'Knowledge of the Three-One God is interwoven with all true Christian faith': John Wesley and the wisdom of 'Trinitarian minimalism'

In recent years around Trinity Sunday, laudable Practice has considered a stream of thought in divines of the late 17th and early 18th century Church of England which I have (somewhat inelegantly) described as 'Trinitarian minimalism'. To be clear, this is not at all about minimizing faith in the Holy Trinity. Rather, 'minimalism' here refers to a consistent view amongst leading Church of England divines of this era that saving belief in the Holy Trinity - the belief proclaimed from pulpits - was not required to be an exposition of scholastic dogma, but of the revelation of the Trinity in the Scriptures.  One God, Three Persons is not the result of scholastic and philosophical speculations, but is the God witnessed to in the holy Scriptures. Not only is this sufficient for saving faith, but, as Tillotson stated, "the modesty of Christians is contented in Divine Mysteries to know what God hath thought fit to reveal concerning them, and hath no curiosity to be wise above that which is written".

Leading exponents of such 'Trinitarian minimalism', such as Tillotson, were those described as 'Latitudinarians' (I am increasingly suspicious of the usefulness of this term as many of these figures were to become influential thinkers in the 18th century Anglican consensus). This might lead some to wonder if a whiff of heterodoxy - or of the supposed 'moralism' promoted by flawed interpretations - is to be found amongst these divines. Jonathan Swift's Trinity Sunday sermon certainly suggests otherwise: here was a High Church Tory cleric clearly promoting 'Trinitarian minimalism'. Another figure, far removed from the 'Latitudinarian' stream, can also be found to explicitly proclaim the same understanding of Trinitarian teaching: John Wesley.

This is seen in his Sermon LIX 'On the Trinity', on the text 1 John 5:7, the Comma Johanneum: "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one". Wesley's defence of the canonical place of this text is interesting, but beside the point. It is his 'Trinitarian minimalism' that is the focus of this post.

The sermon begins with Wesley invoking Swift's sermon and urging a key point of 'Trinitarian minimalism' - while confessing the Trinity, as in the text, has "a close connection with vital religion", it does not require a particular form of "explication":

I do not mean, that it is of importance, to believe this or that explication of these words. I know not, that any well-judging man would attempt to explain them at all. One of the best tracts which that great man, Dean Swift ever wrote, was his Sermon upon the Trinity. Herein he shews, that all who have endeavoured to explain it at all, have utterly lost their way: have, above all other persons, hurt the cause, which they intended to promote; having only, as Job speaks, "darkened counsel by words without knowledge." It was in an evil hour, that these explainers began their fruitless work. I insist upon no explication at all; no, not even on the best I ever saw ...

This critique of scholastic accounts of Trinitarian doctrine is another feature of 'Trinitarian minimalism' amongst Church of England divines of the era. When Wesley goes on to say that he insists upon "no explication at all", he includes in this Quicunque Vult:

I mean, that which is given us in the Creed commonly ascribed to Athanasius. I am far from saying, He who does not assent to this, "shall without doubt perish everlastingly." For the sake of that and another clause, I, for some time, scrupled subscribing to that creed; till I considered, 1, That these sentences only relate to wilful, not involuntary unbelievers: to those who, having all the means of knowing the truth, nevertheless, obstinately reject it: 2, That they relate only to the substance of the doctrine there delivered; not the philosophical illustrations of it.

The defence given here of the damnatory clauses in this Creed was standard amongst Church of England divines. Most interesting, however, is Wesley's point about Quicunque Vult: even while accepting that this Creed is "the best" explication of Trinitarian doctrine, he will not require it of Christians. He also extends this to the words 'Trinity' and 'Person':

I dare not insist upon anyone's using the word Trinity, or Person. I use them myself without any scruple, because I know of none better. But if any man has any scruple concerning them, who shall constrain him to use them? ... I would insist only on the direct words unexplained, just as they lie in the text, "There are Three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these Three are One".

'Trinitarian minimalism' did defend the use of 'Trinity' and 'Person' but it did so in a modest manner, refraining from declaring that the terms were essential for saving faith. We see this, for example, in Tillotson's pragmatic defence of both terms:

So that though the word Trinity be not found in Scripture, yet these Three are there expressly and frequently mentioned; and Trinity is nothing but three of any thing ... I see no cause why we should decline ['Person'], so long as we mean by it neither more nor less than what the Scripture says in other words.

As Wesley moves to the sermon's conclusion, he unites the two themes together - that Trinitarian faith is essential to "vital religion", but that a particular "explication" of this is not required: 

But the thing which I here particularly mean, is this: The knowledge of the Three-One God, is interwoven with all true Christian faith, with all vital religion. I do not say, that every real Christian can declare with the Marquis de Renty, "I bear about with me continually an experimental verity, and a plenitude of the presence of the ever-blessed Trinity." I apprehend this is not the experience of babes, but rather of fathers in Christ ... Not that every Christian believer adverts to this ; perhaps, at first, not one in twenty; but if you ask any of them a few questions, you will easily find it is implied in what he believes. Therefore, I do not see how it is possible for any to have vital religion, who denies that these Three are One. 

There is significant wisdom for preaching, teaching, and pastoring in this understanding. Requiring Christians to understand, indeed, even to use, the terms of dogmatic theology in confession of Trinitarian faith is precisely that which too often leads to a view that the Trinity is removed from - in Wesley's term - "vital religion". What lies at the heart of what I have termed 'Trinitarian minimalism', and what Wesley clearly states, is that belief in the Holy Trinity is inherent to and required by Scripture. Scholastic doctrinal expositions are not at all essential for this, for faith in the Trinity - that God is One and God is Three - "is interwoven with all true Christian faith", according to the Scriptures. 

The use of the term "interwoven" is significant, echoed with his subsequent use of "implied". Both words suggest 

Wesley's sermon also reinforces the view that 'Trinitarian minimalism' was certainly no camouflage for supposed 'Latitudinarian heterodoxy'. John Wesley was both a product of the earlier 18th century High Church tradition and, of course, an exponent of a revivalist critique of 18th century Anglicanism. On both grounds, his embrace of 'Trinitarian minimalism' emphasises that it was a thoroughly orthodox approach and another aspect of the 'unity and accord' known within the Church of England of the 'long 18th century'.