What is the Athanasian Creed?

The controversy was supposed to have given rise to what is called "The Athanasian Creed." Its origin is not now known, though it seems to bear internal evidence of having been written to meet the Arian and Sabellian heresies.

The creed says, "The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods: but one God." It further says that after the incarnation of the Lord Jesus He was "perfect God, and perfect man."

Now we cannot understand that which is so far above us, the nature of God — that which is infinite; but it is necessary to see that scripture clearly speaks of the Father as God, and the Son as God, and the Holy Ghost as God; and yet, as the creed says, there are not three Gods, but one God. So it is necessary to see that the Lord Jesus was truly a man, born of the Virgin Mary; that He lived a man upon the earth, was then nailed to a cross of wood, and died — died to redeem His people. Being man, He could die; His being God as well as man gave infinite value to His death for the redemption of an innumerable multitude. Our Lord Himself said that no man knew the Son but the Father (Matt. 11:27), and therefore we cannot expect to understand the mystery of the union of God and man in one Person. Many who have attempted it have fallen into error; some have denied the Godhead and others the manhood of our Lord. It is our wisdom to believe every statement of scripture, though we cannot understand that which is infinite, nor the Person of our Lord, as He Himself said. We shall see, later on, to what evil the Arian heresy led in the church.

In A.D. 326 he became bishop of Alexandria, and from the prominent place he thus held, and from his firm and persistent opposition to Arianism, he has been called the "Father of Orthodoxy." After him has also been named the popular creed handed down to us, which is still in use in the Roman and English churches as "The Athanasian Creed," though it is now generally believed to have been drawn up at a later date; by whom is uncertain. The Greek Church never acknowledged it, and in A.D. 1785 the Episcopal Church of America struck it out of their prayer book.

Mr. R. quotes the Athanasian Creed, and says that the assertion, "God and Man, one Christ," is "derogatory and dishonouring to the Son, and contrary to Scripture." This is a plain statement of his matured teaching, not now encumbered with a cloud of words. All orthodox Christians hold and confess, on the contrary, that the assertion, "God and Man, one Christ," is according to Scripture; and, therefore, as revealed therein, honouring to the Son, since it is the truth of God.

Mr. R. quotes the last clause of the Athanasian Creed, as to the Person of the Lord. Let us quote more fully:— "For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess: that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; "God, of the Substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds: and Man, of the Substance of his Mother, born in the world; "Perfect God, and perfect Man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting; "Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead: and inferior to the Father, as touching his manhood. "Who although he be God and Man: yet he is not two, but one Christ; "One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh: but by taking of the Manhood into God; "One altogether; not by confusion of Substance: but by unity of Person. "For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man: so God and Man is one Christ."

The doctrine was condemned formally by a council in AD. 375 and another in A.D. 378 deposed Apollinaris from his bishopric and forced him and his followers out of communion. He died in A.D. 392, maintaining his false doctrine to the last, but his sect continued until about the middle of the fifth century. To combat his doctrine, the following words were included in the Athanasian creed: “Perfect God and perfect man: of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting.... For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and man is one Christ”. So the church of that period dealt decisively with fundamental error and merited the Lord's commendation: “Thou holdest fast My Name and hast not denied My faith”. Let us hope that all those who aspire to be Christians today are as worthy of the Lord's approval.

And again, who does not know that many have allowed themselves in unholy thoughts about Christ's humanity, where Popery has been quite consistently opposed? Anything like Irvingism would have been denounced by the standards of Popery, no less strenuously than Arianism and of course Unitarianism — which is only another word for infidelity. Thus whatever error directly touched the person or natures of Christ has found decided opposition from the theologians of Rome. For this one may thank God as keeping firm the basis of grace for the myriads of souls all over the world who have been entangled in that system. For surely so far as such errors go they are fatal. He who denies the supreme deity of Jesus, or His perfect humanity, is guilty of the deepest affront to God who gave His Son in infinite love, and has sent the Spirit to uphold and testify His glory. There is nothing in the Athanasian creed objectionable on this score. I believe it to be a singularly sound production, though not meaning by this that I should think it right to subscribe to it. I have long done with endorsing the dogmas of men, however excellent in themselves. At the same time, while not willing to bind myself to human definitions of faith, I am of opinion that, put forward merely as an exposition of truth on the human and divine natures in the person of Christ, it is admirable though perhaps too scholastic in form. As for the outcry about damnatory clauses, it is all a mistake. For our Lord Himself says, "He that believes not shall be damned." Does the Athanasian creed go farther than this? No doubt some who want to do away with that creed believe it: I should be sorry to think that they do not; but if so, it seems to me that they stumble over small things.

