Thomas More, Henry VIII, and the
Future of Anglicanism
by
Fr. Van McCalister
On July 6, 1535 Sir Thomas More was
beheaded because he was unwilling to agree with the conscience of King
Henry VIII, as enforced by the Act of Supremacy, since the King's
conscience opposed the Conscience of the Church, as More understood
it.
The 1534 Act of Supremacy declared, in
part:
Be it enacted by authority of this
present Parliament that the King our sovereign lord, his heirs and
successors kings of this realm, shall be taken, accepted and reputed
the only supreme head in earth of the Church of England called
Anglicana Ecclesia, and shall have and enjoy annexed and united to
the imperial crown of this realm as well the title and style thereof,
as all honours, dignities, preeminences, jurisdictions, privileges,
authorities, immunities, profits and commodities, to the said dignity
of supreme head of the same Church belonging and appertaining.
Thomas More defended his refusal to
sign the oath acceding to Parliament's Act of Supremacy because:
- The Act of Supremacy contravened God's Law.
- English subjects could not be removed from the corps (ie. body) of Christianity by an act of parliament.
- That corps is represented by the General Councils of the Church (over king and pope).
Lord Chancellor, Sir Thomas Audley
ruled against More stating, “if the Act of Parliament be not of
unlawful, then the indictment is not in my Conscience invalid.” In
other words, with some obvious sarcasm, if the acts of Parliament
were valid, than the verdict stood. The audacity of Audley: we want it to be so, and so it is. Audley ignored the entire point
of More's argument, which was that neither the acts of Parliament,
nor the King could overrule the corps of Faith, as held by the
Conscience of the Church.
When More defended his inability to
defy conscience, it was not in defense of an arbitrary personal
conscience but the conscience of the Church, which was proclaimed and
protected by the Councils of the Church. More did not elevate the
Councils of the Church above Holy Scripture, but saw them as the
guardians against the whims of individuals. It may be that Sir Thomas
viewed the “Corps of the Church” as protected by the Councils of the Church
with the Pope presiding, or at least that the pope was the instrument
of unity. And from that perspective, it must seem odd and
historically impossible to defend Anglicanism. But the goal here is
not so much to defend Anglicanism, as it is ancient Christianity and
the inheritors of the Faith. Thomas was defending his faith as a
Roman Catholic because he believed the Roman Catholic Church
represented the root of Christianity. It is his defense of the root
of Christianity, and his argument against those who would arbitrarily
claim that root for themselves alone, to which we appeal.
Thomas More's act of conscience is
still relevant today on at least two points: (1) as we view his
argument from the knowledge that the Catholic Faith predates Roman
catholicsm, and Anglican catholicism. (2) National expressions of
catholicism are subordinate to the apostolic catholicism of the New
Testament and Early Church, from which we receive the corps.
Contemporary Anglicans would do well to
follow More's example. We rely too much on a sense of individual
personal conscience, without first exploring and submitting to the
conscience of the Church. North American Anglicans did well to
recognize that the leadership of The Episcopal Church and the Church
of Canada abandoned the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church, and
reoriented themselves back toward their Anglican roots where the
authority of Holy Scripture is honored.
However, this reorientation is
incomplete and confused. Some are reorienting themselves to the
Reformation Movement with particular respect to Thomas Cranmer. Some
are reorienting themselves toward the Roman Catholic Church. Some are
orienting themselves toward a form of Evangelical
non-denominationalism. Some are finding their identity in the Global
South – so long as it doesn't require too much submission. And,
some look to 1662 or 1928 as their defining ethos. Others look to
Canon Law to define who they are.
Even as we endeavor to re-embrace a
genuine and orthodox Anglicanism, we are struggling with our
identity. We are so accustomed to being western individuals that we
struggle to be authentically Catholic. In other words, submission to
our ancient catholic corporate identity does not come naturally to
us. We value Apostolic Succession in our catechisms but have
difficulty honoring it in actual practice.
There is much that we can learn from
all of the post-reformation expressions of Christianity. However,
these are not our roots if we are a Catholic Church. Our catholic
legacy did not begin with the Reformation Movement, but with
Pentecost, and the Apostles, and was carried to us by the faithful
Church Fathers. This is evident as we read the history of the Church
in the British Isles from the Third Century onward, as well as from
the writings of so many of the Anglican Divines, who constantly
referred back to the Church Fathers as the source of Anglicanism.
Anglicanism is not the illegitimate
child of Henry VIII. It is not the invention of Archbishop Cranmer.
Anglicanism is no longer ethnocentric and imperialist. Anglicanism is
not a pale reflection of Roman Catholicism, as though there never was
an undivided Church.
The primary emphasis of Anglicans in
North America over the past several years has been to re-establish
Biblical orthodoxy, which must be our first concern. This led to a
variety of Anglicans, with different identities, banding together for
the sake orthodoxy – but not always unity. While agreeing on
Biblical orthodoxy, numerous debates have ensued over the Instruments
of Unity and other Anglican distinctives. Discussions and meetings
about canons and covenants still occupy a considerable amount of
attention throughout the Anglican Communion.
It is going to be extremely difficult
to overcome these differences (if not impossible) until we come to an
agreement on who we are and what our lineage is. If we continue under
the mistaken identity that our patrimony is Henry VIII, Thomas
Cranmer and the Reformation Movement, then we will be hopelessly
embroiled in all the personal conscience issues that those embody.
If, however, we recognize, as did Thomas More and the Anglican
Divines, that our identity and lineage is to be found in the
corporate conscience of the Fathers and Councils of the Church, we
will find an appropriate standard through which we can find catholic
unity, not only for ourselves, but also with the Churches of Rome and
Constantinople.
Anglicans may be pleased to look back
at the Act of Supremacy and see a moment of liberation and so find
our identity as a distinct entity. And, it was a moment where the
Church in England began a process of re-discovering her ancient
Catholic roots, but it is not helpful to corporate Christianity to
view that as our “birthdate”. It is helpful when we look through
that moment and other historical moments as lenses through which we
view the real birth of the Church at Pentecost. But to give the Act
of Supremacy and King Henry the VIIIth, any more value than that, is
not all that different from recognizing the illegitimate authority of
The Episcopal Church and the Church of Canada. Henry never had the
authority to redefine the Corps of the Church, nor do we.
. . . And, therefore, since all
Christendom is one corps, I cannot perceive how any member therof
may, without consent of the body, depart from the common head. And
then if we may not lawfully leave it by ourself, I cannot perceive,
but if the thing were a treating in a General Council, what the
question would avail, whether the primacy were instituted immediately
by God, or ordained by the Church.
As for the general councils
assembled lawfully, I never could perceive but that in the
declaration of the truths it is believed to be standen to; the
authority thereof ought to be taken for undoubtable, or else were
there in nothing no certainty, but through Christendom upon every
man's affectionate reason, all things might be brought from day to
day to continual ruffle and confusion, from which by the general
councils, the spirit of God assisting, every such council well
assembled keepeth and ever shall keep the corps of his Catholic
Church. (Thomas More to Thomas Cromwell – March 5, 1534)
Note: The
historical references are from lectures by Prof. Dale Hoak of Wm and
Mary College; The Last
Letters of Thomas More,
Letter 5 “To Thomas Cromwell, Chelsea, 5 March 1534.” Edited by
Alvaro de Silva, and Life
and Writings of Sir Thomas More,.by
Thomas Edward Bridgett
This article originally published: December 20, 2011 (Revised July 25,
2016)
