USA > New York > The Diocese of Central New York; the founding fathers > Part 10
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16
88
CHAPTER IX
WORSHIP
Church historians generally agree that the services of the Church in the days when Davenport Phelps labored in Central New York were much like those of today. In support of this thesis the Prayer Book, as authorized in 1789, has been compared with subsequent revisions the first of which appeared in 1892. Thus dur- ing the period covered by this volume, the Prayer Book remained much the same. But because changes were made in 1892 and after, and since communicants of the 1950's are chiefly aware of current forms and ceremonies, it seems best to begin this chapter with a comparison of the first "standard" edition and that now in use.1
Before me is a copy of Henry I. Megary's, "Elegent Edition" of the Prayer Book, published in 1818 and bearing the episcopal endorsement of John Henry Hobart.2 Using this as a source and contrasting it with the present Book there are but few major differ- ences in the order and substance of Morning and Evening Prayer. The opening sentences vary, only four verses of the Benedictus appear, and no provision is made for the Magnificat, Nunc Dimit- tis, and Benedictus es. One will also note slight alterations in the Prayer for the President, the Declaration of Absolution, and that after the morning psalms either a Gloria or Gloria in Excelsis might be used.ª The absence of the "antiphons" before the Venite will be seen as well as the present permission to close the morning service after the first lesson and canticle provided Holy Communion is to follow.4 The Litany, moreover, which might be said at morning
1 The comparison is limited to Morning and Evening Prayer and the Holy Communion which were and are those services most familiar to churchmen.
2 Megary's edition is convenient in that it includes the alteration ap- proved by General Convention between 1789 and the entrance of the Church into Central New York.
8 In both services the prayer for the president is the same as now except for the absence of the option in the morning office. The optional Absolution in the evening service differs from that now used and no pro- vision for a Gloria in Excelsis is made at morning worship. See M. H. Shepherd, The Oxford American Prayer Book, (New York: 1951), and G. Harford and M. Stevenson, The Prayer Book Dictionary (New York: 1912).
* Liturgically, the term canticle applies to sacred songs or prayers, other than psalms, taken from the Bible, and used in daily worship. The Te Deum and Benedictus are called hymns in the Book; the Benedicite, a canticle ; and the Jubilate, a psalm. In Megary's Book all the evening songs are psalms.
89
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
services on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays after the prayer for the President, was longer and had a slightly different ordering of the responses. Finally, there are permissive variations used today that did not exist at the earlier date.
It will be noted that the reading of both lessons plus the canti- cles and the Litany, which by custom became a fixed practice, lengthened morning devotions. And there was the rubric which stated : "Upon the Sundays and other Holy days (if there be no Sermon or Communion) shall be said the Ante-Communion serv- ice" But that was not all! The singing of a hymn or two, the practice (continued to the 1840's) of repeating each phrase of the Lord's Prayer, Confession, and Creed after the minister, of saying in full each of the several psalms prescribed for the day and not a portion as is customary at present-to mention but a few illustra- tions-prolonged the morning office beyond the conventional and comfortable hour of today. These generalizations are subject nat- urally to exceptions as one examines parish habits. The latter, to a degree, reflected the inroad of the Oxford Movement which had quickened in America the hopes of high churchmen much to the dismay of their opposites. Much precious time was fretted away in quarrels and arguments over rubrics.
Among those who felt chafed by the rigidity of these directives was the Rev. William A. Muhlenberg of the Diocese of New York who introduced features that stimulated controversy. His practice of having daily and evening worship, and the separation of the customary service of Prayer, Litany, and Holy Communion into three distinct services touched many to the quick.1 Others copied these innovations and some joined with him in presenting to Gen- eral Convention in 1853 what was called the Muhlenberg Memorial. Portions of this do not concern this chapter but provision calling for greater freedom in worship does have a relationship. Among those who signed the document without reservation was the Rev. Henry Gregory of Syracuse who by some is named an Evangelical. Of the other to concur in principle, but who took exception to de- tails, were the Rev. John Henry Hobart, son of Bishop Hobart, and the Rev. Arthur C. Coxe, later Bishop of Western New York.
