Chapter V: Preface (4)

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.

II.
THE COLOSSIAN HERESY.

[Sidenote: Two elements in the Colossian heresy.]

From the language of St Paul, addressed to the Church of Colossæ, we may infer the presence of two disturbing elements which threatened the purity of Christian faith and practice in this community. These elements are distinguishable in themselves, though it does not follow that they present the teaching of two distinct parties.

[Sidenote: 1. JUDAIC.]

1. A mere glance at the epistle suffices to detect the presence of JUDAISM in the teaching which the Apostle combats. The observance of sabbaths and new moons is decisive in this respect. The distinction of meats and drinks points in the same direction[222]. Even the enforcement of the initiatory rite of Judaism may be inferred from the contrast implied in St Paul’s recommendation of the spiritual circumcision[223].

[Sidenote: 2. GNOSTIC.]

2. On the other hand a closer examination of its language shows that these Judaic features do not exhaust the portraiture of the heresy or heresies against which the epistle is directed. We discern an element of theosophic speculation, which is alien to the spirit of Judaism proper. We are confronted with a shadowy mysticism, which loses itself in the contemplation of the unseen world. We discover a tendency to interpose certain spiritual agencies, intermediate beings, between God and man, as the instruments of communication and the objects of worship[224]. Anticipating the result which will appear more clearly hereafter, we may say that along with its Judaism there was a GNOSTIC element in the false teaching which prevailed at Colossæ.

Footnote 222:

Col. ii. 16, 17, 21 sq.

Footnote 223:

ii. 11.

Footnote 224:

ii. 4, 8, 18, 23.

[Sidenote: Are these combined or separate?]

Have we then two heresies here, or one only? Were these elements distinct, or were they fused into the same system? In other words, Is St Paul controverting a phase of Judaism on the one hand, and a phase of Gnosticism on the other; or did he find himself in conflict with a Judæo-Gnostic heresy which combined the two[225]?

Footnote 225:

The Colossian heresy has been made the subject of special
dissertations by SCHNECKENBURGER _Beiträge zur Einleitung ins N. T._
(Stuttgart 1832), and _Ueber das Alter der jüdischen Proselyten-Taufe,
nebst einer Beilage über die Irrlehrer zu Colossä_ (Berlin 1828); by
OSIANDER _Ueber die Colossischen Irrlehrer_ (_Tübinger Zeitschrift_
for 1834, III. p. 96 sq.); and by RHEINWALD _De Pseudodoctoribus
Colossensibus_ (Bonn 1834). But more valuable contributions to the
subject will often be found in introductions to the commentaries on
the epistle. Those of BLEEK, DAVIES, MEYER, OLSHAUSEN, STEIGER, and DE
WETTE may be mentioned. Among other works which may be consulted are
BAUR _Der Apostel Paulus_ p. 417 sq.; BOEHMER _Isagoge in Epistolam ad
Colossenses_, Berlin 1829, p. 56 sq., p. 277 sq.; BURTON _Inquiry into
the Heresies of the Apostolic Age_, Lectures IV, V; EWALD _Die
Sendschreiben des Apostels Paulus_ p. 462 sq.; HILGENFELD _Der
Gnosticismus u. das Neue Testament_ in the _Zeitschr. f. Wissensch.
Theol._ XIII. p. 233 sq.; R. A. LIPSIUS in _Schenkels Bibel-Lexikon_,
s.v. Gnosis; MAYERHOFF _Der Brief an die Colosser_ p. 107 sq.; NEANDER
_Planting of the Christian Church_ I. p. 319 sq. (Eng. Trans.); DE
PRESSENSÉ _Trois Premiers Siècles_ II. p. 194 sq.; STORR _Opuscula_
II. p. 149 sq.; THIERSCH _Die Kirche im Apostolischen Zeitalter_ p.
146 sq. Of all the accounts of these Colossian false teachers, I have
found none more satisfactory than that of Neander, whose opinions are
followed in the main by the most sober of later writers.

In the investigation which follows I have assumed that the Colossian
false teachers were Christians in some sense. The views maintained by
some earlier critics, who regarded them as (1) Jews, or (2) Greek
philosophers, or (3) Chaldean magi, have found no favour and do not
need serious consideration. See Meyer’s introduction for an
enumeration of such views. A refutation of them will be found in
Bleek’s _Vorlesungen_ p. 12 sq.

[Sidenote: General reasons for supposing one heresy only, in which they
are fused.]

On closer examination we find ourselves compelled to adopt the latter alternative. The epistle itself contains no hint that the Apostle has more than one set of antagonists in view; and the needless multiplication of persons or events is always to be deprecated in historical criticism. Nor indeed does the hypothesis of a single complex heresy present any real difficulty. If the two elements seem irreconcileable, or at least incongruous, at first sight, the incongruity disappears on further examination. It will be shown in the course of this investigation, that some special tendencies of religious thought among the Jews themselves before and about this time prepared the way for such a combination in a Christian community like the Church of Colossæ[226]. Moreover we shall find that the Christian heresies of the next succeeding ages exhibit in a more developed form the same complex type, which here appears in its nascent state[227]; this later development not only showing that the combination was historically possible in itself, but likewise presupposing some earlier stage of its existence such as confronts us at Colossæ.

Footnote 226:

See below, p. 83 sq.

Footnote 227:

See below, p. 107 sq.

[Sidenote: S. Paul’s language is decisive on this point.]

But in fact the Apostle’s language hardly leaves the question open. The two elements are so closely interwoven in his refutation, that it is impossible to separate them. He passes backwards and forwards from the one to the other in such a way as to show that they are only parts of one complex whole. On this point the logical connexion of the sentences is decisive: ‘Beware lest any man make spoil of you through philosophy and vain deceit after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world.... Ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands.... And you ... did He quicken, ... blotting out the handwriting of ordinances which was against you.... Let no man therefore judge you in meat or drink, or in respect of a holy day or a new moon or a sabbath.... Let no man beguile you of your prize in a self-imposed humility and service of angels.... If ye died with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why ... are ye subject to ordinances ... which things have a show of wisdom in self-imposed service and humility and hard treatment of the body, but are of no value against indulgence of the flesh[228].’ Here the superior wisdom, the speculative element which is characteristic of Gnosticism, and the ritual observance, the practical element which was supplied by Judaism, are regarded not only as springing from the same stem, but also as intertwined in their growth. And the more carefully we examine the sequence of the Apostle’s thoughts, the more intimate will the connexion appear.

Footnote 228:

Col. ii. 8–23. Hilgenfeld (_Der Gnosticismus_ etc. p. 250 sq.)
contends strenuously for the separation of the two elements. He argues
that ‘these two tendencies are related to one another as fire and
water, and nothing stands in the way of allowing the author after the
first side-glance at the Gnostics to pass over with ver. 11 to the
Judaizers, with whom Col. ii. 16 sq. is exclusively concerned.’ He
supposes therefore that ii. 8–10 refers to ‘pure Gnostics,’ and ii.
16–23 to ‘pure Judaizers.’ To this it is sufficient to answer (1)
That, if the two elements be so antagonistic, they managed
nevertheless to reconcile their differences; for we find them united
in several Judæo-Gnostic heresies in the first half of the second
century, ξυνώμοσαν γάρ, ὄντες ἔχθιστοι τὸ πρίν, πῦρ καὶ θάλασσα, καὶ
τὰ πίστ’ ἐδειξάτην; (2) That the two passages are directly connected
together by τὰ στοιχεῖα τοῦ κόσμου, which occurs in both vv. 8, 20;
(3) That it is not a simple transition once for all from the Gnostic
to the Judaic element, but the epistle passes to and fro several times
from the one to the other; while no hint is given that two separate
heresies are attacked, but on the contrary the sentences are connected
in a logical sequence (e.g. ver. 9 ὅτι, 10 ὃς, 11 ἐν ᾧ, 12 ἐν ᾧ, 13
καὶ, 16 οὖν). I hope to make this point clear in my notes on the
passage.

The hypothesis of more than one heresy is maintained also by Heinrichs
(Koppe N. T. VII. Part 2, 1803). At an earlier date it seems to be
favoured by Grotius (notes on ii. 16, 21); but his language is not
very explicit. And earlier still Calvin in his argument to the epistle
writes, ‘Putant aliqui duo fuisse hominum genera, qui abducere
tentarent Colossenses ab evangelii puritate,’ but rejects this view as
uncalled for.

The same question is raised with regard to the heretical teachers of
the Pastoral Epistles, and should probably be answered in the same
way.

[Sidenote: Gnosticism must be defined and described.]

Having described the speculative element in this complex heresy provisionally as Gnostic, I purpose enquiring in the first place, how far Judaism prior to and independently of Christianity had allied itself with Gnostic modes of thought; and afterwards, whether the description of the Colossian heresy is such as to justify us in thus classing it as a species of Gnosticism. But, as a preliminary to these enquiries, some definition of the word, or at least some conception of the leading ideas which it involves, will be necessary. With its complex varieties and elaborate developments we have no concern here: for, if Gnosticism can be found at all in the records of the Apostolic age, it will obviously appear in a simple and elementary form. Divested of its accessories and presented in its barest outline, it is not difficult of delineation[229].

Footnote 229:

The chief authorities for the history of Gnosticism are NEANDER
_Church History_ II. p. 1 sq.; BAUR _Die Christliche Gnosis_
(Tübingen, 1835); MATTER _Histoire Critique du Gnosticisme_ (2nd ed.,
Strasbourg and Paris, 1843); R. A. LIPSIUS _Gnosticismus_ in Ersch u.
Gruber _s.v._ (Leipzig, 1860); and for Gnostic art, KING _Gnostics and
their Remains_ (London 1864).

[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness of Gnosticism.]

1. As the name attests[230], Gnosticism implies the possession of a superior wisdom, which is hidden from others. It makes a distinction between the select few who have this higher gift, and the vulgar many who are without it. Faith, blind faith, suffices the latter, while knowledge is the exclusive possession of the former. Thus it recognises a separation of intellectual _caste_ in religion, introducing the distinction of an esoteric and an exoteric doctrine, and interposing an initiation of some kind or other between the two classes. In short it is animated by the exclusive _aristocratic_ spirit[231], which distinguishes the ancient religions, and from which it was a main function of Christianity to deliver mankind.

Footnote 230:

See esp. Iren. i. 6. 1 sq., Clem. Alex. Strom. ii. p. 433 sq.
(Potter). On the words τέλειοι, πνευματικοί, by which they designated
the possessors of this higher _gnosis_, see the notes on Col. i. 28,
and Phil. iii. 15.

Footnote 231:

See Neander l.c. p. 1 sq., from whom the epithet is borrowed.

[Sidenote: Speculative tenets of Gnosticism.]

2. This was its spirit; and the intellectual questions, on which its energies were concentrated and to which it professed to hold the key, were mainly twofold. How can the work of creation be explained? and, How are we to account for the existence of evil[232]? To reconcile the creation of the world and [Sidenote: Creation of the world, and existence of evil.] the existence of evil with the conception of God as the absolute Being, was the problem which all the Gnostic systems set themselves to solve. It will be seen that the two questions cannot be treated independently but have a very close and intimate connexion with each other.

Footnote 232:

The fathers speak of this as the main question about which the
Gnostics busy themselves; _Unde malum?_ πόθεν ἡ κακία; Tertull. _de
Præscr._ 7, _adv. Marc._ I. 2, Eus. _H.E._ v. 27; passages quoted by
Baur _Christliche Gnosis_ p. 19. On the leading conceptions of
Gnosticism see especially Neander, l.c. p. 9 sq.

[Sidenote: Existence of evil, how to be explained?]

The Gnostic argument ran as follows: Did God create the world out of nothing, evolve it from Himself? Then, God being perfectly good and creation having resulted from His sole act without any opposing or modifying influence, evil would have been impossible; for otherwise we are driven to the conclusion that God created evil.

[Sidenote: Matter the abode of evil.]

This solution being rejected as impossible, the Gnostic was obliged to postulate some antagonistic principle independent of God, by which His creative energy was thwarted and limited. This opposing principle, the kingdom of evil, he conceived to be the world of matter. The precise idea of its mode of operation varies in different Gnostic systems. It is sometimes regarded as a dead passive resistance, sometimes as a turbulent active power. But, though the exact point of view may shift, the object contemplated is always the same. In some way or other evil is regarded as residing in the material, sensible world. Thus Gnostic speculation on the existence of evil ends in a dualism.

[Sidenote: Creation, how to be explained?]

This point being conceded, the ulterior question arises: How then is creation possible? How can the Infinite communicate with the Finite, the Good with the Evil? How can God act upon matter? God is perfect, absolute, incomprehensible.

This, the Gnostic went on to argue, could only have been possible by some self-limitation on the part of God. God must express Himself in some way. There must be some evolution, some effluence, of Deity. [Sidenote: Doctrine of emanations.] Thus the Divine Being germinates, as it were; and the first germination again evolves a second from itself in like manner. In this way we obtain a series of successive emanations, which may be more or fewer, as the requirements of any particular system demand. In each successive evolution the Divine element is feebler. They sink gradually lower and lower in the scale, as they are farther removed from their source; until at length contact with matter is possible, and creation ensues. These are the emanations, æons, spirits, or angels, of Gnosticism, conceived as more or less concrete and personal according to the different aspects in which they are regarded in different systems.

[Sidenote: 3. Practical errors of Gnosticism.]