Talk:Thirty-nine Articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Christianity / Texts / Anglicanism / Calvinism (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious texts (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (marked as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Calvinism (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject England (Rated B-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tract 90[edit]

Reduced the little screed about "Tract 90" to a reference that's sort of encyclopedic; removed the numerous links and the insults. Probably one could use the data to construct a link to its text. But I don't see why I should do this hostile fellow's work for him. Dandrake 02:02, Aug 29, 2004 (UTC)

Merge proposal[edit]

I do not think that there is a compelling reason to have Forty-Two Articles as a separate entry. Surey, a section in this article would be sufficient to explain the evolution. Thoughts? Fishhead64 18:29, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree: it's not worth a whole article, so long as it can be found by searching Wikipedia. Myopic Bookworm 14:58, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Agree: Even better, merge the articles and redirct Forty-Two Articles to Thirty-Nine Articles. --Wine Guy 21:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
Disagree. Two different documents, two different articles, IMO. Unless I misunderstand. Carolynparrishfan 14:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Comment My rationale is that the Thirty-Nine Articles evolved from the Forty-Two. It would be nice to have one article cover the document and its development. "Forty-Two Articles" could then be a redirect here. Fishhead64 16:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Agree It looks like Forty-Two Articles is likely to remain stubby for some time, and a few lines about its development belong here, even when in the future there is a full article about the Forty-Two. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Weak DisagreeWhile I agree that a few lines about the 42 are always going to be neccessary for a history section in an article about the 39, substantial and notable differences exist between the two versions. Discussing the forty-two in a separate artcle seems worthwhile goal.
Oops! Forgot to sign: my apologies. Mgriffin 18:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the treatment on the 42. -- SECisek 07:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Anglicanism[edit]

A new WikiProject focussing on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion has just been initiated: WikiProject Anglicanism. Our goal is to improve and expand Anglican-reltaed articles. If anyone (Anglican or non-Anglican) is interested, read over the project page and consider signing up. Cheers! Fishhead64 06:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)


I have added brief summaries for those articles whose title is not entirely self-explanatory, with the exception of Artcle XVI (Of Predestination and Election), as I'm not confident that I understand what it is or is not affirming. Myopic Bookworm 13:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Very cool summaries, Myopic Bookworm, thanks. If you can also back up your summaries with a reference, (so that people don't think it is your original research) then I would suggest it would be time to remove the stub template. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "original research" means in this context. My source for the information is the Book of Common Prayer. Writing an encyclopedia article of any kind is a matter of presenting information in summary form. If I were summarizing scholarly opinion on the Thirty Nine Articles, then I would give references. But I'm not: I have written these summaries myself (so they violate no copyright), they are verifiable (by referring to the original Articles), and though the text is plainly "original" since I originated it, I do not regard it as "research". I think a summary is useful, because some of the Articles are rather long, and use rather opaque contemporary religious terminology. Myopic Bookworm 13:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that your summaries are both verifiable and useful. But, I think there is problem with a Wikipedia editor summarizing in this case. The problem is that you are not summarising a suitable source, but instead summarising the primary source. To me , it feels similar to telling us how many stones are at Stonehenge by counting them in a photograph, rather than citing a good history book - it could invite dispute when there is no need for one. I really like your summaries, but that is my POV, so if we point to one or two sources that back up your summaries, that will make the article all the stronger. I am definitely not suggesting either deleting your summaries, nor plagiarizing someone else's summary - merely checking that respected authorities would summarize the articles in a broadly similar manner. Anyway, I won't labour the point. If and when I have non-Calvinist sources in my hands, I will reference them in the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


I have just scanned today's featured article: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is a great model for what Thirty-Nine Articles could ultimately look like in overall shape and style. I think it would be anachronistic to have a section called Enforcement here, so lets not follow it slavishly, but use it for inspiration. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


More sources please[edit]

