Gibson on Article XXXIV: Of the Traditions of the Church

[…]

Of the Traditions of the Church,

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, 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 man’s authority, so that all things be done to edifying.

The last paragraph of this Article (” Every particular or national Church,” etc.) was added in 1563, as was also the single word ” times ” in the first sentence. With

1 “Traditiones Ecclesiasticae,” 1553 and 1563.

7ie

It

these exceptions, it has remained unaltered since its first issue in 1553. Its language may be traced to a considerable extent to the fifth of the Thirteen Articles of 1538, in which we find the following paragraphs: —

” Traditiones vero, et ritus, atque ceremoniae, quae vel ad decorem vel ordinem vel disciplinam Ecclesiae ab hominibus simt institutae, non omnino necesse est ut eaedem sint ubique aut prorsus similes. Hoc enim et variae fuere, et variari possunt pro regionum et morum diversitate, ubi decus, ordo, et utilitas Ecclesiae videbuntur postulare :

“Hae enim et variae fuere, et variari possunt pro regionum et morum diversitate, ubi decus decensque ordo principibus rectoribusque regionum videbuntur postulare ; ita tamen ut nihil varietur aut instituatur contra verbum Dei manifestum.”^

The clause added in 1563 seems to have been taken from a Latin series of twenty-four Articles, apparently drawn up by Parker in 1559; but “whether, from motives of prudence, or from inability to gain the sanction of the Crown,”^ not circulated among the clergy. In this document we are told that ” qua? vis ecclesia particularis authoritatem instituendi, mutandi et abrogandi ceremonias et ritus ecclesiasticos habet, modo ad decorem, ordinem et aedificationem fiat.”^

The main object of this Article is, as against the Romanists, to assert the right of the Church of England to make such changes as were carried out in her ” traditions and ceremonies ” in the sixteenth century ; and a further object is to insist upon the duty of loyalty on the part of all members of the Church to those traditions

\ .rl

and ceremonies which were ordained and approved by common authority. This was rendered necessary, not only by the entire rejection of all authority by the Anabaptists, but by the way in which some among the English clergy, who were very far from sympathising doctrinally with these fanatics, were prepared to take the law into their own hands, and discard such ceremonies as they disapproved of.^ These men were the ecclesiastical ancestors of the ” Nonconformists ” of Elizabeth’s reign — men who would not secede, and who denounced the ” separatists,” but claimed to set at defiance the laws and regulations of the Church in which they ministered * There are three principal positions maintained in the Article —

1. There is no need for traditions and ceremonies to be everywhere alike.

2. Those persons are deserving of censure who break the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which are ordained by common authority.

3. Every particular or national Church is competent to arrange her own ceremonies and rites.

Of these the first and third statements have been already considered in connection with Article XX., and it will be sufficient to refer the reader to what was there said. Nor does the second appear to require any lengthy proof. The position of the Church of England with regard to ” ceremonies, why some be abolished and some

retained,” is clearly stated in the section with this heading at the beginning of the Book of Common Prayer (dating from 1549). In this we read that “although the keeping or omitting of a ceremony, in itself considered, is but a small thing, yet the wilful and contemptuous transgression and breaking of a common order and discipline is no small offence before God. Let all things he done among you^ saith Saint Paul, in a seemly and due order : the appointment of the which order pertaineth not to private men ; therefore no man ought to take in hand, nor presume to appoint or alter any publick or common order in Christ’s Church, except he be lawfully called and authorised thereunto.”

