My Old High Church instincts are that the priest administering the Holy Communion should be vested - as per the 1604 Canons - in a "decent and comely Surplice" (Old English, of course) and, if ministering in a cathedral, a "decent Cope". Such uniformity and conformity in administering the decent rites and ceremonies of the Church embodies the native piety of Anglicanism.I know: it is not to be. Uniformity and conformity in rites and ceremonies has been lost. And many more Anglicans now experience the priest at Holy Communion wearing a chasuble than a surplice.While the wearing of the chasuble was a product of the late 19th century Ritualist movement, the wider acceptance of that vestment and its approval by ecclesiastical authority did not occur on the basis of Anglo-papalist eucharistic theology.The 1906 Report of the Royal Commission on Ecclesiastical Discipline provides a fascinating insight into this process.The Report notes that the wearing of the chasuble as a distinctly liturgical vestment dates to the 7th century, thus predating later innovation in eucharistic practice and theology:That association with "an Eucharistic sacrifice", however, is not judged to contradict Anglican norms as there is a long and noble history of Anglican divines affirming the Eucharist, in patristic terms, to have a sacrifical character:The report goes on to quote Bishop Bull describing the Eucharist:y.It is not noted by the Report, but it is likely that Bull took this language from Taylor:III.XV.7.This was also the understanding to be found in Saepius Officio The Report thus rightly states that such an understanding of eucharistic sacrifice is compatible with Anglican Formularies:This then means that the wearing of the chasuble can be legitimate because it represents a doctrine of eucharistic sacrifice quite different to Tridentine teaching:So the chasuble both pre-dates the innovations in eucharistic practice and teaching rejected at the Reformation, and represents an understanding of eucharistic sacrifice long present in the Anglican tradition and compatible with the Formularies.The Report then turns in a Hooker-like fashion to two other aspects of the use of the chasuble. The first is that it had become a settled part of Church's life:That the chasuble had become settled custom is in itself an argument for acceptance of its use, not least when this use is not inherently connected to doctrines contradicting the Formularies. The Report continues:Where clergy abide by the teaching of the Formularies, laity will have no reason to connect the chasuble with Roman teaching. Added to which is the fact that Lutherans also use the chasuble: it is not an "exclusively Roman" vestment.I describe these two aspects as Hooker-like as they reflect two characteristics present in Hooker's defence of the Elizabethan Settlement. When defending the use of the surplice, he points to the "reasonable continewance" (LEP V.29.5) of use of vestments in the Church's worship. Vestments, he says, are not matters of doctrine but are for "comlines sake" (V.29.1), "dignitie" (V.29.3), and "decencie" (V.29.7). What Hooker urges in defence of the custom of the surplice could thus also apply to the custom of wearing a chasuble:- V.29.4.Against the Puritan focus on Geneva, Hooker also urges wider consideration of the churches of the Reformation. In his discussion of confession and absolution, therefore, he invokes the example of "the Churches of Germany, as well as the rest of the Lutherans" (VI.4.14).Something of Hooker's respect for custom and for wider Protestant practice elsewhere in Europe can be detected in the Report, important reminders that Anglican use of the chasuble is not dependent on an incoherent Anglo-papalist acceptance of Tridentine doctrine but, rather, can cohere with classical Anglican teaching and piety.Taken together, the Report provides an attractive and convincing Anglican account of the wearing of the chasuble - as representing a patristic understanding of eucharistic sacrifice evident in classical Anglican divines; as pre-dating medieval Latin errors and not expressing Tridentine teaching; a practice which had become a settled custom in Anglicanism; and which was shared by Lutherans, inheritors with us of the Reformation.Here, then, is an Old High Churchfor the use of the chasuble ... even if, for some of us, the "decent and comely Surplice" might be preferable.