John Ponet’s “Short Catechisme”: A Neglected Formulary?

A Catechism among the Formularies?[1]

What is Anglican doctrine? This question has prompted numerous debates and publications over the last five hundred years. Readers will be glad to know that this essay does not seek to resolve the matter. However, in what follows, I do want to suggest John Ponet’s Short Catechisme (1553)a little-known document written by a now little-known English Reformer–is essential for comprehending the theological roots of Reformation Anglicanism.[2] Despite most readers likely never having heard of it, the catechism was written by one of the leading English Reformers at the height of the Edwardian church. In its day, it possessed an extraordinary degree of intellectual, ecclesiastical, and political authority, and it provides an informative window into the official theological stance of the Church of England at the end of Edward VI’s reign. A fresh look at this neglected document will prompt us to ask: should the Short Catechisme be considered a neglected Anglican formulary?

John Ponet and Origins of the Short Catechisme

Born in Kent in 1516 and dying in Strasbourg in 1556, John Ponet lived during the exact forty years in which, according to Sir Marcus Loane, “the English Reformation was cradled and nurtured for the glory of God.”[3] Ponet embodied these exciting years of evangelical progress. He was one of the leading intellectuals in his generation at the University of Cambridge, alongside Thomas Smith and John Cheke (two similarly neglected figures). Ponet shortly thereafter became chaplain to Archbishop Thomas Cranmer and King Henry VIII. Under Edward VI, he was rapidly promoted to the bishopric of Rochester before being elevated to the important see of Winchester, where he worked closely with Nicholas Ridley in London and Cranmer in Canterbury. After the accession of Queen Mary and his subsequent ejection from Winchester, he was intimately involved in Wyatt’s Rebellion, and afterwards went into exile in Strasbourg, where he died the most senior ranking clergyman among the English exiles. Throughout his lifetime he advanced the study of Greek linguistics, made marvellous astronomical devices, actively promoted evangelical reform among his dioceses, and authored important theological treatises. At the apex of the Edwardian Reformation, he was the youngest among Cranmer’s bench of bishops (in fact, he was the youngest Tudor bishop, period) and he was one of the most important intellectuals among the English Reformers. Indeed, according to John Bale, he was the Archbishop’s faithful Achates, who always provided him with excellent advice in theological matters.

At heart, Ponet was an educator. After completing his B.A. at Queens’ College, Cambridge, he was elected fellow (1532), and after a short stint teaching philosophy, he assumed one of the university’s most important teaching positions: University Greek Lecturer. Indeed, this was a plum position for the aspiring humanist scholars of Cambridge during the late 1530s, first held by Nicholas Ridley before being assumed by Ponet from 1537 until 1541.[4] From this position Ponet enthusiastically taught the “New Pronunciation” of the Greek language, which he, Thomas Smith, and John Cheke had recently developed and disseminated through lectures and dramatic performances of Greek comedies and tragedies. This discovery–a symbol of the “New Learning”–was rapidly absorbed by the eager Cambridge evangelical tribe, which included such future luminaries as William Cecil, James Pilkington, John Aylmer, Walter and James Haddon, Edwin Sandys, and Edmund Grindal, a number of whom Ponet would teach, alongside Peter Martyr Vermigli and Jerome Zanchi, at the end of his life during exile in Strassburg.

Ponet was Cranmer’s faithful Achates, who always provided him with excellent advice in theological matters

In the 1540s, Ponet was recruited by Archbishop Thomas Cranmer, and though he was thoroughly preoccupied with ministerial duties, he did not lose his enthusiasm for the theological education of students. During Lent 1550, this enthusiasm was evident during a sermon preached before the King and Privy Council at Westminster. Ponet’s subject was the Lord’s Supper, and after a lengthy exposition of the Scriptural teaching on the sacrament, he detailed a number of strategies to combat the “setting up again of the doctrine and kingdom of the Romish Antichrist.” Ponet dedicated the most space to the education of youth in the schools throughout the country. “Oh what hurt these popish Schoolmaster doth,” preached Ponet; “They will scarcely suffer any good doctrine to be talked on in their Schools….They mar all, most noble prince, poisoning the children’s ears with popery in their youth.” And with that, Ponet turned, and petitioned King Edward directly:

