'So learned and good a Man': Nelson's 'Life of Bull' and respect for Episcopius

The Dutch Remonstrant theologian Episcopius was, as Nelson notes in his his 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull, an influential figure in Bull's thinking from his student days. Indeed, Episcopius' Institutiones Theologicae (1650) was regarded by Bull as "the best System of Divinity that had appeared". That said, however, we have seen how Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae demonstrated a common concern amongst English non-Calvinist Episcopalians that Remonstrant thought could become Socinian-adjacent, a "lurking Poison, which might secretly instil itself into the Minds of unwary Readers".

In 1694, Bull returned to this matter, publishing a significant critique of a particular aspect of Episcopius' thought regarding Nicene Christology:

In the Year 1694, Dr. Bull, while Rector of Avening, published his Judicium Ecclesia Catholicae, which was printed at Oxford, and written in defence of the Anathema, as his former Book had been of the Faith, pronounced at the first Council of Nice. The Occasion of writing this Treatise was, that in his reading the xxxivth Chapter of the fourth Book of the Institutions of Episcopius, where he treateth concerning the Necessity of believing the manner of the divine Filiation of Jesus Christ, and putteth this Question, "Whether the Fifth (and highest) manner of Christ's being the Son of God, be necessary to be known and believed, and whether they who deny the same, are to be Excommunicated and Anathematized?" He made some Remarks hereupon for his own private Use, and drew up an Answer to the Arguments of that learned Writer, whereby he [i.e. Episcopius] was persuaded, that the primitive Catholicks did not refuse Communion, with those that received not the Article of the divine Generation or Filiation of Jesus Christ, if they acknowledged him to be the Son of God, by his miraculous Conception of the Holy Ghost, by virtue of his mediatorial Office, by his Refurrection from the Dead, and by his Exaltation to sit at the Right Hand of God the Father.

This, of course, directly contradicted the interpretation of pre-Nicene Christology which Bull had set out in Defensio Fidei Nicaenae. What is more, it was an example of that "lurking Poison" in Remonstrant thought. That said, Nelson is careful to note Bull's continued esteem for Episcopius:

Episcopius, as our Author hath observed, was a Man of great natural Parts, and more than commonly learned in many Things ...

That said, there was an aspect of Episcopius' theological approach which Bull - with that reverence for the Fathers that was particularly important to the Restoration Church of England - could not but regard as a critical weakness:

but he was one, who very little consulted or cared for the Writings of the ancient Fathers; yea, plainly despised them. Whence, writing against Wading the Jesuit, who made a mighty boast of the Fathers and Councils, as if they were all generally on his side against the Protestants, he took him up short, telling him once for all, that he was mistaken, in thinking to draw him into such an endless Maze and Labour, at which he must work like a Mill-horse, for the sake only of an empty Name: and that he did not envy those, who had a mind to be always roving and fluctuating in that Ocean of Councils and Fathers, and to be laying out upon them all their Time and Pains, the Glory of being esteemed for their vast Reading and capacious Memory; for that he had no Ambition in him after a Fame for that, which cost so dear and signified so little.

Again, however, Nelson highlights that Bull's critique of Episcopius was not to deny a rightful recognition of the Remonstrant's significance:

For most certainly, as our Author hath well noted here upon, had he [i.e. Episcopius] expended more of his Time and Study in reading of these [i.e. the Fathers], he would herein have taken pains not to be repented of, either by himself, or the Church of Christ. For it is his Judgment, that so learned and good a Man, would never have undertaken so far, the Patronage of the Arians and Socinians, as to excuse their Doctrine concerning the Person of our Saviour, by the pretended Judgment and Authority of the primitive Church, as if it were but Erroneous only and not Heretical also. 

As if to further emphasise this, Nelson notes that Bull's primary intention was not to challenge Episcopius but, rather, those in England who were invoking the Remonstrant's work, particularly the non-Trinitarian Arthur Bury's 1690 The Naked Gospel:

[Bull's Judicium Ecclesiae Catholicae] was not written and published so much against Episcopius himself, or against his Disciple Curcellaus, who hath written a Dissertation also much to the same purpose, or against any of the Learned Abroad, whether Remonstrants or Unitarians; as against some at home among us, to whom Dr. Bull giveth the Name of Mediators, for joining together two Extremes; who in their Writings have made use of the Arguments of Episcopius, Curcellaus, and even of Socinus himself for this end. Against such modern Reconcilers as these, who stood indifferent for the Truth, and were Strangers to the Principles of Catholick Communion, it appeareth, that this Treatise was principally levelled by the Author. 

Even when challenging a not insignificant aspect of Episcopius' work, Nelson goes to some lengths to ensure that the reader does not think that Bull is rejecting the Remonstrant's standing as a respected, influential, and "more than commonly learned" divine. It is almost as if Nelson regards Bull as saving Episcopius from those English anti-Trinitarians who use the Remonstrant's work to further the Socinian agenda. This points to a crucial dividing line in late 17th/early 18th century theology in the Church of England - between those, shaped by the commitments of Reformed Orthodoxy, who regarded Episcopius as little more than a Socinian heretic and those anti-Calvinists, like Bull, who, while certainly not uncritical of the Dutch divine, looked upon him as "so learned and good a Man".