A link in the apostolic chain

Today we thank the Lord for the ministry and martyrdom of S. Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who was born (most likely) in 69 A.D., and died in 155 A.D. We ask this holy man to pray for us that we, like him, might be faithful in our witness to the Gospel of Jesus and the Faith once delivered to the saints, especially when such faithfulness entails sacrifice of one kind or another.

POLYCARP AND THE CHURCH AT SMYRNA

In his youth, Polycarp sat at the feet of the Apostle John from whom he learned the Faith. Furthermore, according to Irenaeus it was “by apostles in Asia” that he was appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, the second of the seven churches of Revelation (Revelation 2:8-11). It says in Revelation that the Lord knew their works and tribulation and poverty - although really they were rich! It goes on to predict a time of tribulation, as well as the reward of the crown of life for those who are faithful unto death.

The name Smyrna comes from the sweet smelling incense “myrrh.” The Church at Smyrna was indeed a sweet smelling sacrifice, offered completely to God, its members mercilessly fed to wild beasts or burned alive. The city came under Byzantine rule in the fourth century. This lasted until Seljuk Turks conquered it in the 11th century. Then in 1415, Smyrna became part of the Ottoman Empire. It is now the modern Turkish city of Izmir.

We know that Polycarp was regarded as a gentle, godly pastor, and a key mainstream leader within the Church of his day. Near the end of his life he travelled to Rome as spokesman of the Churches in Asia in order to discuss the proper date of Easter with Pope Anicetus. They parted friends, neither having persuaded the other, and the Pope - as a mark of deep respect - 'conceded' Polycarp the celebration of the Eucharist in Rome (Eusebius v.23-5).

DEFENDER OF THE FAITH

Polycarp vigorously defended the truly incarnational Catholic Faith against the fashionable gnostic sect of Valentinians - whose version of Christianity reminds us of many ideas we come across today! (As S. Irenaeus wrote of this sect, 'They create their own Scriptures, boasting that they possess more Gospels than there really are. Indeed, they have gone to such a degree of audacity, as to entitle their comparatively recent writing the Gospel of Truth though it agrees in nothing with the Gospels of the Apostles so that they have really no gospel which is not full of blasphemy.' - Against Heresies 3.9)

And, as if the Valentinians were not enough, Polycarp also had to defend the Faith against Marcion who denied that the God of the Old Testament was also the God of the New Testament. (In fact, many modern day Christians tend to be Marcionites in their approach to the Old Testament, a point driven home by Fr Aidan Nichols in his book on the Old Testament, 'Lovely Like Jerusalem.')

MARTYRDOM

S. Polycarp was a friend of Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch. When Ignatius was being taken under guard to Rome for his execution, he met Polycarp at Smyrna. Later, from Troas, Ignatius wrote Polycarp a letter which has survived. You can read it HERE. We also have the letter written by Polycarp to the Church at Philippi in Macedonia. It is HERE.

Polycarp was martyred, with twelve others, when he was 86 years old, during a time of persecution.

On Holy Saturday in 155 AD, he was carried before the proconsul and threatened with death in the fire if he would not renounce the Christian faith. The proconsul liked the old man and urged him, saying, 'swear, and I will release you, - Curse Christ.' Polycarp answered, 'eighty and six years have I served him, and he never once wronged me; how then shall I blaspheme my King, who has saved me?'

'When the pyre was ready, Polycarp removed his outer clothes and loosened his girdle. He even tried to take off his shoes, a thing which he never did before because the faithful used constantly to vie with one another to see who could touch his flesh first. Such was the honour in which he was held, even before his martyrdom, for the saintliness of his life. Immediately the irons with which the pyre was equipped were fastened round him, but when they tried to nail him as well, he said, “Let me be. He who gives me strength to endure the fire will also grant me to stay on the pyre unflinching even without your making sure of it with nails.’ So they did not nail him, but only tied him up.

'And so he was bound, putting his arms behind his back like a noble ram taken from a large flock for a sacrifice, a burnt offering acceptable to and made ready for God. Then he gazed up to heaven and said: “O Lord God Almighty, Father of your beloved and blessed child Jesus Christ, through whom we have received knowledge of you, God of the angels and the powers and of all creation, God of the whole race of the righteous who live in your sight; I bless you, for you have thought me worthy of this day and hour to share the cup of your Christ, as one of your martyrs, to rise again to eternal life in body and soul in the immortality of the Holy Spirit. May I be taken up today into your presence among your martyrs, as a rich and acceptable sacrifice, in the manner you have prepared and have revealed, and have now brought to fulfilment, for you are the God of truth, and in you is no deceit. And so also I praise you for all things; I bless you and glorify you through our eternal high priest in heaven, your beloved child, Jesus Christ, through whom be glory to you and to him and to the Holy Spirit, now and for the ages to come. Amen.'

