Dates (1489-1556)

1489 Born at Aslockton, Nottinghamshire.
1510 Educated Jesus College, Cambridge.
1515 Receives MA; marries Joan some time after, who dies in childbirth.
1523 Ordained priest.
1529 Favored Henry VIII’s annulment of marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
1532 Secretly married Margaret Ossiander, niece of Andreas Osiander, while on embassy to Charles V.
1533 Became Archbishop of Canterbury; Henry’s marriage declared void.
1535 Coverdale Bible published (a revision of Tyndale).
1536 The Ten Articles (Mildly Catholic).
1537 Bishops’ Book (replaces the Ten Articles).
1539 Six Articles (Cranmer opposed – sent his wife back to Germany).
1540 “Preface to the Great Bible.”
1543 The King’s Book (revised version of the Bishops’ Book).
1544 The Great Litany.
1547 Death of Henry VIII.
1549 First Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI.
1552 The Ordinal; Second Prayer Book.
1553 Forty-Two Articles.
1553 Death of Edward VI, Accession of Mary Tudor.
1556 Cranmer burned at the stake.

As noted in my essay “What is Anglican Theology?,” Anglicanism does not have a distinctive founder to whom it appeals for identity in the way that Lutherans look to Martin Luther, for example, or the Reformed look to John Calvin. Even if we look to the Reformation-era for roots, the English Reformation covers the entire period from the initial Catholicism of Henry VIII, to the more distinctively Protestant era of his son Edward VI, which would be the period of Thomas Cranmer and other figures such as Hugh Latimer and Nicholas Ridley, and concludes with the Elizabethan settlement of the following generation, whose chief figures were John Jewel and Richard Hooker. Even then, one could make the case that it was really only in the following generation of the Caroline Divines that Anglicanism finally arrived at a settled identity. This extended beginning means that subsequent Anglicans have been able to appeal to different figures in this initial period as exemplars of Anglican identity, certainly Cranmer, but also Hooker or various figures among the Caroline Divines.

This essay and the next will examine themes in Thomas Cranmer’s theology. If Cranmer is not a figure of the stature of Luther or Calvin, he is nonetheless the most significant figure of the initial period of the English Reformation, not only because he was the primary author of the two first versions of the Book of Common Prayer of 1549 and 1552, but was also a major author of the 42 Articles, which later became the 39 Articles. Cranmer also wrote a number of homilies in the Book of Homilies,. These three sets of documents – the Prayer Book (and the Ordinal), the 39 Articles, and the Book of Homilies – are sometimes referred to as the Anglican Formularies, and have been appealed to (especially by Evangelical Anglicans) as definitive doctrinal sources for Anglican identity.

Because of Cranmer’s historical significance, not only as the Archbishop of Canterbury during the reign of Henry VIII and his son Edward VI, as the author of the Prayer Book, and a major contributor to the 39 Articles and numerous Homilies, the question of how to interpret his theology is not only important for Anglican theology, but also controversial. While no one would claim that Cranmer was what would later be called an Anglo-Catholic, theologians have pointed to numerous “catholic” themes in Cranmer’s theology: the modeling of the Book of Common Prayer on patristic liturgies, the medieval Sarum liturgy, and historic Catholic collects; Cranmer’s modeling of Morning and Evening Prayer on the Benedictine Daily Office; Cranmer’s regular appeal to the church fathers, and, finally, a conciliatory tone that perhaps echoes more the humanist Catholic Desiderius Erasmus than Luther or Calvin. At the same time, Evangelical Anglicans often have looked to Cranmer as a definitive authority, and have appealed to the Anglican Formularies as normative for Anglican identity. If earlier interpreters tried to recover a more “catholic” or ecumenical Cranmer, in recent decades there has been a resurgence of the more “Protestant” interpretation of Cranmer’s theology.¹ In this and the following essay, I will attempt a balanced interpretation of Cranmer’s theology, to show why he can be appealed to by many different interpreters. In this chapter, I will summarize Cranmer’s Reformation theology; in the next, I will look at his sacramental theology and his liturgical contributions.

 

The Chief Sources for Cranmer’s Theology

Cranmer was not a systematic thinker or writer, not even in the manner of the later Richard Hooker, let alone figures like Thomas Aquinas or John Calvin. His theology can be found in occasional writings he produced to address specific issues, often in the midst of controversy. Readers may be surprised to discover that he wrote more on the Eucharist than anything else. His Defensio Vere et Catholicae Doctrinae de Sacramento (Defense of the True and Catholic Doctrine of the Sacrament), and An Answer to Stephen Gardiner provide the defense of his eucharistic theology. Other sources for his theology include the Book of Homilies, of which he wrote several, the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, which, although liturgical documents, were designed to communicate a distinctive theology, the 42 Articles, and Cranmer’s “Preface to the Great Bible,” which tells us much about his theology of Scripture. Numerous shorter writings can be found in collections such as the two-volume Parker Society edition of his writings. Many of his original hand-written manuscripts have never been published.

Influences on Cranmer’s theology include:

1) Lutheranism, especially for his theology of justification.

2) Renaissance Humanism: Cranmer’s theology and liturgical reforms reflect the Renaissance emphasis on returning to the original sources (ad fontes). For example, Cranmer was a great collector of historical liturgical texts.

3) The church fathers; one of the indications of Cranmer’s “catholicity” is his regular appeal to numerous church fathers, and not only Augustine of Hippo, who was a major influence on continental Reformers.

4) Cranmer was influenced by numerous Reformation contemporaries. His eucharistic theology in particular seems to have been influenced by both John Calvin and Martin Bucer.

