Translated from Philip Schaff's History of The Christian Church

第三章政教联合及其对公共道德与宗教的影响

从君士坦丁 (Constantine) 到查士丁尼 (Justinian) 各位基督徒皇帝颁布的教会法律，收录于438年的《狄奥多西法典》(Codex Theodosianus)（雅克·戈托弗雷杜斯 (Jac. Gothofredus) 编，附博学的评注，里昂，1668年，六卷，对开本；后由 J. D. 里特尔 (J. D. Ritter) 编，莱比锡 (Lips.)，1736年，七卷；近又由 G. 黑内尔 (G. Haenel) 编，增入新发现的卷册和残篇，波恩，1842年），以及534年的《查士丁尼法典》(Codex Justinianeus)（见《罗马民法大全》(Corpus juris civilis Romani) 的各种版本）。另见优西比乌 (Eusebius)：《君士坦丁传》(Vita Constant.) 及《教会史》(H. Eccl.)，第x卷。另一方面，还有教父们，尤其是纳齐安佐的贵格利 (Gregory Naz.)、金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 和奥古斯丁 (Augustine)，在讲道中对当时基督教世俗化的哀叹。

参考文献

C. G. 德·鲁尔 (C. G. de Rhoer)：《论基督教对罗马法学的影响》(Dissertationes de effectu religionis Christianae in jurisprudentiam Romanam)。格罗宁根 (Groning.)，1776年。马尔蒂尼 (Martini)：《君士坦丁在罗马帝国确立基督教为国教》(Die Einführung der christl. Religion als Staatsreligion im röm. Reiche durch Constantin)。慕尼黑 (Münch.)，1813年。H. O. 德·迈森堡 (H. O. de Meysenburg)：《论基督教对民法的力量与影响》(De Christ. religionis vi et effectu in jus civile)。哥廷根 (Gött.)，1828年。C. 里费尔 (C. Riffel，罗马天主教徒)：《教会与国家关系的历史论述》(Gesch. Darstellung des Verhältnisses zwischen Kirche u. Staat)。美因茨，1838年，第i卷。特罗普隆 (Troplong)：《论基督教对罗马人民法的影响》(De l’influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains)。巴黎 (Par.)，1843年。P. E. 林德 (P. E. Lind)：《基督教对社会体制的影响》(Christendommens inflydelse paa den sociale forfatning)。哥本哈根 (Kjobenh.)，1852年。B. C. 库珀 (B. C. Cooper)：《古代基督教世界的自由教会及其被君士坦丁征服的历史》(The Free Church of Ancient Christendom and its Subjugation by Constantine)。伦敦 (Lond.)，1851年(?)

另参吉本 (Gibbon)，第xx章；施勒克 (Schröckh)，第v卷起的若干节；尼安德 (Neander)，第iii卷，第273–303页；米尔曼 (Milman)，《古代基督教史》(Anc. Christ.)，第iv编，第1章。

§ 13. 教会在帝国中的新地位

前一章已经向我们表明，基督教如何逐渐取代希腊罗马的异教，成为凯撒帝国的国教。自那时以来，教会与国家在欧洲虽时常发生龃龉，却始终保持联合：或以教权体制为基础，使世俗权力受属灵权力监护；或以皇帝兼掌教权的体制 (caesaro-papal) 为基础，使属灵权力并入世俗权力。至于美利坚合众国，自十八世纪末以来，这两种权力则和平而独立地并存。如今教会能够影响国家，国家也同样能够影响教会；这种相互影响，对双方都既是得益也是损失，既是祝福也是咒诅的源头。

最初三个世纪的殉道者和认信者，盼望世界末日即将来临，渴望主早日再来，从未想到罗马国家与基督教会的关系，竟会在本时期之初发生如此巨大而突然的转变。德尔图良 (Tertullian) 甚至认为，基督徒的信仰身份与罗马皇帝的职位不能相容。¹ 然而，教士与信众很快便轻易地适应了新秩序，并在其中看见旧约时代上帝子民神权政体的再现。只是那些持异议的宗派并未从这种联合中获益，反而遭受国家和居于国教地位的大公教会的逼迫，因而抗议世俗权力干预宗教事务；多纳徒派 (Donatists) 尤其如此。² 如今大批归入教会的异教徒，向来习惯于政治与宗教、皇帝尊位与祭司尊职的结合。他们无法想象一个国家可以没有某种崇拜，无论这种崇拜叫什么名称。既然异教在帝国中已经衰败过时，而犹太教因其民族排他性和停滞不前的性质又全不适任，基督教便必然要登上王位。

这一转变既是巨大的，也是自然且不可避免的。当君士坦丁把十字架的旗帜竖立在诸神被遗弃的庙宇之上时，他不过是顺从历史本身不可抗拒的潮流。基督教既未动用一刀一剑，也未施展阴谋诡计，就已经在内在生命中战胜了虚假的宗教，取得了精神对物质、真理对虚谎、信心对迷信、敬拜上帝对偶像崇拜、道德对败坏的胜利。它在三百年的压迫之下，仍保全了不可遏制的道德活力，完全配得其新的社会地位。它绝不可能继续作一个受人鄙视的宗派，一个流落旷野、无家可归的孩子；相反，它必须像其神圣的创立者在被钉十字架后的第三日那样复活，将世界的缰绳握在手中，并以一种更新万有的本原，将国家、科学和艺术纳入自身，向它们吹入更高的生命，使它们分别为圣，服事上帝。当然，教会始终是仆人，正如基督自己来，不是要受人的服事，乃是要服事人；教会也必时常遭受不敬虔世界从外部或内部而来的逼迫。然而，她也是上帝之子的婚配，因而具有王室的血统；她应使自然生活的各个层次和人类社会的一切形式，都感受到她洁净与成圣的影响。国家当然也不在这种影响之外。与国家联合，并不比与科学和艺术联合更必然构成对圣物的亵渎；事实上，科学和艺术本身也出于上帝，必须为他的荣耀效力。

另一方面，国家作为一种必要的、由上帝设立的制度，其职责在于保护人身和财产，施行法律与公义，并增进属世的福祉，因此不可能永远敌视基督教，至少必须容许它合法存在，自由发挥作用；国家若要获得更高的发展，比在与偶像崇拜结合时更好地实现其道德目的，就必须接受基督教的影响。国家所属的父之国，与作为子之国的教会，在本质上并不矛盾；相反，是“父吸引人归向子”，子又引人归向父，直到上帝成为“万有之中的万有”。从此，列王应再次作教会的养父，王后作教会的乳母，³ 而这一预言也应开始应验：“世上的国成了我主和主基督的国；他要作王，直到永永远远。”⁴

美国的政教分离，即便被视为妥善确立两者真实关系的最佳办法，也丝毫不与这一观点相抵触。它不是回到君士坦丁以前那种带有逼迫精神的基础上，而是建立在两种权力彼此尊重、承认和支持之上；必须把它看作第四世纪那场伟大变革所产生的延续性结果。

然而，基督教被提升为国教，也呈现出值得我们思考的另一面。这使教会面临极大的堕落危险。罗马国家及其法律、制度和习俗，仍深深扎根于异教，不可能顷刻间如施魔法般地改造过来。因此，国家的基督教化，在很大程度上也就成了教会的异教化和世俗化。世界征服教会，正如教会征服世界一样；基督教在属世方面的所得，在许多方面被属灵的损失抵消了。罗马帝国的大众所受的，只是水的洗礼，而不是福音所带来的圣灵与火的洗礼；他们换了一个新名称，就把异教的风俗和惯例偷带进圣所。君士坦丁将十字架与军旗结合这一举动本身，就是一个极其可疑的预兆，预示着世俗权力与属灵权力、属地之国与属天之国将发生不幸的混杂。这两种权力虽然相互联合，在本质上仍像身体与灵魂、律法与福音一样彼此有别；划定两者之间的界限，本身便成为诸多错误与激烈管辖权争执的源头。这些争执贯穿整个中世纪，直到最近的时代仍不断重演；只有在美国实行友好分离的地方，迄今避免了冲突。

然而，在政教联合的一切恶果之中，我们不可忘记：无论是在身为皇帝的教皇之下，还是在身为教皇的皇帝之下，福音更深层的精神始终抵制这种联合所生的弊害与滥用，并且在每一种政体之下，都保全了其拯救世人的神圣能力。基督教虽处身于世界之中，在其中工作，并在许多方面与之相连，却不属于这个世界，而是超乎其上。

我们也不可认为，教会的堕落始于她与国家的联合。⁵ 败坏与背道不能归咎于某一件事或某一个人，无论这人是君士坦丁、贵格利一世 (Gregory I)，还是贵格利七世 (Gregory VII)。它们根植于人的天然之心。甚至在使徒时期，它们就已经显露出来，至少已见萌芽；美国的状况也证明，两种权力的分离绝不能使人免于这些弊病。在我们自己中间，几乎可以找到旧世界所有的错误和弊端；它们固然没有集中在某一个教会团体之内，却分散于我们的各个宗派和教派之中。教会历史从一开始便呈现善与恶的双重发展，光明与黑暗、真理与虚谎、敬虔的奥秘与不法的奥秘、基督教与敌基督之间的对抗从未止息。按照主所讲撒网和麦子中有稗子的比喻，在最后审判以前，我们不能指望两者完全分开；不过，从相对意义上说，正如世界历史就是对世界的审判，教会历史也是对教会逐步施行的审判。

§ 14. 教会的权利与特权：世俗方面的利益

君士坦丁的归信，以及基督教逐渐确立为国教，首先产生了一个重要结果：教会不仅获得了合法法人团体通常享有的权利——她在美国也享有这些权利，而且在这里各信仰派别一律平等——同时还获得了此前异教崇拜及其祭司阶层所享有的特殊优待。教会或因默许，或凭基督徒皇帝颁布的特别法律，逐渐取得了这些权利与特权；这些法律载于《狄奥多西法典》和《查士丁尼法典》的汇编之中。⁶ 然而，我们在此必须首先指出，这些权利与特权仅限于大公教会或正统教会。⁷ 所有异端和分裂宗派，无一例外，如今的境遇都比以前更坏；唯有阿里乌派 (Arians) 在信奉该派的皇帝治下短暂占据优势时例外。甚至在君士坦丁治下，这些宗派就已被禁止自由举行崇拜，违者处以罚款和没收财产；从狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 和查士丁尼时代起，更以死刑相威胁。平等扶持基督教各派的观念，与拜占庭皇帝专制的一统制度，以及教皇在教会事务上的排他性和绝对权力，完全格格不入。在国教体制的基础上，这种平等扶持也根本无法贯彻到底；因为向持异议者作出的每一次让步，都会削弱教会与国家之间的纽带。

自君士坦丁时代起，罗马帝国通过皇帝立法赋予大公教会的豁免权与特权，可以具体列举如下：

豁免教士的大部分公共负担。

这些负担包括强制性的公共劳役，⁸如服兵役、卑下的体力劳动、担任耗费巨资的显职，以及在一定程度上缴纳教会地产税。这种豁免权⁹原先不仅异教祭司享有，医生、修辞教师和犹太会堂的主管也至少部分享有；君士坦丁于313年首先将其授予非洲的大公教会教士，随后在319年推广至全帝国。但这使许多没有内在呼召的人争相跻身教职，损害了国家的利益；于是皇帝在320年立法，禁止富人¹⁰进入教职，并限制教士人数的增加，其理由颇为奇特：“富人应承担世间的重担，穷人则由教会的财产供养。”瓦伦提尼安一世 (Valentinian I.) 于364年颁布了类似的法律。在瓦伦提尼安二世 (Valentinian II.) 和狄奥多西一世 (Theodosius I.) 治下，富人可以担任圣职，条件是将财产转让给别人，由受让者代为履行国家所要求的义务。但这些武断的法律显然并未得到严格遵守。

君士坦丁也曾免除教会的土地税，但后来又撤销了这一豁免；他的继承者在此事上也没有一致的做法。安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 虽是教会权利最有力的倡导者之一，却承认对教会土地征税这一事实及其正当性；¹¹但后来的教阶集团却声称，教会具有免除一切赋税的神圣权利。

教会财富的增加与财产的捐赠。

在这方面，君士坦丁又开了先河。他不仅在313年归还了戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫期间遭没收的建筑和地产，还在321年赋予教会接受遗赠的权利，并亲自慷慨捐赠金钱和粮食，用于供养教士，以及在非洲、¹²圣地、尼科米底亚 (Nicomedia)、安提阿 (Antioch) 和君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 建造教堂。不过须记得，对于一位专制君主而言，这算不得什么大功德，因为他支配国库如同支配私囊，尽可以牺牲臣民的利益来慷慨施予。他和他的继承者也将异教神庙及其地产，以及异端团体的公产赠予教会；但这些财产更常被没收入国库，或挥霍在宠臣身上。富有的臣民有的出于纯粹的虔诚，有的出于利害考虑，将财产转让给教会，往往损害了亲属的正当权益。主教和修士也时常以不光彩的手段影响寡妇和临终之人；不过，凡是剥夺儿子应有权利的遗赠，奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 都坚决拒绝。瓦伦提尼安一世发现，有必要在370年颁布法律，遏制教士、尤其是罗马教士猎取遗产的行径；¹³哲罗姆 (Jerome) 也承认，此举确有充分理由。¹⁴教会的财富大多转化为地产，或至少以地产作保障。不久，教会便拥有全部地产的十分之一。诚然，这些土地长期以来或毫无价值，或无人经营，但在有利条件下，其价值却以异乎寻常的速度上涨。在屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 的时代，即第四世纪末，安提阿教会已有能力全部或部分供养三千名寡妇和献身守贞的女子，此外还供养许多穷人、病人和外乡人。¹⁵罗马和亚历山大 (Alexandria) 的都主教教会最为富有。第六世纪时，罗马各教会除了拥有巨额金钱和金银器皿外，还拥有许多房屋和土地，不仅在意大利和西西里 (Sicily)，甚至远及叙利亚、小亚细亚和埃及。¹⁶约翰 (John) 因对穷人慷慨无度而赢得“施赈者”这一美称；他在606年出任亚历山大牧首时，发现教会库中存有八千磅黄金，他自己又收到了万磅黄金；然而，他几乎连一条普通毯子也不为自己留下，据说有一次还同时供养了七千五百名穷人。¹⁷

教会收入的管理权归主教所有。主教按当时通行的习惯，将款项分作三份或四份：供自己使用、供养所属教士、支付崇拜的日常开支，以及周济穷人。他们常因此招致贪财和徇私的嫌疑。其中最优秀的人，如屈梭多模和奥古斯丁，都不愿经管这些世俗财产，因为这往往与他们更高的职责相冲突；他们宁愿保持早先时代的贫穷，因为如今丰厚的收入削弱了私人的慈善施舍。

而这种富裕无疑具有两面性。它既给教会带来益处，也给教会带来损失。视财产所有者和管理者的精神而定，财富既可以用来推进上帝的国、建造教堂、扶助贫困者，并为穷人、病人、寡妇、孤儿、贫困的外乡人和老人创设慈善机构，¹⁸也可以被滥用来滋养懒惰和奢侈，从而助长道德败坏与衰落。即使在教阶集团外在权势最鼎盛的时代，严肃的人也已感受到这一点。但丁 (Dante) 根据那份虚构的赠予西尔维斯特 (Sylvester) 的文书，认定君士坦丁是教皇世俗主权的创始者，因而痛切地喊道：

“你们用金银制造自己的神；

与拜偶像的人究竟有何分别，

无非他们的神只有一个，你们却有百尊？

啊，君士坦丁！多少祸患由此流出，

不是由于你的归信，而是由于那丰厚的赠礼——

你赐给那第一位富有的教父的赠礼！”¹⁹

§ 15. 教士的供养

教士得到较为优厚的供养，是基督教在帝国中新地位所带来的另一项益处。

此前，教士完全依靠基督徒的自愿捐献，而基督徒大多贫穷。如今，他们从教会基金以及帝国和城市的府库中领取固定收入。此外还有初熟之物和什一奉献；这些奉献虽尚未由法律强制实行，却很早就已成为自愿遵行的惯例，而源于犹太人的教会很可能从一开始就仿照犹太律法实行了。²⁰在这些供养不足之处，教士便从事农业或其他职业；迟至第五世纪，仍有许多教会会议建议采用这种谋生方式，尽管《使徒法规》(Apostolical Canons) 禁止教士从事世俗职业，违者革职。²¹

教士外在境况的这种改善，也往往伴随着其道德品格相应的堕落。它使他们摆脱沉重而分心的生计忧虑，使他们能够自立，并得以全力履行职务；但它也助长了安逸与奢侈，诱使大批不配的人进入教会任职，并抑制了信众自愿奉献的实行。较优秀的主教，如亚他那修 (Athanasius)、两位贵格利 (Gregories)、巴西流 (Basil)、屈梭多模、狄奥多勒 (Theodoret)、安布罗斯和奥古斯丁，都过着苦修式的简朴生活，并将自己的收入用于公益；另一些人却放纵自己的虚荣、对华美的爱好和肉体的享乐。异教历史学家阿米阿努斯 (Ammianus) 大体称许乡村教士生活简朴、节制而有德行，却描写罗马教阶集团因贵妇的馈赠而大为富有，衣着奢华至极，宴饮甚至超过王侯；²²圣哲罗姆也赞同他的看法。²³著名的异教城市长官普雷泰克斯塔图斯 (Praetextatus) 曾对教皇达马苏 (Damasus) 说，若以罗马主教之位为报酬，他自己也可以立刻成为基督徒。按照曾短暂担任君士坦丁堡主教的拿先斯的贵格利 (Gregory Nazianzen) 的记述，²⁴君士坦丁堡的主教在这种奢侈上不亚于罗马同僚，在排场和饮食的豪华上，与国家最尊贵的官员竞相争胜。君士坦丁堡和迦太基 (Carthage) 的主教座堂拥有数以百计的司祭、执事、女执事、副执事、诵经员、歌唱员和守门人。²⁵

值得注意的是，正如我们已经暗示的，两位最伟大的教父在原则上都更赞同以自愿奉献供养教会和教职人员的制度；这一制度在尼西亚时代以前盛行，并在近代的美利坚合众国得以恢复。屈梭多模无疑看出，在当时的情形下，教会的需要很难用其他方式来满足，但他坚决反对教会积聚财宝，并对安提阿的听众说：“教会的财宝本应存放在你们众人那里；只是由于你们心地刚硬，她才不得不持有世俗财产，经营房屋和土地。你们在善行上不结果子，上帝的仆人就不得不插手千百件与本职无关的事务。在使徒的日子，人们同样可以把房屋和土地送给他们；为什么他们却宁愿卖掉房屋和土地，将所得的价银献上呢？因为这无疑是更好的办法。你们的前辈本来更愿意你们从收入中拿出钱来施舍，却又怕你们的贪婪会使穷人挨饿；因此才有了如今的制度。”²⁶奥古斯丁希望他在希波 (Hippo) 的会众收回教会财产，以自愿捐献供养教士和穷人。²⁷

§ 16. 主教的司法权与代求权

我们接着讨论主教司法权的法律效力；这同样始于君士坦丁时代。

基督徒仿照犹太会堂的方式，并遵循圣保罗的劝勉，²⁸从起初就习惯于将争端交给教会解决，而不诉诸异教法庭；但直到君士坦丁时代，主教裁决的效力仍取决于双方自愿服从。如今，这种裁决被赋予法律效力，在属灵事务上，不得向世俗法庭提出上诉。早在314年，君士坦丁本人就在多纳徒派 (Donatists) 的争端中驳回过这样的上诉，并作出意味深长的宣告：“祭司的判断，必须视为基督自己的判断。”²⁹甚至革除教籍的判决也是终局判决；查士丁尼 (Justinian) 只准向都主教上诉，不准诉诸世俗法庭。有几次教会会议，如451年的迦克墩会议 (Council of Chalcedon)，甚至以革职相威胁，禁止教士规避主教法庭，或不服其裁决而向世俗法庭上诉。有时，若犯事者藐视教会的惩戒，主教便求助于国家。查士丁尼一世又将主教的司法权扩展至修道院。后来，希拉克略 (Heraclius) 在628年甚至将教士中的刑事案件也交由主教审理，从此使教士完全脱离世俗法庭的管辖；当然，若被判犯有死罪，他们仍须承受身体上的刑罚，³⁰因为教会司法权所能施加的惩处，仅止于革职和革除教籍。狄奥多西授予教士的另一项特权是，不得以酷刑强迫他们在世俗法庭作证。

主教的权力和影响如此提升，对国家的司法权构成了有益的制约，总的说来有助于维护正义与人道；但这也滋长了教阶制度的傲慢，使主教卷入各样世俗诉讼，损害了他们更高的职分；在这些诉讼中，人们常常请他们参与议处。屈梭多模 (Chrysostom) 抱怨说：“仲裁者所受的烦扰不可胜数，劳苦甚多，困难比公职法官还大。查明公理已属不易，查明之后不违背它则更难。这项职务带来的不仅是劳苦和困难，还有不小的危险。”³¹奥古斯丁本可更好地运用自己的时间，也觉得这部分职务是一项重担，但他仍因爱教会而承担下来。³²另一些主教则把这些事务交给下属教士，甚至像特罗亚 (Troas) 的主教西尔瓦努斯 (Silvanus) 那样，交给一位平信徒。³³

教会与帝国联合所带来的另一项益处，是主教的代求权。

为罪犯、囚徒和各类不幸者向世俗政权代求的特权，原本属于异教祭司，尤其属于维斯塔贞女 (vestals)；如今这项特权转归基督教教职人员，尤其是主教，并从此成为他们职务的一项基本职能。约460年，高卢 (Gaul) 的一所教会反对将一位修士按立为主教，理由是他不惯于同世俗官长交往；即使他能为他们的灵魂向天上的审判者代求，也不能为他们的身体向地上的审判官代求。主教尤其被视为孤儿寡妇的监护人，他们财产的管理也托付给主教。查士丁尼于529年又赋予主教监督监狱的职责，规定他们在每周三和周五，即纪念基督受难的日子，前往探视。

可以想见，这种代求权的行使常常妨碍司法的进行；但在无数事例中，尤其在残酷而专横的暴政时期，它也维护了无辜者的权益，以及人道与怜悯的原则。有时，主教向总督和皇帝力陈恳求，使整个行省免受苛税的重压和征服者的报复。安提阿的弗拉维安 (Flavian) 就曾于387年，在一场叛乱之后平息了狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 的怒气。他背负年老和疾病的双重重担，远赴君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople)，亲自觐见皇帝，以他们共同之主的使者身份，提醒皇帝记住这句话：“你们饶恕人的过犯，你们的天父也必饶恕你们。”结果大获成功。³⁴

与代求权密切相关的，是教堂的庇护权。

从前，除少数例外，许多异教神庙和祭坛都被视为不可侵犯的避难所；如今基督教教堂也承继了这项特权。狄奥多西二世 (Theodosius II) 于431年将这一惯例定为法律，同时采取若干措施防止滥用；凡在教堂建筑的任何部分，甚至在祝圣过的地界内，虐待未携武器的逃难者，都可能被处以死刑。³⁵

这样，在这些圣所中，奴隶得以安然躲避主人的暴怒，债务人得以躲避冷酷债主的追逼，妇女和童女得以躲避浪荡之徒的侵扰，战败者得以躲避敌人的刀剑，直到主教凭着有力的调停，为他们争得公正或怜悯。这项法律不仅植根于迷信，也植根于民众较为高尚的同情心；在民族大迁徙的狂澜和频繁内战之中，它的仁惠作用显得尤为突出。³⁶

§ 17. 星期日的法律保障

国家对遵守星期日及教会其他节期的法律保障。

诚然，国家不应当、也不能强迫任何人遵守这些日子；但国家无疑可以而且应当禁止公开扰乱和亵渎基督徒安息日的行为，并保障基督徒正当遵守这日的权利和义务。君士坦丁于321年禁止在城镇中于“可敬的太阳日”开庭审案和从事一切世俗劳动。他用这样的措辞，或许是同时顾及太阳神阿波罗 (Apollo) 和真正的公义之日头基督，也同时顾及他的异教臣民和基督徒臣民。但他明确准许乡间的人耕种田地和葡萄园，因为这些工作往往没有别的日子比这一天更适合进行；³⁷然而，人们本会以为，辛勤劳作的农民恰恰最需要这一天的休息。不久之后，即321年6月，他准许在星期日释放奴隶；³⁸因为这是仁慈之举，与普通事务不同，完全可以说与复活和救赎之日相称。据优西比乌 (Eusebius) 记载，君士坦丁还禁止星期日的一切军事操练，同时命人遵守星期五，以纪念基督之死。³⁹

不仅如此，他出于善意却错误的热忱，竟进一步要求他的士兵，甚至其中的异教徒，也必须以实际行动遵守星期日：他们要在信号发出时，念诵以下机械背熟的祷文：“我们惟独承认你为上帝；我们宣认你为君王；我们呼求你作我们的帮助者；我们从你领受胜利；我们靠你战胜仇敌。我们为已得的福惠感谢你；我们盼望从你再得将来的福惠。我们众人极其谦卑地恳求你，使我们的君士坦丁和他敬畏上帝的众子长寿、康健，常享胜利。”⁴⁰虽然这套祷词保持着自然神论式的笼统措辞，但以法律强令人念诵，显然超越了世俗权力的职分，侵犯了良心的权利，也不可避免地助长了虚伪和空洞的形式主义。

后来的皇帝宣布，亵渎星期日就是亵渎神圣之物，并禁止在星期日征税和追讨私人债务（368年和386年），甚至禁止在星期日及重大节期举行戏剧和竞技场表演（386年和425年）。⁴¹然而，这项对公共娱乐的禁令——迦太基会议 (Council of Carthage，399年或401年) 曾有理有据地坚持要求实行——很可能从未得到严格执行，而且屡屡被相反的惯例所取代；这种惯例后来逐渐遍及全欧洲。⁴²

§ 18. 基督教对民事立法的影响：查士丁尼法典

关于这一题目，尤其可参看§ 13之ii项下所引勒尔 (Rhoer)、迈森堡 (Meysenburg) 和特罗普隆 (Troplong) 的著作；另参吉本 (Gibbon)，第xliv章（对罗马法极佳的概述）；米尔曼 (Milman)：《拉丁基督教》(Lat. Christianity)，第I卷，第iii编，第5章；以及第i卷§ 86所引施密特 (Schmidt) 和沙斯泰尔 (Chastel) 关于基督教对罗马帝国社会之影响的著作中的有关部分。

国家以这种方式保障教会作为合法法人理所应得的权利，教会也反过来对国家施加极为有益的影响，使它逐渐摆脱异教法律和风俗的支配，摆脱自私、复仇和报复的精神，并使它的关怀越出单纯物质繁荣的范围，顾及社会更高的道德利益。在前一时期，我们已考察过罗马帝国内基督徒道德与异教腐败之间的对照。⁴³现在我们要看，基督教的道德原则如何获得公众认可，并开始至少在某种程度上支配民事和政治生活。

早在第二世纪，在较为贤明的异教皇帝统治之下，显然也在基督教精神那间接、艰难奋进而又不可抗拒的影响之下，立法便转向改革和人道的方向；基督徒皇帝则在古代希腊—罗马文明的基础所容许的范围内，将这一趋势推进到了极致。此时，公正与公平、人道与仁爱的原则，尤其开始在国家中发挥作用。因为基督教凭着人具有上帝形象、人格具有无限价值、全人类本出于一源，以及众人同蒙基督救赎等教义，首次使普遍人权成为一股力量，抗衡古代世界排他的民族精神、冷酷的自私和政治专制；那旧世界将各民族和各阶级严酷地分隔开来，只把人当作公民来尊重，同时却剥夺了广大奴隶、外邦人和蛮族的公民权。⁴⁴

基督自己从人民的最底层开始他的改革，从渔夫和税吏，从穷人、瘸子、瞎子，从被鬼附的人和各类受苦者开始，首先使他们认识到自身的尊严和崇高的归宿。如今教会也在国家之内并借助国家，为提升受压迫者和贫困者的地位而努力，也为那些在异教统治下根本不被视为政治共同体成员、反被无情践踏的阶层而努力。诚然，这一改革运动在相当程度上受到了阻挠：一方面是比法律更有力的民间习俗，另一方面是罗马帝国的社会结构，它在本质上仍属异教，且注定要瓦解。但改革终于发动起来，即使帝国覆亡也不能使它倒退；它继续传播到日耳曼各部族之中。虽然即使在基督教国家，旧有的社会弊病也不断从败坏的人性中爆发出来，有时甚至以革命的暴烈形式出现，但基督教始终前来约束、洁净、医治和安慰，遏制暴君与民众的狂烈激情，为受逼迫者伸冤，减轻战争的恐怖，并抑制基督徒民众公共和私人生活中无数的罪恶。只要将基督教世界与最文明的异教国家及伊斯兰教国家略作比较，就足以充分证明这一点。

在这里，君士坦丁的统治又是一个转折点。他虽是一位东方专制君主，对基督教道德的严肃要求也领会得并不充分，却仍颁布了许多明显洋溢着基督教公义和人道精神的法律：废除钉十字架之刑，禁止角斗表演和残酷仪式，遏止杀婴，并鼓励释放奴隶。优西比乌说，他改良了大部分旧法，或以新法取而代之。⁴⁵从此，我们在罗马立法者的托加袍 (toga) 之下，感受到一颗基督徒之心的温暖。我们也看见了修道主义之父从埃及旷野向世界的统治者君士坦丁及其众子所发出的福音宣讲和劝勉的影响：他们应当以公义和怜悯待穷人，并记念将来的审判。

即使尤利安 (Julian) 对基督徒怀着满腔仇恨，也无法全然摆脱自己所受教育和当时主导时代精神的影响，而不得不从教会借用许多措施来改革异教。他尤其承认，人有义务善待众人、周济穷人、宽待囚犯；尽管这与异教的情感相悖，而他自己对基督徒的作为，也实在与仁慈毫不相干。然而，他的慈善计划和措施全然失败，恰好表明真正对人的爱，只有在基督教的土壤中才能茁壮成长。值得注意的是，尽管尤利安如此不由自主地向基督教让步，他自己却没有颁布过一条顺应自然权利与公平原则之进展的法律。⁴⁶

他的继承者循着君士坦丁的足迹，直到西罗马帝国末期，始终使民事立法处于基督教精神的影响之下，尽管这常常引起与残存异教势力的冲突，有时也导致暂时的背道和反动。我们还看到一个显著的矛盾：法律在某些方面较为宽和，在另一些方面却比以往更加严酷、血腥。要解释这一悖论，无疑部分应归因于拜占庭 (Byzantine) 政府的专制性质，部分则应归因于当时的动乱。⁴⁷

此时，有必要将皇帝的敕令⁴⁸汇编成一部法典（codex 或 corpus juris）。最初两次尝试是在第四世纪中叶进行的，如今只留下若干残篇。⁴⁹但我们仍有《狄奥多西法典》(Codex Theodosianus)，这是狄奥多西二世 (Theodosius II.) 于429至438年间命几位法学家编成的。它收录了自君士坦丁以来诸位基督徒皇帝的法律，其中掺杂着许多异教成分；瓦伦提尼安三世 (Valentinian III.) 批准它在西部帝国施行。一百年后，在拜占庭国家教会专制制度的鼎盛时期，查士丁尼一世 (Justinian I.) 将一项宏大的任务交给一批法学家，由著名的特里波尼安 (Tribonianus) 主持：⁵⁰把从哈德良 (Hadrian) 时代直到他自己在位期间的罗马法，全面修订、整理并汇编成集。顺带说来，查士丁尼也不能免于立法任性多变的指责。于是，凭借最优秀人才与最优越条件的结合，著名的《查士丁尼法典》(Codex Justinianeus) 在短短七年间（527—534年）编成；此后，它成为罗马帝国通行的法律，罗马、君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 和贝鲁特 (Berytus) 各学府唯一的教科书，并且直到今日，仍是基督教欧洲大部分地区法律关系的基础。⁵¹

