The Surplice.

J.-That, of course, follows.

C. Very well, then. As it is natural to us to desire that those who discharge a solemn public duty should be solemnly attired, and as God has revealed to us that the satisfying that desire is in accordance with His Holy Will, we conclude that the wearing such dress is in perfect obedience to the spirit and precepts of the Gospel.

Once more- -When points such as this about the surplice are disputed, and there is no direct mention of them, or direction concerning them, in the New Testament, we must form our judgment upon them by the general spirit of the New Testament, and of the whole Bible. So, when we find the principle of reverence for public worship laid down in the New Testament, but no distinct directions given concerning separate matters of detail, we are to judge thus :-There is no distinct rule laid down in the New Testament about wearing a surplice, but the whole spirit of the New Testament calls for reverence in public worship. Now reverence is impossible without decency and order. A special mode of dress is demanded by our natural feelings, in order to satisfy our ideas of decency and order; such dress is actually, and very prominently too, commanded by God in the Old Testament. The Old Testament is not contrary to the New. Therefore I conclude, that as the priests in the Jewish Church wore their 'holy garments' in the Tabernacle and the Temple, so those who conduct the service in the Christian Church should likewise wear a special dress.

J.-Well, then, should not they wear the same as the Jewish priests did, if they wear them for the same reason?

C-No; the significancy of the Jewish garments is now done away by the fulfilment of the types in Christ Jesus.

J.-Pray what do you mean by the significancy of the garments?' C.-That every portion of them had some meaning; was a type of some thing; or reminded the priest as he put it on, or the people when they looked at it, of some spiritual gift or grace. Thus the white linen ephod was figurative of purity or righteousness, and is so referred to in Ps. cxxxii. 9,- Let Thy priests be clothed with righteousness.' And some writers and commentators have tried to attach the proper meanings to all the parts of the 'holy garments' mentioned in Exod. xxviii. and other passages.

J.-And is there any such meaning in the dress of a clergyman in church now?

C. That is what your starting question amounts to,—'Why do I wear a surplice?' Every part of the dress worn by a clergyman when officiating has a meaning in it.

J.-I should be glad, sir, if you would explain them to me. First of all, there is the surplice.

C.-That, like Aaron's linen ephod, is to represent the purity and holiness of mind with which we ought to draw near to God. Fine linen, clean and white,' is said, in Rev. xix. 8, to be the clothing of the Bride of the Lamb: For the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.' And ancient Christian writers tell us that such was worn in very early times by the pastors of the Church, when ministering in the congregation.

J-And then, over the surplice you wear a strip of black silk?
C. That is called a stole. This is the distinguishing mark

The Surplice.

between a clergyman in priest's orders and all others who wear a surplice. In cathedrals, and some parish churches as well, the choristers wear surplices, as taking a part in conducting the service; but the stole is worn only by the clergy. Deacons wear it over one shoulder only, as not being yet under the full vows of ordination.

J.-And has this also a meaning?

C.-Yes, which its shape carries out; for in shape it is like the yoke spoken of so often in Holy Scripture (as in Jer. xxvii. and xxviii.). Consequently its meaning is, that he who wears it has taken upon him the service or ministry of Christ; for it was worn by slaves, as we read in 1 Tim. vi. 1. St. Paul implies the same idea, that those who have devoted themselves to the work of the ministry are under Christ's yoke, when he addresses one of his fellow-labourers at Philippi as true yokefellow' (Philip. iv. 3).

J.-And then you wear a hood, I think you call it.

C. The hood and gown are not, properly speaking, part of a clergyman's dress at all. They simply show that he has been to one of the Universities and has reached a certain standing there, called a 'degree.' Any person who has done that, whether a clergyman or not, may wear these; and a clergyman wears his hood in church, not because it is part of his dress as a priest, but because the universities are institutions closely connected with the Church. You notice that these hoods are different in colour, material, and shape; this is because the different Theological Colleges, and each of the old Universities, has its own, just as each regiment in the army has its own facings. And the same applies to the gown.

J.-There is one question about the gown which I should like to have answered, and that is, Why do you not put on a black gown when you preach?

C. Because I preach in the right of my being a parish clergyman, and not in that of a graduate of the Universities.

J.--Please to explain this more fully, sir.

Many,

C. In former times, shortly after the Reformation, it was not permitted to every clergyman to preach. Owing to the many changes which had taken place there were very few clergymen, compared with the number of churches, who were scholars enough to do so. very many, of them had not had a college education. Accordingly there were some sermons called' Homilies' printed, which such clergymen read to their congregations. But to supply the need of regular preaching, certain clergymen were specially appointed by the bishops to go about as preachers, and preachers only. These preachers were always men of learning, who had taken a degree at college. So as they preached, not as parish clergymen but as Masters of Arts and Doctors of Divinity, they wore the dress which marked them as Masters of Arts or Doctors of Divinity; that is, the gown and hood. Thus a preacher in a gown was marked out as a man of learning, and a preacher in a surplice as somewhat inferior. This led most clergymen, and in particular those who had a degree from college, to preach in their gowns ; and as time passed on there were comparatively few clergymen who had not such a degree: thus the gown became quite common, and, its use being established, the reason why it was first adopted in the pulpit was lost sight of. Now-a-days, however, people look more closely into matters

The Surplice.

of this sort; and as I do not preach here on Sundays because I am a graduate of a university, but because I am minister of the parish, I preach in the surplice.

J.-Well, I never understood all this before. There seems to be a reason for doing everything that is done in church. And yet I have heard people talk about preaching in the surplice as if it were formal!

C.-Think now one minute. Suppose I were to go back to the gown. Then, if I obey the rubrics in the Communion Office, the whole service must be at a standstill while I change both before and after the sermon; and, again, in the Evening Service I must either leave the church while the hymn is being sung, and go into the vestry to change, in which case I am deprived of the privilege of singing the praises of God in His Church; or else I must go there after the hymn is ended and keep the congregation waiting while I am changing. Instead of this, I have now nothing to do but just to move from one part of the church to another more convenient for addressing the people from. No! the formality is, I think, in the gown system, which causes the clergyman to go in and out, merely to put off one dress and put on another. And surely there can be no distinction between a sermon preached in a gown and in a surplice! And now, as we are on these matters, do not let us stop until you have asked whatever you wish to know.

J.-Well, sir, there is one thing I often hear Dissenters saying about the surplice-that it is Popish.'

C.-John, do you believe the Apostles' Creed, and the two others in the Prayer-book?

J. Certainly I do, sir.

C-Do you say the Lord's Prayer? Of course you do. Well now, the Romanists use the Lord's Prayer, and also believe in the three Creeds that we believe; now, is it Popery to believe what they believe, because they believe it, and to use the same Lord's Prayer that they use, because they use it?

C.-No more, then, you will see, is it Popish to wear a white linen garment because the Romanists use one. Centuries before the Romish Church fell into the errors in which she now lies, white garments were worn by the clergy in all parts of the world. Are we, then, to give up that which makes for the decency and order of Divine worship, because others who are in error use the same? If it comes to this, that all is Popish that we have in common with the Romish Church, why we must give up the Lord's Prayer, the Creeds, the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, the Festivals of Christmas, Easter, and the others which remind us of our Blessed Saviour, for the Romish Church has all these, as well as ourselves.

J. But still, did we not get the surplice through the Romish Church?

C. In the same sense as that in which we got the Creeds, the Lord's Prayer, the Sacraments, and the Christian seasons, through the Romish Church.

J.-Thank you, sir. I see it now. If a thing is good and useful in itself, why, surely it does not matter to me who uses it as well as

The Contented Blind Boy.

myself; just as it does not make me bad to do a thing because a bad person does it too. So it is, I see, with the surplice. And now I return you my thanks for taking all this trouble with me.

C.-Nay, John, I ought to thank you for giving me the opportunity of helping one of my flock; and no time is ill spent which is used in clearing away any difficulty in religious matters, for every difficulty cleared away is a fresh tie to the Church, or a fresh step towards joining her. And I will add, that if all these comparatively trifling matters were more understood, there would be far less cavilling and far more unity, peace, and concord.

Grasmere, Rydal.

RASMERE, with its one green island and its girdle of mountains, is one of the most beautiful of all the wondrously beautiful spots in our English lake-district. It is in Westmoreland, about three miles from Ambleside, and is oval in form, being rather more than a mile long and about half a mile broad. Through it flows the river Rothay, winding

its way to Rydal and thence into Windermere. At the head of the lake is the village of the same name, with its ancient stone church dedicated to St. Oswald. In the quiet churchyard are the graves of the poet Wordsworth and of several of his family, together with that of his young friend, Hartley Coleridge. Within the church, near the seat from which for many years he was never absent on Sundays, is the poet's monument, with an inscription by the author of the Christian Year. Between Grasmere and Rydal is a low-roofed cottage that was once Wordsworth's abode, and further on is Rydal Mount, so noted as the home where he spent the later years of his life. Here in 1850 he passed to his rest, having been (to quote the words of Keble) a true philosopher and poet, raised up in perilous times to be a chief minister, not only of noblest poesy but of high and sacred truth.'

In Grasmere parish is retained the old English custom of rushbearing, which takes place in the month of July, when

'Forth by rustic music led,

The village children, while the sky is red

With evening lights, advance in long array

Through the still churchyard, each with garland gay,

That, carried sceptre-like, o'ertops the head

Of the proud bearer. To the wide church-door,

Charged with these offerings-which their fathers bcre
For decoration in the Papal time-

The innocent procession softly moves.'

WORDSWORTH's Sonnet on Rural Ceremony.