viii. 16), where τὸ πλήρωμα is a translation of מלא, a word denoting

primarily ‘fulness’, but having in its secondary uses a considerable latitude of meaning ranging between ‘contents’ and ‘abundance’. This last sense seems to predominate in its Greek rendering πλήρωμα, and indeed the other is excluded altogether in some passages, e.g. Cant. v. 13 ἐπὶ πληρώματα ὑδάτων. [Sidenote: Rom. xiii. 10.](2) In Rom. xiii. 10 πλήρωμα νόμου ἡ ἀγάπη, the best comment on the meaning of the word is the context, ver. 8 ὁ ἀγαπῶν τὸν ἕτερον νόμον πεπλήρωκεν, so that πλήρωμα here means the ‘completeness’ and so ‘fulfilment, accomplishment’: see the note on Gal. v. 14. [Sidenote: Rom. xv. 29.](3) In Rom. xv. 29 ἐν πληρώματι εὐλογίας Χριστοῦ ἐλεύσομαι, it plainly has the sense of ‘fulness, abundance’. [Sidenote: Gal. iv. 4.](4) In Gal. iv. 4 ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ χρονοῦ and [Sidenote: Eph. i. 10.]Ephes. i. 10 εἰς οἰκονομίαν τοῦ πληρώματος τῶν καιρῶν, its force is illustrated by such passages as Mark i. 15 πεπλήρωται ὁ καιρὸς καὶ ἤγγικεν ἡ βασιλεία κ.τ.λ., Luke xxi. 24 ἄχρι οὗ πληρωθῶσιν καιροὶ ἐθνῶν (comp. Acts ii. 1, vii. 23, 30, ix. 23, xxiv. 27), so that the expressions will mean ‘the full measure of the time, the full tale of the seasons’. [Sidenote: Rom. xi. 25.](5) In Rom. xi. 25 πώρωσις ἀπὸ μέρους τῷ Ἰσραὴλ γέγονεν ἄχρις ὁῦ τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν ἐθνῶν εἰσέλθῃ, it seems to mean ‘the full number’, ‘the whole body’, (whether the whole absolutely, or the whole relatively to God’s purpose), of whom only a part had hitherto been gathered into the Church. [Sidenote: Rom. xi. 12.](6) In an earlier passage in this chapter the same expression occurs of the Jews, xi. 12 εἰ δὲ τὸ παράπτωμα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος κόσμου καὶ τὸ ἥττημα αὐτῶν πλοῦτος ἐθνῶν, πόσῳ μᾶλλον τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῶν. Here the antithesis between ἥττημα and πλήρωμα, ‘failure’ and ‘fulness’, is not sufficiently direct to fix the sense of πλήρωμα; and (in the absence of anything to guide us in the context) we may fairly assume that it is used in the same sense of the Jews here, as of the Gentiles in ver. 25.

[Sidenote: General result.]

Thus, whatever hesitation may be felt about the exact force of the word as it occurs in the Gospels, yet substantially one meaning runs through all the passages hitherto quoted from St Paul. In these πλήρωμα has its proper passive force, as a derivative from πληροῦν ‘to make complete’. It is ‘the full complement, the entire measure, the plenitude, the fulness’. There is therefore a presumption in favour of this meaning in other passages where it occurs in this Apostle’s writings.

[Sidenote: Theological passages in]

We now come to those theological passages in the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians and in the Gospel of St John, for the sake of which this investigation has been undertaken. They are as follows;

[Sidenote: Colossians and Ephesians.]

Col. i. 19 ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι.

Col. ii. 9 ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς, καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι.

Ephes. i. 23 αὐτὸν ἔδωκεν κεφαλὴν ὑπὲρ πάντα τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἥτις ἐστὶν τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν πληρουμένου.

Ephes. iii. 19 ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ.

Ephes. iv. 13 εἰς ἄνδρα τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ.

[Sidenote: St. John.]

John i. 14, 16 καὶ ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός) πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας ... ἐκ τοῦ πληρώματος αὐτοῦ ἡμεῖς πάντες ἐλάβομεν καὶ χάριν ἀντὶ χάριτος.

[Sidenote: Ignatius.]]

To these should be added two passages from the Ignatian Epistles[542], which as belonging to the confines of the Apostolic age afford valuable illustration of the Apostolic language.

_Ephes._ inscr. Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος, τῇ εὐλογημένῃ ἐν μεγέθει Θεοῦ πατρὸς πληρώματι[543] ... τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τῇ ἀξιομακαρίστῳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Ἐφέσῳ κ.τ.λ.

_Trall._ inscr. Ἰγνάτιος, ὁ καὶ Θεοφόρος ... ἐκκλησίᾳ ἁγίᾳ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Τράλλεσιν ... ἣν καὶ )ασπάζομαι ἐν τῷ πληρώματι, ἐν ἀποστολικῷ χαρακτῆρι.

Footnote 542:

The first of the two passages is contained in the short Syriac recension of the Ignatian Epistles, though loosely translated; the other is wanting there. I need not stop to enquire whether the second was written by St Ignatius himself or by an interpolator. The interpolated epistles, if they be interpolated, can hardly be later than the middle of the second century and are therefore early enough to afford valuable illustrations of the Apostles’ language.

Footnote 543:

The common texts read καὶ πληρώματι, but there can be little doubt (from a comparison of the authorities) that καὶ should be struck out. The present Syriac text has _et perfectæ_ for πληρώματι; but there is no reason for supposing that the Syriac translator had another reading before him. A slight change in the Syriac, ܒܫܘܡܠܝܐ for ܘܡܫܡܠܝܐ, would bring this Version into entire accordance with the Greek; and the confusion was the more easy, because the latter word occurs in the immediate context. Or the translator may have indulged in a paraphrase according to his wont; just as in the longer Latin Version πληρώματι here is translated _repletæ_.

[Sidenote: The term has a recognised value]

It will be evident, I think, from the passages in St Paul, that the word πλήρωμα ‘fulness, plenitude’, must have had a more or less definite theological value when he wrote. This inference, which is suggested by the frequency of the word, seems almost inevitable when we consider the form of the expression in the first passage quoted, Col. i. 19. The absolute use of the word, πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ‘all _the_ fulness’, would otherwise be unintelligible, for it does not explain itself. In my notes I have taken ὁ Θεός to be the nominative to εὐδόκησεν, but if the subject of the verb were πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα, as some suppose, the inference would be still more necessary. The word however, regarded as a theological term, does not appear to have been adopted, like so many other expressions in the Apostolic writers[544], from the nomenclature of Alexandrian Judaism. [Sidenote: derived from Palestine and not Alexandria.]At least no instance of its occurrence in this sense is produced from Philo. We may therefore conjecture that it had a Palestinian origin, and that the Essene Judaizers of Colossæ, whom St Paul is confronting, derived it from this source. In this case it would represent the Hebrew מלא, of which it is a translation in the LXX, and the Aramaic ܡܘܠܙܐ or some other derivative of the same root, such being its common rendering in the Peshito.

Footnote 544:

See the notes on Col. i. 15 sq.

[Sidenote: It denotes the totality of the Divine powers, etc. in the Colossian letter.]

The sense in which St Paul employs this term was doubtless the sense which he found already attached to it. He means, as he explicitly states in the second Christological passage of the Colossian Epistle (ii. 9), the pleroma, the plenitude of ‘the Godhead’ or ‘of Deity’. In the first passage (i. 19), though the word stands without the addition τῆς θεότητος, the signification required by the context is the same. The true doctrine of the one Christ, who is the absolute mediator in the creation and government of the world, is opposed to the false doctrine of a plurality of mediators, ‘thrones, dominions, principalities, powers’. An absolute and unique position is claimed for Him, because in Him resides ‘all the pleroma’, i.e. the full complement, the aggregate of the Divine attributes, virtues, energies. This is another way of expressing the fact that He is the Logos, for the Logos is the synthesis of all the various δυνάμεις, in and by which God manifests Himself whether in the kingdom of nature or in the kingdom of grace.

[Sidenote: Analogy to its usage elsewhere: e.g.]

This application is in entire harmony with the fundamental meaning of the word. The term has been transferred to the region of theology, but in itself it conveys exactly the same idea as before. It implies that all the several elements which are required to realise the conception specified are present, and that each appears in its full proportions. [Sidenote: in Philo of the family]Thus Philo, describing the ideal state of prosperity which will result from absolute obedience to God’s law, mentions among other blessings the perfect development of the family: ‘Men shall be fathers and fathers too of goodly sons, and women shall be mothers of goodly children, so that each household shall be the _pleroma_ of a numerous kindred, where no part or name is wanting of all those which are used to designate relations, whether in the ascending line, as parents, uncles, grandfathers, or again in the descending line in like manner, as brothers, nephews, sons’ sons, daughters’ sons, cousins, cousins’ sons, kinsmen of all degrees[545].’ [Sidenote: and in Aristotle, of the state.]So again Aristotle, criticizing the _Republic_ of Plato, writes; ‘Socrates says that a city (or state) is composed of four classes, as its indispensable elements (τῶν ἀναγκαιοτάτων): by these he means the weaver, the husbandman, the shoemaker, and the builder; and again, because these are not sufficient by themselves, he adds the smith and persons to look after the necessary cattle, and besides them the merchant and the retail dealer: these together make up the _pleroma_ of a city in its simplest form (ταῦτα πάντα γίνεται πλήρωμα τῆς πρώτης πόλεως); thus he assumes that a city is formed to supply the bare necessities of life (τῶν ἀναγκων χάριν) etc.’[546]. From these passages it will be seen that the adequacy implied by the word, as so used, consists not less in the variety of the elements than in the fulness of the entire quantity or number.

Footnote 545:

_de Præm. et Pæn._ 18 (II. p. 425). The important words are ὡς ἕκαστον οἶκον πλήρωμα εἶναι πολυανθρώπου συγγενείας, μηδενὸς ἐλλειφθέντος ἢ μέρους ἢ ὀνόματος τῶν ὅσα ἐπιφημίζεται κ.τ.λ. The construction of the subsequent part of the sentence is obscure; and for ὁμοίους we should probably read ὁμοίως.

Footnote 546:

Arist. _Pol._ iv. 4 (p. 1291).

[Sidenote: Transition from Colossians to Ephesians.]

So far the explanation seems clear. But when we turn from the Colossian letter to the Ephesian, it is necessary to bear in mind the different aims of the two epistles. While in the former the Apostle’s main object is to assert the supremacy of the Person of Christ, in the latter his principal theme is the life and energy of the Church, as dependent on Christ[547]. So the pleroma residing in Christ is viewed from a different aspect, no longer in relation to God, so much as in relation to the Church. [Sidenote: Corresponding application of πληρωμα to the Church.]It is that plenitude of Divine graces and virtues which is communicated through Christ to the Church as His body. The Church, as _ideally_ regarded, the bride ‘without spot or wrinkle or any such thing’, becomes in a manner identified with Him[548]. All the Divine graces which reside in Him are imparted to her; His ‘fulness’ is communicated to her: and thus she may be said to be His pleroma (i. 23). This is the ideal Church. The actual militant Church must be ever advancing, ever struggling towards the attainment of this ideal. Hence the Apostle describes the end of all offices and administrations in the Church to be that the collective body may attain its full and mature growth, or (in other words) may grow up to the complete stature of Christ’s fulness[549]. But Christ’s fulness is God’s fulness. Hence in another passage he prays that the brethren may by the indwelling of Christ be fulfilled till they attain to the _pleroma_ of God (iii. 19). It is another way of expressing the continuous aspiration and effort after holiness which is enjoined in our Lord’s precept, ‘Ye shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect’[550].

Footnote 547:

See the notes on Col. ii. 19 (p. 266).

Footnote 548:

Ephes. v. 27 sq.

Footnote 549:

The Apostle in this passage (Ephes. iv. 13) is evidently contemplating the collective body, and not the individual believers. He writes οἱ πάντες, not πάντες, and ἄνδρα τέλειον, not ἄνδρας τελέιους. As he has said before _ἑνὶ ἑκάστῳ_ ἡμῶν ἐδόθη [ἡ] χάρις _κατὰ τὸ μέτρον_ τῆς δωρεᾶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ, so now he describes the result of these various partial graces bestowed on _individuals_ to be the unity and mature growth of the _whole_, ‘the building up of the _body_’, μεχρὶ καταντήσωμεν _οἱ πάντες_ εἰς τὴν _ἑνότητα_ ... εἰς _ἄνδρα_ τέλειον, εἰς μέτρον ἡλικίας τοῦ πληρώματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ. This corporate being must grow up into the one colossal Man, the standard of whose spiritual and moral stature is nothing less than the pleroma of Christ Himself.

Footnote 550:

Matt. v. 48.

[Sidenote: Gospel of St. John.]

The Gospel of St John, written in the first instance for the same Churches to which the Epistle to the Ephesians was sent, has numerous and striking points of resemblance with St Paul’s letter. This is the case here. As St Paul tells the Ephesians that the ideal Church is the pleroma of Christ and that the militant Church must strive to become the pleroma of Christ, so St John (i. 14 sq.) after describing our Lord as μονογενής, i.e. the unique and absolute representative of the Father, and as such ‘full (πλήρης) of grace and of truth’, says that they, the disciples, had ‘received out of His pleroma’ ever fresh accessions of grace. Each individual believer in his degree receives a fraction of that pleroma which is communicated whole to the ideal Church.

[Sidenote: Ignatian letters.]

The use of the word is not very different in the Ignatian letters. St Ignatius greets this same Ephesian Church, to which St Paul and St John successively here addressed the language already quoted, as ‘blessed in greatness by the pleroma of God the Father,’ i.e. by graces imparted from the pleroma. To the Trallians again he sends a greeting ‘in the pleroma’, where the word denotes the sphere of Divine gifts and operations, so that ἐν τῷ πληρώματι is almost equivalent to ἐν τῷ Κυρίῳ or ἐν τῷ πνεύματι.

[Sidenote: Gnostic sects.]

When we turn from Catholic Christianity to the Gnostic sects we find this term used, though (with one important exception) not in great frequency. Probably however, if the writings of the earlier Gnostics had been preserved, we should have found that it occupied a more important place than at present appears. One class of early Gnostics separated the spiritual being Christ from the man Jesus; they supposed that the Christ entered Jesus at the time of His baptism and left him at the moment of His crucifixion. Thus the Christ was neither born as a man nor suffered as a man. In this way they obviated the difficulty, insuperable to the Gnostic mind, of conceiving the connexion between the highest spiritual agency and gross corporeal matter which was involved in the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation and Passion, and which Gnostics of another type more effectually set aside by the theory of docetism, i.e. by assuming that the human body of our Lord was only a phantom body and not real flesh and blood. Irenæus represents the former class as teaching that ‘Jesus was the receptacle of the Christ’, and that the Christ ‘descended upon him from heaven in the form of a dove and after He had declared (to mankind) the nameless Father, entered (again) into the pleroma imperceptibly and invisibly’[551]. [Sidenote: The Cerinthians.]Here no names are given. But in another passage he ascribes precisely the same doctrine, without however naming the pleroma, to Cerinthus[552]. And in a third passage, which links together the other two, this same father, after mentioning this heresiarch, again alludes to the doctrine which maintained that the Christ, having descended on Jesus at his baptism, ‘flew back again into His own pleroma’[553]. In this last passage indeed the opinions of Cerinthus are mentioned in connexion with those of other Gnostics, more especially the Valentinians, so that we cannot with any certainty attribute this expression to Cerinthus himself. But in the first passage the unnamed heretics who maintained this return of the Christ ‘into the pleroma’ are expressly distinguished from the Valentinians; and presumably therefore the allusion is to the Cerinthians, to whom the doctrine, though not the expression, is ascribed in the second passage. [Sidenote: Connexion of this use with St Paul and with the Colossian heretics.]Thus there seems to be sufficient reason for attributing the use of the term to Cerinthus[554]. This indeed is probable on other grounds. The term _pleroma_, we may presume, was common to St Paul and the Colossian heretics whom he controverts. To both alike it conveyed the same idea, the totality of the divine powers or attributes or agencies or manifestations. But after this the divergence begins. They maintained that a single divine power, a fraction of the pleroma, resided in our Lord: the Apostle urges on the contrary, that the whole pleroma has its abode in Him[555]. The doctrine of Cerinthus was a development of the Colossian heresy, as I have endeavoured to show above[556]. He would therefore inherit the term _pleroma_ from it. [Sidenote: The _pleroma_ localized.]At the same time he seems to have given a poetical colouring to his doctrine, and so doing to have treated the pleroma as a _locality_, a higher spiritual region, from which this divine power, typified by the dove-like form, issued forth as on wings, and to which, taking flight again, it reascended before the Passion. If so, his language would prepare the way for the still more elaborate poetic imagery of the Valentinians, in which the pleroma, conceived as a locality, a region, an _abode_ of the divine powers, is conspicuous.

Footnote 551:

iii. 16. 1 ‘Quoniam autem sunt qui dicunt Iesum quidem receptaculum Christi fuisse, in quem desuper quasi columbam descendisse, et quum indicasset innominabilem Patrem, incomprehensibiliter et invisibiliter _intrasse in pleroma_’.

Footnote 552:

i. 26. 1 ‘post baptismum descendisse in eum ab ea principalitate, quæ est super omnia, Christum figura columbæ; et tunc annuntiasse incognitum Patrem et virtutes perfecisse: in fine autem _revolasse iterum_ Christum de Iesu et Iesum passum esse et resurrexisse, etc.’

Footnote 553:

iii. 11. 1 ‘iterum revolasse in suum pleroma’. This expression is the connecting link between the other two passages. This third passage is quoted more at length, above, p. 112: but I ought to have stated there that _illi_ is referred by several critics to the Valentinians, and that certainly some characteristic errors of the Valentinian teaching are specified immediately after. The probable explanation seems to be that _illi_ is intended to include the Gnostics generally, and that Irenæus mentions in illustration the principal errors of Gnostic teaching, irrespective of the schools to which they belong. He goes on to say that St John in his Gospel desired to exclude ‘omnia talia’.

Footnote 554:

I have not been able however to verify the statement in Harvey’s _Irenæus_ I. p. lxxiii that ‘The Valentinian notion of a spiritual marriage between the souls of the elect and the angels of the Pleroma originated with Cerinthus’.

Footnote 555:

See p. 101 sq., and the notes on i. 19.

Footnote 556:

p. 107 sq.

[Sidenote: The term avoided by Basilides,]

The attitude of later Gnostics towards this term is widely divergent. The word is not, so far as I am aware, once mentioned in connexion with the system of Basilides. Indeed the nomenclature of this heresiarch belongs to a wholly different type; and, as he altogether repudiated the doctrine of emanations[557], it is not probable that he would have any fondness for a term which was almost inextricably entangled with this doctrine.

Footnote 557:

Hippol. _R. H._ vii. 22 φεύγει γὰρ πάνυ καὶ δέδοικε τὰς κατὰ προβολὴν τῶν γεγονότων οὐσίας ὁ Βασιλείδης. Basilides asked why the absolute First Cause should be likened to a spider spinning threads from itself, or a smith or carpenter working up his materials. The later Basilideans, apparently influenced by Valentinianism, superadded to the teaching of their founder in this respect; but the strong language quoted by Hippolytus leaves no doubt about the mind of Basilides himself.

[Sidenote: but prominent in Valentinianism.]

On the other hand with Valentinus and the Valentinians the doctrine of the _pleroma_ was the very key-stone of their system; and, since at first sight it is somewhat difficult to connect their use of the term with St Paul’s, a few words on this subject may not be out of place.

[Sidenote: Poetic teaching of Valentinus.]

Valentinus then dressed his system in a poetic imagery not unlike the myths of his master Plato. But a myth or story involves action, and action requires a scene of action. Hence the mysteries of theology and cosmogony and redemption call for a _topographical_ representation, and the pleroma appears not as an abstract idea, but as a locality.

[Sidenote: _Topographical_ conception of the pleroma.]

The Valentinian system accordingly maps out the universe of things into two great regions, called respectively the _pleroma_ and the _kenoma_, the ‘fulness’ and the ‘void’. From a Christian point of view these may be described as the kingdoms of light and of darkness respectively. [Sidenote: Antithesis of _pleroma_ and _kenoma_.]From the side of Platonism, they are the regions of real and of phenomenal existences—the world of eternal archetypes or ideas, and the world of material and sensible things. The identification of these two antitheses was rendered easy for the Gnostic; because with him knowledge was one with morality and with salvation, and because also matter was absolutely bound up with evil. It is difficult to say whether the Platonism or the Christianity predominates in the Valentinian theology; but the former at all events is especially prominent in their conception of the relations between the pleroma and the kenoma.

[Sidenote: _Pleroma_ the abode of the Æons.]

The pleroma is the abode of the Æons, who are thirty in number. These Æons are successive emanations, of which the first pair sprang immediately from the preexistent Bythus or Depth. This Bythus is deity in itself, the absolute first principle, as the name suggests; the profound, unfathomable, limitless, of whom or of which nothing can be predicated and nothing known. Here again we have something like a _local_ representation. The Æons or emanations are plainly the attributes and energies of deity; they are, or they comprise, the eternal ideas or archetypes of the Platonic philosophy. In short they are deity relative, deity under self-imposed limitations, deity derived and divided up, as it were, so as at length to be conceivable.

[Sidenote: Different forms of Valentinianism.]

The topographical relation of Bythus to the derived Æons was differently given in different developments of the Valentinian teaching. According to one representation he was outside the pleroma; others placed his abode within it, but even in this case he was separated from the rest by Horus (Ὅρος), a personified Boundary or Fence, whom none, not even the Æons themselves, could pass[558]. The former mode of representation might be thought to accord better with the imagery, at the same time that it is more accurate if regarded as the embodiment of a philosophical conception. Nevertheless the latter was the favourite mode of delineation; and it had at least this recommendation, that it combined in one all that is real, as opposed to all that is phenomenal. In this pleroma every existence which is suprasensual and therefore true has its abode.

Footnote 558:

For the various modes in which the relation of the absolute first principle to the pleroma was represented in different Valentinian schools, see Iren. i. 1. 1, i. 2. 4, i. 11. 1, 3, 5, i. 12. 1, etc. The main distinction is that stated in the text: the first principle was represented in two ways; either (i) as a monad, outside the pleroma; or (ii) as a dyad, a syzygy, most commonly under the designation of Βυθός and Σιγή, included within the pleroma but fenced off from the other æons. The Valentinian doctrine as given by Hippolytus (vi. 29 sq.) represents the former type. There are good, though perhaps not absolutely decisive, reasons for supposing that this father gives the original teaching of Valentinus himself. For (1) this very doctrine of the monad seems to point to an earlier date. It is the link which connects the system of Valentinus not only with Pythagoreanism to which (as Hippolytus points out) he was so largely indebted, but also with the teaching of the earlier heresiarch Basilides, whose first principle likewise was a monad, the absolute nothing, the non-existent God. The conception of the first principle as a dyad seems to have been a later, and not very happy, modification of the doctrine of the founder, being in fact an extension of the principle of syzygies which Valentinus with a truer philosophical conception had restricted to the derived essences. (2) The exposition of Hippolytus throughout exhibits a system at once more consistent and more simple, than the luxuriant developments of the later Valentinians, such as Ptolemæus and Marcus. (3) The sequence of his statement points to the same conclusion. He gives a consecutive account of some one system, turning aside from time to time to notice the variations of different Valentinian schools from this standard and again resuming the main thread of his exposition. It seems most natural therefore that he should have taken the system of the founder as his basis. On the other hand Irenæus (i. 11. 1) states that Valentinus represented the first principle as a dyad (Ἄρρητος or Βυθὁς, and Σιγή): but there is no evidence that he had any direct or indirect knowledge of the writings of Valentinus himself, and his information was derived from the later disciples of the school, more especially from the Ptolemæans.

[Sidenote: _Kenoma_, the region of phenomena.]

Separated from this celestial region by Horus, another Horus or Boundary, which, or who, like the former is impassable, lies the ‘kenoma’ or ‘void’—the kingdom of this world, the region of matter and material things, the land of shadow and darkness[559]. Here is the empire of the Demiurge or Creator, who is not a celestial Æon at all, but was born in this very void over which he reigns. Here reside all those phenomenal, deceptive, transitory things, of which the eternal counterparts are found only in the pleroma.

Footnote 559:

Iren. i. 4. 1, 2, ii. 3. 1, ii. 4. 1, 3, ii. 5. 1, ii. 8. 1–3, ii. 14. 3, iii. 25. 6, 7, etc.

[Sidenote: Platonism of this antithesis.]

It is in this antithesis that the Platonism of the Valentinian theory reaches its climax. All things are set off one against another in these two regions[560]: just as

The swan on still St Mary’s lake Floats double, swan and shadow.

Not only have the thirty Æons their terrestrial counterparts; but their subdivisions also are represented in this lower region. The kenoma too has its ogdoad, its decad, its dodecad, like the pleroma[561]. There is one Sophia in the supramundane region, and another in the mundane; there is one Christ who redeems the Æons in the spiritual world, and a second Christ who redeems mankind, or rather a portion of mankind, in the sensible world. There is an Æon Man and another Æon Ecclesia in the celestial kingdom, the ideal counterparts to the Human Race and the Christian Church of the terrestrial. Even individual men and women, as we shall see presently, have their archetypes in this higher sphere of intelligible being.

Footnote 560:

Iren. i. 6. 3, i. 7. 1 sq., ii. 14. 3, ii. 15. 3 sq., ii. 20. 5, ii. 30. 3, etc.

Footnote 561:

Iren. i. 5. 2, ii. 14. 3; comp. Hippol. vi. 34.

[Sidenote: The localization of the _pleroma_ carried out in detail.]

The topographical conception of the pleroma moreover is carried out in the details of the imagery. The second Sophia, called also Achamoth, is the desire, the offspring, of her elder namesake, separated from her mother, cast out of the pleroma, and left ‘stranded’ in the void beyond[562], being prevented from returning by the inexorable Horus who guards the frontier of the supramundane kingdom. The second Christ—a being compounded of elements contributed by all the Æons[563]—was sent down from the pleroma, first of all at the eve of creation to infuse something like order and to provide for a spiritual element in this lower world; and secondly, when He united Himself with the man Jesus for the sake of redeeming those who were capable of redemption[564]. At the end of all things Sophia Achamoth, and with her the spiritual portion of mankind, shall be redeemed and received up into the pleroma, while the psychical portion will be left outside to form another kingdom under the dominion of their father the Demiurge. This redemption and ascension of Achamoth (by a perversion of a scriptural image) was represented as her espousals with the Saviour, the second Christ; and the pleroma, the scene of this happy union, was called the bridal-chamber[565]. Indeed the localization of the pleroma is as complete as language can make it. The constant repetition of the words ‘within’ and ‘without’, ‘above’ and ‘beneath’, in the development of this philosophical and religious myth still further impresses this local sense on the term[566].

Footnote 562:

Iren. i. 4. 1 λέγουσιν ἐν σκιαῖς [σκιᾶς] καὶ κενώματος τόποις _)εκβεβράσθαι_ κ.τ.λ. The Greek MS reads καὶ σκηνώματος, but the rendering of the early Latin translation ‘in umbræ [et?] vacuitatis locis’ leaves no doubt about the word in the original text. Tertullian says of this Achamoth (_adv. Valent._ 14) ‘explosa est in loca luminis aliena ... in vacuum atque inane illud Epicuri’. See note 567.

Footnote 563:

Iren. i. 2. 6, Hippol. vi. 32.

Footnote 564:

They quoted, as referring to this descent of the second Christ into the kenoma, the words of St Paul, Phil. ii. 7 ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν; Clem. Alex. _Exc. Theod._ 35 (p. 978).

Footnote 565:

Iren. i. 7. 1 καὶ τοῦτο εἶναι νυμφίον καὶ νύμφην, _νυμφῶνα_ δὲ τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα: comp. Hippol. vi. 34 ὁ νυμφίος αὐτῆς.

Footnote 566:

This language is so frequent that special references are needless. In Iren. ii. 5. 3 we have a still stronger expression, ‘in ventre pleromatis’.

[Sidenote: The connexion with St. Paul’s use of the term obscured,]

In this topographical representation the connexion of meaning in the word _pleroma_ as employed by St Paul and by Valentinus respectively seems at first sight to be entirely lost. When we read of the contrast between the pleroma and the kenoma, the fulness and the void, we are naturally reminded of the _plenum_ and the _vacuum_ of physical speculations. The sense of pleroma, as expressing completeness and so denoting the aggregate or totality of the Divine powers, seems altogether to have disappeared. [Sidenote: owing partly to the false antithesis κένωμα]But in fact this antithesis of κένωμα was, so far as we can make out, a mere after-thought, and appears to have been borrowed, as Irenæus states, from the physical theories of Democritus and Epicurus[567]. It would naturally suggest itself both because the opposition of πλήρης and κενὸς was obvious, and because the word κένωμα materially assisted the imagery as a description of the kingdom of waste and shadow. But in itself it is a false antithesis. [Sidenote: borrowed from physical philosophers;]The true antithesis appears in another, and probably an earlier, term used to describe the mundane kingdom. In this earlier representation, which there is good reason for ascribing to Valentinus himself, it is called not κένωμα ‘the void’, but ὑστέρημα ‘the deficiency, incompleteness’[568]. [Sidenote: but reappears in their common phraseology.]Moreover the common phraseology of the Valentinian schools shows that the idea suggested by this opposition to κένωμα was not the original idea of the term. They speak of τὸ πλήρωμα τῶν αἴωνων, τὸ πᾶν πλήρωμα τῶν αἴωνων, ‘the whole aggregate of the Æons’[569]. And this (making allowance for the personification of the Æons) corresponds exactly to its use in St Paul.

Footnote 567:

Iren. ii. 14. 3 ‘Umbram autem et vacuum ipsorum a Democrito et Epicuro sumentes sibimetipsis _aptaverunt_, quum illi primum multum sermonem fecerint de vacuo et de atomis’.

Footnote 568:

Hippol. vi. 31 καλεῖται δὲ ὅρος μὲν ὁῦτος ὅτι ἀφορίζει ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος ἔξω τὸ ὑστέρημα· μετοχὲυς δε ὅτι μετέχει καὶ τοῦ ὑστερήματος (i.e. as standing between the πλήρωμα and ὑστέρημα)· σταυρὸς δέ, ὅτι πέπηγεν ἀκλινῶς καὶ ἀμετανόητως, ὡς μὴ δύνασθαι μηδὲν τοῦ ὑστερήματος καταγενέσθαι ἐγγὺς τῶν ἐντὸς πληρώματος αἴωνων. Irenæus represents the Marcosians as designating the Demiurge καρπὸς ὑστερήματος i. 17. 2, i. 19. 1, ii. præf. 1, ii. 1. 1 (comp. i. 14. 1). This was perhaps intended originally as an antithesis to the name of the Christ, who was καρπὸς πληρώματος. The Marcosians however apparently meant Sophia Achamoth by this ὑστερημα. This transference from the whole to the part would be in strict accordance with their terminology: for as they called the supramundane æons πληρώματα (Iren. i. 14. 2, 5; quoted in Hippol. vi. 43, 46), so also by analogy they might designate the mundane Powers ὑστερήματα (comp. Iren. i. 16. 3). The term, as it occurs in the document used by Hippolytus, plainly denotes the _whole_ mundane region.

Hippolytus does not use the word κένωμα, though so common in Irenæus. This fact seems to point to the earlier date of the Valentinian document which he uses, and so to bear out the result arrived at in a previous note (p. 332) that we have here a work of Valentinus himself. The word ὑστέρημα appears also in _Exc. Theod._ 22 (p. 974).

Footnote 569:

e.g. Hippol. vi. 34, Iren. i. 2. 6. See especially Iren. ii. 7. 3 ‘Quoniam enim pleroma ipsorum triginta Aeones sunt, ipsi testantur’.

[Sidenote: The original meaning shown by other uses.]

Again the teaching of the Valentinian schools supplies other uses which serve to illustrate its meaning. Not only does the supramundane kingdom as a whole bear this name, but each separate Æon, of which that kingdom is the aggregation, is likewise called a pleroma[570]. This designation is given to an Æon, because it is the fulness, the perfection, of which its mundane counterpart is only a shadowy and defective copy. Nor does the narrowing of the term stop here. There likewise dwells in this higher region a pleroma, or eternal archetype, not only of every comprehensive mundane power, but of each individual man; and to wed himself with this heavenly partner, this Divine ideal of himself, must be the study of his life. [Sidenote: Interpretation of John iv. 17, 18.]The profound moral significance, which underlies the exaggerated Platonism and perverse exegesis of this conception, will be at once apparent. But the manner in which the theory was carried out is curiously illustrated by the commentary of the Valentinian Heracleon on our Lord’s discourse with the Samaritan woman[571]. This woman, such is his explanation, belongs to the spiritual portion of mankind. But she had had six[572] husbands, or in other words she had entangled herself with the material world, had defiled herself with sensuous things. The husband however, whom she now has, is not her husband; herein she has spoken rightly: the Saviour in fact means ‘her partner from the pleroma’. Hence she is bidden to go and call him; that is, she must find ‘her pleroma, that coming to the Saviour with him (or it), she may be able to obtain from Him the power and the union and the combination with her pleroma’ (τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν πρὸς τὸ πλήρωμα αὐτῆς). ‘For’, adds Heracleon, ‘He did not speak of a mundane (κοσμικοῦ) husband when He told her to call him, since He was not ignorant that she had no lawful husband’.

Footnote 570:

See the passages from Irenæus quoted above, note 568; comp. _Exc. Theod._ 32, 33 (p. 977). Similarly λόγοι is a synonym for the Æons, ὁμωνύμως τῷ Λόγῳ, _Exc. Theod._ 25 (p. 975).

Footnote 571:

Heracleon in Orig. _in Ioann._ xiii, iv. p. 205 sq. The passages are collected in Stieren’s Irenæus p. 947 sq. See especially p. 950 ὄιεται [ὁ Ἡρακλέων] τῆς Σαμαρείτιδος τὸν λεγόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἄνδρα τὸ _πλήρωμα εἶναι αὐτῆς_, ἵνα σὺν ἐκείνῳ γενομένη πρὸς τὸν σωτῆρα κομίσεσθαι παρ’ αὐτοῦ τὴν δύναμιν καὶ τὴν ἕνωσιν καὶ τὴν ἀνάκρασιν τὴν πρὸς _τὸ πλήρωμα αὑτῆς_ δυνηθῇ· οὐ γὰρ περὶ ἀνδρός, φησί, κοσμικοῦ ἔλεγεν ... λέγων αὐτῇ τὸν σωτῆρα εἰρηκέναι, Φώνησόν σου τὸν ἄνδρα καὶ ἐλθὲ ἐνθάδε· δηλοῦντα _τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ πληρώματος σύζυγον_. Lower down Heracleon says ἦν αὐτῆς ὁ ἀνὴρ ἐν τῷ Αἰῶνι. By this last expression I suppose he means that the great æon Man of the Ogdoad, the eternal archetype of mankind, comprises in itself archetypes corresponding to each individual man and woman, not indeed of the whole human race (for the Valentinian would exclude the psychical and carnal portion from any participation in this higher region) but of the spiritual portion thereof.

Footnote 572:

Origen expressly states that Heracleon read ἕξ for πέντε. The number six was supposed to symbolize the material creature: see Heracleon on ‘the forty and _six_ years’ of John ii. 20 (Stieren p. 947). There is no reason to think that Heracleon falsified the text here; he appears to have found this various reading already in his copy.

[Sidenote: Valentinians accept St Paul and St John,]

Impossible as it seems to us to reconcile the Valentinian system with the teaching of the Apostles, the Valentinians themselves felt no such difficulty. They intended their philosophy not to supersede or contradict the Apostolic doctrine, but to supplement it and to explain it on philosophical principles. Hence the Canon of the Valentinians comprehended the Canon of Catholic Christianity in all its essential parts, though some Valentinian schools at all events supplemented it with Apocryphal writings. More particularly the Gospel of St John and the Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians were regarded with especial favour; and those passages which speak of the pleroma are quoted more than once in their writings to illustrate their teaching. [Sidenote: and quote them in support of their views.]By isolating a few words from the context and interpreting them wholly without reference to their setting, they had no difficulty in finding a confirmation of their views, where we see only an incongruity or even a contradiction. For instance, their second Christ—the redeemer of the spiritual element in the mundane world—was, as we saw, compacted of gifts contributed by all the Æons of the pleroma. Hence he was called ‘the common fruit of the pleroma’, ‘the fruit of all the pleroma’[573], ‘the most perfect beauty and constellation of the pleroma’[574]; hence also he was designated ‘All’ (πᾶν) and ‘All things’ (πάντα)[575]. Accordingly, to this second Christ, not to the first, they applied these texts; Col. iii. 11 ‘And He is all things’, Rom. xi. 36 ‘All things are unto Him and from Him are all things’, Col. ii. 9 ‘In Him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead’, Ephes. i. 10 ‘To gather together in one all things in Christ through God’[576]. So too they styled him )Ευδόκητος, with a reference to Col. i. 19, because ‘all the pleroma was pleased through Him to glorify the Father’[577]. And inasmuch as this second Christ was according to the Valentinian theory instrumental in the creation of the mundane powers, they quoted, or rather misquoted, as referring to this participation in the work of the Demiurge, the passage Col. i. 16 ‘In Him were created all things, visible and invisible, thrones, deities, dominions’[578]. Indeed it seems clear that these adaptations were not always afterthoughts, but that in several instances at least their nomenclature was originally chosen for the sake of fitting the theory to isolated phrases and expressions in the Apostolic writings, however much it might conflict with the Apostolic doctrine in its main lines[579].

Footnote 573:

The expression is ὁ κοινὸς τοῦ πληρώματος καρπὸς in Hippolytus vi. 32, 34, 36 (pp. 190, 191, 192, 193, 196). In Irenæus i. 8. 5 it is καρπὸς παντὸς τοῦ πληρώματος.

Footnote 574:

Iren. i. 2. 6 τελειότατον κάλλος τε καὶ ἄστρον τοῦ πληρώματος.

Footnote 575:

Iren. i. 2. 6, i. 3. 4.

Footnote 576:

Iren. i. 3. 4. The passages are given in the text as they are quoted by Irenæus from the Valentinians. Three out of the four are incorrect.

Footnote 577:

Iren. i. 12. 4; comp. _Exc. Theod._ 31 (p. 977) εἰ ὁ κατελθὼν εὐδοκία τοῦ ὅλου ἦν· ἐν αὐτῷ γὰρ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα ἦν σωματικῶς.

Footnote 578:

Iren. i. 4. 5 ὅπως ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα κτισθῇ, τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, θεότητες, κυριότητες, where the misquotation is remarkable. In _Exc. Theod._ 43 (p. 979) the words run πάντα γὰρ ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ ὁρατὰ καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα, θρόνοι, κυριότητες, βασιλεῖαι, θεότητες, λειτουργίαι· δὶο καὶ ὁ Θεὸς αὐτὸν ὑπερύψωσεν κ.τ.λ. (the last words being taken from Phil. ii. 9 sq.).

Footnote 579:

Thus they interpreted Ephes. iii. 21 εἰς πάσας τὰς γενὲας τοῦ αἰῶνος τῶν αἰώνων as referring to their generated æons: Iren. i. 3. 1. Similar is the use which they made of expressions in the opening chapter of St John, where they found their first Ogdoad described: _ib._ i. 8. 5.

[Sidenote: Use of the term by the Docetæ]

The heretics called Docetæ by Hippolytus have no connexion with docetism, as it is generally understood, i.e. the tenet that Christ’s body was not real flesh and blood, but merely a phantom body. Their views on this point, as represented by this father, are wholly different[580]. Of their system generally nothing need be said here, except that it is largely saturated with Valentinian ideas and phrases. From the Valentinians they evidently borrowed their conception of the pleroma, by which they understood the aggregate, or (as localized) the abode, of the Æons. With them, as with the Valentinians, the Saviour is the common product of all the Æons[581]; and in speaking of him they echo a common Valentinian phrase ‘the pleroma of the entire Æons’[582].

Footnote 580:

_R. H._ viii. 10 (p. 267).

Footnote 581:

_ib._ viii. 9.

Footnote 582:

_ib._ viii. 10 (p. 266).

[Sidenote: and by two Ophite sects.]

The Ophite heresy, Proteus-like, assumes so many various forms, that the skill of critics has been taxed to the utmost to bind it with cords and extract its story from it. It appears however from the notices of Hippolytus, that the term _pleroma_ was used in a definite theological sense by at least two branches of the sect, whom he calls Naassenes and Peratæ.

[Sidenote: (i) Naassenes.]

Of the Naassenes Hippolytus tells us that among other images borrowed from the Christian and Jewish Scriptures, as well as from heathen poetry, they described the region of true knowledge—their kingdom of heaven, which was entered by initiation into their mysteries—as the land flowing with milk and honey, ‘which when the perfect (the true Gnostics, the fully initiated) have tasted, they are freed from subjection to kings (ἀβασιλεύτους) and partake of the pleroma.’ Here is a plain allusion to Joh. i. 16. ‘This’, the anonymous Naassene writer goes on to say, ‘is the pleroma, through which all created things coming into being are produced and fulfilled (πεπλήρωται) from the Uncreated’[583]. Here again, as in the Valentinian system, the conception of the pleroma is strongly tinged with Platonism. The pleroma is the region of ideas, of archetypes, which intervenes between the author of creation and the material world, and communicates their specific forms to the phenomenal existences of the latter.

Footnote 583:

_R. H._ v. 8.

[Sidenote: (ii) Peratæ.]

The theology of the second Ophite sect, the Peratæ, as described by Hippolytus, is a strange phenomenon. [Sidenote: Their theology]They divided the universe into three regions, the uncreate, the self-create, and the created. Again the middle region may be said to correspond roughly to the Platonic kingdom of ideas. But their conception of deity is entirely their own. They postulate three of every being; three Gods, three Words, three Minds (i.e. as we may suppose three Spirits), three Men. Thus there is a God for each region, just as there is a Man. In full accordance with this perverse and abnormal theology is their application of St Paul’s language. [Sidenote: and corresponding application of πλήρωμα.]Their Christ has three natures, belonging to these three kingdoms respectively; and this completeness of His being is implied by St Paul in Col. i. 19, ii. 9, which passages are combined in their loose quotation or paraphrase, ‘All the pleroma was pleased to dwell in him bodily, and there is in him all the godhead’, i.e. (as Hippolytus adds in explanation) ‘of this their triple division (τῆς οὕτω διῃρημένης τρίαδος)’[584]. This application is altogether arbitrary, having no relation whatever to the theological meaning of the term in St Paul. It is also an entire departure from the conception of the Cerinthians, Valentinians, and Naassenes, in which this meaning, however obscured, was not altogether lost. These three heresies took a horizontal section of the universe, so to speak, and applied the term as coextensive with the supramundane stratum. The Peratæ on the other hand divided it vertically, and the pleroma, in their interpretation of the text, denoted the whole extent of this vertical section. There is nothing in common between the two applications beyond the fundamental meaning of the word, ‘completeness, totality’.

Footnote 584:

_R. H._ v. 12.

[Sidenote: Pistis Sophia.]

The extant Gnostic work, called Pistis Sophia, was attributed at one time on insufficient grounds to Valentinus. It appears however to exhibit a late development of Ophitism[585], far more Christian and less heathen in its character than those already considered. In this work the word pleroma occurs with tolerable frequency; but its meaning is not easily fixed. [Sidenote: Frequent use of the term.]Early in the treatise it is said that the disciples supposed a certain ‘mystery’, of which Jesus spoke, to be ‘the end of all the ends’ and ‘the head (κεφαλήν) of the Universe’ and ‘the whole pleroma’[586]. Here we seem to have an allusion to the Platonic kingdom of ideas, i.e. of intelligible being, of absolute truth, as reproduced in the Valentinian pleroma. And the word is used sometimes in connexion with the completeness of revelation or the perfection of knowledge. Thus our Lord is represented as saying to His disciples, ‘I will tell you the whole mystery and the whole pleroma, and I will conceal nothing from you from this hour; and in perfection will I perfect you in every pleroma and in every perfection and in every mystery, which things are the perfection of all the perfections and the pleroma of all the pleromas’[587]. Elsewhere however Mary, to whom Jesus is represented as making some of his chief revelations, is thus addressed by Him; ‘Blessed art thou above (παρὰ) all women that are on the earth, for thou shalt be pleroma of all the pleromas and perfection of all the perfections’[588], where the word must be used in a more general sense.

Footnote 585:

See Köstlin in _Theolog. Jahrb._ Tübingen 1854, p. 185.

Footnote 586:

_Pistis Sophia_ p. 3 sq.

Footnote 587:

_ib._ p. 15 sq.: comp. pp. 4, 60, 75, 187, 275.

Footnote 588:

_ib._ p. 28 sq.: comp. p. 56. On p. 7 πλήρωμα is opposed to ἀρχή, apparently in the sense of ‘completion’.

[Sidenote: Monoimus the Arabian.]

One heresy still remains to be noticed in connexion with this word. Hippolytus has preserved an account of the teaching of Monoimus the Arabian, of whom previously to the discovery of this father’s treatise we knew little more than the name. In this strange form of heresy the absolute first principle is the uncreate, imperishable, eternal Man. I need not stop to enquire what this statement means. It is sufficient for the present purpose to add that this eternal Man is symbolized by the letter Ι, the ‘one iota’, the ‘one tittle’ of the Gospel[589]; and this Ι, as representing the number ten, includes in itself all the units from one to nine. ‘This’, added Monoimus, ‘is (meant by) the saying (of scripture) _All the pleroma was pleased to dwell upon the Son of Man_ _bodily_’[590]. Here the original idea of the word as denoting completeness, totality, is still preserved.

Footnote 589:

Matt. v. 18.

Footnote 590:

_R. H._ viii. 13.

_The Epistle from_ _Laodicea_[591].

[Sidenote: Different theories classified.]

The different opinions respecting the epistle thus designated by St Paul, which have been held in ancient or modern times, will be seen from the following table;

1. An _Epistle written by the Laodiceans_; to

(α) St Paul;

(β) Epaphras;

(γ) Colossæ.

2. An _Epistle written by St Paul from Laodicea_.

(α) 1 Timothy;

(β) 1 Thessalonians;

(γ) 2 Thessalonians;

(δ) Galatians.

3. An _Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans_ by

(_a_) St John (the First Epistle);

(_b_) Some companion of St Paul (Epaphras or Luke);

(_c_) St Paul himself;

(i) A lost Epistle.

(ii) One of the Canonical Epistles.

(α) Hebrews;

(β) Philemon;

(γ) Ephesians.

(iii) The Apocryphal Epistle.

Footnote 591:

The work of Anger, _Ueber den Laodicenerbrief_ (Leipzig 1843), is very complete. He enumerates and discusses very thoroughly the opinions of his predecessors, omitting hardly anything relating to the literature of the subject which was accessible at the time when he wrote. His exposition of his own view, though not less elaborate, is less satisfactory. A later monograph by A. Sartori, _Ueber den Laodicenserbrief_ (Lübeck 1853), is much slighter and contributes nothing new.

In this maze of conflicting hypotheses we might perhaps be tempted to despair of finding our way and give up the search as hopeless. Yet I venture to think that the true identification of the epistle in question is not, or at least ought not to be, doubtful.

[Sidenote: 1. An epistle written by the Laodiceans.]

1. The opinion that the epistle was addressed by the Laodiceans to St Paul, and not conversely, found much support in the age of the Greek commentators. It is mentioned by St Chrysostom as held by ‘some persons’, though he himself does not pronounce a definite opinion on the subject[592]. [Sidenote: Advocates of this theory.]It is eagerly advocated by Theodore of Mopsuestia. He supposes that the letter of the Laodiceans contained some reflexions on the Colossian Church, and that St Paul thought it good for the Colossians to hear what their neighbours said of them[593]. Theodoret, though not mentioning Theodore by name, follows in his footsteps[594]. The same opinion is also expressed in a note ascribed to Photius in the [OE]cumenian Catena. This view seems to have been very widely entertained in ancient times. It possibly underlies the Latin Version ‘ea quæ Laodicensium est’[595]: it is distinctly expressed in the rendering of the Peshito, ‘that which was written by the Laodiceans’[596]. At a more recent date too it found great favour. It was adopted on the one hand by Calvin[597] and Beza[598] and Davenant and Lightfoot[599], on the other by Baronius[600] and à Lapide and Estius, besides other very considerable names[601]. Latterly its popularity has declined, but it has secured the support of one or two commentators even in the present century.

Footnote 592:

_ad loc._ τινὲς λέγουσιν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἀπεσταλμένην, ἀλλὰ τὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν Πάυλῳ· οὐ γὰρ εἶπε τὴν πρὸς _Λαοδικέας_ ἀλλὰ τὴν ἐκ _Λαοδικείας_.

Footnote 593:

Rab. Maur. _Op._ VI. p. 540 (Migne) ‘Non quia ad Laodicenses scribit. Unde quidam falsam epistolam ad Laodicenses ex nomine beati Pauli confingendam esse existimaverunt; nec enim erat vera epistola. Æstimaverunt autem quidam illam esse, quæ in hoc loco est significata. Apostolus vero non [_ad_] _Laodicenses_ dicit sed _ex Laodicea_; quam illi scripserunt ad apostolum, in quam aliqua reprehensionis digna inferebantur, quam etiam hac de causa jussit apud eos legi, ut ipsi reprehendant seipsos discentes quæ de ipsis erant dicta’ (see _Spic. Solesm._ I. p. 133) etc.

Footnote 594:

After repeating the argument based on the expression τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας, Theodoret says εἰκὸς δὲ αὐτοὺς ἢ τὰ ἐν Κολασσαῖς γενόμενα αἰτιάσασθαι ἢ τὰ αὐτὰ τούτοις νενοσηκέναι.

Footnote 595:

This however may be questioned. On the other hand Beza (_ad loc._), Whitaker (_Disputation on Scripture_ pp. 108, 303, 468 sq., 526, 531, Parker Society’s ed.), and others, who explain the passage in this way, urge that it is required by the Greek ἐκ Λαοδικείας, and complain that the other interpretation depends on the erroneous Latin rendering.

Footnote 596:

Or, ‘that which was written from Laodicea.’ The difference depends on the vocalisation of ܠܕܝܩܝܐ which may be either (1) ‘Laodicea,’ as in vv. 13, 15, or (2) ‘the Laodiceans,’ as in the previous clause in this same ver. 16.

Footnote 597:

Calvin is very positive; ‘Bis hallucinati sunt qui Paulum arbitrati sunt ad Laodicenses scripsisse. Non dubito quin epistola fuerit ad Paulum missa.... Impostura autem nimis crassa fuit, quod nebulo nescio quis hoc prætextu epistolam supponere ausus est adeo insulsam, ut nihil a Pauli spiritu magis alienum fingi queat.’ The last sentence reveals the motive which unconsciously led so many to adopt this unnatural interpretation of St Paul’s language.

Footnote 598:

_ad loc._ ‘Multo fœdius errarunt qui ex hoc loco suspicati sunt quandam fuisse epistolam Pauli ad Laodicenses ... quum potius significet Paulus epistolam aliquam ad se missam Laodicea, aut potius qua responsuri essent Laodicenses Colossensibus.’

Footnote 599:

_Works_ II. p. 326.

Footnote 600:

_Ann. Eccl._ s. a. 60, § xiii.

Footnote 601:

e.g. Tillemont _Mem. Eccl._ p. 576.

[Sidenote: Reasons for it.]

The underlying motive of this interpretation was to withdraw the support which the apocryphal epistle seemed to derive from this reference, without being obliged at the same time to postulate a lost epistle of St Paul. The critical argument adduced in its support was the form of expression, τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας. [Sidenote: Objections to it.]The whole context however points to a different explanation. The Colossian and Laodicean Epistles are obviously regarded as in some sense companion epistles, of which the Apostle directs an interchange between the two Churches. And again, if the letter in question had been written by the Laodiceans to St Paul, why should he enjoin the Colossians to get it from Laodicea? How could he assume that a copy had been kept by the Laodiceans; or, if kept, would be given up when required? Indeed the difficulties in this hypothesis are so great, that nothing but the most imperious requirements of the Greek language would justify its acceptance. But the expression in the original makes no such demand. It is equally competent for us to explain τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας either ‘the letter written from Laodicea’, or ‘the letter to be procured from Laodicea’, as the context may suggest. The latter accords at least as well with Greek usage as the former[602].

Footnote 602:

See the note on iv. 16.

[Sidenote: Views respecting the person addressed.]

The vast majority of those who interpret the expression in this way assume that the letter was written to (α) St Paul. The modifications of this view, which suppose it addressed to some one else, need hardly be considered. The theory for instance, which addresses it to (β) Epaphras[603], removes none of the objections brought against the simpler hypothesis. Another opinion, which takes (γ) the Colossians themselves to have been the recipients[604], does indeed dispose of one difficulty, the necessity of assuming a copy kept by the Laodiceans, but it is even more irreconcileable with the language of the context. Why then should St Paul so studiously charge them to see that they read it? Why above all should he say καὶ ὑμεῖς, ‘_ye also_’, when they were the only persons who would read it as a matter of course?

Footnote 603:

e.g. Storr _Opusc._ II. p. 124 sq.

Footnote 604:

So for instance Corn. à Lapide, as an alternative, ‘vel certe ad ipsos Colossenses, ut vult Theodor.’; but I do not find anything of the kind in Theodoret. This view also commends itself to Beza.

[Sidenote: 2. A letter written from Laodicea by St Paul.]

2. A second class of identifications rests on the supposition that it was a letter written _from_ Laodicea, though not by the Laodiceans themselves. The considerations which recommend this hypothesis for acceptance are the same as in the last case. It withdraws all support from the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans, and it refrains from postulating a lost Apostolic epistle. It is not exposed to all the objections of the other theory, but it introduces new difficulties still more serious. Here a choice of several epistles is offered to us. [Sidenote: 1 Timothy.](α) _The First Epistle to Timothy._ This view is distinctly maintained by John Damascene[605] and by Theophylact[606]; but it took its rise much earlier. It appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac[607], and it seems to have suggested the subscriptions found in many authorities at the close of that epistle. The words ἐγράφη ἀπὸ Λαοδικείας are found in AKL 47 etc., and many of these define the place meant by the addition ἥτις ἐστὶ μητρόπολις Φρυγίας τῆς Πακατιανῆς. A similar note is found in some Latin MSS. It is quite possible that this subscription was prior to the theory respecting the interpretation of Col. iv. 16, and gave rise to it; but the converse is more probable, and in some MSS (a^{scr}, 74) the bearing of this subscription on Col. iv. 16 is emphasized, ἰδὸυ δὴ καὶ ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας. This identification has not been altogether without support in later times[608]. [Sidenote: 1 Thessalonians.](β) The _First Epistle to the Thessalonians_. A final colophon in the Philoxenian Syriac asserts that it was ‘written from Laodicea’: and the same is stated in a later hand of d, ‘scribens a Laodicea’. Again an Æthiopic MS, though giving Athens as the place of writing, adds that it was ‘sent with Timotheus, _Tychicus_, and _Onesimus_[609].’ This identification was perhaps suggested by the fact that 1 Thessalonians follows next after Colossians in the common order of St Paul’s Epistles. [Sidenote: 2 Thessalonians.](γ) The _Second Epistle to the Thessalonians_. In the Peshito (as given by Schaaf[609]) there is a final colophon stating that this epistle ‘was written from Laodicea of Pisidia and was sent by the hand of Tychicus[610]’. Though the addition of Pisidia wrongly defines the place as _Laodicea Combusta_, instead of _Laodicea ad Lycum_, yet the mention of the messenger’s name shows plainly that the identification with the missing epistle of Col. iv. 16 was contemplated. So too the Memphitic ‘per Silvanum et _Tychicum_’, and a Latin prologue ‘per Titum et _Onesimum_’. Again an Æthiopic MS points to the same identification, though strangely confused in its statements. In the superscription we are told that this epistle was written when the Apostle was at Laodicea, but in the subscription that it ‘was written at Athens to Laodicea and sent by Tychicus’; while the prolegomena state that it was written and left at Laodicea, and that afterwards, when St Paul wrote his letter to the Colossians from Rome, he gave directions that it should be transmitted to the Thessalonians by the Colossians[611]. [Sidenote: Galatians.](δ) The _Epistle to the Galatians_[612]. This might have been chosen, partly because it affords no internal data for deciding where it was written, partly because like the Colossian Epistle it is directed against a form of Judaism, and the advocates of this hypothesis might not be careful to distinguish the two types, though very distinct in themselves. I find no support for it in the subscriptions, except the notice ‘per _Tychicum_’ in some Slavonic MSS.

Footnote 605:

_Op._ II. p. 214 (ed. Lequien) τὴν πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτην λέγει. But he adds τινὲς φασὶν ὅτι οὐχὶ τὴν Παύλου πρὸς αὐτοὺς ἐπεσταλμένην ... ἀλλὰ τὴν παρ’ αὐτῶν Πάυλῳ ἐκ Λαοδικείας γραφεῖσαν.

Footnote 606:

_ad loc._ τίς δὲ ἦν ἡ ἐκ Λαοδικείας; ἡ πρὸς Τιμόθεον πρώτη· αὕτη γὰρ ἐκ Λαοδικείας ἐγράφη. Τινὲς δέ φασιν ὅτι ἣν οἱ Λαοδικεῖς Παύλῳ ἐπέστειλαν, ἀλλ’ οὐκ οἶδα τί ἂν ἐκείνῃς ἔδει αὐτοῖς πρὸς βελτίωσιν.

Footnote 607:

_ad loc._ ‘Propter eam quæ est ad Timotheum dixit.’

Footnote 608:

It is adopted by Erasmus in his paraphrase; ‘vicissim vos legatis epistolam quæ Timotheo scripta fuit ex Laodicensium urbe’: but in his commentary he does not commit himself to it. For other names see Anger p. 17, note k.

Footnote 609:

_Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop._ p. 23.

Footnote 610:

In the editio princeps (Vienna 1555) the latter part of this colophon, ‘and was sent by the hand of Tychicus,’ is wanting.

Footnote 611:

_Catal. Bibl. Bodl. Cod. Æthiop._ p. 23.

Footnote 612:

Bloch, quoted in Anger p. 17 note l.

[Sidenote: Objections to these solutions.]

The special difficulties attending this class of solutions are manifold. (1) It does not appear that St Paul had ever been at Laodicea when he wrote the letter to the Colossians. (2) All the epistles thus singled out are separated from the Colossian letter by an interval of some years at least. (3) In every case they can with a high degree of probability be shown to have been written elsewhere than at Laodicea. Indeed, as St Paul had been long a prisoner either at Cæsarea or at Rome, when he wrote to Colossæ, he could not have despatched a letter recently from Laodicea.

[Sidenote: 3. A letter to the Laodiceans written by (_a_) St John. (_b_) A companion of St Paul. (_c_) St Paul.]

3. Thus we are thrown back on some form of the solution which makes it a letter written _to the Laodiceans_. And here we may at once reject the hypothesis that the writer was (_a_) St John[613]. The First Epistle of St John, which has been selected, was written (as is allowed on all hands) much later than this date. Nor again does St Paul’s language favour the alternative, which others have maintained, that the letter in question was written by (_b_) one of St Paul’s companions, e.g. Epaphras or Luke[614]. The writer must therefore have been (_c_) St Paul himself.

Footnote 613:

A conjecture of Lightfoot’s (_Works_ II. pp. 326, 339, London 1684), but he does not lay much stress on it. He offers it ‘rather then conceive that any epistle of Paul is lost.’ See also Anger p. 17, note m.

Footnote 614:

Baumgarten _Comm._ ad loc., quoted by Anger p. 25, note g.

On this assumption three alternatives offer themselves.

[Sidenote: (i) A lost letter.]]

(i). We may suppose that the epistle in question has been lost. It has been pointed out elsewhere that the Apostle must have written many letters which are not preserved in our Canon[615]. Thus there is no _a priori_ objection to this solution; and, being easy and obvious in itself, it has found common support in recent times. If therefore we had no positive reasons for identifying the Laodicean letter with one of the extant epistles of our Canon, we might at once close with this account of the matter. But such reasons do exist. And moreover, as we are obliged to suppose that at least three letters—the Epistles to the Colossians, to the Ephesians, and to Philemon—were despatched by St Paul to Asia Minor at the same time, it is best not to postulate a fourth, unless we are obliged to do so.

Footnote 615:

_Philippians_ p. 136 sq.

[Sidenote: (ii) A Canonical epistle.]

(ii). But, if it was not a lost letter, with which of the Canonical Epistles of St Paul can we identify it with most probability? Was it

[Sidenote: (α) Hebrews. Philastrius.]

(α) _The Epistle to the Hebrews?_ The supporters of this hypothesis are able to produce ancient evidence of a certain kind, though not such as carries any real weight. Philastrius, writing about the close of the fourth century, says that some persons ascribed the authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews to Luke the Evangelist, and adds that it was asserted (apparently by these same persons, though this is not quite clear) to have been written to the Laodiceans[616]. [Sidenote: Supposed testimony of MS G.]Again in the Græco-Latin MS G of St Paul’s Epistles, the _Codex Boernerianus_, probably written in the ninth century, after the Epistle to Philemon, which breaks off abruptly at ver. 20, a vacant space is left, as if for the conclusion of this epistle: and then follows a fresh title

ad laudicenses incipit epistola ==προϲ\ \ \ \ λαουδακηϲαϲ \ \ \ \ αρχεται \ \ \ \ επιϲτολη==

This is evidently intended as the heading to another epistle. No other epistle however succeeds, but the leaf containing this title is followed by several leaves, which were originally left blank, but were filled at a later date with extraneous matter. What then was this Epistle to the Laodiceans, which was intended to follow, but which the scribe was prevented from transcribing? As the Epistle to the Hebrews is not found in this MS, and as in the common order of the Pauline Epistles it would follow the Epistle to Philemon, the title has frequently been supposed to refer to it. This opinion however does not appear at all probable. Anger[617] indeed argues in its favour on the ground that in the companion MS F, the _Codex Augiensis_, which (so far as regards the Greek text) must have been derived immediately from the same archetype[618], the Epistle to the Hebrews does really follow. But what are the facts? [Sidenote: Relation of G to F.]It is plain that the Greek texts of G and F came from the same original: but it is equally plain that the two scribes had different Latin texts before them—that of G being the Old Latin, and that of F Jerome’s revised Vulgate. No argument therefore derived from the Latin text holds good for the Greek. But the phenomena of both MSS alike[619] show that the Greek text of their common archetype ended abruptly at Philem. 20 (probably owing to the loss of the final leaves of the volume). The two scribes therefore were left severally to the resources of their respective Latin MSS. The scribe of F, whose Greek and Latin texts are in parallel columns, concluded the Epistle to Philemon in Latin, though he could not match it with its proper Greek; and after this he added the Epistle to the Hebrews in Latin, no longer however leaving a blank column, as he had done for the last few verses of Philemon. On the other hand the Latin text in G is interlinear, the Latin words being written above the Greek to interpret them. When therefore the Greek text came to an end the scribe’s work was done, for he could no longer interlineate. But he left a blank space for the remainder of Philemon, hoping doubtless hereafter to find a Greek MS from which he could fill it in; and he likewise gave the title of the epistle which he found next in his Latin copy, in Greek as well as in Latin. The Greek title however he had to supply for himself. This is clear from the form, which shows it to have been translated from the Latin by a person who had the very smallest knowledge of Greek. No Greek in the most barbarous age would have written ==λαουδακηϲαϲ== for ==λαοδικεαϲ== or ==λαοδικηνουϲ==. The αου is a Latin corruption _au_ for _ao_, and the termination ==αϲ== is a Latin’s notion of the Greek accusative. Thus the whole word is a reproduction of the Latin ‘Laudicenses,’ the _en_ being represented as usual by the Greek ε[620]. [Sidenote: The spurious Laodicean Epistle intended.]If so, we have only to ask what writing would probably appear as _Epistola ad Laudicenses_ in a Latin copy; and to this question there can be only one answer. The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans occurs frequently in the Latin Bibles, being found at least two or three centuries before the MS G was written. Though it does not usually follow the Epistle to Philemon, yet its place varies very considerably in different Latin copies, and an instance will be given below[621] where it actually occurs in this position.

Footnote 616:

_Hær._ lxxxix ‘Sunt alii quoque qui epistolam Pauli ad Hebræos non adserunt esse ipsius, sed dicunt aut Barnabæ esse apostoli aut Clementis de urbe Roma episcopi; alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam. Et quia addiderunt in ea quædam non bene sentientes, inde non legitur in ecclesia; et si legitur a quibusdam, non tamen in ecclesia legitur populo, nisi tredecim epistolæ ipsius, et ad Hebræos interdum. Et in ea quia rhetorice scripsit, sermone plausibili, inde non putant esse ejusdem apostoli; et quia factum Christum dicit in ea [Heb. iii. 2], inde non legitur; de pœnitentia autem [Heb. vi. 4, x. 26] propter Novatianos æque. Cum ergo factum dicit Christum, corpore, non divinitate, dicit factum, cum doceat ibidem quod divinæ sit et paternæ substantiæ filius, _Qui est splendor gloriæ_, inquit, _et imago substantiæ ejus_ [Heb. i. 3]’ etc. Oehler punctuates the sentence with which we are concerned thus: ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ. Aiunt epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam,’ and in his note he adds ‘videlicet Pauli esse apostoli.’ Thus he supposes the clause to refer to the apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans: and Fabricius explains the reference similarly. Such a reference however would be quite out of place here. The whole paragraph before and after is taken up with discussing the Epistle to the Hebrews; and the interposition of just six words, referring to a wholly different matter, is inconceivable. We must therefore punctuate either ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt epistolam, etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam’, or ‘alii autem Lucæ evangelistæ aiunt; epistolam etiam ad Laodicenses scriptam.’ In either case it will mean that some persons supposed the Epistle to the Hebrews to have been written to the Laodiceans.

Footnote 617:

_Laodicenerbrief_ p. 29 sq.

Footnote 618:

If indeed the Greek text of F was not copied immediately from G, as has been recently maintained by Mr Hort in the _Journal of Philology_ III. p. 67. The divergent phenomena of the two Latin texts seem to me unfavourable to this hypothesis; but it ought not to be hastily rejected.

Footnote 619:

Volkmar, the editor of Credner’s _Geschichte des Neutestamentlichen Kanon_ p. 299, with strange carelessness speaks of ‘the appearance (das Vorkommen) of the Laodicean Epistle in both the _Codices Augiensis_ and _Boernerianus_ which in other respects are closely allied.’ There is no mention of it in the Codex Augiensis.

Footnote 620:

It is curious that this MS, which was written by an Irish scribe, should give the same corrupt form, Laud_ac_- for Laod_ac_-, which we find in the Book of Armagh; see below p. 348.

Footnote 621:

See p. 352. It occurs also in this position in the list of Aelfric (see below p. 362), where the order of the Pauline Epistles is ... Col., Hebr., 1, 2 Tim., Tit., Philem., Laod.

[Sidenote: This identification unsatisfactory.]

Thus beyond the notice in Philastrius there is no ancient support for the identification of the missing letter of Col. iv. 16 with the Epistle to the Hebrews; and doubtless the persons to whom Philastrius alludes had no more authority for their opinion than their modern successors. Critical conjecture, not historical tradition, led them to this result. The theory therefore must stand or fall by its own merits. It has been maintained by one or two modern writers[622], chiefly on the ground of some partial coincidences between the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Colossians; but the general character and purport of the two is wholly dissimilar, and they obviously deal with antagonists of a very different type. The insuperable difficulty of supposing that two epistles so unlike in style were written by the same person to the same neighbourhood at or about the same time would still remain, even though the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews should be for a moment granted.

Footnote 622:

See especially Schneckenburger _Beiträge_ p. 153 sq.

[Sidenote: (β) Philemon.]

(β) The _Epistle to Philemon_ has been strongly advocated by Wieseler[623], as the letter to which St Paul refers in this passage. For this identification it is necessary to establish two points; (1) that Philemon lived not at Colossæ, but at Laodicea; and (2) that the letter is addressed not to a private individual, but to a whole church. For the first point there is something to be said. Though for reasons explained elsewhere the abode of Philemon himself appears to have been at Colossæ, wherever Archippus may have resided[624], still two opinions may very fairly be held on this point. But Wieseler’s arguments entirely fail to establish his other position. [Sidenote: This epistle does not answer the conditions.]The theme, the treatment, the whole tenour of the letter, mark it as private: and the mere fact that the Apostle’s courtesy leads him to include in the opening salutation the Christians who met at Philemon’s house is powerless to change its character. Why should a letter, containing such intimate confidences, be read publicly in the Church, not only at Laodicea but at Colossæ, by the express order of the Apostle? The tact and delicacy of the Apostle’s pleading for Onesimus would be nullified at one stroke by the demand for publication.

Footnote 623:

Some earlier writers who maintained this view are mentioned by Anger, p. 25, note f. It has since been more fully developed and more vigorously urged by Wieseler, first in a programme _Commentat. de Epist. Laodicena quam vulgo perditam putant_ 1844, and afterwards in his well known work _Chronol. des Apostol. Zeit._ p. 450 sq. It may therefore be identified with his name. He speaks of it with much confidence as ‘scarcely open to a doubt,’ but he has not succeeded in convincing others.

Footnote 624:

See the introduction to the Epistle to Philemon.

[Sidenote: (γ) Ephesians.]

(γ) But may we not identify the letter in question with the _Epistle to the Ephesians_, which also is known to have been despatched at the same time with the Epistle to the Colossians? Unlike the Epistle to Philemon, it was addressed not to a private person but to a church or churches. If therefore it can be shown that the Laodiceans were the recipients, either alone or with others, we have found the object of our search. [Sidenote: This is the true solution.]The arguments in favour of this solution are reserved for the introduction to that epistle. Meanwhile it is sufficient to say that educated opinion is tending, though slowly, in this direction, and to express the belief that ultimately this view will be generally received[625].

Footnote 625:

See above p. 37.

[Sidenote: (iii) The extant un-canonical Epistle to the Laodiceans.]

(iii) Another wholly different identification remains to be mentioned. It was neither a lost epistle nor a Canonical epistle, thought some, but the writing which is extant under the title of the ‘Epistle to the Laodiceans,’ though not generally received by the Church. Of the various opinions held respecting this apocryphal letter I shall have to speak presently. It is sufficient here to say that the advocates of its genuineness fall into two classes. Either they assign to it a place in the Canon with the other Epistles of St Paul, or they acquiesce in its exclusion, holding that the Church has authority to pronounce for or against the Canonicity even of Apostolic writings.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: General character of the spurious epistle.]

The apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans is a cento of Pauline phrases strung together without any definite connexion or any clear object. They are taken chiefly from the Epistle to the Philippians, but here and there one is borrowed elsewhere, e.g. from the Epistle to the Galatians. Of course it closes with an injunction to the Laodiceans to exchange epistles with the Colossians. The Apostle’s injunction in Col. iv. 16 suggested the forgery, and such currency as it ever attained was due to the support which that passage was supposed to give to it. Unlike most forgeries, it had no ulterior aim. It was not framed to advance any particular opinions, whether heterodox or orthodox. It has no doctrinal peculiarities. Thus it is quite harmless, so far as falsity and stupidity combined can ever be regarded as harmless.

* * * * *

Among the more important MSS which contain this epistle are the following. The letters in brackets [ ] give the designations adopted in the apparatus of various readings which follows.

1. _Fuldensis_ [F]. The famous MS of the Vulgate N. T. written for Victor Bishop of Capua, by whom it was read and corrected in the years 546, 547; edited by Ern. Ranke, _Marburgi et Lipsiæ_ 1868. The Laodicean Epistle occurs between Col. and 1 Tim. without any indication of doubtful authenticity, except that it has no argument or table of contents, like the other epistles. The scribe however has erroneously interpolated part of the argument belonging to 1 Tim. between the title and the epistle; see p. 291 sq. of Ranke’s edition.

2. _Cavensis._ A MS of the whole Latin Bible, at the Monastery of La Cava near Salerno, ascribed to the 6th or 7th or 8th century. See Vercellone _Var. Lect. Vulg. Lat. Bibl._ I. p. lxxxviii. Unfortunately we have no account of the readings in the Laodicean Epistle (for which it would be the most important authority after the Codex Fuldensis), except the last sentence quoted by Mai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63, ‘Et facite legi Colossensium vobis.’ Laod. here occurs between Col. and 1 Thess. (Mai p. 62). Dr Westcott (Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible s.v. Vulgate_, p. 1713) has remarked that the two oldest authorities for the interpolation of the three heavenly witnesses in 1 Joh. v. 7, this La Cava MS and the _Speculum_ published by Mai, also support the Laodicean Epistle (see Mai l.c. pp. 7, 62 sq.). The two phenomena are combined in another very ancient MS, Brit. Mus. _Add._ 11,852, described below.

3. _Armachanus_ [A]. A MS of the N. T., now belonging to Trinity College, Dublin, and known as the ‘Book of Armagh.’ It was written in the year 807, as ascertained by Bp. Graves; see the _Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy_ III. pp. 316, 356. The Laodicean Epistle follows Colossians on fol. 138, but with the warning that Jerome denies its genuineness. The text of the Laodicean Epistle in this MS is not so pure as might have been anticipated from its antiquity. I owe the collation of readings which is given below to the kindness of Dr Reeves, who is engaged in editing the MS.

4. _Darmstadiensis_ [D]. A fol. MS of the whole Bible, defective from Apoc. xxii. 12 to the end, now in the Grand-ducal library at Darmstadt, but formerly belonging to the Cathedral Library at Cologne; presented by Hermann Pius, Archbishop of Cologne from A.D. 890–925. Laod. follows Col. A collation was made for Anger, from whom (p. 144) this account is taken.

5. _Bernensis_ no. 334 [B]. A 4to MS of miscellaneous contents, ending with the Pauline Epistles, the last being the Epistle to the Laodiceans, written in the 9th cent. The Laodicean Epistle is a fragment, ending with ‘Gaudete in Christo et præcavete sordibus in lucro’ (ver. 13). This account is taken by Anger from Sinner _Catal. Cod. MSS. Bibl. Bern._ I. p. 28. In his Addenda (p. 179) Anger gives a collation of this MS.

6. _Toletanus_ [T] A MS of the Latin Bible belonging to the Cathedral Library at Toledo, and written about the 8th century: see Westcott in Smith’s _Dict. of the Bible_, s.v. _Vulgate_ p. 1710, Vercellone _Var. Lect._ I. p. lxxxiv. sq. The readings in the Laodicean Epistle are taken from Joh. Mariana _Schol. in Vet. et Nov. Test._, where it is printed in full. The edition which I have used is dated Paris 1620 (p. 831). The text however cannot be assumed to be strictly accurate, as Mariana had a printed copy of the epistle before him, from which at all events he supplied in brackets words wanting in the MS (see Anger p. 144), and which may have influenced his readings in other ways. In this MS Laod. follows Col.

7. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 3 (formerly 3562)[626] [P_{1}]. A Latin Bible, in one volume fol., called after Anowaretha by whom it was given to the monastery of Glanfeuille (St Maur), and ascribed in the printed Catalogue to the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. on fol. 379.

Footnote 626:

So at least I find the number given in my notes. But in _Bentl. Crit. Sacr._ p. xxxvii it is 3561.

8. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 6 [P_{2}]. A MS of the Latin Bible in 4 vols. fol., according to the Catalogue probably written in the 10th cent. [?]. It belonged formerly to the Duc de Noailles. Laod. follows Col. It contains numerous corrections in a later hand either between the lines or in the margin. The two hands are distinguished as P_{2}*, P_{2}**.

9. _Parisiensis_ Reg. Lat. 250 (formerly 3572) [P_{3}]. A fol. MS of the N. T., described in the Catalogue as probably belonging to end of the 9th cent. Laod. follows Col. It has a few corrections in a later hand. The two hands are distinguished as P_{3}*, P_{3}**.

These three Parisian MSS I collated myself, but I had not time to examine them as carefully as I could have wished.

10. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 11,852. [G]. An important MS of St Paul’s Epistles written in the 9th cent. It formerly belonged to the monastery of St Gall, being one of the books with which the library there was enriched by Hartmot who was Abbot from A.D. 872 to 884 or 885. Laod. follows Heb. and has no capitula like the other epistles.

11. _Brit. Mus._ Add. 10,546 [C]. A fol. MS of the Vulgate, commonly known as ‘Charlemagne’s Bible,’ but probably belonging to the age of Charles the Bald († 877). Laod. stands between Heb. and Apoc. It has no argument or capitula.

12. _Brit. Mus._ Reg. 1. E. vii, viii [R]. An English MS of the Latin Bible from Christ Church, Canterbury, written about the middle of the 10th cent. Laod. follows Heb. This is the most ancient MS, so far as I am aware, in which the epistle has capitulations. It is here given in its fullest form, and thus presents the earliest example of what may be called the modern recension.

13. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 2833, 2834 [H_{1}]. A MS of the 13th cent. written for the Cathedral of Angers. Laod. follows Apoc.

The readings of the four preceding MSS are taken from the collations in Westcott _Canon_ Appx. E p. 572 sq. (ed. 4).

14. _Brit. Mus._ Harl. 3131 [H_{2}]. A smallish 4to. of the 12th cent., said to be of German origin, with marginal and interlinear glosses in some parts. Laod. stands between Philem. and Heb. It has no heading but only a red initial letter P. At the end is 'Expl. Ep̅la̅ ad Laodicenses. Prologus ad Ebreos.'

15. _Brit. Mus._ Sloane 539 [S]. A small fol. of the 12th cent., said to be German. It contains St Paul’s Epistles with glosses. The gloss on Col. iv. 16 ‘et ea quæ est Laodicensium etc.’ runs ‘quam ego eis misi ut ipsi michi ut videatis hic esse responsum.’ Laod. follows Heb., and has no glosses.

The two last MSS I collated myself.

16. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 13 (formerly 810) [L_{1}]. A 4to MS in double columns of the 13th cent. containing the Latin Bible. See _Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. Lat._ p. 10. Laod. follows Col. Notwithstanding the date of the MS, it gives a very ancient text of this epistle.

17. _Bodl._ Laud. Lat. 8 (formerly 757) [L_{2}]. A fol. MS of the Latin Bible, belonging to the end of the 12th cent. See _Catal. Bibl. Laud. Cod. Lat._ p. 9. This is the same MS, which Anger describes (p. 145) as 115C (its original mark), and of which he gives a collation. Laod. stands between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.

I am indebted for collations of these two Laudian MSS to the kindness of the Rev. J. Wordsworth, Fellow of Brasenose College.

18. _Vindob._ 287 [V]. The Pauline Epp., written by Marianus Scotus (i.e. the Irishman), A.D. 1079. See Alter _Nov. Test. ad Cod. Vindob. Græce Expressum_ II. p. 1040 sq., Denis _Cod. MSS Lat. Bibl. Vindob._ I. no. lviii, Zeuss _Grammatica Celtica_ p. xviii (ed. 2). The Epistle to the Laodiceans is transcribed from this MS by Alter l.c. p. 1067 sq. It follows Col.

19. _Trin. Coll. Cantabr._ B. 5. 1 [X]. A fol. MS of the Latin Bible, written probably in the 12th century. Laod. follows Col. I have given a collation of this MS, because (like Brit. Mus. Reg. 1. E. viii) it is an early example of the completed form. The epistle is preceded by capitula, as follows.

INCIPIUNT CAPITULA EPISTOLE AD LAODICENSES.

1. Paulus Apostolus pro Laodicensibus domino gratias refert et hortatur eos ne a seductoribus decipiantur.

2. De manifestis vinculis apostoli in quibus letatur et gaudet.

3. Monet Laodicenses apostolus ut sicut sui audierunt praesentia ita retineant et sine retractu faciant.

4. Hortatur apostolus Laodicenses ut fide sint firmi et quæ integra et vera et deo placita sunt faciant. et salutatio fratrum. EXPLICIUNT CAPITULA. INCIPIT EPISTOLA BEATI PAULI APOSTOLI AD LAODICENSES.

These capitulations may be compared with those given by Dr Westcott from Reg. 1. E. viii, with which they are nearly identical.

Besides these nineteen MSS, of which (with the exception of _Cavensis_) collations are given below, it may be worth while recording the following, as containing this epistle.

Among the Lambeth MSS are (i) no. 4, large folio, 12th or 13th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) no. 90, small folio, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess. without title or heading of any kind. Apparently a good text. (iii) no. 348, 4to, 15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. (iv) no. 544, 8vo, 15th cent. Laod. stands between Col. and 1 Thess., without heading etc. (v) no. 1152, 4to, 13th or 14th cent. Laod. occupies the same position as in the four preceding MSS and has no heading or title. The first and last of these five MSS are collated by Dr Westcott (_Canon_ p. 572 sq.). I inspected them all.

In the Bodleian Library at Oxford belonging to the Canonici collection are (i) Canon. Bibl. 82 (see _Catal._ p. 277), very small 4to, 13th cent., containing parts of the N. T. St Paul’s Epp. are at the end of the volume, following Apoc. Laod. intervenes between Tit. and Philem., beginning ‘Explicit epistola ad titum. Incipit ad laud.’, and ending ‘Explicit epistola ad laudicenses. Incipit ad phylemonem’. (ii) Canon. Bibl. 7 (see _Catal._ p. 251), small 4to, beginning of 14th cent., containing Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc., Paul. Epp. Laod. is at the end. (iii) Canon. Bibl. 16 (_Catal._ p. 256), small 4to, containing the N. T., 15th cent., written by the hand ‘Stephani de Tautaldis’. Laod. follows Col. (iv) Canon. Bibl. 25 (_Catal._ p. 258), very small 4to, mutilated, early part of 15th cent. It contains a part of St Paul’s Epp. (beginning in the middle of Gal.) and the Apocalypse. Laod. follows Col. For information respecting these MSS I am indebted to the Rev. J. Wordsworth.

In the University Library, Cambridge, I have observed the Epistle to the Laodiceans in the following MSS. (i) Dd. 5. 52 (see _Catal._ I. p. 273), 4to, double columns, 14th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (ii) Ee. I. 9 (see _Catal._ II. p. 10), 4to, double columns, very small neat hand, 15th cent. It belonged to St Alban’s. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess. (iii) Mm. 3. 2 (see _Catal._ IV. p. 174), fol., Latin Bible, double columns, 13th cent. Laod. is between Col. and 1 Thess., but the heading is ‘Explicit epistola ad Colocenses, et hic incipit ad thesalocenses’, after which Laod. follows immediately. At the top of the page is ‘Ad Laudonenses’. (iv) Ee. I. 16 (see _Catal._ II. p. 16), 4to, double columns, Latin Bible, 13th or 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. Here Laod. is between Heb. and Rev.; it is treated like the other books, except that it has no prologue.

In the College Libraries at Cambridge I have accidentally noticed the following MSS as containing the epistle; for I have not undertaken any systematic search. (i) St Peter’s, O. 4. 6, fol., 2 columns, 13th cent., Latin Bible. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul Epp., Apoc. The Epistle to the Laodiceans is between Heb. and Apoc. (ii) Sidney Δ. 5. 11, fol., 2 columns, Latin Bible, 13th cent. The order of the N. T. is Evv., Paul. Epp., Acts, Cath. Epp., Apoc.; and Laod. is between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim. (iii) Emman. 2. 1. 6, large fol., Latin Bible, early 14th cent. The order of the N. T. is different from the last, being Evv., Acts, Cath. Epp., Paul. Epp.; Apoc.; but Laod. is in the same position, between 2 Thess. and 1 Tim.

Notice of a few other MSS, in which this epistle occurs, will be found in Hody _de Bibl. Text. Orig._ p. 664, and in Anger p. 145 sq.

This list, slight and partial as it is, will serve to show the wide circulation of the Laodicean Epistle. At the same time it will have been observed that its position varies very considerably in different copies.

(i) The most common position is immediately after Colossians, as the notice in Col. iv. 16 would suggest. This is its place in the most ancient authorities, e.g. the Fulda, La Cava, and Toledo MSS, and the Book of Armagh.

(ii) Another position is after 2 Thess. So Laud. Lat. 8, Sidn. [Delta]. 5. 11, Emman. 2. 1. 6: see also MSS in Hody _Bibl. Text. Orig._ p. 664. It must be remembered that in the Latin Bibles the Epistles to the Thessalonians sometimes precede and sometimes follow the Epistle to the Colossians. Hence we get three arrangements in different MSS; (1) 1, 2 Thess., Col., Laod.; (2) Col., Laod., 1, 2 Thess.; (3) Col., 1, 2 Thess., Laod.

(iii) It occurs at least in one instance between Titus and Philemon; Oxon. Bodl. Canon. 82. Mai also (_Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 63) mentions a ‘very ancient MS’, in which it stands between Titus and 1 John; but he does not say how Titus and 1 John appear in such close neighbourhood.

(iv) Again it follows Philemon in Brit. Mus. Harl. 3131. This also must have been its position in the Latin MS which the scribe of the Codex Boernerianus had before him: see above p. 346.

(v) Another and somewhat common position is after Hebrews; e.g. Brit. Mus. Add. 11,852, Add. 10,546, Reg. I. E. viii, Sloane 539, Camb. Univ. Ee. I. 16, Pet. O. 4. 6. See also Hody l.c.

(vi) It is frequently placed at the end of the New Testament, and so after the Apocalypse when the Apocalypse comes last, e.g. Harl. 2833. Sometimes the Pauline Epistles follow the Apocalypse, so that Laod. occurs at the end at once of the Pauline Epistles and of the N. T.; e.g. Bodl. Canon. Lat. 7.

Other exceptional positions, e.g. after Galatians or after 3 John, are found in versions and printed texts (see Anger p. 143); but no authority of Latin MSS is quoted for them.

The _Codex Fuldensis_, besides being the oldest MS, is also by far the most trustworthy. In some instances indeed a true reading may be preserved in later MSS, where it has a false one; but such cases are rare. The text however was already corrupt in several places at this time; and the variations in the later MSS are most frequently attempts of the scribes to render it intelligible by alteration or amplification. Such for instance is the case with the mutilated reading ‘quod est’ (ver. 13), which is amplified, even as early as the Book of Armagh, into ‘quodcunque optimum est’, though there can be little doubt that the expression represents τὸ λοιπόν of Phil. iii. 2, and the missing word therefore is ‘reliquum’. The greatest contrast to F is presented by such MSS as RX, where the epistle has not only been filled out to the amplest proportions, but also supplied with a complete set of capitulations like the Canonical books. Though for this reason these two MSS have no great value, yet they are interesting as being among the oldest which give the amplified text, and I have therefore added a collation of them. On the other hand some much later MSS, especially L_{1}, preserve a very ancient text, which closely resembles that of F.[627]

Footnote 627:

The epistle has been critically edited by Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p. 155 sq. and Westcott _Canon_ App. E. p. 572. I have already expressed my obligations to both these writers for their collations of MSS.

In the apparatus of various readings, which is subjoined to the epistle, I have not attempted to give such minute differences of spelling as _e_ and _ae_, or _c_ and _t_ (_Laodicia_, _Laoditia_), nor is the punctuation of the MSS noted.

AD LAODICENSES.

[Sidenote: Text of the epistle.]

Paulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem sed per Ihesum Christum, fratribus qui sunt Laodiciae. ^2Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre et Domino Ihesu Christo.

^3Gratias ago Christo per omnem orationem meam, quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, promissum expectantes in diem iudicii. ^4Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur. ^5Et nunc faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis evangelii deservientes et facientes benignitatem operum quae salutis vitae aeternae.

^6Et nunc palam sunt vincula mea quae patior in Christo; quibus laetor et gaudeo. ^7Et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam; quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem. ^8Est enim mihi vivere in Christo et mori gaudium. ^9Et id ipsum in vobis faciet misericordia sua, ut eandem dilectionem habeatis et sitis unianimes.

^{10}Ergo, dilectissimi, ut audistis praesentia mei, ita retinete et facite in timore Dei, et erit vobis vita in aeternum: ^{11}Est enim Deus qui operatur in vos. ^{12}Et facite sine retractu quaecumque facitis.

#^{13}al_13#Et quod est [reliquum], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo; et praecavete sordidos in lucro. ^{14}Omnes sint petitiones vestrae palam apud Deum; et estote firmi in sensu Christi. ^{15}Et quae integra et vera et pudica et iusta et amabilia, facite. ^{16}Et quae audistis et accepistis in corde retinete; et erit vobis pax.

^{18}Salutant vos sancti.

^{19}Gratia Domini Ihesu cum spiritu vestro.

^{20}Et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis.

Inc. ad laodicenses F; Incipit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses P_{2}R) BDP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CRH_{2}SV; Epistola ad laodicenses TM (_if this heading be not due to the editors themselves_); Incipit epistola pauli ad laodicenses GH_{1}; Incipit epistola beati pauli ad laodicenses X; Incipit aepistola ad laudicenses sed hirunimus eam negat esse pauli A: _no heading_ in L_{1}L_{2}H_{2}.

apostolus] _om._ TM. hominibus] homine G. ihesum christum] christum ihesum T. christum] _add._ ‘et deum patrem omnipotentem qui suscitavit eum a mortuis’ RX. fratribus qui sunt] his qui sunt fratribus A. _For_ fratribus B _has_ fratres. laodiciae] laodicae T; ladoicie L; laudaciae A; laudiciae R; laodiceae B.

2. patre] et patre nostro L_{1}; patre nostro H_{1}H_{2}SM; nostro A. domino] add. nostro P_{2}P_{3}RGL_{2}.

3. christo] deo meo DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CL_{1}; deo meo et christo ihesu RX. meam] memoriam M. permanentes estis] estis permanentes AGR. in operibus eius] in operibus bonis H_{1}H_{2}S; om BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CM. promissum expectantes] promissa expectantes T; et promissum expectantes M; promissionem expectantes V; sperantes promissionem AG; sperantes promissum RX. diem] die BTDP_{1}P_{3}GCRH_{1}H_{2}SL_{1}VMX. iudicii] iudicationis GRX.

4. neque] _add._ enim R. destituant] distituant A; destituunt H_{1}; destituat M, Spec.; destituit DP_{1}P_{3}CM; distituit B; destitui P_{2}; disturbat T. vaniloquia] vaniloquentia BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}GCVM; vaneloquentia, Spec. insinuantium] insinuantium se GM; insanientium H_{1}S; insimulantium T. ut] sed ut BA; sed peto ne R; seductorum ne X. vos] _om._ T. avertant] Spec.; evertant FML_{2}; evertent B. evangelii] aevanguelii A (_and so below_).

5. et nunc ... veritatis evangelii] _om._ L. faciet deus] deus faciet AG. ut] _add._ sint G. qui] que (_altered from_ qui) P_{3}* (or P_{3}**). me] _add._ perveniant TM; _add._ proficiant V. ad profectum] imperfectum A; ad perfectum R; in profectum G. veritatis evangelii] evangelii veritatis V. deservientes] _add._ sint P_{2}**P_{3}**H_{1}H_{2}S. _For_ deservientes RX _have_ dei servientes. et facientes] _repeated in_ L_{1}. _For_ facientes benignitatem operum T _has_ benignitatem operum facientes. operum] eorum RX; opera L_{2}. quae] _om._ M; _add._ sunt AP_{2}**GCRH_{1}H_{2}SVX. _It is impossible to say in many cases whether a scribe intended_ operum quae _or_ operumque. _Ranke prints_ operumque _in_ F. salutis] _add._ et L_{1}.

6. nunc] nō = non L_{2}. palam sunt] sunt palam G; sunt (_om._ palam) A. Christo] _add._ Ihesu (iesu) DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CVX. quibus] in quibus TRMP_{2}. et] ut C.

7. mihi] michi H_{1}S (_and so below_); enim (_for_ mihi) M. factum] fletum L_{2}M; factum est TP_{3}**H_{1}S. orationibus] operationibus B. vestris] meis DP_{1}. et] est M: _om._ TGRL_{1}X. administrante spiritu sancto] administrantem spiritum sanctum FBL_{2}; amministrante spiritum sanctum DCP_{1}P_{2}* (_but there is an erasure in_ P_{1}). _For_ administrante L_{1}X _have_ amministrante; _and for_ spiritu sancto G _transposes and reads_ sancto spiritu. per mortem] mortem (_om._ per) H_{1}.

8. est enim] etenim T. mihi] _om._ M. vivere] vivere vita DTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CVH_{1}H_{2}S; vere vita FL_{1}RMX; vera vita B; vere (_altered into_ vivere _prima manu_) vita L_{2}. gaudium] lucrum et gaudium A; gaudium ut lucrum H_{2}P_{2}**; gaudium vel lucrum H_{1}S.

9. et] _om._ T; qui (_om._ et) V. id ipsum] in ipsum FBL_{2}; in idipsum L_{1}V; ipsum P_{2}GM; ipse TAH_{1}H_{2}SRX. in vobis] vobis P_{2}; in nobis H_{2}. misericordia sua] misericordiam suam FBDAP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CH_{1}H_{2}RSVL_{1}XL_{2} (_but written_ misericordiā suā _in several cases_). et] _om._ L_{1}; ut V. unianimes] unanimes BDTP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}GCH_{1}RL_{1}L_{2}VMSX.

10. ergo] ego H_{2}. ut] et L_{2}. praesentia mei] praesentiam ei DP; praesentiam G**; in praesentia mei P_{3}**; praesentiam mihi M; presenciam eius L_{2}; praesentiam dei A; præsentiam domini (dnī) P_{2}**H_{1}H_{2}S. ita] _om._ DP_{1}P_{2}**P_{3}CX. retinete] retinere A; sentite T. in] cum TM; _om._ B. timore] timorem AB. dei] domini H_{1}S. vita] pax et vita RX. in aeternum] in aeterno A; in aeterna G*; aeterna (eterna) G**PL_{1}.

11. Est enim ... vos] _om._ (?) T. enim] _om._ B. vos] vobis GAH_{1}H_{2}SRVP_{2}** (_or_ P_{2}*) P_{3}**MX.

12. retractu] retractatu BP_{2}RL_{2}; retractatione AGV; tractu T; reatu H_{1}S. _In_ P_{2}** ut peccato _is added_; _in_ H_{2} t peccato. quaecumque] quodcumque TM.

13. quod est reliquum] quod est FBTDP_{1}P_{2}*P_{3}*RCL_{1}L_{2}MX; quod est optimum GH_{1}H_{2}SV; quodcunque optimum est A; quodcunque est obtimum P_{2}**; quod bonum est P_{3}**: see p. 356. dilectissimi] dilectissime B. christo] domino DP_{1}P_{2}P_{3}CX. sordidos] _add._ omnes P_{2}**H_{1}H_{2}S; _add._ homines A. in] ut L_{1}. lucro] lucrum RX.

14. omnes] in omnibus G; homines (_attached to the preceding sentence_) TM. sint] _omitted here and placed after_ palam H_{1}S. apud] aput F; ante AG. deum] dominum A. firmi in sensu christi] sensu firmi in christo ihesu R.

15. quae] _add._ sunt R. integra] intigra; _add._ sunt T. vera] _add._ sunt DP_1P_2P_3CVX. pudica et iusta] iusta et pudica R. iusta] iusta et casta AGV; casta et iusta P_2**H_1H_2S. amabilia] _add._ sunt TH_1H_2SM; _add._ et sancta RX.

16. audistis] _add._ et vidistis L_2. accepistis] accipistis A. pax] _add. ver._ 17, salutate omnes fratres (sanctos _for_ fratres GV) in osculo sancto AGP_2**H_1H_2SRVX.

18. sancti] omnes sancti AGRH_1SVX; sancti omnes H_2; _add._ in christo ihesu RX.

19. domini ihesu] domini nostri ihesu (iesu) christi DTAP_1P_2P_3GCH_1H_2SVMRX.

20. et] _add._ hanc H_1H_2SP_2**. legi] _add._ epistolam L_1P_3** colosensibus et] _om._ FTDP_1P_2*P_3CVL_1L_2. _They are also omitted in the La Cava_ MS; _see above_ p. 348. colosensium] _add._ epistolam L_2. _The words_ colosensibus, colosensium, _are commonly written with a single_ s, _more especially in the oldest MSS. In L_1 the form is_ cholosensium.

_The last sentence_ et facite etc. _is entirely omitted in_ M. _In_ RX _it is expanded into_ et facite legi colosensibus hanc epistolam et colosensium (colosensibus R) vos legite. deus autem et pater domini nostri ihesu christi custodiat vos immaculatos in christo ihesu cui est honor et gloria in secula seculorum. amen.

_Subscriptions._ Explicit P_2P_3H_1; Exp. ad laodicenses F; Explicit epistola ad laodicenses (laudicenses R) DP_1GCH_2SRVX. _There is no subscription in_ AL_1L_2, _and none is given for_ TM.

[Sidenote: Notes on the epistle.]

The following notes are added for the sake of elucidating one or two points of difficulty in the text or interpretation of the epistle.

4 Neque] This is the passage quoted in the _Speculum_ § 50 published by Mai _Nov. Patr. Bibl._ I. 2. p. 62 sq., ‘Item ad Laodicenses: Neque destituat vos quorundam vaneloquentia (_sic_) insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur’. We ought possibly to adopt the reading ‘destituat ... vaniloquentia’ of this and other old mss in preference to the ‘destituant ... vaniloquia’ of F. ‘Vaniloquium’ however is the rendering of ματαιολογία 1 Tim. i. 6, and is supported by such analogies as inaniloquium, maliloquium, multiloquium, stultiloquium, etc.; see Hagen _Sprachl. Erörter. zur Vulgata_ p. 74, Roensch _Das Neue Testament Tertullians_ p. 710.

destituant] Properly ‘_leave in the lurch_’ and so ‘_cheat_’, ‘_beguile_’, e.g. Cic. _pro Rosc. Am._ 40 ‘induxit, decepit, destituit, adversariis tradidit, omni fraude et perfidia fefellit.’ In Heb. ix. 26 εἰς ἀθέτησιν τῆς ἁμαρτίας is translated ‘ad destitutionem peccati’. The original here may have been ἐξαπατήσωσιν or ἀθετήσωσιν. insinuantium] In late Latin this word means little more than ‘to communicate’, ‘to inculcate’, ‘to teach’: see the references in Roensch _Itala u. Vulgata_ p. 387, Heumann _Handlexicon des römischen Rechts_ s.v., Ducange _Glossarium_ s.v. So too ‘insinuator’ Tertull. _ad Nat._ ii. 1, ‘insinuatrix’ August. _Ep._ 110 (II. p. 317). In Acts xvii. 3 it is the rendering of παρατιθέμενος.

5 ut qui sunt etc.] The passage, as it stands, is obviously corrupt; and a comparison with Phil. i. 12 τὰ κατ’ ἐμὲ μᾶλλον εἰς προκοπὴν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου ἐλήλυθεν seems to reveal the nature of the corruption. (1) For ‘qui’ we should probably read ‘quæ’, which indeed is found in some late MSS of no authority. (2) There is a lacuna somewhere in the sentence, probably after ‘evangelii’. The original therefore would run in this form ‘ut quæ sunt ex me ad profectum veritatis [eveniant] ... deservientes etc.,’ the participles belonging to a separate sentence of which the beginning is lost. The supplements ‘perveniant’, ‘proficiant’, found in some MSS give the right sense, though perhaps they are conjectural. The Vulgate of Phil. i. 12 is ‘quæ circa me sunt magis ad profectum venerunt evangelii’. In the latter part of the verse it is impossible in many cases to say whether a MS intends ‘operum quæ’ or ‘operumque’; but the former is probably correct, as representing ἐργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας: unless indeed this sentence also is corrupt or mutilated.

7 administrante etc.] Considering the diversity of readings here, we may perhaps venture on the emendation ‘administratione spiritus sancti’, as this more closely resembles the passage on which our text is founded, Phil. i. 19 διὰ τῆς ὑμῶν δεήσεως καὶ ἐπιχορηγίας τοῦ πνεύματος κ.τ.λ.

12 retractu] ‘_wavering_’, ‘_hesitation_’. For this sense of ‘retractare’, ‘to rehandle, discuss’, and so ‘to question, hesitate’, and even ‘to shirk, decline’, see Oehler _Tertullian_, index p. cxciii, Roensch _N. T. Tertullian’s_ p. 669, Ducange _Glossarium_ s.v.: comp. e.g. Iren. v. 11. 1 ‘ne relinqueretur quæstio his qui infideliter retractant de eo’. So ‘retractator’ is equivalent to ‘detractator’ in Tert. _de Jejun._ 15 ‘retractatores hujus officii’ (see Oehler’s note); and in 1 Sam. xiv. 39 ‘absque retractatione morietur’ is the rendering of ‘dying he shall die’, θανάτῳ ἀποθανεῖται. Here the expression probably represents χωρὶς ... διαλογισμῶν of Phil. ii. 14, which in the Old Latin is ‘sine ... detractionibus’. All three forms occur, retractus (Tert. _Scorp._ 1), retractatus (Tert. _Apol._ 4, _adv. Marc._ i. 1, v. 3, _adv. Prax._ 2, and frequently), retractatio (Cic. _Tusc._ v. 29, ‘sine retractatione’ and so frequently; 1 Sam. l. c). Here ‘retractus’ must be preferred, both as being the least common form and as having the highest MS authority. In Tert. _Scorp._ 1 however it is not used in this same sense.

13 quod est reliquum] I have already spoken of this passage, p. 352, and shall have to speak of it again, p. 357. The oldest and most trustworthy MSS have simply ‘quod est’. The word ‘reliquum’ must be supplied, as Anger truly discerned (p. 163); for the passage is taken from Phil. iii. 1 τὸ λοιπόν, ἀδελφοί μου, χαίρετε ἐν Κυρίῳ. See the Vulgate translation of τὸ λοιπόν in 1 Cor. vii. 29. Later and less trustworthy authorities supply ‘optimum’ or ‘bonum’.

14 in sensu Christi] ‘_in the mind of Christ_’: for in 1 Cor. ii. 16 νοῦν Χριστοῦ is rendered ‘sensum Christi’.

20 facite legi etc.] Though the words ‘Colosensibus et’ are wanting in very many of the authorities which are elsewhere most trustworthy, yet I have felt justified in retaining them with other respectable copies, because (1) The homœoteleuton would account for their omission even in very ancient MSS; (2) The parallelism with Col. iv. 16 requires their insertion; (3) The insertion is not like the device of a Latin scribe, who would hardly have manipulated the sentence into a form which savours so strongly of a Greek original.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Theory of a Greek original discussed.]

It is the general, though not universal, opinion that this epistle was altogether a forgery of the Western Church[628]; and consequently that the Latin is not a translation from a lost Greek original, but preserves the earliest form of the epistle. Though the forgery doubtless attained its widest circulation in the West, there are, I venture to think, strong reasons for dissenting from this opinion.

Footnote 628:

e.g. Anger _Laodicenerbrief_ p. 142 sq., Westcott _Canon_ p. 454 sq. (ed. 4). Erasmus asks boldly, ‘Qui factum est ut hæc epistola apud Latinos extet, cum nullus sit apud Græcos, ne veterum quidem, qui testetur eam a se lectam?’ The accuracy of this statement will be tested presently.

[Sidenote: Frequent Grecisms in the epistle.]

If we read the epistle in its most authentic form, divested of the additions contributed by the later MSS, we are struck with its cramped style. Altogether it has not the run of a Latin original. And, when we come to examine it in detail, we find that this constraint is due very largely to the fetters imposed by close adherence to Greek idiom. Thus for instance we have ver. 5 ‘_qui_ [or _quæ_] _sunt ex me_’, οἱ [or τὰ] ἐξ ἐμοῦ; _operum quæ salutis_, ἐργων τῶν τῆς σωτηρίας; ver. 6 _palam vincula mea quæ patior_, φανεροὶ οἱ δεσμοί μου ὃυς ὑπομένω; ver. 13 _sordidos in lucro_, αἰσχροκερδεῖς; ver. 20 _et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosensium vobis_, καὶ ποιήσατε ἵνα τοῖς Κολασσαεῦσιν ἀναγνωσθῇ καὶ ἡ Κολασσαέων ἵνα [καὶ] ὑμῖν. It is quite possible indeed that parallels for some of these anomalies may be found in Latin writers. Thus Tert. _c. Marc._ i. 23 ‘redundantia justitiæ super _scribarum et Pharisæorum_’ is quoted to illustrate the genitive ‘Colossensium’ ver. 20.[629] The Greek cast however is not confined to one or two expressions but extends to the whole letter.

Footnote 629:

Anger, p. 165.

[Sidenote: It differs widely from the Old Latin and Vulgate Versions.]

But a yet stronger argument in favour of a Greek original remains. This epistle, as we saw, is a cento of passages from St Paul. If it had been written originally in Latin, we should expect to find that the passages were taken directly from the Latin versions. This however is not the case. Thus compare ver. 6 ‘_palam_ sunt vincula mea’ with Phil. i. 13 ‘ut vincula mea _manifesta_ fierent’: ver. 7 ‘_orationibus vestris et administrante_ spiritu sancto’ [_administratione_ spiritus sancti’?] with Phil. i. 19 ‘_per vestram obsecrationem_ (V. _orationem_) et _subministrationem _ spiritus sancti’; ver. 9 ‘ut eandem _dilectionem_ habeatis et sitis unianimes’ with Phil. ii. 2 ‘eandem _caritatem_ habentes, unanimes’; ver. 10 ‘_ergo_, dilectissimi, ut _audistis_ præsentia mei ... _facite in_ timore’ with Phil. ii. 12 ‘_Propter quod_ (V. _Itaque_) dilectissimi mihi (V. _charissimi_ mei) sicut semper _obaudistis_ (V. _obedistis_) ... præsentia (V. in præsentia) mei ... _cum_ timore (V. _metu_) ... _operamini_’; ver. 11, 12 ‘_Est enim Deus_ qui operatur in vos (v. 1. vobis). Et facite sine _retractu_ quæcumque facitis’ with Phil. ii. 13, 14 _Deus enim est_ qui operatur in vobis ... Omnia autem facite sine ... _detractionibus_ (V. _hæsitationibus_)’; ver. 13 _quod est_ [_reliquum_], dilectissimi, gaudete in Christo et _præcavete_’ with Phil. iii. 1, 2 ‘_de cætero_, fratres mei, gaudete in Domino ... _Videte_’; ib. ‘_sordidos in lucro_’ with the Latin renderings of αἰσχροκερδεῖς 1 Tim. iii. 8 ‘_turpilucros_’ (V. ‘_turpe lucrum sectantes_’), αἰσχροκερδῆ Tit. i. 7 _turpilucrum_ (V. ‘_turpis lucri cupidum_’); ver. 14 ‘_sint petitiones_ vestræ _palam_ apud Deum’ with Phil. iv. 6 ‘_postulationes_ (V. petitiones) vestræ _innotescant_ apud Deum’; ver. 20 ‘facite _legi_ Colosensibus et _Colosensium vobis_’ with Col. iv. 16 ‘facite _ut_ et in Laodicensium ecclesia _legatur_ et _eam quæ Laodicensium_ (MSS Laodiciam) _est ut_ (om. V.) _vos legatis_’. These examples tell their own tale. [Sidenote: Thus internal evidence favours a Greek original.]The occasional resemblances to the Latin Version are easily explained on the ground that reminiscences of this version would naturally occur to the translator of the epistle. The habitual divergences from it are only accounted for on the hypothesis that the original compiler was better acquainted with the New Testament in Greek than in Latin, and therefore presumably that he wrote in Greek.

[Sidenote: External testimony to the same effect.]

And, if we are led to this conclusion by an examination of the epistle itself, we shall find it confirmed by an appeal to external testimony. There is ample evidence that a spurious Epistle to the Laodiceans was known to Greek writers, as well as Latin, at a sufficiently early date. [Sidenote: [Muratorian Fragment].]A mention of such an epistle occurs as early as the Muratorian Fragment on the Canon (about A.D. 170), where the writer speaks of two letters, one to the Laodiceans and another to the Alexandrians, as circulated under the name of Paul[630]. The bearing of the words however is uncertain. He may be referring to the Marcionite recension of the canonical Epistle to the Ephesians, which was entitled by that heretic an Epistle to the Laodiceans[631]. Or, if this explanation of his words be not correct (as perhaps it is not), still we should not feel justified in assuming that he is referring to the extant apocryphal epistle. Indeed we should hardly expect that an epistle of this character would be written and circulated at so early a date. The reference in Col. iv. 16 offered a strong temptation to the forger, and probably more than one unscrupulous person was induced by it to try his hand at falsification[632]. But, however this may be, it seems clear that before the close of the fourth century our epistle was largely circulated in the East and West alike. [Sidenote: Jerome.]‘Certain persons’, writes Jerome in his account of St Paul, ‘read also an Epistle to the Laodiceans, but it is rejected by all[633]’. No doubt is entertained, that this father refers to our epistle. [Sidenote: Theodore.]If then we find that about the same time Theodore of Mopsuestia also mentions an Epistle to the Laodiceans, which he condemns as spurious[634], it is a reasonable inference that the same writing is meant. [Sidenote: Theodoret.]In this he is followed by Theodoret[635]; and indeed the interpretations of Col. iv. 16 given by the Greek Fathers of this age were largely influenced as we have seen, by the presence of a spurious epistle which they were anxious to discredit[636]. [Sidenote: 2nd Council of Nicæa.]Even two or three centuries later the epistle seems to have been read in the East. At the Second Council of Nicæa (A.D. 787) it was found necessary to warn people against ‘a forged Epistle to the Laodiceans’ which was ‘circulated, having a place in some copies of the Apostle[637].’

Footnote 630:

_Canon Murat._ p. 47 (ed. Tregelles). The passage stands in the MS, ‘Fertur etiam ad Laudecenses alia ad Alexandrinos Pauli nomine fincte ad heresem Marcionis et alia plura quæ in catholicam eclesiam recepi non potest.’ There is obviously some corruption in the text. One very simple emendation is the repetition of ‘alia’, so that the words would run ‘ad Laudicenses alia, alia ad Alexandrinos’. In this case fincte (= finctæ) might refer to the two epistles first mentioned, and the Latin would construe intelligibly. The writing described as ‘ad Laodicenses alia’ might then be the Epistle to the Ephesians under its Marcionite title, the writer probably not having any personal knowledge of it, but supposing from its name that it was a different and a forged writing. But what can then be the meaning of ‘alia ad Alexandrinos’? Is it, as some have thought, the Epistle to the Hebrews? But this could not under any circumstances be described as ‘fincta ad hæresem Marcionis’, even though we should strain the meaning of the preposition and interpret the words ‘_against_ the heresy of Marcion’. And again our knowledge of Marcion’s Canon is far too full to admit the hypothesis that it included a spurious Epistle to the Alexandrians, of which no notice is elsewhere preserved. We are therefore driven to the conclusion that there is a hiatus here, as in other places of this fragment, probably after ‘Pauli nomine’; and ‘finctæ’ will then refer not to the two epistles named before, but to the mutilated epistles of Marcion’s Canon which he had ‘tampered with to adapt them to his heresy’. In this case the letter ‘ad Laudicenses’ may refer to our apocryphal epistle or to some earlier forgery.

Footnote 631:

See the introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesians.

Footnote 632:

Timotheus, who became Patriarch of Constantinople in 511, while still a presbyter, includes in a list of apocryphal works forged by the Manicheans ἡ πεντεκαιδεκάτη [i.e. τοῦ Παύλου] πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς ἐπιστολή, Meurse p. 117 (quoted by Fabricius, _Cod. Apocr. N. T._ I.. p. 139). Anger (p. 27) suggests that there is a confusion of the Marcionites and Manicheans here. I am disposed to think that Timotheus recklessly credits the Manicheans with several forgeries of which they were innocent, among others with our apocryphal Epistle to the Laodiceans. Still it is possible that there was another Laodicean Epistle forged by these heretics to support their peculiar tenets.

Footnote 633:

_Vir. Ill._ 5 (II. p. 840) ‘Legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur’.

Footnote 634:

The passage is quoted above, p. 341, note 593.

Footnote 635:

τινὲς ὑπέλαβον καὶ πρὸς Λαοδικέας αὐτὸν γεγραφέναι· αὐτίκα τοίνυν καὶ προσφέρουσι πεπλασμένην ἐπιστολήν.

Footnote 636:

Anger (p. 143) argues against a Greek original on the ground that the Eastern Church, unlike the Latin, did not generally interpret Col. iv. 16 as meaning an epistle written _to_ the Laodiceans. The fact is true, but the inference is wrong, as the language of the Greek commentators themselves shows.

Footnote 637:

Act. vi. Tom. v (Labbe viii. p. 1125 ed. Colet.) καὶ γὰρ τοῦ θείου ἀποστόλου πρὸς Λαοδικεῖς φέρεται πλαστὴ ἐπιστολὴ ἕν τισι βίβλοις τοῦ ἀποστόλου ἐγκειμένη, ἣν οἱ πάτερες ἡμῶν ἀπεδοκίμασαν ὡς αὐτοῦ ἀλλοτρίαν.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: The Greek restored.]

The Epistle to the Laodiceans then in the original Greek would run somewhat as follows[638]:

==ΠΡΟΣ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΑΣ.==

[Sidenote: ^a Gal. i. 1.]

^a==ΠΑΥΛΟΣ ἀπόστολοϲ οὐκ ἀπ’ ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ δι’ ἀνθρώπου αλλὰ διὰ ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ, τοῖϲ ἀδελφοῖϲ τοῖϲ οὖϲιν εν λαοδικείᾳ.== [Sidenote: ^b Gal. i. 3.; Phil. i. 2.]^2^b==χάριϲ ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸϲ καὶ κυρίου ἰηϲοῦ χριϲτοῦ.==

[Sidenote: ^c Phil. i. 3.]

^3^c==Εὐχαριϲτῶ τῷ Χριϲτῷ ἐν πάϲῃ δεήϲει μου, ὅτι ἐϲτὲ εν αὐτῷ μένοντεϲ καὶ προϲκαρτεροῦντεϲ τοῖϲ ἐργοιϲ αὐτοῦ,== [Sidenote: ^d Gal. v. 5.]^d==ἀπεκδέχομενοι τὴν ἐπαγγελίαν== [Sidenote: ^e 2 Pet. ii. 9; iii. 7; cf. Phil. ii. 16.]^e==εἰϲ ἡμέραν κρίϲεωϲ.==

^4==Μηδὲ ὑμᾶϲ ἐξαπατήϲωϲιν== [Sidenote: ^f 1 Tim. i. 6.]^f==ματαιολογίαι τινῶν διδαϲκόντων ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^g 2 Tim. iv. 4.]^g==ἀποϲτρέπϲωϲιν υμᾶϲ ἀπὸ== [Sidenote: ^h Col. i. 5; Gal. ii. 5, 14.]^h==τῆϲ αληθείαϲ== [Sidenote: ^i Gal. i. 11 (cf. i. 8).]^i==τοῦ εὐαγγελίου τοῦ εὐαγγελιϲθέντοϲ ὑπ’ ἐμοῦ.== ^5==καὶ νῦν ποιήϲει ὁ Θεὸϲ ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^k Phil. i. 12.]^k==τα ἐξ ἐμοῦ εἰϲ προκοπὴν τῆϲ ἀληθείαϲ τοῦ εὐαγγελίου * * * λατρεύοντεϲ καὶ ποιοῦντεϲ χρηϲτότητα ἐργων τῶν τῆϲ ϲωτηρίαϲ [καὶ] τῆϲ αἰωνίου ζωῆϲ.== ^6==καὶ νῦν== [Sidenote: ^l Phil. i. 13.]^l==φανεροὶ οἱ δεϲμοί μου, οὓϲ ὑπομένω ἐν Χριϲτῷ, ἐν οἷϲ== [Sidenote: ^m Matt. v. 12; cf. Phil. i. 18]^m==χρω καὶ ἀγαλλιῶμαι.== ^7==καὶ== [Sidenote: ^n Phil. i. 19.]^n==τοῦτό ἐϲτίν μοι εἰϲ ϲωτηρίαν ἀΐδιον, ὃ καὶ ἀπέβη διὰ τῆϲ ὑμῶν δέηϲεωϲ καὶ ἐπιχορηγίαϲ πνεύματοϲ ἁγίου,== [Sidenote: ^o Phil. i. 20.]^o==εἴτε διὰ ζωῆϲ )έιτε διὰ θανάτου.== [Sidenote: ^p Phil. i. 21.]^8^p==ἑμοὶ γὰρ τὸ ζῆν ἐν Χριϲτῷ καὶ τὸ ἀποθανεῖν χαρά.== ^9==καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ποίηϲει [καὶ] ἐν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ ἐλέουϲ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα== [Sidenote: ^q Phil. ii. 2.]^q==τὴν αὐτὴν ἀγάπην ἔχητε, ϲύμπϲυχοι ὄντεϲ.== [Sidenote: ^r Phil. ii. 12.]^{10}^r==ὥϲτε, ἀγαπητοί, καθὼϲ ὑπηκούϲατε ἐν τῇ παρουϲίᾳ μου, οὕτωϲ== [Sidenote: ^s 2 Thess. ii. 5 (see vulg.).]^s==μνημονεύοντεϲ μετὰ φόβου Κυρίου ἐργάζεϲθε, καὶ ἔϲται ὑμῖν ζωὴ εἰϲ τὸν αἰῶνα·== [Sidenote: ^t Phil. ii. 13.]^{11}^t==Θεὸϲ γάρ ἐϲτιν ὁ ἐνεργῶν ἐν ὑμῖν.== [Sidenote: ^u Phil. ii. 14.]^{12}==καὶ== ^u==ποιεῖτε χωρὶϲ διαλογιϲμῶν== [Sidenote: ^x Col. iii. 17, 23.]^x==ὅ τι ἐὰν ποιῆτε.==

[Sidenote: ^y Phil. iii. 1.]^{13}==Καὶ== ^y==τὸ λοιπόν, ἀγαπητοί, χαίρετε ἐν Χριϲτῷ. Βλέπετε δὲ τοὺϲ== [Sidenote: ^z 1 Tim. iii. 8; Tit. i. 7.]^z==αἰϲχροκερδεῖϲ.== [Sidenote: ^a Phil. iv. 6.]^{14}^a==πάντα τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέϲθω πρὸϲ τὸν Θεόν. καὶ== [Sidenote: ^b 1 Cor. xv. 58.]^b==ἑδραῖοι γίνεϲθε ἐν== [Sidenote: ^c 1 Cor. ii. 16.]^c==τῷ νοΐ τοῦ Χριϲτοῦ.== [Sidenote: ^d Phil. iv. 8, 9.]^{15}^d==ὅϲα τε ὁλόκληρα καὶ ἀληθῆ καὶ ϲεμνὰ καὶ δίκαια καὶ προϲφιλῆ, ταῦτα πράϲϲετε.== ^{16}==ἃ καὶ ἠκούϲατε καὶ παρελάβετε, ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ κρατεῖτε, καὶ ἡ εἰρήνη ἔϲται μεθ’ ὑμῶν.==

[Sidenote: ^e Phil. iv. 22.]

^{18}^e==Ἀϲπάζονται ὑμᾶϲ οἱ ἅγιοι.==

[Sidenote: ^f Phil. iv. 23.]

^{19}^f==Ἡ χάριϲ τοῦ Κυρίου Ἰηϲοῦ Χριϲτοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματοϲ ὑμῶν.==

[Sidenote: ^g Col. iv. 16.]

^{20}^g==καὶ ποιήϲατε ἵνα τοῖϲ Κολαϲϲαεῦϲιν αναγνωϲθῇ, καὶ η τῶν Κολαϲϲαέων ἵνα καὶ ὑμῖν.==

Footnote 638:

A Greek version is given in Elias Hutter’s Polyglott New Testament (Noreb. 1599); see Anger p. 147 note g. But I have retranslated the epistle anew, introducing the Pauline passages, of which it is almost entirely made up, as they stand in the Greek Testament. The references are given in the margin.

* * * * *

[Sidenote: Scanty circulation in the East,]

But, though written originally in Greek, it was not among Greek Christians that this epistle attained its widest circulation. In the latter part of the 8th century indeed, when the Second Council of Nicæa met, it had found its way into some copies of St Paul’s Epistles[639]. But the denunciation of this Council seems to have been effective in securing its ultimate exclusion. We discover no traces of it in any extant Greek MS, with the very doubtful exception which has already been considered[640]. [Sidenote: but wide diffusion in the West.]But in the Latin Church the case was different. St Jerome, as we saw, had pronounced very decidedly against it. Yet even his authority was not sufficient to stamp it out. At least as early as the sixth century it found a place in some copies of the Latin Bibles: and before the close of that century its genuineness was affirmed by perhaps the most influential theologian whom the Latin Church produced during the eleven centuries which elapsed between the age of Jerome and Augustine and the era of the Reformation. [Sidenote: Gregory the Great.]Gregory the Great did not indeed affirm its canonicity. He pronounced that the Church had restricted the canonical Epistles of St Paul to fourteen, and he found a mystical explanation of this limitation in the number itself, which was attained by adding the number of the Commandments to the number of the Gospels and thus fitly represented the teaching of the Apostle which combines the two[641]. But at the same time he states that the Apostle wrote fifteen; and, though he does not mention the Epistle to the Laodiceans by name, there can be little doubt that he intended to include this as his fifteenth epistle, and that his words were rightly understood by subsequent writers as affirming its Pauline authorship. The influence of this great name is perceptible in the statements of later writers. [Sidenote: Haymo of Halberstadt.]Haymo of Halberstadt, who died A.D. 853, commenting on Col. iv. 16, says, The Apostle ‘enjoins the Laodicean Epistle to be read to the Colossians, because though it is very short and is not reckoned in the Canon, yet still it has some use[642]’.[Sidenote: Hervey of Dole.] And between two or three centuries later Hervey of Dole (c. A.D. 1130), if it be not Anselm of Laon[643], commenting on this same passage, says: ‘Although the Apostle wrote this epistle also as his fifteenth or sixteenth[644], and it is established by Apostolic authority like the rest, yet holy Church does not reckon more than fourteen,’ and he proceeds to justify this limitation of the Canon with the arguments and in the language of Gregory[645]. Others however did not confine themselves to the qualified recognition given to the epistle by the great Bishop of Rome. Gregory had carefully distinguished between genuineness and canonicity; but this important distinction was not seldom disregarded by later writers. [Sidenote: English Church. Aelfric.]In the English Church more especially it was forgotten. Thus Aelfric abbot of Cerne, who wrote during the closing years of the tenth century, speaks as follows of St Paul: ‘Fifteen epistles wrote this one Apostle to the nations by him converted unto the faith: which are large books in the Bible and make much for our amendment, if we follow his doctrine that was teacher of the Gentiles’. He then gives a list of the Apostle’s writings, which closes with ‘one to Philemon and one to the Laodiceans; fifteen in all as loud as thunder to faithful people[646]’. [Sidenote: John of Salisbury.]Again, nearly two centuries later John of Salisbury, likewise writing on the Canon, reckons ‘Fifteen epistles of Paul included in one volume, though it be the wide-spread and common opinion of nearly all that there are only fourteen; ten to churches and four to individuals: supposing that the one addressed to the Hebrews is to be reckoned among the Epistles of Paul, as Jerome the doctor of doctors seems to lay down in his preface, where he refuteth the cavils of those who contended that it was not Paul’s. But the fifteenth is that which is addressed to the Church of the Laodiceans; and though, as Jerome saith, it be rejected by all, nevertheless was it written by the Apostle. Nor is this opinion assumed on the conjecture of others, but it is confirmed by the testimony of the Apostle himself: for he maketh mention of it in the Epistle to the Colossians in these words, _When this epistle shall have been read among you_, etc. (Col. iv. 16)[647]’. Aelfric and John are the typical theologians of the Church in this country in their respective ages. The Conquest effected a revolution in ecclesiastical and theological matters. The Old English Church was separated from the Anglo-Norman Church in not a few points both of doctrine and of discipline. Yet here we find the representative men of learning in both agreed on this one point—the authorship and canonicity of the Epistle to the Laodiceans. From the language of John of Salisbury however it appears that such was not the common verdict at least in his age, and that on this point the instinct of the many was more sound than the learning of the few. Nor indeed was it the undisputed opinion even of the learned in this country during this interval. [Sidenote: The epistle repudiated by Lanfranc.]The first Norman Archbishop, Lanfranc, an Italian by birth and education, explains the passage in the Colossian Epistle as referring to a letter written by the Laodiceans to the Apostle, and adds that otherwise ‘there would be more than thirteen Epistles of Paul[648]’. Thus he tacitly ignores the Epistle to the Laodiceans, with which he can hardly have been unacquainted.

Footnote 639:

Quoted above, p. 359, note 637.

Footnote 640:

See above, p. 315 sq.

Footnote 641:

Greg. Magn. _Mor. in Iob._ xxxv. § 25 (III. p. 433, ed. Gallicc.) ‘Recte vita ecclesiæ multiplicata per decem et quattuor computatur; quia utrumque testamentum custodiens, et tam secundum Legis decalogum quam secundum quattuor Evangelii libros vivens, usque ad perfectionis culmen extenditur. Unde et Paulus apostolus quamvis epistolas quindecim scripserit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet quod doctor egregius Legis et Evangelii secreta rimasset’.

Footnote 642:

_Patrol. Lat._ CXVII. p. 765 (ed. Migne) ‘Et eam quæ erat Laodicensium ideo præcipit Colossensibus legi, quia, licet perparva sit et in Canone non habeatur, aliquid tamen utilitatis habet’. He uses the expression ‘eam quæ erat Laodicensium’, because τὴν ἐκ Λαοδικείας was translated in the Latin Bible ‘eam quæ Laodicensium est’.

Footnote 643:

See _Galatians_ p. 232 on the authorship of this commentary.

Footnote 644:

A third Epistle to the Corinthians being perhaps reckoned as the 15th; see Fabric. _Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test._ II p. 866.

Footnote 645:

_Patrol. Lat._ CLXXXI. p. 1355 sq. (ed. Migne) ‘_et ea_ similiter epistola, _quæ Laodicensium_ est, i.e. quam ego Laodicensibus misi, legatur vobis. Quamvis et hanc epistolam quintamdecimam vel sextamdecimam apostolus scripserit, et auctoritas eam apostolica sicut cætera firmavit, sancta tamen ecclesia non amplius quam quatuordecim tenet, ut ex ipso epistolarum numero ostenderet etc.’ At the end of the notes to the Colossians he adds ‘Hucusque protenditur epistola quæ missa est ad Colossenses. Congruum autem videtur ut propter notitiam legentium subjiciamus eam quæ est ad Laodicenses directa; quam, ut diximus, in usu non habet ecclesia. Est ergo talis.’ Then follows the text of the Laodicean Epistle, but it is not annotated.

Footnote 646:

_A Saxon Treatise concerning the Old and New Testament_ by Ælfricus Abbas, p. 28 (ed. W. L’Isle, London 1623).

Footnote 647:

Ioann. Sarisb. _Epist._ 143 (I. p. 210 ed. Giles) ‘Epistolæ Pauli quindecim uno volumine comprehensæ, licet sit vulgata et fere omnium communis opinio non esse nisi quatuordecim, decem ad ecclesias, quatuor ad personas; si tamen illa quæ ad Hebræos est connumeranda est epistolis Pauli, quod in præfatione ejus astruere videtur doctorum doctor Hieronymus, illorum dissolvens argutias qui eam Pauli non esse contendebant. Cæterum quintadecima est illa quæ ecclesiæ Laodicensium scribitur; et licet, ut ait Hieronymus, ab omnibus explodatur, tamen ab apostolo scripta est: neque sententia hæc de aliorum præsumitur opinione sed ipsius apostoli testimonio roboratur. Meminit enim ipsius in epistola ad Colossenses his verbis, _Quum lecta fuerit apud vos hæc epistola, etc._’

Footnote 648:

_Patrol. Lat._ CL. p. 331 (ed. Migne) on Col. iv. 16 ‘Hæc si esset apostoli, _ad Laodicenses_ diceret, non _Laodicensium_; et plusquam tredecim essent epistolæ Pauli’. We should perhaps read xiiii for xiii, ‘quatuordecim’ for ‘tredecim’, as Lanfranc is not likely to have questioned the Pauline authorship of the Epistle to the Hebrews.

[Sidenote: Occurrence in MSS of all ages and countries.]

Indeed the safest criterion of the extent to which this opinion prevailed, is to be found in the manuscripts. At all ages from the sixth to the fifteenth century we have examples of its occurrence among the Pauline Epistles and most frequently without any marks which imply doubt respecting its canonicity. These instances are more common in proportion to the number of extant MSS in the earlier epoch than in the later[649]. In one of the three or four extant authorities for the Old Latin Version of the Pauline Epistles it has a place[650]. In one of the two most ancient copies of Jerome’s revised Vulgate it is found[651]. Among the first class MSS of this latter Version its insertion is almost as common as its omission. This phenomenon moreover is not confined to any one country. Italy, Spain, France, Ireland, England, Germany, Switzerland—all the great nations of Latin Christendom—contribute examples of early manuscripts in which this epistle has a place[652].

Footnote 649:

The proportion however is very different in different collections. In the Cambridge University Library I found the epistle in four only out of some thirty MSS Which I inspected; whereas in the Lambeth Library the proportion was far greater.

Footnote 650:

The _Speculum_ of Mai, see above, p. 348.

Footnote 651:

The Codex Fuldensis, which was written within a few years of the Codex Amiatinus.

Footnote 652:

The list of MSS given above p. 348 sq. will substantiate this statement.

[Sidenote: Versions.]

And, when the Scriptures came to be translated into the vernacular languages of modern Europe, this epistle was not uncommonly included. [Sidenote: Albigensian.]Thus we meet with an Albigensian version, which is said to belong to the thirteenth century[653]. [Sidenote: Bohemian.]Thus too it is found in the Bohemian language, both in manuscript and in the early printed Bibles, in various recensions[654]. [Sidenote: German.]And again an old German translation is extant, which, judging from linguistic peculiarities, cannot be assigned to a later date than about the fourteenth century, and was printed in not less than fourteen editions of the German Bible at the close of the fifteenth and the beginning of the sixteenth centuries, before Luther’s version appeared[655]. [Sidenote: English.]In the early English Bibles too it has a place. Though it was excluded by both Wycliffe and Purvey, yet it did not long remain untranslated and appears in two different and quite independent versions, in MSS written before the middle of the fifteenth century[656]. The prologue prefixed to the commoner of the two forms runs as follows:

[Sidenote: English prologue.]

‘Laodicensis ben also Colocenses, as tweye townes and oo peple in maners. These ben of Asie, and among hem hadden be false apostlis, and disceyuede manye. Therfore the postle bringith hem to mynde of his conuersacion and trewe preching of the gospel, and excitith hem to be stidfast in the trewe witt and loue of Crist, and to be of oo wil. But this pistil is not in comyn Latyn bookis, and therfor it was but late translatid into Englisch tunge[657].’

Footnote 653:

An account of this MS, which is at Lyons, is given by Reuss in the _Revue de Théologie_ v. p. 334 (Strassb. 1852). He ascribes the translation of the New Testament to the 13th century, and dates the MS a little later.

Footnote 654:

This version is printed by Anger, p. 170 sq.

Footnote 655:

See Anger, p. 149 sq., p. 166 sq.

Footnote 656:

These two versions are printed in Lewis’s New Testament translated by J. Wiclif (1731) p. 99 sq., and in Forshall and Madden’s _Wycliffite Versions of the Holy Bible_ (1850) IV. p. 438 sq. They are also given by Anger p. 168 sq. (1843), who takes the rarer form from Lewis and the other from a Dresden MS. Dr Westcott also has printed the commoner version in his _Canon_, p. 457 (ed. 4), from Forshall and Madden.

Of one of these two versions Forshall and Madden give a collation of several MSS; the other is taken from a single MS (I. p. xxxii). Lewis does not state whence he derived the rarer of these two versions, but there can be little doubt that it came from the same MS _Pepys._ 2073 (belonging to Magd. Coll. Cambridge) from which it was taken by Forshall and Madden (I. p. lvii); since he elsewhere mentions using this MS (p. 104). The version is not known to exist in any other. Forshall and Madden give the date of the MS as about 1440.

Footnote 657:

From Forshall and Madden, IV. p. 438. The earliest MSS which contain the common version of the Laodicean Epistle (to which this prologue is prefixed) date about A.D. 1430.

[Sidenote: Two Versions of the epistle.]

The two forms of the epistle in its English dress are as follows[658]. The version on the left hand is extant only in a single MS; the other, which occupies the right column, is comparatively common.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne bi man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben of Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. Gracis I do to Crist bi al myn orisoun, that ȝe be dwellinge in him and lastinge, bi the biheest abidinge in the dai of doom. Ne he vnordeynede vs of sum veyn speche feynynge, that vs ouerturne fro the sothfastnesse of the gospel that of me is prechid. Also now schal God do hem leuynge, and doynge of blessdnesse of werkis, which heelthe of lyf is. And now openli ben my boondis, whiche I suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche I glad and ioie. And that is to me heelthe euerlastynge, that that I dide with oure preieris, and mynystringe the Holy Spirit, bi lijf or bi deeth. It is forsothe to me lijf into Crist, and to die ioie withouten eende. In vs he schal do his merci, that ȝe haue the same louynge, and that ȝe be of o wil. Therfore, derlyngis, as ȝe han herd in presence of me, hold ȝe, and do ȝe in drede of God; and it schal be to ȝou lijf withouten eend. It is forsothe God that worchith in vs. And do ȝe withouten ony withdrawinge, what soeuere ȝe doon. And that it is, derlyngis, ioie ȝe in Crist, and flee ȝe maad foul in clay. Alle ȝoure axingis ben open anentis God, and be ȝe fastned in the witt of Crist. And whiche been hool, and sooth, and chast, and rightwijs, and louable, do ȝe; and whiche herden and take in herte, hold ȝe; and it schal be to ȝou pees. Holi men greeten ȝou weel, in the grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist, with the Holi Goost. And do ȝe that pistil of Colosensis to be red to ȝou. Amen.

‘Poul, apostle, not of men, ne by man, but bi Jhesu Crist, to the britheren that ben at Laodice, grace to ȝou, and pees of God the fadir, and of the Lord Jhesu Crist. I do thankyngis to my God bi al my preier, that ȝe be dwelling and lastyng in him, abiding the biheest in the day of doom. For neithir the veyn spekyng of summe vnwise men hath lettide ȝou, the whiche wolden turne ȝou fro the treuthe of the gospel, that is prechid of me. And now hem that ben of me, to the profiȝt of truthe of the gospel, God schal make disseruyng, and doyng benygnyte of werkis, and helthe of euerlasting lijf. And now my boondis ben open, which Y suffre in Crist Jhesu, in whiche Y glade and ioie. And that is to me to euerlastyng helthe, that this same thing be doon by ȝoure preiers, and mynystryng of the Holi Goost, either bi lijf, either bi deeth. Forsothe to me it is lijf to lyue in Crist, and to die ioie. And his mercy schal do in ȝou the same thing, that ȝe moun haue the same loue, and that ȝe be of oo will. Therfore, ȝe weel biloued britheren, holde ȝe, and do ȝe in the dreede of God, as ȝe han herde the presence of me; and lijf schal be to ȝou withouten eende. Sotheli it is God that worchith in ȝou. And, my weel biloued britheren, do ȝe without eny withdrawyng what euer thingis ȝe don. Joie ȝe in Crist, and eschewe ȝe men defoulid in lucre, _either foul wynnyng_. Be alle ȝoure askyngis open anentis God, and be ȝe stidefast in the witt of Crist. And do ȝe tho thingis that ben hool, and trewe, and chaast, and iust, and able to be loued; and kepe ȝe in herte tho thingis that ȝe haue herd and take; and pees schal be to ȝou. Alle holi men greten ȝou weel. The grace of oure Lord Jhesu Crist be with ȝoure spirit. And do ȝe that pistil of Colocensis to be red to ȝou.

Footnote 658:

Printed from Forshall and Madden l.c. I am assured by those who are thoroughly conversant with old English, that they can discern no difference of date in these two versions, and that they both belong probably to the early years of the 15th century. The rarer version is taken from a better Latin text than the other.

[Sidenote: Revival of learning and condemnation of the epistle.]

Thus for more than nine centuries this forged epistle hovered about the doors of the sacred Canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded. At length the revival of learning dealt its death-blow to this as to so many other spurious pretensions. As a rule, Roman Catholics and Reformers were equally strong in their condemnation of its worthlessness. The language of Erasmus more especially is worth quoting for its own sake, and must not be diluted by translation:

[Sidenote: Strictures of Erasmus.]

‘Nihil habet Pauli præter voculas aliquot ex cæteris ejus epistolis mendicatas.... Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At hæc, præterquam quod brevissima est, quam friget, quam jacet!... Quanquam quid attinet argumentari? Legat, qui volet, epistolam.... Nullum argumentum efficacius persuaserit eam non esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola. Et si quid mihi naris est, ejusdem est opificis qui næniis suis omnium veterum theologorum omnia scripta contaminavit, conspurcavit, perdidit, ac præcipue ejus qui præ cæteris indignus erat ea contumelia, nempe D. Hieronymi[659]’.

Footnote 659:

On Col. iv. 16. Erasmus is too hard upon the writer of this letter, when he charges him with such a mass of forgeries. He does not explain how this hypothesis is consistent with the condemnation of the Epistle to the Laodiceans in Hieron. _Vir. Ill._ 5 (quoted above p. 359).

[Sidenote: Exceptions.]

But some eccentric spirits on both sides were still found to maintain its genuineness. [Sidenote: Prætorius.]Thus on the one hand the Lutheran Steph. Prætorius prefaces his edition of this epistle (A.D. 1595) with the statement that he ‘restores it to the Christian Church’; he gives his opinion that it was written ‘either by the Apostle himself or by some other Apostolic man’: he declares that to himself it is ‘redolent of the spirit and grace of the most divine Paul’; and he recommends younger teachers of the Gospel to ‘try their strength in explaining it’, that thus ‘accustoming themselves gradually to the Apostolic doctrine they may extract thence a flavour sweeter than ambrosia and nectar[660].’ [Sidenote: Stapleton.]On the other hand the Jesuit Stapleton was not less eager in his advocacy of this miserable cento. To him its genuineness had a controversial value. Along with several other apocryphal writings which he accepted in like manner, it was important in his eyes as showing that the Church had authority to exclude even Apostolic writings from the Canon, if she judged fit[661]. But such phenomena were quite abnormal. The dawn of the Reformation epoch had effectually scared away this ghost of a Pauline epistle, which (we may confidently hope) has been laid for ever and will not again be suffered to haunt the mind of the Church.

Footnote 660:

_Pauli Apostoli ad Laodicenses Epistola, Latine et Germanice_, Hamburg, 1595, of which the preface is given in Fabricius _Cod. Apocr. Nov. Test._ II. p. 867. It is curious that the only two arguments against its genuineness which he thinks worthy of notice are (1) Its brevity; which he answers by appealing to the Epistle to Philemon; and (2) Its recommendation of works (‘quod scripsit opera esse facienda quæ sunt salutis æternæ’); which he explains to refer to works that proceed of faith.

Footnote 661:

See Bp. Davenant on Col. iv. 16: ‘Detestanda Stapletonis opinio, qui ipsius Pauli epistolam esse statuit, quam omnes patres ut adulterinam et insulsam repudiarunt: nec sanior conclusio, quam inde deducere voluit, posse nimirum ecclesiam germanam et veram apostoli Pauli epistolam pro sua authoritate e Canone excludere’. So also Whitaker _Disputation on Scripture_ passim (see the references given above, p. 341, note 595).

EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE.

[Sidenote: Unique character of the epistle.]

The Epistle to Philemon holds a unique place among the Apostle’s writings. It is the only strictly private letter which has been preserved. The Pastoral Epistles indeed are addressed to individuals, but they discuss important matters of Church discipline and government. Evidently they were intended to be read by others besides those to whom they are immediately addressed. On the other hand the letter before us does not once touch upon any question of public interest. It is addressed apparently to a layman. It is wholly occupied with an incident of domestic life. The occasion which called it forth was altogether common-place. It is only one sample of numberless letters which must have been written to his many friends and disciples by one of St Paul’s eager temperament and warm affections, in the course of a long and chequered life. [Sidenote: Its value.]Yet to ourselves this fragment, which has been rescued, we know not how, from the wreck of a large and varied correspondence, is infinitely precious. Nowhere is the social influence of the Gospel more strikingly exerted; nowhere does the nobility of the Apostle’s character receive a more vivid illustration than in this accidental pleading on behalf of a runaway slave.

[Sidenote: The persons addressed.]

The letter introduces us to an ordinary household in a small town of Phrygia. Four members of it are mentioned by name, the father, the mother, the son, and the slave.

[Sidenote: 1. Philemon.]

1. The head of the family bears a name which, for good or for evil, was not unknown in connexion with Phrygian story. [Sidenote: Occurrence of the name in Phrygia.]The legend of Philemon and Baucis, the aged peasants who entertained not angels but gods unawares, and were rewarded by their divine guests for their homely hospitality and their conjugal love[662], is one of the most attractive in Greek mythology, and contrasts favourably with many a revolting tale in which the powers of Olympus are represented as visiting this lower earth. It has a special interest too for the Apostolic history, because it suggests an explanation of the scene at Lystra, when the barbarians would have sacrificed to the Apostles, imagining that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had once again deigned to visit, in the likeness of men, those regions which they had graced of old by their presence[663]. Again, in historical times we read of one Philemon who obtained an unenviable notoriety at Athens by assuming the rights of Athenian citizenship, though a Phrygian and apparently a slave[664]. Otherwise the name is not distinctively Phrygian. It does not occur with any special frequency in the inscriptions belonging to this country; and though several persons bearing this name rose to eminence in literary history, not one, so far as we know, was a Phrygian.

Footnote 662:

Ovid. _Met._ vii. 626 sq. ‘Jupiter huc, _specie mortali_, cumque parente Venit Atlantiades positis caducifer alis’ etc.

Footnote 663:

Acts xiv. 11 οἵ θεοὶ _ὁμοιωθέντες ἀνθρώποις_ κατέβησαν πρὸς ἡμᾶς κ.τ.λ. There are two points worth observing in the Phrygian legend, as illustrating the Apostolic history. (1) It is a miracle, which opens the eyes of the peasant couple to the divinity of their guests thus disguised; (2) The immediate effect of this miracle is their attempt to sacrifice to their divine visitors, ‘dis hospitibus mactare parabant’. The familiarity with this beautiful story may have suggested to the barbarians of Lystra, whose ‘Lycaonian speech’ was not improbably a dialect of Phrygian, that the same two gods, Zeus and Hermes, had again visited this region on an errand at once of beneficence and of vengeance, while at the same time it would prompt them to conciliate the deities by a similar mode of propitiation, ἤθελον θύειν.

Footnote 664:

Aristoph. _Av._ 762 εἰ δὲ τυγχάνει τις ὢν Φρὺξ ... φρυγίλος ὄρνις ἐνθάδ’ ἔσται, τοῦ Φιλήμονος γένους.

[Sidenote: This Philemon a Colossian]

The Philemon with whom we are concerned was a native, or at least an inhabitant, of Colossæ. This appears from the fact that his slave is mentioned as belonging to that place. It may be added also, in confirmation of this view, that in one of two epistles written and despatched at the same time St Paul announces the restoration of Onesimus to his master, while in the other he speaks of this same person as revisiting Colossæ[665]. On the other hand it would not be safe to lay any stress on the statement of Theodoret, that Philemon’s house was still standing at Colossæ when he wrote[666], for traditions of this kind have seldom any historical worth.

Footnote 665:

Compare Col. iv. 9 with Philem. 11 sq.

Footnote 666:

Theodoret in his preface to the epistle says πόλιν δε εἶχε [[ὁ Φιλήμων] τὰς Κολάσσας· καὶ ἡ οἰκία δὲ αὐτοῦ μέχρι τοῦ παρόντος μεμένηκε. This is generally taken to mean that Philemon’s house was still standing, when Theodoret wrote. This may be the correct interpretation, but the language is not quite explicit.

[Sidenote: converted by St Paul.]

Philemon had been converted by St Paul himself[667]. At what time or under what circumstances he received his first lessons in the Gospel, we do not know: but the Apostle’s long residence at Ephesus naturally suggests itself as the period when he was most likely to have become acquainted with a citizen of Colossæ[668].

Footnote 667:

ver. 19.

Footnote 668:

See above, p. 30 sq.

[Sidenote: His evangelical zeal,]

Philemon proved not unworthy of his spiritual parentage. Though to Epaphras belongs the chief glory of preaching the Gospel at Colossæ[669], his labours were well seconded by Philemon. The title of ‘fellow-labourer,’ conferred upon him by the Apostle[670], is a noble testimony to his evangelical zeal. Like Nymphas in the neighbouring Church of Laodicea[671], Philemon had placed his house at the disposal of the Christians at Colossæ for their religious and social gatherings[672]. Like Gaius[673], to whom the only other private letter in the Apostolic Canon is addressed[674], he was generous in his hospitalities. [Sidenote: and wide hospitality.]All those with whom he came in contact spoke with gratitude of his kindly attentions[675]. Of his subsequent career we have no certain knowledge. [Sidenote: Legendary martyrdom.]Legendary story indeed promotes him to the bishopric of Colossæ[676], and records how he was martyred in his native city under Nero[677]. But this tradition or fiction is not entitled to any credit. All that we really know of Philemon is contained within this epistle itself.

Footnote 669:

See above, p. 31 sq.

Footnote 670:

ver. 1 συνεργῷ ἡμῶν.

Footnote 671:

Col. iv. 15.

Footnote 672:

ver. 2 τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ. The Greek commentators, Chrysostom and Theodoret, suppose that St Paul designates Philemon’s own family (including his slaves) by this honourable title of ἐκκλησία, in order to interest them in his petition. This is plainly wrong. See the note on Col. iv. 15.

Footnote 673:

3 Joh. 5 sq.

Footnote 674:

I take the view that the κυρία addressed in the Second Epistle of St John is some church personified, as indeed the whole tenour of the epistle seems to imply: see esp. vv. 4, 7 sq. The salutation to the ‘elect lady’ (ver. 1) from her ‘elect sister’ (ver. 15) will then be a greeting sent to one church from another; just as in 1 Peter, the letter is addressed at the outset ἐκλεκτοῖς Πόντου κ.τ.λ. (i. 1) and contains at the close a salutation from ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτή (v. 13).

Footnote 675:

vv. 5, 7.

Footnote 676:

_Apost. Const._ vii. 46 τῆς δὲ ἐν Φρυγίᾳ Λαοδικείας [ἐπίσκοπος] Ἄρχιππος, Κολασσάεων δὲ Φιλήμων, Βεροίας δὲ τῆς κατὰ Μακεδονίαν Ὀνήσιμος ὁ Φιλήμονος. The Greek _Menæa_ however make Philemon bishop of Gaza; see Tillemont I. p. 574 note lxvi.

Footnote 677:

See Tillemont I. pp. 290, 574, for the references.

[Sidenote: 2. Apphia his wife.]

2. It is a safe inference from the connexion of the names that Apphia was the wife of Philemon[678]. The commentators assume without misgiving that we have here the familiar Roman name Appia, though they do not explain the intrusion of the aspirate[679]. This seems to be a mistake. [Sidenote: A strictly Phrygian name.]The word occurs very frequently on Phrygian inscriptions as a proper name, and is doubtless of native origin. At Aphrodisias and Philadelphia, at Eumenia and Apamea Cibotus, at Stratonicea, at Philomelium, at Æzani and Cotiæum and Dorylæum, at almost all the towns far and near, which were either Phrygian or subject to Phrygian influences, and in which any fair number of inscriptions has been preserved, the name is found. If no example has been discovered at Colossæ itself, we must remember that not a single proper name has been preserved on any monumental inscription at this place. It is generally written either Apphia or Aphphia[680]; more rarely Aphia, which is perhaps due merely to the carelessness of the stonecutters[681]. [Sidenote: Its affinities]But, so far as I have observed, it always preserves the aspirate. Its diminutive is Apphion or Aphphion or Aphion[682]. The allied form Aphphias or Aphias, also a woman’s name, is found, though less commonly[683]; and we likewise frequently meet with the shorter form Apphe or Aphphe[684]. The man’s name corresponding to Apphia is Apphianos, but this is rare[685]. The root would appear to be some Phrygian term of endearment or relationship[686]. [Sidenote: and analogies.]It occurs commonly in connexion with other Phrygian names of a like stamp, more especially Ammia, which undergoes the same modifications of form, Amia, Ammias, Ammion or Amion, Ammiane or Ammiana, with the corresponding masculine Ammianos[687]. With these we may also compare Tatia, Tatias, Tation, Tatiane or Tatiana, Tatianos. Similar too is the name Papias or Pappias, with the lengthened form Papianos, to which corresponds the feminine Papiane[688]. So again we have Nannas or Nanas, Nanna or Nana, with their derivatives, in these Phrygian inscriptions[689]. [Sidenote: Not to be confused with the Latin Appia.]There is a tendency in some of the allied forms of Apphia or Aphphia to drop the aspirate so that they are written with a _pp_, more especially in Appe[690], but not in the word itself; nor have I observed conversely any disposition to write the Roman name Appia with an aspirate, Apphia or Aphphia[691]. Even if such a disposition could be proved, the main point for which I am contending can hardly be questioned. With the overwhelming evidence of the inscriptions before us, it is impossible to doubt that Apphia is a native Phrygian name[692].

Footnote 678:

Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ 3814 Νέικανδρος καὶ Ἀφφία γυνὴ αὐτοῦ. In the following inscriptions also a wife bearing the name Apphia (Aphphia, Aphia) or Apphion (Aphphion, Aphion) is mentioned in connexion with her husband; 2720, 2782, 2836, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3849, 3902 m, 3962, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3846 z^{17}, etc.

M. Renan (_Saint Paul_ p. 360) says, ‘Appia, diaconesse de cette ville’. Like other direct statements of this same writer, as for instance that the Colossians sent a deputation to St Paul (_L’Antechrist_ p. 90), this assertion rests on no authority.

Footnote 679:

They speak of Ἀπφία as a softened form of the Latin _Appia_, and quote Acts xxviii. 15, where however the form is Ἀππίου. Even Ewald writes the word Appia.

Footnote 680:

Ἀπφία, no. 2782, 2835, 2950, 3432, 3446, 2775 b, c, d, 2837 b, 3902 m, 3962, 4124, 4145: Ἀφφία, no. 3814, 4141, 4277, 4321 f, 3827 l, 3846 z, 3846 z^{17}. So far as I could trace any law, the form Ἀφφία is preferred in the northern and more distant towns like Æzani and Cotiæum, while Ἀπφία prevails in the southern towns in the more immediate neighbourhood of Colossæ, such as Aphrodisias. This accords with the evidence of our MSS, in which Ἀπφία is the best supported form, though Ἀφφία is found in some. In Theod. Mops. (Cramer’s _Cat._ p. 105) it becomes Ἀμφία by a common corruption; and Old Latin copies write the dative _Apphiadi_ from the allied form _Apphias_.

The most interesting of these inscriptions mentioning the name is no. 2782 at Aphrodisias, where there is a notice of Φλ. Ἀπφίας ἀρχιερείας Ἀσίας, μητρὸς καὶ ἀδελφῆς καὶ μάμμης συγκλητικῶν, φιλοπάτριδος κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 681:

no. 2720, 3827.

Footnote 682:

Ἄπφιον or Ἄφφιον 2733, 2836, 3295, 3849, 3902 m, 4207; Ἄφιον 3846 z^{34} and Ἄφειον 3846 z^{31}; and even Ἄφφειν, 3167, 3278. In 3902 m the mother’s name is Ἀπφία and the daughter’s Ἄπφιον.

Footnote 683:

Ἀφφίας, 3697, 3983; Ἀφίας 3879.

Footnote 684:

Ἄφφη 3816, 3390, 4143; Ἄπφη 3796, 4122.

Footnote 685:

It is met with at the neighbouring town of Hierapolis, in the form Ἀπφίανος no. 3911. It also occurs on coins of not very distant parts of Asia Minor, being written either Ἀπφίανος or Ἀφφίανος; Mionnet III. p. 179, 184, IV. p. 65, 67, _Suppl._ VI. p. 293, VII. p. 365.

Footnote 686:

Suidas Ἄπφα: ἀδελφῆς καὶ ἀδελφοῦ ὑποκόρισμα, and so Bekk. _Anecd._ p. 441. Eustath. _Il._ p. 565 says ἄπφαν τὴν ἀδελφὴν Ἀττικῶς μόνη ἡ ἀδελφὴ εἴποι ἂν, καὶ πάππαν τὸν πατέρα μόνος ὁ παῖς κ.τ.λ., and he adds ἰστέον δὲ ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ ὡς ἐρρέθη ἄπφα γίνεται καὶ τὸ ἄπφιον, ὑποκόρισμα ὂν ἐρωμένης· τινὲς δὲ καὶ τὸ ἄπφα ὑποκόρισμα φασὶν Ἀττικόν. These words were found in writers of Attic comedy (Pollux iii. 74 ἡ παρὰ τοῖς νέοις κωμῳδοῖς ἀπφία καὶ ἀπφίον καὶ ἀπφάριον; comp. Xenarchus τοὺς μὲν γέροντας ὄντας ἐπικαλούμεναι πατρίδια, τοὺς δ’ ἀπφάρια, τοὺς νεωτέρους, Meineke _Fragm. Com._ III. p. 617): and doubtless they were heard commonly in Attic homes. But were they not learnt in the nursery from Phrygian slaves? Ἀπφάριον appears in two inscriptions almost as a proper name, 2637 Κλαυδία ἀπφάριον, 3277 ἀπφάριον Λολλιανή. In no. 4207 (at Telmissus) we have Ἑλένη ἡ καὶ Ἄφφιον, so that it seems sometimes to have been employed side by side with a Greek name; comp. no. 3912 a Παπίας ... ὁ καλούμενος Διογένης, quoted above p. 48. This will account for the frequency of the names, Apphia, Apphion, etc. In Theocr. XV. 13 we have ἀπφῦς, and in Callim. _Hym. Dian._ 6 ἄππα, as a term of endearment applied to a father.

Footnote 687:

This appears from the fact that Ammias and Ammianos appear sometimes as the names of mother and son respectively in the same inscriptions; e.g. 3846 z^{82}, 3847 k, 3882 i.

Footnote 688:

On the name Papias or Pappias see above p. 48.

Footnote 689:

See Boeckh _Corp. Inscr._ III. p. 1085 for the names Νάνας, etc.

Footnote 690:

We have not only the form Ἄππη several times (e.g. 3827 x, 3846 p, 3846 x, 3846 z^{46}, etc.); but also Ἄππης 3827 g, 3846 n, 3846 z^{77}, still as a woman’s name. These all occur in the same neighbourhood, at Cotiæum and Æzani. I have not noticed any instance of this phenomenon in the names Apphia, Apphion; though probably, where Roman influences were especially strong, there would be a tendency to transform a Phrygian name into a Roman, e.g. Apphia into Appia, and Apphianus into Appianus.

Footnote 691:

In the Greek historians of Rome for instance the personal name is always Ἄππιος and the road Ἀππία; so too in Acts xxviii. 15 it is Ἀππίου Φόρον.

Footnote 692:

The point to be observed is that examples of these names are thickest in the heart of Phrygia, that they diminish in frequency as Phrygian influence becomes weaker, and that they almost, though not entirely, disappear in other parts of the Greek and Roman world.

[Sidenote: Her share in the letter.]

Of this Phrygian matron we know nothing more than can be learnt from this epistle. The tradition or fiction which represents her as martyred together with her husband may be safely disregarded. St Paul addresses her as a Christian[693]. Equally with her husband she had been aggrieved by the misconduct of their slave Onesimus, and equally with him she might interest herself in the penitent’s future well-being.

Footnote 693:

ver. 2 τῇ ἀδελφῇ. See the note.

[Sidenote: 3. Archippus, the son.]

3. With less confidence, but still with a reasonable degree of probability, we may infer that Archippus, who is likewise mentioned in the opening salutation, was a son[694] of Philemon and Apphia. The inscriptions do not exhibit the name in any such frequency either in Phrygia or in the surrounding districts, as to suggest that it was characteristic of these parts[695]. [Sidenote: His office]Our Archippus held some important office in the Church[696]; but what this was, we are not told. St Paul speaks of it as a ‘ministry’ (διακονία). Some have interpreted the term technically as signifying the diaconate; but St Paul’s emphatic message seems to imply a more important position than this. Others again suppose that he succeeded Epaphras as bishop of Colossæ, when Epaphras left his native city to join the Apostle at Rome[697]; but the assumption of a regular and continuous episcopate in such a place as Colossæ at this date seems to involve an anachronism. More probable than either is the hypothesis which makes him a presbyter. Or perhaps he held a missionary charge, and belonged to the order of ‘evangelists[698].’ Another question too arises respecting Archippus. Where was he exercising this ministry, whatever it may have been? At Colossæ, or at Laodicea? [Sidenote: and abode,]His connexion with Philemon would suggest the former place. But in the Epistle to the Colossians his name is mentioned immediately after the salutations to the Laodiceans and the directions affecting that Church; and this fact seems to connect him with Laodicea. [Sidenote: Laodicea, rather than Colossæ.]On the whole this appears to be the more probable solution[699]. Laodicea was within walking distance of Colossæ[700]. Archippus must have been in constant communication with his parents, who lived there; and it was therefore quite natural that, writing to the father and mother, St Paul should mention the son’s name also in the opening address, though he was not on the spot. An early tradition, if it be not a critical inference from the allusion in the Colossian letter, makes him bishop not of Colossæ, but of Laodicea[701].

Footnote 694:

So Theodore of Mopsuestia. But Chrysostom ἕτερόν τινα ἴσως φιλόν, and Theodoret ὁ δὲ Ἄρχιππος τὴν διδασκαλίαν αὐτῶν ἐπεπίστευτο.

Footnote 695:

It occurs in two Smyrnæan inscriptions, no. 3143, 3224.

Footnote 696:

Col. iv. 17 βλέπε τὴν διακονίαν ἣν παρέλαβες ἐν Κυρίῳ, ἵνα αὐτὴν πληροῖς.

Footnote 697:

So the Ambrosian Hilary on Col. iv. 17.

Footnote 698:

Ephes. iv. 11 bears testimony to the existence of the office of evangelist at this date.

Footnote 699:

It is adopted by Theodore of Mopsuestia. On the other hand Theodoret argues against this view on critical grounds; τινὲς ἔφασαν τοῦτον Λαοδικείας γεγενῆσθαι διδάσκαλον, ἀλλ’ ἡ πρὸς Φιλήμονα ἐπιστολὴ διδάσκει ὡς ἐν Κολασσαῖς οὗτος ᾤκει· τῷ γὰρ Φιλήμονι καὶ τοῦτον συντάττει: but he does not allege any traditional support for his own opinion.

Footnote 700:

See above pp. 2, 15.

Footnote 701:

_Apost. Const._ vii, 46 quoted above p. 372, note 676.

[Sidenote: His career.]

Of the apprehensions which the Apostle seems to have entertained respecting Archippus, I have already spoken[702]. It is not improbable that they were suggested by his youth and inexperience. St Paul here addresses him as his ‘fellow-soldier[703],’ but we are not informed on what spiritual campaigns they had served in company. Of his subsequent career we have no trustworthy evidence. Tradition represents him as having suffered martyrdom at Colossæ with his father and mother.

Footnote 702:

See p. 42.

Footnote 703:

ver. 2 τῷ συνστρατίωτῃ ἡμῶν. See the note.

[Sidenote: 4. Onesimus.]

4. But far more important to the history of Christianity than the parents or the son of the family, is the servant. The name Onesimus was very commonly borne by slaves. Like other words signifying utility, worth, and so forth, it naturally lent itself to this purpose[704]. Accordingly the inscriptions offer a very large number of examples in which it appears as the name of some slave or freedman[705]; [Sidenote: A servile name.]and even where this is not the case, the accompaniments frequently show that the person was of servile descent, though he might never himself have been a slave[706]. Indeed it occurs more than once as a fictitious name for a slave[707], a fact which points significantly to the social condition naturally suggested by it. In the inscriptions of proconsular Asia it is found[708]; but no stress can be laid on this coincidence, for its occurrence as a proper name was doubtless coextensive with the use of the Greek language. More important is the fact that in the early history of Christianity it attains some eminence in this region. [Sidenote: Its prominence among the Christians of proconsular Asia.]One Onesimus is bishop of Ephesus in the first years of the second century, when Ignatius passes through Asia Minor on his way to martyrdom, and is mentioned by the saint in terms of warm affection and respect[709]. Another, apparently an influential layman, about half a century later urges Melito bishop of Sardis to compile a volume of extracts from the scriptures; and to him this father dedicates the work when completed[710]. Thus it would appear that the memory of the Colossian slave had invested the name with a special popularity among Christians in this district.

Footnote 704:

e.g. Chresimus, Chrestus, Onesiphorus, Symphorus, Carpus, etc. So too the corresponding female names Onesime, Chreste, Sympherusa, etc.: but more commonly the women’s names are of a different cast of meaning, Arescusa, Prepusa, Terpusa, Thallusa, Tryphosa, etc.

Footnote 705:

e.g. in the _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 323, no. 2146, p. 359, no. 2723, p. 986, no. 6107 (where it is spelled Honesimus); and in Muratori, CC. 6, DXXIX. 5, CMLXVIII. 4, MIII. 2, MDXVIII. 2, MDXXIII. 4, MDLI. 9, MDLXXI. 5, MDLXXV. 1, MDXCII. 8, MDXCVI. 7, MDCVI. 2, MDCX. 19, MDCXIV. 17, 39; and the corresponding female name Onesime in MCCXXXIX. 12, MDXLVI. 6, MDCXII. 9. A more diligent search than I have made would probably increase the number of examples very largely.

Footnote 706:

e.g. _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 238, no. 1467, D. M. M. AVR · ONESIMO · CARPION · AVG · LIB · TABVL · FILIO. In the next generation any direct notice of servile origin would disappear; but the names very often indicate it. It need not however necessarily denote low extraction: see e.g. Liv. xliv. 16.

Footnote 707:

Menander _Inc._ 312 (Meineke _Fragm. Com._ IV. p. 300), where the Ὀνήσιμος addressed is a slave, as appears from the mention of his τρόφιμος, i.e. master; Galen _de Opt. Doctr._ I (I. p. 41 ed. Kühn), where there is a reference to a work of Phavorinus in which was introduced one Onesimus ὁ Πλουτάρχου δοῦλος Ἐπικτήτῳ διαλεγόμενος; _Anthol. Græc._ II. p. 161, where the context shows that the person addressed as Onesimus is a slave; ib. II. p. 482, where the master, leaving legacies to his servants, says Ὀνήσιμος εἵκοσι πέντε | μνᾶς ἐχέτω Δάος δ’ εἰκοσι μνᾶς ἐχέτω· | πεντήκοντα Σύρος· Συνέτη δέκα, κ.τ.λ. See also the use of the name in the Latin play quoted Suet. _Galb._ 13 (according to one reading).

Footnote 708:

It occurs as near to Colossæ as Aphrodisias; Boeckh _C. I._ no. 2743.

Footnote 709:

Ign. _Ephes._ I. ἐν Ὀνησίμῳ τῷ ἐν ἀγάπῃ ἀδιηγήτῳ ὑμῶν δὲ ἐν σαρκὶ ἐπισκόπῳ ... εὐλόγητος ὁ χαρισάμενος ὑμῖν ἀξίοις οὖσιν τοιοῦτον ἐπίσκοπον κεκτῆσθαι; see also §§ 2, 5, 6.

Footnote 710:

Melito in Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26 Μελίτων Ὀνησίμῳ τῷ ἀδελφῷ χαίρειν. Ἐπειδὴ πολλάκις ἠξίωσας κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: Position and conduct of Onesimus.]

Onesimus represented the least respectable type of the least respectable class in the social scale. He was regarded by philosophers as a ‘live chattel’, a ‘live implement[711]’; and he had taken philosophy at her word. He had done what a chattel or an implement might be expected to do, if endued with life and intelligence. He was treated by the law as having no rights[712]; and he had carried the principles of the law to their logical consequences. He had declined to entertain any responsibilities. There was absolutely nothing to recommend him. He was a slave, and what was worse, a Phrygian slave; and he had confirmed the popular estimate of his class[713] and nation[714] by his own conduct. He was a thief and a runaway. His offence did not differ in any way, so far as we know, from the vulgar type of slavish offences. He seems to have done just what the representative slave in the Roman comedy threatens to do, when he gets into trouble. He had ‘packed up some goods and taken to his heels[715].’ Rome was the natural cesspool for these offscourings of humanity[716]. In the thronging crowds of the metropolis was his best hope of secresy. In the dregs of the city rabble he would find the society of congenial spirits.

Footnote 711:

Aristot. _Pol._ i. 4 (p. 1253) ὁ δοῦλος κτῆμά τι ἔμψυχον, _Eth. Nic._ viii. 13 (p. 1161) ὁ γὰρ δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, τὸ δ’ ὄργανον ἄψυχος δοῦλος. See also the classification of ‘implements’ in Varro, _de Re rust._ I. 17. 1 ‘Instrumenti genus vocale et semivocale et mutum: vocale, in quo sunt servi; semivocale, in quo boves; mutum, in quo plaustra’.

Footnote 712:

Dig. iv. 5 ‘Servile caput nullum jus habet’ (Paulus); _ib._ l. 17 ‘In personam servilem nulla cadit obligatio’ (Ulpianus).

Footnote 713:

Plaut. _Pseud._ I. 2, 6 ‘Ubi data occasiost, rape, clepe, tene, harpaga, bibe, es, fuge; hoc eorum opust’; Ovid. _Amor._ i. 15. 17 ‘Dum fallax servus’.

Footnote 714:

Cicero speaks thus of Phrygia and the neighbouring districts; _pro Flacc._ 27 ‘Utrum igitur nostrum est an vestrum hoc proverbium _Phrygem plagis fieri solere meliorem_? Quid de tota Caria? Nonne hoc vestra voce vulgatum est; si quid cum periculo experiri velis, _in Care_ id potissimum esse faciendum? Quid porro in Græco sermone tam tritum est, quam si quis despicatui ducitur, ut _Mysorum ultimus_ esse dicatur? Nam quid ego dicam de Lydia? Quis unquam Græcus comœdiam scripsit in qua servus primarum partium non Lydus esset’: comp. Alciphr. _Epist._ iii. 38 Φρύγα οἰκέτην ἔχω πονηρόν κ.τ.λ.; Apollod. Com. (Meineke, IV. p. 451) οὐ πανταχοῦ Φρύξ εἰμι κ.τ.λ. This last passage refers to the cowardice with which, besides all their other bad qualities, the Phrygians were credited: comp. Anon. Com. (_ib._ IV. p. 652) δειλότερον λαγῶ Φρυγός, Tertull. _de Anim._ 20 ‘Comici Phrygas timidos illudunt’: see Ribbeck _Com. Lat._ p. 106.

Footnote 715:

Ter. _Phorm._ i. 4. 13 ‘aliquid convasassem, atque hinc me protinam conjicerem in pedes’.

Footnote 716:

Sall. _Cat._ xxxvii. 5 ‘Romam sicuti in sentinam confluxerant’: comp. Tac. _Ann._ xv. 44.

[Sidenote: His encounter with St Paul in Rome]

But at Rome the Apostle spread his net for him, and he was caught in its meshes. How he first came in contact with the imprisoned missionary, we can only conjecture. Was it an accidental encounter with his fellow-townsman Epaphras in the streets of Rome which led to the interview? Was it the pressure of want which induced him to seek alms from one whose large-hearted charity must have been a household word in his master’s family? Or did the memory of solemn words, which he had chanced to overhear at those weekly gatherings in the upper chamber at Colossæ, haunt him in his loneliness, till, yielding to the fascination, he was constrained to unburden himself to the one man who could soothe his terrors and satisfy his yearnings? Whatever motive may have drawn him to the Apostle’s side—whether the pangs of hunger or the gnawings of conscience—when he was once within the range of attraction, he could not escape. [Sidenote: and conversion.]He listened, was impressed, was convinced, was baptized. The slave of Philemon became the freedman of Christ[717]. St Paul found not only a sincere convert, but a devoted friend, in his latest son in the faith. Aristotle had said that there ought not to be, and could not be, any friendship with a slave _qua_ slave, though there might be _qua_ man[718]; and others had held still stronger language to the same effect. The Apostle did not recognize the philosopher’s subtle distinction. For him the conventional barrier between slave and free had altogether vanished before the dissolving presence of an eternal verity[719]. [Sidenote: St Paul’s affection for him.]He found in Onesimus something more than a slave, a beloved brother both as a slave and as a man, ‘both in the flesh and in the Lord[720].’ The great capacity for good which appears in the typical slave of Greek and Roman fiction, notwithstanding all the fraud and profligacy overlying it, was evoked and developed here by the inspiration of a new faith and the incentive of a new hope. The genial, affectionate, winning disposition, purified and elevated by a higher knowledge, had found its proper scope. Altogether this new friendship was a solace and a strength to the Apostle in his weary captivity, which he could ill afford to forego. To take away Onesimus was to tear out Paul’s heart[721].

Footnote 717:

1 Cor. vii. 22.

Footnote 718:

_Eth. Nic._ viii. 13 (p. 1161) φιλία δ’ οὐκ ἔστι πρὸς τὰ ἄψυχα οὐδὲ δίκαιον· ἀλλ’ οὐδὲ πρὸς ἵππον ἢ βοῦν, οὐδὲ πρὸς δοῦλον ᾗ δοῦλος· οὐδὲν γὰρ κοινόν ἐστιν· ὁ γὰρ δοῦλος ἔμψυχον ὄργανον, τὸ δ’ ὄργανον ἄψυχος δοῦλος· ᾗ μὲν οὖν δοῦλος, οὐκ ἔστι φιλία πρὸς αὐτόν, ᾗ δ’ ἄνθρωπος κ.τ.λ. On the views of Aristotle respecting slavery see Becker’s _Charikles_ III. p. 2 sq. (ed. 2, 1854) with the editor K. F. Hermann’s references to the literature of the subject, p. 5.

Footnote 719:

1 Cor. vii. 21 sq., Gal. iii. 28, Col. iii. 11. With this contrast the expression attributed to a speaker in Macrob. _Sat._ i. 11 ‘quasi vero curent divina de servis’.

Footnote 720:

Philem. 16.

Footnote 721:

ver. 12.

[Sidenote: Necessity for his return]

But there was an imperious demand for the sacrifice. Onesimus had repented, but he had not made restitution. He could only do this by submitting again to the servitude from which he had escaped. Philemon must be made to feel that, when Onesimus was gained for Christ, he was regained for his old master also. But if the claim of duty demanded a great sacrifice from Paul, it demanded a greater still from Onesimus. [Sidenote: notwithstanding the risk.]By returning he would place himself entirely at the mercy of the master whom he had wronged. Roman law, more cruel than Athenian, practically imposed no limits to the power of the master over his slave[722]. The alternative of life or death rested solely with Philemon, and slaves were constantly crucified for far lighter offences than his[723]. A thief and a runaway, he laid no claim to forgiveness.

Footnote 722:

_Dig._ i. 6 ‘In potestate sunt servi dominorum; quae quidem potestas juris gentium est: nam apud omnes peraeque gentes animadvertere possumus dominis in servos vitae necisque potestatem fuisse’. Comp. Senec. _de Clem._ i. 18 ‘Cum in servum omnia liceant’.

Footnote 723:

So the mistress in Juv. _Sat._ vi. 219 sq. ‘Pone crucem servo. Meruit quo crimine servus supplicium? quis testis adest? quis detulit?... O demens, ita servus homo est? nil fecerit, esto. Hoc volo, sic jubeo, etc.’ Compare the words of the slave in Plautus _Mil. Glor._ ii. 4. 19 ‘Noli minitari: scio crucem futuram mihi sepulcrum: Ibi mei sunt majores siti, pater, avos, proavos, abavos’.

[Sidenote: Mediation of Tychicus]

[Sidenote: supplemented by the Apostle’s letter.]

A favourable opportunity occurred for restoring Onesimus to his master. Tychicus, as the bearer of letters from the Apostle to Laodicea and Colossæ, had occasion to visit those parts. He might undertake the office of mediator, and plead the cause of the penitent slave with the offended master. Under his shelter Onesimus would be safer than if he encountered Philemon alone. But St Paul is not satisfied with this precaution. He will with his own hand write a few words of eager affectionate entreaty, identifying himself with the cause of Onesimus. So he takes up his pen.

[Sidenote: Analysis of the letter.]

After the opening salutation to Philemon and the members of his family, he expresses his thankfulness for the report which has reached his ears of his friend’s charitable deeds. It is a great joy and encouragement to the Apostle that so many brethren have had cause to bless his name. This wide-spread reputation for kindliness emboldens him to reveal his object in writing. Though he has a right to command, he prefers rather to entreat. He has a petition to prefer on behalf of a child of his own. This is none other than Onesimus, whom Philemon will remember only as a worthless creature, altogether untrue to his name, but who now is a reformed man. He would have wished to detain Onesimus, for he can ill afford to dispense with his loving services. Indeed Philemon would doubtless have been glad thus to minister vicariously to the Apostle’s wants. But a benefit which wears the appearance of being forced, whether truly so or not, loses all its value, and therefore he sends him back. Nay, there may have been in this desertion a Divine providence which it would ill become him Paul to thwart. Onesimus may have been withheld from Philemon for a time, that he might be restored to him for ever. He may have left as a slave, that he might return more than a slave. To others—to the Apostle himself especially—he is now a dearly beloved brother. Must he not be this and more than this to Philemon, whether in earthly things or in heavenly things? He therefore begs Philemon to receive Onesimus as he would receive himself. As for any injury that he may have done, as for any money that he may owe, the Apostle makes himself responsible for this. The present letter may be accepted as a bond, a security for repayment. Yet at the same time he cannot refrain from reminding Philemon that he might fairly claim the remission of so small an amount. Does not his friend owe to him his own soul besides? Yes, he has a right to look for some filial gratitude and duty from one to whom he stands in the relation of a spiritual father. Philemon will surely not refuse him this comfort in his many trials. He writes in the full confidence that he will be obeyed; he is quite sure that his friend will do more than is asked of him. At the same time he trusts to see him before very long, and to talk over this and other matters. Philemon may provide him a lodging: for he hopes through their prayers that he may be liberated, and given back to them. Then follow the salutations, and the letter ends with the Apostle’s benediction.

[Sidenote: Result of the appeal.]

Of the result of this appeal we have no certain knowledge. It is reasonable to suppose however that Philemon would not belie the Apostle’s hopes; that he would receive the slave as a brother; that he would even go beyond the expressed terms of the Apostle’s petition, and emancipate the penitent. But all this is a mere conjecture. One tradition makes Onesimus bishop of Ephesus[724]. But this obviously arises from a confusion with his namesake, who lived about half a century later[725]. [Sidenote: Legendary history.]Another story points to Berœa in Macedonia as his see[726]. This is at least free from the suspicion of having been suggested by any notice in the Apostolic writings: but the authority on which it rests does not entitle it to much credit. The legend of his missionary labours in Spain and of his martyrdom at Rome may have been built on the hypothesis of his continuing in the Apostle’s company, following in the Apostle’s footsteps, and sharing the Apostle’s fate. Another story, which gives a circumstantial account of his martyrdom at Puteoli, seems to confuse him with a namesake who suffered, or was related to have suffered, in the Decian persecution[727].

Footnote 724:

See _Acta Sanct. Boll._ xvi Febr. (II. p. 857 sq. ed. nov.) for the authorities, if they deserve the name.

Footnote 725:

If we take the earlier date of the Epistles of St Ignatius, A.D. 107, we get an interval of 44 years between the Onesimus of St Paul and the Onesimus of Ignatius. It is not altogether impossible therefore that the same person may be intended. But on the other hand the language of Ignatius (_Ephes._ 1 sq.) leaves the impression that he is speaking of a person comparatively young and untried in office.

Footnote 726:

_Apost. Const._ vii. 46, quoted above, p. 372, note 676.

Footnote 727:

For these ecclesiastical legends see _Act. Sanct._ l.c. p. 858 sq.

[Sidenote: Depreciation of the epistle in early times.]

The estimate formed of this epistle at various epochs has differed widely. In the fourth century there was a strong bias against it. The ‘spirit of the age’ had no sympathy with either the subject or the handling. Like the spirit of more than one later age, it was enamoured of its own narrowness, which it mistook for largeness of view, and it could not condescend to such trivialities as were here offered to it. Its maxim seemed to be _De minimis non curat evangelium_. Of what account was the fate of a single insignificant slave, long since dead and gone, to those before whose eyes the battle of the creeds was still raging? This letter taught them nothing about questions of theological interest, nothing about matters of ecclesiastical discipline; and therefore they would have none of it. They denied that it had been written by St Paul. It mattered nothing to them that the Church from the earliest ages had accepted it as genuine, that even the remorseless ‘higher criticism’ of a Marcion had not ventured to lay hands on it[728]. It was wholly unworthy of the Apostle. If written by him, they contended, it must have been written when he was not under the influence of the Spirit: its contents were altogether so unedifying. [Sidenote: Reply of the fathers.]We may infer from the replies of Jerome[729], of Chrysostom[730], and of Theodore of Mopsuestia[731], that they felt themselves to be stemming a fierce current of prejudice which had set in this direction. But they were strong in the excellence of their cause, and they nobly vindicated this epistle against its assailants.

Footnote 728:

Hieron. _Comm. in Philem._ Præf. VII. p. 743 ‘Pauli esse epistolam ad Philemonem saltem Marcione auctore doceantur: qui, quum cæteras epistolas ejusdem vel non susceperit vel quædam in his mutaverit atque corroserit, in hanc solam manus non est ausus mittere, quia sua illam brevitas defendebat’. St Jerome has in his mind the passage of Tertullian _adv. Marc._ v. 21 ‘Soli huic epistolæ brevitas sua profuit, ut falsarias manus Marcionis evaderet’.

Footnote 729:

_ib._ p. 742 sq. ‘Qui nolunt inter epistolas Pauli eam recipere quæ ad Philemonem scribitur, aiunt non semper apostolum nec omnia Christo in se loquente dixisse, quia nec humana imbecillitas unum tenorem Sancti Spiritus ferre potuisset etc.... His et cæteris istius modi volunt aut epistolam non esse Pauli quæ ad Philemonem scribitur aut, etiamsi Pauli sit, nihil habere quod ædificare nos possit etc.... sed mihi videntur, dum epistolam simplicitatis arguunt, suam imperitiam prodere, non intelligentes quid in singulis sermonibus virtutis et sapientiæ lateat’.

Footnote 730:

_Argum. in Philem._ ἀλλ’ ἐπειδὴ τινές φασι περιττὸν εἶναι τὸ καὶ τάυτην προσκεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, εἴγε ὑπὲρ πράγματος μικροῦ ἠξίωσεν, ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἀνδρός, μαθέτωσαν ὅσοι ταῦτα ἐγκαλοῦσιν ὅτι μυρίων εἰσὶν ἐγκλημάτων ἄξιοι κ.τ.λ., and he goes on to discuss the value of the epistle at some length.

Footnote 731:

_Spicil. Solesm._ I. W. 149 ‘Quid vero ex ea lucri possit acquiri, convenit manifestius explicare, quia nec omnibus id existimo posse esse cognitum; quod maxime heri jam ipse a nobis disseri postulasti’; _ib._ p. 152 ‘De his et nunc superius dixi, quod non omnes similiter arbitror potius se (potuisse?) prospicere’.

[Sidenote: High estimate of modern writers.]

In modern times there has been no disposition to under-rate its value. Even Luther and Calvin, whose bias tended to the depreciation of the ethical as compared with the doctrinal portions of the scriptures, show a true appreciation of its beauty and significance. [Sidenote: Luther.]‘This epistle’, writes Luther, ‘showeth a right noble lovely example of Christian love. Here we see how St Paul layeth himself out for poor Onesimus, and with all his means pleadeth his cause with his master: and so setteth himself as if he were Onesimus, and had himself done wrong to Philemon. Even as Christ did for us with God the Father, thus also doth St Paul for Onesimus with Philemon.... We are all his Onesimi, to my thinking’. [Sidenote: Calvin.]‘Though he handleth a subject’, says Calvin, ‘which otherwise were low and mean, yet after his manner he is borne up aloft unto God. With such modest entreaty doth he humble himself on behalf of the lowest of men, that scarce anywhere else is the gentleness of his spirit portrayed more truly to the life.’ And the chorus of admiration has been swelled by later voices from the most opposite quarters. [Sidenote: Later writers.]‘The single Epistle to Philemon,’ says one quoted by Bengel, ‘very far surpasses all the wisdom of the world’[732]. ‘Nowhere’, writes Ewald, ‘can the sensibility and warmth of a tender friendship blend more beautifully with the loftier feeling of a commanding spirit, a teacher and an Apostle, than in this letter, at once so brief, and yet so surpassingly full and significant[733].’ ‘A true little chef d’œuvre of the art of letter-writing,’ exclaims M. Renan characteristically[734]. ‘We have here’, writes Sabatier, ‘only a few familiar lines, but so full of grace, of salt, of serious and trustful affection, that this short epistle gleams like a pearl of the most exquisite purity in the rich treasure of the New Testament[735]’. Even Baur, while laying violent hands upon it, is constrained to speak of this ‘little letter’ as ‘making such an agreeable impression by its attractive form’ and as penetrated ‘with the noblest Christian spirit’[736].

Footnote 732:

Franke _Præf. N. T. Græc._ p. 26, 27, quoted by Bengel on Philem. 1.

Footnote 733:

_Die Sendschreiben_ etc. p. 458.

Footnote 734:

_L’Antechrist_ p. 96.

Footnote 735:

_L’Apôtre Paul_ p. 194. He goes on to say; ‘Never has the precept which Paul himself gave at the end of his letter to the Colossians been better realised, ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν πάντοτε ἐν χάριτι, ἅλατι ἠρτυμένος κ.τ.λ. (Col. iv. 6).’

Footnote 736:

_Paulus_ p. 476.

[Sidenote: The epistle compared with a letter of Pliny,]

The Epistle to Philemon has more than once been compared with the following letter addressed to a friend by the younger Pliny on a somewhat similar occasion[737]:

Your freedman, with whom you had told me you were vexed, came to me, and throwing himself down before me clung to my feet, as if they had been yours. He was profuse in his tears and his entreaties; he was profuse also in his silence. In short, he convinced me of his penitence. I believe that he is indeed a reformed character, because he feels that he has done wrong. You are angry, I know; and you have reason to be angry, this also I know: but mercy wins the highest praise just when there is the most righteous cause for anger. You loved the man, and, I hope, will continue to love him: meanwhile it is enough, that you should allow yourself to yield to his prayers. You may be angry again, if he deserves it; and in this you will be the more readily pardoned if you yield now. Concede something to his youth, something to his tears, something to your own indulgent disposition. Do not torture him, lest you torture yourself at the same time. For it _is_ torture to you, when one of your gentle temper is angry. I am afraid lest I should appear not to ask but to compel, if I should add my prayers to his. Yet I will add them the more fully and unreservedly, because I scolded the man himself with sharpness and severity; for I threatened him straitly that I would never ask you again. This I said to him, for it was necessary to alarm him; but I do not use the same language to you. For perchance I shall ask again, and shall be successful again; only let my request be such, as it becomes me to prefer and you to grant. Farewell.

Footnote 737:

Plin. _Ep._ ix. 21.

[Sidenote: as an expression of character.]

The younger Pliny is the noblest type of a true Roman gentleman, and this touching letter needs no words of praise. Yet, if purity of diction be excepted, there will hardly be any difference of opinion in awarding the palm to the Christian Apostle. As an expression of simple dignity, of refined courtesy, of large sympathy, and of warm personal affection, the Epistle to Philemon stands unrivalled. And its pre-eminence is the more remarkable because in style it is exceptionally loose. It owes nothing to the graces of rhetoric; its effect is due solely to the spirit of the writer.

[Sidenote: Its higher interest.]

But the interest which attaches to this short epistle as an expression of individual character is far less important than its significance as exhibiting the attitude of Christianity to a widely spread and characteristic social institution of the ancient world.

[Sidenote: Slavery among the Hebrews.]

Slavery was practised by the Hebrews under the sanction of the Mosaic law, not less than by the Greeks and Romans. But though the same in name, it was in its actual working something wholly different. The Hebrew was not suffered either by law-giver or by prophet to forget that he himself had been a bondman in the land of Egypt; and all his relations to his dependents were moulded by the sympathy of this recollection. His slaves were members of his family; they were members also of the Holy Congregation. They had their religious, as well as their social, rights. If Hebrews, their liberty was secured to them after six years’ service at the outside. If foreigners, they were protected by the laws from the tyranny and violence of their masters. Considering the conditions of ancient society, and more especially of ancient warfare, slavery as practised among the Hebrews was probably an escape from alternatives which would have involved a far greater amount of human misery. Still even in this form it was only a temporary concession, till the fulness of time came, and the world was taught that ‘in Christ is neither bond nor free[738]’.

Footnote 738:

On slavery among the Hebrews see the admirable work of Prof. Goldwin Smith _Does the Bible sanction American slavery?_ p. 1 sq.

Among the Jews the slaves formed only a small fraction of the whole population[739]. They occupy a very insignificant place in the pictures of Hebrew life and history which have been handed down to us. [Sidenote: Large number of slaves in Greece and Rome.]But in Greece and Rome the case was far different. In our enthusiastic eulogies of free, enlightened, democratic Athens, we are apt to forget that the interests of the many were ruthlessly sacrificed to the selfishness of the few. The slaves of Attica on the most probable computation were about four times as numerous as the citizens, and about three times as numerous as the whole free population of the state, including the resident aliens[740]. They were consigned for the most part to labour in gangs in the fields or the mines or the factories, without any hope of bettering their condition. In the light of these facts we see what was really meant by popular government and equal rights at Athens. The proportions of the slave population elsewhere were even greater. In the small island of Ægina, scarcely exceeding forty English square miles in extent, there were 470,000 slaves; in the contracted territory of Corinth there were not less than 460,000[741]. The statistics of slave-holding in Italy are quite as startling. We are told that wealthy Roman landowners sometimes possessed as many as ten or twenty thousand slaves, or even more[742]. We may indeed not unreasonably view these vague and general statements with suspicion: but it is a fact that, a few years before the Christian era, one Claudius Isidorus left by will more than four thousand slaves, though he had incurred serious losses by the civil war[743].

Footnote 739:

In Ezra ii. 65 the number of slaves compared with the number of free is a little more than one to six.

Footnote 740:

Boeckh _Public Economy of Athens_ p. 35 sq. According to a census taken by Demetrius Phalereus there were in the year 309 B. C. 21,000 citizens, 10,000 residents, and 400,000 slaves (Ctesicles in Athen. vi. p. 272 B). This would make the proportion of slaves to citizens nearly twenty to one. It is supposed however that the number of citizens here includes only adult males, whereas the number of slaves may comprise both sexes and all ages. Hence Boeckh’s estimate which is adopted in the text. For other calculations see Wallon _Histoire de l’Esclavage_ I. p. 221 sq.

Footnote 741:

Athen. _l.c._ p. 272 B, D. The statement respecting Ægina is given on the authority of Aristotle; that respecting Corinth on the authority of Epitimæus.

Footnote 742:

Athen. _l.c._ Ῥωμαίων ἕκαστος ... πλείστους ὅσους κεκτημένος οἰκέτας· καὶ γὰρ μυρίους καὶ δισμυρίους καὶ ἔτι πλείους δὲ πάμπολλοι κέκτηνται. See Becker _Gallus_ II. p. 113 (ed. 3).

Footnote 743:

Plin. _N.H._ xxxiii. 47.

[Sidenote: Cruelty of Roman law towards slaves.]

And these vast masses of human beings had no protection from Roman law[744]. The slave had no relationships, no conjugal rights. Cohabitation was allowed to him at his owner’s pleasure, but not marriage. His companion was sometimes assigned to him by lot[745]. The slave was absolutely at his master’s disposal; for the smallest offence he might be scourged, mutilated, crucified, thrown to the wild beasts[746]. Only two or three years before the letter to Philemon was written, and probably during St Paul’s residence in Rome, a terrible tragedy had been enacted under the sanction of the law[747]. [Sidenote: Murder of Pedanius Secundus.]Pedanius Secundus, a senator, had been slain by one of his slaves in a fit of anger or jealousy. The law demanded that in such cases all the slaves under the same roof at the time should be put to death. On the present occasion four hundred persons were condemned to suffer by this inhuman enactment. The populace however interposed to rescue them, and a tumult ensued. The Senate accordingly took the matter into deliberation. Among the speakers C. Cassius strongly advocated the enforcement of the law. ‘The disposition of slaves,’ he argued, ‘were regarded with suspicion by our ancestors, even when they were born on the same estates or in the same houses and learnt to feel an affection for their masters from the first. Now however, when we have several nations among our slaves, with various rites, with foreign religions or none at all, it is not possible to keep down such a rabble except by fear.’ These sentiments prevailed, and the law was put in force. But the roads were lined by a military guard, as the prisoners were led to execution, to prevent a popular outbreak. This incident illustrates not only the heartless cruelty of the law, but also the social dangers arising out of slavery. Indeed the universal distrust had already found expression in a common proverb,‘As many enemies as slaves[748].’ But this was not the only way in which slavery avenged itself on the Romans. The spread of luxury and idleness was a direct consequence of the state of things. Work came to be regarded as a low and degrading, because a servile occupation. Meanwhile sensuality in its vilest forms was fostered by the tremendous power which placed the slave at the mercy of the master’s worst passions[749].

Footnote 744:

On the condition of Greek and Roman slaves the able and exhaustive work of Wallon _Histoire de l’Esclavage dans l’Antiquité_ (Paris 1847) is the chief authority. See also Becker and Marquardt _Röm. Alterth._ v. 1. p. 139 sq.; Becker _Charikles_ II. p. 1 sq., _Gallus_ II. p. 99 sq. The practical working of slavery among the Romans is placed in its most favourable light in Gaston Bossier, _La Religion Romaine_ II. p. 343 sq. (Paris 1874).

Footnote 745:

_Röm. Alterth._ l.c. p. 184 sq.; _Gallus_ II. p. 144 sq. In this, as in other respects, the cruelty of the legislature was mitigated by the humanity of individual masters; and the inscriptions show that male and female slaves in many cases were allowed to live together through life as man and wife, though the law did not recognise or secure their union. It was reserved for Constantine to take the initiative in protecting the conjugal and family rights of slaves by legislature; _Cod. Theod._ ii. 25. 1.

Footnote 746:

Wallon II. p. 177 sq.; _Röm. Alterth._ l.c.; _Gallus_ II. p. 145 sq.; Rein _Privatrecht der Römer_ p. 552 sq. Hadrian first took away from masters the power of life and death over their slaves; Spart. _Vit. Hadr._ 18 ‘Servos a dominis occidi vetuit eosque jussit damnari per judices, si digni essent’. For earlier legislative enactments which had afforded a very feeble protection to slaves, see below p. 393.

Footnote 747:

Tac. _Ann._ xiv. 42. This incident took place A. D. 61. The law in question was the _Senatusconsultum Silonianum_, passed under Augustus A. D. 10.

Footnote 748:

Senec. _Ep. Mor._ 47 ‘Deinde ejusdem arrogantiæ proverbium jactatur _totidem hostes esse quot servos_’; comp. Macrob. i. II. 13. See also Festus p. 261 (Ed. Mueller) ‘_Quot servi tot hostes_ in proverbio est.’]

Footnote 749:

See the saying of Haterius in the elder Seneca _Controv._ iv. Præf., ‘Impudicitia in ingenuo crimen est, _in servo necessitas_, in liberto officium’, with its context. Wallon (I. p. 332) sums up the condition of the slave thus: ‘L’esclave appartenait au maître: par lui même, il n’était rien, il n’avait rien. Voilà le principe; et tout ce qu’on en peut tirer par voie de conséquence formait aussi, en fait, l’état commun des esclaves dans la plupart des pays. A toutes les époques, dans toutes les situations de la vie, cette autorité souveraine plane sur eux et modifie leur destinée par ses rigueurs comme par son indifference. Dans l’âge de la force et dans la plénitude de leurs facultés, elle les vouait, à son choix, soit au travail, soit au vice; au travail les natures grossières; au vice, les natures plus délicates, nourries pour le plaisir du maître, et qui lorsqu’il en était las, étaient reléguées dans la prostitution a son profit. Avant et après l’âge du travail, abandonnés a leur faiblesse ou a leurs infirmités; enfants, ils grandissaient dans le désordre; viellards, ils mouraient souvent dans la misère; morts, ils étaient quelquefois délaissés sur la voie publique....’

[Sidenote: Christianity not revolutionary.]

With this wide-spread institution Christianity found itself in conflict. How was the evil to be met? Slavery was inwoven into the texture of society; and to prohibit slavery was to tear society into shreds. Nothing less than a servile war with its certain horrors and its doubtful issues must have been the consequence. Such a mode of operation was altogether alien to the spirit of the Gospel. ‘The New Testament’, it has been truly said, ‘is not concerned with any political or social institutions; for political and social institutions belong to particular nations and particular phases of society’. ‘Nothing marks the divine character of the Gospel more than its perfect freedom from any appeal to the spirit of political revolution[750]’. It belongs to all time: and therefore, instead of attacking special abuses, it lays down universal principles which shall undermine the evil.

Footnote 750:

G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ pp. 95, 96.

[Sidenote: St Paul’s treatment of the case of Onesimus.]

Hence the Gospel never directly attacks slavery as an institution: the Apostles never command the liberation of slaves as an absolute duty. It is a remarkable fact that St Paul in this epistle stops short of any positive injunction. The word ‘emancipation’ seems to be trembling on his lips, and yet he does not once utter it. He charges Philemon to take the runaway slave Onesimus into his confidence again; to receive him with all affection; to regard him no more as a slave but as a brother; to treat him with the same consideration, the same love, which he entertains for the Apostle himself to whom he owes everything. In fact he tells him to do very much more than emancipate his slave, but this one thing he does not directly enjoin. St Paul’s treatment of this individual case is an apt illustration of the attitude of Christianity towards slavery in general.

[Sidenote: His language respecting slavery elsewhere.]

Similar also is his language elsewhere. Writing to the Corinthians, he declares the absolute equality of the freeman and the slave in the sight of God[751]. It follows therefore that the slave may cheerfully acquiesce in his lot, knowing that all earthly distinctions vanish in the light of this eternal truth. If his freedom should be offered to him, he will do well to accept it, for it puts him in a more advantageous position[752]: but meanwhile he need not give himself any concern about his lot in life. So again, when he addresses the Ephesians and Colossians on the mutual obligations of masters and slaves, he is content to insist on the broad fact that both alike are slaves of a heavenly Master, and to enforce the duties which flow from its recognition[753]. He has no word of reproach for the masters on the injustice of their position; he breathes no hint to the slaves of a social grievance needing redress.

Footnote 751:

1 Cor. vii. 21 sq.

Footnote 752:

The clause, ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ δύνασαι ἐλεύθερος γενέσθαι, μᾶλλον χρῆσαι, has been differently interpreted from early times, either as recommending the slave to avail himself of any opportunity of emancipation, or as advising him to refuse the offer of freedom and to remain in servitude. The earliest commentator whose opinion I have observed, Origen (in Cram. _Cat._ p. 140), interprets it as favourable to liberty, but he confuses the meaning by giving a metaphorical sense to slavery, δοῦλον ὠνόμασεν ἀναγκαίως τὸν γεγαμηκότα. Again, Severianus (ib. p. 141) distinctly explains it as recommending a state of liberty. On the other hand Chrysostom, while mentioning that ‘certain persons’ interpret it εἰ δύνασαι ἐλευθερωθῆναι, ἐλευθερώθητι, himself supposes St Paul to advise the slave’s remaining in slavery. And so Theodoret and others. The balance of argument seems to be decidedly in favour of the former view.

(1) The actual language must be considered first. And here (i) the particles εἰ καὶ will suit either interpretation. If they are translated ‘even though’, the clause recommends the continuance in slavery. But καὶ may be equally well taken with δύνασαι, and the words will then mean ‘if it _should_ be in your power to obtain your freedom’. So above ver. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ: comp. Luke xi. 18 εἰ δὲ καὶ ὁ Σατανᾶς ἐφ’ ἑαυτὸν διεμερίσθη, 1 Pet. iii. 14 ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ πάσχοιτε διὰ δικαιοσύνην. (ii) The expression μᾶλλον χρῆσαι seems to direct the slave to _avail himself_ of some _new_ opportunity offered, and therefore to recommend liberty; comp. ix. 12, 15.

(2) The immediate context will admit either interpretation. If slavery be preferred, the sentence is continuous. If liberty, the clause ἀλλ’ εἰ καὶ ... μᾶλλον χρῆσαι is parenthetical. In this latter case its motive is to correct misapprehension, as if the Apostle would say, ‘When I declare the absolute indifference of the two states in the sight of God, I do not mean to say that you should not avail yourselves of freedom, if it comes in your way; it puts you in a more advantageous position, and you will do well to prefer it’. Such a corrective parenthesis is altogether after St Paul’s manner, and indeed instances occur in this very context: e.g. ver. 11 ἐὰν δὲ καὶ χωρισθῇ κ.τ.λ., ver. 15 εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται κ.τ.λ. This last passage is an exact parallel, for the γὰρ of ver. 16 is connected immediately with ver. 14, the parenthesis being disregarded as here.

(3) The argument which seems decisive is the extreme improbability that St Paul should have recommended slavery in preference to freedom. For (i) Such a recommendation would be alien to the spirit of a man whose sense of political right was so strong, and who asserted his citizenship so stanchly on more than one occasion (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 28). (ii) The independent position of the freeman would give him an obvious advantage in doing the work of Christ, which it is difficult to imagine St Paul enjoining him deliberately to forego. (iii) Throughout the passage the Apostle, while maintaining the indifference of these earthly relations in the sight of God, yet always gives the preference to a position of _independence_, whenever it comes to a Christian naturally and without any undue impatience on his part. The spirit which animates St Paul’s injunctions here may be seen from vv. 8, 11, 15, 26, 27 etc.

Footnote 753:

Ephes. vi. 5–9, Col. iii. 22-iv. 1.

[Sidenote: The Christian idea fatal to slavery.]

But meanwhile a principle is boldly enunciated, which must in the end prove fatal to slavery. When the Gospel taught that God had made all men and women upon earth of one family; that all alike were His sons and His daughters; that, whatever conventional distinctions human society might set up, the supreme King of Heaven refused to acknowledge any; that the slave notwithstanding his slavery was Christ’s freedman, and the free notwithstanding his liberty was Christ’s slave; when the Church carried out this principle by admitting the slave to her highest privileges, inviting him to kneel side by side with his master at the same holy table; when in short the Apostolic precept that ‘in Christ Jesus is neither bond nor free’ was not only recognised but acted upon, then slavery was doomed. Henceforward it was only a question of time. Here was the idea which must act as a solvent, must disintegrate this venerable institution, however deeply rooted and however widely spread. [Sidenote: Its general tendency.]‘The brotherhood of man, in short, is the idea which Christianity in its social phase has been always striving to realise, and the progress of which constitutes the social history of Christendom. With what difficulties this idea has struggled; how it has been marred by revolutionary violence, as well as impeded by reactionary selfishness; to what chimerical hopes, to what wild schemes, to what calamitous disappointments, to what desperate conflicts, it has given birth; how often being misunderstood and misapplied, it has brought not peace on earth but a sword—it is needless here to rehearse. Still, as we look back over the range of past history, we can see beyond doubt that it is towards this goal that Christianity as a social principle has been always tending and still tends[754].’

Footnote 754:

G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ p. 121.

[Sidenote: Its effects on slavery.]

And this beneficent tendency of the Gospel was felt at once in its effects on slavery. The Church indeed, even in the ardour of her earliest love, did not prohibit her sons from retaining slaves in their households. It is quite plain from extant notices, that in the earlier centuries, as in the later, Christians owned slaves[755] like their heathen neighbours, without forfeiting consideration among their fellow-believers. But nevertheless the Christian idea was not a dead-letter. [Sidenote: Protection and manumission of slaves.]The chivalry of the Gospel which regarded the weak and helpless from whatever cause, as its special charge, which extended its protection to the widow, the orphan, the sick, the aged, and the prisoner, was not likely to neglect the slave. Accordingly we find that one of the earliest forms which Christian benevolence took was the contribution of funds for the liberation of slaves[756]. [Sidenote: Honours paid to slave martyrs.]But even more important than overt acts like these was the moral and social importance with which the slave was now invested. Among the heroes and heroines of the Church were found not a few members of this class. When slave girls like Blandina in Gaul or Felicitas in Africa, having won for themselves the crown of martyrdom, were celebrated in the festivals of the Church with honours denied to the most powerful and noblest born of mankind, social prejudice had received a wound which could never be healed.

Footnote 755:

Athenag. _Suppl._ 35 δοῦλοί εἰσιν ἡμῖν, τοῖς μὲν καὶ πλείους τοῖς δ’ ἐλάττους. It would even appear that the domestic servant who betrayed Polycarp (_Mart. Polyc._ 6) was a slave, for he was put to the torture. Comp. Justin. _Apol._ ii. 12.

Footnote 756:

Ignat. _Polyc._ 4 μὴ ἐράτωσαν ἀπὸ τοῦ κοινοῦ ἐλευθεροῦσθαι, _Apost. Const._ iv. 9 τὰ ἐξ αὐτῶν, ὡς προειρήκαμεν, ἀθροιζόμενα χρήματα διατάσσετε διακονοῦντες εἰς ἀγορασμοὺς τῶν ἁγίων, _ῥυόμενοι δούλους_ καὶ αἰχμαλώτους, δεσμίους, κ.τ.λ.

[Sidenote: Christianity predominant.]

While the Church was still kept in subjection, moral influence and private enterprise were her only weapons. But Christianity was no sooner seated on the throne of the Cæsars than its influence began to be felt in the imperial policy[757]. [Sidenote: Legislation of Constantine.]The legislation of Constantine, despite its startling inequalities, forms a unique chapter in the statute book of Rome. In its mixed character indeed it reflects the transitional position of its author. But after all allowance made for its very patent defects, its general advance in the direction of humanity and purity is far greater than can be traced in the legislation even of the most humane and virtuous of his heathen predecessors. More especially in the extension of legal protection to slaves, and in the encouragement given to emancipation, we have an earnest of the future work which Christianity was destined to do for this oppressed class of mankind, though the relief which it gave was after all very partial and tentative[758].

Footnote 757:

It must not however be forgotten that, even before Christianity became the predominant religion, a more humane spirit had entered into Roman legislation. The important enactment of Hadrian has been already mentioned, p. 387, note 746. Even earlier the _lex Petronia_ (of which the date is uncertain) had prohibited masters from making their slaves fight with wild beasts in mere caprice and without an order from a judge (Dig. xlviii. 8. 11); and Claudius (A.D. 47), finding that the practice of turning out sick slaves into the streets to die was on the increase, ordered that those who survived this treatment should have their freedom (Dion Cass. lx. 29, Suet. _Claud._ 25). For these and similar enactments of the heathen emperors see Wallon III. p. 60 sq., _Röm. Alterth._ V. I. 197, Rein _Privatrecht d. Römer_ p. 560 sq. The character of this exceptional legislation is the strongest impeachment of the general cruelty of the law; while at the same time subsequent notices show how very far from effective it was even within its own narrow limits. See for instance the passage in Galen, v. p. 17 (ed. Kühn) λακτίζουσι καὶ τοὺς ὀφθαλμοὺς ἐξορύττουσι καὶ γραφέιῳ κεντοῦσιν κ.τ.λ. (comp. _ib._ p. 584), or Seneca _de Ira_ iii. 3. 6 ‘eculei et fidiculæ et ergastula et cruces et circundati defossis corporibus ignes et cadavera quoque trahens uncus, varia vinculorum genera, varia pœnarum, lacerationes membrorum, inscriptiones frontis et bestiarum immanium caveæ.’

On the causes of these ameliorations in the law see _Röm. Alterth._ V. 1. p. 199.

Footnote 758:

On the legislation of Constantine affecting slavery see De Broglie _L’Eglise et l’Empire Romain_, I. p. 304 sq. (ed. 5), Chawner _Influence of Christianity upon the Legislation of Constantine the Great_, p. 73 sq., Wallon III. p. 414 sq. The legislation of Justinian is still more honourably distinguished for its alleviation of the evils of slavery.

[Sidenote: Subsequent activity of the Church.]

And on the whole this part has been faithfully and courageously performed by the Church. There have been shameful exceptions now and then: there has been occasional timidity and excess of caution. The commentaries of the fathers on this epistle are an illustration of this latter fault[759]. Much may be pardoned to men who shrink from seeming to countenance a violent social revolution. But notwithstanding, it is a broad and patent fact that throughout the early and middle ages the influence of the Church was exerted strongly on the side of humanity in this matter[760]. The emancipation of slaves was regarded as a principal aim of the higher Christian life[761]; the amelioration of serfdom was a matter of constant solicitude with the rulers of the Church.

[Sidenote: The conquests and hopes of the present time.]

And at length we seem to see the beginning of the end. The rapid strides towards emancipation during the present generation are without a parallel in the history of the world. The abolition of slavery throughout the British Empire at an enormous material sacrifice is one of the greatest moral conquests which England has ever achieved. The liberation of twenty millions of serfs throughout the Russian dominions has thrown a halo of glory round the name of Alexander II., which no time can dim. The emancipation of the negro in the vast republic of the New World was a victory not less important than either to the well-being of the human race. Thus within the short period of little more than a quarter of a century this reproach of civilisation and humanity has been wiped out in the three greatest empires of the world. It is a fit sequel to these achievements, that at length a well directed attack should have been made on the central fortress of slavery and the slave-trade, the interior of Africa. May we not venture to predict that in future ages, when distance of view shall have adjusted the true relations of events, when the brilliancy of empires and the fame of wars shall have sunk to their proper level of significance, this epoch will stand out in the history of mankind as the era of liberation? If so, the Epistle to Philemon, as the earliest prelude to these magnificent social victories, must be invested with more than common interest for our generation.

Footnote 759:

_E.g._ Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spic. Solesm._ I. p. 152). Yet St Chrysostom himself pleads the cause of slaves earnestly elsewhere. In _Hom. xl. ad 1 Cor._ x. p. 385 he says of slavery, ‘It is the penalty of sin and the punishment of disobedience. But when Christ came, he annulled even this, _For in Christ Jesus there is no slave nor free_. Therefore it is not necessary to have a slave; but, if it should be necessary, then one only or at most a second’. And he then tells his audience that if they really care for the welfare of slaves, they must ‘buy them, and having taught them some art that they may maintain themselves, set them free.’ ‘I know,’ he adds, ‘that I am annoying my hearers; but what can I do? For this purpose I am appointed, and I will not cease speaking so.’ On the attitude of this father towards slavery see Möhler p. 89 sq.

Footnote 760:

On the influence of Christianity in this respect see Wallon III. p. 314 sq., Schmidt _Essai historique sur la Société Civile dans le Monde Romain etc._ p. 228 sq. (1853), Möhler _Gesammelte Schriften_ II. p. 54 sq., G. Smith _Does the Bible etc.?_ p. 95 sq., E. S. Talbot _Slavery as affected by Christianity_ (1869), Lecky _Rationalism in Europe_ II. p. 255 sq., _European Morals_ II. p. 65 sq.

Footnote 761:

Möhler p. 99 sq., Schmidt p. 246 sq., Lecky _E. M._ II. p. 73 sq.

ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ.

WHERE THE SPIRIT OF THE LORD IS, THERE IS LIBERTY.

WHO IS WEAK, AND I AM NOT WEAK? WHO IS OFFENDED, AND I BURN NOT?

* * * * *

_Such ever was love’s way: to rise, it stoops._

ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΗΜΟΝΑ.

1–3]

^1ΠΑΥΛΟΣ, δέσμιος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ καὶ Τιμόθεος ὁ ἀδελφὸς, Φιλήμονι τῷ ἀγαπητῷ καὶ συνεργῷ ἡμῶν ^2καὶ Ἀπφίᾳ τῇ ἀδελφῇ καὶ Ἀρχίππῳ τῷ συνστρατίωτῃ ἡμῶν καὶ τῇ κατ’ οἶκόν σου ἐκκλησίᾳ· ^3χάρις ὑμῖν

1–3. ‘PAUL, now a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and TIMOTHY a brother in the faith, unto PHILEMON our dearly-beloved and fellow-labourer in the Gospel, and unto APPHIA our sister, and unto ARCHIPPUS our fellow-soldier in Christ, and to the Church which assembles in thy house. Grace and peace to you all from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.’

1. δέσμιος] The authoritative title of ‘Apostle’ is dropped, because throughout this letter St Paul desires to entreat rather than to command (ver. 8, 9); see the note on Phil. i. 1. In its place is substituted a designation which would touch his friend’s heart. How could Philemon resist an appeal which was penned within prison walls and by a manacled hand? For this characteristic reference to his ‘bonds’ see the note on ver. 13.

Τιμόθεος] Timothy seems to have been with St Paul during a great part of his three years’ sojourn in Ephesus (Acts xix. 22), and could hardly have failed to make the acquaintance of Philemon. For the designation ὁ ἀδελφός applied to Timothy see the note on Col. i. 1.

Φιλήμονι κ.τ.λ.] On the persons here addressed, and the language in which they are described, see the introduction p. 369 sq.

συνεργῷ] It would probably be during St Paul’s long sojourn at Ephesus that Philemon had laboured with him: see above p. 31 sq.

ἡμῶν] should probably be attached to ἀγαπητῷ as well as to συνεργῷ; comp. Rom. xvi. 5, 8, 9, 1 Cor. x. 14, Phil. ii. 12.

2. τῇ ἀδελφῇ] For this the received text has τῇ ἀγαπητῇ. Internal probabilities can be urged in favour of both readings. On the one hand ἀγαπητῇ might have been introduced for the sake of conformity to the preceding ἀγαπητῷ; on the other ἀδελφῇ might have been substituted for ἀγαπητῇ on grounds of false delicacy. Theodore of Mopsuestia (_Spicil. Solesm._ I. p. 154), who had the reading ἀγαπητῇ, feels an apology necessary: ‘Istius temporis (i.e. of the present time) homines propemodum omnes in crimine vocandos esse existimant, modo si audierint nomen charitatis. Apostolus vero non sic sentiebat; sed contrario etc.’ I have preferred τῇ ἀδελφῇ, because the preponderance of ancient authority is very decidedly in its favour.

συνστρατιώτῃ] These spiritual campaigns, in which Archippus was his comrade, probably took place while St Paul was at Ephesus (A.D. 54–57). For the word συνστρατιώτης see Phil. ii. 25. The metaphor of στρατεία, στρατεύεσθαι, is common in St Paul.

τῇ κατ’ οἶκον κ.τ.λ.] probably at Colossæ; see above p. 370 sq. For the meaning of the expression see the note on Col. iv. 15.

4, 5]

καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ Θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ Κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

^4Εὐχαριστῶ τᾷ Θεῷ μου πάντοτε, μνείαν σου ποιούμενος ἐπὶ τῶν προσευχῶν μου, ^5ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην

4–7. ‘I never cease to give thanks to my God for thy well-doing, and thou art ever mentioned in my prayers. For they tell me of thy love and faith—thy faith which thou hast in the Lord Jesus, and thy love which thou showest towards all the saints; and it is my prayer that this active sympathy and charity, thus springing from thy faith, may abound more and more, as thou attainest to the perfect knowledge of every good thing bestowed upon us by God, looking unto and striving after Christ. For indeed it gave me great joy and comfort to hear of thy loving-kindness, and to learn how the hearts of God’s people had been cheered and refreshed by thy help, my dear brother’.

The Apostle’s thanksgiving and intercessory prayer (ver. 4)—the cause of his thanksgiving (ver. 5)—the purport of his prayer (ver. 6)—the joy and comfort which he has in Philemon’s good deeds (ver. 7)—this is the very simple order of topics in these verses. But meanwhile all established principles of arrangement are defied in the anxiety to give expression to the thought which is uppermost for the moment. The clause ἀκούων κ.τ.λ. is separated from εὐχαριστῶ κ.τ.λ., on which it depends, by the intervening clause μνείαν σου κ.τ.λ. which introduces another thought. It itself interposes between two clauses μνείαν σου κ.τ.λ. and ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία κ.τ.λ., which stand in the closest logical and grammatical connexion with each other. Its own component elements are dislocated and inverted in the struggle of the several ideas for immediate utterance. And lastly, in χαρὰν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. there is again a recurrence to a topic which has occurred in an earlier part of the sentence (τὴν ἀγάπην ... εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους) but which has been dropped, before it was exhausted, owing to the pressure of another more importunate thought.

4. Εὐχαριστῶ] See the note on 1 Thess. i. 2.

πάντοτε] should probably be taken with εὐχαριστῶ (rather than with μνείαν κ.τ.λ.), according to St Paul’s usual collocation in these opening thanksgivings: see the notes on Col. i. 3, Phil. i. 3.

μνείαν σου κ.τ.λ.] ‘_making mention of thee_.’ For μνείαν ποιεῖσθαι see the note on 1 Thess. i. 2. Here the ‘mention’ involves the idea of intercession _on behalf of_ Philemon, and so introduces the ὅπως κ.τ.λ. of ver. 6. See the note there.

5. ἀκούων] This information would probably come from Epaphras (Col. i. 7, 8, iv. 12) rather than from Onesimus. The participle is connected more directly with εὐχαριστῶ than with the intervening words, and explains the grounds of the Apostle’s thanksgiving.

τὴν ἀγάπην κ.τ.λ.] i.e. ‘the faith which thou hast towards the Lord Jesus Christ and the love which thou showest to all the saints.’ The logical order is violated, and the clauses are inverted in the second part of the sentence, thus producing an example of the figure called chiasm; see Gal. iv. 4, 5. This results here from the Apostle’s setting down the thoughts in the sequence in which they occur to him, without paying regard to symmetrical arrangement. The first and prominent thought is Philemon’s love. This suggests the mention of his faith, as the source from which it springs. This again requires a reference to the object of faith. And then at length comes the deferred sequel to the first thought—the range and comprehensiveness of his love. The transition from the object of faith to the object of love is more easy, because the love is represented as springing from the faith. Some copies transpose the order, reading τὴν πίστιν καὶ τὴν ἀγάπην—an obvious emendation. Others would obviate the difficulty by giving to πίστιν the meaning ‘fidelity, stedfastness’: Winer § 1. p. 511 sq. Thus they are enabled to refer both words, πίστιν καὶ ἀγάπην, equally to both the clauses which follow. But, though this is a legitimate sense of πίστις in St Paul (see _Galatians_, p. 155), yet in immediate connexion with ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν, it is hardly possible that the word can have any other than its proper theological meaning. See the opening of the contemporary epistle, Col. i. 4.

6]

καὶ τὴν πίστιν ἣν ἔχεις πρὸς τὸν Κύριον Ἰησοῦν καὶ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἁγίους, ^6ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστέως σου ἐνεργὴς γένηται ἐν ἐπιγνώσει παντὸς ἀγαθοῦ τοῦ ἐν

πρὸς κ.τ.λ.] The change of prepositions, πρὸς τὸν Κύριον ‘_towards_ the Lord’ and εἰς τοὺς ἁγίους ‘_unto_ the saints’, deserves attention. It seems to arise from the instinctive desire to separate the two clauses, as they refer to different words in the preceding part of the sentence. Of the two prepositions the former (προ-ς) signifies _direction_ ‘forward to’, ‘towards’; the latter (ἐν-ς) _arrival_ and so _contact_, ‘in-to’, ‘unto.’ Consequently either might be used in either connexion; and as a matter of fact εἰς is much more common with πίστις (πιστεύειν), as it is also with ἀγάπη, πρός being quite exceptional (1 Thess. i. 8 ἡ πίστις ὑμῶν ἡ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν; comp. 2 Cor. iii. 4). But where a distinction is necessary, there is a propriety in using πρός of the faith which aspires _towards_ Christ, and εἰς of the love which is exerted _upon_ men. Some good copies read εἰς here in both clauses.

6. ὅπως κ.τ.λ.] to be taken with μνείαν σου ποιούμενος κ.τ.λ., as giving the aim and purport of St Paul’s prayer. Others connect it with hὲν ἔχεις, as if it described the tendency of Philemon’s faith, ‘ita ut’; but, even if ὅπως could bear this meaning, such a connexion is altogether harsh and improbable.

ἡ κοινωνία κ.τ.λ.] Of many interpretations which have been, or might be, given of these words, two seem to deserve consideration. (1) ‘Your friendly offices and sympathies, your kindly deeds of charity, which spring from your faith’: comp. Phil. i. 5 ἐπὶ τῇ κοινωνίᾳ ὑμῶν εἰς τὸ εὐαγγέλιον, Heb. xiii. 16 τῆς εὐποι"ίας καὶ κοινωνίας, whence κοινωνία is used especially of ‘contributions, almsgiving’, Rom. xv. 26, 2 Cor. viii. 4, ix. 13. (2) ‘Your communion with God through faith’: comp. 1 Cor. i. 9, and see also 2 Cor. xiii. 13, 1 Joh. i. 3, 6, 7. The parallel passages strongly support the former sense. Other interpretations proposed are, ‘The participation of others in your faith, through your example’, or ‘your communion with me, springing out of your faith’. This last, which is widely received, is suggested by ver. 17; εἰ κοινωνὸς εἶ, φησί, κατὰ τὴν πίστιν, writes Chrysostom, καὶ κατὰ τὰ ἄλλα ὀφείλεις κοινωνεῖν (comp. Tit. i. 3 κατὰ κοινὴν πίστιν): but it seems quite out of place in this context.

ἐνεργής] ‘_effective_’. The Latin translators must have read ἐναργής, for they render the word _evidens_ or _manifesta_. Jerome (_ad loc._) speaks of _evidens_ as the reading of the Latin, and _efficax_ of the Greek text. The converse error appears in the MSS of _Clem. Hom._ xvii. 5, ἐνέργεια for ἐνάργεια.

ἐν ἐπιγνώσει κ.τ.λ.] ‘_in the perfect knowledge of every good thing_’. This ἐπίγνωσις, involving as it does the complete appropriation of all truth and the unreserved identification with God’s will, is the goal and crown of the believer’s course. The Apostle does not say ‘in the possession’ or ‘in the performance’ but ‘in the knowledge of every good thing’; for, in this higher sense of knowledge, to know is both to possess and to perform. In all the epistles of the Roman captivity St Paul’s prayer for his correspondents culminates in this word ἐπίγνωσις: see the note on Col. i. 9. This ἐπίγνωσις is the result and the reward of faith manifesting itself in deeds of love, ὅπως ἡ κοινωνία τῆς πίστεως κ.τ.λ. For the sequence comp. Ephes. iv. 13 εἰς τὴν ἑνότητα τῆς πίστεως καὶ τῆς ἐπιγνώσεως κ.τ.λ., Tit. i. 1 κατὰ πίστιν ἐκλεκτῶν Θεοῦ καὶ ἐπίγνωσιν ἀληθείας τῆς κατ’ εὐσέβειαν. The ἐπίγνωσις therefore which the Apostle contemplates is Philemon’s own. There is no reference to the force of his example on others, as it is sometimes interpreted, ‘in their recognition of every good thing which is wrought in you’.

7]

ἡμῖν εἰς Χριστόν. ^7χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον καὶ παράκλησιν ἐπὶ τῇ ἀγάπῃ σου, ὅτι τὰ σπλάγχνα τῶν ἁγίων ἀναπέπαυται διὰ σοῦ, ἀδελφέ.

6. ἐν ὑμῖν εἰς Χριστόν.

τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν] ‘_which is in us Christians_’, ‘which is placed within our reach by the Gospel’; i.e. the whole range of spiritual blessings, the complete cycle of Christian truth. If the reading τοῦ ἐν ὑμῖν be adopted, the reference will be restricted to the brotherhood at Colossæ, but the meaning must be substantially the same. Though ὑμῖν has somewhat better support, we seem to be justified in preferring ἡμῖν as being much more expressive. In such cases the MSS are of no great authority; and in the present instance scribes would be strongly tempted to alter ἡμῖν into ὑμῖν from a misapprehension of the sense, and a wish to apply the words to Philemon and his household. A similar misapprehension doubtless led in some copies to the omission of τοῦ, which seemed to be superfluous but is really required for the sense.

εἰς Χριστόν] ‘_unto Christ_’, i.e. leading to Him as the goal. The words should be connected not with τοῦ ἐν ἡμῖν, but with the main statement of the sentence ἐνεργὴς γένηται κ.τ.λ.

7. χαρὰν γάρ] This sentence again must not be connected with the words immediately preceding. It gives the motive of the Apostle’s thanksgiving mentioned in ver. 4. This thanksgiving was the outpouring of gratitude for the joy and comfort that he had received in his bonds, from the report of Philemon’s generous charity. The connexion therefore is εὐχαριστῶ τῷ Θεῷ μου ...... ἀκούων σου τὴν ἀγάπην ... χαρὰν γὰρ πολλὴν ἔσχον κ.τ.λ. For χαράν the received text (Steph. but not Elz.) reads χάριν, which is taken to mean ‘thankfulness’ (1 Tim. i. 12, 2 Tim. i. 3); but this reading is absolutely condemned by the paucity of ancient authority.

τὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘_the heart, the spirits_’. On τὰ σπλάγχνα, the nobler viscera, regarded as the seat of the emotions, see the note on Phil. i. 8. Here the prominent idea is that of terror, grief, despondency, etc.

ἀναπέπαυται] ‘_have been relieved, refreshed_’, comp. ver. 20. The compound ἀναπάυεσθαι expresses a temporary relief, as the simple παύεσθαι expresses a final cessation: Plut. _Vit. Lucull._ 5 πολλῶν αὖθις ἀνακινούντων τὸν Μιθριδατικὸν πόλεμον ἔφη Μάρκος

8, 9]

^8 Διὸ πολλὴν ἐν Χριστῷ παρρησίαν ἔχων ἐπιτάσσειν σοι τὸ ἀνῆκον, ^9 διὰ τὴν αγάπην μᾶλλον παρακαλῶ, τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς Παῦλος πρεσβύτης νυνὶ δὲ καὶ δέσμιος

9. νῦν δὲ καὶ δέσμιος.

αὐτὸν _οὐ πεπαῦσθαι_ ἀλλ’ _ἀναπεπαῦσθαι_. Thus it implies ‘relaxation, refreshment,’ as a preparation for the renewal of labour or suffering. It is an Ignatian as well as a Pauline word; _Ephes._ 2, _Smyrn._ 9, 10, 12, _Trall._ 12, _Magn._ 15, _Rom._ 10.

ἀδελφέ] For the appeal suggested by the emphatic position of the word, comp. Gal. vi. 18. See also the note on ver. 20 below.

8–17. ‘Encouraged by these tidings of thy loving spirit, I prefer to entreat, where I might command. My office gives me authority to dictate thy duty in plain language, but love bids me plead as a suitor. Have I not indeed a right to command—I Paul whom Christ Jesus long ago commissioned as His ambassador, and whom now He has exalted to the rank of His prisoner? But I entreat thee. I have a favour to ask for a son of my own—one doubly dear to me, because I became his father amidst the sorrows of my bonds. I speak of Onesimus, who in times past was found wholly untrue to his name, who was then far from useful to thee, but now is useful to thee—yea, and to myself also. Him I send back to thee, and I entreat thee to take him into thy favour, for in giving him I am giving my own heart. Indeed I would gladly have detained him with me, that he might minister to me on thy behalf, in these bonds with which the Gospel has invested me. But I had scruples. I did not wish to do anything without thy direct consent; for then it might have seemed (though it were only seeming) as if thy kindly offices had been rendered by compulsion and not of free will. So I have sent him back. Indeed it may have been God’s providential design, that he was parted from thee for a season, only that thou mightest regain him for ever; that he left thee as a slave, only that he might return to thee a beloved brother. This indeed he is to me most of all; and, if to me, must he not be so much more to thee, both in worldly things and in spiritual? If therefore thou regardest me as a friend and companion, take him to thee, as if he were myself’.

8. Διό] i.e. ‘Seeing that I have these proofs of thy love, I prefer to entreat, where I might command’.

παρρησίαν] ‘_confidence_’, literally ‘_freedom_’ or ‘_privilege of speech_’; see the notes on Col. ii. 15, Ephes. iii. 12. It was his Apostolic authority which gave him this right to command in plain language. Hence the addition ἐν Χριστῷ.

το ἀνῆκον] ‘_what is fitting_’: see the note on Col. iii. 18.

9. διὰ τὴν ἀγάπην] ‘_for love’s sake_’, i.e. ‘having respect to the claims of love’. It is not Philemon’s love (vv. 5, 7,) nor St Paul’s own love, but love absolutely, love regarded as a principle which demands a deferential respect.

τοιοῦτος ὢν κ.τ.λ.] ‘_being such an one as Paul an ambassador, and now also a prisoner, of Christ Jesus_’. Several questions of more or less difficulty arise on these words. (1) Is τοιοῦτος ὤν to be connected with or separated from ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ.? If separated, τοιοῦτος ὤν will mean ‘though as an Apostle I am armed with such authority’, and ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ. will describe his condescension to entreaty, ‘yet as simply Paul, etc.’ But the other construction is much more probable for the following reasons., (_a_) τοιοῦτος ὤν so used, implying, as it would, something of a _personal_ boast, seems unlike St Paul’s usual mode of speaking. Several interpreters indeed, taking τοιοῦτος ὤν separately, refer it to ver. 8, ‘seeing that this is my disposition’, i.e. ‘seeing that I desire to entreat’; but τοιοῦτος suggests more than an accidental impulse. (_b_) As τοιοῦτος and ὡς are correlative words, it is more natural to connect them together; comp. Plato _Symp._ 181 E προσαναγκάζειν τὸ τοιοῦτον ὥσπερ καὶ κ.τ.λ., Alexis (Meineke _Fragm. Com._ III. p. 399) τοιοῦτο τὸ ζῆν ἐστιν ὥσπερ ὁι κύβοι. Such passages are an answer to the objection that τοιοῦτος would require some stronger word than ὡς, such as οἷος, ὅς, or ὥστε. Even after such expressions as ὁ ἀυτός, τὸ ἀυτό, instances occur of ὥς (ὥσπερ): see Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 427, Stallbaum on Plat. _Phæd._ 86 A. Indeed it may be questioned whether any word but ὡς would give exactly St Paul’s meaning here. (_c_) All the Greek commentators without a single exception connect the words τοιοῦτος ὢν ὥς Παῦλος together. (2) Assuming that the words τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς κ.τ.λ. are taken together, should they be connected with the preceding or the following sentence? On the whole the passage is more forcible, if they are linked to the preceding words. In this case the resumptive παρακαλῶ (ver. 10) begins a new sentence, which introduces a fresh subject. The Apostle has before described the character of his appeal; he now speaks of its object. (3) In either connexion, what is the point of the words τοιοῦτος ὢν ὡς Παῦλος κ.τ.λ.? Do they lay down the grounds of his _entreaty_, or do they enforce his right to _command_? If the view of πρεσβύτης adopted below be correct, the latter must be the true interpretation; but even though πρεσβύτης be taken in its ordinary sense, this will still remain the more probable alternative; for, while πρεσβύτης and δέσμιος would suit either entreaty or command, the addition Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ suggests an appeal to authority.

ὡς Παῦλος] The mention of his personal name involves an assertion of authority, as in Ephes. iii. 1; comp. Gal. v. 2, with the note there. Theodoret writes, ὁ Παῦλον ἀκούσας τῆς οἰκουμένης ἀκούει τὸν κήρυκα, γῆς καὶ θαλάττης τὸν γεωργόν, τῆς ἐκλογῆς τὸ σκεῦος, κ.τ.λ.

πρεσβύτης] Comparing a passage in the contemporary epistle, Ephes. vi. 20 ὑπὲρ ὁῦ πρεσβεύω ἐν ἁλύσει, it had occurred to me that we should read πρεσβευτής here, before I was aware that this conjecture had been anticipated by others, e.g. by Bentley (_Crit. Sacr._ p. 93) and by Benson (_Paraphrase etc. on Six Epistles of St Paul_ p. 357). It has since been suggested independently in Linwood’s _Observ. quæd. in nonnulla N. T. loca_ 1865, and probably others have entertained the same thought. Still believing that St Paul here speaks of himself as an ‘ambassador’, I now question whether any change is necessary. There is reason for thinking that in the common dialect πρεσβύτης may have been written indifferently for πρεσβευτής in St Paul’s time; and if so, the form here may be due, not to some comparatively late scribe, but to the original autograph itself or to an immediate transcript. In 1 Macc. xiv. 21 the Sinaitic MS has οι πρεσβυτεροι (a corruption of οι πρεσβυται οι, for the common reading is οἱ πρεσβευτὰι οἱ); in xiv. 22 it reads πρεσβυται Ιουδαιων; but in xiii. 21 πρεσβευτας: though in all passages alike the meaning is ‘ambassadors’. Again the Alexandrian MS has πρεσβυτας in xiii. 21, but πρεσβευται in xiv. 22, and οι πρεσβευτε οι (i.e. οἱ πρεσβευτὰι οἱ) in xiv. 21. In 2 Macc. xi. 34 this same MS has πρεσβυτε, and the reading of the common texts of the LXX (even Tischendorf and Fritzsche) there is πρεσβῦται. Grimm treats it as meaning ‘ambassadors’, without even noticing the form. Other MSS are also mentioned in Holmes and Parsons which have the form πρεσβυτης in 1 Macc. xiii. 21. In 2 Chron. xxxii. 31 again the word for ‘ambassador’ is written thus in the _Vatican_ MS, though the ε is added above the line; and here too several MSS in Holmes and Parsons agree in reading πρεσβύταις. Thus it is plain that, in the age of our earliest extant MSS at all events, the scribes used both forms indifferently in this sense. So also Eusebius on Isaiah xviii. 2 writes ὁ δε Ἀκύλας _πρεσβύτας_ ἐξέδωκεν εἰπών, (Ο ἀποστέλλων ἐν θαλάσσῃ πρεσβύτας. Again in Ignat. _Smyrn._ 11 θεοπρεσβύτης is the form in all the MSS of either recension, though the meaning is plainly ‘an ambassador of God.’ So too in _Clem. Hom._ Ep. Clem. 6 the MSS read ὁ τῆς ἀληθείας πρεσβύτης, which even Schwegler and Dressel tacitly retain. See also Appian _Samn._ 7, where πρεσβευτοῦ is due to the later editors, and _Acta Thomæ_ § 10, where there is a v. l. πρεσβύτης in at least one MS. And probably examples of this substitution might be largely multiplied. The main reason for adopting this reading is the parallel passage, which suggests it very strongly. The difficulty which many find in St Paul’s describing himself as an old man is not serious. On any showing he must have been verging on sixty at this time, and may have been some years older. A life of unintermittent toil and suffering, such as he had lived, would bring a premature decay; and looking back on a long eventful life, he would naturally so think and speak of himself. Thus Roger Bacon (_Opus Majus_ I 10, p. 15, ed. Jebb; _Opus Tertium_ p. 63, ed. Brewer) writes ‘me senem’, ‘nos senes’, in 1267, though he appears to have been not more than fifty-two or fifty-three at the time and lived at least a quarter of a century after (see E. Charles _Roger Bacon, Sa Vie etc._ pp. 4 sq., 40). So too Scott in his fifty-fifth year speaks of himself as ‘an old grey man’ and ‘aged’ (Lockhart’s _Life_ VIII. pp. 327, 357). It is more difficult to understand how St Paul should make his age a ground of appeal to Philemon who, if Archippus was his son, cannot have been much younger than himself. The commentator Hilary says that the Apostle appeals to his friend ‘quasi coævum ætatis’, but this idea is foreign to the context. The comment of Theophylact is, τοιοῦτος ὤν, φησι, _πρεσβευτής_, καὶ ὅυτως ἄξιος ἀκούεσθαι, ὡς εἰκὸς Παῦλον πρεσβύτην, τουτέστι καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ διδασκαλικοῦ ἀξίωματος καὶ _τοῦ χρόνου_ τὸ αἰδέσιμον ἔχοντα κ.τ.λ. Does he mean to include both meanings in πρεσβύτης? Or is he accidentally borrowing the term ‘ambassador’ from some earlier commentator without seeing its bearing?

καὶ δέσμιος] Another title to respect. The mention of his bonds might suggest either an appeal for commiseration or a claim of authority: see the note on ver. 13. Here the addition of Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ invests it with the character of an official title, and so gives prominence to the latter idea. To his old office of ‘ambassador’ Christ has added the new title of ‘prisoner’. The genitive Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ belongs to πρεσβύτης as well as to δέσμιος, and in both cases describes the person who confers the office or rank.

10]

Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ. ^{10}παρακαλῶ σε περὶ τοῦ ἐμοῦ τέκνον,

10. παρακαλῶ σε κ.τ.λ.] St Chrysostom remarks on the Apostle’s withholding the name, until he has favourably disposed Philemon both to the request and to the object of it; τοσούτοις δὲ προλέανας αὐτοῦ τὴν ψυχήν, οὐδὲ εὐθέως ἐνέβαλε τὸ ὄνομα, ἀλλὰ τοσαύτην ποιησάμενος αἴτησιν ἀναβάλλεται κ.τ.λ. The whole passage deserves to be read.

11]

ὃν [ἐγὼ] ἐγέννησα ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς, Ὀνήσιμον, ^{11}τόν ποτέ

ὃν ἐγέννησα κ.τ.λ.] So too 1 Cor. iv. 15. In Gal. iv. 19 he speaks of himself as suffering a mother’s pangs for his children in the faith. Comp. Phil. _Leg. ad Cai._ 8 (II. p. 554) ἐμόν ἐστι τοῦ Μάκρωνος ἔργον Γαΐος· μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ἢ οὐχ ἧττον τῶν γονέων γεγέννηκα.

ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς] He was doubly dear to the Apostle, as being the child of his sorrows.

Ὀνήσιμον] for Ὀνησίμου by attraction, as e.g. Mark vi. 16 ὃν ἐγὼ ἀπεκεφάλισα Ἰώαννην, οὗτός ἐστιν. Henceforward he will be true to his name, no longer ἀνόνητος, but ὀνήσιμος: comp. Ruth i. 20 ‘Call me not Naomi (pleasant) but call me Mara (bitter) etc.’ The word ἄχρηστος is a synonyme for ἀνόνητος, Demosth. _Phil._ iii. § 40 (p. 121) ἅπαντα ταῦτα _ἄχρηστα_ ἄπρακτα _ἀνόνητα_ κ.τ.λ.: comp. Pseudophocyl. 37 (34) χρηστὸς ὀνήσιμός ἐστι, φίλος δ’ ἀδικῶν ἀνόνητος. The significance of names was a matter of special importance among the ancients. Hence they were careful in the inauguration of any great work that only those who had _bona nomina_, _prospera nomina_, _fausta nomina_, should take part: Cic. _de Div._ i. 45, Plin. _N.H._ xxviii. 2. 5, Tac. _Hist._ iv. 53. On the value attached to names by the ancients, and more especially by the Hebrews, see Farrar _Chapters on Language_ p. 267 sq., where a large number of instances are collected. Here however there is nothing more than an affectionate play on a name, such as might occur to any one at any time: comp. Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24 ὁ )Ειρηναῖος φερώνυμός τις ὢν τῇ προσηγορίᾳ, αὐτῷ τε τῷ τρόπῳ εἰρηνόποιος.

12]

σοι ἄχρηστον, νυνὶ δὲ [καὶ] σοὶ καὶ ἑμοὶ εὔχρηστον· ὃν ἀνέπεμψά σοι. ^{12}αὐτόν, τουτέστιν τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα,

11. ἄχρηστον, εὔχρηστον] Comp. Plat. _Resp._ iii. p. 411 A χρήσιμον ἐξ ἀχρήστου ... ἐποίησεν. Of these words, ἄχρηστος is found only here, εὔχρηστος occurs also 2 Tim. ii. 21, iv. 11, in the New Testament. Both appear in the LXX. In Matt. xxv. 30 a slave is described as ἀχρεῖος. For the mode of expression comp. Ephes. v. 15 μὴ ὡς ἄσοφοι ἀλλ’ ὡς σόφοι. Some have discovered in these words a reference to χριστός, as commonly pronounced χρηστός; comp. Theoph. _ad Autol._ i. 12 τὸ χριστὸν ἡδὺ καὶ εὔχρηστον κ.τ.λ. and see _Philippians_ p. 16 note. Any such allusion however, even if it should not involve an anachronism, is far too recondite to be probable here. The play on words is exhausted in the reference to Ὀνήσιμος.

καὶ ἐμοί] An after-thought; comp. Phil. ii. 27 ἠλέησεν αὐτόν, οὐκ αὐτὸν δὲ μόνον ἀλλὰ καὶ ἐμέ. This accounts for the exceptional order, where according to common Greek usage the first person would naturally precede the second.

ἀνέπεμψα] ‘_I send back_’, the epistolary aorist used for the present: see the notes on Phil. ii. 25, 28. So too ἔγραψα, ver. 19, 21 (see the note). It is clear both from the context here, and from Col. iv. 7–9, that Onesimus accompanied the letter.

12. αὐτὸν κ.τ.λ.] The reading of the received text is _σὺ δὲ_ αὐτόν, τουτέστι τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα, _προσλαβοῦ_. The words thus supplied doubtless give the right construction, but must be rejected as deficient in authority. The accusative is suspended; the sentence changes its form and loses itself in a number of dependent clauses; and the main point is not resumed till ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ, the grammar having been meanwhile dislocated. For the emphatic position of αὐτόν comp. John ix. 21, 23, Ephes. i. 22.

τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα] ‘_my very heart_’, a mode of speech common in all languages. For the meaning of σπλάγχνα see the note on Phil. i. 8. Comp. _Test. Patr._ Zab. 8, Neph. 4, in both which passages Christ is called τὸ σπλάγχνον of God, and in the first it is said ἔχετε εὐσπλαγχνίαν ... ἵνα καὶ ὁ Κύριος εἰς ὑμᾶς σπλαγχνισθὲις ἐλέησῃ ὑμᾶς· ὅτι καίγε ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων ἡμερῶν ὁ Θεὸς ἀποστέλλει τὸ σπλάγχνον αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς κ.τ.λ. Otherwise τὰ ἐμὰ σπλάγχνα has been interpreted ‘_my son_’ (comp. ver. 10 ὃν ἐγέννησα κ.τ.λ.), and it is so rendered here in the Peshito. For this sense of σπλάγχνα comp. Artemid. _Oneir._ i. 44 οἱ παῖδες σπλάγχνα λέγονται, _ib._ v. 57 τὰ δὲ σπλάγχνα [ἐσήμαινε] τὸν παῖδα, οὕτω γὰρ καὶ τὸν παῖδα καλεῖν ἔθος ἐστι. With this meaning it is used not less of the father than of the mother; e.g. Philo _de Joseph._ 5 (II. p. 45) θηρσὶν εὐωχία καὶ θοίνη γέγονας γευσαμένοις ... τῶν ἐμῶν σπλάγχνων, Basil. _Op._ III. p. 501 ὁ μὲν προτείνεται τὰ σπλάγχνα τιμὴν τῶν τροφῶν. The Latin _viscera_ occurs still more frequently in this sense, as the passages quoted in Wetstein and Suicer show. For this latter interpretation there is much to be said. But it adds nothing to the previous ὃν ἐγέννησα κ.τ.λ., and (what is a more serious objection) it is wholly unsupported by St Paul’s usage elsewhere, which connects σπλάγχνα with a different class of ideas: see e.g. vv. 7, 20.

13, 14]

^{13}ὃν ἐγὼ ἐβουλόμην πρὸς ἐμαυτὸν κατέεχειν, ἵνα ὑπὲρ σοῦ μοι διακονῇ ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς τοῦ εὐαγγελίου· ^{14}χωρὶς

13. ἐβουλόμην] ‘_I was of a mind_’, distinguished from ἠθέλησα, which follows, in two respects; (1) While βούλεσθαι involves the idea of ‘purpose, deliberation, desire, mind’, θέλειν denotes simply ‘will’; Epictet. i. 12. 13 βουλόμαι γράφειν, ὡς θέλω, τὸ Δίωνος ὄνομα; οὔ ἀλλὰ διδάσκομαι θέλειν ὡς δεῖ γράφεσθαι, iii. 24, 54 τοῦτον θέλε ὁρᾷν, καὶ ὃν βούλει ὄψει. (2) The change of tenses is significant. The imperfect implies a tentative, inchoate process; while the aorist describes a definite and complete act. The will stepped in and put an end to the inclinations of the mind. Indeed the imperfect of this and similar verbs are not infrequently used where the wish is stopped at the outset by some antecedent consideration which renders it impossible, and thus practically it is not entertained at all: e.g. Arist. _Ran._ 866 ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὐκ ἐρίζειν ἐνθάδε, Antiph. _de Herod. cæd._ I (p. 129) ἐβουλόμην μὲν ... νῦν δὲ κ.τ.λ.; Isæus _de Arist. hær._ I (p. 79) ἐβουλόμην μὲν ... νῦν δὲ οὐκ ἐξ ἴσου κ.τ.λ., Æsch. _c. Ctes._ 2 (p. 53) ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὖν, ὦ )Αθηναῖοι ... ἐπειδὴ δὲ πάντα κ.τ.λ., Lucian _Abd._ I ἐβουλόμην μὲν οὖν τὴν ἰατρικὴν κ.τ.λ. ... νυνὶ δὲ κ.τ.λ.; see Kühner § 392 _b_ (II. p. 177). So Acts xxv. 22 ἐβουλόμην καὶ αὐτὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἀκοῦσαι, not ‘I should wish’ (as Winer § xli. p. 353) but ‘I could have wished’, i.e. ‘if it had not been too much to ask’. Similarly ἤθελον Gal. iv. 20, ηὐχόμην Rom. ix. 3. See _Revision of the English New Testament_ p. 96. So here a not improbable meaning would be not ‘I was desirous’, but ‘I could have desired’.

κατέχειν] ‘_to detain_’ or ‘_retain_’, opposed to the following ἀπέχῃς, ver. 15.

ὑπὲρ σοῦ κ.τ.λ.] Comp. Phil. ii. 30 ἵνα ἀναπληρώσῃ τὸ ὑμῶν ὑστέρημα τῆς πρὸς μὲ λειτουργίας, 1 Cor. xvi. 17 τὸ ὑμέτερον ὑστέρημα αὐτοὶ ἀνεπλήρωσαν. See the note on Col. i. 7. With a delicate tact the Apostle assumes that Philemon would have wished to perform these friendly offices in person, if it had been possible.

ἐν τοῖς δεσμοῖς] An indirect appeal to his compassion: see vv. 1, 9, 10. In this instance however (as in ver. 9) the appeal assumes a tone of authority, by reference to the occasion of his bonds. For the genitive τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, describing the origin, comp. Col. i. 23 τῆς ἐλπίδος τοῦ εὐαγγελίου. They were not shackles which self had riveted, but a chain with which Christ had invested him. Thus they were as a badge of office or a decoration of honour. In this respect, as in others, the language of St Paul is echoed in the epistles of St Ignatius. Here too entreaty and triumph alternate; the saint’s bonds are at once a ground for appeal and a theme of thanksgiving: _Trall._ 12 παρακαλεῖ ὑμᾶς τὰ δεσμά μου, _Philad._ 7 μάρτυς δὲ μοι ἐν ᾧ δέδεμαι, _Ephes._ 11 ἐν ᾧ (i.e. Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ) τὰ δεσμὰ περιφέρω, τους πνευματικοὺς μαργαρίτας, _Smyrn._ 10 ἀντίψυχον ὑμῶν τὸ πνεῦμά μου καὶ τὰ δεσμά μου, _Magn._ 1 ἐν οἷς περιφέρω δεσμοῖς ᾄδω τὰς ἐκκλησίας; see also _Ephes._ 1, 3, 21, _Magn._ 12, _Trall._ 1, 5, 10, _Smyrn._ 4, 11, _Polyc._ 2, _Rom._ 1, 4, 5, _Philad._ 5.

14. χωρὶς κ.τ.λ.] ‘_without thy approval, consent_’; Polyb. ii. 21. 1, 3, χωρὶς τῆς σφετέρας γνώμης, χωρὶς της αὐτοῦ γνώμης: similarly ἄνευ [τῆς] γνώμης, e.g. Polyb. xxi. 8. 7, Ign. _Polyc._ 4.

15, 16]

δὲ τῆς σῆς γνώμης οὐδὲν ἠθέλησα ποιῆσαι, ἵνα μὴ ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην τὸ ἀγαθόν σου ᾖ, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ἑκούσιον· ^{15}τάχα γὰρ διὰ τοῦτο ἐχωρίσθη πρὸς ὥραν, ἵνα αἴωνιον αὐτὸν ἀπέχῃς, ^{16}οὐκέτι ὡς δοῦλον, ἀλλὰ ὑπὲρ δοῦλον,

ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην] St Paul does not say κατὰ ἀνάγκην but ὡς κατὰ ἀνάγκην. He will not suppose that it would really be by constraint; but it must not even wear _the appearance_ (ὡς) of being so: comp. 2 Cor. xi. 17 ὡς ἐν ἀφροσύνῃ. See Plin. _Ep._ ix. 21 ‘Vereor ne videar non rogare sed cogere’; where, as here, the writer is asking his correspondent to forgive a domestic who has offended.

τὸ ἀγαθόν σου] ‘_the benefit_ arising _from thee_’, i.e. ‘the good which I should get from the continued presence of Onesimus, and which would be owing to thee’.

κατὰ ἑκούσιον] as in Num. xv. 3. The form καθ’ ἑκουσίαν is perhaps more classical: Thuc. viii. 27 καθ’ ἑκουσίαν ἢ πάνυ γε ἀνάγκῃ. The word understood in the one case appears to be τρόπον (Porphyr. _de Abst._ i. 9 καθ’ ἑκούσιον τρόπον, comp. Eur. _Med._ 751 ἑκουσίῳ τρόπῳ); in the other, γνώμην (so ἑκουσίᾳ, ἐξ ἑκουσίας, etc.): comp. Lobeck _Phryn._ p. 4.

15. τάχα γὰρ κ.τ.λ.] The γὰρ explains an additional motive which guided the Apostle’s decision: ‘I did not dare to detain him, however much I desired it. I might have defeated the purpose for which God in His good providence allowed him to leave thee’.

ἐχωρίσθη] ‘He does not say’, writes Chrysostom, ‘_For this cause he fled_, but _For this cause he was parted_: for he would appease Philemon by a more euphemistic phrase. And again he does not say _he parted himself_, but _he was parted_: since the design was not Onesimus’ own to depart for this or that reason: just as Joseph also, when excusing his brethren, says (Gen. xlv. 5) _God did send me hither_.’

πρὸς ὥραν] ‘_for an hour_’, ‘_for a short season_’: 2 Cor. vii. 8, Gal. ii. 5. ‘It was only a brief moment after all’, the Apostle would say, ‘compared with the magnitude of the work wrought in it. He departed a reprobate; he returns a saved man. He departed for a few months; he returns to be with you for all time and for eternity’. The sense of αἴωνιον must not be arbitrarily limited. Since he left, Onesimus had obtained eternal life, and eternal life involves eternal interchange of friendship. His services to his old master were no longer barred by the gates of death.

ἀπέχῃς] In this connexion ἀπέχειν may bear either of two senses: (1) ‘_to have back, to have in return_’: or (2) ‘_to have to the full, to have wholly_’, as in Phil. iv. 18 ἀπέχω πάντα (see the note). In other words the prominent idea in the word may be either _restitution_, or _completeness_. The former is the more probable sense here, as suggested by κατέχειν in verse 13 and by ἐχωρίσθη in this verse.

16. ὡς δοῦλον] St Paul does not say δοῦλον but ὡς δοῦλον. It was a matter of indifference whether he were outwardly δοῦλος or outwardly ἐλεύθερος, since both are one in Christ (Col. iii. 11). But though he might still remain a slave, he could no longer be _as_ a slave. A change had been wrought in him, independently of his possible manumission: in Christ he had become a brother. It should be noticed also that the negative is not μηκέτι, but οὐκέτι. The negation is thus wholly independent of ἵνα ... ἀπέχῃς. It describes not the possible view of Philemon, but the actual state of Onesimus. The ‘no more as a slave’ is an absolute fact, whether Philemon chooses to recognise it or not.

17–19]

ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν, μάλιστα ἐμοί, πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον σοὶ καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ καὶ ἐν Κυρίῳ. ^{17}εἰ οὖν με ἔχεις κοινωνόν, προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ· ^{18}εἰ δέ τι ἠδίκησέν σε ἢ ὀφείλει, τοῦτο ἑμοὶ ἐλλόγα. ^{19}ἐγὼ Παῦλος ἔγραψα

ἀδελφὸν ἀγαπητόν] καὶ τῷ χρόνῳ κεκέρδακας καὶ τῇ ποίοτητι, writes Chrysostom, apostrophizing Philemon.

πόσῳ δὲ μᾶλλον κ.τ.λ.] Having first said ‘most of all to me’, he goes a step further, ‘more than most of all to thee’.

καὶ ἐν σαρκὶ κ.τ.λ.] ‘In both spheres alike, in the affairs of this world and in the affairs of the higher life.’ In the former, as Meyer pointedly says, Philemon had the brother for a slave; in the latter he had the slave for a brother: comp. Ign. _Trall._ 12 κατὰ πάντα με ἀνέπαυσαν σαρκί τε καὶ πνεύματι.

17. ἔχεις κοινωνόν] ‘_thou holdest me to be a comrade, an intimate friend_’. For this use of ἔχειν comp. Luke xiv. 18 ἔχε με παρῃτημένον, Phil. ii. 29 τοὺς τοιούτους ἐντιμοὺς ἔχετε. Those are κοινωνοί, who have common interests, common feelings, common work.

18–22. ‘But if he has done thee any injury, or if he stands in thy debt, set it down to my account. Here is my signature—_Paul_—in my own handwriting. Accept this as my bond. I will repay thee. For I will not insist, as I might, that thou art indebted to me for much more than this; that thou owest to me thine own self. Yes, dear brother, let me receive from my son in the faith such a return as a father has a right to expect. Cheer and refresh my spirits in Christ. I have full confidence in thy compliance, as I write this; for I know that thou wilt do even more than I ask. At the same time also prepare to receive me on a visit; for I hope that through your prayers I shall be set free and given to you once more’.

18. εἰ δέ τι] The case is stated hypothetically but the words doubtless describe the actual offence of Onesimus. He had done his master some injury, probably had robbed him; and he had fled to escape punishment. See the introduction.

ἢ ὀφείλει] defining the offence which has been indicated in ἠδίκησεν. But still the Apostle refrains from using the plain word ἔκλεψεν. He would spare the penitent slave, and avoid irritating the injured master.

ἐλλόγα] ‘_reckon it in_’, ‘_set it down_’. This form must be adopted instead of ἐλλόγει which stands in the received text, as the great preponderance of authority shows. On the other hand we have ἐλλογεῖται Rom. v. 13 (though with a v. l. ἐλλογᾶται), ἐλλογουμένων Boeckh _C. I._ no. 1732 A, and ἐνλογεῖσθαι _Edict. Diocl._ in _Corp. Inscr. Lat._ III. p. 836. But the word is so rare in any form, that these occurrences of ἐλλογεῖν afford no ground for excluding ἐλλογᾶν as impossible. The two forms might be employed side by side, just as we find ἐλεᾶν and ἐλεεῖν, ξυρᾶν and ξυρεῖν, ἐρωτᾶν and ἐρωτεῖν (Matt. xv. 23), and the like; see Buttmann _Ausf. Gramm._ § 112 (II. p. 53). The word λογᾶν, as used by Lucian _Lexiph._ 15 (where it is a desiderative ‘to be eager to speak’, like φονᾶν, θανατᾶν, φαρμακᾶν, etc.), has nothing to do with the use of ἐλλογᾶν here.

19. ἐγὼ Παῦλος] The introduction of his own name gives it the character of a formal and binding signature: comp. 1 Cor. xvi. 21, Col. iv. 18, 2 Thess. iii. 17. A signature to a deed in ancient or mediæval times would commonly take this form ἐγὼ ὁ δεῖνα,—‘_I_ so and so’; where we should omit the marks of the first person.

ἔγραψα] An epistolary or documentary aorist, as in ver. 21; so too ἀνέπεμψα ver. 11. See the note on ἔγραψα Gal. vi. 11. The aorist is the tense commonly used in signatures; e.g. ὑπέγραψα to the conciliar decrees.

This incidental mention of his autograph, occurring where it does, shows that he wrote the whole letter with his own hand. This procedure is quite exceptional, just as the purport of the letter is exceptional. In all other cases he appears to have employed an amanuensis, only adding a few words in his own handwriting at the close: see the note on Gal. _l.c._

20]

τῇ ἐμῇ χειρί, ἐγὼ ἀποτίσω· ἵνα μὴ λέγω σοι, ὅτι καὶ σεαυτόν μοι προσοφέιλεις. ^{20}ναί, ἀδελφέ, ἐγώ σου ὀναίμην ἐν Κυρίῳ· ἀνάπαυσόν μου τὰ σπλάγχνα ἐν Χριστῷ.

ἵνα μὴ λέγω] ‘_not to say_’, as 2 Cor. ix. 4. There is a suppressed thought, ‘though indeed you cannot fairly claim repayment’, ‘though indeed you owe me (ὀφείλεις) as much as this’, on which the ἵνα μὴ κ.τ.λ. is dependent. Hence προσοφέιλεις ‘_owest besides_’; for this is the common meaning of the word.

σεαυτόν] St Paul was his spiritual father, who had begotten him in the faith, and to whom therefore he owed his being; comp. Plato _Legg._ iv. p. 717 B ὡς θέμις ὀφέιλοντα ἀποτίνειν τὰ πρῶτά τε καὶ μέγιστα ὀφειλήματα ... νομίζειν δὲ, ἃ κέκτῃται καὶ ἔχει, _πάντα εἶναι τῶν γεννησάντων_ ... ἀρχόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς οὐσίας, δεύτερα τὰ τοῦ σώματος, τρίτα τὰ τῆς ψυχῆς, _ἀποτίνοντα δανείσματα_ κ.τ.λ.

20. ναί] introducing an affectionate appeal as in Phil. iv. 3 ναὶ ἐρωτῶ καὶ σέ.

ἀδελφέ] It is the entreaty of a brother to a brother on behalf of a brother (ver. 16). For the pathetic appeal involved in the word see the notes on Gal. iii. 15, vi. 1, 18; and comp. ver. 7.

ἐγώ] ‘I seem to be entreating for Onesimus; but I am pleading for _myself_: the favour will be done to me’; comp. ver. 17 προσλαβοῦ αὐτὸν ὡς ἐμέ. The emphatic ἐγώ identifies the cause of Onesimus with his own.

σου ὀναίμην] ‘_may I have satisfaction, find comfort in thee_’, i.e. ‘may I receive such a return from thee, as a father has a right to expect from his child.’ The common use of the word ὀναίμην would suggest the thought of filial offices; e.g. Arist. _Thesm._ 469 οὕτως ὀναίμην τῶν _τέκνων_, Lucian _Philops._ 27 πρὸς τὴν ὄψιν τῶν _υἱέων_, οὕτως ὀναίμην, ἔφη, τούτων, Ps-Ignat. _Hero_ 6 ὀναίμην σου, _παιδίον_ ποθεινόν, Synes. _Ep._ 44 οὕτω τῆς ἱερᾶς φιλοσοφίας ὀναίμην καὶ προσέτι τῶν _παιδίων_ τῶν ἐμαυτοῦ, with other passages quoted in Wetstein. So too for ὄνασθαι, ὄνησις, compare Eur. _Med._ 1025 sq. πρὶν σφῷν _ὄνασθαι_ ... ἄλλως ἄρ’ ὑμᾶς, ὦ _τέκν’_, ἐξεθρεψάμην, _Alc._ 333 ἅλις δὲ _παίδων_· τῶν δ’ _ὄνησιν_ )εύχομαι θεοῖς γενέσθαι, Philem. _Inc._ 64 (IV. p. 55 Meineke) ἔτεκές με, μῆτερ, καὶ γένοιτό σοι _τέκνων ὄνησις_, ὥσπερ καὶ δίκαίον ἐστί σοι, Ecclus. xxx. 2 ὁ παιδεύων τὸν _ὑὶον_ αὐτοῦ _ὀνήσεται_ ἐπ’ αὐτῷ (the only passage in the LXX where the word occurs). The prayer ὀναίμην σου, ὀναίμην ὑμῶν, etc., occurs several times in Ignatius; _Polyc._ 1, 6, _Magn._ 2, 12, _Ephes._ 2. It is not unlikely that ὀναίμην here involves a reference to the name Onesimus; see the note on ver. 11. The Hebrew fondness for playing on names makes such an allusion at least possible.

21, 22]

^{21}Πεποιθὼς τῇ ὑπακοῇ σου ἔγραψά σοι, εἰδὼς ὅτι καὶ ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω ποιήσεις. ^{22}ἅμα δὲ καὶ ἑτοίμαζέ μοι ξενίαν· ἐλπίζω γὰρ ὅτι διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν ὑμῶν χαρισθήσομαι ὑμῖν.

ἐν Κυρίῳ] As he had begotten Philemon ἐν Κυρίῳ (comp. 1 Cor. iv. 15, 17), so it was ἐν Κυρίῳ that he looked for the recompense of filial offices.

ἀνάπαυσον κ.τ.λ.] See the note ver. 7.

21. ἔγραψα] ‘_I write_’: see the note on ver. 19.

ὑπὲρ ἃ λέγω κ.τ.λ.] What was the thought upmost in the Apostle’s mind when he penned these words? Did he contemplate the manumission of Onesimus? If so, the restraint which he imposes upon himself is significant. Indeed throughout this epistle the idea would seem to be present to his thoughts, though the word never passes his lips. This reserve is eminently characteristic of the Gospel. Slavery is never directly attacked as such, but principles are inculcated which must prove fatal to it.

22. ἅμα δὲ κ.τ.λ.] When St Paul first contemplated visiting Rome, he had intended, after leaving the metropolis, to pass westward into Spain; Rom. xv. 24, 28. But by this time he appears to have altered his plans, purposing first to revisit Greece and Asia Minor. Thus in Phil. ii. 24 he looks forward to seeing the Philippians shortly; while here he contemplates a visit to the Churches of the Lycus valley.

There is a gentle compulsion in this mention of a personal visit to Colossæ. The Apostle would thus be able to see for himself that Philemon had not disappointed his expectations. Similarly Serapion in Eus. _H.E._ vi. 12 προσδοκᾶτέ με ἐν τάχει.

ξενίαν] ‘_a lodging_’; comp. _Clem. Hom._ xii. 2 πρόαξωσιν τὰς ξενίας ἑτοιμάζοντες. So the Latin _parare hospitium_ Cic. _ad Att._ xiv. 2, Mart. _Ep._ ix. 1. This latter passage, ‘Vale et para hospitium’, closely resembles St Paul’s language here. In the expression before us ξενία is probably the _place_ of entertainment: but in such phrases as καλεῖν ἐπὶ ξενίᾳ, παρακαλεῖν επὶ ξενίαν, φροντίζειν ξενίας, and the like, it denotes the offices of hospitality. The Latin _hospitium_ also includes both senses. The ξενία, as a lodging, may denote either quarters in an inn or a room in a private house: see _Philippians_ p. 9. For the latter comp. Plato _Tim._ 20 C παρὰ Κριτίαν πρὸς τὸν ξενῶνα, οὗ καὶ καταλύομεν, ἀφικόμεθα. In this case the response would doubtless be a hospitable reception in Philemon’s home; but the request does not assume so much as this.

χαρισθήσομαι] ‘_I shall be granted to you_’. The grant (χαρίζεσθαι) of one person to another, may be for purposes either (1) of destruction, as Acts xxv. 11 οὐδεὶς με δύναται αὐτοῖς χαρίσασθαι (comp. ver. 16), or (2) of preservation, as Acts iii. 14 ᾐτήσασθε ἄνδρα φονέα χαρισθῆναι ὑμῖν, and here.

23–25. ‘Epaphras my fellow-captive in Christ Jesus salutes you. As do also Mark, Aristarchus, Demas, and Luke, my fellow-labourers. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with thee and thy household, and sanctify the spirit of you all.’

23 sq. For these salutations see the notes on Col. iv. 10 sq. Epaphras is mentioned first because he was a Colossian (Col. iv. 12) and, as the evangelist of Colossæ (see p. 29 sq.), doubtless well known to Philemon. Of the four others Aristarchus and Mark belonged to the Circumcision (Col. iv. 11), while Demas and Luke were Gentile Christians. All these were of Greek or Asiatic origin and would probably be well known to Philemon, at least by name. On the other hand Jesus Justus, who is honourably mentioned in the Colossian letter (iv. 11), but passed over here, may have been a Roman Christian.

23–25]

^{23}Ἀσπάζεταί σε Ἐπαφρᾶς ὁ συναιχμάλωτός μου ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ^{24}Μάρκος, Ἀρίσταρχος, Δημᾶς, Λουκᾶς, οἱ συνεργοί μου.

^{25}Ἡ χάρις τοῦ Κυρίου [ἡμῶν] Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ὑμῶν.

ὁ συναιχμάλωτος] On the possible meanings of this title see Col. iv. 10, where it is given not to Epaphras but to Aristarchus.

25. Ἡ χάρις κ.τ.λ.] The same form of farewell as in Gal. vi. 18; comp. 2 Tim. iv. 22.

ὑμῶν] The persons whose names are mentioned in the opening salutation.

_ADDITIONS AND CORRECTIONS._

p. 6, l. 12. On Polemo and his family see _Ephemeris Epigraphica_ I. p. 270 sq. (1873).

p. 38, note 125. The investigations of M. Waddington respecting the chronology of this period (see below) require a modification of the dates here given for the earthquakes in the second century. He enumerates three: (1) One at Rhodes, from A.D. 138–142; (2) One which destroyed Mitylene and did considerable damage to Smyrna, A.D. 151–152; (3) One which destroyed Smyrna A.D. 180. These two last have been confounded together by previous writers. See M. Waddington’s _Mémoire_, pp. 242 sq., 267 sq.

p. 48, note 160. On the names Ammias, Tatias, which are feminine and not masculine, see below p. 373.

p. 49, note. I have here given the commonly received date for the martyrdom of Polycarp; for I had not then seen M. Waddington’s investigations. This writer seems to have proved conclusively that it took place several years earlier, A.D. 155: see his _Mémoire sur la Chronologie du Rhéteur Ælius Aristide_ p. 232 sq., in the _Mémoires de l’Académie des Inscriptions_, &c. XXVI. (1867).

pp. 52, 53. As these remarks respecting the silence of Eusebius will seem to be directed against the opinions expressed in a recent work, it may be worth while stating that the early sheets of this commentary were struck off nearly twelve months before _Supernatural Religion_ was published. The expression in p. 53, note 170, ‘numerous and patent quotations,’ is too strongly worded, though the references to St James in Clement’s Epistle seem to me to be clear. I might however have chosen other more palpable illustrations from that epistle.

p. 63, l. 12. The Proconsulate of Paullus, under whom this martyrdom took place, is dated by Borghesi (_[OE]uvres_ VIII. p. 507) somewhere between A.D. 163–168, by Waddington (_Fastes des Provinces Asiatiques_ p. 731, in Le Bas and Waddington _Voyage Archéologique etc._) probably A.D. 164–166. This rests on the assumption that the _Servillius Paullus_ here named must be identified with _L. Sergius Paullus_ of the inscriptions. The name _Sergius_ is elsewhere confounded with _Servius_ (_Servillius_) owing to the use of contractions (see Borghesi IV. p. 493, VIII. p. 504). The mistake must have been introduced very early into the text of Eusebius. All the Greek MSS have _Servillius_ (_Servilius_), and so it is written in the Syriac Version. Ruffinus however writes it correctly _Sergius_.

p. 71, line 1. We may conjecture that it was the earthquake under Gallienus (A.D. 262) which proved fatal to Colossæ (see above p. 38, note 125). This is consistent with the fact that no Colossian coins later than Gordian (A.D. 238–244) are extant. When St Chrysostom wrote, the city existed no longer, as may be inferred from his comment (XI. p. 323) ‘Ἡ πόλις τῆς Φρυγίας ἦν· καὶ δῆλον ἐκ τοῦ τὴν Λαοδίκειαν πλησίον εἶναι.’

On the other hand M. Renan (_L’Antechrist_ p. 99) says of the earthquake under _Nero_, ‘Colosses ne sut se relever; elle disparut presque du nombre des églises;’ and he adds in a note ‘Colosses n’a pas de monnaies impériales [Waddington].’ This is a mistake, and he must have misunderstood M. Waddington.

p. 77, note 229. To this list of works add Mansel’s _Gnostic Heresies of the First and Second Centuries_ (London 1875).

p. 112, note 336. See p. 330, note 553.

p. 160, l. 4. For ‘argument for silence’ read ‘argument from silence.’

p. 205, col. 1, l. 30. Strike out τοῦ before περιπατῆσαι.

p. 210, col. 1, l. 2. The dissertation to which reference is here made is deferred to a later volume.

p. 250, col. 2, l. 21. Strike out the words in brackets.

p. 270, col. 1. ἅτινά ἐστιν κ.τ.λ. Comp. Seneca _de Vit. beat._ 7 ‘in ipso usu sui periturum.’

p. 280, col. 1, l. 23. For ‘Ammianus’ read ‘Ammonius.’

INDEX.

Abercius (Avircius), Bp. of Hierapolis, p. 54 sq. Acts of the Apostles; passages explained, p. 23 (xiii. 4, xvi. 6); p. 95 (xix. 13, 19); p. 370 (xiv. 11). ædificatoriæ, the sufferings of Christ as, p. 232 Ælfric on the Epistle to Laodiceans, p. 362 Alasanda or Alasadda, p. 152 Alexander of Tralles on charms, p. 92 Alexandria, a supposed Buddhist establishment at, p. 151 Andrew, St, in Asia, p. 45 Angelolatry condemned, p. 101, 103, 184, i. 16, ii. 10, 15, 18; forbidden by the Council of Laodicea, p. 68 angelology of Cerinthus, p. 110; of Essenism, p. 96; of the Jews, ii. 18 Angels, orders of, i. 16 Anselm of Laon, p. 361 Antiochus the Great, colony of, in Asia Minor, p. 19 Antiochus Theos refounds Laodicea, p. 5 aorist, epistolary, iv. 8, Ph. 11, 19, 21; contrasted with perfect, i. 16 Apamea, p. 19, 20; Jews at, p. 21 Apocalypse, correspondences with St Paul’s Epistles to Asia, 41 sq. apocrypha, use of word, p. 90, ii. 3 Apollinaris, see Claudius Apollinaris Apollo Archegetes worshipped at Hierapolis, p. 12 Apostolic Fathers, Christology of, p. 190 Apostolic Writings, Christology of, p. 189 Apphia, wife of Philemon, p. 372; the name Phrygian, 372 sq. Archippus, iv. 17; son of Philemon, 374; office and abode, 375; rebuke to, 43 Arian heresy in Hierapolis and Laodicea, p. 64 Arian use of the expression ‘First-born of all creation,’ i. 15 Aristarchus, iv. 10 Aristion, p. 45 Aristotle, on slavery, p. 379; definition of ‘knowledge,’ ii. 3; of ‘wisdom,’ i. 9 Armagh, Book of, p. 348, 352 article, omission of the definite, i. 4 asah, a supposed derivation of Essenes, p. 126 Ascents of James, p. 168 asceticism among the Jewish sects, p. 87; Colossian heretics, p. 104; Essenes, p. 173; a result of Gnosticism, p. 79 Aseis, a Laodicean title of Zeus, p. 8 Asia, meaning of, p. 19 Asia Minor, geography of, p. 1 sq.; list of writers on, p. 1; how divided under the Romans, 7; a modern hypothesis about Christianity in, p. 50 Asidæans, p. 120 asya, a supposed derivation of Essene, p. 125 Athanasius, on ‘Firstborn of all Creation,’ i. 15 Athens, a Buddhist burnt alive at, p. 155 Augustine, on ‘Firstborn of all Creation,’ i. 15; on ‘wisdom and knowledge,’ ii. 3 ἀγάπη, ὁ υἱὸς τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ, i. 13 ἅγιος, i. 2 ἀγών, ἀγωνία, ἀγωνίζεσθαι, i. 29, ii. 1, iv. 12 ἀδελφός (ὁ), i, 1 ἀθυμεῖν, iii. 21 αἰσχρολογία, iii. 8 ἀκαθαρσία, iii. 5 ἅλας, iv. 6 ἀληθεία, ἡ ἀληθεία τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, i. 5; ἐν ἀληθείᾳ, i. 6 ἀλλά, after εἰ or εἰ καί in St Paul, ii. 5 ἄμωμος, i. 22 ἀναπάυεσθαι, Ph. 7 ἀναπληροῦν, p. 230 ἀνέγκλητος, i. 22 ἀνεψίος, iv. 10 ἀνήκειν, iii. 18; τὸ ἀνῆκον, Ph. 8 ἀνθρωπάρεσκοι, iii. 22 ἀνταναπληροῦν, i. 24 ἀνταπόδοσις, iii. 24 ἀόρατος, i. 16 ἀπεκδύεσθαι, ii. 15 ἀπέκδυσις, ii. 11 ἀπέχειν, Ph. 15 ἀπηλλοτριωμένοι, i. 21 ἀποθνήσκειν, ii. 20 ἀποκαταλλάσσειν, i. 20, 21 ἀπόκρυφος, ii. 3 ἀπολύτρωσις, i. 14 ἀπόχρησις, ii. 22 ἅπτεσθαι, ii. 21 ἀρέσκεια, i. 10 ἀρχή applied to Christ, p. 41; i. 16, 18 αὐξάνειν, i. 6 Αὐτὸς ἔστιν, i. 17 ἀφείδεια, ii. 23 ἁφή, ii. 19 ἀχειροποίητος, ii. 11 ἄχρηστος, Ph. 11

B (Cod. Vaticanus), excellence of, p. 314.

Banaim, the, p. 132

Banus not an Essene, p. 161

Bardesanes, on Buddhists, 154; his date, p. 155

Barnabas, life of, iv. 10; epistle ascribed to, _ib._

basilica, iv. 15

Basilides, p. 331

Baur, p. 77, 81, 384

Bene-hakkeneseth, p. 130

Brahminism, p. 154, 155

Buddhism, assumed influence on Essenism, p. 151 sq.; supposed establishment of, in Alexandria, p. 151; unknown in the West, p. 153 sq.; four steps of, p. 157

Buddhist at Athens, p. 155

βάπτισμα, βαπτισμός, p. 250

βάρβαρος, iii. 11

βλασφημία, iii. 8

βούλεσθαι, Ph. 13

βραβεύειν, iii. 15

Cabbala, see Kabbala

Cainites, p. 79

Calvin, iii. 8, p. 341, 384

Canonical writings and Papias, p. 52

Carpocratians, p. 79, 80

Cataphryges, p. 98

Cavensis, codex, p. 348

celibacy, p. 173

Cerinthus, p. 107 sq.; Judaism of, p. 108; Gnosticism of, _ib._; cosmogony of, p. 109; Christology of, p. 111 sq.; pleroma of, p. 330

chaber, p. 128

Chagigah, on ceremonial purity, p. 128

Chalcedon, council of, p. 65

chasha, chashaim, a derivation of Essene, p. 119

chasi, chasyo, a derivation of Essene, p. 118; connexion with chasid, p. 124

chasid, a false derivation of Essene, p. 115

Chasidim, p. 120; not a proper name for the Essenes, p. 122

chasin, chosin, a false derivation for Essene, p. 116

chaza, chazya, a derivation of Essene, p. 117

Chonos or Chonæ, p. 15, 71

Christ, the Person of, p. 34; St Paul’s doctrine about, p. 41, 181 sq., i. 15–20, ii. 9–15; the Word Incarnate, p. 101, 102; the pleroma in Him p. 102, i. 19, ii. 9, 10; Life in Him, the remedy against sin, p. 34, 186 sq.; His teaching and practice not Essene, p. 170 sq.

Christianity, not an outgrowth of Essenism, p. 159; in relation to Epictetus, p. 13; to Gnosticism, p. 80; to slavery, p. 389, 391 sq.

Christianity in Asia Minor, p. 50

Christianized Essenes, p. 89, 90, 135

Christians of St John, p. 165

Christology of Ep. to Col., p. 101, 188; of other Apostolic writings, p. 189; of succeeding ages, p. 190

Chronicon Paschale, p. 48, 61

Chrysostom, i. 13, 15, iii. 16, p. 340, Ph. 15, p. 383

Cibotus, p. 21

Cibyratic convention, p. 7

Circular Letter—the Ep. to the Ephesians—p. 37

Claudius, embassy from Ceylon in the reign of, p. 156

Claudius Apollinaris, the name, p. 57 sq.; his works, p. 58 sq.

Clement of Alexandria, p. 79, 98, 154, 168, i. 9, 15, ii. 8,