Maclear and Williams on Article XXXIV: Of the Traditions of the Church

[…]

‘57’-

[…]

It is not necessarie that traditions and ceremonies be in al places one, or vtterly like, for at all times they haue ben diuerse, and maybe chaunged accordyng to the diuersitie of coun- treys, times, and mens maners, so that nothing be ordeyned against Gods worde. Whosoeuer through his priuate judgement, wyllyngly and purposely doth openly breake the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not repugnaunt to the worde of God, and be ordayned and approued by common aucthoritie, ought to be rebuked openly, (that other may feare to do the lyke) as he that offendeth agaynst the Common order of the Churche, and hurteth the aucthoritie of the Magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.

[…]

i. Origin. The Thirty-fourth Article is derived from the Fifth of the Thirteen Articles of 1 5 381, which contains many of the expressions incorporated in the former.

1 ” Traditiones vero et ritus atque prorsus similes. H:e enim et varia

caremonice, qux vel ad decorem vel fuere, et variari possint pro regionum

ordinem vel disciplinam Ecclesia; ab et morum diversitate, ubi decus, ordo,

hominibus sunt institute, non omnino et utilitas Ecclesix videbuntur postu-

necesse est ut cedent sint ubique aut lare.” Art. v de Ecclesia. The follow-

ii. Language. As originally drafted in 1553 it con- sisted of only two clauses, the present first and second. The third clause was not added till 1563, after the Council of Trent had so far sought to annihilate the distinction of National Churches, as to introduce a uniformity, not only of doctrine, but also of ceremonial and of discipline throughout the West1.

iii. Object. While, then, it asserts in opposition to the teaching of the Anabaptists that (1) Church traditions2, ceremonies, rites and customs ought not to be violated at the impulse of man’s private judgment, and that (2) private persons are not justified of their own will in breaking the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, so long as they are not repugnant to God’s Word3, it stoutly affirms that

[…]

1 The question of” the indeterminate and ever-widening authority which the Popes asserted over the kingdoms and Churches of the West” had been submitted to the judgment of Western Christendom so early as the Council of Pisa in 1409. The national and conciliar or anti-I’apal view had been boldly urged by such great Gallicans as Gerson and Peter d’Ailly, and it is interesting to note the strength of their position in the fact that at the Council of Constance in 1414 the votes of those present were given by nations and not individually; but at the Council of Basel in 1437 the posi- tion was reversed, “its method of pro- cedure ran counter to the new direc- tion which had been communicated to European federacy by the action of the

Constance congress,” and thus the way was paved for the final triumph of Pontifical Absolutism at the con- clusion of the Council of Trent in 1563. Compare Symonds, Renais- sance in Italy, The Catholic Reaction, Pt. I. pp. 98 sqq.

3 “That paramount authorityof Holy Scripture, which is so remarkable a characteristic of the Thirty-nine Articles, and which the Church of Eng- land inherited from the great teachers of the Middle Ages, supplies the limit to the diversity of the traditions of the

(3) every particular or National Church has authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites of the Church ordained only by man’s authority, provided only that all things be done to edifying.

iv. The Teaching of Scripture does not supply us with much reliable information for or against the first of these three statements. S. Paul lays it down as a general rule that all things should be done unto edifying (1 Cor. xiv. 26), and that in church everything should be done decently and in order (1 Cor. xiv. 40). These directions of the Apostle leave much liberty in the or- daining of the ceremonies and services of the Church.

v. The Teaching of Church History makes it plain that the different Churches, though wonderfully con- cordant in doctrine and Apostolical government, yet ex- hibited great variety in discipline and ritual. Thus

(a) The Eastern and Western Churches differed as regards the time of keeping Easter. The Western Churches keeping it as we keep it now, so that it always falls on a Sunday, while the Churches of Asia commemorated the Cru- cifixion on the fourteenth day of the month Nisan, after the manner of the Jewish Passover, on whatever day of the week it might fall, and the Resurrection on the sixteenth1. The Church of Rome differed from the Church of Africa on the important question of the

Church.” Bp. Forbes, On the Articles, alibus sequendum quod in melius merit

p.672. The limitations to the influence a Sancto Spiritu revelatum.” Cypr.

[…]

Stephen in respect of the re-baptism pp. 12 — 14, ed. Dindorf; Kentz,

[…]

nobis opponunt ; quasi consuetudo Bishop of Rome, on the subject see

major sit veritate, aut id sit in spiritu- Eusebius H. E. iv. 14. v. 14, § 16.

re-baptism of heretics. While Cyprian and the African Bishops maintained that those who had been baptized by heretics ought to be re- baptized1, Pope Stephen and the Roman Church maintained that such Baptism was valid, and therefore could not be repeated2.

