DID HENRY VIII CREATE THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND JUST SO HE COULD DIVORCE HIS WIFE?

A KING, A MARRIAGE, AND THE AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH

Luther challenged the pope over Scripture and church teaching.

Zwingli challenged inherited practices.

The Anabaptists challenged infant baptism and the connection between church and state.

But in England, the break with Rome followed a different course.

King Henry VIII wanted his marriage to Catherine of Aragon declared invalid.

The pope would not grant the annulment Henry sought.

Henry eventually rejected papal jurisdiction over the English church and claimed supreme authority over it himself.

That sounds like a simple story.

A KING WANTED A DIFFERENT WIFE, SO HE STARTED A DIFFERENT CHURCH.

But that explanation leaves out much of what happened.

Henry did not begin as a Protestant reformer. He had publicly defended Catholic teaching against Luther.

Nor did the English church suddenly become Protestant when Henry rejected the pope.

To understand what happened, we must distinguish three questions:

Who had authority over Henry’s marriage?

Who had authority over the church in England?

And who had authority to determine what that church would teach?

Those questions would produce consequences far beyond Henry’s marriage.

1. HENRY HAD DEFENDED THE POPE AGAINST LUTHER

In 1521, Henry published a defense of the seven sacraments against Martin Luther.

Pope Leo X rewarded him with the title:

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH.

Henry was not announcing a Protestant reformation.

He was defending important teachings of the Western Catholic Church.

That makes the later break with Rome especially striking.

Henry would eventually reject the pope’s authority over England.

But rejecting papal jurisdiction was not the same thing as rejecting all Catholic doctrine.

Keep that distinction in mind.

2. WHAT WAS WRONG WITH HENRY’S MARRIAGE?

Henry had married Catherine of Aragon in 1509.

Catherine had previously been married to Henry’s older brother, Arthur, who died young.

A papal dispensation had permitted Henry and Catherine to marry.

Years later, Henry sought a declaration that the marriage had never been valid.

One of his arguments appealed to Leviticus:

“And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless.”

— Leviticus 20:21, KJV

Henry argued that his marriage violated God’s law.

But the question was not as simple as quoting one verse.

Deuteronomy 25:5–6 also describes circumstances in which an Israelite man was to marry his deceased brother’s widow to preserve his brother’s family line.

The passages had to be understood in their respective legal settings.

There was also a disputed historical question about whether Catherine’s earlier marriage to Arthur had been consummated.

Henry’s request therefore involved Scripture, church law, the earlier papal dispensation, and contested facts about the marriage.

A Bible verse alone did not settle the entire case.

3. WHY DID HENRY WANT THE MARRIAGE ANNULLED?

Catherine had given birth to a surviving daughter, Mary, but Henry had no surviving legitimate son by her.

The succession to the English throne was a serious concern.

Henry also wished to marry Anne Boleyn.

These circumstances contributed to his determination to end the marriage.

We should distinguish an annulment from a divorce.

A divorce ends a marriage recognized as valid.

An annulment declares that a valid marriage never existed.

Henry sought an annulment of his marriage to Catherine.

That distinction mattered because he was arguing that the marriage had been invalid from the beginning.

4. WHY DIDN’T THE POPE SIMPLY AGREE?

The pope faced more than Henry’s personal wishes.

Catherine maintained that her marriage to Henry was valid.

The earlier marriage to Arthur and the papal dispensation were disputed parts of the case.

There were also powerful political interests involved, including Catherine’s relationship to Emperor Charles V.

The pope did not grant Henry the annulment he sought.

Henry’s government then pursued a different route: removing the authority of Rome over the English church and ensuring that the marriage case could be decided in England.

The dispute had now moved beyond one marriage.

It had become a question of jurisdiction.

WHO HAD THE FINAL AUTHORITY TO DECIDE?

5. THE QUESTION WE HAVE HEARD BEFORE

Think back to our earlier studies.

The bishop of Rome had gradually claimed authority extending beyond his own congregation and region.

Eastern Christians disputed the extent of that authority.

Luther challenged papal authority over Christian teaching.

Now Henry challenged papal authority over the church in his kingdom.

But there was an important difference.

Luther appealed to Scripture as the final standard by which church teaching must be judged.

Henry’s government transferred jurisdiction from the pope to the English Crown.

Those were not identical reforms.

The question in England became:

IF THE POPE DOES NOT GOVERN THE ENGLISH CHURCH, WHO DOES?

Henry’s answer was the king.

6. PARLIAMENT HELPED MAKE THE BREAK

The separation from Rome did not happen through one declaration made on a single day.

Parliament passed a series of laws during the 1530s.

The Act in Restraint of Appeals of 1533 prevented English ecclesiastical cases from being appealed to Rome.

In 1533, Thomas Cranmer, the archbishop of Canterbury, declared Henry’s marriage to Catherine invalid.

Henry had already married Anne Boleyn.

In 1534, the Act of Supremacy recognized Henry as the supreme head on earth of the Church of England.

Other legislation strengthened the Crown’s control over church affairs.

This was a major transfer of authority.

The pope no longer exercised the same jurisdiction in England.

But the English church still had bishops, dioceses, priests, and much of its inherited worship and teaching.

THE CHURCH’S GOVERNING AUTHORITY HAD CHANGED MORE QUICKLY THAN ITS THEOLOGY.

7. DID HENRY INVENT THE CHURCH IN ENGLAND?

No.

Christianity had existed in Britain long before Henry VIII.

There had been bishops, congregations, monasteries, and Christian institutions for centuries.

Henry did not introduce Christianity into England.

Nor did he establish its first Christian congregations.

What happened under Henry was a break in the English church’s jurisdictional relationship with Rome.

The English church continued, but under a new arrangement of authority.

That is why saying Henry simply “invented a church” can be misleading.

He changed who governed an existing church structure.

And that change opened the way for further changes in doctrine and worship.

8. DID HENRY MAKE THE CHURCH PROTESTANT?

Not in the way we ordinarily use that word today.

Henry rejected papal supremacy, but he retained many traditional Catholic doctrines and practices.

The Six Articles of 1539, for example, affirmed transubstantiation, upheld clerical celibacy, and defended several other traditional teachings.

Henry’s religious policies changed in some respects during his reign, but he did not simply replace Catholic theology with Lutheran or Reformed theology.

That distinction is important.

A church may reject one institution’s authority while retaining much of that institution’s teaching.

It may also adopt a new authority without returning to the New Testament pattern of leadership.

CHANGING WHO HOLDS POWER DOES NOT, BY ITSELF, ESTABLISH WHAT SCRIPTURE TEACHES.

9. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONASTERIES?

Under Henry, the Crown dissolved England’s monasteries and other religious houses.

Their lands and wealth were transferred to the Crown, with much property subsequently sold or granted to others.

This was not a minor change.

Monasteries had been places of prayer and religious life.

Many also supported learning, hospitality, charity, and local communities.

Their closure changed both the religious and economic life of England.

We should not assume that every monastery was free from abuse.

Nor should we assume that every monastery was corrupt.

The historical record must be examined rather than reduced to either picture.

But for our study, another question matters.

WHAT AUTHORITY DID THE KING POSSESS TO DISSOLVE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS AND TAKE CONTROL OF THEIR PROPERTY?

That is a different question from whether the institutions themselves followed the New Testament.

10. WHAT HAPPENED TO PEOPLE WHO DISAGREED?

The break with Rome was not merely a theological debate in which everyone could freely choose a position.

The Crown’s supremacy was established by law.

Refusing to acknowledge it could bring severe punishment.

Thomas More, Henry’s former lord chancellor, and John Fisher, bishop of Rochester, were executed in 1535 after refusing to accept the royal supremacy.

Their disagreement with Henry had become a matter of state authority as well as religion.

The lesson should be familiar by now.

The church and the state had become closely connected.

A dispute about religious authority could become a criminal matter.

And Christians who disagreed with the government could face punishment.

11. NOW PUT ROYAL SUPREMACY BESIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT

We have already examined the claim that the bishop of Rome possesses universal governing authority over Christ’s church.

Now another question appears.

DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT GIVE A KING SUPREME AUTHORITY OVER THE CHURCH IN HIS COUNTRY?

Paul wrote:

“And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”

— Colossians 1:18, KJV

Who is the head?

CHRIST.

Paul also wrote that God:

“hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.”

— Ephesians 1:22, KJV

That establishes Christ’s authority.

But we need to distinguish Christ’s headship from the responsibilities He gives to people within His church.

The New Testament does recognize human leadership.

The question is what kind of leadership Christ authorized.

12. WHAT AUTHORITY DID CHRIST GIVE TO ELDERS?

Paul summoned the elders of the church in Ephesus.

He told them:

“Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.”

— Acts 20:28, KJV

Peter instructed elders:

“Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.”

— 1 Peter 5:3, KJV

These passages describe spiritual oversight within the church.

They do not establish a national monarch as the supreme earthly head of every congregation in his kingdom.

That does not settle every possible relationship between Christians and civil government.

But it does mean that royal supremacy cannot simply be assumed from the New Testament’s teaching about elders.

13. WHAT AUTHORITY DOES CIVIL GOVERNMENT HAVE?

Paul wrote:

“Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.”

— Romans 13:1, KJV

Peter likewise instructed Christians to honor the king.

Read 1 Peter 2:13–17.

Christians are not instructed to treat civil government as though it has no legitimate authority.

But the apostles also recognized a limit.

When ordered not to teach in Jesus’ name, Peter and the other apostles answered:

“We ought to obey God rather than men.”

— Acts 5:29, KJV

Civil government has responsibilities.

The church has responsibilities.

But the authority of a ruler does not replace the authority of Christ.

And obedience to government does not mean accepting every religious command a government may issue.

14. DOES THE NEW TESTAMENT PRESENT A NATIONAL CHURCH?

The gospel was preached across national and cultural boundaries.

Jews and Gentiles were brought together in Christ.

Paul wrote:

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

— Galatians 3:28, KJV

And:

“For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”

— 1 Corinthians 12:13, KJV

The church is not defined by citizenship in one earthly kingdom.

