It is sometimes said in jest that Anglican theology is the unending task of Anglicans attempting to answer the question, “what is Anglicanism?”^[1] Modern Anglicanism seems to have little self-understanding of its own rich tradition. However, when turning to the primary sources, it appears that the Anglican divines of the English Reformation had a clearer, though by no means uniform, perception of what the English church was in terms of its theological and liturgical commitments.

One of the chief areas of disagreement concerns the status of the Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion. While none can dispute the importance of the Articles to the Anglican tradition and their formal recognition during the reign of Elizabeth I in 1571, scholars disagree on how they were received and functioned in the years following. Some, such as J.I. Packer and Stephen Hampton, insist that the Articles are an Anglican confession of faith, summarizing the beliefs and practices necessary to Anglicanism that are still binding on Anglicans today.^[2] Some claim that Anglicanism, unlike other magisterial Protestant traditions, has no confession of any sort.^[3] Geoffrey Rowell, for instance has made this contention, arguing that the Church of England did not draft a confession of faith similar to any of the continental churches, and instead relied primarily on the ecumenical creeds (Apostles’, Nicene, and Athanasian).^[4] Others, while recognizing a confessional role of the Articles historically, no longer see them as authoritative or necessary for an Anglican identity.^[5] Rather, the Articles merely represent some theological trends of the late 16^th and early 17^th century Church of England, with no binding authority beyond their historic and geographical context. On all sides, although superficial appeals to the history of confessionalism in the Church of England are presented, it seems the driving force behind various commitments are primarily theological posturing and church politics.

Against those who insist on removing or altering the Thirty-Nine Articles to accommodate the times, little can be said. Such revisionism, however, remains uncommon in the Anglican tradition. More common is the position taken by Rowell and others, which asserts that the Church of England’s relationship to the Articles, along with later Anglican bodies, has always been flexible, and thus amending or removing them would be inconsequential for a historic Anglican identity. This position, however, bears a high burden of proof. Does Anglican history reflect this attitude toward the Thirty-Nine Articles?

In order to make some headway into a sober historical analysis of the Thirty-Nine Articles, a necessary step is to examine primary source evidence that sheds light on the ways in which the Articles were received among ecclesial authorities between 1571 and 1662, the time of Elizabeth I to the restoration under Charles II. This period is significant for several reasons. First, it covers almost the first century of the Articles’ existence and use in the church. Should any supposed laxity have existed in the church’s relationship to the Articles, it surely would have become evident during this time. Second, this period covers generational changes in the monarchy and church leadership. During this time we see a shift from the Tudor to the Stuart dynasties, the rise of Puritanism, a proto Anglo-Catholic movement, and a civil war that was partly ignited over religious disagreements. These would have exposed any flexibility had it been a live option for the Church of England at the time. Third, 1662 marks the introduction of another major element of the Anglican tradition, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. This edition provided a new sense of liturgical and doctrinal uniformity to the Anglican Church, and marked the beginning of consistent inclusion of the Articles in subsequent printings of the Book of Common Prayer.

An examination of official statements from monarchs, bishops, and other ecclesial authorities during this timeframe, I contend, shows that the Articles undoubtedly did serve as an authoritative confession of faith in the early Church of England.^[6] For the purposes of this essay, I define confession in the following way: a confession is an authoritative statement of doctrine that claims to articulate the truths of Scripture for a distinct ecclesial body composed of a plurality of churches through successive generations. Furthermore, confessions function as a doctrinal standard for ordained clergy, a pedagogical tool for teaching and catechesis of the laity, and can be used in matters of church discipline over doctrinal issues.

I. The Thirty-Nine Articles in the Elizabethan Church

When Queen Elizabeth I ascended the throne in 1558, the Church of England was in disarray following Queen Mary’s reign. Elizabeth’s church was home to both Roman holdouts and newly impassioned Puritans. To provide some stability, Elizabeth reverted to the status quo at the end of Edward VI’s reign in 1553, repealing Mary’s various anti-Protestant ecclesial laws.^[7] Yet one element of Edward’s brief Protestant reign remained missing. The Forty-Two Articles of Religion, whose brief confessional status was cut short with Edward’s death just a month after their adoption, were not revived.^[8]

