THE TESTIMONY OF POLYCARP TO THE IGNATIAN EPISTLES EXAMINED.
The Bishop of Durham affirms, in a passage already quoted, that "no
Christian writings of the second century, and very few writings of
antiquity, whether Christian or pagan, are so _well authenticated_" as
the Epistles attributed to Ignatius. This assuredly is an astounding
announcement, made deliberately by a distinguished author, whose
attention, for nearly thirty years, has been directed to the subject.
The letter of Polycarp to the Philippians is a writing of the second
century, and it is by far the most important witness in support of the
Ignatian letters; but we must infer, from the words just quoted, that
it is not "so well authenticated" as they are. It is difficult to
understand by what process of logic his Lordship has arrived at this
conclusion. In an ordinary court of law, the witness who deposes to
character is expected to stand on at least as high a moral platform in
public estimation as the individual in whose favour he bears testimony;
but if the letter of Polycarp is not "so well authenticated" as these
Ignatian letters, how can it be brought forward to establish their
reputation? Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance connected with
this discussion. There was a time when, according to his own statement
in the present work, Dr. Lightfoot "accepted the Curetonian letters
as representing the genuine Ignatius;" [15:1] and, of course, when he
regarded as forgeries the four others which he now acknowledges. In
the volumes before us, as if to make compensation for the unfavourable
opinion which he once cherished, he advances the whole seven of the
larger edition to a position of especial honour. The letter of Polycarp,
the works of Justin Martyr, the treatise of Irenaeus _Against Heresies_,
and other writings of the second century, have long sustained an honest
character; but now they must all take rank below the Ignatian Epistles.
According to the Bishop of Durham, they are not "so well authenticated."
In his eagerness to exalt the credit of these Ignatian letters, Dr.
Lightfoot, in his present publication, has obviously expressed himself
most incautiously. In point of fact, the letter of Polycarp, as a
genuine production of the second century, occupies an incomparably
higher position than the Ignatian Epistles. The internal evidence in
its favour is most satisfactory. It is exactly such a piece of
correspondence as we might expect from a pious and sensible Christian
minister, well acquainted with the Scriptures, and living on the
confines of the apostolic age. It has, besides, all the external
confirmation we could desire. Irenaeus, who was personally well known to
the author, and who has left behind him the treatise _Against Heresies_
already mentioned, speaks therein of this letter in terms of high
approval. "There is," says he, "a very sufficient Epistle of Polycarp
written to the Philippians, from which those who desire it, and who care
for their own salvation, can learn both the character of his faith
and the message of the truth." [16:1] Could such a voucher as this be
produced for the Epistles ascribed to Ignatius, and were the external
evidence equally satisfactory, it would be absurd to doubt their
genuineness. But whilst the internal evidence testifies against them,
they are not noticed by any writer for considerably more than a century
after they are said to have appeared.
The date commonly assigned for the martyrdom of Ignatius, and
consequently for the writing of the letters ascribed to him, is
the ninth year of Trajan, corresponding to A.D. 107. This date, Dr.
Lightfoot tells us, is "the one fixed element in the common tradition."
[16:2] It is to be found in the _Chronicon Paschale_, and in the
Antiochene and the Roman "Acts," as well as elsewhere. [16:3] This
same date is assigned by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles for the
writing of Polycarp's letter. "Only a few months at the outside," says
Dr. Lightfoot, "probably only a few weeks, after these Ignatian Epistles
purport to have been written, the Bishop of Smyrna himself addresses a
letter to the Philippians." [17:1] In due course it will be shown that
Polycarp was at this time only about four-and-twenty years of age; and
any intelligent reader who pursues his Epistle can judge for himself
whether it can be reasonably accepted as the production of so very
youthful an author. It appears that it was dictated in answer to a
communication from the Church at Philippi, in which he was requested
to interpose his influence with a view to the settlement of some grave
scandals which disturbed that ancient Christian community. Is it likely
that a minister of so little experience would have been invited to
undertake such a service? The communication is rather such an outpouring
of friendly counsel as befitted an aged patriarch. In a fatherly style
he here addresses himself to wives and widows, to young men and maidens,
to parents and children, to deacons and presbyters. [17:2]
There are other indications in this letter that it cannot have been
written at the date ascribed to it by the advocates of the Ignatian
Epistles. It contains an admonition to "pray for _kings_ (or _the_
kings), _authorities_, and _princes_." [18:1] We are not at liberty to
assume that these three names are precisely synonymous. By kings,
or _the_ kings, we may apparently understand the imperial rulers; by
authorities, consuls, proconsuls, praetors, and other magistrates; and
by princes, those petty sovereigns and others of royal rank to be found
here and there throughout the Roman dominions. [18:2] Dr. Lightfoot,
indeed, argues that the translation adopted by some--"_the_ kings"--is
inadmissible, as, according to his ideas, "we have very good ground
for believing that the definite article had no place in the original."
[18:3] He has, however, assigned no adequate reason why the article may
not be prefixed. His contention, that the expression "pray for kings"
has not "anything more than a general reference," [18:4] cannot be
well maintained. In a case such as this, we must be, to a great extent,
guided in our interpretation by the context; and if so, we may fairly
admit the article, for immediately afterwards Polycarp exhorts the
Philippians to pray for their persecutors and their enemies,--an
admonition which obviously has something more than "a general
reference." Such an advice would be inappropriate when persecution was
asleep, and when no enemy was giving disturbance. But, at the date
when Ignatius is alleged to have been martyred, Polycarp could not have
exhorted the Philippians to pray for "the kings," as there was then only
_one_ sovereign ruling over the empire.
That this letter of Polycarp to the Philippians was written at a time
when persecution was rife, is apparent from its tenor throughout. If we
except the case of Ignatius of Antioch--many of the tales relating
to which Dr. Lightfoot himself rejects as fabulous [19:1]--we have no
evidence that in A.D. 107 the Christians were treated with severity.
The Roman world was then under the mild government of Trajan, and the
troubles which afflicted the disciples in Bithynia, under Pliny, had not
yet commenced. The emperor, so far as we have trustworthy information,
had hitherto in no way interfered with the infant Church. But in A.D.
161 two sovereigns were in power, and a reign of terror was inaugurated.
We can therefore well understand why Polycarp, after exhorting his
correspondents to pray for "the kings," immediately follows up this
advice by urging them to pray for their persecutors and their enemies.
If by "kings" we here understand emperors, as distinguished from
"princes" or inferior potentates, it must be obvious that Polycarp here
refers to the two reigning sovereigns. It so happened that, when two
kings began to reign, persecution at once commenced; and the language of
the Epistle exactly befits such a crisis.
The whole strain of this letter points, not to the reign of Trajan,
but to that of Marcus Aurelius. Polycarp exhorts the Philippians "to
practise all endurance" (§ 9) in the service of Christ. "If," says he,
"we should suffer for His name's sake, let us glorify Him" (§ 8).
He speaks of men "encircled in saintly bonds;" (§ 1) and praises the
Philippians for the courage which they had manifested in sympathizing
with these confessors. He reminds them how, "with their own eyes," they
had seen their sufferings (§ 9). All these statements suggest times of
tribulation. A careful examination of this letter may convince us that
it contains no reference to the Epistles attributed to Ignatius of
Antioch. Of the seven letters mentioned by Eusebius, four are said to
have been written from _Smyrna_ and three from _Troas_. But the letters
of which Polycarp speaks were written from neither of these places, but
from _Philippi_. In the letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch, the
martyr describes himself as a solitary sufferer, hurried along by ten
rough soldiers from city to city on his way to Rome; in the letter
of Polycarp to the Philippians, Ignatius is only one among a crowd
of victims, of whose ultimate destination the writer was ignorant. A
considerable time after the party had left Philippi, Polycarp begs the
brethren there to tell him what had become of them. "Concerning Ignatius
himself, and those _who are with him_, if," says he, "ye have any
sure tidings, certify us." [21:1] In the Ignatian Epistle addressed to
Polycarp, he is directed to "write to the Churches," to "call together
a godly council," and "to elect" a messenger to be sent to Syria (§7).
Polycarp, in his letter to the Philippians, takes no notice of these
instructions. He had obviously never heard of them. It is indeed plain
that the letter of the Philippians to Polycarp had only a partial
reference to the case of Ignatius and his companions. It was largely
occupied with other matters; and to these Polycarp addresses himself in
his reply.
The simple solution of all these difficulties is to be found in the fact
that the Ignatius mentioned by Polycarp was a totally different person
from the pastor of Antioch. He lived in another age and in another
country. Ignatius or Egnatius--for the name is thus variously
written--was not a very rare designation; [21:3] and in the
neighbourhood of Philippi it seems to have been common. The famous
_Egnatian_ road, [21:4] which passed through the place, probably derived
its title originally from some distinguished member of the family.
We learn from the letter of Polycarp that _his_ Ignatius was a man of
Philippi. Addressing his brethren there, he says, "I exhort you all,
therefore, to be obedient unto the word of righteousness, and to
practise all endurance, which also ye saw with your own eyes in the
blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, and IN OTHERS ALSO AMONG
YOURSELVES" (Sec. 9). These words surely mean that the individuals
here named were men of Philippi. It is admitted that two of them,
viz. Zosimus and Rufus, answered to this description; and in the Latin
Martyrologies, as Dr. Lightfoot himself acknowledges, [22:2] they are
said to have been natives of the town. It will require the introduction
of some novel canon of criticism to enable us to avoid the conclusion
that Ignatius, their companion, is not to be classed in the same
category.
It is well known that when Marcus Aurelius became emperor he inaugurated
a new system of persecution. Instead of at once consigning to death
those who boldly made a profession of Christianity, as had heretofore
been customary in times of trial, he employed various expedients to
extort from them a recantation. He threw them into confinement, bound
them with chains, kept them in lingering suspense, and subjected them
to sufferings of different kinds, in the hope of overcoming their
constancy. It would seem that Ignatius, Zosimus, Rufus, and their
companions were dealt with after this fashion. They were made prisoners,
put in bonds, plied with torture under the eyes of the Philippians, and
taken away from the city, they knew not whither. It may be that they
were removed to Thessalonica, the residence of the Roman governor,
that they might be immured in a dungeon, to await there the Imperial
pleasure. It is pretty clear that they did not expect instant execution.
When Polycarp wrote, he speaks of them as still living; and he is
anxious to know what may yet betide them.
Let us now call attention to another passage in this letter of Polycarp
to the Philippians. Towards its close the following sentence appears
somewhat in the form of a postscript. "Ye wrote to me, both ye
yourselves and Ignatius, asking that if any one should go to Syria, he
_might_ carry thither the letters _from you_." We have here the reading,
and translation adopted by Dr. Lightfoot; but it so happens that there
is another reading perhaps, on the whole, quite as well supported by
the authority of versions and manuscripts. It may be thus rendered: "Ye
wrote to me, both ye yourselves and Ignatius, suggesting that if any one
is going to Syria, he might carry thither _my letters to you_." [23:1]
The sentence, as interpreted by the advocates of the Ignatian Epistles,
wears a strange and suspicious aspect. If Ignatius and the Philippians
wished their letters to be carried to _Antioch_, why did they not say
so? Syria was an extensive province,--much larger than all Ireland,--and
many a traveller might have been going there who would have found it
quite impracticable to deliver letters in its metropolis. When there was
no penny postage, and when letters of friendship were often carried by
private hands, if an individual residing in the north or south of
the Emerald Isle had requested a correspondent in Bristol to send his
letters by "any one" going over to Ireland, it would not have been
extraordinary if the Englishman had received the message with amazement.
Could "any one" passing over to Ireland be expected to deliver letters
in Cork or Londonderry? There were many places of note in Syria far
distant from Antioch; and it was preposterous to propose that "any one"
travelling to that province should carry letters to its capital city. No
one can pretend to say that the whole, or even any considerable part of
Syria, was under the ecclesiastical supervision of Ignatius; for, long
after this period, the jurisdiction of a bishop did not extend beyond
the walls of the town in which he dwelt. If Ignatius meant to have his
letters taken to _Antioch_, why vaguely say that they were to be carried
to Syria? [24:1] Why not distinctly name the place of their destination?
It had long been the scene of his pastoral labours; and it might have
been expected that its very designation would have been repeated by him
with peculiar interest. No good reason can be given why he should speak
of Syria, and not of Antioch, as the place to which his letters were to
be transmitted. Nor is this the only perplexing circumstance associated
with the request mentioned in the postscript to this letter. If the
Philippians, or Ignatius, had sent letters to Polycarp addressed to the
Church of Antioch, was it necessary for them to say to him that they
should be forwarded? Would not his own common sense have directed him
what to do? He was not surely such a dotard that he required to be told
how to dispose of these Epistles.
If we are to be guided by the statements in the Ignatian Epistles, we
must infer that the letters to be sent to Antioch were to be forwarded
with the utmost expedition. A council was to be called forthwith, and by
it a messenger "fit to bear the name of God's courier" [25:1] was to be
chosen to carry them to the Syrian metropolis. There are no such signs
of haste or urgency indicated in the postscript to Polycarp's Epistle.
The letters of which he speaks could afford to wait until some one
happened to be travelling to Syria; and then, it is suggested, he
_might_ take them along with him. If we adopt the reading to be found in
the Latin version, and which, from internal evidence, we may judge to
be a true rendering of the original, we are, according to the
interpretation which must be given to it by the advocates of the
Ignatian Epistles, involved in hopeless bewilderment. If by Syria we
understand the eastern province, what possibly can be the meaning of the
words addressed by Polycarp to the Philippians, "If any one is going
to Syria, he might _carry thither my letters to you_"? [26:1] Any one
passing from Smyrna to Philippi turns his face to the north-west, but
a traveller from Smyrna to Syria proceeds south-east, or in the exactly
opposite direction. How could Polycarp hope to keep up a correspondence
with his brethren of Philippi, if he sent his letters to the distant
East by any one who might be going there?
It is pretty evident that the Latin version has preserved the true
original of this postscript, and that the current reading, adopted by
Dr. Lightfoot and others, must be traced to the misapprehensions of
transcribers. Puzzled by the statement that letters from Polycarp to
the Philippians were to be sent to Syria, they have tried to correct the
text by changing [Greek: par haemon] into [Greek: par humon]--implying
that the letters were to be transmitted, not from Polycarp to the
Philippians, but from the Philippians to Antioch. A very simple
explanation may, however, remove this whole difficulty. If by Syria
we understand, not the great eastern province so called, but a little
island of similar name in the Aegaean Sea, the real bearing of the
request is at once apparent. Psyria [27:1]--in the course of time
contracted into Psyra--lies a few miles west of Chios, [27:2] and is
almost directly on the way between Smyrna and Neapolis, the port-town
of Philippi. A letter from Smyrna left there would be carried a
considerable distance on its journey to Philippi. Some friendly hand
might convey it from thence to its destination. Psyria and Syria are
words so akin in sound that a transcriber of Polycarp's letter, copying
from dictation, might readily mistake the one for the other; and thus
an error creeping into an early manuscript may have led to all this
perplexity. Letters in those days could commonly be sent only by special
messengers, or friends traveling abroad; and the Philippians had made
a suggestion to Polycarp as to the best mode of keeping up their
correspondence. They had probably some co-religionists in Psyria; and
a letter sent there to one or other of them, could, at the earliest
opportunity, be forwarded. But another explanation, perhaps quite as
worthy of acceptance, may solve this mystery. Syria was the ancient name
of another island in the Aegaean Sea, and one of the Cyclades. Though
it is not so much as Psyria in the direct course between Smyrna and
Philippi, it is a place of greater celebrity and of more commercial
importance. Like Psyria, in the course of ages its name has been
contracted, and it is now known as Syra. Between it and Smyrna there has
been much intercourse from time immemorial. It has been famous since
the days of Homer, [28:1] and it was anciently the seat of a bishop,
[28:2]--an evidence that it must soon have had a Christian population.
It is at the present day the centre of an active trade; and a late
distinguished traveller has told us how, not many years ago, in an
afternoon, he and his party "left Syra, and next morning anchored
in front of the town of Smyrna." [28:3] Syria is not, as has been
intimated, in the direct route to Philippi; but the shortest way is not
always either the best or the most convenient. At present this place is
the principal port of the Greek archipelago; [29:1] and probably, in the
days of Polycarp, vessels were continually leaving its harbour for towns
on the opposite coasts of the Aegaean. A Christian merchant resident
in Syria would thus have facilities for sending letters left with him
either to Smyrna or Philippi. Ignatius or his friends may have heard of
an offer from such a quarter to take charge of their correspondence,
and may have accordingly made the suggestion noticed at the close of
Polycarp's letter. As the island of Syria was well known to them all,
the Smyrnaeans could not have misunderstood the intimation.
This explanation throws light on another part of this postscript which
has long been embarrassing to many readers. After adverting to the
request of Ignatius and the Philippians relative to the conveyance of
the letters, Polycarp adds, "which request I will attend to if I get a
fit opportunity, either personally, or by one whom I shall depute to
act likewise on your behalf." [29:2] According to the current
interpretation, Polycarp here suggests the probability of a personal
visit to the eastern capital, if he could find no one else to undertake
the service. The occasion evidently called for no such piece of
self-sacrifice on the part of this apostolic Father. The Church of
Antioch, after the removal of its pastor Ignatius, was, we are assured,
delivered from farther trouble, and was now at peace. [30:1] The
presence of the minister of Smyrna there was utterly unnecessary; [30:2]
the place was very far distant; and why then should he be called on to
undertake a wearisome and expensive journey to Antioch and back again?
Polycarp admits that his visit was not essential, and that a messenger
might do all that was required quite as well. But if by Syria we
understand one of the Sporades or Cyclades, we are furnished with a
ready solution of this enigma. The little island of Psyria was distant
from Smyrna only a few hours' sail; and as it was perhaps the residence
of some of his co-religionists, Polycarp might soon require to repair
to it in the discharge of his ecclesiastical duties. He could then take
along with him, so far, the letters intended for Philippi. Or if by
Syria we here understand the little island anciently so called, near
the centre of the Cyclades, the explanation is equally satisfactory. The
letter of Polycarp was written, not as Dr. Lightfoot contends, in A.D.
107 but, as we have seen, about A.D. 161, when, as the whole strain of
the Epistle indicates, he was far advanced in life. There is reason to
believe that about this very juncture he was contemplating a journey to
Rome, that he might have a personal conference with its chief pastor,
Anicetus. His appearance in the seat of Empire on that occasion created
a great sensation, and seems to have produced very important results.
If he now went there, any one who looks at the map may see that he must
pass Syria on the way. He could thus take the opportunity of leaving
there any letters for Philippi of which he might be the bearer. At a
subsequent stage of our discussion, this visit of Polycarp to Rome must
again occupy our attention.
The facts brought under the notice of the reader in this chapter may
help him to understand how it has happened that so many have been
befooled by the claims of these Ignatian Epistles. A mistake as to
two of the names mentioned in the letter of Polycarp, created, as will
subsequently appear, by the crafty contrivance of a manufacturer
of spurious documents, has led to a vast amount of blundering and
misapprehension. Ignatius, a man of Philippi, has been supposed to be
Ignatius, the pastor of Antioch; and Syria, the eastern province of the
Roman Empire, has been confounded with Psyria or Syria--either of these
names representing an island in the Aegean Sea not far from Smyrna.
Ignatius, the confessor of Philippi, when in bonds wrote, as we find,
a number of letters which were deemed worthy of preservation, but which
have long since perished; and some time afterwards an adroit forger,
with a view to the advancement of a favourite ecclesiastical system,
concocted a series of letters which he fathered upon Ignatius of
Antioch. In an uncritical age the cheat succeeded; the letters were
quite to the taste of many readers; and ever since they have been the
delight of High Churchmen. Popes and Protestant prelates alike have
perused them with devout enthusiasm; and no wonder that Archbishop Laud,
Bishop Jeremy Taylor, Bishop Hall, and Archbishop Wake, have quoted
Ignatius with applause. The letters ascribed to him are the title-deeds
of their order. Even the worthy Bishop of Durham, who has never
permitted himself to doubt that we possess in some form the letters of
the pastor of Antioch, has been the victim of his own credulity; and has
been striving "off and on" for "nearly thirty years" to establish the
credit of Epistles which teach, in the most barefaced language the
gospel of sacerdotal pretension and passive obedience.