What do you think?
Rate this book
The Supper: Cranmer and Communion
'Most illustrious Prince, I have considered that the Supper of the Lord (which has been violated by many and great superstitions, and turned into gain) should be renovated and restored according to the institutions of our Saviour Christ; and I have considered that all should be performed according to the Divine Word and of the Ancient and Holy Church, the care and instruction of which belong in some part to my office'. (Thomas Cranmer, Dedication to King Edward VI, A Defence of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament.) In this fascinating and practical study, Nigel Scotland looks closely at the Service of Holy Communion in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and with further illumination from earlier versions of the Prayer Book and Cranmer's other writings, draws conclusions which may refresh and challenge our contemporary practices. The aim of this 'Anglican Foundations' series which focuses on the Formularies of the Church of England and the elements of the different services within the Prayer Book is to highlight what those services teach about the Christian faith and to demonstrate how they are also designed to shape the practice of that faith. As well as providing an account of the origins of the Prayer Book services, they offer practical guidance on how such services may be used in Christian ministry. Nigel Scotland has spent the greater part of his life lecturing in Church History at what became the University of Gloucestershire. He has served as rector of four country parishes and led a Fresh Expressions church plant for 13 years. Since 2006 he has taught theology students at Trinity College Bristol. He is married to Anne and in their leisure time they enjoy music, walking in the Cotswolds, gardening, visits to the gym and enjoying times with their grand-children. He studied at McGill and Bristol Universities and earned a doctorate at Aberdeen University. He is the author of eighteen books mostly in the area of Christian history.
- GenresChristian
70 pages, Paperback
First published November 22, 2013
3 people are currently reading
5 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
February 26, 2022
This introduction to Cranmer’s theology of the Lord’s Supper is a timely reminder of the importance of understanding what Anglicans believe about the practice itself. When both ecumenism and Anglo-Catholicism threaten the distinctive Anglican identity, Nigel Scotland offers a fresh examination of what Cranmer himself believed about communion as expressed both in the liturgies and his formal doctrinal writings (12).
Scotland begins by affirming Cranmer’s reformational project; though his theology was a work in progress, Cranmer understood himself in line with the continental reformers against the papists and Medieval Roman Church of his time. He believed that Christianity is an “affair of the heart” (10), which means that genuine worship is an expression of genuine faith in Christ alone for salvation (14). This faith is in the person and work of Jesus Christ which are illustrated in the gospel sacraments. The Lord’s Supper “enshrines the good news of the gospel in [a] way that no other meal does” (13). The communion elements are not miraculous in themselves, nor do they provide salvation in themselves; rather, they affirm, strengthen, and symbolize the gospel message. The remainder of the book is a detailed analysis of Cranmer’s theology of the Lord’s Supper. Chapter three provides details on the arguments against transubstantiation, and the following chapters all provide a positive theology of what the Lord’s Supper is. Since Christ is corporally in heaven, he cannot be physically present in the bread and wine; instead, they should worship him sacramentally, “‘as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified’” (20, citing Cranmer, Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, 4.11). In other words, believers receive Christ through the bread and wine as a sign. What exactly is being signified takes up the last five chapters in Scotland’s work.
Chapter four defines communion as a fellowship meal, both between the Father and the church as well as the Christians gathered together (29). The meal serves as a visual reminder of the unity of Christ’s church placed within the context of the early church’s breaking of bread in their homes (33–34). The next chapter describes the eucharist as a “feast of spiritual food” (35). The elements are consecrated by the faithful when they are received in faith. In other words, a person received Christ’s spiritual presence when they ate and drank with faith (37). Along with publicly reading the Scriptures and delivering homilies, Cranmer believed that consuming the eucharistic elements in faith allowed the communicant to “obtain remission of [their] sins and all other benefits of his passion” (40–42). The communion service provides spiritual nourishment as it strengthens faith.
In chapter six, Scotland explores communion as a meal for remembrance. Just as the Passover meal served as a reminder of the Israelite exodus from Egyptian bondage, so too the eucharistic meal serves as a reminder of the Christian’s exodus from bondage to sin (45). Chapter seven concludes this portion of the book by defining the eucharist as a thanksgiving meal “for our redemption and all the blessings of this life” (50–51). Worship without thanksgiving is dead, for there is nothing else that believers can offer God except thanks for what he has already done for them. The book concludes with a series of applications for today’s church. Parishes interested in historic Anglicanism would do well to note that Cranmer placed an extraordinary emphasis, both in his doctrinal work but also in his liturgy, on the importance of faith, proclamation of the gospel through homilies, and public Scripture reading (54). The eucharist is a tool to be used in this sense: the elements are not ends in themselves, nor are they beneficial if they are received without faith. Instead, they exist to deepen the believer’s fellowship with God and the church and strengthen his own bonds of faith.
