APOLLOS, a-pel'es (probably a contraction from Apollonius): A man eminent in New Testament history. His special gifts in presenting Christian doctrine made him an important person in the congregation at Corinth, and his name came to be attached to a faction there (I Cor. i. l2), but there is no indication that he favored or approved an overestimation of his person. Nor can it be said that Paul objected to his work of presenting the way of salvation; on the contrary he thinks Apollos a valuable helper in carrying on his work in the important Corinthian congregation (I Cor iii. 6, iv. 6, xvi. 12). In harmony with Paul's notices are the statements of the Acts of the Apostles (xviii. 24-28) that Apollos was a highly educated Alexandrian Jew, who came to Ephesus (probably in 54 A.D.), was instructed in the gospel there by Aquila and Priscilla, and afterward settled in Achaia, where, by the grace of God he showed himself useful to the Church. The rest of this notice to the effect that he came to Ephesus as a disciple of the Lord and preached Jesus in the synagogues, when he knew only of John's baptism, is odd.

It is difficult to get a correct idea of his religious standpoint; but it probably was that of the so-called disciples of John, of whom mention is made in Acts xix. 1-7. Taken all in all, it may be said that Apollos was a zealous missionary, who, while confessing Jesus, did not have the full New Testament revelation, and stood in danger of becoming antagonistic to the apostolic message to all the world; he became, however, an adherent of the Pauline doctrine, and the author of the Acts of the Apostles thought this fact of sufficient importance to be included in his history. In the Epistle to Titus (iii. 13) Apollos is mentioned, with Zenas, as bearer of the letter to Crete. The Epistle to the Hebrews (q.v.) has often been ascribed to Apollos, beginning with Luther, and he has been suggested as the author of the fourth Gospel ([Tobler], Die Evangelienfrage, Zurich, 1858). (K. SCHMIDT.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: E. Renan, St. Paul, pp. 240, 372 sqq., Paris, 1869; Conybeare and Howson, St. Paul, ii., chap xiv., London, 1888; C. von Weissacker, The Apostolic Age, 2 vols., London, 1894-95; A.,C. McGiffert, Hist. of Christianity in the Apostolic Age, New York, 1897; W. Baldensperger, Der Prolog des vierten Evangeliums, pp. 93-99, Freiburg, 1898.

APOLOGETICS. Significance of the Term ( 1).
Place Among the Theological Disciplines ( 2).
Source of Divergent Views ( 3).
The True Task of Apologetics ( 4).
Division of Apologetics ( 5).
The Conception of Theology as a Science ( 6).
The Five Subdivisions of Apologetics ( 7).
The Value of Apologetics ( 8).
Relation of Apologetics to Christian Faith ( 9).
The Earliest Apologetics ( 10).
The Later Apologetics ( 11).

I. Significance of the Term.

Since Planck (1794) and Schleiermacher (1811), "apologetics" has been the accepted name of one of the theological disciplines or departments of theological science. The term is derived from the Greek apologeisthai, which embodies as its central notion the idea of " defense." In its present application, however, it has somewhat shifted its meaning, and we speak accordingly of apologetics and apologies in contrast with each other. The relation between these two is not that of theory and practise (so, e.g., Dusterdieck), nor yet that of genus and species (so, e.g., Kubel). That is to say, apologetics is not a formal science in which the principles exemplified in apologies are investigated, as the principles of sermonizing are investigated in homiletics. Nor is it merely the sum of all existing or all possible apologies, or their quintessence, or their scientific exhibition, as dogmatics is the scientific statement of dogmas. Apologies are


defenses of Christianity, in its entirety, in its essence, or in some one or other of its elements or presuppositions, as against either all assailants, actual or conceivable, or some particular form or instance of attack; though, of course, as good defenses they may rise above mere defenses and become vindications. Apologetics undertakes not the defense, not even the vindication, but the establishment, not, strictly speaking, of Christianity, but rather of that knowledge of God which Christianity professes to embody and seeks to make efficient in the world, and which it is the business of theology scientifically to explicate. It may, of course, enter into defense and vindication when in the prosecution of its task it meets with opposing points of view and requires to establish its own standpoint or conclusions. Apologies may, therefore, be embraced in apologetics, and form ancillary portions of its structure, as they may also do in the case of every other theological discipline. It is, moreover, inevitable that this or that element or aspect of apologetics will be more or less emphasized and cultivated, as the need of it is from time to time more or less felt. But apologetics does not derive its contents or take its form or borrow its value from the prevailing opposition; but preserves through all varying circumstances its essential character as a positive and constructive science which has to do with opposition only--like any other constructive science-- as the refutation of opposing views becomes from time to time incident to construction. So little is defense or vindication of the essence of apologetics that there would be the same reason for its existence and the same necessity for its work, were there no opposition in the world to be encountered and no contradiction to be overcome. It finds its deepest ground, in other words, not in the accidents which accompany the efforts of true religion to plant, sustain, and propagate itself in this world; not even in that most pervasive and most portentous of all these accidents, the accident of sin; but in the fundamental needs of the human spirit. If it is incumbent on the believer to be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is impossible for him to be a believer without a reason for the faith that is in him; and it is the task of apologetics to bring this reason clearly out in his consciousness, and make its validity plain. It is, in other words, the function of apologetics to investigate, explicate, and establish the grounds on which a theology--a science, or systematized knowledge of God--is possible; and on the basis of which every science which has God for its object must rest, if it be a true science with claims to a place within the circle of the sciences. It necessarily takes its place, therefore, at the head of the departments of theological science and finds its task in the establishment of the validity of that knowledge of God which forms the subject-matter of these departments; that we may then proceed through the succeeding departments of exegetical, historical, systematic, and practical theology, to explicate, appreciate, systematize, and propagate it in the world.

2. Place Among the Theological Disciplines. It must be admitted that considerable confusion has reigned with respect to the conception and function of apologetics, and its place among the theological disciplines. Nearly every writer has a definition of his own, and describes the task of the discipline in a fashion more or less peculiar to himself; and there is scarcely a corner in the theological encyclopedia into which it has not been thrust. Planck gave it a place among the exegetical disciplines; others contend that its essence is historical; most wish to assign it either to systematic or practical theology. Nosselt denies it all right of existence; Palmer confesses inability to classify it; Rabiger casts it formally out of the encyclopedia, but reintroduces it under the different name of " theory of religion." Tholuck proposed that it should be apportioned through the several departments; and Cave actually distributes its material through three separate departments. Much of this confusion is due to a persistent confusion of apologetics with apologies. If apologetics is the theory of apology, and its function is to teach men how to defend Christianity, its place is, of course, along side of homiletics, catechetics, and poimenics in practical theology. If it is simply, by way of eminence, the apology of Christianity, the systematically organized vindication of Christianity in all its elements and details, against all opposition or in its essential core against the only destructive opposition--it of course presupposes the complete development of Christianity through the exegetical, historical, and systematic disciplines, and must take its place either as the culminating department of systematic theology, or as the intellectualistic side of practical theology, or as an independent discipline between the two. In this case it can be only artificially separated from polemic theology and other similar disciplines--if the analysis is pushed so far as to create these, as is done by F. Duilhe de Saint-Projet who distinguishes between apologetical, controversial, and polemic theology, directed respectively against unbelievers, heretics, and fellow believers, and by A. Kuyper who distinguishes between polemics, elenchtics, and apologetics, opposing respectively heterodoxy, paganism, and false philosophy. It will not be strange, then, if, though separated from these kindred disciplines it, or some of it, should be again united with them, or some of them, to form a larger whole to which is given the same encyclopedic position. This is done for example by Kuyper who joins polemics, elenchtics, and apologetics together to form his " antithetic dogmatological " group of disciplines; and by F. L. Patton who, after having distributed the material of apologetics into the two separate disciplines of rational or philosophical theology, to which as a thetic discipline a place is given at the outset of the system, and apologetics, joins the latter with polemics to constitute the antithetical disciplines, while systematic theology succeeds both as part of the synthetic disciplines.

3.Source of Divergent Views. Much of the diversity in question is due also, however, to varying views of the thing which apologetics undertakes to establish; whether it be, for example, the truth of the Christian religion, or the validity of that knowledge of God which theology


presents in systematized form. And more of it still is due to profoundly differing conceptions of the nature and subject-matter of that " theology," a depart ment of which apologetics is. If we think of apologetics as undertaking the defense or the vindication or even the justification of the " Christian religion," that is one thing; if we think of it as undertaking the establishment of the validity of that knowledge of God, which " theology " systematises, that may be a very different thing. And even if agreement exists upon the latter conception, there remain the deeply cutting divergences which beset the definition of " theology " itself. Shall it be defined as the " science of faith"? or as the " science of religion "? or as the " science of the Christian religion"? or as the "science of God "? In other words, shall it be regarded as a branch of psychology, or as a branch of history, or as a branch of science? Manifestly those who differ thus widely as to what theology is, can not be expected to agree as to the nature and function of any one of its disciplines. If " theology " is the science of faith or of religion, its subject-matter is the subjective experiences of the human heart; and the function of apologetics is to inquire whether these subjective experiences have any objective validity. Of course, therefore, it follows upon the systematic elucidation of these subjective experiences and constitutes the culminating discipline of " theology." Similarly, if " theology " is the science of the Christian religion, it investigates the purely historical question of what those who are called Christians believe; and of course the function of apologetics is to follow this investigation with an inquiry whether Christians are justified in believing these things. But if theology is the science of God, it deals not with a mass of subjective experiences, nor with a section of the history of thought, but with a body of objective facts; and it is absurd to say that these facts must be assumed and developed unto their utmost implications before we stop to ask whether they are facts. So soon as it is agreed that theology is a scientific discipline and has as its subject-matter the knowledge of God, we must recognize that it must begin by establishing the reality as objective facts of the data upon which it is based. One may indeed call the department of theology to which this task is committed by any name which appears to him appropriate: it may be called " general theology," or " fundamental theology," or " principial theology," or " philosophical theology," or " rational theology," or " natural theology," or any other of the innumerable names which have been used to describe it. Apologetics is the name which most nat urally suggests itself, and it is the name which, with more or less accuracy of view as to the nature and compass of the discipline, has been consecrated to this purpose by a large number of writers from Schleiermacher down (e.g., Pelt, Twesten, Baumstark, Sweta, Ottiger, Knoll, Maissoneuve). It powerfully commends itself as plainly indicating the nature of the discipline, while equally applicable to it whatever may be the scope of the theology which it undertakes to plant on a secure basis. Whether this theology recognizes no other knowledge of God than that given in the constitution and course of nature, or derives its data from the full revelation of God as documented in the Christian scriptures, apologetics offers itself with equal readiness to designate the discipline by which the validity of the knowledge of God set forth is established. It need imply no more than natural theology requires for its basis; when the theology which it serves is, however, the complete theology of the Christian revelation, it guards its unity and protects from the fatally dualistic conception which sets natural and revealed theology over against each other as separable entities, each with its own separate presuppositions requiring establishment by which apologetics would be split into two quite diverse disciplines, given very different places in the theological encyclopedia.

4. The True Task of Apologetics. It will already have appeared how far apologetics may be defined, in accordance with a very prevalent custom (e.g., Sack, Lechler, Ebrard, Kubel, Lemme) as " the science which establishes the truth of Christianity as the absolute religion." Apologetics certainly does establish the truth of Christianity as the absolute religion. But the question of importance here is how it does this. It certainly is not the business of apologetics to take up each tenet of Christianity in turn and seek to establish its truth by a direct appeal to reason. Any attempt to do this, no matter on what philosophical basis the work of demonstration be begun or by what methods it be pursued, would transfer us at once into the atmosphere and betray us into the devious devices of the old vulgar rationalism, the primary fault of which was that it asked for a direct rational demonstration of the truth of each Christian teaching in turn. The business of apologetics is to establish the truth of Christianity as the absolute religion directly only as a whole, and in its details only indirectly. That is to say, we are not to begin by developing Christianity into all its details, and only after this task has been performed, tardily ask whether there is any truth in all this. We are to begin by establishing the truth of Christianity as a whole, and only then proceed to explicate it into its details, each of which, if soundly explicated, has its truth guaranteed by its place as a detail in an entity already established in its entirety. Thus we axe delivered from what is perhaps the most distracting question which has vexed the whole history of the discipline. In establishing the truth of Christianity, it has been perennially asked, are we to deal with all its details (e.g., H. B. Smith), or merely with the essence of Christianity (e.g., Kubel). The true answer is, neither. Apologetics does not presuppose either the development of Christianity into its details, or the extraction from it of its essence. The details of Christianity are all contained in Christianity: the minimum of Christianity is just Christianity itself. What apologetics undertakes to establish is just this Christianity itself-- including all its "details" and involving its "essence" --in its unexplicated and uncompressed


entirety, as the absolute religion. It has for its object the laying of the foundations on which the temple of theology is built, and by which the whole structure of theology is determined. It is the department of theology which establishes the constitutive and regulative principles of theology as a science; and in establishing these it establishes all the details which are derived from them by the succeeding departments, in their sound explication and systematization. Thus it establishes the whole, though it establishes the whole in the mass, so to speak, and not in its details, but yet in its entirety and not in some single element deemed by us its core, its essence, or its minimum expression.

5. Division of Apologetics. The subject-matter of apologetics being determined, its distribution into its parts becomes very much a matter of course. Having defined apologetics as the proof of the truth of the Christian religion, many writers naturally confine it to what is commonly known somewhat loosely as the "evidences of Christianity." Others, defining it as "fundamental theology," equally naturally confine it to the primary principles of religion in general. Others more justly combine the two conceptions and thus obtain at least two main divisions. Thus Hermann Schultz makes it prove "the right of the religious conception of the world, as over against the tendencies to the denial of religion, and the right of Christianity as the absolutely perfect manifestation of religion, as over against the opponents of its permanent significance." He then divides it into two great sections with a third interposed between them: the first, "the apology of the religious conception of the world;" the last, "the apology of Christianity;" while between the two stands "the philosophy of religion, religion in its historical manifestation." Somewhat less satisfactorily, because with a less firm hold upon the idea of the discipline, Henry B. Smith, viewing apologetics as "historico-philosophical dogmatics," charged with the defense of "the whole contents and substance of the Christian faith," divided the material to much the same effect into what he calls fundamental, historical, and philosophical apologetics. The first of these undertakes to demonstrate the being and nature of God; the second, the divine origin and authority of Christianity; and the third, somewhat lamely as a conclusion to so high an argument, the superiority of Christianity to all other systems. Quite similarly Francis R. Beattie divided into (1) fundamental or philosophical apologetics, which deals with the problem of God and religion; (2) Christian or historical apologetics, which deals with the problem of revelation and the Scriptures; and (3) applied or practical apologetics, which deals with the practical efficiency of Christianity in the world. The fundamental truth of these schematizations lies in the perception that the subject-matter of apologetics embraces the two great facts of God and Christianity. There is some failure in unity of conception, however, arising apparently from a deficient grasp of the peculiarity of apologetics as a department of theological science, and a consequent inability to permit it as such to determine its own contents and the natural order of its constituent parts.

6. The Conception of Theology as a Science. If theology be a science at all, there is involved in that fact, as in the case of all other sciences, at least these three things: the reality of its subject-matter, the capacity of the human mind to receive into itself and rationally to reflect this subject-matter, the existence of media of communication between the subject-matter and the percipient and understanding mind. There could be no psychology were there not a mind to be investigated, a mind to investigate, and a self-consciousness by means of which the mind as an object can be brought under the inspection of the mind as subject. There could be no astronomy were there no heavenly bodies to be investigated, no mind capable of comprehending the laws of their existence and movements, or no means of observing their structure and motion. Similarly there can be no theology, conceived according to its very name as the science of God, unless there is a God to form its subject-matter, a capacity in the human mind to apprehend and so far to comprehend God, and some media by which God is made known to man. That a theology, as the science of God, may exist, therefore, it must begin by establishing the existence of God, the capacity of the human mind to know him, and the accessibility of knowledge concerning him. In other words, the very idea of theology as the science of God gives these three great topics which must be dealt with in its fundamental department, by which the foundations for the whole structure are laid,--God, religion, revelation. With these three facts established, a theology as the science of God becomes possible; with them, therefore, an apologetic might be complete. But that, only provided that in these three topics all the underlying presuppositions of the science of God actually built up in our theology are established; for example, provided that all the accessible sources and means of knowing God are exhausted. No science can arbitrarily limit the data lying within its sphere to which it will attend. On pain of ceasing to be the science it professes to be, it must exhaust the means of information open to it, and reduce to a unitary system the entire body of knowledge in its sphere. No science can represent itself as astronomy, for example, which arbitrarily confines itself to the information concerning the heavenly bodies obtainable by the unaided eye, or which discards, without sound ground duly adduced, the aid of, say, the spectroscope. In the presence of Christianity in the world making claim to present a revelation of God adapted to the condition and needs of sinners, and documented in Scriptures, theology can not proceed a step until it has examined this claim; and if the claim be substantiated, this substantiation must form a part of the fundamental department of theology in which are laid the foundations for the systematization of the knowledge of God. In that case, two new topics are added to the subject-matter with which apologetics must constructively deal, Christianity--and the Bible. It thus lies in the very nature of apolo-



getics as the fundamental department of theology, conceived as the science of God, that it should find its task in establishing the existence of a God who is, capable of being known by man and who has made himself known, not only in nature but in revelations of his grace to lost sinners, documented in the Christian Scriptures. When apologetics has placed these great facts in our hands-God, religion, revelation, Christianity, the Bible-and not till then are we prepared to go on and explicate the knowledge of God thus brought to us, trace the history of its workings in the world, systematize it, and propagate it in the world.

The primary subdivisions of apologetics are therefore five, unless for convenience of treatment it is preferred to sink the third into its most closely related fellow. (1) The first, which may perhaps be called philosophical apologetics, undertakes the establishment of the being of God, as a personal spirit, the Creator, preserver, and governor of all things. To it belongs the great problem of theism, q. The Five with the involved discussion of the Subdivisions antitheistic theories. (2) The second,

of Apolo- which may perhaps be called psychogetics. logical apologetics, undertakes the establishment of the religious nature of man and the validity of his religious sense. It involves the discussion alike of the psychology, the philosophy, and the phenomenology of religion, and therefore includes what is loosely called " comparative religion " or the " history of religions." (3) To the third falls the establishment of the reality of the supernatural factor in history, with the involved determination of the actual relations in which God stands to his world, and the method of his government of his rational creatures, and especially his mode of making himself known to them. It issues in the establishment of the fact of revelation as the condition of all knowledge of God, who as a personal Spirit can be known only so far as he expresses himself; so that theology differs from all other sciences in that in it the object is not at the disposal of the subject, but vice versa. (4) The fourth, which may be called historical apologetics, undertakes to establish the divine origin of Christianity as the religion of revelation in the special sense of that word. It discusses all the topics which naturally fall under the popular caption of the "evidences of Christianity." (5) The fifth, which may be called bibliological apologetics, undertakes to establish the trustworthiness of the Christian Scriptures as the documentation of the revelation of God for the redemption of sinners. It is engaged especially with such topics as the divine origin of the Scriptures; the methods of the divine operation in their origination; their place in the series of redemptive acts of God, and in the process of revelation; the nature, mode, and effect of inspiration; and the like.

The estimate which is put upon apologetics by scholars naturally varies with the conception which is entertained of its nature and function. In the wake of the subjectivism introduced by Schleiermacher, it has become very common to speak of such an apologetic as has just been outlined with no little scorn. It is an evil inheritance,

we are told, from the old aupranatumliamus cud. garia, which " took its standpoint not in the Scrip-

tures but above the Scriptures, and 8. The imagined it could, with formal oon-

Value of captions, develop a " ground for the Apologetics. divine authority of Christianity',

(Heubner), and therefore offered proofs for the divine origin of Christianity, the necessity of revelation, and the credibility of the Scriptures " (Lemma). To recognize that we can take our standpoint in the -Scriptures only after we have Scriptures, authenticated as such, to take our standpoint in, is, it seems, an outworn prejudice. The subjective experience of faith is conceived to be the ultimate fact; and the only legitimate apologetic, just the self-justification of this faith itself. For faith, it seems, after Kant, can no longer be looked upon as a matter of reasoning and does not rest on rational grounds, but is an affair of the heart, and manifests itself most powerfully when it has no reason out of itself (Brunetibre). If repetition had probative force, it would long ago have been established that faith, religion, theology, lie wholly outside of the realm of reason, proof, and demonstration.

It is, however, from the point of view of rationalism and mysticism that the value of apologetics is most decried. Wherever rationalistic preconceptions have penetrated, there, of course, the validity of the apologetic proofs has been in more or less of their extent questioned. Wherever mystical sentiment has seeped in, there the validity of apologetics has been with more or less emphasis doubted. At the present moment, the rationalistic tendency is most active, perhaps, in the form given it by Albrecht Riteehl. In this form it strikes at the very roots of apologetics, by the distinction it erects between theoretical and religious knowledge. Religious knowledge is not the knowledge of fact, but a perception of utility; and therefore positive religion, while it may be historically conditioned, has no theoretical basis, and is accordingly not the object of rational proof. In significant parallelism with this, the mystical tendency is manifesting itself at the present day most distinctly in a wide-spread inclination to set aside apologetics in favor of the " witness of the Spirit." The convictions of the Christian man, we are told, are not the product of reason addressed to the intellect, but the immediate creation of the Holy Spirit in the heart. Therefore, it is intimated, we may do very well without these reasons, if indeed they are not positively noxious, because tending to substitute a barren intellectualism for a vital faith. It seems to be forgotten that though faith be a moral act and the gift of God, it is yet formally conviction passing into confidence; and that all forms of convictions must rest on evidence as their ground, and it is not faith but reason which investigates the nature and validity of this ground. " He who believes," says Thomas Aquinas, in words which have become current as an axiom, " would not believe unless he saw that what he believes is worthy of belief." Though faith is the gift of God, it does not in the least follow that the faith which God gives is an irrational faith, that is, a faith



without cognizable ground in right reason. We believe in Christ because it is rational to believe in him, not even though it be irraticnal. Of course mere reasoning can not make a Christian; but that is not because faith is not the result of evidence, but because a dead soul can not respond to evidence. The action of the Holy Spirit in giving faith is not apart from evidence, but along with evidence; and in the first instance consists in preparing the soul for the reception of the evidence.

This is not to argue that it is by apologetics that men are made Christians, but that apologetics supplies to Christian men the systematically organized basis on which the faith of Christian men must rest. All that apologetics explicates in the forma of systematic proof is implicit in every act of Christian faith. Whenever a sinner accepts

Jesus Christ as his savior, there is g. Relation implicated in that act a living conof Apolo- viction that there is a God, knowable getics to to man, who has made himself known Christian in a revelation of himself for redempFaith. tion in Jesus Christ, se is set down in the Scriptures. It is not necessary for his act of faith that all the grounds of this conviction should be drawn into full consciousness and given the explicit assent of his understanding, though it is necessary for his faith that sufficient ground for his conviction be actively present and working in his spirit. But it is necessary for the vindication of his faith to reason in the form of scientific judgment, that the grounds on which it rests be explicated and established. Theology as a science, though it includes in its culminating discipline, that of practical theology, an exposition of how that knowledge of God with which it deals objectively may beat be made the subjective possession of man, is not itself the instrument of propaganda; what it undertakes to do is systematically to set forth this knowledge of God as the object of rational contemplation. And as it has to set it forth as knowledge, it must of course begin by establishing its right to rank as such. Did it not do so, the whole of its work would hang in the air, and theology would present the odd spectacle among the sciences of claiming a place among a series of systems of knowledge for an elaboration of pure assumptions.