Possibly the future diocesan was troubled by the indefiniteness
1 Both the English and American Books referred to "Daily" morning and evening prayer. Muhlenberg seems to have followed this requirement. Generally, in Central New York, these services were held chiefly on Sunday.
90
WORSHIP
of the phrase that asked "for as much freedom in opinion, disci- pline, and worship, as is compatible with the essential faith and order of the Gospel." At the time, freedom in worship beyond the frame work of the Prayer Book did not exist. Impromptu extem- porary prayer or the use of printed material other than found in the Book was forbidden. A purpose of the Memorial was to crash through all obstacles and to build a service that promoted greater flexibility. Referred to a committee the matter was up for debate in 1856 when General Convention passed certain resolutions allow- ing separation of the three services, used in the morning, under the advice of the bishop. Moreover, pastors might at their discretion use such parts of the Book and lessons from the Bible for devotions not given by the Book. Finally the Bishops might order special services to meet the spiritual needs of "any class or portion of the populations" within their dioceses, provided such did not supplant the Prayer Book Offices in congregations capable of using the same.
The results of this legislation must have disappointed Muhlen- berg. In Central and Western New York for example the parishes probably followed the lead taken by Bishop De Lancey who was unfriendly to the Memorial. In 1856 at Convention he told his listeners that the "Church will, I think, speak in a most decided negative" to any fundamental change in the Prayer Book. A year later he expressed himself more emphatically :
If there be any Clergymen ... who would disregard the wishes of the people, never consult their vestries, and defy a Bishop by omitting the services, or separating them without any necessity and without caring to seek advice as expressed in the opinion of the House of Bishops, I can only say that such Clergymen must be left to the stings of their con- sciences, the estimation and action of their own parishes, the unapproving voice of the Diocese, and the ultimate judg- ment of Him who looks to the heart and will settle all questions of duty for Bishop, Priest, and People at a bar where justice, truth and mercy will preside.
This may explain why the Journal during the remainder of his episcopate contains hardly a reference to the aims of the Memorial. At the same time, both before and after 1856, variations were introduced by some pastors though none of these did serious dam- age to the Prayer Book. In early 1868, for example, the Messenger stated :
It is almost universal custom for the minister to spend two or three minutes in finding his place [in the Book] and
91
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
waiting for the voluntary [organ prelude] to cease before he begins the sentences, when with a little care these might at least in one's own parish usually be looked out before- hand.
Also that when the minister recited: "O Lord, open thou our lips," he often rose while the people were still responding and began the Gloria Patri before the people had stood up; all of which voided the rubic which directed everyone to be standing when the words of praise began.
In another issue the editor, having chided a contributor for causing him to pay three cents postage due, commented upon the substance of the communication. It seems that in a certain parish the choir sang an opening sentence before the minister had risen to begin the service. This procedure, the contributor affirmed, was "ritualism" and contrary to the rubric. To which the editor replied that "in many of our country parishes" the same thing was done.
How often we have been taken back by surprise, to see a choir rise before us and sing 'I will arise'-a promise they kept by sitting down when they got through and allowed the minister to arise.
When a choir did this, the Messenger concluded, it no more sig- nalled the start of the service than an organ voluntary or the whis- tling of a boy on the porch.
Some of these differences may have stemmed from the practice of placing the choir and organ at the rear of the church-a scheme that could not have been conducive to proper coordination between the choir in the loft and the minister in the chancel. Others arose out of indifferent churchmanship on a pastor's part, a characteristic that has always haunted church ceremony. Then again, high or low churchmen often evidenced their attitudes. The latter were prone to omit the Ante-Communion, deprecate the sacraments, introduce more singing, and gloried in severe informality. "We believe," so the Messenger stated in 1868, that "some 'evangelic' people claim the right to sing hymns and do many other things before or after the service if not in it." Low churchmen also stressed sermons whose content and length remind one of a meeting house. To cor- rect the latter, "P.F.W." of Bainbridge pled for sermons of twenty minutes and thought the size of a congregation would increase were "sermon meters" employed. High churchmen, however, both- ered more about ceremony, favored the Ante-Communion, laid weight upon the sacraments, were partial to altar adornments and
92
WORSHIP
candles and placed little emphasis on the "divine ordinance of preaching."
