Such are the leading facts recorded in this ancient narrative, which has, we think, been too lightly esti- mated by Tillemont. That it has been interpolated with many fabulous admixtures of a later date is clear; but we think there are some things in it which indicate that it embodies earlier and truer elements. The diffi- culty is to discover and separate these from later correc- tions. The chief ground for rejecting the narrative al- together is the supposed difficulty of reconciling them with the more trustworthy statements of Irena?us (Epis- tola ad Florinum, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v, 20), who, in his boyhood, had known, perhaps lived with Poly- carp, and of other writers. According to Irenieus (Epist. ad Victorem. Papam, apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v, 24), Polycarp had intercourse with "John and others of the apostles;" or still more expressly (Adv. Hares, iii, 3, et apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. iv, 14), he was instructed (per- haps converted, paSiiTivStic,) "by the apostles, and con- versed familiarly with many who had seen Christ; was by the apostles appointed (KaraffraBtic,) bishop of the Church at Smyrna; and always taught what he had learned from the apostles. Tertullian (De Pra>scrij)- tionibus Hcsretic, c. 32) and Jerome (De Viris Illustri- bus, c. 17) distinctly mention John as the apostle by whom Polycarp was ordained. But we question if the expressions of Irena?us, when critically examined and stripped of the rhetorical exaggeration with which his natural reverence for Polycarp has invested them, will prove more than that Polycarp had enjoyed opportuni- ties of hearing some of the apostles; and was, with their sanction, appointed bishop of the Church at Smyrna. That John was one of the apostles referred to by Ire- na?us there is not the slightest reason to doubt ; and we are disposed, with Tillemont, to regard Philip, whom Polycrates of Ephesus (apud Euseb. Hist. Eccles. v, 24) states to have ended his days in the Phrygian Hierap- olis, as another of those with whom Polycarp had inter- course. We believe that intercourse with these apos- tles, and perhaps with some other old disciples who had seen Jesus Christ, is sufficient to bear out the statements of Irenanis, and is not inconsistent with the general truth of the ancient narrative given by Bollandus. His state- ment of the ordination of Polycarp by the apostles may perhaps be reduced to the fact that John, of whom alone Tertullian (I.e.) makes mention, was among "the bish- ops of the neighboring churches," who came, according to the narrative, to the consecration of Polycarp. This circumstance enables us to fix that consecration in or before A.D. 104, the latest date assigned to the death of the venerable apostle, and which is not inconsistent with the narrative. It must be borne in mind, too, that the whole subject of the ordination of these early bishops is perplexed by ecclesiastical writers utterly neglecting the circumstance that in some of the larger churches there was in the apostolic age a plurality of bishops (comp. Phil, i, 1), not to speak of the grave and much
disputed question of the identity of bishops and presby- ters. The apostolic ordination mentioned by Irenams and Tertullian may, therefore, have taken place during the lifetime of Bucolus, and have been antecedent to the precedency which, on his death, Polycarp obtained. We are the more disposed to admit the early origin and the truth of the leading statements embodied in the narration, as the natural tendency of a forger of a later age would have been to exaggerate the opportunities of apostolic intercourse, and the sanctions of apostolic authority, which Polycarp certainly possessed.
Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna at the time when Ig- natius of Antioch passed through that city on his way to suffer death at Rome, some time between A.D. 107 and 116. Ignatius seems to have enjoyed much this intercourse with Polycarp, whom he had known, appar- ently, in former days, when they were both hearers of the apostle John (Martyr. Ignatii, c. 3). The senti- ment of esteem was reciprocated by Polycarp (Epistol. ad P/iilijip. c. 13), who collected several of the epistles of Ignatius, and sent them to the Church at Philippi, accompanied by an epistle of his own. Polycarp him- self visited Pome while Anicetus was bishop of that city, whose episcopate extended, according to Tille- mont's calculation, from A.D. 157 to 168. Ireiwus has recorded (Epistol. ad Victor, apud Euseb. //. E.v, 14) the difference of opinion of these two holy men on the time of observing Easter, and the steadfastness of Poly- carp in adhering to the custom of the Asiatic churches, derived, as they affirmed, from the apostles; as well as their mutual kindness and forbearance, notwithstanding this difference. Indeed, the character of Polycaqi ap- pears to have attracted general regard : Irenanis retained for him a feeling of deepest reverence (Epistol. ad Flo- rin, apud Euseb. //. E. v, 21) ; Jerome speaks of him (De Viris Illustr. c. 17) as "totius Asia? princeps," the most eminent man in all proconsular Asia. An anec- dote given elsewhere shows that even reputed heretics, notwithstanding his decided opposition to them, desired to possess his esteem ; and it is not improbable that the reverence excited by his character conduced to his suc- cess in restoring them to the communion of the Church. It has been conjectured that he was the angel of the Church of Smyrna to whom Jesus Christ directed the letter in the Apocalypse (ii, 8-11) ; and also that he was the bishop to whom the apostle John, according to a beautiful anecdote recorded by Clement of Alexandria (Liber " Quis Dives salcetur?" c. 42), committed the care of a young man, who, forsaking his patron, became a chief of a band of robbers, and was reconverted by the apostle; but these are mere conjectures, and of little probability.