2 July 1489 A.D. (BBC) Thomas Cranmer Born.

2 July 1489 A.D.  Thomas Cranmer born.

No Author. “Thomas Cranmer (1489-1556.”  BBC.  N.d.  http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/historic_figures/cranmer_thomas.shtml.  Accessed 5 May 2014.

Cranmer was archbishop of Canterbury (1533 - 1556) and a leader of the English Reformation who was responsible for establishing the basic structures of the Church of England.

Thomas Cranmer was born on 2 July 1489 in Nottinghamshire. His parents were minor gentry. As his father only had enough land to give his eldest son, Thomas and his younger brother joined the clergy. Cranmer was given a fellowship at Jesus College, Cambridge in 1510, which he lost when he married the daughter of a local tavern-keeper. She died in childbirth, at which point he was re-accepted by the college and devoted himself to study. He took holy orders in 1523.

A plague forced Cranmer to leave Cambridge for Essex. He came to the attention of Henry VIII, who was staying nearby. The king and his councillors found Cranmer a willing advocate for Henry's desired divorce from Catherine of Aragon. Cranmer argued the case as part of the embassy to Rome in 1530, and in 1532 became ambassador to Holy Roman Emperor Charles V. Cranmer was sent to Germany to learn more about Lutheranism. Here he met Margaret Osiander, the niece of a Lutheran reformer, who he married.

In 1533, Cranmer was chosen to be archbishop of Canterbury and forced (for a time) to hide his married state. Once his appointment was approved by the pope, Cranmer declared Henry's marriage to Catherine void, and four months later married him to Anne Boleyn. With Thomas Cromwell, he supported the translation of the bible into English. In 1545, he wrote a litany that is still used in the church. Under the reign of Edward VI, Cranmer was allowed to make the doctrinal changes he thought necessary to the church. In 1549, he helped complete the book of common prayer.

After Edward VI's death, Cranmer supported Lady Jane Grey as successor. Her nine-day reign was followed by the Roman Catholic Mary I, who tried him for treason. After a long trial and imprisonment, he was forced to proclaim to the public his error in the support of Protestantism, an act designed to discourage followers of the religion. Despite this, Cranmer was sentenced to be burnt to death in Oxford on 21 March 1556. He dramatically stuck his right hand, with which he had signed his recantation, into the fire first.

Interview with Archbishop Thomas Cranmer: Bible Reading

We edited/added “Me” and “Thomas Cranmer” throughout for clarification.  Upon the first read, it was not clear with just italics identifying Thomas Cranmer.

Thomkins, Simon. “Formulary Friday: An interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury Posted by Simon Tomkins, 2 May 2014.” Church Society. 2 May 14. http://churchsociety.org/blog/entry/formulary_friday_an_interview_with_the_archbishop_of_canterbury#When:06:00:00Z . Accessed 3 May 2014.

Me: Archbishop Cranmer, do I really need to read my Bible when I get up tomorrow morning?

Thomas Cranmer: Unto a Christian man there can be nothing either more necessary or profitable than the knowledge of holy Scripture. Will I enjoy it? As drink is pleasant to them that be dry and meat to them that be hungry, so is the reading, hearing, searching and studying of holy Scripture to them that be desirous to know God or themselves , and to do his will.

Me: But aren’t there lots of people who don’t like the Bible?

Thomas Cranmer: As they that are sick of an ague, whatsoever they eat or drink, though it be never so pleasant, yet it is as bitter to them as wormwood… even so is the sweetness of God’s word bitter, not of itself, but only unto them that have their minds corrupted with long custom of sin.

Me: If I read it lots, do you think I’ll be able to impress others with how well I know it?

Thomas Cranmer: In reading of God’s word, he most profiteth not always that is most ready in turning of the book, or in saying of it without the book; but he that is most turned into it, that is,…he that is daily less and less proud, less wrathful, less covetous, and less desirous of worldly and vain pleasures; he that daily, forsaking his old vicious life, increaseth in virtue more and more.

Me: So are you saying it doesn’t matter that I don’t know my Bible very well?

Thomas Cranmer: If we profess Christ, why be we not ashamed to be ignorant in his doctrine? ...What excuse shall we therefore make at the last day before Christ that delight to read or hear men’s phantasies and inventions [i.e., read newspapers, novels and watch TV] more than his most holy Gospel; and will find no time to do that which chiefly, above all things, we should do; and will rather read other things than that for the which we ought rather to leave reading of all other things?

Me: But what if I misinterpret the Bible and get its meaning wrong?

Thomas Cranmer: Read it humbly, with a meek and lowly heart, to the intent you may glorify God, and not yourself, with the knowledge of it; and read it not without daily praying to God, that he would direct your reading to good effect; and take upon you to expound it no further than you can plainly understand it. For, as St. Augustine saith, the knowledge of holy Scripture is a great, large, and a high palace, but the door is very low; so that the high and arrogant man cannot run in, but he must stoop low and humble himself that shall enter into it.

Me: Can’t I just listen to the Scriptures read in church instead?

Thomas Cranmer: I say not nay, but a man may prosper with only hearing; but he may much more prosper with both hearing and reading.

Me: Thanks for your time. Any final advice on how we should read the Scriptures?

Thomas Cranmer: Let us ruminate and as it were chew the cud, that we may have the sweet juice, spiritual effect, marrow, honey, kernel, taste, comfort, and consolation of them. Let us stay, quiet, and certify our consciences with the most infallible certainty, truth, and perpetual assurance of them. Let us pray to God, the only Author of these heavenly studies, that we may speak, think, believe, live, and depart hence [i.e., die], according to the wholesome doctrine and verities of them.

Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, author of The Book of Homilies (including this from Homily 1) was ‘interviewed’ by Simon Tomkins Simon Tomkins is Curate of All Saints, Little Shelford.

See more at: http://churchsociety.org/blog/entry/formulary_friday_an_interview_with_the_archbishop_of_canterbury#When:06:00:00Z

English Protestant Leaders: Mr. (Canterbury) Thomas Cranmer

21 Mar 1556: Video in Memoriam of the Murdered Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Cranmer

21 Mar 1556: Thomas Cranmer Speaks Today (Quotes)

21 March 1556.  Mr. (Canterbury) Thomas Cranmer burned at the stake. 

http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2010/11/cranmer-quotes.html

CRANMER SPEAKS TODAY

 

It is good to be reminded of how relevant are many of the things which Cranmer said and wrote to the present times. Here are some extracts from his works and two pieces of poetry which his death inspired.

The Sufficiency of Holy Scripture

Whatsoever the church teacheth you out of the Canonical books of the Bible, believe that; but if they teach you anything beside (I mean, which is not agreeable with the same) believe neither that nor them...cleave ye fast to the sound and certain doctrine of God’s infallible word, written in the Canonical books of the New and Old Testament. (Comfutation of Unwritten Verities)

 

Lively Faith

 

As he that readeth Cesar’s Commentaries, believing the same to be true, hath thereby a knowledge of Cesar’s life and notable acts, because he believeth the history of Cesar, yet it is not properly said that he believeth in Cesar, of whom he looketh for no help nor benefit; even so he that believeth that all that is spoken of God in the Bible is true, and yet liveth so ungodly that he cannot look to enjoy the promises and benefits of God, although it may be said that such a man hath faith and belief in the words of God, yet it is not properly said that he believeth in God, or hath such faith and trust in God whereby he may surely look for grace, mercy and everlasting life at God’s hand. (Homily of The True, Lively and Christian Faith)

 

Scripture – The Food of the Soul

Let us reverently hear and read Holy Scripture, which is the Food of the soul. Let us diligently search for the well of life in the books of the New and Old Testament, and not run to the stinking puddles of men’s traditions, devised by men’s imaginations, for our justification and salvation. (Homily on Scripture).

 

The Lord’s Supper

The true eating and drinking of the said body and blood of Christ is, with a constant and lively faith to believe, that Christ gave his body, and shed his blood upon the cross for us, and that he doth so join and incorporate himself to us, that he is our head, and we his members, and flesh of his flesh, and bone of his bones, having him dwelling in us, and we in him. And herein standeth the whole effect and strength of this sacrament. And this faith God worketh inwardly in our hearts by his holy Spirit, and confirmeth the same outwardly to our ears by hearing of his word, and to our other senses by eating and drinking of the sacramental bread and wine in his holy supper. For figuratively he is in the bread and wine, and spiritually he is in them that worthily eat and drink the bread and wine; but really, carnally, and corporally, he is only in heaven, from whence he shall come to judge the quick and dead.

 

Christ’s Sacrifice

 

Christ never gave this honour to any creature, that he should make a sacrifice of him, nor did not ordain the sacrament of his holy supper, to the intent that either the priest or the people should sacrifice Christ again, or that the priests should make a sacrifice of him for the people: but his holy supper was ordained for this purpose, that every man, eating and drinking thereof, should remember that Christ died for him, and so should exercise his faith, and comfort himself by the remembrance of Christ’s benefits, and so give unto Christ most hearty thanks, and give himself also clearly unto him.

Worthy Reception of the Sacraments

As in baptism those that come feignedly, and those that come unfeignedly, both be washed with the sacramental water, but both be not washed with the Holy Ghost, and clothed with Christ: so in the Lord’s supper both eat and drink the sacramental bread and wine, but both eat not Christ himself, and be fed with his flesh and blood, but those only which worthily receive the sacrament. (The True and Catholick Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper)

Justification

 

Justification is not the office of man, but of God: for man cannot justify himself by his own good works, neither in part, nor in whole ... So the true understanding of this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our own faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us ... but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity ... we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues....and good deeds which we either have done, shall do, or can do ... and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and in that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross... (Homily of Salvation)

The Mass

But what availeth it to take away beads, pardons, pilgrimages, and such other like popery, so long as the two chief roots remain unpulled up? whereof, so long as they remain, will spring up again all former impediments of the Lord’s harvest, and corruption of his flock. The rest is but branches and leaves, the cutting away whereof is but like topping and lopping of a tree, or cutting down of weeds, leaving the body standing and the roots in the ground; but the very body of the tree, or rather the roots of the weeds, is the popish doctrine of transubstantiation, of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament of the altar (as they call it), and of the sacrifice and oblation of Christ made by the priest, for the salvation of the quick and the dead. Which roots if they be suffered to grow in the Lord’s vineyard, they will overspread all the ground again with the old errors and superstitions. (The True and Catholick Doctrine of the Lord’s Supper)

The Pope

Alas! what hath the pope to do in England? whose jurisdiction is so far different from the jurisdiction of this realm, that it is impossible to be true to the one and true to the other...I will never give my consent to the receiving of him into this Church of England. (Examination before Brokes)

 

The Martyrdom

 

‘Make short! make short!’ and so they lit the wood.
Then Cranmer lifted his left hand to heaven,
And thrust his right into the bitter flame;
And crying, in his deep voice, more than once,
‘This hand offended - this unworthy hand!’
So held it till it all was burn’d, before
The flame had reach’d his body; I stood near –
Mark’d him - he never uttered moan of pain:
He never stirr’d or writhed, but, like a statue,
Unmoving in the greatness of the flame,
Gave up the ghost; and so past martyr-like.

