A Brief History of the Anglican Church
I. Introduction
In the modern world, it's easy to just accept claims without evidence. It's also easy to accept the opinions of one's priest or pastor without ever investigating their claims. And it's also easy to hope to find an answer through a quick Google search without carefully studying the history, philosophy, and theology of a particular doctrine. But Biblical theology requires so much more.
On the other hand, there are many issues concerning Christian history that are not addressed in Scripture. For example, Scripture never claims that Peter the Apostle went to Rome. Nor does it tell us about the origins of the Baptist or the Amish. Thus, when it comes to the study of the history of Christianity, most of it we cannot learn from the Bible alone.
Think of pews or printed Bibles and hymnal books. None of these existed in the first-century church when the New Testament was written. We learn about these practices, which are nearly universally observed throughout Christendom, by studying the history of Christianity. Historical documents, old artwork, and in general, archeology, are helpful sources for us to learn about the past.
The Bible does not tell us how the papacy developed or why most Baptist Churches practice altar calls. It also does not tell us when Anglicanism started. We, though, can learn about the history of the Anglican Church through a careful study of Christianity in Britain, going all the way back to the Ancient Celts.
It is sometimes claimed by critics of Anglicanism, especially from the Roman Catholic tradition, that Anglicanism was built on Henry VIII's desire for annulment. After asserting this claim, Roman Catholics will then make the claim that everything about Anglicanism is built on sinking sand, as they claim all of its theology where it differs from Rome stems from the king's divorce. If true about Anglicanism, this would pose a serious problem to Baptist, Methodist, Congragationlaidt, and many Pentecostal traditions as well of the above either came directly from Anglicanism or a granddaughter church of Anglicanism.
In this post, I will argue that the Church of England's history is more complicated than what many Roman Catholics claim. Indeed, I wish to demonstrate that Anglicanism has roots going long back before Henry VIII, to Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Christianity, to the reforms of John Wycliffe, and post-Henry VIII, the final reforms of Edward VI and Elizabeth I, both of which define current Anglicanism. The history of the Church of England can not so easily be tied to a specific date in time as much as Catholicism, Orthodoxy, and all the branches of Protestantism, all of them have developed for the good or the bad, over time.
II. Are Anglican Orders Invalid?
Before I turn to Anglican history, let us briefly address a common claim made against Anglinism by Roman Catholics: Anglicanism, they claim, began only with Henry VIII in the sixteenth century and does not have ancient origins as does the Catholic Church.
Now, I wish to demonstrate in this post that Anglicanism actually does have ancient roots. However, for the sake of argument, let us for now only assume that the Church of England began as late as the sixteenth century.
Even if Anglicanism only began during the Protestant Reformation, many Anglican churches retain theological adherence more faithful to Scripture and the early church than does Roman Catholicism on the issue of the papacy. Most Eastern Orthodox scholars and theologians recognize the rise of the papacy as a later innovation in church history, as do most Protestants. Thus, one can retain bishops and an episcopal form of government without having true apostolic succession. To Ireneaues of Lyons, Apostolic Succession was more than the lineage of one bishop down to the next, but to a church also faithfully holding to what the apostles taught, which tragically, Rome has not done on the issue of the papacy for many centuries (see my post on the papacy). Church leaders wearing fancy miters and holding impressive staffs does not mean that the orthodox in their faith (the early church fathers of the first four centuries didn't even wear miters). John Wycliffe, the bright morning star of the English Reformation, believed that all church clergy are invalid if they teach heresy or are corrupt.
Wyclife is not alone. Eastern Orthodox do not recognize a ''bishop'' as a true bishop even if he has been ordained as one if the doctrines he teaches are contrary to the apostles. Unlike what many modern Roman Catholics and some Anglicans have been raised to believe, a bishop who embraces theology contrary to the Scriptures is himself not a true bishop, but a heretic. Irenaeus of Lyons, in this regard, greatly differed from present-day Roman Catholics as he believed apostolic succession is more than ordination, but confirming to all that the apostles taught.
When we look around today, however, we find many denominations with or without bishops, teaching doctrines contrary to Biblical Christianity. The Anglican Church of North America accepts women's ordination and many other heretical beliefs. Therefore, many of their ''bishops'' are as false as typical TV evangelists and none of them who endorse such views owe our allegiance.
