At a time when Western Europe was largely polarising along a Roman Catholic/ Reformed divide, the fact that England seemingly vacillated for more than 30 years must have kept the world guessing with more than a little frustration. Even with the passing of the 1559 Act of Supremacy, or the 1570 excommunication of Elizabeth, things were so uncertain that to say that either was the final word in the English Reformation may have subsequently proved to have been a premature judgement. The fact that Anglicanism embraces both/and and seldom either/or remains a hallmark of Anglican identity and explains the ability to accommodate seemingly opposing positions within the same church.
The process of gradual reform was appropriate to the context of the time and the relatively moderate result, in comparison to extreme forms of Calvinism/ Lutheranism/Zwinglian or revitalised Roman Catholicism, a testimony to Cranmer's adept reading of the prevailing situation and his skilful pragmatism in not forcing the pace of reform. "The English revision was undertaken in a spirit in which revolt against medieval abuses, both doctrinal and practical, was conjoined with a strong ecclesiastical conservatism. Change for the sake of change was foreign to the sentiments of the leaders of the English Reformation."
Another important aspect of Cranmer's creative methodology is framed by Buchanan in these terms: "Because Cranmer the theologian and Cranmer the liturgist were one and the same person and perhaps because Cranmer the master of English prose encompassed them both, there are strong verbal resemblances between his theological and his liturgical writings."
In August 1547 royal injunctions were issued requiring that in the eucharist the Epistle and Gospel were to be read in English and that a strong alms box be fixed "near the high altar". It would seem that from then on, the wider use of English became an inevitability. The 1548 Order for Communion was published in March and intended for use from Easter of that year. It "....introduced a liturgical form .... and promised 'from time to time' further official 'travail for the reformation and setting forth of such godly orders as may be most to God's glory, the edifying of our subjects, and for the advancement of true religion".
The Order avoided the use of the word mass and introduced the phrase Holy Communion and signalled the first intimation of a reform of England's official eucharistic theology. The service remained unchanged and in Latin until after the celebrant had communicated, at which point he broke into English and exhorted those present to 'be partakers of the communion'. "Cranmer had put down his sheet-anchor - a devotional approach to the Lord's table, designed to provoke self-examination, reliance upon Christ for forgiveness, thankful remembrance of his death for us, and thus fruitful reception."
MacCulloch suggests that the texts may originally have been prepared for Henry in 1546. If that is the case, it demonstrates a clear commitment to an ongoing programme of liturgical reform. There were many "Reformation liturgies" gaining currency across Europe during this period. They centred on eucharistic reform and included
- Zwingli's Epicheiresis (1523) and Action oder Bruch (1525);
- Luther's Formula Missae (1523) and Deutsche Messe (1526);
- Petri's Swedish Rite (1531);
- Bucer's Strasbourg Rite (1539);
- Calvin's Form of Church Prayers, Geneva (1542);
The 1549 Book Of Common Prayer (BCP)
The next liturgical project to see publication was the 1549 BCP. In the preface to it, Cranmer wrote: "...the seruice in this Churche of England (these many yeares) hath been read in Latin to the people, whiche they understoode not; so that they haue heard with theyr eares onely; and their hartes, spirite, and minde, haue not been edified thereby." He also makes reference to a form of prayer "....muche agreable to the mynde and purpose of the olde fathers, and a greate deale more profitable and commodious, than that whiche of late was used. It is more profitable, because here are left out many thynges, whereof some be untrue, some uncertein, some vain and supersticious: and is ordeyned nothyng to be read, but the very pure worde of God, the holy scriptures, or that which is euidently grounded upon the same; and that in suche a language and ordre, as is moste easy and plain for the understandyng, bothe of the readers and hearers."
Cranmer's preface owes much to Quiñones' earlier official revision of the Breviary and as a consequence deals mostly with the Daily Office which it calls Common Prayer. The 1549 BCP introduced, in common with Quiñones' Breviary, a new calendar based on the civil calendar. Cuming comments "Cranmer's [Communion] service shows again his extraordinary skill in picking out small portions of a lengthy whole and welding them into a convincing unity; he also foreshadows the characteristic Anglican approach in finding the mean between the excessive elaboration of Sarum and the unceremonious brevity of the continental Reformers."
Dickens also comments on the Book's "studied ambiguity" permitting both a Catholic and Protestant reading of many key passages. Cranmer's intention was clearly that they should be understood in a Protestant sense.
When this edition of the BCP was published it is clear that work on its successor was already well in hand. For example, Cuming draws attention to the fact that as early as August 1549 the 'Clerk's Book' inserted the Litany between Matins and Holy Communion. It was therefore issued as an interim work to consolidate the 1548 position and signal that the Church in England was itself reforming and establishing a new identity. As such, it brought together much of the current material but within a new framework with a new rationale and a high degree of accessibility for the laity. The book concluded with an essay "Of Ceremonies" followed by "Certayne Notes" and general rubrics related to "decent ministracion of thinges conteined in thys booke".
As an intermediate "stepping stone" to future, more radical reform, it was masterly in the balance that it struck. "To the uncompromisingly reforming Bishop Hooper, it was certainly too redolent of the old order to be other than 'very defective....and in some respects indeed manifestly impious.' To the uncompromisingly Catholic Princess Mary, on the other hand, its departure from old usage made it too objectionable to be admitted into her chapel."
The element of the 1549 BCP which attracted most attention was, understandably, the eucharistic rite which demonstrably moved away from any notion of the mass as a sacrifice. Within this there were two distinct changes that underlined a fundamental change in position. Firstly a change in the words of consecration where Sarum had said of the elements that they "may be made unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ". The new BCP lost the word "made" and Cranmer rendered it "may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ." The second change was the prohibition of the elevation of the host at the point of consecration.
However, popular resistance to the book was not a response to these changes but to the fact that the mass was said in English instead of Latin. In his later correspondence with Mary in September 1555, Cranmer records that all the divines that considered the draft of the BCP were unanimous in their agreement that the mass should be said in English. Ridley (the biographer) refers to a letter sent by Cranmer's Secretary (Nicholas Ridley) to West (8 April 1554) in which he suggested that agreement was only forthcoming from dissenting divines to allow them to marshal efforts to dispute points of greater doctrinal contention sometime later.
In December 1548 a dispute was debated within the House of Lords over whether the bread remained in the sacrament after consecration. MacCulloch suggests that the "gathering had its nearest parallel in the Great Councils which had been a feature of medieval decision-making". This made clear Cranmer's position at that time and therefore the intent of his ordering of the 1549 BCP Communion Rite. Cranmer clearly stated that when something was "consecrated" it was a figurative sign and that it had been "separated to another use". This theme was to be re-emphasised in his later Defence. Cranmer also made a strong distinction between the spiritual and corporal body of Christ.
The debate took a significant turn when Cranmer introduced the subject of manducatio impiorum that is whether the unregenerate consume the body of Christ in the eucharist in the same manner as the true believers. In effect Cranmer had turned the debate on its head and in a speech that lasted most of the day set out his stall plainly to demonstrate that he now fully stood within the Reformed camp on this issue. In doing so, Cranmer not only plainly stated the intent behind the 1548/9 Rite, but opened up the scope of introducing future accommodation of the archetypal Reformation doctrine of predestination. MacCulloch summarises the debate by defining Cranmer's position by saying "In other words, 'This is my body' was a statement of ownership or identity on the part of Christ, and it was his right as owner to bequeath his property within his own family and no further. Moreover, even before making this remarkable analogy, Cranmer had detached membership of the body of Christ from eucharistic fellowship: 'The eating of the body is to dwell in Christ and this may be though a man never taste the sacrament.'"
"In Cranmer's eyes, his Book of Common Prayer merely purged the services of the innovations which had crept in during recent centuries, and returned to the old practices of the primitive Church, while the translation of the mass into the vernacular enabled the people to understand its meaning." This view has great merit as it was consistent with Cranmer's methods and aims. It would also reinforce his claims, made later to Mary, that Cranmer saw himself as simply an 'ancient catholic'. But Cranmer was to face the growing outrage of conservatism whilst those at home and within Europe urged him to go further still.
