Bull, Episcopalian Conformists, and the Cromwellian Church: Robert Nelson's 'Life of Dr. George Bull'

After recounting how Bull received holy orders from Skinner, the deprived Bishop of Oxford, Robert Nelson - in his The Life of Dr. George Bull - tells of how the newly-ordained Bull began to minister in a parish:

When he was furnished with those Sacerdotal Powers, which are the Characteristick of a Presbyter, he embraced the first Opportunity the Providence of God offered for the exercising of them according to his Commission. A small Living near Bristol, called St. George's, presenting itself, he the rather accepted it, because the Income was very inconsiderable; it being very likely, that upon that account he would be suffered to reside without Disturbance from the Men of those Times, who would not think it worth their pains to persecute and dispossess him for 301. a Year.

Now this, to say the least, is rather interesting, because Bull was now ministering within the Cromwellian state church. Two matters are not mentioned by Nelson. Firstly, we are not told how the living was secured for Bull. Was it through the offices a royalist patron? Royalist networks enabled those seeking orders to contact bishops who continued to ordain. It would be reasonable to assume that these networks also advised those so ordained of suitable parishes in which to serve. 

Secondly, and more significantly, Bull does not mention the Commissioners for the Approbation of Public Preachers - the 'Triers' - appointed by the Commonwealth authorities in 1654 to approve those seeking to minister in the Cromwellian church. As Fincham and Taylor mention in their study of episcopal ordinations during the Interregnum, the fact of how or even if a person was ordained was not a concern of the Triers. Discreet episcopal ordination, therefore, was no barrier to being approved by the Triers:

numerous illegally episcopally-ordained ministers, sometimes presented to livings by first Oliver and then Richard Cromwell, were approved by the Triers; occasionally they even filled sequestered livings. Often they supplied testimonials written by others with episcopal orders.

It is difficult to imagine that Bull - following a path taken by many conforming episcopally-ordained ministers - did not go before the Triers and obtain their approval.

What, then, of Nelson's reference to Bull's hope that "the Men of those Times ... would not think it worth their pains to persecute and dispossess him" of such an insignificant living? This, I think, is unlikely to mean that Bull and his patron had ignored the Triers. This would have been seen as blatant and public political disloyalty. In her excellent paper 'The Ecclesiastical Patronage of Oliver Cromwell, c.1654-60', Rebecca Warren notes that a certain toleration was granted to conforming episcopalian ministers:

Cromwell’s approach to episcopalians remained pragmatic, generally avoiding outright confrontation except in circumstances where they were believed to be a threat to the security of the regime.

So much was this the case that 5% of ministers presented by Cromwell himself were or would be episcopally ordained during these years. Fincham and Taylor likewise point to a significant and influential tradition of episcopalian conformity in the Cromwellian Church:

The nature of the toleration offered by the Cromwellian church, in particular, appears to have been even broader than is generally recognised. The fact that bishops were permitted to ordain without harassment suggests that the authorities focused on the political rather than religious challenge posed by episcopalianism, so we might profitably refine the conventional view that episcopalians were systematically persecuted in this period, and extend this analysis to other formally proscribed activities, such as the use of the prayer book. The buoyant numbers of ordinands and the opportunities for advancement under the Triers indicate that episcopalians had successfully adapted to their novel and unwelcome status as one religious sect among many, more than matching the popularity and impact of their principal rival, the Presbyterians. We may wonder whether the space created for episcopalians was merely an unforeseen consequence of religious pluralism, or a calculated attempt either to integrate the politically quiescent amongst them into the national church, or even to use them as a counter-balance to the Presbyterians, while ensuring a supply of learned ministers into the parochial ministry. If we cast the net wider, to include the exercise of ecclesiastical patronage and the practical workings of the ministry, then it may well be that the episcopalian contribution to the Cromwellian church was even greater than this essay has implied.

As a conforming episcopalian minister in the state church of the Commonwealth, therefore, Bull was part of a broader, significant pattern and constituency. As we will see in next week's post, Nelson's portrayal of Bull's ministry during this period also reflects a well-established narrative regarding such conformity. It is also worth reflecting how Bull's episcopalian conformity during the Interregnum reinforces the suggestion made in the previous post that, rather than presenting Bull as a high church partisan, Nelson appears to place him within a "moderate, mainstream Episcopalian theological (and political) tradition from the beginning of his clerical life", what we might term (after Fornecker) 'Arminian Conformity'. 

In 'Remembering Episcopalian Conformity in Restoration England', William White has explored how such conformity under the Commonwealth - while running contrary to narratives of episcopalian persecution and martyrdom - could find support from various constituencies under the Restoration. Among these were lay patrons who prized moderation and stability:

There were also plenty of lay patrons in the provinces likely to be less receptive to narratives of steadfast loyalty and indeed positively sympathetic towards those episcopalian churchmen who had conformed in the 1650s. The most hard-line clerical supporters of the re-established Church could, after all, prove decidedly divisive at a local level, unsuited to the realities of confessional diversity that often characterised parish life in Restoration England. 

Here, we might suggest, is an expression of the tradition in which Nelson places Bull.