laudable Practice

Continuing with his account of the doctrine of Absolution in A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer, Volume I (1796), John Shepherd turns to the Holy Communion: The sacrament of the Lord's Supper was likewise an absolution, and was called το τελειον, the perfection of a Christian. To all who had never fallen into the greater sins, which required public penance, it was a general absolution. It was likewise an absolution from the penalties of excommunication. To faithfully partake of the Lord's Supper is "a general absolution". This, Shepherd notes, was a patristic understanding: To penitents at the point of death, it was, what the Latin fathers call viaticum, or provision for the passage from this life to the future. In case the sick penitent recovered, he was obliged to perform the rest of the prescribed penance: at least he was to receive the imposition of hands at the altar, which was accompanied with prayers for his absolution. But if he...

These weekly readings from Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner commenced at the beginning of September 2025 . We are now over one-third of our way through the work. This being so, it seems like an appropriate time to take a break from the Answer to Gardiner , before returning later this year. We end this section of readings with Cranmer saying of Gardiner's teaching, "in the sacrament mak[ing] so many divisions": For you divide the substances of bread and wine from their proper accidences, the substances also of Christ's flesh and blood from their own accidences, and Christ's very flesh sacramentally from his very blood, although you join them again, per concomitantiam; and you divide the sacrament so, that the priest receiveth both the sacrament of Christ's body and of his blood; and the laypeople, as you call them, receive no more but the sacrament of his body, as though the sacrament of his blood and of our redemption pertained only to the priests. And the ca...

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 hear...

Of all the descriptions I have read of Cranmer, it is Diarmaid MacCulloch's, in his essay ' Tolerant Cranmer? ', which I find most attractive: "a cautious, well-read humanist". Elsewhere, discussing the biographers of Cranmer, MacCulloch suggests that it is in Cranmer that we see something of what Anglicanism should be: which forces the individual to undertake a good deal of hard thinking in order to make sense of the world around, rather than reaching for some simple model in a book. Not mentioned by MacCulloch amongst Cranmer's biographers, but, I think, an account which points in this direction, evoking the spirit of  "a cautious, well-read humanist", is William Gilpin's 1784  The life of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury . Gilpin was a representative of Georgian England's enlightened clergy and in Cranmer he sees an Erasmian humanist who embodied "wisdom, prudence, learning, moderation" - a precursor, then, of 18th centur...

In the debate with Cranmer, Gardiner turned to the Lord's Words of Institution and the teaching of Cyprian to support the understanding of the Eucharist as "a sacrifice propitiatory", fulfilling the prophecy of Malachi: We read in St. Cyprian how Christ offered himself in his  supper, fulfilling the figure of Melchisedech, who by the offering of  bread and wine, signified that high mystery of Christ's supper, in  which Christ under the form of bread and wine, gave his very  body and blood to be eaten and drunken ...  Now when we have Christ's body thus present in the celebration of the holy Supper, and by Christ's mouth present unto us, saying, This is my body which is betrayed for you; then have we Christ's body recommended unto us as our sacrifice, and a sacrifice propitiatory for all the sins of the world, being the only sacrifice of Christ's Church, the pure and clean sacrifice, whereof the prophet Malachie spake, and whereof the fathers in Christ...

Heare us (O merciful father) we besech thee; and with thy holy spirite and worde, vouchsafe to blesse and sanctifie these thy gyftes, and creatures of bread and wyne, that they maie be unto us the bodye and bloude of thy moste derely beloved sonne Jesus Christe. This invocation from BCP 1549 provided another opportunity for Gardiner to mischievously use the text of Cranmer's liturgy to argue against its author's eucharistic theology. According to Gardiner: The body of Christ is by God's omnipotency, who so worketh in his word, made present unto us at such time as the Church prayeth it may please him so to do, which prayer is ordered to be made in the Book of Common Prayer now set forth. Wherein we require of God the creatures of bread and wine to be sanctified, and to be to us the body and blood of Christ, which they cannot be, unless God worketh it, and make them so to be ... by the conversion of the substance of bread into his precious body. One can imagine Cranmer's...

In his Answer to Gardiner (1551), Cranmer had to address Gardiner's allegation that his view of the Sacraments of the Old and New Covenants, as both being a participation in Christ, was "a novelty of speech". Cranmer, we should note, entirely rejected what we might term 'Scriptural primitivism' - that is, a belief that a thousand years of erroneous teaching within the Churches was of little concern as that was required was to return to Scripture. Instead, Cranmer invoked the genealogy for Reformed eucharistic teachings that he had previously set out in this work , with particular regard to how it also supported the Reformed emphasis on the sacraments of the New Covenant working as did the sacraments of the Old Covenant.  The last post in this series demonstrated how this understanding of the sacraments was " after the mind of St. Augustine ". Cranmer, however, did not stop with the great Augustine. He then turned to the 9th century Frankish divine Ratra...

