論異端 第 1 章 第 2/3 段

These speak rightly about Christ, apart from a certain point, but they blaspheme the Holy Spirit, defining him as created and not [belonging] to the Godhead — or rather, saying that, in a loose sense, he was created on account of his activity, asserting him to be only a sanctifying power.

This Aerius came from Pontus;

and even to this day he remains a trial for [religious] life.

He became a presbyter under the bishop Eustathius, who was accused of [belonging] among the Arians;

and since Aerius himself was not appointed bishop, he devised many doctrines against the Church; in faith he is a most thoroughgoing Arian, but he teaches doctrines even beyond that.

He says there is no need to make offerings on behalf of those who have fallen asleep, and he forbids fasting on Wednesday and Friday, and during Lent, and at Pascha;

he repudiates renunciation [of the world], and indulges freely in every kind of meat-eating and in food without restraint.

But if any of his [followers] should wish to fast, let it not be, he says, on the appointed days, but whenever you wish;

for, he says, you are not under the law.

And he asserts that a bishop differs in nothing from a presbyter.

The Aetians, from Aetius the Cilician, who had become a deacon under George,

the Arian bishop of Alexandria; they are also called Anomoeans, and by some Eunomians, on account of a certain Eunomius who became a disciple of Aetius;

with whom Eudoxius also associated, but he, allegedly out of fear of the emperor Constantine, separated himself [from them], and [the emperor] exiled Aetius alone.

Eudoxius, however, remained an Arianizer, yet not to the same degree as Aetius.

These Anomoeans and Aetians completely alienate Christ and the Holy Spirit from God the Father, affirming Christ to be created, and say that he does not even have any likeness [to the Father].

They wish to demonstrate God by means of Aristotelian and geometrical syllogisms, and, by such methods, [to show] that Christ, they allege, cannot be from God.

But the Eunomians among them rebaptize all who come over to them; and not only that, but also those coming from the Arians, turning those being baptized upside down, head downward and feet upward, as is widely reported.

And they say that to stumble in something — in fornication or in some other sin — is nothing terrible;

For God seeks nothing else than that a person be found only in this, their supposed faith.

These likewise are the seven heresies of the sixth tome of the third book.

The following are contained in the seventh tome of the third book: four heresies.

The Dimoerites, also called Apollinarians, who do not confess Christ's coming — that is, his incarnation — to be perfect: for some of them at one time dared to say that his body was consubstantial with the Godhead, while others at one time denied that he had also taken a soul — this they denied — and others still, relying on the saying "the Word became flesh," denied that he had taken flesh from created flesh, that is, from Mary.

They said only, contentiously, that the Word had become flesh; but afterward, upon further reflection — I know not how to describe it — they say that he did not take a mind.

The Antidicomarianites, who say that the holy Mary, the Ever-Virgin, after bearing the Savior, was joined to Joseph.

The Collyridians, who on a certain appointed day of the year offer a certain cake in the name of the same Mary — for which we have named them Collyridians.

The Massalians, whose name is interpreted "Euchites" [Praying People].

Joined to these also, from among the heresies devised by the Greeks, are those called the Euphemites, the Martyrians, and the Satanians.

This is the recapitulation of the seventh tome.

Chapters of the impious doctrine of the Massalians, drawn from their own book.

That Satan dwells together with man in a substantial manner, and rules over him in all things.

That Satan and the demons possess the mind of men, and that human nature has fellowship with the spirits of wickedness.

That Satan and the Holy Spirit dwell together in man, and that not even the apostles were free of the demonic working, and that neither does baptism perfect a man, nor does the partaking of the divine mysteries cleanse the soul, but only the prayer diligently practiced among them.

That man remains mingled with sin even after baptism.

That the believer receives the incorruptible and divine garment not through baptism, but through prayer.

That one must attain both passionlessness and participation in the Holy Spirit, which must come with full sensation and assurance.

That the soul must perceive such communion with the heavenly Bridegroom as a woman perceives in intercourse with her husband.

That the "spiritual" see, both within and without, sin and grace at work — operated upon and operating.

That there occurs a revelation given in sensation and in a divine hypostasis, as though it were a matter of doctrine.

That fire is a creator.

That the soul which does not possess Christ in sensation and in every operation is a dwelling-place of reptiles and venomous beasts, that is, of all the

That even before the transgression, Adam had intercourse with Eve without passion.

