Evangelical or Catholic? A Bibliography

Transcription

1 Evangelical or Catholic? A Bibliography I want to thank all those who read my post on Evangelical or Catholic? In a month, this has received over 1,100 hits, more than any single blog post I have written. I am usually happy if what I write gets 100 reads. Clearly there is sympathy (or at least interest) in getting beyond the old polemics between Evangelicals and Catholics. At the same time, many of the public comments I have received have been negative, both from Protestants and from Catholics (and some Orthodox), who seem quite happy to keep the old polemics alive. Oh, well. This is discouraging, but I am more heartened by the numbers than discouraged by the occasional sniping. Anyway, I promised at the end of that post to include a bibliography and here it is. These are books that I have found helpful. Some of them are old, and they influenced me in my own path from free church Evangelical to Anglican. Some are quite new. All are good. Readers will notice that the ecclesial identities of the authors cover a lot of ground, including not only Anglicans, but also Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Methodists, and even the odd Baptist. That is as it should be. Denominational loyalty has never been the primary concern in my own theological studies. Nor should it be, if the choice between Evangelical and Catholic is a false one. Abraham William, et al. Canonical Theism: A Proposal for Theology and the Church. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, William Abraham is a Methodist theologian whose canonical theism project is about moving away from the modern focus on epistemological criteria to a focus on the primacy of ontology, and particularly on the historic doctrines and

2 practices of the undivided church, which he and his group refer to as canons: not only Scripture, but also creeds, doctrine, episcopacy, saints, councils, icons. Canonical theism is thus about embracing this canonical heritage of the church. Allison, C. Fitzsimmon. The Rise of Moralism: The Proclamation of the Gospel from Hooker to Baxter. Regent College Publishing Fitz Allison s book might be considered an example of enclave theology, since Allison is a self-identified Evangelical theologian, and the book is a study of justification by faith, in which Allison clearly identifies with the Protestant theology. However, ecumenical theology also demands that we be honest about what the issues actually are, so as not to reach superficial agreements that are not really agreements. Allison documents that the Reformation issue of justification by faith boiled down to the question of formal cause : specifically, is the ground of my justification Christ s finished work apart from my own efforts, which I appropriate by faith alone, or is the ground of my justification my own appropriation of Christ s work? Allison documents that all the Anglican Reformers, including Richard Hooker and later Caroline Divines like Lancelot Andrewes held to the first. However, with some of the Caroline Divines, especially Jeremy Taylor, justification by faith becomes understood to mean justification based on the sincerity of my faith rather than Christ s finished work: justification by sincerity. The result is a corresponding moralism and scrupulosity. Ayris, Paul and Selwyn, David. Thomas Cranmer: Churchman and Scholar. Boydell Press, A more recent book on Thomas Cranmer that provides an alternative to the revived view of Cranmer (and the Anglican Reformers) as radical Protestants that is represented by

3 recent works like Diarmaid McCulloch s popular biography. Balthasar, Hans urs von. The Theology of Karl Barth: Exposition and Interpretation. Ignatius Press, A sympathetic discussion of Barth by the twentieth century s greatest Roman Catholic theologian (in my humble opinion). Balthasar s book is not only a good study of Barth, but an example of ecumenical theology in the best sense, especially in clarifying misunderstandings of the Catholic tradition by Protestants. Beasley-Murray, G. K. Baptism in the New Testament. Wipf & Stock, This is a biblical theology of baptism by a British sacramental Baptist. The book was instrumental in my own conviction that the Bible really does teach that baptism is a sacrament that effects what it symbolizes. Booty, John. John Jewel as Apologist of the Church of England. London: SPCK, Unfortunately nothing substantial has been written on Jewel in the last forty years, with the single exception of an anti- Anglican polemic written by a former Anglo-Catholic convert (to Orthodoxy?) that portrays Jewel as a radical Protestant. It is interesting that the view of the Reformation as a radical break with Catholicism that was being repudiated by Roman Catholic scholars forty years ago is currently being revived. Booty presents a sympathetic reading of Jewel as a Reformed Catholic. Braaten, Carl E. and Jenson, Robert W., eds. The Catholicity of the Reformation. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, Carl Braaten and Robert Jenson are two of the most important American Lutheran theologians of the late twentieth century, now reaching retirement age. They are the founders of The

