THE DATE OF THE MARTYRDOM OF POLYCARP.
To many it may appear that there can be no connection between the date
of the martyrdom of Polycarp and the claims of the Ignatian Epistles.
All conversant with the history of this controversy must, however,
be aware that the question of chronology has entered largely into
the discussion. If we defer to the authority of the earliest and best
witnesses to whom we can appeal for guidance, it is impossible to remove
the cloud of suspicion which at once settles down on these letters.
Their advocates are aware of the chronological objection, and they have
accordingly expended immense pains in trying to prove that Eusebius,
Jerome, and other writers of the highest repute have been mistaken. In
his recent work, the Bishop of Durham has exhausted the resources of his
ability and erudition in attempting to demonstrate that the only parties
from whom we can fairly expect anything like evidence have all been
misinformed. He has secured a verdict in his favour from a number of
reviewers, who have apparently at once given way before the formidable
array of learned lore brought together in these volumes; [34:1] but,
withal, the intelligent reader who cautiously peruses and ponders the
elaborate chapter in which he deals with this question, will feel rather
mystified than enlightened by his argumentation. It may therefore be
proper to state the testimony of the ancient Christian writers, and to
describe the line of reasoning pursued by Dr. Lightfoot.
"The main source of opinion," says the bishop, "respecting the year of
Polycarp's death, among ancient and modern writers alike, has been the
_Chronicon_ of Eusebius ... After the seventh year of M. Aurelius,
he appends the notice, 'A persecution overtaking the Church, Polycarp
underwent martyrdom.' ... Eusebius is here assumed to date Polycarp's
martyrdom in the seventh year of M. Aurelius, _i.e._ A.D. 167."
[34:2] Dr. Lightfoot then proceeds to observe that "this inference is
unwarrantable," inasmuch as "the notice is not placed opposite to, but
_after this year_." He adds that it "is associated with the persecutions
in Vienne and Lyons, which we know to have happened A.D. 177." [34:3]
So far the statement of the bishop is unobjectionable, and, according
to his own showing, we might conclude that Polycarp suffered some time
after the seventh year of M. Aurelius. But this plain logical deduction
would be totally ruinous to the system of chronology which he advocates;
and he is obliged to resort to a most outlandish assumption that he may
get over the difficulty. He contends that Eusebius did not know at what
precise period these martyrdoms occurred. "We can," says the bishop,
"only infer with safety that Eusebius _supposed_ Polycarp's martyrdom to
have happened _during the reign_ of M. Aurelius." "As a matter of fact,
the Gallican persecutions took place some ten years later [than A.D.
167], and therefore, so far as this notice goes, the martyrdom of
Polycarp might have taken place _as many years earlier_." [35:1]
These extracts may give the reader some idea of the manner in which
Dr. Lightfoot proceeds to build up his chronological edifice. Eusebius
places the martyrdom of Polycarp and the martyrdoms of Vienne and
Lyons after the seventh year of M. Aurelius; and therefore, argues Dr.
Lightfoot, he did not know when they occurred! Because the martyrdoms
of Vienne and Lyons took place ten years after A.D. 167, therefore the
martyrdom at Smyrna may, for anything that the father of ecclesiastical
history could tell, have been consummated in A.D. 157! Dr. Lightfoot
himself supplies proof that such an inference is inadmissible; for he
acknowledges that, according to Eusebius, the pastor of Smyrna finished
his career in the reign of M. Aurelius. But, in A.D. 157, M. Aurelius
was not emperor. Such are the contradictions to which this writer
commits himself in attempting to change the times and the seasons.
It is quite clear that Eusebius laboured under no such uncertainty, as
Dr. Lightfoot would fondly persuade himself, relative to the date of
the martyrdom of Polycarp. He directs attention to the subject in his
_History_ as well as in his _Chronicon_, and in both his testimony is to
the same effect. In both it is alleged that Polycarp was martyred in the
reign of Marcus Aurelius. It must be remembered, too, that Eusebius was
born only about a century after the event; that from his youth he had
devoted himself to ecclesiastical studies; that he enjoyed the privilege
of access to the best theological libraries in existence in his day;
that, from his position in the Church as bishop of the metropolis of
Palestine, and as the confidential counselor of the Emperor Constantine,
he had opportunities of coming into personal contact with persons of
distinction from all countries, who must have been well acquainted with
the traditions of their respective Churches; and that he was a man of
rare prudence, intelligence, and discernment. He was certainly not a
philosophical historian, and in his great work he has omitted to notice
many things of much moment; but it must be conceded that, generally
speaking, he is an accurate recorder of facts; and, in the case before
us, he was under no temptation whatever to make a misleading statement.
