$ 4

The Monitory Clauses, and the Controversies raised on the use of the Athanasian Creed

It is proposed in this section to give a brief account of the objections taken and controversies raised from time to time with regard to the use of the Creed; and, after some consideration of the force of the objections, and an explanation of the monitory clauses, to conclude with a notice of the chief modifications as to the use of the Creed by the Church of England that have been recently suggested.

The earliest objections of which we hear, raised to the language or use of the Creed, are in the sixteenth century. Its use in public worship was apparently dropped by most, if not all, of the Protestant and Reformed bodies on the Continent, and in some quarters dislike was expressed of its language, especially by the Socinians and Arians, some of whom delighted to call it the Creed, not of Athanasius, but of Sathanasius. So Valentinus Gentilis, an Arian from Naples, who settled at Genoa about the middle of the century, is said to have termed it; and the silly nickname was caught up by others, as Gregorius Paulus in

Poland, and many Arian sectaries in Lithuania. In England no exception appears to have been taken to the position given to it in the Book of Common Prayer until well on in the century, when we hear of objections raised by Thomas Cartwright, the Puritan leader, and others. Cartwright objected to its recitation in church, not apparently on grounds of dissatisfaction with the substance of it, but simply because he said that Arianism was dead, and therefore the Creed was no longer needed. He was answered by Hooker, whose words have been cited above,1 and still earlier by Whitgift, who pointed out that 'Athanasius' Creed is not only an excellent confutation of Arius' heresy, but a plain declaration of the mystery of the Trinity, such as is necessary for all Christian men to learn and know."2 Isolated objections also begin to be raised about this time. Thus we hear of Bishop Aylmer being compelled to silence a minister in his diocese who was accused, among other offences, of being a busy disputer against Athanasius' Creed.' But the exceptions taken to its use were evidently not regarded as serious, nor can they have been widely spread, or we should have heard much more of them. Nothing was said against its use at the Hampton Court Conference (1604), or at that held at the Savoy (1661). Indeed Baxter, the leader of the Presbyterian party at that conference, is reported to have said: 'In a word, the damnatory sentences excepted or modestly expounded, 2 Whitgift, Works, ii. 481.

1 See above, p. 202.

3 Strype's Aylmer, p. 71 (cap. vii.).

I embrace the Creed called Athanasius' as the best explication of the Trinity. Somewhat earlier, however, there appear to be traces of the disuse of the Creed in some churches, for in Visitation Articles of 1636 and later, a question is sometimes asked whether the minister reads the Athanasian Creed on all those days for which it is appointed.1 To the same period belong the objections of such men as Chillingworth and Jeremy Taylor. The former of these felt himself at one time unable to accept the Creed, but he overcame his scruples later, when he was appointed Chancellor of Salisbury in 1638, and signed the three articles of the Canon. Jeremy Taylor, in his Liberty of Prophesying, speaks at some length on the Creed, and says: 'I confess I cannot see the moderate sentence and gentleness of charity in his preface and conclusion, as there was in the Nicene Creed. Nothing there but damnation and perishing everlastingly, unless the article of the Trinity be believed as it is there with curiosity and minute particularities explained.' He further points out that what he calls the censure in the preface and end . . . are extrinsical and accidental to the articles, and might as well have been spared.' 2

So far we have seen little more than the objections of individuals. Not till 1689 does any suggestion for some change in its use appear to have been seriously

1 See Bishop Wren's Articles in the Report of the Ritual Commission of 1867, p. 559.

2 Liberty of Prophesying, § ii. c. 36.

6

brought before the Church. In that year there was an attempt made to revise the Prayer Book, and the Commissioners appointed for this purpose appear to have had before them several of the proposals for dealing with the Athanasian Creed which have been revived in later days. The total disuse of the Creed was suggested, but only to be rejected as likely to endanger the faith. The optional use of it was considered; as well as the excision of the monitory clauses, and, lastly, the addition of an explanatory note. This last course, which was proposed by Stillingfleet, Bishopelect of Worcester, found most favour, and finally the Commissioners agreed to enlarge the rubric so as to make it state that the articles of [the Creed] ought to be received and believed as being agreeable to the Holy Scripture. And the Condemning clauses are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian Faith.' It was also contemplated that the Creed should only be read on the five great festivals (omitting the Epiphany) and on All Saints' Day. Nothing, however, came of this. Archbishop Tillotson said: The account given of Athanasius' Creed appears to me nowise satisfactory. I wish we were well rid of it.' But the temper of Convocation was such that it was felt to be useless to submit the proposals of the Commissioners to it, and the whole scheme was quietly dropped.

During the revival of Arianism within the Church in the eighteenth century, we hear that the Creed was disused by many of the Arian clergy, and Dr. Samuel

Clarke wrote vehemently against it. His attack was the occasion which called forth Waterland's masterly defence of it, which had the effect of putting an end to all active controversy on the subject for many years. But the dislike of the Creed remained in many quarters, and the directions for its recitation shared the fate of many other rubrics in the general neglect of the eighteenth century. There were probably many churches where it was never heard, including the Royal chapels, in which George III. would never allow it to be recited.

The omission of the Creed from the American Prayer Book (1785-1789), though acquiesced in with great reluctance by Bishop Seabury, attracted but little attention in this country. When the proposed changes in the Prayer Book were submitted to the English Bishops, from whom the American Church hoped for consecration of its Bishops, the faintest possible exception was taken to the alteration, the Bishops mildly adding at the end of their remarks: 'Nor can we help adding, that we hope you will think it a decent proof of the attachment you profess to the services of our Liturgy to give the other two Creeds [as well as the Apostles'] a place in your Book of Common Prayer, even though the use of them should be made optional.' Not much attention was paid to this, though in the (American) Convention of 1789 the House of Bishops actually did propose to retain the Creed with a rubric permitting its use. This was, however, negatived in the other House, and