These doctrinal divergencies, so common to the Tractarian Movement as it spread throughout England and America, produced controversy about ritual. The latter was a prescribed order involv- ing an outward means whereby churchmen might approach God. For purposes of clarity, it was said, the Church's ritual included rites or liturgical forms with accompanying ceremonies and appro- priate ornaments, together with the stipulated times for worship and the determination of the Christian calender. In the greater number of instances the debates and discord actually arose not from a dispute over ritual but rather from ritualism. The former was a prescribed order, the latter was the conduct of that order. But to many low churchmen "conduct" had gotten out of hand and had become the object of worship rather than a means for the same. Their opposites flatly denied the charge and held that a proper and catholic conduct of ceremony led to a better understanding of what Christ taught and the Church should promote. Between these ex- tremes were others whose notions graduated to the right or left like the colors of the spectrum. Signs of the strife showed itself in many ways. Should the Cross, it was asked, be publicly displayed on a church steeple? Low churchmen acclaimed that such was Romanism while their rivals saw virtue in lifting high the Cross of Christ. Both, moreover, took strong ground respecting the use of the Cross on the altar and the presence of eucharistic lights.1 Inci- dentally, their arguments at times showed a poor knowledge of the Church's history.
Into this melee forged Bishop De Lancey. He reminded the Evangelicals that one half of the homes in America knowingly dis- played the form of a cross on their doors2 and he refused to admit that it was ritualistic to arrange and locate font, pulpit, and altar so as to conform to architectural design, the taste of a congregation, or the financial resources of a parish. And how in view of "there being a long standing mode of repudiating Socianianism in the
1 The Prayer Book Dictionary, op. cit., states, "The use of a Cross stand- ing on the altar .. . is very far from being a Catholic usage: in fact, the extraordinary importance attached to having a Cross on the Altar during the celebration of the Eucharist cannot claim support from antiquity, but the reverse. The common notion that an altar without a Cross thereon is a mark of Protestanism is to be resolutely combatted as being untrue to historical fact."
2 That is the panelling on a door, within and without a house, was formed into a cross.
93
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
recognition of the scriptural prophecy that unto Him every knee (and much more the head) should bow," could Pusey be blamed for the practice of bowing the head at the name of Jesus.1 But then turning to high churchmen he reminded them that such rever- ence was not obligatory. Nor did the Bishop think much of the historical knowledge of those who attributed to the Rev. Edward B. Pusey the opening of the church on Wednesdays or Fridays or of fasting during Lent. Finally he stated :
It is not Puseyism, while we rejoice and glory in the Reformation as having disenthraled the Church from the superstitious idolatries and errors of the Romanists, to admit that Henry VIII was a brutal and licentious despot, that Luther's rejection and abuse of the Epistle of St. James was a blot upon his character as sacrificing God's word to his theological theory of justification, that Laud, with all his political blunders evidenced the fortitude and devotion of a martyr at his death, and that the union of the Church and State in England has produced in all times since the Refor- mation a most perilous subservience of the former to the latter, and infected both Clergy and laity in that country deeply with Erastianism, which we may well rejoice in these latter days received a signal check.
Other differences of opinion arose over clerical vestments, the use, dress, and location of the choir, as to the chancel and nave furnishings. In reference to the first, the others are treated else- where, the general practice was to wear a long white surplice during the reading of the service but a black gown when it came to preach- ing.ª Such a procedure forced the pastor to change before going into the pulpit. It is not the change that attracts our attention, as is done in some churches at Communion, but where the change took place. Architectural tastes differed then and few were the parishes that had a small robing room behind the pulpit. Perforce the unhappy parson might have to steal down the nave to the vestibule
1 At that time in the English Church bowing at the names of Jesus wherever it came in the service was held to be proper and had the approval of known customs in the early church. Bowing on entering and leaving the church, or following reception of Holy Communion, at the Gloria Patri and at mention of the Holy Trinity and Our Lord's Incarnation was proper. But bowing to the cross by minister and acolytes had no sanction or authority any more than genuflexion.
2 Originally worn in England over the cassock going to and from Church. The "preacher's gown," never prescribed, and used in the pulpit, was a survival of the old gown.
94
WORSHIP
or slip behind a convenient screen in the chancel to make a proper entrance into the pulpit.
Probably there were rugged souls who did not bother about a change, and it should be remembered that in some places cassocks were unknown and that some clergymen did not even own a sur- plice. It would be interesting to know how Davenport Phelps and others attired themselves when holding services in the early years of the nineteenth century. It is unlikely, however, that the wearing or absence of gown or surplice rested upon ritualistic attitudes. Bishop Hobart, we are told, thought it folly to use clerical gar- ments when he toured his diocese. In the central and western portions of the state he often dispensed not only with episcopal robes but even with the black gown. Another attitude was ex- pressed by the Rev. Francis H. Cuming, one time rector at Bing- hamton, in the Messenger. To him the gown was an appropriate symbol to "remind transgressors of the blackness into which the finally impenitent will be plunged."
Addressing Convention in 1846, De Lancey stated :
It is not Puseyism to use the surplice and gown in the celebration of the respective parts of divine service ... and to regard the former as more distinctly a Church garment than the latter, which is derived from English Universities.
But more important was another comment made by him on the same occasion, namely that there was no "substitute of the surplice for the gown" in the diocese. Within a few years, however, excep- tions appeared, and by 1860 gowns were less common than before. Evidences of this trend arose in Oneida County, particularly at Oneida, Paris Hill, and Rome. But that the gown retained popu- larity is shown by the following:1
For preaching, the black gown was always used & I used Bp. De Lancey's for my first sermon, as he said the gown was the usage at St. Peter's [Auburn] Church. I wore Rev. Dr. Gregory's in 1865 for a few months after I took charge at Grace, Baldwinsville. The Rev. J. T. Clarke always wore one to the grave at funerals. The Rev. Charles Seymour made innovations at Skaneateles, changing the gown again for the surplice when he came back from the pulpit to hold Holy Communion. Not many years since there was considerable trouble there over a black gown.
Stoles, so Dr. Hayes informs us, took the place of the old wide
1 Notes of Rev. W. M. Beauchamp.
95
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
flaring scarf during the 1860's though Bands were worn generally until 1867.1 Probably, no eucharistic vestments appeared before 1860 and to "our great delight" they were worn by De Lancey in 1865. "The modern abomination of short Roman surplices and stoles covered with gold did not come till long after; would they had never come." ª
For a knowledge of the frequency of Sunday services the Jour- nal is the best source.3 The conclusions to be drawn from the Journal, may in the interests of clarity be presented in respect to the years 1840-1848, 1849-1858, and 1859-1868. Now the first thing that impresses one is the steady rise in the number of Morn- ing and Evening services. For the first period it was 31,000; for the next two 44,700 and 53,100 respectively. Expressed percentage wise the overall increase was forty-one. But looking at these totals as to a yearly average one notes that between 1840 and 1848 the number throughout all of Central New York was but sixty-two; for the next period it was eighty-six, and for the last, one hundred and two. Diocesan wide, therefore, more than one, but less than two, services were held each Sunday from 1840 to 1868.
Although the more populous counties, Oneida and Onondaga, stood first and second respectively during these years, Chenango, Jefferson and Oswego were next in order. Much the same may be said for the parishes. From 1840-1848, Trinity, Utica, had slightly more than two services a Sunday while Christ, Binghamton, had two ; the churches at Moravia and Manlius had slightly under two. In the years that followed the number increased and there were sixteen parishes between 1859 and 1868 that reported approximate- ly two or more services on each Lord's Day. Of these, Auburn was far in the lead with an average of two and a half, while the churches at Binghamton, New Berlin, Oxford, Watertown, Utica
1 The scarf was black ; colored stoles were not used in ancient times and in the 19th century were illegal in England. A band consisted of two oblong pieces of white linen loosely tied about the neck; thence falling down upon the breast. Hayes, op. cit., pp. 21, 81, 128 pictures Bishops Moore, Hobart, and De Lancey with a black scarf and bands.
Hayes, op. cit., p. 234.
3 Parochial reports before 1840 are disappointing; a defect corrected in 1839. Starting in 1840 they include Sunday and week day services; Holy Communion was added in 1844. The data must be used with care. In some cases no services are given though it is known they were held. Again, some churches were without pastors for months and years and no reports were made. One is suspicious when priest or warden stated: "services held as usual," especially when the entries vary but little year after year. Some clergy made no entries. Thus the figures used here though not accurate may be used in the absence of anything better.
96
WORSHIP
(Grace), Waterville, and Ithaca had slightly more than two each Sunday.
None of these averaged three a Sunday though in 1868 the Church of the Evangelists, Oswego, reported two hundred and three services which is almost four a Sunday. Gethsemane, West- moreland, five years before showed three services while Christ, Binghamton, and St. Paul's, Holland Patent, were not far behind in 1862 and 1868. But at the other extreme there were churches that opened less than once a Sunday. Nor is this difficult to explain. In the first place, there were few parishes possessed of means to maintain a program like that at Trinity, Utica. Here in 1844, morning and evening worship was held each Sunday with a second evening service on the first Sunday of each month and all Sundays in Lent. Moreover, many churches that held services less frequent- ly were missions dependent upon visits from nearby rectors who often were prevented from coming to these outposts because of illness or inclement weather. Other parishes, succumbing to human frailities, practically shut down during the summer. Nor should one forget that some clergymen, betraying their own natures, were not over faithful in the performance of duties. But the most perti- nent and persistent factor was the deplorable suspension of church life because of the dearth of available clergy.
An earlier reference to a third gathering on the Lord's Day needs clarification. According to some writers such a practice was common among low churchmen. Held in the evening, at the out- set, the tendency was to accent soul-stirring singing, impromptu prayers, and an unprepared sermon. But De Lancey quickly sought to correct this practice by preparing an order of worship in 1841 that permitted less violence to the Prayer Book. Bishop Coxe, also anxious to keep this office within proper limits, issued a pastoral letter on the subject in 1868. Those wishing to have a "third serv- ice," Bishop Coxe wrote, might follow De Lancey's model or pro- ceed at once to the "lecture" in accordance with certain provisions. Those rectors using the latter were to open worship with the Lord's Prayer followed by the sentence, "Open Thou our Lips" with responses and the Gloria. Then came the Psalms-no more than three-, the Lesson, the Creed (Nicean preferably), the Collect for the Day and others as desired, and the "Grace of Our Lord." A hymn was then sung after which was the "lecture," following which came the Magnificat or Nunc Dimittis or a hymn. The Doxology was next in order and then the Prayer for the Church
97
THE FOUNDING FATHERS
Militant; evening worship came to an end with the Benediction. Coxe stressed that the service was not to exceed an hour and was only "lawful" when two other services had been held on Sunday.
The Messenger applauded this third service and cited the bene- fits it had brought to Grace, Utica. Many non-Episcopalians, it was stated, ceased to regard that parish as a "costly luxury" to be enjoyed only by one class of people and came to realize that the congregation was not snobbish and that the Church had something worth while to offer. Other parishes followed this practice though a larger number showed the evangelical trend in having week day services. The frequency of the latter is of interest. At the opening of the period, 1840-1848, Sunday devotions outnumbered those on week days by about six to one. During the next period the ratio was about four to one and during the last, about two to one. Ex- pressed in numbers the total for the three ran 5,600, 14,100, and 23,000 respectively making an overall increase in week day devo- tions of about seventy-five per cent. Bishop De Lancey was greatly encouraged by this show of devotion and attributed its rise to a disappearance of the old objection of having services on Wednesday and Friday.
Oneida led all the counties in the number of these services with Chenango second and Onondaga third ; Oswego and Jefferson were next in order. In the parishes, with but few exceptions, the trend was patently favorable to this practice. At Grace, Utica, for ex- ample, the figures climbed from 369 in the first period to 1,109 in the third ; then there was St. Paul's, Waterloo, where it rose from a bare 128 to 1,081. It is simply astonishing the way weekday services grew in popularity from 1840 to 1868. Even in places like Owego, Pierrepont Manor, and New Berlin, the total was out- standing. In a few cases they exceeded Sunday services; at New Berlin, for instance, there seems to have been almost eight hundred weekday service to some three hundred on Sundays. It should be remembered, however, that church attendance in that age depended in part upon social amenities. The absence of extraneous activities, such as the theater, sports, and the radio, made for more frequent worship. To many, weekday services, and Sunday for that matter, may well have been both a religious and a social obligation.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.