Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Epistle of the Bishops against Paul. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
XXX.—The Epistle of the Bishops
against Paul.
1. The
pastors who had assembled about this matter, prepared by common consent
an epistle addressed to Dionysius,2397
2397 On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2. | bishop
of Rome, and Maximus2398
2398 On Maximus of Alexandria, see chap. 28, note 10. | of
Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces. In this they make
manifest to all their own zeal and the perverse error of Paul, and the
arguments and discussions which they had with him, and show the entire
life and conduct of the man. It may be well to put on record at the
present time the following extracts from their writing:
2. “To Dionysius and
Maximus, and to all our fellow-ministers throughout the world, bishops,
presbyters, and deacons, and to the whole Catholic Church under
heaven,2399
2399 This phrase differs from that used in the previous chapter by the
addition of πᾶς. | Helenus,2400
2400 On
Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. On Hymenæus and Theotecnus
see above chap. 14, notes 11 and 9. Hierax is possibly the bishop
addressed by Dionysius in the epistle quoted in chap. 21. Malchion is
mentioned in the preceding chapter; Maximus of Bostra and Nicomas of
Iconium, in chap. 28, as distinguished bishops. Of the others we know
nothing. |
Hymenæus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas,
Ælianus, Paul, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius,
Theodorus,2401
2401 It
has been suggested that Theodorus may be Gregory Thaumaturgus, who was
also known by that name (see Bk. VI. chap. 30); but this is extremely
improbable for everywhere else in referring to him as bishop, Eusebius
calls him Gregory, and in chap. 31 speaks of him as one of the most
celebrated bishops, and puts him near the head of the list. Here
Theodorus is placed near the end of the list, and no prominence is
given him. There is in fact no reason to identify the two. The name
Theodorus was a very common one. | Malchion, and Lucius, and all the
others who dwell with us in the neighboring cities and nations,
bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God, greeting to
the beloved brethren in the Lord.”
3. A little farther on they
proceed thus: “We sent for and called many of the bishops from a
distance to relieve us from this deadly doctrine; as Dionysius of
Alexandria2402 and Firmilianus2403
2403 On
Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3. | of Cappadocia, those blessed men. The first
of these not considering the author of this delusion worthy to be
addressed, sent a letter to Antioch,2404
2404 On
this epistle, see chap. 27, note 6. As we see from this passage, the
epistle of Dionysius was addressed not to Paul himself, but to the
council, and hence could not be identified with the epistle given by
Labbe, even were the latter authentic. | not written
to him, but to the entire parish, of which we give a copy
below.
4. But Firmilianus came twice2405
2405 It
is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata had been
discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one which
deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. The passage
shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so long. Not
merely on account of his influential position, as some have said, but
also because he promised that he would give up his heresy and conform
his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language would seem to imply
that Firmilian had presided at the synod or synods, which are referred
to here; and this is assumed by most writers. On Firmilian, see Bk. VI.
chap. 26, note 3. | and condemned his innovations, as we who
were present know and testify, and many others understand. But as he
promised to change his opinions, he believed him and hoped that without
any reproach to the Word what was necessary would be done. So he
delayed the matter, being deceived by him who denied even his own God
and Lord,2406
2406 The
words “and Lord” are wanting in some good mss. as well as in Rufinus, and are consequently omitted
by Schwegler and Heinichen. But I have preferred to follow the majority
of the mss. and all the other editors in
retaining the words which are really necessary to the sense; for it is
not meant that Paul denied God, but that he denied his God and Lord
Jesus Christ; namely, by rejecting his essential deity. | and had not kept the faith which he
formerly held.
