About Book VIII of the Apostolic Rules

“The eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, according to Drey, represents a work in every respect different from the first seven books.” – The opinion is absolutely correct. Only the name is quite applicable to it: Διατάγαι - statutes, unsuccessfully transferred by the compiler of the octateuch to the first seven books, while for them the most characteristic title is: διδαχή or διδασκαλία - teaching, instruction: for they entirely represent teaching, edification, conviction, explanation and evidence of the need for a Christian to lead his life in such and such a way, to love and glorify God, to treat the church, its hierarchy and fellow members of the Christian society and those outside the church - infidels and heretics in such and such a way. Book eight, on the contrary, does not teach anything, does not explain or prove anything, but only prescribes, categorically demands to act in such and such a way, and almost exclusively with the bishop and clergy in mind. For the laity, there are very few instructions in it, and these, again, are instructions, not teaching. Drey was also right in asserting that the most important component of its “rite of liturgy” represents the features of deep antiquity, that the first part of the liturgy is the reading of the Holy Scriptures. The Scriptures and the preaching that followed him and had his subject matter are the same ones that are set forth in Book II, and which actually took place already under Tertullian and Justin. The separation of the liturgy of the faithful from the liturgy of the catechumens, special prayers for these latter, as well as for those possessed by evil spirits and penitents, are fully consistent with the disciplinary regulations that already existed by the end of the 2nd century throughout the church; The same should be said about prayers for the faithful community, and just as much about the rite of kissing the world.” Drey was right when he asserted that “not only are there certain rites of the liturgy dating back to the 2nd century, but there is also evidence that shows that in the middle and earlier than the 3rd century there were already liturgical books or service books (Pontificalbücher). Information about the existing rites and rituals during the liturgy is found, in addition to those presented by Justin, although scatteredly, in the works of Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian and Origen; in the latter (Contra Cels. lib. VI) in the story of Celsus there are true traces of the liturgical books preserved by the bishops, and even more definitely during this time in Baluz. Miscell. Tom II. pag. 77: Passio S. Felicis" 1 . – Having these testimonies before his eyes, Drey stood, in our opinion, on the direct path leading to an explanation of the still dark history of the origin of the VIIIth book of the Apostolic Rules. It remained to take one more step along this path, paved by external evidence speaking about the Apostolic Constitutions - to take into account the following highly important testimony of St. Irenaeus of Lyons: “Οί ταῖς δευτεραις τῶν Ἀποστόλων διατάξεσι παρηκολουθ ηκότες ισασι τόν Κύριον νέαν προσφορὰν ἐν τῆ καινοδιαθήκῃ καθεστηκεναι (those who have read the second statutes of the Apostles know that the Lord established a new offering (sacrifice) in the new covenant) 2. Evidence shows that during the time of St. Irenaeus had a book called “Διατάξεις Ἀποστόλων – δευτεραι” (“The Charter of the Apostles – the second”); if instead δεύτερα stood δια Κλήμεντος: then we would have no doubt that this testimony contains a mention of our “Apostolic Rules.” The difference, however, is insignificant: for the word δεοτίραι in any case denotes a series or set of Apostolic institutions of some second order, that is, most likely to think, not directly preserved in Scripture (πρωται) until the time of St. Irenaeus, and mediocrely - recorded according to legend by someone. But besides the title: Δεύτεραι, διατάξεις Ἀποστόλων, the evidence makes it clear that this book was, if not exclusively liturgical, then it also contained regulations on the liturgy, or the Christian New Testament sacrifice - προσφορά. But in all the church writing of the first centuries it is hardly possible to find any other work that, both in its title and in its subject matter, would be suitable for the mentioned St. Irenaeus book, except for the “Apostolic Rules through Clement” or in particular for the VIII book of these “Rules”. It is impossible, of course, to assert, and there is no need for it, that δεύτεραι, Ἀποστολων St. Irenaeus is precisely the essence of the Apostolic Rules, or even the VIIIth book alone in the edition in which Drey and others read them. During the time of St. Irenea in all likelihood - there was a different edition, more concise. There is currently some documentary evidence for this possibility. So, first of all: currently editions of the VIIIth book are known, which are much shorter and therefore much older than the one found in the edition of Cotelier, which was in Drey’s hands. So, at present there are quite a lot of Greek canonical codes known, where the VIIIth book is presented in a significantly different form than it is presented in the general collection of the octateuch of the Apostle. Charters. The most outstanding difference here is the complete absence of the order of the liturgy, trace. absence of ch. 6–15. Moreover, the content is divided not into chapters, but into separate articles, each bearing its own title, and sometimes the name of its author, although these articles, taken together, contain the same thing, only sometimes in a more concise form, and in the same order as the VIIIth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. From the Greek canonical codes, representing the VIIIth book of the Apostle. Of the statutes in this form, the Greek canonical collection belonging to the Vienna Library 4 especially attracts attention. Such a copy of the VIIIth book, which represents it not in the form of one integral work divided into chapters, but in the form of a series of small articles, does not represent, although not the original, but still close to the original formation of the VIIIth book. For an affirmative answer to this question, in a number of these articles there is only one, but very important basis, namely: in the article Διατάξεις τ. αγ. Αποστ δια Ιππολύτου (corresponding to Chapter 5 of Book VIII) there is a prayer at the ordination of a bishop that is so brief in comparison with the one presented in our VIII book of the Apostle. Statutes that there can be no doubt about the antiquity of the first and the authenticity of the second. We present the text of both: the first in our own translation, the second in the translation of Dosifei, Metropolitan of Suceava 5 . As can be seen from here, the compiler of the later edition of the VIIIth book used the same compilation techniques as the compiler of the first seven books. But what does it mean that out of several prayers found in the compared editions, the difference exists only in relation to this one prayer? Does this mean that the compiler really limited himself to this one prayer, leaving others untouched, or did the compiler of the Viennese edition of the VIIIth book copy out only this prayer from the ancient edition he had at hand, and borrowed the rest from other lists? The question now is how to look at the edition of the Vienna Codex in general: does it unconditionally represent, that is, in all its parts, the oldest and original edition of the VIIIth book, or has it only retained the features of the ancient edition in some of its parts? The diversity and diversity of its constituent articles seem to leave no doubt that it is far from original, but it, in turn, is a compilation. The last three articles in it: ὁρος κανονικός and two extracts from the first seven books, as if subsequently added by a person who was dissatisfied with its original composition. However, this time we do not have to get lost in conjectures and assumptions. In addition to the Greek codes, the canonical codes of Egyptian Christians are currently known, representing the VIII book of the Apostle. The statutes are worded close to the version of the Vienna Code, however, with some very important differences. By comparing them with each other, in our opinion, quite solid conclusions are obtained regarding the definition of the original, ancient edition of the VIIIth book of the Apostle. Charters. In 1856, the orientalist A. P. De lagarde published a study entitled: Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae. Lipsiae. MDSSCLVI presented a detailed and learned description and study of two Egyptian canonical codes, which contain a remarkable edition of the VIIIth book of the Apostle. Charters. One of them, the Memphis one (editio memphitica), was published in London by G. Tattam back in 1848, the other, the Theban one (editio thebana), was described in detail by Delagarde himself. For us, they are both equally wonderful. The Theban Code is a set of rules, numbering 74. These 74 rules represent the following articles: 1) in the form of the first 30 rules, the article we previously described is located: In the form of canon 31, the decree on the ordination of a bishop and a very brief liturgy are set out 7 . Rule 32 sets out the decree on the ordination of an elder. Also exactly in the form of rules 33–62 are contained regulations on the ordination of a deacon, on confessors, readers, subdeacons, widows, and virgins; about the catechumens coming to faith; about dishonest activities that prevent one from joining the church; about the discipline of the catechumens, about the performance of baptism; about agape; about the firstfruits, about the times of prayer, about the division of the remnants of the Eucharistic sacrifice, about the burial and commemoration of the dead (De lagard. pp. XII, XIII and quoted from the book of Ludolf, pp. 306–308). The 63rd rule contains the first three chapters of the VIIIth book, or the article on gifts and ordinations. Canon 64 – on the ordination of a bishop, or ch. 4–11 of the VIII book, but in this place the Theban edition omits the following words of the Greek edition: φημι ἐγὼ Ανδρεας ο αδελφός Πὲτρου 8. Rule 65 represents content parallel to Ch. 12–15 of the VIII book, but is limited only to a presentation of the order of the liturgy with the omission of all prayers. Canon 66 briefly sets out the decree on the ordination of presbyters and deacons, with the following remark: “But about subdeacons, readers and deaconesses, we said before that they should not be ordained” 9 . Rule 67 contains a regulation on confessors, corresponds to Ch. 23rd, but with the omission of the name of Jacob 10. Rule 68e – about virgins, corresponds to ch. 24, but also with the omission of the name of Jacob. Rule 69 - about widows, corresponds to chapter 25, but with the omission of the name Levveya. Canons 70, 71, 72, 73 correspond to chapters 26, 27, 28, 30, 31, but with the omission of the rubrics. Rule 74 corresponds to Sec. 32 to 47, but with differences of 11. The Memphian Codex (editio memphitica) is identical in composition to the Theban Codex, but instead of dividing it into rules, it divides its contents into the following seven books: "The first book, which is also the second" 12. It contains “Book two, which is also book three,” contains rules 31–62 of the Theban edition. “The third book, which is also the fourth,” contains chapters 1 and 2 of the VIII book of the Apostle. Statutes, or an article on gifts and ordination. “The fourth book, which is also the fifth,” contains chap. 3–27 of the VIII book, but with many omissions and corresponds to rules 64–70 of the Theban edition. The fifth book, which is also the sixth, represents the content of rules 71–74 of the Theban edition or the corresponding chapter. 28–46 books. VIII Apost. Charters with the exception of ch. 32nd. Book six, which is also the seventh, corresponds to chapter 32. VIII book. Apostle Charters, beginning: “οὶ πρώτωςς προσιόντες” and ending: “διδακτοὶ θεοῦ.” The seventh book, which is also the eighth, contains 85 rules of the Holy Apostles 13. These are the codes. If we had the opportunity to use their text itself or an accurate translation in full, then here we would present perhaps the most ancient text of the VIII book of the Apostle. Statutes, and then would have solid data for depicting the original form and the entire eight books. But, unfortunately, we do not yet have either one or the other at hand, and therefore, of necessity, we will limit ourselves to the data provided by scientific descriptions of these codes. From these descriptions it is clear, firstly, that in some components the Theban and Memphis editions of Ap. The statutes are similar to the Viennese edition: the similarity lies in their brevity in comparison with the extensive Greek edition of the Octateuch of the Apostle. Charters. Before us, any doubt disappears that the VIIIth book in all its parts has undergone the same alteration as the first seven books. So from the description of these codes we learn that the compiler of the octateuch made additions to the liturgy: for the liturgy of the Egyptian codes is incomparably shorter than the liturgy of the VIIIth book of the Ap. The statutes of an extensive edition, although, unfortunately, we cannot accurately indicate the original composition of this liturgy and later additions to it. Secondly, the prayer for the ordination of a presbyter in the Egyptian codex is shorter than in the Viennese and extensive edition 14 (the prayer for the ordination of a bishop is identical with the prayer of the Vienna codex): one can assume that other prayers of this kind in the Egyptian codes are as brief as these two. Thirdly, in the editions of Egyptian Christians there are not many sections with the names of the apostles as the authors of individual institutions; the latter are presented impersonally. This is a highly important feature. It directly leads to the assumption that initially Διατάγαὶ τῶν Ἀποστόλων or the statutes of the Apostles on divine services, ordination to church positions, on the acceptance of newly converted people into the Church, on the behavior of the clergy, etc., were a set of brief, categorical provisions expressed in an impersonal form and completely alien to the idea of origin from the Apostolic Council. It is possible that the rubrics with the names of the Apostles were formed later, they were created in this way: to the original text in the form of scholia, perhaps in the margins, notes were added to this or that prescription: this rule belongs to the Apostle Peter, this to James, etc. The testimony of Papias of Hierapolis about himself, that he asked questions in different churches, what exactly Andrew said, that Peter, John and other disciples of the Lord “gives the right to assume that there were other similar interrogators and the information received in one way or another was used to form the above-mentioned scholia in the book, which, of course, was in constant practical use, at least among the bishops. And then later scribes entered these scholia into the text itself, and this circumstance gave rise to the latest compiler of the Octateuch of the Greek edition from the impersonal initial speech, from the initial brief provisions, to form a series of dialogues that are conducted on behalf of his Apostles. This is how a new edition of the Apostolic Rules was formed, covering the true form of the Apostolic, ancient church institutions, which were pointed out, perhaps, by St. Irenaeus of Lyon... Of utmost importance, in our opinion, is the seemingly trivial circumstance that the editors of Apost. The statutes of Egyptian Christians do not contain an extensive Greek edition in their first seven books, but are limited to the composition of those articles that make up the content of the VIIIth book. Isn’t there evidence preserved for us in this circumstance that the original book was called: ὁκτω βιβλιοις προσπεφωνημέναι 15, did not contain anything more than what the above-mentioned Egyptian codes contain, or contained even less than what they contain; in any case, it did not contain the first seven books compiled in the 4th century from two completely different statutes from Clementine works? Everything that can be extracted to characterize this original Book of Clement from the testimony about it in the 85th Apostolic Canon confirms this assumption as best as possible. So, first of all, the general name: δἰαταγαι, διατάξεις is the most suitable, the most characteristic for the content of the work represented by the Egyptian codes and the so-called VIII book of the Apostle. Charters. Then - “The Rules of the Apostles were proclaimed (προσπεφωνημενοι) by Clement in 8 books,” says Ap. 85. rule. The expression: “έν βιβλίος” does not necessarily require thinking about a multi-volume work, divided into 8 books: the word βιβλίον does not necessarily mean “book” in our sense of the word. βιβλίον, this is papyrus or written paper, a letter, a book. The same 85th rule of St. Apostles, which represents the title of the Book of Clement in question, uses the word βιβλίον to designate all the writings of the Old and New Testaments, and also uses it to designate such small works as the conciliar epistles of St. Evangelist John the Theologian: ἔστω ὑμῖν, βιβλία σεβάσμία καὶ αγια... Ἰωάννου τρε͂ις (ἐπιστολαί 16). The word προσπεφωνημεναι - proclaimed, spoken, used by the rule, gives reason to understand precisely “chapters” or “branches” by the word “βιβλία”, and not “books” in our sense: for in the latter case it would be more natural to use the word: γραφειααι, καταγραφεισαι. Thus, about the book of Clement, in the sense of the 85th Apostle. rules, we can say that it contained the rules, or statutes of the Apostles, expressed by Clement in eight sections, in eight chapters. For such an interpretation of the Apostolic Rule, we have a documentary basis. Delagarde, in the book cited above, says the following about one Syrian canonical code: “there is a special set of commandments and apostolic rules, given through Clement, a disciple of the Apostle Peter, which (the set) was divided by him (Clement) into eight books, or words” 17. As can be seen from here, the ancient Syrian did not hesitate to identify the concepts βιβλία and λόγοι: who knows if he had a documentary basis for himself in the ancient copy of Clement’s Book of the Apostolic Rules, which was lost to us, but was before his eyes... Rule 85 further characterizes the Clement Book as intended for the guidance of “bishops” - only Bishops, deliberately warning, “which (i.e. commandments) should not be made public before everyone, for the sake of what is mysterious in them” 18. It is clear that the rule that characterizes the book of Clement in this way did not yet know the extensive edition of the eight books of the Apostolic Rules, which contains the Syriac didascalia spread in six books and also widespread (in the form of the VIIth book) διδαχὴ: for these books were not assigned for bishops, but for all “those who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ from among the pagans,” but knew only a book containing mysterious sacred rites and perhaps disciplinary rules for the clergy and laity, which were considered completely inconvenient to publish to the general public, in a word - they knew the book, which, in Drey’s apt expression, is most appropriately called: “official”, “agenda” or “pontificalbuch”. These are the results regarding the VIII book of the Apostolic Rules, obtained from a comparison of its extensive edition with the short ones: the Viennese and two Egyptian ones. Taking them into account, as well as everything that we previously said about the first seven books of the Apostles. Statutes, we come to the following provisions regarding the oldest, close to the original, composition of the VIIIth book: 1) According to the currently available various editions of the VIIIth book, it is not yet possible to recreate the original text of the VIIIth book; but it can be taken for granted that its text of the extensive Greek edition, the most commonly used, was redone in the same way as the διδασχαλια and διδαχη that underlie the first seven books. 2) The basis of the VIIIth book is undoubtedly a very ancient work, in no way a later one, perhaps actually belonging to St. Clement, Bishop of Rome, disciple of St. Apostle Peter. 3) The oldest composition of this Book of Clement, which was divided into eight sections or chapters, can presumably be determined as follows: in the first place in it was the order of the liturgy. Drey, as we saw above, did not hesitate to say that the VIIIth book of the Apostle. Ustavov presents “the most ancient example of Christian liturgy,” and, moreover, having before his eyes an extensive, interpolated edition of the VIIIth book. That the liturgy was part of a book called Διαταγαὶ τῶν Αποστόλων - this is supported, indirectly, by the testimony of St. we cited above. Irenaeus, that in the 5th century there was a tradition, at least in the Eastern Church, about the apostolic liturgy written by Clement (as well as written by James), this is supported by the testimony of St. Proclus, Archbishop of Constantinople: “many bishops and teachers of the church abandoned the written liturgy. The oldest and most famous among them are: the liturgy of St. Clement, which the Apostles themselves taught him, and the liturgy of St. James, first bishop of Jerusalem." We agree with Drey that St. Proclus, when he said this, had in mind the liturgy of the VIII book of the Apostle. Charters. In the book of Clement there were undoubtedly further decrees, with short prayers of ordination (represented by the Viennese and Egyptian, as well as Ethiopian editions); on the promotion to the position of clergy (bishop, presbyter, deacon, maybe reader), as well as regulations on exorcists, confessors, widows. The simplicity of the ordination rites, the brevity and strength of the religious feeling that characterizes the prayers said during these rites, all these are sure signs of the extreme antiquity of this part of Clement’s statutes. Naturally, as soon as the positions of bishops, presbyters, deacons, etc. existed in the church, there were also certain forms of production in them; it is all the more natural to assume this since examples of such forms are already found in the Acts of the Apostles and Pastoral Epistles, ordination rites VIII book. Apostle The statutes are no more complex than those presented in these books of the Holy Scriptures of the New Testament. It is likely that the original edition of Clement’s book contained a decree and prayer on the consecration of baptismal water and oil (chapter 29), regulations on the catechumens (chapter 32), although the latter may be supplemented later, as well as regulations on holidays (chapter 33), commemoration of the dead (chap. 42-44) and on the attitude towards those persecuted for confessing Christ (chap. 45). All these are such elementary and brief regulations that the very life of the leading Christian societies necessarily required; This, at the very first stages, naturally inspired the commandment of even the simple natural duty of the Apostle - a missionary and organizer of the lives of converts to Christ. This was presumably the composition of the original official or charter of the church service. But it was necessary to add a number of other decrees to it in the form of an addition; these are the rules of St. Apostles. They are a necessary addition to the above-mentioned contents of the Book of Clement, as they contain the most elementary principles of the discipline of the clergy. But besides this circumstance, the rules of St. The Apostles should be counted among the most ancient beginnings of ecclesiastical law for the following reasons. Bo-1, this article of church legislation has an absolute advantage over all other monuments in its widespread use and authority. It is difficult to point out a local church or Christian society in antiquity where they were not revered as the first article in a series of canonical collections, although at times doubts arose as to the authenticity of their origin from the Apostles. Secondly, they are imprinted with a character of simplicity and presuppose the simplest forms of church structure and church discipline. Thirdly, they have an indisputable advantage over all other church legislation (i.e., of later times), even in the perfection of their style: the Eastern Church is more perfect than them in this respect, at least, the Church does not know of any of its rules. Fourthly, despite the high importance of their content, these rules are so true, strictly in accordance with the spirit of the Catholic Church, that it seems that no one has ever expressed even doubts regarding their ecclesiastical character. On the positive side, at least in the Eastern Church, the most praiseworthy reviews were expressed about them. The Trullo Council, calling them “devoted in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles,” recognized them as “pure and perfect apostolic teaching” (pr. 2); The seventh Ecumenical Council spoke about them even more decisively in this sense”: we fully and unshakably contain the decree of these rules, set forth (ἐκτεθἑντων) by the all-validated Apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit” (pr. 1). And truly, it would seem strange if anyone decided to object to the truly catholic nature of these rules; to the same extent, it would be strange to encounter an inability to correctly assess the stylistic perfection of the speech of these rules, distinguished by clarity, accuracy, depth of thought, conciseness and brevity and truly apostolic wisdom and simplicity. Truly, listening to the very sounds of their speech, you involuntarily imagine a living image of the Apostles of Christ. Can’t you