The Reform of the English Church

In America today “separation of church and state” is basic to both political and theological thinking. In contrast, in the sixteenth century in England the union of church and state was taken for granted as governed and guided by divine providence. In fact, the one definite thing that can be said about the English Reformation is that it was first of all an act of state. Central to it all was the assertion of royal supremacy, of king or queen, in ecclesiastical affairs. And the claim of royal supremacy was made explicitly not only by Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I, but also implicitly by the Catholic Mary when she decided to reconcile the English church with the Roman papacy in 1553.

It would be a mistake, however, to interpret the English situation as a mere “Erastianism” (named after Thomas Erastus), that is, a subordination of the church to the interests and policies of the state. The theory of royal supremacy justifying headship in both church and state emerged in the 1530s out of a long academic and legal debate that reached back at least to the twelfth century, with roots in a variety of sources — biblical, patristic, political, and historical.

Henry VIII and his advisers recalled that the ecumenical councils of the church in the first eight centuries were called by emperors through their imperial commissioners. Constantine the Great, for example, had the bishops of the Empire join him at Nicea in 325 to seek to bring theological peace to the church during the Arian controversy. Further, it was recalled that under the old covenant the godly king or monarch led his people in the worship and service of their covenant Lord God. Edward VI was called “the young Josiah” by the archbishop of Canterbury! Read more

Read also:
Anglicanism: Protestant or Reformed Catholic?