Paul de Samosate

Paul de Samosate was a Christian monk of the 3rd century, bishop of Samosate (also called Antioche de Commagène ), an old city whose ruins are in current the province of Adıyaman, close to the Euphrate, in Turkey. In 269, he is condemned by the council of Antioche of 269 like heretic, he was suspended of these functions of bishop of Antioche de Commagène in 270.

The heresy paulinienne

The heresy of Paul de Samosate is the subject of a development in the ecclesiastical Histoire of Eusèbe de Césarée (VII, XXX). Paul de Samosate had put himself in margin of the Church by denying the divinity of the Christ, and by making a man by the intermediary of which God had spoken. It had with Antioche partisans, Pauliniens (not to confuse with sect of Pauliciens), which formed a Secte which went perdurer until the time constantinienne, at the beginning of the 4th century.

Eusèbe reports that it was the object of two Concile S in (264 and 268 or 269), whose second decided on sound Excommunication (ecclesiastical History, XXIX, XXX, 1-18). Eusèbe is made the echo of the general opinion of the orthodoxe bishops, by quoting the text of a letter addressed by them to Denys, bishop of Rome, where manners dissolues of Paul are fustigated: cupidity, it would have had a sumptuous lifestyle and would have adapted the goods of the Church of Antioche, pride, it would have required applause and songs with its glory during the ceremonies (XXX, 9,10), lust, it would have maintained the concubines for orgies (XXX, 12)…

It is necessary however to take care not to take again all these considerations for some, because they seem especially intended for diaboliser this character who had deviated from the orthodoxe Christian doctrines, while Eusèbe hardly extends on the contents from its “heterodoxy” (XXIX, 1). Always it is that the synod unanimously came to a conclusion about its ousting and its replacement by Domnus (XXX, 17,18). Decision ignored by the bishop heretic, who, exerting the important financial expenses of Ducenarius (XXX, 8), on behalf of the princes of Palmyre, had only to make judgments of the any young person, and not very influential, Église. It thus decided not to yield the episcopal house (XXX, 19).

The judgment of Aurélien and eviction of Paul

Antioche removed from the palmyrénienne presence, following the first East campaign of Aurélien (be 272), the Christians could make apply their claims. Here what Eusèbe of the decision of Aurélien says: “ the Aurélien emperor to whom one addressed made a very favorable decision on the action to be taken: it ordered that the house was allotted to those with which corresponded the bishops of the Christian doctrines in Italy and in the town of Rome. Thus the above-mentioned man is driven out Church with last shame by the secular capacity . ”

This decision of Aurélien was the object of many interpretations, more or less satisfactory. the Emperor exerted here his legal power of justice, at the request of a certain number of citizens present at Antioche. Indeed, Zosime specifies ( new Histoire , LII, 2), that Aurélien had “ regulated the problems outstanding in this city” before travelling towards Emèse. Domnus and its friends were citizens like the others, which had as a such right to call upon the Emperor for a legal decision, its presence in the city being an unhoped-for occasion. As for the recognition of the authority of the orthodoxe Synod for the nomination of the bishops, it was completely explainable within the framework of the edict of tolerance of Gallien, which recognized with the Christians the right to exert their worship. Aurélien was satisfied to recognize in this field the validity of the decision of the majority, more than of the hierarchy, still embryonic at that time, of the members of the Christian worship.

----

Random links: