THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH AND THE ORNAMENTS RUBRIC.
(TO THE EDITOR OF THU "SPECTATOR.') Sin,—Permit me to correct one word only in the report of my observations on the Ornaments Rubric which you quote in this day's Spectator. It is a word, .however, which completely alters the sense of the passage you quote. I did not say that it was absurd that officers "should be ' compelled ' to wear uniforms agreed to by the authority of Parliament in the reign of Edward VI.," but that it was absurd that they should be " directed " to do so, i.e., that they should have no better nor clearer direction than this as to what their uniforms should be, but should be left either to their own historical knowledge or the decision of a court-martial, to ascertain this point. You will see, from this, that my objection to the Ornaments Rubric is not that it is "obsolete," but that it is ambiguous.
I wish to see it replaced by a plain and definite direction to the clergy as to what garments the Church wishes them to wear. Whether, if such direction were framed now, it would direct, permit, or forbid, the use of vestments—and accordingly, expel or retain Ritualists—is a question into which I did not enter. All that I contended, and still contend for, is that it ought either to direct, or permit, or forbid them distinctly, and
not, as it does at present, leave us all in doubt as to which of these three things it really means to do.—I am, Sir, &c.,
W. C. PETERBOROUGH.
The Palace, Peterborough, October 25th.
[We are exceedingly sorry to have misrepresented the Bishop's language, but we copied the word. " compelled " from the Times' report of Thursday week, which was the only report to which we had access.—En. Spectator.]
Previous page
