The following well-known opinion was delivered by the Bishop of
Exeter many years since. As such it is simply recorded here, not as
involving its author in the present controversy on this subject.
"The rubric, at the commencement of 'The Order for Morning and
Evening Prayer,' says '_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 VI._'--in other words, a white alb plain, with a vestment
or cope. These were forbidden in King Edward VI.'s Second Book.
This was a triumph of the party most opposed to the Church of Rome,
and most anxious to carry reformation to the very farthest point.
But their triumph was brief--within a few months Mary restored
Popery; and when the accession of Queen Elizabeth brought back
the Reformation, _she, and the Convocation, and the Parliament,
deliberately rejected_ the simpler direction of Edward's Second
Book, and _revived the ornaments of the First_. This decision was
followed again by the Crown, Convocation, and Parliament, at the
restoration of Charles II., when the existing Act of Uniformity
established the Book of Common Prayer, with its rubrics, in the form
in which they now stand.
"Strange indeed is it that in the very teeth of this plain and
evident intention of the Reformers and Revisers of the Prayer-book,
there should be English Churchmen and Clergy, so forgetful of the
duty they owe the Church, that they are trying with all their
power to provoke Parliament to do an unjust and unconstitutional
act, by attempting to set aside this law of the Church, which has
the sanction of the _three_ Estates of the Realm: and can only be
altered by their concurrence.
"From this statement it will be seen, that the surplice may be
objected to with some reason; but then it must be because the law
requires 'the alb, and the vestment, or the cope.'
"Why have these been disused? Because the parishioners--that is,
the churchwardens, who represent the parishioners--have neglected
their duty to provide them; for such is the duty of the parishioners
by the plain and express canon law of England (Gibson 200). True,
it would be a very costly duty, and for that reason most probably,
churchwardens have neglected it, and archdeacons have connived at
the neglect. I have no wish that it should be otherwise. But, be
this as it may, if the churchwardens of Helston shall perform this
duty, at the charge of the parish, providing an alb, a vestment, and
a cope, as they might in strictness be required to do (Gibson, 201),
_I shall enjoin the minister, be he who he may, to use them_. But
until these ornaments are provided by the parishioners, it is the
duty of the minister to use the garment actually provided by them
for him, which is the surplice. The parishioners never provide a
gown, nor, if they did, would he have a right to wear it in any part
of his ministrations. For the gown is nowhere mentioned nor alluded
to in any of the rubrics. Neither is it included, as the alb, the
cope, and _three_ surplices expressly are, among 'the furniture
and ornaments proper for Divine Service,' to be provided by the
parishioners of every parish.
"The 58th canon of 1604 (which however cannot control the Act of
Uniformity of 1662) enjoins that 'every minister, saying the public
prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church,
shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, &c., to be
provided at the charge of the parish.' For the things required for
the common prayer of the parish were and are to be provided by the
parish. If a gown were required, it would have to be provided by the
parish."