THE BISHOP OF PETERBOROUGH ON VESTMENTS. T HE letter from the
Bishop of Peterborough which we print to-day makes his position on the Vestment ques- tion quite clear, so far as his correction goes. He ex- pressed, it seems, no opinion in the Diocesan Conference as to what vestments the clergy should be directed to wear. He did not say, as the Times made him say, that it would be absurd if officers of the Army were "compelled" to wear uniforms agreed to by the authority of Parliament in the reign of Edward VI. What he said was that it would be absurd if they were " 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." The Bishop wishes to see the Ornaments Rubric replaced by a "plain and definite direction to the clergy as to what garments the Church wishes them to wear." Upon this point we entirely agree with Dr. Magee. It is not at all creditable to the courage or straightforwardness of the clergy that they should not by this time have dealt with the Ornaments Rubric, so far as they have the power of deal- ing with it, in one of these three ways. No doubt, the Ritualists must come in for the larger share of the blame. It is far more essential to their position that the Church should speak her mind upon this question, than it is to the position of either the Evangelical or the Moderate party. The Con- vocations of the two Provinces have actually been engaged in a revision of the Rubrics, so that the old plea that the Church was prevented by State tyranny from expressing her mind upon the question of vestments can no longer be set up. The Convocations of Canterbury and York were as free to set out at full length what they conceived to be a proper Ornaments Rubric, as they were in the sixteenth century. The plain duty of the Ritualist party, therefore, was to propose a new Ornaments Rubric, directing the clergy to wear such-and-such specific vestments. The direction might have been made per- missive, at all events in the first instance, so as not to offend congregations who resemble Joseph's brethren in their dislike of coats of many colours, but it might have left no one in doubt what the normal clothing of the clergy was intended to be. If the two Convocations had rejected the proposed rubric, the Ritualists would have ascertained definitively that the Church of England, so far as the legal representatives of her clergy can commit her, rejects vestments. It might have been highly annoying and inconvenient to make this discovery, but there is something ostrich-like in refusing to put the " Catholicity " of the Church of England to the test of experi- ment, because you are afraid how the experiment will turn out. It is to be presumed that if the Ornaments Rubric were replaced by a rubric making no mention of vest- ments, commonly so called, but simply prescribing the surplice and hood, the Ritualist party would consider themselves finally defeated. They would argue that, by rejecting the symbolical clothing, the Church of England had rejected the doctrine it was intended to symbolise, that the sacrificing priest had disappeared with the garment traditionally asso- ciated with a sacrificing priesthood, and that in consequence it had become their duty either to leave the Church altogether, or to set up for themselves as claimants of the historical position which she had wilfully forfeited. If the Church of England has only not rejected vestments because she has not yet been asked to reject them, is the Ritualist position any way
bettered We cannot see that it is. Convocation has been revising the Ornaments Rubric, and yet the Ritualist party has not had the courage to propose that it shall be made plain and definite. If the "Catholicity of the Church of England depends upon her acceptance of Vestments, and all that vest- ments are supposed to mean, it now hangs by the most gossamer of threads. At present, nobody, as the Bishop of Peterborough says, can feel quite sure whether the Church meant to direct, permit, or forbid the use of Vestments; and, so far as the Ritualists are concerned, they iieenl to be perfectly content with this ambiguous state of things. i Neither of the other parties n the Church, however, is quite free from blame in this matter. If the opponents of vestments represent, as they profess to do, the real mind of the Church on this question, why did they not persuade Convocation to adopt their substitute for the present Ornaments Rubric? They are, it must be supposed, of opinion that the use of vestments would very seriously compromise the Protestant character of the Church of England. Yet, under the Ornaments Rubric, it is contended, with at least a show of reason, that the use of vestments is not only permitted, but ordered. If this is so, surely the Church of England cannot too soon clear herself from the imputation ; and if Convocation were to pass a new Ornaments Rubric, making the surplice and hood obli- gatory, the clergy would have done all in their power to bring about this result. Why, then, has not the Evangelical section of Convocation formally proposed a new Rubric to this effect They claim that they have the great body of English Churchmen on their side, and judging by the practice in the majority of English churches, the claim is not an unreasonable one. But so long as they prefer to take . Bheltor under the decisions of Law Courts interpreting an ambiguous reference to the authority of Parliament, not in the latter quarter of the nineteenth century, but in the middle of the fifteenth, it is difficult not to suppose that they are less assured of their strength than they profess to be. The Moderate party, by which we understand the party which is willing to permit the use of vestments under certain restrictions, is not, of course, under any obligation to frame a new Ornaments Rubric similar in kind to that which lies on the two extreme parties. It would not be troubled about the Catholicity vestments were abolished, nor of the Church of England, if
about her Protestantism, if vestments were retained. What it really has at heart is peace and quietness. It would like to see the vestments worn where a congregation really desired it, and not worn unless a congregation did really desire it. Conse- quently, if this were the interpretation practically put upon the Ornaments Rubric, they might fairly be quite content to retain it in its present form. It would not matter that it is ambiguous, if it had been agreed that its ambiguity should carry with it full liberty to interpret it in either sense. But this is not the case. As the law stands, whatever doubt may exist as to the intention of the Ornaments Rubric, there is no doubt as to its application.. If the judgments of the highest ecclesiasti- cal Court are carried out, the wearing of vestments is an offence, punishable with deprivation. Clergy and congregations may be agreed in desiring their use, but if the clergy yield to the congregations in this matter, they will lose their benefices. This is not a state of things at all calculated to promote the
peace of the Church, an of certain specified vest- ments it might be at once ended by a new Ornaments Rubric, making the use allowable, but not obligatory, and allowable only if cer- tain conditions were satisfied ;—the solution which seems to us the only fair and reasonable one. Yet the moderate party in Convocation have been no more forward in proposing a settlement than the extreme parties. They must therefore share the responsibility of the present absurd state of things. From this point of view, we cannot but regret that the Bishop of Peterborough should have contented himself with saying that the present ambiguous Rubric ought to be replaced by a plain and definite direction to the clergy as to what gar- ments the Church wishes them to wear, and with indicating the three directions one or other of which such a clear and definite direction must take. He would have done more to bring about his object, if he had told his clergy frankly whether he wished the use of vestments to be directed, or permitted, or forbidden, and asked their aid in getting the alternative he desires adopted by Convocation. If it is absurd to retain the Ornaments Rubric in its present form, a Bishop is the proper person to get this absurdity done away with. So long as he merely insists that it is an absurdity, and suggests that it may be dealt with in one of three ways, he is not likely to move his clergy to more energetic action than they are disposed to take of their own motion. It is rather, a cheap form of energy to proclaim that something must be done, while abstaining, with the most scrupulous care, from indicating what this something ought to be.
Previous page
