Beveridge on Article XX: Of the Authority of the Church

FTER the nature of the church described, here we have the authority of the church asserted; which authority extendeth itself to two things, to the decreeing of ceremonies, and to the determining of controversies. And truly this ar- tide is very fitly inserted amongst the rest; for had not the church this power, this convocation in particular which com- posed these Articles would have had no power or authority to have composed them, there being several rites decreed, and. many controversies decided in them. And therefore was it a great act of prudence in their determining of controversies, to determine this controversy in particular, that they had power to determine controversies; that this controversy being de- termined, that they had power to determine controversies, all the other controversies determined by them might be the better relished and received by them for whose sakes they were determined.

But this by the bye. What they here determine concern- ing the authority of the church (spoken of in the foregoing article) is, that “the church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith.” First, it hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, so that it is lawful for the church to decree and appoint what rites or ceremonies shall be used in the public worship of the great God ; not as parts of that worship, for then they would not

a Indeed it isimpossible that mere called; for the worship of God doth

rites and ceremonies should be any properly consist in the exercise of part of God’s worship, properly so graces and virtues. In quo quid

STA Of the Authority of the Church. ArT.

be rites and ceremonies. And therefore it is in vain objected by the adversaries to this truth, that herein we give the church power to add any thing to God’s worship which is not commanded in his word ; as if rites and ceremonies were in themselves any part of worship; whereas what is any part of God’s worship cannot be a mere rite and ceremony ; neither can that which is a mere rite or ceremony be any part of his worship. For rites and ceremonies, in that they are nothing but rites and ceremonies, be in themselves indifferent, neither good nor bad, until determined by the church; after which determination also they still remain indifferent in themselves, and are good and bad only in reference to their decree who had. power and authority to determine them; whereas every the least part of God’s worship, in that it is a part of God’s worship, can be by no means omitted without sin.

And therefore, when it is here said that the church hath -

power to decree rites and ceremonies, we must always by the words rites or ceremonies understand nothing else but the particular circumstances and customs to be observed in the service and worship of God, not as any cause or part thereof. Secondly, as the church hath power to decree rites and ceremonies, so hath it authority also in controversies of faith. So that whensoever any controversies arise in the church of God concerning any of the articles of faith delivered in the holy scriptures, as, whether Christ be God and man in the same person, whether justification be by faith only or by works also, or the like ; the church hath power and authority to decide the controversy, and to determine which side of the question is most agreeable to the word of God. And that

aliud mandatur, nisi ut ei quantum potestcommendetdiligendumDeum? Hic est Dei cultus, heec vera religio, hee recta pietas, hee tantum Deo debita servitus. Aug. de civitate Dei, 1. 10. c. [3.] And the worship of God thus consisting in the loving of him and exercising other graces upon him, no outward cirewmstances can be any real parts of his worship, that being seated principally in the heart. Whence St. Chrysostome saith of prayer as an act of worship,

“AAG Kay ydvara ju) Kivys, KAY [1 atnOos Tins, Kal Tas xEtpas eis TOV ovpavoy avateivns, Sudvovay dé pdvoy emdelEn Oepuny To Tay amnpticas TAS evx7s. Chrysost. eis rv” Away Noy. €. [vol. V. p. 77.] So we may say of all other acts of worship, that it is the heart that is the principal seat of it. And therefore all outward rites and circumstances upon that very account, because they are outward rites and circumstances, cannot be any part of true and proper worship.

—— ee a

XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 375

the church hath this power in decreeing ceremonies, and this authority in deciding controversies, is plain and manifest. First, from scripture, where we find St. Paul writing to the church of Corinth, to see that all things be done to edifying, 1 Cor. xiv. 26, and that all things be done decently and in order, ver. 40. Now unless the church of Corinth had power and authority to decree and determine what was edifying, what was decent and orderly, St.Paul would here counsel them to what was impossible or unlawful for them to do. It was impossible for them to see that all things were done to edifying and in order, until they had first decreed what was thus edifying and orderly; and it was unlawful for them to decree it, unless they had power and authority to do it. As for example, whether it was more decent and edifying in their meetings for one to speak after another, or for many to speak together; whether it was more decent and edifying in their breaking of bread for every one to use a different, or for all to use one and the same posture. In these and the like cases, unless they had power to determine what was the most orderly and edifying, St. Paul commanded what was in itself unlawful. But seeing that is blasphemy to say, we must needs grant that the church of Corinth (and so other churches) had power and authority to determine and order these things. Or if they had no such power before, yet St. Paul, or rather the most high God by St. Paul, did in these words grant them such a power and authority, in the decreeing these and the like circumstances and ceremonies, for the more decent and orderly worshipping of the glorious Jehovah, giving them this Pone general comprehensive rule, Let all things be done to edifying and in order; out of which

