12 September 1555 A.D. ST. MARY’S, OXFORD: Cranmer’s Trial Begins
12
September 1555 A.D. ST. MARY’S, OXFORD: Cranmer’s Trial
Begins
A
few of our musings drawn from Bromiley, G.W. Thomas Cranmer: Archbishop and Martyr, pp.102ff. London: Church Book Room
Press, 1956.
Cranmer’s
Trial.
There would be lengthy proceedings against Thomas
Cranmer in the the month to come, 1 and 16 Oct 1555. All in due time. Latimer and
Ridley would be tried on 1 Oct 1556 and flamed 16 Oct 1555.
To date, Cranmer still had the “pallium,” the symbol
of Papal authority. By the end of it all, he’d, of course, lose that as well as
the other Romanist vestments, more symbols of this-that-the-other to authorities
of this-that-the-other.
During the trial, Cranmer would remark: (1) “I have
been done with all that gear for a long time” and (2) “They were all made over
in Cheapside.” But, authority was imputed to the vestments, then like now for
Tractarians. Vestments have always been a big deal for the romantic aesthetes and
Tractarians. But, we digress momentarily.
Cranmer was to be tried “by the Papacy itself.” By
turns, the Crown turned him over to the Pope, the Pope turned Cranmer over to
his Prefect, the Prefect turned Cranmer over to other bishops and, in time, after
the official convictions, the Churchmen would hand Cranmer back to the civil
authorities so Cranmer could be flamed.
(1) The Sovereigns, Mary 1 and Philip 1, initiated the
proceedings “in the Papal courts.”
(2) The Pope himself delegated his own authority to
the “Prefect of the Inquisition.”
(3) The Prefect, according to his turn, put the
matter in the hands of the bishop of Gloucester, the Dean of St. Paul’s, and the
Archdeacon of Canterbury.
(4) We insert the following. Obviously, there had
been some personnel swaps to the episcopal bench and leadership positions since
Mary’s enthronement—e.g. Bishop Bonner (fresh from his 4 years in jail under
Cranmer) replaced Bishop Ridley in London, Bishop Brooks replaced Bishop Hooper
in Gloucester, etc. This inquiry needs expansion and documentation. Meanwhile,
100s of English Reformed Churchmen, including Bishops, e.g. Guest and
Coverdale, had fled to the Continent. But, under Mary, there were new episcopal
sheriffs in town.
(5) One notable swap is the new Archdeacon of
Canterbury. Under Thomas Cranmer, Tom’s brother, John Cranmer was the
Archdeacon of Canterbury. Prof. Bromiley does not name the new Archdeacon, but
it is hardly conceivable that John participated in the trial of his brother,
Thomas. On information and belief, we believe John Cranmer fled to the
Continent (at his brother’s suggestion since he’d advised others to flee),
survived the Marian reign, saw his brother’s reforms reinstituted (largely),
and may have been in Geneva. We believe John died on the Continent. These
details need further documentation.
(6) Bishop Brooks of Gloucester (Hooper's old diocese) arrived in/at Oxford
in early September 1555.
(7) Laughably, Bishop Brooks cited a summons for Thomas
Cranmer to appear in Rome within 80 days. Yet, this was “farcical” since he was
not allowed to go and was held in the Bocardo Prison. A mere technicality, as
it were, although this added to the show—the charge of contumacy.
(8) On 12 September 1555, Brooks opened the case at St. Mary’s, Oxford.
(9) Cranmer refused to recognize the Pope’s delegate
and indicated he would only reply only to Mary 1’s proctors, Marty and Story. That
implied an acceptance of the Royal proctors, but not the Roman ones. It was a
shot at Papal powers.
(10) There were three charges. First, the charge of adultery
(violated his vow of celibacy). Secondly, the charge of perjury (renunciation
of a vow of obedience to the Papacy). Thirdly, the charge of heresy (denial of
transubstantiation). The heart of the attack was Cranmer’s “rejection of Papal
Supremacy.”
Cranmer was “obviously guilty” on Romanist
assumptions. On Romanist assumptions, the proctors handily won.
For Cranmer, the “medieval law of celibacy had no
validity.” Churchmen could marry. Tom had married two times.
