RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 508, 15 May 1909, Page 9

RELIGIOUS ACTIVITY.

THE VERDICT OF HISTORY. VESTMENTS IN THIS' ANGLICAN CHURCH. . , r In view of tho prominence given in recent cablegrams to what.is known as the Ornaments Rubric tho following outline of tho historical points involved, (mainly, taken from a little book on tho subject written by.Mr. F. C. Eelos, F.R. Hist. S.) will bo of interest:— . ...: Tho Ornaments Rubric" is that no to- whioh 1 is to' bo found in all Prayer Books opposite tho Order for Morning prayer, "and 'of which tho latter paragraph reads: "And hero is to bo noted, that such Ornaments of tho Churcli, and of tho ministers thereof at air times of their ministration, shall bo retained,' and bo in use, as were in this Cinirch of England', by | tho authority of Parliament", in.'the "second year of the reign of King. Edward the Sixth." xhe'eontrovorsy which has centred round this rubric may bo broadly summed up thus: Does or does not tho rubric order tho uso of tho ancient rites and ceremonial customary in the pre-Rcformation Church ? or still moro tersely —Are "vestments" legal or illegal ? ' In tho first place thcro has been'much conflict of opinion as to tho actual meaning of the words of the rubric. Tho second year of Edward Yl's reign began on January 28, 1548,. and ended on January 27, 1549. Now, the first English lrayer Book was sanctioned by Parliament on January 21, 1549. It did not como immediately into use; and, in any ease, its uso -<xful3 not really havo begun until well into tlji?'third year of Edward VI. Obviously, therefore,-the question thus arises whether tho intention in tho rubric was to refer to th^y'ornaments actually used between January- 28, 15487 and January 27, 1549, or to the ornaments used under the First Prayer Book, which though authorised in tho second year, was not used until the third year of the King's reign. "The tendency of tho most reccnt-scholarship has been to regard the rubric as referring to the First Prayer Book—or rather to the, usage under it—arid not to the actual year 1548.'? The above question has caused great discussion during recent years, but it is. not ono that matters much, as tho -. evidence show's that practically tho same ornaments were in uso under the First Prayer Book as bad boon in uso in 1548 as far as the present controversy.is concerned. -In both cases vestments aro inducted. Difficult Historical Problem, But another historical point hero arises. Iho Act of Uniformity of 1559 .provides for the retention of tho above ornaments "until other order shall bo taken therein by the authority of tho Queen's Majesty." Was this other order" ever taken ? The tendency of latest historical research is to answer the question in tho negative. It is contended by some, however, that "other order" was yaken when tho Advertisements .were issued m 1566, requiring the use of' surplices in parish churches, with copes, in cathedrals, eucharistio vestments not being mentioned: but it is moro generally .'held - that tho Advertisements were only,-an attempt to enforce a minimum in opposition to tho tendency of tho moro extreme reformers ito discard even tho surplice, and were not intended to bo a modification of tho directions given in the Ornaments Rubric. This view is adopted m tho report presented to the Upper House Convocation of Canterbury in 1608 bv a_committee of bishops, and also in a report of a committee of tho LAwer House. ' 1 But tho.matter was taken a stage further at tho, revision of 1661, of which the present lrayer Book is tho outcome. The rovisors of that year removed tho words which referred to tho possiblo.taking .of "other order." ihoy knew, writes Air. Eeles, "that' the rubric was interpreted as ordering the, vestments used in the early years of Edward \ > .'boy not merely avoided contradicting this. interpretation,' but - tlicy sot • their - scal upon it as the right ono by. removing tho only phrase from the rubric which might bv 'any possibility'bo, held: to bo against., it." The Privy. Council. ; ' The question assumed, a .new phase in the nineteenth century when tho'Privy' 1 Council declared vestments illegal; The ruliiio- was grounded, to again quote Mr. Eeles, "on the amazmg argument that, the Advertisements of 1006 ovemido tho revised-rubric of -96 years later." Lord- Chief Baron Kelly, who' dissented from : the, judgment, is said to.havo remarked'that it was a : judgment of policy and not of law, and Lord Justice' Amphlet-t, anotjor of the Judges on the Judicial Committee, declared that it was a ' "flagitious judgment. Stubbs } 0119 of tho Rroatest constitutional historians of modern 'times was . very severo in his criticism of tho decision, and said "it iß' a falsification of documents. An amusing incident in connection with the ease is related in the - rccently-pubMcd Memoir of Canon Garratt," an Evangelical of the old school. In -the face of the historical evidence, Canon Garra-tt ,thought tho Low Church party took a "tremendous risk" in bringing the question beforo the Courts. In tile hrsfc instance, the case against vestments was argued by Sir .'Archibald Stephens, but . 111 the next prosecution this eminent lawyer was retained-by the other-side. The Judge referred'to .the grounds on which the decision 111 tho first case-rested—the Advertisements of Qiiceu Elizabeth.. -Sir Archibald replied: "But there aro no such Advertisements. . He sa.id'they wo.ro prepared, but the l.ueen had never signed 'them." "And Y' * t'b© Judgfl, ''did you. not men-. ™ m the Court, Sir: Archibald?" business » nsworcd the "was not my Proposed Compromise. As the High Church party do not recognise the decisions of' secular Courts' on Church questions, tho Privy Council's judgment was 'gnoredj ajid tho use of vestments has spread rapidly during . tho last fifty years. Two Royal Commissions liavo since recommended that a new. Court of-final'appeal, satisfactory to all parties should bo sot up so that this and similar disputed points may. be-finally settled. -It has also been "suggested tliat a ■new rubric clearly stating.,the mind, of. the' Church on the question' of vestments bo framed. .Many churchmen belonging to the great, central party suggest as a fair working compromise that the use.of vestments should be made optional-that is. to say, permissive, but nor. compulsory; but the more advanced High Churchmen declare: that thov .aro quite content with the rubric as it"stands,'aii thev contend it is impossible to make it prohibit vestments without reading a "not"'into it Extremo Low Churchmon, oil the other hand aro strongly opposed to framing - a rew rubric which would expressly give the option of using vestments. Judging bv a cablegram published in The Dominion on Ma v 10, the Lowor House of Convocation of Canterbury interprets the rubric-as permitting, but not compelling, the use of eucharist'ic vestments, and.favours things remaining as. they are, that is, that the clergy bo allowed to wear vestments or not, as they may think

A oommittcc of the Convocation of York recently reported m favour of the. permissive use of vestments (nlnto only), and such proliounced Evangelicals as the Bishop of Durham and Liverpool stated that they were prepared, though with great reluctance, to agrm to . tins coiirso for the sake of peaco. ino question has also arisen as to whether vestments can ri«htly bo regarded as expressive to doctrine. The committee of Bishops set up hy the Convocation of Canterbury reply m tho negativo,. and state that.their use is only a matter of reverent and seemly ordor. Tho more extreme sections (High and Low), however, agree in the contention that the use of vestments lias become associated with the view of the Holv Communion acceptor by the High Church party, and rejected bv the Evangelicals, and this accounts for the keonncss of the controversy on the subject.