Opposition and critique
Reaction to the 1549 BCP pulled Cranmer in two opposing directions at the same time. His survival in the face of immense pressure, even with Edward's support, again pays tribute to his political skills and his ability not to be deflected from the course he was intent on following. Had anyone other than Cranmer been at the helm, the next edition of the BCP might well have been a sell-out to the Swiss position or a complete reversion to Roman rites. It was, however, doggedly "English" and built firmly on the foundation laid by the 1549 BCP.
Opposition came from mainly conservative sources who found a champion in Gardiner, Bishop of Winchester. The most significant reaction of support to the 1549 BCP came from Martyr, an Evangelical Italian based at this time at Oxford and Bucer - Strasbourg based but at Cambridge in 1551, who each provided a critique with a view to strengthening Reformation ideas.
With the fall of the Protector Somerset and a number of trials under the Act of Uniformity resulting in bishops either being imprisoned and/or being deprived of their sees' and much jockeying for position, rumour about the withdrawal of the 1549 BCP was rife. In anticipation of this some Oxford Colleges had already returned to using the Roman Mass. "The Council, now led by Warwick, reacted vigorously and issued an Order calling in all copies of the medieval service-books, to be defaced and abolished."
To counter the criticism of the conservatives, and to answer lingering questions arising from Gardiner's 1546 book on the eucharist, Cranmer published in the summer of 1551 A defence of the true and Catholic doctrine of the sacrament of the body and blood of our saviour Christ.... . MacCulloch argues sensibly for an autumn 1548 date for the first drafts of this work. "Dividing the book into five parts Cranmer dealt in turn with the true use of the Lord's Supper, the error of transubstantiation, the nature of Christ's Presence in the elements, the reception of the body and blood of Christ, and the nature of the sacrifice. He cited freely from Scripture and patristic texts, but concentrated chiefly on the arguments of reason, stating his case with great lucidity."
A key section that provides a window into Cranmer's underlying doctrinal reasoning for the ordering of the 1549 eucharistic 'canon' was book five of the Defence which gave a definition and discussion of sacrifice. This was effectively a commentary on the eucharistic prayer and made a distinction between Christ's sacrifice for all sin and our sacrifice of thanksgiving in response. "Basing his definitions on the Old Testament sacrifices as viewed through the prism of the Epistle to the Hebrews, Cranmer set up the contrast between the propitiatory sacrifice to pacify God's wrath, and the sacrifice of thanksgiving, 'to testify our duties unto God'. After the prophetic shadow sacrifices of the Old Testament, there has only been one propitiatory sacrifice in human history, that of Christ on the cross."
The decision to try Gardiner was taken in June 1550 and whilst awaiting trial in the Tower, Gardiner wrote a reply (An Explication and Assertion of the True Catholic Faith) which was published in December as part of his defence. "Gardiner's method was both ingenious and irritating: he picked out various passages in 1549 which appeared to express Catholic doctrine rather than Cranmer's, and warmly commended them. The only way to deal with this situation was to alter the text at these points." MacCulloch holds that Gardiner's Assertion was a "masterly subversion of the 1549 book". Cuming points out that the effect of Gardiner's methodology was more likely to have persuaded Cranmer to be more narrowly Reformed and to avoid any accommodating ambiguity. Brooks concludes "in a real sense, the engagement between Gardiner and Cranmer engendered more sound, heat and fury than light."
Cranmer faced, if anything, a stronger fight with John Hooper who was an ardent supporter of the "Swiss position". Ridley devotes an entire chapter to their clash during the 1549-51 period. In a Lenten sermon before the King in February 1550 Hooper "condemned as blasphemous the oath of supremacy which the Bishops swore at their consecration, because it was sworn 'by God, all Saints and the holy Evangelists'."
