The following are the principal points of the “rescript.” In the first place--and this point must be pressed--_no fresh law_ authorizing any special persecution of the Christians was needed or even suggested by Pliny. They had evidently for a long period, apparently from the days of Nero, been classed as outlaws (_hostes publici_) and enemies to the fundamental principles of law and order, and the mere acknowledgment on the part of the accused of the name Christian was sufficient in itself to warrant an immediate condemnation to death. Trajan’s reply, which constituted the famous rescript, was studiedly brief, eminently courteous, but imperious and decisive. The friendly bias of Pliny’s report and unmistakably favourable opinion of the Christian sect, lives along every line. He begins with a few graceful words approving Pliny’s action in the matter. (“Actum quem debuisti mi Secunde ... secutus es.”) Then follow the stern, unalterable words which attach the penalty of death to any person who persisted in claiming the name of Christian. But extenuating circumstances, such as youth, may be taken into account, if the magistrate please to do so. Any approach to repentance, accompanied with compliance with the law of the Empire, in the matter of offering incense on the pagan altars, is to be accepted, and the offender at once is to be pardoned. The magistrate is by no means to search for Christians; but if a formal accusation be made by an open accuser, then inquiry must follow; and if the accused recognizes the justice of the charge, and declines to recant, then _death must_ follow. The accusation of an anonymous person, however, must _never_ be received; the Emperor adding his strongest condemnation of all anonymous denunciations. “This kind of thing does not,” writes Trajan, “belong to our age and time.” Tertullian (closing years of second century) quotes and sharply criticizes Trajan’s “rescript.” He writes somewhat as follows: “What a contradictory pronouncement it is. The Emperor forbids the Christians should be searched for--he therefore looks on them surely as innocent persons; and then he directs that if any are brought before the tribunal, they must be punished with death as though they were guilty ones! In the same breath he spares them and rages against them. He stultifies himself; for if Christians are to be condemned as Christians, why are they not to be searched for? If, on the other hand, they are to be considered as innocent persons and in consequence not to be searched for, why not acquit them at once when they appear before the tribunal?... You condemn an accused Christian, yet you forbid him to be inquired after. So punishment is inflicted, not because he is guilty, but because he has been discovered,--though anything which might bring him to light is forbidden.” (Apology 2.)