I am interested in this topic and would like to see more content. However I am personally hampered here and at Anglican doctrine by my lack of expertise, and a lack of a balanced list of sources. Has anyone noticed that a Google search produces a preponderance of conservative articles? Tract 90 is not the only paper with a non-Calvinist view of the Thirty-Nine Articles. I am making a personal plea: please suggest more sources here, or right in the article itself. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:02, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Citation style?[edit]

We only have one citation so far (apart from the document text itself) and this is in the form of an embedded HTML link. Personally I would prefer either a Harvard style or a footnote style, as I suspect most references will not be web links. Style guide is at Wikipedia:Citing sources#Citation styles. Do you think we should change from HTML links to Harvard, HTML link to footnotes, or stick with HTML links? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


Another area I think we need to improve is the historic requirement of subscription to the articles especially for office with government, and to take a degree from the Oxbridge systems. Mgriffin 02:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Article XII[edit]

The claim that Article XII is a middle way between Lutheran sola fideism and Catholic practice seems unsupportable. I can't imagine any protestant group denying the precepts of Article XII. It's standard issue protestant stuff - salvation doesn't come from good works, but good works which come through faith are pleasing to god, and are a sign of election. This would be perfectly acceptable to Calvinists, as far as I can tell. john k 05:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Anglo-Catholic bias? NPOV dispute[edit]

What on earth does this mean?

Most of the substance of the articles can be labelled as Reformed Catholicism[1], and were not intended as a complete statement of the Christian faith, but of the position of the Church of England vis-a-vis the Roman Catholic Church and dissident Protestants.

"Reformed Catholicism?" This isn't a term anyone would possibly have used in 1563. The 39 Articles are basically Calvinist. This article seems to basically strive to obscure this. Look, Anglo-Catholicism is a product of the 19th century. It is completely inappropriate to try to force sixteenth century documents into nineteenth century frames of interpretation. The 39 Articles are not "Reformed Catholicism." The Elizabethan settlement was essentially a merger of Calvinist doctrine with a hierarchical organization and a more ritualized liturgy. But the Thirty-nine Articles are about doctrine, and that doctrine is not some kind of compromise between Catholicism and "Protestantism." It is pretty much entirely Reformed, and Reformed in this sense means "Calvinist." Is it too much to ask to keep presentist positioning out of the discussion of a sixteenth century document? john k 05:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

You may disagree, but the source of the remark is cited, if you find a source that argues for your point of view, feel free to add it as a coutner, but don't simply remove cited statements. David Underdown 09:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There's nothing untouchable about cited statements. Present-day Anglican sources are not particularly reliable sources on centuries old historical documents. Even worse is that the main source for this article appears to be Tract 90, which is anything but a neutral analysis of the articles. Newman was writing to advance a partisan POV, and his interpretation of the 39 Articles was pretty clearly tendentious, and almost got him censured by the Church at the time. The citations made are basically worthless. This is not a neutral article about the XXIX Articles. It's a recapitulation of Newman's highly controversial analysis of them, backed up by a lot of tendentious language using nineteenth century Anglo-Catholic terms as though they had meaning to the 16th century Calvinists who wrote the article. john k 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What ever other points you raise, I DO think the point "Present-day Anglican sources are not particularly reliable sources on centuries old historical documents." is a very weak one. Are you saying modern day historians have LESS of a grasp of an extant 16th century document then a writer from the 18th century did? Should Gibbon, or Maculay, or Treveylan, or any historian be discounted? No. Should they be taken at face value here in the 21st century? Certainly not. -- SECisek 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You have misunderstood me. Present-day Anglican sources are not particularly reliable. We should be looking at what academic historians say about the Articles, not what partisans have to say. john k 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you that older writers are even more problematic - thus my problem that this article seems largely to be based on Newman. john k 17:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Have at it and lets see where it takes us. -- SECisek 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What did you think of my changes which David Underdown reverted? john k 18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Henry Chadwick is a considered a trusted source. I reworded the paragraph in an effort to reduce bias. I hope I have succeded, at least somewhat. I also did some major reworking and citation. Where are we at now on this? -- SECisek 19:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikimporovement!!! Looks fine to me! -- SECisek 23:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, I think it's a step in the right direction. I'm going to try to run down continuing problems I see with the summary of individual points:

  1. VI ought to compare the 39 Articles doctrine with respect to scripture with those of Luther and Calvin, to which it is similar, but not identical.
  2. VIII probably shouldn't refer to the three creeds as "Catholic".
  3. IX-XII ought also to more directly compare to Luther and Calvin, and perhaps to contemporary Roman practice. I've seen it claimed online that this material is directly based on the Lutheran Confession of Württemberg, presented as a statement of moderate Lutheran beliefs to the Council of Trent in 1563.
  4. I have a very big problem with XII, specifically. The claim that continental protestants completely reject any role for good works is simply untrue, as is the implication that Luther and Calvin would find the article's statement unamenable. I don't see anything in this article which Calvin would have disagreed with - it is classic Calvinist doctrine that good works proceeding from faith are a sign of election.
  5. XVII needs to make clear that this is, essentially a restatement of Calvin's doctrine of predestination and election. In general, there is far too large an attempt here to put air between the 39 Articles and Calvin, when quite clearly the articles are in most ways very close to orthodox Calvinism.
  6. XXV seems to weak on the discussion of sacraments. The article seems fairly close to denying the sacramental nature of the five "so-called sacraments".
  7. XXVIII-XXIX also obfuscates, I think. The "spiritual presence" of Christ in the eucharist is not at all out of line with Calvinist thinking on the subject. I think the implication of the way we write about this is, again, to claim that this is a compromise between the Catholic and the Calvinist position, when in fact it is really very close to the Calvinist position.
  8. XXIX, in particular, elaborates a false compromise. Nothing in the article suggests that the Eucharist is defiled by a non-believer taking it. It merely says that the non-believer is. This, again, doesn't seem to me to be a compromise. In general, the Articles' doctrine of the Eucharist is on the left side of the Anglican - a lot closer to the Calvinist position than it is to consubstantiation.
  9. XXXVII ought to mention Erastianism.

