Gibson on Article XX: Of the Authority of the Church

This Article, with the exception of the first or affirmative clause (The Church … controversies of faith), dates from 1553, and is almost identical with a passage in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum} It has not been traced to any earlier source, and there is nothing corresponding to it in the Confession of Augsburg. The affirmative clause first makes its appearance in 1563, and some doubt has been felt with regard to its source

[…]

/f

^‘1

and authority. It is not found in the Parker MS. signed by tlie members of the Upper House of Convocation on Jan. 29, 1563. Nor is it contained in an English ” minute ” of the Articles among the Elizabethan State Papers, dated January 31, 1563.^ On the other hand, it is found in an undated Latin MS. in the State Papers, in which it has evidently been introduced after the original draft was made? This is probably the earliest document to contain it, and Hardwick’s theory ^ is likely to be true, that this is the actual MS. from which the first edition of the Elizabethan Articles was printed, viz. that published by Wolfe, the royal printer, under the direct authority of the Queen herself. Anyhow, this edition contains the clause in question ; * and though it is just possible that it was added by the Lower House of Convocation, to which the Articles were submitted after acceptance by the Upper House, yet there is a strong probability that it was inserted by the Queen herself in the exercise of her royal prerogative. However, it was undoubtedly deficient in full sy nodical authority, and, consequently, some MS. copies of the Articles, as well as some printed editions, omit it.^ Of these the most important is the English edition printed by Jugge and Cawood in 1563, to which the Act of Parliament of 1571, requiring subscription to the Articles, made

• Ih. 41 A. “The disputed clause in Article XX., filling just one line and somewhat overcrowding the page, was clearly introduced in the same hand after the first draft was made.” — Hardwick, p. 140.

s Articles, p. 140. * Cf. vol. i. p. 31.

^,1

r^

reference.^ It would appear certain, however, that at the final revision of 1571, if not earlier, the clause was ratified by Convocation ; 2 for when the charge was raised against Archbishop Laud at his trial, that he had himself added the clause to the Articles without the slightest authority, a transcript attested by a notary public from the original records of Convocation was produced cmitainin^ the words in question.^ The records of Convocation unfortunately perished in the great fire of London in 1 6 6 6 ; but there is no possible room for doubting that this Article as found in them did contain the clause. As Hardwick says, ” the testimony of that record was produced upon the trial of Archbishop Laud, in the most open and explicit manner, at a time when it was perfectly accessible to his accusers, or was rather in the hands of his infuriated enemies, and yet ’ not one of them ever ventured to question the truth of the assertion, or attempted to invalidate the proofs on which his defence had rested.* ” *

The words of the disputed clause, it might be added, are (like so many of the additions of 1563) probably suggested by similar language used in the Confession of Wiirtemberg : ” Credimus et confitemur quod … hjee ecclesia habeat jus judicandi de omnibus doctrinis.”^

The object of the clause, and indeed of the whole Article, is to state definitely the powers and offices of the Church, with special reference to (a) the errors of

» Cf. vol. i. p. 43.

=* At his trial Archbishop Laud stated publicly that “‘tis plain that after the stir about subscription in the year 1571 the Articles were settled and subscribed unto at last, as in the year 1562, with this clause in them for the Church : for looking further into the records which are in mine own hands, I have found the book of 1563 subscribed by all the Lower House of Convocation in this very year of contradiction, 1571.”— Laud’s JVorks, vol. vi. p. 68 (A. C. Lib.).

• Dt Ecclesia.

the Puritan party, who were inclined to deny to the Church any right to enforce rites or ceremonies beyond those for which ” Scripture proof ” might be alleged ; and (h) the exaggerated view of the authority of the Church in doctrinal matters held by the Romanists, who denied that in the promulgation of necessary doctrine the Church was limited to what was contained in Scripture, or might be proved thereby.

Three main subjects are brought before us in the Article, and require separate consideration —

1. The legislative power of the Church with regard to rites or ceremonies.

2. The judicial authority of the Church with regard to doctrine.

3. The office of the Church with regard to Holy Scripture.

4. The Legislative Power of the Church with regard to

Rites or Ceremonies.

