Few paragraphs
have elicited as much controversy and spilled ink as those of the
"ornaments rubric." They have
even caused legal action and court cases up to the highest courts of the
land. People were jailed over their
interpretation. Even today the ornaments
rubric is used to argue that it is proper and Anglican to wear sacerdotal
vestments, namely the alb, stole, and chasuble.
With so much
written on the matter trying to sum up the history and various facets of the
matter is near impossible—especially for a person as verbose as I usually
am! That is, however, what I want to try
and do here.
1549
It
begins in the second year of King Edward and the first Prayer Book of
1549. This book addresses what ministers
should wear in a few places. It
addresses it in detail at the end of the book under a section called
"certain notes for the more plain explication and decent ministration of
things contained in this book" as well as in the fourth rubric at the
start of the Communion service and the first rubric at the end of it. The dress of the minister according to these
rubrics was to be, for priests, a surplice and hood except for during Holy
Communion when an alb and either cope or chasuble. Bishops were to always wear alb or surplice
and chasuble or cope for all their services. Tunicles
are also mentioned. In these rubrics
the chasuble is called "vestment" which is why traditionally there
has been a differentiation, particularly in England, between
"vestments" which are sacerdotal and "robes" which are not
and are essentially choir dress and the preaching gown.
1552
In
1552 this all changed and the minister
was to wear surplice, scarf, and hood at every service whilst the bishop was to
wear rochet and chimere. The use of albs and chasubles, as well as copes, was
explicitly outlawed by the rubric at the start of Morning Prayer.
1559
When
Elizabeth came to the throne the question of what was to be done was raised
once more. Was it to be the 1549
Prayer Book or the 1552? The answer was
simple. Elizabeth brought back the 1552 with the Act of Uniformity. Strictly speaking there was no
"Elizabethan Prayer Book" only the 1552 book with three additional
provisions: namely the addition of two sentences during the administration of Communion,
the addition of certain readings, and changes to the Litany.
It
is important to bear in mind that the Act of Uniformity was actually part of
the Prayer Book, it came before it but they were one document. In the second chapter of the Act of Uniformity
it is decreed that the "order and form as is mentioned in the said Book,
so Authorised by Parliament in the said fifth and sixth years of the Reign of
King Edward the Sixth" was to be used in every ministration. At this point
it seems simple that the 1552 rubric outlawing albs and chasubles is the end of
the matter.
Things
are rarely so simple. The Act of
Uniformity also had two sections which bear on this matter.
"25. Provided always, and be it enacted, that such
Ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers thereof, shall be retained, and be
in use, as was in this Church of England, by Authority of Parliament, in the
second year of the reign of Edward the Sixth, until other Order shall be therein
taken by the Authority of the Queens' majesty, with the Advice of her
Commissioners appointed and authorised under the great seal of England for
causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this Realm.
26. And also that if there shall
happen any contempt or irreverence to be used in the ceremonies of rites of the
church, by the misusing of the orders appointed in this book, the Queen's
majesty may, by the like advice of the said commissioners or Metropolitan,
ordain and publish such further ceremonies or rites as may be most for the
advancement of God's glory, the edifying of his church, and the due reverence
of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments."
What are we to
make of this seeming contradiction? Are
the alb and chasuble to be "retained, and be in use" or does the ornaments
rubric of 1552 and the second chapter of the Act of Uniformity which
outlaws these actually stand as
authoritative?
The obvious
question when trying to understand this is simply to ask "what did the
writer of the Act say it meant."
Archbishop Sandys made clear that in fact the words "retained, and
be in use" do not mean what they seem to us today to mean. Rather they
mean simply that the albs and chasubles of the churches are not to be destroyed
until further command and direction was forth coming.
"Our
gloss upon this text is that we shall
not be forced to use them, but that others in the meantime shall not convey
them away; but that they may remain for the Queen" Archbishop Sandys to Parker (remain for the Queen being a reference to their future confiscation and sale to help support the much indebted crown -- much as Henry and Edward had done with church finery before her!)
This is in
keeping with the iconoclasm of the Anglican Reformers which likewise forbade private
individuals from destroying idols in their churches and instead demanded that
they wait for the magistrate to carry this out.
Things being done in an orderly way was important to the Anglican
Reformers.
In addition, both sections make
clear that further instruction is going to be given, at the least on what to do
with vestments. When this instruction
came it would overrule and fulfil the provisions of the Act of Uniformity and
be binding. In due course such "other
order" did indeed come forth.