Cranmer reacted immediately - particularly to Hooper's criticism of the oath. He had been enforcing the oath for fifteen years and as Ridley suggests, Cranmer probably considered Hooper's behaviour as seditious and this provided the opportunity he had been seeking to attempt to moderate the extreme behaviour of Hooper. Such was the strength of Hooper's Protestantism that his consecration to the bishopric of Gloucester was delayed for more than a year because of his objection to vestments which he regarded as being Papist. It eventually proceeded when he agreed to wear them for his consecration only and not at all within his diocese!
Cranmer was undoubtedly hungry for feedback from Reformed Europe and from leading thinkers in the Reform movement. Two notable responses were made by way of a critique of the 1549 BCP. Peter Martyr's was the first to be made and was written during a period of heavy correspondence with Bullinger in Zürich. Little of this work survives and the weight of its influence is unknown although it is generally accepted that Martyr urged Cranmer to be more radical in his revision of the 1549 text.
Martin Bucer wrote an 18 volume Censura by way of response. Cuming holds that "The influence of Bucer's Censura is extremely difficult to assess" whereas MacCulloch states "The opinions of both Bucer and Martyr very significantly influenced the revision of the Prayer Book. This second view is consistent with other commentators and Ridley goes as far as to say that Cranmer's "....chief inspiration seems to have come from Bucer." Brooks quoting from the Censura (p. 44) makes the point that although Bucer criticised the 1549 BCP for not being sufficiently Reformed he saw "nothing in it....which is not derived from holy scripture."
As a first Book of Common Prayer Cranmer must have been encouraged by the overall response he received. He managed to hold the centre ground whilst giving firm notice of his intention and the direction of future reforms. As long as Edward remained King, the English Reformation was on course.
The 1552 Book of Common Prayer
Having strengthened the Reformers' camp and put down the uprisings and revolts within England that arose in response to the 1549 BCP, Cranmer could afford to turn his attention to keeping up relations with the European Reformers. Ridley observes " The role of foreign theologians in the preparation of the second liturgy of the Church of England is a tribute to Cranmer's foresight in attempting to draw around him an association of International Protestant theologians."
Work on the revision of the 1549 BCP began almost as soon as it had been published. Two important continental rites were published in 1551: Poullain's Liturgia Sacra (a translation of Calvin's 1545 Strasbourg rite which was itself based on a work by Bucer) and à Lasco's Forma ac Ratio in the Zwinglian tradition. Many changes had been agreed by 1551 but the new Act of Uniformity was not passed until April 1552.
The new Act for the first time compelled Sunday and holy day attendance "upon pain of punishment by the censures of the Church." The Act went on to state the reasons for the revised Book "....for the more plain and manifest explanation hereof, as for the more perfection of the said order of common service [1549 BCP], in some places where it is more necessary to make the same prayers and fashion of service more earnest and fit to stir Christian people to the true honouring of Almighty God......The Book of Common Prayer, to be faithfully and godly perused, explained and made fully perfect....".
The changes designed to "stir Christian people" were manifold. They included the introduction of a daily Office, greater congregational participation, a bell to summon worshippers and communion at least three times a year. The greatest changes came with new introductions to Holy Communion, Morning (Matins) and Evening Prayer (Evensong). Significant phrases that were omitted altogether were: Mass, altar, anthems and Ash Wednesday. Other changes designed to bring about the Book's perfection were an increase in the number of times the Athanasian Creed was said each year (from six to thirteen), psalms being offered as alternatives to gospel canticles and the addition of four new occasional prayers.
With regard to the eucharist rite, Buchanan states "The 1552 rite was no accident, no afterthought, and no overreaction. ... We attribute it to the master hand of Cranmer, and see it as the fulfilling of his plan." The key to the revisions lie within the new treatment of the words of institution and the anamnesis. In the words of institution, it is clear from the context and ably supported by Cranmer's own Defence {p. 136} that he saw the sacraments of the eucharist purely as representative "figures". The eating and drinking of the sacraments was moved to follow the actual institution and this is the key to unlocking the revision. It is worth noting that this was seen as being too Protestant in the revision of 1559 addressed this. "Because the communicants were near the table there was an actual continuity of action between saying '....Do this....in remembrance of me' and administering the elements. So there was no 'amen' after the narrative, and the words of administration were changed to be the 'anamnetic' response: - Take and eat this in remembrance....." Buchanan goes on to confirm that the change is not doctrinal but driven by "liturgical exactness of the words needed in the new position for the administration".