This book is poorly written and contains a number of typographical errors and inconsistencies in spelling, grammar, and formatting. Scotland makes bald assertions without providing evidence and presupposes a certain ethos surrounding the church service itself: "If we really want to reach out to those who are total strangers to the Christian faith we should be offering something on Sundays that avoids the strange, the uncomfortable or the esoteric" (53). How foolish! Christianity itself is strange, uncomfortable, and esoteric. Why should our services be any different?
Scotland begins by affirming Cranmer’s reformational project; though his theology was a work in progress, Cranmer understood himself in line with the continental reformers against the papists and Medieval Roman Church of his time. He believed that Christianity is an “affair of the heart” (10), which means that genuine worship is an expression of genuine faith in Christ alone for salvation (14). This faith is in the person and work of Jesus Christ which are illustrated in the gospel sacraments. The Lord’s Supper “enshrines the good news of the gospel in [a] way that no other meal does” (13). The communion elements are not miraculous in themselves, nor do they provide salvation in themselves; rather, they affirm, strengthen, and symbolize the gospel message. The remainder of the book is a detailed analysis of Cranmer’s theology of the Lord’s Supper. Chapter three provides details on the arguments against transubstantiation, and the following chapters all provide a positive theology of what the Lord’s Supper is. Since Christ is corporally in heaven, he cannot be physically present in the bread and wine; instead, they should worship him sacramentally, “‘as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified’” (20, citing Cranmer, Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament, 4.11). In other words, believers receive Christ through the bread and wine as a sign. What exactly is being signified takes up the last five chapters in Scotland’s work.
Chapter four defines communion as a fellowship meal, both between the Father and the church as well as the Christians gathered together (29). The meal serves as a visual reminder of the unity of Christ’s church placed within the context of the early church’s breaking of bread in their homes (33–34). The next chapter describes the eucharist as a “feast of spiritual food” (35). The elements are consecrated by the faithful when they are received in faith. In other words, a person received Christ’s spiritual presence when they ate and drank with faith (37). Along with publicly reading the Scriptures and delivering homilies, Cranmer believed that consuming the eucharistic elements in faith allowed the communicant to “obtain remission of [their] sins and all other benefits of his passion” (40–42). The communion service provides spiritual nourishment as it strengthens faith.
In chapter six, Scotland explores communion as a meal for remembrance. Just as the Passover meal served as a reminder of the Israelite exodus from Egyptian bondage, so too the eucharistic meal serves as a reminder of the Christian’s exodus from bondage to sin (45). Chapter seven concludes this portion of the book by defining the eucharist as a thanksgiving meal “for our redemption and all the blessings of this life” (50–51). Worship without thanksgiving is dead, for there is nothing else that believers can offer God except thanks for what he has already done for them. The book concludes with a series of applications for today’s church. Parishes interested in historic Anglicanism would do well to note that Cranmer placed an extraordinary emphasis, both in his doctrinal work but also in his liturgy, on the importance of faith, proclamation of the gospel through homilies, and public Scripture reading (54). The eucharist is a tool to be used in this sense: the elements are not ends in themselves, nor are they beneficial if they are received without faith. Instead, they exist to deepen the believer’s fellowship with God and the church and strengthen his own bonds of faith.
This book is poorly written and contains a number of typographical errors and inconsistencies in spelling, grammar, and formatting. Scotland makes bald assertions without providing evidence and presupposes a certain ethos surrounding the church service itself: "If we really want to reach out to those who are total strangers to the Christian faith we should be offering something on Sundays that avoids the strange, the uncomfortable or the esoteric" (53). How foolish! Christianity itself is strange, uncomfortable, and esoteric. Why should our services be any different?
Read
July 17, 2025The positive: I thought the author did a good job of teasing out all the mentions of the heart in the Eucharistic liturgy—tying it back to an Augustinian notion of affections. God is working on our hearts in Communion.
