教會史卷 1–9（拉丁譯本） 第 7 章

Concerning the signs which by the power of the Saviour [were shown] at Paneas. Concerning those things which happened at Alexandria. Concerning the bishops who in that time were held in renown. Concerning the renowned men of the Church, some of whom endured even down to our own memory. The most noble of the fathers and the illustrious among bishops, Dionysius, adorns [these things] with his eulogies. After Decius, having administered the sovereignty of the Roman summit for not two full years, was slain together with his sons, and Gallus received the empire and, his term completed, died, [Dionysius] writing to a certain Hermammon concerning Gallus [says]: 'But Gallus was neither able to see nor to guard against the evil of Decius, but struck against the very same stone of stumbling.'

While his kingdom was flourishing and matters were prospering, he persecuted those holy men who were supplicating the most high God for his reign; and along with them he likewise put to flight his own prosperity and his peace. There arose a question between Cyprian and Cornelius, both eminent in faith, virtue and piety; and when it was decreed by Cyprian and nearly all the other priests throughout Africa that it ought to be done [thus, that heretics be rebaptized], Cornelius and all the other priests throughout Italy, while priestly concord remained, rejected such a decree, determining that the rule handed down of old by the fathers concerning this matter ought to be kept, which laid down that, after the casting off of false doctrine and the confession of right doctrine, they should be purged by the imposition of the hand alone.

But after the death of Cornelius, who exercised the priesthood for about three years, Lucius took up the seat of the episcopate; and when he had administered the priesthood for eight months only, Stephen succeeded him, who likewise gave the same judgment as Cornelius concerning not rebaptizing. To him Dionysius directed many and frequent writings, discussing many ecclesiastical matters; in which, among other things, he also indicates this: that all the churches, having cast off the presumption of Novatus, kept peace among themselves.

He writes therefore: 'Know, brother, that all the churches in the East, which formerly were disturbed, have now returned to concord, and all cleave together unanimously, rejoicing and exulting over the peace which has been restored to the Church beyond hope; that is, Demetrianus at Antioch and Theoctistus at Caesarea, Mazabanes at Jerusalem (Alexander having fallen asleep in peace), Marinus at Tyre, Heliodorus at Laodicea, Helenus at Tarsus, Firmilianus in Cappadocia.'

'But lest the discourse of my letter should grow too long, I have indicated to you only the bishops of the more noble cities, that you may not doubt that the rest also, together with them, are of one mind throughout all Syria and Arabia; and even those to whom you have now written, the bishops of Mesopotamia, being of one accord and bound together with much charity, glorify God.' At Rome Xystus succeeded to the priesthood, to whom Dionysius nevertheless also writes, writing to Firmilianus and Helenus and the other bishops of those regions [that Stephen] had decreed that there should be no communion with those who rebaptize; but that the magnitude of the matter ought to be considered, since they were not just anyone, but very great and noble men among the bishops, to whom this had seemed [right].

He says also that [Stephen had decreed thus]. He likewise indicated also concerning the heresy of Sabellius, which arose in those times: 'But what shall I say of that doctrine which has lately sprung up at Ptolemais, a city of the Pentapolis, full of blasphemies against God the Father and against our Lord Jesus Christ, denying that He is truly the Son of the Father nor the firstborn of every creature, and at the same time taking away the understanding of the Holy Spirit? For which cause, when both parties came to me and, in the presence of the brethren, I had discussed the matters which had been stirred up, I also pursued them in letters, as God granted to my littleness, and I wrote.' But in the third book on baptism, which he writes to Philemon, a presbyter of the city of Rome, he also records these things.

'I,' he says, 'both read the treatises of the heretics and study their traditions, and this very thing profits me, that from their own words I am able to refute them. Finally, when one of the brethren, my fellow-presbyters, forbade me lest I should be defiled by heretical reading as by the stench of some filth, a vision was shown to me from God, which confirmed me, and a word came to me, plainly declaring to me these things: "Read all things whatsoever shall come into your hands, for you are able to prove and to discern each single thing, since even from the beginning this was to you the cause of believing." I embraced the vision, because it also agreed with the apostolic saying which says:

"Prove all things." In the same little book he records that not then for the first time in Africa, concerning several churches and councils of bishops, as at Iconium and other places [the question of rebaptism had arisen]... [he records] much concerning the impiety of Novatus, [writing to] a presbyter of the city of Rome. But in the fifth book, writing to Xystus bishop of the city of Rome, and discussing certain matters against the aforesaid heresy, he adds also something like this: 'Truly, brother, I ask counsel,' he says, 'and I seek your judgment as to what seems right to you in that case which has arisen in our church. A man faithful from of old, before ever I was ordained bishop, indeed even before my predecessor Heraclas [held office]—

—this man, when he was present at [the baptism of] those who were being baptized, and heard what they were asked or what they answered, came weeping [to me], [saying] that he had received [baptism] otherwise among the heretics, and that this baptism, according to what he now saw administered by us, he did not regard as [true] baptism, since that whole confession had been full of blasphemy. And at the same time he added that he was so [distressed] on this account, on account of which he entreated to be cleansed and purified by ecclesiastical baptism, that he might also be able to obtain the grace of the Holy Spirit.

