In this lecture, we're looking at the formation of Anglicanism and the rise of an entirely different branch of the Protestant movement that would come to shape and dominate the majority of the english-speaking world from the 16th century down until today. And to begin with we have to make sure we understand what Anglicanism is and what it has come to be. One of the strange things for new students to the study of the reformation, is the extent to which Anglicanism is an enigma. It really doesn't follow any of the same patterns or the same structures, entirely at least, of the kinds of reformation you see in the Lutheran regions, in Germany, or in the Swiss regions, under Calvin and Zwingli and Bullinger and all these others. It's an enigma. At times the Anglican reformation appears to be a top-down imposition of the protestant movement onto a relatively unwilling populace. There are always people who end up claiming that Anglicanism is a political reformation. That it doesn't really have a great deal of spiritual formation to it or any sort of substantive Protestant doctrine at its core. Well, I think that myth, that Anglicanism really isn't a protestant movement, is driven by the fact that it is so different. It is such an enigma. One of the things I like to say, is that in order to understand anglicanism, you have to really change the motif that you're looking at here. We are so used to Luther's somewhat explosive reformation. Or some of the explosive reformation that you see in Switzerland, in France, and in other parts of Europe, where it seems that almost overnight you go from an overwhelmingly Catholic populous, maybe disgruntled, to suddenly you have a real core of those who are protestant leading the charge for a reformed or reformational church. Well, in the Anglican world, and the development of it in the early years in particular, you have to see it more like a mustard seed, which of course, is the parable that Christ tells about the mustard seed. That the kingdom is this smallest seed that grows and grows until it becomes something more substantive and massive than you ever would have thought when you looked at the seed. But it's still a reformation. The reason it can be useful to describe it as a mustard seed though, is because at one point in the early Anglican movement, the early English reformation, you can really count on one hand the number of people who are in favour of the reformation there, in their country. The other thing is, and this frankly is underappreciated, so many of the founders, and the formers, and the shapers of what would become known as Anglicanism end up being martyred or killed for their faith, and that really is something that ought to be appreciated. No one, frankly, in the Lutheran reformation, and really only Zwingli in the Swiss reformation, ever really died for their faith in the sense of being slaughtered, being burned at the stake. And so, what happens over time is the Anglican Movement, the Protestant voice in England, at times does take a more political tone. But this is due, in large part, to the fact that it had to take a political tone. In England, the will of the king, or later the queen is iron clad in the shaping of the church. And there really is nothing to compare that to on the continent. Zwingli has to stand before the City Council to defend his reformation and to get it applied there in Zurich. Calvin lived most of his life under the thumb, or at least at friction with the city leaders. But no one had a king like Henry the eighth, changing things seemingly with a flick of a wrist. The other factor that we now appreciate more about the English context than we ever really did before, is just how inhospitable it was to the reformation. If you were to plant your feet at the year 1500, and if you were to cast about looking for, frankly, the one country that we would believe is the least likely to accept the Reformation, it would be England. A lot of the problems that we have on the continent, things like uneducated clergy, or clerical abuse of maybe celibacy, or of their power, really doesn't happen in England. You have a really educated clergy, you have a real tight-knit band. If there are problems in the English church, the clergy root it out and get rid of it. And the educational factor is important, because a lot of what Luther and Calvin and others are asserting is an alternative understanding of the gospel. It's an intellectual principle, you might say, not entirely of course, but it's a theological, biblical argument that they're making, that the church is wrong and needs to change. And if you have an uneducated clergy, you really don't have the resources to fight it well. In England they did. They had plenty of resources. More importantly, though, the King, the sovereign over England, was really in tight with the papacy and we'll see this as we go on. From Henry the 7th to Henry the 8th, for a number of decades, in fact for roughly 15 years after Luther's reformation gets going, there is nothing hospitable to the Lutheran message. Well, the question then is just, what happened? How do we go from a devout Roman Catholic country of England, to what we now know it to be, which is a real fusion of church and state in a Protestant ethos, in this Anglican ethos. Well, to tell that story we have to go back into the latter middle ages. All of us will be aware of something called the Wars of the Roses Now, notice the language there. It's