(From The Letter of the Church at Smyrna on the Martyrdom of St Polycarp - translation from The Divine Office)

POLYCARP AND THE NEW TESTAMENT

Apart from the glories of his ministry and martyrdom, S. Polycarp is important as a link between the original Apostles and the Age of the Fathers. It is significant that his short Letter to the Philippians has 112 quotes and allusions to Scripture. Of these, only a dozen are from the Old Testament; the rest are from what would come to be called the New Testament. These are the New Testament books he quotes:

Matthew’s Gospel, Mark’s Gospel, Luke’s Gospel, Acts, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Hebrews, 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John.

Those who study the formation of the New Testament canon see this is an important indication that although considerable debate took place in the life of the Church on the fixing of the outer limits of the canon - a process that really took until 397 A.D. - the Apostolic writings were already in practice 'canonical' during the ministry of one who learned the Faith from the Apostles. (By the way, it is significant that Irenaeus - who had been a student of Polycarp - quotes from 21 of the 27 books of the New Testament, and seems to allude to three others.)

POLYCARP AND THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC FAITH

St Polycarp is also important as a link with those who affirm specifically 'Catholic' beliefs about the ministry and the sacraments.

We just mentioned S. Irenaeus who became Bishop of Lyons around 178 A.D. He was born around 130, only a century after the death of Jesus. When he was young there were still people around who had known the Apostles, heard them preach and studied with them, and who spoke and taught about them. Irenaeus writes:

'Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true.' (Against Heresies, III.3.4)

Irenaeus learned many things from Polycarp. He writes:

'I remember the events of that time more clearly than those of recent years. For what boys learn, growing with their mind, becomes joined with it; so that I am able to describe the very place in which the blessed Polycarp sat as he discoursed, and his goings out and his comings in, and the manner of his life, and his physical appearance, and his discourses to the people, and the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’ (1 John 1:1) Polycarp related all things in harmony with the Scriptures.

'These things being told me by the mercy of God, I listened to them attentively, noting them down, not on paper, but in my heart. And continually, through God’s grace, I recall them faithfully. And I am able to bear witness before God that if that blessed and apostolic presbyter had heard any such thing [i.e. heresy], he would have cried out, and stopped his ears, and as was his custom, would have exclaimed, O good God, unto what times have you spared me that I should endure these things? And he would have fled from the place where, sitting or standing, he had heard such words.' (Eusebius 5.20.5-7)

IRENAEUS, POLYCARP AND THE APOSTLE JOHN

The Apostle John, who outlived the rest of the Twelve, taught Polycarp, who - in turn - passed his teaching on. According to his testimony, Irenaeus received this same teaching from Polycarp, and also passed it on - an example of 'capital T tradition' being guarded by the Apostolic Succession, for there it is . . . John, Polycarp, and Irenaeus . . . the early Church’s bishops in succession.

What did Irenaeus get from Polycarp? What did he pass on? One of his key teachings was to do with the Eucharist. His clear statement on this subject was necessitated by the Gnostic heresies, all of which were dualistic, seeing spirit as good, and matter as evil, or at least incapable of goodness. Many of them denied that Jesus had a real body, and therefore denied that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Jesus. How could God's presence be in any way associated with physical things like bread and wine? So . . . here is a passage from Irenaeus’ teaching on the Eucharist, which he heard from Polycarp, who learned it from John, who received it from Jesus:

'1. When Christ visited us in His grace, He did not come to what did not belong to Him: also, by shedding His true blood for us, and exhibiting to us His true flesh in the Eucharist, He conferred upon our flesh the capacity of salvation . . .

'2. But vain in every respect are they who despise the entire dispensation of God, and disallow the salvation of the flesh, and treat with contempt its regeneration, maintaining that it is not capable of incorruption. But if this indeed does not attain salvation, then neither did the Lord redeem us with His blood, nor is the cup of the Eucharist the communion of His blood, nor the bread which we break the communion of His body. For blood can only come from veins and flesh, and whatsoever else makes up the substance of man, such as the Word of God was actually made. By His own blood he redeemed us, as also His apostle declares, “In whom we have redemption through His blood, even the remission of sins.” And as we are His members, we are also nourished by means of the creation (and He Himself grants the creation to us, for He causes His sun to rise, and sends rain when He wills). He has acknowledged the cup (which is a part of the creation) as His own blood, from which He bedews our blood; and the bread (also a part of the creation) He has established as His own body, from which He gives increase to our bodies.

'3. When, therefore, the mingled cup and the manufactured bread receives the Word of God, and the Eucharist of the blood and the body of Christ is made, from which things the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they affirm that the flesh is incapable of receiving the gift of God, which is life eternal, which [flesh] is nourished from the body and blood of the Lord, and is a member of Him? even as the blessed Paul declares in his Epistle to the Ephesians, that “we are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones.” He does not speak these words of some spiritual and invisible man, for a spirit has not bones nor flesh; but [he refers to] that dispensation [by which the Lord became] an actual man, consisting of flesh, and nerves, and bones, that [flesh] which is nourished by the cup which is His blood, and receives increase from the bread which is His body. And just as a cutting from the vine planted in the ground fructifies in its season, or as a corn of wheat falling into the earth and becoming decomposed, rises with manifold increase by the Spirit of God, who contains all things, and then, through the wisdom of God, serves for the use of men, and having received the Word of God, becomes the Eucharist, which is the body and blood of Christ; so also our bodies, being nourished by it, and deposited in the earth, and suffering decomposition there, shall rise at their appointed time, the Word of God granting them resurrection to the glory of God, even the Father, who freely gives to this mortal immortality, and to this corruptible incorruption, because the strength of God is made perfect in weakness, in order that we may never become puffed up, as if we had life from ourselves, and exalted against God, our minds becoming ungrateful; but learning by experience that we possess eternal duration from the excelling power of this Being, not from our own nature, we may neither undervalue that glory which surrounds God as He is, nor be ignorant of our own nature, but that we may know what God can effect, and what benefits man receives, and thus never wander from the true comprehension of things as they are, that is, both with regard to God and with regard to man. 

(Against Heresies, Book V Ch II)

Why am I giving you such a chunk of S. Irenaeus on this feast of S. Polycarp? I’ll tell you why. In my teenage years I made friends with people from across the spectrum of Christian traditions . . . good friends, sincere friends, some of whom did (and still do) shame me with the reality of their walk with God. Furthermore, I believe that many of those traditions have preserved aspects of the Gospel and even the Catholic Faith that have at times been overlooked by the Catholic Church. And it is obvious that the Holy Spirit still uses these traditions in different ways to bring people to know Jesus.

But at a time when I wanted to know the truth about the sacraments, I had to come to terms with the fact that to deny Catholic teaching meant accepting the Church up to 397 A.D. as being able reliably to tell me what constituted the Word of God (the canon of Scripture), and then using relatively novel (400 years old) interpretations of that Scripture to prove that the same Church was in error on just about everything else she demonstrably believed back then! For me it was clear: I could not logically accept the New Testament as the Word of God without also accepting the Real Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist, the sacrificial dimenson of the Eucharist, and the Apostolic Succession etc etc.

ANGLICANS AND THE FAITH OF THE CHURCH FATHERS 

It also became clear to me that the Anglican Tradition in its truest instinct is Catholic, for Canon 6 of the same 1571 Convocation that authorised the final form of the Thirty-nine Articles states:

'Preachers shall . . . see to it that they teach nothing in the way of a sermon, which they would have religiously held and believed by the people, save what is agreeable to the teaching of the Old or New Testament, and what the Catholic fathers and ancient bishops have collected from this selfsame doctrine . . . '

In other words, whatever else may be said about Anglican ambiguities and comprehensiveness, and the language of our formularies (and lots of things ARE said!), the intention of that Canon is quite clear: the clergy are to teach the mainstream things about the Christian Faith - including the Eucharist - that we find passed on by S. Polycarp and others in that vital succession of the Church of the Apostles and early Fathers. In our own time real 'Anglo-Catholics' can be guaranteed a fair amount of reproach for our determination still to witness to these foundational truths!  

Another small digression . . . I must give you two more quotes from the same period. Writing between 80 A.D. and 110 A.D., S. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch (and, as we have seen, a friend of S. Polycarp) calls the Blessed Sacrament:

“the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, the flesh which suffered for our sins and which the Father, in His graciousness, raised from the dead.'

(To the Smyrnaeans VII.1)

St Justin Martyr says the same kind of thing a little later on - around 150 AD (i.e. still before St Polycarp, who learned the Faith from the Apostle John, had died):

'We do not consume the eucharistic bread and wine as if it were ordinary food and drink, for we have been taught that as Jesus Christ our Saviour became a man of flesh and blood by the power of the Word of God, so also the food that our flesh and blood assimilates for its nourishment becomes the Flesh and Blood of the incarnate Jesus by the power of His own words contained in the prayer of thanksgiving.' (Apology I.66)

Summing up, then . . . Irenaeus was taught by Polycarp, who was taught by John the Apostle - John who leaned against the breast of Jesus at the Last Supper, who stood by the cross with Mary, bore witness to the Resurrection, taught about Jesus being the Bread of Life (John 6), and celebrated many Masses in which he was convinced that the bread and wine really becomes the flesh and blood of Jesus, from which we receive his life for our own flesh, and which then leads to the resurrection of our bodies.

God of all creation,

it was your gracious will

that the holy bishop Polycarp

be numbered among the companyof the martyrs;

grant through his intercession

that we may share with him

the cup of Christ’s sufferings,

and so rise again to everlasting life.

We ask this through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son,

who lives and reigns with you

in the unity of the Holy Spirit,

God for ever and ever.

Amen.

John Henry Newman preaching on the Feast of St Simon & St Jude

John Henry Newman (1801-90) along with Keble, Pusey, Froude and others, were the Tractarian fathers of the Oxford Movement, the Catholic Revival, which sought to renew the catholic heritage of the Church of England in theology and practice. Newman was received into the Roman Catholic Church in 1845, becoming a cardinal in 1879. He was beatified by Pope Benedict XVI in Birmingham in September 2010.

