laudable Practice

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 ...