Annotations on Theological Subjects in the foregoing Treatises, alphabetically arranged.
Ignorance Assumed Economically by Our Lord
Personal Acts and Offices of Our Lord
Private Judgment on Scripture (Vid. art. Rule of Faith .)
The [ Agenneton ], or Ingenerate
[ Logos, endiathetos kai prophorikos ]
[ Mia physis ] ( of our Lord's Godhead and of His Manhood ).
[ Prototokos ] Primogenitus, First-born
Catholicism and Religious Thought Fairbairn
Development of Religious Error
On the Inspiration of Scripture
Library of Fathers Preface, St. Cyril
Library of Fathers Preface, St. Cyprian
Library of Fathers Preface, St. Chrysostom
MENTION of this Paul and of his sect is frequently made by Athan. There is some difficulty in determining what his opinions were. As far as the fragments of the Antiochene Acts state or imply, he taught, more or less, as follows: that the Son's pre-existence was only in the divine foreknowledge, Routh. Rell. t. 2, p. 466; that to hold His substantial pre-existence was to hold two Gods, ibid. p. 467; that He was, if not an instrument, an impersonal attribute, p. 469; that His manhood was not "unalterably made one with the Godhead," p. 473; "that the Word and Christ were not one and the same," p. 474; that Wisdom was in Christ as in the prophets, only more abundantly, as in a temple; that He who appeared was not Wisdom, p. 475; in a word, as it is summed up, p. 484, that "Wisdom was born with the manhood, not substantially, but according to quality." vid. also p. 476, 485. All this plainly shows that he held that our Lord's personality was in His Manhood, but does not show that he held a second personality as being in His Godhead; rather he considered the Word impersonal, though the Fathers in Council urge upon him that he ought with his views to hold two Sons, one from eternity, and one in time, p. 485.
Accordingly the Synodal Letter after his deposition speaks of him as holding that Christ came not from heaven, but from beneath. Euseb. Hist. vii. 30. S. Athanasius's account of his doctrine is altogether in accordance, (vid. vol. i. supr. p. 25, note 1,) viz., that Paul taught that our Lord was a mere man, and that He was advanced to His Divine power, [ ek prokopes ].
However, since there was much correspondence between Paul and Nestorius, (except in the doctrine of the personality and eternity of the Word, which the Arian controversy determined and the latter held,) it was not unnatural that reference should be made to the previous heresy of Paul and its condemnation when that of Nestorius was on trial. Yet the Contestatio against Nestorius which commences the Acts of the Council of Ephesus, Harduin. Conc. t. i. p. 1272, and which draws out distinctly the parallel between them, says nothing to show that Paul held a double personality. And though Anastasius tells us, Hodeg. c. 7, p. 108, that the "holy Ephesian Council showed that the tenets of Nestorius agreed with the doctrine of Paul of Samosata," yet in c. 20, p. 323, 4, he shows us what he means, by saying that Artemon also before Paul "divided Christ in two." Ephrem of Antioch too says that Paul held that "the Son before ages was one, and the Son in the last time another," ap. Phot. p. 814; but he seems only referring to the words of the Antiochene Acts, quoted above. Again, it is plain from what Vigilius says in Eutych. t. v. p. 731, Ed. Col. 1618, (the passage is omitted in Ed. Par. 1624,) that the Eutychians considered that Paul and Nestorius differed; the former holding that our Lord was a mere man, the latter a mere man only till He was united to the Word. And Marius Mercator says, "Nestorius circa Verbum Dei, non ut Paulus sentit, qui non substantivum, sed prolatitium potentiæ Dei efficax Verbum esse definit." Part 2, p. 17. Ibas, and Theodore of Mopsuestia, though more suspicious witnesses, say the same. Vid. Facund. vi. 3, iii. 2, and Leontius de Sectis, iii. p. 504. To these authorities may be added Nestorius's express words, Serm. 12, ap. Mar. Merc. t. 2, p. 87, and Assemani takes the same view, Bibl. Orient. t. 4, p. 68, 9.
The principal evidence in favour of Paul's Nestorianism consists in the Letter of Dionysius to Paul and his answer to Paul's Ten Questions, which are certainly spurious, as on other grounds, so on some of those urged against the professed Creed of Antioch, (in my "Theol. Tracts,") but which Dr. Burton in his excellent remarks on Paul's opinions, Bampton Lectures, Note 102, admits as genuine. And so does the accurate and cautious Tillemont, who in consequence is obliged to believe that Paul held Nestorian doctrines; also Bull, Fabricius, Natalis Alexander, etc. In holding these compositions to be certainly spurious, I am following Valesius, Harduin, Montfaucon, Pagi, Mosheim, Cave, Routh, and others.