The Westminster Confession of Faith and its Incompatibility with Anglicanism

Clipped from: https://thewayofwalsingham.substack.com/p/the-westminster-confession-of-faith-da9
By The Way of Walsingham

I ntroduction:

Anglicanism and the Reformed tradition diverge most profoundly not only on isolated doctrines but on their foundational instincts: Anglican theology begins with God’s being, whereas Reformed theology begins with human knowing. The WCF begins with a discussion of Scripture; how divine truth is known, secured, and defended. Its starting point is epistemological. The Anglican Articles, by contrast, open with the Holy Trinity, grounding all theology ontologically in God Himself. This difference is not merely methodological — it shapes each tradition’s understanding of revelation, the Church, the sacraments, and even the nature of the Christian life.

The question of what is, must come before the question of how we know. As Richard Hooker wrote:

The general and perpetual voice of men is as the sentence of God himself. For that which all men have at all times learned, Nature herself must needs have taught; and God being the author of Nature, her voice is but His instrument. By her from Him we receive whatsoever in such sort we learn. Infinite duties there are, the goodness whereof is by this rule sufficiently manifested, although we had no other warrant besides to approve them.^[1]

Hooker demonstrates the primacy of being over knowing through his appeal to natural law. He emphasizes that moral truths are not inventions of human reasoning but are inscribed in creation itself: “ Nature herself must needs have taught; and God being the author of Nature, her voice is but his instrument.” By locating the source of law in God and His created order, Hooker shows that what is morally and ontologically real exists prior to our recognition or understanding of it. We as humans do not generate these truths; we apprehend them as we participate in the natural and divine order. Even without reflective thought or explicit warrant, the goodness of these duties is evident, showing that the reality of right and wrong precedes human cognition. In this way, natural law exemplifies how truth is grounded in being. It shows that knowledge flows from reality, not the other way around.

This principle is fundamental because it anchors Anglican theology in objective reality rather than in the contingencies of human perception. By beginning with what is, Anglicans affirm that truth possesses an existence prior to and independent of human apprehension. It also undergirds a profoundly sacramental vision of the Church. The sacraments effect grace through the Holy Spirit’s efficacious action in and through the sacramental sign, independently of the recipient’s mental apprehension or acts of understanding. In the Reformed receptionist framework, by contrast, grace is applied only insofar as the recipient apprehends, believes, or assents to it. For them, the Eucharist is received spiritually when grasped by faith. In other words, efficacy in this model is mediated through the intellect, so that the sacrament risks being reduced to a cognitive or epistemic exercise. Anglican theology resists this reduction, insisting that grace is operative in reality and that human knowing participates in what is already present, rather than constructing it through perception or faith. Epistemology thus becomes a matter of participation in what already exists, rather than the construction of knowledge ex nihilo. In this manner, Anglicanism preserves fidelity to the classical Christian tradition, sustaining an incarnational and ecclesial vision of theology intrinsically rooted in the eternal reality of God.

This conviction shows why Anglican theology, from the Articles of Religion onward, opens not with man’s knowledge but with God’s reality. Article 1 of the 39 Articles of religion begins with: “Of Faith in the Holy Trinity,” and reflects this ontological grounding. It may be historically conditioned, but it rightly directs us first to the divine being, not to human cognition.

The Reformed impulse in the WCF is to secure certainty by grounding theology in the authority of the written Word, yet in doing so it risks reducing revelation to an epistemic problem. Anglicanism, however, insists that truth is not first something we verify but something grounded in the eternal being of God, received in the life of the Church. Scripture belongs to this life, but it is not prior to the One who is the source of all being and the foundation of all knowing.

It is within this ontological and historical framework that the Articles must be read. They are neither a final word nor an exhaustive system, and their direct applicability to Anglicans today is necessarily limited. Rather, they function as a faithful witness, directing attention beyond themselves to the fullness of the apostolic faith. By holding being before knowing, Anglicanism offers the orthodox and catholic vision of theology than the epistemologically driven framework of the Westminster Confession.

Foundations of Theology: Ontology vs. Epistemology

The Articles of Religion, begins with an ontological foundation: the nature and being of God. The first Article, Of Faith in the Holy Trinity, declares:

“There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness; the Maker, and Preserver of all things both visible and invisible. And in unity of this Godhead there be three Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity; the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” ^[2]

This opening reveals the Anglican conviction that theology begins not with man but with God; His nature, essence, and revelation of Himself as The Holy Trinity. This approach reflects the classical principle that theology is the study of God and all things in relation to Him (De Deo et rebus aliis ad Deum). To understand the world, humanity, or even Scripture itself, one must first know who God is, for He is the ultimate source of truth, being, and purpose.

In contrast, the Westminster Confession of Faith opens its first chapter on Scripture as the means by which divine truth is revealed and known. This is not a trivial distinction; it demonstrates that the Confession is fundamentally concerned with how man comes to know God rather than beginning with the ontological reality of God Himself. This focus aligns with the Confession’s anthropology, as expressed in its famous, first, catechetical question:

Q: What is the chief end of man?

A: Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy Him forever.^[3]

The question presumes that theological inquiry begins with man’s purpose and proceeds to God as the object of that purpose. It doesn't mean that this is a bad catechism question or that it is incorrect, for it isn't. It underscores the point that, in Westminsterian theology, understanding humanity’s end provides the framework for understanding divine revelation. This prioritization of human epistemology over divine ontology situates the WCF’s theological system within a different framework than that of the Articles.

Anglicanism, frames its understanding of man within the broader context of God’s nature and the person of Christ. The implicit logic is that only by knowing God as He is—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—can man know his own end. This ontological grounding ensures that theology remains God-centered, not man-centered, and that worship is rooted in the mystery of God’s being rather than in human understanding.

By contrast, when theology begins with the question of knowledge rather than being, the focus subtly shifts from God’s self-revelation to the subject’s capacity for certainty. What begins as a concern to safeguard the reliability of revelation soon reorients theology around the knowing self. This anticipates the logic of Enlightenment philosophy, in which epistemology precedes ontology and the question “How can I know?” takes primacy over “Who is God?” The movement reaches its apex in Descartes, whose cogito situates the foundation of truth in the self-reflective act of the subject rather than in the givenness of divine reality. In this sense, the epistemological priority that emerges in some Reformation contexts may be seen as proto-Cartesian: the groundwork for modern philosophy’s turn from God-centered ontology to man-centered epistemology.

These differing foundations reveal not only divergent theological methods but also distinct spiritual priorities. Anglicanism, beginning with the Trinity, invites the believer into the life of God through the sacrament and into worship, emphasizing union with Christ and the transformative power of grace. Westminster theology, beginning with Scripture and man’s chief end, prioritizes the individual’s response to divine revelation, emphasizing obedience and the glorification of God through human understanding.

The Authority of Scripture: Defining the Boundaries

In Article VI of the Articles of Religion, we read:

“Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation.” ^[4]

This article affirms the sufficiency of Scripture for salvation, but it does so within an explicitly ecclesial framework. Scripture is never an abstract repository of divine truths existing apart from the Church, but the living testimony of God’s revelation proclaimed, preserved, and interpreted within the Body of Christ. The sacred text comes to life in the liturgy, preaching, and sacramental life of the Church under the Spirit’s guidance.

This view is distinct from the assertion found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, which states:

“The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.” ^[5]

Here the Reformed tradition presents Scripture as a closed, self-sufficient system. While the WCF insists on the Spirit’s illumination, it treats the Bible as effectively self-interpreting and detached from the Church’s liturgical and sacramental context. The result is a high regard for doctrinal precision and systematic theology through reason, but at the cost of fragmenting revelation from the living worshiping community in which it was received.

Anglicanism avoids this reductionism. The Articles recognize that the Church plays a vital role in interpreting and applying that Scripture. As Article XX states:

“The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another.” ^[6]

The interplay described here is one of complementarity, not subordination. The Church exercises authority in controversies of faith, yet her authority is bound by the parameters of Scripture. At the same time, Scripture does not function in isolation but is interpreted and lived within the Church’s sacramental and liturgical framework. To suggest otherwise—to conceive of Scripture as an independent and self-contained repository of divine truth—is to sever it from the context in which it was given and to obscure its sacramental nature.

Canon of Scripture: Explicit vs. Implicit Definitions

This also highlights the differing theological priorities and diverging assumptions about authority, the nature of revelation, and the Church’s role in preserving and interpreting the divine Word.

The Articles of Religion of the Church of England make an implicit reference to the canon of Scripture, offering no exhaustive list of canonical books. However, in Article VI, it states:

“ In the name of the Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament, of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church.” ^[7]

This language reflects that Anglican theology is fundamentally ecclesial. The canon is not presented as an isolated compilation of texts but as a living corpus that has been produced by the church. The authority of Scripture, therefore, is not merely self-evident; it is the Church’s solemn duty to preserve, transmit, and interpret it within the context of the living Tradition. While the Article does include a list of canonical books, it defers to the consensus of the Church as the faithful guardian of these texts. Furthermore, the mention of the “other Books” (the Apocrypha) signals a profound trust in the Church’s historic judgment, with these books being included for edification and instruction within the liturgical and catechetical life of the Church.

By contrast, the Westminster Confession approaches the canon with explicit definition and precision:

“Under the name of Holy Scripture, or the Word of God written, are now contained all the books of the Old and New Testaments, which are these [66 books] All which are given by inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life.” ^[8]

This starkly defines the canon as a closed and precisely demarcated body of texts, whose authority is derived from their status as divinely inspired. The Confession reflects the Reformed tradition’s emphasis on sola scriptura, aiming to provide a clear, unambiguous standard for discerning truth. The puritans were rejecting the “apocrypha" from their own reasoning that they taught false doctrines. This underscores the Confession’s epistemological priority, ensuring that all doctrine and practice are rooted in Scripture alone. However, this entails a detachment from the organic and historical process through which the canon was discerned and received by the Church. Rather than understanding the canon as a product of the Church’s living tradition, the Confession envisions it as a self-authenticating and autonomous text, both dependent of the Church’s witness disregarding any church fathers insights that disagrees with their interpretation.

Anglicanism’s approach, reveals a deeper trust in the Church as the custodian of divine revelation. The canon was not handed down as a complete, self-evident list but discerned through centuries of prayer, discussion, and liturgical use. The inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books for instruction, exemplifies this reliance on the Church’s broader reception of Scripture within her worship and teaching.

To understand the Anglican view of the Deuterocanonical Books, it is helpful to consider the way they are employed liturgically and devotionally. These books, are regarded as part of the Church’s sacred heritage. They bear witness to the same divine truths revealed in the canonical Scriptures and often illuminate the faith and practice of the early Church. Their inclusion in the lectionary of the Book of Common Prayer demonstrates their enduring value for edification and moral instruction.

The Westminster Confession, in its insistence on a rigidly defined canon, reflects a different theological method. By grounding the authority of Scripture in its status as God’s inspired Word, independent of the Church’s understanding, the Confession seeks to safeguard against human error. Yet, in doing so, it severs the Scriptures from the very community that received, preserved, and proclaimed them. The Reformed tradition, presupposing that the canon is self-authenticating, fails to account for the historical process by which the Church, in her authority, recognized the inspired books.

Ultimately, the Anglican approach to the canon reflects a catholic vision of the faith—one that holds Scripture, Tradition, and the Church in harmonious balance. By refusing to divorce the canon from its ecclesial context, Anglicanism preserves the fullness of the apostolic witness, ensuring that the Scriptures remain a living Word, proclaimed and celebrated within the community of faith.

Implications for Theology and Spirituality

The implications of the Anglican approach to the canon of Scripture, particularly in contrast with the Westminster Confession of Faith, extend far beyond doctrinal formulation. They shape theology, spirituality, and the very way the faithful encounter God’s revelation.

It is no accident that Anglicans have historically placed a strong emphasis on the lectionary, that system of Scripture readings that organizes the Word of God in a way that shapes the Christian year. By the ordering of the liturgical calendar, the Church leads the faithful through the life of Christ, from His nativity to His ascension, from His passion to His resurrection.

This is where Anglicanism offers a crucial insight into the nature of Christian life that the Reformed lack. For Anglicans, the truth of the Scriptures is not only something to be believed but something to be embodied. The sacraments, prayer, and worship are not aids to personal piety but are essential means by which the faithful come into contact with the scriptures.

The Anglican inclusion of the Deuterocanonical Books further illustrates this difference. These books, being retained in the lectionary, enrich the faith by bridging the Old and New Testaments. They bear witness to God’s providence in the intertestamental period and introduce themes—such as angelic intercession, prayers for the departed, and God’s ongoing activity—that deepen the Christian understanding of salvation. The Apocrypha were included in the first Daily Office Lectionaries in the “classic” Books of Common Prayer such as the: 1549,1559 and 1662. Such texts are not secondary curiosities, but integral voices in the Church’s worship and instruction.

By contrast, Westminster’s exclusion of the Deuterocanon creates a silence in salvation history, as though God ceased to act and speak between Malachi and Matthew. This gives the impression that revelation arrives in disjointed bursts, rather than unfolding continuously in the life of God’s people.

In contrast, the removal of the Deuterocanon by the Westminster Confession represents a dispensational view of salvation history. By excluding these texts, the Reformed tradition introduces a concept where God appears to have been silent from the close of the Old Testament, with the prophetic silence extending from Malachi until the opening of the New Testament in Matthew. This interpretation suggests that, during this period, God was not actively revealing Himself to His people, which stands in contrast to the continuous activity of divine revelation seen throughout the entirety of Scripture. The result of this understanding is that the living voice of God appears to fall silent, not just from Malachi to Matthew, but also, by extension, from when the prophecies of Revelation was given to St. John until the eschaton. This silence diminishes the fullness of God’s self-revelation in history, implying that the Church lives in a period where the Spirit is ceased (cessationism), rather than continuing to guide and inspire the faithful through the ages.