这一罗马法汇编⁵²，是我们认识基督徒生活与国家的关系及其对国家之影响的重要史料。诚然，它大部分是异教罗马的遗产；罗马在禀性上富于立法和行政的天才，因而仿佛注定要统治世界。然而，自君士坦丁以来帝国性质的东方化、各种日耳曼因素的融入、摩西律法的影响，以及在其最优良之处所体现的基督教精神，都使它发生了实质性的改变。它充分承认教会是合法的制度，具有神圣的权威；其中若干法律，正是在主教的直接请求下制定的。同样，英国和美国不成文的传统法律——“普通法”(Common Law)——虽源于盎格鲁—撒克逊 (Anglo-Saxon) 时代，因而源于异教的日耳曼世界，却是在基督教和教会的影响下成熟起来的；它所显露的这种影响，甚至比罗马法典更为鲜明，尤其是在涉及人的个体权利、人身权利与自由的一切事项上。

§ 19. 妇女与家庭地位的提升

基督教对希腊—罗马帝国立法的有益影响，在以下各点上尤其显著：

在对待妇女方面。基督教从一开始，就主要以无声的实际行动，努力使女性摆脱她们在异教世界中卑贱、奴隶般的地位；⁵³即使在这一时期，它也产生了诺娜 (Nonna)、安图莎 (Anthusa) 和莫尼卡 (Monica) 等卓越的妇德典范，她们甚至赢得了异教徒本身最崇高的敬意。基督徒皇帝继续推行这一事业，尽管罗马立法在妇女权利方面远不及后来的日耳曼立法。君士坦丁于321年赋予妇女与男子同等的财产支配权，唯出售地产除外。同时，出于对她们贞静的顾念，他禁止传唤她们亲自到公共法庭出庭。狄奥多西一世 (Theodosius I.) 于390年首次允许母亲享有某种监护权，此前这项权利完全交托给男子。狄奥多西二世于439年禁止鸨夫（lenones）这种可耻的行当；他们靠妇女卖淫为生，并向国家缴纳相当可观的执照税；可惜这一禁令收效甚微。⁵⁴妇女在各方面获得保护，免受男子兽欲的侵害。从君士坦丁时代起，强奸献身于神的童女和寡妇，均处以死刑。⁵⁵
在婚姻法方面，君士坦丁废除了罗马旧法对独身和无子女者的惩罚，使婚姻获得应有的自由。⁵⁶另一方面，旧约禁止一定血亲亲等以内通婚的规定被引入，违者受到重罚，婚姻因而又受到限制；后来，这些禁令更被任意扩展，甚至及于第三等的堂表亲关系。⁵⁷查士丁尼还以属灵亲属关系为由，禁止教父母与教子女通婚。但最为可贵的是，婚姻的尊严与神圣如今得到保护：自奥古斯都 (Augustus) 时代以来一直盛行、并大大加速公共道德败坏的无限离婚自由，受到了限制。然而，教父们遵循基督的话，认为唯有奸淫才足以构成离婚理由，这一严格见解却无法在国家中贯彻。⁵⁸诸位皇帝在这件事上的立法，摇摆于罗马的放纵与教会的教义之间。迟至第五世纪，我们仍听见一位基督徒作者抱怨，男子更换妻子如同更换衣服，洞房竟像市场上的鞋子一般待价而沽！查士丁尼试图使国家法律达到教会的期望，却发现自己不得不加以放宽；他的继承者甚至允许双方仅凭合意便可离婚。⁵⁹

自君士坦丁时代起，纳妾即被禁止，奸淫则被列为最严重的罪行之一而受到惩罚。⁶⁰然而，在这方面，异教习俗也不断在实际生活中卷土重来；甚至法律似乎也长期容忍一种不受正式约束的婚姻：它仅以双方同意为基础，缔结时既无婚约，也无嫁妆，更未经教会认可。⁶¹直到第八世纪，国家才要求以教会主持婚礼作为合法婚姻的条件。再婚，以及与异端和异教徒通婚，虽然受到较严格的教会教师反对，却仍继续获准；唯独与犹太人通婚受到禁止，因为他们对基督徒怀有狂热的仇恨。⁶²

按照罗马旧法，父亲对子女的权力甚至及于他们的自由和生命；亚历山大·塞韦鲁 (Alexander Severus) 在君主制精神的影响下，已对这种权力加以限制，因为君主制精神不利于私人司法权；到了君士坦丁时期，这种权力又受到进一步限制。这位皇帝将父亲杀害子女列为最严重的罪行之一，而庞培法 (Pompeian law) 对此却不予惩罚。⁶³然而，弃婴及将子女卖为奴隶的残酷而悖逆天性的习俗，仍长期存在，尤其是在劳工和农民阶层中。即使瓦伦提尼安 (Valentinian) 和狄奥多西一世采取的间接措施，也无法根除这种弊端。狄奥多西于391年下令，凡因贫困而被父亲卖为奴隶的子女，都应获得自由，且无须赔偿买主；查士丁尼则于529年赋予一切被遗弃的儿童以自由，概无例外。⁶⁴

§ 20. 社会改革：奴隶制度

奴隶制度⁶⁵仍遍及整个帝国，查士丁尼的法律也承认它完全合法。⁶⁶查士丁尼法典以将人类划分为自由人与奴隶这一区分为基础。诚然，它宣告人类在本性上平等，就此而言，已超越亚里士多德 (Aristotle) 的理论；后者认为，某些种族和阶层的人，由于体力和智力低下，注定永远为奴，无法改变。但法典又使这一让步丧失了实际价值：它一如既往地严厉坚持奴隶在法律和社会上的低下地位，将奴隶的婚姻贬为可耻的姘居，在发生奸淫时拒绝给予奴隶任何法律救济，剥夺他们对子女的一切权力，并使他们像没有理性的役畜一样，成为买卖的货物；奴隶从卖主转归买主，是一种法律交易，与出售任何其他财产同样有效，也同样频繁。按照年龄、体力和所受训练，以十至七十枚金币买卖奴隶，是日常可见的事。⁶⁷奴隶的人数不受限制；许多主人甚至拥有两三千名奴隶。

蛮族的法典在这方面与罗马法典并无本质差别。它们也承认奴隶制是人类的一种常态，奴隶则是可以买卖的商品。所有战俘都成为奴隶，成千上万人的性命因而得以免遭滥杀和灭绝。斯提利科 (Stilicho) 战胜拉达盖苏斯 (Rhadagaisus)，使二十万哥特人 (Goths) 及其他日耳曼人被投入市场，奴隶的价格也从二十五枚金币跌至一枚。沿欧洲各海岸，掳掠和贩卖人口都是海盗活动的一部分。在大贵格利 (Gregory the Great) 时代，盎格鲁—撒克逊人在罗马被公然买卖。蛮族法典与查士丁尼法典同样严厉地禁止自由人与奴隶之间有失身份的结合；然而，在承认奴隶之间婚姻的合法性和宗教神圣性方面，前者似乎胜过后者。伦巴德人 (Lombards) 的法典便以这句经文为依据：“神配合的，人不可分开。”

古代教会虽削弱了那道将奴隶与自由公民隔开、使他们被排除在人类普遍权利之外的法律隔墙，却远未将它拆毁；因为教会所教导的，只是人在道德和宗教上的平等。我们发现，甚至帝国的主教和高级教士中也有奴隶主。罗马教宗的家中也有奴隶，这一点是我们从501年在罗马举行的一次会议的记录中偶然得知的。这次会议因西马库斯 (Symmachus) 当选引起的争议而召开；会上，他的反对者坚持要求传唤他的奴隶作证，而他的拥护者则反对这一异乎寻常的要求，因为民法不准奴隶在法庭上作证。⁶⁸在蛮族中，我们同样读到教会拥有奴隶，以及保护教会所属奴隶的特别规定。⁶⁹君士坦丁颁布严厉的法律，禁止与奴隶通婚，并规定这种婚姻所生的子女一律为奴；他还于公元319年和326年颁布法律，惩治逃亡奴隶。当时，大批逃奴劫掠荒废的行省，或与敌对的蛮族联合，反抗帝国。但另一方面，他使释放奴隶更为便利，甚至准许在星期日施行，并赋予教士仅凭自己一句话便可释放其奴隶的权利，无须其他情形所要求的见证人和仪式。⁷⁰狄奥多西和查士丁尼进一步鼓励释放奴隶。后者废除了判人为奴的刑罚，并赋予获释者公民的地位和权利，从而除去了从前附着于这一阶层的污名。⁷¹他的法律精神有利于逐步废除家庭奴隶制。在拜占庭帝国 (Byzantine empire)，社会等级的差别总体上趋于缩小，不过这与其说是出于基督教原则，不如说是为了专制君主制的利益。专制政体与极端民主政体，都偏爱普遍的平等与一律。除君主的威严或人民的意志外，两者都不能容忍任何凌驾其上的伟大力量。一种制度只知道奴隶，另一种制度则只知道主人。

当时，甚至教会也完全没有要求或期望彻底废除奴隶制。与前一时期一样，教会仍认为，只须坚持以基督徒的仁慈对待奴隶，嘱咐奴隶为主的缘故顺服，以他们在更高的道德意义上的自由和平等来安慰他们卑微的处境，并借着对奴隶的宗教教育，为废除这一制度作内在的预备，就已经足够了。一切急躁和暴烈的措施都遭到坚决反对。甘格拉会议 (council of Gangra) 警告，凡以宗教为借口，引诱奴隶藐视主人的，都要受到绝罚；迦克墩会议 (council of Chalcedon) 的第四条教规则禁止修道院未经主人许可收留奴隶，违者逐出教会，免得基督教被指为鼓励犯上。教父们凡论及这一问题，似乎都将奴隶制既看作一种不可避免的弊害，也看作上帝施行管教的工具，并将其起源追溯到对含和迦南的咒诅。⁷²诚然，他们赞成个别情况下释放奴隶，但认为这是主人出于基督徒之爱的行为，而不是奴隶应有的权利；至于那段著名的经文：“若能以自由，就求自由更好”，他们并不理解为呼吁奴隶抓住最早的机会争取自由，反而理解为劝他们继续为奴，因为无论如何，他们在基督里内心已经自由，外在的处境算不得什么。⁷³

即使圣金口约翰 (St. Chrysostom)，虽然在所有教父中最接近解放奴隶的理论，也最关注奴隶制的一般问题，他的看法仍未实质性地超出这一见解。⁷⁴照他的说法，人类起初受造时完全自由平等，并没有另设一个奴隶阶层。但人因堕落而丧失了自治的能力，陷入三重束缚：女人受制于男人，奴隶受制于主人，臣民受制于统治者。他认为，这三种关系既是上帝的惩罚，也是上帝管教的手段。这样，奴隶制作为堕落所引致的一项神圣安排，便既在相对意义上得到辩护，又在原则上受到否定。既然基督已救我们脱离罪恶及其后果，照金口约翰的看法，奴隶制在教会中原则上也已经废除，但这只是就罪与死被废除的同一意义而言。重生的基督徒不是奴隶，而是在基督里完全自由的人，彼此为弟兄。一方独有的权柄和另一方的屈从，让位于爱中的彼此服事。这一见解若贯彻到底，自然会导向释放奴隶。诚然，金口约翰没有将它推到这一步，但他坚决谴责为奢华享受而蓄奴的一切行为，认为一两个仆人便足以提供必要的帮助，而许多贵族却拥有成百上千的奴隶。他劝人释放多余的奴隶，并教育所有奴隶，使他们一旦获释，就知道如何自立。他认为，耶路撒冷最初的基督徒团体在实行财物公用的同时，也释放了他们所有的奴隶；⁷⁵他由此暗示听众效法这个榜样。但这位教父当然丝毫没有呼吁奴隶挣断锁链；相反，他遵循使徒的先例，劝他们为基督的缘故，凭良心甘心顺服，其恳切程度不亚于他教导主人以仁慈和爱心待人。安布罗斯 (Ambrose)、奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 和拉文纳的金言彼得 (Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna，† 458) 也是如此。

拉丁教会最杰出的代表圣奥古斯丁，在其思想深邃的《上帝之城》(City of God) 中，将奴隶制排除在人最初的理念和社会最终的状态之外，认为它是罪所造成的一种弊害，却仍处于上帝的引导和掌管之下。他说，上帝造人为有理性的，使人只作无理性之物的主人，而不是作人的主人。奴役的重担加在罪人身上，是公正的。因此，圣经中直到挪亚用“奴仆”一词咒诅他那犯罪的儿子时，才出现这个名称。可见，人配得这个名称，是由于罪责，而不是由于本性。据说，拉丁文 servus 源于 servare［更确切地说是 servire］，即保存战俘的性命，使他们免于一死；这本身就意味着罪所应得的刑罚。因为即使在正义的战争中，也有一方犯了罪，而每一次胜利，都是借着上帝的审判使战败者降卑，或纠正他们的罪，或惩罚他们。但以理认为，百姓的罪才是他们被掳的真正原因。因此，罪是奴役之母，也是人受制于人的首要原因；然而，这一切若非出于上帝的审判，就不会发生。在他没有不义，他知道如何按犯罪者所应得的，施以不同的刑罚……使徒劝奴仆顺服主人，ex animo，就是从心里甘心服事；这样，他们若不能脱离主人得自由，也可借着不是出于虚假的惧怕，而是出于忠诚的爱来服事，将自己的奴役化为自由，直到罪孽过去，人的一切执政掌权都被废去，而上帝成为万有中的万有。⁷⁶

不难想见，在皇帝以及拥有最多奴隶的富贵家族归信以后，释放奴隶的事例便更加频繁了。⁷⁷与查士丁尼同时代的圣撒姆孙·克塞诺多科斯 (St. Samson Xenodochos)，其传记作者这样说到他：“他不愿保留自己成群的奴隶，更不愿对与自己同为仆人的人行使主人的权柄；他宁愿慷慨地让他们自由离去，并给他们足够维持生活必需的钱财。”⁷⁸第五世纪高卢的长老萨尔维安 (Salvianus) 说，每天都有奴隶获释。⁷⁹另一方面，教会也做了许多事来防止奴隶人数增加，尤其是赎回俘虏，有时甚至为此动用教会的金银器皿。然而，我们并无可靠的统计资料，甚至无法粗略比较第六世纪末奴隶与自由人口的比例和前一时期的比例。

因此，我们推断，尼西亚及后尼西亚时期的基督教，虽然本性保守，并坚决反对社会革命和暴烈的改革措施，但其最深处的本能和最终趋向，却有利于全人类的自由。它将奴隶提升到与主人属灵平等的地位，并始终视奴隶为能够具有同样的美德、蒙受同样的福分、得到同样赏赐的人，由此使奴役人类这一可憎的制度走上逐步改善、最终消亡的道路。然而，在欧洲，直到本书所论时期之后许多世纪，这一结果才得以实现；而且这并非单靠教会的影响，也是借助种种经济和政治因素：奴隶制无利可图，尤其在纬度较高的北方地区更是如此；蛮族征服所带来的新关系；定居于罗马帝国境内的条顿部族 (Teutonic tribes) 的习惯；以及农业奴隶被系于土地，转变为农奴。农奴如同土地一样不可迁移，因而在一定程度上不再受主人反复无常的意志和专横权力的支配。

一般贫苦和不幸的人，尤其是寡妇、孤儿、囚犯和病人，在异教时代曾遭到极其严重的忽视，如今开始受到帝国立法者的注意。君士坦丁于315年禁止在罪犯额上烙印，他说，这是为了“使照着天上荣美的形像所造的人的面容，不至受到毁损”。⁸⁰他制定措施，防止囚犯在受审之前遭到非人的虐待。⁸¹为使贫困的父母再无借口出卖或遗弃子女，他让人供给他们衣食，费用一部分由自己承担，一部分由国家支付。⁸²他还致力于保护穷人，使他们免受法官、辩护人和税吏的贪赃勒索，尤其为此于331年颁布了一项法律；这些人横征暴敛，榨尽百姓的钱财。⁸³334年，他下令，不得强迫寡妇、孤儿、病人和穷人到本行省以外的法庭应讯。瓦伦提尼安于365年免除了寡妇和孤儿缴纳带有屈辱性质的人头税的义务。⁸⁴364年，他将照管穷人的责任交给主教。霍诺留 (Honorius) 于409年也作了同样的安排。正如前面所述，查士丁尼于529年将国家监狱的监督权交给主教，规定他们每逢星期三和星期五前往探访，使这些不幸的人切实体会宗教的严肃教诲与安慰。这位皇帝还颁布法律，禁止高利贷和债权人惨无人道的苛刻行为，并以严法保护慈善及宗教基金，禁止挪用其收入，背离创办者最初的宗旨。几位皇帝和皇后对教会为穷人、病人、旅客、寡妇和孤儿设立的机构给予特别庇护，免除它们通常应缴的赋税，并以私财充实或扩建这些机构。⁸⁵然而，在那些日子，正如在我们今日一样，出于基督徒之爱的私人慈善始终走在前面，国家则远远地跟在后面，更多是予以认可和扶助，而不是独立主动地开展工作。⁸⁶

§ 21. 废除角斗表演

最后，基督教的人道精神战胜异教的野蛮与残酷，所取得的最伟大、最美好的胜利之一，就是废除了角斗比赛；早在第二世纪，护教士们就已对此提出最恳切的抗议。⁸⁷

在我们所论时期之初，这些血腥的表演仍极受欢迎；在表演中，成百上千的人——大多是罪犯、战俘和蛮族——彼此残杀，或在与野兽搏斗时被杀，只为供观众取乐。异教文明在这里显明了自己的无能。在它眼中，蛮族的性命别无用处，只能供罗马人民残酷地消遣；这些人希望安坐家中，亲眼观看并欣赏边疆战争中的流血场面。即使素称仁厚的叙马库斯 (Symmachus)，也在任执政官期间（391年）举办过这种表演；二十九名撒克逊 (Saxon) 战俘以自杀逃脱这种公开的羞辱，他竟为此大发雷霆。⁸⁸维斯塔贞女 (Vestal virgins) 尚存之时，在圆形竞技场里为角斗士助威，鼓动他们从事血腥的厮杀，并发出施以致命一击的信号，乃是她们特有的权利。⁸⁹

奥古斯丁在《忏悔录》(Confessions) 中，以一个鲜明的实例向我们展示了这类表演所激起的嗜血欲如何感染人。⁹⁰他的朋友阿利庇乌斯 (Alypius)，后来成为塔加斯特 (Tagaste) 的主教，于385年受几位朋友劝诱，前往罗马的圆形竞技场；他去时决意紧闭心扉，不受任何影响。奥古斯丁说：“他们到了那里，在租定的座位上坐下时，四周早已沸腾着嗜血的狂欢。阿利庇乌斯却闭上双眼，不许自己的灵魂向这罪屈服。唉，惟愿他也塞住自己的耳朵！因为，当一名角斗士在搏斗中倒下，全体观众爆发的狂呼传入耳际时，他终于抵不住好奇心，睁开了眼睛，虽然他原已准备鄙弃并抗拒眼前的景象。但他灵魂所受的创伤，比那角斗士肉身所受的更重；他的跌倒，也更为可悲……因为他一看见血，就立刻吸入了嗜血之情；他没有转过脸去，反而目不转睛地盯着，不知不觉间染上了狂怒与复仇的心态，被这杀人的游戏迷住，沉醉于嗜血的欢喜之中……他观看，他呐喊喝彩，他热血沸腾，又把这股狂热从那里带走；这狂热驱使他再度前往，不但与那些带他去的人同往，甚至走在他们前头，还带上别人。”

基督教终于成功地关闭了圆形竞技场。君士坦丁 (Constantine) 在统治初期，也曾亲自迎合这种流行的习俗，在特里尔 (Treves) 的圆形竞技场中，将大批被征服的蛮族置于死地，为此还受到一位异教演说家的极力赞颂。⁹¹但在325年，即尼西亚 (Nice) 教会大公会议召开的那一年，他首次颁令禁止这些血腥表演，“因为在天下太平之时，这些表演不可能令人喜悦”。⁹²然而，这道颁给腓尼基 (Phoenicia) 各行政长官的敕令，即使在东方也未能产生持久的效果，惟有君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 例外；该城从未沾染角斗士的鲜血。在叙利亚，尤其在西方，更以罗马为甚，这种根深蒂固的制度一直延续到第五世纪。霍诺留 (Honorius，395—423年在位) 起初以为它无法根除，后来约于404年废除了角斗表演；促使他采取这一行动的，是一位名叫忒勒马库斯 (Telemachus) 的东方修士英勇舍己的事迹。这位修士特地来到罗马，抗议这种惨无人道的野蛮行径；他奋身跃入竞技场，将搏斗者分开，随后却被群众撕成碎片，成为为人道而殉身的人。⁹³然而，这只是制止了人与人之间的血腥搏斗。各种不流血的表演，即使在教会的重大节期，甚至在蛮族入侵之际，观众仍与从前一样众多，一样狂热；金口约翰 (Chrysostom)、奥古斯丁和萨尔维安 (Salvian) 的沉痛斥责，使我们得以看出这一点。甚至通常总要多少牺牲人命的斗兽表演，也仍继续存在；⁹⁴直到今日，西班牙和南美洲仍容许这种表演，实在有辱基督徒之名。

§ 22. 政教联合的弊害：教会的世俗化

现在我们转而考察教会与国家联合的阴暗面，思考君士坦丁时代以后，两者关系改变所产生的弊害；这些弊害直到我们今日，仍不断显露在欧洲教会的状况之中。

这些恶果，可以统称为教会的世俗化。教会接纳了罗马帝国的全体人口，固然成为群众的教会、人民的教会，但同时也多少成了属世界的教会。基督教成了一种时尚。假冒为善者和徒具形式的信奉者迅速增多；⁹⁵严格的纪律、热忱、自我牺牲和弟兄之爱，也相应地衰退；许多异教的风俗习惯，则改头换面，潜入了对上帝的敬拜和基督徒的生活之中。罗马国家是在偶像崇拜的影响下成长起来的，不可能一挥之间就神奇地改变。因此，异教化的倾向与世俗化的进程是携手并行的。

然而，基督教纯洁的精神绝不会因此受到玷污。相反，即使在最黑暗的日子，它仍保有忠贞坚定的认信者，时时征服新的领域，并且以修道主义的形式，在国立教会内外不断抵抗世俗和异教的影响；也正是在与盛行的腐败斗争之中，产生了亚他那修 (Athanasius)、金口约翰和奥古斯丁这样的教父，诺娜 (Nonna)、安图莎 (Anthusa) 和莫尼卡 (Monica) 这样的基督徒母亲典范，以及安东尼 (Anthony)、帕科米乌斯 (Pachomius) 和本笃 (Benedict) 这样非凡的旷野圣徒。新的仇敌和危险唤起了新的责任与美德；这些责任与美德如今得以在更广阔的舞台上展开，因而规模也更为宏大。此外，不可忘记，世俗化的倾向绝不能只归咎于君士坦丁和国家的影响，它更深的根源乃是人心的败坏；事实上，早在异教皇帝统治之下，这种倾向就已显露，虽然范围狭小得多；尤其是在暂享安宁的时期，基督徒生活中的认真与热忱沉睡了，便给属世的精神留下了活动的余地。

因此，君士坦丁以后与以前的时代，其差别绝不在于真正的基督教消失、虚假的基督教进入，而在于两者之中哪一个占了优势。教会的田地如今广阔得多，虽然有许多好土，却也包含了更多石地、不毛之地和杂草丛生之地。教会与世界、重生者与未重生者、挂名的基督徒与内心真实的基督徒之间的界线，多少被抹去了；从前双方彼此敌对，如今却在同一个外在的洗礼与认信团契中融合为一。这就把光明与黑暗、真理与谬误、基督与敌基督之间的争战，带进了基督教世界自身的怀抱。

§ 23. 世俗风气与奢靡

教会的世俗化，最显著地表现在玛门 (mammon) 崇拜和奢侈之风的盛行上，与初代基督徒的贫穷和简朴形成鲜明对照。帝国后期的贵族，对于外表的炫耀和财富所带来的感官享受，有一种病态的狂热，却没有真正文明所具有的审美、礼貌与教养。男士以大理石宫殿、浴室、奴隶和镀金马车的数目衡量自己的财富；女士则沉迷于金丝绸缎的衣饰，上面绣有世俗或宗教图像，又佩戴沉重的金项链、手镯和戒指，去教会与去剧场一样，穿着炫耀夺目的服装。⁹⁶金口约翰对安提阿 (Antioch) 的一位贵族说：“你数算着自己有多少多少英亩土地，十座或二十座宫殿，同样数目的浴室，一千或两千名奴隶，还有包金镀银的马车。”⁹⁷纳齐安祖的贵格利 (Gregory Nazianzen) 曾于381年一度主持在君士坦丁堡召开的第二次大公会议；他为我们描绘了当时堕落文明的奢靡景象，虽然显然带有修辞上的渲染，却仍取材于生活：“我们华贵地斜卧在高大奢华的软垫上，铺盖精美绝伦，几乎令人不敢触碰；但只要听见一个穷人呻吟的声音，我们就感到烦躁。我们的卧房必须散发花香，甚至是珍稀花卉的香气；我们的餐桌必须流溢着最芬芳、最昂贵的香膏，以致我们变得全然柔靡。奴隶必须衣饰华丽，整整齐齐地侍立待命，披着少女般飘逸的长发，脸上剃得光滑无比，周身的装饰远远超过淫荡的眼目所宜观看的程度；有些人须用指尖轻巧而稳当地捧杯，有些人则须向主人的头部扇送凉风。我们的餐桌必须被菜肴压弯，空中、水中、地上一切自然领域，都要献上丰盛的贡品，以致几乎没有地方摆放厨师和面包师精心制作的食品……穷人有水就知足；我们却把杯中斟满了酒，喝到酩酊大醉，不，甚至远远超过这个程度。我们拒绝这一种酒，又称赞另一种调味得当的酒极佳，还要就第三种酒展开哲学讨论；不但如此，主人若不以君王般的气派，在本地酒之外再添上外国酒，我们还要觉得遗憾。”⁹⁸半个世纪以后，高卢长老萨尔维安 (Salvianus) 对罗马帝国境内基督徒普遍的道德状况所作的描绘，就更加不堪了。⁹⁹

诚然，这些对堕落现象的严正抗议本身，以及修道主义和禁欲者对世界的鄙弃普遍受到尊崇，都证明一种更美好的精神仍然存在。然而，贪婪、挥霍、纵欲、看戏成癖、酗酒、淫乱——总之，基督教原为根除而来的种种异教恶习——仍不可遏制地蔓延，使罗马帝国及其人民大步走向崩溃，最终将它交在粗野却质朴、道德上强健有力的蛮族手中。当基督徒被帝国倾覆的轰然巨响惊醒，焦虑地追问上帝为何容许此事时，那个时代的耶利米——萨尔维安——回答说：“想想你们的卑劣和罪行，看看你们是否配得上帝的保护。”¹⁰⁰惟有上帝以毁灭审判这个名义上是基督教、实质上却是异教的世界，才能为社会道德的重生开辟道路。若要使在古罗马帝国中孕育的基督教文明扎下坚实的根，结出成熟的果实，就必须有一些新兴而充满活力的民族。

§ 24. 拜占庭宫廷基督教

基督教与世界这种违反本性的混杂，在君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 的皇廷中达到了顶点。诚然，这个宫廷从未像尼禄或图密善的宫廷那样，粗暴地践踏道德体统；然而，其虚浮的排场与挥霍，却远远超过那些较好的异教皇帝的宫廷，并且堕落为彻底的东方专制制度。据利巴尼乌斯 (Libanius) 描述，¹⁰¹君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius) 的宫廷侍从包括不少于一千名理发师、一千名斟酒人、一千名厨师，至于宦官之多，则只能与夏日的昆虫相比。这种无度的奢侈，一度受到异教徒尤利安 (Julian) 的抑制；他喜爱斯多亚派 (Stoic) 和犬儒派 (Cynic) 的严峻生活，也喜欢以此炫示于人。但在他那些基督徒继承者治下，同样的挥霍又卷土重来，尤其是在狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 及其诸子统治期间。这些皇帝以死刑禁止偶像崇拜，却称自己的法律、诏令和宫殿为“神圣的”，俨然以地上的神自居；在他们偶尔向人民露面的时候，更展现出令人难以置信的华贵与空洞的荣光。

借用一位近代史家生动的描述：“当阿卡狄乌斯 (Arcadius) 屈尊向公众显露君王的威严时，前面有大群侍从、公爵、护民官、文武官员开道；他们的马匹披着金饰，闪闪发光，所持的是镶嵌宝石的金盾和金矛。他们宣告皇帝驾到，命令卑微的群众清空他前面的街道。皇帝站立或斜倚在一辆华丽的车上，近侍环绕四周，以盾牌为标志，盾牌中央有金色凸饰，四周又环列着金色眼形饰物；拉车的是披着镀金挽具的白骡。车上镶嵌着宝石，金扇随着车的行进而摇动，扇送凉风。群众从远处观看那雪白的坐垫和丝绸地毯，毯上以绚丽的色彩织着龙纹。那些有幸瞥见皇帝的人，看见他耳上坠着沉重的金环，臂上缠着金链，冠冕镶着各色宝石；他的紫袍和冠冕一样，专供皇帝使用，紫袍的每一道接缝都绣嵌着宝石。惊叹不已的百姓回到家中，所谈的无非是这番景象的辉煌：袍服、骡子、地毯，以及珠宝的硕大与灿烂。回到宫中时，皇帝脚下所踏的是黄金；船只专程从遥远的行省运来金粉，一大群侍从殷勤备至地将它撒在地上，使皇帝的脚几乎从不踏上光秃的地面。”¹⁰²

拜占庭 (Byzantine) 宫廷的基督教，生活在阴谋、伪饰和谄媚的空气之中。即使宫廷神学家和主教也难免受到沾染，尽管他们的崇高职分及其神圣职责，确实在他们周围构成了一道护墙。在君士坦丁 (Constantine) 在位三十周年庆典 (tricennalia) 上，其中一位主教向他致贺，说他已蒙上帝任命，统治今世的一切，并将在来世与上帝的儿子一同作王！这种亵渎的谄媚，连这位虚荣的皇帝也觉得过分，便劝主教倒不如求上帝使他配在今世和来世作上帝的一个仆人。¹⁰³甚至教会史家兼主教优西比乌 (Eusebius)，虽然在别处颇懂得珍视更高的福分，也曾哀叹皇帝周围那些假基督徒难以形容的虚伪，¹⁰⁴却仍被皇恩的光辉蒙蔽到如此地步：尼西亚会议 (Council of Nice) 结束时，君士坦丁为庆祝在位二十周年 (vicennalia)，在宫中设宴款待主教们，他竟在这场筵席中看见了基督在地上荣耀作王的象征！¹⁰⁵

而这些主教中，许多人身上还带着戴克里先 (Diocletian) 逼迫留下的伤痕。时代的精神竟转变得如此迅速。另一方面，安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 对待狄奥多西时那众所周知的坚定态度，以及金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 的一生，也提供了令人欣慰的明证：即使在这个时代，也不乏具有基督徒的严肃精神和勇气、敢于责备戴冠者罪恶的主教。