wars, it's multiple wars. It's not a single war and it's the Wars of the Roses. Well, what is this all about? Well, unfortunately, all this sort of language comes from none other than Shakespeare, who later, during the Elizabethan and Jacobean periods, roughly a century or more after the end of the Wars of the Roses, it's Shakespeare who applies to the two houses that were vying for control over England, the emblems of the white rose in the red rose. Shakespeare really borrows it from an earlier chronicle, etc. but even in the chronicle it's not used to the great effect that Shakespeare uses it in his plays. Well, the Wars of the Roses ever since have been known as this. And we do still use the red rose and the white rose as, more like an analogy, or as an emblem to remember the differences here. No one though, in the Wars of the Roses, would have actually seen themselves, full-stop, as being really identified merely by the color of a rose. Well, what happened was, in the middle ages, as we get closer to say 1500, we have a vying back and forth between two noble houses. The York family, the York dynasty, and the Lancastrian line, or the house of Lancaster. And the way the roses sort of divide up is, the York side is considered to be the white rose, and the Lancastrian side is said to be the red rose. Well, for a long period of time, both of these houses really trade off back and forth. Who is going to be king, or the sole ruler of England? Back and forth, different dynasties rise up and cast off the other one. But both sides actually go back to a single family, the Plantagenet family. And there's all kinds of dynastic squabbles back and forth. We're not going to go into all that. But it is, actually, quite dramatic. It's a bit of a soap opera at times. Well, as it happens, the end really of the Wars of the Roses happens in 1485, in the Battle of Bosworth Field. And this pits Henry the 7th, as the claim it to the Lancastrian side, against Richard the Third of the Yorkist side. Now, it's important to realize here, Henry the seventh really had not much of a claim to the throne. His name was Henry Tudor. Henry Tudor traced his lineage back not to a king, or a queen, or even to a lesser son from the double houses, but, if you can believe it, to a queen who, when her husband died, she took on a lover and she married one of the sort of, men of the entourage, there in the court. A man by the name of Jasper Tudor. And it's from that line that the Tudor dynasty is descended. Now, make note, this is not a dynastic claim. Dynasties are arranged according to the male line. Typically, very, very rarely can you go back and find a female line. But the Lancastrian side had been whipped, and so the next best thing was Henry. Well, for most of us the battle of Bosworth Field in 1485 is something we're not necessarily familiar with, but I can tell you right now, we're all familiar with one of the great slogans that Shakespeare came up with in his play Richard the third. At the battle of Bosworth Field, Richard the third is said to have been knocked from his horse, and in the play he says, famously, "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" And we all know this line, even if we don't know the context. Well, the context is, Richard the third is essentially being bested on the battlefield. Henry's troops are about to win and Richard the third essentially says have the kingdom. That's fine. I just want to live. Give me a horse and you can have it. But that doesn't happen, and Richard the third is slain, and as a result the Tudor dynasty comes to the throne. Now, we see this even today, if you've ever seen the Tudor rose, what happens is, Henry actually ends up marrying a princess from the York side, Elizabeth of York. Again, notice the name, York. She's from the white rose side. Well, Henry, being a Lancastrian, the intermarrying here is one of the real pivotal moments where the Wars of the Roses cease, because now any lineage in the issue between Henry and Elizabeth, is now believed to be bringing both the sides together. And it's for that reason that, whenever you see a Tudor rose, it's a red and a white rose intermixed now. What does all this have to do with the English reformation? Well, put simply, it means that the Tudor dynasty, the very dynasty that will shape all of Anglican history for its first century, has a weak claim to the throne. And if it's going to maintain its claim, having now really, in a matter of speaking, ripped the crown off the sitting King's head, and placed it on the head of Henry the seventh, if it's going to keep its dynasty, it's going to need heirs. And in particular, given the status of lineage and heritage in this day, they're going to need male heirs. That is really the crack in the armor that will eventually become a sort of yawning chasm that allows Protestantism to flood into England, because when you fast-forward, Henry the Seventh's son, Henry the Eighth, the great king that is beloved and well known, there's Showtime miniseries' about this character, etc. all kinds of movies, and Hollywood adaptations of this man, to this day, in fact Henry the Eighth is always ranked amongst the top two or three most beloved Kings in English history. Well, Henry the Eighth is the man who brings Protestantism to England. But notice, it's the dynastic problem in particular that's going to really vex Henry. The story of Henry the Eighth's involvement with Protestantism is a complx one, and