rubric of 1559, had no idea of legalizing any vestments other than those in customary use under the Advertisements, and the canons (cf. Report of sub-committee of Convocation, pp. 48, 49). The law, then, is perfectly clear, so far as two decisions of the highest court in the realm can make it so. But apart from the fact that the authority of the Privy Council, as not being a “ spiritual ” court, is denied by many of the clergy, no one claims that its decisions are irreversible in the light of fresh evidence.
Thirty years after the Ridsdale judgment, the ritual confusion in the Church of England was worse than ever, and the old ideal expressed in the Acts of Uniformity had given place to a desire to sanctify with some sort of authority the parochial “ uses ” which had grown up. In this respect the dominant opinion in the Church, intent on compromise, seems to have been expressed in the Report presented in 1908 to the convocation of the province of Canterbury by the sub-committee of five bishops appointed to investigate the matter, namely, that under the Ornaments Rubric the vestments prescribed in the first Prayer Book of Edward VI. are permitted, if not enjoined. Even if this be so, the question arises, what vestments were prescribed in the Prayer Book of 1549? It has been commonly assumed, and the assumption has been translated into practice, that the rubrics of 1549 prescribed the use of all the old “mass vestments.” This, however, is not the case. In the short rubric before the communion service the celebrating priest is directed to “ put upon him . . . a white alb plain with a vestment or cope,” while the assisting priests or deacons are to wear “ albs with tunicles.” In the additional explanatory notes at the end of the book, after directions as to the wearing of surplice and hood in quire, in cathedral and collegiate churches (they are not made obligatory elsewhere), bishops are directed to wear, besides the rochet, a surplice or alb, and a cope or vestment, with a pastoral staff borne either by themselves or their chaplains.[1] Thus the alternative use of cope or chasuble (vestment) is allowed at the celebration of Holy Communion—an obvious compromise; of the amice, girdle (cingulum), maniple and stole there is not a word,[2] and the inference to be drawn is that these were now disused. The cingulum, indeed, which symbolized chastity (i.e. celibacy), would naturally have been discarded now that the clergy were allowed to marry, while the stole had become intimately associated with the doctrine of holy orders elaborated by the medieval schoolmen and rejected by the Reformers (see Order, Holy). If this be so, the case is exactly parallel with that of the Lutheran Churches which, about the same time, had discarded all the “mass vestments” except the alb and chasuble. It becomes, then, a question whether the present-day practice of many of the clergy, ostensibly based on the rubric of 1549, is in fact covered by this. The revived use of the stole is the most curious problem involved; for this, originally due to a confusion of. this vestment with the traditional Anglican black scarf, has now become all but universal among the clergy of all schools of thought (see Stole).
The five bishops in their Report, tracing the various vestments to their origins, conclude that they are meaningless in themselves, and therefore things indifferent. This appears gravely to misread history. The chasuble and the rest, whatever their origin, had become associated during the middle ages with certain doctrines the rejection of which at the Reformation was symbolized by their disuse.[3] Their revival has proceeded pari passu with that of the doctrines with which they have long since become associated. With the truth or falsehood of these doctrines we are not here concerned; but that the revived vestments are chiefly valued because of their doctrinal significance the clergy who use them would be the last to deny. Nor is the argument that they are a visible manifestation of the continuity of the Church anything but a double-edged weapon; for, as Father Braun pertinently asks, if these be their symbolism, Of what was their disuse in the Church of England for nigh on 300 years a symbol? [4]
In 1910 the question of the “ permissive use of vestments,” in connexion with that of the revision of the Prayer Book generally, was still under discussion in the convocations of the two provinces. But there was little chance that any change in the rubric, even in the improbable event of its receiving the sanction of parliament, would produce any appreciable effect. It is often forgotten that “ extreme ” ritual is no longer an “ innovation ” in the English Church; it has become the norm in a large number of parishes, and whole generations of Church people have grown up to whom it is the only familiar type of Christian worship. To attempt to “ enforce the law ” (whatever the law may be) would, therefore, seriously wound the consciences of a large number of people who are quite unconscious of having broken it. Formally to legalize the minimum enjoined by the rubrics of 1549 would, on the other hand, offend the “ Protestant ” section of the Church, without reconciling those who would be content with nothing short of the Catholic maximum.
