apostolicfathers0201clem - Carmel Apologetics

484 EPISTLE OF S. POLYCARP.
He does indeed speak of Antoninus Pius as writing to certain cities, deprecating any
irregular persecution of the Christians ;
but when he comes to specify instances, he
mentions Larissa, Thessalonica, and Athens, and the people of Greece generally
{7rdvTas"EX\'r]i'as). As he was writing in 'Asia' and for 'Asia', it is morally certain
that he would, if he had known of such a document, have illustrated and enforced his
statement by an edict addressed to the Contmine Asiae — issued and reissued, as
this is assumed to have been— since nothing could have served his purpose better.
It is indeed just possible that Eusebius {H. E. iv. 13) may have misunderstood Melito
to allude definitely to this document. But his opinion on such a point has no weight;
and it is due to him to say that he adduces Melito as a witness not to the authenticity
of the edict itself, but to the general course of events described in it (roi/rots ouVw
XOipTjaaaiv eTnixapTvpQjv TsieKlTWv).
Nor are our misgivings allayed, when we study the contents of the document
itself. It practically rescinds the law of the Roman empire, as defined by the rescript
of Trajan. It is an edict of toleration and something more. It expresses approval of
the Christians and disapproval of their persecutors.
It lays penalties on their accusers,
even though they may accuse them in the regular way and make good their charge.
In short, from beneath a heathen mask we hear a Christian voice speaking in every
line. Nor is the difficulty at all met by the fact that in one form (as given in the MSS
of Justin) the word xP"'''''"''os does not occur in the document ;
for the reference is
quite obvious. Tillemont {Memoires II. p. 383), having entire faith in its genuineness,
writes of it; 'We shall see here with delight the justification, or rather the panegyric,
of the Christians pronounced by the mouth of a pagan prince'. This sentence is its
virtual condemnation.
For these and other reasons this edict is now generally condemned as spurious;
and it is difficult to question this verdict. Dodwell {Diss. Cypr. xi. § 34) was one of
the first to express a suspicion of its genuineness, but he did not follow up the subject.
It was condemned as spurious by Thirlby and by Jortin (see Lardner Works vii. p.
129).
The arginnents against its genuineness were strongly urged by Hafifner de
Edicto Antonini Pii pro Christiaiiis etc. (Argentorati 1 781), and Eichstadt Aiinal. Acad.
yenetis. 1. p. 286 sq (1821); and it has been indicted by not a few later writers (see
Heinichen's note on Euseb. H. E. iv. 12). More recently it has found but few
champions, of whom the most doughty is Wieseler (1. c). Among
who have attacked it
strenuously
the recent writers
are Overbeck Stndien zur Geschichte der alien
Kirche (1875) p. 126 sq, Aube Perseculions de T Aglise (1875) p. 302 sq, Sainl yiislin
(1875) p. 59 sq, and Keim Aus dctn Urchristetithum (1878) p. 185 sq, Rom tt. das
Chrislenthum (1881) p. 565. It is rejected likewise by Renan V Aglise Chrelienne
p. 301 sq, and by Doulcet Rapporls dc I'Aglisc Chrelienne avec V J^lat Romain (1883)
p. 76 sq, and generally.
In the times of Tillemont {Memoires
II. p. 651 sq) and of Lardner {Works vii.
p. 128) the genuineness of the document was almost universally held. Both these
writers it accept without hesitation. The main question of dispute then was the reign
under which it was issued. While Valois, Scaliger, Huet, Basnage, and Pagi assigned
it to Antoninus Pius, it was attributed by Baronius, Tillemont, Cave, Lardner, and
others to M. Aurelius. Though the aspect of this question is somewhat changed now
that we can no longer regard the document as genuine, still it is a matter of critical
interest to determine what was — its original form whether as given in the MSS of
Justin or as found in Eusebius. I am disposed to think that the original heading of
the letter is preserved in the Justin MSS, as corrected by Mommsen. The heading in