The strange case of Dr. Dodgson Sykes and the Black Gown
In the mid to late sixties of the previous century I began my flirtation with the Church of England. I was directed to St. John’s on the Wall as a good, “sound", evangelical parish.
St. John’s is one of the few remaining medieval Churches in Bristol, (many were bombed in World War II), and indeed it sits on what remains of the old city wall, right over one of just two remaining city gates.
The Vicar of St. John’s was one Dr. Dodgson Sykes, an aged and godly man. The principle service on the Lord’s Day was Morning Prayer. At the end of the Prayer Book liturgy, Dr. Sykes would remove himself from the Chancel, and go into the Vestry Room.
There he would remove his surplice, and re-emerge wearing a black “Geneva” preaching gown. Then he would preach.
I had encountered one of the few remaining so-called Black Gown Churches in the Church of England. I had no idea that what I saw was not normative.
St. John’s is now closed (declared redundant as the Church Commissioners put it). Another remaining Black Gown Church at that time was Holy Trinity in Buxton, Derbyshire, though I cannot ascertain from its rather skimpy website whether this is still the case.
In 1662, following the restoration of the English Monarchy, there was passed the “Act of Uniformity”. Part of that “uniformity” was to be to the Book of Common Prayer.
Many ministers (some sources say 2,000, others say 3,000) would not and could not conform to the Prayer Book. (Hence the older English usage of “nonconformist” to refer to English Baptists, Congregationalists, Unitarians and Presbyterians) They were ejected from their livings, and faced other quite punitive Acts of Parliament.
They were, loosely speaking, Puritans, who had had their hay day in the Church of England in that Commonwealth Period under Oliver Cromwell and others. The word “Puritan” is of course a perfectly good one. It is a nick-name applied to those who wished to “purify” the Church. Some of those Puritans found the situation in England so intolerable that they found their way to Massachusetts, there to set up a godly Commonwealth with a purified Church.
But some Puritans remained in the Church of England. They had a serious objection to the wearing of a surplice. So they would do so, under sufferance, so to speak, for the Prayer Book Liturgy.
But Morning Prayer (being a Daily Office) had no provision for a sermon. The Black Gown ministers, having satisfied the Prayer Book rubrics during the Office, removed their Surplices after that Office, and donned their Geneva Robes for the sermon (which was, strictly speaking a non-rubrical “added extra”).
On another day when I am at loose ends I will write about the “Vestments Controversy”, the “Ornaments Rubric” and the so-called “Black Rubric”. That’ll help explain the Puritan objection to the Surplice.
But what I had thought to be normative English Evangelicalism at St. John’s, was even by the 1960’s regarded as a quaint anachronism. In that period “mainstream” Evangelicals in the Church of England would happily don their surplices, but never a stole.
(The constitution of the Evangelical Seminary, St. John’s in Nottingham, where I studied from 1972-1976 forbade the wearing of stoles in Chapel services.)
This ban, and the Puritan objection to the surplice was rooted in the thought that “you are what you wear”.
The wearing of surplices (for Puritans), and other Eucharist Vestments (including stoles) for C of E Evangelicals bore the mark of the Mass, and Priesthood.
Roman Catholics had Priests who believed that the Eucharist was a Sacrifice and an Offering, which they made at every Mass.
Evangelicals saw themselves as Ministers (not Priests) and believed that the Lord’s Supper was simply and solely a commemoration. The “one sacrifice, once offered, was full, perfect and sufficient“, and had been made by Christ on the Cross. They could not dress in any way which suggested a sacrificing Priesthood.
Puritans, within and without the Church of England, wore those "Geneva" (or academic) gowns, to illustrate their calling to be "learned ministers" - exponents of the Word of God.
These days it tickles my funny bone, and gives me a delicious taste of irony when I see all those "purifying" American Evangelicals who rush off to Africa to be ordained as Bishop, and then cannot wait to get all decked out in copes, mitres, Episcopal rings, pectoral crosses and the like.
My naughty side sees them as "fundamentalists in fancy dress" (and I intend the word "fundamentalist' to be descriptive and not pejorative) , rather than heirs of the Reformed tradition.
These modern would be purifiers seem to have no knowledge of the historical objections to their vestments! Dr. Dodgson Sykes must be turning in his grave.
(Dr. James Packer, formerly of Regent College, Vancouver, Canada is arguably a Puritan in the Anglican Tradition. The Diocese of Sydney, Australia is also at some levels a Puritan or Reformed Diocese. I often think that its leader, Archbishop Peter Jensen, would prefer to be called the Presiding Presbyter in the Classis of Sydney).
