THE CREED OF ST. ATHANASIUS. BY THE REV. T. E. HANKINSON, M.A., C.C.C.C. Minister of St. Matthew's Chapel, Denmark-hill, Camberwell. THAT portion of the Church of Christ whereof we are members, has ventured to lay down as her recorded opinion, that the Churchi.e., the Church universal, primarily, and the Church provincial secondarily-hath authority in controversies of faith. In this way she advances a claim, at least, upon the respectful attention of her children; but with that wisdom and modesty which is specially apparent wherever she defines her own constitution and describes her own powers, she adds this saving and explanatory clause, limiting and qualifying in a very material manner the otherwise too broad and bold assumption of authority in matters of faith. "Wherefore (the Article continues), although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so, besides the same, ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of salvation." On this honest and, as it appears to us, modest avowal of her principle of action, she has presented to her members, more especially to her ministers, certain formularies of faith, some of which she has borrowed from the ancient Church, and others-i. e. her own thirty-nine Articles-she drew up for herself at the period of her reformation. It is well known that a large body of professing Christians have broken their connexion with the Church of England upon this very point: refusing their submission to her authority in matters of faith, however she may have limited and qualified it, they avow in words that their formularies are only found in the texts of Scripture, and all human definitions of points of belief are considered by them to interfere with what they are pleased to call the indefeasible rights of

U

private judgment. It is no purpose of ours at present to join issue upon this question. We are content to leave them to any satisfaction they think they derive from their independence, and shall trouble neither ourselves nor our readers with any argument to prove that it is only imaginary. But we are quite aware that the forms of faith adapted and prescribed by the Church of England, are not all regarded by her professing members with equal favour, and that to not a few one particular creed, which bears the name of Athanasius (though it is by no means certain he wrote it), is objectionable; though, in other respects, both in doctrine and ritual, they cordially and conscientiously unite with the National Church. Now we are anxious to gain the careful and, as far as may be, candid attention of such persons while we make a few observations touching this, and which may afford them some help towards testing the validity of these objections. We fairly confess, in the outset, that we are speaking as advocates. We have heard, it is true, of clergymen disapproving of the Athanasian creed, and smoothing matters with their consciences by passing it over when it is appointed to be publicly read: as they say their consciences are easy we must suppose they are, but it is difficult to imagine how, when they cannot but recollect that they have affixed, and repeated, and retained their signatures to the Article which declares the three creeds-" Nicene Creed," "Athanasius Creed," and that which is commonly called "the Apostles' Creed”— ought thoroughly to be received and believed, as they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture. We avow ourselves to hold with that article, and look upon all these creeds as corresponding with what St. Paul calls (2 Tim. i. 13, 14) a" form of sound words which are to be held fast in faith and love," and which, though the Holy Ghost did not immediately inspire them, yet he has instrumentally used them and sanctioned them as bulwarks and preservatives of the faith of Churches and individuals in those Scripture doctrines which he did inspire. The objections, if we have rightly understood them, which have been advanced against the Athanasian Creed are twofold the first having respect to the matter of the creed, the second to its sanctions. First, it is said, you have no right to define, in words of man's invention, a doctrine so deeply mysterious as that of the Trinity. Secondly, you have no right to say, that except a man believe faithfully the substance of your definitions he cannot be saved.

Now, with respect to the first objection, it appears to us that a principle is laid down which the objectors would be unwilling to abide by, except probably in this particular case. And there are many principles which are held in ignorance, because it has never occurred to those who hold them to give them any other than a particular application. We have not to tell those who are at all acquainted with the principles of logic, that no argument is tenable that will not bear a syllogistic statement, and that a syllogism lays down some general and admitted principle, and then deduces its application to some particular case; the objection to the syllogism, therefore, may either be against its major proposition which contains

the general principle, or against the derived application which makes the general principle bear upon a particular case. Now let us put into a true syllogistic form the first argument advanced against the Athanasian Creed:-1. The mysteries of revelation are not to be defined by uninspired language. 2. The Athanasian Creed attempts to define a great mystery of revelation in uninspired language. 3. Therefore the Athanasian Creed is objectionable. That is the fair way of putting the argument: and if persons who advance it in a vague and illogical way would thus put it, we cannot but think that they would see that their major proposition containing the principle, if it were granted them, would prove a great deal more than they either intend or wish; for, first, it would prove that all creeds are objectionable, for all creeds-whether those which our Church has adopted as her own, such as the ancient creed of Jerusalem, preserved by Cyril, or the creeds found in the works of Irenæus, Tertullian, or in Gregory, bishop of Næocæsaria-contain uninspired definitions of Scripture mysteries, more especially that of the Trinity; therefore, all these documents which have been ever regarded by the theologians of all ages as valuable expositions of the ancient faith of the Church are objectionable, if we adopt the principle of the first objection to this particular creed. But we must lead this principle on to a yet further and more startling conclusion. Let it be admitted, and there is not an individual, be he Churchman or Dissenter, who would not find that he had struck a heavy blow at the root of doctrinal preaching. If ever the minister ventured beyond the simple quotation of parallel passages-if ever he ventured to tell his people that Jesus Christ was incarnate, or that the Holy Ghost is not an influence but a person-if ever he attempted to define in other than Scripture language the doctrines of regeneration, the atonement, personal union with Christ through the Spirit, and with God the Father through Christ, he lays himself open at once to the objection-you have no right to define, in words of man's invention, doctrines so deeply mysterious as these. We will now suppose that the objector finds himself in candour compelled to retreat from the high ground of a general principle, and, admitting the lawfulness of seeking human language for the setting forth of divine mysteries, to put his objection against the Athanasian Creed into the form of an exception, instead of an example, to a general rule. As thus it is not unlawful to define the mystery of the divine nature, but the definition given by the Athanasian Creed is not lawful. This is, of course, the conclusion of another syllogism, and we must find out, if we can, some principle from which it may be fairly deduced. There are two which present themselves—and I believe they are the only two-and we have no objection to consider them in succession. 1. It is unlawful to lay down as matters of faith what is contrary to Scripture. 2. The Athanasian Creed is contrary to Scripture. 3. Therefore the Athanasian Creed is objectionable. Now here, admitting the major proposition of the syllogism, I take my exception against the minor. Now we must request you to refer to the form itself as it stands in your prayer-books. You will observe that the

first article of the Catholic faith deals with the nature of the God whom we profess to worship. The Catholic faith is this—“ that we worship one God in Trinity," &c.

