Since Christ, an important part of the history of true Christianity proceeded from and among the English speaking people.  Whatever good came from the English, which affected the whole world, related to a populist association with the Bible.  The populist movement against Roman Catholicism in sixteenth century England corresponded to respect for the Word of God.  Two main figures served as a conduit for the fulfillment of the English Reformation:  King Henry VIII and Archbishop Thomas Cranmer.  The former clashed with the pope for personal reasons and the latter for doctrinal ones.

Henry VIII served like a wrecking ball, while Cranmer worked more behind the scenes, picking his opportunities to exact systemic changes to the entire nation.  These positive words do not serve as an endorsement of the Church of England.  They explain an important departure from Catholic authority over the nation, opening the door for further deference to scripture.  True New Testament churches benefitted from this work.

A direction toward freedom of conscience and soul liberty traces from King Alfred’s ninth century translation and circulation of the ten commandments, the psalms, and the four gospels in Old English.  In the late fourteenth century John Wycliffe produced a hand written translation of the entire Bible into the vernacular.  His followers, the Lollards, were persecuted by authority, but populist seed was scattered.  William Tyndale brought about the first printed edition of the New Testament into English in 1525.  Shortly thereafter, Miles Coverdale finished Tyndale’s work with an entire English Bible in 1535.

Three major events in Cranmer’s life shaped his biblical influence on England.  First, Cranmer’s work as a scholar at Cambridge drew the attention of Cardinal Wolsey for the justification of the annulment of Henry’s marriage to Catharine of Aragon.  Wolsey took Cranmer’s suggestion to canvass European theologians for their opinion rather than the Pope.  Second, when Cranmer became ambassador to the Holy Roman Emperor, he intersected with influential reformers, who opposed Roman Catholicism.  Third, he married Margarete, niece of Andreas Osiander’s wife, leader of reform in Nuremberg.  To keep peace with the Catholic Church in England, the pope allowed for Cranmer’s appointment as Archbishop of Canterbury in 1533.  Henry was far less the Protestant, but his annulment and then marriage to Anne Boleyn, aligned him with Cranmer.  He became sympathetic with separation from Rome.

Jumping past Henry’s death in 1547, Cranmer had exerted great influence in the upbringing and training of Henry’s only son, Edward VI.   At Edward’s coronation, Cranmer called Edward a second Josiah and encouraged him to continue reformation of the Church of England.  Edward trusted Cranmer more than anyone. Cranmer saw the pope and the Mass as enemies of true Christianity and especially in the Mass.  For him, the Mass was false doctrine that resulted in the condemnation of men.  In 1550, Cranmer published a paper, “A Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of our Savior Christ.”  Cranmer rejected the Roman Catholic theology of the Mass or its version of the Lord’s Table.

Thomas Cranmer saw the reform of the Eucharist, the Catholic term for the Lord’s Table, as a return to biblical Christianity.  He also thought that the false teaching kept its adherents from the true salvation of their souls.  Cranmer believed the corruption sprang from the popish doctrine of transubstantiation or the physical presence of the real flesh and blood of the Lord Jesus Christ in the elements.  However, Cranmer did believe that Christ was present spiritually at the Table.  Cranmer wrote that the eating and drinking of Christ is the faith of the believer, that those who have believed in Jesus Christ have in them His spiritual presence at the Table through justification by faith.  He said that the presence of Christ was not in the elements.

Cranmer rejected and repudiated the continued sacrifice of Christ at the Mass.  It detracted from the finished work of Christ, His substitutionary, sacrificial death one time on the cross.  He argued that salvation could come only through Christ’s death.  Even though Cranmer believed that the celebration of the Lord’s Table may be a good work, it did not win the favor of God or put away evil.  He also taught that it was a memorial of Christ and spiritual nourishment to the godly.  On the other hand, the belief and practice of the Roman Catholic Church led men into idolatry and endangered their souls, the doctrine of Antichrist.

Upon focusing upon this distinction of Cranmer from the transubstantiation of Roman Catholicism, I ask you reading if the presence of Christ is a factor in the observance of the Lord’s Table?  Roman Catholicism says Christ’s physical presence is in the elements, transubstantiation.  Later leader of the Oxford movement within the Church of England in the early 19th century, Edward Pusey, revived the doctrine of consubstantiation, the real, spiritual presence of Christ in the elements.  This apparently was also Luther’s teaching, rejected by Cranmer.  Cranmer taught not the “real presence” of Christ in the elements, but the “real absence” of Christ in them.  Instead, the presence of Christ is in the converted soul of the believer as he partakes of those elements.

As I grew up in church, I heard three titles:  the Lord’s Table, the Lord’s Supper, and communion.  Very often, I refer to the ordinance taught in Matthew 26 and 1 Corinthians 11 as communion.  When I call it, when anyone calls it, “communion,” what do they mean?  I don’t think I understood that as I grew up in church, but later as I studied 1 Corinthians 10 especially, I did understand.  At the Lord’s Table, God intends for not only communion with the other members of the church by partaking of the one bread, but also communion with Jesus Christ spiritually.  That seems to me like the Cranmer view of the presence of Christ at the Lord’s Table in the believing person who partakes of the elements.

The Apostle Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 10:15-22:

15 I speak as to wise men; judge ye what I say.

16 The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

17 For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

18 Behold Israel after the flesh: are not they which eat of the sacrifices partakers of the altar?

19 What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing?

20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

21 Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

22 Do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? are we stronger than he?

This is where the terminology “communion” comes, referring to the Lord’s Table.  In chapter 10, Paul argues against eating meat offered unto idols because there is the presence of demons with the physical meat.  He says that eating is fellowship with or communion with devils.  Paul uses the Lord’s Table as part of his argument.  He is writing that when someone eats the bread and drinks of the cup, he communes with or fellowship with (same Greek word) Christ.  Those eating things of the Gentile sacrifice commune with devils.

Earlier Paul said the idol was nothing (1 Corinthians 8:10).  It’s not the hunk of wood or stone that is something, but what is behind the idol that is something, which is, as Paul later shows in 1 Corinthians 10, a devil or a demon.  This same teaching goes back to Leviticus and Deuteronomy.  Moses writes that they sacrificed unto devils (Leviticus 17:17, Deuteronomy 32:17). Something spiritually is happening with the offering of the meat to the idol.  Someone comes into communion with a devil or devils just like at the Lord’s Table someone comes into communion with Jesus Christ spiritually.  It is not just a physical act, the Lord’s Table, but a spiritual one.

The same point could be made from the beginning of 1 Corinthians 10:1-4, when Paul says that the passing through the Red Sea for the children of Israel was a spiritual experience.  I believe that Paul makes the same point in 1 Corinthians 12:13.  A spiritual communion exists with the ordinances.  It is more than just a physical act.  God is present and with true believers communion with Him occurs.  The basis for communion with each other is the communion that regenerated, immersed church members have with God.  When believers call it “communion,” we mean “communion” with other believers, but also “communion” with God spiritually.  Hence, God’s spiritual presence is there at the Lord’s Table.