It is still doubtful whether they were approved by Convocation, but the point is not of great significance, for they were put forth by the King’s authority only seven weeks before his death.  On the accession of queen Mary they were dropped – they had not been enforced by Act of Parliament and there was no need to repeal them.  Once more the reforming process was halted.

When queen Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558, Prayer Book revision took precedence over the Articles.  But, as a temporary measure, Archbishop Parker drew up and circulated amongst the clergy The Eleven Articles (1559), dealing with the authority of Scripture, the rights of National Churches, the Royal Supremacy, and Roman errors such as private masses, Ccommunion in one Kind, and the extolling of images and relics.  These Articles were never legally binding except in Ireland, where they were in force from 1566 until superseded by the Thirty‑nine Articles in 1615.  All Ministers at their first entry into their cures, and twice yearly afterwards, were required to read them publicly.

Meanwhile, Archbishop Parker, with the help of Bishop Cox of Ely, and Bishop Guest of Rochester, was working on a revision of The Forty‑Two Articles of 1553.  As in 1553, Cranmer had used the Thirteen Articles (based on the Confession of Augsburg), so once more Lutheran influence made itself felt when Parker drew upon The Würtemberg Confession in  making his revision of 1563. Four of the original Forty‑two were struck out (viz: Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, Of Grace, Of the Moral Law, Against the Millenarians) and four others substituted: Of the Holy Ghost (V), Of Good Works (XII), Of Communion in Both Kinds (XXX), Of the Non‑participation of the Wicked in the Holy Communion (XXIX).  Convocation passed only 39 of the 42, and the queen (i) reduced the number to 38 by striking out Article XXIX to avoid offending the Roman Catholic party, and (ii) added the opening clause in Article XX taken from The Würtemberg Confession.

The Thirty‑eight Articles remained unaltered until 1571.  The queen’s excommunication by the Pope in 1570 destroyed any hope of reconciliation.  It was no longer necessary, then, to fear that Article XXIX would hurt their feelings, and it was accordingly incorporated.  A few other minor changes were made, including the addition of four books in the list of the Apocrypha (Article VI).  As revised, the Thirty‑nine Articles were then passed by Convocation, and received the sanction ofParliament in 1571.  Since then they have been “received and approved” as authoritative standards of doctrine by most of the branches of the Anglican Communion.

In many parts of the Anglican Communion every clergyman, when he is made a Deacon, ordained Priest, consecrated Bishop, or licensed for a benefice or curacy, is required to declare his assent to the Thirty‑nine Articles.  The Ordinal requires every Priest at his ordination to vow ‘always so to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments, and the Discipline of Christ, as the Lord hath commanded, and as this Church hath received the same.’  The Ordinal thus allows little scope for the teaching of novel or personal opinions; only ‘received’ doctrine is to be taught.  Hence one of the chief uses of the Articles today is that they provide a body of official teaching.

It was the declared aim and object of the Anglican Reformers to cleave to the faith and practice of the Primitive Church.  They made a two‑fold appeal to Scripture and Antiquity one of their basic principles.  In matters of doctrine, the appeal to Scripture as the supreme Rule of Faith was always regarded as final; in questions as to the correct interpretation of Scripture, and in matters of ceremonial they preferred to be guided by the practice of the Primitive Church.  In the fifth century, St. Vincent of Lerins formulated a rule for distinguishing Catholic truth from falsehood, and his rule has won general acceptance ever since.  The most important part of his rule or ‘canon’ is as follows:

‘In the Catholic Church itself all possible care must be taken that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, and by all.  For that is truly and in the strictest sense Catholic, which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally.  This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent.’

To put it more simply, St. Vincent’s rule is (a) that we should generally follow the teaching of the majority, but (b) since even the majority of any generation may teach something which is not true, we should verify the teaching of the majority by asking, Have the majority of Christians in every generation believed so?  That is the real test of what is Catholic doctrine and what is not Catholic.

At the Reformation, the leaders of our Church stoutly resisted any suggestion that they were departing from Catholic teaching.  They maintained that they were merely reforming the teaching of the Church to bring it into line with the teaching and practices of the Primitive Church, by rejecting the new articles which had been added to the Faith by the Church of Rome.

Following this traditional appeal to Scripture and Antiquity, we have given references to Scripture and early authorities wherever possible, to demonstrate the Catholicity of the teaching of the Articles.

The Articles also illustrate another basic principle of the Anglican Reformation – the quest for the Via Media, the middle path between extremes.  Faced with the doctrines of Rome on the one hand, and the novel ideas and practices of the Continental Reformers on the other, the English Reformers tried to follow the middle path in many cases – not for reasons of expediency, but because, in Saunderson’s words, ‘The mean between the two extremes seems to be the truer opinion.’