§ 25. 政治对宗教的侵入

随着教会与国家的联合，双方相互冲突、争夺主导权的漫长而令人厌倦的历史便开始了：国家企图使教会臣服于帝国，教会则企图使国家臣服于教阶制度；双方又都常常逾越主这句话为各自权力规定的界限：“凯撒的物当归给凯撒，上帝的物当归给上帝。”因此，从君士坦丁时代起，欧洲的教会史与世俗史便交织得如此紧密，以致不理解其中一者，也就无法理解另一者。一方面，政治统治者作为教会中地位最高的成员和教会的保护者，自称有权参与教会的治理，并以各种方式干预教会的内外事务，或使教会得益，或使教会受损。另一方面，主教和牧首作为国教中地位最高的显要与职员，也卷入了种种世俗事务和拜占庭宫廷的阴谋。这种相互混杂，总的说来，对教会和宗教弊多于利，并束缚了教会自由而自然的发展。

古代异教世界对于宗教与政治、属灵权力与世俗权力的分离一无所知，因为它仅从自然的观点看待宗教本身，使宗教服从于无所不辖的国家之目的；国家乃是当时所知人类社会的最高形式。据普鲁塔克 (Plutarch) 告诉我们，埃及诸王同时也是祭司，或在当选为王时被接纳进入祭司阶层。在希腊，行政官负责监督祭司和圣所。¹⁰⁶在罗马，努马 (Numa) 时代以后，这项监督权交托给一位元老，后来又与皇帝的职位合而为一。从奥古斯都 (Augustus)¹⁰⁷到背教者尤利安，所有异教皇帝同时都是最高祭司 (Pontifices Maximi)，是国教的首领，是皇帝兼教皇。凭着这一身份，当迷信或权术促使他们这样做时，他们不仅可以履行一切祭司职务，甚至亲自献祭，而且还居于最高祭司团之首；这个由十五名或更多祭司 (Pontifices) 组成的团体，又负责管理和监督三个较低的祭司阶层——圣宴祭司 (Epulones)、十五人祭司团 (Quindecemviri) 和占卜祭司 (Augures)——以及庙宇与祭坛、献祭、占卜、节期与仪式、《西卜林神谕书》(Sibylline books) 的解释、历法；简言之，一切公共崇拜，甚至一部分婚姻与继承事务，都在其管辖之下。

由此不难想到，基督教皇帝们——他们直到格拉提安 (Gratian) 时代，约380年，甚至仍保留最高祭司 (Pontifex Maximus) 的称号和标志——也要求对帝国所确立的基督教拥有同样的监督权，正如他们的前任对异教所拥有的一样。不过，其中有一个重大的差别：他们在这里发现，宗教因素与政治因素、教会事务与世俗事务之间，有着更严格的区分；而且，他们不得不使自己受制于教会已经存在的教义、惯例和传统，因为教会宣称这一切具有神圣的设立与权威。

§ 26. 皇帝教皇制与教阶制度

事实上，这首先发生于君士坦丁治下，并在他的继承者、尤其是查士丁尼 (Justinian) 治下，发展为拜占庭的皇帝教皇制 (imperial papacy)，¹⁰⁸亦即国家凌驾于教会之上的制度。

君士坦丁有一次在筵席上对主教们说，他作为基督教皇帝，也是一位由上帝任命的主教，是主管教会外部事务的主教，而内部事务则属于本来意义上的主教。¹⁰⁹这句含义丰富的话，以一种颇具特色、却又不明确且模棱两可的方式，表达了世俗君主对教会的新姿态。他在这里区分了两种由上帝授权的主教职分：一种是世俗的或皇帝的，与旧有的最高祭司 (Pontifex Maximus) 职位相对应，其权力遍及整个罗马帝国，因而是普世性或普遍性的；另一种是属灵的或祭司的，分属于各教区的主教，只有在大公会议中，才真正以其统一和完整的形态显现出来。

因此，他虽然尚未受洗，却已充任教会的保护者和普世的世俗主教；¹¹⁰他召集了第一次大公会议，以解决有关基督神性的争论；他设立和废黜主教，偶尔甚至向人民讲道。不过，另一方面，他也曾表现出真正的分寸感，置身多纳徒派 (Donatist) 争论之外，并指明主教法庭乃是纯属灵事务的最高和最终裁决机关，尽管那是在他早期，即公元314年。他行使皇帝监督权时，所依据的与其说是清晰的见解和明确的理论，不如说是一种掌控的本能冲动、一种政治与宗教上的责任感，以及时代的需要。他的话只是提出了问题，却没有解决问题：在一个基督教国家中，皇帝的主教职分与祭司的主教职分究竟是什么关系，双方各自的管辖权又应延伸到何种程度。

从此，这个问题便成为教会史与世俗史共同的难题和争端，贯穿整个中世纪皇帝与教皇、皇帝的主教权与教阶的主教权之间的冲突，并且以改变了的形式，在每一个新教国立教会中重现。

一般说来，从这时起，流行的看法是：上帝将一切权力分给祭司职与王权 (sacerdotium et imperium)，把内部或属灵事务，尤其是教义与崇拜，交给前者；把外部或世俗事务，如治理与纪律，交给后者。¹¹¹然而，这里的内部与外部，如同灵魂与身体，彼此交融，相互依存；在国家教会制度的基础上，双方频繁的相互侵犯与冲突是不可避免的。这一点在我们所考察的时期中有多方面的表现，尤其是在东方；在那里，拜占庭专制权力比在遥远的西方有更大的施展余地。

君士坦丁以后的皇帝（正如他们之后的教皇）召集大公会议，承担必要的费用，通过委派代表主持会议，赋予教义与纪律方面的决议以通行整个罗马帝国的法律效力，并凭自己的权威加以维护。皇帝提名或确认最有影响力的都主教和牧首。他们介入一切神学争论，因而使各派的激情更加炽烈。他们以强权保护正统，惩罚异端。然而，他们也常常站在异端一边，将正统主教逐出其主教座。因此，阿里乌派 (Arianism)、聂斯托利派 (Nestorianism)、欧提克派 (Eutychianism) 和基督一性派 (Monophysitism)，先后在宫廷中获得宠遇和保护。甚至皇后也插手教会的内外事务。尤斯提娜 (Justina) 竭尽全力，要在米兰推行阿里乌派教义，却遭到主教安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 的成功抵制。欧多克西娅 (Eudoxia) 促成了高尚的金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 被废黜和放逐。由舞台登上宝座的狄奥多拉 (Theodora) 支配着皇帝查士丁尼 (Justinian)，并企图运用种种阴谋，使基督一性派异端获胜。诚然，教义决议按其本分应由会议作出，若无会议的认可，也不可能长久维持。但巴西利斯库斯 (Basiliscus)、芝诺 (Zeno)、查士丁尼一世 (Justinian I.)、希拉克略 (Heraclius)、君士坦斯二世 (Constans II.) 以及其他皇帝，未经会议商议，或凭自己对会议的影响而通过会议，颁布了许多纯属教会事务的敕令和谕旨。查士丁尼在其著名法典的开篇，便列出皇帝关于三位一体的信条，以及皇帝对聂斯托利 (Nestorius)、欧提克 (Eutyches)、亚波里拿留 (Apollinaris) 的咒诅；其依据固然是使徒教会和四次大公会议，但他也自觉拥有绝对的立法权和执行权，甚至可以支配全体臣民的信仰与良心。

这一时期大公教会的舆论，一般承认基督教皇帝既有保护和扶持教会的义务，也有监督教会外部事务的权利；但同时主张，神职人员，尤其是主教，拥有治理教会内部事务、确定教义和指导崇拜的权利。这种新局面被视为摩西与大卫的神权政治在基督教土壤上的恢复，人们也据此加以评判。但在皇帝教会权力的范围与运用方面，意见通常自觉或不自觉地由某种特殊的宗教利益所决定。因此，我们发现，大公教会信徒与异端、亚他那修派与阿里乌派，对于皇帝干预教义的发展、主教的任免，以及对各派的庇护与逼迫，究竟加以辩护还是予以谴责，都取决于这些举措对他们自身的影响。最初诉诸皇帝保护的多纳徒派，在裁决对自己不利时，竟又谴责国家对教会的一切干预。有些主教援引麦基洗德和以色列虔诚的诸王，甚至为拜占庭专制权力在宗教上最肆意的暴行辩护，甘愿成为宫廷的工具。然而，也从不缺乏无畏之士，挺身捍卫教会的权利，抵抗世俗权力。认信者马克西穆斯 (Maximus the Confessor) 在君士坦丁堡的审判官面前宣告，麦基洗德只是基督的预表，并非皇帝的预表。

总的说来，教阶制度对皇帝教皇制构成了强有力而有益的制约，并在世俗权力面前维护了教会的自由与独立。那个时代只有皇帝专制或主教专制这两种选择；两者之中，后者危害较小，益处较大，因为它代表着更高的智识与道德利益。若无教阶制度，罗马帝国境内及蛮族中的教会，就会沦为文武暴君脚下任意踢弄的皮球。因此，教会在与国家联姻之际，已经成长得如此庞大而强健，足以抵挡皇帝任性妄为所造成的一切实质性改变，以及一切使她沦为工具的企图，这一点极其重要。《使徒宪章》(Apostolic Constitutions) 甚至将主教置于一切君王和官长之上。¹¹²金口约翰说，即使国家的首要大臣，也不曾享有教会牧者那样的尊荣。一般说来，教会牧者也配得他们的尊荣。虽然滥用权力以谋取卑鄙私利的高级教士不在少数，但仍有亚他那修 (Athanasius)、巴西尔 (Basil)、安布罗斯、金口约翰、奥古斯丁 (Augustine)、利奥 (Leo) 这样的人物；他们是我们在第四、第五世纪所见最纯洁、最可敬的人，远远超过同时代的皇帝。当时普遍认为，教会的教义与制度以神圣启示为根基，超乎一切人的权力与意志之上。人民怀着盲目的信仰和迷信，仰望神职人员，视他们为一切良心事务上的向导；甚至皇帝也不得不向身为众教会之父的主教致以最高的敬意，亲吻他们的手，求他们祝福，并顺服他们的劝诫与管教。在大多数情况下，皇帝不过是教会中各派的工具。从外部强加给教会的专横法律，很少能在制定者死后继续存在，而且受到历史的谴责。因为在一切宝座、君王和主教之上，有一种神圣的权威；在虚假与阴谋的一切诡计之上，有一种真理的力量。

西方教会作为一个整体，远比东方教会更能保持自己的独立；这部分是由于罗马人性格中极其坚定的一面，部分是由于政治环境有利，也由于远离拜占庭宫廷的影响与阴谋。在这里，教阶原则自大利奥 (Leo the Great) 时代起不断发展，乃至形成绝对的教皇制。然而，教皇制在中世纪蛮族诸民族中完成其对世界的使命之后，便蜕变为辖制良心、令人无法忍受的暴政，从而使自身陷入毁灭的危险。在天主教体制中，教会的自由与独立意味着排他性的祭司阶层与教皇权的至高地位；在新教体制中，教会的自由与独立，惟有在全民皆祭司这一更宽广的基础上，通过基督徒人民的自治，才能实现；不过，迄今在一切新教国立教会中，这种自治仍或多或少地受到国家权力的限制。

§ 27. 宗教自由的限制与逼迫异端的开端

萨姆·埃利奥特 (Sam. Eliot)：《自由史》(History of Liberty)。波士顿，1858年，4卷。其中《早期基督徒》(Early Christians) 为第i、ii卷。最重要的事实散见于各部大型教会史中论述异端、教义争论与教会纪律的各节。

政教联合的一个必然后果，就是信仰与崇拜方面的宗教自由受到限制，凡偏离国立教会教义与纪律的行为，都要受到世俗刑罚。

教会取得支配地位，并获得国家承认，固然赢得了外在的自由与权威，却在某种程度上牺牲了内部的自由与自治。正如我们在上一节所见，教会置于基督教国家元首的庇护与监督之下，在拜占庭帝国尤其如此。在最初三个世纪，教会虽然外在地位卑微，备受压迫，却因与国家完全分离，在内部发展其教义与制度方面，享有更大的自由。

但谬误与分裂的自由，如今受到的限制就更大了。在尼西亚会议以前的时代，异端与分裂固然同后来一样受到憎恨和厌恶，但人们只以道德的方式，藉言语和文字加以应对，并以逐出教会、剥夺教会权利作为惩罚。殉道者游斯丁 (Justin Martyr)、德尔图良 (Tertullian)，甚至拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)，都是最早倡导良心自由原则的人；他们针对异教徒坚持主张，宗教本质上是自由意志之事，只能靠教导与劝服来促进，而不能凭外在的强力。¹¹³他们反对异教徒逼迫基督徒的一切言论，也完全适用于反对教会逼迫异端。在尼西亚时代以后，凡偏离占统治地位的国家教会信仰的行为，不仅被视为宗教谬误而遭到憎恶和绝罚，也被视为反对基督教国家的罪行，因而受到世俗刑罚：起初是革职、放逐、没收财产，在狄奥多西 (Theodosius) 以后，甚至处以死刑。

这种对异端的逼迫，是自君士坦丁以来宗教与世俗义务和权利相结合，以及世俗与教会、司法与道德相混淆的自然结果。它发端于国家与皇帝；在这一点上，皇帝表明自己是最高祭司 (Pontifices Maximi) 的继承者，只是他们与教会的关系已经倒转。诚然，教会始终坚持这样的原则：她作为教会，只应使用属灵的惩罚，最严厉的也不过是绝罚；事实上，基督与使徒也明确拒绝并禁止一切属血气的兵器，宁愿受苦受死，也不使用暴力。但教会受犹太神权政治与国家教会观念的牵累，在实践中以种种方式混淆了律法与福音各自的地位，在理论上赞成对异端使用强制手段，并且屡屡鼓励和敦促国家这样做；因此，她对这种逼迫至少负有间接责任。这一点对于中世纪直至十六世纪末、处于权势鼎盛时期的罗马教会来说，尤其如此；这种行径使她在世人与现代文明眼中所引起的反感，几乎比她特有的教义与习俗所引起的反感更大。新教宗教改革破除了把基督教等同于某种外在组织或教皇制的迷梦，从而给教会排他性原则以沉重打击。然而，严格说来，直到十八世纪，宗教宽容的观念才发生根本性的革命；宽容与自由崇拜的进展，一直与国家教会基础的逐渐松动，以及公民权利与宗教权利、世俗权力与属灵权力之间日益明确的区分，携手并进。

君士坦丁 (Constantine) 在统治之初宣布完全的宗教自由（312年），而且大体上还算忠实地遵守了这一原则；至少他没有像继位者那样使用暴力手段。然而，对他来说，这种宽容并非出于坚定的原则，而只是权宜之计；它是罗马皇位开始脱离偶像崇拜的必然结果，也是从异教独占至尊地位向基督教独占同一地位的自然过渡。不宽容最初针对的是异教；但由于这种虚假的宗教逐渐自行衰亡，而且无论如何也没有足以使人殉道的道德力量，因此，基督教皇帝统治下并未发生针对偶像崇拜的血腥逼迫，像先前异教皇帝统治下针对基督教所发生的那样。如今，世俗权力的不宽容不再以基督教为对象，而转向它所认定的基督教异端。君士坦丁在世时，就已将他所授予的自由和特权限于大公教会，也就是当时占主导地位、实行教阶制的正统教会；尼西亚会议之后不久，他又以326年的一道敕令，明文将异端和分裂派排除在这些特权之外。¹¹⁴因此，他放逐了阿里乌派 (Arianism) 的领袖，并下令焚毁他们的著作；但后来，他对正统与异端的看法摇摆不定，又受到一些主教及其姊妹的劝说，便召回阿里乌 (Arius)，放逐亚他那修 (Athanasius)。他本人临终前不久，也是由一位阿里乌派主教施洗的。他的儿子君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius) 狂热地逼迫偶像崇拜和尼西亚正统信仰，竭尽全力，要使阿里乌派成为帝国唯一的宗教。因此，正统派主教何西乌斯 (Hosius)、亚他那修和希拉里 (Hilary) 挺身反对这种专制，恳切呼吁宽容；¹¹⁵不过，我们必须记得，提出这些抗议的派别，本身正是不宽容的受害者，而且他们并不认为放逐阿里乌派有何不公。

在背教者尤利安 (Julian the Apostate) 统治下，宗教自由再次得到宣布，但这只是恢复异教独占国教地位的开端；因此，它恰好与君士坦丁的宽容相对应。尤利安早逝以后，阿里乌派再次取得优势，至少在东方如此，而且表现得比大公教会的正统派更不宽容，更为暴烈。

最后，狄奥多西大帝 (Theodosius the Great)，这位第一位按尼西亚信仰受洗的皇帝，结束了阿里乌派的过渡统治，宣布尼西亚信经具有独一无二的权威，同时首次制定严厉的刑罚，不仅针对异教的偶像崇拜——此后，在帝国境内从事这种崇拜便属死罪——也针对基督教的一切异端和宗派。他政治生涯的主导原则，就是帝国与正统教会的统一。380年，他受洗后不久，便与两位软弱的共治皇帝格拉提安 (Gratian) 和瓦伦提尼安二世 (Valentinian II.) 联名，向当时阿里乌派的主要据点君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 的居民颁布如下敕令：“我们三位皇帝意欲使我们所有的臣民，坚定地持守圣彼得传给罗马人的宗教；这宗教藉传统得到忠实保存，如今由罗马教宗达马苏 (Damasus)，以及具有使徒般圣洁品格的亚历山大主教彼得所信奉。我们当遵照使徒的设立和福音的教训，相信父、子、圣灵具有同一神性，在神圣的三位一体中同享尊荣。我们命令，凡持守这一信仰的人，都应称为大公教会的基督徒；至于其他宗教的一切愚昧追随者，我们则给他们加上异端这一可耻的名称，并禁止他们的秘密聚会冒称教会。他们除了要受神公义的定罪以外，还必须承受我们凭天上智慧所引导的权柄，认为适宜施加的严刑。”¹¹⁶在十五年间，这位皇帝至少颁布了十五条惩治异端的法律，¹¹⁷逐渐剥夺了他们奉行其宗教的一切权利，将他们排除于所有公职之外，并以罚款、没收财产和放逐相威胁；在某些情形下，例如对摩尼教徒 (Manichaeans)、奥迪乌派 (Audians)，甚至守十四日派 (Quartodecimanians)，还以死刑相威胁。

因此，国家教会逼迫异端的理论，以及这一理论在立法中的体现，都是从狄奥多西开始的。诚然，他的首要意图，与其说是惩罚顽抗的臣民，不如说是恐吓他们，使他们归信。¹¹⁸

然而，从理论到实践只有一步之遥；他的对手兼共治者马克西穆斯 (Maximus) 就迈出了这一步。385年，在品行卑劣的主教伊塔基乌斯 (Ithacius) 唆使下，他命人在特里尔 (Treves)，将西班牙主教普里西利安 (Priscillian)，连同其类似摩尼教的宗派中六位受人敬重的信徒——两位长老、两位执事、诗人拉特罗尼安 (Latronian)，以及波尔多 (Bordeaux) 的贵妇欧克罗基娅 (Euchrocia)——严刑拷打，然后用刀斩首。这是基督教君主首次因宗教见解而流异端者的血。聚集在特里尔的主教，除了狄奥格尼斯图斯 (Theognistus) 以外，都赞同这一行为。

但基督教会中较高尚的情感，却对此惊骇退缩。米兰的主教安布罗斯 (Ambrose)¹¹⁹和图尔的主教马丁 (Martin)¹²⁰提出了值得纪念的抗议，并与伊塔基乌斯及其他赞同这次处决的主教断绝一切相交。然而，不应忘记，这些主教，至少安布罗斯，是一概反对死刑的；在其他方面，他们对异教徒和异端并无宽容之意。¹²¹此外，整件事的处理也不合程序：一方面，主教在刑事案件中充当控告者；另一方面，世俗法官受理了对主教裁判的上诉，并就信仰问题作出裁决。后来，在审判异端时，世俗法庭与教会法庭的职权才有了更明确的区分。

处决普里西利安派，是这一时期对异端施以流血刑罚的唯一事例，也是基督教历史上的首例。然而，从此以后，甚至最优秀的教父也为以暴力对付异端的正当性辩护。金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 固然劝人以基督徒的爱对待异端和异教徒，并表明反对处死他们，却赞成禁止他们聚会、没收他们的教堂；他也确实如此对待诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 和守十四日派，以致许多人认为，他自己后来遭逢的不幸，正是罪有应得的惩罚。¹²²哲罗姆 (Jerome) 援引《申命记》十三章6–10节，似乎甚至认为，对宗教上的谬误者处以死刑也是正当的。¹²³

奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 自己曾有九年属于摩尼教派，后来蒙上帝恩典奇妙地归信大公教会，丝毫未受外在压力。他起初持守真正合乎福音的看法，认为不应以暴力对待异端和分裂派，而应以教导和说服赢得他们；但400年以后，他因与多纳徒派 (Donatists) 交往的经历，转而撤回了这一看法。他曾试图用辩论和著述使他们归信，却徒劳无功，而其中许多人倒服从了帝国的法律。¹²⁴此后，他转而主张逼迫异端，一部分是出于他关于基督教国家的学说，一部分是由于狂热的游民派 (Circumcelliones) 煽动叛乱的暴行，一部分是期望世俗刑罚能产生有益的效果，还有一部分则是由于他错误地解释了《路加福音》十四章23节大筵席比喻中的 Cogite intrare（“勉强他们进来”）。¹²⁵他说：“诚然，藉着教导引导人事奉上帝，比藉着对刑罚的恐惧或痛苦来引导更好。但不能因为前一种方法较好，就忽略后一种方法……许多人往往必须像恶仆一样，先受现世苦难之杖的责打，被带回他们的主面前，然后才能达到宗教发展的最高阶段……主自己吩咐人，先邀请宾客，继而强迫他们前来赴他的大筵席。”¹²⁶这位教父认为，若否认国家有权惩罚宗教谬误，那么国家也不应惩罚杀人或奸淫等任何其他罪行，因为保罗在《加拉太书》五章19节，将分争和宗派归于同一个属肉体的根源。¹²⁷他指责反对他的多纳徒派自相矛盾，因为他们似乎赞同皇帝禁止偶像崇拜，却谴责皇帝逼迫基督教异端。诚然，值得称许的是奥古斯丁的仁心：在实际案件中，他恳切敦促官长宽厚仁慈，因而在实践中仍忠于他那高尚的格言：“唯有真理能得胜，真理的胜利就是爱。”¹²⁸但正如尼安德 (Neander) 公正地指出，他的理论“包含着整个属灵专制、不宽容和逼迫制度的萌芽，甚至一直延伸到宗教裁判所”。¹²⁹后来，人们常借他名字的崇高权威，为那些连他本人也会惊骇退避的残酷行径辩护。在他之后不久，大利奥 (Leo the Great)，这位贯彻始终、排他而普世的教皇制度的首位代表，甚至主张对异端处以死刑。¹³⁰

此后，只有受逼迫的派别才不时抗议宗教逼迫；他们的苦难使他们成为宽容的倡导者，即使不是出于原则，至少也是出于策略和自身利益。因此，奥古斯丁曾著文驳斥的非洲多纳徒派主教佩提利安 (Petilian)，斥责大公教会的对手在良心事务上使用外在强力，正如早先他的同乡德尔图良斥责逼迫基督徒的异教徒一样。他诉诸基督与使徒的榜样：他们从未逼迫人，反倒受苦受死。他说：“你们以为亲手杀害我们，就是事奉上帝吗？你们这些可怜的凡人，若这样想，便是错了，错了；上帝不用刽子手作祭司。基督教导我们忍受冤屈，而不是报复。”多纳徒派主教高登提乌斯 (Gaudentius) 说：“上帝设立先知和渔夫，而非君王和兵士，来传播信仰。”然而，我们不能忘记，多纳徒派最先在教会事务上诉诸皇帝的法庭，直到该法庭作出不利于他们的裁决之后，他们才转而反对国家教会制度。

Original Text

CHAPTER III. ALLIANCE OF CHURCH AND STATE AND ITS INFLUENCE ON PUBLIC MORALS AND RELIGION.

Sources.

The church laws of the Christian emperors from Constantine to Justinian, collected in the Codex Theodosianus of the year 438 (edited, with a learned commentary, by Jac. Gothofredus, Lyons, 1668, in six vols. fol.; afterwards by J. D. Ritter, Lips. 1736, in seven vols.; and more recently, with newly discovered books and fragments, by G. Haenel, Bonn, 1842), and in the Codex Justinianeus of 534 (in the numerous editions of the Corpus juris civilis Romani). Also Eusebius: Vita Constant., and H. Eccl. l. x. On the other hand, the lamentations of the church fathers, especially Gregory Naz., Chrysostom, and Augustine (in their sermons), over the secularized Christianity of their time.

Literature.

C. G. de Rhoer: Dissertationes de effectu religionis Christianae in jurisprudentiam Romanam. Groning. 1776. Martini: Die Einführung der christl. Religion als Staatsreligion im röm. Reiche durch Constantin. Münch. 1813. H. O. de Meysenburg: De Christ. religionis vi et effectu in jus civile. Gött. 1828. C. Riffel (R.C.): Gesch. Darstellung des Verhältnisses zwischen Kirche u. Staat. Mainz. 1838, vol. i. Troplong: De l’influence du Christianisme sur le droit civil des Romains. Par. 1843. P. E. Lind: Christendommens inflydelse paa den sociale forfatning. Kjobenh. 1852. B. C. Cooper: The Free Church of Ancient Christendom and its Subjugation by Constantine. Lond. 1851(?)

Comp. also Gibbon, chap. xx. Schröckh, several sections from vol. v. onward. Neander, iii. 273–303. Milman, Anc. Christ. Book iv. ch. 1.

§ 13. The New Position of the Church in the Empire.

The previous chapter has shown us how Christianity gradually supplanted the Graeco-Roman heathenism and became the established religion in the empire of the Caesars. Since that time the church and the state, though frequently jarring, have remained united in Europe, either on the hierarchical basis, with the temporal power under the tutelage of the spiritual, or on the caesaro-papal, with the spiritual power merged in the temporal; while in the United States of America, since the end of the eighteenth century, the two powers have stood peacefully but independently side by side. The church could now act upon the state; but so could the state act upon the church; and this mutual influence became a source of both profit and loss, blessing and curse, on either side.

The martyrs and confessors of the first three centuries, in their expectation of the impending end of the world and their desire for the speedy return of the Lord, had never once thought of such a thing as the great and sudden change, which meets us at the beginning of this period in the relation of the Roman state to the Christian church. Tertullian had even held the Christian profession to be irreconcilable with the office of a Roman emperor.(1) Nevertheless, clergy and people very soon and very easily accommodated themselves to the new order of things, and recognized in it a reproduction of the theocratic constitution of the people of God under the ancient covenant. Save that the dissenting sects, who derived no benefit from this union, but were rather subject to persecution from the state and from the established Catholicism, the Donatists for an especial instance, protested against the intermeddling of the temporal power with religious concerns.(2) The heathen, who now came over in a mass, had all along been accustomed to a union of politics with religion, of the imperial with the sacerdotal dignity. They could not imagine a state without some cultus, whatever might be its name. And as heathenism had outlived itself in the empire, and Judaism with its national exclusiveness and its stationary character was totally disqualified, Christianity must take the throne.

The change was as natural and inevitable as it was great. When Constantine planted the standard of the cross upon the forsaken temples of the gods, he but followed the irresistible current of history itself. Christianity had already, without a stroke of sword or of intrigue, achieved over the false religion the internal victory of spirit over matter, of truth over falsehood, of faith over superstition, of the worship of God over idolatry, of morality over corruption. Under a three hundred years’ oppression, it had preserved its irrepressible moral vigor, and abundantly earned its new social position. It could not possibly continue a despised sect, a homeless child of the wilderness, but, like its divine founder on the third day after his crucifixion, it must rise again, take the reins of the world into its hands, and, as an all-transforming principle, take state, science, and art to itself, to breathe into them a higher life and consecrate them to the service of God. The church, of course, continues to the end a servant, as Christ himself came not to be ministered unto, but to minister; and she must at all times suffer persecution, outwardly or inwardly, from the ungodly world. Yet is she also the bride of the Son of God, therefore of royal blood; and she is to make her purifying and sanctifying influence felt upon all orders of natural life and all forms of human society. And from this influence the state, of course, is not excepted. Union with the state is no more necessarily a profanation of holy things than union with science and art, which, in fact, themselves proceed from God, and must subserve his glory.

On the other hand, the state, as a necessary and divine institution for the protection of person and property, for the administration of law and justice, and for the promotion of earthly weal, could not possibly persist forever in her hostility to Christianity, but must at least allow it a legal existence and free play; and if she would attain a higher development and better answer her moral ends than she could in union with idolatry, she must surrender herself to its influence. The kingdom of the Father, to which the state belongs, is not essentially incompatible with the church, the kingdom of the Son; rather does "the Father draw to the Son," and the Son leads back to the Father, till God become "all in all." Henceforth should kings again be nursing fathers, and queens nursing mothers to the church,(3) and the prophecy begin to be fulfilled: "The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever."(4)

The American reparation of church and state, even if regarded as the best settlement of the true relation of the two, is not in the least inconsistent with this view. It is not a return to the pre-Constantinian basis, with its spirit of persecution, but rests upon the mutual reverential recognition and support of the two powers, and must be regarded as the continued result of that mighty revolution of the fourth century.

But the elevation of Christianity as the religion of the state presents also an opposite aspect to our contemplation. It involved great risk of degeneracy to the church. The Roman state, with its laws, institutions, and usages, was still deeply rooted in heathenism, and could not be transformed by a magical stroke. The christianizing of the state amounted therefore in great measure to a paganizing and secularizing of the church. The world overcame the church, as much as the church overcame the world, and the temporal gain of Christianity was in many respects cancelled by spiritual loss. The mass of the Roman empire was baptized only with water, not with the Spirit and fire of the gospel, and it smuggled heathen manners and practices into the sanctuary under a new name. The very combination of the cross with the military ensign by Constantine was a most doubtful omen, portending an unhappy mixture of the temporal and the spiritual powers, the kingdom which is of the earth, and that which is from heaven. The settlement of the boundary between the two powers, which, with all their unity, remain as essentially distinct as body and soul, law and gospel, was itself a prolific source of errors and vehement strifes about jurisdiction, which stretch through all the middle age, and still repeat themselves in these latest times, save where the amicable American separation has thus far forestalled collision.

Amidst all the bad consequences of the union of church and state, however, we must not forget that the deeper spirit of the gospel has ever reacted against the evils and abuses of it, whether under an imperial pope or a papal emperor, and has preserved its divine power for the salvation of men under every form of constitution. Though standing and working in the world, and in many ways linked with it, yet is Christianity not of the world, but stands above it.

Nor must we think the degeneracy of the church began with her union with the state.(5) Corruption and apostasy cannot attach to any one fact or personage, be he Constantine or Gregory I. or Gregory VII. They are rooted in the natural heart of man. They revealed themselves, at least in the germ, even in the apostolic age, and are by no means avoided, as the condition of America proves, by the separation of the two powers. We have among ourselves almost all the errors and abuses of the old world, not collected indeed in any one communion, but distributed among our various denominations and sects. The history of the church presents from the beginning a twofold development of good and of evil, an incessant antagonism of light and darkness, truth and falsehood, the mystery of godliness and the mystery of iniquity, Christianity and Antichrist. According to the Lord’s parables of the net and of the tares among the wheat, we cannot expect a complete separation before the final judgment, though in a relative sense the history of the church is a progressive judgment of the church, as the history of the world is a judgment of the world.

§ 14. Rights and Privileges of the Church. Secular Advantages.

