19 Dec 1534: Cranmer Runs into Buzzsaw Re: English Bible

Bishop-ass John Stokesley

19 December 1534.  Mr. (Canterbury) Thomas Cranmer runs into a buzz-saw of obstructionism and stonewalling against a vernacular, English Bible from an Anglo-Italian ass-bishop, old Stokesley.

The details, loc. cit, of events leading thereto and after are found on page 165 of Daniell, David.  The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

The Convocation of Canterbury in the summer session of 1534 discussed the “Lutheran heresies” and the English books from the Continent, e.g. Tyndale’s works and Bible.  The Upper House resolved that Mr. Cranmer should approach the King: (1) that Scriptures should be translated to English (correcting Tyndale’s, presumably), (2) that a team of scholars be appointed by the King, and (3) that certain men be allowed to instruct from the vernacular Scriptures.

Ralph Morice, Cranmer’s trusted secretary, and, later, an important source for John Foxe affords the insights to the fracas and the result: defeat for Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer.

Cranmer had divided the Scripture into ten parts for translation. Bishop Stokesley, London, was one appointed translator.  Here’s Morice’s recollection of Stokesley’s obstructionism that surely accords with previous state and ecclesiastical hostilities (1401—to this period), both from the Italian bishops and bishops in Canterbury, but does not quite accord with the slow developments at hand...moving slowly towards a vernacular translation in English:  Here’s Stokesley’s response to Cranmer:

It chanced that the Acts of the Apostles were sent to bishop Stokesley to oversee and correct, then Bishop of London. When the day came, every man had sent to Lambeth their parts corret: only Stokesley’s portion wanted. My lord of Canterbury wrote to the Bishop letters for his part, requiring to deliver them unto the bringer thereof, his secretary. Bishop Stokesley being at Fulham received the letters, unto the which he made this answer: I marvel what my lord of Canterbury meaneth that thus absueth the people in giving them the liberty to read the scriptures, which doth nothing else but infect them with heresies. I have bestowed never an hour upon my portion, nor never will. And therefore my lord shall have his book agains, for I will never be guilty to bring the simple people into error.

My lord of Canterbury’s servant took the book, and brought the same to Lambeth unto my lord, declaring my lord of London’s answer.  When  my lord perceived that the Bishop had done nothing therein, I marvel, quod my lord of Canterbury, that my lord of London is so forward, that he will not do as other men do.  Mr. Lowney stood by, hearing my lord speak so much of the Bishop’s untowardness, said:

I can tell your grace why my lord of London will not bestow any labour or pain this way.  Your Grace knoweth well (quod Lowney) that his porition is a piece of the New Testament.  And then he being persuaded that Christ had bequeathed him nothing in his testament thought it mere madness to bestow any labour or pain where no gain was to be gotten.  And besides this, it is the Acts of the Apostles, which were simple poor fellows, and therefore my lord of London disdained to have to do with any of their acts.

Bishop Steven Gardiner completed his section of Luke and John.  It is unknown what became of the other sections.  “We know that Gardiner was very hostile to the idea of an English Bible” (167).  Mr. Daniell concludes that “Cranmer’s excellent intentions had been defeated” (167).

Cranmer went to the flames 21 NOV 1556.

These martrys are not forgotten nor will they be forgotten in that “Great Day,” a day to be remembered in Advent 2013.

Revelation 6.9ff.

^“.9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held: ¹⁰ and they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? ¹¹ And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.”

Dr. Daniell's "Bible in English:" (1530s) Anglo-Italian Oppositon Continued

Daniell, David. The Bible in English: Its History and Influence. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/The-Bible-English-History-Influence/dp/0300099304/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1385668294&sr=8-1&keywords=david+daniell+english+bible

Prof. Daniell has offered up a review of: (1) the significant influence of Erasmus’ Greek NT in the Continent-wide flood of vernacular Bibles translated from the Greek and brought into visibility, (2) the weighty impact of the English Bible for the English Reformation, and (3) the life of Tyndale and his impact. In chapter 10, he turns the attention to Chapter 10, “After Tyndale.”

One sees a shift from the strict Anglo-Italian view—no vernaculars for the churches towards a more reforming direction. Nevertheless, opposition remains—unsurprisingly given that idols were falling.

Prof Daniell reviews: (1) the changing landscape in the Church of England, (2) the continuing opposition, (3) Thomas Cranmer’s projected but frustrated “Bishop’s Bible, and (4) more continued opposition. 

The theme of the chapter: THE BATTLE CONTINUES IN ENGLAND.

Prof. Daniell, probably to the annoyance of some historians, claims that the “revolution and its permanence” [in England] would not have happened “without Tyndale” (160). For our side, we are inclined to advocate for an adjusted narrative on the English Reformation: Tyndale has been under-rated, under-appreciated and, along with Erasmus, less visible than should be the case; Tyndale may overshadow Cranmer himself…although he played his part when allowed.

Thomas More, the strenuous voice of Anglo-Italianism, saw that by 1529 there was a “demand for the Bible in English” (160). More already evinces a slight shift, perhaps unwillingly, in his Dialogue Concerning Heresies. At this point, Cranmer is ensconced at Cambridge sorting through affairs as a scholar and assessing Mr. (senior Anglo-Italian clerk) John Fisher’s works. Meanwhile, Erasmus’ NT is in several editions and Continental vernaculars are afoot.

Tyndale’s editions have entered the nation. More argues that certain books or parts of certain books be screened and translated; it still is an argument against the entire Bible in the vernacular; it still shows More’s fear of the whole Bible.

