a they who came over from them were to be baptized. Stephen, on the contrary, allowed the validity of their baptism; and was for receiving such as came over from them with imposition of hands only. This point is decided in our Constitutions, agreeably to the judgment of Cyprian and his African colleagues: yet nobody then appealed to this work, or took any notice of it. Probably therefore it was not extant at that time. b с 9. I shall mention a particular relating to Origen, not generally taken notice of. In his books against Celsus he says, that James and John, Andrew and Peter, were fishermen, and Matthew a publican. But in what way the rest of Christ's disciples subsisted, before they followed him, was not known. But the apostles in the Constitutions say: Though we are em'ployed in preaching the gospel, we do not omit working. For some of us are fishermen, others tentmakers, others husbandmen.' Certainly Origen knew nothing of this. And Cotelerius, in his notes upon the Constitutions says, We are to abide by Origen. There is no certain knowledge what occupations the rest of the twelve followed, beside those mentioned by him. e 10. That the Constitutions were unknown to the learned Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria about the year 248, is apparent. Basilides, a friend of his, wrote a letter to him, desiring his opinion upon some points. Dionysius's letter & is still extant. In answer to one of the queries put by Basilides, concerning the duration of the antepaschal fast, he says, it is difficult to determine. Nevertheless, the point is clearly determined in our Apostolical Constitutions. And of another question put by Basilides, he gives a solution quite contrary to our Constitutions: and in the conclusion of the letter, he leaves his friend to judge for himself as he sees best. This must be reckoned full proof, that Dionysius was altogether unacquainted with our Apostolical Constitutions. i 11. There was a controversy about the time of keeping Easter, which began in the second century, and lasted until the sitting of the council of Nice: yet none appealed to the Constitutions about it. Those cited by Epiphanius determine in favour of one side; ours in favour of the other. But that neither of those Constitutions was then extant, or received as Apostolical, is manifest: for if there had been an Apostolical Constitution about it, the controversy had been ended, or rather could not have been. m 12. Socrates, the ecclesiastical historian, speaking of this matter says: the apostles had left it indifferent to every body: that neither Christ nor his apostles, had appointed an annual festival for celebrating the memory of his passion. And speaking of the several opinions about the duration and manner of the antepaschal fast, he says, that none of them were able to allege any written order about it. Consequently, Socrates likewise either knew nothing of our Constitutions, or did not esteem them Apostolical. n 13. Eusebius of Cæsarea is concerned in several things already mentioned. In his accounts of early heretics, of the disputes about Easter, and other matters, he says nothing of the Constitutions; though they might have been very properly mentioned, if in being, and he had been acquainted with them. Consequently they were unknown to him. There is however one particular which may be distinctly mentioned. Our Constitutions say, that the first bishops of Cæsarea in Palestine, were Zaccheus the publican, Cornelius, and Theophilus: meaning, probably, him to whom St. Luke had addressed both his Gospel and his Acts. Nevertheless, Eusebius no where takes notice of these honourable predecessors of his in the see of Cæsarea. 1 Vid. Euseb. Vit. Const. 1. iii. cap. 5. - Αλλα την ορίην τε πασχα και τας άλλας έορίας τιμαν τη ευγνωμοσύνη των ευεργετηθενίων κατελιπον. Socr. i. v. c. 21. p. 283. C. Ου γαρ νόμῳ τολο παραφυλατίειν ὁ σωτης η οἱ απόςολοι παρηΓγειλαν. Ib. D. * Και επειδαν εδεις περὶ τοῖς εἴγραφον εχει δειξαι παραίγελ μα, δηλον, ὡς καὶ περὶ τοῖς τῇ έκαςε γνώμη και προαιρέσει επείρεψαν οι αποστολοι. κ. λ. Ib. p. 286. C. L. vii. c. 46. in. p. 382. P Verum Pseudo-Clementis apocryphos libros aut non legit, aut potius lectos sprevit Eusebius Cæsariensis; alias tanta ecclesiæ suæ ornamenta nequâquam in operibus suis omissurus. Cot, in loc. 14. We need not particularly examine later writers: for, as Daillé says, if the Constitutions were not Apostolical in the first three centuries, all the wit and industry of later ages cannot make them so. But if we should call up and examine Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Chrysostom, the Cyrils of Jerusalem and Alexandria, Jerom and Augustine, and all the other eminent Christian writers of the fourth, and the former part of the fifth century, they would be all silent. They give no intelligence concerning the Apostolical Constitutions: they have not quoted them, or mentioned them, in any of their writings. Jerom in particular, who in his Catalogue of Illustrious Men, has distinct articles for all the writers of the New Testament, and for Clement Bishop of Rome, mentions not any work of theirs called Constitutions, or Apostolical Constitutions. Certainly this must be sufficient to satisfy us of the non-existence, or vast obscurity of the Apostolical Constitutions in the early days of Christianity. с b 15. The first who has mentioned them, excepting Epiphanius, and the first of all, who has mentioned them as divided into several books, is the author of the Imperfect Work upon St. Matthew, probably a Latin writer, and plainly an Arian, who wrote some time after the reign of Theodosius the great: how long after it cannot be determined. But there is as much reason to think he did not write till after the end of the fifth century, as that he wrote sooner. 16. Consequently, the Constitutions are destitute of all external evidence, that should entitle them to the character of Apostolical. VI. I proceed to the internal evidence. Here I shall mention divers things, marks of a later age than that of the apostles, and unsuitable to their character: at the same time willingly omitting many other things, for the sake of brevity, and supposing it not necessary to be more particular. 1. The manner of quoting the books of the New Testament in this work does not suit the apostles, as, I think, every one may perceive. d (1.) Christ says in the gospel.' [Matt. v. 27.] с (2.) In the like manner it is written also in the gospel.' [Luke vi. 28.] And presently afterwards: Again he says in the gospel.' [Matt. v. 44, 45.] (3.) The Lord often says in the gospel reminding men: " He that has ears to hear, let him hear." h (4.) For our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ says in the gospels.' [Matt. v. 23, 24.] (5.) Concerning this the Lord declared, saying:-And again he says to his disciples, even 'to us, thus:' Where are quoted Matt. x. 33, 37, 38, 39, and xvi. 22, and x. 28. (6.) Having given an account of the circumstances of our Lord's being betrayed, and of his crucifixion and resurrection, it is added, All these things also are written in the gospels.' (7.) · Let' a bishop be knowing, and studying the Lord's books, that he may rightly explain "the scriptures:-that the interpretations of the law and the prophets may correspond with the gospel. For the Lord Jesus says: "Search the scriptures. For these are they which testify "of me." And again: For " Moses wrote of me." [John v. 39. 46.] Certainly, this order was not given until after St. John's gospel was written and published, probably not until after all the Lord's books, or scriptures of the New Testament had been written, and put into the hands of Christians. m (8.) Daillé did not " overlook this argument. (9.) I add no more here: but several things of a like kind will occur in a following article, concerning this writer's testimony to the scriptures. There will be seen a Constitution about the method of ordaining bishops, expressly said to be a Constitution of the Twelve, and Paul, a Nam si primis tribus Christianismi sæculis Apostolicæ non fuerunt Bovianæ istæ Aialalai, nemo non videt, nullâ sequentium temporum vel auctoritate vel industriâ fieri eas apostolicas posse. De Pseudep. p. 321. b Vid. Veterum Testimonia de Constitut. Ap. ap. Patr. Ap. T. i. Vid. Montfaucon. Diatriba ad Op. Imp. in Matt. ap. Chrysost. opp. T. 6. ed. Bened. 