 

The Authority and Theology of Scripture

A crisis of authority in the late medieval period laid the groundwork for the Protestant Reformation. The theory of “Conciliarism” was the response to the “Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in which there were at one time three popes. Conciliarism held that the supreme authority in the church was located in an ecumenical council, over and above even the pope. The Council of Constance (1414-1418) deposed two popes and declared the council itself as the ultimate source of church authority. To the contrary, at the Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517), Pope Julius II declared that papal authority was superior to conciliar authority. In reaction to the Protestant Reformers, the Council of Trent (1545-1563) affirmed what has been called the “two source” theory – that Scripture and church tradition are equal sources of authority and that the church (meaning the Roman Catholic “magisterium”) is the definitive interpreter of Scripture.²

Against the Roman Catholic appeal to Scripture and tradition as having equal authority, the Protestant Reformers insisted (contrary to both papalism and conciliarism) that Scripture alone (sola scriptura) is the church’s final authority in matters of faith and practice. Sola scriptura has often been misunderstood (or misrepresented), especially in the context of inter-ecclesial polemics. Sola scriptura does not mean that the Bible is the source of all knowledge whatsoever. Nor does it imply that Scripture is authoritative within a vacuum, entirely apart from the church’s historic reading of Scripture, or the contemporary reading of Scripture within the context of the church’s life and worship. Nor does sola scriptura deny that there was church tradition prior to the writing of Scripture, specifically the tradition of the apostles who accompanied Jesus in his mission and later wrote the Scriptures; nor that the canon of Scripture was not itself recognized by the church of the second century, so that the specific texts recognized as having canonical authority are part of the church’s tradition.

Rather, sola scriptura has to do with the distinction between revelatory and non-revelatory knowledge of God. That Scripture is authoritative means that God speaks. Specifically, God has revealed himself historically through his covenant with Israel (the Old Testament), in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and through the presence of the Holy Spirit in the life and ministry of the church in the decades immediately following the resurrection of Jesus (the New Testament).

Scripture is thus the authoritative written record or witness of prophets and apostles to God’s revelation first to Israel, and later especially in Jesus. God’s revelation in Jesus is definitive because of Jesus Christ’s personal identity: Jesus is the Word of God incarnate, the Son of God as the second person of the Trinity become a human being. The Old Testament writings are authoritative not only because God revealed himself in word and deed to figures such as Abraham, and Moses, and later prophets, but because God’s covenant with Israel looks forward to and is fulfilled in the “new covenant,” in God’s personal presence as the Son of God incarnate in Jesus Christ. The New Testament in particular depends on the eyewitness testimony of the apostles who accompanied Jesus in his earthly ministry, as well as the written records of Jesus’ original twelve apostles or those who actually knew them.

That the second-century church recognized the canon of Scripture does not mean that the second-century church created Scripture, but rather that it recognized and acknowledged the unique authority of these writings and no others. In recognizing the canon of Scripture, the later church permanently placed itself under the authority of these writings. Thus, if we are going to speak of the relationship between Scripture and tradition, it is necessary to distinguish between the prophetic and apostolic tradition that preceded and composed Scripture, and the post-canonical tradition that recognizes and submits itself to the authority of Scripture. Bishops, pastors, church leaders, and theologians of the later church are successors to the apostles, but they are not themselves apostles.³

Thomas Cranmer’s Protestantism is shown in his affirmation of the Bible’s unique authority as the “Word of God.” Cranmer claims that if there were any final and definitive authority in addition to or complementary of Scripture (whether council or pope), such authority would in the end make itself superior to the authority of God’s revelation as contained in the Bible:

If there were any word of God beside the scripture, we could never be certain of God’s word; and if we be uncertain of God’s word, the devil might bring in among us a new word, a new doctrine, a new faith, a new church, a new god, yea, himself to be god, as he hath already done in the popish kingdom. For this is the foundation of antichrist’s kingdom, to settle himself in God’s temple, which is the heart and conscience of man, of him to be feared and worshipped, as though he were God himself. If the church and the Christian faith did not stay itself upon the word of God certain, as upon a sure and strong foundation, no man could know whether he had a right faith, and whether he were in the true church of Christ, or in the synagogue of Satan.⁴

The central point of disagreement has to do with a theology of revelation more than an issue of authority as such. Cranmer’s point is the same as Soren Kierkegaard’s in his The Difference Between an Apostle and a Genius.⁵ The distinction between prophets and apostles, on the one hand, and successors to the apostles such as bishops, on the other, is that the former speak not on the basis of their own authority, but as having received an actual “word” from God. Successors to the apostles might well be geniuses, but they are not themselves apostles, and so ultimately any authority they might have is derived. Successors to the apostles exercise any authority they might have by referring away from themselves to God’s revelation in Christ, and its definitive witness by prophets and apostles in the inspired canon of Scripture. In the end, the church’s authority must always be subordinate to the authority of canonical Scripture because the church’s authority is not its own, but consists only in faithful adherence to this prophetic and apostolic witness.