But hold on!
Things get even more complicated!
The Act of Uniformity restored the 1552
Prayer Book with only three changes (the additional sentences on reception and addition
of certain readings as well as changes to the Litany). The 1559 Book of Common Prayer with the
attached Act of Uniformity was a legal and unchangeable document. It was an Act
of Parliament. And yet, illegally, it was changed at the printers!
In the printed
book of 1559, not the official and authoritative book, the 1552 Ornaments
rubric outlawing the alb and stole and cope was changed to read:
"And here
is to be noted, that the Minister at the time of Communion, and at all other
times in his ministration, shall use such ornaments in the Church, as were in
use by authority of parliament, in the second year of the reign of King Edward
the Sixth according to the Act of Parliament set in the beginning of this
book."
This rubric had
absolutely no authority in law and was omitted in the Latin Prayer Book of 1560. It was simply a quick pointer the Act of
Uniformity which was at the start of the book— and yet one which is in error as
the Act of Uniformity does not actually say "shall use such
ornaments" but "shall retain, and be in use", nor does it say
"as were in use" but "as was in this church", and it omits the
promise of additional instruction.
Was this
sneaky rubric an indication of how people understood the Act? Did people
actually think that the 1549 vesture was to be used not the 1552?
Most
certainly not.
In the same year as this
illegal printed rubric is found the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth were
published and commissioners sent all over the nation to enforce obedience to
them and compel subscription. Items 30
and 47 of these injunctions demanded respectively that:
"30....
[all ministers] both in the church and without.... shall use and wear such
seemly habits, garments, and such square caps as were most commonly and orderly
received in the latter year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth..."
"47. That he churchwardens of every parish shall
deliver unto our visitors and inventories of vestments, copes, and other
ornaments, plate, books, and specially of grayles, vouchers, legends,
processionals, hymnals, manuals, poruasses, and such like appertaining to the
church"
The
injunctions clearly enforced the clerical wear of the 1552 and by law required
all parishes to hand over for destruction or sale their vestments and other Roman
ornamentation.
1566
The
unwillingness of the Puritans renewal movement to wear the surplice enjoined by
the Injunctions and Act of Uniformity led to additional measures being taken in
1566. To resolve this the 1566
Advertisements were introduced. These
are the official "other order" promised in the Act of Uniformity. These Advertisements demanded the surplice be
worn at every service by the minister except at Cathedrals and Collegiate
Churches during Holy Communion where the cope was to be worn by not only the
celebrant but also the gospeller and epistoller.
From this
point onwards the regular Visitations of the bishops in their diocese referred
back to the Injunctions to ensure vestments were destroyed and to the
Advertisements that a surplice and it alone (except the cope at Cathedrals etc.
though this part never seems to have been enforced) be worn for every service.
1604
Finally, in
1604 the Church of England got new Canon Law.
The Canons reinforced the required dress of the Advertisements with some
minor changes—the cope was now only for principal feast days not every sabbath,
non-graduates could wear a tippet/preaching scarf.
Even under
Laud this status quo is clearly seen in his Visitation Articles of 1628:
"Whether
doth your minster wear the surplice while he is saying your public prayers, and
administering the Sacrament, and a hood according to his degree of the
University: Whether there be in your parish, who are known or suspected, to
conceal or keep hid in their homes any Mass books, Breviaries, or other books
of Popery or superstition, or any chalice, copes, vestments, alb, or other ornaments
of superstition, uncancelled, or undefaced, which is to be conjectured they keep
for a day as they call it."
1662
In 1662 the illegal rubric of
1559 was modified to read :
"And here
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."
This change is
important. Rather than a poor paraphrase of the Act of Uniformity this rubric
is an exact quotation from the Act except the updated grammar of
"were" for "was".
The 1662 Prayer Book continued to have the Act of Uniformity as the
first item in the list of contents—in other words the Act was still part of the
Prayer Book and thus it was seen as obvious that this short quotation was
intended to simply point back to and mean exactly the same as the Act at the
start of the book. That Act, if you
recall, did not enjoin the use of the 1549 vestments but merely that they be
retained till the commissioners came along to dispose of them under the
Injunctions and that the "other order" was given in the
Advertisements which demanded a surplice only. The plain reason for not including the words
"until other order is taken" in the short rubric is that such order
had already been taken and was already enshrined in not only statute law but
canon law and was being enforced by every bishop of the land.
