|
 |
|
| Who would want to be an Archbishop of Canterbury? It carries with it the great prestige of being at the top of the order of precedence in public life after the Royal Family. There are great opportunities for communicating with the public in this country and beyond through the media. There must be a variety of perks that go with the job, and who can tell what influence for good could be exerted by a proper and conscientious use of such an important position? And yet...
Well, what are the drawbacks? The very prominence given to any Archbishop of Canterbury makes him the obvious target for criticism when there is trouble around, and in a body as diverse as the Church of England there is plenty of scope for that. Anglo-Catholics and modern churchmen as well as Protestants have found reasons to grouse about their spiritual leaders. The biographies of late nineteenth and twentieth century Archbishops may well lead to the same conclusion as that reached by Gilbert's policemen. Their lot is not a happy one.
The lives of some much earlier Archbishops of the past support that conclusion. Only recently Thomas Becket, was nominated as the worst Briton of the twelfth century, his assassination in Canterbury Cathedral being described as "a fittingly grisly end". Simon of Sudbury Archbishop and Chancellor under Richard II, was captured and beheaded by War Tyler's rebels. William Laud, arch-enemy of the Puritans, suffered the same fate after his impeachment by Parliament.
Our particular concern, though, is with Thomas Cranmer, who was burned at the stake for heresy during the Marian persecution on March 21st 1556. There is not the space here to do full justice to a man who has left a lasting mark on English life, and those who would like to know more have a good selection of books from which to choose. Foxe's account is a basic source. Marcus Loane and J.C.Ryle provide excellent overviews, and there are longer biographies by Jasper Ridley and Diarmaid MacCulloch that go into much more detail. The latter has probably provided the fullest coverage possible with abundant use of original sources of information.
Cranmer lived in one of the most tumultuous periods of English history. His character and activities have fascinated historians who, depending on their background, have come up with very varying assessments of him. Yet his influence on the spiritual life of the English people is surely greater than that of any other Archbishop of Canterbury and one for which Protestants can be truly grateful to God. That is not to say that Cranmer was perfect in all that he did. Nor is it necessarily to agree with his view of the Church and its relationship to the State. He was very much a child of his time. It does recognise, though, his contribution to the progress of the gospel in this country and the laying of a good foundation of Protestant doctrine.
What part then did he play in the working out of God's purposes for our country? In the first place it was his advice and activity that brought about the decision that Henry VIII's marriage to Catherine of Aragon was not scriptural, and that the papal dispensation allowing it to take place was wrong. Not only did this allow Henry to marry Anne Boleyn, it paved the way for the Royal Supremacy in Church as well as State. Before the final repudiation of papal authority, though, Henry had secured the necessary bulls from Rome that allowed Cranmer to become Archbishop of Canterbury.
Already among those won over to the Protestant teaching coming from the continent Cranmer saw the importance of people having access to the Scriptures in their own language, and despite ups and downs along the way he secured royal permission for Bibles in English to be put in parish churches and to be sold. Along with Tyndale, Coverdale, Rogers, and others Cranmer was instrumental in making the Bible a vital part of English life, with all the consequences that flowed from that.
It also followed that he wanted the people to be able to worship in their own language. He translated the Latin Litany from various sources into English in a form that was not only accessible to ordinary people but was expressed in a fine and memorable idiom. This was but the forerunner, though, for a whole Prayer Book in English. Nonconformists may baulk at the idea of a set liturgy, and John Owen's argument a century later about constraining the work of the Spirit has great validity. Here, however, was something that enabled people to join together in worship and to understand what they were doing. Moreover it exalted God and encouraged a true sense of worship.
Such a Prayer Book did not come all at once. Cranmer's own doctrinal convictions were still moving in a more Protestant direction and the forms of service, particularly in the Lord's Supper, were not as unambiguous as they should have been in the 1549 version. By 1552 Cranmer could be much more precise in making it plain that the presence of the Lord in the Supper was spiritual, to be received by faith, and not a real presence of the actual body and blood of the Lord as taught by Rome, nor even in union with the elements, as taught by Luther.
Whatever differences of opinion we may hold over details, some of them very important, even the most prejudiced critic must surely recognise how much scriptural truth is contained within the material in the Prayer Book. Cranmer had the skill to take what was best from existing forms and to use it in a way that embodied eternal truth. We may not want to use the actual words, but we can all improve our praying as we recognise how God is approached with some reference to one or other of His attributes. It is interesting that this was a characteristic to be found in A.W Pink's published correspondence.
We can also benefit from seeing how concisely Cranmer is able to frame particular requests to God. People sometimes talk about reading the service. Personal experience says that we can really pray with our hearts as well as with our lips when we are using it, even if now we are among those who believe it better to be free to pray as the Spirit leads. Cranmer's principles bring home the importance of form and scriptural content.
Not so well known is Cranmer's concern for Christian unity. He realised how important it was for there to be a united witness to the gospel among Protestants and he endeavoured to bring about a meeting of the leading European Protestant leaders. Events made that impossible.
Cranmer knew the importance of preaching. He was realistic about the ability or lack of it among many of the clergy of the time. He also recognised that some men were not as enthusiastic about Reformed doctrine as they should have been. To overcome at least some of these problems he produced a Book of Homilies that could be read at services and that set out sound doctrine on a number of fundamental matters. He also formulated doctrinal Articles that led to the present 39 Articles of the Church of England. Cranmer wanted English people to be fed on the truth of the Word and to be given a right understanding of it. Otherwise many might have continued to hold Roman ideas.
From all of this we can see what a great contribution Cranmer made, and we have only been able to skim the surface. What of his character, though? He has been accused of being two-faced, largely as a result of his survival during the reign of Henry VIII when other leaders, whether Roman or not, went to the block. Cranmer's enemies accused him of heresy to Henry, but the King knew Cranmer's integrity. He seems to have been the one person Henry trusted right to his dying day when he sent for him to be at his bedside.
Cranmer's spiritual progress was a gradual one in many ways and at particular points we might have felt disappointed in him. A great revolution in thinking was taking place, though, and a conscientious man like Cranmer wanted to make sure that he was moving in the right direction. It is sad to find him involved with the condemnation and martyrdom of some of the more radical and even heretical Protestants of his day, but he was not a bloodthirsty persecutor.
The closing part of his life contains its deepest trough and a glorious peak. Imprisoned for a long time, he underwent tremendous efforts to break his spirit. He lived longer than other leaders of the Reformation in England as he could
not be executed until the Pope had condemned him and removed him from office. He had seen his friends on their way to execution. He was treated as a prisoner with few or no privileges and then shown favour to hold out hope of release. It is no wonder that after a prolonged period of assault on the truth of his convictions he felt he should recant. What is truly wonderful is the manner in which he turned the lowest point of his humiliation into a triumphant witness to the truth of the Gospel.
It is right that we should honour the memory of a great and humble Christian man to whom, under God, we owe so much. We are sure that his eternal lot is a happy one indeed. |
|---|
|
| back to magazine page |
next article |
|
