When Bishop Dionysius had heard of the affairs in Pentapolis and had written in zeal for religion, as I have said, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging to the Church, who held a right opinion, but did not ask him so as to learn from himself what he had written, went up to Rome and spake against him in the presence of his namesake, Dionysius, bishop of Rome. And the latter, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the adherents of Sabellius and against those who held the same opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out of the Church; and he called it an equal and opposite impiety to hold with Sabellius or with those who say that the Word of G.o.d is a creature, framed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius [_i.e._, of Alexandria] to inform him of what they had said about him. And the latter straightway wrote back and inscribed a book ent.i.tled _A Refutation and a Defence_.

Ch. 14. In answer to these charges he writes, after certain prefatory matter in the first book of the work ent.i.tled _A Refutation and a Defence_, in the following terms:

Ch. 15. For never was there a time when G.o.d was not a Father. And this he acknowledges in what follows, that Christ is forever, being Word and Wisdom and Power. For it is not to be supposed that G.o.d, having at first no issue, afterward begat a Son. But the Son has his being not of Himself, but of the Father.

(_c_) Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 27, 29, 30. (MSG, 25:705.)

The deposition of Paul of Samosata.

The controversy concerning Pauls doctrinal views is sufficiently set forth in the extract from Eusebius given below. Paul was bishop of Antioch from about 260 to 268. His works have perished, with the exception of a few fragments. The importance of Paul is that in his teaching is to be found an attempt to combine the Logos theology of Origen with Dynamistic Monarchianism, with results that appeared later in Arianism, on the one hand, and Nestorianism, it is thought, on the other.

Ch. 27. After Sixtus had presided over the church of Rome eleven years, Dionysius, namesake of him of Alexandria, succeeded him. About that time Demetria.n.u.s died in Antioch, and Paul of Samosata received that episcopate. As he held low and degraded views of Christ, contrary to the teaching of the Church, namely, that in his nature He was a common man, Dionysius of Alexandria was entreated to come to the synod. But being unable to come on account of age and physical weakness, he gave his opinion on the subject under consideration by a letter. But the other pastors of the churches a.s.sembled from all directions, as against a despoiler of the flock of Christ, all making haste to reach Antioch.

Ch. 29. During his [Aurelians, 270-275] reign a final synod composed of a great many bishops was held, and the leader of heresy in Antioch was detected and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was excommunicated from the Catholic Church under heaven. Malchion especially drew him out from his hiding-place and refuted him. He was a man learned also in other matters, and princ.i.p.al of the sophist school of Grecian learning in Antioch; yet on account of the superior n.o.bility of his faith in Christ he had been made a presbyter of that parish [_i.e._, diocese].

This man, having conducted a discussion with him, which was taken down by stenographers, and which we know is still extant, was alone able to detect the man who dissembled and deceived others.

Ch. 30. The pastors who had a.s.sembled about this matter prepared by common consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, bishop of Rome, and Maximus of Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces.

After other things they describe as follows the manner of life which he led: Whereas he has departed from the rule [_i.e._, of faith], and has turned aside after base and spurious teachings, it is not necessarysince he is withoutthat we should pa.s.s judgment upon his practices: as for instance in that he is haughty and is puffed up, and a.s.sumes worldly dignities, preferring to be called ducenarius rather than bishop; and struts in the market-places, reading letters and reciting them as he walks in public, attended by a bodyguard, with a mult.i.tude preceding and following him, so that the faith is envied and hated on account of his pride and haughtiness of heart, or that he violently and coa.r.s.ely a.s.sails in public the expounders of the Word that have departed this life, and magnifies himself, not as bishop, but as a sophist and juggler, and stops the psalms to our Lord Jesus Christ as being novelties and the productions of modern men, and trains women to sing psalms to himself in the midst of the church on the great day of the pa.s.sover. He is unwilling to acknowledge that the Son of G.o.d came down from heaven. (And this is no mere a.s.sertion, but is abundantly proved from the records which we have sent you; and not least where he says, Jesus Christ is from below.) And there are the women, the _subintroduct_, as the people of Antioch call them, belonging to him and to the presbyters and deacons with him.

Although he knows and has convicted these men, yet he connives at this and their incurable sins, in order that they may be bound to him, and through fear for themselves may not dare to accuse him for his wicked words and deeds.

As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, succeeded to the service of the church at Antioch [_i.e._, became bishop]. But as Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was pet.i.tioned; and he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it. Thus this man was driven out of the Church, with extreme disgrace, by the worldly power.

Such was Aurelians att.i.tude toward us at that time; but in the course of time he changed his mind in regard to us, and was moved by certain advisers to inst.i.tute a persecution against us. And there was great talk about it everywhere. But as he was about to do it, and was, so to speak, in the very act of signing the decrees against us, the divine judgment came upon him and restrained him at the very verge of his undertaking.

(_d_) Malchion of Antioch, _Disputation with Paul_. (MSG, 10:247-260.)

The doctrine of Paul of Samosata.

The following fragments are from the disputation of Malchion with Paul at the Council of Antioch, 268 [see extract from Eusebius, _Hist. Ec._, VII, 27, 29, 30; see above (_c_)], which Malchion is said to have revised and published. The pa.s.sages may be found also in Routh, _Reliqui Sacr_, second ed., III, 300 _ff._ Fragments I-III are from the work of the Emperor Justinian, _Contra Monophysitas_; fragment IV is from the work of Leontius of Byzantium, _Adversus Nestorianos et Eutychianos_.

I. The Logos became united with Him who was born of David, who is Jesus, who was begotten of the Holy Ghost. And Him the Virgin bore by the Holy Spirit; but G.o.d generated that Logos without the Virgin or any one else than G.o.d, and thus the Logos exists.