It is Christ’s body.

So when we encounter a church whose membership, government, and public worship are closely tied to a particular nation, we should ask:

What part of that arrangement comes from Scripture?

What part comes from the nation’s history?

And what part comes from decisions made by its rulers?

Those are separate questions.

15. WHAT ABOUT UNITY?

A national church could bring a degree of outward uniformity.

People might use the same worship book.

They might recognize the same bishops.

They might attend churches established by the same government.

But is outward uniformity the same as the unity for which Jesus prayed?

Jesus prayed for those who would believe in Him through the apostles’ word:

“That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.”

— John 17:21, KJV

That unity is rooted in Christ and His message.

It cannot be reduced to everyone living under the same monarch or obeying the same religious laws.

A government can require outward conformity.

IT CANNOT CREATE FAITH.

16. THE ENGLISH CHURCH CHANGED AGAIN AFTER HENRY DIED

Henry died in 1547.

His son Edward VI became king.

During Edward’s reign, Protestant theology and worship gained a much stronger place in the Church of England.

The Book of Common Prayer was introduced in 1549 and substantially revised in 1552.

Then Edward died in 1553.

His successor, Mary I, restored communion with Rome and Catholic worship.

After Mary’s death, Elizabeth I restored the English church’s independence from Rome and established a Protestant religious settlement.

Notice what happened.

Under successive monarchs, the country’s official religious direction changed repeatedly.

That raises a serious question.

IF A CHURCH’S DOCTRINE AND WORSHIP CHANGE WHEN THE MONARCH CHANGES, WHERE DOES FINAL RELIGIOUS AUTHORITY ACTUALLY REST?

17. THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND DEVELOPED A DISTINCT IDENTITY

The Church of England eventually combined elements of historical continuity with Protestant reform.

It retained bishops, the ancient creeds, and substantial parts of its inherited liturgical tradition.

It also adopted Protestant teachings and changes in worship.

The Church of England describes this historical identity as both:

CATHOLIC AND REFORMED.

Here, catholic refers to continuity with the wider historical Christian church, not continued submission to the pope.

We should understand that claim fairly.

Retaining an ancient practice does not automatically make it wrong.

Adopting a Protestant teaching does not automatically make it right.

Each claim must be examined on its own merits.

18. DID THE KING REPLACE THE POPE?

In one important respect, Henry transferred supreme governing authority over the English church from the pope to the Crown.

But the two offices were not identical.

The pope’s claims rested upon a particular understanding of apostolic succession and the authority of Peter.

Henry’s claim rested upon royal supremacy within his kingdom, established through English law.

Later, under Elizabeth I, the monarch’s title became:

SUPREME GOVERNOR

rather than Henry’s:

SUPREME HEAD.

The historical difference matters.

But neither title settles the biblical question.

We still need to ask what authority Christ actually gave to earthly rulers over His church.

19. ANOTHER REFORMATION, ANOTHER AUTHORITY QUESTION

Look at the course of our study.

Rome claimed universal papal jurisdiction.

Luther challenged papal and conciliar authority.

Zwingli disagreed with Luther’s interpretation of Scripture.

The Anabaptists challenged inherited baptismal practice and state control of religion.

The Reformed churches divided over grace and election.

And in England, the Crown replaced the pope as the supreme earthly governing authority over the national church.

Different developments.

Different questions.

But one concern keeps returning:

WHO HAS THE RIGHT TO DETERMINE WHAT CHRISTIANS MUST BELIEVE AND PRACTICE?

We cannot answer that question simply by choosing between a pope, a king, a synod, or an individual preacher.

We must first ask what Christ and His apostles actually taught.

20. AND WE MUST APPLY THAT QUESTION TO OURSELVES

It is easy to examine Henry VIII and conclude that a king should not determine Christian doctrine.

But then we must ask whether we allow other authorities to do the same thing in practice.

Does our congregation’s history settle a question before we open Scripture?

Does a respected preacher’s conclusion become the answer we expect the Bible to give?

Do we accept an interpretation because it has been repeated for generations?

Do we assume our own way of organizing church life is biblical simply because it is familiar?

Whatever church background we come from, none of us is exempt.

THE AUTHORITY QUESTION COMES HOME TO EVERY READER.

21. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A NATIONAL CHURCH IS NOT REFORMED ENOUGH FOR SOME OF ITS MEMBERS?

The English Reformation did not end with Elizabeth’s religious settlement.

Some Christians believed the Church of England had retained too many practices from its medieval past.

They wanted further changes in worship, church government, and discipline.

Others concluded that the established church could not be sufficiently reformed from within.

Those disagreements would help produce movements known as the Puritans and Separatists.

And their history would eventually connect the English Reformation to the development of Congregationalist and Baptist churches.

Our next question is:

WHY DID THE PURITANS WANT TO PURIFY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?

TEXT B4 TRADITION

Read First. Conclude Later.

RETURN TO MAIN SERIES: ONE CHURCH, SO MANY DIVISIONS—WHAT HAPPENED?

NEXT STUDY: WHY DID THE PURITANS WANT TO PURIFY THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND?