A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

Many have argued against the use of this Creed; and some, with strange vehemence, partly from the doctrines which it teaches, but chiefly from the condemnation which it pronounces on all who disbelieve them. Now the doctrines are undeniably the same with those that are contained in the Articles of our Church, in the beginning of our litany, in the conclusions of many of our collects, in the Nicene Creed, and, as we conceive, in that of the Apostles; in the doxology, in the form of baptism, and in numerous passages of both Testaments; only here they are somewhat more distinctly set forth, to prevent equivocation.—Archbishop Secker.

Whenever we go contrary to a stream, which has run in one channel for seventeen centuries, we ought to doubt our own opinions, and at least treat the general and concurring testimony of mankind with respect. If any one has his doubts on the intricacies of this question, let him first search the Scripture, and settle his principles from thence; if he afterwards wishes to pursue his researches, let him not recur to the crude and hasty publications of the present day, in which assertions are rashly made, without foundation in Scripture, antiquity, or the principles of any Church, but to those learned writers who managed this controversy fifty years ago in our own country; or, if he has learning and leisure sufficient, to the primitive fathers themselves.—Dean Vincent.

Whoever wrote this Creed, he meant nothing more than to collect things said in various Catholic writers, against the various heresies subsisting, and to simplify and arrange the expressions, so as to form a confession of faith the most concise, orderly, and comprehensive, possible. Not with any view of explaining any mysterious truths, but with the sole design of rejecting hurtful or heretical errors. And it may have been adopted on account of its excellence, in bringing the errors which were to be shunned into a small compass, in exposing them in a kind of poetic numbers, which strike and possess the ear; and may have been called “Athanasian,” only on account of its containing doctrines which have been defended with peculiar force and brilliancy by the great prelate of Alexandria.—Hey’s Lectures.

The Athanasian Creed only tells us what we must believe, if we believe a Trinity in unity, three persons and one God: and I challenge any man, who sincerely professes this faith, to tell me, what he can leave out of this exposition, without destroying the Divinity of some of the three persons, or the unity of the Godhead. If each person must be God and Lord, must not each person be uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty? If there be but one God, and one Lord, can there be three separated, uncreated, incomprehensible, eternal, almighty Gods; which must of necessity be three Gods, and three Lords! This Creed does not pretend to explain how there are three persons, each of which is God, and yet but one God, but only asserts the thing, that thus it is, and thus it must be, if we believe a Trinity in unity; which should make all men, who would be thought neither Arians nor Socinians, more cautious how they express the least dislike of it.—Sherlock on the Trinity.

Every Divine perfection and substantial attribute of Deity is common to the three: what is peculiar applies only to their relations, order, or office; paternity, filiation, procession—first, second, third persons—creation, redemption, sanctification. The Athanasian Creed is altogether illustrative of this economy; and if it be carefully considered under this point of view, I am persuaded it will appear to be exceedingly reasonable and judicious. There is something in the mere sound of the clauses which I doubt not beguiles it of its just praise. Some have forgotten, perhaps, and some have never known, its proper history. The numerous sects whose different apprehensions of the precise nature of the holy Trinity led men in those distant days into one, at least, of the two great errors, either that of “confounding the persons” or “dividing the substance,” are now perhaps no more. They may indeed subsist under other names; but men have long since ceased to talk of the Sabellians, Noëtians, Patripassians, Praxeans, Eunomians, Apollinarians, Photinians, Cerinthians, and even Arians, Nestorians, and Eutychians; for these latter are the sects chiefly opposed in the Athanasian Creed. But there is not one clause of this ancient formulary that is not directed, in the simplest manner possible, against the different errors of all these several sects; their wild and discordant notions are all met by the constant reiteration of that one great truth, that though the Christian verity compels us to acknowledge every person of the holy Trinity to be God and Lord, yet the Catholic religion equally forbids us to say there be three Gods, or three Lords; though, therefore, each is uncreate, each eternal, each almighty, each God, and each Lord, yet these attributes, as the exclusive attributes of Deity, are common to the three; the omnipotence, the eternity, the Divinity, the power and dominion, the glory and majesty, is one; “such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost.”—Nares on the Creeds.

Whilst the Apostles’ Creed compendiously sums up and declares the main articles of our Christian faith, and the Nicene Creed explains more fully the articles relating to the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Athanasian Creed stands as an excellent guard and defence against the subtleties of most kinds of heretics, who, were it once removed, would soon find means to enervate and evade the shorter Creeds, where the Christian faith is more simply declared.—Wheatly.

The intention of the Creed, as well as of our Lord in the Gospel, is only to say, that whoever rejects the doctrine of it, from presumptuous self-opinion, or wilful negligence, the case of such an one is desperate. But though we pass judgment on his errors without reserve, and, in general, on all who maintain them, yet personally and singly we presume not to judge of his condition in the next world.—Archbishop Secker.

The use of it is, to be a standing fence and preservative against the wiles and equivocations of most kinds of heretics. This was well understood by Luther when he called it “a bulwark to the Apostles’ Creed;” much to the same purpose with what is cited of Ludolphus Saxo (“tria sunt symbola; primum Apostolicum, secundum Nicenum, tertium Athanasii; primum factum est ad fidei instructionem, secundum ad fidei explanationem, tertium ad fidei defensionem”). And it was this and the like considerations that have all along made it to be of such high esteem among all the Reformed Churches, from the days of their great leader.—Waterland.

The Church of England proposes no Creeds to be believed upon their own authority, but because they are agreeable to the word of God. The articles of the Creed indeed are proposed as articles of faith. But they are only collections of some important truths to which that testimony is given. They are, at the highest, but extracts which are to be believed because there contained; and so to be believed as there delivered. Whatever doctrines are consonant to the Scriptures, she recommends to our faith; but what are contrary to the word of God, she pronounces not lawful for the Church to ordain. She expects her members to believe nothing as of Divine revelation, but what the records of that revelation plainly contain. Nor of the truths there discovered, does she impose the belief of any as a necessary term of communion, but what she apprehends the sacred oracles themselves to represent as a necessary term of salvation. These were the creeds of the Western Church before the Reformation; and because, at the Reformation, she withdrew from nothing but what was corrupt, therefore, these being catholic and sound, she still retains them.—Wheatly.

Why, it is often said, are we so zealous in enforcing doctrines merely speculative? The answer is, we believe them to be inculcated in Scripture, essential to the Christian religion, and not merely speculative. The Son and the Holy Ghost are each of them said to be sent by the Father, each of them contributes to the great work of our salvation. To refuse them Divine honour, is unquestionably to deny their Divine power. We do not presume to fix limits to Divine mercy; but surely we endanger our title to it, when we reject the conditions upon which it is granted. The humble Christian hopes for no benefit from the gospel covenant, but from a firm reliance on the merits of his Saviour, and the aid of the Holy Spirit.—Croft.