BX 5151 pinnock. , The laws church ■ 656 1855 v . 4 I. H. 1813-1885. ind usages of the id the clergy • • Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2015 https://archive.org/details/lawsusagesofchur04pinn tti / £r/t v £ C r c S /Z 7 /V- Clnirnl ^h] im, ON THE MINISTERIAL DUTIES, AND THE Jilanngenunt nf a ^arisji. &e. &c. &e. D. THE LAWS AND USAGES OF THK Cjjttrrl) anil tjif CUrgtj. ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS, OR THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. [Nos. XVII— XXIII.] BY THE REV. W. II. PINNOCK, LL.D. Cantab. Author of the Analyeet of ' Scripture Hietory,’ ' The Reformation,' • Eccleeiaetical Hietory,' (J-c. CAMBRIDGE: PRINTED BY AND FOR J. HALL & SON; SOLD ALSO BY WHITTAKER & CO. AYE MARIA LANE; BELL & DALDY, 186, FLEET. S TREET, LONDON; AND J. H. PARKER, OXFORD. M.DCCC.LVI. INDEX TO THE LAWS AND USAGES Affecting ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS, OR THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. [Nos, XVII to XXIII. inclusive ; pp. 795 to 1088.] ABBOT, emblems of the Acolyte, Acohjth, Habits of the emblem of the Alba tunica Albe, described enjoined opinions upon the Romanist when used Almuce described opinions upon the Almutium Ambolagiutn, Anaboladium, A A mess Amice nabolagium described Romish Amicia Amict, Amictum, Amictus Amphibalum, Amphimalum Amps, Amyt, described enjoined Anabata Andrew St., emblem of Angusticlave Apparels Apparitors, Habit of Page 1053 887, 888 1053 )06, 1021 1021 906 802 108, 1041 912 856, 857 914 915 914, 968 i 917 914, 918, 973 914 917 919 915, 968 1053 907 908 892 INDEX TO VOLUME d- vi Apron, the Aquce-bajulus Archbishop, Habits of the ancient emblem of the Armutium Assistant Clerics, Habits of Aumucium Aunclavce, Auroclavce, Aurifrigium, Aurifrisium Auriphryrjium, Authorities consulted Ave- Marias 907, 980 BACULUS . Baltheus Bands described opinions on the when used 1005 958 922 924 aj winters , , Ecclesiastical Heraldric Processional Baptism, Ves tments at . *“ — ; Private, Vestments at Bartholomew St., emblem of Beadle, Habits of the Beads Bead-roll Bearm-cloth Belt . . . ’ . ‘ . Bishop, emblem of the . . Habits of the by Liturgy of 1549 D , _ . _ Hooper’s objections to tsooh of Advertisements . authority of Vestments prescribed by Brachiale . . . Brandeum . . Budge fur . , Burials, Vestments at . Buskins 1041 1011 1042 1042 862 862 1053 921 958 1053 883, 903 810 811 824 825 CAMBUCCA, Cambctta Camise, Camisia, Camisus Canons of 1571 . 1603-4 . Canon 17 quoted 24 25 58 . . 74 . 1005 906, 1032 831 834 835, 874 835, 874 835, 874 834, 855, 998 926, 962, 1078 INDEX TO VOLUME d- opinions on Romanist Choie re described opinions on the Chirotheca .... Chlamys . .... Choir-Beadle , Habit of the Tippet .... Choristers, Habits of in Parish Churches Chrysoclava .... Churching of Women, Vestments at Cidaris .... Cincticulum Sacerdotale Cingulum .... Clavatce ..... Claris .... Clergt, Habits of the . Colet, Habits of the . Collar, the .... Colobium, the .... Colour for Vestments Romanist opinions Communion Service, Vestments at ancient use Rnbrical direction of the Sick, Vestments at ancient nse . modem use Canon Law, authority of the . Canons, Vestments prescribed by the Cantor’s Staff . opinions on the Capa clausa Capiuta Cappa . choralis pluvialis Cap-Square round Capuchon Capucium, Caputium . Caracalla Cassock described opinions on the Casula, Casubula, Casibula Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches, Habits in at Communion Service Chaplains, Vestments of . Scarf Charles I. usages in time of II. ditto Chasuble, Chasible, Chesable, Ckesible described S03 855 1005 1009 941 942 941 1003 1004 971 915, 96S 927 925 1054 941, 950 892 914 889, 903 892 907 863 980 907 810, 903 888 923 951, 1035 1045 1047 356, 857 857 859 INDEX TO VOLUME d. viii Confirmation, Vestments at . Confraternity Staff Convocation of 1 562 Cope, the, described opinions on Bomanist when required Cotta , the .... Cowl, the .... Cravat, the .... Credo, the ... Crovia .... Cross, Processional Staff Crozier . Cubit, the .... Cucullus . . . . Custom, Vestments by Castors of Cathedrals, Vestments of 863 1005 820 941 943, 1051 948 1021, 1032 970 1043 1005 801 1005 855 893 DALMATIC described opinions on Bomanist when required Deacons’ Vestments emblem of 952, 951 1052 955 801 800 1053 ECCLESIASTICAL VESTMENTS opinions on Edward VI , usages in time of . Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity Injunctions Usages in time of Emblems, Ecclesiastical Emperor, emblem of the Ephod, the ..... Epigonaton .... Epimanicion .... Epimanika .... Episcopal Vestments eTTiTpaxr/\iov .... Epomis ..... Ermine Fur .... Evening Prater, Vestments at . Exorcists, Habits of emblem of 795 843 808 816 818 813 1053 1053 887, 920 975 974 1035 798, 883 1012 917 916 855 887, 893 1053 FALLING-BAND 922 Fanon ....... 974, 1053 Fascia ....... 993 Favon 974, 1053 Ferula ........ 1005 Fibula ....... 945 Fillets ........ 984 INDEX TO VOLUME d- ix Fimbria First Liturgy of Edward VI. Frisium Froc, Frochon . Frontal 908 805 907 1034 801 GALEA Girdle, the, described opinions on the when required Gloves . Gorget , the . Gown the, Academical cost of . described found by Parish Geneva opinions on the Preaching preaching in the wide-sleeved Gramma Grembiale Gremial Gris fur 959 802 1053 923 961 893 960 961 962 963 1055 965 907 974 921 916 HABITS used in 1549 Hermit, emblem of the • • Historical Events in time of Edward VI. Mary Elizabeth James I. Charles I. Charles II. James II. William & Mary Hood, the, described found by Parish . opinions on the Tippet . • . • Hoopers Bp. objections to the Habits HumeraLe the . 809 1053 805 813 834 837 838 841 841 1000 811 917 IXFUL.E • Injunctions of Elizabeth Irvingites, Vestments of the 981 800, 882 JAMES I., usages in time of . James IE, ditto James the Great St., emblem of, the Less St., emblem of John St., emblem of . Jude St., emblem of 834 841 1053 1053 1053 1053 INDEX TO VOLUME d- KING, emblem of ; 1053 LABARUM Laticlave Law and Authority of Vestments Lectors , Habits of . 1041 907 797 emblem of Liber quorundum Canonum Limocincti Limits Linea Linleum Liripipium described Litany, Vestments at the Lituan fur . LiTVHCY,frst of Edw. VI. Second of Edw. VI. of Elizabeth . Lorum . 1053 831 921 921 910, 1021 974 993 856 916 808 MACE, the Manias, .... Maniple described opinions on the . Romanist . when required . used . Mantelletum Mantile . Mantum .... Manutergium . Mappula . . , Marriage Service, Vestments at the ai Matthew , St., emblem of Matthias, St., emblem of . Minever fur .... Mitella .... Mitre, described aurifrigiata pretiosa .... simplex Monk, emblem of a Morning Prayer, Vestments at . Morse ..... . 1005 1054 974 975, 1053 978 802 856, 857 939 974 941 979 974 8G3 8G4 . 1053 1053 916 920 1053 835 941 NAPRON Neck-cloth . . . . . _ 9 ->3 OFFICES IN THE LITURGY, Habits for the . . 903 Onwphorium ....... 98 - 805.). ...‘So that by this Act we aie sent to enquire into the Rubrichs of king Edward’s First Common Prayer Book, for the Habits in which Ministers are to officiate. — Com. Prayer in loco. Dr. Rennet (ob. 1728) says:— *Tis notorious, that by those , Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof^ at all , times of their Ministration, which were in this Church hy the authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of King Edward YI, we Nicholes states:— Whether or no these observations were drawn up hy $r. Cosins hefore the Restoration of king Charles. or afterwards upon the last Review of the C.P., I cannot say < S? 1 „ ls pl ! ,ln ’ that tll0Se Reviewers had very great regard to these Remarks, they haviug altered most things according as was therein desired : and it is prohahle, that they were laid before the Board, Bp. Cosins being one of the principal Commissioners.’— BY THE RUBRICS. 807 ‘ are to understand such as were prescribed by the First COMMON * Prayer Book of that Prince.’ (p. 2.) — Paraphrase on Book of Com. Prayer. Archdeacon Sharp, however, says: — ‘There was one sen- ‘ tence at the end of this Rubric left out at the Restoration, which ‘ would have explained it more fully. The words are these, “ According to the Act of Purlin meat set. in the beginning of this ‘ Booh'' (This was the Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth 1 Eli;, c. 2.). ‘ And these words will lead ns to the proper limitation of this * Rubric.’ (p. da .) — On Rubrics and Canons. Charge, a. d. 17d4. Wheatly (ob. 1742) follows Dr. Nicholls, observing: — 1 To know what they (the Ornaments) are, we must have recourse ‘ to the Act of Parliament here mentioned, viz. in the 2nd year of ‘the reign of king Edward VI; which enacts “ That all and * singular Ministers ” See.’ (quoted in p. 805). . . .So that by this ‘Act we are again referred to the First. Common Prayer Book of ‘ king Edward VI, for the Habits in which Ministers are to officiate ; ‘ where there are two Rubrics relating to them, one prescribing ‘ what Habits shall be worn in all public Ministrations whatsoever,* ‘ the other relating only to the Habits that are to be used at the ‘ Communion-Table' — (He here quotes the Rubrics (b). (c.) (d.) given below, adding") — ‘These are the Ministerial Or- ‘ naments enjoined by our present Rubric.’ ( p. 98). — Rat. III. of B. of Coni. Prayer. Of later date are the following writers, who maintain the existing authority of Edward’s First Booh. The Rev. C. Benson (late Master of the Temple) remarks: — ‘Nothing can well be more precise than this language. .. .The ‘ Rubric speaks as distinctly of the Ornaments of the. Minister ‘himself, as of the Church and Table where he is to Minister, and ‘ we are under no necessity of supposing because we can clearly ‘show what these Ministerial Ornaments were’ (p. 17. 18).... And when commenting upon the Vestments used at the Com- munion Service, he remarks: — ‘ The First Book of Edward VI. is, ‘ upon this matter, our present guide, because we are commanded, ‘ in our own Liturgy, to use such Habits as that First Book pre- * scribes' (p. 43 ). — Rubrics and Canons Considered. The Rev. W. Goode observes:—' I shall at once admit my * conviction that the Rubric on Ornaments at the commencement ‘ of the Prayer Book, legalizes the Ornaments sanctioned by the ‘ First. Prayer Book of Edward VI.’ Ip. 2d.) —Ceremonial of Ch. of England. The Rev. W. Palmer, quoting this Rubric, (a) states: — ‘ This ‘ refers to the Act of Unformity passed in that year, authorizing * Wheatly’s remark, “ in all public Ministrations whatsoever,” will be found, by a reference to those Rubrics, to embrace far too wide a range. 808 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. 1 The Book of Common Prayer,” &c. And that Book con- tains the following' directions relative to the subject.’ (Here are transcribed the Rubrics, (b.) (c.) (d.) (e.) below).— Orig. Lit. ii. 396. The Rev. E. Scobell, after citing the Rubric (a), remarks :— The First Prayer Booh of Edward, therefore, which was published in the 2nd year of his reign by and with the authority of an Act of Parliament, passed Jan. 21, 1549, contains the testi- mony of every thing required, and is our primary authority upon these points; and one thing is certain, that nothing forbidden, or not allowed, in 1549, can possibly be adopted now: and that no Ornament of Church or Minister can he now legal, however subsequently introduced or sanctioned prior to our present Act of Uniformity, hut such things as were used in the 2nd year of LdwardM: their having been used then is an inevitable con- dition. (p. 35.) — A Few Thoughts on Church Subjects . In Popular Tracts” No. II. we read ‘ The “ Authority of J referred to in the ahove Rubric is the Statute 2 & 3 Earn. V I. c. 1 , which establishes and enforces the First Prayer Book of that monarch. By reference therefore to this Book we shall ascertain what are the Ornaments of the Ministers of our Church which ought still to be in general use among them.’ {P- 2) — Pub. by A. Holden , Exeter. We will now proceed to quote the Rubrics of the First Liturgy of Edward VI, beginning with the one placed at the end of the ‘ Commination Ser- vice,’ headed, “ Certain Notes for the more plain Explication and decent Ministration of things con- tained in this Rook.” This Rubric prescribes the Vestments to be worn by the Clergy in the generality of their ministrations. It thus reads : — (b) 'In the saying or singing of Matins and Evensong, * Baptizing and Burying, the Minister inParishChurch- ‘es and Chapels annexed to the same shall use a Sur- ‘ p 1 i c e. 'And in all Cathedral Churches and Colleges, ‘ the Archdeacons, Deans, Provosts, Masters, Prebendaries, and ‘ Fellows , being Graduates, may use in the Quire beside ‘ their Surplices such Hoods aspertaineth to their several ‘ Degrees, which they have taken in any University within this ' Realm. 'But in all other places every Minister shall be at ' liberty to use any Surplice or no. 'It is also seemly that Graduates when they do Preach 1 should use such Hoods as pertaineth to their several Degrees.’ (1549.)— Keeling. 356. BY THE RUBRICS. *** Here we liave the Surplice enjoined for ordinary Minis- trations ; and a Hood for Graduates when in the Quire of Cathe- drals and in Colleges, and when Preaching. The next Rubric directs what Habits Bishops are to wear in all their public Ministrations. (c) ‘And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the Holy Com- * munion in the Church, or execute any other public ministration, * he shall have upon him beside his R o c h e 1 1 e, aSurplice ‘or A 1 b e , and a C o p e or Vestment, and also his Pas- * toral-Staff in his hand, or else borne or holden by his ‘ Chaplain.’ (1549)— Keeling. 357. %* The Habits thus directed to be worn by Bishops are a Pochette, a Surpliee, an Albe, a Cope or Vestment, and a Pas- toral-Staff'. At the Administration of the Lord's Supper it is required by a Rubric in the same Liturgy, at the beginning of the Office for the “ Holy Communion,” that the ‘ celebrating Priest,’ and assisting Clergy, shall use special Vestments. Thus: — (d) ‘ Upon the day and at the time appointed for the Ministra- ‘ tion of the Holy Communion the Priest that shall execute ‘ the holy ministry shall put upon him the Vesture appointed for ‘ that Ministration, that is to say, a w h i t e Albe plain, with ‘a Vestment or Cope. And where there be many Priests or ‘ Deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in the ‘ ministration, as shall be requisite : And shall have upon them ‘ likewise the Vestures appointed Jin’ their ministmj, that is to ‘ say, A 1 b e s with T u n i c 1 e s. Then See.’ (1549) — Kee- ling. 167. *«* Here the chief Minister is ordered to wear an Albe with a Vestment or Cope ; and his Assistants, A lies with Tunieles. When there is no Administration, the Officiating Clergyman is directed by another Rubric at the end of the Communion Office to wear, when reading the Ante- Communion Service, an Albe or Surplice, with a Cope. Thus: — (e) * Upon "Wednesdays and Fridays the English Lit- * ANY shall be said or sung, fye And though there be none 810 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ to communicate with the Priest, yet these days (after the ' Litany ended) the Priest shall put upon him a plain A 1 b e 'or Surplice with a Cope, and say all things at the Altar 1 (appointed to he said at the celebration of the Lords Supper) 1 until after the Offertory. And then shall add one or two . 105.) — Rat. III. of R. of Com. Prayer. The Rubric of the Second Liturgy (1552) com- pletely did away with the Albe, Cope, Vestment, and Pastoral- Staff : thus:— (f.) 1552. ‘And here it is to be noted that the Minister, at 1 the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ‘ Ministration , shall use neither Albe, Vestment, nor BY THE RUBRIC OF 1552. 813 ‘Cope: but being Archbishop, or Bishop, he shall have ‘ and wear a Rochet: and being a Priest, or Deacon, he ‘ shall have and wear a Surplice only ’ — Keeling. 3. There are some authors who think that this Rule still exereises an influence upon the Rubric [(a) above'] of our present Book of Common Prayer (of 1662). Dr. Grey, in his Abridgement of Gibson’s Codex a. d. 1730., states with regard to the Rubric of the last Review (1662) :— ‘It ([the ‘ Rubric) should seem to be understood according to the alterations * made in the Second Rook, 5th & 6th Edward VI.’ — (quoted in Archd. Sharp’s Work “ On the Rubrics and Cations .” p. 201. n .) The Rev. C. Benson (late Master of the Temple) says:— ‘The Second Liturgy of Edward VI. .. .contained the last and * maturest sentiments of the leading Reformers, both foreign ‘ and English, upon the subject of the Priestly Habiliments’ (p. 21.) — Rubrics and Canons Considered. The year 1553, however, witnessed the death of Edward VI ; and the accession of Mary brought with it the restoration of Popery. The leading Reformers, who had courage to remain, were soon sacrificed to the bigotry of this cruel Queen, while those who had retired into exile, acquired increased hatred of the peculiar Vestments used by the Church which now persecuted them. But Mary’s reign was of short duration. In 1558 Elizabeth succeeded to the Crown ; and her first proceeding wa3 the re-establishment of the Reformed Reli- gion. The exiled Protestants hastened to their native laud, and a ‘ Committee of Divines’ was immediately appointed to Review the Book of Common Prayer. A great point of discussion was the choice between the two Service Books of king Edward. * Tho * Committee,’ says Dr. Cardwell, ‘ disapproved of any distinction, ‘ as to the use of Vestments , between the celebration of the Comrau- ‘nion, and the other Services of the Church.’ (Conf. p. 22.) Dr. Gcf.st, (or Gheast), who was subsequently Bp. of Rochester, writing to Sir Wm. Cecil the Queen’s Secretary, (1559) remarked on this subject. — ‘ Because it is thought sufficient to use but a ‘ Surplice in Baptizing, Reading, Preaching, and Praying, there- fore it is enough also for the celebrating of the Communion. ‘For if we should use another Garment herein, it should seem * to teach us, that higher, and better things be given by it than be ‘given by the other Service.’ Strype’s Annals. App. 37 ; Card- well’s Conf. p. 50. 3 v 2 814 Til 12 ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. The Divines therefore appeared to he in favour of the Second Liturgy of Edward, hut Elizabeth was of a different opinion, and contended for the Ornaments of the First Book. The conse- quence was, that on the appearance of the Revised LlTCRGY, the Rubric was found to restore the Ornaments and Vestments of the 2 nd year of Edward VI. (1549). It reads as follows (g) 1559. ‘ And here it is to be noted, that the Minister at the ‘ time of the Communion, and at alt other times in his ministra- ‘ tion, shall vse such Ornaments in the Church as were in use by ' authority of Parliament in the 2nd year of the reign of King 1 Edward VI., according to the Act of Parliament set in the be- ginning of this Booh .’ — Keelixc,. 3. Wiiv the 2ml year of Edward was preferred we have the opinion of the celebrated Ritualist, Bp. Cosins ; as follows — Bp. Cosins says: — ‘For it is here to be noted, that in his ‘ (Edward’s) time, there were two several Liturgies, and two ‘several Aets of Parliament made to confirm them. One in the ‘ 2nd year, and another in the 5th year of his reign : in which ‘ 5r!i yeur (upon the disuse which some men made of the former 1 Ornaments, or upon the displeasure which other men took against ‘ them both at home and abroad) it was appointed by the Second ‘ Liturgy, aud enacted by Parliamentary authority; “ That the ‘ Minister Nc.” (He here quotes the Rubric (f) we have already eked at p. 81‘2). ...‘ Aud yet this latter Book, aud Act of Parliament 1 thereunto anntxed, did not condemn either the Ornaments, or ‘ any thing besides that was appointed in that former Book, but ac- ' knowledged it all to have been a very godly order, agreeably to ‘ the Word of Cod, and the primitive Church ; whereupon, by ‘authority of Parliament in the 1st year of Queen ELIZABETH, ‘alheit it was thought most meet to follow and continue the order ‘ of Divine Service in Psalms, Lessons, Hymns, and Prayers, (a few ‘of them only varied) which was set forth in the 5 th year ‘of King Edward; yet for the “ Ornaments of the Church, 1 and of the Ministers thereof’’ the order appointed in the 2nd ‘ year of his reign was retained ; and the same we are bound still ' to observe ; which is a note, wherewith those men are not so well ‘ acquainted as they should be, who inveigh against our present ‘ Ornaments in the Church, and think them to be innovations intro- * duced lately by an arbitrary power against law ; whereas indeed ‘ they are appointed by the law itself. And this judge Yelverton ‘ acknowledged and confessed to me (when I had declared the ‘matter to him as I here set it forth) in his circuit at Durham, ‘ not long before his death, having beeu of another mind before.' — N ic hulls’ Add. Notes, p. 18. (See also Add. Notes, p. 37. where Bp. Cosins repeats the above argument.) Moreover, when com- menting on this Rubric of Elizabeth’s Liturgy. Bp. Cosins. after quoting the rules of Edward’s First Service Book, ye t somewhat in- accurately, remarks upon the prescribed OrnameDts ' Without 1SY THE RUBRIC OF 1559. 815 ‘ which {as common reason and experience teaches us) the M»- ‘ jesty of Him that owueth it, and the work of His Service there, * will prove to be of a very cominou and low esteem. The par- ‘ tieulars of these Ornaments (both of the Church and of the Minis- ‘ ters thereof, as in the end of the Act of Uniformity) are referred ‘not to the 5 th of Edw. VI., as the Service itself is in the beginning ‘of that Act [for in that 5th year were all ornaments taken away 1 (hut a Surplice only) both from Bishops and Priests, aud all other ‘ Ministers, and nothing' was left for thcChurch but a Font, a Table ‘ and a linen Cloth upon it at the time of the Communion only] but. ‘ to the 2nd year of that King, when his First. Service Book and ‘ Injunctions were in force by authority of Parliament. And in ‘ those Books many other Ornaments are appointed ; as Two Lights ‘ to be set upon tile Altar or Communion Table, a Cope or Vestment ' for the Priest and for the Bishop, besides their Albes, Surplices , ‘ and Ilochets, the Bishop’s Crozier Staff, to be liolden by him at ‘his Miuistrations and Ordinatious; aud those Ornaments of the ‘ Church, which by former laws, not then abrogated were in use ‘ by virtue of the Statute, 2a lien. VIII., and for them the Provincial ' Constitutions are to be consulted, such as have not been repealed, ‘standing then in the second year of king Edw. VI., and being ‘ still in force by virtue of this Rubric and Act of Parliament. That * which is to be said for the Vestures aud Ornaments in solemnizing ‘ the Service of Hod, is, that they were appoiuted for inward rever- ‘eueeto that work, which they make outwardly solemn. All the ‘ actions of esteem in the world are so set forth, aud the world hath ‘ had trial enough, that those who have made it a part of their * religion to fasteu scorn upon such circumstances, have made no ‘ less to deface and disgrace the substance of God’s Public Ser- ‘vice.’ (Bp. Cosins then quotes the Rubrics of Edward’s First Liturgy, and adds: — )‘ These Ornaments and Vestures of the ‘Ministers were so displeasing to Calvin and Bdcer, that the ‘ one in his Letters to the Protector , and the other in his censure of ‘the Liturgy sent to Abp. CBANMER, urged very veliemeutly ‘ to have them taken away, not thinking it tolerable, that we ‘should have any thiug common with the Papists, but shew forth ‘ our Christian liberty in the simplicity of the Gospel. Hereupon, ‘ when a Parliament was called in the 5th year of King Edward, ‘ they altered the former Book, and made another order, for ‘ Vestments, Copes, and Albs not to be worn at all; allowing an ‘ Archbishop and Bishop a Rochet only, and a Priest and 1)ea- ‘con to wear nothing but a. Surplice. By the Act of Uniformity, ‘ the Parliament thought fit not to continue this last order, but to ‘restore the first again ; which since that time was never altered by ‘ any other law, and therefore it is still in force at this day. And ' both Bishops, Priests , and Deacons, that knowingly aud wilfully ‘ break this order, are as hardly censured in the ‘ Preface’ to this ‘ Book concerning Ceremonies as ever Calvin or Bucer censured ‘ the Ccremouies themselves.’— Nicholls’ Add. Notes, p. 17. Wheatly, after speaking of the change made in the 2nd Liturgy of Edward VI, says:— ‘But in tbe next Review made ‘ under Queen Elizabeth, the old Rubrics were again brought ‘into authority, aud so have continued ever since; being estab- 1 limbed by the Act of Uniformity that passed soon after the Itesto- ‘ ration.’ (p. 105.)— Rat. III. of B. of Com. Pr. 816 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. The Rev. C. Benson observes with respect to the selection of the First Liturgy : — ( Thus the voice of the State prevailed over that of the Clergy, and we owe the origin of this Enactment not, 1 as some have said in their anxiety to establish its importance, to the piety and wisdom either of the early or the Elizabethan Refor- ‘mers of our Church, but to the interference and authority of one or both the Civil hranches of the Legislature. It is essentially a ‘ lay Rubric, and the subsequent history of it as clearly shows, that to the Laity its continuance also is due.’ (». 22.1 — Rubrics and Canons Considered. Archdeacon Harrison says on the contrary: — ‘It was the ‘ Queen, and not the Parliament, that contended for the Ornaments ‘of the First Rook ; not the “State,” not “the interference or “ authority of either one or both of the Civil branches of the Legisla- “ ture,” but the Queen in her Ecclesiastical capacity , in which she was to have the report of the “ Committee of Divines” laid before ‘ her to receive her approval, hefore it went to the Parliament, for ‘ their consent in order to its final enactment by her temporal au- ‘ thority.’ (p. 54. «.) — Historical Inquiry. This Liturgy of Elizabeth was enforced by the Act of Uniformity (1 Elk. c. 2.) ; and it appears that the Rubric, restoring the objectionable Ornaments, became, as Dr. Card- well ohserves, ‘ extremely galling to the Exiles, and would probably have prevented the greater number of them from becoming Ministers of the Church, had not the Act of Uniformity furnished them with a plea for complying; and led them to hope that their brethren who might he advanced to high stations in the Church would retain their present spirit of moderation, and exercise a salutary influence on the future proceedings of the Court.’ (Conf. 36). Bp. Sandys, writing to Parker, remarks ‘The last Book of ‘ Service is gone through with a proviso to retain the Ornaments ‘which were used in the 1st & 2nd year of King Edward, until it * please the Queeu to take other order for them ; our gloss upon this ‘ text is, that we shall not he forced to use them, hut that others in ‘ the meantime shall not convey them away, hut that they may ‘ remain for the Queen.’— Cardwell’s Confer, p. 36. n— And when writing to Peter Martyr (April 1st, 1560) he says ‘ Tantum * manent in Ecclesia nostra Yestimenta ilia Papistica, Copas intel- ‘ %e, qua3 diu non duraturas speramus.’ — Zur. Lett. No. 31. p. 74. Lat. p. 43. Park. Soc. But we must now consider the directions of this Act of Uniformity of Elizabeth (1559), which, as the Rubric states, was set at the heginniug of the Prayer Book: and this is the more necessary, since one of the clauses is said to be ex- planatory of the Ruhric in our own Liturgy (of 1662). The 25th Section is evidently its progenitor, the Rubric being, as far as it goes, an exact verbatim transcript. There arc two Sections bearing upon this subject ; and are as follow :— BY THE STATUTE OF ELIZABETH. 817 ‘ And be it enacted, that such Ornaments of the Church, and ‘ of the Ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use, as was ‘ m this Church of England by authority of Parliament, in the ‘ second year of the reign of King Edward VI., until other order ‘ shall be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty, 1 with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized ‘under the Great Seal of Eugland for causes Ecclesiastical, or of ‘ the Metropolitan of this Realm.’ — 1 Eliz. c. 2. s. 25. ‘And also, that if there should happen any contempt or ‘ irreverence to be used in the Ceremonies or Rites of the Church, * by the mis-using of the Orders appointed in this Book, the ‘ Queen’s Majesty may, by the like advice of the said Com- * missioned or Metropolitan, ordain and publish such further * Ceremonies or Rites, as may be most for the advancement of ‘ God’s glory, the edifying of his Church, and the due reverence ‘ of Christ’s holy mysteries and sacraments.’ — Sect. 26. The question which now arises is, whether the “ other order," spoken of in the 25th Section, was ever taken ? and if so, what was that order ? Early Ritualists deny that such order was ever effected, as we may see from the quotations following : — Bp. Cosins gives a paraphrase of the 25th Section of this Act, in these words : “ Provided always and be it enacted, that “ such Ornaments of the Church, ( wherennto the adorning and “ decent Furniture of the Communion Table relate), and of the “Ministers thereof, {as the Alb or Surplice, Vestment or Cope, “ with the Rochet and the Pastoral- Staff) shall be retained and be “ in use, as was in this Church of England, by authority of Parlia- “ ment, in the 2ud {not the 5th) of the reign of King Edward VI. “ until other order shall be therein taken &c.” Which other ot'der ‘ so qualified as is here appointed to be, was never yet made .' — (Nicholls’ Add. Notes, p. 18.) Dr. Nicholls {ob. 1712) says with respect to Section 25: — ‘This clause as to Ornaments seems to be restrained to the ‘person of Queen Elizabeth, and she making no alteration in ‘ them, they remained at her death the same as they were in the ‘ 2nd of Edw. VI. See the Rubrick immediately preceding the * Morning Service in the Common Prayer Book, confirmed by ‘14 Car. II. c. 4., where the Ornaments appointed for that ‘ Service, are enjoined as they were in the 2nd of Edw. VI. {Que. ‘ If the ancient Ornaments and no other, ought not to be used at ‘ this day 7 )’ — ( Book of Com. Pr. in loco.) And in his comments on the Rubric of 1G62, Dr. Nicholls refers to this Statute of Elizabeth ; and after quoting the Rubrics of Edward’S First Booh [the Rubrics [b) (c) above], remarks: — ‘But in the Rubrick of ‘ King Edward's Second Common Prayer Book, confirmed like- ‘ wise by Act of Parliament, the Cope and Pastoral- Staff are ‘omitted; and therefore were not used by the Bishops, either ‘since the Restoration, or all along Queen Elizabeth’s time, * that I can find. Though in Queen Elizabeth’s Act of Uni- * formity, there is likewise reference made to the Act of 2 Edw. VI.’ (He here quotes the 25th Section as given above, and adds : — ) 818 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Which last clause, whether it be a qualification personally em- powering this Queen, and dying with her ; or declarative only of the regal power, antecedently inherent in her, aud deri- vable upon her successors; Las afforded matter of much dis- pute. But because most, or all of these Ecclesiastical Habits have heen excepted against, either as prophane, or superstitious : or, as being a faulty compliance with the Papists, who do in common with us use them; or, as being not sufficiently agreea- hle to the simplicity used hy the Clergy of the primitive Church ; it wi 1 not he amiss to speak something concerning both the lawfulness, and the ancient use of them.’ (See his description of the several Hahits, posted.) — Com. Prayer in loco. . w??\ G ibs , 0N ( ob - 1748 ) referring to the Act, 1 Elis. c. 1, states:— Which * other order 9 (at least in the method prescribed by this Act) was never yet made ; and therefore, legally , the Ornaments of Ministers in performing Divine Service are the same now as they were in 2 Edw. VI. Pursuant to the foregoing clause (though not hy authority of Parliament) a Rubrick was prefixed to the Book of Common Prayer in the 1st year of Queen Elizabeth, and con- tinued till 1661 which clause, somewhat altered, did in 13 & 14 Car. II, become part of the Book of Common Prayer hv au- thority of Parliament.’— Codex, vol. 1. p. 363. , V Elut further arguments will appear presently, under the date, 1564. The Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. c. 2.) was followed in the same year hy the Queen's Injunctions, one of which (Inj. 30.) also gave directions respecting the Habits .-—referring perhaps to those in usu exteriw rather than in templo. It ran thus :— . . . . AH Archbishops and Bishops, and all other that he called or admitted to Preaching or Ministry of the Sacraments, or that he admitted into vocation Ecclesiastical, or into any society of learning in either of the Universities, or elsewhere, shall use and wear such seemly Habits, Garments , and sueh Square- Caps as were most commonly and orderly received in the latter year of H f KiDg % WAR P *c.-(Cabdwell’s Doc. Ann. ■ *93.) t p e same time, the 47th Injunction enjoined, 4 That the Churchwardens of every Parish shall deliver unto our Visitors the Inventories of Vestments, Copes, and other Ornaments ’ See — (ib. 196.) The re-establishment of the Reformed Religion led to the voidance of many Cures, the filling of which called for great caution on the part of the Queen’s Ecclesiastical Com- missioners. For the maintenance of Uniformity, the Ministers newly appointed had to subscribe certain Articles drawn up hy the Commission; among which was one, “I shall use sobriety in my 1 Apparel, both in the Church, and in my going abroad.” Rea- ders were also required to make a similar declaration : “ I shall “ use sobriety in Apparel, and especially in the Church at Com- BY ELIZABETH’S INJUNCTIONS. 819 u mon Prayer."— (Strype’s Ann. fol. p. 152. ed. 1709.) These Injunctions were confirmed by Convocation in 1562. — (ib. 306.). The returned Exiles, however, were by no means satisfied with the regulations imposed respecting the Vestments. Grindal in his Letters to Peter Martyr strongly inveighed against their use, and asked advice in the matter. Martyr answered — ‘For the- ‘ Habits he confessed he did not love them ; for while he was a ‘ Canon in Oxford, he never would use the Surplice. He thought ‘ they ought to do what they could to get them to be laid aside ; ‘ but that if that could not be done, he thought he might do more ‘ good, even in that particular, by submitting to it, and accepting ‘ a Bishopric, which might give him an interest to procure a ‘change afterwards.’ — Burnet’s Hist, of Ref . Nares. iii. 417. Jewel also wrote to Peter Martyr, [Nov. 5, 1559) saying: — ‘ that he found debates raised conceruing the Vestments ; which he * calls the Habit of the Stage, and wishes they could be freed from * it ... .others seemed to love those things, and to follow the ignorance 4 of some Priests, who were stupid as logs of wood, having neither ‘ spirit, learning, nor good life, to commend them ; but studied to * recommend themselves by that comical Habit. They hoped to ‘ strike the eyes of the people with those ridiculous trines. These ‘ are the relicks of the Amorites ; that cannot be denied.... Some * among them were so much set on the matter of the Habits, as if the * Christian religion consisted in Garments ; but we (says he) are ‘not called to the consultations concerning that scenical Apparel : 4 he could set no value on these fopperies.’ — (ib. 434.) Sampson (Jan. 6th. 1560), and Sandys (Apr. 1st, 1560) also complained to Peter Martyr that the 'Popish Vestments were still used: and that at the Queen’s Chapel — ‘Three Bishops offici- ‘ated at this Altar; one as Priest, another as Deacon, and a third 4 as Sub- Deacon, all before this idol (a crucifix) in rich eopes. — (ib. 437. 439.) See Lever’s letter to Bullinger, July 10, 1560. Zurich. Lett. No. 35. p. 84. Park. Soc. Percjval Wiburn also explaius the usages of this time, as we learn from the Archives of Zurich, in these words:— 4 In every ‘ Church throughout England, during Prayers, the Minister must ‘ wear a linen Garment, which we call a Surplice. And in the ‘larger Churches (i. e. Cathedrals ), at the administration of the ‘ Lord’s Supper, the chief Minister must wear a silk Garment, 4 which they call a Cope, and two other Ministers, formerly called 4 the Deacon and Subdeacon, must assist him to read the Epistle 4 and the Gospel.’ — Zur. Lett. ii. 361. Park. Soc. 1560. The vacant Sees began now to be filled up. Matthew Parker was elevated to the Primacy ; and in the account of his consecration mention is made of some of the Ecclesiastical Vestments that were then used. Thus : — ‘ Ingreditur sacellum Ar- 4 chiepiscopus toga talari coccinea, caputioque indutus. . . .Finita ‘concione....Arohiepiscopus nimirum linteo superpclliceo (quod ‘ vocant) induehatur ; Cicestrens: electus cava serka ad sacra ‘perageuda paratus utebatur .... Nicolaus Bellingham, Lin- 820 TIIE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ coin : Archidiaconus, et Edmtjxdus Geste, Cantuariensis quoque 4 Archidiaconus, cap is sericis similiter vestiti. Hereford : electus, ‘ et Bedfordiae Suffrag. linteis superpelliceis induebantur. Mir.o ‘ vero Covekdallus non nisi toga lanea talari utebatur.’— Card- well’s Doc. Ann. i. 244. It seems that 2Ivr.ES Coverdale was also disaffected to the Habits, ‘because,’ says Heylyn, ‘he attended not at the conse- 4 cration in his Cope and Rochet , as the others did, but in a plain 4 black coat reaching down to his ankles.’— Hitt, of Ref. ii. 313. E. H. S; Strype’s Annals, p. 366. Yet we learn from Heylyn that the Episcopal Vestments were generally worn : for he speaks of the Bishops 4 never appearing 4 publicly but in their Dockets, nor officiating otherwise than in ‘ Copes at the Holy Altar. The Priests not stirring out of doors 4 but in their Square Caps, Gorvns, and Canonical Coats; nor 4 executing any Divine Office, but in their Surplice.'— (ib. 314.) Disputes, however, still prevailed with respect to the Habits, and a few other matters ; which induced the Bishops to put forth an 4 Interpretation ’ of the Queen’s ‘ Injunctions ’ ; among which was the following, under the title 4 Concerning the Book of Service 4 That there be used only but one Apparel; as the Cope 4 in the Ministration of llie Lord’s Supper, and the Surplice in 4 all other Ministrations.’ — Cardwell’s Doc. Atm. i. 205; Sikype’s Annals, p. 207. The diversity of usage was still very far from being restrained by these proceedings ; in fact, the resistance of the returned Exiles to the use of the Habits seemed to acquire strength from every attempt of authority to effect conformity. 1.562. Thus matters continued till the meeting of Convocation in 1562. — a Convocation rendered memorable by its settlement of the XXXIX Articles of Religion . — Abp. Parker and the Bishops drew up before baud Notes of points for discus- sion, two of which referred especially to our present question of the Habits, viz. : — 4 First, That tbe use of Vestments, Copes, and Surplices, be from ‘henceforth taken away.’ — Strype’s Annals, p. 282. 4 Item, That tbe Apparel of Ministers may be uniform, and 4 limited, of what fashion it shall be, touching the Can and upper 4 Garment.'— (ib. 284.). A Petition, embodying the wishes of the returned Exiles, was also presented by some of tbe members of the 4 Lower House ’ against various usages; 4 as that House, nevertheless,’ saysSTRYPE, 4 agreed 4 not to by common consent.’ Two of the proposals of the Memorial were : — IN THE HEIG.V OF ELIZABETH. 821 ‘That the use of Copes and Surplices may be taken away; so * that all Ministers in their Ministry use a grave, comely , and side ‘ garment, as commonly they do in preaching 1 *.’ 1 That the Ministers of the Word and Sacraments be not com- * pelled to wear such Gowns and Caps as the enemies of Christ’s ‘ Gospel have chosen to be the special array of their Priesthood.’ — Strype’s Ann. p. 298. The points urged in this Petition were modified, and put before Convocation in the shape of Six Articles, the 5th of which was as follows : — ‘ That it be sufficient for the Minister, in time of saying Divine ‘ Service, and ministering of the Sacraments, to use a Surplice ; and ‘ that no Minister say Service or Minister the Sacraments but in a ‘ comely Garment, or Habit.’— (ib. p. 299; Burnet's Hist, of Ref. Nares, iii. 454; Cardwell’s Conf. 40.) According to Strype, all these articles were rejected, ‘ though with difficulty.’ — Card- well says ‘ by a majority of one.’ (Corf. 41 ) How far the opposition to the Vestments was carried at this period we may learn from the following arguments advanced at the Convocation. In the Bf. of Exon’s (Alley) Paper of Proposals on the question of Discipline were these remarks : — * For ‘ Matters Ecclesiastical which be indifferent, there be some * Preachers, which cannot abide them, but do murmur, spurn, ‘ kick, and very sharply do inveigh against them, naming them ‘ things of iniquity, devilish and Papistical : namely, I know one ‘ Preacher, not of the basest sort nor estimation, which did glory ‘and boast that he made eight Sermons in London against Sur - * pikes. Rochets, Tippets, and Caps, counting them not to be ‘ perfect that do wear them. And altho’ it be all one in effect to ‘ wear either round Caps, square Caps, or bottomed Caps, yet it is ‘ thought very meet, that we being of one profession, and in one ‘ Ministry, should not vary and jangle one against the other for ‘ matters indifferent ; which are made politick by the prescribed order ‘ of the Prince. Therefore if your honourable Wisdomes do not take ‘ some way, that either they may go as we go in Apparel ; or else * that we may go as they do, it will be a thing, as it is already, both ‘odious and scandalous uuto no small number.’— (Strype’s Ann. p. 309.). And in the Paper put in by the Archbishop's Secreta-ry, there was the proposition: — ‘ Item, That Ministers nmy be eujoined to ‘ wear one grave, prescribed form in extern Apparel and such as ‘ have Ecclesiastical Living, not agreeing to the same, to be * discharged upon three monitions of the Ordinary.’ — (ib. p. 312.) * In Collier this is worded : — * That the Copes and Surplices ‘ may be laid aside, and that the Habit of the Desk and the Pulpit ‘ may be the same.’ — Eccl. Hist. ii. 486. t Against this passage, Abp. Grindal wrote in the margin: — ‘ Having difference, altho’ not altogether the form used in the ‘ Popish time.’— (Strype's Ann. p. 312.). 822 THE ORNAMENTS OF TIIE MINISTER. Sucb was the state of feeling on the question of the Vestments at this time ; and there were evidently two distinct parties in the Church, one embracing Parker, Horne, and Cox, who were content with things as they were, under the persuasion that no further relaxation of the Habits could be well obtained ; tbe other, under Grindal, Sandys, and Jewel, who were determined to strive for more concessions. The position however in which the subject was left by the Convocation of 1562 amounted to this: — * The Surplice was the recognized Habit for tbe performance of Divine Service, and the Gown for Preaching. For the adminis- tration of tbe Holy Communion, the Cope was the strictly Rubrical Dress ; but the strict .rule, it would appear, was never observed, at least not in Parish Churches, nor enforced.’ (Hakrison’s Inquiry, p. 79.). The divisions thus existing are spoken of by Burnet, who, after remarking that 1 the Queen, who loved maguificenee in * every thing, returned back to the rules in King Edward’s rivet Book,’ states : — ‘ There followed great diversity in prac- ' ties: many oonforming themselves in all points to the law ; ‘ while others did not use either the Surplice, or the Square- Cap ‘ and Hoods, according to their Degree. This visible difference began ‘ to give great offence, and to state two parties in the Church. ‘ The people observed it, and run into parties upon it. Many | iorsook their Churches of both sides: some because those Habits ‘were used, and some because they were not used. It is likewise ‘ suggested, that the Papists insulted, upon this division among the ‘Protestants; and said, it was impossible it should be otherwise, ‘ till all returned to come under one absolute obedience.’ — Hist, of Ref. Nares, iii. 460. As time advanced, the contention about the pre- scribed Apparel increased in virulence and warmth : and on referring to Strype’s Life of Parker (i. 302.), and his Annals (p. 416.), we find that the disputes were not so much about the A Ibe, Vestment, Cope, or Tunicle, of the First Liturgy of Edw. VI., and which appear to have been set aside ; but they related especially to the Square Cap , Tippet , and the Surplice, and the Episcopal Rochet, enforced by the 30th Injunction of Elizabeth, (supra p. 818), and which were more in accordance with the Second Liturgy of Edward VI. ; or as the words are ‘ the latter year of the reign of King Edward VI.’ We have some idea of the diversity of usage that uow prevailed, from a ‘ Paper’ quoted by Strype, where it appears that, at “ Service and Prayer,” ‘ some say with a Surplice others without a Surplice’; at tbe “Communion,” ‘some with Surplice and Cap , some with Surplice alone ; others with none ’ ; at “ Baptizing," ‘ some minister in a Surplice , others without.’ And in their ordinary Apparel, IN THE REIGN OF ELIZABETH. 823 ‘ some were with a Square Cap, some with a round Cap, some with a button Cap, some with a Hat ; some in Scholar*’ Clothes, some in others.’ Indeed, so high did the contest rise, that, Strype says ; — ‘ as they (the lfabits) caused great wrangling and breach * of peace among the Clergy themselves ; so the Lay people were ‘ growing into an abhorrency of those that wore them, and of the ‘ Service of God ministred by them. Insomuch that, soon after, ‘ numbers of them refused to come to the Churches or Sermons, or ‘ to keep the Ministers Company, or to salute them; nay, as WHIT- * . 38. n. — In another work this Author remarks: — ‘ It ‘ appears that several of her ( Elizabeth’s ) Couucil, as for instance, ‘ Leicester , Burleigh, Knollgs , and Walsingltam, were disposed ‘ to favour the wishes of the Puritans ; and whether from this ‘ cause or some other, although the Queen was the person really ‘ responsible for these ‘ Advertisements’ she did not officially give ‘ her sunction to them at the time, but left them to be enforced ‘ by the several Bishops on the canonical obedience imposed upon ‘ the Clergy, and the powers conveyed to the Ordinaries by the ‘Act of Uniformity. Their Title and Preface certainly do not ‘ claim for them tbe highest degree of authority ; and although * Stryte infers from certain evidence which he mentions (Par- ‘ ker. i. 319), that they afterwards received the Royal sanction, 3 G 828 THE ORNAMENTS OP THE MINISTER. 1 and recovered their original Title of ‘ Articles and Ordinances,’ ‘ it seems more prohable that they owed their force to the indefinite ‘ nature of Episcopal jurisdiction, supported as in this instance was * known to he the case, by the personal approval of the Sovereign. ‘ The way in which the Archbishop speaks of them in his Articles ‘ of Inquiry issued in the year I5G9’ (as 1 the Advertisementes sette ‘forthe hy publique authorities Doc. Ann. i. 321.) ‘ certainly assigns ‘ to them “ public authority,” but clearly distinct from that of the ‘ Crown ; and in the year 1584. Abp. Whitgift refers to them as ‘ having authority, but still calls them simply the * Book of Adver- * tisements’ (see infra). The Canons of 1G03, confirmed by King ‘James, quote them under Canon 24, and so far give them the ‘ Royal sanction.’ — Doc. Ann. i. 287. n. The Rev. W. Goode says : — ‘ Whether they (the * Advertise- ments,') received the Queen's sanction after they were drawn up, ‘is a point which seems doubtful. And consequently there is a ‘ question whether they came under the meaning of the clause in ‘the Act, (of Uniformity of Eliz.). I humbly conceive that ‘ they did so ; and the way in which they are referred to in ‘Art. 1 and 4 of Abp. Parker’s “Articles of Inquiry” in 1569, ‘(cited helow), and Art. 4, of ABP. Whitgift’s “Articles ‘ touching Preachers,” Ac. in 1584 (see post (a), and Canon 24 of ‘ the Canons of 1G04, seems to me strongly confirmatory of that ‘ view. I may also add, that all the directions given subsequently * respecting the Dress of Ministers in the Public Services of the ‘Church, in Injunctions, Articles, and Canons, seem to correspond ‘with those we find in these ‘ Advertisements.’ And in a Puritan ‘ work, entitled ‘ Certain Considerations Drawn from the Canons * &c.” (at f. 35), published in 1605, there is a passage which ‘ strongly implies that the Bishops did rely upon these ‘ Adver- ‘ tisements' as satisfying the provisions of the Act. ...For later ‘authorities, I would observe, that &c.. .(Mr. Goode here refers to Sparrow’s Rationale, Dr. Ben-nets Paraphrase, and Arch- deacon Sharp On the Rubrics and Cations ; all of whom we have quoted; he then cites the orders of the * Advertisements ,’ as we have given at page 824,) adding : — ‘ Here the A lie seems given up, • * and the use of the Cope, See., confined to Cathedral and Colle- ‘giate Churches, and only the Surplice required in Parochial ‘ Churches. And such seems to he the intention of subsequent ‘ directions from the authorities of the Church.’ (jo. 32.) — Ceremo- nial of Ch. of England. Archdeacon Harrison says : — ‘ There mas competent authority ‘forthe further order taken in this ‘ Book of Advertisements,' in ‘regard to the Ornaments of the Minister, superseding though ‘ silently, that of Edward's First Book. For such change was ‘ really made by these ‘ Advertisements and if our argument is ‘correct, it was done hy proper authority.’ (p. 115.) In a Note is added : — ‘ The alteration was made, as it appears to me, in the ‘very way provided; unless it is to he considered a departure ‘ from it, that the course actually taken was with the advice of the ‘ Commissioners as well as of the Metropolitan, and not merely, of ‘ the one or the other.’ (ib.). .. .‘That the 1 Booh of Advertisements' ‘ was not published in any form until it had finally obtained the * Royal assent, is evident from the Letter of the Archbishop to the BY THE ‘ BOOK OF ADVERTISEMENTS.’ 829 ‘ Bishop of London upon sending him the ‘ Book of Orders' The ‘Letter is dated, March 28th, 1566. (Strype’s Parker App. ‘ Bk. iii. No. 48). ...Thus then, this ‘ Book of Advertisements' ‘finally went forth with full authority.’ (p. 122,123.) — Historical Inquiry. The Rev. J. C. Robertson, alluding to Dr. Burn’s state- ment, (see posted) observes : — ‘ If no alterations were made by ‘ the Queen in the very way here (1 Eliz. c. 2.) provided, yet an ‘alteration was made hy the ‘ Advertisements' of 1565, which * although issued on the authority of the Bishops, were popularly ‘ known as “ The Queen’s Book.” ( p. 101) — Horn shall We Conform to the Lit. ] 565. We find however that these * Advertisements / did notanswer the end designed ; and there still continued much oppo- sition to the prescribed Habits, and by men indeed of very high stand- ‘ ing. The general antipathy,’ says Bp. Short, ‘ exhibited in London ‘ aud elsewhere to the Cap aud Surplice , proves that the consciences ‘of brethren were then easily offended ; while the methods used to ‘ remedy the disorder, shew that such scruples were not always ‘ treated with becoming tenderness. The majority of the London ‘ Clergy complied with the order concerning the unity of Apparel, ‘ hut a considerable number refused to do so, and were subsequently ‘ deprived of their preferments. Sampson, Dean of Christ-Church, ‘ and Humphrey, President of Magdalen College, Oxford , were ‘ cited before the Ecclesiastical Commission, and required to conform ‘ in the use of the Cap and Surplice ; and though they wrote a most ‘submissive petition, declaring their scruples and unwillingness ‘ to comply, because the law concerning the restoration of the ‘ceremonies of the Roman Church is joined with the hazard of ‘ slavery, necessity, and superstition, yet no alternative was left ‘ them but that of surrendering their scruples, or their places.... ‘ Sampson was imprisoned and deprived, (A. D. 1565) and Hum- ‘ phrey, after having been connived at for ten or eleven years, * ultimately complied with the ordinances of the Church.’ ( p . 247.) ... .‘ It may be remarked that England never became convinced of ‘ the propriety of her Ecclesiastical Habits, till the opponents of ‘ her decent forms had power enough to cast them out of the ‘ Church, and to substitute their own more superstitious simplicity.’ ‘ (p. 251 .) — Hist, of the Church of England. Sampson and Humphrey, to satisfy their consciences, wrote to the Divines of Zurich for their opinions in the matter j but their conduct was not approved. Gualter replied {August 1565.) : ‘That as he was troubled to hear of the Queen’s Ordinance for ‘ wearing the Cap and Sicrplice, considering the need there was ‘ of reformation of other things, so on the contrary he could not ‘ advise Ministers to give over their office because of it; to prevent ‘Papists and Lutherans from coming into their places These ‘ Habits might be counted indifferent things.’ (Strype’s Ann. p. 423.) Gualter (in Nov. 1565) gave a similar answer to Horne, Bp. of Winchester, who had written to him on the same question (July 17, 1565). Gualter said: — ‘The Ministers ought to give ‘ their consent to the wearing the Garments, rather than to depart ‘ from their Charges.’ (ib. p. 427). 3 g 2 830 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. 1566. Buixinger in Lis answer {May 1566) to tbe communica- tion addressed to him hy Sampson aDd HrMriiREY, appears at first to have mistaken the Habit objected to : he says ‘ He never ‘should approve of it, if the command were to execute the ministry ‘at the Altar, with the image of a Crucifix on it, and iu a Mass ‘Garment: that is 'in Alba at Casula,’ i.e. in an Jibe and ano- ‘ tlier Vesture over that, which on tbe back bore the image of the ‘ Crucifix' ( ib . p. 425.) But learning from Bp. Horne, who had also written to him as well as to Gualter, that the question was * whether Gospel Ministers might wear a round Cop, or a square, ‘and a white garment, called a Surplice : whereby a Minister, so * hahited, might be discerned from the Laity ; and whether one ‘ought sooner to forsake the Ministry, and his sacred station, than ‘ to wear these Garments.’ {ib. p. 425.) To all the questions pro- posed, ‘ he gave,’ says Strype, ‘ brief, but very proper aud clear an- ‘ swers ; all of them in favour of Conformity. Aud that partly out of ‘ the obligation of ohedience to the Magistrates’ commands in things ‘indifferent, and partly to avoid being rejected from the Ministry of ‘ the Gospel, lest wolves or unfit persons should succeed them.’ { ib. p. 426.). See also Burket’s Hist, of lief. Nares. iii. p. 462 — 473. About the same period, resistance to the Habits was set on foot at Cambridge under the influence of Cartwright of Trinity College, and Longwortii, the Master of St. John’s. King's College wa 3 also suspected of disaffection, but Dr. Clark, vin- dicated this Society in a letter to the Chancellor [Dee. 12. 1565), in which ‘ he styled these contenders “ Fanatici Superpelliciani et 1 Guleriani," i.e. ‘Surplice and Hat Fanatics;’ and these their ‘ contests “ Jncptioe," i. e. mere trifles or rather 4 >i\au\ia, i. e. ‘ matters of selt love, or self admiration.’ (Strype’s Ann. p. 446 ; Short’s Hist, of Ch. of England, p. 251. n.) Submission, how- ever, was eventually effected in this University. In 1567. We find Bp Jewel also writing to Bellinger {Feb. 24th). saying ‘ The controversy about the Vestments had raised ‘ great heats some of their brethreu were so eager in disputing ‘about that matter as if the whole husiness of religion was con- ‘ cerued in it.’— (BURNET’S Hist, of Ref . iii. 473.) In fact, the controversy about the Vestments continued ; and appeals were made to the Zurich Reformers so long as any sur- vived of those great men with whom our own leading characters had taken up their abode when in exile.— See Zurich Letters, i. pp. 148—157. 168. 176. 345. 347. 349. Park. Sac. We have dwelt somewhat longer than we had intended on the progress of these vestiary disputes; but the importance of the subject, and the unhappy consequences that followed, affecting even ourselves at the present time, must be our apology ; and we trust some satisfaction has been derived by the Reader being put in possession of the practices of that age, BY THE CANONS OP 1571. 831 as well as of the opinions of our most eminent Reformers, with respect to the prescribed Vestments. Subsequent events are of a less controversial cha- racter, and we shall, therefore, be enabled to proceed with greater brevity. In 1569. Abp. Parker inquires in his Visitation Artioles: ....‘Whether the Holy Sacraments be likewise ministred rever- * ently in such manner, as hy the Lawes of this Realme, and by ‘ the Queene’s Majesties Injunctions, and by the Advertismentes ‘ sette J'orthe by publique authoritie, is appointed and pre- ‘ scribed ? ‘ hem. Whether youre Prestes, Curates, or Ministers do use ‘ in the time of the celebration of Divine Service to weare a * Surplcs, prescribed by the Queen’s Majestie’s Injunctions and the ‘ Boke of Common Prayer?’ — Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 320, 321 ; Wilkin’s Cone. IV. 257. In 1570. Strype quotes from a Letter of the Puritan, An- thony Gilby, who complains that the Bishops: — ‘make such ‘a diversity between Christ’s Word and His Sacraments, that * they cannot think the Word of God to he safely enough ‘preached and honourably enough handled, without Cap, Cope, or * Surplice ; hut that the Sacraments, the Marrying, the Burying, ‘ the Churching of Women, and other Church Service (as they call ‘it), must needs be declared with Crossing, with Coping, .with * Surplici/tg, &c.’ — Annals II, i. 8. Oxf. Ed. Bp. S Andys also, who was now elevated to the See of London, enjoined upon his Clergy, among other things : — * III. To ohserve ‘ the appointed Apparel ; i. e. to wear the square Cap, the Scholar's ‘ Gown &c. ; and in all Divine Service to wear the Surplice.' — (ib.) In 1571, the Canons of that year, entitled “ Liber Quorundam Canonum Disciplines E ecle sice Anglican ce'' directed : — ‘ Nullus nec Decanus, nec Archidiaconus, nec Residentarius, nec ‘ Preepositus, nec Custos, nec Prsefectus, alicujus Collegii, aut Ee- ‘clesiae Cathedralis, nec Prseses, nec Rector, nec quisquam ex illo ‘ordine, quocunque nomine censeatur, utetur posthac Amictu ‘illo quern appellant graium Amicium , aut alia ulla veste simili ‘ superstitione contaminata. Sed in Ecclesiis quisque suis utentur ‘ tantum linea ilia veste, quae adhuc Regio mandato retinetur. et * scholastica Epomide, quae suo cujusque scholastico gradui et loco ‘ con venial.’ — C ardwell’s Synod, i. 115; Sparrow’s Coll. 227; Wilkin’s Cone. IV. 264. The Translation of the above Canon, at the time, ran in these words: — ‘ No Dean, nor Archdeacon, nor Residentiarie, nor Mas- ‘ ter, nor Warden, nor Head of any College or Cathedral Church, ‘neither President, nor Rector, nor any of that order, by what ‘ name soever they be called, shall hereafter wear the Grays ‘Amice, or any other Garment which hath been defiled with the ‘ like superstition. But every one of them’ (“ in his own Church ” is omitted in the translation) ‘ shall wear only that linen Garment ‘which is as yet retained by the Queen’s commandment, and also ‘his Scholar’s Hood, according to every man’s calling and degree in ‘ School.’ 832 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. The Rev. W. Goode remarks on the above Canon:— ‘T his ‘ direction was not meant, I conceive, to exclude the Cope, the ‘ use of which in Cathedral Churches was continued and prescribed ‘ after this, hut only to make the Surplice the ministering Dress ‘ (excluding of course the Albe) whatever might be worn over it.’ 1 (p. 35.) — Cerem. of Ch. qf England. Grindal, Ahp. of York, in his Visitation Articles of this date, not only enjoined the adoption of the Surplice ; but seems to have expressly aimed at superseding the Constitution of Abp. Win- chelsey (quoted supra p. 801), and which therefore may have been then recognized as of binding autbority. He directs : — ‘ For the Clergy — 4. Item. That at all times when ye Min- ister tbe Holy Sacraments, and upon Sundays and other Holy ‘ Days, when ye say the Common Prayer, and other Divine Service ‘in your Parish Churches and Chapels, and likewise at all ‘ Marriages, and Burials, ye shall, when ye minister, wear a ‘ clean and decent Surplice with large sleeves. — Remains p. 135. The following is the Order which appears to have been framed to meet the Injunction of Abp. Winchllsey : — ‘ II. For the Laity, ‘ — Item, That the Churchwardens in every Parish shall at the ‘cost and charges of the Parish, provide (if the same he not already ‘ provided) all things necessary and requisite for Common Prayer ‘ and administration of the Holy Sacraments, on this side tbe 20th ‘ day of next ensuing, specially a decent large Surplice Kith ‘ Sleeves. . . .7. Item , That the Churchwardens and Minister shall ‘ see that Antiphoners, Msss Books, Grailes, Portesses, Procession- ‘ als, Manuales, Legendaries, and all other Books of late belonging ‘ to their Church or Chapel, which for the superstitious Latin ‘ Service, he utterly defaced, rent, and abolished. And that all ‘ Vestments, Albes, Tunicles, Stoles, Phanons, Pixes, Paxes, ‘Hand- Bells, Sacring-Bells, Censers, Chrismatories, Crosses, Can- dlesticks, Holy-Water Stocks, or fat Images, and all other relics ‘and monuments of superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced, * hroken, and destroyed ; and if they cannot come by any of the ‘ same, they shall present to the Ordinary what they cannot come ‘ hy, and in whose custody the same is, to the intent further order ‘ may he taken for the defacing thereof.’ — Remains p. 136. Archdeacon Harrison says, when quoting these passages : — ‘ The Vestments, Albes, and Tunicles, it will he recollected, were ‘at this time required by the Act of Uniformity, except so far ‘as the order recognized in that Act had been altered by the “ Advertisements ,” upon which Grindal, as Archbishop of York, ‘ thus undoubtedly acted.’ (p. 135.)— Historical Inquiry. In 1573. The Puritan, Robert Johnson, writes to Dr. Saxdys B p. of London, whom he designates “ Superintendent of Popish “ corruptions in the Diocese of London:” — ‘You must yield some ‘ reasons why the shaven crown is despised, and the Square Cap ‘ received ; why the Tipped is commanded, and the Stole forbidden ; ‘ why the Vestment is put away, and the Cope retained ; why the ‘ Albe is laid aside, and the Stnplice is used ; or why the Chalice ‘ is forbidden in the Abp. of Canterbury’s Articles : or the Gray ‘ Amice hy tbe Canon (of 1571), more than the res?. What have SUBSEQUENT USAGES. 833 1 they offended, or what impiety is in them more than the rest now ‘commanded? (A Part of a Register 4to. p. 104.)’ — Quoted in Goode’s Ceremonial of Ch. of England, p. 35. n. In 1576. Grindal then Abp. of Canterbury issued Visitation Articles similar to those oireulated in 1571, when he was Abp. of York, thus: — ‘ 2. Whether you have in your Parish Churches and Chapels all 1 things necessary and requisite for Common Prayer and adminis- 1 tration of the Sacraments, specially... .a decent large Surplice * with sleeves. . . . ? ‘ 6. Whether all and every Antiphoners &c. . . .And whether all ‘ Vestments, Albes , and Tunicles,.... be utterly defaced, broken, 1 and destroyed ; and if not, where, and in whose custody they * remain ? ‘7. Whether your Parson, Vicar, Curate, or Minister, do wear ‘ any Cope, in your Parish Church or Chapel.’ — Remains 159. ■ IV. Item. Whether your Deanes, Archdeacons, and other ‘dignities of your Church be resident or not; and whether 1 every one of them be Ministers or not, whether they use semely ‘or Preestly Garmentes according us they are commaunded by ‘the Queene’s Majestie’s Injunctions to doe? — C ardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 364. In 1584. Abp. Whitgift in his “ Articles Touching Preachers ,” See. directs: — ‘ IV. That all Preachers, and others in Ecclesiastical ‘Orders, do at all times wear, and use such kynde of Apparel ‘ as is prescribed unto them by the ‘ Booh of Advertisements' ‘and her Majesty’s Injunctions “anno primo.” — C ardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 413; Wilkin’s Cone. IV. 307. Mr. Goode says:— ‘ This I conceive, includes the directions given for their Dress * in their Public Ministrations.’ (Cerem. p. 35.) Whitgift also inquires in his Visitation Articles : — ‘ Whether ‘ doth your Minister in Public Prayer time wear a Surpless, and go ‘ abroad apparelled, as by her Majestie’s Injunctions and ‘ Adver - ‘ tisements’ prescribed.’ — C ardwell’s Doc. Ann. ii. 6. In the Diocese of Chichester, during the vacancy of the See at this date, precisely the same inquiry is made in the Visitation Articles. (Strype’s Whitgift. p. 243. App. Bk. iii. No. 29.) In 1590. Piers, Abp. of York, also in his Visitation Articles makes inquiry : — ‘ Whether all Copes , Vestments, Albes, Tunicles ‘ ....and such like reliques of Popish superstition and idolatry, be ‘ utterly defaced and destroyed.’ The Rev. J. C. Robertson, observes upon this: — ‘It ‘ will appear that after the publication of the ‘ Advertisements? the ‘ use of Copes in Parish Churches was regarded, not only as no ‘duty, but, by some Prelates, at least, as an offence against autho- rity.’ In a Note Mr. Robertson says : — ‘ In the first Edition an ‘ opinion was expressed, that from the time of the ‘ Advertisements ’ ‘to the end of Elizabeth’s reign “the Parochial Clergy neither “ wore Copes, nor were held bound to wear them.” This opinion ‘is contradicted in the “ Ilierurgia Anglicana ” (p. 104.) on the ' ground that Cartwright and other Puritans, after 1570, speak of ‘ Copes as customary Vestures &O....I have not met with, * nor ‘ have the Editors of the ‘ Ilierurgia ’ produced, any instance of a ‘ Cope in Parochial Churches dining the period in question ; and I 834 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘had noted many instances of Surplices then used at Communion, ‘ before I was aware that Copes were positively forbidden by some ‘ Bishops of the time.’ (p. 97, 98.)— Horn Shall We Conform to the Liturgy. Nothing further of importance with respect to the Habits occurred during the remainder of Queen Elizabeth’s reign; she died March 25. 1603, and was succeeded by James I. This Prince made certain alterations in the “Book of Common Prayer” at the instance of the Hampton Court Conference ; but they in no way affected the subject of Vestments. Shortly after, with the view, probably, of confirming the decision of the Conference, a ‘ Code of Constitutions and Canons’ was drawn up by Abf. Bancroft, a. d. 1603—4., which obtained the ap- proval of Convocation, and the assent of the King. To these we muet now particularly recur. They are derived, evidently, from the “ Advertisements ” of Elizabeth. The Canons of 1603-4, from having been sanc- tioned by Convocation, and ratified by the King, were made binding upon the Clergy of that day ; and as they have not since been superseded by Canon, or Statute Law, they are of legal force at the present time in so far as the Ecclesiastical body is concerned. The Laity, however, are not so strictly bound by them, since they were not sanctioned by the Im- perial Parliament ; yet Churchwardens , and other lay officers of the Established Church, are by no means free from their obligation, (See supra p. 127.). Several of these Canons relate to the Clerical Vestments , viz. the 17th, 24th, 25th, 58th, and 74th ; the most important of which, as being of general appli- cation, is the 58th Canon. The 58th Canon enjoins the use of the Surplice , and the Hood , or Tippet, in Parochial ministrations : the Surplice to be provided at the charge of the Parish. The Hood is to be worn by Graduates; and the Tippet , by Non-Graduates. The Canon runs thus : — (1) 1 Every Minister saying the Public Prayers, or ministering ‘ the Sacraments, or other Rites of the Church, shall wear a ‘ decent and comely Surplice with sleeves , to be provided at the ‘ Charge qf the Parish. And if any question arise touching tbe ‘ matter, decency, orcomelines thereof, the same shall he decided BY TIIE CANONS OF 1603. 835 4 by the discretion of the Ordinary. Furthermore, such Min- ‘ isters as are Graduates shall wear upon their Surplices, at such ‘times, such Hoods as by the orders of the Universities are ‘agreeable to their Degrees, which no Minister shall wear [being * no Graduate) under pain of suspension. Notwithstanding, ‘ it shall be lawful for such Ministers as are not Graduates to wear ‘upon tbeir Surplices, instead of Hoods, some decent Tippets of ‘ b tacit, so it be not silk.’ — Canon* 58. Iii Cathedral and Collegiate Churches the 25th Canon enjoins in the ordinary Offices, Surplices and Hoods ; hut at the administration of the Lord’s Sup- per, another Canon (the 24th) directs that a Cope be worn in those places. Thus : — (2) When No Communion. — ‘ In the time of Divine Service ‘ and Prayers in Cathedral aud Collegiate Churches, when ‘there is no Communion , it shall be sufficient to wear Sur- l plices; saving that all Deans, Masters, and Heads of ‘ Collegiate Churches, Canons, and Prebendaries, being Grad- ‘ uates, shall daily, at the times both of Prayer and Preaching, ‘wear with their Surplices such Hoods as are agreeable to ‘ their Degrees.’ — Canon 25. (3) At Communion. — ‘ In all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches ‘ the Holy Communion shall be administered upon principal ‘ Feast Days,&c the principal Minister using a decent C ope, ‘ and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agree- ‘ ably according to the “ Advertisements ” published Anno 7, * Eltz .’ —Canon 24. *** The Rule laid down in the ‘Advertisements' referred to in this Canon is of similar import, as we have already shewn at p. 824. supra. Mr. G. H. H. Oliphant ( Barrister-at-Larv ), after quoting this Canon, remarks : — ‘ These Advertisements order that “ at all other ‘ Prayers no Copes be used but Surplices." But in strictness the ‘ Dresses should be according to tbe directions of the Rubric of ‘the First Prayer Book.’ (p. 51. n). — Laws of Church Orna- ments, %c. At the Universitiesy the 17th Canon requires the use of Surplices and Hoods by all Masters, Fellows, Scholars, and Students. Thus : — (4) * All Masters and Fellows of Colleges or Halls, and all * the Scholars and Students in either of the Universities, shall ‘ in their Churches and Chapels, upon all Sundays, Holy days, ‘ and their Eves, at the time of Divine Service wear Surplices ‘ according to the order of the Church of England : and such ‘as are Graduates shall agreeably wear with their Surplices ‘such Hoods as do severally appertain unto their Degrees.’ — Canon 17. 836 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. The remaining Canon touching upon Ecclesias- tical Vestments is the 74th ; but as this refers to the Ordinary Apparel of Ministers, which will form a distinct subject, we shall defer its consideration till we enter upon that question in order to avoid re- petition. How far these Canons are influenced by the ‘ Advertisements,* as some suppose, we may gather from the annexed opinions. The Rev. W. Goode remarks:—' These Canons, having been ‘ passed in Convocation, and ratified by the Crown, clearly shew the ‘ intentions of our Ecclesiastical authorities at that period ; while ‘ nevertheless the Rubric of Queen Elizabeth's Prayer Booh was ‘ still at that very time in the Book of Common Prayer as then ‘ authorized.’ (p. 38.)— Cerm. of Ch. of England. Archdeacon Harrison says: — ‘On comparing these Canons ‘ with the “ Book op Advertisements,” it will he seen that those ‘ Advertisements were the very ground work of these CANONS ; ‘ and it will be home in mind, that the limitation of the use of ‘ Copes to the principal Minister, the Gospeller, and the Epistler, ‘ in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, superseding meanwhile ‘these Vestments by the Surplice so far as Parish Churches were ‘concerned, was the very departure made in the Advertisements ‘from the Rubric of Edward’s First Book.’ (p. 127.). ‘ And ‘ the Advertisements , being, as we have seen, fully recognized by ‘ the Canons, supply the connecting link hetween those Canons ‘ and the earlier Act of Uniformity, and the Rubric which it ‘ established, and make the one harmonize perfectly with the ‘other.’ ( p . 156.) Still, as the same author remarks: — ‘This direction ‘ (of Canon 58) to Graduates to wear then- Hoods, with the permission ‘ given to non-Graduates to wear Tippets , upon their Surplices, in ‘ ordinary Parish Churches, is not grounded on the Advertisements, ‘and is altogether new. And this, then, is the only point which ‘ we have yet come to, in regard to which there is discoverable any ‘ diversity between the Canons of 1603, or our present practice, ‘ and the Ruhric established hy the Act of Elizaheth interpreted ‘ and extended by the clause which provided for further order in ‘ regard to Ornaments. If that Rubric, so explained and qualified, ‘ be our rule, the only question that can he raised is that to which ‘this Canon gives’ rise, viz. whether the Hood, in Parish ‘ Churches, may be lawfully worn over the Surplice, not being one * of the Ornaments in use in the 2nd year of Edw. VI. This is the * entire amount of doubtfulness which can be found in the whole ‘ question of Vestments. Over the Gown, in Preaching, the Hood ‘ certainly may, and ought in strict propriety to be worn, if we are ‘to follow the direction of that Rubric, (p. 129.) — Historical Inquiry. But wc must proceed with our historical sur- vey of the evidences illustrative of this important BY THE SCOTCH LITURGY. 837 subject, when we will sum up the conclusions to be de- duced from them. 1625. James I. was succeeded by Charles I. A. D. 1625, in whose reign we find Laud, when Bp. of London (1629), and when Archbishop (1633), urging Conformity to the use of the Surplice and Hood. Among his inductions was the following : — ‘ That every Bishop take care in his Diocese, that all Lecturers 1 do read Divine Service, according to the Liturgy printed by * authority, in his Surplice and Hood , before the Lecture.’ — Troubles , p. 517 ; Rusuw. ii. 7 ; Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. ii. 178. In 1636. Bp. Wren issued certain orders and directions for his Diocese of Norwich, among which are the following: — ‘ IV. Thai the Litany be never omitted on Sundays, Wed- ‘ nesdays, and Fridays, ana that at all times the Minister be in his ‘ Surplice and Hood whensoever he is in puhlio to perform any ‘ part of his Priestly function.’ — Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. ii. 202. ‘ XXIV. That every one allowed to be a Lecturer, do read the ‘ Divine Service fully in his Surplice and Hood before every Lec- * ture.’— ib. 206. Previous to issuing these orders Wren put forth Articles of Inquiry ; one of which ran in these words : — 1 (Art. 9.) Doth your ‘ Minister and Curate, at all times, as well in Preaching and ‘ reading the Homilies, as in the reading Prayers and the Litany, ‘ in administering the Holy Sacraments, solemnization of Matri- ‘mony, Burying of the Dead, Churching of Women, and all other ‘ Offices of the Church, duly observe &c... .And doth he, in per- ‘ forming all and every of these, wear the Surplice duly, and never * omit the wearing of the same, nor of his Hood, if he be a Gradu- ‘ ate? '—Parentalia, p. 14 &c. In 1637. Bp. Montagu inquires in his Diocese of Chi- chester : — ‘ Doth your Minister always and at every time, hoth Morning and ‘ Evening, reading Divine Service, and administering the Sacra- * ments, and other Rites of the Church, wear the Surplice according * to the Canons, and doth he never omit wearing of the same at ‘ snch times ?’ — Articles to be Enquired. Lond. 4to. 1637-8. Again in 1638, in his Visitation Articles for Norwich, he en- quires : — ‘ Doth your Minister officiate Divine Service in due place, ‘ upon set times, in the Robes, Habit and Apparel of his order, * with a Surplice, and Hood, a Gown, and a Tippet? not in a ‘ Cloak, a sleeve-less Jacket, or Horseman’s Coat?’ (ib. p. 67.) In 1637 also, the Scotch Liturgy was framed, in which was the Rubric following : — (h.) 1 And here is to be noted that the Pre sbyter or Minister ‘ at the time of the Communion, and at other times in his Ministration, shall use such Ornaments in the Church, as ‘ are prescribed, or shall be by his Majesty, or his Smccssors, ‘ according to the Act of Parliament provided in that behalf .' — (Keeling 2.) 838 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. In 1038. Bp. Dcppa (of Chichester) in his Articles enquires: 10. Doth he (your Minister) in celebration of Divine Service use such Vestments as are enjoined by authority; doth he constantly m performing 1 that duty, wear a Sarplice, and an Hood (if he be ‘a Graduate) suitable to his Degree ? ’—Articles to be Inquired kc London 4to. 1038. 1 ’ In 1040. Bp. Juxon in his Visitation Articles enquires:— Have you a comely decent Surplice with sleeves for the use of ‘ y° ur Minister in saying the Public Prayers, or Ministerin'* the ‘Sacraments, and other Rites of the Church; together with an ‘ University Hood, according to the Degree of yoursaid Minister 7 ‘ And doth the Parson, Vicar, or Curate use the same as oft as he ‘officiates God’s Public Service, administreth the Sacraments or dischargetn any public duty in the Congregation ?’— quoted in Harrison s Hist. Inquiry , p. 1 67. In 1641, commenced those serious troubles which ended in the ruin of both Church, and Crown. The House of Lords, impelled by the force of circumstances and popular cla- mour, appointed at this date a Committee, formed of Laymen and Divines, to take into consideration the “ Innovations in the Church respecting Religion,” which had been lately made by Laud, and certain Bishops of his party. One of the charges affects the authority claimed for the ‘Book of Advertisements .’ It runs thus : — . ‘ By pretending for their innovations, the Injunctions and Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, which are not in force hut by ‘way of commentary and imposition ; and by puttin'*’ to the ‘ Lmirgy printed “secundo, tertio Edwardi Sexti,” which the Parliament bath reformed and laid aside.’— Cardwell’s Conf. Among other matters, it was considered in the Committee— YV hetlier the Rubriek should not be nieuded, where all Vestments ‘ in time oi Divine Service are now commanded, which were used ‘ 2 Edm. VI.’ — (ib. 274.) The concessions, however, that were proposed by the Committee for consideration, were unavailing ; for the course of events led to the overthrow of Episcopacy ; the complete rejection of the Book of Common Prayer ; and the substitution in its place of the Directory.” (Jan. 3, 1645.). We therefore have to pass on to the Restoration of Charles II. a.d. 1660. 1660. In Charles II. in order to secure a tem- porary peace with respect to religious matters, until a Synod should be convened for the full discussion of all Ecclesiastical questions, issued a ‘ Declaration ,’ in which, with regard to Vestments, he directed ‘ For the use of the Surplice, we are con- ( ten ted that all men be left to their liberty to do as they shall think tit, without suffering iu the least degree for wearing or not wearing it ; BY THE RUBRIC OF 1662. 839 * provided, that this liberty do not extend to our own Chapel, Cathe- ‘ dial, or Collegiate Churches, or to any College in either of our ‘ Universities, but that the several Statutes and customs for the ‘ use thereof in the said places be there observed as formerly.’ (Oct. 25th, 1G00.) — Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. ii. 248. The Presbyterians, not satisfied with this temporary arrange- ment, urged that the use of the Surplice might be discontinued by his Chaplains, because the sight of it would give great offence and scandal to the people. The King, however, was determined on this point, and said “ that he would not be restrained himself, when “ he gave others so much liberty.” (Conf. 246.). The promised Synod immediately followed : a Conference of Episcopal and Presbyterian Divines was held at the Savoy, (March 25th, 1661.) for considering all doubtful and disputed points of Ecclesiastical order and discipline ; and for effecting the settlement of the Religion of the kingdom. The Presbyterians urged among other points that the in- junction following was contrary to the Word of God, viz. : — ‘That no Minister be permitted to read or pray, or exercise ‘ the other parts of his office, that dare not wear a Surplice.’ — (Cardwell’s Conf. 265. 310.) They also excepted against the Rubric on the ‘ Ornaments ,’ stating: — ‘Forasmuch as * this Rubrick seemeth to bring back the Cope, Albe, See., and ‘ other Vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, ‘ 5 & 6 Edw. VJ., and so our reasons alleged against eeremo- ‘ nies under our 18th general exception, we desire it may be ‘wholly left out.’ (ConJ. 314.). The Bishops answered ‘ That ‘ reason and experience teaches that decent Ornaments aud Habits ‘preserve reverence, and are held therefore necessary to the ‘ solemnity of Royal acts, and acts of Justice, and why not us well to ‘ the solemnity of Religious Worship. And iu particular no Habit ‘ more suitable than white linen, which resembles purity and beauty, ‘ wherein Angels have appeared, (Rev. xv.), fit for those, whom the ‘ Scripture calls Angels : and this Habit was ancient, Chrys. Ho. ‘ 60. ad Po Antioch .’ (Conf. 350.) The Rev. J. C. Robertson remarks ‘ that the Presbyterians of, ‘ 1660 find fault with it (the Rubric) as seeming to order Copes, it ‘ is evident that no such Vestment had ever been used within their ‘knowledge in Parochial Churches.’ (p. 99.) — How Shall We Conform to the Lit. The Commissioners, however, could come to no agreement (Jubj 24th) ; wherefore the King ordered Convocation to proceed to a Revision of the Liturgy (A'ov. 21st) : and the result was the “Book op Common Prayer” now used, which was confirmed by the Act of Uniformity, 13 & 14 Car.il. c. 4. (July 9th, 1G62), and has the force of Statute Law. 1662. The Rubric of this Book, and by which we are now bound, has been already quoted at page 805; 840 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. and what the immediate usage was, we may gather from the Visitation Articles following: — In 1661. Bp. Nicholson, in his Visitation Articles for the Diocese of Gloucester, enquires : — ‘ [Sect. i.]. 8. Doth your Minister, at the reading or cele- ‘ theS«fS?° emn D ' Vine ° ffiee iD ,he Chureh or Chapel, wear i nr- ."‘3 Have you a comely large Surplice for the Minister to wear at the times of hie public and solemn ministra- tion in the Chureh ? * In 1662. Abp. Frewen also enquires in his Visitation Articles for the Diocese and Province of York , i.J. 5. Have you. ...a decent Surplice, one or more, for your Parson, Vicar, Curate, or Lecturer, to wear in the time of ‘public ministration? * < a ‘WW H°th he read the Book of Common Prayer Ax. . . . And doth he wear the Surplice while he performs that Office or other Offices mentioned in the Common Prayer Book?’ P°, th f? v . T Paris h maintain a Lecturer? Doth he read the whole Divine Service of Common Prayer, once a month at the least, wearing a Surplice. In 1670. We find Abp. Sheldon, writing to the Commissary, Dean, and Archdeacon of Canterbury, desiring them to ‘ admonish , and recommend to all and every the Parsons, Vicars and Curates , f n j} ln . m y said Diocese and J urisdiction that in their own persons 1 1? . ir Churches they do decently and solemnly perform the Divine service and that in the time of such their Officiating they ever make use of, and wear their Priestly Hahit, the Surplice and Hood. Caldwell s Hoc. Ann. ii. 277. In the same year Bp. Laxey, in his Visitation Articles for the Diocese of Lincoln, enquires: — , * [ L Doth your Minister at the reading or celebrating any Divine Office in your Chuch or Chapel, wear the Surplice, together with such other Scholastic Habit as is suitable to his Degree?’ Likewise John Hammond, Archdeacon of Huntingdon, in his Articles of Inquiry, asks: — ‘ I™, i.l 7. Have you a decent and comely Surplice for the U8 f mster in his Puhlic Administrations? *>•] 4 Does he, at reading or eelehrating any Divine Office in your Church or Chapel, constantly wear the Surplice, t ^gether with such other Scholastical Habit as is suitable to his Degree ; and in Preaching doth he wear a Gown ? ’ In 1674. Bp. Fuller, the successor of Bp. Laney in the See of Lincoln, makes the same enquiry as his predecessor. Jo 1676. Dr. Owtram, Archdeacon of Leicester, enquires : — , ... *•] J; Have you a large Surplice for the use of your Minister in his Public Administrations?’ ii-] 3.. . . .And doth he, in the reading or celebrating every Office m your Church or Chapel wear the Suiplice ? ’ ALTERATIONS PROPOSED IN 1689 . 841 In 1679. Bp. Barlow, in his Visitation Articles for the Diocese of Lincoln, enquires: — ‘ [Tit. i.J. 7. Have you a fair Surplice for the Minister to wear ‘at all times of his Public Ministration, provided at the charge of ‘ the Parish ? ‘ [Tit. ii.] 4 And doth he make use of the Surplice %vhen * he reads Divine Service, or administers the Sacrament?’ — (Quoted in Harrison’s Hint. Inquiry, p. 176 — 178; Stephen’s Book of Common Prayer. E. II. S. 374.) 1685. These historical evidences clearly prove what was the usage with respect to Clerical Vestments in the age immedi- ately succeeding the last Review ; yet the Non-conformists were not without hope of eventually accomplishing their wishes with regard to the removal of the Surplice &c. In the reign of James II, (1685.), whose Romanizing prepossessions soon began to alarm the country, their prospects became more encouraging. Dr. Tillotson, and Dr. Stillingfleet, at this period, aimed at effecting by certain concessions the admission of Dissenters within the pale of the Church, doubtlessly with the view of counteracting the Papal in- fluence of the Court. James II. however, went so far in the opposite extreme, that he was at last compelled to abdicate the Crown in favour of William and Mary (Dec. 23rd, 1688), which led at length to the toleration of Dissenters by Act of Parliament (I Will. & Ma. c. 18.), and the appointment of a Committee of Divines, to ‘prepare such ‘ Alterations of the Liturgy, and Canons, &c.,as might most conduce ‘to the good order and edification and unity of the Church of ‘ England, and to the reconciling as much as possible of all differ- ‘ences.’ (Sep. 13, 1689.) The course of events however would not sanction the great changes that were proposed, so that the whole matter fell to the ground ; and indeed this was the last attempt made by authority for the revision of the Liturgy.* — (Cardwell’s Coif. 393—459 ; SnoRT’s Hist, of Ch. of England, p. 585 — 588.) 1689. Among the alterations in the Liturgy, pro- posed by the Commission at this date was the rejection of the Ru- bric relating to Vestments , and the substitution of the following : — (i.) ‘ Whereas the Surplice is appointed' to be used by all ‘ Ministers in performing Divine Offices, it is hereby declared, ‘ That it is continued oneiy as being an antievt and decent Habit ‘ But yet if any Minister shall come and declare to his Bishop ‘ that he cannot satisfyc his conscience in the use of the S u r - • The American Book of Common Prayer, which is a re- cent Revision of our Liturgy, omits the Rubric on ‘Ornaments’ altogether. 842 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. p 1 1 c e in Divine Service, In that case the Bishop shall dispense ‘ with his not using it, and if he shall see cause for it, he shall 4 appoint a Ccrate to Officiate in a Surplice’ To this the following Notes were annexed:— (I) ‘ Mem. This 1 Rubric was suggested, but not agreed to, but left to further con- sideration. (2) ‘J lent. A Caxos to specify the Vestments' (p. 9)— Copg of Alterations 4'c. House of Commons Report. June, 1854. We have now gone through the various Legal and Ecclesiastical authorities, which have regulated from time to time the Habits of the Clergy°of the Re- formed Church of England; and have seen, by refer- ence to a few out of the many historical evidences hearing on the general question of law and authority, which might have been adduced on the subject, how far those authorities affect, or are supposed to affect, the usage of our own day. Should the Reader re- quire further evidences, particularly of the practices of individual Clergymen of the past age, he is re- ferred to Mr. Robertson’s excellent work from which we have frequently quoted, and to the ‘ Hierurgia Anglicana,' (pub. by the Eccl. Soc.'). As for our- selves, we cannot but come to the conclusion that the Rubrics of the First Liturgy of Edward VI. (1549), and the Canons of 1603-4, are the only rules relating to Clerical Vestments of strictly legal force at the present day ; and further, that the ancient Con- stitutions of Abp. Winchelsey, Reynolds, and others, cited by the Canonists Lynwood, Gibson, Wilkins, &c., are of very doubtful and disputed authority, and consequently unsafe to be adopted as our rule of action. — And this, it may be observed, is more the result of prescriptive usage, than of anv actual defect in them in point of law. We may likewise add, that the limitations effected in the Rubrics by the “ Booh of Advertisements ” of Queen Elizabeth, possess no influence upon the Rubrics of the Liturgy of 1662, the Book of Common Prayer by which we arc now bound. It will also have been observed, that throughout the Rubrics and the Canons a distinction is uniformly maintained between the Members of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, and the Clergy generally, with regard to the Habits. ECCLESIASTICAL OPINIONS. 843 It may be desirable at this stage of our discussion to annex a few modern Ecclesiastical opinions, in addition to what we have already advanced, confir- matory of the conclusions we have arrived at. Dr. Bennet [ob. 1728), after quoting the Rubrics from Edward’s First Liturgy \b. c. d. e. above,) and the Rubric of Elizabeth’s Prayer Book of 1559, (g. above), remarks: — ‘ And thus the Rubric ‘ stood till the Restoration of King Charles II ; after which, ’twas ‘ alter’d to what it now is. From hence it seems to follow, that the ‘ present Rubric, and that of Queen Eliz\beth, which are in 1 effect the very same, do restore those Ornaments, which were ‘abolished by King Edward’s the Second’s Book’ (this must be a misprint for “ Edward’s Second Book"), ‘ and which indeed have ‘ been disus’d ever since that time. But it must he consider’d that ‘in the latter part of the Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz., there is this * clause viz. “ Provided always, and be it enacted, that such Orna- ‘ meats, 4’c. (the two Sections of the Act are quoted above p. 817.) ‘ This clause explains Queen Elizabeth's Rubric, and consequently ‘ the present one, which is in reality the same. So that those Or- ‘ naments of the Church and its Ministry, which were required in ‘ the 2nd year of King Edward, were to be retain’d, till the Queen ‘ (and consequently any of her Successors) with the advice before * specify’d, should take other order. Now such other order was ‘ accordingly taken by the Queen in 1504, which was the 7th of ‘ her reign. For she did then, with the advice of her Ecclesiastical ‘Commissioners, particularly the then Metropolitan, Dr. Matth. ‘Parker, publish certain Advertisements, wherein are the fol- lowing directions. ‘Item, In the Ministration,' &c. (cited above p. 824. The author then quotes the Canons of 1571, and the 58th of the Canons of 1603; adding). .. .* From hence 'tis plain, ‘ that the Parish Priests (and I take no notice of the case of others,) ‘ are obliged to no other Ornaments, but Surplices and Hoods. For ‘these are authentic limitations of the Rubric, which seems to ‘ require all (sic) such Ornaments as were in use in the 2nd year of ‘King Edward’s reigu. Besides, since from the beginning of * Queen Elizabeth’s reign down to our own times, the disuse of ‘ ’em has most notoriously been allowed ; therefore tho’ it were not ‘ strictly reconcilable with the letter of the Rubric, yet we cannot ‘ be supposed to lie under any obligation to restore the use of them.' ( p . 3 — 0.) — Paraphrase on Book of Com. Prayer, a. d. 1708. Archdeacon Sharp says ‘ Upon the 58th Canon, which en- ‘ joins'* Ministers reading” &c. I need say the less, because it is super- ‘ seded by the Rubric before the Common Prayer, in 1GG1, which is ‘ statute law, and determines, that “ All the Ornaments of the Min- ‘ isters, at all times of,” &c. (here is cited the Rubric.). So that the ‘injunction concerning the Habits and Ornaments of Ministers, ‘ which is at the end of King Edward Vi’s first Service Book, with * its explanation in the Act of Uniformity by Queen Elizabeth, is 1 the legal or statutable rule of our Church Habits at this day : and * is so far from being explained by this Canon, that it rather serves ‘ to explain the Canon itself. . . .For, first, this Injunction of King ‘ Ed ward’s.... though it requires the “ Surplice to be used in all “ Parish Churches and Chapels annexed to the same,” yet doth in 3 II 844 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. express words, “ give liberty to the Clergy to use, or not to use ," 1 «. during their administration in all other places." ( which is an indulgence that the Canon doth not expressly give, and it maybe some question, whether it can be fairly inferred ( it. And the other thing I would observe in the said injunc- tion is, that no order is given therein concerning the use of the ^ flora with the Surplice “in Parish Churches,” though tbe same is allowed to be used bj; dignitaries, “in Cathedral Churches,” and Masters and Fellows of Colleges, being Graduates, in their own ‘ College Chapels. Therefore, as I take it, the clause in this Canon, which enjoins Graduates to wear the Hoods of their respective Degrees in Parish Churches, is not strictly binding ; forasmuch as the present Rubric, which is of later date, and decisive of all questions about the Habits in ministration, refers us to a rule by which the said practice is not required.* But I do not mean hereby in the least to except against the use of Graduates wearing their Hoods in their several Churches, for which not only a Canon but a general custom thereupon, may be « P ,, ade< *> an y more Ihari 1 could condemn the disuse of Coves, Albs, and Tunnies, since both Canon and custom may be pleaded t for that disuse also. The whole truth of the matter is, that both the use of Hoods , and disuse of Copes and Tunieles , are now so ( notoriously and universally allowed of by the Ordinaries, that, although neither of them could in strictness be reconciled with the letter of the Hub He, yet we are uot bound, at this time, to ^mske any alteratiou in our practice. For whatever our Governors in the Church do open and constantly permit, and consequently by a fair construction approve of, whether it will be admitted as a * In a Hote, the Archdeacon states that. Bp. Cosins stands up tor the complete restoration and strict propriety, of all the ancient Mimstenal^Habits enjoined by king Edward’s Jirst Service Book: that Dr. NlCHOLLS is of the same opinion, but expresses himself with more diffidence: that Mr. Whkatly insists upon the said Ornaments being enjoined by our present Rubric, but contents him- selt with observing that 6ome of them are obsolete and grown out of aut * lor °f the “ Rubric Examined" (8vo. London u » ® oeS wlloll y in Rennet’s way, and takes for granted, that the Rubric is authentically limited by tile Advertisements of 1C54, and Canons of 1603. Sharp then adds: — ‘Now under this variety t of sentiments about the sense and extent of this Rubric, when it is ,. s , . ‘to be decisive ” about tbe Habits, no more is meant than that it is the rule y however understood, by which our Habits ought to t regulated; (a point in which all parties agree ;) and that no Canon should take place in enjoining any thing contrary to it t ? r inconsistent with it. But there is no way in which the Rubric can ?°, ^plained, as to include tbe use of Graduates’ Hoods in Parish Churches, or o i black Tippets to non-Graduates, during the ministration of Divine Service. The former being restrained to be used only in Cathedral and Collegiare Churches and Chapels, or by Graduates in the Pulpit, both in King Ed ward’s Jirst §cr- 4 ^ lce Book, and in the Queen’s Advertisements , 1564, and in the Canons of 1571. And in none of these is the use of the Tippet once mentioned.’ — ib, p. 204. ECCLESIASTICAL OPINIONS. 845 ‘ pood interpretation of Ecclesiastical laws or not, yet there is no ‘doubt it is a sufficient dispensation for the continuance of the ‘usage, till further order be taken therein.' [p. 203—206.). . . . ‘ It is ‘ most certain that whereinsoever the 58th Canon doth not well ‘ consist with the general Rubric before Morning Prayer ; as I ‘ have shown in one instance, viz : “ the wearing Hoods and “ Tippets in Parish Churches,” it doth not; therein, of consequence, ‘it will be found in the same degree inconsistent with the 14th 4 Canon. But then it is to be noted, that saving this single instance, ‘ every other exception against this Canon is at least as disputable ‘ as the true meaning and extent of the Rubrical order with which ‘it seemeth inconsistent. And, therefore, till it be fully agreed, ‘ (which Ht present it is not) how the said Rubric is to be inter- ‘ preted, and how far it will conclude and determine our practice, 4 {of which the compilers of our Canons might not have just the ‘ same sentiments with some of our modern Ritualists,) it does 4 not seem reasonable to complain of a disagreement or contrariety ‘ in our Canons.’ (p. 208.). — On Rubrics Sr Canons . Charge. a. D. 1746. Of more recent date are the following : — The late Bishop op Down and Connor {Dr. 31 ant), when quoting from Archdeacon Sharp’s work ‘ On Jhe Rubrics and, Canons' the passages (from pages 65, and 205) stating that the “ Advertisetnents" of Queen Elizabeth were authentio limitations of the Rubric, introduces this remark: — ‘The Rubric, then, thus ‘limited by the Queen’s “ Advertisements” in 1564; and limited ‘to the like sense by her Canons in the year 1571 ; as likewise by ‘ the 58th Canon of the year 1603, in the reign of her successor, * King James I, obliges the Ministers of the Church, at the times ‘ of their Parish ministration, to the use of no other Ornaments but ‘ Surplices, and Hoods agreeable to their Degrees. Since however ‘ some Ritualists are of opinion, that this Rubric does not admit of ‘ the foregoing limitation, but is to be understood as still prescri- bing 1 the use of ull the ancient Ministerial Habits enjoined by the 4 First Book of King Edward VI ; it may be convenient to remark, ‘ that from the beginning of Queen Elizabeth’s reign down to our ‘ times, the disuse of some of those Ornaments has been, and is now ‘so notoriously and universully allowed of by the Ordinaries.’ &c. ....(Here is continued the paragraph from p. 205. of Sharp’s work, as given above). — Introduction to Book of Com. Prayer. p. Ixxiv.— This is ulso quoted by Mr. Stephens in his Book of Coni. Prayer. E. II. S. p. 367. to which he appends this remark : — ( The irresistible answer to Bp. Mant’s argumeut is this, that ‘neither the “governors in the Church,” nor “usage,” oan super- * sede the positive enactments of the Statute Law.’ (p. 3G8.). The Bjshopof Exeter {Dr. Phillpotts), in his judgmentin the Ilelston case, observes:— -‘The Rubric.... soys, “ That such Orna~ * meiits ” See. . . .in other words, a white Albe plain, with u Vestment or Cope. These were forbidden in King Edward Vi’s Second Book, which ordered that “ The Minister . . . .should use neither ‘ Albe, Vestment, or Cope," See. This was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome, and most anxious to carry Reiormation to the very furthest point. But their triumph was 3 h 3 846 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘brief. Within a few months Queen Mary restored Popery; and ‘ when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back the Ifefor- ‘ mation, she, and the Convocation,* and the Parliament, deliber- 4 ately rejected the simple direction of Edward’s Second Booh, and 4 revived the Ornaments of the First. This decision was followed 'again by the CrowD, Convocation, and Parliament, at the Resto- ‘ ration of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity 4 established the Book of Common Prayer, with its Rubrics , iu the 4 form which they now stand.’ — (Quoted in Harrison’s Historical Inquiry, p. 7 ; Stephens’ Feel. Statutes, p. 2050.) The Bishop of St Asaph {Dr. Short) remarks: — 4 It should be 4 remembered, that most of the regulations with regard to the dis- 4 tinctive Dress of the Clergy have gradually been given up, except- *ing, indeed, the Surplice, and the square-Cap in the Universities. * Copes, and Tunicles, are almost forgotten; Albesa re confounded 4 with Surplices; and the Gown and Cassock , with the square-Cap ‘and Hood, are used according to the discretion of the Clergyman 4 himself. It may indeed he questioned whether this has not gone 4 too far. Perhaps the interests of the Church would be best con- 4 suited, if, without adopting any distinctive Habits, we all dressed 4 so that the world might from our appearance presume that ‘ we belonged to the Ministry.’ (p. 253. n.). — Hist of the Ck. of England. The Rev. C. Benson, after denying the legal authority of the Advertisements of 1564, proceeds: — ‘The first Rubric in our Lit- 4 urgv, then, was still the law of the land, notwithstanding the 4 issuing of the Articles of 1564 ; and hy that, and not by them, 4 the Clergy were still houud to regulate their Ministerial Orna- ' ments and Robes. There can he little doubt, however, but that, in ‘many instances, the Clergy acted upon these almost, but not ‘altogether, legal regulations, as if they really superseded the 4 Rubric, and as giving them excuse enough for neglecting its 4 Vestments, and security enough against being prosecuted aud 4 punished for the neglect ’... .(With respect to these “ Advertise- ments,” he goes on to say, that the Bishops: — ) 4 were fully aware, 4 that without her (Elizabeth's) ratification they could not be 4 enforced as law, aud that it was their wish to rid themselves alto- 4 gether of the Popish Ornaments enjoined hy tbe first Rubric, by 4 compelling those who were attached to their use, at once to give 4 it up. “But tbe Queen declined to sign it,” (says Strype).,.. 4 As therefore, she was told that those who disliked the enjoined 4 Habits, would consider the authority of the “ Advertisements ,” ‘without her ratification, a sufficient sanction for discontinuing ‘their use, she felt that enough had been done to pacify them, ‘and so declined, hy signing, to give the Articles the absolute 4 force of law.... Upon the accession of James I, a Convocation 4 was called, and the Canons of 1603 were tbe result of their 4 labours. These Canons so nearly correspond with the Adver- * The Bishop evidently errs here, for the Convocation was not in a position to be consulted: the Prayer Book was reviewed hy a Committee of Divines, who were possessed of no formal authority. ECCLESIASTICAL OPINIONS. 847 ‘txsements of 1564, upon the subject of the Clerical Vestments, ‘ that we cannot but suppose that they were intended to supersede ‘ leg-ally, what the Advertisements, wanting the sanction of the ‘Sovereign, had only virtually suspended, i.e. the operation, so ‘ far as the Parochial Clergy were concerned, of tbe first Rubric in ‘ the Book of Common Prayer. But this effect, like the former, ‘ was unhappily frustrated. The Canons, though they passed the ‘ Ecclesiastical, were never confirmed by the Civil branch of the ‘ Legislature. Thus the binding power still remained witb the ‘ Rubric, to which both Church and State had united to give ‘ force. The Clergy, therefore, were not fully relieved by these ‘ Canons from the obligation of wearing Copes, and other Gar- ‘ meats, at the appointed times. The Convocation had nominally ‘emancipated them from tbe outward garb of Popery; but tbe ‘ Parliamentary ordinance was not really taken out of the way, and ‘in any contest between the two, the voice of the Statute would ‘have naturally prevailed in point of law, whatever it might have ‘done in point of conscience. This ascendancy of the Rubric ‘ was further strengthened by the subsequent Act of Uniformity, in * 1662. . . .Churcb affairs were deliberately reviewed, and tbe requi- 1 sition made upon every Benefieed Clergyman to declare his assent ‘ and consent “ to the use of all things prescribed by the Common ‘ Prayer,” unaccompanied by any confirmation or even mention of ‘ the limitations allowed by the ADVERTISEMENTS of 1564, and the ‘ Canons of 1603, can scarcely be considered in any other light, ‘ than that of restoring the Ruhrics to all the force of law which ‘ they had before those limitations were thought of or made. That ‘ the practice of the Churcb followed this enactment of law, is, ‘ however, a point, the proof of which is, I apprehend, wanting. ‘ The long, systematic, and universal discontinuance of Copes, not * only in Parochial, but also in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, * would seem to argue that both Statute and Canons were alike ‘ neglected from the first. . . .It appears that the Clergy have been 'at all times disinclined to the use of the Popish Habits, and that ‘ they twice obtained what was very nearly equivalent to a legal ‘ repeal of the Rubric enjoining them ; that upon the strength of * the 41 Advertisements ” of 1564, and Canons of 1603, they took the ‘ liherty, very extensively, to omit the use of the Habits ; and tbat, ‘when the Statute of Charles II. succeeded that of Elizabeth ‘for Uniformity, the inveterate custom of omitting tbe use of the ‘ Cope continued to prevail, against the strict letter of the Statute, ‘ and is at this day the rule and guide of the Established Churcb. ‘ So far, therefore, as this omission is concerned, though it be ‘ literally and correctly speaking, a violation of tbe declaration ‘ and promise of tbe Clergy, yet it is a violation made under such ‘circumstances, that whilst it must be confessed to trench upon tbe 4 enactments of the Law, it is excusable as to times past, and can ‘ never be censured as the wilful breach of our obligation, to which ‘ though they felt themselves conscientiously bound, they never- ‘ theless presumptuously refused to conform.’ ( p. 25 — 27) The ‘ First Book of Edward VI. is, upon this matter our present ‘guide, because we are commanded, in our owu Liturgy to use ‘such Habits as that first First Book prescribes.’ [p. 43.). — The Rubrics Sp Canons Considered. The Rev. W. Goode, referring to the direction given in Elizabeth’s Act of Uniformity, and Prayer Book, remarks, that it 848 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. * was not probably intended to be a permanent one,’ adding : — ‘ But ‘ this of course does not affect the question of its validity as found 4 in our present Prayer Book, which is sanctioned by an Act of 4 Parliament The direction given in the 58tb Canon of 1604 4 (the code of Canons now in force) is inconsistent with that con- tained in this Rubi-ic. At the same time, it must be admitted, 4 that a Rubric sanctioned both by Convocation and Parliament in 4 1662, cannot be invalidated by a Canon that had the sanction ‘of Convocation only in 1604.’ {p. 29.). .. .(After quoting the Rubrics, (b.) (c.) (d.) cited above, and speaking of the Hood and the Vestments at Communion time, mentioned hereafter, Mr. Goode states that he considers) ‘our present usage is probably nearer 1 the intentions of our Church than the strict letter of the 4 Rubric and in confirmation of this view, refers to the “ Adver- tisements’' of Queen Elizabeth, in 1564, adding: — l 'lhat all the * directions given subsequently respecting the Dress of Ministers in ‘the Public Services of the (Church, in Injunctions, Articles, and 4 Canons, seem to correspond with those we find in these “ Ad- vertisements.” [p. 33). .. .(After quoting various authorities, Mr. Goode proceeds:) — ‘And as a proof that the directions of 4 the 4 Advertisements' and Canons had heyond question practi- cally superseded the Rubric, I would observe, that in all the ‘Parochial Articles of Inquiry I have seen, even of Abp. Laud, 4 and the Bishops of his party, I find no inquiry as to Albes, Yest- 4 ments, Copes , or Tvnicles.' (p. 38). ..(He then concludes: — ) 4 And previous to the Prayer Book of 1662, it might perhaps fairly 4 have been held, that the Rubric of the Prayer Book (of 1559) ‘..was superseded by the directions of the “ Advertisements ” 4 and Canons But I admit that our present RUBRIC, which ‘leaves out the reference to Queen Elizabeth’s Act. of Uniformity, 4 and expressly enjoins the Ornaments of King Edward’s First 4 Book, cannot be thus got rid of and it must be admitted, that ‘the matter is left in a very unsatisfactory state.’ {p. 39). — Cerem. of Church of England. Archdeacon Harrison, after quoting the Rubrics of Edward’s First. Book, and the Bp. of Exeter’s opinion, (given above), proceeds to say: — 4 The order, then, of Edward’s First Book, in regard lo 4 Ornaments, would seem, as far as appears at present, to be of 4 sole authority.’ [p. 8.) (Then follows an inquiry respecting the 4 Preaching Hress’ of this age to the reign of Elizabeth: the author next quotes the Statute of 1 Eliz. c. 2. s. 25. (see above) adding): — ‘The limitation contained in this clause seems to have 4 been very generally overlooked by writers who have spoken 4 of the order of Edward’s First Book, in respect to Ornaments, as 4 though it had been simply, and without reservation, re-established 4 by the Act of Elizabeth’ ( p . 81.) (After citing the 26th Section of the Act, Mr. Harrison proceeds) :— 4 Now. in comparing the two ‘parts of this clause. . . .the retaining of the Ornaments prescribed 4 by Edward’s First Book would seem to be evidently and on the ‘face of it, a temporary arrangement — “ until oth er order shall be “ therein token ” (p. 82.) which “ other Order” says Gibson “ (at least in the method prescribed by this Act) was never yet 44 made ; and therefore, legally, the Ornaments of Ministers in per- 41 forming Divine Service are the same now as they were in 44 2 Edw. VI.” 4 And we find Burn says the same- And so also ECCLESIASTICAL OPINIONS. 849 ‘ Nicholls before him.’ ( p . 86.)— (The author next argues that such “other order” was taken and promulgated in the Book of Advertisements) ‘ There was competent authority for the further ‘ order taken in this Book of Advertisements, in regard to the Orna- ‘ ments of the Minister, superseding though silently that of ‘ Edward’s First Book, For such change was really made by ‘these “ Advertisements and if our argument is correct, it was ‘done by proper authority;’ (p. 115.).... was universally recog- ‘nized us of absolute legal authority; and the change had been ‘effected according to the intention with which. .. .that provision ‘had been made, i.e. “quietly and without any show of novelty.” ‘ The Rubric still continued as it was, viz. “ That the Minister, at “ the time of the Communion, and at all other times in his ministration “ &c. &c. according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginuing “ of this Book;” but the order subsequently taken, not avowedly, ‘ but virtually and really, in conformity with the provisions of that ‘ Act, entirely satisfied, it would seem, the consciences of Church- ‘ men in the times of Hooker, Andrewes, and other their ‘contemporaries, wise and well informed men, and whom we justly 1 look up to as patterns of high principle and sound judgment. * And though, a few years later, a different view was taken by one ‘or two persons, in themselves of high authority, but living at a ‘ period of much excitement, and when the same calm exercise of ‘judgment was somewhat hindered by the feelings then called ‘ forth, yet afterwards again men like Sparrow and his contempo- ‘ varies viewed the matter in the same light as those of an earlier ‘ generation, recognizing fnlly the authority by wbich the Rubric ‘ still in force had been qualified and explained.’ [p, 137.) . .(After speaking of the Canons of 1G03, the author remarks): — ‘The ‘ Canons of 1603, as is well known, though ratified by the King, * were never confirmed by Parliament ; and hence the difficulties ‘ which have been raised in regard to particulars in which those ‘ Canons and the orders established by the Rubric differ from each ‘other. But all this difficulty is., .entirely removed, if once it ‘ has been proved that the order taken in the “ Advertisements” ‘was taken by tbe authority recognized in ths Act of Uniformity, ‘ and so carried with it virtually the authority of Parliament. For ‘ except in one trifling particular, the “ Advertisements" of 1564, ‘ and the Canons of 1603, are, in regard to Ministerial Vestments ‘ and Attire, in perfect agreement, and our present practice is in ‘ agreement with both.’ (p. 151.) After quoting the Rubric as altered at the last Review, he continues : — ‘The reference to the ‘ Act uf Uniformity, 1 Elis, was omitted, tbe new Act, 14 Car. II. ‘ being prefixed to the revised Book. In the alteration, though ‘ apparently slight, which was thus made, the distinction it will be ‘ observed, was silently dropped which was discoverable before, ‘between “the time of the Communion” and “all other times in” ‘ the “ ministration,” the distinction of Dress between the two ‘ having now been long abolished, so far as Parish Churches were * concerned, by the “ Advertisements” of 1564, and the Canons ‘ of 1603. (p. 171.)... .When we examine the matter minutely, we ‘ find that by dropping ths distinction which the former Rubric ‘ bad recognized they (the Reviewers) did virtually, though silently, ‘ sanction and establish the further “ order” which had been taken ‘ in the Advertisements, and followed in the Canons. And it is 850 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. 4 still more evident that this was the real intention of the Re- 4 viewers, when we consider the other alteration which was made, 4 substituting’ the words — “ Such Ornaments, Ac. . . shall be retained 44 and be in use, See. — instead of the Minister, Ac. .. .shall use such “ Ornaments” &c. ( p . 171.). ...(Mr. Harrison at last concludes): — 4 That Albes, Copes, and Tuuicles, bad been not merely disused, 4 but formally and leg-ally superseded, so far as Parish Cburcbes 4 were concerned well nigh a hundred years before tbe Rubric in 4 our Common Prayer was finally settled in its present form, has 4 1 trust, been fully proved That the Reviewers of 1661 did not * intend, and were not understood to intend, to set aside the 4 directions of the Canons of 160:3, but did in fact regard as part 4 of the regular and appoiuted Ornaments of the Minister, and did 4 require and enforce accordingly, that which rested entirely on the 4 authority of those Canons, viz. the wearing of the Hood with the 4 Surplice by the Officiating Minister in Parish Churches, an/l 4 which from that time has been the established practice. Mean- while, those who would maintain that the Rubric of E dw. Vi’s 4 First Booh, unexplained or modified by any subsequent order, is 4 the present rule of the Church, must reject the use of the Hood as ‘ worn with the Surplice, in the Ordinary Service; and if, on the 4 cy pres principle, they admit the Surplice to be used instead of the 4 Aloe, or A l be and Cope, and are of opinion that the Sermon was 4 to be preached in it, they must adopt tbe hypothesis that the 4 Hood is to be put on, upon the Surplice, specially and only for 4 Preaching ... .On the other hand, if we simply admit — what the 4 historical documents, I think, clearly prove — that there was no ‘intention, at the last Review, of superseding the Canons of 1603, 4 but rather of adopting and enforcing them, the whole question ' respecting the Vestments of the Minister is clear.’ (p. 181.). — Historical Inquiry. The Rev. W. Palmer, after quoting the Rubrics of the Liturgy of 1549, remarks: — ‘The Vestures mentioned in tbe preceding 4 passages, are the Vestment, Cope, Tunicle, Albe, Pochette, Hood, 4 Surplice, and Pastoral- Staff.' (Vol. ii. 397.) — Origines Litur- gies. The Rev. J. C. Robertson says : — 1 Very great importance 4 has been attached to the question of Ornaments. The Puritans 4 held those prescribed by the Church’s rulers to be uulawful for 4 Christians; the rulers enforced them, not apparently so much for 4 the sake of the things themselves as because tbe principle of 4 obedience was involved. . . .It is to be observed, however, that no 4 attempt was ever made to enforce (at least on the Parochial 4 Clergy), those Ornaments by the disuse of which our common 4 practice seems to fall short of the Rubric. Copes, Albes, Lights 4 on the Altar, were never, I believe, prescribed by any Ordinary 4 for Parish Churches ; the subjects of dispute were commonly 4 things as to which all the Clergy of the English Church appear 4 to be at present in perfect agreement.’ ( p. 74.) ... . After referring to the Rubric (5) in Edward’s First Liturgy he adds; — 1 As to the 4 Vestment, the Tunicle, and the Albe, it need only be said that 4 they were done away with at a later time in Edward’s reign, and 4 do not appear to have been used since the Rubric of 1559 autho- 4 rized their revival. The Surplice lias always been prescribed, ECCLESIASTICAL OPINIONS. 851 ‘ and is now universally used, as the Dress to be generally worn in ‘ Public Service.’ ( p. 94.) . . . . ‘ The general Rubric relating: to ‘Ornaments corresponds. .. .with a passage in the Act of Uni- 4 formity, 1 Eliz. to wliicb is attached a provision that the ‘ Ornaments shall be retained until other Order shall be therein, * taken” &c On this, Burn [Ecc. L. iii. 437.) says that no other ‘ order ever was taken, and therefore the 58th Canon, by which ‘ Surplices are ordered to be. worn at the Administration of the ‘ Sacraments in Parish Churches, is void, as opposed to the Act. * It is to be observed, however, that if no alterations were made by ‘ the Queen in the very way here provided for, yet an alteration 4 was made by the “ Advertisements" of 1565, which although ‘ issued on the authority of the Bishops was popularly known ‘ as “ The Queen’s Book.” Andhrwes (in Nicholl’s App. 38—9.) ‘ appears to consider that the “ Advertisements ” fulfil the condition ‘ of the Act, and that, consequently, they have the full authority of 4 Law. Aud wheii the Rubric wus re-enacted in 1662, it is not to ‘ be supposed that those who re-enacted it intended to contradict ‘ and abrogate the 58th Canon, any more than we suppose tbe ‘ framers of the Canons of 1604 to have intended self-contradiction ‘ when they ordered in the 14tb Canon that tbe Prayer Book ‘should be strictly complied with, and in the 58tb, that a Surplice ‘ should be worn where the Prayer Bcok in strictness prescribed a ‘ Cope. This idea as to their intentious is strengthened by the cir- ' eumstance . . .tbat the Rubric of 1662 is not precisely the same with ‘ that of Queen Elizabeth, but has undergone a slight alteration. ‘Sparrow, himself one of the Revisers, quotes tbe “Advertise- ‘ meats” of 1565, as an unquestioned interpretation of tbe Rubric. ‘(Rationale 311.). Laud speaks of Copes , not as commanded by ‘ the Rubric, but as allowed or warranted by the Canon. ' (Troubles, 313—326.).’ ( p . 101.) (After quoting the Rubric (b) of Edward’s First Book, Mr. Robertson adds): — ‘This rule is * revised by our present Rubric I would observe, however, tbat ‘ the extent of tbis particular Rubric is not so wide as SHARP and ‘ Burn imagine ; that it is intended to apply to those portions only ‘ of tbe Public Offices which are expressly named in it ; and that ‘ the rule for other portions is to be sought elsewhere.’ (p. 104.) — Horn shall we Conform to the Lit. The Rev. Edvv. Scobell remarks, after quoting the Rubrics of Edward Vltb’s First Service Book: — ‘ Thus, then, all we have 4 to do, is to abide by the Ornaments adopted and in wear in tbe 4 2nd year of Edward VI. In agreement with these 44 Notes" 4 a. D. 1549, and as an interpreter of them, the 58th Canon makes 4 a definite injunction, under the following head, — “Ministers 44 reading Divine Service aud ministering the Sacraments, to wear 4 ‘ Surplices , and Graduates therewithal Hoods:” (what can be 4 plainer than this limitation ; or what riv iv “ icXij poo (caTtX eyo/ae vov avotKeiov k. t. X." “ Let none of them who “are in the Catalogue of the Clergy, be clothed with an undecent IN CATHEDRALS, AND UNIVERSITIES. 873 “ Garment, neither whilst they live in a Town, or travel upon the “ Road; but let them use those Garments whieh are prescribed to “ those who are of the Clergy. And if any one acts contrary to “ this rule, let him be excommunicated for a Week.” Can. xxvii. ‘ Where, by the way, you may see that the word Avoucetou answers ‘ exactly to the ‘ decently ' in our Rubrick. But withal, the Canon ‘ looks upon all those Habits to be undecent, which are not appro- ‘ priated to the use of Clergymen. So here in the Rubrick, that ‘person is not supposed to be 1 decently habited ,’ who does not ‘appear in such an Habit as is worn by Clergymen. For before ‘ the compiling of the Common-Prayer, the Clergy, by the ancient ‘ Provincial Canons, were obliged not ouly to a decent but a ‘distinct Habit from the Laity. This is plain by one of PECK - * ham’s Injunctions “ Ordinances &c.” “ We ordain and strictly “ command, that every Clerk in Holy Orders, wear his outward “ Garment, unlike that of a Soldier, or a Layman &c. And he “that shall presume to do otherwise, as long as he wears a Habit “of a contrary make, shall be suspended from entering into the “ Church.” (Lyndrn. III. tit. 1.). The like Injunction is laid upon ‘our Clergy by our modern Canons of 1603. Can. 74.’ — Com. Prayer in loco. The Writer of “Popular Tracts” remarks: — ‘The Habit ‘ most frequently used by the Candidates is the Surplice; in some ‘ places it is customary for them to wear a Gown, but this though ‘ appropriate to their character as Scholars, certainly is not ‘ suitable to the Ministerial act, which one of the Deacons has ‘ to perform immediately after Ordination, of reading the Gospel. * Nor is it to be objected that the Surplice is the Dress of the ‘ Clergy, and should therefore not be used by one still among the ‘ Laity ; for besides the rule for Students in the Universities to ‘ wear Surplices. {Canon 17), the Bishop elect is, according to the * Form for Consecration, to be vested with his Rochet, a Dress * exclusively Episcopal, and that in the place analogous to this.’ — No. IV. p. 5. Pub. by A. Holden, Exeter. We must now proceed to enquire into the Vestments directed to be worn during the Divine Services in Cathedrals, and Universities. (a.) In ordinary Ministrations. The Rubrics and Canons both require that mem- bers of Cathedral Establishments, and of the Uni- versities, shall wear Surplices during Divine Serviee ;• and Graduates, their Hoods also. The Rubric reads : ‘In all Cathedral Churches and Colleges, the ‘ Archdeacons, Deans, S,-c. . .being Graduates, may use in ‘ the Quire beside their Surplices such Hoods as pertaineth. * to their several degrees. But in all other places every ‘ Minister shall be at liberty to use any Surplice or no. . . ‘Graduates when they do preach should use such Hoods ‘ as pertaineth to their several Degrees' (1549.). — Keeling, 356. (See supra, p. 808.) 874 the ornaments OF THE MINISTER. The 25th Canon (of 1603-4), which refers es- pemUy to Cathedrals, and Colleniate Churches, is of the like import, thus : — *7® °I ^ i T, ine Service and Prayers in all ° 1 e Churches, when there is no ‘ r ir »T t’ 11 i® h n he suffieient t0 wear Surplices;.... Graduates, shall wear with their Surplices such Hoods as are agreeable to their Degrees.’— Canon 25. Similarly, the 17th Canon (of 1603-4), which bears exclusively upon the members of Universities, requires the Surplice and Hood on Sundays, Holy- Days, and their Eves. Thus . ‘Sohrfar^w 1 ' 8 ^ F f 11 ? ws .°[ Colleges and Halls, and all the ‘their 1 Chu t Students in either of the Universities, shaU in their Chuiches and Chapels, upon all Sundays, Holv- ^days, and their Eves, at the time of Divine Service SUch 88 are Graduates. ...such Canon 17 d ° SeverulJy appertain unto their Degrees.'— (b.) At the Holy Communion. There is no specific Rubric in the Liturgy prescribing for Cathedrals, &c. the Vestments to be worn during the performance of the Communion Office. The Rubric on this subject is of general import, and directs the ‘ chief Minuter ’ whether iu Cathedrals, College Chapels, or Parochial Churches, to wear ‘ an Albe with a Vestment or Cope' ; and’ the assisting Priests and Deacons ‘ Albes with Tuni- cles. (See Rubrics (d) (e) page 809.) The Canons (of 1603-4), however, require the ‘principal Minister’ in Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches to wear a Cope at the administration of the ‘ Holy Communion’: thus — ‘In all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches the Holy Communion shall be administered &c. ... the principal Min- , lst ® r p S1 . n ". a d eccnt Cope, and being assisted with the Gospeller and Epistler agreeably according to the “Advertisements,” puhhshed Anno 7. Ehz.'— Canon 24. *** These “ Advertisements” (7 Eliz. a. d. 1564-5) enjoined on Deans and Prebendaries that they should wear, when in the Quire of their Cathedrals, Surplices, and Hoods : and that the principal Minister’ at the ‘Holy Communion,’ as well as the Gospeller and Epistler, should use Copes; thus:— IN CATHEDRALS AND UNIVERSITIES. 875 ‘ Item, in the Ministration of the Holy Communion in * Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, the principal Minister shall ‘ use a Cope with Gospeller aud Epistoler agreeably ; and at all ‘other Prayers to be said at that Communion-Table, to use no ‘ Copes but Surplices. * Item, that the Dean and Prebendaries wear a Surplice with a ‘ Silk Hood in the Quire ; aud when they preach in the Cathedral ‘ or Collegiate Church, to wear their Hood! — Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 2‘J 1 . (See supra p. 824.) The Rev. C. Benson, commenting on the 24th Canon, says with respect to one feature in it: — ‘Yet I never heard of any such ‘difference being made between the administration of the Sacra- * ment on ordinary Sundays, and on the principal Feast-Days, in ‘any College or Cathedral in the laud.’ (p. 19.). — Rubrics and Canons Considered. But, in Cathedral establishments, as in Parish Churches, Custom has set aside the injunctions of both Rubrics and Canons, in so far as they relate to the Habits to be worn at the Communion Service. Albes, Vestments, Tunicles, and Copes, indeed, have long disappeared ; and the prevailing usage now is — For Cathedrals ; — The Surplice, Hood, Scarf, and Bands. For Colleges, &c. : — The Surplice and Hood for Gr a d u a t e s ; the Surplice only for Undergraduates. Bands are occasionally worn, particularly in full-dress; hut the Scarf is seldom used, except by Heads of Houses, and by Doctors. (See ‘ Scarf,’ postea). A reference to the historical documents of the . Elizabethan age would lead us to the conclusion that within ten years after the publication of the ‘Advertisements,’ (1564-5), Copes were completely removed from Parish Churches, aud, gene- rally speaking, from Cathedrals likewise. At Canterbury Cathedral, in 1573, the Dean confessed to have made away with the Copes of the Church, and that the proceeding had been sanctioned by the Chapter. (Strype’s Parker. 444.). A few years afterwards (in 1576) , the Copes belonging to King’s College were likewise disposed of. (Strype’s Annals, ii. 421.). In 1603-4, however, as we may judge from the requirements of the 24th Canon, Abp. Bancroft revived the wearing of Copes. (Collier ii. 687, Wilkin’s Cone. IV. 436.). But during the Primacy of Abbot (1618 — 1633), they again fell into disuse ; yet they were partially resumed under his successor Laud. Still, in the Diocese of Durham, and even at Westminster, Copes continued to be worn down to the last century; and the Copes themselves are said to be still extant. (Gent’s Mag. Vol. lxxiv. Pt. I. p. 222. Quarterly Rev. Vol. xxxii. p. 273.) Their 876 THE ORNAMENTS 01 f THE MINISTER. ultimate removal from Durham is ascribed to the influence of Pre- bendary, afterwards Bishop, Warburton. a.d. 1755. At Corona- tions, however, the use of Copes has survived to the present day. The exceptional instances of the wearing 1 of Copes during the periods referred to will he found enumerated in the ‘ Hierurgia Avglicana' (pp. 438—173.), to which we must direct our Readers who require such additional information; and they may likewise advantageously consult Mr. Robertson’s valuable work, ‘ Horn Shall roe Conform to the Liturgy.' 2nd Edition, pp. 95—102. We will now add a few modern opinions on Cathedral usages: — Archdeacon Harrison observes, when referring to the Pubnc of Edward’s First Book : — ‘ That order presumes that the Memhers of the Cathedral or Collegiate Church will, in the ‘Choir.be in their Surplices, hecause they are all “Ministers" of the Church, performing its Liturgical Service: not so the Preacher, in his office of Preacher, even when he preaches ‘ within the Choir, unless he he a Memher of the Cathedral hody, ‘ and as such, being in the Choir, wears his Surplice.' (p. 69.). ..*. After noticing the variation between Canons 24, and 25, and the “ Advertisements" of Elizabeth, he concludes from the latter:— That there was a distinction intended in them between the usa^e ‘ in “ the Quire," and in “ the Church," i. e. as it would seem, the * body of the Cathedral.’ (p. 127.). .. .‘ It was not the usage of the Cathedral, as the pattern of correct practice, that ruled the point {of preaching m the Surplice), but rather the status of the indi- vidual in regard to the Cathedral. Not only would it not he required that the Preacher in the Cathedral, not being a Member 1 of the Cathedral body, should wear the Suiplice,— which would ‘ surely be the case, if it rested on considerations of Ecclesiastical ‘ propriety, it would not even be permitted him to wear, in ' pieachmg, this distinctive badge of a Member of the Cathedral 1 foundation.* ( p. 153.) — Historical Inquiry. The Rev E. Scoblll, when speaking of the Preaching Press, says: — ‘In Cathedrals it occurs invariably, that when the ‘ Preacher is not one of their own Body, nor engaged in any Sacer- ‘ dotal duty, but a Lecturer sent, as is often the case, by the ‘ Bishop’s vested authority, he is precluded entirely the smallest ‘ us e of the Surplice, and sits and waits first, and preaches after- ‘ wards, without it : and in this we see the true spirit of the thin" ‘ quoad hoc, carried out in practice. . . .If it should be asked, “ How ‘ >s it, then, that in Cathedrals, Surplices are woru, if not by ‘ others, yet always hy Preachers of their own Corporate Society” ? 4 1 can only, with diffidence, make these observations: I would not ‘ veuture to say, as some do, that it is a matter of convenience, or ‘ indolence, or to save time, the Vestries being distant;— hut if it ‘ be merely from the sanction of custom, that Surplices are thus ‘ right in Cathedrals, an equal custom must be at least allowed to ‘ P rov, . e Gowns to he right out of them or, if Cathedrals are specially exempted from the Common Law of Ornamental Dress THEItt PROVISION, AND REPAIR. 877 ‘in this respect, then the authority for this can easily be shown.’ (p, 43.) Mr. Scobell then alludes to the practice in Cathe- drals enjoined in the 25th Canon, observing — ‘ Quite illustrative of * this, (and in exact accordance with the Rubric of Edward VI. * where preaching Graduates, who were not allowed to wear their ‘ Hoods with their Surplice, are desired all to have them on in * preaching, fully implying, on their parts, a change of Dress), we ‘ read in the Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth, a. d. 1564, * which clearly are not without authority, being expressly recog- ‘ nized as such in the 24th Canon, the following order : “ That “ the Dean and Prebendaries weare a Surplice with a silk Hood in “ the Quire ; and when they preache , to weare their Hood” i. e. their * Hood alone, which whatever else is taken off, must not be re- * moved ; intending evidently, if the latter clause has any meaning, * the retention of the Hood, when the Surplice is gone : the legiti- ‘mate academical appendage to the remaining academical Gown' ( p. 44.). — Thoughts on Church Matters. The writer of “Popdlar Tracts” remarks, when quoting the Rubric (b) which says: “ But in all other places every Min- “ ister shall be at liberty to use any Surplice or no.” — ‘ This seems * to mean that the Clergy when present at any Service in Cathe- ‘ drals and Colleges of which they are not members, or in any ‘ Parish Church or Chapel but their own, need not wear Surplices, ‘but only their usual Canonical Dress.’ (p. 4.) — No. II. Pub. by A. Bolden , Exeter. But we must proceed to consider the important subject of The Provision, and Repair, of Vestments. Our present question is — Upon whom devolves the expence of providing the Vestments required by the Officiating Minister for the due performance of his Clerical functions? The Rubric lays down no rule ; and the Canons (of 1603 — 4) only give directions with respect to the Surplice , enjoining that it shall be supplied at the cost of the Parishioners ; thus : — ‘ Every Minister saying the Public Prayers &c. shall wear ‘ a decent and comely Surplice with sleeves, to be provided at ‘ the charge of the Parish. And if any question arise touching ‘ the matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be * decided by the discretion of the Ordinary.’ — Canon 58. The size and shape of the Surplice, and the quality of the material, are not specified in this 3 K 3 878 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Canon, and are consequently left to the judgment of the Churchwardens. The Minister, indeed, has no power to interfere, except, if need be, by complaint to the Ordinary in the usual form of a ‘ presentment.’ (See p. 480). It is a common practice with many Clergymen, who are particular in these matters, to provide a Surplice of their own, made of a superior material ; there are some who wear it considerably shorter in length than is usual, and without the point at the sleeves, and closed in front. (See 1 Surplice’ posted). With the exception of the Surplice , it is the present custom for the Clergy to find their own Vestments. Lecturers, and Chaplains have to supply even the Surplice. The washing of the Surplice is a duty de- volving upon the Parishioners, and is implied in the w’ords “decent” and “comely” employed in the Canon. The frequency of the washing, however, is dependent upon the discretion of the Officiating Minister; although it is too frequently left to cus- tomary usage, or to the judgment of the Parish- Clerk. This temporary abstraction of the Ministerial Vestment renders it necessary that two Surplices, at least, should be furnished by the Churchwardens, in order that there may be a provision against any sudden or unexpected Clerical duty arising. More- over, should the size of the Parish be such as to require, of legal necessity, the co-operation of one or more licensed Curates, the Churchwardens are bound to supply as many Surplices ; but not so when the assisting Clergymen are appointed to suit the mere convenience of an Incumbent, either temporarily en- feebled by sickness, unnecessarily engrossed in secular engagements, or absent on pleasure. No other Vestment than the Surplice is specifically charged, upon the. Parishioners by the Canons (of 1603-4) ; still, the Churchwardens are bound by the general directions of the 85th Canon, and by the Statute, 1 Circumspecte agatis,’ 13 Edw. I. St. 4. THEIR PROVISION, AND REPAIR. 879 (See p. 479), to furnish all things necessary for the conduct of Divine Service ; but whether the Albe, Cope , Tunicle , &c., enjoined in the Rubrics of the Liturgy of 1549, are among the ‘things necessary,’ although those Rubrics have, strictly speaking , the authority of law, is a questionable and disputed point, from the fact of the Vestments therein prescribed, with few exceptions, having become obsolete by force of custom. The Constitution of Abp. Winchelsey (1305), imposes on the Parishioners the provision of various Vestments, as may be seen on reference to his in- junction (see^). 801.); and this Constitution, according to the opinion of the Bp. of Exeter, and others (as we have already shewn), is still of legal force. It may be added, that the Parishioners, — not the Minister — are the persons to provide these Vestments; and should they be supplied, the Ordinary can compel the Officiating Clergyman to wear them. If the Parishioners through their Churchwarden, refuse to furnish the Habits legally enjoined, the only remedy open to the Incumbent is ‘to present’ the Churchwardens for neglect of duty at the next Visita- tion of the Ordinary ; and, if the process be persevered in, the result would probably be a Suit in the Ec- clesiastical Court before any satisfactory conclusion could be arrived at. This indeed would be a costly pro- ceeding ; and, in the present temper of the times, as all must agree, very far from expedient. Should, how- ever, the onus of Church-Rates be removed by Act of Parliament from the Parishioners at large, and left dependent upon the voluntary contributions of the people, or the private means of the Incumbent, the charges upon the Church-Rates would pass with the shifted burden ; and, it has been said, this circum- stance would possibly lead to the revived use of the ancient Vestments ordered in the Rubrics of Ed- ward’s First Liturgy, and in Winchelsey’s Consti- tution ; that is to say, in those Parishes where the Incumbents may be desirous of introducing them. 880 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. In addition to the opinions already advanced in page 803, we may here annex the view entertained by Dr. Hook, with regard to the authority of the older Constitutions . — ‘ The Canons which existed before the Refor- ‘matiou are, in force, except where contradicted hy subse- * quent enactments ; so it is also with doctrine, and the regulation ‘ of our Services .’ — The Three Reformations. It was formerly the usage for the Parishioners to furnish the Minister’s Hood, and Gorvn, as we may gather from the citations following : — Dr. Bf.N net (oh. 1728), in introducing his remarks upon the Surplice, says : — ‘ Nor shall I speak of the use of Copes, which are ‘ never seen in Parish Churches. Nor shall I speak even of Hoods, * which are worn as the honourable Badges of the Degrees taken in ‘the Universities; and which through the negligence of Church- ‘ wardens the Parish Ministers seldom have it in their power to ‘ wear.’ (p. 7.) — Paraphrase on Book of Com. Proper . Archdeacon Harrison remarks : — ‘The Parish do not provide ‘ the Goran because it is the personal private Dress of the Clergy - ‘ man ; and it is nowhere mentioned in the Rubrics, though it is ‘in the Advertisements, Canons, &c., which have given regulations ‘on such mutters, (p. 122) ....This requirement (of Canon 58) of ‘ tlie Hood to he worn by Graduates seems to throw some douht * upon the dictum, as stated iu its widest application, that, since “ the things required for the Common Prayer of the Parish were “and are to he provided by the Parish,” it may he inferred that “ if a Gown were required in any part of the Public ministration, it “ would he to be provided hy the Parish.” For we find the * Surplice by this Canon is “ to be provided at the charge of the “ Parish.” But not so the Hood, which yet the Minister, if he be ‘ a Graduate, is to wear. But the solution is easy : the Hood ‘being in fact, a part of the Clergyman’s Academical Dress: ‘ as is also the Gown with which, as we have seen in the “ Adver- * tisements ” of 15G4, he was required to provide himself.' ( p. 128. n.) — Historical Inquiry. The Rev. W. Maskell quotes a Canon of the Diocesan Synod under H. AYoodloke of Winchester in 1303, which hears on the supply of Vestments, and thus reads : — “ Yolumus, quod in “ singulis Ecclesiis, quae ad quinquaginta marcarum (suramam) “ vel ultra, communiter sunt taxatae, siut unus DiaCONTS, et unus “ Sdbdiaconcs, continue ministrantes, et unum ad minus vesti- “mentum solenne, ac Tunica, et Dalmatica competens.” - (Wile. Cone. ii. 295.). He adds in a Sotc after speaking of the Surplice for the Clerk. — ‘ It is possible that there might occasionally, in ‘ poor places, have been some difficulty in providing the Surplice : ‘hut means were generally at hand. For example : a Canon of a ‘ Synod of Chichester, 128!). “ Panni etiam Cbrismales in usus “ seculares, seu proplianos rninime couvertantur, sed ad manu- “tergia, seu superpellicia, seu pannos cceteros consuendos seu “ reticiendos, dispositione discreti sacerdotis cum omni reverentia “catholica exponau'tur.” (Wile. Cone. ii. 171 .)’ — Monumenta Ritualia I. p. lix. TIIETR PROVISION, AND REPAIR. 881 The Rev. J. C. Robertson remarks: — ‘I may notice that it ‘ (tl»e Hood) appears to have been formerly reckoned among: things ‘which are to be provided at the cost of the Parish.’ [p. Ili).). — How shall We Conform, to the Liturgy. Mn. G. H. H. Oliphant ( Barristei'-at-Lam ), when speaking of Preaching in the Surplice, says : — 1 As a Gown is not one of the * articles provided at the expence of the Parishioners, they should ‘ offer to purchase one for any poor Clergyman, and give him an * opportunity of wearing it, before they require him to discontinue ‘ preaching in his Surplice.' (p. 58.) — Law of Church Orna- ments, 4'C. The writer of “ Popular Tracts” observes * The Canon 1 Law is clear that the Parish should provide the necessary Alls, ‘ Cope, and Vestment , required by our Prayer Book (See Gibson ‘200. kc., cited by the Bi\ of Exeter in bis judgment on Mr. ‘ Blunt's case), and though the 58th Canon of 1604 enjoins, that “ Every Minuter See.'' (see supra), yet this Canon cannot controul ‘ the Act of Uniformity, which, by means of the Book of Common ‘ Prayer, enjoins the use of the other articles of Sacred Dress ‘ above described. Nor are there many Parishes to which the ‘ providing of these Vestments would be burthensome, especially if ‘ those females in them who have time and ability would bestow 1 some of their attention on Church needlework and embroidery. * This is in itself a much more noble branch of needlework than the ‘ knitting of German wool, which now takes up so large a portion * of their lime ; and it is made a labour of holy love by its righteous ‘ object.’ {p. 7.). — No. II. Pub. by A. Holden, Exeter. In case of damage , &c. accruing to the Parish Surplice, the Churchwardens are, of course, bound to repair it as they would other Church property under their charge ; and when it becomes so defaced and worn, as to be no longer “ decent and comely a new Surplice must be provided. The old one is not to be claimed as the perquisite of the Parish Clerk, or other officer of the Church, but ought to be burned : —this is considered the fittest end of all Goods and Vestments that have grown old and useless in the service of the Church ; such, in fact, was the prac- tice enjoined by the ancient Canons, as the following quotation will prove : — * The question is frequently asked, what should be done with ‘ Church Vestments, kc., which have become useless from age or * injury f The Canon Lam tells us: “Altaris palla, cathedra, “ candelabrum, et velum, si fueriut vetustate consumpta, incendio “ dentur ; quia non licet ea, quae in sacrario fuerint, male traetari ; “sed incendio universa tradantur, Cineres quoque eorum iii “ Baptisteriurn inferantur, ubi nullus transitum habeat ; aut in “ pariete, aut in fossis pavimentorum jaotentur, ne introeumium 882 the ornaments of the minister. ( pedibus inquinentur. (Corpus. Jur. Can. L p. 460.)” Haring- ton, On Consecration of Churches, p. 84, Note. So Alberti says : when sacred Vestments and Ornaments of the Church are ‘worn out, they are to be burned, and their ashes to be disposed ' ' n Ecclesite loco ubi incedentium pedibus calcari nequeunt.” I i I)e Sacris Utensilibus. p. 176. See also cap. xl 51—57. p. 174.). ‘ And, once more, Lyndwood : “ Pallse altaris, et ea, quse in sacrario sunt vetustate coiTupta incendi debent. Et ratio est, quia talia “ male tractari non debent, nec ad usus prophanos couverti." (/• i- tit. 6. Cum. Sacri. Verb. Concremandum).’ — Maskexl’s Monum. Rit. I.p. clxvii. Note. Such are the Rubrical and Canonical authorities which regulate the Vestments of the Clergy of the Church of England ; and the Reader cannot but have remarked, that there is no Ecclesiastical dif- ference imposed between the Dress of the Priest and the Deacon, the Lecturer, Chaplain, or Reader ; and that whatever distinctive features exist, they are solely dependent upon the Cleric’s University, and Academical Degree. There may be an exception with respect to the Private Chaplain, who is entitled to wear the Scarf presented to him by his Patron. (See ‘ Scarf/ postea). To make this Manual as complete as possible,* it may be necessary here, while speaking of the Laro * The Author trusts he may be permitted to introduce here, by way of amendment to what appears in the .Vote at page 8U0., the following’ statement from authority with respect to the Vest- ments used by the ‘ Irvingites' or, according to their own designa- tion, tbe ‘ Catholic Apostolic Church and which came too late for insertion in that place. ‘Every Minister appears in the Ecclesiastical Habit proper to his order. ‘ Door-keepers are habited in black, or dark purple Gowns. ‘Deacons in plain hlack Cassocks. ‘ Priests in black Cassocks and Mozcttes, lined according to ‘their respective ministries; thus. Purple for an Elder, Blue ‘ for a Prophet, Red for an Evangelist, and White for a Pastor. ‘Angels, aud other Ministers of higher degree, are habited in ‘ Purple Cassocks and Mozettes, lined like those for Priests as to their ‘ respective ministries. ‘in the Celebration of the Holy Ere jurist the Celebrant ‘ aud Assistants wear linen Albes over their Cassocks, bound with a ‘ white Girdle, and white Stoles. 1 The Deacons wear linen Dalmatics, and white Stoles, over tkeir ‘ Cassoehs. HABIT OF BISHOPS. 883 and Authority enjoining the use of Ecclesiastical Vestments, to refer, if only briefly, to the Habits worn by our Bishops, as well as to those we occa- sionally find assumed by Parish- Clerks, Choristers , Vergers, &e. Habit of Bishops. The ancient Episcopal Vestments have been al- ready alluded to in 'page 798, where they were described as amounting to eighteen in number, viz : — (1) The Buskins, and Sandals; (2) the Amice or Amyt ; (3) the Aibe ; (4) the Girdle with the Subcingulum or Sash ; (5) the Pectoral- Cross : (C) the Stole pendent, not crossed ; (7) the Tunic ; (8) the Dalmatic; (9) the Maniple; (10) the Gloves; (11) the Chasuble; (12) the Mitre with the inf nice or bands , and either simplex, aurifrigiata, or pretiosa; (13) the Ring ; (14) the Pastoral-Stoff; (15) the Rochet ; (16) the Cappa Magna; (17) the Cope; (18) the Gremial. And this is confirmed by the Rubric in the Con- secration Office in the Pontifical, “ Consecra.io Electi in Episcopum,” which thus reads : — “ Provident Electus cum suis, “ quod mane diei Dominicae, parata sint et in promptu omnia “sibi necessaria in Consecratione, videlicet, Caligm , Sandalia, u Amietus, Alba, Cingulum , Stola, Manipulus, Tunicella, Dal- ‘On the Lord’s day, and other Festivals, the Sacerdotal Vest- ' ments used in the Eucharist have their fringes, and other orna- * ments. of gold or gold colour. On other days they are White . ‘ At Morning Prayer (6 a. m.), and Evening Prayer (5. p. m.) ‘The Angel, and four Priests officiating, wear over their Cassocks ‘linen Albcx, Girdles, and Stoles — the Colours of the Stoles are those ‘ of their respective ministries, Purple, Blue, Red, and White, (as * before). ‘The Angel wears a purple Cope in addition to the Albe, Girdle, ‘ and Stole. ‘ The Seven Deacons wear linen Dalmatics, and Red Stoles. ‘In the ordinary Forenoon (9. A. M.), and Afternoon (3p,m.) ‘ Services on Week-days, the Officiating Ministers, if Priests, wear ‘ linen Surpliees, and Purple Stoles. ‘If Deacons, linen Dalmatics with Red Stoles, overiheir Cassocks. ‘ If Angels, a Rockette, and purple Stole. ‘Ministers not officiating wear Cassocks, with or without * Mozcttes, according to their degree. ‘Choristers engaged in Singing wear linen Dalmatics' — (Priv. Let.) 884 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. “ matica, Planeta, et Pluviale albi coloris, Chiro theca, Annulus Pon- “ tificalis, et alius Annulus parvus, Mitra, Baeuhis Pastoralis, duo “ Baeilia, Tobalia promanibustergendis, &c. .IpseELECTCSsacerdo- “ talibus vestibus induatur piaster Cusulam, et pro Casula induatur “ Capa,” &c. — Haskell’s Mon.. Pit. III. 241. The Exeter Pontifical proceeds Acolyti induant ilium Sandulia, Tunicam, “ Dalmaticam, et Casulam , See. — ( ib . p. 252. Note. See also ib. p. 254.) Likewise in a Rubric of the ancient office, “ Recoxcilia- tio Ecclesi.e vel C(emeterii,” the Bishop’s Costume is thus described “ Post bape veniat Episcopcs cum Baeulo pastoral), “ornatus Amictu, Alba, Stola, Pluviali, et Capa de bisso, i. e. ^bokeram, et Mitra simplici, et Baeulo, sine Manipulo.” — (ib. p. The Rev. R. Hart states: — ‘The Vestments of a Bishop were ‘ the Sandals, Amyt, Albe, Girdle, with the Subcingulum (an ‘ ornamental addition), Stole, Tunicle, Dalmatic , Chasuble, Maniple, ‘ Mitre, Pastoral Staff, Gloves, and Ring. The Cope was worn on ‘solemn occasions; the Pochette, and Mozetta, belonged rather ‘ to his Civil costume. Th9 Pah, though generally peculiar to ‘ Metropolitans, was sometimes granted to a Bishop by special ‘ privilege of the Pope. Instances of this kind are however ex- ‘ tremely rare, nor are there any English examples.’ — Eccl. Records. p. 65 ; see also ib. p. 184. At the Reformation a change was effected in the Episcopal Costume, which is thus laid down in the Rubric of Edward’s First Liturgy, the present rule in this matter : — ‘ And whensoever the Bishop shall celebrate the Holy Com- ‘munion in the Church, or execute any other public Ministration, ‘ he shall have upon him beside his Rochette, a Surplice or Albe, ‘and a Cope or Vestment, and also his Pastoral-Staff in his ‘hand, or else borne orliolden by his Chaplain.' (1549). — Kee- ling. 357. (See supra p. 809.) The Episcopal Vestments thus enjoined are the Albe, Cope , Rochette , Surplice , Vestment , and Pas- toral- Staff. The Canons (of 1603-4), merely impose the Cope, (Can. 24); and the ‘ accustomed apparel of their Degrees' (Can.74.) Modern Custom, however, led on doubtlessly by the objections of Br. Hooper, to which we have already referred, appears to recognize only the Rochette, Chimere , Scarf Bands, Cassock or Grcmial (Apron), and Square-Cap. Archdeacon Sharp says : — ‘ If it be said that a custom has * prevailed over the kingdom, for Bishops to wear their Habits of ‘ministration whensoever they preach, whether they officiate in ‘other respects or not, ....it may be answered, that what the ‘ Bishops do in this respect is founded on ancient Constitutions. By ‘ the Canon Law they were obliged to wear their Rochets, as their ‘ distinguishing Habit, whenever they appeared in Public ; though HABIT OF PARISH-CLERKS. 885 ‘ since the Reformation they have not used to wear them any where 4 in Public, but in the Church, and in the house of Lords. And it is 4 the more proper they should contiuue the use of their publio 4 Habit, whensoever they preach, for the better distinction of their 4 characters on that occasion from those of the inferior Pastors ; 4 seeing there is no sufficient distinction preserved in their ordinary ‘Habits.* (p. 207.) — On Rubric and Canons. Charge, a. d. 1746. Mr. A. J. Stephens (Barrister-at-lan) observes : — 4 During * the middle ages, Bishops very frequently wore the Surplice with ‘a Cope, und above the Rochette. But it appears from a Letter of 4 Melauctbon’s written in 1549, that the use of the Suiplice was 4 even then a 4 vexata queestio' (p. 371.).... The Rochet was the ‘ancient garment used by the Bishop.. ..In Henry VUIth’s 4 time, the Bishops wore a scarlet garment under the Rochet, and 4 in Edward Vlth’s reign, they wore a scarlet Chimere over the 4 Rochet ; which made Bp. Hooper scruple atit, as too light a Robe 4 for the Episcopal gravity. But this in Elizabeth’s time was 4 changed into a Chiuiere of black satin. The Chimere seems to re- semble the garment used by Bishops during the middle uges, and 4 called Mantelletum : which was a sortof Cope with apertures for the 4 arms to pass through.’ (Vide Hody’s Hist., of Convoc. p. 141.) . . . . 4 The English Ritual of 1549 permitted the Bishop to wear a Cope ‘instead of a Vestment in his public ministrations, if he chose.’ (p. 384).— Book of Com. Prayer. E. H. S. HABIT OP PARISn-CLERKS. The Parish-Clerks of modern times are but laymen, and consequently of inferior standing to the Clerks of the ante-Reformed Church, who were aetual Cleries, and the usual assistants of the chief Minister in the performance of the Divine Offiees. This may be confirmed by a reference to Wilkins’ Concilia; where we shall find much information re- specting the minor orders of the Clergy of that age. Mr. Maskell, after eiting from Wilkins’ work one of Woodloke of Winchester’s Canons (1308), makes this remark in a note : — ‘ This Canon says nothing 4 about the Clerk, who at least should attend in every, the smallest, 4 Parish ; but there is no doubt such was the rule throughout 4 England, and not only so, but in a decent habit, “ cum halntu 4 convenient! or, according to the rule laid down in the Provincial 4 Constitutions of Abp. Walter Reynold, a. d. 1322, in a Surplice ; ‘thus, “ Jtem, nullus Clericus permittatur miiiistrare in Officio “Altaris, nisi indutus superpellicio." WiLK. Cone. ii. 513.) — Mon. Rit. i. p. lix. Mr. Maskell, likewise, in his Supplement, when remarking that the office of the Aqucc-Bajulus,-— who was a 4 poor scholar’ 886 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. employed in carrying about the ‘ hallowed water,’ whence he derived his appellation, and his maintenance, — was wisely abolished at the Reformation, shows also from the Injunctions of the King's K’ S / n 383) 548 ’ that he WaS de8 '° nated the Parish- Clerk.— The legal powers and functions of modern Parish- Clerks will be described hereafter; but with regard to their Vestments, it may be remarked, that they seldom adopt any Ildbit different from their ordinary costume. In some few cases, where an endowment may exist, or the Incumbent or Parishioners are will- ing to incur the expence, they are provided with a black stuff Gown, more or less ornamented with braiding and tufts of the same colour. But there is no Rubric or Canon enjoining any especial Vestment for this Church functionary. The Parish-Clerk, however, may even now be a Clerk-in- Orders ; and he is considered to repre- sent in one or two features the ancient Subdeacon ; or rather, perhaps, the Acolyth , who may be thus described : — The Subdeacon, according to Gibson, is one of the five inferior orders in the Romish Church ; whose office it is to wait upon the Deacon in the administration of the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper. ( Cod . 99.).— Burn’s Eccl. L. Phil. iii. 654. His Vestments were: (1) the Amice or Amyt ; (2) Albe ; C/a* l bf e 01 > (4) Tunicle ; (5) Maniple ; (6) and Dr. Hook says: — ‘As to their Office it was to fit and prepare t" e sacred Vessels and utensils of the Altar, and deliver them to the Deacons in the time of Divine Service; but they were not allowed to minister as Deacons at the Altar ; no, not so much as to come within the Rails of it, to set a Paten or Cup or the Oblations of the people, thereon. Another of their Offices was, to attend the Doors of the Church during the Communion-Service. Besides which Offices in the Church, they had another out of the Church, which was to carry the Bishop’s Letters or Messages to foreign Churches. As to their Ordination, it was performed without im- position of hands ; and the ceremony consisted in their receiving an empty Paten and Cup from the hands of the Bishop, and an Ewer and Towel from the Archdeacon The employment of the SubdeacoNS in the Romish Church is to take care of the holy \ essels, to prepare and pour water upon the Wine in the Chalice, to sing the Epistle at solemn Masses, to bring and hold the Book of the Gospels to the Deacon, to give it the Priest to kiss, to carry the Cross in Processions, and to receive the Oblations of the people. —Church Diet. p. 598. OF THE SUBDEACON, AND ACOLYTH. 