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.]

3. Such is the bare outline (and nothing more is needed for my immediate

purpose) of the speculative views of Gnosticism. But it is obvious that

these views must have exerted a powerful influence on the ethical

systems of their advocates, and thus they would involve important

practical consequences. If matter is the principle of evil, it is of

infinite moment for a man to know how he can avoid its baneful influence

and thus keep his higher nature unclogged and unsullied.

[Sidenote: Two opposite ethical rules.]

To this practical question two directly opposite answers were

given[233]:

Footnote 233:

On this point see Clem. _Strom._ iii. 5 (p. 529) εἰς δύο διελόντες

πράγματα ἁπάσας τὰς αἱρέσεις ἀποκρινώμεθα αὐτοῖς· ἢ γάρ τοι ἀδιαφόρως

ζῆν διδάσκουσιν, ἢ τὸ ὑπέρτονον ἄγουσαι ἐγκράτειαν διὰ δυσσεβείας καὶ

φιλαπεχθημοσύνης καταγγέλλουσι, with the whole passage which follows.

As examples of the one extreme may be instanced the Carpocratians and

Cainites: of the other the Encratites.

[Sidenote: (i) Rigid asceticism.]

(i) On the one hand, it was contended that the desired end might best be

attained by a rigorous abstinence. Thus communication with matter, if it

could not be entirely avoided, might be reduced to a minimum. Its

grosser defilements at all events would be escaped. The material part of

man would be subdued and mortified, if it could not be annihilated; and

the spirit, thus set free, would be sublimated, and rise to its proper

level. Thus the ethics of Gnosticism pointed in the first instance to a

strict _asceticism_.

[Sidenote: (ii) Unrestrained license.]

(ii) But obviously the results thus attained are very slight and

inadequate. Matter is about us everywhere. We do but touch the skirts of

the evil, when we endeavour to fence ourselves about by prohibitive

ordinances, as for instance, when we enjoin a spare diet or forbid

marriage. Some more comprehensive rule is wanted, which shall apply to

every contingency and every moment of our lives. Arguing in this way,

other Gnostic teachers arrived at an ethical rule directly opposed to

the former. ‘Cultivate an entire indifference,’ they said, ‘to the world

of sense. Do not give it a thought one way or the other, but follow your

own impulses. The ascetic principle assigns a certain importance to

matter. The ascetic fails in consequence to assert his own independence.

The true rule of life is to treat matter as something alien to you,

towards which you have no duties or obligations and which you can use or

leave unused as you like[234].’ In this way the reaction from rigid

asceticism led to the opposite extreme of unrestrained _licentiousness_,

both alike springing from the same false conception of matter as the

principle of evil.

Footnote 234:

See for instance the description of the Carpocratians in Iren. i. 25.

3 sq., ii. 32. 1 sq., Hippol. _Hær._ vii. 32, Epiphan. _Hær._ xxvii. 2

sq.; from which passages it appears that they justified their moral

profligacy on the principle that the highest perfection consists in

the most complete contempt of mundane things.

[Sidenote: Original independence of Gnosticism and its subsequent

connexion with Christianity.]

Gnosticism, as defined by these characteristic features, has obviously

no necessary connexion with Christianity[235]. Christianity would

naturally arouse it to unwonted activity, by leading men to dwell more

earnestly on the nature and power of evil, and thus stimulating more

systematic thought on the theological questions which had already

arrested attention. After no long time Gnosticism would absorb into its

system more or fewer Christian elements, or Christianity in some of its

forms would receive a tinge from Gnosticism. But the thing itself had an

independent root, and seems to have been prior in time. The

probabilities of the case, and the scanty traditions of history, alike

point to this independence of the two[236]. If so, it is a matter of

little moment at what precise time the name ‘Gnostic’ was adopted,

whether before or after contact with Christianity; for we are concerned

only with the growth and direction of thought which the name

represents[237].

Footnote 235:

It will be seen from the description in the text, that Gnosticism (as

I have defined it) presupposes only a belief in one God, the absolute

Being, as against the vulgar polytheism. All its _essential_ features,

as a speculative system, may be explained from this simple element of

belief, without any intervention of specially Christian or even Jewish

doctrine. Christianity added two new elements to it; (1) the idea of

_Redemption_, (2) the person of _Christ_. To explain the former, and

to find a place for the latter, henceforth become prominent questions

which press for solution; and Gnosticism in its several developments

undergoes various modifications in the endeavour to solve them.

Redemption must be set in some relation to the fundamental Gnostic

conception of the antagonism between God and matter; and Christ must

have some place found for Him in the fundamental Gnostic doctrine of

emanations.

If it be urged that there is no authority for the name ‘Gnostic’ as

applied to these pre-Christian theosophists, I am not concerned to

prove the contrary, as my main position is not affected thereby. The

term ‘Gnostic’ is here used, only because no other is so convenient,

or so appropriate. See note 239, p. 81.

Footnote 236:

This question will require closer investigation when I come to discuss

the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians. Meanwhile I content

myself with referring to Baur _Christliche Gnosis_ p. 29 sq. and

Lipsius _Gnosticismus_ p. 230 sq. Both these writers concede, and

indeed insist upon, the non-Christian basis of Gnosticism, at least so

far as I have maintained it in the text. Thus for instance Baur says

(p. 52), ‘Though Christian gnosis is the completion of gnosis, yet the

Christian element in gnosis is not so essential as that gnosis cannot

still be gnosis even without this element. But just as we can abstract

it from the Christian element, so can we also go still further and

regard even the Jewish as not strictly an essential element of

gnosis.’ In another work (_Die drei ersten Jahrhunderte_, p. 167, 1st

ed.) he expresses himself still more strongly to the same effect, but

the expressions are modified in the second edition.

Footnote 237:

We may perhaps gather from the notices which are preserved that,

though the substantive γνῶσις was used with more or less precision

even before contact with Christianity to designate the superior

illumination of these opinions, the adjective γνωστικοί was not

distinctly applied to those who maintained them till somewhat later.

Still it is possible that pre-Christian Gnostics already so designated

themselves. Hippolytus speaks of the Naassenes or Ophites as giving

themselves this name; _Hær._ v. 6 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐπεκάλεσαν ἑαυτοὺς

γνωστικοὺς, φάσκοντες μόνοι τὰ βάθη γινώσκειν; comp. §§ 8, 11. His

language seems to imply (though it is not explicit) that they were the

first to adopt the name. The Ophites were plainly among the earliest

Gnostic sects, as the heathen element is still predominant in their

teaching, and their Christianity seems to have been a later graft on

their pagan theosophy; but at what stage in their development they

adopted the name γνωστικοί does not appear. Irenæus (_Hær._ i. 25. 6)

speaks of the name as affected especially by the Carpocratians. For

the use of the substantive γνῶσις see 1 Cor. viii. 1, xiii. 2, 8, 1

Tim. vi. 20, and the note on Col. ii. 3: comp. Rev. ii. 24 ὄιτινες οὐκ

ἔγνωσαν τὰ βαθέα τοῦ Σατανᾶ, ὡς λέγουσιν (as explained by the passage

already quoted from Hippol. _Hær._ v. 6; see _Galatians_, p. 298, note

3).

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Its alliance with Judaism before Christianity.]

If then Gnosticism was not an offspring of Christianity, but a direction

of religious speculation which existed independently, we are at liberty

to entertain the question whether it did not form an alliance with

Judaism, contemporaneously with or prior to its alliance with

Christianity. There is at least no obstacle which bars such an

investigation at the outset. If this should prove to be the case, then

we have a combination which prepares the way for the otherwise strange

phenomena presented in the Epistle to the Colossians.

[Sidenote: The three sects of the Jews.]

Those, who have sought analogies to the three Jewish sects among the

philosophical schools of Greece and Rome, have compared the Sadducees to

the Epicureans, the Pharisees to the Stoics, and the Essenes to the

Pythagoreans. Like all historical parallels, this comparison is open to

misapprehension: but, carefully guarded, the illustration is pertinent

and instructive.

[Sidenote: Sadduceeism, purely negative.]

With the Sadducees we have no concern here. Whatever respect may be due

to their attitude in the earlier stages of their history, at the

Christian era at least they have ceased to deserve our sympathy; for

their position has become mainly _negative_. They take their stand on

denials—the denial of the existence of angels, the denial of the

resurrection of the dead, the denial of a progressive development in the

Jewish Church. In these negative tendencies, in the materialistic

teaching of the sect, and in the moral consequences to which it led, a

very rough resemblance to the Epicureans will appear[238].

Footnote 238:

The name _Epicureans_ seems to be applied to them even in the Talmud;

see Eisenmenger’s _Entdecktes Judenthum_ i. pp. 95, 694 sq.; comp.

Keim _Geschichte Jesu von Nazara_ i. p. 281.

[Sidenote: Phariseeism and Essenism compared.]

The two _positive_ sects were the Pharisees and the Essenes. Both alike

were strict observers of the ritual law; but, while the Pharisee was

essentially _practical_, the tendency of the Essene was to _mysticism_;

while the Pharisee was a man of the world, the Essene was a member of a

brotherhood. In this respect the Stoic and the Pythagorean were the

nearest counterparts which the history of Greek philosophy and social

life could offer. These analogies indeed are suggested by Josephus

himself[239].

Footnote 239:

For the Pharisees see Vit. 2 παραπλήσιός ἐστι τῇ παρ’ Ἕλλησι Στωϊκῇ

λεγομένῃ: for the Essenes, _Ant._ xv. 10. 4 διαίτῃ χρώμενον τῇ παρ’

Ἕλλησιν ὑπὸ Πυθαγόρου καταδεδειγμένῃ.

[Sidenote: Elusive features of Essenism.]

While the portrait of the Pharisee is distinctly traced and easily

recognised, this is not the case with the Essene. The Essene is the

great enigma of Hebrew history. Admired alike by Jew, by Heathen, and by

Christian, he yet remains a dim vague outline, on which the highest

subtlety of successive critics has been employed to supply a substantial

form and an adequate colouring. An ascetic mystical dreamy recluse, he

seems too far removed from the hard experience of life to be capable of

realisation.

[Sidenote: A sufficiently distinct portrait of the sect attainable.]

And yet by careful use of the existing materials the portrait of this

sect may be so far restored, as to establish with a reasonable amount of

probability the point with which alone we are here concerned. It will

appear from the delineations of ancient writers, more especially of

Philo and Josephus, that the characteristic feature of Essenism was a

particular direction of mystic speculation, involving a rigid asceticism

as its practical consequence. Following the definition of Gnosticism

which has been already given, we may not unfitly call this tendency

_Gnostic_.

[Sidenote: Main features of Essenism.]

Having anticipated the results in this statement, I shall now endeavour

to develope the main features of Essenism; and, while doing so, I will

ask my readers to bear in mind the portrait of the Colossian heresy in

St Paul, and to mark the resemblances, as the enquiry proceeds[240].

Footnote 240:

The really important contemporary sources of information respecting

the Essenes are JOSEPHUS, _Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2–13, _Ant._ xiii. 5. 9,

xviii. 1. 5, _Vit._ 2 (with notices of individual Essenes _Bell. Jud._

i. 3. 5, ii. 7. 3, ii. 20. 4, iii. 2. 1, _Ant._ xiii. 11. 2, xv. 10.

4, 5); and PHILO, _Quod omnis probus liber_ § 12 sq. (II. p. 457 sq.),

_Apol. pro Jud._ (II. p. 632 sq., a fragment quoted by Eusebius _Præp.

Evang._ viii. 11 ). The account of the Therapeutes by the latter

writer, _de Vita Contemplativa_ (II. p. 471 sq.), must also be

consulted, as describing a closely allied sect. To these should be

added the short notice of PLINY, _N.H._ v. 15. 17, as expressing the

views of a Roman writer. His account, we may conjecture, was taken

from Alexander Polyhistor, a contemporary of Sulla, whom he mentions

in his prefatory elenchus as one of his authorities for this 5th book,

and who wrote a work _On the Jews_ (Clem. Alex. _Strom._ i. 21, p.

396, Euseb. _Præp. Ev._ ix. 17). Significant mention of the Essenes is

found also in the Christian HEGESIPPUS (Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 22) and in

the heathen DION CHRYSOSTOM (Synesius _Dion_ 3, p. 39). EPIPHANIUS

(_Hær._ pp. 28 sq., 40 sq.) discusses two separate sects, which he

calls _Essenes_ and _Ossæans_ respectively. These are doubtless

different names of the same persons. His account is, as usual,

confused and inaccurate, but has a certain value. All other

authorities are secondary. HIPPOLYTUS, _Hær._ ix. 18–28, follows

Josephus (_Bell. Jud._ ii. 8. 2 sq.) almost exclusively. PORPHYRY also

(_de Abstinentia_, iv. II sq.) copies this same passage of Josephus,

with a few unimportant exceptions probably taken from a lost work by

the same author, πρὸς τοὺς Ἑλληνας, which he mentions by name.

EUSEBIUS (_Præp. Evang._ viii. II sq., ix. 3) contents himself with

quoting Philo and Porphyry. SOLINUS (_Polyh._ xxxv. 9 sq.) merely

abstracts Pliny. TALMUDICAL and RABBINICAL passages, supposed to

contain references to the Essenes, are collected by Frankel in the

articles mentioned in a later paragraph; but the allusions are most

uncertain (see the appendix to this chapter). The authorities for the

history of the Essenes are the subject of an article by W. Clemens in

the _Zeitschr. f. Wiss. Theol._ 1869, p. 328 sq.

The attack on the genuineness of Philo’s treatise _De Vita

Contemplativa_ made by Grätz (III. p. 463 sq.) has been met by Zeller

(_Philosophie_, III. ii. p. 255 sq.), whose refutation is complete.

The attack of the same writer (III. p. 464) on the genuineness of the

treatise _Quod omnis probus liber_> Zeller considers too frivolous to

need refuting (_ib._ p. 235). A refutation will be found in the

above-mentioned article of W. Clemens (p. 340 sq.).

Of modern writings relating to the Essenes the following may be

especially mentioned; BELLERMANN _Ueber Essäer u. Therapeuten_, Berlin

1821; GFRÖRER _Philo_ II. p. 299 sq.; DÄHNE _Ersch u. Gruber’s

Encyklopädie_ s.v.; FRANKEL _Zeitschrift für die religiösen Interessen

des Judenthums_ 1846 p. 441 sq., _Monatschrift für Geschichte u.

Wissenschaft des Judenthums_ 1853 p. 30 sq., 61 sq.; BÖTTGER_Ueber den

Orden der Essäer_, Dresden 1849; EWALD _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_

IV. p. 420 sq., VII. p. 153 sq.; RITSCHL _Entstehung der

Altkatholischen Kirche_ p. 179 sq. (ed. 2, 1857), and _Theologische

Jahrbücher_ 1855, p. 315 sq.; JOST _Geschichte des Judenthums_ I. p.

207 sq.; GRAETZ _Geschichte der Juden_ III. p. 79 sq., 463 sq. (ed. 2,

1863); HILGENFELD _Jüdische Apocalyptik_ p. 245 sq., and _Zeitschr. f.

Wiss. Theol._ X. p. 97 sq., XI. p. 343 sq., XIV. p. 30 sq.; WESTCOTT

_Smith’s Dictionary of the Bible_ s.v.; GINSBURG _The Essenes_, London

1864, and in _Kitto’s Cyclopædia_ s.v.; DERENBOURG _L’Histoire et la

Géographie de la Palestine_ p. 166 sq., 460 sq.; KEIM _Geschichte Jesu

von Nazara_ I. p. 282 sq.; HAUSRATH _Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte_

I. p. 133 sq.; LIPSIUS _Schenkel’s Bibel Lexikon_ s.v.; HERZFELD

_Geschichte des Volkes Israel_ II. 368 sq., 388 sq., 509 sq. (ed. 2,

1863); ZELLER _Philosophie der Griechen_ III. 2. p. 234 sq. (ed. 2,

1868); LANGEN _Judenthum in Palästina_ p. 190 sq.; LÖWY

_Kritisch-talmudisches Lexicon_ s.v. (Wien 1863); WEISS _Zur

Geschichte der jüdischen Tradition_ p. 120 sq. (Wien).

The Judaic element is especially prominent in the life and teaching of

the sect. The Essene was exceptionally rigorous in his observance of the

Mosaic ritual. In his strict abstinence [Sidenote: Observance of the

Mosaic law.] from work on the sabbath he far surpassed all the other

Jews. He would not light a fire, would not move a vessel, would not

perform even the most ordinary functions of life[241]. The whole day was

given up to religious exercises and to exposition of the

Scriptures[242]. His respect for the law extended also to the law-giver.

After God, the name of Moses was held in the highest reverence. He who

blasphemed his name was punished with death[243]. In all these points

the Essene was an exaggeration, almost a caricature, of the Pharisee.

Footnote 241:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 9 φυλάσσονται ... ταῖς ἑβδόμασιν ἔργων ἐφάπτεσθαι

διαφορώτατα Ἰουδαίων ἁπάντων· οὐ μόνον γὰρ τροφὰς ἑαυτοῖς πρὸ ἡμέρας

μιᾶς παρασκευάζουσιν, ὡς μηδὲ πῦρ ἐναύοιεν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ

σκεῦός τι μετακινῆσαι θαρῥοῦσιν κ.τ.λ. Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 25) adds

that some of them do not so much as leave their beds on this day.

Footnote 242:

Philo _Quod omn. prob. lib._ § 12. Of the Therapeutes see Philo _Vit.

Cont._ § 3, 4.

Footnote 243:

_B.J._ l.c. § 9 σέβας δὲ μέγιστον παρ’ αὐτοῖς μετὰ τὸν Θεὸν τὸ ὄνομα

τοῦ νομοθέτου, κἂν βλασφημήσῃ τις εἰς τοῦτον (i.e. τὸν νομοθέτην),

κολάζεσθαι θανάτῳ: comp. § 10.

[Sidenote: External elements superadded.]

So far the Essene has not departed from the principles of normal

Judaism; but here the divergence begins. In three main points we trace

the working of influences, which must have been derived from external

sources.

[Sidenote: 1. Rigid asceticism, in respect to]

1. To the legalism of the Pharisee, the Essene added an asceticism,

which was peculiarly his own, and which in many respects contradicted

the tenets of the other sect. The honourable, and even exaggerated,

estimate of marriage, which was characteristic of the Jew, and of the

Pharisee as the typical Jew, found no favour with the Essene[244].

[Sidenote: marriage,]Marriage was to him an abomination. Those Essenes

who lived together as members of an order, and in whom the principles of

the sect were carried to their logical consequences, eschewed it

altogether. To secure the continuance of their brotherhood they adopted

children, whom they brought up in the doctrines and practices of the

community. There were others however who took a different view. They

accepted marriage, as necessary for the preservation of the race. Yet

even with them it seems to have been regarded only as an inevitable

evil. They fenced it off by stringent rules, demanding a three years’

probation and enjoining various purificatory rites[245]. The conception

of marriage, as quickening and educating the affections and thus

exalting and refining human life, was wholly foreign to their minds.

Woman was a mere instrument of temptation in their eyes, deceitful,

faithless, selfish, jealous, misled and misleading by her passions.

Footnote 244:

_B.J._ l.c. § 2 γάμου μὲν ὑπεροψία παρ’ αὐτοῖς ... τὰς τῶν γυναίκων

ἀσελγείας φυλασσόμενοι καὶ μηδεμίαν τηρεῖν πεπεισμένοι τὴν πρὸς ἕνα

πίστιν, _Ant._ xviii. 1. 5; Philo _Fragm._ p. 633 γάμον παρῃτήσαντο

μετὰ τοῦ διαφερόντως ἀσκεῖν ἐγκράτειαν· Ἐσσαίων γὰρ οὐδεις ἄγεται

γυναῖκα, δίοτι φίλαυτον ἡ γυνὴ καὶ ζηλότυπον οὐ μετρίως καὶ δεινὸν

ἀνδρὸς ἤθη παρασαλεῦσαι, with more to the same purpose. This

peculiarity astonished the heathen Pliny, _N.H._ v. 15, ‘gens sola et

in toto orbe præter ceteros mira, sine ulla femina, venere

abdicata.... In diem ex æquo convenarum turba renascitur large

frequentantibus.... Ita per sæculorum millia (incredibile dictu) gens

æterna est, in qua nemo nascitur. Tam fœcunda illis aliorum vitæ

pœnitentia est.’

Footnote 245:

_B.J._ l.c. § 13. Josephus speaks of these as ἕτερον Ἐσσηνῶν τάγμα, ὃ

δίαιταν μὲν καὶ ἔθη καὶ νόμιμα τοῖς ἄλλοις ὁμοφρονοῦν, διεστὸς δὲ τῇ

κατὰ γάμον δόξῃ. We may suppose that they corresponded to the third

order of a Benedictine or Franciscan brotherhood; so that, living in

the world, they would observe the rule up to a certain point, but

would not be bound by vows of celibacy or subject to the more rigorous

discipline of the sect.

[Sidenote: meats and drinks,]

But their ascetic tendencies did not stop here. The Pharisee was very

careful to observe the distinction of meats lawful and unlawful, as laid

down by the Mosaic code, and even rendered these ordinances vexatious by

minute definitions of his own. But the Essene went far beyond him. He

drank no wine, he did not touch animal food. His meal consisted of a

piece of bread and a single mess of vegetables. Even this simple fare

was prepared for him by special officers consecrated for the purpose,

that it might be free from all contamination[246]. Nay, so stringent

were the rules of the order on this point, that when an Essene was

excommunicated, he often died of starvation, being bound by his oath not

to take food prepared by defiled hands, and thus being reduced to eat

the very grass of the field[247].

Footnote 246:

_B.J._ l.c. § 5; see Philo’s account of the Therapeutes, _Vit. Cont._

§ 4 σιτοῦνται δὲ πολυτελὲς οὐδέν, ἀλλὰ ἄρτον εὐτελῆ· καὶ ὄψον ἅλες,

οὓς οἱ ἀβροδιαιτότατοι παραρτύουσιν ὑσσώπῳ· ποτὸν ὕδωρ ναματιαῖον

αὐτοῖς ἐστιν; and again more to the same effect in § 9: and compare

the Essene story of St James in Hegesippus (Euseb. _H.E._ ii. 23)

οἶνον καὶ σίκερα οὐκ ἔπιεν, οὐδὲ ἔμψυχον ἔφαγε. Their abstention from

animal food accounts for Porphyry’s giving them so prominent a place

in his treatise: see Zeller, p. 243.

Footnote 247:

_B.J._ l.c. § 8.

[Sidenote: and oil for anointing.]

Again, in hot climates oil for anointing the body is almost a necessary

of life. From this too the Essenes strictly abstained. Even if they were

accidentally smeared, they were careful at once to wash themselves,

holding the mere touch to be a contamination[248].

Footnote 248:

_B.J._ l.c. § 3 κηλῖδα δὲ ὑπολαμβάνουσι τὸ ἔλαιον κ.τ.λ.; Hegesippus

l.c. ἔλαιον οὐκ ἠλείψατο.

[Sidenote: Underlying principle of this asceticism.]

From these facts it seems clear that Essene abstinence was something

more than the mere exaggeration of Pharisaic principles. The rigour of

the Pharisee was based on his obligation of obedience to an absolute

external law. The Essene introduced a new principle. He condemned in any

form the gratification of the natural cravings, nor would he consent to

regard it as moral or immoral only according to the motive which

suggested it or the consequences which flowed from it. It was in itself

an absolute evil. He sought to disengage himself, as far as possible,

from the conditions of physical life. In short, in the asceticism of the

Essene we seem to see the germ of that Gnostic dualism which regards

matter as the principle, or at least the abode, of evil.

[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.]

2. And, when we come to investigate the speculative tenets of the sect,

we shall find that the Essenes have diverged appreciably from the common

type of Jewish orthodoxy.

[Sidenote: (i) Tendency to sun-worship.]

(i) Attention was directed above to their respect for Moses and the

Mosaic law, which they shared in common with the Pharisee. But there was

another side to their theological teaching. Though our information is

somewhat defective, still in the scanty notices which are preserved we

find sufficient indications that they had absorbed some foreign elements

of religious thought into their system. Thus at day-break they addressed

certain prayers, which had been handed down from their forefathers, to

the Sun, ‘as if entreating him to rise[249].’ They were careful also to

conceal and bury all polluting substances, so as not ‘to insult the rays

of the god[250].’ We cannot indeed suppose that they regarded the sun as

more than a symbol of the unseen power who gives light and life; but

their outward demonstrations of reverence were sufficiently prominent to

attach to them, or to a sect derived from them, the epithet of

‘Sun-worshippers[251],’ and some connexion with the characteristic

feature of Parsee devotion at once suggests itself. The practice at all

events stands in strong contrast to the denunciations of worship paid to

the ‘hosts of heaven’ in the Hebrew prophets.

Footnote 249:

_B.J._ l.c. § 5 πρός γε μὴν τὸ θεῖον ἰδίως εὐσεβεῖς· πρὶν γὰρ ἀνασχεῖν

τὸν ἥλιον οὐδὲν φθέγγονται τῶν βεβήλων, πατρίους δεώω τινας εἰς αὐτὸν

εὐχάς, ὥσπερ ἱκετεύοντες ἀνατεῖλαι. Compare what Philo says of the

Therapeutes, _Vit. Cont._ § 3 ἡλίου μὲν ἀνίσχοντος εὐημερίαν

αἰτούμενοι τὴν ὄντως εὐημερίαν, φωτὸς οὐρανίου την δίανοιαν αὐτῶν

ἀναπλησθῆναι, and _ib._ § 11. On the attempt of Frankel (_Zeitschr._

p. 458) to resolve this worship, which Josephus states to be offered

to the sun (εἰς αὐτόν), into the ordinary prayers of the Pharisaic Jew

at day-break, see the appendix to this chapter.

Footnote 250:

_B.J._ l.c. § 9 ὡς μὴ τὰς αὐγὰς ὑβρίζοιεν τοῦ θεοῦ. There can be no

doubt, I think, that by τοῦ θεοῦ is meant the ‘sun-god’; comp. Eur.

_Heracl._ 749 θεοῦ φαεσίμβροτοι αὐγαί, _Alc._ 722 τὸ φέγγος τοῦτο τοῦ

θεοῦ, Appian _Præf._ 9 δυομένου τοῦ θεοῦ, _Lib._ 113 τοῦ θεοῦ περὶ

δείλην ἑσπέραν ὄντος, _Civ._ iv. 79 δύνοντος ἄρτι τοῦ θεοῦ: comp.

Herod. ii. 24. Dr Ginsburg has obliterated this very important touch

by translating τὰς αὐγὰς τοῦ θεοῦ ‘the Divine rays’ (_Essenes_ p. 47).

It is a significant fact that Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 25) omits the

words τοῦ θεοῦ, evidently regarding them as a stumbling-block. How

Josephus expressed himself in the original Hebrew of the _Bellum

Judaicum_, it is vain to speculate: but the Greek translation was

authorised, if not made, by him.

Footnote 251:

Epiphan. _Hær._ xix. 2, xx. 3 Ὀσσηνοὶ δὲ μετέστησαν ἀπὸ Ἰουδαϊσμοῦ εἰς

τὴν τῶν Σαμψαίων αἵρεσιν, liii. 1, 2 Σαμψαῖοι γὰρ ἑρμηνεύονται

Ἡλιακοί, from the Hebrew שמש ‘the sun.’ The historical connexion of

the Sampsæans with the Essenes is evident from these passages: though

it is difficult to say what their precise relations to each other

were. See the appendix.

[Sidenote: (ii) Resurrection of the body denied.]

(ii) Nor again is it an insignificant fact that, while the Pharisee

maintained the resurrection of the body as a cardinal article of his

faith, the Essene restricted himself to a belief in the immortality of

the soul. The soul, he maintained, was confined in the flesh, as in a

prison-house. Only when disengaged from these fetters would it be truly

free. Then it would soar aloft, rejoicing in its newly attained

liberty[252]. This doctrine accords with the fundamental conception of

the malignity of matter. To those who held this conception a

resurrection of the body would be repulsive, as involving a perpetuation

of evil.

Footnote 252:

_B.J._ l.c. § 11 καὶ γὰρ ἕρρωται παρ’ αὐτοῖς ἥδε ἡ δόξα, φθαρτὰ μὲν

εἶναι τὰ σώματα καὶ τὴν ὕλην οὐ μόνιμον αὐτοῖς, τὰς δὲ ψυχὰς ἀθανάτους

ἀεὶ διαμένειν ... ἐπειδὰν δὲ ἀνεθῶσι τῶν κατὰ σάρκα δεσμῶν, οἷα δὴ

μακρᾶς δουλείας ἀπηλλαγμένας, τότε χαίρειν καὶ μετεῶρους φέρεσθαι

κ.τ.λ. To this doctrine the teaching of the Pharisees stands in direct

contrast; _ib._ § 13: comp. also _Ant._ xviii. 1. 3, 5.

Nothing can be more explicit than the language of Josephus. On the

other hand Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 27) says of them ὁμολογοῦσι γὰρ καὶ

τὴν σάρκα ἀναστήσεσθαι καὶ ἔσεσθαι ἀθάνατον ὃν τρόπον ἤδη ἀθάνατός

ἐστιν ἡ ψυχή κ.τ.λ.; but his authority is worthless on this point, as

he can have had no personal knowledge of the facts: see Zeller p. 251,

note 2. Hilgenfeld takes a different view; _Zeitschr._ XIV. p. 49.

[Sidenote: (iii) Prohibition of sacrifices.]

(iii) But they also separated themselves from the religious belief of

the orthodox Jew in another respect, which would provoke more notice.

While they sent gifts to the temple at Jerusalem, they refused to offer

sacrifices there[253]. It would appear that the slaughter of animals was

altogether forbidden by their creed[254]. It is certain that they were

afraid of contracting some ceremonial impurity by offering victims in

the temple. Meanwhile they had sacrifices, bloodless sacrifices, of

their own. They regarded their simple meals with their accompanying

prayers and thanksgiving, not only as devotional but even as sacrificial

rites. Those who prepared and presided over these meals were their

consecrated priests[255].

Footnote 253:

_Ant._ xviii. 1. 5 εἰς δὲ τὸ ἱερὸν ἀναθήματά τε στέλλοντες θυσίας οὐκ

ἐπιτελοῦσι διαφορότητι ἁγνειῶν, ἃς νομίζοιεν, καὶ δι’ αὐτὸ εἰργόμενοι

τοῦ κοινοῦ τεμενίσματος ἐφ’ αὑτῶν τὰς θυσίας ἐπιτελοῦσι. So Philo

_Quod omn. prob. lib._ § 12 describes them as οὐ ζῷα καταθύοντες ἀλλ’

ἱεροπρεπεῖς τὰς ἑαυτῶν διανοίας κατασκευάζειν ἀξιοῦντες.

Footnote 254:

The following considerations show that their abstention should

probably be explained in this way: (1) Though the language of Josephus

may be ambiguous, that of Philo is unequivocal on this point; (2)

Their abstention from the temple-sacrifices cannot be considered apart

from the fact that they ate no animal food: see above p. 86, note 246.

(3) The Christianized Essenes, or Ebionites, though strong Judaizers

in many respects, yet distinctly protested against the sacrifice of

animals; see Clem. _Hom._ iii. 45, 52, and comp. Ritschl p. 224. On

this subject see also Zeller p. 242 sq., and the appendix to this

chapter.

Footnote 255:

_Ant._ xviii. 1. 5 ἱερεῖς τε [χειροτονοῦσι] διὰ ποίησιν σίτου τε καὶ

βρωμάτων, _B.J._ ii. 8. 5 προκατεύχεται δὲ ὁ ἱερεὺς τῆς τροφῆς κ.τ.λ.;

see Ritschl p. 181.

[Sidenote: (iv) Esoteric doctrine of angels.]

(iv) In what other respects they may have departed from, or added to,

the normal creed of Judaism, we do not know. But it is expressly stated

that, when a novice after passing through the probationary stages was

admitted to the full privileges of the order, the oath of admission

bound him ‘to conceal nothing from the members of the sect, and to

report nothing concerning them to others, even though threatened with

death; not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise

than as he himself had received them; but to abstain from robbery, and

in like manner to guard carefully the books of their sect, and _the

names of the angels_[256].’ It may be reasonably supposed that more

lurks under this last expression than meets the ear. This esoteric

doctrine, relating to angelic beings, may have been another link which

attached Essenism to the religion of Zoroaster[257]. At all events we

seem to be justified in connecting it with the self-imposed service and

worshipping of angels at Colossæ: and we may well suspect that we have

here a germ which was developed into the Gnostic doctrine of æons or

emanations.

Footnote 256:

_B.J._ l.c. § 7 ὅρκους αὐτοῖς ὄμνυσι φρικώδεις ... μήτε κρύψειν τι

τοὺς αἱρετιστὰς μήτε ἑτέροις αὐτῶν τι μηνύσειν, καὶ ἂν μέχρι θανάτου

τὶς βιάζηται. πρὸς τούτοις ὀμνύουσι μηδενὶ μὲν μεταδοῦναι τῶν δογμάτων

ἑτέρως ἢ ὡς αὐτὸς μετέλαβεν· ἀφέξεσθαι δὲ λῃστείας καὶ συντηρήσειν

ὁμοίως τὰ τε τῆς αἱρέσεως αὐτῶν βιβλία καὶ τὰ τῶν ἀγγέλων ὀνόματα.

With this notice should be compared the Ebionite διαμαρτυρία, or

protest of initiation, prefixed to the _Clementine Homilies_, which

shows how closely the Christian Essenes followed the practice of their

Jewish predecessors in this respect. See Zeller p. 254.

Footnote 257:

See below, in the appendix.

[Sidenote: (v) Speculations on God and Creation.]

(v) If so, it is not unconnected with another notice relating to Essene

peculiarities. The Gnostic doctrine of intermediate beings between God

and the world, as we have seen, was intimately connected with

speculations respecting creation. Now we are specially informed that the

Essenes, while leaving physical studies in general to speculative idlers

(μετεωρολέσχαις), as being beyond the reach of human nature, yet

excepted from their general condemnation that philosophy which treats of

the existence of God and the generation of the universe[258].

Footnote 258:

Philo _Omn. prob. lib._ § 12 (p. 458) τὸ δὲ φυσικὸν ὡς μεῖζον ἢ κατὰ

ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν μετεωρολέσχαις ἀπολιπόντες, πλὴν ὅσον αὐτοῦ περὶ

ὑπάρξεως Θεοῦ καὶ τῆς τοῦ παντὸς γενέσεως φιλοσοφεῖται.

[Sidenote: (vi) Magical charms.]

(vi) Mention has been made incidentally of certain secret books peculiar

to the sect. The existence of such an apocryphal literature was a sure

token of some abnormal development in doctrine[259]. In the passage

quoted it is mentioned in relation to some form of angelology. Elsewhere

their skill in prediction, for which they were especially famous, is

connected with the perusal of certain ‘sacred books,’ which however are

not described[260]. But more especially, we are told that the Essenes

studied with extraordinary diligence the writings of the ancients,

selecting those especially which could be turned to profit for soul and

body, and that from these they learnt the qualities of roots and the

properties of stones[261]. This expression, as illustrated by other

notices, points clearly to the study of occult sciences, and recalls the

alliance with the practice of magical arts, which was a distinguishing

feature of Gnosticism, and is condemned by Christian teachers even in

the heresies of the Apostolic age.

Footnote 259:

The word _Apocrypha_ was used originally to designate the secret books

which contained the esoteric doctrine of a sect. The secondary sense

‘spurious’ was derived from the general character of these writings,

which were heretical, generally Gnostic, forgeries. See Prof.

Plumptre’s article _Apocrypha_ in Smith’s _Dictionary of the Bible_,

and the note on ἀπόκρυφοι below, ii. 3.

Footnote 260:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 12 εἰσὶ δὲ ἐν αὐτοῖς οἳ καὶ τὰ μέλλοντα προγινώσκειν

ὑπισχνοῦνται, βίβλοις ἱεραῖς καὶ διαφόροις ἁγνείαις καὶ προφητῶν

ἀποφθέγμασιν ἐμπαιδοτριβούμενοι· σπάνιον δὲ, εἴποτε, ἐν ταῖς

προαγορεύσεσιν ἀστοχήσουσιν. Dr Ginsburg (p. 49) translates βίβλοις

ἱεραῖς ‘_the_ sacred Scripture,’ and προφητῶν ἀποφθέγμασιν ‘_the_

sayings of _the_ prophets’; but as the definite articles are wanting,

the expressions cannot be so rendered, nor does there seem to be any

reference to the Canonical writings.

We learn from an anecdote in _Ant._ xiii. II. 2, that the teachers of

this sect communicated the art of prediction to their disciples by

instruction. We may therefore conjecture that with the Essenes this

acquisition was connected with magic or astrology. At all events it is

not treated as a direct inspiration.

Footnote 261:

_B.J._ ii. 8. 6 σπουδάζουσι δὲ ἐκτόπως περὶ τὰ τῶν παλαιῶν

συγγράμματα, μάλιστα τὰ πρὸς ὠφέλειαν ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἐκλέγοντες·

ἔνθεν αὐτοῖς πρὸς θεραπείαν παθῶν ῥίζαι τε ἀλεξιτήριοι καὶ λίθων

ἰδιότητες ἀνερευνῶνται. This passage might seem at first sight to

refer simply to the _medicinal_ qualities of vegetable and mineral

substances; but a comparison with another notice in Josephus invests

it with a different meaning. In _Ant._ viii. 2. 5 he states that

Solomon, having received by divine inspiration the art of defeating

demons for the advantage and healing of man (εἰς ὠφέλειαν καὶ

θεραπείαν τοῖς ἀνθρῶποις), composed and left behind him charms

(ἐπῳδάς) by which diseases were allayed, and diverse kinds of

exorcisms (τρόπους ἐξορκώσεων) by which demons were cast out. ‘This

mode of healing,’ he adds, ‘is very powerful even to the present day’;

and he then relates how, as he was credibly informed (ἱστόρησα), one

of his countrymen, Eleazar by name, had healed several persons

possessed by demons in the presence of Vespasian and his sons and a

number of officers and common soldiers. This he did by applying to the

nose of the possessed his ring, which had concealed in it one of the

_roots_ which Solomon had directed to be used, and thus drawing out

the demon through the nostrils of the person smelling it. At the same

time he adjured the evil spirit not to return, ‘making mention of

Solomon and repeating the charms composed by him.’ On one occasion

this Eleazar gave ocular proof that the demon was exorcized; and thus,

adds Josephus, σαφὴς ἡ Σολομῶνος καθίστατο σύνεσις καὶ σοφία. On these

books relating to the occult arts and ascribed to Solomon see

Fabricius _Cod. Pseud. Vet. Test._ I. p. 1036 sq., where many curious

notices are gathered together. Comp. especially Origen, _In Matth.

Comm._ xxxv. § 110 (III. p. 910), Pseudo-Just. _Quæst._ 55.

This interpretation explains all the expressions in the passage. The

λίθων ἰδιότητες naturally points to the use of charms or amulets, as

may be seen e.g. from the treatise, Damigeron _de Lapidibus_, printed

in the _Spicil. Solemn._ III. p. 324 sq.: comp. King _Antique Gems_

Sect. IV, _Gnostics and their Remains_. The reference to ‘the books of

the ancients’ thus finds an adequate explanation. On the other hand

the only expression which seemed to militate against this view,

ἀλεξιτήριοι ῥίζαι, is justified by the story in the _Antiquities_. It

should be added also that Hippolytus (_Hær._ ix. 22) paraphrases the

language of Josephus so as to give it this sense; πάνυ δὲ

_περιέργως_ ἔχουσι περὶ βοτάνας καὶ λίθους, _περιεργότεροι_

ὄντες πρὸς τὰς τούτων ἐνεργείας, φάσκοντες μὴ μάτην ταῦτα γενονέναι.

The sense which περίεργος (‘curiosus’) bears in Acts xix. 19 and

elsewhere, referring to magical arts, illustrates its use here.

Thus these Essenes were dealers in charms, rather than physicians. And

yet it is quite possible that along with this practice of the occult

sciences they studied the healing art in its nobler forms. The works

of Alexander of Tralles, an eminent ancient physician, constantly

recommend the use of such charms, of which some obviously come from a

Jewish source and not improbably may have been taken from these

Solomonian books to which Josephus refers. A number of passages from

this and other writers, specifying charms of various kinds, are given

in Becker and Marquardt _Rom. Alterth._ IV. p. 116 sq. See also

Spencer’s note on Orig. _c. Cels._ p. 17 sq.

[Sidenote: 3. Exclusive spirit of Essenism.]

3. But the notice to which I have just alluded suggests a broader

affinity with Gnosticism. Not only did the theological speculations of

the Essenes take a Gnostic turn, but they guarded their peculiar tenets

with Gnostic reserve. They too had their esoteric doctrine which they

looked upon as the exclusive possession of the privileged few; their

‘mysteries’ which it was a grievous offence to communicate to the

uninitiated. This doctrine was contained, as we have seen, in an

apocryphal literature. Their whole organisation was arranged so as to

prevent the divulgence of its secrets to those without. The long period

of noviciate, the careful rites of initiation, the distinction of the

several orders[262] in the community, the solemn oaths by which they

bound their members, were so many safeguards against a betrayal of this

precious deposit, which they held to be restricted to the inmost circle

of the brotherhood.

Footnote 262:

See especially _B.J._ ii. 8. 7, 10.

[Sidenote: The three notes of Gnosticism found in the Essenes.]

In selecting these details I have not attempted to give a finished

portrait of Essenism. From this point of view the delineation would be

imperfect and misleading: for I have left out of sight the nobler

features of the sect, their courageous endurance, their simple piety,

their brotherly love. My object was solely to call attention to those

features which distinguish it from the normal type of Judaism, and seem

to justify the attribution of Gnostic influences. And here it has been

seen that the three characteristics, which were singled out above as

distinctive of Gnosticism, reappear in the Essenes; though it has been

convenient to consider them in the reversed order. This Jewish sect

exhibits the same exclusiveness in the communication of its doctrines.

Its theological speculations take the same direction, dwelling on the

mysteries of creation, regarding matter as the abode of evil, and

postulating certain intermediate spiritual agencies as necessary links

of communication between heaven and earth. And lastly, its speculative

opinions involve the same ethical conclusions, and lead in like manner

to a rigid asceticism. If the notices relating to these points do not

always explain themselves, yet read in the light of the heresies of the

Apostolic age and in that of subsequent Judæo-Gnostic Christianity,

their bearing seems to be distinct enough; so that we should not be far

wrong, if we were to designate Essenism as Gnostic Judaism[263].

Footnote 263:

I have said nothing of the Cabbala, as a development of Jewish thought

illustrating the Colossian heresy: because the books containing the

Cabbalistic speculations are comparatively recent, and if they contain

ancient elements, it seems impossible to separate these from later

additions or to assign to them even an approximate date. The

Cabbalistic doctrine however will serve to show to what extent Judaism

may be developed in the direction of speculative mysticism.

[Sidenote: How widely were the Essenes dispersed?]

But the Essenes of whom historical notices are preserved were

inhabitants of the Holy Land. Their monasteries were situated on the

shores of the Dead Sea. We are told indeed, that the sect was not

confined to any one place, and that members of the order were found in

great numbers in divers cities and villages[264]. But Judæa in one

notice, Palestine and Syria in another, are especially named as the

localities of the Essene settlements[265]. Have we any reason to suppose

that they were represented among the Jews of the Dispersion? In Egypt

indeed we find ourselves confronted with a similar ascetic sect, the

Therapeutes, who may perhaps have had an independent origin, but who

nevertheless exhibit substantially the same type of Jewish thought and

practice[266]. But the Dispersion of Egypt, it may be argued, was

exceptional; and we might expect to find here organisations and

developments of Judaism hardly less marked and various than in the

mother country. [Sidenote: Do they appear in Asia Minor?] What ground

have we for assuming the existence of this type in Asia Minor? Do we

meet with any traces of it in the cities of the Lycus, or in proconsular

Asia generally, which would justify the opinion that it might make its

influence felt in the Christian communities of that district?

Footnote 264:

Philo _Fragm._ p. 632 οἰκοῦσι δὲ πολλὰς μὲν πόλεις τῆς Ἰουδαίας,

πολλὰς δὲ κώμας, καὶ μεγάλους καὶ πολυανθρώπους ὁμίλους; Joseph.

_B.J._ ii. 8. 4 μία δὲ οὐκ ἔστιν αὐτῶν πόλις, ἀλλ’ ἐν ἑκάστῃ

κατοικοῦσι πολλοί. On the notices of the settlements and dispersion of

the Essenes see Zeller p. 239.

Footnote 265:

Philo names _Judæa_ in _Fragm._ p. 632; _Palestine_ and _Syria_ in

_Quod omn. prob. lib._ 12 p. 457. Their chief settlements were in the

neighbourhood of the Dead Sea. This fact is mentioned by the heathen

writers Pliny (_N.H._ v. 15) and Dion Chrysostom (Synesius _Dio_ 3).

The name of the ‘Essene gate’ at Jerusalem (_B.J._ v. 4. 2) seems to

point to some establishment of the order close to the walls of that

city.

Footnote 266:

They are only known to us from Philo’s treatise _de Vita

Contemplativa_. Their settlements were on the shores of the Mareotic

lake near Alexandria. Unlike the Essenes, they were not gathered

together in convents as members of a fraternity, but lived apart as

anchorites, though in the same neighbourhood. In other respects their

tenets and practices are very similar to those of the Essenes.

[Sidenote: How the term _Essene_ is to be understood.]

Now it has been shown that the colonies of the Jews in this

neighbourhood were populous and influential[267]; and it might be argued

with great probability that among these large numbers Essene Judaism

could not be unrepresented. But indeed throughout this investigation,

when I speak of the Judaism in the Colossian Church as Essene, I do not

assume a precise identity of origin, but only an essential affinity of

type, with the Essenes of the mother country. As a matter of history, it

may or may not have sprung from the colonies on the shores of the Dead

Sea; but as this can neither be proved nor disproved, so also it is

immaterial to my main [Sidenote: Probabilities of the case.] purpose.

All along its frontier, wherever Judaism became enamoured of and was

wedded to Oriental mysticism, the same union would produce substantially

the same results. In a country where Phrygia, Persia, Syria, all in turn

had moulded religious thought, it would be strange indeed if Judaism

entirely escaped these influences. Nor, as a matter of fact, are

indications wanting to show that it was not unaffected [Sidenote: Direct

indications.] by them. If the traces are few, they are at least as

numerous and as clear as with our defective information on the whole

subject we have any right to expect in this particular instance.

Footnote 267:

See above, p. 19 sq.

[Sidenote: St Paul at Ephesus A.D. 54–57.]

When St Paul visits Ephesus, he comes in contact with certain strolling

Jews, exorcists, who attempt to cast out evil spirits[268]. Connecting

this fact with the notices of Josephus, from which we infer that

exorcisms of this kind were especially [Sidenote: Exorcisms and]

practised by the Essenes[269], we seem to have an indication of their

presence in the capital of proconsular Asia. If so, it is a significant

fact that in their exorcisms they employed the name of our Lord: for

then we must regard this as the earliest notice of those overtures of

alliance on the part of Essenism, which involved such important

consequences in the subsequent history of the Church[270]. It is also

worth observing, that the next incident in St Luke’s narrative is the

burning [Sidenote: magical books.] of their magical books by those whom

St Paul converted on this occasion[271]. As Jews are especially

mentioned among these converts, and as books of charms are ascribed to

the Essenes by Josephus, the two incidents, standing in this close

connexion, throw great light on the type of Judaism which thus appears

at Ephesus[272].

Footnote 268:

Acts xix. 13 τῶν περιερχομένων Ἰουδαίων ἐξορκιστῶν.

Footnote 269:

See above p. 91, note 261.

Footnote 270:

On the later contact of Essenism with Christianity, see the appendix,

and _Galatians_ p. 310 sq.

Footnote 271:

There is doubtless a reference to the charms called Ἐφέσια γράμματα in

this passage: see Wetstein ad loc., and the references in Becker and

Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ IV. p. 123 sq. But this supposition does not

exclude the Jews from a share in these magical arts, while the context

points to some such participation.

Footnote 272:

I can only regard it as an accidental coincidence that the epulones of

the Ephesian Artemis were called _Essenes_, Pausan. viii. 13. 1 τοὺς

τῇ Ἀρτέμιδι ἱστιάτορας τῇ Ἐφεσίᾳ γινομένους, καλουμένους δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν

πολιτῶν Ἐσσῆνας: see Guhl _Ephesiaca_ 106 sq. The _Etymol. Magn._ has

Ἐσσήν: ὁ βασιλεὺς κατὰ Ἐφεσίους, and adds several absurd derivations

of the word. In the sense of ‘a king’ it is used by Callimachus _Hymn.

Jov. 66_ οὔ σε θεῶν ἐσσῆνα πάλιν θέσαν. It is probably not a Greek

word, as other terms connected with the worship of the Ephesian

Artemis (e.g. μεγάβυζος, a Persian word) point to an oriental or at

least a non-Greek origin; and some have derived it from the Aramaic

הסין _chasin_ ‘strong’ or ‘powerful.’ But there is no sufficient

ground for connecting it directly with the name of the sect Ἐσσηνοί or

Ἐσσαῖοι, as some writers are disposed to do (e.g. Spanheim on

_Callim._ l.c., Creuzer _Symbolik_ IV. pp. 347, 349); though this view

is favoured by the fact that certain ascetic practices were enjoined

on these pagan ‘Essenes.’

[Sidenote: Sibylline Oracle A.D. 80.]

Somewhat later we have another notice which bears in the same direction.

The Sibylline Oracle, which forms the fourth book in the existing

collection, is discovered by internal evidence to have been written

about A.D. 80[273]. It is plainly a product of Judaism, but its Judaism

does not belong to the normal Pharisaic type. With Essenism it rejects

sacrifices, even regarding the shedding of blood as a pollution[274],

and with Essenism also it inculcates the duty of frequent washings[275].

Yet from other indications we are led to the conclusion, that this poem

was not written in the interests of Essenism properly so called, but

represents some allied though independent development of Judaism. In

some respects at all events its language seems quite inconsistent with

the purer type of Essenism[276]. But its general tendency is clear: and

of its locality there can hardly be a doubt. The affairs of Asia Minor

occupy a disproportionate space in the poet’s description of the past

and vision of the future. The cities of the Mæander and its

neighbourhood, among these Laodicea, are mentioned with emphasis[277].

Footnote 273:

Its date is fixed by the following allusions. The temple at Jerusalem

has been destroyed by Titus (vv. 122 sq.), and the cities of Campania

have been overwhelmed in fire and ashes (vv. 127 sq.). Nero has

disappeared and his disappearance has been followed by bloody contests

in Rome (vv. 116 sq.); but his return is still expected (vv. 134 sq.).

Footnote 274:

See vv. 27–30 οἳ νηοὺς μὲν ἅπαντας ἀποστρέψουσιν ἰδόντες, καὶ βωμοὺς,

εἰκαῖα λίθων ἱδρύματα κωφῶν ἅιμασιν ἐμψύχων μεμιασμένα καὶ θυσίῃσι

τετραπόδων κ.τ.λ. In an earlier passage vv. 8 sq. it is said of God,

οὔτε γὰρ οἴκον ἔχει ναῷ λίθον ἱδρυθέντα κωφότατον νωδόν τε, βροτῶν

πολυαλγέα λώβην.

Footnote 275:

ver. 160 ἐν ποταμοῖς λούσασθε ὅλον δέμας αἐνάοισι. Another point of

contact with the Essenes is the great stress on prayers before meals,

ver. 26 εὐλογέοντες πρὶν πιέειν φαγέειν τε. Ewald (_Sibyll. Bücher_ p.

46) points also to the prominence of the words εὐσεβεῖν, εὐσεβής,

εὐσεβία (vv. 26, 35, 42, 45, 133, 148, 151, 162, 165, 181, 183) to

designate the elect of God, as tending in the same direction. The

force of this latter argument will depend mainly on the derivation

which is given to the name _Essene_. See the appendix.

Footnote 276:

Thus for instance, Ewald (l.c., p. 47) points to the tacit approval of

marriage in ver. 33. I hardly think however that this passage, which

merely condemns adultery, can be taken to imply so much. More

irreconcilable with pure Essenism is the belief in the resurrection of

the body and the future life on earth, which is maintained in vv. 176

sq.; though Hilgenfeld (_Zeitschr._ XIV. p. 49) does not recognise the

difficulty. See above p. 88. This Sibylline writer was perhaps rather

a Hemerobaptist than an Essene. On the relation of the Hemerobaptists

and Essenes see the appendix. Alexandre, _Orac. Sibyll._ (II. p. 323),

says of this Sibylline Oracle, ‘Ipse liber haud dubie Christianus

est,’ but there is nothing distinctly Christian in its teaching.

Footnote 277:

vv. 106 sq., 145 sq.; see above p. 40, note 131. It begins κλῦθι λεὼς

Ἀσίης μεγαλαυχέος Εὐρώπης τε.

[Sidenote: Phrygia and Asia congenial to this type of religion.]

And certainly the moral and intellectual atmosphere would not be

unfavourable to the growth of such a plant. The same district, which in

speculative philosophy had produced a Thales and a Heraclitus[278], had

developed in popular religion the worship of the Phrygian Cybele and

Sabazius and of the Ephesian Artemis[279]. Cosmological speculation,

mystic theosophy, religious fanaticism, all had their home here.

Associated with Judaism or with Christianity the natural temperament and

the intellectual bias of the people would take a new direction; but the

old type would not be altogether obliterated. Phrygia reared the hybrid

monstrosities of Ophitism[280]. She was the mother of Montanist

enthusiasm[281], and the foster-mother of Novatian rigorism[282]. The

syncretist, the mystic, the devotee, the puritan, would find a congenial

climate in these regions of Asia Minor.

Footnote 278:

The exceptional activity of the forces of nature in these districts of

Asia Minor may have directed the speculations of the Ionic school

towards physics, and more especially towards cosmogony. In Heraclitus

there is also a strong mystical element. But besides such broader

affinities, I venture to call attention to special dicta of the two

philosophers mentioned in the text, which curiously recall the tenets

of the Judæo-Gnostic teachers. Thales declared (Diog. Laert. i. 27)

τὸν κόσμον ἔμψυχον καὶ δαιμόνων πλήρη, or, as reported by Aristotle

(_de An._ i. 5, p. 411), πάντα πλήρη θεῶν εἰ^ναι. In a recorded

saying of Heraclitus we have the very language of a Gnostic teacher;

Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. 13, p. 699, _τὰ μὲν τῆς γνώσιος βάθη

κρύπτειν_ ἀπιστίη ἀγαθή, καθ’ Ἡηράκλειτον· ἀπιστίη γὰρ διαφυγγάνει

τὸ μὴ γινώσκεσθαι. See above pp. 77, 92.

Footnote 279:

For the characteristic features of Phrygian religious worship see

Steiger _Kolosser_ p. 70 sq.

Footnote 280:

The prominence, which the Phrygian mysteries and Phrygian rites held

in the syncretism of the Ophites, is clear from the account of

Hippolytus _Hær._ v. 7 sq. Indeed Phrygia appears to have been the

proper home of Ophitism. Yet the admixture of Judaic elements is not

less obvious, as their name _Naassene_, derived from the Hebrew word

for a serpent, shows.

Footnote 281:

The name, by which the Montanists were commonly known in the early

ages, was the sect of the ‘Phrygians’; Clem. _Strom._ vii. 17, p. 900

αἱ δὲ [τῶν αἱρεσέων] ἀπὸ ἔθνους [προσαγορεύονται], ὡς ἡ τῶν Φρυγῶν

(comp. Eus. _H.E._ iv. 27, v. 16, Hipp. _Hær._ viii. 19, x. 25). From

οἱ (or ἡ) κατὰ Φρυγάς (Eus. _H.E._ ii. 25, v. 16, 18, vi. 20) comes

the solœcistic Latin name _Cataphryges_.

Footnote 282:

Socrates (iv. 28) accounts for the spread of Novatianism in Phrygia by

the σωφροσύνη of the Phrygian temper. If so, it is a striking

testimony to the power of Christianity, that under its influence the

religious enthusiasm of the Phrygians should have taken this

direction, and that they should have exchanged the fanatical orgiasm

of their heathen worship for the rigid puritanism of the Novatianist.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Previous results summed up.]

It has thus been shown _first_, that Essene Judaism was Gnostic in its

character; and _secondly_, that this type of Jewish thought and practice

had established itself in the Apostolic age in those parts of Asia Minor

with which we are more directly concerned. It now remains to examine the

heresy of the [Sidenote: Is the Colossian heresy Gnostic?] Colossian

Church more nearly, and to see whether it deserves the name, which

provisionally was given to it, of Gnostic Judaism. Its Judaism all will

allow. Its claim to be regarded as Gnostic will require a closer

scrutiny. And in conducting [Sidenote: Three notes of Gnosticism.] this

examination, it will be convenient to take the three notes of Gnosticism

which have been already laid down, and to enquire how far it satisfies

these tests.

[Sidenote: 1. Intellectual exclusiveness.]

1. It has been pointed out that Gnosticism strove to establish, or

rather to preserve, an _intellectual oligarchy_ in religion. It had its

hidden wisdom, its exclusive mysteries, its privileged class.

Now I think it will be evident, that St Paul in this epistle [Sidenote:

St Paul contends for the universality of the Gospel,] feels himself

challenged to contend for the _universality_ of the Gospel. This indeed

is a characteristic feature of the Apostle’s teaching at all times, and

holds an equally prominent place in the epistles of an earlier date. But

the point to be observed is, that the Apostle, in maintaining this

doctrine, has changed the mode of his defence; and this fact suggests

that there has been a change in the direction of the attack. It is no

longer against national exclusiveness, but against intellectual

exclusiveness, that he contends. His adversaries do not now plead

ceremonial restrictions, or at least do not plead these alone: but they

erect an artificial barrier of spiritual privilege, even more fatal to

the universal claims of the Gospel, because more specious and more

insidious. It is not now against Jew as such, but against the Jew become

Gnostic, that he fights the battle of liberty. In other words; it is not

against Christian Pharisaism but against Christian Essenism that he

defends his position. Only in the light of such an antagonism can we

understand the emphatic iteration with which he claims to ‘warn _every_

man and teach _every_ man in _every_ wisdom, that he may present

[Sidenote: against the pretentions of an aristocracy of intellect.]

_every_ man perfect in Christ Jesus[283].’ It will be remembered that

‘wisdom’ in Gnostic teaching was the exclusive possession of the few; it

will not be forgotten that ‘perfection’ was the term especially applied

in their language to this privileged minority, as contradistinguished

from the common herd of believers; and thus it will be readily

understood why St Paul should go on to say that this universality of the

Gospel is the one object of his contention, to which all the energies of

his life are directed, and having done so, should express his intense

anxiety for the Churches of Colossæ and the neighbourhood, lest they

should be led astray by a spurious wisdom to desert the true

knowledge[284]. This danger also will enable us to appreciate a novel

feature in another passage of the epistle. While dwelling on the

obliteration of all distinctions in Christ, he repeats his earlier

contrasts, ‘Greek and Jew,’ ‘circumcision and uncircumcision,’

‘bondslave and free’; but to these he adds new words which at once give

a wider scope and a more immediate application to the lesson. In Christ

the existence of ‘barbarian’ and even ‘Scythian,’ the lowest type of

barbarian, is extinguished[285]. As culture, civilisation, philosophy,

knowledge, are no conditions of acceptance, so neither is their absence

any disqualification in the believer. The aristocracy of intellectual

discernment, which Gnosticism upheld in religion, is abhorrent to the

first principles of the Gospel.

Footnote 283:

i. 28 νουθετούντες _πάντα_ ἄνθρωπον καὶ διδάσκοντες _πάντα_

ἄνθρωπον ἐν _πάσῃ_ σοφίᾳ ἵνα παραστήσωμεν _πάντα_ ἄνθρωπον

_τέλειον_ ἐν Χριστῷ κ.τ.λ. The reiteration has offended the

scribes; and the first πάντα ἄνθρωπον is omitted in some copies, the

second in others. For τέλειον see the note on the passage.

Footnote 284:

The connexion of the sentences should be carefully observed. After the

passage quoted in the last note comes the asseveration that this is

the one object of the Apostle’s preaching (i. 29) εἰς ὃ καὶ κοπιῶ

κ.τ.λ.; then the expression of concern on behalf of the Colossians

(ii. 1) θέλω γὰρ ὑμᾶς εἰδέναι ἡλίκον ἀγῶνα ἔχω _ὑπὲρ_ ὑμῶν

κ.τ.λ.; then the desire that they may be brought (ii. 2) εἰς

_πᾶν_ πλοῦτος τῆς _πληροφορίας_ τῆς συνέσεως, εἰς

_ἐπίγνωσιν_ τοῦ μυστηρίου τοῦ Θεοῦ; then the definition of this

mystery (ii. 2, 3), Χριστοῦ ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν _πάντες_ οἱ θησαυροὶ

κ.τ.λ.; then the warning against the false teachers (ii. 4) τοῦτο λέγω

ἵνα μηδεὶς ὑμᾶς παραλογίζηται κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 285:

Col. iii. 11 after περιτομὴ καὶ ἀκροβυστία the Apostle adds βάρβαρος,

Σκύθης. There is nothing corresponding to this in the parallel

passage, Gal. iii. 28.

[Sidenote: He contrasts the true wisdom with the false,]

Hence also must be explained the frequent occurrence of the words

‘wisdom’ (σοφία), ‘intelligence’ (σύνεσις), ‘knowledge’ (γνῶσις),

‘perfect knowledge’ (ἐπίγνωσις), in this epistle[286]. St Paul takes up

the language of his opponents, and translates it into a higher sphere.

The false teachers put forward a ‘philosophy,’ but it was only an empty

deceit, only a plausible display of false-reasoning[287]. They pretended

‘wisdom,’ but it was merely the profession, not the reality[288].

Against these pretentions the Apostle sets the true wisdom of the

Gospel. On its wealth, its fulness, its perfection, he is never tired of

dwelling[289]. The true wisdom, he would argue, is essentially spiritual

and yet essentially definite; while the false is argumentative, is

speculative, [Sidenote: and dwells on the veritable mystery.] is vague

and dreamy[290]. Again they had their rites of initiation. St Paul

contrasts with these the one universal, comprehensive mystery[291], the

knowledge of God in Christ. This mystery is complete in itself: it

contains ‘all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge hidden’ in

it[292]. Moreover it is offered to all without distinction: though once

hidden, its revelation is unrestricted, except by the waywardness and

disobedience of men. The esoteric spirit of Gnosticism finds no

countenance in the Apostle’s teaching.

Footnote 286:

For σοφία see i. 9, 28, ii. 3, iii. 16, iv. 5; for σύνεσις i. 9, ii.

2; for γνῶσις ii. 3; for ἐπίγνωσις i. 9, 10, ii. 2, iii. 10.

Footnote 287:

ii. 4 πιθανολογία, ii. 8 κενὴ ἀπάτη.

Footnote 288:

ii. 23 λόγον μὲν ἔχοντα σοφίας, where the μὲν suggests the contrast of

the suppressed clause.

Footnote 289:

e.g. i. 9, 28, iii. 16 ἐν πάσῃ σοφίᾳ; ii. 2 τῆς πληροφορίας. For the

‘wealth’ of this knowledge compare i. 27, ii. 2, iii. 16; and see

above p. 44.

Footnote 290:

ii. 4, 18.

Footnote 291:

i. 26, 27, ii. 2, iv. 3.

Footnote 292:

ii. 2 ἐν ᾧ εἰσὶν πάντες οἱ θησαυροὶ τῆς σοφίας καὶ τῆς γνώσεως

ἀπόκρυφοι. For the meaning of ἀπόκρυφοι see above p. 90, and the note

on the passage.

[Sidenote: 2. Speculative tenets.

Cosmogony and theology.]

2. From the informing spirit of Gnosticism we turn to the speculative

tenets—the cosmogony and the theology of the Gnostic.

And here too the affinities to Gnosticism reveal themselves in the

Colossian heresy. We cannot fail to observe that the [Sidenote: St Paul

attacks the doctrine of angelic mediators,] Apostle has in view the

doctrine of intermediate agencies, regarded as instruments in the

creation and government of the world. Though this tenet is not

distinctly mentioned, it is tacitly assumed in the teaching which St

Paul opposes to it. Against the philosophy of successive evolutions from

the Divine nature, angelic mediators forming the successive links in the

chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, he sets the doctrine

[Sidenote: setting against it the doctrine of the Word Incarnate,] of

the one Eternal Son, the Word of God begotten before the worlds[293].

The angelology of the heretics had a twofold bearing; it was intimately

connected at once with cosmogony and with religion. Correspondingly St

Paul represents the mediatorial function of Christ as twofold: it is

exercised in the natural creation, and it is exercised in the spiritual

creation. In both these spheres His initiative is absolute, His control

is universal, His action is complete. By His agency the world of matter

was created and is sustained. He is at once the beginning and the

[Sidenote: as the reconciler of heaven and earth.] end of the material

universe; ‘All things have been created through Him and unto Him.’ Nor

is His office in the spiritual world less complete. In the Church, as in

the Universe, He is sole, absolute, supreme; the primary source from

which all life proceeds and the ultimate arbiter in whom all feuds are

reconciled.

Footnote 293:

The two great Christological passages are i. 15–20, ii. 9–15. They

will be found to justify the statements in this and the following

paragraphs of the text. For the meaning of individual expressions see

the notes on the passages.

[Sidenote: His relations to (1) Deity; as God manifested.]

On the one hand, in relation to Deity, He is the visible image of the

invisible God. He is not only the chief manifestation of the Divine

nature: He exhausts the Godhead manifested. In Him resides the totality

of the Divine powers and attributes. For this totality Gnostic teachers

had a technical [Sidenote: The _pleroma_ resides in Him.] term, the

_pleroma_ or _plenitude_[294]. From the pleroma they supposed that all

those agencies issued, through which God has at any time exerted His

power in creation, or manifested His will through revelation. These

mediatorial beings would retain more or less of its influence, according

as they claimed direct parentage from it or traced their descent through

successive evolutions. But in all cases this pleroma was distributed,

diluted, transformed and darkened by foreign admixture. They were only

partial and blurred images, often deceptive caricatures, of their

original, broken lights of the great central Light. It is not improbable

that, like later speculators of the same school, they found a place

somewhere or other in their genealogy of spiritual beings for the

Christ. If so, St Paul’s language becomes doubly significant. But this

hypothesis is not needed to explain its reference. In contrast to their

doctrine, he asserts and repeats the assertion, that the pleroma abides

absolutely and wholly in Christ as the Word of God[295]. The entire

light is concentrated in Him.

Footnote 294:

See the detached note on πλήρωμα.

Footnote 295:

i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι, ii. 9 ἐν αὐτῷ

κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς.

[Sidenote: (2) Created things; as absolute Lord.]

Hence it follows that, as regards created things, His supremacy must be

absolute. In heaven as in earth, over things immaterial as over things

material, He is king. Speculations on the nature of intermediate

spiritual agencies—their names, their ranks, their offices—were rife in

the schools of Judæo-Gnostic thought. ‘Thrones, dominations, princedoms,

virtues, powers’–these formed part of the spiritual nomenclature which

they had invented to describe different grades of angelic mediators.

Without entering into these speculations, the Apostle asserts that

Christ is Lord of all, the highest and the lowest, whatever rank they

may hold and by whatever name they are called[296], for they are parts

of creation and He is the source of creation. Through Him they became,

and unto Him they tend.

Footnote 296:

See especially i. 16 εἴτε θρόνοι εἴτε κυριότητες εἴτε ἀρχαὶ εἴτε

ἐξουσίαι κ.τ.λ., compared with the parallel passage in Eph. i. 21

ὑπεράνω πάσης ἀρχῆς καὶ εξουσίας καὶ δυνάμεως καὶ κυριότητος καὶ

παντὸς ὀνόματος ὀνομαζομένου κ.τ.λ. Compare also ii. 10 ἡ κεφαλὴ πάσης

ἀρχῆς καὶ ἐξουσίας, and ii. 15 ἀπεκδυσάμενος τὰς ἀρχὰς καὶ τὰς

ἐξουσίας κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: Angelolatry is therefore condemned]

Hence the worship of angels, which the false teachers inculcated, was

utterly wrong in principle. The motive of this angelolatry it is not

difficult to imagine. There was a show of humility[297], for there was a

confession of weakness, in this subservience to inferior mediatorial

agencies. It was held feasible to grasp at the lower links of the chain

which bound earth to heaven, when heaven itself seemed far beyond the

reach of man. The successive grades of intermediate beings were as

successive steps, by which man might mount the ladder leading up to the

throne of God. This carefully woven web of sophistry the Apostle tears

to shreds. The doctrine of the false teachers was based on confident

assumptions respecting angelic beings of whom they could know nothing.

It was moreover a denial of Christ’s twofold personality and His

[Sidenote: as a denial of His perfect mediation.] mediatorial office. It

follows from the true conception of Christ’s Person, that He and He

alone can bridge over the chasm between earth and heaven; for He is at

once the lowest and the highest. He raises up man to God, for He brings

down God to man. Thus the chain is reduced to a single link, this link

being the Word made flesh. As the _pleroma_ resides in Him, so is it

communicated to us through Him[298]. To substitute allegiance to any

other spiritual mediator is to sever the connexion of the limbs with the

Head, which is the centre of life and the mainspring of all energy

throughout the body[300].

Footnote 297:

ii. 18 θέλων ἐν ταπεινοφροσύνῃ καὶ θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 298:

ii. 10; comp. i. 9.

Footnote 300:

ii. 18.

[Sidenote: The Apostle’s practical inference.]

Hence follows the practical conclusion, that, whatever is done, must be

done in the name of the Lord[301]. Wives must submit to their husbands

‘in the Lord’: children must obey their parents ‘in the Lord’: servants

must work for the masters as working ‘unto the Lord[302].’ This

iteration, ‘in the Lord,’ ‘unto the Lord,’ is not an irrelevant form of

words; but arises as an immediate inference from the main idea which

underlies the doctrinal portion of the epistle.

Footnote 301:

iii. 17.

Footnote 302:

iii. 18, 20, 23.

[Sidenote: 3. Moral results of Gnostic doctrine.]

3. It has been shown that the speculative tenets of Gnosticism might

lead (and as a matter of fact we know that they did lead) to either of

two practical extremes, to rigid asceticism or to unbridled license. The

latter alternative appears to some extent in the heresy of the Pastoral

Epistles[303], and still more plainly in those of the Catholic

Epistles[304] and the Apocalypse[305]. It is constantly urged by

Catholic writers as a reproach against later Gnostic sects[306].

Footnote 303:

At least in 2 Tim. iii. 1–7, where, though the most monstrous

developments of the evil were still future, the Apostle’s language

implies that it had already begun. On the other hand in the picture of

the heresy in 1 Tim. iv. 2 the ascetic tendency still predominates.

Footnote 304: