Was Polycarp a Proto-Protestant?

Polycarp, sometime bishop of Smyrna, was an influential Christian leader in the early church. Born around AD 70, he would have been just about 30 years old at the death of the last apostle. He is an important witness to apostolic teaching because, in his words, the apostles “preached the gospel to us.”1 He went to his reward around AD 156, after suffering martyrdom for his Lord.

Polycarp is unique amongst the apostolic fathers in the way modern Christians have perceived him. Unlike Ignatius, sometime bishop of Antioch, whose letters were perceived by some Protestant reformers as too Catholic, Polycarp is revered even by the most low-church Reformed Protestants to this day. It is an interesting phenomenon.

I’ll argue that our evidence suggests that he was no less Catholic than Ignatius. What we know about Polycarp comes from a handful of sources. Fortunately, they’re early. We have one example of Polycarp’s own work, and we shall see that it tells us more than what is apparent from the text alone. We have Ignatius’s letters to Polycarp and to the church he led. We have a near-contemporaneous account of his martyrdom by his followers. And we have the testimony of Irenaeus, a man who knew Polycarp in his youth and who profited from his teachings. As we shall see, these sources paint quite a Catholic picture of this early bishop.

Let’s start with Polycarp’s letter to the Philippians, which he wrote around AD 108. I want to focus on a point that is sometimes overlooked: Polycarp was Ignatius’s dear friend and brother bishop. That observation, we will see, has dramatic implications for how we should look at Polycarp’s theology. The reason is that Polycarp tells the Philippians to stay away from false teachers and heretics. Yet Polycarp was not only in communion with Ignatius, but was friends with him in addition.

What’s our evidence for those propositions? First, Polycarp instructs the Philippians to stay away from false teachers. He tells them that “everyone who does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is antichrist.”2 He tells them “whoever does not acknowledge the testimony of the cross is of the devil.”3 And he tells them “whoever twists the sayings of the Lord to suit his own sinful desires and claims that there is neither resurrection nor judgment—well, that person is the firstborn of Satan.”4 As Irenaeus reports, Polycarp had a reputation for refusing to “even converse with mutilators of the truth.”5 When the heretic Marcion asked Polycarp, “Don’t you recognize me?” Polycarp replied, “I do indeed: I recognize the firstborn of Satan!”6 We therefore know that Polycarp was careful not to commune with false teachers.

Second, we know that Polycarp did not regard Ignatius as a false teacher because he names Ignatius as an example of Jesus’s patient endurance in the face of suffering. He reminds the Philippians that Jesus took on “our sins in his own body upon the tree” and “for our sakes he endured all things, in order that we might live in him.”7 “Let us, therefore, become imitators of his patient endurance, and if we should suffer for the sake of his name, let us glorify him.”8

Here’s the key: He urges the Philippians to “exercise unlimited endurance, like that which you saw with your own eyes not only in the blessed Ignatius … but also in others from your congregation and in Paul himself and the rest of the apostles.”9 Ignatius “did not run in vain but with faith and righteousness.”10 He was now “with the Lord, with whom [he] suffered,” for Ignatius “did not love the present world but the one who died on our behalf and was raised by God for our sakes.”11 For Polycarp, then, Ignatius’s suffering and martyrdom were, with the apostles themselves, an example of the patient endurance Polycarp thought Christians should imitate.

From this evidence, we may conclude that Polycarp did not regard Ignatius as a false teacher or heretic. And here’s the point: Polycarp was in a position to know, and did know, what Ignatius taught. The reason is that Polycarp not only had Ignatius’s letters, but ratified them and commended them to Christians:

We are sending to you the letters of Ignatius that were sent to us by him together with any others that we have in our possession, just as you requested. They are appended to this letter; you will be able to receive great benefit from them, for they deal with faith and patient endurance and every kind of spiritual growth that has to do with our Lord.12

We may infer a couple of interesting conclusions from this. First, there is no doubt whatever that Polycarp was in communion with Ignatius, who wrote his letters expressly with “love for Polycarp.”13 Second, the authenticity of Polycarp’s letter stands or falls with the authenticity of Ignatius’s letters, because Polycarp refers to them expressly. If they were later forgeries, then Polycarp’s letter would have been interpolated. Finally, assuming, as most scholars argue, that both Polycarp’s and Ignatius’s letters are authentic, then it is clear that Polycarp agreed with the teachings in Ignatius’s letters. We can therefore use the letters Polycarp commended to the Philippians as evidence of what Polycarp himself likely believed. This, in turn, is striking corroboration that Ignatius’s teachings were apostolic, or else this apostolic man, Polycarp, would not have commended them.

Should the teachings in Ignatius’s letters give any Protestants pause? Much will depend on which Protestantism we’re talking about, but what follows are some examples of what Ignatius taught in the letters Polycarp preserved and sent to the Philippians. I will leave it up to the reader to decide for himself.

