Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Paul of Samosata, and the Heresy introduced by him at Antioch. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter XXVII.—Paul of Samosata,
and the Heresy introduced by him at Antioch.
1. After Xystus had presided over the church of Rome for
eleven years,2375
2375 Xystus II. was bishop only eleven months, not eleven years. See
chap. 5, note 5. Eusebius’ chronology of the Roman bishops of
this time is in inextricable confusion. | Dionysius,2376
2376 After the martyrdom of Xystus II. the bishopric of Rome remained
vacant for nearly a year on account of the severe persecution of
Valerian. Dionysius became bishop on the 22d of July, 259, according to
the Liberian catalogue. Lipsius accepts this as the correct date.
Jerome’s version of the Chron. gives the twelfth year of
“Valerian and Gallienus” (i.e. 265–266) which is wide
of the mark. The Armenian Chron. gives the eighth year of the
same reign. As to the duration of his episcopate, authorities vary
considerably. Eusebius (chap. 30, §23, below) and Jerome’s
version of the Chron. say nine years; the Armenian
Chron., twelve; the Liberian catalogue, eight. Lipsius shows
that nine is the correct figure, and that five months and two days are
to be read instead of the two months and four days of the Liberian
catalogue. According to Lipsius, then, he was bishop until Dec. 27,
268. Dionysius of Alexandria addressed to Dionysius of Rome, while the
latter was still a presbyter, one of his epistles on baptism (see
above, chap. 7, §6, where the latter is called by Eusebius a
“learned and capable man”). Another epistle of the same
writer addressed to him is mentioned in chap. 9, §6. Dionysius of
Alexandria’s four books against the Sabellians were likewise
addressed to him (see chap. 26, above, and Bk. VI. chap. 40, note 1).
Gallienus’ edict of toleration was promulgated while Dionysius
was bishop (see chap. 13, note 3). | namesake of him of Alexandria,
succeeded him. About the same time Demetrianus2377
2377 On Demetrianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12. | died in Antioch, and Paul of
Samosata2378
2378 Paul of Samosata was one of the most famous heretics of the early
Church. He was bishop of Antioch and at the same time viceroy of
Zenobia, Queen of Palmyra. Both versions of Eusebius’
Chron. put the date of his accession to the see of Antioch in
the seventh year of Valerian and Gallienus, the year of Abr. 2277
(2278), i.e. in a.d. 259 (260); and
Jerome’s version puts his deposition in the year of Abr. 2283,
i.e. a.d. 265. These dates, however, are not
to be relied upon. Harnack (Zeit des Ignatius, p. 51) shows that
he became bishop between 257 and 260. Our chief knowledge of his
character and career is derived from the encyclical letter written by
the members of the council which condemned him, and quoted in part by
Eusebius in chap. 30, below. This, as will be seen, paints his
character in very black colors. It may be somewhat overdrawn, for it
was written by his enemies; at the same time, such an official
communication can hardly have falsified the facts to any great extent.
We may rely then upon its general truthfulness. Paul reproduced the
heresy of Artemon (see above, Bk. V. chap. 28), teaching that Christ
was a mere man, though he was filled with divine power, and that from
his birth, not merely from his baptism, as the Ebionites had held. He
admitted, too, the generation by the Holy Spirit. “He denied the
personality of the Logos and of the Holy Spirit, and considered them
merely powers of God, like reason and mind in man; but granted that the
Logos dwelt in Christ in a larger measure than in any former messenger
of God, and taught, like the Socinians in later times, a gradual
elevation of Christ, determined by his own moral development, to divine
dignity. He admitted that Christ remained free from sin, conquered the
sin of our forefathers, and then became the Saviour of the race”
(Schaff). At various Antiochian synods (the exact number of them we do
not know), efforts were made to procure his condemnation, but they were
not successful. Finally one of the synods condemned and excommunicated
him, and Domnus was appointed bishop in his place. The date of this
synod is ordinarily fixed at 268 or 269, but it cannot have occurred in
269, and probably occurred earlier than 268 (see below, chap. 29, note
1). Since Paul was in favor with Zenobia, his deposition could not be
effected until 272, when Aurelian conquered her. Being appealed to by
the Church, Aurelian left the decision between the claims of Paul and
Domnus to the bishops of Rome and Italy, who decided at once for
Domnus, and Paul was therefore deposed and driven out in
disgrace.
Our sources for a
knowledge of Paul and his heresy are the letter quoted in chap. 30; a
number of fragments from the acts of the council, given by Routh,
Rel. Sac. III. 287 sq.; and scattered notices in the Fathers of
the fourth century, especially Athanasius, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa,
&c. Cf. also Jerome’s de vir. ill. 71, and
Epiphanius’ Hær. 65. See Harnack’s article
Monarchianismus, in Herzog, second ed. (abbreviated in
Schaff-Herzog); also Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ.
Biog., art. Paulus of Samosata. | received that
episcopate.
2. As he held, contrary to the
teaching of the Church, low and degraded views of Christ, namely, that
in his nature he was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria was
entreated to come to the synod.2379
2379 This synod to which Dionysius was invited was not the last one, at
which Paul was condemned, but one of the earlier ones, at which his
case was considered. It is not probable that the synod was called
especially to consider his case, but that at two or more of the regular
annual synods of Antioch the subject was discussed without result,
until finally condemnation was procured (cf. Harnack, ibid. p.
52, and Lipsius, ibid. p. 228). Dionysius mentions the fact that
he was invited to attend this synod in an epistle addressed to
Cornelius, according to Eusebius, Bk. VI. chap. 46. | But
being unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave
his opinion on the subject under consideration by letter.2380
2380 Jerome, de vir. ill. 69, tells us that Dionysius wrote a
few days before his death, but that is only an inference drawn from
Eusebius’ statement. This epistle of Dionysius is no longer
extant, although a copy of it was originally appended to the encyclical
of the Antiochian synod (as we learn from chap. 30, §4), and hence
must have been extant in the time of Eusebius, and also of Jerome. An
epistle purporting to have been written by Dionysius to Paul of
Samosata is given by Labbe, Concil. I. 850–893, but it is
not authentic. | But all the other pastors of the
churches from all directions, made haste to assemble at Antioch, as
against a despoiler of the flock of Christ.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|