Samuel Clarke’s Trinitarian Subordinationism
Dr. Samuel Clarke (1675-1729) was a Church of England divine who became the rector of the parish church of St. James, Westminster, a position he held until his death in 1729.
Clarke became the focus of intense and heated controversy due to his unorthodox, “heterodox” views of the Trinity, which he articulated and defended in his book titled The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity: All the Texts in the New Testament relating to the Doctrine, and the principal Passages in the Liturgy of the Church of England, are collected, compared and explained.
His belief in the Trinity was similar to that of Origen’s, wherein he taught that the Father is the uncaused, ultimate Source of Deity, being God in and of himself (autotheos), the One who is properly referred to as the one God throughout sacred Scripture. At the same time, Clarke like Origen affirmed that the Son and the Spirt are uncreated, having no beginning, while also deriving their Divinity from the Father.
In this sense, Clark much like Origen held to a type of relational subordination where the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to, and dependent upon, the Father for everything they have. As such, Clarke was not an arian who, like Arius, thought the Son and Spirit were created from or out of nothing.
One author wrote in respect to Clarke’s Trinitarianism that,
“his position differed from that of Arius in that Clarke believed that there was no time at which the Son and the Holy Spirit had not existed, and Arius held that there was.”
(Estelle Dorothy Asch, “Samuel Clarke’s Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity and the Controversy It Aroused,” Ph.D. diss., University of Edinburgh, 1951, 157; emphasis mine)
The following unitarian philosopher concurs:
- Is all of this “Arianism“? NO, though many a lazy critic lobbed that brick in Clarke’s general direction. For Clarke, Son and Spirit ARE UNCREATED and eternally dependent on God. He held to the traditional, Origen-and-later speculations about eternal generation and procession. LIKE ORIGEN, HE DENIES that there was a time when the Son was not. There is no real historical or causal connection between Clarke’s views and the fourth century catholics we call, following Athanasius, “Arians” – except that both owe a debt to the logos-theorists around the time of Origen and before.
- Is it Social (three self) Trinitarianism? No. While it has a number of similarities to it, for Clarke, the one God isn’t any group or compound being with divine selves as parts, but rather the Father, the one uniquely divine self. It was Clarke who cured me of “social” Trinity confusions.
- Is it monotheism? Clarke argues that it is. Still, it is not obvious that it is. You might ask why this isn’t just tritheism, with one god who is greater than the other two gods. But I argue that Clarke’s views are monotheistic in this recent paper of mine.
- Is this theory orthodox (i.e. consistent with the catholic creeds, or at least, the creeds which truly summarize the Bible)? Clarke thinks so, and as an Anglican minister, he had every intention of remaining orthodox. He enlists a large number of ancient catholic theologians on his side, such as the great Origen. I would say that it is creed-compliant up through the 325 creed, but would not conform to the creeds of 381 and 451. Clarke’s attitude was that any Protestant is going to get off the catholic train at some point, and he thought it should be right around the time of Nicea that, as he says, in a doozy of a sentence,
But in process of time, as men grew less pious, and more contentious, so in the several churches they enlarged their creeds and confessions of faith, and grew more minute, in determining unnecessary controversies, and made more and more things explicitly necessary to be understood, and (under pretense of explaining authoritatively) imposed things much harder to be understood than scripture itself, and became more uncharitable in their censures, and the farther they departed from the fountain of catholic unity, the apostolical form of sound words, the more uncertain and unintelligible their definition grew, and good men found nowhere to rest the sole of their foot, but in having recourse to the original words of Christ himself and of the Spirit of truth, in which the wisdom of God has thought fit to express itself. (Clarke, Scripture Doctrine, Introduction, p. iii, modernized)
(Dale Tuggy, the evolution of my views on the Trinity – part 9; emphasis mine)
And:
4.3 Trinitarian Views
In his lifetime, Clarke was infamous for his view of the trinity, and he sparked a vociferous debate (Ferguson 1974, 59–149; Pfizenmaier 1997, 179–216). Clarke was not officially censured (but nearly so), but it surely prevented his rising to higher office. Clarke’s writing on the trinity are relevant for understanding his other metaphysical positions, especially his identification of “person” with intelligent, acting agent rather than with a particular substance, which has not been sufficiently reconciled with his account of personal identity as wrapped up with an immaterial soul.
In Christian theology, God is represented as tripartite—three persons but one God. In the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, in use in England during Clarke’s lifetime, one of the liturgies draws from the Athanasian Creed, which includes the following discussion of the Trinity: “For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son: and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one… So the Father is God, the Son is God: and the Holy Ghost is God. And yet they are not three Gods: but one God.”
