Eusebius: Ecclesiastical History, Books I–X

Irenæus 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.

κακογνωμόνων

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.

ἐπιγινώσκεις, 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 Irenæus, read ἐπιγίνωσκε, 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 Irenæus, 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.

Marcus Aurelius Verus. See below, p. 390, note.

Polycarp’s martyrdom occurred in Smyrna, not during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, as Eusebius says, but during the reign of Antoninus Pius, between 154 and 156 (probably in 155). This has been proved by Waddington in his Memoire sur la Chronologie de la vie du rheteur Ælius Aristide (in Mem. de l’acad. des inscript. et belles lettres , Tom. XXVI., part II., 1867, p. 232 sq.’ see, also, his Fastes des provinces Asiatiques , 1872, p. 219 sq.), and the date is now almost universally accepted (for example, by Renan, Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Lightfoot, Harnack, &c.). But the Chron . of Eusebius seems to put the martyrdom in the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius (166–167 a.d .), and this is the date given by Jerome and others, who based their chronology upon Eusebius, and was commonly accepted until Waddington proved it false. Lightfoot, however, shows that Eusebius did not mean to assign Polycarp’s death to the seventh year of Marcus Aurelius, but that he meant only to place it in the reign of that emperor, and did not pretend to fix the year. How he made the mistake of assigning it to the wrong emperor we do not know, but knowing Eusebius’ common confusion of the various emperors that bore the name of Antonine, we are not surprised at his error at this point. For the best and most recent discussion of this whole subject, see Lightfoot’s Ignatius , I. p. 629 sq. Since Waddington published his researches, Wieseler (in his Christenverfolgungen , 1878, p. 34–87) and Keim ( Aus dem Urchristenthum , 1878, p. 92–133) have ventured to dispute his conclusions and to advocate the old date (167), but their arguments are worthless, and have been completely refuted by Lightfoot ( ibid . p. 655 sq.).

I.e. the church of Smyrna. This letter (the greater part of which Eusebius gives in this chapter) is still extant in four Greek mss ., and also in a poor Latin version which is preserved in numerous mss . The letter has been published a number of times, most recently by Zahn (in Gebhardt, Harnack, and Zahn’s Patrum Ap. opera , II. p. 132. sq.), and by Lightfoot (in his Apostolic Fathers , Part II.; St. Ignatius and St. Polycarp , p. 947 sq). Lightfoot gives the Greek text with full notes and an English translation, and to his edition the reader is referred for fuller particulars on the whole subject.

Pontus was the northeast province of Asia Minor, bordering on the Black Sea. What led Eusebius to suppose that this epistle was addressed to the church in Pontus, we do not know. The letter is addressed to the church in Philomalium, and that city was not Pontus (according to Lightfoot, ibid . II. p. 948). Valesius suggests that we should read π€ντα τόπον instead of Πόντον, but the latter reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac as well as by all the Greek mss . I am inclined to think that Eusebius may have read hastily and erroneously in the heading of the letter Πόντον instead of π€ντα τόπον, and, not knowing that Philomelium was not in Pontus, never thought that his reading was incorrect. Such careless mistakes are by no means uncommon, even in these days, and, having once written Pontus, it is easy enough to suppose that nothing would occur to call his attention to his mistake, and of course no copyist would think of making a correction.

Philomelium, according to Lightfoot ( ibid . p. 947), was an important city in Phrygia Paroreios, not far from Pisidian Antioch.

τῆς ἁγίας καθολικῆς ἐκκλησίας. The phrase “Catholic Church” occurs first in Ignatius’ Ep. ad Smyr ., chap. 8, and there the word “catholic” evidently has the common and early meaning, “universal” (see Lightfoot’s Ignatius , I. p. 398 sqq.). In later usage (so in Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, and the Muratorian Fragment) it has the meaning “orthodox,” as opposed to heretical and schismatical bodies. In the present epistle it occurs four times (§§3, 15, 39, below, and in a passage not quoted in this chapter), and at least the first three times with the later meaning, and consequently, in all probability, it has the same meaning the fourth time also. (Lightfoot, it is true, contends that it has the earlier meaning, “universal,” in the first, second and fourth cases; but in at least the first two that sense of the word produces most decided tautology, and is therefore to be rejected.) The occurrence of the word in the later sense has caused some critics to deny the genuineness of the epistle; but its genuineness is too well established to admit of doubt, and it must be granted that it is by no means impossible that a word which was used at the end of the second century (in Alexandra, in Rome, and in Carthage) with a certain meaning may have been employed in the same sense a generation earlier. On the other hand it is possible, as suggested by some, that the word “Catholic” itself is an interpolation; for it is just such a word that would most easily slip into a document, through the inadvertency of copyists, at a later time, when the phrase “Catholic Church” had become current. Lightfoot ( ibid . p. 605 sq.) maintains the genuineness of the word (taking it in its earlier sense) in all but the third instance, where he substitutes ἁγίας upon what seem to me insufficient grounds.