The architects of the WCF, working from Calvin’s argument for cessationism, particularly his response to Roman Catholic claims of ongoing miracles, illuminates a grave concern within the Reformed tradition (see footnote ^[9]). By positing that the miraculous age of the Church ended with the apostles, Calvin unintentionally supports the notion that the miracles of the early Church were a divine confirmation of its apostolicity. In this light, the cessation of miracles in the Reformed Church becomes more than a theological point. It reveals the symptoms of breaking away from the church.

In asserting that miracles ceased after the apostolic age, the Reformed position, in effect, suggests that the Church entered into a period of divine silence between the apostolic writings and the eschaton. This, however, represents a theological rupture. It implies that God ceased to act in a miraculously objective manner within His Church after the apostolic period, a silence that endures until the final consummation of all things. This, in turn, diminishes the understanding of the Church as a living, dynamic Body, sustained by the ongoing presence of Christ through the sacraments and the faithful, who are continuously empowered by the Holy Spirit. This in turn, would deny the very miracles recorded by St.Bede in addition to denying the vision of Our Lady of Walsingham! It denies the very heritage of Anglicanism.

From the perspective of Anglicanism, the cessation of miracles, is not a mark of purity, but signals a loss of the very apostolicity that the Church was meant to embody. The Church, as the mystical Body of Christ, is not abandoned or left in silence after the close of the apostolic age. Rather, it is sustained by the Holy Spirit, who continues to guide, sanctify, and empower the Church throughout the ages. To claim that the Church has been without such divine confirmation since the apostolic era is to sever the Church from the very living Tradition handed down from Christ through His apostles.

Therefore, the cessationist position in the Reformed tradition highlights a significant theological break—a loss of the continuous apostolicity that defines the true Church. In their desire to purify and systematize the faith according to their own understanding, the Reformed have removed from the Church the signs of its life and vitality. They have turned the Church into a community bound only by a written Word, forsaking the living witness of Christ that continues in the sacramental life of the faithful, in the prayers of the saints, and in the miraculous grace that accompanies the true Church.

Conclusion: The WCF Errors as Echoes of the Donatist Schism

At the root of the errors discussed throughout this work lies a fundamental inversion: an epistemology that takes precedence over ontology. By grounding their ecclesiology in an idea of purity rather than in the Church’s being, they severed themselves from the very source of holiness they sought to preserve.

By making the efficacy of the sacraments contingent upon the moral purity of the minister, the Donatists collapsed the divine mystery of grace into the realm of human judgment. In effect, grace became subject to epistemic verification—dependent not on God’s promise but on our ability to discern the hidden state of another’s soul.Likewise, the Puritans, in their rejection of the Deuterocanon, their suspicion of sacramental life, and their embrace of cessationism, turned the Scriptures into a closed system to be mastered rather than a living voice to be encountered. In both cases, the inexhaustible mystery of God’s action was reduced to the confines of human cogniton—whether by judging the minister’s worthiness or by devising subjective standards to determine who truly belonged among the elect. In this way, theology began to turn inward: the question of salvation was filtered through the believer’s own capacity to discern signs of election within himself. This inward turn anticipated the epistemological anxieties of the Enlightenment, culminating in Descartes, who made the self’s capacity for certainty the foundation of all truth. The seed of proto-Cartesianism was already present in a theology that sought assurance not in God’s being and promises, but in man’s ability to verify his own standing before Him. Both movements made human cognition the foundation of faith, and in doing so, they diminished the ontological reality of Christ’s presence in His Church.

This false foundation explains their parallel outcomes. The Donatists fractured the unity of the Church in North Africa, just as the Puritans splintered from the Church of England and then from one another. Both confused holiness with exclusion, and truth with systemization, forgetting that the Church is not a community of the pure but the communion of saints, made holy by participation in Christ.

In many ways, the Puritans are a modern echo of the Donatists. Just as the Donatists’ rejection of “impure” clergy made their church a sect of the self-righteous, the Puritans’ rejection of parts of Scripture, Tradition, and sacramental life made theirs a community bound by human definitions of purity rather than by the fullness of divine grace. Both illustrate the danger of beginning with epistemology over ontology.

True sanctification is not achieved through human control, intellectual clarity, or sectarian purity. It is the fruit of the ontological reality of the Church as Christ’s Body, where the Spirit continues to speak through the fullness of Scripture, including the Deuterocanon, and where grace flows through the sacraments to unite the faithful in every age. To elevate epistemology over ontology is to build upon sand; to begin with the reality of the Church is to stand upon the Rock who is Christ.