In his position as a cleric, Clarke was required to subscribe to this formulation. In 1712, against the advice of his friends, he published The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity, in which he diverged from what his opponents considered the plain sense of this formulation. The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity begins by collecting all the passages of the New Testament that relate to the Trinity. It then sets out a series of 55 propositions regarding the Trinity, each supported by references to the texts collected in the first section and writings from the early Christian church.
However, the biblical texts do not primarily discuss God’s metaphysical attributes, according to Clarke, but ascribe dominion to God (W 4.150; Snobelen 2004, 265–275). The third section relates these propositions to the Anglican liturgy. This approach reflects Clarke’s general expectation that the correct theological doctrines are found in the Bible, are endorsed by the early church, and are compatible with reason. Through hundreds of years of what he considered bad metaphysics, the correct and intelligible doctrine of the trinity had become obscured, and Clarke hoped to return to a pre-Athanasian understanding of the trinity.
Clarke’s position in The Scripture-Doctrine of the Trinity was labeled by his opponents as “Arian,” “Socinian,” and “Sabellian.” Although they were commonly used as abusive terms for anyone holding non-traditional or anti-trinitarian views, they also have more precise meanings. An Arian holds that the Son (the second person of the Trinity) is divine but not eternal; he was created by God the Father out of nothing before the beginning of the world. A Socinian holds that the Son is merely human and was created at or after the conception of Jesus. A Sabellian holds that the Son is a mode of God. In the precise use of the terms, Clarke is none of these. Unlike the Arians, Clarke affirmed that the Son is co-eternal with the Father AND NOT CREATED (W 4.141). (Pfizenmaier 1997 provides further textual and historical arguments that Clarke should not be classified as an Arian.) From this it also follows that, contra the Socinians, the Son existed before the conception of Jesus. Unlike the Sabellians, Clarke denied that the Son was a mode of the Father. (This would have been very problematic given that he sometimes claimed that space is a mode of God.) Clarke’s claimed ignorance about substance made him reluctant to declare that the Father and the Son were the same divine substance, but the Son is endowed by the Father with all of the power and authority of the Father. He also called the manner of the Son’s generation from the father “ineffable.” So while Clarke denied that the trinity was a “mystery,” he did believe that the manner in which the Father’s power is communicated to the Son is “after a manner to us unknown” (Proposition 35; 4.159).
Clarke affirms that each member of the trinity is a person, but only the Father is self-existent, which means that the Father by essence (rather than by “office”) has a property that the Son does not. His views are best described as subordinationist but he could also be called a unitarian, in at least some senses of the term (Tuggy 2014; 204–205). See especially Prop. 25 (W 4.150); Prop. 27 (W 4.151); and Prop. 34 (“The Son, whatever his metaphysical essence of substance be, and whatever divine greatness and dignity is ascribed to him in scripture; yet in this he is evidently subordinate to the Father, that he derives his being, attributes, and powers, from the Father, and the Father nothing from him”; 4.155). To the Father alone are ascribed “independence and supreme authority” (Proposition 27; 4.151). Every other attribute and power that can be ascribed to the Father can also be ascribed to the Son, “but the titles ascribed to the Son, must always carry along with them the idea of being communicated or derived” (4.153). (Samuel Clarke – Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
; emphasis mine)
I now list the fifty-five propositions that Clarke puts forth in his Scripture-Doctrine, which will give the readers an idea of his Trinitarian beliefs. All emphasis will be mine.
I. There is one supreme cause and original of things; one simple, uncompounded, undivided, intelligent agent, or person; who is the alone author of all being, and the fountain of all power.
II. With this first and supreme cause or Father of all things, there has existed from the beginning, a second divine person, which is his Word or Son.
III. With the Father and the Son, there has existed from the beginning a third divine person, which is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son.
IV. What the proper metaphysical nature, essence, or substance of any of these divine persons is, the Scripture has no where at all declared; but describes and distinguishes them always by their personal characters, offices, power and attributes.
V. The Father alone is self-existent, underived, unoriginated, independent. He alone is of none, either by creation, generation, procession, or any other way whatsoever.
VI. The Father is the sole origin of all power and authority, and is the author and principle of whatsoever is done by the Son or by the Spirit.
VII. The Father alone is in the highest, strict, proper, and absolute sense supreme over all.
VIII. The Father alone is, absolutely speaking, the God of the universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel; of Moses, of the Prophets and Apostles; and the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
IX. The Scripture, when it mentions the one God, or the only God, always means the supreme person of the Father.
X. When the word, God, is mentioned in Scripture, with any high epithet, title, or attribute annex’d to it; it generally (I think, always) means the person of the Father.
XI. The Scripture, when it mentions God, absolutely and by way of eminence, always means the person of the Father
XII. The Son is not self-existent; but derives his being and all his attributes form the Father, as from the supreme cause.
XIII. In what particular metaphysical manner the Son derives his being from the Father, the Scripture has no where distinctly declared; and therefore men ought not to presume to be able to define.
XIV. They are both therefore worthy of censure; both they who on the one hand presume to affirm that the Son was made (ex ouk onton) out of nothing; and they who, on the other hand, affirm that he is the self-existent substance.
XV. The Scripture, in declaring the Son’s derivation from the Father, never makes mention of any limitation of time; but always supposes and affirms him to have existed with the Father from the beginning and before all worlds.
XVI. They therefore have also justly been censured, who taking upon them to be wise above what is written, and intruding into things which they have not seen; have presumed to affirm (hoti en pote ouken) that there was a time when the Son was not.
XVII. The Son (according to the reasoning of the primitive writers) derives his being from the Father, (whatever the particular manner of that derivation be,) not by mere necessity of nature; (which would in reality be self-existence, not filiation;) but by an act of the Father’s incomprehensible power and will.
XVIII. The (logos, the) Word or Son of the Father, sent into the world to assume our flesh, and to become man, and die for the sins of mankind; was not the (logos endiathetos, the) internal Reason or Wisdom of God, and attribute or power of the Father; but a real person, the same who from the beginning had been the Word, or revealer of the will, of the Father to the world.
XIX. The Holy Spirit of God does not in Scripture generally signify a mere power or operation of the Father, but more usually a real person.
XX. The Holy Spirit is not self-existent, but derives his being from the Father (by the Son) as from the supreme cause.
XXI. The Scripture, speaking of the Spirit of God, never mentions any limitation of time, when he derived his being from the Father; but supposes him to have existed with the Father from the beginning.
XXII. In what particular metaphysical manner the Holy Spirit derives his being from the Father, the scripture hath no where at all defined; and therefore men ought not to presume to be able to explain.
XXIII. They who are not careful to maintain these personal characters and distinctions, but, while they are solicitous (on the one hand) to avoid the errors of the Arians, affirms (in the contrary extreme) the Son and Holy Spirit to be (individually with the Father) the self-existent being: These, seeming in words to magnify the name of the Son and Holy Spirit, in reality take away their very existence; and so fall unawares into Sabellianism (which is the same with Socinianism).
XXIV. The person of the Son, is, in the New Testament sometimes stiled God.
xxv. The reason why the Son in the New Testament is sometimes stiled God, is not upon account of his metaphysical substance, how divine soever; but of his relative attributes and divine authority (communicated to him from the Father) over us.
XXVI. By the operation of the Son, the Father both made and governs the world.
XXVII. To the Son are ascribed in Scripture other the greatest things and the highest titles; even all communicable divine powers: That is, all powers which include not that independency and supreme authority, by which the God and Father of All is distinguished to be the God and Father of all.
XXVIII. The Holy Spirit is described in the New Testament as the immediate author and worker of all miracles, even of those done by our Lord himself; and as the conducter of Christ in all the actions of his life, during his state of humiliation here upon earth.
XXIX. The Holy Spirit is declared in Scripture to be the inspirer of the Prophets and Apostles, and the great teacher and directer [sic] of the Apostles in the whole work of their ministry.
XXX. The Holy Spirit is represented in the New Testament, as the sanctifier of all hearts, and the supporter and comforter of good Christians under all their difficulties.
XXXI. Concerning the Holy Spirit, there are other greater things spoken in Scripture, and Higher titles ascribed to him, than to any angel, or any other being whatsoever, except the only-begotten Son of God.
XXXII. The person of the Holy Ghost, is no where in Scripture expressly stiled, God, or Lord.
XXXIII. The word, God, in Scripture, never signifies a complex notion of more persons, (or intelligent agents) than one; but always means one person only, viz. either the person of the father singly, or the person of the son singly.
XXXIV. The Son, whatever his metaphysical essence or substance be, and whatever divine greatness and dignity is ascribed to him in Scripture; yet in this he is evidently subordinate to the Father; that He derives his being, attributes, and powers, from the Father; the Father nothing from him.
XXXV. Every action of the Son, both in making the world, and in all other his operations; is only the exercise of the Father’s power, communicated to him after a manner to us unknown.
XXXVI. The Son, whatever his metaphysical nature or essence be; yet in this whole dispensation, in the creation and redemption of the world, acts in all things according to the will, and by the mission or authority of the Father.
