A History of Anglicanism: Part 1 – Christianity in the British Isles before the Reformation

Part 1 in a Series on the History of Anglicanism. In Part goes into Christianity in the British Isles, particularly England, before the English Reformation.

Maple Anglican

#christiantheology, #doctrinesofchristianity, #branchesoftheology, #christiandoctrines


  1. Μάριος Ελευθεριάδης says:

    Why does that blue symbol you show at the beginning of the video have greek letters on it?

  2. Alun Rees says:

    To our land stiff with cold, the true sun even Christ first yields his rays I mean his precepts in the last days as we know of Tiberius, that’s 37 ad , and it was Llid now Llanilid in Glamorgan wales who brought it to the Britons, the Cymry welsh, and Cornish , when Caradog was taken to Rome Christianity was taken back to Rome his son was the first bishop of Rome

  3. The Celtic Sanctuary says:

    The celts were right. It is supposed to be dated to the full moon not a sunday

  4. Coach Gregory says:

    Love learning about this Christian Faith. Do you offer Anglican courses?



  6. Elizabeth Conkle says:

    Nice job! Thank you for this thorough overview of early Anglican history.

  7. Terrance Yeates says:

    Very good, thank u.

  8. Wayne Ogg says:

    I wish you had at least recorded part 7. Any chance you can do that?

  9. Jason Welle says:

    Your pronunciation is so bad, it's adorable, Mapes. 😉

  10. nilo felipe pereira says:

    Please, it's very necessary that all this material on the Church of England is translated into Spanish.

  11. Modern Philosophy says:

    If Roman Catholicism was the only Christian church in Europe, then wouldn't the saints of whom the Anglican Church would recognize be Catholic. Also, why was there a split wouldn't Roman Catholicism be the original church instead of what we see today as Anglicanism? I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head on this, if anyone could answer my question I would very much like to hear it.

  12. Mark Newlan says:

    Excellent presentation – just what I was after. Looking forward to the other parts. Thanks.

  13. Kamen Rider says:

    Tq for the info..now i know better

  14. MrCool Mug says:

    This is brilliant. I am just learning the history of the English church and I always suspected we were something between catholicism and protestantism, never quite either one.

  15. Keith Parr says:

    As a lover of Church history I want to say thank you for sharing the history of your Church! I truly enjoy your videos.
    Thanks again!

  16. Mike Henderson says:

    IMHO and commentary of the development of Christianity in England should mention St Aiden, St Bede and St Cuthbert. 

  17. Greg L says:


  18. The Invader says:

    Having genetically come from Denmark then E. Anglia by way of Angle settlers and later Vikings, I'll say that Christianity is the biggest hoax pulled on man. It was forced on Europe by sword and the tip of spears… in essence believe or die. If not that, it was the threat of some mystical everlasting life or after-death using Monks to force it. It's just not so wonderful when you are to "do this" or die. For me there was never a god and I'll thank genetics for that. 

  19. Nimo753 says:

    this is cool – im sharing this with m youth group .. being attached to the catholic faith realy realy sucks..

  20. poesravenfan says:

    Great presentation. I am an Episcopalian in the US. Love that you explained our history so throughly.

  21. Kaleb Lippert says:

    I am faithful to the TRUE Catholic Church NOT the monarch!

  22. Aspect719 says:

    Christianity in Britain can be traced the the third century. What source did you use supporting your claim that Christianity was in Britain as early as the first or second century?

  23. Maple Anglican says:

    You may have noticed but this video is part of a series on the history of *Anglicanism*. I had to explain that the Union didn't affect the Churches of England and Scotland. And I explained the coming switch to point out in the next video (which I will probably never make) that George I converting from Lutheranism to Anglicanism was without issue.
    Nothing really important in Anglicanism happened under Queen Anne, which is why I ignored her.

  24. Martin James says:

    Surprised you haven't mentioned Anne, who took the throne in 1702 after William died. She WAS a Stuart by lineage, but that didn't matter any more for the reason above.

    It was in her time (1707) that the two states and Parliaments of Scotland and England became one, forming Britain (called "Great" only to distinguish it from the smaller Britain aka Brittany). That was a politicians' stitch-up and nothing to do with Anne, who was a mere spectator and the most pathetic of powerless cyphers..

  25. Martin James says:

    I know of nobody who takes such a distorted and eccentric view.

    Was the House of Stuart still in power after Mary died and William was the sole monarch? The politicians were well in charge by that time anyway, as settled in the Bill of Rights (England) and the Claim of Right (Scotland) in 1688/89. These set the terms on which the monarchy was subservient in all but name to Parliament.

  26. 12from121 says:

    Oh dear! I clearly indicate I am an outsider and make an emotional link and you seem to think I care about whether it survives or not. I don't

  27. Martin James says:

    Anglo-centrism is maybe forgivable in covering Anglicanism, but the title is misleading. This does not cover Christianity in the British Isles, as claimed, just in England.

  28. Martin James says:

    What do you mean by "reformation"? Henry VIII changed nothing except who was boss. The theology was largely unaltered (much as Cranmer tried) except for the use of English in churches. It was only after his death that Cranmer could really get busy trying to make the Cof E Protestant under Edward VI, amidst much controversy and resistance. Then Mary I changed everything back to extreme Catholicism and Cranmer was burnt as a heretic. Nothing was really fixed until 1689 -150 years after Henry..

  29. Martin James says:

    There was no such entity as England at the time of the Synod of Whitby. The dispute was between the Roman church, dominating most of what would later become England, and the Celtic church, mainly in what would later be Scotland, Ireland and parts of Wales. It had some following in Northumbria, too, and that now falls partly in England (including Whitby) and partly in Scotland. You can view it as a struggle between two ecclesiastical powers based respectively in Iona and Whitby>Rome.

  30. Maple Anglican says:

    Not necessarily. There are some inroads right now on healing wounds that are working quite well. At the same time the Gay rights movement is slowly making head-ways in Africa.

    I am pretty certain though we will find something else to argue about in 50 years that will cause huge problems.

  31. Maple Anglican says:

    Actually, the name changed in 1917. William III may have been House of Orange but he (via his wife) are viewed as having reigned in the House of Stuart.

  32. Martin James says:

    No, the Church of England is quite a small part of the worldwide Anglican communion (yes, it's called "Episcopalian" in the USA, Canada and Scotland). The Cof E is dwarfed by the AFRICAN Anglican churches in numbers and increasingly in influence.

  33. Martin James says:

    It doesn't, unfortunately. See above.

  34. Martin James says:

    What? Ripped apart by extremely bitter -homophobic- controversy? The concept of the "broad church" might still tenuously hold in England and a few other places, but not in Africa, for example. As a world denomination, Anglicanism is done for and the big split cannot be far off. The homophobes are intransigent!

  35. Martin James says:

    Henry VIII cynically rode a tide which was running ANYWAY, though as minimally as possible. Protestantism was sweeping through Scotland, remember, and was vigorous in England. It was the Protestant Scots king who succeeded to the English throne in 1603.

    You overlook the fact that England reverted to Catholicism under Henry's daughter, Mary I before Protestantism prevailed, albeit in the mainly Erastian / Arminian / Laudinist form, rather than the Calvinist one adopted in Scotland.

  36. Martin James says:

    Eh? Two royal lines were extinguished or sacked between Elizabeth 1 and the not-dead-yet Elizabeth Saxe-Coburg-Goethe (name changed in 1914 -I wonder why). The politicians effectively hired replacements in both cases.

    In between the Welsh House of Tiwdwr ("Tudor"), there was the Scots House of Stuart ("Stewart"), the Dutch House of Orange and the German House of Hanover.

  37. Martin James says:

    The wrong way round twice! The insecurity of monarchs (including two very powerful QUEENS, Mary and Elizabeth, the latter managing to survive for a very long time) was a product of the wars of religion, both ideological and physical, not vice-versa.

    Nothing could be more Protestant / Evangelical than the "39 Articles" of 1563, which remains the theological basis of the CofE today -at least in theory. "Anglo-Catholicism" or the "High Church" was a later innovation -mainly early 19th century..

  38. Martin James says:

    I suggest there was more to it than that, especially strong cultural factors. As independent peoples on the Atlantic periphery, they were not readily inclined to submit to the "correct line" of a distant "central committee" (to couch it in highly appropriate Stalinist terms).

  39. Martin James says:

    Indeed, the virtually unique word order of the 6 Celtic languages is shared by only 3 others known in modern or ancient times. The only real dispute is about the people the OP inaccurately calls "Picts" (a Latin sneer -not what they called themselves). Were they also a Brythonic ("P-Celtic) people? Scholarship varies from "yes" to "not known". What is certain is that they were apparently absorbed into Gaeldom without apparent conquest, notwithstanding a fearsome reputation.

  40. Martin James says:

    Too semantic. The term is used to embrace the two groups of people, clearly related by philology and culture, but distinct from each other long before arrival in these islands and further diversified once here. Those were the Brythonic peoples ("P-Celts") -here before the Romans and the Gaels ("Q-Celts") who arrived around the time of the Romans withdrawal. Their common ancestry is clearly distinguishable in the 6 surviving Celtic languages, whether you use that name or not.

  41. Maple Anglican says:

    "So Jesus's definition can be ignored"? Sorry, I don't follow?

  42. Maple Anglican says:

    I understand what you are saying but I disagree with you. In the context of this video Roman Christianity described the particular "brand" of Christianity brought to Britain with St. Augustine. Celtic Christianity had already been present but had been displaced. Both had the same doctrines but involved different practices much like Eastern Orthodoxy does compared to Western Christianity.

  43. Maple Anglican says:

    Regarding King Æthelberht of Kent: by the time he converted Rome had very little temporal power.Conversely, he may have been open to converting as his wife was Christian.
    Regarding the Feast of Easter: I would invite you to see my video:What is Easter at watch?v=U2BqzurJ8jI.

  44. Tomi Thompson says:

    There is a very interesting part here about "king "John. John sent King Richard on a phony expedition somewhere so he could upsurp the throne. What effect did this have on the Anglican church at that time? My email is :tomi.thompson.clinpsych@gmail.com. I would enjoy getting an Anglican church's authoriatkve answer on this, please. Thank you.

  45. Maple Anglican says:

    Well, the Celts were the inhabitants of the British Isles at the time the Romans invaded. They were displaced by the Germanic Tribes (Angles, Saxons, Jutes, et al) whom invaded after the Roman legions left. The brand of Christianity the Celts had was rather unique as it gave a large amount of power to Abbots and Priors of the Religious Houses.