(7) Again, Churches differed as to the mode in which the Jewish Sabbath ought to be treated, some observing the Lord’s Day only, others the Saturday and Jewish Sabbath also; some were wont to fast on Friday, the day of our Lord’s Crucifixion, others on Friday and Satur- day also, as the day on which the Lord lay in the grave3.

(8) Once more, each Bishop was allowed to frame his own Liturgy’4, and hence we have the Liturgies of Antioch, Alexandria, Constan- tinople, Rome, Gaul, and Spain, in which while certain characteristics remain constant,

3 Especially those of the Patri- archate of Antioch. There was a marked difference in manner between those who did observe the Saturday. In the East it was customary to ob- serve it as a Festival, in the West as a

[…]

AC.

there are many differences of detail and of arrangement1.

Thus the action of the Holy Ghost within the Church of Christ illumines the minds of the different nations without destroying their national characteristics, and there- fore we cannot be surprised to find many marked pecu- liarities in the services and ceremonies of the different Churches throughout the world. Forms of devotion and edifying rites will be ever profoundly modified by climate, by the history of thought, and by the degree of civilisation that may have been attained2. Absolute uniformity of ritual and worship is not desirable. It may be gained, but it will be at the expense of customs, to which tradition imparts a peculiar value, and of that sense of largeness and freedom, which is so important an element, and so conducive to the health and proper action of the Body of Christ3.

vi. The Second Clause of the Article contains a caution against those persons, who, of their private judg- ment, wantonly break or neglect the traditions of the Church. For by such infringement (i) they “offend against the common order of the Church;” (ii) they “hurt the authority of the magistrate4;” (iii) they “wound the con- sciences of the weak5 brethren.”

’- Bp Forbes, On the Articles, p. 672. these matters is placed first; and then

3 For the moral bearing of the the injury done to the authority of the

question comp. S. Aug. ad Casulani, magistrate. ” For since, according to

£p. xxxvi. “In his enim rebus de ancient custom, the magistrate gave a

quibus nihil certi statuit Scriptura civil sanction to customs or ‘the com-

divina, mos populi Dei, vel instituta mon order of the Church,’ then, to

majorum pro lege tenenda sunt. De infringe that, to which he had lent this

quibus si disputare voluerimus, et sanction, was to lower his authority

ex aliorum consuetudine alios impro- also. The wont of giving such civil

[…]

quaelaboresermocinationis.quum certa dates back to the earliest times of the

documenta nulla veritatis insinuet, converted Empire.” See Bp Forbes,

utique cavendum est ne tempestate On the Articles, pp. 676 — 679. contentionis serenitatem caritatis ob- 5 “In Rom. xiv. 1 sqq., the a<sBtvi)t

vii. The authority of Scripture is strong against those who do this. Thus

(a) Our Lord enjoined His disciples to obey the Pharisees, because they sat in Moses’ seat1 (Matt, xxiii. 2).

(0) The Apostles in all things not unlawful adhered to Jewish observances and followed the customs of their own nation even after the Church of Christ had been established2 (Acts ii. 46; xxi. 20, 26), and S. Paul specially exhorts his Thes- salonian converts to withdraw themselves from every brother that walked disorderly* (2 Thess. iii. 6), and while he bids the Christians of Rome mark those who caused the divisions and occasions of stumbling’ contrary to the doctrine wliicli they learned (Rom. xvi. 17), he enjoins all to obey their spiritual rulers, and to submit themselves to them4.

viii. National Churches. The Article concludes with a vigorous assertion of the independence of National Churches. Obviously this independence in no way affects

contemplated by S. Paul is the man who has his own private rule, probably of Essenic origin, relative to the use of meats and the observance of days ; he is free to frame and use such a rule, but not free to regard it as of universal obligation; the Swards on the other hand, who binds himself by no such rule, is not free to treat the iadev-qs with contempt.” Comp. Liddon, in lor.

