'Endued and clothed with Christ': Cranmer's 'Answer to Gardiner' and the Church's communion with Christ

In the exchange between Gardiner and Cranmer, set forth in Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner (1551), there appears to be the possibility of concord as Gardiner accepts that 'corporal' presence has not the meaning often assumed, as Christ is spiritually present in the Sacrament:

The word corporally may have an ambiguity and doubleness in respect and relation. One is to the truth of the body present, and so it maybe said, Christ is corporally present in the sacrament; but if the word corporally be referred to the manner of the presence, then we should say, Christ's body were present after a corporal manner, which we say not, but in a spiritual manner, and therefore not locally nor by manner of quantity.

Cranmer - rather mischievously - welcomes this agreement, while yet knowing a crucial difference of understanding remains, as pointed to at the conclusion of this extract: 

In this comparison I am glad that at the last we be come so near together, for you be almost right heartily welcome home, and I pray you let us shake hands. For we be agreed, as me seemeth, that Christ's body is present, and the same body that suffered: and we be agreed also of the manner of his presence. For you say that the body of Christ is not present but after a spiritual manner, and so say I also. And if there be any difference between us two, it is but a little, and in this point only; that I say that Christ is but spiritually in the ministration of the sacrament, and you say, that he is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament. 

It is, says Cranmer, "but a little difference" in the understanding of the Lord's spiritual presence in the Sacrament. Gardiner, however, has already declared that the difference is fundamental:

Where this author would have Christ none otherwise present in the sacrament, than he promised to be in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name, it is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, in the words whereof Christ's human body is exhibite and made present with his very flesh to feed us.

For Cranmer, this statement by Gardiner is entirely incoherent. If, as Gardiner has admitted, the nature of Christ's presence in the Sacrament is spiritual, not corporal, how can Cranmer be accused of "a plain abolition of the mystery"?

And why should you be offended with this my saying, that Christ is spiritually present in the assembly of such as be gathered together in his name? And how can you conclude hereof, that this is a plain abolition of the mystery of the sacrament, because that in the celebration of the sacrament I say, that Christ is spiritually present? Have not you confessed yourself, that Christ is in the sacrament but after a spiritual manner? And after that manner he is also among them that be assembled together in his name. And if they that say so, do abolish the mystery of the sacrament, then do you abolish it yourself, by saying, that Christ is but after a spiritual manner in the sacrament, (after which manner you say also, that he is in them that be gathered together in his name,) as well as I do that say, he is spiritually in both. But he that is disposed to pick quarrels, and to calumniate all things, what can be spoken so plainly or meant so sincerely, but he will wrest it into a wrong sense? 

It is at this point that Cranmer rather beautifully expounds the meaning of Christ's spiritual presence to the Church, both sacramentally and apart from the Sacrament:

I say that Christ is spiritually and by grace in his Supper, as he is when two or three be gathered together in his name, meaning that with both he is spiritually, and with neither corporally. And yet I say not, that there is no difference. For this difference there is, that with the one he is sacramentally, and with the other not sacramentally, except they be gathered together in his name to receive the sacrament. Nevertheless the selfsame Christ is present in both, nourisheth and feedeth both, if the sacrament be rightly received.

There is, then, a difference for Cranmer between the Church gathered for the Supper and the Church gathered apart from the Supper. Christ is spiritually present to both, nourishing and feeding. But in the Supper "he is sacramentally" present, with the Sacrament of Bread and Wine assuring and confirming to us His life-giving presence. To suggest, however, that Christ is not present to us and giving Himself to the Church apart from the Supper is contrary to His explicit teaching - "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them" - and also, to return to a repeated theme for Cranmer in this work, undermines the Sacrament of Baptism:

But that is only spiritually, as I say, and only after a spiritual manner, as you say. And you say further, that before we receive the sacrament, we must come endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him. But whosoever is endued and clothed with Christ, hath Christ present with him after a spiritual manner, and hath received Christ whole, both God and man, or else he could not have everlasting life. And therefore is Christ present as well in baptism as in the Lord's Supper. For in baptism be we endued with Christ, and seemly clothed with him, as well as in his holy Supper we eat and drink him.

This emphasises how Cranmer's vision - and the wider Reformed understanding - cannot be presented as 'disenchantment'. Cranmer, we might argue, provides a richer vision than those who limited Christ's presence to Bread and Wine in the Eucharist, for Christ is spiritually present to us, giving Himself to us, in the Holy Supper, in Holy Baptism, and when the Church assembles. Thus we are "endued and clothed with Christ". Here is a joyful vision of our communion with Christ, at the Font, at the Table, and in our assembling together.