5. And now Firmilianus was again
on his way to Antioch, and had come as far as Tarsus because he had
learned by experience his God-denying wickedness. But while we, having
come together, were calling for him and awaiting his arrival, he
died.”2407
2407 On
the date of Firmilian’s death, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3,
above. |
6. After other things they
describe as follows the manner of life which he2408
2408 i.e. Paul of Samosata. | led:
7. “Whereas he has
departed from the rule of faith,2409 and has
turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not
necessary,—since he is without,—that we should pass
judgment upon his practices: as for instance in that although formerly
destitute and poor, and having received no wealth from his fathers, nor
made anything by trade or business, he now possesses abundant wealth
through his iniquities and sacrilegious acts, and through those things
which he extorts from the brethren,2410
2410 I
follow Heinichen in reading ὧν žτι
ἐκσείει τοὺς
ἀδελφούς, which is supported by five important mss. (cf. Heinichen’s note in loco). The
majority of the editors read ὧν
αἰτεῖ καὶ
σείει κ.τ.λ., which, however, is not so well supported by ms. authority. Laemmer, on the authority of a single
codex, reads ὧν žτι καὶ
σείει, and still
other variations occur in some mss. | depriving the
injured of their rights and promising to assist them for reward, yet
deceiving them, and plundering those who in their trouble are ready to
give that they may obtain reconciliation with their oppressors,
‘supposing that gain is godliness’;2411 —
8. or in that he is haughty, and
is puffed up, and assumes worldly dignities, preferring to be called
ducenarius2412
2412 Paul was the “Procurator Ducenarius” of Zenobia, the
queen of Palmyra, an official so-called because his salary was 200
sestertia. “The Ducenarius was an imperial procurator, so-called
from his salary of 200 sesteria, or 1600 pounds a year. Some critics
suppose that the bishop of Antioch had actually obtained such an office
from Zenobia” (Gibbon). There seems to be no reason to doubt that
Paul held such a position under Zenobia, which appears to be the
implication of the words here, and so he is commonly spoken of as a
high official, even as “Viceroy” of Zenobia. We know from
Athanasius (Hist. Ar. §71, Oxf. ed. Chap. VIII. §10),
that he was a great favorite with Zenobia, and that to her he owed the
privilege of retaining his bishopric after the synod had deposed him.
This friendship shown toward him by Zenobia, who was of the strictest
manners, is much in his favor, and almost tempts us to doubt the
terrible character given him in this epistle by the members of the
synod. There must have been some palliating circumstances in the case.
He can hardly have been as unqualifiedly bad as this letter paints
him. | rather than bishop; and struts in
the market-places, reading letters and reciting them as he walks in
public, attended by a body-guard, with a multitude preceding and
following him, so that the faith is envied and hated on account of his
pride and haughtiness of heart;—
9. or in that he practices
chicanery in ecclesiastical assemblies, contrives to glorify himself,
and deceive with appearances, and astonish the minds of the simple,
preparing for himself a tribunal and lofty throne,2413
2413 Valesius says, “The Fathers do not here condemn Paul because
he had a throne; …but because he erected a tribunal for himself
in the church and placed upon that a high throne. Rufinus, therefore,
translates this passage correctly: In ecclesia vero tribunal sibi
multo altius quam fuerat exstrui, et thronum in excelsioribus collocari
jubet. Bishops did sit on a seat a little higher than the rest of
the presbyters, but they did not have a tribunal.” This has been
frequently quoted, and is on the whole a true statement of facts. But
the Greek is βῆμα μὲν καὶ
θρόνον
ὑψηλόν, and
Rufinus is certainly wrong in putting his multo altius with the
tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek reads, is upon the βῆμα as such, not upon the height of it, while the θρόνος is condemned because of its height. The translation of
Rufinus shows what was the custom in his day. He could not understand
that a βῆμα should be
objected to as such. | —not like a disciple of
Christ,—and possessing a ‘secretum,’2414
2414 Greek σήκρητον, for the Latin secretum, which was the name of the
place where the civil magistrates and higher judges sat to decide
cases, and which was raised and enclosed with railings and curtains in
order to separate it from the people. In the present case it means of
course a sort of cabinet which Paul had at the side of the tribunal, in
which he could hold private conferences, and whose resemblance to the
secretum of a civil magistrate he delighted to
emphasize. | —like the rulers of the
world,—and so calling it, and striking his thigh with his hand,
and stamping on the tribunal with his feet;—or in that he rebukes
and insults those who do not applaud, and shake their handkerchiefs as
in the theaters, and shout and leap about like the men and women that
are stationed around him, and hear him in this unbecoming manner, but
who listen reverently and orderly as in the house of God;—or in
that he violently and coarsely assails in public the expounders of the
Word that have departed this life, and magnifies himself, not as a
bishop, but as a sophist and juggler,
10. and stops the psalms to our
Lord Jesus Christ, as being the modern productions of modern men, and
trains women to sing psalms to himself in the midst of the church on
the great day of the passover, which any one might shudder to hear, and
persuades the bishops and presbyters of the neighboring districts and
cities who fawn upon him, to advance the same ideas in their discourses to the
people.
11. For to anticipate something
of what we shall presently write, he is unwilling to acknowledge that
the Son of God has come down from heaven. And this is not a mere
assertion, but it is abundantly proved from the records which we have
sent you; and not least where he says ‘Jesus Christ is from
below.’2415
2415 ᾽Ιησοῦν
χριστὸν
κ€τωθεν.
Compare, by way of contrast, the words of John iii. 31: “He that
cometh from above is above all” (ὁ ἄνωθεν
ἐρχόμενος
ἐπ€νω π€ντων
ἐστίν). The words
quoted in the epistle can hardly have been used by Paul himself. They
are rather to be regarded as a logical inference from his positions
stated by the writers of the epistle in order to bring out the
blasphemous nature of his views when contrasted with the statement in
John, which was doubtless in their minds while they wrote. | But those singing
to him and extolling him among the people say that their impious
teacher has come down an angel from heaven.2416
2416 The account seems to me without doubt overdrawn at this point. It
was such a common thing, from the time of Herod Agrippa down, to accuse
a man who was noted for his arrogance of encouraging the people to call
him an angel descended from heaven, that we should almost be surprised
if the accusation were omitted here. We have no reason to think, in
spite of the report of these good Fathers, that Paul’s
presumption went to such a blasphemous and at the same time absurd
length. |
And he does not forbid such things; but the arrogant man is even
present when they are uttered.
12. And there are the women, the
‘subintroductæ,’2417
2417 συνείσακτοι. On these Subintroductæ, see Smith and
Cheetham’s Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v. | as the
people of Antioch call them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and
deacons that are with him. Although he knows and has convicted these
men, yet he connives at this and their other incurable sins, in order
that they may be bound to him, and through fear for themselves may not
dare to accuse him for his wicked words and deeds.2418
2418 It is quite probable that Paul had given some ground for the
suspicions which the worthy bishops breathe here, but that is very far
from saying that he was actually guilty of immorality. In fact, just
below (§13), they show that these are nothing more than
suspicions. Exactly what position the two women held who are mentioned
in §14 it is difficult to say, but Paul must of course have given
some plausible reason for their presence, and this is implied in
§16, where the writers say that were he orthodox, they would
inquire his reasons for this conduct, but since he is a heretic, it is
not worth while to investigate the matter. As remarked above, while the
direct statements of the epistle can in the main hardly be doubted, we
must nevertheless remember that the prejudices of the writers would
lead them to paint the life of Paul as black as circumstances could
possibly warrant, and unfounded suspicions might therefore easily be
taken as equivalent to proved charges. | But he has also made them rich; on
which account he is loved and admired by those who covet such
things.
13. We know, beloved, that the
bishop and all the clergy should be an example to the people of all
good works. And we are not ignorant how many have fallen or incurred
suspicion, through the women whom they have thus brought in. So that
even if we should allow that he commits no sinful act, yet he ought to
avoid the suspicion which arises from such a thing, lest he scandalize
some one, or lead others to imitate him.
14. For how can he reprove or
admonish another not to be too familiar with women,—lest he fall,
as it is written,2419 —when he
has himself sent one away already, and now has two with him, blooming
and beautiful, and takes them with him wherever he goes, and at the
same time lives in luxury and surfeiting?
15. Because of these things all
mourn and lament by themselves; but they so fear his tyranny and power,
that they dare not accuse him.