Anglo-Italian Fears of the Bible in England:

1. The evil heretics, as they were called, by-passed the Latin Vulgate, used Erasmus’ Greek NT, used the Hebrew, and “disobeyed” the Church (161).

2. The evil heretics put forward 66 books (and apocrypha); horrors! They might read Romans and the Pauline epistles!

3. Furthermore, these evil heretics put the Bible into the “vernacular.” This meant that anyone, any man, any woman or even any child or youth might read the Bible themselves, if literate. Or, it might mean that anyone—irrespective of age or gender—might have the Bible read to them, if not literate. Or, it might mean anyone “within earshot” could hear the Bible (161). And, to the Anglo-Italians, God forbid that Bible-reading in the vernacular would be had in the 9000 parishes of England! Horrors no! The Bible was too sacred, defended, dangerous, complex and difficult—it was beyond understanding. No one could interpret it without the mediation of the controlling hierarchy; they feared a “free-for-all,” a very “present hell of heretics destroying the Christian heritage…full of heresy and seething sedition” (161). That fear was certainly not Chrysostom’s view of advocacy for Biblical literacy...nor a host of other Churchmen.

4. The evil heretics allowed for the “principle of self-interpretation to operate” (161). But quite notably, Catholic (= not Roman, but Reformed and Reformational) Churchmen never denied Biblical “dark places,” e.g. Geneva notes. Who would deny that Revelation has its manifold challenges? Or, that certain biblical texts had numerous challenges? Or, that certain poetical sections presented more challenges?

But, the Bible was, on the whole and in the main, perspicuous.

One is well-reminded by the sage statements of The Westminster Confession of Faith, albeit later, Chap. 1, para 7, 8.

“1.7. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.

“1.8. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.

This was flatly denied by Rome and Anglo-Italians in England before Tyndale.

Of course, this would and did unleash varieties of understandings. Prof. Daniell notes: “Worse, as with Shakespeare, readers can find in the volume whatever they want” (161). But, when read, the Bible is both challenging yet simple too.

Prof. Daniell does a service by repeatedly returning to attempts to get the arms around the issue of print-runs and editions published. In the 16th century alone, the figures “are grand enough” he tells us (162). In the 18th-19th centuries, there were 1200 editions of the Bible, largely KJV; put differently, assuming even-ness over 200 years, we would do the math. That means over the 18th and 19th centuries, that 60 editions published per year.

By the 19th century, Pope Pee-on-us, or Pope Pee-on-everybody, Pee-on-the-people, or officially named Pope Pius IX, was declaiming and railing against vernacular Bibles in the 1864 Syllabus of Errors; the difference between Protestant England (minus the neo-Anglo-Italian Tractarians) and Romanism could not be starker. It would not be until Vatican II (1962-65) that Romanism would begin putting English services and English lections before English-speaking Romanists still under the Italian thumb.

As an aside, this explains a Roman priest assaulting this scribe and confiscating his English Bible in the narthex of a synagogue of darkness in/about 1960. We’ve covered that story elsewhere.

Continuing Prof. Daniell’s astute item of print-runs, he states it is “impossible to calculate the numbers running into the millions” of English Bibles.

In America, between 1777 and 1850, there were 1400 editions of the English Bible (162). Let us do the math. Again, assuming evenness per annum, that is 19.1 editions published each year. Prof. Daniell notes that 34 editions were printed in 1850 alone. Yes, millions of Bibles came from the Protestant presses.

By 1880, English Bibles were an “essential item in the furnishing of the American home.” It has been a “phenomenon beyond calculation.”

CONTINUED OPPOSITION IN THE 16TH CENTURY, 163—165

Tyndale continued to be a bogey-man in England--the pestiferous and poisonous heretic to use Ango-Italian terms of art. Henry VIII’s 1526 Preface in his famous letter denounced Luther as a man “who fell in device with one or two lewd person born in this our realm [= Tyndale and Roy]…for translating of the New Testament into English.” Henry promised, based on Prelatical counsel, to “burn Tyndale’s book and sharply punish its readers” (163). These were “false and erroneous translations and corruptions.” Never mind that 83% of Tyndale would be taken up into the KJV by 1611. This 1526 letter by Henry VIII would earn Henry the approval of the senior priest in Rome. Henry, defending his Anglo-Italian policy of supporting Italianism, would be called by the Pope Fidei Defensor, or “F.D.,” still on all British coins to this day. History has entirely turned over the Anglo-Italian and Italian policy, entirely.

Henry VIII’s moves tally with Thomas More's sustained vituperations. Henry convened an Assembly of divines on 24 MAY 1530. Tunstall, Gardiner, More and Canterbury Warham, all staunch Anglo-Italians were on hand; Latimer was there too and we are not sure of his reformist development at this point although some reports put him inside the circle of the White Horse Inn. Nevertheless, the conclusion of the Assembly was that “the people had no right to demand vernacular Scripture; it was not necessary for Christian men to have it; it could only work harm and the prelates do well in refusing it.”

Oh how obtuse and stupid were these Anglo-Italians.

In JUN 1530, old Harry issued a “Proclamation,” to wit:

1. “Damning erroneous books and heresies”

2. “Prohibiting the having of holy scripture [sic] translated into the vernacular tongues of English, French or Duche" [= German]

3. Five books are forbidden—by John Frith (later burned in 1533), Simon Fish, and Tyndale (including Wicked Mammon and Obedience)

CRANMER’S PROJECTED BISHOPS’ BIBLE, 1534, 165-167

Cranmer becomes Canterbury on 30 MAR 1533. ABC  Warham had departed to the next world. On Cranmer's part, a “fresh attempt” for a vernacular is made. A Convocation of Canterbury occurs in autumn, 1533. Significant attention is focused on “heresy” and “English books flooding in from overseas” (165).

