Constitutions. He observes: "The Audians bring as proofs the Constitution of the Apostles, being indeed with many not accredited, nevertheless not to be rejected; for the whole canonical order is comprehended in it, and nothing hostile to the gospel, nor to the administration, canon, or faith of the church." Afterwards he says, "The church observes the feast of the passover, appointed even from the apostles, in the Siaragis, constitution, &c."P "And if it becomes us to recite that of the diaragis, constitution of the apostles, how, &c." He also says: "With respect to the beard, the divine word and doctrine direct in the constitutions (Ev tais diaražeci) of the apostles, not to corrupt it," &c. That there existed a book in the days of Epiphanius, known by the name that has been mentioned, is a fair inference from his expressions. The silence of Eusebius, and of Jerom, who was the friend of Epiphanius, avails nothing against this positive testimony; but when compared with the suspicions, which Epiphanius more than once has expressed, the inference is just, that they allowed them not to be genuine. The circumstance, also, that he never mentions them in the catalogues of the sacred writings, evinces that he did not believe them to have been written by the apostles, whose inspiration extended to all they said and wrote, relative to the cause of Christ. They have been mentioned in no passage in the sacred Scriptures, by none of the fathers, councils, or ecclesiastical writers of the first century; although the things they contain must have been highly impor ο Εις τούτο δε οι αυτοι Ανδιανοι παραφέρουσι την αποστολων διαλαξιν, ουσαν μεν τοις πολλοίς εν αμφίλεκτῳ, αλλα ουκ αδόκιμον, πασα γαρ εν αυτη κανονική τάξις εμφερεται, και ουδεν παρα κεχαραγμενον της πισω λεως, ουδε της εκκλησιαστικης διοκησεως, και κανονος, και πισίεως. Hær. 70. S. 10. p Ibid. S. 12. r Hær. 80. S. 7. q Hær. 75. S. 6. • Vide Sec. vii. ante; concerning The Apostolical Tradition," referred to Hippolytus, which identifies itself with the 8th book of the Constitutions. tant on different occasions, particularly to Origen, Tertullian, and Cyprian. In the Constitutions there is a direction to read the gospel of John, but that gospel was not written till after the deaths of Peter and Paul, and other apostles, in whose time and presence these Constitutions claim to have been written. Simon Magus is asserted in the Constitutions," to have been baptized by Philip the apostle, but the history of the Acts shows that it was by Philip the deacon or evangelist. In the Constitutions, the apostle Peter is made to speak of Clement, as bishop and citizen of Rome, and also of the heretic Basilides, and others. But neither was Clement, bishop of Rome, nor Basilides known as a heretic in the life-time of Peter. They contain many names of bishops ordained by Peter, Paul, Mark, and others, several of whom must have come into office after the days of the apostles. If those books in the Greek language, which are now called "The Apostolical Constitutions, by Clement,” Διαταγαι των αγιων Αποςτολων δια Κλημεντος, be the same which Epiphanius approved, and the Trullian council afterwards rejected, they are an argument of his weakness and prejudices; if they are different, they merit no regard, and, under either aspect, they become a miserable specimen of human depravity. t Lib. vi. c. 7. u Lib. vi. c. 7. w Lib. vii. c. 58. SECTION XVII. Dionysius, the Areopagite, was not the writer of the volumes, which bear his name; both things and terms are freely used in them, which existed not till centuries afterwards. They may have been written in the fourth or fifth century. That the writer spoke falsely with respect to his age and time is certain; but wrote with more than ordinary talent. By what writers presbyters were first accounted priests. The mode of ordination of a bishop in them differs from that in the apostolical constitutions.