might mean equally well, 'those who _were_ with him,' and those who
_are_ with him.' At least I cannot attach any other meaning to his
reply, in which he retorts upon me my own words used elsewhere, and
speaks of my argument as being wrecked upon this rock of grammar.'
[112:2] If so, I can only refer him to Thucydides or any Greek
historian, where he will find scores of similar instances. I need hardly
say that the expression itself is quite neutral as regards time, meaning
nothing more than 'his companions,' and that the tense must be supplied
according to the context or the known circumstances of the case. But I
am not sorry that our author has fallen into this error, for it has led
me to investigate the usage of Polycarp and his translator, and has thus
elicited the following facts:--(1) Unless he departed from his ordinary
usage, Polycarp would have employed the short expression [Greek: hoi sun
autô] or [Greek: hoi met' autou] in such a case. Thus he has [Greek: ou
sun autô] in the opening paragraph, and [Greek: tois ex humôn] in c. 9,
with other similar distances. (2) The translator, if he had the words
[Greek: tois sun autô] before him, would almost certainly supply the
substantive verb, as he has done in the opening, 'qui cum eo _sunt_
presbyteri;' in c. 3, 'illis qui tunc _erant_ hominibus,' and 'quae
_est_ in Deo;' in c. 9, 'qui ex vobis _sunt_;' and probably also in c.
12, 'qui _sunt_ sub coelo' (the Greek is wanting in this last passage).
(3) The translator, in supplying the verb, was as likely as not to give
the wrong tense. In fact, in the only other passage in the Epistle where
it was possible to make a mistake, he has gone wrong on this very point;
he has translated [Greek: hên kai eidete ... en allois tois ex humôn]
mechanically by a present tense, 'quam et vidistis ... in aliis qui ex
vobis _sunt_,' though the persons are mentioned in connection with St
Ignatius and St Paul, and though it is distinctly stated immediately
afterwards that they _all_ were dead, having, as we may infer from the
context, ended their life by martyrdom. In fact, he has made the very
same blunder which I ascribe to him here.
This objection therefore may be set aside for ever. But the notices
which I have been considering suggest another reflection. Is the
historical position which the writer of this letter takes up at all like
the invention of a forger? Would he have thought of placing himself at
the moment of time when Ignatius is supposed to have been martyred, but
when the report of the circumstances had not yet reached Smyrna? If he
had chosen this moment, would he not have made it clear, instead of
leaving his readers to infer it by piecing together notices which are
scattered through the Epistle--notices moreover, which, though entirely
consistent with each other, are so far from obvious that his translator
has been led astray by them, and that modern critics have woven out of
them these entanglements which it has taken me so much time to unravel?
3. But our author proceeds:--
Moreover, although thus spoken of as alive, the writer already
knows of his Epistles, and refers, in the plural, to those written
by him 'to us, and all the rest which we have by us.' The reference
here, it will be observed, is not only to the Epistles to the
Smyrnæans and to Polycarp himself, but to other spurious epistles
which are not included in the Syriac version.
I have already shown that Ignatius is not spoken of as alive; but, if he
had been alive, I do not see why Polycarp should not have known of his
Epistles, seeing that of the seven Vossian letters four claim to have
been written from Smyrna, when the saint was in some sense Polycarp's
guest, and two to have been written to Smyrna. Therefore of the seven
Epistles, supposing them to be genuine, Polycarp would almost
necessarily have been acquainted with six.
By the 'other spurious Epistles,' which the Epistle of Polycarp is
supposed to recognize, I presume that our author means the four of the
Vossian collection, which have no place in the Syriac. If so, I would
reply that, supposing the three Syriac Epistles to represent the only
genuine letters _extant_, these Epistles themselves bear testimony to
the fact that Ignatius wrote several others besides; for in one passage
in these Syriac Epistles (_Rom._ 4) the martyr says, 'I write to _all
the Churches_ and charge _all men_.' And again, when Polycarp writes,
[Greek: tas epistolas Ignatious tas pemphtheisas hêmin hup' autou] it is
sufficient to advert to the fact that, like the Latin _epistolæ_, the
plural [Greek: epistolai] is frequently used convertibly with the
singular [Greek: epistolê] for a single letter [114:1], and indeed
appears to be so used in an earlier passage by Polycarp himself of
St Paul's Epistle to the Philippians [114:2]; so that the notice is
satisfied by the single Epistle to Polycarp which is included in the
Syriac letters, and does not necessarily imply also the Epistle to the
Smyrnæans which has no place there. But of this passage generally I
would say, that though it may be a question whether the language does
not favour the genuineness of the Vossian letters, as against the
Curetonian, it cannot be taken to impugn the genuineness of the Epistle
of Polycarp itself, authenticated, as this Epistle is, by Irenæus, and
exhibiting, as we have seen, every mark of genuineness in itself.
