Davies, Horton. Worship and Theology in England From Cranmer to Hooker, 1534-1603, Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1996.
A few musings, although, in terms of a timeline, this is advanced beyond the divorce issue and other developments.
Chapter One, pages 5-39: “Catholics and Protestants in Controversy (1534-1568)”
Pg.11ff.
Mr. Davies draws attention to the “role of Scripture.” But, he does so pretty widely and broadly. He is ranging over a 34-year period, but there is a long period before 1534 that is not addressed.
He tells us that in the "early decades of the 16th century," this prevailed:
“It was settled, then, that the Christian prince, presumably advised by his theologians, was the true instrument for the reformation and disciplining of the national church.” Wycliffe and Luther would have agreed.
But, "it was settled?" It was for Frederick the Wise, but Henry VIII? Yes and no. Yes, Henry VIII made himself the Boss of the Church of England, but was Henry doctrinally "Reformational?" Henry remained a good orthodox Romanist, but without the Pope. He "reformed" the Church of England into a Non-Papal Roman Church. So, questions arise here.
Mr. Davies states: “In the early decades of the 16th century, however, is was clear that the opinion was that the only authority of the word of God in the Holy Scriptures was sufficient for the reform and rebuilding of the church” (Davies, 12).
This was hardly a "settled opinion," by any stretch. For Reformers, yes, but it was hardly a "settled opinion" from Romanists. The Council of Trent will convene shortly after the publication of "The Great Bible" in 1540.
Scripture alone? Scripture, reason and tradition? Two testaments including the Old Testament? King Josiah to justify Tudor monarchies? Apocrypha? Or, as Anglicans argued, the traditio quincquesecularis, the first five centuries?
Mr. Davies cites Erasmus: “Inherent in the appeal of Erasmus to the new translated New Testament.”
In 1535, Coverdale produced an English translation. It was published on the Continent, but not in England. This was 19 years after Erasmus produced his New Testament Greek text.
Mr. Davies tells us that "the adoption of an English translation was slow in England" and "a convocation petitioned Henry for a translation in 1534." Cranmer convinced Henry VIII to commission Coverdale.
In 1537, “Matthew’s Bible” was produced but it was really Coverdale’s. And Coverdale's was largely Tyndale's. (By the way, Tyndale opposed Henry VIII's divorce and yet, oddly, Ann Boleyn would enjoy some of Tyndale's writings.) Tyndale will get roasted at the stake in 1536 compliments of the search engine of the Bishop of London. Ms. Boleyn wouldn't be long for life either, but we digress.
As an aside on Tyndale, we recommend: Daniel, David. William Tyndale: A Biography. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.
Two years after Tyndale's death on the Continent, an Injunction was issued in 1538 that an English Bible should be placed in every church throughout England. This is huge.
Cranmer puts his “Preface” in the Bible.
The title page of the Great Bible of 1540 states: “This is appointed for use of the churches.” This is a serious advance for the Church of England. It was a beach-head. However, there were no divine services (e.g. Masses only all in Latin), throughout the land, in English. Those Latin Masses would prevail until our generation, the 1970s. English, sorry. Nor any public lections in English at this point, insofar as we can see.
If we assume 10,000 churches throughout England and if, by a gratuitous assumption, this was a successful campaign of distribution, this would have been a massive effort; but do we have confirmation of the success of this effort?
How successful was this Injunction? Was there compliance on a national scale? Or, was this a "publishing phenomenon" in London, Oxford, Cambridge and a few other influential centers? Who was reading this "Great Bible?"
While this gets good press from those favoring the English Reformation, we have questions of context. Yes, it was significant that it was published in 1540, but let the inferences be fair. There was continuing opposition to the Bible in English.
But, it's publication does just that...it RAISED many questions. It would be these questions that would spawn something of a Reformation in England.
We draw a few notes from Mr. Cranmer’s “Preface.”
1. This is for “two sorts of sundry people.”
2. Some are “too slow” and “need the spur.” These are those who refuse “to read or hear in the vulgar tongue." Cranmer uses metaphors from horsemanship. Of note, Cranmer was noted for his horsemanship. In fact, his long-term secretary (throughout his regnancy in Canterbury) and well-trusted friend, Ralph Morice, stated that Cranmer could ride the toughest horses in the Archbishop's stables.
3. Some are “too quick” and need “more of the bridle,” that is, those who by “inordinate reading” engage in “contentious disputing.” Well, what else did Cranmer himself do in his marginalia? In his own books? Dealing with assertions, objections and counter-objections in good Aristotelian fashion? Mr. Cranmer might object to disputation, but he practiced it himself. And what else was it that was going on in Germany and elsewhere? Or, does Cranmer have Anabaptists in mind? 1525, the Peasants Revolt, the death of 1000s and the Munster-chaos were internationally known…even feared. Cranmer always feared the Anabaptist revolts on the Continent.
4. Both “deserve in effect like reproach.” However the above is viewed, Cranmer wisely argues for cautious, learned, and sober reading.
5. The Bible is the "Lucerna pedibus meis, verbum tuum," that is, "Thy Word is a lantern to my feet."
6. Over 100 years before, Cranmer notes, the Bible began to be read in English. A reference to Wycliffe? We are not sure. Wycliffe and Lollards in the late 14th and 15th centuries ran into heavy seas with the production of English Bibles. What the Lollards had engaged in was strenuously opposed by Papal Romano-English bishops. What does Cranmer know, believe, assert or deny regarding Wycliffites? This appears to be a reference to Lollardy. If so, Cranmer's present context acknowledges, implicitly and explicitly, that Wycliffe and the Lollards had been right all along!! Imagine that!
7. 100s of year before this (Lollardy), Bibles were produced in the Anglo-Saxon tongue. This was evident in many abbeys, but “few could read and understand” these old manuscripts. Cranmer observed that they still existed in his time. Beyond Cranmer's references here, we point to Mr. (abc) Matthew Parker who--later--referred to an ancient Anglo-Saxon manuscript that he collected. Mr. Parker noted that it showed heavy signs of use. In other words, the Bible in the national tongue was in use before the Latin tongue shoved the Bible from the Churches and God's people. At what point did the Anglo-Saxon versions succumb to Romano-Latin domination?
8. Cranmer refers to Chrysostom in "De Lazaro," to wit, that “every man should read” the Bible “between sermon and sermon.” He should not read just “in church” but “when you are in your houses.” “Let no man excuse himself.”
9. “Take the book in your own hands.”
10. “The Apostles and prophets had special intent and purpose” that the Scriptures "might be perceived and understood by every reader.” Well, well. Chrysostom, Wycliffe, Luther, and Cranmer agree. We again repeat: it is within this scribe's memory, yours truly, that Roman Masses in the United States were still in Latin and Papal Romanists were not allowed to read the Bible. Do the math: 1540 for Cranmer's "Great Bible" in English and in England and 1960s Masses in Latin in the USA. 420 years is the difference. It's called Romano-Latin dominionism.
11. The Bible is not for “disputes” and “fists.” Cranmer cites Gregory of Nazianzus where there were ungodly contentions.
12. Learning, which Cranmer recommends, should “be in the fear of the Lord.”
No comments:
Post a Comment