We must also recollect that his testimony is corroborated by Jerome, who
lived in the same century; who, at least in two places in his writings,
reports the martyrdom; and who affirms that it occurred in the seventh
year of M. Aurelius. [37:1] Dr. Lightfoot, indeed, asserts that Jerome
"derived his knowledge from Eusebius," [37:2] and that, "though well
versed in works of Biblical exegesis, ... he was otherwise _extremely
ignorant_ of early Christian literature." [37:3] We have here unhappily
another of those rash utterances in which the Bishop of Durham indulges
throughout these volumes; for assuredly it is the very extravagance
of folly to tax Jerome with "extreme ignorance of early Christian
literature." Those who are acquainted with his writings will decline to
subscribe any such depreciatory certificate. He was undoubtedly bigoted
and narrow-minded, but he had a most capacious memory; he had travelled
in various countries; he had gathered a prodigious stock of information;
he was the best Christian scholar of his generation; he has preserved
for us the knowledge of not a few important facts which Eusebius has
not registered; and he at one time contemplated undertaking himself the
composition of an ecclesiastical history. [37:4] We cannot, therefore,
regard him as the mere copyist of the Bishop of Caesarea. "Every one
acquainted with the literature of the primitive Church," says Dr.
Döllinger, "knows that it is precisely in Jerome that we find _a more
exact knowledge of the more ancient teachers_ of the Church, and that
we are indebted to him for more information about their teaching and
writings, than to any other of the Latin Fathers." [38:1] Dr. Döllinger
is a Church historian whom even the Bishop of Durham cannot afford to
ignore,--as, in his own field of study, he has, perhaps, no peer in
existence,--and yet he here states explicitly, not certainly that Jerome
was extremely ignorant of early Christian literature, but that, in this
very department, he was specially well informed. The learned monk of
Bethlehem must have felt a deep interest in Polycarp as an apostolic
Father: he was quite capable of testing the worth of the evidence
relative to the time of the martyrdom; and his endorsement of the
statement of Eusebius must be accepted as a testimony entitled to very
grave consideration. Some succeeding writers assign even a later period
to the death of Polycarp. It is a weighty fact that no Christian author
for the first eight centuries of our era places it before the reign
of M. Aurelius. The first writer who attaches to it an earlier date
is Georgius Hamartolus, who flourished about the middle of the ninth
century. Dr. Lightfoot confesses that what he says cannot be received as
based on "any historical tradition or critical investigation." [38:2] It
is, in fact, utterly worthless.
The manner in which Dr. Lightfoot tries to meet the array of evidence
opposed to him is somewhat extraordinary. He does not attempt to
show that it is improbable in itself, or that there are any rebutting
depositions. He leaves it in its undiminished strength; but he raises
such a cloud of learned dust around it, that the reader may well lose
his head, and be unable, for a time, to see the old chronological
landmarks. [39:1] He rests his case chiefly on a statement to be found
in a postscript, of admittedly doubtful authority, appended to the
letter of the Smyrnaeans relative to the martyrdom of Polycarp. He
argues as if the authority for this statement were unimpeachable; and,
evidently regarding it as the very key of the position, he endeavours,
by means of it, to upset the chronology of Eusebius, Jerome, the
_Chronicon Paschale_, and other witnesses. As the reader peruses his
chapter on "The Date of the Martyrdom," he cannot but feel that the
evidence presented to him is bewildering, indecisive, and obscure;
and it may occur to him that the author is very like an individual who
proposes to determine the value of two or three unknown quantities from
one simple algebraic equation. His principal witness, Aristides, were he
now living and brought up in presence of a jury, would find himself
in rather an odd predicament. He is expected to settle the date of the
death of Polycarp, and yet he knows nothing either of the pastor of
Smyrna or of his tragic end. It does not appear that he had ever heard
of the worthy apostolic Father. Aristides was a rhetorician who has left
behind him certain orations, entitled _Sacred Discourses_, written in
praise of the god Aesculapius. It might be thought that such a writer
is but poorly qualified to decide a disputed question of chronology. Our
readers may have heard of Papias,--one of the early Fathers, noted
for the imbecility of his intellect. Aristides, it seems, was quite as
liable to imposition. "The credulity of a Papias," says Dr. Lightfoot,
"is more than matched by the credulity of an Aristides." [40:1] Such
is the bishop's leading witness. Aristides was an invalid and a
hypochondriac; and, in the discourses he has left behind him, he
describes the course of a long illness, with an account of his pains,
aches, purgations, dreams, and visions--interspersed, from time to time,
with what Dr. Lightfoot estimates as "valuable chronological notices!"
