'The best defenders, the boldest champions': Nelson's 'Life of Bull' and the defence of the Church of England during the reign of King James II

If the Tory idyll of 1685 was threatened by Non-Conformists in Avening, much darker clouds were also gathering. The reign of James II, which had been joyfully welcomed by High Churchmen and Tories as a reaffirmation of the constitutional order, and of the Church of England's place in that order, took on a character which profoundly disturbed the bastions of Tory support for James: parsons and country gentlemen. Contrary to the assurances James had given at his accession, he was determined to undermine the position of the Church of England and to overturn the Church of Ireland. 

The response of parsons across the kingdoms was almost unanimous. Their pulpits began to echo with warnings of 'Popery'. This, as Nelson states in his 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull,  was no less so with Parson Bull:

During the Reign of King James the II when our Apprehensions of the increase of Popery were no ways groundless, but founded in those Measures, which we apparently saw were taken to advance and promote it; then it was that Dr. Bull thought it his Duty, chiefly to lay open the Errors of the Church of Rome, and he then took all Opportunities, both in his own Parish, and in other publick Places where he was called to preach, as at Bath and Glocester, and in a Visitation Sermon at Hampton, to convince the People how much they would hazard their Salvation, if ever they suffered themselves by fly Arts and Insinuations, to be drawn into the Roman Communion; wherein they had made many Additions to the primitive Doctrines of Christianity, and had required their Novelties to be received, as necessary Articles of Faith, tho the Holy Scriptures and primitive Antiquity were silent concerning them, and in some Points expresly against them. These Errors in Doctrine he aggravated by considerable Corruptions in her publick Offices; which were not only in an unknown Tongue, and consequently no ways edifying to the People, but in some Parts were addressed to Saints and Angels, contrary to Scripture, and the Practice of the primitive Church. 

While James had demonstrated his disapproval of such preaching in his actions against Bishop Compton of London, the fact that a High Church Tory such as Bull preached against 'Popery' from the pulpit exemplified how James was losing the support of a key constituency. Not only in Avening, but in the urban centres of Bath and Gloucester, and in a visitation sermon described as "on the danger of introducing by artifice or design the errors of the Church of Rome", Bull played his part in the Church of England's opposition to James' policies. According to one history, "the Doctor preached very warmly against Popery".

Bull, in other words, was, with most other Tories, unknowingly preparing the ground for the Revolution of 1688. 

What further highlights the significance of Bull's stance in these years of James' reign is that some regarded him to have been an unlikely participant in the pulpit campaign against 'Popery'. Nelson reflects on this, explaining how such scepticism about Bull actually derived from a hostility to the order of the Church of England:

It must be owned, that Dr. Bull was indeed a very frank Asserter of some primitive Truths, upon which are built several Errors of the Church of Rome; and the Sermons, which are now printed, will furnish the Reader with several Instances of this Remark: Now among those who cannot, or will not distinguish the Foundation, from the Hay and Stubble that is built upon it, we must not wonder, if he was thought too much inclining to the Church of Rome; which unjust Censure was confirmed by his exact Conformity to the Rules of the Church of England, in a place where the People were under great Prejudices, both against her Discipline and Liturgy. 

There was, of course, a long, ignoble history of accusing the sons of the Church of England of 'Popery', not least a martyred Sovereign and a martyred Archbishop:

But this Calumny hath been thrown upon the greatest Lights of our Church, and upon one of the best Men that ever swayed the Scepter of Great Britain, and will be the Fate of many more, who shall zealously contend, for the primitive Doctrines and Discipline of Christianity; and surely, if that excellent Prince, King Charles the First, and that primitive Prelate, Archbishop Laud, could not escape the Load of such malicious and groundless Imputations, it is not to be wondered if others, who pursue their Steps, and tread in their Paths of Religion, tho they move in a much inferiour Sphere, meet with the same Obloquy and Reproach which they so severely felt. But yet in the Day of any Trial, the Men of this Character will be found the best Defenders of the Church of England, and the boldest Champions, against the Corruptions of the Church of Rome.

Here was a solidly High Church Tory contention: it was they, the faithful sons of the Church of England, admirers of its liturgy, committed to its episcopal order, who were its best defenders against Roman Catholic claims - not those who undermined by the Church of England by attacking its liturgy and disowning its episcopal order. Invoking the Royal Martyr and Archbishop Laud, and thus "the late unhappy confusions" of the 1640s and 50s, stirred the hearts of Tories and High Churchmen, assuring them that it was they - not Whigs and Dissenters - who were "the boldest champions" of Protestant England national Church.

Accusations of 'Popery' had been levelled against Bull for his Harmonia Apostolica (1669) and its understanding of justification and works. The emptiness of those accusations was, Nelson declares, made evident in the reign of James II, when Bull defended "the Principles of the Protestant Religion":

How little Dr. Bull deserved this Reflection, appeared now by his Courage and Resolution, in attacking those pernicious Errors, which he apprehended might gain ground, by the Authority and Favour of a Prince upon the Throne, who was unhappily engaged in that Communion. For Dr. Bull, like a vigilant and conscientious Pastor, warned his People of the approaching Danger, supplied them with Arguments for the Hour of Temptation, confirmed them in the Principles of the Protestant Religion, and made them sensible how much it was their Duty, rather to expose themselves to any temporal Sufferings, than embrace such Principles and Practices, as tended to hazard the Salvation of their Immortal Souls.

Despite the Tractarian attempt to claim Bull as a predecessor, his Protestantism is startlingly obvious, and not just in the reign of James II. Bull himself clearly asserts that his understanding of justification and works cohered with that of the Continental Reformed confessions. He stood, in other words, in what had become a well-established Protestant tradition - in England and beyond - not defined by Reformed Scholasticism. In his Vindication of the Church of England (1707), he had no hesitation in referring to "we Protestants". His sermon on the Blessed Virgin Mary was definitively Protestant and critical of Roman Catholic Marian teaching and practice.

Like Tory gentlemen and High Church parsons across the Kingdom in the years following 1685, Bull's Protestantism could never be in doubt. This is why he took to the pulpit in those years, to teach against 'Popery'. And this is why James' policies alienated the bulwarks of his reign, the parsons of the Church of England, leading to the Revolution.