Scanned text contains errors.
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. Ixv. 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" (Aeyet 'Irjffow Xpiffroj/ /carco0ej>), 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. Ixv. 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 (A<?7os) and the Spirit (TTvev/jLa) exist continually (del ovra) in God, as the word, or rather reason (A<ryos) of man exists continually in his heart: that the Son of God has no distinct personality (,ut) eii/cu 8e tov Ylov rov
©eou eVu7rJ(rraToz>), but exists in God himself; as also Sabellius, No'/atv.s and Noetus, and others think, though he (Paul) does not (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 A^vyos) of man in him, are one God : deriving his heresy from these words, from the declaration of Moses (Deut. vi. 4), 4 the Lord thy God is one Lord.' And he does not say with Noe'tus 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 Philas-trius 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 opponents 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. II. 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 ma}r 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 forger}', 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 (IlavAoi; 2a,uoo-aT6cos Trpordffeis 5e/ca, as TrpoeretVG t<£ Hcnra Pauli Samosatensis Haeretici decem Quaestiones, quas Diom/sio Alexandrine 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 Firmi-lian, 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 retractatioa offered by Paul, and prevailed on the council to defer giving its judgment (Euseb. //. 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 Helenas of Tarsus