[2411] 1 Tim. vi. 5.
[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.
[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 bema men kai thronon hupselon, and Rufinus is certainly wrong in putting his multo altius with the tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek reads, is upon the bema as such, not upon the height of it, while the thronos is condemned because of its height. The translation of Rufinus shows what was the custom in his day. He could not understand that a bema should be objected to as such.
[2414] Greek sekreton, 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.
[2415] 'Iesoun christon k?tothen. Compare, by way of contrast, the words of John iii. 31: "He that cometh from above is above all" (ho anothen erchomenos ep?no p?nton estin). 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.
[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.
[2417] suneisaktoi. On these Subintroductæ, see Smith and Cheetham's Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v.
[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.
[2419] cf. Ecclesiasticus xxv.
[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.
[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.
[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).
[2423] On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.
[2424] ta koinonika gr?mmata. 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.
[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).
[2426] See chap. 27, note 4. The bishop of Rome to whose judgment Aurelian appealed was Felix, mentioned below.
[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.
[2428] mononouchi ex ankonon tes encheireseos auton epidesmousa
[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.
[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.
[2431] On Dionysius, bishop of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.
[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.