.
Order of Contents
Intro
Articles 5+
Book 1
Confessions 2
Quotes 8+
History 6
Latin 1
.
.
Intro
The surplice was a white garment worn by ministers in divine worship in some of the early Church. It was and is used by Romanism and the Anglican Church, amongst other denominations. See Wikipedia: ‘Surplice’.
.
.
Articles
See also ‘Vestments’.
.
1500’s
Cartwright, Thomas – pt. 2, ch. 8, ‘Of the Surplice, & other Apparel taken from Popery’ in The Rest of the Second Reply of Thomas Cartwright Against Master Doctor Whitgift’s Second Answer Touching the Church Discipline (Basel, 1577), pp. 242-64
ed. Peel, Albert – Index: ‘Surplice’ in The Seconde Parte of a Register: being a Calendar of Manuscripts under that Title Intended for Publication by the Puritans about 1593, vols. 1, 2 One can also digitally search the volumes for ‘surplice’.
This is an annotated bibliography from 1593 recording all of the works in England from 1570 which advocated for a puritan reform of Church and State. The modern editor often gives references to modern works where where these manuscripts have been printed.
.
1600’s
Various Ministers – pp. 3-4 & 13 of The Abolishing of the Book of Common Prayer by Reason of Above Fifty Gross Corruptions, As also for that it commands the use of such Ceremonies in the Worship of God (namely Surplice, Cross, and Kneeling) which man has devised, and which are notoriously known to have been of old, and still to be abused to Superstition and Idolatry, and are of no necessary use in the Church (1605 / 1641)
The importance of this work is evident from the further info on the title page: “Being the Substance of a Book which the Ministers of Lincoln Diocese [England] delivered to King James…”
Ames, William
ch. 2, section 13, p. 30 in A Reply to Dr. [Thomas] Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent [Noxious] Ceremonies, viz. The Surplice, Cross in Baptism & Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine ([Amsterdam: Thorp] 1622)
On p. 30 Ames distinguishes the numerous ways in which the ritualists’ gowns were very different from common, indifferent lawyers’ gowns. Ames is replying to the following work of Morton (bap. 1564-1659), A Defence of the Innocencie of the Three Ceremonies of the Church of England (1618).
‘Surplice’ in ch. 4, ‘Concerning Idolatrous Ceremonies’ in A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies in God’s Worship… (Amsterdam, 1633), pp. 426-27
Iain Murray: “…Ames’s own best-known work, A Fresh Suit Against Human Ceremonies. Behind the book lay a protracted controversy. In 1610 Bishop Morton had published A Defence of The Innocency of the Three Ceremonies of the Church of England, viz. the surplice, the sign of the cross in baptism, and kneeling to receive the Sacrament. In 1622 an Anonymous Reply appeared, possibly from the pen of Ames himself, and in 1631 a Rejoinder to this was written by Dr. John Burgess, Prebend of Lichfield Cathedral. Ames’s Fresh Suit... is principally a reply to Burgess’s Rejoinder (hence the abbreviation in the text, ‘the Rej. teacheth’); it is also a full Puritan statement of those issues which were opposed by the defenders of the status quo in England.” – Reformation of the Church, pp. 97-98
Baxter, Richard
ch. 14, ‘Reasons Against the Imposing of our Late Controverted Mystical Ceremonies, as Crossing, Surplice, etc.’ in 5th Disputation, ‘Of Human Ceremonies: whether they are Necessary or Profitable to the Church and how far they may be Imposed or Observed?’ (London, 1658) in Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship… (London, 1659), pp. 467-82
ch. 33, ‘Of [Anglican] Canon 58, that makes the Surplice Necessary to Ministration’ in The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), p. 121
Cotton, John – ‘Of the Surplice’ in Some Treasure Fetched out of Rubbish… (London: 1660), pp. 52-60
.
.
Book
1600’s
Ames, William – A Reply to Dr. Morton’s General Defence of Three Nocent [Noxious] Ceremonies. viz. the Surplice, Cross in Baptism & Kneeling at the Receiving of the Sacramental Elements of Bread & Wine ([Amsterdam] 1622) 114 pp.
.
.
