Cranmer Had Published a Catechism in 1548, Entitled Catechismus, That Is to Say, a Short

Case Study 1.42

Catechisms

The Reformation brought with it an insistence on religious instruction, which resulted in many new catechisms being written and used (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 249) as an educational tool and method of religious education for both adults and children alike. The word ‘catechism’ itself seems to have been current by the beginning of the sixteenth century with the first recorded use being in 1502, although the process of ‘catechesis’ was of a much more primitive origin, dating from at least the time of Augustine (Parker, 1966: 147). Stevenson (1912: 160) argues that prior to the Reformation there was no set form of Catechism in use in the English Church although various expositions of the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer and the Ten Commandments in common use, together with other Reformed catechisms, were in use. These included Marshall’s Primer (published in 1534), the Bishop’s Book of 1537, the King’s Book of 1543 and Calvin’s Geneva Catechism of 1541 (Cross and Livingstone, 1984: 250). Injunctions issued by royal authority in 1536 (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 272) and 1538 (Gee and Hardy, 1896: 276), as well as in the reign of Edward VI, ordered that the Curate in each parish should instruct the people on the Lord’s Prayer, the Creed and the Ten Commandments (Procter and Frere, 1929: 599). The catechism became an important means of Christian education for use at the parish level, containing a concise summary of Christian belief. The Anglican Communion since that time seems to have had a continuous history of the use of catechisms for instruction in the faith (Hartin, 1988: 154). This case study will examine various catechisms in use in the Anglican Church since the time of the Reformation and the theology of the Eucharist expressed in these catechisms.

Cranmer had published a catechism in 1548, entitled Catechismus, That is to say, a short Instruction into Christian Religion for the singular commodity and profit of children and young people. Set forth by the most reverend father in God Thomas Archbishop of Canterbury and in this case study known as the Catechism of 1548. Cranmer’s Catechism of 1548 was based on an earlier work of the German Reformer Osiander, published at Nuremberg in 1533 (MacCulloch, 1996: 71, 387) and, as the title indicates, it was intended for the purposes of educating the young in the Christian religion. Cranmer used a Latin version of this catechism, translated by Justus Jonas in 1539, to produce the Catechism of 1548 (MacCulloch, 1996: 387), although it has been suggested that the principal work of producing this catechism, especially the third and subsequent editions, was left to one or more of Cranmer’s chaplains, possibly Becon, Ponet or Taylor (Selwyn, 1964: 87). The Catechism of 1548, in its first two editions at least, had unfortunate consequences for Cranmer due to the theology of the Eucharist it expressed and it caused him the embarrassment of having to defend what seemed like inconsistent eucharistic doctrine (MacCulloch, 1996: 386-387). It appears there was some rush to finish the job and that in the process “robustly realist language about eucharistic presence” (MacCulloch, 1996: 390) was included. The actual words referring to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist were:

“ … Christ saith of the bread, This is my body, and of the cup, This is my blood. Wherefore we ought to believe, that in the sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ. For God is almighty (as ye heard in the Creed). He is able therefore to do all things what he will. And as saint Paul writeth he calleth those things which be not, as if they were. Wherefore when Christ taketh bread, and saith, Take, eat, this is my body, we ought not to doubt, but we eat his very body. And when he taketh the cup, and saith, Take, drink, this is my blood, we ought to think assuredly, that we drink his very blood. And this we must believe, if we will be counted Christian men.” (Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 78-79).

Although this certainly shifts the thought from the more localised view in the Latin original that had said: “Ideo credere debemus, quod vere corpus et sanguis eius sit or therefore we ought to believe that his body and blood are truly there” (Latin version of the Catechism of Justus Jonas, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 78) to that of a more moderate realist doctrine with some reference to the sacramental ministration (‘in the Sacrament we receive truly the body and blood of Christ’), it did not shift it far enough for some, who saw the wording as too realist. The English translation of the Latin, in another place, certainly suggested that the body and blood of Christ were there in the bread and wine, and that they were received with the “bodily mouth” under “the form of bread and wine” (Catechism of 1548, Selwyn, 1964: 79). It also censured those who:

“ … of very frowardness, will not grant, that there is the body and blood of Christ, but deny the same, for none other cause, but that they cannot compass by man’s blind reason, how this thing should be brought to pass.” (Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 79),

and then instructed those young readers who were to use the catechism, to:

“ … eschew such erroneous opinions, and believe the words of our Lord Jesus, that you eat and drink his very body and blood, although man’s reason cannot comprehend how and after what manner the same is there present. For the wisdom of reason must be subdued to the obedience of Christ, as the Apostle Paul teacheth.” (Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 79).

