'He did not shine less in the pulpit': Robert Nelson's 'Life of Dr. George Bull'
But tho' Mr. Bull thus excelled in discharging all the Offices of the Liturgy, yet he did not shine less in the Pulpit, from whence he did for several Years instruct his Parish Twice every Lord's-day. The great End and Design of his Sermons, for I have often heard him with great Pleasure and Edification, was to acquaint his People with the Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, which were able to make them Wise unto Salvation; and therefore all Subjects which he handled, were always strengthened and confirmed by Passages from Holy Writ, and those Passages explained and made easy to the Capacity of the meanest Understanding, and such useful Observations drawn from them, as gave fresh Light to his Subject, as well as to those Texts he had quoted in order to illustrate it.
It is a significant example of how preaching was regarded by - to use the terminology of Samuel Fornecker - 'Arminian Conformity'. Any notion that preaching was neglected, or viewed as a lesser duty of the minister, has to be thoroughly banished from our understanding of the Anglican mainstream across the 'long 18th century'. Indeed, at the conclusion of this period, in 1804, the Bishops of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, in advice to those studying for holy orders, would confidently state that "the most distinguished preachers ... have abounded in the Church of England".
Related to this, Nelson also points to how Bull was guided in his preaching by his knowledge of the Fathers:
above all, he was thoroughly acquainted with Primitive Antiquity, and had with great Care and Observation read the Works of the Fathers and Ancient Doctors, from whence he was best able to learn the Sense of the Catholick Church upon all Matters of Consequence, which is the best Guide in Interpreting those Scriptures which are not plain in themselves ...
This, of course, reflected a well-established principle in the Reformed Church of England, with the Elizabethan Canons of 1571 having called preachers to teach nothing "save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine". In a similar manner, Jeremy Taylor, addressing his clergy in 1661, had declared:
Every Minister ought to be careful that he never expound Scriptures in publick contrary to the known sence of the Catholick Church, and particularly of the Churches of England and Ireland, nor introduce any Doctrine against any of the four first General Councils; for these, as they are measures of truth, so also of necessity; that is, as they are safe, so they are sufficient; and besides what is taught by these, no matter of belief is necessary to salvation.
A study of the use of patristic sources in Anglican preaching 1660-1832 would be a valuable piece of research. My instinct, based on reading sermons from across the era, is that reference to patristic sources was a consistent feature of published Anglican sermons, and that this contributed to a confidence in Anglican preaching, as seen in the view of the PECUSA bishops in 1804.
Finally, an aspect of Bull's approach to preaching that we may not have guessed - he normally preached from notes, not from a script:
It was but seldom, and that upon some extraordinary Occasions, that he composed his Sermon entire, and committed it to Writing; which is the reason that he has left so few finished Discourses behind him. His usual Method was, after the choice of his Text, to mark some Words that were to be explained, in order to give the true Sense of that portion of Scripture he had chose to treat upon; and then he writ down some Observations, which flowed naturally from the Subject, and under each Observation Hints to illustrate it, and Texts of Scripture proper to be explained in order to give Light to it, and then drew Inferences from his whole Discourse by way of Application. Thus he had only the Scheme of his Sermon before him in Writing; and having in this Manner secured the Substance of it, he did, by Custom and Practice, bring himself to a great Readiness and Fluency in Expressing himself upon all Subjects.
Nelson points to this to illustrate Bull's skill and ability as a preacher. It probably also reflects a shared culture of preaching across the Protestant world, with this approach being characteristic of those known to be skilled preacher. On the other hand, notice what is not claimed: Bull preaching without a full script is not presented by Nelson as somehow evidence of a greater reliance upon the Holy Spirit. This was a claim made by some 18th century critics of Anglican preaching: that 'authentic' preaching had to be extemporary. Nelson's description has no time for such Enthusiasm. His emphasis throughout this passage is on Bull's natural abilities, rather than the exalted claims made by revivalists for direct divine inspiration: "flowed naturally ... drew Inferences ... Custom and Practice".
This also hints at another aspect of the ministry of the preacher, as understood by 18th century Anglicanism. It was a skill to learn, in which to grow, and to be mastered. It required, in the words of the Apostle, the virtues, discipline, and commitment of the soldier, the athlete, and the farmer. For the humble parson, therefore, reading Nelson's The Life of Dr. George Bull shortly after its publication in 1713, the description of Bull's approach to preaching would have been an encouragement to continue with a faithful, workmanlike approach to the ministry of the pulpit, "to preach the Word of God ... in the Congregation".
Comments
Post a Comment