In 1563, Convocation was finally tasked with drafting a new doctrinal statement. This became the Thirty-Nine Articles. Far from original, these were essentially a revision of the Forty-Two Articles.^[9] Though authorized in 1563, the Articles would not receive full royal approval and authority until 1571, largely due to dispute over Article 29 on the eucharist. Peter Marshall is correct in stating that “Elizabeth’s Church now possessed a doctrinal ‘Confession,’ but the status of the articles remained oddly provisional.”^[10] Yet the force of the Articles was felt early on. For example, one reform proposal presented in the Lower House of Convocation in 1563 had requested a weakening of the language in Article 33, “Of Excommunicated Persons.” Clearly, the Articles were important enough to be worth arguing about from the beginning.^[11]

The Canons of 1571, issued by Convocation alongside the now officially recognized Thirty-Nine Articles, contain the first regulations associated with the Articles. Though not signed by Elizabeth, these canons contain valuable insights into the attitude of the bishops and served as a basis for the 1604 canons that would receive royal sanction. Canon 6 declares:

And since those Articles of the Christian Religion to which assent was given by the bishops in lawful and holy synod convened and celebrated by… Elizabeth… collected from the holy books of the Old and New Testament… contain nothing contrary to this same doctrine, whosoever shall be sent to teach the people shall confirm the authority and faith of those Articles not only in their sermons but also by subscription. Whoever does otherwise, and perplexes the people with contrary doctrine, shall be excommunicated.^[12]

The clergy were required to subscribe to and teach in accordance with the Articles, on pain of excommunication. It is important to recognize that while Canon 6 is directed at the clergy, the intention is to enforce unity in the church and provide sound biblical teaching to the laity. However, contemporary historians, such as Rowell, are quick to write off the Articles as confessional because subscription was required only of clergy, not laity (later documents, we will see, reveal it was not so simple).^[13] But this misses the point entirely: the very reason for clerical subscription was to ensure that the laity heard and affirmed sound doctrine.

Later in 1571, Parliament passed the Subscription Act, officially requiring clergy to subscribe to the Articles. Notably, a different bill, motivated by Puritan sympathies, that would only require subscription to some “core doctrinal” portion of the Articles was rejected in favor of the Subscription Act.^[14]

The Subscription Act demanded that each member of the clergy “declare his assent, and subscribe to all the articles of religion, which only concern the confession of the true Christian faith and the doctrine of the sacraments.”^[15] Furthermore, the priest must present a signed certificate from his bishop authenticating his subscription, and publicly “read the said testimonial and the said Articles” before the parish, with the penalty of removal from the clergy for failing to do so.^[16] The Act also requires that, from henceforth, all future candidates for ordination to the priesthood must subscribe to and publicly read the Articles before the parish church with a declaration of assent.^[17] It is of great significance that this act, along with the subscription, required such public recognition. This illustrates an important way in which the Articles were intended to be received by the entire church: the clergy alone must subscribe, but the laity must hear and even hold the clergy accountable to their public subscription.

The Subscription Act certainly made an impression on the Puritan wing of the English church, provoking The First Admonition to Parliament which voiced the complaints of Puritan clergy: “Their pontifical (which is annexed to the Book of Common Prayer, and whereunto subscribing to the articles, we must subscribe also)… is nothing else but a thing word for word drawn out of the pope’s pontifical, wherein he showeth himself to be Antichrist most lively.”^[18] The substance of these criticisms are not the point of the present discussion. This harsh reaction simply illustrates the forceful requirement for subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles, and the impact it was having on the Church of England.

In 1583, Archbishop of Canterbury John Whitgift (r.1583-1604) issued the Articles Touching Preachers and Other Orders for the Church. In it, Whitgift lists a number of requirements for those who “preach, read, catechize, minister the sacraments, or… execute any other ecclesiastical function,” the most relevant of which is that

he alloweth the book of Articles of religion, agreed upon by the archbishops and bishops of both provinces, and the whole clergy in the Convocation holden at London in the year of our Lord God 1562, and set forth by her majesty’s authority, and that he believeth all the Articles therein contained to be agreeable to the word of God.^[19]

Twelve years after their formal adoption, and through the transfer of ecclesial authority to a new archbishop, subscription to the Articles remained a necessary condition for ministry in the Church of England. Whitgift’s instructions to his clergy go even further, demanding that ordinands be examined to “note the sentences of Scripture whereupon the truth of the said Articles is grounded.”^[20] It should be recognized, as Gerald Bray notes, that “These Articles were only haphazardly enforced during Elizabeth’s reign, but they were incorporated as Canon 36 of the Canons of 1604, after which subscription to them was regularly insisted upon.”^[21] Yet this difficulty in enforcement was not for lack of Whitgift’s zeal to do so. In a statement to the Privy Council, written later that year, he states, “The Gospel can take no success, neither the number of papists be diminished, if unity be not procured; which I am not in doubt in short time to bring to pass, without any great ado or inconvenience at all, if it be not hindered.”^[22]