16. But as we have said, while
one might call the man to account for this conduct, if he held the
Catholic doctrine and was numbered with us,2420
2420 We
get a glimpse here of the relative importance of orthodoxy and morality
in the minds of these Fathers. Had Paul been orthodox, they would have
asked him to explain his course, and would have endeavored to persuade
him to reform his conduct; but since he was a heretic, it was not worth
while. It is noticeable that he is not condemned because he is immoral,
but because he is heretical. The implication is that he might have been
even worse than he was in his morals and yet no decisive steps have
been taken against him, had he not deviated from the orthodox faith.
The Fathers, in fact, by their letters, put themselves in a sad
dilemma. Either Paul was not as wicked as they try to make him out, or
else they were shamefully indifferent to the moral character of their
bishops, and even of the incumbents of their most prominent
sees. |
since he has scorned the mystery and struts about in the abominable
heresy of Artemas2421
2421 On
Artemas, or Artemon, see Bk. V. chap. 28, note 1. Paul’s heresy
was a reproduction of his, as remarked above, chap. 27, note
4. | (for why should
we not mention his father?), we think it unnecessary to demand of him
an explanation of these things.”
17. Afterwards, at the close of
the epistle, they add these words:
“Therefore we have been
compelled to excommunicate him, since he sets himself against God, and
refuses to obey; and to appoint in his place another bishop for the
Catholic Church. By divine direction, as we believe, we have appointed
Domnus,2422
2422 The action of this council in appointing Domnus was entirely
irregular, as the choice of the bishop devolved upon the clergy and the
people of the diocese. But the synod was afraid that Paul’s
influence would be great enough to secure his re-election, and hence
they took this summary means of disposing of him. But it was only after
the accession of Aurelian that Paul was actually removed from his
bishopric and Domnus was enabled to enter upon his office (see chap.
27, note 4). The exact date of Domnus’ appointment is uncertain,
as already shown (see the note just referred to); so also the date of
his death. Both versions of the Chron. put his accession in the
year of Abr. 2283 (a.d. 265), and
Jerome’s version puts the accession of his successor,
Timæus, in the year of Abr. 2288 (a.d.
270), while the Armenian omits the notice entirely. We can place no
reliance whatever upon these dates; the date of Domnus’ death is
certainly at least two years too early (see the note already referred
to). | who is adorned with all the
qualities becoming in a bishop, and who is a son of the blessed
Demetrianus,2423
2423 On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of
Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12. | who formerly presided in a
distinguished manner over the same parish. We have informed you of this
that you may write to him, and may receive letters of communion2424
2424 τὰ
κοινωνικὰ
γρ€μματα. Valesius says: “The Latins call them literas
communicatorias, and the use of them is very ancient in the Church.
They were also called formatæ (cf. Augustine Epistle 163).
These writers were of two kinds: the one given to the clergy and laity
when they were going to travel, in order that they might be admitted to
communion by foreign bishops: while the other kind were sent by bishops
to other bishops to declare their communion with them, and were in turn
received from other bishops. Of the latter the synod speaks here. They
were usually sent by new bishops soon after their ordination.”
Valesius refers to Augustine (ibid.), to Cyprian’s epistle
to Cornelius (Ep. 41, al. 45), and to the synodical
epistle of the Council of Sardica. | from him. But let this man write to
Artemas; and let those who think as Artemas does, communicate with
him.”2425
2425 This is a very keen bit of sarcasm. As Harnack remarks, the
mention of Artemas in this way proves (or at least renders it very
probable) that he was still alive at this time, in which case his
activity in Rome must be put somewhat later than the commonly accepted
dates, viz. the episcopate of Zephyrinus (202–217). |
18. As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the
orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, became bishop of the church
at Antioch.
19. But as Paul refused to
surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and
he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given
to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should
adjudge it.2426 Thus this man was driven out of
the church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.
