FIFTH ADDRESS.

LET us now pass on to another rubric, one of the first in order in our Book of Common Prayer, but which, for various reasons, was reserved for the conclusion of the recent debates in the Convocation of this Province-I mean the "Ornaments Rubric."

Her Majesty in her Royal "Letters of Business," addressed to the Presidents of the Convocations of both Provinces, called their special attention to that rubric. The Queen directed them to consider “the ornaments used in churches and chapels, and the vestments worn by the ministers of the Church"; and declared that one of the main purposes for the appointment of the Ritual Commission, whose fourth and final Report was commended to the careful attention of Convocation, was that "the said rubrics. might be explained or amended, so as to secure general uniformity in such matters as may be deemed essential."

These "Letters of Business" having been issued. with such an expressed intention, it was plainly the duty of the Convocation so to deal with those rubrics as to satisfy if possible the reasonable and gracious desires of the Crown.

Besides, it is clear from the history of our Church in the last fifteen years, and specially from the records of the unhappy litigation,-disastrous to the peace and welfare of the Church,-in connexion with that Rubric, that, if it remain as it is, without any explanation or qualification, it will still be, as it now has been for many years—a battlefield for two contending parties; one of which affirms that the rubric legalizes, and perhaps enforces, the use of all the Vestments specified in the first Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth, and ought to be maintained in that sense; while the other party asserts, with no less confidence, that the Rubric does no such thing, and that the recent decisions of the Final Court of Appeal, which virtually made the rubric a dead letter, are to be accepted as the sense, and as the only sense, of the Rubric; and that it ought therefore to be altogether expunged from the Book of Common Prayer; and that another Rubric, omitting all reference to those vestments which are specially mentioned in Edward VI.'s first Book, ought to be substituted in its place.

Unless these two parties can be brought to an amicable relation, it is vain to hope for peace in our Church. And a house divided against itself cannot stand. And as long as the Rubric remains as it does, without any authoritative explanation from the Church. herself in her Synods, to which all good Churchmen would bow, it is doubtful whether by any coercive power of legal decisions these two parties will ever be brought to a friendly understanding and fraternal co-operation.

Moral influence of Convocation.

57

But what Law Courts cannot do, Ecclesiastical Synods can do. What cannot be effected by legal decisions, in such matters as these, that, with God's help and by charitable concessions on both sides, and by earnest resolves to seek for peace, Church Councils may do by moral influence, and by gentle, loving persuasion. There are many persons who acknowledge the force of the latter, but rebel violently against the former. I do not say that they are right; but I do not hesitate to affirm, that wise and thoughtful men will do what they can in condescension to those whom others may represent as either weak in judgment, or as headstrong in will.

I have never concealed from you my opinion, which time and thought have strengthened, that the Ornaments Rubric permits, but does not require, the use of the vestments specified in the first Prayer Book of King Edward VI.

Let me state my reasons for this conviction.

In the time of the Long Parliament, in the year 1641, Dr. John Williams, Bishop of Lincoln and Dean of Westminster, who had been Lord Keeper, and was a learned man and shrewd lawyer, was chairman of a "Committee of Religion," appointed by the House of Lords, and of a Sub-Committee also chosen by them, which numbered among its members such distinguished men as Archbishop Usher, Bishop Morton, of Durham, Bishop Hall, of Norwich, Dr. Robert Sanderson (afterwards Bishop of Lincoln), Dr. Brownrig (afterwards Bishop of Exeter), Dr. Hacket (afterwards Bishop of

Lichfield and Coventry), Dr. Prideaux (afterwards Bishop of Worcester), Dr. Ward (Regius Professor of Divinity at Cambridge), and some learned Presbyterians, such as Dr. Twisse, Dr. Cornelius Burges, Dr. Calamy, and others.

These learned persons put forth the following "Consideration":

"Whether the rubric" (i.e., the Ornaments Rubric as it then stood) "should not be mended, where all vestments in time of Divine Service are now commanded, which were used in the second year of Edward VI.”1

Evidently Bishop Williams and his colleagues supposed the vestments to be then obligatory.

Yet further at the Savoy Conference in 1661, the Presbyterian divines objected to the "Ornaments Rubric" as it then stood (ie., in the Prayer Book of Elizabeth, James I., and Charles I.), because it seemed2 to bring back the cope, alb, &c., and other vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, 5th and 6th Edward VI., ie., the second Book of Edward VI.

1 See Collier, Eccl. Hist., ii. 799; Fuller, Church Hist., book xi., cent. xvii.; and pp. 146, 147 of the Life of Williams, by Hacket, his chaplain, who says that the Sub-Committee met six times at the Deanery, Westminster, the residence of Williams, then Dean of Westminster, as well as Bishop of Lincoln; and particularly a scarce volume, entitled History of Nonconformity, p. 349, Second Edition, London, 1708.

2 Cardwell, Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer, p. 314. "Not by the Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth. The authorities at that time do not refer to them as valid. Indeed, Bishop Williams and the Lords' Sub-Committee in 1641 expressly declare "that the Injunctions and Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth were not in force, but by way of commentary or imposition" (Qu. "exposition"). Hist. of Nonconformity, p. 348. Fuller, Church Hist., book xi. cent. xvii.

Bishop Cosin, of Durham, when writing on the Ornaments Rubric as it stood before 1660, had affirmed the Vestments to be then prescribed by Law but after the Restoration, when he was Bishop of Durham, he never required the use of these vestments by any of his Clergy; nor has any one of the English Bishops since the Restoration (more than 400 in number) prescribed them in their "Articles of Enquiry" at their Visitations, or at any other time.

Still more, in the year 1667, the Presbyterians, in the Bill drawn up for their benefit by Sir Matthew Hale, Chief Baron, Sir Orlando Bridgman, Lord Keeper, and Sir Robert Atkins, did not ask to be relieved from using "the vestments," but only from wearing the surplice.5

Clearly, therefore, the "vestments" were not then obligatory: for if they asked to be relieved from the surplice, à fortiori they would have asked to be excused from "the vestments." And yet, after the Revolution, the Royal Commissioners for revising the Liturgy, in 1689, appended the following note to the "Ornaments Rubric": "Mem. A canon to specify the Vestments.” How are these seeming discrepancies to be explained ?

4 Cosin's Works, vol. vi. p. 42, 230, 233, 305, 418, 439, 507. 5 See Thorndike's Works, vol. v. pp. 301, 308, ed. Haddan. 6 Among the Commissioners were the Archbishop of York, Bishops of London, Winchester, Salisbury (Burnet), Tillotson and Tenison (afterwards Archbishops of Canterbury), Patrick, Beveridge, &c.

7 See p. 9 of the document containing their proposed alterations, ordered by the House of Commons to be printed in 1854.