the ecclesiastical writers of that period, who, if they hud had the opportunity, would have gladly laid hold of anything to his disadvantage ; and we should ratlier think that ins cliaracter must have been remarkablj' pure and worthj' to have led to his being raised from an originally obscure condition to the highest dignity in the Church. After his elevation he was apparent- ly less scrupulous and humble, and it may be reason- ably inferred from what his enemies say of him — and they are the onlj' ones who have written about Paul of Samosata — that he manifested in the episcopal office great rapacity', arrogance, and vanity. The encycli- cal letter issued by tlie council which deposed him (see below) was published at the time of his condem- nation (A.D. 269), and if the charges had been capa- ble of refutation or denial, Paul would not have suf- fered them to go unanswered. He obtained, while holding his bishopric, the secular office oi procurator decenarius (so called from the holder of it receiving a yearlj- salarj' of two hundred sestertia), and is said to have loved the pomp and state of his secular calling better than the humbler and more staid deportment which became his ecclesiastical office ; and it was prob- ably by the exercise, perhaps the abuse of his procu- ratorship, that he amassed the immense wealth which, contrasted with his original poverty', so scandalized his opponents. He was led also by his habits of sec- ular grandeur, and the pride the}' inspired, to introduce into the Church a greater degree of pomp than had as yet been allowed, erecting for hiuiself an episcopal tribunal (lii'i/ta) and a lofty seat (j^puvoi' ?'i|»;\oi'), and having this seat placed in a recess screened from pub- lic observation, in imitation of the higher judges and magistrates (see Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. vii, 30). When abroad he assumed all tiie airs of greatness, being at- tended ijy 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 e.xtent and pressing character of his engagements. The decencies of pub- lic worship he also violated. He encouraged his ad- mirers of both sexes to manifest their approval by waving their handlierchiefs and rising up and shout- ing, as in the theatres, and rebuked and insulted those wliom a sense of propriety restrained from joining in these apidauses. His style of preaching tended to aggravate the disafi'ection which his general deport- ment inspired. He was equallv unsparing in his strictures on tliose former teachers of the Church whose memory was held in reverence, and in his praises of himself, ''after the manner rather of a rhet- orician or a mountebanlv than of a bishop" (Eusebius). He allowed and excited women to sing his praises publicly in the church, amid the solemnities of Easter, and encouraged his flatterers among the neighboring 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 ac- cusers add others of more secret and therefore of more dubious nature, resting in fact on mere suspicion. But it is very probable that these oflTensive traits would have excited less animadversion had they not been connected with heretical theological opinions. Indeed, his accusers admit that, "though all groaned and la- mented his wickedness in secret," they feared his pow- er too much to provoke him by attempting to accuse liim ; but tlie horror excited by his heresy in5|iired a courage which indignation at his immorality had failed to excite ; and thej' declare that, when he set himself in opposition to God, they were compelled to depose him and elect another bishop in his place (Eusebius). Moshcim, who is inclined to take the most favorable view of Paul's failings, saj'S :
"That Paul was publicly landed by women, and by neii,'hbi)ring bishops and jjresbyters, I can believe with- out much difficulty; but that he was so infatuated and so greedy of piaise as boldly to urge forward these pro- claiiners of his virtues, I cannot believe so easily. I sus- pect that Paul, after the controversy arising from his
PAUL
828
PAUL
novel opinicins had become warm, nnd the people had become tlivided into factions and parties, jjersuaded some bislii>i)s and |)resl)ytei's to defend and support his cause ill pnl)lic discourses; and, tliroii^ii liis satellites, he en- ConraLTcd some women, on Kasier-day, wlien the people were all asseml)led, suddenly to shout forth his praise, in order to conciliate popular favor to him, and to check the risinir storm of opposition. He allowed his presby- ters and deacons, among other wrong things, to keep the so-called sub-i7itrodiwed {triweicrtiiiTa^, auhintroducta'i) tcovi- en: and he himself kept; two young women, and cariied them with him when he travelled. This was not contrary to the custom of the priests of that age, of which I have s|)oken elsewhere. But the bishops do not accuse Paul of any illicit intercourse with these women: whence it appears that, though a luxurious liver, he was not alto- gether regardless of the laws of chastity and decorum.
" Respecting the im[)iety of Paul of Samosata, scarcely any writer since the 3d century, who has treated of the triiiity of persons in God, and of Christ, either formally or incidentally, is silent; and the writers on heresies, one and all, place him among the worst corrupters of revealed truth, and vehemently inveigh against him: so Kpipha- nius, Theodoret, Augustine, Daniascenus, and the rest. Moreover, some of the public documents of the iiroceed- ings against him have reached us, a circumstance which has not occurred in regard to most of the other heretics. For tlieie is extant (1) a great part of the epistle of the bishops by whose decision he was condemned in the coun- cil at Antioch, addressed to all the bishops of Christen- dom, to make it manifest that they had good reasons for what they had done (in Eusebius, Hixt.^Hcd. 1. vii, c. 30, p. 27i>, etc.). But it is to be regretted that Eusebius has preserved only that part of the epistle which recounts the vices and delinquencies of the man, omitting the part which stated his doctrines or errors. If thelatter had been preserved, we could more confidently and more def- initely determine what weie his principles. There is ex- tant (2) a copy of one of the epistles of the bishops of the council, addiessed to Paul, relating to the controversy with hhu (in the Bihliotheea Fatrvm HarwiciiNhH [ed. Paris], 1641, fol., xi, 302). In this epistle, six of the bishops state their own opinions respecting God and Christ, and inquiie of him whether he disagrees with them. There is extant (3) au epistle of Dionysius of Alexandria to Paul of Samos;ita, in which the writer chides and confutes him (in the same Bihliotheea Patnnn, xi, 273). Though it is true that some, and for reasons worthy of consider- ation, deny that this epistle was written by Dionysius (q. v.), it is as unquestionably true that the epistle is very ancient. It was probably addressed to Paul by some bishop or presbyter, whose name being omitted iu the early copy, some person, recollecting that Dionysius was an opposer of Paul, ascribed the epistle to him. There are e.xtant (4) ten questions of Paul of Samosata, address- ed to Dionysius of Alexandria, and the answers of the latter to these questions (in the same Jjibliotlieca Pali-nm, xi, 2TS). But this unequalled abundance of documents relative to Paul's heresy has not prevented a great diver- sity in opinion, both among the ancients and the mod- erns, respecting his real sentiments. For the ancients speak, sometimes obscurely, sometimes iuconsistentlj', and sonieiimes they mistake, either from passion or prej- ndice; and hence the moderns difl'er widely, some crim- inating and some vindicating the man. We collect to- gether all that can be learned respecting Paul's senti- ments from these ancient documents, and compare with these statements whatever has reached us from other an- cient sources.