Boultbee on Articles XX, XXXIV: Of the Authority of the Church; Of the Traditions of the Church

[…]

Notes on the Text of these Articles.

In Article XX. we may observe that the Latin equivalent for * keeper oiHoly Writ ’ is * conservatrix divinorum Itbrorum The idea of the keeper is, therefore, one whoreri;*, not one who reserves the Scriptures.

In Article XXXIV. the text calls for no special comment.

The Twentieth Article is identical with the nineteenth of 1552, excepting the first clause ascribing to the Church jiuthority in controversies of faith, which was an addition in Elizabeth’s reign. The history of that clause is singularly obscure. It does not exist in the copy of the Articles preserved among the Parker MSS. in the library of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, which bears the autograph signa- tures of ten prelates. Archbishop Laud was accused of

170 AsncLss XX. ASD xxxrr.

[…]

The question is now scarcely more than one of literary curionty, inasmuch as the copy of the Articles enfi)reed by the existing Act of IJniformily (that of 1662) contains the clause in question.

With r^ard to Article XXXIV. the text of the former portion, with a slight exception, stands as it did in 1552. The last clause on ‘particular or national Churches’ was added in Elizabeth’s reign.

[…]

1. The CJlmrch (i.e. each national Church) has power to decree and alter rites and ceremonies.

2. Those ceremonies need not be uniform iil different countries.

3. The wilful schismatic should be * rebuked openly.’

4. The Church is a judge in controversies of faith.

5. The legislative and judicial power of the Church is limited by the word of God.

6. Tlie relation of the Church to the Scriptiures is that of a * witness and keeper.’

In dealing with these points out of Scripture, after alleging such individual passages as may seem to bear upon them, the most convincing method will be to point out that the New

• Strype’s Parker, iv. 6.

AUTHOEITY OF A NATIOl^AL CHURCH. 171

Testament contains few express rules on Church Polity. It contains, however, many principles which are to guide the Church in all its proceedings. It follows^ therefore, that the details of its polity must be more or less variable, and must be worked out by the Church in accordance with those principles. This is susceptible of copious illustration from the Epistles.

Observations on these Articles.

These two Articles are thus grouped because the Twentieth speaks of the power of the Church over both ceremonial and doctrine ; and the Thirty-fourth deals more explicitly with its power over ceremonial. It follows that the one must illus- trate the meaning of the other.

This will immediately appear when the first question arises which meets us on the face of Article XX. What is this Church to which such power is ascribed ? It must be the Church visible. But does it mean that whole Church in its Catholic character, and acting in a corporate manner? If the Article stood alone, this might be maintained with some show of argument. But the Thirty-fourth Article here comes in to clear up the meaning. There we find * the Church ’ used in the title, and in the first part of the Article, in the same general and indeterminate manner.

But the latter part claims for every * National Church ’ authority (the same word as in Article XX.) ’ to ordain, change, and abolish rites or ceremonies of the Church.’ It appears, therefore, that the Church and a National Church are used convertibly in Article XXXIV. Taking the two Articles together it would, therefore, seem to be intended that every duly constituted and orthodox National Church, being an integral portion of the Church visible, has in itself, as such, the authority spoken of in the two Articles. Or, in other words, that the Church of England, in particular, claims that authority. As regards rites and ceremonies, the thirty- fourth Article asserts this in the plainest manner. A little consideration of a few matters of fact will serve to establish

that she means in the Twentieth to claim for herself the like authority in matters of doctrine ; and that this Article is not the expression of a belief in General Councils or other conceivable utterance of the Church Catholic.

For, in point of &ct, the Reformed Church of England has framed these Thirty-nine Articles, and did, by Royal Commis- sioners and in Convocation, mould, remould, and modify them. She also requires the assent of her clergy to them, and in her Ecclesiastical Courts exercises full jurisdiction over any diver- gence from the standard of doctrine so laid down. To this * authority,’ in both these Articles, she acknowledges only one limitation — the paramount authority of Holy Scripture. These considerations seem to make clear in what sense tlie word Church is used in these two Articles. It is the Church considered in the free and independent action of its several parts, but held together in practical and essential uniformity by the common bond of allegiance to Holy Scripture.

These Articles, as originally intended, pointed two ways — against the Romanists, who denied tlie sole authority of Scripture, and the competence of a National Church to act for itself, — and also against the Puritans, who, in their zeal against some ceremonies retained at the Reformation, denied the authority of the Church to decree anything which was not explicitly or implicitly laid down in Scripture.

The whole of Hooker’s * Ecclesiastical Polity ’ may be appealed to as bearing out the last assertion. One pas- sage only shall be quoted, which will substantially cover the ground so fer taken imder this Article.^ * The several societies of Christian men, unto every of which the name of a Church is given, with addition betokening severalty, as the Church of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, England, and so the rest, must be endued with correspondent general properties belonging unto them as they are public Christian societies. And of such properties common unto all societies Christian, it may not be denied that one of the very chiefest is Eccle- siastical Polity. … To our purpose the name of Church- Polity will better serve, because it containeth both govern-

• ]}ook iii. 1.

ment, and also whatsoever besides belongeth to the ordering of the Church in public’

The student may be reminded that in the first three centu- ries there was in many respects a considerable degree of pro- vincial variety and independence in the Churches. There were differences in Creeds and Liturgies ; differences about Easter and various other matters. In the following centuries the action of the great Councils and of the Patriarchal jurisdic- tions was exercised strongly in favour of uniformity ; and subsequently the papal despotism almost crushed out the local varieties of rite and discipline. The result may tend to show that probably there is more security for purity of faith in variety than in uniformity.

It need scarcely be observed to those who have read the history of the Church of England under the Tudor Sovereigns that the Thirty-fourth Article was very far from acknow- ledging the liberty of sects to organise themselves. The libeiiy which was claimed for the English State to organise the English Church was as freely granted to Scotland, Saxony, or Geneva ; but more licence than this was not recognised in that age. Accordingly the open rebuke^ as interpreted by the practice of the Tudors and Stuarts with regard to schismatics, included certain very severe personal results. Happily the Article itself is no warrant for these proceedings, and without difficulty adapts itself to the usage of a more tolerant age.

The relation of the Church to the Scriptures recognised in the latter part of Article XX. is one of great importance, whether considered with reference to the Eoman Catholic controversy, or to recent discussions among ourselves. Extreme views have been put forth, to the following effect. The Church possesses the authentic Catholic tradition, and by this interprets Scripture. A part of this tradition is the authenticity of Holy Scripture, which is therefore received at the hands of the Church, and because we believe the Church. Further, private persons may not search Scripture indepen- dently of external help.^

” On this see Goode’s * Divine Rule of Faith and Practice/ chap. ii.

We have already dealt with this question under Article VL Bat we may observe in addition that the office of the Church in relation to the Scriptures in Article XX. will not permit such a comment as the one noticed above. The Church is ’ testis et conservatrix ’ of Holy Scripture. She is not the judge, far less the giver of Scripture. From 8ge to age she has witnessed to each successive generation, ’ these are the books which I have received, and these I have sedulously preserved.’ The proof of the Canon consists, in feet, chiefly of the witness of members of the Church to the Canonical books, and of thenr reception by the Church, from the first ages until now— <:hiefly, but not only; for heathen, and heretic too, bear weighty testimony, and are also compelled to be .witnesses of Holy Writ.