But this I did not dare to do, but said that so long a communion which he had obtained in the Church could suffice for him, through the fact that he had partaken with us of the Eucharist. I exhorted him therefore that he ought to trust in his faith and in his now purified conscience, and above all in the fact that for so long a time he had already been a partaker with us in the sacraments—purged by the very power of the sacraments themselves. But he neither ceases from grief and tears, nor does he dare any longer to approach the Lord's table.' These and many other things concerning questions of this kind [he treated] through various books; [and by these he] was set free [from doubt]. After Decius, Valerian with his son Gallienus took up [the empire]. But to John likewise it was revealed, so that he said:

'And there was given to him,' he says, 'a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and there was given to him power for forty and two months' (Rev. 13:5). Both these things are fulfilled in Valerian. For truly it is a thing to be wondered at, how, above the others who were before him, this man showed himself both humane and kindly toward the servants of God, so that in some things he even seemed more kindly to them than those who at least were called Christians by name. To such a degree did he venerate the servants of the Lord, and his whole house was a church of God. But he was corrupted and turned aside from the truth by a certain teacher, the most wicked of masters and the chief of the Egyptian magicians, so that he ordered the just and holy men to be persecuted and slain, as though they were adversaries of the magic arts to which he himself had subjected himself.

For there were indeed, and there are even now, those who by the power of their merits are able to extinguish the deceits of demons. For that man, in order to perform his impure rites and execrable mysteries and unholy sacrifices, ordered boys not yet grown to be slaughtered, and fathers to be bereft of their children, and through his abomination to search the human entrails in tender bodies; and he sought a voice there [for divination]. But recounting many other things of this kind concerning the abominations of Valerian, [Dionysius] adds also this: that Valerian himself, taken captive by the barbarians and deprived of his eyes, left the sons of his own crime and impurity as successors.

[Dionysius, telling how] he was afflicted with torments for the name of God, writing to a certain Germanus, a bishop who seemed as it were to be a detractor of him, relates [the matter], where he also inserted the acts of his own confession as performed before Aemilianus the prefect.

In these, when Dionysius declared that one God alone, who had made heaven and earth, was to be worshipped, but that the others were neither gods nor ought to be worshipped, he was thrust into exile in a certain fort of the desert called Cephro, chosen especially for this reason, that the inhabitants of the place were heathen and received [him] with a hostile spirit and a mind quite averse. But afterwards, when little by little through the grace of the Lord he had begun to sow the word of God among them, the greatest part of that fierce and barbarous people, having left their idols, was converted to the true God and subjected to Christ. When this was learned, they again transferred him to another place, near indeed to Alexandria, but deserted by its inhabitants and almost empty of dwellers.

But there too, since on account of the nearness of the city the people of our own frequented [him], and, as though having caught the scent of the shepherd, the flock was rendered more joyful and more steadfast in the contests, they again sent military men with a centurion and dragged Dionysius himself, and with him Gaius and Peter, bound with chains and afflicted with various torments, into a certain desert of Libya, and there left them, bound with fetters, in a most squalid place devoid of all human use. These things the aforesaid man left written in his various letters. In which he mentions also Maximus a presbyter, and Dioscorus, and Demetrius, and Lucius, as well as Faustinus and Aquila, [who were] made quite illustrious and marked by the title of confession.

But [he mentions] also that certain of the deacons, after the sufferings of their confession, died on the island, but that of these Faustus and Eusebius survived. To whom also, he relates, so much confidence and greatness of soul was given through the grace of God, that [although only the officer in charge of the dead was permitted to approach], these men nevertheless unceasingly both visited [the confessors] and ministered to them what was necessary. And when day by day the fury of the prefect increased, slaying some, afflicting others with tortures, [wearing others down] with squalor...

...destroying them by the burden of the prison and the chains, and above all by commanding that no one should approach them at all, so that starvation too might be applied as it were another kind of torment—nevertheless God granted grace to the aforesaid deacons, providing for His confessors, so that, against the will of all these, entrance was nevertheless not denied them. Yet it must be known that this Eusebius, whom we said above was a deacon, was afterwards ordained bishop at Laodicea in Syria [and] succeeded [to the episcopate] at Alexandria. But Faustus, who at that time shone forth as a confessor together with them, enduring until the persecution which took place in our own times, aged and full of days, was brought to perfect martyrdom, consummated by the striking off of his head.

These most certain things [were recorded] by Dionysius. Many martyrdoms were consummated by various persons. Among these, three admirable young men, one of whom was called Priscus, another Malchus, the third Alexander—when they had a small farm in the suburbs of the aforesaid city, [began to accuse themselves] of sloth and cowardice, that, when the heavenly crowns of martyrdom were being set forth in the city, they themselves did not desire them, did not seize them, and although the Lord and Saviour had testified that the kingdom of heaven ought to be seized by force, they themselves bore inglorious and slothful souls upon the ground. Having therefore [stirred up] their own selves, they accuse [their inaction, at the time when the enemy] was raging against the blood of the pious. He [the judge] straightway requites the noble souls of the young men with such worthy words as they deserved:

'Let them be given up,' he says, 'to the beasts to be devoured, seeing they are not pleased that the blood of the pious should be shed.' But a certain woman also, it is reported, followed the audacity and greatness of soul of the aforesaid young men. And a man distinguished by riches, when in the aforesaid city, among his colleagues, a certain military rank of honour was falling to him in due order, as is wont to happen, [was assailed] by envy on the part of a colleague following after him, who cried out that Marinus could not [hold the office], if the matter stood thus. Marinus with a most clear voice testifies that it was so, and that he was truly a Christian. Three hours for deliberation are decreed to him by the judge, that he might choose whether he wished to sacrifice to the gods and the emperor, or to be put to death as a Christian.