Confessions
Order of
Nassau
Bremen
.
1500’s
The Nassau Confession 1578 German
ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries, vol. 3, pp. 491-92
‘Mass, Vestments, Albs and Surplices’
“To this very end have the Papists brought in such a variety of mass vestments, surplices, and other special clothing for the priests, in order that thereby they would have so much the more splendor and magnificence, as in the Old Testament the priests and Levites wore their adornment and garb.
But by the light of the gospel, the night and darkness of the Papacy has been driven from the Protestant church and one is able to assemble with peace in the light of day. The Levitical pomp has been abolished by God Himself.
And at the original Supper, the Lord Christ (as well as the apostles afterwards whenever they observed the Supper) used their ordinary clothes and did not for the first time put on new and distinct surplices, albs, chasubles, or the like, which more disguise the administration of the Holy Supper and of themselves more closely resemble theatrical masks than serve as an adornment to the church’s worship.
Therefore, for the administration of the Lord’s Supper and for other occasions, there has been in the churches of this land (as was previously done in the neighboring churches and in many others) an entire abolition of all this vain pomp of illuminations, candles, surplices, and mass vestments as being the colors of Antichrist’s court.
And it has been prescribed that the ministers of the churches are to maintain their ordinary, albeit honorable, garb when they preach and distribute the sacrament.
By this, nothing is taken away from their office. So it is with those who attend the Lord’s Supper, for they also subtract nothing from the proper use of the sacraments when they do not put on distinctive and novel clothes, but maintain their commonplace clothes which they would otherwise ordinarily wear.”
.
The Bremen Consensus 1595 German
ed. James Dennison, Jr., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries, vol. 3, pp. 716-18
‘The Burning of Candles and Mass Vestments’
“I. As there were in the Old Testament (which was to be maintained until the coming of Christ) burning illuminations and lamps used in the Levitical service of worship, and the priests and Levites wore their distinctive embellishment and garb, the Roman popes have with similar pomp reverenced their mass and made it splendid, and exalted the standing of their priests, wishing to bring them into a more brilliant esteem with everyone.
II. On this account, there are many who, though not willing to continue to be popish, yet at the administration of the Lord’s Supper burn lights and candles in the light of day, while the ministers put on special surplices, albs, chasubles, and other mass vestments. Inasmuch, however, as this is an unnecessary imitation of the Levitical pageantry which has now received its fulfillment, and neither Christ nor the apostles has give command or example for it, nothing should or can be said in censure when we do away with such theatrical masks (which in reality are nothing other than the colors of Antichrist’s court).”
.
.
Quotes
Order of
Calvin
Admonition to Parliament
Cartwright
Zanchi
Gillespie
Rutherford
McWard
Baxter
Presbyterians & Independents
Corbet
.
1500’s
John Calvin
George Gorham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears during the Period of the Reformation in England (London: Bell, 1857), ‘Calvin to Bullinger’, pp. 242-43 March 12, 1551, on John Hooper
“…although I commend his [Hooper’s] firmness in refusing to be anointed [a bishop in vestments], yet I should have preferred that he had not contended so far about the cap and surplice (although I do not approve of them)…”
.
The Admonition to Parliament 1572 by Thomas Wilcox & John Field
Puritan Manifestoes (1907) For background, see Wikipedia.
pp. 10-11
“Then [in the early Church], after just trial and vocation they were admitted to their function, by laying on of hands of the company of the eldership only: now there is (neither of these being looked unto) required an alb, a surplice, a vestment, a pastoral staff, beside that rediculous, and (as they use it to their new creatures) blasphemous saying, ‘receive the holy ghost’… Then the ministers were preachers, now bare readers… In those days known by voice, learning and doctrine: now they must be discerned by other by popish and Antichristian apparel, as cap, gown, tippet, etc…”
.
pp. 13-14
“…the Sacrament… they [the early Church] took it with conscience. We with costume… They ministered the Sacrament plainly. We pompously, with singing, piping, surplice and cope wearing. They simply as they received it from the Lord. We sinfully, mixed with man’s inventions and devices.