It should be clear, based on the sources discussed above, that the Thirty-Nine Articles were implemented and enforced as a confessional doctrinal authority for the Church of England during Queen Elizabeth I’s reign. From 1571 to 1603, the Articles were the definitive public declaration of doctrine for the Church of England, both internally for its clergy and laity and externally to the Roman and other Protestant churches.

II. The Thirty Nine Articles in the Jacobian Church

King James I ascended the English throne in 1603. The few years leading up to this were contentious for Protestants sympathetic to Puritanism, a significant portion of whom desired further reforms than the Elizabethan church would allow and felt growing dissatisfaction with the Book of Common Prayer.^[23] Though James seems to have been more amicable toward the Puritans, his ecclesial policies remained generally conservative.

The Canons of 1604 are perhaps the most often discussed primary source in debates surrounding the Thirty-Nine Articles. Commissioned under the leadership of Whitgift but completed by his successor, Richard Bancroft (r.1604-1610), they built upon and expanded previous declarations and became the most comprehensive set of ecclesial rules for the Protestant Church of England up to that point. Canon 5 is the most significant for the status of the Articles:

Whosoever shall hereafter affirm, That any of the nine and thirty Articles agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy, in the Convocation holden at London, in the year of our Lord God one thousand five hundred sixty- two, for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the establishing of consent touching true Religion, are in any part superstitious or erroneous, or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto; let him be excommunicated ipso facto, and not restored, but only by the Archbishop, after his repentance, and public revocation of such his wicked errors.^[24]

To teach against the Articles of Religion was an offense worthy of excommunication, indicating the strict expectations of adherence to the doctrines set forth in them. This essentially repeats previous statements made in Parker’s Advertisements (1566) and Whitgift’s aforementioned Articles Touching Preachers (1583).^[25]

Disagreement over what exactly was required by the 1604 Canons abounds in the Anglican tradition. For example, C.H. Davis disagrees with an interpretation of Canon 5 that would require strict adherence to the Articles. Relying on previous statements made by Archbishop William Laud (r.1633-1640), he argues,

they are directed against open impugners only, and not against all who may privately differ from the Church’s standards in some particulars. Thus Archbishop Laud, in his work ‘On Tradition,’ xiv., 2… in answer to the objection that the Church of England excommunicates every man who holds anything contrary to any part of the Articles, says: ‘Surely these are not the very words of the Canon, nor perhaps the sense. Not the words; for they are, “Whosoever shall affirm that the Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous,” … and perhaps not the sense; for it is one thing for a man to hold an opinion privately within himself, and another thing boldly and publicly to affirm it.’ So that the offence contemplated by the Canons appears to be not the mere holding of such opinions, nor the mere private dissent from some portions of the Church’s standards, but the open impugning of them — the bold and public affirmation of disapproval of them.^[26]

Yet, a closer look at other aspects of the 1604 Canons seems to suggest otherwise. Laud’s interpretation of Canon 5, and those that stem from it, appears to be entirely novel and negligent of the broader context.

Canon 36 offers three “articles of subscription” for those who are to be received into ministry in the Church of England. First is recognition of the status of the monarch as supreme governor in England over matters both temporal (political) and spiritual (ecclesiastical). The second is the affirmation that the Book of Common Prayer and Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons “containeth in it nothing contrary to the Word of God, and that it may lawfully so be used.” The third states:

That he alloweth the Book of Articles of Religion agreed upon by the Archbishops and Bishops of both provinces, and the whole Clergy in the Convocation… and that he acknowledgeth all and every the Articles therein contained, being in number nine and thirty, besides the ratification, to be agreeable to the Word of God.^[27]

Here we already begin to see a stronger claim concerning subscription to the Thirty-Nine Articles. Not only are the clergy forbidden to publicly teach against them, they are also required to publicly acknowledge their agreeableness to the Scriptures. Yet Canon 36 goes even further in requiring the following statement of subscription:

To these three Articles whosoever will subscribe, he shall, for the avoiding of all ambiguities, subscribe in this order and form of words, setting down both his Christian and Surname, viz., I, N. N., do willingly and ex animo subscribe to these three Articles above mentioned, and to all things that are contained in them.^[28]

The important phrase to note here is the Latin ex animo, meaning “from the heart” or “sincerely.” Whereas Laud, Davis, and others have asserted that Canon 5 requires verbal agreement at most, and minimally that one simply does not teach against the Articles, Canon 36 expects clergy to subscribe with full sincerity. Canons 77 and 127 would require similar standards for schoolmasters and judges.^[29] In Bishop Gilbert Burnet’s An Exposition of the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England, published in 1699, he identified these weaknesses in the Laudian understanding of the Articles and 1604 Canons, and concluded that that “the laity may subscribe to the Articles as articles of doctrine, but the clergy must endorse them as articles of faith.”^[30]

The final major ecclesial statement concerning the Articles during the reign of James I discussed here is the Directions Concerning Preachers issued in 1622. This document was drafted by James I and circulated by Archbishop of Canterbury George Abbott (r.1611-1633) in response to controversies surrounding preaching in the Church of England. It emphasizes the authority of both the Articles of Religion and the Book of Homilies. All preachers are to “confine themselves wholly to those two heads of faith and good life, which are all the subject of the ancient sermons and homilies.”^[31] Church of England preachers were expected to conform their teaching to the Articles and Homilies. Deviation from either was grounds for censure by the church.

III. The Articles in the Carolingian Church: Charles I, The English Civil War, and Charles II

Charles I succeeded James I in 1625, reigning until his execution in 1649. During this time diverging opinions on the Articles regarding their authority and function began to develop along clearer lines. We have already seen that Archbishop Laud, a fellow casualty of the English Civil War, laid the foundation for a latitudinarian perspective. This opinion ran contrary to those who viewed the Articles as a doctrinal and confessional authority–a view which is more in line with the ecclesial policies of the Carolingian Church of England.

In 1628, The King’s Declaration was drafted. This declaration was then prefixed to subsequent publications of the Thirty-Nine Articles. It follows a similar pattern to the 1604 canons and other laws concerning the Articles; the clergy were required publicly and sincerely to subscribe to the Articles, while the laity were expected and admonished to agree and could suffer punishment for public disagreement.

That the Articles of the Church of England (which have been allowed and authorized heretofore, and which our clergy generally have subscribed unto) do contain the true doctrine of the Church of England agreeable to God’s word: which we do therefore ratify and confirm, requiring all our loving subjects to continue in the uniform profession thereof, and prohibiting the least difference from the said Articles; which to that end we command to be new printed, and this our declaration to be published therewith…^[32]

This declaration includes both a forceful statement on the authority of the Articles and an expectation on the laity to conform to them as well. For the clergy specifically, it requires a similar ex animo subscription from any who would preach, write, or teach in an ecclesial context. It requires “that no man hereafter shall either print, or preach, to draw the Articles aside any way, but shall submit to it in the plain and full meaning thereof: and shall not put his own sense or comment to be the meaning of the Article, but shall take it in the literal and grammatical sense.”^[33]

The following year, a document known as The Resolutions on Religion was presented to and passed by the House of Commons. It was mainly concerned with the growth of “popery” in England, Scotland, and Ireland, representing a threat to the English church and obscuring true doctrine. The “popery” in question seems to be the growing popularity of an Arminian soteriology as opposed to moderate Calvinism. One of the factors thought to be contributing to this trend was

The suppressing and restraint of the orthodox doctrine contained in the Articles of Religion… according to the sense which hath been received publicly, and taught as the doctrine of the Church of England in those points wherein the Arminians differ from us, and other the Reformed Churches; wherein the essence of our Articles, in those controverted points, is known and proved.^[34]

Here, one of the primary reasons presented for the reemergence of Catholicism in England was a failure to enforce the Thirty-Nine Articles, understood as a Reformed statement of doctrine. By permitting deviant and ahistorical interpretations, such as those making room for Arminian soteriology, the church had opened the door to doctrinal innovations inconsistent with the theology of the Church of England.^[35]

