Anglicanism currently has a substantial charismatic element to it, particularly in the ACNA. Over at the ACNA website, they even have this statement about the so-called “Three Streams” of the Church which are held together in Anglicanism:

The Protestant movement recalled the 16th century Church to the primacy of the Word—written, read, preached, inwardly digested. The 18th century Holiness movement reminded the Church of God’s love for the poor. The Anglo-Catholic movement re-grounded the Church in the sacramental life of worship. All three strands are grounded in the Gospel. Each one extrapolates the Gospel in a specific direction. No strand is dispensable. Other Christian bodies have often taken one strand to an extreme. By God’s grace the Anglican tradition has held the streams in creative tension. This miracle of unity is a treasure worth keeping.

This quote raises a number of points, not least of which is the role and influence of your denomination’s webmaster. Before our bishops got their boots on, this framework for understanding Anglicanism made its way across the world. I’ve found that Anglo-Catholics tend to dislike Three Streams just as much as Reformational Anglicans do. The people who like it are the “liberal Catholics” (even if they end up being rather socially conservative these days, the nomenclature still fits) and the broad Evangelicals, both of whom are strongly charismatic. The “Holiness movement” mentioned above predates the modern Charismatic movement, but it has largely been absorbed by it.

But what do the Anglican Formularies say about this?

You won’t find a strict “cessationism” according to the terms of 2026. That wasn’t how anyone operated in the 16th and 17th centuries. Instead, the gifts were often treated in a more variegated way. Some kinds of prophecy were admitted, mostly what we would consider civil or political prophecies. Leadings of the Spirit were typically explained under the category of divine providence. Miraculous healing was allowed, but on an occasional and rather informal basis. You didn’t have “Faith Healers,” per se. The miraculous version of speaking in tongues, however, was said to have definitively ceased.

You can see this in The Homily on Common Prayer and Sacraments:

If euer it had bin tolerable to vse strange tongues in the congregations, the same might haue beene in the time of Paul and the other Apostles, when they were miraculously endued with gifts of tongues. For it might then haue perswaded some to imbrace the Gospel, when they had heard men that were Hebrewes borne and vnlearned, speake the Greeke, the Latine, and other languages. But Paul thought it not tolerable then: And shall wee vse it now, when no man commeth by that knowledge of tongues, otherwise then by diligent and earnest study? GOD forbid. For wee should by that meanes bring all our Church exercises to friuolous superstition, and make them altogether vnfruitfull. 

Notice that line: no man comes by knowledge of tongues except through diligent and earnest study. This is contrasted against the apostolic era “when they were miraculously endued with gifts of tongues.”

For historic Anglicans, the regular and ongoing miracle of speaking in tongues has ceased.