the Roman arms, the other Britons took advantage of his absence to rise in open rebellion, and led on by Boadicea, the heroic queen of the Iceni, they captured the Roman colony of Camalodunum and defeated Petilius Cerealis, the legate of the ninth legion. The return of Paulinus, however, soon changed matters; and he at length finally defeated Boadicea with great slaughter, though not till Londinium and Verulamium had also fallen into the hands of the Britons. For further details see BoAduce.A. He returned to Rome in the following year, and was succeeded by Petronius Turpilianus. (Tac. Ann. xiv. 29–37, Agric. 5, 14 —16 ; Dion Cass. lxii. 1–12; Suet. Ner. 39.) In A. D. 66 Seutonius Paulinus was consul with C. Lucius Telesinus (Tac. Ann. xvi. 14 ; Dion Cass. lxiii. 1.) Paulinus was now looked upon as one of the first generals of the time, and while in Britain he was regarded by the people as the rival of Corbulo in military glory. His services were accordingly called into exercise in the civil wars which followed Nero's death. He was one of Otho's generals and chief military advisers, although he was not able to overcome the intrigues and influence of Licinius Proculus, in whom Otho placed most reliance. The German legions, who had proclaimed Vitellius, were advancing into Italy, and Otho set out to meet them in the spring of A. D. 69, taking with him Paulinus and other generals of experience. The plain of the Po was the field of operation; an account of which is given under Otho, p. 67. As far as respects Paulinus, it is only necessary to mention here, that he and Marius Celsus defeated Caecina, one of the Witellian generals, near Cremona; but as Paulinus would not allow his men to follow up their advantage, he was accused of treachery by his troops, though his conduct was probably the result of prudence. When Valens, the other general of Witellius, had joined his forces to those of Caecina, Paulinus strongly recommended Otho not to risk a battle ; but his advice was overruled, and the result was the defeat at Bedriacum, and the ruin of Otho's cause. After the battle Paulinus did not venture to return to his own camp. He fell into the hands of Vitellius, and obtained his pardon by pleading, says Tacitus, “the necessary but not honourable excuse,” that the defeat of Otho's army was owing to his treachery; for which self. accusation, however, there was certainly no foundation. This is the last time that the name of Suetonius Paulinus occurs. (Tac. Hist. i. 87, 90, 23–26, 31–41, 44, 60). PAULI/N US, M. VALE’RIUS, was a native of Forum Julii, where he possessed considerable estates. He was a friend of Vespasian's before his accession ; and having previously served as tribune of the praetorian tribunes, he was able to collect for Vespasian many of the Vitellian troops in Narbonnese Gaul, of which province he was appointed procurator, A. D. 69. He also served in the Jewish war, and was eventually raised to the consulship in the reign of Trajan, A.D. 101. He was a friend and correspondent of the younger Pliny, who has addressed five of his letters to him (Tac. Hist. iii. 42, 43; Joseph. B.J. iii. (14), 7. § 1 ; Plin. Ep. ii. 2, iv. 16, v. 19, ix. 3, 37.) PAULLULUS or PAU'LULUS, an agnomen of Sp. Postumius Albinus, consul B. c. 174. [ALBINUs, No. 14.] PAULLUS or PAULUS, a Roman cognomen

