Brian Douglas sets out in these two very large volumes the fruits of a remarkable enterprise. It is an encyclopaedic analysis of Anglican eucharistic theology on a theological and philosophical basis which then includes no less than 150 case studies using the analysis which he establishes at the beginning of each volume. The two books begin and end with identical opening and closing chapters. He titles these repeated chapters Introduction and Ramifications. No review can do justice to the detail but suffice to say that each case study employs a similar set of tools for analysis but varies in length depending on the significance of the author or source. So, for example, John Macquarrie is analysed in 27 pages but Edmund Arbuthnott Knox receives just one page in the book.
The Introduction sets out the basis of Douglas's thesis. He begins with the question: ‘Is there an Anglican eucharistic theology and if so what is its nature?’ He follows this question by asking about the nature of Anglicanism itself and quotes a variety of commentators. So, John Whale sees Anglicanism as ineluctably multiform, and Rowan Williams is quoted for his reflections on different views within the Anglican Communion: some see the Anglican Communion as exactly that and defined in theological terms on the basis of a koinonia basis – others see the Communion as unavoidably federal in its nature with a far looser theological base. As Douglas's argument unfolds he presses the issue of multiformity seeing it as virtually self-evident. He then argues, however, that there must necessarily be a search for coherence and integrity. This, he believes, may be achieved through contemporary philosophical discourse followed by a systematic and rigorous application of this to a series of case studies which are pursued chronologically. Different philosophical assumptions, he argues, result in a spectrum of varying eucharistic traditions.
The two key figures in Douglas's philosophical analysis are David Armstrong, an Australian philosopher and Jürgen Habermas. The two philosophical notions which emerge as critical are those of realism and nominalism. In terms of eucharistic theology the essential difference here is how signs and symbols relate to the reality they signify. Those who accept a link between signs and what they signify are designated realists; those who reject such a link are described as nominalists. Nominalism can be traced back to the Reformers including Thomas Cranmer himself. The distinction is of particular importance in relation to an understanding of Christ's ‘presence’ in the Eucharist. Realists would affirm such presence and nominalists would opt for a form of ‘memorialism’. So, in the twenty-first century Douglas counts the American Paul Zahl and the Australian, Peter Jensen as nominalists.
Douglas further establishes a distinction between moderate and immoderate realism. The vast majority of Anglican realist eucharistic theologians are moderate realists, as indeed are Roman Catholic realists going back to Aquinas. Amongst contemporary Anglicans, for example, David Ford talks of a non-relational or moderate realism ‘where the bread and wine instantiates the nature of Christ's body and blood in the Eucharist as identity in nature’ (Douglas, Vols. I and II, p. 33). Douglas argues that the notion of realism can also be inferred in the scriptures and points specifically to the prologue to John's Gospel, ‘And the Word became flesh and lived among us’. Ultimately Douglas notes that despite the multiformity of different eucharistic traditions, Anglicanism retains an integrity where it moves past the hermeneutic idealism which sometimes surfaces in the claim to be the only valid interpretation (p. 63). Douglas is thus arguing for a proper discourse between the multiform expressions of eucharistic theology within the Anglican tradition.
Within his repeated Ramifications analysis, which follows the case studies, Douglas notes a frequent occurrence of moderate realist expressions and a significant minority of nominalist expressions. In all this Douglas argues that dialogue between the different traditions is essential. The danger, he notes, is that each tradition wishes to conceptualize its own approach. Reverting to Habermas's analysis he distinguishes between ‘life worlds’ and ‘world concepts’. Life worlds include the distinctive approaches; world concepts define the broader system – in this case the Anglican tradition as a whole. The need is to objectify one's life world in order that one might stand ‘outside it’. This is achieved by what Habermas describes as communicable action. Anglican eucharistic theology (even in its multiformity) is to be seen as a ‘system paradigm’ within the much larger system paradigm of worldwide Anglicanism. Life worlds are not to be closed off from each other. The aim is not to seek consensus but to acknowledge multiformity.
It would be tedious here to list even a few from the very comprehensive list of case studies included in these two volumes. Douglas uses the evidence he believes they provide to support his overall thesis. The second volume indicates something of a shift – notably through the Anglo-Catholic Congresses and the rise of Anglo Catholicism – in the early twentieth century. Nonetheless this does not invalidate his main thesis; even here moderate realism is predominant. Despite this Herculean study, some issues remain. Convinced nominalists and equally convinced moderate realists will remain clear of what they believe to be the true philosophical and theological basis of their tradition. Dialogue and communicative action are unquestionably crucial, but where the disputants believe there to be objective truth claims at stake there will not be agreement. This stands behind the complex process of liturgical revision in different Anglican provinces with the different parties arguing their corners. This suggests that this remarkable enterprise may be of greatest value in the panoramic analysis of case studies and it thus offers a reference work of some enduring value. The analytical tools used have made this possible but competing truth claims remain.