That seed and the Word fell into Mary.

That man must acquire, they say, two souls: one common to men, and one heavenly.

That it is possible, he says, for a man to receive the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit perceptibly, with full assurance and full operation.

That to those who pray, the cross can be manifested in light, and that at a certain time a man is found standing at the altar, and that three loaves mixed with oil are offered to him.

Moreover, they also reject manual labor as unbecoming to Christians.

And in particular they introduce also an inhumanity toward the poor, asserting that it is not fitting for those who have renounced the world, or for those who are just beginning to do good works at all, to give assistance to public beggars, or to abandoned widows, or to those who have fallen into various afflictions such as bodily disfigurement, illnesses, harsh creditors, raids of robbers or barbarians, or any such misfortunes — but rather that everything should be supplied to themselves.

for they claimed that they themselves were the ones truly "poor in spirit."

To this they added contempt for the churches and the altars, holding that ascetics ought not to remain at the church assemblies, but should be content with the prayers offered in their own prayer-houses.

for they said that the power of their prayer was so great that the Holy Spirit appeared perceptibly both to themselves and to those instructed by them.

For they tell marvelous tales, claiming that those who wish to be saved must pray to such a degree, doing absolutely nothing else at all, until they perceive sin — like a kind of smoke, or fire, or a serpent, or some such beast — being driven out by prayer and departing perceptibly through their prayers, and until they in turn receive perceptibly the entrance of the Holy Spirit and have a manifest perception in the soul of the Spirit's entrance.

And they say that this is the true communion of Christians.

For they say that those who are baptized by no means partake of the Holy Spirit through the baptism of the church or through the ordinations of the clergy, unless one should commune more diligently in their own prayers; and that one may receive communion of the Holy Spirit even apart from baptism, if he is willing to remain with them and be instructed in their doctrines — just as, when certain presbyters told them, "We confess to have the Holy Spirit by faith, and not by sensation," they promised that to them too, through praying together with them, the perception of the Spirit would be imparted.

So great is the conceit of their arrogance, that those who have supposedly partaken among them of the "perception of the Spirit" are pronounced blessed by them as perfect, free from all sin, and superior, and are attended upon and venerated as no longer subject to the dangers of sin, but as henceforth possessing license, freedom regarding foods, and every manner of honor guard, honor, and luxury — persons many of whom, even after such testimony of perfection among them, do not deign to call those outside their group even Christians.

They have been seen to fall into various shameful deeds, thefts of money, and fornications.

And besides what has been said, they tell many other marvelous tales — that they most indifferently dissolve lawful marriages, and welcome and bless as ascetics those who abandon their marriages; and they persuade fathers and mothers to neglect the rearing of their children, charming them by incantation to bring everything to themselves instead.

They readily receive slaves fleeing from their masters, and those coming to them from various sins — without any fruit of repentance, without priestly authority, without the ranks prescribed by the ecclesiastical canons — claiming to cleanse them most swiftly of every

sin, they promise, provided only that someone, having practiced among them their much-vaunted prayer, has become a ready initiate of their trickery — so much so that they even lead some such persons, before they have been freed from their sins, to ordinations of the clergy, deceitfully persuading the bishops — who are enticed by the testimony of those reputed among them to be ascetics — to lay hands upon them.

And this they pursue eagerly, not because they judge the ranks of the clergy to be honorable — seeing that they even despise the bishops themselves whenever they wish — but because they are procuring for themselves a certain power and authority.

And some of them say that they never partake of the mysteries unless they perceptibly sense the presence of the Spirit occurring at that very hour.

And some of them permit those who wish it to cut off their own natural members.

And they readily disregard excommunications as well.

And they swear fearlessly and commit perjury, and deceitfully anathematize their own heresy.

Further, concerning the aforesaid heresy of the Massalians, who are found especially in monasteries, from the History of Theodoret.

In the times of Valentinian and Valens, the heresy of the Massalians sprang up.

Those who translate the name into Greek call them "Euchetae" [Praying People].

They also have another appellation, arising from the matter itself.

They are called "Enthusiasts," since they receive the operation of a certain demon and suppose it to be that of the Holy Spirit.

Those who have taken in this disease completely reject manual labor as evil, and, giving themselves over to sleep, they call the fantasies of their dreams "inspiration."

