May 1549 A.D. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer

May 1549 A.D. The 1549 Book of Common Prayer

A few more migratory musings from Prof. Bromiley.

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

Bromiley, page 73

1549—a “provisional state.” The 1549 BCP did “not meet with immediate success.” It did not achieve “unification.” “Like all compromises it was too advanced for the one party and too reactionary for the other.”

But, more largely, it established the Anglican pattern of daily, weekly and annual worship.

Prof. Bromiley notes these things:

(1) A “long-term success in this sense,” that is, establishing a pattern.

(2) The BCP has become an “inexhaustible source of education and piety” over the centuries and trans-nationally.

(3) It has enriched and enhanced the English language.

However, the new BCP introduced a “fresh cause of disunity and contention.”

(1) Bartholomew Traheron: “…the foolish bishops have made a marvelous recantation.” (Original Letters, I, 323)

(2) Bishop John Hooper of Gloucester, perhaps one of the most energetic and devoted bishops: “…a very defective and of doubtful construction and in some respects indeed manifestly impious” (Original Letters, I, 232-233).  

(3) Professors Bucer and Fagius said the concessions were due “to a respect for antiquity and to the infirmity of the present age” (OL, I, 535). Hardly, a full-throated endorsement and presaging a further revision.   

(4) Dryander: “…obscure and absurd” (OL, I, 351).

(5) Whatever Lutherans remained, they were satisfied due to similarity to Lutheran orders.  

(6) But, by 1549, due to Ridley and Cranmer, Prof. Bromiley reminds us: “Lutheranism as such, as opposed to Reformed teaching, was no longer a predominant force in English theology.”

(7) Commoners were also “hostile” to the new BCP. There is no evidence of a favorable reception. A dangerous rebellion was put down in SW England in 1549.

As for the rebellion in SW England, Bromiley offers the following (74).

Poverty and unemployment were factors in the rebellion, but they were also linked to religious changes. Some Cornishmen complained that they knew no English. The Latin was more comfortable to them.

The refutation fell to Cranmer. Cranmer “had no difficulty exposing the ignorance and illogicality of the demands.”

Cranmer’s arguments:

(1) There are many Roman decrees that are self-contradictory and contrary to English statute law.

(2) The restoration of the Six Articles is incompatible with conciliar decrees. We do not know what to do with this argument, but Cranmer makes it. He now is tossing the Henrician Articles.

(3) Communion in one kind and only at Easter evinces a “coldness of devotion.” The rebels wanted the old ceremonies, prayers for the dead, abolition of the English BCP, and no more English Bibles or books.

(4) Cranmer tells them: “Alas, it grieveth me to hear your articles and much I rue and lament your ignorance, praying God most earnestly once to light your eyes that you may see” (75).

It may have had Anglo-Romanist priests in the background as authors.

Both Cranmer and Hooper saw the nobility’s problematic hand in this economic state-of-affairs.  “…the people are sorely oppressed by the marvelous tyranny of the nobility.”

But Cranmer believed God would expose them through human and divine judgment. 

It was/is “fanciful to regard the victims as martyrs to Protestant intolerance.” These extreme reactionaries “intransigently hostile” as the Marian reversals would show.

As for the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, Bishop Gardiner of Winchester was not “entirely dissatisfied” because “…he could easily find the doctrine of transubstantiation in the communion office. Cranmer “smarted” under Gardiner’s claim; Cranmer had a long and troubled history with Gardiner too.

With Gardiner’s reaction, this in and of itself may have promoted more reform.

Cranmer produced his Answers. That is, answers to Gardiner and Richard Smith.

Cranmer argued the Protestant and “Reformed” view, not the medieval view. He denied “corporal substance.” “Doth not God’s Word teach a true presence of Christ in spirit when He is not present in His corporal substance?” Since Christ is present in this way, “the sacraments are more than bare signs” (PS, I, II). Christ was present “…not corporally and carnally but spiritually and effectually.” In his arguments, Cranmer manifested his “vast Scriptural and patristic scholarship.”  He was “…far too well equipped for his reactionary opponents.”

Cranmer “had not rushed to his conclusion” (76) Rather, he proceeded “…not only with lucidity and scholarship but with a clear perception of its critical import and a tenacity which not even the prospect of a painful death could finally overthrow.”

Politically, in context, Somerset tried to help the poor, but he was undermined by the Duke of Northumberland who united all parties to overthrow the Protector.

The reactionaries did not like Somerset’s brother, the Lord High Admiral (77). They also disliked the BCP.

As for the advanced reformers, Prof. Bromiley takes a shot: The “zealots were disappointed at its lukewarmness.” But, who is Bromiley talking about? He has previously argued, successfully we may add, that Cranmer triumphed in the Convocation and House of Lords. Bromiley is not clear here (again).

Somerset, however, was ultimately arrested, tried and executed.

With Somerset’s execution, this “ended the phase of continued reformation under Edward.”

There had been the relaxation of heresy laws that “opened a way or free discussion of disputed doctrines and interpretations.”

Clergy were released from compulsory celibacy.

The Latin Mass was replaced by the English communion service with the cup for the laity. “If progress was restricted, it had also been steady.”

The tempo of reform “certainly increased” even with Northumberland (78). Control passed out of the hands of Cranmer and Convocation.

The ensuing three years would “see so radical a development in reforming activity.” The rise of Northumberland “introduced a new and unexpected factor which brought apprehension and dismay to Cranmer.”

Hooper and Cranmer had “no illusions” about the character of Northumberland. A mutual antipathy between Northumberland and Cranmer is demonstrated at PS, 2, 444 and Ridley, PS, 59. But, back to the BCP.

First item. The 1549 BCP “had not commended itself to either the reactionaries or reformers” (84). Gardiner illustrated the “traditionalist reading.” “Drastic changes were made in the communion service.” The new BCP was “definitely calculated to validate the Reformed as against the traditional or for that matter the Lutheran view” (Gasquet and Bishop, 289).

Bucer and Martyr stressed the need for further reforms.

Bucer issued a “detailed critique” (Pollard, 271-272).

Some believe the 1552 was a “foreign rather than an English work” (Deane, 207).

Prof. Bromiley bristles at Deane’s insularity and English hubris. He calls it an “absurd exaggeration.”

Cranmer and Ridley and “all the more prominent reformers…convinced of the need for revision.”

This developed and coincided with Bucer. They incorporated “independent criticisms as they own policy.”

UPSHOT: Flanking actions result and the 1552 BCP would emerge, enshire and codify those Reformed developments. More to follow, God allowing.