XXXVII. The Son, how great soever the metaphysical dignity of his nature was, yet in the whole dispensation entirely directed all his actions to the glory of the Father.
XXXVIII. Our saviour Jesus Christ, as, before his incarnation, he was sent forth by the will and good pleasure, and with the authority of the Father; so in the flesh, both before and after his exaltation, He, (not a part of him, but himself, his whole person,) in acknowledgment of the supremacy of the person of the Father, always prayed to him, and returned him thanks, stiling him his God, &c.
XXXIX. The reason why the Scripture, though it stiles the Father God, and also stiles the Son God; yet at the same time always declares there is but one God; is because, there being in the monarchy of the universe but one authority, original in the Father, derivative in the Son; therefore the one God (absolutely speaking) always signifies him in whom the power or authority is original and underived.
XL. The Holy Spirit, whatever his metaphysical nature, essence, or substance be; and whatever divine power or dignity is ascribed to him in Scripture; yet in this he is evidently subordinated to the Father; that he derives his being and powers from the Father, the Father nothing from Him.
XLI. The Holy Spirit, whatever his metaphysical nature, essence, or substance be; and whatever divine power or dignity is ascribed to him in Scripture; yet in the whole dispensation of the Gospel, always acts by the will of the Father, is given and sent by him, intercedes to him, &c.
XLII. The Holy Spirit, as he is subordinate to the Father; so he is also in Scripture represented as subordinate to the Son, both by nature and by the will of the Father; excepting only that he is described as being the conducter and guide of our Lord, during his state of humiliation here upon earth.
XLIII. Upon these grounds, supreme honour or worship is due to the person of the Father singly, as being alone the supreme and original author of all being and power.
XLIV. For the same reason, all prayers and praises ought primarily or ultimately to be directed to the person of the Father, as the original and primary author of all good.
XLV. And upon the same account, whatever honour is paid to the Son who redeemed, or to the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us, must always be understood as tending finally to the honour and glory of the Father, by whose good pleasure the Son redeemed, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies us.
XLVI. For the great oeconomy, or the whole dispensation of God towards mankind in Christ, consists and terminates in this; that as all authority and power is originally in the Father, and from him derived to the Son, and exercised according to the will of the Father by the operation of the Son, and by the influences of the Holy Spirit; and all communications from God to the creature, are conveyed through the intercession of the Son, and by the inspiration and sanctification of the Holy Spirit: So on the contrary, all returns from the creature of prayers and praises, of reconciliation and obedience of honour and duty to God; are made in and by the guidance and assistance of the Holy Spirit, through the mediation of the Son, to the supreme Father and author of all things.
XLVII. The Son, before his incarnation, was with God, was in the form of God, and had glory with the Father.
XLVIII. Yet he had not then distinct worship paid to him in his own person, but appeared only as the (Shecinah, or) habitation of the glory of the Father: in which the name of God was.
XLIX. At his incarnation he freely divested himself (ekenosen heauton) of that glory, which he had with God before the world was, and by virtue of which he is described as having been in the form of God: And in this state of humiliation he suffered and died for the sins of the world.
L. After, and upon account of, the accomplishment of which dispensation, he is described in Scripture as invested with distinct worship in his own person; his original glory and dignity being at the same time revealed, and his exaltation in the human nature to his mediatorial kingdom declared: Himself sitting upon his Father’s throne, at the right hand of the majesty of God; and receiving the adoration and thanksgivings of his Church, as the alone mediator between God and men.
LI. This honour the Scripture directs to be paid to Christ; not upon account of his metaphysical essence or substance, and abstract attributes; but of his actions and attributes relative to us; his condescension in becoming man, who was the Son of God; Redeeming, and interceding for, us; his authority, power, dominion, and sitting upon the throne of God his Father, as our law-giver, our king, our judge, and our God.
LII. The honour paid in this manner to the Son, must (as before) always be understood as redounding ultimately to the glory of God the Father.
LIII. The honour which Christians are bound to pay peculiarly to the person of the Holy Spirit, is expressed in the Texts following &c.
LIV. For putting up prayers and doxologies directly and expressly to the person of the Holy Spirit, it must be acknowledged there is no clear precept or example in Scripture.
LV. The titles given in the New Testament to the three persons of the ever-blessed Trinity, when all mentioned together, are, &C.
Clarke, therefore, wasn’t a unitarian per se (contrary to the assertions of Tuggy), but a certain type of Trinitarian as he himself believed and argued.
Further Reading
Origen’s Trinitarianism Summarized
Origen’s Christology Revisited
Origen – Dialog with Heracleides
Early Church, Filioque & Origen