Lutheran movement in england during the reigns of henry VIII. And edward VI

CHAPTER XI. FRUITLESS NEGOTIATIONS OF 1539.

Pharaoh again seeks Moses. Conferences at Frankfort. Another Commission asked for. Lutherans decline to send Theologians. An Embassy of Civilians. Melanchthon’s Hopes. His long letters to Henry. Gardiner in the Ascendant. Henry’s Answer to the Articles “On Abuses”—”the Bloody Statute of the Six Articles.” Luther’s Indignation. Shall Melanchthon go to England? Negotiations concerning Anne of Cleves. Firmness of the Elector of Saxory. Opinion of the Wittenberg Faculty. Their Opinion adverse to further Negotiations. Melanchthon’s Minute Review of “the Six Articles.” An Eloquent Appeal.

The English King soon apprehended that he could not afford to be as independent as he imagined, when he broke up the conference of 1538, after the doctrinal articles of the Augsburg Confession had been received. Pharaoh again seeks Moses. A cloud was rising on the continent, which seemed to portend that, unless prompt measures be taken, the lightning of the Vatican might yet strike England. Henry became uneasy, lest the Lutheran princes and the Emperor might reach an agreement, in the conferences held at Frankfort-on-the-Main from February to April 1539, and that he would be left alone to oppose Charles. A formidable array of Lutheran theologians were present at Frankfort; among them Melanchthon, Spalatin, Myconius, Aepinus, Blaurer, Osiander and Sarcerius. Christopher Mount and Thomas Paynel were sent to represent the English cause. They protested against any action on the part of the Lutheran princes without a previous consultation with Henry. Again the proposition was made that a commission of theologians be sent to England. To this, the princes answer that it would be [[@Page:149]]useless, since there could be no change from what had been already decided in the conferences of 1536 at Wittenberg with Fox, Heath and Barnes;¹⁹¹ and give a summary of the Scriptural arguments against abuses, to aid the King in coming to a correct decision. Until the force of these be conceded, no provision is to be made for negotiations on theological points. Two civilians, however were appointed to confer personally with Henry, explain the situation, and arrange the preliminaries for a military alliance in case they were attacked by the same enemy. Vice Chancellor Burkhard and Ludwig a Baumbach were designated for such service and proceeded to England. Melanchthon once more is hopeful. It seems to him as though his scheme, “that an agreement with respect to godly doctrine be established among all those churches which condemn the tyranny and godlessness of the Bishop of Rome,”¹⁹² had another fair opportunity for consideration. Henry had spoken to the commission of 1538 in such exalted terms of Melanchthon, that the latter now treats the English monarch to two long letters (March 25th, April 1st),¹⁹³ full of those compliments in which the king delighted, and which the classical pen of Melanchthon could so gracefully give. He praises Henry’s heroic virtues, and compares him to Achilles. Melanchthon, alas, was using carnal weapons, instead of those which are mighty through God for the pulling down of strongholds. Yet, however ill-chosen the weapons, there is no questioning the ultimate purpose of his letters. He is urgent that the subject of abuses be at once considered. “Your Highness has already successfully begun to remove certain superstitions. I ask, therefore, that the reform of the other abuses be undertaken.”¹⁹⁴ Nor is he content with addressing Henry. He not only recalls his delightful intercourse with Heath three years before and writes to him, but also sends a long communication [[@Page:150]]to Cranmer, which while very severe in its complaints of the English bishops, bears testimony to the fidelity of Cranmer, Crumwell and Latimer. Melanchthon could not have foreseen how useless all these efforts would be. Since the death of Fox, the influence of Gardiner outweighs that of Cranmer. Two days’ conference in Crumwell’s residence, May 16th and 18th, showed that no agreement was possible.

THE SIX ARTICLES OF 1539.

The hierarchial element was rapidly maturing its boldest measures, which were to bring with them persecution and martyrdom for some of the more prominent champions of the evangelical faith. The project of enforcing uniformity in religion became a matter of deliberation in Parliament. The laymen in the House of Lords relinquished the floor to the bishops. Cranmer, Latimer and Shaxton, supported feebly by Heath, held for days a drawn battle with the other side, led by Gardiner and Tunstall, when the king himself entered the arena, and spoke with such decision, that Shaxton alone remained firm. Strype infers that in this discussion, Cranmer was greatly aided by a little treatise of Urban Regius.¹⁹⁵ The bill of the Six Articles enforced belief (1) in transubstantiation; (2) in non-necessity of communion in both kinds; (3) in the sinfulness of marriage after entering the priesthood; (4) in the absolute obligation of vows of chastity; (5) in the efficacy of private masses; (6) in compulsory auricular confession. Disbelief of the first article had attached to it the penalty of death at the stake; while the rejection of the other articles had a gradation of penalties attached, with death as the extreme. It has often been termed “the bloody statute of the Six Articles,” or “the whipe with sixe strings.”

