A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

Of the Canons and Constitutions attributed to the Apostles.

THE Opinions of Authors are extremely divided, as to the Canons that are commonly called Apostolical. Turrianus and some others have determined, that they were all com∣posed by the Apostles: Baronius and Bellarmine except the 35 last, which are rejected by * 1.1 them as Apocryphal, but they have made no difficulty to admit the first 50. Gabriel Al∣baspinaeas Bishop of Orleans, and others, have believed, that although these Canons are not written by the Apostles, yet that they were very ancient, as being properly a Collection of the Canons of divers Councils that were holden before that of Nice; this Opinion is likewise maintained by the Learned Dr. Beverege, in a Book lately published by him, Entituled, Vindiciae Canonum, &c. calling by this Name the Collection of 85 Canons attributed to the Apostles. Lastly, M. Daille affirms, that these Canons are not only falsly ascribed to the Apostles, but are also of a much later date, and were not collected until about the end of the Fifth Century. We shall now proceed to examine these O∣pinions, and to establish that of Albaspinaeus, which seems to be most probable.

It is not very difficult to prove, that these Canons were not compiled by the Apostles themselves; we need only peruse them, to be convinced, that they contain divers things that never were, nor indeed could be decreed by the Apostles a 1.2; some whereof relate to certain Questions that were not debated until many years after their death b 1.3. But it ought to be observed, that they are usu∣ally styled by the ancient Writers, Ancient Canons, Canons of the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Canons; Titles that are likewise prefixed to them in several Manuscripts, as Cotelerius has observed: And if they are sometimes called or entituled Apostolical, it cannot be upon the account of their belonging to the Apostles; but it is sufficient that some of them have been made by Bishops that presided over the Church a little after the Apostles, because they that lived at that time were generally cal∣led Apostolical Men. The Author of the Apostolical Constitutions is the first that attributed these Canons to the Apostles, and he hath said some things to induce us to believe, that they were actual∣ly composed by the Apostles c 1.4. Therefore these Canons are not the Work of an Impostor, who hath forged them under the Name of the Apostles, but only a Collection, that hath been falsly im∣puted to them, that it might be esteemed more Authentick: And I am apt to believe, that no Per∣son

was more capable of performing this Artifice, than the above-cited Author of the Apostolical Constitutions d 1.5, who hath in like manner ascribed many other Writings to the Apostles, and hath inserted these Canons entire in his third Book.

As for the Antiquity of them, it is apparent that they are very ancient, and that a great part of them (if not all) were decreed by Councils that were holden before that of Nice: For first, they do not contain any thing (according to my judgment) but what is conformable to the Discipline that was observed in some Churches at the end of the second Century, throughout the third, and in the beginning of the fourth. Secondly, they comprehend certain Ordinances that are known to have been made in those times: As for Example; There is a Canon that prohibits the Celebration of the Feast of Easter with the Jews, now we are assured, that this was Decreed in divers Synods assembled in the time of Pope Victor. Moreover there are three, wherein the Baptism of Hereticks is rejected, as void and of no effect, which is declared by Firmilian and Dionysius Alexandrinus to have been de∣termined in the Councils of Sy•…•…a and Iconium, that were holden some time before them. But who can believe, that these Canons were made or counterfeited at a time when Persons baptized by Hereticks were generally admitted without re-baptizing them? And it cannot be imagined, that they were forged by St. Cyprian, or Firmilian, on purpose to authorize their Discipline; it is much more reasonable to believe, that they really are the very Canons of the Synods of Iconium and Synnada, which have been falsly attributed to the Apostles, not by these Saints, but by later Authors. Third∣ly, It is clearly proved, that the greatest part of these Canons are more ancient than the Council of Nice, because they are often cited in this Council, and those that were conven'd not long after, as well as by the Authors who wrote in the fourth Century e 1.6, under the name of Ancient Laws, Ca∣nons of the Fathers, Ecclesiastical Canons, and even Apostolical, which is different from what they call Customs, Manners, or Discipline, concerning which there are no written Rules or Injunctions. There∣fore it is certain, that these Canons are ancient, that they have been erroneously ascribed to the Apo∣stles, and that they are a Collection of Ordinances of divers ancient Synods that were holden before the Council of Nice, but it is not known when this Collection was made, nor who collected it, nor even whether it consists of those 85 Canons that are now extant, or of a lesser number. However, it is probable, that it was compiled at several times, and that some Canons have been successively ad∣ded, because no order is observed therein, as also because that the Canons relating to one and the same Subject are often found separated, besides some Contradictions.