For some Reformers all this was too much to bear. John Ab Ulmis, a Reformer and a disciple of Bullinger, wrote from London to Zurich about the eucharistic theology expressed in the Catechism of 1548. He said in a letter dated 18 August, 1548, in regard to Cranmer, “he has lately published a Catechism, in which he has not only approved that foul and sacrilegious transubstantiation of the papists in the holy supper of our Saviour, but all the dreams of Luther seem to him sufficiently well-grounded, perspicuous, and lucid.” (Letter of John Ab Ulmis to Bullinger, Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, edn. Robinson, 1847: 381). Cranmer’s words in the catechism do not seem however, to suggest transubstantiation, but rather a doctrine of the real presence without any transubstantiation. Cranmer later denied that he had meant to argue for transubstantiation or any Lutheran view and blamed the readers who had interpreted it in this way for their lack of sophistication in knowing how to read ancient authors (Cranmer, Defence, edn Duffied, 1964: 208-209). It seems that advanced Reformers such as Ab Ulmis, interpreted Cranmer’s realist sounding words as implying transubstantiation or perhaps even an immoderate presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Cranmer’s view of how Christ was present in the Eucharist was, by the time the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548 were published, was certainly not that of transubstantiation or any immoderate or fleshy notion, but clearly a moderate real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine (see above). What Cranmer meant in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist however, had changed significantly by the time he had written the Defence in 1550. For Cranmer, in these later writings, Christ was present in the ministration or in the receiving alone (Cranmer, Answer, edn. Cox, 1844: 225) – a receptionist doctrine. He completely denied any notion of presence in the Eucharist or in the bread and wine, saying: “for he is not in it, neither spiritually, as he is in man; nor corporally, as he is in heaven; but only sacramentally, as a thing may be said to be in the figure, whereby it is signified.” (Cranmer, Defence, edn. Duffield, 1964: 214). This view seems to be quite distinct from what Cranmer had said in the first two editions of the Catechism of 1548, that is, a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. The Defence was published in 1550, only two years after the Catechism of 1548, and it seems likely that Cranmer’s views on the presence of Christ in the Eucharist had significantly changed over these two years or else by 1550 he felt confident enough to express what he really thought. Whatever the case, it seems that the moderate realism in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine, expressed in the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548, became a receptionist view in 1550 in the Defence and in the third edition of the Catechism of 1548. In the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548, the wording relating to the significant notion of receiving with the ‘bodily mouth’ had been:

“For he doth not only with his bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth also believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that his blood was shed for us. And he that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.” (First and Second Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 83)

In the third edition of the Catechism of 1548, however, this became:

“For he doth not with the bodily mouth receive the body and blood of Christ, but he doth believe the words of Christ, whereby he is assured that Christ’s body was given to death for us, and that his blood was shed for us. And he that believeth, eateth and drinketh the body and blood of Christ spiritually.” (Third Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 83)

By the deletion of the words ‘only’ and ‘also’ in the third edition (in italics in the version of the first and second edition above) Cranmer (or perhaps one of his chaplains, as Selwyn, 1964: 87, suggests) had removed the idea of a moderate real presence of Christ in the Eucharist and focussed attention solely on the promises of the words of Christ and the assurance received through them. The third edition removed the suggestion that Christ was present in the bread and wine and therefore received with the ‘bodily mouth’ and as such represented a thoroughly Reformed position in relation to the presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Christ was present now in the ministration and the receiving only, a clearly receptionist doctrine, not part of the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548. This introduction of a receptionist doctrine is made very clear in a significant alteration of the first and second editions of the catechism in the third edition. Whereas the first and second edition had said:

“Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but there is the body and blood of our Lord, which we receive in the Lord’s Supper.” (First and Second Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 85),

the third edition of the catechism said:

“Wherefore (good children) doubt not, but in the Lord’s Supper we receive the body and blood of Christ.” (Third Edition of the Catechism of 1548, quoted in Selwyn, 1964: 85)

Whereas the first and second editions had affirmed that Christ’s body and blood were in the Lord’s Supper, the third edition had focussed on the receiving of the body and blood only.

