MacCulloch,
Diarmaid. Thomas Cranmer: A Life. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.
A.L. Rowse, the Shakespearean scholar, noted: “At
least we have the truth about Archbishop Cranmer, the most controversial bigwig
in the history of the English Church.” Evening
Standard.
A few notes amidst a few interpolations.
A few notes amidst a few interpolations.
Two contrasting views are evident in the
literature: (1) hero-narrative v.
villain-narrative, (2) church-legitimacy v. church-dismissal, and/or (3)
Romeward v. Evangelical. Mr. MacCulloch
uses the term “Catholic,” but that frequently means Romewardizers. Or, often, it refers to the MCTTers, that is,
the “More Catholic Than Thou-ers” with all the advocacies of deviations that
Cranmer himself overturned and resisted.
MacCulloch observes that publicly and privately
Cranmer was essentially reserved and private.
As such, he cites Ralph Morice, Cranmer’s private secretary:
He was a man of such temperature or
rather so mortified, that no manner of prosperity or adversity could alter or
change his accustomed conditions: for, being the storms never so terrible or
odious, nor the prosperous estate of the time never so pleasant, joyous or
acceptable, to the face of [the] world his countenance, diet or sleep commonly
never altered or changed, so that they which were most nearest and conversant
about him seldom perceived by no sign or token of countenance how the affairs
of the prince or the realm went.
Notwithstanding privately with his secret and special friends he would
shed forth many bitter tears, lamenting the miseries and calamities of the
world.[1]
This is the general picture that is offered by
other readings. A quiet, judicious and
careful man.
There are 300 letters. He mentions his wife and children once in a
letter to Martin Bucer. During the reign
of Edward VI, he displayed his wife and children as his “pride and joy.” Elizabeth would, perhaps, have
disapproved.
In addition to his family, books were “one of his
passions.” He had an elaborate “classified filing system of research.” His books are full of notes. MacCulloch thus supports Mr. Pollard’s claim
that Mr. Cranmer was a diligent reader of “immense industry” who took careful
notes.
Mr. MacCulloch defines his use of terms in the
book. He frequently will use the term “Evangelical” or “evangelical” as
referring to “religious reformism” of the 1520s and 1530s. He will not use the
term “Protestant” since that did not gain currency until Mary’s days. Further, he will not use the term “Lutheran”
since that is “unacceptably too narrow” during Henry’s times. “Evangelical” was a term suitable as a “convenient
catch-all term.”
The above suggests that “Evangelical” equals “Reformed”
thinking, but caution is ordered up since that term also shifts towards
Continental associations. Further, in
our time, everyone seems to adopt the term “Evangelical” including Tractarians
like Mr. Walter Grunsdorf of the indubitably severe Anglican Province of
America. It would appear that Mr.
MacCulloch’s use of the term will provoke, perhaps, some irritation. It surely should not be equated with American
“evangelicalism” which is an oddity to itself.
However, it should be noted that Romanists used the terms “Evangelical”
or “Evangelic” to identify the early Reformers, Luther included.
Further, Mr. MacCulloch will use the terms “traditionalist”
and “conservative” for men like Mr. Thomas More and Mr. (bp.) John Fisher. Both
men reference the “Evangelicals” as “men of New Learning.”[2] Mr. MacCulloch puts the two in tension: the “old world of devotion” versus “something
reformed.”
While Mr. Pollard has done very little in
expounding Mr. Cranmer’s theological developments, 1503-1530, we hope to see
more from Mr. MacCulloch. Mr. (bp.) John
Fisher was giving Mr. Martin Luther a run for his money in the 1520s and the
books and discussions about the “New Learning” were continuing at the White
Horse Inn. Tyndale and Coverdale were already in the game. But, what did Mr. Cranmer know and
when did he know it? In short, we do not
adhere, at this point, to a hero-narrative or villain-narrative. There are complexities here.
Overall, Mr. MacCulloch has found that those who
have told the “hero-narrative have generally distorted fewer elements of the
evidence.”
Overall, R.A. Houlbrooke of The English Review says of this work: “…a work of majestic breadth and magisterial
authority…impressive erudition, great psychological insight, and considerable
narrative skill.”
[1] MacCulloch,
ibid. Also, we believe that Morice’s
narrative may be obtained here. Nichols, John
Gough, ed. Narratives of the Days of the
Reformation: Chiefly From the Manuscripts of John Foxe The Martyriologist; With
Two Contemporary Biographies of Archbishop Cranmer. Whitefish, Montana:
Kessinger Publishing, 2006. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/Narratives-Days-Reformation-Martyrologist-Contemporary/dp/1425498442/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374788535&sr=1-1&keywords=1425498442
[2] Rex, Richard. The Theology of John Fisher. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
2003. Available at: http://www.amazon.com/Theology-John-Fisher-Richard-Rex/dp/0521541158/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374792400&sr=1-1&keywords=rex+john+fisher
No comments:
Post a Comment