9. Of TYRE. Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, was the contemporary and friend of Eusebius of Caesareia, who addressed to him the tenth book of his Paulinus is conjectured, from an obscure intimation in Eusebius, to have been a native of Antioch (Euseb. Contra Marcel. Ancyr. 1.4). He was bishop of Tyre, and the restorer of the church there after it had been destroyed by the heathens in the persecution under Diocletian and his successors. This restoration took place after the death of Maximin Daza [MAXIMINUS II.] in A. D. 313, consequently Paulinus must have obtained his bishopric before that time. On the dedication of the new building, an oration, Πανηγυρικός, Oratio Panegyrica, was addressed to Paulinus, apparently by Eusebius himself, who has preserved the prolix composition (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10.1.4). On the outbreak of the Arian controversy, Paulinus is represented as one of the chief supporters of Arianism. But it is not clear that he took a decided part in the controversy; he appears to have been, like Eusebius, a moderate man, averse to extreme measures, and to the introduction of unscriptural terms and needless theological definitions. Arius distinctly names him among those who agreed with him; but then Arius gave to the confession to which this statement refers the most orthodox complexion in his power. (Theodoret. H. E. 1.5). Eusebius of Nicomedeia (ibid. 6) wrote to Paulinus, rebuking him for his silence and concealment of his sentiments; but it is not clear whether he was correctly informed what those sentiments were. Athanasius (De Synodis, 100.17) charges Paulinus with having given utterance to Arian sentiments, but gives no citation from him. He certainly agreed with the bishops of Palestine in granting to Arius the power of holding assemblies of his partizans; but at the same time these prelates recommended the heresiarch to submit to his diocesan Alexander of Alexandria, and to endeavour to be re-admitted to the communion of the Church. Paulinus's concurrence in these steps shows that if not a supporter of Arianisn, he was at any rate not a bigoted opponent. (Sozomen, H. E 100.15.) Paulinus was shortly before his death translated to the bishopric of Antioch (Euseh. Contra Marcel. 1.4; Philostorg. H. E. 3.15) ; but it is disputed whether this was before or after the council of Nice; some place his translation in A. D. 323, others in A. D. 331. Whether He was present at the council of Nice, or even lived to see it, is not determined. The question is argued at considerable length by Valesius (not. ad Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 10.1), Hanckius (De Rerun Byzant. Scriplor. Pars i. cap. 1.235, &c.), and by Tillemont (Mém. vol. vii. p. 646, &c). We are disposed to acquiesce in the judgment of Le Quien, who places the accession of Paulinus to the see of Antioch in A. D. 323 or 324, and his death in the latter year. (Euseb. Il. cc.; Hieron. Chroonicon, sub init.; Sozomen. Theodoret. Philostorg. Il. cc.; Tillemont, vol. vi. vii; Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol. ii. col. 708, 803).