CONVOCATION ON THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.
AS the question of Vestments has for some time been well before the public, and of late has given a good deal of employment to the Convocation of Canterbury, it might be expected that the Lower House of this venerable Synod, repre- senting, as it is by courtesy supposed to do, the Clergy, as distinct alike from the Bishops and the laity, would have made up its mind on the subject. Nor, indeed, can it be said that it has not done so. The only objection that can fairly be urged against the proceedings in the Jerusalem Chamber last week, is that they give us too much of a good thing. The Lower House made up its mind about vestments not once, but twice. On Tuesday week the resolution of the Bishops that there should be added to the Ornaments Rubric certain words directly contra- dicting the Rubric of which they were to form part came down to the Lower House, and a motion was made that it should be adopted. To this, Canon Gregory moved an amendment, de- clining to make the addition proposed by the bishops, but offering to add in place of it the words, "Until it shall be otherwise ordered by a Canon of the Church, lawfully enacted, promulgated, and executed." The precise terms of Canon Gre- gory's amendment are open to a good deal of criticism, but the speeches made in support of it removed any doubts that might otherwise have existed as to its meaning. It was defended, more especially by Archdeacon Denison, as a mode of re-
taining the Ornaments Rubric in its integrity. Canon Gregory declared that he moved it in the hope that this Rubric "would remain untouched," and that as the Church had grown and strengthened with their present form, it would "still continue to do so for many generations." Canon Rawlinson described the resolution of the Bishops as "an attempt to destroy the oldest monument which connected the English Church with the Church of antiquity." Archdea- con Denison characterised the retention of the Ornaments Rubric —meaning thereby its retention without the addition of con- tradictory words—as "a question of life and death." The proposal of the Upper House was the destruction of a principle, an element of continuous and internecine war, a surrender of inheritance and betrayal of trust, a weapon forged against the doctrine of the Real Presence, and—a stronger condemnation, perhaps, in the Archdeacon's mouth than all that had gone before---a step which, if concurred in by the Lower House, would leave the Church of England with but one refuge remaining,—the wisdom of Parliament. When, after speeches such as these, the amendment was carried by sixty- eight votes against thirteen, there seemed only one conclu- sion to be drawn. The Ritualists, as regarded the Lower House of Convocation, had been victorious all along the line. The representatives of the Clergy had declared by an immense majority that they renounced the Bishops and all their works ; that whatever they might be in practice, in theory they were staunch upholders of vestments ; that they would do nothing to cast the faintest doubt on their legality, or to imply that their use could be abandoned, except by individual clergymen in deference to the weakness of laymen not yet brought up to the full measure of Catholic doctrine about the Eucharist. Possibly the result of the division surprised many of those who had voted with the majority, and on the Wednesday Archdeacon Randall gave those who might feel uneasy about what they had done on the previous day an oppOrtunity of reconsidering their decision. He proposed to add to the Ornaments Rubric a proviso that, " notwithstanding " the direction to use other vestments con- tained in it, "it shall suffice" that in parish churches the minister shall at all times of his ministrations wear a surplice, with a stole and hood. The amendment was opposed on the ground that it would neutralise the triumph of the previous day, and that the House, having done so well, should now leave well alone. On a division, this proved to be still the mind of the majority. Archdeacon Randall's amendment was rejected, by sixty-eight votes against nine, Canon Gregory's supporters thus showing an undiminished front, while the minority who supported the Bishops had dwindled from thirteen to nine.
Later in the day, however, the Ritualists were defeated on a pro- posal of the Bishops to insert words discouraging non-communi- cating attendance at the celebration of the Eucharist, and from that moment the spell was broken. The Bishops, suspecting possi- bly that the Lower House might not despise the offer of a place of repentance, summoned the Prolocutor, and asked him what was the exact course which the Lower House desired to adopt in the matter of the Ornaments Rubric. In this, as in so many other instances, the Upper House of Convocation showed its immeasurable superiority in point of statesmanship over the Lower House. The Bishops might not unnaturally have been irritated by the exceedingly plain language used of them by some of the speakers on the previous day, and under the influence of that irritation, it would not have been wonderful if they had said something imprudent. Instead of this, they simply asked the Lower House whether it really intended to abide by its own resolution, and the instant this question was put, the Lower House began to waver. After declaring on the Tuesday that it would have the Ornaments Rubric whole and unaltered, and confirming its decision on the Wednesday morning, it decided on the Wednesday afternoon that a new Ru- bric should be drawn up, On Thursday this new Rubric was con- sidered, and after discussion was submitted to the House, in the following form :—" In saying public prayers, or ministering the Sacraments or other rites of the Church,every priest or deacon shall wear a surplice, with a stole or scarf, and the hood of his degree ; and in preaching, he shall wear a surplice, with a stole or scarf, and the hood of his degree, or, if he. think fit, a gown, with hood and scarf. And the other vestments specified in the First Prayer-book of King Edward VI. shall not be brought into use in any church other than a cathedral or col- legiate church, without the consent of the Ordinary." This time Archdeacon Denison stood virtually alone in his oppo- sition. It was in vain that he reminded the House that they had been building up the Ornaments Rubric with one hand, and destroying it with the other. The majority were now as eager to destroy as on the previous day they had been to build up, and on a division, fifty-seven votes were given in favour of the new Rubrics, and only eight in favour of the Ornaments Rubric. When this new Rubric went up to the Bishops, they saw at' once that, hostile as it was to vestments, is still left a loop-hole for their retention in churches where they are already in use. Accordingly, they declined to regard the surrender of the Lower House as adequate, and proposed for its acceptance a third version of the new Rubric, by which vestments shall at no time be used "contrary to the monition of the Bishop of the diocese." To this the Lower House agreed, and a Bill, which in substance will be a Bill for the abolition of Vestments, will now be submitted to Parlia- ment, with the assent of the Convocation of Canterbury. The victory of the Bishops was complete, and as is customary after great victories, they sang a Ts Donn. Whether their thankfulness may not turn out premature, is a point which only the future can settle. All that need now be said is that
Ritualism, with all that Ritualism involves, has been formally and effectively condemned by the Spiritualty of the Church of England. That is a new and important fact, and may, in the end, have new and important consequences.
Previous page
