sacrifice which is offered in the Supper is not merely of thanksgiving, but is also propitiatory in a sound sense, and is profitable to very many not only of the living but also of the departed.” (Forbes, De Eucharistia, III, ii, 17, quoted in More and Cross, 1935: 473).

Forbes concept of eucharistic presence and eucharistic sacrifice is clearly that of moderate realism.  For him Christ’s presence and sacrifice is instantiated in the Eucharist in a manner impossible for humans to understand, but this manner is not a fleshy or immoderate manner of presence and sacrifice.  Forbes theology of the Eucharist is that of moderate realism.