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.<\/p>\n
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 \u201cspiritual presence,\u201d\u009d whether a presence through the Holy Spirit (as in Calvin and Eastern Orthodoxy), or rather \u201csomething else.\u201d\u009d Most commentators interpret them as \u201cvirtualists\u201d\u009d or \u201creceptionists,\u201d\u009d 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019s Supper, Christians genuinely participate in Christ\u2019s 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\u2019s presence, not the reality of Christ\u2019s presence.<\/p>\n