More broadly, I think the key is to give more context in terms of contemporary disputes, in order to explain what is meant, what is controversial, where the Articles agree with contemporary Roman Catholic doctrine (a fair amount, but largely in areas where all the Reformation churches agree with Roman Catholic doctrine), where they agree with contemporary Calvinism (a considerably greater extent), where they differ (Erastianism is a particular difference), and so forth. I also think it's a bit much to argue that the articles themselves represent very much of a compromise between Catholicism and the continental reformers. On almost every question of note, the articles side with the continental reformers, and even with Calvin, against Rome. There are some definite differences with the continental reformers, particularly in terms of the authority of the state (although even that isn't so different from Lutheranism, at least), but most of the differences at the time were in matters of ritual and organization, which aren't really covered by the Articles. On a somewhat tangential note, I was interested as to what the status of the Articles was under the Commonwealth. It strikes me that the Presbyterians could have accepted the vast majority of them, and that even the INdependents probably could have accepted most of it, but I'd be interested to know more on that. john k 23:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, be bold. I don't know that anyone is refusing to make these I said before, maybe nobody but you cares to - or can - make them. I do have some problems with some of things you have suggested, but let's see what it looks like in the article with a cite next to them. We all seem quite civil here. Nothing will touch off an edit war or anything unpleasent. Change, cite, and discuss! -- SECisek 03:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I will say that I do have a problem in terms of citation, as I'm not sure what a good source on this stuff would be. I took a (graduate level) class a few years ago on the English Reformation, and we discussed the 39 Articles, which is where most of my stuff is coming from, but I haven't actually read any books on it, specifically. Also, could you perhaps elaborate on specific reservations you have with the changes I've laid out - I'd like to be careful about them, in hopes of avoiding further conflict. john k 16:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I killed the offending exposition, which probably did not belong here anyways. I moved the lot of it to the Tract 90 article, where it can be as Anglo-Catholic as it wants to be. I replaced the Article by Article descriptions with a brief NPOV summary of each subsection of the document. I then added two opposed assesments of the meaning of the Articles. I removed the NPOV tag as the offending material was banished and I hope the Article can now continue to move forward in the direction of GA status. -- SECisek 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think a detailed summary would be useful, if we could find an NPOV one. Personally, I think the key perspective we ought to provide is that of historians, not that of low church and high church schools. My basic understanding is that most historians are closer to the Low Church understanding of the articles (which makes sense - Low Church people like the Articles a lot more than High Church types, and the Low Church interpretation is, I think, more natural - as you say in your new version, it takes the Articles at face value), but they're not really the same. I'll try to find a good source on the subject when I have a chance, to provide summaries based on scholarly understandings of the intentions and views of the men who wrote the 39 Articles, rather than the later interpretations of Anglican theologians who wish to use the articles to advance their own POV about the nature of the Church. The latter ought to be discussed (and I think the quotes you use do a decent job of elaborating on the various views, although perhaps a bit more detail on Newman's analysis would be in order), but ought to be secondary. john k 20:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I will be watching and I will return here when there is movement on this. -- SECisek 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to belabor controversies which seem to have gone on here for a while...but the paragraph introducing the 39 Articles seems to warrant at least some mention of the historical differences of opinion over the Catholic/Protestant significance of the articles. For instance, the sentence "The "via media" was expressed so adroitly in the Articles" glosses over these debates and creates and illusion of consensus in the direction of a 'via media'...this despite the fact that many--scholars and otherwise--regard the articles as essentially Protestant, if not Calvinist. As has been mentioned elsewhere on this page, there is nothing uniquely Catholic about the Elizabethan settlement compared, for example, to the Lutheran Reformation. The 39 articles reflect in many regards a more thoroughgoing "reformation" than the Augsburg Confession or the Book of Concord. My sense is that, more often than not, the term via media is invoked by Anglo-Catholics trying to read more Catholicism into the early history of the C of E than the historical record warrants. This is accomplished by letting 'Puritanism' stand in for 'Protestantism' and counting every thwarted Puritan attempt to shape the Church of England as a victory for Catholicism, which is misleading. The changes in the Church under Elizabeth were as dramatic as reformations elsewhere--in theology, liturgy, the abolition of non-parochial orders, its quintessentially Lutheran Erastianism, etc...despite post-Tractarian efforts to describe the Church of England as unique in its continuity with the pre-Reformation church.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd321 (talkcontribs) 22:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm adding a NPOV tag to the front page. The article has clearly been questioned as biased by giving far too much weight to Tractarian interpretations of the articles, and can't even bring itself to say that it opposed Roman Catholic doctrine. IMHO the whole article is impossibly complex and hard to understand and filled with in-house discussions, completely unaccessable to the average reader. The 39 articles are clearly Calvinistic, Protestant but this article can't bring itself to say anything close to this!Sbmackay (talk) 03:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
The result was merge into Thirty-Nine Articles . -- Wassupwestcoast 01:21, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we really need stub pages for the Ten Articles, Six Articles and The Necessary Doctrine and Erudition for Any Christian Man? I see a page maintance problem and little hope that any will get to GA status soon. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 03:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about this since my first day on WP and I support it, other opinions? If not the King's Book and the Bishop's Book, certainly all the articles could be on one page. Look at the section on the 42 Articles. -- SECisek 04:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Since there have been no comments in a week, I'm merging. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 01:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wow, it looks great!!! GA in 48 hours! -- SECisek 08:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Lutheran leanings?[edit]

What were the "Lutheran leanings" in the Ten Articles? The articles were published in 1536, Lutherans were still being burned [1] in England up until the arrival of the German delegation in 1539 that came to discuss doctrine. I often see it glossed over that this meeting led to "Lutheran leanings" that were visible in the Articles. The meeting took place three years AFTER the ten articles were published and it angered the king so much to hear the Lutheran positions that the meeting lead directly to the Six Aricles, which restate Roman Catholic doctrine more clearly then was done in the Ten. It would not be fair to say that the church "swung away from Luther and back towards Rome" with the Six Articles. Doctrine never really strayed during the reign of Henry. The Bishop's Book, written by Cranmer, had slight Lutheran leanings, but none really worthy of menention. Geneva's influence on the 42 Articles is more obvious, but keep in mind those never were in effect.

I have not reworked that paragraph yet, but I would like to discuss this. My research for the Cranmer articles leads me to pose the questions above. -- SECisek 05:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Restricting the sacraments to penance, eucharist and baptism was a leaning to early Lutheran thought. The Bishop's Book of 1537 strayed towards Lutheran sympathies enough that there was an anti-Lutheran backlash by people like Thomas Howard so that by 1538 Henry stopped the experimentation - he was the one who requested the exploration of doctrine by Cromwell and Cranmer in 1537 - and begun burning a few people at the stake for holding Lutheran ideas like denying the real presence of Christ in the eucharist. By 1539, Howard brought forth th Six Articles. The Lutheran idea of justification by faith which made its way into the Ten Articles and the Bishop's Book was repudiated when the King's Book came out in 1543 which is perhaps the doctrinal document that is furthest away from Lutheranisms. Anyway, I was trying to prevent a dry and incomprehensible list of doctrinal statements that mean nothing to the outsider. Lutheran-like, Calvinist, or Catholic all convey something like the flavour of these documents in a short-hand that has some universal meaning outside of English church history. And, my knowledge of this sort of thing is very basic. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast 12:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
We will get something together that is lively and accurate when we do the merges. Let me know when we have a consensus. -- SECisek 12:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
A "list of doctrinal statements" does not have to be "a dry and incomprehensible", and would be very useful for those who come to the article wanting something more than bare-bones generalisation. We are, afterall, dealing with a progression of ideas towards a final product. The differences between the steps that make up the progression are exactly, I submit, what people would expect to find coming to an article such as this. Compare, for example, many wiki articles on topics of science or (especially) maths; they strive to give as much relevant information as possible - in a clear manner - without presupposing the reader's inability to comprehend the finer points. Tobermory 22:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Question - Are Articles Overruled by Lambeth Council Resolutions?[edit]

I have a question: Are the Thirty-Nine Articles overruled by resolutions made by the Lambeth Council? I think this is a timely question given that Lambeth is being held this year but, more to the point, I personally find the last sentence of Article 37 deeply troubling in our current day and age and, frankly, antithetical to Christ's teachings. However, I am aware that Lambeth 1988 Resolution 27 (see here [2] ) and Lambeth 1978 Resolution 5 (here [3]) clearly counter Article 37.

What, then, is the relationship between the Articles and the Lambeth Resolutions? Can someone please explain it to me? Thanks in advance. (talk) 09:17, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

To my understanding, the Thirty Nine Articles are of no binding authority in any province of the Anglican Communion other than the Church of England, in which case even now only the clergy are required to prescribe to it. So the resolutions of Lambeth are probably of greater authority with respect to the Anglican Communion in general than the 39. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of Books in Article 6[edit]

It looks like they were pasted into here from a three column list and were consequently out of order. I fixed it and think it's correct now. I tried adding a link to the "additions of esther" subheading in the Book of Esther page, but couldn't figure it out. I'm not sure if the links are properly formatted, so I ask someone to take a look at it. Shouldn't "The" be in the hyperlink display text? I left that part "as was" but think it looks wrong. Davidfmurphy (talk) 06:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

What rubbish is this?[edit]

The article reads: "They were willing to separate from Rome, but their plan was to unite with the Greek Church and not with the evangelical Protestants on the continent.[6] The bishops also refused to eliminate what the Germans called the "Abuses" (e.g., private Masses, celibacy of the clergy, invocation of saints) allowed by the reformed English Church.[7] Stokesley considered these customs to be essential because the Greek Church, as the Eastern Orthodox Church was called at that time, practised them.[8]". I don't really understand where you guys are getting these ideas. Where is there any evidence that private Masses have ever been general practice in the EOC. Where is there any evidence that the EOC has ever generally required its clergy to be celibate (beyond the episcopate)? Deusveritasest (talk) 22:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Bancrofts Cannons?[edit]

Were these articles also known as Bancroft's Cannons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Six Articles[edit]

Under "Six Articles," it's unclear to what act "penalties under this [A]ct" refers.