4. Our author then continues:--
Dallæus pointed out long ago, that ch. xiii abruptly interrupts
the conclusion of the Epistle.
In what sense this chapter can be said to interrupt the conclusion it is
difficult to say. It occupies exactly the place which would naturally be
assigned to such personal matters; for it follows upon the main purport
of the letter, while it immediately precedes the recommendation of the
bearer and the final salutation. On the same showing the conclusion of
the greater number of St Paul's Epistles is 'abruptly interrupted.'
5. The next argument is of another kind:--
The writer vehemently denounces, as already widely spread, the
Gnostic heresy and other forms of false doctrine which did not
exist until the time of Marcion, to whom and to whose followers he
refers in unmistakable terms. An expression is used in ch. vii in
speaking of these heretics, which Polycarp is reported by Irenæus
to have actually applied to Marcion in person, during his stay in
Rome about A.D. 160. He is said to have called Marcion 'the
first-born of Satan,' ([Greek: prôtotokos tou Satana]), and the
same term is employed in this Epistle with regard to every one who
holds such false doctrines. The development of these heresies,
therefore, implies a date for the composition of the Epistle, at
earliest, after the middle of the second century, a date which is
further confirmed by other circumstances.
I will take the latter part of this statement first, correcting however
one or two errors of detail. M. Waddington's investigations, to which I
have already alluded [115:1], oblige us to place Polycarp's visit to
Rome some few years before 160, since his death is fixed at A.D. 155 or
156. Again, Irenæus does not state that the interview between Polycarp
and Marcion took place at Rome. It may have taken place there, but it
may have occurred at an earlier date in Asia Minor, of which region
Marcion was a native [115:2]. These however are not very important
matters. The point of the indictment lies in the fact that about A.D.
140, earlier or later, Polycarp is reported to have applied the
expression 'first-born of Satan' to Marcion, while in the Epistle,
purporting to have been written many years before, he appears as using
this same expression of other Gnostic teachers. This argument is a good
illustration of the reasons which satisfy even men like Lipsius and
Hilgenfeld. To any ordinary judicial mind, I imagine, this coincidence,
so far as it goes, would appear to point to Polycarp as the author of
the Epistle; for the two facts come to us on independent authority--the
one from oral tradition through Irenæus, the other in a written
document older than Irenæus. Or, if the one statement arose out of the
other, the converse relation of that which this hypothesis assumes is
much more probable. Irenæus, as he tells us in the context, was
acquainted with the Epistle, and it is quite possible that in repeating
the story of Polycarp's interview with Marcion he inadvertently imported
into it the expression which he had read in the Epistle. But the
independence of the two is far more probable. As a fact, men do repeat
the same expressions again and again, and this throughout long periods
of their lives. Such forms of speech arise out of their idiosyncrasies,
and so become part of them. This is a matter of common experience, and
in the case of Polycarp we happen to be informed incidentally that he
had a habit of repeating favourite expressions. Irenæus, in a passage
already quoted, mentions his exclamation, 'O good God,' as one of these
[116:1].
Our author however declares that the passage in the Epistle which
contains this expression is directly aimed at Marcion and his followers;
and, inasmuch as Marcion can hardly have promulgated his heresy before
A.D. 130-140 at the earliest, this fact, if it be a fact, condemns as
spurious a work which professes to have been written some years before.
