Chapter I: Of the Apostolical Canons

Of the Apostolical Canons.

Sect. 1.

The Controversie about them. The Codex Canonum. What is meant by Apocryphal, and so by Genuine Canons. The two mistakes of the Praefacer, which produceth his Animadversion. What is meant by the title, Apostolical Canons. The Praefacers ungrounded suggestion against the writings of the first times.

Numb. [◊]. TO set out then, with all speed that may be, on this new Stage, not knowing of what length it may prove, the first Animadversion I finde my self concern'd in, is in these words.

The first Writings that are imposed on us after the Canonical Scriptures, are the eight Books of Clement, commonly called, The Apostles Constitutions, being pretended to be written by him at their appointment, with the Canons ascribed to the same persons. These we shall bu[•] salute; for besides that they are but faintly defended by any of the Papists, disavowed and disclaimed as Apocryphal by the most learned of them, as Bellarmine de Script. Eccles. in Clem. who approves only of fifty Canons of eighty five, Baronius, An. Dom. 102[•] 14. who addes thirty more, and Bi[•]ius with a little inlargement of Canons in Tit. C[•]n. T. 1. Con. p. 17. and have been throughly disproved and decryed by all Protestant writers that have had any occasion to deal with them; their folly, and falsity, their impostures & [•…]triflings have of late been so fully manifested by Dallaeus de Pseudepigrap[•]i[•] Apost. that nothing need be added thereunto. Of him may Doctor H. H. learn the truth of that insinuation of his, Dissert. 2 c 6. sect. 3. Canone Apostolico secundo (semper inter genninos habito) but of the confidence of this Author in his assertions afterward.

2. I am not here much surprised 1. with this charge of untruth; and 2. this promise, that my confidence in asserting shall be discovered, knowing that it was one of Aristotles insinuations in his Elenchs, at the beginning of a Dispute to endeavour to put the Respondent in passion, and then he might easily have fallacies imposed on him, [in non-Latin alphabet]. If this were his design, I have more reasons than that one, to hope his pardon, if I do not thus gratifie him. And although there be not one word said in this place, to prove either of these charges, but I am appointed to learn one from Mr. Daillé, whose book I have not been so curious as to see, and to expect the other afterwards from the Prefacer; yet being concerned to know that veracity and humility are my duties, as I am a Christian, and that I ought not to live one minute under the scandal of having offended against either of them, and having yet no motive to retract that expression in the Dissert. I am obliged to render an account of my using it. And it is this.

3. In the second Canon of the Council in Trullo. An. 681. I find a conciliarie affirmation of eighty five Canons under the title of [in non-Latin alphabet], the Canons of the holy and honourable Apostles before us. And what was there confirmed is farther ratified by the second Council of Nice, An. 787. which cites the 53d of those Canons. And this I take for a testimonie of the Eastern Churches reception of that number of 85 Apostolical Canons at that time. Whereas in the Western Churches, both before, and after this time, although the Canons of the Apostles were by the Eastern communicated to them, yet that number was not received, but in a Council of seventy Bishops at Rome, under Pope Gelasius, somewhat before 500 years after Christ, the Book of the Apostles Canons, was defined to be Apocryphal. By Apocryphal here I conceive to be meant such as are not obligatorie, w[•…]ch are not so owned, or received by the Church, as to be entered into Codex, ordinarily known by the name of Corpus Canonum[•] [in non-Latin alphabet], in Ph[•]ti[•]s his stile, The body of Synodical Canons, their [in non-Latin alphabet] in Justinia[•…] their Rule of Discipline, in like manner as the Books of Canonical Scripture (to which Justinian added the [in non-Latin alphabet], or definitions of the four first General Councils) made up their Rule of Doctrines. That there was such a Codex, we find in the fourth General Council (that of Chalcedon) when the Book of Canons, as well as the Bible, was solemnly brought in at the opening of the Council, and call'd for to be read before them as occasion required. And 'tis sufficiently known what Justellus observes, That the Christian Church was ruled of old by a double Law, Divine, the Books of the Canonical Scripture, and Canonical, the Codex of Canons: and those Canons that were not received into that Codex, though they might hold the authority due to antient pieces, be esteemed worthy the reading and observing, were yet stiled Apocryphal, that is, usefull, though not obligatory, reverenced for their Antiquity, but not allowed the power, or title of Laws, as the body of the Canons is known to be, [in non-Latin alphabet], we observe them as Laws, says Justinian, and they are from there called Nomocanon, and Canon Law.

[〈…〉] That this is the meaning of the word Apocryphal, I shall conclude from the story of the fact; for soon after this sentence of that Council of Rome, within very few years, we know that they were set up and received in that very place, where they had been thus lookt on as Apocryphal. For Dionysius Exiguus about the year 527 made a collection of Canons, ex Graecis exemplaribus. Canones Ecclesiasticos—composuit, quos [illegible]odie usu celeberrimo Ecclesia Romana complectitur, out of the Greek copies he composed Ecclesiastical Canons, which at this day the Church of Rome embraceth, and useth most honourably, as Cassiodore his contemporarie and consort says of him, Divin. Lect. c. 23. In this collection he set fifty of these in the front, under the title of Apostolical Canons, prefacing this concerning them, In principio Canones, qui dicuntur Apostolorum de Graeco transtulimus, quibus quia plurimi consensum non praebuere facilem, hoc ipsum ignorare vestram noluimus sanctitatem, quamvis postea qu[illegible]dam constituta Pontificum ex ipsis Canonibus assumpta esse videantur: In the beginning we have translated out of Greek the Canons, which are said to be the Apostles, to which because very many have been hard to give assent, we have thought fit to mention so much to you, though afterward some constitutions of Bishops seem to have been taken out of these very Canons. Here it is evident, 1. that what was a few years since lookt on as Apocryphal, is within a while received into their Codex, cel[illegible]berrimo usu, said Cassiodore at that very time. And 2. while it was not in the Codex, yet Constitutions of the Bishops were taken [illegible] out of them, which argues to me, that they were not to be rejected, as to be disliked, but only so, as not to be obligator[illegible], any farther than as some new Decrees of the Church should give them their authority. So again in Isidore Mercator's Collection, he prefaceth thus, Propter [illegible]orum authoritatem c[illegible]teris concil[illegible]s praepos[illegible]imus Canones, qui dicuntur Apost[illegible]l[illegible]rum, lic[illegible]t a quibusdam Apocrypha dicantur, quoniam plures eos recipiunt, & sancti Patres eorum sententias Synodali authoritate roboraverunt, & inter Canonicas posuerunt constitutiones. In respect of their authority we have before the rest of the Councils past set down the Canons of the Apostles, so called, though by some they are said to be Apocryphal, because more receive them, and the holy Fathers have confirmed them by authority of Council, and placed them among Canonical Constitutions. Where the opposition is clear, between Apocryphal on one side, and confirmed by Councils, and placed among Canonical constitutions on the other side.

5. One thing only I can foresee to be by Mr. Daille or any man objected against this, namely the censure that Isidore Hispalensis has past upon the Apostolike Canons, in these words (which I see are thought by some learned men to refer to that Council at Rome under Gelasius, but whether by Mr. Daillé, I know not) Eodem nec sedes Apostolica recepit, nec sancti patres illis assensum praelucerunt, pro co quod ab haereticis sub nomine Apostolorum compositi dignoscuntur: The Apostolike See received them not, and the holy Fathers have not allowed them their assent, because they are discerned to be framed by haereticks under the name of the Apostles. Here I shall offer my conjecture (and submit it to better judgements) that Isidore speaks not of the first fifty Canons, which were certainly before his time (who was a member of the Council of Toledo in Spain, An. 633.) received into the Romane Codex, as has already appeared, nor consequently refers to the Synod under Gelasius (which, upon other reasons I acknowledge, spake even of those fifty) but of the whole number of 85, for in those latter 35 it is, and not in the first fifty, that the Apostles are praetended to be the Authors of them, namely Can. 82. where they call Philemon's servant [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉], our Onesimus, and Can. 85. [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉], the Acts, or Canons of us the Apostles, whereas no such thing is so much as intimated in the first fifty. For as for those words in the fiftieth Canon which refer to the Apostles, [〈in non-Latin alphabet〉], according to the sentence of Christ, and our constitution by the spirit, 'tis evident that they are in Turrian's Edition, inserted, and added to that Canon, after the words, with which Dionysius Exiguus his old collection and translation ended. And so in the former part of the Canon [[〈in non-Latin alphabet〉], for he said not to us] (as if the Writers were the Apostles) 'tis certain that the [[〈in non-Latin alphabet〉] to us] is inserted. And accordingly in Balsamon's Text and Comment, which I have before me, the Canon is intire without either of those insertions. To all which I may adde, that the matter of all those first fiftie Canons, and the very form of words, is such, as gives not the least occasion to think them composed by haereticks (certainly not put under the Apostles names by those haereticks) as Isidore affirms of those of which he speaks.

