The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1871-11-08
ECCLESIASTICAL MILLINERY.


no disposition to make war on this as vest
ment for a minister. The Geneva gown
was universal in Calvin time, and is to this
day among Pressyterians all over the CONT
nent of Europe. The same, we believe, is
true as to Scotland and England. Not few
use it in this country Personally we do not
admire it and would not be bound to use it
habitually. But if ministering occasionally
to a congregation where the omission would
be to the discomfort of the people, we should
act as Paul would have done. His example
and advice make duty plain in such case,
where no principle is compromised, We
should be sorry to think that the line Of
separation between PresSyterlens and Epis-
eopalians was no broader al deeper than
such question as this.
But to return to the Convention. In the
report of the FIVE Bishops appointedin 1868,
and published in the Central Presbyterian Of
October 25th, they recommended "canoni-
cal provision touching the dress appropriate
to elergymen, and among variety OF things
composing his wardrobe was, {" a black cas-
sock, not reaching below the ankles What
any Bishop, Priest, or Deacon would ever
want with one longer than that we do not
stop to inquire. Most people would think
one stopping, Bloomer-Bise, about the knees
would answer all practical purposes more
conveniently. What can be the matter with
our Episcopal brethren that a legislative
prohibition is grayely proposed prohibiting
them to "enlarge the borders of their gar
ments" Jas did the Pharisees) lower down
than the ankles DO they wish to 90 so0eep-
ing through the church with an appendage
that viii lead an admiring crowd to exclaim,
as the traveller did in describing the chame-
leon and aghat a length of tail behiRd! p"
But, as good old John Owen would say,
" this is none of our cOncernment." We
leave the exciting question whether it shall
be lawful for the parsons gown to 50 below
his ankles to those who are compelled to
wear them, and 90 on to tell a little more
about how this grave and venerable body
was exercised in its legislation about the
matter, as it came up in another shape. 1t
was this: The Rev. Dr. Craik, of Kentucky,
President of the House of Deputies, having
introduced the subject, the committee On Can
Ons brought in one for establishing clay
Reader" to conduct worship in the absence of
the Rector very good thing in itsway. And
it may be said here that in the course of his
remarks and those Of others, some sugges-
tions and facts were elected which Prebyte-
rians would DO well to act upon more extern
sively than they have ever done. But among
the questions on this subject debated in the
Convention the most exciting one was on
that par. of the report which provides that
this lay reader, "sbaI not assume the dress
appropriate to elergymen ministering in the
congregation DR.. Craik moved to amend
thus: He may use a distinctive dress other
than that of the clergy, when ministering in
a vacant congregation or mission, or when
assisting rector or other minister in any
public worship in the Church"
mr. Nudge of Massachusetts, wished to be
informed what the "dress appropriate to a
clergyman uinistering in congregation is.
Or. Craik considerably said he did not
"ike to 60 into tailoring, and thought these
matters had better be left to each neighbor-
hood and to the tastes and economies of each
congregation Il think we may as well
leave it at large. There can be no harm in
it. Some may wear a cassOck, some one
thing, some another, anything that will be
distinctive. A ribbon would be distinctive
for that matter" The idea here is so much
IN keeping with the plattudinous action Of
the Convention on Ritualism, that one is al
most tempted to inquire whether DR.. Craik
did not purposely shape it so as to have the
correspondence between the two complete;
"sOme one thing, some another"
Rec. DR.. HaRekls, of Virginia, questioned
"the wisdom of these provisions" at does
seem to me that we are about to introduce
fourth order Of the ministry, or at least We
shall be understood to DO so by our people.
Our people are not very discriminating in
these matters, and if you have public ser
vice for setting apart this order of men, it !
will not be distinguished in their minds from
ordination. But you have acted upon that.
The wearing of distinctive dress will 90 to
confirm that impression; and where will
stand the ruling of our Church, that those
who read Holy Scripture and ancient au-
thOrs' find three orders of the ministry? l
vOueh for it, that in a few years nine-tenths
Of our people viii believe in four orders of
the ministry" But DR.. Watson of North |
Carolina, and Dr. jackson of Connecticut,
thought it would not have such an effect.
Other members delivered their opinions sage
ly, but the one who struck the nail exactly
on the head was Rev. DR.. Morsell of Della
ware, and we give his speech entire for the
edifcation Of our readers:
" Re-. Dr. UorseH of Delaware. Before the
vote IS taken, should ike to inquire something |
about the nature Of this dress. In the report OF |
the Bishop IN regard TO the dress that should be /
worn Dy ministers, / believe thew said the surpce |
was 20 come down to the feet What kind of /
dress Is this to be? How far is it to come down? |
Down 70 the ankles What Is to be the color of |
it,-blaek, blue, or green? Possibly these gentle
men might have the right to wear the chasuble or |