Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第六章 教会纪律与分裂

目录

§ 68. 教会纪律的衰退

§ 69. 多纳徒派分裂：外部历史

§ 70. 奥古斯丁与多纳徒派：他们所受的逼迫及其消亡

§ 71. 多纳徒派分裂的内部历史：教会的教义

§ 72. 达马苏与乌尔西努斯造成的罗马分裂

§ 73. 安提阿的米利提乌派分裂

§ 68. 教会纪律的衰退

主要史料是教会法书籍和历次会议的议事录。参看§ 67及第I卷§ 114所列文献。

教会与国家的联合，总的说来，对教会纪律产生了有害的影响；这种影响表现在两个相反的方向。

一方面，这种联合加重了纪律的严厉程度，并导致了针对属灵过犯的刑法。国家援助教会，赋予停止圣餐交通和逐出教会的处分以法律效力，又在这些处分之外加上民事惩罚。因此，在尼西亚 (Nicene) 时期及其后一个时期的神学争论中，主教遭罢黜和放逐的事不计其数；拜占庭 (Byzantine) 专制政治以及当时宗教上的不宽容与偏执，尤其助长了这种情形。甚至死刑也曾被颁行，至少曾用于普里西良派 (Priscillianists)，尽管较为高尚的神学家曾提出抗议，坚持教会及其兵器的属灵性质。¹异端被视为危害社会的最严重、最不可宽恕的罪行，掌权的一方无论持何种信条，都据此加以处置。

但另一方面，纪律却削弱了。对异端的处置日趋严厉，对行为过失的抵制却日益松懈。憎恨异端而道德松弛，热心于教义的纯正却漠视生活的纯洁，这些本应彼此排斥的事，实际上却常常并存。试想基督时代法利赛主义 (Pharisaism) 的历史，正统路德宗 (Lutheranism) 反对施彭纳 (Spener) 和敬虔主义 (Pietistic) 运动的历史，以及尊崇主教权的英国国教派 (Anglicanism) 与卫理宗 (Methodism) 和福音派冲突的历史。甚至在约翰的时代，以弗所教会就已有这种情形；在这一点上，它预示了后来东方教会光明与阴暗的两面。²诚然，在戴克里先 (Dioclesian) 逼迫期间形成的、分为四等悔罪阶次的严肃而僵硬、机械的悔罪纪律，³在条文上仍然有效，并且屡次得到第四世纪各次会议的重申。但环境的巨大变化，使实际执行这种纪律越来越困难，因为那些应当受其约束的人，不仅人数大增，而且身居高位。在君士坦丁 (Constantine) 治下那场巨大的变革中，教会失去了她的贞洁，与尚未经历内在改变的广大异教世界结成了联盟。皇帝本人和其他掌权者，本应以身作则，却屡屡在热心于理论上的正统之余，以其可耻的行为，使自己最配受停止圣餐交通和逐出教会的处分；而围绕在他们身边的，却是软弱或世俗化的主教，他们关心属世主人的恩宠，过于关心天上之主的尊荣和教会的尊严。就连优西比乌 (Eusebius)，这位在其他方面尚属当时较好主教之一的人，对君士坦丁的重大罪行也没有一句责备之言，却只对他的功绩献上极尽夸张的颂扬。

在希腊教会，纪律逐渐衰退，极大地损害了公共道德；人人都可以按自己的良心领受圣餐。只有主教保留着禁止恶人赴主桌的权利。约390年，君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 牧首涅克塔里乌斯 (Nectarius) 废除了负责执行悔罪纪律的悔罪司祭（presbyter poenitentiarius）一职。引起这一举措的是一桩丑闻：一位贵妇前来接受公开悔罪时，在教会中遭一个无耻的执事奸污。其他东方主教很快便效法了涅克塔里乌斯。⁴

苏格拉底 (Socrates) 和索佐门 (Sozomen) 倾向于诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 的严厉立场，认为纪律与昔日道德纯洁性的衰退始于这一举措。但真正的原因还在更早以前，在于教会与世俗权力的结合。假若国家也充满了基督教那种宗教上的严肃与热忱，例如加尔文 (Calvin) 改革之下的日内瓦共和国 (Genevan republic) 那样，教会纪律就会因这种联盟而有所增益，而非遭受损失。然而，庞大的罗马国家不能如此轻易而迅速地抛弃其异教传统和习俗；它不过是以基督教的名义将这些延续下去。广大民众至多只领受了约翰悔改的洗，而没有领受基督以圣灵与火施行的洗。

然而，即使在这些新环境之下，教会原有的道德严肃性仍不时显露出来。仍不乏主教敢于直面皇帝，毫无畏惧地加以责备，正如拿单站在犯罪后的大卫面前一样。金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 严格坚持，执事应当将所有不配的人拒于圣餐之外；然而，他因严厉谴责宫廷的不道德行为，最终给自己招来了罢黜和流放。他对施行圣餐的人说：“即使是将领，或是总督，甚至头戴皇冠的人，若不配而前来〔赴主的桌〕，也要阻止他；你的权柄比他更大……务要谨慎，免得你惹动主的忿怒，所给的不是食物，而是刀剑。若有一个新的犹大前来领圣餐，也要阻止他。要惧怕上帝，不要惧怕人。你若惧怕人，他就会轻看你；你若惧怕上帝，即使在人眼中，你也会显得可敬。”⁵叙涅修斯 (Synesius) 将五城地区 (Pentapolis) 那个卑劣的总督安德罗尼库斯 (Andronicus) 逐出教会，因为他残酷压迫穷人，又藐视主教的劝诫；这次纪律处分取得了预期的效果。教会纪律最著名的例子，是约390年安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 与狄奥多西一世 (Theodosius I) 在米兰 (Milan) 的交锋。这位主教拒绝让这位强大而正统的皇帝领受圣餐，并将他挡在教堂门槛之外，因为皇帝曾因一场暴乱而大发雷霆，下令士兵不分地位、性别或有罪无罪，以骇人的残酷手段杀戮了帖撒罗尼迦 (Thessalonica) 的七千人。八个月后，皇帝接受了教会的公开悔罪，又应许以后凡判处死刑，须在宣判三十天后才执行，使他在必要时有时间撤销判决、施行怜悯；安布罗斯这才应其请求，赐予他赦罪。⁶在这里，安布罗斯确实维护了教会面对国家时的尊严和权利，也维护了基督教的节制与怜悯对抗粗暴武力的要求——尽管其中或许不免夹杂着教阶权威的高傲。一位近代历史学家说：“教会就这样在专断权力不受限制的时代，证明自己是人民自由的庇护所，而圣徒也承担起了保民官的职责。”⁷

§ 69. 多纳徒派分裂：外部历史

I. 史料。奥古斯丁 (Augustine)：反多纳徒派著作（《驳帕尔梅尼安书信》 Contra epistolam Parmeniani，3卷；《论洗礼，驳多纳徒派》 De baptismo, contra Donatistas，7卷；《驳佩提利安书信》 Contra literas Petiliani，3卷；《论教会的合一》 De Unitate Ecclesiae，1卷；《驳多纳徒派文法家克雷斯科尼乌斯》 Contra Cresconium, grammaticum Donat.，4卷；《与多纳徒派会谈简录》 Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis；《驳高登提乌斯》 Contra Gaudentium，等等），收于其《全集》 Opera，本笃会版（ed. Bened.），第9卷（巴黎，1688年）。米勒维的奥普塔图斯 (Optatus Milevitanus，约370年)：《论多纳徒派的分裂》 De schismate Donatistarum。L. E. 杜潘 (L. E. Du Pin)：《有关多纳徒派历史的古代文献》 Monumenta vett. ad Donatist. Hist. pertinentia，巴黎 (Par.)，1700年。《有关多纳徒派历史的古代摘录与著述》 Excerpta et Scripta vetera ad Donatistarum Historiam pertinentia，见本笃会版奥古斯丁著作第9卷末。

2. 研究文献。瓦莱修斯 (Valesius)：《论多纳徒派的分裂》 De schism. Donat.（附于他所编的优西比乌著作版本）。瓦尔希 (Walch)：《异端史》等，Historie der Ketzereien, etc.，第IV卷。尼安德 (Neander)：《教会通史》 Allg. K. G.，II. 1，第366页及后（托里〔Torrey〕英译本，第II卷，第182页及后）。A. 鲁 (A. Roux)：《论作为多纳徒派论敌的奥古斯丁》 De Augustine adversario Donat.，莱顿 (Lugd. Bat.)，1838年。F. 里贝克 (F. Ribbeck)：《多纳徒与奥古斯丁，或分离主义与教会之间第一次决定性的斗争》 Donatus u. Augustinus, oder der erste entscheidende Kampf zwischen Separatismus u. Kirche.，埃尔伯费尔德 (Elberf.)，1858年。（作者曾短期加入浸信会，后来重返普鲁士国立教会，并写了这部反对分离主义的著作。）

在我们所论的这一时期，多纳徒主义 (Donatism) 是教会中远较其他分裂重要的一次分裂。整整一个世纪，它将北非教会分成了两个敌对的阵营。与前一时期的分裂一样，⁸它起源于在恢复跌倒者的问题上，两种教会纪律观之间的冲突，一种较为严厉，另一种较为宽容。但由于基督教化的国家介入其中，它同时又带上了教会政治的性质。上一时期，严厉的悔罪纪律尤其以当时仍然存在的孟他努派 (Montanists) 和诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 为代表；而较宽缓的原则和实践，则在罗马教会得到了最有力的支持，并且自君士坦丁时代起普遍占据了上风。

多纳徒派 (Donatists) 分裂的开端，出现在戴克里先的逼迫期间；这场逼迫重新激起了关于教会纪律和殉道的争论。严厉派得到当时努米底亚 (Numidia) 首席主教、提吉西斯的塞昆杜斯 (Secundus of Tigisis) 的支持，并由卡萨伊尼格莱的主教多纳徒 (Donatus of Casae Nigrae) 领导，以狂热的蔑死精神奔向殉道者的冠冕；在他们看来，逃避危险或交出圣书，都无非是怯懦和背叛，应当因此永远被排除在教会团契之外。温和派则以主教门苏里乌斯 (Mensurius) 及其总执事、继任者凯基利安 (Caecilian) 为首，主张应当顾及审慎与明辨，并对那些急于出头的认信者和殉道者的动机提出质疑。早在305年，在为基塔 (Cita) 城选立主教的事情上，就已濒临分裂。但直到311年逼迫停止之后，分裂才正式爆发；当时的问题，是因匆忙选立凯基利安为迦太基 (Carthage) 主教而起。多纳徒派拒绝承认他，因为在他的按立一事上，努米底亚的主教们受到了轻慢，而主持按立礼的阿普通吉斯 (Aptungis，又作 Aptunga) 主教费利克斯 (Felix)，又被他们指为 traditor，即曾将圣书交给异教逼迫者的人。在迦太基本城，他也有许多反对者，其中包括会众的长老（seniores plebis），尤其是一位富有而迷信的寡妇露西拉 (Lucilla)；她惯于在每日领圣餐前亲吻某些圣物，而且似乎看重这些圣物，过于圣礼的属灵能力。提吉西斯的塞昆杜斯与七十位努米底亚主教聚集在迦太基，他们大多属于严厉派，遂将拒绝到场的凯基利安罢黜并逐出教会，又选立露西拉所宠爱的读经员马约里努斯 (Majorinus) 取代他。马约里努斯于315年去世后，由多纳徒 (Donatus) 继任。此人才华出众，精力炽烈，雄辩有力，被崇敬他的人尊为行奇事者，并被称为“大多纳徒”。该派的名称正是源于此人，而非上文所提的那位多纳徒。⁹

双方都力图争取外地教会的支持，分裂因而扩展开来。多纳徒派向君士坦丁皇帝申诉——这是向皇帝申诉的首例，也是他们后来不得不追悔的一步。皇帝当时在高卢 (Gaul)，将此事交给罗马主教梅尔基亚德 (Melchiades，又名 Miltiades) 和五位高卢主教处理，并命被告凯基利安及双方各十位非洲主教到他们面前听审。裁决有利于凯基利安；此后，除非洲之外，各地都公认他为迦太基的合法主教。多纳徒派提出抗议。君士坦丁又将此事交由314年的阿尔勒会议 (Arles，Arelate) 作第二次调查，结果仍然相同。于是，多纳徒派不服这个教会法庭的裁决，转而请求皇帝亲自审判；皇帝也于316年在米兰 (Milan) 作出不利于他们的裁决，不久又颁布惩罚他们的法令，威胁要放逐他们的主教，没收他们的教堂。

逼迫使他们成为自己曾求援的国家的敌人，也助长了他们狂热的烈焰。他们以暴力抵抗皇帝的专使乌尔萨基乌斯 (Ursacius)，声称世上没有任何权力能迫使他们与“无赖”（nebulo）凯基利安保持教会团契。君士坦丁看出，以强力限制宗教是徒劳的，便于321年颁布敕令，给予多纳徒派充分的信仰与敬拜自由。他始终坚持这一宽容政策，并劝勉大公教会信徒忍耐宽容。在330年召开的一次会议上，多纳徒派共有二百七十位主教。

君士坦丁的继承者君士坦斯 (Constans) 再次诉诸暴力措施；但无论威胁还是许诺，都不能使这一派有所动摇。事态终于发展到流血的地步。巡游派 (Circumcellions) 是多纳徒派的一种托钵修士，游荡于乡间农民的茅舍之间；¹⁰他们与反叛的农民和奴隶勾结，抢劫、纵火、杀人，又以疯狂的热忱追求殉道者的冠冕，自视为基督真正的精兵，赴汤蹈火，纵身跳下岩崖。然而，多纳徒派中也有人不赞同这种革命的狂热。叛乱被军队镇压；多纳徒派的几位领袖被处死，另一些遭到放逐，他们的教堂被关闭或没收。大多纳徒死于流放之中，由一位名叫帕尔梅尼安 (Parmenianus) 的人继任。

在背教者尤利安 (Julian the Apostate) 统治下，多纳徒派与其他所有异端和分裂派一同重新获得宗教自由，并收回了他们的教堂；他们将教堂重新粉刷，以除去大公教会信徒对它们的亵渎。但在后来的诸位皇帝统治下，外有逼迫，内有纷争，他们的处境日益恶化。两派之间的争执扩展到日常生活的一切事务；例如，希坡 (Hippo) 的多纳徒派主教福斯提努斯 (Faustinus)，就不许本教会的任何成员为当地大公教会居民烤制面包。

§ 70. 奥古斯丁与多纳徒派：他们所受的逼迫及其消亡

在第四世纪末、第五世纪初，伟大的希坡主教奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 竭力借着教导与劝说，使多纳徒派与大公教会和解；在希坡，分裂派也有一个强大的会众。他为此撰写了数部著作，并动员整个非洲教会起来反对他们。他们畏惧他高超的辩证才能，尽可能避开他。然而，411年，奉皇帝之命，此事在迦太基交付为期三日的仲裁，有二百八十六位大公教会主教和二百七十九位多纳徒派主教出席。¹¹

辩论开始之前，奥古斯丁曾作过两篇优美的讲道，劝勉众人相爱、忍让、谦和；他是大公教会一方的主要发言人，分裂派一方的主要发言人则是佩提利安 (Petilian)。皇帝的军政官兼书记官马尔凯利努斯 (Marcellinus) 主持会议，并负责作出最终裁决；他又是奥古斯丁的朋友。这样的安排显然有所偏袒，确保了大公教会一方的胜利。讨论涉及两点：（1）大公教会的主教凯基利安与阿普通加的费利克斯是否曾交出圣书；（2）教会是否因与罪大恶极者相交，而失去其本质和属性。在辩论技巧与论据方面，优势在奥古斯丁一方；不过，多纳徒派在反对宗教强制、反对混淆世俗权力与属灵权力的问题上，也提出了许多有力的理由。不出所料，皇帝的专使作出了有利于大公教会一方的裁决。分离派仍然坚持自己的观点，但他们向皇帝提出的申诉依旧未能成功。

此时，国家制定了更为严厉的法律来对付他们，将多纳徒派教士逐出本国，对平信徒处以罚款，并没收教堂。415年，他们甚至被禁止举行宗教聚会，违者处死。

奥古斯丁本人先前只赞同以属灵的手段对付异端，如今却主张使用强力，使他们进入教会的团契，因为教会之外没有救恩。他援引《路加福音》14:23筵席比喻中的命令：“勉强人进来”；然而，这里的“勉强”（ἀνάγκασον^*），显然不过是一种生动的夸张说法，表达使异教徒归信的神圣热忱；例如，我们在使徒保罗身上就能见到这种热忱。¹²

狂热于是再度爆发。一位名叫高登提乌斯 (Gaudentius) 的主教威胁说，倘若有人企图用武力夺去他的教堂，他就要与会众一同在教堂里自焚；他还援引《马加比二书》第14章中拉齐斯 (Rhazis) 的榜样，为这项自杀的打算辩护。

428年，信奉阿里乌派的汪达尔人 (Vandals) 征服非洲，使非洲教会遭到蹂躏，也终结了这场争论，正如法国大革命将耶稣会主义与詹森主义一并扫除一样。然而，从贵格利一世 (Gregory I.) 的书信中，我们得知多纳徒派仍有余众延续到第七世纪；即使在衰败之中，他们仍显明了误入歧途的清教式热忱所具有的力量，以及国家教会施行逼迫所须承担的责任和罪咎。到了第七世纪，整个非洲教会都在撒拉逊人 (Saracens) 的征服之下覆没了。

§ 71. 多纳徒派分裂的内部历史：教会的教义

多纳徒派争论，是分离主义与大公主义之间的冲突，是教会纯洁主义与教会兼容主义之间的冲突，也是两种教会观之间的冲突：一种将教会视为仅由重生圣徒组成的群体，另一种则将教会视为涵盖国家与人民的整个基督教世界。这场争论围绕着基督教会本质的教义，尤其是其圣洁这一属性而展开。争论的结果，是奥古斯丁完成了大公教会关于教会的教义；此前，居普良 (Cyprian) 在与一次类似分裂的争斗中，已经部分地阐发了这一教义。¹³

多纳徒派如同德尔图良在其孟他努派著作中所做的那样，从一种理想化、唯灵的教会观出发，将教会视为圣徒的团契；在一个有罪的世界里，这种团契只能不完全地实现。他们最为强调的属性，是各个成员主观上的圣洁，或个人的配得，并使教会的大公性与圣礼的效力取决于此。因此，真正的教会与其说是培育圣洁的学校，不如说是那些已经圣洁之人的团体；或者至少是那些看似圣洁之人的团体，因为即使多纳徒派也不能否认假冒为善者的存在，也不能认真声称自己识人绝无错误。教会一旦容忍那些公然犯罪的人，便失去其圣洁，也就不再是教会。不圣洁的祭司不能施行圣礼；因为重生怎能出于未重生的人，圣洁怎能出于不圣洁的人呢？无人能将自己所没有的给予别人。想从不忠信的人那里领受信仰的人，所领受的不是信仰，而是罪咎。¹⁴事实上，他们正是据此拒绝承认凯基利安的当选：因为他是由一个不配的人按立为主教的。他们也据此根本不承认大公教会的洗礼为洗礼。在这一点上，他们从居普良那里得到了一些支持；居普良同样否认异端洗礼的有效性，不过他所持的不是分离派的立场，而是大公教会的立场，并且曾为此与罗马的司提反 (Stephen) 发生冲突。¹⁵

因此，他们像孟他努派和诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 一样，坚持严格的教会纪律，要求将所有不配的成员逐出教会，尤其是那些在逼迫之下否认信仰或交出圣经的人。此外，他们反对世俗权力对教会事务的一切干涉，尽管他们自己起初曾求助于君士坦丁。在他们看来，将民众整体囊括在内的庞大帝国教会，是一个世俗化的巴比伦；他们以分离主义的傲慢与之对立，自居为唯一真实而纯洁的教会。为了支持自己的观点，他们援引《旧约》中论及上帝子民外在圣洁的经文，以及保罗处理哥林多淫乱者的做法。

针对这种主观、唯灵的教会理论，奥古斯丁作为大公教会的捍卫者，阐发了客观、实在的理论。此后，不仅罗马教会，新教教会也一再重申这一理论，虽有各种修正，却都用它来反对分离及分裂的宗派。他最为强调的是教会的大公性，并由此推导出个别成员的圣洁与教会职能的有效性。他认为，教会的本质不在于各个基督徒的个人品格，而在于整个教会与基督的联合。他采取历史的观点，追溯教会的创立；这教会见于《新约》，已经传遍世界，并借着主教未曾中断的传承，与使徒及基督相联。唯有这才可能是真教会。她不可能突然从地上消失，也不可能仅存于非洲的多纳徒派之中。¹⁶与遍及各国的广大大公基督教世界相比，他们为自己那一小群人所说的一切，又算得了什么呢？这样，就连人数上的优势也成了论据；然而，在其他情形下，这个论据可能推出超出本意的结论，使原始教会相较于占优势的犹太人与异教徒群众，明显处于不利地位，也使福音派教会在与罗马天主教会的争论中处于同样的境地。

按照大公教会的观点，教会作为神所设立的制度，具有客观性质；她一切职能，尤其是圣礼的效力，都由此而来。佩提利安在《与多纳徒派会谈》 Collatio cum Donatistis 中说：“从不忠信的祭司那里领受信仰的人，所领受的不是信仰，而是罪咎。”奥古斯丁回答说：“但基督并非不忠信的（perfidus）；我从他领受的是信仰（fidem），而非罪咎（reatum）。因此，严格说来，基督才是施行者，祭司不过是他的器官。”奥古斯丁在同一场合又说：“我的源头是基督，我的根是基督，我的头是基督。我由之而生的种子，是上帝的道；即使传道者本人不实行他所传的，我也必须顺服这道。我所信的，不是那为我施洗的教牧，而是基督；唯有他能称罪人为义，赦免罪咎。”¹⁷

最后，关于教会纪律，多纳徒派的反对者也同意他们的看法，认为纪律是有益而必要的，但主张将其限制在时代处境和人的易错性所规定的范围之内。在最后审判以前，不可能将罪人与圣徒完全分开。许多事情必须耐心容忍，才能避免更大的恶，并使那些尚可改进的人得到改进，尤其当犯罪者拥有众多追随者的时候。奥古斯丁说：“人应当本着爱的精神施行惩戒，直到管教和纠正从上头来到，或直到普世收割之时，稗子被拔出来。”¹⁸为支持这一观点，他们援引主所讲麦子中有稗子的比喻，以及网罗各样水族的比喻（《马太福音》第十三章）。这两个比喻成为双方释经争论的主要战场。多纳徒派依照救主自己对稗子比喻的解释，认为田地不是指教会，而是指世界；¹⁹大公教会一方则回答说，整个比喻所指的是天国或教会，并特别强调救主的警告：在最后收割以前，不要拔出稗子，恐怕连麦子也一同拔出来。此外，多纳徒派还区分了罪行不为人知者与昭然可见的罪人，认为撒网的比喻仅仅是指前者。但这并未给他们带来多大助益；因为，倘若教会只要与不配的人接触，便损害其圣洁的品格，那么这些人的不配是否显明在人前，就无关紧要了，而地上也就不会剩下任何教会。

然而，另一方面，奥古斯丁和多纳徒派一样，不能放弃教会具有圣洁这一属性，因此不得不区分真实的基督身体与混杂的、或仅仅表面上的基督身体；因为假冒为善者即使在今世，也并不在基督里面，或与基督相联，只不过看似如此。²⁰然而，他又驳斥多纳徒派指责他设立两个教会的说法。在他看来，现在与不敬虔者混杂、将来必得洁净的，乃是同一个教会；正如那曾经死过、如今永远活着的，是同一位基督，那现在必死、将来必穿上不朽坏的，也是同一群信徒。²¹

稍加修正，我们便可在这里发现后来新教区分有形教会与无形教会的萌芽。这种区分并不把无形教会看作另一个教会，而是看作教会中的小教会，即 ecclesiola in ecclesia（或 ecclesiis），是在自称信徒者中间由真实信徒组成的较小团契，因而是有形教会的真实本质，包含在它的范围之内，如同身体中的灵魂，或外壳中的果仁。在这一点上，温和的多纳徒派信徒、博学的神学家提科尼乌斯 (Tychoius)²²接近了奥古斯丁；他称教会为双重的基督身体，²³其中一部分包含真实的基督徒，另一部分包含表面的基督徒。²⁴在这一点上，以及在承认大公教会洗礼的有效性上，提科尼乌斯 (Tychonius) 都偏离了多纳徒派；但他仍坚持他们关于纪律的观点，反对大公教会将教会与世界混杂在一起。然而，无论他还是奥古斯丁，都没有进一步将这一区分阐发得更加清楚。两人归根到底都陷于同一种混淆：将基督教与教会混为一谈，又将教会与某一特定的外在组织混为一谈。

§ 72. 达马苏与乌尔西努斯造成的罗马分裂

鲁菲努斯 (Rufinus)：《教会史》(Hist. Eccl.)，ii. 10。哲罗姆 (Hieronymus)：《编年史》(Chron.)，366年条。苏格拉底 (Socrates)：《教会史》(H. E.)，iv. 29（以上均支持达马苏）。福斯蒂努斯与马尔凯利努斯 (Faustinus et Marcellinus，乌尔西努斯的两位长老)：《致皇帝狄奥多西的请愿书》(Libellus precum ad Imper. Theodos.)，载 Bibl. Patr. Lugd.，v. 637（支持乌尔西努斯）。关于罗马分裂的这些基督徒记述，可以与异教历史学家阿米阿努斯·马尔凯利努斯 (Ammianus Marcellinus) 的公正叙述相比较，见其著作 xxvii，第3章，367年条。

罗马达马苏 (Damasus) 与乌尔西努斯 (Ursinus，或 Ursicinus) 之间的教会分裂，与纪律问题毫无关系，而是一部分起于阿里乌派争论，一部分出于个人野心。²⁵因为，即使在当时，那位加利利渔夫的继承者，其宫廷的权势与荣华就已如此显赫，以致著名的异教元老普赖特克斯塔图斯 (Praetextatus) 对教皇达马苏说：“让我做罗马主教，我明天就成为基督徒。”²⁶这次分裂为罗马主教选举的暴烈性质提供了一个可悲的例证。这些选举对于罗马人而言，其重要性正如从前禁卫军选举皇帝一样，牵动并激起了教士与民众的一切激情。

这次分裂起源于主教提贝里乌斯 (Tiberius) 因坚持正统信仰而被罢黜、放逐，以及皇帝君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius) 凭借专断意志，另立阿里乌派的斐利克斯 (Felix)²⁷为教皇，与之对立（公元355年）。利贝里乌斯 (Liberius) 在流放期间签署了阿里乌派的西尔米乌姆 (Sirmium) 信经，²⁸于358年复职；斐利克斯退隐，据说后来曾为自己背离正统、转从阿里乌派而悔改。然而，两派仍然存在。

利贝里乌斯于366年去世后，斐利克斯一派选举达马苏，利贝里乌斯一派选举乌尔西努斯，各以其为彼得的继承者。双方多次发生流血冲突；甚至和平之君的祭坛也遭到亵渎，在乌尔西努斯退避的一所教堂中，一天之内便有一百三十七人丧生。²⁹其他行省也被卷入这场争端。多年以后，达马苏才终于在皇帝的帮助下，取得了不再受争议的职位，而乌尔西努斯则被放逐。关于两人的选举孰先孰后、是否合法，以及谁应对流血场面负责，双方的陈述如此相互矛盾，以致我们无法进一步断定哪一方的罪责更重。达马苏在位于367至384年，据记述，他在其他方面也确是一个暴烈的人；³⁰但他有学问，也有文学鉴赏力，并且资助哲罗姆翻译拉丁文圣经，又将拉丁文《诗篇》引入教会歌唱，由此作出了有益的贡献。³¹

§ 73. 安提阿的米利提乌派分裂

哲罗姆 (Hieronymus)：《编年史》(Chron.)，864年条。屈梭多模 (Chrysostomus)：《颂我等圣父、大安提阿大主教米利提乌》(Homilia in S. Patrem nostrum Meletium, archiepiscopum magnae Antiochiae)（讲于公元386或387年，载蒙福孔编《屈梭多模全集》〔Montfaucon’s ed. of Chrysost. Opera〕，第ii卷，第518–523页）。索佐门 (Sozomen)：《教会史》(H. E.)，iv. 28；vii. 10、11。狄奥多勒 (Theodor.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，V. 3、35。苏格拉底 (Socrates)：《教会史》(H. E.)，iii. 9；v. 9、17。参看瓦尔希 (Walch)：《异端史》(Ketzerhistorie)，第iv部，第410页及后。

安提阿 (Antioch) 的米利提乌派分裂³²与阿里乌派争论交织在一起，持续了半个多世纪。

361年，安提阿教会的大多数人选举米利提乌 (Meletius) 为主教。他从前是阿里乌派，由该派按立，但当选后却宣认尼西亚正统信仰。他富有动人的口才，性情温和可亲，因此深受大公教会信徒和阿里乌派信徒的爱戴。但他在教义上的游移不定，却触怒了双方的极端分子。当他宣认尼西亚信仰时，阿里乌派在会议上罢黜了他，将他放逐，并将他的主教职位转交给从前曾与阿里乌一同被放逐的欧佐伊乌斯 (Euzoius)。³³大公教会信徒不承认欧佐伊乌斯，自己却也发生了分裂：大多数人拥护被放逐的米利提乌，而旧有的、更加严格的正统派，向来被称为欧斯塔修派 (Eustathians)，且与亚他那修 (Athanasius) 保持交通，却不肯承认一个由阿里乌派祝圣的主教，尽管他的信仰属于大公教会；他们另选品德高尚的长老保利努斯 (Paulinus)，由卡拉里斯的路西弗 (Lucifer of Calaris) 将他按立为对立主教。³⁴

米利提乌派与旧尼西亚派之间的教义差异，主要在于：后者承认神圣三一之中有三个自立体 (hypostases)，前者则只承认三个位格 (prosopa)；一方强调神圣本质的三重性，另一方则强调其统一性。

东方正统派拥护米利提乌，西方与埃及的正统派则拥护保利努斯，认为各自所支持的人才是安提阿的合法主教。米利提乌在格拉提安 (Gratian) 的保护下从流放地归来后，向保利努斯提议，双方合并各自的羊群，由两人中后去世的一位独自监督教会；但保利努斯拒绝了，因为教规禁止他接纳一个由阿里乌派按立的人作同僚。³⁵随后，军事当局将原在欧佐伊乌斯手中的主教座堂交给米利提乌。米利提乌以资深主教的身份主持了第二次大公会议（381年），却在开会后数日便去世了——这是一位处于罗马交通之外的圣徒。他的葬礼十分隆重：经过防腐处理的遗体前有人持灯引导，人们用各种语言唱诗；遗体运往安提阿、安葬于圣巴比拉 (St. Babylas) 墓旁的途中，每经过一座城市，都受到同样的礼遇。³⁶安提阿人将他的肖像刻在戒指、杯子和卧室的墙壁上。这是圣屈梭多模在颂扬米利提乌的雄辩悼词中告诉我们的。³⁷尽管保利努斯仍然在世，弗拉维安 (Flavian) 还是被选为米利提乌的继承者。这引起了新的纷争，并激起罗马主教的愤慨。屈梭多模竭力促成罗马和亚历山大与弗拉维安和解。但保利努斯一派在他于389年去世后，选举埃瓦里乌斯 (Evarius) 为继承者（卒于392年）；分裂一直延续到413或415年，主教亚历山大 (Alexander) 才成功地使旧正统派的余众与米利提乌的继承者和解。双方举行盛大的庆典，庆祝彼此联合，并汇成一股庄严的人流，一同走向教堂。³⁸

这样，一场漫长而令人厌倦的分裂终于结束，安提阿教会终于得享和平；这正是362年亚他那修在亚历山大召开的会议曾为它徒然祈望的和平。³⁹

Original Text

CHAPTER VI. CHURCH DISCIPLINE AND SCHISMS.

§ 68. Decline of Discipline.

The principal sources are the books of ecclesiastical law and the acts of councils. Comp. the literature at § 67, and at vol. i. § 114.

The union of the church with the state shed, in general, an injurious influence upon the discipline of the church; and that, in two opposite directions.

On the one hand it increased the stringency of discipline and led to a penal code for spiritual offences. The state gave her help to the church, lent the power of law to acts of suspension and excommunication, and accompanied those acts with civil penalties. Hence the innumerable depositions and banishments of bishops during the theological controversies of the Nicene and the following age, especially under the influence of the Byzantine despotism and the religious intolerance and bigotry of the times. Even the penalty of death was decreed, at least against the Priscillianists, though under the protest of nobler divines, who clave to the spiritual character of the church and of her weapons.(1) Heresy was regarded as the most grievous and unpardonable crime against society, and was treated accordingly by the ruling party, without respect of creed.

But on the other hand discipline became weakened. With the increasing stringency against heretics, firmness against practical errors diminished. Hatred of heresy and laxity of morals, zeal for purity of doctrine and indifference to purity of life, which ought to exclude each other, do really often stand in union. Think of the history of Pharisaism at the time of Christ, of orthodox Lutheranism in its opposition to Spener and the Pietistic movement, and of prelatical Anglicanism in its conflict with Methodism and the evangelical party. Even in the Johannean age this was the case in the church of Ephesus, which prefigured in this respect both the light and shade of the later Eastern church.(2) The earnest, but stiff, mechanical penitential discipline, with its four grades of penance, which had developed itself during the Dioclesian persecution,(3) continued in force, it is true, as to the letter, and was repeatedly reaffirmed by the councils of the fourth century. But the great change of circumstances rendered the practical execution of it more and more difficult, by the very multiplication and high position, of those on whom it ought to be enforced. In that mighty revolution under Constantine the church lost her virginity, and allied herself with the mass of heathendom, which had not yet experienced an inward change. Not seldom did the emperors themselves, and other persons of authority, who ought to have led the way with a good example, render themselves, with all their zeal for theoretical orthodoxy, most worthy of suspension and excommunication by their scandalous conduct, while they were surrounded by weak or worldly bishops, who cared more for the favor of their earthly masters, than for the honor of their heavenly Lord and the dignity of the church. Even Eusebius, otherwise one of the better bishops of his time, had no word of rebuke for the gross crimes of Constantine, but only the most extravagant eulogies for his merits.

In the Greek church the discipline gradually decayed, to the great disadvantage of public morality, and every one was allowed to partake of the communion according to his conscience. The bishops alone reserved the right of debarring the vicious from the table of the Lord. The patriarch Nectarius of Constantinople, about 390, abolished the office of penitential priest (presbyter poenitentiarius), who was set over the execution of the penitential discipline. The occasion of this act was furnished by a scandalous occurrence: the violation of a lady of rank in the church by a worthless deacon, when she came to submit herself to public penance. The example of Nectarius was soon followed by the other oriental bishops.(4)

Socrates and Sozomen, who inclined to the severity of the Novatians, date the decline of discipline and of the former purity of morals from this act. But the real cause lay further back, in the connection of the church with the temporal power. Had the state been pervaded with the religious earnestness and zeal of Christianity, like the Genevan republic, for example, under the reformation of Calvin, the discipline of the church would have rather gained than lost by the alliance. But the vast Roman state could not so easily and quickly lay aside its heathen traditions and customs; it perpetuated them under Christian names. The great mass of the people received, at best, only John’s baptism of repentance, not Christ’s baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire.

Yet even under these new conditions the original moral earnestness of the church continued, from time to time, to make itself known. Bishops were not wanting to confront even the emperors, as Nathan stood before David after his fall, in fearless rebuke. Chrysostom rigidly insisted, that the deacon should exclude all unworthy persons from the holy communion, though by his vehement reproof of the immoralities of the imperial court, he brought upon himself at last deposition and exile." Though a captain," says he to those who administer the communion, "or a governor, nay, even one adorned with the imperial crown, approach [the table of the Lord] unworthily, prevent him; you have greater authority than he .... Beware lest you excite the Lord to wrath, and give a sword instead of food. And if a new Judas should approach the communion, prevent him. Fear God, not man. If you fear man, he will treat you with scorn; if you fear God, you will appear venerable even to men."(5) Synesius excommunicated the worthless governor of Pentapolis, Andronicus, for his cruel oppression of the poor and contempt of the exhortations of the bishop, and the discipline attained the desired effect. The most noted example of church discipline is the encounter between Ambrose and Theodosius I. in Milan about the year 390. The bishop refused the powerful and orthodox emperor the communion, and thrust him back from the threshold of the church, because in a tempest of rage he had caused seven thousand persons in Thessalonica., regardless of rank, sex, or guilt, to be hewn down by his soldiers in horrible cruelty on account of a riot. Eight months afterward Ambrose gave him absolution at his request, after he had submitted to the public penance of the church and promised in future not to execute a death penalty until thirty days after the pronouncing of it, that he might have time to revoke it if necessary, and to exercise mercy.(6) Here Ambrose certainly vindicated—though perhaps not without admixture of hierarchical loftiness—the dignity and rights of the church against the state, and the claims of Christian temperance and mercy against gross military power." Thus," says a modern historians "did the church prove, in a time of unlimited arbitrary power, the refuge of popular freedom, and saints assume the part of tribunes of the people."(7)

§ 69. The Donatist Schism. External History.

I. Sources. Augustine: Works against the Donatists (Contra epistolam Parmeniani, libri iii.; De baptismo, contra Donatistas, libri vii.; Contra literas Petiliani, libri iii.; De Unitate Ecclesiae, lib. unus; Contra Cresconium, grammaticum Donat., libri iv.; Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis; Contra Gaudentium, etc.), in the 9th vol. of his Opera, ed. Bened. (Paris, 1688). Optatus Milevitanus (about 370): De schismate Donatistarum. L. E. Du Pin: Monumenta vett. ad Donatist. Hist. pertinentia, Par. 1700. Excerpta et Scripta vetera ad Donatistarum Historiam pertinentia, at the close of the ninth volume of the Bened. ed. of Augustine’s works.

2. Literature. Valesius: De schism. Donat. (appended to his ed. of Eusebius). Walch: Historie der Ketzereien, etc., vol. iv. Neander: Allg. K. G. ii. 1, p. 366 sqq. (Torrey’s Engl. translation, ii. p. 182 sqq.). A. Roux: De Augustine adversario Donat. Lugd. Bat. 1838. F. Ribbeck: Donatus u. Augustinus, oder der erste entscheidende Kampf zwischen Separatismus u. Kirche., Elberf. 1858. (The author was for a short time a Baptist, and then returned to the Prussian established church, and wrote this work against separatism.)

Donatism was by far the most important schism in the church of the period before us. For a whole century it divided the North African churches into two hostile camps. Like the schisms of the former period,(8) it arose from the conflict of the more rigid and the more indulgent theories of discipline in reference to the restoration of the lapsed. But through the intervention of the Christianized state, it assumed at the same time an ecclesiastico-political character. The rigoristic penitential discipline had been represented in the previous period especially by the Montanists and Novatians, who were still living; while the milder principle and practice had found its most powerful support in the Roman church, and, since the time of Constantine, had generally prevailed.

The beginnings of the Donatist schism appear in the Dioclesian persecution, which revived that controversy concerning church discipline and martyrdom. The rigoristic party, favored by Secundus of Tigisis, at that time primate of Numidia, and led by the bishop Donatus of Casae Nigrae, rushed to the martyr’s crown with fanatical contempt of death, and saw in flight from danger, or in the delivering up of the sacred books, only cowardice and treachery, which should forever exclude from the fellowship of the church. The moderate party, at whose head stood the bishop Mensurius and his archdeacon and successor Caecilian, advocated the claims of prudence and discretion, and cast suspicion on the motives of the forward confessors and martyrs. So early as the year 305 a schism was imminent, in the matter of an episcopal election for the city of Cita. But no formal outbreak occurred until after the cessation of the persecution in 311; and then the difficulty arose in connection with the hasty election of Caecilian to the bishopric of Carthage. The Donatists refused to acknowledge him, because in his ordination the Numidian bishops were slighted, and the service was performed by the bishop Felix of Aptungis, or Aptunga, whom they declared to be a traditor, that is, one who had delivered up the sacred writings to the heathen persecutors. In Carthage itself he had many opponents, among whom were the elders of the congregation (seniores plebis), and particularly a wealthy and superstitious widow, Lucilla, who was accustomed to kiss certain relics before her daily communion, and seemed to prefer them to the spiritual power of the sacrament. Secundus of Tigisis and seventy Numidian bishops, mostly of the rigoristic school, assembled at Carthage deposed and excommunicated Caecilian, who refused to appear, and elected the lector Majorinus, a favorite of Lucilla, in his place. After his death, in 315, Majorinus was succeeded by Donatus, a gifted man, of fiery energy and eloquence, revered by his admirers as a wonder worker, and styled The Great. From this man, and not from the Donatus mentioned above, the name of the party was derived.(9)

Each party endeavored to gain churches abroad to its side, and thus the schism spread. The Donatists appealed to the emperor Constantine—the first instance of such appeal, and a step which they afterward had to repent. The emperor, who was at that time in Gaul, referred the matter to the Roman bishop Melchiades (Miltiades) and five Gallican bishops, before whom the accused Caecilian and ten African bishops from each side were directed to appear. The decision went in favor of Caecilian, and he was now, except in Africa, universally regarded as the legitimate bishop of Carthage. The Donatists remonstrated. A second investigation, which Constantine intrusted to the council of Arles (Arelate) in 314, led to the same result. When the Donatists hereupon appealed from this ecclesiastical tribunal to the judgment of the emperor himself, he likewise declared against them at Milan in 316, and soon afterward issued penal laws against them, threatening them with the banishment of their bishops and the confiscation of their churches.

Persecution made them enemies of the state whose help they had invoked, and fed the flame of their fanaticism. They made violent resistance to the imperial commissioner, Ursacius, and declared that no power on earth could induce them to hold church fellowship with the "rascal" (nebulo) Caecilian. Constantine perceived the fruitlessness of the forcible restriction of religion, and, by an edict in 321, granted the Donatists full liberty of faith and worship. He remained faithful to this policy of toleration, and exhorted the Catholics to patience and indulgence. At a council in 330 the Donatists numbered two hundred and seventy bishops.

Constans, the successor of Constantine, resorted again to violent measures; but neither threats nor promises made any impression on the party. It came to blood. The Circumcellions, a sort of Donatist mendicant monks, who wandered about the country among the cottages of the peasantry,(10) carried on plunder, arson, and murder, in conjunction with mutinous peasants and slaves, and in crazy zeal for the martyr’s crown, as genuine soldiers of Christ, rushed into fire and water, and threw themselves down from rocks. Yet there were Donatists who disapproved this revolutionary frenzy. The insurrection was suppressed by military force; several leaders of the Donatists were executed, others were banished, and their churches were closed or confiscated. Donatus the Great died in exile. He was succeeded by one Parmenianus.

Under Julian the Apostate the Donatists again obtained, with all other heretics and schismatics, freedom of religion, and returned to the possession of their churches, which they painted anew, to redeem them from their profanation by the Catholics. But under the subsequent emperors their condition grew worse, both from persecutions without and dissensions within. The quarrel between the two parties extended into all the affairs of daily life; the Donatist bishop Faustinus of Hippo, for example, allowing none of the members of his church to bake bread for the Catholic inhabitants.

§ 70. Augustine and the Donatists. Their Persecution and Extinction.

At the end of the fourth century, and in the beginning of the fifth, the great Augustine, of Hippo, where there was also a strong congregation of the schismatics, made a powerful effort, by instruction and persuasion, to reconcile the Donatists with the Catholic church. He wrote several works on the subject, and set the whole African church in motion against them. They feared his superior dialectics, and avoided him wherever they could. The matter, however, was brought, by order of the emperor in 411, to a three days’ arbitration at Carthage, attended by two hundred and eighty-six Catholic bishops and two hundred and seventy-nine Donatist.(11)

Augustine, who, in two beautiful sermons before the beginning of the disputation, exhorted to love, forbearance and meekness, was the chief speaker on the part of the Catholics Petilian, on the part of the schismatics. Marcellinus, the imperial tribune and notary, and a friend of Augustine, presided, and was to pass the decisive judgment. This arrangement was obviously partial, and secured the triumph of the Catholics. The discussions related to two points: (1) Whether the Catholic bishops Caecilian and Felix of Aptunga were traditors; (2) Whether the church lose her nature and attributes by fellowship with heinous sinners. The balance of skill and argument was on the side of Augustine, though the Donatists brought much that was forcible against compulsion in religion, and against the confusion of the temporal and the spiritual powers. The imperial commissioner, as might be expected, decided in favor of the Catholics. The separatists nevertheless persisted in their view, but their appeal to the emperor continued unsuccessful.

More stringent civil laws were now enacted against them, banishing the Donatist clergy from their country, imposing fines on the laity, and confiscating the churches. In 415 they were even forbidden to hold religious assemblies, upon pain of death.

Augustine himself, who had previously consented only to spiritual measures against heretics, now advocated force, to bring them into the fellowship of the church, out of which there was no salvation. He appealed to the command in the parable of the supper, Luke, xiv. 23, to "compel them to come in;" where, however, the "compel" (ajnavgkason) is evidently but a vivid hyperbole for the holy zeal in the conversion of the heathen, which we find, for example, in the apostle Paul.(12)

New eruptions of fanaticism ensued. A bishop Gaudentius threatened, that if the attempt were made to deprive him of his church by force, he, would burn himself with his congregation in it, and vindicated this intended suicide by the example of Rhazis, in the second book of Maccabees (ch. xiv.).

The conquest of Africa by the Arian Vandals in 428 devastated the African church, and put an end to the controversy, as the French Revolution swept both Jesuitism and Jansenism away. Yet a remnant of the Donatists, as we learn from the letters of Gregory I., perpetuated itself into the seventh century, still proving in their ruins the power of a mistaken puritanic zeal and the responsibility and guilt of state-church persecution. In the seventh century the entire African church sank under the Saracenic conquest.

§ 71. Internal History of the Donatist Schism. Dogma of the Church.

The Donatist controversy was a conflict between separatism and catholicism; between ecclesiastical purism and ecclesiastical eclecticism; between the idea of the church as an exclusive community of regenerate saints and the idea of the church as the general Christendom of state and people. It revolved around the doctrine of the essence of the Christian church, and, in particular, of the predicate of holiness. It resulted in the completion by Augustine of the catholic dogma of the church, which had been partly developed by Cyprian in his conflict with a similar schism.(13)

The Donatists, like Tertullian in his Montanistic writings, started from an ideal and spiritualistic conception of the church as a fellowship of saints, which in a sinful world could only be imperfectly realized. They laid chief stress on the predicate of the subjective holiness or personal worthiness of the several members, and made the catholicity of the church and the efficacy of the sacraments dependent upon that. The true church, therefore, is not so much a school of holiness, as a society of those who are already holy; or at least of those who appear so; for that there are hypocrites not even the Donatists could deny, and as little could they in earnest claim infallibility in their own discernment of men. By the toleration of those who are openly sinful, the church loses, her holiness, and ceases to be church. Unholy priests are incapable of administering sacraments; for how can regeneration proceed from the unregenerate, holiness from the unholy? No one can give what he does not himself possess. He who would receive faith from a faithless man, receives not faith but guilt.(14) It was on this ground, in fact, that they rejected the election of Caecilian: that he had been ordained bishop by an unworthy person. On this ground they refused to recognize the Catholic baptism as baptism at all. On this point they had some support in Cyprian, who likewise rejected the validity of heretical baptism, though not from the separatist, but from the catholic point of view, and who came into collision, upon this question, with Stephen of Rome.(15)

Hence, like the Montanists and Novatians, they insisted on rigorous church discipline, and demanded the excommunication of all unworthy members, especially of such as had denied their faith or given up the Holy Scriptures under persecution. They resisted, moreover, all interference of the civil power in church affairs; though they themselves at first had solicited the help of Constantine. In the great imperial church, embracing the people in a mass, they saw a secularized Babylon, against which they set themselves off, in separatistic arrogance, as the only true and pure church. In support of their views, they appealed to the passages of the Old Testament, which speak of the external holiness of the people of God, and to the procedure of Paul with respect to the fornicator at Corinth.

In opposition to this subjective and spiritualistic theory of the church, Augustine, as champion of the Catholics, developed the objective, realistic theory, which has since been repeatedly reasserted, though with various modifications, not only in the Roman church, but also in the Protestant, against separatistic and schismatic sects. He lays chief stress on the catholicity of the church, and derives the holiness of individual members and the validity of ecclesiastical functions from it. He finds the essence of the church, not in the personal character of the several Christians, but in the union of the whole church with Christ. Taking the historical point of view, he goes back to the founding of the church, which may be seen in the New Testament, which has spread over all the world, and which is connected through the unbroken succession of bishops with the apostles and with Christ. This alone can be the true church. It is impossible that she should all at once disappear from the earth, or should exist only in the African sect of the Donatists.(16) What is all that they may say of their little heap, in comparison with the great catholic Christendom of all lands? Thus even numerical preponderance here enters as an argument; though under other circumstances it may prove too much, and would place the primitive church at a clear disadvantage in comparison with the prevailing Jewish and heathen masses, and the Evangelical church in its controversy with the Roman Catholic.

From the objective character of the church as a divine institution flows, according to the catholic view, the efficacy of all her functions, the Sacraments in particular. When Petilian, at the Collatio cum Donatistis, said: "He who receives the faith from a faithless priest, receives not faith, but guilt," Augustine answered: "But Christ is not unfaithful (perfidus), from whom I receive faith (fidem), not guilt (reatum). Christ, therefore, is properly the functionary, and the priest is simply his organ." "My origin," said Augustine on the same occasion, "is Christ, my root is Christ, my head is Christ. The seed, of which I was born, is the word of God, which I must obey even though the preacher himself practise not what he preaches. I believe not in the minister by whom I am baptized, but in Christ, who alone justifies the sinner and can forgive guilt."(17)

Lastly, in regard to church discipline, the opponents of the Donatists agreed with them in considering it wholesome and necessary, but would keep it within the limits fixed for it by the circumstances of the time and the fallibility of men. A perfect separation of sinners from saints is impracticable before the final judgment. Many things must be patiently borne, that greater evil may be averted, and that those still capable of improvement may be improved, especially where the offender has too many adherents." Man," says Augustine, "should punish in the spirit of love, until either the discipline and correction come from above, or the tares are pulled up in the universal harvest."(18) In support of this view appeal was made to the Lord’s parables of the tares among the wheat, and of the net which gathered together of every kind (Matt. xiii.). These two parables were the chief exegetical battle ground of the two parties. The Donatists understood by the field, not the church, but the world, according to the Saviour’s own exposition of the parable of the tares;(19) the Catholics replied that it was the kingdom of heaven or the church to which the parable referred as a whole, and pressed especially the warning of the Saviour not to gather up the tares before the final harvest, lest they root up also the wheat with them. The Donatists, moreover, made a distinction between unknown offenders, to whom alone the parable of the net referred, and notorious sinners. But this did not gain them much; for if the church compromises her character for holiness by contact with unworthy persons at all, it matters not whether they be openly unworthy before men or not, and no church whatever would be left on earth.

On the other hand, however, Augustine, who, no more than the Donatists, could relinquish the predicate of holiness for the church, found himself compelled to distinguish between a true and a mixed, or merely apparent body of Christ; forasmuch as hypocrites, even in this world, are not in and with Christ, but only appear to be.(20) And yet he repelled the Donatist charge of making two churches. In his view it is one and the same church, which is now mixed with the ungodly, and will hereafter be pure, as it is the same Christ who once died, and now lives forever, and the same believers, who are now mortal and will one day put on immortality’.(21)

With some modification we may find here the germ of the subsequent Protestant distinction of the visible and invisible church; which regards the invisible, not as another church, but as the ecclesiola in ecclesia (or ecclesiis), as the smaller communion of true believers among professors, and thus as the true substance of the visible church, and as contained within its limits, like the soul in the body, or the kernel in the shell. Here the moderate Donatist and scholarly theologian, Tychoius,(22) approached Augustine; calling the church a twofold body of Christ,(23) of which the one part embraces the true Christians, the other the apparent.(24) In this, as also in acknowledging the validity of the Catholic baptism, Tychonius departed from the Donatists; while he adhered to their views on discipline and opposed the Catholic mixture of the church and the world. But neither he nor Augustine pursued this distinction to any clearer development. Both were involved, at bottom, in the confusion of Christianity with the church, and of the church with a particular outward organization.

§ 72. The Roman Schism of Damasus and Ursinus.

Rufinus: Hist. Eccl. ii. 10. Hieronymus: Chron. ad ann. 366. Socrates: H. E. iv. 29 (all in favor of Damasus). Faustinus et Marcellinus (two presbyters of Ursinus): Libellus precum ad Imper. Theodos. in Bibl. Patr. Lugd. v. 637 (in favor of Ursinus). With these Christian accounts of the Roman schism may be compared the impartial statement of the heathen historian Ammianus Marcellinus, xxvii. c. 3, ad ann. 367.

The church schism between Damasus and Ursinus (or Ursicinus) in Rome, had nothing to do with the question of discipline, but proceeded partly from the Arian controversy, partly from personal ambition.(25) For such were the power and splendor of the court of the successor of the Galilean fisherman, even at that time, that the distinguished pagan senator, Praetextatus, said to Pope Damasus: "Make me a bishop of Rome, and I will be a Christian to-morrow."(26) The schism presents a mournful example of the violent character of the episcopal elections at Rome. These elections were as important events for the Romans as the elections of the emperors by the Praetorian soldiers had formerly been. They enlisted and aroused all the passions of the clergy and the people.

The schism originated in the deposition and banishment of the bishop Tiberius, for his orthodoxy, and the election of the Arian Felix(27) as pope in opposition by the arbitrary will of the emperor Constantius (a.d. 355). Liberius, having in his exile subscribed the Arian creed of Sirmium, (28) was in 358 reinstated, and Felix retired, and is said to have subsequently repented his defection to Arianism. The parties, however, continued.

After the death of Liberius in 366, Damasus was, by the party of Felix, and Ursinus by the party of Liberius, elected successor of Peter. It came to repeated bloody encounters; even the altar of the Prince of Peace was desecrated, and in a church whither Ursinus had betaken himself, a hundred and thirty-seven men lost their lives in one day.(29) Other provinces also were drawn into the quarrel. It was years before Damasus at last, with the aid of the, emperor, obtained undisputed possession of his office, and Ursinus was banished. The statements of the two parties are so conflicting in regard to the priority and legitimacy of election in the two cases, and the authorship of the bloody scenes, that we cannot further determine on which side lay the greater blame. Damasus, who reigned from 367 to 384) is indeed depicted as in other respects a violent man,(30) but he was a man of learning and literary taste, and did good service by his patronage of Jerome’s Latin version of the Bible, and by the introduction of the Latin Psalter into the church song.(31)

§ 73. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.

Hieronymus: Chron. ad ann. 864. Chrysostomus: Homilia in S. Patrem nostrum Meletium, archiepiscopum magnae Antiochiae (delivered a.d. 386 or 387, in Montfaucon’s ed. of Chrysost. Opera, tom. ii. p. 518–523). Sozomen: H. E. iv. 28; vii. 10, 11. Theodor.: H. E. V. 3, 35. Socrates: H. E. iii. 9; v. 9, 17. Comp. Walch: Ketzerhistorie, part iv. p. 410 sqq.

The Meletian schism at Antioch(32) was interwoven with the Arian controversies, and lasted through more than half a century.

In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy. He was a man of rich persuasive eloquence, and of a sweet and amiable disposition, which endeared him to the Catholics and Arians. But his doctrinal indecision offended the extremists of both parties. When he professed the Nicene faith, the Arians deposed him in council, sent him into exile, and transferred his bishopric to Euzoius, who had formerly been banished with Arius.(33) The Catholics disowned Euzoius, but split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated, would not recognize a bishop of Arian consecration, though Catholic in belief, and elected Paulinus, a presbyter of high character, who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris.(34)

The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.

The orthodox orientals declared for Meletius, the occidentals and Egyptians for Paulinus, as legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius, on returning from exile under the protection of Gratian, proposed to Paulinus that they should unite their flocks, and that the survivor of them should superintend the church alone; but Paulinus declined, since the canons forbade him to take as a colleague one who had been ordained by Arians.(35) Then the military authorities put Meletius in possession of the cathedral, which had been in the hands of Euzoius. Meletius presided, as senior bishop, in the second ecumenical council (381), but died a few days after the opening of it—a saint outside the communion of Rome. His funeral was imposing: lights were borne before the embalmed corpse, and psalms sung in divers languages, and these honors were repeated in all the cities through which it passed on its transportation to Antioch, beside the grave of St. Babylas.(36) The Antiochians engraved his likeness on their rings, their cups, and the walls of their bedrooms. So St. Chrysostom informs us in his eloquent eulogy on Meletius.(37) Flavian was elected his successor, although Paulinus was still alive. This gave rise to fresh troubles, and excited the indignation of the bishop of Rome. Chrysostom labored for the reconciliation of Rome and Alexandria to Flavian. But the party of Paulinus, after his death in 389, elected Evarius as successor († 392), and the schism continued down to the year 413 or 415, when the bishop Alexander succeeded in reconciling the old orthodox remnant with the successor of Meletius. The two parties celebrated their union by a splendid festival, and proceeded together in one majestic stream to the church.(38)

Thus a long and tedious schism was brought to a close, and the church of Antioch was permitted at last to enjoy that peace which the Athanasian synod of Alexandria in 362 had desired for it in vain.(39)

Original Footnotes

(1; original 652): Comp. § 27, above.

(2; original 653): Rev. ii. 1-7. Comp. my Hist. of the Apostolic Church, p. 429.

(3; original 654): Comp. vol. i. § 114 (p. 444 sq.).

(4; original 655): Sozomen, vii. 16; Socrates, v. 19. This fact has been employed by the Roman church against the Protestant, in the controversy on the sacrament of penance. Nectarius certainly did abolish the institution of penitential priest, and the public church penance. But for or against private penances no inference can be drawn from the statement of these historians.

(5; original 656): Hom. 82 (al. 83) in Matt., toward the close (in Montfaucon’s edition of Chrys., tom. vii. p. 789 sq.). Comp. his exposition of 1Cor. xi. 27, 28, in Hom. 27 and 28, in 1Corinth. (English translation in the Oxford Library of the Fathers, etc., p. 379 sqq., and 383 sqq.).

(6; original 657): This occurrence is related by Ambrose himself, in 395, in his funeral discourse on Theodosius (de obitu Theod. c. 34, in the Bened. ed. of his works, tom. ii. p. 1207), in these words: "Deflevit in ecclesia publice peccatum suum, quod ei aliorum fraude obrepserat; gemitu et lacrymis oravit veniam. Quod privati erubescunt, non erubuit imperator, publice agere poenitentiam; neque ullus postea dies fuit quo non illum doleret errorem. Quid, quod praeclaram adeptus victoriam; tamen quia hostes in acie prostrati sunt abstinuit a consortio sacramentorum, donec Domini circa se gratiam filiorum experiretur adventu." Also by his biographer Paulinus (de vita Ambros. c. 24), by Augustine (De Civit. Dei, v. 26), by the historians Theodoret (v. 17), Sozomen (vii. 25), and Rufinus (xi. 18).

(7; original 658): Hase, Church History, § 117 (p. 161, 7th ed.)

(8; original 659): Comp. vol. i. § 115, p. 447 sqq.

(9; original 660): "Pars Donati, Donatistae, Donatiani." Previously they were commonly called "Pars Majorini." Optatus of Mileve seems, indeed, to know of only one Donatus. But the Donatists expressly distinguish Donatus Magnus of Carthage from Donatus a Casis Nigris. Likewise Augustine, Contra Cresconium Donat, ii. 1; though he himself had formerly confounded the two.

(10; original 661): "Cellas circumientes rusticorum." Hence the name Circumcelliones. But they called themselves Milites Christi Agonistici. Their date and origin are uncertain. According to Optatus of Mileve, they first appeared under Constans, in 347.

(11; original 662): Augustine gives an account of the debate in his Breviculus Collationis cum Donatists (Opera, tom. ix. p. 545-580).

(12; original 663): On Augustine’s view Comp. § 27, toward the close.

