Saint Polycarp's dialogue with the Roman Proconsul Statius Quadratus

Gloria Romanorum ^ | 11/30/16 | Florentius

[Antoninus]

Saint Polycarp was bishop of Smyrna in Asia Minor in the second century AD. A disciple of Saint John the Evangelist, Polycarp died martyr in AD 155 or 156 for refusing to renounce Christianity. His martyrdom was marked by various miraculous prodigies, but foremost among them, perhaps, is the incredible fortitude of the man--who was at least 86 at the time of his trial--and his willingness to speak the truth to power even with the threat of immediate death hanging over his head.

Here is an excerpt from the account of his martyrdom, recorded by Saint Irenaeus, in which Polycarp debates with the Roman proconsul, Statius Quadratus:

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, "Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp!" No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice.

And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, "Have respect to your old age," and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], "Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, 'Away with the Atheists.'"

But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, "Away with the Atheists."

Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ."

Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?"

And when the proconsul yet again pressed him, and said, "Swear by the fortune of Cæsar."

He answered, "Since you are vainly urgent that, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Cæsar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them."

The proconsul replied, "Persuade the people."

But Polycarp said, "To you I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honor (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. [Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1] But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.

The proconsul then said to him, "I have wild beasts at hand; to these will I cast you, unless you repent."

But he answered, "Call them then, for we are not accustomed to repent of what is good in order to adopt that which is evil; and it is well for me to be changed from what is evil to what is righteous."

But again the proconsul said to him, "I will cause you to be consumed by fire, seeing you despise the wild beasts, if you will not repent."

But Polycarp said, "You threaten me with fire which burns for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why do you tarry? Bring forth what you will."

Read the entirety of the ancient account of the martyrdom of St. Polycarp in I Am a Christian: Authentic Accounts of Christian Martyrdom and Persecution from the Ancient Sources. This book features a chronological collection of some of the best ancient sources on the Roman reaction to Christianity and the persecution of the early Church, beginning with the martyrdom of Saint Stephen and ending with the reign of the last pagan emperor, Julian the Apostate.

Several of the accounts contained in this book may be found excerpted in a much more haphazard format here, so if you enjoy reading this blog, you will appreciate this book.

[Antoninus]

February 23 is the feast day of Saint Polycarp. His dialogue with Statius Quadratus is one of the earliest transcripts of a Roman trial of a Chrisitan -- and one of the most epic.

[Antoninus]

Ping

[ebb tide]

Ping

[BenLurkin]

The proconsul replied, "Persuade the people."

This is the essence of a fundamental weakness in a judiciary. When the interpretation and enforcement of laws are influenced by forceful shifts in public opinion.

Today we see courts bending their opinions towards what judges (who are only human) sense is the impetus of mass sentiments. Egregious assaults upon life and morality are thereby justified (in their minds) by the perceived "will of the people"

And so today, we can not rely on courts to enforce or interpret laws in a manner which preserves civilized society unless and until we can "persuade the people" to turn away from debauchery and death and back to decency and life.

[Steely Tom]

I appreciate this account, but I warn that you may call forth the scorn of he who claims humility but is not humble.

[Tanniker Smith]

Been a Christian my whole life, so I will make this confession: when I read the headline, I thought this was going to be a humor piece about a Pokemon ...

Forgive me.

[Engraved-on-His-hands]

Now, the blessed Polycarp suffered martyrdom on the second day of the month Xanthicus just begun, the seventh day before the Kalends of May, on the great Sabbath, at the eighth hour. He was taken by Herod, Philip the Trallian being high priest, Statius Quadratus being proconsul, but Jesus Christ being King for ever, to whom be glory, honour, majesty, and an everlasting throne, from generation to generation. Amen.
(Martyrdom of Polycarp. xxi)

[Antoninus]

Been a Christian my whole life, so I will make this confession: when I read the headline, I thought this was going to be a humor piece about a Pokemon.

