How the English Reformation was Different

For previous posts I made on the English Reformation check out the following links: https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/an-introduction-to-bibles-of-english.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/bibles-of-english-reformation-wycliffe.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/bibles-of-english-reformation-tyndale.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/08/bibles-of-english-reformation-william.html
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2019/09/bibles-of-english-reformation-king.html


Whether one is Roman Catholic or Protestant, understanding the English Reformation is key to understanding some of the most important works of English Literature. Whether one sees the Protestant Reformation as a rebellious act against the true church of Jesus Christ, or a restoration of true Christianity, it is important that people understand the role of religion behind some of the most important works of English Literature. Further, this post is not intended to give a history of the English Reformation but simply to show how it was different.
Many different views have emerged of the Protestant Reformation over the years, with traditional Roman Catholics despising much of the movement and evangelicals glorifying it. I personally support the Protestant Reformation as many of the English Protestants understood it. Elizabethan Anglicans saw themselves as both Catholic and Protestant.

Archbishop John Bramshell understood Anglicanism to be a part of the Catholic Church for instance, though not of the Roman Catholic Church 1*. While I personally believe many Anglo-Catholics have over exaggerated the separation in thought of the English Reformation, I also believe that the English Reformation has too often been seen as indistinguishable from the rest of the Protestant Reformation as many evangelicals believe. Many of those in the English Reformation retained elements of Catholicism, Lutheranism and Calvinism while clearly identifying as Protestants. The Anglo-Catholic movement in the 19th century reflected many values that had been around in Anglicanism since its beginning but the concept that some Anglo-Catholics present concerning the Church of England to be a non-Protestant church is historically false, and propaganda on their parts to say the least. Evangelical Anglicans have tended to overemphasize only the Protestant roots of Anglicanism but this too is historically unjust as the English Reformation represented a big tent of many factions and thoughts within the Anglican Church.

 Thomas Cranmer had denounced the papacy as Antichrist. He was was not alone. The Articles of the Church of Ireland of 1615 for instance, denounce the pope as Antichrist. The articles also showed to be closer towards Calvinism in some respect than The Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. John Jewel, author of An Apology for the Church of England, also saw the papacy as Antichrist. John Jewel believed understanding the papacy as Antichrist was significantly important as it would justify separation from Rome. If the papacy was not Antichrist, the reformation in vain to him.  Bernard Gilpen believed the church of Rome had kept the true faith until the Council of Trent, at which point he understands the Roman Church to be the Whore of of Babylon. For more on Jewel's and others view of the papacy being Antichrist see the book, Bishop Jewel. Bernard Gilpen. Richard Hooker. Archbishop Whitgift. John Donne. George Herbert pp. 93-95.
 Under Henry VIII, The Six Articles of the Church of England had taught Transubstantiation. During the reign of Edward VI, Protestantism became heavily influenced by Calvinistic thought. Thomas Cranmer originally held to a more literal view of the Eucharist but later in life he adopted a view closer to Zwinglie {though in recent years, some scholars now claim Cranmer's view was more a of Receptionist one}. Richard Hooker held to a receptionist view of communion 2*. Lancelot Andrews on the other hand, saw the Mass as a sacrifice, though not according to the Roman Catholic concept *3.
Richard Hooker held to a view of Prima scriptura. He rejected the understanding of Sola scriptura as it was understood by the Puritans.
Alister Mcgrath claims that the English Reformation was more influenced by Saint Augustine's understanding of justification by love rather than justification by faith. This is interesting too as many wrongly think that Luther's view of justification by faith alone was the sole purpose of the English Reformation. 
Of course, political purposes too here are key. It is now commonly believed that without Henry VIII's desire of an annulment to Catherine there would have been no major Protestant movement in England. Cambridge historian Eamon Duffy has held the newer view and his view has since been adopted my many others. Many scholars now believe differently than historians of the past did about this. Roman Catholic historian Duffy takes a different historical view then did Anglican historian Winston Churchill {no surprise!}. Whereas Churchill believed the church in England was losing popularity before the reformation, Duffy sees Roman Catholicism as having been popular in England all along.  For more on Duffy's view see his book The Stripping of the Alters.
 Another difference that separated Anglicanism from other Protestant movements was the fact that it was led by a king. Other Protestant countries had monarchies of their own too, but in some countries like Spain or Italy the Protestants were so successful. 
After Henry VIII, the Church of England would be much more Calvinist under Edward VI. After Edward VI, Mary Tudor would unite the Church of England again to Roman Catholicism. Under Elizabeth I though, the Church of England would not only separate from Rome for the second time, but Protestantism and Catholicism would mix to form Anglicanism as we have often historically known it since. 
Under Henry VIII, the Church of England held to semi-Lutheranism in the Ten Articles. Later, it adopted the Six Articles which were much more Catholic. The Forty-Two Articles under Edward VI were more Calvinist. The Thirty-Nine Articles under Elizabeth I, which have been used by the Church of England since, were more moderate Protestant.
One last difference I'd like to show about the English Reformation compared to Protestant movements in other countries. Although it commonly claimed by Evangelical Christians that charity and love are interchangeable, that is not the case according to the Northan Anthology of English Literature. The King James Version of the Holy Bible retained the word ''charity,'' rather than love,'' in 1 Corinthians 13, an implication of the former with more emphasis on good works. Once again, Anglicanism seemed to pretty always be less influenced by Luther's understanding of justification than some other countries were. 
I won't get into the controversies of whether or not Henry VIII had a legal right to annulment. Such a topic like that needs a lot of fresh air and words to write. As I said above, this post was only intended to show how the English Reformation was different. 

Clearly diversity of thought existed on many accounts for those members of the Church of England. That is one way alone that made the English Reformation more different than the reformations in some other countries at the time.
























1*http://laudablepractice.blogspot.com/2019/04/we-had-not-left-catholic-church.html
2*https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/15234/how-do-aquinas-and-hooker-differ-in-their-doctrine-on-communion
3*http://mariannedorman.homestead.com/Eucharistic.html

Further Sources: The Nortan Anthology of English Literature: The Sixteenth Century The Early Seventeenth Century, The Mystery of Baptism in the Anglican Tradition by Kenneth Stevenson, Reformation Thought: An Introduction by Alister Mcgrath, The Nortan Anthology English Literature: The Sixteenth Century/The Early Seventeenth Century by Stephen Greenblatt, general editor, The Protestant Face of Anglicanism by Paul F. M. Zahl.