See alsoPolycarp onWikipedia; and our1911 Encyclopædia Britannica disclaimer.
POLYCARP (c. 69–c. 155), bishop of Smyrna and one of the Apostolic Fathers, derives much of his importance from the factthat he links together the apostolic age and that of nascentCatholicism. The sources from which we derive our knowledgeof the life and activity of Polycarp are: (1) a few notices in the writings of Irenaeus, (2) the Epistle of Polycarp to the Church atPhilippi, (3) the Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp, (4) the Epistleof the Church at Smyrna to the Church at Philomelium, givingan account of the martyrdom of Polycarp. Since these authoritieshave all been more or less called in question and some of thementirely rejected by recent criticism, it is necessary to say a fewwords about each.
1.The Statements of Irenaeus are found (a) in hisAdversus haereses,iii. 3, 4, (b) in the letter to Victor, where Irenaeus gives an accountof Polycarp’s visit to Rome, (c) in the letter to Florinus—a mostimportant document which describes the intercourse betweenIrenaeus and Polycarp and Polycarp’s relation with St John. Noobjection has been made against the genuineness of the statementsin theAdversus haereses, but the authenticity of the two lettershas been stoutly contested in recent times by vanManen.[1] Themain attack is directed against the Epistle to Florinus, doubtlessbecause of its importance. “The manifest exaggerations,” saysvan Manen, “coupled with the fact that Irenaeus never showsany signs of acquaintance with Florinus. . . enable us to perceiveclearly that a writer otherwise unknown is speaking to us here.”The criticism of van Manen has, however, found no supportersoutside the Dutch school. The epistle is quoted by Eusebius(v. 20), and is accepted as genuine byHarnack[2] andKrüger.[3]The relevant statements in the letter, moreover, are supportedby the references to Polycarp which we find in the body ofIrenaeus’s great work.
2.The Epistle of Polycarp.—Though Irenaeus states that Polycarpwrote many “letters to the neighbouring churches or to certainof the brethren”[4] only one has been preserved, viz. the well-knownletter to the Philippians. The epistle is largely involved in theIgnatian controversy (seeIgnatius). The testimony which itaffords to the Ignatian Epistles is so striking that those scholarswho regard these letters as spurious are bound to reject the Epistleof Polycarp altogether, or at any rate to look upon it as largelyinterpolated. The former course has been adopted bySchwegler,[5]Zeller,[6] and Hilgenfeld,[7] the latter byRitschl[8] andLipsius.[9] Therehabilitation of the Ignatian letters in modern times has, however,practically destroyed the attack on the Epistles of Polycarp. Theexternal evidence in its favour is of considerable weight. Irenaeus(iii. 3, 4) expressly mentions and commends a “very adequate”(ἱκανωτάτη) letter of Polycarp to the Philippians, and we have noreason for doubting the identity of this letter mentioned by Irenaeuswith our epistle. Eusebius (iii. 36) quotes extracts from theepistle, and some of the extracts contain the very passages whichthe critics have marked as interpolations, and Jerome (De Vir. Ill.xvii.) testifies that in his time the epistle was publicly read in theAsiatic churches. The internal evidence is equally strong. Thereis absolutely no motive for a forgery in the contents of the epistle.As Harnack says, “There is no trace of any tendency beyond theimmediate purpose of maintaining the true Christian life in thechurch and warning it against covetousness and against an unbrotherlyspirit. The occasion of the letter was a case of embezzlement,the guilty individual being a presbyter at Philippi. It showsa fine combination of mildness with severity; the language is simplebut powerful, and, while there is undoubtedly a lack of originalideas, the author shows remarkable skill in weaving togetherpregnant sentences and impressive warnings selected from theapostolic epistles and the first Epistle of Clement. In these circumstancesit would never have occurred to any one to doubt thegenuineness of the epistle or to suppose that it had been interpolated,but for the fact that in several passages reference is madeto Ignatius and his epistles.” The date of the epistle dependsupon the date of the Ignatian letters and is now generally fixedbetween 112 and 118. An attempt has been made in some quartersto prove that certain allusions in the epistle imply the rise of theheresy of Marcion and that it cannot therefore be placed earlier than140. Lightfoot, however, has proved that Polycarp’s statementsmay equally well be directed against Corinthianism or any otherform of Docetism, while some of his arguments are absolutelyinapplicable to Marcionism.
