You make a hugely important point with your mention of transubstantiation. As "modern" and relatively secular Americans, we seldom give much thought to the "source" of authority, yet BOTH Church and monarch derived their "legitimacy" through being the "representatives of God on Earth". This is why John Locke's ideas were SO influential-the idea that "men" could make a direct "contract with God for their governance.
This is also why James VI of Scotland (who ascended the English throne and became James I of England), though raised as a Presbyterian, went to extreme lengths to integrate is much of the doctrine of the Church of England into both the Presbyterian Church and other "dissenting" churches-famously saying, "No bishops-no King". His quest to create a more "unified" Christendom in Britain is a big part of what led him to commission the King James Bible. Along WITH the KJV, he also made adjustments to the Book of Common Prayer-some of which (especially the part about transubstantiation) are done in a "weaselly" and non-committal kind of way so that those on either side of the issue (and it was a BIG one) could still find his version of the Book of Common Prayer acceptable. His successors were not NEARLY the politician he was, and that led to The Bishops' Wars, which in turn led to the English Civil Wars.
Because some of my ancestors were Scottish Covenantors, I've done a bit of reading on the differences between the various Protestant sects, and the Presbyterians in particular saw the eucharist as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (and I've been told, in no uncertain terms, that Anglicans are ALSO "Catholics"-just not ROMAN Catholics) as not just a survival of the "Romish" influence, but actually a form of necromancy or witchcraft-and in a time when no one could get Netflix or listen to Taylor Swift, where one was likely to spend eternity seemed a LOT more important. Dissenters and Puritan Separatists went to get pains to ensure that everyone involved viewed their version of the eucharist (or "The Lord's Supper" as they preferred to call it) was "commemorative" rather than an actual feat of conjuring.
You make a hugely important point with your mention of transubstantiation. As "modern" and relatively secular Americans, we seldom give much thought to the "source" of authority, yet BOTH Church and monarch derived their "legitimacy" through being the "representatives of God on Earth". This is why John Locke's ideas were SO influential-the idea that "men" could make a direct "contract with God for their governance.
This is also why James VI of Scotland (who ascended the English throne and became James I of England), though raised as a Presbyterian, went to extreme lengths to integrate is much of the doctrine of the Church of England into both the Presbyterian Church and other "dissenting" churches-famously saying, "No bishops-no King". His quest to create a more "unified" Christendom in Britain is a big part of what led him to commission the King James Bible. Along WITH the KJV, he also made adjustments to the Book of Common Prayer-some of which (especially the part about transubstantiation) are done in a "weaselly" and non-committal kind of way so that those on either side of the issue (and it was a BIG one) could still find his version of the Book of Common Prayer acceptable. His successors were not NEARLY the politician he was, and that led to The Bishops' Wars, which in turn led to the English Civil Wars.
Because some of my ancestors were Scottish Covenantors, I've done a bit of reading on the differences between the various Protestant sects, and the Presbyterians in particular saw the eucharist as practiced by the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England (and I've been told, in no uncertain terms, that Anglicans are ALSO "Catholics"-just not ROMAN Catholics) as not just a survival of the "Romish" influence, but actually a form of necromancy or witchcraft-and in a time when no one could get Netflix or listen to Taylor Swift, where one was likely to spend eternity seemed a LOT more important. Dissenters and Puritan Separatists went to get pains to ensure that everyone involved viewed their version of the eucharist (or "The Lord's Supper" as they preferred to call it) was "commemorative" rather than an actual feat of conjuring.