Lutheran England
- Thread starter Finn
- Start date
Edward VI's reign saw the Church of England heading in a more Reformist direction. Had he survived, we probably would've seen a Church of England that was more in line with continental thinkers. Edward's direction of the church was rather Calvinistic, but some minor tweaks could see it pursue a Lutheran course. A longer reign is absolutely necessary. Henry VIII broke from Rome but did not alter it's teachings, Mary sought to restore the union with Rome, and Elizabeth, compared to Edward VI, was rather conservative religiously.
Unless its done very early on, under Henry VIII, England is unlikely to become Lutheran. Calvinism is more likely. Starting with the Heidelberg Catechism Calvinist thought began to gain ground and by the late 16th century Calvinism was expanding faster and Lutheran territories were actually converting to Calvinism. Hesse-Kassel for example switched under Maurice in 1605. John Sigismund of Brandenburg personally converted around the same time and even made plans to make it the state religion but backed down in the face of Lutheran resistance. Its possible that more of Lutheran Germany would have gone Calvinist if it wasn't for the difficulties in Hesse convincing other rulers it would be too difficult to attempt.
Calvinist strains were also the predominant forms of protestantism outside Germany, in France the Netherlands and Scotland. So by the time you get to Edward VI Calvinism is more likely. And considering Henry VIII wasn't very aggressive on the theological front, more so on the political side of the reformation, you would need some kind of major change in his rule to push the nascent Anglican Church towards Lutheranism before Lutheranism looses its momentum.
Calvinist strains were also the predominant forms of protestantism outside Germany, in France the Netherlands and Scotland. So by the time you get to Edward VI Calvinism is more likely. And considering Henry VIII wasn't very aggressive on the theological front, more so on the political side of the reformation, you would need some kind of major change in his rule to push the nascent Anglican Church towards Lutheranism before Lutheranism looses its momentum.
And I don't think Henry would've done it. Early on, before the divorce issue, he wrote a pamphlet against Luther, and Luther penned a vitriolic response which really enraged Henry. So, unless you change that (or Henry's personality), an officially-Lutheran England would be impossible until Edward's reign.
Edward's reign was also entirely lived under the rule of a regency. Unless Edward's advisors are going to rule his policy for his entire life, it's unlikely this is necessarily an accurate picture of how Edwardian England would turn out.
That is true to a point, in that no one's character and convictions are completely formed by the time they are 15. Edward however was both precocious and intelligent, and took a great interest in affairs from an early age. He was very zealously Protestant, and quite clearly approved of all that had been done in his name in matters of religion. Unless his convictions did alter, or his fervour faded, it is possible that he might have been as persecuting a Protestant as his sister Mary was a Catholic. Even if he had not made Catholic martyrs, it does seem unlikely that he would have changed his views so much as to take the middle-of-the-road approach of Elizabeth, with the result that the Church of England turned out more as a "standard" Protestant church.
As Domenic said, he approved of the religious direction the Church was heading in. Although he had no influence over government, his Protestantism made it a matter that the government head a program of further reformation. He reduced the Princess Mary to tears when he scolded her for hearing Catholic sermons. While early in his life he conformed to the practices of his father, the influences of Cranmer and reformist tutors and courtiers that the Church needed further reform. By 1551 he was exerting influence on Church policy given his position as Supreme Head of the English Church. While he could certainly turn out more moderate, I am fairly certain that the English Church under a surviving Edward would be quite different from the Elizabethan Church.
I'm not sure that Edward had "no" influence over government. He was not an infant, and would remember injuries, and favours done. And was after all a Tudor, a breed not exactly known for their forgiving natures and unwillingness to bear grudges. and son what is more of a man who cast fear into every corner of England and was a nursery bogeyman throughout Europe.
If I were around Edward I would have been very wary of him, and actually his intelligence was such that he was worth listening to anyway. We can't know, but I suspect that until incapacitated by illness his influence was already growing, and it was anyway not long until his personal rule would have begun; crunch time for Mary, who had continually refused his demands for her to change her religion on the excuse that he was not of age. Crunch time maybe for a few others too.
If I were around Edward I would have been very wary of him, and actually his intelligence was such that he was worth listening to anyway. We can't know, but I suspect that until incapacitated by illness his influence was already growing, and it was anyway not long until his personal rule would have begun; crunch time for Mary, who had continually refused his demands for her to change her religion on the excuse that he was not of age. Crunch time maybe for a few others too.
Certainly, but Somerset ruled as Lord Protector and was able to sidestep the council and certainly had no need to defer to Edward. He might remember favors and abuse, but I'm not sure how much that transfer into influence over policy. Under Northumberland it was definitely a bit different as Northumberland sought to teach him about the working of government. By the end of his reign (1551-1553), his influence was growing: he was being briefed about council meetings, he could sign things on his own, without the council counter-signing them, and in 1552 and 1553 especially before his illness he was undertaking policy matters that Northumberland opposed. He was certainly on the cusp of attaining his majority and personal rule, I agree. Northumberland was preparing him for such a thing anyways, merely exercising his own powers to ensure he'd be in a perfect situation to be Edward's principal minister.