On 19 DEC 1534, the Upper House directed Cranmer in these directions:

1. Approach the King seeking him to “order people” to turn in the Bibles and books within 3 months.

2. Ask the King to authorized learned men to translate the Holy Scriptures into English and deliver the Bibles for instruction from it. This sounds like an advance or shift; it also reflects a response to growing demand notable in England but also the Continent.

3. Ask the King to issue “an order” curbing the “presumption of laymen to dispute on faith or Scripture” (165). There was no freedom of religion and freedom of speech as we know it. On the other hand, this reflects realities on the ground and fears within the Anglo-Italian circles of leadership.

Cranmer proposed a “Bishops’ Bible” be brought forward by the Bishops. He partitions the Bible into 10 parts “to revise and correct” Tyndale. This clearly indicates that Cranmer was aware of Tyndale’s operations, achievements and views. Bp. Gardiner, ever hostile to the idea of an English Bible, did his part, finishing Luke and John. But, here is Bp. Stokesley’s response (as captured by Ralph Morice, the secretary to Cranmer):

“It chanced that the Acts of the Apostles were [sic] sent to bishop Stokesley to oversee and correct, then Bishop of London. When the day came, every man had sent to Lambeth [London] their parts correct: only Stokesley’s portion wanted. My lord Canterbury [= Cranmer] wrote to the Bishop letters for his part, requiring to deliver them the bringer thereof, his secretary [=Morice]. Bishop Stokesley being at Fullham received the letters, unto which he made this answer; I marvel what my lord of Canterbury meaneth that thus abuseth the people in giving them liberty to read the scriptures, which doth nothing but infect them with heresies. I have bestowed never an hour upon my portion, nor never will. And therefore my lord shall have his book again, for I will never be guilty to bring the simple people into error.
"My lord of Canterbury’s servant [= Morice] took the book [=Acts], and brought the same to Lambeth unto my lord, declaring my lord of London’s [Stokesley's] answer. When my lord [= Cranmer] had perceived that the Bishop had done nothing therein, I [= Cranmer] marvel, quod my lord of Canterbury, that my lord of London is so forward, that he will not do as other men do. Mr. Lowney stood by, hearing my lord speak so much of the Bishop’s untowardness, said:

"I [= Lowney] can tell your grace why my lord of London will not bestow any labour or pain this way. Your Grace knoweth well (quod Lowney) that his portion is a piece of the New Testament. And then he being persuaded that Christ had bequeathed him nothing in his testament thought it mere madness to bestow any labour or pain where no gain was to be gotten. And besides this, it is the Acts of the Apostles, which were simple poor fellows, and therefore my lord of London disdained to have to do with any of their acts" [emphasis added, 170]

A few evident observations on Stokesley’s worldview: (1) a vernacular Bible abuses the people, (2) the vernacular Bible infects the people with heresy, (3) based on these two things, he will not, he believes, lead the people into error, and (4) Lowney, being more practical, sees Stokesley as interested in gain and disinterested in apostles, those “simple poor fellows.” This--Stokesley--from the senior priest in the Anglo-Italian diocese of London in 1535; this view prevailed well in the 1970s for Romanists.

Upshot: Cranmer’s “Bishops’ Bible,” with excellent intentions, was frustrated (167). Cramner is always credited as being a man of patience; he had no other choice; either that or to the flames you go.

Two years later, 1537, Cranmer wrote Thomas Cromwell praising Matthew’s Bible [= Tyndale’s with a different title page] and begging that the King might license it until such time that “we bishops shall set forth a better translation, which I think will not be til a day after doomsday” (167).

A few self-evident observations on Cranmer in this letter to Cromwell: (1) Cranmer is aware of obstructionism, (2) Anglo-Italianism prevails amongst many bishops, (3) Cranmer endorsed a vernacular Bible, (4) if Tyndale was unacceptable, a revised Bible was needed, and (5) Cranmer is willing to employ sarcasm for bishops. Hah, bishops still deserve correction although they don't often respond to much of it...even when legitimate.

On 16 NOV 1538, the Anglo-Italian policy continued. Henry tried to stop the “import of naughty books from abroad” (169). Books from abroad were to be examined. No imports to England from abroad could be vernacular Bibles and no annotations.

In 1543, Parliament forbad “all translations bearing the name of Tyndale.”

Parliament further directed that all existing translations have the marginal notes and prologues be obliterated. The Bible Society holds 1 copy of the 1537 Matthew’s Bible with its prologues and notes—they were manually “inked over” in an act response to Parliament. The same Parliament decreed:

“At the same time it was enacted that no women (except noble or gentle women) no artificers, apprentices, journeymen, serving-men, husbandmen, or labourers should read to themselves or to others, publicly or privately, any part of the Bible under pain of imprisonment."

There years later (1546) the king repeated the prohibition against Tyndale’s books with many others…Thus the Great Bible alone remained unforbidden” (170).

The Great Bible had been ordered up for all 9000 parishes. However, no one could read it, privately or publicly. Hands off! It appears that the ground has shifted and this, a stop-gap, was a response to a growing readership. Fear was gripping the Anglo-Italian leaders amongst some Royals, Parliamentarians, and clerks.

But, God had other plans and no King of England could stay the Divine Hand.

Also, more proof that a nation and churches can be staffed by fools. Like then, like now.