The Objections propounded by Mr. Daillé against the Apostolical Canons, manifestly prove against Turrianus that they were not composed by the Apostles, but they do not in the least impugn our opinion. As for Example; It is objected by him, That there are in these Canons certain terms that were not usual in the time of the Apostles, as Clerk, Lecturer, Laick, Metropolitan, &c. But he cannot deny that these terms were used in the third Age of the Church. That which is ordained concerning Lent, and against fasting on Sundays or the Sabbath, may belong to the third Century since the same things are found in the Works of Tertullian. The Canons against those that make

themselves Eunuchs, might be composed by Demetrius against the Error of Origen. The Canons concerning Easter, are apparently those of the Councils that were convened under Victor; and others relating to the Baptism of Hereticks, are probably those of the Councils of Synnada and Iconium. Upon the perusal of all the Objections alledged by M. Daillé, it will appear, that although they are ex∣tremely weighty against the Opinion of Turrianus, yet they are of no force against ours f 1.7.

It ought then to be esteemed as certain, that not only the first 50 Canons, but likewise the fol∣lowing 35. are very ancient, though they do not belong to the Apostles. Therefore they have been always much esteemed by the Greeks, as being of great Authority. Joannes Antiochenus, who lived in the time of the Emperor Justinian, hath inserted them in his Collection of Canons; and they are commended by Justinian himself in his sixth Novel. They are in like manner approved in the Synod that was holden in the Imperial Palace after the fifth General Council; cited in the seventh Oecumenial Council, and allowed by St. Joannes Damascenus, and Photius, but with this difference, that the first, who was no great Critick, attributed them to the Apostles, and the other that was more quick-sighted in these matters, doubted whether they belonged to them. However they have not always met with the same Reception among the Latins. Cardinal Humbert hath rejected them, and Gelasius hath placed them amongst the Apocryphal Books, as well because they were falsely ascribed to the Apostles, as because he found among them some Canons, that authorised the opinion of St. Cyprian concerning the Baptism of Hereticks. Hinchmar favourably ex∣plains Gelasius's Notion, declaring, that he did not insert them among those Books that were Apo∣cryphal and full of Errors, but only in the number of those, with respect to which this Rule of St. Paul ought to be observed, Try all things, and hold fast that which is good. Dionysius Exiguus hath translated the first 50, and hath prefixed them to his Collection, taking notice however, that some Persons would not acknowledge them; and perhaps this is the reason that Martinus Braccarensis would not admit them into his Collection of Canons; but Isidore hath made no difficulty to afford them a place in his, and ever since they have been always accounted as a part of the Canon Law. It is further to be observed, that as soon as they appeared in France, they were generally well re∣ceived there, and were first urged in the cause of Praetextatus under the Reign of King Chilperic, wherein their Authority was allowed, as we are informed by Gregorius Turonensis in the fifth Book of his History, Chap. 19. where he takes notice, that there was an Appendix added to the Collection of Canons, which contained certain Canons, as being writ by the Apostles, quasi Apostolicos, and cites one of them, which is the 25th Apostolical, but according to a different Version from that of Dionysius Exi∣guus. Lastly, Hinchmar Bishop of Rheims observes, that they were annexed to the beginning of a Collection of Canons compiled for the use of the Church of France, separately from the others, and as for their Authority and Antiquity, he is altogether of our opinion, which he explains in these words, in the 24th Canon. The Canons (says he) that are called Apostolical, collected by some Christians, were written in a time when the Bishops could not freely assemble together, nor hold Councils; they contain ma∣ny things that may be allowed, but they likewise establish others that ought not to be observed.

