sertions, that this or that rite was established by the Apostles, or observed by the primitive Church, are to be taken as sufficient evidence of its Apostolical origin and binding nature, ought to contend for all those that are so supported.

And if even the testimony of antiquity on one or two points enjoined in Scripture should be considered sufficient to have proved their apostolicity in the absence of Scripture testimony for them, this would make no practical difference in our argument. For the great question is, whether Scripture does not fully and clearly reveal all the fundamental points of faith and practice, and whether there is any point of faith or practice not revealed in Scripture for which a traditional testimony can be adduced sufficient to show its Apostolical origin.

Our Church has wisely taken in this matter the middle course between that of the Romanists and that of our early Nonconformists, the former professing to take the statements of the remaining Fathers as an unerring guide, and the latter holding "that Scripture is the only rule of all things which in this life may be done by men," and both of them in their practice acting very inconsistently with their professed principles. When, therefore, the latter demanded that nothing should be required by the Church but what was laid down in Scripture, because those precepts only can be proved to be Apostolical, and therefore essentially binding, that are found in Scripture, our Church, while fully admitting the truth of the latter proposition, denied the justice of the demand, claiming a power to ordain rites and ceremonies such as might be necessary for the preservation of order and decency, and require their observance of her members; and to cut off as much as possible all occasion for cavilling, as well as from the inherent propriety of such a course, adhered as closely as possible to the primitive model.

The reader will observe, then, that when admitting the nonnecessity of any ecclesiastical ordinances, rites, or observances, I am speaking with reference either to the Church at large, or some distinct and independent portion of it; and with respect to such bodies, certainly maintain, that they are not bound by any injunctions but those of Scripture. With individuals, however, the case is different. We hold with our Articles, that every

1 See Hooker, Eccl. Pol. bk. ii.

2 It might also probably be fairly maintained, that when such a Council as that which met at Nice (the only one by the way having any pretensions to be called General) gave directions such as were there given respecting the day on which Easter was to be observed, it was expedient and befitting the Christian character, that all the different Churches should acquiesce in such an appointment until a similar authority had authorized an alteration; though nevertheless optional, be ́ cause different Churches might have different customs in such matters, without any detriment to the peace of the Church, if there had been no ecclesiastical ty

Church has power to appoint its rites and ceremonies, and that its members are bound (within reasonable limits) to submit to such appointment. The conduct of the early Nonconformists, therefore, in objecting to the observance of days that had been set apart by our Church with the sanction of the Universal Church in all ages, as far as we can find, for religious uses, appears to me peculiarly schismatical. And further we maintain, that every such body has authority in controversies of faith, so far as concerns its own members, and may justly make a reception of what it considers the fundamentals of the faith essential to communion, nay, rather, is bound to do so; and while it allows a latitude of opinion on all other points, may, if it seem necessary for the good of the body at large, silence public disputations even on non-essential points. But this power should not only be cautiously exercised, but by the clear and well-ascertained voice of the whole body, for the obtaining of which (I feel constrained to add) due care has seldom been taken.

We allow, then, that the Church has power to enjoin upon her members the observance of certain decent rites and ceremonies, and that such a power has been given her by God; but we draw a distinction between that which God has enjoined on this head, and that which the Church has enjoined. The latter is not to be put forward as necessary to salvation, nor therefore to membership in the Church Catholic, though he who breaks the unity of the Church on account of such things only, is certainly guilty of the sin of making a needless schism in the body.

With respect, therefore, to the examples here adduced by our opponents, in which the practice of the Church is concerned, we may say generally that our appeal to the records of the primitive Church respecting them (where we do so appeal) is not an appeal to the doctrine there delivered, as if the few testimonies we can bring from the antient Fathers were sufficient evidence of the oral teaching of the Apostles, or of the doctrinal teaching of the Universal Church; but an appeal to them, as showing what was the practice of the Church in those times. And this precisely agrees with what Mr. Keble himself has admitted to be Bishop Taylor's view, viz. that "in practical matters, it [i. e. tradition] may be verified, but in doctrinal, with the exception of the creed, it cannot," which entirely overthrows Mr. Keble's system.