1520s: Peek at Cranmer's Education, Library & Early Views of Martin Luther

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer: A Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

It is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-Life-Diarmaid-MacCulloch/dp/0300074484/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1378262768&sr=8-6&keywords=diarmaid+macculloch

In 1503, Mr. Cranmer took the standard Arts program. It took 8 years to complete, a “surprisingly long time.” It’s 1511 when he graduates at age 22. He worked in classical texts. In his 3rd year of the program, he had logic and the 4th philosophy. The emphasis on the classics “was precisely what annoyed Tyndale in 1530, impatient as he was to turn education toward the text of the Bible” (19).

Mr. Cranmer’s “embryonic library” was founded on “medieval texbooks” which he kept “amidst his magnificent later collections” (19).   Mr. MacCulloch's word, "magnificent" begs for elaboration, but we must move on. Some volumes:

• Peter of Spain’s Summulae Logicale, a text on logic
• Peter Tartaret’s commentary on Aristotle’s logic and philosophy
• Other commentaries on Aristotle
• Duns Scotus’ Questiones subtilissme. Mr. Cranmer’s volume was a 1497 edition. Unsurprisingly, it had “copious annotations” with “responses and objections” (20).

By graduation day for the B.A., he is listed with other notables: Thomas Goodrich, Hugh Latimer, John Lambert, Richard Astall and Richard Horne—the latter two becoming chaplains to Mr. Cranmer during his regency at Canterbury.

Of note, John Lambert would be burned at the stake in 1538 for being a “sacramentary,” that is, denying cannibalism (our fair word for it) at Holy Communion. This event would cause Cranmer's “admirers much embarrassment and heart-searching” (21). Indeed. 

The question lingers long: what did Cranmer believe, affirm and/or deny and when?  And here, more narrowly, what about Cambridge and the 1520s?

On the day of Mr. Cranmer’s graduation, another famous person would enter the story: Stephen Gardiner. (Gardiner will be buried as a Bishop inside Winchester Cathedral with a regal service during Mary’s burning times while Cranmer would go to the stake.) Gardiner will also be the man at the fateful meeting at Waltham in 1529, but we get ahead of ourselves.  Gardiner is another man warranting investigation.

In 1515, Mr. Cranmer completes his M.A. He was 26 years old. He studied arithmetic, music, geometry, Faber, Erasmus, and some “good Latin authors” (21). Another volume is in his library: the “mathematical treatise by the humanist polymath Jacques Lefevre d’Etaples" (Faber). Shortly after getting the MA, he was elected as a Fellow to Jesus College, although the exact date is “uncertain” (21).

The interlude with his first marriage occurs, an “abrupt trespass on a conventional career” (21). He was not ordained, but it caused his dis-Fellowship at Jesus. It was a “definite step down in the status-conscious world” (21). There is some obscurity on dates, including whether this was forced marriage or inconvenient pregnancy. But, she and the child died. Had she lived, Mr. Cranmer’s entry to the ministry would have been foreclosed.

“Snobbishly malicious glee” would characterize the imputation of being an “ostler,” or one living in an Inn. But, whatever that means, he returns to Jesus College and is re-admitted as a Fellow.

At this point, his life takes a “decisive turn for the future” (22). His post-graduate work is now theology. This would be about the same time that Luther’s writings “on indulgences were beginning to work themselves out on the international scale” (22).

Undoubtedly, Mr. Cranmer would learn of the conflict. “Cranmer considered `what great controversy was in matters of religion’ and ‘applied his whole study three years into the Scripture. After this he gave his mind to good writers both new and old…This kind of study he used till he was made Doctor of Divinity” in 1526” (22).

If our dates and information are correct, Mr. Cranmer is an MA from 1515 until 1526.  That means eleven years of labors in theology. By 1526, he is 37 years old when made a Doctor of Divinity. Commendable.

As an aside, we wonder what the requirements were for doctoral degrees at Cambridge in 1526?

Some things can be said:

• He did not study canon law. We offer this: Mr. Anthony Deane, another biographer, wrongly asserts that he [Cranmer] was a “canonist.”   Mr. Deane, an Honorary Canon of Worcester, offers no footnotes in his little volume.  We must dismiss this claim; it is unlikely that Mr. Cranmer was a "canonist." The school’s charter forbad “canon studies.”

• Rather, his specialty was biblical and theological studies. The “biblical character of theological study in Jesus was underlined by the provision of the college theological lectureship endowed for a Fellow of the College in 1512 by the civil servant Sir John Rysley” (23). The lectureship was “restricted to the Old and New Testaments” (23) and Mr. Cranmer held that lectureship.

Mr. MacCulloch asserts what other biographers note: “…there is so much that is not known about Cranmer’s nigh-on three decades at Cambridge” (emphasis added, 23). Ergo, efforts at filling the gaps are problematic (just as Mr. MacCulloch proceeds to fill the gap).

Again, we are talking about 1503-1529, but, more notably the 1520s, the days of intense and widening conflict over Lutheranism.

Enter Chancellor/Bishop John Fisher—a man who valued Aquinas, Scotus, “alongside those of modern humanist giants like Lorenzo Valla [who debunked the Papal Constantinian forgeries], Erasmus, and Pico della Mirandola” (23). Mr. Fisher is important because Cranmer will carefully study Mr. Fisher’s tango over Lutheranism. More below.

Mr. MacCulloch briefly suggests--interestingly--that Mr. Stephen Gardiner [faithful Marian Bishop of Winchester] may have had “more reformist” sympathies than Mr. Cranmer during the 1520s at Cambridge:

• In Feb., 1526, Gardiner helped the early English Reformer, Robert Barnes, an Augustinian Prior, craft a sophisticated “abjuration of Lutheran sympathies” (25). This needs further research.