Such was Henry’s answer to the articles of the Augsburg Confession, “On Abuses.” “It would be difficult,” says Charles Knight,¹⁹⁶ “to understand how such a statute could have passed, [[@Page:151]]if the great body of the people had been inclined to a higher species of reformation than consisted in the destructive principle which assailed the externals of the Church. Cranmer was too yielding, and Crumwell too politic, to oppose the party which carried the statute backed by the irresistible force of the king’s will. The subservient courtiers, who had become improprietors, and provided half-starved monks to do the service of the altar at the cheapest rate, were wholly indifferent to the principles through which the continental reformers were daily waxing in strength.” Cranmer sends away his wife to avoid the penalties of the statute. Latimer resigns his bishopric. Alesius flees to Wittenberg. Dr. Barnes, who had been sent as an ambassador by the king to Hamburg, does not venture for awhile to return.

LUTHER’S OPINION.

July 12th was fixed as the date at which the statute should begin to be enforced. Two days before, Luther thanks God “that he has freed our Church from the vexatious King of England, who with the greatest diligence desired and sought alliance with us, and was not received; undoubtedly because God for some special purpose hindered it, for he has always been inconstant and vacillating. I am glad that we are free from the blasphemer. He wants to be Head of the Church in England without any means sanctioned by Christ, who will give the title to no bishop, however pious or godly he may be, to say nothing of any king or prince. The devil is driving this king, so that he vexes and martyrs Christ. I am mortified and pained that Master Philip M. has dedicated the most beautiful prefaces and introductions to the most rascally fellows.”¹⁹⁷ About the same time, we find also this estimate: “He is still the same King Harry whom I portrayed in my first book. He will indeed find his judge. His plan never pleased me, in that he wants to kill the Pope’s body but to keep his soul, i. e. his false doctrine.”¹⁹⁸ “The [[@Page:152]]King of England is an enemy to the Pope’s person; but not of his nature and doctrine: he kills only the body, but lets the soul live.”¹⁹⁹

A FAITHFUL PRINCE.

But Luther’s rejoicing that he and his colleagues are at last done with Henry forever, is not of long duration. Crumwell was defeated, but his influence with the king was not altogether lost, and even during that summer the preliminary negotiations looking towards the marriage with Ana of Cleves, the Elector’s sister-in-law, were begun. The Landgrave of Hesse was anxious for a favorable consideration of the propositions made through Christopher Mount; but the Elector wished to hear nothing more. Bucer interposed, writing a long letter from Strasburg, describing the extremities to which the friends of the Gospel in England were put, and begging that Melanchthon may be sent as a special ambassador to use his influence in a personal interview with Henry, in order to cause a cessation of the persecution. How can we help but admire the candor of the Magnanimous Christian prince in his answer? He has a clear conscience, he says, that for four or five years he has spared himself no effort which might aid the cause of religion in England. He had, at a great expense, supported the Bishop of Hereford at Wittenberg for three months, and had him instructed sufficiently concerning the chief articles of doctrine. The bishop had reported everything to the king, who did not deign to reply. In 1538 a commission had been sent by him to England; and another in the present year—all to no purpose. He assured the English ambassador that “he received the living Word of God according to the Augsburg Confession, and thus publicly professed it, without which there is no true knowledge of God or hope of salvation; and from this Confession he would not recede even though he were compelled to lose life, and all that he had.”²⁰⁰ [[@Page:153]]

THE WITTENBERG FACULTY.

On October 22d, Luther, Jonas, Bugenhagen, and Melanchthon sign a paper concerning further negotiations with Henry, from which we give some extracts. Melanchthon is supposed to have composed it.

