[237:3] Rom. i. 5, xvi. 26.

[237:4] Phil. ii. 7.

[238:1] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27. This is the reference for all the facts relating to Apollinaris given by Eusebius, unless otherwise mentioned.

[238:2] See Otto _Corp. Apol. Christ._ ix. p. 480 sq.

[238:3] Quoted by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 19.

[238:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 27 [Greek: pollon para pollois sozomenon, ta eis hemas elthonta esti tade.]

[238:5] Photius _Bibl._ 14 [Greek: legetai de autou kai hetera sungrammata axiomnemoneuta einai, ois oupo hemeis enetuchomen.]

[238:6] _Chron. Pasch._ p. 13 (ed. Dind.).

[238:7] Theodoret, _H.F._ i. 21.

[239:1] Serapion, _l.c._; Eusebius, _H.E._ iv. 21; Jerome, _Ep._ 70 (I.

p. 428); Theodoret, _H.F._ iii. 2; Socrates, _H.E._ iii. 7; Photius, _l.c._

[240:1] [See above, p. 17].

[241:1] Our author says (n. p. 190): 'The two fragments have by many been conjecturally ascribed to Pierius of Alexandria, a writer of the third century, who composed a work on Easter;' and in his note he gives references to four persons, Tillemont, Lardner, Donaldson, and Routh, apparently as supporting this view. Routh however mentions it only to reject it, and distinctly ascribes the fragments to Apollinaris (_Rel.

Sacr._ I. p. 167). Neither have I yet found any pa.s.sage in Tillemont, where he a.s.signs them to Pierius. Lardner indeed states this of Tillemont; but in the only reference which he gives (T. ii. P. iii. p.

91, ed. Bruxelles), nothing of the kind is said. Tillemont there refers in the margin to 'S. Pierre d'Alex.,' because this _Peter_ of Alexandria is likewise quoted in the preface of the _Chronicon Paschale_, and the question of the genuineness of the fragments ascribed to Apollinaris is reserved to be discussed afterwards in connection with this Peter (_ib._ p. 268 sq). But he does not ascribe them to Peter, and he does not mention Pierius there at all, so far as I have observed. It should be added that the t.i.tle of Pierius' work was 'A Discourse relating to the Pa.s.sover and Hosea' [Greek: ho eis to pascha kai osee logos]; see Photius _Bibl._ cxix. So far as we can judge from the description of Photius, it seems to have been wholly different in subject and treatment from the works of Melito and Apollinaris. It was perhaps an exposition of Hosea ii. 6-17. [In the Complete Edition Tillemont and Routh are tacitly omitted from the note, and 'some' subst.i.tuted for 'many' in the text.]

Our author also by way of discrediting the _Chronicon Paschale_ as a witness, rejects (II. p. 190) a pa.s.sage of Melito quoted on the same authority (p. 482, ed. Dind.); but he gives no reasons. The pa.s.sage bears every mark of genuineness. It is essentially characteristic of an Apologist in the second century, and indeed is obviously taken from the Apology of Melito, as the chronicler intimates. Otto accepts it without hesitation.

[242:1] _Die alt. Zeugn._ p. 105, quoted by Otto.

[242:2] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [This paragraph is rewritten in the Complete Edition.]

[243:1] Theodoret _H. F._ i. 21; iii. 2.

[243:2] 'Epist. ad Magnum Ep. p. 83.'

[243:3] Jerome _Vir. Ill._ 26.

[243:4] Euseb. _H.E._ iv. 26.

[244:1] Euseb. _H.E._ vi. 13.

[244:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[244:3] _S.R._ II. p. 189. [Rewritten in the Complete Edition.]

[245:1] Our author himself says elsewhere (II. p. 472): 'A violent discussion arose as to the day upon which "the true Pa.s.sover of the Lord" should be celebrated, the Church in Asia Minor maintaining that it should be observed on the 14th Nisan, etc.' This is exactly what Apollinaris does. By incidentally quoting the words of Apollinaris ([Greek: to alethinon tou Kuriou pascha]), he has unconsciously borne testimony to the true interpretation of the pa.s.sage, though himself taking the opposite view.

[245:2] Iren. _Haer._ ii. 22.

[247:1] See above, p. 131.

