you shall speak as follows: The Apostle of our Lord Jesus Christ sent me that you may rise up in His name, so that all may know that both life and death are subject to my Lord Jesus Christ. When Aristodemus had done this and saw them rise up, worshiping John, he hastened to the proconsul and began to say with a loud voice: Hear me, proconsul; I think you remember that I have frequently stirred up your anger against John and have done many evil things against him, wherefore I fear lest I experience His wrath, for God is hidden in the form of a man. For not only does He remain unharmed while drinking poison, but even those who had died by the same poison, He raised to life by the touch of His tunic by my hands, they having no signs of death upon them. The proconsul says to him: And what do you wish that we should do? Aristodemus replied: Let us go and fall at His knees, asking for pardon, and whatever He commands us, let us do. Then, arriving together, they prostrated themselves before the apostle, asking for indulgence; whom he receiving with thanksgiving, offered up prayer to God, and commanded them to perform a fast of one week. When this was completed, he baptized them: and when they had been baptized, with all their kin and their relations and their servants, they broke all the idols and built a basilica in the name of Saint John, in which the holy John himself was assumed in this order:
When he was ninety-nine years old, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him with His disciples, saying to him: Come to me, for it is time that you should feast at my banquet with your brothers. John, arising, began to go, but the Lord said to him: On the day of my resurrection, which shall be five days hence, you shall come to me in this way. And when He had said these things, He was received into heaven. When, therefore, the Lord’s day arrived, the whole multitude gathered in the church which had been built in his name, and from the first cockcrow, celebrating the mysteries of God, he spoke to all the people until the third hour of the day. After this he ordered a square pit to be dug near the altar, and the earth of it to be cast outside the church. And descending into it, he stretched out his hands to God and said: Invited to your banquet I come, giving thanks because you have A deemed me worthy, Lord Jesus Christ, to be invited to your feasts, knowing that I desired you with all my heart; I have seen your face and have been raised up as if from the sepulcher. Your fragrance has stirred up eternal desires in me. Your voice is full of honeyed sweetness, and your speech is incomparable to the eloquence of angels. How often have I asked you that I might come to you, and you said to me: "Wait until you deliver the people who are about to believe in me," and you have kept my body from all pollution and have always illuminated my soul, and you did not forsake me when I went into exile and returned, and you placed in my mouth the word of your truth, reminding me of the testimonies of your virtues. And I have written those works which I heard from your mouth with my ears. And now, B Lord, I commend to you your children, whom your Church, the virgin, the true mother, has regenerated through water and the Holy Spirit. Receive me, that I may be with my brothers with whom you invited me when you came, open to me the door of life; may the princes of darkness not meet me, and may a strange hand not touch me, nor may the foot of pride come to me, but receive me according to your word, and lead me to the banquet of your feasts, where all your friends feast with you. For you are Christ the Son of the living God, who by the command of your Father saved the world, who also deigned to send us the Holy Spirit, that you might remind us of your commandments; through the same Spirit we render thanks to you for infinite ages of ages. Amen.
C And when all the people had answered Amen, such a light appeared over the apostle for almost an hour that no one could endure the sight of it. But afterwards that pit was found full, having nothing else in it but manna, which to this day that place produces, and miracles are performed there by his prayers, and all are liberated from all infirmities and dangers and obtain the effect of their prayers, through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, who with the coeternal Father, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns God, both now and always, for infinite ages of ages. Amen.
