The cautious reintroduction of the Prayer Book at the Restoration: Robert Nelson's 'Life of Dr. George Bull'

In the afternoon to the Abbey, where a good sermon by a stranger, but no Common Prayer yet - 1st July 1660.

After dinner to St. Margaret’s, where the first time I ever heard Common Prayer in that Church - 5th August 1660.

In the morn to our own church, where Mr. Mills did begin to nibble at the Common Prayer, by saying 'Glory be to the Father, &c.' after he had read the two psalms; but the people had been so little used to it, that they could not tell what to answer - 4th November 1660.

This day also did Mr. Mills begin to read all the Common Prayer, which I was glad of - 11th November 1660.

Pepys' diary entries for 1660 provide an insight into how the return of the Book of Common Prayer was, in many places, approached with a prudent caution in the aftermath of the Restoration. It was, of course, the case that, as the Preface to the 1662 revision would declare, in constitutional terms, the legal requirement to use to the Prayer Book had not been legitimately repealed, the liturgy "having never been legally abolished":

By what undue means, and for what mischievous purposes the use of the Liturgy (though enjoined by the Laws of the Land, and those Laws never yet repealed) came, during the late unhappy confusions, to be discontinued, is too well known to the world, and we are not willing here to remember.

Pepys' reference to "the people had been so little used to it" indicates something of why Episcopalian clergy tended to approach the restoration of the liturgy with considerable caution. Common Prayer, after all, had not been used in English churches since the mid-1640s. The country was also exhausted after bloody civil wars and Cromwell's rule, and was now thankful for the stability brought by the Restoration. A too hasty or aggressive return to the liturgy by individual clergy would run the risk of re-opening painful, barely healed wounds, reigniting religious controversy in local communities. Reflecting this context, Charles II's Declaration of Breda would likewise have encouraged a caution amongst loyal Episcopalian clergy on this matter:

because the passion and uncharitablnesse of the times have produced several opinions in Religion, by which men are engaged in parties and animosities against each other, which when they shall hereafter unite in a freedom of conversation will be composed or better understood: We do declare a Liberty to Tender Consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted or called in question for differences of opinion in matters of Religion, which do not disturb the Peace of the Kingdom.

In Robert Nelson's 1713 The Life of Dr. George Bull, we see a wise caution displayed by Bull, a young, newly-instituted incumbent in 1662. I emphasise the year because it demonstrates that Bull was much more cautious than, for example, Pepys' parson, Mr. Mills. Mindful that the 1662 Act of Uniformity received the Royal Assent in May and that subscription by clergy was required by Saint Bartholomew's Day, and that Nelson has previously told us that Bull became took possession of the cure "in the year 1662", this account  - as the closing words make clear - refers to Bull's action in the first half of the year:

When he first came to the Rectory of Suddington, he began to be more open in the Use of the Liturgy of the Church of England; and it was next to impossible but that it should be liked and approved by every one that heard him Officiate: for he had a most excellent Talent in performing the whole Service; and he was to that degree perfect in it, that I never yet heard him equalled by any one. His whole Deportment was grave and serious, and had withal an Air of that Authority which belonged to his Function; his Pronunciation was distinct and audible, and yet natural and unaffected; he went through every Part of the Service with that particular Devotion that belongs to it. He Read the Holy Scriptures with such Leisure, and with such Exactness, in observing the Stops and Points, that they were much better understood by the People; and yet with that Zeal and Gravity as shewed the Importance of the Message which he delivered, and fix'd the Attention of those that were to receive it. He offered up all the Prayers with great Warmth and Intenseness of Mind; his very Soul seem'd to invigorate every Petition, and to give new Life to every Prayer; which is certainly one good Method to kindle Heavenly Affections in the Congregation. With these Advantages he reconciled the Minds of his Parishioners to the Common-Prayer, before the Use of it was Publickly Restored.

As we have previously explored, in Bull's ministry as a Conforming Episcopalian in the Cromwellian Church he had - after the manner of Saunderson - based his conduct of divine service on the Book of Common Prayer, while adhering to the law in not actually using the Book: "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". Now in the early months of 1662, Nelson's account suggests that Bull - not unlike Pepys' Mr. Mills - began to use the Prayer Book liturgy in a manner which allowed his parishioners to become re-acquainted with it. Nelson's phrase "he began to be more open" implies a piecemeal introduction of aspects of the liturgy, moving towards its fuller use.

Three things are particularly worthy of note here. The first is the date. This was early 1662. Pepys' Mr. Mills had restored the liturgy considerably earlier, in November 1660. This points to significant differences in timing as to when clergy began to again use the Prayer Book. Secondly, we are talking about Bull, whose Episcopalianism and 'Arminianism' has already been established by Nelson's narrative. A cautious approach by clergy to the restoration of the liturgy, therefore, cannot be taken to indicate a hostility to the Prayer Book. Thirdly, there is the fact that Bull "reconciled the Minds of his Parishioners to the Common Prayer": they needed to be reconciled to the liturgy. Having participated in divine service for nearly two decades without the Prayer Book, and almost certainly uneasy about actions which threatened controversy in their parish, these parishioners required of Bull a cautious, moderating, prudent approach to restoring the liturgy. 

Nelson provides an intriguing insight into the practicalities of the Restoration Church of England, May 1660 - August 1662. A much more cautious picture emerges than is suggested by narratives of a 'Laudian re-establishment'. It is points to a much wiser, cautious approach, with recognition of the deep divisions and profound instabilities which been experienced by church and realm since the 1640s. Nelson's account might also make us consider the Restoration Church of England did not 'abolish' the Cromwellian Church - with, of course, its parish churches, its lay patrons, its very many Episcopalian clergy, and its not inconsiderable Protestant latitude - but, modestly and prudently, restored to it episcopal and liturgical order. In Nelson's Life of Bull, we see an exemplar of this process.