soundly religious by renouncing idolatry and superstition. . . . The indisposition, therefore, of the Church of Rome to reform herself must be no stay unto us for performing our duty to God; even as desire of retaining conformity with them would be no excuse if we did not perform that duty.

"Notwithstanding, so far as lawfully we may, we have held and do hold fellowship with them. For even as the Apostle doth say of Israel that they are in one respect enemies, but in another beloved of God, in like sort with Rome we dare not communicate concerning sundry her gross and grievous abominations, yet touching those main parts of Christian truth wherein they constantly still persist, we gladly acknowledge them to be of the family of Jesus Christ; and our hearty prayer unto God Almighty is, that being conjoined so far forth with them, they may at the length (if it be His will) so yield to frame and reform themselves, that no distraction remain in anything, but that we all may with one heart and one mouth glorify God, the Father of our Lord and Saviour,' whose Church we are."1

1 Eccl. Polity, bk. III. ch. i. § 10.

ARTICLE XX.

De Ecclesiæ Autoritate.

Habet Ecclesia Ritus statuendi jus, et in fidei controversiis autoritatem, 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.

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 anything 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 anything against the same, SO besides the same, ought it not to enforce anything to be believed for necessity of salvation.

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.1 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

1 Ref. Leg. Eccl., De Summa Trinitate et Fide Catholica, c. xi. : "Quamobrem non licet ecclesiæ quicquam constituere, quod verbo Dei scripto adversetur, neque potest sic unum locum exponere ut alteri contradicat. Quanquam ergo divinorum librorum testis sit et custos et conservatrix Ecclesia, hæc tamen prerogativa ei minime concedi debet, ut contra hos libros vel quicquam decernat, vel absque horum librorum testimoniis ullos fidei articulos condat, eosque populo Christiano credendos obtrudat."

and authority. It is not found in the Parker MS. signed by the 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, 1563.1 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 synodical 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

1 "Domestic," vol. xxvii. 40.

2 Ib. 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.

3 Articles, p. 140.

4 Cf. p. 31.

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 1568 alluded to in the text; and (4) in one Latin and one English edition of Jugge and Cawood in 1571. See Hardwick, P. 142.

reference.1 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 containing the words in question. The records of Convocation unfortunately perished in the great fire of London in 1666; 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.' "" 4

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 Würtemberg: "Credimus et confitemur quod . . . hæc ecclesia habeat jus judicandi de omnibus doctrinis." 5

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 1 Cf. p. 43.

2 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 Works, vol. vi. p. 68 (A. C. Lib.).

Laud, op. cit. p. 66.

De Ecclesia.

Articles, p. 144.

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 (b) 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.

L The Legislative Power of the Church with regard to Rites or Ceremonies.

The Church 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