SAINT PAPIAS, BISHOP OF HIERAPOLIS
NOTICE
(Galland, *Veterum Patrum Bibliotheca*, Vol. 1, Prolegomena, p. lxvi.)I. St. Papias, Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia, an auditor of the Apostle John: according to Irenaeus, Jerome, and other ancient writers. Eusebius alone thought otherwise, though his opinion is less approved by most recent scholars. The passage in the Eusebian Chronicle is examined. II. Papias, a man most eloquent and skilled in the Scriptures, according to Eusebius and Jerome. The Bishop of Caesarea is hardly consistent with himself when he portrays the same Hierapolitan prelate as being a man of very limited intellect, on the grounds that he was the author of the Chiliasts. III. He wrote five books, *On the Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles*, which were held in high esteem by the greatest Doctor. Only a few fragments of these remain, some of which appear to be assignable to Greek writers of a later age. A
The holy Ignatius and Polycarp, disciples of John the Evangelist; to these must be added a third, St. Papias, afterwards Bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia: reckoned by Eusebius (1) among them, following Clement and Ignatius, who "in the first times of the apostolic succession in the Churches throughout the world were pastors or evangelists," meaning "in the first times of the apostolic succession throughout the Churches of the world, they were pastors or evangelists." That he himself was an auditor of the Apostle John, Irenaeus testifies clearly enough with these words (2): *“Papias Joannis quidem auditor, Polycarpi autem contubernalis, vetus homo.”* ("Papias was an auditor of John, and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient man.") Thus also, after the holy Bishop of Lyons, a long line of ancient writers follows. Jerome (3) says: "Irenaeus, a man of apostolic times, records that Papias, the auditor of John the Evangelist, was his disciple." So, too, by Anastasius Sinaita (4), among the ancient interpreters of the churches who have looked spiritually upon the Church of Christ and what is written concerning paradise, the celebrated Papias of Hierapolis, disciple of John the Evangelist, is enumerated. Nor does St. Maximus seem to have thought otherwise, when he says (5) that he flourished during the times of the divine Evangelist John: *“συνακμάσαντα τῷ θείῳ εὐαγγελιστῇ Ἰωάννῃ”* ("having flourished together with the divine Evangelist John"). To the same opinion Andreas Caesariensis (6) and Oecumenius (7) subscribe, passing over the ancient Martyrologies, Bede, Usuard, Ado, Notker, etc. B
Only Eusebius among the ancients openly professes in these words (8) that Papias was not a disciple of the Apostle John, but of John the Presbyter or the Elder: *“Αὐτός γε μὲν ὁ Παπίας κατὰ τὸ προοίμιον τῶν αὐτοῦ λόγων, ἀκροατὴν μὲν καὶ αὐτόπτην οὐδαμῶς ἑαυτὸν γενέσθαι τῶν ἱερῶν ἀποστόλων ἐμφαίνει· παρειληφέναι δὲ τὰ τῆς πίστεως παρὰ τῶν ἐκείνοις γνωρίμων διδάσκει”* ("As for Papias himself, in the preface of his own discourses, he in no way indicates that he was an auditor and eyewitness of the holy apostles; but he teaches that he had received the matters of the faith from those who were known to them"). But Papias himself, in the preface of his books, does not indicate that he had been an auditor and spectator of the holy apostles, but he teaches that he accepted what pertains to the faith from those who had associated with them. And after interjecting some things: "Papias," he says, "professes that he had received the sayings of the apostles from those who had associated with them: yet he says he was an auditor of Aristion and of John the Presbyter." *“Παπίας τοὺς μὲν τῶν ἀποστόλων λόγους παρὰ τῶν αὐτοῖς παρηκολουθηκότων ὁμολογεῖ παρειληφέναι· Ἀριστίωνος δὲ καὶ τοῦ πρεσβυτέρου Ἰωάννου αὐτήκοον ἑαυτόν φησι γενέσθαι.”* So indeed Eusebius speaks of Papias—I use the words of Grabe (9)—but Papias does not speak this way of himself; for he does not deny that he heard the Apostle John, nor does he plainly affirm that he was an auditor of the Presbyter alone. Eusebius concludes wrongly that he denied it from those words of Papias where he says he inquired anxiously of the familiars of the apostles as to what Andrew, what Peter... what John had said. For by the same reasoning, it would have to be denied that Papias heard John the Presbyter, since he there testifies that he inquired also into this man’s sayings, adding: "what things Aristion and John the Presbyter also have said." Yet this is what Eusebius maintains entirely, although Papias did not clearly affirm it. For although he reports one or another statement of John the Elder according to Eusebius (l.c.), he does not say that he himself heard these things from him. Indeed, I do not object: rather, I believe that Papias received traditions from both Johns, both the Apostle and the Elder. Nor can it be gathered from the fact that Papias professes that he questioned others who were their auditors about many things that he himself was not among their number; for indeed, diligent disciples are accustomed to inquire into the sayings and meanings of their masters from fellow-disciples, especially where they have known others who have spent more time and lived more intimately with them. Let it be settled, therefore, that Papias was an auditor of the Apostle John, and perhaps also of the Presbyter. Thus far the learned man. So, too, Tillemont (10), Orsi (11), and others. C
To these, however, we think one thing more ought to be added. In the Eusebian Chronicle, namely, these words are read (12): John the Apostle right up to the times of Trajan... D
remained in life, Irenaeus relates. And although these words seem to have been taken from elsewhere for the Chronographer—for he himself states (15): “Irenaeus and others relate that John the theologian and apostle remained in life until the times of Trajan, after whom Papias of Hierapolis and Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, were known as his hearers”—nevertheless, since Eusebius A wrote them, are we therefore to say that this historian is not consistent with himself? I, for my part, would not think so; rather, I would believe that he changed his mind afterwards, being one who published his History after his Chronicle. However that may be, this much advantage comes both from this place in the Eusebian Chronicle and from another in the Chronography of Syncellus, that the opinion concerning Papias as a hearer of the Apostle John is more and more confirmed.
II. From this discipleship, therefore, to John the Evangelist and this familiar association with apostolic men, Papias is said to have attained no mean knowledge of divine things. For he was a man B chiefly eloquent and learned, and steeped in the knowledge of the Scriptures, as Eusebius writes (16): “A man in all respects most learned, and well skilled in the Scriptures.” To this fact, moreover, there appears as a rich witness that greatest of doctors, who wrote thus to Lucinius Baeticus (17): “False rumor has brought to you that the volumes of the holy Papias and Polycarp have been translated by me; because it is neither within my leisure nor my powers to express such great works in another language with elegance.” If these words of Jerome had occurred to the most learned Valesius, he would perhaps have restrained himself from passing the judgment by which he maintains that the laudatory mention of Papias in Eusebius, just cited, was added there by some unskilled scholiast without the intention of that historian; on the C ground, forsooth, that Papias himself is described by the same Eusebius a little later (18) as being of very meager intellect, *σφόδρα μικρὸς ὢν τὸν νοῦν*. But, as I think, one ought rather to conclude from this that the Bishop of Caesarea was not quite consistent with himself, when he thought that the apostolic man should be marked with disapproval on the grounds that he did not sufficiently perceive what was being said in a certain arcane sense in the sacred oracles—namely, in the twentieth chapter of the Apocalypse—and thereby introduced chiliasm into the Church; just as if that opinion had not been embraced, before it erupted into an open heresy, by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other very ancient Fathers; whom, however, no one surely would deny to have been men eminent in doctrine and learning. Regarding this matter, it would be profitable to consult Nourry D above all others, who undertook to examine and skillfully explain the opinions of Papias, as well as those of the other Catholic Chiliasts (19).
However, it may perhaps have happened from this, as the aforementioned Valesius warns, that in some Eusebian codices, according to the opinion of that same historian, that encomium of Papias was first erased and then omitted altogether; as one who first published the fable of Christ's thousand-year reign, as a Jewish *δευτέρωσιν*. This, indeed, I would wish had not been done, yet if it must be admitted that it was done, this error, shared by Papias with most of the most learned Fathers of the first centuries, does not seem to force us in any way to think that this holy Bishop of Hierapolis was not held by Eusebius to be a man famous in his own age, eloquent and learned above all, and seasoned in the knowledge of the Scriptures. But if indeed one wishes to admit the conjecture of Valesius concerning the interpolation of this passage, we think we can proclaim with the best possible right that the apostolic man was marked with disapproval by the same historian quite undeservedly for that reason; for his volumes are known to have comprised such great matters that Jerome professed it was not within his powers to express the same in another language with elegance.
