This leads Nelson to reflect more widely on the significance of the minister reading divine service. In doing so, he was also reflecting a concern later raised by the then Bishop Bull, would emphasise the significance of "reverence and devotion" in the clergy "Reading Divine Service, or the Prayers of the Church". Nelson, echoing the later Bull, challenges those who fail to recognise the significance of "devout and decent reading of the Prayers of the Church":
It is possible, this devout and decent Reading of the Prayers of the Church, maybe looked upon by some, as a mean and low Attainment; and by others, as a Burthen and Task to be imposed only upon those that have not Gifts for the Pulpit. And indeed, if we may have leave to guess at the Thoughts of some Men by their Actions, this must be the Language of their Hearts; for either they seldom or never read the Prayers themselves, and so depreciate the Worth and Excellency of them with the People; as if that Administration were below the Dignity of a Parochial Priest; or they provide Persons of such ordinary and unskilful Elocution to Officiate in their stead, as apparently tendeth to damp rather than raise the Devotion of the Congregation. But Experience sufficiently convinceth us, that this Accomplishment is not easily acquired, because we find there are but few that excel this way; and nothing ought to be accounted mean, that is so instrumental in promoting Devotion in the Hearts and Affections of Men.
Such is the importance of reading divine service, says Nelson, that an inability to do so in an edifying manner should be a barrier to holy orders:
But after all, those who cannot read as becometh the Service of God, ought to be rejected as unfit, upon that Account, to receive Holy Orders; for though a Man hath the Understanding of an Angel, yet if he hath no Voice, or, at least, if it is so low and so imperfect, that it cannot either convey his Thoughts to the People, or Officiate to Edification in the Service of the Church, so far he is unqualified to be admitted into the Sacred Function. What a dreadful Account then will those Governours in the Church have to give at the Day of Judgment, who Ordain such for Deacons as by their Administrations quench the Devotion of the People, and provoke our Adversaries to reproach us; and by their Incapacity to Read, make the Scripture a dead Letter, and the admirable Liturgy of the Church, a contemptible Performance.
Nelson's insistence on this point is worth some reflection. Across the 'long 18th century' (and beyond) we quite consistently come across examples of those from Dissenting traditions who are reconciled to the Church of England through their experience of Prayer Book services. This points to the way in which the Prayer Book liturgy was a, if not the, defining characteristic of Church of England piety. 'Devout and decent reading' of the offices by ministers had, therefore, a fundamental contribution to the Church's piety and spiritual vitality.
Also worth noting is how Nelson describes poor reading of the Prayer Book offices as "mak[ing] the Scripture a dead Letter". It is a reminder of just how much Scripture there is in the offices: a failure to read the offices with dignity, meaning, and devotion is a failure to so read holy Scripture.
Finally, there is that reference to deacons. Nelson assumes that after ordination, the new deacons will be routinely reading the offices (with the exception - of course - of the Holy Communion). The newly-ordained deacon was often, throughout the 17th and 18th centuries, doing so by himself, without a priest, in many churches - whether smaller churches without vicars, or in parishes which shared incumbents with other churches. In other words - as Francis Young has excellently demonstrated - the ministry of deacons in the Church of England of the 17th and 18th centuries was weightier than is often assumed.
There are some obvious lessons for contemporary Anglicanism in Nelson's account of the significance of 'reading the Prayers'. It points to the seriousness with which leading divine service must be approached, for it is "instrumental in promoting Devotion in the Hearts and Affections of Men". It calls us to recognise the centrality of the Scriptures to the Prayer Book offices: to lead these offices is inherently to handle and proclaim holy Scripture. It also reminds us that regular non-eucharistic divine service without a priest is no new phenomenon for Anglicanism. While we may desire frequent celebration and reception of the Sacrament, sustaining the faith and witness of a local church is entirely possible through non-eucharistic divine service (preferably, of course, BCP Morning or Evening Prayer), for the 'reading of the Prayers' is a sanctifying ordinance.
Comments
Post a Comment