4 ΛεΓει γαρ εν τῳ ευαγίελιῳ, L. 1. c. 1. • Ομοίως και εν τω ευαγίελιῳ γεγραπίαι. L. i. c. 2. f Ibid. 8 Και ο κύριος εν τω ευαγγελιῳ μνημονεύει.-L. ii. c. 6. p. 217. f. * Λεξει δε ὁ κύριος ήμων και σωτης Ιησες ὁ Χρισος εν ευαγίε 2015. L. ii. c. 53. p. 258. in. L. v. cap. 4. p. 303. * Ταυία δε και εν τῳ ευαγγελια εγραφη. L. v. c. 14. fin. 1 πολυδιδακίος, μελείων και σπεδάζων εν ταις κυριακαίς βιβλοις.-κ. λ. L. ii. сар. 5. m Cum ergo nostri Aalafes iis temporibus & vixerint, & congregati fuerint, quibus Joannis Evangelium editum erat,clarum est, fieri nequaquam posse, ut Aalafus Christi Apostoli vere sint. De Pseudep. Ap. L. i. c. 14. p. 168. Vid. & p. 169. 186.. and the seven deacons: wherein it is appointed, that the gospels should be held over the head. of the bishop to be ordained, or just ordained. But how was it possible that all the apostles, and all the seven deacons, should join in such a Constitution? Did none of the apostles or deacons die before the publication of the gospels? Were all the gospels written before the death of James, son of Zebedee, and brother of John, and before the martyrdom of Stephen? None will say it. The reader is also desired to observe the first quotation in that article, and to consider whether all the apostles could join in appointing the reading of the Acts? which, certainly, were not written till after the sixtieth year of our Lord's nativity. 2. I proceed to other things later than the time of the apostles. 2 (1.) It cannot be shewn that the several heretics above mentioned had appeared before the end of the apostolical age. Moreover they are here said, to have published wicked books in the names of the apostles: calumniating the creation of God, and marriage, the law and the prophets; which cannot be shewn to have been done before the death of the apostles. (2.) There are many things in these books, which seem to shew, that the reign of heathenism in the Roman empire was over, and that Christians enjoyed ease and prosperity. (3.) Nor does the Lord desire that the law of righteousness should be made manifest by us only, say the apostles here. It has also been his good pleasure that it should appear and shine by means of the Romans: for they also have believed in the Lord, and have forsaken polytheism and unrighteousness; and they cherish the good, and punish the bad.' Cotelerius in his notes says: certainly this could not be said by the apostles. And if it could be made out, that it might be truly said, at some season before there were Christian emperors, [which cannot be easily done:] it would not be very material. d с (4.) The ease and prosperity of Christians appear in the description that is given of a church. Let the building be oblong, pointing eastward, with vestries on each side at the east end, that it may be like a ship: let the bishop's throne be placed in the middle: on each side of him [or that] let the presbyters sit: let the deacons stand near in short and light garments: let the 'reader stand upon an eminence.' And what follows. e (5.) In another place and book: When this is done, let the deacons bring the gifts to the bishop at the altar; and let the presbyters stand on his right hand, and on his left, as disciples. ⚫ stand before their master: and let two deacons on each side the altar hold a fan made of thin 'membranes, or of the feathers of a peacock, or of fine cloth: and let them silently keep off the ⚫ small animals that fly about, that they may not get into the cups. Let the high priest, therefore, with the priests, pray by himself, and being clothed with his splendid garment, and standing at the altar, let him make the sign of the cross with his hand upon his forehead before, all the people.' And what follows. This is particularly said to be a Constitution