A located in the city of Hierapolis in Phrygia of Asia Minor. By Serapion of Antioch, a bishop who had reached his own time, he deserved to be honored with the title of a most blessed Father. In subsequent centuries of the Church he was held to be a bishop of blessed memory, a man worthy of every kind of praise, and he was celebrated as an outstanding ornament and example among other prelates, and as a most strong and invincible bulwark of the Church against the Cataphrygian heresy B.
Bollandus considers Hierapolis to have been his homeland. According to Theodoret, "in addition to his knowledge of divine matters, he was also trained in external learning (that is, in profane and human sciences)." We are completely ignorant of the particular circumstances of his life. But the praises with which he was commended by most learned and holy men give us the opportunity to judge that our Apollinaris had organized and conformed his life and morals exactly to the excellent degree of episcopal dignity, and that he excelled no less in charity than in sciences. He flourished, according to Eusebius, Jerome, and Photius, while Marcus Aurelius Antoninus reigned. Nor did he outlive this prince. Perhaps he succeeded St. Abercius or Papias in the bishopric of Hierapolis. C
ARTICLE II. The writings of Claudius Apollinaris.
Of those things, however, which this illustrious writer of the Church handed down in letters, such are those praised by the ancients. 1. The Discourse for the defense of the faith against Marcus Antoninus Verus, offered around the 10th year of his reign, 170 of the vulgar era of Christ, as Dodwell argues. 2. Five books against the Gentiles. 3. Two books on truth. 4. Two likewise against the Jews. 5. And others, which he later wrote against the Cataphrygians, who had just then emerged; concerning the latter of which books, at the turn of the same second century, Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, writing to the Carici and Pontici, has this to say in Eusebius: "I have sent you the writings or books of the most blessed Claudius Apollinaris, who was bishop of the Hierapolitan city in Asia." But these and other works of this Hierapolitan bishop just mentioned are missing today, and only their titles have reached us.
Besides the works mentioned thus far, which have completely perished, it is found that Apollinaris also wrote a book On the Pasch, two fragments of which survive in the author of the *Chronicon Paschale*, commonly called the Alexandrian. D However, some moderns are known to have doubted the authenticity of these fragments; among whom Tillemont stands out, for the very reason that Eusebius, in cataloging the works of Claudius Apollinaris, does not mention them—but we shall speak of this elsewhere—for the sake of the record, the bolts of lightning were cast from one side, by which the beast’s—that is, the enemy’s—forces were put to flight and destroyed; while from the other side came the force of the rains, by which their army, which had been about to perish from thirst, having prayed to God, was unexpectedly refreshed. And this event is related both by writers completely alien to our faith, who made it their concern to commit to memory events that happened in that time, and by our own men as well. But the writers of the Gentiles, being dissenters from our religion, indeed commemorated this miracle; yet they did not confess that it was done by the prayers of our people. Our own, however, as worshippers of the truth, simply and ingenuously handed the matter down in letters. Among these is Apollinaris, who writes that the legion, by whose prayers that miracle was performed, was thenceforth called the "Thundering" (Fulminea) by the emperor, for that name was appropriate to the event. So says Eusebius. Regarding this passage, the learned Valesius observes that Scaliger had long since warned in his *Eusebian Animadversions* that the legion was not called "Thundering" because of this miracle, since it had been called such long before the times of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus. Dio Cassius clearly teaches this in book LV, where he enumerates all the legions. An ancient inscription brought forth by Scaliger confirms the same thing. Therefore, while we easily believe in the miracle of the rain itself obtained by Christian soldiers, as Apollinaris, Tertullian, and Eusebius attest, Apollinaris has not yet persuaded me that the Melitine legion was called "Thundering" on that account by the Emperor M. Antoninus; for, as the supreme critic Father Pagi judges for the year 174 of the Christian era, we do not doubt that many false things have been mixed with the true. Consult also Witsius’ dissertation on the "Thundering" Legion of the Christians under the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, printed at Amsterdam in 1683. Finally observe with Tillemont on the Apology of Apollinaris: from the fact that antiquity has left us nothing of this apologetic discourse, it is difficult to judge which specific objects it addressed. Tillemont, loc. cit.
