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

CHAPTER XVI. CONFLICT OF THEOLOGICAL PARTIES IN ENGLAND DURING THE REIGN OF EDWARD VI.

Effect of the deaths of Fox and Barnes. Reaction against Transubstantiation. Ridley and Hooper, Zwinglians. Bullinger’s Influence. John a Lasco, and his congregations. Polanus and the Flemish weavers. Peter Martyr at Oxford. His theological position. Bucer at Cambridge. Was he a Lutheran? Löscher’s Argument. Correspondence between Bucer and Brentz. Bucer on the Real Presence. His Doctrine compared with that of Martyr. Switzerland free from the desolations of Smalcald War. English Negotiations with the Reformed Cities. Bullinger and Lady Jane Grey. Calvin’s Correspondence. Cranmer yields. His course explained. When and how he became a Calvinist? His Catechism. Indication of process of change afforded by Zürich Letters.

In the last chapter, we noted how the cause of Lutheranism in England was weakened by its sad condition on the Continent at the time of the Smalcald War and the Interim. But there were other reasons, why it did not gain the ascendency. The stricter Lutherans of the type of Bishop Fox, and Dr. Barnes, had departed. Cranmer, whose connection with Lutheranism in Germany had been maintained, largely, through his intimate correspondence with Osiander, felt the weakening influence of the latter’s defection on the doctrine of Justification, even though he had no sympathy for his relative’s error; and, doubtless, was influenced by Osiander’s increasing bitterness against the Wittenberg theologians. Melanchthon, to whom he had looked for advice, was also found at this time untrustworthy. A reaction against Romish transubstantiation had manifested itself for years in the denial of the doctrine of the real presence, one extreme violently asserted inevitably producing the other, especially as [[@Page:207]]the leaven of Anabaptism was to a greater or less extent diffused. No sooner had the reign of Edward begun, than iconoclastic zeal was ready to tear the crucifixes, out of churches, and otherwise to manifest feeling that had been suppressed so long. Prominent leaders of the English Reformation had not realized the importance of the issue involved concerning the Lord’s Supper. Long before this, Tyndale had advised Frith not to allow it to be a matter of discussion. “Barnes will be hot against you. My mind is, that nothing be put forth till we hear how you have sped. I would have right use preached, and the presence to be an indifferent thing, till the matter might be reasoned in peace at the leisure of both parties.”²³⁴ As early as 1545, Nicholas Ridley, afterwards Bishop of London, especially distinguished as a preacher, and probably the most learned divine in the English Church after the death of Bishop Fox, had been influenced by one of Zwingli’s treatises against Luther and by the study of Ratramnus to reject both the Roman Catholic and the Lutheran doctrines. John Hoper or Hooper, afterwards bishop of Gloucester and then bishop of Worcester, a former Cistercian monk, “infected with Lutheranism by books brought from Germany,” had been driven by the persecutions concerning “The Six Articles,” from England to Switzerland, where he became intimate with Bullinger, the scholar and successor of Zwingli, first at Basle, and afterwards at Zürich. The death of Henry VIII., and accession of Edward, brought him back to England, not only as a zealous advocate of Zwinglianism, but also as an obstinate polemic, giving great trouble to Cranmer and Ridley, and most of all to Peter Martyr, then Professor at Oxford, who dreaded lest the Continental Reformers should be held responsible for his extreme position. Although imprisoned, because, when nominated as bishop, he both refused to wear Episcopal robes at consecration, and in a tract bitterly attacked this custom as one which he regarded a relic of the Papacy, he yet had sufficient influence to overcome the opposition against him, and to secure a prominent [[@Page:208]]place the councils of the English Church. He diligently circulated the theological writings of his friend Bullinger. Blunt traces to his influence the order which Cranmer actually sent the Dean of St. Paul’s in 1552, “to forbid playing of organs at divine services.” Hooper’s disposition towards Lutheranism may be learned from a letter to Bullinger (January 25th, 1546) in which he says: “The Count Palatine has lately provided for the preaching of the Gospel throughout his dominions: but as far as relates to the eucharist he has descended, as the proverb has it, from the horse to the ass; for he has fallen from Popery into the doctrine of Luther, who is, in that particular, more erroneous than all the Papists.” (Original Letters, I. 38). How bitter was the prejudice of Bullinger against Lutheranism, may be learned from another letter in the same collection (p. 251), in which Richard Hilles writes concerning a student at Strassburg, that Bullinger had written requesting that his lodging be changed, since Mr. Marbach, with whom he boarded was “not one with whom the father of Lewis would like his son to have any intercourse,” the reason being “that Marbach is altogether a Lutheran.” It is interesting to note the answer: “If we consider this, there is no reason for your friend Lewis again to change his lodging; since he will have just such another, if he should lodge with any learned man in this place.”