20. Such was Aurelian’s
treatment of us at that time; but in the course of his reign he changed
his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain advisers to
institute a persecution against us.2427
2427 Aurelian, according to tradition, was the author of the ninth of
the “ten great persecutions” against the Church. But the
report is a mistake. Eusebius apparently is the ultimate source to
which the report is to be referred, but he says expressly that he died
before he was able to begin his intended persecution, and more than
that, that he was even prevented from signing the decree, so that it is
not proper to speak even of an hostile edict of Aurelian (as many do
who reject the actual persecution). It is true that in
Lactantius’ De mort. persecutorum, chap. 6, it is said
that Aurelian actually issued edicts against the Christians, but that
he died before they had found their way to the most distant provinces.
It seems probable, however, that Eusebius’ account is nearest the
truth, and that the reports that Aurelian actually signed the edicts as
well as that he commenced the persecution are both developments from
the original and more correct version of the affair which Eusebius
gives. There is no reason to doubt the account of Eusebius.
Aurelian’s conduct in the case of Paul does not imply any special
friendliness on his part toward the Church. The Christians had secured
legal recognition under Gallienus; and it was a simple act of common
justice to put the valuable property of the Church in Antioch into the
hands of the rightful owners whoever they might be. His act does imply,
however, that he cannot have been in the beginning actively hostile to
the Church, for in that case he would simply have driven Paul out, and
confiscated the property. | And there
was great talk about this on every side.
21. But as he was about to do
it, and was, so to speak, in the very act of signing the decrees
against us, the divine judgment came upon him and restrained him at the
very verge2428
2428 μονονουχὶ
ἐξ ἀγκώνων
τῆς
ἐγχειρήσεως
αὐτὸν
ἐπιδεσμοῦσα | of his undertaking, showing in a
manner that all could see clearly, that the rulers of this world can
never find an opportunity against the churches of Christ, except the
hand that defends them permits it, in divine and heavenly judgment, for
the sake of discipline and correction, at such times as it sees
best.
22. After a reign of six
years,2429
2429 Aurelian reigned from 270 to 275, and was succeeded by Tacitus,
who ruled only six months, and he in turn by Probus (276 to 282), who
was followed by Carus and his sons Carinus and Numerian, and they in
turn by Diocletian in 284. Eusebius here omits Tacitus, although he
mentions him in his Chron., and assigns six months to his reign,
and five years and six months to the reign of Aurelian. | Aurelian was succeeded by Probus.
He reigned for the same number of years, and Carus, with his sons,
Carinus and Numerianus, succeeded him. After they had reigned less than
three years the government devolved on Diocletian, and those associated
with him.2430
2430 Diocletian associated Maximian with himself in the government in
286, and sent him to command the West with the title of Augustus. In
293 he appointed Constantius Chlorus and Galerius as Cæsars,
giving to the former the government of Gaul and Britain, to the latter
that of the provinces between the Adriatic and the Euxine, while
Maximian held Africa and Italy, and Diocletian himself retained the
provinces of Asia. He issued an edict, opening his famous persecution
against the Christians, of which Eusebius gives an account in the next
book, on Feb. 23, 303. | Under them took place the
persecution of our time, and the destruction of the churches connected
with it.
23. Shortly before this,
Dionysius,2431
2431 On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2. | bishop of Rome, after holding
office for nine years, died, and was succeeded by Felix.2432
2432 According to the Liberian catalogue, Felix became bishop on the
fifth of January, 269, and held office five years eleven months and
twenty-five days, until the thirtieth of December, 274, and these dates
Lipsius accepts as correct. Eusebius, in chap. 32, gives five years as
the duration of his episcopate, and with this Jerome’s version of
the Chron. agrees, while the Armenian gives nineteen years,
which is absolutely inconsistent with its own notices, and must be of
course a copyist’s mistake. Jerome puts the accession of Felix in
the first year of Probus, which is wide of the mark, and the Armenian
in the first year of Aurelian, which is not so far out of the
way.
Felix addressed a
letter, in regard to Paul of Samosata, to Maximus and the clergy of
Antioch, of which fragments have been preserved in the Apology of Cyril
of Alexandria, and in the Acts of the Council of Ephesus (given by
Mansi, Conc. I. 1114). The report of his martyrdom is probably a
mistake, and has resulted from confusing him with Felix II., who was
bishop of Rome in the fourth century. | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|