This is the Article of faith: this sentence contains its shortest statement in the form of a thesis. Of this the remaining part of this creed, down to the verse " He that will be saved must thus think,” &c., is intended to be explanatory. Not, indeed, that I agree with those who say that the Church is quite satisfied if you receive her thesis of doctrine without binding upon you her explanation. That might get rid of a supposed difficulty, but not in that candid way in which it is honourable to deal with matters of controverted theology. It is clear to me, that when the Church says, as she does in her Articles, that the Athanasian Creed "ought thoroughly to be received and believed, for it may be proved by most certain warrant of Holy Scripture," she means the whole creed in its particular as well as general propositions; and if I did not think that it could be so proved, I could not, conscientiously, either subscribe the Article or profess the creed. Now, looking at the creed as a whole, I trust I do not deal unfairly by her intentions in saying, that she avows, in language as positive as she can employ, her belief in these three propositions respecting the Divine Being-viz., that in the Godhead there is a perfect unity of substance, a real distinction of person, and an absolute equality between the persons in eternity, authority, and glory. She says we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in unity; i. e., one God so as to admit in the unity of Godhead a Trinity, or three-fold distinction of persons, and conversely a Trinity of persons as consistent with an unity of Godhead. We do not confound the persons so as to destroy their distinctness, nor do we divide the substance so as to destroy its unity. She then goes on to amplify this proposition, by assigning to each person its appropriate name: and yet-that we may never lose sight of the unity of substance in the personal distinction-whenever she mentions one person by himself, and whatever she says of that one person, she repeats with a fervency of reiteration, that he is never to be regarded as God to the exclusion of the other persons, but in the unity of the same Godhead. She affirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, each bear in Scripture the title of God and Lord; and yet, while in this personal distinction they are each to be considered by himself or severally as God and Lord, the same Scripture truth that commands us thus to consider them, forbids us to say that there are three Gods or three Lords. Now has the, Church Scripture warrant for saying this? We will see:-1st. As to the essential unity of Godhead (Deut. vi. 4)-" Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord." This is quoted by Jesus Christ (Mark xii. 29). This passage in itself proves the unity of Godhead; but it does more-it proves a personal plurality: for the word translated God is, in the original Hebrew, in the plural number. "Jehovah our Gods is one Jehovah." We ask you, is there any thing more paradoxical or inconsistent in our statement of Trinity in unity, than this significant declaration of Scripture. Once more, Jesus says to the

Jews, speaking of himself and the Father, "I and my Father are one. Here is truly distinction of person. I is the first person, my Father is the third person: had I stood alone, it would, according to the rules of grammar, have been constructed with a verb in the first person singular; had my Father stood alone, it would have been constructed with a verb in the third person singular; both standing together joined by the copulative conjunction and, are constructed with a verb in the plural. Therefore, there is personal plurality ; I and my Father are-are what? One. Now mark, this numeral adjective one is not in the masculine gender, it is neuter; so that it is plainly impersonal. The whole expressive sentence given in all its force is this:-I and my Father are one; we are one thing; I one person, and my Father another person, are one substance. And this is no Trinitarian interpretation, for we are told that the Jews, as soon as he had uttered the words, took up stones to stone him for blasphemy. But the creed goes on to furnish us with certain definitions of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, which, if they be Scripture, give a necessary distinctness to each as a person. Thus the Father

66

is made of no one, neither created nor begotten. He who is called in Scripture the Father of all, cannot have derived his existence from any. Again, the Son is of the Father alone, neither made nor created, but begotten. He is called in Scripture, the only begotten of the Father; this excludes the idea of his being either created or made. Once more, the Holy Ghost is of the Father and the Son, &c. He is called the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ -is spoken of as proceeding from the Father and sent by Christ. He is never, either directly or indirectly, spoken of as made, or created, or begotten; and, therefore, the creed confines itself to assigning him such sort of relationship to the Father and the Son as may be proved by most certain warrant of Scripture." It is evident, moreover, that he is personally distinct from the Father and the Son, or he could not be sent by them, or proceed from them. For it would be absurd to say, that a spirit proceeded from itself, or was sent by itself: therefore, we are forbidden-not by the Athanasian Creed, but by Scripture-to confound the persons, just as much as we are forbidden to divide the substance; and it would be as scripturally incorrect to say that there are three Fathers, or three Sons, or three Holy Ghosts, as it would be to say that there are three Gods or three Lords. The creed goes on to assert that "in this Trinity none is before or after other," &c. so that all the three persons are co-eternal, together, and co-equal. This statement has been more fully defined in a former part, where the creed severally assigns to each person some of the peculiar attributes of Deity, viz., underived existence. The Father uncreate, &c., incomprehensibility-i. e. infinity of essence, not to be bounded by finite space, or comprehended by a finite mind-eternity, and omnipotence; and, lest any should suppose that there is a difference of degree in the same attributes according as they are possessed by different persons, it is affirmed there are not three Eternals, or Incomprehensibles, or Almighties, but that the perfection of all these attributes,