Why do priests in the Church of England wear robes?

Mouse was asked an excellent question on the platform formerly known as twitter the other day. The jist of it was why priests wear robes. There were a few instant reactions, but Mouse felt the need to dig a little deeper. Here's what Mouse found.

The wearing of robes (vesture) in the Church of England is, like many things, governed by Church Law. In this case, Canons B8 and D27.

Canon B8 starts with:

The Church of England does not attach any particular doctrinal significance to the diversities of vesture permitted by this Canon, and the vesture worn by the minister in accordance with the provision of this Canon is not to be understood as implying any doctrines other than those now contained in the formularies of the Church of England.

This is both an important theological statement and what poker players call a ‘tell’.

The theological statement is clear enough - as far as the church is concerned, there is no inherent theological significance to any particular form of clothing for priests. The tell is that this needs to be said at all and that it was felt necessary to stress that the canon should not be misinterpret to imply a theological point.

What follows in the rest of the Canon are two things which sit rather strangely together. The canon contains a set of very specific rules about what priests should wear, alongside the caveat that provided the Parochial Church Council has been consulted, those rules can be completely disregarded and the priest may wear almost whatever they want. For example,

At the Holy Communion the presiding minister shall wear either a surplice or alb with scarf or stole unless the minister has ascertained by consultation with the parochial church council that adopting some other form of dress will be acceptable and will benefit the mission of the Church in the parish. When a stole is worn other customary vestments may be added. The epistoler and gospeller (if any) may wear suprlice or alb to which other customary vestments may be added.

In this example, the canon specifies the form of vestments that should be worn for the presiding minister at a service of Holy Communion, but also says that provided the PCC agree and it is good for the mission of the church, ‘some other form of dress’ is acceptable.

The rules in Canon B8 sits alongside C27, which simply says.

The apparel of a bishop, priest, or deacon shall be suitable to his [Mouse: or her!] office; and, save for purposes of recreation and other justifiable reasons, shall be such as to be a sign and mark of his [Mouse: or her!] holy calling and ministry as well to others as to those committed to his [Mouse: or her!] spiritual charge.

This places some limits on what a priest may wear during their work as a priest. It is broader in application than B8, which specifies vesture during services, since this applies to all time working as a priest, so includes pastoral work and other duties. The only restriction is that the dress should be ‘a sign and mark of his [Mouse: still?] holy calling and ministry’ and that this must be recognisable to ‘others as to those committed to his [Mouse: again?!] spritiual charge’. In other words, non-church goers and people of other faiths should be able to recognise that the priest is a priest. Most take that to mean priests have to wear a dog-collar - the most universally recognised symbol of the priesthood.

If you think this legal formulation is a bit odd - to require something very specific then undercut it with a near cast-iron get-out clause - you would be right. And the reason is that the get-out clause element was a very late addition, introduced in 2017 as an amendment to the historic requirement for clergy to wear vestments. 

The motion to amend this canon was brought as a private members motion to General Synod with the justificaiton that it was widely ignored, particularly in evangelical parishes and ‘fresh expressions’, so the law needed to keep up with reality. And Synod agreed.

You may also note that this is an odd way to maintain church law. In this instance, as with others, we have waited until it is sufficiently widely ignored before updating. However, as our story continues, you will find this is not the first time the law on vesture has lagged practice.

Now that the legal position is clear, we can return to the question that started Mouse’s investigations. What is all this about?

The story of clergy vestments goes all the way back to the origins of the Church within a Roman civilisation. In the earliest days of the church, priests did not wear special clothing, but wore the same as everyone else. Which at the time was mostly a form of robes.

In the centuries that followed fashions developed among the population at large, but within the churches traditions began to form around the wearing of robes to mark out priests and bishops. This was done to reflect their special holy calling, particularly during the administration of the eucharist and during other important moments.

These traditions became largely settled by the 12th century. The topic was formalised for the first time at the fourth Lateran Council in 1215, called by Pope Innocent III. This was considered one of the most significant church councils due to the broad representation present as well as the significance of the decision made. It is also notorious for its instigation of regulations against Jewish and Muslim people and a renewed call to crusading.

When it comes to vesture, it was the first time a formal church-wide rule was adopted on clerical clothing:

[Priests] should have a suitable crown and tonsure, and let them diligently apply themselves to the divine services and other good pursuits. Their outer garments should be closed and neither too short nor too long. Let them not indulge in red or green cloths, long sleeves or shoes with embroidery or pointed toes, or in bridles, saddles, breast-plates and spurs that are gilded or have other superfluous ornamentation. Let them not wear cloaks with sleeves at divine services in a church, nor even elsewhere, if they are priests or parsons, unless a justifiable fear requires a change of dress. They are not to wear buckles or belts ornamented with gold or silver, or even rings except for those whose dignity it befits to have them. All bishops should wear outer garments of linen in public and in church, unless they have been monks, in which case they should wear the monastic habit; and let them not wear their cloaks loose in public but rather fastened together behind the neck or across the chest.

The requirements were not as specific as they were to become, but the overall intent was clear. Priests and bishops should dress simply in robes and wear suitable clothing at divine services.

By the time of the reformation clerical vestments had developed further with more elaborate robes for bishops, the near abandonment of the tonsure (shaving of the top of head) and traditional robing for ordinary services. The cope (a kind of decorated cape) was given to priests at their ordination and a range of symbolic meanings were attached to different elements of clerical garb.

This became an issue in England as the newly independent Church sought to find its path as both a reformed and a Catholic Church. The 1549 prayer book made specific requirements for the vesture of priests. For example

The priest that shall execute the holy ministry, shall put upon him the vesture appointed for that ministration, that is to say: a white albe plain, with a vestment or cope. And where there be many priests, or deacons, there so many shall be ready to help the priest, in the ministracion, as shall be requisite: and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their ministry, that is to say, albes with tunicles.

The idea here was principally that of uniformity rather than any particular theological significance to those specific garments. Similar rubrics were set out for vesture for other services and circumstances and for Bishops in their consecration and duties.

Reformers were not happy with the catholic style of vestments, however, arguing that they are unbiblical and unnecessary ornamentation. 

In 1548 John Hooper was nominated as bishop of Gloucester. By now Edward VI was on the throne and the reformation in England was in the hands of its most zealous advocates. Hooper had spent time in Zurich with the Calvinists leading the reformation there and became friends with Heinrich Bullinger and Martin Bucer in particular. Despite encouragement from leading reformers, including Cranmer, he refused to be consecrated as this required the wearing of a surplice and cope.

They all seemed to agree that the matter was not theologically significant, but church rules required the robes and Hooper refused to wear them on the basis that people may be misled into believing that the minister was a mediator who stood in their place at communion, which would imperil their souls. In the debate became a tussle over ecclesiastical authority. Hooper resisted, but under huge pressure (include being put under house arrest) and under encouragement from Bullinger, Cranmer, Calvin and others that the issue was simply not worth the trouble, Hooper relented and was consecrated in 1551 and later preached in the required robes before the king.

The following year the new 1552 prayer book was adopted which significantly simplified the rules.

And here is to be noted, that the minister at the time of the Communion and all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice only.

This removed the issue that Hooper fought over, but the issue remained controversial and reforms reversed by Mary before Elizabeth I found the middle way. Vesture was concluded to be in a simplified form from that which existed before the reformation. After some to and fro it landed in the 1662 prayer book which we know and love.

As Elizabeth I sought to do in many areas of church life, she found a middle way and the 1559 prayer book said,

The Morning and Evening Prayer shall be used in the accustomed Place of the Church, Chapel, or Chancel; except it shall be otherwise determined by the Ordinary of the Place. And the Chancels shalt remain as they have done in times past. 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 [1549].

This formulation leaves some room for interpretation, no doubt intentionally so. Within the Church of England, this came to a head in the late 19th century as the Anglo-Catholic revival began re-introducing Catholic style rituals and ornaments into the Church. This included more elaborate vestments, including highly decorated chasubles and copes, which had not been in use since the reformation. A series of court cases settled the matter, the final one in 1877 which appeared to settle the matter, essentially concluding that elaborate vestments are not permitted. 

In 1904 the Prime Minister Balfour established a Royal Commission on clergy discipline following controversy around 'ritualism' in the church. The report in 1906 raised the prospect of continued legal ambiguity and questioned the 1877 judgement. It also set out evidence that vesture rules were 'seldom followed', including the wearing of stoles, which was not permitted.

The 1604 Canons were almost untouched until the 1960s when they were replaced wholesale. When it came to the rules on vesture, there was some controversy. Proposals were put forward to regularise common practice and remove potential legal ambiguity.  When introducing the measure in the House of Lords, the Bishop of London argued that

whatever be the proper interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric in the Acts of Uniformity of 1558 and 1662, there is no doubt that the present practice of the vast majority of the clergy of the Church of England is at one point or another at variance with the Privy Council judgment. In particular, the wearing of a stole, which is not authorised by any interpretation of the Ornaments Rubric, is the practice in the great majority of parish churches—probably in something like 90 per cent.

Evangelicals felt that this would permit the reintroduction of vestments which had not been legal since before the reformation, so an organised campaign was mounted to resist the proposals, including an organised letter writing campaign to MPs. Nevertheless, the measure passed and practice 'on the ground' remained largely unchanged.

And this is where the Church of England largely remained until 2017.

The story tells us that there are some genuine issues involved. The consensus has always been that priests and bishops should wear clothing that makes them identifiable to those outside the church and clothing that marks out their calling while conducting divine services. However, these are symbolic and pastoral issues rather than theological issues per se. 

It is understandable that some may consider robes and vestments to be outdated and to be concerned that those outside the church may be put off by the appearance of a priest in a strange outfit. On the other hand, to dispose of these garments could give the impression that there is no such thing as a holy calling or a priestly ministry and that divine services are nothing more than public gatherings for mutual support and a bit of fun singing together. In order to reduce the appearance of strangeness, we give the impression of ordinariness, which may well be worse.

We have seen the phenomena recently of growth in Cathedral worship and a revival of liturgical practices not just within the Anglican Church but more widely. There seems to have been a realisation that practices that have served the Church for two thousand years catering worshipers on the gospels and on Christ may have some merit after all. Perhaps vesture will similarly be an area where modernising instincts will take us so far down the road before at least some travellers hit reverse.

Image generated using Microsoft Designer AI