[1] By analogy, that is; for the wider sense of "apostle" in the
Apostolic age need not be identical with a sub-apostolic use of the
term (see below, 4 _fin_.).
[2] The tendency is already visible in the Lucan writings. An
anologous process is seen in the use of "disciple," applicable in the
apostolic age to Christians at large, but in the course of the
sub-apostolic age restricted to personal "disciples of the Lord" or
to martyrs (Papias in Eus. iii. 39, cf. Ignatius, _Ad Eph._ i. 2).
[3] In the Edessene legend of Abgar, in Eus. i. 12, we read that
"Judas, who is also Thomas, sent Thaddaeus as apostle--one of the
Seventy," where simply an authoritative envoy of Jesus seems
intended. For traces of the wider sense of "apostle" in Gnostic,
Marcionite and Montanist circles, see Monnier (as below).
[4] The above is substantially the view taken by J.B. Lightfoot in
his essay on "The Christian Ministry" (_Comm. on Philippians_, 6th
ed., pp. 239, 252 f.), and by T.M. Lindsay, _The Church and the
Ministry_ (1902), pp. 224-228, 278 ff. Even C. Gore, _The Church and
the Ministry_ (1889), pp. 119 ff., while inferring a sacerdotal
element in Irenaeus's conception of the episcopate, says: "But it is
mainly as preserving the catholic traditions that Irenaeus regards
the apostolic succession" (p. 120).
[5] See Lightfoot's essay for Cyprian's contribution, as also for
that of the Clementines, which fix on the twofold position of James
at Jerusalem, as apostle and bishop, as bearing on apostolic
succession in the episcopate.
APOSTLE SPOONS, a set of spoons, usually of silver or silver gilt, with
the handles terminating in figures of the apostles, each bearing their
distinctive emblem. They were common baptismal gifts during the 15th and
16th centuries, but were dying out by 1666. Often single spoons were
given, bearing the figure of the patron or name saint of the child. Sets
of the twelve apostles are not common, and complete sets of thirteen,
with the figure of our Lord on a larger spoon, are still rarer. The
Goldsmiths' Company in London has one such set, all by the same maker
and bearing the hall-mark of 1626, and a set of thirteen was sold at
Christie's in 1904 for L4900.
See William Hone, _The Everyday Book_ and _Table Book_ (1831); and
W.J. Cripps, _Old English Plate_ (9th ed., 1906).
APOSTOLICAL CONSTITUTIONS ([Greek: Diatagai] _or_ [Greek: Diataxeis ton
agion apostolon dia Klaementos tou Rhomaion episkopou te kai politou.
Katholikae didaskalia]), a collection of ecclesiastical regulations in
eight books, the last of which concludes with the eighty-five _Canons of
the Holy Apostles_. By their title the Constitutions profess to have
been drawn up by the apostles, and to have been transmitted to the
Church by Clement of Rome; sometimes the alleged authors are represented
as speaking jointly, sometimes singly. From the first they have been
very variously estimated; the _Canons_, as a rule, more highly than the
rest of the work. For example, the Trullan Council of Constantinople
(_quini-sextum_), A.D. 692, accepts the Canons as genuine by its second
canon, but rejects the Constitutions on the ground that spurious matter
had been introduced into them by heretics; and whilst the former were
henceforward used freely in the East, only a few portions of the latter
found their way into the Greek and oriental law-books. Again, Dionysius
Exiguus (c. A.D. 500) translated fifty of the Canons into Latin,[1]
although under the title _Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum_, and thus
they passed into other Western collections; whilst the Constitutions as
a whole remained unknown in the West until they were published in 1563
by the Jesuit Turrianus. At first received with enthusiasm, their
authenticity soon came to be impugned; and their true significance was
largely lost sight of as it began to be realized that they were not what
they claimed to be. Vain attempts were still made to rehabilitate them,
and they were, in general, more highly estimated in England than
elsewhere. The most extravagant estimate of all was that of Whiston, who
calls them "the most sacred standard of Christianity, equal in authority
to the Gospels themselves, and superior in authority to the epistles of
single apostles, some parts of them being our Saviour's own original
laws delivered to the apostles, and the other parts the public acts of
the apostles" (Historical preface to _Primitive Christianity Revived_,
pp. 85-86). Others, however, realized their composite character from the
first, and by degrees some of the component documents became known.
Bishop Pearson was able to say that "the eight books of the Apostolic
Constitutions have been after Epiphanius's time compiled and patched
together out of the _didascaliae_ or doctrines which went under the
names of the holy apostles and their disciples or successors" (_Vind.
Ign._ i. cap. 5); whilst a greater scholar still, Archbishop Usher, had
already gone much further, and concluded, forestalling the results of
modern critical methods, that their compiler was none other than the
compiler of the spurious Ignatian epistles (_Epp. Polyc. et Ign._ p.
lxiii. f., Oxon. 1644). The Apostolical Constitutions, then, are
spurious, and they are one of a long series of documents of like
character. But we have not really gauged their significance by saying
that they are spurious. They are the last stage and climax of a gradual
process of compilation and crystallization, so to speak, of unwritten
church custom; and a short account of this process will show their real
importance and value.
Origin and real nature.
These documents are the outcome of a tendency which is found in every
society, religious or secular, at some point in its history. The society
begins by living in accordance with its fundamental principles. By
degrees these translate themselves into appropriate action. Difficulties
are faced and solved as they arise; and when similar circumstances recur
they will tend to be met in the same way. Thus there grows up by degrees
a body of what may be called customary law. Plainly, there is no
particular point of time at which this customary law can be said to have
begun. To all appearance it is there from the first in solution and
gradually crystallizes out; and yet it is being continually modified as
time goes on. Moreover, the time comes when the attempt is made, either
by private individuals or by the society itself, to put this "customary
law" into writing. Now when this is done, two tendencies will at once
show themselves. (a) This "customary law" will at once become more
definite: the very fact of putting it into writing will involve an
effort after logical completeness. There will be a tendency on the part
of the writer to fill up gaps; to state local customs as if they
obtained universally; to introduce his personal equation, and to add to
that which is the custom that which, in his opinion, _ought_ to be. (b)
There will be a strong tendency to fortify that which has been written
with great names, especially in days when there is no very clear notion
of literary property. This is done, not always with any deliberate
consciousness of fraud (although it must be clearly recognized that
truth is not one of the "natural virtues," and that the sense of the
obligations of truthfulness was far from strong), but rather to
emphasize the importance of what was written, and the fact that it was
no new invention of the writer's. In a non-literary age fame gathers
about great names; and that which, _ex hypothesi_, has gone on since the
beginning of things is naturally attributed to the founders of the
society. Then come interpolations to make this ascription more probable,
and the prefixing of a title, then or subsequently, which states it as a
fact. This is precisely the way in which the Apostolical Constitutions
and other kindred documents have come into being. They are attempts,
made in various places and at different times, to put into writing the
order and discipline and character of the Church; in part for private
instruction and edification, but in part also with a view to actual use;
frequently even with an actual reference to particular circumstances. In
this lies their importance, to a degree which is only just being
adequately realized. They contain evidence of the utmost value as to the
order of the Church in early days; evidence, however, which needs to be
sifted with the greatest care, since the personal preferences of the
writer and the customs of the local church to which he belongs are
continually mixed up with things which have a wider prevalence. It is
only by careful investigation, by the method of comparisons, that these
elements can be disentangled; but as the number of documents of this
class known to us is continually increasing, their value increases even
more than proportionately. And whilst their local and fugitive character
must be fully recognized and allowed for, is it unjustifiable to set
them aside or leave them out of account as heretical, and therefore
negligible.
Other collections.
It will be sufficient here to mention shortly the chief collections of
this kind which came into existence during the first four centuries;
generally as the work of private individuals, and having, at any rate,
no more than a local authority of some kind, (a) The earliest known to
us is the _Didache_ or _Teaching of the Twelve Apostles_, itself
compiled from earlier materials, and dating from about 120 (see
DIDACHE). (b) _The Apostolic Church Order_ (_apostolische
Kirchenordnung_ of German writers); _Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy
Apostles_ of one MS.; _Sententiae Apostolorum_ of Pitra: of about 300,
and emanating probably from Asia Minor. Its earlier part, cc. 1-14,
depends upon the _Didache_, and the rest of it is a book of discipline
in which Harnack has attempted to distinguish two older fragments of
church law (_Texte u. Unters_. ii. 5). (c) The so-called _Canones
Hippolyti_, probably Alexandrian or Roman, and of the first half of the
3rd century. It will be observed that these make no claim to apostolic
authorship; but otherwise their origin is like that of the rest, unless
indeed, as has been suggested, they represent the work of an actual
Roman synod, (d) The so-called _Egyptian Church Order_, in Coptic from a
Greek pre-Nicene original (c. 310). It is part of the Egyptian
Heptateuch and contains neither communion nor ordination forms, (e) The
_Ethiopic Church Order_, perhaps twenty years later than (d), and
forming part of the _Ethiopic Statutes_. (f) The _Verona Latin
Fragments_, discovered and published by Hauler, portions of a form akin
to (e), which may be dated c. 340, though possibly earlier. It has a
preface which refers to a treatise _Concerning Spiritual Gifts_ as
having immediately preceded it. (g) The recently discovered _Testament
of the Lord_, which is somewhat later in date (c. 350), and likewise
depends upon the _Canones Hippolyti_. (h) The so-called _Canons of
Basil_. This is an Arabic work perhaps based on a Coptic and ultimately
on a Greek original, embodying with modifications large portions of the
Canons of Hippolytus. (On the relations between the six last-named, see
HIPPOLYTUS, CANONS of.)
Here also may be noticed the _Didascalia Apostolorum_, originally
written in Greek, but known through a Syriac version and a fragmentary
Latin one published by Hauler. It is of the middle of the 3rd
century--in fact, a passage in the Latin translation seems to give us
the date A.D. 254. It emanates from Palestine or Syria, and is
independent of the documents already mentioned; and upon it the
_Constitutions_ themselves very largely depend. It is a mixture of
moral and ecclesiastical instruction. The _Sacramentary of Serapion_
(c. 350), _The Pilgrimage of Etheria_ (_Silvia_) (c. 385), and _The
Catechetical Lectures of Cyril of Jerusalem_ (348) are also of value
in this connexion. In the (so-called) _Constitutions through
Hippolytus_ we have possibly a preliminary draft of the famous 8th
book of the _Apostolical Constitutions_.[2]
Contents.
The Constitutions themselves fall into three main divisions. (i.) The
first of these consists of books i.-vi., and throughout runs parallel to
the _Didascalia_. Bickell, indeed, held that this latter was an
abbreviated form of books i.-vi.; but it is now agreed on all hands that
the Constitutions are based on the _Didascalia_ and not vice versa.
(ii.) Then follows book vii., the first thirty-one chapters of which are
an adaptation of the _Didache_, whilst the rest contain various
liturgical forms of which the origin is still uncertain, though it has
been acutely suggested by Achelis, and with great probability, that they
originated in the schismatical congregation of Lucian at Antioch. (iii.)
Book viii. is more composite, and falls into three parts. The first two
chapters, [Greek: peri charismaton], may be based upon a lost work of St
Hippolytus, otherwise known only by a reference to it in the preface of
the _Verona Latin Fragments_; and an examination shows that this is
highly probable. The next section, cc. 3-27, [Greek: peri cheirotoyioy],
and cc. 28-46, [Greek: peri kayoyoy], is twofold, and is evidently that
upon which the writer sets most store. The apostles no longer speak
jointly, but one by one in an apostolic council, and the section closes
with a joint decree of them all. They speak of the ordination of bishops
(the so-called Clementine Liturgy is that which is directed to be used
at the consecration of a bishop, cc. 5-15), of presbyters, deacons,
deaconesses, sub-deacons and lectors, and then pass on to confessors,
virgins, widows and exorcists; after which follows a series of canons on
various subjects, and liturgical formulae. With regard to this section,
all that can be said is that it includes materials which are also to be
found elsewhere--in the _Egyptian Church Order_ and other documents
already spoken of--and that the precise relation between them is at
present not determined. The third section consists of the Apostolic
Canons already referred to, the last and most significant of which
places the Constitutions and the two epistles of Clement in the canon of
Scripture, and omits the Apocalypse. They are derived in part from the
preceding Constitutions, in part from the canons of the councils of
Antioch, 341, Nicaea, 325, and possibly Laodicaea, 363.
A comparison of the Constitutions with the material upon which they are
based will illustrate the compiler's method. (a) To begin with the
_Didascalia_ already mentioned. It is unmethodical and badly digested,
homiletical in style, and abounding in biblical quotations. There is no
precise arrangement; but the subjects, following a general introduction,
are the bishop and his duties, penance, the administration of the
offerings, the settlement of disputes, the divine service, the order of
widows, deacons and deaconesses, the poor, behaviour in persecution, and
so forth. The compiler of the Constitutions finds here material after
his own heart. He is even more discursive and more homiletical in style;
he adds fresh citations of the Scriptures, and additional explanations
and moral reflexions; and all this with so little judgment that he often
leaves confusion worse confounded (e.g. in ii. 57, where, upon a
symbolical description of the Church as a sheepfold, he has superimposed
the further symbolism of a ship). (b) Passing on to books vii. and
viii., we observe that the compiler's method of necessity changes with
his new material. In the former book he still makes large additions and
alterations, but there is less scope for his prolixity than before; and
in the latter, where he is no longer dealing with generalities, but
making actual definitions, the Constitutions of necessity become more
precise and statutory in form. Throughout he adopts and adapts the
language of his sources as far as possible, "only pruning in the most
pressing cases," but towards the end he cannot avoid making larger
alterations from time to time. And his alterations throughout are not
made aimlessly. Where he finds things which would obviously clash with
the customs of his own day, he unhesitatingly modifies them. An account
of the Passion, with a curiously perverted chronology, the object of
which was to justify the length of the Passion-tide fast, is entirely
revised for this reason (v. 14); the direction to observe Easter
according to the Jewish computation is changed into the exact contrary
for the same reason (v. 17); and where his archetype lapses into
speaking of a lull in persecution he naively informs us that the Romans
have now given up persecuting and have adopted Christianity (vi. 26),
forgetting altogether that he is speaking in the character of the
apostles. Above all, he both magnifies the office of the Christian
ministry as a whole and alters what is said of it in detail (for
example, the deaconess loses rank not a little), to make it agree with
the circumstances of his day in general, and with his own ideas of
fitness in particular. It is here that his evidence is at once most
valuable and needs to be used with the greatest care. To give one
striking example of the value of these documents. The _Canones
Hippolyti_ (vi. 43) provide that one who has been a confessor for the
faith may be received as a presbyter by virtue of his confessorship and
not by the laying on of the bishop's hands; but if he be chosen a
bishop, he is to be ordained. This provision passes on into the Egyptian
_Ecclesiastical Canons_ and other kindred documents, and even into the
_Testamentum Domini_. But the corresponding passage in the Apostolical
Constitutions (viii. 23) entirely reverses it: "A confessor is not
ordained, for he is so by choice and patience, and is worthy of great
honour.... But if there be occasion, he is to be ordained either a
bishop, priest, or deacon. But if any one of the confessors who is not
ordained snatches to himself any such dignity upon account of his
confession, let the same person be deprived and rejected; for he is not
in such an office, since he has denied the constitution of Christ, and
is worse than an infidel."
Authorship, place, and date.
Who, then, is the author of the Constitutions, and what can be inferred
with regard to him? (i.) By separating off the sources which he used
from his own additions to them, it at once becomes clear that the latter
are the work of one man: the style is unmistakable, and the method of
working is the same throughout. The compiler of books i.-vi. is also the
compiler of books vii., viii. (ii.) As to his theological position,
different views have been held. Funk suggests Apollinarianism, which is
the refuge of the destitute; and Achelis inclines in the same direction.
But the affinities of the author are quite otherwise, the most
pronounced of them being a strong subordinationist tendency, denial of a
human soul to Christ, and the like, which suggest not indeed Arianism
but an inclination towards Arianism. Above all, his polemic is directed
against the dying heresies of the 3rd century; and he writes with an
absence of constraint which is not the language of one who lives amidst
violent controversies or who is conscious of being in a minority. All
this points to the position of a "conservative" or semi-Arian of the
East, one who belongs, perhaps, to the circle of Lucian of Antioch and
writes before the time of Julian. It is hard to think of any other time
or circumstances in which a man could write like this, (iii.) The
indications of _time_ have been held to point to a different conclusion.
On the one hand, the fact that the attempt to rebuild the temple by
Julian in 363 is not mentioned in vi. 24 points to an earlier date; and
the fact that the [Greek: kopiatai] are not mentioned amongst the church
officers points in the same direction, for elsewhere they are first
mentioned in a rescript of Constantius in A.D. 357. On the other hand,
in the cycle of feasts occur the names of several which are probably of
later date--e.g. Christmas and St Stephen, which were introduced at
Antioch c. A.D. 378 and 379 respectively. Again, Epiphanius (c. A.D.
374) appears to be unacquainted with it; he still quotes from the
_Didascalia_, and elaborately explains it away where it is contrary to
the usages of his own day. But as regards the former point, it is
possible that the Apostolical Constitutions constantly gave rise to
these festivals; or, on the other hand, that the two passages were
subsequently introduced either by the writer himself or by some other
hand, when the last book of the Constitutions was being used as a
law-book. And as regards the latter, the fact that Epiphanius does not
use the Constitutions is no proof that they had not yet been compiled.
(iv.) As to the region of composition there is no real doubt. It was
clearly the East, Syria or Palestine. Many indications are against the
latter, and Syria is strongly suggested by the use of the
Syro-Macedonian calendar. Moreover, the writer represents the Roman
Clement as the channel of communication between the apostles and the
Church. This fact both supplies him with the name by which he is
commonly known, Pseudo-Clement, and also furnishes corroboration of his
Syrian birth; since the other spurious writings bearing the name of
Clement, the _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, are likewise of Syrian
origin. Moreover, the spurious Ignatian epistles, which are also Syrian,
depend throughout upon the Constitutions, (v.) But this is not all. It
was long ago noticed that Pseudo-Clement bears a very close resemblance
to Pseudo-Ignatius, the interpolator of the Ignatian Epistles in the
longer Greek recension. Usher, as we have seen, identified them, and
modern criticism accepts this identification as a fact (Lagarde,
Harnack, Funk, Brightman). Lightfoot, indeed, still hesitated (_Ap.
Fathers_, II. i. 266 n.) on the ground that Pseudo-Ignatius occasionally
misunderstands the Constitutions, that the two writings give the Roman
succession differently, and that Pseudo-Clement shows no knowledge of
the Christological controversies of Nicaea. But as regards the first of
these, it is rather a case of condensed citation than of
misinterpretation; the second is explained by the writer's carelessness
as shown in other passages, and all are solved if a considerable
interval of time elapsed between the compilation of the Constitutions
and the spurious Ignatian epistles.
It seems clear then that the compiler was a Syrian, and that he also
wrote the spurious Ignatian epistles; he was likewise probably a
semi-Arian of the school of Lucian of Antioch. His date is given by
Harnack as A.D. 340-360, with a leaning to 340-343; by Lightfoot as the
latter half of the 4th century; by Brightman, 370-380; by Maclean, 375;
and by Funk as the beginning of the 5th century.
AUTHORITIES.--W. Ueltzen, _Constitutiones Apostolicae_ (Schwerin,
1853); P.A. de Lagarde, _Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace_ (Leipz.,
1854); _Constitutiones Apostolorum_ (Leipz. and Lond., 1862); M.D.
Gibson, _Didascalia Apost. Syriace_, with Eng. trans. (_Horae
Semiticae_, i. and ii., Cambridge, 1903); J.B. Pitra, _Juris
Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta_, i. (Rome, 1864);
Hauler, _Didascaliae Apostolorum Fragmenta Ueronensia Latina_,
(Leipzig, 1900); Bickell, _Geschichte des Kirchenrechts_, i. (Giessen,
1843); F.X. Funk, _Die apostolischen Konstitutionen_ (Rottenb., 1891);
A. Harnack, _Geschichte d. altchristl. Litteratur_, i. 515 ff.
(Leipz., 1893); F.E. Brightman, _Liturgies Eastern and Western_, I.
xvii. ff. (Oxford, 1896); H. Achelis, in Hauck's _Realencyklopadie_,
i. 734 f., art. "Apostolische Konstitutionen und Kanones" (Leipz.,
1896); A.S. Maclean, _Recent Discoveries illustrating Early Christian
Worship_ (Lond., 1904); J. Wordsworth, _The Ministry of Grace_, pp. 18
ff; J.P. Arendzen, "The Apostolic Church Order" (Syriac Text, Eng.
trans. and notes) in _Journ. of Theol. Studies_, iii. 59. Trans. of
_Apost. Constitutions_, book viii., in Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
(W. E. Co.)