[40:2]
The reader may be at a loss to understand how it happens that this
eccentric character has been brought forward as a witness to the date
of the martyrdom of Polycarp. He has been introduced under the following
circumstances. In the postscript to the Smyrnaean letter--an appendage
of very doubtful authority--we are told that the martyrdom occurred
when Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia. From certain incidental
allusions made by Aristides in his discourses, the bishop labours hard
to prove that this Statius Quadratus was proconsul of Asia somewhere
about A.D. 155. The evidence is not very clear or well authenticated;
and we have reason to fear that very little reliance can be placed on
the declarations of this afflicted rhetorician. His sickness is said
to have lasted seventeen years; and it is possible that, meanwhile, his
memory as to dates may have been somewhat impaired. Dr. Lightfoot cannot
exactly tell when his sickness commenced or when it terminated. But
he has ascertained that this Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and, by
weighing probabilities as to the length of the interval which may have
elapsed before he became proconsul, he has arrived at the conclusion
that it might have amounted to twelve or thirteen years. Nothing,
however, can be more unsatisfactory than the process by which he has
reached this result. According to the usual routine, an individual
advanced to the consulate became, in a number of years afterwards, a
proconsul; and yet, as everything depended on the will of the emperor,
it was impossible to tell how long he might have to wait for the
appointment. He might obtain it in five years, or perhaps sooner, if "an
exceptionally able man;" [41:1] or he might be kept in expectancy for
eighteen or nineteen years. The proconsulship commonly terminated in a
year; but an individual might be retained in the office for five or six
years. [41:2] He might become consul a second time, and then possibly
he might again be made proconsul. Dr. Lightfoot, as we have seen, has
proved that Statius Quadratus was consul in A.D. 142; and then, by the
aid of the dreamer Aristides, he has tried to show that he probably
became proconsul of Asia about A.D. 154 or A.D. 155. His calculations
are obviously mere guesswork. Even admitting their correctness, it would
by no means follow that Polycarp was then consigned to martyrdom. The
postscript of the Smyrnaean letter is, as we have seen, justly suspected
as no part of the original document. Dr. Lightfoot himself tells us,
that it is "_generally_ treated as a later addition to the letter, and
as coming from a different hand;" [42:1] and, whilst disposed to uphold
its claims as of high authority, he admits that, when tested as to
"external evidence," the supplementary paragraphs, of which this is one,
"do not stand on the same ground" [42:2] as the rest of the Epistle. And
yet his whole chronology rests on the supposition that the name of the
proconsul is correctly given in this probably apocryphal addition to the
Smyrnaean letter. Were we even to grant that this postscript belonged
originally to the document, it would supply no conclusive evidence that
Polycarp was martyred in A.D. 155. It is far more probable that the
writer has been slightly inaccurate as to the exact designation of the
proconsul of Asia about the time of the martyrdom. [43:1] He was called
Quadratus--not perhaps _Statius_, but possibly _Ummidius Quadratus_.
[43:2] There is nothing more common among ourselves than to make such
a mistake as to a name. How often may we find John put for James, or
Robert for Andrew? Quadratus was a patrician name, well known all
over the empire; and if Statius Quadratus had, not long before,
been proconsul of Asia, it is quite possible that the writer of this
postscript may have taken it for granted that the proconsul about the
time of Polycarp's death was the same individual. The author, whoever
he may have been, was probably not very well acquainted with these
Roman dignitaries, and may thus have readily fallen into the error. Dr.
Lightfoot has himself recorded a case in which a similar mistake has
been made--not in an ordinary communication such its this, but in an
Imperial ordinance. In a Rescript of the Emperor Hadrian, _Licinius_
Granianus, the proconsul, is styled _Serenus_ Granianus. [43:3] If such
a blunder could be perpetrated in an official State document, need
we wonder if the penman of the postscript of the Smyrnaean letter has
written Statius Quadratus for Ummidius Quadratus? And yet, if we admit
this very likely oversight, the whole chronological edifice which the
Bishop of Durham has been at such vast pains to construct, vanishes
like the dreams and visions of his leading witness, the hypochondriac
Aristides. [44:1]
Archbishop Ussher and others, who have carefully investigated the
subject, have placed in A.D. 169 the martyrdom of Polycarp. The
following reasons may be assigned why this date is decidedly preferable
to that contended for by Dr. Lightfoot.