• Threefold order and Monarchical Bishops:

  • “It is obvious, therefore, that we must regard the bishop as the Lord himself.”14

  • “[T]he holy presbyters likewise have not taken advantage of [your bishop’s] youthful appearance but defer to him as one who is wise in God.”15

  • “It is right, therefore, that we not just be called Christians, but that we actually be Christians, unlike some who call a man bishop but do everything without regard for him.”16

  • “Be eager to do everything in godly harmony, the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the council of the apostles and the deacons, who are especially dear to me, since they have been entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end of time. … [B]e united with the bishop and with those who lead, as an example and lesson of incorruptibility. Therefore, as the Lord did nothing without the Father, either by himself or through the apostles (for he was united with him), so you must not do anything without the bishop and the presbyters.”17

  • “Similarly, let everyone respect the deacons as Jesus Christ, just as they should respect the bishop, who is a model of the Father, and the presbyters as God’s council and as the band of the apostles. Without these no group can be called a church.”18

  • “That is, whoever does anything without the bishop and council of presbyters and deacons does not have a clean conscience.”19

  • “You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ followed the Father, and follow the council of presbyters as you would the apostles; respect the deacons as the commandment of God. Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop.”20

  • “[T]he one who does anything without the bishop’s knowledge serves the devil.”21

  • “Polycarp, bishop of the church of the Smyrneans, or rather who has God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ as his bishop: … Let nothing be done without your consent, nor do anything yourself without God’s consent, as indeed you do not.”22

• Eucharist:

  • “[G]ather together in grace … in order that you may obey the bishop and the council of presbyters with an undisturbed mind, breaking one bread, which is the medicine of immortality, the antidote we take in order not to die but to live forever in Jesus Christ.”23

  • “I take no pleasure in corruptible food or the pleasures of this life. I want the bread of God, which is the flesh of Christ who is of the seed of David; and for drink I want his blood, which is incorruptible love.”24

  • “Take care, therefore, to participate in one Eucharist (for there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup that leads to unity through his blood; there is one altar, just as there is one bishop, together with the council of presbyters and the deacons, my fellow servants), in order that whatever you do, you do in accordance with God.”25

  • “Now note well those who hold heretical opinions about the grace of Jesus Christ that came to us; note how contrary they are to the mind of God. … They abstain from the Eucharist and prayer because they refuse to acknowledge that the Eucharist is the flesh of our savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father by his goodness raised up.”26

• Sacraments, Eucharist, baptism, and marriage:

  • “Let no one do anything that has to do with the church without the bishop. Only that Eucharist which is under the authority of the bishop (or whomever he himself designates) is to be considered valid. Wherever the bishop appears, there let the congregation be; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic church. It is not permissible either to baptize or to hold a love feast without the bishop. But whatever he approves is also pleasing to God, in order that everything you do may be trustworthy and valid.”27

  • “And it is proper for men and women who marry to be united with the consent of the bishop, so that the marriage may be in accordance with the Lord and not due to lustful passions.”28

• Presidency of the Church of Rome:

  • “[T]he church beloved and enlightened through the will of the one who willed all things that exist, in accordance with faith in and love for Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the district of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and presiding over love.”29

  • “You have never envied anyone; you taught others. And my wish is that those instructions that you issue when teaching disciples will remain in force.”30

  • “I do not give you orders like Peter and Paul: they were apostles, I am a convict; they were free, but I am even now still a slave.”31

  • “Remember in your prayers the church in Syria, which has God for its shepherd in my place. Jesus Christ alone will be its bishop—as will your [= the church of Rome] love.”32

• Indefectibility of the Church of Rome

  • “[T]o those who are united in flesh and spirit to every commandment of his, who have been filled with the grace of God without wavering and filtered clear of every alien color.”33

• Contra Sola Scriptura

  • “For I heard some people say, ‘If I do not find it in the archives [= Scriptures], I do not believe it in the gospel.’ And when I said to them, ‘It is written,’ they answered me, ‘That is precisely the question.’ But for me, the ‘archives’ are Jesus Christ, the unalterable archives are his cross and death and his resurrection and the faith that comes through him; by these things I want, through your prayers, to be justified.”34

  • “For I know and believe that he was in the flesh even after the resurrection; and when he came to Peter and those with him, he said to them: ‘Take hold of me; handle me and see that I am not a disembodied demon.’ And immediately they touched him and believed, being closely united with his flesh and blood.”35

• Celibacy

  • “If anyone is able to remain chaste to the honor of the flesh of the Lord, let him so remain without boasting. If he boasts, he is lost; and if it becomes known to anyone other than the bishop, he is ruined.”36

In my view, Polycarp could not have ratified and commended Ignatius’s letters if he were a proto-Protestant. He instead looks far more Catholic.

Irenaeus is our next witness. He wrote within a few decades of Polycarp’s martyrdom. And he tells us that he knew and heard Polycarp in his youth.37

Much of the information we have about Polycarp comes from Irenaeus. He tells us relatively mundane details, such as that Polycarp “lived a long time and passed away in extreme old age.”38 But he also tells us significant details about Polycarp’s status as an apostolic father. As we saw, Polycarp himself confirmed that he heard the apostles preach the gospel. And his friend, Ignatius, tells us that Polycarp was the bishop of Smyrna. Irenaeus adds that “not only was [he] instructed by apostles and conversed with many who had seen the Lord, but also was appointed by the apostles in Asia as Bishop of Smyrna.”39

He was not alone. A little before Irenaeus wrote, the Muratorian Fragment reported that John’s “bishops … had been urging him” to write a Gospel.40 And a little after Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria confirms more directly that, upon his return to Ephesus, John “used to go, when asked, to the neighboring Gentile districts to appoint bishops, reconcile churches, or ordain someone designated by the spirit.”41

Let’s pause to consider what all this means: The apostles were going around appointing monarchical bishops before they died, which explains why, within a decade of the death of John, Ignatius could name many Asian bishops in his letters.

