ARTICLES OF ANGLICAN RELIGION. — The 39 Articles of the Anglican Church are found at the end of almost all modern editions of the Book of Common Prayer. They are the result of a slow evolution from the purely schismatic doctrines of Henry VIII to those clearly heretical doctrines of continental Protestantism, with some special characteristics of Anglicanism. After the first 10 articles published by Henry VIII (1539-47) in 1536, Cranmer composed in 1538, but did not publish, 13 articles with Lutheran leanings. A year later, in 1539, the king approved the 6 articles known as the "Whip with Six Strings," which were distinctly opposed to Protestant doctrines, manifesting the king’s reaction against the Lutheran-Calvinist current. In 1552, Cranmer, by order of King Edward VI (1547-53), compiled 42 articles, incorporating part of his 13 articles of 1538. A clear Lutheran influence is evident in them, and traces of Zwinglian-Calvinist doctrine on the Sacraments can be discerned here and there.
After the Catholic reaction under Mary Tudor (1553-1558), in 1563, under Queen Elizabeth (1558-1603), a revision of the 42 articles of 1552 was undertaken. Some were suppressed, others reformulated, leaving a total of 38. At the queen’s direct intervention, an addition was made to Article 20, which remains to this day: “The Church has power to decree rites and ceremonies and authority in controversies of faith.” Finally, in 1571, with some modifications, Article 29 of 1552, which denied the Real Presence and had been suppressed in 1563, was restored; and the queen officially approved the 39 Articles of Religion, which remain in force to this day. The attempt by Archbishop Whitgift in 1595 to introduce the so-called Nine Lambeth Articles, with the Calvinist doctrine of predestination, was never approved by the queen, although these articles remained for some years as an appendix to the 39. The “Doctrine of the Church of England,” long elaborated by a commission composed mostly of Anglican bishops and clergy, was published in 1938. It was intended as an official explanation of the 39 Articles, meant to calm doctrinal disputes; however, it not only failed to achieve this goal but, on the contrary, increased doctrinal confusion.
The 39 Articles are classified by some in the following manner: the Trinity, Articles I-V; rule of faith, VI-VIII; sin and salvation, IX-XVIII; Church, ministers, and Sacraments, XIX-XXVI; national Church, XXXVII; miscellanea (property and oaths), XXXVIII-XXXIX. Some errors are shared with those of continental Protestants, though expressed in vaguer terms; such are the condemnation of the Mass (XXI), of purgatory, of indulgences, and of the cult of the saints (XXII), of transubstantiation (XXVIII), of supererogatory works (XIV), of the number of Sacraments instituted by Our Lord (XXV), etc. Others are peculiar to Anglicanism, such as the supremacy of the king and queen of England over the Church (XXXVII), the admission of episcopacy (XXXVII), the marriage of bishops (XXXII), etc.
But what might be called the characteristic of these articles is their ambiguity or lack of clarity. In the dedicatory epistle to Pusey, which Forbes wrote as a preface to his *Explanation of the Thirty-Nine Articles*, it is stated: “The great German theologian Möhler claims that they are Calvinist, though he acknowledges their moderation; Archbishop Lawrence, in the Bampton Lectures of 1804, seeks to demonstrate that they are distinctly Lutheran; F. A. Sancta Clara (Ch. Davenport) asserts that they are compatible with the decrees of Trent.”
It is known that Newman, still a Protestant, in his famous *Tract 90*, attempted to interpret them in a Catholic sense, and W. Parker, in his *Harmony of Anglican Doctrine with the Doctrine of the Eastern Churches*, strove to adapt them to the catechism of the “Orthodox” Church. Indeed, in most of the articles, a certain tendency is noted to avoid precise wording, leaving the meaning of the phrase somewhat vague, so that each reader may interpret it according to their own inclination. It suffices to know the profound doctrinal differences that exist among High Church, Low Church, and Broad Church, all of which accept the 39 Articles, to have confirmation of what has been said. J. Keating, examining the famous *Doctrine of the Church of England*, observes that an Anglican may affirm or deny the virgin birth of Jesus Christ and His resurrection; for him, it is a matter of free choice whether the “miracles of nature” of the Savior are real or not, or whether Jesus erred in His teaching.
Finally, there are many opinions regarding the value of the 39 Articles. According to S. Carter and A. Weeks (cf. *Protestant Dictionary*), they have for Anglicans the same value that the Augsburg Confession has for Lutherans and the profession of faith of Trent has for Catholics. In negotiations for the recognition of Anglican ordinations by the Russian Church, Anglicans argued that the articles should be interpreted and explained according to the doctrines contained in the *Book of Common Prayer*. To this, the Russian “Orthodox” leaders, led by I. P. Sokolov (cf. C. Crivelli, *Anglicani e “Ortodossi” russi*, in *La Civiltà Cattolica*, 1941, IV, pp. 83 ff., 188 ff., 261 ff., 431 ff.), opposed serious objections. Others say that the articles should be abandoned and the *Book of Common Prayer* alone considered as the true expression of the doctrine of the Church of England. To overcome the difficulty many Anglican ministers encountered in subscribing to the 39 Articles before ordination, a clause was added to the formula stating that assent to the articles did not extend to every phrase contained within them. This, as can be seen, is an indeterminate clause that can be interpreted at the whim of the newly ordained.
See also ANGLICANISM.
ARTICLES OF FAITH. — To indicate the truths of faith, the Scholastics began to use the word “articles” instead of the older and more classical “sententiae.” Thus the custom arose of calling the principal truths of revealed doctrine “articles of faith,” especially those contained in the Apostles’ Creed or *Symbolum*.
However, theologians are not in agreement regarding the precise nature and number of these articles; nor can those contained in the Creed be relied upon, since some important truths, such as the Eucharist, are not mentioned in II. Catholics therefore adhere to a broad and generic concept, as they do not regard the question of fundamental articles as a matter of special importance. Protestants, on the other hand, attach great significance to it and have debated it for four centuries without reaching a definitive conclusion. They have always felt the need to establish certain fundamental truths that would serve as a badge of recognition for the faithful of the true Church of Christ; but lacking a supreme magisterium, the determination of these truths or fundamental articles has always been left to individual discretion, which is the corrosive acid of the entire Lutheran Reformation. Thus, numerous lists of articles have emerged, differing in content and scope, but all agreed in excluding revealed truths that condemn Protestantism, such as, for example, the primacy of St. Peter. Now, neither Sacred Scripture nor Tradition in any way authorizes a selection of revealed truths handed down by God, nor the rejection of any of them: revelation either is accepted as it is, opening the way to salvation, or is rejected in its entirety, and heaven is closed to us.
For this reason it was always easy for Catholics to refute, on the basis of Revelation and the very spirit of Christianity, the pretensions of Protestants. Christ presents the entire content of His Revelation as unalterable and commands the Apostles to transmit it as they had received it: “Go therefore and teach all nations... teaching them to observe all things whatsoever (omnia quaecumque) I have commanded you” (Mt. 28:19–20). And history, together with the writings of the Fathers and Doctors, demonstrates the scrupulous care with which the Church has ever guarded intact the divine deposit of Revelation.