I. Introduction:
Today, both the Church of England and the Catholic Church of England and Wales each understand themselves alone to be the successor of the ancient church in the British Isles. While many in the Roman Catholic Church claim that Anglicanism had its roots in Henry VIII's 1534 schism from Rome, many Anglicans claim that their church was not founded by the king. The topic of the Church of England's origins, as with most religious subjects, is certainly controversial. Indeed, this paper will seek to illuminate the reader with an overview of the complicated history of the Anglican Church of England.
The English Reformation brought dramatic change to the Christianity of the British Isles. In general, altars were desecrated from Medieval era parishes and cathedrals. Indeed, many Protestants even removed stained glass windows from the old buildings (though this was not the case everywhere).
Before the sixteenth century, John Wycliffe and William of Ockham had helped to lay the foundations for what we now call the ''English Reformation.'' However, it was in the sixteenth century, that the Church of England would begin its long severing from Rome (or Rome, would sever from it as some Anglicans believe, depending on how one looks at it). Considering the influence that Wycliffe and others had had on sixteenth-century Protestanism, it does make one wonder as to when the Anglican Church became formulated. As far as I'm aware, three main views exist:
1. Anglicanism goes back to the early Christianity of the Celts. Those who support this view often cite examples of the Celts and Anglo-Saxons using eastern liturgy and evidence of the early British Christians resisting papal Supremacy (such as Archbishop Stigand during the eleventh century). Conversely, many Roman Catholics have mocked this idea and have insisted that there is no evidence of Christians in Britain ever having been anything else but Catholics before the Reformation. While Eastern Orthodox and some Anglicans believe that there is evidence to demonstrate Anglo-Saxon Christianity being different than that of Rome; the two differ from each other as to whether or not it should be considered Eastern Orthodox or Anglican. Some differ in details about whether the Anglican Church started with Augustine of Canterbury, Celts before Augustine's arrival, or even from that of Saint Paul.
2. Probably the most popular view of the Anglican Church's origins is that of Henry VIII. This is especially the case for those who criticize Anglicanism (whether Roman Catholic or Fundamentalist). To many of Anglicanism's critics, the idea that a divorced king started it, is proof that it started off on the wrong foot. While it has been suggested that Wycliffe is the founder of Anglicanism, this is somewhat weak as Wycliffe never institutionalized his own breakaway group. In fact, Wycliffe while seen as a heretic by many, was not excommunicated by the Catholic Church until after his death.
3. The origins of Anglicanism are with Edward VI. Some may slightly differ from this view in tracing the Church of England to that of Elizabeth I instead (The Thirty-Nine Articles were written when the Virgin queen reigned).
Now, I have discussed problems with the first view. I have found it generally to have the endorsement of Anglo-Catholics (at least, primarily). You can see the reasons why I disagree with it here:
https://themedievalist.blogspot.com/2021/02/orthodox-britain-part-vii.html
II. Anglicanism and the Sixteenth Century
In previous blog posts, I have discussed the importance of Anglo-Saxon Christianity among those in the British Isles before the Norman Conquest. I have also argued that the Anglo-Saxons did not believe in papal supremacy (which proves in my view, that they weren't Roman Catholic; at least as we think of Catholicism today). Likewise, I demonstrated from historical evidence that the filioque was believed by those Christians in England before the Norman Conquest, as evidence that they were not Eastern Orthodox either. However, I didn't conclude that the Saxons were ''Anglican'' as we today think of it. The reason that I argued Anglo-Saxon Christianity to be different from later Anglican Christianity, is because while the latter succeeds the former, the two were not identical in either theological confession nor in liturgical practice. By the time of Edward VI, for instance, the Church of England was quite evangelical; the Anglo-Saxons on the other hand; had retained many uses of Celtic imagery in their worship. While I could further expound on this, I do believe that it's a forced interpretation to believe that Anglicanism is the same religious ideology as those before the Norman Conquest. That said, we should ask ourselves when did the Church of England form as Anglican (''Anglican''as we know it today?) If it was Roman Catholic after 1066 and before 1534, when did it become Protestant?
