Paul Of Samosata

PAUL OF SAMOSATA. — Heretic of the 3rd century, bishop of Antioch from 260 to 268.

I. LIFE

P. appears in history only from the time of his elevation to the see of Antiochia in 260. Born at Samosata of poor parents, he amassed considerable wealth, which was further increased when he became the financial receiver (ducenarius) of Odenatus II, king of Palmyra, who had become lord of Antioch after the defeat of Valerian by the Persians (260), and who was succeeded on his death in 267 by his widow Zenobia. The new prelate at once assumed the bearing of a grand seigneur. The letter of the Council of Antioch of 268, which condemned him, attributes to him the manners of a tradesman, charges him with pride and arrogance, and reproaches him with worldly pomp, the seeking of applause in church, and in particular the suppression of hymns in honour of Jesus Christ.

Above all, this last point was serious. The rumour of this heretical preaching soon spread among the Christians of the provinces near Antioch. As early as 264, some bishops of these regions, among whom were Helenus of Tarsus and Firmilian of Caesarea in Cappadocia, met at Antioch to investigate the conduct and doctrine of P. Dionysius of Alexandria, who had been invited, excused himself on the grounds of ill-health and old age, but wrote to the Church of Antioch on the matter. What took place at this assembly is little known; it is known only that P., who appeared there as the accused, contrived to avoid any condemnation. A subtle and skilful dialectician, he managed to conceal his error and promised to amend both in his manner of speaking and in his conduct, but in reality he continued to act and teach as before. Six of the bishops who had taken part in the Council therefore drew up a formulary of faith (whose authenticity is sufficiently established) and ordered P. to subscribe to it (cf. the formulary, which is of the highest dogmatic interest, in G. Bardy [V. BIBLICA.], pp. 13-19). The bishop of Antioch turned a deaf ear to this warning and continued to scandalise the faithful both by his teaching and by his conduct. A new council was necessary, and it met at Antioch in 268. The bishops, to the number of seventy or eighty, carefully examined the complaints against the Samosatene. The main object was to bring his doctrine to light and to convict him of error; they succeeded in this thanks to the outstanding culture of the priest Malchion. A long theological discussion ensued between the two, which was taken down in shorthand. The text was preserved for a long time. The fragments which remain have been collected by Bardy (op. cit., pp. 34-79). P., condemned and deposed, was succeeded by Domnus, son of the former bishop, Demetrianus. The Council made its decision known by means of an encyclical letter addressed to Dionysius of Rome, to Maximus of Alexandria and to all the bishops and clergy of Christendom.

P., relying on the protection of Zenobia, refused to leave the episcopal residence and was still able to pose as bishop to those, fairly numerous, whom he had won over to his cause. It was only in 272, at the time of the passage of the Emperor Aurelian through Antioch, that the orthodox were able to regain possession of the “house of the Church,” following an appeal to the Emperor. He “ordered that the house should be assigned to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome would adjudicate it.” And so P. was ignominiously driven from the church by the secular arm (Eusebius, Hist. eccl., VII, 30, 19). After this expulsion, P. survived for some time, defended by faithful disciples who organised themselves at Antioch into a separate community. In the 19th canon the Council of Nicaea confirmed the practice of rebaptising them when they returned to the Catholic Church. They were called Paulianists or Paulianians; towards the end of the 4th century the sect disappeared.

II. DOCTRINE

If one adheres to the broad outlines, it is easy to give a clear idea of the heretical doctrine of P. He was at once a Monarchian and an Adoptionist; he denied the dogma of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation; for him there exists only one God, the Father,