in many gentes, but best known as the name of a family of the Aemilia gens. [See below.] This surname was no doubt originally given to a member of the Aemilia gens on account of the smallness of his stature. The name seems to have been originally written with a double l, which is the form found on the republican denarii and in earlier inscriptions; but on the imperial coins, as in that of Paula [see above], and in later inscriptions, the word occurs with only one l. Paulus is also the form used by the Greek writers. As the name of many persons mentioned below is always written Paulus, and not Paullus, it is thought better for the sake of uniformity to adopt in all cases the former orthography, though in some instances the latter would be the preferable form. PAULUS (IIavaos), literary and ecclesiastical. 1. AEGINETA, a physician. [See below.] 2. Of ALExANDRIA, a Greek writer on astrology, who lived in the latter part of the fourth century. He wrote, according to Suidas (s. v. IlaiAos plagooq'os), two works, Eigayoryi) datpoxonias, Introductio Astrologiae, and 'Arorexeguaruká, Apotelesmatica. Fabricius suggests the reading i droreAequatiká instead of kai diroteWeauatucá, and understands the passage not of two works, but of two titles of one work ; and his correction is rendered probable by the title of the only published work of Paulus, which is entitled Eigaywys) eis Toy drorexeguarukiy, Rudimenta in Doctrinam depraedictis Natalitiis, 4to. Wittenberg, 1586. It was edited by Andreas Schatus or Schato, from a MS. in the library of Count Rantzau. The work appears to have gone through two editions in the author's life-time: for in the printed text, which probably represents the second edition, it is preceded by a short preface addressed to the author's son Cronamon (Kpováuww), who had noticed some errors in the former edition. The time when the author lived is inferred with probability from a passage in the work. In exemplifying a rule given for finding the days of the week, he chooses the year 94 of the era of Diocletian (= A. D. 378), which is therefore supposed to be the year in which the work was written. If this inference is correct, Paulus must be distinguished from another astrologer of the same name mentioned by Suidas (s. v. 'Iova riviavés à 'Pwóruntos), as having predicted the accession of the emperor Leontius [LEoNT1Us II.], and from a third Paulus, an astrologer, whom Ricciolus (apud Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. iv. p. 140, note z) states to have written an introduction to Astrology in the ninth century after Christ. The work of Paulus of Alexandria is accompanied by Greek Scholia, written by a Christian in the year 867 of the era of Diocletian, = A. D. 1151. Fabricius conjectured that they were by Stephanus of Athens (Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. xii. p. 693, ed. vet.), or by the Apomasar (Ahmed Ben Seirim) whose Oneirocritica was published by Rigaltus: but the date assigned to the Scholia is too late for these writers (see Biog. Dict. of U. K. Soc. s. v. Ahmed). If, on the authority of the text of Suidas, two works are ascribed to Paulus, the one published by Schatus will be the former of the two, the Introductio Astrologiae. (Suidas, l.c.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. ll.cc.) 3. ANTioch ENUs. [No. 17.] 4. Apostolus. The life of the Apostle and his genuine works do not come within our plan, but the following indisputably spurious works require notice. 1. Ai IIasaov. Tpd{eis, Acta Pauli, of which citations or notices are found in Origen (Tom. XXI. in Jan., De Principiis, i. 2), Eusebius (H. E. iii. 25), and Philastrius (Haeres. lxxxvii.). This work, which is lost, must not be confounded with No. 2. 2. ‘H reptobos IIaikov kal 6&rAas, Periodus Pauli et Theclue. This work is mentioned by Tertullian (De Baptismo, c. 17), and by Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 7). It was written, according to the former (l.c.), by a certain presbyter of Asia, who, when convicted of the forgery, acknowledged the act, and said that he had done it out of love to the Apostle. He was deposed from his office. Jerome (l.c.), citing this passage from Tertullian, adds, as if upon his authority, that the presbyter was convicted of the forgery before John (whether the Evangelist or the Elder, is not clear), which carries back the forgery almost, if not quite, to the Apostolic age. The work has perished. Whether there was such a person as Thecla, and whether she was connected with the Apostle Paul, has been disputed. Baronins and Grabe contend that there was ; Stilling, in the Acta Sanctorum, Sept. vol. vi. p. 550, thinks that there is some truth in what is said of her ; but Ittigius (De Biblioth. Patrum, p. 702) regards the whole story as a fable. She is mentioned by several of the principal fathers of the fourth century, Epiphanius, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory Nyssen, Chrysostom, Isidore of Pelusium, &c. In the fifth century, Basil of Seleuceia [BAsilius, No. 4) wrote a metrical history of Thecla (Phot. Bibl. Cod. 158), and Symeon Metaphrastes, at a later period, wrote her life. This latter biography, with another to which the name of Basil of Seleuceia was prefixed, (but with very doubtful propriety, for it was not written in metre, like the one mentioned by Photius), were published in the original Greek, with a Latin version by Petrus Pantinus, 4to. Antwerp, 1608. Grabe inserted in the first volume of his Spicilegium SS Patrum, pp. 95, &c., a history of Thecla, entitled Maprispiov ris dysas kai évôáčov trpartouépTwo ral droortóAov 8traas, Martyrium sanctae et gloriosae Proto-Martyris et Apostolatu defunctae Virginis Theclae, and which he regarded as the very work to which the presbyter of Asia had prefixed the name of Paul. Grabe, however, was probably mistaken: the narrative makes no profession of being written by Paul, and there is no trace of an absurd story of the baptism of a lion (“baptismi leonis fabulam”), which Jerome expressly mentions as contained in the presbyter's narrative. The work is, however, of considerable antiquity, and probably furnished materials for the two biographies published by Pantinus. The Martyrium, as published by Grabe, was incomplete, having been taken from a mutilated MS., and a considerable supplementary passage was published by Hearne, in his appendix to Leland's Collectanea. The Martyriam, thus completed, was reprinted by Galland, in the first volume of his Bibliotheca Patrum, p. 157, &c. (Grabe, Spicilegium, vol. i. p. 81, &c. Acta Sanctor. l.c.) 3. S. Pauli Praedicatio, perhaps referred to by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. lib. vi.), certainly mentioned by the anonymous author of an ancient tract, De non iterando Baptismo Haeretooruin (Fabric. Cod. Apocryph. N.T. vol. ii. p. 799). It is not extant. 3. IIpjs Aaobukéas rurroxi, 4d Laodicenses Epistola. This epistle, the forgery § which is ascribed by some ancient writers to the Manichaeans, has been printed several times: in the Polyglot Bible of Elias Hutter, fol. Nurem*g, 1599; in the Philologus Hebraeo-Graecus of

Leusden, 4to. Utrecht, 1670 ; in the Coder Apocryphus Novi Testament of Fabricius, and elsewhere. 4. Epistolae Pauli ad Senecam et Senecae ad Paulum, mentioned by Jerome (De Viris Illustr. c. 12) and Augustin (Epistol. ad Macedonium. 54, editt. vett., 153, edit. Benedictin.). These letters (five from Paul and eight from Seneca) are given in various editions of the works of Seneca; also by Sixtus Senensis, in his Bibliotheca Sancta, and by Fabricius, in his Coder Apocryphus N. T. 5. 'AvaSaturów IIasaov, Anabaticum Pauli, forged by the heretics whom Epiphanius calls Caiani, but used also by the Gnostics (Epiphan. Haeres. Xviii. c. 38). The book was founded on a passage in the genuine writings of the Apostle (2 Cor. xii. 4), in which he speaks of being caught up into the third heaven. It is now lost. 6. Apocalypsis Pauli, apparently different from No. 5; mentioned by Augustin (Tractat. XCVIII. in Joan.), Sozomen (H. E. vii. 19). Theophylact, and Oecumenius (Not ad 2 Cor. xii. 4). It was said to have been found in Paul's house in Tarsus: but Sozomen found, on inquiry, that this story was untrue. 7. An Epistola Pauli ad Corinthios, different from the genuine epistles, and an Epistola Corinthiorum ad Paulum, are said to be extant in the Armenian language ; and other epistles ascribed to the same Apostle are said to be extant in the Arabic. The Marcionites are said to have ascribed to Paul the gospel (formed from that of Luke) which was received among them. (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 12, ed. Oxford, 1740–43; Fabric. Cod. Apocryphus N. T.; Vossius, De Historicis Graecis, lib. ii. c. 9.) 5. Of CoNSTANTINople (1). On the death of Alexander, patriarch of Constantinople (A. D. 336), Paul, one of the presbyters of that church, and comparatively a young man, was chosen to succeed him by the Homoousian or orthodox party, while the Arians were anxious for the election of the deacon Macedonius, who sought to prevent the election of Paul by some charge of misconduct, which, however, he did not persist in. Both men appear to have been previously marked out for the succession by their respective partizans; and Alexander had, before bis death, passed a judgment on their respective characters, which is given elsewhere [MAcedonius, No. 3]. The Homoousians had carried their point; but the election was annulled by a council summoned by the emperor, either Constantine the Great, or his son Constantius II., and Paul being ejected, was banished into Pontus (Athanas. Histor. Arianor. ad Monachos, c. 7), and Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedeia, was appointed by the council in his room. On the death of Fusebius, who died A. D. 342, the orthodox populace of Constantinople restored Paul, who appears to have been previously released from banishment, or to have escaped to Rome; while the bishops of the Arian party elected Macedonius. The emperor Constantius II. being absent, the contest led to many disturbances, in which a number of people were killed ; and an attempt by Hermogenes, magister militum, to quell the riot and expel Paul, led to the murder of that officer by the mob. The emperor immediately returned to Constantinople, and expelled Paul, without, however, as yet confirming the election of Macedonius. Paul hastened back to Rome and sought the support of Julius I., bishop of that city, who, glad to exercise the superiority implied in this appeal to him, sent him back with a letter to the bishops of the Eastern Churches, directing that