I do not condemn articles of faith. For my own part I rather admire the Articles of the Church of England; I don't mean the ecclesiastical or political, but the doctrinal. I consider them very fair; sound, for the most part; and certainly moderate in their statements. Even the Athanasian Creed, which many clergymen are anxious to get rid of, I consider to be the best of the three Creeds. As to the Apostles' Creed, it is a very poor affair; and I suppose you know that no apostle had ever anything to do with it. This is merely one of the frauds of the early Fathers. Then the Nicene Creed is anything but a successful production. The great point in it is, "I believe" — not in the church — "I believe the … church;" which has tended to set the church up as a teacher. But the church is nothing of the kind. It is all a mistake. God is the source of teaching. The instrumental means by which the church is taught is through His ministers, but the church does not teach. It is all an error of Popery, but it is an error that has got into all kinds of bodies very far removed from Popery. I only now refer to it to show the importance of the truth, and I say again that, while allowing the value of these articles of faith where it is set forth in creeds, still there is no life in them. They may have their value in guarding against error, or in being a kind of bulwark; but we want something more than that. It is not enough that the house be empty, swept, and garnished. Far from it. We don't keep out error merely by an abjurement of error. We need the power of the truth. We want a living power to preserve our own souls individually. There is that which tends to death, because it tends to corruption, and there is but one thing which counteracts it all; the Holy Ghost working through the Word, and through the Word revealing Christ to men.

Mr. Carey thinks "it is satisfactory to observe, that with all the desire to bring forward whatever he considers condemnatory of the Church [i.e., the English Establishment], Mr. Kelly can only attack six articles out of the thirty-nine." Now he ought to have known, without a word of further explanation, that, on my principles, there are at least four more articles (8, 20, 21, 24) to which I must take exception, no less than to the six explicitly named. For he is well aware that I object to the imposition of a humanly framed symbol of faith, and this for reasons which may appear by and by, though with the greatest respect for the so-called Athanasian creed, as a doctrinal statement. And that which is laid down as to the authority of the Church, general councils, and traditions, he could still less expect me to receive. This may satisfy him that he mistook both the fact and my spirit in the "desire" he imputed so hastily.

Yet the subject has a singular fascination, and has had in all ages. The annals of Christendom are strewn with the wrecks of venturesome and ingenious theories, the heresies of Arius, of Apollinaris, of Nestorius, and others. Hence the origin of at least two of the well-known creeds, the Athanasian and the Nicene, which most undoubtedly declare the facts as to our Lord's Person with admirable point and emphasis, as they were composed with that object. But nothing can equal the precision of Scripture. Here alone we get the truth in its fulness. No doubt in this verse it is given somewhat negatively, though immediately after the admonitory words as to the Son, we have the positive statement that they know the Father to whom the Son reveals Him. The knowledge of the Father therefore is moral; the want of knowledge as to the Son is in a wholly different category. Even when we most heed His word, and learn of Him, as He bids us, we can make no progress towards comprehending the mystery of His Person. We are not meant to do so. But the Gospels are full of the revelation of the Father. All that our Lord said and did perfectly expressed Him. So He gently rebuked Philip for having failed to realise during his privileged intercourse with Himself (strikingly characterised by Him as "so long time"), that He had been manifesting the Father.

298 But then Mr. Jowett — men's minds being thus thrown into uncertainty — suddenly plunges us into doubts on the fundamental truths of Christianity, such as the divinity of Christ, justification by faith, the state of condemnation in which sinners are lying — the doubt being always applied to the truth. Now this seems to me somewhat disingenuous. He compares the Athanasian Creed, which he must be supposed to have signed and uses, with the words, "Neither the Son," in Mark 13:32. He says we do not readily recall the verse when maintaining the Athanasian Creed. Now as to doctrine (what may seem strange) I like the Athanasian Creed the best of all, though it be far too scholastic in form. But I maintain no creed, but I do maintain the proper divinity of the Lord Jesus. That He was in a personal relationship as Son to Father, every one who believes in His divinity, unless a Sabellian, owns. But it is to me as clear as the sun at noonday, that Christ was the Jehovah of the Old Testament, who could say, "Before Me there was no God: I know not any." All the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in Him, and dwells, of course, bodily. He was Immanuel — His name called Jesus (Jah, the Saviour), for He shall save His people from their sins. When Isaiah, in Isaiah 6, saw the thrice holy Jehovah of Hosts, he saw, says John, Christ's glory, and spake of Him. If the Son of man was brought to the Ancient of days, the Ancient of days came (Dan. 7). If the blessed and only Potentate, King of kings, and Lord of lords, showed the appearing of Christ in Timothy, Christ when He appears is King of kings and Lord of lords.

I add, that the Christian has a knowledge, by the Holy Ghost dwelling in him (not of course of the manner of union in the Godhead in any adequate way, but), of such a union as gives him a competency to understand that God can indwell in a way wholly above any creature-communication; and hence he knows that what he knows is beyond his knowledge. "In that day," that is, when ye have received the Comforter, "ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you." "He who searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to God." Is this the saint's heart or the Holy Ghost? Both. It is my groan, the real groan of my heart; but it is the Holy Ghost dwelling in me who gives me the feeling, and the groan too, according to God. And it is His intercession. This is indeed God's sympathy with man. I am well aware that philosophers may mock at this. Of course, as such, Christianity supposes them not to have it — to be ignorant of it. "Whom the world," says the Lord, "cannot receive, for it seeth him not, neither knoweth him; but ye know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you." John 14:17 Hence it is no proof for them in the way of argument. But it is for those who possess it in a way beyond all argument, and a way of understanding too that which argument will never teach. I cannot make a prayer to God without the whole Trinity. "Through Christ we have access by one Spirit to the Father." Eph. 2:18 It is the hourly exercise of the Christian's faith, and better known there than in the Athanasian Creed, and by those who never knew what Trinity or Person meant; for definitions are poor things. What can be defined is not God, for God is infinite.