Wednesday, April 13, 2016

Foundations of the Anglican Church CXXVIII

Saint Sidwell's, Exeter before it
was destroyed in WWII.
A reader recently asked me if I were going to continue my series on the Church of England. I had left off with the Oxford movement and, frankly, thought it was as good a place as any to finish up.  But the Church of England has continued beyond the Oxford Movement—some might say in spite of it—so maybe a few more entries are in order. 
There was a High Church movement in the Church of England long before the famous Assize Sermon preached by John Keble at the University Church of Saint Mary Oxford on July 14, 1833 triggered the Tractarian movement.  Originally the High Church movement was concerned not so much with questions of ritual as much as doctrinal orthodoxy and patristic sacramentology.  But the romanticism of the early 19th century led some of the High Church party into a desire to restore medieval—i.e. Catholic—practices into the Church of England.  This move did not fail to meet with opposition. 
In 1844, 11 years after the famous sermon that triggered the Oxford Movement, three years after the final tract appeared, and one year before John Henry Newman was received into the Catholic Church, Henry Phillpotts, bishop of Exeter, along with his Cathedral chapter issued an edict that the priests of his diocese were—in accordance with the rubric in the Prayer Book—to wear the surplice while officiating at the altar or preaching.  Even the most Puritan-influenced Prayer Book, Elizabeth’s 1559 Book, had required the surplice but it had, in practice, all but fallen out of fashion.  Priests typically worn the black preaching gown with tabs over the cassock rather than any sort of vestments.  One January Sunday in 1845 the Reverend Francis Courtenay, perpetual curate of Saint Sidwell’s Church in Exeter, mounted the pulpit in a surplice, per the bishop’s directions.   John Henry Newman describes the ensuing scene:
"The uproar commenced," says a contemporary account, "with a general coughing down; several persons then moved to the door making a great noise in their progress; a young woman went off in a fit of hysterics, uttering loud shrieks, whilst a mob outside besieged the doors of the building. A cry of 'fire' was raised, followed by an announcement that the church doors were closed, and a rush was made to burst them open. Some cried out, 'Turn him out,' 'Pull it off him.' In the galleries the uproar was at its height, whistling, cat-calls, hurrahing, and such cries as are heard in theatres, echoed throughout the edifice. The preacher still persisted to read his text, but was quite inaudible; and the row increased, some of the congregation waving their hats, standing on the seats, jumping over them, bawling, roaring, and gesticulating, like a mob at an election. The reverend gentleman, in the midst of the confusion, despatched a message to the mayor, requesting his assistance, when one of the congregation addressed the people, and also requested the preacher to remove the cause of the ill-feeling which had been excited. Then another addressed him in no measured terms, and insisted on his leaving the pulpit. At length the mayor, the superintendent of the police, several constables, also the chancellor and the archdeacon, arrived. The mayor enforced silence, and, after admonishing the people, requested the clergy-man to leave the pulpit for a few minutes, which he declined to do,—gave out his text, and proceeded with his discourse. The damage done to the interior of the church is said to be very considerable."  
Surplice riots took place not only in Exeter but in several places throughout England as High Church clergy tried to reintroduce the vestment, but it needs to be contextualized. 

The late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries were a time when the ancestors of today’s prim and placid Englishmen were rife for trouble.  Lord George Gordon had incited riots in 1780 when there was a move in Parliament to remove civil disabilities from Catholics.  As Catholicism was growing in England there was a strong reaction on the part of the Protestant working class who resented any social change that benefited those other than themselves.  The Industrial Revolution in England had created an enormous working class living in poverty and a small but rising bourgeoisie who were finding their way into parliament and power  There was political turmoil as well.  The young queen, Victoria, had incurred considerable unpopularity because of her dependence on Lord Melbourne even when Melbourne was out of power.  Two attempts (both unsuccessful, of course) were made on Victoria’s life between 1840 and 1842.  Riots would break out again when Pius IX restored a Catholic hierarchy to England in 1850.  All in all politics, religion, economics would provide tinder for any explosion.  Despite the fuss over surplices, Catholic practices such as vestments, altar ornaments, and incense, would find themselves at home in (many) Anglican churches very quickly.