I cannot say the same thing of the Apostolical Constitutions, as I have done of the Canons, viz. that they are not supposititious, but that in process of time a false Title happened to be attributed to them; for the Author of the Constitutions is an Impostor, that endeavours every where to pass for Clement a Disciple of the Apostles, and who imputes to them all in general, and to every one in par∣ticular, divers Ordinances that are in no wise consonant to the Apostolical ones; such are those con∣cerning Churches built in the form of Temples, Catechumens, Energumens, Fasts, Liturgies, Unction,

〈◊〉〈◊〉 for the 〈◊〉〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉〈◊〉; The Ordination of Deacons and Deaconesses; Vir∣gin••, Confessors, 〈◊〉〈◊〉; The 〈◊〉〈◊〉 of Oyl and Water; The First-Fruits of Tyths, Festi∣val Days, the Celebration of Easter, 〈◊〉〈◊〉 many other things that were not practised in the time of the Apostles, not to mention a great number of Absurdities and Mistakes of time, together with some Errors that are contained 〈◊〉〈◊〉 g 1.8, which evidently demonstrates beyond contradiction, that these Constitutions were not composed by Apostles, and 〈◊〉〈◊〉 that they do not belong to St. Clement, as we shall shew more at large in discoursing concerning the Works o•• this Father, where we shall likewise endeavour to discover at what time they were forg'd.

I shall add nothing concerning the Nine Canone that are also attributed to the Apostles, and are reported to have been made by them in a certain Council of Antioch unknown to all Antiquity; be∣cause there is no question but that they are fictitious; neither are they at present maintained by any h 1.9.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Apostolical Canons and Constituti∣ons.
• a 1.2

  DIverse things that never were, nor indeed could be established by the Apostles.] In the first Canon it is Decreed, that a Bishop should not be Ordained but by two or three Bishops; whereas it is certain, that in the time of the Apostles one single Bishop was sufficient to Ordain another. In the third it is determined, that the First-Fruits should be so presented to the Bishop and Priest, as that they should be brought immediately to them, and not offered on the Altar. In the fourth it is provided, that Oil and Incense only should be offered on the Altar. Now it is not probable, that any such things were offered in the time of the Apostles. In the fifth Canon it is ordained that the Feast of Easter should not be cele∣brated after the Jewish manner: If this had been de∣termined by the Apostles, the Controversy between Victor and the Asiaticks might have been easily deci∣ded; but it was not, and Victor only alledg'd the Tradition of his Ancestors: In like manner the 21. Canon against those that made themselves Eunuchs would have been produced by Demetrius against Ori∣gen, and Origen's action would not have been justified by Alexander and Theoctistus, if there had been then extant a Canon of the Apostles, that had so precisely forbidden it. In the 34th and 35th Canons mention is made of the right of Metropolitans, and of the di∣stinction of Bishopricks, which were not fixed at that time. In the 50th Canon it is decreed, that he that did not baptize or dip a Child twice in the Water should be deposed; This practice, though very anci∣ent, is later than the Apostolical times. The 52d is against the Errors of the Montanists and Novatians. The 60th is against Books forged by the Hereticks af∣ter the death of the Apostles. And the 66th is against the Sabbatical Fast. The 69th regulates fasting in Lent. In the following Canons are contained several Injunctions concerning Oil, Vessels of Gold and Sil∣ver, and Vails consecrated in Churches, things that were not known in the time of the Apostles. The last Canon comprehends a Catalogue of Sacred Books which could not be written by the Apostles. In the 45th, 46th, and 47th Canons the Baptism of Hereticks is rejected as null and void. This question was not resolved by the Apostles. Moreover the style of these Canons is not like the Apostles; and the matter is very different from that which was usually treated by them; neither were the names of Clerk, Bishop, Altars, Sacrifice, &c. so common in the Apostolical times.
• b 1.3

  Questions that were not debated until many years after their death.] Viz. The questions relating to the Feast of Easter, the Baptism of Hereticks, as also concerning those that make themselves Eunuchs; those that would not admit Sinners to repentance; those that fast on Sundays, &c. Vide supra.
• c 1.4

  To induce us to believe that they were actually composed by the Apostles.] As for Example in the 29th Canon, where it is ordained, that those Bishops that should obtain the Episcopal Dignity by Money, should be deposed, as Simon was by St. Peter; he hath added by me Peter. For these words are not found in the Epistle of Tarasius to Pope Adrian, nor in the Edition of Dionysius Exiguus. Moreover in the 5th Canon, we read at present the Lord hath declared unto us; whereas in the Greek Manuscripts, and in the Edition of Zonaras and Balsamon, it is simply expressed, the Lord hath declared; and in that of Jo∣annes Antiochenus, Our Lord hath declared. Lastly in the 82d Canon there is this expression, as our Brother Onesimus, and in the last, our Acts, where it ought to be read simply as in the Arabick Paraphrase, as O∣nesimus, and the Acts of the Apostles.
• d 1.5