it's not always easy to summarize. But needless to say, from roughly 1509, when he came to the throne until the late 1520's and on into the 1530s, Henry the Eighth was a devout Roman Catholic. A lot of this is driven both by personal faith, Henry was very conservative in his theological outlook, but it's also driven by the fact that those who have weak claims to the throne very often will buttress their claim through allegiances to people like the Pope. If the Pope likes Henry, well, he's not going anywhere. No one's gonna usurp him and overthrow him. It's during these early years, in particular, where you see Henry at his most ferocious against Protestantism. Protestant books are banned, regularly in England. Henry, to the day he died, hated Luther. In fact, in 1521 Henry the Eighth himself sat down to write a theological treatise against Luther, entitled, "The Defense of the Seven Sacraments." And the pope loved the book, he thought it was great. In fact, he loved it so much that he gave a title to Henry, the title of Defender of the Faith. And this is a title that actually is still taken. It's still part of the English monarchy's identity, you go look at a British pound, you're gonna still see things like D F there inscribed, which to this day means, Defender of the Faith. Now, of course today, it's Protestant faith, not the Catholic faith. But the origin of that title, the origin of that name, comes from the years when Henry was pretty blistering against Protestantism. These early years are the years of William Tyndale. William Tyndale eventually spends, frankly, the majority of his life in exile down in the Netherlands regions. William Tyndale was a committed Protestant, and he spent the majority of his life translating the Bible into English. Well, it's telling that by the end of his life, Henry actually had William Tyndale killed. He was captured in the Netherlands, turned over to the state, and he was strangled and then eventually burned. So, again in these early years of Henry's reign, from 1509 until roughly the late 1520's, there is no fertile ground for Protestantism. Henry is seeking them out and if he finds them, they are burned, or executed, or at the very least exiled. Now, this raises one minor point that's worth noting now. Typically, the story of the English reformation tells the story of this widespread, but quasi-Protestant movement called Lollardy. And the Lollards get their name, and their origin, from John Wycliffe, the medieval Oxford professor who led something of a reformation there, and who championed, amongst other things, the vernacular scriptures, the scriptures in English. Well, the old story was, that there was this widespread Native Protestantism, you might say, that syncs up a bit with Protestantism, and it's already this fertile ground. But we now know though, is that the presence of Lollards was pretty piecemeal and pretty weak. There were Lollards around but, by and large, they were pretty reclusive, they didn't always come out. And it was certainly not widespread enough to bolster or propel England, or Henry the Eighth, or anyone into the reformation. No, in fact, in England under Henry, for the first, say, opening 10 to 15 years of his reign, there is no Protestantism that's going to land on his soil, if he has anything to say about it. Now, one last piece, one of the more famous stores again is, of the university of Cambridge and something called the White Horse Inn. Now, the White Horse Inn was a tavern there, in the city. By the way, if you go there today there was something that calls itself, the White Horse Inn, that is not the original. The original is actually gone, though there is a plaque that still sort of decorates this alleyway between two colleges, that tells you where the White Horse Inn used to be. Well, the White Horse Inn is, again, the sort of apocryphal story, this legendary story, of a lot of people in the university reading Protestant works and really being inspired by it. But like the Lollards, frankly, often too much is made of this. We move from a picture of a ragtag group of people, to some sort of movement that sparks there in Cambridge. But, the fact of the matter is this, the White Horse Inn, was really nothing more than a glorified book club. And even though we can admit fully, that the people there were involved in the English reformation, those who are reading Luther's works, were committed protestants, but they are very very few a number. There's simply not enough numbers there to sustain anything like a serious movement towards Protestantism.
Certainly not with Henry the Eighth on the throne. So what happened? Well, the issue happened that Henry was having no male heirs. The same year he was crowned, Henry the Eighth married Catherine of Aragon. And Catherine was a very very well-to-do princess, she was one of the younger princesses from the Spanish house of Ferdinand and Isabella, the same monarchs, by the way, who sent Columbus sailing over the ocean blue in 1492. Well, Catherine of Aragon was a princess that had come up to England not to marry Henry, but to marry Henry's older brother, Arthur. This was an intermarrying of the two houses, and this was a very very important move for England, to marry into this powerful Catholic dynasty from Spain. The problem though, is Arthur had died young, only several years into his marriage. Well, no, it is not normal in this day and age, for someone to marry their dead brother's wife, to marry their sister-in-law. This was against canon law, and most believed, at some level at least, that it was against biblical law. Well, Kings get preferential treatment, and this is what happened. When Henry married Catherine of Aragon, there was a papal dispensation given that suspended the rules in this case, and allowed Henry to marry Catherine. A lot of this is dynastic squabbles, making sure that the very important princess, who has landed on English soil, is not simply shipped back, ending the partnership between these houses. But, it's also good for Henry. Henry does seem to have really loved Catherine, and they were married in 1509 and both coronated roughly about the exact same time. What happens though, is from 1509 to 1525, which is the last recorded case that we know of, of the two sharing a marriage bed, during those years there were a number of miscarriages. In fact, a pretty staggeringly high number. Trying to diagnose this medically from afar, with 500 years between us and them, is a bit difficult, but it does seem to be that there was frankly something biologically at fault here. Whether it was something to do with Catherine, or with Henry, it's hard to say, but the miscarriages kept coming. They did have one child, though, the Princess Mary, who will become Mary Tudor, who we'll see in a later lecture, but there were no male heirs, and so, at some point around 1525, or as late as 1527, Henry begins to have what we today call his Scruple of Conscience. And a lot of people see in this, a somewhat cynical twisting of Scripture by Henry. But he does seem to have believed that the Bible had somehow cursed him. Reading through the Deuteronomic and Levitical laws, Henry found a real important verse that said, "You shall not marry your dead brother's wife." And that says, if you do, you shall have no children. You'll be cursed. Henry seems to believe, and he really moves this way pretty quickly, that what had happened with the papal dispensation to allow him to marry Catherine should not have happened. Now, this is not by and large, terribly controversial. No one would believe, for example, that if it was biblical law that the Pope could suspend that law. The question here is, is this rule, the barring of marrying your dead brother's wife, is this biblical law or is this canon law? If it's canon law, well, the pope can suspend it. If it's biblical law, he cannot. Well, what happens with Henry is he moves from believing that the pope had the right to suspend this rule, to ever-increasingly, he comes to the conclusion that the pope should not have done this. And so the Scruple of Conscience is that he believes he is sinning by being married to Catherine of Aragon. And there are all kinds of complexities here, but around 1527, Henry does eventually come in contact with, and he begins a love affair, not sexual at first, but he begins a love affair with Anne Boleyn. He falls in love with her, frankly. Now, he initially seeks out that they become, sort of a mistress relationship, that she simply be there for him physically, let's say. But she holds back, she says, no, she will only marry him. And that really becomes the sort of gasoline on the fire for Henry to really press for the pope to absolve the marriage between he and Catherine. And so, that's what he does. In 1529, there was a famous trial, the trial of Blackfriars. And what's going on here is, the Pope is willing to hear Henry's case. In this case, Henry is, you might say, putting himself on trial. So, even though Henry wants this, what's going on is the Pope is, you might say, sitting in judgment, sitting in trial, with Henry as the defendant as to whether or not he is breaking God's law by being married to Catharine. Now, the trial Blackfriars is high drama. All kinds of ins and outs. At one point Catherine drops one of these kind of Hollywood bombs in the courtroom by declaring suddenly that she and Arthur had not had sex, that he had been unable, during their marriage, which, of course, would mean the law is not in effect at all. That she was a virgin when she married Henry. The other complexity is Catharine being from a very important house, she was the aunt to the sitting Holy Roman Emperor, Charles V. The same Charles V, by the way, who put Luther on trial. That Charles V, is the nephew of Catherine of Aragon. Well, it's that political piece that is the most pivotal here, because when the Pope sends a cardinal up to convene this trial, and to hear it, he whispers into his ear, "Don't you dare make a decision one way or the other." The Pope really is in an awkward spot here. He neither wants to ruin or frustrate Charles, the most powerful man in Europe, but he also wants to keep a good relationship with England. Well, at the end, the Cardinal sues and finds a way out, by declaring, by the end of the trial, that they were going to go into recess for the hot summer months. And this is an old tradition. You would break for the summer and you would come back in the fall. Well, the cardinal scoots and even flees back to realm, never to return to England. As a result, Henry is mortified and embarrassed. This is a public show trial, and he has now been, he feels, betrayed by the Pope. From this point on, from the Trial of Blackfriars on, Henry increasingly is ready to to simply do away with the Pope. In 1531, for example he issues from Parliament a claim of Praemunire against the clergy. Now the statute of Praemunire is an important one in the middle ages. It's actually an anti treason law. This law was put into place that basically said citizens cannot appeal to a monarch or to a ruler outside of England for either guidance or direction. But that's treasonous. If you're under the kingship of England, that is your sovereign. You do not ask, say the king of Scotland, or France what they think you ought to be doing. Well, notice here in 1531, the statute of Praemunire is leveraged against the clergy. Why? Well, they are appealing to an outside ruler. This Pope guy down there in Rome. They are treasonous They should be appealing only to their King. In this you'll see, in fact, a kernel of where Henry the Eighth is going. He is essentially going to remove the Pope. Now, as we'll see, Henry doesn't want to get rid of traditional Catholicism, but he wants to get rid of the Pope, and so that's what he is beginning to do. And this all comes to a head in 1534, with the very, very important Act of Royal Aupremacy. In the Act of Royal Supremacy, which, to a greater or lesser extent, is you might say, still in effect today with obvious exceptions and changes to that rule over the years, the Act of Supremacy declares that the King, the monarch, is the head of the church, there in England. To this day, again, just to show that this is relatively still the fact, the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, is said to be the Governor of the English Church, not of the Catholic Church, or other denominations, but over the Anglican church. Well, this begins here with Henry. Now, it's often sometimes said that Anglicanism is Catholicism without the Pope. That is a wildly anachronistic and false view of the history of Anglicanism. But, if there's anybody who you might say actually is Catholic without the Pope, it's Henry. He wants the seven sacraments. He wants traditional religion. He wants at least the majority of the cultic and the ritual practices to remain, but he has now tossed the pope out, here in 1534. Now, the problem with this, of course, is so much of the Catholic heritage and practice and belief is grounded on the Pope as the vicar of Christ, and on his authority. One of the great jokes, actually, of Henry is that he is like a man who threw someone off the top of a steeple and ordered him to stop halfway down. Throw the Pope out of England, and so, much of the protestant message suddenly does begin to creep in. And it's actually very telling. Throughout a great number of the years, 1530s in fact, Protestants begin to insinuate themselves and come closer and closer and closer to Henry, and he begins to give them power, and influence, and authority on shaping not just the state, but also the church. In fact, it's during this moment during these 1530s, when Thomas Cranmer, in many ways one of the main founders of the Anglican ethos, through the book of Common Prayer, which we'll look at later, comes to have a say, or a voice, and Henry's ear. Well, if that's Henry, if that's how the Anglican reformation gets going, what are we to make of this? Well, a couple of things. You have to realize that while it is true that Henry started the Anglican church over marriage, and sex, and babies, it would be wrong to believe that Anglicanism itself is founded on these reasons. Rather, you might say, that Henry changed his mind about the authority of the Pope, because of those issues for him, personally. Rightly or wrongly, whether we think Henry is a saint or sinner during this process, that itself is more the proxy war that starts Anglicanism. It's the Scruple of Conscience, in other words, that leads Henry to kick the Pope out, and it's that move, the disentangling of the monarchy from the Papacy, that is the entry point for Protestantism to come to England. Now, it will take some time, but it is at this point that you begin to see a noticeable uptick in the amount of influence, and the amount of sway, that Protestantism begins to have in England. And you carry that forward for a century, and eventually, you have jolly old protestant England. Well, the first major lurch forward, because Henry, again, he kept pumping the brakes, he kept trying to stop too much Protestantism from coming into his land. Again, he hated Luther to the day that he died. But yet, he had Cranmer as his right-hand man, as the Archbishop of Canterbury, who loved Luther, and actually approved of his gospel. Cranmer was Protestant. Very, very complex. Well, the real lurch forward, you might say, came with the death of Henry and the rise of his son, Edward the Sixth, to the throne. The strange thing about Henry is, he did eventually have a son with his third wife. Edward was born and because he was a male heir, he gets bumped to the front of the line. And so, he is being groomed, all throughout his life, to be the immediate successor to Henry. Well, Edward was, believe it or not, raised and trained by Protestant tutors. Henry, and people really sort of scratched their head about this, they're not quite sure what to make of it. But Henry does seem to kind of either take his eye off the ball or simply just kind of leaves it up to other people to determine who the best tutors will be for Edward. Well, given the influence and the sway of Protestants, there in Henry's court, they're by no means the only figures there, but certainly a dominating voice. Well, they eventually picked Protestant tutors. And so, in a strange twist Edward, was raised spending the majority of his life, in terms of at least for his education, studying the scriptures, learning Protestant theology, and frankly, becoming entirely ingratiated and ingrained with the Protestant faith. And so, in 1547, when Henry died, there was a bit of a coup. There was a Privy Council, a sort of board of rulers, that was set to rule for Edward, until he reached the age of 18, which would be the year of his majority. Edward, at this point is a boy King. He's only the age nine. But the Privy Council, the people ruling for Edward, were entirely, again, because of some intrigue there in the court, made up of Evangelical Protestants. So, again almost overnight you go from Henry the 8th, who was pumping the brakes, to this boy-King Edward, who is being raised as a Protestant. And to the day he died, there were all kinds of indications that he was a zealously committed Protestant. But not only that, you have a board governing on behalf of Edward, who are all Protestant. Well, it's the reign of Edward that you have this great lurch forward. All the Catholic monasteries, and votaries, and cultic shrines, etc. are suppressed and destroyed. Not only that, but despite the fact that the populace was still overwhelmingly Catholic, Cranmer, through the board, issued not one, but two books of Common Prayer. One in 1549 and one in 1552. Now these books of Common Prayer are sometimes misread. And the misreading of them goes back, I think, to the misreading of what the context is. If you believe that England is overwhelmingly Protestant or Lollard, well, then Cranmer's prayer books seem, on at least one surface level, to be pretty conservative. They seem to be relatively Catholic or Catholicizing. They're kind of a mixture of Catholic and Protestant liturgies. Not fully, by any means, there's still only two sacraments and the Lord's supper is described as spiritual eating, not physical eating. It's hardly Catholic. But, it's also not Swiss or German, in the sort of overhaul of the liturgy and doctrine of the church. Well, if you flip that around and you realize that with the coup, with the takeover of the Privy Council under Edward, and with Edward himself coming to the throne, and with the fact that Henry, not that long before, had sort of lurched England into this quasi-Protestant camp, what you ought to realize is that the populace is overwhelmingly Catholic. They don't want a Reformation, still. And so, when you actually look at the 1549 prayer book, the first one, it is piecemeal, because what you see Cranmer are doing here is slowly spoon-feeding the word of God, and the preaching, and the liturgy of the church, into a world, into a context, that is overwhelmingly Catholic. Not only that, but there were two, count them, two massive riots in 1549, when the first one was issued, by the Catholic Populace. They knew what this was. They knew this was Protestant. And they knew that it was moving away from the traditional forms of worship that they had known. So, the context really describes why the 1549 Prayer Book was somewhat halting, somewhat piecemeal. It also explains why, just three years later in 1552 Cranmer, issued a second edition, this one overwhelmingly Protestant. He is taking one more baby step forward towards the Protestant faith. Well, the crisis at this point for Anglicanism, the problem is, that you have a populace, a laity, that has not fully embraced or become normalized to a Protestant ethos. You have a more top-down reformation. Now it's a myth to say that England is top-down, and everything else is grassroots. Again, go to Zwingli's Reformation in Zurich. This is as top-down as you get. The City Council just declares that they're going to be protestant. And you see this in other cities throughout Europe, as well. People just forget this fact when they look at England. But it is still a relatively top-down Reformation. It's still king-led, you might say or government led. But in a world before the separation of church and state, that's not all that verboten. The problem though, is that Edward dies, in 1553. Just a year after the second prayer book was issued. In many ways, the death of Edward meant the death of more, you might say calvinistic, or reformed, or really kind of heady robust Protestantism, ever coming to England. The seed had only been but barely planted there in England and more importantly, with the death of Edward, there rose to the throne, Mary Tudor. Mary, the daughter of Katherine, who like her mother before her, was devoutly Catholic. And we'll look at the transition from Mary to Elizabeth in a later lecture, but you need to see this now. From Henry to Edward, you have a lurch from sort of half- Protestant, kind of kick the Pope out, but try to keep it much the same, to this fully Protestant faith, there under Edward. To now, in 1553, back to the Catholic fold. And five years after that, back to the Protestant fold. This back and forth really becomes the context, and the you might say the rationale for what will eventually become the Anglican ethos, at least culturally. That is to say, the scar tissue that builds up from the ripping back and forth, and back and forth, leads to a lack of formation within Anglicanism, of some of the more robust scholastic or confessional identifications that you see in Calvinism or in Lutheranism. In fact, Anglicanism will wait for a couple of generations before it really begins to ingrain and to deepen what it means to be Anglican.
