'He hath so well defended the Fathers': Nelson's 'Life of Bull', Gallicanism, and the cosmopolitanism of High Church divinity

... a Storm being there upon raised in the Church.

This is how Robert Nelson, in his 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull, describes the context in the Church of England in the aftermath of the publication of Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (1685). The storm had not been caused by Bull's work but, rather, by a clumsy attempt by the orthodox divine William Sherlock to defend Trinitarian doctrine. As Nelson puts it, Sherlock applied "the principles of the Cartesian Metaphysicks" to the Holy Trinity, with the result that his work was seen "false, heretical, and impious" by "a great many" (not least because he depicted the Trinity as, again quoting Nelson, "three infinite distinct Minds and Substances"). In the heated debates over the Trinity which followed, "some Drops fell upon the Head of Mr. Bull also", his view of the Son's subordination being a particular target - as we have seen - of criticism by the divines of Reformed Orthodoxy.

Despite this, however, Nelson notes that Bull was acclaimed for his work by that bastion of Church of England orthodoxy, the University of Oxford, which made Bull a Doctor of Divinity in recognition of Defensio Fidei Nicaenae:

The University of Oxford accounted it an Honour to them, to have so learned and useful a Treatise printed at their Press, and written by one who had been formerly a Member of their Body, but was driven away by the Wickedness of the Times, as hath been already remarked. Wherefore they thought it incumbent upon them, to confer what Honour they could upon him, as shall be afterwards related, who by this judicious and elaborate Defence of the Catholick Faith, had contributed so much to the Honour, not only of the University itself, but of the Church and Nation, in foreign Churches and Nations.

Bull's orthodox credentials were further burnished by the international reception of his work:

But notwithstanding all this, it was no sooner printed at Oxford, but it was received with an universal Applause, as it greatly deserved : And the same thereof soon spread itself into foreign Parts, where it was highly valued by the best Judges of Antiquity, tho' of different Perswasions.

Amongst these "best Judges of Antiquity" is a figure to whom we have previously been introduced by Nelson - the Roman Catholic divine Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, an eirenic voice in French Catholicism and a leading Gallican:

In the Year 1690, the Bishop of Meaux, whose History of the Variations, &c. [a critique of Protestantism] had been attacked in Defence of the Protestants, (but especially of the French Calvinists) by Monsieur Jurieu, with too little Deference to the primitive Fathers of the Church, set forth a Discourse against this his Adversary, on purpose to prove, that his way of proceeding did effectually tend to the very undermining of Christianity, or at least to the Establishment of Socinianism; and that it was a Method condemned, not only by the Roman Catholicks, but by the most judicious Protestant Writers, such as Dr. Bull in particular.

We can easily detect Nelson's unease with the French Reformed theologian and polemicist Pierre Jurieu: "too little Deference to the primitive Fathers of the Church" was precisely the type of approach which was likely to draw criticism not only from Bull but also from a vast array of divines in a late 17th and early 18th century Church of England which prided itself on its patristic claims. 

Nelson critique of Jurieu's method as encouraging Socinianism also again reminds us that Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae was explicitly a defence of creedal Trinitarianism, radically different to the non- and anti-Trinitarian works that were the cause of so much debate in England. This is also seen in Nelson's condemnation of Jurieu's failure to properly attend to the Fathers:

For Monsieur Jurieu, by endeavouring to find Variations in the ancient Fathers, and treading in the Steps of Dailée, did the Cause of Christianity in general more hurt, than he did his own good by it. 

Bossuet, by contrast, enthusiastically referenced Bull and invoked him against Jurieu, as seen in Nelson's quote from the Bishop of Meaux:

I send him to BULL, that learned English Protestant, the Treatise, where he hath so well defended the Fathers, who lived before the Council of Nice. You must either renounce the Faith of the Holy Trinity, which God forbid, or presuppose with me that this Author hath Reason.

While Jurieu attempted to say that he did not differ from Bull, the judgement of both Bossuet and Nelson said otherwise:

But the Bishop of Meaux replied to Monsieur Jurieu, that without entring into all the Particulars, it was enough to let him know, that he, the Bishop, had taken from him in one word all the Ancients by sending him to BULL; as from whom he might learn the true Explication of all their Passages ... But Jurieu cared not it seems to confess, that either our Author was favourable to the side of his Adversary in this Dispute, or that so learned a Protestant as Dr. Bull, should carry away from him all his Authors together at once, without leaving him so much as one of them.

What is the significance of this incident? It again confirms, as we have seen, Bull's orthodox purpose in his work. It also, however, draws attention to another aspect of post-1662 Church of England divinity: it was well-received and respected elsewhere in Europe. A particular criticism of the non-Calvinist 'High Church' tradition in the Church of England is that was insular, an ecclesiastical version of 'splendid isolation', contrasting with the cosmopolitan nature of both Reformed Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. I have previously explored how this characterisation fails to recognise the significant cosmopolitanism of the Laudian and High Church traditions, seen in Laud's plan for a Union of the Churches of the Northern Kingdoms, drawing upon and interacting with Jansenism and Gallicanism, and being influenced and inspired by the eirenicism of Grotius and Casaubon, with Grotius as a guardian of Casaubon's legacy. 

In such a context, Bossuet's praise for Bull's work and the obvious delight of Nelson (presumably reflecting Bull's contentment) in that praise, also points to the cosmopolitan nature of non-Calvinist 'High Church' divinity in the Church of England, and its particular relationship with French Gallican opinion. That the Bishop of Meaux, a leading Gallican, should invoke Bull as "that learned English Protestant", who "hath so well defended the Fathers", provides a significant example of that broader European theological culture to which High Church divines belonged.