'Competent witnesses of the Faith': Nelson's 'Life of Dr. Bull', Nicene faith, and conciliar authority

In his discussion of Bull's 1685 work Defensio Fidei Nicaenae, Nelson refers to an interesting debate provoked by a reading of Bull by the Roman Catholic divine Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux and an eirenic voice in French Catholicism: 

the late Bishop of Meaux, with whom I had the honour to be acquainted, and who is known to have had  a particular Esteem for our Author, is mistaken, in supposing him to hold the Infallibility of this Council of Nice; for had the Bishop but proved this once, all that Mr. Bull had written in defence of the Faith there established, would have been altogether superfluous.

We might note that Nelson's passing reference to knowing Bossuet was due to him remaining on the continent for some years after the Revolution of 1688: in other words, it is an acknowledgement of his Jacobite loyalties, loyalties which remained (albeit perhaps more as an emotional attachment) even after he abandoned the Non-juror schism and reconciled to the Church of England in 1710. This gives me another opportunity to encourage those interested in further exploring the politics of this era - and the history of the Church of England in this period cannot be understood apart from this - to read George Owers' wonderful new book The Rage of Party.

Nelson's statement that Bossuet had "a particular Esteem" for Bull provides an insight into the theological landscape of the Europe of the late 17th and early 18th centuries. Dialogue and esteem between divines of opposing confessions was commonplace. Bossuet's Gallicanism provided an additional reason for such esteem and dialogue, reflecting the tradition in the English Church of Laudian and High Church affection for Gallicanism. 

Nevertheless, Bousset's interpretation of Defensio Fidei Nicaenae as making a claim to Nicaea's infallibility was a subject of dispute. Against Bousset's reading, Nelson presents Bull as making a much more modest claim for Nicaea:

He had, 'tis true, a very great Regard for Councils truly General, and in particular, for the Nicene and the Constantinopolitan, not seeing any sufficient Reason to object against their Testimony: Whence, allowing them to be competent Witnesses of the Faith and Practice of the Church at that time, as in the several Parts of it acknowledg'd and receiv'd, he concluded, that the solemn Attestation of above three hundred Witnesses at once, must needs be more authoritative, than the single Asseveration of here and there one occasionally, and perhaps not accurately expressing himself.

Nelson's summary of Bull's understanding of the authority of Nicaea and Constantinople - "competent Witnesses of the Faith" - echoed a well-established view amongst divines of the Church of England. This is seen, for example, in Jeremy Taylor:

The Church of England receives the four first Generals as of highest regard, not that they are infallible; but that they have determin'd wisely and holily.

By contrast, Bossuet was attempting to present Bull as supporting conciliar infallibility and thus reflecting Gallican views of general councils:

For the Bishop concluding it to be our Author's Opinion, that it was impossible for the Fathers of that Council to fall into Error, because they were enlightned with the Light of God's Spirit; without attending as he ought to what went before, and to what followeth afterwards, which might have undeceived him, he inferreth, "Hence he [Mr.Bull] shews at once the Infallibility of General Councils, both by Scripture and by the Tradition of the ancient Church: God bless (continueth he) the Learned Bull; and reward him for this sincere Confession, as also for the Zeal, which he hath made appear in defending the Godhead of Jesus Christ: May he be delivered from those Prejudices which hinder him from opening his Eyes to the Lights of the Catholick Church, and to the necessary Consequences of the Truth by him confessed."

Leaving aside the polemical purposes for which Bossuet used this reading of Bull, more significant is his quite explicit understanding that Defensio Fidei Nicaenae was a defence of Christological orthodoxy. This stands in stark contrast to those critics of Bull from within Reformed Orthodoxy who attempted to present this work as a Socinian-adjacent and influenced Christology. Bossuet clearly sees nothing like this in Bull.