Seeing that it thus supplies an insistent need of the human spirit, the world has, of course, never been without its apologetics. Whenever men have thought at all they have thought about God and the supernatural order; and whenever they have thought of God and the supernatural order, there has been present to their minds a variety of more or less solid reasons for believing in their reality. The enucleation of these reasons into a systematically organized body of proofs waited of

course upon advancing culture. But io. The the advent of apologetics did not Earliest wait for the advent of Christianity; Apologetics. nor are traces of this department

of thought discoverable only in the regions lit up by special revelation. The philosophical systems of antiquity, especially those which derive from Plato, are far from empty of apologetics! elements; and when in the later,

stages of its development, classical philosophy became peculiarly religious, express apologetics! material became almost predominant. With the coming of Christianity into the world, however, as the contents of the theology to be stated became richer, so the efforts to substantiate it became morn fertile in apologetics! elements. We must not confuse the apologies of the early Christian ages with formal apologetics. Like the sermons of the day, they contributed to apologetics without being it. The apologetic material developed by what one may call the more philosophical of the apologists (Aristides, Athenagoras, Tatian, Theophilna, Hermias, Tertullian) was already considerable; it was largely supplemented by the theological labors of their successors. In the first instance Christianity, plunged into a polytheistic environment and called upon to contend with systems of thought grounded in pantheistic or dualistic assumptions, required to establish its theistic standpoint; and as over against the bitterness of the Jews and the mockery of the heathen (e.g., Tacitus, Fronto, Grescens, Lucian), to evince its own divine origin as a gift of grace to sinful man. Along with Tertullian, the great Alexandrians, Clement and Origen, are the richest depositariea of the apologetic thought of the first period. The greatest apologists of the patristic age were, however, Euaebius of Ceesarea and Augustine. The former was the moat learned and the latter the moat profound of all the defenders of Christianity among the Fathers. And Augustine, in particular, not merely in his " City of God " but in his controversial writings, accumulated a vast mesa of apologetics! material which is far from having loot its significance even yet.

It was not, however, until the scholastic age that apologetics came to its rights as a constructive science. The whole theological activity of the Middle Ages was so far ancillary to apologetics, that its primary effort was the justification of faith to reason. It was not only rich in apologists (Agobard, Abelard, Raymund Martini), but every theologian was in a sense an apologist. Anaelm at its beginning, Aquinas at its culmina- :r. The tion, are types of the whole aeries; Later types in which all its excellencies are Apologetics. summed up. The Renaissance with its repriatination of heathenism, nat urally called out a series of new apologists (Savo nasola, Marsilius Ficinus, Ludovicus Vivea) but the Reformation forced polemics into the foreground and drove apologetics out of eight, although, of course, the great theologians of the Reformation era brought their rich contribution to the accumulating apologetics! material. When, in the exhaustion of the seventeenth century, irreligion began to spread among the people and indifferentism ripening into naturalism among the leaders of thought, the stream of apologetics! thought was once more started flowing, to swell into a great flood as the prevalent unbelief intensified and spread. With a forerunner in Philippe de Mornay (1581), Hugo Grotius (1627) became the typical apologist of the earlier portion of this period, while its middle portion was illuminated by the genius of Pascal'


ApoloBetics THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 238 Apostle (d. 1662) and the unexampled richness of apologet ical labor in its later years culminated in Butler's great Analogy (1736) and Paley's plain but powerful argumentation. As the assault against Christianity shifted its basis from the English deism of the early half of the eighteenth century through the German rationalism of its later half, the idealism which dominated the first half of the nineteenth century, and thence to the materialism of its later years, period after period was marked in the history of apology, and the particular elements of apologetics which were especially cultivated changed with the changing thought. But no epoch was marked in the history of apologetics itself, until under the guidance of Schleiermacher's attempt to trace the organism of the departments of theology, K. H. Sack essayed to set forth a scientifically organized " Christian Apologetics " (Hamburg, 1829; 2d ed., 1841). Since then an unbroken series of scientific systems of apologetics has flowed from the press. These differ from one another in almost every conceivable way; in their conception of the nature, task, compass, and encyclopedic place of the sci ence; in their methods of dealing with its material; in their conception of Christianity itself; and of religion and of God and of the nature of the evidence on which belief in one or the other must rest. But they agree in the fundamental point that apologetics is conceived by all alike as a special department of theological science, capable of and demanding separate treatment. In this sense apologetics has come at last, in the last two-thirds of the nineteenth century, to its rights. The sig nificant names in its development are such as, per haps, among the Germans, Sack, Steudel, Delitzsch, Ebrard, Baumstark, T6lle, Kratz, KOM, Steude, Franck, Kaftan, Vogel, Schultz, Kehler; to whom may be added such Romanists as Drey, Dieringer, Staudenmeyer, Hettinger, Schanz, and such Eng lish-speaking writers as Hetherington, H. B. Smith, Bruce, Rishell, and Beattie. BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD. BIBLIOGRAPHY: Lists of literature will be found in F. R. Beattie's Apolopaticr, Richmond, 1903; in A. Cave, In troduction to Theology, Edinburgh, 1896; in G. R. Crooks and J. F. Hunt, Theological Encyclopedia and Theology, pp. 434-¢37, New York, 1894; in P. Schaff, Theological Propadeutie, ib. 1893. Consult F. L. Patton, in Princeton Theological Review, ii. 110 eqq.; Presbyterian and Re formed Review, vii. (1896), pp. 243 sqq. On the history of apologetics and apologetic method: H. E. Tsschirmer, Geschichte der Apolopetik. Leipaio, 1805; G. H. van Sen den, Oescnichte der Apolopelik, 2 vole., Stuttgart, 1846; K. Werner, Gesckichts der apolopakacken and pokmiseken Lytera- tur, 5 vole.. Schaffhausen, 1861-67 (Roman Catholic); W. Haan, Geschichte der Vertheidipunp des, Ckristerdums, Frankenberg. 1882 (popular). For early Christian apol ogies consult ANF' and NPNP, Am. ed., New York, 1884-1900; for discussions of these, F. Watson, The Ante-Nicene Apologies, their Charm and Value, Cambridge, 1870 (Huheean essay); W. J. Bolton, Evidences of Christianity as eshaited in the . Apologists down to Augustine. London, 1853; F. R. W ynne, The Literature o/ On Second Century. London, 1891 (popular but scholarly); A. Seits, Apoloyie dee Christentums bei den GrierAen des IV. and V. Jahrhunder ten, WOrsburg, 1895. On special phases in the history of apologetics: L. Noack, Die preidenker in der Religion, Oder die Repraaentanten der relipidsen Autklifruny in England, Frankre" and Deutsdland, 3 vob., Bern, 1853-55; A. S. Farrar, Critical History of From Thought, London, 1863; C. R. Hagenbach, German Rationalism in its Rise, Prog-

ress, and Decline, Edinburgh, 1865; A. Viguil; Hietoire de l'apolopitique dons 1'Jylise ra/orngs iranjaise, Geneva, 1858; H. B. Smith, Apologetics, New York, 1882 (appendix contains sketches of German apologetic works); J. F. Hurst. History of Rationalism, ib. 1902; A. H. Huismga, Some Recent Phases o/ Evidences of Christianity, in Presbyterian and Reformed Review, vii. (1896) 34 sqq. Apologetics! literature: F. R. Beattie, Apologetics, or as Rational Vindication of Christian, ity. i., Richmond, 1903 (to be completed in 3 vole.); W. M. Hetherington, Apologetic, of the Christian Faith, Edinburgh, 1867; J. H. A. Ebrard, Apolopetik, GVtersloh, 1880 (Eng. trawl.. Apolopstica: or the Scientific Vindication of Christianity, 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1886-87); A. Mair, Studies in the Christian Evidences, Einburgh, 1883; G. F. Wipght, Logic of Christian Evidmora, Andover, 1884; F. H. R. Frank, System der dhrisdicken Gewiseheit, Erlangen, 1884, Eng. trawl., Christian Certainty, Edinburgh, 1886; P. Schanz, Apologia des Chriatentums 3 vole., Freiburg, 1887-88, Eng. trawl., Christian Apology, New York, 1894 (Roman Catholic); L. F. Stearns, The Evidence o/ Christian Experience, New York, 1891 (the beet book on the subject); A. B. Bruce, Apologetics, or Christianity defensively stated, Edinburgh, 1892; H. Wace, 8ludenta' Manual of the Evidences of Christianity, London, 1892; J. Kaftan, Wahrheit der chrisdidbn Religion, Bielefeld, 1888, Eng. trawl., 2 vole., Edinburgh, 1894; C. W. Riehell, Foundations of the Christian Faith, New York, 1899; W. Devivier, Cours d'apolopitique ckr6tienne, Paris, 1889, Eng. trawl., Christian apolopetica, 2 vole., Newyork, 1903; A. Harnack, What is Christianity t London, 1901; J. T. Bergen, Evids- of Christianity. Holland, Mich.,1902; A. M. Randolph. Reason, Faith, and Authority in Chrbtia»ify, New York, 1903; the Boyle and Bampton lecture series deal exclusively with subjects in apologetics; see also under AGNasTTCI≻ ANTWBINITASIANIBII, and

ATHEI8m. APORTANUS, ap"5r-tli'avs, GEORG Qtsrien, or Jiirjen, van der Dare, Daere, or Dure): Early follower of Luther in East Friesland; b. at Zwolle; d. in the autumn of 1530. He was brought up in Zwolle by the Brethren of the Common Life, and became teacher in their school. In 1518 Count Edsard of East Friesland called him to Emden to educate his sons. With the support of the count, he began to preach Luther's doctrines at Norden in 1519, was excluded from the, pulpit in conse quence, and then preached in the open sir till the importunity of the people brought him back as chief pastor. In 1529 he held a disputation at Oldersum, presided over by the influential Uhich of Dornum, and induced many to adopt Luther's teachings. L. Scours!!:. APOSTASY (Gk. Apostasia, "Revolt"): Accord ing to the teaching of the earlier ages, apostasy might be either apoatasia per fidia, inobedientite, or irregularitatis (i.e., revolt agains the faith, au thority, or the rules). The two latter classes often ran into each other, and have been reduced by later theologians to two distinct though still related kinds of desertion, namely, apostaaia a mtmacWu and a clericatu, which of course occur only in non Protestant churches, while the apostagia a fide or per fidim is contemplated in Protestant church law also. Apostasia a monachatu, the abandonment of the monastic life, takes place when a member of a religious order leaves it and returns to the world, whether as a cleric or as a layman, without per mission of the proper authority. Apostasia a clerfratu, the abandonment of orders, is in like manner the unauthorised return to the world of a person in holy orders; the minor orders which require no irrevocable self-dedication do not come' under the same head. As early as the Council of


239 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA dlmloBetine Apostle Chalcedon (451) such offenders were excommu nicated; and later ecclesiastical law maintains this position even more strongly, requiring the offender's diocesan to arrest and imprison him, if a cleric, or, if a monk, to deliver him to the authorities of his order, to be punished according to its own laws. In non-Catholic countries both classes of apostates may commonly be forgiven on condition of volun tary return to obedience; and the bishops possess various faculties for the purpose. Neither of these forms of apostasy is punished by the State. Apostasia a fide is the deliberate denial, expressed by outward acts, of the Christian faith, whether connected or not with the adoption of a non-Chris tiLn religion. This is allied to heresy, of which, in fact, it forms a higher degree. The passages of Scripture on which the treatment of this form of apostasy is based are Hel). iii. 12, vi. 4-9, x. 16-29; II Pet. ii. 15-21; II John 9-11; Luke xii. 9. During the epoch of persecution such apostasy was of course far commoner than in later times; but the primitive Church made a distinction, call ing apostates only those who had abandoned the faith of their own free will, distinguishing them from those who had yielded to violence or seduction. According to the various manners of denying Christ, they were classified as libellatici, sacrifi cati, traditorm, etc. (see LAPSED). All were by the very nature of the case excommunicated, and at first some churches felt bound, in accordance with the passages cited above, to refuse absolution alto gether or withhold it until the hour of death. Afterward this severity decreased, and apostates, like other excommunicated persons, were restored to communion on fitting penance. Among later enactments, the decree of Boniface VIII. (1294 1303) prescribing the same procedure for apostates to Judaism as for heretics has been of special influence not only in ecclesiastical, but in civil legislation. Under the first Christian emperors, the Roman state considered apostasy as a civil crime, to be punished by confiscation of goods, inability to make wills or serve as a witness, and infamy. During the Middle Ages the Empire had no occasion to adopt special legislation against apostasy, but was content to adhere to the ecclesiastical view of it as a qualified heresy. Since in the countries for which the Protestant legal codes were designed apostasy to Judaism or idolatry was not looked for, they make no mention of such a crime. It is, how ever, in the very nature of a State Church, that it can not tolerate desertion of its communion, but must mark its sense of the evil by such means as are in its power. Nowadays, of course, the aid of the State can no longer be called in to punish such offenders. (E. FRIEDBERd.) BIHLIo·RATE7: G. M. Amthor, Ds apestasia, Coburg, 1833; E. Platner, Qumtiones do jurs criminum Romano, Mar burg, 1842; N. MBnehen, Das kanonische Gerichtwer fahren and AtrWrseAt, ii. 387, Cologne, 1865. APOSTLE (" One Sent [of God] "): A name applied in the Old Testament to the chosen organs of the divine revelation (Num. xvi. 28; lea. vi. 8; Jer. xxvi. 5). In the New Testament it is used not only in a special sense for Jesus himself, but also

for John the Baptist (John i. 6) and for those whom Jesus sent forth (cf. Luke xi. 49 with Matt. xxiii. 34, 37). It would seem that the name was chosen

by Jesus himself for the Twelve, since The it came so early into use as a definite

Twelve. term for a definite body of men, and

then for others who held or claimed a similar position (Acts xiv. 4, 14; II Cor. xi. 5, xii. 11; I These. ii. 6; Rev. ii. 2). The training of the Twelve shows that they had a future mission, which was fully opened to them by the appearance and teaching of the risen Christ (Acts i. 2-11); they are to be witnesses to him, and especially to his resurrection, before all peoples. Their number, corresponding to that of the twelve tribes, shows that they are destined primarily to work among the children of Israel, to whom, accordingly, they make their first appeal in Jerusalem. By degrees they collect around them a distinct community, in which they hold the position of appointed leaders (Acts ii. 42, iv. 35, v. 1-2, vi. 1-2), and after persecution begins to spread the Gospel throughout Palestine and its neighborhood, they remain mostly in Jerusalem, thence exercising supervision over the Church of the Circumcision (Acts viii. 14, ix. 32-43), and providing for the performance of some of their internal duties by the choice of deacons and the formation of the college of presbyters under James.

