THE VESTMENTS OF THE REFORMED CHURCHES.
One of the main differences between a church unreformed and a church
reformed lies in this: that in the former the externals of public
worship are magnified in importance even to the minutest detail, while
in the latter the weight attached to such matters is diminished in a
greater or less degree.
Considerable variety is apparent in the importance attached by different
reformed churches to these matters, and, in consequence, considerable
variety is apparent in the extent to which they are elaborated. Those
churches which at the Reformation retained the episcopate, retained with
it, in a more or less modified form, many of the old usages; while those
churches which abolished the hierarchical and restored the democratic
system of church government, for the most part abolished the customs of
their pre-reformation predecessors. Perhaps among no bodies of
Christians are the externals of worship so little heeded as among the
English dissenting sects; these, being composed of seceders from a
reformed church, may be said to have undergone a double reformation,
which has had the effect of expunging the last traces of ritual from
their services. In the consequent neglect of order, the wearing of robes
of office has become entirely optional, not only with the different
sects, but even with the individual ministers; and where a gown is worn,
as no definite shape of gown is prescribed, the choice of robe remains
optional. Hence, these bodies need not concern us further, as the
discussion of their vestments would be merely an uninteresting and
monotonous account of the practice of isolated modern congregations.
The four churches whose usage must occupy our attention in the present
chapter are the Lutheran churches of Germany and Scandinavia, the
Episcopal churches of England and of Spain, and the Presbyterian
churches, with especial reference to the church of Scotland.
§ I. THE LUTHERAN CHURCHES.
Of all reformations, the least thorough, as far as outward observance
was concerned, was the reformation in which Martin Luther played the
leading part. In Lübeck is the brass of the Lutheran Bishop Tydeman, who
died in 1561, representing him in full Eucharistic vestments, in no wise
differing from the vestments of his non-reformed predecessors. At the
present day the predominance of the Evangelical church in Germany (as
distinguished from the Lutheran) has abolished vestments, with the
exception of the Geneva gown and its attendants, among the Protestants;
but in Sweden and Denmark, where the Protestant Episcopal is still the
national church, the old vestments, with some modifications and
omissions, are retained.
The Lutheran minister of the present day in Sweden and Denmark is
described as wearing an ample cassock, or black gown, and a white
frilled ruff, or collar, both in his outdoor life and at morning and
evening prayer. At the Communion Service he assumes an alb, or, rather,
surplice—a white, ungirded garment, open down the front—over which is
placed a chasuble with a large cross on the back.
The Swedish Kyrko-Handbog recognises these vestments: the _chorkappa_,
_messhake_ and _messe-sjorta_—answering to the cope, chasuble, and
surplice, respectively.
§ II. THE ANGLICAN CHURCH.
The history of vestments and their usage in England subsequent to the
reformation is not lacking in complexity, and is rendered harder to
unravel by the heated discussions carried on, and the contradictory
assertions brought forward, at the present day by the various parties
within the English church. It is no part of our duty here to give an
account of the different recensions of the liturgy published and
approved in the years after the reformation; we are here only concerned
with the rubrical directions which they contain to regulate the use of
vestments permitted in the English church.
The first English Prayer-Book, published in 1549, contained the
following injunction:
'Upon the day and at the time appointed for the ministration of the
Holy Communion, the Priest that shall execute the holy ministry shall
put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to
say, a white alb plain with a vestment or cope. And where there be many
Priests or Deacons there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in
the ministrations as shall be requisite; and shall have upon them
likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say,
albes with tunicles.'
It is quite clear, even without the documentary evidence which is
forthcoming, that this was merely intended as temporary, as, indeed, was
the whole 1549 Prayer-Book. In a letter which Fagius and Bucer addressed
to their Strassburg friends, describing their reception by Archbishop
Cranmer, there is given a short account of the ceremonies then in use.
In the course of this letter, they say, 'We hear that some concessions
have been made both to a respect for antiquity and to the infirmity of
the present age, such, for instance, as the vestments commonly used in
the Sacrament of the Eucharist.'
An inspection of the rubric will show that it was ingeniously designed
to please all parties. The word 'vestment,' of course, means the
chasuble, _the_ vestment _par excellence_, and therefore often spoken of
in that apparently general way. The 'alb and vestment' being specified
did not _necessarily_ exclude all the other vestments which were worn
_between_ these two. Hence those clergy who preferred the old rites and
ceremonies might read the rubric into permitting, or even enjoining, the
maintenance of the old vestments,[91] while those who subscribed to the
principles of the reforming party might set at defiance all old usages
by wearing the cope while celebrating the Communion.
Another rubric relating to vestments appears in the first Prayer-Book.
This is the first rubric printed after the order for the Communion, and
runs thus:
'Upon Wednesdays and Fridays the English Litany shall be said or sung
in all places ... and though there be none to communicate with the
Priest, yet these days (after the Litany ended) the Priest shall put
upon him a plain albe or surplice, with a cope, and say all things at
the altar (appointed to be said at the celebration of the Lord's
Supper) until after the offertory....'
Finally, in this Prayer-Book also occurs the following:
'In the saying or singing of Mattins and Evensong, baptizing and
burying, the minister in parish churches and chapels annexed to the
same shall use a surplice. And in all cathedral churches and colleges
the archdeacons, deans, provosts, masters, prebendaries, and fellows,
being graduates, may use in the quire, besides their surplices, such
hood as appertaineth to their several degrees. And whensoever the
bishop shall celebrate the Holy Communion in the church, or execute any
other public ministration, he shall have upon him, beside his rochet, a
surplice or albe, and a cope or vestment, and also his pastoral staff
in his hand, or else borne or holden by his chaplain.'
The revised Prayer-Book of 1552 is much more stringent in its
reformation of vestment-use. It condescends to mention vestments but
once, in a prohibitory rubric, which reduces vestment-use in the English
Church to an almost Presbyterian simplicity. This rubric is as follows:
'And here it is to be noted that the minister at the time of the
communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use
neither albe, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he
shall have and wear a rochet: and being a priest or deacon, he shall
have and wear a surplice only.'
In the Prayer-Book of 1559 a rubric is to be found requiring the
restoration of the vestments and ornaments of the first Prayer-Book,
thereby setting aside the order of the second Prayer-Book. At the
consecration of Archbishop Parker in 1559, we are told that at morning
prayer the archbishop-elect wore his academical robes. After the sermon,
the archbishop-elect and the four attendant bishops proceeded to the
vestry, and returned prepared for the communion service, the archbishop
in a linen surplice, the Bishop of Chichester in a silk cope, the
Bishops of Hereford and Bedford in linen surplices, but the Bishop of
Exeter (Miles Coverdale) in a woollen cassock only. Two chaplains of the
archbishop, who assisted the Bishop of Chichester at the communion
service, also wore silk copes.
After the communion service they again proceeded to the vestry and
returned, the archbishop in 'episcopal alb,' surplice, chimere of black
silk, and a collar of precious sable-fur round his neck; the Bishops of
Chichester and Hereford in episcopalia, namely, surplice and chimere.
Coverdale and the Bishop of Bedford wore cassocks only.
This passage shows us that the right of private judgment was exercised,
even at such an important ceremony as the consecration of an archbishop,
in 1559 as now. The Puritan principles of Coverdale were given full sway
even when acting in cooperation with his less austere brethren.
It also introduces us to a new vestment, the _chimere_, which is one of
the greatest puzzles to be found in the subject of vestments. Since the
Reformation, it has continued ever since as a dress peculiar to bishops,
but its origin and the exact date of its introduction are uncertain.
The _chimere_ is a short coat, properly without sleeves; but in England
the tailors of the Stuart period transferred the sleeves of the _rochet_
to the _chimere_. Hence the modern English bishops wear sleeveless
rochets and sleeved chimeres—both solecisms. The English chimere is
black, though from the reign of Edward VI to that of Elizabeth it was
scarlet; but the form current on the Continent, a large cape called the
_mantelletum_, is scarlet, and the chimere worn by the Roman prelates in
England is purple.
It is not unlikely, from the appearance of the vestment, that it is a
modification of the cope or almuce—possibly a combination of the two
vestments.
In 1560 Thos Sampson writes complaining to Peter Martyr that 'three of
our lately-appointed bishops are to officiate at the table of the Lord,
one as priest, another as deacon, and a third as subdeacon, before the
image of the crucifix, or at least not far from it, with candles, and
habited in the golden vestments of the papacy.' This seems to indicate
that at Court (where this was to take place) the old vestments were kept
up. From a letter of Miles Coverdale's written in 1566, we learn that
the square cap, bands, and tippet were enjoined to be worn out of doors
('Zurich Letters,' vol. i, p. 63, vol. ii, p. 121; Parker Society).
In all the subsequent Prayer-Books, the 'Ornaments Rubric,' as it is
called, is the source of our information with respect to the vestments
required to be worn in the English Church. This famous rubric runs thus
(as given in the Prayer-Book of 1662):
'And here it is to be noted, that such ornaments of the church and of
the ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be
retained and be in use, as were in this Church of England, by the
authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward
the Sixth.'
The indefiniteness observed in the Edwardian rubrics, to which this
injunction refers, invests the 'Ornaments Rubric' with a certain
vagueness; and this is responsible for the long and violent strife that
has waged around it, and for the chaotic condition of modern Anglican
order, both in vestments and other observances.
Recent attempts have been made on the part of individual clergymen to
introduce certain details of the ritual of the Western Church into the
services of the Church of England. All such innovations are, however,
regarded as illegal, and clergymen attempting to introduce them lay
themselves open to prosecution. The rulings in the case known as the
Folkestone ritual case (Elphinstone _v._ Purchas) is the standard of
reference in such matters. Among many other details, the use of the
following vestments was declared absolutely contrary to the
Ecclesiastical Law of England: The biretta, chasuble, alb, and tunicle
at the Holy Communion; the cope at Holy Communion except on high feast
days in cathedrals and collegiate churches. On other occasions a decent
and comely surplice is to be used by every minister saying the public
prayers or administering the sacrament or other rites of the Church.[92]
This tendency to elaboration and to revival of mediaeval practices is
not, however, altogether of modern growth. In Wells Cathedral is the
effigy of Bishop Creighton, who died in 1672, clad in cassock, amice,
alb, and cope, the latter with a jewelled border. On his head is a cap
with side-flaps, over which is a _mitra pretiosa_. More singular still,
considering that the person commemorated was an ardent reformer, is the
brass of Bishop Goodrick at Ely Cathedral, who died in 1554. He is
represented in full Eucharistic vestments of the pre-Reformation period.
Both these apparent anomalies are probably to be accounted for by the
Romanizing tendency of the reigning monarchs under whom both these
persons lived.
The vestments of the clergy did not escape the lash of the satirists of
Queen Elizabeth's reign. About 1565, for instance, a tract was published
entitled 'A pleasant Dialogue between a Soldier of Berwick and an
English chaplain: wherein are largely handled and laid open such reasons
as are brought for maintenance of Popish Traditions in our English
Church.' The soldier speaks thus to Bernard, the priest: 'But, Bernard,
I pray thee, tell me of thine honesty what was the cause that thou hast
been in so many changes of apparel this forenoon, now black, now white,
now in silk and gold, and now at length in this swouping black gown, and
this sarcenet flaunting tippet.' This describes Bernard as first in his
ordinary cassock or clerical dress; then in his surplice for morning
prayer; then in the cope for communion; and, lastly, in the preaching
gown and tippet. The passage is interesting, as it brings the practice
of wearing a black gown at the sermon, once universal in the English
Church, but now fast dying out, back almost to the reformation.
One more English church vestment remains to be noticed—the scarf. This
is a broad black band of silk, which is worn like a stole, passed round
the back of the neck and allowed to depend on either side. It is worn by
doctors of divinity and by the clerical authorities of collegiate and
cathedral bodies. Its origin is _possibly_ to be found in the stole, but
it is more probably a modification of an article of University costume.
During the imposition of Episcopacy upon Scotland in the Stuart period
the dress of the clergy was of a form designed by no less a person than
his Sacred Majesty King James I himself. At that monarch's own request
the Parliament of 1609 passed an Act authorizing him to do so, assigning
in its preface the reasons for this step to be 'that it had been found
by daily experience that the greatness of his Majesty's empire, the
magnificence of his Court, the fame of his wisdom, the civility of his
subjects, were alluring princes and strangers from every part of the
world, and that it was fitting that bishops and ministers, judges and
magistrates, should appear before those in becoming apparel; it was
therefore referred to his Majesty's serene wisdom to devise appropriate
garments and robes of office for these different functionaries.'
