教會史 第 1 章 第 19/28 段

When he came to the church and, as was his custom, tried to persuade him to communicate with those of the opposing heresy, Bretanion, speaking very boldly and freely to the ruler concerning the doctrine of those who had assembled at Nicaea, left him and went to another church, and the people followed him.

For nearly the whole city had assembled, both to see the emperor and expecting that something novel would occur.

Valens, thus abandoned along with those about him, bore the insult with great difficulty, and ordered that Bretanion be seized and led away into exile.

But not long after, he permitted him to be brought back again.

For, I suppose, seeing the Scythians angered at the bishop's banishment, he feared they might attempt some revolt, knowing them to be brave men and, by the position of their region, indispensable to the Roman world, serving as a bulwark against the barbarians in that clime.

Thus Bretanion proved superior to the ruler's efforts to win him over—a man good in all other respects, and distinguished for the virtue of his life, as even the Scythians themselves testify.

In general, virtually the entire clergy experienced the emperor's wrath on this account, except for the churches to the west of his realm, since Valentinian ruled over the Romans beyond that region—being an approver of the doctrine of the council of Nicaea, and so exceedingly reverent toward the divine that he neither imposed anything upon the priests nor otherwise chose to innovate, whether for worse or for what seemed better, regarding the institutions of the church.

For he considered such matters to be beyond his own competence to judge, although he had proved himself an excellent emperor and had shown himself, through the actual conduct of affairs, capable of ruling.

At this time there arose once more a controversy that had already begun earlier but now had grown more intense: whether it was fitting to hold that the Holy Spirit also was consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

Concerning this too many contentious disputations arose, no less than had previously occurred concerning the Word of God.

On this point those who said the Son was unlike the Father and those who said he was of like substance agreed with one another.

For both parties maintained that the Spirit was a ministering being, third in rank and in honor, and different in substance.

But those who held the Son to be consubstantial with the Father believed the same concerning the Spirit.

This position was upheld with no small distinction: in Syria by Apollinarius of Laodicea; in Egypt by Bishop Athanasius; and among the Cappadocians and the churches along the Pontus, by Basil and Gregory.

As this controversy was stirred up and, as was natural, grew daily more intense through the disputes, the bishop of Rome, upon learning of it, wrote to the churches of the East, declaring together with the priests of the West that they professed the Trinity to be consubstantial and of one accord in doctrine.

There was also a certain deacon, Ursacinus, who had been a candidate for this ordination, and having failed to obtain it, he could not bear the disappointment.

Having been secretly ordained by certain obscure bishops, he strove to tear the people apart and to hold church assemblies on his own.

And, as one would expect, great strife and faction seized the populace, so that the evil proceeded even to woundings and murders, until the prefect of Rome, subjecting many of the people and clergy to punishments, put a stop to the undertaking of Ursacinus.

As for doctrine, as before, neither the Romans nor the other churches throughout the West were divided, but all approved what had been decreed by those assembled at Nicaea and confessed the Trinity to be equal in honor and equal in power, except for those around Auxentius.

He, then presiding over the church at Milan, together with certain others attempted to introduce innovations, and, contrary to the common agreement of the priests of the West, to strengthen the doctrine of Arius, and to hold the same views as those who declared the Spirit to be unlike the Father and the Son, in keeping with the controversy that had subsequently arisen.

When those from Gaul and Venetia, and certain others, reported that such things were being pursued among them, not long after, bishops of many nations assembled at Rome and voted that Auxentius and those who held the same views as he did were estranged from their communion, and that the faith handed down by the council of Nicaea should remain firm—the decisions made at Ariminum, being contrary to it, being null and void, since neither the bishop of Rome nor the others had agreed to them, and since many of those who had assembled there had been displeased with what had then been decreed by them.

We trust that your holy faith, founded upon the teaching of the apostles, holds fast to this faith and expounds it to the people—a faith which in no respect disagrees with what was defined by the fathers.

For it is not fitting for the priests of God to think otherwise—priests by whom it is right that the rest of the people should rightly be guided.

But through the report of the brethren in Gaul and Venetia we have learned that certain persons are pursuing a heresy—an evil which the bishops ought not only to guard against themselves, but also whatever, through the inexperience of some or through simplicity, is set against them by careless interpretations.

One ought therefore not to be led astray by those who entertain divergent teachings, but rather to hold fast to the judgment of our fathers, however often such persons may be carried about by divergent counsels.

Accordingly, it has been written above that Auxentius of Milan has, in this particular matter, been condemned in an exceptional manner.

It is therefore right that all teachers throughout the Roman world should be of one mind, and not defile the faith with divergent teachings.