of James the brother of John, and son of Zebedee. But who can think, that such state and grandeur were brought into the church in his time, who was beheaded by Herod Agrippa within ten or twelve years after our Lord's ascension; Yea, who can think, that such a method of celebrating the eucharist was introduced in the time of any of Christ's apostles? (6.) I might likewise object to the style of this and many other passages of this work. For it cannot be shewn, that the Christian writers of the apostolical age, or soon after it, called Christian Ministers, high priests,' or 'priests,' or Levites:' nor that they called the communion-table the altar. Moreover it is now generally allowed, that in the first and second centuries, Christians had not any regular or spacious buildings to meet in. (7.) Another Constitution, shewing the church to be at ease is this: When you teach the 'people, O bishop, command them to come to church morning and evening every day-do you mentis scilicet, Polycarpi, Justini, vocabula pontificis, sacerdotum, Levitarum, Christiano clero significando numquam usurparunt. Neque magis Clementinæ ætatis est vocabulum Surias piov, altare, ad eucharistiæ mensam indicandam. Basnag. Ann. 100. n. xii. ὅτι μεν των αποσόλων ὅτε ή εκκλησία εκομα μεν χαριστ μασι πνευματικοις, εβρυε δε πολιτεια λαμπρα, εκκλησιαστρια 8x . x. λ. Isid. Peius. Ep. 1. ii. n. 246. At forte sic legendum: όεε ρυε δε πολιτεια, λαμπρα εκκλησιαςήρια εκ ην. h L. ii. c. 59. assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms, and praying in 'the Lord's house.-But especially on the sabbath-day, and on the Lord's-day, do you meet together more diligently.' (8.) Again: 1 Paul and I Peter ordain as follows: Let slaves [or servants] work six days; but on the sabbath-day, and the Lord's-day, let them have leisure to go to church to be instructed in religion.-Ånd in the whole great week, and in that which follows, let servants ⚫ cease from work; because that is the week of Christ's passion, this of his resurrection. Let them also rest on the day of Christ's ascension, because it is the conclusion of the dispensation by Christ. Let them rest on Pentecost, because of the coming of the Spirit which was given to believers. Let them also rest from labour on the feast of the Nativity, and on the day of Epiphany. Let them also rest on the days of the apostles, and the day of Stephen the protomartyr, and on the days of other martyrs, who loved Jesus Christ above their own lives.' (9.) Possibly some may (though without reason) pretend, or suspect, that the latter part of this Constitution is an interpolation. I therefore now insist only on the former part of it, so far as relates to servants resting on the sabbath-day, Lord's-day, the great week, and the week following, and the day of Christ's ascension, and the day of Pentecost.' And it seems to me, that neither Peter, nor Paul, nor any of the apostles, could deliver such Constitutions relating to slaves or servants: such rules could not be proposed in the time of the apostles, and at the first planting of the Christian religion in the world. By the Roman laws servants were as much the property of their masters, as any other part of their estate: they could use them as they pleased; and had the power of life and death till the time of Antoninus the pious, who, by his constitution, restrained or abrogated it. For it is there said: Qui sine causa servum suum occiderit, non minus puniri jubetur, quam si servum alienum occiderit. Inst. 1. i. tit. 8. De his, qui sui, vel alieni juris sunt. Or, if we may credit Spartian, this had been done by his immediate predecessor Adrian. His words are these: Servos a dominis occidi vetuit, & jussit damnari per judices, si digni essent, Spart. in vit. Adrian. cap. 18. But as those laws were not made till after the times of the apostles, nothing can be more absurd, than to imagine they would lay any such injunction upon slaves, as would deprive their masters two days in seven of their labour, beside other occasional days. Nothing could have