May-October 1552 A.D. “Come, Labor On!”—Cranmer, the troubled provenance of the 42 Articles, Edward VI’s death, and the foreboding future

May-October 1552 A.D. “Come, Labor On!”—Cranmer, the troubled provenance of the 42 Articles, Edward VI’s death, and the foreboding future

A few more migratory musings and miscellanies from Prof. Bromiley, pages 91-93. While we survey the period, Cranmer "labored on" only to suspect his efforts in 1556 would come to naught. Despite all manner of obstacles, Cranmer "labored on." But, our musings.

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

Being “Reformed” on the issue of the Supper as evinced by Cranmer’s defense of such in the House of Lords in the autumn of 1548, Cranmer drew up “certain articles”  in 1549 for licensed preachers and lecturers “in his own diocese to subscribe” (91) No doctrine, Prof. Bromiley assures us (with no documentation), “was too narrowly defined.”

But, we ask, what articles did Cranmer put forward for diocesan compliance? This is vague? It certainly is very early: 1549. Were these 42 Articles operative this early?

By 1551, Cranmer submitted to other bishops this list of articles. Prof. Bromiley is not too sure of the concurrence or coincidence of the diocesan articles with the 42 Articles for national subscription. The articles were for “diocesan order.”

By 2 May 1552, the Council came into the picture. Cranmer was ordered by the Council to produce the articles and show if these were “set forth by any public authority or no.”

Pollard sees this as an implied rebuke to Cranmer for acting “without sanction of the Parliament of even Convocation” (Pollard, 284, 285).

As a result, Cranmer revised and submitted the articles to Cheke and Cecil (PS, 2, 439).

By October 1552, and rather oddly in terms of timing, e.g. five months later, the Council submitted the articles to six divines: Edmund Grindal, John Knox and four others. Prof. Bromiley does not define the “four others.” Amendments were suggested. What accounts for the five months from May to Oct 1552? Then, the revision was submitted to the Council.

Subscription to the articles was clearly asserted and desired when Cranmer noted:

“…beseeching your lordships to be a means unto the king’s majesty, that all bishops may have authority from him to cause all their preachers, archdeacons, deans, prebendaries, parson, vicars, curates, with all their clergy, to subscribe to the said articles. And then I trust that such a concord and quietness in religion shall shortly follow thereof, as else is not to be looked for many years” (PS, II, 440-441).

Notice Cranmer’s plain intent for the Articles:

(1) This was an instrument for subscription on its plain reading.

(2)  The subscription was for the entire clerical regiment—from bishops to “curates, with all their clergy.”

(3) There were no “exemption” clauses.

(4) This was for an entire nation.

(5) This was for unity, concord and peace.

(6) This is also Erastian with power and authority proceeding from the King to the ecclesiastical regiment of leaders.

(7) Practical tip: note the above statement with the actual practice in the TEC and ACNA. No confession and no subscription insofar was can be seen.

But, Prof. Bromiley indicates an historical problem attends the discussions. How so? Why so? A problem to whom? And why? Obscurity describes the Professor’s description, unhelpfully.

Here’s the disputed title page prefacing the articles (see picture below).

The statement reads:

“…agreed upon by the bishops and other learned and godly men in the last Convocation at London” (Foxe, IV, 468; PS, 1, 422).

Again, keep in mind that Cramner, Edmund Grindal, John Knox and four others are the reviewers and revisers. Yes, John Knox. And behind it all, of course, our 69^th Archbishop of Canterbury.

The allegedly problematic title page suggested these articles had been supported “in the last Convocation.” 1552? 1551? However, historically, it is alleged, the Convocation had not even met.

Prof. Bromiley concludes that the claim of Convocation’s support was a “flagrantly dishonest statement.” But, Prof. Bromiley does not make a clear presentation of the issues.

(1) Prof. Bromiley states that “Cranmer himself was not in any way implicated in the deception.” One can always count on Prof. Bromiley to defend Cranmer. Evidence of inculpation or exculpation, please. Rather, we get the gratuity and obscurity.

(2) We need a far better timeline of May 1552 to Oct 1552. Or, even a timeline of discussion from 1551 to 1552. We’ve already indicated above that Cranmer had a diocesan list of articles in 1549.  Were the 42 Articles circulating this early? Cranmer had issued the list of articles to the nation’s bishops in 1551 (a substantive move) and that by 2 May 1552, the Council was involved and inquiring as to Royal and Parliamentary authorization.

(3) Is there an alternate factual pattern other than the claim of a flagrant “deception?” On a preliminary view, we are unconvinced about the unexplained conclusion of “flagrant dishonesty.” It may well be, but Mr. Bromiley has failed the “reasonable man’s” standard for a “preponderance of the evidence.” Rather, he presented no evidence.

But, moving beyond this historical dispute.

The 42 Articles would “have a considerable historical importance.”  On the edge of Edward VI’s death of 6 Jul 1553, the title page is dated May 1553. (This will account for the short shelf-life of the Articles and the 1552 BCP.)

Cranmer’s 42 Articles were the basis of the 39 Articles established by Queen Elizabeth 1, Convocation and Parliament. Despite widespread disinterest, dismissal and other expressions of shoulder-shrugging in our own times, the Thirty-nine Articles are still the “authorized and authoritative confession of the English Church.”