Authorities.—All previous works on vestments have been largely superseded by Father Joseph Braun's Die liturgische Gewandung (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1907), a monument of careful and painstaking research, profusely illustrated. This contains a list of medieval writers on the subject, another of the inventories used by the author, and one of more modern works. W. B. Marriott's Vestiarium Christianum (1868), though it must now be read with caution, is still of much value, notably the second part, which gives texts (with translations); of passages bearing on the subject taken from early and medieval writers, with many, interesting plates. Of other works may be mentioned Mgr. L. Duchesne's Origines du culte chrétien (Paris, 1903), and especially C. Rohault de Fleury's La Messe (Paris, 1883-89). See also F. X. Kraus, Realencyklopädie der christlichen Altertümer (Freiburg-i.-B., 1882, 1886); Smith and Cheetham, Dict. of Christian Antiquities (ed. 1893) and The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York, 1907 onwards).
For the vestment question in the Church of England see the Report of the sub-committee of Convocation on The Ornaments of the Church and its Ministers (1908); Hierurgia Anglicana, documents and extracts illustrative of the ceremonial of the Anglican Church after the Reformation, new ed. revised and enlarged by Vernon Staley (1902-3); J. T. Tomlinson, The Prayer Book, Articles and Homilies (1897), a polemical work from the Protestant point of view, but scholarly and based on a mass of contemporary authorities to which references are given; the bishop of Exeter, The Ornaments Rubric (London, 1901), a pamphlet. For the legal aspect of the question see G. T. Talbot, Modern Decisions on Ritual (London, 1894). (W. A. P.)
uouo;
- ↑ There is no mention of mitre, gloves, dalmatic, tunicle, sandals and caligae, which were presumably discontinued.
- ↑ It has been argued that the term “ vestment ” covers all these. The Report of 1908 (Appendix A, p. 109) says cautiously that the word “ may perhaps in some cases stand for the chasuble with the amice, stole and fanon, the alb being mentioned separately,” but adds that “ very many of the instances commonly cited for this (e.g. those in Essays on Ceremonial, p. 246) are quite inconclusive, as ' vestment ' is often a convertible term with ' chasuble ' ; and it does not seem to be at all conclusively established that ' vestment ' with ' alb ' mentioned separately, and ' cope ' given as an alternative, in a document with the precision and directive force of a Rubric, means more than the actual chasuble.” Father Braun (Die liturg. Gewandung in der Englischen Staatskirche) endorses this opinion. He gives reasons for believing that in the Church of England, under the first Prayer Book, as in the Lutheran Churches, while chasuble and alb were retained, stole, maniple, amice and girdle were discontinued. With this the bishop of Exeter (Ornaments Rubric, p. 30) would seem to agree, when he says that “ the customs of the present day do not fully accord with any reasonable interpretation of the rubric. The stole, now nearly universal, is only covered by the rubric if the word ‘ vestment ’ be taken to include it (a very dubious point), and then only at Holy Communion.”
- ↑ This is also the view taken by Father J. Braun, S.J., in his paper on liturgical dress in the Church of England, contributed to Stimmen aus Maria-Laach (1910, Heft 7, Freiburg-im-Breisgau). In this he criticizes the bishops' Report in a sympathetic spirit, but points out how intimately the symbolism of the vestments had become associated with the doctrine of the Sacrifice of the Mass, and how logical was the action of the Reformers in rejecting certain of these vestments.
- ↑ He sees in the revival of “ vestments ” “ an energetic condemnation of the English Reformation.” He adds that this is, of course, unintentional (allerdings ohne das sein zu wollen). A more intimate acquaintance with the language commonly used by many of the more extreme “ Ritualists ” would have shown him that there has been, and is, no lack of such intention.