The original apostles are still occupied with the Jews when their number receives an addition; the manner of Saul's conversion shows that he is destined to a similar work, but especially among the Gentiles (Acts ix. 1-31; Gal. i. 11-24). This in-

volves, despite Paul's consciousness Paul. of equal authority and independence,

no breach with the earlier organization. His ministry, begun by a miracle, develops itself in perfect continuity and in unity with that of the older apostles. His very conversion and call do not take place without the intervention of a member of the existing community (Acts ix. 10-18, xxii. 12-16); only after an unsuccessful attempt to work among the Jews does he turn to the Gentiles (Acts ix. 20-31, xxii. 17-21), and even then he enters the work already founded from Jerusalem as an auxiliary of Barnabas, who is sent thence (Acts xi. 25); he is sent out only with Barnabas by the combined Jewish and Gentile community, with his attention directed first to the conversion of the Jews (Acts xiii.), and only the stubborn opposition of the synagogues causes him to decide in favor of the direct mission to the Gentiles (verse 46). He is, however, fully recognized at the Apostolic Council at Jerusalem (q.v.) by the older apostles and the representatives of Jewish Christianity as an independent apostle to the Gentiles; and no opposition from Jewish Christians in Galatia or at Corinth makes them recede from this attitude. In all his far-reaching activity as head of the Gentile Church, he never forgets the welfare and the future of his own countrymen (Rom. xi. 13-14); nor is there any division between the Gentile Church and the older apostles, to his unity with whom Paul constantly appeals in teaching his converts (I Cor. xv. 3; Eph. ii. 20, iii. 5).


Apostle.' Creed Apostle THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 240

The work of the Twelve was by no means confined to the Circumcision. At the end of the Paul-

ine period Peter was still, both in Later Use person and by letters, exercising of the apostolic influence among the GenTerm. tiles, and after Paul's death, John

took the place of leader among them. Yet the special relation of the Twelve to the work among the twelve tribes is emphasized by the promise for the future in Matt. xix. 28. Though the word " apostle " is used in the New Testament in a wider sense, properly it is limited to the first and highest office in the Church, distinct from all other offices (I Cor. xii. 28; Eph. iv. 11), to be filled only by those personally chosen by the Lord; and after their death no others filled exactly the same place. [The word was used also in the early Church as a convenient term by which to refer to the epistolary literature of the New Testament (see EvANGEI. IARIUM). It has been employed to designate the first or the principal missionary to a people, as Columba, Augustine of Canterbury, and others. It is used also in some modern Churches as the title of high dignitaries, as among the Mormons.]


BIBLIOGRAPHY: J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, Excursus on The Name and Oflka of an Apostle, London, 1887 (opened up new views on the subject, and should be supplemented by A. Harnack in TU, ii. 1, pp. 93-118, Leipsic, 1884); C. WeissLoker, Apostolieches Zeitalter, pp. 584-590, Tlibingen, 1901, Eng. tramd. of earlier ed., 2 vols., Edinburgh, 1894; J. F. A. Hort, The Christian Bedasia, London, 1897 (contains important contributions); E. Haupt, Zum Veretandniss des Apostolats, Halle, 1898; A. V. G. Allen, Christian Institutions, consult Index. New York, 1897; A. C. McGiffert, Hid. of Christianity in the Apostolic Ape. New York, 1897; A: Hamsck, Mission and Ausbrei, tune des Chriatentums, book iii., chap. 1. 51. Berlin, 1902, Eng., trand., Expansion of Christianity, New York, 1904; DB, i. 128; EB, 1 . 284 sqq.

APOSTLES' CREED. The First Ecumenical Creeds (¢ 1).

Present Form not Earlier than Fifth Century U 2). Earliest Appearance (5 3). Legend of its Origin (1 4). Greek Teat of the Roman Symbol (¢ 5). Earliest Appearance of the Legend of its Origin (¢ 6). Age of the Roman Symbol (¢ 7).

Comparison of Western Symbols (¢ 8).

Assumption of an Asia Minor Original of the Roman Symbol U 9).

Summary (1 l0).

The Old Roman Symbol Displaced (¢ 11). Interpretation of the Symbol (¢ 12).

Clauses not Found in the Old Roman Symbol (1 13).

The Apostles' Creed or Apostolicum (i.e., apos

tolicutn symboltam) is the briefest of the so-called

ecumenical creeds (see SymBolles). With the

Nicseno-Conatantinopolitan and Athanasian creeds,

for more than five centuries preceding

r. The the Protestant Reformation it was in

First use in the West and enjoyed especial

Ecumenical authority (cf. E. K611ner, Symbol%k,

Creeds. Hamburg, 1857, p. 5). The Eastern

Church has never traced any symbol

to the apostles, or designated any as apostolic

in the strict sense of the word; and here and

there in the West the Nicseno-Conatantinopol

itan creed has been called apostolic (cf. Caspari,

i. 242, note 45; ii. 115, note 88; iii. 12, note 22).

The three chief branches of the Church in the

West, however, have the so called eymbolum apostolicum in essentially the same form (textus reeeptus).

Apart from details the textua receptus can be traced with some degree of certainty to the begin-

ning of the sixth or the end of the s. Present fifth century. On the other hand,

Form not it can be proved. that before that time

Earlier this form of the symbol was nowhere than Fifth used officially in any Church whether

Century. among the interrogationes de fide or

the trad4io and redditio symboli; nor can any traces of it be discovered before the middle of the fifth century. Since it by no means came to the West from the East, and in the Western provincial Churches symbols were in use which differ greatly from the text= receptus of the Apostolicum, it follows that the latter could hardly have existed before the middle of the fifth century, and most likely originated about 500.

In its present form the Apostoljcum is first found in a sermon of Caesarius of Arles (d. 542; Pseudo-Augustine, 244; cf. Kattenbusch, i. 164 sqq.), with which may be compared Sermo, 240, 241 (texts in Hahn, if 47-49), and the symbol in

the Missals Galdicanum vetus (Hahn, 3. Earliest 1 36). The immediate predecessor

Appear- of Cwsarius' and, consequently, of once. our " apostles' creed" is most likely

the symbol of Faustus of Ries of about 460 (Hahn, J 38; Kattenbusch, pp.- 158 sqq.), but its reconstruction is difficult. On the other hand, the stage succeeding that of the old Roman symbol (see below) in the direction of our Apostolieum is represented by the highly interesting symbol discovered by Bratke in the Bern Codex n. 645 ease. vii. (SK, lxviii., 1895,153 aqq.), which is to be regarded as a Galljcan, or rather GallicoBritish, symbol belonging to the fourth century. It differs from the ancient Roman symbol only by the additions of paasas, descendit ad inferos, catholicam, and vitam aternam. These four additions all tend in the direction of our Apostolicum and at the same time prove that they are the four older additions, while conceptus, etc., and aommunionem aandomm are the later ones (but creatorem em1i et term and mortuus are also older).

Two considerations are against a Roman origin of the Apostolicum: (1) It is not found in Rome until the Middle Ages, i.e., many centuries after its attestation by Cmarius of Arles; (2) From the end of the fifth, or the beginning of the sixth century until the tenth the Nicseno-Conetantinopolitan creed in Greek was used in Rome in the traditio syinboli, and not the Apostolicum(Caspari, iii.201202, 226; ii: 114-115, note 88); a shorter symbol was also in use in Rome (see below), but it was not identical with the Apostolicum. With the spread

of the textus receptus in western Europe 4. Legend during the sixth century, the legend of its of its wondrous origin also spread

Origin. (cf. Hahn, 146x). The fact that such a late symbol is called from the very beginning "the Apostolic," still more, that, as concerns its origin, it is traced back to a 11 bringing together " (Gk. symbols, Lat. collatio)


241 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Apostle Apostles' Creed because each of the twelve apostles in a meeting before their separation is said to have contributed a sentence to it, supposes that the history of the symbol did not commence with the end of the fifth century, but that the textus receptus was preceded by another form, the attributes of which were transferred to the new text and supplanted it. This supposition which the very simple con tents and the brief, precise form of the symbol suggest, is also sufficiently confirmed by history. By the investigations of Ussher, and more es pecially by those of Caspari, it has become evident that between 250 and 460 a symbol g.. Greek was used in the religious service of Text of the the Roman Church, which was highly Roman esteemed, and to which no additions Symbol. were permitted; as early as the fourth century this symbol was held to be derived directly from the twelve apostles in the form in which it was used, and it was supposed to have been brought to Rome by Peter. This sym bol, the older, shorter Roman (in distinction from the Apostolicum, which is sometimes called the later, longer Roman, because it owes its general authority in the West to Rome), is completely extant in a number of texts (Hahn, §§ 14-20; Caspari, ii. 48; iii. 4, 5, 28-203). In its original Greek text it runs thus:

1190T491 aif &bv nar4pa aavroXparopa· Kaa fig xpLorbv'Iwovv (rbv) vtbv avroir rbv )Lovoyevii, rbv KSpwv qpnv, rbv yevvq&vra 3K ~avparos ayiov Kai Xapiav Tiffs vap&vov, rbv eri Ilovriov II~airov vravpwNvra a1, raoevra, rp' rpirp ipapq avaoravra ex (rev) vexpwv, avasfiwra cis roivs o'upavods, Ka4ipLevov er deft¢ TOO *arpbs oaev epxera& Kpiva& Swvras jai vaxpovs' Kai ais Tva'vga nytov, ayiav eKKa71oiav, aAeotv apaprcduv, oapxbs avaoraotv.

" I believe in God the Father Almighty and in Christ Jesus, his only-begotten Son, our Lord, born of the Holy Ghost and of Mary, the Virgin, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate and buried; on the third day he rose from the dead, ascended into heaven, eitteth on the right hand of the Father from whence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead; and in the Holy Ghost, the holy church, the remission of sine, the resurrection of the flesh."

The legend that this symbol was composed by the apostles, appears as early as the 6. Earliest Explanatio symboli of Ambrose. The Appearance fact that the writer was aware of of the Leg- its being divided into twelve articles,

end of its perhaps indicates that the legend Origin. that each apostle had contributed one of them was already known. But Rufinus, who wrote later, knows only of a common composition of the Roman symbol by the apostles soon after Pentecost and before the separation. This legend he refers to a traditio ma yoram. It doubtless existed as early as the beginning of the fourth century. Both Ambrose and Rufinus testify that the wording of this symbol was most scrupulously preserved in the Roman Church. The apostolic origin of this symbol is also attested by Jerome, by the Roman bishops Celestine I. (422-431), Sixtus III. (431-140), and Leo I. (440-461), by Vigilius of Thapsus, and in the Sacrdmenlarium Gelmianum (cf. Caspari, ii. 108109, note 78, iii. 94-95; Hahn, § 46, note 163).

The fact that Augustine in his eight expositions of the creed follows the Roman symbol, leaves no doubt that in the fourth century and in the first half of the L-16

fifth the Roman Church made extensive use in the redditio of a symbol identical with the one mentioned above, and allowed of absolutely no additions to it. Ambrose was certainly not the only one to protest against many antiheretical additions. The epistle of Marcellus to Julius shows that between the years 330 and 340 this symbol was the official one in use in Rome; but other testimonies like Novatian's

tractate De trinitote (Hahn, § 7) and 7. Age of the fragments from the epistles and the Roman writings of Bishop Dionysius of Rome

Symbol. point with certainty to the middle

of the third century. That the shorter Roman symbol as represented in the Epistle of Marcellus and in the P8aUerium Ethelstani (Hahn, § 16; Caspari, iii. 161-203), was already the predominant one in the Roman Church about the year 250, can by no means be doubted. But here a series of questions arises, the answers to which involve very complicated investigations and combinations: (1) How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the Western symbols which were used, between 250 and 500 (or 800), in the religious services of the provincial churches until they were superseded by the (Gallican) Symbolum opostolivum and the Niceeno-Constantinopolitan creed? (2) How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the longer (i.e., the Apostolicum as it is now known) from the time of Ceesarius, and why was it displaced by the latter? (3) When and where did the shorter symbol originate? (4) How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the Eastern, pre-Conatantinopolitan symbols? (5) How is the shorter Roman symbol related to the different forms of the rule of faith which are known from the first three centuries? These five questions can be separated only in abstracto. A definite and separate answer to each of them is impossible. In what follows they will be discussed together and only a general answer attempted.

In surveying the very numerous provincial and private confessions which remain from the Western

Church, belonging to the period from & Com- the fourth to the sixth (seventh)

parison of century (cf. Hahn, 20-45; Caspari, Western ii., iii.; Kattenbusch, 59-215, 392 Symbols. sqq.), six important observations may

be made: (1) In the choice and arrangement of the single parts the confessions all exhibit the same fundamental type as the shorter Roman symbol. (2) The shorter a Western symbol is, the more closely it approaches the shorter Roman symbol. The shortest symbols of the provincial Churches of the West are almost, if not altogether, identical with it. (3) The later a Western symbol is, the more does it deviate by additions (hardly ever by omissions) from the shorter Roman. These additions are not of a directly polemical nature, but are to be regarded as completions and extensions held to be necessary in the interest of elucidation. Such additions by no means alter the fundamental character of the symbol, since they are not of a speculative dogmatic nature. (4) The majority of the additions which the Western symbols exhibit


Apostles Creed THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG Apostolic Brethren 242

may be regarded as a kind of intermediate step between the shorter and longer Roman symbols. This consideration, however, is not so important as the fact that during the third and fourth centuries the great provincial Churches of the West produced different types. Four such types can be readily distinguished, the Italian, African, Gallican (including the Irish), and Spanish. As for the Gallican type, which is seen in our Apostolicum, it is characterized by such historical additions as are to be found in Oriental forms of faith or symbols (viz., " maker of heaven and earth," "suffered," "died," "descended into hell"

" catholic "). In its final form the Gallican type is not in every respect the richest or the longest of the Western symbols, but it is so as to its historical contents. In this important respect the final form of the Gallican type has completely preserved the distinguishing features of the old Roman symbol. It exhibits the same brief and severe style, and, nevertheless, also preserves all the significant historical features which became attached to the Symbolum Romanum in the course of its history. The Gallican Apostolicum also exhibits the same classical elaboration and ecumenical tendency as its Roman copy. (5) The less any Church was influenced bythe Roman, the more did its symbol differ from the shorter Roman. The symbols of the Gallican Church differ relatively much from it. (6) In reducing all Western symbols to one archetype, without regard to the differences, the shorter Roman symbol is obtained without difficulty. From these observations it may be inferred with certainty (a) that the shorter Roman symbol was the source of all Western confessions of faith; (b) that the longer Roman symbol practically proceeded from the other, though not at Rome, and as a result received also the same attributes, which originally belonged to the shorter symbol.

The supposition is also justified that the shorter Roman symbol must have already existed before the middle of the third century, otherwise the facts that all Western Churches originally used this very symbol, and that, e.g., the African Church had already developed before the year 250 its special type on the basis of the Symbolum vetus Romanum can not be explained (of. Cyprian in Hahn, §§ 28, 29). The Roman symbol must therefore have originated at least about the year 300; and this can be proved from the writings of Tertullian, as well as from a comparison of the shorter Roman symbol with the Eastern symbols, which are rich in additions, introductions, dogmatic remarks, etc., besides omissions. The Nicaeno-Conatantinopolitan creed made an end to this fluctuating state of the confession, and from about 430 superseded the other Eastern confessions, and to this day the Conatantinopolitan creed has remained the symbol of the Byzantine Church.

Considering the state of affairs which existed in the East till the middle of the fifth century, it is difficult to characterize the fundamental type of the Eastern symbols. But, in spite of the many deviations, there exists a certain affinity with the shorter Roman symbol, the acceptance of which

was hindered by (1) the circumstance that the Christological section of the Roman symbol came into conflict with a Christological type already established; (2) by the desire to give

g. Assump- fuller expression to the " higher "

tion of an Christology in the creed. It was Asia Minor not till the time of the Arian conOriginal of troversy that fixed symbols in the the Roman East began to be formed. From an Symbol. examination of the Rules of Faith, and the fragments of those rules and, formula-like sentences which are now familiar as belonging to the Eastern half of the Church from the middle of the first to the middle of the third century, scholars like Caspari, Zahn, Loofs, and others have inferred that there must have existed an Eastern symbol or, to be more precise, a symbol from Asia Minor, to which the old Roman symbol was related as daughter or sister. The assumption rests principally, if not exclusively, on what is found in Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, Justin, and Ignatius; and the inference drawn therefrom is that in the East there existed in the second century a fixed symbol, or, rather, many symbols, related to the Roman symbol but independent of it. At best- the Roman symbol is contemporaneous with the Asiatic or Syrian; more probably it is later. Harnack, who formerly shared this view, is now of opinion that the fact that single sentences seem to be echoes of the symbol, or tally with it, offers no guaranty that they themselves derive from one symbol. Before any symbol existed God was " almighty "; Jesus Christ was called " the only-begotten son, our Lord "; he was proclaimed as "begotten by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary," as having " suffered under Pontius Pilate," and as coming to " judge the quick and the dead." Without following the argument in refutation of the testimonies derived from early Fathers in detail, it can be stated that, while the existence of a primitive typical Eastern form up to a certain point is admitted, nevertheless it is insisted that the great feat of forming the symbol, and of therewith laying the foundation of all ecclesiastical symbols, remains the glory of the community at Rome. To this Roman symbol which is unhesitatingly to be traced back to about the middle of the second century, no doubt Tertullian refers (Her., xxxvi.). Had a symbol been established in Rome at the time of the fierce struggle with Gnosticism and Marcionitism (about 145-190), it would have run differently. On the other hand, it is not advisable to go back too far beyond the middle of the second century.

To sum up: The symbol originated in Rome about the middle of the second century. It was based upon the baptismal formula

ro. Sum- and on confessional formulas of a mary. summarizing character (such as may be identified from the New Testament and from Ignatius, Justin, and Irenaeus), which had been generally handed down, including Eastern formulas (Asia Minor, Syria), and -largely under the influence of the New Testament writings. In Rome itself the symbol was never altered. It made its way into the Western provinces from the end of the second centuty onward, without claiming



to have been, in the strictest sense, composed by the apostles. This accounts for the different modifications in those provinces (whereas at Rome it was designated as apostolic in the strict sense of the word sometime between 250 and 350). Among these modifications, those became historically the most important which were derived from the primitive confessional formulas or mathema (i.e., substance of instruction) of the East; namely, " creator of heaven and earth," " suffered," " died," " descended into hell," " life everlasting," besides the catholicdm--these are just the modifications traceable in the Gallican symbols which issue in our Apostolicum-in addition, the conceptus, which is obscure in its origin and otherwise of little importance, and, most perplexing of all, the com muniontmt a anctorum. In this connection may rightly be borne in mind the particularly close relations existing between southern Gaul and the East.

That the Roman Church after the beginning of the sixth century gradually allowed itself to be separated from and finally robbed of i:. The Old the symbol which it had previously

Roman guarded so faithfully, is a phenomenon Symbol Dis- not yet fully explained, although Cas-

placed. pari (ii. 114 sqq.; iii. 201 sqq., 230 sqq.) has made some very important contributions toward a solution of the problem. What is most decisive is the fact that it was not the longer (Gallican) daughter recension which displaced the mother, but that at Rome from the beginning of the sixth century the Nica;no-Con stantinopolitan symbol took the place of the shorter symbol in the traditio and redditio symboli, whereas in the baptismal questions the old Roman symbol still remained in use. The displacement of the old Roman symbol by the Constantinopolitan becomes very intelligible, when one considers the conditions of the time. The rule of the Ostro goths in Italy brought the Church of Rome in dangerous proximity to Arianism, and, in order to emphasize its attitude with respect to this heresy, the Church felt compelled to adopt a more ex plicit, so to speak polemically formed, symbol. Then, again, when this necessity ceased to press on the Church, and a return to a simpler creed became possible, the old symbol had grown dim in memory; while the new Roman, which was in fact the Gallican, the Symbolum APoatolicum, recommended itself by its more complete form. The differences were overlooked, or else not re garded as considerable; and the legend which had invested the old symbol with a halo of glory awoke again around the new one, and again and for a long time became a power in the Church, till it was exploded in the age of the Renaissance and the Reformation.

In interpreting the apostolic symbol historically, it must be remembered that those portions of the same which belonged to the old Ro-

I s. Inter- man confession must be explained pretation of from the theology of the later apos the Symbol. tolic and postapostolic ages (not simply, as some claim, "according to the New Testament "). This explanation must take into consideration that the symbol is an Apostles' Cree& ApostoUe Brethren

elaborated baptismal formula and that in its primitive form it must therefore not be regarded as an expression of intraehurch polemics, but rather as a Christian confession, composed for the purpose of instructing in Christianity as distinguished from Judaism and heathenism. In the course of history the theological explanation of the symbol on the whole keeps pace with the general development of dogmatics and theology. But the distinction between theological rules of faith and a confession serving for Christian instruction remains in the consciousness of the West, and is characteristically reflected in the Explanationes symboli .

As concerns the expressions of the apostolic symbol which are not in the old Roman, it is necessary to ascertain when, where, and 13. Clauses under what conditions they first not Found appear. Of most of them it may be in the Old said that they are a natural expliRoman cation of the ancient symbol, that Symbol. they do not alter its character, that they contain only the common faith of the Church-even of the Church of the second century-and that at the end of the second century they were known in the West, though they had not yet found a stable place in any of the provincial symbols. Two only of the additions can not be so regarded, namely the phrases descendit ad inferos, in the second article, and sanctorum communionem in the third. But both additions, on account of their dubious meaning, must be allowed to be failures. Even in modern times they are explained quite differently by different parties in the Church (cf. Kattenbusch, i. 1 sqq.). (A. HARNACg.)

BIBLIOGRAPHY: The general works, A. Rahn, Biblwfhek der Symbols, 3d ed. by G. L. Hahn, Breslau, 1897; C. P. Ca& pari, Unpedruckle, unbeachtete, and wenip beachtete Quellen sur Geachiehte des Taufaymbola and der Glaubenereosl, 3 vols., Christiania, 1888-75; J. R. Lumby, History of the Creeds, London, 1880; Schaff, Creeds, i.14-23, ii. 45-55. Particularly onthe Apostles' Creed are: J. Pearson, Exposition of tlu Creed, London, 1&59, and constantly reprinted (the English classic on the subject); M. Nicolas, Le Symbols des Apd6m, Paris, 1887; J. Baron, The Greek Origin of the Apostles' Creed, London, 1885; L. de Grenade, Le Symbols des Ap8tres, Paris, 1890; A. Harnack, Do* apostolische Glaubensbakenntuia, Berlin, 1896; idem, The Apostles' Creed, transl. of Apostolisehes Symbolum in the Protestantische, Realencyklopadie, Leipsie, 1896, by S. Means, ed. T. B. Saunders, London, 1901; S. Blunter, Das apostolisehe Glaubenebekenntnis, Mainz, 1893; C. Blume,- Do# apoetolische Glaubensbekenntnis, Freiburg, 1893; J. Haussleiter, Zur Vorgeschichte des apostolischen Glaubensbekenntnises, Munieb, 1893; T. Zahn, Des apostolisde Symbolum, Leipsic, 1893; F. Kattenbusch, Das apoetolische Symbolum, 2 vols., ib. 1894-1900; H. B Swete, The Apostles' Creed and Primitive Christianity, Cambridge. 1894; C. M. Schneider, Dds apostolische Glaubenabekenntnis, Ratisbon, 1901; A. C. McGiffert, The Apostles' Creed, its Origin, its Purpose, and its Historkat Interpretation, New York, 1902; W. R. Richards, Apostles' Creel in Modern Worship, ib. 1906; H. C. Beeching, Apostles' Creed, London, 1906; and see under SYxsoLCcs. APOSTLES, TEACHING OF THE TWELVE. See DIDACRE.