St. John’s is one of the few remaining medieval Churches in Bristol, (many were bombed in World War II), and indeed it sits on what remains of the old city wall, right over one of just two remaining city gates.
The Vicar of St. John’s was one Dr. Dodgson Sykes, an aged and godly man. The principle service on the Lord’s Day was Morning Prayer. At the end of the Prayer Book liturgy, Dr. Sykes would remove himself from the Chancel, and go into the Vestry Room.
There he would remove his surplice, and re-emerge wearing a black “Geneva” preaching gown. Then he would preach.
I had encountered one of the few remaining so-called Black Gown Churches in the Church of England. I had no idea that what I saw was not normative.
St. John’s is now closed (declared redundant as the Church Commissioners put it). Another remaining Black Gown Church at that time was Holy Trinity in Buxton, Derbyshire, though I cannot ascertain from its rather skimpy website whether this is still the case.
In 1662, following the restoration of the English Monarchy, there was passed the “Act of Uniformity”. Part of that “uniformity” was to be to the Book of Common Prayer.
Many ministers (some sources say 2,000, others say 3,000) would not and could not conform to the Prayer Book. (Hence the older English usage of “nonconformist” to refer to English Baptists, Congregationalists, Unitarians and Presbyterians) They were ejected from their livings, and faced other quite punitive Acts of Parliament.
They were, loosely speaking, Puritans, who had had their hay day in the Church of England in that Commonwealth Period under Oliver Cromwell and others. The word “Puritan” is of course a perfectly good one. It is a nick-name applied to those who wished to “purify” the Church. Some of those Puritans found the situation in England so intolerable that they found their way to Massachusetts, there to set up a godly Commonwealth with a purified Church.
But some Puritans remained in the Church of England. They had a serious objection to the wearing of a surplice. So they would do so, under sufferance, so to speak, for the Prayer Book Liturgy.
But Morning Prayer (being a Daily Office) had no provision for a sermon. The Black Gown ministers, having satisfied the Prayer Book rubrics during the Office, removed their Surplices after that Office, and donned their Geneva Robes for the sermon (which was, strictly speaking a non-rubrical “added extra”).
On another day when I am at loose ends I will write about the “Vestments Controversy”, the “Ornaments Rubric” and the so-called “Black Rubric”. That’ll help explain the Puritan objection to the Surplice.
But what I had thought to be normative English Evangelicalism at St. John’s, was even by the 1960’s regarded as a quaint anachronism. In that period “mainstream” Evangelicals in the Church of England would happily don their surplices, but never a stole.
(The constitution of the Evangelical Seminary, St. John’s in Nottingham, where I studied from 1972-1976 forbade the wearing of stoles in Chapel services.)
This ban, and the Puritan objection to the surplice was rooted in the thought that “you are what you wear”.
The wearing of surplices (for Puritans), and other Eucharist Vestments (including stoles) for C of E Evangelicals bore the mark of the Mass, and Priesthood.
Roman Catholics had Priests who believed that the Eucharist was a Sacrifice and an Offering, which they made at every Mass.
Evangelicals saw themselves as Ministers (not Priests) and believed that the Lord’s Supper was simply and solely a commemoration. The “one sacrifice, once offered, was full, perfect and sufficient“, and had been made by Christ on the Cross. They could not dress in any way which suggested a sacrificing Priesthood.
Puritans, within and without the Church of England, wore those "Geneva" (or academic) gowns, to illustrate their calling to be "learned ministers" - exponents of the Word of God.
These days it tickles my funny bone, and gives me a delicious taste of irony when I see all those "purifying" American Evangelicals who rush off to Africa to be ordained as Bishop, and then cannot wait to get all decked out in copes, mitres, Episcopal rings, pectoral crosses and the like.
My naughty side sees them as "fundamentalists in fancy dress" (and I intend the word "fundamentalist' to be descriptive and not pejorative) , rather than heirs of the Reformed tradition.
These modern would be purifiers seem to have no knowledge of the historical objections to their vestments! Dr. Dodgson Sykes must be turning in his grave.
(Dr. James Packer, formerly of Regent College, Vancouver, Canada is arguably a Puritan in the Anglican Tradition. The Diocese of Sydney, Australia is also at some levels a Puritan or Reformed Diocese. I often think that its leader, Archbishop Peter Jensen, would prefer to be called the Presiding Presbyter in the Classis of Sydney).
I love your church memoir and believe it deserves a wider audience! Actually, I believe it is getting it and you will soon be writing a regular column.
ReplyDeleteLove,
PCA