διδάξας : ἐδίδαξεν. — ἡ ἐκκλησία mss., τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ lat.. In. lat. — ἃ καὶ μόνα : καὶ μόνα In.  ↩

τὸν Παλύκαρπον AMΤ lat., IREN., syr.; τὸν (τοῦ) Πολυκάρπου θρόνον BDER. — ὑπὸ τῆς ἐκκλησίας mss., syr. ; καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ lat., IR. lat.  ↩

ἐπιγίνωσκε BDM syr., lat., conclusion du Martyrium Polycarpi, dans le ms. de Moscou, qui a tiré ces additions d'Irénée (FUNK, Patres apostolici, 2e éd., p. 344 ; ἐπιγινσκεις AEBT% lR. — ἐπιγινώσκω ἐπιγινώσκω : ἐπιγινώσκω, syr., cognosco te In. ↩

Rapports et citations de la première épitre de saint Pierre avec la lettre de Polycarpe aux Philippiens : Polycarpe Prima Petri i. 3 i, 8. ii, 1 i, 13. 21. il, 2 iii, 9. v, 3 ii, 11. viii, 2 iv, 7. vii, I ii, 22, 24. x, 1 iii, 8. x. 2 ii, 12; ν, 5 xii. 2 i, 21. Voy. les éditions des Pères apostoliques et The New Testament in the Apostolic fathers, by a committee of the Oxford society of historical theology (Oxford, 1905), p. 86 suiv. ↩

On Anicetus, see above, chap. 11, note 18. He was bishop probably from 154 to 165 a.d. ↩

genesthai epi Romes. It is quite commonly said that Polycarp came to Rome during the episcopate of Anicetus; but our authorities say only that he was in Rome at that time, and do not specify the date at which he arrived there. Neither these words, nor the words of Irenaeus in §5 below (epideuesas te Rome), are to be translated "came to Rome," as is often done (e.g. by Crusè, by Roberts and Rambaut, in their translation of Irenaeus, and by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.), but "was at Rome" (as Closs, Stigloher, Lightfoot, &c., correctly render the words). Inasmuch as Polycarp suffered martyrdom in 155 or 156 a.d.(see below, chap. 15, note 2), he must have left Rome soon after Anticetus' accession (which took place probably in 154); and though of course he may have come thither sometime before that event, still the fact that his stay there is connected with Anicetus' episcopate, and his alone, implies that he went thither either immediately after, or shortly before Anicetus became bishop. ↩

On the paschal controversies of the early Church, see below, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1. We learn from Bk. V. chap. 24, that though Polycarp and Anicetus did not reach an agreement on the subject, they nevertheless remained good friends, and that Polycarp celebrated the eucharist in Rome at the request of Anicetus. ↩

Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 3. 4. ↩

Eusebius takes his account of Polycarp solely from Irenaeus, and from the epistle of the church of Smyrna, given in the next chapter. He is mentioned by Irenaeus again in his Adv. Haer. V. 33. 4 (quoted by Eusebius in Bk. III. chap. 39), and in his epistle to Florinus and to Victor. From the epistle to Florinus (quoted below in Bk. V. chap. 20), where quite an account of Polycarp is given, we learn that the latter was Irenaeus' teacher. He was one of the most celebrated men of the time, not because of his ability or scholarship, but because he had been a personal friend of some of the disciples of the Lord, and lived to a great age, when few if any were still alive that had known the first generation of Christians. He suffered martyrdom about 155 a.d. (see below, chap. 15, note 2); and as he was at least eighty-six years old at the time of his death (see the next chap., §20), he must have been born as early as 70 a.d. He was a personal disciple of John the apostle, as we learn from Irenaeus' epistle to Florinus, and was acquainted also with others that had seen the Lord. That he was at the head of the church of Smyrna cannot be doubted (cf. Ignatius' epistle to him), but Irenaeus' statement that he was appointed bishop of Smyrna by apostles is probably to be looked upon as a combination of his own. He reasoned that bishops were the successors of the apostles; Polycarp was a bishop, and lived in the time of the apostles; and therefore he must have been appointed by them. The only known writing of Polycarp's is his epistle to the Philippians, which is still extant (see below, note 16). His character is plainly revealed in that epistle as well as in the accounts given us by Irenaeus and by the church of Smyrna in their epistle. He was a devoutly pious and simple-minded Christian, burning with intense personal love for his Master, and yet not at all fanatical like his contemporary Ignatius. The instances related in this chapter show his intense horror of heretics, of those whom he believed to be corrupting the doctrine of Christ, and yet he does not seem to have had the taste or talent to refute their errors. He simply wished to avoid them as instruments of Satan. He was pre-eminently a man that lived in the past. His epistle is full of reminiscences of New Testament thought and language, and his chief significance to the Christians of the second century was as a channel of apostolic tradition. He does not compare with Ignatius for vigor and originality of thought, and yet he was one of the most deeply venerated characters of the early Church, his noble piety, his relation to John and other disciples of the Lord, and finally his glorious martyrdom, contributing to make him such. Upon Polycarp, see especially Lightfoot's edition of Ignatius and Polycarp, and the article of Salmon, in Smith and Wace's Dict. of Christ. Biog. ↩

The church of Smyrna (situated in Asia Minor) was one of the "seven churches of Asia," and is mentioned in Rev. i. 11; ii. 8-11. ↩

On his age and the date of his death, see chap. 15, note 2. A full account of his martyrdom is given in the epistle of the church of Smyrna, quoted in the next chapter. ↩

Irenaeus emphasizes here, as was his wont, the importance of tradition in determining true doctrine. Compare also Eusebius' words in chap. 21. ↩

Of these successors of Polycarp we know nothing. ↩

kakognomonon ↩

See above, note 2. ↩

See above, Bk. III. chap. 28, where the same story is related. ↩

Marcion came to Rome about 135 a.d., but how long he remained there we do not know. Polycarp's words show the great abhorrence in which he was held by the Church. He was considered by many the most dangerous of all the heretics, for he propagated his errors and secured many followers among all classes. Marcion's conduct in this case is very significant when compared with that of the Gnostics. He tried everywhere to gain support and to make friends with the Church, that he might introduce his reforms within it; while the genuine Gnostics, on the contrary, held themselves aloof from the Church, in pride and in a feeling of superiority. Polycarp in his Epistle to the Philippians, chap. 7, shows the same severity toward false teachers, and even uses the same expression, "first born of Satan," perhaps referring to Marcion himself; but see below, note 16. ↩

epiginoskeis, which is the reading of the great majority of the mss., and is adopted by Schwegler, Laemmer, Harnack, Lightfoot, and others. Three mss., supported by Nicephorus, Rufinus, and the Latin version of Irenaeus, read epiginoske, and this is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Stroth, Closs, and Crusè. ↩

Titus iii. 10, 11. ↩

Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians is still extant, and is the only work of Polycarp which we have. (The Greek text is given in all editions of the apostolic Fathers, and with especially valuable notes and discussions in Zahn's Ignatius von Antiochien, and in Lightfoot's Ignatius and Polycarp, II. p. 897 sqq.; an English translation is contained in the latter edition, and also in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. I. p. 31-36.) The date of its composition it is very difficult to determine. It must have been written after the death of Ignatius (chap. 9), and yet soon after, as Polycarp does not seem to know all the circumstances attending that event (see chap. 13). Its date therefore depends upon the date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, which is a very difficult question, not yet fully decided. The attack upon false teachers reminds us of Marcion, and contains traits which seem to imply that Polycarp had Marcion in his mind at the time of writing. If this be so, the epistle was written as late as 135 a.d., which puts the date of Ignatius' death much later than the traditional date (on the date of Ignatius' death, see above, Bk. III. chap. 36, note 4). The genuineness of Polycarp's epistle has been sharply disputed--chiefly on account of its testimony to the Ignatian epistles in chap. 13. Others, while acknowledging its genuineness as a whole, have regarded chap. 13 as an interpolation. But the external testimony for its genuineness is very strong, beginning with Irenaeus, and the epistle itself is just what we should expect from such a man as Polycarp. There is no good reason therefore to doubt its genuineness nor the genuineness of chap. 13, the rejection of which is quite arbitrary. The genuineness of the whole has been ably defended both by Zahn and by Lightfoot, and may be regarded as definitely established. ↩

Polycarp in his epistle makes constant use of the First Epistle of Peter, with which he was evidently very familiar, though it is remarkable that he nowhere mentions Peter as its author (cf. Bk. III. chap. 3, note 1). ↩

Antoninus Pius reigned from July 2, 138, to March 7, 161. ↩

Both were adopted sons of Antoninus Pius. See above, chap. 12, note 3. ↩