Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第四章教会的组织与纪律

§ 41. 巩固的进程

在我们所论的这一时期，教会的外部组织出现了几项重要变化。教牧与平信徒的区别，以及将教牧职分视为祭司职分的观念，变得突出而固定；教会的下级职分日益增多；主教制兴起；罗马首席权初露端倪；大公教会排他性的统一，也在反对异端与分裂者的过程中逐渐发展起来。第一世纪的使徒组织，如今让位于古代大公教会的主教制度；这一制度又转变为都主教制，并在第四世纪以后转变为宗主教制。希腊教会止步于此，直至今日，仍由品级和管辖权彼此平等的宗主教实行圣统寡头统治；拉丁教会则更进一步，在中世纪产生了教皇君主制。这种教皇制的萌芽，在我们当前所论的时期也已显露，尤其见于居普良的著作，同时也伴随着对它的抗议。居普良本人既为巩固的首席权作见证，也同样为独立的主教制作见证，因此罗马天主教徒和圣公会信徒常常同样出于宗派目的利用并滥用他。

然而，君士坦丁 (Constantine) 以前的圣统制，与君士坦丁以后希腊和罗马两教会的圣统制相比，其特点首先是庄严的简朴，其次是属灵的性质，也就是不与政治权力和世俗荣华发生任何牵连。教会所取得和行使的任何影响力，都丝毫不受惠于世俗政府；直到君士坦丁颁布保护性的宽容敕令（313年）以前，世俗政府始终对教会漠不关心，或公然敌视。德尔图良认为，皇帝不可能成为基督徒，基督徒也不可能成为皇帝；甚至在君士坦丁以后，多纳徒派 (Donatists) 仍坚持这一看法，并举出先前时代的记忆来责问大公教会信徒：“基督徒与君王有何相干？主教在宫廷里又有何事可做？”¹ 尼西亚会议以前的教父，期望基督教借着基督再临时超自然的介入，最终战胜世界。在那个逼迫惨烈的时代，俄利根 (Origen) 似乎是唯一一位期望基督教借着不断增长而取得世界统治权的人。²

教会的巩固及其严密的组织，意味着为了秩序而限制个人自由，也带来了滥用权柄的试探。但使徒时期曾极其丰盛地浇灌下来的属灵恩赐逐渐减少，使这种组织成为必要。它使教会成为罗马帝国内一个强有力的共和国，并大大促成了教会最终的成功。“团结就是力量”，尤其是在危险与逼迫之时，如尼西亚会议以前教会所必须经历的那些岁月。任何特定的治理形式，只要偏离了新约的简明原则，我们就必须否认它具有神授的权利和永久的约束力；但我们可以承认，尼西亚会议以前及以后的教会组织，具有历史的必要性和重大的相对价值。即使教皇制，也绝非全然有害，而是中世纪蛮族诸民族的一所训练学校。那些从原则上谴责一切圣统制、祭司主义和仪式主义的人，应当记得，上帝自己在摩西的体制下设立了祭司职分与礼仪，而基督在降卑的日子里也顺服了律法的要求。

§ 42. 教牧与平信徒

一种有别于全体人民的特殊祭司职分的观念与制度，连同与之相伴的献祭和祭坛观念，借着犹太教与异教遗留下来的记忆和类比，不知不觉地进入了基督教会。大多数归信的犹太人牢牢依附于摩西的制度与礼仪，其中相当一部分从未充分达到保罗所宣告的属灵自由的高度，或很快便从这一高度退落。他曾在加拉太和哥林多反对律法主义和仪式主义的倾向；虽然祭司主义并未出现在那些主张犹太化的反对者的谬误之中，但利未祭司制度的大祭司、祭司和利未人三个等级，自然为主教、祭司和执事的三重教牧职分提供了类比，并渐渐被视为它的预表。外邦基督徒作为一个整体，就更不可能立刻摆脱他们关于祭司、祭坛和献祭的传统观念，因为他们原先的宗教正是建立在这些观念之上的。无论我们将这一变化看作是从已经达到的较高地位上背离，还是从未完全抛弃的旧观念的反弹，这一变化都无可否认，而且可以追溯到第二世纪。教会无法长久保持使徒时期的理想高度；随着使徒去世，五旬节的光照消逝，旧日的记忆便开始重新发挥影响。³

在使徒时期的教会中，传道和教导并不限于某一特定阶层；每一个归信者都可以向不信的人宣讲福音，每一个有恩赐的基督徒都可以在会众中祷告、教导和劝勉。⁴ 新约不承认什么属灵的贵族或显贵，而是称所有信徒为“圣徒”，尽管许多人远未达到他们所蒙呼召的要求。新约也不承认有一种与人民有别、在上帝与平信徒之间充当中介的特殊祭司职分。它只承认一位大祭司，就是耶稣基督，并且清楚地教导，所有信徒都具有祭司的职分，也都具有君王的身份。⁵ 新约所赋予这一教导的意义，比旧约深刻而广阔得多；⁶ 而且，这一意义甚至直到今日仍未完全实现。全体基督徒都被称为“教牧”（κλῆροι^*），即特属的子民、上帝的产业。⁷

另一方面，同样清楚的是，使徒时期的教会确有基督所设立的教牧职分，其目的正是要使广大信徒脱离婴孩与受教的阶段，能够独立而直接地与上帝相交，达到那在原则和归宿上属于他们众人的先知、祭司和君王的地位。⁸ 这项工作就是教会历史本身逐步展开的过程，只有等到荣耀的国度降临，才会完全成就。然而，圣经从未赋予这些教牧人员不同于一般基督徒的祭司身份；所有基督徒都是祭司，都有权奉他们在天上唯一而永恒的大祭司之名，直接来到施恩的宝座前。即使在代表使徒时期教会组织最发达阶段的教牧书信中，虽然充分论述了长老—监督的教导、治理和牧养职能，却丝毫没有提到祭司的职能。写成更晚的《启示录》，则着重教导信徒皆为祭司与君王。使徒自己从未声称拥有或行使特殊的祭司职分。圣经劝勉所有基督徒献上的祭，乃是将自身和财物献给主，以及献上感恩和赞美的灵祭。⁹ 有一处经文提到基督徒的“祭坛”，与犹太人每日献上实物祭牲的祭坛相区别；然而，这祭坛乃是十字架，基督在其上为世人的罪一次而永远地献上了自己。¹⁰

使徒时期那非凡的属灵高境，以其特有的方式预先呈现了教会的理想状态；在这种高境逐渐消退以后，常设的教师阶层与平信徒之间的区别，就变得更加固定而突出。这首先见于伊格那丢，他怀着浓厚的高派主教制精神，将教牧视为人民亲近上帝所必需的中介。“凡在圣所（或祭坛）以内的，都是洁净的；但在圣所以外的，就不洁净；也就是说，凡不经主教、长老团和执事而行事的，他的良心就不洁净。”¹¹ 然而，他从未将教牧职分描述为祭司职分。《十二使徒遗训》 (Didache) 称“先知”为大祭司，但很可能是在属灵意义上说的。¹² 罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome) 写信给哥林多会众时，在基督教的主持职分与利未祭司制度之间作了一个意义深远、影响甚大的类比，并使用“平信徒”（λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος^*）一词，与大祭司、祭司和利未人相对照。¹³ 这一类比包含了整个祭司主义制度的萌芽。但它充其量只是一个类比论证。德尔图良是第一个明确而直接地为基督教教牧职分主张祭司权利的人，并称之为“sacerdotium”（祭司职分），尽管他也大力肯定所有信徒皆为祭司。居普良（卒于258年）又更进一步，将亚伦祭司制度的一切特权、义务和责任，都应用于基督教会的职员，并不断称他们为 sacerdotes（祭司），称其职分为 sacerdotium（祭司职分）。因此，将基督教教牧职分理解为上帝与人民之间的中介这一祭司观念，实可称居普良为其真正的奠基者。第三世纪期间，直接而专一地将“祭司”一词用于基督教教牧人员，尤其是主教，已成为惯例。¹⁴ 同样，整个教牧群体，而且唯独这一群体，被称为“教牧”，其中兼指他们的主持地位以及他们与上帝的特殊关系。¹⁵ 这一名称将他们与基督徒人民，即“平信徒”，区别开来。¹⁶ 因此，“教牧”一词起初表示用以分派职任的签（《使徒行传》1:17、25），继而表示职分本身，再表示担任这一职分的人，最后便从泛指基督徒转为专指教牧人员。

以按手举行庄严的“按立”或祝圣，是加入“ordo ecclesiasticus”（教会职级）或“sacerdotalis”（祭司职级）的形式。在这一职级内部，又有三个等级，即所谓的“ordines majores”（大品）：执事职、长老职和主教职——被认为都是上帝所设立的。其下则是出现较晚的“ordines minores”（小品），从副执事到司门，构成了正式教牧与人民之间的进身阶梯。¹⁷

因此，我们发现，早在第三世纪，一个完整圣统制的基础就已奠定；不过，这一圣统制只具有道德上的权力，并不以任何形式从外部控制人的良心。平信徒群体由两类人组成：一类是信徒，即已经受洗并领圣餐的成员；另一类是慕道者，他们正在预备受洗。同住一地的那些教会成员，¹⁸ 就构成了狭义的教会。¹⁹

随着教牧地位的抬高，也出现了一种倾向，要使他们脱离世俗事务，甚至脱离社会关系——例如婚姻——并使他们即使在外表上也成为一个独立于人民、专门从事圣所事奉的阶层。他们的生活由教会府库供给，而府库的收入来自自愿捐献和每周主日的募捐。第三世纪以后，他们被禁止从事任何世俗事务，甚至不得接受任何受托管理之职。在这一时期，独身尚未成为强制要求，而是任人选择。德尔图良 (Tertullian)、尼撒的贵格利 (Gregory of Nyssa) 以及其他杰出的教会教师，都过着婚姻生活，尽管他们在理论上更推崇独身。在第四世纪以前，尚无教牧正式服饰的确切踪迹；即便这种服饰曾仿效犹太教会的先例而更早采用——这也是可能的——在逼迫时期，也必定仅限于实际举行礼拜时穿着。

然而，随着教牧与平信徒之间这一区别的发展，信徒皆为祭司的观念仍不时显露出来：例如在爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 那里，²⁰ 又如在孟他努派 (Montanists) 那里，虽然后者的表现形式颇为偏激，甚至容许妇女在教会中公开教导。德尔图良一度也惯用 clerus（教牧）与 laici（平信徒）这些称谓，但当他成为孟他努派反抗大公教会圣统制的倡导者时，却问道：“我们平信徒不也是祭司吗？”²¹ 他接着说，经上记着：“他使我们成为君王和祭司（《启示录》1:6）。教牧与平信徒的区别，完全是教会的权威所划定的。在没有教牧团体的地方，你便施行圣餐，你便施洗，你就是独自为自己供职的祭司。你们有三个人的地方，就有教会，即便你们只是平信徒。因为各人都凭自己的信心而活，而上帝并不偏待人。”²² 因此，凡教牧认为是他们所独有的，他都为平信徒主张，视之为所有基督徒共有的祭司特权。

即使在大公教会中，要求受洗者在聚集的会众面前诵念主祷文的惯例，也表明了对普遍祭司职分的承认。哲罗姆 (Jerome) 论到这一点说：“Sacerdotium laici, id est, baptisma.”（平信徒的祭司职分，也就是洗礼。）此外，至少在西方，会众在很长时期内仍保有在选任教牧、甚至主教时表示赞同或拒绝的权利。罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome) 明确要求，有效的选举必须取得全体会众的同意；²³ 居普良 (Cyprian) 则称这是一项源自使徒、且几乎普遍通行的规例。²⁴ 据他见证，这规例在罗马也施行过，并在与他同时代的哥尼流 (Cornelius) 获选时得到遵守。²⁵ 有时，在补选出缺的主教时，人民的“suffragium”（投票）先于教区教牧的“judicium”（裁定）。居普良，以及后来的亚他那修 (Athanasius)、安布罗斯 (Ambrose)、奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 和其他杰出的主教，可以说都是以这种民主方式被推上主教职位的。居普良虽然具有浓厚的高派教会倾向，却宣称自己的原则是：作为主教，若无长老和执事的建议，以及人民的同意，就不作任何事。²⁶ “认信者”享有一种特殊影响力，甚至教牧也无法抗拒；他们有时也滥用这种影响力，例如为那些在德西乌斯 (Decius) 逼迫中否认基督的跌倒者辩护。

最后，我们还注意到一些由平信徒实际履行教导职能的事例。耶路撒冷和凯撒利亚 (Caesarea) 的主教，容许博学的俄利根 (Origen) 在尚未受按立以前向他们的会众讲解圣经，并援引东方几位主教的先例为据。²⁷ 甚至《使徒宪章》 (Apostolical Constitutions) 中，也以使徒保罗的名义发出这样的指示：“一个人虽是平信徒，若善于施教，举止敬虔，也可以教导；因为经上说：‘他们都要蒙上帝的教训。’”²⁸ 迦太基 (Carthage) 第四次全体会议（398年）禁止平信徒在教牧在场而未经他们同意时教导；这同时也意味着，若有这样的许可，便可以如此行。²⁹

值得注意的是，这一时期若干最杰出的教会教师，如黑马 (Hermas)、殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、雅典那哥拉 (Athenagoras)、亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria)、俄利根、德尔图良、阿诺比乌斯 (Arnobius) 和拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)，若不是平信徒，至多也只是长老。黑马写成了早期教会中最受欢迎、最具权威的著作之一，他很可能是一位平信徒；那篇以《罗马的革利免第二书信》之名流传的讲章，其作者或许也是如此。这篇讲章的希腊文原文和叙利亚文译本，最近都已发现全文；作者似乎将自己和听众与长老们区别开来。³⁰

§ 43. 新的教会职员

教会的扩展、礼拜仪式的发展，以及追求圣统制排场的倾向，促使执事以下的职分增多，形成了 ordines minores（小品）。约在第三世纪中叶，文献提到下列新职员：

副执事，即下级助手；³¹ 他们是执事的助手和代理人；在这些低级职分中，唯有这一职分要求正式按立。对于其价值，意见不一。
诵读员，³² 在聚会中诵读圣经，并保管教会书籍。
侍从，³³ 在主教执行职务及举行仪仗行列时随侍左右。
驱魔员，³⁴ 借着祷告和按手，从被鬼附者³⁵及慕道者身上赶出邪灵，并经常协助施洗。这种能力从前被视为圣灵白白赐下的恩赐。
领唱员，³⁶ 负责礼仪中的音乐部分、诗篇、祝福、应答等。
司门或堂役，³⁷ 负责照管宗教聚会的房舍，后来也照管教堂墓地。
此外，较大的教会中还有教理教师；凡会众不懂礼拜所用教会语言的地方，还有通译；不过，口译通常由长老、执事或诵读员担任。

罗马主教哥尼流（卒于252年）在一封论诺瓦atian分裂的信中，³⁸ 列出他教会的职员人数如下：长老四十六人，很可能与城中基督徒聚会所的数目相应；仿照耶路撒冷教会的模式（《使徒行传》第6章），有执事七人；另有副执事七人；侍从四十二人；驱魔员、诵读员和司门共五十二人。

至于 ordines majores（大品），执事在这一时期的重要性有所提高。除了照顾贫病者这一原有职责以外，他们还施洗、分发圣餐杯、领诵教会祷文，也不时讲道，并且担任主教的亲信顾问，有时甚至作主教的代表和代理人。最后这一点尤其适用于“首席执事”，不过，这一职分直到第四世纪才出现。相反，长老虽然高于执事，如今却被新设的主教职分置于其下，教会的一切治理权都集中于主教一职。

§ 44. 主教制的起源

除已引著作外，可参阅1837年以来论伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 争议的专著和论文，作者有罗特 (Rothe，其 Anfänge 等书的末尾)、赫费勒 (Hefele，罗马天主教)、鲍尔 (Baur)、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld)、本森 (Bunsen)、彼得曼 (Petermann)、库尔顿 (Cureton)、利普修斯 (Lipsius)、乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、察恩 (Zahn)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot，I. 376及后)。另参 R. D. 希区柯克 (R. D. Hitchcock)：《主教制的起源》 (Origin of Episcopacy)，纽约，1867年（载于1867年1月的《美国长老会与神学评论》〔“Am. Presbyt. & Theol. Review”〕，第133–169页）；莱特福特：《基督教教牧职分》 (Christian Ministry)（1873年）；哈奇 (Hatch)：《早期基督教会的组织》 (Organization of the Early Christian Church)（1881年）；勒南 (Renan)：《基督教会》 (L’Eglise chrétienne)（1879年），第VI章《主教制的进展》 (Progrés de l’épiscopat)；以及戈尔 (Gore)：《教会的教牧职分》 (The Ministry of the Church)（1889年）。

在我们所论这一时期，教会组织方面最重要也最难解释的现象，就是有别于长老职分的主教职分之兴起与发展。这一制度在第二世纪以最高属灵职分的面貌出现，直到今日，整个罗马和希腊基督教世界，以及福音派教会中的很大一部分，尤其是圣公会 (Anglican communion)，仍保留着它。一种如此古老而又如此广泛采用的治理形式，唯有假定它出于一种宗教需要，才能得到令人满意的解释；这种需要，就是有一种有形的外在代表和权力集中，使人民与基督、与上帝的关系，以及教会有形的合一，得到彰显和具体体现。因此，它与大公教会的权威和中介原则不可分离；而新教所主张的自由，以及信徒与基督直接相交的原则，若贯彻到底，就会冲击严格的主教制组织，并趋向教牧平等。完整意义上的主教制，必须以真实的祭司职分和真实的献祭观念，以及教牧与平信徒之间的本质区别为基础。若除去这些关联，它便只剩下一种监督管理制度。³⁹

使徒们既是耶稣神人生命的目击者和亲耳见证人，又是圣灵所默示的器皿；他们在世的时候，并无严格意义上的主教存在的余地，而那些被称为主教的人，也必定只居于从属地位。第一世纪的教会也仍是一个严格意义上的超自然组织，是这世界的客旅，一只脚立于永恒之中，渴望她天上新郎的再来。然而，教会借着主教制，建立了一种极其简单而又紧密、并可自由扩展的组织，双脚牢牢踏在地上，成为培育尚在幼年阶段之子民的机构；随着千禧年盼望的消退，她走上了平静的历史发展道路。但毫无疑问，她也因此陷入世俗化的危险；这种世俗化恰在罗马教会的圣统制臻于完备时达到顶峰，最终使一场以使徒基督教为基础的改革成为必要。甚至在君士坦丁 (Constantine) 和拜占庭宫廷正统信仰出现以前，世俗化就已随着主教权力的增长而开始；例如，希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 在其《驳斥异端》 (Philosophumena) 第九卷中，指责他同时代的罗马主教（202–223年）泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 和卡利斯图斯 (Callistus)，斥其悔罪纪律松弛、贪婪而腐败，我们便可从中看出这一点。萨摩撒他的保罗 (Paul of Samosata) 主教也是一例，他于269年被罢黜，所受指控几乎令人难以置信，不仅涉及他的教义，更涉及他的道德品格。⁴⁰ 俄利根抱怨说，尤其在大城市里，有些上帝子民的监督，力求在排场上胜过异教权贵，想像皇帝一样以卫队簇拥自己，使穷人畏惧，不敢亲近。⁴¹

我们首先考察主教职分的起源。从使徒教会结束到后使徒教会开始的过渡时期，所留下的文献和传统并不可靠，因此在这里，批判研究与综合推断仍有很大的余地。首先要问的是：主教职分是否直接或间接地起源于使徒（约翰）？⁴² 抑或它是在使徒去世以后才兴起，由地方教会长老团的主席职分发展而来？⁴³ 换言之，主教职分究竟是使徒职分的延续、收缩与替代，还是长老职分的扩展与提升？⁴⁴ 后一种观点更为自然，也更有事实依据。持此说者大多将这一变化定于第二世纪最初二十五年间伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 的时代，少数人则将它推溯至第一世纪末，那时圣约翰还住在以弗所。

I. 支持主教制起源于使徒的论据，可以列举如下：

雅各的地位。他显然居于耶路撒冷教会的首位，⁴⁵ 至少在伪克莱门文献中，他被称为主教，实际上甚至被称为全教会的最高主教。⁴⁶ 然而，这只是孤立的一例，并不足以据此推论整个教会的情形。
使徒的助手和代表所担任的职分，如提摩太、提多、西拉、以巴弗提、路加、马可。他们对若干教会及其职员负有某种监督之责，并在特殊使命中于一定程度上代表使徒。但无论如何，至少在使徒在世期间，他们并非各自限于一个特定的教区；他们是巡回传道者和使徒的使节。只有后世不足信的传统，才为他们各自指定了主教辖区。如果他们也算主教，那也只是宣教主教。
亚细亚七教会的使者，⁴⁷ 若把他们看作个别的人，就很像后来的主教，并表明在约翰的时代，教会治理已开始形成一人主政的格局。然而，撇开对《启示录》中 ἄγγελοι^* 的各种解释不论，这一职分看来并非与约翰的使徒职分并列，而是从属于它，所担当的不过是地方教会的监督职责。
约翰的门徒、安提阿的伊格那丢 (Ignatius of Antioch)，在第二世纪初所写的七封（或三封）书信中所作的见证（即使按照较短的叙利亚文版本），已以有别于长老职分的主教职分之存在为前提，尽管它还是一种正在成长的新制度。
亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 说，⁴⁸ 约翰从拔摩岛归来后设立了主教；爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、⁴⁹ 德尔图良 (Tertullian)、⁵⁰ 优西比乌 (Eusebius)⁵¹ 和哲罗姆 (Jerome)⁵² 也记载，同一位使徒提名并按立坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 为士每拿 (Smyrna) 的主教，而爱任纽与坡旅甲是亲自相识的。
优西比乌所记载的一项不确实的传统，大概得自赫格西普 (Hegesippus)：耶路撒冷被毁后不久，尚存的使徒及使徒的门徒，选立革罗罢 (Klopas) 的儿子、耶稣的堂兄弟西面 (Symeon)，为该城的主教，继承雅各的职分。但这一安排至多只是地方性的，并非普遍实行的制度。⁵³
安提阿和罗马教会的传统。这些教会将其历代主教的世系追溯至使徒的设立，并保存了从未间断的承继记录。
《爱任纽的普法夫残篇》 (Pfaff Fragments of Irenaeus) 第二篇中的一段话，提到“使徒的第二次规条”（δεύτεραι τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεις^*）。罗特 (Rothe) 将此理解为主教职分的设立。但且不论这些残篇的真实性可疑，这几个字的解释终究尚无定论；而且按照上下文，它们根本不是论教会的治理，而是论圣餐的举行。
从罗马的革利免《致哥林多人书》中一段晦涩文字所作的推论，同样不能确定，因为这段话容许不同的解释。⁵⁴ 据其中所说，使徒预见日后将为主教职分的名号发生争论，便设立了主教和执事，后来又作出安排，⁵⁵ 使他们睡了以后，有别的经过认可的人接续他们的职分。罗特认为，“他们”都是指作为主要主语的使徒。但这些字自然应当指刚刚提到的地方教会职员；这样，“别的经过认可的人”就不是使徒的继承者，而是长老兼主教和执事的继承者。⁵⁶ 上下文也支持这一看法。哥林多教会的难处，是有人起来反叛，并非反对一位主教，而是反对若干长老兼主教；革利免提醒他们，使徒设立这一职分，不只是为第一代人，也安排了永久的承继；这些职员是终身受任的，因此，只要他们忠于职守，就不能将他们罢免。所以，在第44章那段有争议的文字之后，他紧接着说：“因此，我们认为，那些由他们（使徒）或后来由其他杰出人士、经全教会同意而任命的人，若以十分的谦卑和纯正，和平而不谋私利地服事基督的群羊，并且长久以来为众人所称许，就不能公正地将他们从教牧职分上革除。”
最后还有一种哲理上的考量：若不假定主教制至少曾间接得到使徒的认可，就不能圆满解释它何以在第二世纪普遍传播而未受争议。人们通常也以同样的论证，将守主日和婴儿洗礼追溯至使徒的起源。但这一论证并非完全确凿，因为大多数使徒在耶路撒冷被毁以前就已去世。它只能适用于约翰；直到第一世纪结束，他仍是小亚细亚教会活的中心。⁵⁷

另一种理论认为，主教职分作为一种独立的职分或品级，起源于使徒以后，由最初地方教会长老团的主席职分兴起，是人为发展的结果，尽管这种发展自然而且必要。支持此说的事实如下：

《新约》中长老与主教的同一性无可否认，⁵⁸ 连教父中最优秀的释经家，如哲罗姆、金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 和狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)，以及近代最优秀的学者，也都承认这一点。
后来，到了第一世纪末，甚至第二世纪，这两个名称仍以同样的方式用来指同一职分。罗马主教革利免在《哥林多前书》中说，使徒在新建立的教会里，任命信仰初结的果子，即最初归信的人，作“主教和执事”。⁵⁹ 他在这里省略了 πρεσβύτεροι^*，正如保罗在《腓立比书》1:1中所作的一样，原因很简单：在他看来，他们与 ἐπίσκοποι^* 是同一的；反过来，在第57章，他吩咐人顺服长老，却没有提到主教。⁶⁰ 《十二使徒遗训》 (Didache) 提到主教和执事，却没有提到长老。⁶¹ 亚历山大的革利免固然区分执事职分、长老职分和主教职分，但他所设想的职分性质只有两种，即长老的与执事的；这种观点直到中世纪仍有拥护者，甚至包括公元1091年的教皇乌尔班二世 (Urban II.)。最后，第二世纪末的爱任纽，虽然自己就是主教，却只在 episcopi（主教）和 presbyteri（长老）之间作相对的区分；他说到前者的承继时，与说到后者的承继所用的意义相同；他将后者的职分称为 episcopatus（主教职分），又称罗马的主教为“长老”。⁶² 诚然，他有时似乎是在较广泛的意义上使用“长老”一词，指年长者、前辈。⁶³ 但无论如何，他的用语表明，当时这两种职分的区别仍是相对而不明确的。
博学的哲罗姆明确见证，教会起初在撒但煽动分裂以前，是由长老共同组成的议会治理的；直到后来，才将长老中的一人置于首位，负责监督教会、制止分裂。⁶⁴ 他认为这种职分上的区别，仅仅源于“教会的”惯例，而不是上帝的设立。⁶⁵
亚历山大教会的惯例。从传福音的马可直到第三世纪中叶，十二位长老从他们中间选出一人为主席，称他为主教。这一事实以哲罗姆的见证为依据，⁶⁶ 又独立地得到第十世纪亚历山大牧首欧提基乌 (Eutychius) 所著《编年史》 (Annals) 的证实。⁶⁷ 后者说，马可在该城设立了一位牧首（这是时代错置）和十二位长老；当牧首之位空缺时，长老们应从他们中间选出一人，按立他担任这一职分，然后再选一位新长老，使人数始终保持十二人。他还叙述说，直到第二世纪末底米丢 (Demetrius) 的时代，埃及除了亚历山大的一位主教以外，并无别的主教；因此，除非走出本省，否则就不可能有由主教施行的按立。

结论。从这些不同的事实和传统看来，唯一令人满意的结论似乎是：主教职分循着下降与上升两条路线，由使徒职分与原有的长老职分共同产生，是前者的收缩和后者的扩展，并非出于使徒明确的协商或普遍的规定；至少，这两者都无法从历史上证明。它仿佛本能地兴起于第一世纪末至第二世纪中叶那段晦暗而关键的过渡时期。它不是突然创立的，更不是某一个人的发明。它的成长，一部分是出于普遍的需要，要延续使徒的教会治理，或为它找到替代；而这种治理，只要其中还有任何可以传承的部分，就很自然地首先传给了使徒最杰出的门徒和同工——马可、路加、提摩太、革利免、伊格那丢、坡旅甲、帕皮亚 (Papias)。这就解释了为何传统都称他们为卓越意义上的主教。它的兴起，也进一步由于地方教会需要在长老治理中有一个统一的中心；按事理本身，并参照犹太人的 ἀρχισυνάγωγος^*，⁶⁸ 这种治理需要一位首领或主席。这位主席被称为主教，起初只是尊称，意为 primus inter pares（同等者中的首位）；后来才成为他专有的称号。在较小的教会里，或许从起初就只有一位长老，他自然就构成了这个中心，如同第四世纪的 chorepiscopi，即乡村主教。第二、第三世纪小亚细亚和北非的主教人数众多，因此，他们的教区范围，想来很难超过一个颇具规模的牧区。另一方面，耶路撒冷的雅各及其直接继承者，其地位在许多方面都十分特殊，似乎是巴勒斯坦仅有的主教。埃及的情形也有些相似，直到公元190–232年底米丢任职期间，我们所见的仍只有亚历山大的一位主教。

因此，我们不能假定各处有任何严格的一致性。但这一时代的整个教会精神都趋向集中；教会处处感到需要紧密而坚固的合一；在四周逼迫与异端的危险中，这种内在倾向不可抗拒地推动教会走向主教制。在如此危急而动荡的时代，团结则强、分裂则弱的原则压倒了一切。事实上，可以说，当时教会的存续，在很大程度上取决于合一的保持和增进，而且这种合一须有一种外在而具体、适合当时文化程度的形式。主教提供了这样的合一；他与会众的关系是君主式的，或更确切地说，是家长式的。人们在主教身上，看见基督这位全教会伟大元首的有形代表。因此，一切敬虔的情感都在主教身上找到了中心。信众对上帝和基督的整个宗教态度，都在主教身上得到了外在的支撑和引导。各教会越是趋向一个单一的中心，这位居于中心的人物就越必获得特殊的重要性，并使其他长老从属于自己；不过，与此同时，正如革利免和爱任纽的用语、埃及乃至北非的情形，以及哲罗姆和其他教父的见证所清楚证明的，起初平等的记忆并不能完全抹去，而是继续以各种方式表现出来。

除此以外，提高主教的权力还有一个有力的实际理由。每一个基督徒会众都是一个慈善团体，视照顾寡妇、孤儿、穷人和客旅为神圣的托付；因此，主教作为收取慈善款项、分发赈济的管理者，便具有极大的重要性。在希腊各社群中，主教这一称号（ἐπίσκοπος^*、ἐπιμελιτής^*）广泛用于财务官员。他们的行政职能使他们与执事关系密切，执事是他们照顾贫病者时执行事务的助手。执事长成为主教的右臂、他的“眼睛”和“心”。在早期，每一件贫困或苦难的事，都分别呈报主教知悉，由一位执事亲自予以救助。后来，为寡妇、孤儿、穷人和病弱者设立了机构，通常置于主教的监督之下；但这种有组织的慈善事业减轻了个人的责任，执事也失去了原有的意义，成为公共崇拜中的下属职员。⁶⁹

因此，无论人们如何看待主教制的起源及其神授权利，任何公正的历史学家都不能否认，它适合当时教会的需要，并具有历史的必然性。

然而，绝不可将这种早期大公教会的主教制度与后来的教阶制度混为一谈。从公开承认信仰的基督徒人数来看，除了耶路撒冷、以弗所、亚历山大、安提阿和罗马的教区以外，其他教区必定长期都很小。《启示录》提到，小亚细亚一片相当狭小的区域内，就有七个这样的合一中心，而那时基督徒的人数还微不足道。公元258年，居普良 (Cyprian) 召集了一个有八十七位北非主教参加的会议。主教的职能尚未与长老的职能严格分开；按立之权，以及西方教会中的坚信礼之权，都是逐渐才专归主教掌管的。

§ 45. 主教制的发展：伊格那丢

早在第二世纪中叶，主教制的治理形式就已普遍确立于东方和西方教会，这是事实。甚至异端宗派，至少伊便尼派 (Ebionites)，也依照这一制度组织起来——从伪克莱门文献对主教制的赞许，我们必须作出这样的推断；后来分裂出去的诺瓦atian派 (Novatians)、多纳徒派 (Donatists) 等也是如此。但同样不可否认的是，主教制只是逐步达到其完备形态的。在我们所论的时期，这一发展有三个阶段值得注意，分别与叙利亚的伊格那丢 (Ignatius，卒于107或115年)、高卢的爱任纽 (Irenaeus，卒于202年)，以及北非的居普良（卒于258年）的名字相联系。

主教职分首次以有别于长老职分的面貌出现，是在安提阿的伊格那丢著名的七封（或三封）书信中；但它还只是会众中的职分（有别于教区的观念），仍是一项年轻的制度，亟须获得推崇。伊格那丢是使徒的门徒，也是该主教座的第二任主教（第一任为埃沃迪乌斯〔Evodius〕，第三任为希罗〔Hero〕）。他也是第一个使用“大公教会”一词的人，仿佛主教制与大公性是同时兴起的。关于伊格那丢的整个故事，传说的成分多于事实，而他的著作则有遭人蓄意窜补的重大嫌疑。《伊格那丢书信》现有三种不同的文本，但其中只有一种可能是真本：或是较短的希腊文本，或是最近发现的叙利亚文本。⁷⁰ 后者只收三封书信，论主教制的段落固然大多缺失，但即使在这里，这一制度的主要特征仍已显露，我们仍可 ex ungue leonem（由爪识狮）。⁷¹ 无论如何，这些书信反映了第二世纪中叶以前的普遍观念。

这些书信的主要内容，是恳切劝勉人顺服主教，保持教会的合一，以抵御犹太主义和幻影说的异端；唯独《致罗马人书》例外，奇怪的是，其中竟没有一句提到主教。⁷² 作者眼见殉道临近，又极其热切地渴望殉道，他最殷切的愿望，莫过于信徒在内在和外在都达到完全的合一；在他看来，主教制是达成此事不可缺少的。他认为，基督是无形的至高元首，是散布全地各教会唯一伟大的普世主教。属人的主教是个别会众合一的中心，在会众中充当基督、甚至上帝的代理人。⁷³ 因此，信众应当无条件地顺服他，未经他的意愿，什么也不可做。与主教合而为一的人是有福的，正如教会与基督、基督与父合而为一，使一切在合一中和谐。背离主教就是背离基督；基督以主教为他的器官，在他们里面并藉着他们行事。

我们将从较短的希腊文本（据察恩〔Zahn〕编订本）引录若干段落：

“若有人能够为尊荣我们主的肉身而持守贞洁（ἐν ἁγνείᾳ^*，即保持独身），就当如此持守，不可自夸；若他自夸，就丧失了自己（ἀπώλετο^*）；若他的名声超过主教，⁷⁴ 他就败坏了（ἔφθαρται^*）。因此，要结婚的男女，理当照主教的劝导而结合，使婚姻出于主，而不出于情欲。凡事都要为尊荣上帝而行。要仰望主教，使上帝也〔眷顾〕你们。我愿与那些顺服主教、长老和执事的人同心；愿我与他们一同在上帝身边有分！”这是措辞最强烈的段落之一，既见于叙利亚文的《致坡旅甲书》，也见于较短的希腊文本。⁷⁵ 这段话颇具特色地将主教制与独身联系起来：大公教会的禁欲制度始于独身，正如其教阶组织起源于主教制一样。“你们理当与主教的心意（或判断，γνώμῃ^*）相合，正如你们已经在做的。因为你们那极可尊敬、配得上帝的长老团，与主教配合，正如琴弦与竖琴配合一样。”⁷⁶ “显然，我们应当看待主教，如同看待主自己一样。”⁷⁷ “我劝你们，务要以神圣的和谐行一切事：主教居于上帝的位置（εἰς τόπον θεοῦ^*）主持，长老居于使徒议会的位置（εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων^*），而我所至爱的执事，则受托承担耶稣基督的职事（διακονίαν^*）；基督在万世以前就与父同在，末后向我们显现。”⁷⁸ “要顺服主教，也要彼此顺服，正如基督按肉身〔顺服〕父，使徒顺服基督、父和圣灵，好使这合一既是肉身的（σαρκική^*），也是属灵的。”⁷⁹ “你们必须照着素来的习惯，未经主教便不做任何事；也当顺服长老团（τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ^*），如同顺服耶稣基督的使徒。”⁸⁰ “凡属上帝和耶稣基督的人，也都与他们的主教同在。”⁸¹ “你们众人都要跟从主教，如同耶稣基督〔跟从〕父；跟从长老团，如同跟从使徒；并要尊敬执事，视其为上帝所设立的。未经主教，任何人都不可做与教会有关的事。惟有在主教主持之下，或由他所指定的人〔举行〕的圣餐，才当视为有效。主教在哪里，信众就当在哪里；正如基督在哪里，那里就有大公教会。未经主教，无论施洗或举行爱筵，都是不合法的。”⁸²

这是第一次将“大公”一词用于教会，并以主教制为大公性的条件。

“尊敬主教的，必蒙上帝尊敬；未经主教知悉而擅自行事的，就是服事魔鬼。”⁸³

这几乎就是使救恩取决于对主教的顺服；正如三个世纪以后，利奥一世 (Leo I.) 在与阿尔勒的希拉里 (Hilary of Arles) 争论时，宣称凡反抗教皇的都是魔鬼的仆人，从而使救恩取决于对教皇的顺服一样！这种肆无忌惮、过度张扬的主教制观念，显然流露出某种特殊意图，使人怀疑这些文字是伪造的，或有大量窜补。但也可以将其解释为一种刻意的辩护，旨在维护一项新制度，因为在作者心目中，这项制度对于教会本身的存续不可或缺。

伊格那丢这一观点的独特之处在于：主教在其中是个别会众的首领和中心，却并非同时也是全教会的代表；其次，他是基督的代理人（正如伪克莱门《讲道集》〔Homilies〕所说），而不像后来的观点所认为的，仅仅是使徒的继承人——围绕他的长老和执事才被描述为使徒的继承人；最后，主教之间没有等级的区别，也没有首席权的痕迹；他们全都是地位完全平等的基督代理人，基督仿佛在他们里面为自己提供了一种在教会中可感可知的无所不在。总之，伊格那丢的主教制是会众性的，不是教区性的；是一项新兴而正在成长的制度，而不是一项源于使徒、业已确立的体制。

§ 46. 爱任纽与德尔图良时代的主教制

在以上各点上，伟大的诺斯替主义 (Gnosticism) 反对者爱任纽（约180年）的主教制观念，或有所降低，或有所提高。这位教父将此制度表述为一种教区职分，是使徒职分的延续、大公传统的载体，也是抵御异端奇说、维护教义合一的支柱。他推崇那些最初由使徒建立的教会的主教，尤其是罗马教会的主教，并极力强调，不间断的主教传承是检验使徒教训的标准，也是抵御异端的堡垒。⁸⁴

与此同时，爱任纽交替使用“主教”和“长老”两词，术语游移不定，使我们想起罗马的革利免，也表明这两种品级的区别尚未完全确定。⁸⁵

在德尔图良 (Tertullian) 早期的著作中，我们也能发现这种视主教传承为使徒传统的保存者和正统教义的守护者的观念，虽然出现得较少；不同之处在于，他始终明确区分主教与长老，由此表明在他所处的时代（约200年），主教体制已发展到更成熟的阶段。⁸⁶但后来，他投身于孟他努主义 (Montanism) 的千禧年主义与民主事业，便与主教圣统制决裂，并提出与之相对的主张：教会并不由主教构成，平信徒也是祭司。⁸⁷

§ 47. 居普良的主教制

古代大公教会的主教制思想，在第三世纪中叶北非教会的主教兼殉道者居普良 (Cyprian) 的教导与榜样中达到成熟。他把主教制的权利主张与特殊祭司职分及献祭的观念紧密联系起来。⁸⁸他是尼西亚会议以前高派教会人士的典型。他大力实行自己诚心相信的原则。在德修 (Decius) 逼迫期间有关背道者的争论、费利基西穆 (Felicissimus) 的分裂，以及有关异端洗礼的争论中，他都有充分的机会申明自己的权威。

居普良认为，主教是圣灵的承载者；圣灵从基督传给使徒，又由使徒借着按立传给主教，在不间断的传承中延续自身，并使一切宗教活动产生效力。因此，主教也是教会合一的支柱；不，在某种意义上，他们就是教会本身。他说：“主教在教会中，教会也在主教中；若有人不与主教在一起，他就不在教会中。”⁸⁹在他看来，这也就等于说，此人不是基督徒。居普良深受主教团连带合一观念的浸润——众主教共同而完整地（in solidum）行使同一职分，各在自己的教区内履职，同时各自在自身体现整个职分。⁹⁰

然而，尽管如此，在居普良那里，主教仍与众长老保持最密切的联系。他不经他们商议，就不办理任何重大事务。公元398年在迦太基 (Carthage) 召开的第四次全体会议，甚至宣布：主教的判决若未经较低级教士赞同，即属无效；会议又规定，按立长老时，所有长老都应与主教一同按手在候选人身上。⁹¹

主教的按立由邻近的主教主持，至少需要三人。然而，在埃及，当那里还只有一位主教时，祝圣必定是由长老施行的；欧提基乌斯 (Eutychius)⁹²和执事希拉里 (Hilary the Deacon)⁹³明确断言，事实正是如此。

§ 48. 伪克莱门文献中的主教制

除了这种正统或大公教会的主教制度形态以外，伊便尼派 (Ebionitic sect) 中与之相近的君主式圣统制也值得注意；我们在伪克莱门《讲道集》(Homilies) 中便能见到它。按年代说，它属于第二世纪中叶，介于伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 与爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 之间，形成了从前者到后者的某种过渡；不过，不能确切地说它曾影响大公教会。毋宁说，它是正统主教制在异端中的对应物。巩固大公教会的组织，在一个宗派中也起了同样的作用。伪克莱门文献的作者与伊格那丢一样，把主教描绘为基督的代理人，⁹⁴同时又依照爱任纽的观点，把主教视为使徒的代理人和继承人；⁹⁵但他在表达崇高圣统地位的用语上，如 κάθεδρα θρόνος τοῦ ἐπισκόπου^*，以及在首席权或普世教会君主制的观念上，都超越了两人。然而，他并不像爱任纽所暗示、居普良所更明确申述的那样，把这首席权归于彼得和罗马主教座，而是依照其犹太主义的倾向，将之归于耶路撒冷的雅各，即“众主教的主教”。⁹⁶

摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans) 同样有圣统组织（正如近代的摩门教徒〔Mormons〕一样）。

另一方面，孟他努主义是一场反对主教圣统制的民主性反动，主张普遍祭司职分，以及教导和说预言的自由；但它遭到逐出教会，终于消亡，直到在贵格会主义 (Quakerism) 中才以另一种形式重新出现。

§ 49. 都主教制与牧首制的起源

主教作为使徒的继承人，虽然在尊位和权力上是平等的，但他们逐渐依照各自辖区在教会和政治上的重要性，分成不同的等级。

最低一级是乡村教会的主教，即乡村主教 (chorepiscopi)；虽然直到第四世纪初才有关于他们的记载，但他们很可能起源于更早的时期。⁹⁷他们位于长老与城市主教之间，满足了小亚细亚 (Asia Minor)、叙利亚 (Syria) 以及高卢 (Gaul) 的大教区中，各村落对于主教监督的需要。
在城市主教中，都主教 (metropolitans)，即各行省首府的主教，逐渐高于其余主教。⁹⁸他们主持行省会议，并以同侪之首（primi inter pares）的身份按立本省主教。从325年尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea) 的情况看来，都主教制在君士坦丁 (Constantine) 和优西比乌 (Eusebius) 时代就已实行，后来在东方得到更充分的贯彻。在北非，年资最长的主教，因而被称为长老者（senex），以首席主教 (primas) 的身份居本省之首；但迦太基主教享有最高的敬重，并能召集全体会议。
更为古老而重要的，是使徒母会的尊位，⁹⁹如耶路撒冷、安提阿 (Antioch)、亚历山大 (Alexandria)、以弗所 (Ephesus)、哥林多和罗马的教会。在爱任纽和德尔图良时代，它们作为纯正教会传统的主要承载者，受到最高的尊崇。其中，安提阿、亚历山大和罗马最为突出，因为它们分别是罗马帝国三个区域（eparchiae）的首府，又是贸易和交通的中心，在使徒所创立的根基之外，兼有最大的政治分量。安提阿主教的都主教辖区包括整个叙利亚；亚历山大主教的辖区包括整个埃及；罗马主教的辖区则包括意大利中部和南部，但没有明确的边界。
这里便有了大区主教制 (eparchal system) 或牧首制 (patriarchal system) 的萌芽；希腊教会至今仍坚持这一制度。牧首 (patriarch) 这一名称，起初是所有主教的荣衔，尤其在东方如此；直到第四世纪，它才专属于罗马帝国三个教会和政治首府——安提阿、亚历山大和罗马——的主教，以及为表示尊崇（honoris causa）而获此称号的耶路撒冷主教，和君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople)，即新罗马的主教。同样，在西方，papa（教宗）一词曾长期通用于更广的范围，后来才由罗马主教专用，正如最高祭司、基督的代理人（summus pontifex, vicarius Christi）这些称号一样。

