1847.]

The Origin of the Apostolic Canons.

13

Apostolorum apocryphus,) proceeded from Gelasius himself. This opinion becomes probable, when we consider that, in the manuscript of Justell and in other manuscripts, these words are manifestly wanting. Besides, Hincmar, bishop of Rheims, contends that the canons of the apostles are not recounted by Gelasius in this decree. However this may be, we understand sufficiently from Isidore of Seville1 that the Latin church rejected them entirely, and ascribed to them not even the least authority. This being made clear, we easily see why these canons have been excluded from later collections of canons; as has been done by Martin of Braga,2 by Ferrand, deacon of Carthage,3 and by others. At least, by the Pseudo-Isidore, they were given out to be truly apostolical canons; and, therefore, they were received into the canonical Law. But although in the seventh century, and in later centuries also, they were called in question, yet at length they claimed for themselves ecclesiastical authority and power.

But it is now sufficiently evident, that the canons of the apostles did not derive their origin from the apostles themselves, and that, not from this but from some other cause, they were honored with the name of the apostles. In this our age men have indulged their ingenuity and their imagination; and the more novel their conjectures, the more gratifying they have been to many. But in proposing and amplifying my conjecture, I refer to Spittler, who, if there is need, can give it support.4

From our survey of the testimonies of the ancients, it seems evident that, in the early church, single canons were circulated under the name of ancient canons, apostolical canons, ecclesiastical regulations, and ancient law, (πάλαι κανόνες ἀποστολικοὶ κανότες, ἐκκλησιαστικοί θεσμοί, παλαιὸς νόμος.) Each of these canons, although made and sanctioned by later persons, has been ascribed to the apostles, if it has seemed to accord with their doctrine. These canons, therefore, were called apostolical, not [at first] from any supposed apostolical authorship, but from the nature of the doctrine inculcated in them. There were in the early ages

1 Isidor. Hisp. ap. Anton. Augustin. Lib. I. de emendat. Gratiani Dial. VI. Gratiani Digest XVI. c. 1. Canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum, sed quia nec sedes apostolica eos recepit, nec S. S. Patres illis assensum praebuerunt, pro eo, quod ab haereticis sub nomine apostolorum compositi dignoscantur, quamvis in iis utilia inveniantur.

Compare Du Pin, Nov. Bibl. Auct. Eccles. Tom. I. p. 23.

3 Breviatio Canonum. Comp. Justelli Bibl. Juris Can. Vet. Tom. I. p. 419. * See Spittler's Geschichte des Kanonischen Rechts, p. 12.

many churches or parishes to which there were ascribed, as it were, a preeminence and a superior authority, because they derived their origin from apostles; whence there was given to them the name of apostolical churches.

After having diligently examined all the testimonies, I would now, without any hesitancy, contend that all the canons arose, one after another, in single churches of the first centuries, until, instead of being dispersed here and there, they were brought into one collection.

IV. Let us now see at what time the single canons first appeared. To guard against transgressing the proposed limits of this dissertation, it will doubtless be best to place together several canons and exhibit our judgment concerning them.

As to the first two canons, they order expressly that a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops; but a presbyter, a deacon and any other clerical person, by one bishop.1 But how alien this rule is from the apostolic times! This we sufficiently perceive from the terms employed. For who does not know that, in the apostolic age, there was no distinction between presbyter and bishop? And since in our canons a bishop and a presbyter are distinguished in authority, in office and eveu in rank, it is evident that this distinction is most unsuitable to the apostolic age, in which these names were used promiscuously. To what age do we assign these canons? Certainly to one in which there was a distinction between the words bishop and presbyter, and a new signification had come into use. Besides, we find an indication of the time of their origin in the mention of the other clerical persons, (oi ho1noì xλqqıxví.) So far as I can judge, it is right to conclude that these canons were framed at that time when the inferior clerical orders in the church were constituted. Now since Tertullian, in his work De Praescriptione Haereticorum, c. 41. mentions the inferior orders, and is the first ecclesiastical writer that has mentioned them, it follows that these canons are to be adjudged to the concluding part of the second century.

In canons III, IV. and V, certain regulations are presented in respect to the first fruits which were to be offered. As it is selfevident that the origin of these was not apostolical, I forbear to enlarge on the subject. But no one who has carefully considered the matter, will deny that these canons pertain to the Mosaic law,

I Can. I. Ἐπίσκοπος χειροτονείσθω ὑπὸ ἐπισκόπων δύο ἢ τριῶν, and Can. 11. Πρεσβύτερος ὑφ ̓ ἑνὸς ἐπισκόπου χειροτονείσθω, καὶ διάκονος καὶ οἱ λοιποὶ κλερικοί.

