'His eldest son, Mr. George Bull, a Clergyman': Nelson's 'Life of Bull' and the sons of clergy in 18th century Anglicanism
Today's extract draws us to consider one of these characteristics: how sons of clergy often took holy orders. Nelson's addresses this in the context of Bull becoming Bishop of St Davids at a late stage in life. Part of the reason he assented to this, Nelson states, is that was agreed that that his son - also George - would succeed him as Archdeacon of Llandaff in the diocese. An elderly father, on assuming episcopal office, desired his accomplished clergyman son to be at his side:
and that was, the Assistance he expected from his eldest Son, Mr. George Bull, a Clergyman, in the very Flower of his Age, being then about five and thirty. He was a Person truly sober and religious, as well as learned and understanding in his own Profession. He had spent seventeen Years at Christ-Church in Oxford, and was esteemed one of the Ornaments of that Society, where all polite and solid Learning hath been used to flourish in Perfection. In this Place, he was not only formed himself to Piety and Learning, but as a Tutor he had formed others to the same valuable Qualifications; and with Diligence and Success, had cultivated the Minds of several Gentlemen, and had regulated their Manners. The Sense of this Obligation made so strong an Impression upon one of his Pupils, the worthy Sir Bourchier Wrey, Baronet, that he became Mr. Bull's Patron, and preferred him to the Rectory of Tawstock in Devonshire, after he had laboured some Years in doing Good by his Preaching in the Neighbourhood of Oxford; and not long after, upon the Promotion of his Father, by the Grace and Favour of the Queen, he was in his room made Archdeacon of Llandaff.
In addition to sons of clergy taking holy orders, other aspects of 18th century Anglicanism are seen in this short extract. The description of the younger Bull as "truly sober and religious", marked by "Piety and Learning" is, of course, very 18th century. That said, as far as summaries of a clerical character go, would we really not want clergy to aspire to this?
Then there is the relationship between the Tory gentry, represented by Sir Bourchier Wrey, Baronet, and the clergy. In a wonderful description of the good Baronet, the History of Parliament Online notes, "Wrey retained his seat at the 1713 election but made no significant contribution to this Parliament": I am of the opinion that this modest approach to politics is much preferable to our current political disorders. Suspicion of Wrey's later involvement in the Atterbury Plot, however, suggest that this healthy approach to politics gave way to very questionable enthusiasm. That said, as Nelson states, Wrey was a wise patron and appointed the younger Bull to one of the parishes in which the Wreys held advowson.
As I have previously suggested in addressing this topic regarding Bull senior, while it is fashionable for contemporary Anglicans to immediately dismiss such process and patronage, patrons, embedded in the parish and local community, were a key means by which laity had an active, significant role in ecclesiastical life, shaping the character of parish and national Church.
Which brings us to the central point of this post, how sons of clergy taking holy orders was a feature of 18th century Anglicanism. In her beautiful A Year With Gilbert White (2025), Jenny Uglow touchingly illustrates how White was shaped by his clerical family network. Amongst other immediately obvious examples of sons of clergy taking holy orders there is good Parson Woodforde and Charles Inglis.
As with the above two issues, a haughty dismissal of this practice is unwise. Sons of clergy taking holy orders had experienced formation in their homes: watching their fathers fulfill their duties, hearing them read the services and preach, watching them pastor their congregations and maintain relationships with their communities. Academic formation - before Cambridge or Oxford - also happened at home or with a clerical friend of their father. One might be tempted to suggest that such formation may have been rather more meaningful and effective in producing well-rounded clergy, loyal to the Church of England and at home in their parishes, than many 21st century theological education institutions.
A good case could be made, I think, that sons of clergy taking holy orders made an important contribution to the stability of 18th century Anglicanism, its unity and accord, and the loyalty of its laity over the generations. This is not, of course, a practice that can be simply replicated in contemporary Anglicanism, albeit it remained a not uncommon characteristic well into the 20th century. Its existence in the 18th century, however, deserves much more considered thought and respect from contemporary Anglicans.
Comments
Post a Comment