The result of this was an order 'that ministers should wear black
clothes and in the pulpit black gowns; that bishops and doctors of
divinity should wear "black cassikins syde to their knee" [equivalent to
the "bishop's apron" of the modern English prelate and the short
Presbyterian cassock], black gowns above, and a black craip [scarf]
about their necks. The bishops were ordained to have their gowns with
_lumbard_ sleeves, according to the form of England, with tippets and
craips about their craigs [necks].'
In 1631 Charles I directed the _surplice_ to be worn. In 1633, when he
visited Scotland, the bishops and chaplains officiated before him in
surplices. He induced Parliament to pass an Act like that of 1609,
giving him the power to regulate clerical costume; but this was so much
objected to by the clergy themselves (some of whom expressed a fear that
his Majesty would order them to wear 'hoods and bells'), that in 1634
they petitioned the King not to interfere with the arrangements of his
predecessor; and their request seems to have been granted.
§ III. THE REFORMED CHURCHES OF SPAIN AND PORTUGAL.
The practices of both these churches are commendably simple: a white
tunic, or surplice, and a white stole, are the only vestments or
ornaments at any time to be worn, except in sermons or at funerals, when
a black gown _may_ be assumed. Deacons wear their stoles in the ancient
diaconal fashion, _i.e._, over the left shoulder and under the right
arm; presbyters wear theirs round the neck and hanging straight down.
§ IV. THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH.
[Illustration: FIG. 29.—A SYNOD MEETING OF THE REFORMED CHURCH OF FRANCE.]
We have already shown that in Apostolic times, and the first few years
of the post-Apostolic period, robes of office were not worn by the
officiating minister. Vestments do not meet us until the moderatorship
of the Ecclesiastical Assemblies had crystallized into the Episcopate.
The oldest Christian organization now existing in which the diordinal
system of government has been restored is undoubtedly the Waldensian
church. Although this church has not been _proved_ to be older than the
thirteenth century, it cannot be asserted that its foundation is not
anterior to that date; an impenetrable mist—rendered more obscure, it
must be admitted, by the doubtful authenticity of many of the church
documents—shrouds its early years. Unfortunately it cannot be discovered
whether its clergy wore any distinctive robes when conducting its
services. The chroniclers have not thought it worth their while to tell
us, but it is improbable that anything very elaborate was worn, as a
church which made a change so drastic as the abolition of the Episcopate
would be unlikely to maintain the elaborate accessories of the
non-reformed church. At present the simple black gown is worn, as in all
other branches of the Presbyterian church throughout the world.
The task of compiling details regarding the vestments of the
Presbyterian church is rendered easy by the small account which that
church, in all its sections, takes of ritual matters; but the same cause
also increases its difficulty in another direction. Paradoxical as this
statement may appear, it becomes intelligible when we reflect that but
few Presbyterian assemblies would consider it consistent with their
dignity to take any notice of matters of dress, personal or official;
while on the other hand few Presbyterian writers have thought such
matters worthy of their notice. The writer has referred to liturgies in
the English, French, German, Roumanian, and other languages,
representing the chief reformed Churches of Europe holding the
Presbyterian system, but has failed to find any rubrical direction or
reference containing any information. The collecting of material is thus
simplified by the small amount of material actually available, but
rendered difficult by the baldness of the records in which the materials
have to be sought.
The vestments worn by clergy of the Presbyterian Churches are not so
much ecclesiastical as professional or academical, like the barrister's
gown. They are at most four in number: the cassock, scarf, bands, and
gown, to which the hood of the wearer's degree is added.