For indeed, when the wickedness of the heretics first began to flourish—as now especially does the blasphemy of the Arians, which God forbid—our three hundred and eighteen chosen fathers, when the deliberation took place at Nicaea, set up this wall against the weapons of the devil, and by this antidote drove back the deadly poisons, so that the Father and the Son should be believed to be of one Godhead, one power, and one form.

It is necessary also to believe that the Holy Spirit is of the same substance.

And whoever thinks otherwise, we have judged to be estranged from our communion.

This saving definition and this venerable judgment, some have wished to defile.

They were compelled to examine the matter closely, and it was corrected to this extent, that they confessed themselves to have been carried away by some other argument, since they had not perceived that it was contrary to the judgment of the fathers approved at Nicaea.

For indeed no valid precedent could be established from the mere number of those assembled at Ariminum, since it is established that neither the bishop of Rome—whose judgment it was necessary above all to await—nor Vincentius, who for so many years kept the episcopate unblemished, nor the others gave their assent to such things; especially since, as we have said before, these very men who seemed to have yielded through intrigue, afterward, adopting a better judgment, themselves testified that these decisions displeased them.

Your Purity therefore perceives that this alone is the faith which, having been founded at Nicaea according to the authority of the apostles, must be held with unceasing firmness, and that the Easterners, who recognize themselves to belong to the Catholic Church, stand with us, while the Westerners may take pride in this.

We believe that, not long from now, those who think otherwise will, by this very undertaking, be separated from our communion, and the title of bishop will be stripped from them, so that the peoples, freed from their error, may breathe again.

For in no way will they be able to correct the error of the multitudes, since they themselves are held fast by error.

Let, then, the judgment of Your Honor be in harmony with that of all the priests of God—in which faith we trust you to remain steadfast and firm.

And that we ought thus to believe together with you, demonstrate by the mutual response of your love. The priests of the West, then, having thus forestalled those among them who introduced innovations, carefully guarded the faith handed down to them from the beginning, so that only a very few there became heterodox, and almost none but those around Auxentius.

And not long after, he too was removed by death.

After his death, the populace fell into strife, not agreeing on the same person to oversee the church of Milan.

For each party, upon failing to secure their candidate, threatened to do what usually happens in such disturbances.

Fearing the commotion of the populace, Ambrose, who was then the governor of the province, came into the church and counseled the multitudes to cease from their strife, reminding them of the laws, of concord, and of the benefits that come from peace.

Before he had even finished addressing them on these matters, suddenly all of them, laying aside their mutual anger, cast the vote for the bishopric upon this very counselor of concord, and urged him to be baptized (for he was still unbaptized) and begged him to receive the priesthood.

But since he declined and resisted and simply tried to avoid the matter, while the populace pressed on and insisted that they would not otherwise give up their contention, this was reported to the authorities at the imperial court.

Upon receiving this report, it is said that the emperor Valentinian offered a prayer and declared that he acknowledged thanks to God, in that the very man whom he himself had appointed to govern was now being chosen for the priesthood.

And upon learning of the insistence of the multitude and the refusal of Ambrose, he concluded that God was arbitrating these matters for the concord of the church at Milan, and he ordered that Ambrose be ordained as swiftly as possible.

And as soon as he was baptized and had received the priesthood, he brought the church under him—which for a long time had suffered from division owing to the presidency of Auxentius—to be of one mind concerning divine matters.

But what sort of man this Ambrose became after his ordination, and how bravely and most devoutly he carried out his priesthood, will be told in its proper place in what follows.

About this time, the Novatians in the region of Phrygia began, contrary to their former custom, to celebrate the feast of Passover together with the Jews.

For Novatus, who became the founder of the heresy, did not admit to communion those who repented of their sins, and this alone was his innovation.

He himself, and those after him, continued to observe this feast at the vernal equinox, until, during this reign, certain of the Novatian bishops throughout Phrygia, assembling at Pazucome (a place in Phrygia from which the springs of the river Sangarius flow), deeming it fitting not even in this respect to be in communion with those who held a different view, established their own law, so as to observe the feast of Unleavened Bread and celebrate the Passover together with the Jews.

Neither did Agelius, the bishop of the Novatians at Constantinople, share in this synod, nor did the bishop of Nicaea, or of Nicomedia, or of Cotyaeum (a city of Phrygia not without renown)—men whom the Novatians consider, so to speak, the lords and crowning figures with regard to their own heresy and its churches.

How, for this reason, these too fell into division and, splitting themselves apart, held separate assemblies, I shall relate in due course.

At this time, Apollinarius openly presided over the heresy named after him, and, having cut off many from the church, he gathered them to himself.

Assisting him in establishing his own doctrine was also Vitalius, a presbyter of Antioch among those ordained under Meletius—a man distinguished, if any was, for his life and conduct, diligent with regard to those under his charge, and for this reason revered by the people.

For not long after, having separated himself from communion with Meletius, he joined Apollinarius.

And he led those at Antioch who held the same views, having, out of respect for his conduct, no small multitude persuaded to follow him, who indeed took their name from him and are still called by the Antiochenes, even to this day, Vitalians.

It is said that he came to this state out of grief, having been slighted also by Flavian—who later was entrusted with the throne of the Antiochenes, and was at that time his fellow presbyter—being prevented from seeing the bishop as was his custom.

For, believing himself to be outdone in favor, he gave way to a merely human passion.

And going to Apollinarius, he entered into communion with him and held him as a friend.

As a result of this, in other cities also they held separate assemblies under their own bishops, and they employed customs foreign to the universal church, singing, instead of the customary sacred hymns, certain metrical little songs composed by Apollinarius himself.

For, in addition to his other learning, being also a poet and skilled in every kind of meter, he persuaded many, by these pleasing embellishments, to attend to him.

For men, at their banquets and at their labors, and women at their looms, would sing his songs.

For he had composed little poems suited to work, to leisure, to festivals, and to every other occasion, all tending toward the praise of God.

It is said that Apollinarius likewise, out of pettiness of spirit, introduced innovations concerning doctrine, for the following reason.

For when Athanasius, who administered the church of the Alexandrians, was ordered, after his flight under Constantius, to return to Egypt, as he was passing through Laodicea, he became his close companion and an especially close friend.

But since communion with him had been renounced under oath by those of the opposite heresy, among whom was also George, the bishop of that place, he was insolently expelled from the church, as having associated with Athanasius contrary to the canons and the laws governing priests.

He accused him on these grounds, and brought against him charges of former sins,

which had already been absolved through repentance, reproaching him with them.

Apollinarius, who had him as his teacher (for he was still young), attended the lecture together with his father;

he shared the same name as him, being a grammarian of no small distinction.

The teacher ordered the uninitiated and the profane to go outside, but neither Apollinarius the younger, nor the elder, nor any other of the Christians present withdrew from the lecture; and when Theodotus the bishop learned of this, he was greatly displeased.

To the others, who were ranked among the laity, he addressed a moderate rebuke and granted them pardon, but he publicly denounced the sin of both Apollinarii and excommunicated them from the church;

for the two were clergymen, the father a presbyter, and the son still a reader of the sacred scriptures.

And after some time had passed, when they had repented in tears and fastings in a manner worthy of their sin, Theodotus received them back again.

But when George obtained the same bishopric, and Apollinarius's association with Athanasius took place as has been described, he declared him excommunicate and estranged from the church.

He is said to have often entreated George to receive him back into communion;

but since he could not persuade him, overcome by grief he threw the church into turmoil, and by the novelty of his doctrines introduced the aforesaid heresy, defending himself against his adversary and refuting him by whatever means he could—by skill in rhetoric, I mean—so that, though not truly such a man in the teaching of sacred doctrine, he overthrew the better man.

Thus, in some such way, the private enmities of the clergy of that time did the church the greatest harm, and cut religion into many heresies.

For if George, like Theodotus, had received back the repentant Apollinarius, I do not think, in my opinion, that the heresy called after his name would have existed.

For human nature, when treated with contempt, grows obstinate and turns to contentiousness and innovation, but when it enjoys equal treatment, it loves moderation and to abide within the same bounds.

About this same time, Eunomius also, who held the church at Cyzicus in place of Eleusius, being a leader of the Arian heresy, introduced another heresy alongside this one, which some name after him, while others call it that of the Anomoeans.

Some say that this Eunomius was the first who dared to introduce the practice that divine baptism must be performed by a single immersion, and thereby to corrupt the tradition kept by all from the apostles down to the present, and that, in general, he devised for his own church a different manner of worship, clothing his innovation with greater solemnity and precision.

He was also a craftsman of words, contentious, and delighted in syllogisms;

and one may observe that most of those who share his views are of the same character.

For they praise a good life, good character, or compassion toward the needy no more than they praise one who argues contentiously and appears to prevail through syllogisms—unless such persons hold the same beliefs;

for such a person is reckoned pious above all others.