The conversion of Constantine and the gradual establishment of Christianity as the religion of the state had first of all the important effect of giving the church not only the usual rights of a legal corporation, which she possesses also in America, and here without distinction of confessions, but at the same time the peculiar privileges, which the heathen worship and priesthood had heretofore enjoyed. These rights and privileges she gradually secured either by tacit concession or through special laws of the Christian emperors as laid down in the collections of the Theodosian and Justinian Codes.(6) These were limited, however, as we must here at the outset observe, exclusively to the catholic or orthodox church.(7) The heretical and schismatic sects without distinction, excepting the Arians during their brief ascendency under Arian emperors, were now worse off than they had been before, and were forbidden the free exercise of their worship even under Constantine upon pain of fines and confiscation, and from the time of Theodosius and Justinian upon pain of death. Equal patronage of all Christian parties was totally foreign to the despotic uniformity system of the Byzantine emperors and the ecclesiastical exclusiveness and absolutism of the popes. Nor can it be at all consistently carried out upon the state-church basis; for every concession to dissenters loosens the bond between the church and the state.

The immunities and privileges, which were conferred upon the catholic church in the Roman empire from the time of Constantine by imperial legislation, may be specified as follows:

The exemption of the clergy from most public burdens.

Among these were obligatory public services,(8) such as military duty, low manual labor, the bearing of costly dignities, and in a measure taxes for the real estate of the church. The exemption,(9) which had been enjoyed, indeed, not by the heathen priests alone, but at least partially by physicians also and rhetoricians, and the Jewish rulers of synagogues, was first granted by Constantine in the year 313 to the catholic clergy in Africa, and afterwards, in 319, extended throughout the empire. But this led many to press into the clerical office without inward call, to the prejudice of the state; and in 320 the emperor made a law prohibiting the wealthy(10) from entering the ministry, and limiting the increase of the clergy, on the singular ground, that "the rich should bear the burdens of the world, the poor be supported by the property of the church." Valentinian I. issued a similar law in 364. Under Valentinian II. and Theodosius I. the rich were admitted to the spiritual office on condition of assigning their property to others, who should fulfill the demands of the state in their stead. But these arbitrary laws were certainly not strictly observed.

Constantine also exempted the church from the land tax, but afterwards revoked this immunity; and his successors likewise were not uniform in this matter. Ambrose, though one of the strongest advocates of the rights of the church, accedes to the fact and the justice of the assessment of church lands;(11) but the hierarchy afterwards claimed for the church a divine right of exemption from all taxation.

The enrichment and endowment of the church.

Here again Constantine led the way. He not only restored (in 313) the buildings and estates, which had been confiscated in the Diocletian persecution, but granted the church also the right to receive legacies (321), and himself made liberal contributions in money and grain to the support of the clergy and the building of churches in Africa,(12) in the Holy Land, in Nicomedia, Antioch, and Constantinople. Though this, be it remembered, can be no great merit in an absolute monarch, who is lord of the public treasury as he is of his private purse, and can afford to be generous at the expense of his subjects. He and his successors likewise gave to the church the heathen temples and their estates and the public property of heretics; but these more frequently were confiscated to the civil treasury or squandered on favorites. Wealthy subjects, some from pure piety, others from motives of interest, conveyed their property to the church, often to the prejudice of the just claims of their kindred. Bishops and monks not rarely used unworthy influences with widows and dying persons; though Augustine positively rejected every legacy, which deprived a son of his rights. Valentinian I. found it necessary to oppose the legacy-hunting of the clergy, particularly in Rome, with a law of the year 370,(13) and Jerome acknowledges there was good reason for it.(14) The wealth of the church was converted mostly into real estate, or at least secured by it. And the church soon came to own the tenth part of all the landed property. This land, to be sure, had long been worthless or neglected, but under favorable conditions rose in value with uncommon rapidity. At the time of Chrysostom, towards the close of the fourth century, the church of Antioch was strong enough to maintain entirely or in part three thousand widows and consecrated virgins besides many poor, sick, and strangers.(15) The metropolitan churches of Rome and Alexandria were the most wealthy. The various churches of Rome in the sixth century, besides enormous treasures in money and gold and silver vases, owned many houses and lands not only in Italy and Sicily, but even in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt.(16) And when John, who bears the honorable distinction of the Almsgiver for his unlimited liberality to the poor, became patriarch of Alexandria (606), he found in the church treasury eight thousand pounds of gold, and himself received ten thousand, though be retained hardly an ordinary blanket for himself, and is said on one occasion to have fed seven thousand five hundred poor at once.(17)

The control of the ecclesiastical revenues vested in the bishops. The bishops distributed the funds according, to the prevailing custom into three or four parts: for themselves, for their clergy, for the current expenses of worship, and for the poor. They frequently exposed themselves to the suspicion of avarice and nepotism. The best of them, like Chrysostom and Augustine, were averse to this concernment with earthly property, since it often conflicted with their higher duties; and they preferred the poverty of earlier times, because the present abundant revenues diminished private beneficence.

And most certainly this opulence had two sides. It was a source both of profit and of loss to the church. According to the spirit of its proprietors and its controllers, it might be used for the furtherance of the kingdom of God, the building of churches, the support of the needy, and the founding of charitable institutions for the poor, the sick, for widows and orphans, for destitute strangers and aged persons,(18) or perverted to the fostering of indolence and luxury, and thus promote moral corruption and decay. This was felt by serious minds even in the palmy days of the external power of the hierarchy. Dante, believing Constantine to be the author of the pope’s temporal sovereignty, on the ground of the fictitious donation to Sylvester, bitterly exclaimed:

"Your gods ye make of silver and of gold;

And wherein differ from idolaters,

Save that their god is one—yours hundred fold?

Ah, Constantine! what evils caused to flow,

Not thy conversion, but that plenteous dower

Thou on the first rich Father didst bestow!"(19)

§ 15. Support of the Clergy.

The better support of the clergy was another advantage connected with the new position of Christianity in the empire.

Hitherto the clergy had been entirely dependent on the voluntary contributions of the Christians, and the Christians were for the most part poor. Now they received a fixed income from the church funds and from imperial and municipal treasuries. To this was added the contribution of first-fruits and tithes, which, though not as yet legally enforced, arose as a voluntary custom at a very early period, and probably in churches of Jewish origin existed from the first, after the example of the Jewish law.(20) Where these means of support were not sufficient, the clergy turned to agriculture or some other occupation; and so late as the fifth century many synods recommended this means of subsistence, although the Apostolical Canons prohibited the engagement of the clergy in secular callings under penalty of deposition.(21)

This improvement, also, in the external condition of the clergy was often attended with a proportional degeneracy in their moral character. It raised them above oppressive and distracting cares for livelihood, made them independent, and permitted them to devote their whole strength to the duties of their office; but it also favored ease and luxury, allured a host of unworthy persons into the service of the church, and checked the exercise of free giving among the people. The better bishops, like Athanasius, the two Gregories, Basil, Chrysosotom, Theodoret, Ambrose, Augustine, lived in ascetic simplicity, and used their revenues for the public good; while others indulged their vanity, their love of magnificence, and their voluptuousness. The heathen historian Ammianus gives the country clergy in general the credit of simplicity, temperance, and virtue, while he represents the Roman hierarchy, greatly enriched by the gifts of matrons, as extreme in the luxury of their dress and their more than royal banquets;(22) and St. Jerome agrees with him.(23) The distinguished heathen prefect, Praetextatus, said to Pope Damasus, that for the price of the bishopric of Rome he himself might become a Christian at once. The bishops of Constantinople, according to the account of Gregory Nazianzen,(24) who himself held that see for a short time, were not behind their Roman colleagues in this extravagance, and vied with the most honorable functionaries of the state in pomp and sumptuous diet. The cathedrals of Constantinople and Carthage had hundreds of priests, deacons, deaconesses, subdeacons, prelectors, singers, and janitors.(25)

It is worthy of notice, that, as we have already intimated, the two greatest church fathers gave the preference in principle to the voluntary system in the support of the church and the ministry, which prevailed before the Nicene era, and which has been restored in modern times in the United States of America. Chrysostom no doubt perceived that under existing circumstances the wants of the church could not well be otherwise supplied, but he was decidedly averse to the accumulation of treasure by the church, and said to his hearers in Antioch: "The treasure of the church should be with you all, and it is only your hardness of heart that requires her to hold earthly property and to deal in houses and lands. Ye are unfruitful in good works, and so the ministers of God must meddle in a thousand matters foreign to their office. In the days of the apostles people might likewise have given them houses and lands; why did they prefer to sell the houses and lands and give the proceeds? Because this was without doubt the better way. Your fathers would have preferred that you should give alms of your incomes, but they feared that your avarice might leave the poor to hunger; hence the present order of things."(26) Augustine desired that his people in Hippo should take back the church property and support the clergy and the poor by free gifts.(27)

§ 16. Episcopal Jurisdiction and Intercession.

We proceed to the legal validity, of the episcopal jurisdiction, which likewise dates from the time of Constantine.

After the manner of the Jewish synagogues, and according to the exhortation of St. Paul,(28) the Christians were accustomed from the beginning to settle their controversies before the church, rather than carry them before heathen tribunals; but down to the time of Constantine the validity, of the bishop’s decision depended on the voluntary, submission of both parties. Now this decision was invested with the force of law, and in spiritual matters no appeal could be taken from it to the civil court. Constantine himself, so early as 314, rejected such an appeal in the Donatist controversy with the significant declaration: "The judgment of the priests must be regarded as the judgment of Christ himself."(29) Even a sentence of excommunication was final; and Justinian allowed appeal only to the metropolitan, not to the civil tribunal. Several councils, that of Chalcedon, for example, in 451, went so far as to threaten clergy, who should avoid the episcopal tribunal or appeal from it to the civil, with deposition. Sometimes the bishops called in the help of the state, where the offender contemned the censure of the church. Justinian I. extended the episcopal jurisdiction also to the monasteries. Heraclius subsequently (628) referred even criminal causes among the clergy to the bishops, thus dismissing the clergy thenceforth entirely from the secular courts; though of course holding them liable for the physical penalty, when convicted of capital crime,(30) as the ecclesiastical jurisdiction ended with deposition and excommunication. Another privilege, granted by Theodosius to the clergy, was, that they should not be compelled by torture to bear testimony before the civil tribunal.

This elevation of the power and influence of the bishops was a salutary check upon the jurisdiction of the state, and on the whole conduced to the interests of justice and humanity; though it also nourished hierarchical arrogance and entangled the bishops, to the prejudice of their higher functions, in all manner of secular suits, in which they were frequently called into consultation. Chrysostom complains that "the arbitrator undergoes incalculable vexations, much labor, and more difficulties than the public judge. It is hard to discover the right, but harder not to violate it when discovered. Not labor and difficulty alone are connected with office, but also no little danger."(31) Augustine, too, who could make better use of his time, felt this part of his official duty a burden, which nevertheless he bore for love to the church.(32) Others handed over these matters to a subordinate ecclesiastic, or even, like Silvanus, bishop of Troas, to a layman.(33)

Another advantage resulting from the alliance of the church with the empire was the episcopal right of intercession.

The privilege of interceding with the secular power for criminals, prisoners, and unfortunates of every kind had belonged to the heathen priests, and especially to the vestals, and now passed to the Christian ministry, above all to the bishops, and thenceforth became an essential function of their office. A church in Gaul about the year 460 opposed the ordination of a monk to the bishopric, because, being unaccustomed to intercourse with secular magistrates, though he might intercede with the Heavenly Judge for their souls, he could not with the earthly for their bodies. The bishops were regarded particularly as the guardians of widows and orphans, and the control of their property was intrusted to them. Justinian in 529 assigned to them also a supervision of the prisons, which they were to visit on Wednesdays and Fridays, the days of Christ’s passion.

The exercise of this right of intercession, one may well suppose, often obstructed the course of justice; but it also, in innumerable cases, especially in times of cruel, arbitrary despotism, protected the interests of innocence, humanity, and mercy. Sometimes, by the powerful pleadings of bishops with governors and emperors, whole provinces were rescued from oppressive taxation and from the revenge of conquerors. Thus Flavian of Antioch in 387 averted the wrath of Theodosius on occasion of a rebellion, journeying under the double burden of age and sickness even to Constantinople to the emperor himself, and with complete success, as an ambassador of their common Lord, reminding him of the words: "If ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you."(34)

With the right of intercession was closely connected the right of asylum in churches.

In former times many of the heathen temples and altars, with some exceptions, were held inviolable as places of refuge; and the Christian churches now inherited also this prerogative. The usage, with some precautions against abuse, was made law by Theodosius II. in 431, and the ill treatment of an unarmed fugitive in any part of the church edifice, or even upon the consecrated ground, was threatened with the penalty of death.(35)

Thus slaves found sure refuge from the rage of their masters, debtors from the persecution of inexorable creditors, women and virgins from the approaches of profligates, the conquered from the sword of their enemies, in the holy places, until the bishop by his powerful mediation could procure justice or mercy. The beneficence of this law, which had its root not in superstition alone, but in the nobler sympathies of the people, comes most impressively to view amidst the ragings of the great migration and of the frequent intestine wars.(36)

§ 17. Legal Sanction of Sunday.

The civil sanction of the observance of Sunday and other festivals of the church.

The state, indeed, should not and cannot enforce this observance upon any one, but may undoubtedly and should prohibit the public disturbance and profanation of the Christian Sabbath, and protect the Christians in their right and duty of its proper observance. Constantine in 321 forbade the sitting of courts and all secular labor in towns on "the venerable day of the sun," as he expresses himself, perhaps with reference at once to the sun-god, Apollo, and to Christ, the true Sun of righteousness; to his pagan and his Christian subjects. But he distinctly permitted the culture of farms and vineyards in the country, because frequently this could be attended to on no other day so well;(37) though one would suppose that the hard-working peasantry were the very ones who most needed the day of rest. Soon afterward, in June, 321, he allowed the manumission of slaves on Sunday;(38) as this, being an act of benevolence, was different from ordinary business, and might be altogether appropriate to the day of resurrection and redemption. According to Eusebius, Constantine also prohibited all military exercises on Sunday, and at the same time enjoined the observance of Friday in memory of the death of Christ.(39)

Nay, he went so far, in well-meaning but mistaken zeal, as to require of his soldiers, even the pagan ones, the positive observance of Sunday, by pronouncing at a signal the following prayer, which they mechanically learned: "Thee alone we acknowledge as God; thee we confess as king; to thee we call as our helper; from thee we have received victories; through thee we have conquered enemies. Thee we thank for good received; from thee we hope for good to come. Thee we all most humbly beseech to keep our Constantine and his God-fearing sons through long life healthy and victorious."(40) Though this formula was held in a deistical generalness, yet the legal injunction of it lay clearly beyond the province of the civil power, trespassed on the rights of conscience, and unavoidably encouraged hypocrisy and empty formalism.

Later emperors declared the profanation of Sunday to be sacrilege, and prohibited also the collecting of taxes and private debts (368 and 386), and even theatrical and circus performances, on Sunday and the high festivals (386 and 425).(41) But this interdiction of public amusements, on which a council of Carthage (399 or 401) with reason insisted, was probably never rigidly enforced, and was repeatedly supplanted by the opposite practice, which gradually prevailed all over Europe.(42)

§ 18. Influence of Christianity on Civil Legislation. The Justinian Code.

Comp. on this subject particularly the works cited at § 13, sub ii, by Rhoer, Meysenburg, and Troplong; also Gibbon, chap. xliv (an admirable summary of the Roman law), Milman: Lat. Christianity, vol. I. B. iii. chap. 5, and in part the works of Schmidt and Chastel on the influence of Christianity upon society in the Roman empire, quoted in vol. i. § 86.

While in this way the state secured to the church the well-deserved rights of a legal corporation, the church exerted in turn a most beneficent influence on the state, liberating it by degrees from the power of heathen laws and customs, from the spirit of egotism, revenge, and retaliation, and extending its care beyond mere material prosperity to the higher moral interests of society. In the previous period we observed the contrast between Christian morality and heathen corruption in the Roman empire.(43) We are now to see how the principles of Christian morality gained public recognition, and began at least in some degree to rule the civil and political life.

As early as the second century, under the better heathen emperors, and evidently under the indirect, struggling, yet irresistible influence of the Christian spirit, legislation took a reformatory, humane turn, which was carried by the Christian emperors as far as it could be carried on the basis of the ancient Graeco-Roman civilization. Now, above all, the principle of justice and equity, humanity and love, began to assert itself in the state. For Christianity, with its doctrines of man’s likeness to God, of the infinite value of personality, of the original unity of the human race, and of the common redemption through Christ, first brought the universal rights of man to bear in opposition to the exclusive national spirit, the heartless selfishness, and the political absolutism of the old world, which harshly separated nations and classes, and respected man only as a citizen, while at the same time it denied the right of citizenship to the great mass of slaves, foreigners, and barbarians.(44)

Christ himself began his reformation with the lowest orders of the people, with fishermen and taxgatherers, with the poor, the lame, the blind, with demoniacs and sufferers of every kind, and raised them first to the sense of their dignity and their high destiny. So now the church wrought in the state and through the state for the elevation of the oppressed and the needy, and of those classes which under the reign of heathenism were not reckoned at all in the body politic, but were heartlessly trodden under foot. The reformatory motion was thwarted, it is true, to a considerable extent, by popular custom, which is stronger than law, and by the structure of society in the Roman empire, which was still essentially heathen and doomed to dissolution. But reform was at last set in motion, and could not be turned back even by the overthrow of the empire; it propagated itself among the German tribes. And although even in Christian states the old social maladies are ever breaking forth from corrupt human nature, sometimes with the violence of revolution, Christianity is ever coming in to restrain, to purify, to heal, and to console, curbing the wild passions of tyrants and of populace, vindicating the persecuted, mitigating the horrors of war, and repressing incalculable vice in public and in private life among Christian people. The most cursory comparison of Christendom with the most civilized heathen and Mohammedan countries affords ample testimony of this.

Here again the reign of Constantine is a turning point. Though an oriental despot, and but imperfectly possessed with the earnestness of Christian morality, he nevertheless enacted many laws, which distinctly breathe the spirit of Christian justice and humanity: the abolition of the punishment of crucifixion, the prohibition of gladiatorial games and cruel rites, the discouragement of infanticide, and the encouragement of the emancipation of slaves. Eusebius says he improved most of the old laws or replaced them by new ones.(45) Henceforward we feel beneath the toga of the Roman lawgiver the warmth of a Christian heart. We perceive the influence of the evangelical preaching and exhortations of the father of monasticism out of the Egyptian desert to the rulers of the world, Constantine and his sons: that they should show justice and mercy to the poor, and remember the judgment to come.

Even Julian, with all his hatred of the Christians, could not entirely renounce the influence of his education and of the reigning spirit of the age, but had to borrow from the church many of his measures for the reformation of heathenism. He recognized especially the duty of benevolence toward all men, charity to the poor, and clemency to prisoners; though this was contrary to the heathen sentiment, and though he proved himself anything but benevolent toward the Christians. But then the total failure of his philanthropic plans and measures shows that the true love for man can thrive only in Christian soil. And it is remarkable, that, with all this involuntary concession to Christianity, Julian himself passed not a single law in line with the progress of natural rights and equity.(46)

His successors trod in the footsteps of Constantine, and to the end of the West Roman empire kept the civil legislation under the influence of the Christian spirit, though thus often occasioning conflicts with the still lingering heathen element, and sometimes temporary apostasy and reaction. We observe also, in remarkable contradiction, that while the laws were milder in some respects, they were in others even more severe and bloody than ever before: a paradox to be explained no doubt in part by the despotic character of the Byzantine government, and in part by the disorders of the time.(47)

It now became necessary to collect the imperial ordinances(48) in a codex or corpus juris. Of the first two attempts of this kind, made in the middle of the fourth century, only some fragments remain.(49) But we have the Codex Theodosianus, which Theodosius II. caused to be made by several jurists between the years 429 and 438. It contains the laws of the Christian emperors from Constantine down, adulterated with many heathen elements; and it was sanctioned by Valentinian III. for the western empire. A hundred years later, in the flourishing period of the Byzantine state-church despotism, Justinian I., who, by the way, cannot be acquitted of the reproach of capricious and fickle law-making, committed to a number of lawyers, under the direction of the renowned Tribonianus,(50) the great task of making a complete revised and digested collection of the Roman law from the time of Hadrian to his own reign; and thus arose, in the short period of seven years (527–534), through the combination of the best talent and the best facilities, the celebrated Codex Justinianeus, which thenceforth became the universal law of the Roman empire, the sole text book in the academies at Rome, Constantinople, and Berytus, and the basis of the legal relations of the greater part of Christian Europe to this day.(51)

This body of Roman law(52) is an important source of our knowledge of the Christian life in its relations to the state and its influence upon it. It is, to be sure, in great part the legacy of pagan Rome, which was constitutionally endowed with legislative and administrative genius, and thereby as it were predestined to universal empire. But it received essential modification through the orientalizing change in the character of the empire from the time of Constantine, through the infusion of various Germanic elements, through the influence of the law of Moses, and, in its best points, through the spirit of Christianity. The church it fully recognizes as a legitimate institution and of divine authority, and several of its laws were enacted at the direct instance of bishops. So the "Common Law," the unwritten traditional law of England and America, though descending from the Anglo-Saxon times, therefore from heathen Germandom, has ripened under the influence of Christianity and the church, and betrays this influence even far more plainly than the Roman code, especially in all that regards the individual and personal rights and liberties of man.

§ 19. Elevation of Woman and the Family.

The benign effect of Christianity on legislation in the Graeco-Roman empire is especially noticeable in the following points:

In the treatment of women. From the beginning, Christianity labored, primarily in the silent way of fact, for the elevation of the female sex from the degraded, slavish position, which it occupied in the heathen world;(53) and even in this period it produced such illustrious models of female virtue as Nonna, Anthusa, and Monica, who commanded the highest respect of the heathens themselves. The Christian emperors pursued this work, though the Roman legislation stops considerably short of the later Germanic in regard to the rights of woman. Constantine in 321 granted women the same right as men to control their property, except in the sale of their landed estates. At the same time, from regard to their modesty, he prohibited the summoning them in person before the public tribunal. Theodosius I. in 390 was the first to allow the mother a certain right of guardianship, which had formerly been intrusted exclusively to men. Theodosius II. in 439 interdicted, but unfortunately with little success, the scandalous trade of the lenones, who lived by the prostitution of women, and paid a considerable license tax to the state.(54) Woman received protection in various ways against the beastly passion of man. The rape of consecrated virgins and widows was punishable, from the time of Constantine, with death.(55)
In the marriage laws, Constantine gave marriage its due freedom by abolishing the old Roman penalties against celibacy and childlessness.(56) On the other hand, marriage now came to be restricted under heavy penalties by the introduction of the Old Testament prohibitions of marriage within certain degrees of consanguinity, which subsequently were arbitrarily extended even to the relation of cousin down to the third remove.(57) Justinian forbade also marriage between godparent and godchild, on the ground of spiritual kinship. But better than all, the dignity and sanctity of marriage were now protected by restrictions upon the boundless liberty of divorce which had obtained from the time of Augustus, and had vastly hastened the decay of public morals. Still, the strict view of the fathers, who, following the word of Christ, recognized adultery alone as a sufficient ground of divorce, could not be carried out in the state.(58) The legislation of the emperors in this matter wavered between the licentiousness of Rome and the doctrine of the church. So late as the fifth century we hear a Christian author complain that men exchange wives as they would garments, and that the bridal chamber is exposed to sale like a shoe on the market! Justinian attempted to bring the public laws up to the wish of the church, but found himself compelled to relax them; and his successor allowed divorce even on the ground of mutual consent.(59)

Concubinage was forbidden from the time of Constantine, and adultery punished as one of the grossest crimes.(60) Yet here also pagan habit ever and anon reacted in practice, and even the law seems to have long tolerated the wild marriage which rested only on mutual agreement, and was entered into without convenant, dowry, or ecclesiastical sanction.(61) Solemnization by the church was not required by the state as the condition of a legitimate marriage till the eighth century. Second marriage, also, and mixed marriages with heretics and heathens, continued to be allowed, notwithstanding the disapproval of the stricter church teachers; only marriage with Jews was prohibited, on account of their fanatical hatred of the Christians.(62)

The power of fathers over their children, which according to the old Roman law extended even to their freedom and life, had been restricted by Alexander Severus under the influence of the monarchical spirit, which is unfavorable to private jurisdiction, and was still further limited under Constantine. This emperor declared the killing of a child by its father, which the Pompeian law left unpunished, to be one of the greatest crimes.(63) But the cruel and unnatural practice of exposing children and selling them into slavery continued for a long time, especially among the laboring and agricultural classes. Even the indirect measures of Valentinian and Theodosius I. could not eradicate the evil. Theodosius in 391 commanded that children which had been sold as slaves by their father from poverty, should be free, and that without indemnity to the purchasers; and Justinian in 529 gave all exposed children without exception their freedom.(64)

The institution of slavery(65) remained throughout the empire, and is recognized in the laws of Justinian as altogether legitimate.(66) The Justinian code rests on the broad distinction of the human race into freemen and slaves. It declares, indeed, the natural equality of men, and so far rises above the theory of Aristotle, who regards certain races and classes of men as irrevocably doomed, by their physical and intellectual inferiority, to perpetual servitude; but it destroys the practical value of this concession by insisting as sternly as ever on the inferior legal and social condition of the slave, by degrading his marriage to the disgrace of concubinage, by refusing him all legal remedy in case of adultery, by depriving him of all power over his children, by making him an article of merchandise like irrational beasts of burden, whose transfer from vender to buyer was a legal transaction as valid and frequent as the sale of any other property. The purchase and sale of slaves for from ten to seventy pieces of gold, according to their age, strength, and training, was a daily occurrence.(67) The number was not limited; many a master owning even two or three thousand slaves.

The barbarian codes do not essentially differ in this respect from the Roman. They, too, recognize slavery as an ordinary condition of mankind and the slave as a marketable commodity. All captives in war became slaves, and thousands of human lives were thus saved from indiscriminate massacre and extermination. The victory of Stilicho over Rhadagaisus threw 200,000 Goths and other Germans into the market, and lowered the price of a slave from twenty-five pieces of gold to one. The capture and sale of men was part of the piratical system along all the shores of Europe. Anglo-Saxons were freely sold in Rome at the time of Gregory the Great. The barbarian codes prohibited as severely as the Justinian code the debasing alliance of the freeman with the slave, but they seem to excel the latter in acknowledging the legality and religious sanctity of marriages between slaves; that of the Lombards on the authority of the Scripture sentence: "Whom God has joined together, let no man put asunder."

The legal wall of partition, which separated the slaves from free citizens and excluded them from the universal rights of man, was indeed undermined, but by no means broken down, by the ancient church, who taught only the moral and religious equality of men. We find slaveholders even among the bishops and the higher clergy of the empire. Slaves belonged to the papal household at Rome, as we learn incidentally from the acts of a Roman synod held in 501 in consequence of the disputed election of Symmachus, where his opponents insisted upon his slaves being called in as witnesses, while his adherents protested against this extraordinary request, since the civil law excluded the slaves from the right of giving testimony before a court of justice.(68) Among the barbarians, likewise, we read of slaveholding churches, and of special provisions to protect their slaves.(69) Constantine issued rigid laws against intermarriage with slaves, all the offspring of which must be slaves; and against fugitive slaves (a.d. 319 and 326), who at that time in great multitudes plundered deserted provinces or joined with hostile barbarians against the empire. But on the other hand he facilitated manumission, permitted it even on Sunday, and gave the clergy the right to emancipate their slaves simply by their own word, without the witnesses and ceremonies required in other cases.(70) By Theodosius and Justinian the liberation of slaves was still further encouraged. The latter emperor abolished the penalty of condemnation to servitude, and by giving to freed persons the rank and rights of citizens, he removed the stain which had formerly attached to that class.(71) The spirit of his laws favored the gradual abolition of domestic slavery. In the Byzantine empire in general the differences of rank in society were more equalized, though not so much on Christian principle as in the interest of despotic monarchy. Despotism and extreme democracy meet in predilection for universal equality and uniformity. Neither can suffer any overshadowing greatness, save the majesty of the prince or the will of the people. The one system knows none but slaves; the other, none but masters.

Nor was an entire abolition of slavery at that time at all demanded or desired even by the church. As in the previous period, she still thought it sufficient to insist on the kind Christian treatment of slaves, enjoining upon them obedience for the sake of the Lord, comforting them in their low condition with the thought of their higher moral freedom and equality, and by the religious education of the slaves making an inward preparation for the abolition of the institution. All hasty and violent measures met with decided disapproval. The council of Gangra threatens with the ban every one, who under pretext of religion seduces slaves into contempt of their masters; and the council of Chalcedon, in its fourth canon, on pain of excommunication forbids monasteries to harbor slaves without permission of the masters, lest Christianity be guilty of encouraging insubordination. The church fathers, so far as they enter this subject at all, seem to look upon slavery as at once a necessary evil and a divine instrument of discipline; tracing it to the curse on Ham and Canaan.(72) It is true, they favor emancipation in individual cases, as an act of Christian love on the part of the master, but not as a right on the part of the slave; and the well-known passage: "If then mayest be made free, use it rather," they understand not as a challenge to slaves to take the first opportunity to gain their freedom, but, on the contrary, as a challenge to remain in their servitude, since they are at all events inwardly free in Christ, and their outward condition is of no account.(73)

Even St. Chrysostom, though of all the church fathers the nearest to the emancipation theory and the most attentive to the question of slavery in general, does not rise materially above this view.(74) According to him mankind were originally created perfectly free and equal, without the addition of a slave. But by the fall man lost the power of self-government, and fell into a threefold bondage: the bondage of woman under man, of slave under master, of subject under ruler. These three relations he considers divine punishments and divine means of discipline. Thus slavery, as a divine arrangement occasioned by the fall, is at once relatively justified and in principle condemned. Now since Christ has delivered us from evil and its consequences, slavery, according to Chrysostom, is in principle abolished in the church, yet only in the sense in which sin and death are abolished. Regenerate Christians are not slaves, but perfectly free men in Christ and brethren among themselves. The exclusive authority of the one and subjection of the other give place to mutual service in love. Consistently carried out, this view leads of course to emancipation. Chrysostom, it is true, does not carry it to that point, but he decidedly condemns all luxurious slaveholding, and thinks one or two servants enough for necessary help, while many patricians had hundreds and thousands. He advises the liberation of superfluous slaves, and the education of all, that in case they should be liberated, they may know how to take care of themselves. He is of opinion that the first Christian community at Jerusalem, in connection with community of goods, emancipated all their slaves;(75) and thus he gives his hearers a hint to follow that example. But of an appeal to slaves to break their bonds, this father shows of course no trace; he rather, after apostolic precedent, exhorts them to conscientious and cheerful obedience for Christ’s sake, as earnestly as he inculcates upon masters humanity and love. The same is true of Ambrose, Augustine, and Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna († 458).