6. This is to my understanding the meaning of the Controversie concerning the number and authority of these Canons, which were to be accounted Apocryphal, and which not, and so likewise which Genuine, and which not, and to this Controversie it is, that my insinuation and my words refer, and the second Canon being one of those former 50, which though they have been counted Apocryphal in one sense, were yet Genuine in another, that is, none of the later addition of 35. which are called by learned men novitii and adulterate, I thought I had reason (and cannot but still think it) to say that that second Canon was semper inter genuinos habitus, always accounted genuine, that is, received and acknowledged among the Canons of the Antient Church by those who controverted, and rejected the other 35.

Thus much may perhaps suffice to remove the two mistakes, which by some indications I conceive to have produced this Animadversion: For 1. when in the words immediately precedent, he says, they are disavowed and disclaimed by the most learned Papists as Apocryphal, this I suppose must be his meaning, either that by that Synod at Rome under Pope Gelasius, they were defined to be Apocryphal (and then as there is truth in that, so I may be permitted to have told him what I conceive meant by Apocryphal in that place those that were not yet received into their Codex) or else that the rest besides the first 50 are disclaimed by the most learned Papists, so I learn from my Lord Primate, that they are by Humbert in his Answer to Nicetas, Sancti Patres Canones Apostolorum numeraverunt inter Apocrypha, exceptis capitulis quinquaginta, quae decreverunt regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda. The Holy Fathers have numbered the Canons of the Apostles among Apocryphal writings, except only fifty Canons, which they have decreed to be annexed to the rules of the true doctrine, that is, to the Book of Canons received by them: (Where again, by the way, the notion of Apocryphal is evident, as opposed to those which are received into the Codex, Regulis Orthodoxiae adjungenda) And so by Bellarmine, whom he names in the front of those most learned Papists, and of him says expressly and truly, that he approves only of 50 Canons of 85 (de script. Eccles. in Cl[illegible]m.) And then again, I have now minded him of that which was before evident, that the second Canon, which was cited by me, was one of those fifty, and so not disproved by that learned Papist. As for the other two, Baronius, and Binius, whom he names to the same purpose as those who have disavowed and disclaimed them as Apocryphal, I shall not accuse his confidence, but must think he was in some haste, that he could do so, Baronius being by him acknowledged to add 30 more, and Binius to have made a little enlargement of Canons, which sure does not intimate that they disavowed, or disclaimed the fifty.

So when he says of them, that they are faintly defended by any of the Papists, I shall desire to know (among many others, Bovius, Lamb. Gruterus, Stapleton Haleander, &c.) what he thinks of Turrian, whether he were a Papist or no, and whether he were a faint defender of them, no whether Monsieur Daillé take no notice of his zeal for them? If he does not, I shall very much wonder at it: If he does, I shall have the more reason for my question, how he that sends me to be taught by M. Daillé, had not learned so much from him, that there was some Papist, by whom they were not faintly defended? So again when he says that they have been thoroughly disproved and decried by all Protestant writers that have had any occasion to deal with them, I might certainly mind him of more Protestants than one that have been far from decrying them. I shall not mention, as I might, the several Bishops of our Church, since the Reformation, and our Divines in their writings, that make their Appeals to them frequently, and with as pompous forms of citations, as I have done [semper inter genuinos habito] I shall not add the learned Hugo Grotius, because I know not whether any, or all of these may not be deemed by him to be no Protestants. Only what does he think of Frigevillaeus Gautius? He certainly An. 1593. in his second part of his Palma Christiana (dedicated to Queen Elizabeth) c. 1. & 2. was far from disavowing, and decrying those Canons: How little short he came of Turrian himself, I shall not now tell him, lest he be disavowed as no Protestant, for so doing, but leave him at his leisure to inquire, whether one such example might not have taken off from the generality of the affirmation [decried by all Protestants] or indeed whether Doctor Blondel's vouching them in the manner which I shall by and by set down, might not have had some force in it, if he had taken notice of such things. But all this by the way, as an Ess[illegible], that some other men, as well as H. H. may be confident in asserting.

Secondly, When immediately after his Animadversion on my words, he mentions his Exceptions to the Books of Apostolical Constitutions and Canons taken out of Daillé, and the learned Usher, 'tis apparent that these all belong to the Books under Clement's name, called the Apostles Constitutions: But then it must be remembered, that that Book of [illegible], or Constitutions is another thing, clearly distinct from the Book called the Apostles Canons, and there is but one way imaginable to involve the later under the censure that belongs justly to the former, and it is this, That in some Copies the Constitutions and Canons are put together into one Volume (and that [illegible] Photius his time) and that in the end of the Canons, there is a solemn confirmation of the Constitutions. But then it must be remembered again, that these are later Copies, which so confound them, and I take not them to be genuine, and that Canon is the eighty fifth of that Book, and so no part of the first fifty, which I suppose to be the only genuine Canons, and consequently that none of the ridiculous things in the Constitutions is imputable to that former Collection, but indeed, on the contrary, that one expression in that eighty fifth Canon, which prescribes the keeping them close, because of some mysterious passages in them, is justly thought by learned men to betray them both (the later 35 Canons, and the Constitutions so magnified by them) to be of a much later edition, than that which they pretend to.

And thus I hope I have vindicated myself, and given the grounds of my Assertion, And for the confidence, I did not, I confess, expect to be charged with any immoderate degree of it from any, nor do I yet discern how those few words in the Parenthesis (semper inter genuinos habito) could be deemed so criminously guilty of it, or that he that undertook to be my Monitor, having in so short a time proved so much more guilty of it, should in any reason think himself the most competent for that office.

11. To help him to any appearance of reason, and so to qualify him thus to charge me, some want of observation of vulgar style must be necessary, either in not adverting what is ordinarily meant by their title of Apostolick Canons, or some other the like. That he takes the meaning of that title to be their pretension to be written by the Apostles, or by Clement at their appointment, I conclude from the words with which he begins that Paragraph [The first writings, that are imposed on us after the Canonical Scriptures, are the eight Books of Clement, commonly called the Apostles Constitutions, being pretended to be written by him at their appointment, with the Canons ascribed to the same persons] and if according to this his notion, he conceive me by the word genuine to affirm that they are rightly so ascribed, he is mistaken.

12. That those Canons, whether to the number of 85. or but of 50 were written by the Apostles, I never meant, but neither is that the meaning of those that cite them, and call them as I have done, by the vulgar name of Apostolick Canons. If there be any doubt of this, I shall prove it by competent testimonies, whether among Papists or Protestants. Of the former, in stead of many, I instance only in that account, which Gabriel Albispine in his Observations renders of it, that some of these Canons (the fifty he means) being made by the Successors of the Apostles (the Bishops of the Antient Church) who were called (says Tertullian de Praseript.) Apostolici viri, Apostolical men, Apostolicorum primum Canones, dein nonnullorum Latinorum ignorantia, aliquo[illegible] literarum detractione, Apostolorum dicti sunt, They were first call[illegible]d the Canons of the Apostolicks, after by the ignorance of some Latine Writers, and by the taking away of a few Letters, they were called the Canons of the Apostles.

13. Among Protestants I might instance in the Archbishop of Armagh, here cited under the name of the Learned Usher, who by stiling the fifty, Veteres Canones Ecclesiasticos [illegible]b antiquitatem Apostolicos doctos, the old Ecclesiastical Canons for their Antiquity stiled Apostolical, and distinguishing them from the thirty five nova Capitula & novitii Canones, new Chapters, and novice Canons, clearly justifies all that I have said. But I have no reason to go any farther than Doctor Blondel himself, with whom I had then to do, and I am sure 'tis ordinary with him to cite these Canons under the title of Apostolick, and so to yield them their authority (yet I suppose is not thought by his Colleague Mr. Daillé to have made the Apostles themselves the Authors of them) you may see it twice together in two lines, Apol. pro sent. Hieron. pag. 96. Anno Dom. 363. Laodicano Canone 56. secundum Apostolicum 38. cautum fuit, Care was taken by the Council of Laodicaea, Can. 56. according to the 38th Apostolical Canon, calling it first an Apostolick Canon, and then affirming it the rule by which the Laodicaean Canon was made, and so clearly giving it a greater Antiquity than that Council. And immediately again, Apostolico 33d (longè antequam Ancyrae conveniret Synodus) in the 33d Apostolick Canon, long before the Synod met at Ancyra, which we know was in the year 314 and what was acknowledged to be long before that, must be of a pretty antiquity, although it were not written by the Apostles.

14. 'Tis true indeed some have thought fit to use greater exactness of speech, as the Council of Paris, Anno 580. calling them Canones quasi Apostolicos, the Canons as it were Apostolick; and Dionysius Exiguus, and Isidorus Mercator, Canones qui dicuntur Apostolicorum, the Canons said to be the Apostles. And Hincmarus Rhemensis says, they were A primis temporibus traditione viritim Apostolicorum virorum, mentibus commendati; From the first times by tradition of Apostolical persons commended to the minds of men, from man to man, and a devotis quibusque collecti, collected by all devout men. See Concil. Gallic. l. 2. p. 473, 474. And as for those which pretend the whole 85. as well as the Constitutions to have been penned by Clemens, there is little doubt but they did, by so doing endeavour to impose false ware upon the Church, but still this prejudges not my affirmation of the former fifty, that they were always accounted genuine. Not meaning thereby that they were written by the Apostles, or at their appointment by Clemens (I say not a word, that so much as insinuates either of those to be my sense, and I can justly affirm it was not) but genuine, that is truly, and without contradiction (as [in non-Latin alphabet] and [in non-Latin alphabet] are taken for Synonymas in this matter) what they were by the Church generally taken to be, that is Canons of antient Bishops (before the times of the General Councils) of Apostolical persons, successors of the Apostles, in Churches, where they presided, called Apostolical Churches.

15. I add no more of a matter so clear, yet before I proceed, I shall desire the Author of this Animadversion, to consider how unjustly his Censure has fallen (in the page immediately precedent) on the Writings of the first times, immediately after the Apostles fell asleep. His words are these, I must be forced to preface the nomination of them (the first Writers) with some considerations: The first is that known passage of Hegesippus in Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 3. 26. [in non-Latin alphabet]. Setting out the corruption of the Church as to Doctrine, immediately after the Apostles fell asleep, whereof whoever will impartially, and with disengaged judgements search into the writings that of those days do remain, will perhaps find more cause than is commonly imagined with him to complain.

Here is a sad jealousy raised against all Antiquity, even of the purest times next the Apostles, and indefinitely without any limitation, on the writings of those days that remain, [in non-Latin alphabet], that is, all that are extant, in one common mass, and that (besides that one saying of Hegesippus) no one word added to found it on but only dubious, suspicious expressions [will perhaps find more cause than is commonly imagined] to warn all how they give any trust to the purest Antiquity. Whereas all that Hegesippus there says, is only this (which they that pay most reverence to Antiquity, take as much notice of as he could wish) namely, that the poison of the Heretical, or Apostatical, or Atheistical Gnosticks, in express words, the [in non-Latin alphabet] the sect of the Gnosticks, falsly so called (the same that had been mentioned by Saint Paul to Timothy) and [in non-Latin alphabet], the Atheistical seducers did openly set up against the truth of Christ, as soon as ever the Apostles were dead. Which being by Hegesippus terminated in the known despisers and persecuters of the true Church and Orthodox professors, the grievous Wolves that worried the flock, and those constantly resisted, and combated with, preached against, and written against by the Fathers and ancient Writers, and never observed by any man to have gained on them, or infused any the least degree of their poison into them, or their Writings, which are come to us (which to undertake to make good against any opposer is no high pitch of confidence, again to be censured in me) it is a sad condition that the just and the unjust, the false Teachers and the Orthodox Professors should fall under the same envy, be involved under the same black censure, those that watched over the flock as Shepherds, and oft laid down their lives for the Sheep, be again defamed and martyred by us their unkind posterity, under pretence, forsooth, that they were in the Conspiracy of the Wolves also. I leave this to his, and the Reader's consideration, and so proceed to the next charge.