TheLambeth Articles of 1595 were nine doctrinal statements on the topic ofpredestination proposed by thebishops of theChurch of England. At the time, there was controversy betweenCalvinists and non-Calvinists over predestination, and the Lambeth Articles were written to clarify the church's official teaching.William Whitaker, an eminentReformed theologian, served as the primary author.
The Church of England's bishops endorsed the Lambeth Articles, but QueenElizabeth I refused to authorise them. As a result, they never went into effect in England. However, the articles were adopted by theChurch of Ireland in 1615.
During the reign ofElizabeth I (1558–1603), aCalvinist consensus developed among the leading clergy within theChurch of England, specifically in regards to the doctrine ofpredestination. The church's doctrinal statement, theThirty-nine Articles, addressed predestination in Article 17 ("Of Predestination and Election"). While Calvinists believed indouble predestination (that God predestined some people forsalvation but others forreprobation), Article 17 only endorsedelection to salvation.[2]
TheUniversity of Cambridge was a Calvinist stronghold and notable Calvinist professors includedThomas Cartwright,William Perkins, andWilliam Whitaker.[1] There was anArminian minority (notablyWilliam Barret,Peter Baro,John Overall andAntonio del Corro), influenced by the teachings of Dutch theologianJacobus Arminius, which challenged the prevailing Calvinism.[3]
Sermons preached by Barret and Baro against the Calvinist doctrine of predestination ignited controversy.[1] On 29 April 1595, Barret's sermon addressed three points:[4]
Following the sermon, a group led by Whitaker,Humphrey Tyndall, andRobert Some campaigned for Barret's expulsion from hisCaius College fellowship.[4]
To settle the controversy, the heads of Cambridge University sent Whitaker and Tyndall to meet withJohn Whitgift, thearchbishop of Canterbury, and other clergy atLambeth Palace in London.[5] Besides Whitgift, the most senior clergy involved in the discussions wereRichard Fletcher, thebishop of London, andRichard Vaughan, thebishop-elect of Bangor.[6] According to historian Nicholas Tyacke, the clergy were acting in their capacity as theCourt of High Commission.[7]
The Articles were drafted by Whitaker and somewhat modified by the bishops to make them less objectionable to anti-Calvinists. The Articles were adopted at Lambeth on 20 November 1595. The Articles were sent toMatthew Hutton, thearchbishop of York, who endorsed them.[8]
Whitgift did not inform the Queen about the Articles, and he tried to keep them a secret. Elizabeth learned of them around December 5 and promptly ordered Whitgift to suspend the Articles. The Queen was furious they had been formulated without her knowledge or consent. She also disliked the theology endorsed by the document. Without royal authorisation, the Articles never gained official status within the Church of England.[9]
.jpg)
The Lambeth Articles were not intended to replace the Thirty-nine Articles but were designed to officially align Article 17 ("Of Predestination and Election") to Calvinist theology,[3] specificallysublapsarian Calvinism.[10] The nine articles adopted at Lambeth can be summarised as follows:[8]
The Lambeth Articles were accepted at the 1615 Convocation of Dublin and consequently engrafted in theIrish Articles (written byJames Ussher). One can find the basis of theFive Points of Calvinism contained in theCanons of Dort (1618–19) in the Lambeth Articles.[11]
In his 1958 workReformation and Reaction in Tudor Cambridge, historian Harry Porter argued that the Lambeth Articles were a failed attempt by a Calvinist minority to force their views on the rest of the church. Porter argued Archbishop Whitgift only endorsed the Articles to keep the peace within the church, but he modified Whitaker's original draft to make the Articles acceptable to non-Calvinists as a compromise. Porter's thesis was endorsed by Peter White andDebora Shuger.[12][13]
According to Peter Lake, the Lambeth Articles represent a compromise between the Cambridge theologians and Whitgift, both of whom shared common Calvinist assumptions. The Cambridge theologians were more rigid andscholastic in their theology, and Whitgift considered them to be intolerant. The Lambeth Articles illustrated Whitgift's belief that "the opinions of every Englishdivine of significance could be accommodated, without undue strain, within a framework of thought that was recognizably Calvinist".[14]