We refer to those records, as showing what was the practice of the primitive Church; which, on the one hand, may show us what rites or usages mentioned in the Scriptures were not then

rants to make it a cause of dissension. See Socr. Hist. Eccl. lib. v. c. 22. Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. vii. c. 19.

1 App. to Serm. p. 71.

considered to be of general obligation, and, on the other, what were, under ordinary circumstances, considered to be so, and how these latter were carried out; and further, what rites and usages appeared to the Church, at that early period, to be decent 'and useful, from which last we may at least infer that such rites and usages are at any rate allowable at all times, and useful where our circumstances appear to be the same with those of the Apostolical Church, and thus obtain from those records, information which, when used with discretion, may be of much service to the Church, and to the various independent local communities of which it is composed, in guiding them in decreeing the rites and ceremonies to be observed by their members.

To proceed to the examples adduced, let us take first the case of rites abrogated, or usages mentioned in Scripture not observed by us.

We are required to show why we do not wash one another's feet in obedience to what our Lord says, John xiii. 12—15; a favourite example with the Romanists, as may be seen in Dr. Milner's "End of religious controversy;" but our opponents should have been a little more careful than to borrow it, for, little as it avails the former, the latter have clearly made a mistake in adducing it, for their doctrine is, that such matters must be grounded upon the consent of the primitive Church, and it is notorious that the primitive Churches differed in this matter.

Let us suppose, then, (what we do not admit) that the language of Scripture appeared doubtful as to the nature of this command, that is, doubtful whether instead of being an exhortation to acts of condescension and kindness towards our Christian brethren, to be fulfilled to the letter where the circumstances were the same, as in the case spoken of by the Apostle, (1 Tim. v. 10.) and in the spirit under ALL circumstances, it was to be taken as a command to be fulfilled in the letter as a religious rite, in all times and places, however unsuitable to the customs and habits of the country. Our inquiries, then, are to be directed to the records of the primitive Church. But first, of what nature is our inquiry? Not what doctrine the primitive Church delivered on the subject, but what was its practice; and if we had found the practice generally established as a religious rite in the primitive Church, or, on the contrary, generally neglected, this testimony of ecclesiastical practice might, in perfect accordance with our views, fairly have determined the matter either way, so that even thus the instance is of no force in the present controversy. But the fact is that the reference is altogether a mistake, for the practice of the primitive Churches differed in this respect, and, consequently, we are compelled to exercise our own discretion in the matter. Thus in the Church of Milan, the bishop washed

the feet of the baptized, in supposed obedience to this text, which the Roman Church did not do, on the ground that it was merely an example of humility, and not a religious rite, that was here commended. And Augustine tells us, that many followed the latter course, and that some abrogated the custom altogether where it had been observed; but that others, in order to show that they did not connect it at all with baptism [and so make it a religious rite, having some mystical signification], and yet not altogether give it up, observed it a few days after baptism; and he adds in the context some remarks which show how little importance he attached to such matters, and how completely he considered them to be left to the discretion of each Church. It appears, then, that there was much difference of opinion on this subject in the early Church, which, therefore, can be no sure guide to us in the matter. And Augustine, be it observed, evidently thinks that our Lord's own words show that he merely meant to recommend mutual condescension to his followers. So that, I thiuk, our Church may fairly say, with Ambrose, to her Romish or any other adversaries, "nos homines sensum habemus," we have got our wits about us, and may surely be allowed to judge for ourselves in such a matter.

The next case is that of the abrogation of the seventh day Sabbath.

...

1 Adscendisti de fonte; quid secutum est? summus sacerdos pedes tibi lavit. Quid est istud mysterium? Audisti utique quia Dominus, cum lavisset discipulis aliis pedes, venit ad Petrum. . . . Nisi lavero, inquit, tibi pedes, non habebis mecum partem. Non ignoramus quod Ecclesia Romana hanc consuetudinem non habeat, cujus typum in omnibus sequimur et formam; hanc tamen consuetudinem non habet, ut pedes lavet. Vide ergo, forte propter multitudinem declinavit. Sunt tamen qui dicant et excusare conentur, quia hoc non in mysterio faciendum est, non in baptismate, non in regeneratione; sed quasi hospiti pedes lavandi sint. Aliud est humilitatis, aliud sanctificationis. Denique audi quia mysterium est et sanctificatio; nisi lavero tibi pedes, non habebis mecum partem. Hoc ideo dico, non quod alios reprehendam, sed mea officia ipse commendem. In omnibus cupio sequi Ecclesiam Romanam, sed tamen et nos homines sensum habemus; ideo quod alibi rectius servatur et nos rectius custodimus. Ipsum sequimur Apostolum Petrum, ipsius inhæremus devotioni. Ad hoc Ecclesia Romana quid respondet? AMBROS. De Sacram. lib. 3. c. 1. ed. Ben. vol. 2. col. 362, 3.

