Talk:Anglican Doctrine

In order to maintain an unbiased tone, and the given definition of formularies as "an officially authorized doctrinal or liturgical standard which expresses the teaching of the Church", the Second Book of Homilies should not be listed as formularies. The Court of Arches Declaration of 19 November 1838 on Breeks vs Woolfrey: “it is not to be necessarily inferred that the Church of England adopted every part of the doctrines contained in the Homilies.” and The Lambeth Conference of 1888: “It is true that the English Church possesses a body of teaching in the Book of Common Prayer, in the Catechism, and in the Thirty-nine Articles, to say nothing of the Book of Homilies. But these repositories of teaching, precious as they are, do not appear to the Committee to possess the qualities which ought to belong to a declaration, such as is contemplated in the remarks now made.”

Additionally, numerous early Anglican authors witness to this fact that they are not formularies, such as Laud, Montagu, Bramhall, Cosin, Ellis, Davenport, Heylyn, Beveridge, Burnet, Collier, Hey, Zouch, White, Knox, Laurence, Jebb etc.

Therefore, whilst the Second Book of Homilies do demonstrate a doctrine permissible in the Church of England, they are not dogmatic statements and should not be listed (without proper qualification) on the same level as the Articles, BCP etc.