I suggest "examine six doctrinal questions which eventually became the basis of the Six Articles." be changed to:

"examine six doctrinal questions which eventually became part of an act of Parliament, The Act of the Six Articles."

Also, the text reads

"the articles were repealed by his son, Edward VI."

How could the king repeal and Act of Parliament? If he didn't do that, were the articles memorialized separate from and in addition to the act of Parliament, and thus something he could influence independently of Parliament?

Richard Ong (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles IX-XVIII and the "Via Media[edit]

This summary is need of reworking:

"Articles IX—XVIII: Personal religion: These articles dwell on the topics of sin, justification, and the eternal disposition of the soul. Of particular focus is the major Reformation topic of justification by faith. The Articles in this section and in the section on the Church plant Anglicanism in the via media of the debate, portraying an Economy of Salvation where good works are an outgrowth of faith and there is a role for the Church and for the sacraments."

This is not evidence of a via media--not on any point. Such a reading is Anglo-Catholic wishful thinking, I'm afraid. Articles XI and XIII are classic Reformation statements on justification by faith, and are in essential agreement with reformed (Calvinist) Protestantism regarding the importance of works as signs or expressions of justified faith, and not, in their own right, means of salvation. "Works done before the grace of Christ, and the Inspiration of his Spirit, are not pleasant to God" (XIII). All the major reformed Protestant theologians of the 16th and 17th centuries were careful not to discount the importance of works (constantly on guard against Antinomianism), but, as the Articles express, similarly positioned works in their proper place in the salvation process: as effects of, not means to, salvation. And article XVII "On Predestination and Election" is about as "Genevan" as you can get. If evidence of a via media is to be found anywhere, it is not in these sections of the 39 articles.

The Articles in general are Protestant and land the Elizabethan Church squarely in the Reformed Protestant camp, with a few nods to Luther as well: no purgatory, no transubstantiation, services must be in the vernacular, etc. Articles 20, 21 and 23 "On the Church" etc would have pleased Calvin: Calvinists too placed enormous emphasis on the authority of the church offices, "the keys," the proper calling of ministers, and the absolute centrality of the sacraments, administered by ordained preachers, as vehicles of grace. Article XIX states that the Church of Rome is "in error" regarding "manners of ceremonies" and "matters of faith."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwd123 (talkcontribs) 13:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC) 

So, ... what are the Thirty-Nine Articles?[edit]

Have I missed something? This page is supposed to be about the Thirty-Nine Articles. Well, there's a lot of preamble about former lists of Articles by different authors; then there's a summary of the articles. At any point will the reader get to see a list of the Thirty-Nine Articles? Francis Hannaway (talk) Francis Hannaway 13:31, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

It does seem a bit of an omission, but the list is linked from the bottom of the page. This follows the WP:NPS#Summarise, quote from and link to policy. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Spot on! I came here simply needing to know what they 39 articles actually are. The article should start, "The Thirty Nine Articles of the Anglican Church are . . . " and then LIST them. Is this some sort of ironic hidden message about theological discussion generally; all blether and no content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:43, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource link problem[edit]

Looks like the earlier Wikisource pages for the Thirty-Nine Articles have been moved or removed. I've not yet found where this should now point to, so there is a problem in the link. DFH (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

39 articles[edit]

