HOME | contents | CREEDS: Necessity of | Symbolic language of | Church Office holders must believe | Only the Church may define | Objections to | right to test | universal assent | the 3 C
As we have seen, there are three elements necessary to true religion that
ought to be combined in equal proportions:
the institutional, the intellectual, and the mystical elements.
A full expression of the Christian religion must include all three.
It must satisfy the need of man to live as a member of a society,
his need that what he believes shall commend itself to his reason,
and his need to worship and to love God.
The Christian religion is embodied in the Church,
which is entrusted with the mission to bring all men to know and accept the
Gospel.
To do this, the Church must have marching orders,
principles to guide her preachers.
The Bible contains much that has only an indirect bearing on the message
of God to men.
The Church has therefore drawn up a short summary of
what the universal experience of Christians has shown to be necessary.
Originally
that summary was very simple indeed (Acts 13.37).
I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God
is perhaps not part of the original text of the Acts, but it at least represents
a very early view of what the convert had to profess before baptism.
As the Church came to be opposed by various false interpretations of Scripture
(false because one-sided), the Creed was enlarged to exclude them;
but it never included any statement that had not been found to be necessary.
The Creed is necessary for two reasons.
The revelation of God must be preserved against the corruption of time,
and it must be preserved against the distortions caused by the different
outlooks of races, classes, and persons.
The Creed must be above both time and space.
It must be capable of receiving the assent of the men of all centuries and
of all races.
It must not "date".
It must not be European, Asiatic, or African, Eastern or Western, Northern
or Southern.
And the so-called NICENE CREED
(it is really the Creed of the Council of Chalcedon),
which is the only Creed accepted by the whole Church
although it was drawn up by Greeks,
has been found by fifteen centuries of experience to fulfil these conditions.
The Creed is not independent of Holy Scripture.
It is not an additional or rival source of our knowledge of God's revelation.
The whole Church has accepted it as representing fairly the teaching of Scripture.
No one can reject any part of it without rejecting or misinterpreting that
teaching.
Therefore, while the language of the Creed may possibly be changed
but only with the consent of the whole Church that drew it up,
what it says may not be changed.
Those who demand changes in the Creed will be found to deny some truth that
the Creed is intended to protect.
The subjects that the Creed deals with are partly outside human knowledge,
and we can only speak of them in symbolical language.
For instance, we cannot describe the being of God adequately in human words.
We are obliged to use SYMBOLICAL WORDS such as Three
in One.
We do not know what Hades or Heaven are;
and when we say that our Lord
descended into hell
and
ascended into heaven,
we are using symbolical language,
for it is the only language that we can use.
But when we say that our Lord
was born of a Virgin,
that He was crucified,
and that He rose again from the dead on the third day,
we are not using symbolical language.
The manner of the virgin birth is a mystery,
but that our Lord had no human father is not a mystery but a statement of
plain fact.
We believe it to be true for reasons given above, pp. 108-14.
Those who do not believe it to be true ought not to say that He was "born
of the Virgin Mary".
If they say this without believing it, they
are not "using symbolic language" but lying.
The manner of our Lord's Resurrection is a mystery;
but when we say that on the third day He rose again from the dead, we mean
that His body left the grave on the Sunday after He died.
We do not mean merely that He survived death because that is precisely the
error to exclude [for] which the words "on the third day" were
put into the Creed.
St. Paul says, "If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain", and
those who think that he was wrong and that our Lord's body remained in the
grave ought not to recite the Creed (see also pp. 206, 241).
Nobody ought to assert what he does not believe.
A man who finds that he cannot say he believes all the articles of the Christian
faith ought not to pretend to do so.
He may say that though the evidence for the particular doctrine is not enough
to convince him, he is willing to accept it of the authority of the Church,
recognizing that the Church is wiser than he is, and that his inability to
believe may be due to some flaw in his own mind;
or, if he cannot conscientiously do this, he should refuse to occupy any
position in which he is required to believe or to teach what he does not
believe.
It is not for any person or any government to define what the Church is
to require.
Only the Church can do that.
No officer of the Church, however highly placed, still less any officer of
the State, can dispense any minister or teacher from the obligation to believe
and to teach every article of the Creed as long as he holds office.
Only the universal Church could alter the Creed, add to it, or take anything
from it.
A local church or a particular communion which did so would risk being regarded
as heretical by the rest of the Church.
The Filioque clause and the Creed of Pope Pius IV are warnings to all churches,
for they have made the divisions of Christendom apparently incurable.
The chief objection to the use of creeds is the philosophical opinion that
we cannot know truth as it is in itself but only as it appears to us. This
is not the place to reply fully to this opinion, but it appears to be inconsistent
with the belief that God has really revealed Himself to man.
If we
can only perceive truth as it appears to us, if absolute truth even in an
incomplete form cannot be attained by man, we must give up believing in the
divine revelation of the Gospel, in our duty to preach that Gospel, and in
the right of the Church to define what is necessary to the preaching of the
Gospel.