4 Center for Catholic and Evangelical Theology, and its journal, Pro-Ecclesia. This is a series of essays by Lutherans arguing for an evangelical catholic interpretation of the Reformation. Bromiley, Geoffrey. Thomas Cranmer, Theologian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Brooks, Peter. Thomas Cranmer s Doctrine of the Eucharist: An Essay in Historical Development. NY: Seabury Press; Macmillan,, It is interesting how the most catholic interpretations of the English Reformers come from Evangelical authors. Here are two. Clark, Francis. Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation. Basil Blackwell, This is an important work by a Roman Catholic, who documents the understanding of eucharistic sacrifice among late Medieval Catholics at the time of the Reformation. Clark establishes that the standard Protestant (and Anglican) rhetoric against eucharistic sacrifice did not address the doctrine Catholics actually held. Late Medieval and Tridentine Roman Catholics did not believe that Christ was re-sacrificed, in the mass, but that Christ s atoning death on the cross was the once sufficient sacrifice. What Clark does not get quite right was the reason for Protestant objections to eucharistic sacrifice. Hunsinger (below) is good on this. Cullmann, Oscar. Early Christian Worship. SCM Press, This is the book that convinced me that the Eucharist was at the center of early Christian worship. Cullmann, Oscar. The Tradition, The Early Church. London. SCM Press, This article is the definitive discussion of the relation between Scripture and tradition, arguing for the significance

5 of the canonizing of Scripture, and the relation between canon and tradition. Dugmore, Clifford. The Mass and the English Reformers. London: Macmillan, A sympathetic reading of the English Reformers as Reformed Catholics. Fairweather, Eugene R. Christianity and the Supernatural, New Theology No. 1. Martin Marty and Dean G. Peerman, eds. NY: Macmillan, This article assesses the significance of a proper Christian ontology rooted in the relation between God and creation. The constant temptation for theologians is to imagine the relation between Creator and creature as that between two competing created realities. God is thus viewed as the most powerful thing around, but not as genuinely transcendent. Whenever Creator and creature are misconstrued in this way, theologians will venture either into naturalism (panentheism, monism) or into anti-supernaturalism (voluntarism). Fairweather traces examples of anti-naturalism, naturalism, and supernaturalism in the history of the church. Hunsinger, George. The Eucharist and Ecumenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, This is one of the most helpful contemporary discussions of eucharistic theology, written by a Reformed theologian, entering into dialogue with Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Anglican theologians, as well as his own Reformed heritage. Jenson, Robert. Canon and Creed. Westminster John Knox Press, A recent book on the relation between canon, creed, (episcopacy, worship, and the ecumenical councils). Although Jenson is a Lutheran, this book could well have been written

6 by an Anglican. See above about Jenson and Braaten. MacIntyre, Alasdair. Three Rival Versions of Moral Enquiry: Encyclopaedia, Genealogy, and Tradition. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, Alasdair MacIntyre is one of the most important contemporary Roman Catholic philosophers. He writes about ethics, but his main focus of discussion is that all knowledge takes place within the context of tradition and traditions. Mascall, Eric L. Christ, the Christian, and the Church: A Study of the Incarnation and its Consequences. London: Longmans, Green & Co., Mascall, Eric L. The Openness of Being: Natural Theology Today. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, Mascall, Eric L. Via Media: An Essay in Theological Synthesis. Greenwich, CT: Seabury Press, Mascall was an Anglo-Catholic theologian (and a Thomist), who wrote from an ecumenical perspective. He not only addressed Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy, but also continental Protestantism, as well as more Evangelical understandings of Anglicanism. He argued for Anglicanism as Reformed Catholicism. The above are just three of the numerous books he wrote. They were extremely helpful to me in making the transition from free church Evangelical to Anglican Reformed Catholic. McSorley, Harry. Luther: Right or Wrong? An Ecumenical Study of Luther s Major Work, The Bondage of the Will. NY: Newman Press & Minneapolis: Augsburg Publishing House, An ecumenical discussion of Luther s bondage of the will, written from an ecumenical Roman Catholic perspective. Moeller, C. and Phillips, G. The Theology of Grace and the Oecumenical Movement, London: A. R. Mowbray & Co., 1961.

