It is not hard to catalogue accounts of the complaints against the Creed’s brevity regarding pneumatology. Many believe the Creed is pneumatologically deficient, or perhaps more politely, it has made an unfortunate pneumatological oversight. It had Christological fish to fry, and the Spirit would have to wait. I want to suggest that this apparent inattention to the Spirit in the Creed is a mistaken interpretation and offer a reading of the Creed that might help rehabilitate attention to the work of the Spirit, even as the Creed narrates it. Seeking to retrieve Nicaea, Tom Smail avers that it “can still do good service in our own day when questions about the Spirit are very much at the center of theological attention.” I very much agree. To do this work of retrieval, I will adopt a strategy learnt from C.S. Lewis, to look along a thing and not simply at it, and to adopt a Third Article Theology in interpreting the Creed and the blessed Trinity it appeals to.