n, is a true witness of the
tradition of the Apostles [101:1].

I have given these important extracts at length because they speak for
themselves. If I mistake not, they will be more convincing than many
arguments. It is impossible to doubt the sincerity of Irenaeus, when he
thus explicitly and repeatedly maintains that the doctrines which he
holds and teaches are the same which Polycarp had held and taught before
him. On the other hand, a school of critics which has arisen in the
present generation maintains that Irenaeus was mistaken from beginning
to end; that, instead of this continuity in the teaching and history of
the Church, there had been a violent dislocation; that St John, as an
Apostle of the Circumcision, must have had a deep-rooted aversion to the
doctrine and work of St Paul; and that Polycarp, as a disciple of St
John, must have shared that aversion, and cannot therefore have
recognized the authority of the Apostle of the Gentiles.

It is difficult to believe that those who hold this theory have
seriously faced the historical difficulties which it involves, or have
attempted to realize any combination of circumstances by which this
revolution could have been brought about in such a manner as to escape
the notice of the next succeeding generations. I shall probably have
occasion hereafter to speak of the solidarity of the Church at this
epoch. At present it is sufficient to say that the direct personal
testimony of Irenaeus respecting Polycarp is by no means the only, or
even the greatest, impediment to this theory. He constantly appeals to
the Asiatic elders, the disciples and followers of the Apostles, in
confirmation of his statement. Among the Christian teachers of
proconsular Asia who immediately succeeded Polycarp, are two famous
names, Melito of Sardis and Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis. They
must already have reached middle life before Polycarp's martyrdom. They
were not merely practical workers, but voluminous writers also. The
lists of their works handed down to us comprise the widest range of
topics; they handle questions of Christian ethics, of Scriptural
interpretation, of controversial divinity, of ecclesiastical order, of
theological metaphysics. Was there then any possibility of a mistake
here? To us the history of the Church during the second century is
obscure, because all this voluminous literature, except a few meagre
fragments, has been blotted out. But to the contemporaries