1. All the surrounding circumstances point to the reign of Marcus
Aurelius as the date of the martyrdom. Eusebius has preserved an edict,
said to have been issued by Antoninus Pius, in which he announces
that he had written to the governors of provinces "not to trouble the
Christians at all, unless they appeared to make attempts against the
Roman government." [44:2] Doubts--it may be, well founded--have been
entertained as to the genuineness of this ordinance; but it has been
pretty generally acknowledged that it fairly indicates the policy of
Antoninus Pius. "Though certainly spurious," says Dr. Lightfoot, "it
represents the conception of him entertained by Christians in the
generations next succeeding his own." [45:1] In his reign, the disciples
of our Lord, according to the declarations of their own apologists, were
treated with special indulgence. Melito, for example, who wrote not
long after the middle of the second century, bears this testimony.
Capitolinus, an author who flourished about the close of the third
century, reports that Antoninus Pius lived "without bloodshed, either
of citizen or foe," during his reign of twenty-two years. [45:2] Dr.
Lightfoot strives again and again to evade the force of this evidence,
and absurdly quotes the sufferings of Polycarp and his companions as
furnishing a contradiction; but he thus only takes for granted what he
has elsewhere failed to prove. He admits, at the same time, that this
case stands alone. "_The only recorded martyrdoms_," says he, "in
Proconsular Asia during his reign [that of Antoninus Pius] are those of
Polycarp and his companions." [45:3] It must, however, be obvious
that he cannot establish even this exception. We have seen that the
chronology supported by the Bishop of Durham is at variance with the
express statements of all the early Christian writers; and certain facts
mentioned in the letter of the Smyrnaeans concur to demonstrate its
inaccuracy. The description there given of the sufferings endured by
those of whom it speaks, supplies abundant evidence that the martyrdoms
must have happened in the time of Marcus Aurelius. Dr. Lightfoot himself
attests that "persecutions extended throughout this reign;" that they
were "fierce and deliberate;" and that they were "_aggravated by cruel
tortures_." [46:1] Such precisely were the barbarities reported in this
Epistle. It states that the martyrs "were so torn by lashes that the
mechanism of their flesh was visible, even as far as the inward veins
and arteries;" that, notwithstanding, they were enabled to "endure the
fire;" and that those who were finally "condemned to the wild beasts"
meanwhile "suffered fearful punishments, _being made to lie on sharp
shells, and buffeted with other forms of manifold tortures._" [46:2]
These words attest that, before the Christians were put to death,
various expedients were employed to extort from them a recantation. Such
was the mode of treatment recommended by Marcus Aurelius. In an edict
issued against those who professed the gospel by this emperor, we have
the following directions: "Let them be arrested, and unless they offer
to the gods, _let them be punished with divers tortures._" [46:3]
"Various means," says Neander, "were employed to constrain them to a
renunciation of their faith; and only in the last extremity, when
they could not be forced to submit, was the punishment of death to be
inflicted." [46:4] This, undoubtedly, was the inauguration of a new
system of persecution. In former times, the Christians who refused
to apostatize were summarily consigned to execution. Now, they were
horribly tormented in various ways, with a view to compel them to
abandon their religion. This new policy is characteristic of the
reign of Marcus Aurelius. Nothing akin to it, sanctioned by Imperial
authority, can be found in the time of any preceding emperor. Its
employment now in the case of Polycarp and his companions fixes the date
of the martyrdom to this reign.
2. We have distinct proof that the visit of Polycarp to Rome took place
_after_ the date assigned by Bishop Lightfoot to his martyrdom! Eusebius
tells us that, in the _first_ year of the reign of Antoninus Pius,
[47:1] Telesphorus of Rome died, and was succeeded in his charge by
Hyginus. [47:2] He subsequently informs us that Hyginus dying "_after
the fourth year of his office,_" was succeeded by Pius; and he then adds
that Pius dying at Rome, "in the _fifteenth_ year of his episcopate,"
was succeeded by Anicetus. [47:3] It was in the time of this chief
pastor that Polycarp paid his visit to the Imperial city. It is apparent
from the foregoing statements that Anicetus could not have entered
on his office until at least nineteen, or perhaps twenty years, after
Antoninus Pius became emperor, that is, until A.D. 157, or possibly
until A.D. 158. This, however, is two or three years after the date
assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for the martyrdom. Surely the Bishop of Durham
would not have us to believe that Polycarp reappeared in Rome two or
three years after he expired on the funeral pile; and yet it is only by
some such desperate supposition that he can make his chronology square
with the history of the apostolic Father.
It is not at all probable that Polycarp arrived in Rome immediately
after the appointment of Anicetus as chief pastor. The account of his
visit, as given by Irenaeus, rather suggests that a considerable time
must meanwhile have elapsed before he made his appearance there. It
would seem that he had been disturbed by reports which had reached him
relative to innovations with which Anicetus was identified; and that,
apprehending mischief to the whole Christian community from anything
going amiss in a Church of such importance, he was prompted, at his
advanced age, to undertake so formidable a journey, in the hope that, by
the weight of his personal influence with his brethren in the Imperial
city, he might be able to arrest the movement. It is not necessary now
to inquire more particularly what led the venerable Asiatic presbyter at
this period to travel all the way from Smyrna to the seat of empire.
