Page:1902 Encyclopædia Britannica - Volume 25 - A-AUS.pdf/549

 APOSTOLICAL

CONSTITUTIONS

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. (6) There will be a strong tendency to fortify that which has l/een 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 has scarcely been adequately realized yet. 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. 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 Other col- pr[Vate individuals, and having, at any rate, no lections. more than a local authority of some kind. (®) The earliest known to us is the Didache or Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, itself compiled from earlier materials, and dating from, at any rate, the earlier half of the 2nd century [Teaching of the Apostles]. (&) The Apostolic Church Order (apostolische Kirchenordnung of German writers); “ Ecclesiastical Canons of the Holy Apostles of one MS.; Sententiae Apostolorum of Pitra : of the 3rd century, and emanating probably from Upper Egypt. 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 Egyptian or Roman and of the beginning 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

501

Roman synod. (d) The so-called Egyptian Church Order, now extant only in a fragmentary Latin version recently published by Hauler, and as part of two larger collections; the former (sometimes called the Egyptian Church Ordinances) being cc. 31-62 of the Sahidic Ecclesiastical Canons, and the latter being stat. 2171 of the Ethiopic Statutes of the Apostles. It is apparently of the end of the 3rd century or beginning of the 4th. (e) The recently-discovered Testament of the Lord, which is somewhat later in date, and likewise depends upon the Canones Hippolyti [Testament of the Lord]. (/) The so-called Canons of Basil. [On the relations between the four last-named, see Canons of Hippolytus.] {g) 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, as we shall see, the Constitutions themselves very largely depend, {h) A number of shorter fragments, published by Lagarde, Pitra, and others. If) The Apostolical Constitutions.—At a later date various collections were made of the documents above mentioned, or some of them, to serve as law-books in different churches—e.g., the Syrian Octateuch, the Egyptian Heptateuch, and the Ethiopic Suiodos. These, however, stand on an entirely different footing, since they are simply collections of existing documents, and no attempt is made to claim apostolic authorship for them. 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. Coateats 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, nepl yapio-p-drcov, may be based upon a lost work of St Hippolytus, otherwise known only by a reference to it in the preface of the Latin version of the Egyptian Church Order; and an examination shows that this is highly probable. The next section, cc. 3-27, Ttep'i xeiporovicov, and cc. 28-46, jrepl Kttvdvoiv, 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.