1847.]

The fifth to the eighth Canons.

15

in the abrogation of which all, in the apostolic age, were agreed. This ancient observance of the Jewish church, towards the close of the third century, when bishops arrogated to themselves increased authority, prevailed so much that fruits were not only offered by the faithful, but were distributed by the bishops to all others who were needy. Of this Origen is a most substantial witness; from whose testimony it is abundantly evident, that the custom of offering first fruits was already in his time exceedingly common.1

The fifth canon, a most dangerous rock to the Roman church, exhibits the regulation that no bishop, presbyter, or deacon, put away his wife under pretext of religion; and the seventh inculcates that no one of the clergy undertake secular cares. Each of these canons is so consentaneous with the apostolic age, that nothing hinders our supposing it to be sanctioned by apostolic men. The subject of the sixth canon sufficiently explains why, in the Western church where celibacy was held in great honor, our canons, of which those just now quoted are unfavorable to celibacy, were received so tardily.

Then in the eighth canon it is forbidden that any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon, celebrate the sacred day of the Passover [Easter] before the vernal equinox, with the Jews, under penalty of being deposed.3 But it will not appear wonderful to any one, that I most confidently adjudge this canon to the end of the second century, if I present briefly the reasons of this judgment. What! Is any canon sanctioned, unless there be some cause requiring its promulgation? No, most certainly. Now let us inspect the canon. From what cause was it possible to decree that the Passover be not kept before the vernal equinox, with the Jews? Doubtless from the cause that, at the time of passing the decree, there had arisen many and vehement contentions respecting the day on which the Passover was to be celebrated. The canon, therefore, fits precisely the end of the second century,

1 Origen contra Celsuin, Lib. VIII. p. 400, ed. Cantabrig. Kếλooç μèv daiμονίοις ἀνατιθέναι βούλεται· ἡμεῖς δὲ τῷ εἰπόντι, βλαστησάτω ἡ γὴ βοτάνην χόρὦ δὲ τὰς ἀπαρχὰς ἀποδίδωμην, τούτω καὶ τὰς εὐχὰς ἀναπέμπομεν, ἔχοντες ἀρχιερέα μέγαν, διεληλυθότα τοὺς οὐρανοὺς, Ἰησοῦν, τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ θεοῦ.

του . . .

4 Can. VI. Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἑαυτοῦ γυναῖκα μὴ ἐκβαλλέτω προφάσει εὐλαβείας· ἐὰν δὲ ἐκβάλῃ ἀφοριζέσθω· ἐπιμένων δὲ, καθαιρείσθω. Can. VII. Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κοσμικὰς φροντίδας μὴ ἀναλαμβανέσθω· εἰ δὲ μὴ, καθαιρείσθω.

3 Can. VIII. Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος τὴν ἁγίαν τοῦ πάσχα ἡμέ ραν πρὸ τῆς ἐαρινῆς ἰσημερίας μετὰ Ἰουδαίων ἐπιτελέσει, καθαιρείσθω.

when this question was most vehemently agitated between Victor, bishop of Rome, and Polycrates, bishop of Smyrna.

The next two canons, (IX. and X,) treat concerning the holy communion to be received by all the faithful, both clergy and laity, whenever they enter the church. It is with good reason that Beveridge refutes the opinion of Daillé, who, because adherents of the Roman church leave the place of worship without partaking of the host, and thus she does not observe those canons, confidently infers that she did not acknowledge their apostolic origin. But what to us is the Roman church? It belongs to herself to see why she follows another fashion. Her usage and custom can bring nothing against the antiquity of our canons. So far are these canons from being at variance with the observ ances of the second century, that they fit them exactly. Let us consult the Fathers of that century. Justin Martyr at once presents himself, and can vouch for the correctness of our statement. In his Apology, when he describes the eucharist to Antoninus Pius, he says expressly of the Christians that they all assembled on Sunday, and listened to the reading of the sacred Scriptures and to an address from the bishop. Then all arose together to pray; and, when prayers were ended, there was an offering of bread and wine. The bishop gave thanks. The people responded, Amen. Distribution was made, and each partook. It is obvi ous, therefore, that in this century the eucharist was celebrated by all Christians, as often as they came together. It is not, then, alien from the observances of the second century, if our canons threaten excommunication to clerical and lay persons who do not partake of the communion, when an offering is made.