887 Mr. A. W. Pugin thus describes the Office of the Subdeacon in the Roman Church: — It ‘is to wash the Altar-Cloths and * Corporals ; and to give the Chalice and Paten to the Deacon at ‘ the proper times, and generally to minister to the Deacon in * the Mass; and to chant tbe Epistle. Their proper Hahit is a ‘ Tunic over a girded Albe, with a Maniple ; as that of the Deacon 1 is a Dalmatic over an Albe, with Maniple and Stole. At a period ‘long before St. Gregory, the Subdeacons of the Roman Church ‘ officiated in plain Albcs without Tunics ; but one of the Popes had ‘ conferred on them the right of wearing the Tunic. St. Gregory, ‘ however, restored the old custom, and ordered that they should ‘serve, vested in the Albe only. Over this Albe they wore a * Chasuble, except during the times when they were exercising their * peculiar functions. As late as the 9th century, Amalarius tells ‘us, that the Chasuble was common to all Clerics. Since that ‘ custom ceased, the Tunic over the Albe has been the distinctive ‘garb of the Subdeacon. They wore indeed the Tunic before, ‘ from very early times : and it was called variously Tunica , ‘ Roccus, and Subtile. . . .Of what material it was made, is gathered ‘ from a Letter of St Gregory to John of Syracuse ; in which it ‘occurs as a linen vestment, reaching to the ankles. But in the ‘8th and 9th centuries the name of Tunica as belonging to the ‘ Subdeacon rarely occurs, but in its place Roccus, and Subfile ‘are found. Roccus, according to Du Cange, is a word of German ‘ origin signifying an upper vest. .. ^n the treasury of the Church ‘of St. Riquier, A. D. 831. were kept 15 Tunics of silk (Rocci), and Ml of woollen cloth, 1 Albe of silk, 2 of Persian silk, 1 Pectoral ‘ Tunic. . . .Riculfus, bp. of Elus, left to his Church, a. d. 915. ‘ 4 Tunics (Roquos), one of purple with gold, one of silk with ‘ Greek work, and the other two made in Greece. Here we have ‘the material and colour. As for the name, the Subdeacon’s ‘ Tunic was also called Subtile ; of which Du Cange gives many ‘ examples. IIonorius of Autun, in the 12th century, says ‘ (Gem. Animce. ii. c. 229.) that Subdeacons wear in common ‘ with the order of Clergy below them the ‘ Superhumcral,’* i. e. the ‘Amice; the ‘ Tunic reaching to the ankles,’ i. e. the Albe ; the ‘ Girdle , and the Cappa (Hood) ; and beside these, two others, viz. ‘ the Tunic, and Maniple (Subtile, et Sudarium) ; the Subtile is also ‘called the short Tunic, (Roccus Pectoralis), the Sudarium is for ‘wiping the sacred vessels. .. .The Maniple of the Subdeacon is ‘ made larger than others, because where the Fanon is now used, ‘formerly a napkin was worn. .. .After the 13th century it was ‘called Tunicella (Georgius).’ (p. 195.). — Glossary of Eccl. Orna- ment and Costume. * The Ephod, says Pugin, is the usual translation of the word, Superhumeral, in the Old Testament (Exod. xxviii. G, &c.). It is sometimes used as a name for an Archbishop’s Pallium : and sometimes means an Amice. In this latter sense the Superhumeral was of the purest linen. Gillkbkrtus Lunicensis, (Dr, Urn Ecclesiastico), remarks that, ‘Ostiarii, Exorcists, and Acolyths, in their Ministry, are ‘vested with a Superhumeral, Albe, and Girdle.' Georgius says: — ‘According to IIonorius of Autun, Sub- ‘ deacons, like other Clergy below them, wore the Superhumeral. ‘ i. e. the Amice.’ (See ‘ Amice,’ postea.). 888 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. The Acolyte, or Acolyth, Acolythus ( anoXovdos ), in our oJd English called a Cold, was an inferior Church servant, who next under the Suhdeacon, waited on the Priests and Deacons, and performed the meaner offices of lighting the Candles, carrying the Bread and Wine, and paying other servile attendance.— Bern’s Eccl. L. Phil. i. 1. a ; Hook’s Church Diet. p. 10. The Vestments of the Acolyth were:— The Albe and Girdles or the Surplice , and the Cassock. Mr. A. W. Pcgin, describing the Acolyths, says:— ‘Their principal office is to bear the Candlesticks , and Crewetts con- taming* the Wine and Water for the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. The Hahit of those in Acolyth' $ Orders was a plain ‘ Chasuble , according to Georgies; alterwards, in the 12th cen- ‘ tul 7i an Albe, fastened round the loins bv a girdle, which is still retained in several of the Continental Churches. The Surplice ‘has heen often substituted for the Albe in later times The ‘ Cotta, a kind of short Surplice, but without sleeves, and exceed- ‘ ingly ugly, has superseded the long and full Surplice for Acolyths ‘in some modem Churches. Ic has neither grace nor dignity; * n°r does it convey the mystical meaning of chastity and modesty signified by the long and girded Albe.’ (After quoting several authorities, Pcgin thus sums up :— ) ‘ Acolyths in the early ages ‘of the Church were vested in Chasubles, in common with Eede- * stastics in general. Subsequently they used Albcs ; which custom ‘ is yet retained in the French and several Contiuental Churches, ‘and was general in the English previous to the Schism. In the ‘ 16th century they used the Surplice in the Roman Church ; and ‘at the present time Cottas, which are linen Tunics reaching to ‘ the middle, and sometimes without sleeves. During the middle ‘ ages Acolyths were often vested in Tunicles on great feasts, and ‘sometimes in Copes,* which practice is still followed in many ‘ French and Spanish Churches.’ (p. 1—3.)— Glossary of Eccle- siastical Ornament and Costume. Dr. Rock, the Romanist, says : — 1 Acolytes constitute the ‘highest of the four Minor Orders in the Latin Church, in which * they have been employed from the remotest antiquity, to perform the ‘ inferior ministry of the Altar The 4th Council of Carthage ‘ (A. D. 398.). . . .directs that “ when an Acolyte is ordained let him “ heiustructed by the Bishop how he is to perform his office. But let “ him receive from the Archdeacon the Candlestick, with a Wax ‘‘ laper, that he may know that to him lias been consigned the '■'duty of lighting the Lights of the Church.' And let him receive ‘‘ an empty Cruet, to supply Wine for the Eucharist of the blood of ‘‘Christ.” (Cone. Gen. Labbei. ii. 1200.) One amongst their ‘ most conspicuous offices within the Sanctuary is, as St. Isidore ‘informs us, to bear about the Wax Tapers. It has been the ‘ custom for several centuries to allow lay persons, even youths, • In the Inventory of York Minster, a white cope for the Acolyth is found mentioned. HABIT OF CHORISTERS. 889 * to discharge the ministry at the holy Sacrifice and other func- * tions, without having the ordination of Acolytes. The Cassock, ‘ and Surplice , (are) the Ecclesiastical Garments which they are ‘allowed to wear. ( p . 52.).... The Acolyte in the name of the ‘People answers “ Amen" at the end of the Collect, Post-Com- ‘ munion. See., and thus ratifies what the Priest has been sayiug, ‘according to the custom of the Jews and primitive Christiuns. * (p. G4.). .. .Isidore in his “ Origines” (l. vii. c. xii.), composed ‘ towards a. D. 595, (says) — “ Those who in the Greek tongue are “ denominated Acolytes, are, in Latin, called Taper- Bearers, from “ their carrying wax candles at the reading of the Gospel, or when “ Sacrifice is to be offered. Then Tapers are lighted and home by “them.” (p. 6$.).... Acolytes also carried torches, or lighted ‘tapers at Funerais.’ (p. 403.)— Jlierurgia. HABIT OF CHORISTERS. The Men and Boys forming the Choirs of our ancient Ecclesiastical Institutions were distinguished from the Laity generally, by a certain peculiarity of costume ; parts of which were occasionally of various colours, and more or .less ornamented. The white Albe , or Surplice , was, however, the usual Habit; and when colours were employed, they frequently followed the livery of the Founder of the Institution. According to the Laodicjean Canons (a. d. 367.) “ None “ ought to sing in the Church hnt Canonical Singers, that go into “ the Ambon, and sing hy Book.” (Can. 15.). Johnson explains the word “ Canonical," as implying, ‘ Singers upon the List, or ' entered into the Catalogue of the Clergy, often called the Canon.’ ( Fade Meeum, ii. p. 100.) Another Canon of the same Council directs. “ That Readers and Singers ought not to wear the Ora- “ Hum. (Stole).” — (ib. 103.) The Rev. W. Maskell also remarks : — ‘ Care was taken (as to ‘ these matters) by the Founders of Religions Houses in their ‘Charters of Foundation. For example: — “ Superpelliciis et 4a- U muciis induti, Malutinas ad (et?) horas canonicas, juxta Institu- “ tionem Ecclesiasticam de die tractatim punctando, et aptrta “ pronunciation dicant." (Dcgdale Mon. Anglic. VI. p. 705.).’ — Mon. Hit. II. xxvii. n. At the era of the Reformation the privileges of Choral foundations were continued and secured, for we find one of the Injunctions of Elizabeth (1559) ordering : — ‘49. Item, Because ‘in divers Collegiate and also some Parish Churches heretofore, ‘ there have been Livings appointed for the maintenance of Men and ‘ Children to use Singing in the Church, by means whereof the ‘ laudable service of Musick hath been had ia estimation and pre- 890 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘served in knowledge; the Queen’s Majesty neither meaning in 1 any wise the decay of any thing that might conveniently tend to ‘ the use and continuance of the said science, neither to have the ‘ same in any part so abused in the Church, that thereby the Com- ' inon Prayer should be the more understood of the hearers, willeth, ‘and commandeth, that first no alterations be made of such assign - ‘ men ts of Living, as heretofore have been appointed to the use of ‘ Singing or Murick in the Church, but that the same so remain.’ &c.— C ardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 196 ; Sparrow’s Coll. 80. HeYLYN (ob. 1662), speaking of the usages of the Church in the time of Elizabeth, also says, the Liturgy was ‘ celebrated in the * (Royal) Chapel with Organs and other Musical Instruments, and 1 the most excellent voices, both of Men and Children, that could be ‘ got in all the Kingdom. The Gentlemen and Children in their ‘ Suiplices, and the Priests in Copes as oft as they attended the * Divine Service at the Holy Altar.’ — Hist, of the Reform, ii. 815. E. Ii. S. The Rev. J. Jebb observes: — ' In Lent .... the Grammar ‘Scholars of Canterbury used to attend Church in Violet Gowns 4 (the ancient Ecclesiastical colour for mouruiug), and I believe black ‘ Gowns were worn either then, or in time of mourning, by the ‘ Choristers at York As to Ornaments of Ministers, iucluding ‘ the Habits , the Surplice is that which is conimou to all, whether * Clerical or Lag. In Colleges it is worn by all the foundation ‘ Members on Sundays, Holidays, aud their Eves ;. . . .In Cathedral ‘ and Collegiate Churches, all the members wear Surplices at all ‘ times; because all are in these places the perpetual Miuisters of ‘Divine Service, [p. 214.) Capitular bodies really ought to pay ‘ more deceut attention than is commonly done to the habiliments ‘of the Lag-Clerks and Choristers: not only as regards the Sur- 4 plice , but as to the other parts of their Dress. Coloured Clothes, 4 and Handkerchiefs, are quite inconsistent with the grave nature of ‘their employmeut, while in the Choir.’ ( p . 225.) — Choral Service. The Rev. J. E. Millard remarks, when speaking of Cho- risters: — ‘The time spent in assuming aud layiug aside the ‘ Surplice, should at least be serious and quiet, if not more deeply ‘ impressed with the expectation of solemnities to come, or the ‘ recollection of those which are past. So much is certaiuly due to ‘ the sanctity of a Vestment which distinguishes the Ministers of the ‘ Church of whatever rank, aud which iu old times was never 4 lightly assumed, nor without a prayer ( p . 5.).... At the latter 4 part of the 17 th century, .the Choristers (of Magdalene College, 4 Oxford) slept in truckle beds. . . .their Dress was a kiud of Livery, 4 probably not unlike that of King Edward’s School, Loudon.... ‘ In the SIS. Inventory of Vestments, Jkc., committed to the care ' of the Sacristau of the College iu 1495, are "pro Pueris ,” Tuni- ( cles, red and white, and crimson, with Orfreys (borders) of 4 damask and velvet, one set of Albes of blue damask, and two with 4 Apparels of red silk ; and lastly, a Banner of St. Nicholas, the ‘ patron of Children, (p. 49.) . . . .The 1st of May is a great Festival, 4 or gaudy-day, among the Choristers. At sunrise they ascend 4 the lofty College tower, and there, vested in Surplices, with other ‘members of the College, sing, in Latin, a hymn to the Holy ‘Trinity, (p. 51.).... Iu the Inventory of Ornaments belonging HABIT OF CHORISTERS. 891 ‘ to S. Frideswide's Monastery in Oxford, taken by the Commis- ‘ sioners of king Henry YIII, occur, “ for tbe Choristers,” Tunictes 'of red and white damask , and silk A messes of blue and white 1 band/ kin, and chequered with red silk and gold, besides the Albes. ‘ (Duod. Monas, ii. 167.) John he Pdltoney “ bequeathed the ‘yearly sum of 20*'. to the Almoner of St Paul’s to be by him ‘bestowed on the Summer Habit of the Choristers” To say ‘nothing of the other Vestments, the fact of their having, at all ‘periods, worn the Albe, or its substitute tbe Surplice, which anci- * ently was not put on without a solemn, though brief, prayer, ‘speaks much for the sanctity of their occupation. Among the ' things retained for the use of the Church in the time of Edward 4 VI., the ancient Albes were ordered to be made into Surplices “ for ‘ the Ministers and Choristers.” The Boys of all the Oxford Choirs, * when not assisting in the Service, wear an Academical Dress, * resembling that of a B. A., a regulation revived or introduced by ‘ Dean Aldrich of Christ Church. The Choristers of Norwich 4 Cathedral, except on Festivals, wear purple Gowns instead of 4 Surplices in the Service, [p. 60.).... The ancient Statutes of 4 Exeter Cathedral require that the Choristers should receive ‘ the Tonsure.’ (p. 62. ) — Historical Notices of the Off. of Choristers. The Rev. J. H. Pollen writes witb respect to St. Saviour's, Leeds: — 4 Tbe Choir consisted of eight, ten, or twelve Boys out of ‘ the School, the most deserving, if they could Chant and Sing ; ‘and the Schoolmaster was Precentor. £1. a-year bad been given 4 by * * * to each Boy, and he still continued it ; and, besides, they ‘had Tea every Sunday and Festival at the Vicarage. Tbis Tea 4 was a great treat, [p. 65.) ....To make the Choir Boys more ‘ decent they bad Cassocks made for them. A Parishioner made 4 these Garments, and not over well. The Surplices were shortened, ‘but the Cassocks came down to the feet, a subject of compluiut to 4 the Bishop, though not on the part of the Parish.’ ( p . 85.) — Nar- rative of Five Tears at St. Saviour's, Leeds. In an account of the usages practised in tbe Churches of France in the last century, we read with respect to tbe Vestments of Cho- risters, that they were babited in Cassocks, sometimes black, brown, red, violet, aud white, witb Surplices over them : others wore Albes instead of Surplices over their Cassocks; the latter trailing on the ground behind about four fingers (quatre doigts) in length. Some had also violet coloured, others red Square-Caps. Th e Albe was 4 retained as tbe ancient Habit of the Choir almost everywhere; and Tunics were worn at great Festivals.’ Others again who wore Albes had a Maniple or Mouchoir on the left arm ; but the Maniple or Mouehoir was sometimes held between the fingers oftbe right hand. [p. 520.) — Voyages Liturgiques de France; par Le Sieur He Moleon. a Paris. 17 18. The usual Dress of Choristers in the Cathe- dral and Collegiate Churches of modern times has been the Surplice when engaged in the performance of their Ecclesiastical duties ; and a kind of black Academical Gown when not officiating. In some 3 L 892 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. instances, the latter Habit is dispensed with. Where a Choir-Beadle is appointed, he usually wears a black stuff Gown. Choral Service , however, has been introduced into several Parish Churches lately ; and the expcnces incidental to the establishing and maintaining of an efficient Choir have generally fallen upon the Incum- bent, who is aided in some instances by the voluntary contributions of the Congregation. With the introduc- tion of Choristers, we have also found, in a few cases, that the taste for coloured Vestments has re- vived ; since we may occasionally see them habited in blue Cassocks and white Rochets (short Surplices ) ; sometimes in white Atbes with scarlet Girdles , &c. The adoption of these novel Vestments cannot be defended by any Rubric or Canon now in force; nor can they plead the sanction of customary usage ; so that unless the practice shall obtain the approval of the Diocesan, and the assent of the Congregation, its continuance in defiance of the objections of the one, and the scruples of the other, may involve the Incum- bent persisting in the measure in serious difficulties; and doubtlessly be productive of consequences he cannot but regret. Extreme care and forethought are, therefore, indispensably necessary before any attempt be made to form a ‘ Parish-Choir ’ of vested Choristers. Habit of Vergers, and Apparitors. The Vergers and Apparitors of Cathedrals, and of richly endowed Churches, as well as the ordinary Parish Sexton, seem to be the modern representatives of the ‘ Ostiarius ,’ the lowest of the minor orders of the ancient English, and present Roman, Church. The office of the Ostiarius was to open and close the Doors of the Church and Sacristy, to ring the Bell, and to open the Book for the Preacher. (Gibs. Cod. 99; Burn’s Heel. L. Phil. Hi. 71; Pugin's Glossary, p. 169). HABIT OF VERGERS, &C. 893 In the “ Celebralio Ordinum” of the Pontifical, we read: — “ Ostia*ium oportet percutere cymbaium, aperire Ecclesiam, et “Sacrarium, et librum tenere ei qui prsedicat.” Mu. Maskell remarks here : — f It was, doubtless, the duty of the Ostiarii. to ring ‘ the Bells of the Church, but not in the earliest ages : for then it * was part of the office of the Priest ; as Amalauius says, “ Ne despiciat Presbyter hoc opus agere, ut in isto sit imitator “ filioruni Aaron.” [De Ecc. Off. iii. c. 1.). — Mon. Rit. III. 162. %* The ancient Vestments of the ‘ Ostiarius’ were similar to those of the ‘ Exorcist ’ and ‘ Lector viz. the Albe and Girdle, or the Surplice. Before the 12tli century, Georgius says, they wore a plain Chasuble over the Albe; and, according to Honorius (of Autun), a Super humeral instead of the Chasuble, (Pugin’s Glossary, p. 154.) The Rev. J. Jebb remarks : — ‘ The Castors or Vergers of ‘ Exeter Cathedral used in ancient times to wear Surplices.’ (p. 215.).-* Choral Service. The modern Verger or Apparitor, in addition to carrying his staff of office (Verge, French, from Virga (a twig) Latin), usually wears a black stuff Gown. The Pew-Openers of some Churches also, in im- itation of these functionaries, wear Gowns* of a similar kind. The Sexton, as such, is not generally distin- guished by any Ecclesiastical costume, but in some instances, in Town and City Churches, he wears a black stuff Gown. [The Habit of the Beadle.'] The Parish-Beadle is not an Ecclesiastical Officer, as some have supposed. As his name implies (in Saxon, bydel from beodan, * These Gowns ore charged in the Catalogues of Robe-Makers, at the following prices : — A plain Stuff Gown from 305. to £2. 0. 0. Ditto with Tassels on Sleeves from 35s. to £2. 5. 0. Ditto with extra Collar, and Cloth facings £2. 5. 0. Ditto, Ditto of silk Velvet £3. 0. 0. 3 L 2 894 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. to bid), he is the Crier or Messenger of a Court, and is appointed by the Parish Vestry, upon whom it is his business to he in atten- dance : it is his duty also to give notice to the Parishioners when and where the Vestry meet, and to execute its orders as their Mes- senger or Servant. His costume, the gold-laced. Coat, and Cocked Mat, arc dependent upon the taste of the Vestry. In London, and large Towns, it is customary to swear in the Beadle as a Constable also. His appointment is during pleasure; and the office not being a freehold, he may he dismissed for misconduct at any time hy the Parishioners in Vestry assembled. (Burn’s Peel. L. Phil. i. 415. r. Steer’s Par. L. Clive. 121.). We must now record the opinions of Divines upon the general question of the propriety of having distinct Ecclesiastical Vestments. BrLLlNGER, in a reply to a Letter from Humphrey and Sampson, writes (May 1st, 1560.): — 'Whether is it ullotcable to * have a habit in common with Papists ? I answer, it is not yet < proved that the Pope introduced a distinction of Habits into the ‘ Church ; so far from it, that it is clear that 6uch distinction is < long anterior to Popery. Nor do I see why it should be unlawful i to use, in common with Papists, a Vestmeut not superstitious, but i pertaining to civil regulation and good order. . . .But after all, you i do not borrow auy Ceremonies from them : for the use of the t Habits was never set aside from the beginning of the Reforma- i tion ; and it is still retained, not by any Popish enactment, but by . virtue of the Royal edict, as a matter of indifference and civil , order. The use therefore of a distinctive Cap, or Habit , in civil , matters savours neither of Judaism nor Monachism ; for they , affect to appear separated from civil life, and make a merit of , their peculiar dress Whether the Dress of the Clergy is a t matter of indifference? It certainly seems such, when it is a , matter of civil ordinance, and has respect only to decency and , order, in which things religious worship does not consist.... , Whether a peculiar Habit, distinct from that of the Laity, ire-re ( ever assigned to the Ministers of the Church ; and whether it ought now to be assigned to them in the reformed Church ? I reply : that ‘ there was in the primitive Church a Habit peculiar to the Priests, ‘ is manifest from Theodoret. Bk. ii. c. 27. and Socrates. Bh. VI. 'c. 22. And no one who has but cursorily considered the Monu- * ments of antiquity, can he ignorant that the Ministers always ‘ wore the Pallium upon sacred occasions ; so that, .the distinction ‘of Habits does not derive its origin from the Pope. Eusebius ‘ truly bears witness from the most ancientwriters, that the Apostle ‘ John at Ephesus wore on his forehead a Petalum, or Pontifical ‘ plate (of gold) ; and Pontius, the Deacon, relates of the martyr ‘ Cyprian, that when lie was about to present his neck to the ‘executioner, he first gave him his Hirrus, and his Dalmatic to the ‘ Deacon, and thus stood forth wearing only his linen garment. * Besides, Chrysostom makes mention of the white Garment * of the Clergy ; and it is oertain, that when Christians were con- 1 verted from heathenism to the Gospel and the Church, they ‘ exchanged the Toga for the Pallium, on which account, when THE PROPRIETY OF VESTMENTS. 895 ‘ they were ridiculed by unbelievers, Tertullian composed his ‘ most learned treatise de Pallio ... I should prefer indeed, that no ‘ difficulties had been thrown in the way of tbe Clergy, and that * they might have been at liberty to follow the practice of the ‘ Apostles. But since the Queen’s Majesty only enjoius the wearing ‘ a Cap and Surplice , which, as I have often repeated, she does not ‘in any way make a matter of religion; and since tbe same things were ‘ in use among tbe ancients, when the afiairs of the Church were ‘ yet more prosperous than at present, and this too without super- * stition or any thing to find iault with ; I could wish that pious ‘ Miuisters would not make the whole advancement of religion ‘ to depend upon this matter, as if it were all in all ; but that they ‘ would yield somewhat to the present time, and not dispute ‘offensively about a matter of indifference, but modestly conclude ‘ that these things may be endured at present, but that an improve- ‘ ment will take place in time. For those persons come the nearest ‘to Apostolic simplicity, who are unconscious of these distinc- ‘ tions, or who do not urge them, while yet they do not act without ‘ a proper regard to discipline in the mean time .’ — Zurich Letter's. App. Let. III. p. 348.— 351. P. S. Hooker ( nb . 1660.) says, when discussing the use of the Surplice ‘ The attire which the Minister of God is by order to 1 use at times of Divine Service, being but a matter of mere for- mality, yet such as for comeliness- sake hath hitherto been judged ‘ by the wiser sort of men not unneccessary to concur with other ‘ sensible notes, betokening the different kind or quality of persons ‘ and actions whereto it is tied : as we think not ourselves the ‘ holier because we use it, so neither should they, with whom no * such thing is in use, think us therefore unholy, because we submit ‘ourselves unto that, which in a matter so indifferent, the wisdom ‘of authority and law hath thought comely. To solemn actions of ‘royalty and justice, their suitable ornaments are a beauty. Are ‘ they only in Religion a stain? “ Divine Religion,” saith St. Je- ‘ rome, speaking of the Priestly attire of the law, “ hath one kind * of Habit wherein to minister before the Lord, another for ordinary ‘uses belonging unto common life.” — Eccl. Polity Bk. v. c. 29. Bp. Sparrow { ob . 1685.) observes, after quoting the Rubric : — ‘ This appointment of decent sacred Vestments for tbe Priest in his ‘ holy ministration, is according to God’s own direction to Moses : ‘ Exod. xxviii. 2 And good reason. For if distinct Habits be ‘ esteemed a beauty to solemn actions of royalty and justice &o ‘ shall it not be counted as necessary, to preserve an awful respect ‘ to God’s holy Service and Worship ? And if such respect to ‘ God’s Service be indeed necessary then cannot sacred distiuct ‘ Vestments, nor sacred separate places, be thought unnecessary : * for by these and such like decencies, our awe to Religion is ‘ preserved ; and experience teaches, that where they are thrown ‘ off, Religion is soon lost. White Garments in holy Services ‘were anciently used: St. Chrys. Horn. 60. ad Pop. Antioch.’ (p. 249.) — Rationale: ed. 1722. Dr. Bf.n net (ob. 1728.) says ‘ Is it not decent and fitting, ‘ that the Habit of Ministers in the time of tbeir Miuistration should ‘be different from their ordinary Habit T. .. .A different Habit is 896 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ highly reasonable at different times ; and great solemnities require ‘a distinction of the Ministerial garb.... The next question is, ‘ whether this different Habit should be white or black. Our ‘ adversaries are for black ; as appears by their wearing black ‘ Cloaks. . . .Black therefore is used hy them as an emblem or sign ‘of gravity. But was black ever so used hy the Clergy in tbe ‘ primitive times ; particularly by Christ, and His Apostles, or those ‘of the inspired ages? We have sufficient proof, both from ‘Scripture and History, of the use of white garments. . . .white ‘ Habits were worn in very early times, not only by the newly ‘ Baptized Christians, but also by the Clergy in their ministrations; ‘ and this was done, in all probability, as an emblem or sign of the * purity of God, and His Angels, and the glorify’d Spirits, and ‘ which is also requir’d in the Ministers of the Gospel. I am sure ‘ that this very interpretation was actually put upon that colour by ‘ very excellent and holy ancient writers. And to this, I think, ‘ St John does plainly allude, when he says, “ And to her (viz. tbe “ Lamb's Wife ) was granted, that she should be arrayed in fine “ Linen , clean and white ; for the fine Linen is the righteousness of “ Saints.’’ {Rev. xix. 8.). So that we bave much better precedents ‘ for wearing white garments in token of tbe purity, than either our ' adversaries or ourselves can produce for wearing black Garments ‘in token of the gravity , of the Ministers of the Gospel And if ‘any white Garments at all are fit to be us’d, certainly they ought * t0 be Linen ones. For white Woollen would be thought ridiculous; ‘ and white Silk would bardly be afforded us. White Linen there- ‘fore is most suitable and proper.’ (p. 7 — 9.). — Paraphrase on the Book of Com. Prayer. Bingham remarks: — ‘The writers of the Romish Churcb, ‘ Baronius, Du Saussay, and Bona pretend that the Apostles ‘ themselves wore a distinct Habit in all their sacred ministrations. ‘Bona is very confident that St. Paul’s Cloak which he left at ‘ Troas, was a Sacerdotal Vestment. And others speak of St. ‘ Peter’s Planeta, which is said to be sent from Antioch to Paris, ‘ and kept there as a sacred relic in tbe temple of St Genouesa. ‘ And others mention St. John’s, which is said to be sent to ‘ Gregory the Great. But Bona himself will not undertake to ‘vouch for these, because of the silence of all antient writers about ‘ them. .. .Till some better arguments can be produced to support ‘it, I think it most prudent to leave uncertain tradition to shift for ‘itself, and proceed to an age wherein we bave more light and ‘ certainty in the matter. In tbe beginning then of the 4tb age, ‘ when the Church was quietly composed by Constantine, and ‘ settled in peace, we are sure a distinction was made in tbe Habits ‘and Vestments of Divine Service. For Constautine himself is ‘said to have given a rich Vestment embroidered with gold to ‘ Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem, to be worn by bim when be ‘celebrated the Service of Baptism.’... .(After discussing the question of at what Baptismal Service it was used, tbe Author pro- ceeds: — ) ‘Still, it was a Sacred Vestment to be used in the ‘ celebration of the Liturgy or Divine Service, which is enough to ‘ the present purpose. Not long after, we find Athanasius ‘accused by his enemies for laying a t ix upon the Egyptians to ‘ raise a fund for the Linen Vestments of the Church. The thing is ‘mentioned both by Athanasius himself, and Sozotnen, tbe one THE PROPRIETY OF VESTMENTS. 897 4 calling 1 them linen Sticharia, and the other linen Tunicles, which ‘are the same thing St Jerom often mentions this distinction ‘of Habits as generally observed in his time .... (Jerom says) ‘ what harm or enmity, I pray, is it against God, if I use a more ‘cleanly Garment? If a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, or any ' other of the Ecclesiastical Orders, come forth in a white Vest- ‘ment., when they administer the Sacraments? He says also in ‘ his epitaph upon NEPOTIAN, that NEPOTIAN for his ordinary ‘wearing used the Pallium, the Cloak that was in common use ‘among Christian philosophers: but in his ministrations he used ‘ a Tuniclc. ... St. Chrysostom also intimates that the Deacous ‘wore a peculiar Habit in their ministrations walking about ‘the Church in a white and shining Garment .... And so it is ‘remarked by Sozomen.... the Priests and Deacons were beaten ‘ and driven out of the Church, as they were in the Vestments ‘ of their ministration .... In like manner Nazianzen, in his ‘vision of the Church of Anastasia, represents the Deacons stand- * iugev ei.fj.aai trafKpavooaaiv, in their bright and shining Garments. ‘ And in his Will he leaves to his Deacon Evagrius a Kayaoov, ‘and a "STiyafiov, which were then the common names for these ‘ Surplices or white Garments used in Divine Service. The ‘ Council of Laodicea has two Canons concerning the little Habit ‘ called the Orarium, which was a Scarf or Tippet , to he worn 4 upon the shoulders, and might he used by Bishops. Presbyters, ‘ and Deacons, but not by Subdeacons, Singers, or Readers, who ‘ are expressly debarred the use of it in that Council. The 4th ‘ Council of Carthage speaks of the Alba or Surplice , which the ‘ Deacon is ordered to wear when the Oblation is made, or the ‘Lessons are read. The Council of Narbo mentions the same. ‘The 1st Council of Braga speaks of the Tunica, and the Orarium, ‘as both belonging to Deacons. And the 3rd Council of Braga 4 orders Priests to wear the Orarium on both shoulders, when they 4 ministered at the Altar. By which we learn that the Tunica or 4 Surplice was common to all the Clergy, the Orarium on the left ‘ shoulder proper to Deacons, and on both shoulders thedistinguish- ‘ ing badge of Priests. The 4th Council of Toledo is most particular ‘ in these distinctions. For in one Canon (which speaks of the restoration of an Ecclesiastic unjustly degraded: — ) it says.... ‘ If he he a Bishop he must receive his Orarium, his Ring, and bis ‘ Staff ; if a Presbyter, his Orarium and Planeta ; if a Deacon his ‘ Orarium and Alba. And in another Canon, that the Deacon 4 shall wear hut one Orarium, and that upon his left shoulder, 4 wherewith he is to give the signal of prayer to the people.’ (The Author then describes the Orarium, and the Dalmatic, (see postea), and concludes: — ). ‘I content myself with the proofs 4 already alleged, as sufficient to show that in the 4 th age a plain dis- ‘ tinction of Habits was made in the sacred Service of the Church.’— Antiquities of the Christian Church. Bk. xm. o. 8. §. 1, 2. Of more modern date, we have the opinions fol- lowing : — The Bishop of Winchester [Dr. Sumner) observes ‘ The ‘ use of particular Vestments in ministering is in itself wholly ‘indifferent. But the question became of importance in the 898 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘16th century, when the great principles of Church authority ‘ hinged upon it, and the distinction of a different Dress in different ‘parts of the Service tended to keep up in the puhlic mind the * superstitions of the Mass. (See Cardwell’s Preface to the * Two Liturgies of K. Edw. VI. Compared, p. xxi.”). It cannot ‘he said to he of little moment now, it' these matters, trifling and ‘ frivolous as they are, peril again the peace of the Church, distract ‘its Ministers from their proper business, sever the Pastor from his ‘ flock, and the people from the sanctuary.’ — Charge. 1845. (Quoted in Stephens’ Laws Eel. to the Clergy. 292). The Bishop of Exeter (Dr. Pliillpotts) remarks in the Heleton case we have before referred to : — ‘ There is one. and one ‘way only, in which all appearance of party and division among * the Clergy, in this respect (preaching in the Surplice) may he ‘ avoided. I mean hy all of them complying with the easy requi- ‘ sition of the Church, that they wear one and the same garb ‘ during the whole of the Communion-Sei-vics, including the * Sermon, which, I repeat, is only a part of that Service. And the ‘ experience which I have had, not only at Helston, hut at several ‘ other places, of the great practical evils and scandals which have ‘ arisen, and are daily arising, from suffering the law of the Church * in this instance to be set at nought, will make me earnestly call ‘ upon my Clergy throughout the Diocese to return to obedience to ‘ the law, hy wearing throughout their ministration that dress 'which is provided for them, the Surplice, if the use of the other ‘ more costly Garments be not. (as it is not desired by any that it ‘ should be) reviccd among ms.’ (Judgment, Oct. 23, 1844). His Lordship also states in a subsequent Charge, when speaking of the Surplice: — ‘The Surplice, a Vestment never used in the Pulpits ‘ of Home, and generally used in the Pulpits of this very Diocese, * within the memory of living men, was no sooner required to be ‘ worn hy all, in order to prevent the wearing of it hy any as a ‘party-badge, than a cry of “No Popery” was raised, — a cry ‘ so loud as to startle the whole Church — so potential, as for awhile ‘to paralyse the law, and disarm the Ministers. The Puritans of ‘old, if they had not much of reason on their side, had at least ‘some consistency. They objected to the Surplice altogether — ‘ to them it was a mere abomination, a “ Sacrament of abomination,” ‘ they called it ; the “Garment spotted hy the flesh,” defiled and ‘ tainted by association with the idolatries of Rome. They were ‘ not so absurd as to denounce the use of it as Popish, wheu used * where Papists never used it, and yet to cherish and honour ‘it in the self-same Service in which alone Papists had always ‘ used it. They did not, in short, prescribe it as Popish in the ‘Pulpit, and reverence it as Protestant in the Desk. This is an ‘extravagance which was reserved for the enlightened age in ‘ which we live, and pre-eminently for our own Diocese ; and your ‘ Bishop’s fault has heen, that he gave credit to the people for such * a measure of intelligence, at least, if not of Church-feeling, as ‘ would have protected them from falling into so gross an error. ' The truth is, that the Surplice may be considered as a signal illus- ‘ tration of the spirit in which our Reformers proceeded. They ‘ honoured the practices of pure antiquity, though they renounced * the innovations of Rome. Therefore, while they swept away a ‘ heap of consecrated Vestments, which had been introduced in THE PROPRIETY OF VESTMENTS. 899 ‘times of Popery, they retained this plain linen Garment, which ‘ was of ancient date even in the 4th century, for it is spoken of as ‘ tiie accustomed Habit of the Minister, in Divine Service, by ‘Jerome (Hieron. in 44 Exeeh., cited by Hooker. E. P. v. 29.), ‘and Chrysostom (Chrys. ad Pop. Ant. Horn. v. Semi. GO.).’ — Charge. 1845. (Quoted in Stephens’ L. Pel. to the Clergy. 292.). The Rev. W. Bates, speaking of the Clerical Dress of the first three centuries, observes ‘ (1) It is probable from analogy ‘that the Apostles and early Christian teachers would in their ‘ ministration adopt in some degree at least the dresses of the Jew- ish Priesthood; in fact, Hkgesippus, as related by Eusebius ‘{E. II. ii. 23.), says that St. James "never wore woollen, but ‘ linen garments." Ecsebius also in his notice on a fragment of ‘the letter of Polycrates, bp. of Ephesus, to Victor, bp. of Rome, ‘ says, that “St John was a priest that bore the sacerdotal plate, ‘we-raW’ (E. H. III. 31. y. 24.); and Epiphanius refers to ‘ Eusebius and Clemens Alexandrinus, and says that James the ‘ brother of our Lord “wore the sacerdotal plate (ireTaXou) upon ‘ his forehead.” {liter. 78. 29. 2).— (2) It is but reasonable to sup- ‘ pose that the Clergy would not at a time when they were scarcely ‘tolerated by the state, publicly wear distinctive Garments ; but ‘as we know that they had expensive vessels and Ornaments for ‘their Churches, it is not improbable to suppose that they also ‘had Vestments for the Officiating Clergy. — (3) It appears from ‘Clemens Alexandrinus (a. d. 192 — 217. Peed. in. 11.), that the ‘ whole Assembly -were to to engage in Public Worship “in a be- ‘ coming dress,” cut oXurixevoi kou/h'lws,. . . .’ (The author then pro- ceeds to quote the evidences showing that a peculiar Dress was worn by Ministers in the 4 th century : but the same has been already cited from Bingham (see above) ; so we will pass on to his conclusion, thus! — ). ‘There is nothing to show what were the ‘peculiar forms of the Vestments of the Clergy of the first Jive ‘ centuries, but it is probable that in the 6 th century the ancient ‘ Greek and Roman costumes were adopted both when ministering ‘ in Church and in civil life : (1) Because from having been super- ‘seded by the barbarian invasions, they were recommended ‘for their antiquity, and were hallowed by previous use. (2) Be- ‘ cause their use prevented the adoption of the garb of the monks ‘ to which they were so much opposed. (3) The assumption of ‘this costume was greatly facilitated by being combined with the ‘insignia and ornaments of the Jewish Priests. The Bishops, * Patriarchs, and Metropolitans, adopting the Pallium of Tertul- ‘ LIaN, called tofiotyopiov , and the Monks the TeTpayi ovov of Greek ‘ writers, which was afterwards known as the Cappa or Cowl. ‘ Bellarmin lias ascertained that with a few characteristic changes, ‘ the distinctive badges of the several orders had remained sub- ‘ stantially the same. This Costume was originally white, and, ‘ notwithstanding a temporary change to black Robes at Constanti- ‘ nople, has always been the prevailing colour during Divine ‘ Service. In the 7th, and 8th centuries, red, blue, and green, were ‘ worn as Clerical Vestments. Innocent III. prescribed white, ‘ the emblem of purity, for Confessors and young people; red as a ‘ suitable memorial of Apostles and Martyrs ; green for Sunday ‘and Feast-days; and black, for Fasts, Funerals, Lent, &c. ; violet ‘also was worn at particular periods of the year.’ — Lectures on Christian Antiq. and Ritual, p. 82—84. 900 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. The Rev. R. Hart remarks: — ‘Putting the Apostolic age ‘ entirely out of the question for lack of any tangible evidence, * there is reason to belipve that the earliest outward distinction ‘ between the Laity and Clergy consisted in the colour and material ‘ of the Dresses worn by the latter rather than in their form. The ‘ birrus, pallium, eolobium, ovarium, and tunic, were all of secular ‘ and heathen origin, but at an indefinitely early period : the ‘ Christian Priesthood adopted the use of white linen as their ‘distinctive badge, and for several ages their Vestments were ‘invariably of this simple material, ludeed, this was generally * the case till about the 7th century, though there may have been ‘ a few exceptions to the rule. In the 4th century the Emperor ‘ Constantine gave to Macarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, a ‘ splendid Robe embroidered with gold to be worn by him when he ‘administered the Sacrament of Baptism: but both Bishops, ‘ Priests, and Deacons, usually wore the “ Candida vest is” the Xevuov ‘ Xitwi/ktkov, the “Alba Testis;” and Gregory of Tours, who ‘flourished as late as the year 596, describes the Priests and ‘ Deacons of his time as being arrayed in white linen. Iu process of ‘time, however, the primitive simplicity was laid aside; the most * costly substances (silk and velvet, jewels and gold) were lavishly ' employed in ornamenting the dresses of the Priesthood, and all the ‘colours of the rainbow were brought into requisition. .. .The * Vestments, See. of the Clergy were hallowed by the benediction ‘ of the Bishop : they could be handled only by those who were at ‘ least in minor Orders, and when worn out , they were to be burnt, * and the ashes thrown into the Piscina.’ (/;. 253). — Keel. Jtecords. The Rev. J. J ebb, remarks : — ‘ The Vestment and Cope were ‘ignorantly objected to by mauy after the Reformation, as Popish ‘ ornaments. It is sufficiently well known that these as well as ‘ the other Ecclesiastical garments retained, or enjoined by our ‘ Church, were common also to the Eastern Church, and were as ‘ ancient, as any ritual record now extant; that they are Catholic ‘ and Anglican, and therefore ought to be retained. I must ‘ honestly acknowledge, that I can find no argument to justify the ‘ disuse of these ancient Vestments, as expressly enjoined by au- ‘ thorities to which all Clergymen profess obedieuce, except that ‘rule of charity which, as Bp. Beveridge’ (or rather as Tillotson said to Beveridge) ‘expressed it, is above Rubrics; that loving ‘regard for the edification of the people, to which every rite and ‘ceremony should tend, [p. 217).. ..Some Clergymen desirous of ‘accuracy in these matters have mistakenly copied the corrupt ‘ pattern of the Roman Church ; couceiving, that in so doing, they ‘ are following what is primitive, though without the least intention ‘of sympathizing with her errors; for instance, they have been * disposed to shorten the Surplice, and to narrow the Scarf, &c. ‘ Now from comparison of the various dresses of the primitive ‘ Church with those of Rome, it appears that the tendency of the 4 Western Church has been to curtail the flowing Vestments of the ‘ East, and make up for what they want in majesty, by the frippery ‘and effeminate addition of lace, la s ‘t, 2ongitudine circiter cubitorum 2, latitudine verb sesqui- J cubitali, et in duobus angulis ejus anterioribus assuantur funiculi ‘ commode longi ut reduci (revocati) ante pectus queant, et cum iis | fieri nodus possit : in medio crux acu pingatur unciarum duarum, “ long’e ab extremitate digitis duobus in parte superiori : extremi- ‘tates illius, proeterquam ex ea parte quae collum ambit aliquo modesto opere ornari possunt.” — ib. p. 2J0. Bonanni, after quoting- the words of Amalahits as given by Maskell above, cites Honorics of Autun. thus;— “ Hinc humerale, ‘in Legge Ephod, apud nos Amictus dicitur, sibi imponit, et illo caput, et collum, et humeros, unde et Humerale dicitur, co-operit, ‘et in pectore copulatum duabus vittis ad mammillas cingit.^ (Gem. Anim. 1. i. c. 201.). He says:— the Amice was in use in the Ambrosian Church in a. D. 374, and was then placed upon the Albe (Camisce), not the Albe upon the Amice; in proof of which he quotes the Ordo Romanus ; “ In primis Cumisia, et cingitur supra, “deinde Linea cum Cottis serica, et Cingulum, post lisec mittitur “ Anagola,” that is, the ‘Amice.’ Bona, when describing the Amice (De Reb. Lit. 1. 1. c. 24.), says it should be called not ‘ Anibolagium,’ but Anabolagium, or Anaboladium, which properly signifies “Amictorium lineum foeminarum. quo humeri operi- “untur,” and corresponds with the word ' ‘ Amiculum.’ Some have thought that the Amice took the place of the Mitre, called ‘ Mitella,' used by the Aaronic priesthood ; others, that it is equivalent to the ‘ Superhumeral,' although Dphaxtps is of a different opinion. Bonanni concludes that it is the Jirst Sacer- dotal Testment . — Gerarchia Ecclesiaxtica , i. p. 176. Dr. England, Bp. erf Charleston , says: — ‘The Amice is a large ‘piece of linen, not unlike an open kerchief or shawl, first placed ‘on the head, and next on the shoulders, and then brought round ‘ to the throat, and fastened by strings to its place.’ — (Quoted in Lewis’s Bible, Missal , aud Breviary, ii. p. 374. n.) Dr. Rock writes: — ‘The Amice is a piece of fiue linen, in the ‘ form of an oblong square. The Priest rests it for a moment, like ‘a veil, upon the crown of his head; and spreading it upon his ‘shoulders, recites the following prayer It is not without a ‘a mystic signification Formerly, the Amice was worn upon ‘ the head in the manner of a Hood, while vesting, and until the ‘ Priest arrived before the Altar, when it was lowered, and thrown * back upon the shoulders, a custom which is still retained by the ‘ Capuchin aud Dominican Friars, as well as in some particular ‘ Churches on the Continent. By soma Ecclesiastical writers, the ‘ Amice has been likened, and not without reason, to the Ephod of ‘ the Jewish priesthood ; others have assimilated it to the sackcloth ‘of penance which the prophets of the Old Testament so often ‘ recommended to the people. The corresponding garment in the ‘Coptic Liturgy of St. Basil, is called ‘ Epomis “ Epomis sive “ Amiculum instar Aaronis Sacerdotis quern Deus in Tabemaculo “legali Superb umerali Amictum esse ^ussit.’’ (Abcsebah apud * Renaudot i. 178.) . . . .The term ‘ Amice? is derived from the Latin THE APRON, OR GREMIALE. 921 ‘verb Amicire, to cover; being introduced in the 8th century to ‘cover the neck, which until that period was usually bare.’ (p. 422). — Hierurgia. Mr. A. W. Pugin describes the Amice as: — *A white linen ‘napkin or veil, worn by all Clergy above the four minor orders. * It is the first of the sacred Vestments that is put on, first on the ‘ head, and then adjusted round the neck, hanging down over the ‘ shoulders. . . .Amices were formerly richly ornamented with gold ‘and embroidery. {Georgius de Lit. Horn. Pont. i. 183.) ‘ These embroidered or apparelled Amices were generally used in 1 the English Church, previous to the reign of Edward VI. . . .The ‘ Apparels were sewed ou the Amices, and when these were fas- ‘ teued round the neck, they formed the collar which is invariably ‘represented on the effigies of Ecclesiastics. .. .When the Amice ‘ was pulled up over the head, the Apparell appeared like a ‘ Phylactei'y. (p. 29.).... The Amice was sometimes called the ‘ Superiiumeral.’ ( p. 197.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. • In the “ Voyages Liturgiques,” Par le Sieur, de Moleon, it is said that : — ‘ The Celebrant and bis assistants at the Mass wear ‘apparelled Amices and Albes, and keep the Amice on the head all ‘ the time, lowering it only from the ‘ Sanctus* to the Communion.’ (p. 87 .) — & Paris, a. d. 1718. THE APRON, or GREMIALE. The Apron of black silk or satin now worn by the Bishops of the English Church, a9 a part of their ordinary every day costume, is derived, probably, from the Gremial, which was formerly placed in the lap of a Bishop when sitting during the celebration of the Mass. It may possibly owe its origin to the Limits of the Victimarii. Du Cange describes the Qremiale as : — ‘ A piece of silk placed ‘ upon the Bishop’s lap whenever be sat down during the intervals ‘ of high Mass.’ — In voce. Fosbroke says: — ‘ Limits, Limum, Limocincti — An Apron ‘ descending from the navel to the ankles, commonly bordered with ‘purple. It was the only Vestment of the Victimarii. It was ‘interwoven with many colours, and was called Licium, when ‘ worn by the servants of Magistrates, who were called Limocincti .’ (p. 948). .. .Under ‘ Apron,’ he writes Properly A apron ; the ‘Anglo Saxon ‘ bearmcloth.’ It is the Limvs of the Popaa and Victi- * marii. Isidore, and John de Janua, call it a Garment reaching ‘from the navel to the feet used publicly by Cooks and Servants. ‘ The latter says, that at the bottom was a purple border. ... In the ‘ 15th century it was short and narrow; in the 16th. and 1 7th. as * now. From servants and rusticka it came to he of costly materials. ‘—Du Cange; Strutt, ii. 284—286. 376.’ (p. 935.)— Ency. of Antiquities. 922 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Mr. Pugin merely says:— ‘The Gremiale is a silken Apron ‘placed in the lap of a Bishop, in sacred functions, when sitting.’ ip. 138 .) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. THE BANDS. The Bands are but a corruption, or rather a very circumscribed remnant of the ancient * Falling- Band,' introduced in the time of Henry VIII., and which became fashionable in the reigns of Elizabeth, and the Charles’s. The diminished form, now so familiar to us, was retained as part of the full-dress costume of the two professions of Divinity, and Law, as well as of the Scholars of some ancient foundations, to mark that the practice and pursuit of learning were above being affected by the caprices of fashion, which at that age were particularly extravagant. At the present day, Bands are still worn by members of the Church, the Bar, the Universities*, and cer- tain Public Schools j yet more from long accustomed usage than from the principle advanced in the pre- ceding age. The Bands, as we may see, are not exclusively Ecclesiastical; nor is there any Canon or Rubric of the Church of England enjoining their adoption ; so that there are many Clergymen who repudiate their use altogether. Old fashioned custom is, indeed, their sole defence for Clergy, and Laity ; and the only difference that appears to be recognized is, that those worn by Ecclesiastics are of much smaller dimensions, and with narrower hems, than those * In tbe “Excerpta” from the Oxford Statutes, we read: — “ Insuper statutum est, ouod omnes Academici cujuscunque ordiuis ‘autgradus fueriut, collan vulgo vocato Band, juxta exemplar, ‘ turn in privato turn in publico se induant.” ip. 14 3.)~Parecbola, Sfc. tit. xiv. 18-28. In the “ Excerpta” from tbe Cambridge Statutes , we find a passage in the ‘ Orders and Regulations which passed the Senate ‘ May 11th and June 2(iih, 1750,’ thus: — ‘ Every Fellow-Commoner ‘ shall immediately provide himself with his proper Gown, Cup, and ‘ Band, in which "he shall constantly appear, under the penalty of ‘ 6-v. 8 d. for every off-nce.’ ( p. 21.) — Excerpta e Statut is Academia Cantab. Sfc. a. d. 1819. THE BANDS. 923 assumed by the Bar, and in Public Schools. The various coverings for the neck may be traced through the modern Cravat or neckerchief, of the 17th, and 18th centuries ; the Ruff, Failing-Band, and Upright- Band, of the 1 6th century; the Tippet, and Partelet, of the 15th century ; and Gorget, of the 13th century; lip to the ancient Amice. In the earliest ages, the neck was usually bare ; and the Falling- Band, thought by most writers to be the original of the Bands now worn, was merely the shirt-collar turned over upon the shoulders, as is frequently done in this very day with the shirt-collars of young boys. Examples may be seen of the practice adopted after the middle ages in the portraits of Hammond, Sanderson, and George Her- bert, occasionally to be met with. (Du Cange.) It would almost seem, that our present pattern of Bands is but the portion of the old Falling-Band , left visible, when the Cloak, Cape, or other kind of Mantle, was put upon the shoulders over it. The proper material for making Bands is a species of lawn called ‘ Indian Grass.' Fosbroke, explaining the terms ‘ Band.' and * Collar,' states: — • ‘ Taylor the Water Poet says, that Henry VIII, was the first ‘ who wore a Band , & fallinp Band, plain, with a hem, which ‘ increased afterwards to Ruffs. They were worn by men and * women, even when Ruffs were in fashion ; and were sometimes ‘propped up by wires; when they fell upon the shoulder, they * were called falling Bands. The Band was at first but a shirt ‘ collar . The Neckerchief succeeded in the 17th. century, in ‘ women.— T aylor’s Works, ii. p. 167 ; Strutt, ii. 369.’ (p. 933.). . Under ‘ Cravat- Neck-cloth' Fosbroke remarks: — ‘This was in- ‘ traduced by Charles II. and his courtiers. Itentirely superseded * the Shirt-Bands, which resembled the Collars of children’s shirts * thrown hack — Strutt. 354.’ (p. 940.) . . . .Under 1 Neck,' he says : — ‘Among the ancients, hoth sexes, like the modern Orientals, had ‘commonly the neck naked .... Towards the close of the 13 th ‘century, the ‘ Gorget’ was introduced,’ (from the Freuch gorge, a ‘ throat). ‘ It was wrapped two or three times round the neck, und ‘ then, being fastened with numerous pins, was raised on either ‘ side of the face, so as to bear some resemblance to two horns. ‘ Afterwards, the Gorget was hrought up over the chin, and probably ‘the Barb derived its origin from it ... .Towards the end of the ‘ loth century, the Partelet, which answered the purpose of the * Gorget, came into vogue. Sometimes it had sleeves. The Tippet 1 sometimes resemhled the Partelet, and was worn about the neck. ‘ It was sometimes large and long like a mantle ; at other times it ‘ was narrow, and rarely covered the top of the shoulders. .. .The 924 the ornaments of the minister. ‘ fa'JT , which seems to have superseded the Partelet and Tippet, , came , lnt ° fashion soon after the middle of the Kith century. It * 7 a ®. Snowed Irom the men. The Bands were in contemporary , fashion, and were sometimes propped up with wires ; and at other i t i mes , ft;1 L u P° n ^ shoulders, and were denominated Falling i j. n ^. The Rvffjf,an d the Bands , were succeeded by the Neclier- t It was sufficiently large to cover the bosom and shoulders at the time ofits introduction, and was anciently worndouble. The borders were also often decorated with lace, or needle-work. Strutt. 111. 107. 368. 370.’ (p. 951.). — Ency. of Antiquities. , The R. Hart says: — ‘ Bands of the same form as those used in the Church of England are worn by the French, Russian, and even by the Jewish Clergy. At what period they were first introduced I have never been able to learn.’ ( p. 25 7).—Eccl. Records. Dr, no°K: writes: — ‘This part of the Clerical Dress, which is too well known to need description, is the only remaining relic of the ancient Amice. The Band is not, however, an exclusively « “Jemal Vestment, being part of the full Dress of the Bar, and of , . e Universities, and ofother bodies in which a more ancient Habit is retained, as in some Schools of old foundation.’ (p. 65.) — Church Dictionary. 6th. ed. ( , The Rev. J. Jebb observes: — ‘The Bands, though of no an- ^ cient origin, not perhaps in this present form dating higher t than tlie Restoration, {as used in the English Church), are nothing t ptore than a modification of the Collar, common to all classes in former times. They are not a peculiarly Ecclesiastical ornament. < *." e y are "’ orn hy Lawyers, and Clergymen always ; but often by Parish -Clerks ; and ought to he hy all Graduates, at least, in the Universities. Formerly Undergraduate members also wore them, as do the Scholars of some Colleges (Winchester for example) still. As long as they are retained at all, it would be but decent that all lay members of Cathedrals should appear in ‘ them.’ (p. 216 .) — Choral Service. The Rev. M. Plummer remarks:— ‘The Bands , so univer- ‘ sally worn hy the Clergy, are not mentioned in any Rubric or ‘ Canon. They seem to he the remains of the Jailing Collar, worn ‘by Hammond, Sanderson, and Herbert. They are by no ‘ means puritanical, being worn by the French Clergy, as well ‘ as the English.’ (p. 36 .). — Observations on Booh of Com. Prayer. Dr. Burn says: — ‘The Band is no part of the Canonical ‘ habit, being not so ancient ns any Canon of the Church. Abp. ‘Laud is pictured in a Ruff, which was worn at that time both ‘ by Clergymen and Gentlemen of the Law ; as also long before, ‘during the reigns of King James I, and of Queen Elizabeth. ‘ The Band came in with the Puritans and other Sectaries upon the ‘ downfall of Episcopacy, and in a few years afterwards became the ‘common habit of men of all denominations and professions; ‘ which giving way in its turn was yet retained by the gentlemen * of the long robe (both Ecclesiastical and temporal), only because ‘ they would not follow every caprice of fashion.’ — Eccl. Lam. bil. iii. 356. THE CASSOCK. 925 Mr. Gilbert J. French observes: — 'Forming a part of the Clerical aud Legal costume, the Bands (or Band) cannot he coii- ‘ sidered of very great antiquity. They appear to have been adopted, along •with the black Gown, after the Reformation ; and ‘ have been ever since retaiued, by the Clergy of England. The ‘ best material for Bands, is French Cambric — particularly that ‘variety of it called ‘clear lawn,*. .. .Though now made in two ‘ parts, the ancient Band had no division .... Care should he taken ‘that the separate portions fall iierfectly straight and smooth.... ‘ (not) gape or over-lap.’ (p. 169 .)—On Some of the Minor Accessories, ^'c. Mr. Hone writes : — ‘The lace Neck-cloth became in fashion in ‘the time of Charles II, and continued to be worn in the two ‘following reigns. . . .Thiers, in his ‘ Treatise on Perukes ,’ informs ‘ us that no Ecclesiastic wore a Band, before the middle of the last ‘ century, or a peruke before the Restoration. The Clerical Band, ‘ which was first worn with broad lappets, apparently had its ‘ origin from the falling Band, which is divided under the chin.’ (col. 170.).... The Author also quotes the following from Pepys’s -Diary, after remarking ‘ In October he put on a new Band, which ‘ pleased him so much, that he writes : — “ I am resolved my great “ expense shall be lace- Bands, and it will set off any thing the “more.” (col. 171.). — The Year Book. In “Popular Tracts” we read with respect to Bands: — ‘ Little can be said of their history ; they look like the remains of ‘ the broad falling Collar worn hy many of our Divines since ‘the Reformation, or perhaps of the Amice adjusted round the ‘ neck. Bands are worn by the Ecclesiastics in France and Italy, ‘ as well as by those in England.’ (p. 3.). — No. II. Pub. by A. Hol- den, Exeter. THE CASSOCK. Tunica talaris . — (Soutanne Fr. — Sottana. Ital.) Tlie Cassock, from the French 1 Casaque ,’ has long been the usual under-dress of Ecclesiastics when engaged in their public functions. It is worn over the ordinary private dress, immediately beneath the official robes. In our Universities, the Cassock forms a part of the full dress costume of the Clerical body ; and is then worn with the Academical Gown. The colour of this Habit with the Clergy of the Church of England is black, and the material the same as that • Mr French advertizes them of the ‘finest French clear lawn,’ of medium size at 6s. 6d. per set of ‘ 6ix pairs’ : and 1 Band-cases' at 3s. each. 3 N2 926 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. of the Gown , viz. silk, or stuff. The Cassock has the appearance of a long and loose Coat, reaching to the ankles. It has a standing upright collar, and close sleeves, and is generally double-breasted, double indeed the whole length in front, one part over- lapping the other so that the opening is concealed. It is secured at the neck by a button and loop ; — a button on each side of the collar, and a loop at the extreme points of the lapels: round the waist it is fastened by a broad band of the same colour, and like material, as the robe. In the Romish Church, the Cassock is single-breasted, and fastened from the throat to the feet by numerous buttons extending the whole length : the collar and sleeves are similar to those used by the English Clergy j but at the back, the Cassock is very full, from the loins downwards, and trails a considerable length on the ground. The band, moreover, round the waist is not so commonly adopted : the colour of the Romish Cassock also varies, particularly on the Continent, where the members of the different Cathedral and Collegiate establish- ments are often distinguished by the colour of their Cassocks , a large portion of which is generally visible below the Albe, Surplice, or other superior Vestment. The Cassock, made after the fashion of the Romish garment, without the train, has latterly been assumed by many of the English Clergy as their undress, or out of doors Habit, conceiving it to be the Scholars Gown, or ‘ Cassock prescribed in the 74th Canon, thus : — * All Deans, Masters of Colleges, Archdeacons, and Preben- * daries, in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches (beiug Priests or * Deacons) ; D. D ; LL. D. or D. C. L ; M. D ; B. D ; M. A ; and ‘ LL. B. or B. C. L ; having any Ecclesiastical living, shall * usually wear Gowns with standing Collars, and sleeves straight ‘ at the hands or wide sleeves, as is used in the Universities, with ‘ Hoods, or Tippets of silk or sarcenet, and Square- Caps. And ‘that all other Ministers. .. .shall also usually wear the like ‘ apparel as is aforesaid, except Tippets only. ... In private * houses, and in their studies, the said persons Ecclesiastical ‘ may use any comely and scholar-like apparel, provided that it ‘ be not cut or pinkt ; and that in public they go not in their ‘ Doublet and Hose without Coats or Cassocks.’ — Can. 74. {See Ordinary Apparel, postea.) *,* This Canon is derived from the “ Book of Advertisements” of Elizabeth, A. n. 1564 : where wc read * Item, that all Deans of THE CASSOCK. 927 ‘ Cathedrall Churches, Masters of Colleges, &c. shall weare in their * common apparell abrode a syde Gowne with sleeves streyght at the 4 hand without any duties in the same ; and that also without any 'fallinge cape. . . . And if tbeire abilitye will not suffer to buye 4 them longe Gowne s that then they shall weare their shorte ‘ Gownes agreeable to the forme before expressed.’— C ardwell’s Doe. Ann. i. 294 — 5. Archdeacon Sharp commenting uponthe74th Canon says:— 4 There are some parts of our peculiar dress, which will at all ‘ times, and in all places, sufficiently distinguish us from laymen, ‘and which may without the least inconvenience he worn on 4 every occasion that calls us abroad, and even upon journeys. 4 Such hadges of our order for instance as the Band, Mat-band, or 4 short Cassock : which latter I the rather mention here, hecause it 4 falls in with one of the directions in this Canon, which is yet 4 very practicable as well as decent : viz. “ uti tie in publicum nisi “ promissis vestibus induti prodeant which promissce vestes 4 are interpreted in a marginal note by Cassocks, and in the English 4 version of the Canon by a paraphrase, which implies a liherty of ‘wearing them short.’ — (The Archdeacon writes in a note: — ) 4 1 read promissis from the Latin edition of the Canons in Dr. Wil- 4 kin’s Concilia, instead of preniissis, as it stands in all the other 4 Copies I have seen.’ ( p. 286.) — On the Rubric and Canons. Charge, a. d. 1752. The adoption of the Cassock , however, as the ordinary , or undress , Habit of the Clergy of the Church of England has by no means become general. We may add, however, that the Cassock has very lately been assumed by the Choristers of a few of our Churches ; and by them worn of some chosen colour under a short Surplice. The following are the various opinions we have met with bearing on this Vestment. Bingham observes : — 4 The Caraealla, which some now call ‘ the Cassock, was originally a Gallic habit, which Antoninus 4 Bassianus, who was born at Lyons in France, first brought into 4 use among the Roman people, whence he had the name of Cara- ‘calla, as Aurelius Victor informs us. ( Epit . Vit. Carae.). 4 It was a long garment reaching down to the heels, which Victor ‘says the Roman people put on when they went to salute the 4 Emperor : but whether it was also a Clerical hahit in those days, 4 may be questioned, since no ancient author speaks of it as such : 4 hut if it was, it was not any peculiar habit of the Clergy ; since 4 Spartian, who lived in the time of Constantine, says, they were 4 then used by the common people of Rome, who called them Caracallee 4 Antoniniance, from their Author : 44 Ipse Caracalli nomen accepit 44 a Vestimento, quod populo dederat, demisso usque ad talos, 44 quod ante non fuerat &c. { Vit. Carae. p. Ibl.—Antiq. of Christian Church. Bk. VI. c. IV. §. 20. (See Fosbroke’s account infra.) 928 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Foseroke describes the Cassock as : — * A garment of the 16th century, worn over the douhlet. That of Kin- Edward VI. was ot murray velvet, embroidered all over with damask, -old, and pearls, having upon the hreast eleven buttons of -old, and loops °”5 e f* me ' be,n ? of l>ttle fla--ones, cheynes of -olde.” From MchoUs 1 roorts.s,ons it appears to have been indiscriminately used w^i the coat or jacket. (Strutt. 356 f—Encg. of Antig. nt .i* Th ‘ S a V tl,or considers the Curacalla to be ‘ a kind of Mantle, very arge, reaching to the heels, with a Hood.... S‘ TT s^p.^t m its original state, it reached only to the IS’ ?r dltt *; , ' ed I Ilf l t e from the J/.cerna, except in having < t (I ^ nc - Afirel. Viet. c. 21. Spart. in Anton. Carac. ; Strutt. In trod, ci.).— ibid. Fosbroke says with respect to ?A„Z m „ l n nck ; Bishops purple ; . Gardmals, scarlet ; and Popes, white. In tbe Church of Eu-land 6th ed *,*% ^ 3 1 * he three ° rderS ° f tbe CleT SJ-— Church Diet. The Rev. J. Jebb says : — ‘ Much has been said lately as to the expediency ot reviving the use of the Cassock, as the distinct , ,‘ eBS of the cl( ; r S7- But not only is the recommended fashion of , 1 ,, 1S garment, but also its adoption without the Gown, contrary to ( all precedent in the Church of England. It is. indeed, pa/t of there-ular full-dress of the English Clergy: yet, I apprehend, , though many ancient lustances exist of the Cassock being omitted, ( there is none of its being worn without the Gown. The latter, indeed 1S the custom very much abroad: but we have no right to conform ourselves to customs, which imply no Catholicity, , and w i?’ ch ’ at aB f en ‘ s - are unsauctioned by the authority of our own Church. The Cassock, too, abroad, is not exclusively a , Cl erie al dress. At the Spanish Universities, it was worn in many instances by the undergraduate Students. It is most vexatious , . th!,t men distract the attention of Churchmen from more , lra P 01, tant considerations, by insisting upon such ill considered , a ? d unsightly innovations, which, after all, are hut the coreuptions of comparatively nioderu times.’ (p. 223 .)— Choral Service. The Rev. M. Plummer remarks that:— ‘The Cassock and Grown seem to be merely a black Albe, and black Surplice.’ ip. 36.) — Observations on Book of Com. Pr. ^ THE CHASUBLE. 929 The Rev. J. H. Pollen, describing the labours of the Clergy during the visitation of the Cholera in Leeds in 1849 — 50, writes : — ‘ They . . . .went always with Calomel and Cayenne pepper, spirit ‘ of Camphor, and other remedies in their Girdles. The Clergy ‘went in their Cassocks, (p. 129). .. .There was not much time to ‘ lose. At times a messenger from other districts came, the pressure ‘ being great. One would follow in the Cassock as he was. A ‘few weeks back such a garment had not been ventured on, now every one in the crowded street gave place in silence.’ (p. 131) — Sar. of Five Years at St. Saviour's Leeds. Mr. G. J. French says : — ‘In form the Romish Cassock * differs materially from that used by the English Clergy. It is ‘ much longer, particularly behind, reaching to, and sweeping the * ground, and is usually fastened from the throat to the feet by ‘ buttons. It has become a habit with us, to look upon the Cassock ‘ rather as a portion of the Academic robes, than as a distinct and ‘ separate article of dress. It is rarely worn apart from the Gown, ‘and is almost invariably made of the same material. This, ‘perhaps, more than auy other reason, has led to its frequent ‘disuse, since the texture is much too slight and thin for ordinary ‘ wear in our cold northern climate. It is the form of the garment, * rather than the texture of its material, which constitutes the ‘ Cassock , and there is no reason why those of the English Clergy ‘ should not be made of comfortable and economical English broad ‘cloth. The modern frock is a diminutive of the ancient Cassock.’ (p. 154.) — Bcmarks on some of the Minor Accessories, Sec. In “Popular Tracts” we read: — ‘The Cassock is the under * Dress of all orders of the Clergy ; it resembles a close coat, banded ‘round the body, and has a single upright collar.’ (p. 10) — No. II. Pub. by A. Holden , Exeter. Dr. Rock, the Romanist, speaking of the robing of the Priest, ‘ says : — ‘ Before he robes himself in the Sacerdotal Vestments, the Priest, clad in his Cassock, washes the tips of his fingers, &c. ‘ ( P- 421) . . . .The Cassock is common to every order of the Clergy, ‘only varying in colour according to the dignity of the wearer. ‘Priests wear black; Prelates, and Bishops, purple ; Cardinals, ‘scarlet; and the Pope, white. Over the Cassock is placed the ‘Amice.’ (p. 422.) — Hierurgia. The Chasuble, or Vestment. Chasible, Chesable, Chesiblc, — Casula, Casubula, Casibula, Pcenula, Planeta, Amphimalum, Amphibalum, $awo\iov, 4>cvw\lou. — (Chassuble. Fr. — Pianeta. Ital) The Chasuble, a name derived from the Latin Casula or Casubula , ‘a little house/ appears to be the ancient Roman JPccnula which succeeded the Toga ; 930 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. it was a large and pliant garment covering the arms and entire body down to tile feet; when laid flat on the ground it was perfectly circular, and had an aper- ture in the centre for the head. In the middle ages it assumed the oval shape of the ‘ Vesica Piscis ’ for Clerics, and hung down before and behind in long rounded points: the shorter diameter of the oval passing across the shoulders to the elbow, so as to leave the arms less encumbered ; it was sometimes arranged in folds over the arms : but in more modem times the Romish Church have cut away the sides entirely. The Greek Church retains the ancient large and full robe. The Chasuble was very rarely seen with a Hood ( Cappa , or Capsa). It was said to represent the ‘ Tunic of the Ephod ’ mentioned in Exod. xxviii. 31, 32. The Chasuble was made of plain or embroidered cloth, velvet, figured silk, baudekyn, and cloth of gold and silver. The colour varied according to the Canonical season, and was either black cloth of gold, &c. blue, green, purple, red, white, violet, yellow, &c. The Chasuble was also frequently ornamented with bands or orphreys of various colours, embroidered, or of lace, in emblems, and devices : and occasionally with pearls and jewels : these bands were sometimes straight, pallium shaped ( Y )> or 1'ke a cross or crucifix ; and appeared on the back or front, or both. The Chasuble was originally worn by Laics and Clerics ; subsequently by Bishops Priests, Deacons, and the inferior Orders. Its use is allowed in the Church of England , being prescribed at the administration of the Lord’s Supper by the Rubric, under the term ‘ Vestment,' as the proper Habit for the Celebrant Priest; and likewise for Bishops in all their public ministrations. (See supra p. 809, 857, 884). We find it enjoined likewise in Abp. Winchelsey’s Constitution: (see supra p. 801). Custom , however, has for a long time com- pletely set aside the use of the Chasuble or Vestment among the Clergy of the Church of England.— Bonanni, Du Cange, Georgius, Ferarius, &c. THE CHASUBLE. 931 In Elfric’s Canons (a. d. 957) we read: — ‘He shall have his 'Mass Vestment, that he may reverently minister to God, as is ‘becoming; and let not that Vestment of his be sordid, at least ‘not to the sight.’— Johnson’s Canons, &e. vol. i. p. 397. Ang. Catli. Lib. In Abp. Gray’s Constitutions , (a. d. 1250) it is directed:— ‘...To be repaired by the Parishioners, we ordain, that all our Parishioners be so well informed in the following particulars, as ‘ that they do all in every respect observe them, that is, the Chalice, ‘ the principal Mass- Vestment of the Church, with the Chesible, the ‘Alb, the Ainyt, the Stole, the Maniple, the Girdle, with three towels and corporals, and other decent Vestments for the Deacon, and Subdeacou, ike.’ — (ibid. ii. 170.) Fosbroke, describing the Planeta , mentions it as ‘ The same ‘ as the Chesible. It was the Roman Peenula, properly so called. The Jloma Sotcrranea of Busies gives us designs of the first Christians of both sexes eutirely covered with the Chesible, so like a sack, that this vast robe turned up over their shoulders, when ‘ they wished to lift up their arms. This gave occasion to the hollows in the side made in the Romish Chesibles. It was a kind ‘ot Cope, open only at the sides, worn at Mass. The. bottom in the • Priest’s was round, in the Deacon’s and Subdeacon’s square. It was also called Planeta , and fastened with a buckle.— Enc. Lewis’s lhanct. 141 ; Du Cange v. Casula, Castibula.'—Encu. of Antia. p. 954. 1 The Rev. TV. Bates says ‘ The Chasuble is by way of excel- lency called the Vestment, because none of the Clergy inferior to a Priest, to whom it is as»ig*ued at his ordination, cun wear it ‘and he only at Mass. It is called by the Latins the Casula, t Casubulum, or Casibulum, as it were, ‘a little house,’ (casa), or cov- | eriug of the body : for it covered the whole body from the ’neck to the feet, and had only one aperture through which the head was passed. (Isid. lib. xix. Orig. 24.). The Greeks called it Planeta, which signifies any thing circuitous or wandering, because from its circling amplitude it eveloped the whole figure, and the or QeiuoXwi/. It was the large Poenula oi the Roman Senators, which began to supersede the loga about the time of Augustus, and was subsequently the Dress ot all respectable citizens. Previously to the 6th century it was worn by laymen as well as Ecclesiastics, but it was continued by the latter, when abandoned by the former; aud shortly af'ter- wards, as appears from the 3rd Council of Toledo (a. D. 589), became the peculiar Dress of a Priest. Some writers suppose that tile original Lotus Clavus of the Roman Dress suggested tile idea of ‘adorning sometimes the front, and sometimes the back, with a coloured Cross. This form of the Vestment being found incon- venient to the Priest, when celebrating the Eucharist, if he had no attendants to hold up the sides, so as to leave his arms free, it became customary to have them gathered up on his shoulder- and at a subsequent period in the Latin Church it was cut into the shape, wliicii it assumed when held or gathered up; but the Greeks retain the original form to the present time- It now han°-s | down both in front and behind the person of the wearer fn ‘the English Church the Bishop is directed to wear it when cele- 932 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘brating the Eucharist, and in all other public ministrations ; hut ‘ Priests can only use it when officiating at the Sacrament of the ‘Lord’s Supper.’ (p. 312.)— Lectures on Christn. Antiq. and Ritual. The Rev. TV Goode, speaking of the Ornaments of the Paro- chial Clergy required by the Rubric, says of this robe:— ‘The 44 Vestment.” is considered to be what is called the Chasuble. The “ Tunicle” what is sometimes called the Dalmatic. And I admit ‘ that these things are enjoined hy the Rubric. So far as tbe letter * of the law is concerned, the matter seems clear. Aud I must add, 4 that at the time the direction iu this Rubric was first given, it ‘seems to have been, at least as respects the Cope, acted upon.’ [p. 31.).— Ceremonial of Church of England. The Rev. R. Hart observes ‘ Tbe Chasuble (casnla) in its ‘ ancient form, if laid flat upon the ground, would have appeared 4 like an oval, more or less pointed, with a hole in the ceutre, where 4 the longer and shorter diameters intersect. Through this nper- 4 ture the head of the officiant was passed. It fell down before and 4 behind about as low as the knees, sloping off to a point, aud 4 covered the arms about as low as the elbows. In modern times it * is rounded before and behind, and cut to the shoulder, so as to 4 give full play to the arms. This was the principal Vestment 4 worn by a Priest when he celebrated Mass. It had always a rich ‘border: sometimes also a collar There was a broad stripe in ‘front, aud a Satiu Cross on the back, extending throughout tbe ‘whole length and breadth; each being of the same embroidered * pattern or rich material ; and like some of the other Vestments, ‘it was not unfrequently powdered with flowers of gold.’ Trans, of Korf. Archeeolog. Sue. Vol. 1. (Quoted in STEPHEN’S Book of Com. Pr. E. H.S. p. 386.) Mr. Hart also observes that:— ‘The * Chasuble was ancieutly circular, with a hole in the centre for the ‘head to go through, and unless it was held up, entirely covered * the arms and a great part of the body. Afterwards it was found 4 convenient to have the Chasuble stitched iu artificial folds, so as ‘ to leave the arms at liberty. In more moderu times it has been * cut at the shoulders.’ (p. 26G.)—Eccl. Records. Dr. Hook describes this Vestment, thus: — * Chasible ( Chasuble , ‘ Casula). The outermost Dress formerly worn hy the Priest in 4 the service of the Altar, hut not now used in the English Church. 4 Iu the time of the Primitive Church, the Roman toga was 4 becoming disused, and the Pwnula was taking its place. The ‘ Panula formed a perfect circle, witb an aperture to ndmit the ‘ head in the ceutre, while it fell down so as completely to envelope ‘ the person of the wearer. A short Paenula was more common, 4 and a longer for the higher orders ; it was this last which was ‘ used by the Clergy in their Services. The Romish Church has 4 altered it much hy cutting it away laterally, so as to expose the * arms, and leave only a straight piece before and behind. The 4 Greek Church retains it in its primitive shape : the old Brasses ‘in England also shew the same form ever since the Reformation.’ —Church Diet. 6th. edit. The Rev. TV. Maskell shews us in the ancient Ordination Service ‘ Cclebratio Ordinum ,’ that the Chasuble was then used : THE CHASUBLE. 933 The Rubric reads : — “ Tlic vestiat eos Casula circa humeros, &c.” In the Exeter Pontifical the reading is: — “ Postea imponat cuilibet “successive Casulam usque ad scapulas, Arc.” And further on we find : — “ Tunc trahat unicuique Casulam in sinu per seapu- “ las, See." — J Ion. Ritual, iii. 209. 