[1] The readmission of such apostates to the church was a matter that
occasioned serious controversy. The emperor Julian's "Apostasy" is
discussed under JULIAN.
APOSTIL, or APOSTILLE (possibly connected with Lat. _appositum_, placed
near), a marginal note made by a commentator.
APOSTLE ([Greek: apostolos], one sent forth on a mission, an envoy, as
in Is. xviii. 2; Symmachus, [Greek: apostellein apostolous]; Aquila,
[Greek: presbentas]), a technical term used in the New Testament and in
Christian literature generally for a special envoy of Jesus Christ. How
far it had any similar use in Judaism in Christ's day is uncertain; but
in the 4th century A.D., at any rate, it denoted responsible envoys from
the central Jewish authority, especially for the collection of religious
funds. In its first and simplest Christian form, the idea is present
already in Mark iii. 14 f., where from the general circle of his
disciples Jesus "made twelve ('whom he also named apostles,' Luke vi.
13, but doubtful in Mark), that they should be with him, and that he
might from time to time send them forth ([Greek: hina apostellae]) to
preach and to have authority to cast out demons." Later on (vi. 6 ff.),
in connexion with systematic preaching among the villages of Galilee,
Jesus begins actually to "send forth" the twelve, two by two; and on
their return from this mission (vi. 30) they are for the first time
described as "apostles" or missionary envoys. Matthew (x. 1 ff.) blends
the calling of the twelve with their actual sending forth, while Luke
(vi. 13) makes Jesus himself call them "apostles" (for Luke's usage cf.
xi. 49, "prophets and apostles," where Matthew, xxiii. 34, has "prophets
and wise men and scribes"). But it is doubtful whether Jesus ever used
the term for the Twelve, in relation to their temporary missions, any
more than for the "seventy others" whom he "sent forth" later (Luke x.
1). Even the Fourth Gospel never so describes them. It simply has "a
servant is not greater than his lord, neither an apostle (envoy) greater
than he that sent him" (xiii. 16); and applies the idea of "mission"
alike to Jesus (cf. Heb. iii. 1, "Jesus, the apostle ... of our
profession") and to his disciples, generally, as represented by the
Twelve (xvii. 18, with 3, 6 ff.). But while ideally all Christ's
disciples were "sent" with the Father's Name in charge, there were
different degrees in which this applied in practice; and so we find
"apostle" used in several senses, once it emerges as a technical term.
1. In the Apostolic age itself, "apostle" often denotes simply an
"envoy," commissioned by Jesus Christ to be a primary witness and
preacher of the Messianic Kingdom. This wide sense was shown by
Lightfoot (in his commentary on _Galatians_, 1865) to exist in the New
Testament, e.g. in 1 Cor. xii. 28 f., Eph. iv. ii, Rom. xvi. 7; and his
view has since been emphasized[1] by the discovery of the _Teaching of
the Twelve Apostles_ (see DIDACHE), with its itinerant order of
"apostles," who, together with "prophets" (cf. Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5) and
"teachers," constituted a _charismatic_ and seemingly unordained
ministry of the Word, in some part of the Church (in Syria?) during the
early sub-apostolic age. Paul is our earliest witness, as just cited;
also in 1 Cor. xv. 5 ff., where he seems to quote the language of
Palestinian tradition, in saying that Christ "appeared to Cephas; then
to the Twelve; then ... to James; then to the apostles one and all
([Greek: tois apostolois pasin]); and last of all ... to me also." The
appearance to "_all_ the Apostles" must refer to the final commission
given by the risen Christ to certain assembled disciples (Acts i. 6 ff.,
cf. Luke xxiv. 33), including not only the Twelve and the Lord's
brethren (i. 13 f.), but also some at least of the Seventy. Of this
wider circle of witnesses, taken from among personal disciples during
Jesus's earthly ministry, we get a further glimpse in the election of
one from their number to fill Judas's place among the Twelve (i. 21
ff.), as the primary official witnesses of Messiah and his resurrection.
Many of the 120 then present (Acts i. 15), and not only the two set
forward for final choice, must have been personal disciples, who by the
recent commission had been made "apostles." Among such we may perhaps
name Judas Barsabbas and Silas (Acts xv. 22, cf. i. 23), if not also
Barnabas (1 Cor. ix. 6) and Andronicus and Junia (Rom. xvi. 7).
So far, then, we gather that the original Palestinian type of
apostleship meant simply (a) personal mission from the risen Christ (cf.
I Cor. ix. i), following on (b) some preliminary intercourse with Jesus
in his earthly ministry. It was pre-eminence in the latter qualification
that gave the Twelve their special status among apostles (Acts i. 26,
ii. 14, vi. 2; in Acts generally they are simply "the apostles").
Conversely, it was Paul's lack in this respect which lay at the root of
his difficulties as an apostle.
It is possible, though not certain, that even those Judaizing
missionaries at Corinth whom Paul styles "false-apostles" or,
ironically, "the superlative apostles" (2 Cor. xi. 5, 13; xii. 11),
rested part of their claim to superiority over Paul on (b), possibly
even as having done service to Christ when on earth (2 Cor. xi. 18,
23). There is no sign in 2 Cor. that they laid claim to (a). If this
be so, they were "Christ's apostles" only indirectly, "through men"
(as some had alleged touching Paul, cf. Gal. i. 1), i.e. as sent forth
on mission work by certain Jerusalem leaders with letters of
introduction (2 Cor. iii. 1; E. von Dobschutz, _Problems der apost.
Zeitalters_, p. 106).
2. _The Twelve._--When Jesus selected an inner circle of disciples for
continuous training by personal intercourse, his choice of "twelve" had
direct reference to the tribes of Israel (Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 30).
This gave them a symbolic or representative character as a closed body
(cf. Rev. xxi. 14), marking them off as the primary religious authority
(cf. Acts ii. 42, "the apostles' teaching") among the "disciples" or
"brethren," when these began to assume the form of a community or
church. The relationship which other "apostles" had enjoyed with the
Master had been uncertain; _they_ had been his recognized intimates, and
that as a body. Naturally, then, they took the lead, collectively--in
form at least, though really the initiative lay with one or two of their
own number, Peter in particular. The process of practical
differentiation from their fellow apostles was furthered by the
concentration of the Twelve, or at least of its most marked
representatives, in Jerusalem, for a considerable period (Acts viii. 1,
cf. xii. 1 ff.; an early tradition specifies twelve years). Other
apostles soon went forth on their mission to "the cities of Israel" (cf.
Acts ix. 31), and so exercised but little influence on the central
policy of the Church. Hence their shadowy existence in the New
Testament, though the actual wording of Matt. x. 5-42, read in the light
of the _Didachi_, may help us to conceive their work in its main
features.
3. _"Pillar" Apostles._--But in fact differentiation between apostles
existed among the Twelve also. There were "pillars," like Peter and John
(and his brother James until his death), who really determined matters
of grave moment, as in the conference with Paul in Gal. ii. 9--a
conference which laid the basis of the latter's status as an apostle
even in the eyes of Jewish Christians. Such pre-eminence was but the
sequel of personal distinctions visible even in the preparatory days of
discipleship, and it warns us against viewing the primitive facts
touching apostles in the official light of later times.
Consciousness of such personal pre-eminence has left its marks on the
lists of the Twelve in the New Testament. Thus (1) Peter, James, John,
Andrew, always appear as the first four, though the order varies, Mark
representing relative prominence during Christ's ministry, and Acts
actual influence in the Apostolic Church (cf. Luke viii. 51, ix. 28).
(2) The others also stand in groups of four, the first name in each
being constant, while the order of the rest varies.
The same lesson emerges when we note that one such apostolic "pillar"
stood outside the Twelve altogether, viz. James, the Lord's brother
(Gal. ii. 9, cf. i. 19); and further, that "the Lord's brethren" seem to
have ranked above "apostles" generally, being named between them and
Peter in 1 Cor. ix. 5. That is, they too were apostles with the addition
of a certain personal distinction.
4. _Paul, the "Apostle of the Gentiles."_--So far apostles are only of
the Palestinian type, taken from among actual hearers of the Messiah and
with a mission primarily to Jews--apostles "of the circumcision" (Gal.
ii. 7-9). Now, however, emerges a new apostleship, that to the Gentiles;
and with the change of mission goes also some change in the type of
missionary or apostle. Of this type Paul was the first, and he remained
its primary, and in some senses its only, example. Though he could
claim, on occasion, to satisfy the old test of having seen the risen
Lord (1 Cor. ix. 1, cf. xv. 8), he himself laid stress not on this, but
on the revelation within his own soul of Jesus as God's Son, and of the
Gospel latent therein (Gal. i. 16). This was his divine call as "apostle
of the Gentiles" (Rom. xi. 13); here lay both his qualification and his
credentials, once the fruits of the divine inworking were manifest in
the success of his missionary work (Gal. ii. 8 f.; 1 Cor. xi. 1 f.; 2
Cor. in. 2 f., xii. 12). But this new criterion of apostleship was
capable of wider application, one dispensing altogether with vision of
the risen Lord--which could not even in Paul's case be proved so fully
as in the case of the original apostles--but appealing to the "signs of
an apostle" (1 Cor. ix. 2; 2 Cor. xii. 12), the tokens of spiritual gift
visible in work done, and particularly in the planting of the Gospel in
fresh fields (2 Cor. x. 14-18). It may be in this wide charismatic sense
that Paul uses the term in 1 Cor. xii. 28 f., Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5, iv.
