rescript to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia after being instructed in books written on the Christian religion by Quadratus, a disciple of the Apostles, and Aristides, an Athenian, an honest and wise man, and Serenus Granius.  In the Greek text of Hadrian’s rescript there is mentioned Serenius Granianus, the predecessor of Minucius Fundanus in the government of Asia.

    This rescript of Hadrian has clearly been added to the Apology
    by some editor.  The Apology ends with the words:  [Greek:  ho
    philon to Oeo, touto genestho]

[C] Eusebius (E.H. iv. 12), after giving the beginning of Justinus’ first Apology, which contains the address to T. Antoninus and his two adopted sons, adds:  “The same emperor being addressed by other brethren in Asia, honored the Commune of Asia with the following rescript.”  This rescript, which is in the next chapter of Eusebius (E.H. iv. 13) is in the sole name of Caesar Marcus Aurelius Antoninus Augustus Armenius, though Eusebius had just before said that he was going to give us a rescript of Antoninus Pius.  There are some material variations between the two copies of the rescript besides the difference in the title, which difference makes it impossible to say whether the forger intended to assign this rescript to Pius or to M. Antoninus.

The author of the Alexandrine Chronicum says that Marcus, being moved by the entreaties of Melito and other heads of the church, wrote an Epistle to the Commune of Asia in which he forbade the Christians to be troubled on account of their religion.  Valesius supposes this to be the letter or rescript which is contained in Eusebius (iv. 13), and to be the answer to the Apology of Melito, of which I shall soon give the substance.  But Marcus certainly did not write this letter which is in Eusebius, and we know not what answer he made to Melito.

In the time of M. Antoninus the opposition between the old and the new belief was still stronger, and the adherents of the heathen religion urged those in authority to a more regular resistance to the invasions of the Christian faith.  Melito in his Apology to M. Antoninus represents the Christians of Asia as persecuted under new imperial orders.  Shameless informers, he says, men who were greedy after the property of others, used these orders as a means of robbing those who were doing no harm.  He doubts if a just emperor could have ordered anything so unjust; and if the last order was really not from the emperor, the Christians entreat him not to give them up to their enemies.[A] We conclude from this that there were at least imperial rescripts or constitutions of M. Antoninus which were made the foundation of these persecutions.  The fact of being a Christian was now a crime and punished, unless the accused denied their religion.  Then come the persecutions at Smyrna, which some modern critics place in A.D. 167, ten years before the persecution of Lyon.  The