'Far be it from us that we should receive him for our Master': Nelson's 'Life of Bull' and a Hookerian view of Calvin

In the account provided by Nelson in his 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull, of how Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (1685) defended "the old Catholick doctrine" of divine monarchy and the Son's subordination - according to Nicene faith - against the assertion of "the Calvinistical School" that the Son is autotheos, we saw last week how Bull's "generous Liberty of Mind" allowed him to approvingly quote Remonstrant thinkers with whom he otherwise disagreed on Trinitarian doctrine.

The same "generous Liberty of Mind" Nelson also sees in Bull's approach to Calvin. Bull's rejection of Calvin was robust, regarding the doctrine of autotheos as undermining the fundamentals of Trinitarian teaching. This, however, does not at all result in an outright rejection of Calvin:

While I am telling these Things, I have an Horror upon me; and therefore I most seriously exhort the pious and studious Youth, that they take heed of that Spirit from which such effects as these have proceeded. We owe much indeed to that great Man, for his excellent Service in purging the Church of Christ from Popish Superstition. But far be it from us, that we should receive him for our Master, or that we should swear to his words; or lastly, that we should be afraid freely to remark, as there shall be Cause for so doing, his manifest Errors, and his new and singular Determinations, against the Catholick Consent of Antiquity. 

Bull here holds together two aspects of Calvin. Firstly, a recognition of the Reformer, "his excellent service". This certainly suggests that in a range of matters that formed the identity of Churches of the Reformation - we might think, for example, of the authority of Scripture, understanding the Eucharist, rejecting papal authority, meritorious works, and the invocation of saints - Bull affirmed Calvin's influence.

Secondly, however, was the critique of Calvin for "his new and singular Determinations, against the Catholick Consent of Antiquity". Bull obviously included autotheos amongst these. This reflected a willingness in the reformed Church of England to reject exaggeration of Calvin's status and authority. Even Whitgift, with his deep commitment to Calvinistic soteriology, warned of Cartwright giving "M. Calvin authority to conclude that which is not determined by the scripture".  The views of a growing body of divines in the Elizabethan and Jacobean Church of England critical of Calvin's teaching on predestination were summarised by Overall, who declared of such teaching that it was "rejected by all Antiquity". The experience of the 1640s and 50s further heightened the critique of aspects of Calvin's teaching, with Calvin's English disciples blamed for bringing division and disorder to Church and State.

Bull's judgement of Calvin, therefore, reflected this well-established interpretation within the Church of England, viewing him as but one divine amongst many, significant for his critique of Roman teaching and practice, but certainly not "our Master", not least because of "his new and singular Determinations". As Bramhall the Laudian said of the Genevan Reformer:

We honour Calvin for his excellent parts, but we do not pin our religion either in doctrine or discipline or liturgy to Calvin's sleeve.

We see this in Bull, deeply influenced since his student days - as we have seen - by Remonstrant divines, yet not hesitating to call Calvin "that great Man". Indeed, it was his praise for Calvin, alongside the robust critique of "his new and singular Determinations", which Nelson pointed to as evidence of Bull's intellectual generosity:

In which Words our Author hath so fully and clearly express'd his true Sense, and a generous Liberty of Mind, and given withal, such a prudent Caution and Advice to all young Students in Divinity ...

In many ways we can see Bull's approach to Calvin as following Hooker. It was Hooker who, by placing Calvin in context, had pointed to him as merely another divine, "incomparably the wisest man that ever the French Church did enjoy, since the hour it enjoyed him" (LEP, Preface, 2.1). Hooker praised Calvin for "two things of principal moment ... which deservedly procured him throughout the world", the Institutes and his "exposition of holy Scripture" (2.8). Alongside this, however, Hooker crucially pointed to Calvin's exalted claims for the innovations of government by presbytery and lay elders:

But what argument are ye able to show, whereby it was ever proved by Calvin, that any one sentence of Scripture doth necessarily enforce these things, or the rest wherein your opinion concurreth with his against the orders of your own Church? (2.7).

Bull's trenchant critique of Calvin's innovations, alongside recognition of that which was good in Calvin's writings, with the declaration that the Genevan reformer was not "our Master", rather than being a post-Restoration 'Arminian' development, is thoroughly Hookerian.