2 De lavandis vero pedibus, cum Dominus hoc propter formam humilitatis, propter quam docendam venerat, commendaverit, sicut ipse consequenter exposuit, quæsitum est quonam tempore potissimum res tanta etiam facto doceretur, et illud tempus occurrit quo ipsa commeredatio religiosius inhæreret. Sed ne ad ipsum sacramentum baptismi videretur pertinere, multi hoc in consuetudinem recipere noluerunt. Nonnulli etiam de consuetudine auferre non dubitaverunt. Aliqui autem ut hoc et sacratiore tempore commendarent, et a baptismi sacramento distinguerent, vel diem tertium octavarum, quia et ternarius numerus in multis sacramentis maxime excellit, vel etiam ipsum octavum ut hoc facerent elegerunt. AUGUST. Ep. 55. c. 18. Ad Januarium. Tom. 2. col. 141. On such points see Hooker, iii. 10.

We should feel no difficulty in this case, even if we were left to determine it by the records of the primitive Church, because here again is a point of external observance, respecting which we have only to inquire as to the practice of the Church. But it is passing strange that we should be told that tradition is necessary to certify us of this, when the Apostle says to the Colossians, "Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days.” (σαββατων) (Col. ii. 16.)

And the practice of the Church, in the age immediately succeeding the Apostles, confirms what this and other passages of Scripture clearly intimate to us, viz., that the Jewish sabbath was not to be observed by Christians. Thus Ignatius tells us, that even the converted Jews "no longer observed sabbaths ;"i and Tertullian, that the Jewish sabbath was abrogated by the Christian dispensation. The same thing is intimated to us by Justin Martyr, whose words seem clearly to show that the day was not at all observed in his time; and although in the third and fourth centuries, the day appears to have been celebrated by the performance of public worship, which was probably an innovation, and the prelude to that Judaical observance of the day against which the Church found it necessary to protest,* still the practice of the Church was not to abstain from labour on that day, or regard it as in itself a holy day, as we learn among other testimonies from one of the Laodicean canons, in the code of the primitive Church, which directs" that Christians must not Judaize and rest on the sabbath, but work on that day.”

995

If, then, we were destitute of the testimony we have quoted from Scripture on the subject, the clear evidence we have of the practice of the Apostolical Church might suffice; and our argument would in no respect suffer from the admission of that evidence as conclusive. For though the observance of a rite in the primitive Church would not prove it to be of Apostolical ordinance, the general non-observance of a rite in it may certainly

1 Οἱ εν παλαιοις πραγμασιν αναστραφέντες, εις καινότητα ελπιδος ηλθον, μηκετι σαββατι ζοντες, αλλά κ. τ. λ. IGNAT. Ep. ad Magnes. S 9. ed. Jacobson.

2 TERTULL. Adv. Jud. cc. 2, 3, & 4.

3 JUST. MART. Dial. cum Tryph. § 18. p. 118. ed. Ben. The same conclusion appears to flow from what Pliny says of the Christians of his time, that they were accustomed to meet "stato die," on a set day (Ep. ad Traj.), which seems hardly reconcilable with the idea that both the seventh and first days of the week were so applied. And so when Paul stayed at Troas seven days, there appears to have been a public assembly for worship on one day only, and that "the first day of the week." (Acts xx. 7.)

4 See the Laodicean canon quoted below.

5 ου δει χριστιανους ιουδαίζειν και εν τω σαββάτω σχολάζειν, αλλά εργάζεσθαι αυτούς εν THAUTH . Can. Laod. 29. Cod. Univ. Eccl. can. 133. Voelli et Just. Bibl. J. C.

Vet. vol. i. p. 52.

VOL. II.

D