III. Would that they had come down to us! And they were indeed surviving at the beginning of the thirteenth century, as we are informed by the catalog of manuscript codices made around the year of Christ 1218, which the illustrious Menardus quite recently published after extracting it from the archives of the church of Nîmes (20): so that, consequently, most learned men are rightly thought to have conjectured correctly (21) that they could still have existed in the age of Trithemius also, as he himself seems to intimate (22), namely at the end of the fifteenth century, even though Cave (23) and Fabricius (24) cannot at all persuade themselves of it. Be that as it may, Eusebius (25) testifies that after Irenaeus, Papias wrote only five books, which he entitled *Λογίων Κυριακῶν ἐξηγήσεως*, “On the Exposition of the Dominical Oracles,” or, as Jerome translates (26), “An Explanation of the Sayings of the Lord”: from which Irenaeus cites some fragments concerning the Millennium, and Eusebius others, to omit the few remaining ones. But what occurs in Oecumenius and other later Greek writers concerning the death of Judas the traitor, as if taken from the books of Papias, is so light and trifling that one may rightly doubt, with Tillemont (27), whether the same Bishop of Hierapolis ever consigned those things to writing.
However, we have brought forward all the fragments of this kind that survive, whatever they may be, after Halloix and Grabe: to which we have added one, no. VII, described from codex XX of the Coislinian library, prepared by the illustrious Montfaucon; with the primary intention that the reading of Acts 1:18, fruitlessly tampered with by Grabe, might remain safe and intact, as we have noted at that place.
SAINT PAPIAS, BISHOP OF HIERAPOLIS, FRAGMENTS
FROM THE FIVE BOOKS ON THE EXPOSITION OF THE DOMINICAL ORACLES
I.
FROM THE PROLOGUE. — In Eusebius, Hist. eccl., Book III, Chap. 39, translated by H. Valesius.
I shall not hesitate, A along with my interpretations, to set down for you also everything that I once learned well from the elders and remembered well, certifying its truth. For I did not take pleasure, as many do, in those who have much to say, but in those who teach the truth; nor in those who recount the commandments of others, but in those who recount the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the truth itself. If ever anyone came who had been a follower of the elders, I would inquire into the words of the elders: what Andrew B or what Peter had said, or what Philip, or what Thomas or James, or what John or Matthew, or any other of the disciples of the Lord, as well as what Aristion and John the presbyter, the disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not think that information from books would profit me as much as information from a living and abiding voice.
RUFINUS’S VERSION
Nor shall it be a burden to us, while recalling all that we once learned from the presbyters and retain well, to set it forth along with its interpretations, and to explain it so that its truth may endure. For we did not listen to those who spoke many things, but to those who set forth the truth: not to those who remembered the commandments of men, but to those who kept the commandments given by the Lord, which were received from the Truth itself. But if ever someone arrived who had followed the apostles, I would diligently inquire from him what Andrew or what Peter had said, or what Philip or Thomas, or indeed what James or John or Matthew, or any other of the Lord’s disciples; and what Aristion or John the presbyter, and the other disciples of the Lord, were saying. For I did not believe that the readings of books could profit me as much as the instruction of a living and present voice.
II.
Ibidem, shortly after.
Now we must also note C what Papias, who lived during the same times, relates as a marvelous narrative that he received from the daughters of Philip. For he tells of a resurrection of a dead person that occurred in his own time. Again, he relates another paradox concerning Justus, also called Barsabas; how he drank a deadly poison, and yet, aided by the grace of God, suffered no harm from it.