And when he had gone out from the tribunal, Theotecnus, confirming him with many words in the faith, at last led him into the inner part of the altar, and, showing him the sword with which he was girded, and again offering him the Gospel, asked which of the two he would prefer. But Marinus [stretched out his hand toward the Gospel, and being led back to the tribunal, testified again that he was a Christian, and was beheaded]. Thus by the prayer of one Christian the whole engine of deception of so many ages was dissolved together with its authors, the demons. But since we have made mention of this city, it seems just to record also that which we have deemed worthy of history: it is established that the woman who, as the Gospels have handed down, laboured with an issue of blood and was healed by the Saviour (Matt. 9:20), was a citizen of this city, and her house is shown in it even now.

And before the doors of her house a certain base, placed in a rather elevated spot, is shown, on which the image of the woman herself is seen wrought in bronze, as though fallen upon her knees and stretching out her palms in supplication. There stands also another statue, likewise cast in bronze, of the figure of a man, gracefully wrapped in a mantle and stretching out his right hand to the woman.

At the foot of this statue, from the base, a certain herb of a new kind grows, which, when it has sprung up, is wont to grow up as far as the fringe of that bronze garment of the mantle; and when the herb, growing to its topmost tip, has touched [the fringe], it thence acquires powers for driving away all diseases and infirmities, so that, whatever infirmity of the body it may be, it is driven away by a small draught of the moistened wholesome herb—yet bearing no powers at all if it be plucked before it has by its growth touched the top of the bronze fringe. This statue they related to have been formed in the likeness of the countenance of Jesus, and it endured down to our own times, just as we ourselves beheld it with our own eyes.

And it is no wonder if those who from among the Gentiles had believed, on account of the benefits which they had obtained from the Saviour, seemed to offer such a thing as it were a gift, since we see even now that images both of the apostles Peter and Paul and of the Saviour Himself are portrayed and painted upon tablets. But also that their ancient images were preserved by certain people [is observed] indifferently, in that they are wont thus to honour those whom they have deemed worthy of honour.

For the memorials of the ancients are preserved for the remembrance of posterity. The chair of him who was first chosen as bishop on earth by the Saviour Himself and by the apostles at Jerusalem—him whom the divine volumes designate as the brother of Christ—is preserved there down to the present day; and upon it sit all those who down to the present time have obtained by lot the priesthood of that see; and it is held in memory of holiness and with great veneration, on account either of its antiquity or of the sanctification of the first priesthood. But let these things suffice concerning these matters. [The emperor Gallienus] resolved to act more mildly and moderately toward our people, and having given [edicts]... And at Antioch [was] Demetrianus, and Firmilianus still survived at Caesarea in Cappadocia, [and] the churches of Pontus [were governed by] Gregory, who was formerly called Theodore...

...he, together with his brother Athenodorus, [both] from the disciples of Origen, took up [these churches] to govern. But at Caesarea in Palestine, after Theoctistus, Domnus obtained the episcopate and, dying shortly after, handed over the see to Theotecnus, a man now of our own memory, who himself also was said to have been a hearer of Origen. And at Jerusalem, after Mazabanes, Hymenaeus took up the priesthood. In the same [time], because that kind of men [the inhabitants of a certain region] is fierce, seditious and ever restless, they stirred up among themselves civil commotions and wars, not for the merit of virtue nor for the sake of defence, but for the slaughter and destruction of citizens.

Concerning whom [Dionysius relates] that the city was so laid waste and destroyed, that whereas it was formerly wont, by the throng of its people, scarcely to give room for walking to those departing, it has now come to such a pass that it is a very rare thing to behold a man in the streets; that all things are drenched with the blood of citizens, the roads covered with corpses, and that those who survive do not even suffice for burial; whence, after the fury of war and the devastation of the sword, a pestilence increased from the stench of the corrupted air of the corpses, so that [it is scarcely possible to observe anything] of that which is wont to be solemnly written year by year, in these words: [there is no] solemn festival, since indeed mourning is everywhere and bitter lamentation... on account of the multitude of those dying.

For just as it is related concerning the firstborn of the Egyptians in former times (Exod. 12:29-30), so even now an immense outcry is raised everywhere. For there is no house, as it is written, in which there is not a dead man in it. For, in the first place, they themselves with their own hands cut down the greatest and best part of the people, by persecuting the saints; another part the intestine wars carried off; but that part which remained the present pestilential sickness consumes. Yet we, even in the persecutions when we were being slain, did not cease from the festival, nor can the solemnity ever be hindered for us, to whom it is commanded to rejoice in tribulation.