Tennyson

 

Sonnet on Cranmer

 

Outstretching flame-ward his upbraided hand
(O God of mercy, may no earthly seat
Of judgement such presumptuous doom repeat!)
Amid the shuddering throng doth Cranmer stand;
Firm as the stake to which with iron band
His frame is tied; firm from the naked feet
To the bare head, the victory complete;
The shrouded body, to the soul’s command,
Answering with more than Indian fortitude,
Through all her nerves with finer sense endued,
Till death departs in blissful aspiration:
Then ‘mid the ghastly ruin of the fire,
Behold the unalterable heart entire,
Emblem of faith untouched, miraculous attestation!

29 Feb 1528: Patrick Hamilton, Scotland's 1st Protestant Martyr

29 February 1528. Scotland’s 1st Protestant Martyr at the Hands of Scots-Roman policies. Lest we forget. And because God has not forgotten (it's as a yesterday to His Majesty and Rev. 6.9ff).

Mr. (Dr.) Rusten reports the following story, pp. 121-122. Rusten, E. Michael and Rusten, Sharon. The One Year Christian History. Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House Publishers, 2003. http://www.amazon.com/The-Year-Christian-History-Books/dp/0842355073/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1393302630&sr=8-1&keywords=rusten+church+history. We have added other details to the story.

Patrick Hamilton was burned at the stake on 29 Feb 1528.

Mr. Hamilton was born of a noble family in Scotland and was a distant relative of a Stuart king, James V. He graduated from the University of Paris in 1520. He began digesting the Lutheran documents. He returned to Scotland in 1523. He was unhappy with the Scots-Italian church. He went to Leonard’s College, St. Andrews University, to study theology.

But, Scotland’s Parliament banned Luther’s book in 1525 (like the Anglo-Italian bishops in Canterbury and London). In 1526, Hamilton declared in favor of Luther. By 1527, he received 3 summons by Mr. (Abp.) Beaton to appear on heresy charges.
(Meanwhile, Mr. Thomas Cranmer is attempting to figure things out at Cambridge while others, like Hamilton up north, were declaring in favor of Luther. Bp. John Fisher was doing the heavy-lifting for Henry VIII in their antagonisms to Luther.)

Hamilton runs abroad and lands in Wittenberg. He met Luther, Melancthon, and the English hero, William Tyndale, himself a fugitive from the Anglo-Italians in England. Hamilton wrote his "Common Places," affirming justification by faith alone. Hamilton returned to Scotland and began preaching.

In Jan 1528, Mr. (Abp) Beaton and other Scots-Italian bishops meet at St. Andrews University, summoning Hamilton again and preferring 13 charges of heresy against him.

He was tried and was burned the same day on 29 February 1528. It would only spark further discussion of Reformation theology in Scotland.

A few questions:

• If a Roman Catholic, what say you of this and the decrees of the Council of Trent that anathematized then—and as reaffirmed recently—against the doctrine of justification by faith alone? Have you developed a 10-page bibliography on justification by faith alone consisting of the best works on it? Or, has your priest done this?

• Why has Mr. (Bp) Robert Duncan, ACNA, never appeared to articulate, assert and defend this doctrine? In Article XI of the Thirty-nine Articles? Would a discussion here relate to other Reformed doctrines?

• What do Misters (Bps) Jack Iker, Keith Ackerman and others say of Articles IX-XI? What really are “their” views here?

• Do these matters get discussed in modern centers of advertisement? TBN? Daystar Television? Word Television? Rick Warren? Or others? If so, does Paul’s Epistle to the Romans feature in their ministries?

• Have worldwide Lutherans betrayed the Reformation understanding of justification by faith alone? See: http://reformationanglicanism.blogspot.com/2009/09/cyberbrethren-betraying-reformation-sad.html

• Has Mr. (Bp.) N.T. Wright erred here?

• What is one to say of the Federal Visionists and Mr. Norm Shepherd at Westminster Theological Seminary?

• If you are a secularist, what do you say of justification by faith alone? What homework have you done on this?

• Does modern TV, internet and other forms of media serve to obscure this doctrine?

• What’s the health and status of this doctrine? One might think denomination by denomination here. Aside from the catechetical memory work as lads, do you hear this clearly enunciated?

Romans 11:6

1599 Geneva Bible (GNV)

6 [a]And if it be of grace, it is [b]no more of works: or else were grace no more grace: but if it be of works, it is no more grace: or else were work no more work.

Footnotes:

a. Romans 11:6 Although that all be not elect and chosen, yet let them that are elected, remember that they are freely chosen, and let them that stubbornly refuse the grace and free mercy of God, impute it unto themselves.
b. Romans 11:6 This saying beateth down flat to the ground all the doctrine of all kinds and manner of works, whereby our justifiers of themselves do teach, that works are either wholly or partly the cause of our justification.

Dr. Rusten cites the following sources:

Douglas, J. D. “Hamilton, Patrick.” NIDCC. 449.
Hillyer, N. “Hamilton, Patrick.” WWCH. 301.
Torrence, I. R. “Hamilton, Patrick.” DSCHT. 390-1.

Article 11: Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer & Justification

Article 11 of the Thirty-nine Articles: "Of Justification." An amplification from the "Homily on Salvation." At least one writer (name eludes me now, regrettably) claims that Cranmer was called to Henry VIII's bedside as death was imminent and as Henry was in and out of consciousness. Reportedly, Cranmer rehearsed this doctrine, counseling the Tudor king to rest alone in Christ's righteousness. Unable to speak, Cranmer, allegedly, asked Henry to squeeze his hand in the affirmative. Allegedly, Henry squeezed Tom's hand. But, did Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, go forward and tell the story of his bedtime counsels? Did some attendant to Henry hear Canterbury's counsels and later report the story? We're not confident in the report. (If anyone one has a scholarly footnote or credible reasons to counter our suspicions of the story, please advise. We'll take it for review and investigation.) Romanticization of history? It reminds me of a few historians who attempt to put Cranmer inside the Whitehorse Inn, for which there is no documentary evidence. Inferential, perhaps. But, definitive history with an established factual pattern? No. It happens. Having said all that, we can say this. This is Cranmer's view on justification by faith alone by Christ alone and justification by God alone by grace alone and mercy alone. This is not Rome nor Trent. It's Wittenberg and Geneva. It's not "via media" between Rome and Geneva. It's Wittenberg and Geneva, unified on this point. Or, and rightly, put another way, it is 180 degrees the opposite of Trent and Rome's 1994 Catechism, which reaffirmed Trent.  Cranmer is implacably and irretrievably against Trent.  Or, in more modern parlance, "let's just drop it, shall we?"  Our response, "Go ahead, drop it, but we can't, thanks to the Biblical Canon. Cheers."  Here's Mr. Cranmer.

"Justification

"Justification is not the office of man, but of God: for man cannot justify himself by his own good works, neither in part, nor in whole ... So the true understanding of this doctrine, we be justified freely by faith without works, or that we be justified by faith in Christ only, is not, that this our own act to believe in Christ, or this our own faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us ... but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God’s word and believe it; although we have faith, hope, charity ... we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues....and good deeds which we either have done, shall do, or can do ... and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and in that sacrifice which our High Priest and Saviour Christ Jesus, the Son of God, once offered for us upon the cross... (Homily of Salvation)"


This is the unity of Canterbury, Geneva and Wittenberg on this point. This is unity with the Lowlands Countries, the Swiss, the Gallican and the Scots Reformers. 180 degrees out and opposite to the Romanists. Entirely opposed to the Council of Trent, the 1994 Romanist Catechism (about 1000 pages), and all the recent Anti-Gospellers in the 100-acre outfit called the Vatican (reduced to 100 acres by annoyed Italians). No via media here. No purgatory here. No saints' invocations here. No merit-mongering by works of supererogation, pilgrimages, relics, or works of any kind, at any time, under any condition, by anyone, of any station. Everyone has nothing but brings wickedness, damnation and judgment to the table of divine justice. The believer receives free forgiveness, free justification, free blessings, a free future and the other related promises. Free to us, but not free to Christ. He earned our salvation.


John Calvin echoes Cranmer in the Antidote: "There is no room for the righteousness of faith until we have discovered that it is in vain that salvation is promised us by the law. But that which the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God performed by his own Son, by expiating our sins through the sacrifice of his death, so that his righteousness is fulfilled in us."

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.”

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 8, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Null: "Thomas Cranmer & Contemporary Anglican Worship"

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 7, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Null: "Thomas Cranmer & Contemporary Anglican Worship"

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 5, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Null: "Thomas Cranmer & Contemporary Anglican Worship"

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 4, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Null: "Thomas Cranmer & Contemporary Anglican Worship"

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 3, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Nuff: "Thomas Cranmer & Contemporary Anglican Worship"

(Video/Ridley Institute) Lecture 2, Mr. (Rev. Dr. Prof.) Ashley Null: "Thomas Cranmer & Contemporary Anglican Worship"

Mr. (Rev. Canon) Mason: Henry VIII's Lapdog, Mr. Cranmer

Mason, Arthur James. Thomas Cranmer. London: Methuen & Co., 1898.

It is available at: http://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Cranmer-ebook/dp/B00538MELC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376431920&sr=8-1&keywords=mason+thomas+cranmer

It is available online at: http://books.google.com/books?id=s1ELAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=arthur+mason+thomas+cranmer&hl=en&sa=X&ei=qa8KUomVDJP54APGy4GoBg&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=arthur%20mason%20thomas%20cranmer&f=false

Also, available online at: http://archive.org/details/thomascranmer00masouoft

Chapter 1: “Cranmer’s Life Until the Divorce”

Right off, the title is misnamed. It should be retitled: “Cranmer’s Life Through Multiple Intrigues, Six Wives, Divorces, Axes and All”

Or, "Cranmer, Emcee of Henry's Circus"

Or, "Cranmer, Henry's Canterburian Lapdog"

There is much good historical material here, but there are some odd points by Mr. (Rev. Canon) Arthur James Mason.  On the whole, it is good, but it has some dubious points.

Mr. Mason rightly observes that there has been “more indiscriminate praise” and “more indiscriminate censure” for Mr. Cranmer than all English ecclesiastics, with perhaps Becket and Laud excepted. Mr. Mason summarizes his view: Cranmer “steered the Church of England so well through the first perils of the Reformation” (1).

The usual bio-details are cited.

• Born in Aslockton on July 2, 1489, the sixth of seven children and the sixth in the birth order. He had two brothers and four sisters. Standard report.

• Cranmer’s father dies in 1501, is buried in Whatton Church, and whose tomb is covered with an “uncommon-looking stone” which has “an incised image of his effigy, in the costume of a gentleman of Henry VII’s reign” (4). Standard report.

• Goes to Jesus College in 1503 and graduates 1511, age 22.

• He begins the study of theology. The controversies of religion “are not only trifles but concern the chiefest articles of our salvation” (4). He “could not judge indifferently in so weighty matters without the knowledge of the Holy Scriptures” (4). Yet, Mr. Mason does a fly-over, Mach 2, and never mentions one theological locus or loci.

