E Beiträge zur Kirchengeschichte, Archäologie, und Liturgik. Von Dr. CARL Rites and Ritual: a Plea for Apostolic Doctrine and Worship. By PHILIP FREEMAN, M.A., Archdeacon and Canon of Exeter, &c. The Ritual Law and Custom of the Church Universal. By JOHN JEBB, A Plea for the Threatened Ritual of the Church of England. By JAMES 1866. Sacramental Worship. A Sermon for Easter-Day. With an Appendix on the use of Music, Painting, Architecture, Lights, Incense, Vestments, &c., in Christian Worship. By the Rev. EDWARD STUART, M.A., Incumbent of S. Mary Magdalene's Church, Munster Square, Regent's Park. Third Edition. London. 1863. NGLAND appears to be the chosen area of "vestment questions." Even before the Reformation, it is evident from the decrees of synods and the letters of archbishops, that the dress of the clergy, both in the church and out of it, was a matter that gave some anxiety to the powers that were in those days. In the Reformation history there is probably no more well-remembered incident than poor Bishop Hooper going to prison rather than wear a scarlet chimére: for some generations after, eager Puritans raved against square cap and surplice, as if they had been actually inventions of Satan, whose horns, indeed, they found in the corners of the cap:* most of us remember the time when the "religious world" almost fainted at the sight of a surplice in the pulpit; and now the ecclesiastical Adria, agitated by ritualistic and vestiarian gales, has thrown up a great # Strype's "Annals" (an. 1565), p. 451; in Skinner's "Plea," p. 49. heap of pamphlets, from which I have picked a few of the most characteristic specimens. Of the English pamphlets whose titles stand at the head of this article, much the most noteworthy is that of Archdeacon Freeman, which sets forth, in a manner worthy of the author's learning and ability, the superiority of the rites-the sacraments which Christ has left in his Church-over the ritual, or ceremonies which merely accompany the rite. Dr. Hefele, the well-known Roman Catholic Professor at Tübingen, has collected into two volumes a number of scattered essays inserted at various times in different theological periodicals; among them, one on "liturgical vestments." To us in England, where at present vestments are the most prominent subject of ecclesiastical controversy, this calm, learned essay of Dr. Hefele's comes almost as a voice from some other world. It touches on none of our controversies, scarcely on any controversies at all; it barely notices the mystical meanings which have been attributed to the various vestures; it marches steadily and firmly through a field covered with the débris of conflict, and haunted by ghosts of unburied mysticisms. I intend, taking Dr. Hefele for my guide, and availing myself of his abundant learning, to sketch the history of the principal Church vestments. I do not venture to attempt an account of all the nine articles of episcopal dress, or even the six sacerdotal, but only of those the names of which have been for the last year or two in all men's mouths,-the alb, chasuble, dalmatic, cope, surplice, and stole. In the main, the history of all dresses of state and ceremonial is the same. The official dresses worn by nearly all members of ancient corporations are simply glorified remains of the common costume of some former age; they are vestiarian fossils embedded in a stratum of tradition. In civil ceremonies, gentlemen-ushers and the like are naturally so constituted as to think that the world is coming to an end if shoe-strings are seen where buckles have always been seen before in regard to religious vestments, not only are the clergy everywhere, on the whole, a conservative body, but their dress is constantly regulated by canons of councils, and watched over with a jealous eye by superiors. To take a very common instance; the hood was once the most common head-covering in England, and the graduate's distinction consisted in being allowed to wear a hood of a particular form and material; now, the hood has become a mere ornament for the back of the surplice.* The long coat, or "cassock," was not always distinctively clerical; Falstaff's men dared not shake the snow from their cassocks for fear of falling in pieces. The ermined robe which peers still wear on rare occasions was once the ordinary dress which * I cannot agree with Archdeacon Freeman in thinking the hood "the amice in simpler and less significant form."-Rites and Ritual, p. 69. an earl or baron would assume when he put off his coat-of-mail and surcoat. The alderman's gown is a relic of the time when no dignified person would appear in public without some kind of gown or cloak. The higher dignitaries of the law perpetuate the periwig of Charles the Second's time; and the very Court suit, abhorred of Mr. Bright, is but the ordinary dress of a gentleman of the early Georgian era while the Quaker dress, fast passing away, is the plain citizen's garb of about the same period. And the same is true of the dress of ecclesiastical office-bearers. The gown and cassock, which are now rarely seen except in the pulpit, were, as late as Parson Adams's time-and Parson Adams can hardly be supposed to have lived more than a hundred and fifty years ago,— the ordinary every-day dress of clergymen. They have maintained their position as the proper garb of a clergyman whenever he appears in a strictly clerical capacity, while in ordinary life they have been superseded among Englishmen-and I believe among Englishmen only-by a dress scarcely distinguishable from that of a quiet layman. This circumstance symbolizes, and perhaps partly causes, the much slighter separation between the ordinary life and the tone of thought of clergy and laity in England than in foreign countries; and this easy and unrestrained intercourse of minister and people is productive of very great advantage to both: the clergy have here less of the narrow professional bias which is one of the besetting sins of the priesthood; the laity less aversion for the clergy than is usually the case among our continental neighbours. But further; not only were the gown and cassock, now the preaching dress of a large proportion of the clergy, merely the ordinary dress of a clergyman even as late as the early part of the last century; but the same kind of history may be given even of those vestments which seem most remote from the garb of common life, most entirely belonging to the service of the sanctuary. Their history reaches back to a more remote