The Apostolic Constitution is a document written circa 375-380. This document can be a helpful historical source for understanding the life of the church in the late 4th century, within the region of Syria. Church life and practice are difficult to understand because they are not discussed in great detail. Even today, we might say, “We went to church on the Lord’s Day.” We do not discuss in detail how we worship or what happens in a church service because of the historical evidence available. Imagine being a church historian years from now, having to find church bulletins to shape our understanding of what particular churches did in their worship. You might find some clues or ideas, but the title of ‘baptism’ could mean a variety of practices. Of course, we have differences, but we often can explain the variations in a few sentences. In Church history, we do not have the exact details of every aspect of the church, and when we do, they are from a particular perspective. This is why Justin Marty’s ‘First Apology’ is an important historical source: he explains to outsiders what happens in the church on the Lord’s day.1 The Apostolic Constitution provides a great deal of information on how a particular group of people understood the structure of the church and liturgical practices.

The Apostolic Constitution is an early church book of order, claims apostolic authorship, but is universally considered pseudepigraphal. The Apostolic Constitution is based on an earlier document, the Didascalia Apostolorum, a third-century church order likely composed in Syria around the mid-200s. I briefly discuss this document in the post below.

Book III of the Apostolic Constitutions focuses on two main areas of church life. The first section addresses the role of widows within the church, describing their qualifications, character, and spiritual vocation. Widows are portrayed as women devoted to prayer, humility, and holiness, who respond to the church’s charitable support with intercession and thanksgiving. Their life is to be marked by quiet service and sincerity before God rather than public recognition.2

The second portion of the book turns to the roles of deacons and deaconesses and their relationship to the bishop. These officers assist the bishop in practical ministry, particularly in caring for the poor and distributing alms. Deacons also assist in the administration of baptism and other practical aspects of the church’s worship. In this context, deaconesses are described as assisting with the baptism of women, a practice connected to the modesty concerns of the early church, since baptism was commonly administered with minimal clothing.3

While this does mention the role of Deaconesses in the Church, it is not that they share the same responsibilities as Deacons. The Constitution makes it clear about their responsibilities and functions, stating, “Ordain also a deaconess who is faithful and holy, for the ministrations towards women. Sometimes he cannot send a deacon, who is a man, to the women, on account of unbelievers. Thou shalt therefore send a woman, a deaconess, on account of the imaginations of the bad.”4 The one major responsibility of a deaconess is the ministry towards other women; her role in baptism was based upon the need for modesty in the unique situation practiced by the church at the time. It is clear that only the Bishop or Presbytery may baptize the person; the deacon or deaconess is to assist for practical reasons.5 They previously explained, “Now, as to women’s baptizing, we let you know that there is no small peril to those that undertake it. Therefore we do not advise you to it; for it is dangerous, or rather wicked and impious.”6

The practice is not universal in the church at the time, but often geographically concentrated. More importantly, a selective argument for the practice of deaconesses from the Apostolic Constitution, based on the document’s concept, holds that deaconesses are ordained. Besides many other arguments I have made before in previous articles. I will make two.

The first is that the Constitution is clear that the function of these deaconesses was not our modern-day practice. The Constitution clearly states, “We do not permit our “women to teach in the Church,” (1 Cor. 14.34) but only to pray and hear those that teach; for our Master and Lord, Jesus Himself, when He sent us the twelve to make disciples of the people and of the nations, did nowhere send out women to preach, although He did not want such.”7 The Constitution continues to explain what type of prayer the woman shall pray, “Let the widow therefore own herself to be the “altar of God,” and let her sit in her house, and not enter into the houses of the faithful, under any pretence, to receive anything; for the altar of God never runs about, but is fixed in one place.”8

The second is the origins of the document itself; even if this was a clear document that laid out the practice of the ordination of women to the office of deacon, this does not validate the practice in the reformed church. The document is written as if the apostles themselves wrote this book of church order. Later in Book 8, section three, we read, “Concerning a deaconess, I Bartholomew make this constitution: O bishop, thou shalt lay thy hands upon her in the presence of the presbytery, and of the deacons and deaconesses, and shall say:—”9

“O Eternal God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of man and of woman, who didst replenish with the Spirit Miriam, and Deborah, and Anna, and Huldah; [Ex. 15:20; Judg. 4:4; Luke 2:36; 2 Kings 22:14.] who didst not disdain that Thy only begotten Son should be born of a woman; who also in the tabernacle of the testimony, and in the temple, didst ordain women to be keepers of Thy holy gates,—do Thou now also look down upon this Thy servant, who is to be ordained to the office of a deaconess, and grant her Thy Holy Spirit, and “cleanse her from all filthiness of flesh and spirit,” [2 Cor. 7:1.] that she may worthily discharge the work which is committed to her to Thy glory, and the praise of Thy Christ, with whom glory and adoration be to Thee and the Holy Spirit for ever. Amen.”10

Someone penned these words and claimed to be the apostle Bartholomew, seeking to show their authority in the matter. Now, while this might seem strange to use today, it may have been common at the time, as people knew it was not truly from his hand, as one manuscript explained: “Bartholomew preached the Gospel according to Matthew to the Indians, who also have been buried in India.” We will put this issue aside, although I think it does require some thought to assess the validity of using the document to defend current practices. However, if we are to say that the Apostolic Constitution mentions deaconesses, or use it as evidence of the practice in church history, then we must also resurrect many other offices. Not to mention the distinction between Bishop and Presbyter, or Reader and Sub-Deacon. What about other roles explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, although not ordained, maybe our churches should return to the practice of having “confessors”, “virgins”, “widows”, or even an “exorcist.”11 The reality is that the Presbyterian Church does have a Book of Church Order, and it does not mention these functions, or offices, only Elder and Deacon.

Conclusion

The reformation changed the world in drastic ways that we do not truly understand. The teaching of Sola Scriptura shaped not just the doctrine of justification but the church and her structure. Church history, quite plainly, says this is what a particular group at a particular time believed or practiced. But the Reformation said that Scripture is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. History says what was done, Scripture says what should be done. Finding additions to church history is easy; with the creation of new offices, there is no end, especially when you combine church tradition and human imagination. The offices of the church are not circumstantial, and therefore need to be established by the Word, either expressly set down, or by good and necessary circumstance (WCF 1.6). An office is not merely a title given to a person; with it comes authority and responsibility to carry out that calling; hence, an elder or a deacon can be charged through church discipline if they do not fulfill their duties (BCO 34-10, 24-7). Christ would need to give not only the title of the said office but also the function of that office, or else how would you be able to discipline someone not according to the word of God? I will finish with the standard quote from the Preface of the BCO,

Christ, as King, has given to His Church officers, oracles and ordinances; and especially has He ordained therein His system of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, all of which are either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary inference may be deduced therefrom; and to which things He commands that nothing be added, and that from them naught be taken away.