The cassock is a somewhat ugly garment of black silk, which resembles an
ordinary short coat; it rarely reaches as far as the knees. There can be
no doubt that it is a modification, for convenience' sake, of the long
cassock worn by clergy of the Episcopal Churches, which was the inner
garment, university and clerical, of the middle ages. The scarf is a
long strip of black cloth, wound sash-wise round the waist and knotted
in front. The bands are two short pendant tails of white lawn, hanging
in front, now fastened round the neck by an elastic cord. These survive
in the universities as well as in the Presbyterian Church. The name was
originally applied to the Elizabethan ruff, in which must be sought the
prototype of the ecclesiastical bands; and the use of a cylindrical box
to keep the ruff in has caused the survival of the old meaning of the
word in 'bandbox.' The stiff starched or propped band passed at the
commencement of the seventeenth century into the _falling band_ (not
unlike a modern child's lace collar), of which the ecclesiastical
'bands' is the diminution.
The gown is of the pattern known as the Geneva gown—a black silk gown
with ample sleeves and faced with velvet.
It should be here remarked that there is considerable laxity in
individual usage. The cassock and scarf are almost universally
discarded, and, in fact, they were probably never very generally worn.
For the Geneva gown is often substituted the gown proper to the
university degree of the wearer.
Very few regulations affecting robes have been passed by any of the
assemblies of the churches in the Presbyterian Alliance. The General
Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1575 passed an important
injunction, which, however, refers rather to personal than to official
attire. As it is a curious document, we give it here in full:
'For as muche as a comelie and decent apparrell is requisite in all,
namelie, ministers, and suche as beare functioun in the kirk, first, we
thinke all kinde of browdering [broidering] unseemlie; all begaires
[coloured stripes] of velvet, in gowne, hose, or coat, and all
superfluous and vaine cutting out, steeking [stitching] with silkes,
all kinde of costlie sewing on pasments [laces], or sumptuous and large
steeking with silkes; all kinde of costlie sewing or variant hewes in
sarkes; all kinde of light and variant hewes in clothing, as reid,
blew, yellow, and suche like, which declare the lightnesse of the
minde; all wearing of rings, bracelets, buttons of silver, gold, or
other mettall; all kinds of superfluiteis of cloath in making of hose;
all using of plaids in the kirk by readers or ministers, namelie, in
the time of their ministrie and using their office; all kinde of
gownning, cutting, doubletting, or breekes of velvet, satine, taffatie
or suche like; and costlie giltings of whingers and knives, and suche
like; all silk hatts, and hatts of diverse and light colours; but that
their whole habite be of grave colour, as blacke, russett, sad gray,
sad browne; or searges, worsett, chamlett, grogram, lylis, worset, or
suche like; that the good Word of God, by them and their
immoderatenesse, be not slandered.'[93]
There is one rule, or rather unwritten convention, affecting the wearing
of vestments in the Presbyterian Church, at least, in the British
Islands. The _bands_ are regarded as an indication that their wearer is
the minister of a recognised congregation; hence, when an ordained
minister of the Presbyterian Church who does not hold such an office
happens to be conducting a service, he does not wear bands.
The Geneva gown has not always been worn in the Presbyterian Churches
abroad. Thus in the Church of Holland, till recently, the official
costume of a minister was a picturesque uniform, consisting of the old
three-cornered hat, and a coat resembling the ordinary evening-dress
coat, having a long pleated strip called the 'mantle' hooked on the
neck, obviously a survival from an earlier and more ample gown of some
kind, knee-breeches, buckled at the knees, and buckled shoes. This
costume was worn only when the minister was officiating at service. It
has now, however, been universally abandoned for the Geneva gown.
The gown and bands, with or without the cassock and scarf, are now worn
only at Divine Service; but in the early part of the seventeenth century
(in Britain as on the Continent) they were worn by ministers sitting in
assembly as well, in accordance with the decree of the Synod of Fife,
which in 1611 ordained that ministers should attend meetings in the
exercise of Synodal assembly in black gowns and other abulʒiements[94]
prescribed in the Act of Parliament.
The elders never wear any insignia of office, and never have done so.
[91] With one modification only. The albs are expressly ordered to be
worn _plain_.
[92] For a complete analysis of the 'Ornaments Rubric' with elaborate
historical and legal disquisitions, reference should be made to the
published report of the Folkestone case (Kegan Paul, 1878).
[93] Calderwood, 'Historie of the Kirk of Scotland' (Wodrow Society),
vol. iii, p. 354.
[94] Habiliments.
[Illustration]