he and some other expelled prelates should be restored to their respective sees, and bitterly accusing those who had deposed him. Paul regained possession of the church of Constantinople, but the Eastern bishops, in a council at Antioch, A. D. 343, returned a spirited answer to the arrogant pretensions of Julius; and the emperor, who was also at Antioch, wrote to Philippus, praefectus praetorio, to expel Paul again. Philippus, to avoid a commotion, sent the prelate away privately; but when he attempted to establish Macedonius in possession of the church, a riot occurred, in which above three thousand lives were lost. Paul was banished, according to Socrates, to Thessalonica, of which place Paul was a native, and then into the Western Empire, being forbidden to return into the East. But the account of Socrates is disputed, and Tillemont's opinion is probably correct, that it was at this time that Paul was loaded with chains and exiled to Singara in Mesopotamia, and afterward to Emesa in Syria, as mentioned by Athanasius (l.c.). If Tillemont is correct, the banishment into the Western Empire may probably be referred to the former expulsion of Paul, when he appealed to Pope Julius I., or possibly Paul may have been released from banishment and allowed to retire to Rome, which, according to Photius, he did three several times. The cause of Paul and of Athanasius, who was also in banishment, was still supported by the Western church, and was taken up by the Western emperor Constans, brother of Constantius, and the Council of Sardica (A. D. 347) decreed their restoration. Constantius, however, refused to restore them until compelled by the threats of his brother; upon whose death, shortly after, Paul was again expelled by Constantius, and exiled to Cucusus, in Cappadocia, amid the defiles of the Taurus, where it is said he was privately strangled by his keepers, A. D. 351, and buried at Ancyra. It was reported that his keepers, before strangling him, attempted to starve him to death. Great obscurity hangs over his death, and it is not clear whether he died by violence or by disease. But he was regarded by his party as a martyr, and when orthodoxy triumphed under the emperor Theodosius the Great, that prince brought his remains in great state to Constantinople, and deposited them in a church which was subsequently called by his name. (Athanas. l.c.; Socrat. H. E. ii. 6, 7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 20, 22, 23, 26, v. 9; Sozomen, H. E. iii. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 20, iv. 2; Theodoret, H. E. i. 19, ii. 5, 6 ; Photius, Bibl. Cod. 257; Theophanes, Chronog. pp. 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 59, ed. Paris, pp. 56, 57, 58, 64, 65, 66, 67, 109, ed. Bonn.; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. vii. p. 25.1, &c.) 6. Of CoNSTANTINople (2). When, on the accession of Constans II. as sole emperor, and the banishment of his colleague Heracleonas [CoNSTANs II. ; HERACLEoNAs), the patriarch Pyrrhus was deposed, Paulus or Paul II. succeeded to the patriarchate of Constantinople, of the church of which he had previously been a presbyter, and also oeconomus. He was consecrated patriarch in October, 642. He is charged with being a monothelite; and with having induced the emperor (A. D. 648) to issue an edict prohibiting all discussion of the question whether there were in Christ one will or operation, or two. On account of his heretical opinions he was declared by the pope Theodore I., in a council held at Rome (A. D. 648), to be deposed ; but as the pope had no power to enforce the sentence, though confirmed by the Lateran Council (A. D. 649), held under the

[ocr errors][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic][graphic]

lilac, given in a Latin version in the Ad Ephesinum Concilium variorum Patrum Epistolae of Christianus Lupus, 4to. Louvain, 1682, Ep. 107. This Paulus of Emesa is to be distinguished from a predecessor of the same name, who was present at the Council of Seleuceia, A. D. 359, and adhered to the party of Acacius (Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. ii. col. 839, but he does not give his authority): but who seems afterwards, under the emperor Jovian, to have united himself with the orthodox (Socrates, H. E. iii. 25, iv. 12: Sozomen, 11. E. vi. 4, 12), and to have acted with them possibly at the synod of Antioch (A. D. 363), certainly at that of Tyana (A. p. 367 or 368). 9. Episcopus. Gennadius (De Viris Illustribus, c. 31) mentions “Paulus Episcopus,” he does not say of what see, as having written a little book on repentance, De Poenitentia Libellus, in which he cautions the penitent against such an excess of somow as might lead to despair. We have no means of identifying this Paulus. The period occupied by the writers enumerated by Gennadius includes that in which Paul of Emesa [No. 8] flourished ; and as he was the most eminent prelate of the time of his name, he may possibly be the writer mentioned by Gennadius. 10, GERMINUs. [GERMINUs.] ll. JURIsco Nsult Us. [See below.] 12. Mosachus. [No. 19.] 13. The N EstoriaN. [No. 15.] ls. Of PANNoN1A. Gennadius (De Viris Illustrius, c. 75) calls him PAULUs PREsbyter, and states that he knew from his own testimony (ex dictis ejus), that he was a Pannonian ; but does not say to what church he belonged. He lived probably in the fifth century—Trithemius and Cave sly in A. D. 430,—and wrote De Virginitute serrada et contemtu Mundi ac Vitae Institutione Libri duo, addressed to a holy virgin Constantia. He took the opportunity of abusing “the heretic Jovinian,” the great opponent of monasticism [ HIERONYMts], as a luxurious glutton. The work is lost. In some MSS. of Gennadius, and by Honorius of Autun (De Scriptor. Eccles. ii. 74), he is talled, not Paulus, but Petrus. (Cave, Hist. Litt. vol. i. p. 414 ; Trithemius, De Scriptor. Eccles. c. 146; Fabricius, Biblioth. Med. et Infim. Latinitat. vol. v. p. 217, ed. Mansi.) 15. The PERSIAN. Paulus, a native of Persia, but said to have been a disciple of the heresiarch Nestorius, and a deacon of the church of Constantinople, was one of the most ardent supporters of Nestorianism at the time of the outbreak of the controversy respecting it. He wrote (1) a work, Ilop. Kpirews, De Judicio, and apparently (2) another work. IIepl Tov Švtos do aflow, De rero Bono. A fraginent of the former is quoted in the proceedings of the Lateran Council, held under Pope Martin I. A. D. 649 (Actio s. Secretarius v. apud Concilia, vol. vi. col. 320, ed. Labbe), and by the confessor St. Maximus [MAxiM Us CoNFFssoR }. in his Tomas Dogmaticus adversus Heractii Ecthesin (opera, vol. ii. p. 91, ed. Combésis). An extract on the subject indicated by the title of the second work, and from which the existence of the work itself is inferred, is among the Ercerpta Miscel**, extant in MS. in the Imperial Library at Vienna. It may be that the title is appropriate only to the extract, and that this may be taken to the work De Judicio. (Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 136, vol. i. p. 426.)

