The study of ecclesiastical history or antiquities can be pursued from either of two standpoints. We may take into account those essentially religious or theological elements which distinguish this subject from all other branches of antiquarian science, and keep them prominently before us during our investigations; or else, disregarding those elements more or less completely, we may consider the subject wholly from the point of view of the antiquary.

As a general rule, those investigators who lay stress on the ecclesiastical rather than on the antiquarian side of ecclesiology and its various subdivisions have been attracted to the study not so much by the intrinsic interest which, in some {2} degree, every branch of archæology possesses, as by the wish to settle controversial questions relating to Church doctrine, usage, or discipline. This is especially true of the important section of ecclesiology with which these pages are concerned. There are two schools into which the students of Church vestments may be divided—the ritualistic and the antiquarian. Each strives to attain full knowledge of the subject, and the means employed by both schools are the same—the evidence drawn from a patient comparison of the works of authors and artists of successive periods. But while those of the purely antiquarian school regard the knowledge thus gained as in itself the chief end of their researches, those of the other consider it rather as a stepping-stone, leading to proofs of the Divine appointment of the use of vestments, and indicating regulations to govern the usage of vestments in the modern Church.

It is not surprising that the results of the investigations of two schools, having aims so diverse in view, should be mutually incompatible. According to the views of some members of the ritualistic school, the vestments of the Christian Church were modelled directly upon the vestments of the Jewish priesthood; and as minute instructions for the shapes and usage of the latter were laid down in the divinely-revealed laws of Moses, they thus claim an at least indirect Divine appointment for {3} the Christian vestments. The antiquarian party, on the other hand, are unanimous in holding that the vestments of the Christian Church were evolved, by a natural process, from the ordinary costume of a Roman citizen of the first or second century of our era.

The consideration of these two theories must first occupy our attention. Neither is absolutely correct; for, although the balance of probability is enormously in favour of the second view, yet this theory, in the form in which it is often stated, does not cover certain changes which were made in the textures, outlines, and number of the vestments while the Church was yet comparatively young. These changes were all introduced to assimilate, as far as possible, the Jewish and Christian systems; and thus it may be said that both views contain an element of truth.

The theory of a Levitical origin is the older of the two; in fact, it was the first, and for many years the only, solution proposed. We shall therefore at the outset devote a page or two to considering its merits. Very few, even among the students of the ritualistic school, now hold it absolutely. The weight of argument which can be brought to bear against it is so great that it is almost universally abandoned as untenable.

For comparative purposes, it will be necessary at this stage to introduce a short descriptive {4} catalogue of the vestments of the Levitical priesthood, as prescribed in the Book of Exodus (chap. xxviii). Josephus (\'Antiquities,\' iii 7) is also a locus classicus on the subject, and some additional particulars from that source are here incorporated:

I. The Drawers or \'Breeches\' of Linen.

II. The Tunic of Linen (\'coat of fine linen,\' Exod. xxviii 39).—Josephus tells us that this tunic was of fine linen or flax doubled; that it reached to the feet, fitting close to the body, and was furnished with tight sleeves. It was girded to the breast, a little above the level of the elbows, by

III. The Girdle.—This was a strip of linen which, according to Josephus, was four fingers broad; according to Maimonides,[1] three fingers broad and thirty-two cubits long. It was wound many times round the body; the ends were then tied over the breast and hung down to the feet, except when the priest was engaged in sacrifice or other service, in which case he threw it over his left shoulder, so that it should not impede him in his duty. It was elaborately embroidered with flowers, worked in scarlet, purple, and blue threads.
ill-p005

Fig. 1.—Vestments of the Jewish Priesthood.

{5} IV. The Priest\'s Cap (\'bonnet,\' Exod. xxviii 40).—This was an ordinary turban, fastened round the head. The description given by Josephus is clear and detailed. He says: \'Upon his head he wears a cap, not brought to a conic form nor encircling the whole head, but still covering more than half of it, which is called mesnaemphthes; and its make is such that it seemeth to be a crown [garland], being made of thick swathes, but the contexture is of linen, and it is doubled round many times and sewed together; besides which, a piece of fine linen covers the cap from the whole upper part, and reaches down to the forehead and hides the seams of the swathes, which otherwise would appear improperly.\'[2]

{6} These four vestments constituted the complete equipment of the ordinary Jewish priest, as prescribed in the Mosaic law. The high-priest, however, added four more, which were as follows:

V. The Tunic of Blue (\'robe of the ephod,\' Exod. xxviii 31).—This was a long garment which, according to some authorities, reached to the feet, but according to others to the knees only. It was woven in one piece, with an aperture through which the head of the wearer was passed; this aperture was guarded by a binding or braid to prevent it from tearing. Round the lower hem of this garment were hung golden bells and models of pomegranates, alternating one with another. The meaning of this remarkable ornament is not clear, and several explanations have been advanced to account for it; all, however, fanciful, and not worth recording here.

VI. The Ephod, which was at once the most elaborate and the most important of the Jewish vestments, is more fully described than any of the rest. The superiority of this vestment over the others is due to the part which it, and the breastplate intimately connected with it, played in the mysterious revelations by which the children of Israel were guided during the period of the {7} Theocracy. For us, however, it would be as irrelevant as it would be futile to speculate on the nature of the revelation, or the instrumentality of the ephod in indicating the Divine will to the priest. We are here concerned only with the ephod as an element in the equipment of the high-priest, with its shape, and with such particulars of its ritual use as we can find directly stated in the different authorities.

\'The ephod,\' says Josephus, was \'woven to the depth of a cubit, of several colours [gold, blue, purple, and scarlet are enumerated in Exodus]; it was made with sleeves also; nor did it appear to be at all differently made from a short coat.\'[3] The vestment seems to have consisted of two pieces, a front and a back, which were buttoned together by two onyx stones, one on each shoulder, set in bezils or \'ouches,\' and engraved with the names of the twelve tribes, six on one, six on the other. Round the waist was passed a girdle, which was an essential part of the vestment—indeed, Josephus tells us that the girdle and the ephod were sewn together. This girdle, which was made of materials similar to those which constituted the ephod, seems to have been embroidered elaborately with coloured threads.

{8} The ritual uses of the ephod, even apart from its supernatural associations, are obscure. It is distinctly implied both in Exodus and by Josephus that the vestment was intended for the use of the high-priest alone; yet we find allusions scattered through the early historical books of the Old Testament which clearly indicate that it was worn by others as well. Thus, we read in 1 Sam. xxii 18 that Doeg, commanded by Saul to fall on the priests who had assisted David, \'slew ... fourscore and five persons that did wear a linen ephod.\' Again, Samuel, when a child in the service of the priests, \'ministered before the Lord ... girded with a linen ephod\' (1 Sam. ii 18). Further, we read that King David himself, when he escorted the ark from the house of Obed-Edom to Jerusalem, was \'girded with a linen ephod.\' In these three passages we read of an ephod being worn by the minor priest, the acolyte, and the layman, for none of whom it was originally intended. The most probable explanation seems to be that the ephod, originally intended as a vestment for the high-priest alone, was gradually assumed, probably in a less elaborate form, by the minor priests as well—when or how we cannot say. This explanation assumes that the regulation was originally laid down as it stands in Exodus; but it is possible that the more stringent restrictions may not be earlier than the recension of Ezra.

{9} We learn from the incidents of Gideon (Judg. viii 27) and of Micah (Judg. xvii 5; xviii 14 et seq.) that the ephod, or, rather, copies of it, early became objects of superstitious veneration. In the two latter passages quoted, as well as in Hos. v 4, the vestment is coupled with the teraphim or penates, to the worship of which the Israelites showed marked inclination at different periods of their history. It may be noticed in passing that Ephod, which signifies \'giver of oracles,\' is used as a personal name (Num. xxxiv 23).

VII. The Breastplate of the Ephod.—This was a rectangular piece of cloth of the same material as the ephod. That it might the better hold the precious stones with which it was set, it was doubled, its shape when so treated being that of a perfect square, with a side of about nine inches long. The stones were twelve in number, and fixed in settings of gold, being arranged in four rows of three each. On each stone was engraved the name of one of the twelve tribes.

This breastplate was secured by two plaited or twisted chains of gold, fastened at the one end to the bezils of the shoulder-pieces of the ephod, at the other to rings of gold in the upper corners of the breastplate, and by two blue cords secured to rings of gold in the lower corners of the breastplate and in the sides of the ephod above the {10} embroidered girdle. Josephus asserts that there was an aperture in the ephod immediately under the breastplate. For this statement there is no Scriptural authority; but it is possible that it is the record of a modification in the details of the vestment naturally evolved and established at some time subsequent to the institution of the vestment itself.

VIII. The Mitre.—This did not differ in essence from the head-dress of the priests except in one important respect—the addition of a gold plate, set on a lace of blue, and bearing the inscription, \'Holy to Jehovah.\' Josephus does not mention this plate, but describes the mitre as a kind of triple tiara, surmounted by a flower-shaped cup of gold, and covering the turban proper.[4] This, however, is quite at variance with the original laws on the subject.

In one respect these vestments are similar to those which it will be our duty to describe in the following pages. Although there is no injunction on the subject in the Law, the Talmud states clearly that \'he who wears the vestments of the priests outside the temple does a thing forbidden.\'

{11} It is admitted by almost all students that the vestments during the first six or eight centuries of the Christian era were of much greater simplicity than those of later times. The evidence of contemporary art is overwhelmingly opposed to any other view. This fact being admitted, we need not be surprised by finding that until the eighth or ninth century no attempt was made to trace any connection between the elaborate vestments which we have just described, and the vestments worn by those who ministered in the offices of Christian worship.

It is true that until the time we have mentioned Churchmen did not greatly trouble themselves with investigations into the history of the religion they professed or the ritual they performed. But it is also true that several authors before this date enumerate the Jewish vestments, and enter at length into the figurative meanings which they were alleged to bear; but not one of these refers to any supposed genealogical connection—if the expression be permissible—between the two systems. This would be inexplicable if the Christian vestments were actually derived from the Jewish; for not only would the resemblance between the two be obvious, but the tradition of the assumption by Christian clerics of the vestments originally instituted for the Jewish priesthood would still be fresh in the minds of the authors. Yet not only do these {12} writers not point out any resemblance between the two: they even make use of words and phrases which point to considerable differences between the outward appearance of Jewish and Christian vesture.

Apart from these considerations, may we not ask with reason how the early Christians, a poor and persecuted sect, could possibly assume and maintain an elaborate and expensive system of vestments such as the Jewish? And if the assumption had been made after the days of persecution were past, surely some record of the transaction would have been preserved till our own day? We possess a tolerably full series of the acts and transactions of ecclesiastical courts in all parts of the known world from the earliest times—how is it that all record of such an important proceeding has perished?

The first hint of the idea of the Mosaic origin of the Christian vestments is given by Rabanus Maurus, Archbishop of Mainz, in his treatise \'De Institutione Clericorum,\'[5] written about the year ............