St. Paul's Epistles to the Colossians and Philemon A...

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. |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.’

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].

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. |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.

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 |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]. |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].

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].

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 |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.

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.

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].

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.

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. |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.

(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.

(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 |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].

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.

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.

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

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].

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.

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

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

2. 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].

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.