more prejudiced them against the Christian religion, than such an attempt upon their property: nor could any thing have been more cruel to slaves, many of whom must doubtless have lost their lives, had they complied with any such Constitution of the apostles: and it may be reckoned contrary to what St. Paul enjoins 1 Tim. vi. 1. "Let as many servants as are under the yoke, count their own masters worthy of all honour, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed." (10.) Christian bishops are here supposed to have tribunals, or courts of judicature. They are directed to hold their courts on the second day of the week, or Monday; and the deacons and presbyters are to be present: that is, as Daillé observes, here is a reference to a privilege allowed by Christian emperors, not till long after the death of the Apostles. с b (11.) The great number of days distinguished and appointed either for fasts and feasts (as we partly saw in a late quotation) shews this work of the Constitutions to be later than the times: of the apostles. These appointments are contrary to the doctrine of Paul in his well known epistles, and also to the well known practice of the church in the second and third centuries. The Christians had in carly times some days of fasting and feasting, but they were not so numerous as those here appointed; nor were they unanimous in the manner of keeping them; nor dothey seem generally to have thought them of apostolical appointment, but rather, as Jerom says, counsels of wise men, or institutions answering some good ends and purposes. That all did not think them of apostolical appointment, may be reckoned very probable from the judgment of Socrates formerly taken notice of. Augustine declares: I perceive the gospel teaches us to g See Rom. xiv. 6. Gal. iv. 10. Col. ii. 15, 16. f Jejunia & congregationes inter dies propter eos a viris prudentibus constitutos, qui magis sæculo vacent quam Deo. Hieron. in Galat. iv. 10. Ego in evangelicis & apostolicis literis, totoque instrumento, quod appellatur Testamentum Novum, animo id revolvens, video præceptum esse jejunium. Quibus autem diebus non oporteat jejunare, & quibus oporteat, præcepto с b d fast; but I do not see, that in any part of the New Testament, either Christ or his apostles have appointed on what days we should fast, and on what not to fast. And Tertullian represents the catholic doctrine of his time about fasts much in the same manner. As for festivals, Origen in the third century mentions but three, Lord's-days, Easter, and Pentecost. I hope I need not enlarge here; but I refer to Daillé and Turner, who have fully considered the point. And Daillé having summarily enumerated the fasts and feasts of the Constitutions, and put down. their assertion, that every one is guilty of sin, who fasts on the Lord's-day, or the day of Pentecost, or, in a word, on any festival of the Lord,' says very well, that the Constitutions, which have distinguished almost every day in the year, either as a fast or a feast, could not come from the apostles of Christ. Indeed the great apostle Paul says to the Colossians, ch. ii. 16, and in them, I suppose, to all Christians in general, "Let no man judge you in your meat, or drink, or in respect of an holiday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbaths." But these apostles [whether false apostles, or true, let any man determine], make no scruple of judging men on such accounts. (12.) Before I quite leave this point, I would take some particular notice of the respect shewn in these Constitutions for the sabbath, or seventh day of the week. h They ordain, that by all Christians in general, the sabbath and the Lord's-day should be kept as festivals: that every sabbath in the year, except one, and every Lord's-day, be kept with joy, without making them days of mourning, or fasting: that servants should cease from labour, and come to church on the sabbath, and the Lord's-day, that Christians in general should assemble together for worship on every day, but especially on the sabbath, and