  I am apt to believe that no person was more ca∣pable of performing this Artifice.] It is suitable to the temper of this Author, who designed to pass every where for a Disciple of the Apostles; for which rea∣son he has given us divers Constitutions under their name, attributing to every Apostle some particular Constitutions and Liturgies, at the end whereof he annexed these Canons with the above-mentioned ad∣ditions; and he likewise adds in the name of the A∣postles: This is what we thought fit to command you O ye Bishops, continue to observe these things.
• e 1.6

  They are often cited.] In the first Canon of the Council of Nice, the second of the Apostles is alled∣ged, concerning those that make themselves Eunuchs, and in the fifth Canon of the same Council, the 12th and 32d is cited relating to Excommunication. In the ninth Canon of the Council of Antioch the 34th is quoted concerning the Metropolitan; in the 20th Canon of the same, the 10th about Excommunicati∣on; in the 21st Canon, the 14th prohibiting Bishops to leave their Diocesses; and in the 23d Canon the 76th, that a Successor. ought not to be elected. In the Synod of Constantinople convened in the year 394, the 14th Apostolical Canon is quoted, of the Juris∣diction of Bishops. In the Council of Ephesus, Acts 7. col. 788. we find the 35th cited concerning Ordi∣nations; and in Act. 1. the 74th is alledged relating to the three Admonitions that ought to precede Ec∣clesiastical Censure. Moreover Alexander in Theodoret, lib. 1. c. 4. cites the 12th, as also Athanasius, Epist. ad omnes Orthodoxos, where he likewise alludes to the 29th, 30th, and 75th Canons. The 34th is alledged by Arsenius, in like manner the 30th, 35th, and 81st are quoted by Pope Julius in his Epistle. St. Basil in the 43d Canon plainly cites the 24th of the Apostles, under the name of an ancient Canon; in the 12th Canon the 77th concerning Bigamy; and in the first the 47th relating to the Baptism of Hereticks. Last∣ly Theodotius in Cod. Lib. 3. de summâ Trinitate quotes the 17th under the name of an Apostolical Canon.

  M. Daillé replies, that all these Quotations do not relate to the Apostolical Canons, but to the Disci∣pline, Customs, and Traditions that proceeded from the Apostles; however this answer hath no probabili∣ty; for the word Canon signifies written Laws, and the Council of Nice distinguisheth Canons from Cu∣stoms, which are therein called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. More∣over M. Daillé adds, that certain Canons and ancient Laws are often cited that are not included in the A∣postolical, and he produceth two Examples, the first whereof is taken from the 13th Canon of the Nicene Council, and the 2d from the 21st of that of Ancyra. But first, the Apostolical or Ecclesiastical Canons are not cited by name in these two, but only in the first an ancient and Canonical Law or Custom, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, and in the second, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, an ancient definition. Secondly, nothing hinders but that these words may be understood of some ancient defi∣nitions of Synods; as for example, the Law wherein it was ordained to receive the Lapsi at the point of death, cited in the first Canon, was made in the Ea∣stern and African Churches before the Council of Nice, if we may give credit to the Testimony of Dio∣nysius Alexandrinus in Ep. ad Stephanum, produced by Eusebius, Lib. 7. chap. 4. and 5.
• f 1.7

