The same attempt,

protestant writers.

once proved, all the rest must have been a superfluous labour, and consequently his whole book would have been to no purpose. Nay, even supposing that he was fully of the opinion, that there is an infallible assistance of the Holy Spirit, which attendeth every council that is truly general, so as to keep them from erring in matters of faith, yet could he not, for this, be ever the nearer to the church of Rome, or to the communion of the Gallican bishop, as that church is at present limited by the council of Trent; since in the very same premonition he afterwards saith expressly, That the Trent convention is to be called by any other name, rather than by that of a general council; and greatly complaineth of such Romish writers and advocates for the decrees thereof, as make no conscience of building up thereby there pseudocatholic faith, upon the ruins of the truly catholic faith. Nothing in the world can be more express than this, especially all things being laid together. But if to any one this be not yet satisfactory, let him but for his farther information carefully read over his whole introduction, and our author's answer to the bishop of Meaux's queries, printed in the first volume of Dean Hickes's Controversial Letters.

LIV. Now it is no wonder that a bishop of the church of Rome, writing a History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, should be very glad to take all advantages against a learned protestant, writing a defence of the faith which was synodically declared by a general council: "but it may well de

i Tridentina conventio quidvis potius quam Generale Concilium dicenda est. Prooem. §. 8.

serve to be wondered at, that there should be any 1685. who pretend to receive the faith, and yet at the same time stick not to vilify the council wherein it was established, or rather more properly declared. Some such however among protestants there are. It is plain Episcopius was far from being a Socinian, as our author truly observeth, having expressly written against, and solidly overthrown, the fundamental article of Socinianism; and endeavoured from the testimony of Scripture to shew his orthodoxy in the doctrine of the blessed Trinity; but the defender of the Nicene faith is, it seems, more than a little displeased at him, for his coarse and most unhandsome treatment of the Nicene Fathers: and the theological institutions of this learned remonstrant, being about that time generally in the hands of our students of divinity in both universities, as the best system of divinity that had appeared, Mr. Bull had reason to fear, that many by reading a book so well approved of might suck in thence a very mean opinion of those venerable Fathers; and not only of them, but of most or all of the primitive writers and witnesses, both preceding and succeeding them; and thought it incumbent upon him to wipe off the calumny which he saw cast upon them, at the same time that he defended the common faith, as by them delivered and explained.

tage taken

This was the more necessary, because the remon- An advanstrant writers, among whom there were men of ex- by Socinicellent learning and parts, had now acquired a derable reputation in our universities, by the

consi-riar means

* Episcop. Instit. Theolog. lib. iv. cap. 34. Bull. Prooem. Defen. Fid. Nic. §. 5.

S

ans and Arians from the writings of some learned remonstrants.

1685. of some great men among us: and therefore since Grotius, Episcopius, Curcellæus, and others of them, while they were willing to appear as orthodox as any in the article of our Saviour's deity, did yet let fall several things, which the adversaries thereof greedily catched up as making for them, Mr. Bull was much in the right to prepare an antidote against the lurking poison, which might secretly instil itself into the minds of unwary readers. This he hath done in his excellent Defence of the Faith of this council; and yet more in his Judgment of the Catholic Church, &c. as hereafter will be shewn. Of the first of these, which was written designedly and directly against Petavius the Jesuit, D. Zuicker a Socinian, and Sandius, or Sanden, an Arian, there are so many things to be said, should one set about the giving an exact state of the controversy, with respect to the different interests and views of these three learned men, as they are considered by this our very learned defender of the Nicene faith, that it is thought better to cut the matter short between them; leaving the critical examination of the whole to them that will take the pains to scrutinize the Jesuit by the Fathers, the Socinian by the Jesuit, the Arian by the Socinian, and all three by their answerer, and the original authorities.

The chief

pillars of

cerning Christ.

LV. Now the four principal pillars of the catholic the catholic doctrine concerning CHRIST, maintained and defaith con- fended in this book, are his preexistence, 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, 1685. he sheweth how this Son of God is not of any created and changeable 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. Also against the same he demonstrateth, how this consubstantial Son of God must have had a coeternal existence with the Father. And lastly, against the Tritheists and Sabellians, he argueth the necessity of believing the Father to be the fountain, original, and principle of the Son, and that the Son is hence subordinate to the Father.

cerning the

Which four articles being established in this trea- And contise, the heads of the catholic doctrine concerning Holy Ghost. the HOLY GHOST do thence easily also unfold themselves; and are these, according as he hath explained them here, though but incidentally. I.'The Holy Ghost is not a mere energy of the Father, but a distinct divine Person. II. This divine Person is of the same nature and essence with the Father and the Son. III. He not only preexisted before the world, but is eternal as the Father is eternal. Yet, IV. He is not self-originated, but proceedeth from the Father eternally as his original, and is sent by the Son. These are the four capital points, concerning the faith in the Holy Ghost, as defended by our author, which suppose the proof of the foregoing articles concerning the Son; about which therefore it was necessary he should be very large.

Now that we may the better comprehend his An account whole design in this elaborate work, it will not be thesis, con

1 Sect. i. cap. 2. n. 5. sect. ii. cap. 3. n. 13. n. 16. cap. 4. n. 8. cap. 5. n. 9. usque ad finem.

of Mr. Bull's

of Christ.

1685. unuseful to set down the entire plan at once, and to cerning the lay together the several theses which he hath underpreexistence taken herein to defend, against both Arians and Socinians on one hand, as also against Sabellians and Tritheists on the other m. His first thesis is this: The person called Jesus Christ, before ever he had that name, or was born of the blessed Virgin Mary, had a real existence in a far more excellent nature than the human, and therein did appear to the holy men of old, as a foretoken of his future incarnation, and did preside over, and had care of the church, which was to be redeemed with his blood, so that from the beginning of the world, the whole order of the divine economy was through him all along transacted: yea, that even before the very foundation of the world he was actually present with God his Father, and that through him all this universe was created. This he saith

is the unanimous doctrine of all the Fathers of the three first centuries, nor is the truth of it denied by the Arians. But against the Socinians he proveth, first, that all the divine apparitions in the Old Testament are by these ancient writers generally explained concerning the Son of God. For proof of which he appealeth to Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Theophilus Antiochenus, Clemens Alexandrinus, Tertul

m [The design of Bull's work is well and concisely stated by Waterland, vol. ii. p. 285. "The plain question between bishop "Bull and the Arians is only this: Whether the Ante-Nicene

66

Fathers, in general, believed the Son to be of an eternal, un"created, immutable, and strictly divine substance, or no? Bishop "Bull maintained the affirmative, and has unanswerably proved "it, in the opinion of most men of true learning and judgment, "whether here or abroad."]