Neither Principalities or Powers: How Protestants and Catholics Misunderstand the History of the English

Reformation

Angel Aquino
Western Civilization I
Dr. Favelo
11/5/23
 For better or for worse, the Protestant reformation has shaped the church universal today.
However, in our modern age, Christians tend to forget their own history and neglect the past, focusing on
their present emotions and experiences with little regard for tradition and lives of the saints that have gone
before them.
When Protestants think about the reformation, some can throw out the names of various reformers
and martyrs, like Martin Luther, William Tyndale, and John Calvin. They can generally lay out the most
consequential events of this time period, such as the ninety-five theses and the printing and distribution of
the Bible in vernacular English. The limitations of their knowledge comes when asked about the study of
the reformation at large. Why could this be the case? A growing plurality of Christians in the United
States fall under the classification of ‘non denominational’1 and Baptist, both considered ‘low church’.
‘High church’ denominations (outside of Catholicism) have been dysfunctional, with the Lutheran church,
Methodist (and Wesleyan churches), and Anglican2 churches splitting over issues such as the
contemporary LGBTQ question, women serving in the ministering role, and other ways in which the
insidious ideology of progressivism has infiltrated the church. One could argue that these are the
by-products of the second great awakening3, as the democratization of American Christianity has laid the
foundations for the undermining of Biblical principles and the role of proper church authority.
This would not be the first time that the church has faced the task of maintaining fidelity to
scripture despite contemporary political pressures. The English Reformation, from which the Anglican
church arose, is overlooked by primary schools and such institutions that teach church history, or at the
very least treated with a lack diligence as the mainland of Europe. Protestants dismiss the theological and
historical significance of the formation of the Anglican church for two reasons: one, the short-sighted
notion that it owes its existence to the political machinations of the mercurial monarch Henry the Eighth
and second, that it is a mere copy of the Catholic church driven by nothing but baseless schismatic
intention. Thus, the modern Protestant church blinds itself to the various lessons and practices that prove
salient to the contemporary issues we face because it comes from mainland Britain, triggering the same
flawed rebuttal.
In order to dispel these widely held notions, I argue that Henry the Eighth was not the driving
force behind the formation of the Anglican church in three arguments. First, each of the key figures
pivotal to the reforms that brought forth the Anglican church had motivations that superseded the political
interests of Henry the Eighth. Second, Henry the Eighth was not a true Protestant reformer and many of
the changes he made to the Catholic church in England were cosmetic and political, not substantial. Third,
most of the significant theological reforms came after the death of Henry the Eighth, during the reign of
his more Protestant son Edward the Sixth.
To be clear, I will not be arguing about the divorce issue4 initiated by Henry in depth during this
paper. Most people are aware of the divorces of Henry, and as previously mentioned attribute a large part

1
2
The Anglican church in North America split with the Episcopal and Anglican Church in Canada for reasons of
more progressive theology. The Anglican church in North America should be considered the most theologically
conservative Anglican communion.
3
By-products include rejections of ‘high church’ structures of authority, for more low church approaches.Nathan
Hatch writes an insightful work that leads to these conclusions in his book the Democratization of American
Christianity.
4
Namely the who, whats, whys, and technical details about his advocacy to the Roman Catholic Church for his
annulment. I simply acknowledge that it happened, then look at the outcomes, and make conclusions from that. The
smaller details about the divorce itself are inconsequential to the arguments I make.
of the English reformation to this issue. Instead, I will analyze the actions and events that took place
before his divorce scandal, during the divorce scandal, and after his death.
If we look at the origins of the English reformation, we see that they emerged before King Henry
decided to impose his agenda for power and supremacy upon the banner of the church of England. They
were also far outside the worldly scope of the King. Its foundations can be traced to two ideologies:
Erasmus of Rotterdam’s humanism and Luther’s opposition to Romish dogmas. German trade is cited as
the alleyway by which Lutheranism infiltrated English Catholic churches, as German traders brought
along with them anti-Catholic literature.5 Erasmus’ humanism was prevalent in the royal court of
England, as his earliest introduction to the British mainland began just before Henry the Eighth’s reign,
and his influence reached its height in the fledgling years of Henry’s reign.6 Erasmus’ intellectual
presence sowed the seeds of reform: there was a recognition of the importance of adhering to a ‘catholic7’
church, which was compatible with the denouncing of flawed popes and clerical malpractice.8 One of his
most enduring works was a satirical attack on the abuses by the clerical class, written in 1509 when he
was in England.9 Already famous for two previous works, his time in Britain seemed to be the most
fruitful there than in any other country.10 If Erasmus’ invective of the state of Christ’s church in England
established the intellectual backing for the English reformation, then his Greek New Testament provided
the spiritual awakening that would compel certain British Protestants to action.
Thomas Bilney, a student of law at Cambridge, caught wind of an illicit Greek New Testament
from his friends. That Greek New Testament was Erasmus’ 1516 translation. Though initially uninterested
in the spiritual aspect of reading the text, he was so convicted by the reading of the scripture that he
underwent a ‘wonderful transformation’ and was ‘consumed with an unknown joy’, for the reality of his
salvation by his savior was clearer than ever.11 Bilney was reborn by his constant reading of the New
Testament, that a new witness was formed in him, giving birth to the Protestant movement for reform.12
The Vatican was hostile to translations of the Greek New Testament, explaining why Erasmus’
1516 version was illegal. Both priests and Bishops, Franciscans and Dominicans, decried the work on
every ground they could possibly conjure up; ranging from accusations of heresy, being of the antichrist,
and baseless criticisms of translation.13 Thus, we can draw this conclusion from the vehement reaction
from the Catholic church: access to the Greek New Testament posed a danger to the establishment of
popery and Romish dogma, because it was the fire behind the English reformers, and must be stamped
out. Their self-interested intuitions turned out to be correct, as Erasmus’ New Testament was the principle
factor of the reformation in Oxford, Cambridge, and London, and would spread throughout the entirety of
the British mainland.14
Thomas Bilneys’ revitalized faith and zeal for Christ, and disillusionment with the Romish
administration of the church turned even the most passionate of the Vatican’s defenders. Hugh Latimer,
also a student at Cambridge was a fervent Catholic apologist. He scolded one of his professors, Master