It is partly because so many have ceased to believe that we
can with God's help attain to absolute truth that the Catholic Church has
given place to the omnicompetent State (Charles Harris: Creeds or No Creeds).
Another objection to the use of creeds is that they are said to cramp thought
because truth cannot be attained except by an entirely open mind.
But in reality no one can have an entirely open mind.
We cannot escape from bias.
It is better to recognize that we have a bias in favour of the teaching of
the Bible and the Church than to suffer from a bias against that teaching
without recognizing that we have it.
A man's thought cannot be cramped by believing what is true.
No one wants to defend a creed that is false.
Every article in the creed may be fully examined, and everyone is free to
do so according to his ability.
But it is vain to pretend that we can examine the articles of the creed with
the same freedom from bias with which we should examine, let us say, the
date of the capture of Jericho by Joshua, or the authorship of the Letters
of Junius.
Too much depends upon the results to which we come.
A man's liberty to travel is not cramped by signposts.
On the contrary, they save his time by showing which roads he must avoid
if he wishes to reach his destination.
The creeds perform the same function.
Every Christian has the right to test the creed by Scripture, experience
(his own and that of the Church), and reason.
The creed tells him that it is a waste of time to follow the road marked "Arianism".
He can try it if he wishes, but it will not lead him anywhere;
and he must not, if he is teaching in the name of the Church, advise any
one else to follow him along that way.
The Church does not expect us to accept the creed blindly.
He who is to teach it must test it for himself.
He must know not only what the Church has defined but why, because he cannot
believe or teach any doctrine with his whole heart until he has made it his
own, so that it has become part of his habitual outlook on life.
[The Roman Communion apparently does not admit this but is content with formal
acceptance of its dogmas and submission to the authority which imposes them.]
If he chooses to differ from the Church, no one will stop him; but the responsibility
for doing so is his own, and he must not teach in the name of the Church,
or use his position as an officer of the Church to teach what the Church
has rejected.
Every society which exists to teach any doctrine exacts these conditions
from its officers and members.
The Anti-Vivisection League would not
allow its officials to speak in favour of vivisection!
The reason why
some wish to refuse the same right to the Church is that they do not really
believe that the Church is a society, still less that she is the Divine Society.
Those who use the right of testing their beliefs will only use it to their
own destruction if they are lacking in humility.
They must remember
that if they come to conclusions different from those of the Church, there
is an enormous probability that they are wrong.
Particular persons
have sometimes discovered truths that the Church has forgotten or not known;
but only too often they have spoilt their discovery by pride, wilfulness,
and want of proportion.
It is the universal Church of which we are now thinking.
It is easy to fix our minds on the faults and mistakes of the Church in some
particular age or country.
But the whole Church has accepted the
Creed in all ages and in every country, alike by those who accepted and
by those who rejected the Council of Chalcedon, alike by Luther and by
Loyola.
Modern discoveries, which have so profoundly altered our
interpretation of some parts of the Bible, have made no difference to the
Creed.
The agreement of the Roman Communion on the dogmas and the
system of Trent, impressive as it appears at first sight, is a forced agreement
imposed by a dictatorship which, with the power which it secured by armed
force at the time of the Counter-Reformation, has for centuries trained
up millions in the belief that obedience to its decrees is necessary to
their salvation.
The universal assent to the Nicene Creed is not of this kind it is free.
Churches which have been out of communion with one another for centuries
agree in this:
as when, on June 29, 1925, the Patriarch of Alexandria and
the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the presence of leaders of the Armenian,
Assyrian, and Swedish Churches, joined in reciting the Nicene Creed in Westminster
Abbey.
The NICENE CREED in its original form (that is,
without the Filioque clause) is the only creed officially accepted by the
whole Church.
But local churches use other creeds for three purposes:
as the summary of faith to be professed by those who are baptized;
as the test of orthodoxy;
and as a doctrinal hymn of praise.
The so-called APOSTLES' CREED is probably the ancient
baptismal creed of Rome and is used for this purpose throughout Western Christendom.
It is not known in the East where the Nicene Creed takes its place as the
baptismal creed.
The Nicene Creed without the Filioque is used for all three purposes throughout Eastern Christendom, including the Uniat churches in communion with Rome, and by the Old Catholics in the West.
In its interpolated form (with the Filioque) it is used throughout Western Christendom (except among the Old Catholics) as the test of orthodoxy and as an act of worship in the liturgy. (The American Episcopal Church allows it to be used at baptism as an alternative to the Apostles, Creed.)
The Nicene Creed, apart from the Filioque clause, has the authority of the
universal Church.
The Filioque clause is imposed upon us by the English Church but has no other
authority;
for the authority of Rome, which has added the decrees of Trent
to the Nicene Creed, does not exist in the Anglican Communion and can no
more impose the Filioque upon us than it can impose the decrees of Trent.
The Anglican churches are entirely at liberty to remove the Filioque from
the Nicene Creed, as the Old Catholic churches in full communion with them
have already done.
In my opinion they ought to do so.
I have already given my reason for this opinion (pp. 133-4).
The so-called ATHANSIAN CREED is not properly speaking
a creed at all,
for it does not begin with "I believe" (credo)
but with "Whosoever wishes to be saved".
It was not written by St. Athanasius.
Its original language is Latin, not Greek
(as it would have been if St. Athanasius had written it);
it is now believed to have been written about 400,
a generation after the death of St. Athanasius.
(It was formerly thought to be much later,
but modern scholars say that it must be earlier than the Nestorian controversy.)
It is a doctrinal hymn, like the TE DEUM, but more
technical,
and defines admirably the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation.
It is recited in the Roman Communion during the office of Prime,
and in the Anglican Communion at Mattins on certain festivals,
though it is now commonly omitted,
and some Anglican churches have removed the rubric that directs it to be
used.
But it still remains as a standard of doctrine except in the American Episcopal
Church, which does not, unfortunately, recognize it at all.
The Orthodox Eastern Communion also recognizes it.
It is found in the Orthodox service books (with the Filioque clause omitted),
but it is not recited liturgically.
A former Assyrian Patriarch, on being presented with the Quicunque Vult,
said, "Where did you get this excellent statement of the Catholic Faith
from?"
It is one of the standards recognized by the Augsburg Confession
and, therefore, by the Lutheran churches.
It has been severely criticized in the Anglican Communion because some of its clauses contain a warning that eternal salvation depends on right belief, which is an idea most objectionable to many Englishmen, especially those under the influence of nineteenth-century liberalism.
Whosoever wishes to be in a state of salvation
(this, not "Whosoever will be saved",
is the true meaning of "Quicunque vult salvus esse"),
it is above all things necessary that he hold the Catholic Faith,
which faith except he do keep whole and undefiled,
without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.
No Christian can be in a healthy spiritual state if he does not believe
in the Trinity and in the Incarnation, of which doctrine the "Quicunque
Vult" is only a technical statement.
"Salvus" (saved) does not refer to final but to present salvation.
If, having received the truth, a man loses it by his own fault, he will suffer
the consequences.
No one can "keep" what he has not received; and the words do not,
as is sometimes supposed, refer to the heathen who have never heard of Christ,
or to heretics who have never been taught the Catholic Faith.
Without doubt he shall perish everlastingly
is strong, but hardly stronger than the words of the Marcan Appendix,
he that believeth not shall be condemned (St. Mark 16:16),
or than St. John 3:18, he that believeth not hath already been judged;
or than Rev. 21:8, the unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake of fire.
Medieval Christians did not recognized "honest doubt".
They sincerely thought that those who rejected Christianity could only do
so out of sheer wickedness.
Objections are also raised to the sentence
they that have done evil shall go into everlasting fire.
What this means has been explained in the last chapter.
It is in accordance with both revelation and reason.
If it is true that we all have before us the possibility of eternal separation
from God, as both revelation and reason teach us, the "Quicunque Vult" is
right to warn us of our danger.
We need not hesitate to say, with the 8th Article, that it ought thoroughly
to be received and believed because it may be proved by most certain warrants
of Holy Scripture; and that it is also accepted by the universal Church.
Whether
it is suitable for recitation by the Anglican Sunday morning congregation
need not be discussed here.
The three creeds are not independent of Scripture.
They are imposed upon us by the English Church on the express ground that
they may be proved by Scripture (which could not be said, for instance,
of the Creed of Pope Pius IV).
We are bound to accept them in general, and every word of them in particular.
We may not interpret them as we please
(to do which has always been a mark of heresy).
The Nicene Creed, without the Filioque, alone has the authority of the whole
Church.
The other creeds are accepted by all Western churches, but it is the English
Church alone which imposes them on us because other churches have no authority
to impose anything on us.
Besides the three creeds we are bound by the doctrinal definitions of the
six Ecumenical Councils, of which only the first four are now important;
but not by their decrees about discipline, or by their anathemas, or by any
statement attributed to them that cannot be proved from Scripture.
It is not true that the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon recognized the
Papal Supremacy;
but if they had, we could not be bound by their decision on such a point.
(See p. 83.)
(The Church of Rome refuses to be bound by the decree of Chalcedon making
Constantinople equal to Rome, or by the decree of Constance, which Rome regards
as ecumenical, setting a Council above the Pope!)
The principal doctrinal decrees of these Councils are the Theoticos (Ephesus)
and the definition of Chalcedon.
They have the same authority behind them as the Nicene Creed.
They are the necessary consequence of the teaching of the New Testament.
Jesus Christ is truly God and truly Man, as the New Testament teaches, and
these decrees are declared by the universal Church to be necessary to the
right interpretation of the New Testament.
There are also some doctrines, which, though they are not defined in the
creeds because there was no controversy about them when the creeds were made,
have been accepted by all parts of the Church, both in ancient and modern
times, as the teaching of the New Testament.
Such doctrines are the
visible nature of the Church, baptismal regeneration, the sacramental gift
of the Holy Spirit in confirmation, the Eucharistic Sacrifice and its central
place in the Christian life, and the necessity of apostolic authority for
the official ministry of the Church.
top