In 1642, religious and political tension erupted in the English Civil War, leading eventually to the execution of both Charles I and Laud. The heavy-handed approach of Laud, with his penchant for ceremony and supposed Roman sympathies, were one of the contributing factors toward a Puritan revolt against the established church. By the time of Charles’s death, the traditional marks of the Church of England would be replaced by a Presbyterian ecclesiology, a reformed Directory of Public Worship, and, in 1646, The Westminster Confession.^[36] Yet even during this time the Articles were not utterly abandoned, especially in the early years of Parliamentary control.^[37] Even the formation of The Westminster Confession was preceded with the Westminster Assembly first being tasked with simply revising the Thirty-Nine Articles and adding scriptural citations.^[38]

For numerous reasons, the anti-monarchical and anti-episcopal revolution was short-lived. In 1660, Charles II was called back to England and would go on to restore the traditional Anglican features of the national church. In 1662, Charles instituted his own Act of Uniformity, similar to that of Elizabeth’s in 1559, which will be the final source considered in this study. Much like Elizabeth’s requirement of liturgical uniformity centered around the 1559 Book of Common Prayer, Charles II’s would focus primarily on instituting the 1662 edition.^[39]

The 1662 Act required that any who would be licensed to preach or teach in the Church of England must, “in the presence of the same archbishop, bishop, or guardian, read the nine-and-thirty Articles of Religion mentioned in the statute of the thirteenth year of the late Queen Elizabeth, with declaration of his unfeigned assent to the same.”^[40] Similar to the clergy, the leaders of the universities would be required to make the same subscription, demanding that each “in the presence of his fellow scholars… subscribe unto the nine-and-thirty Articles of Religion… and unto the said book, and declare his unfeigned assent and consent, and approbation of, the said Articles, and of the same book.”^[41]

In making these statements, Charles II’s uniformity act harkens back to the Elizabethan statutes and follows a trajectory that runs through the other statements discussed throughout this essay. The clergy were required to give public and sincere subscription to the Articles, as they were a binding doctrinal authority and a genuine confession of the faith for the Church of England. While laity were not required to publicly subscribe to the Articles, the requirements given to the clergy were intended to protect the laity from false teaching and ensure unity of doctrine within the church.

IV. Conclusion

The evidence from primary sources, then, makes a clear case that between 1571 and 1662, the Thirty-Nine Articles did function as an authoritative confession of faith within the Church of England. The ecclesial authorities who created, implemented, and received the Articles did indeed intend for them to function as a binding statement on Anglican belief and practice, and were willing to enforce it. These early years of the Anglican tradition admit to no flexibility in this standard. This examination reveals a clearer picture of the historic Anglican tradition regarding the Thirty-Nine Articles. Claims suggesting that the Church of England never possessed any doctrinal confession do not correspond to the historical data. Furthermore, this study moves the contemporary debate beyond anachronistic theological posturing and allows for more substantive dialogue concerning how the Articles should function today in light of the tradition.

Randall J. Price (M.A. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School) is a Th.M. student at Duke Divinity School.

1. I would like to thank Scott Manetsch and John Woodbridge for providing feedback on an earlier version of this essay, and Rhys Laverty for some excellent suggestions that helped sharpen my argument. ↑

2. J.I. Packer and R.T. Beckwith, The Thirty-Nine Articles: Their Place and Use Today (Vancouver, BC: Regent College Publishing, 2007). Stephen Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” in The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume 1: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–1662, ed. Anthony Milton (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), 210–242. ↑

3. Paul Avis, Anglicanism and The Christian Church (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1989). Scott MacDougall, The Shape of Anglican Theology (Boston, MA: Brill, 2022). Torrance Kirby, “Peter Martyr Vermigli and the Elizabethan Church,” in The Reception of Continental Reformation in Britain, eds. Polly Ha and Patrick Collinson (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 83–106, 84. ↑

4. Geoffery Rowell, “The Confessions of Faith of the Early Church as seen in the Classical Anglican Tradition,” Anglican and Episcopal History Vol. 60, No. 3 (1991): pp. 305–328. ↑

5. Victor Atta-Baffoe, “Living in Communion with Anglicanism,” Journal of Anglican Studies Vol. 14, No. 2 (2016): 226–235, 229. ↑

6. In this essay, I have limited myself to examination of documents by senior church authorities. A study of how the Articles were received by local priests and lay people would be a fascinating contribution, but lies beyond our scope. ↑

7. “The Act of Supremacy, 1559,” in Documents of the English Reformation, ed. Gerald Bray (Cambridge, UK: James Clarke & Co. Ltd, 1994), pp. 318–329, 319. ↑

8. Peter Toon, “The Articles and Homilies, in The Study of Anglicanism, eds. Stephen Sykes and John Booty (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 133–142, 135. ↑

9. G.R. Elton, England Under the Tudors. 3^rd edition. (New York, NY: Routledge, 1991), 289. For a helpful side-by-side comparison of the Forty-Two, Thirty-Eight, and Thirty-Nine Articles, see: Documents of the English Reformation, pp. 284–311. ↑

10. Peter Marshall, Heretics and Believers: A History of the English Reformation (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 458. ↑

11. “The Seven Articles,” in English Historical Documents: 1558–1603, eds. Ian W. Archer and F. Douglas Price (New York, NY: Routledge, 2011), 168. ↑

12. “Selection from the Canons of 1571,” in Documents Illustrative of English Church History, ed. Henry Gef and William John Hardy (Kraus Reprint Corporation, 1966), pp. 476–477. ↑

13. Rowell, “The Confessions of Faith of the Early Church as seen in the Classical Anglican Tradition,” 305. ↑

14. Marshall, Heretics and Believers, 500. ↑

15. “The Subscription (Thirty-Nine Articles) Act, A.D. 1571,” Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 477–480, 478. ↑

16. “The Subscription (Thirty-Nine Articles) Act, A.D. 1571,” 478. ↑

17. “The Subscription (Thirty-Nine Articles) Act, A.D. 1571,” 479. ↑

18. “The First Admonition, 1571,” English Historical Documents, 1800–1803, 180l. ↑

19. “Articles Touching Preachers and Other Orders for the Church, A.D. 1583,” Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 481–484, 482. Whitgift uses a slight anachronism is describing the Articles as approved in 1562. He is certainly referring to the Articles as they appeared in 1571 with Elizabeth’s approval. ↑

20. “Articles Touching Preachers and Other Orders for the Church, A.D. 1583,” 483. ↑

21. Bray, Documents of the English Reformation, 397. See also: Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” 214. ↑

22. “Whitgift to the Privy Council,” English Historical Documents, pp. 852–854, 853. ↑

23. Heidi Olson Campbell, “Of Blessed Memory,” Anglican and Episcopal History, Vol. 91, No 4 (2022): pp. 429–454, 430. ↑

24. C.H. Davis, The English Church Canons of 1604 (London, UK: C. Roworth and Sons, 1869), 15. ↑

25. Hampton, “Confessional Identity,” 215. ↑

26. Davis, The English Church Canons of 1604, 13. ↑

27. Davis, The English Canons of 1604, 39–40. ↑

28. Davis, The English Canons of 1604, 40. ↑

29. Davis, The English Canons of 1604, 75, 109. ↑

30. Richard Nash, “Benevolent Readers: Burnet’s Exposition and Eighteenth–Century Interpretation of the Thirty-Nine Articles,” Eighteenth–Century Studies, Vol. 25, No. 3 (1992): pp. 353–360, 359. ↑

31. “Directions Concerning Preachers, A.D. 1622,” Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 516–518, 517. ↑

32. “The King’s Declaration Prefixed to the Articles of Religion, November, 1628,” Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 518–520, 519. ↑

33. “The King’s Declaration Prefixed to the Articles of Religion, November, 1628,” 520. ↑

34. “The Resolutions on Religion Presented by a Committee of the House of Commons, A.D. 1629,” Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 521–527, 525. ↑

35. I do not mean to suggest here that Arminian soteriology is in fact incompatible with the Thirty-Nine Articles. I only mean to identify that this was the perspective given in the resolution and a reason for requiring stricter adherence to the Articles. ↑

36. Toon, “The Articles and Homilies,” 136. ↑

37. Anthony Milton, “Unsettled Reformations, 1603–1662,” in The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume 1: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–1662, ed. Anthony Milton (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 63–83, 79. ↑

38. Chad van Dixdoorn “The Westminster Assembly and Reformation of the 1640s,” in The Oxford History of Anglicanism, Volume 1: Reformation and Identity, c. 1520–1662, ed. Anthony Milton (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2017), pp. 430–443, 431–433. ↑

39. “The Uniformity Act, A.D. 1662,” Documents Illustrative of English Church History, pp. 600–620, 604. ↑

40. “The Uniformity Act, A.D. 1662,” 612. ↑

41. “The Uniformity Act, A.D. 1662,” 611. ↑

*Image Credit: “Elizabeth I Acknowledged By the Bishops” by John Cassell