I.

THE CHURCHES OF THE LYCUS.

[Sidenote: Situation of the three cities.]

Lying in, or overhanging, the valley of the Lycus, a tributary of the Mæander, were three neighbouring towns, Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossæ[1]. The river flows, roughly speaking, from east to west; but at this point, which is some few miles above its junction with the Mæander, its direction is more nearly from south-east to north-west[2]. Laodicea and Hierapolis stand face to face, being situated respectively on the southern and northern sides of the valley, at a distance of six miles[3], and within sight of each other, the river lying in the open plain between the two. The site of Colossæ is somewhat higher up the stream, at a distance of perhaps ten or twelve miles[4] from the point where the road between Laodicea and Hierapolis crosses the Lycus. Unlike Laodicea and Hierapolis, which overhang the valley on opposite sides, Colossæ stands immediately on the river-bank, the two parts of the town being divided by the stream. The three cities lie so near to each other, that it would be quite possible to visit them all in the course of a single day.

Footnote 1:

The following are among the most important books of travel relating to this district; Pococke _Description of the East and Some Other Countries_, Vol. II, Part II, London 1745; Chandler _Travels in Asia Minor_ etc., Oxford 1775; Leake _Tour in Asia Minor_, London 1824; Arundell _Discoveries in Asia Minor_, London 1834; Hamilton _Researches in Asia Minor, Pontus, and Armenia_, London 1842; Fellows _Asia Minor_, London 1839, _Discoveries in Lycia_, London 1840; de Tchihatcheff _Asie Mineure, Description Physique, Statistique et Archéologique_, Paris 1853 etc., with the accompanying Atlas (1860); de Laborde _Voyage de l’Asie Mineure_ (the expedition itself took place in 1826, but the date on the title-page is 1838, and the introduction was written in 1861); Le Bas _Voyage Archéologique en Grèce et en Asie Mineure_, continued by Waddington and not yet completed; Texier _Description de l’Asie Mineure_, Vol. I (1839). It is hardly necessary to add the smaller works of Texier and Le Bas on _Asie Mineure_ (Paris 1862, 1863) in Didot’s series _L’Univers_, as these have only a secondary value. Of the books enumerated, Hamilton’s work is the most important for the topography, etc.; Tchihatcheff’s for the physical features; and Le Bas and Waddington’s for the inscriptions, etc. The best maps are those of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff; to which should be added the _Karte von Klein-Asien_ by v. Vincke and others, published by Schropp, Berlin 1844.

Besides books on Asia Minor generally, some works relating especially to the Seven Churches may be mentioned. Smith’s _Survey of the Seven Churches of Asia_ (1678) is a work of great merit for the time, and contains the earliest description of the sites of these Phrygian cities. It was published in Latin first, and translated by its author afterwards. Arundell’s _Seven Churches_ (1828) is a well-known book. Allom and Walsh’s _Constantinople and the Scenery of the Seven Churches of Asia Minor illustrated_ (1850) gives some views of this district. Svoboda’s _Seven Churches of Asia_ (1869) contains 20 photographs and an introduction by the Rev. H. B. Tristram. This is a selection from a larger series of Svoboda’s photographs, published separately.

Footnote 2:

The maps differ very considerably in this respect, nor do the statements of travellers always agree. The direction of the river, as given in the text, accords with the maps of Hamilton and Tchihatcheff, and with the accounts of the most accurate writers.

Footnote 3:

_Anton. Itin._ p. 337 (Wesseling) gives the distance as 6 miles. See also Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283, Hamilton I. p. 514. The relative position of the two cities appears in Laborde’s view, pl. xxxix.

Footnote 4:

I do not find any distinct notice of the distance; but, to judge from the maps and itineraries of modern travellers, this estimate will probably be found not very far wrong.

[Sidenote: Their neighbourhood and intercourse.]

Thus situated, they would necessarily hold constant intercourse with each other. We are not surprised therefore to find them so closely connected in the earliest ages of Christianity. It was the consequence of their position that they owed their knowledge of the Gospel to the same evangelist, that the same phases of thought prevailed in them, and that they were exposed to the same temptations, moral as well as intellectual.

[Sidenote: Physical forces at work.]

The physical features of the neighbourhood are very striking. Two potent forces of nature are actively at work to change the face of the country, the one destroying old land-marks, the other creating fresh ground.

[Sidenote: Frequent earthquakes.]

On the one hand, the valley of the Lycus was and is especially liable to violent earthquakes. The same danger indeed extends over large portions of Asia Minor, but this district is singled out by ancient writers[5] (and the testimony of modern travellers confirms the statement[6]), as the chief theatre of these catastrophes. Not once or twice only in the history of Laodicea do we read of such visitations laying waste the city itself or some flourishing town in the neighbourhood[7]. Though the exterior surface of the earth shows no traces of recent volcanoes, still the cavernous nature of the soil and the hot springs and mephitic vapours abounding here indicate the presence of those subterranean fires, which from time to time have manifested themselves in this work of destruction.

Footnote 5:

See especially Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ _τὸ εὔσειστον_· εἰ γάρ τις ἄλλη, καὶ ἡ Λαοδίκεια εὔσειστος, καὶ τῆς πλησιοχώρου δὲ Κάρουρα.

Footnote 6:

Thus Pococke (p. 71) in 1745 writes of Denizli, which is close to Laodicea, ‘The old town was destroyed about 25 years past by an earthquake, in which 12,000 people perished.’

Footnote 7:

See below p. 38.

[Sidenote: Deposits of travertine.]

But, while the crust of the earth is constantly broken up by these forces from beneath, another agency is actively employed above ground in laying a new surface. If fire has its fitful outbursts of devastation, water is only less powerful in its gradual work of reconstruction. The lateral streams which swell the waters of the Lycus are thickly impregnated with calcareous matter, which they deposit in their course. The travertine formations of this valley are among the most remarkable in the world, surpassing even the striking phenomena of Tivoli and Clermont[8]. Ancient monuments are buried, fertile lands overlaid, river-beds choked up and streams diverted, fantastic grottos and cascades and archways of stone formed, by this strange capricious power, at once destructive and creative, working silently and relentlessly through long ages. Fatal to vegetation, these incrustations spread like a stony shroud over the ground. Gleaming like glaciers on the hill-side they attract the eye of the traveller at a distance of twenty miles[9], and form a singularly striking feature in scenery of more than common beauty and impressiveness.

Footnote 8:

Tchihatcheff P. I. _Geogr. Phys. Comp._ p. 344 sq., esp. p. 353. See the references below, pp. 9 sq., 15.

Footnote 9:

Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283.

[Sidenote: Produce and manufactures of the district.]

At the same time, along with these destructive agencies, the fertility of the district was and is unusually great. Its rich pastures fed large flocks of sheep, whose fleeces were of a superior quality; and the trade in dyed woollen goods was the chief source of prosperity to these towns. For the bounty of nature was not confined to the production of the material, but extended also to the preparation of the fabric. The mineral streams had chemical qualities, which were highly valued by the dyer[10]. Hence we find that all the three towns, with which we are concerned, were famous in this branch of trade. At Hierapolis, as at Thyatira, the guild of the dyers appears in the inscriptions as an important and influential body[11]. Their colours vied in brilliancy with the richest scarlets and purples of the farther east[12]. Laodicea again was famous for the colour of its fleeces, probably a glossy black, which was much esteemed[13]. Here also we read of a guild of dyers[14]. And lastly, Colossæ gave its name to a peculiar dye, which seems to have been some shade of purple, and from which it derived a considerable revenue[15].

Footnote 10:

See note 13.

Footnote 11:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3924 (at Hierapolis) τοῦτο τὸ ἡρῷον στεφανοῖ _ἡ ἐργασία τῶν βαφεών_. See Laborde’s view, pl. xxxv. In another inscription too (Le Bas and Waddington, no. 1687) there is mention of the purple-dyers, πορφυραβαφεῖς.

Footnote 12:

Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 630) ἔστι δὲ καὶ πρὸς βαφὴν ἐρίων θαυμαστῶς σύμμετρον τὸ κατὰ τὴν Ἱερὰν πόλιν ὕδωρ, ὤστε τὰ ἐκ τῶν ῥιζῶν βαπτόμενα ἐνάμιλλα εἴναι τοῖς ἐκ τῆς κόκκου καὶ τοῖς ἁλουργέσιν.

Footnote 13:

Strabo xii. 8. 16 (p. 578) φέρει δ’ ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος προβάτων ἀρετὰς οὐκ εἰς μαλακότητα μόνον τῶν ἐρίων, ᾖ καὶ τῶν Μιλησίων διαφέρει, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὴν κοραξὴν χρόαν, ὥστε καὶ προσοδεύονται λαμπρῶς ἀπ’ αὐτῶν, ὥσπερ καὶ οἱ Κολοσσηνοὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὁμωνύμου χρώματος, πλησίον οἰκοῦντες. For this strange adjective κοραξός (which seems to be derived from κόραξ and to mean ‘raven-black’) see the passages in Hase and Dindorf’s _Steph. Thes._ In Latin we find the form _coracinus_, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 14 ‘Aliis coracino colore,’ Laodicea being mentioned in the context. Vitruvius represents this as the natural colour of the fleeces, and attributes it to the water drunk by the sheep. See also Plin. _N. H._ viii. 48 § 73. So too Hieron. _adv. Jovin._ ii. 21 (II. p. 358) ‘Laodiceæ indumentis ornatus incedis.’ The ancient accounts of the natural colour of the fleeces in this neighbourhood are partially confirmed by modern travellers; e.g. Pococke p. 74, Chandler p. 228.

Footnote 14:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3938 [ἡ ἐργασία] τῶν γναφέ[ων καὶ βαφέων τῶν] (αλουργ[ῶ]ν.

Footnote 15:

See the passage of Strabo quoted p. 4, note 13. The place gives its name to the colour, and not conversely, as stated in Blakesley’s Herod. vii. 113. See also Plin. _N. H._ xxi. 9 § 27, ‘In vepribus nascitur cyclaminum ... flos ejus _colossinus_ in coronas admittitur,’ a passage which assists in determining the colour.

[Sidenote: 1. LAODICEA.]

[Sidenote: Its name and history.]

1. Of these three towns LAODICEA, as the most important, deserves to be considered first. Laodice was a common name among the ladies of the royal house of the Seleucidæ, as Antiochus was among the princes. Hence Antiochia and Laodicea occur frequently as the designations of cities within the dominions of the Syrian kings. Laodicea on the Lycus[16], as it was surnamed to distinguish it from other towns so called, and more especially perhaps from its near neighbour Laodicea Catacecaumene, had borne in succession the names of Diospolis and Rhoas[17]; but when refounded by Antiochus Theos (B.C. 261–246), it was newly designated after his wife Laodice[18]. It is situated[19] on an undulating hill, or group of hills, which overhangs the valley on the south, being washed on either side by the streams of the Asopus and the Caprus, tributaries of the Lycus[20]. Behind it rise the snow-capped heights of Cadmus, the lofty mountain barrier which shuts in the south side of the main valley[21]. [Sidenote: Its growing prosperity.] A place of no great importance at first, it made rapid strides in the last days of the republic and under the earliest Cæsars, and had become, two or three generations before St Paul wrote, a populous and thriving city[22]. Among its famous inhabitants are mentioned the names of some philosophers, sophists, and rhetoricians, men renowned in their day but forgotten or almost forgotten now[23]. More to our purpose, as illustrating the boasted wealth and prosperity of the city, which appeared as a reproach and a stumblingblock in an Apostle’s eyes[24], are the facts, that one of its citizens, Polemo, became a king and a father of kings, and that another, Hiero, having accumulated enormous wealth, bequeathed all his property to the people and adorned the city with costly gifts[25]. To the good fortune of her principal sons, as well as to the fertility of the country around, the geographer Strabo ascribes the increase and prosperity of Laodicea. The ruins of public buildings still bear testimony by their number and magnificence to the past greatness of the city[26].

Footnote 16:

ἐπὶ Λύκῳ, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3938, Ptol. _Geogr._ v. 2, Tab. Peut. ‘laudicium pilycum’; πρὸς [τῷ] Λύκῳ, Eckhel _Num. Vet._ III. p. 166, Strabo l.c., Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 5881, 5893; πρὸς Λύκον, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 6478. A citizen was styled Λαοδικεὺς ἀπὸ Λύκου, Diog. Laert. ix. 12 § 116.

Footnote 17:

Plin. _N. H._ v. 29.

Footnote 18:

Steph. Byz. s.v., who quotes the oracle in obedience to which (ὡς ἐκέλευσε Ζεὺς ὑψιβρεμέτης) it was founded.

Footnote 19:

For descriptions of Laodicea see Smith p. 250 sq., Pococke p. 71 sq., Chandler p. 224 sq., Arundell _Seven Churches_ p. 84 sq., _Asia Minor_ II. p. 180 sq., Fellows _Asia Minor_ 280 sq., Hamilton I. p. 514 sq., Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 252 sq., 258 sq. See also the views in Laborde, pl. xxxix, Allom and Walsh II. p. 86, and Svoboda phot. 36–38.

The modern Turkish name is Eskihissar, ‘the Old Castle,’ corresponding to the modern Greek, Paleókastro, a common name for the sites of ancient cities; Leake p. 251. On the ancient site itself there is no town or village; the modern city Denizli is a few miles off.

Footnote 20:

The position of Laodicea with respect to the neighbouring streams is accurately described by Pliny _N.H._ v. 29 ‘Imposita est Lyco flumini, latera affluentibus Asopo et Capro’; see Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 258. Strabo xii. (l.c.) is more careless in his description (for it can hardly be, as Tchihatcheff assumes, that he has mistaken one of these two tributaries for the Lycus itself), ἐνταῦθα δὲ καὶ ὁ Κάπρος καὶ ὁ Λύκος συμβάλλε τῷ Μαιάνδρῳ ποταμῷ ποταμὸς εὐμεγέθης, where ἐνταῦθα refers to ὁ περὶ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν τόπος, and where by the junction of the stream with the Mæander must be intended the junction of the _combined_ stream of the Lycus and Caprus. On the coins of Laodicea (Eckhel III. p. 166, Mionnet IV. p. 330, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 587, 589) the Lycus and Caprus appear together, being sometimes represented as a wolf and a wild-boar. The Asopus is omitted, either as being a less important stream or as being less capable of symbolical representation. Of modern travellers, Smith (p. 250), and after him Pococke (p. 72), have correctly described the position of the streams. Chandler (p. 227), misled by Strabo, mistakes the Caprus for the Lycus and the Lycus for the Mæander. The modern name of the Lycus is Tchoruk Sú.

Footnote 21:

The modern name of Cadmus is Baba-Dagh, ‘The father of mountains.’

Footnote 22:

Strabo xii. l.c. ἡ δὲ Λαοδίκεια μικρὰ πρότερον ὀῦσα ἀύξησιν ἔλαβεν ἐφ’ ἡμῶν καὶ τῶν ἡμετέρων πατέρων, καίτοι κακωθεῖσα ἐκ πολιορκίας ἐπὶ Μιθριδάτου τοῦ Ἐυπάτορος. Strabo flourished in the time of Augustus and the earlier years of Tiberius. The growing importance of Laodicea dates from before the age of Cicero: see p. 7.

Footnote 23:

Strabo l.c.; Diog. Laert. ix. 11 § 106, 12 § 116; Philostr. _Vit. Soph._ i. 25; Eckhel _Doctr. Num. Vet._ III. p. 162, 163 sq.

Footnote 24:

Rev. iii. 17; see below p. 43.

Footnote 25:

Strabo l.c.

Footnote 26:

The ruins of Laodicea have formed the quarry out of which the modern town of Denizli is built. Yet notwithstanding these depredations they are still very extensive, comprising an amphitheatre, two or three theatres, an aqueduct, etc. The amphitheatre was built by the munificence of a citizen of Laodicea only a few years after St Paul wrote, as the inscription testifies; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3935. See especially Hamilton I. p. 515 sq., who describes these ruins as ‘bearing the stamp of Roman extravagance and luxury, rather than of the stern and massive solidity of the Greeks.’

[Sidenote: Its political rank, as the capital of a _conventus_.]

Not less important, as throwing light on the Apostolic history, is the political status of Laodicea. Asia Minor under the Romans was divided into districts, each comprising several towns and having its chief city, in which the courts were held from time to time by the proconsul or legate of the province, and where the taxes from the subordinate towns were collected[27]. Each of these political aggregates was styled in Latin _conventus_, in Greek διοίκησις—a term afterwards borrowed by the Christian Church, being applied to a similar ecclesiastical aggregate, and thus naturalised in the languages of Christendom as _diocese_. At the head of the most important of these political dioceses, the ‘Cibyratic convention’ or ‘jurisdiction,’ as it was called, comprising not less than twenty-five towns, stood Laodicea[28]. Here in times past Cicero, as proconsul of Cilicia, had held his court[29]; hither at stated seasons flocked suitors, advocates, clerks, sheriffs’-officers, tax-collectors, pleasure-seekers, courtiers—all those crowds whom business or leisure or policy or curiosity would draw together from a wealthy and populous district, when the representative of the laws and the majesty of Rome appeared to receive homage and to hold his assize[30]. To this position as the chief city of the Cibyratic union the inscriptions probably refer, when they style Laodicea the ‘metropolis[31].’ And in its metropolitan rank we see an explanation of the fact, that to Laodicea, as to the centre of a Christian diocese also, whence their letters would readily be circulated among the neighbouring brotherhoods, two Apostles address themselves in succession, the one writing from his captivity in Rome[32], the other from his exile at Patmos[33].

Footnote 27:

See Becker and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. 1. p. 136 sq.

Footnote 28:

See Cic. _ad Att._ v. 21,‘Idibus Februariis ... forum institueram agere Laodiceæ Cibyraticum,’with the references in the next note: comp. also Plin. _N.H._ v. 29 ‘Una (jurisdictio) appellatur Cibyratica. Ipsum (i.e. Cibyra) oppidum Phrygiæ est. Conveniunt eo xxv civitates, celeberrima urbe Laodicea.’

Besides these passages, testimony is borne to the importance of the Cibyratic ‘conventus’ by Strabo, xiii. 4 § 17 (p. 631), ἐν ταῖς μεγίσταις ἐξετάζεται διοικήσεσι τῆς Ἀσίας ἡ Κιβυρατική. It will be remembered also that Horace singles out the _Cibyratica negotia_ (_Epist._ i. 6. 33) to represent Oriental trade generally. The importance of Laodicea may be inferred from the fact that, though the union was named after Cibyra, its head-quarters were from the first fixed at or soon afterwards transferred to Laodicea.

Footnote 29:

See _ad Fam._ ii. 17, iii. 5, 7, 8, ix. 25, xiii. 54, 67, xv. 4; _ad Att._ v. 16, 17, 20, 21, vi. 1, 2, 3, 7. He visited Laodicea on several occasions, sometimes making a long stay there, and not a few of his letters are written thence. See especially his account of his work there, _ad Att._ vi. 2, ‘Hoc foro quod egi ex Idibus Februariis Laodiceæ ad Kalendas Maias omnium dioecesium, præter Ciliciæ, mirabilia quædam efficimus; ita multæ civitates, etc.’ Altogether Laodicea seems to have been second in importance to none of the cities in his province, except perhaps Tarsus. See also the notice, _in Verr._ Act. ii. I. c. 30.

Footnote 30:

The description which Dion Chrysostom gives in his eulogy of Celænæ (Apamea Cibotus), the metropolis of a neighbouring ‘dioecesis,’ enables us to realise the concourse which gathered together on these occasions: _Orat._ XXXV (II. p. 69) ξυνάγεται πλῆθος ἀνθρώπων δικαζομένων, δικαζόντων, ἡγεμόνων, ὑπηρετῶν, οἰκετῶν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 31:

On this word see Becker and Marquardt l.c. p. 138 sq. It had lost its original sense, as the mother city of a colony. Laodicea is styled ‘metropolis’ on the coins, Mionnet IV. p. 321.

Footnote 32:

Col. iv. 16 with the notes. See also below p. 37, and the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Footnote 33:

Rev. iii. 14.

[Sidenote: Its religious worship.]

On the religious worship of Laodicea very little special information exists. Its tutelary deity was Zeus, whose guardianship had been recognised in Diospolis, the older name of the city, and who, having (according to the legend) commanded its rebuilding, was commemorated on its coins with the surname Laodicenus[34]. Occasionally he is also called Aseis, a title which perhaps reproduces a Syrian epithet of this deity, ‘the mighty.’ If this interpretation be correct, we have a link of connexion between Laodicea and the religions of the farther East—a connexion far from improbable, considering that Laodicea was refounded by a Syrian king and is not unlikely to have adopted some features of Syrian worship[35].

Footnote 34:

See Eckhel III. p. 159 sq. (passim), Mionnet IV. p. 315 sq., ib. Suppl. VII. p. 578 sq. (passim). In the coins commemorating an alliance with some other city Laodicea is represented by Zeus; e.g. Mionnet IV. pp. 320, 324, 331 sq., Suppl. VII. pp. 586, 589.

Footnote 35:

==αϲειϲ== or ==αϲειϲ λαοδικεων==. See Waddington _Voyage en Asie Mineure au point de vue Numismatique_ (Paris 1853) pp. 25, 26 sq. Mr Waddington adopts a suggestion communicated to him by M. de Longpérier that this word represents the Aramaic עזיזא ‘the strong, mighty,’ which appears also in the Arabic ‘Aziz.’ This view gains some confirmation from the fact, not mentioned by Mr Waddington, that Ἄζιζος was an epithet of the Ares of Edessa: Julian _Orat._ iv; comp. Cureton _Spic. Syr._ p. 80, and see de Lagarde _Gesamm. Abhandl._ p. 16. On the other hand this Shemitic word elsewhere, when adopted into Greek or Latin, is written Ἄζιζος or Azizus: see Garrucci in the _Archæologia_ XLIII. p. 45 ‘Tyrio Septimio Azizo,’ and Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 9893 Ἄζιζος Ἀγρίπα Σύρος. M. de Longpérier offers the alternative that ασειϲ, _i.e._ Ἀσίς, is equivalent to Ἀσιατικός. An objection to this view, stronger than those urged by Mr Waddington, is the fact that Ἀσίς seems only to be used as a feminine adjective. M. Renan points to the fact that this ζευς ασεις is represented with his hand on the horns of a goat, and on the strength of this coincidence would identify him with ‘the Azazel of the Semites’ (_Saint Paul_, p. 359), though tradition and orthography alike point to some other derivation of Azazel (עזאזל).

[Sidenote: 2. HIERAPOLIS.]

[Sidenote: Its situation.]

2. On the north of the valley, opposite to the sloping hills which mark the site of Laodicea, is a broad level terrace jutting out from the mountain side and overhanging the plain with almost precipitous sides. On this plateau are scattered the vast ruins of HIERAPOLIS[36]. The mountains upon which it abuts occupy the wedge of ground between the Mæander and the Lycus; but, as the Mæander above its junction with the Lycus passes through a narrow ravine, they blend, when seen from a distance, with the loftier range of the Mesogis which overhangs the right bank of the Mæander almost from its source to its embouchure, and form with it the northern barrier to the view, as the Cadmus range does the southern, the broad valley stretching between. Thus Hierapolis may be said to lie over against Mesogis, as Laodicea lies over against Cadmus[37].

Footnote 36:

For descriptions of Hierapolis, see Smith p. 245 sq., Pococke p. 75 sq., Chandler 229 sq., Arundell _Seven Churches_ p. 79 sq., Hamilton p. 517 sq., Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 283 sq. For the travertine deposits see especially the description and plates in Tchihatcheff P. I. p. 345, together with the views in Laborde (pl. xxxii-xxxviii), and Svoboda (photogr. 41–47). Tchihatcheff repeatedly calls the place Hieropolis; but this form, though commonly used of other towns (see Steph. Byz. s.v. Ἱεραπόλις, Leake _Num. Hell._ p. 67), appears not to occur as a designation of the Phrygian city, which seems always to be written Hierapolis. The citizens however are sometimes called Ἱεροπολῖται on the coins.

The modern name is given differently by travellers. It is generally called Pambouk-Kalessi, i.e. ‘cotton-castle,’ supposed to allude to the appearance of the petrifactions, though cotton is grown in the neighbourhood (Hamilton I. p. 517). So Smith, Pococke, Chandler, Arundell, Tchihatcheff, Waddington, and others. M. Renan says ‘_Tambouk_, et non _Pambouk, Kalessi_’ (_S. Paul_ p. 357). Laborde gives the word _Tambouk_ in some places and _Pambouk_ in others; and Leake says ‘Hierapolis, now called _Tabúk-Kale_ or _Pambuk-Kale_’ (p. 252).

Footnote 37:

Strabo xiii. 4. 14 (p. 629) says ὑπερβαλοῦσι δὲ τὴν Μεσωγίδα ... πόλεις εἰσὶ πρὸς μὲν τῇ Μεσωγὶδι καταντικρὺ Λαοδικείας Ἱερὰ πόλις, κ.τ.λ. He cannot mean that Hierapolis was situated immediately in or by the Mesogis (for the name does not seem ever to be applied to the mountains between the Lycus and Mæander), but that with respect to Laodicea it stood over against the Mesogis, as I have explained it in the text. The view in Laborde (pl. xxxix) shows the appearance of Hierapolis from Laodicea. Strabo had himself visited the place and must have known how it was situated. Some modern travellers however (e.g. Chandler and Arundell) speak of the plateau of Hierapolis as part of the Mesogis. Steiger (_Kolosser_ p. 33) gets over the difficulty by translating Strabo’s words, ‘near the Mesogis but on the opposite side (i.e. of the Mæander) is the Laodicean Hierapolis’ (to distinguish it from others of the name); but καταντικρὺ cannot be separated from Λαοδικείας without violence.

[Sidenote: Remarkable physical features.]

It is at Hierapolis that the remarkable physical features which distinguish the valley of the Lycus display themselves in the fullest perfection. Over the steep cliffs which support the plateau of the city, tumble cascades of pure white stone, the deposit of calcareous matter from the streams which, after traversing this upper level, are precipitated over the ledge into the plain beneath and assume the most fantastic shapes in their descent. At one time overhanging in cornices fringed with stalactites, at another hollowed out into basins or broken up with ridges, they mark the site of the city at a distance, glistening on the mountain-side like foaming cataracts frozen in the fall.

[Sidenote: Their relation to the Apostolic history.]

But for the immediate history of St Paul’s Epistles the striking beauty of the scenery has no value. It is not probable that he had visited this district when the letters to the Colossians and Laodiceans were written. Were it otherwise, we can hardly suppose, that educated under widely different influences and occupied with deeper and more absorbing thoughts, he would have shared the enthusiasm which this scenery inspires in the modern traveller. Still it will give a reality to our conceptions, if we try to picture to ourselves the external features of that city, which was destined before long to become the adopted home of Apostles and other personal disciples of the Lord, and to play a conspicuous part—second perhaps only to Ephesus—in the history of the Church during the ages immediately succeeding the Apostles.

[Sidenote: Hierapolis a famous watering-place.]

Like Laodicea, Hierapolis was at this time an important and a growing city, though not like Laodicea holding metropolitan rank[38]. Besides the trade in dyed wools, which it shared in common with the neighbouring towns, it had another source of wealth and prosperity peculiar to itself. The streams to which the scenery owes the remarkable features already described, are endowed with valuable medicinal qualities, while at the same time they are so copious that the ancient city is described as full of self-made baths[39]. An inscription, still legible among the ruins, celebrates their virtues in heroic verse, thus apostrophizing the city:

Hail, fairest soil in all broad Asia’s realm; Hail, golden city, nymph divine, bedeck’d With flowing rills, thy jewels[40].

Coins of Hierapolis too are extant of various types, on which Æsculapius and Hygeia appear either singly or together[41]. To this fashionable watering-place, thus favoured by nature, seekers of pleasure and seekers of health alike were drawn.

Footnote 38:

On its _ecclesiastical_ title of metropolis, see below, p. 70, note 277.

Footnote 39:

Strabo l.c. οὕτω δ’ ἐστὶν ἄφθονον τὸ πλῆθος τοῦ ὕδατος ὥστε ἡ πόλις μεστὴ τῶν αὐτομάτων βαλανείων ἐστί.

Footnote 40:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3909, Ἀσίδος εὐρείης προφερέστατον οὖδας ἁπάντων, χαίροις, χρυσόπολι Ἱεράπολι, πότνια Νυμφῶν, νάμασιν, ἀγλαΐῃσι, κεκασμένη.

Footnote 41:

Mionnet IV. p. 297, 306, 307, ib. Suppl. VII. p. 567; Waddington _Voyage_ etc. p. 24.

[Sidenote: The magnificence of its ruins.]

To the ancient magnificence of Hierapolis its extant ruins bear ample testimony. More favoured than Laodicea, it has not in its immediate neighbourhood any modern town or village of importance, whose inhabitants have been tempted to quarry materials for their houses out of the memorials of its former greatness. Hence the whole plateau is covered with ruins, of which the extent and the good taste are equally remarkable; and of these the palæstra and the thermæ, as might be expected, are among the more prominent.

[Sidenote: Its religious worship.]

A city, which combined the pursuit of health and of gaiety, had fitly chosen as its patron deity Apollo, the god alike of medicine and of festivity, here worshipped especially as ‘Archegetes,’ the Founder[42]. But more important, as illustrating the religious temper of this Phrygian city, is another fact connected with it. [Sidenote: The Plutonium.]In Hierapolis was a spot called the Plutonium, a hot well or spring, from whose narrow mouth issued a mephitic vapour immediately fatal to those who stood over the opening and inhaled its fumes. To the mutilated priests of Cybele alone (so it was believed) an immunity was given from heaven, which freed them from its deadly effects[43]. Indeed this city appears to have been a chief centre of the passionate mystical devotion of ancient Phrygia. But indications are not wanting, that in addition to this older worship religious rites were borrowed also from other parts of the East, more especially from Egypt[44]. By the multitude of her temples Hierapolis established her right to the title of the ‘sacred city,’ which she bore[45].

Footnote 42:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3905, 3906; Mionnet iv. pp. 297, 301, 307, ib. Suppl. vii. p. 568, 569, 570. In coins struck to commemorate alliances with other cities, Hierapolis is represented by Apollo Archegetes: Mionnet IV. p. 303, ib. Suppl. VII. 572, 573, 574; Waddington _Voyage_ etc. p. 25; and see Eckhel III. p. 156. On the meaning of _Archegetes_, under which name Apollo was worshipped by other cities also, who regarded him as their founder, see Spanheim on Callim. _Hymn. Apoll._ 57.

Footnote 43:

Strabo l.c. He himself had seen the phenomenon and was doubtful how to account for the immunity of these priests, εἴτε θείᾳ προνοίᾳ ... εἴτε ἀντιδότοις τισὶ δυνάμεσι τούτου συμβαίνοντος. See also Plin. _N. H._ ii. 93 § 95 ‘locum ... matris tantum magnæ sacerdoti innoxium.’ Dion Cass. (Xiphil.) lxviii. 27, who also witnessed the phenomenon, adds οὐ μὴν καὶ τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτοῦ συννοῆσαι ἔχω, λέγω δὲ ἅ τε εἶδον ὡς εἶδον καὶ ἃ ἤκουσα ὡς ἤκουσα. Ammian. Marc. xxiii. 6. 18 also mentions this marvel, but speaks cautiously, ‘ut asserunt quidam,’ and adds ‘quod qua causa eveniat, rationibus physicis permittatur.’ Comp. Anthol. VII. p. 190 Εἴ τις ἀπάγξασθαι μὲν ὀκνεῖ θανάτου δ’ ἐπιθυμεῖ, ἐξ Ἱερᾶς πόλεως ψυχρὸν ὕδωρ πιέτω; Stobæus _Ecl._ i. 34, p. 680. Laborde states (p. 83) that he discovered by experiment that the waters are sometimes fatal to animal life and sometimes perfectly harmless; and if this be substantiated, we have a solution of the marvel. Other modern travellers, who have visited the Plutonium, are Cockerell (Leake p. 342), and Svoboda. In Svoboda’s work a chemical analysis of the waters is given.

Footnote 44:

On a coin of Hierapolis, Pluto-Serapis appears seated, while before him stands Isis with a sistrum in her hand; Waddington _Voyage_ etc. p. 24. See also Mionnet IV. pp. 296, 305; Leake _Num. Hell._ p. 66.

The worship of Serapis appears elsewhere in this neighbourhood. At Chonæ (Colossæ) is an inscription recording a vow to this deity; Le Bas _Asie Mineure_ inscr. 1693 b.

Footnote 45:

Steph. Byz. s.v. ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱερὰ πολλὰ ἔχειν.

[Sidenote: The birth-place of Epictetus.]

Though at this time we have no record of famous citizens at Hierapolis, such as graced the annals of Laodicea, yet a generation or two later she numbered among her sons one nobler far than the rhetoricians and sophists, the millionaires and princes, of whom her neighbour could boast. The lame slave Epictetus, the loftiest of heathen moralists, must have been growing up to manhood when the first rumours of the Gospel reached his native city. Did any chance throw him across the path of Epaphras, who first announced the glad-tidings there? [Sidenote: Epictetus and Christianity.]Did he ever meet the great Apostle himself, while dragging out his long captivity at Rome, or when after his release he paid his long-promised visit to the valley of the Lycus? We should be glad to think that these two men met together face to face—the greatest of Christian, and the greatest of heathen preachers. Such a meeting would solve more than one riddle. A Christian Epictetus certainly was not; his Stoic doctrine and his Stoic morality are alike apparent: but nevertheless his language presents some strange coincidences with the Apostolic writings, which would thus receive an explanation[46]. It must be confessed however, that of any outward intercourse between the Apostle and the philosopher history furnishes no hint.

Footnote 46:

See _Philippians_, pp. 312, 313.

[Sidenote: 3. COLOSSÆ.]

3. While the sites of Laodicea and Hierapolis are conspicuous, so that they were early identified by their ruins, the same is not the case with COLOSSÆ. [Sidenote: Difficulty of determining its site.]Only within the present generation has the position of this once famous city been ascertained, and even now it lacks the confirmation of any inscription found _in situ_ and giving the name[47]. [Sidenote: Subterranean channel of the Lycus.]Herodotus states that in Colossæ the river Lycus disappears in a subterranean cave, emerging again at a distance of about five stades[48]; and this very singular landmark--the underground passage of a stream for half a mile—might be thought to have placed the site of the city beyond the reach of controversy. But this is not the case. In the immediate neighbourhood of the only ruins which can possibly be identified with Colossæ, no such subterranean channel has been discovered. But on the other hand the appearance of the river at this point suggests that at one time the narrow gorge through which it runs, as it traverses the ruins, was overarched for some distance with incrustations of travertine, and that this natural bridge was broken up afterwards by an earthquake, so as to expose the channel of the stream[49]. This explanation seems satisfactory. If it be rejected, we must look for the underground channel, not within the city itself, as the words of Herodotus strictly interpreted require, but at some point higher up the stream. In either case there can be little doubt that these are the ruins of Colossæ. [Sidenote: Petrifying stream.]The fact mentioned by Pliny[50], that there is in this city a river which turns brick into stone, is satisfied by a side stream flowing into the Lycus from the north, and laying large deposits of calcareous matter; though in this region, as we have seen, such a phenomenon is very far from rare. The site of Colossæ then, as determined by these considerations, lies two or three miles north of the present town of Chonos, the mediæval Chonæ, and some twelve miles east of Laodicea. The Lycus traverses the site of the ruins, dividing the city into two parts, the necropolis standing on the right or northern bank, and the town itself on the left.

Footnote 47:

See however a mutilated inscription (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3956) with the letters ...==ηνων==, found near Chonæ.

Footnote 48:

Herod. vii. 30 ἀπίκετο ἐς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν μεγάλην Φρυγίης, ἐν τῇ Λύκος ποταμὸς ἐς χάσμα γῆς ἐσβάλλων ἀφανίζεται, ἔπειτα διὰ σταδίων ὡς πέντε μάλιστά κῃ ἀναφαινόμενος ἐκδιδοῖ καὶ οὖτος ἐς τὸν Μαίανδρον.

Footnote 49:

This is the explanation of Hamilton (I. p. 509 sq.), who (with the doubtful exception of Laborde) has the merit of having first identified and described the site of Colossæ. It stands on the Tchoruk Sú (Lycus) at the point where it is joined by two other streams, the Bounar Bashi Sú and the Ak-Sú. In confirmation of his opinion, Hamilton found a tradition in the neighbourhood that the river had once been covered over at this spot (p. 522). He followed the course of the Lycus for some distance without finding any subterranean channel (p. 521 sq.).

It is difficult to say whether the following account in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) refers to the Lycus or not; ὄρος Κάδμος ἐξ οὓ καὶ ὁ Λύκος ῥεῖ καὶ ἄλλος ὁμώνυμος τῷ ὄρει· τὸ πλέον δ’ οὗτος ὑπὸ γῆς ῥυὲις εἶτ’ ἀνακύψας συνέπεσεν εἰς ταὐτὸ τοῖς ἄλλοις ποταμοῖς, ἐμφαίνων ἅμα καὶ τὸ πολύτρητον τῆς χώρας καὶ τὸ εὔσειστον. If the Lycus is meant, may not συνέπεσεν imply that this remarkable feature had changed before Strabo wrote?

Laborde (p. 103), who visited the place before Hamilton, though his account was apparently not published till later, fixes on the same site for Colossæ, but thinks that he has discovered the subterranean course of the Lycus, to which Herodotus refers, much higher up a stream, close to its source (‘à dix pas de cette source’), which he describes as ‘à deux lieues au nord de Colossæ.’ Yet in the same paragraph he says ‘Or il [Hérodote, exact cicerone] savait que _le Lycus disparaît près de Colossæ, ville considérable de la Phrygie_’ (the italics are his own). He apparently does not see the vast difference between his _près de Colossæ_ thus widely interpreted and the precise ἐν τῇ of Herodotus himself. Obviously no great reliance can be placed on the accuracy of a writer, who treats his authorities thus. The subterranean stream which Laborde saw, and of which he gives a view (pl. xl), may possibly be the phenomenon to which Herodotus alludes; but if so, Herodotus has expressed himself very carelessly. On the whole Hamilton’s solution seems much more probable.

Arundell’s account (_Seven Churches_ p. 98 sq., _Asia Minor_ p. 160 sq.) is very confused, and it is not clear whether he has fixed on the right site for Colossæ; but it bears testimony to the existence of two subterranean courses of rivers, though neither of them is close enough to the city to satisfy Herodotus’ description.

Footnote 50:

Plin. _N.H._ xxxi. 2 § 20. This is the Ak-Sú, which has strongly petrifying qualities.

[Sidenote: Its ancient greatness]

Commanding the approaches to a pass in the Cadmus range, and standing on a great high-way communicating between Eastern and Western Asia, Colossæ at an early date appears as a very important place. Here the mighty host of Xerxes halted on its march against Greece; it is mentioned on this occasion as ‘a great city of Phrygia[51].’ Here too Cyrus remained seven days on his daring enterprise which terminated so fatally; the Greek captain, who records the expedition, speaks of it as ‘a populous city, prosperous and great[52].’ But after this time its glory seems to wane. The political supremacy [Sidenote: and later decline.]of Laodicea and the growing popularity of Hierapolis gradually drain its strength; and Strabo, writing about two generations before St Paul, describes it as a ‘small town[53]’ in the district of which Laodicea was the capital. We shall therefore be prepared to find that, while Laodicea and Hierapolis both hold important places in the early records of the Church, Colossæ disappears wholly from the pages of history. Its comparative insignificance is still attested by its ruins, which are few and meagre[54], while the vast remains of temples, baths, theatres, aqueducts, gymnasia, and sepulchres, strewing the extensive sites of its more fortunate neighbours, still bear witness to their ancient prosperity and magnificence. It is not even mentioned by Ptolemy, though his enumeration of towns includes several inconsiderable places[55]. Without doubt Colossæ was the least important Church, to which any epistle of St Paul was addressed.

Footnote 51:

Herod. vii. 30. See p. 14, note 48.

Footnote 52:

Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6 ἐξελαύνει διὰ Φρυγίας ... εἰς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν οἰκουμένην, εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην.

Footnote 53:

πόλισμα, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576). Plin. _N. H._ v. 32 § 41 writes ‘Phrygia ... oppida ibi celeberrima præter jam dicta, Ancyra, Andria, Celænæ, Colossæ,’ etc. The commentators, referring to this passage, overlook the words ’præter jam dicta,’ and represent Pliny as calling Colossæ ‘oppidum celeberrimum.’ Not unnaturally they find it difficult to reconcile this expression with Strabo’s statement. But in fact Pliny has already exhausted all the considerable towns, Hierapolis, Laodicea, Apamea, etc., and even much less important places than these (see v. 28, 29 § 29), so that only decayed and third-rate towns remain. The Ancyra here mentioned is not the capital of Galatia, but a much smaller Phrygian town.

Footnote 54:

Laborde p. 102 ‘De cette grande célébrité de Colossæ il ne reste presque rien: ce sont des substructions sans suite, des fragments sans grandeur; les restes d’un théâtre de médiocre dimension, une acropole sans hardiesse,’ etc.

Footnote 55:

_Geogr._ v. 2.

[Sidenote: Uncertain orthography of the name.]

And perhaps also we may regard the variation in the orthography of the name as another indication of its comparative obscurity and its early extinction. Are we to write _Colossæ_ or _Colassæ_? So far as the evidence goes, the conclusion would seem to be that, while Colossæ alone occurs during the classical period and in St Paul’s time, it was afterwards supplanted by Colassæ, when the town itself had either disappeared altogether or was already passing out of notice[56].

Footnote 56:

All Greek writers till some centuries after the Christian era write it Κολοσσαί: so Herod. vii. 30, Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Polyæn. _Strat._ vii. 16. 1; though in one or more MSS of some of these authors it is written Κολασσαί, showing the tendency of later scribes. _Colossæ_ is also the universal form in Latin writers. The coins moreover, even as late as the reign of Gordian (A.D. 238–244) when they ceased to be struck, universally have ==κολοϲϲηνοι== (or ==κολοϲηνοι==); Mionnet IV. p. 267 sq.: see Babington _Numismatic Chronicle_ New series III. p. 1 sq., 6. In Hierocles (_Synecd._ p. 666, Wessel.) and in the _Apostolic Constitutions_ (vii. 46) Κολασσαί seems to be the original reading of the text, and in later Byzantine writers this form is common. If Prof. Babington (p. 3) were right in supposing that it is connected with κολοσσός, the question of the correct spelling might be regarded as settled; but in a Phrygian city over which so many Eastern nations swept in succession, who shall say to what language the name belonged, or what are its affinities?

Thus, judging from classical usage, we should say that Κολοσσαί was the old form and that Κολασσαί did not supplant it till some time after St Paul’s age. This view is confirmed by a review of the authorities for the different readings in the New Testament.

In the opening of the epistle (i. 1) the authorities for ἐν Κολοσσαῖς are overwhelming. It is read by אBDFGL (A is obliterated here and C is wanting); and in the Old Latin, Vulgate, and Armenian Versions. On the other hand ἐν Κολασσαῖς is read by KP. 17. 37. 47, and among the versions by the Memphitic and the Philoxenian Syriac (ܩܘܠܐܣܘܤ, though the marg. gives ==κολϲϲαιϲ==). In the Peshito also the present reading represents Κολασσαῖς, but as the vowel was not expressed originally and depends on the later pointing, its authority can hardly be quoted. The Thebaic is wanting here.

In the _heading_ of the epistle however there is considerably more authority for the form in α. Κολασσαεις is the reading of AB^* KP. 37 (Κολασαεις). 47. C is wanting here, but has Κολασσαεις in the subscription. On the other hand Κολοσσαεις (or Κολοσσαις) appears in אB^1 (according to Tregelles, but B^3 Tisch.; see his introd. p. xxxxviii) DFG (but G has left Κολασσαεις in the heading of one page, and Κολαοσαεις in another) L. 17 (Κολοσαεις), in the Latin Version, and in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac. The readings of both Peshito and Philoxenian (text) here depend on the vocalisation; and those of other versions are not recorded. In the _subscription_ the preponderance of authority is even more favourable to Κολασσαεις.

Taking into account the obvious tendency which there would be in scribes to make the title πρὸς Κολοσσαεῖς or πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς conform to the opening ἐν Κολοσσαῖς or ἐν Κολασσαῖς, as shown in G, we seem to arrive at the conclusion that, while ἐν Κολοσσαῖς was indisputably the original reading in the opening, πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς was probably the earlier reading in the title. If so, the title must have been added at a somewhat later date; which is not improbable.

Connected with this question is the variation in the adjectival form, -ηνός or -αεύς. Parallels to this double termination occur in other words; e.g. Δοκιμηνός, Δοκιμεύς; Λαοδικηνός, Λαοδικεύς; Νικαηνός, Νικαεύς; Σαγαλασσηνός, Σαγαλασσεύς, etc. The coins, while they universally exhibit the form in ο, are equally persistent in the termination -ηνός, ==κολοϲϲηνων==; and it is curious that to the form Κολοσσηνοί in Strabo xii. 8 § 16 (p. 578) there is a various reading Κολασσαεῖς. Thus, though there is no necessary connexion between the two, the termination -ηνός seems to go with the ο form, and the termination -αεύς with the α form.

For the above reasons I have written confidently ἐν Κολοσσαῖς in the text, and with more hesitation πρὸς Κολασσαεῖς in the superscription.

[Sidenote: Ethnological relations of the three cities.]

Considered ethnologically, these three cities are generally regarded as belonging to Phrygia. But as they are situated on the western border of Phrygia, and as the frontier line separating Phrygia from Lydia and Caria was not distinctly traced, this designation is not persistent[57]. Thus Laodicea is sometimes assigned to Caria, more rarely to Lydia[58]; and again, Hierapolis is described as half Lydian, half Phrygian[59]. On the other hand I have not observed that Colossæ is ever regarded as other than Phrygian[60], partly perhaps because the notices relating to it belong to an earlier date when these several names denoted political as well as ethnological divisions, and their limits were definitely marked in consequence, but chiefly because it lies some miles to the east of the other cities, and therefore farther from the doubtful border land.

Footnote 57:

Strabo, xiii. 4. 12 (p. 628) τὰ δ’ ἑξῆς ἐπὶ τὰ νότια μέρη τοῖς τόποις τούτοις ἐμπλοκὰς ἔχει μέχρι πρὸς τὸν Ταῦρον, ὥστε καὶ τὰ Φρύγια καὶ τὰ Καρικὰ καὶ τὰ Λύδια καὶ ἔτι τὰ τῶν Μυσῶν δυσδιάκριτα εἶναι παραπίπτοντα εἰς ἄλληλα· εἰς δὲ τὴν σύγχυσιν ταύτην οὐ μικρὰ συλλαμβάνει τὸ τοὺς Ῥωμαίους μὴ κατὰ φῦλα διελεῖν αὐτούς κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 58:

To _Phrygia_, Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576), Polyb. v. 57, and so generally; to _Caria, Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 472 Καρῶν ἀγλαὸν ἄστυ, Ptol. v. 2, Philostr. _Vit. Soph._ i. 25 (though in the context Philostratus adds that at one time τῇ Φρυγίᾳ ξυνετάττετο); to _Lydia_, Steph. Byz. s.v. On the coins the city is sometimes represented as seated between two female figures ==φρυγια== and ==καρια==; Eckhel III. p. 160, comp. Mionnet IV. p. 329. From its situation on the confines of the three countries Laodicea seems to have obtained the surname _Trimitaria_ or _Trimetaria_, by which it is sometimes designated in later times: see below, p. 65, note 205, and comp. Wesseling, _Itin._ p. 665.

Footnote 59:

Steph. Byz. s.v. says μεταξὺ Φρυγίας καὶ Λυδίας πόλις. But generally Hierapolis is assigned to Phrygia: e.g. Ptol. v. 2, Vitruv. viii. 3 § 10.

Footnote 60:

Colossæ is assigned to Phrygia in Herod. vii. 30, Xen. _Anab._ i. 2. 6, Strabo xii. 8. 13, Diod. xiv. 80, Plin. _N. H._ v. 32 § 41, Polyæn. _Strat._ vii. 16. 1.

[Sidenote: Their political relations.]

Phrygia however ceased to have any political significance, when this country came under the dominion of the Romans. Politically speaking, the three cities with the rest of the Cibyratic union belonged at this time to Asia, the proconsular province[61]. As an _Asiatic_ Church accordingly Laodicea is addressed in the Apocalyptic letter. To this province they had been assigned in the first instance; then they were handed over to Cilicia[62]; afterwards they were transferred and re-transferred from the one to the other; till finally, before the Christian era, they became a permanent part of Asia, their original province. Here they remained, until the close of the fourth century, when a new distribution of the Roman empire was made, and the province of Phrygia Pacatiana created with Laodicea as its capital[63].

Footnote 61:

After the year B.C. 49 they seem to have been permanently attached to ‘Asia’: before that time they are bandied about between Asia and Cilicia. These alternations are traced by Bergmann _de Asia provincia_ (Berlin, 1846) and in _Philologus_ II. 4 (1847) p. 641 sq. See Becker and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. I. p. 130 sq. Laodicea is assigned to ‘Asia’ in Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 6512, 6541, 6626.

The name ‘Asia’ will be used throughout this chapter in its political sense, as applying to the Roman province.

Footnote 62:

Cic. _ad Fam._ xiii. 67 ‘ex provincia mea Ciliciensi, cui scis τρεῖς διοικήσεις Asiaticas [i.e. Cibyraticam, Apamensem, Synnadensem] attributas fuisse’; _ad Att._ v. 21 ‘mea expectatio Asiæ nostrarum diœcesium’ and ‘in hac mea Asia.’ See also above p. 7, notes 2, 3.

Footnote 63:

3 Hierocles _Synecd._ p. 664 sq. (Wessel.): see below p. 69.

[Sidenote: Important Jewish settlement in this neighbourhood.]

The Epistle to the Colossians supposes a powerful Jewish colony in Laodicea and the neighbourhood. We are not however left to draw this inference from the epistle alone, but the fact is established by ample independent testimony. When, with the insolent licence characteristic of Oriental kings, Antiochus the Great transplanted two thousand Jewish families from Babylonia and Mesopotamia into Lydia and Phrygia[64],[Sidenote: Colony of Antiochus the Great.] we can hardly doubt that among the principal stations of these new colonists would be the two most thriving cities of Phrygia, which were also the two most important settlements of the Syrian kings, Apamea and Laodicea, the one founded by his grandfather Antiochus the First, the other by his father Antiochus the Second. If the commercial importance of Apamea at this time was greater (for somewhat later it was reckoned second only to Ephesus among the cities of Asia Minor as a centre of trade), the political rank of Laodicea stood higher[65]. When mention is made of Lydia and Phrygia[66], this latter city especially is pointed out by its position, for it stood near the frontier of the two countries. A Jewish settlement once established, the influx of their fellow-countrymen would be rapid and continuous. Accordingly under the Roman domination we find them gathered here in very large numbers.[Sidenote: Confiscations of Flaccus.] When Flaccus the proprætor of Asia (B.C. 62), who was afterwards accused of maladministration in his province and defended by Cicero, forbade the contributions of the Jews to the temple-worship and the consequent exportation of money to Palestine, he seized as contraband not less than twenty pounds weight in gold in the single district of which Laodicea was the capital[67]. Calculated at the rate of a half-shekel for each man, this sum represents a population of more than eleven thousand adult freemen[68]; for women, children, and slaves were exempted. It must be remembered however, that this is only the sum which the Roman officers succeeded in detecting and confiscating; and that therefore the whole Jewish population would probably be much larger than this partial estimate implies. The amount seized at Apamea, the other great Phrygian centre, was five times as large as this[69]. [Sidenote: Other evidence.]Somewhat later we have a document purporting to be a decree of the Laodiceans, in which they thank the Roman Consul for a measure granting to Jews the liberty of observing their sabbaths and practising other rites of their religion[70]; and though this decree is probably spurious, yet it serves equally well to show that at this time Laodicea was regarded as an important centre of the dispersion in Asia Minor. To the same effect may be quoted the extravagant hyperbole in the Talmud, that when on a certain occasion an insurrection of the Jews broke out in Cæsarea the metropolis of Cappadocia, which brought down upon their heads the cruel vengeance of king Sapor and led to a massacre of 12,000, ‘the wall of Laodicea was cloven with the sound of the harpstrings’ in the fatal and premature merriment of the insurgents[71]. This place was doubtless singled out, because it had a peculiar interest for the Jews, as one of their chief settlements[72]. It will be remembered also, that Phrygia is especially mentioned among those countries which furnished their quota of worshippers at Jerusalem, and were thus represented at the baptism of the Christian Church on the great day of Pentecost[73].

Footnote 64:

Joseph. _Antiq._ xii. 3, 4.

Footnote 65:

Strabo xii. 8. 13 (p. 576) εἶτα Ἀπάμεια ἡ Κιβωτὸς λεγομένη καὶ Λαοδὶκεια αἵπερ εἰσὶ μέγισται τῶν κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν πόλεων. Below § 15 (p. 577) he says Ἀπάμεια δ’ ἐστὶν ἐμπόριον μέγα τῆς ἰδίως λεγομένης Ἀσίας δευτερεῦον μετὰ τὴν Ἔφεσον. The relative importance of Apamea and Laodicea two or three generations earlier than St Paul may be inferred from the notices in Cicero; but there is reason for thinking that Laodicea afterwards grew more rapidly than Apamea.

Footnote 66:

In Josephus l.c. the words are τὰ κατὰ τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Λυδίαν, the two names being under the vinculum of the one article: while immediately afterwards Lydia is dropped and Phrygia alone named, πέμψαι τινὰς ... εἰς Φρυγίαν.

Footnote 67:

Cic. _pro Flacc._ 28 ‘Sequitur auri illa invidia Judaici.... Quum aurum Judæorum nomine quotannis ex Italia et ex omnibus provinciis Hierosolyma exportari soleret, Flaccus sanxit edicto ne ex Asia exportari liceret ... multitudinem Judæorum, flagrantem nonnumquam in concionibus, pro republica contemnere gravitatis summæ fuit.... Apameæ manifesto comprehensum ante pedes prætoris in foro expensum est auri pondo centum paullo minus ... Laodiceæ viginti pondo paullo amplius.’

Josephus (_Antiq._ xiv. 7. 2), quoting the words of Strabo, πέμψας δὲ Μιθριδάτης εἰς Κῶ ἔλαβε ... τὰ τῶν Ἰουδαίων ὀκτακόσια τάλαντα, explains this enormous sum as composed of the temple-offerings of the Jews which they sent to Cos for safety out of the way of Mithridates.

Footnote 68:

This calculation supposes (1) That the half-shekel weighs 110 gr; (2) That the Roman pound is 5050 gr; (3) That the relation of gold to silver was at this time as 12 : 1. This last estimate is possibly somewhat too high.

Footnote 69:

The coinage of Apamea affords a striking example of Judaic influence at a later date. On coins struck at this place in the reigns of Severus, Macrinus, and the elder Philip, an ark is represented floating on the waters. Within are a man and a woman: on the roof a bird is perched; while in the air another bird approaches bearing an olive-branch in its claws. The ark bears the inscription νωε. Outside are two standing figures, a man and a woman (apparently the same two who have been represented within the ark), with their hands raised as in the attitude of prayer. The connexion of the ark of Noah with Apamea is explained by a passage in one of the Sibylline Oracles (i. 261 sq.), where the mountain overhanging Apamea is identified with Ararat, and the ark (κιβωτός) is stated to have rested there. Whether this Apamea obtained its distinctive surname of Cibotus, the Ark or Chest, from its physical features, or from its position as the centre of taxation and finance for the district, or from some other cause, it is difficult to say. In any case this surname might naturally suggest to those acquainted with the Old Testament a connexion with the deluge of Noah; but the idea would not have been adopted in the coinage of the place without the pressure of strong Jewish influences. On these coins see Eckhel _Doctr. Num. Vet._ III. p. 132 sq., and the paper of Sir F. Madden in the _Numismatic Chronicle_ N. S. VI. p. 173 sq. (1866), where they are figured.

Footnote 70:

Joseph. _Ant._ xiv. 10. 21.

Footnote 71:

Talm. Babl. _Moëd Katon_ 26a, quoted by Neubauer, _La Géographie du Talmud_ p. 319, though he seems to have misunderstood the expression quoted in the text, of which he gives the sense, ‘Cette ville tremblait au bruit des flèches qu’on avait tirées.’

It is probably this same Laodicea which is meant in another Talmudical passage, Talm. Babl. _Baba Metziah_ 84a (also quoted by Neubauer, p. 311), in which Elijah appearing to R. Ishmael ben R. Jose, says ‘Thy father fled to Asia; flee thou to Laodicea,’ where Asia is supposed to mean Sardis.

Footnote 72:

An inscription found at Rome in the Jewish cemetery at the Porta Portuensis (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 9916) runs thus; ==ενθα . κιτε . αμμια . [ε]ιουδεα . απο . λαδικιαϲ.== κ.τ.λ. i.e. ἔνθα κεῖται Ἀμμία Ἰουδαία ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας. Probably Laodicea on the Lycus is meant. Perhaps also we may refer another inscription (6478), which mentions one Trypho from Laodicea on the Lycus, to a Jewish source.

Footnote 73:

Acts ii. 10.

[Sidenote: Special attractions of Hierapolis.]

Mention has already been made of the traffic in dyed wools, which formed the staple of commerce in the valley of the Lycus[74]. It may be inferred from other notices that this branch of trade had a peculiar attraction for the Jews[75]. If so, their commercial instincts would constantly bring fresh recruits to a colony which was already very considerable. But the neighbourhood held out other inducements besides this. Hierapolis, the gay watering place, the pleasant resort of idlers, had charms for them, as well as Laodicea the busy commercial city. At least such was the complaint of stricter patriots at home. ‘The wines and the baths of Phrygia,’ writes a Talmudist bitterly, ‘have separated the ten tribes from Israel[76].’

Footnote 74:

See p. 4.

Footnote 75:

Acts xvi. 14. Is there an allusion to this branch of trade in the message to the Church of Laodicea, Rev. iii. 17 οὐκ οἶδας ὅτι σύ εἶ ὁ ... γυμνός· συμβουλεύω σοι ἀγοράσαι ... ἱμάτια λευκὰ ἵνα περιβάλῃ, κ.τ.λ.? The only other of the seven messages, which contains an allusion to the white garments, is addressed to the Church of Sardis, where again there might be a reference to the βάμμα Σαρδιανικόν (Arist. _Pax_ 1174, _Acharn._ 112) and the φοινικίδες Σαρδιανικαί (Plato Com. in Athen. II. p. 48 E) of the comic poets.

Footnote 76:

Talm. Babl. _Sabbath_ 147 b, quoted by Neubauer _La Géographie du Talmud_ p. 317: see Wiesner _Schol. zum Babyl. Talm._ p. 259 sq., and p. 207 sq. On the word translated ‘baths,’ see Rapoport’s _Erech Millin_ p. 113, col. 1.

[Sidenote: St Paul had not visited the district when he wrote.]

There is no ground for supposing that, when St Paul wrote his Epistle to the Colossians, he had ever visited the church in which he evinces so deep an interest. Whether we examine the narrative in the Acts, or whether we gather up the notices in the epistle itself, we find no hint that he had ever been in this neighbourhood; but on the contrary some expressions indirectly exclude the supposition of a visit to the district.

[Sidenote: What is meant by _Phrygia_ in St Luke?]

It is true that St Luke more than once mentions Phrygia as lying on St Paul’s route or as witnessing his labours. But Phrygia was a vague and comprehensive term; nor can we assume that the valley of the Lycus was intended, unless the direction of his route or the context of the narrative distinctly points to this south-western corner of Phrygia. In neither of the two passages, where St Paul is stated to have travelled through Phrygia, is this the case.

[Sidenote: 1. St Paul’s visit to Phrygia on his second missionary journey.]

1. On his second missionary journey, after he has revisited and confirmed the churches of Pisidia and Lycaonia founded on his first visit, he passes through ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country[77].’ I have pointed out elsewhere that this expression must be used to denote the region which might be called indifferently Phrygia or Galatia—the land which had originally belonged to the Phrygians and had afterwards been colonised by the Gauls; or the parts of either country which lay in the immediate neighbourhood of this debatable ground[78]. This region lies considerably north and east of the valley of the Lycus. Assuming that the last of the Lycaonian and Pisidian towns at which St Paul halted was Antioch, he would not on any probable supposition approach nearer to Colossæ than Apamea Cibotus on his way to ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’, nor indeed need he have gone nearly so far westward as this. And again on his departure from this region he journeys by Mysia to Troas, leaving ‘Asia’ on his left hand and Bithynia on his right. Thus the notices of his route conspire to show that his path on this occasion lay far away from the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 77:

Acts xvi. 6 τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν, the correct reading. For this use of Φρυγίαν as an adjective comp. Mark i. 5 πᾶσα ἡ Ἰουδαία χώρα, Joh. iii. 22 εἰς τὴν Ἰουδαίαν γῆν, Luke iii. 1 τῆς Ἰτουραίας καὶ Τραχωνίτιδος χώρας, Acts xiii. 14 Ἀντιόχειαν τὴν Πισιδίαν (the correct reading).

Footnote 78:

See _Galatians_, p. 18 sq., 22.

[Sidenote: 2. His visit on his third missionary journey.]

2. But if he was not brought into the neighbourhood of Colossæ on his second missionary journey, it is equally improbable that he visited it on his third. So far as regards Asia Minor, he seems to have confined himself to revisiting the churches already founded; the new ground which he broke was in Macedonia and Greece. Thus when we are told that during this third journey St Paul after leaving Antioch ‘passed in order through the Galatian country and Phrygia, confirming all the disciples,’[79] we can hardly doubt that ‘the Galatian country and Phrygia’ in this latter passage denotes essentially the same region as ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ in the former. The slight change of expression is explained by the altered direction of his route. In the first instance his course, as determined by its extreme limits—Antioch in Pisidia its starting point, and Alexandria Troas its termination—would be northward for the first part of the way, and thus would lie on the border land of Phrygia and Galatia; whereas on this second occasion, when he was travelling from Antioch in Syria to Ephesus, its direction would be generally from east to west, and the more strictly Galatian district would be traversed before the Phrygian. If we suppose him to leave Galatia at Pessinus on its western border, he would pass along the great highway—formerly a Persian and at this time a Roman road—by Synnada and Sardis to Ephesus, traversing the heart of Phrygia, but following the valleys of the Hermus and Cayster, and separated from the Mæander and Lycus by the high mountain ranges which bound these latter to the north[80].

Footnote 79:

Acts xviii. 23.

Footnote 80:

M. Renan (_Saint Paul_ pp. 51 sq., 126, 313) maintains that the Galatia of St Paul and St Luke is not the country properly so called, but that they are speaking of the Churches of Pisidian Antioch, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe, which lay within the _Roman province_ of Galatia. This interpretation of Galatia necessarily affects his view of St Paul’s routes (pp. 126 sq., 331 sq.); and he supposes the Apostle on his third missionary journey to have passed through the valley of the Lycus, without however remaining to preach the Gospel there (pp. 331 sq., 356 sq., 362). As Antioch in Pisidia would on this hypothesis be the farthest church in ‘Galatia and Phrygia’ which St Paul visited, his direct route from that city to Ephesus (Acts xviii. 23, xix. 1) would naturally lie by this valley. I have already (_Galatians_ pp. 18 sq., 22) stated the serious objections to which this interpretation of ‘Galatia’ is open, and (if I mistake not) have answered most of M. Renan’s arguments by anticipation. But, as this interpretation nearly affects an important point in the history of St Paul’s dealings with the Colossians, it is necessary to subject it to a closer examination.

Without stopping to enquire whether this view is reconcilable with St Paul’s assertion (Col. ii. 1) that these churches in the Lycus valley ‘had not seen his face in the flesh,’ it will appear (I think) that M. Renan’s arguments are in some cases untenable and in others may be turned against himself. The three heads under which they may be conveniently considered are: (i) The use of the name ‘Galatia’; (ii) The itinerary of St Paul’s travels; (iii) The historical notices in the Epistle to the Galatians.

(i) On the first point, M. Renan states that St Paul was in the habit of using the _official_ name for each district and therefore called the country which extends from Antioch in Pisidia to Derbe ‘Galatia,’ supporting this view by the Apostle’s use of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia (p. 51). The answer is that the names of these elder provinces had very generally superseded the local names, but this was not the case with the other districts of Asia Minor where the provinces had been formed at a comparatively late date. The usage of St Luke is a good criterion. He also speaks of Asia, Macedonia, and Achaia; but at the same time his narrative abounds in historical or ethnographical names which have no official import; e.g. Lycaonia, Mysia, Pamphylia, Pisidia, Phrygia. Where we have no evidence, it is reasonable to assume that St Paul’s usage was conformable to St Luke’s. And again, if we consider St Luke’s account alone, how insuperable are the difficulties which this view of Galatia creates. The part of Asia Minor, with which we are immediately concerned, was comprised officially in the provinces of Asia and Galatia. On M. Renan’s showing, St Luke, after calling Antioch a city of Pisidia (xiii. 14) and Lystra and Derbe cities of Lycaonia (xiv. 6), treats all the three, together with the intermediate Iconium, as belonging to Galatia (xvi. 6, xviii. 23). He explains the inconsistency by saying that in the former case the narrative proceeds in detail, in the latter in masses. But if so, why should he combine a historical and ethnological name Phrygia with an official name Galatia in the same breath, when the two are different in kind and cannot be mutually exclusive? ‘Galatia and Asia,’ would be intelligible on this supposition, but not ‘Galatia and Phrygia.’ Moreover the very form of the expression in xvi. 6, ‘the Phrygian and Galatian country’ (according to the correct reading which M. Renan neglects) appears in its studied vagueness to exclude the idea that St Luke means the province of Galatia, whose boundaries were precisely marked. And even granting that the Christian communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia could by a straining of language be called Churches of Galatia, is it possible that St Paul would address them personally as ‘ye foolish Galatians’ (Gal. iii. 1)? Such language would be no more appropriate than if a modern preacher in a familiar address were to appeal to the Poles of Warsaw as ‘ye Russians,’ or the Hungarians of Pesth as ‘ye Austrians,’ or the Irish of Cork as ‘ye Englishmen.’

(ii) In the itinerary of St Paul several points require consideration. (_a_) M. Renan lays stress on the fact that in Acts xvi. 6, xviii. 23, the order in which the names of Phrygia and Galatia occur is inverted. I seem to myself to have explained this satisfactorily in the text. He appears to be unaware of the correct reading in xvi. 6, τὴν Φρυγίαν καὶ Γαλατικὴν χώραν (see _Galatians_ p. 22), though it has an important bearing on St Paul’s probable route. (_b_) He states that Troas was St Paul’s aim (‘l’objectif de Saint Paul’) in the one case (xvi. 6), and Ephesus in the other (xviii. 23): consequently he argues that Galatia, properly so called, is inconceivable, as there was no reason why he should have made ‘this strange detour towards the north.’ The answer is that Troas was not his ‘objectif’ in the first instance, nor Ephesus in the second. On the first occasion St Luke states that the Apostle set out on his journey with quite different intentions, but that after he had got well to the north of Asia Minor he was driven by a series of divine intimations to proceed first to Troas and thence to cross over into Europe (see _Philippians_ p. 48). This narrative seems to me to imply that he starts for his further travels from some point in the western part of Galatia proper. When he comes to the borders of Mysia, he designs bearing to the left and preaching in Asia; but a divine voice forbids him. He then purposes diverging to the right and delivering his message in Bithynia; but the same unseen power checks him again. Thus he is driven forward, and passes by Mysia to the coast at Troas (Acts xvi. 6–8). Here all is plain. But if we suppose him to start, not from some town in Galatia proper such as Pessinus, but from Antioch in Pisidia, why should Bithynia, which would be far out of the way, be mentioned at all? On the second occasion, St Paul’s primary object is to revisit the Galatian Churches which he had planted on the former journey (xviii. 23), and it is not till after he has fulfilled this intention that he goes to Ephesus. (_c_) M. Renan also calls attention to the difficulty of traversing ‘the central steppe’ of Asia Minor. ‘There was probably,’ he says, ‘at this epoch no route from Iconium to Ancyra,’ and in justification of this statement he refers to Perrot, _de Gal. Rom. prov._ p. 102, 103. Even so, there were regular roads from either Iconium or Antioch to Pessinus; and this route would serve equally well. Moreover the Apostle, who was accustomed to ‘perils of rivers, perils of robbers, perils in the wilderness’ (2 Cor. xi. 26), and who preferred walking from Troas to Assos (Acts xx. 13) while his companions sailed, would not be deterred by any rough or unfrequented paths. But the facts adduced by Perrot do not lend themselves to any such inference, nor does he himself draw it. He cites an inscription of the year A.D. 82 which speaks of A. Cæsennius Gallus, the legate of Domitian, as a great road-maker throughout the Eastern provinces of Asia Minor, and he suggests that the existing remains of a road between Ancyra and Iconium may be part of this governor’s work. Even if the suggestion be adopted, it is highly improbable that no road should have existed previously, when we consider the comparative facility of constructing a way along this line of country (Perrot p. 103) and the importance of such a direct route. (_d_) ‘In the conception of the author of the Acts,’ writes M. Renan, ‘the two journeys across Asia Minor are journeys of confirmation and not of conversion (Acts xv. 36, 41, xvi. 5, 6, xviii. 23).’ This statement seems to me to be only partially true. In both cases St Paul _begins_ his tour by confirming churches already established, but in both he advances beyond this and breaks new ground. In the former he starts with the existing churches of Lycaonia and Pisidia and extends his labours to Galatia: in the latter he starts with the then existing churches of Galatia, and carries the Gospel into Macedonia and Achaia. This, so far as I can discover, was his general rule.

(iii) The notices in the Galatian Epistle, which appear to M. Renan to favour his view, are these: (_a_) St Paul appears to have ‘had intimate relations with the Galatian Church, at least as intimate as with the Corinthians and Thessalonians,’ whereas St Luke disposes of the Apostle’s preaching in Galatia very summarily, unless the communities of Lycaonia and Pisidia be included. But the Galatian Epistle by no means evinces the same close and varied personal relations which we find in the letters to these other churches, more especially to the Corinthians. And again; St Luke’s history is more or less fragmentary. Whole years are sometimes dismissed in a few verses. The stay in Arabia which made so deep an impression on St Paul himself is not even mentioned: the three months’ sojourn in Greece, though doubtless full of stirring events, only occupies a single verse in the narrative (Acts xx. 3). St Luke appears to have joined St Paul after his visit to Galatia (xvi. 10); and there is no reason why he should have dwelt on incidents with which he had no direct acquaintance. (_b_) M. Renan sees in the presence of emissaries from Jerusalem in the Galatian Churches an indication that Galatia proper is not meant. ‘It is improbable that they would have made such a journey.’ But why so? There were important Jewish settlements in Galatia proper (_Galatians_ p. 9 sq.); there was a good road through Syria and Cilicia to Ancyra (_Itin. Anton._ p. 205 sq., _Itin. Hierosol._ p. 575 sq. ed. Wessel.); and if we find such emissaries as far away from Jerusalem as Corinth (2 Cor. xi. 13, etc.), there is at least no improbability that they should have reached Galatia. (_c_) Lastly; M. Renan thinks that the mention of Barnabas (Gal. ii. 1, 9, 13) implies that he was personally known to the churches addressed, and therefore points to Lycaonia and Pisidia. But are we to infer on the same grounds that he was personally known to the Corinthians (1 Cor. ix. 6), and to the Colossians (Col. iv. 10)? In fact the name of Barnabas, as a famous Apostle and an older disciple even than St Paul himself, would not fail to be well known in all the churches. On the other hand one or two notices in the Galatian Epistle present serious obstacles to M. Renan’s view. What are we to say for instance to St Paul’s statement, that he preached the Gospel in Galatia δι’ ἀσθένειαν τῆς σαρκός (iv. 13), i.e. because he was detained by sickness (see _Galatians_ pp. 23 sq., 172), whereas his journey to Lycaonia and Pisidia is distinctly planned with a view to missionary work? Why again is there no mention of Timothy, who was much in St Paul’s company about this time, and who on this showing was himself a Galatian? Some mention would seem to be especially suggested where St Paul is justifying his conduct respecting the attempt to compel Titus to be circumcised.

[Sidenote: The inference from]

Thus St Luke’s narrative seems to exclude any visit of the Apostle to the Churches of the Lycus before his first [Sidenote: St Luke’s narrative]Roman captivity. And this inference is confirmed by St Paul’s own language to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: borne out by St Paul’s own language.]

He represents his knowledge of their continued progress, and even of their first initiation, in the truths of the Gospel, as derived from the report of others. He describes himself as _hearing_ of their faith in Christ and their love to the saints[81]. He recalls the day when he first _heard_ of their Christian profession and zeal[82]. .[Sidenote: Silence of St Paul.]Though opportunities occur again and again where he would naturally have referred to his direct personal relations with them, if he had been their evangelist, he abstains from any such reference. He speaks of their being instructed in the Gospel, of his own preaching the Gospel, several times in the course of the letter, but he never places the two in any direct connexion, though the one reference stands in the immediate neighbourhood of the other[83]. Moreover, if he had actually visited Colossæ, it must appear strange that he should not once allude to any incident occurring during his sojourn there, for this epistle would then be the single exception to his ordinary practice. And lastly; in one passage at least, if interpreted in its natural sense, he declares that the Colossians were personally unknown to him: ‘I would have you know,’ he writes, ‘how great a conflict I have for you and them that are in Laodicea and as many as have not seen my face in the flesh’[84].

Footnote 81:

Col. i. 4.

Footnote 82:

i. 9 διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἡμεῖς, ἀφ’ ἥς ἡμέρας ἠκούσαμεν, οὐ παυόμεθα, κ.τ.λ. This corresponds to ver. 6 καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἧς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. The day when they first heard the preaching of the Gospel, and the day when he first heard the tidings of this fact, are set against each other.

Footnote 83:

e.g. i. 5–8, 21–23, 25, 28, 29. ii. 5, 6.

Footnote 84:

ii. 1 θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ τῶν ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ καὶ ὅσοι οὐχ ἑώρακαν τὸ πρόσωπόν μου ἐν σαρκί, ἵνα παρακληθῶσιν αἱ καρδίαι αὐτῶν, συμβιβασθέντες κ.τ.λ. The question of interpretation is whether the people of Colossæ and Laodicea belong to the same category with the ὅσοι, or not. The latter view is taken by one or two ancient interpreters (e.g. Theodoret in his introduction to the epistle), and has been adopted by several modern critics. Yet it is opposed alike to grammatical and logical considerations. (1) The grammatical form is unfavourable; for the preposition ὑπὲρ is not repeated, so that all the persons mentioned are included under a vinculum. (2) No adequate sense can be extracted from the passage, so interpreted. For in this case what is the drift of the enumeration? If intended to be exhaustive, it does not fulfil the purpose; for nothing is said of others whom he had seen beside the Colossians and Laodiceans. If not intended to be exhaustive, it is meaningless; for there is no reason why the Colossians and Laodiceans especially should be set off against those whom he had not seen, or indeed why in this connexion those whom he had not seen should be mentioned at all. The whole context shows that the Apostle is dwelling on his spiritual communion with and interest in those with whom he has had no personal communications. St Jerome (_Ep._ cxxx. ad Demetr. § 2) has rightly caught the spirit of the passage; ‘Ignoti ad ignotam scribimus, dumtaxat juxta faciem corporalem. Alioquin interior homo pulcre sibi cognitus est illa notitia qua et Paulus apostolus Colossenses multosque credentium noverat quos ante non viderat.’ For parallels to this use of καὶ ὅσοι, see the note on the passage.

[Sidenote: Epaphras was the evangelist of this district.]

But, if he was not directly their evangelist, yet to him they were indirectly indebted for their knowledge of the truth. Epaphras had been his delegate to them, his representative in Christ. By Epaphras they had been converted to the Gospel. This is the evident meaning of a passage in the opening of the epistle, which has been much obscured by misreading and mistranslation, and which may be paraphrased thus: ‘The Gospel, which has spread and borne fruit throughout the rest of the world, has been equally successful among yourselves. This fertile growth has been manifested in you from the first day when the message of God’s grace was preached to you, and accepted by you—preached not as now with adulterations by these false teachers, but in its genuine simplicity by Epaphras our beloved fellowservant; he has been a faithful minister of Christ and a faithful representative of us, and from him we have received tidings of your love in the Spirit’[85].

Footnote 85:

i. 6 ἐν παντὶ τῷ κόσμῳ ἔστιν καρποφορούμενον καὶ αὐξανόμενον, καθὼς καὶ ἐν ὑμῖν, ἀφ’ ἤς ἡμέρας ἠκούσατε καὶ ἐπέγνωτε τὴν χάριν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, καθὼς ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ τοῦ ἀγαπητοῦ συνδούλου ἡμῶν, ὅς ἐστιν πιστὸς ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν διάκονος τοῦ Χριστοῦ, ὁ καὶ δηλώσας ἡμῖν τὴν ὑμῶν ἀγάπην ἐν πνεύματι.

The various readings which obscure the meaning are these. (i) The received text for καθὼς ἐμάθετε has καθὼς καὶ ἐμάθετε. With this reading the passage suggests that the instructions of Epaphras were _superadded to_, and so distinct from, the original evangelization of Colossæ; whereas the correct text identifies them. (ii) For ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν the received reading is ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν. Thus the fact that St Paul did not preach at Colossæ in person, but _through his representative_, is obliterated. In both cases the authority for the readings which I have adopted against the received text is overwhelming.

The obscurity of rendering is in καθὼς [καὶ] ἐμάθετε ἀπὸ Ἐπαφρᾶ, translated in our English Version by the ambiguous expression, ‘as ye also learned of Epaphras.’ The true force of the words is, ‘according as ye were taught by Epaphras,’ being an explanation of ἐν ἀληθείᾳ. See the notes on the passage.]

[Sidenote: St Paul’s residence at Ephesus instrumental in their conversion.]

How or when the conversion of the Colossians took place, we have no direct information. Yet it can hardly be wrong to connect the event with St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus. Here he remained preaching for three whole years. It is possible indeed that during this period he paid short visits to other neighbouring cities of Asia: [Sidenote: A.D. 54–57.] but if so, the notices in the Acts oblige us to suppose these interruptions to his residence in Ephesus to have been slight and infrequent[86]. Yet, though the Apostle himself was stationary in the capital, the Apostle’s influence and teaching spread far beyond the limits of the city and its immediate neighbourhood. It was hardly an exaggeration when Demetrius declared that ‘almost throughout all Asia this Paul had persuaded and turned away much people’[87]. The sacred historian himself uses equally strong language in describing the effects of the Apostle’s preaching; ‘All they which dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord, both Jews and Greeks’[88]. In accordance with these notices, the Apostle himself in an epistle written during this sojourn sends salutations to Corinth, not from the Church of Ephesus specially, as might have been anticipated, but from the ‘Churches of Asia’ generally[89]. St Luke, it should be observed, ascribes this dissemination of the Gospel, not to journeys undertaken by the Apostle, but to his preaching at Ephesus itself[90]. Thither, as to the metropolis of Western Asia, would flock crowds from all the towns and villages far and near. Thence they would carry away, each to his own neighbourhood, the spiritual treasure which they had so unexpectedly found.

Footnote 86:

See especially xx. 18 ‘Ye know, from the first day when I set foot on Asia, how I was with you _all the time_’, and ver. 31 ‘For three years _night and day I ceased not_ warning every one with tears.’ As it seems necessary to allow for a brief visit to Corinth (2 Cor. xii. 14, xiii. 1) during this period, other interruptions of long duration should not be postulated.

Footnote 87:

Acts xix. 26.

Footnote 88:

Acts xix. 10.

Footnote 89:

1 Cor. xvi. 19 ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῆς Ἀσίας. In accordance with these facts it should be noticed that St Paul himself alluding to this period speaks of ‘Asia’, as the scene of his ministry (2 Cor. i. 8, Rom. xvi. 5).

Footnote 90:

Acts xix. 10 ‘disputing daily in the School of Tyrannus; and this continued for two years, so that all they which dwelt in Asia, etc.’

[Sidenote: Close alliance of these cities with Ephesus.]

Among the places thus represented at the Asiatic metropolis would doubtless be the cities lying in the valley of the Lycus. The bonds of amity between these places and Ephesus appear to have been unusually strong. The _Concord of the Laodiceans and Ephesians_, the _Concord of the Hierapolitans and Ephesians_, are repeatedly commemorated on medals struck for the purpose[91]. [Sidenote: The work of Philemon and Nymphas,] Thus the Colossians, Epaphras and Philemon, the latter with his household[92], and perhaps also the Laodicean Nymphas[93], would fall in with the Apostle of the Gentiles and hear from his lips the first tidings of a heavenly life.

Footnote 91:

λαοδικεων . εφεϲιων . ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 165, Mionnet IV. p. 324, 325, 331, 332, _Suppl._ VII. p. 583, 586, 589; ιεραπολειτων . εφεσιων . ομονοια, Eckhel III. p. 155, 157, Mionnet IV. p. 299, 300, 307, _Suppl._ VII. p. 569, 571, 572, 574, 575. See Steiger _Kolosser_ p. 50, and comp. Krause _Civitat. Neocor._ § 20.

Footnote 92:

Philem. 1, 2, 19.

Footnote 93:

Col. iv. 15. On the question whether the name is _Nymphas_ or _Nympha_, see the notes there.

[Sidenote: but especially Epaphras.]

But, whatever service may have been rendered by Philemon at Colossæ, or by Nymphas at Laodicea, it was to Epaphras especially that all the three cities were indebted for their knowledge of the Gospel. Though he was a Colossian by birth, the fervency of his prayers and the energy of his love are represented as extending equally to Laodicea and Hierapolis[94]. It is obvious that he looked upon himself as responsible for the spiritual well-being of all alike.

Footnote 94:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: St Paul still a stranger to this district.]

We pass over a period of five or six years. St Paul’s first captivity in Rome is now drawing to a close. During this interval he has not once visited the valley of the Lycus. He has, it is true, skirted the coast and called at Miletus, which lies near the mouth of the Mæander; but, though the elders of Ephesus were summoned to meet him there[95], no mention is made of any representatives from these more distant towns.

Footnote 95:

Acts xx. 16, 17.

[Sidenote: His imprisonment at Rome.]

I have elsewhere described the Apostle’s circumstances during his residence in Rome, so far as they are known to us[96]. It is sufficient to say here, that though he is still a prisoner, friends new and old minister freely to his wants. Meanwhile the alienation of the Judaic Christians is complete. Three only, remaining faithful to him, are commemorated as honourable exceptions in the general desertion[97].

Footnote 96:

See _Philippians_ p. 6 sq.

Footnote 97:

Col. iv. 10, 11. See _Philippians_ p. 17 sq.

[Sidenote: Colossæ brought before his notice by two incidents.]

We have seen that Colossæ was an unimportant place, and that it had no direct personal claims on the Apostle. We might therefore feel surprise that, thus doubly disqualified, it should nevertheless attract his special attention at a critical moment, when severe personal trials were superadded to ‘the care of all the churches.’ But two circumstances, the one affecting his public duties, the other private and personal, happening at this time, conspired to bring Colossæ prominently before his notice.

[Sidenote: 1. The mission of EPAPHRAS.]

1. He had received a visit from EPAPHRAS. The dangerous condition of the Colossian and neighbouring churches had filled the mind of their evangelist with alarm. A strange form of heresy had broken out in these brotherhoods—a combination of Judaic formalism with Oriental mystic speculation—and was already spreading rapidly. His distress was extreme. He gratefully acknowledged and reported their faith in Christ and their works of love[98]. But this only quickened his anxiety. He had ‘much toil for them’; he was ‘ever wrestling in his prayers on their behalf,’ that they might stand fast and not abandon the simplicity of their earlier faith[99]. He came to Rome, we may suppose, for the express purpose of laying this state of things before the Apostle and seeking his counsel and assistance.

Footnote 98:

i. 4, 8.

Footnote 99:

iv. 12, 13.

[Sidenote: 2. ONESIMUS a fugitive in Rome.]

2. But at the time when Epaphras paid this visit, St Paul was also in communication with another Colossian, who had visited Rome under very different circumstances. ONESIMUS, the runaway slave, had sought the metropolis, the common sink of all nations[100], probably as a convenient hiding place, where he might escape detection among its crowds and make a livelihood as best he could. Here, perhaps accidentally, perhaps through the intervention of Epaphras, he fell in with his master’s old friend. The Apostle interested himself in his case, instructed him in the Gospel, and transformed him from a good-for-nothing slave[101] into a ‘faithful and beloved brother[102].’

Footnote 100:

Tac. _An._ xv. 44.

Footnote 101:

Philem. 11 τόν ποτέ σοι ἄχρηστον κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 102:

Col. iv. 9; comp. Philem. 16.

[Sidenote: The Apostle despatches three letters simultaneously.]

This combination of circumstances called the Apostle’s attention to the Churches of the Lycus, and more especially to Colossæ. His letters, which had been found ‘weighty and powerful’ in other cases, might not be unavailing now; and in this hope he took up his pen. Three epistles were written and despatched at the same time to this district.

[Sidenote: 1. The EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.]

1. He addresses a special letter to the COLOSSIANS, written in the joint names of himself and Timothy, warning them against the errors of the false teachers. He gratefully acknowledges the report which he has received of their love and zeal[103]. He assures them of the conflict which agitates him on their behalf[104]. He warns them to be on their guard against the delusive logic of enticing words, against the vain deceit of a false philosophy[105]. [Sidenote: The theological and the practical error of the Colossians.]The purity of their Christianity is endangered by two errors, recommended to them by their heretical leaders—the one theological, the other practical—but both alike springing from the same source, the conception of matter as the origin and abode of evil. Thus, regarding God and matter as directly antagonistic and therefore apart from and having no communication with each other, they sought to explain the creation and government of the world by interposing a series of intermediate beings, emanations or angels, to whom accordingly they offered worship. At the same time, since they held that evil resided, not in the rebellious spirit of man, but in the innate properties of matter, they sought to overcome it by a rigid ascetic discipline, which failed after all to touch the springs of action. [Sidenote: The proper corrective to both lies in the Christ of the Gospel.]As both errors flowed from the same source, they must be corrected by the application of the same remedy, the Christ of the Gospel. In the Person of Christ, the one mediator between heaven and earth, is the true solution of the theological difficulty. Through the Life in Christ, the purification of the heart through faith and love, is the effectual triumph over moral evil[106]. [Sidenote: References to Epaphras.]St Paul therefore prescribes to the Colossians the true teaching of the Gospel, as the best antidote to the twofold danger which threatens at once their theological creed and their moral principles; while at the same time he enforces his lesson by the claims of personal affection, appealing to the devotion of their evangelist Epaphras on their behalf[107].

Footnote 103:

i. 3–9, 21 sq.

Footnote 104:

ii. 1 sq.

Footnote 105:

ii. 4, 8, 18.

Footnote 106:

i. 1–20, ii. 9, iii. 4. The two threads are closely interwoven in St Paul’s refutation, as these references will show. The connexion of the two errors, as arising from the same false principle, will be considered more in detail in the next chapter.

Footnote 107:

i. 7, iv. 12.

Of Epaphras himself we know nothing beyond the few but significant notices which connect him with Colossæ[108]. He did not return to Colossæ as the bearer of the letter, but remained behind with St Paul[109]. As St Paul in a contemporary epistle designates him his fellow-prisoner[110], it may be inferred that his zeal and affection had involved him in the Apostle’s captivity, and that his continuance in Rome was enforced. But however this may be, the letter was placed in the hands of Tychicus, a native of proconsular Asia, probably of Ephesus[111],[Sidenote: Tychicus and Onesimus accompany the letter.] who was entrusted with a wider mission at this time, and in its discharge would be obliged to visit the valley of the Lycus[112]. At the same time he was accompanied by Onesimus, whom the Colossians had only known hitherto as a worthless slave, but who now returns to them with the stamp of the Apostle’s warm approval. St Paul says very little about himself, because Tychicus and Onesimus would be able by word of mouth to communicate all information to the Colossians[113]. [Sidenote: The salutations.]But he sends one or two salutations which deserve a few words of explanation. Epaphras of course greets his fellow-townsmen and children in the faith. Other names are those of Aristarchus the Thessalonian, who had been with the Apostle at Ephesus[114] and may possibly have formed some personal connexion with the Colossians at that time: Mark, against whom apparently the Apostle fears that a prejudice may be entertained (perhaps the fact of his earlier desertion, and of St Paul’s dissatisfaction in consequence[115], may have been widely known), and for whom therefore he asks a favourable reception at his approaching visit to Colossæ, according to instructions which they had already received; and Jesus the Just, of whose relations with the Colossians we know nothing, and whose only claim to a mention may have been his singular fidelity to the Apostle at a critical juncture. Salutations moreover are added from Luke and from Demas; and here again their close companionship with the Apostle is, so far as we know, the sole cause of their names appearing[116].

Footnote 108:

For the reasons why Epaphras cannot be identified with Epaphroditus, who is mentioned in the Philippian letter, see _Philippians_ p. 60, note 4. The later tradition, which makes him bishop of Colossæ, is doubtless an inference from St Paul’s language and has no independent value. The further statement of the martyrologies, that he suffered martyrdom for his flock, can hardly be held to deserve any higher credit. His day is the 19th of July in the Western Calendar. His body is said to lie in the Church of S. Maria Maggiore at Rome.

Footnote 109:

Col. iv. 12.

Footnote 110:

Philem. 23 ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου. The word may possibly have a metaphorical sense (see _Philippians_ p. 11); but the literal meaning is more probable. St Jerome on Philem. 23 (VII. p. 762) gives the story that St Paul’s parents were natives of Giscala and, when the Romans invaded and wasted Judæa, were banished thence with their son to Tarsus. He adds that Epaphras may have been St Paul’s fellow-prisoner at this time, and have been removed with his parents to Colossæ. It is not quite clear whether this statement respecting Epaphras is part of the tradition, or Jerome’s own conjecture appended to it.

Footnote 111:

Acts xx. 4, 2 Tim. iv. 12.

Footnote 112:

See below, p. 37.

Footnote 113:

Col. iv. 7–9.

Footnote 114:

Acts xix. 29.

Footnote 115:

Acts xiii. 13, xv. 37–39.

Footnote 116:

Col. iv. 10–14.

[Sidenote: Charge respecting Laodicea.]

Lastly, the Laodiceans were closely connected with the Colossians by local and spiritual ties. To the Church of Laodicea therefore, and to the household of one Nymphas who was a prominent member of it, he sends greeting. At the same time he directs them to interchange letters with the Laodiceans; for to Laodicea also he had written. And he closes his salutations with a message to Archippus, a resident either at Colossæ or at Laodicea (for on this point we are left to conjecture), who held some important office in the Church, and respecting whose zeal he seems to have entertained a misgiving[117].

Footnote 117:

iv. 15–17.

[Sidenote: 2. The LETTER TO PHILEMON.]

2. But, while providing for the spiritual welfare of the whole Colossian Church, he did not forget the temporal interests of its humblest member. Having attended to the solicitations of the evangelist Epaphras, he addressed himself to the troubles of the runaway slave Onesimus. The mission of Tychicus to Colossæ was a favourable opportunity of restoring him to Philemon; for Tychicus, well known as the Apostle’s friend and fellow-labourer, might throw the shield of his protection over him and avert the worst consequences of Philemon’s anger. But, not content with this measure of precaution, the Apostle himself writes to PHILEMON on the offender’s behalf, recommending him as a changed man[118], and claiming forgiveness for him as a return due from Philemon to himself as to his spiritual father[119].

Footnote 118:

Philem. 11, 16.

Footnote 119:

ver. 19.

The salutations in this letter are the same as those in the Epistle to the Colossians with the exception of Jesus Justus, whose name is omitted[120]. Towards the close St Paul declares his hope of release and intention of visiting Colossæ, and asks Philemon to ‘prepare a lodging’ for him[121].

Footnote 120:

vv. 23, 24.

Footnote 121:

ver. 22.

[Sidenote: 3. The CIRCULAR LETTER, of which a copy is sent to LAODICEA.]

3. But at the same time with the two letters destined especially for Colossæ, the Apostle despatched a third, which had a wider scope. It has been already mentioned that Tychicus was charged with a mission to the Asiatic Churches. It has been noticed also that the Colossians were directed to procure and read a letter in the possession of the Laodiceans. These two facts are closely connected. The Apostle wrote at this time a circular letter to the Asiatic Churches, which got its ultimate designation from the metropolitan city and is consequently known to us as the Epistle to the EPHESIANS[122]. It was the immediate object of Tychicus’ journey to deliver copies of this letter at all the principal centres of Christianity in the district, and at the same time to communicate by word of mouth the Apostle’s special messages to each[123]. Among these centres was Laodicea. Thus his mission brought him into the immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ. But he was not charged to deliver another copy of the circular letter at Colossæ itself, for this Church would be regarded only as a dependency of Laodicea; and besides he was the bearer of a special letter from the Apostle to them. It was sufficient therefore to provide that the Laodicean copy should be circulated and read at Colossæ.

Footnote 122:

See the introduction to the epistle.

Footnote 123:

Ephes. vi. 21, 22.

[Sidenote: Personal links connecting the three letters.]

Thus the three letters are closely related. Tychicus is the personal link of connexion between the Epistles to the Ephesians and to the Colossians; Onesimus between those to the Colossians and to Philemon.

For reasons given elsewhere[124], it would appear that these three letters were written and despatched towards the close of [Sidenote: Earthquake in the Lycus Valley.]the Apostle’s captivity, about the year 63. At some time not very distant from this date, a great catastrophe overtook the cities of the Lycus valley. An earthquake was no uncommon occurrence in this region[125]. But on this occasion the shock had been unusually violent, and Laodicea, the flourishing and populous, was laid in ruins. Tacitus, who is our earliest authority for this fact, places it in the year 60 and is silent about the neighbouring towns[126]. Eusebius however makes it subsequent [Sidenote: Its probable date.]to the burning of Rome (A.D. 64), and mentions Hierapolis and Colossæ also as involved in the disaster[127]; while later writers, adopting the date of Eusebius and including the three cities with him, represent it as one of a series of divine judgments on the heathen world for the persecution of the Christians which followed on the fire[128]. Having no direct knowledge of the source from which Eusebius derived his information, we should naturally be disposed to accept the authority of Tacitus for the date, as more trustworthy. But, as indications occur elsewhere that Eusebius followed unusually good authorities in recording these earthquakes[129], it is far from improbable that he [Sidenote: Bearing on the chronology of these letters.] gives the correct date[130]. In this case the catastrophe was subsequent to the writing of these letters. If on the other hand the year named by Tacitus be adopted, we gain a subsidiary confirmation of the comparatively late date which I have ventured to assign to these epistles on independent grounds; for, if they had been written two years earlier, when the blow was recent, we might reasonably have expected to find some reference to a disaster which had devastated Laodicea and from which Colossæ cannot have escaped altogether without injury. The additional fact mentioned by the Roman historian, that Laodicea was rebuilt from her own resources without the usual assistance from Rome[131], is valuable as illustrating a later notice in the Apostolic writings[132].

Footnote 124:

See _Philippians_ p. 29 sq.; where reasons are given for placing the Philippian Epistle at an earlier, and the others at a later stage in the Apostle’s captivity.

Footnote 125:

See above, p. 3. Laodicea was visited by the following earthquakes in the ages preceding and subsequent to the Christian era.

(1) Before about B.C. 125, _Orac. Sibyll._ iii. 471, if the date now commonly assigned to this Sibylline Oracle be correct, and if the passage is to be regarded as a prophecy after the event. In iii. 347 Hierapolis is also mentioned as suffering in the same way; but it may be questioned whether the Phrygian city is meant.

(2) About B.C. 12, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579, Dion Cass. liv. 30. Strabo names only Laodicea and Tralles, but Dion Cassius says ἡ Ἀσία τὸ ἔθνος ἐπικουρίας τινὸς διὰ σεισμοὺς μάλιστα ἐδεῖτο.

(3) A.D. 60 according to Tacitus (_Ann._ xiv. 27); A.D. 64 or 65 according to Eusebius (_Chron._ s.a.), who includes also Hierapolis and Colossæ. To this earthquake allusion is made in a Sibylline Oracle written not many years after the event; _Orac. Sibyll._ iv. 107 (see also v. 289, vii. 23).

(4) Between A.D. 222 and A.D. 235, in the reign of Alexander Severus, as we learn from another Sibylline Oracle (xii. 280). On this occasion Hierapolis also suffered.

This list will probably be found not to have exhausted all these catastrophes on record.

The following earthquakes also are mentioned as happening in the neighbouring towns or in the district generally: the date uncertain, _Carura_ (Strabo xii. 8, p. 578); A.D. 17 the _twelve cities_, _Sardis_ being the worst sufferer (Tac. _Ann._ ii. 7, Plin. _N.H._ ii. 86, Dion Cass. lvii. 17, Strabo xii. 8, p. 579); A.D. 23 _Cibyra_ (Tac. _Ann._ iv. 13); A.D. 53 _Apamea_ (Tac. _Ann._ xii. 58): about A.D. 155, under Antoninus Pius, ‘Rhodiorum et _Asiæ_ oppida’ (Capitol. _Anton. Pius_ 9); A.D. 178, under M. Aurelius, _Smyrna_ and other cities (_Chron. Pasch._ I. p. 489, ed. Dind., Aristid. _Or._ xx, xxi, xli; see Clinton _Fast. Rom._ I. p. 176 sq., Hertzberg _Griechenland_ etc. II. pp. 371, 410); A.D. 262, under Gallienus II (Trebell. _Gallien._ 5 ‘Malum tristius in _Asiæ_ urbibus fuit ... hiatus terræ plurimis in locis fuerunt, cum aqua salsa in fossis appareret,’ ib. 6 ‘vastatam _Asiam_ ... elementorum concussionibus’). Strabo says (p. 579) that _Philadelphia_ is more or less shaken daily (καθ’ ἡμέραν), and that _Apamea_ has suffered from numerous earthquakes.

Footnote 126:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27 ‘Eodem anno ex inlustribus Asiæ urbibus Laodicea, tremore terræ prolapsa, nullo a nobis remedio propriis opibus revaluit.’ The year is given ‘Nerone iv, Corn. Cosso consulibus’ (xiv. 20). Two different writers, in _Smith’s Dictionary of Geography_ and _Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible_, s.v. Laodicea, place the destruction of Laodicea in the reign of Tiberius, confusing this earthquake with an earlier one (_Ann._ ii. 47). By this earlier earthquake ‘duodecim celebres Asiæ urbes conlapsæ,’ but their names are given, and not one is situated in the valley of the Lycus.

Footnote 127:

Euseb. _Chron._ Ol. 210 (II. p. 154 sq., ed. Schöne) ‘In Asia tres urbes terræ motu conciderunt Laodicea Hierapolis Colossæ.’ The Armenian version and Jerome agree in placing it the next event in order after the fire at Rome (A.D. 64), though there is a difference of a year in the two texts. If the Sibylline Oracle, v. 317, refers to this earthquake, as seems probable, we have independent testimony that Hierapolis was involved in the catastrophe; comp. _ib._ v. 289.

Footnote 128:

This is evidently the idea of Orosius, vii. 7.

Footnote 129:

I draw this inference from his account of the earthquake in the reign of Tiberius. Tacitus (_Ann._ ii. 47) states that _twelve_ cities were ruined in one night, and records their names. Pliny also, who mentions this earthquake as ‘the greatest within the memory of man’ (_N.H._ ii. 86), gives the same number. Eusebius however, _Chron._ Ol. 198 (II. p. 146 sq., ed. Schöne), names _thirteen_ cities, coinciding with Tacitus as far as he goes, but including Ephesus also. Now a monument was found at Puteoli (see Gronov. _Thes._ _Græc. Ant._ VII. p. 433 sq.), and is now in the Museum at Naples (_Museo Borbonico_ XV, Tav. iv, v), dedicated to Tiberius and representing _fourteen_ female figures with the names of fourteen Asiatic cities underneath; these names being the same as those mentioned by Tacitus with the addition of Ephesus and Cibyra. There can be no doubt that this was one of those monuments mentioned by Apollonius quoted in Phlegon (_Fragm._ 42, Müller’s _Fragm. Hist. Græc._ III. p. 621) as erected to commemorate the liberality of Tiberius in contributing to the restoration of the ruined cities (see Eckhel _Doct. Num. Vet._ VI. 192 sq.). But no earthquake at Ephesus is mentioned by Tacitus. He does indeed speak of such a catastrophe as happening at Cibyra (_Ann._ iv. 13) six years later than the one which ruined the twelve cities, and of the relief which Tiberius afforded on this latter occasion as on the former. But we owe to Eusebius alone the fact that Ephesus also was seriously injured by an earthquake in the same year—perhaps not on the same night—with the twelve cities: and this fact is necessary to explain the monument. It should be added that Nipperdey (on Tac. _Ann._ ii. 47) supposes the earthquake at Ephesus to have been recorded in the lost portion of the fifth book of the _Annals_ which comprised the years A.D. 29–31; but this bare hypothesis cannot outweigh the direct testimony of Eusebius.

Footnote 130:

Hertzberg (_Geschichte Griechenlands unter der Herrschaft der Römer_, II. p. 96) supposes that Tacitus and Eusebius refer to two different events, and that Laodicea was visited by earthquakes twice within a few years, A.D. 60 and A.D. 65.

Footnote 131:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 27, quoted above, p. 38, note 126. To this fact allusion is made in the feigned prediction of the Sibyllines, iv. 107 Τλῆμον Λαοδίκεια, σὲ δὲ τρώσει ποτὲ σεισμὸς πρηνίξας, στήσει δὲ πάλιν πόλιν εὐρυάγυιαν, where στήσει must be the 2nd person, ‘Thou wilt rebuild thy city with its broad streets.’ This Sibylline poem was written about the year 80. The building of the amphitheatre mentioned above (p. 6, note 6), would form part of this work of reconstruction.

Footnote 132:

See below, p. 43.

[Sidenote: St Mark’s intended visit.]

It has been seen that, when these letters were written, St Mark was intending shortly to visit Colossæ, and that the Apostle himself, looking forward to his release, hoped at length to make a personal acquaintance with these Churches, which hitherto he knew only through the report of others. Whether St Mark’s visit was ever paid or not, we have no means of determining[133]. Of St Paul himself it is reasonable to assume, [Sidenote: St Paul probably visits Colossæ.] that in the interval between his first and second Roman captivity he found some opportunity of carrying out his design. At all events we find him at Miletus, near to the mouth of the Mæander[134]; and the journey between this place and Laodicea is neither long nor difficult.

Footnote 133:

Two notices however imply that St Mark had some personal connexion with Asia Minor in the years immediately succeeding the date of this reference: (1) St Peter, writing to the Churches of Asia Minor, sends a salutation from St Mark (1 Pet. v. 13); (2) St Paul gives charge to Timothy, who appears to be still residing at Ephesus, to take up Mark and bring him to Rome (2 Tim. iv. 11 Μάρκον ἀναλαβὼν ἄγε μετὰ σεαυτοῦ). Thus it seems fairly probable that St Mark’s projected visit to Colossæ was paid.

Footnote 134:

2 Tim. iv. 20. By a strange error Lequien (_Oriens Christ._ I. p. 833) substitutes Hierapolis for Nicopolis in Tit. iii. 12, and argues from the passage that the Church of Hierapolis was founded by St Paul.

[Sidenote: St John in Asia Minor.]

At the time of this visit—the first and last, we may suppose, which he paid to the valley of the Lycus—St Paul’s direction of the Asiatic Churches is drawing to a close. With his death they pass into the hands of St John[135], who takes up his abode in Asia Minor. Of Colossæ and Hierapolis we hear nothing more in the New Testament: but from his exile in[Sidenote: The message to Laodicea.] Patmos the beloved disciple delivers his Lord’s message to the Church of Laodicea[136]; a message doubtless intended to be communicated also to the two subordinate Churches, to which it would apply almost equally well.

Footnote 135:

It was apparently during the interval between St Paul’s first captivity at Rome and his death, that St Peter wrote to the Churches of Asia Minor (1 Pet. i. 1). Whether in this interval he also visited personally the districts evangelized directly or indirectly by St Paul, we have no means of deciding. Such a visit is far from unlikely, but it can hardly have been of long duration. A copy of his letters would probably be sent to Laodicea, as a principal centre of Christianity in Proconsular Asia, which is among the provinces mentioned in the address of the First Epistle.

Footnote 136:

Rev. iii. 14–21.

[Sidenote: Correspondences between the Apocalypse and St Paul’s Epistles.]

The message communicated by St John to Laodicea prolongs the note which was struck by St Paul in the letter to Colossæ. An interval of a very few years has not materially altered the character of these Churches. Obviously the same temper prevails, the same errors are rife, the same correction must be applied.

[Sidenote: 1. The doctrine of the Person of Christ,]

1. Thus, while St Paul finds it necessary to enforce the truth that Christ is the image of the invisible God, that in Him all the divine fulness dwells, that He existed before all things, that through Him all things were created and in Him all things are sustained, that He is the primary source (ἀρχή) and has the pre-eminence in all things[137]; so in almost identical language St John, speaking in the person of our Lord, declares that He is the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the primary source (ἀρχή) of the creation of God[138]. Some lingering shreds of the old heresy, we may suppose, still hung about these Churches, and instead of ‘holding fast the Head’ they were even yet prone to substitute intermediate agencies, angelic mediators, as links in the chain which should bind man to God. They still failed to realise the majesty and significance, the _completeness_, of the Person of Christ.

Footnote 137:

Col. i. 15–18.

Footnote 138:

Rev. iii. 14. It should be observed that this designation of our Lord (ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ Θεοῦ), which so closely resembles the language of the Colossian Epistle, does not occur in the messages to the other six Churches, nor do we there find anything resembling it.

[Sidenote: and practical duties which follow upon it.]

And the practical duty also, which follows from the recognition of the theological truth, is enforced by both Apostles in very similar language. If St Paul entreats the Colossians to seek those things which are above, where Christ is seated on the right hand of God[139], and in the companion epistle, which also he directs them to read, reminds the Churches that God raised them with Christ and seated them with him in heavenly places in Christ Jesus[140]; in like manner St John gives this promise to the Laodiceans in the name of his Lord: ‘He that overcometh, I will grant to him to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame and did sit with my Father in His throne[141]’.

Footnote 139:

Col. iii. 1.

Footnote 140:

Ephes. ii. 6 συνήγειρεν καὶ συνεκάθισεν κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 141:

Rev. iii. 21 δώσω αὐτῷ καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ, κ.τ.λ. Here again it must be noticed that there is no such resemblance in the language of the promises to the faithful in the other six Churches. This double coincidence, affecting the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier Apostle’s teaching on the part of St John.

[Sidenote: 2. Warning against lukewarmness.]

2. But again; after a parting salutation to the Church of Laodicea St Paul closes with a warning to Archippus, apparently its chief pastor, to take heed to his ministry[142]. Some signs of slackened zeal seem to have called forth this rebuke. It may be an accidental coincidence, but it is at least worthy of notice, that lukewarmness is the special sin denounced in the angel of the Laodiceans, and that the necessity of greater earnestness is the burden of the message to that Church[143]. As with the people, so is it with the priest. The community takes its colour from and communicates its colour to its spiritual rulers. The ‘be zealous’ of St John is the counterpart to the ‘take heed’ of St Paul.

Footnote 142:

Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 143:

Rev. iii. 19. If the common view, that by the angel of the Church its chief pastor is meant, were correct, and if Archippus (as is very probable) had been living when St John wrote, the coincidence would be still more striking; see Trench’s _Epistles to the Seven Churches in Asia_, p. 180. But for reasons given elsewhere (Philippians p. 197 sq.), this interpretation of the angels seems to me incorrect.

[Sidenote: 3. The pride of wealth denounced.]

3. Lastly; in the Apocalyptic message the pride of wealth is sternly condemned in the Laodicean Church: ‘For that thou sayest I am rich and have gotten me riches and have need of nothing, and knowest not that thou art utterly wretched and miserable and beggarly and blind and naked, I counsel thee to buy gold of me refined with fire, that thou mayest have riches[144].’ This proud vaunt receives its best illustration from a recent occurrence at Laodicea, to which allusion has already been made. Only a very few years before this date an earthquake had laid the city in ruins. Yet from this catastrophe she rose again with more than her former splendour. [Sidenote: The vaunt of Laodicea.]This however was not her chief title to respect. While other cities, prostrated by a like visitation, had sought relief from the concessions of the Roman senate or the liberality of the emperor’s purse, it was the glory of Laodicea that she alone neither courted nor obtained assistance, but recovered by her own resources. ‘Nullo a nobis remedio,’ says the Roman historian, ‘propriis opibus revaluit[145].’ Thus she had asserted a proud independence, to which neither far-famed metropolitan Ephesus, nor old imperial Sardis, nor her prosperous commercial neighbours, Apamea and Cibyra, could lay claim[146]. No one would dispute her boast that she ‘had gotten riches and had need of nothing.’

Footnote 144:

Rev. iii. 17, 18, where the correct reading with the repetition of the definite articles, ὁ ταλαίπωρος καὶ ὁ ἐλεινός, signifies the type, the embodiment of wretchedness, etc.

Footnote 145:

Tac. Ann. xiv. 27.

Footnote 146:

In all the other cases of earthquake which Tacitus records as happening in these Asiatic cities, Ann. ii. 47 (the twelve cities), iv. 13 (Cibyra), xii. 58 (Apamea), he mentions the fact of their obtaining relief from the Senate or the Emperor. On an earlier occasion Laodicea herself had not disdained under similar circumstances to receive assistance from Augustus: Strabo, xii. p. 579.

[Sidenote: Pride of intellectual wealth.]

But is there not a second and subsidiary idea underlying the Apocalyptic rebuke? The pride of intellectual wealth, we may well suspect, was a temptation at Laodicea hardly less strong than the pride of material resources. When St Paul wrote, the theology of the Gospel and the comprehension of the Church were alike endangered by a spirit of intellectual exclusiveness[147] in these cities. He warned them against a vain philosophy, against a show of wisdom, against an intrusive mystic speculation, which vainly puffed up the fleshly mind[148]. He tacitly contrasted with this false intellectual wealth ‘the riches of the glory of God’s mystery revealed in Christ[149],’ the riches of the full assurance of understanding, the genuine treasures of wisdom and knowledge[150]. May not the same contrast be discerned in the language of St John? The Laodiceans boast of their enlightenment, but they are blind, and to cure their blindness they must seek eye-salve from the hands of the great Physician. They vaunt their wealth of knowledge, but they are wretched paupers, and must beg the refined gold of the Gospel to relieve their wants[151].

Footnote 147:

See the next chapter of this introduction.

Footnote 148:

Col. ii. 8, 18, 23.

Footnote 149:

i. 27.

Footnote 150:

ii. 2, 3.

Footnote 151:

Comp. Eph. i. 18 ‘The _eyes of your understanding being enlightened_, that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, what the _riches of the glory of his inheritance_ in the saints.’

This is the last notice in the Apostolic records relating to the Churches in the valley of the Lycus; but during the succeeding ages the Christian communities of this district play a conspicuous part in the struggles and the development of the Church. [Sidenote: The early disciples settle in proconsular Asia]When after the destruction of Jerusalem St John fixed his abode at Ephesus, it would appear that not a few of the oldest surviving members of the Palestinian Church accompanied him into ‘Asia,’ which henceforward became the head-quarters of Apostolic authority. In this body of emigrants Andrew[152] and Philip among the Twelve, Aristion and John the presbyter[153] among other personal disciples of the Lord, are especially mentioned.

Footnote 152:

_Canon Murator._ fol. 1, l. 14 (p. 17, ed. Tregelles), Cureton’s _Ancient Syriac Documents_ pp. 32, 34. Comp. Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.

Footnote 153:

Papias in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39.

[Sidenote: and especially at Hierapolis.]

Among the chief settlements of this Christian dispersion was Hierapolis. This fact explains how these Phrygian Churches assumed a prominence in the ecclesiastical history of the second century, for which we are hardly prepared by their antecedents as they appear in connexion with St Paul, and which they failed to maintain in the history of the later Church.

Here at all events was settled Philip of Bethsaida[154], the [Sidenote: Philip the Apostle with his daughters.] early friend and fellow-townsman of St John, and the first Apostle who is recorded to have held communication with the Gentiles[155]. Here he died and was buried; and here after his decease lived his two virgin daughters, who survived to a very advanced age and thus handed down to the second century the traditions of the earliest days of the Church. A third daughter, who was married, had settled in Ephesus, where her body rested[156]. [Sidenote: Their traditions collected by Papias.]It was from the two daughters who resided at Hierapolis, that Papias heard several stories of the first preachers of the Gospel, which he transmitted to posterity in his work[157].

Footnote 154:

Polycrates in Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31, v. 24 Φίλιππον [τὸν] _τῶν δώδεκα ἀποστόλων_, ὃς κεκοίμηται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει, καὶ δύο θυγατέρες αὐτοῦ γεγηρακυῖαι παρθένοι, καὶ ἠ ἑτέρα αὐτοῦ θυγάτηρ ἐν ἁγίῳ πνεύματι πολιτευσαμένη, ἣ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ ἀναπαύεται. To this third daughter the statement of Clement of Alexandria must refer, though by a common looseness of expression he uses the plural number (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 30), ἣ καὶ _τοὺς ἀποστόλους_ ἀποδοκιμάσουσι· Πέτρος μὲν γὰρ καὶ Φίλιππος ἐπαιδοποιήσαντο, Φίλιππος δὲ καὶ τὰς θυγατέρας ἀνδράσιν ἐξέδωκε. On the other hand in the _Dialogue between Caius and Proclus_, Philip the Evangelist was represented as residing at Hierapolis (Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 31) μετὰ τοῦτον δὲ προφήτιδες τέσσαρες αἱ Φίλιππου γεγένηνται ἐν Ἱεραπόλει τῇ κατὰ τὴν Ἀσίαν· ὁ τάφος αὐτῶν ἐστὶν ἐκεῖ, καὶ ὁ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτῶν, where the mention of the _four_ daughters _prophesying_ identifies the person meant (see Acts xxi. 8). Nothing can be clearer than that St Luke distinguishes Philip the Evangelist from Philip the Apostle; for (1) When the Seven are appointed, he distinctly states that this new office is created to relieve the Twelve of some onerous duties (Acts vi. 2–5). (2) After Philip the Evangelist has preached in Samaria, two of the Twelve are sent thither to convey the gifts of the Spirit, which required the presence of an Apostle (viii. 14–17). (3) When St Paul and his companions visit Philip at Cæsarea, he is carefully described as ‘the Evangelist, being one of the Seven’ (xxi. 8). As St Luke was a member of the Apostle’s company when this visit was paid, and stayed ‘many days’ in Philip’s house, the accuracy of his information cannot be questioned. Yet Eusebius (_H.E._ iii. 31) assumes the identity of the Apostle with the Evangelist, and describes the notice in the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_ as being ‘in harmony with (συνᾴδων)’ the language of Polycrates. And accordingly in another passage (_H.E._ iii. 39), when he has occasion to mention the conversations of Papias with Philip’s daughters at Hierapolis, he again supposes them to be the same who are mentioned in the Acts.

My reasons for believing that the Philip who lived at Hierapolis was not the Evangelist, but the Apostle, are as follows. (1) This is distinctly stated by the earliest witness, Polycrates, who was bishop of Ephesus at the close of the second century, and who besides claimed to have and probably had special opportunities of knowing early traditions. It is confirmed moreover by the notice in Clement of Alexandria, who is the next in order of time, and whose means of information also were good, for one of his earliest teachers was an Ionian Greek (_Strom._ I. 1, p. 322). (2) The other view depends solely on the authority of the _Dialogue of Caius and Proclus_. I have given reasons elsewhere for questioning the separate existence of the Roman presbyter Caius, and for supposing that this dialogue was written by Hippolytus bishop of Portus (_Journal of Philology_ I. p. 98 sq., Cambridge, 1868). But however this may be, its author was a Roman ecclesiastic, and probably wrote some quarter of a century at least after Polycrates. In all respects therefore his authority is inferior. Moreover it is suspicious in form. It mentions four daughters instead of three, makes them all virgins, and represents them as prophetesses, thus showing a distinct aim of reproducing the particulars as given in Acts xxi. 9; whereas the account of Polycrates is divergent in all three respects. (3) A life-long friendship would naturally draw Philip the Apostle of Bethsaida after John, as it also drew Andrew. And, when we turn to St John’s Gospel, we can hardly resist the impression that incidents relating to Andrew and Philip had a special interest, not only for the writer of the Gospel, but also for his hearers (John i. 40, 43–46, vi. 5–8, xii. 20–22, xiv. 8, 9). Moreover the Apostles Andrew and Philip appear in this Gospel as inseparable companions. (4) Lastly; when Papias mentions collecting the sayings of the Twelve and of other early disciples from those who heard them, he gives a prominent place to these two Apostles τί Ἀνδρέας ... εἶπεν ἢ τί Φίλιππος, but there is no reference to Philip the Evangelist. When therefore we read later that he conversed with the daughters of Philip, it seems natural to infer that the Philip intended is the same person whom he has mentioned previously. It should be added, though no great value can be assigned to such channels of information, that the Acts of Philip place the Apostle at Hierapolis; Tischendorf, _Act. Apost. Apocr._ p. 75 sq.

On the other hand, those who suppose that the Evangelist, and not the Apostle, resided at Hierapolis, account for the other form of the tradition by the natural desire of the Asiatic Churches to trace their spiritual descent directly from the Twelve. This solution of the phenomenon might have been accepted, if the authorities in favour of Philip the Evangelist had been prior in time and superior in quality. There is no improbability in supposing that both the Philips were married and had daughters.

Footnote 155:

John xii. 20.

Footnote 156:

See above p. 45, note 154.

Footnote 157:

Euseb. _H.E._ iii. 39. This is the general reference for all those particulars respecting Papias which are derived from Eusebius.

This Papias had conversed not only with the daughters of Philip, but also with at least two personal disciples of the Lord, Aristion and John the presbyter. He made it his business to gather traditions respecting the sayings of the Saviour and His Apostles; and he published a work in five books, entitled _An Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord_, using the information thus collected to illustrate the discourses, and perhaps the doings, of Christ as recorded in the Gospels[158]. Among other stories he related, apparently on the authority of these daughters of Philip, how a certain dead man had been restored to life in his own day, and how Justus Barsabas, who is mentioned in the Acts, had drunk a deadly poison and miraculously escaped from any evil effects[159].

Footnote 158:

See Westcott, _Canon_ p. 63. On the opinions of Papias and on the nature of his work, I may perhaps be allowed to refer to an article in the _Contemporary Review_ Aug. 1867, where I have collected and investigated all the notices of this father. The object of Papias’ work was not to construct a Gospel narrative, but to interpret and illustrate those already existing. I ought to add that on two minor points, the martyrdom of Papias and the identity of Philip with the Evangelist, I have been led to modify my views since the article was written.

Footnote 159:

Euseb. l.c. ὡς δὲ κατὰ τοὺς αὐτοὺς ὁ Παπίας γενόμενος διήγησιν παρειληφέναι θαυμασίαν ὑπὸ [ἀπο]; τῶν τοῦ Φιλίππου θυγατέρων μνημονεύει, τὰ νῦν σημειωτέον· νεκροῦ γὰρ ἀνάστασιν κατ’ αὐτὸν γεγονυῖαν ἱστορεῖ, καὶ αὖ πάλιν ἕτερον παράδοξον περὶ Ἰοῦστον τὸν ἐπικληθέντα Βαρσαβᾶν γεγονός κ.τ.λ. The information respecting the raising of the dead man might have come from the daughters of Philip, as the context seems certainly to imply, while yet the event happened in Papias’ own time (κατ’ αὐτόν). It will be remembered that even Irenæus mentions similar miracles as occurring in his own age (_Hær._ ii. 32. 4). Eusebius does not say that the miraculous preservation of Justus Barsabas also occurred in the time of Papias.

[Sidenote: Life and teaching of PAPIAS.]

If we may judge by his name, PAPIAS was a native of Phrygia, probably of Hierapolis[160], of which he afterwards became bishop, and must have grown up to youth or early manhood before the close of the first century. He is said to have suffered martyrdom at Pergamum about the year 165; but there is good reason for distrusting this statement, independently of any chronological difficulty which it involves[161]. Otherwise [Sidenote: Account of Eusebius.]he must have lived to a very advanced age. Eusebius, to whom chiefly we owe our information respecting him, was repelled by his millennarian views, and describes him as a man of mean intelligence[162], accusing him of misunderstanding the Apostolic sayings respecting the kingdom of Christ and thus interpreting in a material sense expressions which were intended to be mystical and symbolical. This disparaging account, though one-sided, was indeed not altogether undeserved, for his love of the marvellous seems to have overpowered his faculty of discrimination. But the adverse verdict of Eusebius must be corrected by the more sympathetic language of Irenæus[163], who possibly may have known him personally, and who certainly must have been well acquainted with his reputation and character.

Footnote 160:

Papias, or (as it is very frequently written in inscriptions) Pappias, is a common Phrygian name. It is found several times at Hierapolis, not only in inscriptions (Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ no. 3930, 3912 a add.) but even on coins (Mionnet IV. p. 301). This is explained by the fact that it was an epithet of the Hierapolitan Zeus (Boeckh 3817 Παπίᾳ Διῒ σωτῆρι), just as in Bithynia this same god was called Πάπας (Lobeck _Aglaoph._ p. 1048; see Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1051). Hence as the name of a mortal it is equivalent to the Greek Diogenes; e.g. Boeckh no. 3912 a add., Παπίας τοῦ Στράτωνος ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης. In an inscription at Trajanopolis we meet with it in a curious conjunction with other familiar names (Boeckh no. 3865 i add.) Παππίας Τροφίμου καὶ Τυχικῆς κ.τ.λ. (see Waddington on Le Bas, Inscr. no. 718). This last belongs to the year A.D. 199. Other analogous Phrygian names are Ammias, Tatias (with the corresponding feminines), which with Latin terminations become Ammianus, Tatianus.

Thus at Hierapolis the name Papias is derived from heathen mythology, and accordingly the persons bearing it on the inscriptions and coins are all heathens. It may therefore be presumed that our Papias was of Gentile origin. The inference however is not absolutely certain, since elsewhere it is found borne by Jews; see the Talmudical references in Zunz _Namen der Juden_ p. 16.

Footnote 161:

_Chron. Pasch._ sub ann. 163 σὺν τῷ ἁγίῳ δὲ Πολυκάρπῳ καὶ ἄλλοι θ’ ἀπὸ Φιλαδελφείας μαρτυροῦσιν ἐν Σμύρνῃ· καὶ ἐν Περγάμῳ δὲ ἕτεροι, ἐν οἷς ἧν καὶ Παπίας καὶ ἄλλοι πολλοί, ὧν καὶ ἔγγραφα φέρονται τὰ μαρτύρια. See also the Syrian epitome of Euseb. _Chron._ (II. p. 216 ed. Schöne) ‘Cum persecutio in Asia esset, Polycarpos martyrium subiit et Papias, quorum martyria in libro (scripta) extant,’ but the Armenian version of the _Chronicon_ mentions only Polycarp, while Jerome says ‘Polycarpus et Pionius fecere martyrium.’ In his history (iv. 15) Eusebius, after quoting the _Martyrdom of Polycarp_ at length, adds ἐν τῇ αὐτῇ δὲ περὶ αὐτοῦ γραφῇ καὶ _ἄλλα μαρτύρια συνῆπτο_ ... μεθ’ ὧν καὶ Μητρόδωρος ... ἀνήρηται· τῶν γε μὴν τὸτε περιβοήτων μαρτύρων εἷς τις ἐγνωρίζετο _Πιόνιος_ ... ἑξῆς δὲ καὶ ἄλλων ἐν Περγάμῳ πόλει τῆς Ἀσίας ὑπομνήματα μεμαρτυρηκότων φέρεται, Κάρπου καὶ _Παπύλου_ καὶ γυναικὸς Ἀγαθονίκης κ.τ.λ. He here falls into the serious error of imagining that Metrodorus, Pionius, Carpus, Papylus, and the others were martyred under M. Aurelius, whereas we know from their extant Acts that they suffered in the Decian persecution. For the martyrdoms of Pionius and Metrodorus see _Act. SS. Bolland._ Feb. 1; for those of Carpus, Papylus, and Agathonica, _ib._ April 13. The Acts of the former, which are included in Ruinart (_Act. Sinc. Mart._ p. 120 sq., 1689) are apparently the same which were seen by Eusebius. Those of the latter are a late compilation of the Metaphrast, but were probably founded on the earlier document. At all events the tradition of the persecution in which they suffered could hardly have been perverted or lost. Eusebius seems to have found their Acts bound up in the same volume with those of Polycarp, and without reading them through, to have drawn the hasty inference that they suffered at the same time. But notwithstanding the error, or perhaps owing to it, this passage in the Ecclesiastical History, by a confusion of the names Papias and Papylus, seems to have given rise to the statement respecting Papias in the Chronicon Paschale and in the Syrian epitome, as it obviously has misled Jerome respecting Pionius. If so, the martyrdom of Papias is a fiction, and he may have died a natural death at an earlier date; so that the not very serious difficulty of his longevity will disappear. The time of Polycarp’s martyrdom is fixed by various data as Easter A.D. 166 (see Clinton’s _Fast. Rom._ I. p. 157).

Footnote 162:

_H E._ iii. 39 σφόδρα σμικρὸς τὸν νοῦν. In another passage (iii. 36), as commonly read, Eusebius makes partial amends to Papias by calling him ἀνὴρ τὰ πάντα ὅτι μάλιστα λογιώτατος καὶ τῆς γραφῆς εἰδήμων, but this passage is found to be a spurious interpolation (see _Contemporary Review_ l.c. p. 12), and was probably added by some one who was acquainted with the work of Papias and desired to do him justice.

Footnote 163:

Iren. v. 33. 3, 4.

Much has been written respecting the relation of this writer to the Canonical Gospels, but the discussion has no very direct bearing on our special subject, and may be dismissed here[164]. One question however, which has a real importance as affecting the progress of the Gospel in these parts, has been raised by modern criticism and must not be passed over in silence.

Footnote 164:

See on this subject Westcott _Canon_ p. 64 sq.; _Contemporary Review_ l.c. p. 12 sq.

[Sidenote: A modern hypothesis respecting Christianity in Asia Minor stated and discussed.]

It has been supposed that there was an entire dislocation and discontinuity in the history of Christianity in Asia Minor at a certain epoch; that the Apostle of the Gentiles was ignored and his teaching repudiated, if not anathematized; and that on its ruins was erected the standard of Judaism, around which with a marvellous unanimity deserters from the Pauline Gospel rallied. Of this retrograde faith St John is supposed to have been the great champion, and Papias a typical and important representative[165].

Footnote 165:

The theory of the Tübingen school may be studied in Baur’s _Christliche Kirche der drei ersten Jahrhunderte_ or in Schwegler’s _Nachapostolisches Zeitalter_. It has been reproduced (at least as far as regards the Asiatic Churches) by Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 366 sq.

The subject, as a whole, is too wide for a full investigation here. I must content myself with occupying a limited area, showing not only the historical baselessness, but the strong inherent improbability of the theory, as applied to Hierapolis and the neighbouring churches. As this district is its chief strong-hold, a repulse at this point must involve its ultimate defeat along the whole line.

[Sidenote: The position of St John]

Of St John himself I have already spoken[166]. It has been shown that his language addressed to these Churches is not only not opposed to St Paul’s teaching, but presents remarkable coincidences with it. So far at least the theory finds no support; and, when from St John we turn to Papias, the case is not different. [Sidenote: and of Papias.]The advocates of the hypothesis in question lay the chief stress of their argument on the silence of Papias, or rather of Eusebius. Eusebius quotes a passage from Papias, in which the bishop of Hierapolis mentions collecting from trustworthy sources the sayings of certain Apostles and early disciples; but St Paul is not named among them. He also gives short extracts from Papias referring to the Gospels of St Matthew and St Mark, and mentions that this writer made use of the first Epistle of St John and the first Epistle of St Peter; but here again there is no allusion to St Paul’s writings. Whether referring to the personal testimony or to the Canonical writings of the Apostles, Papias, we are reminded, is equally silent about St Paul.

Footnote 166:

See above p. 41 sq.

On both these points a satisfactory answer can be given; but the two cases are essentially different, and must be considered apart.

[Sidenote: 1. The traditions collected by Papias.]

(1) The range of _personal testimony_ which Papias would be able to collect depended on his opportunities. Before he had grown up to manhood, the personal reminiscences of St Paul would have almost died out. The Apostle of the Gentiles had not resided more than three years even at Ephesus, and seems to have paid only one brief visit to the valley of the Lycus, even if he visited it at all. Such recollections of St Paul as might once have lingered here would certainly be overshadowed by and forgotten in the later sojourn of St John, which, beginning where they ceased, extended over more than a quarter of a century. To St John, and to those personal disciples of Christ who surrounded him, Papias and his contemporaries would naturally and almost inevitably look for the traditions which they so eagerly collected. This is the case with the leading representative of the Asiatic school in the next generation, Irenæus, whose traditions are almost wholly derived from St John and his companions, while at the same time he evinces an entire sympathy with the work and teaching of St Paul. But indeed, even if it had been otherwise, the object which Papias had directly in view did not suggest any appeal to St Paul’s authority. He was writing an ‘Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord,’ and he sought to supplement and interpret these by traditions of our Lord’s life, such as eyewitnesses only could give. St Paul could have no place among those personal disciples of Christ, of whom alone he is speaking in this preface to his work, which Eusebius quotes.

[Sidenote: 2. His references to the Canonical writings.]

(2) But, though we have no right to expect any mention of St Paul where the appeal is to personal testimony, yet with quotations from or references to the _Canonical writings_ the case, it may be argued, is different. Here at all events we might look for some recognition of St Paul. To this argument it would perhaps be a sufficient reply, that St Paul’s Epistles do not furnish any matter which must necessarily have been introduced into a work such as Papias composed. But the complete and decisive answer is this; that the silence of Eusebius, so far from carrying with it the silence of Papias, does not [Sidenote: No weight to be attached to the silence of Eusebius.] even afford a presumption in this direction. Papias may have quoted St Paul again and again, and yet Eusebius would see no reason to chronicle the fact. His usage in other cases is decisive on this point. The Epistle of Polycarp which was read by Eusebius is the same which we still possess. Not only does it teem with the most obvious quotations from St Paul, but in one passage it directly mentions his writing to the Philippians[167]. Yet the historian, describing its relation to the Canonical Scriptures, contents himself with saying that it ‘employs some testimonies from the former Epistle of Peter[168].’ Exactly similar is his language respecting Irenæus also. Irenæus, as is well known, cites by name almost every one of St Paul’s Epistles; yet the description which Eusebius gives under this same head, after quoting this writer’s notices respecting the history of the Gospels and the Apocalypse, is that ‘he mentions also the first Epistle of John, alleging very many testimonies from it, and in like manner also the former Epistle of Peter[169].’ There is every reason therefore to suppose that Eusebius would deal with Papias as he has dealt with Polycarp and Irenæus, and that, unless Papias had introduced some curious fact relating to St Paul, it would not have occurred to him to record mere quotations from or references to this Apostle’s letters. It may be supposed that Eusebius records with a fair amount of attention references to the Catholic Epistles in early writers, because the limits of the Canon in this part were not accurately fixed. On the other hand the Epistles of St Paul were universally received and therefore did not need to be accredited by any such testimony. But whatever may be the explanation, the fact is patent, and it furnishes a complete answer to the argument drawn from his silence in the case of Papias[170].

Footnote 167:

§ 3.

Footnote 168:

_H.E._ iv. 14 ὁ γέ τοι Πολύκαρπος ἐν τῇ δηλωθείσῃ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους αὐτοῦ γραφῇ φερομένῃ εἰς δεῦρο κέχρηταί τισι μαρτυρίαις ἀπὸ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας ἐπιστολῆς. This is all that Eusebius says with reference to Polycarp’s knowledge of the Canonical writings. It so happens that in an earlier passage (iii. 36) he has given an extract from Polycarp, in which St Paul’s name is mentioned; but the quotation is brought to illustrate the life of Ignatius, and the mention of the Apostle there is purely accidental.

Footnote 169:

_H.E._ v. 8 μέμνηται δὲ καὶ τῆς Ἰωάννου πρώτης ἐπιστολῆς, μαρτύρια ἐξ αὐτῆς πλεῖστα εἰσφέρων, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ τῆς Πέτρου προτέρας.

Footnote 170:

It is necessary to press this argument, because though it has never been answered and (so far as I can see) is quite unanswerable, yet thoughtful men, who have no sympathy with the Tübingen views of early Christian history, still continue to argue from the silence of Eusebius, as though it had some real significance. To illustrate the omissions of Eusebius I have given only the instances of Polycarp and Irenæus, because they are historically connected with Papias; but his silence is even more remarkable in other cases. Thus, when speaking of the epistle of the Roman Clement (_H.E._ iii. 38), he alludes to the coincidences with the Epistle to the Hebrews, but omits to mention the direct references to St Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians which is referred to by name, and is even silent about the numerous and patent quotations from the Epistle of St James.

[Sidenote: 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.

Footnote 171:

Iren. _Hær._ v. 33. 4.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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.

Footnote 172:

The life of this Abercius is printed in the Bollandist _Acta Sanctorum_ Oct. 22. It may safely be pronounced spurious. Among other incidents, the saint goes to Rome and casts out a demon from Lucilla, the daughter of M. Aurelius and Faustina, at the same time compelling the demon to take up an altar from Rome and transport it through the air to Hierapolis. But these Acts, though legendary themselves, contain an epitaph which has the ring of genuineness and which seems to have suggested the story to the pious forger who invented the Acts. This very interesting memorial is given and discussed at length by Pitra, _Spicil. Solesm._ III. p. 532 sq. It is inscribed by one Abercius of Hierapolis on his tomb, which he erected during his life-time. He declares himself a disciple of the good shepherd, who taught him trustworthy writings (γράμματα πιστά) and sent him to visit queenly Rome, where he saw a people sealed with the bright seal [of baptism]. He recounts also a journey to Syria and the East, when he crossed the Euphrates. He says that faith served up to him as a banquet the ιχθυς from the fountain, giving him bread and wine. He states that he has reached his 72nd year. And he closes by threatening with severe penalties those who disturb his tomb. The resemblance of this inscription to others found _in situ_ in the cemetery at Hierapolis, after allowance made for the Christian element, is very striking. The commencement Ἐκλεκτῆς πόλεως closely resembles the form of another Hierapolitan inscription, Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3906; the enumeration of foreign tours has a counterpart in the monument of one Flavius Zeuxis which states that the deceased had made 72 voyages round the promontory of Malea to Italy (_ib._ 3920); and lastly, the prohibition against putting another grave upon his, and the imposition of fines to be paid to the treasury and the city if this injunction is violated, are echos of language which occurs again and again on tombstones in this city (_ib._ 3915, 3916, 3922, 3923, etc.). Out of this epitaph, which he found probably at Hierapolis, and which, as he himself tells us (§ 41), was in a much mutilated condition, the legend-writer apparently created his story, interpreting the queen, by which Abercius himself probably meant the city of Rome, to be the empress Faustina, with whom the saint is represented as having an interview, M. Aurelius himself being absent at the time on his German campaign. This view, that the epitaph is genuine and gave rise to the Acts, is also maintained by Garrucci (_Civiltà Cattolica_ 1856, I. p. 683, II. p. 84, quoted in the _Acta Sanct._ l.c.), whose criticisms however are not always sound; and indeed as a whole it bears every mark of authenticity, though possibly it may contain some interpolations, which its mutilated condition would encourage.

The inscription itself however does not tell us what office Abercius held or when he lived. There was a person of this name bishop of Hierapolis present at the Council of Chalcedon A.D. 451 (Labb. _Conc._ IV. 862, 1204, 1341, 1392, 1496, 1744, ed. Coleti). But a chief pastor of the Church at this late date would have declared his office plainly; and the inscription points to a more primitive age, for the expressions are archaic and the writer seems to veil his profession of Christianity under language studiously obscure. The open profession of Christianity on inscriptions occurs at an earlier date in these parts than elsewhere. Already the word χριϲτιανοϲ or χρηϲτιανοϲ is found on tombstones of the third century; Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3857 g, 3857 p, 3865 l; see Renan _Saint Paul_ p. 363. Thus we are entirely at fault unless we accept the statement in the Acts.

And it is not unreasonable to suppose that, so far as regards the date and office of Abercius, the writer of these Acts followed some adequate historical tradition. Nor indeed is his statement altogether without confirmation. We have evidence that a person bearing this name lived in these parts of Asia Minor, somewhere about this time. An unknown writer of a polemical tract against Montanism dedicates his work to one Avircius Marcellus, at whose instigation it was written. Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 16), who is our authority for this fact, relates that Montanism found a determined and formidable opponent in Apollinaris at Hierapolis and ‘several other learned men of that day with him,’ who left large materials for a history of the movement. He then goes on to say; ἀρχόμενος γοῦν τῆς κατ’ αὐτῶν γραφῆς _τῶν εἰρημένων δή τις_ ... προοιμιάζεται ... τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον· Ἐκ πλείστου ὅσου καὶ ἱκανωτάτου χρόνου, ἀγαπητὲ Ἀουίρκιε Μάρκελλε, ἐπιταχθεὶς ὑπὸ σοῦ συγγράψαι τινὰ λόγον κ.τ.λ., i.e. ‘One of the aforesaid writers at the commencement of his treatise against them (the Montanists) etc.’ May not the person here addressed be the Abercius of the epitaph?

But if so, who is the writer that addresses him, and when did he live? Some MSS omit δή τις, and others substitute ἤδη, thus making Apollinaris himself the writer. But the words seem certainly to have been part of the original text, as the sense requires them; for if they are omitted, τῶν εἰρημένων must be connected with κατ’ αὐτῶν, where it is not wanted. Thus Eusebius quotes the writer anonymously; and those who assign the treatise to Apollinaris cannot plead the authority of the original text of the historian himself.

But after all may it not have been written by Apollinaris, though Eusebius was uncertain about the authorship? He quotes in succession three συγγράμματα or treatises, speaking of them as though they emanated from the same author. The first of these, from which the address to Avircius Marcellus is quoted, might very well have been composed soon after the Montanist controversy broke out (as Eusebius himself elsewhere states was the case with the work of Apollinaris, iv. 27 κατὰ τῆς τῶν Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως ... ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης); but the second and third distinctly state that they were written some time after the death of Montanus. May not Eusebius have had before him a volume containing a collection of tracts against Montanism ‘by Claudius Apollinaris and others,’ in which the authorship of the several tracts was not distinctly marked? This hypothesis would explain the words with which he prefaces his extracts, and would also account for his vague manner of quotation. It would also explain the omission of δή τις in some texts (the ancient Syriac version boldly substitutes the name of Apollinaris), and would explain how Rufinus, Nicephorus, and others, who might have had independent information, ascribed the treatise to this father. I have already pointed out how Eusebius was led into a similar error of connecting together several martyrologies and treating them as contemporaneous, because they were collected in the same volume (p. 48, note 161). Elsewhere too I have endeavoured to show that he mistook the authorship of a tract which was bound up with others, owing to the absence of a title (_Caius or Hippolytus?_ in the _Journal of Philology_ I. p. 98 sq.).

On this hypothesis, Claudius Apollinaris would very probably be the author of the first of these treatises. If so, it would appear to have been written while he was still a presbyter, at the instigation of his bishop Avircius Marcellus whom he succeeded not long after in the see of Hierapolis.

If on the other hand Eusebius has correctly assigned the first treatise to the same writer as the second and third, who must have written after the beginning of the third century, Avircius Marcellus to whom it is addressed cannot have held the see of Hierapolis during the reign of M. Aurelius (A.D. 161–180); and, if he was ever bishop of this city, must have been a successor, not a predecessor, of Claudius Apollinaris. In this case we have the alternative of abandoning the identification of this Avircius with the Hierapolitan bishop of the same name, or of rejecting the statement of the Acts which places his episcopate in this reign.

The occurrence of the name Abercius in the later history of the see of Hierapolis (see p. 55) is no argument against the existence of this earlier bishop. It was no uncommon practice for the later occupants of sees to assume the name of some famous predecessor who lived in primitive or early times. The case of Ignatius at Antioch is only one of several examples which might be produced.

There is some ground for supposing that, like Papias and Apollinaris, Abercius earned a place in literary history. Baronio had in his hands an epistle to M. Aurelius, purporting to have been written by this Abercius, which he obviously considered genuine and which he describes as ‘apostolicum redolens spiritum,’ promising to publish it in his Annals (_Martyr. Rom._ Oct. 22). To his great grief however he afterwards lost it (‘doluimus vehementer e manibus nostris elapsam nescio quomodo’), and was therefore unable to fulfil his promise (_Annal._ s. a. 163, n. 15). A βίβλος διδασκαλίας by Abercius is mentioned in the Acts (§ 39); but this, if it ever existed, was doubtless spurious.

[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 173:

Some of the family, as we may infer from the monuments, held a high position in another Phrygian town. On a tablet at Æzani, on which is inscribed a letter from the emperor Septimius Severus in reply to the congratulations of the people at the elevation of Caracalla to the rank of Augustus (A.D. 198), we find the name of ==κλαυδιοϲ . απολλιναριοϲ . αυρηλιανοϲ==, Boeckh 3837 (see III. p. 1066 add.). In another inscription at the same place, the same or another member of the family is commemorated as holding the office of prætor for the second time, ==ϲτρατηγουντοϲ . το . β . κλ . απολλιναριου==; Boeckh 3840, _ib._ p. 1067. See also the inscriptions 3842 c, 3846 z (_ib._ pp. 1069, 1078) at the same place, where again the name Apollinarius occurs. It is found also at Appia no. 3857 b (_ib._ p. 1086). At an earlier date one Claudius Apollinaris appears in command of the Roman fleet at Misenum (Tac. _Hist._ iii. 57, 76, 77). The name occurs also at Hierapolis itself, Boeckh, no. 3915. ==π . αιλιοϲ . π . αιλιου . απολλιναριου . ιουλιανο[υ] . υιοϲ . ϲε[...] . απολλιναριϲ . μακεδων .== κ.τ.λ., which shows that both the forms, _Apollinaris_ and _Apollinarius_, by which the bishop of Hierapolis is designated, are legitimate. The former however is the correct Latin form, the latter being the Greek adaptation.

More than a generation later than our Apollinaris, Origen in his letter to Africanus (_Op._ I. 30, Delarue) sends greeting to a bishop bearing this name (τὸν καλὸν ἡμῶν πάπαν Ἀπολινάριον), of whom nothing more is known.

Footnote 174:

Apollo Archegetes; see above p. 12, note 42.

Footnote 175:

Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, _Chron._ s. a. 171, 172, ‘Apollinaris Asianus, Hierapolitanus episcopus, insignis habetur.’

[Sidenote: 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.

Footnote 176:

Collected in Routh’s _Reliquiæ Sacræ_ I. p. 159 sq., and quite recently in Otto’s _Corp. Apol. Christ._ IX. p. 479 sq.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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.

Footnote 178:

See below, p. 63.

Footnote 179:

The main point at issue was whether the exact day of the month should be observed, as the Quartodecimans maintained, irrespective of the day of the week. The fragment of Apollinaris (preserved in the _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13) relates to a discrepancy which some had found in the accounts of St Matthew and St John.

Footnote 180:

Eusebius represents the dioceses of ‘Asia’ and the neighbourhood, as absolutely unanimous; _H.E._ v. 23 τῆς Ασίας ἁπάσης αἱ παροικίαι, v. 24 τῆς Ασίας πάσης ἅμα ταῖς ὁμόροις ἐκκλησίαις τὰς παροικίας. ‘Asia’ includes all this district, as appears from Polycrates, _ib._

Footnote 181:

See Polycrates of Ephesus in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 182:

In Euseb. _H.E._ v. 19.

Footnote 183:

Eusebius (_H.E._ iv. 27) at the close of his list of the works of Apollinarius gives καὶ _ἃ μετὰ ταῦτα_ συνέγραψε κατὰ τῆς [τῶν] Φρυγῶν αἱρέσεως μετ’ οὐ πολὺν καινοτομηθείσης χρόνον, τότε γε μὴν ὥσπερ ἐκφύειν ἀρχομένης, ἔτι τοῦ Μοντανοῦ ἅμα ταῖς αὐτοῦ ψευδοπροφήτισιν ἀρχὰς τῆς παρεκτροπῆς ποιουμένου, _i.e._ the vagaries of Montanus and his followers had already begun when Apollinaris wrote, but Montanism assumed a new phase shortly after.

Footnote 184:

Included in the _Libellus Synodicus_ published by Pappus; see Labb. _Conc._ I. 615, ed. Coleti. Though this council is not mentioned elsewhere, there is no sufficient ground for questioning its authenticity. The important part taken by Apollinaris against the Montanists is recognised by Eusebius _H.E._ v. 16, πρὸς τὴν λεγομένην κατὰ Φρύγας ἅιρεσιν ὅπλον ἰσχυρὸν καὶ ἀκαταγώνιστον ἐπὶ τῆς Ἱεραπόλεως τὸν Ἀπολινάριον.

After mentioning the council the compiler of this Synodicon speaks thus of the false prophets; οἳ καὶ βλασφήμως, ἤτοι δαιμονῶντες, καθώς φησιν ὁ αὐτὸς πατήρ [_i.e._ Ἀπολινάριος], τὸν βίον κατέστρεψαν, σὺν αὐτοῖς δὲ κατέκρινε καὶ Θεόδοτον τὸν σκυτέα. He evidently has before him the fragments of the anonymous treatises quoted by Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 16), as the following parallels taken from these fragments shew: ὡς ἐπὶ ἐνεργουμένῳ καὶ _δαιμονῶντι_ ... _βλασφημεῖν_ διδάσκοντος τοῦ ἀπηυθαδισμένου πνεύματος ... _τὸν βιὸν καταστρέψαι_ Ἰούδα προδότου δίκην ... οἶον ἐπίτροπόν τινα _Θεόδοτον_ πολὺς αἱρεῖ λόγος ... τετελευτήκασι Μοντανός τε καὶ _Θεόδοτος_ και ἡ προειρημένη γυνή. Thus he must have had before him a text of Eusebius which omitted the words δή τις at the commencement, as they are omitted in some existing MSS (see above, p. 56, note); and accordingly he ascribed all the treatises to Apollinaris. The parallels are taken from the first and second treatises; the first might have been written by Apollinaris, but the second was certainly not by his hand, as it refers to much later events (see above, p. 56).

Hefele (_Conciliengeschichte_ I. p. 71) places the date of this council before A.D. 150. But if the testimony of Eusebius is worth anything, this is impossible; for he states that the writings of Claudius Apollinaris against the Montanists were later than his Apology to M. Aurelius (see p. 59, note 183), and this Apology was not written till after A.D. 174 (see p. 61, note 187). The chronology of Montanism is very perplexing, but Hefele’s dates appear to be much too early. The _Chronicon_ of Eusebius gives the rise of Montanism under A.D. 172 or 173, and this statement is consistent with the notices in his History. But if this date be correct, it most probably refers to Montanism as a distinct system; and the fires had probably been smouldering within the Church for some time before they broke out.

It will be observed that the writer of the Synodicon identifies Theodotus the Montanist (see Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3) with Theodotus the leather-seller who was a Monarchian. There is no authority for this identification in Eusebius.

[Sidenote: 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.

Footnote 185:

Theodoret. _H.E._ i. 21.

Footnote 186:

Socr. _H.E._ iii. 7.

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. [Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 187:

Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26, 27. He referred in this Apology to the incident of the so-called Thundering Legion, which happened A.D. 174; and as reported by Eusebius (_H.E._ v. 5), he stated that the legion was thus named by the emperor in commemoration of this miraculous thunderstorm. As a contemporary however, he must probably have known that the title _Legio Fulminata_ existed long before; and we may conjecture that he used some ambiguous expression implying that it was fitly so named (_e.g._ ἐπώνυμον τῆς συντυχίας), which Eusebius and later writers misunderstood; just as Eusebius himself (v. 24) speaks of Irenæus as φερώνυμός τις ὢν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνοποίος. Of the words used by Eusebius, οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι προσηγορίαν, we may suspect that οἰκείαν τῷ γεγονότι προσηγορίαν is an expression borrowed from Apollinaris himself, while πρὸς τοῦ βασιλέως εἰληφέναι gives Eusebius’ own erroneous interpretation of his author’s meaning.

The name of this legion was _Fulminata_, not _Fulminatrix_, as it is often carelessly written out, where the inscriptions have merely FVLM.; see Becker and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ III. 2, p. 353.

Footnote 188:

The words καὶ πρὸς Ἰουδαίους πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον are omitted in some MSS and by Rufinus. They are found however in the very ancient Syriac version, and are doubtless genuine. Their omission is due to the homœoteleuton, as they are immediately preceded by καὶ περὶ ἀληθείας πρῶτον καὶ δεύτερον.

Footnote 189:

A list of his works is given by Eusebius (_H.E._ iv. 27), who explains that there were many others which he had not seen. This list omits the work on the Paschal Feast, which is quoted in the _Chronicon Paschale_ p. 13 (ed. Dind.), and the treatise _on Piety_, of which we know from Photius _Bibl._ 14.

Footnote 190:

Theodoret. _Hær. Fab._ iii. 2 ἀνὴρ ἀξιὲπαινος καὶ πρὸς τῇ γνώσει τῶν θείων καὶ τὴν ἔξωθεν παιδείαν προσειληφώς. So too Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I. p. 428, ed. Vallarsi), names him among those who were equally versed in sacred and profane literature.

Footnote 191:

Photius l.c., ἀξιόλογος δὲ ὁ ἀνὴρ καὶ φράσει ἀξιολόγῳ κεχρημένος.

Footnote 192:

Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 21, Jerome l.c., Theodoret. l.c., Socr. _H.E._ iii. 7.

[Sidenote: 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.[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 193:

Iren. in Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24 ἡ διαφωνία τῆς νηστείας (the fast which preceded the Paschal festival) τὴν ὁμόνοιαν τῆς πίστεως συνίστησι.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 194:

Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 ἐπὶ Σερουιλλίου Παύλου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς Ἀσίας, ᾧ Σάγαρις καιρῷ ἐμαρτύρησεν, ἐγένετο ζήτησις πολλὴ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ περὶ τοῦ πάσχα ἐμπεσόντος κατὰ καιρὸν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις, καὶ ἐγράφη ταῦτα (_i.e._ Melito’s own treatise on the Paschal festival).

Footnote 195:

Besides Melito (l.c.), Polycrates of Ephesus refers to him with respect; Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24, τὶ δὲ δεῖ λέγειν Σάγαριν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ μάρτυρα, ὅς ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ κεκοίμηται.

[Sidenote: 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.

[Sidenote: 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. [Sidenote: 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. [Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 196:

Labb. _Conc._ II. 57, 62, ed. Coleti; Cowper’s _Syriac Miscellanies_ p. 11, 28. It is remarkable that after Papias all the early bishops of Hierapolis of whom any notice is preserved, have Roman names; Avircius Marcellus (?), Claudius Apollinaris, Flaccus, Lucius, Venantius.

Footnote 197:

Labb. _Conc._ II. 57, 62; Cowper’s _Syriac Miscellanies_ pp. 11, 28, 34. He had also been present at the Synod of Ancyra held about A.D. 314 (see _Galatians_ p. 34); _ib._ p. 41.

Footnote 198:

Labb. _Conc._ II. 236.

Footnote 199:

_ib._ 744.

Footnote 200:

Athanas. _ad Episc. Ægypt._ 8 (_Op._ I. p. 219), _Hist. Arian. ad Mon._ 74 (_ib._ p. 307).

Footnote 201:

Labb. _Conc._ II. 744.

Footnote 202:

Cowper’s _Syriac Miscell._ p. 39.

Footnote 203:

Labb. _Conc._ III. 1085, 1222, Mans. _Conc._ IV. 1367. The name of this bishop of Hierapolis is variously written, but Venantius seems to be the true orthography. For some unexplained reason, though present in person he signs by deputy. He had before subscribed the protest to Cyril against commencing the proceedings before the arrival of John of Antioch (Mans. _Conc._ V. 767), and perhaps his acquiescence in the decisions of the Council was not very hearty.

Footnote 204:

Labb. _Conc._ IV. 892, 925, 928, 1107, 1170, 1171, 1185. In the Acts of this heretical council, as occasionally in those of the Council of Chalcedon, Laodicea is surnamed _Trimitaria_ (see above, p. 18, note 2). Following Le Quien (_Or. Christ._ I. p. 835), I have assumed the Stephanus who was present at the _Latrocinium_ to have been bishop of the _Phrygian_ Hierapolis, though I have not found any decisive indication which Hierapolis is meant. On the other hand the bishop of the _Syrian_ Hierapolis at this time certainly bore the name Stephanus (Labb. _Conc._ IV. 727, 1506, [1550], 1644, 1836, V. 46); and the synod held under Stephanus A.D. 445, which Wiltsch (_Geography and Statistics of the Church_ I. p. 170, Eng. Trans.) assigns to our Hierapolis, belongs to the Syrian city of the same name, as the connexion with Perrha shews: Labb. _Conc._ IV. 727, 1644.

Footnote 205:

Labb. _Conc._ IV. 853, 862, 1195, 1204, 1241, 1312, 1337, 1383, 1392, 1444, 1445, 1463, 1480, 1481, 1496, 1501, 1505, 1716, 1732, 1736, 1744, 1746, 1751.

Footnote 206:

The bishops of both sees are addressed by the Emperor Leo in his letter respecting the Council of Chalcedon: but their replies are not preserved. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea; but Hierapolis has again changed hands, and Philippus has succeeded Abercius (Labb. _Conc._ IV. 1836 sq.). Nunechius of Laodicea was one of those who signed the decree against simony at the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 459): _Conc._ V. 50.

[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 207:

See for instance the tergiversation of Theodorus of Laodicea and Ignatius of Hierapolis in the matter of Photius and the 8th General Council.

[Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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 [Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 208:

This council cannot have been held earlier than the year 344, as the 7th canon makes mention of the Photinians, and Photinus did not attract notice before that year: see Hefele, _Conciliengesch._ I. p. 722 sq. In the ancient lists of Councils it stands after that of Antioch (A.D. 341), and before that of Constantinople (A.D. 381). Dr Westcott (_History of the Canon_, p. 400) is inclined to place it about A.D. 363, and this is the time very generally adopted.

Here however a difficulty presents itself, which has not been noticed hitherto. In the Syriac MS _Brit. Mus._ Add. 14,528, are lists of the bishops present at the earlier councils, including Laodicea (see Wright’s _Catalogue of the Syriac MSS in the British Museum_, DCCCVI, p. 1030 sq.). These lists have been published by Cowper (_Syriac Miscell._ p. 42 sq., _Analecta Nicæna_ p. 36), who however has transposed the lists of Antioch and Laodicea, so that he ascribes to the Antiochian Synod the names which really belong to the Laodicean. This is determined (as I am informed by Prof. Wright) by the position of the lists.

The Laodicean list then, which seems to be imperfect, contains twenty names; and, when examined, it yields these results. (1) At least three-fourths of the names can be identified with bishops who sat at Nicæa, and probably the exceptions would be fewer, if in some cases they had not been obscured by transcription into Syriac and by the errors of copyists. (2) When identified, they are found to belong in almost every instance to Cœlesyria, Phœnicia, Palestine, Cilicia, and Isauria, whereas apparently not one comes from Phrygia, Lydia, or the other western districts of Asia Minor.

Supposing that this is a genuine Laodicean list, we are led by the first result to place it as near in time as possible to the Council of Nicæa; and by the second to question whether after all the Syrian Laodicea may not have been meant instead of the Phrygian. On the other hand tradition is unanimous in placing this synod in the Phrygian town, and in this very Syriac MS the heading of the canons begins ‘Of the Synod of Laodicea of Phrygia.’ On the whole it appears probable that this supposed list of bishops who met at Laodicea belongs to some other Council. The Laodicean Synod seems to have been, as Dr Westcott describes it (l.c.), ‘A small gathering of clergy from parts of Lydia and Phrygia.’

In a large mosaic in the Church at Bethlehem, in which all the more important Councils are represented, we find the following inscription; [Ἡ] ἁγία σύνοδος ἡ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ τῆς Φρυγίας των κὲ ἐπισκόπων γέγονεν διὰ Μοντανὸν κὲ [τ]ὰ[ς] λοιπὰς ἑρέσεις· τού[τους] ὡς αἱρετικοὺς καὶ ἐχθροὺς τῆς ἀλεθείας ἡ ἁγία σύνοδος ἀνεθεμάτισεν (Ciampini _de Sacr. Ædif. a Constant. constr._ p. 156; comp. Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 8953). From its position we might infer that the synod to which this inscription refers was supposed to have taken place before the Council of Nicæa; and if so, it may have been one of those Asiatic synods held against Montanism at the end of the second or beginning of the third century. But, inasmuch as no record of any such synod is preserved elsewhere, we must probably refer it to the well-known Council of Laodicea in the fourth century. In this case however the description is not very correct, for though Montanism is incidentally condemned in the eighth canon, yet this condemnation was not the main object of the council and occupies a very subordinate place. The Bethlehem mosaics were completed A.D. 1169: see Boeckh _C. I._ 8736.

Footnote 209:

The canons of this Council, 59 in number, will be found in Labb. _Conc._ I. 1530 sq., ed. Coleti. The last of these forbids the reading of any but ‘the Canonical books of the New and Old Testament.’ To this is often appended (sometimes as a 60th canon) a list of the Canonical books; but Dr Westcott has shown that this list is a later addition and does not belong to the original decrees of the council (_Canon_ p. 400 sq.).

Footnote 210:

By the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) in the East (Labb. _Conc._ VII. 1345), and by the Synod of Aix-la-Chapelle (A.D. 789) in the West (_Conc._ IX. 10 sq.).

[Sidenote: 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:

[Sidenote: 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.’

[Sidenote: 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.’

Footnote 211:

Theodoret about a century after the Laodicean Council, commenting on Col. ii. 18, states that this disease (τὸ πάθος) which St Paul denounces ‘long remained in Phrygia and Pisidia.’ ‘For this reason also,’ he adds, ‘a synod convened in Laodicea of Phrygia forbad by a decree the offering prayer to angels; and even to the present time oratories of the holy Michael may be seen among them and their neighbours.’ See also below p. 71, note 219. A curious inscription, found in the theatre at Miletus (Boeckh _C. I._ 2895), illustrates this tendency. It is an inscription in seven columns, each having a different planetary symbol, and a different permutation of the vowels with the same invocation ==αγιε . φυλατον . την . πολιν . μιληϲιων . και . πανταϲ . τουϲ . κατοικουνταϲ==, while at the common base is written ==αρχαγγελοι . φυλαϲϲεται . η . πολιϲ . μιληϲιων . και . παντεϲ . οι . κατ...== Boeckh writes, ‘Etsi hic titulus Gnosticorum et Basilidianorum commentis prorsus congruus est, tamen potuit ab ethnicis Milesiis scriptus esse; quare nolui eum inter Christianos rejicere, quum præsertim publicæ Milesiorum superstitionis documentum insigne sit.’ The idea of the seven hάγιοι, combined in the one αρχάγγελος, seems certainly to point to Jewish, if not Christian, influences: Rev. i. 4, iii. 1, iv. 5, v. 6.

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.’

Footnote 212:

Though there is no direct mention of ‘magic’ in the letter to the Colossians, yet it was a characteristic tendency of this part of Asia: Acts xix. 19, 2 Tim. iii. 8, 13. See the note on Gal. v. 20. The term μαθηματικοὶ is used in this decree in its ordinary sense of astrologers, soothsayers.

Footnote 213:

A Play on the double sense of φυλακτήριον (1) a safeguard or amulet, (2) a guard-house.

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.

[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 214:

A list of the bishoprics belonging to this province at the time of the Council of Chalcedon is given, Labb. _Conc._ IV. 1501, 1716.

Footnote 215:

_Conc._ IV. 1716, 1744.

Footnote 216:

At the 5th and 6th General Councils (A.D. 553 and A.D. 680) Hierapolis is styled a metropolis (Labb. _Conc._ VI. 220, VII. 1068, 1097, 1117); and in the latter case it is designated metropolis of _Phrygia Pacatiana_, though this same designation is still given to Laodicea. Synnada retains its position as metropolis of _Phrygia Salutaris_.

From this time forward Hierapolis seems always to hold metropolitan rank. But no notice is preserved of the circumstances under which the change was made. In the _Notitiæ_ it generally occurs twice—first as a suffragan see of Phrygia Salutaris, and secondly as metropolis of another Phrygia Pacatiana (distinct from that which has Laodicea for its metropolis): _Hieroclis Synecdemus et Notitiæ_ (ed. Parthey) Not. 1, pp. 56, 57, 69, 73; Not. 3, pp. 114, 124; Not. 7, pp. 152, 161; Not. 8, pp. 164, 176, 180; Not. 9, pp. 193, 197; Not. 10, pp. 212, 220. In this latter position it is placed quite out of the proper geographical order, thus showing that its metropolitan jurisdiction was created comparatively late. The number of dioceses in the province is generally given as 9; Nilus _ib._ p. 301. The name of the province is variously corrupted from Πακατιανῆς, e.g. Καππατιανῆς, Καππαδοκίας. Unless the ecclesiastical position of Hierapolis was altogether anomalous, as a province within a province, its double mention in the _Notitiæ_ must be explained by a confusion of its earlier and later status.

[Sidenote: 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. [Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 217:

See Mionnet IV. p. 269, Leake _Numism. Hellen._ p. 45.

Footnote 218:

Joannes Curopalata p. 686 (ed. Bonn.) φήμη ... τοὺς Τούρκους ἀπαγγέλλουσα τὴν ἐν Χώναις πολιτείαν καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν περιβόητον ἐν θαύμασι καὶ ἀναθήμασι τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου ναὸν καταλαβεῖν ἐν μαχαίρᾳ ... καὶ τὸ δὴ σχετλιώτερον, μηδὲ τὰς τοῦ χάσματος σήραγγας ἐν ᾧπερ οἱ παραρρέοντες ποταμοὶ ἐκεῖσε _χωνευόμενοι_ διὰ τῆς τοῦ ἀρχιστρατήγου παλαιᾶς ἐπιδημίας καὶ θεοσημίας ὡς διὰ πρανοῦς ἀστατοῦν τὸ ῥεῦμα καὶ λιὰν εὐδρομοῦν ἔχουσι, τοὺς καταπεφευγότας διατηρῆσαι, κ.τ.λ. The ‘worship of angels’ is curiously connected with the physical features of the country in the legend to which Curopalata refers. The people were in imminent danger from a sudden inundation of the Lycus, when the archangel Michael appeared and opened a chasm in the earth through which the waters flowed away harmlessly: Hartley’s _Researches in Greece_ p. 53. See another legend, or another version of the legend, in which the archangel interposes, in Laborde p. 103.

It was the birth-place of Nicetas Choniates, one of the most important of the Byzantine historians, who thus speaks of it (_de Manuel_ vi. 2, p. 230, ed. Bonn.); Φρυγίαν τε καὶ Λαοδίκειαν διελθὼν ἀφικνεῖται ἐς Χώνας, πόλιν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην, πάλαι τὰς Κολασσάς, τὲν ἐμοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως πατρίδα, καὶ τὸν ἀρχαγγελικὸν ναὸν εἰσιὼν μεγέθει μέγιστον καὶ κάλλει κάλλιστον ὄντα καὶ θαυμασίας χειρὸς ἅπαντα ἔργον κ.τ.λ., where a corrupt reading Παλασσὰς for Κολασσὰς has misled some. It will be remembered that the words πόλιν εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην are borrowed from Xenophon’s description of Colossæ (_Anab._ i. 2. 6): see above, p. 15, note 52.

He again alludes to his native place, _de Isaac._ ii. 2, pp. 52, 3 τοὺς Λαοδικεῖς δὲ Φρύγας μυριαχῶς ἐκάκωσεν, ὥσπερ καὶ τοὺς τῶν Χωνῶν τῶν ἐμῶν οἰκήτορας, and _Urbs Capta_ 16, p. 842, τὸ δὲ ἤν ἐμοῦ τοῦ συγγραφέως Νικήτα πατρὶς αἱ Χῶναι καὶ ἡ ἀγχιτέρμων ταύτῃ Φρυγικὴ Λαοδίκεια.

Footnote 219:

Thus Hamilton (I. p. 514) reports that an earthquake which occurred at Denizli about a hundred years ago caused the inhabitants to remove their residences to a different locality, where they have remained ever since. Earthquakes have been largely instrumental in changing the sites of cities situated within the range of their influence.

Footnote 220:

At the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451) Nunechius of Laodicea subscribes ‘for the absent bishops under him,’ among whom is mentioned Ἐπιφανίου πόλεως Κολασσῶν (Labb. _Conc._ IV. 1501, ed. Coleti; comp. _ib._ 1745). At the Quinisextine Council (A.D. 692) occurs the signature of Κοσμᾶς ἐπίσκοπος πόλεως Κολασσαῆς (_sic_) Πακατιανῆς (_Conc._ VII. 1408). At the 2nd Council of Nicæa (A.D. 787) the name of the see is in a transition state; the bishop Theodosius (or Dositheus) signs himself sometimes Χωνῶν ἤτοι Κολασσῶν, sometimes Χωνῶν simply (_Conc._ VIII. 689, 796, 988, 1200, 1222, 1357, 1378, 1432, 1523, 1533, in many of which passages the word Χωνῶν is grossly corrupted). At later Councils the see is called Χῶναι; and this is the name which it bears in the _Notitiæ_ (pp. 97, 127, 199, 222, 303, ed. Parthey).

[Sidenote: 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].

Footnote 221:

For the remains of Christian churches at Laodicea see Fellows _Asia Minor_ p. 282, Pococke p. 74. A description of the three fine churches at Hierapolis is given in Fergusson’s _Illustrated Handbook of Architecture_ II. p. 967 sq.; comp. Texier _Asie Mineure_ I. p. 143.