'Whenever he officiated at the Altar': Robert Nelson's 'Life of Dr. George Bull'

In our readings from Robert Nelson's The Life of Dr. George Bull (1713), we have previously considered Bull's reading of 'the prayers' (that is, Morning and Evening Prayer), and his ministry from the pulpit. Today we turn to his administration of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. While Nelson is still, at this point, discussing Bull's incumbency in the years following the Restoration, it almost certainly stands as a description of his administration of the sacraments throughout his ministry. In doing so it also reveals something of how the understanding of the Sacraments in Anglicanism throughout the 'long 18th century'.

Nelson begins by drawing attention to the frequency of Bull's administration of the Holy Communion in his parish:

He Administered the Sacraments of our Holy Religion with great Reverence and Solemnity; The Holy Eucharist, the Mysterious and the Rite and Perfection of Christian Worship, was not performed so often in this Parish, as he earnestly desired; and yet oftner than is usual in little Villages; for he brought it to Seven Times in a Year. 

A desire for more frequent celebrations of the Sacrament was commonplace in Anglican episcopal statements throughout the 'long 18th century', with bishops often encouraging at least monthly administration. We might surmise that Nelson's commentary at this point reflects Bull's later views on this matter. Also worthy of note is the assumption that it was "in little Villages" - not towns and cities - that quarterly Communion was the norm. 

What is most significant, however, is Nelson's description of the sacrament: "The Holy Eucharist, the Mysterious and the Rite and Perfection of Christian Worship". The terminology is certainly suggestive of a 'high' sacramental theology and piety. Bull's administering of the holy Sacrament seven times a year in his parish is not, therefore, regarded as somehow minimising the Sacrament. Nelson's terminology points to how a rich, vibrant eucharistic piety could be sustained within a culture of relatively infrequent celebrations. This is certainly evidenced by both the works of many English divines during this era and the popular material employed for individual preparation for reception of the Sacrament.

This is also indicated in Nelson's description of Bull's self-understanding when administering the Sacrament:

But whenever he Officiated at the Altar, it was exactly agreeable to the Directions of the Rubrick, and with the Gravity and Seriousness of a Primitive Priest. 

The unembarrassed - indeed, uncontroversial - use of 'Altar' here is not without significance. When Nelson was writing in 1713, the 'altar wars' of the 1630s and 40s were long past, with 'altar' routinely used without any sense of theological controversy. Why this was so will be indicated below. 

That Bull approached the administration of the Sacrament as "a Primitive Priest" also exemplifies Eamon Duffy's account of the self-understanding of the post-1660 Church of England as "Primitive Christianity Revived". A deep, profound sense of the restored Church of England being the best contemporary expression of the patristic faith animated the Restoration and Augustan Church, and robustly continued post-1760. Indeed, if were to identify the period when such confidence in Anglicanism was replaced with a crippling self-doubt, it would be post-1833: it was Tractarianism which overthrew this confidence with longing looks across the Tiber. Such a development would, of course, have horrified Bull.

In terms of Bull's practice when administering the Sacrament, it is very significant that Nelson only mention two particulars, both referred to in the 1662 rubrics before the Prayer for the Church Militant. Firstly, that concerning "the Alms for the Poor":

He preserved the Custom of a Collection for the Poor, when the Priest begins the Offertory, which I the rather mention, because it is too much neglected in Country Villages. 

It is possible that Nelson is here (again) being rather unfair to churches in "Country Villages": collecting alms for the poor during the liturgy may have had less relevance amongst smaller rural communities and congregations than in towns and cities, where Nelson implies the practice is found. That said, Bull maintained the practice in his parish. Nelson connects this to Bull approaching administration of the Sacrament as "a Primitive Priest": in other words, he rightly identifies this as a primitive, patristic practice. It is a pleasingly surprising reminder that our discussions of what is 'patristic', not least in terms of liturgy, too often overlook practices and disciplines which were of great significance in patristic churches.

Nelson then considers the second rubric, concerning the placing of the Bread and Wine upon the Holy Table:

He always placed the Elements of Bread and Wine upon the Altar himself, after he had received them either from the Church-Warden or Clerk, or had taken them from some convenient Place, where they were laid for that purpose. His constant Practice was to Offer them upon the Holy Table, in the first Place, in Conformity to the Practice of the Ancient Church, before he began the Communion Service; and this the Rubrick, after the Offertory, seemeth to require of all her Priests, by declaring, "That when there is a Communion, the Priest shall then place upon the Table so much Bread and Wine as he shall think sufficient."

This description has a distinctly Laudian emphasis. For Laudians the Bread and Wine were the 'oblations', an understanding reflected in the 1662 addition to the Prayer for the Church Militant: "to accept our alms and oblations". Nelson hints at the diverse understandings of this phrase when he states that the offering of the Bread and Wine "seemeth" to be required by the rubric. Note, however, that Bull merely adhered to the rubric: the 'offering' of the Bread and Wine was placing them upon the Holy Table.

That the offertory included the alms for the poor and the Bread and Wine for the Sacrament, both placed upon the Holy Table and offered in the Prayer for the Church Militant, indicates why the term 'altar' was entirely acceptable in Anglican discourse during the 'long 18th century': it referred to the offering of alms, oblations (the Bread and Wine), prayers, and praises in the Eucharist. It carried no meaning whatsoever of the Eucharist as a propitiatory sacrifice. This also explains Nelson using 'Altar' and 'Holy Table' interchangeably in the above extract: 'Altar' did not mean more than 'Holy Table', and 'Holy Table' did not mean less than 'Altar'.

Let us end with Bull administering the Sacrament in his small parish churches (he was incumbent of two village churches) in the Gloucestershire countryside, in the 1660s and decades following. Administered seven times a year, according to the BCP 1662, in a plain church, certainly no candles or cross upon the Holy Table, Bull wearing a surplice and hood: such was how Holy Communion was administered in the Church of England throughout the 18th century and into the early decades of the 19th. Nelson's Life demonstrates how, contrary to 19th century assumptions still retained by too many Anglican commentators, this context did not at all equate to an 'low' sacramental theology or piety. Heeding Nelson, we should have a much greater respect for our Anglican forebears as they drew near with faith, to take the holy Sacrament to their comfort.