• Further, Gardiner spoke up for another early English Reformer, George Joye, when “Wolsey’s officers” were investigating Lutheranism. So, we clearly infer that Lutheranism was becoming-big-time-problematic. We are getting some good details here from Mr. MacCulloch. We recollect that later Mr. Joye was a Bible translator who would tango with Tyndale on the Continent, but that postdates Mr. Gardiner’s intervention at Cambridge.

• Gardiner forewarned another early English Reformer, George Stafford, of an “impending prosecution” (25). Again, evidence that Lutheranism was roiling the environment in the 1520s.

Mr. MacCulloch notes Mr. Cranmer’s silence as over against Mr. Gardiner.

But we must be cautious about the conclusions.

Mr. MacCulloch does critique--perhaps justifiably so--admirers who conferred “retrospective honorary membership” to Mr. Cranmer for involvement in the White Horse Inn, e.g. Alfred Pollard, William Clebish, and Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (the latter being my revered Church of England professor).  We will continue to weigh this.

 Mr. MacCulloch then does a wonderful, albeit far too brief, service in reviewing Mr. Cranmer’s marginalia or annotations on Mr. Fisher’s attack on Luther in Fisher's Assertionis Lutheranae Confutatio.  This scholarly review is worth the price of the book (as well as his stated friends-list in the bibliography).

We are on track to get Mr. Fisher’s volume and review it, Deo volente. Mr. Cranmer’s edition of Mr. Fisher’s was dated 1523; this edition was published in Antwerp.  No doubt it was published in Latin and no doubt for review by Continental Romanists.  Mr. Fisher was an international scholar. So, what did Cranmer know, believe, affirm and/or deny and when? 

Clearly, Mr. Cranmer is studying Lutheranism. 1523 is the very earliest date for Cranmer's work on Mr. Fisher's volume; also, notably, although we digress, Mr. Tudor is pleased with Fisher's anti-Lutheran polemics (until his fall from Henry's good graces and you know what that means).

Some notes from Mr. MacCulloch on the marginalia by Mr. Cranmer on Mr. Fisher writing about Luther (did you get that sequence?):

• Cranmer uses “black ink” and “red ink,” indicating two different periods of time

• Cranmer critiques Fisher for an interpolation to Chrysostom’s text “suggesting that St. James the Great received his bishopric of Jerusalem from St. Peter” (26). Fisher gratuitously inserted the comment and Cranmer calls him on it, if only privately.

• The “red ink” offers “consistent criticisms of Fisher.” Mr. MacCulloch is not clear here. The suggestion is that the red ink is a later date.

• The “black ink” offers “gentle criticisms” of Fisher

• But, Cranmer offers “furious and horrified condemnations of Luther’s arguments”

• Mr. MacCulloch notes that it’s not so much Fisher’s arguments but Luther himself “which provokes Cranmer’s greatest emotion” (27)

• Cranmer says “Luther wantonly attacks and raves against the Pontiff” and “this malice grows worse” (27). We would add that Mr. Cranmer may be a bit late to the ballgame. Mr. Luther has been in the fight since 1517, had been banned, condemned by Emperor and Pope, and was battling for his very life.  Mr. Cranmer is Mr. Luther's junior by six years. But, it is here that the intersection between Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Luther must be explored.

• Cranmer says “…he [Luther] accuses a whole council of madness; it is he who is insane.” “He calls a most holy counsel impious; oh, the arrogance of a most wicked man” (27).

• Mr. MacCulloch throws these two gems out: “…a clutch of Cranmerian cheers from the sidelines as Fisher scores points against this hapless German opponent” so “here is Cranmer the papalist” (27). Clearly, we need much more from Mr. MacCulloch here for a full review of the marginalia; or, we need it from other scholars. Perhaps it is out there?

• These annotations are no later than 1532 and, by definition of the date in Cranmer's own volume, are no earlier than 1523.

• These are not “the emotional jottings of a youth” but from a “man who is at least thirty-four years old and more probably in his late thirties” (27). This is a weighty point by Mr. MacCulloch. We might add that this could have been done during his doctoral studies leading up to 1526?

• A summary of the black ink: these comments are reserved for Luther’s comments about Councils.

• On Councils, Mr. MacCulloch offers this note that “From then on, Cranmer’s sympathy for Luther is gone” and he has “provoked Cranmer to a fever pitch” (29). That is quite a summary: a “fever pitch.”

• Fisher entirely “side-steps the possibility of a clash between Popes and Councils”

• Cranmer was, at a minimum, a “Concilarist” a commitment that would later inform his 1552-letters to Wittenberg, Zurich and Geneva, rather than Rome, in an effort to put together a Council “for a defense against Trent” (29)

Mr. MacCulloch also points us to the classic imbroglio between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus shot across Luther’s bow with De Libero Arbitrio.  Cranmer’s edition is 1524 and was published in Antwerp. Mr. Luther, on our view, entirely demolished Eramus with his must-read Bondage of the Will, 1525. Mr. Cranmer has copious notes as summaries and believes that “Luther’s argument about the will is dangerous because they touch on secret matters” (29). We would add Mr. Cranmer, if fairly characterized by Mr. MacCulloch, is seriously behind the power-curve on this question. But, he will mature as The Thirty-nine Articles show. It also suggests some lack of exegetical saavy.

Mr. Cranmer offers this:

“…we go on swiftly to better things…or if we are entangled in sins, let us strive with all our might and have recourse to the remedy of penance…and what evil is in us, let us impute to ourselves, and what is good, let us ascribe wholly to divine benevolence, to which we owe our entire being, and for the rest, whatever befalls us in this life, whether joyful or sad, let us believe it to be sent by him for our salvation.”

Mr. MacCulloch calls it “reverent agnosticism” (29).  We call it weak.  Mr. Luther "ruled that school" on this issue.

