3. Critical Account of His Life

A thorough examination, however, of these statements shows that they are not reliable in several particulars; and a more trustworthy account may be made up from the acts of the Council of Sardica and the statements of Athanasius (Historia Arianorum, vii., and Apologia de fuga, iii.), and of Jerome From these sources it appears that Paul had been banished to Pontus by Constantine, and that he had already been bishop of Constantinople for some time before Eusebius was set up (at latest in 338), and that Macedonius, who had once accused him in the presence of Athanasius, was then his presbyter. When Eusebius set his mind on winning the bishopric, the old charges were revived; Constantius banished him in chains to Singara in Mesopotamia, then to Emesa, and finally to Cucusus, where his persecutors put him to death with the help of the Prefect Philippus. The letter of the Council of Sardica does not mention him, naming only Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepas. The eastern bishops there asserted that he had assented to the condemnation of Athanasius; that he was himself condemned long before 342; that in 342 he went into exile; and that it was Maximin of Treves who entered into communion with him and effected his restoration. Paul was, according to all the indications here given, not at Sardica, nor at the time bishop of Constantinople, but apparently in exile. The most probable conclusion from the Whole difficult matter is that Paul died at the earliest in 351. In any case Macedonius was in sole possession of the see of Constantinople from 342 or 343. It is impossible to decide how much truth there is in the accounts by Socrates and Sozomen of his fierce persecution of the orthodox, though it is credible that he filled as many sees as he could reach with his partizans. 'The statement of Socrates and Sozomen that he adhered to the Acacian or court party until 360 is certainly wrong; Philostorgius relates that Basil of Ancyra won him to his aide, Sabinus of Heraclea reckons him among the Homoiouaiane, Epiphanius calls him a partizan of Basil, and the letter addressed to him in 358 by George of Laodicea proves that he was all along on the Homoiousian aide. With this party he supported Basil in Seleucia against the Acacians, and as a member of it he was deposed at the synod of 360. That his death followed soon afterward is a natural inference from the fact that he is not mentioned in connection with the actions of his party after 364. Thus he would scarcely have had time to found a separate sect after his deposition; and his views on the doctrine of the Holy Spirit were not peculiar to him, but were shared by all the Homoiousiana. Nor was this question much debated in Constantinople and Asia Minor before 367.