Perhaps more importantly, Polycarp was no believer in sola scriptura. We know that because he went around teaching Christians apostolic tradition—what we had heard from the apostles in addition to what they left for us in writing. We can infer this from Polycarp’s reputation for teaching what he heard the apostles preach to him and from the fact that the apostles did not reduce most of what they taught to writing. (“John, it is said, had used only the spoken word until he finally took to writing.”42)

Irenaeus makes the point explicit. Polycarp “continually taught the things he had learned from the apostles, the traditions of the church that alone are true.”43 Elsewhere, Irenaeus says, again, that Polycarp “reported his discussions with John and others who had seen the Lord.”44 Polycarp, says Irenaeus, “recalled their very words, what they reported about the Lord and his miracles and his teaching—things that Polycarp had heard directly from eyewitnesses.”45 Irenaeus identifies himself as an eyewitness to Polycarp’s practice: “I listened eagerly to these things at that time.”46 And he identifies corroborating sources: “These facts are confirmed by all the churches of Asia and the successors of Polycarp to this day.”47

We are lucky to have an example that illustrates Polycarp’s reputation as a defender of apostolic tradition:

In the time of Anicetus [bishop of Rome], he visited Rome and converted many among these heretics to the church of God, proclaiming that the one and only truth he had received from the apostles was that transmitted to the church. And there are those who heard him tell how John, the Lord’s disciple, went to take a bath at Ephesus, but, seeing Cerinthus inside, he rushed out of the bathhouse without bathing, crying, “Let’s get out of here lest the place fall in: Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is inside!”48

That express condemnation of Cerinthianism is not in Scripture; it strains credulity, though, that Polycarp would not have thought it authoritative as coming from the mouth of John himself. Yet it is preserved for us only in tradition. In short, there is no doubt that Polycarp considered the “discussions” he had “with John and others who had seen the Lord” as authoritative, even if not in written Scripture, because he “continually” taught Christians based on those discussions.49

We arrive now at our last source: The Martyrdom of Polycarp. The letter is the “oldest written account of a Christian martyrdom outside the New Testament.”50 Between AD 155 and 160,51 Polycarp’s followers in the church of Smyrna gave an account of the martyrdom of their bishop for the benefit of “all the communities of the holy and catholic church sojourning in every place.”52 If you have not read the account of his death, you should.

For present purposes, the Martyrdom confirms much of what we have already seen in evidence. The Smyrneans describe their leader as “the most remarkable Polycarp, who proved to be an apostolic and prophetic teacher in our own time, bishop of the catholic church in Smyrna.”53 Polycarp, then, was known, by himself, his friends, his followers, and Christians in distant lands, as a bishop who knew the apostles.

Interestingly, Polycarp’s followers revered his relics. “And so later on,” they reported, “we took up his bones, which are more valuable than precious stones and finer than refined gold, and deposited them in a suitable place.”54 They gathered there frequently:

There, when we gather together as we are able, with joy and gladness, the Lord will permit us to celebrate the birthday of his martyrdom in commemoration of those who have already fought in the contest and also for the training and preparation of those who will do so in the future.55

The primary evidence paints a picture of Polycarp that is very unlike what we’d expect if some brands of Protestantism were true. Polycarp, we learned, heard the apostles’ preaching. He was appointed by them to be the monarchical bishop of Smyrna. In that role, he went around the Roman world preaching what he heard the apostles teach. For Polycarp, these apostolic traditions were authoritative even if not preserved in written Scripture.

We also learned many of Polycarp’s beliefs from the letters of Ignatius. As we saw, Polycarp expressly ratified his friend’s letters by sending them to foreign churches, commending them for instruction. We further saw that Ignatius’s teachings were very Catholic. It is perhaps for that reason that some of the Protestant reformers suspected that Ignatius’s letters were forgeries.56

The fact that it was Protestant scholars who decisively demonstrated the authenticity of Ignatius’s letters is one of the great ironies of the history of early-church scholarship. Here is how Charles Gore, the great Protestant author of Roman Catholic Claims, put it:

[W]e cannot but congratulate ourselves that now for the third time in the history of literary controversy their genuineness has been vindicated by an English scholar. It is perhaps hardly too much to say that Dr. Lightfoot has now at last brought the controversy to an end.57

Given their genuineness, the inference is overwhelming that Polycarp believed in the apostolic origin of the threefold order of bishops, presbyters, and deacons; that he believed in the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist; that he believed that monarchical bishops had the authority over the sacraments; that he had a high view of the church of Rome; and that he rejected proto-sola scriptura. Polycarp, then, was no proto-Protestant.