§ 50. 教皇制的萌芽

参较第I卷§25的文献（第245页）。

布隆代尔 (Blondel)：《教会首席权史论》(Traité historique de la primauté en l’église)。日内瓦 (Genéve)，1641年。

萨尔马修斯 (Salmasius)：《论教皇首席权》(De Primatu Papae.)。莱顿 (Lugd. Bat.)，1645年。

Is. 巴罗 (Is. Barrow)：《教皇的最高权》(The Pope’s Supremacy.)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1680年（新版：牛津〔Oxf.〕，1836年；纽约〔N. York〕，1845年）。

罗滕泽 (Rothensee，罗马天主教徒)：《基督教历世纪中的教皇首席权》(Der Primal Des Papstes in allen Christlichen Jahrhunderten,)，3卷。美因茨 (Mainz)，1836–38年（第I卷，第1–98页）。

肯里克 (Kenrick，罗马天主教巴尔的摩总主教，卒于1853年)：《为使徒教座的首席权辩护》(The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated)。纽约 (N. York)，第4版，1855年。

R. I. 威尔伯福斯 (R. I. Wilberforce，原为英国圣公会会吏长；1857年卒于罗马天主教会中)：《教会权威原则探究；或撤回本人对王权至上之认可的理由》(An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority; or Reasons for Recalling my subscriptions to the Royal Supremacy.)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1854年（第vi–x章）。

J. E. 里德尔 (J. E. Riddle)：《教皇制史：直至宗教改革时期》(The History of the Papacy to the Period of the Reformation.)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1856年。2卷（第1章，第2–113页；主要取材于施勒克〔Schröckh〕和普朗克〔Planck〕）。

托马斯·格林伍德 (Thomas Greenwood)：《彼得的座位：大拉丁牧首区政治史》(Cathedra Petri. A Political History of the great Latin Patriarchate.)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1856–1872年。6卷。第I卷，第I–VI章。（一部具有独立而可靠学识的著作。）

Joh. 弗里德里希 (Joh. Friedrich，旧天主教徒)：《论教会首席权的最早历史》(Zur ältesten Geschichte des Primates in der Kirche.)。波恩 (Bonn)，1879年。

E. 勒南 (E Renan)：《英国讲演：罗马与基督教》(Conferences d’Angleterre. Rome et le christianisme.)。巴黎，1880年。1880年在伦敦所作的希伯特讲座 (Hibbert Lectures)。英译本由查尔斯·比尔德 (Charles Beard) 翻译，伦敦（Williams & Norgate），1880年；另一译本由厄斯金·克莱门特 (Erskine Clement) 翻译（波士顿，1880年）。大部分内容是从他关于基督教起源的诸著作中摘录并巧妙编排而成。

H. 福姆比 (H. Formby，罗马天主教徒)：《古罗马及其与基督教的关系》(Ancient Rome and its connection with the Christian Religion)。伦敦，1880年。

Jos. 兰根 (Jos. Langen，旧天主教徒)：《罗马教会史：直至利奥一世任教皇时期》(Geschichte der römischen Kirche bis zum Pontificate Leo’s I.)。波恩 (Bonn)，1881年。

R. F. 利特尔戴尔 (R. F. Littledale，安立甘大公派)：《彼得权利主张的批判性探究》(The Petrine Claims, A Critical Inquiry)。伦敦，1880年。论战性著作。

在安提阿、亚历山大和罗马的伟大主教中，罗马主教兼具取得首席权的一切条件；这首席权由纯粹荣誉上的尊位，逐渐成为管辖上最高权的基础。同一种趋向君主式合一的倾向，先使主教职分成为各个会众的中心，继而成为各个教区的中心，如今又推动教会走向一个全教会可见的中心。首席权与主教制一同成长。在本时期，我们已能发现教皇制隐约的萌芽，其善恶两方面的特征俱已显露；与此同时，也出现了最早认真抗议滥用其权力的事例。在尼西亚时期，耶路撒冷主教因该教会历史悠久而被立为荣誉牧首，尽管他的教区范围有限；而从第四世纪中叶起，君士坦丁堡，即新罗马的新牧首，逐渐取得东方诸牧首中的首席地位，成为旧罗马主教的强大对手。

罗马教会声称，教皇制不仅具有人所赋予的权利，而且具有神授的权利，并把它的设立直接追溯到基督：基督在建立他的教会的工作中，赋予彼得显要地位，而阴间的权柄也永不能胜过这教会。这一主张包含若干假定，即：（1）彼得奉我们主的任命，所拥有的不只是个人卓越或荣誉尊位上的首席地位（这是必须承认属于他的），而且还有管辖其他使徒的最高权（这与事实相矛盾，因为彼得本人从未声称拥有此权，保罗也保持完全独立的地位，甚至在安提阿公开责备他，见《加拉太书》2:11）；（2）这种首席权和最高权的特权，不只是个人的（保罗或约翰的特殊恩赐无疑就是个人的），而且属于职分，可以承袭并转授；（3）彼得确实把这些特权转授给了罗马主教，而不是耶路撒冷或安提阿的主教（彼得确曾到过安提阿）；（4）彼得不仅到过罗马（在63年以后，这极有可能，虽不如保罗在罗马及其在那里殉道那样确实），而且在那里担任主教直至殉道，并指定了继承人（对此没有丝毫历史证据）；（5）罗马主教作为彼得的继承人，始终享有并行使对基督教会的普遍管辖权（事实上并非如此，更谈不上这是一项公认的权利）。

关于这些论点的大多数问题，我们留给论战神学充分讨论；这里所关注的，是作为历史发展产物的教皇制，因此必须考察那些使它在世界各统治制度中逐渐登上巍然高位的原因。

促成罗马主教座取得优势地位的历史因素如下：

（1）罗马教会历史悠久，甚至保罗也曾将《新约》中最重要的教义书信写给她，使她备受尊荣。严格说来，她是西方唯一的使徒母会，因此意大利、高卢 (Gaul) 和西班牙的众教会从起初就对她怀有特殊的敬意。

（2）彼得和保罗这两位首要使徒曾在罗马劳苦、殉道，并安葬在那里。在尼禄的逼迫期间，整个罗马会众经历了殉道的可怕试炼，但此后不久必已重新组织起来，殉难者的坟墓更为她增添了荣耀的光环。

（3）这座世界都会在政治上的显赫地位；她命定要以十字架的权杖统治欧洲各族，正如从前以刀剑统治他们一样。

（4）罗马教会在治理上的智慧，以及持守大公正统信仰的本能；在这一时期有关复活节日期、悔罪纪律和异端洗礼有效性的三场争论中，这两点都发挥了显著作用。

除此之外，还可加上若干次要原因：她在逼迫中的坚定，以及她对受苦弟兄的仁慈关怀，甚至远方的弟兄也蒙其惠；哥林多的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Corinth，180年) 和优西比乌 (Eusebius) 都曾颂扬这一点。

从圣保罗写信（58年）、高度赞扬罗马早期信徒之时起，直到第二世纪末维克托 (Victor) 担任主教，以及希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 对教皇泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus) 和卡利斯图斯 (Callistus) 作出不利记述之时，我们对罗马教会的内部状况，都没有明确而直接的资料。然而，在附带提及的场合，她出现的次数却比任何别的教会都多。由于地处帝国首都，随着基督教在帝国内传播，她的重要性和影响力自然与日俱增。罗马是正统与异端的战场，也是各宗各派汇聚之地。哲学和宗教中或真或假的一切，都从四面八方向她涌来。伊格那丢 (Ignatius) 因有望在世界中心为基督受苦而欢喜；坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 来到这里，与阿尼克图斯 (Anicetus) 解决逾越节争论；殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr) 在这里向皇帝呈上为基督教所作的辩护，并为它舍命；爱任纽 (Irenaeus)、德尔图良 (Tertullian) 和居普良 (Cyprian) 都承认这教会具有独特的崇高地位。异端和神智术的江湖术士，如行邪术的西门 (Simon Magus)、瓦伦丁 (Valentine)、马吉安 (Marcion)、克尔多 (Cerdo)，以及其他许多人，也同样奔赴罗马，将她视为一个居高临下的据点。因此，罗马主教很早就被视为都会牧者，并相应地以一种权威姿态说话行事，其影响远远超出直属教区，也就不足为奇了。

罗马的革利免

第一世纪将近结束时，罗马主教革利免（卒于102年）写给失去牧者、陷于纷争的哥林多教会的信，是行使某种教皇权威的第一个例子。这封信满载优美的劝勉，敦促人和睦、相爱、谦卑；正如信首称谓本身所表明的，¹⁰⁰它并不是以主教个人的名义发出的——信中根本没有提到他的名字——而是以罗马会众的名义发出，始终使用第一人称复数。这是一个教会在另一个教会有需要时，主动献上的爱心服事。伊格那丢、坡旅甲、哥林多的狄奥尼修和爱任纽，也曾向其他会众写过类似的信，给予教导、警戒和安慰。然而，几乎无法否认，这份文献流露出一种高于所有普通会众的意识。罗马教会在这里，看来并未受邀，却凭着较高的治理智慧，向东方一个重要教会提出劝告，派遣使者前去，并以上帝和圣灵代言者的身份，以沉着、庄严而有权威的语气，劝她恢复秩序与合一。¹⁰¹倘若圣约翰当时仍在以弗所生活——这很可能是事实——那么这一点就更令人惊讶，因为以弗所比罗马更接近哥林多。教阶精神源于罗马教会好支配人的精神，而非源于罗马主教或长老；他们不过是会众的代言人。¹⁰²但一个世纪以后，罗马主教取代了罗马教会：维克托以他自己的名义，仅因礼仪上的细微分歧，就将小亚细亚的众教会逐出教会。从这种教阶权力的僭越，到利奥 (Leo) 和希尔德布兰德 (Hildebrand) 式的教皇专制，仅有一步之遥；而这又在梵蒂冈关于教皇无误的教义中，达到了教义上的最终顶点。

伊格那丢

伊格那丢在《致罗马人书》（即使在叙利亚文修订本中也是如此）中，用许多显赫的称号称呼这个会众，并形容她“在罗马人地区的所在之地主持”，又说她“在爱心上居首”。¹⁰³这意在称赞她素享盛名的切实慈惠。哥林多的狄奥尼修在致罗马的索特 (Soter) 的信中，为此作证说：“你们从最初就一直遵行这一惯例，以各样方式善待所有弟兄，并向各城的许多教会送去捐助。”¹⁰⁴罗马教会无疑比其他任何教会都富有，而她慷慨使用资财，必然大大增进了她的影响力。除此之外，不能援引伊格那丢为教皇权利主张作证。他对首席权只字未提，甚至没有提到革利免或任何别的罗马主教。整封信所致意的只是教会。他仍清楚意识到主教与使徒之间的区别。他写给罗马人说：“我并不像彼得或保罗那样吩咐你们；他们是使徒。”

爱任纽

爱任纽称罗马教会为最大、最古老（？）、众所公认的教会，由两位最显赫的使徒彼得和保罗建立；由于她具有更重要的优先地位，整个基督教世界都必须与她一致，或者（按照另一种解释）所有其他教会都必须前往她那里（因为她是世界的都会）。¹⁰⁵这种“更重要的优先地位”使她居于其他使徒教会之上，尽管其他使徒教会也被承认具有优先地位。

然而，这无疑只能理解为荣誉上的优先地位，而非管辖权上的优先地位。因为约在190年，教皇维克托出于教阶式的傲慢与不宽容，仅仅因为小亚细亚的众教会坚持自己关于庆祝复活节的传统，就与她们断绝交通；这同一位爱任纽，虽然在争议问题本身上与他意见一致，却极其严厉地斥责他破坏教会和平，并声明反对在这种非本质问题上强求一律。亚细亚众教会也没有被维克托的专断吓倒。她们以自己使徒教座（sedes apostolicae）的传统，回应罗马的传统。这一分歧一直延续，直到尼西亚会议最终作出有利于罗马惯例的裁决，争论才告平息；但即使在那以后很久，古老的不列颠众教会在遵守复活节的方式上仍与罗马不同，直至格列高利一世 (Gregory I) 的时代。

希波吕托

第三世纪初，著名的希波吕托出于教义和纪律两方面的理由，坚决反对罗马主教泽菲里努斯和卡利斯图斯。然而，从他题为《哲学论辩》(Philosophumena) 的著作中，我们得知，当时罗马主教已经声称在自己的管辖范围内拥有绝对权力；卡利斯图斯还制定了一条原则，令一部分长老深感痛心：主教即使犯了致死的罪，也绝不能被长老团罢免或强迫辞职。

德尔图良

德尔图良向异端指出，使徒所建立的母会乃是纯正教义的主要保存之所；在这些教会中，他特别突出罗马教会，彼得在那里被钉十字架，保罗在那里被斩首，约翰在那里被浸入沸油却毫发无损（？），随后被放逐到海岛上。然而，这位教父后来却成了罗马的反对者。他抨击罗马宽松的悔罪纪律，并以讥讽嘲弄的口吻，称罗马主教（大概是泽菲里努斯）为“pontifex maximus”（最高祭司）和“episcopus episcoporum”（众主教的主教）。

居普良

居普良无论在拥护教皇制的基本观念上，还是在抗议这一观念于具体事件中的应用方式上，表态都最为明确。他以彼得的优越地位为出发点：主在彼得身上建立自己的教会，并将牧养群羊的责任托付给他，借此表明使徒团体的合一。居普良把这同样的优越地位转移到作为彼得继承人的罗马主教身上，因此称罗马教会为彼得的座位、祭司合一的泉源，¹⁰⁶又称她为大公教会的根与母。¹⁰⁷但另一方面，他又同样有力地主张，主教作为使徒的继承人，彼此平等，并且相对独立，因为使徒全都同样直接受命于基督。在通信中，他一贯称罗马主教为“弟兄”和“同僚”，深知自己具有同等的尊严与权威。在有关异端洗礼的争论中，他以近乎新教式的独立精神反对教皇司提反 (Stephen)，指责他犯错、滥用权力，并称没有真理的传统不过是古老的谬误。他从未撤回这项抗议中的任何一句话。

菲尔米利安

卡帕多西亚 (Cappadocia) 的主教、俄利根 (Origen) 的门徒菲尔米利安 (Firmilian)，对罗马主教的抨击更加尖锐，毫不留情，虽然其言论也暗含对罗马主教首席权的某种承认。菲尔米利安指责他愚昧，行事有失身份；因为他既是彼得的继承人，就应当促进而非破坏教会的合一，应当坚守磐石的根基，而不应借着承认异端的洗礼，另立一个新根基。菲尔米利安言辞如此激烈，或许部分出于他对俄利根的友谊与崇敬，因为俄利根曾受到罗马一次会议的谴责。

然而，在这洗礼问题上，正如在复活节和悔罪问题上一样，罗马教会最终仍取得了胜利。

早期教皇相对而言并不显要

从这些见证可以清楚看出，罗马主教座日益增长的影响力，根植于公众舆论以及古代教会对合一的需要，绝不能归因于任职者的才干与野心。相反，头三个世纪的三十位教皇，其个人形象显著地隐没在背景之中；尽管他们全都被封为圣徒，而且按照一种较晚出现、却极其可疑的传统，除两人以外，他们也全都是殉道者。¹⁰⁸在他们当中，甚至可以说直到第五世纪中叶的大利奥 (Leo the Great) 为止，几乎没有一人——革利免或许是个例外——作为教会领袖能与伊格那丢、居普良和安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 相比，或作为神学家能与爱任纽、德尔图良、亚他那修 (Athanasius) 和奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 相比。¹⁰⁹哲罗姆 (Jerome) 在所列举的头四个世纪一百三十六位教会名人中，只收录了四位罗马主教：革利免、维克托、哥尼流 (Cornelius) 和达马苏斯 (Damasus)；即使这几位，也不过写了少数书信。希波吕托约在225年写成的《哲学论辩》(Philosophumena)，甚至根据他本人的观察——虽不无党派偏见——将同时代的两位教皇，即圣泽菲里努斯（202–218年）和卡利斯图斯（圣卡利克斯图斯一世，St. Calixtus I.，218–223年），描绘得极为不堪：他指责前者无知、贪婪，¹¹⁰指责后者行为可耻（据说他曾是骗子和逃奴，在企图自杀时被救），并指责两人都持圣父受苦说 (Patripassian) 异端。出于希波吕托这样一位可敬作者之手的指控，不可能纯属捏造，即使他是一位与卡利斯图斯对立的分裂派主教；这些指控至少必有某些事实根据。

§ 51. 教皇年表

I. 史料

关于早期罗马主教那晦暗不明的年代，主要史料是历代教皇名录。这些名录分为两类：东方的或希腊文的，以及西方的或拉丁文的。第一类包括第二世纪赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 和爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的名录、第四世纪优西比乌 (Eusebius) 的名录（见其《编年史》[Chronicle] 和《教会史》[Church History]），以及第四世纪以后其继承者的名录。利普修斯 (Lipsius) 和哈纳克 (Harnack) 遵循这一类。第二类包括奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 的名录（Ep. 55，另一编号为165）、米莱韦的奥普塔图斯 (Optatus of Mileve) 的名录（De schism. Donat. II. 3）、《利贝里乌斯名录》(Catalogus Liberianus，下迄利贝里乌斯，354年)、《费利克斯名录》(Catalogus Felicianus，下迄530年)、《科农名录》(Catalogus Cononianus，可能以《利奥名录》[Catalogus Leoninus，下迄440年] 为依据)，以及《教皇列传》(Liber Pontificalis，从前认为以此前各名录为依据，但据迪申神父 [Abbé Duchesne] 和魏茨 [Waitz] 的看法，它比《费利克斯书》[Liber Felicianus] 更早)。《教皇列传》(Liber Pontif.) 本身有不同抄本，且经历了许多改动。其年代众说不一，有定于第五世纪的，也有定于第七世纪的。

此外还可加上罗马教会的《殉道者录》(Martyrologia) 和《历书》(Calendaria)，尤其是《哲罗姆殉道者录》(Martyrologium Hieronymianum) 和《罗马小殉道者录》(Martyrologium Romanum parvum)（两者均属第七或第八世纪）。

1850年以来在罗马发现的教皇墓铭，载有姓名和头衔，却没有日期。

关于《利贝里乌斯名录》(Catalogus Liberianus)，尤其参见蒙森 (Mommsen) 的考证论文《论354年的编年史家》(Ueber de Chronographen des Jahres 354)，载《萨克森皇家科学院学报》哲学历史部，第I卷（1850年），第631页及后。名录原文见该卷第634–637页，亦见利普修斯《罗马主教年代考》(Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe)，附录第265–268页。《教皇列传》(Liber Pontificalis) 最古老的抄本出自第七和第八世纪，所呈现的是公元641年的文本，但异文甚多。魏茨说：“Mit wahrer Sicherheit gelangen wir in der Geschichte des Papsthums nicht über das 7te Jahrhundert hinauf.”（在教皇制历史上，我们若要求真正确实的知识，就无法追溯到第七世纪以前。）

II. 著作

菲尔·雅费 (Phil. Jaffé)：《罗马教皇文书汇编：自教会创立至1198年》(Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad Ann. 1198)。柏林 (Berolini)，1851年；在古尔·瓦滕巴赫 (Gul. Wattenbach) 主持下修订增补的第二版（ed. secunda correcta et aucta auspiciis），莱比锡 (Lips.)，1881年及后。波特哈斯特 (Potthast) 续编1198–1304年部分；哈通 (Harttung) 又加补编（第I卷，公元748–1198年，哥达 [Gotha]，1880年）。

R A. 利普修斯 (R A. Lipsius)：《罗马主教年代考：至第四世纪中叶》(Chronologie der Röm. Bischöfe bis zur Mitte des 4ten Jahrh.)。基尔 (Kiel)，1869年。参较霍特 (Hort) 在1871年9月15日《学院》(Academy) 上对此书的评论。利普修斯：《教皇年代学新研究》(Neue Studien zur Papstchronologie)，载《新教神学年鉴》(Jahrbücher für Protest. Theol.)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1880年（第78–126、233–307页）。利普修斯否认彼得曾到过罗马。

L. 迪申神父 (Abbé L. Duchesne)：《〈教皇列传〉研究》(Étude sur le Liber Pontificalis)。巴黎，1887年。《〈教皇列传〉的年代与各修订本》(La date et les recensions du Liber Pontificalis)，1879年。《教皇列传：文本、导论与注释》(Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire)。巴黎，1884及1889年，2卷，四开本（附摹真图版）。

阿道夫·哈纳克 (Adolf Harnack)：《伊格那丢的年代及安提阿主教至提兰努斯的年代考》(Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologie der antiochenischen Bischöfe bis Tyrannus)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1878年（第73页）。

G. 魏茨 (G. Waitz)：《论〈教皇列传〉的不同文本》(UEber die verschiedenen Texte des Liber Pontificalis)，载《古代德国史研究学会档案》(Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde)，第IV卷；另见他对迪申和利普修斯著作的评论，载H. 冯·叙贝尔 (H. v. Sybel) 的《历史杂志》(Histor. Zeitschrift)，1880年，第135页及后。

罗马主教传承链条中最早的环节，笼罩在无法穿透的黑暗中。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 和大多数拉丁教父（以及伪克莱门文献）都把革利免（腓4:3）列为彼得的第一位继承者；¹¹¹但爱任纽、优西比乌及其他希腊教父，还有哲罗姆和罗马名录，却把他列在第三位，在他与彼得之间列入利奴 (Linus，提后4:21) 和阿纳克勒图斯 (Anacletus，或Anincletus)。¹¹²有些名录以克勒图斯 (Cletus) 取代阿纳克勒图斯，另一些则将两人区分开来。也许利奴和阿纳克勒图斯在保罗和彼得生前曾作他们的助手，或仅主持教会的一部分，而革利免可能负责另一部分；因为在那早期，由犹太和外邦基督徒成分组成的会众，其治理尚未像后来那样集中。此外，最早的教父真正懂得使徒职分与主教职分的区别，根本不将彼得列入罗马主教之中；而罗马名录把彼得列入主教世系，却奇怪地忽略了保罗，尽管他在罗马的独立工作不仅有传统为证，而且有他自己的书信和《使徒行传》的明确见证。

利普修斯经过艰苦的考证，比较了不同的教皇名录，得出结论：利奴、阿纳克勒图斯和革利免是第一世纪末罗马的长老（或按新约意义所说的长老兼主教）；埃瓦里斯图斯 (Evaristus) 和亚历山大 (Alexander) 是第二世纪初的长老；克西斯图斯一世 (Xystus I.，拉丁化为Sixtus) 任长老十年，直至约128年；特勒斯福鲁斯 (Telesphorus) 任职十一年，直至约139年；此后的继承者才是教区主教。¹¹³

然而，平心而论，必须承认罗马主教名录在年代之古老、记载之完整、传承之连续，以及教义和政策之一贯诸方面，都远胜任何类似名录，连耶路撒冷、安提阿、亚历山大和君士坦丁堡的名录也不例外；对于那些主要依据外在见证来形成观点，而不能上升到新教对基督教及其在世发展史的自由观念的人，这一点必然具有极大的分量。

§ 52. 头三个世纪的罗马主教与罗马皇帝名录

本表据优西比乌（下迄西尔维斯特）、雅费（《文书汇编》[Regesta]）、波特哈斯特（《中世纪历史书目》[Bibliotheca Hist. Medii Aevi]）、利普修斯等人的名录比较编成。续表见我的《中世纪基督教史》(History of Mediaeval Christianity)，第205页及后。

年代

教皇

皇帝

年代

奥古斯都 (Augustus)

公元前27年

提比略 (Tiberius)

公元14–37年

卡利古拉 (Caligula)

67–41年

克劳狄 (Claudius)

41–54年

？42–67年

彼得——使徒 (Petrus-Apostolus)

（63–64年）

尼禄 (Nero)

54–68年

？67–79年

利奴——长老 (Linus-Presbyter)

加尔巴 (Galba)

68年

奥托 (Otho)

68–69年

维特利乌斯 (Vitellius)

69–69年

？79–91年

克勒图斯 (Cletus)，或阿纳克勒图斯 (Anacletus)

提图斯 (Titus)

79–81年

图密善 (Domitian)

81–96年

？91–100年

革利免一世 (Clemens I)

涅尔瓦 (Nerva)

96–98年

图拉真 (Trajan)

98–117年

？100–109年

埃瓦里斯图斯 (Evaristus)

？109–119年

亚历山大一世 (Alexander I)

哈德良 (Hadrian)

117–138年

？119–128年

克西斯图斯 (Xystus)，或西克斯图斯一世 (Sixtus I)

？128–139年

特勒斯福鲁斯 (Telesphorus，殉道者)

安敦宁·庇护 (Antoninus Pius)

138–161年

？139–142年

许吉努斯 (Hyginus)

？142–154年

庇护一世 (Pius I)

？154–168年

阿尼凯图斯 (Anicetus)

马可·奥勒留 (Marcus Aurelius)

161–180年

？168–176年

索特 (Soter)

？177–190年

埃留特鲁斯 (Eleutherus)

康茂德 (Commodus)

180–190年

？190–202年

维克托一世 (Victor I)

佩尔蒂纳克斯 (Pertinax)

190–191年

狄狄乌斯·尤利安努斯 (Didius Julianus)

191–192年

尼格尔 (Niger)

192–193年

塞普蒂米乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Septimius Severus)

193–211年

202–218年

泽菲里努斯 (Zephyrinus)

卡拉卡拉 (Caracalla)

211–217年

盖塔 (Geta，卒于212年)

211–217年

M. 奥皮利乌斯·马克里努斯 (M.Opilius Macrinus)

217–218年

218–223年

卡利斯图斯 (Callistus)，或卡利克斯图斯一世 (Calixtus I)

赫利奥加巴卢斯 (Heliogabalus)

218–222年

（希波吕托 [Hippolytus]，对立教皇）

？223–230年

乌尔班一世 (Urbanus I)

亚历山大·塞韦鲁斯 (Alexander Severus)

222–235年

？230–235年

庞蒂安努斯 (Pontianus，在流放中辞职)

235–236年

安特鲁斯 (Anterus)

马克西明一世 (Maximin I，色雷斯人)

235–237年

236–250年

法比安努斯 (Fabianus)，殉道者

两位戈尔狄安 (Gordians)：

马克西穆斯·普皮恩努斯 (Maximus Pupienus)，

巴尔比努斯 (Balbinus)

237–238年

小戈尔狄安 (Gordian, the Younger)

238–244年

腓力 (Philip)

244–249年

250–251年

主教座空缺，直至251年3月

德修 (Decius)

249–251年

？251–252年

哥尼流 (Cornelius，流放中)

加卢斯 (Gallus)

251–252年

？251年

（诺瓦提安 [Novatianus]，对立教皇）

252–253年

路基乌斯一世 (Lucius I)

沃卢西安 (Volusian)

252–253年

？253–257年

司提反一世 (Stephanus I)

埃米利安 (Aemilian)

253–268年

瓦勒良 (Valerian)

256–259年

加利恩努斯 (Gallienus)

259–268年

？257–258年

克西斯图斯二世 (Xystus II，亦作Sixtus II)

直至259年7月21日

主教座空缺

259–269年

狄奥尼修 (Dionysius)

克劳狄二世 (Claudius II)

268–270年

269–274年

费利克斯一世 (Felix I)

奥勒良 (Aurelian)

270–275年

275–283年

欧提基安努斯 (Eutychianus)

塔西佗 (Tacitus)

275–276年

普罗布斯 (Probus)

276–282年

283–296年

该犹 (Gajus，亦作Caius)

卡鲁斯 (Carus)

282–284年

卡里努斯 (Carinus)

284–286年

努梅里安 (Numerian)

戴克里先 (Diocletian，卒于313年)

284–305年

马克西米安 (Maximian)，与戴克里先共治的皇帝

286–305年

296–304年

马尔凯利努斯 (Marcellinus)

君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius，卒于306年)

304或307年

304–307年

主教座空缺

加列里乌斯 (Galerius，卒于311年)

李锡尼 (Licinius，卒于323年)

马克西明二世 (Maximin II，达扎 [Daza])

308–309年

君士坦丁大帝 (Constantine the Great)，

309–323年

加列里乌斯 (Galerius，卒于311年)，

308–309年

马尔凯卢斯 (Marcellus)

李锡尼 (Licinius，卒于323年)，

309–310年

优西比乌 (Eusebius)，卒于309年9月26日（？）

马克西明 (Maximin，卒于313年)，

马克森提乌斯 (Maxentius，卒于312年)，

309–310年

主教座空缺

共同执政。

311–314年

米尔提亚德 (Miltiades，亦作Melchiades)

314–335年，西尔维斯特一世 (Silvester I.)

君士坦丁大帝 (Constantine the Great)，

323–337年

独掌统治权。

从使徒彼得到利奥十三世 (Leo XIII.，1878年)，教皇总数为二百六十三位。如此算来，每位教皇平均在位约七年。传统所传彼得在位的二十五年，被视为其继承者无人获准达到的最高年限；惟有第一位被宣告无谬的教皇庇护九世 (Pius IX.) 例外，他在位二十七年（1846–1878年）。坎特伯雷 (Canterbury) 大主教的平均任期为十四年。

§ 53. 大公教会的合一

J. A. 默勒 (J. A. Möhler，罗马天主教徒)：《教会的合一，或天主教的原则》(Die Einheit der Kirche oder das Princip des Katholicismus)。图宾根 (Tübingen)，1825年。充满天主教徒对教会合一的热忱。

R. 罗特 (R. Rothe)：《基督教会的开端》(Die Anfänge der christl. Kirche)。维滕贝格 (Wittenb.)，1837年（第553–711页）。这是一本与默勒著作相对应的新教著作。

许特尔 (Huther.)：《居普良论教会合一的教义》(Cyprian’s Lehre von der Einheit der Kirche)。汉堡 (Hamb.)，1839年。

J. W. 内文 (J. W. Nevin)：《居普良》(Cyprian)；四篇文章，载《默瑟斯堡评论》(Mercersburg Review)，1852年。参较瓦里恩 (Varien) 对这些文章的批评，载同一《评论》1853年，第555页及后。

约翰·彼得斯 (Joh. Peters，教皇至上派)：《圣居普良论教会合一的教义：针对迦太基与罗马的两次分裂》(Die Lehre des heil. Cyprian von der Einheit der Kirche gegenüber den beiden Schismen in Carthago und Rom)。卢森堡 (Luxemb.)，1870年。

约斯·H. 赖因肯斯 (Jos. H. Reinkens，旧天主教会主教)：《圣居普良论教会合一的教义》(Die Lehre des heil. Cyprian von der Einheit er Kirche)。维尔茨堡 (Würzburg)，1873年。

另参较哈特尔 (Hartel) 编辑的居普良《著作集》(Opera，3部分，维也纳，1868–1871年)，以及雷特贝格 (Rettberg，1831年)、彼得斯 (Peters，1877年)、费希特鲁普 (Fechtrup，1878年) 和O. 里奇尔 (O. Ritschl，1883年) 关于居普良的专著。

以保罗关于教会作为基督奥秘身体的合一性、圣洁性和普世性的观念为基础，与主教治理制度携手并进，以事实而非教义的形式，并在不断抗衡外在异教逼迫和内部异端与分裂倾向的过程中，产生了“圣而公之教会”这一观念与制度，正如《使徒信经》所说；¹¹⁴或用《尼西亚—君士坦丁堡信经》更完整的话来说，就是“独一、圣洁、大公、使徒的教会”。在这两部普世信经中，甚至在作为其基础、措辞较不明确的第二和第三世纪信经中，教会都被列为信仰的一项内容，¹¹⁵它以对圣父、圣子、圣灵的信仰为前提，并必然随之而来；教会也被视为一个圣洁的团契，¹¹⁶人们在其中享有从罪得赦免直到永生的种种恩典福分。

这里也没有区分有形教会和无形教会。整个古代大公教会所想到的，只有现实的、历史的教会；尽管它在世人眼中仍是一个受逼迫的小教派，人们却毫不犹豫地把合一性、圣洁性、普世性和使徒性这四项属性归于它，后来又加上排他性、无谬性和不可毁灭性。诚然，有时也出现一些迹象，表明教会的经验现实与理想观念并不相称，尤其在诺瓦提安派 (Novatian) 的分裂中更是如此；而在使徒时期那种崇高的属灵境界消退、逼迫止息、纪律衰落之后，就圣洁性这一属性而言，这种不相称变得更加明显。然而，个别成员的不配，以及教会外在的仆人形态，并未被容许使人误解它整体的客观性质；这种性质，是它凭着与荣耀的天上元首联合而具有的。

本时期的教父都在教会中看见了一种神圣、超自然的秩序，虽然认识的清晰程度各不相同；在某种意义上，教会是基督在地上生命的延续，是圣灵的殿，是神圣生命之能力的唯一宝库，是圣经的拥有者和解释者，是一切信徒的母亲。她是圣洁的，因为她分别出来，不再服事世俗的世界，由圣灵赋予生命，陶冶其成员，使之成圣，并施行严格的纪律。她是大公的，也就是说（按照 ὅλος^* 的确切含义，这个词所指的与其说是数量上的总和，不如说是完整性），她是完整的，并且是唯一真实的，有别于一切党派和宗派。严格说来，大公性包含普世性、合一性和排他性这三项标志；教会作为基督的身体和器官，必然具有这种属性，因为基督确实是全人类唯一的救赎主。同样不可与她分离的，还有使徒性这一属性，也就是历史上的延续性或不间断的传承；这种传承经由主教追溯至使徒，从使徒追溯至基督，又从基督追溯至上帝。在教父看来，凡在理论上偏离这个经验中可见可触的大公教会的，都是异端，即任意、主观、不断变化的人间意见；凡在实践上偏离她的，一切不服从她的治理者的行为，都是分裂，即肢解基督的身体；两者都是反叛神圣权威，即便不是最重的罪，也是极其严重的罪。任何异端都达不到教会这一概念的高度，也无权宣称具有教会的任何一种属性；它至多形成一个宗派或党派，因此属于人间必朽之物的范畴，也必遭遇同样的命运，而教会却是神圣而不可毁灭的。

这无疑是尼西亚会议以前教父们的看法，甚至思辨而重属灵的亚历山大学派也不例外。在教会教义的发展中，最重要的人物仍是伊格那丢 (Ignatius)、爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 和居普良 (Cyprian)。他们关于主教制度的全部教义，都与他们关于大公合一的教义密切相连，并受其支配。因为在他们眼中，主教制度的价值仅在于它是维持并促进这种合一不可缺少的手段；而对于异端和分裂派的主教，他们则不得不视之为叛逆者和敌基督。

在《伊格那丢书信》中，以主教制度为形式并借此实现的教会合一，是根本思想，也是劝勉的主要题旨。作者称自己是一个为合一预备好的人。¹¹⁷ 他也是第一个在教会意义上使用“大公”一词的人，他说：¹¹⁸“基督耶稣在哪里，大公教会也在哪里。”也就是说，祂的子民紧密联合、完整无缺的全体便在那里。照他的看法，只有在教会里面，我们才能吃上帝的粮；跟从分裂者的人，不能承受上帝的国。¹¹⁹

在罗马的革利免所写的《哥林多前书》、士每拿 (Smyrna) 教会关于坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 殉道的书信，以及《黑马牧人书》(Shepherd of Hermas) 中，我们也遇见类似的观点，只是表达得没有这样清楚而强烈。

爱任纽对教会的论述详尽得多。他称教会为获救的港湾、救恩之路、生命之门、这世界中的乐园；园中的树木，也就是圣经，我们都可以取食，惟独分别善恶树除外，因为他把这棵树视为异端的预表。教会与圣灵不可分离；她是圣灵的居所，而且是祂在地上唯一的居所。他本着真正的大公精神，将教会置于首位，说：“教会在哪里，上帝的灵就在哪里；上帝的灵在哪里，一切恩典也就在哪里。”¹²⁰ 他继续说，只有在教会的怀抱中，我们才能得到哺育而获得生命。我们必须投奔她，才能有分于圣灵；与她分离，就是与圣灵的团契分离。在他看来，异端分子是真理的仇敌、撒但之子，必如可拉、大坍、亚比兰一党那样，被地狱吞灭。在这一点上，很能说明其特点的，是他所讲述的那则著名传说：使徒约翰遇见了诺斯替派 (Gnostic) 的克林妥 (Cerinthus)，而坡旅甲遇见了“撒但的长子”马吉安 (Marcion)。
德尔图良 (Tertullian) 第一个把教会比作挪亚方舟，这个比喻此后成为罗马天主教神学中的经典说法；他也毫无保留地将异端归因于魔鬼。但论到分裂，他自己也犯了这罪，因为他加入了孟他努派 (Montanists)，并在纪律问题上猛烈反对大公教会信徒。因此，在罗马天主教的名录中，他不列于教父（patres）之中，而只列于教会作家（scriptores ecclesiae）之中。
就连亚历山大的革利免 (Clement of Alexandria) 和俄利根 (Origen)，尽管他们的思想极重属灵与理想，在这里也不例外。后者说：“在教会以外，无人能够得救。”¹²¹ 他如此阐明大公教会的排他性原则，其明确程度不亚于居普良。然而，在他的著作中，除了对异端极其严厉的判断，我们也能见到温和、宽容的言辞；他甚至根据《罗马书》2:6及下文，设想正直的犹太人和异教徒在来世将得到相称的报偿，即较低程度的福乐，虽然不是严格意义上的“永生”。在后来的时代，他自己也被定为异端。

在第三世纪其他希腊神学家中，尤其是俄利根的反对者美多迪乌 (Methodius)，对教会持有崇高的看法。他在《会饮篇》(Symposion) 中，以诗一般的语言将教会描绘为“上帝的园子，永春之美长存，赐人不朽的花果辉映出无比灿烂的光彩”；又将她描绘为神圣逻各斯 (Logos) 的王室新妇，贞洁无玷，永远年轻美丽。

最后，居普良在其书信中，尤其是在其经典论著《论教会合一》(De Unitate Eccelesiae) 中，最清楚、最有力地阐发了古代大公教会关于教会及其合一性、普世性和排他性的教义。这部论著写于251年诺瓦提安派 (Novatian) 分裂所造成的纷扰之中，也不免掺杂了教阶制度的骄傲与党派精神。他是有形、可触的教会合一的典型捍卫者；若由他担任教皇，必胜过利奥一世 (Leo I.) 以前的任何一位教皇；然而，当他与教皇意见不合时，他终究又是反教皇、反罗马的。奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 感觉到了这种不一致，并认为他已经用殉道之血将它洗净。但他从未表现出任何悔意。他的观点简述如下：

基督起初单单在圣彼得之上建立了大公教会，为的是使徒虽有同等的权柄，合一作为教会存在的根本，仍能保持其显著地位。此后，教会借着不间断的主教传承，始终保持为一；正如太阳虽光照四方，却只有一个。试把光线与太阳分开吧；光的统一性不容分割。把枝子从树上折下，它就不能结果。把溪流的源头截断，它就干涸了。在这个现实存在、按主教制度组织、以罗马为中心的正统教会以外，居普良根本无法想象还有基督教；¹²²不仅诺斯替派及其他激进异端中没有，甚至诺瓦提安派中也没有，尽管后者在教义的任何根本之点上都与大公教会没有不同，只是为了维护其严厉的悔罪纪律，另选了一位对立的主教。凡与大公教会分离的人，都是外人、亵渎者、仇敌，自己定了自己的罪，必须避而远之。不以教会为母的人，不能以上帝为父。¹²³ 要想在教会以外得救，就如同要在挪亚方舟以外逃过洪水一样；¹²⁴因为只有教会承载着圣灵和一切恩典。

在关于异端洗礼的争论中，居普良贯彻排他性原则，甚至比罗马教会更加一贯。他完全拒绝承认这种洗礼，而司提反 (Stephen) 却认为它有效；因此，若严格贯彻后一立场，就不得不承认在大公教会以外也有重生、因而也有得救的可能。在这一点上，通常如此严密一贯的罗马体系，竟也留下了一个宽容的缺口，在实践中放弃了其理论上的排他性原则。然而，居普良为了贯彻这一原则，甚至坚持反对教皇，尽管他视教皇为彼得的继承人及合一的有形中心；他由此明确否认了罗马管辖权的至高地位，也否认存在一个裁决教义争论的无谬法庭，并抗议将整个教会等同于罗马教会。如果他有权为维护严格的排他性而提出这种抗议，那么希腊教会，尤其是福音派教会，岂不更有权反对罗马的排他性，主张一种更自由、更宽广的教会观吗？

我们尽可以坦然承认，这种古代大公教会的教会教义，其根底蕴含着深刻而优美的真理；也可以承认，它对于那个逼迫时期，以及中世纪在蛮族中开展的伟大宣教工作，都具有历史意义。但我们不能忽视一个事实：这种教义部分建立在一种谬误之上；随着时间推移，在教会与国家——换言之，与世界——联合以后，这一谬误日益显露，并激起了教会内部力量不断增长的抗议。它盲目地将教会属灵的合一等同于组织上的统一，牺牲自由发展，坚持外在的一致，并将有缺陷的现实教会，或基督教发展中的一个暂时阶段，与基督理想而永恒的国度混为一谈；而这国度，惟有等到其元首荣耀地再来时，才会完全显明。圣经的原则“在基督以外没有救恩”，被缩减、限制为居普良的原则：“在（有形的）教会以外没有救恩”；由此距离罗马主义的根本谬误——“在罗马教会以外没有救恩”——就只差一步了。

无论怎样努力追求外在的统一，都无法阻止整个东方教会与西方教会之间的差异，在这个早期阶段便于语言、习俗和神学上显露出来；这种差异后来导致了一场分裂，至今仍未弥合。

我们的主是否有意在现今的秩序中建立一种外在可见的教会统一，实在大可质疑。祂应许将有“一个羊群，一位牧人”，却不是“一个羊圈”。¹²⁵ 可以只有一个羊群，却有许多羊圈，或教会组织。在大祭司的祷告中，我们的主对教会、主教或教皇只字未提，却着重讲述那种反映永恒之父与永恒之子和谐关系的属灵合一。“基督徒真正的相交——一切教会所赖以建立的‘圣徒相通’——并不在于共同举行外在的行动，而在于心灵与心灵、心灵与基督的相交。外在组织有助于我们彼此相交，这是上帝所赋予我们的本性所带来的结果；外在行动有助于我们与祂相交，则既是我们双重本性的结果，也是基督所命定的。但那内在的实际与合一的本质——思想与品格彼此交融的共同生命——比任何外在事物所能象征或联结的，都更精微、更深邃、更神圣；圣保罗称之为‘圣灵的合一’，而在那至高之书中最为崇高的一卷里，它又以最神圣的言语，被比作子与父、父与子的合一。”¹²⁶

§ 54. 教会会议

最佳的教会会议文献集为阿尔杜安 (Harduin，1715年，12卷) 和曼西 (Mansi，1759年，31卷) 所编。

C. J. 赫费勒 (C. J. Hefele，罗马天主教罗滕堡主教，1870年梵蒂冈会议成员)：《教会会议史》(Conciliengeschichte)，弗赖堡 (Freiburg)，1855年；第二版，1873年及后，7卷，叙述下迄公元1447年的佛罗伦萨会议（参见第I卷，第83–242页）。英译本由 W. R. 克拉克 (W. R. Clark) 和 H. R. 奥克森纳姆 (H. R. Oxenham) 翻译（爱丁堡，1871年；第2卷，1876年；第3卷，1883年）。

E. B. 普西 (E. B. Pusey，卒于1882年)：《教会会议：从公元51年的耶路撒冷会议至公元381年的君士坦丁堡会议；主要论其组成，兼论其目的与历史》(The Councils of the Church, from the Council of Jerusalem, a.d. 51, to the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381; chiefly as to their constitution, but also as to their object and history)。伦敦，1857年。

A. W. 戴尔 (A. W. Dale)：《埃尔维拉会议［公元306年］与第四世纪的基督徒生活》(The Synod of Elvira [a.d. 306] and Christian Life in the Fourth Century)。伦敦，1882年。

参见史密斯 (Smith) 与奇瑟姆 (Cheetham) 所编著作中的“教会会议”(Council) 条，以及哈奇 (Hatch) 的班普顿讲座《早期基督教会的组织》(Organization of the Early Christian Church) 第VII讲，伦敦，1881年，第165页及后。

教会会议 (Councils 或 Synods) 是维持和促进教会合一、裁定信仰与纪律问题的重要手段。¹²⁷ 使徒们为解决割礼争议而召开的耶路撒冷会议，为这种会议提供了先例和依据。¹²⁸ 此外，罗马帝国各行省每年在主要城市举行的政治议事集会，也给了它们启发。¹²⁹ 但在第二世纪中叶以前（50年至170年之间），我们找不到教会会议的明确踪迹；它们最初出现于有关孟他努主义 (Montanism) 和复活节的争论之中。

