ABSTRACT In 1686, during the Anglican controversy with Roman Catholicism, two anonymously published recusant tracts employed Socinian arguments to contend that Protestants’ reliance on Scripture as sufficient for salvation led to the denial of not only transubstantiation but also Trinity as unscriptural and irrational. They emphasized the necessity to refer to sacred tradition, as preserved by the Roman Catholic Church, in order to define Christian doctrine and salvage the Trinity. Anglican clergymen Thomas Tenison, Richard Kidder, William Sherlock, and Edward Stillingfleet replied that the Trinity was a thing “above reason” revealed in Scripture. However, this solution, implying that the Trinity was not plainly comprehensible to reason, led to further doubt about authority in biblical exegesis, since recusant polemicists denounced the shortcomings of free interpretation while Anglican divines argued that Church Councils were not exempt from mistakes. Relying on Scripture but rejecting tradition, Stephen Nye and other Unitarians promptly exposed the fallacies of the claim that the Trinity was a revealed thing above reason, thereby eliciting different responses from Trinitarian apologists who attempted, ineffectively, to explain the Trinity in philosophical terms. Thus, the dispute of 1686–1687 on transubstantiation and Trinity contributed to triggering the Trinitarian controversy of the late seventeenth century.
Read full abstract