 

The Clarity of Scripture

The Roman Catholic response to the Reformation appeal to sola Scriptura (Scripture alone) was to point to the diversity of ways in which Scripture has been interpreted by heretics. In order for Scripture to function as an authority, Rome claimed, it was necessary that there be a definitive interpreter of Scripture, specifically the Church’s magisterium centered in the papacy. Without this definitive teaching office, there could be no reliable interpretation of Scripture, and the Bible itself would become a “wax nose,” twisted in any direction the interpreter wanted.⁶

Over against Rome’s claim that the church (that is, the Roman magisterium) is necessary to provide this definitive interpretation of Scripture, Cranmer endorsed the Protestant principle of the clarity (“perspicacity”) of Scripture. The “clarity” of Scripture does not mean that there are no unclear passages in Scripture, nor that just any uneducated person can rightly interpret the Bible for him- or herself. However, while not everything in the Bible is clear, even the uneducated can learn much from Scripture if they approach its reading with humility and perseverance. At the same time, Cranmer’s approach to Scripture centers on what has been called its “subject matter,” Scripture’s central message of redemption or salvation, but also on reading the Bible for what we might call “spiritual formation.” The clarity of Scripture means that the central teaching at the heart of Scripture concerning salvation is clear, its reading is edifying, and its meaning can be discerned by the reader. Cranmer writes:

Peradventure they will say unto me, How and if we understand not that we read, that is contained in the books? What then? Suppose thou understand not the deep and profound mysteries of scriptures. Yet can it not be but that much fruit and holiness must come and grow unto thee by the reading, for it cannot be that thou shouldest be ignorant in all things alike. For the Holy Ghost hath so ordered and tempered the scriptures, that in them as well publicans, fishers, and shepherds may find their edification, as great doctors their erudition. For those books were not made to vain-glory, like as were the writings of the gentile philosophers and rhetoricians, to the intent the makers should be had in admiration for their high styles and obscure manner and writing, whereof nothing can be understood without a master or an expositor. But the Apostles and prophets wrote their books so that their special intent and purpose might be understood and perceived of every reader, which was nothing but the edification of amendment of the life of them that read or hear it.⁷

The clarity of Scripture does not mean that all of its content is immediately obvious to the reader. Some parts are more clear than others, yet even an initial reading can tell us something. Moreover, understanding the Bible properly requires repeated reading, and uneducated readers may need help. As will also be evident in later writers like Hooker, Cranmer presupposes the necessity of the tools provided by education to understand Scripture properly, and the need for an educated clergy and theologians.

Who is it that reading or hearing read in the Gospel, “Blessed are they that be meek, Blessed are they that be merciful, Blessed are they that be of clean heart,” and such other like places, can perceive nothing except he have a master to teach him what it meaneth? Likewise the signs and miracles with all other histories of the doings of Christ or his Apostles. Who is there of so simple wit and capacity, but he may be able to perceive and understand them? These be but excuses and cloaks for the rain, and coverings of their own idle slothfulness. But still ye will say “I can not understand it.” What marvel? How shouldest thou understand, if thou wilt not read, nor look upon it? Take the books into thine hands, read the whole story, and that thou understandest, keep it well in memory; that thou understandest not, read it again, and again. If thou can neither so come by it, counsel with some other that is better learned.⁸

 

Sufficiency of Scripture (for salvation and spiritual formation)

The Thirty-Nine Articles would later state: “Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation, so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.”⁹ Cranmer was almost certainly the author of this article, and his “Preface to the Great Bible” makes clear that he did not understand “salvation” in a minimalist doctrinal sense. Throughout the essay, Cranmer emphasizes what will become a characteristic theme of Anglican theology, that one does not read the Bible merely for its doctrinal content, but that the reading of Scripture leads to edification. To use the language of more formal theology, Scripture is a “means of grace,” an “instrument” of salvation. For Cranmer, the Bible is authoritative (normative) in the sense that it contains all that is needed for both (1) salvation and (2) holy living.

Concerning salvation, Cranmer writes: “For as mallets, hammers, saws, chisels, axes, and hatchets, be the tools of their occupation; so be the books of the prophets, and Apostles, and all holy writers inspired by the Holy Ghost, the instruments of our salvation.”¹⁰

Besides salvation, Cranmer presumes that Scripture contains not only information about holy living, but that the reading of Scripture is itself an instrument of sanctification, that is, the Holy Spirit works in our lives through the reading of Scripture. (To use a more contemporary idiom, the reading of Scripture is “sacramental.”) In Cranmer’s own words:

Wherefore in few words to comprehend the largeness and utility of the scripture, how it containeth fruitful instruction and erudition for every man: if anything be necessary to be learned, of the holy scripture we may learn it. If falsehood shall be reproved, thereof we may gather wherewithal. If anything be to be corrected and amended, if there need any exhortation or consolation, of the scripture we may well learn. In the scriptures be the fat pastures of the soul, therein is no venomous meat, no unwholesome thing; they be the very dainty and pure feeding. He that is ignorant, shall find there what he should learn.¹¹

Cranmer claims that the reading of Scripture is profitable for everyone, not simply clergy or the more learned:

He that is a perverse sinner, shall there find his damnation to make him to tremble for fear. He that laboureth to serve God, shall find there his glory, and the promissions [promises] of eternal life, exhorting him more diligently to labor. Herein may princes learn how to govern their subjects; subjects obedience, love, and dread to their princes; husbands how they should behave them unto their wives, how to educate their children and servants; and contrary, the wives, children, and servants may know their duty to their husbands, parents, and masters. Here may all manner of persons, men, women, young, old, learned, unlearned, rich, poor, priests, laymen, lords, ladies, officers, tenants, and mean men, virgins, wives, widows, lawyers, merchants, artificers, husbandmen, and all manner of persons of what estate or condition soever they be, may in this book learn all things what they ought to believe, what they ought to do, and what they should not do, as well concerning almighty God, as also concerning themselves and all other.¹²

In concluding, Cranmer once more points to Scripture as a means of sanctification or edification. He uses the metaphor of “medicine” to describe Scripture’s healing effect on the reader:

Briefly, to the reading of the scripture none can be enemy, but that either be so sick that they love not to hear of any medicine, or else that be so ignorant that they know not scripture to be the most healthful medicine. Therefore, as touching this former part, I will here conclude, and take it as a conclusion sufficiently determined and appointed, that it is convenient and good the scriptures to be read of all sorts and kinds of people, and in the vulgar tongue without further allegations or probations for the same . . .¹³

 

Scripture in Vernacular Translation

Not all have the opportunity, time, or skill to learn to read the Bible in the original languages of Hebrew and Greek. The concluding sentence of the above quotation makes clear that Cranmer believed that reading the Bible even in translation is of great value, and Scripture should therefore be translated into local languages. Cranmer insisted as did the other Protestant Reformers that Scripture should be translated into the vernacular. For precedent, Cranmer referred to earlier English translations of the Bible:

And yet, if the matter should be tried by custom, we might also to allege custom for the reading of the scripture in the vulgar tongue, and prescribe the more ancient custom. For it is not much above one hundred years ago, since scripture hath not been accustomed to be read in the vulgar tongue within this realm. And many hundred years before that, it was translated and read in the Saxons’ tongue, which at that time was our mother tongue, whereof there remain yet divers copies found lately in old abbeys, of such antique manner of writing and speaking, that few men now be able to read and understand them. And when this language waxed old and out of common usage, because folk should not lack the fruit of reading, it was again translated into the newer language, whereof yet also many copies remain and be daily found.¹⁴

 

The Priesthood of All Believers

The English Reformation did not erase the distinction between laity and clergy. The Church of England was rather unique among Reformation churches in retaining the office of bishop and the historic episcopate. Cranmer himself was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Nor did Anglicanism jettison distinctions between learned scholarship and the kind of reading of Scripture that one might encounter among ordinary uneducated laity. Nonetheless, Cranmer embraced the Reformation principle of the ‟priesthood of all believers” in the sense that Scripture was not the exclusive text of a magisterium or educated clergy, but a text that in principle every Christian should be able to read and understand. One of the purposes of translating the Bible into the common language was to make this possible. Accordingly, Cranmer insisted that everyone of whatever station in life should read the Bible. Indeed, Christian lay people might have more need of Scripture than clergy insofar as their duties demanded more of its guidance:

Let no man make excuse and say (saith [John Chrysostom]), “I am busied about matters of the commonwealth; I bear this office, or that; I am a craftsman, I must apply mine occupation. I have a wife, my children must be fed, my household must I provide for. Briefly, I am a man of the world. It is not for me to read the scriptures. That belongeth to them that have bidden the world farewell, which live in solitariness and contemplation, and have been brought up and continually nuzzled in learning and religion.” To this answering, What sayest thou man? (saith he) Is it not for thee to study and to read the scripture, because thou art encumbered and distracted with cares and business? So much the more it is behoveful for thee to have defense of scriptures, how much thou art the more distressed in worldly dangers. They that be free and far from trouble and intermeddling of worldly things live in safeguard and tranquility, and in the calm, or within a sure haven.¹⁵

Cranmer’s theology of the supremacy and sufficiency of Scripture thus has a kind of “democratizing” effect. If only Scripture is finally authoritative, even over the authority of bishops and learned theologians, this authority is ultimately available to everyone, great and small, clergy and laity, wealthy and poor. And Scripture provides guidance and spiritual edification for all as well. The kind of spirituality that the medieval church tended to reserve for cloistered monks, Cranmer claimed was available to anyone who could read the Bible.

That everyone should read the Bible did not mean that however that “just anyone” could understand the Bible. Consistent with Cranmer’s understanding of the reading of Scripture as an instrument of spiritual formation is the corresponding principle that only those who approach reading Scripture with the proper disposition can hope to understand it correctly. Only those who love and honor God as the author of Scripture are capable of hearing his word spoken through it:

As St. Paul saith, “[All things work together for good to those who love God],” even as out of most venomous worms is made treacle [an antidote], the most sovereign medicine for the preservation of man’s health in time of danger. Wherefore I would advise you all that come to the reading or hearing of this book, which is the word of God, the most precious jewel and most holy relic that remaineth upon earth; that ye bring with you the fear of God, and that ye do it with all due reverence, and use your knowledge thereof, not to vain glory of frivolous disputation, but to the honor of God, increase of virtue, and edification both of yourselves and other.¹⁶

From the above quotation it is clear that Cranmer believed that Scripture can be understood properly only by those who approach the Bible with love for, fear of, and reverence for God, and who read the Scripture with the purpose of honoring God, becoming more virtuous, and edifying both themselves and other people.

 

How Not to Read the Bible (and How to Read it)

It follows that those who read Scripture must approach their reading with the proper end or purpose in mind. Cranmer condemns the reading of the Bible for purposes of polemical theological disagreement; Scripture is a holy book and those who read it must read it for the kind of text it is, and in a manner that is consistent with its message:

There be some (saith [Gregory of Nazianzus]) whose not only ears and tongues, but also their fists be whetted [sharpened] and ready bent all to contention and unprofitable disputation . . . . But forasmuch as they, subverting the order of all godliness, have respect only to this thing, how they may bind and loose subtle questions, so that now every marketplace, every alehouse and tavern, every feast house, briefly every company of men, every assembly of women, is filled with such talk— since the matter is so (saith he) and that our faith and holy religion of Christ beginneth to wax nothing else but as it were a sophistry or a talking craft . . .¹⁷

Cranmer writes that it is not appropriate for everyone to engage in theological discussion or debate. Such discussions should take place before the appropriate audience at the appropriate time, with appropriate preparation. Study is necessary as is the proper attitude and disposition: “It is not fit (saith [Gregory]) for every man to dispute the high questions of divinity. Neither is it to be done at all times, neither in every audience must we discuss every doubt. But we must know when, to whom, and how far we ought to enter into such matters.”¹⁸

