Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-tnzcf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-13T21:18:01.819Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cranmer and Nominalism

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

Eugene K. McGee
Eugene K. McGee
Affiliation:
Madison, Wisconsin
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It may seem futile to pose the question of the influence of Nominalism upon Thomas Cranmer, Henry VIII's Archbishop of Canterbury. Attempts to view the Reformation as a reaction to late medieval Nominalism, or as essentially Nominalist itself, have not been too well received. One student of Cranmer's theology, G. W. Bromiley, declares that any Nominalism in Cranmer was unconscious. Cranmer himself, of course, denied that he founded his doctrine upon anything but Scripture and the Fathers.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 57 , Issue 3 , July 1964, pp. 189 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1 See, e.g., Clark, F., Eucharistic Sacrifice and the Reformation (Westminster, Md., 1960), pp. 321–2Google Scholar.

2 Bromiley, G. W., Thomas Cranmer, Theologian (London, 1956), p. 71Google Scholar. “Nor was he consciously a nominalist…”

3 T. Cranmer, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556, Relative to the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, ed. for the Parker Society by J. E. Cox (Cambridge, 1844), p. 255. Cited below as, e.g., “I:255.”

4 T. Cranmer, Miscellaneous Writings and Letters of Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop of Canterbury, Martyr, 1556, ed. for the Parker Society by J. E. Cox (Cambridge, 1846), p. 227. Cited below as, e.g., “II:227.”

5 Bromiley, op. cit., p. 90. But cf. Dickens, A. G., Lollards and Protestants in the Diocese of York, 1509–1558 (Oxford, 1959), pp. 9–10Google Scholar. See also Timms, G. B., “Dixit Cranmer,” Church Quarterly Review 144 (1947), 33–5Google Scholar; and Dix, G., “Dixit Cranmer et non Timuit, a Supplement to Mr. Timms,” Church Quarterly Review 145 (1947–1948). 175–6Google Scholar.

6 I:23f., et passim.

7 I:10ff., et passim.

8 I:1ff., et passim. This work and the two cited above in footnotes 6 and 7 are all incorporated in Vol. I of Cranmer's Works.

9 Cf. Lindbeck, G., “Nominalism and the Problem of Meaning as Illustrated by Pierre D'Ailly on Predestination and Justification,” HTR 52 (1959), 60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 I:52.

11 I:loc. cit.

12 I:185. Also, I:73.

13 I:52.

14 I:26.

15 I:19.

16 I:62.

17 I:62ff.

18 I:3.

19 C. C. Richardson, Zwingli and Cranmer on the Eucharist [Cranmer Dixit et Contradixit] (Evanston, Ill., 1949), pp. 43–4Google Scholar. Cf. I:71.

20 I:31.

21 I:21.

22 I:34. Also I:25–6, 34–5, 42, and 25.

23 I:13, 20, 56, 37, 337; and, for Gardiner, I:68.

24 I:67, 62.

25 I:59.

26 I:15.

27 I:56.

28 I:90.

29 I:17.

30 I:177.

31 Cf. Ott, L., Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans, by Lynch, P., ed. by Bastible, J. C. (St. Louis, 1954), pp. 346–7Google Scholar.

32 I:5, 6, 6, 5.

33 I:64.

34 I:62.

35 Aquinas, T., The “Summa Theologica” of Aquinas, St. Thomas, trans, by the Fathers of the English Dominican Province (London, 1923), XVII, 290.Google Scholar

36 Aquinas, ibid., 292.

37 I:61, 116, 31.

38 I:18; 324, 250, 326, 260. For Nominalism, see Richardson, op. cit., pp. 8ff.; Tomás, Joāo de Santo, The Material Logic of John of St. Thomas, trans, by Simon, Y. R., et al. (Chicago, 1955), pp. 251 ffGoogle Scholar.; Carré, M. H., Realists and Nominalists (Oxford, 1946), pp. 118–9Google Scholar; Copleston, F. C., A History of Philosophy, III: Ockham to Suárez (Westminster, Md., 1953), p. 127Google Scholar; Jansen, F., “Eucharistiques (Accidents),” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, V (1924)Google Scholar, coll. 1394–5; É. Amann, , “L'Eglise et la Doctrine d'Occam,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XI (1931)Google Scholar, col. 894. For use of this as proof of Cranmer's Zwinglianism, see Richardson, op. cit., pp. 1ff., 48; and Parker, T. M., The English Reformation to 1558 (Oxford, 1950), pp. 130–2Google Scholar.

39 Weigel, G., “The Significance of Papal Pronouncements,” in The Papal Encyclicals in Their Historical Context, ed. by Fremantle, A. (New York, 1956), p. 14Google Scholar.

40 Festinger, L., A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Evanston, Ill., 1957), pp. 2–3Google Scholar. 13–4.