From the new arrangement and emphasis of the words, the 1552 rite dispenses with any notion of consecration and centres fully on reception. The petition for consecration (Quam Oblationem) which appears prior to the narrative refers only to reception. This concept is underlined by the addition of a significant rubric at the end: "And if anye of the bread and wyne remaine, the Curate shal haue it to his owne use."
Dix comments "Compared with the clumsy and formless rites which evolved abroad, that of 1552 is the masterpiece of an artist. Cranmer gave it a noble form as a superb piece of literature, which no one could say of its companions; but he did more. As a piece of liturgical craftsmanship it is in the first rank - once its intention is understood." Yet again Cranmer stamped his own highly individual mark on the nation's liturgy. With the death of Edward not far off, Cranmer's greatest work was only to enjoy a short life in its own right before winning a reprieve.
Canon Law and the Articles of Religion
A note in the journal of Edward VI reads "....the execution of discipline could not be entrusted to the bishops, some of whom were papists, some ignorant, some aged, some of bad repute". It is apparent that Cranmer shared these views as he undertook two further projects: to reform canon law and to organise the beliefs of his Church in way that united as wide a band of Protestants as possible.
Having just engaged in activities that were progressively freeing the English Church from Roman law, enthusiasm for a new set of ecclesiastical laws was low. "The Reformers repealed Henry's statutory impositions of Catholic doctrine, but did not replace them with formulas of their own." Ridley comments that the majority of the work on the canon law revision was undertaken by Cranmer and Peter Martyr. When the final draft of the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticum was completed it was seen as a Protestant rebuff of the Council of Trent and by involving Martyr and also the Pole Laski, it took on a European dynamic and significance. This international emphasis was heightened when Cranmer invited Bullinger, Calvin and Melancthon to England for a rival Council to promote reformed doctrine, but the request received a lukewarm response and never materialised.
And so it was left to Foxe to publish the work belatedly in 1571. "While deriving all ecclesiastical jurisdiction from the Crown, it proposed to retain the traditional control of the church courts over marriage, tithes, testaments, perjury, slander and benefices." It was also forward looking and proposed 'advanced' reforms to the divorce law and the introduction of annual diocesan meetings attended by laity. The entire document was written in the first person and issued in Edward's name to underline that it was from the King that the bishops drew their authority. This arrangement greatly strengthened the notion of the independence of nations in spiritual matters and it reinforced and made clear, the authority relationship between Church and monarch.
Although the need to establish a Commission to work on formulating the faith of the Church of England was acknowledged, the decision to begin work was postponed in 1534, 1536 and again in 1544. Even when Henry called for a report from the Commission in 1546 no response was forthcoming and no further action was taken. Eventually Commissioners were appointed in October 1551. After much debate and argument The Forty-Two Articles were published on 19 June 1553. However, with the sudden death of Edward less than a month later, the Articles were dropped. (They were subsequently reintroduced as Thirty-Eight Articles in 1563 and amended to Thirty-Nine in 1571.)
According to Bray, "The theology of the Articles is uncompromisingly Protestant, and even Calvinist in tone. When Cranmer produced the 1553 edition, it was the most advanced systematisation of Protestant theology then in existence anywhere." Although the clarity, scope and the defining position of the Articles helps them achieve a right and proper place of significance within the English Reformation, Bray's latter claim would, I am sure, provoke a long list of (worthy) challengers!
It is clear that by the issue of the 1552 BCP, the Canon Law and the formulation of the Articles, that Cranmer had moved to embrace a more Zwinglian position. He did however manage to transform its expression into "Anglican" forms that were appropriate to the English Church at that time and to avoid the seeming extremism that characterised much of the Reformation in the rest of Europe. In so doing, he demonstrated that radical pragmatism can lead to moderation.
Comments
Post a Comment