The
visitations of every single bishop in 1662 except Sterne of Carlisle, Roberts
of Bangor, Fearne of Chester, and Warner of Rochester (as well as the See of
Sodor and Man which was vacant from early 1662 till 1665) explicitly demand the
wearing of the surplice at all times of ministry. The only reason we don't have information on
them is that there are no remaining
copies of their articles of visitation but it would be absurd to suppose they
differed from all the other bishops and were openly defying canon and state law,
indeed we do have such clear instruction from the bishops who followed them. The
canons of 1604 were likewise reprinted in 1660 and again in 1662 with bishops
such as Cosin, Henchmen, and Ironside requiring a copy to be in every parish. Quotations and excerpts from all of these can
be found in J.T. Tomlinson's "Collected Tracts of Ritual" in the
Tract "Additional Evidence respecting the Ornaments Rubrics of 1662."
19th Century
It was not
till the 1800's that anyone even thought to try and bring back the obsolete
vestments on the basis of the rubric. In
doing so they immediately found themselves in court and the truth of the rubric
subject to scrutiny.
The most significant
court ruling, and the definitive one, was that of the Folkestone Ritual Case
1878. This court case ruled that:
-
The rubric is subordinate to the full Act of
Uniformity from which it is a quotation. The 1559 Act of Uniformity, as part of
the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, was still law.
-
What matters is whether "other order"
was taken as promised in the Act of Uniformity.
-
"Other order" was taken in 1566 with
the Advertisements.
-
"The authority of Parliament in the second
year of King Edward the Sixth" excludes anything prior to 1549 and
anything not explicitly prescribed in 1549 (which is besides the point given
the above but interesting nonetheless and clearly rules out vast swathes of
Roman ritualistic dress, utensils, and ornamentation which are commonly seen in
Anglo-Catholic Churches today.)
Summary
Where does
this fascinating history leave us?
-
The 1559 Prayer Book was simply the restoration
of the 1552 and the ornaments rubric in it was illegal. The Act of Uniformity, to
which the rubric was a poor paraphrase, said that such vestments were not to be
destroyed and "other order" would be shortly given.
-
The 1559 Injunctions demanded the defacing and
destruction of all vestments (or their confiscation to sell and help alleviate
public debt) so clearly they were not
intended to be used (see also Sandys gloss) and official further instruction
was given in 1566 which enforced the use of the surplice at all services.
-
The official 1662 Prayer Book has the Act of
Uniformity as the first item on the list of contents. The illegal rubric was
replaced by an exact quotation from the act but did not include the note of
"other order" because it was already taken and enforced by state law
and the restored 1604 canons. Given this
context the ornaments rubric of 1662 does not allow the vestments and ornaments
of 1549.
-
All persons involved in the 1662 revision and
every bishop we know at the time demanded surplice only and recognised not only
canon law and the 1566 Advertisements (the "other order promised) but also
the injunctions and of Elizabeth.
-
At no point from 1552 onwards was it ever
seriously considered or even imagined that the 1549 Vestments were to be used
or even that their use was legal and possible.
That is until the 1800's at which point the courts ruled that such
vestments were not legal and had never been since at least 1566 - but were
clearly not used or countenanced from 1559 onwards given the Injunctions.
- The dress of the Anglican minister from 1552 onwards was distinctive and Reformed. It taught that the minister was to be learned and his primary role was to proclaim the gospel, teach the Scriptures, and rebuke error. To this end the tippet and hood alongside academic square cap were required of ministers at all times of their ministry whilst the surplice, a non-sacerdotal and not even uniquely clerical garment, was worn to distinguish the minister at times of service. During sermons the academic gown was to be worn instead of the surplice though to emphasise the nature of teaching. For more on the distinctive dress of Anglican ministers and its importance see:
A little faithfulness: Anglican robes and heritage
A Plea for Anglican Distinctives
- The dress of the Anglican minister from 1552 onwards was distinctive and Reformed. It taught that the minister was to be learned and his primary role was to proclaim the gospel, teach the Scriptures, and rebuke error. To this end the tippet and hood alongside academic square cap were required of ministers at all times of their ministry whilst the surplice, a non-sacerdotal and not even uniquely clerical garment, was worn to distinguish the minister at times of service. During sermons the academic gown was to be worn instead of the surplice though to emphasise the nature of teaching. For more on the distinctive dress of Anglican ministers and its importance see:
A little faithfulness: Anglican robes and heritage
A Plea for Anglican Distinctives