• Diligent and industrious note-taker.  Every one cites this point.

• Doctorate of Divinity at age 34. Yet, we would add a conflict exists with other biographers, to wit, age 37 and 1526 for the receipt of the Doctorate.  So which is it?

• According to Mr. Mason’s assertion, “There can be no doubt that the young Cranmer was personally influenced by the teaching of Erasmus” (5). This needs to be edited. It “may have been” influenced Mr. Cranmer rather than an undocumented and somewhat triumphalist “there can be no doubt.” We would add that Mr. Erasmus began his teaching in 1511, but he complained that few students attended and even fewer paid their fees. Another writer suggests that Cranmer was Erasmus’ disciple, but we await documentary evidence. Mr. Mason offers none.

• Later, however, we do learn that Cranmer did know Erasmus.   But, this is 1533 and our earlier question applies to the question of 1511-1529 in terms of his relationship to Erasmus. Mr. (Canterbury) Warham died and Cranmer becomes Canterbury. Erasmus writes, “…inasmuch as the deceased archbishop’s place and dignity has been taken by Thomas Cranmer, a professed theologian, and a most upright man of spotless life, who, without my asking him, has promised that he will not be behind his predecessor in his care and kindness toward me; and what he freely promised, he has also freely begun to perform, so that I may feel that Warham has not been taken away from me, but is born again in Cranmer” (Erasmus, Epistolae, mcclxi.). A few things are inserted here by us. First, Mr. Cranmer had digested Mr. Fisher’s diatribe against Luther in Assertionis Lutheranae Disputatio; Cranmer fumes at Mr. Luther. But this is the 1520s. Second, during the same period, Mr. Cranmer has digested Erasmus’ De Libero Arbitrio and Mr. Luther’s Bondage of the Will. Mr. Cranmer is confused about Luther and the topic. Third, when Warham died in 1532, much more water had passed under the bridge: Cranmer’s famed meeting at Waltham in 1529, a trip to Rome for several months in 1530 and a trip to Germany in 1532 for several months. So, by the time of Warham’s death, Mr. Cranmer knows much about Mr. Erasmus.

• According to Mr. Mason, Cranmer was made a Fellow of Jesus in 1510-1511. He needs more documentation here. The Fellowship is vacated after Cranmer gets married. He’s readmitted after her death within the year. Standard storyline narrative.

• Many opposed Henry’s marriage to Catherine, including Mr. (Canterbury) Warham. Mr. Mason says, “Papal dispensations had already accustomed men’s minds to seeing the laws of marriage tampered with” (10).   We have also heard about Cardinal Wolsey's "non-canonical," er, his wife and two children.  Also, of Clement VII's two wives.

• But, Mr. Mason points out other marital incongruities that may have given Mr. Tudor good hopes for a resolution. (1) In 1418, Martin VI allowed (= dispensation against canon law) John, Count of Foix, to marry the sister of his deceased wife. (2) Another dispensation was granted by the infamous Mr. (Pope) Alexander VI to Emmanuel, King of Portugal, so as to marry the sister of his first wife. (3) Ferdinand II, King of Italy, was permitted to marry his own aunt (10).

• But, oddly and helpfully, Mr. Mason claims that Misters (Popes) Alexander VI and Pius III “disallowed” Henry’s marriage to Catherine. It is odd, because few treat the involvement of these two Popes. Arthur died in 1502 unexpectedly. But, Alexander VI died in 1503 long before Henry’s marriage issue was firmed up. Pius III took office in 1503 but he died the same year as Alexander VI. Julius II (1503-1513) granted the dispensation after international negotiations between Spain, England and Rome. However, Julius II admitted “there was some doubt” as to whether he had the power to “dispense” with the clear canonical prohibition; nonetheless, he granted the dispensation. The marriage went forward. Julius II died 1513. Clement VII held the Papacy from 1523 to 1534, the period covering Henry’s great problem.

• Mr. Mason laments the lack of firm principle in the Pope. “It was Julius who lost the English Church to Rome” (11). There are times when one wonders if Mr. Mason is quasi-Tractarian, but we digress. What principle? Canon law? Biblical governance? And, this is quite the over-simplification; we expect more from the "Canon of Canterbury" and graduate of Jesus College, Cambridge.

• Mr. Mason claims “He [Henry] tired of her [Catherine].” “As early as 1524, he had ceased to treat her as a wife” (11). There are no footnotes for the claims.

• “It was too late [for Rome] to retrieve the mistake of Julius” (12).

• “But the poor bastard [Mr. Mason’s lovely and probably accurate term for the illegitimately born Pope Clement VII] who held the see of Rome was incapable of taking a firm attitude of principle” (12). Quite a term for Mr. Clement VII, the “poor bastard.” Very Victorian of him! As an old crusty Marine, we rather like it. We think we'll adopt it.  Charles V's view of Clement was none too high either, but he was willing to "wheel and deal" with the poor bastard.

• Mr. Mason gives the standard vacillations of Clement VII. Other biographers note the disordered and collusive vacillations of the “poor bastard.” First, the “poor bastard” Pope colluded with Mr. Wolsey in Henry’s favor. Second, “at another moment he promised to give Henry a dispensation” (12). Third, “at length,” a commission “was issued to Wolsey and Campeggio” for a favorable ruling for Henry. Third, but there were “months of obstruction.” Fourth, by July 1529, the commission “was revoked.” As an aside, we’ve commented elsewhere on the “double-crossing” deal reached between Emperor Charles V and the poor bastard Pope that voided anything that might turn to Henry’s favor. Henry tried; the Pope let him down; Henry re-arranged matters to his suiting.