LOL. I have no idea what Polycarp has to do with Pokemon...

[Antoninus]

I appreciate this account, but I warn that you may call forth the scorn of he who claims humility but is not humble.

It doesn't matter. The martyrdom of Polycarp is an event that belongs to the ages that all Christians should commemorate. The confused ramblings of certain modern prelates...not so much.

[Steely Tom]

The martyrdom of Polycarp is an event that belongs to the ages that all Christians should commemorate. The confused ramblings of certain modern prelates...not so much.

Well said.

[Migraine]

The worst you can do to me is the best that can happen to me.

[boatbums]

But Polycarp said, "To you I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honor (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. [Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1] But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.

Wonderful how he was confirming the authority of the Sacred Scriptures centuries before any "formal declaration" determined them to be. God's word was written as "holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" (II Peter 1:21) and it has been preserved so that we ALL might know what was taught by Jesus Christ and His disciples and binding upon those who follow Him.

[Tanniker Smith]

Just sounds like it could be the name of one of them.

[Campion]

Wonderful how he was confirming the authority of the Sacred Scriptures centuries before any "formal declaration" determined them to be.

The unsettled question wasn't "the authority of the Sacred Scriptures," but which books actually composed "the Sacred Scriptures". And among those, the four Gospels and the Pauline epistles were unquestioned. It was other books, like Revelation, and books ultimately judged extracanonical, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which were at issue. Which "issue" wasn't definitively settled until the early 5th century in the West.

So don't gloat too much.

[Antoninus]

Wonderful how he was confirming the authority of the Sacred Scriptures centuries before any "formal declaration" determined them to be.

Keep in mind that Polycarp's church of Smyrna would have had a different canon of Sacred Scripture than, say, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Ephesus, Corinth or Rome. Some churches included books (as Campion pointed out) such as the Apocalypse of Saint Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, or the Protoevangelium of James. The church of Edessa even included a purported letter from Jesus himself to King Abgar.

What changed in the 4th century is that the Churches got together and decided which books were unquestionably part of the canon of Scripture, and which were not. Once decided, this canon was kept together until it was dismembered by revolutionaries in the 16th century.

[boatbums]

The unsettled question wasn't "the authority of the Sacred Scriptures," but which books actually composed "the Sacred Scriptures". And among those, the four Gospels and the Pauline epistles were unquestioned. It was other books, like Revelation, and books ultimately judged extracanonical, like the Shepherd of Hermas, which were at issue. Which "issue" wasn't definitively settled until the early 5th century in the West. So don't gloat too much.

Who's gloating??? Do you actually believe that the early Christians didn't know WHO delivered Divinely-inspired writings to them? The way some Roman Catholics put it no one can hear God's voice unless THEY tell them it is God's voice! Jesus said His sheep HEAR Him and follow Him. I read writings like the Maccabees and know that it is NOT Holy Spirit inspired. We know:

Let it, however, be clearly understood that it was not exactly apostolic authorship which in the estimation of the earliest churches, constituted a book a portion of the “canon.” Apostolic authorship was, indeed, early confounded with canonicity. It was doubt as to the apostolic authorship of Hebrews, in the West, and of James and Jude, apparently, which underlay the slowness of the inclusion of these books in the “canon” of certain churches. But from the beginning it was not so. The principle of canonicity was not apostolic authorship, but imposition by the apostles as “law.” Hence Tertullian’s name for the “canon” is “instrumentum”; and he speaks of the Old and New Instrument as we would of the Old and New Testament. That the apostles so imposed the Old Testament on the churches which they founded — as their “Instrument,” or “Law,” or “Canon” — can be denied by none. And in imposing new books on the same churches, by the same apostolical authority, they did not confine themselves to books of their own composition. It is the Gospel according to Luke, a man who was not an apostle, which Paul parallels in I Tim. v. 18 with Deuteronomy as equally “Scripture” with it in the first extant quotation of a New Testament book of as Scripture. The Gospels which constituted the first division of the New Books, — of “The Gospel and the Apostles,” — Justin tells us, were “written by the apostles and their companions.” The authority of the apostles, as by divine appointment founders of the church, was embodied in whatever books they imposed on the church as law, not merely in those they themselves had written.