St. Augustine, the noblest representative of the Latin church, in his profound work on the "City of God," excludes slavery from the original idea of man and the final condition of society, and views it as an evil consequent upon sin, yet under divine direction and control. For God, he says, created man reasonable and lord only over the unreasonable, not over man. The burden of servitude was justly laid upon the sinner. Therefore the term servant is not found in the Scriptures till Noah used it as a curse upon his offending son. Thus it was guilt and not nature that deserved that name. The Latin word servus is supposed to be derived from servare [servire rather], or the preservation of the prisoners of war from death, which itself implies the desert of sin. For even in a just war there is sin on one side, and every victory humbles the conquered by divine judgment, either reforming their sins or punishing them. Daniel saw in the sins of the people the real cause of their captivity. Sin, therefore, is the mother of servitude and first cause of man’s subjection to man; yet this does not come to pass except by the judgment of God, with whom there is no injustice, and who knows how to adjust the various punishments to the merits of the offenders .... The apostle exhorts the servants to obey their masters and to serve them ex animo, with good will; to the end that, if they cannot be made free from their masters, they may make their servitude a freedom to themselves by serving them not in deceitful fear, but in faithful love, until iniquity be overpassed, and all man’s principality and power be annulled, and God be all in all.(76)

As might be expected, after the conversion of the emperors, and of rich and noble families, who owned most slaves, cases of emancipation became more frequent.(77) The biographer of St. Samson Xenodochos, a contemporary of Justinian, says of him: "His troop of slaves he would not keep, still less exercise over his fellow servants a lordly authority; he preferred magnanimously to let them go free, and gave them enough for the necessaries of life."(78) Salvianus, a Gallic presbyter of the fifth century, says that slaves were emancipated daily.(79) On the other hand, very much was done in the church to prevent the increase of slavery; especially in the way of redeeming prisoners, to which sometimes the gold and silver vessels of churches were applied. But we have no reliable statistics for comparing even approximately the proportion of the slaves to the free population at the close of the sixth century with the proportion in the former period.

We infer then, that the Christianity of the Nicene and post-Nicene age, though naturally conservative and decidedly opposed to social revolution and violent measures of reform, yet in its inmost instincts and ultimate tendencies favored the universal freedom of man, and, by elevating the slave to spiritual equality with the master, and uniformly treating him as capable of the same virtues, blessings, and rewards, has placed the hateful institution of human bondage in the way of gradual amelioration and final extinction. This result, however, was not reached in Europe till many centuries after our period, nor by the influence of the church alone, but with the help of various economical and political causes, the unprofitableness of slavery, especially in more northern latitudes, the new relations introduced by the barbarian conquests, the habits of the Teutonic tribes settled within the Roman empire, the attachment of the rural slave to the soil, and the change of the slave into the serf, who was as immovable as the soil, and thus, in some degree independent on the caprice and despotism of his master.

The poor and unfortunate in general, above all the widows and orphans, prisoners and sick, who were so terribly neglected in heathen times, now drew the attention of the imperial legislators. Constantine in 315 prohibited the branding of criminals on the forehead, "that the human countenance," as he said, "formed after the image of heavenly beauty, should not be defaced."(80) He provided against the inhuman maltreatment of prisoners before their trial.(81) To deprive poor parents of all pretext for selling or exposing their children, he had them furnished with food and clothing, partly at his own expense and partly at that of the state.(82) He likewise endeavored, particularly by a law of the year 331, to protect the poor against the venality and extortion of judges, advocates, and tax collectors, who drained the people by their exactions.(83) In the year 334 he ordered that widows, orphans, the sick, and the poor should not be compelled to appear be. fore a tribunal outside their own province. Valentinian, in 365, exempted widows and orphans from the ignoble poll tax.(84) In 364 he intrusted the bishops with the supervision of the poor. Honorius did the same in 409. Justinian, in 529, as we have before remarked, gave the bishops the oversight of the state prisons, which they were to visit on Wednesdays and Fridays, to bring home to the unfortunates the earnestness and comfort of religion. The same emperor issued laws against usury and inhuman severity in creditors, and secured benevolent and religious foundations by strict laws against alienation of their revenues from the original design of the founders. Several emperors and empresses took the church institutions for the poor and sick, for strangers, widows, and orphans, under their special patronage, exempted them from the usual taxes, and enriched or enlarged them from their private funds.(85) Yet in those days, as still in ours, the private beneficence of Christian love took the lead, and the state followed at a distance, rather with ratification and patronage than with independent and original activity.(86)

§ 21. Abolition of Gladiatorial Shows.

And finally, one of the greatest and most beautiful victories of Christian humanity over heathen barbarism and cruelty was the abolition of gladiatorial contests, against which the apologists in the second century had already raised the most earnest protest.(87)

These bloody shows, in which human beings, mostly criminals, prisoners of war, and barbarians, by hundreds and thousands killed one another or were killed in fight with wild beasts for the amusement of the spectators, were still in full favor at the beginning of the period before us. The pagan civilization here proves itself impotent. In its eyes the life of a barbarian is of no other use than to serve the cruel amusement of the Roman people, who wish quietly to behold with their own eyes and enjoy at home the martial bloodshedding of their frontiers. Even the humane Symmachus gave an exhibition of this kind during his consulate (391), and was enraged that twenty-nine Saxon prisoners of war escaped this public shame by suicide.(88) While the Vestal virgins existed, it was their special prerogative to cheer on the combatants in the amphitheatre to the bloody work, and to give the signal for the deadly stroke.(89)

The contagion of the thirst for blood, which these spectacles generated, is presented to us in a striking example by Augustine in his Confessions.(90) His friend Alypius, afterward bishop of Tagaste, was induced by some friends in 385 to visit the amphitheatre at Rome, and went resolved to lock himself up against all impressions. "When they reached the spot," says Augustine, "and took their places on the hired seats, everything already foamed with bloodthirsty delight. But Alypius, with closed eyes, forbade his soul to yield to this sin. O had he but stopped also his ears! For when, on the fall of a gladiator in the contest, the wild shout of the whole multitude fell upon him, overcome by curiosity he opened his eyes, though prepared to despise and resist the sight. But he was smitten with a more grievous wound in the soul than the combatant in the body, and fell more lamentably .... For when he saw the blood, he imbibed at once the love of it, turned not away, fastened his eyes upon it, caught the spirit of rage and vengeance before he knew it, and, fascinated with the murderous game, became drunk with bloodthirsty joy .... He looked, shouted applause, burned, and carried with him thence the frenzy, by which he was drawn to go back, not only with those who had taken him there, but before them, and taking others with him."

Christianity finally succeeded in closing the amphitheatre. Constantine, who in his earlier reign himself did homage to the popular custom in this matter, and exposed a great multitude of conquered barbarians to death in the amphitheatre at Treves, for which he was highly commended by a heathen orator,(91) issued in 325, the year of the great council of the church at Nice, the first prohibition of the bloody spectacles, "because they cannot be pleasing in a time of public peace."(92) But this edict, which is directed to the prefects of Phoenicia, had no permanent effect even in the East, except at Constantinople, which was never stained with the blood of gladiators. In Syria and especially in the West, above all in Rome, the deeply rooted institution continued into the fifth century. Honorius (395–423), who at first considered it indestructible, abolished the gladiatorial shows about 404, and did so at the instance of the heroic self-denial of an eastern monk by the name of Telemachus, who journeyed to Rome expressly to protest against this inhuman barbarity, threw himself into the arena, separated the combatants, and then was torn to pieces by the populace, a martyr to humanity.(93) Yet this put a stop only to the bloody combats of men. Unbloody spectacles of every kind, even on the high festivals of the church and amidst the invasions of the barbarians, as we see by the grievous complaints of a Chrysostom, an Augustine, and a Salvian, were as largely and as passionately attended as ever; and even fights with wild animals, in which human life was generally more or less sacrificed, continued,(94) and, to the scandal of the Christian name, are tolerated in Spain and South America to this day.

§ 22. Evils of the Union of Church and State. Secularization of the Church.

We turn now to the dark side of the union of the church with the state; to the consideration of the disadvantages which grew out of their altered relation after the time of Constantine, and which continue to show themselves in the condition of the church in Europe to our own time.

These evil results may be summed up under the general designation of the secularization of the church. By taking in the whole population of the Roman empire the church became, indeed, a church of the masses, a church of the people, but at the same time more or less a church of the world. Christianity became a matter of fashion. The number of hypocrites and formal professors rapidly increased;(95) strict discipline, zeal, self-sacrifice, and brotherly love proportionally ebbed away; and many heathen customs and usages, under altered names, crept into the worship of God and the life of the Christian people. The Roman state had grown up under the influence of idolatry, and was not to be magically transformed at a stroke. With the secularizing process, therefore, a paganizing tendency went hand in hand.

Yet the pure spirit of Christianity could by no means be polluted by this. On the contrary it retained even in the darkest days its faithful and steadfast confessors, conquered new provinces from time to time, constantly reacted, both within the established church and outside of it, in the form of monasticism, against the secular and the pagan influences, and, in its very struggle with the prevailing corruption, produced such church fathers as Athanasius, Chrysostom, and Augustine, such exemplary Christian mothers as Nonna, Anthusa, and Monica, and such extraordinary saints of the desert as Anthony, Pachomius, and Benedict. New enemies and dangers called forth new duties and virtues, which could now unfold themselves on a larger stage, and therefore also on a grander scale. Besides, it must not be forgotten, that the tendency to secularization is by no means to be ascribed only to Constantine and the influence of the state, but to the deeper source of the corrupt heart of man, and did reveal itself, in fact, though within a much narrower compass, long before, under the heathen emperors, especially in the intervals of repose, when the earnestness and zeal of Christian life slumbered and gave scope to a worldly spirit.

The difference between the age after Constantine and the age before consists, therefore, not at all in the cessation of true Christianity and the entrance of false, but in the preponderance of the one over the other. The field of the church was now much larger, but with much good soil it included far more that was stony, barren, and overgrown with weeds. The line between church and world, between regenerate and unregenerate, between those who were Christians in name and those who were Christians in heart, was more or less obliterated, and in place of the former hostility between the two parties there came a fusion of them in the same outward communion of baptism and confession. This brought the conflict between light and darkness, truth and falsehood, Christ and antichrist, into the bosom of Christendom itself.

§ 23. Worldliness and Extravagance.

The secularization of the church appeared most strikingly in the prevalence of mammon worship and luxury compared with the poverty and simplicity of the primitive Christians. The aristocracy of the later empire had a morbid passion for outward display and the sensual enjoyments of wealth, without the taste, the politeness, or the culture of true civilization. The gentlemen measured their fortune by the number of their marble palaces, baths, slaves, and gilded carriages; the ladies indulged in raiment of silk and gold ornamented with secular or religious figures, and in heavy golden necklaces, bracelets, and rings, and went to church in the same flaunting dress as to the theatre.(96) Chrysostom addresses a patrician of Antioch: "You count so and so many acres of land, ten or twenty palaces, as many baths, a thousand or two thousand slaves, carriages plated with silver and gold."(97) Gregory Nazianzen, who presided for a time in the second ecumenical council of Constantinople in 381, gives us the following picture, evidently rhetorically colored, yet drawn from life, of the luxury of the degenerate civilization of that period: "We repose in splendor on high and sumptuous cushions, upon the most exquisite covers, which one is almost afraid to touch, and are vexed if we but hear the voice of a moaning pauper; our chamber must breathe the odor of flowers, even rare flowers; our table must flow with the most fragrant and costly ointment, so that we become perfectly effeminate. Slaves must stand ready, richly adorned and in order, with waving, maidenlike hair, and faces shorn perfectly smooth, more adorned throughout than is good for lascivious eyes; some, to hold cups both delicately and firmly with the tips of their fingers, others, to fan fresh air upon the head. Our table must bend under the load of dishes, while all the kingdoms of nature, air, water and earth, furnish copious contributions, and there must be almost no room for the artificial products of cook and baker .... The poor man is content with water; but we fill our goblets with wine to drunkenness, nay, immeasurably beyond it. We refuse one wine, another we pronounce excellent when well flavored, over a third we institute philosophical discussions; nay, we count it a pity, if he does not, as a king, add to the domestic wine a foreign also."(98) Still more unfavorable are the pictures which, a half century later, the Gallic presbyter, Salvianus, draws of the general moral condition of the Christians in the Roman empire.(99)

It is true, these earnest protests against degeneracy themselves, as well as the honor in which monasticism and ascetic contempt of the world were universally held, attest the existence of a better spirit. But the uncontrollable progress of avarice, prodigality, voluptuousness, theatre going, intemperance, lewdness, in short, of all the heathen vices, which Christianity had come to eradicate, still carried the Roman empire and people with rapid strides toward dissolution, and gave it at last into the hands of the rude, but simple and morally vigorous barbarians. When the Christians were awakened by the crashings of the falling empire, and anxiously asked why God permitted it, Salvian, the Jeremiah of his time, answered: "Think of your vileness and your crimes, and see whether you are worthy of the divine protection."(100) Nothing but the divine judgment of destruction upon this nominally Christian, but essentially heathen world, could open the way for the moral regeneration of society. There must be new, fresh nations, if the Christian civilization prepared in the old Roman empire was to take firm root and bear ripe fruit.

§ 24. Byzantine Court Christianity.

The unnatural confusion of Christianity with the world culminated in the imperial court of Constantinople, which, it is true, never violated moral decency so grossly as the court of a Nero or a Domitian, but in vain pomp and prodigality far outdid the courts of the better heathen emperors, and degenerated into complete oriental despotism. The household of Constantius, according to the description of Libanius,(101) embraced no less than a thousand barbers, a thousand cup bearers, a thousand cooks, and so many eunuchs, that they could be compared only to the insects of a summer day. This boundless luxury was for a time suppressed by the pagan Julian, who delighted in stoical and cynical severity, and was fond of displaying it; but under his Christian successors the same prodigality returned; especially under Theodosius and his sons. These emperors, who prohibited idolatry upon pain of death, called their laws, edicts, and palaces "divine," bore themselves as gods upon earth, and, on the rare occasions when they showed themselves to the people, unfurled an incredible magnificence and empty splendor.

"When Arcadius," to borrow a graphic description from a modern historian, "condescended to reveal to the public the majesty of the sovereign, he was preceded by a vast multitude of attendants, dukes, tribunes, civil and military officers, their horses glittering with golden ornaments, with shields of gold set with precious stones, and golden lances. They proclaimed the coming of the emperor, and commanded the ignoble crowd to clear the streets before him. The emperor stood or reclined on a gorgeous chariot, surrounded by his immediate attendants, distinguished by shields with golden bosses set round with golden eyes, and drawn by white mules with gilded trappings; the chariot was set with precious stones, and golden fans vibrated with the movement, and cooled the air. The multitude contemplated at a distance the snow-white cushions, the silken carpets, with dragons inwoven upon them in rich colors. Those who were fortunate enough to catch a glimpse of the emperor, beheld his ears loaded with golden rings, his arms with golden chains, his diadem set with gems of all hues, his purple robes, which, with the diadem, were reserved for the emperor, in all their sutures embroidered with precious stones. The wondering people, on their return to their homes, could talk of nothing but the splendor of the spectacle: the robes, the mules, the carpets, the size and splendor of the jewels. On his return to the palace, the emperor walked on gold; ships were employed with the express purpose of bringing gold dust from remote provinces, which was strewn by the officious care of a host of attendants, so that the emperor rarely set his foot on the bare pavement."(102)

The Christianity of the Byzantine court lived in the atmosphere of intrigue, dissimulation, and flattery. Even the court divines and bishops could hardly escape the contamination, though their high office, with its sacred functions, was certainly a protecting wall around them. One of these bishops congratulated Constantine, at the celebration of the third decennium of his reign (the tricennalia), that he had been appointed by God ruler over all in this world, and would reign with the Son of God in the other! This blasphemous flattery was too much even for the vain emperor, and he exhorted the bishop rather to pray God that he might be worthy to be one of his servants in this world and the next.(103) Even the church historian and bishop Eusebius, who elsewhere knew well enough how to value the higher blessings, and lamented the indescribable hypocrisy of the sham Christianity around the emperor,(104) suffered himself to be so far blinded by the splendor of the imperial favor, as to see in a banquet, which Constantine gave in his palace to the bishops at the close of the council of Nice, in honor of his twenty years’ reign (the vicennalia), an emblem of the glorious reign of Christ upon the earth!(105)

And these were bishops, of whom many still bore in their body the marks of the Diocletian persecution. So rapidly had changed the spirit of the age. While, on the other hand, the well-known firmness of Ambrose with Theodosius, and the life of Chrysostom, afford delightful proof that there were not wanting, even in this age, bishops of Christian earnestness and courage to rebuke the sins of crowned heads.

§ 25. Intrusion of Politics into Religion.

With the union of the church and the state begins the long and tedious history of their collisions and their mutual struggles for the mastery: the state seeking to subject the church to the empire, the church to subject the state to the hierarchy, and both very often transgressing the limits prescribed to their power in that word of the Lord: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s." From the time of Constantine, therefore, the history of the church and that of the world in Europe are so closely interwoven, that neither can be understood without the other. On the one hand, the political rulers, as the highest members and the patrons of the church, claimed a right to a share in her government, and interfered in various ways in her external and internal affairs, either to her profit or to her prejudice. On the other hand, the bishops and patriarchs, as the highest dignitaries and officers of the state religion, became involved in all sorts of secular matters and in the intrigues of the Byzantine court. This mutual intermixture, on the whole, was of more injury than benefit to the church and to religion, and fettered her free and natural development.

Of a separation of religion and politics, of the spiritual power from the temporal, heathen antiquity knew nothing, because it regarded religion itself only from a natural point of view, and subjected it to the purposes of the all-ruling state, the highest known form of human society. The Egyptian kings, as Plutarch tells us, were at the same time priests, or were received into the priesthood at their election. In Greece the civil magistrate had supervision of the priests and sanctuaries.(106) In Rome, after the time of Numa, this supervision was intrusted to a senator, and afterward united with the imperial office. All the pagan emperors, from Augustus(107) to Julian the Apostate, were at the same time supreme pontiffs (Pontifices Maximi), the heads of the state religion, emperor-popes. As such they could not only perform all priestly functions, even to offering sacrifices, when superstition or policy prompted them to do so, but they also stood at the head of the highest sacerdotal college (of fifteen or more Pontifices), which in turn regulated and superintended the three lower classes of priests (the Epulones, Quindecemviri, and Augures), the temples and altars, the sacrifices, divinations, feasts, and ceremonies, the exposition of the Sibylline books, the calendar, in short, all public worship, and in part even the affairs of marriage and inheritance.

Now it may easily be supposed that the Christian emperors, who, down to Gratian (about 380), even retained the name and the insignia of the Pontifex Maximus, claimed the same oversight of the Christian religion established in the empire, which their predecessors had had of the heathen; only with this material difference, that they found here a stricter separation between the religious element and the political, the ecclesiastical and the secular, and were obliged to bind themselves to the already existing doctrines, usages, and traditions of the church which claimed divine institution and authority.

§ 26. The Emperor-Papacy and the Hierarchy.

And this, in point of fact, took place first under Constantine, and developed under his successors, particularly under Justinian, into the system of the Byzantine imperial papacy,(108) or of the supremacy of the state over the church.

Constantine once said to the bishops at a banquet, that he also, as a Christian emperor, was a divinely appointed bishop, a bishop over the external affairs of the church, while the internal affairs belonged to the bishops proper.(109) In this pregnant word he expressed the new posture of the civil sovereign toward the church in a characteristic though indefinite and equivocal way. He made there a distinction between two divinely authorized episcopates; one secular or imperial, corresponding with the old office of Pontifex Maximus, and extending over the whole Roman empire, therefore ecumenical or universal; the other spiritual or sacerdotal, divided among the different diocesan bishops, and appearing properly in its unity and totality only in a general council.

Accordingly, though not yet even baptized, he acted as the patron and universal temporal bishop of the church;(110) summoned the first ecumenical council for the settlement of the controversy respecting the divinity of Christ; instituted and deposed bishops; and occasionally even delivered sermons to the people; but on the other hand, with genuine tact (though this was in his earlier period, a.d. 314), kept aloof from the Donatist controversy, and referred to the episcopal tribunal as the highest and last resort in purely spiritual matters. In the exercise of his imperial right of supervision he did not follow any clear insight and definite theory so much as an instinctive impulse of control, a sense of politico-religious duty, and the requirements of the time. His word only raised, did not solve, the question of the relation between the imperial and the sacerdotal episcopacy and the extent of their respective jurisdictions in a Christian state.

This question became thenceforth the problem and the strife of history both sacred and secular, ran through the whole mediaeval conflict between emperor and pope, between imperial and hierarchical episcopacy, and recurs in modified form in every Protestant established church.

In general, from this time forth the prevailing view was, that God has divided all power between the priesthood and the kingdom (sacerdotium et imperium), giving internal or spiritual affairs, especially doctrine and worship, to the former, and external or temporal affairs, such as government and discipline, to the latter.(111) But internal and external here vitally interpenetrate and depend on each other, as soul and body, and frequent reciprocal encroachments and collisions are inevitable upon state-church ground. This becomes manifest in the period before us in many ways, especially in the East, where the Byzantine despotism had freer play, than in the distant West.

The emperors after Constantine (as the popes after them) summoned the general councils, bore the necessary expenses, presided in the councils through commissions, gave to the decisions in doctrine and discipline the force of law for the whole Roman empire, and maintained them by their authority. The emperors nominated or confirmed the most influential metropolitans and patriarchs. They took part in all theological disputes, and thereby inflamed the passion of parties. They protected orthodoxy and punished heresy with the arm of power. Often, however, they took the heretical side, and banished orthodox bishops from their sees. Thus Arianism, Nestorianism, Eutychianism, and Monophysitism successively found favor and protection at court. Even empresses meddled in the internal and external concerns of the church. Justina endeavored with all her might to introduce Arianism in Milan, but met a successful opponent in bishop Ambrose. Eudoxia procured the deposition and banishment of the noble Chrysostom. Theodora, raised from the stage to the throne, ruled the emperor Justinian, and sought by every kind of intrigue to promote the victory of the Monophysite heresy. It is true, the doctrinal decisions proceeded properly from the councils, and could not have maintained themselves long without that sanction. But Basiliscus, Zeno, Justinian I., Heraclius, Constans II., and other emperors issued many purely ecclesiastical edicts and rescripts without consulting the councils, or through the councils by their own influence upon them. Justinian opens his celebrated codex with the imperial creed on the trinity and the imperial anathema against Nestorius, Eutyches, Apollinaris, on the basis certainly of the apostolic church and of the four ecumenical councils, but in the consciousness of absolute legislative and executive authority even over the faith and conscience of all his subjects.

The voice of the catholic church in this period conceded to the Christian emperors in general, with the duty of protecting and supporting the church, the right of supervision over its external affairs, but claimed for the clergy, particularly for the bishops, the right to govern her within, to fix her doctrine, to direct her worship. The new state of things was regarded as a restoration of the Mosaic and Davidic theocracy on Christian soil, and judged accordingly. But in respect to the extent and application of the emperor’s power in the church, opinion was generally determined, consciously or unconsciously, by some special religious interest. Hence we find that catholics and heretics, Athanasians and Arians, justified or condemned the interference of the emperor in the development of doctrine, the appointment and deposition of bishops, and the patronage and persecution of parties, according as they themselves were affected by them. The same Donatists who first appealed to the imperial protection, when the decision went against them denounced all intermeddling of the state with the church. There were bishops who justified even the most arbitrary excesses of the Byzantine despotism in religion by reference to Melchizedek and the pious kings of Israel, and yielded them selves willing tools of the court. But there were never wanting also fearless defenders of the rights of the church against the civil power. Maximus the Confessor declared before his judges in Constantinople, that Melchizedek was a type of Christ alone, not of the emperor.

In general the hierarchy formed a powerful and wholesome check on the imperial papacy, and preserved the freedom and independence of the church toward the temporal power. That age had only the alternative of imperial or episcopal despotism; and of these the latter was the less hurtful and the more profitable, because it represented the higher intellectual and moral interests. Without the hierarchy, the church in the Roman empire and among the barbarians would have been the football of civil and military despots. It was, therefore, of the utmost importance, that the church, at the time of her marriage with the state, had already grown so large and strong as to withstand all material alteration by imperial caprice, and all effort to degrade her into a tool. The Apostolic Constitutions place the bishops even above all kings and magistrates.(112) Chrysostom says that the first ministers of the state enjoyed no such honor as the ministers of the church. And in general the ministers of the church deserved their honor. Though there were prelates enough who abused their power to sordid ends, still there were men like Athanasius, Basil, Ambrose, Chrysostom, Augustine, Leo, the purest and most venerable characters, which meet us in the fourth and fifth centuries, far surpassing the contemporary emperors. It was the universal opinion that the doctrines and institutions of the church, resting on divine revelation, are above all human power and will. The people looked, in blind faith and superstition, to the clergy as their guides in all matters of conscience, and even the emperors had to pay the bishops, as the fathers of the churches, the greatest reverence, kiss their hands, beg their blessing, and submit to their admonition and discipline. In most cases the emperors were mere tools of parties in the church. Arbitrary laws which were imposed upon the church from without rarely survived their makers, and were condemned by history. For there is a divine authority above all thrones, and kings, and bishops, and a power of truth above all the machinations of falsehood and intrigue.

The Western church, as a whole, preserved her independence far more than the Eastern; partly through the great firmness of the Roman character, partly through the favor of political circumstances, and of remoteness from the influence and the intrigues of the Byzantine court. Here the hierarchical principle developed itself from the time of Leo the Great even to the absolute papacy, which, however, after it fulfilled its mission for the world among the barbarian nations of the middle ages, degenerated into an insufferable tyranny over conscience, and thus exposed itself to destruction. In the Catholic system the freedom and independence of the church involve the supremacy of an exclusive priesthood and papacy; in the Protestant, they can be realized only on the broader basis of the universal priesthood, in the self-government of the Christian people; though this is, as yet, in all Protestant established churches more or less restricted by the power of the state.

§ 27. Restriction of Religious Freedom, and Beginnings of Persecution of Heretics.

Sam. Eliot: History of Liberty. Boston, 1858, 4 vols. Early Christians, vols. i. and ii. The most important facts are scattered through the sections of the larger church histories on the heresies, the doctrinal controversies, and church discipline.

An inevitable consequence of the union of church and state was restriction of religious freedom in faith and worship, and the civil punishment of departure from the doctrine and discipline of the established church.

The church, dominant and recognized by the state, gained indeed external freedom and authority, but in a measure at the expense of inward liberty and self-control. She came, as we have seen in the previous section, under the patronage and supervision of the head of the Christian state, especially in the Byzantine empire. In the first three centuries, the church, with all her external lowliness and oppression, enjoyed the greater liberty within, in the development of her doctrines and institutions, by reason of her entire separation from the state.

But the freedom of error and division was now still more restricted. In the ante-Nicene age, heresy and schism were as much hated and abhorred indeed, as afterward, yet were met only in a moral way, by word and writing, and were punished with excommunication from the rights of the church. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and even Lactantius were the first advocates of the principle of freedom of conscience, and maintained, against the heathen, that religion was essentially a matter of free will, and could be promoted only by instruction and persuasion not by outward force.(113) All they say against the persecution of Christians by the heathen applies in full to the persecution of heretics by the church. After the Nicene age all departures from the reigning state-church faith were not only abhorred and excommunicated as religious errors, but were treated also as crimes against the Christian state, and hence were punished with civil penalties; at first with deposition, banishment, confiscation, and, after Theodosius, even with death.

This persecution of heretics was a natural consequence of the union of religious and civil duties and rights, the confusion of the civil and the ecclesiastical, the judicial and the moral, which came to pass since Constantine. It proceeded from the state and from the emperors, who in this respect showed themselves the successors of the Pontifices Maximi, with their relation to the church reversed. The church, indeed, steadfastly adhered to the principle that, as such, she should employ only spiritual penalties, excommunication in extreme cases; as in fact Christ and the apostles expressly spurned and prohibited all carnal weapons, and would rather suffer and die than use violence. But, involved in the idea of Jewish theocracy and of a state church, she practically confounded in various ways the position of the law and that of the gospel, and in theory approved the application of forcible measures to heretics, and not rarely encouraged and urged the state to it; thus making herself at least indirectly responsible for the persecution. This is especially, true of the Roman church in the times of her greatest power, in the middle age and down to the end of the sixteenth century; and by this course that church has made herself almost more offensive in the eyes of the world and of modern civilization than by her peculiar doctrines and usages. The Protestant reformation dispelled the dream that Christianity was identical with an outward organization, or the papacy, and gave a mighty shock thereby to the principle of ecclesiastical exclusiveness. Yet, properly speaking, it was not till the eighteenth century that a radical revolution of views was accomplished in regard to religious toleration; and the progress of toleration and free worship has gone hand in hand with the gradual loosening of the state-church basis and with the clearer separation of civil and religious rights and of the temporal and spiritual power.

In the, beginning of his reign, Constantine proclaimed full freedom of religion (312), and in the main continued tolerably true to it; at all events he used no violent measures, as his successors did. This toleration, however, was not a matter of fixed principle with him, but merely of temporary policy; a necessary consequence of the incipient separation of the Roman throne from idolatry, and the natural transition from the sole supremacy of the heathen religion to the same supremacy of the Christian. Intolerance directed itself first against heathenism; but as the false religion gradually died out of itself, and at any rate had no moral energy for martyrdom, there resulted no such bloody persecutions of idolatry under the Christian emperors, as there had been of Christianity under their heathen predecessors. Instead of Christianity, the intolerance of the civil power now took up Christian heretics, whom it recognized as such. Constantine even in his day limited the freedom and the privileges which he conferred, to the catholic, that is, the prevailing orthodox hierarchical church, and soon after the Council of Nice, by an edict of the year 326, expressly excluded heretics and schismatics from these privileges.(114) Accordingly he banished the leaders of Arianism and ordered their writings to be burned, but afterward, wavering in his views of orthodoxy and heterodoxy, and persuaded over by some bishops and his sister, he recalled Arius and banished Athanasius. He himself was baptized shortly before his death by an Arian bishop. His son Constantius was a fanatical persecutor both of idolatry and the Nicene orthodoxy, and endeavored with all his might to establish Arianism alone in the empire. Hence the earnest protest of the orthodox bishops, Hosius, Athanasius, and Hilary, against this despotism and in favor of toleration;(115) which came, however, we have to remember, from parties who were themselves the sufferers under intolerance, and who did not regard the banishment of the Arians as unjust.

Under Julian the Apostate religious liberty was again proclaimed, but only as the beginning of return to the exclusive establishment of heathenism; the counterpart, therefore, of Constantine’s toleration. After his early death Arianism again prevailed, at least in the East, and showed itself more, intolerant and violent than the catholic orthodoxy.

At last Theodosius the Great, the first emperor who was baptized in the Nicene faith, put an end to the Arian interregnum, proclaimed the exclusive authority of the Nicene creed, and at the same time enacted the first rigid penalties not only against the pagan idolatry, the practice of which was thenceforth a capital crime in the empire, but also against all Christian heresies and sects. The ruling principle of his public life was the unity of the empire and of the orthodox church. Soon after his baptism, in 380, he issued, in connection with his weak coëmperors, Gratian and Valentinian II., to the inhabitants of Constantinople, then the chief seat of Arianism, the following edict: "We, the three emperors, will, that all our subjects steadfastly adhere to the religion which was taught by St. Peter to the Romans, which has been faithfully preserved by tradition, and which is now professed by the pontiff Damasus, of Rome, and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic holiness. According to the institution of the apostles and the doctrine of the gospel, let us believe in the one Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, of equal majesty in the holy Trinity. We order that the adherents of this faith be called Catholic Christians; we brand all the senseless followers of other religions with the infamous name of heretics, and forbid their conventicles assuming the name of churches. Besides the condemnation of divine justice, they must expect the heavy penalties which our authority, guided by heavenly wisdom, shall think proper to inflict."(116) In the course of fifteen years this emperor issued at least fifteen penal laws against heretics,(117) by which he gradually deprived them of all right to the exercise of their religion, excluded them from all civil offices, and threatened them with fines, confiscation, banishment, and in some cases, as the Manichaeans, the Audians, and even the Quartodecimanians, with death.

From Theodosius therefore dates the state-church theory of the persecution of heretics, and the embodiment of it in legislation. His primary design, it is true, was rather to terrify and convert, than to punish, the refractory subjects.(118)

From the theory, however, to the practice was a single step; and this step his rival and colleague, Maximus, took, when, at the instigation of the unworthy bishop Ithacius, he caused the Spanish bishop, Priscillian, with six respectable adherents of his Manichaean-like sect (two presbyters, two deacons, the poet Latronian, and Euchrocia, a noble matron of Bordeaux), to be tortured and beheaded with the sword at Treves in 385. This was the first shedding of the blood of heretics by a Christian prince for religious opinions. The bishops assembled at Treves, with the exception of Theognistus, approved this act.

