'Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed': Stillingfleet on Trinitarian faith

In Edward Stillingfleet's A Discourse in Vindication of the Trinity (1697) - an eirenical work which sought to bring a close to Trinitarian disputes in the post-1688 Church of England, while reaffirming orthodox Trinitarian faith against the Socinians - we can detect something of the Trinitarian minimalism seen in, for example, Taylor and Tillotson. Above all, Stillingfleet states that Trinitarian faith is not dependent upon the dogmatic language of the Athanasian Creed, but upon the witness of holy Scripture:

But after all, why do we assert three Persons in the Godhead? Not because we find them in the Athanasian Creed; but because the Scripture hath revealed that there are Three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost; to whom the Divine Nature and Attributes are given. This we verily believe, that the Scripture hath revealed; and that there are a great many places, of which, we think no tolerable Sense can be given without it, and therefore we assert this Doctrine on the same Grounds, on which we believe the Scriptures. And if there are three Persons which have the Divine Nature attributed to them; what must we do in this Case? Must we cast off the Unity of the Divine Essence? No, that is too frequently and plainly asserted for us to call it into Question. Must we reject those Scriptures which attribute Divinity to the Son and Holy Ghost, as well as to the Father? That we cannot do, unless we cast off those Books of Scripture, wherein those things are contained.

As with Tillotson's sermon, Stillingfleet emphasises that faith in the Holy Trinity - One God, Three Persons - is entirely dependent upon the witness of Scripture. What, then, of the doctrinal terminology by which the doctrine of the Trinity is expounded? Stillingfleet gently critiques those attempts by some Church of England divines to restate Trinitarian doctrine in language different to the classical formulation - such as, for example, by William Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's, in his 1690 work A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and Ever-Blessed Trinity. Stillingfleet counsels against this, reaffirming the role of the classical doctrinal terminology:

For however thoughtfull Men may think to escape some particular difficulties better, by going out of the common Roads; yet they may meet with others, which they did not foresee, which may make them as well as others judge it, at last, a wiser and safer course to keep in the same way, which the Christian Church hath used, ever since it hath agreed to express her Sense in such Terms, which were thought most proper for that purpose. For in such cases, the Original and Critical Signification of words is not so much to be attended, as the use they are applied to, and since no other can be found more significant or proper for that end; it looks like yielding too great advantage to our Adversaries, to give up the Boundaries of our Faith. For although there be a difference between the necessary Article of Faith it self, and the manner of expressing it, so that those may truely believe the Substance of it, who differ in the Explication; yet since the Sense of the Article hath been generally received under those terms, there seems to be no sufficient reason to substitute new ones instead of the old, which can hardly be done, without reflecting on the Honour of the Christian Church, and giving occasion for very unreasonable Heats and Disputes, among those, who, if we may believe their own words, agree in the same fundamental Doctrine; viz. a Trinity in Unity, or three Persons in the same undivided divine Essence.

Note the role which Stillingfleet ascribes to the classical doctrinal terminology: it marks "the Boundaries of our Faith". We might quite rightly think here of something akin to Lindbeck's understanding of doctrine as grammatical rules. The classical doctrinal Trinitarian terminology exists to prevent the Church from mis-stating the nature of Trinitarian faith. Crucially, however, such doctrinal terminology is neither "the Substance" of Trinitarian faith nor "the necessary Article of Faith it self" (dependent, as this is, on the the witness of holy Scripture alone). It is wise and prudent to refrain from seeking alternatives to the classical terminology as this is unnecessary, and likely - as was seen in the Church of England in the 1690s - to promote discord and division amongst those who "agree in the same fundamental Doctrine".

These are central themes of Trinitarian minimalism. Again they suggest how contemporary churches can renew Trinitarian faith and teaching, by confidently rooting faith in the Holy Trinity in Scripture and proclaiming from the Scriptures "the necessary Article of Faith it self". The classical doctrinal terminology guides such proclamation, ensuring it does not stray, but is not itself necessary to be proclaimed. For we proclaim and confess the Holy Trinity not because of the Athanasian Creed, but because of the witness of holy Scripture.