What, however, of the Council's authority? Was there any meaningful sense in which Bull proposed the infallibility of Nicaea? Nelson emphasises that any claims that Bull proposed Nicaea's infallibility derive from a comprehensive misreading of his account of the guidance of the Holy Spirit at the Council. Bull's concern was to rebut those Socinians who were portraying the faith of Nicaea as an innovation, with one Socinian author describing the Nicene fathers as "Nove fidei conditores":

as often as he considered the incredibility that such a Number of the Pastors of this Church, met together from all the Parts of the World, where Christianity was planted, could in a Matter of the greatest moment, even in the very foundation itself of Christian Faith and Worship, be either deceived or Deceivers; or that Christ should not so far remember his Promise, as by his Spirit to abide with the Apostles and their Successors to the End of the World, so as to guard them at least from laying another Foundation than what he himself had laid.

This "Grace of the Holy Spirit, assisting a Council of Bishops that is truly universal in the necessary Articles of Faith" was not a claim to conciliar infallibility but, rather, a recognition that Nicaea was - the fundamental point of Bull's work - affirming an existing doctrinal understanding within the Church. Nelson turns to Bull's quotation from the historian Socrates of Constantinople to expound this:

the Argument of Socrates maybe put into this Form following; "suppose the Nicene Fathers to have been never so ignorant and unlearned, yet the greatest part of them were pious Men: And it is unreasonable to believe, that so many holy and approved Men, being met together out of all parts of the Christian World, could wickedly conspire together to innovate the publickly receiv'd Faith, in the very principal Article of Christianity; it being not possible to suppose, that the simplest there could be so very ignorant, as not to understand the very first Rudiments concerning the Holy Trinity, which were wont to be delivered to the very Catechumens, or not to know what they themselves had receiv'd concerning it from their Predecessors. Since how defective soever they might be in any other part of Knowledge, he concluded it impossible for them to be uninstructed in the first and most fundamental Doctrine of their Religion."

This was then, and continued afterwards, to be the true Sense of our Author concerning General Councils, and in particular concerning this of Nice.

The foundation of the faith, then, will not be undermined or denied by a "truly universal" council (a qualification that almost certainly was intended to refute Trent's claim to be such a general council). This is part of the promised working of the Holy Spirit within the Church, sustaining the Faith through the Church - from bishops to "the very Catechumens" - adhering to "the first and most fundamental Doctrine" in its confession of Jesus Christ.

What is more, if Nicaea was infallible, Nelson highlights that Bull's work was in vain. All Bull had to then do was simply invoke the status of Nicaea and its infallibility. Instead, Defensio Fidei Nicaenae labours at length to demonstrate that Nicaea's affirmation did accord with pre-Nicene teaching. 

it is the whole Scope of his most learned Defence of the first General Council, to shew, that the Fathers thereof did not Err, in the Determination of the Article by them examined; both because this their Determination was supported by the more ancient Testimonies of their Predecessors, and because it was morally impossible for them, under their Circumstances, to have erred therein; and much less for them to have conspired amongst themselves, to change and new model the Faith, which had been universally received in all the Churches. All which would have been perfectly needless, had he designed to prove the Infallibility of this Council; for this once proved, all the rest must have been a superfluous Labour, and consequently his whole Book would have been to no purpose.

None of this is to say that Bull's account of the Council of Nicaea would at all impress contemporary ecclesiastical historians. This, however, is not the point. The point is that Bull was defending the Nicene faith as in fundamental continuity with pre-Nicene faith. It was the deliberations and judgement of the Council which pointed to the workings of the Holy Spirit - not the other way round. 

In fact, knowing what we now do about the post-Nicaea debates and controversies, we might suggest that something of Bull's understanding can be seen in how the deliberations and judgement of Nicaea came to be accepted amongst the churches. It was no claim to conciliar infallibility which led to Nicaea's acceptance but, rather, the gradual discernment that Nicaea stood in continuity with and proclaimed the Apostolic faith - that Nicaea was a 'competent witness of the Faith'. In Bull's words in the preface 'To the Reader' in Defensio Fidei Nicaenae:

What the Nicene fathers laid down concerning the divinity of the Son, in opposition to Arius and other heretics, the same in effect (although sometimes, it may be, in other words, and in another mode of expression) was taught, without any single exception, by all the fathers and approved doctors of the Church, who flourished before the council of Nice, even from the very times of the Apostles.