ation of the chronology of Aristides' life,
with the aid of newly-discovered inscriptions, M. Waddington arrives at
the result that Quadratus was proconsul in 154, 155; and, as Polycarp
was martyred in the early months of the year, his martyrdom must be
dated A.D. 155. This result is accepted by M. Renan [104:1], and
substantially also by Hilgenfeld and Lipsius [104:2], who however (for
reasons into which it is unnecessary to enter here) postpones the
martyrdom to the following year, A.D. 156. M. Waddington's arguments
seem conclusive, and this rectification of date removes some
stumbling-blocks. The relations between St John and Polycarp for
instance, as reported by Irenaeus and others, no longer present any
difficulty, when the period during which the lives of the two overlap
each other is thus extended. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ very
excusably adopts the received date of Polycarp's martyrdom, being
unaware, as it would seem, of these recent investigations.

In this account of Polycarp, I have assumed the genuineness of the
Epistle ascribed to him; but the author of _Supernatural Religion_ has
taken his side with those writers who condemn it as spurious, and I am
therefore obliged to give reasons for this confidence.

So far as regards external testimony, it must be confessed that the
Epistle of Polycarp presents itself with credentials of exceptional
value. The instances are very rare indeed where a work of antiquity can
claim the direct testimony of a pupil of the writer to whom it is
ascribed. The statement of Irenaeus respecting the authorship of this
Epistle is explicit; and indeed, as the reference is not denied either
by the author of _Supernatural Religion_ or by other critics, like
Lipsius and Hilgenfeld, who nevertheless condemn the Epistle as
spurious, I am saved all trouble in establishing its adequacy. Our
author indeed is content to set it aside, because 'the testimony of
Irenaeus is not ... entitled to much weight, inasmuch as his intercourse
with Polycarp was evidently confined to a short period of his extreme
youth, and we have no reason to suppose that he had any subsequent
communication with him.' [105:1] I do not see how the notice of Irenaeus
justifies the statement that the period was short; but the passage has
been given above, and the reader may judge for himself. Nor does it seem
probable, considering that the communications between Asia Minor and
southern Gaul were close and freq