For redress whereof I would wish (most noble prince) that there might be a Catechism made in the Latten tongue, which should be read by commandment in all grammar Schools throughout your noble realm, and so should the brood of this most noble realm, not be brought so popishely up as they be….The good education of them in true religion, shall be a fortress to all your graces proceedings. The evil education of that brood of England in popery and superstition shall in conclusion be an overthrow to all your graces most godly proceedings. Wherefore for God’s love and the wealth of this your realm most noble prince. I wish that they should be remembered.[5]

Taking their cues from scriptural injunctions to teach the young, the Reformers of the Church of England made concerted catechetical efforts to nurture the renewed faith. Indeed, the years from the 1530s through to 1553 witnessed what Philippa Tudor has described as “an ambitious programme of religious instruction for children and adolescents…planned on a nation-wide basis in England.”[6] The ambition for catechetical instruction during the reign of Edward VI, in particular, is evident from the various authors and styles of catechisms produced. These catechisms–just as with the Primers and Catechisms of the pre-reformation Church–uniformly expounded the Decalogue, the Apostles’ Creed, and the Lord’s Prayer. What set these Edwardian catechisms apart was the Reformational content, often involving lengthy expositions. Edmund Allen’s different catechisms are a good example of this variety: his evangelical productions of 1548, 1550, and 1551 varied in length and complexity, but they traversed the same three theological building blocks, using the typical “master” and “scholar” form of question and answer:[7]

M: Why do we call him Jesus?
S: Because he is an helper and saviour, which saveth and helpeth the children of god from sin and from all kind of evil.
M: Why do we call him Christ?
S: Because he is the anointed king of God, which governeth the children of God unto everlasting life.[8]

Archbishop Cranmer himself prioritised the catechising of youth and published an extensive catechism in 1548, the Catechismus, which the occasional historian has confused with the catechism mentioned by Cranmer in his 1555 examination. In fact, that later version referred to by the archbishop under duress was Ponet’s newly minted Catechisme. In his prefatory dedication to Edward VI, he declared his desire that, “the youth & tender age of your loving subjects, may be brought up and traded in the truth of God’s holy word.”[9] This Catechismus was largely Thomas Becon’s translation from Justus Jonas’ German catechism, and unfortunately contained some embarrassing Lutheran aspects of eucharistic theology which would later haunt the now-Reformed Archbishop. Cranmer’s more determined program for catechesis was set forth in the 1549 Book of Common Prayer, which contained a rubric stating that curates ought to catechize candidates for confirmation at least once every six weeks (this became a weekly catechism class under the 1552 revision of the Prayer Book). These catechetical instructions could be regulated through use of episcopal visitation articles which examined clergy on their adherence to the Prayer Book, for example:

Norwich (1549): Item, whether once in six weeks at the least your ministers do hear some children say the Catechism openly in the church of the holy-day at afternoon before Evensong.[10]

Lincoln (1552): Whether your curate once in six weeks at the least upon some Sunday or Holy Day before Evensong do openly in the church instruct and examine children not confirmed, in some parts of the catechism.[11]

Gloucester & Worcester (1552): Item, that the Catechism be read and taught unto the children every Sunday and festival day in the year, at one or two of the clock after dinner, and that they may be thereof duly examined one after another by order; and that all other elder people be commanded to be present at the same.[12]

John Ponet was an enthusiastic advocate for Cranmer’s catechetical vision, and during his episcopal ministry at Winchester he made heavy use of the consistory courts for the prosecution of catechetical negligence. Though we have lost the visitation articles, John Bale’s description of the “Winchester sessions” throughout 1551-1552 details their extensive and intensive nature, and indicates that they were almost as comprehensive as John Hooper’s use of the consistory court in Gloucester.[13] However, one of the major differences between Hooper’s and Ponet’s use of the church courts during this same period (1551-1553) is that whereas Hooper’s comprehensive examinations appear not to have focused upon catechesis, Ponet’s less comprehensive examinations do.[14]

Ponet called for a royally enforced Latin catechism for every single grammar school in the realm

All of this is to say that Ponet was a serious supporter of catechetical ministry, and his request to King Edward during the Lenten sermon of 1550 must be read in that context. But what is striking about Ponet’s sermonic supplication was the call for a royally enforced Latin catechism for every single grammar school in the realm. There had been royally approved catechisms before, and there had been catechisms used in grammar schools also, but nothing of this rigour and scale had ever been attempted during the English Reformation.