“Although in our own persons, we shrink from no dangers or labors; yet in this case, assuredly, enough has been done for the instruction and admonition of the king, for the following reasons: St. Paul says that we ought to receive the weak, but let the obstinate one go, who, he says, is condemned by his own judgment, i. e., one who publicly sins against his conscience. On the other hand, he who is called ‘weak’ will learn, and not persecute that which he understands, but receive, hold and advance it. Yet that the King of England is acting against conscience can be inferred from this, viz.: He knows that our doctrine concerning the use of the whole sacrament, Confession and the Marriage of Priests is true, or at least that it is not contrary to God’s Word. Now he says in his Articles and in his Edict, that some of these points are contrary to God’s Law. This he says undoubtedly against his conscience, for many writings have come to him written both publicly and also especially for him, which he has read. He himself has had a little book of Sarcerius translated and printed in his own language, which he has used as a prayer-book, wherein the matter is briefly presented. We understand also that he himself has spoken otherwise of this doctrine, and among other things has said of the King of France that he has done wrong in persecuting it; for he understands and knows that it is right. Besides he has many godly and learned preachers, as the deposed Bishop Latimer, Cranmer and others, whom he has heard and suffered for a period. And yet in spite of all this, he condemns this doctrine more severely than the Pope himself. We therefore apprehend that this king is of such a mind as does not seek God’s glory, but, as he declared to the Vice-Chancellor, wants to do only what pleases himself, whereby he shows that he does not regard the doctrine a matter [[@Page:154]]of moment, and that like Antiochus and others, he wants to establish a religion of his own.

Secondly, as it is now manifest that the king is acting against his conscience, we do not think that it is our duty to instruct him anew, but we ought to abide by the rule of Paul, which teaches that the adversaries should be admonished twice, and, if that do not help, they should be shunned as those who are acting against conscience. Such admonition has already been given.

Besides we hear that the king is a sophist and glossator, who likes to color all things with his art of making glosses. But one who has no delight in clear, plain truth, can easily twist matters, even though he has to tear his own mouth, like the pike, when torn by the hook. In Sirach 37, it is written: ‘God does not give grace to one who uses sophistry, and he does not attain wisdom.’ For there is no end to his hypercriticisms and distortions. Hence we cannot constantly be treating with such, and especially as experience shows how offensive this is to the Lord. Since then the king takes delight in such making of glosses, we have little hope that he will allow himself to be set right. Then too we must consider that the men who have influence with him have no conscience. The Bishop of Winchester [Gardiner] carries with him throughout the country two unchaste women in men’s apparel, and yet judges that the marriage of priests is against God’s law, and is so arrogant that he says that he will publicly maintain against the whole world that the proposition: ‘By faith we are justified’ is incorrect. He is also an extreme tyrant, as this year he has had two men burned for no other reason than alone for transubstantiation; so that the saying is true, that Lord and servant are of like mind. From all this, we infer that up to this time enough has been done; as we know that we have spoken faithfully and in a Christian way, and hold that it is no longer our duty to make further efforts, for there is little hope. Perhaps God does not want his Gospel to be maintained by a king, who has such a bad reputation. Yet we leave [[@Page:155]]it to your Electoral Grace’s further consideration, as to whether the attempt be made still once more. We would also not fail to make an expostulation with the king, and to admonish him again in writing. More is not our duty. For what Dr. Bucer points to: ‘Go into all the world, and teach,’ we are doing by our writings. To respond farther to a present call is not commanded us.

I, Philip, have written also to the same effect to Crumwell and the Archbishop of Canterbury. But letters have come to me from England to the effect that the king receives my letters with displeasure; and hence it is to be well considered as to whether though I were in England, the king would give me an audience or would not direct me as he did the former ambassadors to his proud, unlearned bishops with whom to quarrel. How acutely the king disputes concerning such matters may be learned from two arguments. Of good works he argues thus: Since bad works merit eternal wrath, it must follow that good works must merit eternal salvation; and this argument I hear he will not suffer to be taken from him. The other, concerning the marriage of priests, is this: If he have the power to give an order that one as long as he wants to be at court is not free, he has the power also to forbid priests from marrying. This is the very superlative of perspicacity; and hence he reviles and condemns us. Whether it be possible to dispute with one who resorts to such arguments, your Grace must consider.”²⁰¹

AN ELOQUENT APPEAL.