教会会议按规模分为几种：教区会议、行省（或都主教区）会议、全国会议、牧首区会议，以及普世（或全体）会议。¹³⁰ 本时期只有前三种。教区会议由主教及其长老、执事组成，会众也参与其中；这种会议可能从起初就已举行，但直到第三世纪才有记载。行省会议最早出现在希腊；自亚该亚同盟 (Achaean league) 时代以来，那里结社联合的精神一直很强；随后又出现在小亚细亚、北非、高卢和西班牙。在逼迫的动荡岁月所容许的范围内，这种会议每年在行省首府举行一次或两次，由都主教主持，都主教因而逐渐取得了对本行省其他主教的监督权。遇到特殊的紧急情势，便召开特别会议；这种特别会议似乎先于定期会议而出现。人们发现这些会议颇为有用，于是便使之成为制度。

教会会议公开举行，周围地区的会众有时也发挥了影响。在居普良 (Cyprian) 时代，长老、认信者和平信徒都积极参与；这一惯例似乎有使徒实践的依据。¹³¹ 约256年，因异端洗礼之争而召开的会议，有八十七位主教、许多教士和执事，以及“maxima pars plebis”（会众中的绝大部分）出席；¹³² 在讨论恢复失足者 (Lapsi) 身份的会议中，居普良除主教以外，还召集了自己的教牧人员、“confessores”（认信者）和“laicos stantes”（即保持良好教会身份的平信徒）。¹³³ 这一惯例也不限于北非。在叙利亚，因撒摩撒他的保罗 (Paul of Samosata) 而召开的会议（264–269年），以及西班牙的埃尔维拉会议，都可见到这种做法。俄利根 (Origen) 虽然只是长老，却是两次阿拉伯会议的主导人物，并使当地的主教贝里鲁斯 (Beryllus) 信服，承认自己在基督论上的错误。就连罗马教牧人员在写给居普良的信中，¹³⁴ 也谈到主教与教士、执事、认信者，以及保持良好教会身份的平信徒，在会议中共同商议。

但随着教阶精神的发展，这种共和性质逐渐消失。尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea，325年) 以后，只有主教才有席位和发言权；此后，教士仅以主教的秘书、顾问或代表身份出现。此外，主教也不再像从前那样，作为各自教会的代表，或以全体信徒的名义行事，而是凭着使徒继承人本身所具有的权利行事。不过，在本时期，他们尚未声称自己的决定绝无错误，除非我们愿意在这样的措辞中，看出略微接近这种主张的迹象：“Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente”（我们在圣灵的启示下，议决如此）；例如，252年的迦太基会议就使用了这一措辞。¹³⁵ 无论如何，当时他们的法令只有道德上的力量，不能声称具有普遍效力。甚至居普良也坚决主张，每一位主教在自己的教区内享有绝对的独立。他说：“主的羊群各有一部分分派给每一个牧人，他必须向自己的主交账。”

较为重要的决定，如选立主教、革除教籍、裁决争端，都通过 epistolae synodicae（会议书信）通告其他行省。各教会个别成员之间的往来和转会，通常使用主教所写的荐信，¹³⁶ 或以这种荐信作为接纳的必要条件。被一个教会逐出，实际上就等于被所有相联的教会逐出。

教会会议制度的作用趋向于巩固联合。各基督教会原是凭着信仰上的属灵团契而联结的独立团体，如今却成为一个强大的联盟，成为罗马帝国政治组织内部一个紧密结合的道德共同体。

正如主教制以首席权为其顶点，教会会议制度也发展为代表罗马帝国全体教会的普世会议。但唯有逼迫止息、皇帝成为基督教的保护者以后，这种会议才可能召开。第一次便是325年著名的尼西亚会议。国家赋予教会会议的法令以法律效力，必要时动用一切强制手段加以执行。但罗马政府所保护的，只有大公或正统教会；唯独在亚流派 (Arian) 及其他争论进行期间，在皇帝召集的普世会议作出决定、取得最终结果以前，才有例外。¹³⁷

§ 55. 埃尔维拉、阿尔勒与安居拉会议

尼西亚以前的教会会议，有些因小亚细亚的孟他努主义争论而召开，有些因复活节争论，有些因俄利根的事，有些因诺瓦atian分裂及迦太基和罗马对失足者 (Lapsi) 的处置，还有些因异端洗礼之争（255、256年）而召开；另有三次会议在安提阿举行，以反对撒摩撒他的保罗（264–269年）。

第四世纪初，在埃尔维拉 (Elvira)、阿尔勒 (Arles) 和安居拉 (Ancyra) 举行的三次会议，值得特别一提，因为它们已接近全体会议的性质，并为第一次普世会议预备了道路。它们没有裁定任何教义问题，却通过了有关教会体制与基督徒道德的重要教规。召集这些会议，是为了在戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫的摧残之后恢复秩序与纪律。它们主要处理人数众多的失足者问题，反映了从尼西亚以前时期向尼西亚时期过渡的状态。这些会议同样充满了教权主义和温和禁欲主义的精神。

埃尔维拉会议（Illiberis，或 Eliberis，可能位于今格拉纳达〔Granada〕所在地）于306年举行，¹³⁸ 有十九位主教和二十六位长老出席，大多来自西班牙南部地区。执事和平信徒也有与会。305年，戴克里先和马克西米安·赫尔库利乌斯 (Maximian Herculeus) 退位以后，戴克里先的逼迫在西班牙便告停止；而在东方，加莱里乌斯 (Galerius) 和马克西明 (Maximin) 统治之下，逼迫仍继续肆虐了数年。会议通过了八十一条拉丁文教规，反对当时仍然盛行的各种异教败德行为，维护教会纪律和严峻的道德标准。失足者即使在 articulo mortis（临终之际），也不得领圣餐（第1条）。这比尼西亚会议的措施更为严厉。第三十六条禁止在教会建筑的墙壁上设置圣像，¹³⁹ 新教徒常引此作为论据，反对圣像崇拜，认为它属于偶像崇拜；而罗马天主教作者则解释说，这一条或者只是禁止描绘神，或者是为防止异教徒亵渎圣物而采取的审慎措施。¹⁴⁰ 除此以外，该会议的精神和基调完全是大公教会式的。另一个特点，是对西班牙人数众多的犹太人采取严厉态度。基督徒不得与犹太人通婚。¹⁴¹

埃尔维拉会议的主导人物、名册上列第二位的，是科尔杜巴 (Corduba，即科尔多瓦〔Cordova〕) 主教何西乌斯 (Hosius)；他也曾作为西方的首席代表出席尼西亚会议。他生于科尔多瓦——卢坎 (Lucan) 和塞涅卡 (Seneca) 的故乡——担任主教六十余年。亚他那修 (Athanasius) 称他不但名为圣洁，实也圣洁，并赞扬他引导教会会议的智慧。他是一位深谋远虑的政治家，似乎曾构想使帝国与教会和解，并影响君士坦丁 (Constantine) 的思想朝这一方向发展。他是联结逼迫时代与帝国基督教时代的最显著人物之一。他曾坚定地捍卫尼西亚信仰，但在极高龄时发生动摇，签署了一份亚流派信式。不久以后，他便去世了，享年一百岁（358年）。

法国南部的第一次阿尔勒会议¹⁴² 于公元314年举行，起因是多纳徒派 (Donatists) 向君士坦丁大帝上诉，反对313年罗马会议的决定；那次罗马会议由三位高卢主教和十五位意大利主教组成，由教皇梅尔基亚德 (Melchiades) 主持。这是基督教派别向世俗权力上诉的第一个实例，结果却对多纳徒派不利；他们后来成为政府的敌人。阿尔勒会议是君士坦丁召集的第一次会议，也是尼西亚会议的先驱。奥古斯丁 (Augustin) 甚至称它为普世会议，但它充其量也只是西方的会议。会议由三十三位主教组成，¹⁴³ 分别来自高卢、西西里、意大利（教皇西尔维斯特〔Sylvester〕本人未出席，但派了两位长老和两位执事代表他）、北非和不列颠（有三位，分别来自约克〔York〕、伦敦，以及可能是乌斯克河畔的卡利恩〔Caerleon on Usk〕）；此外还有十三位长老和二十三位执事。会议将多纳徒 (Donatus) 革除教籍，并通过二十二条教规，涉及复活节（应当在同一天庆祝），反对教牧人员不驻本任所，反对参与竞赛和角斗（违者革除教籍），反对为异端者重新施洗，以及其他纪律事项。教牧人员若经证实曾在逼迫中交出圣书或圣器（即 traditores，交经者），应予革职，但他们履行职务时所行的礼仪仍应视为有效。按立时必须至少有三位主教协助。¹⁴⁴
安居拉会议在小亚细亚加拉太 (Galatia) 的首府举行，时间是在逼迫者马克西明去世（313年）后不久，可能在314年，代表小亚细亚和叙利亚。与会主教为十二至十八位（各名册所载不一），其中数位在十一年后出席了尼西亚会议。主持者是在亚流派争论中成名的安居拉的马尔凯鲁斯 (Marcellus)，但另有人说是安提阿的维塔利斯 (Vitalis)。会议旨在医治戴克里先逼迫造成的创伤，通过了二十五条教规，主要涉及如何处置那些在恐怖岁月中背弃信仰或交出圣书的人。曾向诸神献祭、后来悔改的教士，不得讲道，也不得履行任何祭司职能，但可以保留其教士身份。在受洗以前曾献过祭的人，可以获准担任圣职。奸淫须以七年补赎惩处，杀人则须终身补赎。¹⁴⁵

不久以后，卡帕多西亚 (Cappadocia) 的新凯撒利亚 (Neo-Caesarea) 也举行了一次类似的会议（314–325年之间），与会者大多是参加过安居拉会议的同一批主教；会议通过了十五条纪律教规。¹⁴⁶

§ 56. 教会法汇编：《使徒宪章》与《使徒教规》

史料

I. Διαταγαὶ τῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος^* 等，《使徒宪章》(Constitutiones Apostolicae)，初由 Fr. 图里亚努斯 (Turrianus) 编辑，威尼斯 (Ven.)，1563年；后收入 科特利耶 (Cotelier) 编《使徒教父集》(Patres Apostolici，I. 199及后)、曼西 (Mansi) 的《会议汇编》(Collect. Concil. I.) 和 阿尔杜安 (Harduin) 的《会议汇编》(Coll. Conc. I.)；新编本由 于尔岑 (Ueltzen) 刊于罗斯托克 (Rost.)，1853年，以及 P. A. 德·拉加德 (P. A. de Lagarde) 刊于莱比锡 (Lips.) 和伦敦 (Lond.)，1854及1862年。于尔岑提供的是经过改进的通行文本 (textus receptus)。拉加德则力求恢复最古老的文本，分别编成叙利亚文版（《叙利亚文使徒训诲》〔Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace〕，1854年）和希腊文版（《希腊文使徒宪章》〔Constit. Apostolorum Graece〕，1862年）。希尔根费尔斯 (Hilgenfels)：《正典以外的新约文献汇编》(Nov. Test. extra Canonem rec.)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1866年，第II版，1884年，第IV分册，第110–121页。他以《两条道路或彼得的审判》(Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri) 为题，刊载了《使徒教会规程》。

托马斯·佩尔·普拉特 (Thos. Pell Platt)：《埃塞俄比亚文训诲；或阿比西尼亚教会所接受的〈使徒宪章〉埃塞俄比亚文译本》(The Æthiopic Didascalia; or the Æthiopic Version of the Apostolical Constitutions, received in the Church of Abyssinia)，附英译，伦敦 (Lond.)，1834年。

亨利·塔塔姆 (Henry Tattam)：《科普特文使徒宪章，或使徒教规》(The Apostolical Constitutions, or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic)。附英译。伦敦 (Lond.)，1848年（214页）。

Κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγ. Ἀποστόλων^*，《所谓使徒教规》(Canones, qui dicuntur Apostolorum)，见于大多数教会法汇编，以及科特利耶 (Cotel.)（I. 437及后）、曼西 (Mansi) 和 阿尔杜安 (Harduin)（第I卷）的汇编，亦附于各版《使徒宪章》末尾。保罗·德·拉加德 (Paul De Lagarde) 分别刊行希腊文和叙利亚文单行本：《叙利亚文最古教会法遗存》(Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae Syriace)，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1856年；以及《希腊文教会法遗存》(Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici Graece)，1856年（两书均可向斯特拉斯堡〔Strassburg〕特吕布纳书店〔Trübner’s〕购得）。维南德·费尔 (Winand Fell) 编《教规》埃塞俄比亚文译本，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1871年。

W. G. 贝弗里奇 (W. G. Beveridge，圣亚萨〔St. Asaph〕主教，卒于1708年)：《会议教规汇编》(Συνόδικον^*, s. Pandectae Canonum S. G. Apostolorum et Conciliorum, ab Ecclesia Gr. reliquit.)，即希腊教会所传使徒及会议教规总集。牛津 (Oxon.)，1672–82年，2卷，对开本。

约翰·富尔顿 (John Fulton)：《教规索引：希腊文与英文对照，附未分裂的初期教会全部教会法典的完整摘要》(Index Canonum. In Greek and English. With a Complete Digest of the entire code of canon law in the undivided Primitive Church)。纽约 (N. York)，1872年；修订版附 P. 沙弗 (P. Schaff) 序，1883年。

考证论著

克拉贝 (Krabbe)：《论罗马的革利免所传〈使徒宪章〉的起源与内容》(Ueber den Ursprung u. den Inhalt der Apost. Constitutionen des Clemens Romanus)。汉堡 (Hamb.)，1829年。

S. v. 德赖 (S. v. Drey，罗马天主教徒)：《使徒宪章与教规新考》(Neue Untesuchungen über die Constitut. u. Kanones der Ap.)。蒂宾根 (Tüb.)，1832年。

J. W. 比克尔 (J. W. Bickell，卒于1848年)：《教会法史》(Gesch. des Kirchenrechts.)。吉森 (Giess.)，1843年（I. 1，第52–255页）。第二部分于1849年在法兰克福 (Frankf.) 出版。

蔡斯 (Chase)：《圣使徒宪章，含教规；据希腊文修订惠斯顿译本，附论其起源与内容的获奖论文》(Constitations of the Holy Apostles, including the Canons; Whiston’s version revised from the Greek; with a prize essay upon their origin and contents.)，论文作者为克拉贝 (Krabbe)。纽约，1848年。

本森 (Bunsen)：《希波吕托斯及其时代》(Hippolytus u. seine Zeit.,)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1852年（I. 第418–523页，II. 第1126页）；亦见英文第2版《希波吕托斯及其时代》(Hippolytus and his Age)，又名《基督教与人类》(Christianity and Mankind)，伦敦 (Lond.)，1854年（第V–VII卷）。

赫费勒 (Hefele，罗马天主教徒)：《教会会议史》(Conciliengeschichte)，I. 第792页及后（第2版，1873年）。《十二使徒遗训》文献（沙弗的专题著作中有详尽介绍

菲洛特·布里恩尼奥斯 (Philoth. Bryennios)：《十二使徒遗训》(Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων^*)。君士坦丁堡，1833年。

阿德·哈纳克 (Ad. Harnack)：《十二使徒的教训》(Die Lehre der Zwölf Apostel.)，莱比锡 (Leipz.)，1884年。《使徒遗训与犹太人的两条道路》(Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen beiden Wege)，1886年。

菲利普·沙弗 (Ph. Schaff)：《十二使徒遗训，或最古老的教会手册》(The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or the Oldest Church Manual.)。纽约 (N. York)，1885年。第3版，修订增补，1889年。

最初几个世纪的若干部教会手册，或公共崇拜与纪律指南，以不同语言流传至今。这些著作直接或间接地声称具有使徒的来源和权威，实际却出于使徒以后，因此理所当然地被排除在正典之外。它们为我们提供了有关尼西亚会议以前教会法规、道德和习俗的重要资料。

《十二使徒遗训》是最古老、最简朴的教会手册，出自第一世纪末的犹太基督徒群体（巴勒斯坦或叙利亚）。希腊教父知道这部书，但直到最近才由布里恩尼奥斯 (Bryennios) 发现并刊行（1883年）。全书共16章，包括：（1）以十诫和爱上帝、爱人的至尊诫命为基础的道德教训纲要，以两条道路——生命之路与死亡之路——的比喻形式表达；（2）关于举行洗礼、圣餐及爱筵的指示；（3）关于纪律，以及使徒（即巡回传福音者）、先知、教师、主教（即长老）和执事职分的指示；（4）鉴于主的再来和圣徒复活而发出的警醒劝勉。这是一部极为卓越的书。其主要内容保存在《使徒宪章》第七卷中。
《圣使徒教会教规》，或称《使徒教会规程》(Apostolical Church Order)，起源于埃及，可能出于第三世纪。它以前一部书为基础加以扩充，采用虚构的使徒对话形式，首先由比克尔 (Bickell) 刊行希腊文本（1843年），后来也刊行了科普特文和叙利亚文本。书中载有使徒关于道德、崇拜和纪律的规条。
《使徒宪章》是最完备、最重要的教会手册。就形式而言，它是一部文学虚构之作，自称是全体使徒的遗训，藉罗马主教革利免传下，或由使徒口授给他。开篇写道：“使徒和长老们，写信给万国中一切信主耶稣基督的人：愿恩惠、平安与你们同在。”全书八卷，汇集了道德劝勉、教会法规与惯例，以及礼仪程式；这些自第一世纪末罗马的革利免时代以来，在各地教会，尤其是耶路撒冷、安提阿、亚历山大和罗马逐渐形成，其中一部分以使徒的实践为权威依据。起初，这些内容以口头传授；后来如同信经一样，以不同版本写成文字；最后由某位不知名者整理成现今的形式。前六卷带有浓厚的犹太基督教色彩，除去若干后来的插文，于第三世纪末写成于叙利亚。第七卷是《十二使徒遗训》(Didache) 的扩充。第八卷载有一套礼仪，并以《使徒教规》为附录。将这三部分汇为一体，可能是第八卷编者的工作。这部书无疑出于东方作者之手，因为罗马教会在书中没有任何地方居于优先或至上的地位。¹⁴⁷ 其宗旨是为平信徒和教士阐明教会生活，并确立主教的神权统治。在东方，这些宪章比任何教父著作都更常被使用和查阅；在纪律事务上，它们被奉为准则，正如圣经在教义事务上被奉为准则一样。不过，这部汇编本身并未获得正式的法律权威；692年的第二次特鲁罗会议 (Trullan council，又称 quinisextum，即第五、第六次会议的补充会议) 因其中有异端插文而将它摒弃，但同一次会议却承认了《使徒教规》。¹⁴⁸

《使徒教规》由简短的教会规则或规条组成，有些抄本载八十五条，另一些载五十条。它们冒称源自使徒，由罗马的革利免根据使徒的指示编成，且有数处使徒以第一人称说话。这些教规作为第八卷的附录收入《宪章》，但也有独立流传的希腊文、叙利亚文、埃塞俄比亚文和阿拉伯文抄本。其内容一部分取自圣经，尤其是教牧书信；一部分取自传统；还有一部分取自安提阿、新凯撒利亚、尼西亚、老底嘉 (Laodicea) 等地早期会议的决议（但可能并未取自451年的迦克墩〔Chalcedon〕会议）。因此，这些教规显然是逐渐形成的，或于第四世纪中叶以后，¹⁴⁹ 或直到第五世纪后期，¹⁵⁰ 才由某位不知名者汇集起来，地点可能也在叙利亚。其目的在于为教士提供一套完整的纪律制度。对于平信徒，则几乎只字未提。第八十五条，即最后一条教规，确定了圣经正典，却将革利免的两封书信，以及伪托使徒的《宪章》中那些真正的卷册，列入新约书卷之中。

希腊教会在692年的特鲁罗会议上，将全部八十五条教规接受为真实而具有约束力的文献；大马士革的约翰 (John of Damascus) 甚至将其与使徒保罗的书信相提并论，表明他丝毫不明白受默示的著作具有何等无可比拟的优越性。拉丁教会起初拒绝接受，后来却决定采纳由五十条教规组成的较小汇编；小狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysus Exiguus) 约于500年据一部希腊文抄本将其译出。

§ 57. 教会纪律

I. 德尔图良 (Tertullian) 的若干论著（尤其是《论悔罪》〔De Poenitentia〕）。希波吕托斯 (Hippolytus) 的《驳斥一切异端》(Philosophumena，第IX卷)。居普良 (Cyprian) 的《书信集》(The Epistles) 及其《论失足者》(De Lapsis)。亚历山大的狄奥尼修斯 (Dionysius)、行神迹者贵格利 (Gregory Thaumaturgus，约260年) 和亚历山大的彼得 (Peter，约306年) 的《教规书信》(Epistolae Canonicae)，收入劳思 (Routh) 的《神圣遗存》(Reliquiae Sacrae)，第III卷，第2^版。《使徒宪章》(Constit. Apost.) II. 16、21–24。306至325年间的埃尔维拉 (Elvira)、阿尔勒 (Arelate)、安居拉 (Ancyra)、新凯撒利亚 (Neo-Caesarea) 和 尼西亚 (Nicaea) 各次会议的教规（见各会议汇编，以及劳思的《神圣遗存》〔Reliq. Sacr.〕第IV卷）。

莫里努斯 (Morinus)：《论施行悔罪圣礼的纪律》(De Disciplina in administratione sacram poenitentiae)，巴黎 (Par.)，1651年（威尼斯〔Venet.〕，1702年）。

马歇尔 (Marshall)：《初期教会的悔罪纪律》(Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church.)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1714年（新版，1844年）。

Fr. 弗兰克 (Fr. Frank)：《七世纪以前教会的悔罪纪律》(Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche bis zum 7 Jahrh.)。美因茨 (Mainz.)，1868年。

关于孟他努派 (Montanists) 的纪律，参见邦韦奇 (Bonwetsch)：《孟他努主义史》(Die Geschichte des Montanismus，1881年)，第108–118页。

古代教会以纪律严明著称。在君士坦丁大帝以前，这种纪律纯粹以道德制裁为依据，与世俗的强制和刑罚毫无关系。一个人即使被逐出某一会众，也可能丝毫不损害其社会地位。然而，教会愈强大，其惩戒所带来的后果便愈严重；当教会与国家联合以后，违反教会法规的行为便作为危害国家的罪行受罚，极端情形下甚至处以死刑。教会一向厌恶流血（“ecclesia non sitit sanguiem”，即“教会不渴求鲜血”），却把犯者交给世俗政府依法处置。许多世纪以来，被视为罪大恶极的，都是异端分子或传授错误教义的人。

纪律的目的，一方面是维护教会的尊严与纯洁，另一方面是谋求犯者属灵的益处；惩罚同时也旨在矫正。最严厉的惩罚是革除教籍，即剥夺信徒的一切权利与特权。异端、分裂，以及偷窃、杀人、奸淫、亵渎和在逼迫中否认基督等一切重大罪行，都要受到这种惩罚。德尔图良以后，这些与重生状态不相容的罪行及类似过犯，被列为致死的罪，¹⁵¹ 以区别于可赦免的罪或出于软弱的罪。¹⁵²

这样被逐出教会的人便归入悔罪者之列，¹⁵³只能参加慕道者的礼拜。他们若要重新获准参与教会的团契，就必须经历一个类似慕道者、却更为严格的过程，并且须以戒绝一切享乐、衣饰和夫妻房事，以及认罪、经常祷告、禁食、施舍和其他善行，证明其悔罪的真诚。他们惧怕良心不安，也惧怕与那唯一能使人得救的教会隔绝，便甘愿接受最严厉的悔罪苦修。诚然，教会的教师并未忽略教导人：悔罪的精神和内心的痛悔才是首要的。然而，他们中许多人过分看重某些外在操练。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 将教会的整个悔罪过程理解为向上帝作出的“补偿”。这种看法很容易将基督全然充足的功德遮蔽到危险的地步，并引向宗教改革曾大声疾呼加以反对的自义。

在二世纪，悔罪的期限及具体形式仍由各牧者和教会自行酌定。直到三世纪末，才确立了严格而固定的悔罪纪律制度，而这制度随后几乎连一个世纪也未能维持。它虽然出于深切的道德热忱，目的也全然是好的，却不适于培养真正的悔改精神。过多的形式与律法约束，总是使精神枯萎，而非扶持和规范它。这种纪律上的形式主义，最早见于约314年的安居拉会议 (Council of Ancyra)，当时已被视为惯常的制度。¹⁵⁴

悔罪者的等级

悔罪者分为四等：——

哭泣者，¹⁵⁵身穿丧服，俯伏在教会门前，恳求教牧人员和信众恢复他们的资格。
听道者，¹⁵⁶他们与同名的慕道者一样，获准聆听经文宣读和讲道。
跪拜者，¹⁵⁷他们参加公共祷告，却只能采取跪姿。
站立者，¹⁵⁸他们可以站立着参加整个礼拜，却仍不得领圣餐。

这四个等级对应于悔罪的四个阶段。¹⁵⁹悔罪的过程通常长达三四年，但与慕道预备期一样，也可以视情形缩短，或延长至死。在东方，有专门的悔罪长老，¹⁶⁰受托监督悔罪纪律。

恢复资格

这一考验期满后，便举行和好礼。¹⁶¹悔罪者公开认罪，借着牧者的按手及祈求式或祝愿式的祝福领受赦罪，¹⁶²会众再次以弟兄之吻迎接他，并准许他参加圣餐。唯有担任教牧职分的资格，他是永远失去了。然而，居普良 (Cyprian) 和斐尔米利安 (Firmilian) 提醒人不可认为，祭司对虚伪悔罪者的赦罪是无条件而绝无错误的，并且能够预断上帝的审判。¹⁶³

两个派别

对于某些情形下是否应当恢复资格，存在着重大的意见分歧，由此引发了几次分裂。各方都同意，教会的惩罚不能预断末日上帝的审判，而只是暂时的，目的在于使受惩罚者悔改归信。然而，问题在于：即便犯下最严重罪行的人，只要表示痛悔，教会是否也应恢复他的资格，还是应在某些情形下，将他留待上帝审判。严格而具有清教精神的一派，包括孟他努派 (Montanists)、诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 和多纳徒派 (Donatists)，以及一度站在这一立场上的整个非洲和西班牙教会，反对恢复那些因犯致死的罪、尤其因否认基督而丧失洗礼恩典之人的资格；因为若不如此，教会就会失去其特有的圣洁，并助长道德上的放纵。温和派在东方、埃及，尤其在罗马占优势，就这一点而言也是大公教会的一派；他们坚持的原则是：对于任何悔罪的罪人，至少在其临终之际，教会都不应拒绝赦罪和圣餐。保罗自己也曾恢复哥林多那个犯罪之人的资格。¹⁶⁴

在逼迫时期，这一争议具有重大的实际意义。当时成百上千的人因软弱而背弃信仰，但危险一过，便恳求重新加入教会；殉道者和认信者往往以有力的代求及其所发的libelli pacis（和好书），支持他们的请求。当时的原则是：事急从权。在这类情形下，无论从爱心还是从策略的角度考虑，减轻悔罪纪律似乎都有充分理由。在德修 (Decius) 的逼迫中，背道者人数如此之多，以致连居普良也感到不得不放弃从前的严格主张；何况他还坚持认为，在有形教会之外并无救恩。

严格派热心维护上帝的圣洁，温和派则热心维护他的恩典。前者不愿越出启示所宣明的借洗礼赦罪的范围，只以敦促背道者悔改为满足，却不给他们今生得蒙赦罪的盼望。后者则拒绝限制上帝的怜悯，使罪人陷于绝望。前者为一种直到基督再来才能实现的教会理想所迷；他们被推向狂热的分离主义，却在自己的宗派中证明了在地上建立绝对纯洁团契的不可能。另一方则屡屡走向危险放纵的相反极端，即便对致死的罪也过于宽容，削弱了基督徒道德的严肃性。

值得注意的是，自二世纪末起，宽松的悔罪纪律主要得到罗马教会的支持。德尔图良为此以尖刻的嘲讽抨击那教会。稍后的希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 也同样如此；他虽不是孟他努派，却热心维护严格的纪律。据他在《驳异端》(Philosophumena) 第九卷中显然依据事实所作的陈述，教皇卡利斯图 (Callistus)——后世因对他所知甚少，反将他列为圣徒——准许bigami（再婚者）和trigami（三度结婚者）受按立，并主张主教即使犯了致死的罪，也不能被罢免。他援引《罗马书》14:4、《马太福音》13:30稗子与麦子的比喻，尤其是挪亚方舟，来支持自己的看法：方舟是教会的象征，其中既有洁净的动物，也有不洁净的动物，甚至有狗和狼。总之，他认为没有什么罪大到不能由教会钥匙的权柄加以赦免。他的继任者也一直持守这一观点。

但在这里，我们也看出，悔罪方面较为宽松的做法，是怎样与教阶制度的利益相联系的。它有利于祭司阶层的权力，因为这一阶层自称拥有赦罪权；同时，这也是一种属世的策略。它促进了教会外在的扩展，尽管代价是牺牲其成员的道德纯正；它也使教会后来与国家的联合，以及与世界无可挽回的混杂，变得更为容易。无怪乎罗马教会在这一点上，如同在其他方面一样，最终战胜了一切反对。

§ 58. 教会的分裂

I. 关于希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 的分裂：希波吕托 (Hippol.)：《驳异端》(Philosophumena)，第IX卷（米勒 [Miller] 编，牛津 [Oxf.]，1851年；邓克尔 [Duncker] 和施奈德温 [Schneidewin] 编本更佳，哥廷根 [Gött.]，1859年）；以及本生 (Bunsen)、德林格 (Döllinger)、华兹华斯 (Wordsworth)、雅各比 (Jacobi) 等人关于希波吕托的专著（将在第XIII章§ 183论及）。

关于斐利基西穆 (Felicissimus) 的分裂：居普良 (Cyprian)：《书信集》(Epist.)，38–40、42、55。
关于诺瓦atian派 (Novatian) 的分裂：希波吕托 (Hippol.)：《驳异端》(Philosoph.)，第IX卷。居普良 (Cypr.)：《书信集》(Epist.)，41–52；以及罗马的哥尼流 (Cornelius) 和亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionys. of Alex.) 的书信，载于优西比乌 (Euseb.)《教会史》(H. E.)，VI. 43–45；VII. 8。比较§ 200所列文献。
关于米利提乌派 (Meletian) 的分裂：文献的拉丁文译本见马费伊 (Maffei)：《文学考察》(Osservationi Letterarie)，维罗纳 (Verona)，1738年，第III卷，第11页及后；亚历山大的彼得 (Peter of Alexandria)《论悔罪》(Liber de poenitentia) 的希腊文残篇，见劳斯 (Routh)：《神圣遗篇》(Reliquicae Sacr.)，第II卷，第21–51页。埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphan.)：《驳异端》(Haer.)，68（对米利提乌 [Meletius] 持同情态度）；亚他那修 (Athanas.)：《驳亚流派辩护书》(Apol. contra Arianos)，§ 59；以及在他之后的苏格拉底 (Socr.)、索佐门 (Sozom.) 和狄奥多勒 (Theod.)（对米利提乌极不赞许）。

在三世纪，由这场关于恢复背道者资格的争论，产生了四次分裂：两次在罗马，一次在北非，一次在埃及。孟他努主义 (Montanism) 在一定程度上也与悔罪纪律问题有关，但还涉及基督徒生活的其他几个方面，将另辟一章讨论。

I. 希波吕托在罗马引起的分裂。由于他的《驳异端》(Philosophumena) 于1851年被发现，此事最近才重见天日。希波吕托是爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的杰出门徒，也是泽菲里努 (Zephyrinus，202–217年) 和卡利斯图 (Callistus，217–222年) 担任教皇期间，罗马最博学、最热忱的神学家。他于235或236年殉道。他主张严格的纪律，反对我们上一节所述的宽纵做法。他对卡利斯图的早年经历作了极不利的叙述，并指控他及其前任持有圣父受苦说 (patripassian) 的异端。因此，分歧既关乎教义，也关乎纪律。这似乎导致了双方互相革除教籍，以及一场延续至公元235年的暂时分裂。希波吕托将自己列于使徒继承者之中；他似乎是罗马港口波尔图斯 (Portus) 的主教（据后来的拉丁传统），或是罗马主教（据希腊作家）。如果他是罗马主教，那他便是第一位造成分裂的教皇，也是251年被按立为对立教皇的诺瓦atian (Novatianus) 的先驱。¹⁶⁵但罗马教会想必已经忘记或宽恕了他的分裂，因为她将他列于圣徒和殉道者之中，并于8月22日纪念他。西班牙诗人普鲁登修 (Prudentius) 将他描绘为一位罗马长老，起初参与诺瓦atian派的分裂，后来重返大公教会，并因信仰在奥斯提亚 (Ostia) 被野马撕裂。他那据称或确实发生的殉道所带来的荣光，使人忘却了分裂的往事。据公元354年的教皇年代名录，一位名叫希波吕托的“长老”，与罗马主教、卡利斯图的继任者庞提安 (Pontianus)，在亚历山大·塞韦鲁 (Alexander Severus) 统治期间（235年），一同被逐出罗马，流放至撒丁岛 (Sardinia) 的矿场。¹⁶⁶

约250年在迦太基 (Carthage) 发生的斐利基西穆 (Felicississimus) 分裂，起因是五位长老对居普良出任主教一事怀有个人的不满：公元248年，他受洗后不久，便由会众推举，以仓促而不合规的方式当选。这一反对派的领袖是长老诺瓦图 (Novatus) 和执事斐利基西穆 (Felicissimus)。诺瓦图是一个毫无原则、在教会中煽动群众的人，躁动不安，桀骜不驯，声名狼藉；¹⁶⁷斐利基西穆则由诺瓦图在居普良既未许可也不知情的情况下按立，无论是由他亲自按手，还是借外地主教之手按立，都是非法的。然而，不能仅凭这一情形，就像尼安德 (Neander) 等人那样，把这场争论解释为长老制对主教专权的反抗。因为反对者自己后来也选立了福尔图纳图 (Fortunatus) 为主教。诺瓦atian派和米利提乌派同样采取主教制的组织形式，尽管他们的按立无疑有许多不合规之处。

德修 (Decius) 的逼迫爆发以后，这种个人间的竞争又从纪律问题中获得了新的助力和重要性。居普良 (Cyprian) 起初持守德尔图良 (Tertullian) 的原则，坚决反对恢复跌倒者的资格，直到进一步考察之后才改变看法。然而，跌倒者人数如此之多，他便准许在 in periculo mortis（濒临死亡）时破例。他的反对者仍认为，即便这样的立场也是不合基督徒精神的严厉，尤其不适合他；因为他们歪曲事实，说他因惧怕死亡而逃离职守。他们赢得了认信者强有力的支持，这些人自己面临殉道，却慷慨地向跌倒者发放和好证明。这些赦免凭证竟成了一种经常性的买卖。一位傲慢的认信者卢西安 (Lucian) 代表其他人写信给居普良，说他准许恢复一切背道者的资格，并请居普良将此事通知其他主教。我们不难理解：那些身在烈火中的人所表现的宽容，为何比那位已使自己置身安全之地主教的严厉，更能赢得民心。诺瓦图 (Novatus) 和斐利基西穆 (Felicissimus) 的教会，成了一切漫不经心的 lapsi（跌倒者）的聚集之所。斐利基西穆还反对居普良在流亡期间所命令进行的教会巡察和济贫募捐。

251年复活节后，主教归来，在迦太基 (Carthage) 召开会议；会议虽然谴责了斐利基西穆一党，却在争议问题上采取了折中的方针。它力求维护纪律的完整，同时也使跌倒者不至陷于绝望。因此，会议决定恢复那些证明自己确实悔改之人的资格，却不恢复那些漫不经心、仅因惧怕死亡而请求领受圣餐之人的资格。后来，在迦卢斯 (Gallus) 统治下逼迫再起时，居普良连这项限制也取消了。因此，他当然并非始终如一，而是逐渐使自己的原则适应环境和罗马教会的惯例。¹⁶⁸他的对手固然选立了自己的主教，却很快就不得不屈服于非洲与罗马教会的联合力量，尤其因为他们的事业归根结底并无道德上的严肃性。

居普良与这场分裂运动的冲突，加强了他的主教权威，也使他在关于教会合一的教义中走向绝对排他性的原则。

罗马的诺瓦atian派 (Novatian) 分裂，早已由上述希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 与卡利斯图 (Callistus) 之间的争论酝酿而成。它发生在非洲的分裂之后不久，同样起因于主教的选举。但在这里，反对派主张严格的纪律，反对占支配地位的教会所实行的宽容惯例。诺瓦atian派¹⁶⁹认为自己是唯一纯洁的团契，¹⁷⁰凡因重新接纳跌倒者或其他犯严重罪行之人而玷污自己的教会，他们一概不承认其为教会。他们比居普良走得远得多，甚至达到了后来多纳徒派 (Donatists) 的地步。他们承认犯致死之罪的人有蒙怜悯的可能，却否认教会有权柄、有权利对此作出裁断，并借着赦罪，阻止上帝对这些犯罪者施行审判。他们也像居普良一样，不承认异端的洗礼，并为所有从其他不如他们严格的团契转来的人重新施洗。

这一派的领袖是罗马长老诺瓦atian (Novatian)，¹⁷¹他为人认真而博学，却性情忧郁，曾经历严重的鬼魔侵扰之疾和内心争战，才归于信仰。他与哥尼流 (Cornelius) 发生了冲突；哥尼流在251年德修的逼迫之后被提名为罗马主教，随即对跌倒者表现出极大的宽容，使许多人深感忧伤。在诺瓦atian的支持者中，上述迦太基的诺瓦图尤其活跃；这或许纯粹出于反抗现有权威的精神，或许是因为他迁居罗马后改变了先前宽松的原则。反对派违背诺瓦atian本人的意愿，选立他为主教。哥尼流将他革除教籍。双方都力求获得外地教会的承认。安提阿 (Antioch) 主教法比安 (Fabian) 同情严厉派。亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Alexandria) 则相反，指责他们称最有恩慈的主耶稣基督为不怜悯人的，因而亵渎了他。尤其是居普良，出于对教会合一的热心和对诺瓦图的厌恶，站在哥尼流一边，认为他是罗马的合法主教。

尽管遭到如此强大的反对，诺瓦atian派凭借其道德上的严肃性，仍在东西方各省传播，直到六世纪。在弗吕家 (Phrygia)，他们与孟他努派 (Montanists) 的残余势力结合。尼西亚会议 (Council of Nicaea) 承认他们的按立，并试图使他们与大公教会和好，却未获成功。君士坦丁 (Constantine) 起初温和地对待诺瓦atian派，后来却禁止他们公开举行礼拜，并下令焚毁他们的书籍。

埃及的米利提乌派 (Meletian) 分裂，约于305年戴克里先 (Diocletian) 的逼迫期间兴起，延续了一百多年；但由于现存记载彼此矛盾，我们对此了解得并不充分。引发分裂的是底比斯地区 (Thebais) 吕科波利斯 (Lycopolis) 的主教米利提乌 (Meletius)。据一种记载，他是出于对严格纪律的热心；据另一种记载，则纯粹出于傲慢，反抗他的都主教、亚历山大的彼得 (Peter of Alexandria，311年殉道)，并趁彼得不在时，擅自在他的教区内施行按立、革除教籍等事。彼得告诫自己的信众提防他，并在避难归来后，因他扰乱教会和平而将他罢免。但争论仍然继续，且蔓延至全埃及。尼西亚会议承认二十九位米利提乌派主教的按立，并采取其他折中措施，力图弥合分裂，却徒劳无功。米利提乌派后来与亚流派 (Arians) 联合起来。

多纳徒派 (Donatist) 的分裂，比上述任何一次分裂都更为严重，同样产生于戴克里先的逼迫，但更多属于下一个时期的历史。

Original Text

CHAPTER IV. ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH.

I. The chief sources for this chapter are the Epistles of Ignatius, the works of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and especially Cyprian, and the so-called Constitutiones Apostolicae,

See the Literature in vol. I. § 58 (p. 481 sqq. ), particularly the works of Rothe, Ritchsl, Lightfoot, and Hatch.

§ 41. Progress in Consolidation.

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the old Catholic episcopal system; and this, in its turn, passes into the metropolitan, and after the fourth century into the patriarchal. Here the Greek church stopped, and is governed to this day by a hierarchical oligarchy of patriarchs equal in rank and jurisdiction; while the Latin church went a step further, and produced in the middle ages the papal monarchy. The germs of this papacy likewise betray themselves even in our present period, particularly in Cyprian, together with a protest against it. Cyprian himself is as much a witness for consolidated primacy, as for independent episcopacy, and hence often used and abused alike by Romanists and Anglicans for sectarian purposes.

The characteristics, however, of the pre-Constantinian hierarchy, in distinction from the post-Constantinian, both Greek and Roman, are, first, its grand simplicity, and secondly, its spirituality, or freedom from all connection with political power and worldly splendor. Whatever influence the church acquired and exercised, she owed nothing to the secular government, which continued indifferent or positively hostile till the protective toleration edict of Constantine (313). Tertullian thought it impossible for an emperor to be a Christian, or a Christian to be an emperor; and even after Constantine, the Donatists persisted in this view, and cast up to the Catholics the memory of the former age: "What have Christians to do with kings? or what have bishops to do in the palace?"(1) The ante-Nicene fathers expected the ultimate triumph of Christianity over the world from a supernatural interposition at the second Advent. Origen seems to have been the only one in that age of violent persecution who expected that Christianity, by continual growth, would gain the dominion over the world.(2)

The consolidation of the church and its compact organization implied a restriction of individual liberty, in the interest of order, and a temptation to the abuse of authority. But it was demanded by the diminution of spiritual gifts, which were poured out in such extraordinary abundance in the apostolic age. It made the church a powerful republic within the Roman empire, and contributed much to its ultimate success. "In union is strength," especially in times of danger and persecution such as the church had to pass through in the ante-Nicene age. While we must deny a divine right and perpetual obligation to any peculiar form of government as far as it departs from the simple principles of the New Testament, we may concede a historical necessity and great relative importance to the ante-Nicene and subsequent organizations of the church. Even the papacy was by no means an unmixed evil, but a training school for the barbarian nations during the middle ages. Those who condemn, in principle, all hierarchy, sacerdotalism, and ceremonialism, should remember that God himself appointed the priesthood and ceremonies in the Mosaic dispensation, and that Christ submitted to the requirements of the law in the days of his humiliation.

§ 42. Clergy and Laity.

The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish and heathen reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church. The majority of Jewish converts adhered tenaciously to the Mosaic institutions and rites, and a considerable part never fully attained to the height of spiritual freedom proclaimed by Paul, or soon fell away from it. He opposed legalistic and ceremonial tendencies in Galatia and Corinth; and although sacerdotalism does not appear among the errors of his Judaizing opponents, the Levitical priesthood, with its three ranks of high-priest, priest, and Levite, naturally furnished an analogy for the threefold ministry of bishop, priest, and deacon, and came to be regarded as typical of it. Still less could the Gentile Christians, as a body, at once emancipate themselves from their traditional notions of priesthood, altar, and sacrifice, on which their former religion was based. Whether we regard the change as an apostasy from a higher position attained, or as a reaction of old ideas never fully abandoned, the change is undeniable, and can be traced to the second century. The church could not long occupy the ideal height of the apostolic age, and as the Pentecostal illumination passed away with the death of the apostles, the old reminiscences began to reassert themselves.(3)

In the apostolic church preaching and teaching were not confined to a particular class, but every convert could proclaim the gospel to unbelievers, and every Christian who had the gift could pray and teach and exhort in the congregation.(4) The New Testament knows no spiritual aristocracy or nobility, but calls all believers "saints" though many fell far short of their vocation. Nor does it recognize a special priesthood in distinction from the people, as mediating between God and the laity. It knows only one high-priest, Jesus Christ, and clearly teaches the universal priesthood, as well as universal kingship, of believers.(5) It does this in a far deeper and larger sense than the Old;(6) in a sense, too, which even to this day is not yet fully realized. The entire body of Christians are called "clergy" (klh'roi a peculiar people, the heritage of God.(7)

On the other hand it is equally clear that there was in the apostolic church a ministerial office, instituted by Christ, for the very purpose of raising the mass of believers from infancy and pupilage to independent and immediate intercourse with God, to that prophetic, priestly, and kingly position, which in principle and destination belongs to them all.(8) This work is the gradual process of church history itself, and will not be fully accomplished till the kingdom of glory shall come. But these ministers are nowhere represented as priests in any other sense than Christians generally are priests, with the privilege of a direct access to the throne of grace in the name of their one and eternal high-priest in heaven. Even in the Pastoral Epistles which present the most advanced stage of ecclesiastical organization in the apostolic period, while the teaching, ruling, and pastoral functions of the presbyter-bishops are fully discussed, nothing is said about a sacerdotal function. The Apocalypse, which was written still later, emphatically teaches the universal priesthood and kingship of believers. The apostles themselves never claim or exercise a special priesthood. The sacrifice which all Christians are exhorted to offer is the sacrifice of their person and property to the Lord, and the spiritual sacrifice of thanksgiving and praise.(9) In one passage a Christian "altar" is spoken of, in distinction from the Jewish altar of literal and daily sacrifices, but this altar is the cross on which Christ offered himself once and forever for the sins of the world.(10)

After the gradual abatement of the extraordinary spiritual elevation of the apostolic age, which anticipated in its way the ideal condition of the church, the distinction of a regular class of teachers from the laity became more fixed and prominent. This appears first in Ignatius, who, in his high episcopalian spirit, considers the clergy the necessary medium of access for the people to God. "Whoever is within the sanctuary (or altar), is pure; but he who is outside of the sanctuary is not pure; that is, he who does anything without bishop and presbytery and deacon, is not pure in conscience."(11) Yet he nowhere represents the ministry as a sacerdotal office. The Didache calls "the prophets" high-priests, but probably in a spiritual sense.(12) Clement of Rome, in writing to the congregation at Corinth, draws a significant and fruitful parallel between the Christian presiding office and the Levitical priesthood, and uses the expression "layman" (lai>ko" a[nqrwpo") as antithetic to high-priest, priests, and Levites.(13) This parallel contains the germ of the whole system of sacerdotalism. But it is at best only an argument by analogy. Tertullian was the first who expressly and directly asserts sacerdotal claims on behalf of the Christian ministry, and calls it "sacerdotium," although he also strongly affirms the universal priesthood of all believers. Cyprian (d. 258) goes still further, and applies all the privileges, duties, and responsibilities of the Aaronic priesthood to the officers of the Christian church, and constantly calls them sacerdotes and sacerdotium. He may therefore be called the proper father of the sacerdotal conception of the Christian ministry as a mediating agency between God and the people. During the third century it became customary to apply the term "priest" directly and exclusively to the Christian ministers especially the bishops.(14) In the same manner the whole ministry, and it alone, was called "clergy," with a double reference to its presidency and its peculiar relation to God.(15) It was distinguished by this name from the Christian people or "laity."(16) Thus the term "clergy," which first signified the lot by which office was assigned (Acts 1:17, 25), then the office itself, then the persons holding that office, was transferred from the Christians generally to the ministers exclusively.

Solemn "ordination" or consecration by the laying on of hands was the form of admission into the "ordo ecclesiasticus" or "sacerdotalis." In this order itself there were again three degrees, "ordines majores," as they were called: the diaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate—held to be of divine institution. Under these were the "ordines minores," of later date, from sub-deacon to ostiary, which formed the stepping-stone between the clergy proper and the people.(17)

Thus we find, so early as the third century, the foundations of a complete hierarchy; though a hierarchy of only moral power, and holding no sort of outward control over the conscience. The body of the laity consisted of two classes: the faithful, or the baptized and communicating members, and the catechumens, who were preparing for baptism. Those church members who lived together in one place,(18) formed a church in the narrower sense.(19)

With the exaltation of the clergy appeared the tendency to separate them from secular business, and even from social relations—from marriage, for example—and to represent them, even outwardly, as a caste independent of the people, and devoted exclusively to the service of the sanctuary. They drew their support from the church treasury, which was supplied by voluntary contributions and weekly collections on the Lord’s Day. After the third century they were forbidden to engage in any secular business, or even to accept any trusteeship. Celibacy was not yet in this period enforced, but left optional. Tertullian, Gregory of Nyssa, and other distinguished church teachers, lived in wedlock, though theoretically preferring the unmarried state. Of an official clerical costume no certain trace appears before the fourth century; and if it came earlier into use, as may have been the ease, after the example of the Jewish church, it must have been confined, during the times of persecution, to the actual exercises of worship.

With the growth of this distinction of clergy and laity, however, the idea of the universal priesthood continued from time to time to assert itself: in Irenaeus,(20) for example, and in an eccentric form in the Montanists, who even allowed women to teach publicly in the church. So Tertullian, with whom clerus and laici were at one time familiar expressions, inquires, as the champion of the Montanistic reaction against the Catholic hierarchy: "Are not we laymen priests also?"(21) It is written, he continues: "He hath made us kings and priests (Rev. 1:6). It is the authority of the church alone which has made a distinction between clergy and laity. Where there is no college of ministers, you administer the sacrament, you baptize, you are a priest for yourself alone. And where there are three of you, there is a church, though you be only laymen. For each one lives by his own faith, and there is no respect of persons with God."(22) All, therefore, which the clergy considered peculiar to them, he claimed for the laity as the common sacerdotal privilege of all Christians.

Even in the Catholic church an acknowledgment of the general priesthood showed itself in the custom of requiring the baptized to say the Lord’s Prayer before the assembled congregation. With reference to this, Jerome says: "Sacerdotium laici, id est, baptisma." The congregation also, at least in the West, retained for a long time the right of approval and rejection in the choice of its ministers, even of the bishop. Clement of Rome expressly requires the assent of the whole congregation for a valid election;(23) and Cyprian terms this an apostolic and almost universal regulation.(24) According to his testimony it obtained also in Rome, and was observed in the case of his contemporary, Cornelius.(25) Sometimes in the filling of a vacant bishopric the "suffragium" of the people preceded the "judicium" of the clergy of the diocese. Cyprian, and afterwards Athanasius, Ambrose, Augustin, and other eminent prelates, were in a manner pressed into the bishopric in this democratic way. Cyprian, with all his high-church proclivities, declares it his principle to do nothing as bishop without the advice of the presbyters and deacons, and the consent of the people.(26) A peculiar influence, which even the clergy could not withstand, attached to the "confessors," and it was sometimes abused by them, as in their advocacy of the lapsed, who denied Christ in the Decian persecution.

Finally, we notice cases where the function of teaching was actually exercised by laymen. The bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea allowed the learned Origen to expound the Bible to their congregations before his ordination, and appealed to the example of several bishops in the East.(27) Even in the Apostolical Constitutions there occurs, under the name of the Apostle Paul, the direction: "Though a man be a layman, if experienced in the delivery of instruction, and reverent in habit, he may teach; for the Scripture says: ’They shall be all taught of God.’ "(28) The fourth general council at Carthage (398) prohibited laymen from teaching in the presence of clergymen and without their consent; implying at the same time, that with such permission the thing might be done.(29)

It is worthy of notice that a number of the most eminent church teachers of this period, Hermas, Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Arnobius, and Lactantius, were either laymen, or at most only presbyters. Hermas, who wrote one of the most popular and authoritative books in the early church, was probably a layman; perhaps also the author of the homily which goes under the name of the Second Epistle of Clement of Rome, and has recently been discovered in full both in the original Greek and in a Syriac translation; for he seems to distinguish himself and his hearers from the presbyters.(30)

§ 43. New Church Officers.

The expansion of the church, the development of her cultus, and the tendency towards hierarchical pomp, led to the multiplication of offices below the diaconate, which formed the ordines minores. About the middle of the third century the following new officers are mentioned:

Sub-deacons, or under-helpers;(31) assistants and deputies of the deacons; the only one of these subordinate offices for which a formal ordination was required. Opinions differ as to its value.
Readers,(32) who read the Scriptures in the assembly and had charge of the church books.
Acolyths,(33) attendants of the bishops in their official duties and processions.
Exorcists,(34) who, by prayer and the laying on of hands, cast out the evil spirit from the possessed,(35) and from catechumens, and frequently assisted in baptism. This power had been formerly considered a free gift of the Holy Spirit.
Precentors,(36) for the musical parts of the liturgy, psalms, benedictions, responses, etc.
Janitors or sextons,(37) who took care of the religious meeting-rooms, and at a later period also of the church-yards.
Besides these there were in the larger churches catechists, and, where the church language in the worship was not understood, interpreters; but the interpreting was commonly done by presbyters, deacons, or readers.

The bishop Cornelius of Rome (d. 252), in a letter on the Novatian schism,(38) gives the number of officers in his church as follows: Forty-six presbyters, probably corresponding to the number of the meeting-houses of the Christians in the city; seven deacons, after the model of the church at Jerusalem (Acts vi); seven sub-deacons; forty-two acolyths, and fifty-two exorcists, readers, and janitors.

As to the ordines majores, the deacons during this period rose in importance. In addition to their original duties of caring for the poor and sick, they baptized, distributed the sacramental cup, said the church prayers, not seldom preached, and were confidential advisers, sometimes even delegates and vicars of the bishops. This last is true especially of the "archdeacon," who does not appear, however, till the fourth century. The presbyters, on the contrary, though above the deacons, were now overtopped by the new office of bishop, in which the entire government of the church became centred.

§ 44. Origin of the Episcopate.

Besides the works already cited, compare the special works and essays on the Ignatian controversy, published since 1837, by Rothe (close of his Anfänge, etc.), Hefele (R.C.), Baur, Hilgenfeld, Bunsen, Petermann, Cureton, Lipsius, Uhlhorn, Zahn, Lightfoot (I. 376 sqq). Also R. D. Hitchcock on the Origin of Episcopacy, N. Y. 1867 (in the "Am. Presbyt. & Theol. Review" for Jan. 1867, pp. 133–169); Lightfoot on the Christian Ministry (1873); Hatch on the Organization of the Early Christian Church (1881); Renan, L’Eglise chrétienne (1879), ch. VI. Progrés de l’épiscopat; and Gore, The Ministry of the Church (1889).

The most important and also the most difficult phenomenon of our period in the department of church organization is the rise and development of the episcopate as distinct from the presbyterate. This institution comes to view in the second century as the supreme spiritual office, and is retained to this day by all Roman and Greek Christendom, and by a large part of the Evangelical church, especially the Anglican communion. A form of government so ancient and so widely adopted, can be satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a religious need, namely, the need of a tangible outward representation and centralization, to illustrate and embody to the people their relation to Christ and to God, and the visible unity of the church. It is therefore inseparable from the catholic principle of authority and mediation; while the protestant principle of freedom and direct intercourse of the believer with Christ, consistently carried out, infringes the strict episcopal constitution, and tends to ministerial equality. Episcopacy in the full sense of the term requires for its base the idea of a real priesthood and real sacrifice, and an essential distinction between clergy and laity. Divested of these associations, it resolves itself into a mere superintendency.(39)

During the lifetime of the apostles, those eye- and ear-witnesses of the divine-human life of Jesus, and the inspired organs of the Holy Spirit, there was no room for proper bishops; and those who were so called, must have held only a subordinate place. The church, too, in the first century was as yet a strictly supernatural organization, a stranger in this world, standing with one foot in eternity, and longing for the second coming of her heavenly bridegroom. But in the episcopal constitution the church provided an extremely simple but compact and freely expansible organization, planted foot firmly upon earth, became an institution for the education of her infant people, and, as chiliastic hopes receded, fell into the path of quiet historical development; yet unquestionably she thus incurred also the danger of a secularization which reached its height just when the hierarchy became complete in the Roman church, and which finally necessitated a reformation on the basis of apostolical Christianity. That this secularization began with the growing power of the bishops even before Constantine and the Byzantine court orthodoxy, we perceive, for instance, in the lax penitential discipline, the avarice, and the corruption with which Hippolytus, in the ninth book of his Philosophumena, reproaches Zephyrinus and Callistus, the Roman bishops of his time (202–223); also in the example of the bishop Paul of Samosata, who was deposed in 269 on almost incredible charges, not only against his doctrine, but still more against his moral character.(40) Origen complains that there are, especially in the larger cities, overseers of the people of God, who seek to outdo the pomp of heathen potentates, would surround themselves, like the emperors, with a body-guard, and make themselves terrible and inaccessible to the poor.(41)

We consider, first, the origin of the episcopate. The unreliable character of our documents and traditions from the transition period between the close of the apostolic church and the beginning of the post-apostolic, leaves large room here for critical research and combination. First of all comes the question: Was the episcopate directly or indirectly of apostolic (Johannean) origin?(42) Or did it arise after the death of the apostles, and develope itself from the presidency of the congregational presbytery?(43) In other words, was the episcopate a continuation and contraction of, and substitute for, the apostolate, or was it an expansion and elevation of the presbyterate?(44) The later view is more natural and better sustained by facts. Most of its advocates date the change from the time of Ignatius in the first quarter of the second century, while a few carry it further back to the close of the first, when St. John still lived in Ephesus.

I. For the apostolic origin of episcopacy the following points may be made:

The position of James, who evidently stood at the head of the church at Jerusalem,(45) and is called bishop, at least in the pseudo-Clementine literature, and in fact supreme bishop of the whole church.(46) This instance, however, stands quite alone, and does not warrant an inference in regard to the entire church.
The office of the assistants and delegates of the apostles, like Timothy, Titus, Silas, Epaphroditus, Luke, Mark, who had a sort of supervision of several churches and congregational officers, and in a measure represented the apostles in special missions. But, in any case, these were not limited, at least during the life of the apostles, each to a particular diocese; they were itinerant evangelists and legates of the apostles; only the doubtful tradition of a later day assigns them distinct bishoprics. If bishops at all, they were missionary bishops.
The angels of the seven churches of Asia,(47) who, if regarded as individuals, look very like the later bishops, and indicate a monarchical shaping of the church government in the days of John. But, apart from the various interpretations of the Apocalyptic a[ggeloi, that office appears not co-ordinate with the apostolate of John, but subordinate to it, and was no more than a congregational superintendency.
The testimony of Ignatius of Antioch, a disciple of John, in his seven (or three) epistles from the beginning of the second century (even according to the shorter Syriac version), presupposes the episcopate, in distinction from the presbyterate, as already existing, though as a new institution, yet in its growth.
The statement of Clement of Alexandria,(48) that John instituted bishops after his return from Patmos; and the accounts of Irenaeus,(49) Tertullian,(50) Eusebius,(51) and Jerome,(52) that the same apostle nominated and ordained Polycarp (with whom Irenaeus was personally acquainted) bishop of Smyrna.
The uncertain tradition in Eusebius, who derived it probably from Hegesippus, that the surviving apostles and disciples of the apostles, soon after the destruction of Jerusalem, elected Symeon, the son of Klopas and a cousin of Jesus, bishop of that city and successor of James. But this arrangement at best was merely local, and not general.(53)
The tradition of the churches of Antioch and Rome, which trace their line of bishops back to apostolic institution, and kept the record of an unbroken succession.
A passage in the second of the Pfaff Fragments of Irenaeus, which speaks of "second ordinances of the apostles" (deuvterai tw'n ajpostovlwn diatavxei"). Rothe understands by these the institution of the episcopate. But aside from the doubtful genuineness of the Fragments, these words are at all events of unsettled interpretation, and, according to the connection, relate not to the government of the church at all, but to the celebration of the eucharist.
Equally uncertain is the conclusion drawn from an obscure passage in the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, which admits of different interpretations.(54) The apostles, it is said, foreseeing the future controversy about the name of the episcopal office, appointed bishops and deacons, and afterwards made the disposition,(55) that when they should fall asleep, other approved men should follow them in office. Rothe refers "they" and "them" to the apostles as the main subject. But these words naturally refer to the congregational officers just before mentioned, and in this case the "other approved men" are not successors of the apostles, but of the presbyter-bishops and deacons.(56) This view is sustained by the connection. The difficulty in the Corinthian congregation was a rebellion, not against a single bishop, but against a number of presbyter-bishops, and Clement reminds them that the apostles instituted this office not only for the first generation, but provided for a permanent succession, and that the officers were appointed for life, and could therefore not be deposed so long as they discharged their duties. Hence he goes on to say, immediately after the disputed passage in chapter 44: "Wherefore we think that those cannot justly be thrown out of their ministry who were appointed either by them (the apostles), or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole congregation; and who have with all lowliness and innocency ministered to the flock of Christ, in peace, and without self-interest, and were for a long time commended by all."
Finally, the philosophical consideration, that the universal and uncontested spread of the episcopate in the second century cannot be satisfactorily explained without the presumption of at least the indirect sanction of the apostles. By the same argument the observance of Sunday and infant baptism are usually traced to apostolic origin. But it is not quite conclusive, since most of the apostles died before the destruction of Jerusalem. It could only apply to John, who was the living centre of the church in Asia Minor to the close of the first century.(57)

The theory of the post-apostolic origin of the episcopate as a separate office or order, and its rise out of the presidency of the original congregational presbyterate, by way of human, though natural and necessary, development, is supported by the following facts:

The undeniable identity of presbyters and bishops in the New Testament,(58) conceded even by the best interpreters among the church fathers, by Jerome, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, and by the best scholars of recent times.
Later, at the close of the first and even in the second century, the two terms are still used in like manner for the same office. The Roman bishop Clement, in his First Epistle to the Corinthians says, that the apostles, in the newly-founded churches, appointed the first fruits of the faith, i.e., the first converts, "bishops and deacons."(59) He here omits the presbuvteroi, as Paul does in Phil. 1:1, for the simple reason that they are in his view identical with ejpivskopoi; while conversely, in c. 57, he enjoins subjection to presbyters, without mentioning bishops.(60) The Didache mentions bishops and deacons, but no presbyters.(61) Clement of Alexandria distinguishes, it is true, the deaconate, the presbyterate, and the episcopate; but he supposes only a two-fold official character, that of presbyters, and that of deacons—a view which found advocates so late as the middle ages, even in pope Urban II., a.d. 1091. Lastly, Irenaeus, towards the close of the second century, though himself a bishop, makes only a relative difference between episcopi and presbyteri; speaks of successions of the one in the same sense as of the other; terms the office of the latter episcopatus; and calls the bishops of Rome "presbyters".(62) Sometimes, it is true, he appears to use the term "presbyters" in a more general sense, for the old men, the fathers.(63) But in any case his language shows that the distinction between the two offices was at that time still relative and indefinite.
The express testimony of the learned Jerome, that the churches originally, before divisions arose through the instigation of Satan, were governed by the common council of the presbyters, and not till a later period was one of the pres-byters placed at the head, to watch over the church and suppress schisms.(64) He traces the difference of the office simply to "ecclesiastical" custom as distinct from divine institution.(65)
The custom of the church of Alexandria, where, from the evangelist Mark down to the middle of the third century, the twelve presbyters elected one of their number president, and called him bishop. This fact rests on the authority of Jerome,(66) and is confirmed independently by the Annals of the Alexandrian patriarch, Eutychius, of the tenth century.(67) The latter states that Mark instituted in that city a patriarch (this is an anachronism) and twelve presbyters, who should fill the vacant patriarchate by electing and ordaining to that office one of their number and then electing a new presbyter, so as always to retain the number twelve. He relates, moreover, that down to the time of Demetrius, at the end of the second century, there was no bishop in Egypt besides the one at Alexandria; consequently there could have been no episcopal ordination except by going out of the province.

Conclusion. The only satisfactory conclusion from these various facts and traditions seems to be, that the episcopate proceeded, both in the descending and ascending scale, from the apostolate and the original presbyterate conjointly, as a contraction of the former and an expansion of the latter, without either express concert or general regulation of the apostles, neither of which, at least, can be historically proved. It arose, instinctively, as it were, in that obscure and critical transition period between the end of the first and the middle of the second century. It was not a sudden creation, much less the invention of a single mind. It grew, in part, out of the general demand for a continuation of, or substitute for, the apostolic church government, and this, so far as it was transmissible at all, very naturally passed first to the most eminent disciples and fellow-laborers of the apostles, to Mark, Luke, Timothy, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, which accounts for the fact that tradition makes them all bishops in the prominent sense of the term. It was further occasioned by the need of a unity in the presbyterial government of congregations, which, in the nature of the case and according to the analogy of the Jewish arcisunavgwgo",(68) required a head or president. This president was called bishop, at first only by eminence, as primus inter pares; afterwards in the exclusive sense. In the smaller churches there was, perhaps, from the beginning, only one presbyter, who of himself formed this centre, like the chorepiscopi or country-bishops in the fourth century. The dioceses of the bishops in Asia Minor and North Africa, owing to their large number, in the second and third centuries, can hardly have exceeded the extent of respectable pastoral charges. James of Jerusalem, on the other hand, and his immediate successors, whose positions in many respects were altogether peculiar, seem to have been the only bishops in Palestine. Somewhat similar was the state of things in Egypt, where, down to Demetrius (a.d. 190–232), we find only the one bishop of Alexandria.

We cannot therefore assume any strict uniformity. But the whole church spirit of the age tended towards centralization; it everywhere felt a demand for compact, solid unity; and this inward bent, amidst the surrounding dangers of persecution and heresy, carried the church irresistibly towards the episcopate. In so critical and stormy a time, the principle, union is strength, division is weakness, prevailed over all. In fact, the existence of the church at that period may be said to have depended in a great measure on the preservation and promotion of unity, and that in an outward, tangible form, suited to the existing grade of culture. Such a unity was offered in the bishop, who held a monarchical, or more properly a patriarchal relation to the congregation. In the bishop was found the visible representative of Christ, the great Head of the whole church. In the bishop, therefore, all sentiments of piety found a centre. In the bishop the whole religious posture of the people towards God and towards Christ had its outward support and guide. And in proportion as every church pressed towards a single centre, this central personage must acquire a peculiar importance and subordinate the other presbyters to itself; though, at the same time, as the language of Clement and Irenaeus, the state of things in Egypt, and even in North Africa, and the testimony of Jerome and other fathers, clearly prove, the remembrance of the original equality could not be entirely blotted out, but continued to show itself in various ways.

Besides this there was also a powerful practical reason for elevating the powers of the bishop. Every Christian congregation was a charitable society, regarding the care of the widow and orphan, the poor and the stranger as a sacred trust; and hence the great importance of the bishop as the administrative officer by whom the charitable funds were received and the alms disbursed. In Greek communities the title bishop (ejpivskopo", ejpimelithv"), was in wide use for financial officers. Their administrative functions brought them in close relation to the deacons, as their executive aids in the care of the poor and sick. The archdeacon became the right arm, the "eye" and "heart" of the bishop. In primitive times every case of poverty or suffering was separately brought to the notice of the bishop and personally relieved by a deacon. Afterwards institutions were founded for widows and orphans, poor and infirm, and generally placed under the superintendence of the bishop; but personal responsibility was diminished by this organized charity, and the deacons lost their original significance and became subordinate officers of public worship.(69)

Whatever may be thought, therefore, of the origin and the divine right of the episcopate, no impartial historian can deny its adaptation to the wants of the church at the time, and its historical necessity.

But then, this primitive catholic episcopal system must by no means be confounded with the later hierarchy. The dioceses, excepting those of Jerusalem, Ephesus, Alexandria, Antioch, and Rome, must have long remained very small, if we look at the number of professing Christians. In the Apocalypse seven such centres of unity are mentioned within a comparatively small compass in Asia Minor, and at a time when the number of Christians was insignificant. In the year 258, Cyprian assembled a council of eighty-seven bishops of North Africa. The functions of the bishops were not yet strictly separated from those of the presbyters, and it was only by degrees that ordination, and, in the Western church, confirmation also, came to be intrusted exclusively to the bishops.

§ 45. Development of the Episcopate. Ignatius.

It is matter of fact that the episcopal form of government was universally established in the Eastern and Western church as early as the middle of the second century. Even the heretical sects, at least the Ebionites, as we must infer from the commendation of the episcopacy in the pseudo-Clementine literature, were organized on this plan, as well as the later schismatic parties of Novatians, Donatists, etc. But it is equally undeniable, that the episcopate reached its complete form only step by step. In the period before us we must note three stages in this development connected with the name of Ignatius in Syria (d. 107 or 115), Irenaeus in Gaul (d. 202), and Cyprian in North Africa (d. 258).

The episcopate first appears, as distinct from the presbyterate, but as a congregational office only (in distinction from the diocesan idea), and as yet a young institution, greatly needing commendation, in the famous seven (or three) Epistles of Ignatius of Antioch a disciple of the apostles, and the second bishop of that see (Evodius being the first, and Hero the third). He is also the first who uses the term "catholic church," as if episcopacy and catholicity sprung up simultaneously. The whole story of Ignatius is more legendary than real, and his writings are subject to grave suspicion of fraudulent interpolation. We have three different versions of the Ignatian Epistles, but only one of them can be genuine; either the smaller Greek version, or the lately discovered Syriac.(70) In the latter, which contains only three epistles, most of the passages on the episcopate are wanting, indeed; yet the leading features of the institution appear even here, and we can recognise ex ungue leonem.(71) In any case they reflect the public sentiment before the middle of the second century.

The substance of these epistles (with the exception of that to the Romans, in which, singularly enough, not a word is said about bishops(72)), consists of earnest exhortations to obey the bishop and maintain the unity of the church against the Judaistic and docetic heresies. With the near prospect and the most ardent desire for martyrdom, the author has no more fervent wish than the perfect inward and outward unity of the faithful; and to this the episcopate seems to him indispensable. In his view Christ is the invisible supreme head, the one great universal bishop of all the churches scattered over the earth. The human bishop is the centre of unity for the single congregation, and stands in it as the vicar of Christ and even of God.(73) The people, therefore, should unconditionally obey him, and do nothing without his will. Blessed are they who are one with the bishop, as the church is with Christ, and Christ with the Father, so that all harmonizes in unity. Apostasy from the bishop is apostasy from Christ, who acts in and through the bishops as his organs.

We shall give passages from the shorter Greek text (as edited by Zahn):

If any one is able to continue in purity (ejn aJgneiva/ i.e., in the state of celibacy), to the honor of the flesh of our Lord, let him continue so without boasting; if he boasts, he is lost (ajpwvleto) if he become known more than the bishop,(74) he is corrupt (e[fqartai). It is becoming, therefore, to men and women who marry, that they marry by the counsel of the bishop, that the marriage may be in the Lord, and not in lust. Let ever thing be done for the honor of God. Look to the bishop, that God also [may look] upon you. I will be in harmony with those who are subject to the bishop, and the presbyters, and the deacons; with them may I have a portion near God!" This passage is one of the strongest, and occurs in the Syriac Epistle to Polycarp as well as in the shorter Greek recension.(75) It characteristically connected episcopacy with celibacy: the ascetic system of Catholicism starts in celibacy, as the hierarchical organization of Catholicism takes its rise in episcopacy. "It becomes you to be in harmony with the mind (or sentence, gnwvmh/) of the bishop, as also ye do. For your most estimable presbytery, worthy of God, is fitted to the bishop as the strings are to the harp."(76) "It is evident that we should look upon the bishop as we do upon the Lord himself."(77) "I exhort you that ye study to do all things with a divine concord: the bishop presiding in the place of God (eij" tovpon qeou'), and presbyters in the place of the college of the apostles, (ei" tovpon sunedrivou tw'n ajpostovlwn), and the deacons, most dear to me, being intrusted with the ministry (diakonivan) of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before all ages, and in the end appeared to us."(78) "Be subject to the bishop, and to one another, as Christ [was subject] to the Father according to the flesh, and the apostles to Christ and to the Father and to the Spirit, in order that the union be carnal (sarkikhv), as well as spiritual."(79) "It is necessary, as is your habit, to do nothing without the bishop, and that ye should be subject also to the presbytery (tw' presbuterivw/), as to the apostles of Jesus Christ."(80) "As many as are of God and of Jesus Christ, are also with their bishop."(81) "Let all of you follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ [follows] the Father; and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons as the ordinance of God. Without the bishop let no one do anything connected with the church. Let that eucharist be accounted valid which is [offered] under the bishop or by one he has appointed. Wherever the bishop is found, there let the people be; as wherever Christ is, there is the catholic church. Without the bishop it is not lawful either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast."(82)

This is the first time that the term "catholic" is applied to the church, and that episcopacy is made a condition of catholicity.

"He that honors the bishop, shall be honored by God; he that does anything without the knowledge of the bishop serves the devil."(83)

This is making salvation pretty much depend upon obedience to the bishop; just as Leo I., three centuries later, in the controversy with Hilary of Arles, made salvation depend upon obedience to the pope by declaring every rebel against the pope to be a servant of the devil! Such daring superabundance of episcopalianism clearly betrays some special design and raises the suspicion of forgery or large interpolations. But it may also be explained as a special pleading for a novelty which to the mind of the writer was essential to the very existence of the church.

The peculiarity in this Ignatian view is that the bishop appears in it as the head and centre of a single congregation, and not as equally the representative of the whole church; also, that (as in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies) he is the vicar of Christ, and not, as in the later view, merely the successor of the apostles,—the presbyters and deacons around him being represented as those successors; and finally, that there are no distinctions of order among the bishops, no trace of a primacy; all are fully coordinate vicars of Christ, who provides for himself in them, as it were, a sensible, perceptible omnipresence in the church. The Ignatian episcopacy, in short, is congregational, not diocesan; a new and growing institution, not a settled policy of apostolic origin.

§ 46. Episcopacy at the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

In all these points the idea of the episcopate in Irenaeus, the great opponent of Gnosticism (about 180), is either lower or higher. This father represents the institution as a diocesan office, and as the continuation of the apostolate, the vehicle of the catholic tradition, and the support of doctrinal unity in opposition to heretical vagaries. He exalts the bishops of the original apostolic churches, above all the church of Rome, and speaks with great emphasis of an unbroken episcopal succession as a test of apostolic teaching and a bulwark against heresy.(84)

At the same time the wavering terminology of Irenaeus in the interchangeable use of the words "bishop" and "presbyter" reminds us of Clement of Rome, and shows that the distinction of the two orders was not yet fully fixed.(85)

The same view of the episcopal succession as the preserver of apostolic tradition and guardian of orthodox doctrine, we find also, though less frequently, in the earlier writings of Tertullian, with this difference that he uniformly and clearly distinguishes bishops and presbyters, and thus proves a more advanced state of the episcopal polity at his time (about 200).(86) But afterwards, in the chiliastic and democratic cause of Montanism, he broke with the episcopal hierarchy, and presented against it the antithesis that the church does not consist of bishops, and that the laity are also priests.(87)

§ 47. Cyprianic Episcopacy.

The old catholic episcopalianism reached its maturity in the middle of the third century in the teaching and example of Cyprian, bishop and martyr of the church in North Africa. He represents the claims of episcopacy in close connection with the idea of a special priesthood and sacrifice.(88) He is the typical high-churchman of the ante-Nicene age. He vigorously put into practice what he honestly believed. He had a good opportunity to assert his authority in the controversy about the lapsed during the Decian persecution, in the schism of Felicissimus, and in the controversy on heretical baptism.

Cyprian considers the bishops as the bearers of the Holy Spirit, who passed from Christ to the apostles, from them by ordination to the bishops, propagates himself in an unbroken line of succession, and gives efficacy to all religious exercises. Hence they are also the pillars of the unity of the church; nay, in a certain sense they are the church itself. "The bishop," says he, "is in the church, and the church in the bishop, and if any one is not with the bishop he is not in the church."(89) And this is the same with him as to say, he is no Christian. Cyprian is thoroughly imbued with the idea of the solidary unity of the episcopate,—the many bishops exercising only one office in solidum, each within his diocese, and each at the same time representing in himself the whole office.(90)

But with all this, the bishop still appears in Cyprian in the closest connexion with the presbyters. He undertook no important matter without their advice. The fourth general council, at Carthage, a.d. 398, even declared the sentence of a bishop, without the concurrence of the lower clergy, void, and decreed that in the ordination of a presbyter, all the presbyters, with the bishop, should lay their hands on the candidate.(91)

The ordination of a bishop was performed by the neighboring bishops, requiring at least three in number. In Egypt, however, so long as there was but one bishop there, presbyters must have performed the consecration, which Eutychius(92) and Hilary the Deacon(93) expressly assert was the case.

§ 48. The Pseudo-Clementine Episcopacy.

Besides this orthodox or catholic formation of the episcopate, the kindred monarchical hierarchy of the Ebionitic sect deserves attention, as it meets us in the pseudo-Clementine Homilies. Chronologically this falls in the middle of the second century, between Ignatius and Irenaeus, and forms a sort of transition from the former to the latter; though it cannot exactly be said to have influenced the Catholic church. It is rather a heretical counterpart of the orthodox episcopate. The organization which consolidated the Catholic church answered the same purpose for a sect. The author of the pseudo-Clementine, like Ignatius, represents the bishop as the vicar of Christ,(94) and at the same time, according to the view of Irenaeus, as the vicar and successor of the apostles;(95) but outstrips both in his high hierarchical expressions, such as kavqedra qrovno" tou' ejpiskovpou, and in his idea of the primacy, or of a universal church monarchy, which he finds, however, not as Irenaeus suggests and Cyprian more distinctly states, in Peter and the Roman see, but, agreeably to his Judaistic turn, in James of, Jerusalem, the "bishop of bishops."(96)

The Manichaeans had likewise a hierarchical organization (as the Mormons in modern times).

Montanism, on the other hand, was a democratic reaction against the episcopal hierarchy in favor of the general priesthood, and the liberty of teaching and prophesying, but it was excommunicated and died out, till it reappeared under a different form in Quakerism.

§ 49. Beginnings of the Metropolitan and Patriarchal Systems

Though the bishops were equal in their dignity and powers as successors of the apostles, they gradually fell into different ranks, according to the ecclesiastical and political importance of their several districts.

On the lowest level stood the bishops of the country churches, the chorepiscopi who, though not mentioned before the beginning of the fourth century, probably originated at an earlier period.(97) They stood between the presbyters and the city bishops, and met the wants of episcopal supervision in the villages of large dioceses in Asia Minor and Syria, also in Gaul.
Among the city bishops the metropolitans rose above the rest, that is, the bishops of the capital cities of the provinces.(98) They presided in the provincial synods, and, as primi inter pares, ordained the bishops of the province. The metropolitan system appears, from the Council of Nicaea in 325, to have been already in operation at the time of Constantine and Eusebius, and was afterwards more fully carried out in the East. In North Africa the oldest bishop, hence called senex, stood as primas, at the head of his province; but the bishop of Carthage enjoyed the highest consideration, and could summon general councils.
Still older and more important is the distinction of apostolic mother-churches,(99) such as those at Jerusalem, Antioch) Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome. In the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian they were held in the highest regard, as the chief bearers of the pure church tradition. Among these Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were most prominent, because they were the capitals respectively of the three divisions (eparchiae) of the Roman empire, and centres of trade and intercourse, combining with their apostolic origin the greatest political weight. To the bishop of Antioch fell all Syria as his metropolitan district; to the bishop of Alexandria, all Egypt; to the bishop of Rome, central and lower Italy, without definite boundaries.
Here we have the germs of the eparchal or patriarchal system, to which the Greek church to this day adheres. The name patriarch was at first, particularly in the East, an honorary title for all bishops, and was not till the fourth century exclusively appropriated to the bishops of the three ecclesiastical and political capitals of the Roman empire, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome, and also to the bishop of Jerusalem honoris causa, and the bishop of Constantinople or New Rome. So in the West the term papa afterwards appropriated by the Roman bishop, as summus pontifex, vicarius Christi, was current for a long time in a more general application.

§ 50. Germs of the Papacy.

Comp. the Lit. in vol. I. §25 (p. 245).

Blondel: Traité historique de la primauté en l’église. Genéve, 1641.

Salmasius: De Primatu Papae. Lugd. Bat. 1645.

Is. Barrow: The Pope’s Supremacy. Lond. 1680 (new ed. Oxf. 1836. N. York, 1845).

Rothensee (R.C.): Der Primal Des Papstes in allen Christlichen Jahrhunderten, 3 vols. Mainz, 1836–38 (I. 1–98).

Kenrick (R.C., archbishop of Baltimore, d. 1853): The Primacy of the Apostolic See vindicated. N. York, 4^th ed. 1855.

R. I. Wilberforce (formerly archdeacon in the Anglican church; died in the Roman church, 1857): An Inquiry into the Principles of Church Authority; or Reasons for Recalling my subscriptions to the Royal Supremacy. Lond. 1854 (ch. vi.-x.).

J. E. Riddle: The History of the Papacy to the Period of the Reformation. Lond. 1856. 2 vols. (Chapter 1, p. 2–113; chiefly taken from Schröckh and Planck).

Thomas Greenwood: Cathedra Petri. A Political History of the great Latin Patriarchate. Lond. 1856–1872. 6 vols. Vol. I. ch. I.-VI. (A work of independent and reliable learning.)

Joh. Friedrich (Old Cath.): Zur ältesten Geschichte des Primates in der Kirche. Bonn, 1879.

E Renan: Conferences d’Angleterre. Rome et le christianisme. Paris 1880. The Hibbert Lectures delivered in Lond. 1880. English translation by Charles Beard, London (Williams & Norgate) 1880, another by Erskine Clement (Boston, 1880). Consists mostly of extracts from his books on the Origin of Christianity, skillfully put together.

H. Formby (R.C.): Ancient Rome and its connection with the Christian Religion. London 1880.

Jos. Langen (Old Cath.): Geschichte der römischen Kirche bis zum Pontificate Leo’s I. Bonn, 1881.

R. F. Littledale (Anglo-Cath.): The Petrine Claims, A Critical Inquiry London 1880. Controversial.

Among the great bishops of Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, the Roman bishop combined all the conditions for a primacy, which, from a purely honorary distinction, gradually became the basis of a supremacy of jurisdiction. The same propension to monarchical unity, which created out of the episcopate a centre, first for each congregation, then for each diocese, pressed on towards a visible centre for the whole church. Primacy and episcopacy grew together. In the present period we already find the faint beginnings of the papacy, in both its good and its evil features; and with them, too, the first examples of earnest protest against the abuse of its power. In the Nicene age the bishop of Jerusalem was made an honorary patriarch in view of the antiquity of that church, though his diocese was limited; and from the middle of the fourth century the new patriarch of Constantinople or New Rome, arose to the primacy among the eastern patriarchs, and became a formidable rival of the bishop of old Rome.

The Roman church claims not only human but divine right for the papacy, and traces its institution directly to Christ, when he assigned to Peter an eminent position in the work of founding his church, against which even the gates of hades shall never prevail. This claim implies several assumptions, viz. (1) that Peter by our Lord’s appointment had not simply a primacy of personal excellency, or of honor and dignity (which must be conceded to him), but also a supremacy of jurisdiction over the other apostles (which is contradicted by the fact that Peter himself never claimed it, and that Paul maintained a position of perfect independence, and even openly rebuked him at Antioch, Gal. 2:11); (2) that the privileges of this primacy and supremacy are not personal only (as the peculiar gifts of Paul or John undoubtedly were), but official, hereditary and transferable; (3) that they were actually transferred by Peter, not upon the bishop of Jerusalem, or Antioch (where Peter certainly was), but upon the bishop of Rome; (4) that Peter was not only at Rome (which is very probable after 63, though not as certain as Paul’s presence and martyrdom in Rome), but acted there as bishop till his martyrdom, and appointed a successor (of which there is not the slightest historical evidence); and (5) that the bishops of Rome, as successors of Peter, have always enjoyed and exercised an universal jurisdiction over the Christian church (which is not the case as a matter of fact, and still less as a matter of conceded right).

Leaving a full discussion of most of these points to polemical theology, we are here concerned with the papacy as a growth of history, and have to examine the causes which have gradually raised it to its towering eminence among the governing institutions of the world.

The historical influences which favored the ascendency of the Roman see were:

The high antiquity of the Roman church, which had been honored even by Paul with the most important doctrinal epistle of the New Testament. It was properly the only apostolic mother-church in the West, and was thus looked upon from the first by the churches of Italy, Gaul, and Spain, with peculiar reverence.
The labors, martyrdom, and burial at Rome of Peter and Paul, the two leading apostles. The whole Roman congregation passed through the fearful ordeal of martyrdom during the Neronian persecution, but must soon afterwards have been reorganized, with a halo of glory arising from the graves of the victims.
The political pre-eminence of that metropolis of the world, which was destined to rule the European races with the sceptre of the cross, as she had formerly ruled them with the sword.
The executive wisdom and the catholic orthodox instinct of the Roman church, which made themselves felt in this period in the three controversies on the time of Easter, the penitential discipline, and the validity of heretical baptism.

To these may be added, as secondary causes, her firmness under persecutions, and her benevolent care for suffering brethren even in distant places, as celebrated by Dionysius of Corinth (180), and by Eusebius.

From the time of St. Paul’s Epistle (58), when he bestowed high praise on the earlier Roman converts, to the episcopate of Victor at the close of the second century, and the unfavorable account by Hippolytus of Pope Zephyrinus and Pope Callistus, we have no express and direct information about the internal state of the Roman church. But incidentally it is more frequently mentioned than any other. Owing to its metropolitan position, it naturally grew in importance and influence with the spread of the Christian religion in the empire. Rome was the battle-field of orthodoxy and heresy, and a resort of all sects and parties. It attracted from every direction what was true and false in philosophy and religion. Ignatius rejoiced in the prospect of suffering for Christ in the centre of the world; Polycarp repaired hither to settle with Anicetus the paschal controversy; Justin Martyr presented there his defense of Christianity to the emperors, and laid down for it his life; Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Cyprian conceded to that church a position of singular pre-eminence. Rome was equally sought as a commanding position by heretics and theosophic jugglers, as Simon Magus, Valentine, Marcion, Cerdo, and a host of others. No wonder, then, that the bishops of Rome at an early date were looked upon as metropolitan pastors, and spoke and acted accordingly with an air of authority which reached far beyond their immediate diocese.

Clement of Rome.

The first example of the exercise of a sort of papal authority is found towards the close of the first century in the letter of the Roman bishop Clement (d. 102) to the bereaved and distracted church of Corinth. This epistle, full of beautiful exhortations to harmony, love, and humility, was sent, as the very address shows,(100) not in the bishop’s own name, which is not mentioned at all, but in that of the Roman congregation, which speaks always in the first person plural. It was a service of love, proffered by one church to another in time of need. Similar letters of instruction, warning and comfort were written to other congregations by Ignatius, Polycarp, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus. Nevertheless it can hardly be denied that the document reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit.(101) This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was nearer to Corinth than Rome. The hierarchical spirit arose from the domineering spirit of the Roman church, rather than the Roman bishop or the presbyters who were simply the organs of the people.(102) But a century later the bishop of Rome was substituted for the church of Rome, when Victor in his own name excommunicated the churches of Asia Minor for a trifling difference of ritual. From this hierarchical assumption there was only one step towards the papal absolutism of a Leo and Hildebrand, and this found its ultimate doctrinal climax in the Vatican dogma of papal infallibility.

Ignatius.

Ignatius, in his Epistle to the Romans (even in the Syriac recension), applies to that congregation a number of high-sounding titles, and describes her as "presiding in the place of the region of the Romans," and as "taking the lead in charity."(103) This is meant as a commendation of her practical benevolence for which she was famous. Dionysius of Corinth in his letter to Soter of Rome testifies to it as saying: "This practice has prevailed with you from the very beginning, to do good to all the brethren in every way, and to send contributions to many churches in every city."(104) The Roman church was no doubt more wealthy than any other, and the liberal use of her means must have greatly increased her influence. Beyond this, Ignatius cannot be quoted as a witness for papal claims. He says not a word of the primacy, nor does he even mention Clement or any other bishop of Rome. The church alone is addressed throughout. He still had a lively sense of the difference between a bishop and an apostle. "I do not command you," he writes to the Romans, "as if I were Peter or Paul; they were apostles."

Irenaeus.

Irenaeus calls Rome the greatest, the oldest(?) church, acknowledged by all, founded by the two most illustrious apostles, Peter and Paul, the church, with which, on account of her more important precedence, all Christendom must agree, or (according to another interpretation) to which (as the metropolis of the world) all other churches must resort.(105) The "more important precedence" places her above the other apostolic churches, to which likewise a precedence is allowed.

This is surely to be understood, however, as a precedence only of honor, not of jurisdiction. For when Pope Victor, about the year 190, in hierarchical arrogance and intolerance, broke fellowship with the churches of Asia Minor, for no other reason but because they adhered to their tradition concerning the celebration of Easter, the same Irenaeus, though agreeing with him on the disputed point itself, rebuked him very emphatically as a troubler of the peace of the church, and declared himself against a forced uniformity in such unessential matters. Nor did the Asiatic churches allow themselves to be intimidated by the dictation of Victor. They answered the Roman tradition with that of their own sedes apostolicae. The difference continued until the council at Nicaea at last settled the controversy in favor of the Roman practice, but even long afterwards the old British churches differed from the Roman practice in the Easter observance to the time of Gregory I.

Hippolytus.

