PAUL
589
PAUL
bitterness against his country, calling it "barbara
Zelandia; insula", "vervecum patria", "cerdonum
regio", etc. He then taught for a while in Louvain,
was invited b.v the Signoria of Venice to take a chair
for sciences in Padua (1480), travelled through Italy,
became physician to Francesco Maria della Rovere,
Duke of Urbino, and friend to Maximilian, Archduke
of Austria, afterwards emperor. By the former he
was endowed with the Benedictine Abbey St. Christ-
ophorus in Castel Durante (14SS), and by the latter
he was recommended to Alexander VI for the Bishop-
ric of Fossombrone (Moroni, LXXXV, 314). Being
nominated to that see, in 1494, he destroyed some of
his former pubhcations; first "Giudizio dell' anno
14.S0", in which he had censured a number of mathe-
maticians; then a "Practica de pravis Constellation-
ibus", and a defence of that work against the nephew
of Paul II (1484); and finally an "Invectiva in super-
stitiosuni Vatem". He chose for himself an astro-
nomical coat of arms, and, in 1497, enlarged and em-
bellished the episcopal palace. Besides some smaller
treatises against usurers and against the superstitious
fear of a flood in 1524 (Fossombrone, 1523), he wrote
important works on the reform of the Calendar, which
procured for him invitations by Julius II and Leo
X to the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1518). His
" Epistola ad Universitatem Lovaniensem de Paschate
recte observando" (1487) was followed by an "Epi.s-
tola apologetica" (1488), and finally by his principal
work "Paulina, de recta Pascha; celebratione " (Fos-
sombrone, 15li5). The contents and result of the
work are described under the article Linus. He cUed
while assisting at the Divine Office in Rome, and was
buried in S. Maria dell' Anima. His family name is
unknown, but in one place he is called Paolo di
.\driano (Moroni, XLIV, 120). Scaliger, who calls
him "Omnium sui sa;cuhmathematicorum . . . facile
princeps", was his god.son.
SCHMIDLIN, Gesch. der deutschen Nationatkirche in Rom (Frei- burg, 1906), 349.
J. G. Hagen.
Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch. Several synods, prnhalily tljn'c, were held against him about 204-60. i^l. Dlijiiysius of Alexandria had desired to attend the first of these, but was prevented byhis infirmities. Firmilian of Ca;sarea, St. Gregory Thau- maturgus, his brother Athenodorus, and many others, were present. Paul held the civil office of Procurator ducenarius, and was protected by Zenobia, the famous Queen of Palmyra. He was a wealthy man, and had many obsequious followers among neighbouring bishops. Many defended his doctrine, and he de- clared himself orthodox. In the first meetings the bish- ops were satisfied. At another Paul was condemned, but promised to retract his errors. This he failed to do. A final council was summoned. Firmilian died on the way to it. The principal part, was taken by a priest of Antioch, Malchion, who was an accomplished man of letters and head of the school of Greek litera- ture at .4ntioch. In disputation with Paul he plainly convicted him of heresy, and procured his deposition. A letter written by Malchion in the name of the synod and addressed to Pope Dionysius of Rome, Maximus of Alexandria, and all the bishops and clergy through- out the world, has been preserved by Eusebius in part; a few fragments only remain of the shorthand report of the disputation.
The letter accuses Paul of acquiring great wealth by illicit means, of showing haughtiness and worldliness, of having set up for himself a lofty pulpit in the church, and of insulting those who did not applaud him and wave their handkerchiefs, and so forth. He had caused scandal by admitting women to live in his house, and had permitted the same to his clergy. Paul could not be driven from his see until the emperor Aurelian took possession of Antioch in 272. Even then he refused to vacate the house belonging to the
church. An appeal was made to AureUan, and the
pagan emperor, who was at this time favourable to
Christians, decided most justl}', says Eusebius (vii, 30,
19), that the house should be given up to those to
whom the bishops in Italy and the city of Rome should
write; — evidently it had been argued before him that
the question of legitimacy depended on communion
with Rome, to be granted after examination by the
pope and his council. Paul was driven out in utter
disgrace by the civil power. Of his life no more is
known to us. His doctrine was akin to the dynamistic
Monarchianism of Theodoltus, and he was nicknamed
a follower of Artemas. We can gather these points:
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but a single Per-
son {TrpbauTvov). The Son or Logos is without hyposta-
sis, being merely the wisdom and science of God,
which is in Him as reason is in a man. Before all
worlds He was born as Son (A6705 -n-poipopiKd!) without
a virgin; he is without shape and cannot be made vis-
ible to men. He worked in the Prophets, especially in
Moses (let us remember that Zenobia was a Jewess,
and that this monarcliianism may have been intended
to please her), and in a far higher way in the Son of
David who was born by the Holy Ghost of a Virgin.
The Christ, the Saviour, is essentially a man, but the
Holy Ghost inspired Him from above. The Father
and the Son are one God, whereas Christ is from the
earth with a personality of his own. Thus there are
two Persons in Christ. The Logos as Wisdom dwelt :
in the man Jesus, as we live in houses, and worked in
Him as inspiration, teaching Him and being with Him,
and was united with Him not substantially (or es-
sentially, ova-iuSHs) , but qualitatively {Kara. voibr-qTa).
Mary did not bring forth the Word, for she did not
exist before the worlds, but a man like to us. Paul
denied the inference that there are two Sons. The Son
of the Virgin is great by Wisdom, who dwelt in no
other so.
Union of two Persons is possible only by agreement of will, issuing in unity of action, and originating by love. By this kind of union Christ had merit; He could have had none had the union been by nature. By the unchangeableness of His will He is like God, and was united to Him by remaining pure from sin. By striving and suflering He conquered the sin of our first parent, and was joined to God, being one with Him in intention and action. God worked in Him to do miracles in order to prove Him the Redeemer and Saviour of the race. By the ever growing and never ceasing movement of friendship He has joined Him- self to God so that He can never be separated through all eternity, and His Name is above every Name as a reward of love. Judgment is made over to Him; He may be called "God from the Virgin", "God from Nazareth". He is said to have pre-existed, but this means by predestination only. The baptism of Christ, as usual, was regarded by Paul as a step in His junc- tion with the Logos. If He had been God by nature, Paul argued, there would be two Gods. He forbade hymns to Christ, and openly attacked the older (Alex- andrian) interpretations of Scripture.
The party of Paul did not at once disappear. The Council of Nica>a declared the baptism conferred by the Paulianists to be invalid. There is something, though not much, of his teaching in the Lucianist and Arian systems which issued from Antioch. But their Christology was the very opposite of his, which was rather to reappear in a modified form in Theodore of Mopsuestia, Diodorus, Nestorius, and even Theo- doret, though these later Antiochenes warmly rejected the imputation of any agreement with the heretic Paul, even in Christology.
It must be regarded as certain that the courucil which condemned Paul rejected the term onooiicrios; but naturally only in a false sense used by Paul ; not, it seems because he meant by it an unity of Hyposta- sis in the Trinity (so St. Hilary), but because he in-