RUFINUS’S VERSION
I indeed remember that he (Papias) himself mentions in his work certain miracles which I consider should by no means be passed over. For he indicates that these things were handed down to him by the daughters of the evangelist Philip, who were prophetesses: he says that in his own time a dead man was restored to life. Moreover, he relates a great miracle concerning Justus who was surnamed Barsabas, because he drank poison; and he suffered no ill effect from this on account of his faith in the Lord.
FRAGMENTS FROM THE EXPOSITION OF THE DOMINICAL ORACLES III.
*Ibidem, paucis interjectis.*We shall now necessarily add to the statements of his previously set forth, the tradition which he has recorded concerning Mark, the writer of the Gospel, by these words: And this the Presbyter used to say: Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord, nor followed him; A but later, as I said, he followed Peter, who used to adapt his teachings to the needs [of his hearers], but not as though he were composing a systematic account of the Lord’s sayings. So that Mark did not err at all, having thus written some things as he remembered them. For he made it his one care not to omit anything that he had heard, nor to falsify anything in them. Thus far regarding Mark is what has been related by Papias. And concerning Matthew, these things are said: Matthew, then, wrote the oracles in the Hebrew language; but each one interpreted them as he was able. And the same [Papias] uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John, and of Peter likewise. He has also set forth another history concerning a woman who was accused before the Lord of many sins, which the Gospel according to the Hebrews contains.
Rufinus's version.
Nevertheless, we take from these what he brought forth regarding the evangelist Mark in these words: This also, he says (Papias), the Presbyter related, that Mark having been the interpreter of Peter, wrote down whatever he remembered of the things spoken by him. Yet he did not arrange in order the things said or done by the Lord; because he was neither a hearer nor a follower of the Lord, but subsequently, as I said, he attached himself to Peter for the use and ministry of preaching, not for the purpose of writing down the Lord’s sayings. Therefore Mark committed no fault in writing certain things in this way, as one who appears to recall what was heard only in fragments. And he took sufficient care of this one thing, that he should not omit anything of what he had heard, or write anything false. These things Papias writes concerning Mark. But he also relates this regarding Matthew: Matthew indeed wrote in the Hebrew language. But each one interpreted what he wrote, as he was able. These things also about Matthew. The same Papias certainly uses testimonies from the first Epistle of John, and similarly from the first of Peter. At the same time, he also subjoins a certain history regarding the adulterous woman, who was accused by the Jews before the Lord. Now this parable is written in the Gospel which is called according to the Hebrews.
IV.
*E LIBRO IV. — Apud Irenæum lib. v Adversus hæres., cap. 33, num. 3 et 4, Interprete H. Valesio.*The presbyters, who saw John the disciple of the Lord, remember having heard from him how the Lord used to teach concerning those times, and say: The days will come in which vines shall grow, each having ten thousand branches, and on one branch ten thousand arms, and on one arm ten thousand twigs, and in every twig ten thousand clusters, and in every cluster ten thousand grapes, and every grape shall yield twenty-five metretæ of wine. And when any one of the saints shall have taken hold of a cluster, another will cry out: I am a better cluster; take me, bless the Lord through me. Likewise also, a grain of wheat will generate ten thousand ears, and every ear will have ten thousand grains, C and every grain five double-pounds of fine, clear flour; and the rest of the fruits, and seeds, and herbs, according to the consistency consequent to them: and all animals which use those foods which are received from the earth, will become peaceful and in agreement with one another, subject to humans with all subjection.
These things D also [does] Papias—an auditor of John, and a companion of Polycarp, an ancient man—bear witness to in writing in the fourth of his books; for there are five books composed by him.
A
V. - FROM BOOK IV. - In Maximus’s Commentary on Dionysius the Areopagite, ch. 7, On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy.
