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.
Next week, you can publish "Death Of the Anglican Church." I think they may last that long.
ReplyDeleteMaybe.......LOL
Seriously, I do like this and am impressed with your breath of knowledge.
ReplyDeletePlease 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.
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.
ReplyDeleteI 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."
DeleteThe 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.
ReplyDeleteThank 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.
DeletePeter, 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.
ReplyDeleteI think a merger with American Atheists is more likely. Anon in NY
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