221. The Rev. \V. Palmer observes: — ■' The Vestment, or Chasible, ‘called in the Western Churches, Casula, Planeta, Poenula, 1 Amphibalum, See, and in the Eastern, QatvoXiov, or (pevwXiov, ‘ has been used by the Ministers of the Christian Church from a ‘period of remote antiquity. Gregory of Tours speaks of the ‘ Casula of Nicetius, Bp. of Lyons, ahout A. D. 560 ; IsiD. Hispal ‘ mentions its use in Spain ; and SULPITIUS Severus alludes to the 1 Amphibalum ' a Vestment of Martin, Bp. of Tours, a. D. 380, a ‘ word which is used by a subsequent Galilean writer as a name for ‘ the Casula. In the patriarchate of Constantinople and the East, ‘the Phenolion has been used from time immemorial; aud the ‘ Monophysites of Antioch and Alexandria have retained the use of ‘it since their separation from the Catholic Church, a. D. 451. * file former call it ‘ Faino the latter, ‘ Albornoz.' . . . .It was a ‘ Garment extending from the neck neurly to the feet, closed all the ‘ way round, with only one aperture, through which the head ‘ passed. \X hen the Liturgy or other Offices were to be performed, ‘ this Vesture was lifted up at the sides, while the front and back * still remained pendent. . . .The Greeks still retain the ancient form 1 of the Vestment. The Latins in process of time divided this gar- ‘ment at each side for the sake of convenience. Originally the ‘ Casula was worn, not only by Bishops and Presbyters, but by all ‘ the inferior Clergy; but in the course of ages it became peculiar ‘ to Presbyters and Bishops. The Casula vuried in its materials ‘ and decoratiou with the means of those who gave it. Sometimes * it wus made of wool or hair : sometimes of linen, silk, velvet, or ‘ cloth of gold. It was adorned at pleasure with needlework, gold, ‘silver, and jewels. It admitted various, colours as white, black, ‘ green, yellow, purple, blue. Most anciently, however, it was always white, which was the favourite colour in primitive times, ‘ as denoting internal purity. . , .The Vestment is appointed by the English Ritual to be worn by Bishops in celebrating the Eucha- ‘ rist, and in all other public ministrations ; in which, however, they ‘ may use a Cope instead of it. The Vestment is also appointed ‘ to be used by Priests in celebrating the Euchurist, but on no other occasion. The Rubrics containing directions for the use of the ‘ \ estment have been mistaken by some persons, wiio have con- ‘founded the Vestment with the Cope: but this is evidently an ‘error; for A LESS E uniformly translates Vestment by the word ‘ Casula, while he distinguishes Cope from it by the appellation of Cappa.’ — Oritj. Lit. Vol. ii. 308. Dr. Burn speaks of the Chasuble thus ‘ Casula, the Chcsible, ‘ was a garment worn by the Priest, next under the Cope; and is ‘said to have been so called, as being a kind of cottage (as it were), ‘or little house, covering him. (Lynjdw. 252.)’.— Eccl. Lam. Pliil. i. Mr. Gilbert J. French says: —‘The Chasuble varied in material and decoration with the wealth of the Church. Like 934 THE ORNAMENTS OP THE MINISTER. ‘ most other Ecclesiastical Vestures, it was, at first, white, but was ‘afterwards made in various colours; decorated with embroidery ‘of gold and silver, or studded with jewels, upon a ground of ‘ velvet, silk, or doth of gold. Such was the Vestment used in the ‘ Western Church for upwards of oue thousand years ; and such is ‘ the Chasuble of the Greek or Eastern Church at the present day. ‘ But the ceremonies introduced into her services hy the Church of ‘ Rome, and the extraneous and elaborate ornaments heaped upon ‘ her vestures, necessitated a great alteration in the form of this 1 robe. When made of simple and flexible materials, the folds ‘of the Chasuble could be easily gathered over the arms or shoul- ‘ ders of the Priest ; but when rich damask, or heavy cloth of gold, ‘ was employed, the assistant Deacons or Acolytes were accustomed ‘to elevate the sides of the robe to permit the free use of his arms, * during certain portions of the Service. To supersede the necessity ‘for this practice; a change in the form of the Chasuble was * effected, hy cutting away the sides from the shoulders downwards. ‘ The Romish Vestment now consists of two apron-shaped parts ‘ meeting and joiuing at the shoulders (a circular aperture heing ‘left to pass the head through) ; that portion in front reaching to ‘ the knees, and that behind, a few inches lower. The corners are ‘rounded; and the whole sometimes elaborately ornamented with ‘needlework. A large Latin Cross is formed on the hack with ‘ gold, silver, or silk lace ; and the material is frequently some rich ‘ parti-coloured silk of damask, or brocade. The Vestment appears ‘to have found little favour in the eyes of the Reformed Clergy; ‘and neither it, nor the Alhe, have been, at any period, eveu in ‘ partial use. They seem to have regarded both as peculiarly ‘ distinctive of the Romish Church, probahly from their having ‘been altered from their primitive forms to adapt them for the ‘ceremonies of that Church.’ (p, 172.). — Remarks on the Minor Accessories, &e. In the “Hierurgia Anglicana” we have examples of the Chasuble heing worn hy Bishops, and Priests, at the celebration of the Holy Euctiarist ; and of its use at Ordinations. It also speaks of its being worn in the time of Elizabeth, and after the Restora- tion ; and that it was excepted against by the Puritans: and that it is enjoined by the Act of Uniformity, the existing Rubrick, and hy the present Bp. of Exeter, when provided by the Churchwardens. — (p. xvii.). — Published, by the Ecclesiolog. Soc. In “Popular Tracts” we read: — ‘The Chasuble or Vest- ‘ ment, which likewise boasts of very high antiquity, is an oval ‘dress, put on over the head, and hanging down iu long points ‘ before and behind ; over the arms it gathers iu a few graceful folds. * The material should be velvet or silk; the colour varies.’ (p. 5.) — Pub. by A. Holden , Exeter. Romanist writers very fully describe this Vest- ment. Dr. Rock says : — ‘ The sixth and last garment which the Priest, * who is about to offer up the holy sacrifice of the Mass, puts on, ‘ is called the Chasuble , from the Latin word Casubula, or * Casula. This upper Vestment descends both hefore and behind, THE CHASUBLE. 935 ‘ sotne way down the person of the wearer. In England, France, ‘and Belgium, aCross is marked upon the back ; whilst in Italy, * and through other quarters of the Catholic world, it is more ‘ generally affixed upon the front part. .. .Amongst the Vestments ‘which were assigned by the Almighty to the Jewish Priesthood, ‘when employed in sacrificing, we discern a garment corresponding ‘ to our Chasuble, in the “ Tunic of the Ephod all of violet, in the “ midst whereof above shall be a hole for the head, and a border “ round about it woven, &c.” (Exod. xxviii. 31, 32). The Chasuble ‘derives its origin from a species of Cloak which, amongst the ‘ aucient Romans, was called Pcenula, and is supposed, by many ‘commentators on the Scriptures to be the same kind of mantle ‘mentioned by St Paulin 2 Tim. iv. 13 “the Cloak that was “left at Troas with Carpus.” The Toga was substituted (by) the ‘ Pcenula, which, in shape, was perfectly circular, with an aperture ‘ in tbe middle, to admit the head, while it muffled the arms and * entire person of the wearer ; and precisely sucb was the ‘ Chasuble worn by the Priest at Mass, during more than a thousand ‘ years There were two kiuds of Pcenula ; the more ancient ‘one was short and narrow, and usually reserved for travelling; * the other descended to the feet, and was very ample, and became ‘ the ordinary, and at first the distinctive habit of the Senatorian * order ; but, in process of time, was assumed by every person of ‘respectability throughout the Roman Empire. From this, and * not from the Toga, nor the shorter Poenula, is derived our * Chasuble. In the Greek Church, this Vestment still retains its * ancient form of a large round mantle, which covers tbe whole ‘ figure, and not unfrcquently is starred all over with a multitude of ‘ small crosses. Up to the 6th century, the Panula was a Civic ‘ Habit, and worn without discrimination by Laymen and Eccle- ‘siastics. But after the fashion of the age had invented some ‘ other Vesture which superseded in its turn the Panula or ‘ Chasuble, it continued unaltered in its form amongst the Clergy, ‘ and was, in fine, employed by them as indicative of their order in ‘ society .... For a thousand years, the Chasuble has been assigned * to the Priest, at the time of Ordination, as the Habit peculiar to ‘ his Order, when about to offer up the holy Eucharistic sacrifice ‘ . .. .The graceful amplitude of ber flue old Chasuble , the shape of * which the Church had borrowed from the Poenula. .. .never pro- ‘ duced any inconvenience to the movements of the sacrificing ‘Priest because the cloth of which it used to be made was ‘ always so thin and limp as to fall in light and easy folds upon the ‘ wearer.. . .But towards the end of the 16th century stuffs of a ‘much thicker web, and therefore not so easily bent into soft folds, ‘were employed for Vestments. Before, therefore, the hands and ‘ arms could be at liberty, it was requisite, either that some one ‘ should hold it elevated, or that it should^ be gathered up and 'folded on both sides above the shoulder. To adjust in this way a * Chasuble of heavy damask, or of cloth with thick embroidery ‘ and ornament, was almost impossible. As a remedy to the incou- ‘ veuience, it was gradually abridged of its flowing and majestic ‘ circular dimensions, and cut so as to assume the form it naturally ‘ took when supported by an attendant Minister, or collected aud ‘ gathered on the shoulders of tbe Celebrant. . . .The Vestments and ‘ ceremonies of tbe Mass, as celebrated at the present day according 936 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘to the Greek rite, will exhibit the Chasuble in its primitive form, ‘and exemplify the manner in which its ample and graceful folds ‘ were ad ju.sted upon the shoulders of the Celebrant. Our English * term Chasuble for this Vestment is derived from the Latin Cam- l bula ovCasula, which signifies a small dwelling. Sucb a name * was affixed to this Garment on account of its fulness, and because ‘it encircles the whole of the person, and thus constitutes as it ‘were, a shed or covering for the entire figure. It is frequently ‘ denominated Planet a, an appellation borrowed from the Greek ‘irXavirrn — and which likewise bears a reference to its circling ‘ amplitude, and so forcibly expresses the wideness of its dimen- sions; for the word originally signifies any thing that is circuitous ‘ or wandering. More than one spiritual meaning bas been ‘attached by Ecclesiastical writers to the Chasuble,, our countryman ‘ALCUIN (cir. a. D. 800.) regards it as emblematical of charity, ‘for, as this virtue covers a multitude of sins, it is happily figured ‘ by the Chasuble, which encircles the entire person of the Priest. ‘It is likewise said by St. Germanus, to represent the purple ‘ garment, which the soldiers threw around our blessed Redeemer * when he was going to immolate Himself a sacrifice for man upon * the Cross ; and is therefore very properly assumed by the Priest ‘ when about to reiterate that sacrifice. . . .Marked as it is witb tbe ‘sign of tbe Cross, the Chasuble is likewise said to express the yoke ‘of obedience.’ (p. 436 — 446.) — llierurgia. Mr. A. \Y. Pugin writes : — ‘ Chasuble, Chesable, Chesible, also * called a Vestment. The upper or last Vestment put on by tbe * Priest before celebrating Mass. It was originally a Vestment ‘ worn by Laymen as well as Ecclesiastics, and common to various * orders of Churchmen, as may be seen by the Sacramentary of ‘ S. Gregory, and the most ancient Roman Ordinals. Deacons ‘ and SlJBDEACONS wben officiating at the Mass, took off tbeir ‘ Chasubles, to enable them to perform their functions with greater * ease, and this consideration led eventually to the almost exclusive ‘ use of the Dalmatic and Tunic, for the Deacons and Scbde acons * while officiating. For some centuries, the use of tbe Chasuble , * (with tbe exception (that) during Lent in some of the Roman and ‘French Churches, the Deacons assist in Chasubles folded up, * and hanging over the left shoulder, after the manner of a Stole), ‘ has been confined to Priests and Bishops, and worn by the ‘ former, over the Albe ; and by the latter over the Albe, Tunic, and ‘ Dalmatic.... The primitive form of the Chasuble was perfectly ‘ rouud, with an aperture in the centre for the head. In this form ‘ it covered the whole body ; and according to 6ome authors, its ‘ very name is derived from “ Casula,’’ a small house. During ‘the middle ages, the shape was that of tbe ‘ Vesica Piscis.’ It ‘then hung down before and behind in long points, and was ‘gathered up in a few graceful folds over the arms (brachia tota ‘saltern obtegant). This was the shape of tbe Chasubles we see ‘sculptured on Tombs of ancient Ecclesiastics, or engraved on ‘ Sepulchral Brasses. This may be considered as the perfection of ‘ the Chasuble. It was tbe form adopted by tbe Cburcb when it * had ceased to be a Vestment of common use and convenience, and ‘ wben it became, by custom and enrichment, particularly set ‘ apart for the solemn offices of the Cburch. It was tbe form that ‘ prevailed, without exception, throughout every country of THE CHASUBLE. 937 * Europe, during - ttie ages of Faith ; and it was only lost in England 4 through the overthrow of the ancient Religion, and on the Conti- 4 nent by the decay of zeal, and the fabrication of Vestments being 4 transferred from the direction of Ecclesiastical authority into the ‘hands of mere tradesmen, who altered the traditional form of the 4 Church to suit their own profit and caprice The clipping ‘principle, in the course of little less than two centuries has 4 reduced the most graceful Vestment of the Church, into a most 4 hideous shape, with a front resembling the body of a wasp, and a ‘back like a board, without a vestige of its ancient beauty or 4 mystical signification. . . .The present forms of Chasubles are not ‘ only hideous, but they destroy the meaning of many of the ‘ceremonies of the Mass. The very Rubrics of the Missil and 4 Pontifical are worded with reference to a large and a pliant* ‘Chasuble Down to the latter part of the IGth century, and 4 even the commencement of the 17th, no example can be found in ‘sculpture, painting, or engraving, of a stiff and small Chasuble , 4 the least and latest coming down to the beud of the arm, and 4 pliable in texture. .. .and the large Chasubles continued in use ‘in many of the great French Churches, till the Revolution of ‘1790 The present reduced and stiff Chasubles have not been * introduced by any authority ; they have gradually degenerated 4 from the ample and mystical form, partly through the neglect of 4 Ecclesiastical solemnity, partly through the ignorance or interest 4 of those to whom their manufacture has been entrusted in latter 4 times, and partly from the use of heavy and stiff stuffs, which 4 rendered the old form exceedingly inconvenient. ... If it be asked, 4 why the pointed form should now be received in preference to 4 the circular, it may be readily answered, that while the Chasuble 4 was round it was not an exclusively Ecclesiastical vestment; 4 but that no sooner was it entirely appropriated to the use of those 4 who ministered sit the Altar, than it received the same Jisli shape 4 which, with trifling modifications, it retained till the general 4 decay of Ecclesiastical traditions .... Chasubles were richly ‘decorated with embroidery, and even jewels, at a very early ‘period; .... but Chasubles without Orphrei/s were frequently 4 used, even down to a very late period, us may be seen by sepul- 4 chral brasses of Priests, ’file oldest Orphrcys were in the form of * In a Note is added : — * * * 4 The stiffness of modern Vestments is 4 almost as great a defect as their form ; indeed, the unpliant 4 nature of their material has, in a great measure, led to the ‘reduced front. They cannot be too pliable either for convenience 4 or dignity A pliant Vestment will last three times as long as a 4 stiff one; it accommodates itself tp all the positions of the body; 4 it will fold up and carry without injury, neither will it tear and 4 fret the Antependiuuis when it comes in contact with ihem. 4 Plain velvet or silk , with a thin lining, are the best materials for 4 ordinary use. A Vestment made of these, in the old form, 4 with embroidered or lace orphreys, will not be more expensive, 4 but wear far longer, and be easier for the Celebrant than those 4 stiff shell-looking Chasubles made on the Continent, which stand 4 out like boards, and crack when they are bent.’ ( p. 59.)— ibid. 938 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ a Pallium, anfl came down in a V shape from the shoulders, back ‘ and front The Roman Chasubles had only a Cross in front, and ‘ a long straight orphrey behind, which custom has been retained ‘ in Italy to the present time. The modern French Chasubles ‘ have the Cross behind ; and those Chasubles made in England, in * the latter part of the 15th, and the commencement of the 16th ‘ century, were the same .... Our Lord crucified is usually embroi- ‘ dered on the Cross, with angels receiving the sacred blood in ‘ Chalices, Saints under rich canopies, and other devices. The 1 older orphreys were narrow, and far more elegant ; frequently ‘enriched with pearls and jewels. The modern enrichments of ' Chasubles are, for the most part, rather gaudy than rich, and are ‘ devoid of symbolical intention. .. .Perhaps the hest material for ‘ Chasubles is plain velvet, on which the embroidery of the * Orphreys tells with surprizing effect and richness; hut when ‘ cloth of gold, or figured silks are used, the pattern should be 6mall ‘ in design, as the plain surfaces between the orphreys are neces- ‘sarily small.’ (In a note. — 1 Powdering would be better than ‘ Diaper for a CHASUBLE, and the reverse for a COPt’). ‘ And a ‘ large pattern cut up has a confused and disjointed appearance ‘ HoNORitrs Bp. of Antun, (says) “This Vestment is called “ Planeta from its winding border, which is raised up on either “ side on the arms. .. .to it is fastened at the top, the Rumerale." . . . .SlCARDUS, bp. of Cremona, adds, that “the colour is “changed according to the season. White is used at Easter, “ because the Angels appeared in white; red at Pentecost, because “ the Holy Ghost descended on the Apostles in the form of fiery “tongues.”.... It is generally thought that the Paenula, which ‘ St Paul left at Troas with Carpus, was the Sacrificial Vestment. ‘ In the year 474, we find mention made of the Chasuble, under its ‘present name of Casttla... In France, in the 6th century, the 1 Chasuble had something peculiar appended to it, called Capsa or ‘ Coppa, which appears to have been a Rood, similar to that of the ‘ Cope, and for the same purpose. For in the life of S. C J.sarius Bp. of ‘Arles, this kind of Chasuble is called Casula Proccssoria, or ‘Processional Chasuble. .. .The Chasuble was anciently, as now, ‘given to Priests at their ordination All Liturgical writers * agree that the original shape of the Chasuble has heen altered. ‘ Anciently .... this Vestment had no aperture made for the arms, ‘ but was full all round, and reached down to the feet, so that the ‘arms could not he exerted, except by doubling the horder of ‘ the Vestment over to the shoulders, or arranging it in folds upon ‘the arm The word Casula was corrupted into Casubula , first ‘ by the French, who use the word Chassuole as a vernacular word ‘to the present time. The word Casula also meant the hooded ‘ dress of a Monk. To conclude, the Vestment was sometimes ‘called Amphimalum, (or Amphiballum), in allusion to the ‘ Priestly Vestment of the Mosaic Dispensation, with pomegranates ‘figured round it. Durandus says: — “Over all the priestly “garments is put on the Casula , or Chasible ; called ‘Casula,’ “ quasi parva casa ; and by the Greeks, Planeta, from the “winding border of the vestment.”. .. .Mauri's Sarti dc Veteri * Casula Diptycha, 1753,’ writes : — “ The form of the ancient “ Chasuble was very full, covering the person all round, without “ any opening for the arms, except by raising the Vestment in THE CHIMERE. 939 “ folds upon the arm. . .. Subsequently, however, it has been so cut “and curtailed, and changed in shape, as, when compared with “ the shape from which it has degenerated, to be hardly worthy of “ the samo name ; as Lindanus, de Panop. Evan. IV. c. G6. com- “ plains.” .... The front does not appear to have been made ‘ differently from the back, till the 12th, or 13th century In ‘ fine, it is impossible to find a single example, prior to the middle ‘of the 16th century, of any but the large Chasuble , more or less * enriched; even down to the last century, the Chasubles were much ‘larger and pliable; and it is only within a comparatively few ‘years that they have been deprived of every vestige of their ‘ancient beauty and dignity, and brought down to their present ‘ hideous and unmeaning form.’ (p. 66.) — Glossary of Eccl. Orna- ment and Costume. In the “Voyages Lituroiques " par Le Sieur Df. Moleox, we read of Chasubles of the ancient form being used in France, where they were sometimes called Planeta ; the more ample Chasuble was only used on certain Feast days, the smaller kind being ordinarily adopted : the sides of this robe for the conve- nience of officiating were sometimes lifted up by the Deacon, and Subdeacon. The ends of the Chasuble before and behind usually terminated in a point. The Chasuble was sometimes worn over the Surplice; and in a few places put on in processions. — a Paris. THE CHIMERE. Mantelletum. The Chimere was a kind of Mantle worn by Bishops in the middle ages ; of a scarlet eolour; anil without sleeves, openings being left for the arms to pass through. Bishop Short, when relating the objections made by Bishop Hooper to the use of so gay a Vest- ment, says, that the * Chimere was then generally * made of some coloured material, and that the Cope ‘ was still used.’ (Hist, of the Ch. of England, p. 181.) The result of Bp. Hooper’s scruples was that the scarlet robe gave way to the black satin Chimere , as now used ; and it is to this robe that the lawn sleeves are attached. The Chimere is not prescribed by any rule or authority, and it owes its continuance amongst us to eustomary usage . — Du Cange. Bo - nanni &e. Dr. Nicholls (ab. 1712.) says: — ‘The Chimere , or garment ‘over the Rochet in the Popish times, and in Edward Vlth’s reign, 3 o 940 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ was of scarlet; which made Bp. Hooper scruple at it, as too light a ‘ robe for the Episcopal gravity : but this in Queen Elizabeth’s time ‘ was changed into a Ckimere of black satin. Vid. Body's Hist, of * Convoc. p. 143. — Com. Prayer in loco.’ Wiieatly (o5. 1712), when speaking of Pochettes, remarks: — ‘‘Since that time (the Reformation), Bishops have not used to ‘ wear them (the Rochettes), at any place out of the Church, except ‘ in the Parliament House, and there always with the Ckimere ‘ or upper robe, to which the Lawn Sleeves are generally sewed ; ‘which before and after the Reformation, till Queen Elizabeth’s ‘time, was always of scarlet silk; bnt Bishop Hooper scrupling ‘ first at the robe itself, and then at the colour of it, as too light and ‘gay for the Episcopal gravity, it was changed for a Chimere ‘of black Satin.’ (p. 103.) — Rat. III. of B. of Com. Prayer. The Rev. R. Hart says: — ‘The Chimere belonged ancientlv * rather to the Civil than the Ecclesiastical costume of a Bishop, ft ‘ is now a black satin dress with lawn sleeves attached to it, and is ‘ worn over the Rochet : but before the Reformation it was of red ‘ silk.’ (p. 256.) — Eccl. Records. Dr. Hook describes the Chimere as: — ‘The upper robe worn * by a Bishop, to which the lawn sleeves are generally attached. ‘ Before and after the Reformation, till Queen Elizabeth’s time, the 4 Bishops wore a scarlet Chimere or garment over the Rochet, as ‘ they still do when assembled in Convocation ; but Bp. Hooper, ‘ having superstitiously scrupled at this as too light a robe for * Episcopal gravity, it was in her reign changed into a Chimere of ‘ Mack satin. The red Chimere is still worn by the English Bishops * in Convocation .’ — Church Diet. 6th Edit. The Rev. W. Palmer cites Dr. Hody as saying in his History of Convocation , * that in the reign of Henry VUIth. onr Bishops ‘ wore a scarlet garment under the Rochette : and that in the time ‘of Edward VT. they wore a scarlet Chimere, like the Doctor’s dress ‘ at Oxford, over the Rochette : which in the time of Queen ‘ Elizabeth, was changed for the Black Satin Chimere used at ‘ present. The Chimere seems to resemble the garment used by ‘ Bishops during the middle ages, and called Mantclletum ; which ‘ was a sort of Cope with apertures for the arms to pass throngh. ‘ The name of Chimere is probably derived from the Italian * zimarra, which is described as, “ Vesta talare de’ sacerdoti e de’ “ chierici.” — Orig. Lit. ii. 407. In “Popular Tracts” we read: — ‘As for the black satin ‘ Chimere which, with the Rochette, our Prelates generally use, * instead of their more Rubrical Dress, it seems to have been derived ‘ from a Mantle, or Cope, with arm-holes, which the Bishops wore ‘during the middle ages.’ — No. II. p. 6. Pnb. by A. Holden. Exeter. THE COPE. 941 Colobium, see Dalmatic. THE COPE. A nabata, Cappa, Pluviale (sc. Pallium ), Cappa pluvialis, Pallium, Chlamys , Mantum. — (Cliappc. Fr. — Capo. Ital.). The Cope is a very ancient vestment derived, like the Chasuble, from the old Roman paenula. It takes its namefrom the Cappa, or Hood, which was originally a very necessary and highly ornamented appendage. The Cope was made of various materials, sueh as silk, satin, cloth, or velvet, and of different colours. It was like a Cloak with a Hood, which latter might be real, or merely ornamental; and it was fastened across the breast by a clasp or morse*, plain, jewelled, or enamelled. The Cope, when laid flat, was, in shape, an exact semicirele. It was frequently ornamented with various deviees, as of armorial bearings, em- blems, &e.; and was embroidered in gold, silver, and coloured silks over the surfaee of the Cope, and of the Hood. It was sometimes decorated with a band or orphrey on the straight edge, formed of cloth of gold of various eolours and deviees, and enriehed with jewels; on the circular edge might occasionally be seen fringes, gold and silver bells, and pomegranates. The Hood , as before observed, was not always adapted to use ; it originally lifted up over the head, and was made pointed at the bottom : flat ornamental Hoods are not considered older than the 14th century. The Cope used in the Choir was at first distinct in its character from that used in processions. The Cappa Choralis was much more ornamented than the • Morse is derived from the Latin ‘mordere,' to bite. They were often made of precious metals, enamelled and set with jewels; and sometimes contained representations of sacred mys- teries. 3 o 2 942 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Cappa Pluvialis ; eventually the name Pluviale was indifferently applied to all Copes, whether choral or processional. Choral Copes were richly ornamented as early as the 8th century. All Cantors were habited in Copes when officiating ; and this vestment was worn by all the assistant Clergy in the Choir on great Festivals. The Festivals were sometimes distin- guished by the number of Copes used. Gerbert men- tions, thatinhis day (born, A . d. 1720.) several Festivals were observed as “ Festa quatuor Capparum,” on which the invitatory at Matins was sung by four Cantors in Copes. The Cappa Magna worn by Romish Bishops at the present time was originally a large Cope, but resembling the ancient Cope only in respect of its Hood, the long train being of com- paratively modern introduction. This vestment is of common use in the Romish Church, being worn by Popes, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Assistant Clerics, and Cantors. Copes were among the chief ornaments retained by the Reformed Church on the revival of the Book of Common Prayer in the reign of Elizabeth ; but although enjoined for general adop- tion, they were seldom usedout of Cathedral Churches ; and the wearing of them was oneof the charges brought by the Puritan party against Abp. Laud. Among the Chapel ornaments taken out by Charles I. on his jour- ney to Spain, two. Copes are mentioned (Dodd’s Ch. Hist. V. 128.) Tfie rich Copes belonging to the English Churches were nearly all destroyed in the reigns of Henry VIII, and Edward VI ; yet there are some now extant in various parts of the kingdom. Copes may still be legally used by the Clergy of the Church of England. They are enjoined by a Rubric of the Liturgy of the 2nd year of Edward VI., — our present rule for the Ornaments of the Minister, — to be used at the“ Communion Service;” and similarly, by the 24th Canon (of 1603—4). They will be .found prescribed likewise by the Book of Advertisements (see supra p. 824.), and by Abp. Winchelsey’s Con- stitution (see supra p. 801.). The Rubric, however, in THE COPE. 943 Edward’s First Liturgy has in this respect become obsolete. But at ‘ Coronations ’ the higher Ecclesi- astical dignitaries still wear Copes : and in a proces- sion of the Canons of St George's Chapel , Windsor, (Ashmole’s ‘ Order of the Garter 557), they are represented in Copes with rich orphreys. — Du Cange. Georgius, &c. In Hubert Walter’s Legatine Canons at York. a.d. 1 195; it is stated : — * We ordain tliat Priests go not in Copes with sleeves, * but in apparel suitable to their order.’ — (J ohnson's Canons &.c. Vol. ii. p. 78.), Again, in Walter’s Canons at Westminster, a. i). 1200, we read: — ‘Let not black Monks or Canons or Nuns usq ‘ coloured Copes, but black only; nor any facings but black or 1 white, made of the skins of lamb’s, cats, or foxes.’ — \ib. p. S3.). In Abp. Laxgtox’s Constitutions a.d. 1222, it is stated: — ‘ We ‘ decree by the authority of this present Council that Archdeacons, ‘Deans, all Parsons and dignified men, all Rural Deans, and ‘ Priests, go in a deceut Habit with close Copes : the same is to be * observed by the officials of Archdeacons when iu Consistory.’ Johnson says in a note, that these Constitutions are for the most part transcripts from the Lateran Council, (a. p. 1216.) oue of which (c. 16.) thus reads: — “ Clerici — clausa deferant insuper “indumeuta nimia brevitate vel longitudine non notanda. Panuis “ rubeis, aut viridibus, necnon manicis, aut secularibns (sotularibns) “consntritiis, seu rostratis, fhenis, sellis, pectoralibus, et calcaribus “deauratis, ant aliam superfluitatem gerentibns non utantur. “ Cappas raanicatas ad divinum officium iutra ecclesiam non gerant ; “ sed nec alibi qui sunt in sacerdotio, vel personatibns constituti.” ‘ It is evident from hence that the close Cope, mentioned so often ‘ in our English Constitutions, was a garment of the same make ‘ with the officiating Cope ; and the close Cope was a Cope without ‘sleeves; both these particulars I infer from the words of the ‘Lateran Council; viz. Let Clergymen wear Garmeuts close in the ‘upper parts — let them not wear Copes with sleeves in Divine ‘ Offices in the Church, nor any where else if they are beneficed ‘ Priests. Lvndwood farther informs us that this habit never pre- * vailed here’ in England.’ — J ohnson's Canons, &c. ii. 113. In the Legatine Constitutions of Otto. a. d. 1237, it is decreed: — ‘ That they in Holy Orders use close Copes, especially in the * Chnrch, and before their Prelates, and in assemblies of Clergymen, ‘and such as have Rectories with cure of souls even- where in their ‘ Parishes.’— {ib. p. 116.) Aud so iu the Constitutions of Otho- bon {ib. p. 218.) Johnson iu a Note to Abp. Gray's Constitutions says : — 1 It is certain a Cope, and not a Chasuble, was ‘ the principal Yestmeut. (i. e. for Processions) ; and this Constitu- ‘ tion provides four Copes to be found at the Parishioners' cost, as * Winchelsey's Constitution does not.’ — {ib. p. 177.). Abp. Wixchelset, iu one of liis Constitutions agreed upon at Merton a. d. 1305, directs that the Parisluouers shall find a Choral Cope (Capa in Choro): which Lyndwood thns explains: — •“ Capa 944 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. sic dicta, quia totum hominem capiat. In Choro Sec. Sacerdos ‘enim extra tempus Miss®, dum exercet Divina Officia, pr»sertim ‘ dum ministrat Incensum lid Altare, vel dicit Collectas, utitur ‘ Capa.’ (Lynd. 252.). Dr. Burn explains this Capa in Choro from Johnson, as ‘a Cope not so good as that to be used on Festi- ‘ vals, but to be worn by the Priest who presided at the saying or * singing the hours.’ — Eccl. Law. i. 375. Dr. Nicholls (oh. 1712) remarks: — ‘ The Cope answers to the ‘ Colobium used by the Latins, and the cokkos used by the Greek ‘ Church. It was first a common Habit, being a Coat without ‘sleeves; but afterwards used as a Church Vestment. The Greeks ‘ say, it was taken up in imitation of that mock robe which was put ‘ upon our Saviour which was a Red Bagg, or Sack.’ — Common Prayer in loco. Wheatly, (oh. 1742) after speaking of the Alb, says ‘ Over * this Alb, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry, (i. e. con- secrate the elements,) is to wear a Vestment or Cope ; (see also ‘ Can. 24), which the Bishop also is to have upon him when he ‘ executes any pnblic ministration. This answers to the Colobium, &c. (Wheatly here quotes the words of Nicholls given above ending with ‘our Saviour’.) ‘How true this may be’ (as to the mock robe) ‘ I shall not enquire, but only observe, that it seems ‘ prescribed to none but the Bishop, and the Priest that consecrates ‘ the Elements at the Sacrament. Thus, the 24th Canon of our ‘ Church only orders, that the principal Minister, (when the Holy 4 Communion is administered in all Cathedral and Collegiate ‘ Churches) use a decent Cope, and be assisted nith an Epistler and * Gospeller agreeably, according to the Advertisements published, ‘ anno 7. Elizabeth*: which Advertisements order, that at all other ‘ Prayers no Copes be used, but Surplices.’ (p. 104.) — Rat. III. of Book of Com. Prayer. Rev. W. Bates says: — ‘The Cope is a long flowing mantle, ‘ open in front, but fastened on the breast. It has a Cape attached 4 to the part which covers the shoulders, and was probably derived ‘ from the Roman Pan u la, or the Pluviale , rain-cloak. It is made ‘ of various materials, and colours, and is often highly ornamented. ‘ In the Church of England the Bishop and Presbyters may wear it ‘instead of the Vestment ; its use was forbidden in the Rubric of ‘ 1552, but Queen Elizabeth restored it in 1559, and in her Injunc- ‘ tions which had then the force of law (see Act of Unif. of 1559. ' c. 13), she also authorized the Epistler and Gospeller, who assisted ‘ at the Eucharist in Cathedral and Collegiate Chnrches, to use ‘ them, and this is confirmed by the 24 th Canon of 1604. It will ‘ be observed that the words “ at all times of their ministrations,” ‘ were substituted in 1662 for the words, “at the time of Communion, “and at all other times in his ministration.” The Cope is said ‘by some to have been at first used only in Processions and * Litanies, then on solemn occasions after Morning and Evening ‘ Prayer, and at length it became the ordinary dress of the Bishop, ‘ except at Ordinations, at the celebration of the Eucharist, Con- ‘ secration of Churches, and on some other occasions. At present ‘we never hear of their being used except at Coronations.’ (p. 313.) — Lectures on Christian Antiquities. . 216.) Choral Service. In a Note many instances are adduced of the use of Copes from a. d. 1550. to the time of Laud. The Rev. W. Maskell in his Appendix to the ‘ Coronation Service’ gives this Rubric:—* Then followeth the Litany, to be read by two Bishops, vested in Copes, and kneeling at a Faldstool &c.’ f P- 1 90 -)- And subsequently, another Rubric reads:— ‘The Areh- bishop, being still vested in his Cope, will then place the Orb in , Her Majesty’s left hand. And the Gold Spurs, and King Edward's Staff , are given into the hands of the Dean of Westminster, and by him laid upon the Altar. Which being done, the Archbishop and Bishops will divest themselves of their Copes, and leave them ‘ there proceeding in their usual Habits.’ (». 138.)— J lonumenta Ritualia, Vol. in. The Rev. V. Palmer remarks: — ‘The Cope termed by ancient Avritcrs Capa, Cappa , Pallium, Pluviale, &c. is a garment of ‘ considerable antiquity. It seems like the Casula, to have been t originally derived from the ancient psenula The Cope being intended for use in the open air, retained the eowl, and in process of time was entirely opened in front. The original identity of the ‘ Cope and Casula appears from the writings of Isidore Hispalensis, ‘ and Durand, the latter of Avhom says the Cope is the same as the ‘Casula To the back was attached a Hood or Cowl whieh in t later times has given place to a sort of triangular ornameut of the ‘ sa ™e shape, which sometimes extends over the shoulders It ‘ was made of various materials and colours like the Vestment, and ‘ often with fringes and rich embroidery The English Ritual ‘ permitted the Bishop to wear a Cope instead of a Vestment in his ‘ public ministrations, if he chose, and gave the same liber tv to ‘ Presbyters in celebrating the Eucharist. The Injunctions of ‘ Queen Elizabeth in 1564, and the Canons of 1603, directed the Cope to be used. The former also appointed the Epistler and ‘ Gospeller, or Assistants at the Eucharist in Cathedral and ‘ Collegiate Churches, to wear Copes : a custom which was * preserved in the consecration of Abp. Parker to the See of ■Canterbury Formerly the Cope was nsed by the Clergy in ‘ Processions or Litanies, and on solemn occasions in Morning and ‘ Evening Prayers, aud was generally worn by the Bishop, except in ‘ celebratiug the Eucharist, Ordination, and some other occasions, Avhen he used the Vestment.’ — Orig. Lit. Vol. n. 401. The Rea-. J. C. Robertson says.-— ‘ The tvord Cope, as used in ‘ our Rubric and other documents, signifies exclusively a garment ‘ to be used at the Altar, — the Pluviale of Roman ritualists. Capa, ‘ or Cappa, is a Avord of much wider meaning, and may in many * places be rendered a Cloak (Martene m. 262.). In the Sarum 1 -Missal, Ave find that sometimes the Clergy are to be vested in THE COPE. 947 ‘ Cappce of various colours, and in such cases silk is specified as the ‘ material ; but it is not so when the Cappce are black ; and in one * place we read : — “ Clerici de secunda forma, in Cappis nigris, hoc “ est, in habitu quotidiano” The word is used in the Oxford 1 Statutes, to denote the ‘ Habit’ worn by Doctors at University * Sermons. Thus a German writer (Gabbler's Liturgie d. 4 Kirclie v. England ) is mistaken in supposing the black Gown 4 commonly used in preaching to be the Cope ; it might however be ‘designated in Latin as a Cappa.’ (p. 95. n.) — Mr. Robertson then proceeds to quote the usages of the age subsequent to the Reformation with respect to the Cope, which we have ourselves given iu pages 805—842; adding, that ‘under Abp. Bancroft the ‘use of Copes was revived, and the Surplice generally worn.’ (Collier, ii. 687.). ‘ It is, of course, to be understood that the ‘ Copes were worn accordiug to the limitations of the late Canons... 4 (Bancroft) appears, indeed, to have gone a step further, in ‘prescribing for his own Cathedral, 1608, that the Epistle and 4 Gospel be read in Copes every Sunday and Holy-day. (Wil- 4 klns, iv. 436.) The Cope fell again into disuse in Cathe- 4 drals during Abbot’s primacy, although probably retained in the 4 Royal Chapels. Laud prescribed its restoration in Cathedrals, 4 but did not give any such direction for Parish Churches The 4 ancient Copes, used till some time iu the last century, still exist at 4 Durham their use at Durham is said to have been abolished 4 through the influence of Warburton, who became prebendary in 4 1755. ( Brit . Mag. vi. 40.). I have not met with any later notice 4 of the Cope, except as used at Coronations.’ {p. 95— 101 ).— How shall We Conform tv the Lit. Dr Burn speaks of the 4 Anabata ’ as being 4 a Cope or Sacerdotal 4 Vestment, to cover the back and shoulders of the Priest.’ ( Eccl . Laio, i. 52.). He also describes the Cope thus: — 4 Capa, the Cope, ‘was one of the Priest’s Vestmeuts; so called, as it is said, a 'capiendo, because it containeth or covereth him all over.” — (ib. I. 274. 375.). Again, Dr Burn says: — 4 Cope signifieth in 4 general a canopy, or vaulted covering; and from thence seemeth to ‘have been transferred to denote that Vestment of the Priests, 4 which covereth the back and shoulders.’— {ib. n. 30a.) Mr. Gilbert French states that,— 4 The Cope is most easily 4 described as one half of an ancient Chasuble. It forms an ample * Cloak covering the back, from the neck nearly to the feet. A 4 band, clasp, or brooch, fastens it over the chest, and it is quite 4 open in front. A Hood was at one time always worn with it, and 4 this is still indicated by the insertion of a cowl-shapcd piece 4 between the shoulders, or its outline traced in embroidery. Long 4 after the Reformation, the Cope Avas regularly used by the 4 English Clergy, and it was not until the evil days of the Great 4 Rebellion, that it fell into partial disuse. This dignified Robe is 4 still worn by some of the higher Ecclesiastics at the Coronation 4 of the English Monarchs.’ ( p. 174 .). — Practical Remarks on the Minor Accessories of the Services of the Church. Mr. A. J. Stephens ( Barrister-at-law ) remarks that: — 4 Copes 4 were worn at Durham and Westminster till the middle of the last ‘century, and Copes are now worn by the Bishops at the Coro- * nations.’ (p. 367 .) — Book of Com. Prayer, E. H. S. 948 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. In the “ Hierurgia Anglican a,” after citing various instances of the use of the Cope during the progress of the Reformation, it is observed in a Note : — ‘ From the preceding extracts we may infer.... ‘ that Copes were worn in Parish Churches temp. Eliz. They are ‘mentioned (in connexion with the Surplice &c.) as customarily ‘ distinguishing the Clergy “from other men,” or “the Ministers “ executing their Ecclesiastical function from themselves when they “do not exercise that office.” Had they been confined to Cathe- ‘ drals and Private Chapels, this could not have been said of them ‘ with propriety or truth. The Rubric which enjoins their use in ‘ all Churches at the celebration of the Holy £ncharist, was in ‘force throughout Elizabeth’s reign.’ (p. 104.) Instances then follow of Copes being worn at Coronations, Marriages, Funerals, and Consecrations ; and a few Inventories are given of the Goods &c. of certain Churches wherever various Copes of different colours are enumerated, (pp. 140 — 171.) — Published by the Ec- CLESIOLOGICAL SOCIETY. In the Tract “A Few Words to Church-Builders,” it is said : — ‘ The Copes should follow the colour of the Altar Cloth.’ ( p . 27.) — Pub. by the Cambridge Camden Society. \ In, “PoruLAR Tracts,” we read: — ‘The Cope is in shape ‘ something like a Cloak, fastening over the breast by a morse or ‘ buckle. Anciently the Cope and Chasuble seem to have been the ‘ same, but they have now been distinct from a very remote period. ‘ The material should be velvet, or silk, embroidered. By the 24th ‘ Canon, it is enacted that in all Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, ‘ at the ministration of the Holy Communion, the principal Minister ‘ shall use a decent Cope. This Canon, however, has no power to ‘take away the choice which our Prayer Book gives to the ‘principal Minister between a Chasuble and a Cope. .. .Both Copes * and Tunicles were constantly worn in Durham Cathedral until so ‘ late as A. d. 1655. Copes have been frequently worn since, and ‘even at the Coronation of her present Majesty.’ (p. 5.) — Pub. by A. Holden, Exeter. Passing to Romanist writers, we have the following : — Dr Rock states : — ‘ The Cope resembles in its 'hape, a flowing ‘ and ample Cloak. It is open in the front, and fastens on the ‘ breast by clasps. To the part which corresponds to the shoulders ‘ of the wearer is attached a piece of the same material, in form like ‘ a segment of a circle, and resembles a Hood, which is usually ‘ adorned with lace and fringe. The prototype of our Cope is easily ‘ discoverable amongst the garments of the ancient Romans * like the Chasuble, it was a Mantle deriving its origin from the ‘ Prnnula, which it perfectly resembled, with this variation, that ‘ while it encircled the entire person, the Cope was open in the ‘front, and adapted to defend its wearer from the severities of the ‘season, the variations of the weather, and from rain, by the ‘ addition of a cowl or Hood. Necessity, not splendour, introduced ‘this robe amongst the sacred Vestments; and the Latin Pluviale ‘ or Rain-Cloak, the term by which it still continues to be designated, THE COPE. 949 1 will immediately suggest its primitive use to every learned reader. 4 Its appropriation, as a Sacerdotal garment, may lie referred to that 4 epoch when the Popes were accustomed to assemble the people, * during the penitential seasons of the year, at some particular, 'Church and thence proceed with them, in solemn procession, ‘ and on foot, to some one or other of the more celebrated hasilican 4 Churches of Pome, to hold what was called a station. To protect * the person of the Pontiff from the rain that might overtake the 4 procession on its way, the Pluviale, or Cope, was on such occasions ‘ assumed by him at the commencement of the ceremony. It has ‘been employed at the Altar ever since, and is worn by Bishops 4 and hy Priests on different occasions, but particularly at Vespers.’ (p. 50, 454.) In a Note is added. — ‘The Kings of England, at ‘ their Coronation, are invested with the following Ecclesiastical ' garments the Dalmatic or Colobium; the Tunic; the Stole; and ‘ the Cope or Pall.’ (ib.). — Eierurgia. Mr. A. W. Pugin explains a Cope as: — ‘A Vestment like a ‘Cloak, worn in solemn processions; at Vespers; during the cele- 1 hration of Mass, hy some of the assistant Clergy; at Benedictions; 1 Consecrations ; and other solemn occasions. It is worn by the ‘ sovereign Pontiff, Bishops, Priests, and even Clergy in the Minor ‘ Orders. It was originally a Mantle to serve as a protection from ‘ cold or rain, as the word Pluviale expresses. It derives its name 4 of Cappa from the Hood which anciently pulled up, and covered 4 the head ; and, in many early illuminations, even where orna- 4 mented Copes are figured, the hoods are real, and hang loosely over 4 the shoulders ; the embroidered hoods, attached to the hack 4 merely as ornaments, are not older than the 14th century. In fact, 4 the original Cope differed but little from the Capuchin habit, and 4 was used for convenience and protection. Copes were however 4 ornamented with embroidery and jewels at a very early period; 4 and, in the 13th century, they became the most costly and 4 magnificent of all the Ecclesiastical vestments. In shape, they ‘now form an exact semicircle. Along the straight edge runs a 4 hand of emhroidered work, called the Orphrey, winch hangs down ‘from each shoulder when the Cope is worn, and frequently 4 contains a number of images in tabernacle work. It is fastened ' across the chest hy a clasp, called a Morse .... The Cope has 4 suffered less deterioration of form than any of the Sacred Vest- 4 ments, and the two great defects observable in the modern ones, ‘are stiffness of material, and inappropriate ornament in the 4 Orphrcys, and Hoods. After the Hoods became pieces of orna- 4 mental embroidery, they were exquisitely worked with imagery, ‘and in a long procession, the Hoods of the Copes presented a 4 complete succession of sacred mysteries. From the extracts of ‘ancient inventories, it will be seen what wonderful variety of 4 design and richness of material were combined in the Copes which * formerly belonged to the English Churches ; and it is scarcely ‘possible to think of their subsequent conversion into coverlets,* * Heylyx says, “ Many private men’s parlours were hung with 44 Altar-Cloths, their Tables and Beds covered with Copes instead of 44 Carpets and coverlids.” — Hist, of Ref. p. 134. 950 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ or ashes, for the sake of the precious metals which they contained, ‘ without mingled feelings of grief and indignation Copes were ‘ worn iu Choirs on great solemnities as marks of honour. ‘Georgius says: — “In St Isidore of Seville, Cappa means a “ head-dress of women : aud Pallium or Chlamys is the name used “ for the Cope. The ancient Chlamys was fastened by a clasp “ over the right shoulder.. ....The Hood attached to some Chasubles “ was called Cappa. Such was the large white Paschal Chasuble, “ called Amphimalus We have accounts of Copes, made after the “ Roman manner ( Cappa Romance ) of silk of various colours, and “richly ornamented, in the 9th and 11th centuries There is “frequent mention made in the aucient Roman Ordos, of the “ Cappa, and Pluviale. There is a doubt about the time when it “first began to be called Pluviale Cappa , Manium , Chlamys , “ and Pluviale, are used indifferently to denote the ordinary dress “ formerly worn by the Pope, of a red colour; which was altered in “ its form after the residence of the Popes was changed to Avignon. “ There are numerous examples of the name Pluviale , occurring “ about the 10th century. Besides being the dress of Ecclesiastics “ of all orders in Church functions, it was peculiarly appropriated “ to the Cantors on solemn occasions In the 14th century, the “words Cappa and Pluviale were synonymous. But of late, the “ Cappa is distinguished from the Pluviale or Cope, and means a “ dress worn by some Chapters of Canons, by Bishops, Cardinals, “ and by the Pope, both in Choir, and in other ceremonies. — Do “ Sacssay, in his Panoplia , gives a good description of the Cope as “ it is nsed at preseut : and there is no doubt that it is now “ exclusively a sacred vestment, and not allowed to be used except “ for Church purposes.” The Cappa magna, at present used by ‘ Bishops, is of comparatively modern date. The ancient Cappa ‘ magna was a Cope of ample size, and richly embroidered, with a ‘ hood to pull over the head, as was formerly the case with all ‘ Copes.. ....There was a marked distinction between the Cappa ‘ Choralis or Quire Cope, and the Cappa Pluvialis or Processional 1 Cope, the former being much richer in work and material than ‘ the latter, which was used in the weather.’ (j>. 73.)— Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament and Costume. In the “ Voyages Liturgiques” par Le Sueur de Moleon, we read, that Copes were worn in France with Hoods more or less pointed ; and were of various colours, and different materials. Copes were more especially worn during Mass, and solemn Festivals. — a Paris, 1718. THE CROZIER. The Crozier is the Pastoral Staff of an Arch- bishop surmounted by a Cross, in contradistinction to that of a Bishop which terminates in a Crook. (See “ Pastoral Staff” posted.). Its use is not enjoined in any Canon, or Rubric, now in force ; in fact the ‘ Crozier ’ has become quite obsolete in the English Church. THE DALMATIC. 951 Dr Hook says : — ‘ A Crozier is tlie Pastoral Staff of an Arcli- * bishop, and is to be distinguished from the Pastoral Staff of a * Bishop ; the latter terminating in an ornamental crook, while the ‘ Crozier always terminates in a Cross, and is peculiar to the ‘ Archbishop.’ — Church Diet. 6th edit.;). 207. Mr A. W. Pugin states: — ‘A Crozier is a Cross on a staff, ‘ borne by an Archbishop. This has often been confounded by * modern writers with the Pastoral Staff’ of a Bishop, which is ‘ quite dissimilar, being made in the form of a Crook. The early 1 Croziers were exceedingly simple, and terminated only by a floriated ‘ Cross.’ ( p. 99.) — Glossary of Ecct. Ornament and Costume. THE DALMATIC. Dalmatica, Colobium, Tunica , Tunica manicata, XetpoioToi, Tunicella. — (Dalmatique. Fr. — Dalmatica, Tonaca. Ital.) The Dalmatic is an Ecclesiastical Vestment worn in the Romish Church by Popes, Bishops, and Deaeons ; and even by some Priests, but this is without authority. It is a long robe reaching to the ankles, having wide sleeves, an opening for the admission of the head, with laee holes on the shoulders to partly close this opening, and with a slit at the two sides of the skirt up to above the knee : the sleeves are larger and longer than that of the Tunic. It appears to have succeeded the ancient Roman Colo- bium, which it closely imitates, (with the exception of the latter having no sleeves), whence it has been confounded with that vestment, and borne also the same name. It was originally worn as a Royal robe in Dalmatia, which gives it its appellation. As an Ecclesiastical Vestment it has been found made of cloth of gold, silk, or velvet ; and of various colours, particularly blue, purple, red, and white. The orna- ments have consisted, generally, of red and white, blue and white, or purple, stripes ; and of silk or gold laee on the shoulder openings. The Dalmatic has also been embroidered with ovphreys round the bot- tom of the robe, and on the edge of the sleeves ; and with pearls, and jewels. Apparels also are occasionally placed at the bottom on the front and back of the 952 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. skirt, and on the breast, and between the shoulders ; likewise fringes at the edges of the side slits, and a jewelled brooch on the top of each slit. The left sleeve also is sometimes ornamented with fringes and tassels, while the right sleeve is left plain for the convenience of the wearer. In the Church of England, the Dalmatic under that name is not now known ; Abp. Winchelsey’s Constitution, which has been ren- dered of questionable authority by the usurpation of custom, directs that a Dalmatic shall be provided for the use of every Church by the Parishioners (see p. 80 J. supra ) ; but the Rubric of the First Liturgy of Edward VI., which is still in force, enjoins that the Assistant Ministers at the Holy Communion ‘ shall have upon them Albes with Tunicles,’ and by the word ‘ Tunicle' is said to be implied the ‘ Dalmatic.' Subsequent usage, however, has rendered this Rubric practically obsolete. (See ‘ Tunicle,’ postea.) — Du Cange, Bonanni, Georgius, &c. Lyndwood, when citing Abp. W ixchels et’s Constitntion (see supra, p. 801.), explains the Dalmatic thus: — 1 Dalmatica, ‘ i. e. Veste Sacerdotali vel Diaconali ; sic dicta, quia primo in ‘Dalmatica regione contexta est’; ( Provinc . p. 252.).- which Dr Burn thus renders : — f Dalmatic , a Deacon’s garment ; so called * from heing at first woven in Dalmatia.’ — Eccl. Law. i. 375; ii. 77. Bingham, when describing the Dalmatic, clearly distinguishes it from the Cohbium : — 1 Epiphanius, speaking of Arius while he was ‘ Presbyter of Alexandria, says he always wore the Collohium or ‘ Hemiphorium. And Pius, Bishop of Rome, in his Epistle to 1 Justus, hp. of Vienna, speaks of Justus as wearing a Collobium ‘also. But this was no more than the Tunica, of which there ‘ were two sorts, the Dalmatica and Collobium, which differed only ‘ in this respect, that the Collobium was the short coat without long 1 sleeves, so called from koXo^os, curtus ; bnt the Dalmatica was ‘ the tunica manicata et talaris, the long coat with sleeves. Both ‘ which were used hy the Romans, though the Collobium was the ‘more common, ancient, and honourable garment. .. .So that a ‘ Bishop or a Presbyter's wealing a Collobium means no more ‘ (when the hard name is explained) hut their wearing a common ‘ Roman garment. .. .The Dalmatica, or as it was otherwise called, ‘ veipooo-ros, or tunica manicata, because it had sleeves down to the ‘ hands, was seldom used among the Romans : for Lampridius notes ‘ it as a singular thing in the Life of Commodus, the Emperor, that ‘ he wore a Dalmatica in puhlic, which he also censures in Helioga- ‘ halus, as Tully had done hefore in Cataline. And that is a good ‘ argument to prove, that the Clergy of this age did not wear the ‘ Dalmatica in public, since it was not then the common garment of THE DALMATIC. 953 ‘ the Romans. And the conjecture of a learned man (Bp. Fell, ‘ Note in Vit. Cypr. p. 13.) is well grounded, who thinks that in the ‘ life of St Cyprian, where the ancient copies have, tunicam tulit, ‘ some officious modern transcribers changed the word tunica into 1 Dalmatica, as being more agreeable to the language and custom of ‘ their own time, when the Dalmatica was reckoned among the ‘sacred Vestments of the Church, though we never find it men- ‘tioned as such in any ancient author.’ — {Antiq. of Christian Church, B. vi. c. iv. §. 20.). Bingham says moreover that: — ‘The ‘ author of the Questions upon the Old and New Testament, ‘ under the name of St Austin, speaks also of the Dalmatica ‘ as worn both by Bishops and Deacons : but whether it was then ‘ a garment of sacred use, is not said by him, or any other ancient ‘ writer, that I know of.’ — (ib. B. xm. c. vm. §. 2.) Fosrroke observes under the word Colobus, that the ‘ Colobium, * k oXofiiov, is a tunick or robe, adding : — ‘ In the Herculanean ‘ paintings appear Robes or Tunicks with short sleeves, or rather ‘ prolongations, sometimes divided and joined by buttons, and ‘ reaching to the middle of the arm. This is the Colobium, which ‘ modern writers assimilate to the Herald’s tabard. It was opposed ‘ to the xeipioo-rov (sic), a barbarous vestment with sleeves, which ‘descended to the wrist.’ (p. 939.) — Under Dalmatick, FosnROKE writes: — ‘ Gown, Tunick. This robe which came from Dalmatia, ‘ was first worn by Commodus, Heliogabalus, &c. to the disgust of ‘ the Romans, who, as well as the Greeks, thought it effeminate to * cover the arms. It succeeded the Colobium, and when it came ‘ into general use, was so denominated. The Dalmatics were, it is * snpposed, Tunicks, with long sleeves down to the wrists, and ‘ ornamented with pnrple facings, the Clavi ; the fashion being still ‘ retained in those of Deacons and Sub-deacons, in whose dress it ‘ was substituted for the Colobium by Pope Sylvester. The ‘ Gemma ‘ Animm de Antiq. Rit. Miss' absurdly makes it the seamless coat of * Christ. But, possibly, for this reason, it was worn by our kings ‘ upon Coronations and great occasions. It is a short Tunick with * loose sleeves down to the elbows, but did not descend below the ‘ calf of the leg.’ (j ». 940.) — Ency. of Antiq. The Rev. W. Goode, speaking of the Ornaments required by the Rubric, remarks: — ‘The “Vestment” is considered to be what is ‘called the Chasuble, the “ Tunicle” what is sometimes called the ‘ Dalmatic . And I admit that these things are enjoined by the ‘ Rubric. So far as the letter of the law is concerned the matter ‘ seems clear.’ (p. 32.) — Cerem. of Church of England. The Rev. R. Hart thus describes this garment : — ‘ Dalmatica, ‘the Deacon’s Vestment, had anciently very full sleeves; it was cut ‘ at each side about half way up to the arm; fringed; supplied with 1 a sort of square caputium, adorned with tassels at the back, and * and had two strips of purple sown in the front.’ {p. 257.). — Eccl. Records. — In the * Transactions of the Norfolk and Noncich Archaeo- logical Society, (Vol. I.) this same Author writes : — ‘The Dalmatica * (or Deacon’s Vestment) was almost exactly similar to the Tnnicle, ‘with the exception or its very lull sleeves. .. .In more modern ‘ times the sleeve has been reduced to a sort of epaulette, falling ‘ about half way down to the elbow.’ 954 THE ORNAMENTS OF THB MINISTER. Dr. Hook observes: — ■* The Dalmatic was formerly the charac- ‘ teristic dress of the Deacon in the administration of the Holy ‘ Eucharist. It is a robe reaching down to the knees, and open at ‘ each side for a distance varying at different periods. It is not * marked at the back with a cross like the Chasuble, but in the 1 Latin Church with two narrow stripes, the remains of the Angusti ‘ Clavi worn in the old Roman dress. In the Greek Church it is 1 called Colobium , and it is covered with a multitude of s mall ‘ crosses. The Dalmatic is seen in some old ‘ brasses ’ worn over the ‘ Alb, and the Stole, the fringed extremities of which reach just ‘ below it. The Chasuble was sometimes worn over the Dalmatic. ‘ It has received its name from being the regal vest of Dalmatia.’ {p. 218 .) — Church Diet. 6th. edit. The Rev. W. Haskell, in his comments on the ancient Coron- ation Service, ‘ De Benedictione et Coronatione Regis,' thns speaks of 1 the Colobium, and the Dalmatic. The Colobium he describes from * Do Cange as, “ Tunica absque manicis, vel certe cum manicis, “ sed brevioxibus, et qu® ad cubitum vix pertinerent : ex Graeco “ KoXopos, curtus.” (Glossar.) Isidore says: — “ Colobium dictum “ quia longum est, et sine manicis.” ( l . xlx. c. 32.). ‘ Johan, de ‘ Janua, in Catholico, writes: — “ No turn quod non solnm Virgines, “ sed etiam Diaconi utebantur Colobio, loco cujus postea usi sunt “ Dalmatica .” And that this was originally a female garment ‘ appears from another authority, who also gives us a different ‘etymology; “ Colobium , pallium virginale, ut quod ad talos descen- “ dens sine manicis et dicitnr Colobium, quasi Colubium, a collo “ depensum, vel quod sit longum.” This seems quite as probable ‘a derivation as the first... .Maori says: — “Hoc tunicae genere “ induebantur Apostoli :” and his reason for this statement is short, ‘ if not satisfactory ; “ conservabatur enim in basilica Apostolorum “Colobium D. Thom® Apostoli.” ( Hierolex .) Ferraries argues ‘ {De re Vestiar. I. c. 7.) against all the authorities above, that the ‘ Colobium had short sleeves, rather than none at all; bnt his only ‘ proof is a doubtful passage iu Tertullian .’ — {Monument a Bit. III. p. 24. 110.) Mr. Haskell, when arriving at the Rubric which speaks ‘ of the Pallium, says in a Note : — “ The open Pall, as worn by ‘ King James II., is figured in Sandford’s account of that Coronation : ‘ he calls it also the Dalmatic : by which we may suppose that the “ Robe Royal of modern days, or Dalmatic, is the ancient pall. ‘ But they were properly distinct Vestments, and of different shapes. ‘ The Dalmatic was a super-tunic, proper to Deacons: and originally ‘ restricted to Bishops. The first mentiou of it as an Ecclesiastical ‘ garment is in the life of S. Cyprian, by his Deacon : who, describing ‘ his martyrdom, says; “ Cum se Dalmatica exspoliasset, et Diaconi- “bus tradidisset, iu linea stetit.” I need scarcely remind the ‘ Reader, that this “ pall ” is a very different thing from the pall of ‘an Archbishop.’ — {ib. III. p. 30. 201.). The Rev. W. Palmer writes: — The Tunicle, called tunica, 1 dalmatica, tunicella, &c. in the IVest, was used in the earliest ages ‘ of the Christian Church. Originally it had no sleeves, and was ‘ then often called Colobium. The garment used by Deacons in the ‘ Greek Church, and all the East, and called Sticharion, seems to be ‘ the ancient Colobium. It is said that wide sleeves were added to THE DALMATIC. 955 * the Colobium about the 4th century in the West, which thenceforth ‘ was often called Dalmatic ; and when used by Sub-deacons, 4 Tunicle. But tbe shape of the garment was the same by whomso- ‘ ever it was worn. In the middle ages, several distinctions were 4 made relative to the use of the Tunic by Bishops and others; but ‘ the Greek, and Eastern Churches, do not use the sleeved Tunic, 4 and with them no such distinctions are in existence. The Tnnic 4 was made of the same sort of materials, &c. as the Cope and Vest- ‘ment; and the English ritual directs it to be used by the Assistant 4 Ministers in the Holy Communion.’ — Orig. Lit. ii. p. 403. Passing to Romanist writers, we may quote the following : — Bon-axxi says : — 4 The Deacons after the Stole put on the 4 Dalmatic which is commonly called tlie Tunicle. It is proper to 4 the Subdeacon likewise ; and is also used by Bishops. It is made 4 in the form of a cross, open at the sides, large, and with full 4 sleeves, which reach to the middle (meta), of the arm : it is fas- 4 tened on the shoulders with cords which terminate in tassels 4 This kind of garment was not in nse in the ancient Church; but ‘certainly was worn by the Emperors, and royal persons.’ — He then quotes various authorities in proof of these assertions; distinguishes between the Dalmatic of the Deacon, and the Tunicle of the Sub-deacon; the latter having narrower and shorter sleeves; compares the usage of the Latin with the Greek Church in this matter; and shows that the colours employed for the Dalmatic were various. — Gerarchia EccUsiastiea. p. 204 — 9. Gavaxtcs writes: — 4 Earn assignat Diacono Ordo. Rom. St. Syl- 4 vester Diaconns concessit, ex Damaso. in Dalmatia fuit reperta, 4 Alcuin. c. Quid. sign. vest, et Isid. 19. Etym. c. 22. primo textam 4 ibidem fuisse scribit, ejusdem vero nsus in Ecclesia fuit ante 4 Sylvestrum; nam St. Cyprianus, meminit, et Eutgchianus Papa apud 4 Durand. 1. 2. c. 9. Sacerdotum enim erat habitus, et Casulis in- 4 troductis Dalmatica data est Diaconis, Walaf. Strabo, c. 24. qui 4 tamen a Vicecomite. 1. 3. de Misses apparatu. c. 26. jure refellitur, 4 cum antea l. 3. c. 29. probaverit ille, fuisse Casulam in usu ‘Sacerdotum tempore Apostolorum. .. .Usi sunt etiam Dalmatica, 4 Reges summi, quorum nomina vide apud Baron, in Xot. Martyr. 4 ad 31. Mali, neqne vero Sylvester omnibus Diaconis earn concessit, 4 sed tantum Roman® Ecclesi®, et in diebus tantum solemnibus, in 4 signum lsetitise dist. 76. c. de jejunio ex Cone. Salegust. exteris 4 autem ex privilegio Romani Pontificis, ut ait Gregor. 1. 7. Ep. 3. ad 4 Aregium ; qui Ep. 28. et 113. ejusdem l. 7. tradit aperte, fuisse ‘Romanomm tantum Diaconorum propriam vestem. Erat etiam 4 Regula, quod Dalmatica adhiberetur cum Gloria in excelsis ; ita 4 Microl. c. 49. hoc est, ubi Gloria, ibi Dalmatic® nsus, non e con- 4 verso; nam in Dominids gaudere et laetare utimur Dalmaticis; 4 non autem dicimus, Gloria in excelsis. Forma antiqua Dalmatic® 4 erat sine manicis; et Ammiam. Marcell. 1. 14. vocavit earn Pectora- 4 lem Tuniculam, quam nos cum manicis ad cnbitum vocamus 4 ltalice Tunicella, pertusas habet alas, Amal. 1. 2. c. 21. duas item 4 lineas ante et retro, ibidem manic® lat® sunt, ex Alcuin. supra ; 4 ubi etiam notat formam habere Crncis, alia habebat, qu® nostr® 3 p 956 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ non habent. vide Tnnoc. III. vel. Amalar Dalmatic® denique ‘ usus fuit super Albam, et consequenter ctun Amictu et Ciugulo, ‘ qu® couceduntur Diacono in Cone. Narb. c. 12. ex ritu antiquiore. ‘ Dc Alba ut Diaconi veste mentio est in Ord. Rom. Amictus autem ‘ et Cingulum concomitantur Albam. (/>. Cl.) Dalsiatica non ‘recisis manicis, sed ad manum usque protensis, iisdemque late ‘ patentibus conficiatur. Longa esse potest 2 cub. 16. unc. ; lata vero ‘ ab humeris 1 cub. et circiter 4 unc.; ab extremis oris undique ‘ patens circiter 5 cub.' (p. 291.) — Thesaurus, i. Dr. Rock states: — ‘The Dalmatic is a Vestment worn by the * Deacon, whilst ministering at High Mass. It is a long robe, open ‘ on each side, and differs from the Chasuble by having a species of ‘ wide sleeve, and instead of being marked on the back with the ‘ cross, which superseded the senatorial latus-clams, is ornamented * with two stripes that were originally the Anguslus-davus, worn ‘ upon their garments by the less dignified amongst the ancient ‘ Roman people. It derives its name from Dalmatia, the nation ‘that invented it; and was originally a vest peculiar to the regal ‘power; and, as snch, became adopted, and was used in public, by ‘ several among the Roman Emperors. In the earliest ages of the ‘ Church, the Deacons wore a garment called Colobium, a kind of ‘ tight narrow Tunic, with very short sleeves, and which, in the ‘ times of the Roman republic, was worn by the more substantial ‘citizens, but afterwards became a senatorial robe. — (The form of ‘ the Latin Colobium is still preserved in the saccos worn by Greek ‘ metropolitan bishops. In reality it differs from the Dalmatic : ‘ it was of the same shape, but its sleeves were shorter, and it was ‘ not so wide and ample.) — In the reign of Constantine, the Pontiff, ‘ St Sylvester, conceded to the Deacons of the Roman Church, ‘the use of the Dalmatic on particular solemnities, a privilege which ‘was gradually extended to the other Churches by sncceeding ‘ Popes, as we are informed by St. Gregory the Great. The custom ‘of wearing the Dalmatic under the Chasuble, was anciently ‘peculiar to the Roman Pontiff; but was afterwards allowed as an ‘especial favour to certain prelates of the Church. For many ‘ centuries, however, every Bishop has been entitled to assnme this, ‘ together with his other Vestments, whenever he celebrates High ‘ Mass. Anciently the Dalmatic was white, and its angusti clavi, ‘or narrow stripes, were scarlet, according to St Isidore. The ‘Vestment which is assigned by the Greek Rite to the Deacon ‘ who officiates at the Eucharistic sacrifice, is denominated trrotxa- ‘ piov ( sticliarim ), and very closely resembles the corresponding ‘ Dalmatic of the Latin Church. It extends fhrther down the ‘person, and its sleeves are closer and longer than ours. This ‘garment, is generally, thongh not always, white amongst the ‘Orientals. With the Greeks, as in the Western Church, it is ‘ customary to employ purple-coloured vestments during the season ‘of Fasting. . . .The ancient form, the colour, and the ornaments of ‘ the Dalmatic , as used in the Latin Church, may be traced in a ‘succession of interesting monuments In all these the colonr of ‘ this Ecclesiastical garment is white; it is marked down the sides * as a,t present, with two clavi, or stripes, which, instead of being ‘ as now of gold or other lace, are generally purple, and its shape ‘ almost exactly resembles the one according to which it continues THE DALMATIC. 957 to be fashioned throughout Italy. Like the Dalmatic, as it is still • made at Come, it has sleeves, which are wide, bnt it reaches some- < J* “f 1 lower down the person. Towards the commencement of the , 10 “ i century, however, we meet with written documents, which , certify the use of Dalmatia not only of white, bnt of those Hieru ^ a " ons c °l° urs which are now employed.’ (/>. 448.). , Pcglv describes the Dalmatic as:— ‘A lon» robe with sleeves, partly open at the sides, which for man y centuries has been the peculiar Vestment of Deacons. It derives its name trom Dalmatia, where it was originally used. It was nsuallv com- posed oi white silk, with purple stripes, and the sleeves were , ^ er and longer than those of the Tunic. The left sleeve bein^ , ornamented with fringe or tassels, and the right made plain, for , “ e »“ e o f convenience. Abccor says the nse of the Dalmatic was introduced by St. Silvester; bnt.... we read long before, in martyrdom of St Cyprian, that “ when he had pnt off from him U tS. and given it to his Deacons, he stood in his linen t AU) ?- The Dalmatic, like the Colcbhan, was a long vest reaching to the ankles, and the difference was in the sleeves : the Dalmatic t had full sleeves, the Tunicle, which was also shorter, close sleeve- and the Colobtum, either no sleeves, or short, and reaching only to (GEOEGirs L c. 22.). Alccix says this vestment is t ‘oe form of the cross. Besides the above storv of St. Cvpeiax there are other proofs that the Dalmatic was worn bv Bishops. . . .’ . " appears that so long as the old Gallican Liturgy "was kept np , that is to the time of Hadriax I, when Charlemagne introdnced the Roman rite in lien of it, the French Deacons did not wear , Dal maucs, bnt were vested in Albe and Stole onlv. Thev then came mto general use, the Emperor himself presenting many Dalmatics to different Churches. Shortly after, manv Priests 4 assame d the use of the Dalmatic , under the Chasuble, after the t ma ? ne . r of Bishops ; bnt this practice was not sanctioned by anthonty.. .According to Geobgics, the Dalmatic was. at one , ^ ae > proper to the Deacons of Rome : and conceded gradually to t Deac ? ns ™ other parts of the Church. Later, the “privilege of wearing the Tunic and Dalmatic under the Chasuble was granted to Abbots. The use of the Dalmatic was also conceded to Kings and Emperors, both at their coronation, and when solemnly as- • S1 f Ho1 T :xicr ifice . . . .The Dalmatic still forms a portion , of the \ estment used by the English Sovereigns at their corona- , ,* on There is now no distinction between the Dalmatic of the , Deacon and the Tunic of the Sub-deacon, although the latter was t ^nailer. and had shorter sleeves than the former In the old . inventories no distinction is made, but the vestments for the Deacon and bub-deacon are called Tunaclss ... .The ancient , TWmatics were long, loose, and provided with large sleeves. The present side flaps, which have been introdnced in place of the • latter, have no warrant in antiquirv, and their type can onlv be • traced to a rent or tom sleeve of a "real Dalmatic when Dal- matics of this shape are made in stiff materials, thev stick out in • the most unnatural, inconvenient, and even Indicrous manner ^ * n order to admit a free passage for the head, in putting on the \ estment, the sides were opened over the shoulders, to the extent 3 P 2 958 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘Of a few inches Silk or gold cords, passed through these slits, ‘ were contrived to loop or lace them together, and to the ends of ‘ these cords tassels were added, both for weight and ornament ; but ‘ the original use and intention being now lost, they are merely 1 attached to the shoulders as a decoration Clamfuu’s Work, 'Be Cryptis Vatican is,’ contains many . . . .Dalmatics, with not only ‘ rich orphreys and borders, but large square worked apparells, like 1 those on ancient Albes, at the bottom of the front and back, and * across the breast and shoulders. They have also rich borders at ‘ the edges of the sleeves. These Dalmatics are exceedingly long, ‘ and some are fringed at the edges and sides. Baluze, in his * Historie de la liaison D’Auvergne. i. 351. has figured, .(a Dalmatic ‘ with the) orphreys and edges of the sleeves enriched with pearls ‘and jewels; there is also a jewelled brooch at the top of the side * openings.’ (p. 103.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume . In the “ Voyages Liturgiqces ” par Le Sieur De Moleon, we read that the Dalmatic was frequently worn by Deacons, and Officiating Priests in the French Churches under the Chasnble, and descended nearly to the heels. The sides were sometimes closed (cousus), and the sleeves narrow. The Tunicle of the Subdeacon was without sleeves; in some places short and narrow. — a Paris. 1718. The Fanon, see Maniple. THE GIRDLE. Belt, Zone, Surcingle. — Baltheus, Cingulum, Succingulum, Subcincto - rium, Zona. — (Ceinture. Fr. — Cingolo. Dal.') The Girdle, as a part of Ecclesiastical costume, is an accompaniment of the Albe, and its use, as such, is therefore dependent upon the wearing of that Vest- ment. It was originally a flat band of white linen worn round the waist, and often elaborately ornamented with gold and precious stones : in later times, the Girdle has assumed the form of a plaited cord with tasselled ends, made of silk or linen thread ; and of various colours, oftener red, sometimes white, and occasionally red and green intermixed. It is worn by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, and all, indeed, who wear the Albe. In addition to the simple Girdle , Popes and Bishops also wore a Sash (Succinctorium, Succincta, Subcingulum, Praecinctorium), which was generally THE GIRDLE. 959 made of red silk. Sometimes the Sash merely as- sumed the form of an ornamental addition to the Girdle, the latter being enlarged and widened at the ends, so as to present a flat surface capable of exquisite embroidery. In the Church of England the Girdle , as an appendage of the Albe, has passed with that Vestment into desuetude ; although they both have, here and there, been revived, as the appropriate cos- tume for Choristers; in fact, the Albe and scarlet Girdle have been lately introduced into one or two Churches as the Vestment of the Parish Choir-Boys. The Girdle , however, is more familiar to us as the cincture of the Cassock. It is made of the same colour and material as that vesture, and is formed in broad and flat folds. The Cassock, indeed, has been said to be only a. black Albe. — Du Cange, Gavantus, Georgius, Bonanni, &c. The Rev. R. Hart says: — ‘ Cingulum, , the Girdle, fastened 1 round the Albe at the loins was usually of white flax tasselled at ‘ the ends, but sometimes of a richer material.’ (p. 256.) While the ‘ Succingulum, the Surcingle, was an ornamental addition ‘ to a Bishop’s Girdle. It was doubled, resembled a Maniple, and ‘ hung down upon the left side.’ ( p. 260). — Eccl. Records. Dr. Hook describes the Girdle as — ‘A Cincture binding the ‘ Alb round the waist. Formerly it was flat and broad, and some- ‘ times adorned with jewels; in the Roman Catholic Church it has 1 been changed into a long cord with dependent extremities and ‘tassels. The Zone is regarded as a type of purity. Romanist writers thus describe the Girdle : — Dr. Rock, after observing that the Albe is confined with a Girdle, adds: — ‘It is in more modern times only that the Girdle ‘has been generally made like a cord; anciently it was flat and ‘broad; and whilst it wore the appearance, was indiscriminately ‘ denominated by the terms of Belt, and Zone, as well as Girdle. ‘ It was not always white, but varied in its colours, and not unfre- ‘ quently was woven of gold, and richly decorated with embroidery, ‘ and studded with precious stones The Girdle is eloquently ‘emblematical of that chastity and unsullied purity, with which ‘ both Priest and people should anxiously endeavour to array ‘ themselves &c The Zone or Girdle with which the Priest ‘ girds himself round the waist, over the Alb, is noticed in all the ‘ Greek and Oriental Liturgies From the Girdle used by the Pope ‘ at the celebration of the Mass, hangs, on the left side, an ornament * called the Succinctorium, which somewhat resembles a small Mani- ‘ pie.’ (p. 426). — Eierurgia. 960 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Mr. A. W. Pugin describes the Girdle as: — ‘A cord of silk or * white thread tasselled at the end, with which the Albe is girded 1 round the loins, and adjusted to a convenient length. Georgius ‘(says), the Girdle {Cingulum, Zona, sive baltkeus) is mentioned ‘among the Sacred Vestments in the oldest Roman Ordinals. The * Girdle was formerly of various colours, and adorned with gold, ‘and sometimes precious stones. That found in the tomb of ‘ Boniface VIII was of red and green sillc, with silken cords and ‘ tassels, beautifully worked .... The Succinctorium, or Sash, ‘ (variously called subcingulum, subcincta, and prcecinctorium) was 4 anciently worn by all Bishops, in addition to the Girdle. It is ‘ now worn by the Pope only. . . . The Inventory of Canterbury ‘ Cathedral (has): — “ Cingula de rubco serico piano; Cingula de “ rubeo serico brudato; Cmgulo de serico mixto; Cingula de serico.” ‘ (Dart’s Hist. App. x.). These and other instances establish the ‘ use of Girdles of rich material in the old English Church.’ ( p. 136.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. THE GOWN. The Gown was the ancient Sagurn , and originally had the form of a smock-frock, with wide-mouthed sleeves, and a hole for the head to pass through ; it was the common dress of all classes, and was worn by both men and women. Fosbroke says, that with the Anglo-Saxon, and Norman ladies it had the appearance of a long shirt with very long sleeves ; sometimes these only reached to the elbows ; sometimes the Gown was without any sleeves ; but the waist was constantly bound with a girdle. In the 12th century, the Gown of the men was like that of the Lord Mayor of London, and Hoods were connected with it. It seems that the first and most important alteration in its make was in the sleeves, which became wider and more open, and ended in a kind of pocket. The Gown grew into general use in the 15th century, and among the women superseded the super-tunic ; but was at last itself dis- placed, as to common wear, by the doublet, and cloak. The Gown was, however, retained by Scholars and Ecclesiastics ; and was the particnlar Habit of the Benedictine Monks, from whom it passed to our Universities. It was at first simply a kind of coat, reaching a little below the knees, with sleeves of THE GOWN. 961 ordinary width and length, and without gatherings on the shoulders. When however ‘ Degrees ’ in learning became more common, as literature advanced, changes were made in the form of the Gown for dis- tinction’s sake, as well of the Degree, as of the Faculty ; and colours, and facings, were also intro- duced; and likewise Hoods, for a similar purpose j scarlet was the prevailing colour for Doctors and Professors, and black for other ranks and Degrees. The ancient Academical Gown is thought to have been what we now consider the Clerical or Preaching- Gown, full-sleeved, with the wrist-bands tucked up to the elbow : this Gown is also the Court-dress of the Clergy. The Academical or Degree Gown of the present day is considered to approach in its form, very nearly to the old Geneva or Puritan Habit ; yet it is known that Calvin usually wore a Habit resembling the Civilian's Gown , which fell back in a lappet behind the neck. The true Geneva Gown, however, had more the form of a cloak. The distinc- tive characters of the Academic and the Preaching Gowns of the past age are apparent in the engraved title-page of “ The Worhes of John Boyes, Doctor in Divinitie and Dean of Canterbury" published in 1622; where a Priest is represented in three different medal- lions, as writing and studying in a Master of Arts' Gown, with the mottoes under, — “ In eo sumus et “ scimus.” “ Scriba doctus in regna coelorum.” “ Consiliarii mei.” While in another medallion the same person is represented preaching in a pulpit in Cl full- sleeved Gown, with a narrow wristband, and wearing his Hood ; and underneath was the motto, “ Opportune Importune.” See further the description given by Anthony a Wood infra p. 964. — Du Cange, Strutt, Planche, Anthony a Wood, Helyot, &c. We here annex a few authorities which may help to elucidate this obscure subject ; and we have also introduced the Canons, &c. of the Church of England bearing upon the point. The Gown , however, is prescribed in no Rubric of the Liturgy, 962 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. and is considered to be strictly the private , or Aca- demic Dress , of the wearer. The question of its use as the Preaching- Dress will be considered here- after. In the Synod of “ Trullus ” (a cupolo in the Emperor’s palace at Constantinople) A. d. 683. we find a Canon which enjoins : — * That Clergymen neither in city nor on the road use any habit, but * such Gowns (o-toXcu) as have been ordered, under pain of one ‘week’s suspension from Communion.’ — .J ohnson’s Vade Mecum. ii. 238. In Abp. Bouchiee’s Constitutions a. d. 1463, may be read . — ‘ We .... do enact and ordain that no Priest, or Clerk in holy ‘ orders, or beneficed, do publicly wear any Gown or npper Garment, ‘ but what is close before, and not wholly open, nor any bordering ‘ of skins or furs in the lower edges or circumference.’ — J ohnson's Canons &c. ii. 516. In the 1 Book of Advertisements' of 1564 it is ordered: — ‘That ‘ all Deanes of Cathedrall Churches, Masters of Colledges, all ‘Archdeacons, and other dignitaries in Cathedrall Churches, ‘ Doctors, Bachelors of Divinitye and Lawe, having any ecclesias- ‘ ticall livinge, shall weare in their common apparell abrade a syde ‘ Gowne with sleeves streyght at the hand without any cuttes in the ‘same; and that also without any fallinge cape; and to weare * typpets of sarcenet, as is lawfull for them by the act of Parliament, “ anno xxiv. Hen. Octavi.’’ — C ardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 294. Similarly, in Canon 74. we find prescribed: — ‘All Dean3 ‘ Masters of Colleges, Archdeacons, and Prebendaries, in Cathedral ‘and Collegiate Churches, (being Priests or Deacons), Doctors in ‘ Divinity, Law, and Physic, Bachelors in Divinity, Masters of Arts, ‘and Bachelors of Law, having any Ecclesiastical Living, shall ‘usually wear Gowns with standing collars, and sleeves straight ‘ at the hands, or wide sleeves, as is used in the Universities, with ‘ Hoods, or Tippets of silk or sarcenet, and square Caps.’ &c. — Canon 74. Bp. Montagu has in his Articles of Inquiry, the following: — ‘ Doth your Minister officiate Divine Service in the Habit and ‘ Apparel of his order, with a Surplice, an Hood, a Gown , and a ‘Tippet ? not in a Cloak, a sleeveless jacket, or horseman’s ‘ coat? for such have I known.’ (_p. 67 .). — Articles of Inquiry. Bp. Jebb, in his Primary Charge to the Clergy of the Diocese of Limerick, 1823, remarks emphatically, — ‘I must make it a ‘ particular request, that every member of this Diocese will provide ‘ himself with a decent black Gown.' (p. 205.). — Pastoral Instruc- tions. Fosbkoke, when speaking of the costume of the 9th century, says: — ‘Along habit was the distinction of persons of rank, who ‘ never assumed a short Coat or Jacket fashion, but in the country ‘ or on military service, for the short Habit characterized the people, ‘ and hence came the custom of exhibiting dignity by long robes THE GOWN. 963 * or Gowns. At the end of the 9th century, persons who were ‘ ambitious of distinction bordered their Habits with furs of sable, ‘ermine and miniver.... of Gentlemen of the long robe, (as we call ‘them) there were none, the Clergy excepted, who in the Gth ‘ century were always to be attired in an Alb.’ (p. 925). ... In the * 14th century the males appear in Tunicks, Gowns with sleeves ‘ of all fashions, Rochets, i. e. tunicks without sleeves (like a Bishop’s ‘black satin Vestment worn with the lawn sleeves); Cloaks with ‘ or without Hoods, short, long, and of various fashions.’ ( p. 929.) ‘....In the 15th century, the Gown as an exterior Garment, ‘is less frequent, and the skirts of the Tunic more puckered and ‘ protuberant ; the sleeves those of Bishops ; or in persons of distinction, ‘ often ending in a distended bag, or lappets &c.; Cloaks, or appen- dages to Tunics, appear with large flaps over the arms, like ‘ pendent wings, and compartments of slips.’ ( p. 930.). ... ‘ In the ‘16th century, the meu of this era wear Gowns, tight or easy ‘ The fur Gown of this century is preserved in the livery Gown ‘of the City of London.’ ( p . 931.) ....Under the word Sleeve, Fosbroke writes: — ‘ By the distinctions of Degree in the Oxford ‘ Gowns being fixed in the sleeves, it is manifest that the fashions of ‘ them were denotations of rank. Sleeves of all forms and shapes ‘occur in the dresses of our ancestors of both sexes In male ‘persons of distinction in the 15th century occur sleeves with ‘ arm-holes, which sleeves are large and pendent in the form of a ‘bladder; others with arm-holes, also project, and are of the form ‘ of a cow’s horn, the large end at the shoulder. There are others ‘ very big, and of different fantastic forms in the same century.’ ()}. 959.). — Encyclop. of Antiquities. Archdeacon Harrison, after quoting from Strype’s Annals (i. 488.) a passage from a Book entitled, “ A pleasant Dialogue “ between a Soldier of Berwick and an English Chaplain ,” which runs in these words : — “ But Bernard, I pray thee, tell me of thine “honesty what was the cause that thou hast been in so many “changes of apparel this forenoon, now black, now white, nowin silk “ and gold, and now at length in this swouping black gown, and this “sarcenet flaunting tippet.” &c;— thus proceeds : — The “ swouping 1 black Gown” spoken of in the passage just quoted is, evidently, ‘what is still generally called the “ preaching Gown” full-sleeved. ‘ It is very commonly said that this Gown is of Genevan origin, and ‘ the mere Court dress of the Clergy ; but in both respects, I believe, ‘ the statement is incorrect. In the description above quoted, it is ‘ evidently worn by the Clergyman whose dress is in conformity ‘ with the established order ; and it is, moreover, contrary to what ‘ wc should naturally expect to find, that the Genevan, or Puritan, ‘ should be the Court Dress. And the very reverse would seem to ‘ be the fact.’ (p. 25.) After quoting Mr. Jebb’s remarks, which will be found below, the Archdeacon adds : — ‘ It may be pleaded ‘ in defence of the Academical Gown, that it marks the Preacher to ‘ be a learned man... But undoubtedly, if it be a question which is, ‘formally and distinctly, the Clerical dress of the Preacher, it is the 1 full-sleeved Gown Nay, if the learned Anthony k Wood may * be taken as an authority in these matters, it would seem that that ‘ which is now commonly supposed to be the ancient Academical ‘ Gown is, in reality, the Genevan, and the supposed Genevan Gown 964 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘the ancient Academical, or nearly resembling it. .. .Anthonv a ‘ Wood proceeds to say : — “ Wben literature was restored by certain “ Benedictine Monks, whom tbat King (Alfred) appointed to read in “ Oxford, the Scholars did from that time, as we may suppose, take “ tbeir fasbions ; that is to say, ocreee, et vestes, vel habitus de “ pnlla chimera, i.e. boots and garments, or habits of a black colour “ or resemblance. As for other formalities which they did wear, as “ Cap and Hood, I am not certain whether the Scholars followed “ tbe fashion of tbem or not, but as far as I can yet nnderstand they “ did. John Wolfius, in speaking of the Order and Habit of the “ Benedictine Monks, saith thus : — “ In vestitu veteres usi fuerunt “ Cuculla, Tunica, et Scapulari ; Cuculla est Cappa supra Tunicam “inferiorem quam Meloten quidam appellant: k nonnullis Tax “ dicitur : Scapulare etiam k Scapulis, quod scapulas tegit, &c. “ Which Hood, Coat, and Scapular (tbe last being a narrow piece of “ cloth hanging down before and behind), were used (though since “ much enlarged) by our old Scholars, as I have seen it on ancient “ glass windows, seals, &c. Gown, wide-sleeved, for sucb in several “ foregoing ages was, and is still, the Benedictine Habit, and was “ anciently used by tbe generality of Scholars. At first when it was “used it was no more than au ordinary coat ( Tunica , as Wolfius “ Bath told you), and reached but a little lower than the knees. “ Tbe shoulders were but a little or not at all gathered, neither were “ the sleeves much wider than an ordinary coat, though since by “degrees much enlarged. From the said form the Surplices “ ( -Dalmaticce , first worked in Dalmatia, and therefore so called) “ received their fashion also, very scanty and slender at first, but “ afterwards wider than Gowns, When degrees became a little “ frequent among us in the reigns of Richard I, and K. John, other “ fashions were invented for distinction sake not only in relation “to Degrees, but Faculties, yet the wide sleeves are still worn “ by Bacbelaurs, and by snch Undergraduates that receive mainten- “ ance in Colleges by the allowance of tbeir respective Founders, “ worn at first black, then in several colours, and at length, when “ Dr. Laud was Chancellor, black again by every Scholar, unless “ the sons of Noblemen, who may wear any colour. To conclude, “ though there was a common distinction “ in vestitu ” made be- “ tween the Masters or Doctors of Theology, Medicine, Law, and “ Arts, yet in solemn assemblies and perambulations, or processions “ of the University, the fashions of their “ vestitus ” were all the “ same, only differenced by colour ; as for example, the fashion that “ Masters, or Doctors, or Professors of Theology used, was a scarlet “ Gown with wide sleeves (not of a light red as now, but red with “ blue or purple mixed with it), faced with certain beast skins “ furred, both costly and precious. Over that a Habit of the same, “ viz. half a Gown without sleeves, close before, and over all a Hood “ lined with tbe same matter tbat tbe Gown is faced with. The “ fashion of a Doctor, or Professor of Law, or Medicine, was tbe “ same witb Theologists, only distinguished by the facing and lining “ of another colour ; but that of artists was commonly black, as “ their Habits also were, but faced and lined with furs or minever. “ As for Bachelaurs of Arts, Law, and Physic, their Gowns, which “ were of various colours, as russet, violet, tawny, blue, &c. were “ also wide-sleeved, but not faced, and tbeir Hoods (for they had “no Habits) of tbe same colour witb their Gowns, but not lined, THE GOWN. 965 “ only edged with Lamb or Cony skin. The Gown that a Doctor of “ Divinity now wears, as also that by a Master of Arts, or such that “ are in Holy Orders, hath no Cape, only long sleeves with a “ cross slit to put the arms through. Which Gown is not ancient, “and never known to be worn by any before the time of John “ Calvin, who, as it is said, was the first that wore it, but had the “ slit long-wavs, and facing lined with fur.” {Hist, and Antiq. ‘ of Univers. of Oxford, i. pp. 68, 69.).’ — ‘ The Gown here described,’ says Archdeacon Harrison, ‘may be seen in the engraved por- ‘ traits of Calvin, Diodati, and others. In the records of Abp. ‘ Laud’s Chancellorship of the University of Oxford, we find in ‘ 1638, an order made by the Heads of Houses, that the Doctors who ‘ were to attend the King at Woodstock “ should all go in wide-sleeved “ scarlet Gowns (not in Habit and Hood), save only the Preacher, “ who during his Sermon should wear his Hood also ; and further, “ that both the Proctors should go in their wide-sleeved Gowns too.” ‘ In the following year, he writes thus to his Vice-Chancellor on the ‘ subject of Academical Dress, from Lambeth, Feb. 20th, 1638 — 9. “ I am likewise told that diverse of the younger sort, and some “ Masters begin again to leave the wide-sleeved Gown apace, and “ take up that which they call the Lawyer's Gown.” (In a note the Archdeacon writes : — ‘ Calvin’s Gown resembled the Civilian’s, * falling back in a lappet.’) — It would appear, then, not only that ‘ the dress of the Preacher, as recognized by the Rubric of Edward’s ‘ First Book (if we are to look to that as our rule), was in reality ‘the Academic Gown, but also that that Gown was anciently ‘ and properly none other than that, or nearly resembling it, which ‘has been generally supposed of late years to be the modern ‘ Genevan, or the mere Court dress, viz. the wide-sleeved, or, as it is ‘ commonly called, the Preaching-Gown. And if one dress or the ‘ other, the Gown or Surplice, as used in the Pulpit, must needs be ‘ associated with ideas of Popery, the stigma would attach rather to ‘ the Gown, as having been derived originally, it would appear, from ‘ the Monastic orders, {p. 28.) . . . .The Parishioners never provide a ‘ Gown, and, moreover, the Gown is nowhere mentioned or alluded ‘ to in any of the Rubrics, nor included among the furniture and ‘ornaments proper for Divine Service. The Parish, as has been ‘already remarked, do not provide the Gown, because it is the ‘ personal private dress of the Clergyman ; and it is nowhere men- ‘ tioned in the Rubrics, though it is in the Advertisements, Cations, ‘ &c. which have given regulations on such matters.’ {p. 122.). ‘ Historical Inquiry.' The Rev. J. Jebb remarks : — ‘ The Gown most improperly has ‘come to be considered as an official Vesture of Divine Service, in- ‘ stead of what it really is, nothing more than the private dress ‘ of the Clergy which they used formerly, and at no very distant * time, to wear on all common occasions, just as the resident Mcm- ‘ bers do at the Universities, but the use of which has been gradually ‘ more and more curtailed. At least it is now only the full dress of * the Clergy. It is however now commonly regarded as the Preach- ‘ ing robe : and thus, while the change of dress, prescribed by the ‘ Church, when passing from the office of Matins or Litany to ‘the Communion, is altogether neglected, this absurd practice is ‘ considered as regular and legitimate. It has been alleged, indeed, ‘ that while preaching the Minister is teaching in his private capacity, 966 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ and, therefore, that he ought to wear a less official dress.’ (p. 220.) 4 ....‘With respect to the ordinary dress of Clergymen, when not 4 officiating, the Canon prescribes the use of either of two sorts of 4 Gowns : that of the Academical degree, or one peculiar to the 4 Clergy. As to the Academical Gown, custom has almost ex- ‘clusively adopted that which is the proper distinction of the 4 Master of Arts, even though the wearer may be a Bachelor or 4 Doctor of Laws. The Clerical Gown is described in the Canon as 1 having a “standing collar,” that is, not falling back in a lappet like 4 the Civilian’s Gown, and 44 strait at the hands,” that is, with a ‘narrow wrist-band: modern custom having, however, tucked np 4 the full sleeve to the elbow, the narrow wrist-band no longer 4 appearing. This Gown has been objected to as not so regular a 4 dress as the other ; as adopted from the Puritans, and as less 4 distinctive, since Dissenting teachers use it. But in reality, it is 4 more regular, as marking the Clerical Order, which the Academical 4 Gowns do not. It is not adopted from the Puritans, since the 4 Geneva Gown or Cloak was in fashion altogether different : and ‘the Dissenters may rather be regarded as having usurped an 4 ancient Clerical Dress. It is always worn at the Court of the 4 Sovereign. In fact the whole tendency of our times has been, 4 especially at the Universities, to mark the Academical rank rather 4 than the order in the Church.’ (p. 222.) — Choral Service. The Rev. J. C. Robertson says that in ordinary Churches, 4 a 4 Gown has long been the Pnlpit-dress worn by Clergymen of all 4 opinions, and not supposed to be any badge of a party ... .Of late, 4 however, we have heard very different opinions ; the Gown has 4 been decried as 44 a relic of Puritanism,” a 44 Genevan rag,” utterly 4 unauthorized and unknown in our Pulpits until the times of the 4 Great Rebellion. On some of these assertions it may be observed 4 before going further, that Gowns are authorized as a part of the 4 ordinary Clerical dress, and are still worn out of doors in the Univer- 4 sides; at the worst, therefore, they become puritanical and Genevan 4 rags only when worn in the Pulpit.’ (p. 103.) Mr. Robertson subsequently cites (from Strvpe’s Ann. i. 336.) a request from Nowell, and others, to Convocation in 1562, couched in these words: — 44 That the use of Vestments, Copes, and Surplices, may be taken 44 away, so that all Ministers in their Ministry use a grave, comely, 44 and side (i. e. long) garment, as commonly they do in preaching.” and again: — 44 That the Ministers be not compelled to wear snch 44 Gowns and Caps as the enemies of Christ’s Gospel have chosen to 44 be the special array of their priesthood.” 4 Hence the Preaching 4 Garment approved by the Puritans would seem not to have been 4 the same with the ordinary canonical dress.’ Mr. Robertson also cites from Stryte’s Life of Grindal, (p. 97.) that London Ministers are 44 prayed (by Grindal their Bishop. 1564.) to “take on them the Gown, (which one of them describes to be a 44 Turkey Gotcn with a falling cape), and to wear in the Ministry 44 of the Church a Surplice only.’ To which he adds, as a Note : — 4 This name ( Turkey Gown) is more commonly used to describe an 4 uwcanonical habit. Thns, Harding “ twits ” the Reformed Church — 44 — Do not some wear side Gowns, having large sleeves, which is not 44 well liked of your sect ? Some of more perfection (i. e. puritans), 44 Turkey Gowns, gaberdines, frocks, or night gowns of the most lay 44 fashion, for avoiding of superstition.” (--Ip. Jewel. Def. Apol. THE GOWN. 967 ‘323.). And the description of the dress in which the puritan ‘ delegates appeared at the Hampton Court Conference— 11 Gowns of 1 the shape of those worn by Turkey Merchants,” — is interpreted by ‘ Collier (ii. 271.) as shewing that they had nothing of the ‘ canonical Habit.’ (p. 106.). . . We find, further, that the fancy of ‘ the Puritans ran, not in Gowns, but on Cloaks, and other un- ‘ authorized and unacademical garments. Far from being of Genevan ‘ fashion, the Gmm was abhorred by the Genevating party, little, if ‘ at all, less than the Surplice itself.’ ( p. 117.). . . .‘ We have, I trust, ‘ seen. ...grounds for thinking of the Gown less vilely than some ‘ zealons Churchmen require us to do ; and in order further to ‘ make it appear tolerable, let me remind some persons that Monks ‘ preach in the Habit of their order (“ si concionator sit regularis, “remanet indntus solo habitn suo regulari." — Gavant. Thesaur. ‘ i. 209.), and a Gown is properly the habit of an English Clergyman. ‘ The garment described in the ‘ Advertisements' of 1565 is identified ‘ by Mr. Jebb (p. 223.) with that which is now styled a Preacher's ‘ Gown, “ modern custom having, however, tucked up the full sleeve “ to the elbow, the narrow wristhands no longer appearing.” I can- 1 not agree with Mr. Jebb in thinking that a Graduate ought ‘ to wear this Gown rather than that of his degree.’ ( p. 118.). — How Shall we Conform to the Liturgy. The Rev. E. Scobell remarks : — ‘ The Gown and Cassock are ‘ not remnants of “ Genevan superstition,” as has been sometimes ‘ said, anymore than the Surplice might be called a remnant of “Pa- ‘ ganism”; for certain it is that the Dress of Heathen Priests was a ‘white vest. .. .Neither is the Gown and Cassock a Dress assumed ‘ especially for Preaching, or for any particular occasion ; but it is ‘ the regular Canonical, and ordinary Dress of every Minister of the ‘ Church of England, which was formerly always worn, and which ‘ he is bound by the letter of the law still to wear ; and which it is ‘ presumed he invariably does wear, at least in every public minis- ‘ tration of the Church : and any other Vestment, or “ Ornament,” ‘ as the Rubric calls it, snperadded to this, in any service is and can ‘be added by special appointment alone.’ (p. 35.). — Thoughts on Church Matters. Mr. Gilbert French observes : — ‘ The Academic Gown, like the ‘ Hood, is merely an adaptation of the attire worn by the Laity, * during the middle ages. So early as the Saxon era, the costume of ‘ both sexes consisted of a flowing robe, with sleeves of inordinate ‘size pendant from the wrist or the elbow. ...The robes of the * English Universities resemble very closely those of ancient times, ‘ and correspond in form to a remarkable extent with the Gowns ‘ represented in illuminations of the 13th, and 14th centuries. ‘ Except in the sleeves, the Gowns of the Clergy do not vary in form; * but these, like the Tippet or Hood, are so contrived as to indicate, ‘ by some peculiarity of form, the Academic degree of the wearer. 4 There is, however, one form of robe which may be worn without ‘ distinction by all Clergymen. Instead of long pendant sleeves, ‘ those of the Preacher's Gown are remarkably short, reaching only ‘to the elbow ; they are, at the same time, extremely wide and full, ‘ a form which contributes to the dignified appearance of the wearer. ‘ This pudding-sleeved, Preacher's, or dress, Gown ; for it is known by 968 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. 1 all these names, is generally — but by no means exclusively — worn ‘by Clergymen who are not Graduates.’ (p. 164 — 6.). On the Minor Accessories to the Service of the Church. In “Popular Tracts” we read : — ‘As for the Gown which ‘has been so clamorously required in the Pulpit, it is only an ‘ Academical distinction, and may be worn by any layman, who has ‘ taken an University degree. Why should the Clergyman in the * Pulpit look like a mere layman ? Why should not his dress bespeak ‘him as one sent forth from God for the work of the ministry?’ (p. 9.). — No. II. Published by A. Holden. Exeter. THE HOOD. Caputium, Cucullus, Almutium, Amicia. (Capuchon, Chaperon, Fr.— Cappuccio, Ital.) The Cowl , or Hood , was originally a covering for the head to protect it against the inclemency of the weather; and was worn by all classes without dis- tinction. Its ready adaptation to concealing the features led to its adoption at a very early age by Monks and Ascetics. As these multiplied, and formed themselves into various distinct orders, their Hoods assumed a different fashion in cut, colour and material. From the Monks it passed to the Cathe- dral and Collegiate Churches ; and from them to the Universities; so that at the present time it is a mere badge of distinction, serving to point out the Academi- cal degree of the wearer; and forms rather a vesture of ornament than of use. It seems, indeed, to be des- cended from the Almuce (see supra, p. 914.). The Doctor’s Hood is generally scarlet; but the greater variety is in the Master of Arts’ Hood. The 31. A. Hood of Oxford is black lined with red ; of Cambridge, black lined with white while regent, but without the white when non-regent. The 3I.A. Hood of Dublin is black lined with blue ; and of Durham, black lined with purple. The 13. A. Hood is black lined with a border of white fur. Out of the Universities the Hood has become almost exclusively an Ecclesiastical ornament. It is required by the 58th Canon to be worn by all Ministers when reading the Public Prayers ; also when Preaching, by the Rubric of Edward’s First Liturgy. The THE HOOD. 969 use of the Hood is enjoined on Members of Cathedral Establishments in their ministrations by a Rubric of the same Liturgy of Edward VI., as well as by the 25th Canon ; and its adoption by members of the Universities is enforced by the 17th Canon. — Du Cange. &c. (See supra p. 873.). In a Constitution of Abp. Bourchier’s, a. d. 14G3. we read : — ‘ No one who is not graduated iu some University, or possessed of ‘ some Ecclesiastical dignity, do wear a Cap with a Cape ( Hood , ‘ Caputhun penulatum), nor a double Cape, nor a single one with a ‘ cornet, or a short Hood after the manner of prelates and graduates, ‘ excepting only the Priest and Clerks in the service of our Lord ‘ the King.’ — Johnson’s Laws and Canons &c. ii. 516. Dr. Nicholes (o6. 1712.) says Another Ecclesiastical Orna- ‘ ment which is ordered to be worn in the celebration of Divine 1 Service, is the Hood. But if there be any fault in wearing this ‘Habit the University is to be blamed for it, rather than the ‘ Church : for the Hoods , which are generally worn by the Clergy, ‘ are the Habits of their Degrees, which they have taken in one of ‘ the Uuiversities. The Hood , is called by the Latins Caputium, or ‘ Cueullus. The latter seems to be the most proper name for it, and ‘ was of great antiquity. For the Cueullus was an Habit among the ‘ ancient Romans ; it "being a coarse covering for the head, some- ‘ thing like our fishermen’s caps, made of thrum or coarse yam ; ‘ broad at the lower part, for the head to go in, and then lessening ‘gradually, till it ended in a point The Gauls, especially the ‘ Druids, wore the Cueullus (or Hood ) very long, so that the top ‘ part thereof hung down behind : hence when it came to be used at ‘ Rome it obtained the name of Bardo- Cueullus, or the Bard’s Hood. 4 Nay, some wore it so big and large that they could make it lap 4 over their faces In time, the Cowl or Hood was enlarged, so as ‘ to cover the head and neck, and to muffle up the person that wore ‘it in such a manner, as not to be known when he went along.. .The ‘ Hood continued in use in the time of the later Emperors of Rome; ‘ it being mentioned in the writings of Capitolinus and Spartan. ‘ When the Monks and Asceticks began in the Church, they took up ‘ the use of it, as being a melancholy Habit, when drawn over part ‘ of their faces; keeping them both from being stared at, and from 4 looking about. And as the several orders of the Monks grew up, 4 there was hardly any one of them but had the Hood or Cowl, 4 a little differenced in the cut or fashion of it. But generally it ‘was contrived so, that in cold or wet weather, it might be a ‘ covering to the head ; or, at other times, when they pleased, they ‘ might let it fall back behind them. The IJood was also used by ‘the Canons of Cathedral and Collegiate Churches; tho’ they ‘ were forbidden by the Canons to use the same Hood with the ‘ Monks. (Cowc. AquisgrX The Universities took the Hood from ‘the Cathedrals: for, in the latter ages, the Monks had made their ‘ Hood and Gown to be the same thing; so that, among them, the 4 Cueullus signified their whole Habit, and not the Hood only; and so ‘ it was used for the last 400 or 500 years. Thus the Hood, properly 970 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘so called, was used only by University Graduates, and secular ‘ dignified Priests; and by them, rather for ornament than for use.’ — Com. Prayer in loco. Wheatly (ob. 1742) observes:— ‘Next to the Surplice that ‘which is of most frequent use in the celebration of Divine Service ‘ is the Hood, or the Habit denoting the Degree which the person ‘ officiating has taken in the University. This in Latin is called ‘ Caputium or Cucullus / though of the two names the latter seems ‘ to be the more proper and ancient. For the Cucullus was a Habit ‘ among the ancient Romans, being a coarse covering for the head, ‘broad at one end for the head to go in, and then lessening gradually ‘till it ended in a point. From the Romans the use of it was taken ‘ up by the old Monks and Ascetics ; who, as soon as they began in ‘ the Church, made choice of this Habit as suitable to that strict ‘reservedness which they professed. For when this was drawn ‘ over their faces, it at once prevented them from gazing at others, ‘or being stared at themselves. And as the several orders of ‘ Monks grew up, there was hardly any one of them but had the ‘ Hood or Coral, only a little varied in the cut or fashion of it. But ‘ generally it was contrived so, that in cold or wet weather it might ‘be a covering to the head; or at other times, when they pleased, ‘ they might let it fall back behind them, hanging upon their neck ‘ by the lower end, after the same manner as it now is generally * used with us. After this it came to be used by the several ‘ members of Cathedral Churches and Colleges, though they were ‘ not allowed to have the same sort of Hoods as the monks. And ‘from these the Universities took the use of it, to denote the ‘ difference of Degrees among their members; varying the materials, ‘ colour, and fashion of it, according to the degree of the person * that wears it. And that these Academical honours (which always ‘ entitle those they are conferred upon to the greater respect and ‘ esteem of the people) might be known abroad as well as in the ‘Universities ; the Church enjoins (both by this Rubric [in ‘ Edward’s First Liturgy], and her Canons [17th, 25th, and 58th)) ‘that every Minister who is a Graduate, shall wear his proper * Hood during the time of Divine Service, but forbidding all that are ‘ not Graduates to wear it, under pain of suspension ; allowing them, ‘ in the room of it, to wear upon their surplices some decent Tippet ‘ of black, so it be not silk. Can. 58.’ ( p. 102.). — Rat. III. of Book of Common. Prayer. The Rev. W. Bates remarks: — ‘The Hood was originally a ‘Cape attached to the back part of the collar of lay as well as ‘Ecclesiastical garments, and might be drawn over the head if ‘ necessary. It was lined with furs, silks, and stuffs of various ‘ kinds, as may be seen in the robes of different orders of Graduates in ‘ our Universities. Du Cange thinks that a part of these Hoods, which ‘ originally fitted on the head, was afterwards detached, and finally ‘ became the Square Cap which is now generally worn by Students, ‘ and some other members of the Universities. The words Almu- 1 tium, Capucium, Amicia, and others, are generally supposed to 1 refer to these Hoods, and Caps ; but nothing very definite seems ‘to be known on the subject.’ (p. 316.). — Lectures on Christian An- tiquities tfc. THE HOOD. 971 The Rev. W. Goode after quoting the Rubric of Edward's First Liturgyfb.') supra, p. 808., remarks: — ‘ The Rubric respecting ‘ the use of the Surplice and Hood prescribes nothing that varies * from the present well-understood law and universal custom, except ‘ in requiring the use of the Hood in Preaching, which is not ordina- * rily the practice among us when the Gown is used in Preachins; ‘ but, as 1 suppose no one either among the Clergy or Laity would 1 have any objection to its use, if any one chose to wear it, or was ‘ required to wear it , it is a point not worth further notice.’ ( ». 31.) —Cer. nfCh. of England. Dr. Hook says, the Tlood is — ‘ an ornamental fold that hangs ‘ down the back of a graduate to mark his Degree. This part of ‘ the Dress was formerly not intended for distinction and ornament, ‘ but for use. It was generally fastened to the back of the Cope, or ‘ other vesture, and in case of rain or cold was drawn over the * head. In the Universities the Hoods of the Graduates were made ‘ to signify their Degrees by varying the colours and the materials. ‘ By the 58th Canon, “ Every Minister saying the Publio Prayers, “ &c.” (p. 305.) — Church. Diet. Gth. edit. The Rev. W. Palmer states : — 1 The Hood, in Latin Caputium, ‘ Almucium , Amicia, &c. is perhaps as ancient a garment as any. . . . ‘ and was formerly not intended merely for distinction and orna- ‘ ment, but for use. It was generally fastened to the back of the ‘ Cope, Casula, or other vesture, and. in case of rain or cold was ‘ drawn over the head. It was formerly used by the Laity as well ‘ as the Clergy, and by the monastic orders. In Universities, the 1 Hoods of Graduates were made to signify their degrees by varying ‘ the colours and materials. In Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, ‘ the Hoods of the Canons and Prebendaries were frequently lined ‘with fur or wool, and always worn in the Choir. The term 1 A Imutium or Amice, was particularly applied to these last. See 1 Do Cange vocibus 1 Capucium,' ‘ Almucium ,’ All our Clorgy 1 are permitted to wear the Hood at the Daily Service, and on other ‘ proper occasions.’ — Orig. Lit. ii. 409. The Rev. J. C. Robertson says : — ‘ The Hood, as worn among ‘ us, is an Academical distinction The Hood ought properly to ‘ be worn with the Preaching Garment, whatever this be ; and I 1 may notice that it appears to have been formerly reckoned among, ‘ things which are to be provided at the cost of the Parish.’ (/>. 119.) — How Shall we Conform to the Liturgy. Mr. Gilbert French observes: — ‘The Cowl, Hood, or Capu- ‘ chon, was used in England during the 12th, 13th, aud 14th centu- ‘ ries, by both sexes, and all classes and professions. Within doors * it was suspended over the shoulders, exactly in the same manner ‘ as uow practised by the Clergy. It was conveniently adapted as a ‘covering for the head, neck, and shoulders, in any variety of ‘ weather ; while it served, at the same time, to conceal the person ‘ of the wearer, who could button it over the chin and month, or ‘ draw the upper part over the forehead and eyes. Though an ‘ independent portion of the dress, the Capuchon was often attaohed ‘ to the outer robe of the Churchman, or to the surcoat of the * soldier, who wore it instead of the helmet, when not engaged in 3 Q 972 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ warfare.. . .Even among Civilians, after the Cap or Bonnet came ‘into general use, the Cowl was still retained, and occasionally * worn beneath it, as a convenient protection in travelling. A ‘garment so generally used, was, of course, suhjected to various ‘ alterations in the fashions of its material and form:...Its form ‘ was suhjected to many alterations, in accordance with the arbitrary ‘ fashions of the time. One of the most singular was the addition * of a long tail, tippet , or liripipe, attached to, or proceeding from, ‘that portion which covered the crown of the head. ...In the loth ‘century, the Cowl was considerably altered in form; the portion ‘ used to cover the neck and shoulders being twisted into a thick ‘role, or “roundlet,” surronnded that part which covered the head, ‘ and the whole approximating, somewhat in appearance, to the 1 modern hat. At this time it attained the name of the Chaperon. ‘ The ancient Cowl lingered in England, as a religious and mourning ‘ Habit, long after its disuse as a portion of the ordinaiy attire. ‘ In the reign of King Henry VII, an ordinance was issued “ for the “ reformation of Apparell in the tyme of mouminge,” by which the ‘ Queen was permitted to wear “a playne Iloode, and a tippet at “ the Iloode, lying a good length upon the trayne of the Mantel!, “ heing in hreadth a nayle and an inche while the lower classes ‘areordered to wear “ Hoodes, with no manner of Tippets to be found “ about them,” from which it appears that the form of the Hood, or ‘ the length of its Tippet, indicated the rank of the wearer. Black * Hoods are still worn by females when attending Funerals, in ‘many parts of England. .. .At the institution of the chivalrous ‘ Order of the Garter, and for many centuries after, the Cotcl or ‘ Hood — and afterwards the Chaperon — formed a part of the costume ‘ of the Sovereign and Knights. It varied in form with the fashion ‘ of the time ; and in colour with the sur-coat or mantle, with which ‘ it was worn. The Hood is one of the Ornaments, permitted and ‘ enjoined to be used by the Ministers of. the Church. . . .The Hoods 1 of the Universities may be distinguished hy a diversity of form, as ‘well as hy their varied linings, which serve to indicate the * Academic rank of the wearer. Thus, the M. A. Hood of Oxford is ' black silk, lined with red, which Camhridge varies to a lining of ‘ white, and after a certain standing to black. The SI. A. Hood * of Dublin is black silk, lined with blue ; and of Durham, a similar ‘ material lined with purple. White fur is also used as a lining ‘for the Bachelor’s Hood; and vestiges of the tippet or liripipe, * though of moderate dimensions, may be discovered upon that of ‘ the M. A Stuff Hoods are improperly used hy any Clergyman.’ (p. 157 .). — On the Minor Accessories to the Services of the Church. — In a Tract on “ Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical," this writer also ohserves that in the middle ages ‘ the Hood or Capucium was * then worn almost universally by hoth sexes and all ranks as ‘ a covering for the head and shoulders. Its parts and uses will ‘ be easily understood by referring to the description of the anti- ‘ quary Stow : — “ These Hoods” he says, “ were worn the roundlets “ upon the heads, the skirts to hang behind in their necks to “ keep them warm, the tippet to lie on the shonlder, or to wind “ about their necks.” ( Survey of London, Strype’s ed. v. ch.^ 7.).’ — (p. l.)....When speaking of the Academical Hood, Mr. French adds : — ■* It is not a little curious that while these Hoods have ‘ entirely departed from their original shapes in the parts intended ‘ to cover the head and shoulders, so that they now serve no other THE HOOD. 973 ‘ purpose than that of a mere badge, the tippets should have re- ‘mained comparatively unaltered. It may he remarked that the ‘ present mode of wearing the University Hood, hanging hy a ‘ ribbon, and reaching nearly to the ground hehind, is of questionable ‘ taste, as it has entirely altered the character and uses of the ‘Habit. At the time that the Canons were promulgated, the * Hood was worn upon the shoulders, and retained in its place by ‘ about three inches of the portions which meet at the chest heing ‘ sewed together— a more elegant and consistent arrangement than ‘ that which is now usual. ( p. 5.) . . . . During the reign of Henry VI. ‘ the Hood began to be superseded by the use of Hats among the ‘ higher classes.’ (p. 7 .)— Mr. French likewise observes in his “ Catalogue — ‘ Though the Hoods of each University should be ‘ of uniform shape, such is not the case, as in practice no standard ‘pattern is adhered to — hence the objectionahle diversity in the ‘ Hoods worn by the Clergy’ The writer then refers to the material and price in these words: — ‘ Of tabbinet. B. A. of Oxford, ‘ Cambridge, or Dublin with white fur , 25s. — The fur may be ‘ either the ordinary white rabbit skin used of late years, or the ‘more correct hudge; the price heing the same: the same of rich ‘ silk, 30s. — M. A. of Oxford, Cambridge, or Dublin, of strong corded ‘ silk, lined throughout with rich plain silk of proper tint, 30s. or ‘ 35s. The Stuff Hood, lined with white and red, used by gentle- ‘ men of St. liees College, 17s. In consequence of numerous ‘ inquiries, it is necessary to state that the ornament known as the “ Literate's badge," (or Hood) can be supplied, made from Alpaca, at ‘ 16s. each; hut it is also proper to state that its use is hy no means ‘ recommended.’ (p. 19.). — In “Popular Tracts” we read: — ‘ Hoods were a most ancient ‘covering for the head, far more elegant and useful than our ‘ modern hats, which present an unprofitable elevation, and leave * the neck and ears completely exposed. They are now merely ‘ worn as marks of degree and dignity. In pattern they vary, not ‘ only according to the Academical Degree of the wearer, but also ‘according to the University he belongs to. Laymen who are ‘ Graduates when they wear Surplices (as in College Chapels) are ‘ to wear their Hoods also, as well as the Clergy.’ (p. 4.) — Puh.by A. Holden, Exeter. Mr. A. W. Pugix, the Romanist, says that : — ‘ Hoods are a ‘ most ancient covering for the head, and far more elegant and ; useful than the more modem fashion of Hats .... The greater ‘ part of the Ecclesiastical Hoods are now merely worn as marks of ‘ degree and dignity, but originally they actually served as cover- ‘ ings. The Hoods of Chasubles and Copes were of this descrip- tion.... The A mess, now carried by the Canons of Cathedral ‘ Churches in France, as a mark of their dignity, was originally ‘ given to them to wear over their heads and shoulders, and protect ‘ them from cold while reciting the nocturnal offices In the like ‘ manner the Academical Hoods now worn in the English Universi- ‘ ties hanging down the hack, were formerly Hoods for coveriug ‘the head, lined with fur, &c.’ (p. Hi).)— Glossary of Eccl. Orna- ment and Costume. 3 Q ‘2 974 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. THE MANIPLE. Manipulus, Brachiale, Brandeum, Cincticulum Sacerdotale, Epimanicion, Fanon, Favon, IAnteum, Manica, Mantile, Mappula, Palla linostina, Phanon, Sudarium . — (Manipule. Fr. — Manipolo. Jtal.) The Maniple is an Ecclesiastical vestment em- ployed in modern times not so much for ornament as for use : it was anciently a linen cloth, or handkerchief, carried in the left hand of the Priest to wipe away the perspiration from the face, as well as the tears which intense devotion might draw from the eyes (‘ le lagrime , ‘che per la grande devozione solevano spargere ‘ nelP atto di sagrificare* — BonannL). St Sylvester, a. D. 314. appears to have first awarded it to the Dea- con, decreeing that, “ palla linostina laeva ejus tegatur;” and Pope Zosimus subsequently, a. d. 417, directed, “ ut Diaconi laevas tectas haberent de palliis linos - “ tinis. ,> The exact form of the Maniple at that age is not known, it is supposed to have been a kiud of handkerchief, and was variously called Sudariolum, Semicinctium , Mappula , and Grembiale. The Man- iple was eventually, (in the 12th century) conferred upon the Subdeacon, and made the insignia of his office ; it was used by him to cleanse the sacred vessels, and was designated by other names, as indicated above. It was afterwards worn by Popes, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, and Subdeacons j and from its simple character of a plain linen cloth, it became highly ornamented with gold, pearls, and precious stones ; having occasionally an orphrey all round the border, a cross and fringe at each end, and a cross in the middle, embroidered with needle- work. In later days it was constructed of cloth of gold, silk, or raised damask : and the colour varied with the Vestment. In form it was a narrow strip 3-ft. or 4 -ft. long, and 4 -in. or 5-in. wide ; a little broader at the ends ; and was worn folded over the THE MANIPLE. 975 left arm. The Maniple has not been recognized in the Church of England by any Rubric or Canon since the era of the Reformation : the Constitution of Abp. Win- chelsey — according to Lyntlwood’s gloss upon the word 1 appendiciis,' under which he includes the Maniple — required this, and many other vestments now obsolete, to be supplied at the expence of the Parishioners ; but the legal force of that Constitution is said by many to have expired. (See this discussed at p. 801.) Attempts, however, are being made at the present day by some of our Clergy to revive the Maniple for the purpose of wiping the lips of the Chalice after each reception, and for absorbing the water from the hand at Baptisms. These Maniples are narrow strips of fine white linen, sometimes ornamented with a cross at each end, and terminating with a fringe. This renewed usage, however, demands considerable caution on the part of the Clergyman introducing it, or it may be opposed as a most objectionable novelty. — Bonanni, Ducange, &c. We will now annex a few opinions : — The Rev. R. Hart writes 1 Maniple, Sudarium : An oblong ‘piece of embroidered silk, of the same colour as the Chasuble ' of the day, folded double, passed over the left wrist, and hanging ‘ down like a miniature Stole. In Anglo-Saxon times it was held ‘ in the hand, and still more anciently it was a plain white napkin.’ (p. 258.) — Eccl. Records. Dr. Hook says : — ‘ Maniple or Manuple : originally a narrow * strip of linen suspended from the left arm of the Priest, and used * to wipe away the perspiration from the face : gradually it received ‘ embellishments, it was bordered by a fringe, and decorated with * needle-work. It is not improbable that its use might be to clean ‘the Sacred Vessels, as has been supposed by some, for in the 11th ‘ century it was given to the Sub-deacons as the insignia of their ‘order. It is distinguished from the * Epigonaton’ by being worn ‘ on the left side. The Maniple is not retained in the Ecclesiastical ‘ Vestments of the Church of England.’ — Church. Diet. 6th. Edit. The Rev. W. Maskell, when quoting the Rubric of the Hereford Missal in the “Ordo ad Faciendum Sponsalia,” which thus reads : — “ Coram presbytero amictu, Alba, Fanone, et “ Stola revestito;” adds this remark: — ‘This order which I have ‘ not found in any other English Use, is of no little importance ; in ‘ its bearing upon the much disputed question whether the Maniple ‘or Fano was allowed to be worn at any other Office or Service, 976 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ than that of the Mass. Clearly it was especially ordered during ‘the rite of Marriage, according to the Use of the Church of ‘ Hereford. It would be no answer to say that the Mass formed ‘ a part of, or, more properly, was always added to, that Office : ‘ because there is here no mention of the Vestment, strictly proper ‘to the celebration of the Liturgy, viz : the Chasuble; but on the ‘ contrary; the omission of the Chasuble is equivalent to an order ‘ that it should not be worn. The Priest would of course put it on ‘ at the proper time, after the Marriage was completed.’ (/>. 42. n.). — Monumenta Ritualia. vol. i Again, Mb. Maskell makes upon the Rubric in the “ Celebratio Ordinum;” — “ Tunc tradat tl eis singulis in sinistro brachio episcopus Manipulos,” &c. — the following comment: — ‘It has been stated that the Winchester ‘ Pontifical does not direct either the Maniple or the Tunic to be ‘ delivered. And in fact both of them were of late introduction ‘ into the Church, as part of the Vestments of Sub-deacons. We ‘might have argued that not only the Tunic, but the Maniple was ‘added in the English Church (from the fact of neither being ‘ spoken of in the Winchester, and both in the Bangor M.S.*) about ‘ the 12th century. But it is a curious fact, that the very ancient ‘ Pontifical of Abp. Egbert of York, from which Martens has ‘ printed extracts, has this Rubric in the Ordination of a Snb-deacon: “ Et tradat ei calicem, et patenam, et Manipulum.” (Z>e Ecc. ‘ Ant. Hit. ii. p. 34.) 4 Whether it was afterwards omitted, between ‘ the 8th and the 11th centuries, we cannot say. But in fact, the ‘ Maniple in that early age had not degenerated from its real and ‘ proper purpose, into a mere ornament: and some ancient Pontifi- ‘ cals, when the delivery of it first solemnly formed a part of the ‘Ordering of Sub-deacons, expressly referred to its con tinned and ‘aetnal use. “Accipe Manipulum, ,” was the form of words, “in “ manibus tuis ad extergendas sordes cordis, et corporis, in nomine “ Patris, &c.” (ib. p. 20.). ‘ In which form we find the same mixtnre “ of symbolical meaning as in these passages. “ Mappula quse in “ sinistra parte gestatur, qua pituitam oculorum, et narium “ detergimus, preesentem vitam designat, in qna superfluos humores “ patimur.” (Alclfin. de Div. Off.) “ Sudarium ad hoc portamus, “ut eo detergamus sudorem. In manu sinistra portatur, ut “ ostendatur, in temporali vita tsedium nos pati snperflui humoris.” 1 (Amalarius. 1. ii. c. 24.). — Mon. Rit. iii. 182....The same author observes further on, when speaking of ‘ Processions : — * On some 'occasions the Maniple was ordered to be worn: I mention this, ‘ as the question has been much debated, whether that ornament ‘ was to be nsed at any other Office, than the celebration of the ‘ Eucharist. Roger Hovedex speaks of a ‘ Procession 1 appointed, “ cum sacerdote induto Alba, et Manipulo , et Stola, et Clericis in “ Superpelliciis enm aqua benedicta," &c. (Annal. ed. Savile p. 348.). — ib. iii. 367.... Mr. Maskell likewise, when speaking of the “Modus induendi Episcopum,” as ordered in the Exeter Pontifical, remarks that ‘the Maniple is directed to be pnt on • The Winchester M.S. is earlier than the Bangor Pontifical by about two hundred years; being of the early part of the 12th, if not of the latter part of the 11th century. THE MANIPLE. 977 ‘ before the Chasuble. Whereas the custom of the Church of ‘ Rome, and with two exceptions all the Pontificals which Geor- ‘gius had examined (the most learned writer on that subject) ‘ appoint Bishops, when they officiate, to be vested with the ‘ Maniple last of all. And, indeed, this Exeter Pontifical expressly ‘ remarks the distinction. “ Et sciendum quod,” it says in the ‘ Rubric before the Prayers, “ secundum usum curiae Roman* ultimo “omnium datur et ponitur in veniendo ad altare Manipulus , in “brachio sinistro, et post missam primo amoveatur juxta illud. “ Venientes autem venient cum exultatione, portantes Manipulos “suos.” The remark of Georgius is: — “ Praeterea Manipulum “ celebraturi Pontifices sumebant post caetera sacra indumenta, — “ sed in Pontificali tantum Prudentii Trecensis imponitur post “ Stolam, et in Sacramentario Moysacensis monasterii annorum 800 “ post zonam. Alias Liturgiae antique omnes statuunt, Manipulum “sumendum post reliqua sacerdotalia indumenta &c.” Cardinal “ Bona says, that anciently all Priests, and not Bishops only, * received the Maniple last of the Vestments; and this was rendered ‘ necessary by the peculiar shape of the Chasuble.’ In a Note is added : — ‘ Compare also Hugo de Sacram lib. i. cap. 51. “ De “Favone.” “Ad extremum Sacerdos favonem in sinistro brachio “ponit, quern et Manipulum et Sudarium veteres appellaveruut, “ &c." This Author does not especially mention the _ Maniple ‘ among the Episcopal Vestments.’ (p. 152.).) — Ancient Lit. of Ch, of England. Mr. Gilbert French describing a Napkin or Maniple of his ‘ own manufacture, ohserves : — ‘ This Maniple corresponds in form ‘ with the napkins still used in eastern countries, and which, on ‘ occasions of ceremony, are always, presented by an attendant to ‘any honoured guest, that after drinking he may wipe the lips; ‘ for this purpose, the attendant carries the napkin over his right ‘ arm. In the Romish Church, the symbolical ornament, called ‘ the Maniple, is suspended over, and fastened to the left wrist. 1 From the earlist period in the history of the Church, such a ‘napkin was employed in her Services; but it shared the same ‘ fate with many of her ordinances, and nearly all her vestments, ‘which, in the hands of the Romanists, were so overlaid with, ‘adventitious ornament, as to be of no practical use; and in the ‘ case of the Maniple, this may have heen accelerated by the denial ‘ of the Cup to the laity. Certain it is that the Maniple novv worn ‘ by the Priests of the Roman Church, is no longer of the slightest ‘ use, and has become a merely ornamental— (or, at the best, a ‘ merely symbolical) portion of the Sacerdotal Vestments. Though ‘ there are numberless evidences that the Maniple of the early ‘ Church was simply a long narrow strip of cloth, with fringed * ends : that now used in the Romish Church has hulging termina- ‘ tions ; and, besides other ornaments, is marked with three crosses.’ (p. 86.). — On the Minor Accessories to the Services of the Church, c fc. In Lewis’s “ Bible, Missal, and Breviary," we have the Maniple described as — ‘A handkerchief thrown over the left arm; derived ‘ from manus, the hand, because held in the hand. It is to remind ‘ the Congregation of the cord by which the Saviour was hound to ‘ the pillar when he was scourged; and as it is a sort of oppressive 978 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ weight upon the arm, it is to remind him of his duty to be faithful ‘ in the labour of the Christian field assigned to him.’ — Vol. ii. p. 375. n. Pub. by T. and T. Clark, Edinburgh. In “Popular Tracts” we read: — ‘The Maniple also is now ‘frequently worn by our Clergy at the celebration of the Holy ‘ Communion. This is a fine linen napkin of about 4 ft. in length, ‘and 8 in. or 9 in. in breadth, carried upon the left arm; its use is, ‘ to wipe the lips of the Chalice after any one has partaken of it. ‘ This portion of dress, it must be owned, has neither been prescribed ‘ since the Reformation, as the Surplice, nor commonly used as the ‘ Stole and Bands, but so much may be said in its favour ou the ‘ score of cleanliness, and even of health, that one cannot imagine, ‘ any objection being made to its general revival.’ (p. 3.). — No. II. Pub. by A. Holden, Exeter. Among Romanist writers may be quoted the fol- lowing : — Gavantus describing the Maniple, manipulus, says : — ‘ Mappu- ‘lam Ord. Rom. appellat, qua pituita oculorum, narium, et oris ‘ detergebantur, inquit Alcuin. loco cit. Sudarium, Alenin idem, et * Amalar. c. 17. quo sudor abstergitur. Cingulum brachiale, Ord. ‘ Rom. in consecrat. Episc. Favonem, Leo. IV. epist. ad Episc. et ‘ Gemma, c. 208. Mampulum, Rupert. 1. 1. c. 33. et Hugo Victor, in 'Spec. c. 6. Phanonem, et Mautile, Rabanus de Inst. Cler. 1. I. c. 18. ‘ qui et mappam parvam vocaverunt. Linteum cincticulum ‘ sacerdotale, Hesynh. apud Bulenger. 1. 1. c. 42; aerem, Chrysost. 1 in Liturgia. Decern ergo nomina certa Manipulus habuit; et apud ‘ antiquos Patres in usu fuisse, tradit cone. Rhemen apud Burchadum 1 1. 1. c. 60. Et nomina quidem sunt ad placitum, sed res eadern ‘est apud prasdictos turn ex fine, ad tergendum pituitam, et ‘ sudorem ; turn ex eo, quia iu lteva, secundum omnes, portabatur. 1 Dubitatur, an idem sit cum Manipulo palla ilia linostina, quia ex ‘ lino erat apto ad tergendum, quam concessit Diaconibus bt. Syl- ‘vester, ut cum Dalmaticis ad lsevain uterentur Vox ipsa ‘ linostina vim facit, quasi linostoma, qtue ex duabus constat vocibus ‘Gratis, altera significante linum, altera os: nam usus Manipuli ‘ erat ad tergendum os et oris pituitam Manipulus proprie laevam ‘partem tantum ornat. Fimbrias additas Manipulo describit; ‘ Ruper. loco cit. qui primus inter Scriptores eum Manipulum ' appellavit Adde, quod dextra manu commodius tergebantur ‘oculi: et os; Mappula pendente a lajva manu. Ligari vero debet ‘ Manipulus infra cubitum, non supra ; nec lougius a manu, ut ex ‘prajdicto fiue, et usu constat.’ — ( Thesaurus . i. 83). Farther on, Gavantus adds : — 'Manipulus tres cruces liabere debet, et chordulas ‘ ad ligandum solidiores Manutergium pro Missa ex lino tenui ‘contextum, longitudine bicubitali, latitudine sesquicubitali con- ‘stet: ornentur capita laciuiis et filamentis ejusdem materim.’ — ( ib. 292.) Dr. Rock remarks: — ‘Originally the Maniple was a narrow ‘ strip of linen, suspended from the left arm to cleanse away the ‘ perspiration from the face and brow, occasioned by the heat of the 1 weather, or the fatigue and labours of the ministry ; and it supplied ‘ the place, and was used for all the purposes, of the modern pocket- THE MANIPLE. 979 ‘ handkerehief. Gradually, however, it received embellishments; ‘first of all it was bordered by a fringe; then deeorated with ‘needle-work; till at length it became too preeious to be employed ‘ for its original purpose. But although it eeased to be used as a ‘ handkerchief, it was retained for an ornament to which could be ‘ appropriately attached a spiritual meaning. A little later, from ‘ being made of linen, it began to resemble in eolour, and to be ‘ composed of the same splendid materials of which the Chasuble ‘ was formed; and we find that, about the 8th eentury, it was ‘ enumerated among the Sacerdotal Vestments. Its ancient service ‘ is not by any means forgotten amid tbe ornaments which decorate ‘ it.’ In a Note is added; — ‘ The Maniple even eame to be esteemed ‘ a badge of honour and distinction about the 6th century, when ‘John, Archbishop of Bavenna, referred the urgent solicitations of ‘ his minor Clergy to Pope St. Gregory the Great, in order to ‘ obtain his permission to wear, in imitation, of the Clergy at Borne, ‘ the Maniple while waiting on their Archbishop. Tbe Boman ‘ Pontiff yielded to this prayer, but restricted bis favour to the ‘ first Deaeons only of the Church at Bavenna. ( Epist . liv. Greg. ‘ ad Joan. Episc. Ran. lib. ii.). During the 9tli ceutury,it was an ‘ornament eommon both to Priests aud Deaeons without distinction * ( Pellicia . i. p. 229.); and after the 11th century its use was ex- ‘ tended to Sub-deaeons, to whom it was now delivered at the time ‘of their ordination, as the emblem of their order and their ‘ ministerial offiee. C Cceremon. Episc.). It would appear from the ‘ illuminations of ancient MSS. and Missals, that formerly it was of ‘ the same breadth, and was not widened, as now, at its extremities. ( p. 428.) ‘ Among the Orientals the Maniple is not worn ; but ‘over the sleeves of the Alb they draw a pair of long cuffs, which ‘ reach from the w r rist half-way up to the elbow, and are eommouly ‘ made of erimson silk embroidered with gold. These Cuffs are ‘ somewhat like our old English Apparells, and are called ‘ enripaviKta, (Goar, in Not. ad Lit. Chrys. xii. p. 111.) sleeve-pieces ‘ by the Greeks, wbo not unfrequently oruameut them like the * Epigonation with tbe head of our Saviour, which the prelate holds ‘ out to such as approach him, to be kissed by them.’ (p. 427 — 9.). —Hierurgia, Mr. A. W. Pugin describes the Maniple as ; — ‘ One of the ' sacred vestments assumed by a Bishop after the : Confiteor ’ in ‘ the Mass, and by a Priest after the Stole, and before the Chasuble. ‘ It is attached to the left arm, to leave the right arm at liberty for ‘ministering, and varies in eolour and character with the Vestment. ‘ It is also worn by the Deacon, and Subdeacon. Georgius ‘ (says); — the earliest Boman Ordo ealls the Maniple by the name ‘ of Mappula The word Manipulus occurs among the sacred ‘ vestments in the 9th century. ...... According to Aecuin, and ‘ Amalarius, the Maniple , as its aneient names of Mappula and ‘ Sudarium indicate, was a linen eloth, w'hicb might be used as a ‘handkerehief. Yet there oeeur very early examples, where it is ‘ mentioned as an ornament, as it might be at the present day ‘ It is found also frequently nnder the name of Fanon. The ancient ‘ form of the Maniple, when it beeame one of the saered vestments, * w as very narrow, and about 4 -ft. long, folded over the arm, and 1 fringed at the ends. Embroidered crosses were afterwards added 980 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. 1 at the extremities, and to admit of these crosses being made more ‘ornamental, the ends of the Maniples were somewhat enlarged: 4 but the present hideous shovel-shaped ends are not older than the * 17th century. They are not only offensive on account of their 4 size, which is far larger than could possibly be required to receive 4 an ornamental cross, but they have led to the use of stiff materials 4 to keep these huge excrescences in shape. The Maniples in use 4 during the middle ages were often exceedingly rich in design, 4 being frequently ornamented with elaborate needlework, and 4 sometimes decorated with pearls and precious stones The 4 Maniple was originally worn on the hands of the officiating ‘Clergy.’ (jo. 156.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. In the “Voyages Liturgiqces," par Le Sceur De Moleon, we read that the Maniple was originally a handkerchief (le mouchoir ), which was held in the left hand between the fingers, or laid on the left arm, to be always ready in case of need. This vestment was rendered necessary from the fact of the Albe having no other opening than the one for the head, so that the inner pockets or depositories, which might otherwise have held the handkerchief, were inaccessible. From the Maniple falling over the left arm, where it is sometimes attached to the sleeve, has arisen the practice, says this Author; or, to use his own words : — “ d’ oil vient qu’ on disoit, et qu’ on dit “ encore quelquefois se moucher sur la manche ; et que quelques 44 enfans malpropres le font encore naturellemeut.” (p. 272.) The 4 Maniple is also used by the Choir-boys, (les Enfans de chceur.) — a Paris. A. D. 1718. THE MITRE. Mitra, Tiara, Cidaris, Galea, Pileum, Phrygium, Auriphrygium, Lorum . — (Mitre Fr. — Mitra. Jtal.) The Mitre , which at the present day is with 11 s but the heraldric coronet of the Bishops of the Church of England, owes its origin to the divinely appointed head-dress of the Aaronic priesthood, as described in the Book of Exodus (xxviii. 4, 37, 39 ; xxxix. 28, 30, 31.) — 4 A Mitre of fine linen, and goodly Bonnets of 4 fine linen;’ and 4 a lace of blue to fasten the holy * plate on high upon the Mitre * This Mitre is supposed to have been of a round form, constructed of a long white band or fillet encircling the head, and having the appearance of the oriental turban : some consider that the Mitre of the ordinary Priests was more pointed than that of the High Priest; and that the THE MITRE. 981 latter was surrounded with a coronet of gold, which 6omc have divided into three ranks or tiers ; but this is very questionable. The Mitre w r as subsequently adopted by oriental Kings and pagan high-priests under the appellation of Cidaris. Among the Romans it was at first a kind of head-dress worn by ladies ; and Servius makes it a subject of reproach to the Phrygians that their men were dressed like women, inasmuch as they wore Mitres, It is gene- rally believed that Mitres were worn by Bishops, and Abbots, and other Ecclesiastical dignitaries before the 10th century; and that it was assumed by the Bishops of this country on the first introduction of Christianity into the island. The present shape is thought to have been derived from the apex, or tutulus, of the Flamen Dialis in ancient Rome. Originally, the double pointed Mitre tvas low; and from the 14th century it increased in size, in height, and in decoration. There are three varieties of Mitres. — The simplex , made of plain white damask or linen, with red silk infalce or pendants hanging from it; the aurifrigiata , formed of silk embroidered with gold thread and pearls ; and the pretiosa, fashioned of gold or silver, and jewels. The Tiara is more particularly the coronet of the Pope ; it is a triple crown of gold worn on public occasions as an emblem of the Pontiff s temporal power. As an heraldric ornament, the Episcopal Mitre is surrounded by a fillet set with precious stones ; while the Archi- episcopal, on the other hand, issues from a ducal coronet. — D ucanqe, Bonanni &c. Fosbroke, describiug the Mitre, says : — •* The Bonnet, Cidaris, * Mitra, and Tiara, are often confounded by ancient writers, who * make them all the same head-dress .... The Tiara is a cylindrical ‘ turban, but the Mitre is pointed. Pellerin says, the Mitre is the ‘head covering worn by the sovereign Pontiffs of the Hebrews; ‘and was afterwards used, under the name of Cidaris, by the * Oriental kings, and the Pontiffs in Paganism, with some small ‘difference. The Mitre, properly so called, had below, a flat ‘ border, which surrounded it, and covered a part of the forehead, ‘ whence it was elevated in form of a cone, and ended in a point. ‘ There is still, however, some reason to think, that some Mitres 982 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. * resembled the Cidaris ;* such as that without edges and pendants, * but surrounded with a diadem, supposed to have been worn by ‘ Pontiffs, in quality of Sovereigns in the States which they ‘possessed As to the Episcopal Mitre, the Cidaris or Tiara ‘ worn by Gregory Nazianzen, and the crown of St. Ambrose, are ‘different from modern Mitres, but the latter are nevertheless ‘ ancient. The statue of St Peter, placed in the 7th century at the ‘ gate of the Church at Corbre, wears a ronnd, high, and pyramidal ‘ Mitre. That of the Popes after this period is similar. In the East, ‘ Bishops, Patriarchs excepted, made no use of it, contenting them- ‘ selves with a staff in the hand. Though the use of the Mitre ‘ was not ,common to all the Bishops of the West, from the 11th ‘century, Popes Alexander II, and Urban II. granted the ‘privilege of wearing it to various Abbots. It even passed to ‘Canons of Churches, and secular Princes. The ancient Papal ‘ Mitres are round, pyramidal, and in the form of a sngar-loaf. ‘ That of Calixtus II. is flat. The seals have Mitres, low, often ‘ terminated in an angle, and sometimes resembling bonnets, tied ‘ with a band behind, the euds of which fall upon the shoulders. ‘ The most ancient Mitre, which has the nearest resemblance to ‘ the modern, is that upon the seal of the Bp of Laon, in the 10th ‘ century. In general, Martene thus describes the ancient Episcopal ‘Mitre, as double-horned, or cleft, but lower than the modern. ‘ No pyramidal Mitres occur upon tombs, and the original seals of ‘Bishops, after the 11th century; and it has been respectably 1 affirmed that it does not appear to have been used in the Latin ‘Church office until about the 11th century. We find a Mitre of ‘ the 11th century very low and wide in the fork. The slit of the ‘ fork is also in front. That of Hedda, Bp. of Winchester, is low, ‘ ornamented or chased round the brim, sharp sided, with an np- ‘ right piece in front, like the brim, a small cross being on each ‘side; that of Dunstan, an Archbishop, is similar, the crosses ‘ excepted. In the time of Edward I. they are much higher, but ‘very wide in the fork; and concave, not convex, on the sides; ' still the old straight sides often remained. It has been said that ‘the Episcopal Mitres were gold, but the abbatical argent gar- ‘ nished gold, but there appears to have been no reason for this ‘assertion.’ (p. 950.) — Encyclopedia of Antiquities. The Rev. R. Hart states : — ‘ Mitra, the Mitre, does not appear ‘to have been introduced into this country till after the Conqnest, ‘ and has never been adopted by the Greek Church. The Russian ‘and Armenian Bishops wear indeed a sort of regal crown or ‘ diadem, but the Patriarch of Constantinople, and the Bishops ‘ immediately under his jurisdiction, celebrate Divine Service with ‘ their heads uncovered, while on other occasions they wear (as a ‘ part of their civil costume) a sort of loose drapery falling over the * The Cidaris was a conical head-covering, ending in a point, and with or without peudants hanging over the shoulders; some- times there were strings which tied under the chin. On some ancient coins, as on those of Arsaces, the Cidaris may be seen sur- rounded with a diadem. THE MITRE. 983 ‘ head, covering part of the forehead, resting on the shoulders, and ‘ having a cross embroidered upon it in front. It is something * like an Almuce, except in its material, which is of linen, cloth, or ‘silk. . ..Infulce aro the bands or pendants fringed at the ends, ‘hanging from the back of a Cidaris or Mitre.' {p. 258.) — Eccl. Records. Dr. Hook describes the Mitre as:— ‘The Episcopal coronet. ‘ From Eusebius it seems that St. John wore a Mitre. The most an- ‘cient Mitres were very low and simple, being not more than from ‘3 -in. to 6- in. in elevation, and they thus coutiuued till the end * of the 13th century. In the 14th century they gradually increased ‘in height to a foot or more and became more superbly enriched; 1 their contours also presented a degree of convexity by which they ‘ were distinguished from the older Mitres. The two horns of the ‘ Mitre are generally taken to be an allusion to the cloven tongues ‘ as of fire, which rested on each of the Apostles on the day of ‘Pentecost.’ ( p. 412.). — 'Tiara; the name of the Pope’s triple ‘ crown. The Tiara and Keys are the badges of the Papal dignity, ‘ the Tiara of his civil rank, and the Keys of his jurisdiction; for ‘ as soon as the Pope is dead, his arms are represented with the ‘ Tiara alone, without the Keys. The ancient Tiara was a round ‘high cap. John XIII. first encompassed it with a crown; Boni- ‘face VIII. added a second crown; and Benedict XIII. a third.’ ( p. 618.) — Church Did. 6th. edit. The Bev. W. Maskell remarks in a Note upon one of the Rubrics of the “ Consecratio Electi Efiscopum;” — ‘ I do not think it re- ‘ quisite to enter here into the controversy, as to the date at which ‘ Mitres began to be used in the Western Church. The great authorities ‘ for an extreme antiquity are Saussajus, Panoplia Episcopalis. 1. I., 1 mid Joseph Vicecomes deApp. Missal, c. 9. Cardinal Bona takes a ‘middle view of the question, by drawing a distinction between 1 the Mitre, properly so called, and some other ornament of the ‘ head, which, of some kind was always worn from the primitive 4 ages. Rerum Lit. 1. i. c. 24. Martene, de Ant. Eccl. Rit. 1. i. c. 4., ‘ following Mabillon, Praef. Saec. iv. Bened. p. 11. 182., takes another ‘ground: that the Mitre was always an Episcopal ornament, but ‘that for many centuries it was made the subject of an especial ‘ grant and privilege from the Pope. Lastly, Menard, in his notes ‘ to the Sacramentary of S. Gregory, declares that it was not intro- ‘duced until the 10th century: and he relies upon the fact that * there is no mention made of it iu the ancient Pontificals, nor in 1 the Ritualists before that time; either by Alcuin, or Amalarius, &c. ' This is undoubtedly a very powerful argument, and the only fact 1 by way of evidence which is brought upon the other side, is au * account of the examination of some supposed remains of Pope Leo ‘the Great; “in quibus super ejus caput Mitrce genus inventum “est.” {Georgius i. 231.) So that the question, as regards facts, is ‘still where Menard has left it. The most probable opinion seems ‘ to be that of Cardinal Bona. But I would add an extract from ‘ Innocent III, as to the mystical meaning and signification of the ‘ Mitre. “ Mitra pontificis scientiam utriusque Testamenti signifi- “ cat: nam duo cornua, duo sunt Testamenta, duse fimbria; spiritus, “etlitera: circulus aureus, qui anteriorem et posteriorem partem “ complectitur, iudicat, quod omnis scriba doctus in regno coelorum 984 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. “ de thesauro suo nova profert, et vetera. Caveat ergo diligenter “ Episcopus, ne prius velit esse magister, quam norit esse discipulus, “ne si cherts caecum duxerit, ambo in foveam cadant.” (Lie. ‘ 44.) The Mitre is a very frequent item in the old English inven- 1 tories The unction, the ring, and the staff are appointed in all ‘of them (the Anglo-Saxon Pontificals), hut not the Mitre, or the ‘ hook of the Gospels.’ (p. 274.) — Monvmenta Ritualia. VoL III. In Lewis’s “ The Bible , Missal, and Breviary we read : — ‘ The ‘ Mitre, from its shape and name of Eastern origin, has depending 1 from its back two fillets , by which formerly it was secured on ‘the head. It is now considered emblematic of the intellectual ‘ decoration of the Prelate’s head — the rich knowledge of the pages ‘ of both Testaments. “ It is not only a protection to him who is “ thus decorated, but also renders him a formidable adversary to “the enemies of the truth.” — Note in p. 376. VoL IL pub. by T. . 295.). — Thesaurus, vol. i. Mr. A. W. Pcgix describes the Mitre as: — ‘A covering for ‘the head worn on solemn occasions by Bishops, the Abbots of ‘some Monasteries, and from special privilege, by the C axons of ‘certain Churches. The Mitre was originally like a raised caps ‘ not divided, but closed at top. . . . worn by many Bishops before the ‘ 10th century. The early double pointed Mitre was very low. . . . ‘ In the I4th century they became more pointed and enriched, and * then attained their greatest perfection of form and decoration, ‘as they were sufficiently high to be dignified, yet without extrava- ‘ gance ; and the enrichments were of the most costly and elegant ‘ description, the edges being crocheted, and the points terminating in ‘jewelled crosses Prom the latter part of the 15th century, ‘the Mitres increased iu bulk and height; till about the middle ‘of the last century they attained that extravagant elevation, ‘ which they have since retaiued. There are three sorts of Mitres ‘ nsed by a Bishop. (1) The Simplex, which is a plain white silk or ‘linen (sometimes with red bands and fringes). (2) The Aurifrigiata ‘ ornamented as its name implies, with gold orphreys (or of cloth of ‘ gold without jewels or plates of gold aud silver). (3) The Pretiosa, * exceedingly rich and ornamented with pearls, jewels, enamels, ‘plates of silver, (or gold) and embroidery Georgius (says), ‘ the Mitre of the Roman Poutiff is to be reckoned among his 986 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ sacred habiliments from the earlest times Cardinal Bona ‘ thinks that the Mitre, as it now exists, was unknown till a ‘ thousand years after Christ, but that some ornament of the ‘head was used bv some, if not all, Bishops before that time “ The orphreyed Mitre is to be used, says Durandus, from Easter “ to Advent, and from the Nativity to Septuagesima, on all double ‘Feasts aud Feasts of nine Lessons throughout the year (except 1 Innocents’ day); and on the Sundays within the times aforesaid, ‘ and generally whenever the ‘ Gloria in excelsis,’ and “ Te deum “ laudamus ” are used But at other times ordinarily not the “orphreyed but the simple Mitre is to be used”&c. (p. 157.). — With regard to the Tiara, Pugin describes it as : — * A kind of triple ‘ crown which the Pope wears in public, on certain occasions, as a ‘ sign of his temporal power. Georgius says: — The Roman Pontiff, ‘ from a very ancient period, in addition to a Mitre, wears also, ‘ on certain days and occasions, a Tiara, which is at the present ‘ day ornamented with three Crowns or circles of gold, and some- times set with jewels, This is called by old writers, Tiara, • Phrygium, Regnum, and Papalis Mitra Durances says: “He “uses not the Tiara, except on stated days, aud in stated places; “ never ■within the Church, but without." The Cceremoniale S. R. E. ‘ has these words : — “ This Tiara, the Pope uses on great solemnities “ in going to Church, and returning; but never in time of Service.” (j p. 208.) — Glossary of Reel. Ornament and Costume. The Orarium, See Stole. THE PALL. Pallium, Omophorium, — (Palle. Fr. — Pallio. Ital.). The Pall is a kind of ornamental robe, emblematical of authority, worn by Popes, Archbishops, and Metro- politans : it was a narrow band of fine white wool, bordered and ornamented with crosses patd fitched at their lower extremities, and worn round the neck upon the shoulders, and terminating upon the chest. Its origin is involved in great obscurity, and was not adopted in the Latin Church before the 5th, or 6th, century. In the East it appears to have been known in the time of Chrysostom. The Pallium of the Archbishop was sent by the Pope as a confirmation of the Metropolitan dignity, and was a source of considerable profit to the Papal exchequer. Its form may be seen emblazoned on the arms of the See of Canterbury. The Pallium of ancient times was also a Gown or Mantle , an external garment worn by THE PALL. 987 the Greeks like the Toga by the Romans. It was usually white. The Pallium of the Philosophers, of the Pythagoreans, Stoics, and Cynics, was generally red.— Du Cange, Bingham, Van Espen, Bonanni, &c. The Rev. It. Hakt says : — ‘ The Pall, worn hy Archbishops in ‘ the Church of Rome, was a narrow vestment of white wool with 1 purple crosses worked upon it, encompassing the shoulders over ‘ the Chasuble, and hanging down in front. In the Greek and * Russian Churches it is worn also hy Bishops.’ ( p. 259.) — ‘ The ‘ Omophorium, was the Pall worn by Patriarchs, Arclihishops, and ‘ Bishops, in the Greek Church.’ (p. 258.) — Eccl. Records. Dr. Hook writes: — ‘The Pall or Pallium ... .is a part of the ‘ Pontifical dress worn only by the Pope, Archbishops, and Patri- ‘ archs. It is a white woollen band of about three fingers’ hreadth, 1 made round, and worn over the shoulders, crossed in front with ‘one end hanging down over the breast; the other behind it is ‘ ornamented with purple crosses, and fastened hy three golden ' needles or pins. It is made of the wool of perfectly white sheep, ‘ which are yearly, on the festival of St. Agnes, offered and blessed * at the celebration of the holy Eucharist, in the Church dedicated ‘ to her in the Nomentan Way in Rome. The sheep are received ‘ by two Canons of the Church of St. John Lateran, who deliver ‘ them into the charge of Subdeacons of the Apostolic College, and ‘ they then are kept and fed hy them until the time for shearing ‘ them arrives. The Palliums are always made of this wool, and ‘ when made they are hrought to the" Church of St. Peter and ‘ St Paul, and are placed upon the Altar over their tomb on the ‘ eve of their festival, and are left there the whole night, and on ‘ the following day are delivered to the Subdeacons, whose office ‘ it is to take charge of them. The Pope alone always wears ‘ the Pallium, and wherever he officiates, to signify his assumed ‘ authority over all other particular Churches. Archbishops and ‘ Patriarchs receive it from him, and cannot wear it, except in their ‘ own Churches, and only on certain great festivals when they ‘celehrate the Mass. An Archbishop in the Romish Church, ‘ although he be consecrated as Bishop, and have taken possession, ‘ cannot before he has petitioned for, and received and paid for the ‘ Pallium, either call himself Archhishop, or perform such acts ‘ as belong to the “ greater jurisdiction those namely, which he ‘ exercises not as a Bishop, hut as Archbishop, such as to summon ‘a Council, or to visit his province, &c If, however, any Arch- ‘ bishop in the Romish Church, before he receives the Pallium , * perform those offices which result immediately from the possession ‘ of it, such as, for instance, those relating to Orders, and to the ‘ Chrism, &c. the acts themselves are valid, hut the Archhishop ‘ offends against the Canons and laws of the Church. The Pall * was part of the Imperial Hahit, and originally granted by the ‘Emperors to the Patriarchs. .. .In after ages, when the See of ‘ Rome had carried its authority to the highest pitch, under Pope ‘Innocent III, that Pontiff, in the Lateran Council, a.d. 1215, ‘ decreed the Pall to he a mark and distinction, intimating the 3 R 988 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ plenitude of the Apostolic power, and that neither the function ‘nor the title, of Archbishop should be assumed without it; and ‘ this, not only when a Bishop was preferred to the degree of Arch- ‘ bishop, but likewise in case of translations, when an Archbishop ‘ was removed from one See to another. It was decreed, likewise, ‘that every Archbishop should be buried in his Pali, that his ‘ successor might make no use of it, but be obliged to apply to the ‘ Pope for another. By these means the court of Rome brought ‘ vast sums of money info its exchequer.’ (p. 456.) — Church Diet. Cth. edit. The Rev. W. Maskell, speaking of the 11 Reception of the Pall” ‘ says : — ‘ The origin of this ornament, as used by Archbishops, is ‘involved in hopeless obscurity; to use the words of Van Espen, “ Quando et quomodo usus illius ornamenti incceperit, sat obscurum “est, sive Graecam sive Latinam ecelesiam spectemus.” There ‘ are two early documents, which if they were genuine (and not a ‘ doubt remains that neither is so), would have thrown some light ‘ upon this question. One is the once famous Donation of Constan- ‘ tine, the other the Liber Pontijkalis in the life of S. Mark, Pope, ‘ a. d. 336. As to this last, it is the earliest notice, gennine or not ‘genuine, which has been yet produced for the antiquity of the ‘ Pall ; and the Jesuit Garni er, in his third Dissertation upon the ‘ Liber Diurnus, not only quotes it as of anthority, but contends, ‘that Linus, the successor of S. Peter, originally adopted it It ‘seems however to have been introduced about the 5th or 6th ‘century into the Latin Church from the East: and Thomasin has ‘ not been able to produce any example before the time of Caesar ‘ of Arles about the year 500. The form of the Pall is thns described ‘ by Innocent III. — “ Pallium fit de Candida lana contextum, habet “desuper circulum humeros constringentem, et duas lineas sive “ fascias ex eodem pauno ab ntraqne parte dependentes : quatuor “ autem cruces purpureas, ante et retro, a dextris et sinistris : sed a sin- “ istris Pallium est duplex, simplexa dextris ; cui in tres partes conciso “ tres acus infiguntur (spinas vocant alii) quibusconsuitur.” (De Myst. ‘Miss. 1. i. c. 63.) Me. Maskell adds in a Note the following ex tract ‘ from the 3rd Dissertation attached to the Liber Diurnus — “ Vox Pal- “ lit apud Latinitatis autores vestem illam longam signifieat, qnse aliis “ indumentis imponitur, ut subinde assumatnr cum prodeundum in “publicum; deponatur, quando quisque domi apud se est. In “sacris ornamentis vox ilia ambiguam habet significationem : “ sumitur enim, aliquando pro veste sacra, quae superinduitur, ut “quod pluviale dicitur, quodque Cappa et Casula; aliquando pro “insigni quodam dignitatis eximiae, quod ipsi etiam Cappae, “ Casuiaeque, imponitur, sicut Pallium reliquis vestibus, vel est “ Pallii omamentum quoddam et decus.” — Monumenta Ritualia. Vol. III. p. cxxxiv. The Rev. W. Palmer remarks : — ‘ The origin of the Pall, ‘ which has been generally worn by the Western Metropolitans, ‘is disputed... .it was originally only a Stole wound round the ‘neck, with the ends hanging down behind and before. In the ‘ East the Pall is called Omophorium (wpoifioptou), and has been ‘ used, at least, since the time of Chrysostom, who was charged ‘ with accusing three Deacons of taking his Omophorium. It is ‘ worn by all the Eastern Bishops, above the Phenobion or Vest- THE ROCHET. 998 * raen .tj during the Eucharist : and, as used by them, resembles the ancient Pall much more nearly than that worn by Western Me- tropolitans.’— <9n'y. Lit. ii. p. 406. < Dr. Brrix observes: — ‘ The Pall, pallium episcopate, is a hood of white lamb’s wool to be worn as doctor’s hoods npon the shoulders with fonr crosses woven into it. And this Pallium episcopate is the arms belonging to the See of Canterbury. (God. 3. Warn. 45. V —Peel. Law. Phil. in. p. 71. . Ma. A. W. Pugct, the Romanist, savs, the Pall is:— ‘An ensign , °‘ Jurisdiction, worn by the Sovereign Pontiff, and granted by him t ^twirchs, Primates, and Metropolitans; and sometimes as a 4 *? ark nononr to Bishops. Its exact form is yet retained on the 4 Al ™ of the See of Canterbury. Duraxpcs (Rationale iii. 17. ^y s; “ The Pallium is woven of white wool, encircling with the upper part the shoulders, and having two bands hanging down (| before and behind: it is donble on the left side, and single 'on the right: it has four purple crosses, to wit, in the front, and at the , back, and at the two sides. It is fastened with three gold pins.” .... Although the Pallium was a robe of state, as worn by the 4 Homan Emperors, yet it does not appear to have been other than an ornament, such as it now is in Ecclesiastical use. Some , m defence, however, has taken place, both in its material and form. ,, th e hfe of S. Gregory, the Great, we read that “his Pallium „ was °f fine w hite linen, not pierced by golden pins, bnt so twisted as to hang abont his shonlders of itself, as it appears in ancient , Rosales and pictures.” In that time, then, the Pallium was made , lm t n ’ not ? f w °oUen texture, and pnt on like the Greek Stole. 1 he change in the mode of making and wearing it, Rctsart about the 8th century.’ (Cceremoniale Rom. i. , • • Ihe Pope alone wears the Pallium, when he savs Mass, at « A vL“t. S and in 111 P laces - 111 the case of Patriarchs and , "“bishops, the nse of 11 1S » according to the Pontifical, restricted , f . 0 , the times of saying Mass, on great Festivals, and within the limits of their several Dioceses or Provinces. The times usually specified in the Letters of the Pontiff are:-The Feasts of the Nativity, S. Stephen, S. John, the Circumcision, the Epiphany. a aim Snnnnr M inniv A 1 j j f t . .. , . -o--j ---- • .... ... the Baptist, All , Apostles day. All Saints, Dedications of Churches, principal , leasts of their own Church, Consecrations of Bishops, Ordinations , °, f Ciergy , the Feast of the Dedication of their Church, and the . of t _ heir 0W11 Consecration. {Pontif. Rom. P. i. 5 . 16. to which the Lawn sleeves are ‘ generally sewed.’ (p. 103.). -Rat. III. of Book of Com. Prayer. ‘Wnit REV * W ! B * TE8 remarks: — ‘When the sleeves of the ‘ S , p’ e ^^ losed aad gathered close round the wrist, it was « t \ R °!:! Lette '.ff, a I; ° man Camisia, which was much used in « T „ y '. ln tbe . m’ ddle ages the Bishops were obliged bv the Canon Md lUtuI?™ U m PUhliC '’ 3I4 -)--£eef«res on Chilian Antiq. ‘ ArlhbWinnc ? aft s . tateS: —‘ The Rochetta, worn by Cardinals, < o/f: i- ’ B ‘ sh °P s > &c -> and some Canons Regular, was a Tunic ‘ iL!cf b u n i° r lace ’ faUin « a litt le helow the knees, having some- times tight sleeves, sometimes none.’ [p. 259.).— Bccl. Records. , r;!w.U? 00 j Roc \ et (>0 a linen garment worn hy «^,?i^° PS j U " der 9 blmere * was their ordinarv garment in « dunn g the middle ages. The word Rochet, however, is not < [Inf] ^antiquity, and perhaps cannot be traced further back , S n t , ‘\ 3th r CentUry - , The oWef difference between this garment *th® w, S .^ bce "P’ that Its sleeves were narrower than those of , we do not Perceive in any of the ancient pictures of < B °£ hshBls / hop ® those very wide and fuU lawn sleeves which are now used. (p. 542 .). — Church Diet. 6th edit. I Balmer Observes:— ‘The Rochette is spoken of in « ™ e old 0rdo Romanus under the title of linea : and has, no doubt, « iw'l.rr? an ^i e i} tly used by Bisb ops in the Western Church! « 'rv. mn ° j middle ages it was their ordinary garment in puhlic. n , be Tn R ° ckette . is not however of any great antiquity, &c.’ iiTiL 407 W thC pr6C1Se WOrds aS given h. v Hr. Hook, supra.)— Orig. . Burn, following Lyndwood , thus describes this vestment:— , J b ® Ro f ei ( a P a rt of the Episcopal hahit), is a linen garment gathered at the wrist; and differeth from a Surplice in that a Surplice had open sleeves hanging down, but a Rochet hath close sleeves. It was also one of the Sacerdotal Vestments; and in that respect Offered from a Surplice in that it had no sleeves. (Lyndw. 252). — Eccl. Law, Phil. iii. 545. 9 In “ Popular Tracts ” we read:— 1 The Rochette is a fine linen dress, shorter than the Alhe, and having properly tighter sleeves. There is no ancient authority for the full sleeves at present worn.’ (p. 6.) — No. II. Pub. hy A. Holden. Exeter. Mh,A. W. Puoiv, the Romanist, when describing the Surplice, says:— The Rochet is also derived from the Albe... As the Surplice THE SCARF, AND TIPPET. 993 * is an augmentation of the Albe, so the Rochet is a diminution of ‘the same being shorter, and either with tighter sleeves, or ‘ without sleeves. It is well known that the Clergy and Bishops ‘ were required formerly by the decrees of Synods, to wear their ‘ Albes constantly; hence the Rochets, which were merely reduced ‘ Albes, were introduced from reasons of commodity They were ‘ also worn by Cantors and Canons ; also by Choir Children. ‘ Rochets arc continually mentioned in old English inventories, with ‘ Surplices , and Albes. “Item, 8 Surplyces for the quere. Item, “3 Rochets for children.” “Item 3 A Ibys for children with “parells.” — Inventory of St. Mary Hill, London The Rochets 1 now worn by Bishops, are made so short that they are not only ‘devoid of grace and dignity, but bear no resemblance to the ‘ Albe, of which they are the type. In all ancient portraits of ‘ Catholic Bishops, the Rochet is represented as reaching below the ‘ knees, and ornamented merely round the edge. ( p. 198.) The ‘difference between Rochet and Surplice is, that the Rochet has 1 closer* sleeves, and sometimes no sleeves .... In the beginning of ‘ the 14th century the word Rochet had scarcely began to be used ‘ among the Romans, being Cisalpine and German, or Saxon, in its ‘ origin, and the terms Alba Romania , or Camisia Romana , being used ‘ in Italy to denote the same thing. The Pope, to this day, also ‘wears the Rochet, which was worn by all Bishops till lately. ( p. 199.) The Rochet in which Boniface VIII was buried * (and which was over a white Tunic or Albe), reached in length ‘ down to the ankles ( ad talos usque longum fait .)’ — (/>. 200.). Gbssary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. THE SCARF, and TIPPET. Scarf: Fascia. — (Echarpe. Fr. — Ciarpa. Ital.) Tippet: Liripipium. The Scarf \ when worn by our Parochial Clergy over the Surplice, may be considered as a repre- sentative of the Stole ; from which, indeed, there is little doubt it has been derived. The Scarf however, is not mentioned in any Canon or Rubric of the Church of England ; still, it is of immemorial usage, and owes its continuance amongst us to the force of * ‘ The present Anglican Bishop’s Rochet presents a striking ‘ departure from Ecclesiastical tradition in this respect.’ ( p. 199.) 994 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. custom. It is formed of black silk, folded usually into three thicknesses; having a breadth greater than that of the Stole : during seasons of mourning it is made of black crape; and at Weddings, and the Funerals of unmarried persons, the Scarf is frequently of white silk. The Sea? f is worn round the neck, and hangs pendent on both sides down to a little below the knee, where its ends are “pinkt;” thus differing from the Stole , which terminates with a fringe. This Ecclesiastical ornament seems to have been at one time peculiar to Doctors of the Universities in Holy Orders, and to Cathedral dignitaries ; from whom it passed to Chaplains of the nobility ; although the Scarf of these last at first partook of the colour of the livery of the Patron. In modern times, how- ever, the Scarf has been used very generally by the Canons of Cathedrals, Ecclesiastical dignitaries, and the Parochial Clergy, without distinction, but con- fined to black in colour, with the occasional exceptions above mentioned. Still, the later re-appearance of the Stole among the Parochial Clergy has in some instances supplied the place of the Scarf. The Scatf is now frequently worn over the Surplice, as well as over the Gown; except at the Universities, where it does not often accompany the Surplice. Some writers confound the Scarf with the Tippet prescribed in the Canons of 1603: they are indeed considered in modern times to be identical, although they are doubtlessly of different origin. The Eccle- siastical Tippet , represented also, like the Stole, by the black Scarf, ‘ may possibly be traced to the liripipium , the tail-like appendage of the Hood ; although it was more probably a distinct ornament, if not a kind of Vestment in the form of a Cape, adopted by no? luates as a representation of the was only allowed over the Hood ; and Surplice. (See Canon 58.). But the Academical Tippet, which we find worn by certain officers in Oxford and Cambridge, appears to be the near- est type of the original Tippet, as we shall presently observe. (See postea Stole.). We will now proceed THE SCARF, AND TIPPET. 995 to quote a few authorities illustrative of the uses of the Scarf, and Tippet, beginning with those bearing on the former. Dr. Hook writes: — ‘Scarf; a piece of silk or other stuff ‘whieh hangs from the neck, and is worn over the Rochet or ‘ Surplice. It is not mentioned in the Rubrie of the English 'Ritual, hut is worn hy our Bishops and dignitaries of the ‘ Church. It is used from long custom, and may be referred to the ‘ aneient practice of the Church,, according to whieh Presbyters ‘ and Bishops wore a Scarf or Stole in the administration of the ‘ Sacraments, and on some other occasions. The Stole has heen ‘ used from the most primitive ages by the Christian Clergy. It ‘ was fastened on one shoulder of the Deacon’s Alb, and hung * down hefore and hehind. The Priest had it over both shoulders, ‘ and the ends of it hung down in front. Thus simply were the ‘dresses of the Priests and Deacons distinguished from each * other in primitive times.’ (p. 564.). — Church Diet. 6th edit. The Rev. J. Jebb says: — ‘There is one part of the dress, not ‘prescribed indeed hy any regulation, but immemorially worn * by Capitular members, Doetors of Divinity, and Chaplains of ‘noblemen; hy all members of Trinity College, Dublin, who serve, ‘ or have served, the Collegiate Oftiee of Dean ; and now generally ‘ hy all Clergymen in London, Dublin, in many Cathedrals, and ‘ certain of the principal towns. This is the Scarf, or Tippet , (the ‘ latter being the term used for it in Ireland) the representative of ‘the Stole, ( Tippet is a sort of llood properly speaking), the ‘distinctive hadge of the Clergy both in the Eastern and the ‘Western Church. We have the authority of a learned Bishop, * (Bp. Jebb), for recommending its general use by the Clergy; and, ‘ indeed, deecney would seem to require its adoption hy those in * Orders to distinguish them from laymen. The Scarf the modern ‘and secular ornament of nohlemen’s Chaplains, & c., is supposed by * some to he properly a distinction, different both as to materials * and width from the Eeelesiastieal Stole. The usage of the Church ‘ of England does not make any distinction, as in the Greek Church, ‘ as to the manner in whieh this ornament is worn by Bishops, ‘-.Priests, and Deacons. The Deaeons in many Cathedrals assume * it hy custom. The custom at Canterbury, and elsewhere, of ‘ depriving the Minor Canons of this distinction, (though equally ‘ Priests with the Prehendarics), is one of those reprehensible) ‘customs which would really seem to imply that eapitular, or ‘ non- capitular rank, are matters of greater Eeelesiastieal moment ‘ than the Priesthood and Diaeonate.’ (p. 215.). — Choral Service. The Rev. W. Palmer remarks : — ‘ The Scarf is not mentioned ‘ in the Rubrie of the English Ritual; but as it is often used in the ‘ Chureh during the performance of Divine Serviee, I think it merits * consideration . . . .The Scarf is worn hy Bishops with the Rocliettc, ‘ and generally hy dignitaries and Prebendaries in Cathedrals, and ‘ by Chaplains. The origin of this custom is obseurc, and I have ‘ not seen the suhjeet notieed in any place. Tho Scarf is not * worn hecause tho person is a Doctor, by whom, in Universities, •a Scarf is used; for many persons who are not Doctors wear it. 996 TI1E ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ And therefore it seems to me more natural to refer this enstom ‘ to the ancient practice of the Church, according to which ‘ Presbvters and Bishops wear a Scarf or Stole in the administration ‘ of the Sacraments, and on some other occasions.’— Orig. Lit. ii. 408. Mr. Gilbert French observes: — ‘The long piece of black 1 silk ■worn over the neck, and reaching to the skirt of the Surplice, ‘ is generally designated the ‘ Chaplains Scarf’ though its use ‘ in the present day, is by no means confined to the Clergy u ho ‘hold that appointment. There exists no Rubrical or Canonical ‘authority for the use of the Scarf nor does there appear to be ‘ any distinct understanding, as to the parties entitled to wear it. ‘ Some would confine its use to the Chaplains of Royalty, the ‘Bishops, and nobility; others hold it to be rightly worn by ‘ Doctors only, while many suppose it to be contingent upon some ‘ very indefinite degree of Clerical preferment. Practically, how- ‘ ever, and perhaps from the want of some authoritative arrangement, ‘the Scarf is now occasionally used by all orders of the Clergy. ‘Its probable origin is the Orarium, which appears to have been ‘used from the earliest ages of the Church It is, however, better ‘ known by its Eastern name of Stole, and is a part of the Sacerdotal ‘ costume, which has ever been held in high estimation by the Chur- ‘ ches of Greece and Rome ... .1 have manufactured Stoles or Scarfs ‘ of the richest black silk, abont 5 -in. in width, perfectly plain and ‘ unornamented, with the exception of a simple fringe of the same ‘ material, 3-in. deep at each end. These Scarfs are meant to ‘reach midway between the knees and feet, which is somewhat ‘shorter than the modem Scarf is usually worn while the ‘ Church of Rome varies its colour with that of the other Vestments ‘and Ornaments, according to the seasons of Fast or of i estival, ‘ the Scarf of the Anglican Clergy remains unchanged, except that ‘on occasions of mourning, and sometimes upon Good-rriday, a ‘ Scarf of black crape is substituted for that ofblack silk.’ (p. 146— ‘ 151.) — On the Minor Accessories to the Services of the Church. In a small Tract on “ Tippets" Mr. French, speaking of the ScarJ, observes:— 1 Chaplains are now appointed, under certain regulations ‘ as to nnmber, by royalty, the nobility, bishops, sheriffs, and other ‘civil functionaries;* the office is instituted by the presentation ‘of the Patron’s Scarf or Tippet, which is worn by the Chaplain. ‘It is, however, no longer of livery colours, but of plain black silk, ‘ in three folds, reaching to the skirt of the Clerical Gown, oyer ‘ which it is worn. The ends are nsually deeply notched with ‘ mitre-shaped openings. The Chaplain’s Scarf is frequently ‘confounded with the Scarf or Tippet, peculiar to the Clergy ol ‘Cathedrals and Collegiate Churches, and to certain Academical ‘Degrees; and great irregularity in the use of both has been ‘practised ever since the Reformation. A letter in the Spectator ‘shows the abuse of the Scarf in the last century, and likewise ‘ proves that the idea of its being a kind of livery worn by Chaplains ‘was at that time commonly entertained : — “As I was the other “ day walking with an honest country gentleman, he very often was “expressing his astonishment, to see the town so mightily crowded “with Doctors of Divinity; upon which I told him he was very “ much mistaken if he took all those gentlemen he saw in Scarfs “ to be persons of that dignity; for that a young divine, after his “first Degree in the University, usually comes hither to shew THE SCARF, AND TIPPET. 997 “himself; and on that oeeasion, is apt to think he is but half “ equipped with a Gown and Cassock for his public appearauee, “ if he hath not the additional ornament of a Scarf of the first “magnitude to entitle him to the appellation of Doctor from his “landlady, and the boy at Child’s When my patron did me “ the honour to take me into his family (for I must own myself “ of this order) he was pleased to say he took me as a frieud and “companiou; and whether he looked' upon the Scarf, like the lace “and shoulder- kuot of a footman, as a badge of servitude and “ dependauce I do not know, but he was so kind as to leave my “wearing it to my own discretion” ( Spectator No. 609.)....' It ‘ appears to have been sometimes thought that a Patron, on ‘ presenting his Scarf to a Clergyman, and thus constituting him * Chaplain, removed him from the surveillance of the higher Church ‘ authorities, and even beyond the reach of Ecclesiastical Law.’ The author then refers to the circumstance of Lady Huntingdon * supposiug she had a right to proteet Mr. Romaine from eertain “ oppression gave him her Scarf, and as her Chaplaiu he contiuued “to preach to the poor in her kitchen.” It is also stated that “ under somewhat similar cireumstanees, this eceentrie lady “bestowed her Scarf, patronage, and protection, on Mr. Whitfield” ‘(Life of Selina, Countess of Huntingdon. Vol. i. p. 133. 192^).... Mr. French adds: — ‘During mouruiug, the black silk Scarf, or ‘ Tippet, of the Chaplain is often exchanged for one of Crape , ‘ the form being exaetly the same. It should be worn over the ‘ black Gown only, (though the arrangement is seldom attended to) * and not over the Surplice, because it then usurps the plaec of other ‘ Tippets, of at least equal, if not greater, importance.’ ( p. 13, 15.) — The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical. ...In this Author’s “ Catalogue” he puts down the cost of a ‘ Canou’s ’ or ‘ Chaplain’s ’ Scarf, or Tippet, of rich ‘ Armazeen, in three folds, from 20s. to 30s. ‘ . . . .The Scarf should reaeh the hem of the Gown.’ (p. 20.). — In the “British Magazine,” we find a correspondent (/«- dagator) remarkiug : — ■* In London, the Clergy generally use the ‘Scarf over the Surplice ; but if not Chaplains, D.D’s, or dignitaries, ‘ it is not, I believe, worn by them with the Gown I would ‘ wish to know (1) Whether or not the Clergy generally may wear ‘ the Scarf over their Gowns ? (2) if not, Whether Incumbents ‘ may ? (3) Whether Rural Deans, who have a regular appointment ‘ under the Bishop’s seal, are not equally entitled with Cathedral ‘Deaus and Prebendaries to wear it? And lastly, whether, ‘ it is not desirable, that the right to use this article of the Eeclesi- ‘astical dress be ascertained?’ To this enquiry is annexed the ‘ following reply, in a Note : — ‘ The Editor is really most ineompe- ‘ tent to give any opinion on such points. Perhaps in a matter ‘ relating to Public Sendee, the popular opinion (whether right or ‘ wrong) should be taken into account, to prevent our leading ‘ people into mistakes. That opinion the Editor believes to be, that ‘ a person who is not a D.D. has no right to wear a Scarf, unless he ‘ is a Chaplain ; insomuch that appointing a Clergyman * Chaplain ’ ‘ is popularly ealled “ giving him, a Scarf.” While this is the ease, ‘ having neither of these qualifications, the Editor would feel it as ‘ proper to wear a Mitre as a Scarf; but in thus giving an opinion ‘that is asked for, he does not mean to abridge the Christian 998 THE ornaments of the minister. ‘liberty of those, and he believes there are many, who think ‘ differently.’ (p. 69). — July. 1841. In the subsequent No., a Correspondent under the signature, J. B. gives a further explana- tion, stating:— ‘It appears as much a trenching upon the rights ‘ of others for a person not a Chaplain, nor a D.D., nor a dignitary, ‘ to assume the Scarf, as it would be if, in the University of Oxford, ‘ any but the Head of a Honse should assume the cloth Cassock ‘ In answer to your Correspondent’s queries, I would say, (1) that ‘ the Clergy generally have not the slightest title to wear the Scarf ‘ over their Gowns ; (2) that Incumbents have not, as Incumbents ; ‘ (3) that Rural Deans have not, unless it can be shewn that in ‘ those Dioceses m which the Office of Rural Dean -was never dis- ‘ continued, it was the custom for them to do so. Immemorial ‘custom restricts it to certain classes; and unless the Bishop should ‘ appoint otherwise, it is an invasion of the privilege of those classes ‘ for any other person to assume it. With regard to the Scarf or ‘ Stole over the Surplice the case is different. Immemorial custom ‘in London, and other Towns, allows it, at least to every Priest; ‘ but the modern habit of making it of the same length and appear- ‘ ance as the Scarf proper, has created a confusion of ideas on the ‘ subject. Anciently it did not reach much below the knee, and was ‘ not full; and it would preserve the proper idea, if those Clergymen ‘ who wear it would observe the distinction. A common hat-band, ‘ such as is given at funerals, unfastened and folded agaiu, so as to ‘ present the appearance of a very broad ribbon, would be a much ‘ better representation of the Stole than the long full Scarf at ‘present in use. The Scarf for Deacons was anciently worn in ‘this country (as it is abroad in the East and West to this day) ‘ on the left shoulder, hanging down before and behind; but as the ‘ Church of England has nowhere retained any such custom, it ‘ would perhaps be more seemly if Deacons were to abstain alto- ‘ gether from wearing the Scarf The ground upon which some ‘ Clergy wear Scarves, who are not entitled to them, is the sup- ‘ posed order of the 58th Canon and of the 74th Canon ‘ But the Canon is not speaking of Scarves at all, but of the round ‘ Tippet, which is still preserved in both Universities, and appears ‘on monuments in various parts of the kingdom.’ (p. 171.) — August. 1841. (See also page 199 of the same No.; and p. 536 of the November No. 1841. all in Yol. xx.). Tippet. — The following authorities will be found explanatory of the Tippet (Liripipium), which is thus enjoined in the Canons of lb'03 — 4. “ Such Ministers as are Graduates shall wear upon their “ Surplices, at such times ” (at Public Prayers, or Ministering the Sacraments, or other Rites of the Church), “ such Hoods as by “ the orders of the Universities are agreeable to their Degrees, “ which no Minister shall wear {being no Graduate) under pain “ of suspension. Notwithstanding it shall be lawful for snch “ Ministers as are not Graduates to wear upon their Surplices, “instead of Hoods, some decent Tippets of black, so it be not “ silk.” — Canon 58. In the Statute 24 Hen. VIII. c. 13. s. 15. A. d. 1532, it is ordered THE SCARF, AND TIPPET. 999 that Clergy, being Lords of Parliament, may wear foreign stuff and none else — ‘except that it shall be lawful to all Archdeacons, ‘ Deans, Provosts, Masters, and Wardens of Cathedral and Collegiate ‘ Churches, Prehendaries, Doctors or Bachelors in Divinity, Doctors ‘ of the one law and of the other, and also Doctors of other sciences, * which have taken that degree, or be admitted in any University, ‘ to wear sarcenet in the lining of their Gowns, hlack satin or black ‘ camlet in their douhlets and sleeveless coats, and black velvet or ‘ black sarcenet, or black satin in their Tippets and riding Hoods or ‘ Girdles, and also cloth of the colour of scarlet, murrie or violet, ‘ and furs called gray, black budge, foines, shanks or meniver in ‘ their Gowns aud sleeveless Coats And that none of the * Clergy under the degrees aforesaid, wear any manner of furs, ‘other* than black cony, hudge, gray cony, shanks, calaher gray, ‘fich, fox, lamh, otter, and hever And that none of the Clergy ‘under the degrees aforesaid, other than Masters of Arts, and ‘ Bachelors of the one law or the other, admitted in any University, ‘ or sueh other of the said Clergy as may dispend yearly £20 , over ‘ all charges, shall wear in their Tippets' any manner of sarcenet or ‘ other silk.’ This statute was repealed by 1 James I. c. 25. — Law's Eccl. Statutes, 1 . 118. a. In the ‘Booh of Advertisements' of a. d. 1564-5, it is directed that Dignitaries, Doctors, &c. ‘in their common Apparel abroad ‘ wear Tippets of sarcenet, as is lawful for them by the Act of ‘ Parliament, anno xxiv. Henry VIII.’— Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 204-5. Fosbroke dcscrihes the Tippet as — ‘ A dress for hoth sexes in ‘ fashion in the 15th century, it was woru about the neck, and ‘ was sometimes large and long, like a mantle. At other times ‘ it was narrow, and scarcely covered the top of the shoulders ‘ The Tippet worn hy ladie*s in mourning was a long narrow stripe ‘ of cloth, attached to the Hood or sleeves.’ (p. MS.)— Encyclopedia of Antiquities. The I’ev. W. Bates ohserves: — ‘ It appears that objections were ‘ made to Elizaheth’s Injunctions as bringing in the use of idolatrous ‘garments; if not, it is contended, ‘cur cappam et superpelliceum ‘ in sacris, ita commuui vita liripipium [Tippet] (quod appellant), ‘ et quadrature pilenm, gerenda esse prajeipiunt. (Keblk’x Hooker, ‘ E. P. v. 78. 13. note'). In Bailey’s Dictionary of 1737, Liripoop is ‘ explained to. be an old word, derived from cleri peplum, which ‘signifies a ‘ livery hood;' and Tippet to be a Saxon word which sig- ‘ nifies a long Scarf which Doctors of Divinity wear over their ‘ Gowns ; and Scarf is derived from a Saxon word signifying ‘“clothing,” or the Teutonic “ scherf, a segment,” or the French “escarpe ’an ornament of silk, &c. for Divines, &c It would ‘ appear that in Elizabeth’s time, and previously to the passing of ‘ the Canons of 1604, Clergymen who were Graduates, &c., were ‘ enjoined to wear their Hood or Tippet when out of doors, and their ‘ Hoods over their Surplices when officiating; but that Clergymen ‘ who were not Graduates were not to wear Tippets when abroad, ‘ and when officiating they were strictly forbidden to assume any ‘University Hood. If, however, they should wish to throw any- thing over their Surplices, they might wear “ some decent Tippet 1000 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘of black, so that it be not silk.” But there is also mention made * of Tippets having been used by Preachers, when it is pretty certain ‘that they were habited in Gowns, and not in Surplices, and many ‘ persons think that on this account the Tippet was the ancient ‘ Orarium, or Stole, or modern Scarf, which some Clergymen wear ‘both over their Gowns and Surplices.’ (j>. 318)— Lectures on Christian A ntiquities and Ritual. The Rev. W. Goode, after remarking that Canon 58 1 requires ‘ Graduates, in all their public ministrations, to wear over their ‘ Surplice their appropriate lloods ; and permits those who are not ‘ Graduates to wear, instead of the Hood, a Tippet of black, “ so it ‘ be not silk,”— adds — ‘ I leave the question, as to what shape this Tippet" is to be, to those who are fond of such inquiries. ‘ Mr. Robertson thinks it to be the same with the Stole or Scarf ‘ now worn, but I doubt the correctness of this supposition.’ (j>. 39.) — Aids to Ceremonial of the Church of England. The Rev. J. C. Robertson remarks: — ‘No order for wearing ‘the Tippet with the Surplice appears before 1604. The garment ‘ with which the Court Preachers of Elizabeth’s reign were expected ‘to wear it, was most likely the Gown It was an ordinary ‘ article of Clerical dress, worn abroad with the Gown by ‘ Abp. Grindal’s help, we find it (the Tippet } to be tbe same with ‘the Stole or Scarf described by Mr. Palmer (Orig. App. vi.) ‘ The Canon permits a Tippet of inferior material to be worn over 1 the Surplice by such as are not Graduates. The Tippet is also a ‘ proper appendage of the Gown, and perhaps every Clergyman of ‘ the present day can satisfy some one, at least, of the conditions on ‘ which the Act 24 Hen. Mil. allows that it be of silk. It is com- ‘ monly worn with the Surplice aud Hood by Doctors, dignitaries, ‘ and Chaplains ; but if the Clergy geuerally should feel disposed to ‘ adopt it in deference to the opiniou of Mr. F. W. Faber's projection, ‘ that it is a chief note of spiritual life in a Church, I should sup- ‘ pose that we may all be justified iu wearing it, without further ‘ order, and even that it may be assumed without raising any great ‘ outcry in any quarter.’ In a Note it is added, that — ‘ when Grindal 1 is found ordering the destruction of “ Stoles ” among “mouuments ‘of superstition and idolatry” ( Remains , 136 — 159); we may sup- 1 pose him to intend those of various colours which had formerly 1 been used, whereas the “ Tippet" of the Reformed was black only; ‘ and it is very probable, as the writer iu the ( British ) Magazine ‘suggests, that the Scarf of Chaplains, &c. may have been an ‘ ornameut of different origin from the Stole, and that the restriction ‘ of colour in the latter may have caused them to be considered as ‘ identical.’ (p. 122.)— How Shall we Conform to the Liturgy. Mr. Gilbert French, when speaking of the Hood, says that among the many alterations to which it was subjected, 4 one of the ‘most singular was the addition of a long tail, tippet or liripipe, ‘ attached to, or proceeding from, that portion which covered tbe ‘ crown of the head. This Tippet was applied to many useful and ‘ornamental purposes. It was sometimes permitted to hang down * the back ; and so preposterous was the fashion, at one period, 4 that it trailed upon the ground, though it might be tucked under ‘ the girdle, or fastened to the sleeve. The Tippet was occasionally ‘ wrapped round the neck, as an additional protection from cold; THE SCARF, AND TIPPET. 1001 ‘ or hound the Cowl closely to the head, in the fashion of a turban, ‘ frequently forming a head-dress of considerable elegance. Its ‘ most ordinary use, however, was to suspend the Capuchon oyer * the shoulder, where it was at all times ready for immediate service (p. 159) The modern hat-band (at funerals) may he consi- 1 dered an adaptation of the Tippet of the ancient Capuchon, either ‘ when worn hanging over the hack, as at funerals, or wound round ‘ the hat, simply as an indication of mourning, {p. 160) ‘ There is some difficulty respecting the form of that “ decent ‘ Tippet of black,” which non-graduates are permitted to wear over 1 their Surplices. After considerable trouble in searching for in- ‘ formation, I am inclined to believe that as the Hood has been ‘ adopted as the peculiar badge of the Clergy who had graduated at ‘the Universities; the framers of the Canon forhid the use of ‘ Hoods (whatever their form or material), to “ Ministers who were ‘ not Graduates,” hut permitted them to use the scarf-like append- ‘ age called the Tippet of the Ilood, which may he easily recognized ‘ in the “ Preacher’s Scarf" or (more properly) Stole. The colour ‘was restricted to hlack in contradistinction to the Stoles of the ‘ Romish Church : it was ordered to be simply “ decent ,” (which may ‘ he supposed, in this case, to mean plain and without ornament) ; ‘ and it was to he of some other material than “ silk,” which was ‘already used for the Hoods and Tippets of the Clergy of the ‘Universities.’ (p. 162). — On the Minor Accessories to the Services of the Church.. .Mr. French in a small Tract on “ The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical ,” further observes, that — ‘ the Tippet of the ‘ middle ages formed a curious and conspicuous part of the ‘ Hood or Capucium The tail-like appendage, called the liri- ‘ pipe, or Tippet, varied in its length and breadth according to the ‘ fluctuating fashions of the time The custom of cutting the ‘ edges of the dress in a leaf-like pattern, which prevailed during ‘ the reigns of Henry V, and Henry VI, was extended to the ‘ Tippets. Cam n den, quoting a satirical writer of that period, says : “ The Liripipes or Tippets pass round the neck, and hanging down “ before, ready the heels all jagged.” The Tippet or liripipe is ‘ easily recognized in the floods worn by the Graduates of Cam- ‘ bridge and Dublin ; though less noticeable, it is also to be seen in ‘ the Oxford Hood. Liripipes or tails may be traced in the dress ‘ or armour of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Jews, Romans, &c., * as well as in the queues, pig-tails, club-tails, and bag- wigs, of English 1 sailors, soldiers, and gentlemen, only fifty years ago. May it not ‘ still be recognized in the horse-hair appendages flowing from the ‘ helmets of the Life Guards, and in the ever changing lappets, ribbons, ‘ turhans, streamers, and toques, of modern females There are ‘ three separate ornaments, having difi'erent origins, and applicable ‘ to different uses, which appear to be included under this general ‘ name.’ (». 1 — 9) The author then proceeds to describe the 1 Chaplains Scarf ’ the 1 Choir Tippet ’ (see ‘Almuce’), and the ‘ Priest's Tippet or Stole.’ (see Stole.) In the “ British Magazine ” we read with regard to the Tippet ‘ It has been a very common mistake to confound this ‘with the Stole or Scarf; but I will venture to say that nothing ‘ but the hahit we have had of taking former statements upon trust ‘ could have caused this error to be continued. A little reflection 1 upon the Canons in which it is mentioned (the 58th, and 74th), ‘ would have shewn that an article which was to he a substitute for 1002 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. 1 a Hood, and worn instead of it, could not be the Scarf: for this ‘ simple reason, that the Scarf is never exchanged for the Hood, but ‘ used by Graduates, and non-Graduates alike, quite independently of ‘ it. Inquiry in Oxford would have shewn that the Tippet is still ‘ worn there, under that very name (or at least an apology for it), ‘ an d that . it is on certain occasions exchanged for the Hood , ‘and worn instead of it. The Preachers in the University Church, ‘ for instance, always wear cither the Hood, or the Tippet. This c letter article, it is true, has dwindled down to ridiculously small ‘dimensions, and is suspended by a button to the left shoulder 1 behind; but it is still round when unfolded, and was no doubt ‘ origiually worn buttoned round the neck, as it is still (though of ‘ various colours) by Roman Ecclesiastics, both in this country and ‘ abroad. But, to place the matter beyond dispute, a monument ‘ of a former rector of Draycott in the Moors in Staffordshire, in ‘the reign of Henry VIII, a. d. 1512, represents him attired in his 1 Surplice, (just such a one as we now wear, but not quite so long * and ample), his Stole, and a round Tippet reaching nearly to the ‘ elbows. This Tippet is represented on the alabaster, by marks ‘ which admit of no mistake, as beiug of the same colour as the ‘ Stole ; and it has a worked border of an inch and a half in width ‘all round the bottom, as well as a worked collar The ancient ‘ rector of Draycott is represented on his grave-stone in the very ‘ Habit assigned to those of us who are non-Graduates, and was ‘ doubtless accustomed to minister, if not to preach, in that Habit. ‘The only difference is, that the Tippets allowed in the 58th Canon ‘ are. to be black aud not of silk ; the 74th Canon leaves Graduates ‘ at liberty to wear silken Tippets, if they think fit, instead of their ‘Hoods.’ In a Note in the page following it is remarked: — ‘If ‘the use of the Tippet should be revived, our Canous do not ‘ suppose it to be worn with the Surplice by Graduates. But the ‘74th directs all dignitaries, &c as well as those beneficcd ‘ Clergymen wlio have taken any degree higher than that of B. A. to ‘ w ear either a Hood, or a Tippet of silk with their Gowns. If the ‘ Tivpet, w 7 as worn, it would, I imagine, be of the same colour with ‘ the Hood ; although this is not the case in Oxford at present. But ‘ I judge, from the circumstance that, by the Canon, the Tippet is ‘ to be of silk . in the case of Graduates, (which the present Oxford ‘ Tippet is not), and from the restriction to black in the case of ‘ non-graduates.’— Vol. xvii. April 1840. p. 377,378. In a subse- quent Volume of this Magazine, a correspondent (J.B.) when ‘explaining the force of the 58th and 74th Caxoxs, remarks: — ‘ The former of these Canons orders what is to be worn in the ‘ performance of Divine Service, the latter the ordinary dress of a ‘ Clergyman; the former what is to be worn over the Surplice, the ‘latter what is to be worn over the Gotcn ; and in both reference is ‘made to the order and usage of “the Universities.” The spirit of ‘ the Canons is, that all Graduates are to wear their Hoods over ‘ their Surplices, and that all Ministers are to wear Hoods over ‘ their Gowns ; whilst dignitaries, and Benefited men if not of a ‘ lower degree than M. A. or B. C. L. may exchange their Hoods for ‘ Tippets I would remark that the Tippet follows the Hood in its ‘ material, as may be seen in the 74th Canon ; and that whatever ‘reason would justify him in wearing a silk Hood, would equally ‘justify him in wearing a silk Tippet.' — Vol. xx. October 1841. p. THE SQUARE CAP. 1003 THE SQUARE CAP. Pileum. — (Bonnet-quarrfc, Toque. Fr. — Berretta. Ilal.) The Trencher-Cap , now so familiar to us from its general adoption in Universities, Colleges, and Public-schools, is of very obscure origin. It is supposed to have been derived from the ancient practice of the Monks, in early times, of wearing upon the head in the winter a kind of square-cap beneath the Almuce, (Capuchin, or Hood); and in some instances, over the Almuce. This peculiar method of wearing the cap furnished also the design of the modern construction. The Square College Cap , how- ever, must not be confounded with the Square Ecclesi- astical Cap. The latter is of very different form and appearance, and now but seldom to be seen worn by the Church of England Clergy. It is in shape like the lower half of a pyramid inverted : and in the centre of the crown was sometimes placed a tassel ; and the lower edge was often bordered with a band of velvet. This Cap is sometimes worn by the Clergy when in their study ; also at Funerals, while reading the out-of- door portion of the Burial-Service. In the reign of Elizabeth the use of the Surplice and Square-Cap was a matter of very warm controversy. In one of her Injunctions, Scholars and Ecclesiastics were ordered to “ use and wear such seemly Habits , Garments , and “ such Square-Caps , as were most commonly and “ orderly received in the latter year of the reign of “ King Edward VI.” (Cardwell’s Doc. Ann. i. 193.): and in the 74th Canon of 1603— 4. entitled— “ Decency in Apparel Enjoined on Ministers " we find the Square-Cap prescribed ; and, consequently, its use by the Clergy of the present day is legally defended. For the Elizabethan controversy, see supra , p. 816. We will, however, here annex a few addi- tional opinions. 3 s 1004 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Fosbroke writes with regard to ‘ Trencher-Caps ‘Old prints ‘show that there were round as well as square Trencher-Caps * w om in our Universities; and Mr. White (“ On Inventions ” 161.), ‘ quoting Pasquier, says, that round Caps, formed out of Hoods, ‘by cutting the skirts off, were worn by the Clergy and Lawyers; ‘ but becoming common, those of the Gown changed it for a square ‘one, which was invented by a Frenchman, called Patronillet, and given to University Students upon the principle of the Roman Pileus, and Cap of Liberty, to show that they were emancipated from punishment by their masters. That such was a consequence ‘of instruction in letters is proved by our English statutes.’ KP- 964.) — Ency. of Antiquities. The Rev. W. Bates cites Dn Cange, respecting the origin of ‘ the Square-Cap, in these words : — ‘ Ducange thinks that a part of | the Hoods , which originally fitted on the head, was afterwards detached, and finally became the Square-Cap which is now ‘ generally worn by students, and some other members of the Universities. The words Almutium, Capucium , Amicia, and ‘ others, are generally supposed to refer to these Hoods and Caps ; ‘but nothing very definite seems to be known on the subject.’ (P- 317 .). — Lectures on Christian Antiquities and the Ritual. The Rev. J. Jebb remarks: — ‘The Square-Cap is a regular ‘part of the Clerical Dress. At the Uuiversities it was not formerly worn by Laymen, who used the round Cap, such as the ‘ Doctors of Law and Medicine wear on state occasions there. The ‘ Hat, worn by Clergymen with their Gowns, and by most Graduates ‘(by a very modern innovation at Cambridge), is forbiddeu by ‘ Abp. Parker (App. to Life , book ii. No. 28.), and Caps are directed 1 to be worn, except in journeys, by the Clergy: and by the mem- ‘ bers of Colleges (bk. ii. chap. 22.). They are still worn by the ‘ Cathedral Clergy.’ (p. 223. note'). — Chorcd Service. The Rev. W. Palmer writes: — ‘ Ducange snpposes that the ‘ Square-Cap was formerly that part of the Amice which covered ‘the head, but afterwards separated from the remainder. (See ‘his Glossary, voce Amicia.) If this conjecture be right, the * Square-Caps used in the Universities, and by the Clergy, derive ‘their origin from the customs of the Canons Regular during the ‘ middle ages.’ — Orig. Lit. ii. 410. In “Popular Tracts” we read: — ‘The Square-Cap always ‘worn at the Universities, and in many Public Schools, and fre- ‘queutly carried in our Cathedrals, is supposed to be derived ‘ from the Amess, which was a kiud of ancient Hood of fur, nsed ‘ when it was cold during the performance of Divine Service.’— No. 11. p. 10. — Pub. by A. Holden. Exeter. In the “Votages Liturgiques” par Le Saeur de Moleon, we read that, instead of the fur -cap (bonnet fourr^) the Canons wear in winter under their hood (capuchon) a square-cap (bonnet- quarre) which they do not remove during the performance of their functious. The author adds: — “On sait que ve n’etoit autrefois “q’nne grande calotte, que les Eufans de Chceur ont retenue en “ hyver. (p. 49.) Again, “ Dcpuis un siccle ou deux ces aucicus THE STAFF. 1005 “ Moines (S. Ouen . 190.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. With regard to Cantor's Staves , we may quote the following : — The Rev. R. Hart remarks: — ‘The Cantoral Staff was used ‘ by the Precentor as a Baton to regulate the time of the Choir, ‘ and denote his Office. It was also termed Serpentella : one belong- ing to Notre Dame was of silver gilt, ornamented with fleurs-de- ‘ lis, and surmounted by a niche containing an image of the blessed ‘ Virgin. Round it were written texts of Scripture, such as — “ Take “ my staff in thine hand, and go thy way.” — In the same Church ‘ there was also a Staff with an image of the Virgin at the top, and ‘ a serpent at the lower extremity, which, it is stated, was “used “ upon each Sunday to announce in the Sacristy, who are to be “ the officiants of the week.” (Effl. de Paris, p. 295.) Possibly it ‘ may have been handed to caoh of them in rotation in token of ‘■investiture.’ ( p . 238.) — Mr. Hart also speaks of the Quecoue, as ‘ a thin oval or circular piece of metal, surrounded by small bells, ‘ and fitted upon a long handle. It is borne by Deacons among ‘ the Armenians, and used to regulate the Psalmody like a Cantoral ‘ Staff.' (p. 259.)— Eccl. Records. Mr. A. W. Pugin, the Romanist, says of Cantor's Slaves : — ‘ The Cantors in all large Choirs carried Staves to regulate the ‘ Chant, and as instruments of their office. This custom is still ‘ kept up in France, and Flanders. They were generally of silver, ‘ or silver gilt, with knobs, a boss at the bottom, andtabernacle work ‘on the top surmounted with a kind of poppy head.’ (p. 193.) — Glossary of EccL Ornament and Costume. THE STOLE. Stola, Ovarium. — (Etole, Fr. — Stola, Orario, Hal.) The Stole is that Ecclesiastical vestment known in the ancient Canons under the name of ‘ Orarium and is spoken of as early as the Council ofLaodicea. A. D. 360. The former appellation is derived from the Greek oroXq, a kind of upper garment ; while the term * Orarium ’ was assigned to it from having been used in its present form, and waved in the hand to indicate the time of prayer, orandi ; or, as some writers affirm, in the place of a hand- kerchief to wipe the face, ora , The Stole has been assigned to Popes, Bishops, Priests, and Deacons ; 1010 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. but not to the inferior Orders ; and was considered an indispensable symbol of the ministerial character. It was originally made of white linen, which some, however, deny ; but when it lost its primitive use, and became an ornament, it followed the colour of the vestment ; and was formed of silk, stuff, velvet, or cloth of gold. The form of the Stole was that of a narrow band, about 3 or 4 in. broad, passing round the neck, and extending on each side a little below the knee ; it was somewhat broader at the ends for the admission of ornament : and was worn Deacons on the left shoulder oidy ; but Priests, and higher dignitaries, wore it round the neck, and pendent in front on each side. Sometimes it w r as crossed on the chest by Priests, &c ; while Deacons would tie it under the right arm. It was formerly enriched with embroidery, gold, pearls, and precious stones : there was also a cross at each end, and in the middle ; an orphrey all round the border, and a fringe at each extremity. At one time the Stole had the word tfyios inscribed lengthways upon it, three times. In the Ritual of the Church of England we find no mention made of the Stole , yet it seems to have been represented for a long period by the Scarf or Ecclesiastical Tippet ; and is now beginning to assume its original form, but confined in colour to black; except occasionally at Weddings, and the Funerals of unmarried persons, when it mav be seen of white silk. (See ‘Scarf.’)— Du Cange, Bonanni, Georgius, &c. «< Hi— the Laodicwari Canons, a. d. 367. we read.— “ (22) That the u ^ter ought not to wear an Orarium, nor to leave the doors. r?i\ J hat Readers anci lingers ought not to wear the Orarinm.” On the first of these Canons, Johnson has the following remark ■— Orarium was a sort of Scarf, Du Pin calls it a Stole, which the Bishop and Priest might have on each shoulder, the Deacon on the left only, the Minister, or Sub-deacon on neither. The use the Deacon had for it, beside that of the distinction of his order, was to give notice to the people and Clerks what they were to do, or say, by the several wefts or motions that he made with it : and tis very probable that the word is of Latin original, and comes from orare, ‘ to pray because by this the Deacon gave signals to the people, when they were to make their Responses, and perform their parts in the public devotion. Others will bring it from ‘ os, oris, ‘ the mouth,’ supposing that it was at first used as a THE STOLE. 1011 ‘ handkerchief only. The Greeks would fetch it from 6pu>, to ob- * serve .’ — Johnson’s Vade Mecum. ii. 102. Among the Canons made in king Edgar's reign, a.d. 960, we find the following: — ‘Aud that no Mass-priest, or Minister-priest ‘ ever come within the Church door, or into his Stall without a ‘ Stole , at least that he do not minister at the Altar without his ‘vestment. Can. 46.’ — Johnson’s Laws and Canons of the Church i. p. 421. (Lib. Ang. Cath.) Mr. Johnson thus observes on this Canon : — ‘ The Mass-priest is here, I suppose, the secular, the ‘Minister-priest, the conventual. The words of Durandus l. 3. c. 5. ‘are very apposite, viz.: — though the priest may baptize, and do ‘other such like offices without any other vestment, yet not * without his Stole, unless in case of necessity. And the Stole, or ‘ Orarium, stems to have been the most ancient officiating habit.’ {ibid .) — In Abp. Peckham’s Constitutions a. d. 1279. it is thus ordered: — ‘ We decree also that this Sacrament be carried with due reverence * to the sick, the Priest having on his Surplice and Stole, with a ‘ light in a lantern before him, and a bell to excite the people to ‘ reverence &c.’ — L yndwood p. 249; Johnson’s Laws and Canons, cf c. ii. 264. Lyndwood’s gloss upon the word Orarium, here is as follows: — 'Orarium i.e. Stolam, qua Sacerdos in omni obsequio ‘ Divino uti debet, et suo collo iuiponitur, ut significet se jugum ‘ Domini suscepisse. 23. di.ecclesiastica. ubi de hoc per Archi. et de * hoc legitur. 25. dis unum est. Qiiandoque tamen Orarium ponitur ‘ pro ornainento mulicris, viz. peplo, quo mulieris caput velatur. 27. ‘ q. 1. c. Monacho. per. Jo.' — Provinciate, p. 249. Bingham says: — ‘The Council of Laodiccea has two Canons ‘concerning the little habit called the Orarium, which was a ‘ Scarf or Tippet to be worn upon the shoulders, and might be ‘ used by Bishops, Presbyters, and Deacons, but not by Sub-deacons, ‘ Singers, or Readers, who are expressly debarred the use of it in ‘ that Council .... The first Council of Braga speaks of the ‘ Tunica and the Orarium as both belonging to Deacons. And the ‘third Council of Braga orders Priests to wear the Orarium on ‘ both shoulders when they ministered at the Altar. By which we ‘learn, that the Tunica or Surplice was common to all the Clergy, ‘the Orarium on the left, shoulder proper to Deacons, and on ‘ both shoulders the distinguishing badge of Priests. The 4th * Council of Toledo is most particular in those distinctions. For in ‘one Cauon, it says, That if a Bishop, Presbyter, or Deacon, be ‘unjustly degraded, and be found innocent by a Synod, yet they ‘ shall not be what they were before, unless they receive the ‘ degrees they had lost from the hands of the Bishops before the ‘ Altar. If he be a Bishop he must receive his Ovarium, his ring, * and his Staff ; if a Presbyter, his Orarium, and Planeta ; if a ‘ Deacon, his Orarium, and Alba. And in another Canon (40th), ‘ That the Deacon shall wear but one Orarium ; and that ‘upon his left shoulder, wherewith he is to give the signal of ‘ prayers to the people. Where we may observe also the reason of ‘ the name Orarium in the Ecclesiastical sense, ab orundo, from ‘ praying ; though in common acceptation it siguifies no more than ‘ a handkerchief to wipe the face, aud so eomes from ore, in which 1012 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ signification it is sometimes used by St. Ambrose, and St. Austin, ‘ as well as by the old Roman authors. But here we take it in the ‘ Ecclesiastical sense, for a sacred habit appropriated to Bishops, ‘Priests, and Deacons, in the solemnities of Divine Service; in * which sense it appears to have been a habit distiuct from that of ‘civil and common use, by all the authorities that have been ‘mentioned.’ — Antiq. of Christian Church. Bk. xni. c. 8. §. 2. p. 646. Fosbroke thus describes this vestment : — ‘ Orarium- ZTaiwf- ‘ kerchief, \ &c. — This was a piece of cloth, more long than broad, ‘which the spectators at the public shows waved in token of ‘approbation. Aurelian (says Vopiscus) first made donations of ‘ them to the people. They were even waved in the Churches of the ‘first Christians, in applause of the Sermon. Afterwards they * were used as handkerchiefs. The term was also applied to a ‘ vestment of Priests, and Deacons, worn by them and Bishops over ‘the Tunic, and Dalmatic; not by Subdeacons, Readers, and ‘ Singers. It was also a pieee of linen, which the Deacons wore * upon the left arm. It was not square, bnt oblong, and in use with * all the citizens. In a figure in Lewis’s Thanet, we see the Stole or * Orarium, a strip hanging down before; but distinct from the ‘ Fannel, or Maniple, worn upon the left arm, and not synonymons; ‘ the Fannel designating the cord which bound the hands of ‘Christ; the Stole or Orarium , the rope with which he was tied. * (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. vii. 30. Gloss. Basilic. Enc. Lewis’s Thanet. ‘ 141.)’ — Encycl. of Antiq. p. 195 Mr. Fosbroke also remarks under the word Stole : — ‘ The Stola of the middle age was dis- ‘ tinguished from the Orarium , and was the proper garment of * Deacons. They, and Sub-deacons, wore it upon the left shoulder. ‘ Stoles with silver bells occur in Dugdale. To be deprived of the ‘ Stole and Ring was a method of deposing Abbots. The Stola * sumta was a form in the greater excommunication ; sub Stola fur are, with the Gospel under it, oecurs. In the figure in Lewis’s * Thanet, it is a Sash going round the neck, and hanging down in 1 two ends before, like the Scarf on Clergymen’s Gowns. It is em- ‘ broidered, fringed, &c. — ( ibid . p. 961.) The Rev. W. Bates remarks upomthe Stole that : — ■* The word ‘ is derived from the Greek ( Amictus , Vestimentum, Jndumen- ‘ turn), which signified any cloak or upper garment, but in Latin it ‘ generally denoted a habit worn by females. At a snbseqnent ‘ period it denoted the same vestment 'as the Orarium, which derived ‘its name either from its being used to wipe the face {ora), ‘especially that of the Officiating Minister; or, from its being the * robe which the primitive Christians wore at public prayer, and ‘with which the females could veil their faces, as directed by ‘St Paul. (1 Cor. xi. 5.) It was originally made of white linen; ‘ but when its size was curtailed, and its use appropriated to the ‘ Clergy when ministering at the Altar, it was made of the same * materials as the Chasuble, and other vestments. In the Greek * Church the Stole of a priest is called eiriTpa\nXiov, and is worn ‘ round the back of the ueck with the ends falling down in front, ‘nearly to the feet; whilst the same robe, called in that case ‘ wpdptov, is thrown over the left shoulder of a Deacon, and falls * down both before aud behind the person of the wearer, except at ‘ the time of Communion, when it is folded round him. It has THE STOLE. 1013 ‘ the word dyios inscribed lengthways on it three times, and ‘ appeal's from the Canons of the Council of Laodicssa to have been ‘used at a very early period. It is not mentioned at all in the ‘English Rubrics, but either from custom or tradition it is usually ‘worn iu England, by certain dignitaries, and by Chaplains, but, ‘in Ireland, it is generally worn in addition to the Hood; and ‘ apparently there is uo reason why every Clergyman should not ‘ wear it, especially when administering tbe Sacraments.’ (p. 319) — Lectures on Christian Antiq. and the Ritual. Tbe Rev. R. Hart writes : — ‘ Stola, Orarium, the Stole. A long ‘ narrow vestment often richly embroidered. It was placed over ‘ tbe shoulders and crossed upou the breast, so that tbe ends were ‘ seen under the front of the Chasuble: wbeu used in other Minis- ‘ trations (as in the Pulpit or Confessional), it was allowed to bang ‘ down like the Scarf worn in the Churcb of England, to which it ‘may be considered analogous.’ (p. 260.) — Ecel. Records Tbe same author observes in Vol. I. of the “ Transactions of the Nor- folk and Norwich Archceologieal Society /” — ‘A Deacon wore the ‘ Stole over bis left shoulder, thence passed across the breast and ‘ back, and tied with tassels under the right arm ; while in the case ‘ of Priests, Bishops, or Archbishops, it was crossed over the breast, ‘and hung down in front.’ Dr. Hook describes the Stole or Orarium as: — ‘A long and ‘ narrow Scarf with fringed extremities, that crossed the breast to ‘ the Girdle, and thence descended iu front on both sides as low as ‘ tbe knees. Tbe Deacon wore it over the left shoulder, and in the ‘Latin Church joined under the right arm, but in the Greek ‘ Church with its two extremities, one in front and the other * hanging down his back. The word ayios was sometimes thrice ‘ embroidered on it instead of crosses. It is one of tbe most ancient ‘ Vestments used by the Christian Clergy, and in its mystical signi- ‘ fication represented the yoke of Christ.’ ( p. 597.). — Church Viet. 6tli edit. Tbe Rev. J. Jebb, when speaking of the Scarf as being the representative of the Stole, describes the latter as 1 the distinctive ‘ badge of tbe Clergy, both iu tbe Eastern and Western Churcb.’ (p. 215.) — Choral Service. Tbe Rev. W. Mask ell furnishes us with certain Rubrics of tbe ancient Service Books which bear upon the use of the Stole : thus, in tbe “ Celebkatio Okdinum,’ we read witb regard to Deacons: — 11 Tunc (Episcopus) ponat singulis, super l smistrum humerum, Stolam usque ad ascellam (i. e. axillam) dex- “ tcram subtus, dicens sine nota. &c. Iu a note is added, “ Tunc “ ponat &c. sinistrum Stolas, dicem.' (Rubr. Pontiff. Bangor.’) Again. “ Finita pnefatvone, tunc Episcopus tradat cuilibet Viacono- “ rum Stolam, diems', (Ruhr. Poutiff. Exon .)’ — Monumenta Ritua- lia iii. 197 So in the Ordination of Priests, Mr. Maskell gives this Rubric: — “ Ilic rejlectat. Episcopus Stolam super humencm “ eorum dextrum ad pectus, dicens eis per singulos, sine nota:" &c. To this is annexed in a Note by way of explanation, tbe corres- ponding Rubric of the Roman 'Pontifical; thus — “ Pont if ex . . . . “ reflect'd, Orarium, sive Stolam, ab hurnero sinistro cujuslibet, 1014 THE ORNAMENTS OP THE MINISTER. “ capiens partem qua retro pendet, et imponens super dexterum “ humerum , aptat earn ante pectus, in modum crucis and followed by these remarks: — ‘ The Stole, in the Ordination of Priests, is not * noticed in the Gregorian Sacramentary, or in other of the early ‘Pontificals of foreign Churches: and Martene's conjectnre is ‘ prohahly correct, that it was considered unnecessary to repeat this ‘ rite. But it would seem that in this case also we have another ‘ remnant of the primitive use of the British Church : for in those ‘ very ancient Pontificals of Eghert, and S. Dunstan, we find the ‘Stole appointed to he delivered again to Priests: and it must ‘ he rememhered that these MSS. carry us np to almost the time ‘ when the first Saxons were converted, and communion again ‘sought for with the British Church. The first Knbric in these ‘Pontificals, is: — “Presbyter cum ordinatur, circumdentur humeri “ ejus cum Stola ab Episcopo.” It was not long before the custom ‘ of the English Church was introduced into France, and from thence ‘ prohahly into other countries. For we find the Stole recognized ‘ as a peculiar part of a Priest’s Vestments, as early as the heginning ‘of the 9th century; and this, not only when engaged in the ‘ performance of his duties, but as a distinction to he attached to * his constant dress: and it would naturally follow, that a solemn ‘ investiture shonld form a part of the solemnities of ordination. ‘ Thns we have these Canons (cited by Martene ii. 23.): “ Presby- * teri sine intermissione utantur Orario propter differentiam ‘ sacerdotii dignitatis.” Cone. Mogunt. Canon 28. a. d. 813. ‘Presbyteri non vadant nisi Stola vel Orario induti.” Cone. ‘ Tribur . Can. 26. And John of Sahshury tells us, in his life of ‘ Thomas h Becket, “Stolam jugumChristi snave circa collum diehus “ac noctibus habebat.” That this was the general symbolical meaning of the Stole, is clear from many writers. Alcuin says: “ Orarium, i. e. Stola, dicitur eo quod oratorihns, i. e. praedicatorihus “ conccdatur. Admonet ilium, qui illo induitur, ut tnemor sit, sub “jugo Christi, quod lcve et suave est, esse se constitutnm.”,... * Again, Amalarius : “ Per Stolam designatur onus leve ac suave, de “quo Dominus dicit, Tollite jugum meum, &c. Per jugum, “evangelium iutelligimus. — In eo quod Stola ad genua tendit, “quse solent curvari causa humilitatis, hoc intelligimus, qnod “Dominus, dicit: Discite a me, quia mitis sum et humilis corde. “Sciat se Diaconusin Stola superposita collo, ministmm evangelii “ esse, non prtepositum.” De Ecc. Off. ii. c. 20. _ To the same ‘purpose also Durand, in his Rationale. 1. iii. c. 5: whom it is ‘unnecessary to quote: except this sentence — “ Stola ah humero “sinistro sacerdotis in dextrum dum ordinatur, reflectitur, quia “ cum ohedientia incipiat ah activa per dilectionem proximi, “ transit in contemplativam vitam per dilectionem Dei.” §. 3.’ — {ibid. iii. 207.) The Rev. W. Palmer says: — ‘ The Stole or Orarium has been ‘used from the most primitive ages hy the Christian Clergy. It is ‘spoken of hy the 1st Council of Braga, a. d. 563; by Isidore ‘ Hispalensis, a. d. 600 ; the Council of Laodicsea in Phrygia, ‘a. d. 360; Severianus GabaUtanus, in the time of Chrysostom; •and many others: and it has been con tinually used by all the ‘ Churches of the West and East, and by the monophysites of ‘Antioch and Alexandria. The Stole, always called wpipwu ‘hy the Greeks, was a long Scarf, which was fastened on one THE STOLE. 1015 ‘shoulder of the Deacon’s Albc, and hung down before and behind. ‘ The Priest had it over both shonlders, and the two ends of it hung ‘down in front. The Eastern Churches call the Stole of the ‘ Priests, iirirpaxphtov. Thus simply were the dresses of Deacons ‘ and Priests distinguished from each other in primitive times.’— Or iff. Lit. ii. 405. Mr. Gilbert French, when speaking of the Stole, says that — ‘ the Ribbands of the Orders of Knighthood correspond in width ‘ with the ancient Stole, and with the mode of wearing it formerly ‘ adopted by the inferior Clergy. The institution of these Orders ‘ was accompanied by much religious ceremony, and it is probable ‘that the badge of worldly distinction was borrowed from this ‘ornament of the Church It is supposed that the archiepiscopal ‘ Pall was originally merely a Stole wound round the neck, the ‘ends hanging down behind and before. The Kings of England ‘ are formally invested with the Stole at their Coronation.’ ( p. 148.) — On the Minor Accessories to the Services of the Church. In a Tract, “ The Tippets of the Canons Ecclesiastical Mr. French writes: — ‘The Oraritm had purple borders, a custom derived from ‘ the classical garments, which were but slightly modified when ‘ first used by the early Christians. . . .The Orarium or Stole is ‘ a part of the Sacerdotal costume which has always been held of ‘ the highest importance by both the Greek and Latin Churches. ‘ Its purpose was to symbolize the Priestly office and authority ; for ‘ though worn by Deacons, it was over one shoulder only, asindica- ‘ ting the limited powers of that office. All orders above that of ‘ Deacon iuvariably used it in the solemn services of the Church. ‘ The modern Stole of the Church of Rome has greatly widened ‘ends, with crosses embroidered upon each, and a third in the ‘centre. Those used in the 13th, and early in the 14th centnries, ‘ had frequently a broader piece placed upon the ends, and fringed. ‘ But the best examples from Brasses show the Stoles of uniform * width, or of very slightly and gracefully increased dimensions at ‘ the ends. It is rare to find on them at that period the three ‘crosses now considered indispensable by the Homan Catholic ‘ Clergy, thongh doubtless every Stole was marked with one cross ‘ in the centre where it rested on the neck, a custom which was ‘ extended to all vestments set aside for sacred purposes The ‘Stoles were made of the very richest materials, embroidered in gold, * silk, or jewels, and in colours corresponding with the vestments ‘ used at the particular seasons of a fist or festival. It is presumed ‘ that the Reformed Church, in repudiating this custom, ordered the 1 Tippets of her ministering Clergy to be “ decent ” (i. e. plain), and * uniformly black .... The Clergy of the Reformed Church of ‘ England, who adopt the Tippet as a Stole, wear it in the form of a < strip of black silk, about 4 inches wide, a little more than 3 yards * long, and simply fringed at the ends. It is of course never worn < over the Gown, but only with the Surplice.’ (p. 25.). In the “ British Magazine ” we read : — ‘ The Stole was a Scarf ‘ worn by Priests in the same manner as that nsed by many of our ‘ Clergy, or crossed over the breast, and by Deacons on "the left ‘ shoulder, hanging down before and behind. It was not, however, so ‘ broad and full as that now in nse amongst us ; sometimes not ‘ above 4 in., or 5 in. wide. Its material was never linen ; and it 1016 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ generally corresponded in colour and ornaments with the set (of Vest- ‘ ments) to which it belonged. It was worn by all Ecclesiastics above ‘ the rank of Sub-deacon, at all times of their ministry, immediately over the Surplice or Atbe, whichever they happened to have on. It ‘ has been silently retained in the Church of England, the colonr ‘ being reduced to black or white. Historically, it has nothing in common with the Scarf, worn by Doctors in Divinity, or by Dignitaries, or Chaplains, over their Gowns ; but I apprehend that the common mistake, that none but Chaplains, &c., may adopt it ‘ lies here— that, having been reduced to the same colour and form as the Scarf, properly so called, it is confounded with it. It is no doubt correct to say that the Clergy in general are not anthorized ( to wear the Scarf with their Gowns ; and it would tend to remove the misapprehension in some degree, if those who wear the Stole (as all are equally entitled to do) would use simply a broad strip of silk, without any fulness, and not quite so long as that which is now enstomary; for the ancient Stole did not come far below the | knee It must be understood that the Surplice is the ordinary dress of every Ecclesiastic in his public ministrations, unless otherwise directed. Upon this it was the rule for all above Subdeacons likewise to wear the Stole, which differed in colour ‘ according to the occasion. For instance, at a Wedding, and at the Funeral of a child, it would be white ; at the Funeral of a grown person, and on Good-Friday, black; at a Christening, purple ; and on other occasions, black, white, purple, crimson, green, &c., according to certain rules. Not that these rules were uniform ‘everywhere, for the colours used were not everywhere the same; but still, as the Cathedrals, and Convents, became rich in varions ‘ coloured dresses, they adopted certain regulations as to the wearing of them. The only colours we preserve for the Stole are black, and ‘ white ; the former being the ordinary colour, the latter used at the Funerals of persons unmarried, as we may gather from the custom ‘ of presenting the Clergyman with what is called a white Scarf on ‘such occasions. The Surplice and Stole, then, are the ordinary ‘dress of a Clergyman in public ministrations; to which Graduates ‘ are required to add their Hoods, and non-Graduates are permitted to add a Tippet, so that it be not of silk. It should be observed that the Surplice and Hood are required; the Stole is merely 1 retained as a matter of custom. There were likewise occasions in ‘ which the Priest wore the Albe and Stole, instead of the Surplice ‘ and Stole.’— Vol. xvii. April, 1840. p. 376. 378. In “Popular Tracts” the Stole is described as: — ‘A narrow ‘band, now usually of plain black silk: it is worn by Deacons on ‘ the left shoulder, hanging down both before and behind nearly ‘ to the feet; by Priests over both shoulders hanging down in front only. The Stole mystically represents the yoke of Christ. Both ‘ the Surplice and Stole are of very high antiquity in the Christian Church; and one of the earliest distinctions of dress between ‘ the Priest and Deacon seems to have been made by the different ‘use of the Stole as described above.’ (/>. 3.).— No IL Pub. by A. Holden. Exeter. Romanist writers remark upon the Stole as fol- lows : THE STOLfc. 1017 Gavantus observes npon this vestment; — ‘ Orarium cam vocat * Or do Rom. in generc masculino, alii in genere neutro ; quia oratorum, ‘ hoc est, praadicatorum habitus est, ex Alcui : quare non datur nisi ‘ Presbyteris et Diaconibus, quorum tantum munus proprium est ‘ concionandi. Ab oratiouc deducit Beda vocabulum in collect, ‘cup. de septern ord. quia in oratione et in ministerio Sacramen- ‘ toruin frequens est Stolce usus. Stola dicta est etiam in Ord. Rom. ‘ a Graeco aroXi), id est. indumentum, vel a c rreXXto, id est, orno. ‘Ad genna tendit, ex Amal. 1. 2. c. 20. nam licet Stola esset vestis •'candida pertingens ad talos usque, ut ait, auctor Gemmae. 1, 1. c. * 204, tamen introducta Alba, seu Camisia Sacerdotali, mutata est ‘ Stola in torquem, ut ibid, et apud Durand. 1. 3. c. 5. Cum fimbriis ‘ earn describit, Rupert, l.i. c. 33. . . . Cedrinus apud Buling. 1. i. c. ‘38. scribit, Augustse Stolas Apostolorum fuisse repertas Hoc ‘ autem est notandum dihgenter ; turn quia a sinistro ad dextrum ‘latus Stolse ductio prior in memoriain revocat, me esse prins ‘ Diaconum quam Sacerdotem ( Stola namque diaconalis est ab ‘humero sinistro ad dextrum iatus.)’ &c. — Thesaurus i. p. 83.... * Stola cum Planeta colore congruat et materia; longfe cubitis ‘ circiter 6, ut infra genua producatur, late autem unciis 6 patent : 1 lascinise seu frangiae unciarum 3 sint ; et prseterea cruces tres de * more annectantur eidem, in medio, et in extremis partibns. Unaquas- ‘ que crux sit formae quadrat®, quae ab omni parte unciis circiter 3. ‘constet. Stolce sacerdotali nihil appendatur; diaconali verb ab * ntraque media ejus parte duo funiculi cum flocculis lasciniatis ad ‘ illius recte connectendse usum.’ — ( ibid. p. 293.) Mr. A. W. Pugin describes the Stole as: — ‘A narrow band of ‘ silk, or stuff, sometimes enriched with embroidery, and even ‘jewels; worn on the left shoulder of Deacons, and round the neck ‘ of Bishops and Priests, pendent on each side nearly to the ground: 1 used in the administration of the Holy Sacraments, and all sacred ‘ functions. Stole in the original acceptation of the word, signifies ‘ robe,* and there can scarcely remain a doubt of the fact, that in * The Stole among the ancient Romans was the ordinary dress of women, as the Toga was that of men. It was a vest covering the whole person, except the head; being a Tunic with sleeves, reaching to the feet, of a purple colour, adorned with gold bands, and falling in many /olds, as its etymology implies. When worn out of doors, the Palla, a sort of cloak, was thrown over it. (Hor. Sat. i. 2. 99.) The Stole, however, though among the Romans it was thought effeminate for any bnt women to wear it, was among the Greeks, and other nations, the nsual dress of men: and it was originally worn by men even among the Romans. ( Hoffmanni Lexicon .) In the Plates of Bosio’s Roman Sotterranea the Stole is represented in its ancient form, with the present Stole as a stripe or orphrey. From these examples, the Stole is represented as worn by the early Christians of both sexes. It is worthy of remark, that where the Stole is worn by a man, it is generally thrown over the left shoulder, and this suggests the origin of the Greek manner of wearing the Stole. — Fosbroke , Pugin, Picart. 1018 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ its present form, it is but the border of the vestment so called. It ‘ is certain, however, that it has been used in its curtailed state ‘ from a very remote period. In monuments of the 9th century, we ‘ constantly find the Stole in its narrow form, and enriched with ‘ crosses, and other embroidery; and there cannot be any doubt ‘ that it had become a purely Ecclesiastical vestment long previous ‘to this date. Some writers remark, that when redneed to a ‘ band, it was still appropriately called Stole , since the band or ‘ orphrey was the most precious part of the old robe. Moreover, * it is highly probable that the word “ Orarium''* by which the ‘Stole was more frequently distinguished was derived from ora, “ a bordure,” and therefore applied to the Stole in its reduced * form ; and Georgius says, “ Orarii vox inter Ecclesiastics “orn amenta antiquior est, quam Stolce.” f The Stole is worn by all Clergy above the order of Subdeacon. ‘Formerly Bishops ‘and Priests never quitted the Stole; but at present tins custom ‘is confined to the Roman Pontiff. In the Council of ‘ Mayence under Leo III. a. d. 813., it is ordered: “That “ Priests wear their Stoles constantly, as a distinction of the sacer- dotal order.” YVe learn from the Life of St Odo, Abbot, who ‘ died A. D. 942. that it was the custom at that time for persons ‘ newly ordained, to wear the Stole constantly for some time after ‘ their ordination. Martene says, that Deacons wore it for a full ‘year. . . .That the Orarium, or Stole, was the mark of the Diaconal ‘ order, as well as of the Sacerdotal, is no contradiction, as the ‘ Deacon wears the Stole over the left shoulder only. At the ‘present day, the Priest wears the Stole crossed over the breast in ‘the Mass; and the Bishop, pendent on each side; but anciently ‘ this distinction did not exist. Bocquillot says that Priests and ‘ Bishops formerly both wore the Stole hanging down on each side. ‘ The distinction, at the present day, of crossing the Stole, is only ‘observed by Priests in the sacrifice of the Mass. In all other ‘functions, they wear the Stole pendent on each side ....Stoles ‘like other portions of the sacred Vestments were made of the ‘ richest materials, and even edged with pearls, and adorned with * With regard to the Orarium, there are three different opinions:— (1) That it signifies a border, and is therefore a just designation of the Stole in its Ecclesiastical use, as a border of an originally larger vestment. (2) That it is a piece of linen used to protect the Stole from becoming soiled, the right name of which is Sudarium. (3) That it was a richer sort of Stole, worn by Bishops and Clergy out of the Church as a mark of distinction. ( Georgius I. c. 20.). That the Stole was in some way distinct from the Orarium appears from the life of St. Livinus, bp. and martyr, to whom S. Augustine, Abp. of Canterbury, gave on the day of his ordination a purple Chasuble beautified with gold and jewels, and a Stole with an Orarium, enriched in the same manner. f In the Council of Laodicea. A. d. 364, the wearing of the Stole is forbidden to Lectors, and Sub-deacons. In this sense we may understand what Du Cange, and others say, that the Stole is properly the distinction of the Deacon. THE STOLE. 