But as it seems to others, who I think speak more truly, Theophronius the Cappadocian and Eutychius, zealous adherents of this heresy, separated themselves during the following reign, and made innovations both concerning other opinions held by Eunomius and concerning divine baptism, introducing the practice of being baptized not into the Trinity, but into the death of Christ;

but that Eunomius, for his part, made no innovation on this point, but from the beginning held the opinions of Arius and so remained, and that, having become bishop of Cyzicus, he was accused by the clergy under him of being an introducer of novel doctrines.

At that time Eudoxius, the leader of the Arian heresy in Constantinople, having summoned him, permitted him to address the people concerning the doctrine;

and, finding nothing to condemn, urged him to return to Cyzicus; but he said that he no longer chose to associate with those who had come under suspicion regarding him, and made this the pretext for his separation—though the truth was that they had not accepted Aetius, his teacher;

and that he remained by himself, having changed nothing of his former opinion.

These things some relate in this way, others differently.

But whether it was Eunomius or certain others who introduced these innovations concerning the tradition of baptism, it seems to me that, by the same reasoning, they alone are in danger of departing this life without any share in divine baptism.

For having themselves first been baptized according to the custom observed from the beginning, they could not rebaptize themselves; or else they were introducing as an origin something that had not happened in their own case, and were making others into what they themselves neither were, nor had become through others; and having established this doctrine on some baseless origin and their own private conception, they were handing on things which they themselves had not received,

handed on to others—which is foolish.

For it is agreed, even by themselves, that the uninitiated cannot baptize others;

but one who has not been baptized in the manner of their own tradition is, in their view, deemed unbaptized, as not having been properly initiated;

and they themselves bear witness to this by rebaptizing whomever they can persuade to adopt their views, even if such persons had already been initiated according to the tradition of the catholic church.

These things, then, threw religion into no small confusion, and the diversity of the newly arisen doctrines became an obstacle to those who wished to become Christians.

For everywhere vigorous disputations kept taking place, and, as is the case with heresies at their outset, they flourished, having as their champions men of no ordinary zeal and eloquence;

and, as far as one may judge, they came near to drawing away the majority of the catholic church into their own opinion, had they not found opponents in Basil and Gregory the Cappadocians and those around them.

And the reign of Theodosius, coming not long afterward, put an end to their undertaking, and removed the very leaders of the heresies from the more populous centers where they had begun their work, into more remote and desolate places.

But that we may not remain entirely ignorant of the doctrine of each heresy, it should be known that Aetius the Syrian was the first inventor of the opinion associated with Eunomius, declaring, after Arius, that the Son was unlike the Father, created, and had come into being out of things that are not.

And those who held these views were formerly called Aetians.

But since, as has been said concerning the reign of Constantius, some held the Son to be consubstantial and others of like substance, it was decided by those then in power at the council of Ariminum to say that the Son was "like" the Father; Aetius was condemned to exile as blaspheming against God, and the heresy formed by him was, in some manner, dissolved for the intervening time, since neither anyone else of note nor Eunomius dared to speak openly in its defense.

But when he took over the church of the Cyzicenes in place of Eleusius, he could no longer bear to remain altogether quiet, and, disputing before the multitude, he again brought Aetius's opinion into public view.

And as often happens, people, forgetting the original inventor of this heresy, named those who held these views after Eunomius, because it was he who, after Aetius, renewed this doctrine and worked it out more boldly than the one who had originally handed it down.

It must be admitted, then, that Eunomius held the same opinions as Aetius;

for indeed Eunomius himself boasts of Aetius as his teacher, and testifies to this repeatedly, openly declaring it in his own writings.

And Gregory, who had been bishop of Nazianzus, accusing Apollinarius, writes as follows in a certain letter to Nectarius, who presided over the church in Constantinople:

"As for Eunomius, our bosom evil, he is no longer content to exist in any manner whatsoever, but counts it a loss unless he drags everyone along with him into his own ruin.

And these things indeed are bearable; but the most grievous of all the calamities afflicting the church is the brazenness of the Apollinarists.

I do not know how your Holiness has overlooked them, seeing that they have procured for themselves the liberty of holding assemblies with equal standing to ours.

Now then, since by the grace of God you have in every respect been instructed in the divine mysteries, you know not only how to plead the cause of sound doctrine, but also all those things which have been devised by the heretics against the healthy faith;

nevertheless, it may not be untimely for your Reverence to hear, even from one so insignificant as myself, that a little treatise of Apollinarius has come into my hands, in which the arguments constructed therein surpass every heretical wickedness.

...of our nature, but that from the beginning that fleshly nature existed in the Son,

and, having wrongly taken a certain saying of the Gospel as testimony for such an absurdity, he puts forward the argument that 'no one has ascended into heaven except him who came down from heaven, the Son of Man,' as though even before his descent he already was the Son of Man, and descended bringing with him that flesh of his own which he already possessed in the heavens, as something pre-eternal and consubstantial with him.