I know that this is a long blog post. But anyone who has tried to "edit" a Newman sermon (i.e. to work out what paragraphs to leave out for the sake of busy modern readers checking out blogs on their smart phones on the way to work!) will have sympathy with my reluctance to mess with such beautifully crafted writing. Here, then, is the great man's sermon for the Feast of St Simon and St Jude, 1830 exactly as he wrote it.

Vanity of Human Glory

Parochial and Plain Sermons, Volume 8, Sermon 12 

“The world knoweth us not, because it knew Him not.” 1 John iii. 1. 

Of St. Simon and St. Jude, the Saints whom we this day commemorate, little is known. St. Jude, indeed, still lives in the Church in his Catholic epistle; but of his history we only know that he was brother to St. James the Less, and nearly related to our Lord; and that, like St. Peter, he had been a married man. Besides his name of Jude or Judas, he is also called Thaddæus and Lebbæus in the Gospels. Of St. Simon we only know that he was called the Canaanite, or Zealot, for the words have the same meaning, belonging, before his conversion, to a certain fierce sect, who, under the idea they were doing God service, took upon themselves to execute the law upon offenders without legal authority, and without formal accusation or trial. It is said that both Apostles were at length martyred in the course of their efforts to gather together God’s elect into His fold.

Little is known of St. Simon and St. Jude; they laboured and they taught in their generation; they were gifted with miraculous powers, and by their preaching founded churches and saved souls; they travelled into the East and West, till at last they were taken away from the earth. Yet we know little of their history now. Although “honoured in their generation, and the glory of their times,” yet they “have no memorial, but are perished as though they had never been.” [Ecclus. xliv. 7, 9.] St. Jude’s Epistle, indeed, is a standing monument, yet not of his doings, but of his gifts. What he wrote leads us to conjecture indeed what he was; but of his history, we know no more than of that of St. Simon.

And hence we draw an important lesson for ourselves, which, however obvious, is continually forgotten by us in the actual business of life; viz. to do our duty without aiming at the world’s praise. Mankind knows nothing of St. Simon’s and St. Jude’s deeds and sufferings, though these were great; yet there is One who “knows their works, and labour, and patience, ... and how they bore ... and for His Name’s sake laboured, and fainted not.” [Rev. ii. 2, 3.] Their deeds are blotted out from history, but not from the Lamb’s book of life; for “blessed are they who die in Him, ... that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.” [Rev. xiv. 13.]

On this great practical rule, viz. to do what we do heartily, as unto the Lord, and not unto men, I shall now make some remarks; and in doing so, I shall be pointing out a mode in which we may follow these blessed Saints, whose lives at first sight seem to have left no pattern behind them for our imitation.

In heathen times, when men understood that they had souls, yet did not know what was the soul’s true happiness, or how it was to be gained, much was thought, and more talked, of what they called glory, fame, honour. This was natural, as a little consideration will show. For before men begin to exercise their minds, while they remain ignorant and dull, the common pleasures of sense satisfy them—eating, drinking, and making merry. They do not think of the morrow. They have no end in view, and act on no plan. But when intelligence is awakened, and they learn to feel, reflect, hope, plan, and exert themselves; then mere animal indulgences are not enough for them, and they look about for some higher pleasures, more lasting and more refined. This is the real effect of that civilization which is so much extolled; it gives men refined wishes, and sets them on gratifying them. An enlightened age is one which feels the wants of human nature. Knowledge and mental cultivation render men alive to the things around them, busy, restless; but they do no more than make men sensible of their wants; they find no remedy for them; they bring no appropriate food to the hunger they create: for it is religion alone can do this.

Now the ancient heathen whom I speak of were just in this state; having minds cultivated and refined intellectually, they felt the capabilities of man for acting on a large field, and the need of some stimulus to make him act thus. They saw that human nature was capable of great things, and they perceived that some great goods must be attainable in some way or other, though they did not well know what they were. Feelings such as these, acting upon men in the tumult of life, with their passions awake, keenly set on (what are called) political objects, and averse to those self-denying habits which conscience (if listened to) would have suggested to be the way to that unknown happiness which their heart was imagining, led them to think of what they called glory and popularity as the greatest of goods, and that to which they ought especially to aspire.

Now what exactly they wished to signify by the word “glory,” is difficult to say, for they were apt to speak of it as if it were some real thing, and that, too, which one could possess and make one’s own; yet, if we come to consider its real meaning, it plainly stands for nothing else than the praise of other men, the being admired, honoured, and feared; or, more commonly, having a celebrated name; that is, for a something external to ourselves. But whatever precise notions they wished to attach to the word, they used to talk in glowing language of the necessity of going through dangers and sufferings for glory’s sake,—labouring to benefit the world for glory,—and dying for glory.