With the Interim, there were learned divines glad to find a refuge in England; and whom Cranmer was glad to call to assist him in his great work. Protestants in large numbers had congregated in London, driven from various portions of the Continent. In 1549, there were no less than four thousand Germans there. John a Lasco, was made Superintendent of the several congregations of foreigners, all apparently worshipping in one church. A Lasco was a Polish nobleman, not an exile, but absent from his country by leave of his King, in order to preach the Gospel. He was an intimate friend of Erasmus, whose library he had generously purchased, allowing the owner the use of it for the rest of his life. He had been converted to the [[@Page:209]]Reformed faith, and induced to devote himself to the ministry by Zwingli at Basle. He was an intimate friend and correspondent of Melanchthon. He is described by Goebel,²³⁵ as “in science an Erasmian, in faith a Lutheran, in cultus a Zwinglian, in church organization a Calvinist, as a dogmatician loose and indefinite.” On the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, he was either Calvinistic or Zwinglian. He supported Hooper in his controversy, being especially extreme in his opposition to clerical vestments and to kneeling at the communion.

There was a congregation of foreigners at Glastenbury in Somersetshire, consisting chiefly of weavers who had been driven by the Interim from Strassburg. Of this congregation, which doctrinally seems to have been in sympathy with a Lasco, Valerandus Pollanus was pastor.

Peter Martyr, Paul Fagius and Martin Bucer, all from Strassburg, were welcomed to professorships of theology, Martyr at Oxford, and Fagius and Bucer at Cambridge. V. E. Löscher, Walch and Buddeus, all maintain that up to this time Martyr had been a Lutheran,²³⁶ and a letter of Bucer to Brenz which we shall shortly quote, seems to confirm it. However this may be, in a public disputation at Oxford in 1549, into which he was forced by Richard Smythe, an advocate of transubstantiation, he virtually yielded the doctrine of the real presence, much to Bucer’s dissatisfaction. Even this Buddeus²³⁷ explains as only a [[@Page:210]]temporary inconsistency. Martyr was the spiritual father of Bishop Jewel, whose “Apology” is almost a symbol in the Anglican church. Jewel was Martyr’s pupil, and took down the discussion with Smythe. Driven from England on the accession of Mary, the charge of disloyalty to the Augsburg Confession was made against him at Strassburg. His answer shows how he wished to be regarded as subscribing to the confession, while, he tried to read into it a Calvinistic interpretation. Writing to the Senate, “he professed that he cheerfully embraced the Augsburg Confession, and whatever does not differ therefrom, provided it be correctly understood; and that, if there were need, he would maintain them with all his might.” Concerning the Wittenberg Concord between Luther and Bucer, he replied “that to this he had not subscribed; that it could not be conceded by the Word of God and conscience, that those destitute of true faith, in partaking of the sacraments, receive the true body of Christ.” As years advanced, his opposition to Lutheranism increased, and in 1561, in negotiations at the Colloquy of Paissy, with the King of Navarre, “when he was asked his judgment concerning the Augsburg Confession, he answered that the Word of God seems to us sufficient, as it clearly contains all things which pertain to salvation. For even if that Confession be received, reconciliation with the Romanists will not follow; since they proscribe it as heretical.”²³⁸ He ended his life as Professor at Zürich.

Fagius was known to have very decided Lutheran sympathies, but was more distinguished as an Old Testament scholar than as dogmatician, or ecclesiastical leader, and died before he could enter upon his duties.