The Chnroh hath power to decree rites or

ceremonies, that is, she may from time to time make new ones, if she deem it expedient, or she may decree to retain old ones in the face of opposition, or change and abolish existing ones. This power may fairly be called ” legislative,” and it is analogous to the power exercised in the State by Crown and Parliament, which make new laws and abolish old ones. It was noticed under the last Article that the word “Church” was somewhat ambiguous, being sometimes used for the Church universal and sometimes for any particular or national Church; and the question may be raised in which of these two senses is it here employed. The answer is found by a reference to the last clause of Article XXXIV., which (like the clause before us) was added

in 1563: “Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” This merely amplifies the clause now under consideration, and makes it clear that we are to understand it as referring to the power of national or particular Churches, and vindicating the right of the Church of England to such action as was taken from time to time in the revision of the services of the Church. As historical instances, then, of the exercise of this power, we may point to (a) the renewal of the baptismal vow prefixed to Confirmation, a new rite decreed for the first time in 1662; (6) the retention of the sign of the Cross, in face of much opposition, in 1604; and (c) the abolition of the ” chrisom,” or white vesture, given to the newly baptized in token of the innocency granted to them in baptism. This was retained in the first English Prayer Book in 1549, but dropped at the next revision in 1552. In each of these cases the local or national Church exercised the power inherently belonging to it. But the power is not unlimited ; and after stating what the power is, the Article proceeds to add two restraining clauses, keeping it within certain well-defined limits.

(a) It is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything that is contrary to God’s word written.

(5) It ought not to decree anything against the same.

It will be noticed that the rites or ceremonies decreed need not receive any positive support from Scripture. All that is required is that there should be nothing in them that is opposed to or condemned by Scripture. An illustration may make this clear ; and a convenient one is furnished by Dean Goulbourn. The Church, in the exercise of her legislative power, might add to the

ti

Book of Common Prayer a new office of thanksgiving on the occasion of the harvest. No scriptural authority need be asked for. But if into such an office ” it were proposed to insert some words of adoration to the holy angels as being very possibly the ministers of natural blessings to mankind, this would be a flagrant stretch of the Church’s prerogative, since S. Paul condemns the worshipping of angels ; and when S. John fell down to worship at the feet of an angel, the being to whom the homage was offered replied, * See thou do it not : for I am thy fellow-servant.’ ” ^ It was here that the Puritans went wrong, as they objected to many of the ceremonies of the Church, not because they were contrary to Scripture, but simply because they were not based upon Scripture. To demand ” Scripture proof,” however, in such matters is seriously to mistake the purpose and object of the Scriptures. They were given ” for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness” (2 Tim. iii 16), t.e. for moral and doctrinal purposes, not as a guide or directory in matters of ritual. In these the Church possesses the power which is conceded to every society to make rules for the guidance of its own members. The existence of such a power is assumed throughout Scripture. It obviously belonged to the Jewish Church. Although there was an elaborate ritual and ceremonial law with stated feasts ordained by God Himself, yet the Jewish Church claimed and exercised the power to add other feasts, such as Purim and Dedication, to those of Divine appointment. Our Lord’s words, ” The scribes and Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat: all things therefore whatsoever they bid you, these do and observe ” (S. Matt, xxiii. 2, 3), imply that power to make regulations still remained with the authorities ; and we see from the Acts and the Epistles

that when the Christian Church was established, such powers were exercised from the first in it as occasion required. Thus we find S. Paul incidentally laying down definite regulations in his Epistles on various details, e.g, that men are to worship with the head uncovered, women with the head covered (1 Cor. xL); on the conduct of public worship by the prophets (1 Cor. xiv. 27); that women are to keep silence in the churches (1 Cor. xiv. 34 ; cf . 1 Tim. ii 12). He lays down the general principle, “Let all things be done decently and in order” (1 Cor. xiv. 40), and appeals to the ” custom ” of the Churches as if it were final and decisive, and individuals ought to conform to it. ” If any man seemeth to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Churches of God” (1 Cor. xL 16).

These passages are sufficient to prove that it was understood from the first that such legislative power was vested in the Church ; and it would be superfluous to prove at length that it has in all ages been exercised by national Churches, and that different customs have been followed in different places. Three quotations may, however, be appended in order to show how the matter was regarded in early times.