Tragically, many Roman Catholics and some Anglicans have been raised to believe that a bishop has jurisdiction over people regardless of his faith and lifestyle. Why? Because they have been taught the concept held by Aquinas, which is contrary to the early church. Aquinas understood apostolic succession as a chain of succession based on ordination, but the early church understood it as far more. Now, many Roman Catholics and some Anglicans remain in communion with a bishop even if he blesses homosexual unions because they have been led to believe that he is still a faithful bishop and cannot lose his power, though he can lose his faith.
Long before Luther, though, Wycliffe saw these as major problems bringing scandal to the church. It gives many false bishops a sense of pride in their power, that they teach and no one can question them, and that they can be immoral, but still retain true and proper jurisdiction over believers.
When it comes to Apostolic Succession, Eastern Orthodoxy is more faithful to the Scriptures and the early church than have Roman Catholics. With that said, let me return to the discussion of the Anglican Reformation.
The Protestant Reformation sought to return Christendom to the orthodoxy of the ancient church. Unfortunately, some Prostanrs diverted more from the fathers than did others. Anglicans were among one of the only Reformation movements to retain the Episcopal form of government.
Furthermore, besides their profession of faith, there are other reasons to regard historical Anglican theology as orthodox.
Since Anglicans claim Apostolic Succession (though Roman Catholics generally see Anglican orders as invalid), this is not necessarily the perspective of those in Eastern Orthodoxy. Anglican orders were recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1922, for instance, and while Eastern Orthodox reordains all Anglican priests who convert, the practice of giving Anglican priests who convert a new ordination, does not necessarily reflect the Orthodox Church seeing Anglican priests as invalid. In fact, some Eastern Orthodox bishops in the late nineteenth century helped to ordain Anglican priests. Since Eastern Orthodoxy does not function as a one-person-led church (as is Roman Catholicism), there are generally going to be more diverse opinions against Orthodoxy.
So, to summarize the points above. Apostolic Succession is more than a chain of one bishop ordaining the next. It's also about faithfully upholding what the apostles believe ---and since most Roman Catholic and Anglican bishops no longer do this, we should not regard them as having real jurisdiction or power in the Church of God. Secondly, some Eastern Orthodox have recognized Anglicans as having valid apostolic succession, and therefore, even if Anglicans have roots no earlier than the sixteenth century, they descend from a long line of Western bishops (largely through the Roman Catholic Church) which in turn, goes all the way back to the apostles. Because of this, Anglicanism has ancient origins.
In 1896, Pope Leo XIII issued Apostolicae curae, which declared Anglican priestly orders invalid. He did so on the grounds that Anglicans had removed references to the sacrificial priesthood in the rites of the English Reformation though the Anglicans rightly pointed out that no such references in these rites existed in the ancient rites of the Roman Church. Does this make current Roman Catholic bishops ordained since many of them have roots going back to the ordination of bishops who had no such mention of sacrifice at their ordinations? Furthermore, a minority of Anglo-Catholics in the Church of England long before the Oxford movement believed in the Mass as a true and real sacrifice.
Apostolic Succession aside, however, the roots of Anglicanism go back to Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Christianity long before the Norman Conquest of the eleventh century. Thus, I will now show that the earliest British Church existed independent of papal supremacy long before the Reformation.
III. The Roots of Celtic Christianity
Today, it is debated how Celtic Christianity originated. Some claim that Paul the Apostle brought Christianity brought to Britain. However, even if Paul didn't, many Anglicans believe that Christianity was in Britain long before Gregory the Great commissioned Augustine of Canterbury to England.
In response, many Roman Catholics claim that there is no evidence that Christianity came to Britain before Augustine of Canterbury (sixth century). Really? Do the opinions of the fathers not matter. The same Roman Catholics who take the words of several early church fathers about Peter going to Rome (which the New Testament nowhere says) are the same Roman Catholics who don't the opinions of the fathers when it comes to how the early history of Christianity in Britain preceded that of Rome.
In an article for Catholic Answers, Father Dwight Longenecker mocks the concept of Celtic Coptic Christianity having preceded the origins of Rome*1. In the article, the priest claims that such a theory lacks any historical evidence. Ironically, he ignores any mention of ancient fathers acknowledging Christianity having come to Britain before the reach of Roman Christianity. Conveniently, like many Roman Catholic apologists, he assumes the papacy is true because several fathers attest to Peter having gone to Rome (which is now disputed by many modern historians and never claimed in the New Testament). But then, he ignores how Tertullian of Carthage and Origen of Alexandria testify against his view by their testimony of Christianity coming to Britain before the arrival of Roman Christians.