3.The Epistle of Ignatius to Polycarp.—This epistle has of coursebeen subjected to the same criticism as has been directed againstthe other epistles of Ignatius (seeIgnatius). Over and above thegeneral criticism, which may now be said to have been completelyanswered by the investigations of Zahn, Lightfoot and Harnack,one or two special arguments have been brought against the Epistleto Polycarp. Ussher, for instance, while accepting the other sixepistles, rejected this on the ground that Jerome says that Ignatiusonly sent one letter to Smyrna—a mistake due to his misinterpretationof Eusebius. Some modern scholars (among whom Harnackwas formerly numbered, though he has modified his views on thepoint) feel a difficulty about the peremptory tone which Ignatiusadopts towards Polycarp. There was some force in this argumentwhen the Ignatian Epistles were dated about 140, as in that casePolycarp would have been an old and venerable man at the time.But now that the date is put back to about 112 the difficultyvanishes, since Polycarp was not much over forty when he receivedthe letter. We must remember, too, that Ignatius was writingunder the consciousness of impending martyrdom and evidentlyfelt that this gave him the right to criticize the bishops and churchesof Asia.
4.The Letter of the Church at Smyrna to the Philomelians is amost important document, because we derive from it all our informationwith regard to Polycarp’s martyrdom. Eusebius haspreserved the greater part of this epistle (iv. 15), but we possess itentire with various concluding observations in several Greek MSS.,and also in a Latin translation. The epistle gives a minutedescription of the persecution in Smyrna, of the last days ofPolycarp and of his trial and martyrdom; and as it contains manyinstructive details and professes to have been written not long afterthe events to which it refers, it has always been regarded as oneof the most precious remains of the 2nd century. Certain recentcritics, however, have questioned the authenticity of the narrative. Lipsius brings[10] the date of the epistle down to about 260, thoughhe admits many of the statements as trustworthy. Keim, too,[11]endeavours to show that, although it was based on good information,it could not have been composed till the middle of the 3rd century.A similar position has also been taken up by Schürer,[12] Holtzmann,[13]Gebhardt,[14] Réville,[15] and van Manen.[16] The last named regards thedocument “as a decorated narrative of the saint’s martyrdomframed after the pattern of Jesus’ martyrdom,” though he thinksthat it cannot be put as late as 250, but must fall within the limitsof the 2nd century. It cannot be said, however, that the caseagainst the document has been at all substantiated, and the moremoderate school of modern critics (e.g. Lightfoot,[17] Harnack,[18]Krüger)[19] is unanimous in regarding it as an authentic document,though it recognizes that here and there a few slight interpolationshave been inserted.[20] Besides these we have no other sources forthe life of Polycarp; theVita S. Polycarpi auctore Pionio (publishedby Duchesne, Paris, 1881, and LightfootIgnatius and Polycarp,1885, ii. 1015–1047) is worthless.
Assuming the genuineness of the documents mentioned, wenow proceed to collect the scanty information which they affordwith regard to Polycarp’s career. Very little is known abouthis early life. He must have been born not later than the year69, for on the day of his death (c. 155) he declared that he hadserved the Lord for eighty-six years (Martyrium, 9). Thestatement seems to imply that he was of Christian parentage;he cannot have been older than eighty-six at the time of hismartyrdom, since he had paid a visit to Rome almost immediatelybefore. Irenaeus tells us that in early life Polycarp “had beentaught by apostles and lived in familiar intercourse with manythat had seen Christ” (iii. 3, 4). This testimony is expandedin the remarkable words which Irenaeus addresses to Florinus:“I saw thee when I was still a boy (παῖς ἔτι ὤν) in Lower Asiain company with Polycarp. . . I can even now point out theplace where the blessed Polycarp used to sit when he discoursed,and describe his goings out and his comings in, his manner oflife and his personal appearance and the discourses which hedelivered to the people, how he used to speak of his intercoursewith John and with the rest of those who had seen the Lord, andhow he would relate their words. And everything that he hadheard from them about the Lord, about His miracles and aboutHis teaching, Polycarp used to tell us as one who had receivedit from those who had seen the Word of Life with their own eyes,and all this in perfect harmony with the Scriptures. To thesethings I used to listen at the time, through the mercy of Godvouchsafed to me, noting them down, not on paper but in myheart, and constantly by the grace of God I brood over myaccurate recollections.” These are priceless words, for theyestablish a chain of tradition (John-Polycarp-Irenaeus) which iswithout a parallel in early church history. Polycarp thusbecomes the living link between the Apostolic age and the greatwriters who flourished at the end of the 2nd century. Recentcriticism, however, has endeavoured to destroy the force of thewords of Irenaeus. Harnack, for instance, attacks this link atboth ends.[21] (a) The connexion of Irenaeus and Polycarp, heargues, is very weak, because Irenaeus was only a boy (παῖς) atthe time, and his recollections therefore carry very little weight.The fact too that he never shows any signs of having been influencedby Polycarp and never once quotes his writings is a furtherproof that the relation between them was slight. (b) Theconnexion which Irenaeus tries to establish between Polycarpand John the apostle is probably due to a blunder. Irenaeus has confusedJohn the apostle and John the presbyter. Polycarpwas the disciple of the latter, not the former. In this secondargument Harnack has the support of a considerable number ofmodern scholars who deny the Ephesian residence of John theapostle. But, as Gwatkin[22] has pointed out, Harnack’s argumentsare by no means decisive. (a) When Irenaeus describeshimself as a boy (παῖς), he need not have meant a very young lad,under thirteen, as Harnack makes out. Lightfoot has cited manyinstances which prove that the word could be used of a manof thirty.[23] Nor does the alternative phrase which Irenaeus usesin iii. 3, 4 (ὅν καὶ ἡμεῖς ἑωράκαμεν ἐν τῇ τρωτῇ ἡμῶν ἡλικίᾳ)militate against this interpretation, for elsewhere Irenaeus himselfdistinctly says “triginta annorum aetas prima indoles estjuvenis” (ii. 22, 5). It is true that Harnack has adduced argumentswhich cannot be discussed here to prove that Irenaeuswas not born till about 140;[24] but against this we may quote thedecision of Lipsius, who puts the date of his birth at 130,[25] whileLightfoot argues for 120.[26] The fact that Irenaeus never quotesPolycarp does not count for much. Polycarp wrote very little.He does not seem to have been a man of great mental capacity.“His influence was that of saintliness rather than that ofintellect.” (b) A discussion of Harnack’s second line of argumentis impossible here. His theory with regard to the confusionof names is a gratuitous assumption and cannot be proved.The tradition of St John’s residence at Ephesus is too strong tobe easily set aside. In spite therefore of much modern criticismthere seems to be no solid reason for rejecting the statements ofIrenaeus and regarding Polycarp as the link between the Apostolicage and the first of the Catholic fathers.
Though Polycarp must have been bishop of Smyrna for nearlyhalf a century we know next to nothing about his career. Weget only an occasional glimpse of his activity, and the periodbetween 115 and 155 is practically a blank. The only points ofsure information which we possess relate to (1) his relations withIgnatius, (2) his protests against heresy, (3) his visit to Rome inthe time of Anicetus, (4) his martyrdom.
1.His Relations with Ignatius.—Ignatius, while on his way toRome to suffer martyrdom, halted at Smyrna and received awarm welcome from the church and its bishop. Upon reachingTroas he despatched two letters, one to the church at Smyrna,another addressed personally to Polycarp. In these lettersIgnatius charged Polycarp to write to all the churches betweenSmyrna and Syria (since his hurried departure from Troas madeit impossible for him to do so in person) urging them to sendletters and delegates to the church at Antioch to congratulateit upon the cessation of the persecution and to establish it in thefaith. The letters of Ignatius illustrate the commandingposition which Polycarp had already attained in Asia. It wasin the discharge of the task which had been laid upon him byIgnatius that Polycarp was brought into correspondence withthe Philippians. The Church at Philippi wrote to Polycarpasking him to forward their letters to Antioch. Polycarp replied,promising to carry out their request and enclosing a number ofthe letters of Ignatius which he had in his possession.
2.Polycarp’s Attack on Heresy.—All through his life Polycarpappears to have been an uncompromising opponent of heresy.We find him in his epistle (ch. vii.) uttering a strong protestagainst certain false teachers (probably the followers ofCerinthus).
“For every one who shall not confess that Jesus Christ is comein the flesh is Antichrist; and whosoever shall not confess thetestimony of the Cross is of the devil; and whosoever shall pervertthe oracles of the Lord to his own lusts and say that there is neitherresurrection nor judgment, that man is the first-born of Satan.Wherefore let us forsake their vain doing and their false teachingand turn unto the word which was delivered unto us from thebeginning.”
Polycarp lived to see the rise of the Marcionite and Valentiniansects and vigorously opposed them. Irenaeus tells us that on one occasion Marcion endeavoured to establish relations withhim and accosted him with the words, “Recognize us.” ButPolycarp displayed the same uncompromising attitude which hismaster John had shown towards Cerinthus and answered, “Irecognize you as the first-born of Satan.” The steady progressof the heretical movement in spite of all opposition was a causeof deep sorrow to Polycarp, so that in the last years of his life thewords were constantly on his lips, “Oh good God, to what timeshast thou spared me, that I must suffer such things!”
3.Polycarp’s Visit to Rome.—It is one of the most interestingand important events in the church history of the 2nd centurythat Polycarp, shortly before his death, when he was considerablyover eighty years old, undertook a journey to Rome in order tovisit the bishop Anicetus. Irenaeus, to whom we are indebtedfor this information (Haer. iii. 3, 4;Epist. ad victorem, ap.Euseb. v. 24), gives as the reason for the journey the fact thatdifferences existed between Asia and Rome “with regard tocertain things” and especially about the time of the Easterfestival. He might easily have told us what these “certainthings” were and given us fuller details of the negotiationsbetween the two great bishops, for in all probability he washimself in Rome at the time. But unfortunately all he says isthat with regard to the certain things the two bishops speedilycame to an understanding, while as to the time of Easter, eachadhered to his own custom, without breaking off communionwith the other. We learn further that Anicetus as a mark ofspecial honour allowed Polycarp to celebrate the Eucharist inthe church, and that many Marcionites and Valentinians wereconverted by him during his stay in Rome.
4.Polycarp’s Martyrdom.—Not many months apparentlyafter Polycarp’s return from Rome a persecution broke out inAsia. A great festival was in progress at Smyrna. The proconsulStatius Quadratus was present on the occasion, and theasiarch Philip of Tralles was presiding over the games. ElevenChristians had been brought, mostly from Philadelphia, to beput to death. The appetite of the populace was inflamed by thespectacle of their martyrdom. A cry was raised “Away withthe atheists. Let search be made for Polycarp.” Polycarp tookrefuge in a country farm. His hiding-place, however, was betrayedand he was arrested and brought back into the city.Attempts were made by the officials to induce him to recant, butwithout effect. When he came into the theatre the proconsulurged him to “revile Christ,” and promised, if he would consentto abjure his faith, that he would set him at liberty. To thisappeal Polycarp made the memorable answer, “Eighty and sixyears have I served Him and He hath done me no wrong. Howthen can I speak evil of my King who saved me?” These wordsonly intensified the fury of the mob. They clamoured for a lionto be let loose upon him there and then. The asiarch howeverrefused, urging as an excuse that the games were over. Whenthey next demanded that their victim should be burned, theproconsul did not interfere. Timber and faggots were hastilycollected and Polycarp was placed upon the pyre. With calmdignity and unflinching courage he met his fate and crowned anoble life with an heroic death.
The question as to the date of the martyrdom has evokedconsiderable controversy. Eusebius in hisChronicon givesA.D. 166 as the date of Polycarp’s death, and until the year 1867this statement was never questioned. In that year appearedWaddington’sMémoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rhéteurAelius Aristide, in which it was shown from a most acute combinationof circumstances that the Quadratus whose name is mentionedin theMartyrium was proconsul of Asia in 155–156, andthat consequently Polycarp was martyred on the 23rd of February155. Waddington’s conclusion has received overwhelmingsupport amongst recent critics. His views have been acceptedby (amongst many others) Renan,[27] Hilgenfeld,[28] Gebhardt,[29]Lipsius,[30] Harnack,[31] Zahn,[32] Lightfoot,[33] Randell.[34] Against thisarray of scholars only the following names of importance can bequoted in support of the traditionalview—Keim,[35] Wieseler[36] andUhlhorn.[37] The problem is too complex to admit of treatmenthere. There seems to be little doubt that the case for the earlierdate has been proved. The only point upon which there isdivision of opinion is as to whether Waddington’s date 155, or—asis suggested by Lipsius and supported by C. H.Turner[38]—thefollowing year 156 is the more probable. The balance of opinionseems to favour the latter alternative, because it leaves moreroom for Polycarp’s visit to Anicetus, who only became bishop ofRome in 154. Harnack, however, after careful investigation,prefers 155.
The significance of Polycarp in the history of the Church isout of all proportion to our knowledge of the facts of his career.The violent attack of the Smyrnaean mob is an eloquent tributeto his influence in Asia. “This is the teacher of Asia,” theyshouted, “this is the father of the Christians: this is the destroyerof our gods: this is the man who has taught so many nolonger to sacrifice and no longer to pray to thegods.”[39] Andafter the execution they refused to deliver up his bones to theChristians for burial on the ground that “the Christians wouldnow forsake the Crucified and worship Polycarp.”[40] Polycarpwas indeed, as Polycrates says,[41] “one of the great luminaries”(μεγάλα στοιχεῖα) of the time. It was in no small degree due tohis stanch and unwavering leadership that the Church was savedfrom the peril of being overwhelmed by the rising tide of thepagan revival which swept over Asia during the first half of the2nd century, and it was his unfaltering allegiance to the Apostolicfaith that secured the defeat of the many forms of heresy whichthreatened to destroy the Church from within. Polycarp hadno creative genius. He was a “transmitter, not a maker,”but herein lies his greatness. Much occurred between theApostolic age and the age when the faith of the Church wasfixed in the earliest creed and protected by the determinationof the canon of the New Testament. This intervening periodwas the most perilous epoch in the history of the ante-NiceneChurch. The Apostolic tradition might have been pervertedand corrupted. The purity of the Gospel might have beendefiled. The Christian ideal might have been lost. That thedanger was so largely averted is to no small extent the result ofthe faithful witness of Polycarp. As Irenaeus says (iii. 3, 4),“Polycarp does not appear to have possessed qualifications forsuccessfully conducting a controversial discussion with erroneousteachers. . . but he could not help feeling how unlike theirspeculations were to the doctrines which he had learned fromthe Apostles, and so he met with indignant reprobation theirattempt to supersede Christ’s gospel with fictions of their owndevising.” It is this that constitutes Polycarp’s service to theChurch, and no greater service has been rendered by any of itsleaders in any age.
Bibliography.—J. B. Lightfoot,Apostolic Fathers, pt. ii.(2nd ed., 1889). Polycarp is dealt with in i. 417–459, 530–704;ii. 897–1086; G. Volkmar,Epistula Polycarpi Smyrnaei genuina(Zürich, 1885); T. Zahn,Forschungen zur Geschichte des Kanons,&c.,iv. 249, 279; J. M. Cotterill, “The Epistle of Polycarp to thePhilippians,”Journ. of Philol. (1891), xix., 241–285; Harnack,Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur (1897). See alsoApostolic Fathers. (H. T. A.)