In his famous ” letter to Januarius,” Augustine, after speaking of the sacraments, and some things ” which we hold on the authority, not of Scripture, but of tradition, and which are observed throughout the whole world,” e.g. Good Friday, Easter Day, etc., proceeds as follows :—

” There are other things, however, which are different in diff’erent places and countries, e.g. some fast on Saturday, others do not ; some partake daily of the Body and Blood of Christ, others receive it on stated days ; in some places no day passes without the sacrifice being offered, in others it is only on Saturday and Sunday, or it may be only on Sunday. In regard to these and all other variable observances which may be met anywhere, one is 34

II

at liberty to comply with them or not as he chooses ; and there is no better rule for the wise and serious Christian in this matter than to conform to the practice which he finds prevailing in the Church to which it may be his lot to come. For such a custom, if it is clearly not contrary to the faith nor to sound morality, is to be held as a thing indifferent, and ought to be observed for the sake of fellowship with those among whom we live/* He then goes on to describe his mother’s perplexity when she first came to Milan and found that the Church there did not fast on Saturday ; and gives the advice of S. Ambrose, which, he says, ” I have always esteemed, as if I had received it by an oracle from heaven ” : ” When I visit Rome I fast on Saturday ; when I am here I do not fast. On the same principle, do you observe the custom prevailing in whatever Church you come to, if you desire neither to give offence by your conduct nor to find cause of offence in another’s.” ^

Rather later than this the ecclesiastical historian Socrates set himself to catalogue as far as possible ” the diversity of customs in the Churches,” with regard not only to the Lenten fast, but also to the great ” variation in the services performed in church,” and other matters ; remarking in conclusion that ” it would be difiBcult, if not impossible, to give a complete catalogue of all the various customs and ceremonial observances in use throughout every city and country.” ^

Lastly, in answer to the question of Augustine of Canterbury, ” Whereas the faith is one and the same, are there different customs in different Churches, and is one custom of Masses observed in the holy Roman Church and another in the Gallican Church ? ” Pope Gregory the Great replied as follows : ” You know, my brother, the custom of the Roman Church, in which you remember you

were bred up. But it pleases me, that if you have found anything either in the Roman or in the Gallican or in any other Church, which may be more acceptable to Almighty God, you carefully make choice of the same, and sedulously teach the Church of the English, which is as yet new in the faith, whatsoever you can gather from the several Churches. For things are not to be loved for the sake of places, but places for the sake of good things. Choose, therefore, from each Church those things that are pious, religious, and correct, and when you have, as it were, made them up into one body, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto.” ^

It is clear from these citations that the English Church is in complete harmony with the Church of earlier days when she not only asserts that ” the Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies,” but further maintains that “every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.” ^

^ The theory, as stated in the Article, is perfectly clear, and represents the position from which the Church has never swerved. It is to the Church, not to the civil power, Parliament or Crown, that this “power” belongs. But in a Church by law established, it cannot be denied that there are grave practical difficulties in the way of exercising it. The Book of Common Prayer having been actually attached to an Act of Parliament, of which it forms a part, it is plain that, as a matter of fact, it cannot be in any way altered without the consent of that authority which gave coercive power to enforce its use. But it is equally clear that this authority, viz. Parliament, has no sort of moral right to attempt to alter it, except at the wish of the Church which first preimred and accepted it, and then presented it to Parliament to be attached to the Act of Uniformity ; and the constitutional method of proceeding in the case of any “rites or ceremonies” to be decreed, is very clearly laid down in ’* the Royal Declaration ” still prefixed to the Articles. *’ If any difference arise about the external policy concerning the Injunctions, Canons, and other Constitutions whatsoever thereto belonging, the clergy in their Convocation ia to order and settle them, having first obtained leave under

IL Thc judicial Authority of the Church with regard to

Doctrine,

The Church … hath authority in controversies of faith.

{a) This “authority” is altogether distinct in kind from the ” power ” which luis just been considered. The ” power ” is legislcUive, and includes the right to make new ceremonies, to change and abolish old ones. The ” authority ” is judicial. It is the right not to make a single new Article of faith, but simply authority in a doctrinal controversy to pronounce what the true doctrine is} And since, in the words of Article VI., ” Holy Scripture contains 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 necessary to salvation,” it is clear that the words mean that to the Church belongs the function of interpreting the Scripture, and deciding what the true meaning of it may be. This is strictly ” judicial ” authority, analogous to the power vested in the judges of interpreting the laws of the coimtry. While the laws are made by the Crown with assent of Parliament, yet, when once a law has been placed on the Statute Book, Parliament has no power whatever to say what it means. Indeed, the legislators may have intended one thing, but if they have

our Broad Seal so to do ; and we approving their said Ordinances and Constitutions, providing that none be made conti*ary to the laws and customs of the laud.”