Every place, therefore, for us—whatsoever was chosen by the tyrants for punishment, whether it was a field or a desert or islands or a prison—could not hinder our solemnity. But our blessed persecutors held a most joyful festival over all [of us], when they turned their hands and weapons against their own selves; yet not even so were the feasts of our people disturbed. This pestilent disease and terrible plague followed close after, but for them far more terrible and grievous, whom the hope of things to come does not raise up. But for us all these things are reckoned as certain exercises of virtue and proofs of faith.

For although the disease invaded the pagans more densely and more fiercely than our own people, yet [it did not lessen the zeal] of our people. For many of our brethren, out of exceeding charity, while they did not cease without any hesitation to visit the sick, and not only to visit but also to minister to them and to render the offices which the Lord commanded, perished together, as the contagion of the disease crept on, with those very ones to whom they had wished to minister—drawn by a certain affection of love, and desiring as it were to share the sufferings with those who suffered, they took upon themselves the deaths of others by no means sluggishly. Indeed very many of our people, the chief and elect men, among whom were also several presbyters and deacons and many others of the common people, with most constant and firm [faith] inserted themselves into deaths of this kind, presuming from this to take up martyrdom of mercy.

And while they gave their labour to caring for the sick, to carrying out the dead and burying their bodies, they were followed close behind almost by those very ones whom they had borne on their own shoulders to the tombs. But the pagans, [when they saw their dear ones fall sick]—the husband thrust out his dear children, the wife her husband, and the sons likewise their parents—as soon as they saw the limbs quiver and the face grow pale with disease, they cast them, driven from the house, half-dead into the streets, and there, leaving their corpses unburied, they doubly incurred the violence of the disease which they thought to escape by these means. [Dionysius relates that] the churches of God endured in peace, and that in the middle of these times Macrianus, like a certain dark and black cloud, suddenly obscured the light of his [Gallienus's] reign.

When this [cloud], in its turn, like a summer cloud, had been blotted out, Gallienus, as he himself says, caused a new light to shine forth over the whole world from the old [darkness]; for at once he both cast the fierce tyrant down from his reign and from his life. He designates [the time]. There exist also very many other necessary and admirable little works of Dionysius, which may confer very much of profit upon their readers.

Among these he also wrote concerning the promises to come, there being this occasion for it: [that a certain Nepos] held opinions about the promises to come according to a Jewish understanding, and taught that they were to be exhibited bodily, and that the saints would reign with Christ for a thousand years in bodily delights upon this earth; and he attempted to assert the proofs of this his doctrine from testimonies taken from the Revelation of John. Dionysius therefore, writing concerning the promises to this Nepos, turned the pen of his intention [against him], and at once in the first book sets forth his own opinion which seemed [right] to him concerning the divine promises. But in the second volume, discussing the Revelation of John, he makes mention of Nepos in these words: 'And [his] commentaries...'

'They bring forward,' he says, 'certain [commentaries] of Nepos, upon which they rely very much, and through which they think it is shown by a certain ineffable mystery in what manner the kingdom of Christ shall be upon the earth. But in many other things indeed I also embrace and esteem Nepos, both for his faith [and for his manner] of psalmody, since indeed very many of the brethren gladly chose his fellowship for this. There is therefore in me also much reverence toward him, and the more on this account, that he has already gone before to the Lord. But in truth, more than all things, the truth is both to be loved and to be preferred. One ought to praise, and without envy, [what is rightly written], but assuredly to [correct] what is written amiss. And if indeed you were present, [he] of whom the discourse is, it would suffice [to speak by word of mouth].'

...to discuss by discourse alone those things which seemed to have been said less than rightly, so that, a question going before, the answer that followed might bring into concord that which had appeared contrary and discordant.

But when writings have been published and, as it seems to some, are sufficiently persuasive, and when teachers come forward who count the Law and the Prophets as nothing, do not follow the Gospels, and despise the writings of the Apostles, but venerate these books alone and that doctrine as though it were some great and hidden mystery, and teach the simpler among our brethren to think nothing lofty, nothing magnificent concerning the coming and presence of God and our Savior Jesus Christ, nor concerning the glory of the resurrection and of our gathering unto him and of the promised likeness, but rather persuade them to hope for petty things in the kingdom of God — it seems necessary to reply to all these matters. And after a little he again subjoins these words:

For indeed, when we were in Arsinoë, where this doctrine had long been current, I called together the presbyters and teachers who were in the churches, and publicly began to hold a discussion; and at the same time I exhorted the brethren that, if anything moved them, they should raise their objections fearing nothing. Then they set against me, as a most sturdy shield and an impregnable wall, the book of Nepos. I took it up... and beginning in the evening I began with them to examine his writings one by one, and to show what absurdity each of them contained.

And truly I greatly admired the patience and constancy and understanding of the brethren, in that they set forth consequently and in order concerning each question... and when what was true had become plain, they nonetheless without contention accommodated their assent, judging this: that it is not right, if something has once seemed good to the mind, that it must be preserved with all zeal and contention; but that it is more correct then to change one's opinion, when a better and more correct... proof came not from human persuasion nor from the paint of eloquence, but from the affirmation of the divine Scriptures.

And so evident was the proof of our affirmation that he who was esteemed among them the greatest teacher and more distinguished by the merits of his life, Coracion by name, rising up in the midst, before all who were listening, proclaimed and protested that no one ought any longer... not only that none of these things should be held or followed, but that they should not even be mentioned any more, since so evident and manifest an affirmation against these matters had been made plain from the divine Scriptures.

