Maclear and Williams on Article XX: Of the Authority of the Church

i. Connection. Having dealt with the marks dis- tinguishing a Branch of the Church visible, the Twentieth Article proceeds to deal with the authority of the Church in matters of ritual and ceremony, and also in controversies of faith.

ii. Title and Language. Though the Title of the Article has never been altered, the language has undergone considerable change since the first draft in 1553. As then drawn up, it lacked the first clause altogether, and began with the words, “It is not lawful for the Church, to ordain anything, that is contrary to God’s word written.” The first clause was lacking not only in the first draft of 1553, but also in the first draft of the Elizabethan Articles of

1563, and it is not found in the Parker MSS. of the Articles preserved in the Library of Corpus Christi College, Cam- bridge1.

iii. The First Clause. So serious did the controversy- respecting the first clause become, especially on the part of the Puritans in the time of Charles I., that one of the charges brought by them against Archbishop Laud was that he had invented it, and in self-defence he was obliged to bring forward an attested copy of the original draft from the records of Canterbury, which had long existed in the archives of St Paul’s Cathedral, and which records afterwards perished in the Great Fire of London in 16662. The Parker MSS., however, though of great authority, do not present us with the final draft of the Thirty-nine Articles, but with an earlier draft while they were in process of completion, and before the royal assent was given. Before that assent was accorded this clause was added, and was taken by Archbishop Parker from the Confession of Wiirtemberg, whence, as we have

1 See Hardwick, Hist. Articles, pp. 141 sqq., ed. 1859. The clause “is found (1) in an early Latin draft of the Articles, among the Elizabethan State Papers, where it was inserted by the same hand, after the draft itself was made, so as to fill exactly one line. (2) In the Latin Edition of Reynold Wolfe, 1563, as expressly authorised by the Queen. (3) In two or more English editions of Jugge and Cawood in 1571. (4) In six or more English editions from 1581 to 1628; and in all subsequent copies. (5) In the transcript made in 1637 from an original copy of the Articles, as de- posited in the registry of the See of Canterbury.” Hardwick, p. 145, ed.

2 “The testimony of that record was produced upon the trial of arch- bishop Laud, in the most open and

explicit manner, at a time when it was perfectly accessible to his accusers, or rather was in the hands of his in- furiated enemies, and yet ’ not one of them ever ventured to question the truth of the assertions, or attempted to invalidate the proof on which his defence had rested.’ ” Hardwick, pp. 146 sq., quoting British Critic, 1829, p. 96. Heylin writes, “Having occa- sion to consult the records bf Con- vocation, I found this controverted clause, verbatim, in these following words; ‘Habet ecclesia ritus statuendi jus et in fidei controversiis authorita- tem.’” Examen Historicum , pp. 144, 145. The language of this contro- verted clause is analogous to that em- ployed by the Wiirtemberg theologians, “Credimus et confitemur quod…h:ec Ecclesia habeat jus judicandi dc omni- bus docirinis” De Ecclesia.

seen, most of the additions made in the reign of Queen Elizabeth were derived.

iv. The Object of the Article is twofold : —

(1) To check the waywardness of the Anabaptists, who in their zeal against ritual went so far as to deny that the Church had any authority whatsoever in matters of ceremonial1;

(2) To discountenance extravagant notions as to the authority of the Church held by the ex- treme Mediaeval School.

v. Analysis. In its present shape the Article affirms three points: —

(a) That ” the Church hath power to decree Rites

or Ceremonies2”; (/S) That she hath “authority in Controversies of

Faith” ;

(7) That she is “a witness and a keeper of holy Writ.”