The celebrated Hippolytus, in the beginning of the third century, was a decided antagonist of the Roman bishops, Zephyrinus and Callistus, both for doctrinal and disciplinary reasons. Nevertheless we learn from his work called Philosophumena, that at that time the Roman bishop already claimed an absolute power within his own jurisdiction; and that Callistus, to the great grief of part of the presbytery, laid down the principle, that a bishop can never be deposed or compelled to resign by the presbytery, even though he have committed a mortal sin.

Tertullian.

Tertullian points the heretics to the apostolic mother churches, as the chief repositories of pure doctrine; and among these gives especial prominence to that of Rome, where Peter was crucified, Paul beheaded, and John immersed unhurt in boiling oil(?) and then banished to the island. Yet the same father became afterwards an opponent of Rome. He attacked its loose penitential discipline, and called the Roman bishop (probably Zephyrinus), in irony and mockery, "pontifex maximus" and "episcopus episcoporum."

Cyprian.

Cyprian is clearest, both in his advocacy of the fundamental idea of the papacy, and in his protest against the mode of its application in a given case. Starting from the superiority of Peter, upon whom the Lord built his church, and to whom he intrusted the feeding of his sheep, in order to represent thereby the unity in the college of the apostles, Cyprian transferred the same superiority to the Bishop of Rome, as the successor of Peter, and accordingly called the Roman church the chair of Peter, and the fountain of priestly unity,(106) the root, also, and mother of the catholic church.(107) But on the other side, he asserts with equal energy the equality and relative independence of the bishops, as successors of the apostles, who had all an equally direct appointment from Christ. In his correspondence he uniformly addresses the Roman bishop as "brother" and "colleague," conscious of his own equal dignity and authority. And in the controversy about heretical baptism, he opposes Pope Stephen with almost Protestant independence, accusing him of error and abuse of his power, and calling a tradition without truth an old error. Of this protest he never retracted a word.

Firmilian.

Still more sharp and unsparing was the Cappadocian bishop, Firmilian, a disciple of Origen, on the bishop of Rome, while likewise implying a certain acknowledgment of his primacy. Firmilian charges him with folly, and with acting unworthily of his position; because, as the successor of Peter, he ought rather to further the unity of the church than to destroy it, and ought to abide on the rock foundation instead of laying a new one by recognizing heretical baptism. Perhaps the bitterness of Firmilian was due partly to his friendship and veneration for Origen, who had been condemned by a council at Rome.

Nevertheless, on this question of baptism, also, as on those of Easter, and of penance, the Roman church came out victorious in the end.

Comparative Insignificance of the first Popes.

From these testimonies it is clear, that the growing influence of the Roman see was rooted in public opinion and in the need of unity in the ancient church. It is not to be explained at all by the talents and the ambition of the incumbents. On the contrary, the personality of the thirty popes of the first three centuries falls quite remarkably into the background; though they are all canonized saints and, according to a later but extremely doubtful tradition, were also, with two exceptions, martyrs.(108) Among them, and it may be said down to Leo the Great, about the middle of the fifth century, there was hardly one, perhaps Clement, who could compare, as a church leader, with an Ignatius, a Cyprian, and an Ambrose; or, as a theolooian, with an Irenaeus, a Tertullian, an Athanasius, and an Augustin.(109) Jerome, among his hundred and thirty-six church celebrities, of the first four centuries, brings in only four Roman bishops, Clement, Victor, Cornelius, and Damasus, and even these wrote only a few epistles. Hippolytus, in his Philosophumena, written about 225, even presents two contemporaneous popes, St. Zephyrinus (202–218) and Callistus (St. Calixtus I., 218–223), from his own observation, though not without partisan feeling, in a most unfavorable light; charging the first with ignorance and avarice,(110) the second with scandalous conduct (he is said to have been once a swindler and a fugitive slave rescued from suicide), and both of them with the Patripassian heresy. Such charges could not have been mere fabrications with so honorable an author as Hippolytus, even though he was a schismatic rival bishop to Callistus; they must have had at least some basis of fact.

§ 51. Chronology of the Popes.

I. Sources.

The principal sources for the obscure chronology of the early bishops of Rome are the catalogues of popes. These are divided into two classes, the oriental or Greek, and the occidental or Latin. To the first belong the lists of Hegesippus and Irenaeus, from the second century, that of Eusebius (in his Chronicle, and his Church History), and his successors from the fourth century and later. This class is followed by Lipsius and Harnack. The second class embraces the catalogues of Augustin (Ep. 55, al. 165), Optatus of Mileve (De schism. Donat. II. 3), the "Catalogus Liberianus" (coming down to Liberius, 354), the "Catalogus Felicianus" (to 530), the "Catalogus Cononianus," based perhaps on the "Catalogus Leoninus" (to 440), the "Liber Pontificalis" (formerly supposed to be based on the preceding catalogues, but according to the Abbé Duchesne and Waitz, older than the "Liber Felicianus"). The "Liber Pontif." itself exists in different MSS., and has undergone many changes. It is variously dated from the fifth or seventh century.

To these may be added the "Martyrologia" and "Calendaria" of the Roman Church, especially the "Martyrologium Hieronymianum," and the "Martyrologium Romanum parvum" (both of the seventh or eighth century).

The inscriptions on the papal tombs discovered in Rome since 1850, contain names and titles, but no dates.

On the "Catalogus Liberianus," see especially the critical essay of Mommsen "Ueber de Chronographen des Jahres 354," in the "Transactions of the Royal Saxon Society of Sciences," Philos. histor. Section, vol. I. (1850), p. 631 sqq. The text of the Catalogue is given, p. 634–’37, and by Lipsius, Chronologie der röm. Bischöfe, Append. p. 265–268. The oldest MSS. of the "Liber Pontificalis" date from the seventh and eighth centuries, and present a text of a.d. 641, but with many variations. "Mit wahrer Sicherheit," says Waitz, "gelangen wir in der Geschichte des Papsthums nicht über das 7te Jahrhundert hinauf."

II. Works.

Phil. Jaffé: Regesta Pontificum Romanorum ab condita ecclesia ad Ann. 1198. Berolini 1851, ed. secunda correcta et aucta auspiciis Gul. Wattenbach. Lips. 1881 sqq. Continued by Potthast from 1198–1304, and supplemented by Harttung (Bd. I. a.d. 748–1198, Gotha 1880).

R A. Lipsius: Chronologie der Röm. Bischöfe bis zur Mitte des 4ten Jahrh. Kiel, 1869. Comp. Hort’s review of this book in the "Academy" for Sept. 15, 1871. Lipsius: Neue Studien zur Papstchronologie, in the "Jahrbücher für Protest. Theol." Leipz. 1880 (pp. 78–126 and 233–307). Lipsius denies that Peter ever was at Rome.

Abbé L. Duchesne: Étude sur le Liber Pontificalis. Paris, 1887. La date et les recensions du Liber Pontificalis. 1879. Le Liber Pontificalis. Texte, introduction et commentaire. Paris, 1884 and 1889, 2 vols. 4° (with facsimiles).

Adolf Harnack: Die Zeit des Ignatius und die Chronologie der antiochenischen Bischöfe bis Tyrannus, Leipz. 1878 (p. 73).

G. Waitz: UEber die verschiedenen Texte des Liber Pontificalis, in the "Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde," IV; and his review of Duchesne, and Lipsius, in H. v. Sybel’s "Histor. Zeitschrift" for 1880, p. 135 sqq.

The oldest links in the chain of Roman bishops are veiled in impenetrable darkness. Tertullian and most of the Latins (and the pseudo-Clementina), make Clement (Phil. 4:3), the first successor of Peter;(111) but Irenaeus, Eusebius, and other Greeks, also Jerome and the Roman Catalogue, give him the third place, and put Linus (2 Tim. 4:21), and Anacletus (or Anincletus), between him and Peter.(112) In some lists Cletus is substituted for Anacletus, in others the two are distinguished. Perhaps Linus and Anacletus acted during the life time of Paul and Peter as assistants or presided only over one part of the church, while Clement may have had charge of another branch; for at that early day, the government of the congregation composed of Jewish and Gentile Christian elements was not so centralized as it afterwards became. Furthermore, the earliest fathers, with a true sense of the distinction between the apostolic and episcopal offices, do not reckon Peter among the bishops of Rome at all; and the Roman Catalogue in placing Peter in the line of bishops, is strangely regardless of Paul, whose independent labors in Rome are attested not only by tradition, but by the clear witness of his own epistles and the book of Acts.

Lipsius, after a laborious critical comparison of the different catalogues of popes, arrives at the conclusion that Linus, Anacletus, and Clement were Roman presbyters (or presbyter-bishops in the N. T. sense of the term), at the close of the first century, Evaristus and Alexander presbyters at the beginning of the second, Xystus I. (Latinized: Sixtus), presbyter for ten years till about 128, Telesphorus for eleven years, till about 139, and next successors diocesan bishops.(113)

It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preeminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople; and this must carry great weight with those who ground their views chiefly on external testimonies, without being able to rise to the free Protestant conception of Christianity and its history of development on earth.

§ 52. List of the Roman Bishops and Roman Emperors during the First Three Centuries.

From the lists of Eusebius (till Silvester), Jaffé (Regesta), Potthast (Bibliotheca Hist. Medii Aevi), Lipsius and others compared. See a continuation of the list in my History of Mediaeval Christianity, p. 205 sqq.

Date

Popes

Emperors

Date

Augustus

27 b.c.

Tiberius

a.d. 14–37

Caligula

67–41

Claudius

41–54

? 42–67

Petrus-Apostolus

(63–64)

Nero

54–68

? 67–79

Linus-Presbyter

Galba

Otho

68–69

Vitellius

69 –69

? 79–91

Cletus or Anacletus

Titus

79–81

Domitian

81–96

? 91–100

Clemens I

Nerva

96–98

Trajan

98–117

? 100–109

Evaristus

? 109–119

Alexander I

Hadrian

117–138

? 119–128

Xystus or Sixtus I

? 128–139

Telesphorus (Martyr)

Antoninus Pius

138–161

? 139–142

Hyginus

? 142–154

Pius I

? 154–168

Anicetus

Marcus Aurelius

161–180

? 168–176

Soter

? 177- 190

Eleutherus

Commodus

180–190

? 190–202

Victor I

Pertinax

190–191

Didius Julianus

191–192

Niger

192–193

Septimius Severus

193–211

202–218

Zephyrinus

Caracalla

211–217

Geta (d. 212)

211–217

M.Opilius Macrinus

217–218

218–223

Callistus, or Calixtus I

Heliogabalus

218–222

(Hippolytus,Antipope)

? 223–230

Urbanus I

Alexander Severus

222–235

? 230–235

Pontianus (resigned in exile)

235–236

Anterus

Maximin I (the Thracian)

235–237

236–250

Fabianus, Martyr

The two Gordians:

Maximus Pupienus,

Balbinus

237–238

Gordian, the Younger

238–244

Philip

244–249

250–251

The See vacant till March, 251

Decius

249–251

? 251–252

Cornelius (in exile)

Gallus

251–252

? 251

(Novatianus, Antipope)

252–253

Lucius I

Volusian

252–253

? 253–257

Stephanus I

Aemilian

253–268

Valerian

256–259

Gallienus

259–268

? 257–258

Xystus (Sixtus) II

Till July 21, 259

The See vacant

259–269

Dionysius

Claudius II

268–270

269–274

Felix I

Aurelian

270–275

275–283

Eutychianus

Tacitus

275–276

Probus

276–282

283–296

Gajus (Caius)

Carus

282–284

Carinus

284–286

Numerian

Diocletian (d. 313 )

284–305

Maximian joint Emp. with Diocletian

286–305

296–304

Marcellinus

Constantius (d. 306)

304 or 307

304–307

The See vacant

Galerius (d. 311)

Licinius (d. 323)

Maximin II (Daza)

308–309

Constantine the Great,

309–323

Galerius (d. 311),

308–309

Marcellus

Licinius (d.323),

309–310

Eusebius, d. Sept. 26 (?) 309

Maximin (d. 313),

Maxentius (d. 312),

309–310

The See Vacant

reigning jointly.

311–314

Miltiades (Melchiades)

314-335 Silvester I.

Constantine the Great,

323-337

sole ruler.

The whole number of popes, from the Apostle Peter to Leo XIII. (1878) is two hundred and sixty-three. This would allow about seven years on an average to each papal reign. The traditional twenty-five years of Peter were considered the maximum which none of his successors was permitted to reach, except Pius IX., the first infallible pope, who reigned twenty-seven years (1846-1878). The average term of office of the archbishops of Canterbury is fourteen years.

§ 53. The Catholic Unity.

J. A. Möhler (R.C.): Die Einheit der Kirche oder das Princip des Katholicismus. Tübingen 1825. Full of Catholic enthusiasm for the unity of the church.

R. Rothe: Die Anfänge der christl. Kirche. Wittenb. 1837 (pp. 553–711). A Protestant counterpart of Möhler’s book.

Huther.: Cyprian’s Lehre von der Einheit der Kirche. Hamb. 1839.

J. W. Nevin: Cyprian; four articles in the "Mercersburg Review," 1852. Comp. Varien’s strictures on these articles in the same "Review" for 1853, p. 555 sqq.

Joh. Peters (Ultramontane): Die Lehre des heil. Cyprian von der Einheit der Kirche gegenüber den beiden Schismen in Carthago und Rom. Luxemb. 1870.

Jos. H. Reinkens (Old Cath. Bishop): Die Lehre des heil. Cyprian von der Einheit er Kirche. Würzburg, 1873.

Comp. also Hartel’s ed. of Cyprian’s Opera (3 Parts, Vienna, 1868–’71), and the monographs on Cyprian by Rettberg (1831), Peters (1877), Fechtrup (1878), and O. Ritschl (1883).

On the basis of Paul’s idea of the unity, holiness, and universality of the church, as the mystical body of Christ; hand in hand with the episcopal system of government; in the form of fact rather than of dogma; and in perpetual conflict with heathen persecution from without, and heretical and schismatic tendencies within—arose the idea and the institution of: "the Holy Catholic Church," as the Apostles’ Creed has it;(114) or, in the fuller language of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan, "the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Church." In both the oecumenical symbols, as even in the more indefinite creeds of the second and third centuries, on which those symbols are based, the church appears as an article of faith,(115) presupposing and necessarily, following faith in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and as a holy fellowship,(116) within which the various benefits of grace, from the forgiveness of sins to the life everlasting, are enjoyed.

Nor is any distinction made here between a visible and an invisible church. All catholic antiquity thought of none but the actual, historical church, and without hesitation applied to this, while yet in the eyes of the world a small persecuted sect, those four predicates of unity, holiness, universality, and apostolicity, to which were afterwards added exclusiveness infallibility and indestructibility. There sometimes occur, indeed, particularly in the Novatian schism, hints of the incongruity between the empirical reality and the ideal conception of the church; and this incongruity became still more palpable, in regard to the predicate of holiness, after the abatement of the spiritual elevation of the apostolic age, the cessation of persecution, and the decay of discipline. But the unworthiness of individual members and the external servant-form of the church were not allowed to mislead as to the general objective character, which belonged to her in virtue of her union with her glorious heavenly Head.

The fathers of our period all saw in the church, though with different degrees of clearness, a divine, supernatural order of things, in a certain sense the continuation of the life of Christ on earth, the temple of the Holy Spirit, the sole repository of the powers of divine life, the possessor and interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, the mother of all the faithful. She is holy because she is separated from the service of the profane world, is animated by the Holy Spirit, forms her members to holiness, and exercises strict discipline. She is catholic, that is (according to the precise sense of o}lo", which denotes not so much numerical totality as wholeness), complete, and alone true, in distinction from all parties and sects. Catholicity, strictly taken, includes the three marks of universality, unity, and exclusiveness, and is an essential property of the church as the body and organ of Christ, who is, in fact, the only Redeemer for all men. Equally inseparable from her is the predicate of apostolicity, that is, the historical continuity or unbroken succession, which reaches back through the bishops to the apostles, from the apostles to Christ, and from Christ to God. In the view of the fathers, every theoretical departure from this empirical, tangible, catholic church is heresy, that is, arbitrary, subjective, ever changing human opinion; every practical departure, all disobedience to her rulers is schism, or dismemberment of the body of Christ; either is rebellion against divine authority, and a heinous, if not the most heinous, sin. No heresy can reach the conception of the church, or rightly claim any one of her predicates; it forms at best a sect or party, and consequently falls within the province and the fate of human and perishing things, while the church is divine and indestructible.

This is without doubt the view of the ante-Nicene fathers, even of the speculative and spiritualistic Alexandrians. The most important personages in the development of the doctrine concerning the church are, again, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Cyprian. Their whole doctrine of the episcopate is intimately connected with their doctrine of the catholic unity, and determined by it. For the episcopate is of value in their eyes only, is the indispensable means of maintaining and promoting this unity: while they are compelled to regard the bishops of heretics and schismatics as rebels and antichrists.

In the Epistles of Ignatius the unity of the church, in the form and through the medium of the episcopate, is the fundamental thought and the leading topic of exhortation. The author calls himself a man prepared for union.(117) He also is the first to use the term "catholic" in the ecclesiastical sense, when he says:(118) "Where Christ Jesus is, there is the catholic church;" that is, the closely united and full totality of his people. Only in her, according to his view, can we eat the bread of God; he, who follows a schismatic, inherits not the kingdom of God.(119)

We meet similar views, although not so clearly and strongly stated, in the Roman Clement’s First Epistle to the Corinthians, in the letter of the church of Smyrna on the martyrdom of Polycarp, and in the Shepherd of Hermas.

2 Irenaeus speaks much more at large respecting the church. He calls her the haven of rescue, the way of salvation, the entrance to life, the paradise in this world, of whose trees, to wit, the holy Scriptures, we may eat, excepting the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which he takes as a type of heresy. The church is inseparable from the Holy Spirit; it is his home, and indeed his only dwelling-place on earth. "Where the church is," says he, putting the church first, in the genuine catholic spirit, "there is the Spirit of God, and where the Spirit of God is there is all grace."(120) Only on the bosom of the church, continues he, can we be nursed to life. To her must we flee, to be made partakers of the Holy Spirit; separation from her is separation from the fellowship of the Holy Spirit. Heretics, in his view, are enemies of the truth and sons of Satan, and will be swallowed up by hell, like the company of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. Characteristic in this respect is the well-known legend, which he relates, about the meeting of the apostle John with the Gnostic Cerinthus, and of Polycarp with Marcion, the "first-born of Satan."

Tertullian is the first to make that comparison of the church with Noah’s ark, which has since become classical in Roman catholic theology; and he likewise attributes heresies to the devil, without any qualification. But as to schism, he was himself guilty of it since he joined the Montanists and bitterly opposed the Catholics in questions of discipline. He has therefore no place in the Roman Catholic list of the patres, but simply of the scriptores ecclesiae.
Even Clement of Alexandria, and Origen, with all their spiritualistic and idealizing turn of mind, are no exception here. The latter, in the words: "Out of the church no man can be saved,"(121) brings out the principle of the catholic exclusiveness as unequivocally as Cyprian. Yet we find in him, together with very severe judgments of heretics, mild and tolerant expressions also; and he even supposes, on the ground of Rom. 2:6 sqq., that in the future life honest Jews and heathens will attain a suitable reward, a low grade of blessedness, though not the "life everlasting" in the proper sense. In a later age he was himself condemned as a heretic.

Of other Greek divines of the third century, Methodius in particular, an opponent of Origen, takes high views of the church, and in his Symposion poetically describes it as "the garden of God in the beauty of eternal spring, shining in the richest splendor of immortalizing fruits and flowers;" as the virginal, unspotted, ever young and beautiful royal bride of the divine Logos.

Finally, Cyprian, in his Epistles, and most of all in his classical tract: De Unitate Eccelesiae, written in the year 251, amidst the distractions of the Novatian schism, and not without an intermixture of hierarchical pride and party spirit, has most distinctly and most forcibly developed the old catholic doctrine of the church, her unity, universality, and exclusiveness. He is the typical champion of visible, tangible church unity, and would have made a better pope than any pope before Leo I.; yet after all he was anti-papal and anti-Roman when he differed from the pope. Augustin felt this inconsistency, and thought that he had wiped it out by the blood of his martyrdom. But he never gave any sign of repentance. His views are briefly as follows:

The Catholic church was founded from the first by Christ on St. Peter alone, that, with all the equality of power among the apostles, unity might still be kept prominent as essential to her being. She has ever since remained one, in unbroken episcopal succession; as there is only one sun, though his rays are everywhere diffused. Try once to separate the ray from the sun; the unity of the light allows no division. Break the branch from the tree; it can produce no fruit. Cut off the brook from the fountain; it dries up. Out of this empirical orthodox church, episcopally organized and centralized in Rome, Cyprian can imagine no Christianity at all;(122) not only among the Gnostics and other radical heretics, but even among the Novatians, who varied from the Catholics in no essential point of doctrine, and only elected an opposition bishop in the interest of their rigorous penitential discipline. Whoever separates himself from the catholic church is a foreigner, a profane person, an enemy, condemns himself, and must be shunned. No one can have God for his father, who has not the church for his mother.(123) As well might one out of the ark of Noah have escaped the flood, as one out of the church be saved;(124) because she alone is the bearer of the Holy Spirit and of all grace.

In the controversy on heretical baptism, Cyprian carried out the principle of exclusiveness even more consistently than the Roman church. For he entirely rejected such baptism, while Stephen held it valid, and thus had to concede, in strict consistency, the possibility of regeneration, and hence of salvation, outside the Catholic church. Here is a point where even the Roman system, generally so consistent, has a loophole of liberality, and practically gives up her theoretical principle of exclusiveness. But in carrying out this principle, even in persistent opposition to the pope, in whom he saw the successor of Peter and the visible centre of unity, Cyprian plainly denied the supremacy of Roman jurisdiction and the existence of an infallible tribunal for the settlement of doctrinal controversies and protested against identifying the church in general with the church of Rome. And if he had the right of such protest in favor of strict exclusiveness, should not the Greek church, and above all the Evangelical, much rather have the right of protest against the Roman exclusiveness, and in favor of a more free and comprehensive conception of the church?

We may freely acknowledge the profound and beautiful truth at the bottom of this old catholic doctrine of the church, and the historical importance of it for that period of persecution, as well as for the great missionary work among the barbarians of the middle ages; but we cannot ignore the fact that the doctrine rested in part on a fallacy, which, in course of time, after the union of the church with the state, or, in other words, with the world, became more and more glaring, and provoked an internal protest of ever-growing force. It blindly identified the spiritual unity of the church with unity of organization, insisted on outward uniformity at the expense of free development, and confounded the faulty empirical church, or a temporary phase of the development of Christianity, with the ideal and eternal kingdom of Christ, which will not be perfect in its manifestation until the glorious second coming of its Head. The Scriptural principle "Out of Christ there is no salvation," was contracted and restricted to the Cyprianic principle: "Out of the (visible) church there is no salvation;" and from this there was only one step to the fundamental error of Romanism: "Out of the Roman Church there is no salvation."

No effort after outward unity could prevent the distinction of all Oriental and Occidental church from showing itself at this early period, in language, customs, and theology;—a distinction which afterwards led to a schism to this day unhealed.

It may well be questioned whether our Lord intended an outward visible unity of the church in the present order of things. He promised that there should be "one flock one shepherd," but not "one fold."(125) There may be one flock, and yet many folds or church organizations. In the sacerdotal prayer, our Lord says not one word about church, bishops or popes, but dwells upon that spiritual unity which reflects the harmony between the eternal Father and the eternal Son. "The true communion of Christian men—’the communion of saints’ upon which all churches are built—is not the common performance of external acts, but a communion of soul with soul and of the soul with Christ. It is a consequence of the nature which God has given us that an external organization should help our communion with one another: it is a consequence both of our twofold nature, and of Christ’s appointment that external acts should help our communion with Him. But subtler, deeper, diviner than anything of which external things can be either the symbol or the bond is that inner reality and essence of union—that interpenetrating community of thought and character—which St. Paul speaks of as the ’unity of the Spirit,’ and which in the sublimest of sublime books, in the most sacred words, is likened to the oneness of the Son with the Father and of the Father with the Son."(126)

§ 54. Councils.

Best Collections of Acts of Councils by Harduin (1715, 12 vols.), and Mansi (1759, 31 vols.).

C. J. Hefele (R.C. Bishop of Rottenburg, and member of the Vatican Council of 1870): Conciliengeschichte, Freiburg 1855; second ed. 1873 sqq., 7 vols. down to the Council of Florence, a.d. 1447 (See vol. I., pp. 83–242). English translation by W. R. Clark and H. R. Oxenham ( Edinb. 1871, 2d vol. 1876, 3d vol. 1883).

E. B. Pusey (d. 1882): The Councils of the Church, from the Council of Jerusalem, a.d. 51, to the Council of Constantinople, a.d. 381; chiefly as to their constitution, but also as to their object and history. Lond. 1857.

A. W. Dale: The Synod of Elvira [a.d. 306] and Christian Life in the Fourth Century. Lond. 1882.

Comp. the article Council in Smith and Cheetham and Lect. VII. in Hatch, Bampton Lect. on the Organization of the Early Christian Church. Lond. 1881, pp. 165 sqq.

Councils or Synods were an important means of maintaining and promoting ecclesiastical unity, and deciding questions of faith and discipline.(127) They had a precedent and sanction in the apostolic Conference of Jerusalem for the settlement of the circumcision controversy.(128) They were suggested moreover by the deliberative political assemblies of the provinces of the Roman empire, which met every year in the chief towns.(129) But we have no distinct trace of Councils before the middle of the second century (between 50 and 170), when they first appear, in the disputes concerning Montanism and Easter.

There are several kinds of Synods according to their size, diocesan, provincial (or metropolitan), national, patriarchal, and oecumenical (or universal).(130) Our period knows only the first three. Diocesan synods consist of the bishop and his presbyters and deacons with the people assisting, and were probably held from the beginning, but are not mentioned before the third century. Provincial synods appear first in Greece, where the spirit of association had continued strong since the days of the Achaean league, and then in Asia Minor, North Africa, Gaul, and Spain. They were held, so far as the stormy times of persecution allowed, once or twice a year, in the metropolis, under the presidency of the metropolitan, who thus gradually acquired a supervision over the other bishops of the province. Special emergencies called out extraordinary sessions, and they, it seems, preceded the regular meetings. They were found to be useful, and hence became institutions.

The synodical meetings were public, and the people of the community around sometimes made their influence felt. In the time of Cyprian presbyters, confessors, and laymen took an active part, a custom which seems to have the sanction of apostolic practice.(131) At the Synod which met about 256, in the controversy on heretical baptism, there were present eighty-seven bishops, very many priests and deacons, and "maxima pars plebis;"(132) and in the synods concerning the restoration of the Lapsi, Cyprian convened besides the bishops, his clergy, the "confessores," and "laicos stantes" (i.e. in good standing).(133) Nor was this practice confined to North Africa. We meet it in Syria, at the synods convened on account of Paul of Samosata (264–269), and in Spain at the council of Elvira. Origen, who was merely a presbyter, was the leading spirit of two Arabian synods, and convinced their bishop Beryllus of his Christological error. Even the Roman clergy, in their letter to Cyprian,(134) speak of a common synodical consultation of the bishops with the priests, deacons, confessors, and laymen in good standing.

But with the advance of the hierarchical spirit, this republican feature gradually vanished. After the council of Nicaea (325) bishops alone had seat and voice, and the priests appear hereafter merely as secretaries, or advisers, or representatives of their bishops. The bishops, moreover, did not act as representatives of their churches, nor in the name of the body of the believers, as formerly, but in their own right as successors of the apostles. They did not as yet, however, in this period, claim infallibility for their decisions, unless we choose to find a slight approach to such a claim in the formula: "Placuit nobis, Sancto Spiritu suggerente," as used, for example, by the council of Carthage, in 252.(135) At all events, their decrees at that time had only moral power, and could lay no claim to universal validity. Even Cyprian emphatically asserts absolute independence for each bishop in his own diocese. "To each shepherd," he says, "a portion of the Lord’s flock has been assigned, and his account must be rendered to his Master."

The more important acts, such as electing bishops, excommunication, decision of controversies, were communicated to other provinces by epistolae synodicae. In the intercourse and the translation of individual members of churches, letters of recommendation(136) from the bishop were commonly employed or required as terms of admission. Expulsion from one church was virtually an expulsion from all associated churches.

The effect of the synodical system tended to consolidation. The Christian churches from independent communities held together by a spiritual fellowship of faith, became a powerful confederation, a compact moral commonwealth within the political organization of the Roman empire.

As the episcopate culminated in the primacy, so the synodical system rose into the oecumenical councils, which represented the whole church of the Roman empire. But these could not be held till persecution ceased, and the emperor became the patron of Christianity. The first was the celebrated council of Nicaea, in the year 325. The state gave legal validity to the decrees of councils, and enforced them if necessary by all its means of coercion. But the Roman government protected only the Catholic or orthodox church, except during the progress of the Arian and other controversies, before the final result was reached by the decision of an oecumenical Synod convened by the emperor.(137)

§ 55. The Councils of Elvira, Arles, and Ancyra.

Among the ante-Nicene Synods some were occasioned by the Montanist controversy in Asia Minor, some by the Paschal controversies, some by the affairs of Origen, some by the Novatian schism and the treatment of the Lapsi in Carthage and Rome, some by the controversies on heretical baptism (255, 256), three were held against Paul of Samosata in Antioch (264–269).

In the beginning of the fourth century three Synods, held at Elvira, Arles, and Ancyra, deserve special mention, as they approach the character of general councils and prepared the way for the first oecumenical council. They decided no doctrinal question, but passed important canons on church polity and Christian morals. They were convened for the purpose of restoring order and discipline after the ravages of the Diocletian persecution. They deal chiefly with the large class of the Lapsed, and reflect the transition state from the ante-Nicene to the Nicene age. They are alike pervaded by the spirit of clericalism and a moderate asceticism.

The Synod of Elvira (Illiberis, or Eliberis, probably on the site of the modern Granada) was held in 306,(138) and attended by nineteen bishops, and twenty-six presbyters, mostly from the Southern districts of Spain. Deacons and laymen were also present. The Diocletian persecution ceased in Spain after the abdication of Diocletian and Maximian Herculeus in 305; while it continued to rage for several years longer in the East under Galerius and Maximin. The Synod passed eighty-one Latin canons against various forms of heathen immorality then still abounding, and in favor of church discipline and austere morals. The Lapsed were forbidden the holy communion even in articulo mortis (can. 1). This is more severe than the action of the Nicene Synod. The thirty-sixth canon prohibits the admission of sacred pictures on the walls of the church buildings,(139) and has often been quoted by Protestants as an argument against image worship as idolatrous; while Roman Catholic writers explain it either as a prohibition of representations of the deity only, or as a prudential measure against heathen desecration of holy things.(140) Otherwise the Synod is thoroughly catholic in spirit and tone. Another characteristic feature is the severity against the Jews who were numerous in Spain. Christians are forbidden to marry Jews.(141)

The leading genius of the Elvira Synod and the second in the list was Hosius, bishop of Corduba (Cordova), who also attended the Council of Nicaea as the chief representative of the West. He was native of Cordova, the birth-place of Lucan and Seneca, and more than sixty years in the episcopate. Athanasius calls him a man holy in fact as well as in name, and speaks of his wisdom in guiding synods. As a far-seeing statesman, he seems to have conceived the idea of reconciling the empire with the church and influenced the mind of Constantine in that direction. He is one of the most prominent links between the age of persecution and the age of imperial Christianity. He was a strong defender of the Nicene faith, but in his extreme old age he wavered and signed an Arian formula. Soon afterwards he died, a hundred years old (358).

The first Council of Arles in the South of France(142) was held a.d. 314, in consequence of an appeal of the Donatists to Constantine the Great, against the decision of a Roman Council of 313, consisting of three Gallican and fifteen Italian bishops under the lead of Pope Melchiades. This is the first instance of an appeal of a Christian party to the secular power, and it turned out unfavorably to the Donatists who afterwards became enemies of the government. The Council of Arles was the first called by Constantine and the forerunner of the Council of Nicaea. Augustin calls it even universal, but it was only Western at best. It consisted of thirty-three bishops(143) from Gaul, Sicily, Italy (exclusive of the Pope Sylvester, who, however, was represented by two presbyters and two deacons), North Africa, and Britain (three, from York, London, and probably from Caerleon on Usk), besides thirteen presbyters and twenty-three deacons. It excommunicated Donatus and passed twenty-two canons concerning Easter (which should be held on one and the same day), against the non-residence of clergy, against participation in races and gladiatorial fights (to be punished by excommunication), against the rebaptism of heretics, and on other matters of discipline. Clergymen who could be proven to have delivered sacred books or utensils in persecution (the traditores) should be deposed, but their official acts were to be held valid. The assistance of at least three bishops was required at ordination.(144)
The Council of Ancyra, the capital of Galatia in Asia Minor, was held soon after the death of the persecutor Maximin (3l3), probably in the year 314, and represented Asia Minor and Syria. It numbered from twelve to eighteen bishops (the lists vary), several of whom eleven years afterwards attended the Council of Nicaea. Marcellus of Ancyra who acquired celebrity in the Arian controversies, presided, according to others Vitalis of Antioch. Its object was to heal the wounds of the Diocletian persecution, and it passed twenty-five canons relating chiefly to the treatment of those who had betrayed their faith or delivered the sacred books in those years of terror. Priests who had offered sacrifice to the gods, but afterwards repented, were prohibited from preaching and all sacerdotal functions, but allowed to retain their clerical dignity. Those who had sacrificed before baptism may be admitted to orders. Adultery is to be punished by seven years’ penance, murder by life-long penance.(145)

A similar Council was held soon afterwards at, Neo-Caesarea in Cappadocia (between 314–325), mostly by the same bishops who attended that of Ancyra, and passed fifteen disciplinary canons.(146)

§ 56. Collections of Ecclesiastical Law. The Apostolical Constitutions and Canons.

Sources.

I. Diatagai; tw'n aJgivwn jApostovlwn dia; Klhvmneto", etc., Constitutiones Apostolicae, first edited by Fr Turrianus, Ven. 1563, then in Cotelier’s ed. of the Patres Apostolici (I. 199 sqq.), in Mansi (Collect. Concil. I.), and Harduin (Coll. Conc. I.); newly edited by Ueltzen, Rost. 1853, and P. A. de Lagarde, Lips. and Lond. 1854 and 1862. Ueltzen gives the textus receptus improved. Lagarde aims at the oldest text, which he edited in Syriac (Didascalia Apostolorum Syriace, 1854), and in Greek (Constit. Apostolorum Graece, 1862). Hilgenfels: Nov. Test. extra Canonem rec., Lips. (1866), ed. II. (1884), Fasc. IV. 110–121. He gives the Ap. Church Order under the title Duae Viae vel Judicium Petri.

Thos. Pell Platt: The Æthiopic Didascalia; or the Æthiopic Version of the Apostolical Constitutions, received in the Church of Abyssinia, with an Engl Transl, , Lond. 1834.

Henry Tattam: The Apostolical Constitutions, or Canons of the Apostles in Coptic. With an Engl. translation. Lond. 1848 (214 pages).

Kanovne" ejkklhsiastikoi; tw'n aJg. jApostovlwn, Canones, qui dicuntur Apostolorum, in most collections of church law, and in Cotel. (I. 437 sqq.), Mansi, and Harduin (tom. I.), and in the editions of the Ap. Constitutions at the close. Separate edd. by Paul De Lagarde in Greek and Syriac: Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici antiquissimae Syriace, Lips. 1856; and Reliquiae juris ecclesiastici Graece, 1856 (both to be had at Trübner’s, Strassburg). An Ethiopic translation of the Canons, ed. by Winand Fell, Leipz. 1871.

W. G. Beveridge, (Bishop of St. Asaph, d. 1708): Sunovdikon, s. Pandectae Canonum S. G. Apostolorum et Conciliorum, ab Ecclesia Gr. reliquit. Oxon. 1672–82, 2 vols. fol.

John Fulton: Index Canonum. In Greek and English. With a Complete Digest of the entire code of canon law in the undivided Primitive Church. N. York 1872; revised ed. with Preface by P. Schaff, 1883.

Critical Discussions.

Krabbe: Ueber den Ursprung u. den Inhalt der Apost. Constitutionen des Clemens Romanus. Hamb. 1829.

S. v. Drey (R.C.): Neue Untesuchungen über die Constitut. u. Kanones der Ap. Tüb. 1832.

J. W. Bickell (d. 1848): Gesch. des Kirchenrechts. Giess. 1843 (I. 1, pp. 52–255). The second part appeared, Frankf., 1849.

Chase: Constitations of the Holy Apostles, including the Canons; Whiston’s version revised from the Greek; with a prize essay(of Krabbe) upon their origin and contents. New York, 1848.

Bunsen: Hippolytus u. seine Zeit., Leipz. 1852 (I. pp. 418–523, and II. pp. 1126); and in the 2d Engl. ed. Hippolytus and his Age, or Christianity and Mankind, Lond. 1854 (vols. V – VII).

Hefele (R.C.): Conciliengeschichte I. p. 792 sqq. (second ed. 1873). The Didache Literature (fully noticed in Schaff’s monograph

Philoth. Bryennios: Didach; tw'n dwvdeka ajpostovlwn. Constantinople, 1833.

Ad. Harnack: Die Lehre der Zwölf Apostel. Leipz., 1884. Die Apostellehre und die jüdischen beiden Wege, 1886.

Ph. Schaff: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, or the Oldest Church Manual. N. York, 1885. 3d ed. revised and enlarged, 1889.

Several church manuals or directories of public worship, and discipline have come down to us from the first centuries in different languages. They claim directly or indirectly apostolic origin and authority, but are post-apostolic and justly excluded from the canon. They give us important information on the ecclesiastical laws, morals, and customs of the ante-Nicene age.

The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles is the oldest and simplest church manual, of Jewish Christian (Palestinian or Syrian) origin, from the end of the first century, known to the Greek fathers, but only recently discovered and published by Bryennios (1883). It contains in 16 chapters (1) a summary of moral instruction based on the Decalogue and the royal commandment of love to God and man, in the parabolic form of two ways, the way of life and the way of death; (2) directions on the celebration of baptism and the eucharist with the agape; (3) directions on discipline and the offices of apostles (i.e. travelling evangelists), prophets, teachers, bishops (i.e. presbysters), and deacons; (4) an exhortation to watchfulness in view of the coming of the Lord and the resurrection of the saints. A very remarkable book. Its substance survived in the seventh book of the Apostolical Constitutions.
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the holy apostles or Apostolical Church Order, of Egyptian origin, probably of the third century. An expansion of the former in the shape of a fictitious dialogue of the apostles, first published in Greek by Bickell (1843), and then also in Coptic and Syriac. It contains ordinances of the apostles on morals, worship, and discipline.
The Apostolical Constitutions, the most complete and important Church Manual. It is, in form, a literary fiction, professing to be a bequest of all the apostles, handed down through the Roman bishop Clement, or dictated to him. It begins with the words: "The apostles and elders, to all who among the nations have believed in the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace be with you, and peace." It contains, in eight books, a collection of moral exhortations, church laws and usages, and liturgical formularies which had gradually arisen in the various churches from the close of the first century, the time of the Roman Clement, downward, particularly in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome, partly on the authority of apostolic practice. These were at first orally transmitted; then committed to writing in different versions, like the creeds; and finally brought, by some unknown hand, into their present form. The first six books, which have a strongly Jewish-Christian tone, were composed, with the exception of some later interpolations, at the end of the third century, in Syria. The seventh book is an expansion of the Didache of the Twelve Apostles. The eighth book contains a liturgy, and, in an appendix, the apostolical canons. The collection of the three parts into one whole may be the work of the compiler of the eighth book. It is no doubt of Eastern authorship, for the church of Rome nowhere occupies a position of priority or supremacy.(147) The design was, to set forth the ecclesiastical life for laity and clergy, and to establish the episcopal theocracy. These constitutions were more used and consulted in the East than any work of the fathers, and were taken as the rule in matters of discipline, like the Holy Scriptures in matters of doctrine. Still the collection, as such, did not rise to formal legal authority, and the second Trullan council of 692 (known as quinisextum), rejected it for its heretical interpolations, while the same council acknowledged the Apostolical Canons.(148)

The "Apostolical Canons" consist of brief church rules or prescriptions, in some copies eighty-five in number, in others fifty, and pretend to be of apostolic origin, being drawn up by Clement of Rome from the directions of the apostles, who in several places speak in the first person. They are incorporated in the "Constitutions" as an appendix to the eighth book, but are found also by themselves, in Greek, Syriac, Aethiopic, and Arabic manuscripts. Their contents are borrowed partly from the Scriptures, especially the Pastoral Epistles, partly from tradition, and partly from the decrees of early councils at Antioch, Neo-Caesarea, Nicaea, Laodicea, &c. (but probably not Chalcedon, 451). They are, therefore, evidently of gradual growth, and were collected either after the middle of the fourth century,(149) or not till the latter part of the fifth,(150) by some unknown hand, probably also in Syria. They are designed to furnish a complete system of discipline for the clergy. Of the laity they say scarcely a word. The eighty-fifth and last canon settles the canon of the Scripture, but reckons among the New Testament books two epistles of Clement and the genuine books of the pseudo-Apostolic Constitutions.

The Greek church, at the Trullan council of 692, adopted the whole collection of eighty-five canons as authentic and binding, and John of Damascus placed it even on a parallel with the epistles of the apostle Paul, thus showing that he had no sense of the infinite superiority of the inspired writings. The Latin church rejected it at first, but subsequently decided for the smaller collection of fifty canons, which Dionysus Exiguus about the year 500 translated from a Greek manuscript.

§ 57. Church Discipline.

I. Several Tracts of Tertullian (especially De Poenitentia). The Philosophumena of Hippolytus (l. IX.). The Epistles of Cyprian, and his work De Lapsis. The Epistolae Canonicae of Dionysius of Alex., Gregory Thaumaturgus (about 260), and Peter of Alex. (about 306), collected in Routh’s Reliquiae Sacrae, tom. III., 2^nd ed. The Constit. Apost. II. 16, 21–24. The Canons of the councils of Elvira, Arelate, Ancyra, Neo-Caesarea, and Nicaea, between 306 and 325 (in the Collections of Councils, and in Routh’s Reliq. Sacr. tom. IV.).

Morinus: De Disciplina in administratione sacram poenitentiae, Par. 1651 (Venet. 1702).

Marshall: Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church. Lond. 1714 (new ed. 1844).

Fr. Frank: Die Bussdisciplin der Kirche bis zum 7 Jahrh. Mainz. 1868.

On the discipline of the Montanists, see Bonwetsch: Die Geschichte des Montanismus (1881), pp. 108–118.

The ancient church was distinguished for strict discipline. Previous to Constantine the Great, this discipline rested on purely moral sanctions, and had nothing to do with civil constraints and punishments. A person might be expelled from one congregation without the least social injury. But the more powerful the church became, the more serious were the consequences of her censures, and when she was united with the state, ecclesiastical offenses were punished as offenses against the state, in extreme cases even with death. The church always abhorred blood ("ecclesia non sitit sanguiem"), but she handed the offender over to the civil government to be dealt with according to law. The worst offenders for many centuries were heretics or teachers of false doctrine.

The object of discipline was, on the one hand, the dignity and purity of the church, on the other, the spiritual welfare of the offender; punishment being designed to be also correction. The extreme penalty was excommunication, or exclusion from all the rights and privileges of the faithful. This was inflicted for heresy and schism, and all gross crimes, such as, theft, murder, adultery, blasphemy, and the denial of Christ in persecution. After Tertullian, these and like offences incompatible with the regenerate state, were classed as mortal sins,(151) in distinction from venial sins or sins of weakness.(152)

Persons thus excluded passed into the class of penitents,(153) and could attend only the catechumen worship. Before they could be re-admitted to the fellowship of the church, they were required to pass through a process like that of the catechumens, only still more severe, and to prove the sincerity of their penitence by the absence from all pleasures, from ornament in dress, and from nuptial intercourse, by confession, frequent prayer, fasting, almsgiving, and other good works. Under pain of a troubled conscience and of separation from the only saving church, they readily submitted to the severest penances. The church teachers did not neglect, indeed, to inculcate the penitent spirit and the contrition of the heart is the main thing. Yet many of them laid too great stress on certain outward exercises. Tertullian conceived the entire church penance as a "satisfaction" paid to God. This view could easily obscure to a dangerous degree the all-sufficient merit of Christ, and lead to that self-righteousness against which the Reformation raised so loud a voice.

The time and the particular form of the penances, in the second century, was left as yet to the discretion of the several ministers and churches. Not till the end of the third century was a rigorous and fixed system of penitential discipline established, and then this could hardly maintain itself a century. Though originating in deep moral earnestness, and designed only for good, it was not fitted to promote the genuine spirit of repentance. Too much formality and legal constraint always deadens the spirit, instead of supporting and regulating it. This disciplinary formalism first appears, as already familiar, in the council of Ancyra, about the year 314.(154)

Classes of Penitents.

The penitents were distributed into four classes:—

The weepers,(155) who prostrated themselves at the church doors in mourning garments and implored restoration from the clergy and the people.
The hearers,(156) who, like the catechumens called by the same name, were allowed to hear the Scripture lessons and the sermon.
The kneelers,(157) who attended the public prayers, but only in the kneeling posture.
The standers,(158) who could take part in the whole worship standing, but were still excluded from the communion.

Those classes answer to the four stages of penance.(159) The course of penance was usually three or four years long, but, like the catechetical preparation, could be shortened according to circumstances, or extended to the day of death. In the East there were special penitential presbyters,(160) intrusted with the oversight of the penitential discipline.

Restoration.

After the fulfilment of this probation came the act of reconciliation.(161) The penitent made a public confession of sin, received absolution by the laying on of hands of the minister, and precatory or optative benediction,(162) was again greeted by the congregation with the brotherly kiss, and admitted to the celebration of the communion. For the ministry alone was he for ever disqualified. Cyprian and Firmilian, however, guard against the view, that the priestly absolution of hypocritical penitents is unconditional and infallible, and can forestall the judgment of God.(163)

Two Parties.

In reference to the propriety of any restoration in certain cases, there was an important difference of sentiment, which gave rise to several schisms. All agreed that the church punishment could not forestall the judgment of God at the last day, but was merely temporal, and looked to the repentance and conversion of the subject. But it was a question whether the church should restore even the grossest offender on his confession of sorrow, or should, under certain circumstances leave him to the judgment of God. The strict, puritanic party, to which the Montanists, the Novatians, and the Donatists belonged, and, for a time, the whole African and Spanish Church, took ground against the restoration of those who had forfeited the grace of baptism by a mortal sin, especially by denial of Christ; since, otherwise, the church would lose her characteristic holiness, and encourage loose morality. The moderate party, which prevailed in the East, in Egypt, and especially in Rome, and was so far the catholic party, held the principle that the church should refuse absolution and communion, at least on the death-bed, to no penitent sinner. Paul himself restored the Corinthian offender.(164)

The point here in question was of great practical moment in the times of persecution, when hundreds and thousands renounced their faith through weakness, but as soon as the danger was passed, pleaded for readmission into the church, and were very often supported in their plea by the potent intercessions of the martyrs and confessors, and their libelli pacis. The principle was: necessity knows no law. A mitigation of the penitential discipline seemed in such cases justified by every consideration of charity and policy. So great was the number of the lapsed in the Decian persecution, that even Cyprian found himself compelled to relinquish his former rigoristic views, all the more because he held that out of the visible church there was no salvation.

The strict party were zealous for the holiness of God; the moderate, for his grace. The former would not go beyond the revealed forgiveness of sins by baptism, and were content with urging the lapsed to repentance, without offering them hope of absolution in this life. The latter refused to limit the mercy of God and expose the sinner to despair. The former were carried away with an ideal of the church which cannot be realized till the second coming of Christ; and while impelled to a fanatical separatism, they proved, in their own sects, the impossibility of an absolutely pure communion on earth. The others not rarely ran to the opposite extreme of a dangerous looseness, were quite too lenient, even towards mortal sins, and sapped the earnestness of the Christian morality.

It is remarkable that the lax penitential discipline had its chief support from the end of the second century, in the Roman church. Tertullian assails that church for this with bitter mockery. Hippolytus, soon after him, does the same; for, though no Montanist, he was zealous for strict discipline. According to his statement (in the ninth book of his Philosophumena), evidently made from fact, the pope Callistus, whom a later age stamped a saint because it knew little of him, admitted bigami and trigami to ordination, maintained that a bishop could not be deposed, even though he had committed a mortal sin, and appealed for his view to Rom. 14:4, to the parable of the tares and the wheat, Matt. 13:30, and, above all, to the ark of Noah, which was a symbol of the church, and which contained both clean and unclean animals, even dogs and wolves. In short, he considered no sin too great to be loosed by the power of the keys in the church. And this continued to be the view of his successors.

But here we perceive, also, how the looser practice in regard to penance was connected with the interest of the hierarchy. It favored the power of the priesthood, which claimed for itself the right of absolution; it was at the same time matter of worldly policy; it promoted the external spread of the church, though at the expense of the moral integrity of her membership, and facilitated both her subsequent union with the state and her hopeless confusion with the world. No wonder the church of Rome, in this point, as in others, triumphed at last over all opposition.

§ 58. Church Schisms.

I. On the Schism of Hippolytus-. The Philosophumena of Hippol. lib. IX. (ed. Miller, Oxf. 1851, better by Duncker and Schneidewin, Gött. 1859), and the monographs on Hippolytus, by Bunsen, Döllinger, Wordsworth, Jacobi, and others (which will be noticed in chapter XIII. § 183).

On the Schism of Felicissimus: Cyprian: Epist. 38–40, 42, 55.
On the Novatian Schism: Hippol.: Philosoph. 1 IX. Cypr.: Epist. 41–52; and the Epistles of Cornelius of Rome, and Dionys. of Alex., in Euseb. H. E., VI. 43–45; VII. 8. Comp. Lit. in § 200.
On the Meletian Schism: Documents in Latin translation in Maffei: Osservationi Letterarie, Verona, 1738, tom. III p. 11 sqq., and the Greek fragments from the Liber de poenitentia of Peter of Alexandria in Routh: Reliquicae Sacr. vol. II. pp. 21–51. Epiphan.: Haer. 68 (favorable to Meletius); Athanas.: Apol. contra Arianos, § 59; and after him, Socr, Sozom., and Theod. (very unfavorable to Meletius).

Out of this controversy on the restoration of the lapsed, proceeded four schisms during the third century; two in Rome, one in North Africa, and one in Egypt. Montanism, too, was in a measure connected with the question of penitential discipline, but extended also to several other points of Christian life, and will be discussed in a separate chapter.

I. The Roman schism of Hippolytus. This has recently been brought to the light by the discovery of his Philosophumena (1851). Hippolytus was a worthy disciple of Irenaeus, and the most learned and zealous divine in Rome, during the pontificates of Zephyrinus (202–217), and Callistus (217–222). He died a martyr in 235 or 236. He was an advocate of strict views on discipline in opposition to the latitudinarian practice which we have described in the previous section. He gives a most unfavorable account of the antecedents of Callistus, and charges him and his predecessor with the patripassian heresy. The difference, therefore, was doctrinal as well as disciplinarian. It seems to have led to mutual excommunication and a temporary schism, which lasted till a.d. 235. Hippolytus ranks himself with the successors of the apostles, and seems to have been bishop of Portus, the port of Rome (according to later Latin tradition), or bishop of Rome (according to Greek writers). If bishop of Rome, he was the first schismatic pope, and forerunner of Novatianus, who was ordained anti pope in 251.(165) But the Roman Church must have forgotten or forgiven his schism, for she numbers him among her saints and martyrs, and celebrates his memory on the twenty-second of August. Prudentius, the spanish poet, represents him as a Roman presbyter, who first took part in the Novatian schism, then returned to the Catholic church, and was torn to pieces by wild horses at Ostia on account of his faith. The remembrance of the schism was lost in the glory of his supposed or real martyrdom. According to the chronological catalogue of Popes from a.d. 354, a "presbyter" Hippolytus, together with the Roman bishop Pontianus, the successor of Callistus, was banished from Rome in the reign of Alexander Severus (235), to the mines of Sardinia.(166)

The schism of Felicississimus, at Carthage, about the year 250, originated in the personal dissatisfaction of five presbyters with the hasty and irregular election of Cyprian to the bishopric, by the voice of the congregation, very soon after his baptism, a.d. 248. At the head of this opposition party stood the presbyter Novatus, an unprincipled ecclesiastical demagogue, of restless, insubordinate spirit and notorious character,(167) and the deacon Felicissimus, whom Novatus ordained, without the permission or knowledge of Cyprian, therefore illegally, whether with his own hands or through those of foreign bishops. The controversy cannot, however, from this circumstance, be construed, as it is by Neander and others, into a presbyterial reaction against episcopal autocracy. For the opponents themselves afterwards chose a bishop in the person of Fortunatus. The Novatians and the Meletians likewise had the episcopal form of organization, though doubtless with many irregularities in the ordination.

After the outbreak of the Decian persecution this personal rivalry received fresh nourishment and new importance from the question of discipline. Cyprian originally held Tertullian’s principles, and utterly opposed the restoration of the lapsed, till further examination changed his views. Yet, so great was the multitude of the fallen, that he allowed an exception in periculo mortis. His opponents still saw even in this position an unchristian severity, least of all becoming him, who, as they misrepresented him, fled from his post for fear of death. They gained the powerful voice of the confessors, who in the face of their own martyrdom freely gave their peace-bills to the lapsed. A regular trade was carried on in these indulgences. An arrogant confessor, Lucian, wrote to Cyprian in the name of the rest, that he granted restoration to all apostates, and begged him to make this known to the other bishops. We can easily understand how this lenity from those who stood in the fire, might take more with the people than the strictness of the bishop, who had secured himself. The church of Novatus and Felicissimus was a resort of all the careless lapsi. Felicissimus set himself also against a visitation of churches and a collection for the poor, which Cyprian ordered during his exile.

When the bishop returned, after Easter, 251, he held a council at Carthage, which, though it condemned the party of Felicissimus, took a middle course on the point in dispute. It sought to preserve the integrity of discipline, yet at the same time to secure the fallen against despair. It therefore decided for the restoration of those who proved themselves truly penitent, but against restoring the careless, who asked the communion merely from fear of death. Cyprian afterwards, when the persecution was renewed, under Gallus, abolished even this limitation. He was thus, of course, not entirely consistent, but gradually accommodated his principles to circumstances and to the practice of the Roman church.(168) His antagonists elected their bishop, indeed, but were shortly compelled to yield to the united force of the African and Roman churches, especially as they had no moral earnestness at the bottom of their cause.

His conflict with this schismatical movement strengthened Cyprian’s episcopal authority, and led him in his doctrine of the unity of the church to the principle of absolute exclusiveness.

The Novatian schism in Rome was prepared by the controversy already alluded to between Hippolytus and Callistus. It broke out soon after the African schism, and, like it, in consequence of an election of bishop. But in this case the opposition advocated the strict discipline against the lenient practice of the dominant church. The Novatianists(169) considered themselves the only pure communion,(170) and unchurched all churches which defiled themselves by re-admitting the lapsed, or any other gross offenders. They went much farther than Cyprian, even as far as the later Donatists. They admitted the possibility of mercy for a mortal sinner, but denied the power and the right of the church to decide upon it, and to prevent, by absolution, the judgment of God upon such offenders. They also, like Cyprian, rejected heretical baptism, and baptized all who came over to them from other communions not just so rigid as themselves.

At the head of this party stood the Roman presbyter Novatian,(171) an earnest, learned, but gloomy man, who had come to faith through severe demoniacal disease and inward struggles. He fell out with Cornelius, who, after the Decian persecution in 251, was nominated bishop of Rome, and at once, to the grief of many, showed great indulgence towards the lapsed. Among his adherents the above-named Novatus of Carthage was particularly busy, either from a mere spirit of opposition to existing authority, or from having changed his former lax principles on his removal to Rome. Novatian, against his will, was chosen bishop by the opposition. Cornelius excommunicated him. Both parties courted the recognition of the churches abroad. Fabian, bishop of Antioch, sympathized with the rigorists. Dionysius of Alexandria, on the contrary, accused them of blaspheming the most gracious Lord Jesus Christ, by calling him unmerciful. And especially Cyprian, from his zeal for ecclesiastical unity and his aversion to Novatus, took sides with Cornelius, whom he regarded the legitimate bishop of Rome.

In spite of this strong opposition the Novatian sect, by virtue of its moral earnestness, propagated itself in various provinces of the West and the East down to the sixth century. In Phrygia it combined with the remnants of the Montanists. The council of Nicaea recognized its ordination, and endeavored, without success, to reconcile it with the Catholic church. Constantine, at first dealt mildly with the Novatians, but afterwards prohibited them to worship in public and ordered their books to be burnt.

The Meletian schism in Egypt arose in the Diocletian persecution, about 305, and lasted more than a century, but, owing to the contradictory character of our accounts, it is not so well understood. It was occasioned by Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, who, according to one statement, from zeal for strict discipline, according to another, from sheer arrogance, rebelled against his metropolitan, Peter of Alexandria (martyred in 311), and during his absence encroached upon his diocese with ordinations, excommunications, and the like. Peter warned his people against him, and, on returning from his flight, deposed him as a disturber of the peace of the church. But the controversy continued, and spread over all Egypt. The council of Nicaea endeavored, by recognizing the ordination of the twenty-nine Meletian bishops, and by other compromise measures, to heal the division; but to no purpose. The Meletians afterwards made common cause with the Arians.

The Donatist schism, which was more formidable than any of those mentioned, likewise grew out of the Diocletian persecution, but belongs more to the next period.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 118): "Quid Christianis cum regibus ? aut quid episcopis cum palatio?"

(2; original 119): Contra Cels. VIII. 68. Comp. the remarks of Neander, I. 129 (Boston ed.).

(3; original 120): Renan, looking at the gradual development of the hierarchy out of the primitive democracy, from his secular point of view, calls it, the most profound transformation "in history, and a triple abdication: first the club (the congregation) committing its power to the bureau or the committee (the college of presbyters), then the bureau to its president (the bishop) who could say: "Je suis le club,"and finally the presidents to the pope as the universal and infallible bishop; the last process being completed in the Vatican Council of 1870. See his E’glise chrétienne, p. 88, and his English Conferences (Hibbert Lectures, 1880), p 90.

(4; original 121): Comp. Acts 8:4; 9:27; 13:15; 18:26, 28; Rom. 12:6; 1 Cor. 12:10, 28; 14:1-6, 31. Even in the Jewish Synagogue the liberty of teaching was enjoyed, and the elder could ask any member of repute, even a stranger, to deliver a discourse on the Scripture lesson (Luke 4:17; Acts 17:2).

(5; original 122): 1 Pet. 2:5, 9; 5:3; Rev. 1:6; 5:10; 20:6. See Neander, Lightfoot, Stanley, etc., and vol. I. 486 sqq. I add a passage from Hatch’s; Bampton Lectures on The Organization of the Early Christian Churches (1881), p. 139: "In earlier times there was a grander faith. For the kingdom of God was a kingdom of priests. Not only the ’four and twenty elders’ before the throne, but the innumerable souls of the sanctified upon whom ’the second death had no power,’ were ’kings and priests unto God.’ Only in that high sense was priesthood predicable of Christian men. For the shadow had passed: the reality had come: the one High Priest of Christianity was Christ."

(6; original 123): Exod. 19:6.

(7; original 124): 1 Pet. 5:3. Here Peter warns his fellow-presbyters not to lord it (kurieuvein)over the klh'roi or the klhronomiva, i.e., the lot or inheritance of the Lord, the charge allotted to them. Comp. Deut. 4:20; 9:29 (LXX),

(8; original 125): Comp. Eph. 4:11-13

(9; original 126): Rom. 12:1; Phil. 2:17; 1 Pet. 2:5; Heb. 13:16.

(10; original 127): Heb. 13:10. So qusiasthvrion is understood by Thomas Aquinas, Bengel, Bleek, Lünemann, Riehm, etc. Others explain it of the Lord’s table, Lightfoot (p. 263) of the congregation assembled for common worship.

(11; original 128): Ad Trall.c. 7: oJ e[nto;" qusiasthvion wkaqarov" ejstin oJ dev ejkto;" qusiasthrivou w]n ouj kaqarov" ejstin: toutevstin, oJ cwri;" ejpiskovpou kai; presbuterivou kai; diakovnou pravsswn ti, ou" ouj kaqarov" e"jtin th/' suneidhvsei.Funk’s ed. I. 208. Some MSS. omit the second clause, perhaps from homoeoteleuton. Von Gebhardt and Harnack also omit it in the Greek text, but retain it in the Latin (qui extra attare est, non mundus est). The toutevstin evidently requires the clause.

(12; original 129): Cf. ch. 13. See note in Schaff’s edition, p. 206

(13; original 130): Ad Cor. 40: "Unto the high-priest his proper services have been intrusted, and to the priests their proper office is appointed, and upon the levites their proper ministrations are laid. The layman is bound by the layman’s ordinances (oJ lai>ko;" a[nqrwpo" toi'" lai>koi'" prostavgmasin devdetai)." The passage occurs in the text of Bryennios as well as in the older editions, and there is no good reason to suspect it of being an interpolation in the hierarchical interest, as Neander and Milman have done. Bishop Lightfoot, in his St. Clement of Rome, p. 128 sq., puts a mild construction upon it, and says that the analogy does not extend to the three orders, because Clement only knows two (bishops and deacons), and that the high priesthood of Christ is wholly different in kind from the Mosaic high priesthood, and exempt from those very limitations on which Clement dwells in that chapter.

(14; original 131): Sacerdos, also summus sacerdos (Tertullian, De Bapt. 7), and oncepontifex maximus (De Pudic. 1, with ironical reference, it seems, to the Roman bishop); ordo sacerdotalis (De Exhort. Cast. 7); iJereuv" and sometimes ajrciereuv" (Apost. Const. II. 34, 35, 36, 57; III. 9; vi. 15, 18, etc.). Hippolytus calls his office an ajrcierateiva and didaskaliva (Ref. Haer. I. prooem.). Cyprian generally applies the term sacerdos to the bishop, and calls his colleagues consacerdotales.

(15; original 132): Klh'ro",clerus, tavxi"ordo, ordosacerdotalis (Tertulli, De Ehort. Cast. 7), ordo eccelesiasticus orecclesiae (De Monog. 11; De Idolol. 7); klhrikoiv, clerici. The first instance perhaps of the use of clerus in the sense of clergy is in Tertullian,De Monog. c. 12: "Unde enim episcopi et clerus ?" and: "Extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum." Jerome (Ad Nepotian.) explains this exclusive application of clerus to ministers, "vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors, id est, pars clericorum est." The distinction between the regular clergy, who were also monks, and the secular clergy or parish priests, is of much later date (seventh or eighth century).

(16; original 133): Laov", lai>koiv, plebs. In Tertullian, Cyprian, and in the Apostolic Constitutions the term " layman" occurs very often. Cyprian speaks (250) of a " conference held with bishops, presbyters, deacons, confessors, and also with laymen who stood firm"(in persecution), Ep. 30, ad Rom

(17; original 134): .Occasionally, however we find a somewhat wider terminology. Tertullian mentions, De Monog c. 12, the ordo viduarum among the ordines ecclesiastici, and even the much later Jerome (see In Jesaiam, l. v.c. 19, 18), enumerates quinque ecclesiae ordines, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, fideles, catechumenos.

(18; original 135): Pavroikoi, parepivdhmoi, Eph. 2:19; 1 Pet. 2:11.

(19; original 136): or parish, paroikiva.

(20; original 137): Adv. Haer. iv. 8, §.

(21; original 138): Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?

(22; original 139): De Exhort. Cast. c. 7. Comp. also De Monog. 7, 12; De Bapt. 17; De Orat. 18

(23; original 140): . Ad Cor. 44: Suveudokavsh" th'" ejkklhsiva" pavsh" , consentiente universa ecclesia.

(24; original 141): Ep. lx. 3-4 (ed. Goldhorn).

(25; original 142): Ep. lv. 7:"Factus est Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus judicio, de clericorum paene omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tum adfuit suffragio, et de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum virorum collegio."

(26; original 143): Sine consensu plebis.

(27; original 144): Euseb., H. E. VI. 19: "There [in Caesarea] he [Origen] was also requested by the bishops to expound the sacred Scriptures publicly in the church, although he had not yet obtained the priesthood by the imposition of hands." It is true this was made the ground of a charge against him by Demetrius, bishop of Alexandria; but the charge was that Origen had preached "in the presence of bishops," not that he had preached as a layman. And the bishops of Jerusalem and Caesarea adduced several examples of holy bishops inviting capable laymen to preach to the people. Prudentius and Aedesius, while laymen, founded the church in Abyssinia, Socrates, Hist. Eccl. I. 19.

(28; original 145): Const. Apost. VIII. 31. Ambrosiaster, or Hilary the Deacon, in his Com. Ad Eph. 4:11, 12, says that in early times "omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant."

(29; original 146): Can. 98: "Laicus praesentibus clericis nisi ipsis jubentibus, docere non audeat." The 99^th canon forbids women, no matter how "learned or holy," to "presume to teach men in a meeting." Pope Leo I. (Ep 92 and 93) forbids lay preaching in the interest of ecclesiastical order. Charlemagne enacted a law that "a layman ought not to recite a lesson in church, nor to say the Hallelujah but only the Psalm or responses without the Hallelujah."

(30; original 147): The Greek text (of which only a fragment was known before) was found and published by Bryennios, 1875, the Syriac version by Bensley, 1876. See Harnack’s ed. in the Patres Apost. vol. I., and Lightfoot, S. Clement of Rome, Appendix (1877). Harnack, Hilgenfeld, and Hatch (l.c. 114; note) suppose that the homily was delivered by a layman, but Lightfoot (p. 304) explains the language above alluded to as a common rhetorical figure by which the speaker places himself on a level with his audience.

(31; original 148): JUpodiavkonoi,subdiaconi, perhaps the same as the uJphrevtai of the New Testament and the earlier fathers.

(32; original 149): [Anagnwstai, lectores, mentioned by Tertullian.

(33; original 150): [Akovluqoi, acolythi.

(34; original 151): [Exorkistaiv,exorcistae

(35; original 152): Daimonizovmenoi, ejnergouvmenoi

(36; original 153): Yavltai, psalmistae cantores

(37; original 154): qurwroiv, pulwroiv, ostiarii janitores.

(38; original 155): In Euseb. vi. 43.

(39; original 156): Such is the Swedish and Danish Lutheran, the American Methodist, and the Moravian episcopate, which recognizes the validity of non-episcopal orders. The Anglican church harbors a high-church and a low-church theory of episcopacy, the one derived from the mediaeval hierarchy, the other from the Reformation, but repudiates the primacy as an antichristian usurpation, although it must be confessed to be almost as old as episcopacy, its roots going back to Clement of Rome, or at all events to the age of Irenaeus.

(40; original 157): Comp. Euseb. vii. 27-30

(41; original 158): See the passages quoted by Gieseler, vol. I. 282 sq. (Harpers’ ed. of New York.)

(42; original 159): This is the Greek, the Roman Catholic, and the high Anglican theory. It is advocated by a very few Continental Protestants as Chevalier Bunsen, Rothe and Thiersch (an Irvingite), who trace episcopacy to John in Ephesus.

(43; original 160): So the Lutheran, Presbyterian, and some eminent Episcopal writers. We mention Mosheim, Neander, Lightfoot, Stanley, Hatch. Also Baur and Renan, who judge as mere critics.

(44; original 161): Bishop Lightfoot (l.c. p. 194) thus states the question with his own answer: "The episcopate was formed, not out of the apostolic order by localization, but out of the presbyterial by elevation; and the title, which originally was common to all, came at length to be appropriated to the chief among them."

(45; original 162): Acts 15:13; 21:18. Comp. vol. I. 264 sqq.

(46; original 163): jEpivskopo" evpiskovpwn.

(47; original 164): Rev. 1:20. For the different views see vol. I. 497

(48; original 165): Quis dives salvus, c. 42.

(49; original 166): Adv.Haer. III. 3

(50; original 167): De PraescR.C. 32

(51; original 168): H. E.III. 36

(52; original 169): Catal. sub Polyc

(53; original 170): H. E. III. 11. Comp. the fragment of Hegesippus, in IV. 22. Lightfoot (Philippians p. 202) remarks against Rothe’s inference: "The account of Hegesippus confines the object of this gathering to the appointment of a successor of St. James. If its deliberations had exerted that vast and permanent influence on the future of the church which Rothe’s theory supposes, it is scarcely possible that this early historian should have been ignorant of the fact, or knowing it should have passed it over in silence."

(54; original 171): Ad Corinth. c. 44: OiJ ajpovstoloi hJmwn e[gnwsan dia; tou' kurivouhJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' o{ti e[ri" e[stai ejpi; tou' ojnovmato" th'" ejpiskoph'" . Dia; tauvthn outh;n aijtivan provgnwsin eijlhfovte" teleivan katevsthsan tou;" proeirhmevnou" kai; metaxu; ejpinomh;n »or ejpimonh;n¼ e[dwkan, o{pw" , eja;n koimhqw'sin, diadevxwntai e{teroi dedokimasmevnoi a[ndre" th;n leitourgivan aujtw'n. " Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of the bishop’s office [i.e., the office of the ministry, in general; Comp. Acts 1:20; Sept. Num. 4:16; Ps. 109:8; 2 Chr. 23:18]. For this cause, therefore, having complete foreknowledge, they appointed the aforesaid persons [i.e., presbyter-bishops and deacons; Comp. c. 42 and 57], and afterwards they made the disposition [or provided a continuance, if we read with Lightfoot ejpimonhvn.], that if these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed to their ministration."

(55; original 172): The reading is obscure and disputed. The Alexandrian MS. reads: ejpinomhvn, the Constantinopolitan: ejpidomhvn (both have EIII-OMHN). The former word is rare (from or from nevmw or fromnovmo") is not found in the dictionaries; and hence various emendations have been proposed, as avponomhvn (Junius), ejpidochvn (Bryennios), ejpibolhvn (von Gebhardt and Harnack), ejpimonhvn (Bunsen, Lightfoot), ejpitrophvn (Hilgenfeld), ejpiloghvn, ejpinomivan, ejpistolhvn, ejpitaghvn, e[ti novmon. Rothe (Anfänge, p. 374) ingeniously translates ejpinomhvn " testamentary disposition" (testamentarische Verfügung = ejpinomiv" ,an after-enactment, a codicil), and identifies it with the deuvterai diatavxei" of the fragment of Irenaeus. But this is rejected by the latest editors as untenable. Lightfoot (with Bunsen) reads ejpimonhvn, permanence (not " life-tenure,"as Bunsen rendered it). The drift of the passage, however, does not so much depend upon the meaning of this word as upon the question whether the apostles, or the congregational officers are the grammatical subjects of the following verb, koimhqw'sin.

(56; original 173): See also Gebhardt and Harnack (presbyteri et diaconi illi, quos apostoli ipsi constituerunt), the Roman Catholic editor Funk ("koimhqw'sin, sc. episcopi et diaconi de quorum successione Clemens agit"), and Bishop Lightfoot ("the first generation of presbyters appointed by the apostles themselves"). (Comp. also on this whole passage Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 203, where he refutes Rothe’s interpretation; Baur Ursprung des Episcopats, p. 53; Ewald, Gesch. des Volkes Israel, VII. 300; Ritschl, Altkath. K. 358 and 413, and Ilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, 70.

(57; original 174): Hence Rothe traces the institution to John. And Bishop Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 204) is inclined to this view: "Asia Minor was the nurse, if not the mother of episcopacy in the Gentile churches. So important an institution, developed in a Christian community, of which St. John was the living centre and guide, could hardly, have grown up without his sanction: and early tradition very distinctly connects his name with the appointment of bishops in these parts." He repeats the same view more confidently in his Ignat. and Polyc., I. 377.

(58; original 175): Acts 20:17, 28; Phil. 1:1; Tit. 1:5; 1 Tim. 3:1-7, 8-13; 1 Pet. 5:1, 2. Comp. the author’s Hist. of the Apost. Ch. §§ 132, 133, pp. 522-531 (N. York ed.); and vol. I. p. 492 sqq.

(59; original 176): C. 42. Comp. the Commentary of Lightfoot. "It is impossible that he should have omitted the presbyters, more especially as his one object is to defend their authority, which had been assailed. The words ejpivskopo;" and presbuvtero" therefore are synonymes in Clement, as they are in the apostolic writers. In Ignatius and Polycarp they first appear as distinct titles."

(60; original 177): The hJgouvmenoi, c. 1, also, and the prohgouvmenoi, c. 21, are not bishops, but congregational officers collectively, as in Heb. 13:7, 17, 24.

(61; original 178): Ch. 15: Ceirotonhvsate eJautoi'" ejpiskovpou" kai; diakovnou". See Schaff’s monograph on the Didache, p. 211 sq

(62; original 179): Adv. Haer. iii. 2, §5. Comp. also the letter of Irenaeus to the Roman bishop Victor in Euseb., v. 24.

(63; original 180): Comp. 2 Jno. 1. and 1.

(64; original 181): Ad Titum i. 7. Comp. Epist. 83 and 85.

(65; original 182): Ad Tit. i. 7: "Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt, see ex ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse majores et in commune debere ecclesiam regere." The Roman deacon Hilary (Ambrosiaster) says, ad 1 Tim. 3:10:"Hic enim episcopus est, qui inter presbyteros primus est." Comp. also Chrysostom Hom. xi. in Epist, 1 ad Tim. 38.

(66; original 183): Epist. ad Evangelum (Opp. iv. p. 802, ed. Martinay): Alexandriae a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi elegant de se, quem industrium noverint et archidiaconum vocent.

(67; original 184): Ed. Oxon. 1658, p. 331: "Constituit evangelista Marcus una cum Hakania patriarcha duodecim presbyteros, qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret patriachatus, unum e duodecim presbyteris eligerent, cnius capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et patriarcham crearent, deinde virum aliquem insignem eligerent, quem secum presbyterum constituerent,loco ejus, qui factus est patriarcha, ut ita semper exstarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexandriae institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilcet patriarchas crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempera Alexandri patriarchae Alexandriae. Is autem vetuit, ne deinceps patriarcham presbyteri crearent. Et decrervit, ut mortuo patriarcha convenient episcopi, qui patriarcham ordinarent."

(68; original 185): Mark 5:35, 36, 38; Luke 8:41-49; Acts 18:8-17.

(69; original 186): The philanthropic and financial aspect of episcopacy has been brought out very fully by Hatch, in his Bampton Lectures on The Organization of the Early Christian Churches, Lect. II.

(70; original 187): The question of the genuineness will be discussed in § 165. Cureton (1845) Bunsen, Lipsius, and others accept the Syriac version as the original form of the Ignatian epistles, and regard even the short Greek text as corrupt, but yet as dating from the middle of the second century. Rothe, Hefele, Schaff (first ed.), Düsterdieck, Uhlhorn, Zahn, Harnack, defend the genuineness of the shorter Greek recension. The larger Greek recension is universally given up as spurious. The origin of the hierarchical system is obscured by pious frauds. See below, § 164 and 165.

(71; original 188): In the Syriac Ep. to Polycarp, the word bishop occurs four times; in the Syriac Ep. to the Ephesians, God is blessed for having given them such a bishop as Onesimus. In the shorter Greek Ep. to Polycarp episcopacy is mentioned in the salutation, and in three of the eight chapters (ch. 5 twice, ch. 6 twice, ch. 8 once). In the 21 chapters of the Greek Ep. to the Ephesians, the word bishop occurs thirteen times, presbyter three times, and deacon once (in the first six chapters, and ch. 21). In the Greek Trallians, the bishop appears nine times; in the Magnesians, eleven times; in the Philadelphians, eight times; in the Smynaeans, nine times. Thus in the three Syriac Epistles the bishop is mentioned but six times; in the seven shorter Greek Epistles about fifty times; but one of the strongest passages is found in the Syriac Epistle to Polycarp (ch. 5. and 6.).

(72; original 189): Except that Ignatius speaks of himself as "the bishop of Syria," who "has found favor with God, being sent from the East to the West" (ch. 2). The verb ejpiskopevw is also used, but of Christ (ch. 9).

(73; original 190): jEpivskopo" eij" tovpon qeou' prokaqhvmeno", each bisbop being thus a sort of pope.

(74; original 191): Zahn reads, Ad Polyc. cap. 5: eja;n gnwsqh/' plevon tou' ejpiskovpou,i.e . if he be better known or more esteemed than the bishop. The other reading is, plhvn, beyond, or apart from.

(75; original 192): Ad Polyc. cap. 5 and 6. The Greek text varies but little from the Syriac.

(76; original 193): Ad Ephes. c. 4: Ou{tw" sunhvrmostai tw/' ejpiskovpw/. wJ" cordai; kiqavra/.

(77; original 194): Ad Ephes c. 6: To;n ouejpivskopon dh'lon o{ti wJ" aujto;n to;n kuvrion dei' problevpein.

(78; original 195): Ad Magnes. c. 6.

(79; original 196): Ibid. c. 13. The desire for "carnal" unity is significant,

(80; original 197): Ad Trallian. c. 2: jAnagkai'on ejsti;n, w{sper poiei'te, a[neu tou' ejpiskovpou mhde;n pravssein uJma'" ktl.

(81; original 198): Ad Philad. c. 3.

(82; original 199): Ad. Smyrn. c. 8: [Opou a[n fanh/' oJ ejpivskopo", ekei' to; plh'qo" e]stw, w{sper a_]n h Cristo;s jIhsou'" , ejkei' hJ kaqolikh; ejkklhsiva.

(83; original 200): Ad Smyrn. c. 9: JO timw'n ejpivskopon uJpo; qeou' tetivmhtai: oJ lavqra ejpiskovpou ti pravsswn tw/' diabovlw/ latreuvei..

(84; original 201): Comp. Adv. Haer. III. 3, §1, 2; 4, 1; IV. 33, §8. I remember what great stress the late Dr. Posey, when I saw him at Oxford in 1844, laid on the testimony of Irenaeus for the doctrine of an unbroken episcopal succession, as the indispensable mark of a genuine Catholic church; while he ignored the simultaneous growth of the primacy, which a year afterwards carried his friend, J. H. Newman, over to the church of Rome. The New Testament is the only safe guide and ultimate standard in all matters of faith and discipline. The teaching of Irenaeus on episcopacy is well set forth by Lightfoot (l.c. p. 237): Irenaeus followed Ignatius after an interval of about two generations. With the altered circumstances of the Church, the aspect of the episcopal office has also undergone a change. The religious atmosphere is now charged with heretical speculations of all kinds. Amidst the competition of rival teachers. all eagerly bidding for support, the perplexed believer asks for some decisive test by which he may try the claims of disputants. To this question Irenaeeus supplies an answer. ’If you wish,’ he argues, ’to ascertain the doctrine of the Apostles, apply to the Church of the Apostles.’ In the succession of bishops tracing their descent from the primitive age and appointed by the Apostles themselves, you have a guarantee for the transmission of the pure faith, which no isolated, upstart, self-constituted teacher can furnish. There is the Church of Rome for instance, whose episcopal pedigree is perfect in all its links, and whose earliest bishops, Linus and Clement, associated with the Apostles themselves: there is the Church of Smyrna again, whose bishop Polycarp, the disciple of St. John, died only the other day. Thus the episcopate is regarded now not so much as the centre of ecclesiastical unity, but rather as the depositary of apostolic tradition."

(85; original 202): Comp. Adv. Haer.III. 2, §2; IV. 26; V. 20; and his letter to Victor of Rome in Eusebius, H E. V. 24.

(86; original 203): De Praescr. HaeR.C. 32, 36

(87; original 204): . Non ecclesia numerus episcoporum. De Pudic. c. 21. Comp. § 42, p. 128.

(88; original 205): "As Cyprian crowned the edifice of episcopal power, so also was he the first to put forward without relief or disguise the sacerdotal assumptions; and so uncompromising was the tone in which he asserted them, that nothing was left to his successors but to enforce his principles and reiterate his language." Lightfoot l. c. p. 257. "If with Ignatius the bishop is the centre of Christian unity, if with Irenaeus he is the depository of apostolic tradition, with Cyprian he is the absolute viceregerent of Christ in thing spiritual."Ibid. p. 238.

(89; original 206): Epist. lxvi. 3. Comp. Ep. lv. 20: Christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est

(90; original 207): De Unit. Eccl. c. 5:Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur. Comp.Ep. lv. 20: Quum sit a Christo una ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus.

(91; original 208): Can. 3:Presbyter quum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant.

(92; original 209): Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandr. Annal. interpr. Pocockio (Oxon. 1658, I. p. 331). See the passage quoted, p. 141.

(93; original 210): Or Ambrosiaster, Ad Eph. iv. 11.

(94; original 211): Hom. iii. 60, 62, 66, 70. Ep. Clem. ad Jac. 17. Comp. Recogn. iii. 66.

(95; original 212): Hom. xi. 36; Recogn. iii. 66; vi. 15.

(96; original 213): jEpivskopo" ejpiskovpwn , Hom. xi. 35; Recogn. iv. 35.

(97; original 214): The country bishops (cwrepivskopoi) appear first in the councils of Ancyra and Neo-Caesarea, 314, and again in the Council of Nicaea. They continued to exist in the East till the 9^th century, when they were superseded by the exarchs (e[xarcoi) In the West, the chorepiscopi performed regular episcopal functions, without proper subordination to the diocesans, and hence excited jealousy and hostility till the office was abolished under Charlemagne, and continued only as a title of various cathedral dignitaries. See Haddan in Smith & Cheetham Dict. Chr. Ant. I. 354, and the authorities quoted there

(98; original 215): mhtropovlei", Hence mhtropolitai.

(99; original 216): Sedes apostolicae, matrices ecclesiae.

(100; original 217): JH ejkklhsiva tou' qeou', hJ paroikou'sa JRwvmhn th/' ejkklhsiva/ tou' qeou', th/' paroikouvsh/ Kovrinqon. "The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which mourns at Corinth!"Pavroiko" is a temporary, kavtoiko" a permanent, resident. The Christians appear here as strangers and pilgrims in this world, who have their home in heaven; comp. 1 Pet. 1:17; 2:11; Heb. 11:13

(101; original 218): This is very evident towards the close from the newly discovered portions, chs. 59, 62 and 63 edition of Bryennios, Const. 1875). The chapters should new light on the origin of the papal domination. Comp. the judicious remarks of Lightfoot in his Appendix to S. Clement of Rome (Lond. 1877), p. 252 sqq.

(102; original 219): It is quite evident from the Epistle itself that at that time the Roman congregation was still governed by a college of presbyters (collegialisch, nicht monarchisch, as Langen, l.c. p. 81, expresses it).

(103; original 220): Prokaqhmevnh th'" ajgavph" , praesidens in caritate. Inscription. Zahn in his ed., p. 75, says: "In caritatis operibus semper primum locum sibi vindicavit ecclesia Romana." Some Roman Catholic writers (as Möhler, Patrol. I. 144) explain the phrase very artificially and hierarchically: "head of the love-union of Christendom (Vorsteherin des Liebesbundes)."Agape never means church, but either love, or love-feast. See Langen, l.c. p. 94.

(104; original 221): Euseb., Hist. Eccl. IV. 23, 10: ejx ajrch'" uJmi'n e[qo" ejsti; tou'to, pavnta" me;n ajdelfou;" poikivlw" eujergetei'n, ejkklhsivai" te pollai'" tai'" mata; pa'san povlin ejfovdia pevmpein

(105; original 222): The famous Passage, Adv. Haer. iii. §2, is only extant in Latin, and of disputed interpretation: "Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem (according to Massuet’s conjecture: potiorem) principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesia, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ab apostolis traditio." In the original Greek it probably read: Prov" tauvthn ga;r th;n ejkklhsivan dia; th;n iJkanwtevran prwtei'an sumbaivnein (or, in the local sense, sunevrcesqai) dei' (according to others: ajnavgkh, natural necessity) pa'san th;n ejkklhsivan, etc. The stress lies on principalitas, which stands probably for prwteiva (so Thiersch and Gieseler). Comp. Iren. IV. 38, 3, where prwteuvei is rendered principatitatem habet. Stieren and Ziegler (Irenaeus, 1871, p. 152), however, translate propter potentiorem principalitatem: oJia; th;n iJkanwtevran ajrcaiovthta, " on account of the higher antiquity."Comp. on the whole passage an essay by Thiersch in the " Studien und Kritiken" 1842, 512 sqq.; Gieseler I. 1. p. 214 (§ 51); Schneemann: Sancti Irenaei de ecclesia Romanae principatu testimonium commentatum et defensum, Freiburg i. B. 1870, and Langen, l.c. p. 170 sqq. Langen (who is an Old Catholic of the Döllinger school) explains: " Die potior principalitas bezeichnet den Vorrang, welchen die Kirche der Hauptptstadt als solche vor alten übrigen Kirchen besass ... die Hauptstadt war das Centrum des damaligen Weltverkehrs, und in Folge dessen der Sammelplats von Christen aller Art."He defends the local sense of convenire by parallel passages from Herveus of Bordeaux and Hugo Eterianus (p. 172 sq.). But the moral sense (to agree)seems more natural.

(106; original 223): Petri cathedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est. Epist. lv. c. 19 (ed. Bal.) Ad Cornelium episc. Rom. In Goldhorn’s ed., Ep. lix. 19.

(107; original 224): Ecclesiae catholicae radicem et matricem. Ep. xl. 2 ed. Bal. (xlviii. ed. Goldh.). Other passages in Cyrian favorable to the Roman see are either interpolations or corruptions in the interest of the papacy.

(108; original 225): Irenaeus recognizes among the Roman bishops from Clement to Eleutherus (177), all of whom he mentions by name, only one martyr, to wit, Telesphorus, of whom he says: o{" kai; ejndovxw" ejmartuvrhse, P, Adv. Haer. III., c. 3, §3. So Eusebius, H. E. V. 6. From this we must judge of the value of the Roman Catholic tradition on this point. It is so remote from the time in question as to be utterly unworthy of credit.

(109; original 226): Cardinal Newman says (Apologia, p. 407): "The see of Rome possessed no great mind in the whole period of persecution. Afterwards for a long time it had not a single doctor to show. The great luminary of the western world is St. Augustin; he, no infallible teacher, has formed the intellect of Europe." Dean Stanley remarks (Christian Institutions, p. 241): "There have been occupants of the sees of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Canterbury who have produced more effect on the mind of Christendom by their utterances than any of the popes."

(110; original 227): He calls him in the ninth book of the Philosophumenon, an ajnhvr ijdiwvth" kai; aijscrokevrdh" .

(111; original 228): Or at least the first appointed by Peter. Tertullian De Praescr. HaeR.C. 32 "Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum." The Apost. Const. VII. 6 make Linus (Comp. 2 Tim. 4:21) the first bishop, appointed by Paul, Clement the next, appointed by Peter. According to Epiphanius (Haer. XXVII. 6) Clement was ordained by Peter, but did not enter upon his office till after the death of Linus and Anacletus.

(112; original 229): The Catalogue of Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III. 3, 3) down to his own time (a.d. 177) is this: The apostles Peter and Paul, Linos, Anacletos, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystos, Telesphoros, who died gloriously as a martyr, Hyginos, Pios, Aniketos, Soter, Eleutheros, who then held "the inheritance of the episcopate in the twelfth place from the apostles." Irenaeus adds: "In this order and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles and the preaching of the truth have come down to us."

(113; original 230): Langen (l. c .p. 100 sqq.) carries the line of Roman presbyter-bishops down to Alexander, and dates the monarchical constitution of the Roman church (i.e. the diocesan episcopacy) from the age of Trajan or Hadrian. Irenaeus (in Euseb. V. 27) calls the Roman bishops down to Anicetus (154) presbuvteroi.

(114; original 232): The Church of England retained the term "catholic" in the Creed, and the, ante-papal and anti-papal use of this; term ( = general, universal); while Luther in his Catechism, and the Moravian church (in her liturgy) substituted the word "Christian," and surrendered the use of "catholic" to the Roman Catholics. "Roman" is a sectarian term (in opposition to Greek Catholic and Evangelical Catholic).

(115; original 233): Credo ecclesiam; yet not in (eij") ecclesiam, as in the case of the Divine persons

(116; original 234): Communio sanctorum. This clause, however, is not found in the original Creed of the Roman church before the fifth century.

(117; original 235): a[vqrwpon eij" e[nwsin kathrtismevnon.

(118; original 236): Ad Smyrn. c. 8.

(119; original 237): ·Ad Ephes. c. 5. Ad Trall. c.7. Ad Philad. c. 3, etc

(120; original 238): Adv. Haer. iii. 24."Ubi ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic et omnis gratia." Protestantism would say, conversely, putting the Spirit first: "Ubi Spiritus Dei, ibi ecclesia et omnis gratia."

(121; original 239): Hom. 3 in Josuam, c. 5. "Extra hanc domum, id est extra ecclesiam, nemo salvatur."

(122; original 240): "Christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est."

(123; original 241): "Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem."

(124; original 242): "Extra ecclesia nulla salus." Yet he nowhere says "extra Romanam nulla salus."

(125; original 243): John 10:16. It was a characteristic, we may say, an ominous mistake of the Latin Vulgate to render poivmnh by ovile (confounding it with aujlhv). The Authorized Version has copied the mischievous blunder ("one fold"), but the Revision of 1881 has corrected it.

(126; original 244): Hatch, l.c. p. 187 sq.

(127; original 245): Concilium, first used in the ecclesiastical sense by Tertullian, De Iejun. c. 13, De Pudic. c. 10; suvnodo" , assembly, meeting for deliberation (Herodotus, Thucydides, Plato, Demosthenes, etc.), first used of Christian assemblies in the pseudo-Apostolical Constit. V. 20, and the Canons, c. 36 or 38. It may designate a diocesan, or provincial, or general Christian convention for either elective, or judicial, or legislative, or doctrinal purposes

(128; original 246): a.d. 50. Acts 15 and Gal. 2. Comp. also the Lord’s promise to be present where even the smallest number are assembled in his name, Matt. 18:19, 20. See vol. I. §64, p. 503 sqq

(129; original 247): On the provincial councils of the Roman empire see Marquardt,Römische Staatsverwaltung, I. 365-377, and Hatch, l.c. p. 164 sqq. The deliberations were preceded by a sacrifice, and the president was called highpriest.

(130; original 248): That is, within the limits of the old Roman empire, as the orbis terrarum. There never was an absolutely universal council. Even the seven oecumenical Councils from 325 to 787 were confined to the empire, and poorly attended by Western bishops. The Roman Councils held after that time (down to the Vatican Council in 1870) claim to be oecumenical, but exclude the Greek and all evangelical churches.

(131; original 249): Comp. Acts 15:6, 7, 12, 13, 23, where the "brethren" are mentioned expressly, besides the apostles and elders, as members of the council, even at the final decision and in the pastoral letter. On the difference of reading, see vol. I. 505.

(132; original 250): Cyprian, Opera, p. 329, ed. Baluz. In the acts of this council, however (pp. 330-338), only the bishops appear as voters, from which some writers infer that the laity, and even the presbyters, had no votum decisium. But in several old councils the presbyters and deacons subscribed their names after those of the bishops; see Harduin, Coll. Conc. I. 250 and 266; Hefele I. 19.

(133; original 251): Epp.xi., xiii., lxvi., lxxi.

(134; original 252): Ep. xxxi.

(135; original 253): Cyprian, Ep. liv., on the ground of the e[doxe tw/' aJgivw/ pneuvmati kai; hJmi'n, visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis, Acts 15:28. So also, the council of Arles, a.d. 314: Placuit ergo, presente Spiritu Sancto et angelis ejus (Harduin, Coll. Concil. I. 262).

(136; original 254): Epistolae formatae, gravmmata tetupwmevna.

(137; original 255): This policy was inaugurated by Constantine I. a.d. 326 (Cod. Theod. 16, 5, 1). He confined the privileges and immunities which, in 313, he had granted to Christians in his later enactments to "Catholicae legis observatoribus." He ratified the Nicene creed and exiled Arius (325), although he afterwards wavered and was baptized by a semi-Arian bishop (337). His immediate successors wavered likewise. But as a rule the Byzantine emperors recognized the decisions of councils in dogma and discipline, and discouraged and ultimately prohibited the formation of dissenting sects. The state can, of course, not prevent dissent as an individual opinion; it can only prohibit and punish the open profession. Full religious liberty requires separation of church and state.

(138; original 256): Hefele, Gams, and Dale decide in favor of this date against the superscription which puts it down to the period of the Council of Nicaea (324). The chief reason is that Hosius, bishop of Cordova, could not be, present in 324 when he was in the Orient, nor at any time after 307, when he joined the company of Constantine as one of his private councillors.

(139; original 257): "Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.""There shall be no pictures in the church, lest what is worshipped [saints] and adored [God and Christ] should be depicted on the walls."

(140; original 258): The last is the interpretation of the canon by DeRossi, in Roma sotteranea, Tom. I., p. 97, and Hefele, I. 170. But Dale (p. 292 sqq.) thinks that it was aimed against the idolatry of Christians.

(141; original 259): The best accounts of the Synod of Elvira are given by Ferdinand de Mendoza, De confirmando Concilio Illiberitano ad Clementem VIII., 1593 (reprinted in Mansi II. 57-397); Fr. Ant. Gonzalez, Collect. Can. Ecclesiae Hispaniae, Madrid, 1808, new ed. with Spanish version, 1849 (reprinted in Bruns, Bibl. Eccl. Tom. I. Pars II. 1 sqq.); Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. 148-192 (second ed., 1873; or 122 sqq., first ed.); Gams, Kirchengesch. von Spanien (1864), vol. II. 1-136; and Dale in his monograph on the Synod of Elvira, London, 1882.

(142; original 260): Concilium Arelatense, from Arelate or Arelatum Sextanorum, one of the chief Roman cities in South-Eastern Gaul, where Constantine at one time resided, and afterwards the West Gothic King Eurich. It was perhaps the seat of the first bishopric of Gaul, or second only to that of Lyons and Vienne. Several councils were held in that city, the second in 353 during the Arian controversy.

(143; original 261): Not 633, as McClintock & Strong’s "Cyclop" has it sub Arles.

(144; original 262): See Eus. H. E. x. 5; Mansi, II. 463-468; München, Das ersten Concil von Arles (in the "Bonner Zeitschrift für Philos. und kath. Theol.," No. 9, 26, 27), and Hefele I. 201-219 (2^nd ed.).

(145; original 263): Hefele, vol. I. 222 sqq., gives the canons in Greek and German with explanation. He calls it a Synodus plenaria, i.e., a general council for the churches of Asia Minor and Syria. See also Mansi II. 514 sqq. Two Arian Synods were held at Ancyra in 358 and 375.

(146; original 264): See Hefele I. 242-251.

(147; original 265): Harnack (l.c. 266-268) identifies Pseudo-Clement with Pseudo-Ignatius and assigns him to the middle of the fourth century.

(148; original 266): Turrianus Bovius; and the eccentric Whiston regarded these pseudoapostolic Constitutions as a genuine work of the apostles; containing Christ’s teaching during the forty days between the Resurrection and Ascension. But Baronius, Bellarmin, and Petavius attached little weight to them, and the Protestant scholars, Daillé and Blondel, attacked and overthrew their genuineness and authority. The work is a gradual growth, with many repetitions, interpolations, and contradictions and anachronisms. James, who was beheaded (a.d. 44), is made to sit in council with Paul (VI. 14), but elsewhere is represented as dead (V. 7). The apostles condemn post-apostolic heresies and heretics (VI. 8), and appoint days of commemoration of their death (VIII. 33). Episcopacy is extravagantly extolled. P. de Lagarde says: (Rel juris Eccles. ant., Preface, p. IV.): "Communis vivorum doctorum fere omnium nunc invaluit opinio eas [constitutiones] saeculo tertio clam succrevisse et quum sex aliquando libris septimo et octavo auctas esse postea."

(149; original 267): As Bickell supposes. Beveridge put the collection in the third century.

(150; original 268): According to Daillé, Dr. von Drey, and Mejer.

(151; original 269): Peccata mortalia, or, ad mortem; after a rather arbitrary interpretation of 1 John 5:16. Tertullian gives seven mortal sins: Homocidium idololatria, fraus, negatio blasphemia. utique et moechia et. fornicatio et si qua alia violatio templi Dei. De pudic. c. 19, These he declares irremissibilia,horum ultra exoratur non erit Christus; that is, if thev be committed after baptism; for baptism washes, away all former guilt. Hence he counselled delay of baptism.

(152; original 270): Peccata, venialia.

(153; original 271): Poenitentes.

(154; original 272): Can. 4 sqq. See Hefele, Conciliengesch (second ed.) I. 225 sqq. Comp. also the fifth canon of Neocaesarea, and Hefele, p. 246.

(155; original 273): Prosklaivonte", flentes; also called ceimavzonte", hiemantes

(156; original 274): !Akrowvmenoi, audientes, or auditores. The fourteenth canon of Nicaea (Hefele I. 418) directs that "Catechumens who had fallen, should for three years be only hearers, but afterwards pray with the Catechumens."

(157; original 275): Gonuklivnonte", genuflectentes: also uJpopivptonte" , Substrati. The terra govnu klivnwnas designating a class of penitents occurs only in the 5^th canon of the Council of Neocaesarea, held after 314 and before 325.

(158; original 276): Sunistavmenoi, consistentes.

(159; original 277): Provsklausi", fletus; ajkrovasi" auditus; uJpovptwsi", prostratio, humiliatio; suvstasi", consistentia. The last three classes are supposed to correspond to three classes of catechumens, but without good reason. There was only one class of catechumens, or at most two classes. See below, § 72.

(160; original 278): Presbuvteroi ejpi; th'" metanoiva", presbyteri poenitentiarii

(161; original 279): Reconciliatio.

(162; original 280): The declarative, and especially the direct indicative or judicial form of absolution seems to be of later origin.

(163; original 281): Cypr. Epist. LV., c. 15: "Neque enim prejudicamus Domino judicaturo, quominus si penitentiam plenam et justam peccatoris invenerit tunc ratum faciat, quod a nobis fuerit hic statutum. Si vero nos aliquis poenitentiae simulatione deluserit, Deus, cui non deridetur, et qui cor hominis intuetur, de his, quae nos minus perspeximus, judicet et servorum suorum sententiam Dominus mendet." Comp. the similar passages in Epist. LXXV. 4, and De Lapsi, c. 17. But if the church can err in imparting absolution to the unworthy, as Cyprian concedes, she can err also in withholding absolution and in passing sentence of excommunication.

(164; original 282): 1 Cor. 5:1 sqq. Comp. 2 Cor. 2:5 sqq.

(165; original 283): See the particulars in § 183, and in Döllinger’s Hippol. and Call., Engl. transl. by A. Plummer (1876), p. 92 sqq.

(166; original 284): See Mommsen, Über den Chronographen vom Jahr 354 (1850), Lipsius, Chronologie der Röm. Bischöfe, p. 40 sqq.; Döllinger, I.c. p. 332 sqq.; Jacobi in Herzog² VI. 142 sqq.

(167; original 285): Cyprian charges him with terrible cruelties, such as robbing widows and orphans, gross abuse of his father, and of his wife even during her pregnancy; and says, that he was about to be arraigned for this and similar misconduct when the Decian persecution broke out. Ep. 49.

(168; original 286): In Ep. 52, Ad Antonianum, he tried to justify himself in regard to this change in his views.

(169; original 287): Novatiani, Novatianenses.

(170; original 288): Kaqaroiv.

(171; original 289): Eusebius and the Greeks call him Noouavto", and confound him with Novatus of Carthage. Dionysius of Alex., however, calls him Noouatianov".

脚注

Best guess 对照表

正文及中文脚注中带上标 * 的外文为 best guess，尚未逐项核实；原始字串保留如下。

原字串	Best guess	语言	出现位置	说明
klh'roi	κλῆροι	Greek	正文第 10 段	据旧字体编码推复，保留复数形式。
lai>ko" a[nqrwpo"	λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος	Greek	正文第 12 段	据编码及革利免引文推复。
a[ggeloi	ἄγγελοι	Greek	正文第 39 段	编码对应使者一词的复数。
deuvterai tw'n ajpostovlwn diatavxei"	δεύτεραι τῶν ἀποστόλων διατάξεις	Greek	正文第 44 段	据编码推复，保留原词序。
presbuvteroi	πρεσβύτεροι	Greek	正文第 49 段	据编码推复长老一词的复数。
ejpivskopoi	ἐπίσκοποι	Greek	正文第 49 段	据编码推复主教一词的复数。
arcisunavgwgo"	ἀρχισυνάγωγος	Greek	正文第 52 段	上下文指犹太会堂主管，补复起首气息。
ejpivskopo"	ἐπίσκοπος	Greek	正文第 54 段	据旧字体编码推复。
ejpimelithv"	ἐπιμελιτής	Greek	正文第 54 段	依原串保留ι拼写；常见形式为ἐπιμελητής，未据此改写。
ejn aJgneiva/	ἐν ἁγνείᾳ	Greek	正文第 62 段	据编码恢复气息、重音及下标ι。
ajpwvleto	ἀπώλετο	Greek	正文第 62 段	据旧字体编码推复。
e[fqartai	ἔφθαρται	Greek	正文第 62 段	据编码及败坏之意推复。
gnwvmh/	γνώμῃ	Greek	正文第 62 段	据编码恢复与格下标ι。
eij" tovpon qeou'	εἰς τόπον θεοῦ	Greek	正文第 62 段	据旧字体编码推复。
ei" tovpon sunedrivou tw'n ajpostovlwn	εἰς τόπον συνεδρίου τῶν ἀποστόλων	Greek	正文第 62 段	据编码推复，εἰς的气息疑脱。
diakonivan	διακονίαν	Greek	正文第 62 段	据编码推复，保留宾格。
sarkikhv	σαρκική	Greek	正文第 62 段	据旧字体编码推复。
tw' presbuterivw/	τῷ πρεσβυτερίῳ	Greek	正文第 62 段	两词均为与格，恢复下标ι。
kavqedra qrovno" tou' ejpiskovpou	κάθεδρα θρόνος τοῦ ἐπισκόπου	Greek	正文第 77 段	按编码保留并列词形，不另补连接词。
o}lo"	ὅλος	Greek	正文第 350 段	编码及完整性语境均支持此词。
Diatagai; tw'n aJgivwn jApostovlwn dia; Klhvmneto"	Διαταγαὶ τῶν ἁγίων Ἀποστόλων διὰ Κλήμεντος	Greek	正文第 387 段	据书名推复；原串Κλήμνετος疑为字母倒置。
Kanovne" ejkklhsiastikoi; tw'n aJg. jApostovlwn	Κανόνες ἐκκλησιαστικοὶ τῶν ἁγ. Ἀποστόλων	Greek	正文第 390 段	据编码推复，保留原有缩写。
Sunovdikon	Συνόδικον	Greek	正文第 391 段	按原串重音推复书名。
Didach; tw'n dwvdeka ajpostovlwn	Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων	Greek	正文第 400 段	据书名及编码推复。
kurieuvein	κυριεύειν	Greek	脚注 7	据编码推复，不替换成经文中的复合动词。
klh'roi	κλῆροι	Greek	脚注 7	据编码推复，保留原列举形式。
klhronomiva	κληρονομία	Greek	脚注 7	据旧字体编码推复。
qusiasthvrion	θυσιαστήριον	Greek	脚注 10	据编码及祭坛语境推复。
oJ e[nto;" qusiasthvion w\n kaqarov" ejstin oJ dev ejkto;" qusiasthrivou w]n ouj kaqarov" ejstin: toutevstin, oJ cwri;" ejpiskovpou kai; presbuterivou kai; diakovnou pravsswn ti, ou\to" ouj kaqarov" e"jtin th/' suneidhvsei	ὁ ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὢν καθαρός ἐστιν ὁ δὲ ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὢν οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν: τουτέστιν, ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτερίου καὶ διακόνου πράσσων τι, οὗτος οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν τῇ συνειδήσει	Greek	脚注 11	据引文推复；首处祭坛词疑缺字，末处ἐστιν编码错位。
toutevstin	τουτέστιν	Greek	脚注 11	据编码推复合写形式。
oJ lai>ko;" a[nqrwpo" toi'" lai>koi'" prostavgmasin devdetai	ὁ λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προστάγμασιν δέδεται	Greek	脚注 13	据编码及革利免引文推复。
didaskaliva	διδασκαλία	Greek	脚注 14	据旧字体编码推复。
iJereuv"	ἱερεύς	Greek	脚注 14	据编码恢复粗气息及重音。
ajrciereuv"	ἀρχιερεύς	Greek	脚注 14	据旧字体编码推复。
ajrcierateiva	ἀρχιερατεία	Greek	脚注 14	据编码推复，保留原拼写。
Klh'ro"	Κλῆρος	Greek	脚注 15	据编码推复，保留首字母大写。
tavxi"	τάξις	Greek	脚注 15	据旧字体编码推复。
klhrikoiv	κληρικοί	Greek	脚注 15	据旧字体编码推复。
Laov"	Λαός	Greek	脚注 16	据编码推复，保留大写。
lai>koiv	λαϊκοί	Greek	脚注 16	恢复分音符及重音。
Pavroikoi	Πάροικοι	Greek	脚注 18	据旧字体编码推复。
parepivdhmoi	παρεπίδημοι	Greek	脚注 18	据旧字体编码推复。
paroikiva	παροικία	Greek	脚注 19	据旧字体编码推复。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησία	Greek	脚注 23	按条目边界推复；属格词尾ς留在条目外。
Suveudokavsh"	Συνευδοκησάσης	Greek	脚注 23	据革利免引文及属格独立结构推测，原串疑缺字并错位。
th'"	τῆς	Greek	脚注 23	据旧字体编码推复。
pavsh"	πάσης	Greek	脚注 23	据旧字体编码推复。
JUpodiavkonoi	Ὑποδιάκονοι	Greek	脚注 31	恢复大写元音上的粗气息。
uJphrevtai	ὑπηρέται	Greek	脚注 31	据旧字体编码推复。
[Anagnwstai	Ἀναγνωσταί	Greek	脚注 32	据读经员语境推复，原串未标词尾重音。
[Akovluqoi	Ἀκόλουθοι	Greek	脚注 33	据旧字体编码推复。
[Exorkistaiv	Ἐξορκισταί	Greek	脚注 34	据旧字体编码推复。
Daimonizovmenoi	Δαιμονιζόμενοι	Greek	脚注 35	据旧字体编码推复。
ejnergouvmenoi	ἐνεργούμενοι	Greek	脚注 35	据旧字体编码推复。
Yavltai	Ψάλται	Greek	脚注 36	旧字体Y对应Ψ。
qurwroiv	θυρωροί	Greek	脚注 37	据旧字体编码推复。
pulwroiv	πυλωροί	Greek	脚注 37	据旧字体编码推复。
jEpivskopo"	Ἐπίσκοπος	Greek	脚注 46	据编码推复，保留大写。
evpiskovpwn	ἐπισκόπων	Greek	脚注 46	据词组补复原串疑脱的气息。
OiJ ajpovstoloi hJmwn e[gnwsan dia; tou' kurivouhJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' o{ti e[ri" e[stai ejpi; tou' ojnovmato" th'" ejpiskoph'" . Dia; tauvthn ou\vn th;n aijtivan provgnwsin eijlhfovte" teleivan katevsthsan tou;" proeirhmevnou" kai; metaxu; ejpinomh;n »or ejpimonh;n¼ e[dwkan, o{pw" , eja;n koimhqw'sin, diadevxwntai e{teroi dedokimasmevnoi a[ndre" th;n leitourgivan aujtw'n.	Οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. Διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν [or ἐπιμονὴν] ἔδωκαν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν.	Greek	脚注 54	据编码推复，拆开粘连词，保留原异读说明。
ejpimonhvn	ἐπιμονήν	Greek	脚注 54	据编码推复，保留所讨论异读。
ejpinomhvn	ἐπινομήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留抄本异读。
ejpidomhvn	ἐπιδομήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留抄本异读。
nevmw	νέμω	Greek	脚注 55	据旧字体编码推复。
novmo"	νόμος	Greek	脚注 55	据旧字体编码推复。
avponomhvn	ἀπονομήν	Greek	脚注 55	据词形推测，原串起首v疑为气息编码讹误。
ejpidochvn	ἐπιδοχήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpibolhvn	ἐπιβολήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpimonhvn	ἐπιμονήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpitrophvn	ἐπιτροπήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpiloghvn	ἐπιλογήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpinomivan	ἐπινομίαν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpistolhvn	ἐπιστολήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
ejpitaghvn	ἐπιταγήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留学者校改。
e[ti novmon	ἔτι νόμον	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留两词校改方案。
ejpinomhvn	ἐπινομήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，不以别种异读替换。
ejpinomiv"	ἐπινομίς	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留原重音及拼写。
deuvterai diatavxei"	δεύτεραι διατάξεις	Greek	脚注 55	据旧字体编码推复。
ejpimonhvn	ἐπιμονήν	Greek	脚注 55	据编码推复，保留莱特福特的异读。
koimhqw'sin	κοιμηθῶσιν	Greek	脚注 55	据旧字体编码推复。
koimhqw'sin	κοιμηθῶσιν	Greek	脚注 56	据旧字体编码推复。
ejpivskopo;"	ἐπίσκοπος	Greek	脚注 59	原串末音节多余重音疑为编码讹误。
presbuvtero"	πρεσβύτερος	Greek	脚注 59	据旧字体编码推复。
hJgouvmenoi	ἡγούμενοι	Greek	脚注 60	据旧字体编码推复。
prohgouvmenoi	προηγούμενοι	Greek	脚注 60	据旧字体编码推复。
Ceirotonhvsate eJautoi'" ejpiskovpou" kai; diakovnou"	Χειροτονήσατε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους	Greek	脚注 61	据编码及遗训引文推复。
ejpiskopevw	ἐπισκοπέω	Greek	脚注 72	据旧字体编码推复。
jEpivskopo" eij" tovpon qeou' prokaqhvmeno"	Ἐπίσκοπος εἰς τόπον θεοῦ προκαθήμενος	Greek	脚注 73	据旧字体编码推复。
eja;n gnwsqh/' plevon tou' ejpiskovpou	ἐὰν γνωσθῇ πλέον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου	Greek	脚注 74	据编码推复，保留πλέον异读。
plhvn	πλήν	Greek	脚注 74	据编码推复，不与πλέον混同。
Ou{tw" sunhvrmostai tw/' ejpiskovpw/. wJ" cordai; kiqavra/	Οὕτως συνήρμοσται τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ	Greek	脚注 76	据编码推复；原句中间句点疑为排印断裂。
To;n ou\n ejpivskopon dh'lon o{ti wJ" aujto;n to;n kuvrion dei' problevpein	Τὸν οὖν ἐπίσκοπον δῆλον ὅτι ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν κύριον δεῖ προβλέπειν	Greek	脚注 77	据旧字体编码推复。
jAnagkai'on ejsti;n, w{sper poiei'te, a[neu tou' ejpiskovpou mhde;n pravssein uJma'" ktl.	Ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε, ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν πράσσειν ὑμᾶς κτλ.	Greek	脚注 80	据编码推复，保留末尾等字缩写。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησία	Greek	脚注 82	据旧字体编码推复。
[Opou a[n fanh/' oJ ejpivskopo", ekei' to; plh'qo" e]stw, w{sper a_]n h\ Cristo;s jIhsou'" , ejkei' hJ kaqolikh;	Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ	Greek	脚注 82	据引文推复；原串ἂν及ᾖ附近符号错乱。
JO timw'n ejpivskopon uJpo; qeou' tetivmhtai: oJ lavqra ejpiskovpou ti pravsswn tw/' diabovlw/ latreuvei	Ὁ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ θεοῦ τετίμηται: ὁ λάθρα ἐπισκόπου τι πράσσων τῷ διαβόλῳ λατρεύει	Greek	脚注 83	据旧字体编码推复，保留原词形。
jEpivskopo" ejpiskovpwn	Ἐπίσκοπος ἐπισκόπων	Greek	脚注 96	据旧字体编码推复。
cwrepivskopoi	χωρεπίσκοποι	Greek	脚注 97	据旧字体编码推复。
e[xarcoi	ἔξαρχοι	Greek	脚注 97	据旧字体编码推复。
mhtropovlei"	μητροπόλεις	Greek	脚注 98	据旧字体编码推复。
mhtropolitai	μητροπολῖται	Greek	脚注 98	据词形补复原串未标出的重音。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησία	Greek	脚注 100	据编码推复，此处为主格。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησίᾳ	Greek	脚注 100	据上下文为与格，下标ι编码被切至条目外。
JH	Ἡ	Greek	脚注 100	恢复大写Η上的粗气息。
tou' qeou', hJ paroikou'sa JRwvmhn th/'	τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡ παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην τῇ	Greek	脚注 100	据编码恢复气息、重音及下标ι。
tou' qeou', th/' paroikouvsh/ Kovrinqon.	τοῦ θεοῦ, τῇ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον.	Greek	脚注 100	据旧字体编码推复。
Pavroiko"	Πάροικος	Greek	脚注 100	据旧字体编码推复。
kavtoiko"	κάτοικος	Greek	脚注 100	据旧字体编码推复。
Prokaqhmevnh th'" ajgavph"	Προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης	Greek	脚注 103	据旧字体编码推复。
ejx ajrch'" uJmi'n e[qo" ejsti; tou'to, pavnta" me;n ajdelfou;" poikivlw" eujergetei'n, ejkklhsivai" te pollai'" tai'" mata; pa'san povlin ejfovdia pevmpein	ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑμῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας μὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκλησίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέμπειν	Greek	脚注 104	据引文推复；mata疑为kata的字母讹误。
Prov" tauvthn ga;r th;n ejkklhsivan dia; th;n iJkanwtevran prwtei'an sumbaivnein	Πρὸς ταύτην γὰρ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν διὰ τὴν ἱκανωτέραν πρωτεῖαν συμβαίνειν	Greek	脚注 105	据编码推复，保留作者拟构的希腊文。
sunevrcesqai	συνέρχεσθαι	Greek	脚注 105	据编码推复，保留备选用词。
dei'	δεῖ	Greek	脚注 105	据旧字体编码推复。
ajnavgkh	ἀνάγκη	Greek	脚注 105	据编码推复，保留备选用词。
pa'san th;n ejkklhsivan	πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν	Greek	脚注 105	据旧字体编码推复。
prwteiva	πρωτεία	Greek	脚注 105	据旧字体编码推复。
prwteuvei	πρωτεύει	Greek	脚注 105	据旧字体编码推复。
oJia; th;n iJkanwtevran ajrcaiovthta	διὰ τὴν ἱκανωτέραν ἀρχαιότητα	Greek	脚注 105	据语境推测起首oJi为δ的讹码，其余按编码恢复。
o{"	ὃς	Greek	脚注 108	据编码恢复关系代词及重音。
kai; ejndovxw" ejmartuvrhse	καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησε	Greek	脚注 108	据编码推复，不另补词尾ν。
ajnhvr ijdiwvth" kai; aijscrokevrdh"	ἀνὴρ ἰδιώτης καὶ αἰσχροκέρδης	Greek	脚注 110	据旧字体编码推复。
presbuvteroi	πρεσβύτεροι	Greek	脚注 113	据旧字体编码推复。
eij"	εἰς	Greek	脚注 115	据旧字体编码推复。
a[vqrwpon eij" e[nwsin kathrtismevnon	ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἕνωσιν κατηρτισμένον	Greek	脚注 117	首词疑漏ν，ἕνωσιν气息疑误；据词形推复。
poivmnh	ποίμνη	Greek	脚注 125	据旧字体编码推复。
aujlhv	αὐλή	Greek	脚注 125	据旧字体编码推复。
suvnodo"	σύνοδος	Greek	脚注 127	据旧字体编码推复。
e[doxe tw/' aJgivw/ pneuvmati kai; hJmi'n	ἔδοξε τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καὶ ἡμῖν	Greek	脚注 135	据编码推复，保留原词尾。
gravmmata tetupwmevna	γράμματα τετυπωμένα	Greek	脚注 136	据旧字体编码推复。
Prosklaivonte"	Προσκλαίοντες	Greek	脚注 155	据旧字体编码推复。
ceimavzonte"	χειμάζοντες	Greek	脚注 155	据旧字体编码推复。
!Akrowvmenoi	Ἀκροώμενοι	Greek	脚注 156	据词形推复，起首叹号疑为气息乱码。
Gonuklivnonte"	Γονυκλίνοντες	Greek	脚注 157	据旧字体编码推复。
uJpopivptonte"	ὑποπίπτοντες	Greek	脚注 157	据旧字体编码推复。
govnu klivnwnas	γόνυ κλίνων	Greek	脚注 157	末尾as应属随后英语as designating，并非希腊词尾。
Sunistavmenoi	Συνιστάμενοι	Greek	脚注 158	据旧字体编码推复。
Provsklausi"	Πρόσκλαυσις	Greek	脚注 159	据旧字体编码推复。
ajkrovasi"	ἀκρόασις	Greek	脚注 159	据旧字体编码推复。
uJpovptwsi"	ὑπόπτωσις	Greek	脚注 159	据旧字体编码推复。
suvstasi"	σύστασις	Greek	脚注 159	据旧字体编码推复。
Presbuvteroi ejpi; th'" metanoiva"	Πρεσβύτεροι ἐπὶ τῆς μετανοίας	Greek	脚注 160	据旧字体编码推复。
Kaqaroiv	Καθαροί	Greek	脚注 170	据旧字体编码推复。
Noouavto"	Νοουάτος	Greek	脚注 171	据编码推复，保留作者所记姓名异形。
Noouatianov"	Νοουατιανός	Greek	脚注 171	据编码推复，不与前一姓名异形合并。

“Quid Christianis cum regibus ? aut quid episcopis cum palatio?”（“基督徒与君王有何相干？主教与宫廷又有何相干？”）↩︎
《驳塞尔苏》(Contra Cels.)，VIII. 68。参尼安德 (Neander) 的论述，第I卷，第129页（波士顿版）。↩︎
勒南 (Renan) 从世俗的观点考察教阶制度如何从原始的民主制度逐渐发展出来，称其为历史上“最深刻的变革”，也是三重权力让渡：首先，社团（会众）把权力交给办事机构或委员会（长老团）；随后，办事机构把权力交给其主席（主教），后者可以说：“Je suis le club”（“我就是社团”）；最后，各位主席又把权力交给教皇，奉他为普世而无谬误的主教；最后这一步在1870年的梵蒂冈会议 (Vatican Council) 上完成。见其《基督教会》(E’glise chrétienne)，第88页，以及《英国讲演集》(English Conferences，希伯特讲座 [Hibbert Lectures]，1880年)，第90页。↩︎
参《使徒行传》8:4；9:27；13:15；18:26、28；《罗马书》12:6；《哥林多前书》12:10、28；14:1–6、31。甚至在犹太会堂中，人们也享有教导的自由，长老可以请任何有声望的成员，甚至外来者，就所读的经课发表讲论（《路加福音》4:17；《使徒行传》17:2）。↩︎
《彼得前书》2:5、9；5:3；《启示录》1:6；5:10；20:6。见尼安德 (Neander)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、斯坦利 (Stanley) 等人的著作，以及本书第I卷，第486页及后。我再引哈奇 (Hatch) 的班普顿讲座《早期基督教会的组织》(The Organization of the Early Christian Churches，1881年)，第139页的一段话：“在较早的时代，信仰更为宏大。因为上帝的国乃是祭司的国。不仅宝座前的‘二十四位长老’，而且那无数成圣的灵魂，就是‘第二次的死在他们身上没有权柄’的人，也都是‘归于上帝的君王和祭司’。唯有在这一崇高的意义上，才能称基督徒为祭司。因为影儿已经过去，实体已经来到；基督教唯一的大祭司就是基督。”↩︎
《出埃及记》19:6。↩︎
《彼得前书》5:3。这里彼得告诫同作长老的人，不可辖制（κυριεύειν^*）那 κλῆροι^* 或 κληρονομία^*，即主的分或产业，也就是分派给他们照管的群羊。参《申命记》4:20；9:29（七十士译本 [LXX]）。↩︎
参《以弗所书》4:11–13。↩︎
《罗马书》12:1；《腓立比书》2:17；《彼得前书》2:5；《希伯来书》13:16。↩︎
《希伯来书》13:10。托马斯·阿奎那 (Thomas Aquinas)、本格尔 (Bengel)、布莱克 (Bleek)、吕讷曼 (Lünemann)、里姆 (Riehm) 等人都是这样理解 θυσιαστήριον^* 的。另有人将它解释为主的桌子，莱特福特 (Lightfoot，第263页) 则将它解释为聚集在一起共同敬拜的会众。↩︎
《致特拉勒人书》(Ad Trall.)，第7章：ὁ ἐντὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὢν καθαρός ἐστιν ὁ δὲ ἐκτὸς θυσιαστηρίου ὢν οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν: τουτέστιν, ὁ χωρὶς ἐπισκόπου καὶ πρεσβυτερίου καὶ διακόνου πράσσων τι, οὗτος οὐ καθαρός ἐστιν τῇ συνειδήσει^*。冯克 (Funk) 版，第I卷，第208页。有些抄本省略了第二个分句，可能是因同尾漏抄 (homoeoteleuton) 所致。冯·格布哈特 (Von Gebhardt) 和哈纳克 (Harnack) 也在希腊文本中将它省略，却在拉丁文本中保留（qui extra attare est, non mundus est，“在祭坛之外的，是不洁净的”）。其中的 τουτέστιν^* 显然要求有这个分句。↩︎
参第13章。见沙弗 (Schaff) 所编版本的注释，第206页。↩︎
《致哥林多人书》(Ad Cor.)，40：“大祭司受托承担他特有的事奉，祭司有为他们指定的职务，利未人也被赋予他们特有的服事。平信徒须受平信徒的规条约束（ὁ λαϊκὸς ἄνθρωπος τοῖς λαϊκοῖς προστάγμασιν δέδεται^*）。”这段话既见于布吕恩尼奥斯 (Bryennios) 的文本，也见于较早的各版；没有充分理由像尼安德 (Neander) 和米尔曼 (Milman) 那样，怀疑它是为维护教阶制度的利益而增插的。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 主教在其《罗马的圣革利免》(St. Clement of Rome)，第128页及下页，对此作了较为温和的解释。他说，这个类比并不涉及三级教职，因为革利免只知道两级（主教和执事）；而且，基督的大祭司职分与摩西制度的大祭司职分，在性质上全然不同，不受革利免在该章所详论的那些限制。↩︎
Sacerdos（祭司），也称 summus sacerdos（大祭司；德尔图良 [Tertullian]，《论洗礼》[De Bapt.]，7），还有一次称为 pontifex maximus（最高祭司；《论贞洁》[De Pudic.]，1，似乎是讽刺地指罗马主教）；ordo sacerdotalis（祭司阶层；《劝守贞洁》[De Exhort. Cast.]，7）；ἱερεύς^*，有时也用 ἀρχιερεύς^*（《使徒宪章》[Apost. Const.]，II. 34、35、36、57；III. 9；VI. 15、18等）。希波吕托 (Hippolytus) 称自己的职分为 ἀρχιερατεία^* 和 διδασκαλία^*（《驳异端》[Ref. Haer.]，I，序言）。居普良 (Cyprian) 通常把 sacerdos 一词用于主教，并称他的同僚为 consacerdotales（同任祭司者）。↩︎
Κλῆρος^*，clerus；τάξις^*，ordo, ordosacerdotalis（德尔图良 [Tertulli]，《劝守贞洁》[De Ehort. Cast.]，7），ordo eccelesiasticus 或 ecclesiae（教会阶层；《论一夫一妻制》[De Monog.]，11；《论偶像崇拜》[De Idolol.]，7）；κληρικοί^*，clerici（教士）。以 clerus 表示教士，最早的例子或许见于德尔图良《论一夫一妻制》(De Monog.)，第12章：“Unde enim episcopi et clerus？”（“那么，主教和教士从何而来？”）又说：“Extollimur et inflamur adversus clerum。”（“我们自高自大，向教士趾高气扬。”）哲罗姆 (Jerome) 在《致尼波提安书》(Ad Nepotian.) 中这样解释 clerus 一词何以专用于教牧人员：“vel quia de sorte sunt Domini, vel quia ipse Dominus sors, id est, pars clericorum est。”（“或因他们属于主的分，或因主自己就是教士的分，也就是他们所得的产业。”）兼为修士的修会教士与在俗教士或堂区司铎之间的区别，则出现得晚得多（七或八世纪）。↩︎
Λαός^*，λαϊκοί^*，plebs（平信徒）。在德尔图良 (Tertullian)、居普良 (Cyprian) 的著作和《使徒宪章》中，“平信徒”一词出现得非常频繁。居普良在250年提到一次“与主教、长老、执事、认信者，以及在逼迫中坚立的平信徒共同举行的会议”，见《书信》(Ep.) 30，致罗马人 (ad Rom)。↩︎
不过，我们偶尔也会见到范围稍广的用语。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 在《论一夫一妻制》(De Monog.)，第12章，将 ordo viduarum（寡妇阶层）列入 ordines ecclesiastici（教会各阶层）；甚至晚得多的哲罗姆 (Jerome，见《以赛亚书注释》[In Jesaiam]，第V卷，第19章18节) 也列举 quinque ecclesiae ordines, episcopos, presbyteros, diaconos, fideles, catechumenos，即教会的五个阶层：主教、长老、执事、信徒、慕道者。↩︎
Πάροικοι^*，παρεπίδημοι^*；《以弗所书》2:19；《彼得前书》2:11。↩︎
或堂区，παροικία^*。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，IV. 8，§。↩︎
Nonne et laici sacerdotes sumus?（我们平信徒不也是祭司吗？）↩︎
《劝守贞洁》(De Exhort. Cast.)，第7章。另参《论一夫一妻制》(De Monog.)，7、12；《论洗礼》(De Bapt.)，17；《论祷告》(De Orat.)，18。↩︎
《致哥林多人书》(Ad Cor.)，44：Συνευδοκησάσης^* τῆς^* ἐκκλησία^*" πάσης^*，consentiente universa ecclesia（全教会一致同意）。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，LX. 3–4（戈尔德霍恩 [Goldhorn] 版）。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.)，lv. 7：“Factus est Cornelius episcopus de Dei et Christi ejus judicio, de clericorum paene omnium testimonio, de plebis quae tum adfuit suffragio, et de sacerdotum antiquorum et bonorum virorum collegio.”（哥尼流成为主教，是出于上帝及其基督的裁断，凭着几乎全体教士的见证、当时在场会众的投票赞同，以及资深祭司和善良之人的集体认可。）↩︎
Sine consensu plebis（未经会众同意）。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius)，《教会史》(H. E.)，VI. 19：“在那里［凯撒利亚］，他［俄利根 (Origen)］虽尚未借按手领受祭司职分，主教们仍请他在教会中公开讲解圣经。”诚然，亚历山大主教底米丢 (Demetrius) 曾以此作为控告他的根据；但所控告的是俄利根“在主教面前”讲道，而不是他以平信徒身份讲道。耶路撒冷和凯撒利亚的主教还举出数例，说明圣洁的主教曾邀请有才干的平信徒向民众讲道。普鲁登提乌斯 (Prudentius) 和埃德修斯 (Aedesius) 尚为平信徒时，便在阿比西尼亚 (Abyssinia) 建立了教会；见苏格拉底 (Socrates)，《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.)，I. 19。↩︎
《使徒宪章》(Const. Apost.)，VIII. 31。伪安波罗修 (Ambrosiaster)，或称执事希拉里 (Hilary the Deacon)，在其《以弗所书注释》(Com. Ad Eph.) 4:11、12中说，早期“omnes docebant et omnes baptizabant”（人人都施教，人人都施洗）。↩︎
第98条教规：“Laicus praesentibus clericis nisi ipsis jubentibus, docere non audeat.”（有教士在场时，平信徒若未奉他们的吩咐，不得擅自施教。）第99^条教规禁止妇女，无论多么“博学或圣洁”，都不得“擅自在聚会中教导男人”。教皇利奥一世 (Leo I.) 为维护教会秩序，禁止平信徒讲道（《书信》[Ep] 92、93）。查理大帝 (Charlemagne) 颁布法令规定：“平信徒不应在教会中诵读经课，也不应唱哈利路亚，只可唱不带哈利路亚的诗篇或应答句。”↩︎
希腊文本（此前仅知其一个残篇）由布林尼奥斯 (Bryennios) 于1875年发现并刊布，叙利亚文译本则由本斯利 (Bensley) 于1876年刊布。见哈纳克 (Harnack) 编《使徒教父集》(Patres Apost.)，第I卷；以及莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，《罗马的圣革利免》(S. Clement of Rome)，《附录》(Appendix)（1877年）。哈纳克、希尔根费尔德 (Hilgenfeld) 和哈奇 (Hatch)（前引书，第114页，注）认为这篇讲章是平信徒所讲；但莱特福特（第304页）认为，上文提及的措辞是一种常见的修辞手法，讲者借此将自己置于与听众相同的地位。↩︎
Ὑποδιάκονοι^*，subdiaconi（副执事），或许与《新约》和较早期教父著作中的 ὑπηρέται^* 相同。↩︎
Ἀναγνωσταί^*，lectores（读经员），德尔图良 (Tertullian) 曾提及。↩︎
Ἀκόλουθοι^*，acolythi（辅祭员）。↩︎
Ἐξορκισταί^*，exorcistae（赶鬼者）。↩︎
Δαιμονιζόμενοι^*, ἐνεργούμενοι^*↩︎
Ψάλται^*，psalmistae cantores（唱诗者）。↩︎
θυρωροί^*，πυλωροί^*，ostiarii janitores（守门人）。↩︎
见优西比乌 (Eusebius)，vi. 43。↩︎
瑞典和丹麦的路德宗、美国的卫理宗以及摩拉维亚弟兄会 (Moravian) 的主教制便属此类，它们承认非主教制教会圣职的有效性。圣公会内部兼容高教会派和低教会派两种主教制理论，一种源自中世纪的圣统制，另一种源自宗教改革；但圣公会拒斥教皇首位权，视其为敌基督的僭越，尽管必须承认，这一制度几乎与主教制同样古老，其根源可以追溯至罗马的革利免 (Clement of Rome)，至少也可追溯至爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的时代。↩︎
参优西比乌 (Eusebius)，vii. 27–30。↩︎
见吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 所引各段，第I卷，第282页及下页（纽约哈珀版）。↩︎
这是希腊教会、罗马天主教和圣公会高教会派的理论。欧洲大陆极少数新教人士，如本生爵士 (Chevalier Bunsen)、罗特 (Rothe) 和蒂尔施 (Thiersch，一位欧文派信徒)，也倡导此说，认为主教制源自以弗所的约翰。↩︎
路德宗、长老宗以及一些杰出的圣公会作家持此说。我们可以举出莫斯海姆 (Mosheim)、尼安德 (Neander)、莱特福特 (Lightfoot)、斯坦利 (Stanley)、哈奇 (Hatch)。还有纯以批评家身份作判断的鲍尔 (Baur) 和勒南 (Renan)。↩︎
莱特福特主教（前引书，第194页）如此陈述问题，并给出自己的答案：“主教职并非使徒职地方化的结果，而是长老职提升的结果；原先众人共用的头衔，最终成为其中为首者的专称。”↩︎
《使徒行传》15:13；21:18。参第I卷，第264页及后。↩︎
Ἐπίσκοπος^* ἐπισκόπων^*.↩︎
《启示录》1:20。各种不同见解，见第I卷，第497页。↩︎
《什么财主能得救》(Quis dives salvus)，第42章。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv.Haer.)，III. 3。↩︎
《论异端的抗辩》(De PraescR.C.)，32。↩︎
《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 36。↩︎
《名人录》(Catal.)，坡旅甲条（sub Polyc）。↩︎
《教会史》(H. E.)，III. 11。参IV. 22所载赫格西普 (Hegesippus) 的残篇。莱特福特在《腓立比书》(Philippians) 第202页针对罗特的推论指出：“赫格西普的记载把这次集会的目的仅限于任命圣雅各的继任者。倘若这次会议的商议果真如罗特的理论所假定的，对教会的未来产生了如此巨大而持久的影响，这位早期史家几乎不可能不知此事，或虽知此事却默而不言。”↩︎
《致哥林多人书》(Ad Corinth.)，第44章：Οἱ ἀπόστολοι ἡμῶν ἔγνωσαν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ὅτι ἔρις ἔσται ἐπὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῆς ἐπισκοπῆς. Διὰ ταύτην οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν πρόγνωσιν εἰληφότες τελείαν κατέστησαν τοὺς προειρημένους καὶ μεταξὺ ἐπινομὴν [or ἐπιμονὴν] ἔδωκαν, ὅπως, ἐὰν κοιμηθῶσιν, διαδέξωνται ἕτεροι δεδοκιμασμένοι ἄνδρες τὴν λειτουργίαν αὐτῶν.^*。“我们的使徒借着我们的主耶稣基督，知道将来必有人为监督职分的名号起争执［即一般而言的教牧职分；参《使徒行传》1:20；七十士译本《民数记》4:16；《诗篇》109:8；《历代志下》23:18］。因此，他们既有完全的预知，就任命了前述诸人［即长老—监督和执事；参第42、57章］，随后又作了安排［若随莱特福特读作 ἐπιμονήν^*，则意为作了延续的安排］，使这些人若睡了，便由其他经过认可的人接续他们的职事。”↩︎
此处读法晦涩，颇有争议。亚历山大抄本作 ἐπινομήν^*，君士坦丁堡抄本作 ἐπιδομήν^*（两者均有 EIII-OMHN）。前一词罕见（原文作“from or from νέμω^* or fromνόμος^*”，即涉及词源的说明），词典中未见收录；因此，学者提出了种种校改，如 ἀπονομήν^*（尤尼乌斯 [Junius]）、ἐπιδοχήν^*（布林尼奥斯 [Bryennios]）、ἐπιβολήν^*（冯·格布哈特 [von Gebhardt] 与哈纳克 [Harnack]）、ἐπιμονήν^*（本生 [Bunsen]、莱特福特 [Lightfoot]）、ἐπιτροπήν^*（希尔根费尔德 [Hilgenfeld]）、ἐπιλογήν^*、ἐπινομίαν^*、ἐπιστολήν^*、ἐπιταγήν^*、ἔτι νόμον^*。罗特 (Rothe)（《起源》[Anfänge]，第374页）巧妙地将 ἐπινομήν^* 译为“遗嘱安排”（testamentarische Verfügung = ἐπινομίς^*，一项追加法令、遗嘱附录），并将其等同于爱任纽残篇中的 δεύτεραι διατάξεις^*。但最新的编者认为此说不能成立，予以否定。莱特福特（随本生）读作 ἐπιμονήν^*，意为持续（并非本生所译的“终身任职”）。不过，这段话的旨意，与其说取决于这个词的含义，不如说取决于使徒还是会众的职员，才是后面动词 κοιμηθῶσιν^* 在语法上的主语。↩︎
另见格布哈特 (Gebhardt) 与哈纳克 (Harnack)（presbyteri et diaconi illi, quos apostoli ipsi constituerunt，即“使徒亲自设立的那些长老和执事”）、罗马天主教编者丰克 (Funk)（“κοιμηθῶσιν^*，sc. episcopi et diaconi de quorum successione Clemens agit”，即“所指为革利免论及其继任问题的监督和执事”），以及莱特福特主教（“使徒亲自任命的第一代长老”）。关于这整段文字，另参莱特福特，《腓立比书》(Philippians)，第203页，其中驳斥了罗特的解释；鲍尔 (Baur)，《主教制的起源》(Ursprung des Episcopats)，第53页；埃瓦尔德 (Ewald)，《以色列民族史》(Gesch. des Volkes Israel)，VII. 300；里奇尔 (Ritschl)，《古代大公教会》(Altkath. K.)，第358、413页；以及伊尔根费尔德 (Ilgenfeld)，《使徒教父》(Apost. Väter)，第70页。↩︎
因此，罗特将这一制度追溯至约翰。莱特福特主教（《腓立比书》[Philippians]，第204页）也倾向于此说：“小亚细亚 (Asia Minor) 即使不是外邦教会主教制的母亲，也是它的乳母。在一个以圣约翰为活的中心和引导者的基督徒群体中，如此重要的一项制度，若无他的认可，几乎不可能发展起来；而且早期传统十分明确地将他的名字与这些地区主教的任命联系在一起。”他在《伊格那修与坡旅甲》(Ignat. and Polyc.)，I. 377中，更为肯定地重申了这一见解。↩︎
《使徒行传》20:17、28；《腓立比书》1:1；《提多书》1:5；《提摩太前书》3:1–7、8–13；《彼得前书》5:1、2。参作者《使徒教会史》(Hist. of the Apost. Ch.)，§§132、133，第522–531页（纽约版）；以及第I卷，第492页及后。↩︎
第42章。参莱特福特的注释：“他不可能略去长老，尤其因为他的唯一目的，正是维护他们遭到攻击的权柄。因此，ἐπίσκοπος^* 和 πρεσβύτερος^* 这两个词，在革利免那里与在使徒著作中一样，都是同义词。直到伊格那修 (Ignatius) 和坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 的著作中，它们才首次作为不同的头衔出现。”↩︎
第1章的 ἡγούμενοι^*，以及第21章的 προηγούμενοι^*，也不是指主教，而是会众职员的统称，如《希伯来书》13:7、17、24所用的一样。↩︎
第15章：Χειροτονήσατε ἑαυτοῖς ἐπισκόπους καὶ διακόνους^*。见沙弗 (Schaff) 关于《十二使徒遗训》(Didache) 的专著，第211页及下页。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.)，iii. 2，§5。另参优西比乌 (Eusebius)，v. 24所载爱任纽致罗马主教维克托 (Victor) 的信。↩︎
参《约翰二书》1及1。↩︎
《提多书注释》(Ad Titum)，i. 7。参《书信》(Epist.)，83、85。↩︎
《提多书注释》(Ad Tit.)，i. 7：“Sicut ergo presbyteri sciunt, see ex ecclesiae consuetudine ei, qui sibi praepositus fuerit, esse subjectos, ita episcopi noverint, se magis consuetudine quam dispositionis Dominicae veritate presbyteris esse majores et in commune debere ecclesiam regere.”（因此，正如长老知道，他们服从那被立在自己之上的人，是出于教会的惯例；主教也应知道，他们高于长老，与其说确实出于主的规定，不如说是出于惯例，并且他们应当共同治理教会。）罗马执事希拉里 (Hilary，即伪安波罗修 [Ambrosiaster]) 在《提摩太前书》3:10的注释中说：“Hic enim episcopus est, qui inter presbyteros primus est.”（因为在长老中居首的，就是主教。）另参金口约翰 (Chrysostom)，《提摩太前书讲道集》(Hom. in Epist. 1 ad Tim.)，xi. 38。↩︎
《致埃万格鲁书》(Epist. ad Evangelum)（《全集》[Opp.]，iv，第802页，马蒂内 [Martinay] 编）：Alexandriae a Marco evangelista usque ad Heraclam et Dionysium episcopos presbyteri semper unum ex se electum in excelsiori gradu collocatum episcopum nominabant, quomodo si exercitus imperatorem faciat, aut diaconi elegant de se, quem industrium noverint et archidiaconum vocent.（在亚历山大，从传福音的马可直到赫拉克拉 [Heraclas] 和狄奥尼修 [Dionysius] 两位主教的时代，长老总是从自己中间选出一人，将他置于较高的地位，称他为主教；这正如军队推举统帅，或执事从自己中间选出一位他们知道勤勉能干的人，称他为总执事。）↩︎
牛津版，1658年，第331页：“Constituit evangelista Marcus una cum Hakania patriarcha duodecim presbyteros, qui nempe cum patriarcha manerent, adeo ut cum vacaret patriachatus, unum e duodecim presbyteris eligerent, cnius capiti reliqui undecim manus imponentes ipsi benedicerent et patriarcham crearent, deinde virum aliquem insignem eligerent, quem secum presbyterum constituerent,loco ejus, qui factus est patriarcha, ut ita semper exstarent duodecim. Neque desiit Alexandriae institutum hoc de presbyteris, ut scilcet patriarchas crearent ex presbyteris duodecim, usque ad tempera Alexandri patriarchae Alexandriae. Is autem vetuit, ne deinceps patriarcham presbyteri crearent. Et decrervit, ut mortuo patriarcha convenient episcopi, qui patriarcham ordinarent.”（传福音的马可与牧首哈卡尼亚 [Hakania] 一同设立了十二位长老，使他们与牧首同在；牧首之位出缺时，他们便从十二位长老中选出一位，其余十一位按手在他头上，为他祝福，立他为牧首；然后再选一位杰出的人，立为与他们同列的长老，接替那位已成为牧首的人，使长老始终保持十二位。在亚历山大，从十二位长老中选立牧首的这一长老制度，一直延续到亚历山大牧首亚历山大 [Alexander] 的时代。他禁止长老此后再选立牧首，并规定牧首去世后，由主教们集会，按立牧首。）↩︎
《马可福音》5:35、36、38；《路加福音》8:41–49；《使徒行传》18:8–17。↩︎
哈奇 (Hatch) 在其班普顿讲座《早期基督教会的组织》(The Organization of the Early Christian Churches) 第II讲中，十分充分地阐明了主教制在慈善与财务方面的性质。↩︎
真伪问题将在§165讨论。丘尔顿 (Cureton，1845年)、本生 (Bunsen)、利普修斯 (Lipsius) 等人接受叙利亚文译本为伊格那修书信的原始形式，认为连希腊文短本也遭到了窜改，但仍将其年代定于第二世纪中叶。罗特 (Rothe)、黑费勒 (Hefele)、沙弗（初版）、迪斯特迪克 (Düsterdieck)、乌尔霍恩 (Uhlhorn)、察恩 (Zahn)、哈纳克 (Harnack) 则维护希腊文较短修订本的真实性。希腊文长本已被一致认定为伪作而放弃。圣统制的起源因虔诚的欺诈而变得晦暗不明。见下文§164、165。↩︎
叙利亚文《致坡旅甲书》(Polycarp) 中，“主教”一词出现四次；叙利亚文《致以弗所人书》(Ephesians) 则称颂上帝，因他赐给他们阿尼西母 (Onesimus) 这样一位主教。希腊文较短本《致坡旅甲书》在问安中提及主教职分，在全书八章中的三章也有提及（第5章两次，第6章两次，第8章一次）。希腊文《致以弗所人书》共21章，其中“主教”一词出现十三次，“长老”三次，“执事”一次（在前六章和第21章中）。希腊文《致特拉勒人书》(Trallians) 中，主教出现九次；《致马格尼西亚人书》(Magnesians) 中十一次；《致非拉铁非人书》(Philadelphians) 中八次；《致士每拿人书》(Smynaeans) 中九次。因此，三封叙利亚文书信仅六次提到主教；七封希腊文较短本书信则约有五十次；但措辞最强烈的段落之一，却见于叙利亚文《致坡旅甲书》（第5、6章）。↩︎
唯一的例外是，伊格那修自称“叙利亚的主教”，说自己“蒙了上帝的恩惠，从东方被送往西方”（第2章）。其中也使用了动词 ἐπισκοπέω^*，但所指的是基督（第9章）。↩︎
Ἐπίσκοπος εἰς τόπον θεοῦ προκαθήμενος^*，因此每位主教都成了某种教皇。↩︎
察恩 (Zahn) 在《致坡旅甲书》(Ad Polyc.) 第5章采用的读法是：ἐὰν γνωσθῇ πλέον τοῦ ἐπισκόπου^*，即他比主教更为人所知，或更受尊重。另一读法是 πλήν^*，意为越过，或离开。↩︎
《致坡旅甲书》(Ad Polyc.) 第5、6章。希腊文本与叙利亚文本相差甚微。↩︎
《致以弗所人书》(Ad Ephes.) 第4章：Οὕτως συνήρμοσται τῷ ἐπισκόπῳ, ὡς χορδαὶ κιθάρᾳ^*。↩︎
《致以弗所人书》(Ad Ephes.) 第6章：Τὸν οὖν ἐπίσκοπον δῆλον ὅτι ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν κύριον δεῖ προβλέπειν^*。↩︎
《致马格尼西亚人书》(Ad Magnes.) 第6章。↩︎
同上，第13章。对“肉身上”合一的渴望意味深长。↩︎
《致特拉勒人书》(Ad Trallian.) 第2章：Ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, ὥσπερ ποιεῖτε, ἄνευ τοῦ ἐπισκόπου μηδὲν πράσσειν ὑμᾶς κτλ.^*。↩︎
《致非拉铁非人书》(Ad Philad.) 第3章。↩︎
《致士每拿人书》(Ad. Smyrn.) 第8章：Ὅπου ἂν φανῇ ὁ ἐπίσκοπος, ἐκεῖ τὸ πλῆθος ἔστω, ὥσπερ ἂν ᾖ Χριστὸς Ἰησοῦς, ἐκεῖ ἡ καθολικὴ^* ἐκκλησία^*。↩︎
《致士每拿人书》(Ad Smyrn.) 第9章：Ὁ τιμῶν ἐπίσκοπον ὑπὸ θεοῦ τετίμηται: ὁ λάθρα ἐπισκόπου τι πράσσων τῷ διαβόλῳ λατρεύει^*。↩︎
比较《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) III. 3，§1、2；4，1；IV. 33，§8。我记得，1844年我在牛津 (Oxford) 见到已故的波西博士 (Dr. Posey) 时，他极其看重爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 为主教职分不间断承继这一教义所作的见证，视其为真正大公教会不可或缺的标志；但他却忽略了同时发展的首席权，而一年以后，正是这首席权将他的朋友 J. H. 纽曼 (J. H. Newman) 带入了罗马教会。在一切信仰和教会纪律的事务上，新约是唯一可靠的指南和最终准则。莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 对爱任纽有关主教制的教导作了很好的阐述（前引书，第237页）：“爱任纽继伊格那修 (Ignatius) 而起，其间相隔约两代。随着教会处境的改变，主教职分的面貌也发生了变化。此时的宗教空气中，充斥着各式各样的异端思辨。彼此对立的教师竞相争取支持，困惑的信徒便要求一种决定性的标准，来检验争论各方的主张。爱任纽对这个问题作出了回答。他论证说：‘若要确知使徒的教义，就当求诸使徒的教会。’主教的承继可以追溯至最初的时代，他们由使徒亲自设立；在这承继中，纯正信仰的传递便有了保证，而这是任何孤立的、新近兴起的、自立的教师所不能提供的。例如罗马教会，其主教谱系的每一环都完备无缺，而其最早的主教利努斯 (Linus) 和革利免 (Clement)，曾与使徒本人交往；又如士每拿 (Smyrna) 教会，其主教坡旅甲 (Polycarp) 是圣约翰的门徒，去世还没有多久。因此，这时主教职分与其说被视为教会合一的中心，不如说被视为使徒传统的保管者。”↩︎
比较《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) III. 2，§2；IV. 26；V. 20；以及他致罗马的维克多 (Victor) 的信，载于优西比乌 (Eusebius)《教会史》(H E.) V. 24。↩︎
《论异端者的抗辩》(De Praescr. HaeR.) 第32、36章。↩︎
Non ecclesia numerus episcoporum（主教的数目并不构成教会）。《论贞洁》(De Pudic.) 第21章。比较§42，第128页。↩︎
“正如居普良 (Cyprian) 完成了主教权力的大厦，他也是第一个毫不缓和、毫不掩饰地提出祭司权利要求的人；他坚持这些要求的语气如此不容妥协，以至他的继承人除了贯彻他的原则、重申他的措辞以外，已无事可做。”莱特福特 (Lightfoot)，前引书，第257页。“若说在伊格那修看来，主教是基督徒合一的中心，在爱任纽看来，他是使徒传统的保管者，那么在居普良看来，他就是属灵事务上基督的全权代表。”同上，第238页。↩︎
《书信集》(Epist.) lxvi. 3。比较书信 lv. 20：Christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est（不在基督教会之内的，就不是基督徒）。↩︎
《论教会的合一》(De Unit. Eccl.) 第5章：Episcopatus unus est, cujus a singulis in solidum pars tenetur.（主教职分是一个，每位主教都共同持有其中一分，而对整体负责。）比较《书信集》(Ep.) lv. 20：Quum sit a Christo una ecclesia per totum mundum in multa membra divisa, item episcopatus unus episcoporum multorum concordi numerositate diffusus（既然由基督而来的教会只有一个，遍布全世界而分为许多肢体，主教职分也同样只有一个，分布于众多和睦同心的主教之中）。↩︎
第3条教规：Presbyter quum ordinatur, episcopo eum benedicente et manum super caput ejus tenente, etiam omnes presbyteri, qui praesentes sunt, manus suas juxta manum episcopi super caput illius teneant.（按立长老时，主教为他祝福，并将手放在他头上；所有在场的长老，也当将手放在他的头上，紧挨着主教的手。）↩︎
《亚历山大宗主教欧提基乌斯编年史》，波科克译本 (Eutychii Patriarchae Alexandr. Annal. interpr. Pocockio)（牛津〔Oxon.〕，1658年，I，第331页）。见第141页所引段落。↩︎
或称伪安布罗斯 (Ambrosiaster)，《以弗所书注释》(Ad Eph.) iv. 11。↩︎
《讲道集》(Hom.) iii. 60、62、66、70。《克莱门致雅各书》(Ep. Clem. ad Jac.) 17。比较《辨认集》(Recogn.) iii. 66。↩︎
《讲道集》(Hom.) xi. 36；《辨认集》(Recogn.) iii. 66；vi. 15。↩︎
Ἐπίσκοπος ἐπισκόπων^*，《讲道集》(Hom.) xi. 35；《辨认集》(Recogn.) iv. 35。↩︎
乡村主教（χωρεπίσκοποι^*）最早见于314年的安居拉 (Ancyra) 和新凯撒利亚 (Neo-Caesarea) 会议，后来又见于尼西亚 (Nicaea) 会议。他们在东方一直存在到第9世纪，随后由督察（ἔξαρχοι^*）取代。在西方，乡村主教（chorepiscopi）履行通常的主教职能，却没有适当地隶属于教区主教，因此激起了嫉妒和敌意，直到查理大帝 (Charlemagne) 时期这一职分被废除，此后仅作为各类座堂高级教士的头衔而存留。见哈丹 (Haddan) 撰文，载史密斯与奇瑟姆 (Smith & Cheetham)《基督教古事辞典》(Dict. Chr. Ant.) I. 354，以及该处所引文献。↩︎
μητροπόλεις^*。μητροπολῖται^* 一词由此而来。↩︎
Sedes apostolicae, matrices ecclesiae.（使徒教座，母教会。）↩︎
Ἡ^* ἐκκλησία^* τοῦ θεοῦ, ἡ παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην τῇ^* ἐκκλησίᾳ^*/ τοῦ θεοῦ, τῇ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον.^*。“寄居罗马的上帝的教会，致在哥林多哀恸的上帝的教会！”Πάροικος^* 指暂居者，κάτοικος^* 指永久居民。这里的基督徒显为世上的客旅和寄居者，他们的家在天上；比较《彼得前书》1:17；2:11；《希伯来书》11:13。↩︎
从新近发现的接近篇末的部分，即第59、62、63章（布里恩尼奥斯〔Bryennios〕版，君士坦丁堡〔Const.〕，1875年），这一点看得十分清楚。这几章为教皇统治的起源提供了新的光照。比较莱特福特 (Lightfoot) 在《罗马的圣革利免补编》(Appendix to S. Clement of Rome)（伦敦〔Lond.〕，1877年）第252页及后所作的审慎评论。↩︎
从这封书信本身可以十分清楚地看出，当时罗马会众仍由一个长老团治理（正如朗根〔Langen〕在前引书第81页所说，collegialisch, nicht monarchisch，即合议制，而非君主制）。↩︎
Προκαθημένη τῆς ἀγάπης^*，praesidens in caritate（在爱中居首位）。见题署。察恩 (Zahn) 在其版本第75页说：“In caritatis operibus semper primum locum sibi vindicavit ecclesia Romana.”（罗马教会在爱心的工作上，始终居于首位。）有些罗马天主教作者（如默勒〔Möhler〕，《教父学》〔Patrol.〕I. 144）以十分牵强的圣统制意义，将这句话解释为：“基督教世界之爱的联合体的首领”（Vorsteherin des Liebesbundes）。Agape 从不意指教会，而是指爱，或爱筵。见朗根，前引书，第94页。↩︎
优西比乌 (Euseb.)，《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.) IV. 23，10：ἐξ ἀρχῆς ὑμῖν ἔθος ἐστὶ τοῦτο, πάντας μὲν ἀδελφοὺς ποικίλως εὐεργετεῖν, ἐκκλησίαις τε πολλαῖς ταῖς κατὰ πᾶσαν πόλιν ἐφόδια πέμπειν^*↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) iii. §2中这段著名的话，仅存拉丁文本，其解释颇有争议：“Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem（据马叙埃〔Massuet〕的推定：potiorem）principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesia, hoc est, eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his, qui sunt undique, conservata est ab apostolis traditio.”（因为这教会具有更强的首要地位，所有教会，即各地的信徒，都必须与它一致；在这教会中，来自使徒的传统始终由各地的人保存着。）希腊原文可能是：Πρὸς ταύτην γὰρ τὴν ἐκκλησίαν διὰ τὴν ἱκανωτέραν πρωτεῖαν συμβαίνειν^*（或就地方意义而言，συνέρχεσθαι^*）δεῖ^*（另有人认为是 ἀνάγκη^*，意为自然的必然性）πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκκλησίαν^*，等等。重点在于 principalitas，它很可能对应 πρωτεία^*（蒂尔施〔Thiersch〕和吉泽勒〔Gieseler〕持此看法）。比较爱任纽 IV. 38，3，其中 πρωτεύει^* 被译作 principatitatem habet（具有首要地位）。然而，施蒂伦 (Stieren) 和齐格勒 (Ziegler)（《爱任纽》〔Irenaeus〕，1871年，第152页）将 propter potentiorem principalitatem 译为：διὰ τὴν ἱκανωτέραν ἀρχαιότητα^*，“由于更为久远的历史”。关于整段文字，比较蒂尔施发表于《研究与评论》(Studien und Kritiken) 1842年、第512页及后的论文；吉泽勒 I. 1，第214页（§51）；施内曼 (Schneemann)：《圣爱任纽关于罗马教会首位权之见证的评注与辩护》(Sancti Irenaei de ecclesia Romanae principatu testimonium commentatum et defensum)，弗赖堡 (Freiburg i. B.)，1870年；以及朗根 (Langen)，前引书，第170页及后。朗根（属德林格〔Döllinger〕学派的旧天主教徒）解释说：“Die potior principalitas bezeichnet den Vorrang, welchen die Kirche der Hauptptstadt als solche vor alten übrigen Kirchen besass ... die Hauptstadt war das Centrum des damaligen Weltverkehrs, und in Folge dessen der Sammelplats von Christen aller Art.”（“这 potior principalitas 指首都教会因其身处首都而在其他一切教会之前所享有的优先地位……首都是当时世界交往的中心，因此也是各类基督徒的汇集之地。”）他援引波尔多的赫尔韦乌斯 (Herveus of Bordeaux) 和胡戈·埃特里阿努斯 (Hugo Eterianus) 的平行段落，来为 convenire 的地方性含义辩护（第172页及下页）。但其道德意义（意见一致）似乎更为自然。↩︎
Petri cathedram atque ecclesiam principalem, unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est.（彼得的教座和首要教会，祭司职分的合一由此而出。）《书信集》(Epist.) lv，第19章（Bal.版），《致罗马主教哥尼流》(Ad Cornelium episc. Rom.)。在戈尔德霍恩 (Goldhorn) 版中为书信 lix. 19。↩︎
Ecclesiae catholicae radicem et matricem（大公教会的根与母体）。书信 xl. 2，Bal.版（Goldh.版为 xlviii）。居普良 (Cyprian) 著作中其他有利于罗马教座的段落，不是插入之文，就是为教皇制利益而作的篡改。↩︎
爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 逐一列举了从革利免到埃留特鲁斯 (Eleutherus，177年) 的罗马主教，却只承认其中一位是殉道者，即特勒斯福鲁斯 (Telesphorus)；他说此人：ὃς^* καὶ ἐνδόξως ἐμαρτύρησε^*，P，《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) III，第3章，§3。优西比乌 (Eusebius)《教会史》(H. E.) V. 6也如此记载。我们必须据此判断罗马天主教在这一点上传统的价值。它距离所论时代如此遥远，完全不值得相信。↩︎
纽曼枢机 (Cardinal Newman) 说（《辩白》〔Apologia〕，第407页）：“在整个逼迫时期，罗马教座没有一位伟大的思想家。此后很长一段时间，它也拿不出一位教会博士。西方世界伟大的明灯是圣奥古斯丁；他虽不是无谬误的教师，却塑造了欧洲的思想。”斯坦利座堂主任牧师 (Dean Stanley) 评论说（《基督教制度》〔Christian Institutions〕，第241页）：“君士坦丁堡、亚历山大和坎特伯雷的教座上，曾有一些任职者，他们的言论对基督教世界思想的影响，超过了任何一位教皇。”↩︎
他在《驳斥一切异端》(Philosophumenon) 第九卷中称他为 ἀνὴρ ἰδιώτης καὶ αἰσχροκέρδης^*。↩︎
或至少是第一位由彼得任命的。德尔图良 (Tertullian)，《论异端者的抗辩》(De Praescr. HaeR.) 第32章：“Romanorum Clementem a Petro ordinatum.”（罗马人的革利免由彼得按立。）《使徒宪章》(Apost. Const.) VII. 6以利努斯 (Linus，比较《提摩太后书》4:21) 为首任主教，由保罗任命；革利免为第二任，由彼得任命。按埃皮法尼乌 (Epiphanius) 的说法（《驳异端》〔Haer.〕XXVII. 6），革利免由彼得按立，却直到利努斯和阿纳克勒图斯 (Anacletus) 去世后才就职。↩︎
爱任纽 (Irenaeus) 的名录（《驳异端》〔Adv. Haer.〕III. 3，3）一直列到他自己的时代（公元177年），如下：使徒彼得和保罗，利努斯 (Linos)，阿纳克勒图斯 (Anacletos)，革利免 (Clement)，埃瓦里斯图斯 (Evaristus)，亚历山大 (Alexander)，克叙斯图斯 (Xystos)，光荣殉道的特勒斯福鲁斯 (Telesphoros)，许吉努斯 (Hyginos)，庇乌斯 (Pios)，阿尼凯图斯 (Aniketos)，索特尔 (Soter)，埃留特鲁斯 (Eleutheros)；后者当时“从使徒算起，在第十二位上承受了主教职分”。爱任纽又说：“按着这一次序，借着这一承继，来自使徒的教会传统和真理的宣讲，传到了我们这里。”↩︎
朗根 (Langen)（前引书，第100页及后）将罗马长老—主教的世系一直延续到亚历山大，并将罗马教会君主制体制（即教区主教制）的起始，定于图拉真 (Trajan) 或哈德良 (Hadrian) 时代。爱任纽（见优西比乌 V. 27）将直到阿尼凯图斯 (Anicetus，154年) 为止的罗马主教称为 πρεσβύτεροι^*。↩︎
英格兰教会 (Church of England) 在信经中保留了“大公”一词（catholic），也保留了这一词在教皇制以前及反对教皇制时的用法（即一般的、普世的）；而路德 (Luther) 在其《教理问答》中，摩拉维亚教会 (Moravian church) 在其礼仪中，都以“基督教的”（Christian）取代此词，将“catholic”的使用权让给了罗马天主教徒。“罗马”是一个宗派性用语（与希腊大公教会和福音派大公教会相对）。↩︎
Credo ecclesiam（我信教会）；但不像论及神的各位格时那样，使用 in（εἰς^*）ecclesiam（信靠教会）。↩︎
Communio sanctorum（圣徒相通）。不过，第五世纪以前罗马教会的原始信经中，并没有这一条。↩︎
ἄνθρωπον εἰς ἕνωσιν κατηρτισμένον^*。↩︎
《致士每拿人书》(Ad Smyrn.) 第8章。↩︎
《致以弗所人书》(Ad Ephes.) 第5章。《致特拉勒人书》(Ad Trall.) 第7章。《致非拉铁非人书》(Ad Philad.) 第3章，等等。↩︎
《驳异端》(Adv. Haer.) iii. 24。“Ubi ecclesia ibi et Spiritus Dei, et ubi Spiritus Dei, illic et omnis gratia”（教会在哪里，上帝的灵也在哪里；上帝的灵在哪里，一切恩典也都在那里）。新教则会反过来说，将圣灵放在首位：“Ubi Spiritus Dei, ibi ecclesia et omnis gratia.”（上帝的灵在哪里，教会和一切恩典也都在那里。）↩︎
《约书亚记讲道》(Hom. 3 in Josuam)，第5章。“Extra hanc domum, id est extra ecclesiam, nemo salvatur”（在这家之外，也就是在教会之外，无人得救）。↩︎
“Christianus non est, qui in Christi ecclesia non est”（不在基督教会之内的人，就不是基督徒）。↩︎
“Habere non potest Deum patrem, qui ecclesiam non habet matrem”（不以教会为母的人，就不能以上帝为父）。↩︎
“Extra ecclesia nulla salus”（教会之外没有救恩）。然而，他从未说过“extra Romanam nulla salus”（罗马教会之外没有救恩）。↩︎
《约翰福音》10:16。拉丁文《武加大译本》(Vulgate) 将 ποίμνη^* 译作 ovile（羊圈），把它与 αὐλή^* 混淆；我们可以说，这是一个颇具其特色、也预示不祥的错误。《钦定本》(Authorized Version) 沿袭了这个贻害不浅的误译（“一个羊圈”），但1881年的《修订本》(Revision) 已予以纠正。↩︎
哈奇 (Hatch)，前引书（l.c.），第187页及下页。↩︎
Concilium（会议）一词，最早由德尔图良 (Tertullian) 用于教会意义，见《论禁食》(De Iejun.) 第13章、《论贞洁》(De Pudic.) 第10章；σύνοδος^*，意为集会、议事会议（见希罗多德、修昔底德、柏拉图、德摩斯梯尼等人的著作），最早用于基督徒集会，见伪托使徒的《宪章》(Constit.) V. 20，以及《教规》(Canons) 第36或38条。它可以指教区、省区或全体基督徒为选举、司法、立法或教义事务而召开的会议。↩︎
公元50年。《使徒行传》15章和《加拉太书》2章。另参主的应许：即使只有最少数的人奉他的名聚集，他也必在他们中间，见《马太福音》18:19、20。参本书第I卷，§64，第503页及后。↩︎
关于罗马帝国的行省会议，参马夸特 (Marquardt)《罗马国家行政》(Römische Staatsverwaltung)，I. 365–377；以及哈奇 (Hatch)，前引书（l.c.），第164页及后。议事之前先行献祭，会议主席称为大祭司。↩︎
也就是说，范围限于旧罗马帝国之内，将其视为 orbis terrarum（天下）。从来没有过绝对普世的会议。即使325至787年间的七次大公会议，也仅限于帝国境内，西方主教出席者寥寥。在此之后召开的罗马教会会议（直到1870年的梵蒂冈会议），虽声称具有普世性，却将希腊教会和一切福音派教会排除在外。↩︎
参《使徒行传》15:6、7、12、13、23，其中除使徒和长老外，还明确提到“弟兄们”也是会议成员，甚至参与最后的决议和牧函。关于文本异读，参本书第I卷，第505页。↩︎
居普良 (Cyprian)，《著作集》(Opera)，巴吕兹版（ed. Baluz.），第329页。不过，在这次会议的记录中（第330–338页），只有主教以投票者身份出现；有些作者由此推断，平信徒乃至长老都没有 votum decisium（决定性表决权）。但在若干古代会议中，长老和执事曾在主教之后署名；参阿尔杜安 (Harduin)，《会议汇编》(Coll. Conc.)，I. 250、266；赫费勒 (Hefele)，I. 19。↩︎
《书信集》(Epp.) xi、xiii、lxvi、lxxi。↩︎
《书信》(Ep.) xxxi。↩︎
居普良 (Cyprian)，《书信》(Ep.) liv，其根据是《使徒行传》15:28的 ἔδοξε τῷ ἁγίῳ πνεύματι καὶ ἡμῖν^*，visum est Spiritui Sancto et nobis（圣灵和我们定意如此）。公元314年的阿尔勒会议 (Council of Arles) 也如此说：Placuit ergo, presente Spiritu Sancto et angelis ejus（因此，在圣灵及其天使临在之下，议决如下）；见阿尔杜安 (Harduin)，《会议汇编》(Coll. Concil.)，I. 262。↩︎
Epistolae formatae，γράμματα τετυπωμένα^*（格式书信）。↩︎
这一政策由君士坦丁一世 (Constantine I) 于公元326年开创（《狄奥多西法典》〔Cod. Theod.〕16, 5, 1）。他在后来的法令中，将313年曾赐予基督徒的特权和豁免，仅限于“Catholicae legis observatoribus”（遵守大公教会律法者）。他批准尼西亚信经，并放逐阿里乌 (Arius，325年)，尽管后来态度又有摇摆，并由一位半阿里乌派主教为他施洗（337年）。他的直接继承者也同样摇摆不定。但一般而言，拜占庭皇帝都承认会议在教义和纪律方面的决议，阻挠并最终禁止持异议者组织宗派。国家当然无法阻止作为个人见解的异议；它只能禁止并惩罚公开的宣认。充分的宗教自由要求政教分离。↩︎
赫费勒 (Hefele)、加姆斯 (Gams) 和戴尔 (Dale) 均赞同这一年代，而不采纳题记所标明的尼西亚会议时期（324年）。主要理由是：科尔多瓦主教何西乌 (Hosius of Cordova) 在324年身处东方，不可能出席；307年以后也不可能出席，因为那年他已加入君士坦丁的随从，成为其私人顾问之一。↩︎
“Placuit picturas in ecclesia esse non debere, ne quod colitur et adoratur in parietibus depingatur.”“议决教会内不应有画像，免得所尊崇的〔圣徒〕和所敬拜的〔上帝与基督〕被描绘在墙上。”↩︎
后一种解释，是德罗西 (DeRossi) 在《地下罗马》(Roma sotteranea)，第I卷，第97页，以及赫费勒 (Hefele)，I. 170，对这条教规所作的解释。但戴尔 (Dale，第292页及后) 认为，它所针对的是基督徒的偶像崇拜。↩︎
关于埃尔维拉会议 (Synod of Elvira)，最好的论述见斐迪南·德·门多萨 (Ferdinand de Mendoza)，《致克雷芒八世论确认埃尔维拉会议》(De confirmando Concilio Illiberitano ad Clementem VIII.)，1593年（重印于曼西〔Mansi〕II. 57–397）；Fr. Ant. 冈萨雷斯 (Fr. Ant. Gonzalez)，《西班牙教会教规汇编》(Collect. Can. Ecclesiae Hispaniae)，马德里，1808年，附西班牙语译文的新版，1849年（重印于布伦斯〔Bruns〕，Bibl. Eccl.，第I卷，第II部，第1页及后）；赫费勒 (Hefele)，《会议史》(Conciliengesch.)，I. 148–192（第2版，1873年；或第1版，第122页及后）；加姆斯 (Gams)，《西班牙教会史》(Kirchengesch. von Spanien)，1864年，第II卷，第1–136页；以及戴尔 (Dale) 关于《埃尔维拉会议》(Synod of Elvira) 的专著，伦敦，1882年。↩︎
Concilium Arelatense（阿尔勒会议），得名于 Arelate 或 Arelatum Sextanorum，即高卢东南部的罗马主要城市之一阿尔勒 (Arles)。君士坦丁一度居住于此，后来西哥特王欧里克 (Eurich) 也曾居住于此。这里或许是高卢第一个主教区的所在地，或者仅次于里昂 (Lyons) 和维埃纳 (Vienne)。该城举行过数次会议，第二次是在阿里乌派争论期间的353年。↩︎
不是麦克林托克与斯特朗 (McClintock & Strong)《百科全书》(Cyclop)“阿尔勒”(Arles) 条目所说的633年。↩︎
参优西比乌 (Eus.)，《教会史》(H. E.) x. 5；曼西 (Mansi)，II. 463–468；明兴 (München)，《第一次阿尔勒会议》(Das ersten Concil von Arles)，载《波恩哲学与天主教神学杂志》(Bonner Zeitschrift für Philos. und kath. Theol.)，第9、26、27期；以及赫费勒 (Hefele)，I. 201–219（第2版）。↩︎
赫费勒 (Hefele)，第I卷，第222页及后，列出教规的希腊文及德文，并附解释。他称其为 Synodus plenaria，即小亚细亚和叙利亚各教会的全体会议。另参曼西 (Mansi)，II. 514及后。358和375年，安居拉 (Ancyra) 曾举行过两次阿里乌派会议。↩︎
参赫费勒 (Hefele)，I. 242–251。↩︎
哈纳克 (Harnack，前引书，第266–268页) 认为伪克莱门 (Pseudo-Clement) 与伪伊格那丢 (Pseudo-Ignatius) 是同一人，并将其年代定于第四世纪中叶。↩︎
图里亚努斯 (Turrianus)、博维乌斯 (Bovius)，以及性情古怪的惠斯顿 (Whiston)，都将这些伪托使徒的《宪章》视为使徒的真实著作，认为其中包含基督在复活与升天之间四十天内的教导。但巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius)、贝拉明 (Bellarmin) 和佩塔维乌斯 (Petavius) 并不看重它们，而新教学者达耶 (Daillé) 和布隆代尔 (Blondel) 则抨击并推翻了其真实性与权威性。这部著作逐渐累积而成，包含许多重复、插文、矛盾以及时代错置。已遭斩首的雅各（公元44年），被安排与保罗一同参加会议（VI. 14），但在另一处却被说成已经去世（V. 7）。使徒们谴责使徒时期以后的异端及异端人物（VI. 8），并为自己的逝世指定纪念日（VIII. 33）。其中对主教制的颂扬极为夸张。P. 德·拉加德 (P. de Lagarde) 说（Rel juris Eccles. ant.，序言，第IV页）：“Communis vivorum doctorum fere omnium nunc invaluit opinio eas [constitutiones] saeculo tertio clam succrevisse et quum sex aliquando libris septimo et octavo auctas esse postea.”（如今，几乎所有在世学者都普遍认为，这些〔宪章〕是在第三世纪悄然形成的，原来一度只有六卷，后来又增补了第七和第八卷。）↩︎
比克尔 (Bickell) 即持此说。贝弗里奇 (Beveridge) 则将这部汇编定于第三世纪。↩︎
据达耶 (Daillé)、冯·德赖博士 (Dr. von Drey) 和迈耶尔 (Mejer) 的看法。↩︎
Peccata mortalia，或 ad mortem（致死的罪）；这是根据对《约翰一书》5:16颇为武断的解释。德尔图良列举了七种致死的罪： Homocidium idololatria, fraus, negatio blasphemia. utique et moechia et. fornicatio et si qua alia violatio templi Dei.（杀人、拜偶像、欺诈、背道、亵渎，当然还有奸淫、淫乱，以及任何其他玷污上帝之殿的行为。）见《论贞洁》(De pudic.) 第19章。他宣称这些罪是 irremissibilia（不可赦免的），horum ultra exoratur non erit Christus（基督不会再为这些罪受恳求）；也就是说，若这些罪是在受洗之后犯下的；因为洗礼洗净先前的一切罪责。因此，他劝人推迟受洗。↩︎
Peccata, venialia（可赦免的罪）。↩︎
Poenitentes（悔罪者）。↩︎
第4条教规及后。参赫费勒 (Hefele)，《会议史》(Conciliengesch)，第2版，I. 225及后。另参新凯撒利亚 (Neocaesarea) 第5条教规，以及赫费勒，第246页。↩︎
Προσκλαίοντες^*，flentes（哀哭者）；也称 χειμάζοντες^*，hiemantes（在寒冬中露立者）。↩︎
Ἀκροώμενοι^*，audientes，或 auditores（听道者）。尼西亚会议第14条教规（赫费勒〔Hefele〕I. 418）规定：“跌倒的慕道者，应当在三年内仅作听道者，此后才可与慕道者一同祷告。”↩︎
Γονυκλίνοντες^*，genuflectentes（跪拜者）；又称 ὑποπίπτοντες^*，Substrati（俯伏者）。γόνυ κλίνων^* 一词用作一类悔罪者的名称，仅见于314年之后、325年之前召开的新凯撒利亚会议 (Council of Neocaesarea) 第5条教规。↩︎
Συνιστάμενοι^*，consistentes（同立者）。↩︎
Πρόσκλαυσις^*，fletus（哀哭）；ἀκρόασις^*，auditus（听道）；ὑπόπτωσις^*，prostratio, humiliatio（俯伏、谦卑）；σύστασις^*，consistentia（同立）。有人认为，后三类对应于慕道者的三种类别，但并无充分根据。慕道者只有一类，至多也只有两类。参下文§72。↩︎
Πρεσβύτεροι ἐπὶ τῆς μετανοίας^*，presbyteri poenitentiarii（主管悔罪事务的长老）。↩︎
Reconciliatio（和好）。↩︎
宣告式的赦罪，尤其是直接用直陈语气或司法判决形式施行的赦罪，似乎起源较晚。↩︎
居普良 (Cypr.)，《书信》(Epist.) LV，第15章：“Neque enim prejudicamus Domino judicaturo, quominus si penitentiam plenam et justam peccatoris invenerit tunc ratum faciat, quod a nobis fuerit hic statutum. Si vero nos aliquis poenitentiae simulatione deluserit, Deus, cui non deridetur, et qui cor hominis intuetur, de his, quae nos minus perspeximus, judicet et servorum suorum sententiam Dominus mendet.”（我们并不预断那将要施行审判的主，以致妨碍他在发现罪人的悔改完全而真实时，认可我们在此所作的决定。倘若有人假装悔改来欺骗我们，那不受轻慢、鉴察人心的上帝，必对我们未能看清的事施行审判，主也必纠正他仆人的判决。）参《书信》(Epist.) LXXV. 4，以及《论跌倒者》(De Lapsi) 第17章中的类似段落。但若教会正如居普良所承认的，可能错误地赦免不配得赦免的人，那么，她也可能错误地拒绝赦免，并错误地作出逐出教会的判决。↩︎
《哥林多前书》5:1及下。参《哥林多后书》2:5及下。↩︎
详情参§183，以及德林格 (Döllinger)《希波吕托与卡利斯托》(Hippol. and Call.)，A. 普卢默 (A. Plummer) 英译本（1876年），第92页及后。↩︎
参蒙森 (Mommsen)，《论354年的编年史家》(Über den Chronographen vom Jahr 354)，1850年；利普修斯 (Lipsius)，《罗马主教年代考》(Chronologie der Röm. Bischöfe)，第40页及后；德林格 (Döllinger)，前引书（I.c.），第332页及后；雅科比 (Jacobi)，载赫尔措格 (Herzog)《百科全书》第2版，第VI卷，第142页及后。↩︎
居普良 (Cyprian) 指控他有种种骇人的残暴行为，如掠夺寡妇孤儿，严重虐待父亲和妻子，甚至在妻子怀孕期间也是如此；并说，德修 (Decius) 的逼迫爆发时，他正将因这些及类似恶行而受审。见《书信》(Ep.) 49。↩︎
在第52封书信《致安托尼安》(Ad Antonianum) 中，他试图为自己观点的这一转变辩解。↩︎
Novatiani, Novatianenses（诺瓦提安派）。↩︎
Καθαροί^*。↩︎
优西比乌 (Eusebius) 和希腊人称他为 Νοουάτος^*，并将他与迦太基的诺瓦图 (Novatus of Carthage) 混为一谈。然而，亚历山大的狄奥尼修 (Dionysius of Alex.) 称他为 Νοουατιανός^*。↩︎

第四章 教会的组织与纪律

目录

§ 41. 巩固的进程

§ 42. 教牧与平信徒

§ 43. 新的教会职员

§ 44. 主教制的起源

§ 45. 主教制的发展：伊格那丢

§ 46. 爱任纽与德尔图良时代的主教制

§ 47. 居普良的主教制

§ 48. 伪克莱门文献中的主教制

§ 49. 都主教制与牧首制的起源

§ 50. 教皇制的萌芽

罗马的革利免

伊格那丢

爱任纽

希波吕托

德尔图良

居普良

菲尔米利安

早期教皇相对而言并不显要

§ 51. 教皇年表

I. 史料

II. 著作

§ 52. 头三个世纪的罗马主教与罗马皇帝名录

§ 53. 大公教会的合一

§ 54. 教会会议

§ 55. 埃尔维拉、阿尔勒与安居拉会议

§ 56. 教会法汇编：《使徒宪章》与《使徒教规》

史料

考证论著

§ 57. 教会纪律

悔罪者的等级

恢复资格

两个派别

§ 58. 教会的分裂

Original Text

CHAPTER IV. ORGANIZATION AND DISCIPLINE OF THE CHURCH.

§ 41. Progress in Consolidation.

§ 42. Clergy and Laity.

§ 43. New Church Officers.

§ 44. Origin of the Episcopate.

§ 45. Development of the Episcopate. Ignatius.

§ 46. Episcopacy at the time of Irenaeus and Tertullian.

§ 47. Cyprianic Episcopacy.

§ 48. The Pseudo-Clementine Episcopacy.

§ 49. Beginnings of the Metropolitan and Patriarchal Systems

§ 50. Germs of the Papacy.

Clement of Rome.

Ignatius.

Irenaeus.

Hippolytus.

Tertullian.

Cyprian.

Firmilian.

Comparative Insignificance of the first Popes.

§ 51. Chronology of the Popes.

I. Sources.

II. Works.

§ 52. List of the Roman Bishops and Roman Emperors during the First Three Centuries.

§ 53. The Catholic Unity.

§ 54. Councils.

§ 55. The Councils of Elvira, Arles, and Ancyra.

§ 56. Collections of Ecclesiastical Law. The Apostolical Constitutions and Canons.

Sources.

Critical Discussions.

§ 57. Church Discipline.

Classes of Penitents.

Restoration.

Two Parties.

§ 58. Church Schisms.

Original Footnotes

脚注

Best guess 对照表

第四章教会的组织与纪律