May 1548 A.D. Westminster Abbey, London: English Communion Service introduced by a “Reformed” Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer

May 1548 A.D. Westminster Abbey, London: English Communion Service introduced by a “Reformed” Archbishop, Thomas Cranmer

A few migratory musings from Prof. Bromiley.

Bromiley. G.W. Thomas Cranmer: Archbishop and Martyr.  London: Church Book Room Press, 1956.

Bromiley, 69.

28 January 1547: Henry VIII is dead and Edward VI is on the throne.

January 1548: Latimer’s sermon at St. Paul’s against an “unpreaching prelate” and a “rapacious landlord.” The backdrop is the monastic dissolution, redistribution of wealth (from wealthy church-holdings and Rome’s taxation system to the royal treasury, but also rapacious noblemen buying up land at bargain-basement prices).

In London, the clergy were ahead of the government.

Notably, on this day, the English communion was “introduced at Westminster Abbey on 12 May 1548" [emphasis added].

The Latin Mass was abandoned at St. Paul’s and the private masses were abandoned under Bishop Nicholas Ridley’s leadership.

The repeal of the heresy law had “released flood of theological writings” of which a high proportion were against the Mass.

Cranmer had issued a translation of Justus Jonas catechism. It was Lutheran to the “great disappointment to the more advanced reformers.”

One Churchman said: “This Thomas [Cranmer] has fallen into so heavy a slumber that he will be aroused even by your most learned letter. For lately he has published a catechism, in which he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the Papists in the holy supper of our Savior, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently well-grounded, perspicuous and lucid.” (Original Letters (PS), II, 380-381.

But, was this what Cranmer was doing with Justus Jonas’s catechism? Advocating for Luther’s “Ubiquitarianism,” a variation of Rome’s? That is, a Lutheran distinctions with little difference from Rome’s?

What about Cranmer’s later claim? Apparently, Cranmer had already abandoned “real presence” (PS, I, 374) by 1548.

On Prof. Bromiley’s view, what is significant in 1548 is that “the doctrine of communion was now emerging as the crucial dogmatic issue of the Reformation in England just as the reform of the communion office as the crucial liturgical issue. While there are other crucial Reformation issues, this was the “crucial dogmatic issue” we are told, including the liturgical issue.

By 1548, the controversy had become “so violent,” Prof. Bromiley’s words, that all preachers were forbidden to preach on anything but the Homilies.

Bromiley, page 70. “How and when” remains an open issue on our end—the “how and when” Cranmer made up his mind on communion, Lutheran ubiquitarianism and the Romish mass? But, it is clear he had made his mind up.

Tractarians, Laudians and other parasites cannot claim Cranmer, Ridley or others. In fact, they are Anglo-Romanists and should be called out as such on this issue. (Shoulder-shruggers and doctrinal indifferentists, then like now, will do what they always do.)

It “is not known with any certainty,” Prof. Bromiley advises.

Cranmer’s teaching is codified in in A True and Catholic Doctrine.

Cranmer, Thomas. A Defence of The True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Saviour Christ: With a Confutation of Sundry Errors…Approved by the Consent of the Most Ancient. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2004. http://www.amazon.com/Defence-Catholic-Doctrine-Sacrament-Savior/dp/1592447775/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1426809159&sr=8-1&keywords=thomas+cranmer+true+and+catholic+doctrine.

Online edition at: http://www.archive.org/stream/defenceoftruecat1825cran/defenceoftruecat1825cran_djvu.txt.

We would insert that the Consensus Tigurnus emerges in 1549.

Later in Cranmer’s timeline, Cranmer would be accused of holding three (3) views: transubstantiation, Luther’s ubiquitarianism, and the Reformed view.

But, Cranmer disavows it.  He says: “Nay, I taught but two contrary views in the same” (PS, II, 217-218). Cranmer in his Answer to Smith’s Preface says: he [Smith] did not understand “his [Cranmer’s] book of the catechism.” “By little and little I put away my former ignorance” (PS, I, 374). He's Reformed.

Nicholas Ridley had been convinced by Bertram (Ridley, PS, 159).  By turns, Ridley influenced Cranmer.

Ridley issued a “modest disclaimer,” to wit, influencing Cranmer, but most think Cranmer’s “new teaching lay primarily with his younger associate.” But, we would postulate that Cranmer was pursuing Continental Reformed teachers.

Both Cranmer and Ridley were helped and shaped by Reformed Churchmen: Peter Martyr, Tremellius, Ochino, John a Lasco, Bucer and Fagius. These Reformed—not Lutheran--men were living in England. From the act of these appointments to serious positions of influence, we--using a reasonable man's standard--may reasonably infer that Cranmer’s shift predated the appointments.

Put more bluntly, he was "stacking" the schools (a move Willy Laud would do in favor of Arminianism and reversion to ubiquitarianism and ritualism the corollary...bowing at tables and more). This is quite telling—telling in a loud (quiet but academic) way.

Peter Martyr, Fagius and Bucer were put “in university chairs” to “influence a rising generation of ordinands.” Shrewd and sophisticated. Also, important moves by the Archbishop. Practical tip: it needs to be emulated in our time.

Cranmer tried to arrange a “Protestant conference” including Calvin, Melanchthon, and Bullinger (PS, II, 431-432). Three purposes: (1) oppose Council of Trent, (2) forge a Reformed consensus, and (3) provide doctrinal and liturgical answers to the Romanists. Regrettably, this was never realized. Notably, Cranmer is in conference with John Calvin, an explicit affirmation of Calvin’s role and work as a man of erudition. (Take note that Laud would later represent all things anti-Genevan as a reactionary.)

Bromiley, page 71.

Cranmer to Calvin: “I have often wished, and still continue to do so, that learned and godly men, who are eminent for erudition and judgment, might meet together in some place of safety, where by taking counsel, and comparing their respective opinions, they might handle all the heads of ecclesiastical doctrine, and hand down to posterity, under the weight of their authority, some work not only upon the subjects themselves but upon the forms for expressing them” (PS, II, 432). 

Rather humorously to us, some Anglican insularists and Tractarian reactionaries have claimed that Cranmer leaned too far to the Continental theologians “on the ground that he had no English theology and was trying to foist on his Church an alien teaching.” It’s laughable on its face.

Our rejoinder follows these lines.

Our rejoinder—this is based on: (1) Anglican insularity, (2) English pride, (3) Tractarian sentimentalism, (4) Tractarian hostility, (5) Tractarian obstinancy and (6) failure to understand that Cranmer was not a narrow-minded nationalist but was genuinely a Catholic Churchman. As if only truth could emerge from English soil. A rude and indecent conclusion making "theology the handmaiden to nationalist pride."

Or, put another way, from the Tractobates, it is historical and culpable revisionism with an agenda. It's worth a good laugh.

Prof. Bromiley reminds us that Bucer, a Lasco, and perhaps the Martyr “confirmed Cranmer in his Reformed understanding of the Holy Communion.”

The central point remains, however.

This discussion hastened the “introduction of a uniform liturgy in English.”

As an side. At the end of Henry VIII’s reign, there were “some preliminary drafts” on this very subject. (Cf. Gasquet & Bishop, Edward V and the Book of Common Prayer.  Gasquet, Francis Aidan. Edward VI and the Book of Common Prayer: An examination into its origin and early history: with an appendix of unpublished documents.  No location: University of California Libraries, 2012. http://www.amazon.com/Edward-Book-common-prayer-examination/dp/B008NP1I3C/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1425602839&sr=8-2&keywords=gasquet+edward+VI+and+the+book+of+common+prayer.  This describes Cranmer’s victorious and overwhelming debate in the House of Lords on the “Reformed view” of the Supper in autumn 1548. Peter Martyr, Traheron and even the Anglo-Romish reactionaries were impressed with Cranmer’s theological command of the issue. Traheron carried the “Reformed view” into the debate in Commons.)

But back to Bromiley, page 72.

Cranmer’s goals for the new English communion service: (1) “uniformity, simplicity and clarity” and (2) an English “service which everyone could follow and which would edify without provoking detailed theological discussion.”

Cranmer had “Quignon’s Breviary and the various Lutheran orders.” We would add that Cranmer also had the Sarum Missal and Greek liturgies at hand also.

Quignon, Francisco. The Second Recension of the Quignon Breviary: Following an Edition Printed at Antwerp in 1537 and Collated with Twelve Other Editions. No location: Nabu Press, 2012. http://www.amazon.com/Second-Recension-Quignon-Breviary-Following/dp/1276560036/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425603935&sr=8-1&keywords=quignon+breviary.  According to Bromiley, this and several Lutheran orders of service informed Cranmer’s 1549 BCP.

It was put before bishops in autumn 1548: the issue of the Eucharist. 

Prof. Bromiley called the result a “compromise.” Vague enough. On the other hand, win or lose, Cranmer was advocating for the “Reformed view” publicly in the Convocation and Parliament.

It secured passage in Convocation and House of Lords.

One part of the victory: it was an English Book of Common Prayer. Aside from the communion issue, it was a big deal: an English book for 9800 parishes in English.

Both Cranmer and Ridley championed the book.

Peter Martyr gave an update to Martin Bucer in a letter.  He was complimentary to the Archbishop.

He wrote:  “The palm rests with our friends, but especially with the Archbishop of Canterbury, whom they till now were wont to traduce as a man ignorant of theology, and as being conversant only with matters of government; but now, believe me, he has shown himself so mighty a theologian against them as they would rather not have proof of, and they are compelled, against their inclination, to acknowledge his learning and power and dexterity in debate.” (Original Letters, II, 469-470).

In the argument of autumn, 1548, Cranmer used two arguments: (1) Christ is “corporally and substantially not in the elements but in Heaven” which is “proved by the Scriptures and Doctors till the Bishop of Rome’s usurped power came in…” and (2) a true feeding “is not with the mouth but in the heart…”

Thus, Cranmer is clearly Reformed and not Lutheran in 1548. Of course, the Romish Mass—if Cranmer could have it—was to be pushed out of and off English soil.

In the House of Commons, the “Reformed view” was carried by a fellow Reformed Churchman, Bartholomew Traheron.  Traheron, like Peter Martyr, was also impressed by Cranmer’s “brilliant victory” in the Upper House.

UPSHOT: Cranmer in 1548 was not a Lutheran and an English service book would pass in the Convocation and Parliament. (Other developments will be treated elsewhere.)