But all the rest of the brethren, filled in heart with joy and gladness for their own correction, [gave thanks] insatiably to the Lord... Some of our predecessors thought that this little book ought altogether to be refuted [and removed] from the canon of the Scriptures and cast away, examining each point... [holding] that the name of John only had been imposed upon an alien writing, whence this could be neither the book of John nor could it appear to be a revelation, seeing that it is covered by a certain thick veil of ignorance. They added also this: that nothing worthy of that apostolic gravity is reckoned in it, but rather that a certain Cerinthus, the author of the Cerinthian heresy, wishing to confirm the credit of his own dogma by the reputation of the apostolic name, prefixed the title of John to the little book composed by himself.

'Finally,' they say, 'the dogma of Cerinthus contains this: that the kingdom of Christ is to be upon earth; and he judged that to the saints of the future kingdom there should be furnished those things which the lust of his own mind dictated — works of the belly and of pleasure that were to endure, satiety of foods and abundance of cups, marriages, and the other things that keep pace with these. And he hopes that the Jewish festivals and sacrifices and legal victims will be restored again.' But I, so far as pertains to my own opinion, dare in no way to spurn or to reject the Scripture of this book, especially since many of the brethren so think together with me.

But I rather judge this concerning it: that the things written therein exceed and stand above the measure of human hearing, and that there is in it a certain hidden and recondite and admirable meaning [perceptible] to all, which I too admire and venerate, even though I do not understand it. And thus I hold that certain divine mysteries are veiled beneath human words — discerning not so much by my own judgment as believing by faith; and therefore I do not condemn what I do not understand, but so much the more [revere it]. After this, discoursing upon the body of the whole book and examining each of its parts and evidently showing that it can in no way be that a worthy meaning according to the letter should appear in it, he adds also these words, saying:

When therefore all prophecy has been completed, the prophet calls blessed those who keep these things; and he even calls himself blessed, for he says: 'Blessed is he who keeps the word of the prophecy of this book; and I, John, who see and hear these things.' That he is therefore called John, and that this [writing is his] — I do not deny the Scripture to be John's, for it is of some holy man and, without any doubt, written through the Spirit of God, even though it be not that apostle John, the son of Zebedee, the brother of James, whose Gospel is written according to John, and the catholic Epistle.

Dionysius therefore uses much argument to show that the revelation is indeed divinely inspired — this is not to be doubted — and that it is John's; yet that it does not seem clearly to him to be that John's who wrote the Gospel, because that one nowhere made mention of his own name nor signed himself, [whereas here the writer] makes [mention] of his name. Moreover, drawing a distinction also from the very style of the Scripture, he says that it could have come to pass that in those times there was also some other John, one of the saints, to whom God revealed these things. But blessed Dionysius left us many other monuments of ecclesiastical instruction as well, digested into... books, the reading of which is greatly to be sought by all who are studious.

But now, to [return] to the order of the history: Xystus having administered the priesthood of the Roman church for eleven years, Dionysius succeeds him; and, Demetrian having died at Antioch, Paul of Samosata received the priesthood. This Paul, holding base and unworthy enough opinions concerning Christ, corrupted the tradition of ecclesiastical doctrine. Being asked to come from Alexandria to the council, [Dionysius] is prevented both by the impediment of old age and by the infirmity of his body; yet by a letter he renders himself present, and set forth what of faith and of reverence toward Christ he held.

But the rest of the shepherds of the churches [gathered] from diverse places and cities as though against an adversary. Among whom the notable ones, excelling the rest, were Firmilianus of Caesarea in Cappadocia; Gregory and Athenodorus, brothers, priests of the province of Pontus; Helenus, bishop of the church of Tarsus; and Nicomas... [and] Theotecnus of this city of Caesarea. Maximus too, bishop of Bostra, worthy of their fellowship, adhered to them; and many others besides, whom it would be tedious to enumerate one by one.

But also very many presbyters and deacons [came] to the aforesaid city for the purpose of restraining — nay, of destroying — this new dogma; and setting Paul of Samosata in their midst, and his heresy, which he now tried to hide, now even to dissemble, they laid it bare by frequent treatment and by assiduous disputations, striving to convict and to make public his blasphemy; and yet this was not accomplished by one council only, nor by a second... The things which follow in Rufinus concerning Gregory Thaumaturgus, here omitted, were appended to the books written by Rufinus himself. Meanwhile Dionysius rested in peace at Alexandria in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, having discharged the priesthood for seventeen years; and Maximus succeeds him.

Gallienus therefore, when he had governed the Roman empire for fifteen years, died, Claudius being his successor in the reign. In his times the last council of bishops at Antioch is assembled, in which Paul is accused and manifestly convicted a heretic and condemned by all the churches which are under heaven — Malchion, presbyter of the church of Antioch, [being the accuser], a most faithful man adorned with all virtues; to whom this too accrued, that he was most eloquent and mighty in speech and perfect in all learning, having indeed taught rhetoric in that very same city. To him therefore [the disputation] was, by [the whole assembly] of the bishops, conducted so splendidly and accurately that it was written down and published, and even now is held in admiration by all.

For he alone was able to bring to public [notice], by his own confessions, Paul, who was dissembling and hiding himself. These things being thus accomplished, by common counsel all the priests together [with the bishops] write a letter that should be sent through all the churches, whereby they might prove to all their own diligence, and make known to the knowledge of all men that Paul's heresy had been confuted and cast down.

At the same time they set forth also the questions that had been debated with him, and moreover his intemperate life. 'To Dionysius and Maximus and to all the priests and bishops throughout the whole world, together with the presbyters and deacons and the whole catholic Church that is under heaven: Helenus and Hymenaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proculus, Nicomas, Aelianus, Paulus, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, Malchion, Lucius, presbyters, and all the rest who are gathered with us from the neighboring cities and nations, bishops and presbyters and deacons, to the most beloved brethren [greeting]... In sending this letter we beseech you all, that those who perchance have been infected by such doctrine may be cured by you, even as the men of blessed memory, Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilianus of Cappadocia, had already before written to the people of Antioch, disdaining — nay rather declining — to write to the person of him who was the author of the error.'

But blessed Firmilianus himself, while he yet survived, was present a second time and, being present, accused and rebuked him — as we all know and testify, we who had come together with him. But since [Paul] promised to correct his error, [Firmilianus] believed him, hoping it might come to pass that the matter should turn out for the better without reproach to our religion and without the mark of dissensions; and therefore he had overlooked it, while nevertheless Paul by guile kept deferring, and indeed deceived the man, but denied God and violated the faith in which he had been reborn.

Finally now too the blessed Firmilianus was coming to Antioch; and when he had reached as far as Tarsus, and we all who were stationed at Antioch were awaiting his arrival, it was announced [that he had died]... And after a little, describing his life and manners, they add: 'But after he turned aside from the rule of doctrine to alien and adulterate dogmas, there is no need to enumerate his former deeds — how, whereas he had before been needy and most poor and had neither any inheritance from parental succession nor any honest occasion of gain, he now, by these things which he seized through fraud, shakes down the brethren, sells patronage and good faith, undertakes men's business affairs yet does not keep faith though he has received his fee, esteeming — according to what is written — that gain is godliness.'

But who could endure his pride? — since he wished to appear rather a ducenarius (imperial procurator) than a bishop. For even as he walked through the public square he made use of a certain ostentation, publicly rereading letters and dictating in the hearing and before the eyes of all, with notaries standing beside him in the square. He also sought, as much as could be, a marshaling of those going before him and a thronging of those following after, so that all who saw it shuddered and detested it... He orders a tribunal to be erected for himself much higher than it had been, and a throne to be set in loftier [places], and an audience-chamber also to be laid out and prepared, just as is the custom for the judges of the world.

And when making a speech to the people, [he was wont] to fling out his right hand beyond measure and to strike his palm upon his thigh, and to leap up with his foot and beat the footstool with a sound. And from his hearers he expected not only to hope for favor and applause, but, in theatrical fashion, that handkerchiefs be waved for him and that shouts be raised as if from the tiers of a theater. These things were expected, unbecomingly, not only from men but even from women. But if any of the hearers, behaving more honorably and modestly, restrained himself from excessive clamor, he was made to suffer wrong as though he were doing wrong. He even heaped insults upon the ancient and departed expositors, and, disparaging them, boasted his own praises unabashedly and shamelessly, desiring to be extolled rather as an orator than as a teacher of the Church.

The psalms that were sung unto our Lord Jesus Christ he caused to cease, as being novel and newly devised; but psalms composed unto himself he had sung, in the midst of the church on the days of Easter, by women — chiefly those whom he himself had before appointed for singing according to custom — so that one would shudder to hear it. For since he himself denied that the Son of God had descended from heaven, [asserting] rather that he took his beginning from Mary and had his origin from earth, the psalms that were sung unto him, and by which he was praised among the people, called him an angel come down from heaven. And he himself, standing by and hearing these things, not only did not forbid them to be spoken, but with lifted brow took delight in hearing them.

But of the women who dwelt together with him, whom the Antiochenes call subintroductae (synisactae), what need is there to speak? That no question might be raised against himself from their society and cohabitation, he gave to his own presbyters and deacons — at least to those who humored him — a like license of dwelling with women. He also granted them the faculty of amassing riches, so that they, being liable to the like faults as their master, might in no wise charge him with the crime. But we write these things, dearest brethren, because we know how sacrosanct the episcopal priesthood ought to be, which ought to be an example both to clergy and to people. For neither are we ignorant that some, while incautiously joining little women to themselves for cohabitation, have fallen.

And even if this does not happen, yet surely for a priest to come into suspicion concerning such things is a most grievous matter. But how will he be able to forbid those who are weaker from the company of women, when by the very things he does he lends them authority [to do the like]? So great and so ungentle was he in his power, and so puffed up with a certain appearance of tyranny, that no one dared to come forward even to reprove or to accuse him. Yet these things which we have said could be condemned even in one who keeps the catholic faith and abides in the truth of ecclesiastical dogma.

But this man, who, having abjured the mystery of the faith, betook himself to the most polluted heresy of Artemas (for it was necessary that the father also of his very error be pointed out), how [much more should he be condemned]?... And after many things, at the end of the epistle they add also these words: 'It has therefore seemed necessary that this man, who resists God and does not acquiesce in the true faith, be cast out and abjured; and that another be constituted bishop in his place for the catholic Church — one provided by the grace of God: the son of Demetrian of blessed memory, who had presided over this same church blamelessly, Domnus by name, a man adorned with all good qualities. We have made known to you concerning him, that you may know you ought to write to him and to receive from him letters of communion.'

But this man [Paul], who was accounted unworthy to be [bishop] — Domnus therefore being subrogated into the episcopate — Paul, cut off both from the priesthood and from communion, when he refused to depart from the house of the church, the emperor Aurelian being appealed to decides concerning this matter quite religiously and holily, commanding that the house of the church be handed over to those to whom the priests of Italy and of Rome [should assent by their letters]. He thus acquired this disgrace also, that he was expelled from the church by the public hand. And at that time, indeed, such was Aurelian toward us; but in the course of time he began to alter the good of his purpose and, corrupted by evil counsels, to plan persecution against the churches of God — to such a degree that it is said the divine right hand, intervening, struck down the subscription of his impious right hand.

For he who was decreeing concerning the death of the pious is condemned by a sudden death, that God might show that not when the tyrant wills it are we tormented, but when He Himself has approved us, we are chastened. When therefore Aurelian had completed his empire in the space of six years, Carus, together with his sons Carinus and Numerian, succeeds. And after the Roman kingdom had been administered by these three for not even a full three years, Diocletian assumed the principate. He indeed [stirred up] the greatest persecutions against our people... [Mani,] driven by the instigation of a demon, teaches a heresy hateful and execrable to all.

This Manes, a Persian by race, was barbarous in life and manners, so keen of wit that he seemed to rave or to be possessed by a demon; and at length, from the outcome of the matter, he proclaimed himself to be the Paraclete, and, exalted by his madness, choosing twelve disciples in the likeness of Christ, he sent them out to preach, disseminating foolish and impious dogmas borrowed from diverse heretics who had earlier been extinguished, and administering Persian poisons to our world. From this Mani, therefore... [At Rome] Felix presided over the church in the city of Rome, who, having administered the priesthood for five years, left the see to Eutychianus. He, after ten months only had passed, hands over the episcopate to Gaius.

He, having in our own times discharged the priesthood for fifteen years, left Marcellinus as successor... At Antioch, after Domnus, Timaeus had received the priesthood; and after Timaeus, Cyrillus. But to Cyrillus succeeded Dorotheus, who endured even to our own memory — a most learned man and sufficiently intent upon the divine Scriptures, who by much diligence had even learned the Hebrew tongue. He was [a eunuch] from birth; on which account the emperor also had held him in admiration and had conferred on him the honor of the overseership of the purple [dye-works]. Of him too, when he expounded the Scriptures in the church, we were hearers in our boyhood.

After this one, Tyrannus received the priesthood at Antioch, under whom the church [endured persecution]... [Anatolius was] an Alexandrian by race, a bishop, who, when he had come into the regions of Syria in the affair of Paul of Samosata, because he was learned in the divine Scriptures, was discovered by the studious brethren as though he were a certain treasure, and was permitted to go away nowhere further, as Dionysius writes in his epistles. This man was Alexandrian by race, exceedingly learned from boyhood in the studies of liberal letters and in philosophical matters, so that at Alexandria he was compelled by all learned men and philosophers to teach dialectic. They say too that this man, at the time of the war which arose among the citizens at Alexandria, [did] many [remarkable things]; but for brevity's sake I shall record only one memorable deed.

Grain, they say, being lacking to the besieged and famine pressing more grievously than the enemy, a third part of the people — while two [parts] were fighting one against another — had been set apart, which as it were kept faith with the Romans. In which part the aforesaid Anatolius then also was, without joining the fighting. He refers the matter to the master of the soldiery and informs him of the distress of famine that had befallen the besieged; and having obtained the favor [he sought], he addresses the factions dissenting among themselves and urges them to return into concord with the Romans. But when he saw them resisting, 'This at least,' he said, 'I believe you will gladly accept: that all your unwarlike host — which is by no means a sharer of the war with you, yet is a necessary sharer of the food — should go out.' [And so] they decree that the unwarlike host ought to go forth from the camp.

The opportunity being given, almost all whom famine was consuming burst forth together with the unwarlike — especially our people, to whom it was contrary to their purpose to wage war. All of whom Anatolius, receiving, cherished with the affection at once of a parent and of a physician. And thus he speedily brought salvation to the multitude through food; but to the rest — for few had remained — he struck dread of war and desire of peace. Thus by merciful and prudent counsel he at once delivered a very great city from famine... The city received a bishop after the war which we mentioned above was over. Many little works too of the aforesaid Anatolius, magnificently composed, have come down even to us. Of these it seems to me worthy to set forth, in his own words, what he thought concerning the Pascha.