But as for the negatives, three horrendous quotes and my thoughts:
1: "it is hard not to believe that had he [Cranmer] lived longer and because his theology really was a work in progress that he would have gone on to advocate celebrating communion in the home"
2: "if we return to the early church practice and encourage home-based Holy Communion"
3: "if we really want to reach out to those who are total strangers to the Christian faith we should be offering something on Sundays that avoids the strange, the uncomfortable or the esoteric"
Response to 1: a) This is a terrible 'trajectory' based argument asserted without evidence. If there evidence of this movement, it is not offered. b) Even if Cranmer was headed that way, Anglicans are not 'Cranmerians'. We are assuredly indebted to Cranmer, but we cannot simply locate Anglicanism in the brain of Cranmer. Even if we could hook up at CT scan and track every synapse that was firing in Cranmer's brain, Anglicanism still is not reducible to his thinking alone. The church did not reform in order to make Cranmer the new infallible Pope.
Response to 2: The author seems to forget that they met in houses (and other places) out of necessity not proclivity. Yes, Holy Communion took place in houses at the beginning because they could not build churches. But as they could, they did. But regardless, communion at home in the early church was still a gathering of the church led by the presbyters and deacons. He performs an incredibly misleading bait-and-switch that fundamentally misunderstands what the evidence of the Bible and early church documents say.
Response to 3: a) I just do not, fundamentally, agree that the service of the church on Sundays is solely about evangelism to unbelievers. Its also a worship service to God. Its a time of feeding by the Body on Christ in Word and Sacrament. Yes, it can also teach and evangelize unbelievers. But its not reducible to just a missional venture. Let's say the whole world became Christians; would church be unnecessary then? Of course not. b) The idea that we need to make the Church as comfortable as possible and cut out things Christ specifically commands us to do when we gather is absurd and unbiblical. It also doesn't work. Do you think 45 minute expository preaching services are more 'relevant' to the modern person? Seeker-sensitive Ted-talks have not produced the revival they promised.
But as for the negatives, three horrendous quotes and my thoughts:
1: "it is hard not to believe that had he [Cranmer] lived longer and because his theology really was a work in progress that he would have gone on to advocate celebrating communion in the home"
2: "if we return to the early church practice and encourage home-based Holy Communion"
3: "if we really want to reach out to those who are total strangers to the Christian faith we should be offering something on Sundays that avoids the strange, the uncomfortable or the esoteric"
Response to 1: a) This is a terrible 'trajectory' based argument asserted without evidence. If there evidence of this movement, it is not offered. b) Even if Cranmer was headed that way, Anglicans are not 'Cranmerians'. We are assuredly indebted to Cranmer, but we cannot simply locate Anglicanism in the brain of Cranmer. Even if we could hook up at CT scan and track every synapse that was firing in Cranmer's brain, Anglicanism still is not reducible to his thinking alone. The church did not reform in order to make Cranmer the new infallible Pope.
Response to 2: The author seems to forget that they met in houses (and other places) out of necessity not proclivity. Yes, Holy Communion took place in houses at the beginning because they could not build churches. But as they could, they did. But regardless, communion at home in the early church was still a gathering of the church led by the presbyters and deacons. He performs an incredibly misleading bait-and-switch that fundamentally misunderstands what the evidence of the Bible and early church documents say.
Response to 3: a) I just do not, fundamentally, agree that the service of the church on Sundays is solely about evangelism to unbelievers. Its also a worship service to God. Its a time of feeding by the Body on Christ in Word and Sacrament. Yes, it can also teach and evangelize unbelievers. But its not reducible to just a missional venture. Let's say the whole world became Christians; would church be unnecessary then? Of course not. b) The idea that we need to make the Church as comfortable as possible and cut out things Christ specifically commands us to do when we gather is absurd and unbiblical. It also doesn't work. Do you think 45 minute expository preaching services are more 'relevant' to the modern person? Seeker-sensitive Ted-talks have not produced the revival they promised.
June 5, 2025
This is an excellent little book, managing to pack in a fully rounded exposition of the orthodox, evangelical Anglican understanding of The Lord’s Supper into sixty-odd pages. Some will undoubtedly be unhappy with Scotland’s advocacy for lay presidency at Communion (on that, more below), but otherwise, he says little that could be considered to be controversial.
Scotland spends the majority of the book outlining several facets of our understanding of Communion. These include the fact that Communion is a depiction of the Gospel; that the bread and wine are ordinary; that it is a meal for fellowship; that it is a meal of spiritual food; that it is a meal for remembrance; and that it is a thanksgiving meal. Taken together, these considerations make up the theologically rich and profound reformed-catholic Anglican understanding of Communion.
