The Athanasian Creed 333 '... My rule has been to preach the Athanasian Creed from the pulpit in season and out of season; to ground not merely my whole theological, but my whole ethical teaching, formally and openly on it; to prevent, as far as I could, people from thinking it a dead formula, or even a mere string of intellectual dogmas. And if I were (from my experience) to dare to offer a suggestion, it would be to call on all clergy who value the Creed to preach it continually, and make their congregations feel something at least of its value. But I only speak with hesitation, and am ready to be convinced if I am wrong." "The Athanasian Creed is now construed by the people, in the light of Puritan Eschatology-i. e., of the doctrine which the Puritans (as far as I know) introduced first, namely, that the fate of every man is irrevocably fixed at the moment of death. I need not tell you that this is not the Catholic doctrine; that the Church has held, from a very early age, the belief in an intermediate state. That belief was distorted and abused, in later times, as the Romish doctrine of purgatory. But the denunciation of that doctrine in the Thirty-nine Articles (as Dr. Newman pointed out, if I recollect rightly, in Tract 90) does not denounce any primitive doctrine of purgatory, nay, rather allows it, by the defining adjective Romish.' That this Puritan Eschatology is no part of the Creed of the Church of England, is proved by her final rejection of the Article affirming endless punishment. "Now, it is plain again that men have no right to read the Athanasian Creed in this Puritan sense. In whatsoever age it was composed, it was composed by one who believed in the intermediate state; and there is nothing in its language to hint that he held that there was no hope in that state for the unorthodox whom he denounced; nothing to hint that he held, with the old Crusaders, that an infidel went straight to hell. So guardedly vague are the expressions of the Creed, as to 'perishing everlastingly,' and 'everlasting salvation,' that it might be believed and used honestly by one who did not hold the necessary immortality of the soul,' and therefore thought the final annihilation of the wicked possible. "The Creed says, and truly, that the knowledge of God, and it alone, is everlasting life. It does not say that that knowledge may not be vouchsafed hereafter to those who have sought honestly for it, in this life, but through unfortunate circumstances, or invincible ignorance, have failed to find it. Provided the search be honestly continued in the unknown realms beyond the grave, the Athanasian Creed does not deny that the seeker, it may be after heavy pains and long wanderings, shall at last discover his Saviour and his God, and discover that for him he had been yearning though he knew it not. It is almost needless for me to point out how such an interpretation of the Athanasian Creed would relieve the consciences of thousands, without (it seems to me) forfeiting our strict honesty, or our claim to Catholic orthodoxy - how it would make the Creed tolerable to thousands to whom (under its Puritan misrepresentation) it is now intolerable; and would render unnecessary that alteration of the so-called 'damnatory clauses,' to which I have consented with much unwillingness, and only as a concession to the invincible ignorance of modern Puritanism. "I have reason to believe that the English mind (and possibly the Scotch) is specially ripe just now for receiving once more this great Catholic doctrine of the intermediate state, and that by preaching it with all prudence, as well as with all manfulness, we should cut the ground from under our so-called 'Liberal' adversaries' feet. I say—with all prudence. For it is plain that unguarded The Athanasian Creed 335 latitude of expression might easily awaken a cry that we were going to introduce the Romish doctrine of purgatory,' and to proceed to 'pardons' and 'masses for the dead.' But that if we keep cautiously within the limits permitted by truly Catholic antiquity, we shall set in motion a mighty engine for the Church's help in her need, I, as a student of public opinion, have no doubt whatsoever. "It is not for me, a private clergyman, to lay down the law, as I have been asked to do, what is the Catholic doctrine on this, or any other matter, save as I find it expressed in the formularies of the Church of England, as by law established. Now the Church of England has left this question of the future state, in many points, an open question; the more markedly so, because the Puritan influences of the sixteenth century were pressing her to define and narrow her formularies about it. Those influences, though they failed, thank God, in narrowing her formularies, have actually succeeded till very late years, in narrowing her public opinion about this most important question, among the majority of her members. In the face of that public opinion, I intended to reopen the whole question; to set the clergy searching for themselves, Scripture, Catholic antiquity, and whatsoever of wisest and soundest has been written by our great English divines; to make them think for themselves, and judge for themselves, instead of asking me, or any man, to think and judge for them. For only so will any wider and sounder belief on this, or any other matter, be a real belief of the heart and reason, and not a mere party cry, repeated parrot-like and unintelligently. "If God should ever give me grace and wit to express clearly my opinion on this matter, I shall do so, after that full research and deliberation which befit so important and awful a subject. But I look to wiser and more learned men than myself to speak better sense upon it than I shall ever speak meanwhile; certain that even though they may differ in details, and even some of them err, they will at least prepare the mind of the Church for the reception of eternal truth. . . ." In his last letter to Thomas Cooper, thanking him for his volume of "Plain Pulpit Talk," he says that, in it, "I see the thorough right old morality-common to Puritans, old Anglican Churchmen, apostles, and prophets; that you hold right to be infinitely right; and wrong ditto wrong; that you call a spade a spade, and talk to men about the real plagues of their own hearts; as Carlyle says, you 'do not rave against extinct Satans, while quite unaware of the real man-devouring Satan at your elbow.' My dear friend, go on and do that, and whether you call yourself Baptist or Buddhist, I shall welcome you as one who is doing the work of God, and fighting in the battle of the Lord, who makes war in righteousness. But more. You are no Buddhist. . . . I happen to be, from reason and science as well as from Scripture and Catholic tradition (I use a word I don't like), I happen to be, I say, an orthodox theologian, and to value orthodoxy more, the more I think, for its own sake. And it was a solid pleasure to me to find you orthodox, and to find you deriving your doctrines concerning right and wrong, and the salvation of men, from orthodox theology. Pp. 128, 131, is a speech of which no sound divine, either of the Church of England or of the middle age, ought to be ashamed. . . . But, my dear friend, whatever you do, don't advocate disestablishing us. We are the most liberal religious body In our pale men can meet who can in these realms. On Disestablishment 337 meet nowhere else. . . . But if we - the one remaining root of union — disestablish and become a sect like the sects, then competition, not Christ, will be God, and we shall bite and devour one another, till atheism and M. Comte are the rulers of modern thought. I am not mad, but speak the words of truth and soberness; and remember (I am sure you will, though orators at public meetings would not) that my plea is quite disinterested. If the Church of England were disestablished and disendowed to-morrow, vested interests would be respected, and I and others living on small incomes till our deaths. I assure you that I have no family livings, or an intention of putting my sons into them. My eldest son a splendid young fellow-is roughing it successfully and honorably as an engineer anywhere between Denver, U. S., and the city of Mexico. My next and only other son may possibly go to join him. I can give no more solid proof that, while Radical cockneys howl at me as an aristocrat and a renegade, I am none; but a believer in the persons of my own children, that a man's a man for a' that." While paying a visit in Weybridge this year, he was asked to write some answers to the following questions in a book kept for the autographs of literary men. The answers are genuine and characteristic: "Favorite character in history? David. "Favorite artist? Leonardo da Vinci. "Favorite composer? Beethoven. "Favorite dramatic performance? A pantomime. "Favorite kind of scenery? Wide flats or open sea. VOL. II. 22 |