really hear their speech when you read something like this out loud? decree: “If anyone, a bishop or presbyter, does not accept someone who is converted from sin, but rejects him: let him be expelled from the sacred rank. For it saddens Christ, who said that there is joy in heaven for one sinner who repents 19.” Or this: “if any bishop, or presbyter, or deacon receives this dignity with money, let him and the one who appointed him be cast out, and let him be completely cut off from communion, just as Simon the sorcerer was by me Peter” 20 (pr. 29). Of course, we are far from the idea of ​​​​asserting that these rules were “set out” by the Apostles themselves in the Greek text before us (which, by the way, is distinguished by its remarkable stability: it allows only the most insignificant variations, despite the variety of lists). The prejudice against them is so strong that it takes a lot of courage and a lot of work to dispel this prejudice; Because of this, we do not dare to assert that even all 85 rules are of the same antiquity: it is possible that initially there were slightly fewer of them. For our part, we affirm the following provisions regarding them: 1) for the most part, they represent genuine apostolic tradition, that is, instructions or commandments about the clergy, orally taught by the Apostles to their disciples, one of whom, St. Clement or anyone else who wrote them down, just like St. Clement wrote down in his first letter the apostolic law that the office of bishops in the church is for life and that they are elected by the whole church. Secondly, some of these rules may have been introduced later, gradually, as new phenomena were created by church life (for example, rules on annual episcopal councils, on subdeacons, on the marriage of readers and singers, etc.). Without wishing to go into a complete refutation of Dray's hypothesis about their late origin, as well as to consider in detail all the objections that are made against their antiquity, we will limit ourselves to only remarks that, in our opinion, deserve attention 21. The strongest objection to antiquity is Apostle. rules, in our opinion, is the lack of external historical evidence, for example. references to them, quotes from them dating back to the most ancient times of the 4th and even 5th centuries. Dray e.g. sees the most ancient indication of their existence only in the famous preface of Dionysius the Less (late 5th century). Regarding this objection, we consider it necessary to say the following. In our opinion, Dray was incorrect in his interpretation of this evidence. Based on this evidence, Dray begins his study with this statement: “in the history of Apost. rules before their publication and inclusion in large canonical collections, everything is dark and unknown, and I am undertaking the task of illuminating this darkness... The Apostolic rules became generally known for the first time at the end of the 5th century through Dionysius the Less" 22 . In his preface, Dionysius says the following: in principio itaque canones qui dicuntur Apostolorum de graeco transtulimus: quibus quia plurimi consensum non praebuere facilem, hoc ipsum vestram noluimus ignorare Sanctitatem, quamvis postea quaedam constituta pontificum ex ipsis canonibus adsumta esse videoantur. Deinde regulas Nicaenae synodi etc. 23. Whether it is naive or crafty - we do not undertake to judge this - but Drey asserts the wrong when he says that from the quoted words of Dionysius it follows that the Apostolic Canons became generally known only from the time of the birth of this testimony. The direct meaning of this testimony is that by the end of the 5th century the Apostolic Rules were already in the large canonical Greek collection of cathedral rules, occupying first place here under a special numbering. This is what the testimony of Dionysius says. Of course, it does not follow from this that before this time they were not in the canonical collections, and it does not at all follow that this place in the Dionysian Book contains ancient evidence only of their existence during this time, but, of course, it contains evidence of their existence in the canonical collections. Drey ignored this circumstance and came to the completely incorrect conclusion that the first 50 rules arose only by the end of the 5th century, and the rest even later 24: we call this conclusion incorrect for the following reason. The conclusion suggests that at the end of the 5th century. some deceiver composes 50 rules, passing them off as apostolic, and so the Greek codifiers include them in the number of ancient ecumenical and local councils (1 Ecumenical Ancyr., etc.), and the most learned monk Dionysius the Small translates these newly invented rules into Latin. Then, in the 6th century, another 35 rules were added and the Patriarch of Constantinople John Scholasticus, a most learned lawyer and canonist, placed them with the name of the Apostles at the head of his collection! Such an assumption would make some sense if such a historical phenomenon was timed to coincide with a dark, barbaric historical era: but the German learned critic timed it to the golden age of church history: after all, this was the age of the great fathers and teachers of the Universal Church, and almost before their eyes, the church codifier introduces an obvious forgery into the circle of basic canons! The strangeness and incorrectness of this view are obvious. Dionysius the Small was, of course, very far from the actions attributed to him by Drey. He testified very clearly to the deep antiquity and authority of the Apostolic Canons, for this is the meaning of his words: “quibus plurimi consensum non prebuere facilem... quamvis postea quaedam constituta pontificum ex ipsis canonibus adsumpta esse videantur. (Which were not easily recognized by many, although some of the bishops’ regulations, apparently, were later taken from these rules). Dionysius in these words clearly says something about the former fate of these rules: doubts arose about them, there were a lot of people who did not easily recognize them; he himself, however, does not belong to their number, but sees in these rules a source for some episcopal decrees. Dionysius thus testifies to an era in which the spirit of a critical attitude towards the monuments of church literature acted quite strongly, and thus illuminates this era in a completely different way than Dray did 25. According to correct reasoning, from the words of Dionysius one can only conclude that Apost. the rules in the age of Dionysius were already included in canonical collections. But where were they brought here from? Dionysius says nothing about this, and Drey decides categorically that they came here directly from the pen of their forger author. A completely arbitrary, non-historical solution to a historical question! The history of the codification of canon law during this time shows, on the contrary, that the codifiers treated their material with extreme legibility, and did not add their own to the collections that came to hand. Therefore, if out of the entire mass of canonical material of the ancient church, only 50 Apostolic Rules were introduced, this means that these rules had a lot of votes for themselves in the society of knowledgeable people of that time and, of course, in church practice itself - which is indeed confirmed by external evidence from the beginning of the 5th and 4th centuries. This evidence is known. The proceedings at the IV and III Ecumenical Councils against Dioscorus and Nestorius were conducted entirely in accordance with the 74th Apostolic Canon; The local council of Constantinople in 394 on the case of bishops Agapius and Bagadius was guided not only by this 74th canon, but also clearly stated evidence that he had in mind the entire collection of Apostles. rules: for it is expressed about them in the plural: ὡς καὶ Ἀποστολικοι κανόνες διωρίσαντο. The Antioch Council of 340 and the First Ecumenical Council (325) not only make reference to ancient rules, by which one cannot understand anything other than the apostolic ones, but directly cite individual expressions from them, and sometimes their entire text 26 . Dray and his many followers strive to reinterpret these testimonies, wanting to prove that nothing is said here about the Apostle. rules, but about something else. This is what they need to do, because to do otherwise for them means going against themselves, against their thoughts, which is an Apostle. the rules were composed at the end of the 5th century. An impartial examination of the matter must say that these German critics want to go against the truth and seeing do not see and hearing does not understand. Without entering into polemics with them, let us dwell a little on considering the attitude towards the Apostle. the rules of the local councils of Antioch and the 1st Ecumenical Council, to the extent required by a positive resolution of the issues raised by us. In general, the relationship of the rules of the Council of Antioch to the Apostolic rules is exactly the same as the relationship of the text of the extensive edition of the Apostle. Regulations for short or ancient articles that served as prototypes and samples for the compiler, namely: while maintaining unchanged individual words, phrases and the order of speech of the original, the compiler introduces epithets and additions from itself. At the same time, often, having taken only a reason or basis as a model, he then constructs his own decree. So eg. 9 Apost. The rule has undergone the following change in rights. 