In the closing section of this chapter, Mr. MacCulloch offers an important note that Cranmer went to Spain on a minor diplomatic mission. Date: Summer, 1527. While school was recessed?  We don't know.  He points to some diplomatic correspondence. On this view, Cranmer may have had a brief audience with Mr. (Henry VIII) Tudor upon his return from Spain; this, Mr. MacCulloch tells us, “completely re-dates the relationship between the two men” (37). In other words, Mr. Cranmer may not have been entirely unknown to Mr. Tudor. (By the way, Mr. Cranmer had a rough ride by sea from Spain back to England—thirteen days at sea.)

But largely, upon return from Spain to England, Mr. Cranmer returned to Cambridge until 1529.   And the story of Lutheranism is far from over.  And Mr. Tyndale is busily at work too.

Mr. MacCulloch closes this chapter with: “Within two years of the Spanish mission, he would leave the university for good…and at the age forty, he committed himself to a new, spectacular, and infinitely more dangerous life” (37).  Indeed, Mr. Cranmer's quiet academic life would turn into a life of servitude--er, service--to Mr. Tudor.

Jesus College (Cambridge), Cranmer, Lady Margaret, & Fisher

Aerial view of Jesus College, Cambridge
Mr. Cranmer's alma mater and residence, 1503-1529

A few more musings on Mr. Cranmer's early life.

MacCulloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer: A Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.

 

"Chapter Two: Cambridge Years: 1503-1529"

 

We pause to reflect a little further on Jesus College, Cambridge.

 

Pg. 17 has a lovely "1690 picture" of Jesus College: the Chapel, the cloister, and surrounding area.  Mr. Cranmer spent 26 years of his life at Jesus College, from age 14 to 40. Or, 1503-1529.

 

Jesus College is east of the center of Cambridge. 

 

The price of Mr. MacCulloch's book--alone--is worth this 1690 picture. 

 

The history of Jesus College is significant in terms of the connections with at least two royal and courtly people: 

 

(1) Lady Margaret Beaufort, the mother of Henry VII and grandmother of Henry VIII, and

 

(2) John Fisher, Chancellor of Cambridge from 1504 onwards, high patron of learning, Bishop of Rochester, and a future Henrician martyr in 1535 during Cranmer's regency.  Mr. Fisher will be the author of the "foundational charter" of Jesus College in 1496.

 

Mr. Fisher will become Luther's English antagonist in the 1520s and Henry VIII's nemesis on the "great divorce question" in the 1530s.  Mr. Fisher would be executed for "high treason" in 1535.  He's convicted of "high treason" and is slated to be drawn and quartered.  Henry VIII reduces the sentence to a mere decapitation.

 

More research, we believe, will yield further links. 

 

Jones, M.K. and Underwood, M.G. The King’s Mother:  Lady

        

         Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby.  

 

         Cambridge:  Cambridge University Press, 1993.   

 

Unquestionably, Lady Margaret endowed Jesus College as well as provided for academic studies, vis a vis the Divinity Lectureship. How else did Erasmus live, but by wealthy patrons like her? Room and board? Salary? You get the idea.

Now, for a preliminary intel report on lay of land at Cambridge based on a current google maps (I've never been there, but we repair to the maps): https://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF-8&q=jesus+college+cambridge&fb=1&gl=us&hq=jesus+college+cambridge&hnear=jesus+college+cambridge&cid=0%2C0%2C14498206939478020393&ei=q9MHUvmyJbL9yAHj_ICwAQ&ved=0CJwBEPwS .

Jesus College was about 500 (?) feet east of Trinity College. 

 

Trinity College? Stephen Gardiner, in time, would become the Master of Trinity; Gardiner will appear in subsequent history; he is the man who has the “fateful” discussion with Mr. Cranmer on 9 Aug 1529 that leads to Cranmer’s recruitment in Henry’s “great matter.”

Assume 12 o’clock is due north.

Assume Jesus College is the starting point.

Walk 500 feet in the direction of 8 o’clock. One will arrive at Trinity College.

Or, walk about 9 o'clock for about 700 feet.  One will be at the Cambridge River or “Cam River.”

Or, walk about 10 o’clock from Jesus College for 700ish feet.  One will be at Magdalen College.

Or, walk about 6 o’clock from Jesus College for about 700ish feet.  One will be at Christ’s College.

Or, walk about 7 o’clock from Jesus College for about 1000 feet.  One will be at St. Catherine’s College.

Or, walk about 5 o’clock from Jesus College for about 1000 feet.  One will be at Emmanuel College.

Or, walk about 7 o’clock from Jesus College for about 2000 feet.  One will be at Queen’s College.

A rough guess puts Jesus College about 3000 feet due east of the center of Cambridge.

These are clear estimates, but one gets the sense of it.

Mr. Cranmer went up to Jesus College in 1503. He stayed there until at least 1529. There is a lot of water under that bridge. 26 years at Jesus College.


Chapel at Jesus College, Cambridge

Aerial view of Jesus College, Cambridge
Mr. Cranmer's alma mater and residence, 1503-1529

Aerial view.  In the center, one sees the "Cam River" with King's College just off the river.  In the upper right quadrant would be Jesus College.  Perhaps 1500 feet from King's?  The music at King's is always grand and their CDs are worth the investment.   Here's one of our favorites from King's. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXzmjNE-yLA

Chapel at Jesus College, Cambridge

 

9 Aug 1529: Hosing Over Henry VIII? Cranmer's Gets a New Job

Let's hose over the Tudor despot, Henry VIII, shall we?  Let's double-cross him. 

That is exactly what Pope Clement VII did to Henry VIII. That is a story with extra chapters. A ballgame with extra innings. England's history will change forever, religiously.  So will Western civilization...in time.