1019 1 precious stones. Sometimes they were embroidered with a succes- 1 sion of images in tabernacle work. Every Stole should have three * crosses embroidered on it. To admit of ttie crosses at the extremities ‘ being richly ornamented, the ends of the Stole may be slightly ‘enlarged. The large, unmeaning, shovel-shaped ends ‘used in France and England, have not been introduced much ‘above a century ago; they have never been used in Rome, and ‘ are not only extravagantly large, but most ugly in form.’ (p. 194) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. Dr. Rock observes: — ‘The Stole was during the first eight ‘ centuries almost invariably called the “ Orarium,” from the use ‘ to which it was applied of wiping the face, as well as shrouding ‘it, according to the Latin “ ora" (the face). It was an oblong ‘ piece of fine linen, spread about the shoulders, not unlike in shape, ‘ and worn in a fashion similar to that of the modern female Scarf ; ‘ and resembled the veil, which, in solemn High Masses, is worn by ‘the Subdeacon while holding the Patena; or by the Priest when- ‘ever he gives benediction with the blessed Sacrament. At an ‘ early period of the Church, it was employed to serve in place of a ‘ handkerchief \* especially by those whose office obliged them to ‘ speak or minister much in public : and preceded the Maniple for ‘such a purpose. By degrees the Stole received a variety of ‘ornaments; it was bordered with a stripe of purple round its ‘hem; some embroidery was added to it; and. at last it became so ‘covered with these gradual embellishments as to render it too ‘splendid, and much too costly, not to say unfit, to answer its ‘ original design. It was then that a narrow piece of linen, called ‘ the Maniple, from its being fastened to the wrist, was substituted ‘in the place of the ‘ Orarium,.'.... The word “Stole” is Greek, ‘ trro\t), and was employed by profane writers to signify generally ‘ every kind of Cloak or upper garment, whether worn by man or ‘ woman ; but, like its English synonym, was more usually ‘ employed to designate a female habit. As the linen scarf, worn ‘round the neck to serve the purpose of a handkerchief, was ‘ likewise spread, in time of prayer, over the shoulders, and fell * around the body like a female’s mantle, it afterwards exchanged ‘ the denomination of ‘ Orarium ’ for * Stole’ and is now known by ‘ this latter term .... It was a custom, which universally prevailed ‘ amongst the ancient Romans, to ornament every kind of garment ‘ with stripes of cloth, and fringes of a purple colour. ( Rubenius l de re Vestiaria.'). The stripes were called “ latus-clavus,” if ‘broad; and “angustus — clavus,” if narrow. The breadth of ‘ this ornament was commensurate with the rank and dignity of 1 the wearer. The “ Orarium," therefore, had its purple fringe * Profane writers, says Dr. Rock, ‘have used the word “ Orarium ” under the same signification (of handkerchief ), Vofisc. ‘Vit. Aurelian . — By some the word “ Orarium ” is derived from ‘ the Latin “ orare ” to pray — as it is a robe which the primitive ‘Christians iuvariably wore during the time of public prayer; ‘and with which the female portion could veil their heads, accord- ‘ ing to the admonition of St Paul. 1 Cor. xi. 5.’ ( Hier. p. 430 — 1.) 3 T 1 020 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ and border. When contracted in its dimensions, those oma- ‘ments were retained as marks of honour; while the plain linen ‘portions were cut away in such a manner, that we have the * modem Stole in the form of a band or collar, which surrounds the 1 neck, and falls down below the knees, on both sides of the body. ‘....Before the use of the Tunic, called Colobium, and the later ‘ privilege of wearing the ‘ Dalmatic ,' were accorded to the Deacons ‘ in general, the Stole was the emblem of their order .... When the * Stole became peculiar to the Ministers of the Altar, it ceased to ‘be made of linen, but was composed of the same materials as the ‘ Chasuble, or upper garment. As in the Latin, so in the Greek ‘and oriental Churches, the Stole is a very conspicuous ornament ‘ amongst the Vestments peculiar to the higher ministers of the ‘ Altar In the Greek rite, the Stole assigned to the Priest is ‘carefully distinguished from the one allotted to the Deacon, ‘not only by a difference of appellation, but by the manner in ‘ which both are severally worn. The sacerdotal Stole is termed ‘ eTTLTfiaxn^ov, and put round the neck; the Deacon’s Stole ‘ continues, as anciently, to be termed Q papiov. It has inscribed ‘npon it, in three several places, the word ayios, or holy, and ‘ is cast over the left shoulder, from which it hangs unconfined ‘ both before and behind, except at Communion, when it is folded ‘in the form of a cross upon the breast, and the extremities ‘ are bonnd round the waist. (Goar Euckol. Grcec. p. 59, 147.). ‘ The Syrian Liturgy denominates the Stole by the term Ouroro ; ‘ the Coptic gives it the same appellation by which it is designated ‘by the Greeks. (Rexaudot. ii. p. 54.).’ Dr. Rock says in a Note : — ‘ Formerly the Deacon wore his Stole, or as it was anciently ‘ called ‘ Orarium? floating down and suspended from his left ‘ shoulder. The use of the Orarium or Stole was by the Council ‘of Laodicea (a.d. 364.) prohibited to Lectors and Subdeacons; ‘and exclusively reserved for Deacons and for Priests. ( Cone . * Gen. i. p. 1511.) .... When vesting themselves for Mass, the * Bishop lets his Stole hang straight down from around his neck on ‘the right and left; the Priest crosses it over his breast; and the * Deacon wears it resting on the left shoulder, transversely ‘ uniting itself, like a belt, under the right arm. The Stole may be ‘ seen on all the monumental effigies of Bishops not crossed ‘ npon the breast, but always falls parallel, just as it is worn at the ‘present day by prelates. It is usually fringed, but does not ‘ expand so much at its extremities as the modern Stole.' (p. 429 — 436). — Hierurgta. In the “Voyages Litcrgiques par Le Sieur dc Moleon, we read that ‘ the Deacon during Lent, and on Sundays, and Holy days, ‘ wears at Mass, in addition to the Stole , an Orarium, “ ou grande “ bande large d’ un pied ;’’ and of the same material as the Stole, ‘which extends very little beyond the girdle.’ (p. 92.) ....‘At ‘ Notre-Dame,’ says this Author, ‘ the Deacon has also an Orarium ‘ or Scarf in the form of the Diaconal Stole.' {p. 247.) — Again, * In the processions and stations of the Mass, the Deacon chants the ‘ Gospel, having only a Stole in addition to the Surplice.’ (/>. 202.) — a Paris, a.d. 1718. * THE SURPLICE. 1021 THE SURPLICE. Superpelliceum, Vestis Superpellicia, Alba, Alba tunica, Cotta , Linea, Vestis Camisialis . — (Soupelis, Surplis, Fr. — Cotta. Ital.). The wearing of a white linen garment by the officiating Ministers of every grade during the per- formance of Divine Service is of very great antiquity; but the names formerly applied to this peculiar garment have been various, and much disputed. The name of Surplice is said to have been assigned to it in the 11th century: the word is derived from the Latin Superpelliceum, which takes its origin from this garment having been worn over the vestments made of skins of fur, which were adopted in cold weather. This use would necessarily require that it should be large and ample : it was closed in front, extended down to the middle of the leg, and had very long and large sleeves. The Surplice appears, from the illustrations of Bonanni, to have been originally a large circular piece of linen resting on the shoulders, and with merely an opening for the head, while the sides were supported in folds upon the arm. The authorities we have quoted are so numerous and full, that we need only refer our readers to the citations following, particularly to the remarks of Wheatly, and Pugin, to possess himself of all the information we can obtain with regard to the an- tiquity and character of the Surplice. The use of this vestment in the Church of England is prescribed by both Rubric, and Canon , as we have already shewn together with the various circumstances connected with its provision and repair ; as well as its adoption by certain lay members of our Church. (See pages 855 — 892, 903.). The objections also that have been raised from time to time against its employment have been likewise fully discussed (See p. 808. et seg .). We will at once therefore pass to our authorities. 3 T 2 1022 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Abp. Langton in his Constitutions a.d. 1222. enjoins: — “Let “ Archdeacons take care that there be two suits of Vestments “for the Priests; and that the attendants at the Altar wear “Surplices.” — (J ohnson’s Lams and Canons, ii. 107. Libr. of A.C.T. Abp. Peckham in his Constitutions a. d. 1279. thus orders: — “ Statuimus, ut Sacramentum Eucharistise circnmferatur cum “ debita reverentia ad /Egrotos ; Sacerdote saltern induto Superpelli- “ do, gerente Orarium, &c.” — ( Lynd . 249) Anglice. “ We decree “ also that this Sacrament he carried with dne reverence to the “ sick, the Priest haviug on his Surplice and Stole, &c.” — (Johnson’s Laws and Canons ii. 264.) Abp. Winchelsey, in his Constitutions, a.d. 1305. enjoins: — “Decemimus etiam, ut Preshyteri hujusmodi “ (stipendiarii) infra nostram provinciam celehrantes intersint in “Cancello in Matutinis, Vesperis, et aliis Divinis Officiis debitis “horis induti superpelliciis, quae sihi propriis expensis providebunt, “ et non in navi ecclesup, coemeteriis, vel campis.” — {Lynd. 237.) Anglice : “ We decree that such Priests be present in the Chancel, “ not the body of the Church, Church-yard, or fields, at Matins, “ Vespers, and other Divine offices at proper hours in Surplices, “ purchased at their own cost.” — Johnson, ibid. ii. 322. Abp. Reynolds also in his Constitutions A.D. 1322. orders: — “ Praecipimus etiam, ut qui altari ministrat, Suppellicio induatur.” — Lyndwood observes here: — ‘Et juxta communem intellectual 1 die Suppellicio, i. e. veste linea ad talem usum prseparata. De 4 qua tamen veste non memini me legisse in toto corpore Juris ‘ Canonici vel Civilis, nec etiam in Sacra Scriptura: sit tamen de eo ‘ mentio infra de Ecclesi. sEdi. C. ut Parockiani. Et potest signifi- ‘cari per tunicam lineam, qua induehantur filii Aaron in veteri lege ‘ de qua legitur Exod. xxviii. ad fi. Sed sestimo quod proprie 1 suppellicium est indumentum de pellibus confectum sed in nostro 4 communi usu intelligitur ut prius dixi.’ — {Lynd. 53.) — Johnson translates the Canon : — “We charge that they who tend at the Altar “be clothed with Surplices.” To which he adds hy way of comment: — ‘Lyndwood did not remember that he ever read of 4 this garment in the whole hody of the Canon or Civil Law, nor ‘(as he adds) in the Holy Scripture. But Durandus the elder ‘mentions it, and he lived about 130 years before Lyndwood; he ‘says that they whAjended af the Altar used it; and farther speaks ‘of it as a laudable custom, - that in some places the Priests 4 wore an Alb or Surplice under Amyt, which last was com- 1 monly reckoned the undermost mis'sal garment. Durand. 1. iii. c. 4 1. 2 .’ — {Laws and Canons, ii. 337) ..Abp. Reynolds also directs: — “ Item, nullus Clericus permittatur ministrare in Officio Altaris, *• nisi indutus sit Superpellicio, et tempore quo Missarum Solennia “peraguntur, accendantur dues Candela, vel ad minus una." — {Lynd. 236.) — Anglice, “ Let no Clerk he permitted to attend at the office “ of the Altar without a Surplice : and let two Candles, or one at “ least be lighted at the time of High Mass.” — Johnson’s Laws and Canons, ii. 338. Dr. NicrroLLS {oh. 1712.) says: — ‘Of all the Ecclesiastical 4 Habits, this has been the most opposed, because enjoined to be 4 worn by every Minister when he officiates. But when we seriously 4 consider matters, it will appear, that there is very little to be said 4 against it ; and, that it is a very decent and proper Habit for the THE SURPLICE. 1023 4 purpose. For. most certainly, it is by no means convenient, that a 4 Minister should officiate in the common Habit, which he wears at 1 other times: and this our adversaries are so sensible of, that most ‘ of them wear a handsome long Cloak, when they Preach, or ‘ Pray, in their respective Congregations. And why there should 4 be such a material difference between a garment of a white colour, 4 and one of black; between one made of linen, and another of wool; 4 so as to occasion one to be lawful to be worn, and the other to bo 4 nnlawfiil, is very unaccountable. I am sure the Surplice has a ‘great deal more of ancient Ecclesiastical practice on its side. 4 There is little donbt to be made, bnt that it was nsed in Ctp- 4 run 's time. ..The Alb, or Surplice, was used by Bishops in those 4 times. By the 4th Council of Carthage {Car. xli.), the Alb is 4 enjoined to be nsed even by Deacons, at the time of their admin- ‘istration in the Pnblic Service. S. Jerome defends the use 4 of this, and savs, it was nsed by Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, ‘and all the other Ecclesiastical* orders in his time...... And the 4 e'ipaTa TrafKpauaiDTa, the white shining Garments, in Nazianzen 4 must allude to the Surplices then worn in the Chnrch. (Greg. ‘Naz. Somn, de A nest. Templo .) And indeed, the Church, when 4 she was to appoint what Garments were proper to be used in the 4 Pnblick Service, had reason to pitch npon those of white linen, 4 rather than any other ; becanse Angels, and other blessed persons, 4 are recorded in Scripture to have appeared in that Habit. Matt. 4 xvii. 2; Mark xvi. 5; Matt, xxviii. 3; Acts i. 10.; Ree. iv. 4. 7. 9.’ — Com. Proper in loco. Dr. Besxet (oft. 1728.) observes: — ‘As for the shape of our 4 white linen Garments (or Surplices ) ’tis a thing so perfectly ‘indifferent that it admits of no dispute. The present mode is ‘certainly grave and convenient; but I know of no authentic 4 standard to cnt by. Nor will any wise man contest about snch 4 a trifle. Yea, but say they, the Surplice is a Rag of Rome. Now ‘this objection proves nothing, bnt the ignorance of those that 4 make it. For white Garments (call’em what you will) were in 4 use long before there was any snch thing as Popery in the world, 4 as appears from what I have already said But they tell us, 4 that the Surplice has been abns’d by the Papists to superstitious 4 and idolatrous uses As for its being abnsed to idolatrous nses, 4 no man in his wits did ever assent, that the Papists do worship the 4 Surplice. Nor does their using the Surplice, either make their 4 worship idolatrons. or increase the idolatry of it. ( p. 10.) But 4 what needs much disputing ? A white Garment has no bugbears 4 in it, nothing that disturbs devotion, no false doctriue, no Crosses, 4 no Images, or the like.’ ( p. 12.) — Paraphrase on the Booh of Coin. Prayer. Hetlyx, describing the condition of the Church under Queen Elizabeth, says among other things: — 4 The Priests not stirring out ‘of doors bnt in their Square- Caps, Gowns, or Canonical Coats; 4 nor executing any divine office but in their Surplice — a vestment 4 set apart for religious services in the primitive times, as may be 4 gathered from St. Chrysostom for the Eastern Churches ( Chrys . 4 in Matth. Horn. 82. t. ii. p. 471. ed. Field. “iW Xei >kov yirwvicKov 41 KaidiroortXfSowTa irepi(3aW6fievot irepitrire.,) and from St Hierom. 1024 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘for the Western, (liter on. adv. Pelagianos l. ii. Opera ed. Mar- ‘ tiauay, Paris, 1706. t. ii. pars ii. Col. 502.), “ Quae sunt, rogo, * inimieiti® eontra Denm Si Episcopus, Presbyter, et Diaconns, “et reliquus ordo ecclesiastieus, in administratione sacrificioram “ Candida veste processerint ?” — Hist, of the Reformation, ii. 314. E. H. S Hf.yx.yn remarks further on when speaking of the Choral Services: — ‘The Gentlemen and children in their Surplices, ‘ and the Priests in Copes, as oft as they attended the Divine Service ‘ at the holy Altar. The Altai- furnished with rich plate, two fair 4 gilt Candlesticks with tapers in them, and a massy Crucifix of ‘ silver in the midst thereof.’ — ibid. p. 315. Whkatly (oh. 1742.) says: — ‘As to the name of Surplice , which ‘ comes from the Latin Superpelliceum, I ean give no hetter acconnt ‘ of it, than what I can put together from Durand, who tells us ‘it was so called, because anciently this garment was put super ‘ tunicas pellicas de pellibus mortuomm animalium factas, upon ‘leathern coats made of the hides of dead beasts; symbolically ‘ to represent that the offenee of our first parents, which brought us ‘ under a necessity of wearing garments of skin, was now hid and * covered by the grace of Christ, and that therefore we are elothed ‘ with the emblem of innoceuce. But whencesoever came the name, 4 the thing certainly is good. For if it he thought necessaij for ‘ princes and magistrates to wear distinet habits, in the execution of ‘ their public offices, to preserve an awful respect to their royalty ‘and justiee; there is the same reason for a different hahit when ‘ God’s ambassadors publicly officiate. And accordingly we find ‘ that, under the Law, the Jewish Priests were, by God’s own ‘ appointment, to wear decent sacred vestments at all times (Exod. ‘ xxviii. xxix.) : but at the time of public service, they were to have 4 besides those ordinary garments, a white linen ephod (Exod. ‘xxviii. 4; 1 Sam. ii. 18.). From the Jews it is probable the ‘ Egyptians learned this custom to wear no other garments but only ‘ of white linen, looking on that to he the fittest, as being the purest ‘covering for those that attended on Divine Serviee. And ‘ Philostratus tells us, that the Brachmans or Indian priests wore ‘ the same sort of garments for the same reason. From so divine an ‘ original and spreading a practice, the aneient Christiaus hrought ‘ them iuto use for the greater decency and solemnity of Divine ‘ Service. St Jerome at one and the same time proves its aneient ‘use, and reproves the needless scruples of such as oppose it. “ What offenee,” saith he, “ ean it he to God, for a Bishop or Priest, “&c. to proceed to the communion in a white garment." (Adv. ‘ Pelag. 1. i. c. 9.). The antiquity of it in the Eastern Church ‘ appears from Gregory Nazianzen, who advisetli the Priests to ‘ purity, beeause “ a little spot is soon seen in a white garment." ‘ And it is very probable that it was used in the Western Chureh in ‘ the time of St Cyprian; for Pontius, in his aeeount of that father's ‘ martyrdom, says that “ there was a hench by chance eovered with “ a white linen cloth, so that at his passion he seemed to have some “of the ensigns of the episcopal' honour.’’ From whence we may ‘ gather, that a white garment was used by the Clergy in those ‘times. The colour of it is very suitable: for it aptly represents ‘ the innoeence and righteousness wherewith God’s ministers ought ‘ to be clothed (Ps. cxxxii. 9.). And it is observable, that the THE SURPLICE. 1025 ‘ Ancient of Days is represented as having garments as white as ‘ snow ; ( Dan . vii. 9); and that when our Saviour was transfigured ‘his raiment was white as the light {Matt, xvii, 2.); and that 4 whenever Angels have appeared to men, they have always been ‘clothed in white apparel. {Matt, xxviii. 3 ; Mark xvi. a; Acts i. ‘ 10; Rev. vi. 11; vii. 9; xv. 6; xix. 8, 14.). The substance of it is 4 linen, for woollen wonld be thought ridiculons, and silk would 4 scarce be afforded : and we may observe that under the Jewish 4 dispensation God Himself ordered that the Priests should not gird 4 themselves with any thing that caused sweat, {Ezek. xliv. 18.); 4 to signify the pnrity of heart that ought to be in those that were set ‘apart to the performance of Divine Service; for which reason ‘the Jewish ephods were linen, as were also most of the other ‘garments which the Priests wore during their ministrations '{Lev. xvi. 4; Ezek. xliv. 17, 18.). The Levites also that were ‘ Singers were arrayed in white linen (2 Chron. v. 12.); and the ‘armies that followed the Lamb were clothed in fine linen {Rev. ‘xix. 14.); and to the Lamb’s wife was granted that she should be ‘ arrayed in fine linen white and clean ; for the fine linen is, i. e. 4 represents, the righteousness of Saints. {Rev. xix. 8.). As for the 4 shape of it, it is a thing so perfectly indifferent, that it admits ‘ of no dispute. The present mode is certainly grave and con* ‘ venient, and in the opinion of Durand, significant; who observes, 4 that as the garments used by the Jewish priesthood were girt tight ‘abont them, to signify the bondage of the law; so the looseness 4 of the Surplices, nsed by the Christian Priests, signifies the freedom * of the Gospel. But neither its significancy nor decency will ‘protect it from objections: for firsL some tell us, “it is a rag 4 of popery an objection that proves nothing bnt the ignorance of 4 those that make it: for white garments (let them be called what 4 they will) were of nse among the most primitive Christians. Xor ‘ need our adversaries do the Chnrch of Rome a greater kindness, or ‘ wound the Protestant religion more deeply, than by granting that ‘ white garments and Popery are of the same antiquity. They tell 4 us, secondly, that it has been abnsed by the Papists to superstitious 4 and idolatrous nses. But to this, we’ answer, that it is not the 4 Priest’s using a ■Surplice, that either makes their worship idolatrous 4 or superstitions, or increases the idolatry or superstition of it. For ‘ the worship of the Roman Church is idolatrous and superstitious, 4 whether the Priest be clothed in white, or black, or any other 4 colour. All therefore that our adversaries can mean is tiiis, viz. 4 that the Surplice has been worn by the Papists, when they have 4 practiced idolatry and snperstition : and this we grant : bnt then it ‘does not follow," that a Surplice of itself is either unlawful or 4 inexpedient. For white garments had, in this sense, been abnsed 4 to superstitious and idolatrons uses, before Daniel represented God. ‘ Himself as wearing such garments; and before our Saviour wore ‘ them; and before the Angels and Saints were represented as ‘clothed with them; and Before they became the Ministerial 4 Ornaments of the primitive times. But surely, if snch an abuse 4 made them unlawful or inexpedient, it cannot be conceived, that 4 the primitive Church, and the iuspired writers, nay God Himself, 4 would so plainly countenance them.’ {p. 99 .y—Rat. III. of Book of Common Prayer. 1026 THE ORNAMENTS OP THE MINISTER. , „ Fo fBROKE writes: — ‘ I have somewhere seen this robe (the Surplice) was borrowed from the priests of Isis: on which account * Ur J. t - a u S S lon ' ed '*• 11 has teen often confounded with the Atfe, which d.flered from it in being close to the hody, and being ( tied hy a girdle. It was commonly embroidered on the bosom * rn, • crosses, the Greek x interwoven, the characteristic of Ghnst... Our ancient pnnces and nobles joined in the Clioir- ‘ services cl otbed in Surplices.— Hawk. Mas. ii. 432; iii. 71; Lewis’s * l hanet. 105. cfc.. — Ency. of Antiquities , p. 962. Ttf. Bishop of Exeter (/>. Phillpotts) remarks : — ‘ The Surplice a vestment never used in the Pulpits of Rome, and , generally used in the Pulpits of this very Diocese, within the , “ e ™°iy of living men, was no sooner required to he worn hy , m order to prevent the wearing of it by anv as a party-hado'e, , , & f r y of “ No-Popery ” was raised,— a cry so loud as°to , f" ai tIe the "hole church — so potential, as for awhile to paralvse the law, and disarm the Ministers. The Puritans of old, if they , “ ad not m " ch of reason on their side, had at least some con- sistency. Ihey objected to the Surplice altogether ,— to them ^ it was a mere abomination, “a Sacrament of abomination” they called it; “ the Garment spotted by the flesh,” defiled and tainted 4 h Y association with the idolatries of Rome. Thev were not so , absurd as to denounce the use of it as popish, when used where , papists never used it, and yet to cherish and honour it in the self , Service in which alone Papists had always used it. They , dld not - 111 short, proscribe it as popish in the Pulpit, and reverence , as protestar.t in the Desk. This is an extravagance which was , re served for the enlightened age in which we live, and pre-emi- nently for our own Diocese; and your Bishop’s fault has heen, that he gave credit to the people for snch a measure of intelligence, at , 1 - eas . t ’ lf . not of Church feeling, as would have protected them from , ln . t ,° so gross an error. The truth is, that the Surplice may , he considered as a signal illustration of the spirit in which , ou f. Reformers proceeded. They honoured the practice of pure , antiquity, though they renounced the innovations of Rome. , therefore, while they swept away a heap of consecrated vest- ments which had been mtroduced in times of poperv, they retained this plain linen garment which was of ancient date even in the 4th century, for it is spoken of as the accustomed hahit of the , “ ,n > ste f> lu T P , '’>oe Service, by Jerome (Bkron. in 44. Ez,ch. cited , ^ Boo**- E - P- J- 29.), and Chrysostom (Chrgs. ad Pop. Antioch. ■Horn. v. berm. 60.) . . — Charge. 1845. , The Rev. W. Bates says of the Surplice Lhtrandus traces its etymology up to the Latin superpelliceum, which refers to a Tunic , made from the skins of animals, and over which the white linen , vestment was thrown. Honorius, in the vear 1 130, describes it as a white loose vest reaching down to the feet, and from various < synods, it appears to be considered as a variation of the Alhe, from which it differed only hy hemg a little shorter, and haying fuller sleeves. The Romish Council of Basil, following the decision of synods held in 1456, and 1528, decreed that the Surplice , sh ° uId descend os low as the middle of the leg, notwithstanding which “krazer” complains, that “our Surplices have been so “ uch curtailed that they scarcely reach down to the knees, and thus are altogether different from the ancient Albe.” (p. 3161 — Lectures on Christian Antiq. and Ritual. THE SURPLICE. 1027 Dr. Hook merely states that the Surplice is ‘ a white linen ‘garment, worn by" the Christian Clergy in the celebration of * Divine Services.’ He then abbreviates Wheatley's account (given supra), introducing the remark that, ‘The ancients called this ‘garment, from its colour, Alba, the Albe :’ and he concludes with a comment respecting its adoption in the Pulpit, which will be adverted to wheu discussing the “ Preaching Dress.” — Church Diet. 6th Edit. p. 607. The Rev. J. Jebb writes: — ‘As to Ornameuts of the Ministers, * including the Habits, the Surp'ice is that which is common to all, * whether Clerical or Lay. In Colleges it is worn by all the fonn- ‘ dation members on Sundays, Holydays, and their Eves; and in ‘ Dublin, Cambridge, and Christ Church, Oxford, by all members ‘ except noblemen. Why they are deprived of this privilege it is ‘hard to say. On Week-days, it is worn by those only who are ‘ immediatelv engaged in Divine Service. In Trinity College ‘ Dublin, indeed, the Reader of Prayers on Week-days improperly ‘ officiates in his Gotcn. In Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, all ‘ the members wear Surplices at all times : because all are in these ‘places the perpetual Ministers of Divine Service.’ (p. 214).... ‘ Some Clergymen, desirous of accuracy in those matters, have ‘ mistakenly copied the corrupt pattern of the Roman Church. ... ‘ for instance, they have been disposed to shorten the Surplice, and ‘ to narrow the Scar/, &c...The long English Surplice, reaching * to the ground, with flowing sleeves, is acknowledged by one ‘ of their own Ritualists ( [Dr . Rock) to be more primitive than the ‘ short, sleeveless garmeut of Rome. In fact, it appears that the * sleeves were by degrees looped np, or slit, for the greater con- ‘ venience of ministration, till at length they were converted into ‘ pendant slips from the shoulder resembling the Gowns of the ‘ Commoners at Oxford, which were curtailed to their present ‘ungraceful fashion by exactly the same process.’ (p. 219.) Mr. Jebb conclndes his remarks by animadverting upon ‘the ‘ inexcusable negligence shown by many Clergymen in the use of ‘ the accustomed vesture of the Church, the Surplice... .Many are 4 content to treat that badge of their holy office with a negligence * which they would be ashamed of with respect to any part of their ‘ private dress ; and in the manner of putting it on, in its soiled * or torn condition, and in its poor and coarse materials, to exhibit a ‘ slovenliness in the Courts of the Lord’s House, which would not be ‘tolerated in the Court of their Sovereign, or even in private ‘society. They should remember that though the Parish is * responsible for the providing of this garment, they have a right to ‘require that it should be such in all respects as befits God’s ‘ Service; and wretched indeed must be that parsimony which 1 would regard the little expence to be incurred either by Parish ‘ or Incumbent as an excuse.’ (p. 224 ). — Choral Service. The Rev. W. Palmer observes: — * It is by no means improbable ‘ that the Surplice was, in very ancient times, not different from the 1 Albe. lu fact, it only varies from that garment, even now, ‘in having wider sleeves. The inferior Clergy were accustomed * to wear the Albe at Divine Service, as wc find by the Council of * Nar bonne, a. d. 589. which forbad them to take it off, until ‘ the Liturgy was ended. Probably in alter ages it was thought 1028 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ advisable to make a distinction between the dresses whicb the « superior and the inferior orders of Clergy wore at the Liturgy; and * then a difference was made in the Sleeves. And from about the ‘ 12th century, the name of Surplice was introduced. In Latin, it ‘was Superpelliceum, or Cotta ; (see Bona Rev. Lit. i. Axiv. §. 20.) * ...During the middle ages, Bishops very frequently wore the ‘ Surplice with a Cope, and above the Rochette.’ — Grig. Lit. ii. 408. Tbe Rev. J. C. Robertson states: — ‘The Surplice has always ‘ been prescribed, and is now universally used, as the dress to be * generally worn in Public Service. The only questions with respect 1 to it are, — whether it may be worn at the celebration of the Holy ‘ Communion instead of the Cope? and— whether it must be worn ‘ in Preaching, to the exclusion of the Gown ?.’ This author adds in a note:— 1 A passage in Hooker (iv. 4. 2.) suggests a doubt ‘ whether the make of our present Surplice be altogether correct. ‘ The Puritans object to the Vestment, “si de forma agitur, talans < vestis honestior.” The word “ talaris ” is rendered by Hooker “down to the foot”; and is defined by a Convocation of Queen ‘ Mary’s reign to mean “ neque nimia longitudine caudam trahens, ‘ neque nimia brevitate crura tibiasque demonstrans.” {Synod: < 477.). According to these interpretations, the usual Surplice of ‘ our days is talar, whereas that of Hooker’s age was not. .. .1 have ‘ since found that the shorter Surplice is agreeable to the Roman ‘practice. (Gav. Thes. i. 142. 153: Martene. iii. 262), and that < some of our Clcrsry bave therefore lately adopted it. Mr. J ebb ‘proves that the blowing vesture is more primitive. The same ‘ is acknowledged by Mr. Pugin {Dub. Review ), by Schmid (i. 1&6), ‘and by Dr. Rock.’— {p. 95.).— How shall we Conform to the Liturgy. Mr. Gilbert French says: — ‘Old illuminations represent the 1 Surplice of ample dimensions, resting npon the base of .the neck, ‘and enveloping the wearer in flowing folds of elegant drapery. ‘ The sleeves are wide and large, reaching nearly to tbe ground, ‘ where they terminate in a point {p. 135.).. .Irish linen, of the ‘texture nsed for shirts, is the material commonly made into 1 Surplices. This is, no doubt, a very durable fabric, and when of ‘fine quality can scarcely be objected to; though its weight and ‘ thickness causes it to hang in perpendicular folds, and to cling more * closely to the figure than is consistent with beauty. If made very ‘ ample, this objection is somewhat removed; but the Surplice then ‘ becomes inconveniently heavy. Linen lawn, of fine quality, and ‘ seme-transparent texture, is, in many respects, the best material ‘ for Surplices, thongb somewhat less durable than ordinary linen, ‘ it forms a far more graceful drapery, the alternation of tints ‘ produced by its double or single folds, over the black Cassock , ‘ serving materially to enhance its beauty. French cambric, and a ‘ beautiful flaxen fabric of Chinese manifactnre, called grass cloth, ‘ are occasionally used for Surplices, and are both exceedingly well ‘ adapted for the purpose. Muslin, and other fabrics of cotton, are ‘ also sometimes employed. . . .Like almost all otber primitive robes, ‘ the Surplice was formerly made -without any opening in front, and ‘consisted simply of a large piece of linen, having “an hole in tbe ‘ midst of the robe, with a band round about tbe hole, that it should THE SURPLICE. 1029 ‘ not rend,” ns was the case with ‘and is still with the Poncho of the modernJonth Amer.can ‘Indian’ ( p. 136.). .. .‘The Surplice is now very generally used < opcn in frOTt. . . .The points which require attention in the form ‘ oftlie Surplice are:-lst Entire envelopement of the person from « the throat to the shoes ; to insure this, it should be so ample as to ‘STS of Showing the opening in ^^nt even when the ‘wearer extends or elevates his arms. 2nd, That tte Sleeves ‘he sufficiently wide to admit of the arm being drawn within the • «.h .be p«*« of the C^ock, or Co,, ‘underneath. 3dlv, The collar should be small, simp e, and so ‘ disposed as to lay flat upon the shoulders, encirclmg closel the ‘base of the Cassock collarwithouthanginglikeaba^ behind ‘ or before, permitting the Bands and the fecarf or Stole to la i ‘nnnhqfmcted over it- an arrangement quite impossible with the ‘rdt aryunriX coUar 4th, Tihe omission of the fanciful embroi- ‘ dery sometimes introduced upon the collar, representing Crowns, ‘ Mitres, the Bible, &c; or at least the ‘priate emblems, as a cross-pate oyer each sh ^ r ‘ “Ajjj* ?£ ‘ them the sacred monogram. The button used to fasten 1 Surplice at the throat may have the same a PP r 1 0 P"Xority J foJ ‘embroidered upon it But as there is no ^ authonty for ‘embroidered ornaments of auy kind upon the 11 ” ‘ perhaps better that they be entirely avoided... 0 «rds ‘ of lawn is the least quantity that should b f e £ ‘ Surplice ; and 18 yards are required for one of a “P « a “ d • proportions; of thick linen considerably less may suffice. It may ‘be remarked as a general rule, that the thiuuer and finer the ‘cambric, the greater the quantity of material JW^lsin ‘consequently, the more elegant and graceful the robe. ( P' 13 J> -(On the Minor Accessories to the Services, &c.) . his “ Catalogue ” states the 1 price, m linen, from 20s. to 50s •in lawn, from 35s. to 60s. If with a Collar, embroidered with ‘three crosses patbe, and trefoU bordure, L “ b ™)^ red f ‘ collars are not however recommended. Choristers Aarp/eces oi ‘linen for boys from 10s. 6 d. to 15s.; men, 20s. ...when a low ‘ priced Surplice (under 35s.) is required, linen is recommended. ‘above that price (up to 50s.) lawn An extremely elegant ‘ Ocular Surplice, copied from" old illuminations forms nem-ly a ‘circle besides the sleeves (which are semi-circles), and is without • gathering or plaits of any Wnd, the drapery fidli ^ng into m at™ d ar id ‘ simple diagonal folds... made m one quality of lawn at 55s.. 0 12.).- In a Tract entitled “A Few Words to Churchwardens "it is written ‘ You are bound by the 58th Canon to provide a decent “ aud comely Surplice with sleeves, at the charge of the Parish. ‘ one too often finds the Surplice dirty, and ragged and covered w ith • iron-mould f which is a disgrace to the Parish.’ (/>. lo.).-iart II. Pub. by the Ecclesiological Society. In ‘‘Popular Tracts" we read .-‘The form of the Surplice is ‘universally known. It is a long loose robe, of fine linen (;W t i ;; ift. r ev , xvi. 4,3*2; 2 Chron. v. 12. &c.) and with large 1 sleeves. It is worn by the three Orders of the Clergy, by Choir- 1030 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ men and boys, and by the members of most of our Colleges. The ‘ name implies a robe worn over the ordinary dress. Its colour ‘is always white — the most joyous of the Canonical colours; the ‘ emblem of innocence and purity ; the vesture in which Angels, and ‘the Redeemed are represented as clad in Heaven, (See Dan. vii. 9; St Matt. xvii. 2; xxviii. 3; Acts i. 10.; Rev. vi. 11; vii. 9; xv. 6; ‘ xix. 8. 14); the favourite of the Church alike in mourning and in ‘ rejoicing; of all her colours the most ancient and most universal.’ (p. 3.)— No. II. Pub. by A. Holden. Exeter. Turning now to Romanist writers, we may quote the following : — Bonaxni says: — ‘The Ecclesiastical habit common to all the ‘ Ministers of the sacred temples is that commonly called the Cotta : ‘ principally used by the Clergy, artheir proper habit, prescribed by ‘ the sacred Canons to be peculiar to them, and especially by the ‘ Council of Basil, Sess. 22, where it is directed. — “Horas Canonical “ dicturi, tunica talari induti, ac superpelliceis mundis ultra medias “ tibia s longis, juxta temporum ac regionum diversitatem Ecclesias “ ingrediantur. And in the various instructions given to the Clergy by S. Carlo it is ordered, that they are to be punished, who assist at the Divine Offices without the Cotta , as well as those who ‘use it in secular (profane) occupations.’ This author then refers to Cardinal Bona ( Rer . Lit. ii. c. 24.), who states that ‘ the ‘ word Surpellicium is a barbarous term, ana was not used before ‘ a. d. 600. And that this vestment was formerly called the Epkod, ‘ by some the Felonio, by others the Ampkibolum, the Cotta, and the ‘ Camisia superanea, and the Planeta.’ The word Cotta Bonanni derives from Crocota a term signifying a very fine and delicate garment (veste sottile, e delicata)... 1 In the Council of Basil it was ‘ decreed : — “ Hcec vestis est laxa, quia clericalis vita debet esse in “bonis operibus larga, est etiam talaris, quia docet usque ad finem “ perseverare in bonis." And in the order of St Victoire in Paris, it ‘was directed: — “ Superpellicium et Tunica lanea quantum fieri “potest unius longiardinis esse debeant. ad minus pleno palmo “ a terra distantia, et ut manicae Superpelliciornm non plus duobus “palmis ultra digitos promineant. ... .Subsequently the Surplice became very short ; and in Bonanni s illustration it extended only half way across the thighs: when used by secular Ecclesiastics the Cotta was termed Superindumentum, (p. 186.) — Gerarchia Ecclesiastica. Gavantus writes : — ‘ Superpelliceum e tela potins tenui, manicis ‘ ita oblongis, ut crispatse usque ad digitos summos pertingant, 4 quae esse possunt cubitis circiter 2, vel circa, late autem patentibns ‘ in orbem circiter cubitis 4. In ipso ore potius forma sit rotunda ‘ quam quadrata. A pectore nullo modo scissum, aut dissectum. ‘ Longe ducatur infra genua, fere ad media crura. Late*patcat ‘ ab extremis oris in ambitum cubitis circiter 13, ab humcris ‘ circiter 8. A nulla parte neque nimis affectata artificiosi operis ‘ elegantia elaboratum, ab humeris prteserthn non specioso artificii ‘ ornatu.’ — Thesaurus, i.p. 293. THE SURPLICE. 1031 Dr. Rock writes with respect to the Surplice : — ‘ This is that ‘ white linen garment which is worn not by the Priest only, but is ‘ permitted to be assumed by the lowest Minister who officiates at ‘ the celebration of Divine Service. The use of white garments ‘ by the Members of the Sanctuary, is continually referred to by ‘the holy Fathers. This custom is most particularly noticed by ‘ St. Jerome, and afterwards by the Council of Narbonne held in ‘589; which in one of its decrees, ordains, that neither Deacon, ‘ Subdeacon, nor Lector, who is one of the inferior Clergy, shall ‘lay aside the Albe, or white Tunic, until the Mass be entirely ‘ concluded. Honorius, in 1130, describes the Surplice as a white ‘loose vest, that reached down to the feet;... it would appear, that ‘ the Surplice was a variation of the Albe, from which it differed, ‘ during a long period of years, merely by being somewhat shorter, ‘ and having wider sleeves. That the Surplice , used in Catholic ‘ England, answered this description, and was long, with flowing ‘ sleeves, — and though more ample, perfectly resembled the form ‘ of the Surplice in use on the Continent, in Italy, and especially in ‘ Rome, is evident from the illuminations of old English MSS. and ‘legends of the Saints’... In a Note is added here: — ‘It is to be ‘lamented that hitherto no general attempt has been made to ‘ reproduce the old English Surplice within our Sanctuaries. In- ‘ dependent of possessing a title to our reverence on account of ‘ being a venerable relic of our ouce Catholic National Church — ‘ an incident alone sufficient to demand the restoration of its ‘ ancient form — this vestment comes recommeuded to our good ‘ taste by its intrinsic gracefulness. Its ample and majestic sleeves ‘ aud flowing drapery, render it more dignified and becoming than ‘ the present winged Surplice, introduced amongst us from France. ‘Not only is this French garment foreign to us, but in itself is ‘ inelegant and iuconvenient. Let us hope, however, that ere long, as ‘ the study of Ecclesiastical antiquities, but of those of our ancient * British Church in particular, becomes more extended, the Surplice * will be again fashioued according to that graceful model, which ‘ still prevails through Italy, and once prevailed in England, prior ‘ to the mucli-to-be-lamented change of religion. Since the first ‘ Edition of this work a. d. 1833, the attempt to bring back into ‘use not only the old English Surplice, but many other things ‘belonging to the gonc-by times of the true Church in this ‘country, has been made, and has eminently succeeded.’... Re- curring again to tlie text, we read : — 1 Durandus' who composed his ‘work on the Divine Offices about the year 1286, traces up the * etymology of the Latin Surperpelliceum, whence it is obvious ‘ our English appellation Surplice is derived, to a custom which 1 anciently prevailed in the Church, of wearing Tunics made from ‘ the skins of such animals as the country furnished, over which ‘was cast a white linen Alb or Vest, denominated from that ‘ circumstance of its being worn over fur, Surperpelliceum.' (p. 456.) —Ilierurgiu, Mr. A. W. Pugin describes the Surplice as : — ‘A long linen < robe with large sleeves, used by all degrees of Clergy under the i Episcopal order, and in which Clerics, on receiving the first < Tonsure, are solemnly invested by the Bishop. The Surplice , < like the Rochet and Cotta, is a declensf on from the Albe ; which 1032 tiie ornaments of the minister. ‘ was the original linen vestment used by all who ministered at ‘ the Altar. The word Surplice is derived from ‘ Super ' and ‘pellicea ’ (vestis), a robe of fur, which was worn in England and ‘other northern countries as a protection from cold; and the 1 Surplice is, in fact, an A lie enlarged both in the body and the ‘ sleeves, to enable it to be worn over this dress. It will be readily ‘ seen therefore; that there is but one true form for the Surplice, ‘ that which it had from the commencement, long and ample.* ‘......and which it has only lost within a comparatively short ‘period, in consequence of its real use and intention being forgotten. ‘ The wings we see sometimes attached to modern Surplices are ‘ the sleeves rent open, and hanging uselessly from the back of ‘ the shoulder, as merely excrescences; the bad and paltry taste of ‘those who crimp and plait the folds of drapery into narrow ‘ divisions, is best paralleled by the scoring of the skin, practised ‘among some uncivilized nations Georgius, in Superpellicea ‘ originem, (says) : — “ The Surplice received its present name “probably in the 11th century; but the vestment itself is much “more ancient." I. The vestment we now call Surplice, Cotta, ‘ or Rochet, deserves a special consideration. II. The earliest ‘names of the Surplice, are Linea, Alba, and Alba tunica III. ‘ In the first Roman Ordos there is the common A tie or Cumisia ‘ mentioned, as well as the sacred Linea, Alba, or Camisia. And ‘ this vestment with which Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, ‘ Acolyths, and Cantors were clad, was confined with a Girdle. ‘ Thomasius says well: — “ The dress of these Cantors was the “same as that of other Clerks serving in Church functions, viz. a “ linen A lie, down to the ankles, and a Chasuble .” Perhaps the ‘ Children who sang did not use Chasubles, but only white Jinen ‘ Tunics, girded. IV. In the 6th century, the Vestment used by ‘Deacons, Subdeacons, and Lectors, assisting at the Holy * A Constitution of Benedict XII. a.d. 1339., concerning the form of Surplice to be worn by regular Canons, orders that the Surplices of Canons within the Choir and Closes of Cathedrals, and other Conventual places, “ be large and ample, according to the reasonable custom of each Church, so as to reach in the length of the sleeves beyond the hand by 4 hands' -breadths, or thereabouts, and in the length of them lower than the middle of the shin, or thereabouts. And outside the Churches, Cloysters, and places aforesaid, everywhere, and in all fitting places, under Cappas, Cloaks, or Mantles, they may use Surplices with sleeves, a (Roman) in depth , or thereabouts, and which in length reach to the middle of the skin, or thereabouts. By this however we do not mean to discountenance the custom of some places, which have from ancient prescription, or by special authority, the use of Surplices in the form of Rochets or Roman Cottas ( Camisiarum Romanoram); provided, nevertheless, that Surplices of this kind are not shorter in length, and also have sleeves of such a length, that the arms can be covered with them as low as the knuckles. And by prescribing such forms of Surplices, we do not intend to forbid other longer and more commendable (honest lores') forms of Surplices and Vestments.” — Ap. Georgium. 1. ii. c. 2. p. 335. THE SURPLICE. 1033 ‘Sacrifice, was called Alba, as in the Council of Xarbonne. a. d. ‘ 589. V. At the end of the 8th century, and the beginning of the ‘ 9th, we have the linen vestment called Camisia by Amalarius, ‘ and said to be worn by Cantors, and to be made ex lino, not * ex bysso The 4th and 5th Roman Ordos speak of two linen ‘ vestments to be put on for Divine Service, equal in length, but ‘ the one called Camisia, for common use; the other Alba tunica... ‘ VIII. It is certain that in the 10th century, these two linen ‘ Tunics were worn. a. d. 967. In the reign of Edgar, the 33rd ‘ Canon of an English Synod (qp. Spelman) ordains : — “ That “ every Priest celebrating Mass, have on a body-vest, as it is “called, and a Tunic (Subumlam) beneath his Albe, and all the “Mass Vestments of their proper material and make.” Subumla ‘is a Saxon word meaning a linen Tunic, or Rochet. IX. This ‘ garment was still called Linea at the close of the 10th century. ‘X. It was in the 11th century, that the name Surplice* ‘ ( Superpelliceum , or Testis Superpellicea,) began to be used. The ‘ first instance we read of is the Linea Superpellicialis of John, ‘Abp. of Rouen, a.d. 1076. XI. Its name is supposed to be ‘derived from the circumstance of Canons wearing furred robes ‘in Choir to defend themselves from cold, and putting the linen * Tunic over these In the beginning of the 12th century, this ‘ vestment still retained the name of Tunica talaris , and Alba, ‘ and with the Girdle and Superhwnerale, a sort of hood, was the ‘ dress of lower degrees of Clergy, viz. Acolyths, Exorcists, ‘Lectors, and Ostiakil (See Honorius of Autun, Gemma, ‘ Animce. 1. 1. c. 226.) XII. In the 12th century the Surplice was ‘ worn as a constant dress by regular Canons, and the Canons of ‘some other Churches In the Canons of the Church of Liege. ‘a.d. 1287. it is ordered: — “That Priests wear, under their “ Albes, either Surplices, or the linen Tunic, which is commonly “ called Sarotk, or Rocliet Here the linen Tunic is distinguished * from the Surplice, which in the century before was identified ‘with it: the difference in this case being that the Rochet was ‘without sleeves. XIV. This leads us to mention the Cotta ‘which, in times previous to the 13th century, mostly occurs as a 1 lay garment forbidden to Clerics. In a constitution of Nicholas ‘III. a. d. 1278, however, the Surplice, and Cotta without a hood, ‘ seem synonymous. XV. In the same Constitution the word ‘ Succa occurs the Succa seems to be the same as a Rochet. * XVI. ...... Among the Constitutions of Robert Winchelsea, Abp. of Canterbury a.d. 1295—1313, is the following: — “We “ will and ordain that the Parochial Clergy be bound to have the ‘ undermentioned, viz. a Legendal &c. 3 Surplices, 1 Rochet ,” &c, ‘ XIX. The form of the Surplice in the 14th century was large ‘ and ample, and reaching nearly to the ankles, as the Constitution * It is a curious fact, says this Author, that the only Ecclesiasti- cal Vestment which has been practically retained by the Anglican Church, and the antiquity of which is" hardly vaunted, is not in its present form, primitive, but a comparatively late declension from the original girded Albe. 1034 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘of Benedict XII. given before, [in the Note] tends to shew.... ‘XX. In the 15th century, we find the form of the Surplice ‘had begun to be altered. Some Bishops wore longer, some * shorter Rochets The Council of Basle a. d. 1435, ordains ‘ that: — “ Those about to say the Canonical Hours, go into Church “with a Tunic reaching to the ankles ( Cassock ), and clean “ Surplices reaching in length below the middle of the shin,”* ‘ At the end of the 15th century, the Surplice , according to the ‘ custom of the Roman Church, was worn reaching to the middle ‘of the shin, (ad medias tibias).... At the Council of Aix, a. d. ‘ 1587, Surplices without sleeves are prohibited, as not deserving ‘ the name of Surplices. The form of Surplice , then, during the ‘ 16th century was with long sleeves, and “ductum infra genua “ fere ad media antra.” (Ascanius Tamburinds de jure Abba- * turn). XXI. XXII. Andre de Saussay has written much on the ‘Surplice, but errs in saying, that the wearing of the Surplice ‘ began only 600 years ago in the Church, because, though the ‘name began in the 11th century, the linen Tunic was in use ‘ long before.’ (p. 197 — 200.) — ‘ Cottas are linen Tunics reaching ‘ to the middle, and sometimes without sleeves.’ (j o. 3.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. (See also Rochet, supra.) In the “ Voyages Litcrgiqdes,” par Le Sieur de Moleon, we read.— ‘ The Canons have upon their Cassock {Soutane) a Snr- ‘ plice (Surplus, Soupelit) ; in Latin Superpelliceum, sometimes ‘ Subpellicium, and Suppellicium, as we read in some Church MSS., ‘ quasi sub nellibus ; because in fact the Surplice is put under the ‘Almuce (Aumusse) made of furred skins. This Surplice has ‘ close long Sleeves .... and the Canons of Lyons call it a “ Froc.” ‘ In winter they wear one without sleeves, or with narrow sleeves ‘like those of the Albe, and they call this a “ Frochon," the ‘ diminutive of ‘ Froc / upon the Surplice or Frock they have a ‘ very large Almuce which reaches as far as the Girdle (la ceinture). ‘ (p. 47.) The Canons of Angers have the sleeves of their ‘ Surplices slit and trailing (fendues et trainantes) as at Paris.’ (p. 82.) ‘The Surplice is only the Albe shortened ( raccourcie ).’ (p. 125.) — A Paris. 1718. THE TUNICLE. Tumica, Tunicella, Subtile. — (Tunique, Fr. — Tunicella ItdL) The Tunide was a Vestment originally appropri- ated to the Subdeacon, and made of the same material * “ Horas Canonicas dicturi, cum Tunica talari ac SuperpeU “ liciis mundis ultra medias tibias longis, vel Cappis juxta tem- “porum ac regionum diversitatem, Ecclesias ingrediantur, non “Caputia, sed Almutias, et Birreta tenentes in capite.” Cone. Basil. Sess. 21. THE TUNICLE. 1035 as the Vestment and Cope, which it also followed in colour. Its form very much resembled that of the Dalmatic, but the sleeves of the Tunirle were closer. This vestment is prescribed in the Rubrics of Ed- ward’s First Liturgy, and therefore is among the legally appointed Habits of the Clergy of the Church of England. It is the garment assigned to those who assist the chief ministering Priest at the Holy Communion. (See page 857, supra.) Th e Duhnatic and Tanide have been considered by many writers as synonymous terms for one and the same garment : but there exists a slight difference in their shape and construction. (See “ Dalmatic/’) Lyxdwood, iu his Gloss upon the word Tunica in Archbp. Winchelsey’s Constitution, writes: — ‘ Tunica dieitur antiquissima 1 vestis, quasi Tonica, quia in motu incedentis sonum facit. Et ‘ est proprie Tunica de pellibus, secundum Januensem. Hie tamen * ponitur pro vcste Subdiaconali, qua utitur in officiando Saeerdoti, ‘adMissam.’ (p. 252.) — Provinciate Dr. Burn says from this: — ‘ The Tunk (tunica) is the Subdeaeou’s garment, whieh he useth ‘in serving the Minister at the Mass.’ — Eccl. Law. Phil. i. 375; iii. 799. Wiieatly (pb. 1742.) thus speaks of the Tunkle : — ‘ The 1 Priests and Deacons that assist the Minister in the distribution of ‘ the Elements, instead of Copes, are to wear Tunkles, whieh * Durand describes to have been a s : lk shy-coloured Coat made in the ‘ shape of a Cope.’ (p. 104.) — Rat. III. of Book of Com. Prayer. The Rev. W. Bates says of the Tunkle : — ‘ It is supposed to ‘have been originally the Colobium, or Sticharion, and that the ‘sleeves or Epimanika were afterwards attaehed to it. In the ‘Roman Church it is the Vestment assigned to the Subdeaeon, ‘ when he assists at Mass, and corresponds to the Dalmatie of the ‘Deaeon. In the English Church it is also assigned to the ‘ Minister who assists at the celebration of the Eueharist. It was ‘made of the same material as the Vestment and Cope.’ ( p . 314.). — Lectures on Christian Antiq. and Ritual. The Rev. W. Goode admits the Rubric to require: — ‘ That the ‘ chief ministering Priest at the Holy Communion shall wear a ‘white Albe plain (instead of the Surpliee), with a Vestment or ‘ Cope ; and his assistant or assistants, au Albe with a Tunicle. ‘ The “ Vestment” is considered to be what is ealled the Chasuble, ‘ the “ Tunicle ” what is sometimes ealled the Dalmatic. And I ‘ admit that these things are enjoined by the Rubric. So far as the * letter of the law is eoueerned, the matter seems clear.’ (p. 31.). — Aids to the Ceremonial of the Church of Ewjland. The Rev. R. Hart mentions the Subtile as: — ‘ The Subdeacon’s ‘vestment, otherwise called the Tunkle. It resembled the Dal- 3 U 1036 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘matica, but had tighter sleeves.’ (p. 260.) — Eccl. Records This author, in the “ Transactions of the Norfolk and Norwich “ Archaeological Society'' (Vol. I.), says, the ‘ Tunicle was cut at 4 each side, ahout half way up to the arm, hordered and fringed. It ‘ had two narrow stripes of some rich material in its length, and a 4 sort of square Capucium at the back. Its narrow straight sleeves ‘terminated a little above the elbow. (In the engraving) the 4 lower part of the Tunicle is seen immediately over the Albe.’ The Rev. W. Maskell, in his Notes upon the Rubrics of the ancient office 44 Celebratio Ordinum," ohserves : — ‘ With regard to ‘ the Tunic, it seems to be agreed on, that it was introduced after ‘the 11th century; and was first used in the case of those who, ‘ being already monks, were to be ordained Suhdeacons.’ (/>. 183.) — Monumenta Rilualia, vol. iii. < In the “British Magazine” we read: — ‘The Tunicle is < another article of the obsolete Church vesture, which requires to < he spoken of as concerning us of the present day; for that likewise i is enjoined hy our present Ruhric. Mr. Palmer, in his Origines i Liturgicce, gives his opinion that it is the Surplice ; hut in this t point I must differ from him. In the only Inventory in which I , remember to have seen Surplices mentioned — viz. that of Peter- < horough, they are evidently a different thing from the Tunicles ; i the latter belong to the valuables of the Church, and may he of , the same materials and colours as the Vestments and Copes; , but the Surplice was never of any other material than linen, or of , any other colour than white. AreferencetotheancientServiceBooks , will shew that where there were Surplices they were common to , all Ecclesiastics, from the Priest to the door-keeper; whilst the t Tunicle was restricted to the Bishop, or mitred Ahbot, Deacon, and Suh-deacon ; and where Dalmatics were worn to the Bishop or 4 Ahhot, and Subdeacon. In many places indeed the Surplice had ‘ not been introduced, and then the Tunic or Tunicle (but most ‘ probahly of linen) was worn hy Priests and hy the Minor orders. ‘ What, then, was the similarity of the Surplice and Tunicle, ‘and what the difference? The agreement was, that they were ‘both loose garments with large sleeves; the distinction, that the 4 sleeves of the Tunicle were less ample than those of the Surplice, 4 and did not descend in a point, and perhaps that the Tunicle was ‘ the shorter of the two The Dalmatic was a garment more ‘ nearly resemhling a modern shirt than any thing else that I can ‘specify; in this part of Europe it was scarcely longer; at 4 Venice it reached to the ground. It differed, however, from the 4 shirt, in heing wide at the neck, in heing quite plain, without ‘ any fulness, and in either having no sleeves, or merely a w r ing ‘ on each shonlder, or very short sleeves, reaching only "half way 4 to the elhow. The other distinguishing mark of it, and point of ‘ resemhlance to the shirt, is, that it was open at the sides towards ‘ the bottom. Indeed, in some cases, it was not sewn together at 4 all at the sides, hut only held together at one point by some 4 ornamental fastening. But if it agreed with the shirt in form, it 4 altogether differed from it in material, and most commonly in 4 colour, being in these respects like the Copes and Vestments. 4 It is not retained in the Church of England.’ — Vol. xvii. April. 1840. p. 375. THE TUNICLE. 1037 In “PoruLAR Tracts,” it is stated, — ‘The Tunicle, or DaU 4 matic , is a long robe with sleeves, and partly open at the sides; it ‘ has been for many centuries the peculiar garment of the Deacons. 4 Its material is perhaps chiefly silk; the colour varies.’ (p. 6.). — No. II. Pub. by A. Bolden, Exeter. Referring to Romanist writers, tve find the follow- ing description of the Tunicle. Gavantus says: — ‘Subdiaconi ministrabant in Albis tempore * S. Gregorii Papas, l. 7. Epist. 63. jubet Ordo Rom. eis tradi con- 1 gruas vestes Subdiaconales et Mappulas in sinistra : sed quas 4 vestes, non explicat. Subtile cum minori manica datum Subdiaco- ‘ nis, scribitur in Gemma l. 1. c. 229, et hoc est Tunicella, ideo sic * appellata, quia minor est Dalmatica Diaconali, ante Gregorium ‘nescio quis, ait ipse loc. cit. induit Subdiaconos: qui modus ‘loquendi excludit Silvestrum, quern faciunt quidam hujus ritus 4 auctorem, et indicat, per errorem id esse factum : unde Gregorius ‘ removit Subdiaconalem vestem. Condi. Brae. 1. c. 27. appellat ‘ Tunicam, et pares in veste facit Diaconum et Subdiaconum; for- ‘ tasse ex praedicto abusu, quern postca correxit S. Gregor, quoad 4 Subdiaconos nunc eorundem strictior est vestis quam Diaconorum, * et ideo dicta est etiam Subucula, ab Amalar. 1. 2. c. 22. Significat ‘ autem ioricam justitise, quae communis est virtus. Gemma, ubi 4 supra : sed eadcm significat quae Dalmatica, nisi quod Subdiaconus 4 minori Tunica indutns, si ad minorem virtutis gradum quam ‘ Diaconus perveniat, tolerandus esse videtur, suppone Albam * Tunicella*, ex Cone. Narbon cit. consequenter, Amictum, et Cingu- lum, ut supra diximus de Diacono.’ (p. 62.) ‘ Tunicella 4 Svhdiaconalis similis sit Dalmatica: Diaconali ; excepto qpiod 4 angustiores debet habere manicas, et longiores. Ccerimon. Episc. 1. 4 1. c. 10.’ — Thesaurus, i. p. 294, Dr. Rock remarks: — ‘The Tunic is the vestment assigned to 4 the Subdeacon, in his ministry about the Altar. Were the regula- 4 tions of the Church followed in all their precision, this garment 4 would be longer, but not so ample as the Dalmatic of the Deacon; 4 according however, to a custom which everywhere prevails, both 4 these vestments perfectly resemble each other. It would appear ‘it was not until somewhat late that the use of the Tunic was 4 formally appropriated to Subdeacons, since no mention of this 4 vestment can be discovered in the writings of the early fathers ; 4 nor is there any thing resembling it discernible in the pictorial 4 monuments of Ecclesiastical antiquity; and we know, from a 4 passage in the letters of S. Gregory the Great, that in his time ‘(a. d. 590.) the Sub-deacons of the Roman Church, were arrayed 4 in a white Albe when they officiated at the Altar.’ Iu a Note is added: — 1 Honorius, in his enumeration of the Vestments assigned 4 at his time (a. d. 1130.), to the difl'erent ministers of the Altar, 4 informs us, that the Subdeacon’s peculiar garment, which, we now ‘call Tunic, and is sometimes denominated Tonicella by Liturgical 4 writers, was known by the term Subtile. After noticing that tho 4 Subdeacon was permitted the use of the Amice, the Albe, and 4 Girdle, he says, — “ Duce alise (vestes) addunttir. Subtile (Tunica) 44 quod et stricta Tunica dicitur, portat ut se justitia quasi lorica 3 u 2 1038 THE ORNAMENT9 OF THE MINISTER. “ induat, et in sanetitate et justitia Dei serviat, Sudarium. (J/ani- “ pulum ) quo sordes a vasis deterguntur, portat ut transacta mala “ sordium a se per poenitentiam tergat.” (/re Gem. Anim. 1. ii. ‘ c. 229.)’ — Uierurgia. p. 451. In the “Voyages Liturgiques” par le Seur de Moleon we read: — 1 Les Tuniques de meme (de Notre Dame de Rouen) cousues ‘ par les eotez jusqu’k la ceinture, et pardessous les bras jusqu’ aus ‘poignets, comme en ont pour habit les bourgeois et les gens de ‘quality autour de Pau dans le Bearn, avcc bandes ou orfrois ‘ brodez.’ Ip. 379.) — a Paris. 1718. THE VESTMENT. Veslimentum. The terra Vestment possesses various significations among the writers upon Ecclesiastical Habits ; sometimes limited to express one garment only ; at other times extended to a whole suit. In the Rubric of Edward Vlth’s First Liturgy the word is employed to denote merely the Chasuble , a restriction which it seems to have progressively acquired. It at first denoted. (1) A complete set of Vestments and Furniture for the Service of the Altar. (2) The whole attire of a Priest , Deacon , and Subdeacon at the Sacrament of the Altar. (3 ) A complete suit for the Priest only. (4) The Principal Vestment called the Chasuble. The wording of the Rubric, enjoining upon the Priest to “put upon him.... a white Albe plain, “ with a Vestment or Cope ,” has led many to suppose that the term ‘ Cope ’ is explanatory of ‘ Vestment but the translation of Alesse, who renders it by the Latin word ‘ Casulu * clearly indicates this garment to be the Chasuble : Thus: — “ Whensoever the Bishop “ shall celebrate, &c. he shall have upon him beside “his Rochette, a Surpliss or Albe, and a Cope or “ Vestmente, and also his Pastoral Staff,” &c. Alesse renders this last clause, “ induat Lineam aut “ Albam, et Cappam vel Casulam, et habeat baculum THE VESTMENT. 1039 “ pastoralem.” Acjain, ‘The Priest that shall “ execute the holy ministry shall put upon him the “vesture appointed for that ministration ; that is to “ say, a white Albe, plain, with a Vestment or Cope,” &e “ Sacerdos indutus Alba, Casnla, vcl Cappa, &c.” (Palmer’s Orig. Lit. ii. 396.). See under “ Chasuble,” supra. In Abp. W inchelsey’s Constitution a.d. 1305. we find en- joined upon the Parishioners to provide for their Church, among other things, the ‘ principal Vestment' (vestimentum principal^): Lyndwooo’s gloss upon this is as follows: — “ V’est. Prineipnle. i. e. ‘ Pro Festis principalibns, et ex hoc quod specialiter statuit de ‘ Vestimento principali inveniendo per Parochianos, videtur eos ‘ exonerare in aliis Vestimcntis, videlicet pro usu Dierum Ferialinm 1 inveniendis, Xam quod de uno specialiter dicitur, in aliis • videtur esse negatum Consuetudo tamen in talibus attendenda * est.’ (p. 252.) — Provinciate. Dr. Burn, when explaining this gloss of the Canonist, says:— ‘ The Principal Vestment is the best Cope to be worn on the princi- ‘ pal Feasts.’ — Peel. Late, Phil. i. 375. In the “British Magazine” various senses are ascribed to the word 1 Vestment;' it is stated first : — ‘ This is not merely ‘ another name fora Cope (as might be supposed by any one reading ‘ cursorily the Rubric of the Communion Service of the First Book ‘ of Edward Vlth, is clearly shown by Mr. Palmer in his Origines ‘ Liturgicce. He states that Alesse, who translated this book into ‘ Latin, invariably renders the term by the Latin word Casula, ‘ which in English is variously written Chasuble (from Casnbula ), ‘ Chasible, Chesible, or Chyslble In further continuation, we ‘ may observe that, in acconnts of Ecclesiastical Habits given to ‘ Churches or possessed by them, handed down by contemporary ‘ writers, the Vestment is assigned the same place as the Chasuble. ‘ So far then, it appears abundantly clear that Vestment and Cha- 1 suble are convertible terms. But there are many things in the ‘ Inventories which do not tally with this idea, but require that the ‘ former word should have other meaniugs. But I think all the ‘ several senses arise out of one in which it is beyond question ‘ employed in the Inventory of the effects of Windsor Collegiate ‘ Church in Dugdale. In this document the most complete of ‘the entries nnder the head Vestimenta is as follows: — “Item “ unum Vestimentum rubeum de velveto textum cum imaginibus “ pondratis cum perlis— viz. cum nna Casula, duabus tunicis, tribus “ albis, tribus amictibus, cum stolis et favonibus pertinentibus “eidem, cum una bona capa ejusdem sectse enm altari de “eadem secta, et ridello de siudone rubeo.” Here the word “ viz after the description of the Vestimentum shews that what ‘follows is simply a description of it; i. e. that it was a set of ‘ Vestments and furniture for the Service of one Altar, consisting of * a Chasuble, &c This strictly agrees with the ancient ordinance ‘ of the Chnrch of England, set forth formerly by Robert Win- ‘ chelscy, Abp. of Canterbury, which appoints what portion of ‘ Chnrch furnitnre shall be provided by the Parish, It is as 1040 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. * follows “ Omnis Ecclesia jmrochialis, sequentem habeat “ supellectilem Vestimentum principak, cum Casula, Dalmatica, “&c.” i. e. Every parish Church must have the following ‘ furniture. . . .A principal Vestment with &c The extract from ‘ the “Windsor inventory,” I say, corresponds with this regulation, * and likewise explains it, and shows that the conjunction with after ‘ Vestment is not intended to connect it with Chasuble, but is an ‘Anglicism, to explain what articles were essential to the Vestment. * Aud the epithet principal no doubt means that which was used at * the priucipal Altar. The adjective its added to appendages does * not refer to Cope (for the Cope had no appendages), but to the * Vestment, and means Stoics, Maniples, and probably Albes. . . .The ‘ term Vestment, then, in its fullest sense, signified the whole set of ‘ dresses and furniture for the service of one A Itar. But it was ‘likewise used in a sense neither so comprehensive as this, nor so ‘ confined as that which it has in the Reformed Rubric ; for instance, * in the Inventory of the Abbey of Peterborough, in Stevens, there * are the different titles of Altar Cloths, Albes, Vestments, and ‘ Copes ; aud under the head of Vestments we have the following ‘entries: — “ One suit of crimson velvet upon velvet with a Cope, “andAlbe suitable to the same: one Chesible, with” &c. Here, ‘ from the notice of the Cope, Albes, and Tunicles, in some instances ‘ whether as present or as wanting, it would appear that one Cope ‘ at least was expected to form part of the Vestment, and a suitable ‘number of Albes and Tunicles; whilst from their omission in ‘ other cases we are led to conclude that they were not necessarily * included in the term, which here seems to signify the whole attire ‘ of a Priest, Deacon, and Sub-deacon, at the Sacrament of the Altar. ‘ It is, perhaps, more clear from the separate mention of a Chasuble * that the word Vestment is not used in this Inventory to express 1 that habit by itself. The circumstance likewise that Altar-cloths ‘ were altogether under a separate title, and never mentioned under ‘the title of Vestments, shews that they were not included; whilst ‘the mention of Tunicles is pretty conclusive that the Habits of the * Beacon and Subdeacon were included Again, a narrower sense ‘ still seems to be necessary on some other accounts. Thns, in the ‘ Annals of Glastonbury Abbey, by John, one of the Monks, in the 1 Cotton Library (A. 5. fol. 98.) in Stevens, we read that Geoffry ‘ Fromund, fifty-first Abbot, gave “ three suits, one called the “ trelles; another yellow, not embroidered; the third, white satin. “ Item. Six Vestments, five of them embroidered, the sixth not ; “ the first called the Chusiugburg, with the Stole and Maniple of the “same workmanship; the second with images &c with a like “ Stole and Maniple ; the third of reddish satin, with parrots, the Stole “of the Maniple of the same sort.” &c Here the meaning of ‘ the term would appear to undergo a further restriction : for there ‘ being only one Stole and Maniple attached to each vestment, and ‘ those articles not being restricted to the Priest, but worn by the ‘ Deacon, and the Maniple by the Subdeacon likewise, it is reasonable * to conclude that the dresses presented were sets of Ecclesiastical ‘ attire for the Priest only, and that this is here the meaning of the * term Vestment When the word had come to be used in the 1 sense of a set of Priestly habits, it was no violent change to restrict ‘it technically to the Chasuble, which was the principal, and in all ‘ ordinary cases, the distinctive dress of the Priest. . . .And thus we ADDENDA — ALBE. 1041 ‘ have come by a gradual and natural transition to the sense in ‘which the word Vestment is taken in the First Book of Edward the ‘ Sixth, which was confirmed by Act of Parliament in the second * year of his reign.’ — Vol. xvii. April 1840. p. 370. Mb. A. W. Pcgin, the Romanist, says: — 4 Vestment, in the ‘ modem acceptation of the word, signifies a Chasuble ; bnt it was 4 used by our ancestors in a much more extended signification. A 4 Vestment, means a complete suit, and often inclnded the Chapel 4 furniture.’ (p. 214.) —Glossary of Ecclesiastical Ornament and Costume. ADDENDA. Albe. [pp. 90(5 — 914.] — In the 44 British Magazine ” we read : — 4 The A Ibe is certainlv 4 the most graceful amongst the disnsed vestures, whilst the Cope 4 may be regarded as the most handsome. It was a long dress, of 4 mnch the same general form as the Cassock, gathered at the neck 4 into a collar like that of a Surplice, but closer, with sleeves not 4 fitting quite close to the arm, but tightening towards the wrist, vet 4 not set into a wristband. It was also confined round the waist ‘by 4 a narrow girdle or cord. Originally, as the name implies, it was 4 tchite ; bnt it subsequently took the' same range of colour, material, 4 and ornament, as the Cope and Vestment, and in a set was of the 4 colour of the set. At the Reformation this licence was restrained; 4 and we are required now to wear the Albe white, in contradistinction 4 to the coloured ; and plain, to the exclnsion both of the ancient 4 needle-work, and of the fringes and borderings of lace which are 4 still worn by the Roman Clergy.’— Vol xvii. April 1840. p. 375. Banner ( Labarum ) — Banners were at one time displayed over the Altar by way of ornament; and those taken in battle were sometimes snspended over the tombs of victorious Generals. In the Chapels belonging to the Orders of Knighthood, as of the 4 Garter' at Windsor; of the 4 Bath ’, in Henry Vllth’s, at Westminster; the Banner of each Knight is snspended over his Stall. It was also the cnstom formerly for Banners to be displayed in the religious Processions. Ecclesiastical Banners are not attached to the Staff, bnt fastened to a yard suspended from the top of the Staff. Banners are not now nsed in religious Processions; and the only circumstances in which they appear in connection with the Chnrch of England are in the simple and unpretending processions of onr Sunday-School Children. The ancient Service for the Consecration of Standards, 44 Vexillorum Processionalium, v el Militarium, Benedictio," is given in Maskell’s Monumenta Ritualia. iii. 320. 1042 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Fosbroke says, under Labarum : — ‘ The name, but not the thing, commences with Constantine. It is a Standard, with a ^ cross-piece, from which hung a piece of stuff... It had an ca. 42.) — Glossary of Eecl. Ornament and Costume. Chasuble. 929 — 939 .] — In tbe “British Magazine ” we find tbis vestment thus described: — ‘Tbe vestment or Chasuble, called in Latin likewise ‘ Planeta, was a garment shorter than the Cope, and differing from * it chiefly in having no opening except at tbe neck. It .was ‘ consequently put on over tbe bead. It had a standing collar, ‘ like that of a Cassock, or Court Coat, but standing further from ‘the ueck, and meeting in front; but tbe vestment was not ‘ gathered or plaited into it, but set in quite plain. It appears to 1 have been at first a simicircle, or nearly so, sewn up in front, ‘ and cut out at the centre to admit tbe head ; and upon tbis aper- * ture the collar was fixed. It being, however, found that the form ‘ of the garment (which still I believe subsists in tbe Greek Church) * was a great impediment to the use of tbe bands, especially when 1 it came to be made of rich materials, and that when the skirt ‘ was raised for the purpose of using them, tbe vestment bung ‘awkwardly before and behind, it was cut away at the sides a ‘ third or more of tbe depth, and sloped from the arms to tbe back ‘ and front. Thus changed, it was worn botb in England and ‘abroad at the time of tbe Reformation A stripe of about ‘ 3 inches broad went down it before and behind from tbe collar to ‘the skirt, and another round it about the shoulders; whilst a ‘ border of the same kind went all round it at bottom. Its materials * and colours were the same as those of the Cope The modern ‘Roman Chasuble differs from tbe ancient English one in two 'respects: first, that the part which covered the arms has been ‘entirely cut away, so as to leave uothing but a broad piece banging ‘ down before and behind ; and the ornamental stripe bas assumed ‘the form of a cross, and is much wider than formerly. Some of ‘ tbe Roman Clergy in this country, aware of the difference, and ‘ perceiving that the modern vestment stamps them at ouce as ‘foreign agents, are resuming the old English one. It maybe ‘worth while to add, that costly materials are by no means ‘ essential to the structure of tbe Vestment, and that white moleskin, ‘with a stripe of black, purple, or crimson, would bave been quite ‘ orthodox amongst our forefathers ; as also that tbe strict and ‘ technical rules in regard to colour were not introduced long ‘ before the Reformation, and did not everywhere prevail even ' then, if we may judge by the colours found in the suppressed con- ‘ vents.’ — Vol. xvii. April 1840. p. 374. Colour. — In the Church of England the only colours employed in Eccle- siastical Vestments are Black, and White. The colours of the 1046 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Hoods are academical distinctions, and may mostly be adopted by Laymen as well as Clergymen. In the Romish Church, however, Jive different colours are used; and appropriated to distinct seasons of the Ecclesiastical year, and to certain appointed Holy-days. These may be learned from the opinions annexed; and it will be found that their Altar-Cloths follow the same rule. (See also pages 581, 585, 777, 778. supra.) With us, however, this diversity and change have not the sanction of authority, nor the consent of custom. The Rev. R. Hart observes:— 1 In process of time, this primi- tive simplicity (iu dress) was laid aside; the most costly substances (silk and velvet, jewels and gold) were lavishly emploved in ornamenting the dresses of the priesthood, and all the colours of the rainbow were brought into requisition. White or blue vestments were worn on the festivals of confessors, virgins or angels: and also from the Vigil of Christmas-day till the octaves of the Epiphany inclusive. Red or purple were used on the solemnities of Apostles, Evangelists, and Martyrs, and also from the Vigils of Pentecost till Trinity Sunday. Violet was the colour appropriated to Good-Friday, days of’Public Humiliation, and from Advent Sunday till the Eve of the Nativity. Black vestments were also sometimes worn on Good-Friday, or other solemn Fast days, at Rogation processions, and masses for the dead. Finally, green or yellow were used on ordinary Sundays, or other days.’ (p. 254.)— Eccl. Records. The Rev. J. E. Riddle remarks: — ‘The colour which was 1 originally used, and has for the most part prevailed, in Ecclesiasti- cal Vestments, is white. (Gregor. Naz. Somn . A than. ■ ‘ Chrysost. Horn. 82. (al. 83.), in Matt. ; Horn. 37. de Fil. Prod. ; ‘Sozom. Hist. Fed. 1. viii. c. 21; Hieron. Ep. ad Prcesid. ; Ep 3. 1 ad Heliod. ; Contr. Pelag. 1. 1.). It appears that at Constant icople, in the 4th century, the Catholic Bishops and superior Clergy * wore black, and the Novatians white ; but it is likely that this ‘relates to the dress of private life; the Novatians having intro- ‘ duced the novel custom of wearing white on ordinary occasions, ‘ while the Catholics adhered to the old practice of wearing black. ‘ (Socrat. Hist. Eccl. vi. 20.). Mention is made of red, blue, and ‘ green, as having been used in Clerical vestments or insignia as ‘ early as the 7th, and 8th centuries. No colour appears to have ‘ been prescribed by a general law of the Church until the 12th ‘ century.’ (/>. 353.)— Manual of Christian Antiq. Mr. A. J. Stephens, ( Barrister-at-law ), after quoting the above remarks of Mr. Riddle, adds : — ‘ Although the Prayer Book ‘of 1549 had no Rubric appointing the colour, vet the Church ‘before the Reformation had a difference of colours' for the various ‘seasons in the Copes, and Albes, viz: white for most of the ‘ great festivals, violet for Lent and fasts, red, for the festivals of ‘martyrs, black for occasions of deep mourning, and green and ‘ other colours for ordinary seasons. As an antiquarian fact, ADDENDA— COLOUR. 