Jaspar Ridley: "Thomas Cranmer," Ch. 12--Six Articles, 177ff.

The Six Articles, 178-198. On 5 May 1539, Audley announces that the King wanted to “abolish diversity” in religion by appointing a House committee to that end. Cromwell, Cranmer, AB Lee, Goodrich, Latimer, Salcott, Tunstall, Clerk and Aldrich, among others, were the members. The committee was divided. Confusion on dates of meeting, abstenteeism, and conflict stalled a resolution. 1539 Six Articles “First, that in the most blessed Sacrament of the Altar, by the strength and efficacy of Christ's mighty word, it being spoken by the priest, is present really, under the form of bread and wine, the natural body and blood of Our Saviour Jesu Christ, conceived of the Virgin Mary, and that after the consecration there remaineth no substance of bread and wine, nor any other substance but the substance of Christ, God and man; “Secondly, that communion in both kinds is not necessary ad salutem, by the law of God, to all persons; and that it is to be believed, and not doubted of, but that in the flesh, under the form of the bread, is the very blood; and with the blood, under the form of the wine, is the very flesh; as well apart, as though they were both together. “Thirdly, that priests after the order of priesthood received, as afore, may not marry, by the law of God. “Fourthly, that vows of chastity or widowhood, by man or woman made to God advisedly, ought to be observed by the law of God; and that it exempts them from other liberties of Christian people, which without that they might enjoy. “Fifthly, that it is meet and necessary that private masses be continued and admitted in this the King's English Church and Congregation, as whereby good Christian people, ordering themselves accordingly, do receive both godly and goodly consolations and benefits; and it is agreeable also to God's law. Sixthly, that auricular confession is expedient and necessary to be retained and continued, used and frequented in the Church of God:…It is therefore ordained and enacted…” Cranmer argued against them and, Ridley tells us, was respectful (179). Ridley states that Cranmer “completely capitulated” (180). Punishments for defiance were laid down, again, by committee work of which Cranmer was apart, not retroactive but future punishments. On 7 Jun, Audley introduces the Articles to the Lords and is passed with alacrity. Crumwell forced the resignations of Latimer and Shaxton. But, why not Cranmer? Because he was Henry’s man; Henry ordered Crumwell, Norfolk and Suffolk to Lambeth “to inform Cranmer of the King’s continued regard for him” (183). Meanwhile, Mrs. Cranmer is sent packing and off to Germany. In this ecclesiastico-political mix-up, Cranmer (at whose instigation?) wrote a private paper on it for Henry. However, now Cranmer’s usual practice of offline chatter with the King was open to the social media watchers and news-snoopers. Here, Ridley retails the story of this document, Morice in the river, the loss of the document, and its recovery at Hampton Palace by Crumwell in Cranmer’s behalf; Morice had attempted to “bribe” the possessor of it intending to hand it to Gardiner at Court, but Crumwell forestalled and prevented that action. Ridley postulates, as a possibility, the Gostwick story, an MP, hoping Cranmer might head off to the Tower. Ridley discusses 1539, 1540 and 1543 as possible dates, settling on the summer of 1539—an index of the openness of public opposition to Cranmer.