As pretty well summarized here by unitarian Theophilus Lindsey.
In the year 1694 began the great contest concerning the Trinity, betwixt two celebrated doctors of the church, Sherlock and South; each of them reputed and reputing himself orthodox, and each of them espoused by learned and powerful partisans.
Dr. Sherlock expressly asserted, that the three persons in the Trinity are three distinct, infinite Minds or Spirits, and three individual Substances. Dr. South held only one infinite eternal Mind or Spirit, with three Somethings that were not three distinct Minds of Substances, but three modes, faculties, attributes, relations, relative properties, subsistances, as there were variously denominated. Dr. Sherlock was accused, and with great justice, if words have any meaning, of polytheism, or holding three Gods. Dr. South, on the other hand, came under the imputation of explaining away the Trinity, and falling into the Sabellian or Unitarian system: and accordingly some of the Socinians took advantage of the Doctor’s explication of the doctrine of the church, and declared in their writings, that the should not be backward to give their approbation to the Liturgy and the Articles, if that was the kind of Trinity which the language therein used was intended to inculcated.
The university of Oxford, to whom Sherlock was obnoxious on account of his political principles, declared for Dr. South; and the vice-chancellor and heads of colleges and halls, assembled November 25, 1695, passed this censure on the opposite doctrine, viz. “That the assertion, that there are three infinite, distinct Minds and Substances in the Trinity, is false, impious and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the catholic church, and particularly to the received doctrine of the church of England.”
But this censure had no consequences. As both parties made no scruple of using the common language of the church, and held three Somewhats, there were never called into question, or their orthodoxy impeached. Only, the quarrel ran so high from the pulpit, that the state thought proper to interpose its authority to stop it; and accordingly an injunction came forth for his Majesty, King William, bearing the date February 2, 1695, with directions to the archbishops and bishops to be observed in their respective dioceses. The two first of these were,
- That no preacher whatsover, in his sermon or lecture, do presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the blessed Trinity, than what is contained in the holy scripture, (and is agreeable to the three creeds, and the thirty-nine articles).
- That, in the explication of this doctrine, they carefully avoid all new terms, (and confine themselves to such ways of expression as have been commonly used in the church.)
N.B. If the words hooked in a parenthesis had been omitted, there would have been a better and more lasting foundation laid for peace and truth. (pp. 59-61, original italics, bold emphasis added, punctuation slightly modernized)
I don’t think Lindsey’s right in his last statement. How could the power of the state force an end to a theological disagreement? And if you force people to use old words – be those of the ecumenical creeds, or those of the Bible – they will simply redefine them to fit their theories.
Five other quick comments:
First, this is a typical fate for a three-self Trinity theory. If I were a “social” trinitarian, I would be a bit nervous. Even now, the forces of more traditional (usually, fourth century or high medieval) Trinity theories are grower louder in their rejection of “social” theories. I’m not presently aware of any heresy-trial type reactions by church bodies, but those may well come. (Not that I welcome them!)
Second, the King’s attempt to stamp out debate did not work, even though it was followed up by The Blasphemy Act. Debate in England flourished in the next several decades.
Third, it is interesting that many sides in this debate lumped together modalist (“Sabellian”) and unitarian theories. They are both one-self Trinity theories. But they are not the same! Also, each comes in several varieties.
Fourth, for “Somewhats” present-day English speakers would say “something-or-others.” The inspiration for such a mushy claim, comes from a famous passage in Augustine.
Fifth, there are many interesting things about this conflict, which began earlier than, and is more complex than Lindsey lets on. For a recent take by a trinitarian, the place to look is here. For contemporary unitarian takes on the Sherlock-South (etc.) debates, with copious quotations from many sources, see this and this.
P.P.S.Dale may also want to take a look at these two online articles: St Gregory the Theologian and the One God and The Importance of the Monarchy of the Father according to John Zizioulas, both @ http://afkimel.wordpress.com.
MdS
P.S. Even assuming that God’s “monarchy” is not referred by Gregory of Nazianzus so much to the Father as to the Godhead in its “essence”, there is no doubt that at least two major EO theologians (Behr and Hopko) embrace the traditional EO teaching of the “the monarchy of the Father”.
MdS
@ Dale [#2, May 30, 2013 at 8:04 am]
Actually, of the three Cappadocian scoundrels, it is not so much Gregory of Nyssa, but the other Gregory, the friend Gregory of Nazianzus, that is more relevant to the affirmation of the unique personal distinctions (unbegottenness, begottenness, procession) in the ‘trinity’:
“The chief object of the Preacher in these and most other of his public utterances, is to maintain the Nicene Faith of the Trinity or Trinity of God; that is, the Doctrine that while there is but One Substance or Essence in the Godhead, and by consequence God is in the most sense One, yet God is not Unipersonal, but within this Undivided Unity there are three Self-determining Subjects or Persons, distinguished from one another by special characteristics (idiotêtes) or personal properties—Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. ” (Introduction to the [five] “Theological” Orations by Gregory of Nazianzus, @ ccel.org)
Of course, Gregory of Nazianzus had to compensate for his clear assertion of three subjects in the Godhead, and for the equally clear assertion of the “monarchy” of the Father, with a robust amount of mysterian apophaticism (perhaps even more so than his friend Gregory of Nyssa), as Dale should know perfectly well from this post of his own.
About Nye, if Dale doesn’t agree that his views “can’t have been all than different from those of Theophilus Lindsey”, he should take issue with Ernest Gordon Rupp (see his Religion in England, 1688-1791, 1986, p. 248), not with me. Once again, there is no doubt (even from Dale’s words) that both Stephen Nye and Theophilus Lindsey seems to have been “conflating ‘Socinian’ and modalist theologies”.
About Dale’s own peculiar treatment of Subordinationism as though it was a (even major) division of “unitarianism”, I challenge him to provide other (relevant, theological and philosophical) authors who follow him in his idiosyncratic approach. Then we can talk about it, without “feet stomping” and without “bother”, Dale may rest assured.
MdS
“And, BTW, there is more than a suspicion that Eastern Christian understanding of the “trinity” has always remained “social” and even, to some extent, Subordinationist, even if this may seem (conceptual) anathema to Dale Tuggy.”
This is part of common, oft-repeated lore nowadays by theologians and to some extent by philosophers, largely, it seems, based on misreading a letter by Gregory of Nyssa, reading too much into his use of an analogy of three men for the Trinity.
About Nye, his main concern seems to have been that the Trinity should amount to one self – monotheism was his main concern. In the 1690s, he seemed to argue from a roughly Socinian (really Biddlean) position. But from South he took the idea that the “persons” of the Trinity were in some sense modes of one self, and ran with it. I think in so doing, he firmly chose an element of catholic tradition over fidelity to the NT. That move allowed him, in his mind, to remain within the catholic fold, and to keep his job as a minister. So, that’s where he ended up – writing two books you could call modalist, the last being in the early 1700s. These were refuted by, among others, the noted commenter and theologian Daniel Whitby. So no, his view is really not at all like Lindsey’s. As a result of this dispute, and Nye’s strange theological turn, in the early 1700s in England, it is common to see people conflating “Socinian” and modalist theologies. Both are one-self theories about the Trinity, but they differ greatly, perhaps most importantly in this: the modalist theory rules out the Son of God from being a different self than God, and so rules out the two having an inter-personal relationship.
About my being “oblivious” in treating subordinationist theologies as a variety of unitarianism. I’m afraid you’re just stomping your foot. You’ve not shown any confusion there, though I’ve shown you the definitions and invited you show how they are too wide or too narrow, poorly motivated, etc. All that’s clear is that this classification bothers you.
If any of you who read and comment wants to look at Theophilus Lindsey‘s book, you don’t have to buy the Lulu book (copyrighted and published by Dale Tuggy): Google eBooks has it for you (for free …). Here it is: The apology of Theophilus Lindsey, M.A. on resigning the vicarage of Catterick, Yorkshire, 1774. And here is the quotation, at pp. 62-65.
This is NOT what T. Lindsay says. If “the words hooked in a parenthesis” had been omitted, the consequence would have been to speak of the “trinity” ONLY resorting to [1] “what is contained in the holy scripture” and [2] “carefully avoid[ing] all new terms” [“new terms”, with reference to the holy scripture, that is]. Perhaps this would engender (apparent) contradictions: certainly NOT abusive dogmas, though.
Five quick counter-comments.
First, the remark on the “typical fate for a three-self Trinity theory”, obviously, applies ONLY to Dr. Sherlock, NOT to Dr. South. And, BTW, there is more than a suspicion that Eastern Christian understanding of the “trinity” has always remained “social” and even, to some extent, Subordinationist, even if this may seem (conceptual) anathema to Dale Tuggy.
Second, that “the King’s attempt to stamp out debate did not work” shows, most of all, the less than perfect capacity of the Anglican Church to steer the State to stamp out debate.
Third, it is most certainly improper to “lump together” Modalism (Sabellianism) and Unitarianism, but Dale seems happily oblivious that it is equally improper to “lump together” Unitarianism and Subordinationism, as he does in his Unitarianism “Supplement to Trinity” @ the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Forth, perhaps the “famous passage in Augustine” to which Dale refers, and that suggests that the “persons” are not really persons in the obvious (at least since Boethius) sense of the word (person = self-conscious entity, endowed with reason, freedom and will), but, rather, “somewhats”:
“Yet, when the question is asked, What three? human language labors altogether under great poverty of speech. The answer, however, is given, three “persons,” not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken.” (Augustine of Hippo, On the Holy Trinity, Book V, Chapter 9)
Fifth, the views of Stephen Nye (1648 – 1719) can’t have been all than different from those of Theophilus Lindsey (1723 – 1808) if he called William Sherlock a “tritheist” and Robert South a “Socinian” (see Ernest Gordon Rupp, Religion in England, 1688-1791, 1986, p. 248). For a synthetic and synoptic account of the Unitarian controversy in the Church of England this Wikipedia article is quite useful: Socinian controversy.
MdS
Comments are closed.