Problems of Authority in the Reformation Debates by G. R. Evans (review)

326 BOOK REVIEWS the notion has been abstracted from sensible things. Zdybicka's approach to religion, then, stands in contrast to Karl Rahner's in his Hearers of the Word which relies heavily upon the philosophy of transcendental method that he sets out in Spirit in the World. Gilson's interpretation of Aquinas, which appears to be operative in Lublin Thomism, has never been seriously taken up into Catholic systematic theology. Perhaps with the dissemination of Lang's "Catholic Thought from Lublin " this will change. Center for Thomistic Studies Houston, Texas JOHN F. x. KNASAS Problems of Authority in the Reformation Debates. By G. R. EVANS. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992. Pp. xvi & 328. $59.95 (cloth). In this attractively presented, carefully constructed, and clearly articulated study, G. R. Evans seeks to "piece together underlying connections and habits of thought in the huge collective endeavour of the theology of the Reformation period " in order to " glimpse the shadow of a systematic theology of authority and to begin to see why the sixteenth -century attempt to find a theological resolution which all sides could recognise was not successful." Although the content of her study focuses on the sixteenth century, she really has the contemporary ecumenical scene in mind as she writes this book. Thus the author seeks to make a contribution to twentieth-century efforts to remove the stumbling blocks in ecclesial relations which are still vestiges of the sixteenth-century heritage. The theme of authority, as that theme manifested itself in various ways, serves as the unifying thread in the author's exploration of crucial aspects of the theological debates during the Reformation era. Rather than examining all of the fine points of discussion, she focuses particularly on the thought processes and linguistic styles of the antagonists, thereby pointing to what she considers to be the ultimate explanation why the debates failed to foster understanding or resolve conflict. It is her underlying hope that the identification of the reasons for failure will facilitate the contemporary ecumenical agenda and prevent similar mistakes. Evans achieves her goal of clarifying " underlying connections and habits of thought " in the theological discussions of the Reformation era. The following are salient points in her presentation. Evans argues correctly that various methodological factors must be considered as one BOOK REVIEWS 327 seeks to understand the sixteenth-century context. Logic and language were decisive elements in defining the nature and content of the debates . The use of topics (loci) , articles, and disputations in focusing the discussion, identifying essentials, and serving as authoritative articulations of particular positions was also crucial. The proper under· standing of words such as fides, justitia, and justificatio, was essent· tial since it could clarify, divide, or unite. While the reformers sought to employ biblical terms rather than scholastic vocabulary, it became necessary to choose theological neologisms. That choice was a matter of great concern which required much care. In the area of epistemology , the precise relationship between words and things was also discussed . The central issues related to the question of authority are carefully examined in the course of the argument. Evans proceeds from the basic premise that the question of whether Christ's authority was at risk in the church's life and whether Christ's Word, Scripture, was disregarded by the ecclesiastical authorities stood at the center of the Reformation debate . Hence the authority of Scripture and its relationship to other textual authorities (the Fathers, decrees, canons, etc.) was a volatile issue as sixteenth-century theologians argued about the truth of the faith. Questions regarding the authoritative text of Scripture, its mean· ing, and appropriate hermeneutical methods resulted in much discord. While the reformers generally emphasized sola Scriptura, they did not thereby reject the usefulness or necessity of past and contemporary interpretations of Scripture. However, they were concerned that the church might abuse, indeed, had abused, its teaching authority by misinterpreting Scripture and by denying the individual believer's right to interpret and to judge the teachers' and preachers' interpretations. Such claims of authority for the universal priesthood concerned the ecclesial authorities and their theological defenders as the truths of the faith were discussed. Saving authority was still another focus of debate. As...