Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

before his death. It is, perhaps, with this in mind that Eusebius uses the somewhat peculiar phrase, μεταδίδωσι τὴν ἡγεμονίαν

Eusebius puts this council in the reign of Aurelian (270–275), and in chap. 32 makes it subsequent to the siege of the Brucheium which, according to his Chron., took place in 272. The epistle written at this council (and given in the next chapter) is addressed to Maximus, bishop of Alexandria, and Dionysius, bishop of Rome, so that the latter must have been alive in 272, if the council was held as late as that. The council is ordinarily, however, assigned to the year 269, and Dionysius’ death to December of the same year; but Lipsius has shown ( ibid. p. 226 ff.) that the synod which Eusebius mentions here was held in all probability as early as 265 (but not earlier than 264, because Dionysius of Alexandria was not succeeded by Maximus until that year), certainly not later than 268, and hence it is not necessary to extend the episcopate of Dionysius of Rome beyond 268, the date which he has shown to be most probable (see chap. 27, note 2). Eusebius then is entirely mistaken in putting the council into the reign of Aurelian.

i.e. Paul of Samosata.

Malchion gained such fame from his controversy with Paul that an account of him is given by Jerome in his de vir. ill. 71. He tells us, however, nothing new about him, except that he was the author of an epistle to the bishops of Alexandria and Rome, referring probably to the encyclical letter given in the next chapter. We do not know upon what authority he bases this statement; in fact knowing the character of his work, we shall probably be safe in assuming that the statement is no more than a guess on his part. There is nothing improbable in the report, but we must remember that Jerome is our only authority for it, and he is in such a case very poor authority (nevertheless, in Fremantle’s articles, Malchion, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog., the report is repeated as a fact). Both Eusebius and Jerome tell us that the report of his discussion with Paul was extant in their day, and a few fragments of it have been preserved, and are given by Leontius ( de Sectis, III. p. 504, according to Fremantle).

τῆς ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας, i.e., “from the entire Catholic Church.” The phrase is usually strengthened by a πᾶς, as in the next chapter, § 2. On the use of the phrase, “Catholic Church,” see Bk. IV. chap. 15, note 6.

On Dionysius of Rome, see chap. 27, note 2.

On Maximus of Alexandria, see chap. 28, note 10.

This phrase differs from that used in the previous chapter by the addition of πᾶς .

On Helenus, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 8. On Hymenæus and Theotecnus see above chap. 14, notes 11 and 9. Hierax is possibly the bishop addressed by Dionysius in the epistle quoted in chap. 21. Malchion is mentioned in the preceding chapter; Maximus of Bostra and Nicomas of Iconium, in chap. 28, as distinguished bishops. Of the others we know nothing.

It has been suggested that Theodorus may be Gregory Thaumaturgus, who was also known by that name (see Bk. VI. chap. 30); but this is extremely improbable for everywhere else in referring to him as bishop, Eusebius calls him Gregory, and in chap. 31 speaks of him as one of the most celebrated bishops, and puts him near the head of the list. Here Theodorus is placed near the end of the list, and no prominence is given him. There is in fact no reason to identify the two. The name Theodorus was a very common one.

See chap. 27.

On Firmilianus, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

On this epistle, see chap. 27, note 6. As we see from this passage, the epistle of Dionysius was addressed not to Paul himself, but to the council, and hence could not be identified with the epistle given by Labbe, even were the latter authentic.

It is plain from this passage that the case of Paul of Samosata had been discussed in at least two Antiochian synods before the one which deposed him, and not only in one as has been claimed. The passage shows, too, the way in which Paul escaped condemnation so long. Not merely on account of his influential position, as some have said, but also because he promised that he would give up his heresy and conform his teaching to the orthodox faith. The language would seem to imply that Firmilian had presided at the synod or synods, which are referred to here; and this is assumed by most writers. On Firmilian, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3.

The words “and Lord” are wanting in some good mss. as well as in Rufinus, and are consequently omitted by Schwegler and Heinichen. But I have preferred to follow the majority of the mss. and all the other editors in retaining the words which are really necessary to the sense; for it is not meant that Paul denied God, but that he denied his God and Lord Jesus Christ; namely, by rejecting his essential deity.

On the date of Firmilian’s death, see Bk. VI. chap. 26, note 3, above.

i.e. Paul of Samosata.

τοῦ κανόνος .

I follow Heinichen in reading ὧν žτι ἐκσείει τοὺς ἀδελφούς , which is supported by five important mss. (cf. Heinichen’s note in loco ). The majority of the editors read ὧν αἰτεῖ καὶ σείει κ.τ.λ. , which, however, is not so well supported by ms. authority. Laemmer, on the authority of a single codex, reads ὧν žτι καὶ σείει , and still other variations occur in some mss.

1 Tim. vi. 5 .

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.

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 βῆμα μὲν καὶ θρόνον ὑψηλόν , and Rufinus is certainly wrong in putting his multo altius with the tribunal. The emphasis, as the Greek reads, is upon the βῆμα as such, not upon the height of it, while the θρόνος is condemned because of its height. The translation of Rufinus shows what was the custom in his day. He could not understand that a βῆμα should be objected to as such.

Greek σήκρητον , 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.

᾽Ιησοῦν χριστὸν κ€τωθεν . Compare, by way of contrast, the words of John iii. 31 : “He that cometh from above is above all” ( ὁ ἄνωθεν ἐρχόμενος ἐπ€νω π€ντων ἐστίν ). 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.

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.

συνείσακτοι . On these Subintroductæ, see Smith and Cheetham’s Dict. of Christ. Antiq., s.v.

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.

cf. Ecclesiasticus xxv .

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.

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.

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).

On Demetrianus, the predecessor of Paul in the episcopate of Antioch, see Bk. VI. chap. 46, note 12.

τὰ κοινωνικὰ γρ€μματα . 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