Papias, in the fourth book of his Dominical Explanations, wrote that there would be, following the resurrection, bodily pleasures derived from food. Furthermore, Irenaeus, bishop of Lyons, in the fifth book Against Heresies, likewise reports this and brings forward Papias, already mentioned, as a witness to the things said by him.
VI. - In Andrew of Caesarea on the Apocalypse, ch. 34, serm. 12.
And Papias uses these words: He entrusted the governance of the order of this world to certain of these, namely those who had long been standing with God, and he commanded them to govern well. He then adds: And it happened that their order was completely destroyed. B
VII. - FROM BOOK IV. - In Apollinarius in the Catena, codex XXII of the Coislinian Library, from the Paris edition of Montfaucon, 1715, p. 66.
It must be known that Judas did not die by the noose, but remained alive, for he was taken down before he was suffocated, and he fell. This is evident from the Acts of the Apostles: "And falling headlong, he burst asunder," and so forth. Papias, the disciple of the apostle John, recounts this more clearly, saying: Judas was a great example of impiety in this world; for his body was so bloated that he could not pass through, and although a wagon was going past at a quick pace, he was crushed by the wagon so that his bowels were poured out. C
VIII. - FROM BOOK IV. - In Oecumenius’s Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles, ch. 11, according to his division.
Papias, the disciple of the apostle John, wrote this more plainly, saying: Judas remained a great example of impiety in this world. For his body was so bloated that he could not move forward, and as a carriage was passing by with a light motion, he was pressed by the carriage, so that his bowels were poured out. D
IX.
FROM BOOK IV. — In Theophylact on the Acts of the Apostles.
A For Judas did not die by hanging, but survived, being taken down before he suffocated. And Papias, the disciple of John, relates this more clearly in the fourth book of his Exposition of the Oracles of the Lord, saying as follows: "Judas walked about in this world as a great example of impiety, his flesh so swollen that, where a carriage can pass easily, he could not; no, not even the mass of his head alone. For they say that his eyelids were so swollen that he could not see the light at all, and his eyes could not be seen, even by a physician with a magnifying instrument, so deep were they from the outer surface. His private parts were more loathsome and larger than any deformity, B through which alone, indeed, his flowing matter and worms were discharged from his whole body, to his shame. After many torments and punishments, they say he died on his own land, and that because of this, the place is to this day deserted and uninhabited by those who live and linger by that road; and that to this day no one can pass by that place without blocking his nose with his hands; such a discharge poured forth from his flesh onto the ground."
X.
From Codex 2397 of the Bodleian Library, written in the year 1302 and 1303 in the Abbey of Osney near Oxford, fol. 286, p. 2, in Grabe, Spicilegium, Vol. II, p. 34.
C And John were children of the sister of the Lord's mother. Mary, the mother of James the Less and of Joseph, the wife of Alphaeus, was the sister of Mary the Mother of the Lord, whom John calls [the wife] of Cleophas, either from her father, or from the family of her kin, or for some other cause. Mary Salome is so named either from her husband or from her town: some say she is the same as [the wife] of Cleophas, because she had two husbands.
S. QUADRATUS, BISHOP OF ATHENS
(GALLAND., Biblioth. vet. Patr., I, Proleg. p. LXXII.)
I. St. Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, illustrious by the gift of prophecy, bishop of Athens. II. He presented an apologetic work in defense of the Christian religion to the Emperor Hadrian, held in high esteem; of which one fragment survives. III. This Apology was offered in the year 126, when the author was already of advanced age; who, however, does not appear to be distinct from Quadratus, bishop of Athens.