5
Church History Volume 2, page 218
6
The New History of England, page 12-13
7
In this sense, universal
8
The New History of England, page 14
9
The New History of England, page 13
10
History of the Christian Church, Volume 3, page 265
11
The Reformation in England, Volume 1, page 154-155
12
The Reformation in England, Volume 1, page 156
13
The Reformation in England, Volume 1, page 148-149
14
The Reformation In England,
Stafford, for incorporating the Hebrew and Greek texts in his translations of the scripture, branding him as
a heretic. Latimer later took aim at Phillip Melancthon as subject for discourse when receiving his
bachelor’s in theology. Shortly after his discourse decrying the German theologian, he was approached by
Thomas Bilney. Bilney took this time to minister to the misguided Latimer, and his witness changed
Latimer, whose conviction led him to become a crucial figure for the reformation. Latimer’s zeal, energy,
and eloquence enhanced the quality and appeal of his discourse and preaching, and he was a versatile
advocate as he could communicate both with the clergy and the people.15
Hugh Latimer would go on to become the Bishop of Worcester, and then the chaplain to Edward
the Sixth, Henry’s son. He would die under Mary, who ordered him burned at the stake.
Thomas Cranmer, who would go on to become the archbishop of Canterbury, is the most well
known figure from the English reformation, though the primacy of his role in reform was severely
diminished by the fact that his service was under King Henry the Eighth. He was a student at Cambridge,
who was then elected fellow of Jesus College (at Oxford). Cranmer was also heavily influenced by Martin
Luther and John Calvin, and would later go on to adopt a distinctly reformed theology.16
Five early British Protestant sympathizers became bishops. Outside of Thomas Cranmer and
Hugh Latimer, they were Miles Coverdale, Matthew Parker, and Nicholas Ridley.17 Only Matthew Parker
and Miles Coverdale would escape martyrdom.
When all of these factors are considered, we can conclude that all of these men were convicted to
fight for reform by addressing the abuses of the Catholic clergy, long before King Henry decided to
appropriate the English reformation for his political gain. No argument can be made, from the perspective
of the motivation of the reformers, that Henry was a driving force behind the formation of the Anglican
church. These men, and many others, were convicted by the Christian-humanist philosophy, and the
personal testimony of other people of faith, not by ulterior motives. Henry C. Sheldon aptly summarizes:
“Thus, the reformation was begun in England by scholars and common people acting in entire
independence of the Government, and in face of its violent opposition.”18 Therefore, I conclude that even
if Henry the Eighth did not nominally separate from the Catholic church, the early British Protestants
would have continued to advocate and preach the principles of the reformation and decry the abuses and
corruption of the Catholic church, resulting in a new Anglo-Catholic church. Conversely, it is clear that
the current Anglican church would not exist without the witness and action of these men, while it (or at
the very least many of its fundamental principles) would have existed without Henry’s involvement.
The next portion of my argumentation deals with the alleged ‘reforms’ that King Henry enacted
because of his displeasure with the Catholic church. One thing must be understood. Opposing Papal
authority and the institution of the Roman Catholic Church is not inherently Protestant because sound
doctrine is needed. All of these arguments fall under the adage of “we are not only defined by what we are
against, but what we are for.” From this line of reasoning, King Henry should then be viewed as a
destructive reactionary and schismatic than an actual constructive reformer. Henry C. Sheldon writes that
“it is only by an abuse of terms that he (Henry the Eighth) can be called a Protestant.”19 His assessment is
accurate: the stark contrast of Henry’s actions in his reign showcase the shallow nature of his intent and
alleged reforms. King Henry waged scholastic war on Martin Luther, concerning his anti-Catholic works20
15
The Reformation in England, Volume 1, page 207
16
Cambridge History of Christianity, page 139-140
17
Church History Volume 2, page 221
18
19
History of the Christian Church, 259
20
Reformation in England
(such as the 1517 Theses, Against the Papacy of Rome, and Against the Bull of the Antichrist) comparing
the struggle against Luther to a crusade against Saracens.21 His fervor was rewarded by Pope Leo the
Tenth conferring upon him the title of “fidei defensor” which is Latin for defender of the faith. In October
1521, nine days after the issuing of the papal bull that gave the English monarch his title, King Henry
responded by escalating terror against English peasants that dared read the Bible in the vernacular22, an
issue brought light by the activities in the province of Lincolnshire. John Longland, the bishop of
Lincolnshire, was assisted by the command of the King, and used Henry’s words to spread terror and fear
among those who subverted the authority of the church.23 Prior to the divorce scandal, it is clear that he
ruled as monarch attached to the Roman Catholic church. It is undisputed that the divorce led King Henry
to nominally oppose the Vatican. However, what Protestants and Catholics overestimate is how
doctrinally significant his reforms were. Historians John Woodbridge and Frank James clarify that Henry
“remained convinced of the verity of Catholic theology…[but] decided to throw off the shackles of Rome
in order to establish his own supreme ecclesiastical authority.”24 We see this assertion verified when
Henry assumed the title of ‘Protector and Supreme Head of the Church and Clergy,’ a seemingly popish
title. In response to this, Thomas More, the Royal Lord Chancellor, resigned his office. Thomas More
would die for his conviction, and would be beheaded in 1535 for resisting the king.25 For all of his
resentment against the Vatican, Henry himself assumed the burdens of the office he had just cast out of
England. Henry Sheldon concurs, explaining that “he [King Henry] aimed to…substitute his own
authority, within English domains, for that of the Pope.” This is why J. H. D’Aubigne characterizes
Henry the Eighth as a vain and errant child, because of his swinging allegiance and ideological teetering
that resulted in the deaths of many.26 Henry Sheldon explains the treacherous and dual disposition of the
monarch: “those who were against the Pope were burned, and those who were for him were hanged.” Just
as the Catholic church became a political organ under Pope Gregory, Henry sought to make the church a
state department under the control of the throne, after his proclamation against Papal authority at
Westminster in June of 1534. He had taken the power of the church and committed to himself. Instead of
the bishops submitting to the pope, they would submit to the King, as this would be enforced by the state
institutions of justice and policing.27 Theologically, the doctrine of purgatory and conceptions of
iconography remained in the Ten Articles released by Henry’s government.28 Henry’s conception of
Anglo-Catholicism was Romish doctrine combined with the English sovereign as Pope.29 The Six
Articles, another set of doctrinal declarations released by Henry’s government, demonstrated Henry’s
commitment to medieval Roman Catholic theology, reaffirming things like transubstantiation, the utility
of private masses, celibacy of priests, and the need for auricular confession.30 These affirmations of
Catholic tradition had the weight of death (as disagreement with these declarations was considered
heresy), and were labeled pejoratively by Protestants as the ‘bloody whip with six strings’ by which the
conservative Roman Catholics turned the tide against them. Reformer John Calvin described the articles

21
Reformation in England
22
Reformation in England
23
Reformation in England
24
Church History Volume 2 page 222
25
Church History Volume 2 page 223
26
Reformation in England, volume 2, page 97
27
History of the Christian Church
28
History of the Christian Church
29
History of the Christian Church
30
History of the Christian Church
as ‘an ominous edict’ and Philip Melancthon penned an eloquent exhortation to the King, to no avail.31
What resulted was ‘catholicism with Romish doctrine…without the pope.”32
The only example of King Henry’s deference to Protestant principles comes with a major nuance.
Though the English Bible was published (between the years of 1537 to 1539) under government sanction,
and later freely distributed, its very existence was in spite of King Henry’s government and short lived.
Prior to this event, King Henry was the driving force behind the hunting and execution of William
Tyndale because of his translation efforts. The editions of the Bible that were released were built on the
work of Tyndale, and were created by Miles Coverdale and John Rogers, colleagues of Thomas Cranmer
and Thomas Cromwell. At this time, Cromwell was Lord Chancellor. Cranmer and Cromwell had to
convince Henry to publish a version of the Bible in 1537.33 By the command of Henry, every parish was
required to have an English Bible. However, Thomas Cromwell was condemned without trial for treason,
and beheaded in July of 1540. Soon after this, the anti-Protestant element of government decreed in 1543
that public readings of the Bible outside of authorized services, in private by the ‘humbler classes’ were
prohibited.
Henry the Eighth died in 1547, leading to the coronation of the nine year old Edward the Sixth,
his son by Jane Seymour. Under his reign, the Anglo-Catholic system, instead of being a nominal
substitution of Pope for king, assumed a distinctly Protestant orientation.The reforms at large included the
removal of images from churches, the legalization of marriage for the clergy, and communion in both
kinds. England’s borders were opened to the Protestant movement in Europe, as Peter Martyr and Martin
Bucer were installed at Oxford and Cambridge.34 Without the capricious King Henry at the helm, Thomas
Cranmer, along with the reformers that survived Henry’s reign, were able to steer the church in England
away from the hold of Roman Catholic hierarchy and doctrine. Archbishop Cranmer’s outlook about what
could be accomplished during the reign of the young Edward was so hopeful that he compared him to the
godly King Josiah of the old testament.
Cranmer’s assertion, if perhaps a minor overstatement, proved salient. Under Edward, Thomas
Cranmer compiled the Book of Common Prayer and drafted the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion, both of
which form the basis of the Anglican tradition.
Cranmer’s overhaul of mass would not have been allowed under Henry, who clung to Romish
doctrines. The principles that Cranmer based the writing of his Book of Common Prayer on were
receiving the gifts of God (instead of the people giving to God), primarily the benefit of salvation, and the
response of gratitude the people would offer up, entirely in words they could understand. Additionally,
Cranmer ensured that Christ’s death on the cross was at the center of Anglican worship.35 While Cranmer
was comfortable with the old ways of worship, it was with the assumption that they would be adopted to
spread the gospel.36 Bradford Littlejohn and Jonathan Roberts write about the contrast in the posture of
worship: “Worship was no longer to be a mere ceremonial display by the priests, with ordinary
parishioners gawking on while the clergy mumbled in Latin. Now it was to be an opportunity for the
whole congregation to gather together and worship the Lord, and to be instructed in the truth of Scripture
through the readings and prayers.”37 The new structure and nature of worship was established when the