Again, there is a correlation between holiness, learning, and a proper understanding of Scripture. Those who hope to understand the Bible must approach it with clean hearts, not be preoccupied with “wandering imaginations,” and must be concerned to discern the truth. Those whose main concerns are to engage in disputation or to display their great learning and eloquence have missed the whole point. The reader of Scripture must approach the Bible with humility and an awareness of one’s own limitations: “[I]t is to be considered how far to wade in such matters of difficulty. No further . . . but as every man’s own capacity will serve him, and again no further than the weakness or intelligence of the other audience may bear.”¹⁹

Cranmer’s point is not to discourage people from reading the Bible. Again, in contrast to what he considers the position of Rome, Cranmer wants to encourage the reading of Scripture. Nonetheless, Cranmer comes back again and again to the close connection between reading the Bible and spiritual formation. There is a right and wrong way to read the Bible:

I say not this to dissuade men from the knowledge of God, and reading or studying of the scripture; for I say that it is as necessary for the life of man’s soul, as for the body to breathe. . . . Neither forbid I to reason so far as is good and godly: but I allow not that is done out of season, and out of measure and good order. . . . If we can in no wise forbear but that we must needs dispute, let us forbear thus much at the least, to do it out of time and place convenient. And let us entreat of those things which be holy, holily: and upon those things that be mystical, mystically: and not to utter the divine mysteries in the ears unworthy to hear them, but let us know what is comely, as well in our silence and talking, as in our garments wearing, in our feeding, in our gesture, in our goings, in all our other behaving.²⁰

 

Scripture and Tradition

The question of the relation between Scripture and tradition is a major theme in theology and perhaps the most important issue of disagreement between the Reformation-era Roman Catholic church and the Protestant Reformers. It will become a major focus of discussion in much later Anglican theology, particularly for Anglican apologists John Jewel and Richard Hooker, who were responding respectively to Roman Catholic and Puritan objections to Anglicanism. The theme will appear again during the Anglo-Catholic revival, particularly concerning the question of the development of doctrine. While Cranmer did not address the issue to the extent of later Anglican theologians, it is a concern specifically in his debates about Eucharistic theology.

What Cranmer says about church tradition in his “Preface to the Great Bible” makes clear that an emphasis on the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture and its exclusive normative authority for the church’s theology does not mean that Scripture and the tradition of the church are necessarily at odds with one another. In a manner that anticipates later Anglican thinkers, Cranmer appeals to church tradition, and particularly to the church fathers, as a warrant for his understanding of the primacy and sufficiency of Scripture. Throughout the “Preface to the Great Bible,” Cranmer appeals to the church fathers John Chrysostom and Gregory of Nazianzus:

Hitherto all that I have said, I have taken and gathered out of the foresaid sermon of this holy doctor, saint John Chrysostom. Now if I should in like manner bring forth what the selfsame doctor speaketh in other places, and what other doctors and writers say concerning the same purpose, I might seem to you to write another Bible, rather than to make a preface to the Bible.²¹

Cranmer will make the same claim for the Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone that he had made for the sufficiency of Scripture – that it has historical precedent in the church’s tradition – although his views here are somewhat anachronistic:²²

And after this wise to be justified only by this true and lively faith in Christ, speaks all the old and ancient Authors, both Greeks and Latins. . . .These and other like sentences, that we be justified by faith only, freely, and without works, we do read oft times in the most best and ancient writers. As beside Hilary, Basil, and Saint Ambrose before rehearsed, we read the same in Origen, Saint Chrisostome, Saint Cyprian, Saint Augustine, Prosper, Oecumenius, Phocius, Bernardus, Anselme, and many other Authors, Greek, and Latin.²³

The point is not whether Cranmer is entirely correct in his claim that the Reformation understanding of justification by faith alone can be found in the church fathers. Recent studies have made clear that the Reformation understanding is something new – what would be called a “doctrinal development,” whether legitimate or otherwise.²⁴ Nonetheless, Cranmer’s appeal to the church fathers makes clear that whatever might be the case of some versions of the Reformation, his own understanding was that neither sola Scripture nor justification by faith meant pitting the authority of Scripture against the church’s tradition.

 

Justification by Faith

As with the doctrine of sola scriptura, much misunderstanding arises concerning the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone because of centuries of inter-ecclesial polemics. A number of distinctions help to clarify the disagreements between the Reformation churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

One of the crucial insights resulting from the widespread availability of Erasmus’s Greek New Testament was the recognition that the Greek word dikaiō, dikaiosunè, translated “justification” in English is a forensic or courtroom term, meaning to “reckon” or “declare righteous” or “just.” In itself, the term does not mean that the “justified” person is inherently just or morally righteous. The Greek New Testament distinguishes between dikaiosunè and hagiosmos, which does mean to “sanctify” or “make holy.” Paul uses both words regularly, but they mean different things, and context determines meaning.

In contrast, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate translates dikaiosunè as iustifico, iustificare which means “to make righteous.” After John Calvin, the Protestant Reformers distinguish clearly between justification (as extrinsic and forensic) and sanctification (as internal and transformational), but the Roman Catholic Council of Tent did not distinguish between justification and sanctification, and, contrary to the Reformers, insisted that justification means “to make righteous.”²⁵

The English language distinguishes between “belief” and “faith.” However, the Greek word pisteuō can mean either. As a result, English translations sometimes translate pisteuō as “believe” and sometimes as “have faith.” The difference in meaning becomes clear in the apparent disagreement between the apostle Paul and the epistle of James, where Paul understands pisteuō as “faith,” and James understands it as “belief.” Latin distinguishes between fides qua creditur (the faith by which one believes, that is, the subjective act of faith), fides quae creditur (the faith that one believes, that is, the object of one’s belief, e.g., the articles of the creed), and fiducia (faithful trust in something).