b Omnia decenter et ordine. Con- clusio generalior, que non modo breviter totum statum, sed etiam singulas partes complectitur. Imo regula est ad quam omnia, que ad externam politiam spectant, exigere convenit. Quoniam sparsim disse- ruerat de ritibus, omnia hic colligere voluit in brevem summam, nempe ut decorum servetur, et vitetur con- fusio. Calv. in loc. Hic ergo locus rite expensus discrimen ostendet

inter tyrannica pape edicta, qu conscientias premunt dira servitute, et pias ecclesie leges, quibus dis- ciplina et ordo continetur. Quin- etiam hinc colligere promptum est, has posteriores non esse habendas pro humanis traditionibus, quando- quidem fundatz sunt in hoc generali mandato, et liquidam approbationem habent quasi ex ore Christi ipsius.

Ibid.

376 Of the Authority of the Church. Arr.

one general rule that and all churches whatsoever, according to the variety of times and places they live in, were to frame other particular rules and canons for the edifying and orderly performance of God’s worship ; who being a God not of con- fusion but of order in himself, he requires such worship as is done in order, not in confusion, from us.

But this makes only for the church’s power in decreeing ceremonies. But now as for her authority in determining controversies of faith, I think it is plainly and clearly grounded upon and deduced from the practice of the apostles them- selves; amongst whom there arising a controversy, whether it was needful to circumcise the Gentiles and to command them to keep the law of Moses, they presently met together to consider of the matter, Acts xv. 5,6. And here we see, a controversy being raised, no particular person undertakes the determination of it, but several of them met together, and so made up a council, which was then, as it is now, the repre- sentative of the whole church. Well, the church in her representatives being thus met together, they spent some time in disputing about the business, ver. 7, but at last they decide the controversy, ver. 19, 20. From whence we may, yea must certainly conclude, that the church had then power and authority in controversies of faith; otherwise it durst not have undertaken the decision of so great a one as it did. And if it had that power then, it cannot be denied to have the same still; for it is the same church now that it was then, governed by the same Head now as it was then, directed by the same Spirit now that it was then, enjoys the same scriptures to decide controversies by now as it did then, and therefore cannot be denied to have the same power in decision of controversies now as it had then. Nay, for mine own part, I cannot but look upon the manner of the determination of this controversy intended for a model for the determination of all controversies in after-ages. The apostles were all acted with an infallible spirit, and therefore, one should have thought, might have put a period to that controversy without so many disputes about it, or without calling a council, or the whole church together, for the decision of it. But howsoever, God, to shew that it was not into the hands of private persons, but

;

XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 377

of the church in general, he had committed the determination of all controversies of faith, would not suffer his apostles themselves to end it without the consent of the whole church, or howsoever the greater part of it, which is accounted as the whole. So that it was by the whole church that that con- troversy was decided, to shew that the church had power to decide controversies.

Neither can I see in reason how this power in ceremonies and controversies should be denied the chureh. For first, as for ceremonies, they cannot but be acknowledged to be indif- ferent, neither in themselves good nor bad; and if they be in themselves either good or bad, and not indifferent, they are not merely ceremonies; especially if they be in their own nature bad and sinful, they are not the ceremonies intended in this place. For this same article in the following part of it doth determine that the ceremonies here intended are only such as are not against the scripture, and by consequence not unlawful. Now such rites and ceremonies as are in themselves indifferent, it can be no sin to determine them to either part: for which part soever they are determined to, they cannot be determined into sin; I mean what is in itself indifferent, and so may be used or not used without sin; whether it be decreed to be used or not to be used, it cannot be any sinful decree; especially when after as well as before the decree they are still acknowledged to be in themselves indifferent, though not as to our use. Which things of indifferency also, as all ceremonies are, cannot be supposed to come within the command of God, for then they would not be indifferent ; and seeing God hath not left any particular command, but only a general rule about all things of indifferency, that they be so ordered that they be done decently and to edifying, the church cannot be thought to sin in determining them so as she thinks is the most edifying and decent; as we shall by the blessing of God see more fully in the thirty-fourth article. And if it be no sin thus for the church to determine cere- monies, it must needs be granted that she hath power to decree them.