31
Church History Volume 2
32
The Reformation in England, Volume 2, page 393
33
Church History Volume 2, page 226
34
History of the Christian Church
35
The Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library
36
The Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library page 55
37
Reformation Theology
1549 Book of Common Prayer was published and prescribed for use throughout the country. There was
such a contrast because Cranmer took seriously the baseless traditions of the formerly Catholic England,
by rejecting the veneration of saints, masses for the dead, the power of relics, and ornate and inaccessible
practice or worship in his work On Ceremonies.38 He carefully drew the line between the ceremonies that
aptly serve God in spirit, while decrying the confusing and obscure rituals and rules that undermine the
congregation’s understanding of the glory of God, that ‘did more to darken and confound.’39
From the very beginning of his reign, Edward ruled with that posture, as in 1547 the Parliament
passed an act that dissolved chantries, or monasteries that were founded with the doctrine of purgatory in
mind, as they existed with the soul purpose of saying masses for the dead to reduce their time in
purgatory. It is clear that though Henry dissolved the monasteries in 1540 on financial grounds, he
approved of the practice on theological grounds, as he declared in his last will and testament in 1546 that
an altar for the daily saying of masses should endure until the world ends The 1547 decree, similar in
economic intent to seize and redistribute funds, at the very least offered a theological justification for
ending the practice. In the eyes of Cranmer, the saying of the masses for the dead was both useless,
because the prayers of the living could not change the end result of souls that have already passed, and
dangerous because it undermined the “very true and perfect salvation through the death of Jesus Christ.”
Christ’s death negates all other illegitimate means for satisfying sin, because it is only through his perfect
sacrifice that sin could be ‘undone.’40
The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion served as a bellwether for the distinctly reformed theology
that the Anglican church would adopt at the direction of Thomas Cranmer. In the words of Henry C.
Sheldon, “[T]hey constitute…a thoroughly Protestant creed… [T]he articles are no mean between
Anglocatholicism and Protestantism. They constitute a robust Protestant creed, such as a Calvin or a Knox
would have found little occasion to criticize.”
When we carefully examine history in a deliberate and organized manner, what we can conclude
is that King Henry’s involvement was nothing more than a coincidental appropriation of a movement that
happened to occur during his reign that he clearly set back in most meaningful ways. In three arguments,
it has been proven that King Henry was not the motivation behind the reformation movement, as it began
before his involvement and continued well after, it has been established that his reforms did nothing but
substitute the hierarchy and practice of the Roman Catholic Church with the throne of England, and lastly
all of the doctrinal changes that form the practice and identity of Anglicanism happened in the years after
his death.

38
Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library
39
Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library
40
Reformation Anglicanism Essential Library page 54