The leaders of this heresy were Dadoes, Sabas, Adelphius, Hermas, and Symeon, and others besides these, who withdrew from ecclesiastical communion, declaring that the divine food — concerning which the Lord says —

"neither profits nor harms" — "He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood will live forever." But when attempting to conceal this, even after being refuted, they shamelessly deny and disown those who hold these opinions, which they themselves carry about in their own souls.

Letoius, however, who governed the church of the Melitenians, adorned with divine zeal, having observed many monasteries infected with this disease — or rather, dens of robbers — burned them down and drove the wolves out of the flock.

And Amphilochius, the all-renowned, who likewise had been entrusted with the metropolis of the Lycaonians and governed the whole nation, upon learning that this plague had broken out there also, rose up again and freed the flocks under his charge from that corruption.

And Flavian, the much-celebrated high priest of the Antiochenes, learning that these men were living in Edessa, pouring out their own poison upon those who approached them, sent a company of monks, brought them to Antioch, and, when they denied the disease, refuted them in the following manner.

For the accused said that the accusers happened to be liars, and that the witnesses were lying.

and having gently bidden Adelphius, who was extremely aged, to sit down nearby,

"We," he said, "O elder, having lived the longer life, have learned human nature more precisely, and have come to know the devices of the adversary demons, and by experience have been taught the bestowal of grace."

"But these men, being young and knowing none of these things precisely, cannot bear to hear a more spiritual discourse."

"Therefore tell me: how do you say that the opposing spirit withdraws, and that the grace of the all-holy Spirit comes upon a person?" Beguiled by these words, that old man vomited forth all his hidden poison, and said that no benefit at all comes to those baptized from baptism, but that only earnest prayer drives out the indwelling demon —

for he said that each one who is born draws from the forefather, just as he draws his nature, so also his slavery to demons.

and when these demons are driven out by earnest prayer, thereafter the all-holy Spirit comes upon a person, signifying its own presence perceptibly and visibly, freeing the body from the movement of the passions, and delivering the soul completely from its inclination toward the worse — so that thereafter one no longer needs fasting to discipline the body, nor teaching to restrain and train one to walk in good order.

And not only is the one who has attained these things freed from the leapings of the body, but he also clearly foresees future things, and beholds the divine Trinity with his own eyes.

Thus the divine Flavian, having dug open the foul-smelling spring and caused its streams to be laid bare, said to the impious elder:

"O thou grown old in evil days, let your own mouth convict you, and not I;

and let your lips testify against you." And when this disease had become manifest, they were driven out of Syria, and withdrew into Pamphylia, and filled that province also with their corruption.

These, then, are the heresies down to the time of Marcian.

But from Marcian on, a little further, even down to Leo, these heresies arose.

The Nestorians, who teach that God the Word exists separately and distinctly, and his man separately, and who attribute the humbler of the deeds done by the Lord in his sojourn among us to his man alone, and the loftier deeds befitting God to God the Word alone, and do not ascribe both together to one and the same person.

Eutychianists, who take the name of their heresy from Eutyches — who say that our Lord Jesus Christ did not receive his flesh from the holy Virgin Mary, but declare that he was made flesh in some more divine manner, not having grasped in their mind that the man who was liable to the sin of their forefather Adam is the very one whom God the Word united to himself from the Virgin Mary; from whom, having stripped off the principalities and powers, he made a show of them openly, as it is written, triumphing over them upon the cross — powers which that man had put on through the transgression of the first-formed one.

Egyptians, also called Schematici — Monophysites who, on the pretext of the document of the Tome at Chalcedon, split off from the orthodox Church.

They are called Egyptians because the Egyptians were the first to originate this schism, under the emperors Marcian and Valentinian, though in all other respects they are orthodox.

These men, out of partisan attachment to Dioscorus of Alexandria — who had been deposed by the synod of Chalcedon as an advocate of the doctrines of Eutyches — turned against the synod in sympathy with him, and at that time fabricated countless accusations against it concerning them, which we have already sufficiently refuted earlier in the present book, having shown them to be perverse and vain-minded.

Their leaders are Theodosius of Alexandria, from whom come the Theodosians, and Jacob the Syrian, from whom come the Jacobites.

Their co-witnesses, confirmers, and champions are Severus, the corrupter of the church of Antioch, and John the Tritheist, who labored at vain things — men who deny the mystery of the common salvation.