concerning the fact that Eusebius, in reviewing the works of Claudius Apollinaris, passed over in silence that work *On the Passover*, and that nowhere among the lists of ecclesiastical writers does any mention of it recur. Be it so: Eusebius is indeed silent about that work, and, given his silence, it is certainly no wonder if Jerome, Gennadius, Honorius, and others also remain silent about it, since they have been accustomed to follow Eusebius alone, at least as far as ancient writers are concerned. But what follows from this? Must we therefore say that this bishop of Hierapolis never wrote a work *On the Passover*? Not at all. Take these words of Eusebius (10): "Although many works of Apollinaris exist among many people, yet only these have reached us." Do you hear? "Many works," Apollinaris wrote, "five of which alone" Eusebius knew, which he lists there; and consequently he did not see those which Theodoret (11) says he wrote against the Severian Encratites, nor the book *On Piety* which Photius read (12). Why, then, might he not also have written a work *On the Passover*, as the anonymous author of the *Paschal Chronicle* maintains? For we have the testimony of Eusebius himself (13) that Melito, the bishop of Sardis, who flourished at the same time as Apollinaris, wrote two books on the same subject, albeit with a different opinion. For Polycrates, the bishop of Ephesus, in his letter to Victor (14), lists that bishop of Sardis among those who observed the day of the Passover on the fourteenth day of the moon, according to the Gospel; whereas it is evident from the cited fragments that Apollinaris thought otherwise. For thus it is read in them (15): "There are, therefore, some who, from ignorance, incite contentions about these matters, having suffered a condition deserving of pardon (for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but requires instruction), and they claim that the Lord ate the lamb with his disciples, but suffered on the great day of Unleavened Bread: and they say that Matthew speaks in this way, as they understand him. Whence their interpretation is contrary to the Law, and the Gospels seem to oppose them." And in another fragment: "On the fourteenth day, the true Passover of the Lord, the great sacrifice, the Son of God instead of the lamb; who bound the strong man; and who, having been judged, is the judge of the living and the dead; and who was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified; who was exalted above the horns of the unicorn; and who was pierced in his sacred side; who poured out from his side two purifying elements, water and blood, word and spirit; and who was buried on the day of the Passover, with a stone placed upon his monument." Learned Bernard Lamy (16) speaks appositely to these two passages: "The Quartodecimans, supposing that the Jewish Passover was performed by Jesus Christ on the fourteenth day, which would occur on the eve of his death, contended that on whatever day of the week that same fourteenth day should fall, the Christian Passover ought to be celebrated according to the Lord's example, rather than on the Lord's Day. But the holy doctors (among whom is our St. Apollinaris) argued against them, that they were relying upon a false assumption or foundation; because Jesus, in the year in which he suffered, did not celebrate the Passover, but had already celebrated it." Thus says the learned man. Moreover, many Fathers who followed were of the same opinion as our bishop of Hierapolis, namely Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus of Portus, Peter of Alexandria, and others, whom you may see listed in the same Lamy (17). Tillemont indeed leaves no stone unturned (18) to render the preface of the *Paschal Chronicle* suspect, where fragments of Apollinaris and other ancient Fathers concerning the Passover occur; yet he does not dare to openly attack their integrity, as the aforementioned Lamy rightly notes when refuting Tillemont's arguments (19). Nor does Du Cange speak differently: whom everyone sees as intending his marginal note, "these things are false" (20), to refer to the opinion of the authors, not to the text itself. In the same way, the most learned Petavius (21) had already judged long ago, who, citing these same fragments in Greek, says this of them in his preface to the reader: "A diatribe of some anonymous author *On the latest Passover of Christ* has been added... The subject of this fragment appears to be twofold. For first, it demonstrates that Christ did not celebrate the legal Passover at the last supper; and that on the day before that on which it was performed by the Jews, Christ fulfilled his own mystical Passover, which belongs to the New Testament. Of which opinion he cites certain ancients, but that opinion of theirs is, if I may say so with their leave, false and contrary to the authority of the Gospels." So much for him. Finally, the most learned Tournemine, in a letter inscribed to Bernard Lamy, acknowledges not only the sincerity of those fragments but also the truth of the opinions expressed in them (22). Relying on the authority of such learned men, therefore, the distinguished Galland (23) also confidently attributes to the same holy Father those two fragments *On the Passover* which are ascribed to Apollinaris of Hierapolis in the *Paschal Chronicle*. But with the leave of such great men, I would say that the matter is not altogether certain, whether St. Apollinaris of Hierapolis is the author of a certain work on the Passover: for the whole assertion rests solely upon the Alexandrian Chronicle: and who is unaware into what varied and most dissimilar
concerning the merit and estimation of this Chronicle the authors have departed? Scaliger calls the author of this A a "foolish writer"; and elsewhere, "there are," says he (24), "many things in that hodgepodge that one should either laugh at or marvel at, if he is ignorant... that many things are absurd." To Tillemont, it is a work lacking authority, filled with ridiculous things and gross errors (25). Baillet treats it with no more respect. "The Paschal Chronicle," he says (26), "is a mere and pure rhapsody of the chronology of many writers, not of one talent and ability." Nevertheless, others—to confess what the truth is—do not hold it in such contempt. "That Chronicle," says Petavius (27), "which is compiled after the fashion of a patchwork from various authors, is excellent, and not sufficiently praised." "It must be admitted," says Du Cange (28), "that there are far more things that ought to be deemed worthy of praise." B "This author is certainly not to be despised," judges Cave (29), "who not only exhibits a continuous series of consuls, but also has woven into his work many patches of better purple, monuments of venerable antiquity which might be looked for elsewhere in vain." Moreover, that Paschal Chronicle, commonly called the Alexandrian, was first composed by an anonymous author in the sixth or seventh century.