Finally, Scotland briefly considers some of the implications of all of this for our contemporary practice of celebrating Communion. The first is the fact that Communion is not an optional extra, tacked on quickly at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer or relegated to a short early morning service. Nor, secondly, does Communion need to be the main or central aspect of our Sunday worship, and can be celebrated in the context of other church gatherings (such as home groups or fellowship meals). Third, while our liturgical heritage is invaluable, we should ensure there is a greater emphasis on teaching and biblical exposition, and especially in a culture where there is less general understanding of what Communion is and why we celebrate it. Fourth, we would benefit from dedicating more time to Communion, rather than the typical tendency to rush through it (often at the end of our Sunday services). Finally, Cranmer's understanding of consecration has important implications for the concept of lay presidency at Communion.
I have no issue with lay presidency as long as the diocesan bishop and the presbyter of the local church are satisfied that all is being done in good order. My argument for this has always been a practical and pragmatic one: if laymen can be trusted to preach God’s word, then what justification is there for saying that they cannot administer the sacraments? And if such practice becomes a regular feature of local church life, then lay eldership and licensing by the diocesan bishop would seem to be a suitable safeguard against error. What Scotland adds is a theological justification for lay presidency that I have not considered before: the question of consecration of the bread and wine, and more specifically, who consecrates them. Scotland comments that, “Cranmer is also clear that it is not the minister or priest who consecrates bread and wine but it is the communicants rightly receiving them who do so, as they eat and drink in faith and in consequence feed on the spiritual presence of Christ. If we can accept Cranmer's view that by eating and drinking with faith and love for Christ each communicant consecrates the bread and wine, it makes the concept of lay presidency a logical one. It is doubtful however that such an idea would ever have entered Cranmer's mind. Nevertheless it is clear that in early times the New Passover, like its Jewish predecessor, was celebrated in small groups or family gatherings in the home with only a lay person presiding.”
Later, he comments provocatively on both lay presidency and the overly ceremonial and priestly approach to communion taken by many contemporary (even evangelical) Anglican presbyters: “Cranmer's understanding of consecration points forward to the rightness of lay celebration. Cranmer, as has been noted, was clear that there was no one specific moment of consecration of the bread and wine. The bread and wine were consecrated or set apart for holy use as each believer ate and drank with faith and trust in Christ, remembering his death and passion. If this is accepted then it becomes clear as Cranmer himself saw that the priest or minister is simply the duly appointed official who serves at the table. He or she is in no way ontologically different by virtue of having received an ordination at the bishop's hands. Cranmer was totally clear on this point. It is plain enough that Cranmer was of course seeking to rid the newly formed Church of England of the priest as a mystery 'hocus pocus" man who could turn bread into God at the altar. It is also clear that had Cranmer been alive at the present time he would probably not have been happy with the role played by many contemporary clergy in their officiating role at Communion services.”
While he may go too far for some (advocating for Communion to be celebrated as part of a fellowship meal and apart from the public worship of the gathered local church), when it comes to lay presidency, I feel he makes a strong case. This, along with the other practical matters I highlighted above, makes this little book a really valuable resource for contemporary Anglicans as we work through how to live faithfully as such today. For me, this is one of the highlights so far of the Anglican Foundations series.
“For Cranmer the Lord's Supper is the very heart of Christian worship. It is first and foremost a focus on the cross and the all sufficient death and resurrection of Christ through which alone salvation and eternal life are possible. It is the means by which each individual Christian believer is able to draw near and remain in close touch with Christ such that 'we might dwell in Him and He in us'. It is also, as Cranmer's own catechism reminds us, 'for the strengthening and refreshing of our souls'.”
Scotland spends the majority of the book outlining several facets of our understanding of Communion. These include the fact that Communion is a depiction of the Gospel; that the bread and wine are ordinary; that it is a meal for fellowship; that it is a meal of spiritual food; that it is a meal for remembrance; and that it is a thanksgiving meal. Taken together, these considerations make up the theologically rich and profound reformed-catholic Anglican understanding of Communion.
Finally, Scotland briefly considers some of the implications of all of this for our contemporary practice of celebrating Communion. The first is the fact that Communion is not an optional extra, tacked on quickly at the end of Morning or Evening Prayer or relegated to a short early morning service. Nor, secondly, does Communion need to be the main or central aspect of our Sunday worship, and can be celebrated in the context of other church gatherings (such as home groups or fellowship meals). Third, while our liturgical heritage is invaluable, we should ensure there is a greater emphasis on teaching and biblical exposition, and especially in a culture where there is less general understanding of what Communion is and why we celebrate it. Fourth, we would benefit from dedicating more time to Communion, rather than the typical tendency to rush through it (often at the end of our Sunday services). Finally, Cranmer's understanding of consecration has important implications for the concept of lay presidency at Communion.