The early churches, in short, received, as we receive, into their New Testament all the books historically evinced to them as given by the apostles to the churches as their code of law; and we must not mistake the historical evidences of the slow circulation and authentication of these books over the widely-extended church, for evidence of slowness of “canonization” of books by the authority or the taste of the church itself. http://www.the-highway.com/ntcanon_Warfield.html

[boatbums]

Was it the formal fourth century declaration of what writings were deemed Holy Scripture and canonical that made them so or were they Divinely-inspired regardless of that recognition? Does Almighty God need men to dictate to Him what they would and would not receive as binding and authoritative? Rather, He punished those who neglected or ignored His prophets.

Paul warned: Take note of anyone who does not obey the instructions we have given in this letter. Do not associate with him, so that he may be ashamed. (II Thess. 3:14) The Apostolic authority of these writings was intrinsic - it didn't take three centuries for them to be recognized as such.

[boatbums]

What changed in the 4th century is that the Churches got together and decided which books were unquestionably part of the canon of Scripture, and which were not. Once decided, this canon was kept together until it was dismembered by revolutionaries in the 16th century.

I know this thread began as well deserved praise for Saint Polycarp's stand for the Christian faith to the point of martyrdom - a strength we should all hope to exhibit if it ever came to that.

However, I didn't want to just leave your erroneous assertion regarding the canon unchallenged. This has been the topic of multiple threads over the years here, as you are probably aware. There are numerous references I could give you that defend the 66 book canon of universally recognized Divinely-inspired Scripture, but I suspect that nothing would change your mind about the Deuterocanonical/Apocryphal books especially since Rome has made her "infallible" declaration about them at Trent (and, yes, it was Trent when the "official" canon was finalized). Should you surprise me and want to see the evidence, I'd be more than happy to show it to you. I have asked this question on several occasions whenever this argument pops up and no Catholic has answered me so far. Maybe you might?

Since our disagreement is over 7 intertestamental period books that were attached to the Old Testament, why would the Jews - unto whom were given the "Oracles of God", per Paul - reject them as Biblical? Why did the Reformers reject them? As you may or may not know, Martin Luther wrote a German translation of the 66 book Bible IN ADDITION TO those Apocryphal books. Yes...he included them. He placed them between the Old and New Testaments (like Jerome did). Like Jerome, he said they could be useful for the edification of the church but NOT for establishing doctrines. They were seen as extra-Biblical writings (Deuterocanonical = second canon) and NOT God-breathed Scripture. That is the difference. They were not "dismembered" by the Reformers, only recognized as NOT on the same level as Divinely-inspired Holy Scripture. Again I ask, WHY would they have been rejected if they truly were from the Holy Spirit?

[Antoninus]

Does Almighty God need men to dictate to Him what they would and would not receive as binding and authoritative?

You spend an awful lot of words to try to refute what's obvious. God divinely ordained the Fathers of the Church and gave unto them the power to discern which Books belong in Sacred Scripture, and which to not. He did not give that power to a bunch of rebels who happened along 1,500 years after His resurrection and forever shattered Christian unity into 40,000 fragments.

[boatbums]

And you spend an awful lot of words IGNORING what I asked. What should be obvious is that God's word has intrinsic authority whether or not men accepted it. Scripture is holy because it is from God. This "bunch of rebels", as you call them, understood this truth far better than those who presumed to label the writings of uninspired men (who admitted they were not prophets) as from the Holy Spirit. Rome tried to position the Catholic church above the word of God and that is STILL defended. Have you ever stopped to think WHY they would want to do that?