  They are of no force against ours.] However, some of the most material of M. Daillé's Reasons may be objected to us; for instance, he affirms that St. Athanasius in the matter of Leontius the Eunuch, cites the Canon of the Council of Nice, and not the Apostolical, which shews (says he) that it was not as yet known: Moreover, that it is not quoted by St. Epiphanius against the Valesian Hereticks: That St. Basil reckons the triple immersion in Baptism a∣mongst the unwritten Traditions, and consequently, that the Canon of the Apostles in which it is ordai∣ned, was not composed in the time of this Father: That this Canon was made against those Hereticks that Baptized with a single Immersion, and that the Euno∣mians were the first that followed this practice. These are the Arguments of M. Daillé that can be urged a∣gainst us, but it is very easie to refute them. St. A∣thanasius cites the Apostolical Canon rather than that of Nice. St. Epiphanius produceth no Canon against the Valesians; but only the Holy Scripture. St. Basil and the other Fathers understand by unwritten Tradition all those matters that are not contained in the Sacred Writings. Lastly, the Canon concerning triple Immersion was not made against Hereticks, but to prevent the negligence of Priests. The 84th Ca∣non might indeed be objected with much more pro∣bability, wherein we find the Books of the Maccabees, together with the Epistles and Constitutions of St. Cle∣ment among the Canonical Writings. But it must be replied to this Objection, that this Canon is cor∣rupted, that the Books of the Maccabees are not ex∣tant in the Greek Copy of Joannes Antiochenus, and it may easily be discerned, that the Epistles and Constitutions of St. Clement, have been added by the Author of the Apostolical Constitutions, who endea∣voured to pass for St. Clement, to raise the reputation of this Book. It may be proved that this Canon is ancient, because the Books of the Old Testament that were not inserted in the Canon of the Jews, and the Revelation are omitted. Lastly, It is asserted against us, that these Canons were unknown to the Authors of the Fifth Century, that they are not cited by Eusebius, nor included in the C••dex Canonum of the Catholick Church; but all these Objections are frivolous, for the Ecclesiastical Writers of the fourth Age have often referred to these Canons. Eusebius indeed hath nor mentioned them, but neither doth he take notice of the Canons of the Nicene Council and in fine it is not to be wondred at that they are not found in the Code of the universal Church, which did not contain all the ancient Canons, no more than that of the African Church comprehended those that were made by St. Cy∣prian or Agrippinus.
• g 1.8

  A great number of Absurdities and mistakes of time, together with 〈◊〉〈◊〉 Er•••••• that 〈◊〉〈◊〉 contained there∣in.] As in Book 1. That the Beards of Women ought to be shaved, and not those of Men. In Book 2. Chap. 1. That all Bishops ought to be 50 years old. In Chap. 57. it is ordained, That the Gospel according to St. John should be read; which was not written un∣til the 97th year of our Lord, after the death of the Apostles. In Chap. 1••. the Author asserts, That the Bi∣shop presides over Kings and Magistrates; and in Book 3. Chap. 2. That third Marriages are an Intempe∣rance, and the fourth a manifest Debauchery. In Book 6. Chap. 6. mention is made of the Ebionites, whose Errors sprang up after the decease of the Apostles. In the 14th Chapter, James the Son of Zebedee is intro∣duced as present at Jerusalem after the time of his death. In Book 8. Chap. 4. it is declared, That the Constitu∣tions were made in the presence of St. Paul and the Seven Deacons; now it is certain, that St. Ste∣phen, one of the said Seven Deacons, died before the Conversion of St. Paul. In Book 1. Chap. 32. Female Slaves are permitted to suffer themselves to be deflowred by their Masters. Moreover this Author is accused of Arianism.
• h 1.9

  Neither are they maintained at present by any.] This Synod is unknown to St. Luke, and to all the an∣cients; for although it is said to be cited by Innocent I. Ep. 18. it is a mistake, since he only mentions the Council of Jerusalem; and whereas it is written, An∣tiochenam Ecclesiam quae meruit apud se celeberrimum Apostolorum Conventum. The Church of Antioch, which deservedly had the most famous Convention of the Apo∣stles celebrated there, it ought to be read propter se, near that City; for it is apparent, that this Pope spake concerning the Synod of Jerusalem, which was the most famous Convention of the Apostles. Moreover, not so much as one of the ancient Authors makes men∣tion of these Canons, and indeed they are altoge∣ther absurd: It is said in the first, that the Christians were called Galileans, a name that was not attributed to them until after the death of the Apostles. In the third Canon it is decreed, that the Christians should live Anagogically, a harsh and insignificant Term. In the 9th Canon the Synagogue is called Belluine; and in the 8th it is ordained, that there should be Images in the Churches, a practice that was not in use in the time of the Apostles. This Canon is cited by Grego∣rius Pessinuntius in the second Council of Nice, but it is well known that many Apocryphal Records were alledged in that Council.