[…]

• ” God had not yet abolished the

synagogue ; theSanhedrin still asserted a rightful jurisdiction over the Jewish Church, and the believers submitted to it on all points but one, where they must obey God rather than man. ” Dollinger, First Age of the Church, PP- 72. 73- , _ ,

[…]

4 Comp. i Cor. xvi. [6; i Thess. v. 12 ; Heb. xiii. 17.

the Faith. The Faith is one everywhere, and at all times. What the Article claims is only that “every particular or National Church1 hath authority to ordain, change, and abolish ceremonies or rites ordained only by man’s au- thority.” Even under the Empire National Churches, like those of Africa, Spain, and Gaul, used each their own code, and were marked by variations of practice in things non-essential’2. And if this was so, much more is varia- tion permissible in reference to inferior matters, such as discipline, ceremonies, and whatsoever tends to the edification of each local Church. This principle was fully admitted by Gregory the Great3, when he bade S. Augus- tine of Canterbury carefully select whatever he found in the Church of Rome, or Gaul, or in any Church whatever that was likely to please Almighty God, and introduce it into the Church of England, then new in the Faith, remembering that we must love not things for places, but places for things4. This direction of the great Bishop is in harmony with the position taken up in the present Article.

[…]

• Compare the Sixth Canon of the potuisti, infundas. Non enim pro Council of Nicsa in reference to such locis res, sed pro bonis rebus loca a national independence in things non- amanda sunt.”

[…]

eireiSrj Kal iv ttj ‘Pu’/j-ig ewiaKuTrip toDto of his own Church, which it is not

avvrjdis ioTtV 6/ioi’us Se Kal Kara rrjv lawful for anyone to change by his

’ AvTibxtiav Kal iv rah aXXais eVapx’ais, private authority. For the national

to. irpcapua aw^eadai rats (KK\i)trlais. character of our branch of the Church

3 See Bede Eccl. Hist. i. 27. “Mihi Catholic as “founded in the estate

placet, sive in Romana, sive in Galli- of prelacy within the realm of Eng-

arum, seu in qualibet ecclesia, aliquid land,” see Earl Selborne’s Defence,

invenisti quod plus omnipotent Deo pp. 9, 10; Aubrey Moore’s History of

possit placere, sollicite eligas, et in tie kcformation, pp. 35, 40. Anglorum Ecclesia, qua; adhuc ad

Articles XXXV.— XXXIX.

The Articles in this group deal with certain points affecting the Church and the Realm of England.

(a) They treat of the two Books of Homilies put forth in the Sixteenth Century (Art. XXXV.), and defend the Anglican Ordinal as containing all things really necessary to valid Ordination (Art. XXXVI.);

They define the limits of the Royal Supremacy, and assert its right to be free from all foreign jurisdiction (Art. XXXVII.);

Lastly they touch on certain points put forward by the Anabaptists respecting capital punishment and the law- fulness of war (Art. XXXVII.), community of goods (Art. XXXVIII.), and the right of a Christian man to take an oath in a Court of Justice (Art. XXXIX.).

(y)

Notes

• “The word ‘tradition ’ in the sense in which the Article means it to be taken, is synonymous with the term ‘consuetudo,’ meaning such a custom as is produced by the simultaneous and frequent action of the greater part of a community.” Bp. Forbes, On the Articles, p. 670. Compare the answer of Gregory the Great to the second Interrogation ofS. Augus- tine, “Ex singulis ergo quibusque Ecclesiis, quae pia, quae religiosa, qua; recta sunt elige, et hsec quasi in fasci- culum collecta apud Anglorum mentes in consuetudincm depone.” Bede Hist. Eccl. ii. 27.
• ” The same view was held in Asia Minor, Alexandria, and many other Eastern Churches, and was sanctioned by a series of provincial Synods at Carthage, Iconium, and Synnada.” Cheetham’s FirslSix Ce>:/ttri<?s,p. 153.
• For Stephen’s keen opposition to Cyprian on the point see Fermilian’s letter to Cyprian, Cyp. Epist. 75, c. 28. The contest was an obstinate one and outlived both the principal com- batants. Gradually the Roman prac- tice prevailed, and was sanctioned at the Synod of Aries in the year 314. Hardouin’s Cone, i. 165.
• Hence we have the statement of S. Augustine respecting the custom of S. Ambrose: “Cum Romam venio, jejuno Sabbato; cum hie sum, non jejuno. Sic enim tu, ad quam forte Ecclesiam veneris, ejus morem serva, si cuiquam non vis esse scandalo. nec quemquam tibi.” S. Aug. Ad In- quisitionts yanuar. i. Ep. liv. On the variety of customs in different Churches see Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. vii. c. 19,
• See Archdeacon Cheetham’s First nubilet.” Six Centuries, p. 380. 4 The authority of the Church in