'His constant patron, Dr. Nicholson': Restoration, latitude, and Robert Nelson's 'Life of Dr. George Bull'
We now move to 1662, when Nelson was presented to a new cure:
In the Year 1662, Mr. Bull was presented to the Vicaridge of Suddington St. Peter, by the then Lord Chancellor the Earl of Clarendon, at the Request and Application of his constant Patron, and worthy Diocesan, Dr. Nicholson, who was made Bishop of Gloucester upon the Restoration, and who had all that Merit which was necessary to fill so great a Station in the Church to the best Advantage, if his Steddiness to her Doctrines and Discipline, in her most afflicted State, had not made it also reasonable that he should have had his Share in her Prosperity.
It is a fascinating little episode. Bull's career here intersects with two figures influential in shaping the character of the Church of England throughout the 'long 18th century'. Clarendon's political skill ensured the re-establishment of episcopacy and the liturgy after 1660, setting in place the constitutional and ecclesiastical foundations - not least the 1662 Act of Uniformity - which defined the Church of England throughout this period. He also famously gave voice, in the Convention Parliament, to the confidence which underpinned the 18th century Church of England: "the best and the best-reformed church in the Christian World". Likewise, two of Nicholson's works - his Exposition of the Church Catechism (1655) and Exposition of the Apostles' Creed (1661) - exemplified the confident, generous orthodoxy celebrated by the divines of the Church of England during the 'long 18th century', contrasting with the "those curious points, in which the present differences lie".
Here was Bull's inheritance, the ecclesial and theological landscape in which he flourished, and to which he gave significant voice. That the patronage of Nicholson and Clarendon should have aided him in the year 1662 is also appropriately symbolic.
There are other factors which add to the significance of this incident. Firstly, Nicholson did not conform under the Commonwealth, whereas - as we have seen - Bull was a conforming Episcopalian in the Cromwellian Church. The fact that Bull's conformity in the 1650s was no barrier to Nicholson's patronage demonstrates how the Restoration Church did not place barriers in the way of Episcopalian clergy who had conformed during "the late unhappy confusions". Clarendon had a crucial role in shaping this approach, expressing Charles II's wise and prudent desire to bring healing to Church and Realm.
Related to this, we also should note that Stephen Hampton includes Nicholson amongst the post-Restoration 'Reformed Conformists', that is, those defined - however loosely - by a commitment to a classically Reformed theological understanding. This, of course, stands in contrast to Bull, who would become a leading spokesman for - to use Fornecker's term - Arminian Conformity. As Nelson had already indicated, Bull's theological allegiances had been formed by this stage. This, however, did not prevent the Reformed Conformist Nicholson from being his patron and for a friendship to flourish. Without reading too much into this, it is suggestive of the 'unity and accord' which William Gibson identifies as central to the experience of the Church of England during the long 18th century.
One final point also worthy of note is the manner in which Nelson refers to Nicholson's non-conformity during the Commonwealth and appointment to the episcopate at the Restoration:
Dr. Nicholson, who was made Bishop of Gloucester upon the Restoration, and who had all that Merit which was necessary to fill so great a Station in the Church to the best Advantage, if his Steddiness to her Doctrines and Discipline, in her most afflicted State, had not made it also reasonable that he should have had his Share in her Prosperity.
There are similarities here to how Rust, in his funeral sermon, described Taylor's experience during the Commonwealth and at the Restoration:
It was not long ere his Sacred Majesty began the settlement of the Church, and the great Doctor Jeremy Taylor was resolv'd upon, for the Bishoprick of Down and Conor; and not long after, Dromore was added to it; and it was but reasonable that the King and Church should consider their Champion, and reward the pains and sufferings he under-went in the defence of their Cause and Honour.
It is possible that Nelson is deliberately echoing a standard Royalist Episcopalian account of Restoration episcopal appointments for those who refused to conform under the Commonwealth. This, however, cannot at all be assumed as a criticism of Episcopalian conformists. Rust, after all, conformed in Cambridge during the 1650s (receiving episcopal orders from Taylor only in 1661). And Nelson was hardly likely to be invoking Nicholson as a criticism of Episcopalian conformists when Bull himself served in the Cromwellian Church.
Perhaps, then, such language indicates not an Episcopalian triumphalism - potentially alienating those Episcopalians who had conformed - but, rather, a healing of the deep wounds of the 1650s. Alongside non-conforming Episcopalians such as Nicholson and Taylor, the Restoration also witnessed the episcopal appointments of a number of conforming Episcopalians, not the least of which was Sanderson. Here, as Charles II and Clarendon intended, was a means of bringing healing to the Church and the Realm, gathering up both non-conformist and conformist Episcopalians into the restored Church of England.
If we wanted a single incident to illustrate the various expressions of latitude built into the Restoration settlement of the Church of England, it is difficult to think of something more fitting that Clarendon appointing Bull to a cure on the advice of Nicholson.
Comments
Post a Comment