Although much of the disagreement between Protestants and Roman Catholics can be overcome by more careful understanding of language, the most fundamental disagreement concerns what has been called the “formal cause” of justification.²⁶ The formal cause is that which makes something what it is, for example, in the manner in which it is “heat” that makes something hot. The Reformers claimed that the “formal cause” of justification (understood as the forensic act by which one is declared righteous) is Christ’s work “outside us,” apart from any good works on our part. The Roman Catholic position is that the “formal cause” of justification is “infused righteousness,” that is, something inside us.²⁷

Cranmer endorsed the Reformation doctrine of justification by grace alone (sola gratia) through faith (in Christ) alone (sole fide), and he summarizes his position in a single paragraph in his “Homily on Salvation”:

Because all men be sinners and offenders against God, and breakers of his law and commandments, therefore can no man by his own acts, works, and deeds (seem they never so good) be justified, and made righteous before God: but every man of necessity is constrained to seek for another righteousness or justification, to be received at God’s own hands, that is to say, the forgiveness of his sins and trespasses, in such things as he hath offended. And this justification or righteousness, which we so receive of God’s mercy and Christ’s merits, embraced by faith, is taken, accepted and allowed of God, for our perfect and full justification. ²⁸

This paragraph repeats the following Reformation themes:

First, because all human beings are sinners, we can only be justified by “another righteousness” that is not our own, but is given freely by God. Cranmer’s expression “another righteousness” echoes Martin Luther’s notion of “alien righteousness,” that is a righteousness that is “outside” of oneself (extra nos), and is therefore not “intrinsic.”²⁹ As will be seen in what follows, this does not mean that justification has no intrinsic effect, but that any such intrinsic righteousness is an effect rather than a cause or condition of justification, and cannot be the ground or basis of one’s righteous standing before God.

A combination of universal human sinfulness and the doctrine of the atonement provide the rationale for the necessity of justification for Cranmer. Because God is entirely good and morally perfect (in traditional theological language, the Chief Good or summum bonum), any sinfulness whatsoever in the human being necessarily means that human beings come up short in living up to God’s moral standards. (There are echoes here of traditional arguments for the doctrine of the atonement, found in patristic theologians like Irenaeus and Athnasius, but also in medieval theologians like Anselm and Thomas Aquinas.)

Cranmer finds the solution to human sin in the doctrine of the atonement. His summary of the atonement speaks of three things coming together:

[U]pon God’s part, his great mercy and grace; upon Christ’s part, justice that is, the satisfaction of God’s justice, or price of our redemption by the offering of his body and shedding of his blood, with fulfilling of the law perfectly and thoroughly; and upon our part, true and lively faith in the merits of Jesus Christ, which yet is not ours, but by God’s working in us.³⁰

Cranmer combines images from both Anselm’s satisfaction theory of the atonement (and perhaps Calvin’s penal substitution) with patristic metaphors of redemption as ransom or deliverance from sin (Christus Victor). Concerning satisfaction, Cranmer writes:

For the more full understanding hereof, it is our parts and duties ever to remember the great mercy of God, how that (all the world being wrapped in sin by breaking of the Law) God sent his only son our Savior Christ into this world, to fulfill the Law for us, and by shedding of his most precious blood, to make a sacrifice and satisfaction, or (as it may be called) amends to his Father for our sins, to assuage his wrath and indignation conceived against us for the same.³¹

Concerning redemption, Cranmer combines imagery of redemption (Christus Victor) with a harmony of justice and mercy:

His great mercy he shewed unto us in delivering us from our former captivity, without requiring any ransom to be paid, or amends to be made on our parts; which thing by us had been impossible to be done. And whereas it lay not in us that to do, he provided a ransom for us; that was the most precious body and blood of his most dear and best beloved son Jesu Christ, who, besides his ransom, fulfilled the law for us perfectly. And so the justice of God and his mercy did embrace together, and fulfilled the mystery of our redemption.³²

Cranmer combines imagery from more than one model of the atonement, and it would likely be going too far to claim that Cranmer embraces a particular model of the atonement, or spells out a detailed theory, although satisfaction of justice language seems most frequent. Cranmer seems at most to be echoing traditional Western atonement language used by both Protestants and Catholics.

Second, justification is not a matter of “making righteous,” but of “forgiveness of sins.” Later Protestant theology will use the language of “imputation” to argue that justification is forensic, a legal declaration of righteousness, rather than an “infusion.” Given that justification is a forensic judgment, the disagreement with Rome has to do with the issue of the ground or “formal cause” of one’s moral standing before God. Is justification God’s free acceptance of the sinner, the unconditional forgiveness of one’s sin, despite the continuing presence of sin, or is justification God’s acceptance of the sinner based on something good within the sinner that precedes and is the condition or basis of the sinner’s forgiveness? In other words, the key question is whether the sinner is forgiven based entirely on the finished work of Christ accomplished prior to any cooperation or contribution of the sinner, or is the sinner’s forgiveness the consequence of some condition within the sinner, for example, the sincerity of one’s cooperation with God’s grace in faith and love?