It is obvious that unless such a position as this is conceded, nothing can result except confusion and disorder. No better example of this can be given than the extraordinary state of things which existed in Elizabeth’s reign before the vigorous efforts of Parker, and subsequently of Whitgift, had succeeded in enforcing a certain degree of order and conformity to law.^ Naturally this

** Service and Pray’ — Some say y® service and pray^ in.y® chauncell,

others in y® body of y® church, some say y® same in a seate made

in y® church ; some in y® Pulpitt, w*^ y"" faces to y® people. “Some kepe precysly y® order of y® booke, oth” intermeddle PsaL in

meter. *’ Some say w^^ a surpless, others w**k)ut a surplesse. *’ Table. — The Table standeth in y® body of y® church in some places,

in others hit standeth in y® chauncell. ” In some places the Table standeth Alterlyke distant from y® walle a

yarde, in some others in y® middest of y® chauncell north and

south. “In some places the Table ys joyned, in others hit standeth uppon

Trestells. ** In some y® Table hath a carpett, in others hit hath none. ** Ad^ninistration of […] Some w*^ surpless and copes,

some with surpless alone, others with none.

Thirty-fourth Article was not much to the mind of the Nonconforming party, although they were able to evade its force, and to reconcile their conscience to the act of subscription to it by pleadmg that everything which they disliked was “repugnant to the word of God.”^

This is not the place to enter into the history of the controversy, which is really chiefly important because it was the occasion of Hooker’s magnificent work. Nor does it appear necessary to say more here than to remind the reader of the four propositions which Hooker claims to have granted ” concerning matters of outward form in the exercise of true religion.”

” (1) In the external form of religion such things as are apparently or can be sufficiently proved, effectual and generally fit to set forward godliness, either as betokening the greatness of God, or as beseeming the dignity of religion, or as concurring with celestial impressions in the minds of men, may be reverently thought of ; some few, rare, casual and tolerable, or otherwise curable, inconveniences notwithstanding.

“(2) In things the fitness whereof is not of itself apparent, nor easy to be made sufficiently manifest unto all, yet the judgment of antiquity concurring with that which is received may induce them to think it not unfit

“Some w*-** chalice, some w^^ a Co[mmim]ion Cuppe, others w^ a

[…]

Some yv^^ a Button Cappe, some w*^ a Hatte. *’ Some in Schol” Clooke, some in others.”

The document is printed in full in Parker’s Postscript to a Letter to Lord Selhoriie, p. 148.

V ‘I

who are not able to allege any known weighty inconvenience which it hath, or to take any strong objection against it.

” (3) Where neither the evidence of any law Divine, nor the strength of any invincible argument otherwise foimd out by the light of reason, nor any notable public inconvenience, doth make against that which our own laws ecclesiastical have although but newly instituted for the ordering of these affairs, the very authority of the Church itself, at least in such cases, may give so much credit to her laws, as to make their sentence touching fitness and conveniency weightier than any bare and naked conceit to the contrary ; especially in them who can owe no less than childlike obedience to her that hath more than motherly power.

“(4) In cases of necessity, or for common utility’s sake, certain profitable ordinances some time may be released, rather than all men always be strictly bound to the general rigour thereof.”^

These propositions. Hooker fairly claims, are ” such as no man of moderate judgment hath cause to think unjust or unreasonable ” ; and if they be admitted, they appear to be fully sufficient to establish the position taken up in the Article before us.

Notes

• See Hardwick, p. 264. We may be thankful that the characteristically Erastian reference to ** princes and the rulers of countries” was not adopted in the Anglican formulary.
• Hardwick, p. 118. ^ See Strype, Annals, i. p. 216.
• Of these men Hooper was the leader. His objection to the Episcopal habit, and the difficulty about his consecration in consequence, is well known (see Dixon, vol. iii. p. 213 seq.) ; and it must be owned that considerable encouragement was given to this party by Ridley’s utterly illegal onslaught upon “altars’* in 1550. See Dixon, vol. iii. p. 200 seq.
• In the Lower House of Convocation a vigorous attempt was made in 1563 to have the terms of this Article softened in the interests of the Puritans, and the attempt only narrowly escaped being successful. See Strype, Annals, i. p. 335 seq.
• See the contemporary Paper prepared for Cecil in 1564, now among the Lansdowne MSS., vol. viii. art. 7 : ” Varietees in y® service, and ye administracion used.”
• See Hartlwick, Articles^ p. 110.
• Ecclesiastical Polity, Bk. V. c. vi.-ix.