But the truth of her power in decreeing ceremonies doth appear also in her authority to determine controversies: for

378 Of the Authority of the Church. Arr.

if she hath authority to determine controversies, she must needs have a power also to decree ceremonies. For con- troversies of faith are of a higher nature than rites and cere- monies ; and if it be lawful for her to do the greater, it cannot be unlawful to do the less, especially where the less is included in the greater, as it is in this case. For there are few or no rites or ceremonies decreed but what are first controverted ; and if it be in the power of the church to determine all con- troversies, it must be in her power to determine such con- troversies in particular as arise concerning ceremonies.

But now that the church hath authority in controversies, is a truth which should it not be granted, it would be impos- sible for any controversies to be ever ended. I know the scripture is the rule of faith, and the supreme judge of all controversies whatsoever, so that there is no controversy of faith ought to be determined but from the scriptures. But I know also, that as all controversies of faith are to be deter- mined by the scripture, so there are no controversies of faith but what are grounded upon the scriptures. What is not grounded upon the scriptures I cannot be bound to believe, and by consequence it cannot be any controversy of faith. Hence it is, that as there is scarce an article of our Christian religion but hath been some time controverted, so there is no controversy that ever arose about it but still both parties have pretended to scripture. As for example, that great con- troversy betwixt Arius and Athanasius, whether Christ was very God of the same substance with the Father. Arius, he pretended to scripture in that controversy as well as Athana-

e The Fathers do frequently call

[…]

ypadas, karonrevoopuev. Isidor. Pe-

[…]

XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 379

sius: and so for all other controversies, both sides still make as if the scripture was for them. Now in such cases the ques- tion is, how the question must be decided, whether the scripture is for the one or for the other side of the controversy. The scripture itself cannot decide the controversy, for the contro- versy is concerning itself: the parties engaged in the contro- versy cannot decide it, for either of them thinks his own opinion to be grounded upon scripture. Now how can this question be decided better or fotherways, than by the whole church’s ex- position of the scripture, which side of the controversy it is for, and which side it is against? That it is lawful for the church thus to expound the scripture is plain; for it is lawful even for every particular person to pass his judgment upon any place of scripture: otherwise the &Bereans would not have been commended for searching the scriptures to see whether those things which the apostles preached were so or no, Acts xvii. And if the particular persons which the church con- sisteth of may give the exposition of the scripture, much more the church itself, that consisteth of those particular persons. And as the exposition that any particular person passeth upon the scripture is binding to that person, so that he is bound to believe and act according to it; so whatsoever exposition of scripture is made by the church in general, it is binding to the church in general: of which more elsewhere. And if the church hath this power and authority to expound the scrip-

f Thus Constantine in his Letter Constantini, 1. 3. ¢ [17.] And In-

[…]

380 Of the Authority of the Church. Arr.

tures, it hath power and authority also to determine contro- versies. For the determination of all controversies depends only upon the exposition of the scriptures ; according as the scripture is expounded, all controversies are determined. So that which side soever of the controversy the scripture so ex- pounded makes for, that is to be acknowledged as the truth, and the other to be rejected as an error. And therefore see- ing the church cannot be denied to have power to expound the scriptures, it must needs be granted to have authority in

controversies of faith.

And this is that which St. Augustine taught long ago.

h« Furthermore,” saith he, “although there is no certain example can be brought out of the canonical scriptures of this thing, yet in this very thing do we hold the truth, when we

do that which pleaseth the whole church, which the authority

of the scriptures themselves commendeth; that seeing the . holy scripture cannot deceive, whosoever fears to be de- ceived in the obscurity of this question, (whether heretics are

to be again baptized,) let him consult the same church con- cerning it, which the scripture demonstrateth without any ambiguity.” As if he should say, In doubtful things, where

the scripture is not so clear, consult the ‘church ; for though

the question in hand be not clearly decided in the scriptures,

yet this is clearly delivered in the scriptures, that the church

hath power and authority to decide such questions.

But if any one still doubteth about this the authority of the church, let him but consider how the church hath exercised this authority almost ever since it was a church. What council was ever called but it either decreed ceremonies or determined controversies? and what the council doth, the whole church is said to do: whence Athanasius saith, i For the faith

which the council confesseth

h Proinde quamvis hujus rei cer- tum de scripturis canonicis non pro- feratur exemplum, earundem tamen scripturarum etiam in hac re a nobis tenetur veritas, cum hoc facimus, quod universe jam placuit ecclesiz, quam ipsarum scripturarum com- mendat autoritas: ut, quoniam sancta scriptura fallere non potest, quisquis falli metuit hujus obscuri-

in writing is the faith of the

tate quzestionis, eandem ecclesiam de illa consulat, quam sine ulla am- biguitate sancta scriptura demon- strat. Aug. contra Cresc. grammat. 1.1. [39. vol. 1X.]

