Bicknell on Article XXXIV: Of the Traditions of the Church

The last paragraph, ‘Every particular, etc.,’ was added in 1563. The remainder dates from 1553, and is largely based on the 13 Articles. The object is to defend the changes made at the Reforma- tion against Roman attacks from without and disloyalty within.

§ 1. The position of National Churches.

(a2) We have already distinguished between the judicial authority of the Church in ‘controversies of faith’ and her legislative power in decreeing ‘rites and ceremonies.’ So far we have treated of the Church as a whole, as a single organized society. But in point of fact the one Catholic Church is represented in different parts of the world by local churches, possessing a life and individuality of their own. We find the beginnings of this even within the New Testament. The Churches of Corinth, Rome and Jerusalem, for instance, have their own character and their own problems of discipline and worship. It is evident, then, that in the working of the Church this fact must be taken into consideration. On questions of doctrine no fresh problems are raised. Truth must be one and the same in England and Germany, in Asia and America. As we have seen, practical difficulties arise about the expression of the one faith. The existence of different types of mind, progress in knowledge and education, the natural tendency of the human mind to one- sidedness, all bring with them their own problems. But these may arise equally even within a single local church. The exist- ence of many local churches introduces no really new factor. Granted that there is such a thing as Christian truth, contained in Scripture, then the teaching authority alike of the whole Church and of local churches is limited by it. But when we come to questions of discipline and order, the case is different. As we have seen, Scripture lays down general principles and leaves it to the Church to work them out in her order and worship.

This leaves open the door for considerable variety in admini- stration and in practice. Disciplinary rules which the conscious- ness of the Church in one part of the world may feel to be necessary for the safeguarding of Christian morality or the propagation of Christian faith, may in another part of the world be unnecessary or even harmful. Again, the same spirit of devotion naturally clothes itself in very different forms of worship in the Hast and in the West. This is not to say that there are not right and wrong, better and worse forms of worshipping God. St. Paul, for instance, does not dismiss such questions as those decided in 1 Cor. 11 as meaningless or trivial. He insists that Christian custom and ritual must really be in conformity with Christian spirit and Christian teaching. Due regard is to be paid to the customs and ritual of other Churches. But we are bound to recognize differences of race and temperament, of age and educa- tion. What was natural and seemly in the Middle Ages may be merely quaint to-day. What is supremely edifying in Honolulu may be grotesque in London: what is the worthy embodiment of English reverence and devotion, may be utterly meaningless in Timbuctoo. Hence ‘Jt is not necessary that Traditions and Ceremonies be in all places one or utterly alike ; for at all times they have been diverse and may be changed according to the dwver- sities of countries, times and men’s manners, so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.’ …‘ Every particular or national Church hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremomes, or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.’

The phrase ‘national Church’ requires some attention. Men sometimes argue that a national Church is only so many dioceses of the Catholic Church.* We allow, indeed, that it does consist of a given number of such dioceses, but it is far more than their mere collocation. Its unity is not simply a unity of addition. The Church of England, for instance, is bound together by the sharing of a common life and character peculiar to itself. It is foolish under the influence of a hard and abstract logic to attempt to shut our eyes to the influence of

• Sometimes it is said with less accuracy that a national Church is only so many ‘provinces’ of the Catholic Church. The unit of the Church is the diocese, with the bishop at its head. The ‘province’ is primarily an aggre- gation of dioceses, not a subdivision of the Church.

nationality upon the traditions and history of a Church. This principle of nationality the Church found already existing in the world : from the outset Christians belonged to some race or some State. The Church could no more evade or escape the fact of the nation than the fact of the family.* Nationality is a part of universal human nature. Here, as elsewhere, the Church is called upon not to abolish, but to discipline, purify and con- secrate what is natural. We must admit that the Church has widely failed in her task, but the fact of nationality has, in all parts of the world, left its mark upon her history and organiza- tion.f In the case of the Church of England, the name repre- sents far more than the Church of a particular geographical area. It is the Church through which during her history as a nation England has expressed her religious needs and aspirations. Our Church is not simply the Church of the majority of individual Englishmen, but its history and its character are intertwined with the history and character of the nation as a whole. Its order, its services, its formularies all reflect the strength and the weakness, the characteristics and the limitations of the English character.{ The same is seen in a greater or less degree in other local or national churches.

On Christianity and Nationalism see : W. Temple, Church and Nation, Lect. II.