» Cf. Hooker, Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. viii. § 2: “The Church hath authority to establish that for an order at one time which at another time it may abolish, and in both may do well. But that which in doctrine the Church doth now deliver as a truth, no man will say that it may hereafter recall, and as rightly avouch the contrary. Laws touching matter of order are changeable by the power of the Church ; Articles concerning doctrine not so.’

expressed their meaning badly, it may turn out that they have passed something quite different, for to the judges alone belongs the power of interpreting the words of the statute and saying what they really involve. Just so, in the matter of necessary doctrine, the laws, so to speak, are contained in the written Scriptures ; but, as human language is never quite free from ambiguity, an interpreter of them is required, and this is provided for us in ” the Church,” which ” hath authority in controversies of faith.” Instances of the exercise of this judicial authority are to be found in the dogmatic decisions of the General Councils defining the faith of the Church ; and no better example can be given to illustrate how the authority differs from the legislative power than what occurred at Nicaea. Two questions came before the assembled Fathers for decision: (1) the faith of the Church in our Lord’s Divinity, and (2) tlie time for the celebration of the Easter festival. In regard to the former they simply claimed to lay down what the faith as contained in the Scriptures really was. They did not make a new doctrine. In regard to the latter, they laid down a new rule to govern the Church for the future. The distinction is pointed out by Athanasius himself in a well-known passage. ” Without prefixing consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter : * It seemed good as follows ’ ; for it did then seem good that there should be a geneml compliance in this matter. But concerning the faith they wrote not ’ It seemed good,’ but ’ Thus the Catholic Church believes ’ ; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel but apostolical ; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but the same as was taught by the apostles.”^

(6) That this authority belongs to the Church would

^ Athanasius, De Synodits, § 5.

’

seem to follow of necessity from many passages of Scripture. Unless the Church possesses it, it would be impossible for her to exercise properly the function of teaching which is distinctly laid upon her. She is ” the pillar and ground of the truth” (1 Tim. iii 15). The power of ” binding and loosing ” ^ was granted to her by the Lord Himself (S. Matt, xviii. 18). It was exercised at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts xv.), when the question was raised whether circumcision was to be enforced upon Gentile converts, and the decision was arrived at under the guidance of the Holy Spirit (” it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” ver. 28) that there was no necessity for it. S. Paul charges Timothy to ” hold the pattern of sound words” which he had received from him (2 Tim. I 13); to “present himself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, handling aright the word of truth” (ii. 15); to “shun vain babblings ” ; to ” charge others that they strive not about words, to no profit, to the subverting of them that hear them ” (ih.) ; to ” refuse ignorant and foolish questions ” (ver. 23) ; to ” reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and teaching, for the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine ” (iv. 2). To Titus he writes that the bishop is to ” hold the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convince the gain-sayers ” (L 9) ; vain talkers are to be ” reproved sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men ” (ver. 13); he is to “shun foolish questionings and genealogies” (iii.

^ J. Lightfoot {HorcB Ilehraicce on S. Matt. xvi. 19) shows very fully that to “bind” and “loose” were familiar Jewish expressions for to forbid and allow. It is perhaps scarcely necessary to add that this power, given first to S. Peter in xvi. 19, but extended to the Church generally in xviii. 18, is entirely different from the power of retaining and remitting sins given in S. John xx. 23.

(c) It was shown above that the “power to decree rites or ceremonies ” might be exercised by national Churches, and that it is not necessary that ceremonies should be everywhere the same. With regard to this ” authority in controversies of faith,” the case is obviously different. Although ” particular and national Churches ” have frequently exercised this authority, yet it has always been subject to the judgment of the whole Church, and liable to revision by this. To the whole Church it is that the presence of Christ is pledged (S. Matt, xxviii. 19); and to this alone is the promise made that ” the gates of hell shall not prevail against it ” (S. Matt. xvi. 18). Thus, while on various matters of doctrine the decision was made by local or provincial Councils, before ever the whole Church had an opportunity of expressing her mind,^ yet only so far as these local decisions have subsequently been found to be in accordance with the mind of the universal Church have

• Thus the Council of Constantinople (381), which condemned Apollinarianism and Macedonianism, was not apparently summoned as a Oeneral one, but has only come to be so regarded in consequence of its subsequent acceptance by the whole Church. Local Councils were naturally summoned to condemn Montauism (Eusebius, //. K V. xvi.); for in the second century no others were possible. But even after the iige of General Councils had begun, local ones frequently considered and decided on doctrinal questions, e.(/., in the case of Pelagianism, it was at once condemned by the Council of Carthage, 412.

