Tradition and Church Part 27: Chapter IX - Section 2
Excerpt from the book Tradition and Church
It’s Thursday and we continue to read Tradition and Church by Reverend George Agius, D. D., J. C. D. (The Stratford Company, 1928, Pages 192-199).
In today’s reading we look at the Symbols of the Apostles found in the various creeds passed on to the believers. This shows that Tradition was used as a means to transmit these creeds and it was through Tradition that we believe they came directly from the Apostles themselves.
Yours in Jesus and Mary.
Tradition and Church Part 27: Chapter IX – Section 2
Section 2 - The Symbol of the Apostles is truly “Apostolic,” not only in doctrine, but in origin.
The word Symbol, generally speaking, has three significations. It may mean either a collection of many things; an emblem, by which the military are distinguished from the civilians; or a mark, by which contracts were considered as authentic or genuine. These three significations are admirably adapted to the Symbols of our Faith. Symbols are a collection, or summary of what must be believed; an emblem, by which Christians are distinguished from infidels; a mark of that pact, which we entered into with God in Baptism. Symbols, therefore, are brief and simple collections of what must fundamentally be believed by all Christians. They are three in number, as approved by the Church. They are the Symbol of the Apostles, the Nicene—Constantinopolitan Symbol, and the Symbol of St. Athanasius. They are so universally known that even the Greek Church and many Protestant bodies acknowledge them.
How useful they are may be inferred from the fact that famous teachers had Symbols, which were useful both to teachers and disciples. Both the Apostles and the ancient Church adopted this method for their disciples. It is simple enough for the ignorant to understand; short enough to be committed to memory; and deep enough for the learned to study, meditate upon, and be edified with.
The “Symbol of the Apostles” or the “Apostles’ Creed,” as it is commonly called by the faithful, is by far the best known and the most important of Christian Symbols. Notwithstanding the subtle disquisitions of our modern “high critics,”—both Catholic and Protestant— it is truly “Apostolic.” This is true, not only of the doctrine it contains, but of its origin. It may be true that each of the twelve articles, of which the Symbol is composed, may not be separately and exclusively assigned to any individual Apostle. It may be true that it did not come down to us entirely in its present form. But no critic, however great, will be able to disprove the golden rule of St. Augustine, that “whatever comes down to us from the ancients, and does not emanate from the Councils or from the Church, is of Apostolic origin.”
The last command, which the Apostles received from Christ before His Ascension, was to teach and baptize. “Go ye into the whole world and preach the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (8)
Notice, first of all, the connection between the belief and the reception of Baptism. One had to believe before he could receive Baptism. The Apostles were sent into the world, not to convert children, but an adult generation. And what had one to believe? Just what the words of Baptism mean and imply: whatever concerns the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost. One had, therefore, to believe the Mystery, that contains all other mysteries, i.e., the Mystery of the Most Blessed Trinity, with all its signification, its bearing, and import. This requisite before the reception of Baptism is essential today, as it has been in every century, and as it was at the time of the Apostles. That the Apostles demanded some explicit belief in God before admitting anyone into the Church, may be inferred from the profession of faith in Christ which the Apostle Philip exacted of the eunuch (9), as a preliminary to Baptism. That explicit belief was a summary of the existence and the attributes of the Three Divine Persons. The faithful called it after the Apostles. They did so because the Apostles, as Founders of the Church and Supreme Legislators, imposed it upon all those, who wished to become members of the Church. If anyone in those days of universal idolatry had to believe anything, it had to be something that dealt a blow at the very heart of idolatry: the belief in one God in Three Divine Persons. That was the least that could be expected of those, who entered the Church in the name of the Three Divine Persons: the Father, as Creator; the Son, as Redeemer; the Holy Ghost, as Sanctifier.
The Symbol of the Apostles is, therefore, a fuller exposition of the Mystery of the Holy Trinity. In the course of centuries, the Church, as in the Council of Nicaea, made new additions to the Apostolic Creed to offset innovations contrary to the Faith. The provident Apostles also to guard against heresy set forth the Mystery of the Trinity in its most essential points. We cannot even for a moment entertain the idea that the Apostles were less provident than their everliving Apostolic Succession.
A few additions have been in the course of time affixed to it. But they are not very important. They are details of the principal doctrines contained in the Creed.