But the better feeling of the Christian church shrank from it with horror. The bishops Ambrose of Milan,(119) and Martin of Tours,(120) raised a memorable protest against it, and broke off all communion with Ithacius and the other bishops who had approved the execution. Yet it should not be forgotten that these bishops, at least Ambrose, were committed against the death penalty in general, and in other respects had no indulgence for heathens and heretics.(121) The whole thing, too, was irregularly done; on the one hand the bishops appeared as accusers in a criminal cause, and on the other a temporal judge admitted an appeal from the episcopal jurisdiction, and pronounced an opinion in a matter of faith. Subsequently the functions of the temporal and spiritual courts in the trial of heretics were more accurately distinguished.

The execution of the Priscillianists is the only instance of the bloody punishment of heretics in this period, as it is the first in the history of Christianity. But the propriety of violent measures against heresy was thenceforth vindicated even by the best fathers of the church. Chrysostom recommends, indeed, Christian love toward heretics and heathens, and declares against their execution, but approved the prohibition of their assemblies and the confiscation of their churches; and he acted accordingly against the Novatians and the Quartodecimanians, so that many considered his own subsequent misfortunes as condign punishment.(122) Jerome, appealing to Deut. xiii. 6–10, seems to justify even the penalty of death against religious errorists.(123)

Augustine, who himself belonged nine years to the Manichaean sect, and was wonderfully converted by the grace of God to the Catholic church, without the slightest pressure from without, held at first the truly evangelical view, that heretics and schismatics should not be violently dealt with, but won by instruction and conviction; but after the year 400 he turned and retracted this view, in consequence of his experience with the Donatists, whom he endeavored in vain to convert by disputation and writing, while many submitted to the imperial laws.(124) Thenceforth he was led to advocate the persecution of heretics, partly by his doctrine of the Christian state, partly by the seditious excesses of the fanatical Circumcelliones, partly by the hope of a wholesome effect of temporal punishments, and partly by a false interpretation of the Cogite intrare, in the parable of the great supper, Luke xiv. 23.(125) "It is, indeed, better," says he, "that men should be brought to serve God by instruction than by fear of punishment or by pain. But because the former means are better, the latter must not therefore be neglected .... Many must often be brought back to their Lord, like wicked servants, by the rod of temporal suffering, before they attain the highest grade of religious development .... The Lord himself orders that the guests be first invited, then compelled, to his great supper."(126) This father thinks that, if the state be denied the right to punish religious error, neither should she punish any other crime, like murder or adultery, since Paul, in Gal. v. 19, attributes divisions and sects to the same source in the flesh.(127) He charges his Donatist opponents with inconsistency in seeming to approve the emperors’ prohibitions of idolatry, but condemning their persecution of Christian heretics. It is to the honor of Augustine’s heart, indeed, that in actual cases he earnestly urged upon the magistrates clemency and humanity, and thus in practice remained true to his noble maxim: "Nothing conquers but truth, the victory of truth is love."(128) But his theory, as Neander justly observes, "contains the germ of the whole system of spiritual despotism, intolerance, and persecution, even to the court of the Inquisition."(129) The great authority of his name was often afterward made to justify cruelties from which he himself would have shrunk with horror. Soon after him, Leo the Great, the first representative of consistent, exclusive, universal papacy, advocated even the penalty of death for heresy.(130)

Henceforth none but the persecuted parties, from time to time, protested against religious persecution; being made, by their sufferings, if not from principle, at least from policy and self-interest, the advocates of toleration. Thus the Donatist bishop Petilian, in Africa, against whom Augustine wrote, rebukes his Catholic opponents, as formerly his countryman Tertullian had condemned the heathen persecutors of the Christians, for using outward force in matters of conscience; appealing to Christ and the apostles, who never persecuted, but rather suffered and died. "Think you," says he, "to serve God by killing us with your own hand? Ye err, ye err, if ye, poor mortals, think this; God has not hangmen for priests. Christ teaches us to bear wrong, not to revenge it." The Donatist bishop Gaudentius says: "God appointed prophets and fishermen, not princes and soldiers, to spread the faith." Still we cannot forget, that the Donatists were the first who appealed to the imperial tribunal in an ecclesiastical matter, and did not, till after that tribunal had decided against them, turn against the state-church system.

Original Footnotes

(1; original 129): Apologeticus, c. 21 "Sed et Caesares credidissent, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares."

(2; original 130): Thus the bishop Donatus of Carthage in 347 rejected the imperial commissioners, Paulus and Macarius, with the exclamation: "Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?" See Optatus Milev.: De schismate Donat. l. iii. c. 3. The Donatists, however, were the first to invoke the imperial intervention in their controversies, and would doubtless have spoken very differently, had the decision turned in their favor.

(3; original 131): Is. xlix. 23.

(4; original 132): Rev. xi. 15.

(5; original 133): This view is now very prevalent in America. It was not formerly so. Jonathan Edwards, in his "History of Redemption," a practical and edifying survey of church history as an unfolding of the plan of redemption, even saw in the accession of Constantine a type of the future appearing of Christ in the clouds for the redemption of his people, and attributed to it the most beneficent results; to wit: "(1) The Christian church was thereby wholly delivered from persecution .... (2) God now appeared to execute terrible judgments on their enemies .... (3) Heathenism now was in a great measure abolished throughout the Roman empire .... (4) The Christian church was brought into a state of great peace and prosperity." ... "This revolution," he further says, p. 312, "was the greatest that had occurred since the flood. Satan, the prince of darkness, that king and god of the heathen world, was cast out. The roaring lion was conquered by the Lamb of God in the strongest dominion he ever had. This was a remarkable accomplishment of Jerem. x. 11: ’The gods that have not made the heaven and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth and from the heavens.’ " This work, still much read in America and England, was written, to be sure, Iong before the separation of church and state in New England, viz., in 1739 (first printed in Edinburgh in 1774, twenty-six years after the author’s death). But the great difference of the judgment of this renowned Puritan divine from the prevailing American opinion of the present day is an interesting proof that our view of history is very much determined by the ecclesiastical circumstances in which we live, and at the same time that the whole question of church and state is not at all essential in Christian theology and ethics. In America all confessions, even the Roman Catholics, are satisfied with the separation, while in Europe with few exceptions it is the reverse.

(6; original 134): Comp. § 18.

(7; original 135): So early as 326 Constantine promulgated the law (Cod. Theodos. lib. xvi. tit. 5, l. 1): "Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet. Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici." Yet he was lenient towards the Novatians, adding in the same year respecting them (C. Theodos. xvi. 5, 2): "Novatianos non adeo comperimus praedamnatos, ut iis quae petiverunt, crederemus minime largienda. Itaque ecclesiae suae domos, et loca sepulcris apta sine inquietudine eos firmiter possidere praecipimus." Comp. the 8th canon of the Council of Nice, which likewise deals with them indulgently.

(8; original 136): The munera publica, or leitourgivai, attaching in part to the person as a subject of the empire, in part to the possession of property (munera patrimoniorum).

(9; original 137): Immunitas, ajleitourghsiva.

(10; original 138): The decuriones and curiales.

(11; original 139): "Si tributum petit Imperator," says he in the Orat. de basilicas non tradendis haereticis, "non negamus; agri ecclesiae solvunt tributum, solvimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et qum sunt Dei Deo; tributum Caesaris est; non negatur." Baronius (ad ann. 387) endeavors to prove that this tribute was meant by Ambrose merely as an act of love, not of duty!

(12; original 140): So early as 314 he caused to be paid to the bishop Caecilian of Carthage 3,000 folles (triscilivou" fovlei" £18,000) from the public treasury of the province for the catholic churches in Africa, Numidia, and Mauritania, promising further gifts for similar purposes. Euseb: H. E. x. 6, and Vit. Const. iv. 28.

(13; original 141): In an edict to Damasus, bishop of Rome. Cod. Theod. xvi. 2, 20: "Ecclesiastici ... viduaram ac pupillarum domos non adeant," etc.

(14; original 142): Epist. 34 (al. 2) ad Nepotianum, where he says of this law: "Nec de lege conqueror, sed doleo, cur meruerimus hanc legem;" and of the clergy of his time: "Ignominia omnium sacerdotum est, propriis studere divitiis," etc.

(15; original 143): Chrys. Hom. 66 in Matt. (vii. p. 658).

(16; original 144): Comp. the Epistles of Gregory the Great at the end of our period.

(17; original 145): See the Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii (the next to the last catholic patriarch of Alexandria) in the Acta Sanct. Bolland. ad 23 Jan.

(18; original 146): The ptwcotrofei'a, nosokomei'a, ojrfanotrofei'a, ghrokomei'aandxenw'ne"orxenodocei'a, as they were called; which all sprang from the church. Especially favored was the Basilias for sick and strangers in Caesarea, named after its founder, the bishop Basil the Great. Basil. Ep. 94. Gregor. Naz. Orat. 27 and 30.

(19; original 147): Inferno, canto xix. vs. 112-118, as translated by Wright (with two slight alterations). Milton, in his prose works, has translated this passage as well as that of Ariosto, where he humorously places the donation of Constantine in the moon among the things lost or abused on earth:

"Ah, Constantine! of how much ill was cause,

Not thy conversion, but those rich domains

That the first wealthy pope received of thee."

(20; original 148): Lev. xxvii. 30-33; Nu. xviii. 20-24; Deut. xiv. 22 sqq. 2 Chron. xxxi. 4 sqq.

(21; original 149): . Constit. Apost. lib. viii. cap. 47, can. 6 (p. 239, ed. Ueltzen): jEpivskopo" h] presbuvtero" h] diavkono" kosmika;" frontivda" mh; ajnalambanevto: eij de; mh;, kaqaireivsqw.

(22; original 150): Lib. xxvii. c. 3.

(23; original 151): Hieron. Ep. 34 (al. 2) et passim.

(24; original 152): Orat. 32.

(25; original 153): The cathedral of Constantinople fell under censure for the excessive number of its clergy and subordinate officers, so that Justinian reduced it to five hundred and twenty-five, of which probably more than half were useless. Comp. Iust. Novell. ciii.

(26; original 154): Homil. 85 in Matt. (vii. 808 sq.). Hom. 21 in 1 Cor. 7 (x. 190). Comp. also De sacerdot. l. iii. c. 16.

(27; original 155): Possidius, in Vita Aug. c. 23: "Alloquebatur plebem Dei, malle se ex collationibus plebes Dei vivere quam illarum possessionum curam vel gubernationem pati, et paratum se esse illis cedere, ut eo modo omnes Dei servi et ministri viverent."

(28; original 156): 1 Cor. vi. 1-6.

(29; original 157): "Sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ut si ipse Dominus residens judicet. Optatus Milev.: De schism. Donat. f. 184.

(30; original 158): Even Constantine, however, before the council of Nice, had declared, that should he himself detect a bishop in the act of adultery, he would rather throw over him his imperial mantle than bring scandal on the church by punishing a clergyman.

(31; original 159): De sacerd. l. iii. c. 18, at the beginning.

(32; original 160): In Psalm. xxv. (vol. iv. 115) and Epist. 213, where he complains that before and after noon he was beset and distracted by the members of his church with temporal concerns, though they had promised to leave him undisturbed five days in the week, to finish some theological labors. Comp. Neander, iii. 291 sq. (ed. Torrey, ii. 139 sq.).

(33; original 161): Socrat. l. vii. c. 37.

(34; original 162): Matt. vi. 14.

(35; original 163): Cod. Theodos. ix. 45, 1-4. Comp. Socrat. vii. 33.

(36; original 164): "The rash violence of despotism," says even Gibbon, "was suspended by the mild interposition of the church; and the lives or fortunes of the most eminent subjects might be protected by the mediation of the bishop."

(37; original 165): This exception is entirely unnoticed by many church histories, but stands in the same law of 321 in the Cod. Justin. lib. iii. tit. 12, de feriis, l. 3: "Omnes judices, urbanaeque plebes, et cunctarum artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineae scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa." Such work was formerly permitted, too, on the pagan feast days. Comp. Virgil. Georg. i. v. 268 sqq. Cato, De re rust. c. 2.

(38; original 166): Cod. Theodos. lib. ii. tit. 8. l. 1: "Emancipandi et manumittendi die festo cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus non prohibeantur."

(39; original 167): Eus. Vit. Const. iv. 18-20. Comp. Sozom. i. 8. In our times military parades and theatrical exhibitions in Paris, Vienna, Berlin, and other European cities are so frequent on no other day as on the Lord’s day! In France, political elections are usually held on the Sabbath!

(40; original 168): Eus. Vit. Const. l. iv. c. 20. The formulary was prescribed in the Latin language, as Eusebius says in c. 19. He is speaking of the whole army (comp. c. 18), and it may presumed that many of the soldiers were heathen.

(41; original 169): The second law against opening theatres on Sundays and festivals (a.d. 425) in the Cod. Theodos. l. xv. tit. 7, I. 5, says expressly: "Omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate per universas urbes ... denegata, totae Christianorum ac fidelium mentes Dei cultibus occupentur."

(42; original 170): As Chrysostom, at the end of the fourth century and the beginning of the fifth, often complains that the theatre is better attended than the church; so down to this day the same is true in almost all the large cities on the continent of Europe. Only in England and the United States, under the influence of Calvinism and Puritanism, are the theatres closed on Sunday.

(43; original 171): Vol. i §§ 86-93.

(44; original 172): Comp. Lactantius: Inst. divin. l. v. c. 15.

(45; original 173): Vit. Const. l. iv. c. 26, where the most important laws of Constantine are recapitulated. Even the heathen Libanius (Basil. ii. p. 146) records that under Constantine and his sons legislation was much more favorable to the lower classes: though he accounts for this only by the personal clemency of the emperors.

(46; original 174): Troplong, p. 127. C. Schmidt, 378.

(47; original 175): Comp. de Rhoer, p. 59 sqq. The origin of this increased severity of penal laws is, at all events, not to be sought in the church; for in the fourth and fifth centuries she was still rather averse to the death penalty. Comp. Ambros. Ep. 25 and 26 (al. 51 and 52), and Augustine, Ep. 153 ad Macedonium.

(48; original 176): Constitutiones or Leges. If answers to questions, they were called Rescripta; if spontaneous decrees, Edicta.

(49; original 177): The Codex Gregorianus and Codex Hermogenianus; so called from the compilers, two private lawyers. They contained the rescripts and edicts of the heathen emperors from Hadrian to Constantine, and would facilitate a comparison of the heathen legislation with the Christian.

(50; original 178): Tribonianus, a native of Side in Paphlagonia, was an advocate and a poet, and rose by his talents, and the favor of Justinian, to be quaestor, consul, and at last magister officiorum. Gibbon compares him, both for his comprehensive learning and administrative ability and for his enormous avarice and venality, with Lord Bacon. But in one point these statesmen were very different: while Bacon was a decided Christian in his convictions, Tribonianus was accused of pagan proclivities and of atheism. In a popular tumult in Constantinople the emperor was obliged to dismiss him, but found him indispensable and soon restored him.

(51; original 179): The complete Codex Justinianeus, which has long outlasted the conquests of that emperor (as Napoleon’s Code has outlasted his), comprises properly three separate works: (1) The Institutiones, an elementary text book of jurisprudence, of the year 533. (2) The Digesta or Pandectae (pavndektai, complete repository), an abstract of the spirit of the whole Roman jurisprudence, according to the decisions of the most distinguished jurists of the earlier times, composed in 530-533. (3) The Codex, first prepared in 528 and 529, but in 534 reconstructed, enlarged, and improved, and hence called Codex repetitae praelectionis; containing 4,648 ordinances in 765 titles, in chronological order. To these is added (4) a later Appendix: Novellae constitutiones(vearai; diatavxei"), or simply Novellae (a barbarism); that is, 168 decrees of Justinian, subsequently collected from the 1st January, 535, to his death in 565, mostly in Greek, or in both Greek and Latin. Excepting some of the novels of Justinian, the codex was composed in the Latin language, which Justinian and Tribonianus understood; but afterward, as this tongue died out in the East, it was translated into Greek, and sanctioned in this form by the emperor Phocas in 600. The emperor Basil the Macedonian in 876 caused a Greek abstract (provceiron tw'n novmwn) to be prepared, which, under the name of the Basilicae, gradually supplanted the book of Justinian in the Byzantine empire. The Pandects have narrowly escaped destruction. Most of the editions and manuscripts of the west (not all, as Gibbon says) are taken from the Codex Florentinus, which was transcribed in the beginning of the seventh century at Constantinople, and afterward carried by the vissitudes of war and trade to Amalfi, to Pisa, and in 1411 to Florence.

(52; original 180): Called Corpus juris Romani or *C. j**uris civilis, in distinction from Corpus juris canonici*, the Roman Catholic church law, which is based chiefly on the canons of the ancient councils, as the civil law is upon the rescripts and edicts of the emperors.

(53; original 181): On this subject, and on the heathen family life, comp. vol. i. § 91.

(54; original 182): Cod. Theod. lib. xv. tit. 8: de lenonibus.

(55; original 183): C. Theod. ix. 24: de raptu virginum et viduarum (probably nuns and deaconesses).

(56; original 184): C. Theod. viii. 16, 1. Comp. Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 26.

(57; original 185): C. Theod. iii. 12: de incestis nuptiis.

(58; original 186): C. Theod. iii. 16: de repudiis. Hence Jerome says in view of this, Ep. 30 (al. 84) ad Oceanum: "Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi; aliud Papinianus [the most celebrated Roman jurist, died a.d. 212], aliud Paulus noster praecipit."

(59; original 187): Gibbon: "The dignity of marriage was restored by the Christians .... The Christian princes were the first who specified the just causes of a private divorce; their institutions, from Constantine to Justinian, appear to fluctuate between the custom of the empire and the wishes of the church, and the author of the Novels too frequently reforms the jurisprudence of the Code and the Pandects .... The successor of Justinian yielded to the prayers of his unhappy subjects, and restored the liberty of divorce by mutual consent."

(60; original 188): In a law of 326 it is called "facinus atrocissimum, scelus immane." Cod. Theod. l. ix. tit. 7, 1. 1 sq. And the definition of adultery, too, was now made broader. According to the old Roman law, the idea of adultery on the part of the man was limited to illicit intercourse with the married lady of a free citizen, and was thought punishable not so much for its own sake, as for its encroachment on the rights of another husband. Hence Jerome says, l.c., of the heathen: "Apud illos viris impudicitiae frena laxantur, et solo stupro et adulterio condemnato passim per lupanaria et ancillulas libido permittitur; quasi culpam dignitas faciat, non voluntas. Apud nos quod non licet feminis, aeque non licet viris, et eadem servitus pari conditione censetur." Yet the law, even under the emperors, still excepted carnal intercourse with a female slave from adultery. Thus the state here also stopped short of the church, and does to this day in countries where the institution of slavery exists.

(61; original 189): Even a council at Toledo in 398 conceded so far on this point as to decree, can. 17: "Si quis habens uxorem fidelis concubinam habeat, non communicet. Ceterum is, qui non habet uxorem et pro uxore concubinam habeat, a communione non repellatur, tantum ut unius mulieris aut uxoris aut concubinae, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus. Alias vero vivens abjiciatur donec desinat et per poenitentiam, revertatur."

(62; original 190): Cod. Theod. iii. 7, 2; C. Justin. i. 9, 6. A proposal of marriage to a nun was even punished with death (ix. 25, 2).

(63; original 191): a.d. 318; Valentinian did the same in 374. Cod. Theod. ix. tit. 14 and 15. Comp. the Pandects, lib. xlviii. tit. 8, l ix.

(64; original 192): Cod. Theod. iii. 3, 1; Cod. Just. iv. 43, 1; viii. 52, 3. Gibbon says: "The Roman empire was stained with the blood of infants, till such murders were included, by Valentinian and his colleagues, in the letter and spirit of the Cornelian law. The lessons of jurisprudence and Christianity had been inefficient to eradicate this inhuman practice, till their gentle influence was fortified by the terrors of capital punishment."

(65; original 193): Comp. vol. i. § 89, and the author’s "Hist. of the Apost. Church," § 113.

(66; original 194): Instit. lib. i. tit. 5-8; Digest. l. i. tit. 5 and 6, etc.

(67; original 195): The legal price, which, however, was generally under the market price, was thus established under Justinian (Cod. l. vi. tit. xliii. l. 3): Ten pieces of gold for an ordinary male or female slave under ten years; twenty, for slaves over ten; thirty, for such as understood a trade; fifty, for notaries and scribes; sixty, for physicians, and midwives. Eunuchs ranged to seventy pieces.

(68; original 196): Comp. Hefele: "Conciliengeschichte," ii. p. 620; and Milman: "Latin Christianity," vol. i. p. 419 (Am. ed.), who infers from this fact, "that slaves formed the household of the Pope, and that, by law, they were yet liable to torture. This seems clear from the words of Ennodius."

(69; original 197): Comp. Milman, l.c. i. 531.

(70; original 198): In two laws of 316 and 321; Corp. Jur. l. i. tit. 13, l. 1 and 2.

(71; original 199): Cod. Just. vii. 5, 6; Nov. 22, c. 8 (a.d. 536), and Nov. 78, praef. 1, 2 (a.d. 539).

(72; original 200): Gen. ix. 25: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." But Christ appeared to remove every curse of sin, and every kind of slavery. The service of God is perfect freedom.

(73; original 201): 1 Cor. vii. 21. The Greek fathers supply, with ma'llon crh'sai, the word douleiva/ (Chrysostom: ma'llon douvleue); whereas nearly all modem interpreters (except De Wette, Meyer, Ewald, and Alford) follow Calvin and Grotius in supplying ejleuqeriva/. Chrysostom, however, mentions this construction, and in another place (Serm. iv. in Genes. tom. v. p. 666) seems himself to favor it. The verb use connects itself more naturally with freedom, which is a boon and a blessing, than with bondage, which is a state of privation. Milman, however, goes too far when he asserts (Lat. Christianity, vol. i. 492): "The abrogation of slavery was not contemplated even as a remote possibility. A general enfranchisement seems never to have dawned on the wisest and best of the Christian writers, notwithstanding the greater facility for manumission, and the sanctity, as it were, assigned to the act by Constantine, by placing it under the special superintendence of the clergy." Compare against this statement the views of Chrysostom and Augustine, in the text.

(74; original 202): The views of Chrysostom on slavery are presented in his Homilies on Genesis and on the Epistles of Paul, and are collected by Möhler in his beautiful article on the Abolition of Slavery (Vermischte Schriften, ii. p. 89 sqq.). Möhler says that since the times of the apostle Paul no one has done a more valuable service to slaves then St. Chrysostom. But he overrates his merit.

(75; original 203): Homil. xi. in Acta Apost. (Opera omn., tom. ix. p. 93): Oujde; ga;r tovte tou'to h|n, ajll j ejleuqevrou" i[sw" ejpevtrepon givnesqai. The monk Nilus, a pupil of Chrysostom, went so far as to declare slaveholding inconsistent with true love to Christ, Ep. lib. i. ep. 142 (quoted by Neander in his chapter on monasticism): Ouj ga;r oi|mai oijkevthn e[cein to;n filovcriston, eijdovta th;n cavrin th;n pavnta" ejleuqerwvsasan.

(76; original 204): De Civit. Dei, lib. xix. cap. 15.

(77; original 205): For earlier cases, at the close of the previous period, see vol. i. § 89, at the end.

(78; original 206): Acta Sanct. Boll. Jun. tom. v. p. 267. According to Palladius, Hist. c. 119, St. Melania had, in concert with her husband Pinius, manumitted as many as eight thousand slaves. Yet it is only the ancient Latin translation that has this almost incredible number.

(79; original 207): Ad Eccles. cath. l. iii. § 7 (Galland. tom. x. p. 71): "In usu quidem quotidiano est, ut servi, etsi non optimae, certe non infirmae servitudinis, Romana a dominis libertate donentur; in qua scilicet et proprietatem peculii capiunt et jus testamentarium consequuntur: ita ut et viventes, cui volunt, res suas tradant, et morientes donatione transcribAnt. Nec solum hoc, sed et illa, quae in servitute positi conquisierant, ex dominorum domo tollere non vetantur." From this passage it appears that many masters, with a view to set their slaves free, allowed them to earn something; which was not allowed by the Roman law.

(80; original 208): Cod. Theod. ix. 40, 1 and 2.

(81; original 209): C. Theod. ix. tit. 3, de custodia reorum. Comp. later similar laws of the year 409 in l. 7, and of 529 in the Cod. Justin. i. 4, 22.

(82; original 210): Comp. the two laws De alimentis quae inopes parentes de publico petere debent, in the Cod. Theod. xi. 27, 1 and 2.

(83; original 211): Cod. Theod. I. tit. 7, l. 1: Cessent jam nunc rapaces officialium manus, cessent inquam! nam si moniti non cessaverint, gladiis praecidentur.

(84; original 212): The capitatio plebeja. Cod. Theod. xiii. 10, 1 and 4. Other laws in behalf of widows, Cod. Just. iii. 14; ix. 24.

(85; original 213): Cod. Theod. xi. 16, xiii. 1; Cod. Just. i. 3; Nov. 131. Comp. here in general Chastel: The Charity of the Primitive Churches (transl. by Mathe), pp. 281-293.

(86; original 214): Comp. Chastel, l.c., p. 293: "It appears, then, as to charitable institutions, the part of the Christian emperors was much less to found themselves, than to recognize, to regulate, to guarantee, sometimes also to enrich with their private gifts, that which the church had founded. Everywhere the initiative had been taken by religious charity. Public charity only followed in the distance, and when it attempted to go ahead originally and alone, it soon found that it had strayed aside, and was constrained to withdraw."

(87; original 215): Comp. vol. i. § 88.

(88; original 216): Symm. l. ii. Ep. 46. Comp. vii. 4.

(89; original 217): Prudentius Adv. Symmach. ii. 1095:

Virgo—consurgit ad ictus,

Et quotiens victor ferrum jugulo inserit, illa

Delicias ait esse suas, pectusque jacentis

Virgo modesta jubet, converso pollice, rumpi;

Ni lateat pars ulla animae vitalibus imis,

Altius impresso dum palpitat ense secutor.

(90; original 218): Lib. vi. c. 8.

(91; original 219): Eumenii Panegyr. c. 12.

(92; original 220): Cod. Theod. xv. tit. 12, l. 1, de gladiatoribus: "Cruenta spectacula in otio civili et domestica quiete non placent; quapropter omnino gladiatores esse prohibemus." Comp. Euseb. Vita Const. iv. 25.

(93; original 221): So relates Theodoret: Hist. eccl. l. v. c. 26. For there is no law of Honorius extant on the subject. Yet after this time there is no mention of a gladiatorial contest between man and man.

(94; original 222): In a law of Leo, of the year 469 (in the Cod. Justin. iii. tit. 12, l. 11), besides the scena theatralis and the circense theatrum, also ferarum lacrymosa spectacula are mentioned as existing. Salvian likewise, in the fifth century (De gubern. Dei, l. vi. p. 51), censures the delight of his contemporaries in such bloody combats of man with wild beasts. So late as the end of the seventh century a prohibition from the Trullan council was called for in the East, In the West, Theodoric appears to have exchanged the beast fights for military displays, whence proceeded the later tournaments. Yet these shows have never become entirely extinct, but remain in the bull fights of Southern Europe, especially in Spain.

(95; original 223): Thus Augustine, for example, Tract. in JoAnn. xxv. c. 10, laments that the church filled itself daily with those who sought Jesus not for Jesus, but for earthly profit. Comp. the similar complaint of Eusebius, Vita Const. l. iv. c. 54.

(96; original 224): Ammianus Marcellinus gives the most graphic account of the extravagant and tasteless luxury of the Roman aristocracy in the fourth century; which Gibbon has admirably translated and explained in his 31st chapter.

(97; original 225): Homil. in Matt. 63, § 4 (tom. vii. p. 533), comp. Hom. in 1 Cor. 21, § 6, and many other places in his sermons. Comp. Neander’s Chrysostomus, i. p. 10 sqq. and Is. Taylor’s Anc. Christianity, vol. ii., supplement, p. xxx. sqq.

(98; original 226): Orat. xiv. Comp. Ullmann’s monograph on Gregory, p. 6.

(99; original 227): Adv. avarit. and De gubern. Dei, passim. Comp. § 12, at the close.

(100; original 228): De gubern. Dei, l. iv. c. 12, p. 82.

(101; original 229): Lib., Epitaph. Julian.

(102; original 230): Milman: Hist. of Ancient Christianity, p. 440 (Am. ed.). Comp. the sketch of the court of Arcadius, which Montfaucon, in a treatise in the last volume of his Opera Chrys., and Müller: De genio, moribus, et luxu aevi Theodosiani, Copenh. 1798, have drawn, chiefly from the works of Chrysostom.

(103; original 231): Euseb. Vit. Const. iv. 48.

(104; original 232): V. Const. iv. 54.

(105; original 233): V. Const. iii. 15, where Eusebius, at the close of this imperio-episcopal banquet, "which transcended all description," says: Cristou' basileiva" e[doxen a[n ti" fantasiou'sqai eijkovna, o[nar t j ei'nai ajll j oujc u{per to; ginovmenon.

(106; original 234): This overseer was called basileuv" of the iJerei'" and iJerav.

(107; original 235): Augustus took the dignity of Pontifex Maximus after the death of Lepidus, a.u. 742, and thenceforth that office remained inherent in the imperial, though it was usually conferred by a decree of the senate. Formerly the pontifex maximus was elected by the people for life, could take no civil office, must never leave Italy, touch a corpse, or contract a second marriage; and he dwelt in the old king’s house, the regia. Augustus himself exercised the office despotically enough, though with great prudence. He nominated and increased at pleasure the members of the sacerdotal college, chose the vestal virgins, determined the authority of the vaticinia, purged the Sibylline books of apocryphal interpolations, continued the reform of the calendar begun by Caesar, and changed the month Sextius into Augustus in his own honor, as Quintius, the birth-month of Julius Caesar, had before been rebaptized Julius. Comp. Charles Merivale: Hist. of the Romans under the Empire, vol. iii. (Lond. 1851), p, 478 sqq. (This work, which stops where Gibbon begins, has been republished in 7 vols. in New York, 1863.)

(108; original 236): In England and Scotland the term Erastianism is used for this; but is less general, and not properly applicable at all to the Greek church. For the man who furnished the word, Thomas Erastus, a learned and able physician and professor of medicine in Heidelberg (died at Basle in Switzerland, 1583), was an opponent not only of the independence of the church toward the state, but also of the church ban and of the presbyterial constitution and discipline, as advocated by Frederick III., of the Palatinate, and the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, especially Olevianus, a pupil of Calvin. He was at last excommunicated for his views by the church council in Heidelberg.