ἐγρ€ψαμεν, the epistolary aorist, referring, not to another epistle, but to the one which follows, the writer putting himself in thought in the position of those who are reading the letter. See Lightfoot’s note on Gal. vi. 11 , in his Commentary on that epistle.

Of Germanicus we know only what is told us in this epistle

This proconsul was Statius Quadratus, as we are told in the latter part of this epistle, in a passage which Eusebius does not quote. Upon his dates, see the discussions of the date of Polycarp’s martyrdom mentioned in note 2, above.

Compare Justin Martyr’s Apol. I. 6; Tertullian’s Apol. 10, &c.; and see chap. 7, note 20, above.

Of Quintus we know only what is told us in this epistle. It is significant that he was a Phrygian, for the Phrygians were proverbially excitable and fanatical, and it was among them that Montanism took its rise. The conduct of Polycarp, who avoided death as long as he could without dishonor, was in great contrast to this; and it is noticeable that the Smyrnæans condemn Quintus’ hasty and ill-considered action, and that Eusebius echoes their judgment (see above, p. 8).

Σαββ€του μεγ€λου . “The great Sabbath” in the Christian Church, at least from the time of Chrysostom on, was the Saturday between Good-Friday and Easter. But so far as we know, there are no examples of that use of the phrase earlier than Chrysostom’s time. Lightfoot points out that, in the present instance, it is not “ The great Sabbath” ( τὸ μέγα Σ€ββατον ), but only “ A great Sabbath”; and therefore, in the present instance, any great Sabbath might be meant,—that is, any Sabbath which coincided with a festival or other marked day in the Jewish calendar. Lightfoot gives strong reasons for assuming that the traditional day of Polycarp’s death (Feb. 23) is correct, and that the Sabbath referred to here was a great Sabbath because it coincided with the Feast of Purim (see Lightfoot, ibid. I. p. 660 sqq. and 690 sqq.).

Of Herod and Nicetes we know only what is told us in this epistle. The latter was not an uncommon name in Smyrna, as we learn from inscriptions (see Lightfoot, ibid. II. p. 958).

εἰρήναρχος (see Lightfoot, ibid. p. 955).

Compare Joshua i. 6, 7, 9 , and Deut. i. 7, 23 .

τὴν Καίσαρος τύχην . This oath was invented under Julius Cæsar, and continued under his successors. The oath was repudiated by the Christians, who regarded the “genius” of the emperor as a false God, and therefore the taking of the oath a species of idolatry. It was consequently employed very commonly by the magistrates as a test in times of persecution (cf. Tertullian, Apol. 32; Origen, Contra Cels. VIII. 65, and many other passages).

See above, chap. 14, note 5. Whether the eighty-six years are to be reckoned from Polycarp’s birth, or from the time of his conversion or baptism, we cannot tell. At the same time, inasmuch as he speaks of serving Christ, for eighty-six years, not God, I am inclined to think that he is reckoning from the time of his conversion or baptism, which may well be if we suppose him to have been baptized in early boyhood.

See Rom. xiii. 1 sq., 1 Pet. ii. 13 sq.

τιμὴν … τὴν μὴ βλ€πτουσαν ἡμᾶς . Compare Pseudo-Ignatius, ad Antioch. 11, and Mart. Ignat. Rom. 6 (in both of which are found the words ἐν οἷς ἀκίνδυνος ἡ ὑποταγή ).

The proconsul made quite a concession here. He would have been glad to have Polycarp quiet the multitude if he could. Polycarp was not reckless and foolish in refusing to make the attempt, for he knew it would fail, and he preferred to retain his dignity and not compromise himself by appearing to ask for mercy.

The Jews appear very frequently as leading spirits in the persecution of Christians. The persecution under Nero was doubtless due to their instigation (see Bk. II. chap. 25, note 4). Compare also Tertullian,