Bucer had endeavored to mediate between Lutheranism and Zwinglianism. In 1536, however, he had come to an understanding with Luther and Melanchthon in “the Wittenberg Concord,” in which the Lutheran doctrine of the Lord’s Supper was subscribed, Bucer reserving the nature of the communion of the unworthy as a point not yet settled in his mind. In [[@Page:211]]subsequent years, he does not seem to have materially varied from this position. Löscher, in his Ausführliche Historia Motuum, devotes an entire chapter, to prove that “although with considerable weakness, he is, nevertheless, to be reckoned among evangelical Lutherans.”²³⁹ Hardwick pronounces him “a moderate Lutheran, and, as such, decided in his opposition to the school of Hooper.”²⁴⁰ It is certain, however, that the very point in which he failed at Wittenberg in 1536, continued to render the transition to the Calvinistic doctrine very easy. Possibly he attempted to render the Lutheran doctrine more acceptable to Calvinists by concessions, or possibly he was never entirely in the clear as to what was involved in statements which he maintained. In “the Sententious Sayings of Master Martin Bucer upon the Lord’s Supper,”²⁴¹ of 1550, written while professor at Oxford, there is much that, if taken by itself, would seem to be an entire surrender to Calvinism, e. g., (22) “There is no presence of Christ in the Supper, but only in the lawful use thereof, and such as is obtained and gotten by faith only.” (33): “I define or determine Christ’s presence, howsoever we perceive it, either by the sacraments or by the word of the Gospel, to be only the attaining and perceiving of the commodities we have by Christ, both God and man, which is our Head reigning in heaven, dwelling and living in us, which presence we have by no worldly means, but we have it by faith.” A letter, however, of Bucer to Brentz, May 15th, 1550,²⁴² apologizing for Peter Martyr’s discussion is in a different key. He writes, as in full harmony with Brentz, whose strict Lutheranism has never been questioned, and as though discussions were in progress, in which the Lutheran doc- was vigorously assailed, and he were being overpowered. This is the letter: “With respect to the book of Dr. Martyr, I undoubtedly have as much regret as any one else; but the discussion [[@Page:212]]was announced and the proposition formulated before I had arrived in England. At my advice, he has introduced much in his preface, whereby he expresses more fully his faith in the presence of Christ. With the heads of government, they have much weight who contract their ministry within a narrow sphere, and are not anxious about restoring the discipline of the church; the violence of these has also to certain extent influenced this friend of ours. While he was with us, all things were presented more correctly and amply. In wishing to prevent us from including in the bread, our Lord taken from Heaven, and from giving him to men to be eaten without faith, which none of us imagines, they fall into the error of including him in a fixed place in Heaven, although for this they are absolutely without Scripture testimony, and of his presentation and presence in the Supper they speak so feebly (yea they do not even mention these words), that they seem to hold that in the Supper nothing but bread and wine are distributed. Our simple position, as held by me, no one as yet has reproved, nor have I heard of any one able to refute it by any firm declaration from Scripture. Neither as yet has any such attempt been made. Their chief argument is: ‘The mysteries of Christ ought to be intelligibly explained.’ They would be correct in saying this, if they were to add: ‘To faith, not to reason.’ They now assume that it can in no way be understood how Christ is now circumscribed in a physical place in Heaven; and since he is thus in Heaven (which they assume not only without any warrant, but even without any firm reason), it cannot be understood how the same body of Christ is in Heaven and in the Supper. When, then we say that in the Supper none should suppose a local presence of Christ, they again say that the body of Christ cannot be understood to be anywhere, unless its presence be that of local circumscription. The substance of their argument, therefore, is: ‘Reason does not perceive what you teach concerning the presentation and presence of Christ in the Supper, and hence it is not true. The Scripture passages which seem to prove it, must be understood otherwise.’ Let us [[@Page:213]]pray for them. Thus far I have met no true Christians who were not entirely satisfied with our simplicity in this matter.”

So important was Bucer, until his death in February, 1551, as one of the chief advisers of Cranmer in the determination of the formularies of this period, that we add yet the explanation of his inconsistencies given by Löscher: “We must not deny that he resorted to many worldly counsels from carnal prudence, mingled with love for peace, which were of great damage to the Evangelical Lutheran Church, that he had too little zeal for truth in the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper, that in the side-questions pertaining to the Lord’s Supper he was still not in the clear, that he always had a penchant for seeking to reconcile the two contradictories. The body of Christ is substantially present, etc., and The body of Christ is not substantially present, etc., an impossible work, at which, nevertheless, he labored until the close of his life. Yet these points must not be mingled with the chief question, in the investigation of historical truth.”²⁴³

It is certain, however, that the Anti-Lutheran element in England regarded him an exponent of Lutheranism, and were anxious that he should be displaced, as the following shows:

“Bucer has a most dangerous relapse into his old disease. Richard writes that there is little or no hope of his recovery. In case of his death, England will be happy, and more favored than all other countries, in having been delivered in the same year, from two men of most pernicious talent, namely Paul Fagius and Bucer.” (Burcher to Bullinger, April 20th, 1550).²⁴⁴ So after Bucer’s death: “The death of Bucer affords England the greatest possible opportunity of concord. If you know any one qualified for so important an office, pray inform me.” (Or. Letters, p. 678).

There were political considerations which increased the [[@Page:214]]influence of the anti-Lutheran element in the Church of England. While Lutheranism seemed to be almost ruined by the Smalcald war and the Interim, there was peace in Switzerland. Francis I. held the Roman Catholic cantons back from supporting Charles V., and, however much they sympathized with the Emperor, they were powerless to aid him. Hence Zürich and Geneva knew nothing of the persecutions that overwhelmed Wittenberg and other Lutheran centers. The English court sought, therefore, an alliance with the Reformed cities. Thus, October 20th, 1549, Edward VI, writes to the Senate of Zürich: “We have understood by the frequent letters of our faithful and be loved servant, Christopher Mount, both your favorable disposition towards us, and ready inclination to deserve well of us. In addition to which, there is also a mutual agreement between us concerning the Christian religion and true godliness, which ought to render this friendship of ours, by God’s blessing, yet more intimate.”²⁴⁵