2nd Council of Antioch. In the rule of the Council of Antioch, completely unnecessary words were introduced, that is, words that do not at all explain the idea of ​​the original: “sacred” and “Eucharist.” And the omission of the word “faithful” deprived the rule of the certainty that the original has: the latter does not leave any bewilderment in the fact that it means the faithful, and not the catechumens, or the penitents, and pursues exclusively negligence when attending the liturgy. The words of the original: “as if they are causing disorder in the church” are converted into a rather unclear expression: “due to some deviation from order.” Then, the change in punishment: “it is appropriate to excommunicate from the communion of the church” into “they will be excommunicated from the church” - completely changed the wise and fair punishment, as completely corresponding to the crime (sanctio perfecta) into completely inappropriate and unclear. According to the meaning of the true rule: “whoever spontaneously neglects the benefits of church communion: let him be deprived of it,” and according to the rule of the Council of Antioch: whoever neglects the benefits of communion, let him be excommunicated from the church (i.e. unconditionally) 27 . How greatly the strict logic, the power of expression, the legislative wisdom and the truly ecclesiastical spirit of the apostolic canon have been altered here by added phrases and individual terms! It is difficult to explain for what reason the word was inserted at the very beginning: “ἣ διάκονος”: if the fathers of the Council of Antioch wanted to change the very specific and limited concept of the subject of the crime, which was meant by the Apostle. rule in general, they wanted to regulate the case not of the unauthorized separation of the presbyter from the bishop, but in general of the deviation into schism of any member of the clergy: it seems unclear why, of the entire clergy, only the presbyter and the deacon are mentioned? To explain this ambiguity, it can be assumed that the editor of the rule had in mind some particular case of a deacon deviating into a schism. – The further added phrase: “he will excommunicate himself from the church” represents an unsuccessful dissemination of the original, especially when placed before the phrase: “he will create separate assemblies.” The preparation of separate meetings from the bishop by the presbyter does not imply his excommunication from the church - as can be seen from the Apostle. rules, which clearly indicate the case when such separation is precisely evidence of unity with the church and separation only from a bishop convicted of impiety and untruth, and in any case, excommunication from the church should follow after the fact of unauthorized separation from the bishop. The subsequent text of the Antiochian Rule represents a completely unsuccessful paraphrase of the Apostle. rules, unsuccessful even in external expression, in style: but the one called by the bishop will not submit, will not be willing to submit, and having been called once and twice (in the original, three times and more accurately). This is the rule of the Council of Antioch. Whoever carefully reads the Apostolic text parallel to it will easily see its superiority in all respects: there is no superfluous word in it, there is no expression in it that could be replaced by another as more successful. Truly, it was written by a man filled with the Spirit of God, a man who lived in such ancient times, when among the elders there were those who separated from their bishop solely out of lust and, with a crowd of renegades, erected altar against altar. Nothing, therefore, in this rule prevents us from seeing the style of St. Clement of Rome. We refrain from giving other examples of comparison of the Apostolic rules with the rules of the Council of Antioch in order to avoid repetition in our conclusions. No matter how much we compare or study them from the point of view of content and style, we will not receive any other impression; the advantage of the Apostolic rules is clearly revealed. It would not be superfluous to add that the fathers of the Council of Antioch themselves, in some rules, directly rely on the “most ancient rules” (see pr. 9 of Antioch. Sob. τῶν πατερων ἡμῶν κανόνα): according to this, of course, it should be understood about others. In the rules of the First Ecumenical Council there are no such abundant references and analogies with the Apostolic rules; but there are two quotations in them that very clearly indicate, firstly, that the Fathers of the Council had the Apostle in mind. rules and, 2nd, on which book these rules were contained at that time. 2nd rule of this council, compared with 80 Apost. usually gives the following result: We believe that an impartial observer will not require any evidence or explanation that here before his eyes he sees the quote αυτωλεξει Apostle. 80th rule by the Fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council. From what book did the Fathers of the 1st Ecumenical Council read the Apostolic Canons? The answer to this question is given by their 4th rule, and it reads as follows: “It is appropriate to appoint a bishop to all the bishops of that region. If this is inconvenient, either due to the immediate need, or due to the distance of the journey: let at least three gather in one place, and let those who are absent express their consent by means of letters.” Looking closely at the structure of speech of this rule, as well as at its individual words, you involuntarily recall the following passage from Book VIII. Apostolic Rules: “a bishop is appointed from three or two bishops: but if someone is appointed from one bishop, then both he and the one who appointed him are deposed; If need forces one to be appointed due to the impossibility of the many coming, due to persecution, or some other similar reason, then let the consent of the commission of the many bishops be valid.”28 The resolution of the 1st Ecumenical Council differs significantly from this, which we honor with the glossa with the name of Simon the Canaanite to the 1st Apostle. rule, but in the structure of speech, in concept, it is very similar to it. And this is not our opinion. In one Syriac nomocanon, under the title of ordination, the following quotations are summarized: Apostle. Ave. 1. Simon the Canaanite and 4th 1 Omni. personal 29. After this, don’t we have any reason to assume that in the thoughts of the Fathers 1 Om. Council, which edited the 4th canon, presented the 1st Apostle in exactly the same way. the rule and rule of Simon the Canaanite, how were they presented in the thoughts of the Syrian canonist we named? But in this case it is clear that the Fathers of the 1st Universe. Council, they read the Apostolic Rules in the same book in which the rule of Simon the Canaanite was found, i.e. in the VIII book of the Apostle. Charters. Pitra, in his history of the monuments of Greek canon law, gives another quotation from Apost. rules from the very beginning of the 4th century, precisely in the letters of the Egyptian bishops: Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodore and Philaeus to the Bishop of Alexandria Meletius, written around 303–305, in which it reads: “there is the law of the fathers and forefathers, which you yourself know, established according to the Divine and church order (for everything was established by them for the sake of pleasing God and out of zeal for the best defined): no bishop should be ordained within foreign territory.” Pitra notices this - almost αυτωλεξει 35th of our rules 30. Older than the hitherto presented quotations of the Apostle. rules, as well as the whole VIII book of the Apostle. Science does not know the statutes (except for the previously cited rather dull quotation from St. Irenaeus)... What does it mean that during the 3rd and 2nd centuries. has no one ever quoted either these rules or this book of Clement, if such existed in these centuries? The answer to this is given primarily by the 85th Apostle. rule: they should not be made public to everyone for the sake of what is mysterious in them.” Such a prohibition led to two consequences: the book of Clement had a very close circle of practical use: it was known to bishops and clergy close to them, tested in fidelity; therefore, it could not penetrate, as they say, the mass of readers and satisfy the aspirations of simple curiosity. Secondly, by its very content, Clement’s book could not be conducive to any public disputes or bickering. Here are the prayers of the rite, here are the rites, here are the rules of conduct for clergy, and all this is sealed in the name of the apostolic tradition. Consequently, it gave food only to pious feeling and reflection and, under the influence of such a spiritual mood, aroused in the reader jealousy to keep the thoughts and sensations experienced in secret. “For - in the words of St. Basil the Great - what decency would it be to announce in writing the teaching of something that is not permissible for those not initiated into the sacrament and view” 31. This is probably how they reasoned in the ancient St. Basil's time were those who were entrusted with church secrets and who were “versed in church institutions” (θεσμῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πεπείραται) 32. If at the present time, when everyone is talking about everything, church books like “officials” and “servants” inspire respect that protects them: then in the 3rd century. according to R. Chr. The attitude of the church faithful towards them, of course, was even stricter. As a result of this, it is impossible to expect and cannot be demanded that any ecclesiastical writer of the 3rd century would make any reference to such a book in any of his works intended for publication or proclamation as scripture. And even if he wanted to do this, if he really needed it, then it was incomparably more convenient for him to use a slightly different form of quotation - without a clear name of the book prohibited for publication, indicating the very rules contained in it and which were in practical use, to do it, for example, as the above-mentioned Egyptian bishops did, or the fathers of the councils of the 1st Ecumenical and Antioch, i.e., refer to “the law of the fathers and forefathers” or the “ancient church rule” with the addition of its full text or just the beginning of it. And there is no shortage of such quotes even from ancient times. In one of the letters of St. Cyprian of Carthage we find, for example, the following passage: “we must carefully preserve and observe what, according to Divine tradition and the apostolic example, is observed among us and in almost all countries; for proper installation, all nearby bishops must gather in the flock for which the primate is appointed and elect a bishop” 33. In the book of Clement or in the VIIIth book. Apostle In the statutes, the normal or “correct” order for the installation of a bishop is depicted in complete accordance with what is indicated here. But who will deny that for St. It was incomparably more convenient for Cyprian to refer to this order as a general church tradition, known from practice itself, than as a prescription from the book of Clement, perhaps unknown to the Spanish clergy and in any case prohibited for publication?.. We are, however, far from the idea of citing evidence to substantiate our hypothesis in such references; no, with our hypothesis we only want to present an explanation for them, and it seems to us that this hypothesis really explains many phenomena in the history of canon law of the very initial era better than they are explained by previously compiled and popular hypotheses 34 . In general, our hypothesis about the origin and antiquity of the eight books of the Apostolic Rules appears in this form: their initial basis was a small book, divided into eight words or chapters under the title Διαταγαὶ τῶν ἀγίων Ἀποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος προσπεφωνημέναι. (Its composition is approximately determined above). In terms of its external structure, it represented a set of categorical provisions, probably grouped around eight main subjects (which are currently not possible to determine). There is nothing incredible in the fact that it was composed by St. Clement of Rome, disciple of St. Peter, but it could also be one of the bishops of the 2nd century. Due to its practical use among the clergy, it probably soon after its birth began to be supplemented by new rules that were observed in certain churches either directly as an apostolic tradition, or in general as a church tradition. At the same time, it is covered with scholia, indicating, on the basis of tradition, the name of the Apostle to whom this or that rule or a whole series of them belongs. From the end of the 2nd century this book takes on a slightly different look. One bishop, named Hippolytus, perhaps the bishop of Ostia, introduced into this “official” an introduction about gifts and ordination and a conclusion, which contains an admonition for everyone to remain in the rank in which he is placed in the church. Around the same time, or in the 3rd century, in the East in Syria, the Book of Clement undergoes a more significant change: the author takes upon himself the task of presenting edifying reading from the liturgical book for those newly converted to the church. He turns abstract and brief provisions of the Book of Clement into entire treatises, or instructions on how a Christian should behave in his private life; explains the meaning of church institutions and church offices, as well as in general the meaning and purpose of a Christian in his entire life from birth to death. For his work, he uses, in addition to the book of Clement, the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, which may be the work we previously described: Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα Ἀποστολων and the customs of his local church. At the same time, he changes the title of the book: instead of the Charter of St. He calls it the Apostles: the teaching of St. Apostles. Then, at the end of the 3rd or 4th century, an unknown author combines three of the hitherto separately existing books into one rather extensive whole under the general name Κλημεντος καὶ Ιππολύτου, and divides it into eight books, the first six forming from the Syriac didascalia, the seventh from Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα Ἀποστολων, the eighth from the book of Clement, moreover, he gives the first seven books the appearance of an Apostolic Council Epistle, and the eighth the appearance of an Apostolic Council. This is how the eight books of the Apostolic Rules turned out in an extensive Greek edition. According to this explanation of the origin and antiquity of this monument, and then according to the evidence about it of subsequent times, its significance in the history of canon law of the Eastern Church is determined as follows. The Octateuch of the Apostolic Rules is a monument to the law of the universal church, which developed in the space of the 2nd–4th centuries. Its individual components are far from being of equal antiquity and dignity. Among them there are articles of deep apostolic antiquity: even such German critics (like Drey and others) do not deny them this property, who attribute the initial formation of the monument to a very late time, 35 but these ancient articles and individual rules are extended by later articles; dissemination occurred gradually, according to practical needs, and was carried out for a good purpose, and not for a criminal one - for that purpose, for example. in order to cover up his own invention with the name of the apostle, although it must be admitted that such work on the monument was sometimes done very ineptly. During the time before the 4th century, the monument had only practical significance, as an "official", missal or pontificalbuch. It served as a faithful reflection of the church structure and church discipline of its time and did not have the meaning of a source of law in a material sense; for such was the apostolic tradition, embodied in the very action, or in the very practice of the church, but only as a memorable record of this right, not yet officially recognized and a formal source of law. Since the 4th century, its significance has grown