Despite Cranmer’s protestations to correct misrepresentation of his views on the Eucharist and despite subsequent crude attempts to change the wording of the catechism (see above) to less offensive forms in the later editions (the third edition onward), Cranmer’s argument that the theology of the Eucharist presented in the Catechism of 1548 was consistent with his later writings on the Eucharist (see Defence, edn. Cox, 1844: 226), seems unconvincing (Selwyn, 1964: 83) in view of these significant changes in the catechism as they relate to the doctrine of the Eucharist. Although Cranmer admitted that the Catechism of 1548 was his own work, being “translated”, “written” and “set forth” by him (Cranmer, Defence, edn. Cox, 1844: 226), this assertion may only apply to the first two editions of the catechism. This is supported by the admission by Cranmer at his trial that the Catechism of 1548 only went through two “printes” (Cranmer, Trial, edn. Cox, 1846: 218). Perhaps the changes of the third and subsequent editions were made by one of the chaplains in an attempt to bring the catechism more into line with accepted Reformed thinking. This could explain the removal of statements indicating a moderate realism in relation to Christ’s presence in the Eucharist and in the bread and wine. This view is supported by Selwyn since he comments that Cranmer never even remotely alludes in any of his writings to any changes in the wording of the catechism in later editions (Selwyn, 1964: 86). Even Gardiner was of this opinion since he argues that the work of translation was not Cranmer’s but that of “his man”, and goes on to state that it was “translated into English in this author’s name.” (Gardiner, Explication and Assertion, edn Cox, 1844: 20 and 188). Another piece of evidence presented by Selwyn adds further weight to the view that Cranmer was some distance from the revisions of the Catechism of 1548, particularly in the third and subsequent editions. Selwyn observes that in the Preface to the first and second editions of the Catechism of 1548, the work is described as being “overseen and corrected” by Cranmer (Selwyn, 1964: 88), but that in the Preface of the third edition, these words are dropped and the work is described as being “set forth” (Selwyn, 1964: 88) by Cranmer. All that can be concluded, it seems, is that considerable uncertainty surrounds the questions of authorship and revision of the Catechism of 1548, even though Cranmer does claim responsibility for the first two ‘printes’ (Cranmer, Remains, edn. Cox, 1846: 218). Despite this doubt, it must be assumed, as Selwyn suggests, that even if Cranmer did not undertake the work of translation and the issuing of later editions, “it is difficult to believe that he [Cranmer] did not supervise the translation”. (Selwyn, 1964: 87). This suggests, and Selwyn agrees, that Cranmer himself was responsible for the changes and approved of them in the later editions, despite what he said at his trial. This conclusion certainly seems to be supported by another letter written by John Ab Ulmis to Bullinger in the autumn of 1548 when the third edition was published. Ab Ulmis says in his letter of 27 November, 1548, that “even Thomas himself … is in great measure recovered from his dangerous lethargy” (Letter of Ab Ulmis to Bullinger 27 November, 1548, in Original Letters, edn. Robinson, 1847: II, 383). Selwyn concludes therefore that despite any statement Cranmer may have made at his trial, “some time during 1548 Cranmer seems to have abandoned the doctrine of the real presence” and that this change was first demonstrated in the Reformed opinions present in the third edition of the Catechism of 1548 (Selwyn, 1964: 89). Indeed it may be possible to say that: “the evidence of the third edition suggests that the earlier period of uncertainty was now at an end.” (Selwyn, 1964: 89).

The words in the Catechism of 1548 as it had originally appeared, in the first and second editions however, were used against Cranmer. Smith for example used the words of the Catechism of 1548 against him, saying:

“Ye now excuse yourself, my lord, for setting out of the presence of Christ’s body and blood in the sacrament and say that when ye wrote in a catechism by you translated out of Latin into English, that we do receive Christ’s body and blood bodily with our mouths, ye meant by a figure, that is to say, that we do eat and drink bread and wine figures and signs of them. This excuse is not true, for ye wrote so manifestly then of the real presence of Christ’s body and blood both in the sacrament, and also in heaven at once, that nothing might be written more plainly, and that neither ye could yourself, nor none other of your brethren otherwise take it, and therefore perceiving that that doctrine did mislike and offend the rest of your brethren in Christ, ye did shortly recant it, as it appeareth by the setting forth again of that book called a catechism.” (Smith, Confutation, edn. Cox, 1844: 226).

Clearly Smith is both accusing Cranmer of inconsistent teaching regarding the presence of Christ in the Eucharist in the various editions of the catechism and in other writings and of changing the wording of the catechism in the third edition to accommodate the more advanced Reformers who objected to Cranmer’s moderate realism present in the earlier editions.

Gardiner also, in written debate with Cranmer, argued that the eucharistic theology used in the 1548 Catechism presented a view inconsistent with Cranmer’s other eucharistic teaching (Gardiner, Explication, edn. Cox, 1844: 226-227). Gardiner thereby attempted to discredit Cranmer and the force of his arguments. At his trial, Martin, one of the interrogators, referred to the Catechism of 1548, suggesting that Cranmer was inconsistent in his eucharistic doctrine, arguing in the catechism for a real presence and in other places (e.g. Defence) for a much more Reformed doctrine of the Eucharist (Examination before Brokes, edn. Cox, 1846: 218). The examination noticed, it seems, that Cranmer’s moderate realism of 1548 had become receptionism by 1550.

There seems no easy way of determining what Cranmer’s position really was, or of how his views changed. Doubt must always remain about Cranmer’s views on the Eucharist. What does seem certain is that those who criticised Cranmer were able to use the inconsistencies in his writings to considerable effect.