Now when we read of poor heathens using this language, it is our duty to pity them, for it is plain enough to any sober reasoner, that nothing is so vain as to talk of this glory being a real and substantial good; for there is no better reason for my being happy because my name is celebrated, than because any thing else is celebrated which, accidentally, and for a time, is connected with myself, and called mine. My name is my own only in the case of those who use it in speaking of me; i.e. of those who happen to see and know me. But when those who never saw me talk much of my name, they do me no more good or harm than if they celebrated any thing else which I may know to be mine. They may praise a house that was once mine—that is not praising me; nor, in like manner, is it doing me any good, or honouring me, when those who never saw me use my name respectfully. It is a mere imagination, which can give no solid or lasting pleasure. There is some meaning and sense (though great wickedness) in coveting our neighbour’s house or garden, horse or ass; the unjust steward, though a bad man, at least acted wisely, i.e. according to a worldly wisdom; but those who covet honour, I mean a great name, really covet no substantial thing at all, and are not only “the most offending men alive,” inasmuch as this passion for fame may carry them on to the most atrocious crimes, but also the most foolish of men.

Now, in the ancient heathen we may blame, but we must pity this sin, because it at least evidenced in them a knowledge of a great want of human nature, and was so far the sign of a higher state of mind than that of others who did not feel any wants at all, who had no notion of any but selfish enjoyments, and were content to live and die like the brutes that perish. Their sin lay, not in being anxious for some good or other which was not before their eyes, but in not consulting their own hearts on the subject, and going the way which their conscience told them. But, I say, they were heathens,—they had no Bible, no Church; and therefore we pity them; and by their errors are reminded to look to ourselves, and see how far we are clean from their sin.

Now it is a most melancholy fact, that Christians are chargeable, for all their light, with the same foolish irrational sin. This was not at first sight to be expected. This is a peculiar case. Observe; I do not say it is wonderful that we should seek the praise of persons we know. This I can understand. We all naturally love to be respected and admired, and in due limits perhaps we may be allowed to do so; the love of praise is capable of receiving a religious discipline and character. But the surprising thing is, that we should leave the thought of present goods, whether sensual enjoyments, or the more refined pleasure which the praise of our friends brings us, yet without going on to seek the good of the next world; that we should deny ourselves, yet not deny ourselves for a reality, but for a shadow. It is natural, I say, to love to have deference and respect paid us by our acquaintance; but I am speaking of the desire of glory, that is, the praise of a vast multitude of persons we never saw, or shall see, or care about; and this, I say, is a depraved appetite, the artificial produce of a falsely enlightened intellect; as unmeaning as it is sinful, or rather more sinful, because it is so very unmeaning; excusable indeed in heathen, not only because they knew no better, but because they had no better good clearly proposed to them; but in Christians, who have the favour of God and eternal life set before them, deeply criminal, turning away, as they do, from the bread of heaven, to feed upon ashes, with a deceived and corrupted imagination.

This love of indiscriminate praise, then, is an odious, superfluous, wanton sin, and we should put it away with a manly hatred, as something irrational and degrading. Shall man, born for high ends, the servant and son of God, the redeemed of Christ, the heir of immortality, go out of his way to have his mere name praised by a vast populace, or by various people, of whom he knows nothing, and most of whom (if he saw them) he would himself be the first to condemn? It is odious; yet young persons of high minds and vigorous powers, are especially liable to be led captive by this snare of the devil. If reasoning does not convince them, let facts,—the love of glory has its peculiar condemnation in its consequences. No sin has been so productive of widespread enduring ruin among mankind: wars and conquests are the means by which men have most reckoned on securing it. A tree is known by its fruit.

These remarks apply to the love of indiscriminate praise in all its shapes. Few persons, indeed, are in a condition to be tempted by the love of glory; but all persons may be tempted to indulge in vanity, which is nothing else but the love of general admiration. A vain person is one who likes to be praised, whoever is the praiser, whether good or bad. Now consider, how few men are not in their measure vain, till they reach that period of life when by the course of nature vanity disappears? Let all Christians carefully ask themselves, whether they are not very fond, not merely of the praise of their superiors and friends—this is right,—but of that of any person, any chance-comer, about whom they know nothing. Who is not open to flattery? and if he seems not to be exposed to it, is it not that he is too shrewd or too refined to be beguiled by any but what is delicate and unostentatious? A man never considers who it is who praises him. But the most dangerous, perhaps, of all kinds of vanity is to be vain of our personal appearance; most dangerous, for such persons are ever under temptation—I may say, ever sinning. Wherever they go they carry their snare with them; and their idle love of admiration is gratified without effort by the very looks of those who gaze upon them.