the Lord's-day. i Concerning these particulars I would say, that the apostles of Christ never gave such instructions about keeping the sabbath. Secondly, that they are more suitable to the fourth or fifth centuries, than to the most early times of Christianity. First, the apostles of Christ never gave such instructions about keeping the sabbath. That the apostles did not appoint the keeping of the sabbath as a feast, and forbid fasting thereon, is evident hence, that Christians in general never reckoned themselves bound by any such rule. This will appear from observations of Petavius, which I place below: to which I shall add a passage from a letter of St. Jerom. Domini vel apostolorum non inveni definitum. Ad Casul. ep. 36. al. 76. cap. xi. T. 2. a Itaque de cætero differenter jejunandum ex arbitrio, non ex imperio disciplinæ, pro temporibus & causis uniuscujusque. Sic & apostolos observâsse, nullum aliud imponentes jugum certorum & in commune omnibus obeundorum jejuniorum. De Jejun. cap. 2. p. 702. A. • Εαν δε τις προς ταυλα ανθυποφέρη τα περί των παρ' ἡμῖν κυριακών, η παρασκευών, η το πασχα, η της πεντηκοσης. Contr. Cels. 8. p. 758. F. Bened. < Vid. de Pseudep. Ap. 1. i. cap. x. xi. d As before, p. 242–258. Cum hoc vero et indubitato apostolorum dogmate equidem non video, qui conciliari possint illæ tam multæ de perpetuis certorum dierum aut jejuniis aut non jejuniis leges. İlli enim & hebdomadam quidem antepaschalem, & quadragesimam, & quartam sextamque cojusvis hebdomadis ferias ab omnibus Christianis jejunari lege in perpetuum lata præcipiunt. Alterâ vero ex parte tum sabbatum, tum Dominicam diem, & omnes quinquaginta a Paschate ad Pentecostem dies, adhæc Natalis Dominici diem, &c.- -hos, inquam omnes dies jejunio funestari vetant, et si quis uno ex iis jejunârit, eum deliquisse, piaculumque commeritum pronunciant. L. v. c. xx. fin. Ενοχος γαρ άμαρτίας εσαι ὁ την κυριακήν νησεύων, η την πεντηκος ην, -Mitto rei ipsins absurditatem, atque ineptiam. Hoc unum dico, nihil minus istos esse, quam Christi apostolos, qui omnem fere totius anni diem vel jejunii mærori, vel prandii lætitiæ addicunt, ac mancipant, &c. Dall. de Pseud. ic xi. p. 141, 142. To cabsalov pevîòi nai tyy nupianny éoplagele. L. vii. c. 23. p. 369. 6 Παν μεν το σαββαίον, ανευ το ένος, και πάσαν κυριακην k Emileevles ouvotes auppanerte. x. λ. L. v. cap. 20. p. 327. i * Σαββαίον δε και κυριακήν σχολαζείωσαν εν τη εκκλησία, δια την διδασκαλίαν της ευσέβειας. L. viii. c. 33. in. p. 414. -μαλιςα δε εν τη ήμερα το σαββαίε, και εν τῇ τα κύρια ανασασιμῳ τη κυριακή, σπεδαιοτέρως απαναίε. L. ii. c. 59. p. 268. * Non enim ubique, nec in totâ ecclesiâ, sabbatum jejunii expers fuit. Etenim Romani, quod Socrates lib. v, cap. xxii. scripsit, παν σαββαΐον νησεύεσι. De quo fusissime Augustinus ep 80. & 118. [al. 36. ad Casulan. & 54. ad Januar.] Quare nulla est ab apostolis edita sanctio, quâ jejunium eo die prohiberetur, uti Augustinus asserit in ep. 118. ubi in rebus hujusmodi negat quidquam esse vel scripturæ sanctæ auctoritate,' vel universalis ecclesiæ traditione determinatum.' Quâ qui, dem præscriptione tamquam spurius & alienus canon ille rejicitur, qui inter apostolicos 68 numeratur: El Tis HAYPIXOS ευρέθη την κυριακήν ήμεραν νησεύων, η το σαββατον, πλην τ8 ἕνας μονα, καθαιρείσθω· ει δε λαϊκος, αφοριζέσθω. Non potest hoc ab apostolis communi esse decreto constitutum.- -Nec. melioris notæ sunt, quæ in Apost. Constit. leguntur l. vii. c. 28. [sec. 23.] ubi τα σαββαλα και τας κυριακὰς ἑορταζειν præcipit. Quod ab apostolis toti ecclesiæ numquam esse præscriptum, sanctissimorum patrum consensus approbavit. Petav. Animadv. in Epiphan. p. 359. 1 De Sabbato quod quæris, utrum jejunandum sit, sed ego illud breviter te admonendum puto, traditiones ecclesiasticas (præsertim quæ fidei non officiant) ita observandas, ut a' majoribus traditæ sunt.- Atque utinam omni tempore jejunare possimus, quod in Actibus apostolorum die Pente. costes & die Dominico apostolum Paulum, & cum eo credentes, fecisse legimus. Hier. ep. 52. al. 28. p. 579. in. |