That will draw the unsuspecting Cranmer right into the thickening plot. As indicated earlier, our sympathies are with Catherine and Mary in terms of Biblical family law.  Henry was lawfully married to Catherine of Aragon, end of story.  Ah, but not so fast.

We return to the wonderful volume by Mr. Pollard.  It's recommended.

Pollard, Albert Frederick. Thomas Cranmer and the English Reformation. New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1906.

We pick up where we left off.   You may want to play Beethoven's "Funeral Dirge" as you read this.  Henry is not going to be amused by the Papal intrigues and double-dealing.  In the future, heads will roll.  If inclined, here's Beethoven. 




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmm2k4fRUO4

There was a sense of “injustice to Catherine” that Henry’s actions were “flagrant and unredeemed.”

Henry’s marriage to Catherine: June 11, 1509. It lasted until May 23, 1533. 23 years, 11 months, 19 days. Annulled?

We call it the “divorce that never was.”   So does the Elizabethan Romanist writer, Nicholas Harpsfield.  On his view (and our's) Ann Boleyn and the others were adulteresses and Henry a serial adulterer with a hardened heart.

That makes Elizabeth a “bastard” out and out in the legal sense of it: English common law. North Carolina still calls them "bastardy hearings" for paternity suits.

A “bastard” ruled England from 1559-1603. And out of this mess came a Reformation?  What are we to make of Mr. Cranmer in all of this?  That decision is pending.

Henry had good reason for hopes in his direction. But, watch how he gets "hosed over."  Here we go.

"Dispensations" had been given in other circumstances; it had been given in the first place; technically and assuming canonical authority, Harry should never have been married in 1509, but a “dispensation” had been granted. On the basis of canon law, he was not allowed to marry.   But oh, that was "disposed of" by a "dispensation."

24 years after the first dispensation and if Clement granted the “denial” of the “original” Papal dispensation from canon law, or a revocation of the first one, then the marriage would have been “null and void” from the beginning.  Presto, fixed.

Never mind the 24 years of marriage to Mary and their 5 stillborn infants with 1 survivor, Mary…all these were immaculately conceived of course.

But, willy nilly, Henry had reason for hope. Watch the Papal tap dances to other tunes in other keys at other times.

His younger sister, Mary Tudor, was twice married to two chaps: Louis XII of France and the Duke of Suffolk.

Drink this in slowly: both of Henry's brothers-in-law got convenient “divorces” from their earlier wives so they could, by turns, marry Mary Tudor.

This is better than the HBO show: “Sex in the City.” Or, "Housewives of Orange County."   No wonder Shakespeare wrote Henry VIII.  Ya' need a scorecard though.

Louis XII sent his first wife to a nunnery because he wanted to marry the Duchess of Brittany. That was before upping the ante and marrying Mary Tudor...and needing a dispensation for that.  So, with all this Papal ease of dispensing “this and that,” what’s the big deal? A little give-and-take here from the Pope. Henry was hopeful.

Mary Tudor's second husband, the Duke of Suffolk, was similarly successful on the precisely the same ground as Henry was claiming. He obtained a “retraction” of a “previous dispensation” making his old marriage “null” so he could marry Mary Tudor. Hah!?! What’s to worry about old Catherine of Aragon (Pollard, 35)?

Old Henry thought putting the Non-breeding Mare in the stable would be easy.

Even this...Pope Clement thought Henry’s request was “reasonable.” He--Clement VII-even put his willingness “in writing”—that is, to "retract" the "initial dispensation."

Henry is aware of Clement's favorable disposition towards him.

 All looked pretty good for Mr. Henry VIII.  "What's to worry, old boy?"

Now, the plot thickens. Watch the timeline.

Pope Clement VII

Pollard puts it this way. The Pope was in the “grip of the Imperialists who had pillaged his capital and kept him in ignominious confinement in the caste of S. Angelo” (Pollard, 36). We put some photos at the bottom (I've had the chance to visit here several times, but never took photos).

That old Spanish Emperor, Charles V, had no compunction about “shutting” him in either.  Charles said that this was "God's judgment" on Clement. Charles told Clement VII that this was the “just judgment of God” and that he “should forfeit his fiefs as the root of all evil” (Pollard, 28). He invaded Italy and the Pope was bottled up and shut in at the Castle of S. Angelo. (Tour guides quickly show one his quarters.) Clement hoped for French deliverance. Ultimately, the French marched on Naples and defeated and boxed the Spanish in the south.

In the meanwhile, Clement VII had authorized Cardinals Wolsey and Campeggio to travel to England and “try the case.” Their decision, on his word of promise, would be final. There would be no appeal. In essence, this was tantamount to a favorable verdict for Henry. Clement was also hoping Henry VIII would reinforce French efforts at restraining the Spanish aggression.

But and this is a big “BUT.” But, the war changed everything. The French pulled out. Henry wasn't going to get involved. Charles V regained his pre-dominance and pre-eminence. Clement feared a repeat of his earlier situation. Clement was set to write the instructions “granting Henry’s divorce” but his closest advisors said “this would mean the utter ruin of the Church as it is entirely within the power of the Emperor’s servants.” Crossing Charles V and the Romano-Germanic Imperialists could have other ugly consequences.

Clement awaited the outcome of the Spanish-French conflict in the Italian theatre of operations. A decisive battle for Charles V came about on 21 June 1529. That spelled doom for old Henry, but what did he know?

Clement “got religion.” He stated that he would become “an Imperialist” and “would live and die as such” (Pollard, 37).