A I. That Quadratus succeeded to the government of the Athenian Church, after Publius had undergone martyrdom, is attested by the reliable Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, in the letter which he wrote to the Athenians; where he also declares that by his labor and industry, the citizens were gathered together again into the Church, and that the faded zeal of their faith had been rekindled. He was himself also endowed with the gift of prophecy, as is witnessed in the same Eusebius by an anonymous writer, who is said to have been Rhodon. For in that book which this unnamed author composed against the Cataphrygians, while enumerating all the prophets of the New Testament, he also lists our Quadratus, and joins him with the daughters of Philip the evangelist, whom Saint Luke calls prophetesses. "They will not boast," he says (the Montanists), "of Agabus, nor of Judas, nor of Silas, nor of the daughters of Philip, nor of Ammia in Philadelphia, nor of Quadratus, nor of any others who have nothing to do with them." The bishop of Caesarea, mentioned elsewhere, provides similar accounts.
II. This apostolic man, therefore, presented an apologetic booklet to the Emperor Hadrian, who was staying in Athens, clearly setting forth the innocence of the Christians and their iniquitous oppression. Regarding this, the great doctor Saint Jerome says: B "Quadratus, a disciple of the apostles, having been substituted in the place of Publius, bishop of Athens, who was crowned with martyrdom for the faith of Christ, gathers the Church—which had been dispersed by great terror—by his own faith and industry. And when Hadrian had spent the winter in Athens, visiting the Eleusinian rites, and had given an occasion to those who hated the Christians to harass the faithful without an order from the emperor, he offered him a book on behalf of our religion—one very useful and full of reason and faith, and worthy of apostolic doctrine; in which, showing the antiquity of his own age, he claims to have seen many who, having been oppressed in Judea by various calamities under the Lord, had been healed and had risen from the dead." Thus far, the great doctor summarizes from Eusebius; he who elsewhere, writing to the orator Magnus, has these same sentiments: "Did not Quadratus, disciple of the apostles and pontiff of the Church of Athens, hand a book for our religion to the Prince Hadrian, who was visiting the Eleusinian rites? And to such admiration in all, C as if to calm his disposition."
"Would that, to speak with Grabe, we could now write concerning the Apology of Quadratus, which Eusebius once recorded in these words: 'And the work is still in the hands of many of the brethren, and indeed it is with us; from which it is possible to see bright proofs both of the mind of the man and of his apostolic orthodoxy.' This oration is still extant today among many of the brethren, which we also possess; from which it is possible to perceive clearly both the character of that man and the right doctrine of the apostolic faith." But, alas! that excellent work has perished; nothing of it survives except a single, very short, yet noble fragment which Eusebius preserved for us. More might be given if there were still extant the ten books of the other Eusebius, bishop of Thessalonica in the sixth century, against the monk Andreas; for as Photius expressly testifies, he opposed his adversary with the words of Quadratus.
III. Quadratus offered this Apology D to Hadrian Augustus, when he was already of an advanced age. In it, says Eusebius, he himself sufficiently reveals his antiquity. Regarding this matter, the following is read in the Greek Eusebian Chronicle for the tenth year of Hadrian: "Quadratus, a hearer of the apostles, and Aristides the Athenian, a philosopher, offered letters of apology on behalf of the Christians to Aelius Hadrian, the emperor. Having received these, the Caesar, together with those of the most illustrious governor Serenius Granianus, as it would be unjust, should someone write, to condemn Christians without trial for any crimes whatsoever, writes to Minucius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia, to kill no one without charges and accusation." Syncellus relates the same, from whom Scaliger seems to have taken his Greek Eusebian text; which are indeed rendered in the Hieronymian version as follows: "Quadratus, disciple of the apostles, and Aristides the Athenian, our philosopher, composed books in defense of the Christian religion. And Serenus Granianus, the legate, a man of prime nobility, sends letters to the emperor, saying it is unjust that the blood of innocent men be granted to the clamors of the mob; and that they be held guilty of the name and sect alone, without any crime." Moved by these things, Hadrian wrote to Minucius Fundanus, the proconsul of Asia, stating that Christians were not to be condemned without the pointing out of crimes. Justin Martyr wove into his own Apology the rescript of Hadrian to Minucius Fundanus, by which he prohibited the persecution stirred up by the Greeks and Asians. From which things, therefore, it is clear that,