We pause—momentarily in an aside--to insert that Prof. Gerald Bray often makes much of this point, to wit, the Thirty-nine Articles are still—today—like it or not, 2015—the lawful statements of faith for the Church of England. Liberalism, other Schleiermachian deviations and other oddballisms notwithstanding, an Anglican ordinand and postulant may well stand precisely where Prof. Bray (and Dr. James Packer) and others stand—confessing the Thirty-nine Articles as descriptive of their faith. This is an English, but not an American situation where the Articles have been packed away in the attic. The accumulated dust is nearwise porcelain in density. Or, perhaps with another metaphor: the burial site with tomb-marker for a periodic visit. Or, like the new ACNA, in another move, the Thirty-nine Articles are “relativized” to that “time” with…hint, hint…not much relevance for today.  I once heard this while at sea with a Royal Navy Chaplain as he confidently affirmed: “They’re not relevant to our day.” The ACNA has dismissively done this to protect their Tractarian wing. Nonetheless, Prof. Bray makes much of Prof. Bromiley’s point above that the the Thirty-nine Articles are still the “authorized and authoritative confession of the English Church.” Put more bluntly, never mind the Americans and mind the English Church. (Bray, Gerald. The Faith We Confess: An Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles. London: Latimer Trust, 2009. http://www.amazon.com/The-Faith-Confess-Exposition-Thirty-Nine/dp/0946307849.)

Back to Prof. Bromiley.

He notes: “With his Articles as well as his Second Book of Common Prayer, Cranmer had a deeper and more far-reaching influence than he himself could ever know” (92). Unfortunately, given his death on 21 Mar 1556, Cramner never saw the fruit of his labors. In his own lifetime (July 1553-21 Mar 1556), his work had “crumbled.”

Mr. Dixon says this of the 39 Articles:

“The broad soft touch of Cranmer lay upon them when they came from the furnace; a touch which was not retained wholly in the recension which reduced them afterwards to Thirty-Nine” (Dixon, III, 520).

What does that mean?  The “soft touch?”  The “furnace” from which they came?  Or, the loss of Cranmer's "soft touch?" Prof. Bromiley often uses Dixon (ex-dissenter Methodist turned Church of England cleric), but not always supportively. Upshot: we’ll need to examine Dixon closely and on his terms. It’s the only fair thing to do to Mr. Dixon.

On Prof. Bromiley’s view: the Articles were not “deliberately contentious” and were “not narrow.” The truth is stated, e.g. sufficiency of Scripture and justification by faith alone by Christ’s merits alone. Errors are excluded including Romish and Arminian affirmations of free will and varied assertions of anti-predestination. On the Real Presence, there is a clear “negation of the sacramental teaching of the Council of Trent.” Also, the Anabaptists were “decisively refuted.” Anabaptists and Romanist reactionaries could not “consciously subscribe to the Articles.” Given the Black Rubric of 1552 BCP, the Lutherans could not in good faith comply either. Again, this was intended as a nation-wide subscription instrument with no exemptions and with the Crown, Parliament, and Church’s support. This can hardly be understated in terms of its significance.

However, as 1552 closed and Jan-Jul 1553 emerged, change was at hand. There are a set of ambassadorial notices that—essentially—a health/death watch emerged for the growingly sick King Edward VI. Once Edward VI passes on 6 Jul 1553, life as Cranmer once knew it was over.  A whole set of changes result in the last half of 1553 including Cranmer’s imprisonment.

Prof. Bromiley pauses to give a summary (page 93).

(1) The “constructive work of Cranmer reached its climax and end.”

(2) The “whole structure of the Church had been transformed and its inner life revolutionized.” 

(3) From some angles, the Church had suffered. (a) The Church’s wealth had been plundered and misused. (b) The Church’s authority had been challenged and undermined. (c) The Church’s hold on the masses had been shaken. (d) Doctrinal unity had been broken. (e) The outline of ministry had been undermined.  Prof. Bromiley dismissively believes most of this was “external.”

As for internal changes under Cranmer, these are noted.

(1) The English Bible was in all parishes and even in many homes, a massive change. While Tyndale's Bibles had been smuggled in unlawfully, now the English Bible was not just lawful but was commended by the Crown, Parliament, Canterbury and York.

(2) The Book of Common Prayer was in place—simple, dignified, and Scriptural services were put forward in the nation’s churches. As for Reformed Prayer Book Churchmen, we still live and are thankful for this book.

(3) Reformation and Reformed doctrine had been put forward, advanced and codified in the Forty-two Articles and the 1552 Book of Common Prayer.  Even if we seen little else from the English Reformation, these two matters were of decisive significance for English-speaking Churchmen

Yet, in context, it must have seemed to Cranmer an “achievement empty enough.”  From a human perspective, it all depended on the “fragile life of Edward.” Edward VI never recovered from the “severe illnesses of 1552.” The “outlook was dark indeed.” Prof. Bromiley sensibly notes: “Cranmer can have known little joy or satisfaction, but only a sense of foreboding and futility, when he saw his life’s work brought to its apparent completion.”

Such is life for an Anglican-in-exile, persevering notwithstanding what appears before him or her in the present. We'll forbear to note the manifold issues. Such were Cranmer’s final days.

“Come, Labor On”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsuXVzG3OuI

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GsuXVzG3OuI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Come, labor on.
Who dares stand idle on the harvest plain,
while all around us waves the golden grain?
And to each servant does the Master say,
"Go work today."

Come, labor on.
The enemy is watching night and day,
to sow the tares, to snatch the seed away;
while we in sleep our duty have forgot,
he slumbered not.

Come, labor on.
Away with gloomy doubts and faithless fear!
No arm so weak but may do service here:
by feeblest agents may our God fulfill
his righteous will.

Come, labor on.
Claim the high calling angels cannot share--
to young and old the Gospel gladness bear;
redeem the time; its hours too swiftly fly.
The night draws nigh.

Come, labor on.
No time for rest, till glows the western sky,
till the long shadows o'er our pathway lie,
and a glad sound comes with the setting sun.
"Servants, well done."