Those high in position in the State were also in frequent correspondence with the Reformed leaders in Switzerland. Bullinger was directing the studies of Lady Jane Grey. Thus, July 12th, 1551, she writes to him in reference to her Hebrew, and pays this tribute to the Swiss theologian: “Oh, happy me to be possessed of such a friend, and so wise a counsellor, and to be connected by ties of intimacy and friendship with so learned a man, so pious a divine, and so intrepid a champion of true religion.”²⁴⁶ Calvin was in correspondence with the Lord Protector,²⁴⁷ the young king,²⁴⁸ and Cranmer,²⁴⁹ giving them in long and tedious letters, a great deal of advice. There are published in the “Original Letters,” chiefly from the archives at Zürich, no less than one hundred and seventy letters written to Bullinger alone, during the six years of Edward’s reign, by friends in [[@Page:215]]]England, most of whom were exerting all their power to transplant thither the theology of Switzerland. Every change and wavering in Cranmer that can in any way be noticed, is promptly and faithfully reported at headquarters in Zürich.

It is no wonder, then, that a man of the temperament and disposition of Archbishop Cranmer, pressed on every side, gradually yielded to Calvinism, just as during Henry’s reign he had so often allowed his better judgment to succumb for a time to Romanizing tendencies. His change must not entirely be ascribed to vacillation amidst fixed principles. In himself there existed simultaneously the contradictory positions, which had never been thoroughly fought over in his own experience. We would not question his sincerity; but again and again when he firmly maintained a doctrine, he seems not to have understood it in its relations. With Fox and Crumwell and Barnes to aid him, he was a Lutheran; deprived of them, he drifted between the conflicting elements, in hope of a better day when he thought he would be able to act with less embarrassment. But when these came with new complications, “he considered,” says Dr. Jenkyns, “the exchange from the long established and absolute sway of Henry, to the new and unsettled authority of Edward, as a loss, rather than a gain to the cause of the reformation. He may perhaps have been mistaken in this view; the flexibility of the son may in truth have been no less favorable to the construction of a new system, than the obstinacy of the father to the demolition of the old one. But the inference is almost unavoidable, that the difficulties of his situation under Henry were less, and under Edward greater, than is usually supposed.”²⁵⁰ The precise time when the Archbishop became a Calvinist on the doctrine of the Lord’s Supper cannot be accurately determined. He himself stated that it was through Ridley’s arguments that the change in his opinion began.²⁵¹ Although in the [[@Page:216]]preface to the Embden edition of the defence, generally ascribed to his intimate friend, Sir John Cheke, tutor to Edward VI., this change is assigned to the year 1546, this probably marks only the beginning, especially as the Nürnberg Kinderpredigten, improperly known as the Catechism of Justus Jonas because of Jonas Latin version, which he translated in 1548, and, which in English, is usually designated Cranmer’s Catechism, not only teaches most emphatically the Lutheran doctrine, but also contains verbatim Luther’s Small Catechism. Here the Zürich letters are of service:

1548, August 1st. Traheran to Bullinger: “All our countrymen who are sincerely favorable to the restoration of truth entertain in all respects like opinions with you. I except the archbishop of Canterbury, and Latimer, and a very few learned men besides.”²⁵²

August 18th. John ab Ulmis to Bullinger: “He has lately published a Catechism, in which he 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 bold.”²⁵³

October 29th. John Burcher to Bullinger: “The archbishop of Canterbury, moved no doubt by the advice of Peter Martyr and other Lutherans, has ordered a catechism of some Lutheran opinion, to be translated and published in our language. This little book has occasioned no little discord,”²⁵⁴

September 28th. Traheran to Bullinger: “Latimer has come over to our opinion respecting the true doctrine of the Eucharist, together with the archbishop of Canterbury, and the other bishops, who heretofore seemed to be Lutherans.”²⁵⁵

November 27th. “Even Cranmer, by the goodness of God, and the instrumentality of that most upright and judicious man, [[@Page:217]]Master John a Lasco, is in a great measure recovered from his dangerous lethargy.”²⁵⁶

December 27th. Hooper to Bullinger: “The archbishop of Canterbury entertains right views as to the nature of Christ’s presence in the Supper, and is now very friendly towards myself.”²⁵⁷

December 31st. Traheran to Bullinger: “The archbishop of Canterbury, contrary to general expectation, most openly, firmly and learnedly maintained your opinion on this subject. I perceive that it is all over with Lutheranism, now that those who were considered its principal and almost only supporters, have altogether come over to our side.”²⁵⁸ [[@Page:218]]