7 I discovered this short little book from a reference by E. L. Mascall. It is an ecumenical discussion between Roman Catholics, Orthodox, and Reformed on the doctrine of grace. It is the book that first drew my attention to the significance of the permanent humanity of Christ for eucharistic theology. Newbigin, Leslie. The Household of God: Lectures on the Nature of the Church. London: SCM Press, Ltd., 1953; Wipf & Stock, One of the best books around on ecumenism and ecclesiology. Newbigin was a Reformed missionary who became one of the first bishops in the Church of South India, after that church was formed by a union of Anglicans, Reformed, and several other denominations. Oberman, Heiko. The Harvest of Medieval Theology: Gabriel Biel and Late Medieval Nominalism. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1963; Baker Academic, Oberman wrote many books on late Medieval theology and the Reformation. This is a helpful reading of the late Medieval Roman Catholic Church, showing the significance of Nominalism. Persson, Per Erik. The Reformation in Recent Roman Catholic Theology, New Theology No. 1, Martin Marty and Dean G. Peerman, eds. NY: Macmillan, An article about the newer more balanced and ecumenical approach to church history that arose mid-twentieth century, particularly the history of the Reformation, written from a Roman Catholic perspective. It was a major factor in my own becoming interested in the relation between Medieval Catholicism and the post-reformation church. Unfortunately, there seems to be a return to the old polemics among some more contemporary church historians. Michael Ramsey. The Gospel and the Catholic Church.

8 Hendrickson Reissue, Michael Ramsey was one of the most important modern Archbishops of Canterbury. This is his case for Anglicanism as Reformed Catholicism. Ramsey was an Anglo-Catholic who read Karl Barth, and it shows. Schaff, Philip. The Principle of Protestantism. Wipf & Stock, Philip Schaff and John Williamson Nevin (Reformed theologians) were the leaders of the Mercersburg Theology, a reading of the Reformation as a reforming movement in the Catholic Church. Nevin s corresponding text was entitled, The Mystical Presence, arguing for an objective presence of Christ in the Lord s Supper. Sykes, Stephen The Integrity of Anglicanism. NY: Seabury Press, Sykes, Stephen. Unashamed Anglicanism. Nashville: Abingdon Press, Stephen Sykes book, The Integrity of Anglicanism, was instrumental in my deciding to pursue systematic theology rather than philosophy. Sykes s book is largely an attack on some of the fuzzy thinking of a lot of twentieth century Anglican theologians, particularly in the easy acceptance of Liberal Protestantism as just one more ecclesial party within Anglicanism. Southgate, Wyndham. John Jewel and the Problem of Doctrinal Authority. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, The other book on Jewel, representing him as a Reformed Catholic. Thornton, Martin. English Spirituality: An Outline of Ascetical Theology According to the English Pastoral Tradition. SPCK, 1963.

9 A good overview, not simply of Anglican, but also of pre- Reformation English spirituality. Thornton s book is good in that it focuses on theology, rather than psychology, as do too many modern books on spirituality. Torrance, Thomas F. Theology in Reconciliation: Essays toward Evangelical and Catholic Unity in East and West. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1976; Wipf & Stock, Torrance was a student of Karl Barth, who discovered the church fathers. He wrote on the Trinity, Christology, ecclesiology, and the relation between science and theology. This is one of the best books around on ecumenism. Tugwell, Simon. Ways of Imperfection: An Exploration of Christian Spirituality. Springfield, ILL: Templegate Publishers, I discovered Tugwell when I picked up one his books in a used book barn when I was on vacation in rural Maine. Tugwell is an English Dominican, and writes on the history of spirituality, particularly Dominican spirituality, which, I would argue, has a lot of affinities to Anglicanism. This is his history of spirituality. Wainwright, Geoffrey. Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine and Life A Systematic Theology. NY: Oxford University Press, Geoffrey Wainwright is a Methodist theologian, who is interested in liturgy. This is an entire Systematic Theology written from the perspective of worship. Webber, Robert E.. Common Roots: The Original Call to an Ancient-Future Faith. Zondervan, 1978, revised edition, Webber, Robert E. The Divine Embrace: Recovering the Passionate Spiritual Life. Grand Rapids: Baker, Webber, Robert E. Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail: Why