Clement VII reversed himself. A quid pro quo was available. A deal was at hand. Can anyone spell Machiavelli?

Clement VII gave assurances to Charles V regarding his aunt, Catherine of Aragon.

Watch the timeline.

21 Jun 1529 above.

By early July 1529, a concordat was drawn up between Clement VII and Charles V and ratified. Henry who? Forget him.

Here was the quid pro quo: Clement VII’s nephew and the bastard daughter of Charles V would marry, assume residency and command in Florence, and “all towns wrested from the Papal estates were to be restored” to Clement VII” (Pollard, 38).

It was a land grab, taxes, and more. Again, Machiavelli would approve.

But, Charles V required that Clement VII “quash the proceedings against Catherine of Aragon.” Hahaha!

Old Henry was thrown under the bus by the Spanish Emperor and the Pope. But, he was none the wiser and was "entirely unaware" of the backroom deal.

Again, watch the timeline.

By 23 July 1529, the Cardinals—Wolsey and Campeggio—arrive in England. Henry is expecting a favorable verdict. But, the Cardinals had the backstory. The courtly crowd showed up for the hearings that were allegedly predetermined in Henry’s favor. All were expectant.

Instead of the hearings and proceedings, Cardinal Campeggio curtly declared a "dismissal" to everyone’s surprise. That's that.

Old Harry held his temper. However, Suffolk pounded the table with his fist and shouted, “By the Mass, now I see that the old saw is true, that there never was a legate or cardinal that did good in England.”

Fury and furor became thematic for Henry’s supporters.

By the way, old Cranmer was not an insider to all this...insofar as we can see.  That is, he was not a bishop, archbishop or courtier.  He was a Cambridge don.

However, he’ll get recruited in a "happenstance meal" at Waltham on 9 Aug 1529—“it just sorta” happened, but we are getting ahead of ourselves. (Waltham is about 15 miles NNE of London, a day's ride by horse.)

Old Henry heads off for his “progress,” or, “tour.” He spends time in and around Waltham Abbey and city. He knows he's been double-crossed.  We may infer that Mr. Harry was not pleased. 

Henry’s fellow-travellers, Dr. Edward Fox and Stephen Gardiner, are in Waltham with him and the entourage.

These two are Cambridge men.  They know Cranmer. They all go back to Cambridge days. Fox was from King’s College and Gardiner was the Master of Trinity Hall. They were old friends with Mr. Cranmer. They had dinner together in Waltham.

Henry’s situation was discussed at the “fateful meeting.” Chance or fate?  God or chance?  We are Calvinists. God was in the middle of the chaos, disorder, wickedness, sin, consultations, deliberations and more.  But, we do marvel that "some good" would ultimately comes from the national meltdown.

What did Cranmer know? He was just attempting to stay away from congested areas, e.g. London, where an illness had taken ground.

The upshot of Cranmer’s input. “Look, I’m not a canon lawyer.” As a graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge, only theology was allowed as a subject for study and canon law was forbidden—Jesus College, for some reason, was prejudiced against canon law; these prohibitions were written into the statutes at the founding of Jesus College in 1497ish. No canon law, just theological studies.

Cranmer had been at Jesus College since 1503. This was 1529.   He had been a student, Cambridge don, Doctor of Divinity and Fellow for near-wise 26 years.  He was an academic...a studious one.  Cranmer was 40 years old at this point.

Cranmer had “little patience with the law’s delays” (Pollard, 40). He recommended that the issue be remanded to the theologians on the Continent and taken entirely out of the hands of the ecclesiastical canon lawyers. Also, notably, this was a “back-handed whack” from Cranmer and by Cranmer to, at and upon the Cardinals' and the Pope's heads.  Whatever Mr. Cranmer's tone, voice and approach, it was an "upside-the-head-whack!"

Whether Cranmer intended that "upside-the-head" whack is not known. Whether intended or not, that was the effect. Clement and the Cardinals? In essence, "Too bad, let the theologians decide it, not them. What authority do they have in the matter?"

We know that Cranmer had been privately praying for the cessation of Papal regnancy over England since 1525, but, at this point, we are not sure if that is theologically based. The jury is out.

But, Cranmer's quiet days at Cambridge are about to end. Cranmer would soon get new responsibilities.  Poor chap.  And he could have had the "quiet" life of scholarship, reading, leisurely strolls, books, and collaboration with fellow dons.  That's over.

As an aside, notably, Conciliarism (authority of Councils) versus Papal infallibility roiled in the background; several Councils had battled the issue following the disastrous Papal split and the Avignon Papacy. But, that is another important subject for another time. Independence, if not anarchy, was in the air.

Fox and Gardiner informed Henry of the discussion. Allegedly, Henry is reported to have said of Cranmer, "He has the sow by the right ear..."  Henry ordered Cranmer to Greenwich.  We will have to defer that story to a later time.

The plot thickened. Henry was “hosed over” in a backroom deal between Clement VII and Charles V. Theology and morals to the side. This was a land deal, towns, taxes, governance, nepotism, and a wedding. A quid pro quo. 

The Pope got what he wanted. Charles V got what he wanted. Henry got nothing.  And he was sore and he was determined.

Soon enough, Henry will turn the Church of England from Papal Romanism (Anglicanism 1.0 in the 16th century) to Non-Papal Romanism (Anglicanism 2.0, orthodox Roman doctrine, but without the Pope, like Tractarians, Anglo-Catholics and some modern ACNA bishops today like Misters Iker, Ackerman and Sutton to name a few).

The Church of England will become a national, autonomous and autocephalous Church...retaining all the traditional Roman doctrines while throwing off Papal sovereignty.

Castle S. Angelo, just up the street from St. Peter's