For Cranmer, transubstantiation (and the Lutheran
view of ubiquitarianism) had no “scriptural or patristic foundation.” After
all, he’d written A Defence of the True and Catholic
Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Savior Christ: With a
Confutation of Sundry Errors ... Approved by the Consent of the Most Ancient
Fathers (available
at: http://www.amazon.com/Defence-Catholic-Doctrine-Sacrament-Savior/dp/1592447775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1442060877&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+cranmer+catholic+doctrine.)
Further, he and Ridley had inserted the “Black Rubric” in the 1552 Book of Common Prayer. Cranmer was
merely defending a position that took him years to settle.
For Cranmer, the oath to the Papacy was an invalid
one. Therefore, there was no validity to the charges of adultery and perjury
charge.
On these issues, Prof. Bromiley does not like Dr.
Dean’s perspective. Bromiley sees a “sinister ring” to Deane’s claim that
Cranmer’s “case was vulnerable enough from a forensic standpoint” (Deane, 229).
Deane—rather shallowly—believes there may have been one legitimate complaint:
the oath of obedience to the Pope.
We would insert the following as a matter of logic.
If one take a vow to unlawfully kill his neighbor, that vow should and must be
broken. There are times when some vows should be broken. Hence, Deane’s
complaint is problematic.
Also, countervailingly, had not Bishop Brooks of
Gloucester, the man now conducting the trial, also taken a similar oath to Henry
VIII as Supreme Head? Or, what of Stephen Gardiner and others, supporters of
Romanist dogma but without Papal oversight in England? Didn’t these Romanists
break their vows too? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. More work is need in evaluating the Bromiley v. Dean
analyses of the trial.
Bishop Brooks submitted the “findings to Rome for
the Pope himself to decide.” Meanwhile,
Cranmer went back to Bocardo Prison, but was “not idle.” He made a bold appeal
to Mary 1 (PS, II, 447-454). Cramer used the Royal Supremacy (e.g. Henry,
Edwardian oaths of allegiance) in his own defense. He demonstrated that “national
sovereignty and Papal Supremacy were irreconcilable.” Papal Supremacy was
“without any justification in Scripture.” As expected, this won’t be
influential with Mary or her supporters.
Prof. Bromiley offers an historical aside. In time, over
decades and centuries, “one after another, even the Roman Catholic countries,
have had to repudiate the open, practical and judicial authority of the
Papacy.” One might think of the American Revolution or the French Revolution. Yet,
on Bromiley’s view, it is “none the less serious now that it is concealed.” The
fundamental impulse of Romanism since these days (and before) was been
imperialism and domination.
But, in 1555, the “fanatical Queen”—to use Bromiley’s
terms—could not see this. And, she did not foresee this historical development
of the separation of church and state. But, we see a seminal idea in Cranmer’s
thinking while using the Bible to support it (something of a reverse from his
Henrician and Edwardian days).
For Cranmer, an “incompatible allegiance” made the
charge of “perjury an empty one.” This is overlooked by Cranmer critics who
“make sport of his loyalty oath at a time when he was obviously violating
another” (Deane, 231). Cranmer was aware of the dilemma. Cranmer wanted the
“right” authority. Cranmer was committed
“wholeheartedly” to national sovereignty with Scriptural bases in the OT, NT
and Romans 13. What was good at one time, was now bad at this time.
As for the Lord’s Supper debate, it was the
“Scriptures but also the early Church.” It is noteworthy that Cranmer was a
Reformed Churchman here. If proven
otherwise, he affirmed: “I never was not will be so perverse to stand willfully
in mine own opinion” (PS, II, 453-454).
Cranmer’s last short letter to Mary from the prison:
“I am kept here from company of learned men, from books, from counsel, from pen
and ink.” That’s agony for a scholarly man like Cranmer. Tyndale suffered
similarly during his imprisonment in Belgium—no books, ink or paper.
In about 34 days to come, Latimer and Ridley will be
reduced to ashes (16 Oct 1555). Pity poor Cranmer will be forced to watch the
burnings from the top of the Bocardo Prison.
Cranmer will be forced to undergo future
humiliations, degradiations and then death on 21 Mar 1556, some five months
later.
But, for now, we remember 12 September 1555 A.D., the day the Oxford trials began at St. Mary’s.
Comments
Post a Comment