apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

478 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
geschichte (1874) in. p. 532 sq.
Keim has further pressed his attack in later works;
Aus dem Urchristenthum (1878) p. 182 sq, Rom u. das Christenthuni (1881) p. 553 sq.
The document has been assailed likewise by Aube Persecutions de VEglise (1875)
p. 261 sq, and Overbeck Stiidien zttr Geschichte der altcn Kirche (1875) P- i34 sq.
On the other hand it has been defended by Wieseler Christenverfolgungen (1878)
p. 18, by Funk Theologische Qiiartalschrift (1879) ^xi. p. 108 sq, and by Doulcet
Rapports de VEglise Chritierme avec VAiat Romain (1883) p. 68 sq; and its authenticity
is upheld by critics who are far from conservative, as for instance Renan
UAglise Chretienne p. 32 sq.
The external evidence in favour of its genuineness is exceptionally strong. The
date of Justin's First Apology is probably about A.D. 140, though some place
it a few
years later. It is therefore a strictly contemporary witness. The validity of this
evidence has not generally been questioned, even by assailants (e.g. Overbeck p. 134).
In their later works however Aube {Persecutions etc. p. 272) and Keim {Aus dem
Urchristenthum p. 182) condemn this last chapter of Justin's Apology as spurious,
though previously they had accepted it without question (see Aube Saint Justin
p. 1 sq, Keim Rotn p. 553). This treatment however is arbitrary. The conclusion of
Justin's Apology was certainly known to Eusebius. Moreover the fact that Hadrian's
rescript was appended in Latin is highly favourable to its genuineness; since no forger
would have been likely to sew a patch of Latin upon a Greek work. Nor is Justin
Martyr the only early witness to its genuineness. It is distinctly mentioned by Melito,
who wrote not very many years after Justin (c. A.D. 165), and whose testimony has
not been disputed by any one.
Nor again are its internal characteristics such as to counterbalance the weight of
this external testimony. It is not nearly so favourable to the Christians as a forger
would have aimed at making his production. It is
wholly unlike the spurious letters
of Pius and Marcus, which will be considered presently. It does not, as some have
imagined, rescind the ordinance of Trajan. Justin indeed is naturally anxious to make
the most of it, for he employs it as a precedent to influence the conduct of the heir and
successor of Hadrian. But the document itself does not go nearly so far as he represents.
It merely provides that no one shall be punished on the ground of a popular
outcry; that there shall be a definite responsible accuser in every instance; and that
this accuser, if he does not make good
his case and his accusation is shown to be
vexatious, shall be severely punished. Not only is this rescript no stumbling-block
when confronted with the history of the times. Some such action on the part of the
emperors is required to explain this history. On the one hand we have the fact that
every one of some myriads of Christians under the sway of Hadrian was guilty of a
capital crime in the eye of the law. On the other hand there is the strangely inconsistent
circumstance, that so far as our knowledge (doubtless very fragmentary and
imperfect) goes, only half a dozen or a dozen at the highest computation suffered during
a reign which extended over twenty-one years. How can we reconcile these two
seemingly opposite facts Short of actually rescinding the law which made the profession
of Christianity a crime, there must have been a vast amount of legal discouragement.
Such is the tendency of this rescript. Ostensibly
it confines itself to
subsidiary points ;
but indirectly it would have a far wider effect, for it showed the bias
of the absolute ruler of the world to be favourable to toleration. The very language
too was perhaps studiously vague, suggesting a larger amount of protection than it
actually afforded.
The correct names of the two proconsuls mentioned in the rescript were Q. Li-