laudable Practice

Last week we saw, from Nelson's 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull , how Bull's Defensio Fidei Nicaenae (1685) asserted a subordination of the Son on the basis on Nicene confession that He is begotten of the Father, "God of God", the Father thus being "the Fountain, Original and Principle of the Divinity". This view of the divine monarchy and the Son's subordination was, of course, controversial, provoking sustained critiques of Bull, despite (as previously noted) divines such as Ralph Cudworth and Jeremy Taylor sharing this understanding. Nelson himself has no hesitation whatsoever in affirming Bull's position, placing it in a wider context of Lutheran and Roman Catholic divines who likewise understood the Nicene Confession, and identifying its opponents as "the Calvinistical School": he hath learnedly and solidly confuted the unreasonable and uncatholick Notion of the Moderns, which maketh the Son a self-dependent Principle of Divinity (and by...

We left Nelson's 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull before Advent , considering how Bull's chief concern in Defensio Fidei Nicaenae  (1685) was to refute Socinian and some advanced Remonstrant critiques of Nicaea. Having pointed to Bull's defence of Nicaea's understanding of the Son's pre-existence, divine substantiality, and eternity, we now turn to another but much more controversial "pillar" of Nicene teaching for Bull - the Son's subordination to the Father. Nelson quotes a lengthy extract from Bull, contending that the pre-Nicene and Nicene Fathers were agreed on the Son's subordination: For they all with one consent have taught, that the divine Nature and Perfections do agree to the Father and Son, not Collaterally or Co-ordinately, but Subordinately: that is, That the Son hath indeed the same divine Nature in common with the Father, but hath it communicated from the Father, so as the Father alone hath that divine Nature from himself, or from no o...

Having seen in last week's reading from Nelson's 1713 Life of Dr. George Bull , that Bull's chief concern in Defensio Fidei Nicaenae was refute critiques of Nicaea which had emerged and become influential in Remonstrant theology , this week we turn to how this refutation was expressed. Nelson identifies "four principal pillars" of Nicene faith defended by Bull: Now the four principal Pillars of the Catholick doctrine concerning Christ, maintained and defended in this Book, are The Pre-existence, his Divine Substantiality, his Eternity, and his Subordination as Son. For against the Socinians he proveth, that the Son of God did preexist before he was born of the Virgin, and even before the World also was, by many great Authorities. And against the Arians, he sheweth how this Son of God is not of any created and changable Essence, but of the very same Nature with God his Father: and so is rightly called, very God of very God, and of one Substance with the Father. Al...

We first encountered the Dutch Remonstrant theologian Episcopius early in Nelson's Life of Dr. George Bull , with the young Bull subversively reading him while under the care of a Calvinistic tutor during the Interregnum. The Remonstrant thinker, said Nelson, "preserved [the young Bull] from the bad Principles of those Times, and directed his Understanding in distinguishing Truths of very great Importance".  Episcopius now reappears as Nelson explores Bull's  Defensio Fidei Nicaenae : the context, however, is much more critical of the great Remonstrant. Part of Bull's motivation in writing this work was, Nelson states, to challenge a tendency amongst Remonstrant writers, while rejecting Socinian error, to yet critique the Council of Nicaea: It is plain Episcopius was far from being a Socinian, as our Author truly observeth, having expresly written against, and solidly overthrown the fundamental Article of Socinianism; and endeavoured from the Testimony of Scriptu...

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...

On quite a few occasions in these readings from Nelson's 1713 Life of Dr. Bull , I have pointed to Samuel Fornecker's excellent study Bisschop's Bench: Contours of Arminian Conformity in the Church of England, c.1674-1742 (2024). It is a wonderful conversation partner when reading Nelson's account of one of the towering 'Arminian' Church of England divines of the long 18th century, not least because Nelson's judgements often contrast with those presented by Fornecker. This can lead to an interesting debate over the nature of 'Arminian Conformity'. Today's reading provides another example of this. Fornecker regards Bull's 1685 work Defensio Fidei Nicaenae  as exemplifying "the graded subordinationism" characteristic of Episcopius-influenced Arminian accounts of the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. Nelson, however, points to  Defensio Fidei Nicaenae as fulfilling its title. The work, Nelson states, had its origin...

Preaching, in 1663, at the funeral of John Bramhall , Archbishop of Armagh, Jeremy Taylor referenced a 1660 incident when the Laudian Bramhall, returning from exile with King Charles II, received a delegation of Dutch Remonstrant clergy: at his leaving those parts upon the king's return, some of the remonstrant ministers of the Low Countries coming to take their leaves of this great man, and desiring that, by his means, the Church of England would be kind to them, he had reason to grant it, because they were learned men, and in many things of a most excellent belief; yet he reproved them, and gave them caution against it, that they approached too near and gave too much countenance to the great and dangerous errors of the Socinians. It was a reminder that, despite the dark allegations of Taylor's Presbyterian opponents, accusing him of Socinianism, he was (as has been clearly seen in this series of posts) robustly committed to Trinitarian and Christological creedal orthodoxy. Th...

Having established a rational for the place of the Nicene Creed in the Church's life - as an exposition of the rule of faith, the Apostles' Creed; as reliant upon the authority of holy Scripture; and as an expression of the Trinitarian and Christological truths confessed by the first four general councils - Taylor also demonstrated the place of Nicene faith in Christian prayer and piety. In his Collection of Offices (1657), liturgical texts to be used in place of the then prohibited Book of Common Prayer, Taylor proposed that at Morning Prayer "The Nicene Creed [is] to be said upon the great Solemnities of the yeare". This reflected what Taylor would urge his clergy at the Restoration : Let every Preacher in his Parish take care to explicate to the people the Mysteries of the great Festivals, as of Christmas, Easter, Ascension-day, Whitsunday, Trinity Sunday, the Annunciation of the blessed Virgin Mary; because these Feasts containing in them the great Fundamentals o...

Next to this analogy or proportion of faith, let the consent of the Catholic Church be your measure, so as by no means to prevaricate in any doctrine, in which all Christians always have consented. This will appear to be a necessary rule by and by; but, in the mean time, I shall observe to you, that it will be the safer, because it cannot go far ...   When Taylor, as the newly-consecrated Bishop of Down and Connor, preached to his clergy during the primary visitation at Lisnagarvey in 1661, he thus instructed them to conform their expounding of the Scriptures to "the consent of the Catholic Church". The words following define Taylor's understanding of 'Catholic consent': "doctrine ... in which  all Christians  have consented" (emphasis added). This was the understanding of the Trinitarian and Christological teaching of the first four general councils, as Taylor made explicit in the accompanying  Rules and Advices to his clergy: Every Minister ought to ...

Yesterday's post considered Taylor's understanding of the Creed of Nicaea in The Liberty of Prophesying , published in 1646. Taylor was then a relatively young 33 years old, in holy orders for 13 years, and belonging to the defeated party in the first Civil War. If, as was suggested yesterday, The Liberty of Prophesying was intended to a theological justification for the royal policy of seeking an accommodation with the Independents amongst the Parliamentarians, we might have expected Taylor's thinking to have significantly changed when we reach the final years of his life, when he wrote the Dissuasive from Popery , published in 1664 and 1667 , the year of his death. He was then a bishop in the restored established Church, with the monarch again upon his throne, and the bitter experiences of the 1640s and 50s in the past.  It is significant, however, that Taylor's understanding of the Creed of Nicaea's relationship to Scripture is maintained across these decades. ...

On this 1,700th anniversary of the Council of Nicaea, this year's Jeremy Taylor Week - the days around his commemoration on 13th August - will be considering Taylor's understanding and use of the Nicene Creed. We begin with a text from Taylor's writings that has often produced some puzzlement, The Liberty of Prophesying (1646). There is, I think, little cause for such puzzlement. The Liberty of Prophesying reflects two contexts.  The first is the theological thought centred on the Great Tew Circle, not least Chillingworth's The Religion of Protestants (1637). Taylor's affinity with Great Tew is well established, as are his interactions with Chillingworth. The Liberty of Prophesying breathes the same air as The Religion of Protestants , setting forth a generous Protestant irenicism, best embodied, in the view of both works, in the Church of England. The second context, however, is the radically different political landscape addressed by the The Liberty of Prophes...