And as for Baptism… Now, we must surplices devised by Pope Adrian… and such like pieces of popery, which the Church of God in the apostles’ time never knew (and therefore not to be used) nay (which we are sure of) were and are man’s devices, brought in long after the purity of the primitive church.”
.
Thomas Cartwright
The Rest of the Second Reply… ([Basel: Guarinus, 1577]), pt. 2, ch. 8, pp. 262-63
“As touching that point whether the minister should wear it [the surplice], although it be inconvenient: the truth is that I dare not be author to any to forsake his pastoral charge for the inconvenience thereof: considering that this charge, being an absolute commandment of the Lord, ought not to be laid aside for a simple inconvenience or uncomeliness of a thing which in the own nature is indifferent.
The offence in occasioning the weak to fall and the wicked to be confirmed in their wickedness is one of the foulest spots in the surplice, and which of all other can make it most detestable in the eyes of a godly minister… But when it is laid in the scales with the preaching of the Word of God, which is so necessary for him that is called thereunto, that a woe hangs on his head if he do not preach it: it is of less importance than for the refusal of it we should let go so necessary a duty.”
.
Jerome Zanchi
Of Redemption, ch. 19, fol. 447, as quoted in John Sprint, Cassander Anglicanus, showing the Necessity of Conformity to the Prescribed Ceremonies of our Church in Case of Deprivation (London: Bill, 1618), ‘Reformed Practices’, ‘Practice’, pp. 177-79
“To this add, in that the ancient bishops in the celebration of the Lord’s Supper did put on another garment than that they usually did wear, appertains nothing to the alteration of the Lord’s Supper: For Christ commanded not that we should celebrate his Supper with our usual garments, as He did, but only that we should do that which He did Himself. The like may be affirmed of sundry other things, as well in baptism as in the Supper of the Lord.
The sum of all is this: Such things as are added, but yet as matters indifferent, for order, for decency and to edification, such matters do not change the substance of the sacraments, and therefore alter not the worship. But such things as are taken from the institution of Christ, or else are added as necessary, and appertaining to the substance, those things do corrupt the institution of the Lord, and so do establish another kind of worship.”
.
1600’s
George Gillespie
English Popish Ceremonies (1637), pt. 2
ch. 2 (Naphtali ed.), p. 73
“As for those who allege some conveniency in the ceremonies, they say more than can abide the proof of reason, which the induction [enumeration] of some particulars shall demonstrate. Dr. [Thomas] Morton (Particular Defense, ch. 1, sect. 1 [1618]) alleges for the surplice that the difference of outward garments cannot but be held convenient for the distinguishing of ministers from laics [laity] in the discharge of their function.
Answer: This conveniency is as well seen to without the surplice. If a man having a black gown upon him be seen exercising the function of a minister, it is very strange if any man think it not sufficiently distinguished from laics.”
[Note that Gillespie does not say that a minister could be distinguished simply as he wore a black gown, but that he wore such a gown and was seen exercising the function of a minister. This qualification seems to assume that the black gown was not distinctive to ministers but might have been worn by others, and hence, it had not purely an ecclesiastical use, but also a civil use, and hence the gown itself was indifferent and was not so connected to the ordained office that it, of itself, was for the purpose of distinguishing the ordained office from others.]
.
ch. 9 (1637 ed.), p. 47
“Other of the ceremonies that are not evil in their own nature, yet were devised to evil, for example, the surplice. The replier to Dr. Mourton’s Particular Defence, observes (ch. 1, section 3), that this superstition about apparel in divine worship began first among the French bishops, unto whom Caelestinus writes thus. Discernendi, etc.
‘We are to be distinguished from the common people and others by doctrine, not by garment, by conversation, not by habit, by the purity of mind, not by attire: for if we study to innovation, we tread underfoot the order which has been delivered unto us by our fathers, to make place to idle superstitions; wherefore we ought not lead the minds of the faithful into such things: for they are rather to be instructed than played withal: neither are we to blind and beguile their eyes, but to infuse instructions into their minds.’
In which words Caelestinus reprehends this apparel, as a novelty which tended to superstition, and made way to the mocking and deceiving of the faithful.”
.
Samuel Rutherford
The Divine Right of Church Government (London, 1646), A Dispute Touching Scandal & Christian Liberty
pp. 6-7
“9. The use of things indifferent, as ceremonies, before any law be made of them, by confession of Formalists, is indifferent and may be done and not done; but if they scandalize, Paul proves by eight arguments [that] they are unlawful:
1. It fights with charity, that for meat, so little a thing, for the knot of a straw, a ceremony, thou slay thy brother for whom Christ died, v. 15. Where these reasons be: 1. It is uncharitable walking; 2. it is murder; slay not him.
3. It is contrary to Christ’s love, who died for thy brother.
4. It makes religion and Christian liberty to be evil spoken of, v. 16.
5. From the nature of these things which are indifferent, these in which the Kingdom of God consists not, as meats and surplice, crossing, kneeling, etc. when they scandalize, ought to be omitted, as being: [1.] against righteousness and being sins of murder. 2. against peace, sins of contention; 3. against joy of the Holy Ghost, making sad, and discouraging thy brother in his Christian race; and he that serves God in peace and righteousness and joy is acceptable, v. 18.”
.
p. 87
“8. The non-necessaries, or such things as need not be in the worship of God, which do bring scandal, must 1. be such as are neither necessary in specie, nor in individuo, in kind, or in specie or nature, or in their individuals and particulars, as the whole category of men’s devices, as:
1. Unwritten traditions—not necessary, not written.
2. Human mystical, symbolical signs and ceremonies—not necessary, not written.
3. Human holy days, crossing, kneeling to elements, altars, crossing, surplice, rochets, etc.—not necessary, not written.
4. This and this human holy day, this crossing—not necessary, not written.”
.
pp. 92-93
“Answer 2. We know no necessity to have, nor any danger to want [lack] such wares as surplice, crossing, bowing to altars, to elements, which sure the apostolic Church wanted, both in specie, and in individuo.”
.
Robert MacWard
The True Non-Conformist… (1671), 3rd Dialogue, pp. 111-12
“…whereas your surplice is arbitrarily institute[d], and imposed to signify innocency, without either real foundation or sufficient warrant, wherein, whether you do more usurp against God’s prerogative to appoint sacred and mysterious signs, and that simplicity, in which he has set forth his Gospel, or be more grossly mistaken in the event and fruit of your application, is a great question?
I grant that necessity or decency have introduced many things circumstantial that are rational, and consequently upon some real antecedent ground expressive of their use and end: as grave apparel in pastors, a becoming covering of pulpits, tables in sacred use, regulation of time, postures, gestures and the like, without which worship cannot be performed;
But to ascribe a liberty to the Church of appointing ceremonies, having for reason of their signification, the will of the instituter, and their use only in the representation, is so manifest an impingement upon Divine authority and the sacraments thereby ordained, and has already produced such a mass of superstitious superfluity in the Romish-Church, that I much admire to find a serious person pleading for such fopperies…”
.
Richard Baxter
Five Disputations of Church-Government & Worship… (London, 1659), 5th Disputation, ch. 2, pp. 409-10
“§40. And 1. If the surplice be imposed by the magistrate (as it was), who is a lawful governor, and that directly but as a decent habit for a minister in God’s service, I think he needlessly strained his power and sinfully made an engine to divide the Church by making such a needless law, and laying the peace of the Church upon it; But yet he meddled with nothing but was within the reach of his power in the general. Some decent habit is necessary; either the magistrate or the minister himself, or the associated pastors must determine what.
I think neither magistrate nor synod should do anymore than hinder undecency: But yet if they do more, and tie all to one habit (and suppose it were an undecent habit), yet this is but an imprudent use of power. It is a thing within the magistrate’s reach; he does not an alien work, but his own work amiss: and therefore the thing in itself being lawful, I would obey him and use that garment, if I could not be dispensed with.
Yea, though secondarily the whiteness be to signify purity, and so it be made a teaching sign, yet would I obey: For secondarily we may lawfully and piously make teaching signs of our food and raiment, and everything we see. But if the magistrate had said that the primary reason or use of the surplice was to be an instituted sacramental sign, to work grace on my soul and engage me to God, then I durst not have used it, though secondarily it had been commanded as a decent garment. New sacraments I durst not use, though a secondary use were lawful.”
