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].
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].
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 |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 |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].
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:
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.’
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.’
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.’
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