(b) Admitting, then, that the Catholic Church is represented in different parts of the world by particular or national Churches,

} Even within the Roman Empire racial peculiarities tended to colour the life and theology of particular Churches. The limits of ecclesiastical dioceses came to conform to national or provincial boundaries. The broad distinction between East and West, so apparent in the history of the later Empire, has its counterpart in the doctrine and worship of the Church. In the West after the fall of the Empire the free development of national Churches was limited in varying degrees by the unifying policy of Rome. The Reformation was in part a revolt against such repression. To-day in Roman Catholic countries the spirit of nationality, which the Church has affected to ignore, has too often taken its revenge by banishing Christianity from the national life. In the East the course of history has been very different. The Nestorian and Monophysite schisms were caused by national antipathy to Constantinople more than by deliberate rejection of orthodoxy. Up to the present day the Churches of the East, whether orthodox or unorthodox, have tended to err in the direction of being over-national.

{ For the specially English type of Christianity, see Collins’s introduction to Typical English Churchmen.

which reflect in their traditions and customs racial and local peculiarities, we may ask, whether this power to ‘ ordain, change and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church,’ or, we may add, rules of Church order and discipline, is unlimited. The Article appears to recognize only one ground of limitation, ‘so that nothing be ordained against God’s Word.’ So, too, in the preface to the Prayer-Book entitled ‘ Of Ceremonies, why some be abol- ished and some retained,’ appeal is made solely to principles of expediency in dealing with such as ‘have had their beginning by the institution of man.’ That is to say, the Church of Eng- land claims unlimited power to alter or abolish rites and customs of the Church, however ancient or widespread, provided that they rest upon human institution.

Now to-day it is often asserted that there are certain ‘Catholic * customs’ which it is beyond the competence of any local or national Church, such as the Church of England, to alter or abolish. It is argued that when a rule or a practice can be shown to have been observed by the universal Church, such a rule or practice represents the mind of the universal Church and, therefore, can only be amended or repealed by the decision of the universal Church. A particular Church, as being only a part of the universal Church, has no authority to act in such case by itself. It is not a question whether such changes would be expedient or wise, but whether it is possible for a local Church to make them.

In order to answer this question we may begin by considering how those customs and rules came into being. In the main local customs originated not by any deliberate act on the part of the Church, but unconsciously and as it were automatically. Divine service was held. As in the presence of God, all was done in the spirit of reverence. Such reverence expressed itself in certain natural actions of the body and in orderly methods of procedure. The attempt was made to do everything ‘decently and in order.’ Hence, as in all common life, the habit grew up of doing certain things in a particular way and from repetition

*In ordinary conversation the use of the term ‘Catholic’ is too often ambiguous. It may mean in the strict sense ‘universally held and practised.’ But it may only mean ‘held and practised in some part of the Catholic Church,’ e.g. the Roman Church, or that part of it known to the speaker. The distinction is important.

this habit acquired a new sanction, a sanction all the greater as it was felt to express the mind of the community. Later on such customs were often made into definite rules by local synods or councils. The actual form that these customs took depended very largely on local conditions, sometimes, indeed, on accidental material circumstances. In the formation of such customs we must not ignore the influence of secular life. ‘We must remember that the religious life of such a region or such a Church rests upon the ethnic and social life prevalent there ; its customs were based upon this and expressed in terms of ethnic and social life. In this or that ethnic life there was much that was local; Egyptian or Syrian, Greek or Roman, Gallican or Spanish. There was much that savoured of a particular time or phase of thought; much even that must be pronounced frankly pagan, although it long survived or reappeared at a later day in the Church of Christ. No view of the past can be adequate that fails to remember this.’ * So, too, local bodies of Christians exercised the right of regulating the life and con- duct of their members in accordance with Christian principles and of laying down rules for carrying out the Church’s work in an orderly and effective manner. In the first instance these rules were decisions made for dealing with a particular case or a particular set of circumstances. When similar cases arose, they were naturally dealt with in a similar manner. So a cus- tomary method of procedure arose. Accordingly, in all Churches there arose customs about rites and ceremonies, traditional methods of working and regulations about Church order and discipline, resting for their authority upon the consent of the particular Church. On ceremonies and their origin see : Frere, Principles of Ceremonial, c. i.