1047 ‘ it is curious that our Common Law Judges still retain in their 4 robes not only the Clerical shape (the Hood, &c. are all Ecclesi- ‘ astical, or rather monastic), but some of the colours : red, black, 4 and violet — worn, it is supposed formerly, at the proper seasons, ‘but now fixed according to the terms or festivals. Fortescue 4 (dc Laudibus) speaks of green as being a favourite colour of the ‘Judges in his time. Iu the Geutleman’s Magazine for October ‘ 1768, there is a curious account given of the regulations for 4 their Robes made by the Judges in 1635.’ ( p. 370.) — Book of Com. Prayer. E.H. S. In a Tract 44 A Few Words to Church-Builders,” we read with respect to the colours of Altar-Cloths, with which the Vest- ments usually coincided, the following remarks in a Note : — 1 The * ordinary green (Altar-Cloth) was for common week-days, between 4 the Octave of the Epiphany and Sexagesima, and between Trinity 4 and Advent Sundays. The superior green one on the Sundays 4 during the same period. — White : the Purification; the Annuncia- tion; the Conversion of St. Paul: Christmas-day, till the Octave 1 of the Epiphany, both inclusive (except the intervening festivals 4 of Martyrs); the Nativity of S. John the Baptist; from Easter-day 4 till the Octave of the Ascension, both inclusive (except as before, ‘and on the Rogation days); Michaelmas-day ; the Feasts of 4 S. Luke, and S. John; the Anniversary of the Dedication of the ‘Church, whenever it happened. — Violet or Black: all Advent; 4 all Lent (except Saints’ Days); Ember-days, and Rogation days. — 4 Red : the feast of any martyr. — It is not uncatholick to use red ‘from Pentecost to Trinity; nor black on the vigil of a Saint’s 4 day; though this is not necessary. On All Saints’, and the Holy ‘Innocents, either red or white is used.’ (p. 27.) — Pub. by the Cambridge Camden Society. We will now pass to the opinions of Romanist 'writers ; beginning, however, with Lewis's translation of the Rubric of the Roman Missal, the original Latin of which we have quoted from Gavantus's Thesaurus at p. 778, (supra.) 4 The drapery of the Altar, the Celebrant, and the Ministers, 4 ought to be of the colour suitable to the office, and Mass of the ‘day, according to the usage of the Romau Church, which uses 4 5 colours, white, red, green, violet, and black. The White colour 4 is used from the vespers of the vigil of the Nativity of our Lord, 4 to the octave of the Epiphany inclusive, excepting on feasts of 4 martyrs which fall within it. The fifth holiday in Ccena Dom. 4 and ou holy Sabbath iu the office of the Mass, and from that day ‘to the Sabbath in vigil of Feutecost at None iu the office of the 4 Time, except in the Mass of the Litanies and Rogatious. In the 4 feast of the most holy Trinity. In the feast of Corpus Christi. 4 In the feast of the Transfiguration of the Lord. In the feast of the 4 name of Jesus. In feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary ; also, in the 4 benediction of the Candles, and of the procession which takes 4 place in the feast of Purification. In the feast of Angels. In the 4 nativity of St. John the Baptist. In principal feast of S. John ‘the Evangelist, which is celebrated within the octave of the 1048 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ nativity of the Lord. In the feasts of the chairs of St. Peter. * In feast of St Peter in chains. In conversion of St. Paul. In ‘ feast of the sacred Stigma of St. Francis. In feast of the Pontiffs ‘ Confessors, hut not in feasts of Pontiffs and Doctors. In feasts ‘ of holy Virgins and Martyrs, and of those neither Virgins nor ‘martyrs. In Dedication and Consecration of a Church or Altar, ‘ and in the Consecration of the chief Pontiff, and in the anniversary ‘ of the creation and coronation of the same, and of the election ‘ and consecration of the Bishop. Also throngh the octaves of the ‘ foresaid feasts which have octaves, when Mass is said in the ‘ octave, and on Sundays occurring within them, when in them the ‘office of Sunday falls, except on those Sundays in which the ‘ violet colour is due. In votive masses of the aforesaid feasts at the ‘ time they are said, and in the mass for a bridegroom and bride. — ‘ The Red colour is used from vigil of Pentecost in mass to the ‘ following Sabbath, the None heing finished and Mass. In feasts ‘ of the Holy Cross. In the beheading of St. John the Baptist. ‘ In the birth-days of the Apostles Peter and Paul, and in the 1 feasts of the other Apostles, (excepting the principal feast of ‘ St John the Evangelist after the Nativity, and feast of the ‘ Conversion of St. Paul, and chairs of St. Peter, and of his chains.) ‘ In feast of St. John before the Latin gate. In commemoration of ‘ St. Paul the Apostle. In feasts of the martyrs, excepting the ‘feasts of the Holy Innocents, when it does not fall on a Sunday; ‘ but if it should fall on a Sunday the red is used, indeed, ‘on the octave of it red is always used, on whatever day ‘ it occurs. In the feasts of the holy Virgin Martyrs, and ‘ Martyrs not Virgins. Also through the octaves of the foresaid ‘feasts, which have octaves, when the octave falls, and on ‘ Sundays occurring witlun these octaves, in like manner, as has ‘ been said above of the white colour. Also in the votive masses of ‘the above mentioned feasts, and in the mass for choosing the ‘ Chief Pontiff. — The Green colour is used from the octave of ‘Epiphany to Septuagesima, and from the octave of Pentecost to ‘ Advent inclusive; in the office for the Time, excepting Trinity ‘Sunday as above, and Sundays excepted occnrring within the ‘ octave', in which the colour of the octave is observed, excepting also ‘ vigils, and Four Seasons as below. — The Violet colour is used from ‘the first Sunday in Advent in first vespers to the mass of the ‘ vigil of the Nativity of the Lord inclusive, and from Septuagesima ‘ to holy Sabbath before mass inclusive, in the office of the Time, ‘ excepting the fifth holiday in Coena Domini, in which white is used, ‘and the sixth feria of Parasceue, (prepar.), in which black is used, ‘ as below; and in benediction of the wax on holy Sabbath, in ‘ which the Deacon, saying the Preface of the day, uses while alone, ‘ but that finished, violet as before. Also, in vigils of Pentecost ‘before mass, from the first prophecy to the benediction of the ‘Font inclusive. In the Four Seasons, and vigils where fasting 1 is required, excepting vigils and four seasons of Pentecost. In ‘ the mass of Litanies in the day of the holy Gospel of Mark and ‘ Rogations, and in processions which fall in these days. In the ‘ feast of the most holy Innocents, when it shall not happen on a ‘ Sunday. In benediction of Candles on the day of Purification of ‘ the blessed Mary, and in the benediction of the Ashes and Palms, ‘ and on Palm Sunday itself, and generally in all the processions of ADDENDA — COLOUR. 1049 ‘ the same, excepting processions of the most holy Sacrament ‘ which happen on solemn days, or in giving of thanks. In masses ‘ of the passion of our Lord, for any necessity, for sins, to ask ‘ grace for dying well, to take away schism, against pagans, in time ‘ of war, for peace, for avoiding mortality, for going a journey, ‘and for the infirm. — The Black colour is used on the sixth ‘holiday in Parasceue, (prepar.), and in all offices and masses for ‘ the dead.’ — In a Note occurs the following remark.— 1 According ‘ to the modern discipline of the Roman Church, white is the ‘ ordinary colour of the dress of his Holiness, but his cloak, his ‘ shoes, and hat, are red ; scarlet is the colour of the Cardinal’s ‘ robes ; green is the distinctive colour of Bishops; purple of ‘ Prelates ; black of Priests. These are the five Ecclesiastical ‘ colours used in Church Vestments. (Bagg’s Account of the ‘ Papal Church.'),' — The Bible, the Missal, and the Breviary. Vol. ii. p. 333. Dr. Rock, speaking of the colours of the Vestments says: — ‘ In ‘ her Vestments the Church employs five different colours. — On the 1 feasts of our Lord, of the blessed Virgin Mary, of the angels, and of * those amongst the Saints who were not martyrs, she makes use of * white ; not only to signify the stainless purity of the Lamb, and of his ‘ Virgin Mother, but to figure that “ great multitude which no man “ could number, of all nations, and tribes, and peoples, and tongues, “ standing before the throne, and in sight of the Lamb, clothed with “ white robes.” ( Rev. vii. 9.). — On the feasts of Pentecost, of the Inven- ‘ tion and Exaltation of the Cross, of the Apostles and Martyrs, she ‘ employs red, to typify those fiery tongues that rested on the heads * of the Apostles, when the Holy Ghost descended visibly among * them ; and in reference to the effusion of blood by Christ and his ‘faithful followers. — On the greatest part of the Sundays the ‘Vestments are green. — Purple is the colour assigned for the ‘ penitential times of Advent, and of Lent, for the Ember-days, and ‘ for the several vigils throughout the year ; — whilst black is reserved ‘ for the office of Good Friday, and for masses of the dead.’ (p. 455). I — Uierurgia. Mr. A. W. Pugix says : — ‘ Black is the colour ordered by the ‘ Church on Good Friday, and in the Office for the Dead. Black ‘ Vestments were not, however, commonly used for the latter ‘ purpose in antiquity The celebrant at a Funeral is often repre- ‘ sented in a coloured Cope Georgius de colore nigro ; writes:— II Black is the 3rd of the four sacred or Canonical colours, and “ is nsed by the Roman Church (and formerly by the Eastern too) “ on Penitential days. There are many shades of Black, expressed “ in Latin by the words a ter, niger, fuscus, grisius: Ater being the “ deepest black, and Grisius the lightest, inclining to a grey. Fuscus “is the word for black often used by Ecclesiastical writers.”.. ‘ Alcuin states, that on Good Friday, according to the use of the ‘ Roman Church, the Archdeacon and Deacons wear black Chasubles ‘ in the Church... Brown (color castaneus), which may be reckoned ‘ here as a shade of black, is found in some ancient delineations of * Chasubles. ( p. 40.) — On what days the Roman Church uses black, ‘see an Italian Tract by Georgius.’ (p. 41.) — ( Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume.). — ‘ Blue is not now considered one of the ‘five Canonical colours for Vestments; but blue Copes and Chasubles 1050 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. ‘ were formerly very frequently made. . . Blue Vestments are still used in ‘ parts of Spain and Italy on Festivalsofthe Blessed Virgin. Ceilings ‘ °f Churches were generally paiuted blue . , and powdered with stars, to ‘ represent the canopy of heaven over the faithful. These Stars ‘ were often made in lead, gilt, and fastened to the panels of the ‘ roof The Violet or blue colour was anciently thought so ‘ nearly allied to the colour black , that the Roman Church ‘ used them indiscriminately for one aud the same, in days of ‘ mourning and fasting. The ancients were fond of dark purple, 1 which they called purpura nigra , or violacea. At Funerals they ‘ wore black , or nearly black. The ancients also used a bright purple ‘ {color amethystinus ),. . This colour was called cceruleus, blue, and ‘puniceus, bright purple; and was used by the Church on days of a ‘penitential character.... There are some examples in mosaics at ‘Rome of Chasubles of this violet colour.... In later writers 1 hvidus is often used for blue. We read also of color Imlicus, which ‘ Du Cange says, is blue mixed with purple, or indigo blue. ‘ Concerning the days on which the Roman Church formerly used, ‘ and now uses, Black aud Purple Vestments, refer to Innocent III., ‘ Durandus, and the Ordo Romanus of Card. Cajetau. (Georgius V. I. ‘ p. 412.). (ibid. p. 41.) — Green, ‘ Color viridis used in the Church ‘ on common Sundays and Ferias. Green is the fifth and last of the * Canonical colours. The emerald may be taken as the standard of this colour, as used in Church ornament. In Latin it is often ‘ called prasinus .... Innocent III. de Myster. Missa observes: — “ Green Vestments are to be used on ferial and ordinary days; “because green is a middle colour between white and black.” ‘ Durandus, as usual, copies the remarks of Innocent III, ‘(Georgius).’ (ibid. p. 138.) Red.— Georgius (l. II. c. 10.) ‘ says : — Red is the second of the Canonical colours. Red or purple ‘ is of many kinds, and has many different names in Ecclesiastical ‘ monuments. Ferrarius distinguishes three sorts of purple : ‘(1) crimson (coccineum) ; (2) amethyst colour (amethystinum) ,- ‘ (3) violet purple ( conchyliatum ). The word blatteus, he says, is used ‘ for crimson — The writers of the middle ages, however, borrowing ‘ from the Greek, call the colour red, rhoainum, rose-colour or ‘crimson; rhodomelinum , orange red; and diarhodinun i, deeper ‘crimson,... numerous examples occur of purple, and crimson Copes 1 and Chasubles. The use of the colour red is most ancient in the ‘ Church. Innocent III, says, that it >s proper on the following ‘ days: — “ The Feasts of the Apostles; and of Martyrs; the Festivity “of the Holy Cross; Pentecost; All Saints; and the Feast of the “ Holy Innocents. But at Rome white is used on All Saints, and “ violet on Innocents’ Day. See Durandus, and the 14th Ordo “ Romanus of Card. Csyetan.” ‘Red is used in France on the Feast ‘of Corpus Christi, and the same was formerly the custom in ‘ England. Red was also used in England during Passion Week; ‘ 27 red Albes for Passion Week are mentioned in the Inveutory of ‘the Abbey of Peterborough.’ (ibid. p. 178). — White is the most ‘joyous of the Canonical colours .. ..Gold is reckoned as white. ‘ Georgius (says): — “ The principal and most frequent colour nsed “in the Divine mysteries is white.”.. S. Jerome often meutions ‘ white Garments as the vestments of the Clergy. Kearly allied to, and ‘ classed in the same category as the colour Albus, are the terms — * lacteus niveus, Candidas, aqueus, vitreus, marmoreus, argentevs, ‘Jlavus, mellinus, palearis, pallidus, luteus, galbancus, buxeus, citreus, ADDENDA — THE COPE. 1051 4 citrinus, dincitrinus, croceus, rvfftts fulvus. All these occur in * ancient vestments, aud we refer them all to the head of white. (After giving numerous examples of gold, lemon, yellow, &c. Vest- ments, he adds : — ), 4 In the middle ages white was also called asprue, 4 and diasprus.... In accordance with the ancient custom of the 4 Roman Church, Innocent III writes, that “the colour white is to “be used on Festivals of Confessors, and of Virgins; on the Feast of 44 the Purification, as an emblem of the virginal purity of the Mother “ of God; on Maunday Thursday, because of the consecration of the “Holy Chrism; at Easter, on account of the Angels, the Witnesses 44 and' Heralds of the Resurrection; on Ascension Day, to signify the “bright cloud; for the Consecration of a Bishop; aud at the 44 Dedication of a Church.” Durandus has the same. The colour 4 white is used at the present day on all Feasts of our Lady, in ‘addition to the days above specified.. ..Catalani (says) — "The 44 colour white is without a doubt the principal convenient colour in 44 the administration of the Eucharist, so all, who have written con- “cerning the Eucharist, assert.”. . 4 And St. Chaki.es speaking 4 of giving Communion out of time of Mass, says; — “ Let the Priest 44 use a Surplice, and white Stole, or where the Ambrosian rite 44 prevails, a red one.” This is illustrated by what Gavantus says 4 of the nature of the colour White : viz. that it denotes Glory, Joy, ‘and Innocence.’ ( p. 215). — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. The Cope [j>p, 941 — 950.]. — In the “British Magazine,” the Cope is described as: — 4 A 4 sort of cloak, not gathered into a collar, but cut so as, when 4 spread out on the ground, to form one flat even piece. In this 4 state it would not be of greater extent than three-fourth’s of a ‘semicircle, and frequently not so much; but it was somewhat 4 cut away in the ceutre of the circle, so as to fit on the back of the 4 neck. When put on, it was open in front, uot coming close toge- 4 tlicr by an interval of six or eight inches, and fastened across 4 the chest by a broad strap. It had an ornamental border, 4 reaching without break or change from the bottom in front up 4 one edge, round behind the neck, and down the other edge ; and 4 the strap which fastened it was ornamented in the same or a more ‘costly style. It was made of any material, from cloth of gold 4 to fustian, and of any colour, from black to white ; and it might 4 be plain or ornamented over its whole surface, according to the 4 fancy of the maker. In its most ancient form it no doubt had a 4 Cape, and in all probability a collar; but the latter has been sunk 4 in the border, and the former, was in course of time omitted, and 4 its place supplied by a representation of the border or edge of it ‘on the Cope itself.’ {p. 369.) 4 It is difficult to state upon what 4 occasions the Cope was anciently worn iu England, because the ‘custom varied in different places. It does not appear to have 4 been worn for ordinary occasions, nor where there was only ‘one Clergyman; and from the expression, 44 a Cope in Choir” ‘in Abp. Winchelsey’s order as to the Habits used in Parish 4 Churches, as well as from other circumstances it ap* ‘pears most probable that it was not made use of unless the 4 Service was performed chorally. It consequently could not be 3 x 1052 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. , U8ed at Christenings but might be at Funerals, and indeed , always was so when they were attended by a number of Eeclesi- t asties; and that either by the Officiating Priest, or by others. On that oeeasion it was worn over the Surpliee, and so it probably , was in every Service but those of the Altar. There, however, it was rarely adopted, especially by the eelebrant; the Chasuble i bcin .g the peculiar Vestment appropriated to that Saerament. And yet it did take its place even there upon high occasions, when the service was chanted by the Choir. It was capable of being worn, not only by the Priest, hut by all in holv orders,— that is, above the rank of Sub-deaeon. It is indeed sometimes denied that any, below the Priesthood were permitted to assume it Our rules, ‘ however, (except in the ease of Bishops), restrict the use of the Coj)e to the Officiating Priest, in the holy Communion, -without giving particular directions as to the occasions upon which it is to be worn instead of the Vestment, excepting in regard to ( Cathedral and Collegiate Churches, respecting which the 24th ( Canon ordains that the principal Minister shall wear a Cope, in the ministration of the Holy Communion. It inav, indeed, at t sl .-bt appear from that Canon that the assisting Clergv, who read the Gospel and Epistle, are required to wear Copes ; hut the expression “with Gospeller and Epistoler agreeably," may only i that the Habits of these two should correspond with the Cope— i. e. be of the same colour, &e., whieh would admit of their ( wearing Tunicles. And as the Rubric of the First Book of Edward VI. has been ratified by full publie authority sinee the t enactment of the Canons, we are now bound by it in preference to the Canons; so that wherever they eiash, they must give wav to it; and wherever any interpretation of them is more agreeable to that Rubric than another, it must be preferred. It would there- fore appear that the Cope is appointed to be used in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches instead of the Vestment. In other places there is, as I have said, no rule laid down for its use; but 1 the Clergy are left to their own discretion whether to wear it on the Vestment on the day, and, at the time appointed for the ' Communion. But analogy and aneient usage would lead to the ( opinion that the Cope should be reserved for those places where Choral Serviee is performed, or at least for occasions of ceremony, and concourse of the Clergy, and the greater festivals.’ ( p. 379.1— Vol. xvii. April 1840. The Dalmatic [pp. 951—958.]. — In the ‘ British Magazine “we read:— ‘ The Dalmatic vr as a ‘garment more nearly resembling a modern shirt than any thing else ‘ that I ean speeify. In this part of Europe. . . it was scarcely ‘ longer; at Venice, it reaehed to the ground. It differed, however, from the shirt, in being wide at the neek, in being quite plain, ‘ without any fulness, and in either having no sleeves, or merely a ‘ wing on eaeh shoulder, or very short sleeves, reaehiug only lialf- ‘ way to the elbow. The other distinguishing mark of it, and point ‘ of resemblance to the shirt, is, that it was open at the sides towards ‘ the bottom, Indeed, in some eases it was not sewn together at all * a t the sides, hnt only held together at one point by some orna- ‘ mental fastening. But if it agreed with the shirt in form, it ADDENDA — GLOVES. 1053 ‘altogether differed from it in material, and most eommonly in * colour, being in these respects like the Copes and Vestments. It ‘ is not retained in the Church of England.’ — Vol. xvii. April 1840. p. 376. Emblems : — In describing the Ecclesiastical Vestments an occasional allusion has been made to the decorations employed in the Dresses of the Roman Catholic Clergy, and among them Emblems form a very conspicuous feature ; they are thus described by Pugin : — ‘ For ‘ the Pope, a triple cross and cross keys; an Archbishop, a Crozier; ‘ a Bishop, a Pastoral Staff ; an Emperor, a sword and orb, with a ‘ cross ; a King, one or two sceptres, and sometimes a sword; an 1 Abbot, a Pastoral Staff, and a book ; a Pilgrim, a Staff and a \ Shield ; a Monk, a book ; a Hermit, a book and rosary and staff ; ( Priest, a Chalice with the blessed Sacrament ; Deacon, the Book of the Holy Gospels ; Subdeacon, Chalice and Crewetts : Acoly ths, ‘ a Candle; Lectors and Exorcists, books; Ostiarii, a key ; Knights, * a sword ; all Ecclesiastics who have written, with books in their ‘hands.’ (p. 149.) — Glossary. ‘Apostles. — Peter , a gold and ‘ silver key, also a book ; frequently represented with the tonsure. ‘ Paul, a sword and a book ; Andrew , a cross saltire ; James the 1 Great, a sword and book, also a pilgrim’s staff and shell ; John, ‘ Chalice with a small dragon, a cauldron, also an eagle ; Philip, a * spear, also a cross ; Bartholomew, a flaying knife, and skin on his * arm ; Matthew, a spear, also a carpenter’s square ; Thomas, a * dart ; James the Less, a club ; Matthias, an axe ; Simon, a saw ; ‘Jude, a halbert.’ (p. 115.). — Glossary, &c. The Maniple [ pp . 974 — 980.] — In the Bristisii Magazine” it is stated: — ‘The Maniple, Fanon ‘ or Favon, was originally nothing but a napkin, thrown over the ‘ left arm, to be used in wiping dry the hands of the Priest, the ‘ Chalice, and the Flagon. It was therefore worn by all the ‘ Ministers of the Altar — that is, by the Priest, Deacon, and Sub- ‘ deacon : but in process of time it became an ornament, and ‘ followed the Stole in colour and materials. A napkin is sometimes * used in the Church of England to wipe the edge of the Chalice ‘after each person who partakes of the wine.’ — Vol. xvii. April 1840. (p. 376.) Gloves : — The use of Gloves is not prescribed in any Rubrie or Canon of the Church of England ; indeed, it has been thought more con- sistent with the Ministerial function not to wear Gloves in any of the Divine Offices. The rule is, however, different in the Romish Church, as the following remarks will shew. 3x2 1054 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. Mr. A. W. Pugin says: — * The Gloves worn by bishops, and 4 others, were usually made of silk, and richly embroidered ; these 4 are to be seen on many ancient sepulchral effigies of Ecclesiastics ; 1 and those which were actually used by the venerable Wykeham, 4 of red silk, embroidered with the Holy Name in gold, are still ‘preserved at New College, Oxford. Catalani (says): — Gloves 4 (Chirothecse) anciently, were not only used by Bishops, but 4 likewise by Priests. It is difficult to say what was the material of 4 the Gloves worn by Bishops. Bruno, bp. of Segni , says that they ‘ were made of linen Bzovius says, that the gloves with which 4 Boniface VIII. was buried, were of white silk, worked beautifully * with the needle, and ornamented with a rich border studded with 4 pearls. Durandus quotes writers to prove that in the 13th 4 century, the Chirothecce were only white... S. Charles Borromeo 4 says,. ..they should be woveu throughout, and adorned with a ‘golden circle on the outside., .Georgius (says), at what period it 4 became the custom for the colour of the Gloves to be changed 4 according to the colour of the Vestments, and other Pontifical 4 ornaments, is not known. They were sometimes called Maniocs, 4 which are properly Sleeves, and sometimes Wanti (gants) in 4 Ecclesiastical writings. ..Gloves may be worn with propriety by 4 all in Ecclesiastical functions, who carry staves, canopies, reli- 4 quaries, candlesticks, &c.’ (p. 136.) — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. Ring. A Ring was long considered a part of the insignia of Bishops; and was given to them on their Consecration. Investiture with the King and Staff frequently became a matter of contention between the spiritual and temporal power, as history testifies : and the Ring is still one of the recognized insignia of the Bomish hierarchy. Dean Cosiber, explaining the figurative sense implied in the giving of a Ring in Marriage, remarks: — 4 The Ring being anciently 4 the Seal by which all orders were signed, and all choice things 4 secured, the delivery of this was a sign that the party to whom it 4 was given was admitted into “the nearest friends'hip and the ‘highest trust,” so as to be invested with our authority, and 4 allowed to manage our treasure, and other concerns, (Gen. xli. 42.), ‘and hence it came to be a token of love ( Luke xv. 22.’ — Com- panion to the Temple. Dr. Hook, speaking of the Ring in Investitures, says : — 4 It was 4 worn on different fingers, most frequently on the middle finger of 4 the right hand ; and was a sign of the bridegroom’s espousal of ‘the Church in her representative, the Bishop.’ — Church Diet. 6th Edit. Mr. A. W. Pugin writes : — 4 Rings were worn by Bishops and 4 Abbots from a very early period, and were one of the instruments 4 of their investiture. They were usually made of pure gold, large 4 and massy, with a jewel set in the midst, and frequently enriched ‘with sacred devices and inscriptions.’ {p. 182.). — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. THE PREACHING DRESS. 1055 Sandals : — Sandals form no part of the oostume of the Church of England; and may therefore be passed over with the explanation following: — Mr. A. W. Pugin says: — ‘Sandals' are a covering for the feet, ‘ put on by a Bishop vesting for Mass, immediately after the 4 Buskins. Sandals were anciently worn by Priests, Deacons, and ‘Sub-deacons, as well as Bishops. These were often of costly ‘materials, richly embroidered with various devices, and even ‘enriched with precious stones. Duiiantus {De Ritibus) says: — “ Sandal is the name of the shoe worn in the house by the ancient “ Romans. The Sandals cover part of the shoe, and leave part “ open.”... Georgius (says) : — “ Sandals are a kind of shoe used by 4 the Bishop when he celebrates Pontifically, and known from the * earliest times. Alccin speaks of the Sandal as having a solid sole, ‘ but open above. Amalarius speaks of a difference in shape ‘ between the Sandal of a Bishop, and of a Priest, shewing that in the ‘ 9th century Priests wore Sandals in saying Mass. Sicardcs, bp. ‘ of Cremona , describes the Sandal as white inside, and black ‘ or red outside, adorned with iewels, having two or four straps to ‘ bind to the foot. He says that Bishops wear the Sandal with a ‘ greater number of straps, having to visit much abroad, as also ‘their Deacons who accompany them: but that Priests have * fewer, their office being to offer Sacrifice, and remain at home. ‘ The Deacon having to accompany the BisHor, wore a similar ‘Sandal; but the Sub-deacon, different again. Buskins ( Caligce ) * and Sandals ( Sandalia ) are often confounded. ...The Sandals of the ‘ Pope had, from very early times, the sign of the Cross upon them. ‘ In an ancient Mosaic, representing St Felix, the toes of the ‘ Sandals have a while cross on them. Some others have a small ‘ black cross.. .The colour of the Sandals in Mosaics is sometimes red, ‘ sometimes red and purple, sometimes white with a red cross ‘ The Pope does not put on Sandals, but common Shoes and no ‘ Gloves, on Good Friday; and the same in Masses for the Dead. ‘ The ‘ Ceremoniale Epiicoporum ’ directs the same for Bishops.’ ( p . 184 ). — Glossary of Eccl. Ornament and Costume. III. THE PREACHING DRESS. Whether the Preaching Dress is rubrically the Surplice or the Gown has not once alone produced serious disputation in the Church : and the question still remains historically and logically undetermined. The great hinge upon which the controversy turns is whether the “ Sermon ” is, or is not, a part of the Communion Service : if it is, then the Surplice, as the modern representative of the Communion Vest- ments, ought to be continued during the delivery of the Sermon : if it is not, then the Gown is the proper 1056 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. garb. There is yet another argument, which, how- ever, helps us but little in coming to a satisfactory conclusion ; and that is, that in ancient times the Preacher was usually a distinct person from the Officiating Priest, who in those days was not suffi- ciently skilled in literature and learning to frame a ‘ Discourse ’ ; and that this Preacher, generally some itinerant Monk, always mounted the Pulpit in his Gorvn, the Surplice not appertaining to him, by reason of his not ministering in the Divine Offices. From this usage arose eventually, when the Clergy became better informed, the custom of the Officiating Priest assuming the Gown when performing the function of the Preacher ; and the Surplice grew into an excep- tion : but the exception sometimes extended to a whole diocese, as the records of Durham will testify. Thus did the matter continue till recent times, when the subject was re-awakened by the revival of the Surplice in the Pulpit in places where it had not been before seen as the dress of the Preacher. A violent con- troversy naturally followed, but it seems to have tacitly expended itself: and the practice now admitted is, conformity to the usage of the place, whether that usage be the Surjtlice , or the Gorvn. The opinions cited below will clearly evince, that no pre- cise rule can be gathered from our authorities as having directed the past age, nor can any be found prescribed to regulate the present period. L’Estkakge, says, when ‘ referring to the Injnnction directing the ringing of a Bell during the saying of the Litany, — * In reference ‘ to the Sermon only it was rung, called therefore the ‘ Sermon Bell,' so ‘that, when there was to he no Sermon, the Bell was not rang: ‘ and Sermons were rare, very rare in those days, in some places 1 but once a quarter, and perhaps not then, had not anthority ‘ strictly enjoined them.’ After describing the course of the Service, the Author adds : — ‘ You hear the third bell ringing, and in this ‘ space the Header ceaseth, and at the end of the bell ringing, the ‘ Preacher will come.' — (Alliance of Div. Off. p. 162, 163.). This last passage evidently declares the Preacher to be distinct from the Officiating Minister. Bishop Cosiks, (ob. 1671), in his comment on the Rubric which refers to the Sermon, states:— 1 This is our difi'erence from the Mass- * Book, where there is no Sermon there appointed: for they com- TIIE PREACHING DRESS. 1057 ‘ monly have their Sermons in the Afternoon. But the Chnrch of ‘England hath restored the Sermon into the due place of it, ‘ after the readiug of the Epistle and Gospel, which in the ancient ‘ Church was the subject of the Sermon w hich followed.’ Appendix to XicnoLL's Cam. Pr. p. 40. Archdeacon Sharp, when speaking of the 58th Canon, refers to ‘a remarkable instance of the prevalence of custom, ...also of pecu- ‘ liar consideration to us of this Diocese (Jhirkam ) ; in which atone ‘ it is to be met with. It is the “ constant use of the Surplice by all ‘ preachers in their Pulpits.” And it is said to have token rise from “ an opinion of Bp. Cosins, that as Surplices were to be worn “ at all ‘ times of the ministration,” and preaching was properly ‘the • ministration of the word of God,” therefore Surplices were to be ‘ worn in the Pulpit as well as in the Desk, or on other occasions of ‘ the ministry. One cannot speak otherwise than with revereuce ‘ and due respect to the authority of so great a ritualist as Bishop ‘ Cosius was. For it is manifest there is nothing in our Rubrics ‘ that doth directly authorize this usage, or in our Canons that doth ‘conntenauce it: nay there is something in both which would ‘ discourage, if not forbid, such a practice. The Canons limit the ‘ use of the Surplice to the “ Public Prayers,” and “ ministering the ‘ Sacraments and other Rites of the Church;” so doth our Rubric ‘ concerning habits, if it be strictly interpreted of King Edward s ‘ order in the second year of his reign; for there the Surplice is only ‘ to be nsed at “ Mattins, Evensong, iu Baptizing and Burying ‘ in Parish Churches.” And then there immediately follows this ‘permission, that, “in all other places,” every minister shall be at ‘liberty to nse any Surplice or no; and also a recommendation ‘ to such as are graduates, “that, when they preach, they should nse “such Hoods as pertained to their several degrees.” Here then is ‘ sufficient warrant for using a Hood without a Surplice, as is done to ‘ this day at the Universities, but no appearance of authority for the 1 use of Surplices in the pulpit . If it be said that a custom haa ‘ prevailed over the Kingdom, for Bishops to wear their Habits ‘ of ministration whensoever they preach, whether they officiate in ‘ other respects or not, and that the inferior Clergy cannot follow a * better example; it may be answered, that what the Bishops do in ‘this respect is founded on ancient constitutions. .....and it is the ‘more proper they should continue the use of tbeir public Habit, ‘ whensoever they preach, for the better distinction of their ‘characters on that occasion from those of the inferior pastors; ‘ seeing there is no sufficient distinction preserved iu their ordinary ‘Habits. All then that I would observe upon this custom of ‘ preaching in Surplices is, that none of us are obliged to it; though ‘ at the same time I intend no censure of the practice. For it is ‘certainly decent, and with us without exception, though it be no ‘ -where authorized otherwise than by a prescription within^ this ‘ Diocese.’ (p. 206.)— On the Rubric f Canons. Charge A. d . 1746. The late Bishop Mant observes upon the Rubric, “ Then shall follotc the Sermon," — ‘ Neither at this, nor at any other time of the "« Service, should the Minister separate and absent liimself from ‘his Congregation. If his withdrawal were necessary, for the ‘ purpose of changing his dress, having changed it, he ought to ‘return instantly. But the Chnrch imposes on him no such 10o8 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. necessity. . She neither enjoins, nor sanctions, nor permits, ‘ nor recognizes, a change of dress; but sends him straight, not to 1 the Vestry, but to the Pulpit. Nor does she know any thing nj ‘ a black gown for her Officiating Ministers. To some minds indeed ‘any change of dress is an innovation, savouring of Rome: the 1 particular change, of Geneva. At all events, neither the one, nor the ‘other, is acknowledged by the Anglican Church. Her prescript ‘dress is the same for all tlieir ministrations.’ (». 57.).— Bora. Liturg. The same Author remarks in his Charge of 1842, when speaking of the Surplice: — ‘ Iu our public ministrations, ‘ at all times aud in all places, not only in our consecrated Chur- ches, but in any licenced temporary Place of Worship, the ‘ Surplice ought to be worn, as the dress of his profession aud office, ‘by the ministering Clergyman (There is) a difficulty expe- rienced in resuming the Service after the Sermon, by reason of ‘ the requisite change in the dresses, appropriated "in practice ‘ respectively to the Pulpit, and the Communion Table. My ‘ solution of the difficulty is comprised in the following suggestions' : ‘ — First, what is the obligation on a Clergyman to use a dress ‘ in the Pulpit different from that which he wears during his other ‘ miuistrations ? Secondly, does not the order for his dress, during ‘his ministrations in general, include his ministration iu the ‘ Pulpit ? and thus would not the Surplice be properly worn at * any time for the Sermon by the Parochial Clergy, as it is by those ‘in Cathedral Churches and College Chapels? But, thirdly, at ‘ all events, where the circumstances of the case make that dress ‘ desirable, does there appear any impropriety in its u«e ? If, indeed, * if were at all times worn by the Preacher, it might tend to correct ‘an impropriety, not to say an indecency, which is too apt to ‘ prevail iu our Churches, by reason of the chauge which takes ‘place before the Sermon: when the Preacher, attended perhaps ‘ by the other Clergy, if others be present, quits the Church for _ ‘ the. Vestry-room after the Nicene Creed: thus, leaves his Congre- ‘ gation to carry on a part of the Service, admitting Psalmody to be ‘ such, without their Minister: an absolute anomaly, as I apprehend ‘it, in Christian Worship, that the people should act without their ‘Minister; deprives them of his superiuteudence during that * exercise, and of his example in setting before them the becoming ‘posture, and a solemn deportment in celebrating God’s praises; ‘ and at leugth, after au absence of several minutes, during which * he has been employing himself in any way but that of common ‘worship with his people in God's house ; returns at the close of ‘the Psalm to the Cougregation, aud ascends the pnlpit in the ‘ character of the Preacher. Now all this is, in my judgment, open to ‘ much animadversion. And the best mode of correcting it, appears ‘to be for the minister to proceed, immediately after the Nicene- ‘ Creed, to the pnlpit, attired as he is— for the Church certainly ‘ gives no order, or sanction for the change of his attire — and so ‘ be prepared to take part with his people iu the singing, if singing ‘ be at that time desirable, or, if not, to proceed at once with his ‘ Sermon. But, however this may be, it is evident and incontro- ‘ vertible, that much awkwardness and inconvenience must be ‘ the result of detaining a Congregation after the Sermon, whilst ‘ the Minister leaves the Church, aud retires to a perhaps distant ‘ Vestry- room, in order that he may again attire himself in the ‘dress fitted for Prayer; for that he should proceed to the sue- THE PREACHING DRESS. 1059 * ceeding prayers in any other attire than the Surplice, is palpahly ‘opposed to the directions of the Church. The sole mode of ‘ obviating this difficulty appears to he for the Minister, in such ‘ cases at least, to preach in his Surplice.' — Charge 1842. The Bishop of Loudon {Dr. Blomfeld) writes: — 1 With respect ‘ to the Habits proper to he worn hy the Clergy, when ministering * in Divine Service, no question is made, as far as the Prayers are ‘concerned; but it is doubted, whether a Clergyman, when preach- * ing , should wear a Surplice or a Gown. I apprehend, that for some ‘ time alter the Reformation, when Sermons were preached only in ‘the morning as part of the Communion Service, the Preacher ‘ always wore a Surplice,’ (In a note. — ‘ Or possioly au Albe or close- ‘ sleeved Surplice),’ ‘a custom which has been retained in Cathedral ‘ Churches and College Chapels. The Injunction at the end of 1 King Edward’s first Service-Book requires the Surplice to he used ‘ in all Churches and Chapels in the saying or singing of Matins, and * Evensong, Baptizing and Burying. And the present Ruhric enacts, ‘ that all the Ornaments of Miuisters, at all times of their ministra- ‘ tion, be the same as they were hy authority of Parliament in the ‘ second year of King Edward VI. The Gown was probably first ‘worn in the Pulpit by the Licensed Preachers* and by the ‘Lecturers, who preached when no part of the Communion Service ‘ was read. In the King’s Injunctions of 1633, to the Arelihishop, a ‘direction is given, that “ where a Lecture is set it]) in a market- “ town, it may be read by a company of grave and orthodox divines, “ and that they ever preach in such seemly Habits as belong to “their degrees, and not in Cloaks.” When there is only one ‘ Officiating Clergyman, and the Prayer for the Church Militant is * read, which must be read in a Surplice, it seems better that he ‘ should Preach in the Surplice, than quit the Church after the ‘ Sermon, for the purpose of changing his Habit. It would perhaps ‘ he most consonant with the intention of the Church, if the ‘ Preacher wore a Surplice when preaching after the Morning Service, ‘ and a Gown when the Sermon is in the Evening. Upon the whole, ‘ I am hardly prepared to give any positive direction on this point ‘ for this particular Diocese, although it is certainly desirahle that ‘ uniformity of practice should prevail in the Church at large.’ ( p. 53.). — Charge , A. d. 1842. The Bishop of Exeter {Dr. Phillpott) gives an opinion on this question in his decision upon the Commission of Inquiry issued in October 1844, touching certain complaints made by the parishioners of Helstone, against some peculiar practices adopted hy the Rev. Walter Blunt ; among which was wearing the Surplice in * In the Appendix to the ‘ Charge ’ is the following Note ‘ It ‘ was proposed in the Lower House of Convocation in 1562, “ that ‘the use of Copes and Surplices might he taken away, so that ‘all ministers in their ministry use a grave, comely, and side- ‘ garment, as commonly they do in preaching;” i. e. I conceive, ‘ when Sermons were preached without the reading of the Common ‘.Prayer. St hype's Ann. I. \.p. 501.’ — Charge, p. 74. 1060 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. the Pulpit. Upon this the Bishop thus argues: — ‘ Probably it 1 (the Surplice ) would scarcely have been noticed, had he ‘ (Mr. Blunt) not at first preached in the Gown. As such a matter ‘seems to have been regarded at first with no more attention than * it merited, it is difficult to understand how it should have been ‘swelled into importance afterwards; since the only reason given ‘ for its exciting attention at all existed in fullest force at first ‘ — that is, when he changed from the Gown to the Surplice. ‘Mr. Blunt says, that he preached in the Gown only while he wa3 ‘acting under Mr. Boraston, and not since he was licensed as ‘ Curate. On this particular I have no difficulty in saying, that ‘ Mr. Blunt has been right since he has preached in his Surplice. ‘ The Sermon is part of the Communion Service, and whatever be ‘ the proper garb of the Minister in the one part of that Service, ‘ the same ought to he worn by him throughout. The Rubric and 1 Canons recognize no difference whatever. The Rubric at the com- * mencement of “ The Order for Morning and Evening Prayer,” says: “ That such Ornaments . 40.) ' * : •Asa Ministering Priest, a Clergyman is the representative and v ° lce °f the Church, speaking in her own words, and in the use of the Liturgy delivering her written, deliberate, nnalterahle doc- trines ; and therefore, she clothes him, not only with a power, hnt with a specific Dress for that solemn purpose. In this view it was, that unlicensed Ministers, where instead of a Sermon thev :ead the Church’s Homilies, which were read, if not from the ulpit, from the steps of the Communion-Tahle, did, as still speak- ng in her name and her own authoritative words, read them n the Surplice : Homilies heing in such case almost, or quite co-ordinate with Liturgy. And this agrees with old Visitation Questions to he met with, as to “whether the Minister, in addressing the Congregation at Sermon time, wore a Surplice or not, over his Gown and Cassock ?” implying blame if it were a Sermon ; consent, f it were a Homily. But in the regular Sermon, and as a regular reacker,. . . .he stands exponuding the Law of Christ entirely n his personal and individual capacity, with his own ‘ glosses and additions,” at his own hazard as to doctrine, liahle to error, and ometimes in actual error: — and on these accounts it is, that the , Church purposely disrohes him, in his new function, (hy giving him no licence to appear in them) of those Ornaments with which, in her Reading Desk, and at her Communion Tahle, she had invest- ed him hy authority, and suffers him to speak his own private * In a note is added: — ‘Shakespeare bears a kind of historical ‘ testimony to this, when he writes in one of his plays. “ It will “ wear the Surplice of humility over the black Gotcn of a hig “ heart.” THE PREACHING DRESS. 1073 4 thoughts in his own private* dress; and thus it is, that the Preacher ‘ (if the office be united,) when in the Pulpit he ceases to be a Priest, ‘ puts on no new Dress for the purpose, but simply takes off the Sur- l plice, and remains in his original Gown.( p. 42.) ..The Church herself ‘ is clear and consistent, both in law and in fact ; and although she has ‘ preserved inviolate her decree for Surplices in the Liturgy, and may * have permitted readers of her Homilies to read in Surplices also ; ‘ yet, wherever she alludes even historically, either in proceedings of ‘Convocation, or in Royal Jurisdictions, to her regular authorized 1 Preachers, she invariably connects them, if with any Dress at all, ‘ with the use of the Clerical Gown. It is the subsequent blending 1 of the two offices together, Prayer and Preaching, in one person, ‘that has tended to confusion; and the trying to make a Dress, ‘ which the Church has appropriated exclusively to one office, serve 4 for another exercised under totally different circumstances.’ { p. 43.) — Thoughts on Church Matters. Mr. A. J. Stephens ( Barrister-at-law ), says: — ‘ In the majority ‘ of the Parishes in Ireland, the Surplice was the dress of the * Minister in the Pulpit. Thus, Dr. Elrington, the Regius Professor ‘ of Divinity, in a communication to the Editor (Feb. 10. 1849.), ‘ states : — “ I believe the practice of preaching in a Surplice was “ general in the country parts of Ireland at no very remote period ; “ it was so, certainly, iu the Diocese of Armagh as late as the year “ 1812, and there are still Churches in which no other dress was “ ever worn. In the Diocese of Limerick the practice was universal “when my father was Bishop of that See. He was succeeded in “ 1823 by Bp. Jebb, who, in his first Charge, complained “ that “Clergymen used no other habiliments than a Surplice ,” and “ enjoined the Clergy to provide “ a decent black Gown” so little “ at that period was the distinction of dress connected with doc- “ trinal opinions. It would seem that in Ireland, from the period “ of the Reformation, the Surplice had been considered as the “ proper dress for the Preacher. It is noticed as an instance of his “ attachment to the rules of the Church that Abp. Ussher always “ required his Chaplain to preach in a Surplice.” (p. 379.) — Book of Com. Prayer E. H. S. In “Popular Tracts” we read:— ‘ The Dress of the Clergy ‘in preachiug has unhappily been a source of great controversy; * especially in the times of the Puritans, and at the present day. ‘ We need not, however, enter into the question at any length on ‘ this occasion, for the whole matter lies in a nutshell. No careful ‘ examiner of his Prayer Book will assert that it requires or expects ‘ any more than one Sermon to be preached in the day, or that ‘ this Sermon is to occur in any other place than in the Communion ‘ Office, of which he must allow that it forms unquestionably a ‘ part. Now, as the Rubric, which directs the Sermon or Homily, * The Quarterly Review, when quoting this passage, re- marks : — ‘ The word private hardly conveys Mr. Scobell’s meaning ‘ to those who do not bear in mind that not long since every ‘ Clergyman wore a Gown as his ordinary dress.’ — Vol. 72. May, 1843. Note p. 263. 1074 the ornaments of the minister. makes no mention of any change of dress, why should any change ]*? 1 r e 5 U l!i cd ;, ^ lt l . er ’ not a chauge be directly con- trary to the 1 rayer Book, which each Clergyman is sworn to obey ? \ Ve conclude without hesitation that it would, and that therefore the Minister is to preach in the same dress in which he officiates in the Holy Communion; whether this be the proper Albe and vestment, or Albe and Cope, or Albe and Tunicle, or whether it be the improper Surplice, matters not in this respect, he has no right whatever to make any change ill it.. .. And why, if the Minister to wear a Gown in preaching, doesnot the Cauon JLawrequire the Parish to provide it, as it docs all the requisites for the Church and tlie Clergy in tlieir public miuistrations. If it be said that custom is in favour of the Gown, wc reply that eve u this is equally or more m favour of the Rubrical dress; aud when hoth custom and the Rubric arc iu our favour, it would be absurd to give up to a turbulent party who can fairly appeal to neither. These, modem Puritans w ho insist upon the Gown, and who will hoot and attack their Priest because he does not give in to their caprice, are true descendants of those older Puritans who murdered their Monarch, and iuvolved this country for years iu anarchy and Confusion, in nmiiw onrl n:..„ .1 .l . ? ...... ‘ confusion, in rat ‘and the sous wil. r .„,„ „ U1 (p. 9.) — Xo. II. pub. hy A. Holden , Exeter. , , --- — i— rapine and bloodshed. Give them the opportunity /„ ,A he sous^vill prove themselves no whit behind their fathers.' e n ie HtEBURGiA Anglicana ” cites very numerous instances of I reaching m the Surplice from a. d. 1559 to 1842; to which our Keaders are referred, who seek for examples of this usage. ( pp. 129— 144.)— Pub. hy Ricington, Loudou. fbe “British Magazine” we read: — ‘For the Service of * ^ * l c Huhits were as follows : — The Subdeacon wore an . -V ,. a Tumcle ^ and a Maniple on the left wrist; the Deacon , aaded t0 “>is a Stole immediately over the Alh, worn in the pecu- liar manner previously described: the Priest a Stole, worn iu the ordinary manner, and a Vestment or Chasuble above all If however, he preached duriug the Service of the Altar, it is most , P r °hahle, aud, indeed I may say, certain, that he put off the , : es tment aud Alh, and resumed the Surplice, or put on his Gown; , ™ r > as . has been rightly stated m the Magazine, preaching in the , Gou-n is no innovation of puritanism. It appears, however, most probable that the Gown was originally woru when the Preacher and Officiatiug Priest were uot the same person. The Gown, however, was never worn in any other place hut the Pulpit.— Val. xvii. April 1S40. p. 378. 1 The Quarterly Review, animadverting on the resumption of the Surplice after the Sermon in order to read the prayer for the “Church- Militant,” thus remarks:— ‘ This second shifting of ‘vestments is so manifestly iucouveuient — to use the softest term — that the Ultra- Rubricians, the declared enemies of in no va- ‘ tion, are driven to another innovation to get rid of the difficulty ‘ they have raised; and their solution is that the Miuister ueed no‘t change his garb at all— that he may preach iu a Surplice even better than in a Gown . aud mav ascend from the Altar to the ‘Pulpit, and again return from the Pulpit to the Altar, without 4 passing through the Vestrv; and this interpretation we regret 1 to see that the Bp. of London has expressed a kind of dubious THE PREACHING DRESS. 1075 ‘ inclination to confirm — by advising, or rather suggesting, some- ‘ thing that seems to us still less reasonable— that his Clergy * shall Preach in the Morning iu a Surplice, and ill the Afternoon ‘(the Communion Service not then intervening to perplex the ‘Vestiary arrangements) in a black Gou-n — and thence a feud of 1 white Gowns and black Gowns — thence diversity of practice — even, 1 as we have said, at the two ends of London Bridge. Nothing, as 1 it seems to us, can be less satisfactory, because less reasonable, ‘ than such a compromise : — black or white may be perhaps a 1 matter of no great moment (though we think it is) ; but surely ‘ black and white appears ridiculous, and we are exceedingly glad ‘ that the Bp. of London has advauced it with symptoms of doubt ‘ and hesitation that authorize our examination of the question. 1 ( p. 255.).... The return to the Vestry to change the Gown, and ‘ to the Lord’s Table to repeat the 4 Church Militant ’ Prayer, ‘ became generally disused, and was so at least as early as the begin- 4 ning of the last century.’ {p. 25S.). . . (After discussing the reading of the ‘ Church Militant 'Prayer ’ the Reviewer proceeds: — ) 4 May we 4 not venture to deplore that— because a few Clergymen have thought 4 proper to interpret the Rubric about the Church Militaut Prayer in a 4 way different from the usage of at least a century and a half, and tlieir ‘ dislike of the consequent trouble of changing their Genoa — - the 1 Church of England is to be involved in obsolete, yet, wheu revived, 4 thorny and angry controversies as to the old rivalry between that 4 rag of Popery,' the white Surplice , and that 4 badge of Calvinism , 4 the Genevese Gown? Ever since the Church of England has 4 been a Reformed Church, there is every reason to believe her ‘Ministers have performed her sacred Offices in a Surplice, and 4 her Preachers have (with exceptions that only prove the general 4 rule) preached in black Gowns. The first cause of this distinctiou 4 has been looked for in the fact, that in the early times of our 4 Chnrch, while the disruption of the great change was yet felt in 4 all directions, the Preachers were frequently not the Parochial 4 Ministers, nor the Ministers Preachers, and that the Surplice was 4 the proper Habit of the Ministers, and the Gown the ordinary 4 Dress of the Preachers, as indeed of all classes of Scholars whatso- 4 ever. All this is true, but the real canse lies a little deeper : — 4 the ministering the Divine offices is of a sacred character, and 4 the performance thereof is reverentially marked by a peculiar 4 Vestment, while Preaching is a mere personal act of the individual, 4 from which the peculiar sanction of the garb appropriated to 4 Divine Offices was carefully and reasonably withheld — that there 4 should be a visible distinction between the worship of God and 4 the teaching of man.’ (/>. 261.). (The writer then adopts the view taken by Mr. Scobell whose opinion we have quoted above, adding: — ) 4 bo that the questiou never was between Gown 4 and Surplice, but, the Minister when performing Divine Service 4 put on the Surplice, as the name implies, over his Gown.' (p. 262.) .... (After illustrating this remark by the passage from Shakes- peare's “ All’s Well that Ends Well ” already cited, the Reviewer makes another quotation from Mr. Scobell’s Tract, (p. 41, 42.), as we have giveu above, and observes : — ) 4 That in Cathedrals 4 and Colleges the Preachers do wear Surplices. This. . . .is really 4 the exception which proves the rule, and is the strongest corrobo- 4 ration of his (Mr. bcobcll’s) theory. For in Cathedrals and 1076 THK ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. * Colleges the Surplice is the official Dress of all — Laics as well as ‘Clerics— at Communion-Service; and at that time the Surplice ‘ is as much the ordinary Dress as the Gown was and is nnder ‘ ordinary circumstances. In College Chapelt* as far as our expe- ‘ rience goes, on ordinary occasions, all attend in Goumt, except the ‘Reader, who wears his Surplice ; and when, as sometimes happens ‘ on Week days, there is a Lecture, the Lecturer preaches in his ‘ black Gown ; bnt on Sundays and Holy Days, as we have said, all 1 — we mean all those on the foundation of the House — are bound 1 to wear Surplices ; and, therefore, the Preacher’s wearing a 1 Surplice on these occasions is no exception, but, on the contrary, ‘ a carrying out of the general rule. He wears his own personal ‘Dress. That the Preacher even when a Minister, should not ‘ wear the Minister’s robe, is clearly proved by the Liber Quorundam 1 Canonitm. 1571, article ‘ Concionatores — “Inter concionandum “ utentur veste quam maxime modesta et gravi, quse deceat atque “ornet ministrum Dei, qualisque in Libello Admoniiionum descripta “est.” This Libellus Admonitionum is clearly the 1 Book of 1 Advertisements,' 1564, and by which the Minister’s Vestment ‘would be a Suiplice, while the Preacher’s, like that of all other ‘Ecclesiastical persons not actually employed “in saying Public * Prayers or ministering the Sacraments or other Rites of the “ Church,” would be a Gown.\ Thus, then, it appears to us, that • 4 the black aud White Gotcn controversy is, or ought to be, at an 4 end; and that it is as clear as any Rubrical question that ever was 4 mooted, that the use of the Surplice in the Pulpit (except in ‘ Colleges and Cathedrals) is wholly unsanctioned, and, as we think, ‘ forbidden by Ecclesiastical authority, and is an innovation on the * practice of the Church, and contrary to the true reason and dis- ‘ tinction on which the varieties of Clerical Dress were institnted. ‘ If, therefore, Ministers think it their duty to return, on ordinary ‘ occasions, to the Altar after the Sermon, they must needs take ‘ the slight trouble of resnming the Suiplice ; for there seems ‘ little reason to doubt that to preach in the Surplice is as uncan- 'nonicaland unreasonable as it is unusual.’ ( p. 263, 264.) — No. cxliii. May 1843. * The Reviewer says in a Note : — ‘ There are, we believe, some ‘differences of practice in different Universities, and even in ‘different Colleges of the same University; the general principle, ‘ however, is, as we have stated it; but it really seems doubtful whe- ther in early times, the jealousy of the Surplice in the Pnlpitdid ‘not extend even to both Colleges and Cathedrals.’ (p. 263.). t The Reviewer adds in a Note : — 4 It may be worth remarking, ; that in the Roman Catholic Church a like principle prevails: when the same Priest performs the Service and Preaches, he takes ‘off, before he ascends the Pulpit, the peculiar Vestment ( Chasuble 1 or Cope') in which he performs the Rites, and assumes it again 4 when he returns to the Altar.’ (p 264.). THE ORDINARY DRESS. 1077 IV. THE ORDINARY DRESS. It cannot be expected that we should enter here into any long discussion upon tbe Ordinary Dress of the Clergy. The only rule bearing upon tbe subject is the 74th Canon (of 1603*4), which, how- ever, is still strictly speaking binding upon us ; but by almost universal consent only admitted to be so in the spirit and not in the letter : for a rigid observance in this age of ours of what is there prescribed, would frustrate the very design of its enactment, and draw down upon tbe individual bold enough to adopt it, the very ridicule and contempt be had intended to escape by adhering to its provisions. It is, however, very proper, and very desirable, that the external appearance of the Clergyman should ever be charac- teristic of bis sacred function; and, therefore, elicit, from a ready recognition of his boly calling, that respect and reverence which should win immediate attention to any observations or opinion he might be called upon at any time to express. There should be no subserviency to fashion, no indulgence in sporting garbs, eccentric ‘ cuts,’ fancy colours, or fastidious and frivolous dandyism ; but the grave and sober cos- tume of the devout and solid mind, and which so fitly becomes the office of the Minister of God, and the Teacher of the people, — alike indifferent to the world’s changes, and the worldling’s caprices, as it should be free from the badge of party, and any peculiarity of creed — in truth, sufficiently decisive and distinct, without bordering on the extreme, to mark to the eye of the passer by, that the wearer is, what be would wish, and seem to be, the faithful Clergyman of the Church of England. This view we think will be supported by the opinions we have annexed, and the perusal of which we trust will not be found unprofitable. The first authority bearing upon the ‘ Ordinary Dress' of the Clergy of the Church of England is 1078 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. the 74th Canon, which is as follows : — * The ‘ true, ancient, and flourishing, Churches of Christ being even ‘ desirous that their Prelacy and Clergy might be had as well ‘ iu outward reverence, as otherwise regarded for the worthi- ‘ ness of their ministry, did think it fit, by a prescript form of decent ‘and comely apparel, to have them known to the people, and ‘thereby to receive the honour and estimation dne to the especial ‘ Messengers and Ministers of Almighty God : wc, therefore, follow- ‘ ing their grave judgment, and the ancient custom of the Church ‘ of England, and hoping that in time new fangleness of apparel ‘in some factious persons will die of itself, do constitute and ‘appoint, that the Archbishops and Bishops shall not intermit to ‘ ur. BlomfelcT) remarks, that there are cases ‘ in which a Canon has been long and generally neglected ‘ in a matter not of vital importance to the Church, and where such ‘ neglect has been sanctioned by those, whose duty it was to require ‘ its observance if they thought it necessary. Such, for instance, is ‘ the 74th Canon, on wearing Gowns, with standing Collars, and ‘ Cloaks with sleeves. “ The general reason,” observes Bp. Stilling- 4 fleet, speaking of that Canon, “continues in force, namely, that “there should be a decent and comely Habit for the Clergy, “whereby they should be known and distinguished from the people;” 4 an object, of the importance of which I have on mere than one ‘occasion expressed a strong opinion; but which I fear, will not ‘be attained, except by some authoritative regulation, to which ‘ the Clergy, not of this or that diocese, bnt in general, shall be ‘required to conform. I am, however, of opinion, that the distinc- 4 tion between them and the Laity, as to their ordinary Dress, should 4 be of a very simple kind, and not such as would be likely to expose ‘ them to the ridicule Of those whose respect they wish to retain.’ {p. 42.)— Charge 1842. The Rev. C. Benson (late Master of the Temple) writes: — 4 The obligation of the 74th Canon, not only binds the Clergy 4 in general to use some “ prescript form of decent and comely “ apparel, so as to have them known to the people, and thereby “to receive the honour and estimation due,” but it also, by the ‘ same authority and with great precision, binds upon each of them, ‘ in his respective station and degree, the wearing of a special form ‘ of outward Apparel, which it solemnly constitutes and appoints ‘ for the accomplishment of the purpose it has in view. We may, 4 no doubt, and perhaps very justly, conceive that, after so length- THE ORDINARY DRES3. 1085 ‘ened and universal a discontinuance of the prescribed Dresses, 1 their resumption would be likely to render the Slinisters of religion * ridiculous in the eves of the multitude ; and we may think it would ‘ be far wiser to make the distinction between the Clergy and Laity, * of a more simple kind. Looking at the subject in the light in 1 which it appears to our own private judgment, all this may be ‘true: but, looking upon the Canon as a law, it must be ac- ‘ knowlcdged to be binding in all its parts; and as much, therefore, * in the manner in which it commands us to carry out the principle 4 into detail, as in establishing the principle itself. That principle * is, that there shall be decency, gravity, and order, m the Clerical 4 Garments.’ (p. 14.)— On the Rubrics and Canons. Bingham writes with regard to the ordinary Dress of the ancient Clergv 1 1 Such a decent mean was to be observed, as * might keep them from obloquy and censure on both hands, either ‘ as too nice and critical, or too slovenly and careless in their Dress: * their Habit being generallv to be such, as might express the gravity * of their minds without a'nv superstitious singularities, and their * modesty and humility without affectation. In this matter, there- ‘fore, their rules were formed, according to the customs and ‘opinions of the age, which are commonly the standard and * measure of decency and indecency iu things of this nature. Thus, < for instance, long hair, and baldness by shaving the head or beard, 4 being then generally reputed indecencies in contrary extremes, 1 the Clergy were obliged to observe a becoming mediocrity between 4 them. This is the meaning of that controverted Canon of the 4th ‘Council of Carthage, according to its true reading, that a Clergy - ‘man shall neither indulge long hair, nor shave his beard: “ Clericus u nec comam nutriat nec barbam radat.” (Bk. yi. c. iv. §. 15.). ..As 4 to the kind or fashion of their Apparel, it does not appear for 4 several ages, that there was any other distinction observed therein ‘between them and the Laity, save that they were more confined to ‘wear that which was modest and grave, and becoming their ‘profession, without being tied to any certain garb or form of 4 clothing. Several Councils require the Clergy to wear Apparel 4 suitable to their profession, but they do not express any kind, ‘or describe it otherwise, than that it should not border upon ‘luxury or any affected neatness, but rather keep a medium 4 between finery and slovenliness. This was St. Jerom’s direction 4 to Xepotian, that he should neither wear black nor white clothing; ‘for gayety and slovenliness were equally to be avoided, the one 4 savouring' of niceness and delicacy, and the other of vain-glory. 4 Vet in different places difi'erent customs seem to have prevailed, as •to the colour of their clothing. For, at Constantinople in the 4 the time of Chrysostom and Arsacius the Clergy commonly went ‘in black, as the 'Novatians did in white.. .But we do not find these 4 matters as yet so particularly determined, or prescribed in any 4 Councils. For the 4th Council of Carthage requires the Clergy to 4 wear such Apparel as was suitable to their profession but does not 4 particularize any further about it, save that they should not affect ‘any finery or gaiety or their shoes in clothing. And the Council 4 of Agde gives the very same direction, {ibid. §. 18.)...lf any 4 Clergyman wore an indecent Habit, unbecoming his order and 4 station in the Church, be made himself liable to Canonical 1086 THE ORNAMENTS OF THE MINISTER. censure. The 1st Council of Mascon forbids Clergymen to wear arms, or a soldier's coat, or any garments or shoes not becoming their profession, after the mauner of seculars or lavmcn. And whoever oftended in this kind was to be confined for thirty days in prison, and fed only with bread aud water, for his transgression, but this was a rule only for common aud ordinaiy cases, not for cases of great exigency, or times of persecution.’ (Bk. xvn. c. v. §. la). Antiquities of the Christian Church. The Rev. M. Plummer, after quoting the Archbishop of Can- terbury s Letter to the Bishops, a. d. 1770, thus: — “That you require your Clergy to wear their proper Habits, preserving always an evident and decent distinction from the Laity in their Apparel. —Adds: — ‘Although it is very usual for the Clergy to , wear out of Church the long Cassock, ' Gown , Bands, and Square t Ca P (to which Graduates may add a Hood or Tippet of silk or sarcenet), n Sundays, and other particular occasions; yet in general the Archbishop’s directions are but little attended to. It may therefore be as well to suggest, that a short Cassock under tbe coat (similar to that worn by Deans and Canons, ™ have no privilege above their brethren in this respect), would , be evident and decent distinction from the Laity,” not at all troublesome or ridiculous, bnt “ comely and scholar-like,” as the , Canon requires. This would do very well for ordinary occasions, (< the other being reserved for particular days; and tben the Clergy would always be known to tbe people, and thereby would receive “he honour and estimation due to the especial messengers and “Ministers of Almighty God.” (p. 37 ).— Observations on Bk. of Common Prayer. The Rev. J. E. Riddle says: — ‘The origin of a peculiar or professional Dress among the Clergv has been traced by most “Writers, as well Romish as Protestant to the 4th century. “ Every one knows,” says Pelliccia, “ that during the first three centuries of the Christian era, the Dress of tbe Clergv was not in any respect diflerent from that of tbe Laity; and, in fact, it was then J important that the Clergy shonld not be made in any manner conspicuous to the observation of their heathen adversaries It ‘has been debated whether or not the Clergy began to assume a peculiar Habit in the conrse of the 4th century. But the documents of Ecclesiastical History clearly prove that the Clergy generally wore the common Dress of the Laity nntil the 6th century... But they began gradually to make a distinction at tbe end of the 4th, and beginning of the 5th centuries.. .From the 6th ceutury, tbe Clergy were distinguished by a peculiar Dress,” (De Christ. Eccl, Polit. i. sec. 4. c. 7. App. 2.) ‘ The decided ‘character which tbe Clerical Habit assumed about that period appears to have been occasioned by the innovations or new iasliions iu Dress, which had been introduced bv the Barbarians who had over-run tbe Western Empire. The' Clergy adhered to the older aud more simple fashion, and hence their dress became peculiar. All that has beeu here said relates properlv ‘to the civil or ordinary Habit.’ (p. 351.)...* It is not likely that the Clergy appeared in public during the times of persecution, in any other than the ordinary Habit of the age...Those admonitions of the early Church, by which the Clergy arc required to appear THE ORDINARY DRESS. 1037 * in a becoming and simple Dress, relate to the Habits of common ‘life; and prove, not that they had already been accustomed to 1 wear appropriate Vestments during the celebration of Divine ‘ Service, but that, out of the Church assemblies, they dressed 4 according to the fashion of common life. It was from the excesses ‘and follies of this fashion that they were required to abstain. ‘ Jerome expressly asserts that one Dress was worn in sacred ‘ministrations, and another in ordinary life. (Com. in Ezek. c. 44)... ‘Mouks were the first who introduced a distinction between the ‘ordinary dress of spiritual persons and others; a practice whioii ‘ was strongly reprobated by the Roman Bishop Coelestinus, and by ' others of his age, (p. 353)...' The Clerical tonmre was introduced * during the 6th, 7th, aud «th centuries; and was afterwards recog- ‘ nized as indispensable. In later times, and in the Western Church ‘ alone, wigs were adopted by the Clergy of all confessions; and the “fashiou of wearing them was retained, notwithstanding repeated ‘ prohibitions, until it gradually died away of its own accord.’ (p. 354). Christian Antiquities. The Rev. E. Scop. eel, referring to Canon 74, remarks: — ‘The ‘Clergy ought to be personally known and personally respected; ‘ and the truth is that they are universally known, to all desirable ‘and practical purposes, and universally respected, if they be ‘ hut careful, aDd prudent, and true to themselves. But this is ‘ not accomplished now by the same means as formerly. With the ‘ disappearance of the old habits and fashions of the world at large, ‘the daily Robes of the Clergy have also disappeared; and so ‘ the law of old, that regulated for our aucestors in the Church then, “Cassocks, and Coats, and long Gowns, Coifs, and Night-caps, “ and. Stockings, Doublets, and Hose,” and all in order to attain a ‘ particular purpose, has long been suffered unanimously in the ‘progress of uatnral change, to become ohsolete. . . .The Clergy ‘ seldom, if ever, follow what is called in an invidious sense the “ Fashion as long as any style of Dress is incipient, and ou that ‘ very account peculiar, or in any way exclusive or notahle, it is ‘almost universally avoided by them, as betraying a studied ‘concern for outward vanities unbecoming what should be their ‘ unearthly character and deadness to frivolity: but of any change ‘ of private Habit, which Society at large has consented to adopt, or ‘ any established improvement or convenience which an advancing ‘age las introduced, and custom made common, what is fairly ‘ to dehar a Minister of the Gospel from partaking, provided he act * in a spirit of true and rational compliance? ....What is the Clerical ‘ Hat, as it is called, but conformity to the fashion of society? In ‘ reality it has nothing at all to do with Ecclesiastical Dress or ‘ Clerical prerogative: it was the more customary Hat of the times, ‘ worn by every one, and even now lingering among us as a ‘ specimen of by-gone times, with some of the elder population ‘ in different parts of the country : and this Hat the Clergy of that ‘ day conformed to, and adopted and wore, in common with other ‘ men. And what was the Wig. . . .but of the same spirit of ‘conformity? It had no exclusive licence to fix itself to the ‘ Clergy: it belonged to them in right only of a common use, which ‘ as citizens they tardily’-, perhaps, claimed and adopted. Wigs were ‘ never any part or parcel of the ancient English Dress: they were 1088 THE ORNAMENTS of the minister. t Continental extraction .... taken upon up hy Charles II. dunug his long residence ahroad, and were never known. .. .until after the Restoration .... In the Church they are perhaps wisely put away as less agreeahle to Christian simplicity.’ (p. 49.) — Thoughts on Church Matters. t Popular Tracts we read : — ‘ Nothing has hitherto heen said of ( Ordinary Dress of the Clergy, that is, of their Dress out of the ( Church : hut it is too important a hranch of our subject to he ‘passed over without notice. At present our Ministers are not distinguishable from many lay persons, and especially from the race of schismatical teachers who, in this respect, ape them as ‘ much as may be. And yet that the Clergy should be outwardly ‘ distinguished from secular persons a little reflection must soon * prove:’— -(after quoting the 74th Canon , it proceeds). It is much to he wished that the Clergy at large would ohserve this Canon, as 1 some among them regularly do. Then we of the Laity would ‘ always know our spiritual Pastors and Masters, and have no ‘excuse for not showing them the respectful attention which is ‘ their due. And then also there would he much less risk than ‘ at present of some meddling Laymen or schismatic intruding him- 1 self upon the performance of any Clerical duty. A supposed ‘ instance of such intrusion has only recently occurred.’ ( p. 10). No. II. Published hy A. Holden . Exeter. Dr. Burn, speaking of the Ordinary Apparel, savs: — ‘The ‘ Canonical hahit (properly speaking) is that which is enjoined hy ‘ the Canons of the Church. But in a matter so fluctuating as that ‘ of Dress, it is impossible to lay down rules for Apparel in one age ‘ which will not appear ridiculous in the next. In such case ‘ the general rule can only he, that Clergymen shall appear in Hahit ‘ and Dress such as shall comport with gravity and decency, without ‘ effeminacy or affectation. The Canons for the Habit of Clergy- ‘ men are ohiefly these two that follow, which for the reason above ‘ mentioned are now hecome matters only of curiosity and speculation.’ (here are quoted Abp. Stratford's Constitution, and the 74th Canon ; both of which are cited ahove).— Eccl. Law Phil. iii. 354. Mr. A. J. Stephens ( Barrister-at-Law ) adopts the words of Dr. Burn, given above; addiug in a Note : — 1 Most of the peculiar ‘ Habits, in the Church, in the Courts of Justice, and in the Uni- ‘ versities, were formerly the common Hahit of the Nation, hut ‘ have been retained by persons occupying places of importance as ‘ having an air of antiquity, and thereby couducing to attract ven- ‘ eration.’ (p. 961.) Practical Treatise on The Laws Relating to the Clergy. PUBLISHED BY J. HALL & SON Opposite the Pitt Press, Cambridge; SOLD ALSO BY BELL AND DALDY, 186, FLEET STREET, AND WHITTAKER & CO., AYE MARIA LANE, LONDON. BY THE REY. W. H. PINNOCK, LL.D. Cantab.:— NEW TESTAMENT HISTORY; an Analysis of, ( Dedicated , by permission, to the Regius Professor of Divinity') embracing the Criticism and Interpretation of the Original Text ; with Questions for Examination. Fourth Edition. 18mo. bds. 4s. SCRIPTURE HISTORY; an Analysis of, {Dedicated, by permission, to the Lord Bishop of Llandaff). Intended for Readers of Old Testament History; with Ex- amination Questions. Seoenth Edition. 18mo. bds. 3s. 6d. ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY; an Analysis of, ( Dedicated by permission , to the late Xorrisian Professor of Divinity). From the Birth of Christ to the Council of Nice, a. d. 325. With Examination Questions. Fourth Edition. ISmo. bds. 3s. 6d. THE HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION, an Analysis of, ( Dedicated , by permission, to the Lard Bishop of Ely); with the Prior and Subsequent History of the English Church; with Examination Questions. Third Edition. 18mo. bds. 4s. 6d. THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES, a Com- mentary on, with Examination Questions, chiefly selected from Examination Papers, especially intended for Candidates prepar- ing for the B.A. Degree, by the Rev. W. Trollope, M.A. new Edition, with considerable improvements. 12mo. bds. 4s. 6d. THE GOSPEL OF ST MATTHEW, Ques- tions and Answers on; by the Rev. W. Trollope, M.A. Second Edition. 12mo. bds. 4s. PUBLISHED BY 3 . HALL & SOX, CAMBRIDGE. THE GOSPEL OF ST LUKE, a Commentary on; With Examination Questions, accompanied bv References to f °12mo f lt.!^ ^ thC Rev/ ' V - TK — ’ THE GOSPEL OF ST JOHN, Annotations on; Critical, Philological, and Explanatory. By L. S. D. REES BA. 12mo. bds. 3s. fid. BY THE REV. W. H. PINNOCK, LL.D. Cantab A SHORT OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY, or SCRIPTURE FACTS; with Questions for Schools. 18mo. bds. 2s. This is intended for the Junior Classes in Schools. LITURGY OF THE CHURCH OF ENG- LAND, Questions and Answers on the ; by the Rev \\ Trollope, AI. A. Fourth Edition. 18mo. bds. 2s. By the same Author. XXXIX ARTICLES of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, Questions and Answers on the; Third Edition. 18mo. bds. 2s. 6d. PEARSON ON THE CREED, an Analysis of; with Examination Questions. By the Rev. J. Goble ALA. Second Edition. 18mo. bds. 4s. By the same Author. A NEW ANALYSIS OF BUTLER’S An- alogy OF RELIGION, with Examination Questions. 18rro. bds. 3s.