laudable Practice

I have previously suggested that, contrary to many readings of the works of Jeremy Taylor, his 1647 The Liberty of Prophesying was no aberration but, rather, an introduction to a key enduring theme in his works - that of the influence of Remonstrant thought.  Thus, for example, Taylor's relativising of appeals to Augustine, evident in The Liberty of Prophesying , were, of course, also evident in his 1655 Unum Necessarium . At the root of this relativising of Augustine was Remonstrant thought, particularly as seen in the works of Episcopius. This is also the case with how Taylor regards the Apostles' Creed as a sufficient declaration of saving faith. This, of course, is a key theme in The Liberty of Prophesying : And according to the Rule and Reason of this Discourse (that it may appear that the Creed hath in it all Articles primo & per se, primely and universally necessary) the Creed is just such an explication of that Faith which the Apostles preached, viz. the Creed whi...

... and one thing more I shall remark, that 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 reprov'd 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.  This was Jeremy Taylor, preaching at the funeral of Archbishop John Bramhall in 1663. I have previously pointed to this reference as evidence of Taylor's willingness to critique Remonstrant theology. Recent reading, however, has made me look afresh at this extract. That there is a critique of the Remonstrants here is, of course, obvious: they have been willing to draw too close to the Socinians. Alongside this, however, is high praise f...

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...

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...

We left Robert Nelson's account in The Life of Dr. George Bull with the young Bull being required to leave Oxford, upon refusing to take the Engagement, the oath of loyalty to the institutions of the Commonwealth. Bull's family was aware of his desire to be ordained and - with Oxford now closed to him - considered who should act as his tutor: The Times being very distracted when under the Mr. Bull was advised, as I said, to put himself under the Direction of some eminent Divine; his Guardians and Relations were very much divided in their Opinions, as to the Choice of the Person under whose Care he was to be placed. His Uncle William Bull, Esq., of Shapwick, and some others, inclined to Dr. Hammond, a most eminent Episcopal Divine, whose Name will always be mentioned with Honour and Respect, by those who are true Friends to the Church of England; for he adhered to her when her Condition was most deplorable, defended her Doctrines and Discipline by his learned and judicious Pen,...