Now I shall say something upon the natural and rational love of praise, and how far it may be safely indulged. As I have already said, it is natural to desire the esteem of all those with whom we have intercourse, all whom we love. Indeed, Almighty God intends us to do so. When we love a person, we cannot but wish he should love us; but he cannot love us, without also feeling respect and esteem towards us. And as to the question, from whom we should desire praise, and how far, we have this simple rule—from all who stand to us in Christ’s place. Christ Himself is our great Judge; from Him we must supremely seek praise; and as far as men are in His place, so far may we seek it from men. We may desire the praise of our parents and superiors, and the praise of good men—in a word, all whom we have a value for; but the desire of indiscriminate praise, the praise of those for whom we have no respect or regard, this is the mischief. We may desire the praise of those we have never seen, if we believe them to be good men. St. Paul not only speaks of the mutual rejoicing between himself and the Corinthians [2 Cor. i. 4.], who knew each other, but likewise returns thanks that the fame of the faith of the Romans was spread all over the Christian world [Rom. i. 8.]. And in this way we may desire the praise of good persons yet unborn—I mean the Church of God, to the end of time. St. Mary, in the hymn we daily use, returns thanks that “from henceforth all generations shall call her blessed.” [Luke i. 48.] But this feeling of hers is very different from the desire of what is called glory, posthumous fame, fame after death; as if, forsooth, it were a great thing to have one’s name familiar to the mouths of the mixed multitude of this world, of swearers, and jesters, and liars, and railers, and blasphemers, and of all those men, who even if they do not sin grossly in deed, yet use their tongues for evil, speak the words of the world, slander the Church, speak evil of dignities, propagate error, and defend sinners; a great thing truly, and much to be desired, to be honoured by that evil world which dishonours God and His Son!

One additional caution I must add, about allowing ourselves the praise of others; not only must we desire the praise of none but good men, but we must not earnestly desire to be known even by many good men. The truth is, we cannot know, really know, many persons at all, and it is always dangerous to delight in the praises of strangers, even though we believe them to be good men, and much more to seek their praises, which is a kind of ambition. And further than this, it is more agreeable to the Christian temper to be satisfied rather to know and to be known by a few, and to grow day by day in their esteem and affection, than to desire one’s name to be on the lips of many, though they profess religion, and associate us with religious objects. And it is our great privilege to have the real blessing in our power, while the fancied good alone is difficult to be gained. Few Christians can be great or can leave a name to posterity; but most Christians will, in the length of their lives, be able to secure the love and praise of one or two, who are to them the representatives of Him whom “having not seen they love,” and in whose presence, or at least in whose memory, they may comfort their heart till He come. This doubtless has been the happiness of many saints who have not even left their names behind them. It was the privilege doubtless of St. Simon and St. Jude. They, indeed, were not simply unknown to the world in their life-time, but even hated and persecuted by it. Upon them came our Saviour’s prophecy, that “men should revile them ... and say all manner of evil against them falsely for His sake.” [Matt. v. 11.] Yet in the affection the Church bore them, in the love they bore to each other, and, above all, the praise of that Saviour whom they had followed on earth, and who named them in the number of those who had continued with Him in His temptations [Luke xxii. 28-30.], and were written in heaven, they had a real glory, not as the world giveth. Who can estimate, who can imagine the deep, the wonderful, the awful joy which the approbation of Christ would impart to them? When we consider how intimately they were allowed to associate with Him, how they were witnesses of His heavenly conversation through the days of His flesh, of His acts of mercy, of His Divine words, of the grace, the tenderness, the sanctity, the majesty, the calmness, which reigned within Him; of His knowledge, His wisdom, His perfect love of God, His zeal for God’s service, His patient obedience,—and much more when they knew the dread secret of what He was before He came on earth, what He was even while on earth in presence,—to have had a smile, an encouraging word, from Him, was it not a privilege to treasure in memory beyond any thing else, a remembrance so bright that every thing else looked discoloured and dim? and would it not have amounted to a loss of reason in them to have even had the thought of seeking the praise of weak, ignorant, sinful mortals?

Let us seek this praise which cometh of God, though we shall not have that sensible experience of it which the Apostles were vouchsafed. Let us seek it, for it is to be obtained; it is given to those worthy of it. The poorest, the oldest, and most infirm among us, those who are living not merely in obscurity, but are despised and forgotten, who seem to answer no good purpose by living on, and whose death will not be felt even by their neighbours as a loss, these even may obtain our Saviour’s approving look, and receive the future greeting, “Well done, good and faithful servant.”

Go on, then, contentedly in the path of duty, seeking Christ in His house and in His ordinances, and He will be your glory at His coming. He will own you before His Father. Let the world record in history the names of heroes, statesmen, and conquerors, and reward courage, and ability, and skill, and perseverance, with its proud titles of honour. Verily, these have their reward. Your names will be written in Heaven, with those of St. Simon and St. Jude, and the other Apostles. You will have the favour of Him whose favour is life. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear Him; and He will show them His covenant.” [Ps. xxv. 14.]

What a great Hymn!

The Forerunners of Christ with Saints and Martyrs 

by Fra Angelico (1423-1424) 

(in the National Gallery, London)

Sometimes even long-ish processional hymns are not quite long enough - especially if the altar is to be incensed at the end of the procession. So, with All Saints' Day almost upon us, in case any readers are looking at ways of lengthening the hymn “For all the Saints”, here it is with the missing verses, and one for Our Lady as well! 

“For all the Saints” was written as a processional hymn by William Walsham How (1823-1897), Bishop of Wakefield, and was first published in Hymns for Saints’ Days, and Other Hymns in 1864. The verses honouring the Apostles, Evangelists and Martyrs were certainly part of the original. The one for our Lady is a later addition.