Socrates (30) and after him Nicephorus cite Apollinaris and Serapion, bishop of Antioch, to demonstrate that the Word assumed a body endowed with a soul. It is also said that he wrote against the Encratites, and set forth in his writings from which sect of philosophers every heresy drew its errors. But Theodoret (31) and St. Jerome (32), who made mention of these writings, in no wise assert that he treated them in elaborate works. We have already observed above from Eusebius that St. Apollinaris wrote two books against the Montanists or Cataphrygians, whose heresy was then creeping out of its cradle. But, as the distinguished Remigius Ceillier of your [order] notes (33), it is much more likely that our saint wrote not so much books as letters against the aforementioned heresy. Indeed, those who used the writings of this holy man to refute the Montanists did not allege any single work of St. Apollinaris, but only his letters. This is proven by the most celebrated man himself, citing Eusebius as his source (34), that Serapion, bishop of Antioch, when he testifies that our Apollinaris wrote against the Montanists, uses these words in a certain epistle composed against that heresy: "So that you may know," he says, "how the entire brotherhood which is on earth has averted and detested that operation of the feigned faction which is called the new prophecy, I have sent you the letters of the most blessed father Claudius Apollinaris, who was bishop of the Hierapolitan city in Asia."
Some very learned men, besides these letters, think that those fragments against the Montanists which Eusebius recites from the books of an anonymous author dedicated to Avircius Marcellus (35) should be ascribed to Claudius Apollinaris. This is the opinion of Baronius (36), and of B Ruffinus (37), as it seems, and led by the authority of Nicephorus (38); whose opinion is said to have pleased also the author of the Synodicum libellus in Labbe (39). Nor does Baluze (40) think otherwise, who, arguing against Valesius, maintains that those books should be assigned to Claudius Apollinaris, chiefly by the testimony of Eusebius. "But in vain, in my judgment," says the distinguished Gallandius (41); "for Eusebius nowhere committed that to memory." The bishop of Caesarea does indeed testify once and again that Apollinaris sharpened his pen against the heresy of the Cataphrygians; but he reports that, along with him, he stirred up as a "valid and invincible weapon" many other men excelling in doctrine and eloquence as a champion of the truth C (42). Such indeed were Miltiades, Rhodon, and Apollonius, of whom the same historian treats next, and after recounting them, he proceeds thus: "Therefore, one of them, at the very beginning of the work which he composed against the Cataphrygians, asserts that he first contended with them with bare voice and refuted their errors. For thus he begins his discourse: 'Since you have long since imposed this duty upon me, my dearest Avircius Marcellus,' etc." Who then could rightly gather from these words of Eusebius that books dedicated to Avircius Marcellus were written by Apollinaris, when the bishop of Caesarea, having enumerated many who wrote against the Cataphrygians, testifies that "one of them," without naming him, was the author of those books? To this, moreover, fits that which Valesius says correctly, that Apollinaris, by the testimony of Eusebius (43), attacked the heresy of the Montanists with writings at that time, when first the heresy of the Cataphrygians D began to spring up; indeed about the year of Christ 171, at which time truly...
Apollinaris was writing, Montanus was laying the foundations of his heresy with his false prophets; which, indeed, not long after, stirred up the greatest tumults. But, the unnamed Eusebian author, of whom we are speaking, wrote his books only after the death of Montanus, Maximilla, and Theodotus, that is, not before the year 212, as is discovered from their fragments preserved by Eusebius. Wherefore, the authority of Rufinus, an extremely licentious interpreter, is to be held in further consideration with Dodwell (44); nor is the assertion of writers of a later age, such as Nicephorus, Callistus, and the author of the *libellus Synodicus*—of whom the former is said to have flourished in the ninth century, and the latter in the fourteenth—to be esteemed more highly; for they, having scarcely grasped the mind of Eusebius, are known to have interpolated his narrative at will. To this same opinion—that the fragments recounted by Eusebius should be attributed to Claudius Apollinaris—the learned Lequien (45) has recently given support. For from a certain *Life of St. Abercius*, bishop of Hierapolis in Phrygia—which was first published in Latin by Lipomanus (46) and Surius (47) from Metaphrastes, and in Greek by Halloix (48)—the learned man conjectures that this is the very Abercius to whom Apollinaris of Hierapolis addressed his work against the Cataphrygians; so that, consequently, Apollinaris was merely a presbyter of the Church of Hierapolis B at that time, who refuted those sectarians at the command of his bishop. So much for him. But to pass over those things which we have just discussed, how fleeting is the credibility of such a *Life of St. Abercius*, upon which alone Lequien’s conjecture rests, Tillemont (50) demonstrated at length after Baronius (49). The author of the *libellus Synodicus* relates that a holy synod, celebrated in the city of Hierapolis in Asia by Apollinaris, the bishop of that city, and twenty-six other bishops of the same province, deposed and extirpated the pseudo-prophets Montanus and Maximilla, and at the same time condemned Theodotus the Tanner (51) with them. The most learned D. Antine opportunely notes here that this council is accepted by the learned everywhere as indubitable (52).
Photius commends our Apollinaris for the excellence of his intellect and the elegance of his style (53). Tillemont (54) deems it very likely that he passed to the heavens before the year 180, because his writings against the Montanist heresy, which broke out in the year 171, were his latest work. Various Latin martyrologies record his commemoration on the seventh of February. Baronius, however, in the *Roman Martyrology*, assigns his birthday (natale) to the eighth of January (55). In the Greek Menaea, on the contrary, there is absolutely no mention of St. Apollinaris, according to Bollandus.
THE FRAGMENTS OF ST. CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS
(Routh, *Reliquiæ sacræ*, Oxford, 1814, I, 149.) *From an unknown book.*And this affair is mentioned both by authors completely alien to our faith, whose concern it was to commit to memory events occurring at that time, and also by our own people. But the pagan writers, being C dissident from our religion, indeed commemorated this miracle; nevertheless, they did not confess that it was brought about by the prayers of our people. Our own writers, however, as being of the truth... D [This history (says Eusebius, *Hist.* bk. v, ch. 5) is recorded both by those outside the faith (concerning that rain which was sent to the army of the Emperor M. Antoninus to slake the thirst of the soldiers, while the enemies were harassed by a volley of lightning) and by those writers who are far removed from our discourse, who have taken care to write about the things mentioned (56); but it has also been declared by our own people (57).]
A Now, as for those historians from outside, since the matter was foreign to their faith, the miracle was indeed admitted (58); yet it was not accepted that this had happened through the prayers of our people. But as for our own people, since they are friends of the truth, what occurred has been handed down in a simple and guileless manner. And Apollinaris would be one of these, who said that the legion which had wrought the miracle through prayer had received from the emperor a name appropriate to what had occurred, having been called ‘Thunder-striking’ (59) in the Roman tongue. B Not only did he touch upon the matter in the *Apologeticus*, chap. 5, and in *Ad Scapulam*, chap. 4, but even more fully in the latter part of the little book *De Oratione*, which was first published in the most recent century by the learned Muratori, having been taken from the Ambrosian codex. See chap. 29, in the Halensis edition of Tertullian.
(58) *The miracle was indeed admitted.* Writers of other nations who have mentioned this matter—some, indeed, have said that rain was obtained through the incantations of magi; others, however, through the prayers of the Emperor Marcus. Thus does Capitolinus in *Marcus*, and Claudian in the sixth consulship of Honorius. Moreover, they even relate the very words of the prayer which Marcus used: “This right hand,” he says, “I stretch out to you, Jupiter, which has never shed blood.” Themistius, in an oration to the Emperor Theodosius—which is not yet published (in the year 1659)—which is titled, “Which is the most kingly of virtues,” says to Antoninus, the Roman emperor, who himself had the title ‘the Pious’, when his army was hard-pressed by thirst: “Lifting his hands to heaven, ‘With this hand,’ he said, ‘I entreated you, and I besought the Giver of life, by whom I have not taken away life, and in this way he constrained God by the prayer, so that from a clear sky came clouds providing water for the soldiers.’ ” Themistius adds that he saw the image of this event painted on a tablet: the emperor indeed praying to the gods in the battle line; but the soldiers catching the rain in their helmets and drinking the water sent from heaven. VALESIUS. *He extorted rain from heaven by his prayers against the machinery of the enemy, and rain was obtained for his own men when they were laboring under thirst.* Jul. Capitolinus in *Marcus Antoninus the Philosopher*, p. 32, Paris edition. There exists (says Ant. Pagi) a silver coin in the royal treasury inscribed, M. ANTONINUS AUG. TR. P. XXVIII. The laureated head of Antoninus is seen. On the reverse, RELIG. AUG. IMP. VI. COS. III, that is, *Religio Augusti*. . . Mercury is seen standing, who holds a patera in his right hand and a caduceus in his left. M. Aurelius entered upon his twenty-eighth tribunician power in the current year. Wherefore, since Xiphilinus writes that Dio says that Marcus attributed this rain to Mercury, the study of whose cult he was devoted to, that coin is a witness to the credibility of Dio, as I remember hearing from the most learned man, Andrea Morelli. Ant. Pagi, at the year of Christ 174. Reading. *Since Cardinal Baronius in his Annals at the year 176, and Casalius in ‘De Urbe’, etc., exhibit a single engraving on bronze in which this column of Antoninus is partly shown as being inscribed, and Havercamp besides put another image of the same monument in his edition of Tertullian’s ‘Apologeticus’ at chap. 5, page 62; by those learned men—not to mention the description of Bellorius—different parts of that noble column and of this history at the same time are depicted.*
(59) *Thunder-striking.* Scaliger has already noted in the Eusebian animadversions that the ‘Thunder-striking’ legion was not named after this miracle, as it was so called long before the times of M. Antoninus. Dio Cassius makes this manifest in book LV, where he enumerates all the legions. An old inscription also, brought forward by Scaliger, confirms the same thing. Wherefore, regarding the miracle itself—of rain obtained by Christian soldiers, as Apollinaris and Tertullian testify—we may easily believe (Eusebius, in this chapter, after he cited Apollinaris as a witness to the event, also brings forward Tertullian, employing his testimony in the *Apologeticus* to the same miracle); but that the Melitine legion was called ‘Thunder-striking’ on account of this by the Emperor M. Antoninus, Apollinaris has not yet persuaded me. Perhaps someone will say that the legion was indeed ‘Thunder-striking’ before the times of M. Antoninus, but that Marcus, on account of a favor received from the Melitine legion, granted it the surname of ‘Thunder-striking’ as well. But if that were so, it should have been called the ‘Second Thunder-striking’. Dio, however, makes no mention of it, although he accurately enumerates all the legions enrolled by previous princes. But he also says that that ‘Thunder-striking’ legion had its stationed camps in Cappadocia, which fits the Melitine legion aptly. In the *Notitia imperii Romani*, under the disposition of the Duke of Armenia, the prefecture of the 12th Fulminata Melitine is enumerated, that is, stationed near the town of Melitene. From which it is concluded that Melitine was not the name of the legion, but of the town in which the 12th Fulminata was stationed. But it was not the custom to name legions from the places in which they held garrison, but from the regions in which they were enrolled. Therefore, that which Eusebius relates concerning the Melitine legion seems to me little probable. Add that Rufinus, as I think, purposely omitted this name of the legion; for he knew that Melitene is the name of a town in Lesser Armenia, in which the 12th Fulminata still made a show in his own age. Rightly also does the same Rufinus translate *keraunobolon* as ‘Thunder-striking’ (fulmineam); not ‘Thunder-generating’, as Onuphrius and Scaliger and others call it. The *Notitia imperii* refutes them in the place I brought forward above. Moreover, to state honestly what I think, it seems little probable to me that the whole legion of Roman soldiers was Christian at that time, which however Eusebius seems to affirm. Who also errs in this, that he did not bring forward the passage of Apollinaris, nor indicate the book itself in which Apollinaris had written these things. But even the words with which he concludes this whole narrative sufficiently indicate that he himself doubted the truth of the matter. For he says thus: ᾿Αλλὰ ταῦτα μὲν ὅπη τις ἐθέλει τιθέσθαι. That is: *But let each one judge concerning these things according to his own preference.* VALESIUS. Pearson, in *Vindiciae Ignatianae*, p. 11, c. 13, p. 161, determines with Valesius that the words of Eusebius pertain to this history, where he writes this: *“Then indeed he immediately inserts a certain narrative about the thunder-striking legion, which he leaves as if uncertain.”* Let him who wishes for more about this narrative go to the authors indicated by Mosheim in *Hist. eccles.*, cent. II, p. 1, c. 1, § 9, to which he may add, besides ecclesiastical historians, John Richardson in *Praelect. eccl.* vol. I, and Lardner, *Testim. Judaic. et ethnic.* vol. II, cap. 15, but defending the contrary parts. I, for my part, saving the judgment of the more prudent, would say that some Christian soldiers in the army of Marcus, when they had sought liberation from great straits from God, were afterward wondrously saved along with their fellow soldiers, while the barbarian enemies perished; but whether this was granted because of their prayers, God alone knows; furthermore, even if the case were such—which I by no means deny is quite probable—it does not immediately follow from that that this divine benefit should be counted among miracles properly so called.
FRAGMENTS
A Excerpt from the book *On the Pasch*. (60) — These things are brought forward in the *Preface to the Paschal (or Alexandrian) Chronicle*, p. 6, ed. Ducange.There are, then, those who, out of ignorance, stir up contentions regarding these matters, having suffered a thing worthy of pardon; for ignorance does not admit of accusation, but stands in need of instruction; and they say that the Lord ate the lamb with the disciples on the 14th, but that He Himself suffered on the great day of Unleavened Bread; and they allege that Matthew says this, as they have understood it; whence their understanding is discordant with the Law (62), and the Gospels seem, according to them, to be in conflict.
Excerpts from the same book, ibid.
The 14th is the true Pasch of the Lord, the great sacrifice; the Son of God instead of the lamb, He who was bound, He who bound the strong one, and who was judged, the judge of the living and the dead, and who was delivered into the hands of sinners that He might be crucified, He who was lifted up upon the horns of the unicorn, and he who had his holy side pierced, he who poured out from his side…
A And Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who lived near the apostolic times, taught similar things in his discourse *On the Pasch*, saying thus: “There are,” etc.
(60) *From the book On the Pasch.* In the *Preface* which is called *Chronicon Paschale*, or *Alexandrinum*, these two fragments from Apollinaris are set forth: “And Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who was near to apostolic times, taught in the book which he wrote *On the Pasch* things consistent with this, in these words: ‘There are, then,’ etc.” Lardner, meanwhile, following Tillemont in *Mémoires ecclésiastiques*, tom. II, p. 111, p. 91, prefers to attribute these two fragments to Pierius the Alexandrian, a writer of the third century, who composed a book *On the Pasch*. See him in *De fide hist. evang.*, p. II, tom. II, c. 28, § 11. For perhaps to some it is displeasing that which is here stated regarding the time of the Pasch; but there seems to me to be nothing in the fragments which forces us to judge them away from Apollinaris. Nor is the credit B of the author of the *Preface* to be denied more than that of other writers, by whose testimony many books of the ancients have been received, which were mentioned neither by Eusebius nor by any other; especially since Eusebius himself is below, who records that some works from the many books of Apollinaris had reached him. Likewise, in the notes to the fragments of Melito at page 157, I have described similar words of Eusebius regarding the works of Bishop Serapion. Indeed, perhaps one of the books of Apollinaris that never reached Eusebius was read by Photius, that distinguished critic—that is, the one in cod. 14 reviewed; C but more on this matter below. Hear, moreover, what Maximus wrote in his *Prologue* to the *Works of S. Dionysius the Areopagite*, which apply very much here: (And this indeed prudently): p. 56 ed. Corderii, p. ed. Morel. These things Maximus said about Eusebius. And perhaps he rightly says that from the silence of this man, the credibility of no book should be completely abrogated, unless it was necessary for the same reason to fail on account of another cause. Finally, it must be noted that contemporaries of this Apollinaris wrote books *On the Pasch*, such as Melito, Irenaeus, and Clement of Alexandria, while the Paschal controversy was, of course, raging in those times. D (61) *There are, then, those who.* This is a most difficult question: whether Christ and the Jews ate the pasch at one and the same time; to which I would not wish to interpose myself, a man of little weight. Therefore, letting this matter go, I will only remark that this Apollinaris seems to have felt, along with Clement of Alexandria and many other Fathers, that the Lord celebrated His final supper—which these Fathers, as Photius notes in codd. 115 and 116, thought to be different from the legal Pasch—on the evening of the civil day of the month of Nisan; and that at midday on the 14th, in place of the paschal lamb butchered by the Jews at that time, the Lord Himself was slaughtered, according to that word of the Apostle in his first Epistle to the Corinthians, ch. v, v. 7: For our Pasch, Christ, was sacrificed for us. And so, they decided that Matthew and the other evangelists ought to be interpreted from the Gospel of John, in the same way as other writers who in more recent times determined that our Lord and the Jews did not eat the pasch on the same day, though differing from those ancients regarding the nature of the Lord's final feast. Likewise, Hippolytus, praised in the same *Preface to the Alexandrian Chronicle*, answering someone in his book *Against all Heresies*, writes these things: [Similarly, Clement of Alexandria, and in the same place: (scil. on the day following the final supper, or in the month of Nisan (for *legend. in interpretatione Latina*). Since Apollinaris says that the other opinion is contrary to the Law, because, since by the institution of the Law the paschal lamb was to be slaughtered on the 14th day of the moon, it would have to be considered in accordance with the Law that Jesus Christ suffered on that very day.] (63) *The true.* So published, for "of the true," from a Bodleian manuscript, number 3401, signed, in which are the fragments of Apollinaris *On the Pasch*, besides other parts of what is called the *Preface*.
A is exalted, and who was pierced in his sacred side, who poured forth from his side two purgations again, water and blood, word and spirit; and who was buried on the day of the Pasch, when the stone had been placed upon the monument.
These things regarding the works of S. Apollinaris [are stated by] Eusebius, Serapion of Antioch, Socrates, and Jerome.
*From Eusebius, lib. IV, Hist., cap. 27.*
Apollinaris, indeed, although many works are extant among many people, yet these alone have reached us: An Oration to the aforementioned emperor, five books *Against the Gentiles*, two *On Truth*, also two *Against the Jews*, and others which he wrote afterwards against the Cataphrygian heresy, which indeed not long afterwards stirred up B greatest tumults; at that time, however, it had first begun to spring up, while Montanus, together with his false prophetesses, was still laying the foundations of his error.
(66) *And on truth, the first and the second.* Photius in the *Bibliotheca*, codex 14: "Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, *To the Greeks*, and *On Piety and Truth*." *Apollinaris To the Greeks, and On Piety, and On Truth* was read. The author is a Hierapolitan, having been bishop of Hierapolis in Asia. He flourished under the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus. The man is noteworthy, and he employed a noteworthy style; other noteworthy works of his are also spoken of, which we have not yet encountered. C This is what Photius says. Fabricius, however, in his *Delectus argumentorum* (On the Christian Religion, p. 160), thinks it is uncertain whether this work was the same as that *On Truth* mentioned by Eusebius, and whether Photius read it under the title *On Piety and Truth*, or whether it was a different work, *On Piety*, and perhaps the same as that *For the Faith* (as Nicephorus calls the book offered to the emperor Antoninus). The words of Nicephorus are: "The discourse to Antoninus *For the Faith*." Whatever might be decided about the booklet to Antoninus, it will perhaps prove that the book *On Piety* is to be considered a different work from that *On Truth*, because of the Photian censure itself, in which the term *on truth* is repeated. Halloxius (*Vitae Patrum Orientalium*, tom. II, p. 799) and Gallandius (in the place mentioned above at p. 157) have judged them to be different books.
