'The iniquity of the times': Nelson's 'Life of Dr. George Bull' and the defence of Episcopalian Conformity in the Cromwellian Church

But this emphasis [in Restoration Episcopalian accounts] on martyrdom, ejection and exile has obscured the extent to which prominent episcopalian conformists were subsequently prepared to defend their Interregnum careers, presenting their ministries in these years as evidence of steadfast commitment to both the Church of England and the king. By staying within the Church, ministers had acted as a bulwark against heresy and error, the last bastions of ‘true Protestantism’, and thereby worked to protect and to ‘undeceive’ the distracted laity - (re)shaping attitudes towards liturgy, episcopacy and even monarchy.

William White, in 'Remembering Episcopalian Conformity in Restoration England', thus reminds us that alongside the narrative of persecution and martyrdom promoted by formerly non-conformist Episcopalians at the Restoration, there was another narrative to be told, that of the Episcopalian Conformists in the Cromwellian Church. As we saw last week, George Bull was amongst their number. There was a case for such Episcopalian Conformity and, as White states, it was communicated:

Rather than taking for granted that the only legitimate response available to loyalists during the 1640s and 1650s had been martyrdom or lofty retreat, many clergymen were subsequently eager to defend their decision to continue ministering publicly under the English Republic. This, they insisted, had been the product of a careful assessment as to how they could best serve the interests of Church and king, rather than a timorous capitulation to the enemy; their Interregnum ministry had allowed them to influence lay responses to the ongoing crisis, to resist the new powers from within, in a way that withdrawal would not have done.

We see this in Robert Nelson's 1713 The Life of Dr. George Bull. While "the late unhappy confusions" were now nearly 70 years past, they still loomed very large in the English ecclesiastical and political imagination. The Civil Wars and the Interregnum remained defining events for self-understanding of the English Church and State well into the 18th century.

It is, therefore, unsurprising that Nelson takes time to articulate the case for Episcopalian Conformity in the Cromwellian Church, as seen in Bull. We can see two central characteristics of the Conformist case. Firstly, it was required by the "pernicious Errors" of the times, when parishes and communities were subjected to a deluge of unorthodox opinions. Serving in the Cromwellian Church provided Bull with a means of refuting such opinions and promoting the teachings of the Church of England:

When he came to fix at St. George's, he found the Parish to abound with Quakers and other wild Sectaries who held very extravagant Opinions, which the People there and in the adjacent Parts were very ready to run into; but by his constant Preaching twice every Lord's-Day, by his found Doctrine and exemplary Life, by his great Charities, for he expended more Annually in relieving the Poor of all sorts than the whole Income of his Living amounted to, and by his prudent Behaviour he gained very much upon the Affections of his Parishoners, and was very instrumental in preserving many, and reclaiming others, from those pernicious Errors which then were common among them ...

Where he found People neglected in their Education, and ignorant in the Fundamentals of Religon, there he instructed such by explaining to them what was necessary to be Believed and Practised in order to their Salvation. Where the Ground was over-run with Weeds, and some good Principles were blended with false Doctrines and pernicious Errors, there he discovered the dangerous Consequences of such Tenents, and shewed how inconsistent they were with the Holy Scriptures, and the Belief of all Orthodox Christians. Where he perceived that Men laid all the Stress upon a right Faith, and, provided they secured that Part of their Duty, were too apt to indulge themselves in some Un-christian Practices; there he admonished such with all that freedom, which becometh a faithful Pastor, assuring them, that without Holiness no Man shall see the Lord.

The closing reference to those who "laid all the Stress upon a right Faith" - the 'Solifidianism' often associated by many Restoration and 18th century Church of England divines with 'Calvinistic' teaching - reflects the concerns of the 'Arminian Conformity' that Bull would come to represent. In other words, Bull the Episcopalian Conformist in the Cromwellian Church was the faithful Church of England pastor, expounding the doctrine of the Church of England and refuting erroneous teaching. This was very much the rational offered in 1652 by Robert Sanderson, who would be appointed Bishop of Lincoln at the Restoration and author of the Preface to the Prayer Book revision of 1662. White quotes Sanderson's words, explaining that he was not prepared to had over "the sheep of Christ":

that lately were under the hands of faithful shepherds, into the custody of ravening wolves, when such guides shall be set over the several Congregations as will be sure to misteach them one way or other, viz. by instilling into them Puritanical and Superstitious Principles, that they may the more securely exercise their Presbyterian tyranny over their judgements, consciences, persons, and estates; or else, by setting up new lights before them, to lead them into a maze of Anabaptistical confusion and frenzy.