16. Presbytek. [No. 14.]

17. Of SAMosATA, a celebrated heresiarch of the third century. Of the early life of this celebrated man we know nothing more than that he was a native of Samosata, and that he neither inherited any property from his parents, nor followed any art or profession by which he could acquire wealth, before his exaltation to the bishopric of Antioch, apparently in A. D. 260. Cave ascribes his elevation to the influence of Zenobia [ZENobiA], whose husband Odenathus [ODENATHUs] was all-powerful in the East. But although Athanasius states that Paul was in favour with Zenobia (Athanas. Historia Arianor. ad Monachos. c. 71), he does not say that she procured his election to the bishopric, and in fact the context rather intimates that she did not procure or aid his elevation ; and beside, it does not appear that either Odenathus or Zenobia had any power at Antioch till after A. D. 260. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt that the election of Paul was free and spontaneous on the part of the church at Antioch ; and this circumstance, combined with the silence of the ecclesiastical writers, who would gladly have laid hold of any thing to his disadvantage, leads to the conclusion that his character before his elevation was not only free from any serious blemish, but so commendable as to lead to his being raised from an originally humble condition to the highest dignity in the church.

But this elevation was apparently the cause of his undoing. He manifested in his subsequent conduct great rapacity, arrogance, and vanity. To this his connection with Zenobia probably conduced, bringing him into contact with the corrupting influences of an Oriental court, and either awakening his ambition and avarice, or bringing them out more prominently. It is true that our knowledge of him is derived from the statements of his enemies; but, after making all reasonable abatement on this account, enough remains to show his general character, especially as the charges which are contained in the encyclical letter published by the council which deposed him, the greater part of which is given by Eusebius (H. E. vii. 30), were published at the time, and therefore had they been altogether groundless, would have been open to denial or re

futation. He obtained, while holding his bishopric, .

the secular office of procurator ducenarius, so called from the holder of it receiving a yearly salary of two hundred sestertia ; and is said to have loved the pomp and state of this secular calling better than the humbler and more staid deportment which became his ecclesiastical office ; and it was probably by the exercise, perhaps the abuse of his procuratorship, that he amassed the immense wealth, which, contrasted with his original poverty, so scandalized his opponents. He was led also, by his habits of secular grandeur and the pride they inspired, to introduce into the church a greater degree of pomp than had as yet been allowed, erecting for himself an episcopal tribunal (Bäua) and a lofty seat (Spóvov tumaov), and having this seat placed in a recess, screened from public observation (see Walesius on the word airpmTov, not. ad Euseb. H. E. vii. 30), in imitation of the higher judges and magistrates. When abroad he assumed all the airs of greatness; being attended by a numerous retinue, and affecting to read letters and to dictate as he went, in order to inspire the spectators with an idea of the extent and pressing character of his engagements. But if he expected to make by these proceedings a favour

able impression, he was signally disappointed. The heathen and Jewish part of the population, hostile to Christianity, were excited to jealousy and indignation ; and among the Christians themselves, the really humble were disgusted ; and those who were most desirous of the elevation of the Church and its dignitaries, were scandalized at such vain ostentation. Only the weakest and most worldly were induced to admire. The decencies of public worship were violated ; for Paul encouraged his admirers of both sexes to manifest their approval by waving their handkerchiefs, rising up and shouting, as in the theatres; and rebuked and insulted those whom a sense of propriety restrained from joining in these applauses. His style of preaching tended to aggravate the disaffection which his general deportment inspired. He was equally unsparing in his strictures on those former teachers of the church whose memory was held in reverence, and in his praises of himself, “after the manner rather of a rhetorician or a mountebank, than of a bishop” (Euseb. ibid.). He allowed and excited women to sing his praises publicly in the church, amid the solemnities of Easter; and encouraged his flatterers among the neighbouring bishops to praise him in their discourses to the people, and extol him “as an angel from heaven.” To these charges of open and ascertainable character, his accusers add others of more secret, and therefore more dubious nature, resting in fact on suspicion. The intimacy, which he cherished with a succession of young and beautiful women, and his encouragement of similar intimacy in his presbyters and deacons, gave rise to the most unfavourable surmises ; and he was further charged with securing himself from being accused by the partners of his secret guilt, by loading them with wealth, or by leading them so to commit themselves, that apprehension on their own account might make them silent as to him. Probably, however, these offensive traits of his character would have excited less animadversion, had they not been connected with theological opinions, which excited great horror by their heterodoxy. In fact his accusers admit that, though “all groaned and lamented his wickedness in secret,” they feared his power too much to provoke him by attempting to accuse him ; but the horror excited by his heresy inspired a courage which indignation at his immorality had failed to excite; and they declare that when he set himself in opposition to God, they were compelled to depose him, and elect another bishop in his room (Euseb. ibid.). The heresy of Paul is described by his opponents (Euseb. vii. 30 ; Epiph. Haeres. lxv. 1, ed. Petavii) as identical with that of Artemas or Artemon [ARTEMoN, No. 3]. It is evident, from the portion of the letter of his accusers which is given by Eusebius, that he denied the divinity of Christ and his coming from heaven, and affirmed that he was “from beneath” (Aéye ’Ingoûv Xploróv kara,0ev), apparently meaning thereby, that he was in his nature simply a man. Epiphanius has given a fuller account of his opinions, but less trustworthy. The following passage (Haeres. lxv. 1) is, however, apparently correct. “He (Paul) affirms that God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God; and that his word (A670s) and the Spirit (rvetua) exist continually (del ávra) in God, as the word, or rather reason (Adyos) of man exists continually in his heart: that the Son of God has no distinct personality (us) eiwa, 8° tow Tiow Tow