For all the Saints who from their labours rest,

Who thee by faith before the world confessed,

Thy name, O Jesu, be for ever blest.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

Thou wast their Rock, their Fortress, and their Might,

Thou, Lord, their Captain in the well-fought fight;

Thou in the darkness drear their one true  Light.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

For Ever-blessed Mary, — full of grace,

Mother of God, and Queen of all thy Saints, —

With her to thee “Magnificat” we raise.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

For the Apostles’ glorious company, —

Who, bearing forth the Cross o’er land and sea,

Shook all the mighty world, — we sing to thee,

Alleluia! Alleluia!

For the Evangelists, — by whose pure word,

Like fourfold stream, the Garden of the Lord

Is fair and fruitful, — be Thy Name adored.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

For Martyrs, — who with rapture-kindled eye

Saw the bright crown descending from the sky,

And dying, grasped it, — thee we glorify.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

O may thy soldiers, faithful, true, and bold,

Fight as the Saints who nobly fought of old,

And win, with them, the victor’s crown of gold.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

O blest communion! fellowship divine!

We feebly struggle, they in glory shine;

Yet all are one in thee, for all are thine.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

And when the strife is fierce, the warfare long,

Steals on the ear the distant triumph song,

And hearts are brave again, and arms are strong.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

The golden evening brightens in the west;

Soon, soon to faithful warriors cometh rest:

Sweet is the calm of Paradise the blest.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

But lo! there breaks a yet more glorious day;

The Saints triumphant rise in bright array:

The King of glory passes on his way.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

From earth’s wide bounds, from ocean’s farthest coast,

Through gates of pearl streams in the countless host,

Singing to Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.

Alleluia! Alleluia!

Solemnity of St Peter & St Paul

With golden splendour and with roseate hues of morn, 

O gracious Saviour, Light of light, this day adorn, 

Which brings to ransomed sinners hopes of that far home 

Where saints and angels the praise of martyrdom.   

Peter Keybearer, Paul the Teacher of mankind, 

Lights of the world and judges sent to loose and bind, 

Alike triumphant or by cross and sword-stroke found, 

In life's high senate stand with victor's laurel crowned. 

Good Shepherd, Peter, unto who the charge was given 

To close or open ways of pilgrimage to heaven, 

In sin's hard bondage held may we have grace to know 

The full remission thou wast granted to bestow. 

O noble Teacher, Paul, we trust to learn of thee 

Both earthly converse and the flight of ecstasy; 

Till from the fading truths that now we know in part 

We pass to fullness of delight for mind and heart. 

Twin olive branches, pouring oil of gladness forth, 

Your prayers shall aid us, that for all our little worth, 

Believing, hoping, loving, we for whom ye plead, 

This body dying, may attain to life indeed. 

Now to the glorious Trinity be duly paid 

Worship and honour, praise and service unafraid, 

Who in unchanging Unity, one Lord sublime, 

Hath ever lived as now and to unending time. 

Latin c 6th century Translated by Richards T.A. Lacey 1853-1931

So . . . why 153 fish?

That's the question I was asked after yesterday's sermon.

There are two main ideas:

1) IT JUST HAPPENED THAT WAY.
Father George Rutler writes: ". . . the importance consists in this: There were specifically one hundred and fifty-three fish. This happened. In a legend, there would have been a million, and the fish would have been gossamer or golden or not fish at all but sparkling stars. The fishermen never forgot the details. As architects say, God is in the details."

2) "153" IS A SYMBOLIC NUMBER. Aristotle is said to have taught that there were 153 different species of fish in the Mediterranean. I've tried without success to find the exact reference in Aristotle, but St Jerome (345-420) alludes to this teaching when commenting on Ezekiel 47:9: "Those who have written about animated nature say that there are an hundred and fifty-three kinds of fish. One of each of these kinds was caught by the Apostle, and more remained uncaught. For noble and ignoble, rich and poor, all sorts and conditions of men, are drawn out of the sea of this world to salvation." So, the story is a symbol of the apostles' ministry of evangelising ALL people . . . without "breaking the net."

It’s interesting to look at other commentaries on the passage from the patristic age. Now, the kind of interpretation of Scripture that owes more to the ingenuity of the preacher than to the text itself is not entirely lacking among the Fathers! As many readers know, I am a serious devotee of typology as a way of holding together the Old and New Testaments (remember the posts on Luke 24?) And it is also clear to me that typology is the key to understanding the evolution of the liturgy from the texts of Holy Scripture in both east and west. However, in my youth I knew a Pentecostal preacher - a godly man - whose imagination nonetheless ran right out of control when it came to biblical types and shadows and numerology. He could prove just about anything with his Bible, his imagination, and his calculator. I thought he was in a league of his own, until as a student I was introduced to some of the Fathers, who leave him for dead! Just look at these passages from St Cyril of Alexandria (c. 376-444) and St Augustine of Hippo (354-430) on the 153 fish:

First St Cyril: ". . . they put the mass of captured fish before Him Who had commanded them to be caught; and the quantity of the fish is indicated by the number 153. The number 100, to the best of my judgment, signifies the complement of the nations, for the number 100 is a very perfect number, being compounded of 10 times 10; and for this reason our Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in one place, speaks in the parable of having 100 sheep belonging to Him, signifying the complete sum of rational creatures, and in another place declares that the best ground will bring forth a hundredfold, meaning thereby the perfect fertility of the righteous soul. The number 50, on the other hand, betokens the elect remnant of the Israelites, saved by grace; for 50 is half 100, and falls short of the perfect number in amount. And by the three, reference is made to the Holy and Consubstantial Trinity, the number alone showing this; for to the glory and ceaseless praise of the Trinity the life of those who have been taken captive through faith is consecrated, and implies connexion with the Godhead. For God is in all those who believe in Him, and keeps nigh unto Him, by means of sanctification, those who have been won over by the teaching of the Gospel."

Then St Augustine: ". . . of the reason of this number we must now, with the Lord's help, give some account. For if we determine on the number that should indicate the law, what else can it be but ten? For we have absolute certainty that the Decalogue of the law, that is, those ten well-known precepts, were first written by the finger of God on two tables of stone. Deuteronomy 9:10 But the law, when it is not aided by grace, makes transgressors, and is only in the letter, on account of which the apostle specially declared, The letter kills, but the spirit gives life. 2 Corinthians 3:6 Let the spirit then be added to the letter, lest the letter kill him whom the spirit makes not alive, and let us work out the precepts of the law, not in our own strength, but by the grace of the Saviour. But when grace is added to the law, that is, the spirit to the letter, there is, in a kind of way, added to ten the number of seven. For this number, namely seven, is testified by the documents of holy writ given us for perusal, to signify the Holy Spirit. For example, sanctity or sanctification properly pertains to the Holy Spirit, whence, as the Father is a spirit, and the Son a spirit, because God is a spirit, so the Father is holy and the Son holy, yet the Spirit of both is called peculiarly by the name of the Holy Spirit. Where, then, was there the first distinct mention of sanctification in the law but on the seventh day? For God sanctified not the first day, when He made the light; nor the second, when He made the firmament; nor the third, when He separated the sea from the land, and the land brought forth grass and timber; nor the fourth, wherein the stars were created; nor the fifth, wherein were created the animals that live in the waters or fly in the air; nor the sixth, when the terrestrial living soul and man himself were created; but He sanctified the seventh day, wherein He rested from all His works. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is aptly represented by the septenary number. The prophet Isaiah likewise says, The Spirit of God shall rest on Him; and thereafter calls our attention to that Spirit in His septenary work or grace, by saying, The spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and piety; and He shall be filled with the spirit of the fear of God. Isaiah 11:2-3 And what of the Revelation? Are they not there called the seven Spirits of God, Revelation 3:1 while there is only one and the same Spirit dividing to every one severally as He will? 1 Corinthians 12:11 But the septenary operation of the one Spirit was so called by the Spirit Himself, whose own presence in the writer led to their being spoken of as the seven Spirits. Accordingly, when to the number of ten, representing the law, we add the Holy Spirit as represented by seven, we have seventeen; and when this number is used for the adding together of every several number it contains, from 1 up to itself, the sum amounts to one hundred and fifty-three. For if you add 2 to 1, you have 3 of course; if to these you add 3 and 4, the whole makes 10; and then if you add all the numbers that follow up to 17, the whole amounts to the foresaid number; that is, if to 10, which you had reached by adding all together from 1 to 4, you add 5, you have 15; to these add 6, and the result is 21; then add 7, and you have 28; to this add 8, and 9, and 10, and you get 55; to this add 11 and 12, and 13, and you have 91; and to this again add 14, 15, and 16, and it comes to 136; and then add to this the remaining number of which we have been speaking, namely, 17, and it will make up the number of fishes. But it is not on that account merely a hundred and fifty-three saints that are meant as hereafter to rise from the dead unto life eternal, but thousands of saints who have shared in the grace of the Spirit, by which grace harmony is established with the law of God, as with an adversary; so that through the life-giving Spirit the letter no longer kills, but what is commanded by the letter is fulfilled by the help of the Spirit, and if there is any deficiency it is pardoned. All therefore who are sharers in such grace are symbolized by this number, that is, are symbolically represented. This number has, besides, three times over, the number of fifty, and three in addition, with reference to the mystery of the Trinity; while, again, the number of fifty is made up by multiplying 7 by 7, with the addition of 1, for 7 times 7 make 49. And the 1 is added to show that there is one who is expressed by seven on account of His sevenfold operation; and we know that it was on the fiftieth day after our Lord's ascension that the Holy Spirit was sent, for whom the disciples were commanded to wait according to the promise."

Well, that's pretty exhausting stuff, isn't it! I included it really just to prove that I wasn't exaggerating.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

My personal view is that Fr Rutler is right . . . i.e. that the passage clearly smacks of eyewitness testimony, while at the same time the number 153, coinciding neatly with zoological theories of the ancients, enables the incident to become a great symbol of the universality of the apostles' ministry, just before the Lord renews the vocation of Peter.