CHAP. VII..

OF CHURCH-CEREMONIES, AND THE TRADITION WHICH IS CALLED ECCLESIASTICAL.- -EXPLANATION OF OUR THIRTY-FOURTH ARTICLE.- -DEFENCE OF THE PRINCIPLES, ON WHICH THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND HAS ACTED IN REGARD TO CEREMONIES.CONSEQUENCES OF CONFOUNDING THE TRADITION OF CEREMONIES WITH THE TRADITION OF DOCTRINES- -ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON THE MISAPPREHENSION OF TERMS IN REGARD TO TRADITION IN GENERAL.

OUR inquiries into the subject of Tradition

have been hitherto confined to Tradition as a Rule of Faith. This Tradition, as we have already seen, is sometimes called the unwritten Word of God'; 'at other times it is called the unwritten Doctrine*. At other times again it is called the traditionary Doctrine. We have further seen, that the unwritten Word, or Tradition as a Rule of Faith, is

1 Verbum Dei non scriptum. Bellarmine's fourth book on "The Word of God," which relates wholly to Tradition, is entitled De Verbo Dei non scripto.

2 Doctrina non scripta. It is so called by Bellarmine. See above Chap. I. Notes 2, 3.

3 Doctrina tradita. It is so called in the theological Lectures given at Maynooth. See the treatise De Ecclesiá Christi, p. 397, 398.

compounded of the divine and the apostolical traditions. We have seen also, that, beside the divine and apostolical traditions, which constitute Tradition as a Rule of Faith, there is a third kind, stated both by Bellarmine, and by the author of the treatise De Ecclesiá Christi, which is called ecclesiastical Tradition, or the Tradition of the Church'. The two former kinds, having been fully considered in the four first chapters, our attention must now be directed to the third kind.

As our sixth Article, with the twentieth and twenty-first, relate to the two former kinds, so our thirty-fourth Article has reference to the third kind. An inquiry therefore into the principles, on which the Church of England has acted, in regard to Ceremonies, must commence with an examination of that Article.

ARTICLE XXXIV.

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 diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, so that nothing be ordained against God's Word. Whosoever through his private judgement, 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

* See Chap. I. Note 11.

5

Ibid. P. 7. 8. with Note 8.

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 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.

From this Article it appears, that our Church considers the Tradition of Ceremonies in a very different light from that, in which it views the Tradition of Doctrines. It was shewn in the first section of the fourth chapter, that all Doctrines whatever, which have no other foundation, than that of Tradition, are rejected by our Church; and it is this very rejection, which constitutes the vital principle of the Reformation. It is the vital principle of the Reformation, to admit no Doctrine, or Article of Faith, unless it can be proved by Holy Scripture. But the case is widely different with respect to mere Ceremonies, in which the Church of England only requires "that nothing be ordained against God's Word." On the other hand, though the Church of England requires not for mere Ceremonies the positive authority of Scripture, it would be a very false inference, that our Church therefore yielded, in this respect, to the authority of Tradition.

• This remark applies only so far, as they have reference to Scripture. For if a Ceremony has nothing else to recommend it, than the bare negative quality, that it is not forbidden in Scripture, such Ceremony is a useless burden. It should have further the positive quality, that it tends to edifying: and this very quality is required at the end of the thirty-fourth Article.

Even in regard to Ceremonies our Church rejects the authority of Tradition; and in this very rejection it again opposes the Church of Rome. For it is a principle with that Church, that even Ceremonies, which have been handed down by Tradition, have thereby acquired the force of a law". But says our thirty-fourth Article, "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 "diversities of countries, times, and men's manners, "so that nothing be ordained against God's Word." And in the last sentence the Article asserts, that

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."

There are two principles therefore, on which the Church of England has acted in regard to Rites and Ceremonies. The one has reference to Scripture, and requires, that nothing be done, which is repugnant to it. The other principle is of a positive kind, and requires that all Ceremonies, received by the Church, should be such, as tend to edification. The authority of Tradition therefore is left entirely out of the question. For if a ceremony does not tend to edification, it is rejected, even though supported by Tradition and if a ceremony does tend to edification, that ceremony may be admitted, even

7 Hence Bellarmine (De Verbo Dei, Lib. IV. cap. 2.) says, "Ecclesiastica traditiones proprie dicuntur consuetudines quæ"dam antiquæ, vel a prælatis vel a populis inchoatæ, quæ pau"latim, tacito consensu populorum, vim legis obtinuerunt."

though not supported by Tradition. It is true, that, according to this very article, those persons ought to be rebuked, who "openly break the traditions and ceremonies of the church." But it is not because such ceremonies are traditions, that men are to be rebuked for breaking them. The Article itself assigns a totally different reason. Such a person (says that Article) is to be rebuked "as he "that offendeth against the common order of the "Church, and hurteth the authority of the magis"trate, &c." The Ceremonies, which are supposed to be broken, are such, as, in the words of this very Article, have been "ordained and approved by common authority." It is therefore the authority of the Church, and not the authority of Tradition, which gives sanction to those Ceremonies, of which the Church forbids the violation. And not only in this Article, but also in the twentieth Article, the Church of England claims the " power to decree Rites or Ceremonies." Indeed all Societies whatever, whether they be civil, or whether they be religious, must possess the power of making regulations for the conduct of their members; or it would be impossible to preserve any order in the public assemblies. But whether those regulations be ancient or modern, they receive their sanction from the circumstance, that (in the words of the thirtyfourth Article) they are "ordained and approved by common authority.

There can be no doubt then about the principles, on which the Church of England has acted in regard to Ceremonies. As Doctrines are not admitted on the sole authority of Tradition, so Ceremonies are