.
The English Nonconformity as under King Charles II & King James II Truly Stated & Argued (1683; London: Parkhurst, 1689), pp. 11-12 The preface is dated 1683.
“But those [leading presbyterian and congregationalist ministers] that were called by the king, and one another, 1660 and 1661, to treat of concord, and that assembled at Sion College, and elsewhere about it, did openly make known their minds: And I think they meddled not against any of these things following, by any accusation of them as sinful:
…
IX. They meddled not with the surplice, tippet, hood, rochet, cope, but only the casting men out of the ministry that dare not use them, thinking them unlawful: Though we justify them [the vestments or the ministers?] not.”
.
Leading English Presbyterian & Independent Ministers
The Grand Debate between the most reverend Bishops & the Presbyterian Divines appointed by His Sacred Majesty as Commissioners for the Review & Alteration of the Book of Common Prayer... (London, 1661), ‘The Papers’
pp. 57-62
“We have not heard it proved that the surplice or cross [in baptism], as used with us, was received by the universal Church; it is a private opinion not received by the catholic Church…”
.
p. 98
“It is no undecent disorderly worshiping of God to worship Him without our cross, surplice and kneeling in the reception of the sacrament:
1. If it were, then Christ and his apostles had worship undecently and disorderly; And the primitive Church that used not the surplice, nor the transient image of the cross in baptism (but in an unguent) yea the Church for many hundred years that received the sacrament without kneeling.
2. Then if the king, parliament, and convocation should change these ceremonies, it seems you would take yourselves bound to retain them; For you say you must not worship God undecently: But that they may be changed by authority our articles determine, and therefore charity may well require the magistrate to change them without any wrong to the worship of God.
3. We appeal to the common judgment of the impartial, whether in the nature of the thing there be anything that tells them that it is undecent to pray without a surplice in the reading place, and not undecent to pray without in the pulpit…”
.
pp. 108-9
“[Bishops:] ‘There has been so much said not only of the lawfulness, but also of the conveniencies of those ceremonies mentioned, that nothing can be added: This in brief may here suffice for the surplice, that reason and experience teaches that decent ornaments and habits preserve reverence and awe; held therefore necessary to the solemnity of royal acts, and acts of justice: and why not as well to the solemnity of religious worship? And in particular no habit more suitable than white linen which resembles purity, and beauty, wherein angels have appeared, Rev. 15. Fit for those whom the Scripture calls angels; and this habit was ancient; Chrysostom, Homily 60 ad pop. Antioch.’
Reply:
First, if nothing can be added, then we doubt the unanswered writings extant against these impositions will never be well answered.
2ly. We are desirous that no indecent vestures or habits be used in God’s service. Those that scruple the surplice do it not as it is a habit determined of as decent, but as they think it is made a holy vestment, and so part of external worship, as Aaron’s vestments were (as may be seen in the arguments of [John] Cotton and Nicholls lately printed together).”
.
John Corbet
Of Divine Worship, pt. 3, sect. 9 in Remains (London: Parkhurst, 1684), pp. 219-20
Ҥ9. Of Wearing the Surplice
As touching the surplice, the wearing of a garment of this or that color, or of this or that form or shape in divine worship, is neither commanded nor forbidden of God. But though as to its material it may be indifferent, yet as to its formal state, it may not be also.
If the surplice be made a holy garment, as the priestly garments under the law, if it be used to make him that wears it more holy, and the service more acceptable for obtaining divine grace, it is superstitious. If it be made a symbol of sanctity, it may raise a scruple. But a distinctive habit [garment] of a minister, whether used as his ordinary garb, or only in sacred administrations, I cannot see to be superstitious or forbidden. But a habit that is not superstitious may be too gaudy or too theatrical.
What is the formal state or reason of the surplice is to be judged by the authoritatively declared meaning of those that enjoin it, touching its end and use.
But whatsoever the nature and reason of this garment be, I cannot approve the enforcing of it upon such ministers and in such congregations to whom by reason of invincible prejudice, it is either odious or ridiculous, yea though their prejudice be supposed culpable. Wise rulers give way to the immovable averseness of inferiors in things unnecessary and of no great moment, though of good intention. And as I should be loath to wear a fool’s coat in divine service upon the command of a superior, so I should be loath to appear in a congregation in a habit which I knew would be to them as ridiculous as a fool’s coat, though it were their great folly so to think.”