antiquity than that of gown and cassock, but it is precisely of the same kind. It may seem a startling assertion, yet it is one which may be proved by the strongest evidence of which such a subject admits, that the alb and chasuble, which have lately reappeared in some Anglican churches, to the scandal of good Protestants, are but the glorified representatives and lineal descendants of the garments worn by a decent Roman in the time of the apostles. And if the assertion be startling, it is by no means new; as long ago as the beginning of the ninth century, Walafrid Strabo asserted that the celebrating priest in primitive times wore the ordinary dress; and the same thesis has been maintained more recently (to pass over less eminent names) by Cardinal Bona and Louis Thomassin. To begin at the beginning. There is no trace in Scripture that the * apostles and first disciples, in celebrating the Holy Eucharist, wore any other dress than that in which they commonly sat at table. The only trace of any distinctive ornament whatever having been worn by an apostle is in the traditions preserved by Eusebius and Epiphanius, that the Apostles James and John wore on their brows a thin plate of gold like that of the Jewish High Priest; a tradition which appears to Dr. Hefele, not an unreasonable sceptic, by no means trustworthy. Even if true, it is true only of these two great apostles; nothing of the kind is asserted of their brethren. It cannot be said that any distinctive dress was assumed in general by those who ministered in Christian worship during the apostolic age. The first step towards a distinctive dress for the ministrants in divine service seems to have been made when the custom arose of reserving a special suit, still of the same form as the every-day dress, for use in the sanctuary. It is clear that the dress of the minister did not vary in form from the usual civil dress; for in some of the most ancient wall-paintings in the Roman catacombs, the priest, in the very act of oblation, wears vestments of the same fashion as the figures about him. Yet that the articles of dress were themselves different from those of common life, is clear from several passages. Pope Stephen (about A.D. 260), when he forbids the priests and Levites to bring their consecrated vestments into every-day use, shows that at any rate priests and deacons had robes solemnly set apart for use in public worship; while his words prove at the same time that the dress of the ministrant was so like that of the ordinary citizen, as to admit of being worn in the street or the house. The difference between the priest in the street and the priest in the church was probably much the same as that between an English parson of three hundred years ago visiting the poor in his threadbare cassock, and the same man going to church in his newest and best; though in order to make the illustration perfect, we must remember that lay people wore cassocks as well as the priest. Supposing, then, that in the early Church the sacerdotal costume did not differ in form from that worn in ordinary life by citizens of the better class, though the several articles of dress used in divine service were reserved for that service only; we are met by the question, Of what kind and fashion was this dress? The answer is not difficult. Over almost the whole of the civilized world in the first century of the Christian era, the dress commonly worn by free citizens consisted of a long tunic reaching to the ancles, and some kind of cloak * Euseb., "Hist. Eccl.," 3, 31; 5, 24; Epiphan., " Hær.," 78, 14. See the Roman "Breviary," August 2, lect. ix. (Pope Stephen's Day). or wrapper; the "coat," and the "cloak" or "garment," respectively, of our Authorized Version of the New Testament. The shorter tunic worn by the hardy Dorians and active Athenians was exceptional in the ancient world. The wrapper (iuáriov) of the Greeks, and the famous toga which distinguished the Roman citizen from the soldier or the barbarian, agreed in this, that they were formed of a single web of cloth, and put on according to the taste or convenience of the wearer, like the familiar Scotch plaid of our own times. This toga, however, proud as the Romans were of it, came to be in some measure superseded during the Empire by a wrapper, which had the advantage of being more quickly and easily put on-the panula. This consisted simply of a circular piece of cloth with an opening in the centre to admit the head, which, when put on, fell round the wearer so as to cover his body completely. It was, in fact, almost exactly like the "poncho" which was popular in England some twelve or fifteen years since. Such was the "cloak" which St. Paul left at Troas with Carpus. The tunic and panula are the legitimate progenitors of the alb and chasuble, or "vestment," which were found in every church in England four hundred years ago, and have lately re-appeared, to the delight of a few and the indignation of many. The tunic, of whatever material, was generally white, or in the case of persons of rank, white with one or two vertical stripes (clavi) of purple reaching from the neck to the lower border. From its white colour it came to be called "alba" simply, without the addition of the word "tunica ;" and "alb" has been its name ever since it has been adopted into the service of the sanctuary. The first instance. which Dr. Hefele has discovered of the word "alba" used substantively to denote the tunic is in Trebellius Pollio, who mentions an alb of some kind of mixed silken stuff (albam subsericam unam) among the presents made by the Emperor Gallienus to the victorious general Claudius, afterwards himself emperor. This was about the middle of the third century. Towards the end of the next century, we find express mention of the alb as an ecclesiastical vestment; for the supposed Fourth Council of Carthage orders the deacon, during oblation or lection, to wear an alb; and though the "Fourth Council of Carthage" is probably altogether imaginary, the canons which are brought together under that heading seem to be genuine remains of the latter part of the fourth century. From a canon of a synod held at Narbonne in the year 589, we learn that the usual irreverence of men who go through a mere perfunctory service had * E. g., St. Matt. v. 40; ix. 20. St. Paul's "cloak" (2 Tim. iv. 13) was a "panula ;" the Lord's robe, in Rev. i. 13, was wodnρns, a long tunic reaching to the feet. In Bruns., "Canones, etc.," i. 145. + "Vita Claudii," cc. 14 and 17. |