10 Evangelicals are Attracted to the Liturgical Church. Morehouse Publishing, Webber, Robert E. The Orthodox Evangelicals: Who they are and what they are saying. NY, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, Inc., Robert Webber was a free church Evangelical who converted to the Episcopal Church. He was the organizer and one of the authors of something called the Chicago Call, a call for Evangelicals to recover the sacramental and pre-reformation roots of the church. Webber s Common Roots came out shortly afterwards, followed shortly by Evangelicals on the Canterbury Trail, a book about Evangelicals converting to Anglicanism. The Divine Embrace was his last book, a call for Evangelicals to recover the patristic roots of Christian spirituality. Williams, A. N. The Ground of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas. Oxford: Oxford University Press, Most ecumenical discussion is between Roman Catholics and Protestants. This is a comparison of the theology of grace in two of the most important Catholic and Orthodox theologians. Even as I prepare to send this off, more titles come to mind, but this is already too long. Enjoy. The Anglican Reformers Were Not Zwinglians! Addendum Although I did not make the connection at the time, I later realized that the former Anglo-Catholic advocating the Zwinglian reading of the Anglican Reformers is Gary W.

11 Jenkins, author of John Jewel And The English National Church: The Dilemmas Of An Erastian Reformer (Ashgate Publishing, 2006). The blurb at Amazon describes the book as follows: Gary Jenkins argues that, far from serving as the constructor of a positive Anglican identity, Jewel s real contribution pertains to the genesis of its divided and schizophrenic nature....[h]e paints a picture not of a theologian and humanist, but an orator and rhetorician, who persistently breached the rules of logic and the canons of Renaissance humanism in an effort to claim polemical victory over his traditionalist opponents such as Thomas Harding. By taking such an iconoclastic approach to Jewel, this work... demonstrates how he used his Patristic sources, often uncritically and faultily, as foils against his theological interlocutors, and without the least intention of creating a coherent theological system. An Amazon reader offers a quote from the text: When using Erastianism as a prism, Jewel s lack of theologically precise doctrinal formulations becomes not some complex via media between Rome and Geneva, but a means whereby a political necessity was wedded to an ecclesiastical virtue. Jewel s works do not present a body of theological literature abundant with insight, but instead give a pedestrian reading of scriptural texts, a prosaic use of the early church, and a banal approach to its theological topics. Jewel s use of sources is often disingenuous, his logic faulty and his theology in several areas flawed. What Jewel really gives the student of the Reformation is an iconoclast in a prelate s vestments. I read this book right after it was published. Needless to say, it is a prime example of what I have called enclave theology. Jenkins reading is not theological, but political, and, to say the least, polemical. Throughout, he assumes

12 Jewel s insincerity. Jewel s theology is portrayed as simply the mask behind which lies an Erastian agenda. What I found most frustrating about the book was precisely Jenkins lack of interest in the actual content of Jewel s theology. If one assumes that someone like Jewel is simply insincere, there is no reason to take his theology seriously, or to read it carefully. I have read both Cranmer and Jewel at length, including their tedious and voluminous debates with Gardiner and Harding. The rhetoric of the debates is typical of the time, on both sides. But what is clear as one reads them is that Cranmer and Jewel were both sincere, and believed sincerely that their eucharistic theology was in line with patristic eucharistic theology in a way that transubstantiation was not. How do Jewel and Cranmer differ from Zwingli? It is not enough to point out that Zwingli also uses the language of spiritual presence or spiritual feeding ; so does Calvin, and (in his reading of John 6), Luther does as well. It is not enough to point out that Jewel and Cranmer argue that Christ s humanity is seated at the right hand of God. The argument here is against Lutheran ubiquity, and is the orthodox Catholic position, found, for example, in Thomas Aquinas, who insists that Christ s presence in the Eucharist cannot be a local presence ( as if in a place. ) It is not enough to point out that Cranmer and Jewel deny that Christ is present corporally and in the elements. Calvin denies this as well, and, if, as most scholars argue, Cranmer and Jewel (and Hooker) were virtualists, Christ would not be present physically in the elements, but in the usus, the act of eating. Hooker, of course, repudiates Zwingli by name, and insists that his own position, which he certainly believes is consistent with that of his Anglican predecessors, is entirely compatible with the Lutheran position, except for the question

