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.)

FOOTNOTES:

[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.)