II. The Logos was greater than Christ. Christ became greater through Wisdom, that we might not overthrow the dignity of Wisdom.

III. In order that the Anointed, who was from David, might not be a stranger to Wisdom, and that Wisdom might not dwell so largely in another.

For it was in the prophets, and more in Moses, and in many the Lord was, but more also in Christ as in a temple. For Jesus Christ was one and the Logos was another.

IV. He who appeared was not Wisdom, for He could not be found in an outward form, neither in the appearance of a man; for He is greater than all things visible.

(_e_) Paul of Samosata, _Orationes ad Sabinum_, Routh, _op. cit._, III, 329.

The doctrine of Paul.

Pauls work addressed to Sabinus has perished with the exception of a few fragments. See Routh, _op. cit._

I. Thou shouldest not wonder that the Saviour had one will with G.o.d; for just as nature shows us a substance becoming one and the same out of many things, so the nature of love makes one and the same will out of many through a manifest preference.

II. He who was born holy and righteous, having by His struggle and sufferings overcome the sin of our progenitors, and having succeeded in all things, was united in character to G.o.d, since He had preserved one and the same effort and aim as He for the promotion of things that are good; and since He has preserved this inviolate, His name is called that above every name, the prize of love having been freely bestowed upon Him.

(_f_) Epiphanius, _Panarion_, _Hr._ LXV. (MSG, 42:12.)

The doctrine of Paul of Samosata.

Epiphanius was bishop of Salamis, 367-403. His works are chiefly polemical and devoted to the refutation of all heresies, of which he gives accounts at some length. He is a valuable, though not always reliable, source for many otherwise unknown heresies. In the present case we have pa.s.sages from Pauls own writings that confirm and supplement the statements of the hereseologist.

He [Paul of Samosata] says that G.o.d the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one G.o.d, that in G.o.d is always His Word and His Spirit, as in a mans heart is his own reason; that the Son of G.o.d does not exist in a hypostasis, but in G.o.d himself. That the Logos came and dwelt in Jesus, who was a man. And thus he says G.o.d is one, neither is the Father the Father, nor the Son the Son, nor the Holy Spirit the Holy Spirit, but rather the one G.o.d is Father and in Him is his Son, as the reason is in a man. But he did not say with Noetus that the Father suffered, but only, said he, the Logos came and energized and went back to the Father.

(_g_) Methodius of Olympus, _Symposium_, III, 4, 8. (MSG, 18:65, 73.)

The theology of Origen was not suffered to go without being challenged by those who could not accept some of his extreme statements. Among those opposed to him were Peter, bishop of Alexandria, and Methodius, bishop of Olympus. Both were strongly influenced by Origen, but the denial of a bodily resurrection and the eternity of the creation were too offensive. The more important of the two is Methodius, who combined a strong anti-Origenistic position on these two points with that recapitulation theory of redemption which has been called the Asia Minor type of theology and is represented also by Irenus; see above, 27. He has been called the author of the theology of the future, with reference to his relation to Athanasius, in that he laid the foundation for a doctrine of redemption which superseded that of the old Alexandrian school, and became established in the East under the lead of Athanasius and the Nicene divines generally.

Methodius was bishop of Olympus, in Lycia. The statements that he also held other sees are unreliable. He died in 311 as a martyr.

Nothing else is known with certainty as to his life. Of his numerous and well-written works, only one, _The Banquet_, or _Symposium_, has been preserved entire. His work _On the Resurrection_ is most strongly opposed to Origen and his denial of the bodily resurrection.

Ch. 4. For let us consider how rightly he [Paul] compared Adam to Christ, not only considering him to be the type and image, but also that Christ Himself became the very same thing, because the Eternal Word fell upon Him. For it was fitting that the first-born of G.o.d, the first shoot, the Only begotten, even the Wisdom [of G.o.d], should be joined to the first-formed man, and first and first-born of men, and should become incarnate. And this was Christ, a man filled with the pure and perfect G.o.dhead, and G.o.d received into man. For it was most suitable that the oldest of the ons and the first of the archangels, when about to hold communion with men, should dwell in the oldest and first of men, even Adam. And thus, renovating those things which were from the beginning, and forming them again of the Virgin by the Spirit, He frames the same just as at the beginning.

Ch. 8. The Church could not conceive believers and give them new birth by the laver of regeneration unless Christ, emptying Himself for their sakes, that He might be contained by them, as I said, through the recapitulation of His pa.s.sion, should die again, coming down from heaven, and, being joined to His wife, the Church, should provide that a certain power be taken from His side, so that all who are built up in Him should grow up, even those who are born again by the laver, receiving of His bones and of His flesh; that is, of His holiness and of His glory. For he who says that the bones and flesh of Wisdom are understanding and virtue, says most rightly; and that the side [rib] is the Spirit of truth, the Paraclete, of whom the illuminated [_i.e._, baptized], receiving, are fitly born again to incorruption.

(_h_) Methodius of Olympus, _De Resurrect._, I, 13. (MSG, 18:284.)

_De Resur._, I, 13.(76) If any one were to think that the earthly image is the flesh itself, but the heavenly image is some other spiritual body besides the flesh, let him first consider that Christ, the heavenly man, when He appeared, bore the same form of limbs and the same image of flesh as ours, through which, also, He, who was not man, became man, that, as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. For if it was not that he might set the flesh free and raise it up that He bore flesh, why did He bear flesh superfluously, as He purposed neither to save it nor to raise it up? But the Son of G.o.d does nothing superfluous. He did not take, then, the form of a servant uselessly, but to raise it up and save it. For He was truly made man, and died, and not in appearance, but that He might truly be shown to be the first begotten from the dead, changing the earthly into the heavenly, and the mortal into the immortal.

49. The Development of the Cultus