(109; original 237): His words, which are to be taken neither in jest and pun (as Neander supposes), nor as mere compliment to the bishops, but in earnest, run thus, in Eusebius: Vita Const. l. iv. c. 24: JUmei'" (the ejpivskopoi addressed) mevn tw'n ei[sw th'" ejkklhsiva", ejgw; de; tw'n ejkto;" uJpo; qeou' kaqestamevno" ejpivskopo" a{n ei[hn. All depends here on the intrepretation of the antithesis tw'm ei[sw andtw'n ejkto;" th'" ejkklhsiva". (a) The explanation of Stroth and others takes the genitive as masculine, oiJ ei[sw denoting Christians, and oiJ ejktov"heathens; so that Constantine ascribed to himself only a sort of episcopate in partibus infidelium. But this contradicts the connection; for Eusebius says immediately after, that he took a certain religious oversight over all his subjects (tou;" ajrcomevnou" a{panta" ejpeskovpei, etc.), and calls him also elsewhere a universal bishop " (i. 44). (b) Gieseler’s interpretation is not much better (I. 2. § 92, not. 20, Amer. ed. vol. i. p. 371): that oiJ ejktov" denotes all his subjects, Christian as well as non-Christian, but only in their civil relations, so far as they are outside the church. This entirely blunts the antithesis with oiJ ei[sw, and puts into the emperor’s mouth a mere commonplace instead of a new idea; for no one doubted his political sovereignty. (c) The genitive is rather to be taken as neuter in both cases, and pragmavtwn to be supplied. This agrees with usage (we find it in Polybius), and gives a sense which agrees with the view of Eusebius and with the whole practice of Constantine. There is, however, of course, another question: What is the proper distinction betweenta; ei[sw and ta; ejktov" the interna and externa of the church, or, what is much the same, between the sacerdotal jus in sacra and the imperial jus circa sacra. This Constantine and his age certainly could not themselves exactly define, since the whole relation was at that time as yet new and undeveloped.

(110; original 238): Eusebius in fact calls him a divinely appointed universal bishop, oiJ|av ti" koino;" ejpivskopo" ejk qeou' dakestamevno" , sunovdou" tw'n tou' qeou' leitourgw'n sunekrovtei. Vit. Const. i. 44. His son Constantius was fond of being called " bishop of bishops."

(111; original 239): Justinian states the Byzantine theory thus, in the preface to the 6th Novel: "Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dona Dei a superna collata clementia Sacerdotium et Imperium, et illud quidem divinis ministrans, hoc autem humanis praesidens ac diligentiam exhibens, ex uno eodemque principio utraque procedentia, humanam exornant vitam." But he then ascribes to the Imperium the supervision of the Sacerdotium, and "maximam sollicitudinem circa vera Dei dogmata et circa Sacerdotum honestatem." Later Greek emperors, on the ground of their anointing, even claimed a priestly character. Leo the Isaurian, for example, wrote to Pope Gregory II. in 730: basileu;" kai; iJereuv" eijmi (Mansi xii. 976). This, however, was contested even in the East, and the monk Maximus in 655 answered negatively the question put to him: "Ergo non est omnis Christianus imperator etiam sacerdos?" At first the emperor’s throne stood side by side with the bishop’s in the choir; but Ambrose gave the emperor a seat next to the choir. Yet, after the ancient custom, which the Concilium Quinisext., a.d. 692, in its 69th canon, expressly confirmed, the emperors might enter the choir of the church, and lay their oblations in person upon the altar—a privilege which was denied to all the laity, and which implied at least a half-priestly character in the emperor. Gibbon’s statement needs correction accordingly (ch. xx.): "The monarch, whose spiritual rank is less honorable than that of the meanest deacon, was seated below the rails of the sanctuary, and confounded with the rest of the faithful multitude."

(112; original 240): Lib. ii. c. 11, where the bishop is reminded of his exalted position, wJ" qeoi; tuvpon e[cwn ejn ajnqrwvpoi" tw'/ pavntwn a[rcein ajnqrwvpwn, iJerevwn, basilevwn, ajrcovntwn, etc. Comp. c. 33 and 34.

(113; original 241): Just. Mart. Apol. i. 2, 4, 12; Tertull. Apolog. c. 24, 28; Ad Scapul.c. 2; Lactant. Instit. v. 19, 20; Epit. c. 54. Comp. vol. i. § 51.

(114; original 242): Cod. Theod. xvi. 5, 1: Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse opportet. Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici.

(115; original 243): Comp. § 8, above.

(116; original 244): Cod. Theod. xvi, 1, 2. Baronius (Ann.), and even Godefroy call this edict which in this case, to be sure, favored the true doctrine, but involves the absolute despotism of the emperor over faith, an "edictum aureum, pium et salutare."

(117; original 245): Comp. Cod. Theod. xvi. tit. v. leg. 6-33, and Godefroy’s Commentary.

(118; original 246): So Sozomen asserts, l. vii. c. 12.

(119; original 247): Epist. xxiv. ad Valentin. (tom. ii. p. 891). He would have nothing to do with bishops, "qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant."

(120; original 248): In Sulpic. Sever., Hist. Sacra, ii. 50: "Namque tum Martinus apud Treveros constitutus, non desinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret, Maximum orare, ut sanguine infelicium abstineret: satis superque sufficere, ut episcopali sententia haeretici judicati ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut causam ecclesiae judex saeculi judicaret." Comp. Sulp. Sev., Dial. iii. c. 11-13, and his Vit. Mart. c. 20.

(121; original 249): Hence Gibbon, ch. xxvii., charges them, not quite groundlessly, with inconsistency: "It is with pleasure that we can observe the human inconsistency of the most illustrious saints and bishops, Ambrose of Milan, and Martin of Tours, who, on this occasion, asserted the cause of toleration. They pitied the unhappy men who had been executed at Treves; they refused to hold communion with their episcopal murderers; and if Martin deviated from that generous resolution, his motives were laudable, and his repentance was exemplary. The bishops of Tours and Milan pronounced, without hesitation, the eternal damnation of heretics; but they were surprised and shocked by the bloody image of their temporal death, and the honest feelings of nature resisted the artificial prejudices of theology."

(122; original 250): Hom. xxix. and xlvi. in Matt. Comp. Socrat. H. E. vi. 19. Elsewhere his principle was (in Phocam mart. et c. haer. tom. ii. p. 705): jEmoi; e[qo" ejsti; diwvkesqai kai; mh; diwvkein; that is, he himself would rather suffer injury than inflict injury.

(123; original 251): Epist. xxxvii. (al. liii.) ad Riparium Adv. Vigilantium.

(124; original 252): Epist. 93, ad Vincent. § 17: "Mea primitus sententia non erat, nisi neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum, disputatione pugnandum, ratione vincendum, ne fictos catholicos haberemus, quos apertos haereticos noveramus. Sed—he continues § haec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur exemplis." Then he adduces his experience with the Donatists. Comp. Retract. ii. 5.

(125; original 253): The direction: "Compel them to come in," which has often since been abused in defence of coercive measures against heretics, must, of course, be interpreted in harmony with the whole spirit of the gospel, and is only a strong descriptive term in the parable, to signify the fervent zeal in the conversion of the heathen, such as St. Paul manifested without ever resorting to physical coercion.

(126; original 254): Epist. 185, ad Bonifacium, § 21, § 24.

(127; original 255): C. Gaudent. Donat. i. § 20. C. Epist. Parmen. i. § 16.

(128; original 256): "Non vincit nisi veritas, victoria veritatis est caritas."

(129; original 257): Kirchengesch. iii. p. 427; Torrey’s ed. ii. p. 217.

(130; original 258): Epist. xv. ad Turribium, where Leo mentions the execution of the Priscillianists with evident approbation: "Etiam mundi principes ita hanc sacrilegam amentiam detestati sunt, ut auctorem ejus cum plerisque discipulis legum publicarum ense prosternerent."

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
leitourgivai	λειτουργίαι	Greek	脚注 8	据旧字体编码推测，重音符v对应ί。
ajleitourghsiva	ἀλειτουργησία	Greek	脚注 9	据编码还原，词首aj表示带柔气符的α；与豁免役务语境相合。
triscilivou" fovlei"	τρισχιλίους φόλεις	Greek	脚注 12	按编码还原宾格复数，保留原文φόλεις的拼写。
ptwcotrofei'a	πτωχοτροφεῖα	Greek	脚注 18	据编码推测为救济贫民机构的复数名称。
nosokomei'a	νοσοκομεῖα	Greek	脚注 18	据编码还原，符合医院的复数名称。
ojrfanotrofei'a	ὀρφανοτροφεῖα	Greek	脚注 18	据编码还原，词首带柔气符，指孤儿收养机构。
ghrokomei'a	γηροκομεῖα	Greek	脚注 18	据编码还原养老机构名称；不纳入相邻英文。
xenw'ne"	ξενῶνες	Greek	脚注 18	据编码还原旅客接待机构名称，末尾双引号对应ς。
xenodocei'a	ξενοδοχεῖα	Greek	脚注 18	据编码还原，与接待旅客的机构语境相合。
jEpivskopo" h] presbuvtero" h] diavkono" kosmika;" frontivda" mh; ajnalambanevto: eij de; mh;, kaqaireivsqw.	Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κοσμικὰς φροντίδας μὴ ἀναλαμβανέτω: εἰ δὲ μή, καθαιρείσθω.	Greek	脚注 21	按旧字体编码还原整句，保留原文动词形式与标点。
pavndektai	πάνδεκται	Greek	脚注 51	按编码还原，与Pandectae的希腊文名称相合。
vearai; diatavxei"	νεαραὶ διατάξεις	Greek	脚注 51	首字母v疑为n的误录；据新敕令名称推测为νεαραὶ διατάξεις。
provceiron tw'n novmwn	πρόχειρον τῶν νόμων	Greek	脚注 51	按编码还原，符合所述法律节本名称。
ma'llon crh'sai	μᾶλλον χρῆσαι	Greek	脚注 73	按编码还原，与《哥林多前书》七章21节引语相合。
douleiva/	δουλείᾳ	Greek	脚注 73	末尾斜线表示下标ι，恢复为与χρῆσαι搭配的与格。
ma'llon douvleue	μᾶλλον δούλευε	Greek	脚注 73	按编码还原，保留所引金口约翰的命令式措辞。
ejleuqeriva/	ἐλευθερίᾳ	Greek	脚注 73	词首ej表示柔气符，末尾斜线表示下标ι。
Oujde; ga;r tovte tou'to h\|n, ajll j ejleuqevrou" i[sw" ejpevtrepon givnesqai.	Οὐδὲ γὰρ τότε τοῦτο ἦν, ἀλλ’ ἐλευθέρους ἴσως ἐπέτρεπον γίνεσθαι.	Greek	脚注 75	据编码恢复气息符、重音及ἀλλ’的省音符。
Ouj ga;r oi\|mai oijkevthn e[cein to;n filovcriston, eijdovta th;n cavrin th;n pavnta" ejleuqerwvsasan.	Οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι οἰκέτην ἔχειν τὸν φιλόχριστον, εἰδότα τὴν χάριν τὴν πάντας ἐλευθερώσασαν.	Greek	脚注 75	按旧字体编码还原整句，保留原引文词序。
Cristou' basileiva" e[doxen a[n ti" fantasiou'sqai eijkovna, o[nar t j ei'nai ajll j oujc u{per to; ginovmenon	Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἔδοξεν ἄν τις φαντασιοῦσθαι εἰκόνα, ὄναρ τ’ εἶναι ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὕπαρ τὸ γινόμενον	Greek	脚注 105	按编码还原；u{per疑误录，依ὄναρ与实境的对照推测为ὕπαρ。
basileuv"	βασιλεύς	Greek	脚注 106	按编码还原，末尾双引号对应ς。
iJerei'"	ἱερεῖς	Greek	脚注 106	按编码还原复数形式，不因英文介词而改动希腊文格位。
iJerav	ἱερά	Greek	脚注 106	按编码恢复粗气符及末音节重音。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησίας	Greek	脚注 109	上下文为属格；末尾ς的编码双引号疑被切到条目之外。
ejkklhsiva	ἐκκλησίας	Greek	脚注 109	上下文为属格；末尾ς的编码双引号疑被切到条目之外。
JUmei'"	Ὑμεῖς	Greek	脚注 109	据编码恢复大写Υ的粗气符及ει上的曲折音。
ejpivskopoi	ἐπίσκοποι	Greek	脚注 109	据编码还原主教一词的主格复数。
mevn tw'n ei[sw th'"	μέν τῶν εἴσω τῆς	Greek	脚注 109	按编码恢复，保留原文μέν的锐音符。
ejgw; de; tw'n ejkto;" uJpo; qeou' kaqestamevno" ejpivskopo" a{n ei[hn	ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἐκτὸς ὑπὸ θεοῦ καθεσταμένος ἐπίσκοπος ἂν εἴην	Greek	脚注 109	按编码还原；a{n的气息符疑误置，据惯用结构推测为ἂν。
tw'm ei[sw	τῶν εἴσω	Greek	脚注 109	tw'm疑为tw'n误录，与前引文及属格对照一致。
tw'n ejkto;" th'"	τῶν ἐκτὸς τῆς	Greek	脚注 109	按编码还原属格短语及重音。
oiJ ei[sw	οἱ εἴσω	Greek	脚注 109	按编码恢复冠词粗气符和εἴσω的柔气、重音。
oiJ ejktov"	οἱ ἐκτός	Greek	脚注 109	按编码还原，保留独立引用时的锐音符。
tou;" ajrcomevnou" a{panta" ejpeskovpei	τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἅπαντας ἐπεσκόπει	Greek	脚注 109	按编码还原整段，保留原词序与时态。
oiJ ejktov"	οἱ ἐκτός	Greek	脚注 109	与同注前项编码相同，据此还原。
oiJ ei[sw	οἱ εἴσω	Greek	脚注 109	与同注前项编码相同，据此还原。
pragmavtwn	πραγμάτων	Greek	脚注 109	按编码恢复属格复数及重音位置。
ta; ei[sw	τὰ εἴσω	Greek	脚注 109	按编码还原中性复数冠词及方位副词。
ta; ejktov"	τὰ ἐκτός	Greek	脚注 109	按编码还原，与τὰ εἴσω构成对照。
oiJ\|av ti" koino;" ejpivskopo" ejk qeou' dakestamevno" , sunovdou" tw'n tou' qeou' leitourgw'n sunekrovtei	οἷά τις κοινὸς ἐπίσκοπος ἐκ θεοῦ καθεσταμένος, συνόδους τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ λειτουργῶν συνεκρότει	Greek	脚注 110	首词编码疑有杂符；dakestamevno"疑误录，结合句意推测为καθεσταμένος。
basileu;" kai; iJereuv" eijmi	βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς εἰμι	Greek	脚注 111	按编码还原，保留原文ἱερεύς在εἰμι前的锐音符。
wJ" qeoi; tuvpon e[cwn ejn ajnqrwvpoi" tw'/ pavntwn a[rcein ajnqrwvpwn, iJerevwn, basilevwn, ajrcovntwn	ὡς θεοῦ τύπον ἔχων ἐν ἀνθρώποις τῷ πάντων ἄρχειν ἀνθρώπων, ἱερέων, βασιλέων, ἀρχόντων	Greek	脚注 112	qeoi;疑为qeou'误录，依上帝形象的属格结构推测为θεοῦ；其余按编码还原。
jEmoi; e[qo" ejsti; diwvkesqai kai; mh; diwvkein	Ἐμοὶ ἔθος ἐστὶ διώκεσθαι καὶ μὴ διώκειν	Greek	脚注 122	按旧字体编码还原，保留被动与主动不定式的对照。

《护教篇》(Apologeticus)，第21章：“Sed et Caesares credidissent, si aut Caesares non essent saeculo necessarii, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares.”（“倘若这世界不需要凯撒，或者基督徒也能作凯撒，那么凯撒们也早已信了。”）↩︎
例如，迦太基的主教多纳徒 (Donatus) 在347年拒绝接待皇帝的专使保卢斯 (Paulus) 和马卡里乌斯 (Macarius)，并高声说：“Quid est imperatori cum ecclesia?”（“皇帝与教会有何相干？”）见米列维的奥普塔图斯 (Optatus Milev.)：《论多纳徒派的分裂》(De schismate Donat.)，第iii卷，第3章。然而，多纳徒派最先在他们的争论中请求皇帝干预；倘若裁决对他们有利，他们无疑会说出截然不同的话来。↩︎
《以赛亚书》四十九章23节。↩︎
《启示录》十一章15节。↩︎
这种看法如今在美国十分普遍，从前却不是如此。约拿单·爱德华兹 (Jonathan Edwards) 在《救赎史》(History of Redemption) 中，甚至把君士坦丁 (Constantine) 的即位看作基督将来驾云显现、救赎他子民的预表，并认为此事产生了极其有益的结果。这部著作从救赎计划逐步展开的角度综观教会历史，既切合实际，又造就人。他所列举的结果是：“（1）基督教会由此完全摆脱了逼迫……（2）上帝如今显现，向他们的仇敌施行可怕的审判……（3）异教如今在整个罗马帝国大体上被废除了……（4）基督教会进入了极其和平、兴盛的境地。”……他在第312页又说：“这场变革是洪水以来最大的一次变革。撒但，这黑暗之王、异教世界的王和神，被赶出去了。那吼叫的狮子，在他历来最强大的统治领域中，被上帝的羔羊征服了。这是《耶利米书》十章11节的显著应验：‘不是那创造天地的神，必从地上、从天下被除灭。’”诚然，这部至今在美国和英国仍广为阅读的著作，写于新英格兰政教分离很久以前，即1739年（1774年初版于爱丁堡，在作者去世二十六年之后）。然而，这位著名清教徒神学家的判断，与今日美国流行意见之间的巨大差异，提供了一个饶有意味的证明：我们的历史观在很大程度上取决于我们身处的教会环境；同时也证明，整个教会与国家的问题，在基督教神学和伦理学中根本不是本质性的问题。在美国，各教派，甚至罗马天主教徒，都满意于政教分离；在欧洲，除了少数例外，情形却正好相反。↩︎
参见§18。↩︎
早在326年，君士坦丁便颁布了这项法律（《狄奥多西法典》〔Cod. Theodos.〕第xvi卷，第5题，第1条）：“Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse oportet. Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici.”（“因宗教缘故而授予的特权，只应惠及遵守大公信仰律法的人。至于异端者和分裂者，我们不仅要将他们排除在这些特权之外，还要使他们承担并服从各种公役。”）然而，他对诺瓦atian派 (Novatians) 却很宽容，同年又就他们补充说（C. Theodos. xvi. 5, 2）：“Novatianos non adeo comperimus praedamnatos, ut iis quae petiverunt, crederemus minime largienda. Itaque ecclesiae suae domos, et loca sepulcris apta sine inquietudine eos firmiter possidere praecipimus.”（“我们并未发现诺瓦atian派已被定罪到如此地步，以致认为他们所请求的全然不应准许。因此，我们命令，他们应不受侵扰地稳固持有其教会房屋及适合作墓地的场所。”）参见尼西亚会议 (Council of Nice) 第8条教规，该条同样宽待他们。↩︎
即公共役务 (munera publica)，又称λειτουργίαι^*；一部分因个人作为帝国臣民的身份而须承担，一部分因拥有财产而须承担（munera patrimoniorum，财产役务）。↩︎
豁免权：Immunitas，ἀλειτουργησία^*。↩︎
即市议员 (decuriones) 和市政议员 (curiales)。↩︎
他在《论不可将教堂交给异端者的演说》(Orat. de basilicas non tradendis haereticis) 中说：“Si tributum petit Imperator, non negamus; agri ecclesiae solvunt tributum, solvimus quae sunt Caesaris Caesari, et qum sunt Dei Deo; tributum Caesaris est; non negatur.”（“皇帝若索取赋税，我们并不拒绝；教会的田地缴纳赋税，我们把凯撒的物归给凯撒，把上帝的物归给上帝；赋税属于凯撒，不可拒缴。”）巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius，ad ann. 387，即387年条下) 竟力图证明，安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 所说的这种纳税，仅仅是出于爱心的举动，而不是应尽的义务！↩︎
早在314年，他便命令从行省公库拨出3,000 folles（τρισχιλίους φόλεις^*，合18,000英镑），交给迦太基主教凯基利安 (Caecilian)，供阿非利加 (Africa)、努米底亚 (Numidia) 和毛里塔尼亚 (Mauritania) 的大公教会使用，并应许为类似用途再作捐赠。见优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《教会史》(H. E.) x. 6；《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.) iv. 28。↩︎
见致罗马主教达马苏 (Damasus) 的一道敕令。《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.) xvi. 2, 20：“Ecclesiastici ... viduaram ac pupillarum domos non adeant,” 等（“教士……不得进入寡妇和孤女的家中”）。↩︎
《致尼波提安书》(Epist. 34〔另一编号为2〕ad Nepotianum)；他在其中论及这项法律说：“Nec de lege conqueror, sed doleo, cur meruerimus hanc legem;”（“我并不抱怨这项法律，却痛心我们为何竟招致了这项法律。”）论及他当时的教士，他又说：“Ignominia omnium sacerdotum est, propriis studere divitiis,” 等（“专求自己的财富，是全体祭司的耻辱。”）。↩︎
金口约翰 (Chrys.)：《马太福音讲道集》(Hom. in Matt.)，第66篇（第vii卷，第658页）。↩︎
参见本时期末叶大格列高利 (Gregory the Great) 的书信。↩︎
见《圣约翰施赈者传》(Vita S. Joannis Eleemosynarii)，载于博兰德派《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanct. Bolland.)，1月23日条下；他是亚历山大倒数第二位大公教会牧首。↩︎
即所谓πτωχοτροφεῖα^*、νοσοκομεῖα^*、ὀρφανοτροφεῖα^*、γηροκομεῖα^*和ξενῶνες^*，或ξενοδοχεῖα^*；这些机构全都发源于教会。凯撒利亚为病人和旅客设立的巴西利亚斯 (Basilias)尤其受到眷顾，名称取自其创办人、主教大巴西尔 (Basil the Great)。见巴西尔 (Basil.)：《书信集》(Ep.) 94；纳齐安的格列高利 (Gregor. Naz.)：《演说集》(Orat.) 27、30。↩︎
《地狱篇》(Inferno)，第xix歌，第112—118行，采用赖特 (Wright) 的译文（略改两处）。弥尔顿 (Milton) 在其散文著作中翻译过这一段，也译过阿里奥斯托 (Ariosto) 的那段诗；后者诙谐地把君士坦丁的赠礼放在月亮上，与地上那些遗失或遭滥用的东西并列：