Amongst the points of debate between Gardiner and Cranmer, in Answer to Gardiner (1551), was the nature of the sacraments of the Old Covenant: were they a sign of the people of Israel partaking of Christ? While Gardiner's key point is that the sacraments of the Old Covenant were not a means of partaking of Christ, his position is less than clearly stated as he is forced to admit that "in a sense" that those of the Old Covenant did so partake of Christ: Their sacraments were figures of the things, but ours contain the very things. And therefore albeit in a sense to the learned men, it may be verified, that the fathers did eat the body of Christ and drink his blood, yet there is no such form of words in Scripture, and it is more agreeable to the simplicity of Scripture to say, the fathers before Christ's nativity did not eat the body and blood of Christ, which body and blood Christ himself truly took of the body of the Virgin Mary.  A chief difficulty for Gardiner, of ...

One of the consistent themes in Gardiner's critique of Cranmer is the accusation of inconsistency - that Cranmer is denying his previous writings in order to further radicalize his eucharistic doctrine. In this extract, Gardiner draws attention to Cranmer using the word "there" - in the sacrament - with reference to the gift of the Lord's Body and Blood: This is here worthy a special note, how by the manner of the speech in the latter part of this difference, the teaching seemeth to be, that Christ is spiritually present in the sacrament, because of the word "there," which thou, reader, mayest compare how it agreeth with the rest of this author's doctrine.  Cranmer's response, in his Answer to Gardiner (1551), is not to deny that the Lord's Body and Blood is present "there". Christ is indeed truly present "there" - in the faithful eating of the Bread and Wine: And where of  this word "there," you would conclude rep...

But from the beginning the mystery of the sacrament hath been with wonder marvelled at, how Christ made bread his body, and wine his blood, and under the figure of those visible creatures, gave invisibly his precious body and blood presently there.  Gardiner's critique of Cranmer's sacramental theology is familiar. In Anglicanism, it was increasingly voiced by Tractarians as they parted ways with the Old High tradition. In the 20th century, Gregory Dix became is chief proponent - aided, ironically, by evangelicals such as Colin Buchanan, who shared an interest in denying the rich and vibrant sacramental vision of the founder of the Prayer Book tradition. Gardiner's view of Cranmer is still to be heard amongst those who regard the 1662 Holy Communion as insufficiently 'catholic'.  Cranmer's response, in his Answer to Gardiner (1551) powerfully sets forth why such impoverished readings of his sacramental theology should be banished. The sacraments are indeed ...

In the  previous post  in this series, we have seen how Gardiner enjoyed invoking the Holy Communion in BCP 1549 against Cranmer. We now come to another example of this: In the  Book of Common Prayer, now at this time set forth in this realm, it is ordered to teach the people, that in each part of the bread consecrate, broken, is the whole body of our Saviour Christ, which is agreeable to the catholic doctrine. Gardiner is here referring to the rubric at the conclusion of the 1549 Holy Communion, explaining why communicants received a broken rather than unbroken wafer: For advoyding of all matters and occasyon of dyscencyon, it is mete that the breade prepared for the Communion, bee made, through all thys realme, after one sort and fashion: that is to say, unleavened, and rounde, as it was afore, but without all maner of printe, and somethyng more larger and thicker than it was, so that it may be aptly devided in divers pieces: and every one shall be devided in two piec...

In his Answer to Gardiner (1551), Cranmer had to address a point that Gardiner clearly delighted in emphasising - that Cranmer's developing eucharistic theology stood apart from the 1549 Book of Common Prayer and the Catechism Cranmer himself had published in 1548: Truth it is, as St. Augustine saith, we receive in the sacrament the body of Christ with our mouth, and such speech other use, as a book set forth in the Archbishop of Canterbury's name, called a Catechism, willeth children to be taught, that they receive with their bodily mouth the body and blood of Christ; which I allege, because it shall appear it is a teaching set forth among us of late, as hath been also and is by the book of Common Prayer, being the most true catholic doctrine of the substance of the sacrament, in that it is there so catholicly spoken of, which book this author doth after specially allow, howsoever all the sum of his teaching doth improve [i.e. change] it in that point. So much is he contrary ...

Resuming weekly readings from Cranmer's Answer to Gardiner (1551), we turn to Gardiner challenging Cranmer's account of our true feeding on Christ. This account, insists Gardiner, falls far short of catholic teaching: But the catholic teaching, by the Scriptures, goeth further, confessing Christ to feed such as be regenerate in him, not only by his body and blood, but also with his body and blood delivered in this sacrament by him indeed to us, which the faithful, by his institution and commandment, receive with their faith and with their mouth also, and with those special dainties be fed specially at Christ's table. Before proceeding to Cranmer's response, we might note how Gardiner uses the phrase "at Christ's table", suggesting that the use of 'table' with reference to the altar was not necessarily an inherently Reformed usage. In terms of Cranmer's response, he again declares that he does not disagree with Gardiner's statement that Ch...