APOSTOLIC BRETHREN: A sect founded in northern Italy in the latter half of the thirteenth century by Gherardo Segarelli, a native of Alzano in the territory of Parma. He was of low birth


ApostoUo Brethren Apostolic Constitutions THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG

and without education, applied for membership in the Franciscan order at Parma, and was rejected. Ultimately he resolved to devote himself to the restoration of what he conceived to be the apostolic manner of life. About 1260 he assumed a costume patterned after representations which he had seen of the apostles, sold his house, scattered the price in the market-place, and went out to preach repentance as a mendicant brother. He found disciples, and the new order of penitents spread throughout Lombardy and beyond it. At first the Franciscans and other churchmen only scoffed at Segarelli's eccentric ways; but about 1280 the Bishop of Parma threw him into prison, then kept him awhile in his palace as a source of amusement, and in 1286 banished him from the diocese. All new mendicant orders without papal sanction having been prohibited by the Council of Lyons in 1274, Honorius IV. issued a severe reprobation of the Apostolic Brethren in 1286, and Nicholas IV. renewed it in 1290. A time of persecution followed. At Parma in 1294 four members of the sect were burned, and Segarelli was condemned to perpetual imprisonment. Six years later he was made to confess a relapse into heresies which he had abjured, and was burned in Parma July 18, 1300. A man of much greater gifts now took the lead of the sect. This was Dolcino (q.v.), the son of a priest in the diocese of Novara, and a member of the order since 1291, an eloquent, enthusiastic utterer of apocalyptic prophecies. At the head of a fanatical horde, who were in daily expectation of seeing the judgment of God on the Church, he maintained in the mountainous districts of Novara and Vercelli a guerrilla warfare against the crusaders who had been summoned to put him down. Cold and hunger were still more dangerous enemies; and finally the remnant of his forces were captured by the bishop of Vercelliabout 150 persons in all, including Dolcino himself and his " spiritual sister," Margareta, both of whom, refusing to recant, were burned at the stake June 1, 1307. This was really the end of the sect's history. It is true that even later than the middle of the century traces of their activity are found, especially in northern Italy, Spain, and France; but these are only isolated survivals.

The ideal which the Apostolic Brethren strove to realize was a life of supposed perfect sanctity, in complete poverty, with no fixed domicil, no care for the morrow, and no vows. It was a protest against the invasion of the Church by the spirit of worldliness, as well as against the manner in which the other orders kept their vows, particularly that of poverty. In itself the project might have seemed harmless enough, not differing greatly from the way in which other founders had begun. When the order was prohibited, however, the refusal to submit to ecclesiastical authority stamped its members as heretics. Persecution embittered their opposition; the Church, in their eyes; had fallen completely away from apostolic holiness, and become Babylon the Great, the persecutor of the saints. Their apocalyptic utterances and expectations are a link with the Joachimites (see JOACSIM or Fzoax); in fact, parallels to their

teaching, mostly founded on literal interpretations of Scripture texts, may be found in many heretical bodies. They forbade the taking of oaths, appar ently permitting perjury in case of need, and re jected capital punishment; their close intercourse with their " apostolic sisters " gave rise to serious accusations against their morals, though they them selves boasted of their purity, and considered the conquest of temptation so close at hand as especially meritorious. (Huao SAcsssE.)

BIBLIooRAPRy: J. L. Mosheim, Verauch einm unparteiiscAen Reteergeachichta, i.193-400, Helmstadt,1748; Helyot, Ordree nwnaatiquea, iv. 54 aqq., 8 vols.; L. Ferraris, Prompta bibhothem canonica, 7uridica moralia . . . . vi. 834, 7 vole., Rome, 1844-55; H. C. Lea, History of the Inquisition. iii. 103 sqq., New York, 1887.

APOSTOLIC CHURCH DIRECTORY: A work of Egyptian origin, probably of the third century. It appears in early times to have had no fixed title, although it was generally received as apostolic. The title given above is a translation of that (ApostolischeKirchenordnung) used for it by Bickell, its first modern editor. It professes to have been delivered word for word by the apostles, whose names are given as John, Matthew, Peter, Andrew, Philip, Simon, James, Nathanael, Thomas, Cephas (!), Bartholomew, and Jude, the brother of James. John is represented as the first to speak and, after the apostles, Mary and Martha also say something. The precepts given by the apostles fall into two sections, one dealing with the moral and the other with the ecclesiastical law (chaps. i.-xiv., and The first part is almost a literal transcription of the Didache (i.-iv. 8), the observations at the close of it are borrowed from the Epistle of Barnabas (xxi. 2-4, xix. 11). The precepts relating to ecclesiastical organization deal with the choice of bishops and with preslJyters, lectors, deacons, widows, lay people, and deaconesses. The canon referring to deacons occurs twice, in chaps. xx. and xxii., one being apparently a later insertion.

The work was evidently written for a very small community. It imposes on the clergy limitations in regard to marriage which go far for that period. The section on deaconesses is interesting, in regard to both the foundation and the regulations of the institutiod. A wider field of activity is assigned to the lector than one is accustomed to; but no minor orders in the later sense are known, nor is there any approach. to metropolitan organization. These primitive traits induced Hamack to attempt to distingt*h two sources belonging to the second century, represented by chaps. xvi.-xxi., and xxii. xxviii.; but this~is unnecessary, as primitive cus toms persisted for a long time in certain parts of the Church. H. AcHxlas.

BIRLIOGRAPuT: Editions from the Greek: J. W. Make% Oeaehirhte dea %irrhenrechta, i. 87-97, 107-132, 178 eqq.. Giessen, 1843; P. de Lagarde, in C. C. J. Bunsen, Christianity and Mankind, vi. 449-480, London, 1884; A. Hilgenfeld, Noroum Testanenhurt extra canonsnt reaphsn. part iv., pp. 93-108, Leipsic, 1884; A. Harnack, in TU, ii. 2, pp. 225-237, and u. 5, pp. 7-31, ib. 1888. Editions from the Coptic: H. Tattam, The Apostolical Constitutions or Canona of as Apostles in Coptic with an Rnp. Tranel.. London, 1848; P. de Lagarde, ARGyptfaoa, pp. 239-248. Gottingen. 1883; U. Bouriant. Recueg de traroaux, v. 202-281, Paris. 1883; consult also Harnact. 'atur. pp. 451 sqq. and cf. TU, vi. 4, pp. 39 aqq., Leipsic, 1891.


245 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA A:~ostolic Brethren Uostolio Constitutions APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS AND CANONS. Origin and History (§ 1). Books vii. and viii. (§ 3). The Constitutions. Books The Canons (¢ 4). L- vi. (§ 2). Apostolic Constitutions and Canons is the name applied to an ancient collection of ecclesi astical precepts. The Constitutions profess to be regulations for the organization of the Church put forth by the apostles themselves and published to the faithful by Clement of Rome. In reality they are of Syrian origin, and were composed by a cleric from older sources in the latter half of the fourth century. They consist of eight books. The eighty-five Canons have the form of synodal decisions, and proceeded from the x. Origin same source not much later. The fate

and of the two collections, so nearly allied History. in their origin, has been different. The Constitutions can never have been received outside of a narrow circle. They were considered spurious even in an extremely uncritical age, and thus never came as a whole into any of the great collections of ecclesiastical law in the East, though a part of the eighth book is frequently met with in these. They were unknown in the West until the sixteenth century, at which time neither Baronius nor Bellarmine made any attempt to vindicate their authenticity, though Anglican theologians took a great interest in them and frequently upheld their apostolic origin. The Canons, on the other hand, were generally received as genuine, included in many collections of Church law, and translated into several Oriental languages; to this day they stand at the beginning of the canonical system of the Eastern Church. The first fifty were made known to the West by Dionysius Exiguus (d. before 544), from whom they passed into a number of Latin collections, e.g., the pseudoIsidbrian Decretals, the Decretum Gratiani, and the Decretals of Gregory IX.

The criticism of the Constitutions was placed upon secure foundations for the first time when their sources were definitely assigned-the first six books (by Lagarde) to the Didascalia, the seventh to the Didache, and the eighth to the writings of Hippolytus of Rome. _. The Con- The first of these sources is a con- stitutions, stitution of the third century, written Books i.-vi. by a bishop of Caele-Syria and at tributed by him to the twelve apostles. Its unique value lies in the fact that it gives a picture down to the minutest details, of the life of a Christian community of the third century. The daily life of the individual and the family, the public worship, the wide practical charity and the strict moral discipline; the relation of the Church to the State and to the surrounding world, in science, art, and literature-all this is vividly depicted in the Didascalia. It throws a great deal of light on the origin of the order of deaconesses. Some things are peculiar; thus the New Testament canon includes, besides the four canonical Gospels, that of Peter and probably that according to the Hebrews, and some apocryphal Ada in addition to the canonical Acts. Striking characteristics are the friendly tone toward the Jews, in contrast

with a hostile feeling toward the Jewish Christians; apparently the author was at the head of a community of Gentile Christians, and found that a neighboring Jewish-Christian community had a greater influence upon his flock than he approved. Ascetic directions in regard to mastery over the flesh are entirely wanting.

The first thirty-two chapters of the seventh book of the Constitutions are a mere recasting of the Didache. Noteworthy liturgical prayers (xxxiii.xxxviii.) and directions as to baptism (xxxix.xlv.) follow; the baptismal creed in chapter xli. played a not unimportant part in the councils of the fourth century. The eighth book is a compilation from various sources. Chapters i. and ii. contain an independent treatise on

3. Books the charismata, which, since Hip vii. and viii. polytus is known to have written on this subject, is supposed with great probability to be his. With chap iv. begins a liturgical directory which is ascribed directly to the apostles; chaps. v.-xv. form the well-known "Clementine" liturgy. Achelis has tried to demonstrate that the source of this part is the Egyp tian church directory, which in its turn is derived from the Canonm Hippolyti (preserved in an Arabic version). If this theory is correct, this part of the eighth book also would be ultimately due to Hip polytus. The Egyptian directory was a Greek work of the third century, which is preserved only in the Oriental versions. In opposition to Achelis, Funk, of Tdbingen, maintained that the Apostolic Con stitutions were the original work, the Egyptian directory derived from them, and the Canones Hippolyti from that again., The compiler of the Constitutions acted as an editor in dealing with his sources, attempting by revision and addition to fuse the various sources into a serviceable whole. He was an inhabitant of Syria, possibly a neighbor of the earlier author of the Didoscalia. A connec tion can be traced between him and the pseudo Ignatius, the Syrian forger who made twelve letters out of the seven genuine ones of Ignatius; certainly allied in time and thought with this man, he may have been identical with him. His date has been variously given, from c. 350 to c. 400, and can probably never be accurately determined, as the Constitutions have clearly been retouched later, especially the eighth book, which was the most used.

The Apostolic Canons grew up in the same surroundings, probably with the view of covering the lack of authenticity of the Constitutions by a new forgery. Their numbering varies; the division into eighty-five seems to be the oldest. Outside of the Constitutions, their sources

4. The are the decrees of the Dedication Canons. Synod of Antioch in 341 and other councils. Canon lxxxv. is the inter esting Bible canon of both the Old and New Testa ments, which omits the Apocalypse, but includes the two Clementine epistles and the Constitutions as Scripture.