If this was the method in which Church customs and traditions arose, we should expect to find, as in fact we do find, very con- siderable variety among them. This diversity of custom is the natural expression of racial and local differences. Its pre- valence is at all times in the Church’s life the rule rather than the exception. Its existence is recognized and approved by many of the highest authorities in the Church. Thus, the

Council of Nicaea decreed ‘let the ancient customs prevail.’ Augustine more than once explicitly commands the observance of local customs. His mother Monica was perplexed because the custom of the Church of Africa was to fast on Saturdays, but the custom of Milan was not to fast. He consulted Ambrose on the subject, who recommended conformity to local custom. ‘When I am here I do not fast on Saturday ; but when I am at Rome I do: whatever Church you may come to, conform to its custom, if you would avoid either giving or receiving offence.’ * His own advice to others is the same as that of Ambrose. Differ- ence of custom ‘if it is clearly not contrary to the faith or 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.’ Historians like Socrates and Sozomen, both writing in the fifth century, describe at length the great variety of customs and Church order to be found in different parts of the world without a hint that such variety was not desirable.t Again, Augustine of Canterbury put to Gregory the Great the question, ‘Whereas the faith is one and the same, why are there different customs in different Churches? and why is one custom of Masses observed in the holy Roman Church and another in the Gallican church?’ He received the reply, ‘It pleases me, that if you have found anything, either in the Roman, or the Gallican, or 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 as yet is 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 every Church those things that are pious, religious and upright and when you have, as it were, made them up into one body, let the minds of the English be accustomed thereto.’ { No doubt as time went there was an increasing tendency to secure uniformity of custom, largely in order to strengthen the authority of Rome. But no one would maintain that local differences of custom are in them- selves wrong or undesirable.

• Hyp. 54, ep. also Hp. 36, § 32.

• Cp. Socrates, H.H. c. xxii.; Sozomen, vii. § 19.

¢ Bede, H.H. (Giles’ translation), i. 27. Cp. also the answer of Anselm to Waleran quoted by Collins, op. cit. p. 19.

(c) If, then, it is granted that particular or national Churches may rightly institute and retain their own traditions and customs, it follows that they may no less modify or abolish them. This is indeed very necessary. Customs tend to increase in number. They spring up more readily than they die down. The danger is that the ever-increasing number and complexity of rites and traditions may become a burden and a hindrance. Customs that were in origin the spontaneous product of reverence and zeal survive long after they have exhausted their usefulness. They hinder rather than help devotion and retard activity. Some- times a custom becomes so meaningless and obviously unnecessary that it is gradually and even unconsciously dropped : it is abro- gated in the same way in which it grew up. Moreover, it has been generally held that even canon law may be abrogated by ‘desuetude,’ that is, not simply by continued neglect but by the growth of a definite practice to the contrary. This is proof that the old law no longer represents the mind of the Church, but that new circumstances demand a new application of her principles. On the other hand, especially in matters of ritual, human nature is conservative. Old customs and ceremonies are retained even after their practical usefulness has ceased and their original purpose has been forgotten. New ones are con- stantly springing up and being added to the old. Hence, from time to time in the interests of simplicity and sincerity, a deliber- ate pruning and revision is called for. St. Augustine complained in his time that the Christian religion was being oppressed by the number of burdensome ceremonies that had grown up, till Christians were even in worse case than the Jews.* At the time of the Reformation matters had gone from bad to worse. As the Prayer-Book, after referring to St. Augustine, says, “What would St. Augustine have said, if he had seen the cere- monies of late days used among us; whereunto the multitude used in his time was not to be compared? This our excessive multitude of ceremonies was so great and many of them so dark; that they did more confound and darken, than declare and set forth Christ’s benefits unto us.’ Plainly, then, in such cases the only hope is the deliberate abolishing of such customs and ceremonies as are no longer edifying.

We are now in a better position to face the question as to the

existence of certain ‘Catholic customs’ which it is beyond the power of any particular Church to vary. We believe that our Article has taken up a perfectly sound position in asserting that the only ground for the retention or repudiation of any custom that is ‘ordained only by man’s authority’ by a particular or national Church is expediency, ‘so that all things be done to edifying.’ Such language rules out any idea that a local Church is fettered in its liberty of action because a custom adopted by itself has been adopted by other local Churches or been generally adopted. Even where such a universal custom has been approved by a general council, we must remember that the decrees of a general council are subject to the approval of the whole Church : they have authority only so far as they represent the mind of the Church.* As soon as a particular Church repudiates a custom that has been hitherto universally observed, it is apparent that it no longer represents the mind of the whole Church, and therefore has lost the authority which it formerly possessed. The Catholic Church of one generation cannot bind the Catholic Church of the next generation in such matters. Life involves change and movement. The moment that we grasp that all tradition and custom, all rites and cere- monies, are valuable only so far as they minister to the truest self-expression of life, the reasonableness of this position is