They have written much against the God-inspired teaching of the six hundred and thirty fathers at Chalcedon, and have set up many stumbling-blocks, destructive to those who perish, clinging to their own path; and by dogmatizing partial essences they confound the mystery of the economy.

On nature and hypostasis: how the followers of Severus hold their opinion, and how they dogmatize partial essences.

By John the Grammarian, the Tritheist, called Philoponus, from the fourth discourse of the Arbiter.

For the common and universal principle of human nature, even though it is itself in itself one, nevertheless, coming to be in many substrates, becomes many,

existing whole in each and not by division into parts — just as the principle of the ship in the shipbuilder, though one, is multiplied by coming to be in many substrates.

So too the theorem in the teacher, being one according to its own principle, when it comes to be in those being taught, is multiplied along with them, coming to be whole in each.

Furthermore, the impression in the seal-ring, being one, when it comes to be whole in many wax-imprints, thereafter both is and is called many.

So that the many ships, and the many men, and the many wax-imprints, and the concepts in the many disciples, are indeed more numerous with respect to the individuals, and are in this respect divided and not united; but with respect to the common form, the many men are one, and the many ships are one, and likewise the concepts, and the wax-imprints possess the one by the identity of the impression.

So that these things, in one respect, are many and divided, but in another respect, are united and one.

But even when we apply number to continuous quantities — for instance, saying that the wood is, say, two cubits — we say that the one is two in potency, not in actuality, since indeed it is one in actuality and not two;

but because it is capable of undergoing division so as to become two, in this sense we say that it is two of something.

From the same Arbiter, chapter seven.

Let this be the seventh argument, from which those who advocate the contrary opinion suppose that they confirm their own truth:

for, positing that the natures of Christ are two, they claim that his hypostasis, or person, is one and only one — likewise setting aside those who hold either that the nature of Christ is one after the union, or that his hypostases are two.

But before we proceed to the refutations of this hypothesis, I think it reasonable first to define what the teaching of the churches wishes the term 'nature' to signify, and what the term 'person' and 'hypostasis' signify.

It holds, then, that nature is the common principle of being of those who share in the same substance — as, for every man, 'a rational, mortal animal capable of intellect and knowledge';

for in this respect no man differs from another.

And he equates substance and nature as the same.

And by hypostasis, or person, he means the self-subsisting existence of each nature and, so to speak, a circumscription composed of certain properties, by which those who share the same nature differ from one another; and, to put it concisely, what the followers of the Peripatetic school are pleased to call 'individuals' — in which the division of the common genera and species terminates — these the teachers of the Church have called hypostases, and sometimes also persons.

For when the animal is divided into rational and irrational, and the rational again into man, angel, and demon, the entities into which each of these ultimate species is further subdivided — for instance, man into Peter and Paul, and angel into Gabriel and Michael, say, and each of the remaining angels — these they call individuals, because it is not possible for each of these to be further subdivided into others while still preserving their nature after the division.

For the division of man into soul and body brings about the destruction of the whole living being.

Hence they are pleased to call these things individuals.

But ecclesiastical usage has named such things hypostases, because in these the genera and species receive their existence.

For even if the animal has its own principle of being, and so too does man — of which the one is a genus, the other a species — yet they have their existence in the individuals, for instance in Peter and Paul, and apart from these they do not subsist.

We have, then, said what hypostasis is and what nature is, according to ecclesiastical instruction.

This common nature, then — that of man, according to which no man differs from any other — when it comes to be in each of the individuals, thereafter becomes proper to that one and common to no other, just as we defined in the fourth chapter.

For the rational, mortal animal that is in me belongs to no one else.

Certainly, when some man, or ox, or horse suffers, it is not impossible for the individuals of the same species to remain unaffected.

For indeed, when Paul has died, it is not the case that any of the rest of mankind has necessarily died; and when Peter has come to be and has been brought into existence, the men who will come after him are not yet among the things that are.

Therefore each nature is said to be what it is, not in a single sense, but in two senses.

In one sense, when we consider the common principle of each nature in itself by itself — for instance, the nature of man or of horse, not coming to be in any individual; and in another sense, when we observe this very same common nature coming to be in the individuals, and taking on a most particular existence in each of them, thereafter applying to that one alone and to no other.

For the rational, mortal animal that is in me is common to none of the other men, nor could the animal-nature that is in this horse come to be in any other, as we have just now shown.

