"Decided by the circumstances and the discretion of each particular Church": Jelf's Bampton Lectures on the liberty of national Churches

In the seventh of his 1844 Bampton Lectures, An inquiry into the means of grace, their mutual connection, and combined use, with especial reference to the Church of England, Jelf - one of those whom Nockles lists as the 'Zs', the post-1833 continuation of the Old High tradition - provides a vigorous defence of the right of national churches to order traditions, ceremonies, and matters indifferent:

And this, in fact, was the method ordained by Divine Providence for the guidance of the Churches, in questions which, compared with the great and essential matters of faith and worship, might be rightly considered indifferent. For this liberty, qualified with due regard for apostolical ordinances or universal consent, was freely exercised by every Church from the beginning.

It is historically certain that, agreeing in all essential points, the ancient Churches within their several jurisdictions did vary very widely in the particular adaptation of their usages. Thus, that bread should be used as one of the elements in the Holy Communion, was everywhere deemed an essential part of the institution; but whether it should be made of wheat or of barley, whether it should be leavened, as the Greeks say, or unleavened, according to the Latins, whether it should be of one form or of another, is nowhere determined, and, as is proved by the very existence of the variations, is a matter of indifference and liberty. 

Again: that fasting was an ordinance of Divine appointment was universally acknowledged; but the days set apart for its use, the mode and degree of its application, the question whether the Lenten fast was to endure forty or thirty six days, or forty hours, all these questions were decided in different ways in different Churches without blame and without breach of unity; when once settled within any particular jurisdiction, binding in conscience, according to the judgment of antiquity, upon individual members of that Church, nay expedient for, and in charity incumbent upon, even those who were sojourners within their limits, but in no sense binding upon other Apostolical Churches without their own express consent. 

To this effect is the memorable answer of St. Ambrose, which cannot be too often repeated, "When I am at Milan, I do not fast on the Saturday; when I am at Rome, I do. Upon this principle, to whatsoever Church thou shalt come, keep the customs of that Church, if thou wilt neither give nor receive offences." And the Epistles of St. Augustine to Januarius, from whence this account is taken, are full of instruction to the same purpose.

The general conclusion then to be derived from these particulars is, that, all the Churches being Apostolical, and all willing and bound to follow the undoubted institutions of the Apostles, their diversity in that early age is sufficient evidence that the Apostles themselves had left such points to be decided by the circumstances and the discretion of each particular Church.