• When long lists of conciliar decrees are hurled at our heads in order to induce us to adopt a certain custom as being ‘ Catholic,’ it is well to remember the following caution given by Dr. Collins :

“We must beware of arguing that a thing was always done because a Canon was passed to say that it should be done… . the first thing that the Canon shows is that at the time and in the region where it was passed the thing was not done, and that they who passed it wished that it should be done. No doubt, Canons were sometimes obeyed ; perhaps usually so. Some of them… have inaugurated an entire change in the practice of the Church. But there are Canons… which might almost have been said to come into the world still- born and others which never seem to have been carried out in any real sense, And in general, whenever we find that the substance of a particular Canon is repeated over and over again elsewhere, the inference to be drawn is not that the matter was one upon which the mind of the Church has always been quite clear—else there would very probably have been no Canon on the subject in the first instance—but rather that the enactment was one which, rightly or wrongly, did not at that time commend itself to the Church at large ; and that it was repeated simply because it could not be carried out.’ He then goes on to point that the really vital things in Church order, such as the ministry, do not rest on decisions of councils at all,

clear.* Further, when we turn to history, we find that as a matter of fact customs that were once universal and had behind them the sanction of general councils, have fallen into abeyance without any definite abrogation by the whole Church. The Council of Jerusalem enjoined abstinence from blood. The rule is, we are told, still observed in the East: it has long been disregarded in the West. The Council of Nicaea forbade kneeling in Church during the season of Easter. Once again this is still observed in the East but not in the West. So, too, the Eastern Church has made certain innovations, such as the restriction of the choice of bishops to monks. All these are indisputable instances of changes made in Catholic customs by particular Churches. They may or may not be wise, but few would maintain that they were unlawful. Other instances will occur as we deal with certain other Articles. To maintain that there is any custom that a particular Church is unable to alter on its own authority, simply because it has at some period been observed by the whole Church, is to fly in the face of reason and history.

No doubt the case is not so simple as it appears, so long as we are discussing the question quite generally. The moment that we deal with concrete cases other considerations than those of abstract right or pure theology come in. We should all agree that the more widely any given custom had gained currency, the more probable is it that it is valuable and therefore not lightly to be repealed. Nor do we wish to minimize the offence that may be caused to other particular Churches by the giving up of ancient traditions that are still venerated and retained among themselves. Nor can we pass over the question of motive. A change that in itself is unimportant may be the sign of an unchristian spirit or of perverted doctrine. Customs that originated with a purely utilitarian aim come in time to be invested with a doctrinal significance that was entirely absent from the minds of those who first practised them. Hence the

• The really serious thing about the customs and ceremonies of the Church of England is not that they otten differ widely from taose of other Churches, but that, as we shall see, she is Jargely in bondage to her own past. She possesses no really representative body to revise her customs and pass new canons. Hence customs that no longer adequately express her true life survive because of the difficulty of modifying them. They are not un-catholic since they are the law of the Catholic Church of this land, but they are unchristian in so far as they hamper the flow of Christian life.

abandonment or retention of such customs comes to be regarded as the public denial or affirmation of the doctrines popularly associated with them.* Again, not infrequently, when the special circumstances that gave rise to a ritual practice have passed away, the practice itself remains, and in order to justify it a new and mystical explanation is invented. It comes to be regarded as symbolical of some Christian truth or some pious fancy.t We must allow due weight, too, to the associations

• An excellent instance of this is the matter of clothes. At the celebration of the Eucharist in primitive times the officiants naturally wore their best clothes, out of reverence to God and as expressive of festal joy. In course of time the fashion of clothes changed. In the West the barbarian type of dress supplanted the old Roman type of dress for ordinary life. But religion is naturally conservative. The Christian minister retained the old type of dress after it had been abandoned by the layman. He continued to celebrate the Eucharist in clothes that were no longer those of secular use. This beyond all possible doubt is the historical origin of Eucharistic vestments. In certain details they have been modified by ecclesiastical custom, but in their essentials they represent the ordinary civil costume of the well-dressed layman of the first century 4.D. When they ceased to be the layman’s ordinary dress they began to acquire a sacerdotal significance. Their unfamiliarity prompted various quaint and symbolical explanations of their meaning. In England they have come to be regarded by many as expressive of the Roman doctrine of the Eucharist. The precariousness of such a view is obvious when we remem- ber that up to this day they are still retained by Lutheran Churches in Scandinavia, who find nothing in them that runs counter to the purest Lutheranism. Nor did the authors of the Ornaments Rubric, at any rate when it was first issued, see in them anything fundamentally opposed to the teaching of the Elizabethan Prayer-Book. It is probably a matter for regret that the Evangelical party have not adopted them en masse, as they adopted the surplice, so odious as a rag of Popery to their Puritan forerunners, and thus deprived them of any Roman significance. Putting aside the vexed question of obedience to the Ornaments Rubric, vestments are valued by very many to-day whose loyalty to Anglicanism is undoubted. They are visible symbols of the continuity of the Church. They are beautiful in form. It is not unreasonable that if the minister has a special vesture for taking public prayers he should have a different one for celebrating the Holy Eucharist. It is impossible to maintain that the wearing or not wearing of any particular kind of clothes affects the validity of sacraments. Their use is a matter of ‘reverent and seemly order.’ (See ‘The Report on the Ornaments of the Church and its Ministers’ drawn up by the Sub-Committee of the Convocation of Canterbury in 1908. 8S.P.C.K.)

• As we have said, ritual is primarily good manners. In the celebration of the Eucharist the officiant is the organ of the Church, which is represented by the assembled congregation. When he leads them in prayer or, as their minister, performs the various acts that the service requires, it is natural that he should stand, as it were, at their head. Hence under ordinary circumstances in England to-day we get the Eastward position. In primitive times the

2B

that come to gather some practice that in itself is merely utili- tarian. In such ways as these the unlimited right of a particular

Church to change customs or ceremonies is in actual practice modified.*

On the position of a National Church see : Collins, ‘The Rights of a Particular Church in Matters of Practice’ (C.H.S8. Paper LXXXII.). ‘The Nature and Force of the Canon Law’ (C.H.S. Paper XXXIV.). ‘Conditions of Church Life in the First Six Centuries’ (pp. 27-end). j Hooker, H.P. v. cc. 5-10. Our Place in Christendom, Lect. VI.

celebrant usually stood facing the people, at the other side of the Holy Table, with the other clergy ranged on either side of him, in imitation of our Lord and His Apostles at the Last Supper. The Pope still celebrates thus at St. Peter’s. Thus, either the Eastward or the Westward position is natural. The position at the North end, as a piece of ritual, is perfectly meaningless. It is a survival from the days when the Holy Table was temporarily removed from the East end of our churches and placed lengthwise in the chancel or body of the church, so that the celebrant’s position naturally turned with it and he found himself facing South instead of East. When the Table returned to its old position, altar-wise, the celebrant’s position at the North end was quite illogically retained. It has now come to be regarded as symbolical of ‘reformed doctrine.’ On the other hand, if, when the celebrant acts as the minister of the congregation, it is natural that he should face East, it is equally natural that when he acts or speaks as God’s minister to the congregation, he should turn to them, as in pronouncing the absolution or reading the Epistle and Gospel. It so happened that mediaeval books were bulky and not easily lifted. Hence the custom arose for the sake of convenience of not turning round to read the Epistle. As long as this was in Latin, not much was lost. But now that the books are light and the Epistle is read in English, it is absurd to continue to read it into the wall. The practice is defended as being Catholic, presumably because it is still continued in the Roman Church along with the use of Latin. But surely Catholicism is not incompatible with courtesy. The custom, which arose purely as a matter of practical convenience, is to-day no longer convenient or edifying. (See Vernon Staley, Studies in Ceremonial, iii.)

*The question of ‘ Catholic customs’ may be illustrated by the question of ‘fasting Communion.’ This was the custom by the time of Tertullian (On Fasting, c. 10). St. Augustine had never heard of a time when it was otherwise, and assigns it a command of St. Paul (Hp. 54 or 118). Beyond all doubt the custom was universal in Hast and West alike down to the Re- formation. In primitive times the character of the day determined the time of the Eucharist. On Sunday when fasting was forbidden, it was early; on half-fasts, in the afternoon ; in Lent, so as to end at night-fall. On the other hand, there is no command in Scripture on the subject. St. Augustine’s statement is at best a tradition unsupported by any evidence. In the earliest days the Communion was preceded by the Agape. It is at most, therefore, an

Notes

• Cp. Mozley, University Sermons, ‘On War,’ esp. pp. 97-102.
• Collins, ‘Conditions of Church life in the first Six Centuries,’ C.H.S. Tract No. xcii. p. 33.
• Ep. 55, § 35.