Osos, vviróaratov), but exists in God himself; as also Sabellius, Novatus and Noëtus, and others think, though he (Paul) does rot (i.e. in other respects) agree with, but thinks differently from them; and affirms that the Word came and dwelt in the man Jesus. And thus he says God is one; not that the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit (i.e. not that the Father, Son, and Spirit are respectively distinct persons); but that the Father and his Son in him, like the word (or reason Aéros) of man in him, are one God: deriving his heresy from these words, from the declaration of Moses (Deut. vi. 4), ‘the Lord thy God is one Lord.’ And he does not say with Noëtus that the Father suffered, but he says that the Word came and alone did the work, and returned to the Father. And there is much that is absurd beside this. The charge which Philastrius makes against Paul, of teaching circumcision, is unsupported by older and better testimony, and no doubt untrue: it arose probably from the supposed Judaical character of Paul's opinions. The heresy of Paul having stirred up his oppo. nents to take measures which his moral delinquency had failed to stimulate them to, it was determined to hold a council. Dionysius of Alexandria was invited to attend, but excused himself on the ground of age and infirmity. He showed his opinion on the questions in dispute by a letter, not addressed to Paul, as bishop, and not even including a salutation to him, but addressed to the church of Antioch (Euseb. H. E. vii. 27, and Epistol. Synod. Antioch. apud Euseb. H. E. vii.30). This treatment from a man usually so moderate as Dionysius, shows that Paul had to anticipate anything but fairness and equity at the hands of his judges. It may be observed here that the letter given in the Concilia (vol. i. col. 849, &c. ed. Labbe, vol. i. p. 1040, ed. Mansi), as from Dionysius to Paul, cannot, consistently with the above statement, be admitted as genuine. It is doubtful whether it is a forgery, or an actual letter of some other contemporary bishop to Paul, to which the name of Dionysius has been mistakenly prefixed. The ten questions or propositions professedly addressed by Paul to the writer of this letter (IIaúAov Xauoodrews aipetuoso rporáreis 8éka, &s trpoéreove to IIárq Atovvaio, Pauli Samosatensis Haeretici decem Quaestiones, quas Dionysio Alerandrino proposuit), subjoined, together with the answer to them, to the letter of Dionysius, cannot have been addressed to him. Whether they can be regarded as really addressed by Paul to any one else will depend on the decision as to the origin of the letter itself. Notwithstanding the refusal of Dionysius to attend, a council assembled (A. D. 264 or 265), over which Firmilian, bishop of the Cappadocian Caesareia, and one of the most eminent prelates of his day, presided. Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother Athenodorus [GREGorius THAUMATURGUs] were present. Firmilian condemned the opinions held by or imputed to Paul (between whom and his opponents much dialectic fencing took place), but accepted the explanation or promise of retractation offered by Paul, and prevailed on the council to defer giving its judgment (Euseb. H. E. vii. 28, 30). As, however, Paul, after the council had broken up, continued to inculcate his obnoxious opinions, a second council was summoned, to give an effective decision. Firmilian died at Tarsus on his way to attend it; and Helenus of Tarsus

« 前へ次へ »