William III, the Articles of Religion, and the wisdom of a 'Trinitarian minimalism'

On 3rd February 1696, William III, Supreme Governor of the Churches of England and Ireland, issued Directions to our Arch-bishops and Bishops, for the Preserving of Unity in the Church, and the Purity of the Christian faith, concerning the Holy Trinity. Edward Cardwell, in his Documentary Annals of the Reformed Church of England from 1546 to 1716 (1839), explains the context which led to the issuing of the Directions:

In the year 1691, Dr. William Sherlock, soon afterwards appointed to the deanery of St. Paul's, published his "Vindication of the Doctrine of the holy and ever-blessed Trinity," containing a new method of explaining that sacred mystery, and tending in one part of the argument to the establishment of a tritheism. This gave rise to a lengthened controversy, in which Dr. South and himself were the great antagonists, both of them bringing an impetuous temper to the discussion, and calculated to do injury to the cause of religious inquiry by the intemperance with which they conducted it.

Other writers took an earnest part in the dispute; but the case which attracted the greatest attention, owing to the solemn condemnation it met with, was a sermon preached in Michaelmas Term 1695, before the university of Oxford; in which the preacher, in conformity with the sentiments of Dr. Sherlock, maintained that There are three infinite distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, "and that the three persons in the Trinity are three distinct infinite minds or spirits, and three individual substances." These propositions were formally declared by the board of heads of houses to be false, impious, and heretical, and their decree was made so public through the medium of newspapers, and attended with so many reflections on the author of the new heresy, that the controversy soon found fresh materials to feed upon, and a greater degree of acrimony to foment it. Dr. Sherlock published "A modest examination of the authority and reasons of the late decree," and was followed by other writers on both sides, who engaged so fiercely in the contest, that at the request of the bishops the king interpose and issued his directions on the subject on the 3rd of February 1696.

The irony here is that both Sherlock and South belonged to the High Church tradition. Both hesitated before taking the oath to William and Mary. And both opposed the anti-Trinitarianism of the Socinians. Sherlock's work, however, aided anti-Trinitarians and, crucially, rejected a key aspect of orthodox Trinitarian thought: in the words of Article I, the Holy Trinity is "of one substance", a confession repeated in the preface of Trinity Sunday, "in Unity of Substance".

The heated, acrimonious nature of the debate, disturbing the peace of the Church, brings to mind the debates over predestination which had afflicted the Jacobean and Caroline Church. The response to those debates by James VI/I and Charles I demonstrated a wise pattern which would be imitated by William III. In his 1622 Directions Concerning Preachers, James had declared that preachers must not go beyond what was "comprehended and warranted in essence, substance, effect or natural inference within some one of the Articles of Religion set forth 1562", with the further safeguard "That no preacher of what title soever under the degree of a bishop, or dean at the least, do from henceforth presume to preach in any popular auditory the deep points of predestination". 

Likewise, in his 1626 Declaration for the establishing of the peace and quiet of the Church of England, Charles set forth "His utter dislike to all those, who to shew the subtilty of their wits, or to please their own humours, or vent their own passions, do, or shall adventure to stir or moue any new Opinions, not only contrary, but differing from the sound and Orthodoxal grounds of the true Religion, sincerely professed, and happily established in the Church of England". The King's Declaration prefixed to the Articles of Religion in 1628 similarly sought to end hopelessly divisive theological debates by recalling clergy to the Articles:

That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, we will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them.

William's 1696 Directions stands squarely in this tradition of Supreme Governors prudently and wisely seeking - in the words of the 1628 Declaration - "to conserve and maintain the Church committed to our charge, in the unity of true religion, and in the bond of peace; and not to suffer unnecessary disputations, altercations, or questions to be raised, which may nourish faction both in the Church and Commonwealth". 

As with the earlier 17th century debates surrounding predestination, there was a recognition that going beyond the Articles of Religion produced unnecessary strife and discord. Lancelot Andrewes, for example, condemned those seeking to "perceive all God's secret decrees, the number and order of them clearly" for being "too bold and too busy".  Indeed, when asked for his opinion on the Lambeth Articles, Andrewes urged preachers to exercise wise caution and modesty:

And therefore for these sixteen years, ever since I was made Priest, I have neither publickly nor privately disputed about them, or medled with them in my Sermons.

Likewise, in 1625, Bishops Buckeridge, Howson, and Laud advised the Duke of Buckingham that, contrary to Dort, the Articles of the Church of England were composed "not be too busy with every particular school-point", and that "this moderation" helped "to preserve any unity amongst Christians", which would not be possible "if men were forced to subscribe to curious particulars disputed in the schools". And this, of course, was central to Charles I's Declaration prefixed to the Articles:

That therefore in these both curious and unhappy differences, which have for so many hundred years, in different times and places, exercised the Church of Christ, we will, that all further curious search be laid aside, and these disputes shut up in God's promises, as they be generally set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures, and the general meaning of the Articles of the Church of England according to them. 

William III's Directions follow this well-established pattern of Supreme Governors protecting the peace of the Church of England by recalling clergy to the Articles of Religion:

I. That no preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture, do presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, than what is contained in the holy scriptures, and is agreeable to the three creeds and the thirty-nine articles of religion.

II. That in the explication of this doctrine they care fully avoid all new terms, and confine themselves to such ways of expression, as have been commonly used in the church.

III. That care be taken in this matter, especially to observe the fifty-third canon of this church, which forbids public opposition between preachers, and that above all things they abstain from bitter invectives and scurrilous language against all persons whatsoever.

There is a profound wisdom in this exhortation.  The Articles (I, II, V, and VIII) rehearse a creedal, catholic, orthodox confession of the Holy Trinity. To proclaim less than this is to risk denying Trinitarian faith. To speculate more than this - to be "too bold and too busy" in defining the mystery of the Trinity (and see Taylor's exhortations on this matter) - is, as Sherlock discovered, to equally risk undermining Trinitarian faith. And both, proclaiming less and speculating more, undermine the Church's peace, provoking discord and, because this matter is at the heart of the Christian faith, "bitter invectives".

Such discord and intense theological debate all too easily confirms anti-Trinitarian claims: that the Trinity is a contradictory, irrational claim which, because of its inherent contradictions, necessarily leads to division. Hence the significance of the third of King William's directions - echoing the calls of James I and Charles I - for the pulpit is not the place for 'school' opinions and debates, undermining the the faith of ordinary Christians in the Holy Trinity. Engaging in such debates from the pulpit implies to the laity that, because theologians cannot agree on Trinitarian doctrine, it is best if it is quietly forgotten.

Note, too, the cautious manner by which the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine of the Articles is described: "such ways of expression, as have been commonly used in the church". 21st century readers could be forgiven for immediately thinking of Lindbeck's cultural-linguistic understanding of doctrinal claims. Particularly when it comes to the Holy Trinity, such modesty is surely wise and necessary. Here is the grammar of Christian Faith - not less than this but also not more. Trinitarian doctrine is not a "curious search" into the essence of the Godhead, far beyond how the Godhead is "generally set forth to us in the Holy Scriptures". It is, rather, a grammar which roots us in the revelation set forth in the Scriptures, guiding us away from bold, busy speculations and their inevitably misleading accounts of the Godhead.

While aware of the risks of the term being rather seriously misinterpreted, I am tempted to suggest that we might describe this prudent, cautious, late 17th/early 18th century Anglican approach 'Trinitarian minimalism'. There is no need to go beyond the creedal, catholic statements of the Articles, for there be the dragons of unitarianism and tri-theism (a fashionable approach: see 'Social Trinitarianism'). Certainly, the pulpit requires no more than this. Ordinary Christian belief in God Father, Son, and Holy Spirit does not require anything more than the grammar of the creeds. When it comes to Trinitarian heresies, nothing is to be gained from drawing attention to these from the pulpit.  As Jeremy Taylor warned his clergy:

Let no Preacher bring before the people in his Sermons or Discourses, the Arguments of great and dangerous Heresies, though with a purpose to confute them; for they will much easier retain the Objection than understand the Answer.

So, yes, it would be wise for contemporary Anglicans to heed William III's Directions. A modest, prudent proclamation of Trinitarian doctrine - no less, but no more than the Articles - would root us in the confession at the heart of Christianity, delivering Trinitarian teaching from the perception that it is either a complex, speculative, divisive formula, to be quietly ignored, or a tri-theism to be triumphantly embraced as an aid to addressing early 21st century social relationships.

Perhaps it is indeed a time for 'Trinitarian minimalism'.