.
.
History
On the Post-Reformation
Primary Source
Whittingham, William – p. VI of A Brief Discourse of the Troubles Begun at Frankfort in the Year 1554 about the Book of Common Prayer & Ceremonies (rep. London, 1846) 230 pp.
Whittingham (c.1524-1579) was an English puritan at Frankfort, Germany with Knox.
.
Secondary Articles
Bingham, Joseph – ch. 7, ‘Of Making the Surplice & Other Habits Necessary to Ministration’ in The French Church’s Apology for the Church of England in Works (d. 1723), vol. 10, pp. 122-29
Bingham (1668-1723) was an Anglican who wrote this book seeking to defend numerous Anglican practices from the old French Reformed Church. He argues here against Richard Baxter; his severe treatment of Baxter regarding the historic intent of the English Prayer Book is unwarranted, as the issues were not as simple as Bingham makes them out to be.
Marsden, J.B. – ‘The Surplice Controversy’ in The History of the Early Puritans: from the Reformation to the Opening of the Civil War in 1642 (1853), pp. 240-42
.
Quotes
Order of
Collinson
Maxwell
Davies
Earngey
.
Patrick Collinson, ‘Vestiarian Controversy’ in Oxford Encyclopedia of the Reformation (1996), vol. 4, pp. 231-32
“The church and its supreme governor demanded obedience in all things indifferent. Nonconformists (and it was in this context that the word ‘nonconformist’ first entered the English religious vocabulary) complained that to enforce the use of these things on reluctant consciences was to deprive them of their indifference. The doctrine of ‘Christian liberty’ which came to the fore in these circumstances, was arguably the taproot of that species of Christian conviction known ever since as Puritanism. It was not equivalent to individualistic license, but rather to a conviction that the edification of the church, composed of ‘lively stones’, required the emancipation of conscience from all human ordinances and its total subjection to the word of God…
…
In 1566 Archbishop Matthew Parker, in consultation with his suffragans and prompted by the queen, published some ‘Advertisements,’ a call to strict conformity… The resultant crisis rocked both the universities of Oxford and Cambridge and came to its head in London, toward Easter 1566. Thirty-seven ministers, much of the preaching ministry in London, at first refused to conform and were suspended; of these a few, the hardest of the hard core, were eventually deprived of their livings…
…the Vestiarian Controversy introduced a lasting fault line into the Elizabethan church. The more drastic presbyterianism of the 1570’s might never have come about if it had not been for the episcopal ‘persecution’ of those who cast off the surplice in the 1560’s.”
.
William Maxwell, Appendix G, ‘The Dress of the Ministers’ in John Knox’s Genevan Service Book, 1556; The Liturgical Portions of the Genevan Service Book Used by John Knox While a Minister of the English Congregation of Marian Exiles at Geneva, 1556-1559 (Edinburgh: Oliver & Boyd, 1931)
“The dress of the Ministers in the English Church at Geneva [under John Knox] is a matter which is perplexing, for there is no evidence available indicating precisely what was the custom.
…
[John] Paullain [1517–1565, an English reformer], in his ‘Ad lectorem candidum’ (Lit. sac., P, Q) [‘To the Bright Reader’, in Liturgia Sacra, seu Ritus Ministerii in Ecclesia Peregrinorum… 1551/4], on the other hand, states quite definitely that vestments are not worn in his congregation. He urges that the New Testament does not prescribe a Minister’s apparel, and that a shepherd is not known to his sheep by his garb but by his call to them, and he thinks it sufficient that a Minister should be dressed modestly and soberly, with an absence of all pomp and arrogance. Further, he regards vestments as an incitement to superstition because of the Roman custom of blessing the garments. Thus he thought that in this as in other matters the Reformed Church should be content with the utmost simplicity.