[247:2] [See above, p. 4 sq.]

[248:1] I observe also that Melito, while commenting on the sacrifice of Isaac, lays stress on the fact that our Lord was [Greek: teleios], not [Greek: neos], at the time of the Pa.s.sion, as if he too had some adversary in view; _Fragm._ 12 (p. 418). This is an incidental confirmation of the statement of Irenaeus respecting the Asiatic elders.

[248:2] See above, p. 194. Reasons are there given for identifying this elder with Papias.

[248:3] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 31. 1. See John viii. 56.

[248:4] Iren. _Haer._ iv. 27 sq.

[248:5] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[249:1] John xxi. 20; comp. xiii. 25.

[249:2] Acts v. 29.

[251:1] 2 Tim. iv. 10. Gaul was almost universally called 'Galatia' in Greek at this time and for many generations afterwards.

[252:1] They are called 'trilingues,' Varro in Isid. _Etym._ xv. 1.

[252:2] It is preserved in great part by Eusebius, _H.E._ v. 1, and may be read conveniently in Routh _Rel. Sacr._ I. p. 295 sq.

[253:1] See the references in Tillemont _Memoires_ II. p. 343.

[253:2] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 3.

[253:3] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 4.

[254:1] Euseb. _H.E._ v. 24.

[255:1] _S.R._ II. p. 201. In earlier editions the words are translated 'the testimony of the elder Zacharias;' but in the sixth I find subst.i.tuted 'the testimony borne to the elder Zacharias.' The adoption of this interpretation therefore is deliberate. [In the Complete Edition (II. p. 199 sq) the rendering 'borne by the elder Zacharias' is subst.i.tuted for the above, and defended at some length.]

[256:1] _Protev._ 23. See Tischendorf _Evang. Apocr._ p. 44.

[257:1] _S.R._ II. p. 203. So previously (p. 202), 'his martyrdom, _which Luke does not mention_.' I have already had occasion to point out instances where our author's forgetfulness of the contents of the New Testament leads him into error; see above, p. 125. Yet he argues throughout on the a.s.sumption that the memory of early Christian writers was perfect. [The whole section is struck out in the Complete Edition.]

The _Protevangelium_ bears all the characteristics of a romance founded partly on notices in the Canonical Gospels. Some pa.s.sages certainly are borrowed from St Luke, from which the very words are occasionally taken (_e.g._ ---- 11, 12); and the account of the martyrdom of Zacharias is most easily explained as a fiction founded on the notice in Luke xi. 51, the writer a.s.suming the ident.i.ty of this Zacharias with the Baptist's father. I have some doubts about the very early date sometimes a.s.signed to the _Protevangelium_ (though it may have been written somewhere about the middle of the second century); but, the greater its antiquity, the more important is its testimony to the Canonical Gospels. At the end of -- 19 the writer obviously borrows the language of St Thomas in John xx.

25. This, as it so happens, is the part of the _Protevangelium_ to which Clement of Alexandria (_Strom._ vii. p. 889) refers, and therefore we have better evidence for the antiquity of this, than of any other portion of the work.

[258:1] _S.R._ II. p. 381.

[259:1] _S.R._ II. p. 200; 'The two communities [of Vienne and Lyons]

some time after addressed an Epistle to their brethren in Asia and Phrygia, and also to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, relating the events which had occurred.... This Epistle has in great part been preserved by Eusebius;' and again, II. p. 210; 'We know that he [Irenaeus] was deputed by the Church of Lyons to bear to Eleutherus, then Bishop of Rome, the Epistle of that Christian community describing their sufferings during the persecution,' etc. [So also in the Complete Edition.] Accordingly in the index, pp. 501, 511, Irenaeus is made the bearer of the Epistle.

This is a confusion of two wholly distinct letters--the letter to the Churches of Phrygia and Asia, containing an account of the persecution, which is in great part preserved by Eusebius, but of which Irenaeus was certainly not the bearer; and the letter to Eleutherus, of which Irenaeus was the bearer, but which had reference to the Montanist controversy, and of which Eusebius has preserved only a single sentence recommending Irenaeus to the Roman Bishop. This latter contained references to the persecutions, but was a distinct composition: Euseb.

_H.E._ v. 3, 4.