Bicknell on Article VI: Of the Sufficiency of the holy Scriptures for salvation

Prior liber Samuelis, Secundus liber Samuelis, Prior liber Regum, Secundus liber Regum, Prior liber Paralipomenon, Secundus liber Paralipomenon, Primus liber Esdrae, Secundus liber Esdrae, Liber Hester,

Liber Job,

Psalmi,

Proverbia,

[…]

IV. Prophetae majores,

XII. Prophetae minores.

Novi Testamenti omnes libros (ut vulgo recepti sunt) recipimus, et habemus pre Canonicis.

Alios autem libros (ut ait Hieronymus) legit quidem Ecclesia ad exempla vitae et formandos mores ; illos tamen ad dogmata confirmanda non adhibet : ut sunt :

[…]

Liber Judith,

[…]

Of Bel and the Dragon, De Bel et Dracone,

[…]

The I. Book of Maccabees, Prior liber Machabaeorum, The IT. Book of Maccabees. Secundus liber Machabaeorum.

This Article received its final form in 1571. The first paragraph is based on a similar statement in the Article of 1553. The remainder of the Article was added in 1563, being based on the Confession of Wiirtem- burg, except that the list of the Apocrypha omitted ‘The rest of the book of Esther,’ ‘ Baruch,’ ‘The Song of the Three Children,’ ‘ Bel and the Dragon,’ and ‘ The Prayer of Manasses.’ It was completed by the addition of these books in 1571. Its immediate object was to state the position of the Church of England with reference to the use and extent of Scripture, against Anabaptists on the one hand and Rome on the other.

(i) Certain among the Anabaptists regarded all Scriptureas unnecessary. An Article of 1553 describes them as those ‘who affirm that Holy Scripture is given only to the weak and do boast themselves continually of the Spirit, of whom (they say) they have learnt such things as they teach, although the same be most evidently repugnant to the Holy Seripture.’ In other words if men claim to be under the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit, and to have received a personal revelation, does not this supersede Scripture ? Such a view ignored the corporate and social nature of all truth.

(ii) The ambiguous language of the Council of Trent had appeared to regard Scripture by itself as insufficient, and to place tradition on a level with it as an independent source of doctrine. In a decree published in 1546, and therefore before the compilers of this Article, it speaks of the ‘truth and discipline … contained in the written books, and in the unwritten traditions, which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ Himself or from the Apostles themselves … have come down to us.’ Such language at least suggested that part of the faith was to be found in Scripture and part in tradition. The whole Roman position to-day, as then, is by no means clear. Further, the same decree of the Council of Trent includes within the canon the majority of the books of the Apocrypha (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, I. and II. Maccabees, and the additions to the books of Daniel and Esther) and regards them as of authority in matters of doctrine.

This Article is not intended to stand alone. It gives no answer to the vital question, Who is to decide what can be proved from Scripture ? This is answered in Art. 20. Again, it deals only with the question of doctrine: questions of authority in matters of custom or ceremonies or organization are dealt with in Art, 34,