Thus much of these words corporally, naturally, &c.: whereby is
meant a full perfect spiritual conjunction, excluding all manner of
imagination or fantasy; not a gross and fleshly being of Christ’s body
in our bodies, according to the appearance of the letter. Otherwise
there must needs follow this great inconvenience, that our bodies
must be in like manner corporally, naturally, and fleshly in Christ’s
body.^58What Jewel had admitted with the right hand, that Christ is fleshly,
really and substantially present in the Christian, he now takes away with
the left, by arguing, as had been done in Cranmer and Zwingli as regards
the presence of the body of Christ in the elements, that union with Christ
was effected only on a spiritual plane. Jewel’s use of instrumental
language is merely an omnium-gatherum of words that has only an
accidental relationship with Calvin’s use.^59
142 JOHN JEWEL AND THE ENGLISH NATIONAL CHURCH
(^58) Ibid., p. 476.
(^59) Jewel’s Eucharistic theology cannot be understood apart from his relationship with
Peter Martyr. Martyr’s cannot be apprehended without some recourse to his relationship
and interaction with archbishop Thomas Cranmer. Substantial work has been done on this
topic in the last thirty years, beginning with Salvatore Corda’s Veritas Sacramenti. A study
in Vermigli’s doctrine of the Lord’s Supper(Zurich, 1975), including Joseph McLelland’s
translation of Martyr’s Eucharistic treatise and the Oxford disputation {The Peter Martyr
Library Volumevolume 7, The Oxford Disputation, and Treatise on the Eucharist, 1549.
Translated and edited with introduction and notes by J.C. McLelland, volume LVI
Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies(Kirksville, Missouri, 2000).}, John Patrick Donnelly’s
translation of the Dialogue on the Two Natures in Christ, the renowned biography of
MacCulloch on Cranmer and his later article on the relation of Martyr and Cranmer in
Campi,Vermigli. Humanism,Republicanism,pp. 173–201, and also Paul Rorem’s seminal
articles on the epistolary debates between Calvin and Bullinger leading up to the Consensus
Tigurinus. Not to be excluded in all of this is McLelland’s older work on Martyr’s
Eucharistic thought, Visible Words. Where McLelland in Visible Words saw an essential
unity between Bucer, Martyr, Cranmer and Calvin, owing largely to the praises they heaped
on one another, Rorem has taken a far different view, seeing the gulf that separated Geneva
and Zurich, a gulf bridged by pulling Geneva to Zurich. My own thoughts on this are
largely guided by arguments some years older that involved an exchange between dom
Gregory Dix and one G.B. Timms. Dix in his often cited work The Shape of the Liturgy
(London, 1945) had accused Cranmer of holding a doctrine of ‘real absence’ (pp. 640–56)
that left him indistinguishable from Zwingli. This incited Timms to defend Cranmer’s
doctrine in his pamphlet Dixit Cranmer. A reply to Dom Gregory (Acluin Club Papers,
May 1946). Rising to the challenge Dix responded with ‘Dixit Cranmer et non Timuit’
(Church Quarterly Review, March 1948, Vol CXLV, p. 145 sqq), in which Dix cited
passages about the spiritual eating of Christ and the nourishment faith gained from the
Eucharist, only to reveal that he had garnered them all indeed from Cranmer, but Cranmer
was citing Hooper, Bullinger and Zwingli. The exchange was consummated by Cyril
Richardson’s Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist – Cranmer dixit et Contradixit
(Evanston, IL, 1949). Richardson took a bit more nuanced approach to the archbishop, but
nonetheless essentially agrees in distinguishing Cranmer, Bullinger and Zwingli on the one
side of the Reformed divide, Bucer and Calvin on the other. Jewel’s own ‘A Treatise on the
Sacraments’ is only a posthumous reworking of some of his sermon material by his
http://www.ebook3000.com