But this authority is limited by two conditions : —

(1) The Church must not “ordain anything that is contrary to God’s Word written”;

(2) She must not “enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation” besides the Word written.

vi. * The First Point. When the Article lays it down that ” the Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremo- nies,” it does not of course refer to the Sacraments, or things of the same nature as Sacraments. It intends, by

2 “Habet Ecclesia Rhus [sive exre- alluded to above, which Heylin found monias] statuendi jus.” The two words amongst the records of Convocation, in brackets, though represented in the

the terms used, things in themselves comparatively in- different, “the adjuncts and accidents, not the essence and substance of holy things1.” That the Church has power to decree these may be proved,

(a) From the analogy of the Jewish Church;

(/3) From the custom of the primitive Christian Church.

(1) The Jeivisli Church possessed a Ceremonial Law of the utmost minuteness, given to Moses by God Himself. This might have been supposed to be incapable of receiving any addition. Yet we find that the Jews actually added to the Feasts appointed by the Law, (a) The Feast of Purim in memory of the delivery of the nation from the cruel designs of Haman (Esth. ix. 26 — 28), and (/3) The Feast of Dedication in com- memoration of the re-dedication of the Temple after its pollution by Antiochus Epiphanes2 (1 Mace. iv. 52 — 59);

(2) In the Primitive Church, (a) we find a Council held at Jerusalem respecting the question of the observance of Circumcision by the Gentile converts (Acts xv. 28, 29); (b) we find S. Paul deciding such points as the veiling of women in the Christian assemblies (1 Cor. xi. 4 — 16), and their keeping silence in church (1 Cor. xiv. 34); (c) we find him giving directions respecting the reverent celebration of the Holy Eucharist (1 Cor. xi. 17 — 34), and (d) laying it down that if any person was disposed to be contentious on

2 And this Feast, though its institu- tion does not fall within the period

covered by the sacred Canon, was ob- served by our Lord Himself (John x. 22).

such points, he was bound to yield his judg- ment to the customs of the Church (1 Cor. xi. 16)1. Thus he plainly accepts the principle that the Church is at liberty to order and arrange the details of public worship, as may be most calculated to honour God and edify the people.

vii. The Second Point. But the Church has also “authority in Controversies of Faith2.” This power was delegated by our Lord to the Apostles on two occasions: — (a) In promise when He assured to S. Peter the power of the keys to bind and to loose (Matt, xvi. 17 — 19)3; (/?) In fact when He bade the Apostles go.. .and make disciples of all the nations .. .teaching them to observe all tilings whatsoever He had com- manded them (Matt, xxviii. 19, 20)4. The power thus delegated was exercised (a) Individu- ally by the Apostles, and (/3) Collectively by the Church : — ( 1 ) Individually : —

As when S. Paul charged the Ephesian elders to feed the Church of God and guard it against

• The power of the Church to decree Rites or Ceremonies is allow- ed to the smallest Diocese, but her authority in Controversies of Faith is capable of no such delegation ; when a National or Provincial or Diocesan

Church deals with “Controversies of Faith, ” her standard is not mere local Use, but the dogmas of the Universal Church.

4 See also John xxi. 15 sqq.

false teachers (Acts xx. 28 — 30)’; when he bade Timothy guard that which had been committed unto him* (1 Tim. vi. 20), and hand on the treasure of truth to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also (2 Tim. ii. 2); when he wrote to Titus to hold to the faithful word which was according to the teaching, that he might be able both to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsay ers (Titus i. 9) ; ( 2 ) Collectively : —

As when the Council of Nicaea3 settled the Catholic doctrine respecting the Deity of Christ, availing itself of new terms, rejecting them in the wrong sense and accepting them in the right; and when later Councils laid down the true doctrine respecting the Person and Work of the Holy Ghost. Thus the Church, having the assurance of the presence and guidance of Him Who is her Head, is authorized to give judgment in matters of faith, and has a promise of direction in so doing.

viii. The Third Point. But the Church is also, as the Article next proceeds to declare, “a witness and a keeper of holy Writ.” This is in strict analogy with the function of the Jewish Church. Under the Old Testament Dispensa- tion the Elect Nation was charged with the custody of the

113 sqq. E. T. 1877.