-John Chrysostom, his character. Correct as to the origin of episcopacy, but mistakes some Scriptures. -Isidore of Pelusium, a monk and layman; his letters laconic and severe. Uses επισκοπος and προεστως in the same sense. DIONYSIUS, the Areopagite, who heard Paul at Athens, has been deemed by Nicephorus, Gregory the great, Baronius, and many others, the writer of the books which bear his name. According to these, he received a liberal education, and went into Egypt a little before the death of Christ, where he witnessed that eclipse of the sun which happened at the crucifixion, when the moon was full. The writer affirms, he was then in his twenty-fifth year; he nevertheless appears to have survived Ignatius and Trajan. The genuineness of these writings, which have received the scholia of Maximus, and paraphrase of Pachymeras, in the Greek; and the annotations of Corderius in Latin, has been a matter of dispute through the last twelve centuries. The reasons furnished by Baronius, wherefore they were not mentioned by Eusebius and Jerom, are plausible; and his opinion, that the Clement named in them was not Alexandrinus, is probable. But his answer to the objection of Theodorus, preserved by Photius, that they exhibit an account of a Acts xvii. 34. those traditions which grew up in the church, by degrees and at distant periods, is unsatisfactory. Neither is it conceivable that these books, which so plainly assert the doctrine of the Trinity, should never have been cited in the disputes with the Arians, nor that Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Augustine, who mentioned. the Dionysius of Athens, should have concealed, if acquainted with, his writings. These works are probably those of a Platonistic Christian, mystically but argumentatively written, in good style, and with a free use of terms introduced by the disputants of the fourth century. Some have imagined that Dionysius, not the Areopagite converted by Paul, but the patron of the Franks, who were different men, of different periods, was the author of these works. About the commencement of the fifth century we may with probability place them; and supposing them the works of an anonymous and disingenuous writer, yet was he a man of more than ordinary talents and information; they are entitled to notice therefore, subject to these qualifications. Not a solitary instance has been observed, rejecting the captions, wherein this writer uses the words ERIOKOROS, ACEGBUTεgos, diaxovos, bishop, presbyter, or deacon; but instead of them, ιεραρχης ιερευς and λειτουργος, governor of priests, priest and minister; gagns is a refinement upon αρχιερευς not found in the New Testament: ιερευς never there occurs for an officer under the gospel, nor Arougyos for the deacon. The term priest does rarely, if in any instance, appear for an officer in the church of Christ, in Clemens Rom., Justin Martyr, Clemens Alexandr., Origen, Gregory Thaum., Lactantius, or in either of the Hilarys. Irenæus infers from Levi's having no inheritance but the priesthood, that the apostles, forsaking the b Blondel and Lardner places them at A. D. 490. Pearson, 330. S. Basnage and Daille, 520. Cave, 360. And others at different intermediate periods. fields, became the priests of God. Tertullian argues, that because Christ, is a high priest, those who are baptized into Christ, having put on Christ, are, according to the apocalypse, priests to God the Father. But neither of these writers has usually adopted the word priest for presbyter in his writings. Minutius Felix observes, that Christians had neither temples nor altars except their hearts, nor images, nor purple, nor dignities. Cyprian and Ambrose have used the terms priest and priesthood for the preaching office in the gospel, but do not ordinarily make the substitution. The principal and distinguishing character of the ordination of a bishop, wɛgagans, at the time of the writing of these books, appears to have been, "the imposition of the Scriptures upon his head, which neither of the lower orders received." But it was at this period accompanied by laying on of hands, which neither appears in the constitutions, nor in the Traditions of Hippolytus. The present form of the ordination of bishops fell into practice at some later period, by the mere omission of that which was the earliest but unauthorized ceremony, of holding the Scriptures over the head of a presbyter, when appointed to preside. If imposition of hands is thought in our day to communicate either gifts or graces, experience will prove the reverse. And in the ordination of the gagxns, it was not originally a constituent. Ordination, even when rightful, confers neither knowledge nor purity; and though at first followed by extraordinary gifts, it was no doubt intended as an exclusion of persons unqualified from the offices of presbyter and deacon. Designations to presidency among presbyters were variously effected in different places. The duties were long merely parochial, even after the name of bishop с • Εξαίρετα δε και εκκρίτα τοις Ιεράρχαις μεν η των λογίων επικεφαλής επίθεσις ουκ εχοντων τούτο των ωφειμένων ταγματων. Vol. i. p. 364. d Vide p. 64 ante. |