'The judicious Sanderson' is also explicitly invoked when Nelson points to a second aspect of the case for Episcopalian Conformity in the Cromwellian Church - the Prayer Book liturgy, prohibited under the Commonwealth:

The Iniquity of the Times would not bear the constant and regular Use of the Liturgy; to supply therefore that Misfortune, Mr. Bull formed all the Devotions he offered up in Publick, while he continued Minister of this he used in Place, out of the Book of Common-Prayer, which did not fail to supply him with fit Matter and proper Words upon all those Occasions that required him to apply to the Throne of Grace for a Supply of the Wants of his People. He had the Example of one of the brightest Lights of that Age, the judicious Dr. Sanderson, to justifie him in this Practice; and his manner of Performing the Publick Service, was with so much Seriousness and Devotion, with so much Fervour and Ardency of Affection, and with so Powerful an Emphasis in every Part, that they who were most prejudiced against the Liturgy, did not scruple to commend Mr. Bull as a Person that Prayed by the Spirit, though at the same Time they railed at the Common-Prayer, as a beggarly Element, and as a Carnal Performance.

Here was one of the enduring and oft-repeated stories of the Conformist Episcopalians in the Cromwellian Church: while the Prayer Book liturgy was prohibited by law, Conforming Episcopalian clergy would memorise or adapt its words in order in order to ensure that it continued to shape and sustain common prayer under the Commonwealth. As John Morrill notes, less than 25% of parishes recorded a purchase of the Directory, the authorised replacement for the prohibited Book of Common Prayer. The fact that Nelson particularly references Sanderson clearly suggests that Bull followed Sanderson's approach, as set out 'The Case of the Use of the Liturgy, Stated in the Late Times':

If in officiating we repeat not only the Lords Prayer, the Creed, the Ten Commandments, and such other passages in the Common-Prayer-Book, as (being the very words of Scripture) no man can except against, but so much also of the old Liturgy besides, in the very words and syllables in the Book, as we think, the Ministers of State in those parts where we live will suffer, and the Auditory before whom we officiate will bear; sith the Officers in all parts of the Land are not alike strict ... If where we must of necessity vary from the words, we yet follow the Order of the Book in the main parts of the holy Offices, retaining the substance of the Prayers, and imbellishing those of our own making, which we substitute into the place of those we leave out, with Phrases and Passages taken out of the Book in other places.

The account given by Nelson, of Bull as an Episcopalian Conformist in the Cromwellian Church, follows an established pattern for the defence of such conformity. To again quote White:

Here, then, was a different response to the dilemmas of loyalty that the traumatic experiences of the late 1640s had thrown up, and the question - particular to the episcopalian clergy - of how loyalty and pastoral mission might intersect. 

The fact that Sanderson's 'The Case of the Use of the Liturgy' was one of his Nine Cases of Conscience is indicative of how the moral and theological case for Episcopalian conformity in the Cromwellian Church was carefully and thoughtfully stated. Noting how adapting or slightly altering the Prayer Book liturgy was a breach of the law of King-in-Parliament - for the prohibition of the liturgy did not have the Royal Assent and therefore, as the Preface of 1662 would state, it remained "enjoined the laws of the land, and those laws never yet repealed" - Sanderson yet defended the necessity of such adaptation and alterations:

But where the observation of the Law, by reason of the Conjuncture of circumstances or the iniquity of the times (contingencies which no Law-giver could either certainly foresee, or if foreseen could sufficiently provide against) would rather be prejudicial than advantageous to the public, or is manifestly attended with more inconveniences, and sad consequents to the observers, as all the imaginable good that can redound to the public thereby cannot in any reasonable measure countervail. In such case the Law obligeth not.

That Sanderson's phrase "the iniquity of the times" was repeated by Nelson - and the fact that mentions this particular work by Sanderson almost certainly indicates the source for the phrase - is indicative of how he was intentionally placing Bull within a well-established narrative of the Episcopalian conformity of the Interregnum.

Such an approach ensured that something akin to Common Prayer and Administration of the Sacraments remained in many parishes of the Cromwellian Church. Alongside this, the preaching and pastoral ministry of conforming Episcopalian ministers ensured that, to use Nelson's description of Bull's ministry in these years, "such Doctrines prevailing very much in those Times" were challenged by "that Scheme of Salvation, which the Blessed Jesus had proposed to all his Followers".

It was this ministry of conforming Episcopalians in the Cromwellian Church which, we might suggest, helped to ensure the outcome described by Morrill, after 'the iniquity of the times':

At Easter 1660, before Charles's return, there were celebration of the sacrament [contrary to the prohibition on feast days] in over half the parishes. During 1660 there was a spontaneity and responsiveness in the restoration of the old Church in most areas.