'That admirable caution, and prudence, which marked all his proceedings': a Georgian Anglican portrayal of Cranmer the Erasmian humanist
which forces the individual to undertake a good deal of hard thinking in order to make sense of the world around, rather than reaching for some simple model in a book.
Not mentioned by MacCulloch amongst Cranmer's biographers, but, I think, an account which points in this direction, evoking the spirit of "a cautious, well-read humanist", is William Gilpin's 1784 The life of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury. Gilpin was a representative of Georgian England's enlightened clergy and in Cranmer he sees an Erasmian humanist who embodied "wisdom, prudence, learning, moderation" - a precursor, then, of 18th century Anglicanism's moderation and openness to enlightened thought.
Before going further, we should consider the understandable criticism that this introduction sounds as if Gilpin was merely remaking Cranmer to suit a typical Anglican self-understanding. I think a convincing case can be made that Gilpin's Cranmer is more than this. In particular, MacCulloch's criticism of those who present a Cranmer divorced from "links with the Reformation of mainland Europe" does not apply to Gilpin, who emphasises such links:
The primate corresponded also with Osiander, Melancthon, and Calvin. His foreign correspondence indeed was so large that he appointed a person with a salary at Canterbury, whose chief employment it was, to forward, and receive his packets ...
In the southern parts of France, in Holland, and in Germany, the reformation flourished chiefly under Calvin, Bullenger, and Melancthon. To these eminent reformers the archbishop applied with much earnestness; intreating them to join their endeavours with his, in forwarding this great scheme; and proposed England as a place, where they might hold their consultations with the mod convenience, and the most security.
Cranmer was, Gilpin states, "the friend and patron" of Reformers across Europe:
The suffering professors of protestantism, who were scattered in great numbers about the various countries of Europe, were always sure of an asylum with him. His palace at Lambeth might be called a seminary of learned men; the greater part of whom persecution had driven from home. Here among other celebrated reformers, Martyr, Bucer, Aless, Phage found sanctuary. Martyr, Bucer, and Phage were liberally pensioned by the archbishop, till he could otherwise provide for them. It was his wish to fix them in the two universities, where he hoped their great knowledge, and spirit of inquiry, would forward his designs of restoring learning: and he at length obtained professorships for them all. Bucer and Phage, were settled at Cambridge; were they only shewed what might have been expected from them, both dying within a few months after their arrival. But at Oxford Martyr acted a very conspicuous part; and contributed to introduce among the students there a very liberal mode of thinking.
What is more, Cranmer's definitively Protestant 42 Articles of 1553 are described by Gilpin as the defining foundation of the Church of England's confession:
Such was the origin of that celebrated test of orthodoxy, which is now known by the name of the 39 articles of the church of England. Those framed by the archbishop indeed consisted of 42: but in all succeeding settlements of the church, what was now composed on this head, was not only made the groundwork; but was, in many parts, almost verbatim retained.
Gilpin's Cranmer, in other words, certainly does not belong to those accounts which, in MacCulloch's words, are "embarrassed by the Reformation".
In fact, Gilpin's Cranmer as Erasmian humanist was the Cranmer who ensured the success of the Reformation in England. In defining Cranmer as an Erasmian, Gilpin contrasts the great humanist with Luther:
Erasmus, cautious, and respectful to authority, shrank from danger; and sought truth only in the regions of tranquillity ... Luther was remarkable for the boldness of his measures; and a course of intrepid action: while Erasmus, trusting to his pen, never ventured abroad as the champion of religion; but defended it from his closet ... If Luther's rough, and popular address were better suited to the multitude; the polished style, and elegant composition of Erasmus, found readier access to the gentleman, and the scholar.
It was, Gilpin states, "the writings of Erasmus [which] introduced the first idea of systematic reformation in England" - and it was through Erasmus that Cranmer was introduced to the reforming currents of humanism:
The works of this celebrated writer began to be received in England at the time, when Mr. Cranmer was a student at Cambridge; and all men, who pretended to genius, learning, or liberality of sentiment, read them with avidity. To the general scholar, they opened a new idea - that of thinking for himself; and to the student in divinity, they pointed out the scriptures as the only source of religious truth. The sophistry of the schools began apace to lose credit; and the universities soon produced ingenious men, who thought they could not employ their time better, than in studying the naked text of the scriptures, which at length drew on a freedom of inquiry.
Here was the source of Cranmer's approach to Reformation, his being "a cautious, well-read humanist". And it was this spirit that defined Cranmer as the reforming Archbishop of Canterbury:
All therefore, who wished well to a reformation, looked up to him, as the only person, who was capable of conducting it. And indeed he was every way qualified to answer their wishes. By prudent caution, discrete forbearance, and pure simplicity of manners, he was able to oppose and counter-act the designs of some of the most artful men of his time.
