Trollope on Article XXXIV: Of the Traditions of the Church

[…]

1. How many kinds of Traditions are there ; and what is the nature of the traditions mentioned in this Article ?

Traditions are of two kinds, doctrinal and ceremonial : of which the former are unwntten Articles of faith, said to have been orally transmitted from Christ and his Apostles ; and the latter, mere ritual observances of human appoint- ment, adapted to the more decent and orderly celebration of the public worship of God. It is these last which form the subject of the present Article.

2. Whence is it necessary that external ceremo- nies should differ in different Churches ?

As the Church, on the one hand, is bound to reject all doctrinal traditions which are not in strict accordance with Holy Writ, so, on the other, she has power, as maintained in the twentieth Article, * to decree rites and ceremonies,’ pro- vided that nothing be ordained * contrary to God’s word written.’ Now the manners and customs of one nation being not only different from those of another, but those of the same nation being continually liable to change, it was not to be expected that these external forms should be every where alike ; nor does the Gospel, which was designed to become the universal religion of mankind, require that they should be either ali&e in all Churches, or unchangeable at all times.

3. Shew that the ritual observances of a Church

ARTICLE xxxrvr. 155

cannot be set aside at the private caprice of individual members.

Provided the discipline of a Church is not repugnant to the word of God, every Member of that Church is bound to submit to it on the principle of obedience to the higher powers ; and because, if every individual were at liberty to use his own private judgment in disregarding the traditions and ceremonies ordained by common authority, uniformity of worship would be at once destroyed, and the bonds of Christian fellowship dissolved.

4. But since rites and ceremonies are mere human appointments, and so far indifferent as to admit of variation and change, may not the observ- ance of them be comparatively unimportant ?

Although outward observances are so far matters of indifference, that the^r may differ in different Churches, and vary from time to time with a change of circumstances even in the same Church ; nevertheless, when sanctioned by constituted authority, they are no longer matters of in- difference to individuals. Churches, with different external rites, so lon^ as they agree in the essentials of faith, may be in communion witn each other ; but individual members of a particular Church cannot violate an established form without introducing confusion among their fellow-worship- pers. Ab matters of indifference, indeed, it must be worse than folly to dispute and wrangle about them, and St. Paul’s conduct (Acts xxi. 26. xxviii. 17.) is worthy of imitation ; but as essential to the promotion of peace and order in reli- gious worship, their violation indicates a ‘presumptuous ’ and self-willed’ disposition (2 Pet. ii. 10.), and is especially offensive to God, who * is the author, not of confasion, but ’ of peace, in all Churches of the saints’ (1 Cor. xiv. 33.). He uierefore that so offends, * should be rebuked before all, ’ that others also may fear* (1 Tim. v. 20.) i

5. In admitting the right of private judgment in the interpretation of Scripture, does not the Church of England concede also the right of reject- ing both her doctrine and discipline ?

The Church of Eng^land does not, and cannot, admit a man’s rif ht of private judsment to extend to his ’ breaking*, ’ willingly, purposely, ana openly, the traditions and cere- ’ monies enjoined in her acknowledged formularies. If his interpretation of Scripture leads Mm to believe her Liturg;y and tier ordinances npugnant to the word qf Gody he is bound to retire from her communion : for the very nature of social religion requires, that Uie same means must be used to promote the same «nd ; and this can only be secured by submission to autiiority.

6. Does not, however, an enforced conformitj militate against St. Paul’s instructions respecting Scandals ?

St. Paul undoubtedly says, ’ Let not him that eateth des- ’ pise him that eatetii not ; and let not him which eateth not ‘judge him that eateth :* for that ‘every one must be fully

• persuaded in his own mind ;’ since * whatsoever 16 not of ’ faith is sin.’ He teaches also that it is good not to do anr- thing ’ whereby thy brother stumbleih, or is offended, or is made weak ’ Rom. xiv. 3. 5. 21. 23.). The Apostle, how- ever, is here speaking of things reaUy indfhewt, which related entirely to Christians as individuals, and were con- trolled by no public authority. Zf offence is taken at the observance of auUiorised appointments, the fault lies with him who takes the offence, not with him who gives it by setting an example of legal •bedience (Matt. xi. 6. 1 Pet. ii. 8.) ; and indeed the real offender is he, who, by un- reasonable non-conformity, ’ offiendath against the common

• order of the Church, hurteth the authority of the magis- ’ trate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren.*

7. How does he, who opposes his private judg- ment to established ordinances, offend against the common order of the Church ?