• August 1529, the infamous meeting at Waltham between Cranmer, Edward Foxe the Provost of King’s and Stephen Gardiner the Master of Trinity. Henry will “conscript” (our word) Mr. Cranmer to his service. Standard narrative; the contrast of the quiet academic life at Cambridge (1503-1529) to the tumults of service to three royals, Henry, Edward and Mary (1529-1556).

• Old Harry directs Cranmer: “Therefore, Mr. Doctor, I pray you, and nevertheless because you are a subject, I charge and command you (all your other business and affairs set apart) to take some pains to see this cause furthered according to your device, as much as it may lie in you, so that I may shortly understand whereunto I have my trust” (15).

• Cranmer prepares “the form of a treatise” (15-16), it circulates at Cambridge, is discussed and several come over to Cranmer’s support for Henry. Both Cambridge and Oxford will debate and adjudge the issue in Henry's favor.

• Cranmer is sent off to Rome at the “end of 1529” (16). Other biographers, e.g. Pollard, put the date at the end of January 1530. The Earl of Wiltshire (father of Anne Boleyn), Mr. Stokesley (bp.-elect of London), Cranmer and a fourth man are off. Mr. Mason doesn’t mention a fourth man, but other biographers do. They arrive in Bologna. Mr. Mason asserts that they arrived in time to see the poor bastard, Clement VII, confer the “long-deferred coronation” of Emperor Charles V “at Clément’s hands.” Other biographers doubt that the English embassy arrived in time. We will leave that hanging for now.

• More duplicity in Bologna from the poor bastard. When “the Emperor’s back was turned Clement more than three times told the Bishop of Tarbes in secret he would be glad if the marriage between Henry and Anne were already made” (17). He doesn’t want the liability with Charles V. Standard narrative with this important detail about the back-channel chatter between the poor bastard and Tarbes' bishop.

• Mr. Cranmer’s response to a fellow-agent on the mission gives insight on the failure of the English mission in Henry’s behalf:

"As for our successes here, they be very little; nor dare we attempt to know any man’s mind, because of the Pope; nor is he content with what you have done; and he says, no friars shall discuss his power. And as for any favour in this Court, I look for none, but to have the Pope with all his cardinals against us. As concerning the brief, the Pope never granted us none after our device whatsoever Sir Gregory (Cassalis) hath written. Mary, this he did—he willed us to devise a brief; and if it liked him, he would ensign it. But, when it was devised, faults were found in it, and it was given to the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattor to amend; but he amended it after such fashion that is was clean marred for our purpose. Since that time we have had so many new devised and changed again; yah, and moreover, when the Pope hath granted some of our devise, the Emperor’s oratory hath much such exclamations against the Pope that all hath been changed. I never knew such inconstancy in my life. And to shew you plainly my thought, I suppose we shall never have none according to our mind, so long as the Cardinal Sanctorum Quattor, our utter adversary, beareth this authority. Notwithstanding, the Pope is contented, and I trust we shall have shortly one brief metely good after mine opinion, but not with such terms as we would have it” [emphasis add, 17-18].

• Cranmer is back in England by September 1530 “but things were past the diplomatic stage” (18).  He had been out of England for near-wise eight months or so.

• By December 1530, the King and Cromwell “laid the entire clergy under Praemunine. The “Church should be forced to acknowledge explicitly subjection to the Crown” (19). Or, the “King was substituted for the Pope as the Supreme Head of the Church of England” (20). We need to further check Mr. Mason’s dates.

• By 1532, “the Supreme Head is beginning to interfere with the liberties of the English Church in a new way” (21) when the “King forced upon Convocation the memorable Submission of the Clergy” (21). In this year, Mr. Cranmer is sent to Germany to interface with German princes and divines on the “Great Matter.”

• The Convocation of both provinces forward to Parliament their concurrence with the “Abolition of Annates,” that is, the sending of monies or “first fruits” to Rome. The Church of England supports this anti-Papal enactment. No more cash for the poor bastard Pope.

• Mr. Mason notes that Mr. Cranmer was not involved in these actions. They had happened under Mr. (Canterbury) Warham. Under Warham, “separation from Rome” was warranted if Rome “protested the Annates” prohibition (23).

• On August 23, 1532, Mr. (Canterbury) William Warham died. Henry picks Mr. Cranmer. We would add “Why?” There were other contenders who were as experienced and as supportive of Henry’s reforms. One could cite Tunstall, Stokesley, Bonner or even Gardiner? Or Lee of York? Was it a perceived pliability? A lapdog?  It has been said that old Harry was a shrewd judge of character.  Or, the reports of Mr. Cranmer’s performance while in Rome for several months or Germany for several months? It has been asserted that Mr. Cranmer got good performance reviews of his diplomatic involvements. We must leave these questions open for now.

• Mr. Mason puts forward other theories. While on the mission, Mr. Cranmer was the “most surprised” and the “least pleased” in his appointment to Canterbury. He was “probably anxious to finish his diplomacy and return to Cambridge” (24). All theory with no documentation. Mr. Cranmer had married during this German mission.

• Mr. Mason falls off the cliff with one claim in defense of Cranmer, to wit, that he never “took any vow of celibacy” (25). Ah, er, he was ordained. What world was Mr. Mason living in when he penned that? Weak. What is more likely is that Mr. Cranmer had changed his views on ministerial marriage, as had Luther. That is, he returned to the Biblical model of ministerial marriages and the practice of the early church. But, if this was in view in 1532, what else had Mr. Cranmer changed? Again, our persistent question: what did Mr. Cranmer believe, affirm or deny and when? Mr. Mason offers nothing here. In fact, at this point, Mr. offers little theological sense or reviews of Mr. Cranmer's theological posture.

• As for Mr. Cranmer’s reluctance to be seated in Canterbury, he points to the Oxford trials before his burning. Mr. Cranmer reported:

“There was never man came more unwillingly to a bishopric than I did to that. Insomuch that when King Henry did send for me in post that I should come over, I prolonged my journey by seven weeks at the least, thinking that he should be forgetful of me in the meantime” (25).

But, must one believe Mr. Cranmer here? It was known that ambassadorial service on the Continent was the ticket to bishoprics. It, inferably, was known to Mr. Cranmer that he [Cranmer] was or could have been headed to an episcopal see?  Perhaps not Canterbury, but one of the dioceses?  Was he this naïve, unassuming and disinterested in his career?  Did he not foresee or anticipate this? Are we to "airbrush possible motivations" out of the picture to defend Mr. Cranmer?   Is this not a willy-nilly assumption? And Mr. Mason is a Canon of Canterbury? Mr. Mason appears to be just a little too quick in his defense of Mr. Cranmer. What else could have Mr. Cranmer pled at his trial? “Oh, yeah, I was desiring the Bishop’s crozier! I foresaw it and desired it!” May it be remembered how Cranmer congratulated himself as well as Henry's wisdom in choosing him--a learned man--when an ignorant wag chided Cranmer, but we digress.  Mr. Cranmer chided the man, but he did offer self-congratulatory comments about his own ability. The counterclaim at Mr. Cranmer’s trial was that Henry chose him because he was pliable; we believe that has merit for what it's worth.

• Mr. Cranmer was installed as Mr. Canterbury on March 30, 1533 in St. Stephen’s Chapel at Westminster. Co-consecrators: Mr. Longland of Lincoln, Mr, Veysey of Exeter, and Mr. Standish of Asaph. By the way, a raft of bishops were supportive of Henry’s matrimonial designs—Gardiner, Stokesley, Longland, Standish and Vesey. Others, like Fisher, did not support the plan; Mr. Fisher will lose his head for that in 1535. Mr. Mason alleges that the episcopal bench was split.

• Mr. Mason makes a very powerful and potent point: in 1533, the Cranmer of 1533 “was not the Cranmer of the middle of Edward VI’s reign” (26). He was “still less was the Protestant he is often made out to be” (27). Yes? No? In between? That/this warrants continued investigation.

• Cranmer was “on the side of practical reform (like Erasmus)” and against the “Papal usurpations and practical consequences” (28), e.g. annates, investitures, etc. But, was there more? Mr. Mason does not address this and we are not confident in some of his assertions.

• Also, another good point by Mr. Mason. “No one, of course, in these days was expected to believe the Pope to be infallible” (29). Think of the Borgias, Roveres, Medicis—no one thought the “Roman Curia was always right” (29). The Concilarism of Pisa, Constance and Basel is offered, including the deposition of popes. But, this needs to be weighed too.

• Mr. Cranmer was convinced of “pernicious usurpations in government” yet Mr. Cranmer, according to Mr. Mason, still believed the “English Church had a duty towards Rome” (29). This begs for analysis, but we get none.

• Within 11 days of the consecration, Mr. (Canterbury) Cranmer writes Henry to give “leave to give a final sentence” for the predetermined and foregone conclusion. Mr. Cranmer writes this:

"And forasmuch as it hath pleased Almighty God, and your Grace, of your abundant goodness to me showed, to call me, albeit a poor wretch and much unworthy, unto this high and chargeable office of Primate and Archbishop in your Grace’s realm, wherein I beseech Almighty God to great me His grace so to use and demean myself, as may be standing with His pleasure and the discharge of my conscience, and the weal of this your Grace’s realm: and considering also the obloquy and buit, which daily doth spring and increase of the clergy of this realm, and specially the heads and presidents of the same, because they in this behalf do not foresee and provide such convenient remedies as might expel and put out of doubt all such inconveniences, perils and dangers, as the said rude and ignorant people do speak and talk to be imminent: I, your most humble orator and beadman, am, in consideration of the premises, urgently constrained at the present time most humbly to beseech your most noble Grace, that where the office and duty of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by your and your progenitors’ sufferance and grants, is to direct, order, judge and determine causes spiritual in this your Grace’s realm; and because I would be loth, and also it shall not become me, forasmuch as your Grace is my Prince and Sovereign, to enterprise any part of my office in the said weighty cause touching your Highness, without your Grace’s favour and license obtained in that behalf: it may please, therefore, your excellent Majesty (considerations had to the premises, and to my most bounden duty towards your Highness, your realm, succession, and posterity, and for the exoneration of my conscience towards Almighty God) to license me, according to my office and duty, to proceed to the examination, final determination, and judgment in the said great cause touching your Highness” [emphasis added] (32).  In other words, nullity of the marriage and Mary is a bastard.

• Secrecy and haste characterized the hearing. Cranmer feared the public reaction which favored the Queen. Mr. Cranmer was called to rule “on the unlawful decision of Pope Julius II” who should have denied the dispensation in the first place and the marriage in the second place. According to Mr. Mason, Mr. Cranmer was “pronouncing judgment upon and innocent and defenseless woman” yet Mr. Cranmer was “perfectly upright upright and conscientious in delivering such a sentence” (34). Put that in the pipe and smoke it. Mr. Mason periodically makes these rather—um, well—stupid statements. This doesn't pass Logic 101.

• Mr. Mason then opines with merit: Mary was the “victim of the political schemes of Julius, Ferdinand, and Henry VII, to afterwards be flung away by the so-called husband to whom they had married her” (36). Yet, Mr. Mason, you just opined that Mr. Cranmer was just in his proceedings. How will you have it, my good man?

• Mr. Mason proceeds to—um, er—indict Mr. Cranmer in some further matrimonial nastinesses. But, for the present, Cranmer “crowned” Ann as the Queen, a rehearsal and, really, an unreformed rehash of the old Roman practice of Popes conferring sovereignty on the Secular Princes. He probably witnessed the poor bastard (Mr. Mason's term for Clement VII) doing the same to Charles V in Bologna.

• Yet, in three years, Mr. Cranmer would be “called to Lambeth from the country” (39). Ann Boleyn will face trial for “atrocious charges” for which she was put “in the Tower” (39). We insert here that Drs. Sanders and Harpsfield, two Papal Roman Anglicans (1.0 and 4.0 Anglicans), ardent anti-Reformed and anti-Evangelical operatives in the Elizabethan period, will allege that Ann was born of an illegitimate and adulterous union between Henry and Lady Elizabeth Boleyn, married to Sir Boleyn, one of Henry’s ambassadors; this story will have a long life amongst English recusants but also on the Continent; in fact, Bishop Burnet in the next century will refute the continuing allegation that old Harry unwittingly married his own daughter, Ann Boleyn.  But Mr. Mason doesn’t touch that point; he does tell us that Mr. Cranmer was “told not to approach the King in person” (39).   Just odd. Not enough information.

• On May 3, 1536, Mr. Cranmer writes old Harry:

“I am in such perplexity that my mind is clean amazed, for I never had better opinion in woman than I had in her; which maketh me think that she should not be culpable. And again I think that your Highness would not have gone so far, except she had been surely culpable. Now I think that your Grace best knoweth, that next unto your Grace, I was most bound unto her of all creatures living. Wherefore I most humbly beseech your Grace to suffer me in that which both God’s law, nature and also her kindness, bindeth me unto; that is, that I may with our Grace’s favour wish and pray for her that she may declare herself inculpable and innocent” [emphasis added] (39-40).

• Cranmer was summoned to the Star Chamber and “informed of such things” as “Henry’s pleasure was they should make him privy to” (40).

• On May 15, 1536, Ann was found guilty “by her peers.” She was condemned to be “burned or beheaded” (40). Of note, there were laws on the books forbidding Royal adultery for fears of dynastic corruption. Never mind that old Harry had a few bastards born from other illicit unions.

• On Mary 16, 1536, Cranmer visited Ms. Anne Boleyn in the Tower.  Allegedly, to hear her last confession.

• On May 17, 1536, Henry and Anne were “cited to appear before him [Cranmer] at Lambeth to answer for certain inquiries for their souls’ health.” The court sat for two hours.

• The court, including Mr. Cranmer, claimed that Ms. Boleyn had made “most damaging admissions” yet those admissions “remained undivulged” (41). This is essentially what Lord Herbert and other biographers have noted. No one really knows what the "grounds" actually were. Cranmer would later be very enigmatic and cryptic.  So would Parliament. There were unidentified and undivulged "impediments," whatever that meant.

• Old Thomas Cranmer claimed: “…the marriage between the King and Ann had never been valid” and that “Elizabeth was illegitimate” [emphasis added] (41). What a circus! Further, other biographers note that Mr. Cranmer was found weeping uncontrollably in his gardens following the beheading. More likely, Cranmer believed her innocent, but suffered from hyper-cowardice (our view).

• She lost her head on May 19, 1536.

• Mr. Mason impales Mr. Cranmer further. “Nor was this the last occasion on which Cranmer was required to take part in the miserable business of his master’s wives.”

• In April 1540, Cranmer “set his seal to a document which pronounced yet another of the marriages invalid” (41). This would be Anne of Cleves. The grounds were twofold: (1) Harry “never inwardly consented” and (2) Ann had pre-contracted with a prince from the House of Lorraine. This doesn’t pass the most elementary smell-test. Cranmer was “owned” and “used.” A coward. He was Henry's lapdog.

• Mr. Mason cites the infamous Bishop Burnet, to wit, “Archbishop Cranmer had now not courage enough to swim against the stream” (42).

• Old Harry will marry Catherine Howard. 1.5 years later, old Cranmer will get the ugly duty of informing Harry that he [Cranmer] “had received intelligence of the gravest kind regarding the Queen’s immoral conduct before her marriage” (42). This fifth wife’s head will fall at Tower Hill like the second wife's head.  We may suppose the heads rolled literally. 

Our scorecard:

1. Lengthy 6-year process in ditching Catherine of Aragon, the Non-Breeding Mare in Henry’s stable, at least 1527 until 1533. Mary 1 was the issue, declared a bastard, then regularized later and put into dynastic succession.

 2. Ann Boleyn, loses head in 1536. Elizabeth 1 was the issue, declared a bastard, then regularized later and put into dynastic succession.

 3. Jane Seymour, 1536-1537. Died. Gave birth to Edward VI.
4. Ann of Cleves. Put out to pasture.

 5. Catherine Howard. Loses head like Ann at Tower Hill, 1542.

 6. Catherine Parr. Outlives old Harry and widowed in 1547.

We end where started.

Chapter 1: “Cranmer’s Life Until the Divorce”

Right off, the title is misnamed. It should be retitled: “Cranmer’s Life Through Multiple Intrigues, Six Wives, Divorces, Axes and All”

Or, "Cranmer, Emcee of Henry's Circus"

Or, "Cranmer, Henry's Canterburian Lapdog"

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.