[…]

Fi

XX.

Of the Authority of the Church. 381

eatholic church.” So that I might demonstrate the truth of this article from the constant practice of the church in all ages, whensoever met together in council. But I shall insist only upon the council of Nice: and certainly if ever the whole church of Christ met together since the apostles’ times, it was there. “ For here,” as Eusebius saith, “ the principal of the ministers of God of all the churches that filled Europe, Libya, and Asia were met together.” So that as Theodoret saith, 1«There were three hundred and eighteen bishops assem- bled.” Sozomen saith, ™“ There were about three hundred and twenty bishops, and of presbyters and deacons it seems accompanying of them no small multitude.” Nay, Socrates saith, “That the presbyters, deacons, and sub-deacons that followed them could not be numbered.” And therefore what- soever this council did, it must needs be granted to be done by the church of Christ.

But what was the reason of the church’s meeting in so glorious a manner? Why, it is very observable, that it was for the decreeing of a ceremony, and determining of a contro- versy. For Socrates saith, °“ For neither were Alexander nor Arius mollified by the letters of the emperor, and there was a great strife and tumult also among the people. And there was also another grievance in some places troubling the churches, viz. the difference about keeping the feast of Easter, which was only in the eastern parts; some striving to have the feast celebrated after the manner of the Jews, others fol- lowing all Christians over the world.” And presently, P “‘ The

[…]

Ouds. Socrat. Hist. 1. 1. ¢. [8.]

[…]

382 Of the Authority of the Church. Arr.

emperor therefore seeing the church much troubled by both these things, he gathered together an cecumenical or general council, desiring by his letters the bishops from all places to meet at Nice, a city in Bithynia.”. And so Athanasius : a“ But if any one would discern betwixt the cause of the Nicene and of those other councils which were after it, he shall find that there was a reasonable cause why the Nicene council should be called, but the others were forcibly gathered together out of hatred and contention. For the Nicene coun- cil was gathered together by reason of the Arian heresy, and the difference about Easter, because the Syrians, Cilicians, and Mesopotamians differed from us, and celebrated the pass- over at the same time that the Jews do.” So that it was plainly for the deciding of the controversy of Arius, and the time of the celebrating of Easter, that the church met at this time ; the first of which was clearly a controversy of faith, the other a mere rite or ceremony. And certainly if the church had not then had according to this article power to decree rites, and authority in matters of faith, they would never have travelled from all parts of the world to Nice to exercise such a power.

But perhaps, whilst they were at home by themselves, they might think they had such a power; but did they think so when they were come all together? Yes, certainly: for they put this their power and authority into execution. “ For,” as Eusebius saith, ‘the question being made concerning the most holy feast of Easter, it seemed by common consent to be right that all should celebrate it upon one and the same day.” Which made Athanasius say, * “ But thanks be to the

[…]

oat mapaxadoy. Ibid.

[…]

XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 383

Lord, we are all agreed concerning the faith and holy feast.” Nay, not content with decreeing it, they (or Eusebius for them) declare also their power and authority to do it, in these words: *“ For it is lawful for us to lay aside their rite and custom, and in a truer order and institution, (which we have observed from the first day of the passion unto this present,) to propagate the celebration of this feast to future ages.” Neither did they declare they had power to decree this cere- mony only, but others also; and therefore in their sixth canon they decree, ”“ That ancient rites and customs should be observed.”

Neither did they only decree the ceremony, but decide the controversy also they met about. For the council itself sent a letter to several churches, wherein, as Socrates relates it, they say, ‘“ First of all therefore the wicked and perverse opinions of Arius and his complices were laid open before the most holy emperor Constantine, and with one consent they saw good to anathematize or curse his wicked opinion, and his blasphemous words and names, saying, ‘ The Son of God was of nothing, and there was a time when he was not, and that the Son of God is by freedom of will capable of good or evil, and that he is a creature, and made.’ All these things did the holy synod anathematize.” And as Sozomen saith, x“ But you must know that the council determined, that the Son was of the same substance with the Father.” As we may also see in the Creed set forth and confirmed by them.