But is there anything really characteristic of Marcion in the
description? Our author does not explain himself, nor can I find
anything which really justifies the statement in the writers to whom I
am referred in his footnote. I turn therefore to the words themselves--
For every one who doth not confess that Jesus Christ has come in
the flesh, is antichrist; and whosoever doth not confess the
testimony of the cross, is of the devil; and whosoever perverteth
the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that
there is neither resurrection nor judgment, this man is a
first-born of Satan [116:2].
To illustrate the relation of these denunciations to Marcionite
doctrine, I will suppose a parallel. I take up a book written by a
Nonconformist, and I find in it an attack (I am not concerned with the
truth or falsehood of the opinions attacked) on the doctrines of
episcopal succession, of sacramental grace, of baptismal regeneration,
and the like. It is wholly silent about claims to Papal domination,
about infallibility, about purgatory and indulgences, about the worship
of the Virgin or of the Saints. Am I justified in concluding that the
writer is 'referring in unmistakable terms' to the Church of Rome,
because the Church of Rome, in common with the majority of Churches,
holds the doctrines attacked? Would not any reasonable man draw the very
opposite inference, and conclude that the writer cannot mean the Church
of Rome, because there is absolute silence about the distinctive tenets
of that Church?
So it is here. Marcion, in common with almost all Gnostic sects, held
some views which are here attacked. But Marcion had also doctrines of
his own, sharp, trenchant, and startling. Marcion taught that the God of
the New Testament was a distinct being from the God of the Old, whom he
identified with the God of Nature; that these two Gods were not only
distinct but antagonistic; that there was an irreconcilable, internecine
feud between them; and that Jesus Christ came from the good God to
rescue men from the God of Nature and of the Jews. This was the head and
front of his offending; and consequently a common charge against him
with orthodox writers is that he 'blasphemes God.' [117:1] Of this there
is not a hint in Polycarp's denunciation. Again, Marcion rejected the
authority of the Twelve, denouncing them as false Apostles, and he
confined his Canon to St Paul's Epistles and to a Pauline Gospel. Again,
Marcion prohibited marriage, and even refused to baptize married
persons. On these points also Polycarp is silent.
But indeed the case against this hypothesis is much stronger than would
appear from the illustration which I have used. Not only is there
nothing specially characteristic of Marcion in the heresy or heresies
denounced by Polycarp, not only were the doctrines condemned held by
divers other teachers besides, but some of the charges are quite
inapplicable to him. The passage in question denounces three forms of
heretical teaching, which may or may not have been combined in one sect.
Of these the first, 'Whosoever doth not confess that Jesus Christ has
come in the flesh,' is capable of many interpretations. It way refer,
for instance, to the separationism of Cerinthus, who maintained that the
spiritual Being Christ descended on the man Jesus after the baptism, and
left Him before the crucifixion, so that, while Jesus suffered, Christ
remained impassible [118:1]; or it may describe the pure docetism, which
maintained that our Lord's body was a mere phantom body, so that His
birth and life and death alike were only apparent, and not real [118:2];
or it may have some reference different from either. I cannot myself
doubt that the expression is borrowed from the First Epistle of St John,
and there it seems to refer to Cerinthus, the contemporary of the
Apostle [118:3]; but Polycarp may have used it with a much wider
reference. Under any circumstances, though it would no doubt apply to
Marcion, who held strong docetic views, it would apply to almost every
sect of Gnostics besides. The same may be said of the second position
attacked, 'Whosoever doth not confess the testimony of the cross,' which
might include not only divers Gnostic sects, but many others as well.
But the case is wholly different with the third, 'Whosoever perverteth
the oracles of the Lord to (serve) his own lusts, and saith that there
is neither resurrection nor judgment.' To this type of error, and this
only, the description 'first-born of Satan' is applied in the text, and
of this I venture to say that it is altogether inapplicable to Marcion.
No doubt Marcion, like every other heretical teacher of the second
century, or indeed of any century, did 'pervert the oracles of the Lord'
by his tortuous interpretations; but he did not pervert them 'to his own
lusts.' The high moral character of Marcion was unimpeachable, and is
recognized by the orthodox writers of the second century; the worst
charge which they bring against him is disappointed ambition. He was an
ascetic of the most uncompromising and rigorous type. I cannot but
regard it as a significant fact that when Scholten wishes to fasten this
denunciation on Marcion, he stops short at 'pervert the oracles of the
Lord,' and takes no account of the concluding words 'to his own lusts,'
though these contain the very sting of the accusation [119:1]. Obviously
the allusion here is to that antinomian license which many early Gnostic
teachers managed to extract from the spiritual teaching of the Gospel.