For again he cites a certain apostolic saying, that 'the second man is from heaven';

then he argues that that man who came from above did not have a mind, but that the divinity of the Only-Begotten, filling the place of the mind, became the third component of the human composite; for soul and body existed in him according to the human nature, but mind did not exist, its place instead being filled by the Word of God.

And this is not yet the most terrible thing; but the most grievous of all is that he makes the Only-Begotten God himself, the judge of all beings, the author of life, the destroyer of death, out to be mortal, and asserts that his very divinity received suffering, and that in that three-day death of the body the divinity too died along with the body, and thus was raised again from death by the Father.

As for the other things which he adds to such absurdities, it would take long to go through them... So then, let whoever is concerned consider from what has been said, what sort of opinions, and in what manner, Apollinarius and Eunomius hold concerning God."

But if he has resolved to labor for an exact knowledge of such matters, let him seek out further details from the writings either of these men themselves or of others concerning them, since for me it is easy neither to comprehend nor to expound such things.

It seems, however, that in addition to the causes already mentioned, the failure of these doctrines to prevail and spread widely should chiefly be attributed to the monks of that time;

for those who pursued the philosophic life held tenaciously to the doctrines set forth at Nicaea, both those in

Syria and Cappadocia, and the regions surrounding these.

For the region extending from Cilicia as far as Phoenicia was in danger of falling wholly to the party of Apollinarius, while that from Cilicia and Mount Taurus as far as the Hellespont and Constantinople was in danger of falling to that of Eunomius;

for each of them easily persuaded those among whom he lived, and their neighbors as well, to adopt his own views.

And something similar to what happened in the case of Arius occurred also in the case of these men;

for the populace there, greatly admiring the aforementioned monks for the virtue of their works, believed that they held right opinions, and turned away from those who thought otherwise, as being tainted with spurious doctrines—just as the Egyptians, following the monks among them, were opposed to the followers of Arius.

It seems fitting to me, now that I have mentioned them, to go through as many as I am able of those who at that time pursued the philosophic life within Christianity.

For at that period a very great abundance of God-beloved men flourished.

Among these, distinguished, so far as we know, was John in Egypt, to whom God revealed the future—hidden even from others—no less than He had to the prophets of old, and gave him the gift of healing those afflicted with incurable sufferings and diseases; and also Hor, who from his youth had dwelt in the deserts, ever singing hymns to the Divine, nourished by certain herbs and roots, and drinking water wherever he might find it;

and when he had grown old, having been moved by divine command to the Thebaid, he governed a great many monasteries, he himself likewise not being without a share in divine works;

for by prayer alone he drove away diseases and demons, and, never having learned letters, he had no need of books to aid his memory, but whatever he once took into his mind proved to be beyond forgetting.

In this region also Ammon, the superior of those called the Tabennesiotes, pursued the ascetic life, having about three thousand disciples.

And Benus and Theonas led monastic orders; both were workers of marvelous deeds and full of divine foreknowledge and prophecy.

It is said that Theonas, who was learned in the culture of the Egyptians, the Greeks, and the Romans, practiced silence for thirty years.

...angry, or swearing, or lying, or speaking a rash or bold word, or one uttered carelessly.

About this time there also lived Copres, and Helles, and Elias.

It is said that Copres was granted from God the power to heal various sufferings and diseases, and to have mastery over demons.

Helles, having been trained from his youth in the monastic discipline, performed very many wonders, such as carrying fire in the fold of his garment without the garment being burned; and by this he would spur on his fellow monks, since the display of such wonders follows upon a good manner of life.

Elias at that time was practicing the ascetic life in the desert not far from the city of Antinoe, being about a hundred and ten years old.

Before this, he was said to have dwelt alone in the wilderness for seventy years.

Though he had become so aged, he continued fasting and living with manly vigor.

In addition to these, Apelles at that time was renowned around Achoris, working very many wonders in the monasteries throughout Egypt.

Once, while he was working at the forge (for this was his trade), a demonic apparition appeared to him by night in the form of a comely woman, tempting him to unchastity.

But he, drawing from the fire the iron he was working, burned the face of the demon.

And it fled away shrieking and wailing.

But Isidore, having enclosed the monastery on every side with a wall, took care that none of those within should go outside, and that all necessary provisions should be supplied to them.

Serapion resided in the Arsenoite district, having about ten thousand under him.

He led them all to procure their necessities by the sweat of their own labor, and to supply others who were in need.

In the summer season, reaping for hire, they laid up sufficient grain for themselves and shared the rest with other monks.