A church dictionary

by Walter Farquhar Hook

We may, perhaps, be reminded, that some of our own most sanguine friends have wished to expunge it. But one of them lived to retract his opinion, and a friend of truth is not to be overawed by authority, however respectable, nor silenced by popular clamour.—Croft.

So long as there shall be any men left to oppose the doctrines which this Creed contains, so long will it be expedient, and even necessary, to continue the use of it, in order to preserve the rest; and, I suppose, when we have none remaining to find fault with the doctrines, there will be none to object against the use of the Creed, or so much as to wish to have it laid aside.—Waterland, Ath. Creed.

Whatever may be pretended, this is not a controversy about some metaphysical abstract notions of personality, subsistence, or moral distinctions in the Divine nature; in these there will be always room left for different speculations and sentiments. It is not a controversy about forms, but it is a controversy about the very object of religious worship. Should there be a falling away from this profession, should there be a denying of the Lord that bought us, or of the Holy Spirit, the Sanctifier and Comforter, disowning them to be truly and properly by nature God, of the same essence and eternity as the Father, and with him the one God, not three Gods, with too much reason it might be said, the glory is departed from us, whether dissenters or of the Established Church, that hath been counted the head and great support of the Protestant Churches. Should we, or they, thus fall, those Protestants, whose confessions we have mentioned, yea, and all Christians abroad, must, upon their professed principles, renounce us as not holding the head.—London Ministers’ Cases, Trinity.

The Creed of Athanasius, and that sacred hymn of glory, than which nothing doth sound more heavenly in the ears of faithful men, are now reckoned as superfluities which we must in any case pare away, lest we cloy God with too much service. Yet cause sufficient there is why both should remain in use; the one as a most divine explication of the chiefest articles of our Christian belief, the other as an heavenly acclamation of joyful applause to his praises in whom we believe. Neither the one nor the other unworthy to be heard sounding, as they are, in the Church of Christ, whether Arianism live or die.—Hooker. For a detailed justification of the Athanasian Creed, see Redcliffe on the Athanasian Creed.

It is appointed to be said in the Church of England on the great festivals, and on certain holidays, in place of the Apostles’ Creed, at Morning Prayer. So that it may be said once a month at least.—Sparrow. Wheatly.

This Creed is called in the Roman offices the Psalm, Quicunque vult, and was printed for antiphonal chanting, as it is now recited in our choirs; being alternated, like the Psalms between minister and people in parish churches. The right notion that a creed is also a song of thanksgiving is thus significantly cherished. It has been objected to the Church of England, that she has disingenuously attributed this Creed to St. Athanasius: whereas in fact she has not decided the question. It is called indeed the Creed of St. Athanasius in the rubric before the Apostles’ Creed; but that is plainly an abbreviated term for the full designation prefixed to the Creed itself, “this confession of our Christian faith, commonly called the Creed of Saint Athanasius.” And even the running heading does not so designate it. The words “the Creed of Saint Athanasius,” was deliberately altered by the correctors of the sealed books for “at Morning Prayer,” the present heading, in which, as in all other corrections, the authentic copy was followed. See the fac-simile of the corrected sealed books in Stephens’s Book of Common Prayer with notes. The same remark may apply to the designation in the 8th Article, Athanasius’s Creed.

ATHEIST. (From ἀ and θέος, without God.) One who denies the being and moral government of God. There have been but few atheists in the strict sense of the word, under any system, and at any time. Some few perhaps still remain, and adopt the system of Spinosa, which supposes the universe to be one vast substance, impelled to all its movements by some internal force, which operates by a blind and irresistible necessity.

The heathen, who vied with heretics in giving names of opprobrium to true Christians, called the primitive Christians Atheists, because they did not worship their gods.

ATONEMENT. (See Propitiation, Covenant of Redemption, Sacrifice, and Jesus Christ.) The word atonement signifies the satisfying of Divine justice, as mentioned in the Article on the Covenant of Redemption. The etymology of the word conveys the idea of two parties, previously at variance, being set at one again, and hence at-one-ment, from originally signifying reconciliation, comes, by a natural metonymy, to denote that by which the reconciliation is effected. The doctrine of the atonement is thus stated by the Church: “The Son, which is the Word of the Father, begotten from everlasting of the Father, the very and eternal God, and of one substance with the Father, took man’s nature in the womb of the blessed Virgin, of her substance; so that two whole and perfect natures, that is to say, the Godhead and Manhood, were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very Man; who truly suffered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile his Father to us, and to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men.”—Article 2.

That our blessed Lord suffered is sufficiently clear from Scripture, and that it was not for himself, but for us, that this God-man lived so sorrowfully, and died so painfully, the Scripture is full and clear: and not only in general, that it was for our sakes he did it; but, in particular, it was for the reconciling his Father to us, and to purchase the pardon of our sins for us,—expressly telling us, that “he hath reconciled both (Jew and Gentile) unto God, in one body, by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby.” (Eph. ii. 16.) “Yea, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son.” (Rom. v. 10.) “So that us, who were sometimes alienated, and enemies in our minds by wicked works, now he hath reconciled in the body of his flesh through death, to present us holy, and unblameable, and unreproveable in his sight.” (Col. i. 21, 22.) And the reason is, because “it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;” and, “having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things to himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in heaven or things in earth.” (Verse 19, 20.) And this reconciliation of God to us, he made by offering up himself a sacrifice for us. For “God sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins,” (1 John iv. 10,) “and he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (Chap. ii. 2.) And therefore when we see him sweating great drops of blood under the burden of sin, we must not think they were his own sins that lay so heavy upon him: no, they were our sins, which he had taken off from us and laid upon himself; for he bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows; “He was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed.” (Isaiah liii. 4, 5.) So undoubted a truth is this comfortable assertion, that Jesus Christ by his death and sufferings reconciled his Father to us, and therefore was a sacrifice, not only for “original guilt,” but also for “actual sins of men.”—Beveridge.