Under date of November 1st, Melanchthon writes Henry a letter which fills over twelve pages of the book before us. The glow of a just indignation colors every line. For once all timidity has vanished, and he is bold as one speaking as the oracle of God. The Six Articles are reviewed in detail, and their defects elaborately portrayed. We can quote only a few passages: [[@Page:156]]

‘I am pained that you are becoming the minister of another’s cruelty and godlessness. I am pained that the doctrine of Christ is being restrained, vicious rites established, and lusts strengthened. I hear that men of excellent learning and godliness, Latimer, Shaxton, Cranmer and others, are held in custody; for them I pray courage becoming Christians. And although nothing better or more glorious could happen to them than to meet death in the confession of such manifest truth; yet I do not wish your Royal Highness to be stained by the blood of such men, I do not wish the lights of your Church to be extinguished, I do not wish such concession to be made to the godlessness and venomous Pharisaic hatred of Christ’s enemies, I do not wish pleasure to be afforded to the Roman Antichrist, who delights in his heart that you are taking up arms for him, and hopes by the aid of the bishops to regain easily that possession from which he was driven by your honorable and godly counsels. He sees that the bishops are for a time complying with your will, but that they are joined to the Roman pontiff. The Roman pontiffs understand these arts; before these days, they have made their way out of most severe tempests by singing.”²⁰²

He argues, then, concerning the articles on “Abuses.” “In the decree how many things are artfully set forth!' ‘Confession,’ it says, ‘is necessary, and to be retained.’ Why does it not expressly say that, according to divine law, the enumeration of offences is necessary? The bishops knew, that this declaration is false; the words, therefore, are made general, in order that darkness may be diffused over the people. When they hear that confession is necessary, they understand that enumeration of offences is necessary. There are similar deceptions in the article ‘Of Private Masses.’ Even the beginning: ‘It is necessary to retain private masses,’ is absolutely false. Who thought thus for more than four hundred years after the Apostles, when there were no private masses? But afterward the sophisms followed, ‘That by them the people might receive divine consolations [[@Page:157]]and benefits.’ Why do they not add what these consolations and benefits are? The bishops do not mention “application’ and ‘merit,’ because they know that these cannot be defended. They play with words, in order that they may escape, if ‘application' be found fault with. And yet they want ‘application’ to be understood by the people! They want the idolatrous idea to be confirmed that, for some, this sacrifice merits remission of guilt, for others, an alleviation of all calamities, and finally brings gain in business, and whatever the anxiety of men imagines.

It is a like sophism, when they say that the marriage of priests conflicts with divine law. They are not ignorant of the passage in Paul: ‘A bishop must be the husband of one wife.’ Hence they know that, by divine law, marriage is allowed. But when they say that to this a vow has been added, they play with words; they do not say that marriage is hindered by a vow, but they absolutely lay down the proposition, that the marriage of priests conflicts with divine law. Then what impudence and atrocious cruelty they add, when they order marriages to be dissolved, while the sacerdotal vow, even were it valid, would only bind them not to remain in the ministry, in case they married. That this is the opinion of synods and councils, is manifest. O wicked bishops, O impudence of Winchester [Gardiner] who by these deceptions imagines that he is escaping the eyes of Christ and the judgment of all the godly in the entire world!”

What more eloquent than Melanchthon’s conclusions?

“Again I entreat you, for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ, to modify and amend the decree of the bishops; and, in this, serve the glory of Christ, and have regard for your salvation and that of the churches. Be moved by the prayers of many godly men throughout the whole world, who wish that kings apply their influence to the true reformation of the Church, and to abolish godless services and to defend the Gospel. Look upon those godly men who are bound for the sake of the Gospel, and who are true members of Christ. If the decree be not changed, the cruelty of the bishops will prevail without end in the Church. [[@Page:158]]For the devil has them as the instruments of his fury and hatred against Christ; he impels them to the slaughter of Christ’s members. All godly persons beg and beseech you not to prefer their godless and cruel sentences, and sophistical cavils, to our most just intercession. If they gain from you what they ask, God will undoubtedly grant you great rewards for your piety, and your virtue will be proclaimed in the writings and by the voice of the godly. For Christ will judge between those doing well and ill for his church.

As long as literature shall live, the memory of these important affairs will be transmitted to posterity. When we serve the glory of Christ, and our churches are churches of Christ, some shall never be wanting who shall be able to advocate a godly cause, to adorn with due praise those who deserve it, and to censure cruelty. Christ is going about, hungry, thirsty, naked, bound, complaining of the madness of pontiffs, of the most unrighteous cruelty of many kings, begging that the members of his body be not wounded, but that true churches be defended, and the Gospel be magnified. To recognize Him, to receive Him, to cherish him this is the duty of a godly king, and the worship most pleasing to God.”²⁰³ [[@Page:159]]