Maybe:
Wilhelm of Oranje (+Ann & Mary) dies early.
James turns the Anglican church into a near catholic one.
He is finally overthrown and replaced by Georg I.
As a Lutheran (and more reliant on native German troops & advisors than OTL) he reorganises the Anglican Church along Lutheran lines (officaly it is an union of protestant denominations like the prussian church).
There are a lot of Calvinist and Anglo-Catholic dissenters (that are tolerated) but the majority of the english becomes Lutheran.
Wilhelm of Oranje (+Ann & Mary) dies early.
James turns the Anglican church into a near catholic one.
He is finally overthrown and replaced by Georg I.
As a Lutheran (and more reliant on native German troops & advisors than OTL) he reorganises the Anglican Church along Lutheran lines (officaly it is an union of protestant denominations like the prussian church).
There are a lot of Calvinist and Anglo-Catholic dissenters (that are tolerated) but the majority of the english becomes Lutheran.
I can't see it. Without the provisions of the Acts of Settlement and Union, which in this scenario would no more have existed than would their precursors the Bill of Rights and Claim of Right, the Elector George Louis would have no basis of claim in Britain, and probably would take no interest in Britain. Nor can I see the small state of Hanover succeeding in overthrowing the British regime against armed opposition. Or, for that matter, James II and VII continuing for much longer than he did even absent William's intervention, he was just intolerable.
Also Elizabeth had set the Church of England so firmly on its distinctive path so long before that I think this change comes too late to work. A surviving Edward VI continues to be the best possibility in my reckoning, agreeing with DrakeRlugia.
Also Elizabeth had set the Church of England so firmly on its distinctive path so long before that I think this change comes too late to work. A surviving Edward VI continues to be the best possibility in my reckoning, agreeing with DrakeRlugia.
The Church of England still has many Catholic rituals. When Henry VIII broke with Rome, all he did on the surface was replace the Pope's authority with that of his own. It's obviously a bit more complex than that, but you can see in Elizabeth's reign there was pressure from the Puritans for further reforms, as they believed Elizabeth did not go far enough. There was controversy regarding clerical vestments, and also regarding the Episcopacy, as the CoE retained the Bishops and Archbishops: in Scotland especially there was a reaction against the Episcopacy, and Elizabeth's Stuart successors became embroiled in a conflict with the Scottish Church which was much more Presbyterian.
It's more complicated than that, obviously, but the Church of England was sort of a compromise between Catholicism and the Reformation. Elizabeth retained many Catholic practices as she thought it might be easier to find over the minds of her Catholic subjects if Church practice was not too radically different.
It's more complicated than that, obviously, but the Church of England was sort of a compromise between Catholicism and the Reformation. Elizabeth retained many Catholic practices as she thought it might be easier to find over the minds of her Catholic subjects if Church practice was not too radically different.
I saw this last night and was hoping that some knowledgeable person would have composed an illuminating answer for me to read this morning. No such luck, but I'm sure some here can give a better answer than the following attempt, which I provide in the hope of eliciting one.
The Church of England and the Lutheran Churches are quite similar in a lot of respects, and are generally in communion with each other. The former however views itself as the national instance of the universal Church, and in that regard self-identifies as Catholic. It is reformed in certain of its doctrines and practices, but acknowledges the authority of tradition as opposed to the Lutheran dogma of sola scriptura, meaning that the only authority is Scripture and all we need to know of faith is therein.
Historically the Lutheran Churches are rooted in the teachings and example of Martin Luther, who is not nearly so directly influential in the Church of England. The latter has an image of being fuzzy and indistinct about doctrines and practices in general, which is correct; it was purpose-designed by Elizabeth I, who in many ways was its true founder, to be as broad a church as possible, her wish being to accommodate all her people within it. The various Lutheran Churches were not so driven, and are more distinctly Reformed in nature, though they remain liturgical and episcopal. This along with specific points of doctrine distinguishes them as well as the Church of England from the evangelical churches, which would include the various denominations deriving from Calvinism.
The best-known Calvinist doctrine is predestination, which the Lutherans share but have a more subtle and ambiguous view of, and the Church of England accommodates, as it does a wide variety of other views, but does not teach. To Calvinists, God's redemptive grace is only for the elect; Christ came to save a chosen part of mankind, and those who are saved, those who believe in and practice Christianity, do so not of free will but because God elected them to so believe and practice. To Lutherans, God's redemptive grace is for all mankind but only those elected by God partake of it. It's not a difference that makes no difference, the division between Christ coming to save everyone and Christ coming to save the chosen is quite fundamental, but it must be admitted that the practical outcome is the same.
The Church of England does not as I understand it have a specific doctrine on the question. While it certainly has doctrines it is a church of externals and participation, which can be carried too far of course but is an approach with many merits also. A reputed off-the-cuff remark of Elizabeth's late in life is perhaps the key to it: "There is one faith, one Christ ... all else is but disputes over trifles."
To summarise: of the three, the Church of England considers itself the reformed universal Church, English branch. The Lutheran Churches consider themselves the reformed Christian religion. Churches following the Calvinist tradition consider themselves the gatherings of God's Elect, which is meant to be not a put-down of them but descriptive. I am sure someone can do a much better job and put me right on various points, but for what this is worth I offer it.
PS I hadn't seen Drake and Uriel's answers when I started the above. I agree entirely with Drake, and would add an anecdote to Uriel's; an Italian friend who can be a bit vague about things was visiting London and decided to go to Mass, electing St Paul's for the purpose. He was quite comfortable until the celebrant being a woman clued him in that he might have made a slight error...
The Church of England and the Lutheran Churches are quite similar in a lot of respects, and are generally in communion with each other. The former however views itself as the national instance of the universal Church, and in that regard self-identifies as Catholic. It is reformed in certain of its doctrines and practices, but acknowledges the authority of tradition as opposed to the Lutheran dogma of sola scriptura, meaning that the only authority is Scripture and all we need to know of faith is therein.
Historically the Lutheran Churches are rooted in the teachings and example of Martin Luther, who is not nearly so directly influential in the Church of England. The latter has an image of being fuzzy and indistinct about doctrines and practices in general, which is correct; it was purpose-designed by Elizabeth I, who in many ways was its true founder, to be as broad a church as possible, her wish being to accommodate all her people within it. The various Lutheran Churches were not so driven, and are more distinctly Reformed in nature, though they remain liturgical and episcopal. This along with specific points of doctrine distinguishes them as well as the Church of England from the evangelical churches, which would include the various denominations deriving from Calvinism.
The best-known Calvinist doctrine is predestination, which the Lutherans share but have a more subtle and ambiguous view of, and the Church of England accommodates, as it does a wide variety of other views, but does not teach. To Calvinists, God's redemptive grace is only for the elect; Christ came to save a chosen part of mankind, and those who are saved, those who believe in and practice Christianity, do so not of free will but because God elected them to so believe and practice. To Lutherans, God's redemptive grace is for all mankind but only those elected by God partake of it. It's not a difference that makes no difference, the division between Christ coming to save everyone and Christ coming to save the chosen is quite fundamental, but it must be admitted that the practical outcome is the same.
The Church of England does not as I understand it have a specific doctrine on the question. While it certainly has doctrines it is a church of externals and participation, which can be carried too far of course but is an approach with many merits also. A reputed off-the-cuff remark of Elizabeth's late in life is perhaps the key to it: "There is one faith, one Christ ... all else is but disputes over trifles."
To summarise: of the three, the Church of England considers itself the reformed universal Church, English branch. The Lutheran Churches consider themselves the reformed Christian religion. Churches following the Calvinist tradition consider themselves the gatherings of God's Elect, which is meant to be not a put-down of them but descriptive. I am sure someone can do a much better job and put me right on various points, but for what this is worth I offer it.
PS I hadn't seen Drake and Uriel's answers when I started the above. I agree entirely with Drake, and would add an anecdote to Uriel's; an Italian friend who can be a bit vague about things was visiting London and decided to go to Mass, electing St Paul's for the purpose. He was quite comfortable until the celebrant being a woman clued him in that he might have made a slight error...
Last edited:
Anglicanism on sola scriptura and predestination
Domenic,
Apologies for the delay in replying to this - please bear with a newbie!
On Anglicanism and sola scriptura, see Article 6 of the 39 http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#6
- 'Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.'
On Anglicanism and predestination, see Article 17 of the 39 http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#17
- 'Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.'
Aleksandr
Domenic,
Apologies for the delay in replying to this - please bear with a newbie!
On Anglicanism and sola scriptura, see Article 6 of the 39 http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#6
- 'Of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Salvation. Holy Scriptures containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.'
On Anglicanism and predestination, see Article 17 of the 39 http://www.eskimo.com/~lhowell/bcp1662/articles/articles.html#17
- 'Of Predestination and Election. Predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, He hath constantly decreed by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom He hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation as vessels made to honour. Wherefore they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God be called according to God's purpose by His Spirit working in due season; they through grace obey the calling; they be justified freely; they be made sons of God by adoption; they be made like the image of His only-begotten Son Jesus Christ; they walk religiously in good works; and at length by God's mercy they attain to everlasting felicity.'
Aleksandr