I have no issue with lay presidency as long as the diocesan bishop and the presbyter of the local church are satisfied that all is being done in good order. My argument for this has always been a practical and pragmatic one: if laymen can be trusted to preach God’s word, then what justification is there for saying that they cannot administer the sacraments? And if such practice becomes a regular feature of local church life, then lay eldership and licensing by the diocesan bishop would seem to be a suitable safeguard against error. What Scotland adds is a theological justification for lay presidency that I have not considered before: the question of consecration of the bread and wine, and more specifically, who consecrates them. Scotland comments that, “Cranmer is also clear that it is not the minister or priest who consecrates bread and wine but it is the communicants rightly receiving them who do so, as they eat and drink in faith and in consequence feed on the spiritual presence of Christ. If we can accept Cranmer's view that by eating and drinking with faith and love for Christ each communicant consecrates the bread and wine, it makes the concept of lay presidency a logical one. It is doubtful however that such an idea would ever have entered Cranmer's mind. Nevertheless it is clear that in early times the New Passover, like its Jewish predecessor, was celebrated in small groups or family gatherings in the home with only a lay person presiding.”
Later, he comments provocatively on both lay presidency and the overly ceremonial and priestly approach to communion taken by many contemporary (even evangelical) Anglican presbyters: “Cranmer's understanding of consecration points forward to the rightness of lay celebration. Cranmer, as has been noted, was clear that there was no one specific moment of consecration of the bread and wine. The bread and wine were consecrated or set apart for holy use as each believer ate and drank with faith and trust in Christ, remembering his death and passion. If this is accepted then it becomes clear as Cranmer himself saw that the priest or minister is simply the duly appointed official who serves at the table. He or she is in no way ontologically different by virtue of having received an ordination at the bishop's hands. Cranmer was totally clear on this point. It is plain enough that Cranmer was of course seeking to rid the newly formed Church of England of the priest as a mystery 'hocus pocus" man who could turn bread into God at the altar. It is also clear that had Cranmer been alive at the present time he would probably not have been happy with the role played by many contemporary clergy in their officiating role at Communion services.”
While he may go too far for some (advocating for Communion to be celebrated as part of a fellowship meal and apart from the public worship of the gathered local church), when it comes to lay presidency, I feel he makes a strong case. This, along with the other practical matters I highlighted above, makes this little book a really valuable resource for contemporary Anglicans as we work through how to live faithfully as such today. For me, this is one of the highlights so far of the Anglican Foundations series.
“For Cranmer the Lord's Supper is the very heart of Christian worship. It is first and foremost a focus on the cross and the all sufficient death and resurrection of Christ through which alone salvation and eternal life are possible. It is the means by which each individual Christian believer is able to draw near and remain in close touch with Christ such that 'we might dwell in Him and He in us'. It is also, as Cranmer's own catechism reminds us, 'for the strengthening and refreshing of our souls'.”
June 24, 2019
Helpful exposition of Cranmer's theological positions on Eucharist and various historical forces at work during the English Reformation. I appreciated the practical section at the end of the book giving suggestions for today's church.
March 15, 2025
Nigel Scotland wrote this book with a particular agenda for what he wants the modern church to be. Rather than a scholarly look at Archbishop Cranmer's historical record, Scotland relied on speculation of what Cranmer's beliefs /might/ have been had he lived longer in order to support his personal preferences.
There's rampant disdain for transubstantiation (totally expected from anyone who upholds the 39 Articles, it would be disappointing if this wasn't the case) and a seemingly full endorsement of memorialism. Only once you get past the halfway point does "real presence" show up.
The conclusions are rather scandalous to any ordained person who is under the authority of a Bishop to uphold the Sacraments of the Church. The suggestion that private lay-celebrated home Communion is not only acceptable but preferred is warrant for distrust of this book and author.
In the end, this is not as advertised. This is not a Cranmer-centric study of Communion. For that, I recommend anything written by Rev Canon Ashley Null. Null is the premier working expert on Cranmerian historical theology, his research and teaching are unmatched.
There's rampant disdain for transubstantiation (totally expected from anyone who upholds the 39 Articles, it would be disappointing if this wasn't the case) and a seemingly full endorsement of memorialism. Only once you get past the halfway point does "real presence" show up.
The conclusions are rather scandalous to any ordained person who is under the authority of a Bishop to uphold the Sacraments of the Church. The suggestion that private lay-celebrated home Communion is not only acceptable but preferred is warrant for distrust of this book and author.
In the end, this is not as advertised. This is not a Cranmer-centric study of Communion. For that, I recommend anything written by Rev Canon Ashley Null. Null is the premier working expert on Cranmerian historical theology, his research and teaching are unmatched.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews