'To the salvation of many Christian souls': Bramhall on a non-preaching ministry and contemporary Anglicanism

I have much more respect for those poor readers [i.e. non-preaching clergy], whom he mentioneth every where with contempt. I hope they may do, and many of them do, God good and acceptable service in His Church, and co-operate to the salvation of many Christian souls, by reading the Holy Scriptures, and the Liturgy and Homilies of the Church, and administering the Holy Sacraments. And I have heard wise men acknowledge, that if it had not been for these very readers, in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's reign, when preaching was very rare, England had hardly been preserved, as it was, both from Popery and from atheism. Their very reading is a kind of preaching; Acts xv. 21- "Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath day." And their reading of Homilies doth yet approach nearer to formal preaching. Or if it come short of preaching in point of efficacy, it hath the advantage of preaching in point of security. The private conceits of new-fangled preachers, by being vented publicly as the Word of God, have done much hurt, which the reading of public Homilies never did. 

From Bishop Bramhall's vindication of himself and the episcopal clergy, from the Presbyterian charge of popery, as it is managed by Mr. Baxter in his treatise of the Grotian religion (written as a response to Baxter's The Grotian Religion Discovered, 1658; Bramhall's response was published posthumously in 1672).

Bramhall's defence of non-preaching clergy might seem far removed from contemporary Anglican experience. All clergy now regularly preach, as do most lay readers. A non-preaching ministry seems like an Elizabethan oddity that continued in some places in the Jacobean Church and survived - amidst criticism from the 'hotter sort' - into the Caroline Church. Since at least the 19th century, however, a non-preaching ministry has been unknown to the vast majority of Anglicans.

Or has it? There is a sense in which the experience and character of Bramhall's defence of the non-preaching ministry continues as a significant part of contemporary Anglican life. There are three ways in which this is so.

The first is the early Sunday morning celebration of the Holy Communion. In many places, this does not have a sermon and in many places it attracts a regular, faithful congregation. As I write this, I am thinking about the early Eucharist in the parish in which I serve. The regulars are a faithful, prayerful group. They are witnesses to Bramhall's understanding: the reading of the Scriptures, common prayer, and administering the Sacrament is "good and acceptable" service, to "the salvation of many Christian souls". It can nurture and nourish Christian life and witness amongst the faithful over a long period of time.

The second is Choral Evensong, with its much recorded significant increase in attendance in England over recent years. Choral Evensong does not usually have a sermon. But, as Bramhall would say (following Hooker), there is preaching because the Scriptures are publicly read. Clergy leading Choral Evensong, and choir and congregation participating in Choral Evensong, are reflecting characteristics of the non-preaching ministry as it was known in many Elizabethan, Jacobean, and Caroline churches. Here we see how Choral Evensong as common prayer and the public reading of Scripture can sustain Christian faith (alongside, of course, reception of the holy Sacrament, even if this is monthly or, indeed, at the great feasts).

Thirdly, there is the experience in parishes without clergy or those lay readers who are authorised to preach. (In the Church of Ireland, parish readers are authorised to read Morning and Evening Prayer, but not to preach.) Mindful that vacant parishes are not uncommon in many parts of contemporary Anglicanism in these Islands and North America, common prayer without a sermon is again a feature of Anglican life. This should not entail panic on the part of ecclesiastical authorities. Nor is Morning Prayer without a sermon to be regarded as somehow inferior: it is the common prayer of the people of God in a parish church. It can uphold a Christian presence in a place and community.

None of this, quite obviously, is to imply that sermons are not a significant ordinance in the life of the Church, for teaching and edification. It is, rather, to suggest that we can learn from Bramhall's defence of a non-preaching ministry, that it does have continued significance for Anglican life. We see it reflected in these patterns found in contemporary Anglican life, patterns which - as we heed Bramhall - are to be respected and cherished as means "to the salvation of many Christian souls".

(A footnote: on the matter of reading homilies, we might also learn from Bramhall. Even those of us who value the Books of Homilies have to recognise that they are not suitable as replacements for sermons in a contemporary context. There is, however, surely a market for collections of short, catechetical homilies that could be used in the absence of an authorised preacher. Such collections would have much to learn from the Books of Homilies, in their deep knowledge of patristic thought, in their unembarrassed doctrinal content, and in a willingness to address the practicalities of Christian life in the home, community, and polity. As Bramhall would say, while the reading of such homilies may "come short of preaching in point of efficacy, it hath the advantage of preaching in point of security".)