As a short postscript to this point, it is worth noting the historiographical tradition that refers to this catechism as King Edward’s Catechism of 1553.[15] This ascription of the catechism to King Edward rather than John Ponet rightly captures the significance of the Short Catechisme. However, it wrongly assumes that while the Bishop of Winchester was the driving force behind the catechism, there are insufficient grounds to prove his authorship of the same. The flaw behind this position lies in its overreliance upon secondary sources, rather than original documentation. There is clear evidence of Ponet’s authorship in the State Papers held at the National Archives, various manuscripts in the British Library, the Greyfriars Chronicle, the Stationers’ Register, and even in Sir John Cheke’s enthusiastic letter to Heinrich Bullinger shortly after its publication: “[the King] has lately recommended to the schools by his authority the catechism of John, bishop of Winchester.”[16]

The Creation and Authority of the Short Catechisme

Though Ponet raised the idea in 1550, the Short Catechisme was only published around May 1553. However, it was not simply his energetic efforts, nor the King’s will, which brought the Short Catechisme into being. Its creation was a complex process, and understanding its twists and turns is important for our understanding of its authority. Who else was involved in its production besides Ponet and the King? Firstly, the King’s own printed prefatory note reveals that it was debated and diligently examined by “certain Bishops, and other learned men, whose judgement we have in great estimation.”[17] So, in addition to Ponet and the King, we now have unnamed bishops and learned men–probably Cranmer, Ridley, Vermigli, and others–involved in its production. Secondly, in a letter to William Cecil, dated 7 September 1552, Lord President Northumberland revealed that after “great labour and travail,” Ponet had completed both Latin and English versions of the catechism, “partly at my request.”[18] So, we can add Northumberland himself to the list of luminaries.

With so many parties involved, and with such a financial windfall to be had from such a big project, the publication arrangements became the bone of some contention. In the aforementioned letter of September 1552, Northumberland requested that John Day, “this poor man, who hath been always a furtherer of godly things,” should receive an exclusive licence to publish Ponet’s catechism.[19] Then, less than a week later, Day obtained the royal licence in answer to this request, not simply for the English publication, but also for the Latin version.[20] However, Day’s licence eventually hit a snag, as Cranmer’s favourite printer, Reyner Wolfe, had also been granted the privilege of printing the Latin version, sometime before October 1552.[21] After the mediation of Cecil during the following months, it was decided in March 1553 that Wolfe would retain the rights to the Latin publications, and Day would have the lucrative English version, with the added compensation of the monopoly of printing all the works of both Ponet and Thomas Becon.[22] This contention dealt with, on 20 May 1553 King Edward VI commanded by royal injunction that all schoolmasters and teachers of youth within the realm ought to teach Ponet’s advanced catechism immediately after the basic A, B, C. Catechisme.[23] The Short Catechisme was thus printed in English and Latin, with Michelangelo Florio’s Italian translation–the first Italian book printed in England–briefly appearing in the chaotic period shortly after the death of Edward VI.[24]

The degree of intellectual and political authority supporting Ponet’s Short Catechisme was extraordinary. It was authored by one of the foremost Reformed theologians of the period, driven by the impetus of King Edward and the Lord President of the Council, the product of various bishops and divines, and imprinted under the royal seal. Ponet was not simply the author of the catechism, but–as T.H.L. Parker rightly points out–he was speaking as the mouthpiece of Cranmer’s circle of Reformers.[25] It was for this reason, that when Heinrich Bullinger received the Short Catechisme from John Cheke in the summer of 1553, the Antistes of Zürich excitedly sent copies to his network of fellow Reformers, including Peter Paul Vergerio, Simprecht Vogt, Philipp Gallicius, Ambrosius Blaurer, and even his own son Johannes.[26] Inevitably, since the Short Catechisme represented an indispensable part of the doctrinal stance of the Edwardian evangelicals, it became a priority target of the conservative strategy in unravelling the Reformation under the Marian regime. Edmund Bonner attacked it in his own catechism for schoolmasters; Richard Smith cited whole swathes of it disparagingly; and James Brooks preached against it at Paul’s Cross.[27]

