"We cannot frame a distinct Apprehension of that which is so far above us": Burnet, the Articles of Religion, and 'Trinitarian minimalism'

Burnet's An exposition of the Thirty-nine articles of the Church of England (1699)- which would become the most influential commentary on the Articles in the 18th century - gives expression to what I have (somewhat cautiously) described as a 'Trinitarian minimalism' evident in late 17th/early 18th century Anglicanism.

In his discussion of Article I - 'Of Faith in the Holy Trinity' - Burnet refuses to probe too deeply into the mystery of the Trinity:

Instead of going farther into Explanations of that which is certainly very far beyond all our apprehensions, and that ought therefore to be let alone ...

Referring particularly to Matthew's account of the Great Commission, Paul's closing salutation in 2 Corinthians, and the threefold salutation to the churches in Revelation, Burnet points to another key feature of 'Trinitarian minimalism': "there are very full and clear proofs of it in the New Testament". 

These are things that can only be offered and assured to Men in the Name of the Great and Eternal God; and therefore since without any Distinction or Note of Inequality, they are all Three set together as Persons in whose Name this is to be done, they must be all Three the True God; otherwise it looks like a just Prejudice against our Saviour, and his whole Gospel, That by his express Direction the first entrance to it, which gives the Visible and Federal Right to those great Blessings that are offered by it, or their Initiation into it, should be in the Name of Two Created Beings (if the one can be called properly so much as a Being, according to their Hypothesis) and that even in an equality with the Supreme and Uncreated Being.

Trinitarian faith, therefore, is not dependent upon later conciliar definitions. Faith in the Holy Trinity flows from the revelation to which Scripture witnesses, as is evident from the life of the early Church, with later councils ratifying this faith:

It is no small Confirmation of the Truth of this Doctrine, that we are certain it was universally received over the whole Christian Church long before there was either a Christian Prince to support it by his Authority, or a Council to establish it by Consent: And indeed the Council of Nice did nothing but declare what was the Faith of the Christian Church, with the addition only of the Word Consubstantial: For if all the other Words of the Creed settled at Nice are acknowledged to be true, that of the Three Persons being of one Substance will follow from thence by a just consequence.

When it comes to Article II - 'Of the Word or Son of God, which was made very Man' - Burnet emphasises another characteristic of 'Trinitarian minimalism', restraint and a refusal to speculate regarding what it means for the Son to be 'begotten' and the Spirit to 'proceed':

But what it strictly signifies here is not possible for us to understand till we comprehend this whole Matter: nor can we be able to assign a Reason why the Emanation of the Son, and not that of the H. Ghost likewise is called begetting. In this we use the Scripture Terms, but must confess we cannot frame a distinct Apprehension of that which is so far above us. This begetting was from all Eternity: If it had been in time, the Son and H. Ghost must have been Creatures; but if they are truly God, they must be Eternal, and not produced by having a Being given them, but educed of a Substance that was Eternal, and from which they did Eternally spring. All these are the Natural Consequences of the main Article that is now to be proved, and when it is once proved clearly from Scripture, these do follow by a natural and necessary deduction.

This continues in discussion of the procession of the Holy Spirit in Article V, with a robust critique - common to such Anglican 'Trinitarian minimalism' - of the "subtilties" of Scholastic speculations regarding this aspect of Trinitarian doctrine:

The Word Procession, or as the Schoolmen term it, Spiration, is only made use of in order to the naming this Relation of the Spirit to the Father and Son, in such a manner as may best answer the sense of the word Spirit: For it must be confessed that we can frame no explicit Idea of this matter: and therefore we must speak of it either strictly in Scripture-Words, or in such Words as arise out of them, and that have the same Signification with them. It is therefore a vain Attempt of the Schoolmen, to undertake to give a reason why the Second Person is said to be generated, and so is called Son, and the Third to proceed, and so is called Spirit. All these Subtilties can have no Foundation, and signify nothing towards the clearing this matter, which is rather darkened than cleared by a pretended Illustration. In a word, as we should never have believed this Mystery if the Scripture had not revealed it to us, so we understand nothing concerning it, besides what is contained in the Scriptures: And therefore, if in any thing, we must think soberly upon those Subjects. The Scriptures call the Second, Son, and the Third, Spirit; so Generation and Procession are words that may well be used, but they are words concerning which we can form no distinct Conception. We only use them because they belong to the words Son and Spirit.

Thinking "soberly upon those Subjects" - "we do not pretend to explain what Procession means" - also leads Burnet to deny any significance to the Filioque disputes, refusing to condemn the Eastern Churches, while providing a modest justification for the Western usage:

Here was certainly a very unhappy Dispute; inconsiderable in its Original, but fatal in its Consequences. We of this Church, though we abhor the Cruelty of condemning the Eastern Churches for such a difference, yet do receive the Creed according to the usage of the Western Churches; And therefore though we do not pretend to explain what Procession is, we believe according to the Article, That the Holy Ghost proceeds both from the Father and the Son: Because in that Discourse of our Saviour's that contains the Promise of the Spirit, and that long Description of him as a Person, Christ not only says, That the Father will send the Spirit in his name, but adds, That he will send the Spirit; and though he says next, who proceedeth from the Father, yet since he sends him, and that he was to supply his room, and to act in his Name, this implies a Relation, and a sort of Subordination in the Spirit to the Son. This may serve to justify our adhering to the Creeds, as they had been for many Ages received in the Western Church: But we are far from thinking that this Proof is so full and explicit, as to justify our Separating from any Church, or condemning it, that should stick exactly to the first Creeds, and reject this Addition.

Burnet's commentary on the Articles, therefore, provides an important example of 'Trinitarian minimalism'. The key characteristics of 'Trinitarian minimalism' are evident in his reading of the respective Articles: the emphasis upon the Trinity revealed in Scripture, for our salvation is dependent upon the One God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; later conciliar teaching witnessing to rather than creating such doctrine; a sober account of Trinitarian doctrine, aware of the significant boundaries in our understanding, for "we cannot frame a distinct Apprehension of that which is so far above us"; the refusal to indulge in extravagant theological speculation, attempting to probe and comprehend the mysteries of the Godhead; and - as seen in his discussion of the Filioque - a generous, modest orthodoxy which does not employ theological speculation as a means of justifying or promoting division between Christians.