Martyr (years 69-155)
Our main sources of information about Saint Polycarp are:
(1) the Epistles of Saint Ignatius; (2) the Epistle of St. Polycarp himself to the Philippians; (3) various passages from Saint Irenaeus; (4) the letter from those of Smyrna relating the martyrdom of St. Polycarp.
Contents
- 1 The Epistles of Saint Ignatius
- 2 The Epistle of Saint Polycarp to the Philippians
- 3 Various passages in San Irenaeus
- 4 The letter from Smyrna describing the martyrdom of Saint Polycarp
The Epistles of Saint Ignatius
Four of the seven genuine epistles of Saint Ignatius were written from Smyrna. In two of these—to the Magnesian and the Ephesian—he speaks of Polycarp. The seventh epistle was addressed to Polycarp. It contains little or nothing of historical interest in relation to Saint Polycarp. In the opening words Saint Ignatius gives glory to God “who has granted me to see your face”. It seems hardly safe to infer from these words, with Pearson and Lightfoot, that the two had never met before.
The Epistle of Saint Polycarp to the Philippians
The Epistle of St. Polycarp was an answer to one of the Philippians, in which St. Polycarp had been asked to address a few words of exhortation to them; to follow up with his own messenger a letter addressed by them to the Church of Antioch; and send them any of the Epistles of Saint Ignatius that he might have. The second request should be underlined. Saint Ignatius had asked the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia to send a messenger to congratulate the Church of Antioch on the restoration of peace; presumably therefore when he was at Philippos he gave similar instructions to the Philippians. This is one of the many respects in which there is such complete harmony between the situations revealed in the Epistles of St. Ignatius and the Epistle of St. Polycarp, that it is scarcely possible to impugn the authenticity of the former without attempting in some way to destroy the credit of the former. the latter, which happens to be one of the best confirmed documents of antiquity. Consequently some extremists, anti-Episcopalians of the seventeenth century, and members of the Tubingen school of the nineteenth, boldly rejected the Epistle of Polycarp. Others tried to make believe that the passages that spoke most in favor of the Ignatian epistles were interpolations.
These theories are of no interest now that the authenticity of Ignatius’ epistles is no longer in question. The only point raised that had any show of plausibility (sometimes used against the authenticity, and sometimes against the early date of the Epistle of St. Polycarp) was based on a passage that might at first glance appear to denounce Marcion. : “For everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is an antichrist; and whoever does not confess the testimony of the cross, is a devil, and whoever perverts the oracles of the Lord (to serve) his own desires, and says that there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a firstborn of Satan.” Saint Polycarp wrote his epistle before learning of Saint Ignatius’s martyrdom. Now, supposing that the passage just quoted had been addressed to Marcion (whom, on one occasion, as we shall see shortly, St. Polycarp called to his face “the firstborn of Satan”), the choice is between rejecting the epistle as spurious by anachronism, or delay its date, and the date of the martyrdom of St. Ignatius to the years 130-140 when Marcion excelled. Harnack seems to have at some point adopted the latter alternative; but he now admits that there need not be a reference to Marcion at all in the passage in question (Chronologie, I, 387-8). Lightfoot thought that the negative could be proved. According to him, it cannot refer to Marcion because nothing is said of his characteristic errors, eg, the distinction between the God of the Old and the God of the New Testament; and because the antinomianism attributed to the “firstborn of Satan” is inapplicable to the austere Marcion (Lightfoot, St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp, I, 585; all references to Lightfoot (L), unless otherwise stated, are to this work).
When Lightfoot wrote, it was necessary to vindicate the authenticity of the epistles of Saint Ignatius and Saint Polycarp. If the former were forgeries, the latter, which supports them—one might almost say presupposes them—must be a forgery by the same hand. But a comparison between Ignatius and Polycarp shows that this is an impossible hypothesis. The former put all the emphasis on the episcopate, the latter does not even mention it. The former are full of emphatic statements on the doctrine of the Incarnation, the two natures of Christ, etc. In the latter these issues are barely touched upon. “The divergence between the two authors in regards to the citations of Scripture is equally remarkable. Although the seven letters of Ignatius are much longer than the Epistle of Polycarp, the citations in the latter are incomparably more numerous, as well as more precise, than in the former. The New Testament debts are entirely different in character in the two cases. Ignatius’s letters, in fact, show a considerable knowledge of the writings included in our New Testament Canon; but this knowledge is revealed in casual words and phrases, sporadic metaphors, epigrammatical adaptations, and isolated coincidences of thought… On the other hand the Epistle of Polycarp is frequently constructed phrase after phrase from passages of the evangelical and apostolic writings… But this divergence it is only part of a larger and more decisive contrast, affecting the whole style and character of the two writings. The profusion of quotations in the Epistle of Polycarp arises from a lack of originality… On the other hand, Ignatius’s letters have a marked individuality. They stand out in this respect among all the early Christian writings” (op. cit., 595-97).
Various passages in San Irenaeus
In San Irenaeus, Polycarp comes to us primarily as a link to the past. Irenaeus mentions him four times: (a) in connection with Papias; (b) in his letter to Florinus; (c) in his letter to Pope Victor; (d) at the end of the celebrated appeal to the potior principalitas of the Roman Church.
Regarding Papias
By “Adv. Haer.”, V, xxxii, 1, we know that Papias was “a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp”.
In his letter to Florinus: Florinus was a Roman presbyter who fell into heresy. Irenaeus wrote him a letter of counterclaim (of which a long extract is preserved in Eusebius, HE, V, xx), in which he evoked their common recollections of Polycarp. “These opinions…Florinus are not of sound judgment…I see you when I was still a boy in Asia Minor in the company of Polycarp, while you were living prosperously in the royal court, and endeavoring to place yourself well in it. For I distinctly remember the incidents of that time better than the recent events…I can describe the very place where Blessed Polycarp used to sit when he spoke…his personal appearance…and how he described his relationship with John and the rest they had seen. to the Lord, and how he related his words…I can testify in the presence of God, that if the blessed and apostolic old man had heard anything of this kind, he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and said according to his custom, ‘O good God! , how many times are you going to force me to endure such things?’…This can be shown by the letters he wrote to the neighboring Churches for their confirmation, etc.” Lightfoot (op. cit., 448) does not fix the date of the time when St. Irenaeus and Florinus were fellow disciples of St. Polycarp more definitely than between 135 and 150. In fact there is no data to judge.
In his letter to Pope Victor: Saint Polycarp’s visit to Rome is described by Saint Irenaeus in a letter to Pope Victor written under the following circumstances. Asian Christians differed from the rest of the Church in their way of observing Easter. While the other churches kept the festival on Sunday, the Asians celebrated it on the 14th of Nisan, whatever day of the week it fell on. Pope Victor tried to establish uniformity, and when the Churches of Asia refused to obey, he excommunicated them. Saint Irenaeus rebuked him in a letter, part of which is preserved in Eusebius (HE, V, XXIV), in which the moderation displayed towards Polycarp by Pope Anicetus was particularly contrasted with the conduct of Victor. “Among these (Víctor’s predecessors) were the presbyters prior to Sotero. They neither observed it (Nisan 14), nor did they allow those who followed them to do so. And yet, even not observing it, they were no less at peace with those who came to them from the parishes in which it was observed… And when blessed Polycarp was in Rome in the time of Anicetus, and they were a little at odds about other things, they immediately made peace with each other, not bothering to discuss this matter. Well, Aniceto couldn’t persuade Policarpo…nor Policarpo Aniceto. But although things were this way, they communed together, and Aniceto conceded the administration of the Eucharist in the Church to Polycarp, manifestly as a mark of respect. And they parted one from another in peace,” etc. There is a difficulty connected with this visit of Polycarp to Rome. According to the Chronicle of Eusebius in the St. Jerome version (the Armenian version is quite unreliable) Anicetus’ date of accession was 156-57. Now the probable date of St. Polycarp’s martyrdom was February 155. The fact of his visit to Rome is too well attested to be questioned. We must therefore either give up the date of the martyrdom, or suppose that Eusebius dated Anicetus’s accession a year or two late. There is nothing unreasonable in this second hypothesis, in view of the uncertainty that so generally prevails in chronological questions (for the date of Anicetus’s accession see Lightfoot, “St. Clement I”, 343).
In his famous passage on the Roman Church: We now come to the passage from St. Irenaeus (Adv. Haer., III, 3) which brings out in full relief the position of St. Polycarp as a link with the past. Just as the long life of St. John prolonged the Apostolic Age, so Polycarp’s eighty-six years extend the sub-apostolic age, during which it was possible to learn by word of mouth what the Apostles taught from those who had been his listeners. . In Rome the Apostolic Age ended around the year 67 with the martyrdom of Saint Peter and Saint Paul, and the sub-apostolic age a quarter of a century later when Saint Clement died, “who had seen the blessed Apostles”. In Asia the Apostolic Age was delayed until Saint John died around the year 100; and the sub-apostolic age until 155, when Saint Polycarp was martyred. In the third book of his treatise “Against Heresies”, Saint Irenaeus makes his famous appeal to the “succession” of bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against…