This is not revisionist history. In his Apology for the Church of England, John Jewell recognized that the Church of England had theological roots for its confessions which preceded the Reformation. Unlike some movements such as Landarkism, the pre-history of the Protestant Anglican Church is actually founded upon history. Jewel and other Anglicans of his time recognized that the claims of the papacy are no more historically based than the roots of Celtic Christianity before the established Anglican Church.
Historically, the British Isles had what is called ''The Celtic Rite.'' This liturgical rite still exists in some of the Orthodox Churches, but no longer exists in any of the rites of the Roman Catholic Church.
Much of Celtic Christianity in the fourth century was taken from both Egyptian and Syriab missionaries. This is evidenced by how similar the Celtic artwork resembles that of the Eastern Christians.
That's not to say that the Celts weren't loyal to the pope. Saint Patrick was given permission by the pope to evangelize the Celts. To many of these British Christians, the pope was a highly respected Western patriarch. But their view of the pope was closer to that of Eastern Orthodoxy for even Eastern Orthodoxy acknowledges the popes of the early centuries to be orthodox in the faith---with papal supremacy primarily originating in the fifth century with Leo the Great and reaching new heights with Greory VII in the eleventh century. Indeed, while many of the Celts and Anglo-Saxons alike respected the pope as authoritative and important in the lives of Western Christians, this does not mean that they understood the office of the papacy itself as Christians would in later centuries.
Many Roman Catholics today claim that Anglicans owe the pope their submission. They claim this because they believe that it was Rome who Christianized Britain and as a result, Britain should submit itself to the will of Rome.
A medieval theologian, William of Malmesbury claimed that Joseph of Armithia brought Christianity to Britain*2. Even if this were proven to only be a legend, however, (as many scholars now believe), and even if were proven that Rome Christianized Britain, the Jews Christianized Rome and by this reasoning, Roman Catholics should be bound to subject themselves to the jurisdiction of the churches in Jerusalem and Antioch, both of which preceded that of Rome or Britain.
Likewise, Tertullian of Carthage and others testify to Christianity's arrival in Britain centuries before Augustine of Canterbury. And even if this was the result of Romans bringing knowledge of Christianity to the Celts, for reasons already discussed, this does make Britain owe submission to the papacy. Furthermore, the papacy of the early centuries was significantly different than that after 1054. At this time, Rome was quite orthodox in its faith.
At first pagan, the Anglo-Saxons settled in Britain c. 450 AD. Many of them became enemies with the Celts over time. However, the Saxons gradually converted to Christianity---joining the faith of the Celts themselves. Today, it is debated to the extent to which the Celts and Anglo-Saxons were foes with several revisionist scholars no longer believing that the Anglo-Saxons invaded England at all.
IV. Anglo-Saxon Christianity
In 680, The Council of Hatfield taught the Filioque in its documents. The procession of the Spirit from the Son was confessed in the Nicaean Creed. While being Western Christians in their belief in the Filioque, the Anglo-Saxon Christians did not necessarily support papal supremacy.
Generally, the Latin addition of the Filioque into the creed was read throughout Anglo-Saxon England, though some Anglo-Saxons did on occasions throughout history, read the creed without the addition. Like the Eastern Orthodox Church and some of the early Anglicans (Thomas Cranmer's infant was baptized by immersion), the Anglo-Saxons were also baptized by immersion.
One of the greatest evidence, however, that Anglo-Saxon Christianity was not Roman Catholic is the role of Archbishop Stigand of Canterbury in the English Church before the Norman Conquest.
Prior to the Norman invasion of England in 1066, many bishops within England were appointed by the king, rather than the pope. This was the case for Edward the Confessor, king of the Saxons, for example, when appointed Stigand, an Anglo-Saxon clergyman, the next archbishop of Canterbury.
Contrary to the beliefs espoused by Rome, Stigand like Photios in the east, did not believe that bishops have to receive the approval of the pope in order to be a true bishop. In short, he opposed the papal reforms of the eleventh century, which increasingly understood the pope as not only over the bishops of Christendom but even over all the kings.
In fact, Stigand supported Benedict X, a rival pope to Alexander II (Rome would claim the former to be an anti-pope).
Alexander II, nevertheless, conveniently claimed that the Anglo-Saxon Church was corrupt and agreed with the Normans for their attempt to take it over. Ironically, corruption already existed in many other places throughout Western Christendom yet Alexander II did not call for a Norman invasion of all these lands, showing that he was threatened by the theology of the Anglo-Saxons. But the force of Rome on England was not the only example of the pope using military armies to extend his power. For example, before the late eleventh century, Sicily was more Eastern Orthodox than Roman Catholic, but this changed with Pope Nicholas II when the pope supported Robert Guiscard and the Normans conquering Sicily. As one orthodox article notes, ''In Sicily, still occurred by the Saracens, the minority Orthodox Christians at first thought of the Normans as their liberators, and in fact helped them to take the island from the Muslims, a process that took about thirty years*4.'' In general, by the late eleventh and twelfth centuries, popes increasingly became involved in the matters of kings, for the good or the bad. Tragically, the reforms of the papacy in the eleventh century played a significant role in promoting papal supremacy over all Christendom, especially over the Anglo-Saxons.
But Stigand's objections against papal supremacy got him in trouble. Rome was threatened by the defiance of the Anglo-Saxon Church to submit to the changing Roman Church. Pope Alexander II gave his approval to Willaim, Duke of Normandy, to lead an army of Normans into England and conquer it. In return, William invaded England, defeated the Saxons at Hastings, and surpassed the Anglo-Saxons.
Many changes followed in the English Church after the Norman Conquest. Although the Anglo-Saxons had written in Latin beforehand, they had also translated parts of the Bible, such as the Psalms into Old English. However, in the following centuries until Wycliffe, the English Church generally suppressed Bible translations in English and English became uncommon among the nobility until Geoffrey Chaucer's The Canterbury Tales (Chaucer was a student of Wycliffe).
Yes, indeed, long before Wycliffe, the Anglo-Saxons had honored and supported parts of the Bible translated into the language of the people (as did those in the Greek Churches of the East). Tragically, much of this all changed in England due to the Norman Conquest.
However, the lack of access to Old English Bibles was not the only example of reforms to the English Church after the Norman Conquest. As a result of the Norman Conquest, archdeacons were added to the English Church, enforced clerical celibacy, more frequent church synods, the exclusive use of Latin in church services, the introduction to the order of Cluny, greater access to libraries, and gradually different presentations of church art. Whether or not these were good or bad changes to the church in England, they reflect how Christian practice and beliefs changed in England after the Norman Conquest.
The evidence is clear that the Anglo-Saxon Church was not Roman Catholic. Sadly, the apologists of Catholic Answers either remain ignorant of this truth or sweep these facts under the rug, while only cherrypicking from the church fathers when those fathers benefit their own views. Many Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans alike, though, recognize that Celtic and Anglo-Saxon Christianity was distinct from that of Rome in both its liturgy and its theological beliefs, especially regarding the papacy.
Much of my education about the history of Anglo-Saxon Christianity has been drawn from multiple Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican sources but I am especially indebted to The Norman Conquest: England after William the Conqueror by Hugh M. Thomas. Thomas, a Medieval historian, specializes in the history of England in the Middle Ages. A specialist, his views are more significant on the issue than any Catholic Answers apologist. I also recommend 1066: The Year of Conquest by David Howarth.
V. Christianity after the Norman Conquest and Before the Reformation
One should not be hasty to demonize the Normans after the conquest of England. Nor should one conclude that the Eastern Orthodox Byzantines were the ones in the right, while the Normans were wrong. Many on both sides did good and evil deeds. Certainly, it was abuses in both the Eastern and Western Church that had ushered the Great Schism to begin with.
The Anglo-Saxon Church, no matter how imperfect it was, was truly Catholic in the fullest sense before the Norman Conquest of the eleventh century. Celtic Christianity was not founded on that of Rome, though it had indeed, often benefitted from the orthodoxy and supervision of the Roman Church over many matters, such as the date of Easter at the seventh-century council, the Council of Whitby.
Furthermore, some Normans such as Richard the Lionheart, had a friendlier relationship with the Anglo-Saxons than did others. Richard, though, spent little time in England and was generally more of a crusader than an established English monarch. On the other hand, Lanfranc of Canterbury was also a very important archbishop of Canterbury after the Norman Conquest. Many great saints lived in the years following England's conquest.