8 comments:

  1. Next week, you can publish "Death Of the Anglican Church." I think they may last that long.

    Maybe.......LOL

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seriously, I do like this and am impressed with your breath of knowledge.

    Please do in-depth analysis of the decline of Anglicanism since the 1900's: the Lambeth Conference(s), relations with the Catholic Church pre- and post-VC2, growth of Anglicanism vs. Catholicism in the UK, relationship between Anglicanism globally (i.e., U.S. Episcopal Church and any other big affiliates), and the decline of the Anglican/Episcopal churches. Finally, the state of ecumenism and the CC (I think it's dead; how can it not be with their deviations the last 50 years ?).

    Anyway, that's my checklist.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you once again for this recent post. I agree with Anonymous 1 & 2 that a study of what has happened to Anglicanism in the 20th century would be telling. Certainly I would advance a view that things were relatively stable and looking solid until the Anglicans decided to embark on liturgical reform. In a funny the BCP was the glue that held Anglicanism and in particular the Anglican Communion together. Whilst acknowledgeing that liturgical refrom spurned on from the Vatican II was beneficial and assisted the growing (at the time) ecumenical engagement with both the ICET and later ELLC texts, there were unforeseen circumstances. Also, what is of interest in that "progressive" Anglicanism seems to have had its genesis in the Epsicopal Church of the USA.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you'v got this wrong. It wasn't the liturgical reforms that emptied Episcopal/Anglian Churches over the last 40 years. I think it was embracing the liberal social agenda: first Civil Rights, then the War in Viet Nam, and then abortion and finally the gender revolution that pushed a lot of people out the Church doors. I think the development of liturgical practice in the Episcopal and Anglican Churches has been somewhat organic every since the 1928 Prayer Book--the changes from 1928 to the contemporary Prayer Book are small compared to what we Catholics have been through and many Low Church and Broad Church Episcopal parishes have undergone very little change in their liturgy. I also don't think--and this may be a personal prejudice--that many of the changes in the Episcopal Church--the ordination of women, same-sex marriage, a pro-choice stance--have been theologically well articulated. I have taught Episcopalian seminarians in some of my courses and I have a fair number of Episcopal priests (both men and women) among my friends, but in conversations about these matters I find a lot of subjectivity and not enough serious consideration of traditional doctrine. I guess what I am saying is that it is tough to take seriously--on an intellectual level--a Church that considers Bishop John Shelby Spong to be a "theologian."

      Delete
  4. The strange thing is that there never was any sanction for wearing the black gown instead of the surplice, which was ordered both in the Book of Common Prayer and the Canons for the priest 'at the time of his ministration' and was to be provided at the cost of the parish. The black gown was part of the walking dress of the clergy, so I imagine that the clergy began to change into it to preach because they felt the sermon was not strictly part of the liturgy (a sermon or homily was ordered after the Nicene Creed in the Communion Office - when morning service consisted of Morning Prayer, the Litany and the Ante-Communion one after another, the sermon would therefore come almost at the end). You can sometimes see in engravings of church interiors of the late 18th and early 19th century what looks like the surplice or gown hanging over the rails of the pulpit. The gown was never worn to preach in cathedrals, as far as I can make out, though its use in parish churches was almost universal, if illegal. The hostility to preaching in the surplice is another sign of that unthinking religious conservatism, which prefers an abuse that is familiar to a reform which is not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you for this information that goes considerably beyond my post for detail. Of course the Eucharistic vestments both in the East and West also began as the normal walking garb, not simply of the clergy, but of the Roman of the period of late antiquity.

      Delete
  5. Peter, don't you find that any ecumenical outreach is pointless at this time since not only do you have doctrinal issues separating the Catholic Church/Anglicans, but also women priests/bishops and abortion/SSM.

    I think a merger with American Atheists is more likely. Anon in NY

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point of Ecumenical dialogue is not to win Protestants over to Catholic doctrine, practice, or formal membership--it is to explore together both those common areas of faith and the divergent doctrines and practices in order to help all understand one another and, if possible, come to common ground.

      Delete