1 Can. ΙΧ. Εἴ τις ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος ἢ ἐκ τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ προσφορᾶς γενομένης μὴ μεταλάβοι, τὴν αἰτίαν εἰπάτω· καὶ ἐὰν εὔλογος ή, συγγνώμης τυγχανέτω· εἰ δὲ μὴ λέγῃ, ἀφοριζέσθω, ὡς αἴτιος βλάβης γενόμενος τῷ λαῷ καὶ ὑπόνοιαν ἐμποιήσας κατὰ τοῦ προσενέγκαντος. Can. Χ. Πάντας τοὺς εἰσιόντας πιστοὺς καὶ τῶν γραφῶν ἀκούοντας, μὴ παραμένοντας δὲ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ ἁγίᾳ μεταλήψει, ὡς ἀταξίαν ἐμποιοῦντας τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀφορίζεσθαι χρή.

2

* [Apol. 1. c. 67. Καὶ τῇ τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένη ἡμέρᾳ πάντων κατὰ πόλεις ἢ ἀγροὺς μενόντων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συνέλευσις γίνεται, καὶ τὰ ἀποπνημονεύματα τῶν ἀποστόλων, ἢ τὰ συγγράμματα τῶν προφητῶν ἀναγινώσκεται μέχρις ἐγχωρεῖ. Εἶτα παυσαμένου τοῦ ἀναγινώσκοντος, ὁ προεστὼς διὰ λόγου τὴν νουθεσίαν καὶ πρόκλησιν τῆς τῶν καλῶν τοῦτων μιμήσεως ποιεῖται. Επειτα ἀνιστάμεθα κοινῇ πάντες, καὶ εὐχὰς πέμπομεν· καὶ, ὡς προέφημεν, παυσαμένων ἡμῶν τῆς εὐχῆς, ἄρτος προσφέρεται καὶ δινος καὶ ὕδωρ; καὶ ὁ προεστὼς εὐχὼς ὁμοίως καὶ εὐχαρισ τίας, ὅση δύναμις αὐτῷ, ἀναπέμπει, καὶ ὁ λαὸς ἀπευφημεῖ λέγων τὸ ἀμήν· καὶ ἡ διάδοσις καὶ ἡ μετάληψις ἀπὸ τῶν εὐχαρίστη θέντων ἑκάστῳ γίνεται.]

1847.]

The eleventh to the twenty-fourth Canons.

17

In the next two canons, (XI. and XII,) there is nothing to prevent their being adjudged to the apostolic age. That they who are guilty of a want of rectitude or of truth, be kept from the communion, agrees most fully with the first times of the Christian church.

To the thirteenth canon another time must be assigned. Here commendatory letters are mentioned. The ecclesiastical custom of giving such letters to those who were sent from another vicinity, arose in the third century, when, in the time of persecutions, the several churches were obliged to use the utmost caution, lest they should receive a secret Heathen or heretic; [or rather, the custom which very naturally began in the time of the apostles, then became specially important.]

Concerning canons XIV. and XV. we have already treated, and shown that regard was had to these canons in subsequent times. It remains that we here remark, in passing, that canons XIV, XV. and XVI, contain nothing which departs from the apostolic age; and therefore, although perhaps they were framed at a later time, we cannot deny that they may have belonged to the apostolic period, if we judge merely from the subjects of which they treat. But surely the author would not contend that, in the time of the apostles, such absolute control over Presbyters was given to a bishop, as is assumed in canon XV.; nor that the inferior orders swelling the catalogue of clerical persons,' had already been introduced.]

Let us now proceed to the following canons, namely, XVII, XVIII, XIX. and XX, concerning which the same judgment is to be pronounced. Nothing can be found in them that does not accord with the primitive church. [But here we would make the same remark which we made on the preceding paragraph. Besides, the misinterpretation of 1 Tim. 3: 2, (a consequence and a cause of much error,) the mention of 'the sacerdotal catalogue,' and perhaps some other things in these canons, seem to betray an ascetic, hierarchical and Judaizing spirit and tendency.]

The four canons which follow, (XXI, XXII, XXIII. and XXIV,) decree that he who has mutilated himself, never be made a clergyman; and that if a clergyman has mutilated himself, he be deposed; but if a layman, that he be separated from communion three years. Daillé has, I think, correctly remarked that canons have not been established and promulgated in the church before some fact gave occasion for their being introduced. But if we examine the history of the primitive church whether there