• ^r)VTTapadrjKT)v —thc deposit. Comp. R.V., margin.

3 “The Council of Nice was as- sembled for the deciding of the con- troversy of Anus, and the time of the celebrating of Easter, the first of w hich was clearly a controversy of faith, the other a mere rite or ceremony.” Bp. Beveridge on the Articles.

oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2)1, and every Sabbath the Scriptures were read in the Synagogues (Acts xv. 21). So to the Christian Church the Scriptures of the New Testament are entrusted as a sacred deposit to guard and to keep. How she did this in early times we have already seen2. Existing, as she did, in full vitality before any of the Books of the New Testament were written3, she carefully distinguished them from the spurious writings, which might have taken their place ; she collected the accepted writings into a Canon4; she drew the line between those she deemed of primary and Apostolic authority, and others which she did not recognise as attaining to this position. Since then she has continued to read the Scripture in her assemblies; to translate them into the vernacular tongue of many of her children; to place them in their hands; to instruct from them by preaching and catechising; and to foster a reverence for them as the living oracles of God. Thus the Church has proved herself “a witness and a keeper of holy Writ.”

[…]

“The Old Testament passed from the Jewish into the Christian Church as a sacred document, henceforth hers of right, which bore witness to Christ and His Church, and which both had been fulfilled and would be further fulfilled through Him, and the institu- tion He founded.” Dollinger, Church of the First Age, i. p. 240.

3 Moreover they were written for those who were already members of the Church, and had received her primary instruction. Comp. Luke i. 4; Heb. v. 12.

ix. The Limiting Clauses. But the Article closes with two important limiting clauses respecting the Authority of the Church : —

(a) ” It is not lawful for the Church to ordain any- thing that is contrary to God’s Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scrip- ture, that it be repugnant to another1.” The authority of the Church is so far not a limited and independent authority that the truth, to which she bears witness, comes from God, and not from her. God is the legislator, and the Scriptures contain the code of laws which He has ordained. Whatsoever authority, therefore, the Church possesses cannot be superior to God Himself. Her position is subordinate to Him, and she cannot ordain anything contrary to His Word written, nor wrest Scripture to justify her in so doing2. (/3) Moreover “besides the same (holy Writ) it (the Church) ought not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of Salvation.” This limitation applies especially to doctrine, and is almost a repetition of part of the Sixth Article3.

1 The limitation carries with it a they never teach aught in a sermon to strong view of the positive functions be religiously held and believed by the of the Church. “If the Church may people, except what is agreeable to not expound one place in Scripture the doctrine of the Old and New that it be contrary to another, this Testaments, and what the Catholic limitation implies that the Church is Fathers and ancient Bishops have the expounder as well as the keeper collected from that same doctrine.” and witness of Scripture.” Liddon, 3 The limitation of the powers of Life of Pusey, i. p. 336, quoting the Church ” is involved in the idea of Pusey’s Necessity of Theological Learn- its being under the real and not the ing, especially in the Church of Eng- imaginary government of a Divine land. Head, who can and will call it to

grol p nr.

The fraction of the Church is not to reveal truth, bat to guard tie truth revealed, and to i fist • -hs: rhe his re.-ehe-i. Sir car.-:: sarrrttrr: tne :: r.t’.v cr^rr.ii. or

t—‘izzt -prr. her thhirer: revel articles of Filth, there :i r.: authority ht the

r.hle. Her prsltlrr. L= trot ::” a — tress to ar.i s. teacher ::” :h -lor: -lor-: roof fcr mil ddhxnd unto the smuts (jade 3). Her authority is so far * ministerial and declaratory, not absolute or snpreme1.” The Holy Scrip- r.res are the srle Charter ::” the raith: the Church is the interpreter, and her vocation is to unfold the old, not to reveal new truth*.