Information as to other Oriental writings more or less connected with the Constitutions and their sources may be found in W. Riedel, Die Kirchen-


Apostolic Constitutions THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG 248 Apostolic Council

rechbquellen tea Patriarchota Alexandrien (Leipsic, 1900), which treats among others the Thirty Tra ditions of the Apostles, the Arabic Didascalia, and a version of this, the Ethiopic Didascalia--a comparatively late work which has nothing to do with the Syriac Didascalia, but is probably related to the Testamentum Jesu Christi. An Oriental corpus, the Clemenntina, consists of the Testamentum, the Apostolic and Egyptian directories, an extract from the Constitutions, and the Apostolic Canons. It is divided into eight books by the Arabic and Syriac copyists. The title and introduction are taken from the Constitutions, to which the Clementina was intended as a supplement. H. AcHaiis.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Editions: The Constitutions are in Cotelerius-Clericus, Sanctorum patrum . opera, i. 199-482, Amsterdam, 1724 (reproduced in MPG, i.); W. Ultsen, Constitationse apostolicae, Schwerin, 1853; P. de Legarde. Constituttones apostolorum, Leipsic, 1862, and in C. C. J. Bunsen, Anakcta Ante-Nicama, ii., London, 1854 (the first, critical ed.). The Canons are included in moot council collections, in the Corpus juris civilis and Corpus juris canonici. For the Syriac consult: P. de Lsgarde. Didaacalia apostolorum syriacs, Leipsic, 1854; M. D. Gibson, in Horas Semitica;, i: ii., London, 1903 (with Eng. trawl., from recently discovered M98.). From the Latin: E. Hauler, Didaacaliar apoetolorum jrapmenta Veronensia Latina, Leipsie, 1900; H. Aehelis and J: Flemming. in TU, new ser., a. 2, ib. 1904, cf. H. Aahelis, in TU, vi. 4, ib.1891. and in ZBG, xv. (1894) 1 sqq. The Eng. transl. of Whiston is given with notes in ANP, vii. 391-506 (reproduced from the second volume of his Primitive Christianity). Consult also F. X. Funk, Dis apostolisehen %onetitutionen, Rottenburg, 1891; W. Riedel, in R6mische Quartalachrsft. xiv. (1900) 3 sqq.; J. Leypoldt, Saidiache Aussape ava dem achten Buche der aposMiechen %bnatitutionen, in TU. new ser., xi. 1, Leipsie, 1904; G. Homer. The Statutes of the Apostles; or, Canones eecdesiastici, ed. uoifh Tranal. from Ethiopic and Arabic MSS. . . London 1905; D. L. O'Leary, Apoetolicai Constitutions, ib. 1908. The discussions upon the Didache and the Apostolioal Church Directory involve the Constitutions and Canons.


New Testament Statements and Allusions (¢ 1). Luke the Author of the Account in Acts (5 2).

Occasion for the Council (i 3). The Outcome. Four Prohibitions (1 4).

Alleged Contradiction between Acts and Galatians ii. (1 5).

Later History of the Decision of the Council (1 6).

The Apostolic Council is the common designation

of the meeting described in Acts xv. It took place

in 51 or 52 A.D., between the missionary journey

of Paul and Barnabas and that of Paul alone, and

marks a distinct stage in the proclamation of the

apostles' message to the Gentile world; viz., the

recognition of the right of the Gentiles

:. New Tes- to a place in the Christian commu

tament nity, without subjection to the Mo

Statements laic law. Interest in Luke's report

and Allu- of the proceedings is increased by

sions. the fact that Paul himself refers

to the Council in Gal. ii. 1-10 from

a controversial standpoint. The comparison of

the two accounts has led some recent theolo

gians to assert that the account in Acts is

essentially different from that of Paul, and

that the author of Acts has made the facts fit the

views which he takes of the whole period (see

below, § 5). In earlier time this council was the

special point used as a fulcrum for the attempt

of the T ubingen school to overthrow the received

tradition as to the history and literature of the time. Although the objections of Baur, especially as to the irreconcilability of Acts xv. and Gal. ii., have few extreme representatives nowadays, yet their results are seen in recent attempts to deny the unity of the Acts, regarding the book as a composite of various sources, which do not always agree in material and in tendency.

In the following treatment of the Apostolic Council the Book of Acts is assumed to be the work of Luke of Antioch, the companion of Paul, who (xvi. 10 sqq.) narrates in the first person; and the events detailed in chap. xv. are believed to be given partly from his own knowledge, partly from the testimony of the participants. There is no

a priori reason to suppose that for 3. Luke the chap. xv., or generally for any part of

Author the Antiochian-Pauline period, Luke of the was working over written authorities; Account he undoubtedly had seen the Jerusalem in Acts. letter (verses 23-29), but probably gives it here freely from memory. For a long time Paul's most trusted coadjutor, he would naturally enter intelligently into the Pauline attitude; and this is precisely what is found in his presentation of Paul's labors. His standpoint is that found in the Pauline theodicy of Rom. ix. xi., which excludes any tendency contrary to his tory, and allows the writer to consider historical facts in a perfectly objective manner. One may thus expect with confidence to find Luke's report of the Council historically accurate. Of this ac curacy Paul's expressions must of course serve as a criterion; since, however, Paul is not, like Luke, writing from the standpoint of general history, but to enforce a special point of dispute, Luke's account must be taken as the basis of any later treatment professing to be historical.

It is learned from Luke's account that some time after Paul and Barnabas had returned to Antioch from their missionary journey, there appeared certain Jewish Christians who taught the hitherto unheard-of doctrine that converts from heathenism could not be saved without circumcision, thus denying the equality prevailing for some ten years (or since Acts xi. 20) between the circumcised and uncircumcised members of the Church of Antioch.

This caused great disturbance among 3. Occasion the Gentile Christians, whose liberty

for the was threatened, and Paul and Barna Council. bas opposed it strongly and were deputed to lay the question before the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. This mission implies no doubt in their minds of their own posi tion, which had been approved all along; but they wished to be positively assured that they were in harmony with the source of their Christianity, for the quieting of their own minds and the sup pression of further attacks from the Judaizing party. Luke gives with care the serious discussion which led up to the decision. The Jerusalem community at first received the tidings of Gentile conversions not with unqualified joy; some Pharisaic mem bers of the Church put forward a definite demand that the Gentile Christians should be bound to the observance of the Mosaic law. It is to be noticed,


247 RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Apostolic Constitutions Apostolic Council

however, that this demand was not put forward, as at Antioch, on the theory that they could not otherwise be saved. The practical demand was the same, and was so strongly pressed that the decision was postponed to another meeting, in which again a long discussion took place without result. Since the extreme thesis of the disturbers at Antioch was not put forward here, there must have been other weighty grounds which induced no inconsiderable portion of the Church to press for the subjection of the Gentiles to the Mosaic law-apparently based on the idea that the law was God's ordinance for the lives of men far more universally than merely among the Jews.

It was Peter, the head of the Church of the Circumcision, who silenced this party by the unequivocal declaration of the principle of salvation by grace alone through faith. Tie ap-

4· The pealed, as to something they all knew, Outcome. to the fact that God had long before Four Pro- proclaimed salvation by his ministry hibitions. to Cornelius and his household; he de clared that the people of God in Israel had not been able to bear the law as a means of salvation, but were equally dependent with the Gen tiles upon divine grace, showing that this fun damental principle would be endangered if they insisted upon the observance of the law. This argument reduced the opposition to silence; no one was willing to attack the truth that salva tion was to be obtained without the law through faith. The time was now ripe for Barnabas and Paul to show how God had at tested their ministry by signs and wonders, which proved also their apostolic independ ence (cf. II Cor. xii. 12). The final verdict was rendered by James, showing that the prophets had foreshadowed the upbuilding of a Church without the law, and proposing instead of its enforcement to emphasize four prohibitions, which are connected with the rules laid down in Lev. xvii. and xviii. equally for the chil dren of Israel and for the strangers sojourning among them, as also with those imposed by later Jewish tradition on the " ° proselytes of the gate"; they are possibly nothing but these rules in the form in which they were observed among prose lytes in the apostolic times, in the districts here affected (Syria and GSlicia). They are derived originally from the Mosaic law, and forbid what to the Jewish ethical consciousness was highly offensive. Neither of these points is made, how ever, but they are forbidden as things in themselves morally reprehensible-their prohi bition is necessary in order to separate Gentile morality from Gentile immorality and super stition. By the word " fornication " (Gk. porneirs) is signified the unrestricted sexual intercourse which was practically tolerated in the heathen world. The words " to abstain from meats offered to idols °' refer to both private and public meals on the flesh of the victims of sacrifices, which connected the social life of the people with pagan worship. The prohibition of "blood" and "things strangled," while not so easily understood, may be taken to stamp with disapproval the habits in

regard to food which prevailed among barbarous tribes, but were rejected by the more civilized Greeks and Romans, though they must have been known among the populations to whom the first recipients of the letter belonged. In a word, the whole purpose of the decree was to mark off by a sharp line of division the life of the Gentile Christians from that of the heathen around them.

The account in the Acts has been assailed by numerous critics as a more or less consciously biased presentation of the real story,

g. Alleged as it may be taken from Gal. ii. Contradic- The accusations are mainly these: tion be- the account in Acts minimizes the tween Acts fundamental opposition which existed and Gal. ii. between Paul and the Jerusalem Church by ascribing to the latter a Pauline standpoint which it had not; the account gives as a result of the Council a limitation of the Gentiles' liberty and equal title to which Paul could never have consented; in defiance of history, it attributes to Paul a position of subordination to the Jerusalem apostles. The first point scarcely needs further discussion after what has been said. The Pauline expressions in Gal. ii. must be taken in connection with the explanatory preface in chap. i. His Galatian opponents asserted that his preaching to the Gentiles needed correction and completion, supporting this by the statement that he had formerly subordinated himself to the Twelve. He appeals to the superhu man origin of his mission and the fact that he had sought no confirmation of his gospel from men, not even from the Twelve (Gal. i. 11-20). But with verse 21 another point of view begins; the remaining verses are written to demonstrate that no relation existed between him and the Palestinian Christianity, the older apostles, which would give his opponents any right to appeal to them against him. When in Gal. ii. 1 he mentions going up to Jerusalem fourteen years later, it is in order to demonstrate that after so long a time the original concord remains undisturbed. The situa tion is thus exactly that described in Acts xv. What Paul designates "that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles " is the very thing opposed by the disturbers and brought up in Jerusalem. In both cases uncertainty exists as to the position of Jerusalem toward it, and certainty is sought. In both Paul appears with Barnabas; and if he mentions that he took with him Titus, who was uncircumcised (meaning thereby to test the attitude of the Jerusalem Church toward Gentile Christians), Luke also relates that certain of the Gentile con verts from Antioch were sent with him. Paul is stating facts to repel a personal attack on himself; Luke mentions the matter in its bearing on the his tory of the Church as a whole. Thus there was no need to mention in the Acts the revelation which (in addition to the desire of the community) de cided Paul's journey, while Paul speaks of it appar ently to emphasize the importance of the proceeding. That Paul omits any notice of the decree is not surprising when one considers that its purpose was not in any way to limit the freedom of the Gentiles from the law, and that he had no motive to enter


Apostolic Council AHPellantH THE NEW SC$AFF-HERZOG 248

on the subject here. On the other hand, he does narrate something which Luke omits, in verses 6-10. Certain prominent leaders, especially the three " pillars," recognizing the grace given to him, explicitly agreed that he and Barnabas should go to the heathen, and they to the circumcision. By this he means to confirm what must have been denied in Galatia-that his independent position involved no breach with Jerusalem, but had been distinctly sanctioned by the leaders of the Church there. Luke might have been expected to mention this less public discussion and agreement, of which he must have known, and, as a matter of fact, Acts xv. 4, 12, 26 may be taken to refer indirectly to it; not to mention that, according to his narrative alone, it would seem likely that the leaders had had their minds settled as to the position of Paul and Barnabas, and in some such way as Gal. ii. describes. The same process of intelligent comparison will also show that the account of the conflict at Antioch in Gal. ii. 11 sqq. is by no means (as has been frequently asserted) irreconcilable with the narrative of the Acts. A word must be said about the later history of the decree. Originally it was addressed to that part of the Gentile Christians who had been in relation with Jerusalem. On his own motion Paul extended it to other Gentile communities already existing.

Neither his own writings nor the Acts 6. Later show that he enforced it upon commuHiatory of nities formed later as a decree of the the Decision Jerusalem Council: but in regard at

of the least to the first two points, the manner Council. in which they are referred to in I Cor.

v., vi., viii.-x. and in Rev. ii. shows that the prohibition was held to be of universal obligation among the Gentile Churches; and in the second century they played an important part in connection with the Gnostic controversy. Singularly enough, no trace of the other two prohibitions is found either in apostolic or in subapostolic times; if the view of them given above is correct, this would be explained by the fact that there was no need to enforce them in the civilized Hellenic world. Later passages in Tertullian (Apol., ix.), Minucius Felix (Octavius, xii.), and the Clementine Homilies (vii. 4, 8) and Recognitions (iv. 36), point to an avoiding of blood even in cooked meats, which must have been based on a misunderstanding

of the decree. (K. SCHMIDT.) BIBLIOGRAPHY: The subject is treated in the appropriate sections in works on the Apostolic Age, in commentaries on the Acts, and in works on the Apostles Peter and Paul; of especial value are:-J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 283-355, London. 1866; O. PHeiderer, Der Paulinia mus, pp. 278 aqq., 500 aqq.. Leipsie, 1873, Eng. trend. London, 1877; C. von Weissltcker, Doe Apoetelconcil, in Jahrbacher fir deuteche Theolopie, 1873, pp.-191-246; T. Keim, Aus dem Urchristentum, pp. 64-89, Zurich, 1879; F, W Farrar, Paul, chaps. xxi: xxiii., London, 1883; idem, Early Days o/ Christianity, i. 294-297. ib. 1882; J. G. Sommer. Dae Apoateldekret, 2 parts, Kanigeberg, 1888-89; W. F. Sister. Faith and Life o/ the Early Church, London, 1892 (exceedingly valuable)

APOSTOLIC FATHERS: A common designation for those writers of the ancient Church who were scholars of apostles, or supposed to be such; viz., Bsrnabas, Hermas, Clement of Rome, Igna-

The ideal which the Apostolic Brethren strove to realize was a life of supposed perfect sanctity, in complete poverty, with no fixed domicil, no care for the morrow, and no vows. It was a protest against the invasion of the Church by the spirit of worldliness, as well as against the manner in which the other orders kept their vows, particularly that of poverty. In itself the project might

tius, Polycarp, Papias, and the author of the epistle to Diognetus (qq.v.).

131BLIOGRAPHY: The first collection of the writings of these Fathers was by J. B. Cotelerius, Paris. 1672 (reedited with notes by J. Clericus, Antwerp, 1698, 2d ed., Amsterdam, 1724). Other editions are by L. T. Ittig, Leipsic, 1699· J. L. Frey, Basel, 1742; R. Russell, London, 1746; W. Jacobson, Oxford, 1838: C. J. Hefele, Ttibingen, 1855; E. de Muralto, Barnabee et Clementis epiatolm, vol. i., Zurich, 1847; A. R. M. Dressel, Leipsie, 1863; A. Hilgenfeld. ib. 1876-81; O. von Gebhardt, A. Hamack, and T. Zahn. ib. 1894; F. X. Funk, Tubingen, 1901; J. B. Lightfoot, London, 1869-90 (than which there is nothing finer). Eng. translations are by W. Wake, London, 1693 (rev. ed., Oxford, 1861); in vol. i. of ANF, Edinburgh, 1867, American ed., Buffalo, 1887; C. H Hoole, London, 1872; and J. B. Lightfoot, in ed. mentioned above. Germ. tranel. by H. Scholz, GOtersloh, 1865, and by J. C. Mayer

in Bibliothek der %irchonvater, 80 vols., Kempten, 1869-88. Consult A. Harnack, Litteratur (exhaustive); J. Donaldson, Critical History of Christian Literature arid Doctrine, London, 1894; J. Nirsehl, Lehrbuch der Patrologis and Potristik, 3 vole., Mainz, 1881-85; J. Alzog. Grundriss der Patrolopie oder der alteren ehristlichen Lileraturpeschichte, Freiburg, 1888; O. Zlickler. Geschichtedertheolopischen Litteratur, Goths, 1890; C. T. Cruttwell, Literary History of Early Christianity, 2 vols., London, 1$93; G. Krager, Geachichte der altchrist lichen Litteratur, Freiburg, 1895, Eng. tranel., New York, 1897 (altogether the handiest book, and useful because of its notices of the literature on the separate subjects). APOSTOLIC KING: An honorary title of the kings of Hungary, said to have been given originally to Stephen, the first Christian king of that country, by Pope Sylvester II. (999-1003), on account of his religious zeal. It was renewed and confirmed to Maria Theresa, for the Austro-Hungarian royal fam ily, by a brief of Clement XIII., Aug. 19, 1758. APOSTOLIC MENNONITES. See MENNONITES. APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: According to the theory of supporters of the episcopal form of church polity, the uninterrupted succession, from the apostles to the present day, of bishops and priests set apart by the laying on of hands. The Greek, Roman Catholic, and Anglican Churches maintain that this succession is essential to the validity of sacramental ministrations, and allow no one not thus ordained to minister in their churches. The last-named body asserts its possession by all three; the Roman Catholic concedes it to the Greek but not to the Anglican; while the Greeks regard its possession by either of the other two as at best ex ceedingly doubtful. See EPI800PAvY; ORDINATION; POLITY. BIBLIOGRAPHY: A. W. Haddan, Apostoliral Succession in the Church of England, London, 1869; E. McCrady, Apos tolical Succession and the Problem of Unity, Sewanee, 1905. APOSTOLICI (called by themselves Apotactici, " Renuntiants "): heretical sect of the third and fourth centuries which renounced private property and marriage. They existed in Asia Minor and are mentioned by Epipha,nius (Hmr., lid.). They accepted as Scripture the apocryphal Acts of Andrew and of Thomas. APPEALS TO THE POPE: Appeals from lower officials or courts, which, considered as an ordinary process of law, with effect of suspension and devo lution, may be based upon the pope's capacity of bishop and metropolitan, or upon his supposed primacy over the entire Catholic world. Those of the former class have nothing peculiar about them. As concerns the latter class, the third and

the lector than one is accustomed to; but no minor orders in the later sense are known, nor is there any approach. to metropolitan organization. These primitive traits induced Harnack to attempt to distingush two sources belonging to the second century, represented by chaps. xvi.-xxi., and xxii.xxviii.; but this'is unnecessary, as primitive customs persisted for a long time in certain parts of

the Church. H. AcHSLm.


fourth canons of the Council of Sardica (343) do not, as asserted by Roman Catholic canonists, recognize such an appellate jurisdiction; and no such jurisdiction existed earlier. The council indeed lays down the law that in case of the deposition of a bishop the matter may be referred to the pope, who may either decline to act (in which case the deposition holds good), or may order an investigation by neighboring bishops and certain specially appointed priests. But, apart from the fact that the Council of Sardica is not recognized as ecumenical, and that its decrees were long ago known to have been interpolated to bring them into harmony with the Nicene canons, every true appeal presupposes a review of the formalities and a decision on the validity of the grounds for the lower court's sentence, neither of which is mentioned in the Sardican canons. The claim by the Roman See of a supreme judicial power was only made possible by the victory of the orthodox party, always represented by Rome,, over Arianism, and the imperial decision (380) that the faith of the Roman pontiff was the standard, and that he should have precedence over all other bishops. This claim was first made by Innocent I. (402-417) in his letter to Victricius of Rouen; attempts to enforce it met with the determined opposition of the primates, and failed until a firm foundation for them was laid under Leo I. by a law of the emperor Valentinian III. in 445.

The Roman view is set forth in more than one passage of the pseudo-Isidorian decretals. These assert that, in conformity with the decrees of Sardica, bishops may appeal to Rome in all causes, and that the more serious ones must be decided by the Roman See, not by the bishops; and then that not only in such cases, but in all, and by any injured person, appeal may be made to the pope. These claims were in accord with the ideas of the twelfth century, and gave definite form to the concurrent jurisdiction of the pope, by which he might either immediately or through his legatee decide or call up questions otherwise belonging to the ordinary. This is not the same thing as the appellate jurisdiction; but the conceptions belonging to the latter are touched by the assertion that in cases where failure of justice occurs in the secular courts, recourse may be had from any tribunal to the Church, that is, eventually to the curia. Although Alexander III. (1159-81) had admitted that appeals from civil tribunals, while customary, were not in accordance with strict legal principles, Innocent III. (1198-1216) affirmed the principle that the Church had the right to take measures against any sin, and thus against denial of justice by secular courts. A reaction against the abuse of appeals to Rome was evidenced in Germany by the " Golden Bull " [issued by the emperor Charles IV. in 1356; for text cf. 0. Harnack, Das Kurfursten Kollegium, Giessen, 18831 which forbade them to be made from secular tribunals; by the Concordat of Constance (1418); and by the thirtyfirst session of the Council of Basel, to which corresponds the twenty-sixth section of the Pragmatic Sanction of 1439. The Concordat established the principle that appeals should be decided not in

RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA Apostollanlicts Council Appe

Rome, but by judices in part0ws; and this provision was repeated in the latter two documents, which also forbade appeals per saltum and before the definitive sentence of the lower tribunal. The Council of Trent (sessions 13, chaps. 1-3, and 24, chap. 20 [held in 1551 and 1563]) decreed that only causce majores should be taken to Rome, the others being decided by judices synodales, papal delegates so called because their nomination was left to the diocesan and provincial synods. When it appeared that these bodies did not act successfully, Pope Benedict XIV. (1740-58) transferred the nomination to bishops and chapters (judices prosynodales) by the constitution Qvamvis paternce of 1741. At present the bishops receive faculties enabling them to delegate these nominees in the pope's name for a certain number of years. Appeals which do go to Rome are referred to two congregations, that of the council and that of bishops and regulars.

In modern times, even earlier than the period of the emperor Joseph II. (1765-90), both Catholic. and Protestant governments have either abolished these appeals or very strictly limited them; but these limitations are considered by the curia as only de facto; not de jure, and the extensive medieval claims .are still upheld in theory.

(E. FRIEDBERG.) BiHLr06e:AP87: For Golden Bull in Eng. consult: Hen-

dereon, Documents, pp. 220-221; Thatcher and McNeal, Source Book, pp. 283 eqq. (cf. Pp. 329-332 on the general subject of appeals). On appeals: G. Phillips, Kirchenrecht, v. 215 eqq., Ratisbon, 1857; P. Hineohius. Kirdenrecht, v. 773 eqq., v. 281, Berlin. 188"5.

APPEL, THEODORE: German Reformed clergyman; b. at Easton, Pa., Apr. 30,1823. He was educated at Marshall College,Merceraburg, Pa. (B.A.,1842), and at the German Reformed Seminary in the same town (1845). He was tutor in Greek in Marshall College in 1842-45, and pastor of German Reformer chlprches at Cavetown, Md. (1845-51), and Mercersburg, Pa. (1851-53). He also held the professorship of mathematics at Marshall College from 1851 to 1853, and was professor of mathematics, physics, and astronomy at Franklin and Marshall College from 1853 to 1877, while from 1878 to 1886 he was superintendent of home missions in the Reformed Church. He is secretary of the Board of Visitors of the Reformed Theological Seminary and holds a similar office on the Board of Home and Foreign Missions of the Reformed Church. From 1878 to 1886 he edited the Reformed Missionary Herald and from 1889 to 1893 the Reformed Church Messenger. He retired from active life in 1897. In theology he adheres to the Mercereburg type of doctrine of the German Reformed Church. In addition to numerous contributions to periodicals, he has written College Recollections (Reading, Pa., 1886); The Beginnings of the Theological Seminary of the Reformed Church (Philadelphia, 1886); and The Life and Work of Rev. John W. Nevin (1889). He has likewise edited Nevin's lectures on the history of the English language (Lancaster, Pa., 1895).

APPELLANTS: The name of that party, which, in the controversy,between the Jansenists and the Jesuits, rejected the bull Unigenitus, and appealed to a general council. See JANBEN, Cowm=s, JAMENMM.



CCEL home page
This document is from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library at
Calvin College. Last modified on 10/03/03. Contact the CCEL.
Calvin seal: My heart I offer you O Lord, promptly and sincerely