Important bearing of these facts on the history of Christianity.
These facts are not unimportant in their bearing on the question which has been already discussed in relation to Papias. If there had been such a discontinuity of doctrine and practice in the Church of Hierapolis as the theory in question assumes, if the Pauline Gospel was repudiated in the later years of the first century and rank Judaism adopted in its stead, how can we explain the position of Apollinaris? Obviously a counter-revolution must have taken place, which undid the effects of the former. One dislocation must have been compensated by another. And yet Irenæus knows nothing of these religious convulsions which must have shaken the doctrine of the Church to its foundations, but represents the tradition as one, continuous, unbroken, reaching back through the elders of the Asiatic Churches, through Papias and Polycarp, to St John himself—Irenæus who received his Christian education in Asia Minor, who throughout life was in communication with the churches there, and who had already reached middle age when this second revolution is supposed to have occurred. The demands on our credulity, which this theory makes, are enormous. And its improbability becomes only the more glaring, as we extend our view.|Solidarity of the Church in the second century.| For the solidarity of the Church is the one striking fact unmistakably revealed to us, as here and there the veil which shrouds the history of the second century is lifted. Anicetus and Soter and Eleutherus and Victor at Rome, Pantænus and Clement at Alexandria, Polycrates at Ephesus, Papias and Apollinaris at Hierapolis, Polycarp at Smyrna, Melito at Sardis, Ignatius and Serapion at Antioch, Primus and Dionysius at Corinth, Pothinus and Irenæus in Gaul, Philippus and Pinytus in Crete, Hegesippus and Narcissus in Palestine, all are bound together by the ties of a common organization and the sympathy of a common creed. The Paschal controversy is especially valuable, as showing the limits of divergence consistent with the unity of the Church. The study of this controversy teaches us to appreciate with ever increasing force the pregnant saying of Irenæus that the difference of the usage establishes the harmony of the faith[[193]].
Activity of Laodicea.
Though Laodicea cannot show the same intellectual activity as Hierapolis during the second century, yet in practical energy she is not wanting.
Martyrdom of Sagaris. c. A.D. 165.
The same persecution, which, permitted if not encouraged by the imperial Stoic, was fatal to Polycarp at Smyrna, deprived Laodicea also of her bishop Sagaris[[194]]. The exact year in which he fell a martyr is not known; but we can hardly be wrong in assuming that his death was nearly coincident with those of Polycarp and his companions. His name appears to have been held in great honour[[195]].
Outbreak of the Paschal controversy.
But while the Church of Laodicea was thus contending against foes without, she was also torn asunder by feuds within. Coincident with the martyrdom of Sagaris was the outburst of the Paschal controversy, of which mention has been already made, and which for more than a century and a half disturbed the peace of the Church, until it was finally laid at rest by the Council of Nicæa. The Laodiceans would naturally regulate their festival by the Asiatic or Quartodeciman usage, strictly observing the day of the month and disregarding the day of the week. But a great commercial centre like Laodicea must have attracted large crowds of foreign Christians from Palestine or Egypt or Rome or Gaul, who were accustomed to commemorate the Passion always on a Friday and the Resurrection on a Sunday according to the western practice; and in this way probably the dispute arose. The treatise on the Paschal Festival by Melito of Sardis was written on this occasion to defend the Asiatic practice. The fact that Laodicea became the head-quarters of the controversy is a speaking testimony to the prominence of this Church in the latter half of the second century.
Hierapolis and Laodicea in later history.
At a later date the influence of both Hierapolis and Laodicea has sensibly declined. In the great controversies of the fourth s and fifth centuries they take no conspicuous part. Among their bishops there is not one who has left his mark on history. And yet their names appear at most of the great Councils, in which they bear a silent part. |The Arian heresy.
Nicæa
A.D. 325.|At Nicæa Hierapolis was represented by Flaccus[[196]], Laodicea by Nunechius[[197]]. They both acquiesced in its decrees, and the latter as metropolitan published them throughout the Phrygian Churches[[198]]. Soon after, both sees lapsed into Arianism. |Philippopolis A.D. 347.| At the synod of Philippopolis, composed of bishops who had seceded from the Council of Sardica, the representatives of these two sees were present and joined in the condemnation of the Athanasians. On this occasion Hierapolis was still represented by Flaccus, who had thus turned traitor to his former faith[[199]]. On the other hand Laodicea had changed its bishop twice meanwhile. Cecropius had won the imperial favour by his abuse of the orthodox party, and was first promoted to Laodicea, whence he was translated to Nicomedia[[200]]. He was succeeded by Nonnius, who signed the Arian decree at Philippopolis[[201]]. When these sees recovered their orthodoxy we |Constantinople. A.D. 381.]| do not know; but it is perhaps a significant fact, that neither is represented at the second general Council, held at Constantinople |The Nestorian and Eutychian heresies.
Ephesus.
A.D. 431.| (A.D. 381)[[202]]. At the third general Council, which met at Ephesus, Laodicea is represented by Aristonicus, Hierapolis by Venantius[[203]]. Both bishops sign the decrees condemning Nestorius. Again in the next Christological controversy which agitated the Church the two sees bear their part. At the notorious |Latrocinium. A.D. 449.| Robbers’ Synod, held also at Ephesus, Laodicea was represented by another Nunechius, Hierapolis by Stephanus. Both bishops committed themselves to the policy of Dioscorus and the opinions of the heretic Eutyches[[204]]. Yet with the fickleness which characterized these sees at an earlier date during the Arian controversy, we find their representatives two years |Chalcedon. A.D. 451.| later at the Council of Chalcedon siding with the orthodox party and condemning the Eutychian heresy which they had so lately supported[[205]]. Nunechius is still bishop of Laodicea, and reverses his former vote. Stephanus has been succeeded at Hierapolis by Abercius, whose orthodoxy, so far as we know, had not been compromised by any previous expression of opinion[[206]].