11, and especially in Rom. xvi. 7, "men of mark among the apostles" (cf.
2 Cor. xi. 13, "pseudo-apostles" masquerading as "apostles of Christ,"
and perhaps 1 Thess. ii, 6, of himself and Silas). That he used it in
senses differing with the context is proved by 1 Cor. xv. 9, where he
styles himself "the least of apostles," although in other connexions he
claims the very highest rank, co-ordinate even with the Twelve as a body
(Gal. ii. 7 ff.), in virtue of his distinctive Gospel.
This point of view was not widely shared even in circles appreciative of
his actual work. To most he seemed but a fruitful worker within lines
determined by "the twelve apostles of the Lamb" as a body (Rev. xxi.
14). So we read of "the plant (Church) which the twelve apostles of the
Beloved shall plant" (_Ascension of Isaiah_, iv. 3); "those who preached
the Gospel to us (especially Gentiles) ... unto whom He gave authority
over the Gospel, being twelve for a witness to the tribes" (Barn. viii.
3, cf. v. 9); and the going forth of the Twelve, after twelve years,
beyond Palestine "into the world," to give it a chance to hear
(_Preaching of Peter_, in Clem. Alex. _Strom._ vi. 5.43; 6.48). Later
on, however, his own claim told on the Church's mind, when his epistles
were read in church as a collection styled simply "the Apostle."
As the primary medium of the Gentile Gospel (Gal. i. 16, cf. i. 8, ii.
2) Paul had no peers as an "apostle of the Gentiles" (Rom. xi. 13, cf.
XV. 15-20, and see 1 Cor. xv. 8, "last of all to me"), unless it were
Barnabas who shares with him the title "apostle" in Acts xiv. 4,
14--possibly with reference to the special "work" on which they had
recently been "sent forth by the Spirit" (xiii. 2, 4). Yet such as
shared the spiritual gift (_charisma_) of missionary power in sufficient
degree, were in fact apostles of Christ in the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 28,
II). Such a secondary type of apostolate--answering to "apostolic
missionaries" of later times (cf. the use of [Greek: hierapostolos] in
this sense by the Orthodox Eastern Church to-day)--would help to account
for the apostolic claims of the missionaries censured in Rev. ii. 2, as
also for the "apostles" of the second generation implied in the Didache.
In the _sub-apostolic age_, however, the class of "missionaries"
enjoying a _charisma_ such as was conceived to convey apostolic
commission through the Spirit, soon became distinguished from "apostles"
(cf. Hennas, _Sim._ ix. 15.4, "the apostles and teachers of the message
of the Son of God," so 25.2; in 17.1 the apostles are reckoned as
twelve), as the title became more and more confined by usage to the
original apostles, particularly the Twelve as a body (e.g. _Ascension of
Isaiah_ and the _Preaching of Peter_), or to them and Paul (e.g. in
Clement and Ignatius), and as reverence for these latter grew in
connexion with their story in the Gospels and in Acts.[2] Thus Eusebius
describes as "evangelists" (cf. Philip the Evangelist in Acts xxi. 8,
also Eph. iv. 11, 2 Tim. iv. 5) those who "occupied the first rank in
the succession to the Apostles" in missionary work (_Hist. Eccl._ iii.
37, cf. v. 10). Yet the wider sense of "apostle" did not at once die out
even in the third and fourth generations. It lingered on as applied to
the Seventy[3]--by Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement and Origen--and even to
Clement of Rome, by Clem. Alex. (? as a "fellow-worker" of Paul, Phil.
iv. 3); while the adjective "apostolic" was applied to men like Polycarp
(in his contemporary _Acts of Martyrdom_) and the Phrygian, Alexander,
martyred at Lyons in A.D. 177 (Eus. v. 1), who was "not without share of
apostolic _charisma_."
The _authority_ attaching to apostles was essentially spiritual in
character and in the conditions of its exercise. Anything like autocracy
among his followers was alien to Jesus's own teaching (Matt, xxiii.
6-11). All Christians were "brethren," and the basis of pre-eminence
among them was relative ability for service. But the personal relation
of the original Palestinian apostles to Jesus himself as Master gave
them a unique fitness as authorized witnesses, from which flowed
naturally, by sheer spiritual influence, such special forms of authority
as they came gradually to exercise in the early Church. "There is no
trace in Scripture of a formal commission of authority for government
from Christ Himself" (Hort, _Chr. Eccl._ p. 84) given to apostles, save
as representing the brethren in their collective action. Even the
"resolutions" ([Greek: dogmata]) of the Jerusalem conference were not
set forth by the apostles present simply in their own name, nor as _ipso
facto_ binding on the conscience of the Antiochene Church. They
expressed "a claim to deference rather than a right to be obeyed" (Hort,
_op. cit._ 81-85). Such was the kind of authority attaching to apostles,
whether collectively or individually. It was not a fixed notion, but
varied in quantity and quality with the growing maturity of converts.
This is how Paul, from whom we gather most on the point, conceives the
matter. The exercise of his spiritual authority is not absolute, lest he
"lord it over their faith"; consent of conscience or of "faith" is ever
requisite (2 Cor. i. 24; cf. Rom. xiv. 23). But the principle was
elastic in application, and would take more patriarchal forms in
Palestine than in the Greek world. The case was essentially the same as
on the various mission-fields to-day, where the position of the
"missionary" is at first one of great spiritual initiative and
authority, limited only by his own sense of the fitness of things, in
the light of local usages. So the notion of formal or constitutional
authority attaching to the apostolate, in its various senses, is an
anachronism for the apostolic age. The tendency, however, was for their
authority to be conceived more and more on formal lines, and,
particularly after their deaths, as absolute.
The authority attaching to apostles as writers, which led gradually to
the formation of a New Testament Canon--"the Apostles" side by side with
"the Books" of the Old Testament (so 2 Clement xiv., c. A.D.
120-140)--is a subject by itself (see BIBLE).
This change of conception helped to further the notion of a certain
devolution of apostolic powers to successors constituted by act of
ordination. The earliest idea of an _apostolical succession_ meant
simply the re-emergence in others of the apostolic spirit of missionary
enthusiasm. "The first rank in the succession of the apostles" consisted
of men eminent as disciples of theirs, and so fitted to continue their
labours (Euseb. iii. 37); and even under Commodus (A.D. 180-193) there
were "evangelists of the word" possessed of "inspired zeal to emulate
apostles" (v. 10). Such were perhaps the "apostles" of the _Didache_. Of
the notion of apostolic succession in ministerial grace conferred by
ordination, there is little or no trace before Irenaeus. The famous
passage in Clement of Rome (xliv. 2) refers simply to the succession of
one set of men to another in an office of apostolic institution. The
grace that makes Polycarp "an apostolic and prophetic teacher" (_Mart.
Polyc._ 16) is peculiar to him personally. But Irenaeus holds,
apparently on _a priori_ grounds, that "elders" who stand in orderly
succession to the apostolic founders of the true tradition in the
churches, have, "along with the succession of oversight," also an
"assured gift of (insight into) truth" by the Father's good pleasure
("cum episcopatus successione charisma veritatis certum secundum
placitum Patris acceperunt"), in contrast to heretics who wilfully stand
outside this approved line of transmission (_adv. Haer._ iv. 26. 2). So
far, indeed, the succession is not limited to the monarchical episcopate
as distinct from the presbyteral order to which it belonged (cf.
"presbyterii ordo, principalis consessio" in the same context, and see
iii. 14. 2), though the bishops of apostolic churches, as capable of
being traced individually (iii. 3. 1), are specially appealed to as
witnesses (cf. iv. 33. 8, v. 19. 2)--as earlier by Hegesippus (Euseb.
iv. 22). Nor is there mention of sacerdotal grace attaching to the
succession in apostolic truth.[4] But once the idea of supernatural
grace going along with office as such (of which we have already a trace
in the Ignatian bishop, though without the notion of actual apostolic
succession) arose in connexion with _successio ab apostolis_, the full
development of the doctrine was but a matter of time.[5]
LITERATURE.--In England the modern treatment of the subject dates from
J.B. Lightfoot's dissertation in his _Commentary on Galatians_, to
which Dr F.J.A. Hort's _The Christian Ecclesia_ added elements of
value; see also T.M. Lindsay, _The Church and the Ministry_, and
articles in Hastings' _Dictionary of the Bible_ and the _Ency.
Biblica_; A. Harnack, _Die Lehre der Apostel_, pp. 93 ff., and
_Dogmengeschichte_ (3rd ed.), i. 153 ff.; E. Haupt, _Zum Verstandnis
d. Apostolats in NT._ (Halle, 1896); and especially H. Monnier, _La
Notion de l'apostolat, des origines a Irenee_ (Paris, 1903). The later
legends and their sources are examined by T. Schermann, _Propheten-
und Apostellegenden_ (Leipzig, 1907). (J. V. B.)