In England the Puritan party objected strenuously to all vestments. As early as 1562 request was made to Convocation ‘that the use of copes and surplices… be taken away; so that all ministers in their ministry use a grave, comely, and side-garment, as commonly they do in preaching’ and ‘that the ministers of the word and sacraments be not compelled to wear such gowns and caps, as the enemies of Christ’s gospel have chosen to be the special array of their priesthood’ ([John] Strype, Annals, Oxford ed., 1824, vol. i., pt. ii. 501). And in the same period we find the bishops enforcing the cassock and gown and forbidding the Puritan custom of preaching in what Bishop Duppa called ‘a riding or ambulatory Cloake’ (Rit. Com. Rep. ii. 577). The objections in these passages are against all gowns… Certainly [Myles] Coverdale [1488–1569] objected to all gowns, as we see by his letter to Farel in 1556: ‘Our affairs are not altered for the better, but alas! are sadly deteriorated. For it is now settled and determines… that out of doors must be worn the square cap, bands, a long gown and tippet; while the white surplice and cope are to be retained in divine service’ (Parker Soc. Zurich Letters, p. 121, Let. 50).
.
Horton Davies, 5. ‘Vestments’ in vol. 2, Part 2: ‘Cultic Controversies’, ch. 5, ‘Style in Worship: Prestigious or Plain?’, pp. 211-14 in Worship & Theology in England: from Cranmer to Baxter & Fox, 1534-1690, combined ed. (Eerdmans, 1996)
“The puritans rested the case against distinctive vestments on the following grounds.
First and foremost, the insistence upon a particular vesture was an infringement of Christian liberty; the church which had been freed by Christ form the bondage of the law was now attempting to infringe the crown rights of Christ the Redeemer by introducing new sartorial [relating to dress] burdens on the conscience.¹ This was especially foolish when the Anglicans themselves admitted that such matters were adiaphora, or in the real of indifferent things.
¹ Cf. A Parte of a Register, p. 41: “if it be abolished and Christ be come in stead, then a great injury is done to Christ for many causes. The one is, that those ceremonies which Christ by his passion did abolish, should in contempt of Him and his passion be taken again.”
Secondly, the vestments were disliked because of their association with Roman Catholicism, and so were thought of as ‘badges of Anti-Christ,’ upholding the priesthood of the clergy and denying the priesthood of all believers…
Thirdly, these vestments were symbols of pomp and grandeur, ill-befitting the humility with which all men should approach God, and contrary to the simplicity of the first disciples and apostles of Christ, they should be done away with, even if indifferent, for the sake of the weaker brethren.²
² Ibid., pp. 43f.: “for four causes ought the surplice, the coape, the Tippet, and other popish ceremonies to be taken away and removed out of God his Church: 1. First, that Christ may more clearly shine and appear in his Gospel, without the darkness of man’s devices. 2. Secondly, that papistry may appear more to be hated and detested. 3. Thirdly, that the offence of the weak may be taken away. 4. Fourthly, that contention amongst brethren might cease.”‘
.
Mark Earngey, ‘Soli Deo Gloria: The Reformation of Worship’ being ch. 2 of Reformation Worship: Liturgies from the Past for the Present (New Growth, 2017), pp. 42-43
“The Genevan practice of wearing black academic gowns, white preaching bands, and black caps deliberately indicated that ministers were teachers of the Word rather than sacerdotal mediators. There clothes were not considered clerical vestments but were standard attire for clergy to be worn during and outside public worship (Maetsch, Calvin’s Company of Pastors, 19; William D. Maxwell, John Knox’s Genevan Service Book, 1556 (Westminster: Faith Press, 1965), 210-213).
Lavater’s Short Work on Rites and Regulations described a similar approach to clerical attire in Zurich; however, the clerical dress was more informal than Calvin’s: clergy were to ‘wear ordinary, yet respectable clothing (as other respectable citizens do), not theatrical clothing.’
John Knox held a similarly minimalist approach among the English exiles in Frankfurt, signaling his displeasure at Cranmer’s retention of the surplice. In a sermon on Noah’s drunkenness and the subject of what should or should not be covered up, he touched upon the sensitive matter of English cleric John Hooper’s refusal to wear clerical vestments (Jane Dawson, John Knox (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2016), 101).
