As with the previous book that I have read by Andrew Davison (For the Parish) I left this book with a mixture of appreciation for his clear prose and passionate argument and frustration at his one-sidedness and special pleading. In fairness, the latter comment can be countered by saying that (a) the book is only 150 pages long and so hardly has space for nuanced argument and (b) he self-consciously writes from the Anglican Catholic tradition so why should he be expected to put himself in the shoes of a more Protestant and Evangelical reader. Even so...
Much of sacramental theology seems to be a post-hoc rationalisation of early church practice that developed over the first few centuries. There are seven sacraments, because seven is a Biblical number. But why those seven, and why limit them to seven (or expand past two - the Reformers sacramental number)? Confirmation squeezes in although Davison is fairly acrobatic in explaining why. Foot washing, despite it being a clear command of Jesus, does not. Presumably foot-washing fell out of practice fairly early on in Church life and so didn't make the cut. Anointing the sick is a sacrament, but not exorcism even though I think the Gospels treat these two aspects of ministry as distinct.
The answer as to these oddities is explained, in the Catholic tradition, as an affirmation of the mind of the Church transmitted to us through tradition (although confirmation is a Western, not an Eastern, tradition). That is fine and holds up within that theological worldview but Davison undercuts it once he discusses marriage and in particular the possibility of same-sex marriage. Tradition certainly doesn't support the latter, but Davison notes that the majority of modern theologians do. Hmm.
Aquinas and Aristotle feature heavily in this book, as might be expected. Davison comes down on the side of transubstantiation in the Eucharistic debate, finding much to commend in Aristotle's idea of substance and accidence. He doesn't ask the question as to whether Jesus and Paul would have had Aristotle at the forefront of their minds when they broke bread. Perhaps it doesn't really matter, although I would be inclined to apply Occam's Razor in this instance. He is right - contra Zwingli - to insist that whatever we make of Jesus' words, the early church had no truck with the idea that Jesus was simply asking his disciples to remember a spiritual event. "This is my Body" must mean so much more than that.
As with For the Parish, the great strength of Davison's writing is that he invites us to joust with him. As before, I ended up disagreeing with him and questioning his ideas at a number of points, but all the more stimulated intellectually because of it.