The beginning of the cycle of nineteen years is, according to the Egyptians, the twenty-second of the month Dystrus, but according to the Romans the eleventh [of the Kalends of April]... one of the twelve parts. And this first particle out of twelve is the vernal equinox; and it itself is the beginning of the months, and the head of the cycle, and the completion of the course of the stars which are called 'planets,' that is, 'wandering,' and the end of the twelfth particle and the terminus of the whole cycle. And therefore they hold that it [the Pascha] is not to be celebrated [before it]. Nor yet does this reckoning take its origin first from us:

it is shown to have been approved by the ancient Jews, and is demonstrated [to have existed] before the coming [of Christ]... The more ancient Agathobulus, and, taught by him, Aristobulus of Paneas — who was one of those seventy elders who had been sent by the high priests to King Ptolemy to translate the books of the Hebrews into the Greek tongue, and who had answered many things from the traditions of Moses to the king who proposed questions and inquired — these, then, when they were expounding the questions of Exodus, said that the Pascha was not to be immolated before the equinox... and that not only [is the sun] to be observed, so that the sun cross the vernal equinox, but the moon also.

For since there are two equinoxes, he says — of spring and of autumn, equal [to each other]... after the evening, when the moon is caught directly opposite the sun in the region over against it — as it is even permitted to prove with the eyes — the sun is found indeed occupying the part of the vernal equinox, but the moon, on the contrary, that of the autumnal. I have read in their books many other things also set forth about these most valid affirmations, which evidently show that the solemnity of the Pascha [is to be kept] after [the equinox] in every case... Many other writings besides, admirable not only to religious men but even to philosophers, Anatolius left behind, whereby his salutary learning may become known to all who wish to know it.

Upon this man, Theotecnus, who first held the priesthood of Caesarea, laid hands in the episcopate, and while himself living [ordained] him for himself... (XXVIII) He presided together with Theotecnus himself over the church of Caesarea. But when [a council] was being convened at Antioch against Paul of Samosata, the church of Laodicea, Eusebius having died, forcibly claimed for itself Anatolius as he was passing by, [making him its] bishop. After him [came] the last, up to the time of the persecution... and in eloquence not inferior to the former ones, but far unlike in the virtue of faith, as the fire of persecution proved; for he showed nothing of philosophy in the necessity of trial. Yet not straightway is the poverty of God shown in his weakness; for after this man's fall God provided for that church a bishop... adorned with virtues.

This man was indeed a physician by art, but was translated by the Lord to the medicine of souls — truly incomparable, who shone above almost all men in faith, mercy, zeal, vigilance, and all the best endowments. In the divine Scriptures also [he took great] labor... having most skillfully discharged the episcopate, Agapius succeeds him.

Who himself too, applying much labor and much diligence to the governance of the people, and borne especially toward the needy with a fatherly providence... by whom also [was fostered] a man most prudent in all things, adorned in life, learning, and manners — Pamphilus. How great he was, and whence sprung — since it was not fitting to run briefly through his whole life and training from boyhood, and how much he endured in persecutions through diverse confessions, and what contests he sweated out, and how above all things he obtained the crown of martyrdom — let the reading of his own [account] teach.

But our memory still holds very many others too, admirable among the presbyters throughout that time — as at Alexandria, Hierius; but at Pontus, Meletius, who was afterward made a bishop. Hierius indeed was keen of wit, thoroughly and nobly versed in the divine Scriptures, an incomparable teacher of the Church, wonderfully disputing both privately and publicly; but Meletius was of such sweetness in manners and of such gentleness that he was called 'Attic honey' by his companions.

Perfect in all learning, in rhetoric he was such that [he surpassed others] in his other studies as well... which they divide into five disciplines; and he was so consummate in each of them that, when anyone wished to test him in any single one, he would judge that he had had his exercise from boyhood in that one alone. And though he was magnificent in the prerogative of his learning, yet the virtue of his soul and life [was greater]... placed in flight for a time in Palestine, it was permitted [us] to know [it] more diligently and fully. At Jerusalem, therefore, after Hymenaeus, of whom we made mention a little before, Zabdas received the priesthood, which, having administered it for a short time, he handed over after himself to Hermon. This man preserved there, up to the persecution of our time, the apostolic chair which he had received.

But at Alexandria, when Maximus, who had succeeded Dionysius, had passed eighteen years in the priesthood, Theonas succeeds him. In whose time Achillas, a presbyter of the same church, held the mastership of the ecclesiastical school, notable in learning, faith, conduct, and manners. But Theonas, when he had blamelessly ministered the priesthood for nineteen years, handed over the see to Peter, a man egregious among the foremost. This man spent all of twelve years in the episcopate of that city — of which three [he passed] before the persecution, but the remaining nine amid diverse kinds of trials.

And since, being ever set in every contest of the persecutions, he bound himself with the stricter bonds of self-restraint, and nobly persevered in the word of God for the profit and instruction of the Church, and toiled watchfully day and night in every care of the priesthood, in the ninth year of the persecution, but in the twelfth of his own episcopate, he received the crown of martyrdom. Thus far we have committed to history the successions of the bishops and the various events from the nativity of our Lord and Saviour down to the time of the persecution, in which the churches too were destroyed. As for the rest, describing the contests of the martyrs which we ourselves have seen with our own eyes, we shall hand them down to posterity. (The things done at Alexandria: — XII, how certain men taught.)

(from these) — Concerning our own time, that is, of Diocletian and Maximian. And concerning the Egyptians who suffered in Phoenicia. Concerning the things done at Alexandria. Concerning also the various other sufferings of men and of women. Concerning the leaders of the churches, who shed their blood for piety. Concerning the things which were once more turned back to the same state.