That the teaching of the Church holds these conceptions concerning natures and hypostases is evident from the fact that we confess one nature of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while we dogmatically hold that there are three hypostases, or persons, of these — by which each is distinguished from the rest by some property.

For what could 'one nature of the Godhead' be, other than the common principle of the divine nature, considered in itself by itself and mentally separated from the property of each hypostasis? And that we also know the term 'nature' in a more particular sense again — beholding the common principle of nature as having become the property of each of the individuals, that is, of each of the hypostases, and no longer able to apply to any other under the common species — is again evident from the fact that we hold, concerning Christ, a union of two natures, namely, the divine and the human.

For we do not say that the common Godhead, understood with respect to the Holy Trinity, was made flesh;

for in that case we would be predicating the incarnation of the Father and the Holy Spirit as well.

Nor, again, do we hold that the common principle of human nature was united to God the Word;

for in that case it would again rightly be said that the Word of God was united to all the men who existed before the Word's sojourn, and to all who would come to be after it.

But it is evident that here we mean by 'nature of the Godhead' the nature which, in the hypostasis of the Word, has been made the particular property of the common Godhead.

Hence we also confess one incarnate nature of God the Word, by that very addition of 'of God the Word' distinguishing it from that of the Father and of the Holy Spirit.

So that here too, having understood the common principle of the divine nature as thereafter the property of God the Word, we say that the nature of the Word was made flesh.

And again we say that the nature of humanity that was united to the Word is that most particular existence which the Word alone, of all men, assumed.

So that, in this respect, the signification of 'nature' would be virtually the same as 'hypostasis,' except that the term 'hypostasis' also carries with it the properties that accrue to each individual over and above the common nature, by which they are distinguished from one another.

Hence one can find many of our own writers speaking, in different ways, of a union of natures, or of hypostases, having taken place.

For if hypostasis, as we have shown, signifies the particular and individual existence of each thing —

and they frequently use these terms interchangeably, it is evident that by them they also wish to signify to us the most particular nature; since indeed, in ordinary conversation and in the usage of those who have philosophized on such matters, it is customary for all to call even the common principle of nature 'man' — as when they say that man is a species of animal, seeing that none of the individuals is, or is called, a species falling under the genus.

But we also say that man differs from horse, clearly speaking of the universal natures themselves.

And again we say that Peter is a man, and

that Paul and John came to be men, and died — clearly meaning the particular individuals — even while the common principle of human nature remains the same in like manner.

And this too, again, it is reasonable to distinguish beforehand: that the term 'person' and 'hypostasis' are frequently, in our usage, indicative of the same meaning — just as if one were to call the same thing both 'xiphos' and 'machaira' [i.e., 'sword' by two different words].

Thus, indeed, concerning the Holy Trinity, we speak indifferently of three persons and three hypostases, signifying the same thing by each of the two terms interchangeably.

But frequently they distinguish 'person' from 'hypostasis,' calling 'person' the relation of certain things to one another — nor is ordinary usage ignorant of this signification of 'person';

for we say that so-and-so has taken up my person, and that so-and-so is brought to trial in the person of such a one, and we say that the prefect holds the person of the emperor.

Hence also those who are obedient to the doctrines of Nestorius, while not enduring to speak of either one nature or one hypostasis in the case of Christ, since they hold that there was a union neither of the natures nor of the hypostases as such, but suppose that the one born of Mary was a mere man who received into himself the whole divine illumination and in this way differed from all other God-bearing men — the divine illumination having come to be more partial in each of them — nevertheless boldly maintain that the person of Christ is one, saying that the relation of God the Word to the man born of Mary, being one, constitutes one person, since that man made the whole divine economy the content of his person, that is, of the Godhead of the Word.

Hence they say that even the outrage done to the man is rightly referred to God, since indeed the honor and the outrage done by subjects to the prefect are referred to the emperor himself.

Of this relation, then, they say that the appellation 'Christ' is properly indicative; hence they also see fit to call him 'one Christ,' since the relation, as has been said, is one, even though the things that partake of it may be several.

It is evident, I think, to those who hold pious views concerning the incarnation of the Savior, that when we say that the person of Christ is one, we do not, as it seemed to the friends of Nestorius, apply the term 'person' to the bare relation itself of God to the man; but we use the appellations 'hypostasis' and 'person' interchangeably, thus saying that the person of Christ is one, just as we say one hypostasis of a man — Peter, say, or Paul.