What a useless article; what are the 39 articles, can we have a list please!? (talk) 00:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 26 April 2016[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. This isn't about proper name or not - Articles is remaining capitalised. It's just a MOSCAPS question, and it seems reasonably uncontroversial. Thirty-nine is preferred over Thirty-Nine.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thirty-Nine ArticlesThirty-nine Articles – Capitalizing the "Nine", the second half of a hyphenated word, is a bit unusual even for title case. Most books don't, so let's not. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

  • Support as nom, per n-grams evidence linked in rationale. Dicklyon (talk) 22:46, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment, probably an alert on the Anglicanism and Church of England talk pages would help this discussion. Seems a big change, and I'm not personally fluent in the topic to comment further on its proper-name status. Randy Kryn 23:16, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seems to be an incorrect close[edit]

Amakuru, with all due respect I don't think you know how to close pages as yet. Looking at this nomination it's obvious, given the extent of this topic, that the right move would be to relist this and notify the editors at such projects as Religion, History, etc., and notify the main articles (such as English history, Church of England, etc.) that a move is taking place. Only one editor, the nominator, Supported it. Enough to change the name of a major event and publication in the history of religion? You say "This isn't about proper name or not - Articles is remaining capitalised. It's just a MOSCAPS question, and it seems reasonably uncontroversial", which, after you've just also decapitalized Ninety-Five Theses without an RM asking Wikipedia to, seems wrong about three ways to Sunday (literally). Randy Kryn 11:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Randy, this doesn't seem so much a thing that needs to be discussed and decided for just religion-related articles, but on a more meta-basis for our house WP:Manual of Style. See Capitalizing Hyphenated Words in Titles. The various style manuals have different opinions on this. Chicago does not capitalize the second part of a spelled-out hyphenated number (Twenty-first and Two-thirds). I like its approach in a final rule: "Break a rule when it doesn't work." Well done, Chicago. - that's the spirit of WP:IAR :) See The Chicago Manual of Style. wbm1058 (talk) 13:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
MOS:HYPHENCAPS seems to be the applicable guideline here. wbm1058 (talk) 13:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
@Randy Kryn: as Wbm1058 points out, I'm not sure what value there is in pinging WikiProjects on a style issue, particularly when the MOS seems fairly clear on the matter, at MOS:HYPHENCAPS. There was a definite consensus at Ninety-Five Theses, as I've just clarified in my close there, and with one support and a comment from yourself (rather than an oppose) here at this one, after a full listing period, given that it's in line with the MOS, I didn't see any reason not to close it as moved. If you have a good reason why this interpretation of MOS is incorrect, please let me know. Otherwise I am not minded to re-open this debate. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, User:Wbm1058 was wrong, the actual relevant guideline (over at MOS:TITLE) is unclear and simply punts the issue to WP:COMMON, and the current title sure is ugly. I'm personally against it, too, but the ngrams are pretty clear: since the beginning of the 21st century, there's been a resurgence of people using this formatting for the thing's name. It's what we should go with until the books and scholars stop, and they'll mostly check us if they're paying attention to the minor style point.
More importantly, someone involved with the page should go through and fix the references that are still saying "Forty-Two" etc. — LlywelynII 06:51, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I just changed the one instance of "Forty-Two" I found in the article, to keep it consistent throughout. I'd forgotten this discussion, and took time to review it. It's not surprising that we can't come to a consensus on this issue, and thus punt to the most "common usage", when it seems that the experts are waffling on it too. Reviewing the page I linked to three years ago, which says "UPDATED IN JANUARY 2019", I see now that it says "The Chicago Manual of Style has simplified its capitalization rules in its most recent (17th) edition. For hyphenated compounds, it recommends: Capitalize the second element in a hyphenated spelled-out number (twenty-one or twenty-first, etc.) or hyphenated simple fractions (two-thirds in two-thirds majority). [Chicago used to render the second elements lower case.]"
So it may be worth revisiting this on a manual-of-style talk page, if you think it's important. – wbm1058 (talk) 12:56, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

"6 Articles" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 6 Articles. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#6 Articles until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)