rapidly and reached a high degree. If in the rules of the 1st Ecumenical and Local Councils of Antioch traces are found (not to notice which it is not excusable not only for a learned researcher, but also for a simple observer with the ability to compare), traces of the not yet official, so to speak, use of this monument: then in the evidence of the second half of the 4th century the recognition of it as a formal source of law, as a book containing the Apostolic Rules, is already clearly expressed. In the famous book of St. Epiphany says: to confirm their teaching (about Easter), the Avdians refer to the Apostolic Decrees, which are questioned by many, but they cannot be rejected, for they contain everything related to church decorum and there is nothing damaging to the faith, its confession, church government and rules” 36. Notable here; First of all, the Obdians referred specifically to the Apostle. The statutes were treated as an authoritative book, and this was when the definition of the first Ecumenical Council was already known. Therefore, no matter how weakened this testimony is by the further remark of St. Epiphanius that the Apostolic Rules are questioned by many, this circumstance says that in the opinion of many others the authority of the Apostle is. The statutes at this time were already very large, so that they could be contrasted with the authority of the 1st Ecumenical Council, and the Obdiana, according to the image of the same St. father, seem far from ignorant of church statutes. The reference we previously cited from the Council of Constantinople of 394 to the Apostolic Rules also clearly states that at that time these rules already had the meaning of church law. No less remarkable in this regard is the evidence of the significance of the entire VIII book of the Apostle. The statutes are also indicated by the so-called author Operis imperfecti in Mattheum and St. John Chrysostom (ad Mattheum 25, 18): “how priests are appointed from the laity - this is clearly stated in book VIII of the canons of the Apostles.” Nevertheless, as in the age of St. Epiphany, and at all subsequent times against the Apostle. There has always been very strong doubt about the statutes in their entirety; and this, without a doubt, circumstance served as the reason that only a very insignificant part of them, namely a small part of only the VIII book, received official church recognition for the period under review and subsequent times. With the formation of the code of conciliar rules, the beginning of which can be attributed to the second half of the 4th century, they were introduced from the entire mass of individual rules contained in the Apostle. The statutes, at first there are only 50 rules, as we see in the code of the 5th century, from which Dionysius the Less translated the rules, then - 85, as we see a century later in the collection of the Patriarch of Constantinople John Scholasticus, and then 17 more rules of St. are added. Ap. Paul, 17 rules of St. Ap. Peter and Paul and 2 rules of all saints. Apostles 37. Regarding the Orthodox Greek Church, we do not have firm grounds to assert that any other extracts from the VIIIth book of Apostle. Statutes have ever reached the same importance as the articles just listed; but as for the Eastern Christian societies - Syrian, Arab, Abyssinian and Ethiopian: their canonical codes clearly demonstrate that there, very many other extracts from both the VIII and other books of these Charters had the meaning of rules 38. In any case, in the Orthodox Eastern Church, hesitation on the issue of the meaning of the rules continued only until 692, when the so-called Trullo Council, with its 2nd canon, clearly defined the meaning of the canons only for the 85th Apostle with which rules; however, he recognized the entire other text of the Apostolic Constitutions as damaged by heretics, and therefore refused to recognize it. From then on, the meaning of the 85 rules received very firm support and was never subject to controversy. But it is noteworthy that by such a resolution of the council, which was subsequently elevated to the authority of the Ecumenical, the private, unofficial use of the Apostle. The statutes were not suspended at all by Orthodox bishops and educated people in general. The monument was read and read very diligently, as is proven by the evidence of later literature and the many Greek copies containing these charters both in full and in abbreviated form 39 . This circumstance shows that the Greek Church did not look at the resolution of the Council of Trullo as unconditionally rejecting this book, but rather as warning only about unreliability in its particulars, warning readers not knowledgeable in the faith and rules of the church about the distortions introduced into it by heretics. The best exponent of this understanding of this resolution of the Trullo Council and this attitude towards this book is the example of Blessed. Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople. In his Bibliotheca he writes: “I read two books of Clement of Rome, one of which is inscribed: Διατάξεις τῶν Ἀποστολων δια Κλημεντος and which contains rules that are among the conciliar inscription: rules of the Apostles"... "As for the Rules (διαταγαι), they are subject to censure for three reasons: 1st for bad fiction, which, however, is not difficult to distinguish in them, 2ndly for offensive comments about Deuteronomy, which are even easier to eliminate, and 3rdly for Arianism, which anyone can reject in them" 40. Due to the same, probably, understanding of the Trullian decree, the phenomenon then occurred that in one of the fairly widespread editions of the Greek canonical syntagma, precisely the so-called “synopsis of the canons”, next to the 85th recognized Apostolic Canons, the above-mentioned series of 36 Apostolic Canons was placed, which are extracts from the VIIIth book. Apostle Charters ch. 32, 33 and 46. The church authorities never rebelled against the use of such collections, although, apparently, they deviated from the resolution of the Trullo Council. In the legal history of the Russian Church, the authority of the 85 Apostolic Canons has never been questioned by the church authorities, but on the contrary has always stood very highly. Proof of this is not only the constant presence of these rules in the canonical collections of the Russian Church, always in the first place, but also the solemn promise to observe these rules given by everyone elected to the bishop at his ordination: “To this confession of my holy faith I promise to observe the canons of the holy Apostles and the seven ecumenical councils” 41 and so on. It is impossible to imagine a clearer recognition of the significance of the canonical and practical source of law behind the Apostolic Canons. To this day, the Holy Governing Synod has made only one restrictive resolution regarding the application of these 85 rules, namely: “regarding the Apostolic decrees written by Clement, time and God’s Providence have revealed the need for a new rule, which is the 2nd of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.” Note to 85 rights. St. Apostles in the "Book of Rules". As for the other parts of the eight books of the Apostolic Rules, in the history of the Orthodox Russian Church it apparently never had not only extensive significance, but was hardly known in the Slavic translation until the 17th century. In the second half of this century, the monk Euthymius, at the request of Patriarch Nikon, was translated, probably for the first time, into the Slavic language; but this translation was not printed and still remains in manuscript 42. Somewhat later, a Slavic translation of Ap. was also made in Moldova. Statutes by His Grace Dosifei, Metropolitan of Suceava, whom we mentioned above; but it seems that he was not known at all in Russia, although some of the translated works of this metropolitan were known in Moscow 43 . In the present century, the Russian translation of the Apostolic Rules was made by the Kazan Theological Academy, but it was published in a very small number of copies, and for some reason there has not yet been a repetition of the publication. Meanwhile, the distribution of a translated edition of this monument, in our opinion, could be considered very desirable. This is one of the most remarkable monuments both in terms of its venerable antiquity and historical significance in the history of law of the Eastern Church and, finally, as a most edifying book in general. The content of the first seven books, despite all the stylistic insufficiency, is imbued with sincere Christian feeling; their commandments of Christian discipline are deeply edifying and understandable even for our simple people. The only obstacle to the wide dissemination of this monument among the faithful of the church can only be the above-mentioned resolution of the Trullo Council, but we think that the publication of this monument in an abbreviated form with reasonable omissions of dogmatic expressions reminiscent of Arian and similar errors, or equipped with good comments in this regard, would not be in disagreement with this conciliar definition, which nevertheless recognized that the basis of the book is “magnificent beauty divine teaching,” but darkened by the introduction of counterfeit and alien piety and heretical wisdom. As for the deep significance of this book for the science of canon law of the Eastern Church, it is beyond doubt. Binterim, Denkwürdigkeiten. Bd. IV. Abtheilung 1. S. 42 et seq. Drey, I p. S. 132–133. The so-called Pfaffian fragments from the works of St. Irenea. According to Russian translation. Fragment XXXV. page 709. These codes are indicated in Pitra's work. Histor et Monum. T. 1 r. 46, 47. Cod. Vindob. Hist. graec. 