(13; original 664): Comp. vol. i § 111, 115, and 131.

(14; original 665): Aug. Contra literas Petil. l. i. cap. 5 (tom. ix. p. 208): "Qui fidem a perfido sumserit, non fidem percipit, sed reatum; omnis enim res origine et radice consistit, et si caput non habet aliquid, nihil est."

(15; original 666): Comp. vol. i. § 104, p. 404 sqq.

(16; original 667): Augustine, ad Catholicos Epistola contra Donatistas, usually quoted under the shorter title, De unitate Ecclesiae, c. 12 (Bened. ed. tom. ix. p. 360): "Quomodo coeptum sit ab Jerusalem, et deinde processum in Judaeam et Samariam, et inde in totam terram, ubi adhuc crescit ecclesia, donec usque in finem etiam reliquas gentes, ubi adhuc non est, obtineat, scripturis sanctis testibus consequenter ostenditur; quisquis aliud evangelizaverit, anathema sit. Aliud autem evangelizat, qui periisse dicit de caetero mundo ecclesiam et in parte Donati in sola Africa remansisse dicit. Ergo anathema sit. Aut legat mihi hoc in scripturis sanctis, et non sit anathema."

(17; original 668): Contra literas Petiliani, l. i. c. 7 (Opera, tom. ix. p. 209): "Origo mea Christus est, radix mea Christus est, caput meum Christus est." ... In the same place: "Me innocentem non facit, nisi qui mortuus est propter delicta nostra et resurrexit propter justificationem nostram. Non enim in ministrum, per quem baptizor, credo; sed in cum qui justificat impium, ut deputetur mihi fides in justitiam."

(18; original 669): Aug. Contra Epistolam Parmeniani, l. iii. c. 2, § 10-15 (Opera, tom. ix. p. 62-66).

(19; original 670): Breviculus Collat. c. Don. Dies tert. c. 8, § 10 (Opera, ix. p. 559): "Zizania inter triticum non in ecclesia, sed in ipso mundo permixta dixerunt, quoniam Dominus ait, Ager est mundus" (Matt. xiii. 38). As to the exegetical merits of the controversy see Trench’s "Notes on the Parables," p. 83 sqq. (9th Lond. edition, 1863), and Lange’s Commentary on Matt. xiii. (Amer. ed. by Schaff, p. 244 sqq.).

(20; original 671): Corpus Christi verum atque permixtum, or verum atque simulatum. Comp. De doctr. Christ. iii. 32, as quoted below in full.

(21; original 672): Breviculus Collationis cum Donatistis, Dies tertius, cap. 10, § 19 and 20 (Opera, ix. 564): "Deinde calumniantes, quod duas ecclesias Catholici dixerint, unam quae nunc habet permixtos malos, aliam quae post resurrectionem eos non esset habitura: veluti non iidem futuri essent sancti cum Christo regnaturi, qui nunc pro ejus nomine cum juste vivunt tolerant malos .... De duabus etiam ecclesiis calumniam eorum Catholici refutarunt, identidem expressius ostendentes, quid dixerint, id est, non eam ecclesiam, quos nunc habet permixtos malos, alienam se dixisse a regno Dei, ubi non erunt mali commixti, sed eandem ipsam unam et sanctam ecclesiam nunc esse aliter tunc autem aliter futuram, nunc habere malos mixtos, tunc non habituram ... sicut non ideo duo Christi, quia prior mortuus postea non moriturus."

(22; original 673): Or Tichonius, as Augustine spells the name. Although himself a Donatist, he wrote against them, "qui contra Donatistas invictissime scripsit, cum fuerit Donatista" (says Aug. De doctr. Christ. l. iii. c. 30, § 42). He was opposed to rebaptism and acknowledged the validity of the Catholic sacraments; but he was equally opposed to the secularism of the Catholic church and its mixture with the state, and adhered to the strict discipline of the Donatists. Of his works only one remains, viz., Liber regularum, or de septem regulis, a sort of Biblical hermeneutics, or a guide for the proper understanding of the mysteries of the Bible. It was edited by Gallandi, in his Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, tom. viii. p. 107-129. Augustine notices these rules at length in his work De doctrina Christiana, lib. iii. c. 30 sqq. (Opera, ed. Bened. tom. iii. p. 57 sqq.). Tychonius seems to have died before the close of the fourth century. Comp. on him Tillemont, Memoires, tom. vi. p. 81 sq., and an article of A. Vogel, in Herzog’s Real-Encyclopaedie, vol. xvi. p. 534-536.

(23; original 674): "Corpus Domini bipartitum." This was the second of his rules for the true understanding of the Scriptures.

(24; original 675): Augustine objects only to his mode of expression, De doctr. Christ. iii. 32 (tom. iii. 58): "Secunda [regula Tichonii] est de Domini corpore bipartito; non enim revera Domini corpus est, quod cum illo non erit in aeternum; sed dicendum fuit de Domini corpore vero atque permixto, aut vero atque simulato, vel quid aliud; quia non solum in aeternum, verum etiam nunc hypocrites non cum illo esse dicendi sunt, quamvis in ejus esse videantur ecclesia, unde poterat ista regula et sic appellari, ut diceretur de permixta ecclesia." Comp. also Dr. Baur, K. G. vom 4-6 Jahrh., p. 224.

(25; original 676): Ammianus Marc., l.c., intimates the latter: "Damasus et Ursinus supra humanum modum ad rapiendam episcopatus sedem ardentes scissis studiis asperrimo conflictabantur," etc.

(26; original 677): This is related even by St. Jerome (Comp. above § 53, p. 267, note), and goes to confirm the statements of Ammianus.

(27; original 678): Athanasius (Historia Arianorum ad Monachos, § 75, Opera ed. Bened. i. p. 389), and Socrates (H. E. ii. 37), decidedly condemn him as an Arian. Nevertheless this heretic and anti-pope has been smuggled into the Roman catalogue of saints and martyrs. Gregory XIII instituted an investigation into the matter, which was terminated by the sudden discovery of his remains, with the inscription: "Pope and Martyr."

(28; original 679): According to Baronius, ad a. 357, the jealousy of Felix was the Delilah, who robbed the catholic Samson (Liberius) of his strength.

(29; original 680): Ammian. Marc. l. xxvii. c. 3: "Constat in basilica Sicinini (Sicinii), ubi ritus Christiani est conventiculum, uno die cxxxvii. reperta cadavera peremtorum." Then he speaks of the pomp and luxury of the Roman bishopric, on account of which it was the object of so passionate covetousness and ambition, and contrasts with it the simplicity and self-denial of the rural clergy. The account is confirmed by Augustine, Brevic. Coll.c. Donat. c. 16, and Hieron. in Chron. an. 367. Socrates, iv. 29, speaks generally of several fights, in which many lives were lost.

(30; original 681): His opponents also charged him with too great familiarity with Roman ladies. The same accusation, however, was made against his friend Jerome, on account of his zeal for the spread of the ascetic life among the Roman matrons.

(31; original 682): Comp. on Damasus his works, edited by Merenda, Rome, 1754, several epistles of Jerome, Tillemont, tom. viii. 386, and Butler’s Lives of the Saints, sub Dec. 11th.

(32; original 683): Not to be confounded with the Meletian schism at Alexandria, which arose in the previous period. Comp. vol. i. § 115 (p. 451).

(33; original 684): Sozom. H. E. iv. c. 28..

(34; original 685): This Lucifer was an orthodox fanatic, who afterward himself fell into conflict with Athanasius in Alexandria, and formed a sect of his own, the Luciferians, On rigid principles of church purity. Comp. Socr. iii. 9; Sozom. iii. 15; and Walch, Ketzerhist. iii. 338 sqq

(35; original 686): Theodoret, H. E. lib. iii. 3. He highly applauds the magnanimous proposal of Meletius.

(36; original 687): Sozom. vii. c. 10. The historian says that the singing of psalms on such occasions was quite contrary to Roman custom.

(37; original 688): Chrysostom says in the beginning of this oration, that five years had elapsed since Meletius had gone to Jesus. He died in 381, consequently the oration must have been pronounced in 386 or 387.

(38; original 689): Theodoret, H. E. l. v. c. 35. Dr. J. R. Kurtz, in his large work on Church History (Handbuch der Kirchengesch. vol. i. part ii. § 181, p. 129) erroneously speaks of a resignation of Alexander, by which he, from love of peace, induced his congregation to acknowledge the Meletian bishop Flavian. But Flavian had died several years before (in 404), and Alexander was himself the second successor of Flavian, the profligate Porphyrius intervening. Theodoret knows nothing of a resignation. Kurtz must be used with considerable caution, as he is frequently inaccurate, and relies too much on secondary authorities.

(39; original 690): See the Epist. Synodica Conc. Alex. in Mansi’s Councils, tom. iii. p. 345 sqq.

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。