13 of whether Christ s presence is located physically in the elements. Despite Hooker s rejection of ubiquity and transubstantiation, he is clear that his virtualist understanding of communion is one of real presence : Is there any thing more expedite, clear, and easy, than that as Christ is termed our life because through him we obtain life, so that parts of this sacrament are his body and blood for that they are so to us who receiving them receive that by them which they are termed? The bread and cup are his body and blood because they are causes instrumental upon the receipt whereof the participation of his body and blood ensueth. The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, Laws, Bk. 5, LXVII [5]. How do Cranmer and Jewel (and Hooker) differ from Zwingli? I would say that the crucial difference between Zwinglian (symbolic) interpretations of the Eucharist and sacramental interpretations of every kind, including not only transubstantiation, transelementation, Lutheran consubstantiaton, Reformed spiritual presence, and Cranmerian virtualism, has to do with the continuing significance of the risen humanity of Christ, and with union with Christ in his risen humanity. Zwingli s theology has the following unique characteristics: 1) A radical spirit-matter dualism, which he seems to have picked up from Erasmus. John 6:63 was a crucial text, which Zwingli interpreted to mean that physical realities (including the humanity of Christ) have nothing to do with salvation. 2) An insistence that Christ s presence at the right hand of the Father meant that Christ s humanity was inaccessible until his second coming. Christ s presence (Matt. 28:19-20) means that Christ is present only in his divine, but not his human nature: according to his divine nature he is with us always. 3) An insistence that any references to eating or drinking

14 Christ s flesh and blood or to the Eucharist as the body of Christ were to be interpreted metaphorically to refer to having faith in the saving efficacy of Christ s atoning death. 4) An insistence that the sacraments were symbols of the realities to which they pointed and nothing more. So Zwingli is quite willing to say that baptism is an initiatory sign, and Water-baptism cannot contribute in any way to the washing away of sin. 5) Zwingli has no hesitation in suggesting that the Fathers simply were mistaken in their eucharistic theology. In contrast: 1) There simply is no spirit/matter dualism in the Anglican Reformers. Cranmer insists that John 6 is not about the Eucharist, as does Zwingli, but so does Luther. Calvin disagrees! But one looks in vain in Cranmer s writings for the dualist interpretation of John 6:63. Cranmer does speak of a spiritual eating by faith (but so does Luther!), but he also speaks of a sacramental eating, and they are not simply the same thing. 2) There is repeatedly in Cranmer s writings, a focus on union with Christ, not only in his deity, but in his full humanity, and this takes place through the sacraments: And where you say that in baptism we receive the spirit of Christ, and in the sacrament of his body and blood we receive his very flesh and blood; this your saying is no small derogation to baptism, wherein we receive not only the spirit of Christ, but also Christ himself, whole body and soul, manhood and Godhead, unto everlasting life, as well as in the holy communion. For St Paul saith, Quicunque in Christo baptizati estis, Christum induistis: As many as be baptized in Christ, put Christ upon them: nevertheless, this is done in divers respects; for in baptism it is done in respect of regeneration, and in the holy communion in respect of nourishment and augmentation

15 Compare Jewel (from The Apology of the Church of England): And we do expressly pronounce, that in the LORD S Supper there is truly given unto the believing, the body, and blood of our LORD the flesh of the Son OF GOD, which quickeneth our souls the meat [food] that cometh from above the food of immortality, of grace, truth, and life : and that the same Supper is the communion of the body and the blood of CHRIST; by the partaking whereof we be revived, strengthened, and fed unto immortality ; and whereby we are joined, united, and incorporate unto CHRIST, that we may abide in him, and he in us. The focus here is on union with the risen Christ in his humanity and deity. It is more fully articulated in Hooker, but it is there in Cranmer and Jewel. Contrast this with Zwingli s position that Christ is present only in his divine nature. 3) While Cranmer also speaks of eating spiritually by faith, he also speaks of a presence of Christ that takes place (not corporally in the elements) but in the ministration of the elements: [W]e be agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ s body is present, and the same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little and in this point only: that I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the sacrament, and you say that he is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament. And yet you say that he is corporally in the sacrament, as who should say that there were a difference between spiritually, and a spiritual manner; and that it were not all one, to say that Christ is there only after a spiritual manner, and not only spiritually.

16 It is this focus on ministration which leads to a virtualist interpretation. How does Christ become spiritually present in the ministration of the sacraments? Neither Cranmer nor Jewel are clear, but they do echo Geneva in adapting the language of sursum corda : We lift up out hearts. This is admittedly a metaphor, not a real explanation. 4) In contrast to Zwingli s merely symbolic interpretation, Cranmer, Jewel, and Hooker disavow that the sacraments are vain tokens. Hooker repudiates Zwingli by name. They are more than willing to use the language of baptismal regeneration. Thus, Cranmer above (on baptism), but also Jewel, who not only uses the language of regeneration, but also remission of sins, and justifies infant baptism on the grounds that infants are born in sin : We say, that Baptism is a sacrament of the remission of sins and of that washing which we have in the blood of CHRIST; and that no person, which will profess CHRIST S name, ought to be restrained or kept back therefrom- no, not the very babes of Christians, forsomuch as they be born in sin, and do pertain unto the people of GOD. Apology Contrast this with Zwingli s statement about baptism above. 5) Throughout their debates with Gardiner and Harding, Cranmer and Jewel repeatedly appeal to the church fathers, arguing that their position is consistent with that of the Fathers, and transubstantiation is not. Jenkins argues in his book that Jewel s patristic scholarship is faulty. Perhaps so. But is it really credible to believe that Cranmer and Jewel believed that the Church Fathers were Zwinglians? Is it not more credible to interpret their argument as that the Fathers believed in a form of real presence, but not transubstantiation? In conclusion, is it possible to interpret the Anglican

17 Reformers as Zwinglian? It certainly is possible, because some have done so. I think it rather clear that a comparative reading of the texts shows significant differences. I also think the Zwinglian reading is simply too cynical. It presumes an insincerity on the part of Cranmer and Jewel, and an intentional obscurity on the the part of the Reformers to mislead their readers. Cranmer in particular, died for what he believed. One can die as much for Zwinglianianism as for virtualism. If Cranmer believed that the sacraments were only symbols, he had plenty of opportunity to make that clear at his trial. Was the virtualist or receptionist theology of Cranmer and Jewel adequate? I have argued elsewhere that it is not. At the same time, I think we really need to be fair to those with whom we disagree. Unsympathetic readings can too easily become tendentious readings. The Anglican Reformers Were Not Zwinglians! Although I am certain it is a mere coincidence, at Titus19, Kendall Harmon has linked to a blog post by a former Calvinist and former Anglo-Catholic, now

18 (apparently) Roman Catholic, who advocates exactly the kind of old school clear break version of Reformation histoiography I had mentioned in my recent post in which I argued that Anglicans did not have to make a choice between being Evangelical or Catholic. The author makes the usual kinds of arguments one sometimes finds among Catholic converts: that the Anglican Reformation was entirely a Protestant (and basically Calvinist) movement, and a clear break from Medieval Catholicism, that John Jewel was simply an Erastian. The author strangely interprets Jewel to hold the position that there was no Catholic church in the first six centuries after Christ. More to the point, according to the author, for Jewel, Catholic simply means Protestant. To the contrary, Jewel had argued not only that there was such a Catholic church, but that the late Medieval Church had in many ways departed from it. In his Apology, Jewel identified catholicity with the same marks identified in the 2nd Century over against Gnosticism: Canon of Scripture, Rule of Faith, episcopacy in continuity with the apostolic church, and worship in Word and Sacrament. And Jewel noted correctly that the Church of England had retained all of these. The author also claims (incorrectly) that the Anglican Reformers were Zwinglian in their eucharistic theology. Once in awhile, one comes across these attempts to interpret the Anglican Reformers as Zwinglian in their eucharistic theology, whether by those of catholic leanings (who are attempting to do demolition work) or by low-church Evangelicals, hoping to score points against Rome. It does not work. Neither Cranmer nor Jewel (and certainly not Hooker) were Zwinglians, and they repeatedly go out of their way to make this clear. What they rejected was transubstantiation, particularly the notion that the substance of bread and wine ceased to exist as bread and wine after consecration. It is not terribly clear what they meant by