41 Cf. Festinger, op. cit., pp. 135–6. An attempt is made below to contrast the doctrines of Gardiner and the Catholics, as, e.g., “Transubstantiation,” with Cranmer's version, as, e.g., “transubstantiation.”

42 II:450. Cf. II:453.

43 I:241.

44 Mullinger, J. B., The University of Cambridge from the Earliest Times to the Royal Injunctions of 1535 (Cambridge, 1873)Google Scholar, I, 350–351. Ong, W. J., Ramus, Method, and the Decay of Dialog, from the Art of Discourse to the Art of Reason (Cambridge, Mass., 1958), p. 63Google Scholar.

45 Copleston, op. cit., III, 151. Cf. Carré, op. cit., pp. 65, 106–7.

46 Copleston, op. cit., III, 11.

47 Ong, op. cit., p. 135.

48 I:65.

49 Copleston, op. cit., III, 25ff.

50 Oberman, H. A., “Some Notes on the Theology of Nominalism with Attention to its Relation to the Renaissance,” HTR 53 (1960), 55–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Copleston, op. cit., III, 150ff.

51 I:73.

52 I:302,305.

53 I:302.

54 I:loc. cit.

55 I:10c. cit.

56 I:9.

57 Copleston, op. cit., III, 51ff.; Ong, op. cit., pp. 53–4.

58 E.g., I:186.

59 I:157. Also I:109.

60 I:120. Also I:371.

61 I:310.

62 I:398.

63 I:91. See also, I:117, 118.

64 I:158. Footnote I reads, “Rock: i.e., a distaff…”

65 E.g., I:275, 150.

66 E.g., I:69, 120, and 119.

67 I:363

68 I:loc. cit

69 I:loc. cit

70 E.g., I:400ff.

71 E.g., I:218.

72 I:43.

73 I:333, 206,371–2.

74 I:297.

75 I:194, 25.

76 I:138.

77 I:107.

78 I:246.

79 I:121.

80 I:259.

81 Carré, op. cit., pp. 118–9.

82 I:331.

83 I:333. Also I:273.

84 Ong, op. cit., pp. 142ff., et passim.

85 I:62–3.

86 I:251.

87 Quoted by Cranmer, I:371.

88 Letter in II:534, 537.

89 I:4.

90 I:15.

91 I:46.

92 I:49–50.

93 I:368.

94 I:332.

95 I:252.

96 I:250.

97 I:89–91.

98 I:73.

99 I:186.

100 I:93. Also I:75.

101 Copleston, op. cit., III, 123, 125–6.

102 I:15.

103 I:244–7.

104 E.g., I:252.

105 I:4, 304, 329, 253, 241, 107. Gardiner used the term “consubstantiation” in the Catholic sense, that is, as applying to the relationship of the persons of the Trinity. See I:293.

106 Amann, op. cit., col. 894.

107 Copleston, op. cit., III, 104.

108 I:12–3.

109 I:15.

110 I:9.

111 I:377; II:10, 52.

112 I:34.

113 I:24.

114 Oberman, op. cit, 57ff.

115 Copleston, op. cit., III, 14; Ong, op. cit., p. 123; Oberman, op. cit., 58.

116 Copleston, op. cit., III, 11.

117 I:65, 332, 250.

118 I:371.

119 I:254, 250.

120 I:371.

121 Copleston, op. cit., III, 12.

122 Copleston, F. C., A History of Philosophy, II: Mediaeval Philosophy, Augustine to Scotus (Westminster, Md., 1950), 147Google Scholar; Carré, op. cit., p. 119.

123 Copleston, op. cit., II, 142ff., III, 59; and Bainton, R. H., The Travail of Religious Liberty (New York, 1951), p. 76Google Scholar.

124 Bainton, op. cit., pp. 76–7.

125 Carré, op. cit., p. 38.

126 H. Jedin, A History of the Council of Trent, trans, by E. Graf from the German ed. of 1949 (London, 1957), I, 10, especially footnote 2.

127 See Baumer, F. L., “The Church of England and the Common Corps of Christendom,” The Journal of Modern History 16 (1944), 10Google Scholar, 15.

128 Baumer, op. cit., 4, footnote 14.

129 Baumer, op. cit., 1–2. Baumer defines the Catholic notion of the corpus mysticum as “a body united in faith and sacraments only. It possesses none of the coercive properties of a ‘body politic’ (corpus politicum.)” This, however, would seem to be closer to Marsilius of Padua and Cranmer himself than to Catholic doctrine.

130 Baumer, op. cit., 4, footnote 14.

131 II:224.

132 Baumer, op. cit., 9.

133 II:225.

134 II:77.

135 II:164.

136 II:77.

137 II:324–6.

138 See Maritain, J., Man and the State (Chicago, 1951), pp. 35Google Scholar, 134–5.

139 Cf. Newman, J. H., Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification (1st ed., 1838; 6th ed., London, 1892), pp. 110–1Google Scholar. Similar statements are to be found in Journet, C., The Church of the Word Incarnate, an Essay in Speculative Theology, Volume One: The Apostolic Hierarchy, trans, by Downs, A. H. C. (London, 1955), pp. 11—2Google Scholar; Journet, C., The Primacy of Peter from the Protestant and from the Catholic Point of View, trans, by Chapin, J. (Westminster, Md., 1954), pp. 36–7Google Scholar; and Adam, K., The Spirit of Catholicism (1st ed., 1935; New York, 1954), pp. 114–5Google Scholar.