45. Described first of all by Lambetius (Lambecii, Comment. T. VIII, p. 905 et seq.), then by Bickel in cit. book, App. V and Bunsen, Ippolitus und seine zeit. Bd. I S. 476 et seq. The names and order of the articles parallel to the VIIIth book are as follows: 1) Διδασκαλία τῶν ἁγὶων Αποστολων περὶ χαρισμάτων (Apost. Est. ch. 1–2); 2) ? 3) Ἀποστολων; 4) Περὶκανόνων ἐκκλησιαστικών Σιμονος του καναναιου (Apost. Establishment Chapters 27 and 28); 5) Περὶ ἀργείων δουλων Πέτρου καὶ Παυλου διατάξις (Apost. Establishment ch. 33); 6) Παυλου Ἀποστόλου διατάξίς περι ἑκκλησιαστικῶν (Apost. Establishment ch. 32). 7) Ορος κανονικός τῶν αγίων Ἀποστολών. 8) ἐκ τῶν κεφαλαίων τῇς διατάξεως περὶ επισκόπων (Apost. Con. II, 57); 9) Εκ τῶν ἈποστολικἈν διαταγμάτων (Apost. Constitution IV, 6). This is followed in the manuscript by the Nomocanon of Photius. Bickell. 1, p. s. 225. We borrow this translation from the Imperial manuscript. Public Library. Pogodinsky ancient repository No. 248. Pitra, H. et. Monum. T. I, p. 50–53. In a Latin translation, this rule can be read in the book. I. Ludolfi: commentarius ad Historiam Aefiopicam. p. 323–327. 1691. Francofurti ad Moenum. See book. VIII, ch. 5 at the end. According to our VIII book Ch. 19–22 and in these ranks the installation must be accomplished by ordination. Ch. 23rd in our VIIIth book. has the following heading: Ἰάκωβος δὲ ὁ Ἀλφαίου κα’γω διατασσομαι περί ομολογητῶν. The following chapters have the same headings: the Theban Codex does not contain these headings. See the said book by Delagarde, pp. XI-XVI. ) Delagarde explains this strange double name for each of the books of the Memphis edition by the fact that there was an omission of the first book, in place of which in the code there was only a list of rules that make up the contents of the other books: it so happened that the first book is actually the second, and the second is actually the third, etc. See cit. book page XVII. De Lagard. cit. book page 1. Here is the text of this prayer in both editions: This is the title of the book in the oldest testimony about it, the 85th canon of the Holy Apostles. Absolutum est volumen mandatorum et canonum apostolicorum per Clementem Petri apostoli discipulum (datorum), quod ab (Clemente) illo in octo libros vel λόγους digestum est. As can be understood from Delagarde's words, the term λόγους is preserved without translation in the Syriac codex. See cit. his book page XVII. ἄς οὐ χρη δημοσιεύειν ἐπι πάντων, δια τα ἐν αὐταῖς μοστικά. See 85 St. Ave. Apostles. Ave. 52. Only a biased thought that has obscured the critical meaning can explain the following judgment of the critic Apost. Drey's rules about this rule: “Our canon with its basis is borrowed from Const. L II p. 13". Here is the text of the 13th chapter of Book II. Decrees: ...innocent (people) must be preserved such that they do not have the need to experience sins and so that at the same time they do not have the need for grief, crying and lamentation about abandonment. For what do you know, O man who has sinned? How long will you live in this life to repent? For your outcome from this life is not known, and there is no repentance for someone who has died in sin, as he says through David: “Who will confess to you in hell?” Therefore, one must be prepared in good ways, in order to set out on this path without sorrow. Therefore, the Divine Word exhorts, through Solomon the Wise, saying to you: “Prepare for the outcome of your affairs and prepare for the village (Prov. 24:27) so that we will not lack any good things, just as the five virgins in the Gospel, due to madness, became depleted of the oil of piety and, having quenched the lamp of godly understanding, they were rejected by the bridegroom. Therefore, everyone who spares his life and remains sinless will remain safe, in order to at the same time maintain his former righteousness. Therefore, judge as one who judges before God: for God, he says, is judgment. So, firstly, condemn the guilty person with authority, then with mercy, compassion and kindly accept him, promising him salvation if he changes his lifestyle and surrenders to repentance; accept the one who repents severely, remembering the Lord, who said: there is joy in heaven for one sinner who repents” (Const. II, 13. Drey, S. 278). We leave it to the reader to impartially decide whether any compiler can construct the above rule from this material? The evidence itself says on the contrary that it is not only this chapter of the second book. Ap. Established, but both the previous and subsequent ones are actually a broad development of the topic given by the rule. Drey finds this rule inconsistent with the spirit of the ancient church, in which the phenomena provided for by the rule were supposedly unthinkable, and suggests that it is nothing more than an extract from 2 Chalcis Ave. cathedral (Drey 1. p. s. 356). In order to remain consistent in pursuing one’s tendency with this explanation of Ap. rules, Drey would no longer have to stop before trying to recognize the story of Simon the Magus as inconsistent with the spirit of the Apostle. churches. Analysis of Drey's critical studies of the Apostle. rules were made by us in the article: Essays on the history of the codification of canon law. Eastern Church. Readings in general love spirits education for 1881 You can read from Drey, op. book p. 205. See his absolutely fantastic ideas about this in his book, page 211. Such links are indicated in the “Church Course Experience.” Lawyer." Rev. John of Smolensk, pp. 122 et seq. Drey finds it possible to assert that the Antiochian rule is not a change to the Apostolic, but, on the contrary, the Apostolic is a compilation of the Antiochian: but is it conceivable from the above material to form such a rule that is exemplary in all respects?! Ch. 27. The so-called rule of Simon the Canonite. This collection (Cod. Bibl reg. Paris inter codd. oriental. S German, nr. 38) is described in detail in the citations. Beckel's book Bd. I, S. 200. Pitra 1. p. “Lex est patrum et piopatrum, quam nec ipse ignoras, constituta secundum divinum et ecclesiasticum ordinem (nam cuncta pro Dei placito et zelo meliorum ab ipsis est constitutum et fixum): in alienis paraeciis non licere alicui episcoporum ordinationes celebrare. Pag I T 1. According to Russian translation letter 56, pp. 270–274. In the Western literature of canon law we find only one hypothesis regarding the VIIIth book of the Apostles. Statutes, somewhat similar to ours, is Bunsen's hypothesis, revealed in his Ippolytus und Seine Zeit. Eg. Drey did not hesitate to recognize the character of apostolic antiquity behind the following Apostolic canons: 17, 25, 26, 42, 43, 44, 61, 80; the character of the very ancient ones is as follows: 9, 10, 13, 34, 32, 33, 46, 47, 49, 68. See his citations. above book, pp. 238–254 et seq. Creation St. Epiphany of Cyprus in Russian. translation About the Schism of Obdian, pp. 255 and 256. See their text in the Pilot's Book: Ch. 2, 3 and 4. This can be seen in the detailed descriptions of these codes, e.g. in cit. above Bickel's book vol. I. The best edition of them at present should be considered the one given by Pitra in his first volume: Historia et monumenta juris ecclesiastici graecorum. Photii, Bibliotheс. cod. 113. See the rite of election and ordination of bishops. It is kept in the Synodal Library. See about this E. E. Golubinsky A brief outline of the history of the Orthodox churches: Bulgarian, Serbian and Romanian. Moscow. 1871 pp. 380–381. You might be interested in: