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

CHAPTER XXVIII. THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY.

The Refugees of Mary’s reign. The Congregations of Exiles at Frankfort-on-the-Main. The Revised Service. John Knox. The Conflict between Puritanism and the adherents of the Prayer-Book. Dr. Richard Cox. Knox withdraws. A Question as to Lutheran Baptism. Calvin at Frankfort. His later opinion of the Augsburg Confession. An Anglican Theological Seminary at Frankfort. Kindness shown the refugees. Archbishop Grindal. Duke Christopher of Würtemberg. Bishop Aylmer at Jena; nearly becomes Schnepf’s successor as a member of the theological Faculty. The Restoration under Elizabeth. Robert Brown and the “Independents.” The fate of English Lutheranism. Its continued Influence. Accession of the House of Hanover. New attempts at examination of historical relations. Pufendorfs Principles. Conclusion.

The limit fixed for this survey has been the close of the reign of Edward VI., with a reference to the permanent memorials of the Lutheran movement which remain. Another interesting field opens to the historical student in the development of the English Church among the bands of exiles scattered on the Continent during the Marian persecution. Mary came to the throne, July 5th, 1553. Before her former coronation, in October, the leaders of the evangelical movement had, with only one or two exceptions, been deprived of their positions and cast into prison. Cranmer was sent to the Tower September 14th. During the same month, Polanus with his congregation of exiles fled to Frankfort-on-the-Main. Here the chief Lutheran pastor was Hardtmann Beyer, distinguished for his courage and zeal in the days of the Interim, an alumnus of Wittenberg, and frequently [[@Page:344]]mentioned in the correspondence of Luther and Melanchthon. They were kindly received, and were given the Weissfrauenkirche for their services, which were begun in the French language, April 21st. They were followed (June 2yth) by a number of English Protestants who were given the same church for services in English at a different hour, William Whittingham, brother-in-law of Calvin, being their first pastor. One year later, (June 1555), John a Lasco and his congregation came, and they worshipped in the same place in the Dutch language. Very soon a controversy began among the English. The Calvinistic party had fretted even in England, that the revision of the Book of Common Prayer in 1552, was not more radical. A new Service was prepared. It “was concluded that the answeringe alowde after the Minister shulde not be vsed, the letanye, surplice and many other thinges also omitted. The Minister in place off the Englishe Confession shulde vse another, bothe off more effecte, and also framed according to the state and time. And the same ended, the people do singe a psalme in meetre in a plaine tune . . that don, the minister to praye for thessistance off gods holie spirite and so to proceade to the sermon. After the sermon, a generall praier for all estates and for oure countrie of Englande was also devised, at thende off whiche praier, was coined the lords praier, and a rehearsall of tharticles off oure belieff, which ended the people to singe an other psalme as afore. Then the minister pronouncinge this blessinge: The peace of God, etc.”³⁴¹ John Knox was called from Geneva to take charge of this congregation, and accepted, being its pastor from November 155410 March 1555. But this change of the Service proved too radical, and caused a reaction. More exiles sympathizing with a more conservative course arrived from England. Knox was strengthened by the interference of Calvin. In March 1555, Dr. Richard Cox arrived. He was one of the band of first English Lutherans at Cambridge, mentioned in the beginning [[@Page:345]]of this book, and had actively co-operated in the preparation of the principal English formularies, especially the Book of Common Prayer. Heat once antagonized Knox. “The sundaie folowinge, one off his company withowt the knowleg off the congregation gate upp suddainly into the pulpit, redd the lettany, and D. Cox withe his companie answered alowde, whereby the determination of the churche was broken.”³⁴² Such is the record of the one side. In two weeks time, Knox had left Frankfort. Thus the struggle between Puritanism and the English Church began in Lutheran Germany, and was to be tranferred to England for fuller development during the reign of Elizabeth. The congregation was hopelessly divided. One party would not allow the English minister to baptize their children. They carried them to the Lutheran ministers. Then came another controversy. Peter Martyr was called upon to prepare an opinion on the question: “An liceat hominibus evangelicis baptismum a Lutheranis accipi.” “May evangelical men receive baptism from Lutherans?” He thought not. This did not settle matters, and he had to write again to the effect, that while “he would not say it was unlawful, yet he disliked the practice.” Here are a few of Martyrs arguments: “Since the Lutheran faith and ours is diverse, we cannot commit ours to be sealed by the Lutherans… What advantage or spiritual edification is had from baptism sought for at the hands of the Lutherans? The salvation of your infants is not imperilled if they die without baptism, since neither the grace of God, nor the effects of predestination are to be bound to external things and sacraments.”³⁴³ Calvin himself repaired to Frankfort in 1556. He avoided the Lutheran pastors, his relations towards Lutheranism having changed some three years previously. A few years later, he wrote to the Prince of Conde, “the Confession of Augsburg is neither flesh nor fish, and is the cause of great schisms and debates among the [[@Page:346]]Germans;”³⁴⁴ and to Admiral Coligny:³⁴⁵ “It is such a meagre composition, so feeble and so obscure, that it is impossible to stop short at its conclusions.”³⁴⁶ Thus Puritanism showed in its very outstart the same hostility to Lutheranism, as to the English formularies drawn from Lutheran sources.

The other portion of the congregation found, with little difficulty, sufficient material among its members for a theological faculty, and established for the time a Seminary, with Dr. Horn, previously Dean of Durham, for Hebrew; Dr. John Mullins for Greek, Dr. Traheron, previously Dean of Chichester, for Divinity.

Not only at Frankfort, but also in Reformed centers, English exiles received kind treatment. Frankfort, however, is of most importance in its historical relations. Dr. Edmund Grindal, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1576-83, bears most emphatic testimony to its influence on the later history of the English Church: “That England had so many bishops and other ministers of God’s Word, which at that day preached the pure doctrine of the Gospel, was owing to Strasburgh, Zürich, Basel Worms, but above all the rest, to Frankfort. You received our people to harbor, and, being received, embraced them with the highest humanity, and defended them with your authority. And if we should not acknowledge and speak of this piety of yours, we were, of all mankind, the most ungrateful.”³⁴⁷ His biographer says: “In truth, the remembrance of the former kindness, received by him and the rest of the exiles in Germany, under Queen Mary, stuck close upon his grateful mind; and he thought he could not sufficiently express it upon all occasions.”³⁴⁸ Duke Christopher, of Würtemberg, the prince for whom Dr. John Brentz prepared the Würtemberg Confession, and distinguished for his decided [[@Page:347]]Lutheran convictions, was held in particularly grateful recognition, because of his kindness to the exiles. ‘The Duke had been very kind unto the English exiles, having at one time bestowed among them at Strasburgh four or five hundred dollars, besides more given to them at Frankfort.”³⁴⁹ This act was duly acknowledged by Queen Elizabeth, when the Duke sent a representative to England in 1563, and by Bishop Grindal who entertained him and discussed with him Brentz’s doctrine of the Omnipresence of Christ’s humanity, which the Duke cordially approved. “But this without heat. They were contented to hear one another’s arguments, and each to suffer other to abound in his own sense.”³⁵⁰

Of John Aylmer, Lord Bishop of London in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, we are told that he improved the time of his exile by attending the University of Jena, and that he came near becoming the Professor of Hebrew in that institution. “He should, if he had not come away,” says his biographer, “have had the Hebrew lecture there which Snepphinus [Erhard Schnepf ] had, having been entertained there to read in that University both Greek and Latin, and with the good love of those famous men, Flacius Illyricus, Victorius Strigelus, D. Schnepphinus (whom they termed the other Luther), with divers others.”³⁵¹

But on the accession, of Elizabeth, all elements again were found in the Church of England, and the former system of compromise continued, postponing, although not averting, the crisis which at length came, in the entire separation of Presbyterianism, and the Westminister formularies of the next century. The “Independent” (“Congregationalist”) movement of Robert Brown, which sent the Pilgrim fathers to America began as early as 1571. While it repudiated Calvin’s theory of Church government, it was in other respects a development of the Calvinistic principles that had entered the Church of England [[@Page:348]]during the reign of Edward, but whose development had been greatly stimulated by the closer contact with Calvinistic centers during the succeeding reign. Between Hierarchism and Puritanism, Lutheranism seemed to have been completely overcome. But it continued to live in the Liturgy and other formularies, and though checked in its course by foreign principles with which it is mingled, occasionally started some evangelical movement, which, however, from lack of intelligent consistency, fell short of a true and thorough reformation. Such was the Methodistic movement, which soon became one sided, and so concentrated its force only on a few points of faith and life, that John Wesley whose work was especially that of awakening and arousing the slumbering conscience, in his later years was surprised that in his earlier years he could have so warmly commended Luther on Galatians.

When the Lutheran House of Hanover was called to the English throne, again the question of the relation of the Church of England to the Lutheran Church became a matter of consideration. It was in this interest, that Theophilus Dorrington, Rector of Wittresham in Kent, published a translation of a posthumous book of Baron Pufendorf with the title: “A view of the Principles of the Lutheran Churches; showing how far they agree with the Church of England; being a seasonable essay towards the uniting of Protestants upon the accession of His Majesty, King George to the throne of these Kingdoms. London, 1714.” The book was written by Pufendorf, not with respect to the Church of England, but to exhibit the reasons why there could be no union between the Lutherans and the Romish Church, and what difficulties there were in the way of a uniting of Protestants. Mr. Dorrington says in his Preface: “I thought that it might be of use to us in England, to understand and know the principles and practices of the Lutheran churches (which are the true Protestant churches beyond the seas) better than for aught I can find we commonly do.”

This statement we would particularly commend to the [[@Page:349]]members of the Church of England and her affiliated churches of today. The close dependence of the English Church on the work of the Lutheran Reformers, which has been above shown, certainly calls for more extensive acknowledgement and remembrance. Here in America, the two churches have again been brought into close local relation. Each must justify before God and men the reason for its separate existence; and this requires of necessity the careful and thorough review of historical relations and connections. In such review, the questions formerly at issue may be judged without that violence done conscience by the sacrilegious interference of a godless King, which English writers universally so deeply lament and condemn. The work begun by Cranmer may here be carried to its desired conclusion. The Lutheran Church should also recognize the many elements of strength and edification in the English Church; and judge with discrimination her noble formularies. Any claim, however, to the acknowledgement of a succession of bishops as a mark of the Church cannot be conceded without abandoning [[Art. VII. of the Augsburg Confession >> BookOfConcord:AC:I:7]], upon which, even in the time of Henry VIII., there seems to have been no controversy. The various other English communions that have originated by a reaction against hierarchical elements, retained by the incompleteness of the reformation of the English Church, can be judged with the greater charity. The attainment of an ultimate union of Protestants does not lie in the way of ignoring, but of bravely facing, differences, and examining the grounds of their origin. It is to humbly contribute something to such attainment, that we have prepared the foregoing summary of facts. [[@Page:350]]