Another post from me about the Reformation, seeing as I’m
still reading about it!
Although the practical effectiveness of the Six Articles,
passed through parliament in 1539, can be debated, the Articles remain
significant as a dramatic shift away from growing evangelicalism in the English
Church. Perhaps even more significantly, the Articles were the first major
example of Henry VIII taking an aggressively active role in the religion of his
country. Henry had always sought a middle way, which is evident in the balanced
appointment of clerics to doctrinal discussions and committees: it was
generally an equal number of conservatives and evangelicals. The Six Articles
follow this trend in that they were meant to eliminate controversy, but Henry’s
involvement in the theological debates, rather than merely signing the finished
document, was unprecedented.
Before 1539, the reformers had gained victories under the
patronage of Anne Boleyn, and later with the 10 Articles and Bishops’ Book,
which, although full of compromises, were a step in the right direction.
Cromwell also pushed forward with his and Cranmer’s shared goal and made sure
there was an English Bible in every parish church. The extremely conservative
Six Articles therefore represented a U-turn in religious policy, reaffirming
the key doctrines of the Catholic Church, including transubstantiation,
clerical celibacy and the necessity of auricular confession. These orthodox
affirmations resulted in Bishops Latimer and Shaxton – who had spoken out viciously
against the Articles in the House of Lords – resigning their sees; yet another
loss for the evangelical cause.
The Articles stated that:
-
Transubstantiation was the definitive Eucharistic doctrine of the Church (though this was only implied – transubstantiation was not explicitly mentioned).
- Lay people should not receive both parts of the Eucharist (i.e. they could take the bread but not wine).
- Priests could not marry.
- Vows of chastity had to be strictly observed.
- Private masses for both the living and the dead had to be continued.
- Auricular confession was a necessity.
The Articles took three days to pass through parliament,
much to the dismay of Cromwell, who had effectively been shoved to one side by
Henry’s sudden assertiveness. The parliamentary session seems to have been only
a formality, as the outcome had been clear from the start, and Cromwell and
Cranmer could only look on helplessly as Henry’s conservative beliefs made
their mark.
For Cranmer in particular, the third article was
devastating. The Archbishop had secretly married the niece of a Lutheran
theologian in 1532, and the accompanying penalty was death. It was perhaps
through concern for his friend that Cromwell amended the article at the last
minute to include only known clerical
marriages. Nevertheless, the passing of the Articles through Parliament forced
Cranmer to send his wife and daughter back to Germany. Henry VIII himself doesn’t
seem to have quizzed Cranmer on his marital state until 1543, but he was aware
that his chaplain’s conscience was troubled by the acts: he gave Cranmer
permission to miss the last day of the vote (which Cranmer refused to do) and
later held a feast in the archbishop’s honour at Lambeth.
The Articles can also be seen as a clear shift in diplomatic
strategy. With the support of Henry and the continental reformer, Martin Bucer,
theologians had received a German Lutheran delegation at Lambeth, partly in an
attempt to strengthen ties with the League of Schmalkalden. The key reason for
this was the Imperial-French truce, presenting the possibility of French-Imperial-papal
alliance against Henry. When the delegation refused to make enough concessions,
Henry changed tactics, and seems to have favoured appeasing the Catholics
instead. Although not technically foreign policy, as it was governed by
England, Calais also proved to be a key stimulant: dissent was growing within
the upper secular classes against Archbishop Cranmer’s more outspoken preachers
there, which seems to have unnerved Henry about the speed and possible
radicalism of reform. Threats from home, therefore, were more important than a
possible attack from abroad, especially with the memory of the Pilgrimage of
Grace weighing heavily in people’s minds.
The Articles, however, were not a complete loss for the evangelical cause. Even the point about
transubstantiation was vague. The reformers at this stage, who had not yet lost
their belief in the true presence in the Eucharist, could claim that the
Articles still followed their own doctrine, even if the language was
aggressively conservative. Cromwell also managed to delay the appointment of
commissions and some of the articles either took a long time to enforce, or the
initiatives were dropped. In Henry’s more happily evangelical mood following
Cromwell’s fall a year later, he lifted the death penalty for married priests
(no doubt with sighs of relief from Cranmer) and dropped charges on the 200 or
so evangelical Londoners who had been rounded up by Bishop Bonner’s men. The
changes the Articles made, therefore, were significant in what they said,
rather than what they did to the English Church in practice.
V.G