Third, it is Jesus Christ’s righteousness that is the ground (formal cause) of the sinner’s justification, because it is Christ’s righteousness (not our own) that atones for human sin. Again, there is a close connection between justification and the doctrine of the atonement. Justification is the way in which sinful human beings receive the benefits of the atoning work of Jesus Christ in his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection, done entirely apart from them and without their efforts, but made freely available to them.

Finally, because sinful human beings cannot earn forgiveness, justification is entirely a free gift, an act of God’s mercy, received by faith (and faith alone). Justification is received by faith alone because that is the way that all gifts are received. Justification by grace alone means that God’s salvation is given freely to undeserving sinners. It is not and cannot be earned or deserved.³³ Cranmer writes:

Justification is not the office of man, but of God; for man cannot justify himself by his own works, neither in part, nor in the whole; for that were the greatest arrogancy and presumption of man that antichrist could erect against God, to affirm that a man might by his own works take away and purge his own sins, and so justify himself. But justification is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render unto him, but which we receive of him; not which we give to him, but which we take of him, by his free merdcy, and by the only merits of his most dearly-beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Saviour, and Justifier, Jesus Christ.³⁴

Justification by Christ

Justification by grace alone through faith alone is another way of saying “justification by Christ.” That is, justification by faith does not mean that it is our faith as an act on our part that justifies us, but the person and work of Jesus Christ that do so. Faith is the instrument by which we receive Jesus’ free gift of forgiveness, and cease trusting in our own moral efforts, sincere intentions, or good deeds to earn God’s favor, but faith is not the reason or condition for God to be favorable toward us. Justification by faith alone means that we trust our salvation to what Jesus Christ has done for us, and Jesus Christ alone. Justification is not faith in our own faith, but faith in Christ:

[A]s great and as godly a virtue as the lively faith is, yet it puts us from itself, and remits or appoints us unto Christ, for to have only by him remission of our sins, or justification. So that our faith in Christ (as it were) saith unto us thus, It is not I that take away your sins, but it is Christ only, and to him only I send your for that purpose, forsaking therein all your good virtues, words, thoughts, and works, and only putting your trust in Christ.³⁵

 

Lively Faith (Sanctification)

Although sinners are justified by Jesus Christ’s righteousness, and not their own, justification does not leave us in our sins. Justification is effective. Faith is not merely passive. Cranmer uses the expression “lively faith” to describe the nature of the faith that justifies. The consequence of “lively faith” is a real moral transformation in the regenerate. In summary, although morally good works (merits) do not justify us before God, there is no justification without accompanying good works. (Put differently, there is no justification without sanctification.)

What is the true and justifying faith? For the right and true Christian faith is, not only to believe that holy Scripture, and all the aforesaid articles of our faith are true, but also to have a sure trust and confidence in God’s merciful promises, to be saved from everlasting damnation by Christ: whereof doth follow a loving heart to obey his commandments.³⁶

Cranmer’s language about justification echoes Luther’s sermon on “Two Kinds of Righteousness.”³⁷ Cranmer does not yet use the explicit terminology (introduced later by John Calvin, and repeated in Richard Hooker) between justification (as forensic “imputation”) and sanctification (as inherent internal moral transformation). However, the distinction is there. Cranmer is distinguishing here between the “alien” righteousness of Christ that justifies, that freely forgives sinners, and is entirely the work of Jesus Christ alone done apart from us, and the internal transformation that is an inevitable consequence but not the a priori condition of our justification. The “two kinds of righteousness” are distinct; yet both are real, and they are inseparable.

 

What about the epistle of James?

A major task for biblical scholars and theologians has been to resolve the apparent conflict between Paul and James on the issue of justification. Paul writes in Galatians 2:16: “[W]e know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.” And in Rom. 3:28: “For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” At first glance, James 2:14-25 seems to blatantly contradict Paul: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? . . . faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. . . . You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone” (James 2:14, 17, 24). The letter of James became a standard weapon in the arsenal of Roman Catholic apologists directed against the Protestant sola fide.

Cranmer resolves the apparent contradiction between Paul and James by distinguishing between two different meanings of the word “faith.” As noted above, medieval theology distinguished between credens/credentia and fides/fiducia, between fides quae creditur (“faith which is believed”) and fides qua creditur (”faith by which it is believed”). The former (“faith which is believed”) refers to the objective content of faith, for example, the articles of the Creed. The latter (“faith by which it is believed”) refers to the subjective action of exercising faith. Modern English distinguishes between “belief” and “trust,” between “believe that” and “belief in.” Cranmer insisted that the faith to which James is referring is the intellectual content of faith, believing that certain things are true – a cognitive conviction that “such and such” is the case. James makes clear that this is what he means when he speaks of the demons who “believe” and tremble! (James 2:19):

There is one faith which in Scripture is called a dead faith; which bringeth forth no good works, but is idle, barren, and unfruitful. And this faith by the holy Apostle St. James is compared to the faith of devils; which believe God to be true and just, and tremble for fear, yet they do nothing well, but all evil.³⁸

This “dead faith” contrasts with what Cranmer calls “lively faith,” which is not only a conviction of the truth of the subject matter of Christian faith, but also a “sure trust and confidence” in the work of Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Although Christians are not justified by their charity, “lively faith” works through charity. Even though we might sin repeatedly, those who repent and continue to trust in Jesus Christ alone for their salvation will be justified:

Another faith there is in Scripture, which is not, as the foresaid faith, idle, unfruitful, and dead, but worketh by charity, as St. Paul declareth (Gal. v.); which, as the other vain faith is called a dead faith, so may this be called a quick or lively faith. And this is not only the common belief of the articles of our faith, but it is also a sure trust and confidence of the mercy of God through our Lord Jesus Christ, and a steadfast hope of all good things to be received at God’s hand; and that, although we through infirmity or temptation of our ghostly enemy do fall from him by sin, yet, if we return again unto him by true repentance, that he will forgive and forget our offences for his Son’s sake our Saviour Jesus Christ . . .³⁹