Thus, with respect to the authorities associated with its production, it was very much like the other key formularies of the reformed English church. Indeed, although the Forty-two Articles of Religion were sometimes printed as a standalone document by Richard Grafton, they were ordinarily appended to both the English and Latin editions of Ponet’s Short Catechisme.[28] The combined publication was the principal version (probably on account of its size), and the whole book was commonly understood as the book of the Catechisme, rather than the book of the articles. This can be seen in the Greyfriars Chronicle, which recorded that when Cranmer presented “the new book that the Bishop of Winchester, Powny [Ponet], made” to convocation on 27 May 1553, there were “diverse that denied many of the articles.”[29] This opposition to the combined book, spearheaded by conservative cleric Hugh Weston, carried over into the Marian reign. During the first convocation under Queen Mary, which met on 18 October 1553, Weston railed against “a book of late set forth, called the catechism” and then proceeded to attack “the articles of the catechism.”[30] Similarly, it was Weston who challenged Cranmer at his Oxford disputation for having “set forth a Catechism”–meaning the book of the catechism.[31]

It is important to understand the proper relationship between the articles and the catechism itself, and their combined role in the Edwardian church. While the articles received the name of the catechism, the catechism received the character of the articles.[32] In fact, the Short Catechisme complemented the Forty-two Articles such that we might even say that we may not expound one place of the book of the catechism that it be repugnant to another. Therefore, just like the articles, the teaching of the catechism was representative of the Church of England at the height of the Edwardian period. This was the view of Ponet himself, who in the context of the debate over clerical marriage, wrote in 1555:

Our whole doctrine wherein we consented touching fasting, prayer and marriage etc. is plainly and fully set forth in the books of common prayers, the Homilies, the Catechisms and the Articles whereupon the whole realm concluded. …. Our doctrine was not kept so secret but that it was not only preached but also printed & so printed that it hath the testimony of the whole realm.[33]

And although the formulary status of the Short Catechisme has escaped the attention of modern scholars, it has been rightly noted by others, such as Bishop Randolph in the nineteenth century:

…a Catechism published in the time of king Edward VI and was the last work of the reformers of that reign; whence it may fairly be understood to contain as far as it goes their ultimate decision, and to represent the sense of the Church of England as then established.[34]

The Theology of the Short Catechisme

Ponet’s Short Catechisme bears three particularly significant theological features. First is its classically Reformed loci (e.g. discussion of relationship between the unwritten and the written Word, strongly Cranmerian accounts of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, an infralapsarian accented account of predestination, etc). Second, there are some unusual features in the document’s ecclesiology and its eschatology. Regarding ecclesiology, it is noteworthy that Ponet gives four marks of the church: preaching, brotherly love, sacraments, and brotherly correction or excommunication. This is an important expansion on the two marks of the church embedded in the Articles of Religion and probably indicates that brotherly love and discipline were to be understood as annexed to preaching and the sacraments, respectively. Regarding eschatology, the Short Catechisme not only equivocates on the meaning of Christ’s descent (“into hell, or elsewhere”) but devotes an unusually large proportion of space to eschatological themes such as the Christ’s return, final judgement, and renewal of all things. This unusual degree of devotion has been noticed recently by Tim Patrick, who observes that this eschatological feature distinguishes the Short Catechisme from all other Anglican formularies of this period.[35] The third significant theological feature is simply the sheer length of doctrinal discussion throughout its 88 folio pages. Thus, in the context of the whole publication (the “book of the catechism”), this makes the Short Catechisme an essential theological compendium for the interpretation of the reformed nature of the theology of the Articles of Religion.

Ponet’s Short Catechisme carried the same–if not more–authority as the Forty-two Articles of Religion

Indeed, due to its Reformed credentials, the Short Catechisme became one of the heavily debated Reformation texts in the seventeenth-century theological debate between William Prynne and Peter Heylin over Calvinism and Arminianism, and in the eighteenth-century tract war between Augustus Toplady and Thomas Nowell over the same. Toplady was a great admirer of the Short Catechisme (“this excellent prelate’s Catechism”), whereas Nowell held it in contempt (“excellent only for its Absurdity”).[36] Indeed, Nowell believed that the Short Catechisme came into being because “some rigid Calvinists in Power, had imposed upon that good young King, and made use of his Authority to impose their Notions upon the Church.”[37] It would be rather anachronistic to posit Ponet as a defender of Calvinism. However, Toplady was correct to assert that Ponet’s catechism was undoubtedly Reformed in its theology. Nowell had no reply of any substance to Toplady, and was reduced to screeching at Toplady, that the “Catechism, which you call A valuable Monument of good old Church Doctrine” contained less “sound Divinity than the old Koran of Mahomet.”[38] Whatever Ponet’s convictions concerning the scope of the atonement, he assuredly would have been more comfortable with Toplady’s “Calvinism” than Nowell’s scurrilous remarks.

The delicious irony of the debate between Toplady and Nowell over Ponet’s supposedly “Calvinist” catechism was that Nowell seemingly had no awareness (or was perhaps too embarrassed?) that a possible relative of his, Dean Alexander Nowell of St. Paul’s Cathedral, had copied and pasted from the catechisms of both John Ponet and John Calvin to produce his own, more influential and more “Calvinistic” catechism under Elizabeth’s reign in 1570.[39] In fact, Nowell’s catechism–which came in shorter and longer varieties–was wildly popular during the latter half of the sixteenth century and into the seventeenth century–so popular, that Canon 79 of the 1604 Canons required that all schoolmasters should teach, in English or Latin, either of Nowell’s shorter or longer versions. Thus, the spirit, while not every letter, of John Ponet’s Short Catechisme was eventually enshrined in Church of England canon law.

From this brief survey, it should be evident that Ponet’s Short Catechisme carried the same–if not more–authority as the Forty-two Articles of Religion, and that its contents are of an impeccably–if not progressively–Reformed nature. On this basis, I suggest that it is inadequate to conceive of the original Anglican formularies as only the usual three documents: the Book of Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, and the Ordinal. Rather, since the Short Catechisme represents one of the most comprehensively Reformed positions that the Church of England has ever officially taken, the study of Ponet’s work is essential for the interpretation of the Articles of Religion and thus for understanding the roots of Reformation Anglicanism.

Rev. Dr. Mark Earngey is Head of Church History and Lecturer in Christian Thought at Moore Theological College in Sydney.

  1. This essay is a lightly modified version of the article which goes by the same name in Reformation Anglicanism: Essays in Edwardian Evangelicalism (London: Latimer Trust, 2023). Republished with permission.

  2. The entire catechism is printed at the Appendix of the abovementioned Latimer Trust publication.

  3. Marcus Loane, Masters of the English Reformation (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 2005 [repr. 1954]), xvii

  4. In 1538 this position was held by Roger Ascham, while Ponet – as Senior Bursar – attended to the acquisition of the adjacent Carmelite friary (former home to John Bale) and also taught Greek to the students of Queens’ College.

  5. John Ponet, A notable sermon concerninge the ryght vse of the lordes supper and other thynges very profitable for all men to knowe … (London: Mierdman for Gwalter Lynne, 1550), RSTC 20177, Giv-iiir.

  6. Philippa Tudor, ‘Religious Instruction for Children and Adolescents in the Early English Reformation’, JEH 3/35 (1984): 391-392; see also, Ian M. Green, The Christian’s ABC: Catechisms and Catechizing in England c. 1530-1740 (Oxford, 1996): 59-60.

  7. Edmund Allen, A catechisme, that is to saie, a familiar introduccion and trayning of the simple … (London, 1548), RSTC 359; A shorte catechisme A briefe and godly bringinge vp of youth … (Zürich, 1550), RSTC 361; A cathechisme that is to say a christen instruccion …. (London, 1551), RSTC 360.

  8. Allen, A catechisme, f.iiiir-v.

  9. Thomas Cranmer, Catechismus, that is to say, a shorte instruction into Christian religion … (London, 1548), RSTC 5993, (?), iiir.

  10. Church of England, Articles to be inquired of in the visitation to be had in the byshopricke of Norwyche (London: Wolfe, 1549), RSTC 10285, sig. A.ivr.

  11. Church of England, Articles to be enquired of, in the visitacion, of the ryght reuerende father in God, Ioh[a]n Bysshop of Lyncol[n]n (London: Wyer, 1552), RSTC 10228, sigs. A.iiiv-A.ivr.

  12. Charles Nevinson (ed.), Later Writings of Bishop Hooper (Cambridge: CUP, 1852), 126.

  13. John Bale, An Expostulation or Complaynte agaynste the Blasphemyes of a Franticke Papyst of Hamshyre (London, 1552), RSTC 1294. Compare the summary above, with Barrett Beer’s summary of Hooper’s activity in Gloucester as described in ‘Episcopacy and Reform’, 242-244

  14. See F. D. Price, ‘Gloucester Diocese under Bishop Hooper, 1551-3’, Transactions of the Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society 60 (1938): 51-151.

  15. J. Ketley (ed.), The Two Liturgies, with other Documents Set Forth by Authority in the Reign of King Edward VI (Cambridge, 1844).

  16. Lord President Northumberland to William Cecil, 7 September 1552: “After my hertie commendacions, for asmoche as the byschope of winchester hathe taken grete labor and travaylle partlie at my requeste to sette forthe a Catechisme bothe in Lattyne and englishe, for the better erudistion of lerners and schollers, aswelle in grammar scolles as others”, TNA SP 10/15, 5r; John Cheke to Heinrich Bullinger, 7 June 1553, OL 1:150. See below for further explicit references to Ponet’s authorship.

  17. Short Catechisme, A.iiv.

  18. TNA SP 10/15, 5r, as printed above.

  19. SP 10/15, 5r: “… I haue thoughte good to requier yt to be meane for the kinges maiesties lycens for the printinge of the same, and that this pore man, who hathe byn allwaies a furderer of godlie things, may by his highnes gracuis goodnes be auctorised for the onlie printinge of the same for a certein <uncertain word?> soche as shalbe thought mete by his maiestie, wherin the poore man shalhaue caus to pray for his highness.”

  20. BL Royal MS 18 C XXIV, 254v.

  21. Peter W. M. Blayney, The Stationers’ Company and the Printers of London 1501-1557, 2 vols. (Cambridge, 2013), 2:735; Diarmaid MacCulloch, Thomas Cranmer: A Life (New Haven, 1996), 524; Elizabeth Evenden, Patents, Pictures and Patronage: John Day and the Tudor Book Trade (Aldershot, 2008), 25-26.

  22. 20 March 1553, Chancery Patent: BL MS Royal C XXIV, 318v; 22 March 1553: Warrant, TNA C 82/962/23; 25 March 1553: Patent Roll, CPR 1553, v, 43; letters patent to John Day in Short Catechisme, Aiiiiv-Avr.

  23. Short Catechisme, A.iir-v.

  24. Michelangelo Florio, Cathechismo, cioe forma breue per amaestrare i Fanciulli … (London, 1553), RSTC 4813; Michael Wyatt, The Italian Encounter with Tudor England: A Cultural Politics of Translation (Cambridge, 2005), 185; Frances A. Yates, John Florio: The Life of an Italian in Shakespeare’s England (Cambridge, 1934), 11.

  25. T.H.L Parker, English Reformers (London, 1966), 147-152.

  26. Zurich StA, E II 356,546; E II 343,452; E II 365,512; E II 357,408; E II 441,f. 75.

  27. Edmund Bonner, An honest godlye instruction and information for the tradynge, and bringine vp of children … (London, 1555), RSTC 3281; Richard Smith, A bouclier of the catholike fayth of Christes church … (London, 1554), RSTC 22816; James Brooks, A sermon very notable, fruictefull, and godlie made at Paules crosse … (London, 1553), RSTC 3838.

  28. Compare Short Catechisme with Articles Agreed on by the Bishoppes (London, 1553), RSTC 10034; 10034.2. Florio’s Italian edition does not contain the articles.

  29. John Gough Nichols (ed.), Chronicle of the Grey Friars (London, 1852), 77-78.

  30. Robert Eden, The Examinations and Writings of John Philpot, BCL (Cambridge, 1842), 179-180.

  31. Thomas Cranmer, Writings and Disputations of Thomas Cranmer, John Edmund Cox (ed.), (Cambridge, 1844), 422.

  32. Parker, English Reformers, 149.

  33. John Ponet, Apologie, L.

  34. John Randolph, Enchiridion Theologicum; or, a Manual, for the use of Students in Divinity, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1825), 1:vi.

  35. Tim Patrick, “Resurrection and Eschatology in the Reformation Formularies of the Church of England, 1536-1571”, PhD dissertation, Macquarie University (2013), pp. 177-178, forthcoming as Establishment Eschatology in England’s Reformation: Evidence from the Doctrinally-Binding Formularies of Faith, 1534-1571 (Abingdon: Routledge, 2024).

  36. Augustus Toplady, The Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Arminianism (London, 1769), 42; Thomas Nowell, The Church of England Vindicated from the Charge of Absolute Predestination (London, 1771), 53. Capitals and italics retained.

  37. Nowell, The Church of England Vindicated from … Predestination, 53. Capitals and italics retained.

  38. Nowell, The Church of England Vindicated from … Predestination, 53.

  39. Alexander Nowell, A Catechisme, or First Instruction and Learning of Christian Religion (London, 1570), RSTC 18708.


Related Articles

Join our Community
Subscribe to receive access to our members-only articles as well as 4 annual print publications.
Share This