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.

6

For, in point of fact, the Reformed Church of England has framed these Thirty-nine Articles, and did, by Royal Commissioners 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 divergence 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 the 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 waysagainst the Romanists, who denied the 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 passage only shall be quoted, which will substantially cover the ground so far taken under this Article.1 '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 Ecclesiastical Polity. . . . To our purpose the name of ChurchPolity will better serve, because it containeth both govern

1 Book iii. 1.

mert, and also whatsoever besides belongeth to the ordering of the Church in public.'

The student may be reminded that in the first three centuries there was in many respects a considerable degree of provincial 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 jurisdictions 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 acknowledging the liberty of sects to organise themselves. The liberty 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 Roman 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 independently of external help.1

On this see Goode's 'Divine Rule of Faith and Practice,' chap. ii.

6

We have already dealt with this question under Article VI. But 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 age 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 fact, chiefly of the witness of members of the Church to the Canonical books, and of their reception by the Church, from the first ages until now-chiefly, but not only; for heathen, and heretic too, bear weighty testimony, and are also compelled to be witnesses of Holy Writ.

ARTICLE XXI.

Of the Authority of General

Councils.

General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

De auctoritate Conciliorum
Generalium.

Generalia Concilia sine jussu et voluntate Principum congregari non possunt; et ubi convenerint, quia ex hominibus constant, qui non omnes spiritu et verbo Dei reguntur, et errare possunt, et interdum errarunt etiam in his quæ ad Deum pertinent; ideoque quæ ab illis constituuntur, ut ad salutem necessaria, neque robur habent, neque auctoritatem, nisi ostendi possint e sacris literis esse desumpta.

OBSERVATIONS ON ARTICLE XXI.

The text of the Article remains as it stood in 1552, with the exception of a verbal omission of no great consequence. The Latin and English versions are in close agreement and require no special comment.

The first clause, on the legality of assembling General Councils, would seem to us to represent a mere matter of fact. A Council must be held in the territory of some State, and must consist of the subjects of some States. It must, therefore, be dependent on the civil laws permitting such meetings and the movements of individual subjects. The clause, however, was really directed against the claim of the Pope to have the power of summoning and dismissing such Councils.

In dealing with this subject we shall first follow the guidance of Dr. Barrow, in his Treatise on the Papal Supremacy,' for the historical facts as to the summoning General Councils. Then we shall point out the basis on which the popes have founded their claim.

Dr. Barrow thus writes, "There was no general synod before Constantine; and as to the practice from that time, it is very clear that for some ages the popes did not assume or exercise such a power, and that it was not taken for their due. Nothing can be more evident; and it were extreme impudence to deny that the emperors, at their pleasure and by their authority, did congregate all the first general synods; for so the oldest historians in most express terms do report, so those princes in their edicts did aver, so the synods themselves did declare. The most just and pious emperors, who did bear greatest love to the clergy, and had much respect for the pope, did call them without scruple; it was deemed their right to do it ; none did remonstrate against their practice; the Fathers in each synod did refer thereto, with allowance, and commonly with applause; popes themselves did not contest their right, yea commonly did petition them to exercise it.'

Dr. Barrow proceeds to establish this by the express statements of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and the other ecclesiastical historians of the fourth and fifth centuries, setting forth the facts as to the actual mode of summoning the first Councils. It will be seen, on examining those statements, that it is impossible for historical facts to be more clearly ascertained than these are.

Dr. Barrow next shows that the popes themselves, when they desired the settlement of an important point of doctrine or discipline, petitioned the emperors again and again for the assembling of a General Council. Such Councils were generally held in the East. Pope Leo I. was exceedingly anxious that one should be held in Italy, and addressed the Emperor Theodosius in these words: All the Churches of our parts, all bishops, with groans and tears, do supplicate your grace, that you would command a general synod to be held in Italy.'

1 Supposition VI.