140 I:83–4.

141 Amann, op. cit., col. 893.

142 II:i28, 131.

143 I:81, 85; cf. II:181.

144 I:306.

145 I:loc. cit.

146 Amann, op. cit., col. 894.

147 Ott, op. cit., pp. 85, 96, 378f., 385.

148 I:307.

149 Cf. Journet, The Church of the Word Incarnate, I, xxvi–xxix.

150 Cf. Copleston, op. cit., III, 151.

151 Ong, op. cit., p. 135.

152 Ong, op. cit., p. 63.

153 Ong, op. cit., p. 8. See also McRae, K. D., “Ramist Tendencies in the Thought of Jean Bodin,” Journal of the History of Ideas 16 (1955), 306–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

154 Ong, op. cit., pp. 8–9.

155 Cf. Copleston, op. cit., III, 56–8, 30.

156 Carré, op. cit., p. 109. See also Gilson, E., The Unity of Philosophical Experience (New York, 1937), pp. 66–7Google Scholar.

157 Carré, op. cit., pp. 108–9.

158 I:123. Cf. Maritain, J., “Sign and Symbol,” in Ransoming the Time, trans, by Binsse, H. L. (New York, 1941), pp. 217–54Google Scholar.

159 I:194.

160 I:123.

161 I:loc. cit.; also, 117, 118.

162 Cf. Ong, op. cit., p. 73.

163 I:139.

164 I:140.

165 I:139.

166 I:140.

167 I:141. See also, I: 117, 118.

168 Richardson, op. cit., p. 10, and also pp. 41, 48.

169 I:337.

170 Copleston, op. cit., III, 97.

171 Carré, op. cit., p. 72.

172 I:92.

173 I:216.

174 I:92.

175 I:92–3.

176 II:176.

177 Smith, L. B., Tudor Prelates and Politics, 1536–1558 (Princeton, 1953), p. 116Google Scholar.

178 Copleston, op. cit., III, 47–8; Oberman, op. cit., 50ff.

179 Copleston, op. cit., III, 68–71, 91f.

180 Smith, op. cit., p. 117.

181 Oberman, op. cit., 67.

182 E.g., Smith, op. cit., pp. 178–9. Cf. Brown, R. M. and Weigel, G., An American Dialogue, a Protestant Looks at Catholicism and a Catholic Looks at Protestantism, with a Foreword by WIII Herberg (New York, 1960), p. 213Google Scholar, footnote 6.

183 II: 177; but see, also, II:93, for other uses of the term “mediator” which Cranmer had accepted.

184 Cf. Ott, op. cit., pp. 248–50.

185 Newman, op. cit., pp. 117, 304, but also see pp. 114–5.

186 For the difference between faith and a lively faith, see II:84ff.

187 I:83.

188 I:84.

189 Smith, op. cit., p. 194; Jedin, op. cit., I, 167–9. Vignaux, P., “Nominalism,” Dictionnaire de Théologie Catholique, XI (1931)Google Scholar, coll. 774–5.

190 II:129.

191 II:143, 136.

192 II:129.

193 II:131.

194 II:loc. cit.

195 II:76.

196 II:loc. cit.

197 II:181.

198 II:182.

199 II:181.

200 II:453.

201 I:73, 186, 93, 75.

202 I:345.

203 I:363.

204 I:85.

205 II:453.

206 I:214.

207 I:408.

208 I:79.

209 I:228.

210 I:81–3, 83, 84, 344.

211 I:345, 81.

212 I:307. Cf. Ott, op. cit., pp. 177, 188.

213 I:81. Also II: 150.

214 I:81, 345.

215 I:85.

216 I:81. Cf. Ott, op. cit., p. 400.

217 I:345.

218 I:92–3.

219 I:303.

220 I:348.

221 I:349.

222 I:loc. cit.

223 I:369. Robert McAffee Brown, a modern Protestant theologian, has used strikingly similar language to formulate his objections to the papacy and the Virgin cult as idolatrous. According to Brown, the Catholic claims for the Catholic Church and for the pope appear to compromise the transcendence and uniqueness of God. They “usurp” God's place. The Virgin cult is also seen by him as an attempt to “usurp” the “place” of Christ, for such an “addition” brings about a “diminution” of the “sole” efficacy of Christ's redemptive work. Brown and Weigel, op. cit., pp. 84–8, 91–2.

224 Bromiley, op. cit., p. 71.

225 I:81.