Rules of the Holy Apostles

On the Rules of the Holy Apostles

In all collections of the canons of the Orthodox Eastern Church, the rules of the holy apostles hold the foremost place. From their title, one might infer that these rules are attributed to the holy apostles. However, there is no evidence to suggest that these rules, in the exact form and composition as they appear in the collections, were written by any of the apostles in a manner similar to the apostolic epistles. Likewise, in the codex of apostolic writings, the apostolic rules are not included.

Yet, the work of the holy apostles in spreading Christianity and establishing Christ’s Church was not limited to their written teachings and institutions. Far more than what is contained in the apostolic epistles was orally transmitted by them to the churches they founded, especially to the bishops, their disciples, and successors, who in turn were to pass on what they had heard from the apostles to their own successors (2 Timothy 1:2). From these unwritten but orally transmitted commandments and teachings of the apostles, the rules of the holy apostles were compiled and recorded, occupying the primary place in the collections of the Orthodox Church’s canons.

This conclusion is supported by the following:

1. The agreement of the apostolic rules in content and essence with the teachings on the same subjects found in the New Testament. Many apostolic rules bear a striking resemblance to the teachings of the Gospel and the apostolic epistles, not only in spirit and essence but also in their very expression. However, while the Gospel and epistles present commandments in a continuous narrative, the rules present them as distinct, separate prescriptions, akin to legal statutes. For instance, the Savior says: Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery (Matthew 5:32, 19:9). Apostolic Rule 48 further specifies the consequences: If any layman, having put away his wife, taketh another, or one divorced by another, let him be excommunicated, and so forth. Similarly, in the epistles of the Apostle Paul to Timothy (1 Timothy 3:2–13) and Titus (Titus 1:5–9), as well as in the epistles of the Apostles Peter (1 Peter 5:1–4) and John (3 John 1:10), the qualifications for those entering the clergy, along with their moral, familial, and ministerial duties, are outlined. These same requirements and prescriptions are found in Apostolic Rules 17, 25, 42, 43, 44, 61, and 80, which either prohibit admitting to the clergy those lacking the qualities specified in the apostolic epistles or mandate deposition if such qualities are found wanting after ordination. In the Acts of the Apostles (8:18–25), the story of Simon the Sorcerer is recounted, condemned by the Apostle Peter for attempting to purchase the gift of the Holy Spirit with money. Apostolic Rule 29 subjects a cleric who obtained his office through money to deposition and final excommunication, explicitly referencing Simon the Sorcerer. The Apostle Paul, in his first epistle to Timothy (5:19–21), instructs the bishop of the Ephesian church regarding the judgment of a presbyter. Apostolic Rule 32 addresses the consequences of a presbyter or deacon being excommunicated by their bishop. The epistle lays the foundation, while the rule specifies its further implications.
2. This conclusion is further supported by the alignment of the apostolic rules with the ecclesiastical practices of the early centuries of Christianity. When comparing the apostolic rules with the practices of the early Church, it is evident that much of what is prescribed in the apostolic rules was actively observed. The apostolic rules consistently distinguish the three main hierarchical ranks—bishop, presbyter, and deacon. Saint Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-Bearer, Tertullian, and Irenaeus testify that such a division of hierarchy existed in the Church during their time, that is, in the first and second centuries. The apostolic rules prohibit admitting to the clergy those who have been married twice or have committed grave sins, forbid Orthodox Christians from communing with heretics or those excommunicated from the Church, prohibit repeating valid baptism or ordination, mandate baptism by triple immersion in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and reject the baptism of heretics. They also prescribe fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, as well as during Great Lent, but permit relaxation on Sundays and feast days, and they do not condemn marriage, the eating of meat, or the drinking of wine. Writers of the first three centuries refer to these practices and prescriptions as operative in the Church.
3. The holy fathers and local and ecumenical councils provide testimony to the apostolic origin and authority of the rules known as apostolic. The fathers and councils cite these rules as apostolic, base their decisions upon them, and reject customs that crept into ecclesiastical practice contrary to them. For example, Saint Basil the Great (Rule 3, 12), the local councils of Antioch (Rules 3, 9, 21, 23), Gangra (Rule 21), Constantinople (394), and Carthage (Rule 60) sometimes refer to the apostolic rules as ecclesiastical statutes, rules received from the holy fathers, apostolic traditions, ancient customs, or directly as apostolic rules. Even when not explicitly naming the apostolic rules, they follow the prescriptions expressed in them. The First, Second, Third, Fourth, Sixth, and Seventh Ecumenical Councils not only provide numerous testimonies to the apostolic rules but also command all Orthodox Christians to accept these rules as apostolic. For instance, the First Ecumenical Council decrees the cessation of a custom contrary to the apostolic rule, prohibiting bishops, presbyters, or deacons from transferring from one city to another (First Ecumenical, Rule 15; cf. Apostolic Rules 14, 15). In its rulings on eunuchs, converts, the excommunicated, those ordained without examination and later found guilty of grave sins, and those who have fallen away from the faith (First Ecumenical, Rules 1, 2, 4, 9, 10), the Council of Nicaea adheres unwaveringly to previously established rules, which, in these cases, are Apostolic Rules 21, 80, 32, 25, and 61. The Second Ecumenical Council, in prohibiting bishops from arbitrarily transferring to other dioceses, refers not only to the Nicene rules but also to others, and the only rules older than those of Nicaea are the apostolic rules on this matter. The Third Ecumenical Council (Rule 8) explicitly cites the rules of the holy apostles in affirming the inviolability of each church’s rights and privileges. The Fourth Ecumenical Council bases its ruling on the inviolability of property left after a bishop’s death (Rule 22) on ancient rules, and no rule on this matter predates Apostolic Rule 40. The Sixth Ecumenical Council, in addition to clarifying and confirming certain apostolic rules (cf. Sixth Ecumenical, Rules 2, 3, 6, 30, 55; Apostolic Rules 85, 17, 18, 26, 5, 64), in its second rule commands all to observe the apostolic rules inviolably, threatening violators with punishment in these words: This holy council hath deemed it good and worthy of utmost care that henceforth, for the healing of souls and the curing of passions, the eighty-five rules received and confirmed by the holy and blessed fathers before us, and delivered to us in the name of the holy and glorious apostles, remain firm and unshaken… Let no one be permitted to alter or annul the aforementioned rules. And if any be found attempting to change or set aside any of these rules, he shall be liable to the penalty prescribed by that rule, and through it shall be healed of that wherein he hath stumbled. The Seventh Ecumenical Council, in specifically confirming certain apostolic rules (cf. Seventh Ecumenical, Rules 3, 5, 11; Apostolic Rules 30, 29, 38), testifies generally to the observance of all apostolic rules in these words: We joyfully receive the divine rules and steadfastly uphold their entire and unshaken ordinance, set forth by the all-praised apostles, the holy trumpets of the Spirit, and by the six holy Ecumenical Councils, and by those locally assembled for the issuance of such commandments, and by our holy fathers. For all they, enlightened by one and the same Spirit, have ordained what is profitable. Those whom they anathematize, we also anathematize; those whom they depose, we also depose; those whom they excommunicate, we also excommunicate; and those whom they subject to penance, we likewise subject.

Thus, the agreement of the apostolic rules in essence, and sometimes in letter, with New Testament teachings, their observance and application in the practices of the early centuries, and the clear acknowledgment of their apostolic origin and authority by the holy fathers and local and ecumenical councils leave no room for doubt that the rules known to us as apostolic are indeed apostolic.

In What Form Did the Apostolic Rules First Appear?

The apostolic rules, as commandments and institutions orally transmitted by the holy apostles to various churches, were not initially present in their current composition in all churches. Evidence for this lies in the ecclesiastical practices of the first two centuries, which show that some churches had customs not entirely consistent with certain apostolic rules. It would be difficult to reconcile these differences with the idea that a complete collection of apostolic rules existed and was universally applied in all churches during the first two centuries of Christianity. Therefore, the apostolic rules, in their entirety, should not be regarded as a code of laws issued all at once by the apostles in their full compilation. Rather, they are rules orally given by the holy apostles to the churches they founded or to their successor bishops.

When and by Whom Were These Rules Compiled and Brought to Their Current Form?

The following historical data and considerations address this question: By the early sixth century, two collections of apostolic rules existed—Dionysius the Small’s in the West and John Scholasticus’s in the East. In the first half of the fifth century, a collection of apostolic rules was also known, as confirmed by references in the Councils of Chalcedon (451), Constantinople (448), and Ephesus (431). The acts and rules of these councils provide clear evidence of the existence of a collection of apostolic rules at that time. Three rules of the Council of Chalcedon resemble apostolic rules (Chalcedon, Rules 7, 2, 3; Apostolic Rules 83, 30, 81), and it is certain that the Chalcedonian rules were drafted with the apostolic rules in mind. Likewise, the expressions of the Council of Chalcedon—“divine rules,” “succession of rules,” “holy rules”—refer specifically to the apostolic rules. The same character and significance apply to the references of the Council of Ephesus to ecclesiastical succession, rules, and ecclesiastical ordinances, as well as the references of the Council of Constantinople (448) to divine rules. In all these cases, the apostolic rules are intended, and undoubtedly a complete collection of 85 rules, as references apply equally to both earlier and later rules. A collection of apostolic rules also existed by the end of the fourth century, as evidenced by a reference from the Council of Constantinople (394), expressed as follows: as it is established by the apostolic rules. A collection existed in the first half of the fourth century as well, as councils of that time cite numerous apostolic rules. For instance, the Council of Antioch repeats the content of twenty apostolic rules in its own rules. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea also reiterates certain apostolic rules from various parts of the collection. It is evident that the collection of apostolic rules predates the rules of all councils, as councils refer to ancient rules established before them, while the apostolic rules contain no references to any prior rules except Sacred Scripture. In the absence of direct evidence regarding the time of the compilation of the apostolic rules, the most likely conclusion is that this collection was compiled in the late second or early third century.