We find germs of this immoral doctrine a full half century before the
professed date of Polycarp's Epistle, in the incipient Gnosticism which
St Paul rebukes at Corinth [119:2]. We have still clearer indications of
it in the Pastoral Epistles; and when we reach the epoch of the
Apocalypse, which our author himself places somewhere in the year 68 or
69, the evil is almost full blown [119:3]. This interpretation becomes
more evident when we consider the expression in the light of the
accompanying clause, where the same persons are described as saying that
there was 'no resurrection nor judgment.' This can hardly mean anything
else than that they denied the doctrine of a future retribution, and so
broke loose from the moral restraints imposed by fear of consequences.
Here again, they had their forerunners in those licentious speculators
belonging to the Christian community at Corinth who maintained that
'there is no resurrection of the dead,' [120:1] and whose Epicurean
lives were a logical consequence of their Epicurean doctrine. And here,
too, the Pastoral Epistles supply a pertinent illustration. If we are at
a loss to conceive how they could have extracted such a doctrine out of
'the oracles of the Lord,' the difficulty is explained by the parallel
case of Hymenæus and Philetus, who taught that 'the resurrection had
already taken place,' [120:2] or in other words, that all such terms
must be understood in a metaphorical sense as applying to the spiritual
change, the new birth or resuscitation of the believer in the present
world'. Thus everything hangs together. But such teaching is altogether
foreign to Marcion. He did indeed deny the resurrection of the flesh,
and the future body of the redeemed [120:4]. This was a necessary tenet
of all Gnostics, who held the inherent malignity of matter. In this
sense only he denied a resurrection; and he did not deny a judgment at
all. Holding, like the Catholic Christian, that men would be rewarded or
punished hereafter according to their deeds in this life, he was obliged
to recognize a judgment in some form or other. His Supreme God indeed,
whom he represented as pure beneficence, could not be a judge or an
avenger, but he got over the difficulty by assigning the work of judging
and punishing to the Demiurge [120:5]. To revert to my illustration,
this is as though our Nonconformist writer threw out a charge of
Erastianism against the anonymous body of Christians whom he was
attacking, and whom nevertheless it was sought to identify with the
Church of Rome.
6. The next argument is of a wholly different kind:--
The writer evidently assumes a position in the Church to which
Polycarp could only have attained in the latter part of his life,
and of which we first have evidence about A.D. 160, when he was
deputed to Rome for the Paschal discussion.
This argument will not appeal to Englishmen with any power, when they
remember that the ablest and most powerful Prime Minister whom
constitutional England has seen assumed the reins of government at the
early age of twenty-four. But Polycarp was not a young man at this time.
M. Waddington's investigations here again stand us in good stead. If we
take the earlier date of the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp was now in
his fortieth year at least; if the later date, he was close upon fifty.
He had been a disciple, apparently a favourite disciple, of the aged
Apostle St John. He was specially commended by Ignatius, who doubtless
had spoken of him to the Philippians. History does not point to any
person after the death of Ignatius whose reputation stood nearly so high
among his contemporaries. So far as any inference can be drawn from
silence, he was now the one prominent man in the Church. What wonder
then that the Philippians should have asked him to write to them? To
this request, I suppose, our author refers when he speaks of the writer
'assuming a position in the Church;' for there is nothing else to
justify it. On his own part Polycarp writes with singular modesty. He
associates his presbyters with himself in the opening address; he says
that he should not have ventured to write as he does, if he had not
received a request from the Philippians; he even deprecates any
assumption of superiority [121:1].
7. But our author continues:--
And throughout, the Epistle depicts the developed organization of
that period.