The latter two views which I discussed earlier, are in my view, the only legitimate ones in this debate. Before I proceed further with this discussion, however, let us recall the events of the sixteenth century in light of Henry VIII's reign.
Henry VIII was one of the most colorful figures of the Reformation era. He often used any form of Christianity that benefited him the most when he needed it. Throughout his life, the king had Protestants and Catholics alike put to death. Having formally split from communion with the Roman Church in 1534, Henry declared himself the head of the Church of England*1. In 1535, he had Thomas More (a Catholic) put to death as More did not support the king having an annulment to Catherine of Aragon. Later, Henry put the Protestant Reformer William Tyndale to death and disowned Tyndale's Bible. Ironically, Henry later approved The Great Bible to be published in 1539; it was England's first authorized Bible.
Henry's disputes with Rome were often for his own political motives. While this article will not intend to argue for his claims for annulments nor that of Rome's objectives, I do wish to show in this paper that Henry was not driven by any conviction towards the Protestant faith. Under him, the Church of England held semi-Lutheran theology in The Ten Articles, and later, reverted closer to Catholicism under The Six Articles. Henry, who supported Transubstantiation, was notorious for putting anyone to death who denied this philosophical understanding of the Eucharist. While the king also dissolved the monasteries in England between 1536-1541, he was clearly not a Protestant. Henry punished both Catholics and Protestants who didn't submit to him as the head monarch over the church. Ironically, Henry had previously been called ''Defender of the Faith'' in 1521 by the papacy. His The Defence of the Seven Sacraments attacked some of Luther's views. Indeed, Henry never recanted his attacks on Protestantism. Likewise, some argue that he died as a Roman Catholci due to evidence of his request for a requiem mass.
The Thirty-Nine Articles, the historic statement of faith from Anglicanism, are clearly Protestant. The articles, for example, deny the Roman Catholic doctrines on Purgatory, the Invocation of the Saints, and the worship of the Eucharistic host. The Church of England, especially since the reign of Edward VI, has always been a Protestant Church. On the other hand, Henry VIII never claimed that the chalice should be given to the people (which the Articles supported) nor did the king ever fully endorse the ideas of either Luther or Calvin. As a result, it's hard to categorize Henry VIII as its founder.
As mentioned earlier, it is a slam argument for those who dislike Anglicanism to say that Henry VIII was the founder of it. Historian Diarmaid MacCulloch has a different view. To him, Edward VI played an important role in the Church of England. As he wrote in Thomas Cromwell: A Revolutionary Life concerning the Church of England, ''Its permanent results became apparent only after his death (the author is speaking of Henry VIII), in the Reformations under Edward VI and Elizabeth I (543).''
I agree with MacCulloch; under Henry VIII the Church of England was basically a Catholic Church minus the papacy (and a few other common aspects of Catholicism; under Edward and Elizabeth, however, it became the Protestant Church that we know existed for the next several centuries (at least, until the Oxford movement in the mid-nineteenth century). Furthermore, even though Henry VIII felt distrustful of church clergy, The Six Articles troubled evangelicals as being too Roman Catholic (see p. 501 for more details on this). Furthermore, even if one believes that Henry VIII was the founder of Anglicanism, it should be understood that the Anglicanism he knew, died with him. Under his son, Edward VI, the Church of England went in a Reformed direction. Thus the Anglicanism of Henry VIII was a separate Anglicanism from that of Edward VI (the latter Anglicanism, being the roots of Reformed Churchmen today). Henry VIII's Anglicanism, on the other hand, no longer exists. Thus, people cannot criticize contemporary Anglicanism as a successor to Henry VIII's church; the latter being no longer in existence.
When did MacCulloch believe that the Church of England was formed? This English major graduate from Yale University, who is also a popular historian, has a credible theory. Writing of Anglicanism he said, ''Under the tutelage of his most accomplished imitator (speaking of Henry VIII), under Queen Elizabeth I it became the Church of England (543).''
In other words, Macalloch, a popular historian, sees Anglicanism as having its roots in Elizabeth I. In many ways, I agree. The Thirty-Nine Articles of Matthew Parker were written during her reign. The only part that I would add to MaColloch's view in this regard, is that I think Edward VI was at least as foundational for Anglicanism as was Elizabeth. While the Articles were written under her reign, it was Edward who transformed the Church of England into a Protestant Church.
In conclusion, I do believe that Anglicanism can trace its roots back to Celtic Christianity. However, I do not believe that Celtic Christianity (for more reasons not explained in this article) can be called ''Anglican.'' Likewise, I think that it's historically inaccurate to claim that Henry founded the Anglican Church. The English king was inconsistent with his confessions of faith throughout his life; often using religion for his political purposes. Finally, as some have suggested in recent years, there seems to be evidence that Henry died as a Roman Catholic anyways. To me, the evidence concerning the Church of England's origins bears witness that Edward I played a bigger part in the role of Anglicanism; he supported the Church of England taking a Protestant turn. For this reason, I believe that the founders of Anglicanism were the English reformers of the sixteenth century such as Thomas Cranmer and Edward VI, not Henry VIII.
But what if Henry VIII is the father of Anglicanism? For the sake of argument, I wish to address this. If the king did technically formalize it does that mean that the church is inherently doctrinally corrupt (as some Roman Catholics have suggested). I think not.
History is full of many cases of corrupt popes that oversaw the Catholic Church. Despite their corruption, faithful traditionalists still believe that God protected these men with infallibility. Likewise, I believe that God may have used Henry VIII to help the spread of the English Bible. Furthermore, while this article does not have time to further elaborate on this (which I hope to discuss soon), there are good reasons to believe that Henry VIII did have a legal argument for his requested annulment in 1534. No matter how corrupt the man was personally, this does not mean that his ideas about annulling his marriage were necessarily corrupt. Just as a personally corrupt pope can defend true Catholic doctrine; so can a wicked king defend his legal rights to the crown no matter the choices of his heart. Many European monarchs received annulments for lesser legal rights than did Henry VIII, yet for many who hate Anglicanism, he has become the boogeyman to blame all faults of the Church of England upon.
As an interesting side note, Baptists, Methodists, and Congregationalists all come from the Anglican Church. For those evangelical Christians who criticize Henry VIII for his break from Rome being for biblical reasons, they needed to be aware that if they believe Henry to be the father of Anglicanism, he is the grandfather of their churches. Without Anglicanism breaking loose from papal supremacy in the sixteenth century, many of these other denominations and groups would likely have never existed. For example, it would be a double standard for a Baptist to say that Anglicanism is corrupt because Henry VIII founded it, when Baptists are a break off the old block (the Church of England), and thus, also successors to Henry VIII reformers if they consider him to be the founder of Anglicanism. Furthermore, while some evangelicals may claim God used them despite their affiliation with a corrupt state church; thus arguing that the Baptists are not guilty of Henry VIII's decisions, why do they not say the same of faithful Anglicans who also disagree with Henry VIII? One cannot have it both ways; either Henry VIII is not the founder of Anglicanism, or if he is, the Baptists also owe him credit for their separation from the Roman Church.
III. Conclusion
Topics like this are always going to be controversial. Some people are quick to denote anyone a heretic who has a different historical view than them. For me, though, I see the Anglican Church as a Protestant Church founded by Edward VI and other English reformers that resisted both papal supremacy and other doctrinal errors of Roman Catholicism that were contrary to the scriptures.
Last, I would also recommend for my readers to check out this article from Miles Smith showing further that Henry VIII cannot be considered the proper founder of Anglicanism. Smith endorses the same view that I do, which is that Edward VI is the founder of Anglicanism:
*1.It's often wrongly claimed that no king saw himself as the head of the Church of England before Henry VIII. Actually, many kings had long before him claimed this including Henry II. The point of Henry VIII's significance in history in this regard, however, is that the king was the first king in English English history to sever his church from its long held ties to Rome.
