Antioch, and Alexandria were the three great patriarchates recognised in the sixth canon of the Council of Nice. The seventh canon reserves the next place of precedence to the Bishop of Jerusalem. The patriarchate of Constantinople was not recognised until the second General Council. We need not particularly specify the errors of the Church of Rome. And without going back to the controversies of the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, in which Arian, Nestorian, and Monophysite errors in various degrees affected the Oriental Churches, it is well known that they now have many of the corruptions of the Roman Church, such as the worship of saints, transubstantiation, and other erroneous doctrines ARTICLES XX. AND XXXIV. ARTICLE XX. Of the Authority of the Church. 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, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a 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. De Ecclesiæ auctoritate. Habet Ecclesia ritus sive cæremonias statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis auctoritatem; quamvis Ecclesiæ non licet quicquam instituere, quod verbo Dei scripto adversetur, nec unum Scripturæ locum sic exponere potest, ut alteri contradicat. Quare licet Ecclesia sit divinorum librorum testis et conservatrix, attamen ut adversus eos nihil decernere, ita præter illos nihil credendum de necessitate salutis debet obtrudere. ARTICLE XXXIV. Of the Traditions of the It is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one, or utterly like; for at all times they have been diverse, and may be changed according to the diversity of countries, times, De traditionibus Eccle- Traditiones atque cæremonias easdem, non omnino necessarium est esse ubique, aut prorsus consimiles. Nam ut variæ semper fuerunt, et mutari possunt, pro regionum, temporum, et morum diversi and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved by common authority, ought to be rebuked openly, (that other may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren. Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies, or rites of the Church ordained only by authority, so that all things be done to edifying. man's tate, modo nihil contra verbum Dei instituatur. Traditiones, et cæremonias ecclesiasticas, quæ cum verbo Dei non pugnant, et sunt auctoritate publica institutæ atque probatæ, quisquis privato consilio volens, et data opera, publice violaverit, is ut qui peccat in publicum ordinem Ecclesiæ, quique lædit auctoritatem Magistratus, et qui infirmorum fratrum conscientias vulnerat, publice, ut cæteri timeant, arguendus est. Quælibet Ecclesia particularis, sive nationalis, auctoritatem habet instituendi, mutandi, aut abrogandi cæremonias, aut ritus ecclesiasticos, humana tantum auctoritate institutos, modo omnia ad ædificationem fiant. NOTES ON THE TEXT OF THESE ARTICLES. In Article XX. we may observe that the Latin equivalent for keeper of Holy Writ' is' conservatrix divinorum librorum.' The idea of the keeper is, therefore, one who preserves, 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 authority 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 signatures of ten prelates. Archbishop Laud was accused of forging it. However, it appears in some, though not in all, of the printed copies in Elizabeth's reign. Laud defended himself by appealing to four editions of the Articles, printed during the reign of Elizabeth and containing the clause. He further produced an attested copy of the Article from the records of the province of Canterbury, which also contained it. Those records have since perished in the great fire of London, 1666. It is thus sufficiently proved that the clause, as it stands, was a part of the Twentieth Article, as finally ratified in the reign of Elizabeth. The Parker MS. must therefore be, as Strype suggests, an early draught, and not the final record of the Thirty-nine Articles. The question is now scarcely more than one of literary curiosity, inasmuch as the copy of the Articles enforced by the existing Act of Uniformity (that of 1662) contains the clause in question. With regard 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. THE PRINCIPAL DIVISIONS OF ARTICLES XX. AND XXXIV. 1. The Church (i.e. each national Church) has power to decree and alter rites and ceremonies. 2. Those ceremonies need not be uniform in 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. The relation of the Church to the Scriptures 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. 5. 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 inore explicitly with its power over ceremonial. It follows that the one must illustrate 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 thirtyfourth Article asserts this in the plainest manner. A little consideration of a few matters of fact will serve to establish |