Earlier in 1550, Hooper refused to be consecrated as bishop, partly on the grounds of what he perceived to be unreformed vestments (‘those Aaronic habits’). (John Hooper to Heinrich Bullinger, June 29, 1550. See Hastings Robinson, Original Letters Relative to the English Reformation, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1846-1847), 1:87) In reply, both Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr Vermigli refuted his position on the basis that vestments were adiaphorus [indifferent]. Vermigli made the slightly backhanded remark that ‘indifferent things cannot corrupt those that are of a pure mind and sincere conscience in their doings.’ (Correspondence between Bucer, Martyr and Hooper in George Cornelius Gorham, Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Period of the Reformation in England (London: Bell and Daldy, 1857). Bucer and Martyr’s replies to Hooper were also used by Archbishop Parker [who sought to universally enforce such clerical dress] in response to the Vestarian Controversy under Queen Elizabeth I. Quotes are in Matthew Parker, A Brief Examination for the Tyme…, (London: Richard Jugge, 1566), RSTC 10387, sig. C.2r.)
Hooper–helped by a spell in prison–begrudingly took the advice on board and was consecrated Bishop of Gloucester later that year. Thus, when Knox and his colleagues left the English congregation at Frankfurt for Calvin’s Geneva, they found the clerical attire more congenial to their approach. However, when the Genevan exiles returned home after the death of Queen Mary, they had mixed success in implementing their desired clerical attire. Knox returned to Scotland where the Genevan gown became the norm, whereas Christopher Goodman and others returned to England were vestments were retained (indeed, to the 1549 standards). The controversy over vestments was reignited and contributed to the production of the Middelburg Liturgy (1586) by the English Puritans.”
.
.
Latin Article
1600’s
Voet, Gisbert – Ecclesiastical Politics (Amsterdam, 1663-1676), vol. 1, pt 1, bk. 2, ‘Of Ecclesiastical Things, or Acts & Exercises’, Tract 1, ‘Of Formularies, or Liturgies & Rituals’, ch. 6, ‘On the Controversy about Some Ceremonies of the Anglican Church’, pp. 413-422
Voet first lists and describes the categories of those who oppose the Anglican ceremonies: (1) the conformists, (2) the puritans, and (3) the complete separatists (the Brownists and Barrowists). p. 414, bot, Voet describes the puritans, both conforming and non-conforming.
p. 415, mid, Voet lists as the disputed ceremonies: the cross and creed [catechismus] in baptism, confirmation, woman baptism, a white outer-garment [the surplice], reception to the communion of the Church and the Supper without a foregoing examination, a ring in the confirmation of matrimony, the succession[?, serie] of saints, bowing the knee or tipping the head at the name of Jesus, the reading of the apocryphal books [in the Church], a harmony of music, whether vocal or instrumental, without being accommodated for edification, the lengthy recitation of the liturgy and divine office, the terms ‘priest’ and ‘absolution’ and others occuring in the service-book, and kneeling at the Supper.
He also lists the ordinal of reading Scripture, involving the excluding from the public, ecclesiastical reading genuine books of Scripture, the reading of a translation which is not consistent, and the bad explanations and applications of Scripture texts in the service-book.
pp. 415-6, “Out of the ceremonies strictly so called, three are principal… genuflexion [bowing of the knees], that is, in the Supper, the cross in baptism and the white outer-garment [surplice] in the divine services.” Voet then gives a history of the literature of the dispute.
In Section 2, Voet gives 10 reasons which are commonly opposed to these ceremonies, pp. 416-8. On p. 418, Voet mentions the orthodox conforming clergyman and pious students who disputed with the puritans, over the point of conformity to inconvenient ceremonies on point of deprivation of the ministry, a leading author of which was John Sprint.
Section 3 gives a historical survey of how these old Anglican ceremonies and Papal relics were introduced (especially in Scotland by the Articles of Perth, 1618) and opposed by public authority.
Section 4, pp. 419-22, “I add now this small testimony” on how “the so-called indifferent ceremonies” entered England by law under Edward VI, and the context surrounding that. A’Lasco is block quoted near the end.
.
.
.
Related Pages
Vestments, Black Genevan Gowns, Collars & Dress for Public Worship