The views of Papias inferred from his associates.

But, if the assumption has been proved to be baseless, have we any grounds for saying that it is also highly improbable? Here it seems fair to argue from the well-known to the unknown. Of the opinions of Papias respecting St Paul we know absolutely nothing; of the opinions of Polycarp and Irenæus ample evidence lies before us. Noscitur a sociis is a sound maxim to apply in such a case. Papias was a companion of Polycarp, and he is quoted with deference by Irenæus[171]. Is it probable that his opinions should be diametrically opposed to those of his friend and contemporary on a cardinal point affecting the very conception of Christianity (for the rejection of St Paul must be considered in this light)? or that this vital heterodoxy, if it existed, should have escaped an intelligent critic of the next generation who had the five books of his work before him, who himself had passed his early life in Asia Minor, and who yet appeals to Papias as preserving the doctrinal tradition which had been handed down from the Apostles themselves to his own time? I say nothing of Eusebius himself, who, with a distinct prejudice against Papias, accuses him of no worse heresy in his writings than entertaining millennarian views.

Millennarian views consistent with the recognition of St Paul.

It may indeed be confessed that a man like Papias, whose natural bent, assisted by his Phrygian education, was towards sensuous views of religion, would not be likely to appreciate the essentially spiritual teaching of St Paul; but this proves nothing. The difference between unconscious want of sympathy and conscious rejection is all important for the matter in hand. The same charge might be brought against numberless theologians, whether in the middle ages or in more modern times, into whose minds it never entered to question the authority of the Apostle and who quote his writings with the utmost reverence. Neither in the primitive days of Christianity nor in its later stages has the profession of Chiliastic views been found inconsistent with the fullest recognition of St Paul’s Apostolic claims. In the early Church Irenæus and Tertullian are notable instances of this combination; and in our own age and country a tendency to millennarian speculations has been commonly associated with the staunchest adherence to the fundamental doctrines of St Paul.

Abercius probably his successor.

As the successor of Papias and the predecessor of Claudius Apollinaris in the see of Hierapolis, we may perhaps name Abercius or Avircius[172]. His legendary Acts assign his episcopate to the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and, though they are disfigured by extravagant fictions, yet the date may perhaps be accepted, as it seems to be confirmed by other evidence. An inscription on his tombstone recorded how he had paid one |His journeys.| visit to the city of Rome, and another to the banks of the Euphrates. These long journeys are not without parallels in the lives of contemporary bishops. Polycarp of Smyrna visited Rome, hoping to adjust the Paschal controversy; Melito of Sardis went as far as Palestine, desiring to ascertain on the spot the facts relating to the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures. These or similar motives may have influenced Abercius to undertake his distant journeys. If we may assume the identification of this bishop with one Avircius Marcellus who is mentioned in a contemporary document, he took an active interest in the Montanist controversy, as from his position he was likely to do.

Claudius Apollinaris bishop of Hierapolis.

The literary character of the see of Hierapolis, which had been inaugurated by Papias, was ably sustained by Claudius Apollinaris. His surname, which seems to have been common in these parts[173], may have been derived from the patron deity of Hierapolis[174] and suggests a Gentile origin. His intimate acquaintance with heathen literature, which is mentioned by more than one ancient writer, points in the same direction. During the reign of M. Aurelius he had already made himself a name by his writings, and seems to have been promoted to the see of Hierapolis before the death of that emperor[175].

His literary works.

Of his works, which were very numerous, only a few scanty fragments have survived[176]. The imperfect lists however, which have reached us, bear ample testimony both to the literary activity of the man, and to the prominence of the Church, over which he presided, in the great theological and ecclesiastical controversies of the age.

He takes part in the two chief controversies of the day.

The two questions, which especially agitated the Churches of Asia Minor during the last thirty years of the first century, were the celebration of the Easter festival and the pretensions of the Montanist prophets. In both disputes Claudius Apollinaris took an active and conspicuous part.

1. The Paschal question.

1. The Paschal controversy, after smouldering long both here and elsewhere, first burst into flames in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea[178]. An able bishop of Hierapolis therefore must necessarily have been involved in the dispute, even if he had been desirous of avoiding it. What side Apollinaris took in the controversy the extant fragments of his work do not by themselves enable us to decide; for they deal merely with a subsidiary question which does not seriously affect the main issue[179]. But we can hardly doubt that with Polycarp of Smyrna and Melito of Sardis and Polycrates of Ephesus he defended the practice which was universal in Asia[180], observing the Paschal anniversary on the 14th Nisan whether it fell on a Friday or not, and invoking the authority of St John at Ephesus, and of St Philip at his own Hierapolis[181], against the divergent usage of Alexandria and Palestine and the West.

2. Montanism.

2. His writings on the Montanist controversy were still more famous, and are recommended as an authority on the subject by Serapion of Antioch a few years after the author’s death[182]. Though later than many of his works[183], they were written soon after Montanus had divulged the extravagance of his pretensions and before Montanism had attained its complete development. If a later notice may be trusted, Apollinaris was not satisfied with attacking Montanism in writing, but summoned at Hierapolis a council of twenty-six bishops besides himself, where this heresy was condemned and sentence of excommunication pronounced against Montanus together with his adherent the pretended prophetess Maximilla[184].

His other hæresiological writings.

Nor were his controversial writings confined to these two topics. In one place he refuted the Encratites[185]; in another he upheld the orthodox teaching respecting the true humanity of Christ[186]. It is plain that he did not confine himself to questions especially affecting Asia Minor; but that the doctrine and the practice of the Church generally found in him a vigorous advocate, who was equally opposed to the novelties of heretical teaching and the rigours of overstrained asceticism.

Nor again did Apollinaris restrict himself to controversies carried on between Christian and Christian. He appears alike as the champion of the Gospel against attacks from without, and as the promoter of Christian life and devotion within the pale of the Church. |His apologetic| On the one hand he was the author of an apology addressed to M. Aurelius[187], of a controversial treatise in five books against the Greeks, and of a second in two books against the Jews[188]; on the other we find mentioned among his |and didactic works.| writings a work in two books on Truth, and a second on Piety, besides several of which the titles have not come down to us[189]. He seems indeed to have written on almost every subject which interested the Church of his age. He was not only well versed in the Scriptures, but showed a wide acquaintance with secular literature also[190]. His style is praised by a competent judge[191], and his orthodoxy was such as to satisfy the dogmatic precision of the post-Nicene age[192].

Important bearing of these facts on the history of Christianity.

These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the question which has been already discussed in relation to Papias. If there had been such a discontinuity of doctrine and practice in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes, if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can we explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a counter-revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of the former. One dislocation must have been compensated by another. And yet Irenæus knows nothing of these religious convulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous, unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself—Irenæus who received his Christian education in Asia Minor, who throughout life was in communication with the churches there, and who had already reached middle age when this second revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend our view.|Solidarity of the Church in the second century.| For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted. Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, Pantænus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus, Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna, Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenæus in Gaul, Philippus and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, all are bound together by the ties of a common organization and the sympathy of a common creed. The Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing the limits of divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever increasing force the pregnant saying of Irenæus that the difference of the usage establishes the harmony of the faith[193].

Activity of Laodicea.

Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity as Hierapolis during the second century, yet in practical energy she is not wanting.

Martyrdom of Sagaris. c. A.D. 165.

The same persecution, which, permitted if not encouraged by the imperial Stoic, was fatal to Polycarp at Smyrna, deprived Laodicea also of her bishop Sagaris[194]. The exact year in which he fell a martyr is not known; but we can hardly be wrong in assuming that his death was nearly coincident with those of Polycarp and his companions. His name appears to have been held in great honour[195].

Outbreak of the Paschal controversy.

But while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the Council of Nicæa. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly observing the day of the month and disregarding the day of the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemorate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way probably the dispute arose. The treatise on the Paschal Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the second century.

Hierapolis and Laodicea in later history.

At a later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea has sensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth s and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous part. Among their bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which they bear a silent part. |The Arian heresy.
Nicæa
A.D. 325.|At Nicæa Hierapolis was represented by Flaccus[196], Laodicea by Nunechius[197]. They both acquiesced in its decrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them throughout the Phrygian Churches[198]. Soon after, both sees lapsed into Arianism. |Philippopolis A.D. 347.| At the synod of Philippopolis, composed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica, the representatives of these two sees were present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned traitor to his former faith[199]. On the other hand Laodicea had changed its bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he was translated to Nicomedia[200]. He was succeeded by Nonnius, who signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis[201]. When these sees recovered their orthodoxy we |Constantinople. A.D. 381.]| do not know; but it is perhaps a significant fact, that neither is represented at the second general Council, held at Constantinople |The Nestorian and Eutychian heresies.
Ephesus.
A.D. 431.| (A.D. 381)[202]. At the third general Council, which met at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, Hierapolis by Venantius[203]. Both bishops sign the decrees condemning Nestorius. Again in the next Christological controversy which agitated the Church the two sees bear their part. At the notorious |Latrocinium. A.D. 449.| Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. Both bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches[204]. Yet with the fickleness which characterized these sees at an earlier date during the Arian controversy, we find their representatives two years |Chalcedon. A.D. 451.| later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had so lately supported[205]. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, and reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded at Hierapolis by Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, had not been compromised by any previous expression of opinion[206].

Later vacillation of these sees.

The history of these churches at a later date is such as might have been anticipated from their attitude during the period of the first Four General Councils. The sees of Laodicea and Hierapolis, one or both, are represented at all the more important assemblies of the Church; and the same vacillation and infirmity of purpose, which had characterized their holders in the earlier councils, marks the proceedings of their later successors[207].

Their comparative unimportance.

But, though the two sees thus continue to bear witness to their existence by the repeated presence of their occupants at councils and synods, yet the real influence of Laodicea and Hierapolis on the Church at large has terminated with the close of the second century. On one occasion only did either |Council of Laodicea an exception.| community assume a position of prominence. About the middle of the fourth century a council was held at Laodicea[208]. It |Its decree on the Canon.| was convened more especially to settle some points of ecclesiastical discipline; but incidentally the assembled bishops were led to make an order respecting the Canon of Scripture[209]. As this was the first occasion in which the subject had been brought formally before the notice of an ecclesiastical assembly this Council of Laodicea secured a notoriety which it would not otherwise have obtained, and to which it was hardly entitled by its constitution or its proceedings. Its decrees were confirmed and adopted by later councils both in the East and in the West[210].

Its decrees illustrate the Epistle to the Colossians.

More important however for my special purpose, than the influence of this synod on the Church at large, is the light which its canons throw on the heretical tendencies of this district, and on the warnings of St Paul in the Colossian Epistle. To illustrate this fact it will only be necessary to write out some of these canons at length:

Col. ii. 14, 16, 17.

29. ‘It is not right for Christians to Judaize and abstain from labour on the sabbath, but to work on this same day. They should pay respect rather to the Lord’s day, and, if possible, abstain from labour on it as Christians. But if they should be found Judaizers, let them be anathema in the sight of Christ.’

Col. ii. 18.

35. ‘It is not right for Christians to abandon the Church of God and go away and invoke angels (ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζειν)[211] and hold conventicles (συνάξεις ποιεῖν); for these things are forbidden. If therefore any one is found devoting himself to this secret idolatry, let him be anathema, because he abandoned our Lord Jesus Christ and went after idolatry.’

36. ‘It is not right for priests or clergy to be magicians or enchanters or mathematicians or astrologers[212], or to make safe-guards (φυλακτήρια) as they are called, for such things are prisons (δεσμωτήρια) of their souls[213]: and we have enjoined that they which wear them be cast out of the Church.’

37. ‘It is not right to receive from Jews or heretics the festive offerings which they send about, nor to join in their festivals.’

38. ‘It is not right to receive unleavened bread from the Jews or to participate in their impieties.’

It is strange, at this late date, to find still lingering in these churches the same readiness to be ‘judged in respect of an holiday or a new moon or a sabbath,’ with the same tendency to relinquish the hold of the Head and to substitute ‘a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels,’ which three centuries before had called forth the Apostle’s rebuke and warning in the Epistle to the Colossians.

Ecclesiastical status of Laodicea and Hierapolis.

During the flourishing period of the Eastern Church, Laodicea appears as the metropolis of the province of Phrygia Pacatiana, counting among its suffragan bishoprics the see of Colossæ[214]. On the other hand Hierapolis, though only six miles distant, belonged to the neighbouring province of Phrygia Salutaris[215], whose metropolis was Synnada, and of which it was one of the most important sees. The stream of the Lycus seems to have formed the boundary line between the two ecclesiastical provinces. At a later date Hierapolis itself was raised to metropolitan rank[216].

Obscurity of Colossæ.

But while Laodicea and Hierapolis held the foremost place in the records of the early Church, and continued to bear an active, though inconspicuous part, in later Christian history, Colossæ was from the very first a cipher. The town itself, as we have seen, was already waning in importance, when the Apostle wrote; and its subsequent decline seems to have been rapid. Not a single event in Christian history is connected with its name; and its very existence is only rescued from oblivion, when at long intervals some bishop of Colossæ attaches his signature to the decree of an ecclesiastical synod. The city ceased to strike coins in the reign of Gordian (A.D. |It is supplanted by Chonæ.| 238–244)[217]. It fell gradually into decay, being supplanted by the neighbouring town Chonæ, the modern Chonos, so called from the natural funnels by which the streams here disappear in underground channels formed by the incrustations of travertine[218]. We may conjecture also that its ruin was hastened by a renewed assault of its ancient enemy, the earthquake[219]. It is commonly said that Chonæ is built on the site of the ancient Colossæ; but the later town stands at some distance from the earlier, as Salisbury does from Old Sarum. The episcopal see necessarily followed the population; though for some time after its removal to the new town the bishop still continued to use the older title, with or without the addition of Chonæ by way of explanation, till at length the name of this primitive Apostolic Church passes wholly out of sight[220].

Turkish conquest.

The Turkish conquest pressed with more than common severity on these districts. When the day of visitation came, the Church was taken by surprise. Occupied with ignoble quarrels and selfish interests, she had no ear for the voice of Him who demanded admission. The door was barred and the knock unheeded. The long-impending doom overtook her, and the golden candlestick was removed for ever from the Eternal Presence[221].