Or, maybe it has been reinstated into Article 8 again since 1801? (RevDrew seems to think not…?)
So you are saying it is compulsory to believe that, in order to be saved, the most important thing is to consistently hold that wide set of doctrines without deviating from it?
Because I see less than no evidence for that notion (of salvation being primarily earned or achieved by doctrinal assent) in the Articles, or in any other Anglican and/or Calvinistic creedal statement, so far; and plenty of things against it.
If on the other hand you say you (absolutely? somewhat? hesitantly?) do not believe that the most important factor in salvation is to hold a doctrinal set correctly (much moreso a numerously detailed one), or at least acknolwedge that it is not compulsory to believe in salvation by doctrinal assent, then I am hardly the only one between us breaking down the text of the Creed into compulsory and non-compulsory parts (much moreso outright disagreeing with an important and blatant content of the text).
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander in this case. If you insist on holding to all the text of the Creed, then I will also insist you hold to all the text of the Creed. But is that true?–do you actually believe first and foremost in salvation by doctrinal assent?
If so, then you have some ground for complaining that I am picking some doctrines from the Creed to believe (such as the two large halves on trinitarian and Incarnational doctrine) and not picking (for various reasons I have spelled out in detail elsewhere) some others (such as the salvific priority of holding doctrines in order to attain my salvation.)
If not–if you actually agree with me that salvation does not depend first and foremost on our assenting and holding to a set of doctrine–then you cannot coherently complain merely that I am rejecting the material (even if you don’t want to call it wrapping statements, although their topical unity with each other compared to the rest of the material is excessively clear) before and between the two main halves: since that is what that material is definitely and decisively about.
(And also about non-universalism, as it happens. But a non-universalist could reject those wrapping statements on the same ground I do–because they’re the gnostic heresy imported into and around two statements of orthodox theology!–while still remaining non-universalistic.)