Who Compiled the Collection of Apostolic Rules?

This question cannot be answered with even approximate certainty. The opinion of Beveridge that Clement of Alexandria was the compiler of the apostolic rules cannot be substantiated with solid evidence.

Regarding the Number of Apostolic Rules

The Western Church, following the Latin translation of Dionysius the Small, accepts only 50 apostolic rules, while the Orthodox Eastern Church accepts 85. This difference originally arose because the Greek manuscript used by Dionysius for his translation contained only 50 rules. Meanwhile, in the East, around the same time, codices with the complete collection of 85 apostolic rules existed, as attested by John Scholasticus. A number close to this—82 or 83 apostolic rules—is found in Syriac, Arabic, and Ethiopic codices of the rules. The Sixth Ecumenical Council (Rule 2) specifically prescribes that the eighty-five rules delivered in the name of the holy and glorious apostles remain firm and unshaken.

The apostolic rules primarily contain prescriptions related to the clergy. Of the 85 rules, 76 pertain to spiritual persons, and of these, only 4 also apply to laypeople.

1. Let a bishop be ordained by two or three bishops.

Zonara. In modern usage, cheirotonia denotes the performance of the prayers of ordination over one chosen for holy orders and the invocation of the Holy Spirit upon him, since the hierarch, in blessing the one being ordained, extends his hand. But in antiquity, the very act of election was also called cheirotonia. For when the people of a city were permitted to elect bishops, they would assemble, some desiring one candidate and others another. To ensure that the greater number of votes prevailed, those conducting the election would, it is said, extend their hands and count the voters for each candidate accordingly. The one favored by the larger number was deemed elected to the episcopate. From this practice arose the term cheirotonia. The fathers of the councils employed this term in the same sense, applying it also to election. For the Council of Laodicea, in its fifth rule, states: Ordinations ought not to take place in the presence of hearers. Here, the council designates elections as cheirotoniai, since it is more customary for many to gather for the ordination of a bishop, whereas at elections, due to the presentation of accusations against the candidates, certain persons are forbidden to be present and to hear these charges. This rule permits the ordination of a bishop by even two bishops. However, the fourth rule of the First Ecumenical Council mandates that the election of a bishop be conducted by all the bishops of the diocese.

Aristen. Two or three bishops ordain a bishop. The election of a bishop must necessarily be performed by three bishops, and no fewer, if it is impractical for all the diocesan bishops to assemble for this purpose. Consult also the fourth rule of the Nicene Council, the thirteenth of the Carthaginian, and the nineteenth of the Antiochian.

Valsamon. This apostolic rule speaks of cheirotonia performed by a hierarch in the church, as the great Paul also says: Lay hands hastily on no man, neither be partaker of other men’s sins (1 Timothy 5:22). It does not refer to election by the extension of hands, which occurred when elections of bishops were conducted by the city populace, as some have claimed, following unwritten accounts. Although the Council of Laodicea, in its fifth rule, states that cheirotoniai ought not to take place in the presence of hearers, and although some have inferred from this that the present rule also concerns election, it seems to me that they are mistaken. For even the cheirotonia performed in church involves mystical prayers, though it occurs before the eyes of many. Moreover, since the fourth rule of the holy First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea prescribes that the election of a bishop be carried out by all the bishops of the diocese, or at least by three, with the consent of the others expressed in writing, I am perplexed as to how some could assert that this rule, which speaks of the ordination of a bishop by two or three bishops, implies the election of a hierarch.

Slavonic Korimchaya. Two or three bishops ordain a bishop. Three bishops, without any impediment, must ordain a bishop, and let him not be deposed if it is impossible for all the bishops in the province to gather together in one place. On this matter, consult the fourth rule of the First Council in Nicaea.