[…]

they been regarded as binding. In the present unhappy and abnormal state of a divided Christendom it is, of course, impossible to obtain a judgment from the whole Church on any matter in dispute ; but it must always be remembered that while the English Reformers in the sixteenth century claimed and exercised this ” authority,” as is shown by the promulgation of the Articles, yet they did this suhject to their appeal to a free General Council, which Cranmer and his colleagues never entirely lost sight of.i

{d) But this “authority in controversies of faith” which belongs to the Church is not unlimited ; and just as the Article stated two constitutional checks on the legislative power, so also it lays down two definite limitations to the judicial power.^

(1) The Church may not so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another,

(2) Besides the same (Holy Scripture), ought it

2 The following arrangement of the Article ^iU show the bearing of the several clauses, the exact force of which is often missed, and (so far as I am aware) not noticed in any of the commentaries on the Articles :—

[…]

The Church hath (1) iK)wer to decree rites and cere- (2) authority in controversies of monies, and faith.

And yet it is not lawful for the Church (la) to ordain anything contrary (2a) neither may it so exi)ound one to God’s word written ; place of Scripture that it be

repugnant to another. Wherefore although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as (li) it ought not to decree any- {2b) besides the same ought it not thing against the same, so to enforce anything to be be-

lieved for necessity of salvation.

not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

These limitations follow naturally from the position claimed for Holy Scripture in Article VI., and would seem to require no further comment or illustration here.

(e) But there are difficult questions which it is possible to raise concerning the exercise of the authority thus limited, which it may be well briefly to consider. Who is to decide whether the Church has exceeded the powers thus conceded to her ? And what is to be done if it should appear that as a matter of fact she has exceeded them ? On these points the Article is silent. They raise the whole subject of the relation of Church authority to private judgment. Obviously there is no other body or society on earth with the right of reviewing the judgments of the Church and pronouncing upon them. But still the case may occur when it appears to some individuals, perhaps only to a very few, that the judgment of the Church is wrong. To say that it is an impossibility that God would allow His Church thus to err, is to be untrue to the whole teaching of history. There was a time when ” the world groaned and found itself Arian,” and when Athanasius stood contra mundum ; and what has occurred once may occur again. With our eyes, then, open to the teaching of history, we cannot insist that a man must bow to the judgment of the Church. He is not called on to accept as truth that which his deliberate conviction tells him is false. While he will rightly and naturally give the greatest weight to the judgment thus expressed, feeling that it is far more probable that he should be mistaken than that the whole Church should be wrong, yet in the last resort he himself must be the judge. He must be true to his conscientious and candid convictions. The right of

private judgment is inalienable. He cannot divest himself of it.^ ” To his own master he standeth or falleth.” He will feel in his inmost heart with Liberius before his fall, when taunted with the fact that he was the sole Western champion of the Catholic faith, that ” the cause of the faith is none the worse because he happens to be left alone,” ^ and ” with a sorrowful heart ” will ” refer all to God.”* And, if the future may be prophesied from the past, it will always be found that the error is of no long duration, and that the truth which has been kept alive by the few faithful ones in a period of general falling away, will presently be accepted by the Church at large, and recognised as ” the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

III. The Office of the Church with regard to Holy

/Scripture,

There is one clause of the Article on which nothing has yet been said, viz. that which states that the

Church is a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ.

A twofold office is here assigned to her. She is (a) a witnesSy as testifying to us what books are to be regarded as Scripture, for ” in the name of Holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical books of the Old Testament of whose authority was never any doubt in the Church ” (Article VI.), and also as declaring to us what is the meaning of Scripture ; for, as we have already seen, she ” hath authority in controversies of faith.” Besides this, she is {b) a keeper of holy writ ; for just as to the Jews of

=* Cf. William of Occam, Dial, Bk. V. i>ar. i. c. 28. I owe this and the previous reference to The Church lliMorical Socitty Lecturtn, Series ii. }). 78, a valuable lecture on the “Teaching Power of the Church,” by Professor W. E. Collins.

old ” were committed the oracles of God ” (Rom. iii. 2), so now that there is a ” New Testament ” as well as an ” Old,” the completed Canon is to be regarded as a treasure committed to the custody of the Church, who is responsible for preserving it entire, and free from admixture with other books, as well as for transmitting it and proclaiming it to each generation in turn. It is in these ways that the Church fulfils her office as ” a witness and a keeper of holy writ,” and from what has now been said the respective offices of the Church and Holy Scripture may be clearly seen. The Church is the ordained teacher of truth ; Holy Scripture is the criterion of truth by which the doctrines of the Church are proved and tested. To make Scripture, in the first instance, the teacher, is entirely to mistake its true office and function. The Gospels were written, not to convert unbelievers, but that those who had been already orally instructed (i,e. who had received the teaching of the Church) might know the certainty of those things which they had been taught.^ So also the Epistles were addressed to regularly organised Churches, and were written to confirm those who had previously received apostolic teaching. Indeed, it is everywhere the case that ” the Bible assumes the existence of a living instructor in the truth, who will indoctrinate us into the rudiments of it, and refer us to the Scriptures themselves for the proof of what he teaches. If the instructor is dispensed with, and the disciple thrown back merely on the Bible and his natural faculties, he will be very liable to stumble, and almost certain to do so as regards those more recondite definitions of doctrine which the Church’s experience of heresies has shown her to be necessary, and has taught her to make.” ^ These offices of ” the

» See S. Luke i. 1-4.

[…]

Church to teach, the Bible to prove,” may be illustrated from the incident recorded in Acts viii. 26-40. The Ethiopian eunuch was ” sitting in his chariot, and was reading the prophet Isaiah/’ He was, then, in possession of the Scriptures, and, according to the rather foolish saying, ” the Bible, and the Bible only, is the religion of Protestants,” these ought to have been sufficient for him. But plainly they were not; for in answer to Philip’s question, ” Understandest thou what thou readest ? ” the answer is returned, ” How can I, except someone should guide me ? ” and this is followed by the further question, ” Of whom speaketh the prophet this ? Of himself, or of some other ? ” Something more was needed than the possession of the Scriptures, and that something was supplied by Philip, the representative of the ecclesici docens, who ” opened his mouth, and beginning from this scripture preached unto him Jesus.” Here we see the Church at work, and the right method to be followed, as it is seen throughout the Acts of the Apostles, where we everywhere find them stating the facts, and teaching with authority, while they prove their statements from the Scriptures, and refer their hearers to these as confirming them.^ And if this method was employed when only tlie Old Testament was in existence, it seems natural to suppose that much more should it be followed now, when the fuller revelation is also committed to writinjx.^

J See Acts ii. 14-36, iii. 12-26, xiii. 16-42, xvii. 2, 3, 11, xviii. 28. - See on this subje<;t Gore’s Rohian Catholic Claims^ c. iii. and iv.

De auluritate ConcU iorvm (lenei^alimn,

fieneralia Concilia sine jiissu et voluntate principum congregari non ]»os.sunt, et ubi convenerint, quia ex honiinibus constant, qui non onincs spiritu et verbo Dei reguntur, et errarc i>os8unt, et interduni eiTanmt, etiani in liis qua? ad normam pietatis pertinent : ideo qua? ab illis constituuntur, ut ad salutein necessaria, neque robur liabent, neque autoritatem, nisi ostendi possint e saciis literis esse desumpta.

Notes

• “Domestic,” vol. xxvii. 40.
• E.g. it is omitted (1) in an English draft of the Articles among the State Papers {*^ Domestic,” 41), endorsed, *’ Articles of Religion agreed on, 1562, in the Convocation hous ” ; (2) in an English MS. signed by the bishops in the Convocation of 1571 ; (3) in the English edition of Jugge and Cawood of 1563 alluded to in the text ; and (4) in one Latin and one English edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1571. S«e Hardwick, p. 142.
• Laud, op. eU. p. 66. -» Articles, p. 144,
• Goulbourn’s Holy Catholic Church, p. 212.
• Ad inquisltioiies Januariit Ep. liv, - Socrates, H, E, V. c, xxii.
• Baeda, H. E. I. c. xxvii.
• ), and to ” reject a man that is heretical after the first and second admonition ” (ib.). All such language as this plainly implies a power of discrimination, and authority to judge and decide between the truth and falsehood. Unless the Church and her representatives possess such authority, who is to say what is ” the sound doctrine ” which is to be taught ? or who can tell which is ” the man that is heretical,” and which the man that is orthodox ?
• See Cranmer’s ”Remains ” (Parker Society), i. pp. 224 and 455.
• Cf. Salmon’s Infallibility of the Church, p. 46 seq.
• Theodoret, Eccleftlastical History, Bk. II. c. xvi.