And thus we see how the church of God, met together in the most renowned council that ever was since the apostles’

oithkéws Kovoravrivov, kat mapyy-

[…]

amoBrnOevros, | adnberrépa rake, nv

[…]

u Td apyata oP 5 ea Concil. Nic. can. - [vol. I

[…]

Arr.

384 Of the Authority of the Church.

time, did exercise this power in decreeing rites and cere_ monies, and authority in controversies of faith. 1 might shew the same thing in many other particulars in this and other councils ; but this may be enough to convince any one, that doth not think himself wiser than the whole church of God was at that time, that 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, nei- ther may it so expound one place of scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the church be a witness and keeper of holy writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation.

Tue authority of the church being asserted in the former part of this article, here are three excellent rules laid down to be observed in her execution of that authority in this ; which being all so plain of themselves, I need but touch upon them. And the first is, that it doth not ordain any thing contrary to God’s word written, contrary to the scriptures which are the written word of God. Which is a necessary rule to be observed in all decrees and constitutions what- soever. For Y though we, or an angel from heaven, saith the apostle, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached, let him be accursed, Gal. i.8. The word of God is a constant rule for all decrees whatsoever to be framed by.

Y Quicquid dicat quis, conferen- dum est cum scripturis, quas non ab homine, neque per hominem, sed a Spiritu Sancto per revelationem Jesu Christi acceperunt ut loqueren- tur et scriberent homines sancti. Et hicet nos aut angelus de celo evange- hizet vobis, preter id quod accepistis, anathema sit, et iterum anathema sit. Hoc dictum, hee sententia si- militer omnium illorum est, qui neque ab hoiine, neque per homi-

[…]

XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 885

_ What agrees with it is a lawful decree, yea therefore lawful because it agrees with it ; and so what is contrary to it is a sinful decree, yea therefore sinful because contrary to it. For the word of God, in that it is the word of God, cannot but be true, yea truth itself. And it being impossible that both parts of a contradiction should be true, and certain that that part which the word delivers is always true, whatsoever is contrary to the scripture cannot but be false, yea therefore false because contrary to the scriptures. And as the word of God, in that it is the word of God, must needs be true, so the law of God, in that it is the law of God, must needs be lawful; and so whatsoever is contrary to it cannot but be unlawful; nay, therefore it cannot but be unlawful because contrary to the law of God. So that the scriptures are always to be acknow- ledged to be the rule both of our faith and manners, and the supreme judge according to whose sentence all opinions must either stand or fall. And therefore, though the church hath authority to decree rites and decide controversies of faith, yet it is not lawful, nay it is sinful for her to decree the one and decide the other contrary to the scriptures ; it being a sin to decree sin, and whatsoever is contrary to the scriptures must needs be a sin, because it is contrary to the scriptures. And therefore St. Basil saith, 2“‘ That such hearers as are instruct- ed in the scriptures ought to examine those things that are spoken by their teachers, and to receive such things as are consonant to the scriptures, but to reject such things as are contrary to them, and by all means to turn away from those that persist in such doctrines.” And St. Chrysostom: >“ But if we say we ought to believe the scriptures, and they are simple and true, it is easy for thee to judge. If any one agrees with them, he is a Christian; if any one contradicts

[…]

II. p. 492.]

[…]

386 Of the Authority of the Church. Art.

them, he is far from that canon.” °“ We ought therefore,” saith Origen, “for the testimony of the words we produce in doctrine, to produce the sense of the scripture, as 1t were confirming the sense that we expound.” And elsewhere : 4“ But afterwards, as it is his custom, the apostle will confirm what he hath said from the holy scriptures, setting also before the doctors of the church an example, that in those things which they speak to the people they do not utter what is presumed upon in their own opinions, but what is strength- ened by divine testimony: for if he, such and so great an apostle, did not believe that the authority of his words could be sufficient, unless he shews that what he saith is written in the Law and the Prophets, how much more we, the weakest of creatures, ought to observe this, that when we teach, we should not produce our own, but the doctrines of the Holy Spirit !” And if in our teaching we ought constantly to follow the scriptures, and whatsoever is contrary to the scriptures ought to be abhorred, it must needs follow, that the church cannot ordain, decree, or so much as teach any thing contrary to the scriptures.

That is the first rule. The second is, that the church ought not to expound one place of scripture that it be repugnant to another; but that in all its interpretations of scripture, upon which all the determinations of controversies depend, the analogy °of faith is still to be observed, Rom. xii. 6: which is a rule necessarily also to be observed: for whatsoever is

¢ Debemus ergo ad testimonium verborum, qu proferimus in doc- tra, proferre sensum scripture, quasi confirmantem quem exponi- mus. Origen. in Mat. hom. 25.

d Posthze vero, ut ei moris est, de scripturis sanctis vult affirmare quod dixerat, simul et doctoribus eccle- sie prebens exemplum, ut ea que loquuntur ad populum, non pro- pris presumpta sententiis, sed di- vinis munita testimoniis proferant. Si enim ipse tantus ac talis aposto- lus auctoritatem dictorum suorum sufficere posse non credidit, nisi do- ceat in lege et prophetis scripta esse quee dicit, quanto magis nos minimi

hoc observare debemus, ut non no- stras cum docemus, sed Spiritus Sancti sententias proferamus? Id. in Rom. iii. [vol. IV. p. 504.]

© That the proportion or analogy of faith here spoken of is not to be taken for the quantity of every man’s faith in particular, but for the rule of faith in general, Salmero himself acknowledgeth. Non est intelligen- dum secundum capacitatem et quan- titatem fidei ipsius prophete, sed secundum generalem rationem fidei, cui annunciande et elucidande in- servit. Salm. in Rom, disp. 2. 1. 4. [vol. I, p. 665.]

XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 387

repugnant to any one place of scripture cannot but be false, yea therefore false because repugnant to a place of seripture ; and what is false cannot possibly be given as the exposition of any place of scripture therefore because it is false. So that what is repugnant to one cannot be the exposition of another place of scripture, and what is the true exposition of one place of scripture cannot be repugnant to another: for, as St. Paul saith, Ad) scripture is given by inspiration of God, 2 Tim. ii. 16: all scripture, one place as well as another, And if every place of scripture be from God, it must needs be true; and therefore also whatsoever exposition of one place contradicts another must needs be false. And therefore it cannot be lawful for the church so to expound one place of scripture as to be repugnant to another; for then it would be lawful to pass false expositions upon the scripture, which would be to belie God, saying that he said that which he never did; nay, saying that he hath said that which he hath gainsaid.

And therefore we are not to expound one place of scripture so as to make it repugnant to another, but we are to expound one place of scripture by another, the harder by the easier, the darker by the plainer places. {“ For amongst the things” (saith St. Augustine) “that are clearly contained in scripture are all those things found which contain faith and the manner of living, viz. hope and charity ; of which before. But then, a kind of familiarity with the language of the holy scripture being attained, we must seek to open and discuss such things as are obseure; that for the illustrating of darker speeches, examples be taken from the more manifest, and some testi- monies of certain sentences take away doubting about un- certain.” And again: &“¢ But when the proper words do make

f In iis enim que aperte in scrip- tura posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia que continent fidem mores- que vivendi, spem scilicet atque charitatem, (de quibus libro supe- riore tractavimus.) Tum vero facta quadam familiaritate cum ipsa lingua divinarum scripturarum, in ea que obscura sunt aperienda et discutienda pergendum est; ut ad obscuriores

locutiones illustrandas de manifesti- oribus sumantur exempla, et que- dam certarum sententiarum testi- monia dubitationem de _ incertis auferant. Aug. de doctrina Chris- tiana, 1. 2. [14. vol. III.]

& Sed cum verba propria faciunt ambiguam scripturam, primo provi- dendum est ne male distinxerimus aut pronunciaverimus. Cum ergo

ce

Art, XX.

388 Of the Authority of the Church.

the scripture doubtful, we must first have a care that we do not distinguish or pronounce wrongly. When therefore diligence being used, it foresees it is uncertain how it should be distinguished or pronounced, let him consult the rule of faith, which he may perceive from the plainer places of the scriptures and the authority of the church.” And so Clemens Alexan- drinus: » “But truth is not found in the changing of sig- nifications, for so they overturn all true doctrine; but in the searching out what is most perfectly proper and becoming to the Lord, and the Almighty God, and in confirming what- soever is demonstrated by the scriptures out of the like scriptures.” And therefore we must not expound one place of scripture contrary to another, but one place by another.

The third rule is, That nothing ought to be enforced as necessary to salvation but what is contained in or may be proved by the scriptures. Which is also a rule necessarily to be observed in the church’s executing her authority in the decreeing of rites or ceremonies. Though she may ordain them as necessary to eternal order, yet not as necessary to eter- nal happiness, unless they be expressly contained in the scrip- tures, or clearly deduced from them. For the scripture doth bear witness for itself, that itself is able to make a man wise to salvation, 2 Tim. iii. 15, which it could not.do unless it con-