19 spiritual presence, whether a presence through the Holy Spirit (as in Calvin and Eastern Orthodoxy), or rather something else. Most commentators interpret them as virtualists or receptionists, who believed that Christ communicated himself really and truly in his full humanity and deity, in the very act of eating and drinking, when the communicant received the consecrated bread and wine, with faith. What they clearly believed was: the risen Christ is really present, in his full humanity and deity, when the elements are received with faith, and, in participating in the Lord s Supper, Christians genuinely participate in Christ s risen life through the process of eating and drinking. Both Cranmer (against Gardiner) and Jewel (against Harding) were emphatic that they disagreed about the manner of Christ s presence, not the reality of Christ s presence. The focus is on union, specifically, union between the risen Christ and the church. The point of any talk about change is to focus on the final causality of the Eucharist, that the final goal is the union of Christ with his church, and the change that takes place in Christians as a result of that union, rather than a theory about how bread and wine are changed to bring about the union. Bread and wine are not changed in such a manner that they cease to be bread and wine. Apart from accompanying faith, receiving the Eucharist has no spiritual benefit for the recipient. That is, unbelievers receive the bread and wine, but they do not share the benefits of feeding on Christ. If the purpose of the Eucharist is that the church might become the body of Christ, by being united to the risen Christ, unbelievers do not become the body of Christ because they are not united to Christ, even if they do eat and drink consecrated bread and wine.

20 The above are central themes in Anglican eucharistic theology, and can be traced through the history of Anglicanism, including nineteenth century Anglo-Catholics. Anglicans, historically, have affirmed real presence. Generally, Anglicans have not been Zwinglians. Generally, Anglicans have not affirmed transubstantiation. One of the more interesting books that has been published on this subject lately is George Hunsinger s The Eucharist and Ecumenism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Hunsinger carefully distinguishes between Zwinglian and Reformed models of eucharistic presence, and suggests (correctly in my opinion) an affinity between Calvin s model of eucharistic presence through the Holy Spirit and Eastern Orthodoxy. Hunsinger also notes numerous affinities between Reformed theology and Aquinas, and also correctly notes an affinity between the Reformed model and Cranmer. Hunsinger points to the possible influence of Peter Martyr Vermigli on Cranmer, who embraced the language of transelementation that he found in Theophylact, an eleventh century archbishop of Bulgaria. The model actually goes back to Gregory of Nazianzus and Cyril of Alexandria. Vermigli borrows the imagery of an iron rod thrust into fire, which is transformed by participation, but does not lose its reality as iron. Hunsinger documents that both Martin Bucer and Thomas Cranmer use the language of transelementation. Cranmer uses not only the language of transelementation, and the image of the burning iron, but also refers to Theophylact by name, indicating an almost certain dependence on Vermigli. Cranmer also cites Cyprian, saying that the bread is changed, not by subtraction, but by addition of another property, so that the bread is now not only physical food for the body, but spiritual food for the soul.

21 I was pleased to discover that Hunsinger has noted the connection with an Eastern Orthodox epicletic understanding of real presence, something I have written about in The Anglican Reformers and the Eucharist. However, I am grateful to Hunsinger for noticing the connection to Orthodoxy in the person of Theophylact through Peter Martyr Vermigli, of which I had been unaware. Hunsinger suggests that the Reformed model is not perfect, having a tendency to a Nestorian separating of the elements themselves from Christ s presence in, and through them, or, as others have suggested, a too radical separating of sign and thing signified. I would suggest, at the same time, that the danger of both transubstantiation and Lutheran ubiquity is a tendency in the other direction, a monophysite confusion of divine and created realities, whereby Christ s humanity destroys the created reality of the substance of bread and wine (Roman transubstantiation) or confuses the natures as Christ s humanity becomes omnipresent (Lutheran ubiquity). Hunsinger suggests that a more thorough embracing of Orthodox transelementation would preserve Reformed concerns [and I would say Anglican as well], emphatically affirming real presence without necessitating destruction of the substance of bread and wine (as in transubstantiation). The article to which Kendall links is a prime example of what I have called (following Husinger) enclave theology. One of the constant temptations of enclave theology is to commit the straw man fallacy: to describe the opponent s position in a manner that is as far removed from one s own as possible, and then to refute not the actual position held, but rather the caricature. Enclave Protestants can be as guilty of this as Catholics, of course. It is especially tempting for converts, who sometimes desire to paint the church they left in as dark colors as possible. But, in this case, it is neither historically nor theologically accurate. The Anglican Reformers were not Zwinglians.

22 The author assures us that There are many good, loyal, God loving people within Anglicanism, but that Ultimately, however, the anti-catholic notions of 1559 will catch up to them. Except, of course, that 1559 was not anti-catholic. And, of course, Anglicanism did not end in 1559.