Cranmer’s notion of “lively faith” has parallels to Luther’s essays on “two kinds of righteousness” and the “freedom of a Christian.”⁴⁰ Lively faith is not a matter of belief only, but is accompanied by hope and trust in God, love of God, and love of neighbor. Lively faith rejects evil, and gladly does good:

This is the true, lively, and unfeigned Christian faith, and is not in the mouth and outward profession only, but it liveth, and stirreth inwardly in the heart. And this faith is not without hope and trust in God, nor without the love of God and of our neighbours, nor without the fear of God, nor without the desire to hear God’s word, and to follow the same in eschewing evil and doing gladly all good works. . . . As the light cannot be hid, but will shew forth itself at one place or other; so a true faith cannot be kept secret, but, when occasion is offered, it will break out and shew itself by good works. And, as the living body of a man ever exerciseth such things as belongeth to a natural and living body for nourishment and preservation of the same, as it hath need, opportunity, and occasion; even so the soul that hath a lively faith in it will be doing alway some good work, which shall declare that it is living, and will not be unoccupied.⁴¹

 

Is Faith a “Good Work”?

One possible interpretation of justification by faith is to interpret faith itself as the “formal cause” of justification. That is, the ground or basis of justification is still something within the justified person. However, whereas in the Roman Catholic understanding of justification, the formal cause of salvation is a combination of faith, hope, love, and other good works, for the Protestant, the bar has been “lowered.” One is still justified on the basis of something one has done, but less is required. One only has to have faith. One’s justification would be a consequence of the sincerity of one’s faith. Justification by faith would then be the equivalent of “justification by sincere intentions,” and faith itself would then be a kind of “good work” on the basis of which one is justified.⁴²

Cranmer emphatically rejects such a misunderstanding. If we are justified only on the basis of God’s work in Jesus Christ alone, then justification is an entirely free gift that God gives to us. It is not something that we offer to God:

Justification is the office of God only. But justification is the office of God only, and is not a thing which we render unto him, but which we receive of him: not which we give to him, but which we take of him, by his free mercy, and by the only merits of his most dearly beloved Son, our only Redeemer, Savior, and Justifier Jesus Christ.⁴³

Justification by faith does not mean that the sincerity of our faith is a means by which we might deserve salvation. Not only faith, but faith, hope, charity, and any other good deeds or virtues that we might accomplish would be insufficient to “merit” justification. Rather, the very nature of faith is to turn us away from any moral claims of the self on God’s grace, and rather to trust God’s mercy alone for salvation. In Cranmer’s own words:

So that 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 faith in Christ, which is within us, doth justify us, and deserve our justification unto us (for that were to count our selves to be justified by some act or virtue that is within our selves) but the true understanding and meaning thereof is, that although we hear God’s word, and believe it, although we have faith, hope, charity, repentance, dread, and fear of God within us, and do never so many works thereunto: yet we must renounce the merit of all our said virtues, of faith, hope, charity, and all other virtues and good deeds, which we either have done, shall do, or can do, as things that be far too weak and insufficient, and imperfect, to deserve remission of our sins, and our justification, and therefore we must trust only in God’s mercy, and that sacrifice which our high Priest and Savior Christ Jesus the Son of God once offered for us upon the Crosse, to obtain thereby God’s grace, and remission, as well of our original sin in Baptism, as of all actual sin committed by us after our Baptism, if we truly repent, and turn unfeignedly to him again.⁴⁴

 

Conclusion

The introductory essay referred to the two Reformation themes of sola scriptura (Scripture Alone) and justification by grace through faith alone (sola fide, sola gratia) as the two central themes of the Protestant Reformation, themes that were appropriated in Anglican theology. In Cranmer’s own theology, we see how the first Anglican theologian appropriated these two themes. In some ways, Cranmer was a transitional thinker. Much of what he wrote on the authority of Scripture and on justification echoed themes that had already appeared in Martin Luther. At the same time, his theology looks forward to and anticipates the further development and discussion of these themes in the theology of someone like Richard Hooker. Cranmer does not yet use the language of imputation and infusion that will later appear in Hooker. Cranmer does not yet use the terminology of justification and sanctification that first appears in Calvin, and will later be appropriated by Hooker. Rather, his terminology of “lively faith” echoes Luther’s distinction between “two kinds of righteousness.” We are not justified on the basis of the sincerity of our own faith. Faith always looks to Christ and not to itself. At the same time, the faith that justifies us is not simply a formal intellectual conviction, but a complete trust in Christ’s free gift of salvation, a “lively faith” that is accompanied by love, and hope.

At the same time as Cranmer endorsed the two great Reformation doctrines, he did so in such a way as to look back to and be influenced by patristic themes. His understanding of the “primacy” and “sufficiency” of Scripture placed a strong emphasis on the reading of Scripture as an instrument of holiness, that both the individual and common liturgical reading of Scripture were spiritually edifying. Cranmer emphasized reading Scripture in the common language not for purposes of controversy, but for holiness. Similarly, Cranmer’s firm insistence on justification by faith alone was accompanied by an equally strong insistence that justification leads to holiness. The faith that justifies is a “lively” faith. These two themes of Scripture as an instrument of spiritual formation, and of the holiness as an inevitable accompaniment of justification look back not only to patristic theology, but also anticipate later emphases of Anglican theology.⁴⁵