It is enough for us to know, as regards the question before us, that
it took place sometime during the pastorate of Anicetus; that Polycarp
effected much good by his dealings with errorists when in Rome; and that
its chief Christian minister, by his tact and discretion, succeeded in
quieting the fears of the aged stranger. That the visit occurred long
after the date assigned by Dr. Lightfoot for his martyrdom, may now be
evident; and in a former chapter proof has been adduced to show that it
must be dated, not, as the Bishop of Durham argues, about A.D. 154, but
in A.D. 161. Neither is there any evidence whatever that Polycarp was
put to death immediately after his return to Smyrna. This supposition is
absolutely necessary to give even an appearance of plausibility to the
bishop's chronology; but he has not been able to furnish so much as a
solitary reason for its adoption.
3. We have good grounds for believing that the martyrdom of Polycarp
occurred not earlier than A.D. 169. This date fulfils better than
any other the conditions enumerated in the letter of the Smyrnaeans.
Archbishop Ussher has been at pains to show that the month and day
there mentioned precisely correspond to and verify this reckoning. It is
unnecessary here to repeat his calculations; but it is right to notice
another item spoken of in the Smyrnaean Epistle, supplying an additional
confirmatory proof which the Bishop of Durham cannot well ignore. When
Polycarp was pressed to apostatize by the officials who had him in
custody, they pleaded with him as if anxious to save his life--"Why,
what harm is there in saying _Caesar is Lord_, and offering incense?"
and they urged him to "_swear by the genius of Caesar_" [50:1] These
words suggest that, at the time of this transaction, the Roman world had
only one emperor. In January A.D. 169, L. Verus died. After recording
this event in his _Imperial Fasti_, Dr. Lightfoot adds, "M. Aurelius is
now _sole emperor_." [50:2] When he is contending for A.D. 155 as the
date of the martyrdom, he lays much stress on the fact that "throughout
this Smyrnaean letter _the singular_ is used of the emperor."
"Polycarp," he says, "is urged to declare 'Caesar is Lord;' he is
bidden, and he refuses to swear by the 'genius of Caesar.'" "It is,"
he adds, "at least a matter of surprise that these forms should
be persistently used, if the event had happened _during a divided
sovereignty_." [50:3] The bishop cannot, at this stage of the
discussion, decently refuse to recognise the potency of his own
argument.
The three reasons just enumerated show conclusively that A.D. 155, for
which the Bishop of Durham contends so strenuously, cannot be accepted
as the date of the martyrdom. For some years after this, Anicetus was
not placed at the head of the Church of the Imperial city; and he must
have been for a considerable time in that position, when Polycarp paid
his visit to Rome. We have seen that the aged pastor of Smyrna suffered
in the reign of Marcus Aurelius; and that A.D. 169 is the earliest
period to which we can refer the martyrdom, inasmuch as that was the
first year in which Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor. All the reliable
chronological indications point to this as the more correct reckoning.
It has now, we believe, been demonstrated by a series of solid and
concurring testimonies, that Archbishop Ussher made no mistake when
he fixed on A.D. 169 as the proper date of Polycarp's martyrdom. The
bearing of this conclusion on the question of the Ignatian Epistles must
at once be apparent. Polycarp was eighty-six years of age at the time
of his death; and it follows that in A.D. 107,--or sixty-two years
before,--when the Ignatian letters are alleged to have been dictated, he
was only four-and-twenty. The absurdity of believing that at such an
age he wrote the Epistle to the Philippians, or that another apostolic
Father would then have addressed him in the style employed in the
Ignatian correspondence, must be plain to every reader of ordinary
intelligence. No wonder that the advocates of the genuineness of
these Epistles have called into requisition such an enormous amount of
ingenuity and erudition to pervert the chronology. Pearson, as we have
seen, spent six years in this service; and the learned Bishop of Durham
has been engaged "off and on" for nearly thirty in the same labour. At
the close of his long task he seems to have persuaded himself that he
has been quite successful; and speaking of the theory of Dr. Cureton,
he adopts a tone of triumph, and exclaims: "I venture to hope that the
discussion which follows will extinguish the last sparks of its waning
life." [51:1] It remains for the candid reader to ponder the statements
submitted to him in this chapter, and to determine how many sparks of
life now remain in the bishop's chronology.