This argument must, I think, strike any one who has read the Epistle as
surprising. There is, as I have said already, no reference to episcopacy
from beginning to end [122:1]; and in this respect it presents the
strongest contrast to writings of the age of Irenæus, to which it is
here supposed to belong. Irenæus and his contemporaries are so familiar
with episcopacy as a traditional institution, that they are not aware of
any period when it was not universal; and more especially when they are
dealing with heretics, they appeal to the episcopate as the depositary
of the orthodox and Apostolic tradition in matters of doctrine and
practice. The absence of all such language in Polycarp's Epistle is a
strong testimony to its early date.
8. Lastly, another argument is alleged:--
Hilgenfeld has pointed out another indication of the same date, in
the injunction 'Pray for the kings' (Orate pro regibus), which, in
1 Peter ii. 17, is 'Honour the king' ([Greek: ton basilea timate]),
which accords with the period after Antoninus Pius had elevated
Marcus Aurelius to joint sovereignty (A.D. 147), or better still,
with that in which Marcus Aurelius appointed Lucius Verus his
colleague, A.D. 161.
Here we have only to ask why _Orate pro regibus_ should be translated
'Pray for _the_ kings,' rather than 'Pray for kings,' and the ghost of a
divided sovereignty vanishes before the spell. There is no reason
whatever for supposing that the expression has anything more than a
general reference. Even if the words had stood in the original [Greek:
huper tôn basileôn] and not [Greek: huper basileôn], the presence of the
article would not, according to ordinary Greek usage, necessarily limit
the reference to any particular sovereigns. But there is very good
reason for believing that the definite article had no place in the
original. The writer of this Epistle elsewhere shows acquaintance with
the First Epistle to Timothy. Thus in one place (§ 4), he combines two
passages which occur in close proximity in that Epistle; 'The love of
money is the source of all troubles (1 Tim. vi. 10): knowing therefore
that we brought nothing into the world, neither are we able to carry
anything out (1 Tim. vi. 7), let us arm ourselves' etc. Hence it becomes
highly probable that he has derived this injunction also from the same
Epistle; 'I exhort first of all, that supplications, prayers,
intercessions, thanksgivings, be made for all men; for kings, and for
all that are in authority' (ii. 2) [123:1], where it is [Greek: huper
basileôn]. After his manner, Polycarp combines this with other
expressions that he finds in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings
(Ephes. vi. 18, Matt. v. 44, Phil. iii. 18), and gives the widest
possible range to his injunction; 'Pray for all the saints; pray also
for kings and potentates and princes, and for them that persecute and
hate you, and for the enemies of the cross, etc.' We may therefore bid
farewell to Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus.
Our author at the outset speaks of 'some critics who affirm the
authenticity of the Epistle attributed to him [Polycarp], but who
certainly do not justify their conclusion by any arguments nor attempt
to refute adverse reasons.' He himself passes over in silence all
answers which have been given to the objections alleged by him.
Doubtless he considered them unworthy of notice. I have endeavoured to
supply this lacuna in his work; and the reader will judge for himself on
which side the weight of argument lies.
The author of _Supernatural Religion_ in his Reply, which appeared in
the January number of the _Fortnightly Review_, pointed out two
inaccuracies in my first article. In adverting to his silence respecting
the occurrence of the Logos in the Apocalypse [123:2], I ought to have
confined my remark to the portion of his work in which he is contrasting
the doctrinal teaching of this book with that of the Apocalypse, where
especially some mention of it was to be expected. He has elsewhere
alluded, as his references show, to the occurrence of the term in the
Apocalypse. The other point relates to the passage in which he charges
Dr Westcott with insinuating in an underhand way what he knew not to be
true respecting Basilides. While commenting on his omission of Dr
Westcott's inverted commas in the extract which I gave [124:1], I
overlooked the fact that he had just before quoted Dr Westcott's text
correctly, as it stands in Dr Westcott's book. Though I find it still
more difficult to understand how he could have brought this most
unwarrantable charge when the fact of Dr Westcott's inverted commas was
distinctly before him, I am not the less bound to plead guilty of an
oversight, which I think I can explain to myself but which I shall not
attempt to excuse, and to accept the retort of looseness, which he
throws back upon me.
For the rest, I could not desire a more complete vindication of my
criticisms than that which is furnished by the author's reply.