Nevertheless, there was a theological shift for many in England after 1066. Indulgences became a major part of Roman Catholicism in the eleventh century, during the Crusades, and would continue to increase as the centuries continued.
While it would be unfair to give no credit to many good actions that the Roman Church did in the centuries following 1066, it's also hard to not sympathize and idealize the British Christianity that preceded the Norman Conquest.
The fourteenth-century theologian, John Wycliffe, himself Anglo-Saxon by blood, wished to return the Church in England to many pre-Roman abuses of thought. He was the first recorded person in history to complete a complete translation of the Latin Vulgate into Middle English. Perhaps most importantly, Wycliffe is remembered for his desire that the laity have full access to the Scriptures.
Aiding Wycliffe were others who contributed to the popularity of the Middle English language and literature such as the anonymous Pearl poet and Geoffrey Chaucer, the author of the beloved Canterbury Tales. While the English nobility had spoken French after the Norman Conquest and the church spoke in Latin, Wycliffe, and Chaucer contributed to a movement of returning England to its native language (though technically, Middle English was very different than Old English). As an honors society member of Sigma Tau Delta, I'm always fascinated to see how theology and English literature have coincided for much of British history.
Wycliffe, Chaucer, and others, though, contributed to an even more major movement that spread across Europe primarily in the sixteenth century: the Protestant Reformation. In 1517, a German friar named ''Martin Luther,'' challenged many abuses in the Roman Church through his Ninety-Five Thesis. In turn, Luther's ideas, also gradually spread to England and helped to usher the eventual doctrines of the Church of England.
VI. The Church of England Under Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary Tudor, and Elizabeth I
One of the most infamous historical events of the sixteenth century was Henry VIII's desire for an annulment from Rome, which the papacy would not grant him. Although there is another entire debate about whether or not he had legal access to such an annulment, for the sake of time, we shall only assume that he had no legal grounds for such an annulment. For the record, even if Henry had no such right, the Anglican Church was not simply based on his desire for one.
There is some evidence to further demonstrate that Henry VIII did not see himself as an Anglican, in the sense that his son, Edward VI did. He died with a Requiem Mass. He never claimed to be Protestant. In the Six Articles, he upheld Transubstantiation and called for anyone to be sentenced to death who denied it. In his On the Seven Sacraments, he attacked Luther's views before he broke from communion with the pope (and to my knowledge, never recanted his views). Some see the king more as a rebellious Roman Catholic than a die-hard Protestant. Indeed, Henry had Thomas Moore, a faithful Catholic put to death, but he also sentenced Willaim Tyndale, the Protestant Reformer to capital punishment.
Neither John Jewell nor Edward VI ever claimed that their faith was built on the beliefs of Henry VIII. For Jewel, specifically, the origins of the Anglican Church went back to early Celtic Christianity. Additionally, Matthew Parker, a sixteenth-century archbishop of Canterbury, rejected Transubstantiation and based his rejection of this doctrine and historically appealed to his reasons for rejection of it based on Elfric of Eynsham an Anglo-Saxon abbot who did not hold to the Roman doctrine. Whatever one thinks of the issue, Mattew Parker, John Jewell, and others understood that the Anglo-Saxons had not been bound by Roman conformity.
Furthermore, the young Edward VI was far more embracing of Calvinism than had been his father. In general, Edward ruled over a Church of England that bordered on reformed theology.
When England did briefly return to Catholicism under Mary Tudor, many Protestants were executed for denying papal supremacy, such as Thomas Cranmer and Hugh Latimer. By this point, Henry VIII was long dead, showing that many of these Anglican reformers believed in more than just an allegiance to him. Renouncing the papacy before he was burned, Cranmer understood the importance of Anglican theology to succeed in the personal ambitions of Henry VIII.
Furthermore, while Henry VIII did play a part in separating the Church of England from Rome in 1534, the confessions of faith that he subscribed to (such as The Ten Articles and later, The Six Articles) were different than those of his son, Edward VI (The Forty-Two Articles), and daughter, Elizabeth I (The Thirty-Nine Articles). Indeed, the latter two statements of faith were more influenced by Reformed thought, as the Church of England took a theological turn closer to Protestantism.
Likewise, Henry VIII's separation of the Church of England from Rome was separated by Mary Tudor's reunion of the Anglican Church with Rome before Edward VI again separated the Church of England from Rome. Thus, Edward had a distinct reform from Rome than did his father. There was not a direct continuation of religion or headship of the church of England between the two. Henry's separation was distinct from Edward's---the latter is what the Church of England has continued and remains built upon. The intermission between Henry and Edward's reign in which Roman Catholic Mary Tudor ruled while reuniting the Church of England with Rome, and the fact that neither Henry VIII nor Edward VI subscribed to the same statement of faith, shows that the Church of England of Henry VIII's time was distinctly different from that of Edward VI. However, because current Anglicanism is founded on the theology upheld and endorsed by Edward VI, it cannot be said that today's Church of England derives from Henry VIII's desire for an annulment.
Edward VI listened to the views of the reformers. When he died, his sister, Mary Tudor, broke the Church of England back to Catholicism and after his death, Elizabeth I decided to take the Anglican Church in a more middle Protestant direction, in between the Lutherans and the Calvinists, where it generally stayed until the Oxford movement in the middle and late nineteenth century.
Lastly, on this point, when did Anglicanism begin? Writing of the history of Anglicanism, Diarmaid MaCcalloch wrote, ''Under the tutelage of his most accomplished imitator (speaking of Henry VIII), under Queen Elizabeth I it became the Church of England.''
In many ways, I agree with MaCcalloch. I think in a formal sense, Anglicanism began with Edward VI and Elizabeth I, though its roots go back to the Celts, the Saxons, and even Wycliffe.
VI. Conclusion:
There are professional scholars who see the roots of Anglicanism in the Anglo-Saxon Church. There are also scholars who see its roots in Henry VIII and finally, there are other scholars who see its roots in both Edward VI and Elizabeth I. Unfortunately, many people have only been told one narrative of the story: that Henry VIII started the Anglican Church when he desired an annulment from the current pope concerning his marriage to Catherine of Aragon.
While the Anglican Church probably formally began with Edward VI and Elizabeth I, its roots go back further. At the least, the Anglo-Saxon Church before the eleventh century was a pre-Anglican Church, which paved the way for later Reformation Anglicanism. When the English reformers broke from Rome in the sixteenth century, it was not them, but Rome, which had broken from tradition.
Although some Roman Catholic skeptics will respond, ''Why then did it take the English Church five hundred years after the Norman Conquest to split from Rome if the Anglo-Saxon Church had never been Roman Catholic beforehand?''
The answer, of course, is complicated. Less access to the Scriptures made it harder for the English masses to break from the corruption in Rome. But even more importantly, Rome was more corrupt in the fourteenth, fifteenth, and sixteenth centuries, than it even had been when the Norman Conquest took place. The abuse of indulgences, relics, and the papacy itself, gradually contributed to the English Church serving ties with Rome in the English Reformation.
Furthermore, once the Anglo-Saxons lost power after William I's conquest of England in 1066, the former nobility also lost influence across the land. Naturally, the Saxon peasants did not have kings who understood them as had Alfred the Great. All of this contributed to Anglo-Saxon Christianity being suppressed by the will of Rome and as demonstrated through the Normans.
But, when the Church of England issued The Thirty-Nine Articles, it was affirming orthodox Christianity. It denied the power of papal supremacy, for instance. Those who see Anglicanism as preserving the faith of the Anglo-Saxons may do so, without neglecting the heritage of the English Reformation.
The Anglican tradition is appealing to modern Evangelicals for many reasons. One can embrace liturgy without believing the Anglican Church is the only church, one can embrace the Reformation without basing one's thoughts all on one reformer (such as Luther or Calvin), one can reject the papacy and still have apostolic succession, one can embrace the church fathers and still be either an Arminian, Lutheran, or Calvinist, one can identify as both protestant and catholic, one can embrace liturgy without denying evangelicalism, one can love Augustine while also love C. S. Lewis, one can be partial Puritan or Anglo-Catholic, one can embrace the Filioque while loving the Eastern artwork of Christianity, and one can befriend both Catholics and Baptists, without claiming that either is going to Hell for differing on certain theological doctrines.
If one is looking for a church that confesses the Apostles Creed and understands the word ''Catholic'' as the church fathers did, Anglicanism is an option. Sometimes, Evangelicals are led to believe that it's either a church with no liturgy or confession or Catholicism, but there are liturgical Protestant traditions as well. Among them is the Anglican Church.
During the Protestant Reformation, the leaders of the Church of England saw many abuses in the Roman Church but rather than them ending every liturgy and casting aside the opinions of the church fathers for the reformers, their desire through the Reformation, was that Christendom would actually return to the fathers and away from some later abuses in the church. Retaining the Episcopal form of government and belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, The Thirty-Nine Articles were purposefully vague on many theological issues---but then again, so had been Early Christianity. Justin Martyr was a strong believer in free will, but Augustine later went away from this. Augustine accepted Maccabees as canonical, though Jerome did not. The Eastern fathers generally thought all babies go to Heaven, though many in the Western Church did not. Some fathers said that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, while others claimed that He proceeds from the Son.
For most of Christianity, one could essentially hold the doctrines of what we now call ''Calvinism'' or Armianism without being excommunicated by the Catholic Church. Why? Because the church was diverse. Not everyone had the same theology. In Medieval times, Bernard of Clairvaux believed in justification by faith alone, though Thomas Aquinas believed in justification by faith and works. Yet the same Christians who differed over justification and predestination, all shared in the same Eucharist. They essentially all believed in the Real Presence of Christ, and most, if not all of them, believed that Christ was literally present, Body and Blood in the Eucharistic Meal, even amid these Ancient and Medieval fathers differing over major doctrines in other areas.
So what happened to the diverse church? In the sixteenth century, reacting against the abuse of indulgences and relics, Lether strongly affirmed justification only by faith alone, as did Calvin. Not all Protestants, however, agreed on justification. More of the English reformers retained a belief in justification by works, for example. But by the Council of Trent (1544-1566), Rome declared faith alone as here. Thus, in the following centuries since the Reformation, Protestants and Roman Catholics have continued to divide from one another (Roman Catholics later added papal infallibility as a dogma to the church in the nineteenth century), and Protestants by the time of the composition of the Westminster Standards, removed the reading of the Apocrypha from liturgy (even though the Apocrypaha was placed in between the Old and New Testaments in all Protestant Bibles beforehand).
For most of church history, Christians differed on various subjects but confessed One Lord, one faith, one Baptism as did Paul in Ephesians 4: 5-6. They did not believe that different views over predestination, justification, or eschatology, for example, were worth dividing the church over. In this regard, the Church of England has historically remained more faithful to Scripture than the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Lutherans, Presbyterians, or Baptists. The Thirty-Nine Articles were written with ambiguity for English Protestants who saw the dangers of Papal Supremacy and Papapl infallibility, even though they did not agree with each other on all other points.
Sometimes, Roman Catholics criticize Protestants for varying in theology. Yet the church fathers themselves varied from each other. The problem is not Protestants differing from each other on the doctrine they have received as orthodox (such as historical premillennial vs. amillennial), but there is a major problem when those ideas openly contradict what the church has always believed. Dispensationalism, for instance, contracts the church fathers on the relationship of the church to Israel. Many modern Baptists teach that the Lord's Table is just a memorial of Christ's death and resurrection, which as I have discussed in previous posts, contradicts both Scripture and Church history. The modern understanding of the papacy also contradicts the fathers as the early church did not believe that any bishop was infalalbe...and while some Roman Catholics, agree, they then claim that doctrine can develop, which is a dangerous confusion, for this allows theological change over time.
Many mainstream Anglicans embrace one partaking in the Eucharistic table as long as one's views are within historical orthodoxy (as defined by the ancient creeds, for instance). This was also the view of the fathers.
Finally, in this post, I have demonstrated that Anglicanism has ancient roots. One can be both evangelical and liturgical, and agree or disagree with Augustine of Hippo or Basil the Great and remain within orthodoxy. In fighting the abuses of Rome in the sixteenth century, Anglicanism was holding to the doctrines and beliefs of the ancient church long before the rise of papal supremacy in the fifth century.
Further Sources:
MacColloch, Diarmaid. Thomas Moore: A Revolutionary Life.
Notes:
*2-https://www.prophecy-workshop.com/early-christianity-n-the-british-isles
*3-https://www.twinkl.com/teaching-wiki/christianity-come-to-england
Wow! you really did a lot of research and made a compelling argument that Christianity had come to England before Rome brought it there. You also make a strong argument that Anglicanism is very diverse, not in immoral ways, but in ways that bring believers together. Great history of England, Saxons and all!
ReplyDelete