Inasmuch as every irreg^arity impedes devotion^ and frustrates instruction, every one who intentionally inter- rupts that which ensures regularitv, offends against that ‘decency and order’ without whion nothing can tend to edification.

8. How does such an one hurt the authority of the magistrate ?

Every violation of lawful authority has a tendency to weaken the power of the magistrate ; and, as the rites and ceremonies of the Eng^lish Church are also sanctioned by the State, their observance is enforced both by the laws of God and man. ’ Now that spiritual laws are backed bj civil sanctions/ says BaiTOw, ’ tne knot of our obligations is ’ tied faster ; and by disobedience to them we incur a double ‘g^ilt, and offend God two wavs, both as supreme governor ‘of tue world, and as king of the Church.’

9. In what respects does he wound the con- sciences of weak brethren ; and how is this conduct described by St. Paul ?

Considerable harm may be done, even in trifles, by shocking the prejudices of weak brethren, who are less able to judge for themselves, as to the real importance of the matter in hand. Thus the violation of rules which they have been brought up to observe, may lead them by the force of example to do what in their consciences they con- demn ; or, by raising doubts and scruples in their minds, may make them dissatisfied with the establishment of which they have been hitherto happy members. Hence their religious principles become unsettled ; and ’ when ye sin so ’ against the brethren,’ says the Apostle, ’ and wound their * weak consciences, ve sin against Christ’ (1 Cor. viii. 12.). See also 1 Cor. ix. 19. sqq. Gal. v. 13.

10. Shew that in all times rites and ceremonies have been different in different Churches, and varied according to circumstances.

In primitive times, each particular Church ordained, and varied at its pleasure, its rites and ceremonies; and there were considerable differences even in the earliest rituals. From the want of uniformity in the time of cele- brating Easter arose the famous Quartodeoiman contro- versy ; while some congregations etood, others knelt during prayer ; the Eastern and Western Churches have differed in many observances ; and even the Church of Rome, which lays chum to in^libility and universal sovereignty, has changed its canons repeatedly.

11. Does not the same power of change still exist ; and by what principle should it be regulated?

158 QussTioirs akh answebs on

Whatever power a Church may poesess at one period, it possesses at another ; nor are the rites ordained in one age, necessarily binding upon succeeding generations. At the same time changes are not to be introduced without suffi- cient grounds, or received without due deliberation ; so that, aocordinff to the Apostle’s precept (Rom. xiv. 19.), ‘all ‘things be done to edifying.’ It was upon this principle that our Reformers cleared away the corruptions of the Romish ritual.

12. Shew that in early times particular Churches differed from each other in discipline without hreach of communion ; and that they were placed under no restraint in respect to external observances.

The following account of a meeting between Polycarp and Anicetus, bishop of Rome, is contained in the fi’agment of a letter preserved by Irenseus (Ed. Ox. p. 466.) : — When Poll/carp mas at Romet he had gome little controversy with Amcetus, about other things ; but they presently settled the dispute, and proved themselves also to be no lovers qf strife even on that particular head* Neither indeed could Anieettts persuade Polycarp to desist from observing EaMer, as he riad always observed it with St, John, the disciple qf our Lord, ana with the rest of the Apostles with whom he had been conversant ; nor could Poly can) persuade Anicetus to observe it otherwise than, as he said it wets his duty to do, according to the citstom (f the eld^ers btfore him : but though the case stood thus between them, they notwithstanding com- municatedmth each other, Augustine writes thus to Januarius (Ep. I. c. 2.) : — Other things indeed are changed according to the different places and countries qf the earth. Thus some fast on the Sabbath ; others do not : some partake daily qf the bodu and blood qf our Lord, others receive it only on certain days : but the observance of all such matters is subject to no restraint; nor can a grave and venerable Christian lay down a better rule forhimsey, than to act with rega/rd to them as he sees the Church act, to whirJt he may happen to come. For whatsoever is proved to be re- pttgrumt neither to faith or good manners, is to be regarded as indifferent, and to be observed for the sake qf the society among whom we live. See also Iren. ap. EuBeb. v. 24. Jerome Epist. 28. Aug^istin. Epist. 64. 82. B6. de vera Relig. c. 26. Greg. M. Epist. 41.