A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

150 PAULUS. PAULTJS.
able impression, he was signally disappointed. The Eovv fvn7rdararov), but exists in God himself; as
heathen and Jewish part of the population, hostile also Sabellius, Nom atns and No&tus, and others think,
to Christianity, were excited to jealousy and in- though he (Paul) does not (i. e. in other respects)
dignation; and among the Christians themselves, agree with, but thinks differently from them; and
the really humble were disgusted; and those who affirms that the Word came and dwelt in the man
were most desirous of the elevation of the Church Jesus. And thus he says God is one; not that
and its dignitaries, were scandalized at such vain the Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son,
ostentation. Only the weakest and most worldly and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit (i. e. not
were induced to admire. The decencies of public that the Father, Son, and Spirit are respectively
worship were violated; for Paul encouraged his ad- distinct persons); but that the Father and his Son
mirers of both sexes to manifest their approval by in him, like the word (or reason AoXyos) of man in
waving their handkerchiefs, rising up and shouting, him, are one God: deriving his heresy from these
as in the theatres; and rebuked and insulted those words, from the declaration of Moses (Deut. vi. 4),
whom a sense of propriety restrained from joining' the Lord thy God is one Lord.' And he does not say
in these applauses. His style of preaching tended with No'tus that the Father suffered, but he says
to aggravate the disaffection which his general de- that the Word came and alone did the work, and
portment inspired. He was equally unsparing in returned to the Father. And there is much that
his strictures on those former teachers of the is absurd beside this. The charge which Philaschurch whose memory was held in reverence, and trius makes against Paul, of teaching circumcision,
in his praises of himself, "after the manner rather is unsupported by older and better testimony, and
of a rhetorician or a mountebank, than of a bishop" no doubt untrue: it arose probably from the sup(Euseb. ibid.). He allowed and excited women to posed Jiudaical character of Paul's opinions.
sing his praises publicly in the church, amid the The heresy of Paul having stirred up his opposolemnities of Easter; and encouraged his flatterers nents to take measures which his moral delinquency
among the neighbouring bishops to praise him in had failed to stimulate them to, it was determined
their discourses to the people, and extol him " as an to hold a council. Dionysius of Alexandria was
angel from heaven." To these charges of open and invited to attend, but excused himself on the ground
ascertainable character, his accusers add others of of age and infirmity. He showed his opinion on
more secret, and therefore more dubious nature, the questions in dispute by a letter, not addressed
resting in fact on suspicion. The intimacy which to Paul, as bishop, and not even including a saluhe cherished with a succession of young and beau- tation to him, but addressed to the church of
tiful women, and his encouragement of similar in- Antioch (Euseb. H. E. vii. 27, and Epistol. Synod.
timacy in his presbyters and deacons, gave rise to Antioch. apud Euseb. II.E. vii. 30). This treatment
the most unIfavourable surmises; and he was from a man usually so moderate as Dionysius, shows
further charged with securing himself from being that Paul had to anticipate anything but fairness
accused by the partners of his secret guilt, by and equity at the hands of his judges. It may be
loading them with wealth, or by leading them so to observed here that the letter given in the Cbocilica
commit themselves, that apprehension on their own (vol. i. col. 849, &c. ed. Labbe, vol. i. p. 1040, ed.
account might make them silent as to him. Mlansi), as from Dionysius to Paul, cannlot, colnProbably, however, these offensive traits of his sistelntly with the above statement, be admitted as
character would have excited less animadversion, genuine. It is doubtful whether it is a forgery, or
had they not been connected with theological an actual letter of some other contemporary bishop
opinions, which excited great horror by their hetero- to Paul, to which the name of Dionysius has been
doxy. In fact his accusers admit that, though mistakenly prefixed. The ten questions or pro"all groaned and lamented his wickedness in secret," positions professedly addressed by Paul to the
they feared his power too much to provoke him by writer of this letter (Iatv5Aouv auooa'Trew aipe'trco&
attempting to accuse himi; but the horror excited 7rpoTraarEs Mamca, as 7rp. oreve sr IlaIrar Atovvoicp,
by his heresy inspired a courage which indignation Pauli Samosatensis Hcaeretici decesus Quaestiones,
at his immorality had failed to excite; and they quas Dionysio Alexandriso proposuit), subjoined,
declare that when he set himself in opposition to together with the answer to them, to the letter of
God, they were compelled to depose him, and elect Dionysius, cannot have been addressed to him.
another bishop in his room (Euseb. ibid.). Whether they canl be regarded as really addressed
The heresy of Paul is described by his opponents by Paul to any one else will depend on the decision
(Euseb. vii. 30; Epiph. HIaeres. lxv. 1, ed. Petavii) as to the origin of the letter itself. Notwithstandas identical with that of Artemas or Artemon ing the refusal of Dionysius to attend, a council
[ARTEMON, No. 3]. It is evident, from the por- assembled (A. D. 264 or 265), over which Firmition of the letter of his accusers which is given by lian, bishop of the Cappadocian Caesareia, and
Eusebius, that he denied the divinity of Christ and one of the most eminent prelates of his day, prehis coming from heaven, and affirmed that he was sided. Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother
"from beneath" (A/yeL'IqjreoOv XprdT'V tcaTcsOev), Athenodorus [GREc-Rouvs THAUMATURGUS] were
apparently meaning thereby, that he was in his present. Firmilian condemned the opinions held
nature simply a man. Epiphanius has given a by or imputed to Paul (between whom and his opfuller account of his opinions, but less trustworthy. ponents much dialectic fencing took place), but
The following passage (HIaeres. lxv. 1) is, however, accepted the explanation or promise of retractationu
apparently correct. " 1He (Paul) affirms that God offered by Paul, and prevailed on the council to
the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are defer giving its judgment (Euseb. If. E. vii. 28,
one God; and that his word (Xo'yos) and the 30). As, however, Paul, after the council had
Spirit (rvetzua) exist continually (diE ovira) in God, broken up, continued to inculcate his obnoxious
as the word, or rather reason (xoyuos) of man exists opinions, a second council was summoned, to give
continually in his heart: that the Son of God has an effective decision. Firnlilian died at Tuarsus
no ditinct personality (,tU) Elvai 3 y e riV Th Tro on his way to attend it; and ITelenus of Tarsus
L E oil lliS NV,1V to attend it; and lle'eiius of Tansus