He approached "framing the catechism, and new modelling the liturgy, and the canon law" with "that admirable caution, and prudence, which marked all his proceedings". The moderation and prudence of a wise humanist shaped his actions as a Reformer:
In acting he always felt his ground, as he proceeded; and had the singular wisdom to forbear attempting things, however desirable, which could not be attained. He rarely admitted any circumstances into his schemes, which ought to have been left out; and as rarely left out any which ought to have been admitted. Hence it was, that he so happily accomplished the most difficult of all works, that of loosening the prejudices of mankind. Hence it was also, that the ground which he took, was so firm, as scarce to leave any part of the foundation he laid, under the necessity of being strengthened.
Gilpin also points to an arresting contrast with another primate in a time controversy, Archbishop Laud:
One can scarce on this occasion avoid a comparison between him, and his successor archbishop Laud. Both were good men - both were equally zealous for religion - and both were engaged in the work of reformation. I mean not to enter into the affair of introducing episcopacy in Scotland; nor to throw any favourable light on the ecclesiastical views of those times. I am at present only considering the measures which the two archbishops took in forwarding their respective plans. While Cranmer pursued his with that caution and temper, which we have just been examining; Laud, in the violence of his integrity, (for he was certainly a well-meaning man) making allowances neither for men, nor opinions, was determined to carry all before him. The consequence was, that he did nothing, which he attempted; while Cranmer did every thing. And it is probable, that if Henry had chosen such an instrument as Laud, he would have miscarried in his point: while Charles with such a primate as Cranmer, would either have been successful in his schemes, or at least have avoided the fatal consequences that ensued.
Cranmer's prudence, wisely working to achieve support for Reformation from Privy Council, Parliament, and Convocation, stands, of course, in stark contrast to Laud's use of the mechanisms of the Personal Rule. As an example of this, we can point to how, when the matter of kneeling to receive the Sacrament was contested after Parliament had approved the 1552 Book, Cranmer reminded opponents of the practice that the Book was "read and approved by [the] whole state of the Realm in this high court of Parliament" and that changes to it could not occur "without Parliament". This wise recognition of the need for consent from the political nation was exactly what Laud rejected. Here again we see something of a wise, prudent humanism that would also be reflected in Hooker's understanding:
The Parlament of England together with the Convocation annexed thereunto is that whereupon the very essence of all government within the Kingdom doth depend. It is even the bodie of the whole Realme ... The Parlament is a Court not so meerly temporall as if it might meddle with nothing but only leather and wooll ... Wherfore to define and determine even of the Churches affaires by way of assent and approbation as lawes are defined of in that right of power which doth give them the force of lawes; thus to define of our own Churches regiment, the Parlament of England hath competent authoritie (LEP VIII.9.6).
The wise prudence of an Erasmian humanist, of course, attracts criticism. Gilpin notes how Calvin urged Cranmer to adopt a less cautious approach:
His caution however did not pass wholly uncensured. Many of his friends conceived, that he might have taken hastier steps. The zeal of Calvin in particular took offence. That reformer wrote his sentiments very freely to the archbishop; and wished him to push matters with a little more spirit. He put him in mind of his age, which could not long allow him to continue his useful labours; and feared, that on his death, an opportunity would be lost, which might never be recovered. The archbishop answered his letter with great kindness - reminded him of the many difficulties he had still to oppose; and endeavoured to convince him of the great imprudence of less cautious measures.
Gilpin is not, at this point, at all suggesting that Cranmer and the Reformation in England stood apart from Calvin. Hence the Genevan Reformer is placed among Cranmer's "friends". The correspondence is described in terms that make clear that they are allies, with a shared commitment to Reformation. And Cranmer's response was one of "great kindness", again emphasising friendship. Gilpin, however, does use the exchange to again demonstrate Cranmer's Erasmus-like prudence, that caution which was the first virtue Gilpin ascribed to the great humanist.
As befitted a "well-read humanist", Gilpin states, "His library was filled with a very noble collection of books; and was open to all men of letters". And, even amidst the demands of being primate, "He generally however contrived, if possible, even in the busiest day, to devote some proportion of his time to his books".
Towards the end of his account, Gilpin again points to how the commitment to humanist learning defined Cranmer the Reformer:
But the light, in which archbishop Cranmer appears to most advantage, is in that of a reformer, conducting the great work of a religious establishment; for which he seems to have had all the necessary qualifications. He was candid, liberal, and open to truth in a great degree. Many of his opinions he reconsidered and altered; even in his advanced age. Nor was he ever ashamed of owning it; which is in effect, he thought, being ashamed of owning, that a man is wiser to-day than he was yesterday. When his old tenets with regard to the Lord's supper, were objected to him; he replied with great simplicity; I grant that formerly I believed otherwise than I do now; and so I did, until my lord of London (Dr. Ridley) did confer with me, and by sundry arguments, and authorities of doctors, draw me quite from my persuasion.
MacCulloch, in 'Thomas Cranmer's Biographers', referring to his own now classic biography of Cranmer, says "Reviewers, as always, used the book for their own purposes". He continues, "To speak of Thomas Cranmer is still to enter culture wars". This being so, perhaps we - Anglicans, yes, but certainly not only Anglicans - could do much worse than heed Gilpin's affectionate portrait of Cranmer the Erasmian humanist, at a time when, in church and state, a prudent Erasmian spirit would be most welcome.
Comments
Post a Comment