“啊，君士坦丁！多少祸患由此而生，

并非由于你的归信，而是由于那些富饶的领地，

那第一位富有的教皇从你手中所得的领地。”↩︎
《利未记》二十七章30—33节；《民数记》十八章20—24节；《申命记》十四章22节及下文；《历代志下》三十一章4节及下文。↩︎
.《使徒宪章》(Constit. Apost.)，第viii卷，第47章，第6条教规（乌尔岑〔Ueltzen〕编本，第239页）：Ἐπίσκοπος ἢ πρεσβύτερος ἢ διάκονος κοσμικὰς φροντίδας μὴ ἀναλαμβανέτω: εἰ δὲ μή, καθαιρείσθω.^*。↩︎
第xxvii卷，第3章。↩︎
哲罗姆 (Hieron.)：《书信集》(Ep.) 34（另一编号为2），以及其他多处。↩︎
《演说集》(Orat.)，第32篇。↩︎
君士坦丁堡 (Constantinople) 的主教座堂因教士和下属职员人数过多而受到责难，因此查士丁尼 (Justinian) 将其裁减至五百二十五人，其中可能仍有一半以上是无用之人。参见《查士丁尼新律》(Iust. Novell.) ciii。↩︎
《马太福音讲道集》(Homil. in Matt.)，第85篇（第vii卷，第808页及下页）；《哥林多前书讲道集》(Hom. in 1 Cor.)，第21篇，第7节（第x卷，第190页）。另参见《论祭司职分》(De sacerdot.)，第iii卷，第16章。↩︎
波西狄乌斯 (Possidius)：《奥古斯丁传》(Vita Aug.)，第23章：“Alloquebatur plebem Dei, malle se ex collationibus plebes Dei vivere quam illarum possessionum curam vel gubernationem pati, et paratum se esse illis cedere, ut eo modo omnes Dei servi et ministri viverent.”（“他告诉上帝的子民，自己宁愿靠上帝子民的捐献生活，也不愿承担照料或管理那些产业的重担；他愿意放弃那些产业，使上帝所有的仆人和教牧都以这种方式生活。”）↩︎
《哥林多前书》六章1—6节。↩︎
“Sacerdotum judicium ita debet haberi, ut si ipse Dominus residens judicet.”（“应当如此看待祭司的判决，如同主亲自坐堂审判。”）米列维的奥普塔图斯 (Optatus Milev.)：《论多纳徒派的分裂》(De schism. Donat.)，f. 184。↩︎
然而，甚至君士坦丁在尼西亚会议之前便曾声明：即使他亲自撞见一位主教正在行淫，也宁愿把自己的皇袍披在那人身上遮盖起来，而不愿因惩罚一名教士使教会蒙羞。↩︎
《论祭司职分》(De sacerd.)，第iii卷，第18章开头。↩︎
《诗篇释义》(In Psalm.) xxv（第iv卷，第115页）及《书信集》(Epist.) 213；他在其中抱怨，自己上午和下午都被本教会的成员以世俗事务纠缠，弄得分心，尽管他们曾答应每周有五天不来打扰，让他完成一些神学工作。参见尼安德 (Neander)，第iii卷，第291页及下页（托里〔Torrey〕版，第ii卷，第139页及下页）。↩︎
苏格拉底 (Socrat.)，第vii卷，第37章。↩︎
《马太福音》六章14节。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theodos.) ix. 45, 1—4。参见苏格拉底 (Socrat.)，vii. 33。↩︎
就连吉本 (Gibbon) 也说：“专制权力的鲁莽暴行，因教会温和的干预而暂时止息；最显贵的臣民，其生命或财产也可能因主教的调停而得到保护。”↩︎
许多教会史著作全然没有注意到这一例外，但它确实见于321年的同一项法律，即《查士丁尼法典》(Cod. Justin.) 第iii卷，第12题“论假日”(de feriis)，第3条：“Omnes judices, urbanaeque plebes, et cunctarum artium officia venerabili die Solis quiescant. Ruri tamen positi agrorum culturae libere licenterque inserviant: quoniam frequenter evenit, ut non aptius alio die frumenta sulcis, aut vineae scrobibus mandentur, ne occasione momenti pereat commoditas coelesti provisione concessa.”（“所有法官、城镇居民及各业作坊，在可敬的太阳日都当休息。然而，居住乡间的人可以自由地从事耕作，因为常有这样的情形：没有别的日子比这一天更适宜将谷种播入犁沟，或将葡萄苗栽入坑中；不可因错失时机而丧失上天护理所赐的便利。”）从前异教节日也允许从事这类工作。参见维吉尔 (Virgil)：《农事诗》(Georg.)，第i卷，第268行及下文；加图 (Cato)：《论农业》(De re rust.)，第2章。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theodos.)，第ii卷，第8题，第1条：“Emancipandi et manumittendi die festo cuncti licentiam habeant, et super his rebus actus non prohibeantur.”（“节日里，人人均有权解除子女的家父权约束及释放奴隶，不得禁止有关这些事务的法律行为。”）↩︎
优西比乌 (Eus.)：《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.) iv. 18—20。参见索佐门 (Sozom.)，i. 8。在我们这个时代，巴黎、维也纳、柏林以及欧洲其他城市的阅兵和戏剧演出，没有哪一天比主日更为频繁！在法国，政治选举通常竟在安息日举行！↩︎
优西比乌 (Eus.)：《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.)，第iv卷，第20章。据优西比乌在第19章所说，这一规定的祷文采用拉丁文。他所说的是全军（参见第18章），因此可以认为，士兵中有许多人是异教徒。↩︎
第二道禁止在星期日及节期开设剧院的法律（公元425年），见《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theodos.)，第xv卷，第7题，第5条，其中明言：“Omni theatrorum atque circensium voluptate per universas urbes ... denegata, totae Christianorum ac fidelium mentes Dei cultibus occupentur.”（“在各城禁止一切剧院及竞技场的娱乐……使基督徒和信众的心思全然专注于敬拜上帝。”）↩︎
金口约翰 (Chrysostom) 在第四世纪末、第五世纪初，常常抱怨看戏的人多于上教会的人；直到今日，欧洲大陆几乎所有大城市仍是如此。只有在英国和美国，受加尔文主义 (Calvinism) 和清教主义 (Puritanism) 的影响，剧院才在星期日关闭。↩︎
第i卷，§§86—93。↩︎
参见拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactantius)：《神圣教义》(Inst. divin.)，第v卷，第15章。↩︎
《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.)，第iv卷，第26章，其中概述了君士坦丁最重要的法律。就连异教徒利巴尼乌斯 (Libanius，Basil. ii. p. 146) 也记载，君士坦丁及其诸子在位期间，立法对下层民众有利得多；不过，他只把这归因于诸帝个人的仁慈。↩︎
特罗普隆 (Troplong)，第127页；C. 施密特 (C. Schmidt)，第378页。↩︎
参见德·鲁尔 (de Rhoer)，第59页及下文。无论如何，刑法日益严厉的根源不应在教会中寻找；因为在第四、第五世纪，教会仍颇为反对死刑。参见安布罗斯 (Ambros.)：《书信集》(Ep.) 25、26（另一编号为51、52）；奥古斯丁：《致马其多尼乌斯书》(Ep. 153 ad Macedonium)。↩︎
称为Constitutiones（敕令）或Leges（法律）。若是对问题的答复，便称Rescripta（敕答）；若是主动颁布的法令，便称Edicta（敕谕）。↩︎
即《格列高利法典》(Codex Gregorianus) 和《赫尔莫格尼安法典》(Codex Hermogenianus)，以两位编纂者的名字命名；他们都是私人的法学家。这两部法典收录了从哈德良 (Hadrian) 至君士坦丁诸异教皇帝的敕答和敕谕，有助于将异教立法与基督教立法加以比较。↩︎
特里波尼安 (Tribonianus) 是帕夫拉戈尼亚 (Paphlagonia) 的西德 (Side) 人，既是律师，也是诗人；凭借其才干和查士丁尼的宠信，先后升任司法官 (quaestor)、执政官 (consul)，最后成为宫廷事务总管 (magister officiorum)。吉本把他与培根勋爵 (Lord Bacon) 相提并论，既因他学识渊博、行政能力出众，也因他极其贪婪、贪赃受贿。然而，这两位政治家在一点上大不相同：培根在信仰上是坚定的基督徒，特里波尼安却被指控倾向异教并持无神论。在君士坦丁堡的一次民众骚乱中，皇帝被迫将他免职，但又发现他不可或缺，不久便使他复职。↩︎
完整的《查士丁尼法典》(Codex Justinianeus) 远比这位皇帝的征服事业长久（正如拿破仑法典比拿破仑的征服事业长久一样），严格说来包括三部独立的著作：(1)《法学阶梯》(Institutiones)，533年编成的法学基础教科书。(2)《学说汇纂》(Digesta，又称 Pandectae；πάνδεκται^*，意为完备的汇集），依据早期最杰出法学家的判例，提炼整个罗马法学的精髓，编成于530—533年。(3)《法典》(Codex)，初编于528和529年，534年重新编订、增补、改进，因而称为《重订法典》(Codex repetitae praelectionis)；按年代顺序收录4,648条法令，分为765题。此外又附有 (4) 后来的补编：《新敕令》(Novellae constitutiones，νεαραὶ διατάξεις^*)，或简称 Novellae（这是一个不合古典用法的词）；即查士丁尼 (Justinian) 从535年1月1日至565年去世期间颁布、后来汇集起来的168条敕令，大多用希腊文，或同时用希腊文和拉丁文写成。除了查士丁尼的若干新敕令之外，整部法典用拉丁文编成，查士丁尼和特里波尼安 (Tribonianus) 都通晓这种语言；但后来，随着拉丁文在东方消亡，法典被译为希腊文，并于600年由皇帝福卡斯 (Phocas) 批准采用这一版本。马其顿人皇帝巴西尔 (Basil the Macedonian) 于876年命人编成一部希腊文节本（πρόχειρον τῶν νόμων^*），以《巴西尔法典》(Basilicae) 之名，逐渐在拜占庭帝国取代了查士丁尼的法典。《学说汇纂》曾险遭毁灭。西方的大多数版本和抄本（并非如吉本所说的全部）都源自《佛罗伦萨抄本》(Codex Florentinus)；该抄本于第七世纪初抄写于君士坦丁堡，后来随着战争与贸易的变迁，辗转传至阿马尔菲 (Amalfi)、比萨 (Pisa)，并于1411年传至佛罗伦萨 (Florence)。↩︎
称为《罗马法大全》(Corpus juris Romani) 或《民法大全》(C. juris civilis)，以区别于《教会法大全》(Corpus juris canonici)；后者是罗马天主教的教会法，主要以古代会议的教规为基础，正如民法以皇帝的敕答和敕谕为基础一样。↩︎
关于这个问题以及异教徒的家庭生活，参见第i卷，§ 91。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，第xv卷，第8题：de lenonibus（论鸨业经营者）。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(C. Theod.)，ix. 24：de raptu virginum et viduarum（论劫掠处女和寡妇；这里可能指修女和女执事）。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(C. Theod.)，viii. 16, 1。参见优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.)，iv. 26。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(C. Theod.)，iii. 12：de incestis nuptiis（论乱伦婚姻）。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(C. Theod.)，iii. 16：de repudiis（论离婚）。因此，哲罗姆针对这一点，在《致奥凯阿努斯书》(Ep. 30〔另一编号为84〕ad Oceanum) 中说：“Aliae sunt leges Caesarum, aliae Christi; aliud Papinianus [最负盛名的罗马法学家，卒于公元212年], aliud Paulus noster praecipit.” 意即：“凯撒的法律是一回事，基督的法律又是一回事；帕皮尼安 (Papinianus) 所吩咐的是一回事，我们的保罗所吩咐的又是一回事。”↩︎
吉本 (Gibbon) 说：“婚姻的尊严由基督徒恢复了……基督教君主首先明确规定了私人离婚的正当理由；从君士坦丁到查士丁尼，他们的法令似乎一直摇摆于帝国的习俗与教会的愿望之间，而《新敕令》的作者也过于频繁地修改《法典》和《学说汇纂》的法律规定……查士丁尼的继承者听从了不幸臣民的恳求，恢复了双方同意即可离婚的自由。”↩︎
在326年的一项法律中，这被称为“facinus atrocissimum, scelus immane”（极其残暴的恶行、骇人听闻的罪孽）。《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，第ix卷，第7题，第1条及下文。如今，对通奸的界定也扩大了。按照古罗马法律，男子通奸的概念仅限于与自由公民的已婚妻子发生非法性关系；这种行为之所以被认为应受惩罚，与其说是由于行为本身，不如说是由于它侵犯了另一位丈夫的权利。因此，哲罗姆在前引处论异教徒说：“Apud illos viris impudicitiae frena laxantur, et solo stupro et adulterio condemnato passim per lupanaria et ancillulas libido permittitur; quasi culpam dignitas faciat, non voluntas. Apud nos quod non licet feminis, aeque non licet viris, et eadem servitus pari conditione censetur.” 意即：“在他们那里，对男子淫乱的约束放松了；他们只谴责奸污和通奸，却容许欲望在妓院和婢女之间任意发泄，仿佛构成罪责的是身份，而不是意志。在我们这里，女人不可做的，男人也同样不可做；双方同受一种约束，条件完全相等。”然而，即使在这些皇帝治下，法律仍不把与女奴发生肉体关系列为通奸。因此，在这一点上，国家仍未达到教会的标准；直到今日，在仍有奴隶制度的国家中，情形依旧如此。↩︎
甚至398年在托莱多 (Toledo) 举行的一次会议，也在这一点上让步到如此地步，在第17条教规中规定：“Si quis habens uxorem fidelis concubinam habeat, non communicet. Ceterum is, qui non habet uxorem et pro uxore concubinam habeat, a communione non repellatur, tantum ut unius mulieris aut uxoris aut concubinae, ut ei placuerit, sit conjunctione contentus. Alias vero vivens abjiciatur donec desinat et per poenitentiam, revertatur.” 意即：“若有信徒已娶妻而又纳妾，不得领圣餐。但无妻而以妾代妻的人，不应被拒于圣餐之外，只须他满足于与一个女子结合，无论按他自己的选择，是妻还是妾。若以其他方式生活，则当将他逐出，直到他停止这种生活，并借悔罪归回。”↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，iii. 7, 2；《查士丁尼法典》(C. Justin.)，i. 9, 6。甚至向修女求婚也要处以死刑（ix. 25, 2）。↩︎
公元318年；瓦伦提尼安 (Valentinian) 于374年也采取了同样的措施。《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，第ix卷，第14、15题。参见《学说汇纂》(Pandects)，第xlviii卷，第8题，第ix条。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，iii. 3, 1；《查士丁尼法典》(Cod. Just.)，iv. 43, 1；viii. 52, 3。吉本说：“罗马帝国染满了婴儿的鲜血，直到瓦伦提尼安及其同僚将这类谋杀纳入科尔内利乌斯法 (Cornelian law) 的条文和精神之中。法学与基督教的教诲原不足以根除此种不人道的惯行，直到死刑的威慑加强了它们温和的影响。”↩︎
参见第i卷，§ 89，以及作者的《使徒教会史》(Hist. of the Apost. Church)，§ 113。↩︎
《法学阶梯》(Instit.)，第i卷，第5—8题；《学说汇纂》(Digest.)，第i卷，第5、6题，等等。↩︎
查士丁尼治下规定的法定价格如下（Cod.，第vi卷，第xliii题，第3条），不过通常低于市价：十岁以下的普通男奴或女奴，十枚金币；十岁以上的奴隶，二十枚；懂得一门手艺的，三十枚；公证人和抄写员，五十枚；医生和助产妇，六十枚。宦官的价格可达七十枚金币。↩︎
参见赫费勒 (Hefele)：《会议史》(Conciliengeschichte)，ii，第620页；以及米尔曼 (Milman)：《拉丁基督教》(Latin Christianity)，第i卷，第419页（美国版）。后者由此推断：“教皇的家仆由奴隶组成，而且按照法律，他们仍可遭受拷问。从恩诺狄乌斯 (Ennodius) 的话看来，这一点似乎很清楚。”↩︎
参见米尔曼，前引书，i，第531页。↩︎
见316年和321年的两项法律；《法大全》(Corp. Jur.)，第i卷，第13题，第1、2条。↩︎
《查士丁尼法典》(Cod. Just.)，vii. 5, 6；《新敕令》(Nov.) 22，第8章（公元536年），以及《新敕令》78，序言1、2（公元539年）。↩︎
《创世记》九章25节：“迦南当受咒诅，必给他弟兄作奴仆的奴仆。”但基督显现，是要除去罪的一切咒诅，以及一切形式的奴役。事奉上帝就是完全的自由。↩︎
《哥林多前书》七章21节。希腊教父在 μᾶλλον χρῆσαι^* 后补上 δουλείᾳ^* 一词（金口约翰〔Chrysostom〕作：μᾶλλον δούλευε^*）；而近乎所有现代释经家（德·韦特〔De Wette〕、迈耶〔Meyer〕、埃瓦尔德〔Ewald〕和阿尔福德〔Alford〕除外）都追随加尔文 (Calvin) 和格劳秀斯 (Grotius)，补上 ἐλευθερίᾳ^*。不过，金口约翰也提及这种解释，并且在另一处（《创世记讲道》〔Serm. iv. in Genes.〕，第v卷，第666页）似乎自己也赞同它。动词“利用”与作为恩惠和祝福的“自由”相连，比与作为一种匮乏状态的“奴役”相连，更为自然。然而，米尔曼的下列断言未免太过（《拉丁基督教》〔Lat. Christianity〕，第i卷，第492页）：“废除奴隶制度甚至没有被视为一种遥远的可能性。尽管释放奴隶更加便利，而且君士坦丁将此事置于教牧人员的特别监督之下，仿佛赋予这一行动以神圣性，但普遍解放奴隶的念头，似乎从未在最睿智、最优秀的基督教作家心中萌生。”请将这一说法与正文中金口约翰和奥古斯丁的观点相比较。↩︎
金口约翰关于奴隶制度的观点，见于他对《创世记》和保罗书信的讲道；默勒 (Möhler) 在论废除奴隶制度的优美文章中汇集了这些观点（《杂著》〔Vermischte Schriften〕，ii，第89页及下文）。默勒说，自使徒保罗以来，没有人比圣金口约翰为奴隶作出过更有价值的贡献。但他过高地评价了金口约翰的功绩。↩︎
《使徒行传讲道》第xi篇（Homil. xi. in Acta Apost.；《全集》〔Opera omn.〕，第ix卷，第93页）：Οὐδὲ γὰρ τότε τοῦτο ἦν, ἀλλ’ ἐλευθέρους ἴσως ἐπέτρεπον γίνεσθαι.^*。金口约翰的学生、修士尼卢斯 (Nilus)，甚至宣称蓄奴与真正爱基督不相容，见《书信集》(Ep.)，第i卷，第142封（尼安德在论修道制度的一章中引述）：Οὐ γὰρ οἶμαι οἰκέτην ἔχειν τὸν φιλόχριστον, εἰδότα τὴν χάριν τὴν πάντας ἐλευθερώσασαν.^*。↩︎
《上帝之城》(De Civit. Dei)，第xix卷，第15章。↩︎
关于上一时期末叶更早的事例，见第i卷，§ 89末尾。↩︎
博兰德派《圣徒行传》(Acta Sanct. Boll.)，六月，第v卷，第267页。据帕拉狄乌斯 (Palladius)《历史》(Hist.)，第119章，圣梅拉尼娅 (St. Melania) 曾与丈夫皮尼乌斯 (Pinius) 一同释放多达八千名奴隶。不过，只有古代拉丁文译本载有这个几乎令人难以置信的数字。↩︎
《致大公教会》(Ad Eccles. cath.)，第iii卷，§ 7（Galland.，第x卷，第71页）：“In usu quidem quotidiano est, ut servi, etsi non optimae, certe non infirmae servitudinis, Romana a dominis libertate donentur; in qua scilicet et proprietatem peculii capiunt et jus testamentarium consequuntur: ita ut et viventes, cui volunt, res suas tradant, et morientes donatione transcribAnt. Nec solum hoc, sed et illa, quae in servitute positi conquisierant, ex dominorum domo tollere non vetantur.” 意即：“主人赐予奴隶罗马自由权，如今已是日常惯例；这些奴隶即使不是服役最出色的，也必定不是最无能的。取得这种自由后，他们既获得私蓄财产的所有权，也获得立遗嘱的权利，因此在世时可以随意将财物交给任何人，临终时也可以赠与的方式转让。不仅如此，他们在为奴期间所得之物，也不被禁止从主人家中带走。”由此可见，许多主人为了日后释放奴隶，允许他们有所积蓄；而罗马法律是不容许这样做的。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，ix. 40, 1、2。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(C. Theod.)，第ix卷，第3题，de custodia reorum（论在押者的看管）。参见后来409年的类似法律，见该题第7条；以及529年的法律，见《查士丁尼法典》(Cod. Justin.)，i. 4, 22。↩︎
参见《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，xi. 27, 1、2中的两项法律：De alimentis quae inopes parentes de publico petere debent（论贫困父母应向公帑申请的生活补助）。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，第I卷，第7题，第1条：Cessent jam nunc rapaces officialium manus, cessent inquam! nam si moniti non cessaverint, gladiis praecidentur. 意即：“官吏贪婪的手，从今就当收住；我说，收住！若经警告仍不收住，就要用刀砍断。”↩︎
即 capitatio plebeja（平民人头税）。《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，xiii. 10, 1、4。其他保护寡妇的法律，见《查士丁尼法典》(Cod. Just.)，iii. 14；ix. 24。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，xi. 16，xiii. 1；《查士丁尼法典》(Cod. Just.)，i. 3；《新敕令》(Nov.) 131。关于此处的一般问题，参见沙斯泰尔 (Chastel)：《早期教会的慈善事业》(The Charity of the Primitive Churches，Mathe译)，第281—293页。↩︎
参见沙斯泰尔，前引书，第293页：“由此看来，就慈善机构而言，基督教皇帝的作用，与其说在于亲自创办，不如说在于承认、规范、保障教会所创办的机构，有时也以私人捐赠充实它们。在各处，率先行动的都是宗教慈善。公共慈善只是在远处跟随；当它试图独自开创新途、走在前面时，很快便发觉自己误入歧途，不得不退回。”↩︎
参见第i卷，§ 88。↩︎
西马库斯 (Symm.)，第ii卷，第46封书信。参见vii. 4。↩︎
普鲁登修斯 (Prudentius)：《驳西马库斯》(Adv. Symmach.)，ii. 1095：

Virgo—consurgit ad ictus,

Et quotiens victor ferrum jugulo inserit, illa

Delicias ait esse suas, pectusque jacentis

Virgo modesta jubet, converso pollice, rumpi;

Ni lateat pars ulla animae vitalibus imis,

Altius impresso dum palpitat ense secutor.

处女——随着刀剑的击打站起，

每逢胜者把铁刃刺入咽喉，她便

说这是她的乐趣；这位端庄的处女

翻转拇指，命人刺穿倒地者的胸膛；

为免深处的脏腑还藏着一丝残生，

追击的斗士把剑刺得更深，那身躯仍在颤动。↩︎
第vi卷，第8章。↩︎
欧梅尼乌斯 (Eumenius)：《颂词》(Eumenii Panegyr.)，第12章。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，第xv卷，第12题，第1条，de gladiatoribus（论角斗士）：“Cruenta spectacula in otio civili et domestica quiete non placent; quapropter omnino gladiatores esse prohibemus.” 意即：“在国家安宁、家庭平静之时，流血的表演是不相宜的；因此，我们彻底禁止角斗士的存在。”参见优西比乌：《君士坦丁传》(Vita Const.)，iv. 25。↩︎
狄奥多勒 (Theodoret) 如此记载，见《教会史》(Hist. eccl.)，第v卷，第26章。因为霍诺里乌斯 (Honorius) 关于此事的法律并无存世者。不过，此后再没有关于人与人之间角斗比赛的记载。↩︎
在利奥 (Leo) 于469年颁布的一项法律中（见《查士丁尼法典》〔Cod. Justin.〕，第iii卷，第12题，第11条），除提到 scena theatralis（舞台演出）和 circense theatrum（竞技场表演）之外，还提到当时存在的 ferarum lacrymosa spectacula（令人悲泣的斗兽表演）。同样，第五世纪的萨尔维安 (Salvian) 也谴责同时代的人喜爱这种人与野兽之间的血腥搏斗（《论上帝的治理》〔De gubern. Dei〕，第vi卷，第51页）。迟至第七世纪末，东方仍须由特鲁洛会议 (Trullan council) 下令禁止。在西方，狄奥多里克 (Theodoric) 似乎以军事表演取代了斗兽，后来的比武大会即由此发展而来。然而，这类表演从未完全绝迹，仍以斗牛的形式留存于南欧，尤其是西班牙。↩︎
例如，奥古斯丁 (Augustine) 在《约翰福音讲论》(Tract. in JoAnn.)，xxv，第10章中，哀叹教会每日充满了这样的人：他们寻求耶稣，不是为耶稣，而是为属世的利益。比较优西比乌 (Eusebius) 在《君士坦丁传》(Vita Const.)，第iv卷，第54章中类似的抱怨。↩︎
阿米阿努斯·马尔凯利努斯 (Ammianus Marcellinus) 对第四世纪罗马贵族奢靡而毫无品味的生活，作了极为生动的描述；吉本 (Gibbon) 在其著作第31章中对此作了出色的翻译和解释。↩︎
《马太福音讲道》(Homil. in Matt.)，63，§ 4（第vii卷，第533页）；比较《哥林多前书讲道》(Hom. in 1 Cor.)，21，§ 6，以及他讲道中的许多其他地方。比较尼安德 (Neander) 的《金口约翰》(Chrysostomus)，i，第10页及后；以及 Is. 泰勒 (Is. Taylor) 的《古代基督教》(Anc. Christianity)，第ii卷，补编，第xxx页及后。↩︎
《演说》(Orat.)，xiv。比较乌尔曼 (Ullmann) 关于格列高利 (Gregory) 的专著，第6页。↩︎
《反贪婪》(Adv. avarit.) 和《论上帝的治理》(De gubern. Dei)，多处。比较§ 12末尾。↩︎
《论上帝的治理》(De gubern. Dei)，第iv卷，第12章，第82页。↩︎
利巴尼乌斯 (Lib.)：《尤利安悼词》(Epitaph. Julian.)。↩︎
米尔曼 (Milman)：《古代基督教史》(Hist. of Ancient Christianity)，第440页（美国版）。比较蒙福孔 (Montfaucon) 在其《金口约翰著作集》(Opera Chrys.) 最后一卷的一篇论文中，以及米勒 (Müller) 在《狄奥多西时代的精神、风俗与奢侈》(De genio, moribus, et luxu aevi Theodosiani)，哥本哈根 (Copenh.)，1798年中，主要依据金口约翰的著作所描绘的阿尔卡狄乌斯 (Arcadius) 宫廷。↩︎
优西比乌 (Euseb.)：《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.)，iv. 48。↩︎
《君士坦丁传》(V. Const.)，iv. 54。↩︎
《君士坦丁传》(V. Const.)，iii. 15。优西比乌在这场“非任何言辞所能形容”的皇帝与主教的宴会结束时说：Χριστοῦ βασιλείας ἔδοξεν ἄν τις φαντασιοῦσθαι εἰκόνα, ὄναρ τ’ εἶναι ἀλλ’ οὐχ ὕπαρ τὸ γινόμενον^*。意即：“人或许会以为自己看见了基督国度的景象，眼前所发生的仿佛是梦，而非实境。”↩︎
这位监督被称为祭司（ἱερεῖς^*）与圣事（ἱερά^*）的 βασιλεύς^*（王）。↩︎
奥古斯都 (Augustus) 在雷必达 (Lepidus) 死后，于罗马建城纪年742年取得最高祭司 (Pontifex Maximus) 的尊位；从此，这一职分便成为皇权所固有的，虽然通常仍由元老院颁令授予。从前，最高祭司 (pontifex maximus) 由人民选举，终身任职，不得担任任何民政职务，不得离开意大利、接触尸体或再婚；他住在旧日王宫，即 regia 中。奥古斯都本人行使这一职权时颇为专断，虽也十分审慎。他随意任命并增加祭司团的成员，选定维斯塔贞女，裁定预言 (vaticinia) 的权威，清除《西比拉书》中的伪托增文，继续凯撒 (Caesar) 开始的历法改革，并为尊荣自己，将 Sextius 月改称 Augustus，正如尤利乌斯·凯撒 (Julius Caesar) 诞生的 Quintius 月，先前已改称 Julius 一样。比较查尔斯·梅里韦尔 (Charles Merivale)：《帝国统治下的罗马人史》(Hist. of the Romans under the Empire)，第iii卷（伦敦，1851年），第478页及后。（此书结束之处，正是吉本著作开始之处；1863年在纽约重印，共7卷。）↩︎
在英格兰和苏格兰，人们以伊拉斯都主义 (Erastianism) 一词称之；但这一用语的涵盖面较窄，严格说来，根本不适用于希腊教会。因为这一名称所本的托马斯·伊拉斯都 (Thomas Erastus)，是海德堡 (Heidelberg) 一位博学而有才干的医生和医学教授（1583年卒于瑞士巴塞尔〔Basle〕）；他不仅反对教会独立于国家，也反对普法尔茨 (Palatinate) 的腓特烈三世 (Frederick III.) 及《海德堡要理问答》的作者们，尤其是加尔文 (Calvin) 的门生奥利维亚努斯 (Olevianus)，所倡导的教会绝罚、长老制组织及纪律。他最终因自己的观点而被海德堡教会会议逐出教会。↩︎
他这番话，既不应当作戏言或双关语（如尼安德所认为的），也不只是对主教们的恭维，而应当认真看待。优西比乌《君士坦丁传》(Vita Const.)，第iv卷，第24章记载如下：Ὑμεῖς^*（所称呼的是 ἐπίσκοποι^*，即主教们）μέν τῶν εἴσω τῆς^* ἐκκλησίας^*", ἐγὼ δὲ τῶν ἐκτὸς ὑπὸ θεοῦ καθεσταμένος ἐπίσκοπος ἂν εἴην^*。此处的关键，全在于如何解释 τῶν εἴσω^* 与 τῶν ἐκτὸς τῆς^* ἐκκλησίας^*" 这一对照。（a）施特罗特 (Stroth) 等人的解释将此处的属格视为阳性，以 οἱ εἴσω^* 指基督徒，οἱ ἐκτός^* 指异教徒；这样，君士坦丁 (Constantine) 所自称的，不过是在 partibus infidelium（不信者之地）行使某种主教职分。但这与上下文不符；因为优西比乌紧接着便说，他对所有臣民施行某种宗教上的监督（τοὺς ἀρχομένους ἅπαντας ἐπεσκόπει^*，等等），并且在别处也称他为“普世主教”（i. 44）。（b）吉泽勒 (Gieseler) 的解释也好不了多少（I. 2. § 92，注20；美国版，第i卷，第371页）：他认为 οἱ ἐκτός^* 指所有臣民，包括基督徒和非基督徒，但只涉及他们在教会之外的民事关系。这完全削弱了它与 οἱ εἴσω^* 的对照，而且使皇帝说出的不再是一个新观念，而只是一句老生常谈；因为无人怀疑他的政治主权。（c）这两处属格倒都应视为中性，并补上 πραγμάτων^*。这符合语言习惯（在波利比乌斯〔Polybius〕的著作中可见），所得的含义也符合优西比乌的观点和君士坦丁的全部实践。不过，当然还有另一个问题：τὰ εἴσω^* 与 τὰ ἐκτός^*，即教会的 interna（内部事务）与 externa（外部事务），或意思大致相同的祭司的 jus in sacra（圣事之内的权利）与皇帝的 jus circa sacra（涉及圣事的权利），两者之间究竟应当怎样区分？君士坦丁和他那个时代的人，当然还不能对此作出准确界定，因为当时这整个关系尚属新生，未曾充分发展。↩︎
优西比乌事实上称他为上帝所立的普世主教：οἷά τις κοινὸς ἐπίσκοπος ἐκ θεοῦ καθεσταμένος, συνόδους τῶν τοῦ θεοῦ λειτουργῶν συνεκρότει^*。《君士坦丁传》(Vit. Const.)，i. 44。他的儿子君士坦提乌斯 (Constantius) 喜欢被称为“主教中的主教”。↩︎
查士丁尼 (Justinian) 在第6号《新律》的序言中，如此阐述拜占庭的理论：“Maxima quidem in hominibus sunt dona Dei a superna collata clementia Sacerdotium et Imperium, et illud quidem divinis ministrans, hoc autem humanis praesidens ac diligentiam exhibens, ex uno eodemque principio utraque procedentia, humanam exornant vitam.” 意即：“上帝从天上施恩赐给人类的最大恩赐，是祭司职分与皇权；前者服事神圣的事务，后者主持并照管人间的事务；两者出于同一根源，使人类生活增添光彩。”然而，他随即又将监督祭司职分的权力归于皇权，并赋予皇权“maximam sollicitudinem circa vera Dei dogmata et circa Sacerdotum honestatem”，即“对上帝的真实教义和祭司的端正品行给予最大的关注”。后来的希腊皇帝甚至以自己受过膏立为由，宣称具有祭司身份。例如，伊苏里亚人利奥 (Leo the Isaurian) 于730年致教皇格列高利二世 (Gregory II.) 的信中写道：βασιλεὺς καὶ ἱερεύς εἰμι^*（“我是君王，也是祭司”；曼西〔Mansi〕，xii. 976）。然而，即使在东方，这一主张也遭到反对；655年，当修士马克西穆斯 (Maximus) 被问及“Ergo non est omnis Christianus imperator etiam sacerdos?”（“难道不是每一位基督徒皇帝也都是祭司吗？”）时，他作了否定的回答。起初，皇帝的宝座与主教的座位并列于圣坛区；但安布罗斯 (Ambrose) 将皇帝的座位设在圣坛区旁。不过，按照古老的习惯——公元692年的五六会议 (Concilium Quinisext.) 在其第69条教规中明确确认了这一习惯——皇帝可以进入教堂的圣坛区，亲自将供物放在祭坛上。这是所有平信徒均不得享有的特权，至少意味着皇帝具有半祭司的身份。因此，吉本的说法（第xx章）需要相应修正：“君主的属灵地位比最卑微的执事还低，他坐在圣所栏杆之外，与其余信众混同一处。”↩︎
第ii卷，第11章；此处提醒主教留意自己崇高的地位：ὡς θεοῦ τύπον ἔχων ἐν ἀνθρώποις τῷ πάντων ἄρχειν ἀνθρώπων, ἱερέων, βασιλέων, ἀρχόντων^*，等等，即他在人间具有上帝的形象，统辖所有的人、祭司、君王和官长。比较第33、34章。↩︎
殉道者游斯丁 (Just. Mart.)：《护教辞》(Apol.)，i. 2、4、12；德尔图良 (Tertull.)：《护教辞》(Apolog.)，第24、28章；《致斯卡普拉》(Ad Scapul.)，第2章；拉克坦提乌斯 (Lactant.)：《神圣教理》(Instit.)，v. 19、20；《概要》(Epit.)，第54章。比较第i卷，§ 51。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，xvi. 5, 1：“Privilegia, quae contemplatione religionis indulta sunt, catholicae tantum legis observatoribus prodesse opportet. Haereticos autem atque schismaticos non tantum ab his privilegiis alienos esse volumus, sed etiam diversis muneribus constringi et subjici.” 意即：“出于宗教上的考虑所授予的特权，只应由遵守大公教会律法的人享有。至于异端和分裂者，我们不仅要使他们不得享有这些特权，还要使他们受到各种公役的约束和负担。”↩︎
比较上文§ 8。↩︎
《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，xvi. 1, 2。巴罗尼乌斯 (Baronius)（《编年史》〔Ann.〕），甚至戈德弗鲁瓦 (Godefroy)，都将这道敕令称为“edictum aureum, pium et salutare”（“金玉般、虔敬而有益的敕令”）；诚然，这道敕令在此事上有利于真实的教义，但它也意味着皇帝对信仰拥有绝对的专制权力。↩︎
比较《狄奥多西法典》(Cod. Theod.)，第xvi卷，第v题，第6–33条，以及戈德弗鲁瓦的《注释》(Commentary)。↩︎
索佐门 (Sozomen) 如此断言，见第vii卷，第12章。↩︎
《致瓦伦提尼安书信》第xxiv封 (Epist. xxiv. ad Valentin.)（第ii卷，第891页）。他不愿与那些“qui aliquos, devios licet a fide, ad necem petebant”的主教有任何往来，即那些“要求将某些人处死，尽管这些人偏离了信仰”的主教。↩︎
见苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯 (Sulpic. Sever.)：《神圣史》(Hist. Sacra)，ii. 50：“Namque tum Martinus apud Treveros constitutus, non desinebat increpare Ithacium, ut ab accusatione desisteret, Maximum orare, ut sanguine infelicium abstineret: satis superque sufficere, ut episcopali sententia haeretici judicati ecclesiis pellerentur: novum esse et inauditum nefas, ut causam ecclesiae judex saeculi judicaret.” 意即：“当时马丁 (Martinus) 身在特里尔 (Treveri)，不断责备伊塔基乌斯 (Ithacius)，要他停止控告，并恳求马克西穆斯 (Maximus)，不要流这些不幸者的血：经主教判决为异端而被逐出教会，就已经绰绰有余了；由世俗法官裁断教会的案件，是前所未有、闻所未闻的罪恶。”比较苏尔皮基乌斯·塞韦鲁斯：《对话录》(Dial.)，第iii卷，第11–13章，以及他的《马丁传》(Vit. Mart.)，第20章。↩︎
因此，吉本在第xxvii章中指责他们前后不一，也并非全无根据：“我们颇感欣慰地看到，即使最杰出的圣徒和主教，米兰的安布罗斯 (Ambrose of Milan) 和图尔的马丁 (Martin of Tours)，也有这种人性上的不一致；他们在这一事件中维护了宽容的事业。他们怜悯那些在特里尔 (Treves) 被处决的不幸者，拒绝与那些身为主教的凶手相交；即使马丁一度偏离了这一宽宏的决心，他的动机仍值得赞许，他的悔悟也足为楷模。图尔和米兰的主教毫不犹豫地宣告异端将受永远的定罪；但当这些人在今世流血而死的景象出现时，他们却惊讶震骇，天性中真挚的情感抵制了神学中人为的偏见。”↩︎
《马太福音讲道》(Hom. in Matt.)，第xxix、xlvi篇。比较苏格拉底 (Socrat.)：《教会史》(H. E.)，vi. 19。在别处，他的原则是（《论殉道者福卡并反异端》〔in Phocam mart. et c. haer.〕，第ii卷，第705页）：Ἐμοὶ ἔθος ἐστὶ διώκεσθαι καὶ μὴ διώκειν^*；意即，他自己宁可受伤害，也不愿伤害别人。↩︎
《致里帕里乌斯书信》第xxxvii封（另编号为liii），《反维吉兰提乌斯》(Epist. xxxvii. [al. liii.] ad Riparium Adv. Vigilantium)。↩︎
《致文森特书信》第93封 (Epist. 93, ad Vincent.)，§ 17：“Mea primitus sententia non erat, nisi neminem ad unitatem Christi esse cogendum, verbo esse agendum, disputatione pugnandum, ratione vincendum, ne fictos catholicos haberemus, quos apertos haereticos noveramus. Sed——他接着说——§ haec opinio mea non contradicentium verbis, sed demonstrantium superabatur exemplis.” 意即：“我起初的意见无非是：不可强迫任何人进入基督的合一，应当以言语劝导，以辩论争取，以理性说服，免得那些我们明知是公开异端的人，变成虚假的大公教会信徒。但我这一意见被推翻了，不是由于反对者的言辞，而是由于以实例作证者所提出的事例。”随后，他举出自己对待多纳徒派 (Donatists) 的经验。比较《订正录》(Retract.)，ii. 5。↩︎
“勉强人进来”这一吩咐，后来常被滥用来为强制对付异端的措施辩护；当然，解释这句话必须与福音的整个精神相符。它不过是比喻中一种强烈的描写用语，表示使异教徒归信的热切心志，正如圣保罗所表现的那样，而他从未诉诸人身强制。↩︎
《致博尼法修书信》第185封 (Epist. 185, ad Bonifacium)，§ 21、§ 24。↩︎
《反多纳徒派高登提乌斯》(C. Gaudent. Donat.)，i，§ 20；《反帕尔梅尼安书信》(C. Epist. Parmen.)，i，§ 16。↩︎
“Non vincit nisi veritas, victoria veritatis est caritas.” 意即：“惟有真理得胜，真理的胜利就是爱。”↩︎
《教会史》(Kirchengesch.)，iii，第427页；托里 (Torrey) 版，ii，第217页。↩︎
《致图里比乌斯书信》第xv封 (Epist. xv. ad Turribium)；利奥在此提及普里西利安派 (Priscillianists) 被处决一事，显然表示赞许：“Etiam mundi principes ita hanc sacrilegam amentiam detestati sunt, ut auctorem ejus cum plerisque discipulis legum publicarum ense prosternerent.” 意即：“连世俗君王也如此憎恶这种亵渎神圣的疯狂，以至动用国家法律之剑，将其创始人及其大多数门徒处死。”↩︎

第三章 政教联合及其对公共道德与宗教的影响

目录

史料