• Tie ari Laz4~L*=, . -t 7 — ::’ -_^__= tie tzczs ’ ~ -f c-

ra- ^ t..-.- /<7 :t -v-.X? _-.lv ■g oto God.” The -rods ki italics i = -‘5-

which the voice and judgment of the Church receive expression, viz. General Councils ;

(2) To vindicate the right of the Civil Authority to gather them together ;

(3) To lay it down that, even when so gathered together,

(a) “They may err, and sometimes have erred” ;

(b) That in matters necessary to salvation their decrees ” have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.”

iii. The New Testament furnishes a distinct pre- cedent in principle for Church Councils. In the Acts of the Apostles we find “the Apostles and Elders1” meeting together to consider solemnly the question of imposing or not imposing circumcision on the Gentile converts. In it S. James presides as Bishop of Jerusalem, the Apostles and Elders formally deliberate, and issue the decree, which goes forth in the name of the whole body (Acts xv.)s.

iv. Diocesan and Provincial Councils were, there- fore, modelled on this precedent, and were summoned from time to time, especially during the third century, for determining matters of doctrine and discipline. Thus Victor held a council at Rome A.D. 196, respecting the keeping of Easter, and in the same year other Councils

2 “Strictly speaking, the assembly, over which he presided, was an as-

sembly of the Church of Jerusalem only, to receive a deputation from the Church of Antioch. And it differed from the Church Councils also in the actual presence in it of Apostles. But this difference only strengthens the case as a precedent for mutual deliberation on the part of the Church collectively.” See Smith’s Diet. Christian Antiquities, i. 474, b.

Notes

• See Hardwick, Hist. Art. pp. 101, English version, do not appear in the 102. original Latin edition, nor in the copy,
• Bp Browne On the Articles, p. 475.
• Ei Si tis Sokci <pi\bveiKos elvai, rj/xeh TOia.v-rt]V avfrjdeiav ovk (xo/iev, al {KK-q<ria.i tou ffeov, i Cor. xi. 16. On this verse see Bp. Andrew’s Sermons, ii. p. 404. The Apostle here inti- mates “that none of the Churches of God, either those which he had not founded or those properly his own, allow such procedure in their ecclesi- astical usages.” Godet in loc.
• “Peter is to have the duties and powers, not of the master of the house — that Christ is and remains — but of the steward… What is here first, according to S. Matthew’s account, only promised to Peter, was after the Resurrection bestowed upon him, at the third appearance of Jesus.” D61- linger, First Age of the Church, i. p. 48.
• The prerogativesof the Apostolate were derived directly from God ; they ceased to exist with the death of the last of the original recipients of them; one of these prerogatives was the individual, as distinct from the collective exercise of “authority in Controversies of Faith” over the Uni- versal Church. Comp. Dollinger, First Age of the Church, ii. pp. 97,
• See above, Article vi. “If the Church had not carefully guarded the Scriptures at first, they would have been scattered and lost, and spurious writings would have partially taken the place of the true.” Bp Browne, p. 474.
• “Mere historical evidence will show that S. John wrote the Fourth Gospel, and that S. Paul wrote the Epistles to the Corinthians. On the other hand we want something more than mere historical evidence to justify the position of the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews within the Canon. Thus the Books of the New Testament will not stand alone either (i) in their entirety, or (ii) as all inspired, apart from the witness of the Church of which they form a part and to whose antecedent authority they themselves testify.” See Gore’s Rom. Cath. Claims, p. 56 n.
• Bp Browne, p. 480. A Canon of account, if it mistakes its functions or the Convocation, which imposed on forgets its responsibilities.” F. D. the clergy subscription to the Articles, Maurice on the Articles, p. 51. directs preachers “to be careful that
• It is “the Apostles and Elders” who come together to consider the matter (Acts xv. 6). Yet irav t6 ir\rj$os are present (ib. 12), but as listening. It is “the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church” who make the decree (ib. 22). Prof. Hort’s Judaic Christianity, p. 68.