These few minor additions, originating principally in Rome during the Sixth Century, were fully approved and adopted by the Universal Church. (10)
No one, however, should wonder that the Symbol, being the work of Apostles, could have undergone even these slight modifications. For, the Apostles exacted belief in the Holy Trinity, when they taught it by the word of the mouth. Had it been given in writing, then it would have been a part of the Scriptures. Thus, being in constant use in the Church, it became an oral tradition, and as such is subject to the Keys of Peter. Whatever gap may, therefore, exist between the old Roman form and the time of the Apostles should be filled by the golden rule of St. Augustine, as we have already stated above.
The question is whether it really and originally comes down to us from the Apostles themselves. There should be very little doubt on this point. If some think that in the first years of Christianity no trace of the Symbol appears in the Church, they should know that the Christian policy of those days, called the Discipline of the Secret—Disciplina Arcani—was then in full operation. The knowledge of the most intimate mysteries of Christianity was carefully kept from heathen and Jew, as well as from those, who for some time underwent instruction in the Faith.
The Discipline of the Secret necessarily prevented the preservation in writing of the Creed, which contained the principal mysteries of Religion. According to that ancient precaution, the Creed was to be learned by heart and never to be consigned to writing. The Discipline of the Secret is of Apostolic times. It is mentioned by Origen against Celsus (11) in the Third Century, and before him by Tertullian, (12) who belonged rather to the Second Century.
Such reserve was applied to all the Sacraments, but most particularly to the Holy Eucharist and to the doctrine of the Most Holy Trinity. Not until the truth of the Unity of God had sunk deeply into the heart of a heathen, could he be safely instructed in the much deeper Mystery of the Trinity. For that reason, it was never taught to the Catechumens before they were ready to receive Baptism.
We know this from St. Ambrose in the Epistle to his sister Marcelina. He says that on the Lord’s Day in dismissing the Catechumens he taught the Creed only to those who were sufficiently advanced. (13) St. Cyril also writes: “Not to every Gentile we declare the secret mysteries, which concern the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” (14) This fact is most significant when we consider that St. Ambrose lived in the Fourth Century and St. Cyril in. the Fifth; in times when there was not much danger of persecution. Still, even then, it was deemed prudent not to divulge indiscriminately the teachings, which concerned the Holy Trinity. It was rather preferred that all should commit the Creed to memory, in order to guard it against the mockery of an infidel mob and to have the faithful discerned from heathen and Jew. This commitment to memory also explains why this doctrine of the Trinity, as contained in the Creed, has been preserved in a continuous form.
But it is not true that no evident trace of the Apostles’ Creed is found in the first years of Christianity. Before the middle of the Second Century we find in Rome a Creed, which in its completeness is substantially identical with the Creed we recite every day. (15)
It is a striking fact that in the Fourth Century the Eastern Churches are found in possession of a Creed, which strictly harmonizes with the old Roman Creed. These two facts show a common origin: they could only originate from the Apostles in their itinerary throughout the world.
Towards the end of the Second Century, we find in Northern Africa, as well as in Southern France, a Creed, which closely resembles and agrees with the same Roman Creed. In his work, De Prescript. Tertullian reproduces the “Regula Doctrine” (Rule or doctrine of Faith) and after elaborately describing that by this “Regula Doctrine” he understands what is practically substantial with the Roman Creed, he insists most emphatically that this “rule” was instituted by Christ and delivered to us (tradita) by the Apostles. (16) In a similar way writes St. Irenaeus, disciple of St. Polycarp, who in turn was disciple of the Apostle St. John.
We may easily conclude that the Roman Creed was delivered to the Roman community by the Apostles Peter and Paul; that the Eastern and African Churches had received a similar Creed from the same Apostles, or from some other one of the Apostles and that in a short time it had spread throughout the world.
It is also to be noted that the monk Rufinus in the Fourth Century, having visited the Orient, wrote that the Symbol in the Eastern Churches was received from an early age “tradunt majores nostri.” He may not be correct in stating that the Apostles composed it together on the Day of Pentecost. But he could have scarcely made such a declaration were it not that the Symbol was everywhere believed to have originated from the Apostles, and that it fully corresponded with the Roman form.
8 - Mark 16: 15-16
9 - Acts 8:37
10 - See Burn. Introduction, p. 239.
11 - Origen, Contra Celsum, L. I, N. 7.
12 - Tertull., “Prescript,” C. XLI.
13 - Ambrose Ep. 20.
14 -Qyril. Cath. C. N. 29.
15 - See Burn., Journal of Theological Studies, July 1902.
16 - See Migne P, L. II, 26, 27, 33, 50.