(67) Some of these are absent from our Mazarin, Medici, and Fugger codices. But neither had Rufinus read them in his copies, as appears from his version; nor does Jerome mention this book *Against the Jews* in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, where he lists all the books of Apollinaris. Nicephorus, however, mentions this work. VALESIUS. I would think these words were added by some annoyingly zealous copyist, and I would order them to be removed, if it were not also possible that they were omitted by an error concerning homoeoteleuton. STROTH. The reading of the royal codex is confirmed by the Norfolk manuscript, but not by the Savilian or Bodleian, contrary to what Stroth had thought was the case on account of Valesius' silence. However, in both places the Norfolk codex has the word "second."
(68) Christophoros translates: "Which not long after the time were entirely renewed." I cannot approve of this interpretation. Langus and Musculus, however, both followed almost the same meaning. For thus Langus: "And what he also composed against the Phrygian heresy, which not long after introduced new things into the Church."
"" A And so that you may know, he says, how the entire brotherhood on earth rejects and abhors the operation of that feigned faction, which is called the new prophecy, I have sent you the letters of the most blessed father Claudius Apollinaris, who was bishop of the Hierapolitan city in Asia.
Socrates [(70)] Hist. eccles. lib. III, c. 7, reporting the catholic dogma concerning the human soul assumed by Christ, which was confirmed at the Alexandrian council under Athanasius in the year 362.
For thus all the ancients who have debated about this matter have left us their opinion produced in writing; and Irenæus certainly and Clement, and Apollinaris of Hierapolis, and Serapion, bishop of the city of Antioch, assert in their books, as a thing received by the common consent of all, that Christ, who was made man, was endowed with a soul.
Hieronymus, Epist. ad Magnum, ep. 83, looking, as Fabricius opined in one place, to the writings of Apollinaris against the Montanists and Encratites.
What shall I say of Melito bishop of Sardis, what of Apollinaris the priest of the Hierapolitan Church, and Dionysius bishop of the Corinthians, and Tatianus and Bardesanes, and Irenæus the successor of the martyr Photinus, who explained in many volumes the poisons of individual heresies, from which sources of the philosophers they emanated [(71)]?
Musculus indeed in this manner: *Which did not soon after begin to wax insolent.* You may also translate thus: *Which not long after was more openly published.* VALES. — Touching Baronius at the year 173, who devises a double origin for the Montanists from hence, Tillemont opposes himself, Mém. ecclés. tom. II, not. I, treating of the Montanists, advising the most learned man that Eusebius writes that Apollinaris wrote against Montanus at his first origin, which he thinks happened a little later than the time about which Eusebius was then treating. I would translate therefore: *Which not long after was devised, then indeed beginning as it were to be born.* B And Hieronymus, De viris ill. cap. 41, where these things are brought forward from Eusebius, translates *litteras*; but Fabricius says that he prefers to render *scripta* for the *litteras* of Jerome. To Basnage also, Annal. politico-eccles. tom. II, p. 151, these *grammata* do not seem to differ from the books against the Cataphrygians, or Montanists, which Eusebius mentions. "Otherwise," says he, "he would have mentioned these letters also in the catalogue of the works of Apollinaris." Moreover, thus Gallandius, Prolegom. vol. I Biblioth. PP., p. cxx: "We prefer to render the word *grammata* into Latin as *scripta* or *libros*, with Baluzius, Nov. Concil. Collect. p. 6, and Fabricius, rather than *litteras* with Langus at Niceph. IV, and Valesius." Musculus and Christophorsonus, the interpreters of Eusebius, had previously translated *litteras*. But regarding Apollinaris himself and others, Eusebius has these things besides, lib. V Hist., c. 16: Against the so-called Cataphrygian heresy, the power that defends the truth raised up as a strong and unconquerable weapon at Hierapolis, the Apollinaris of whom the discourse had made mention before, and others with him, many of the learned men of that time. From which also a very great subject for history has been left to us. C Then Eusebius excerpted some quite long passages from a certain work written against the Cataphrygians, which some are accustomed indeed to attribute to Apollinaris, but Valesius warns in the same place that this was done wrongly. Halloixius also in the Life of S. Apollinaris had judged that this work should be denied to him, although he placed fragments of it there, which I indeed will present later to the reader at the beginning of the third century. In the same opinion, moreover, is Gallandius, ubi supra. But concerning this work I have no doubt that the words pertain to the author of the *Libellus synodicus*, first edited by Pappus and Justellus: he says, Apud Concil. Labb. et Cossart. tom. I, p. 599. To be sure, in the work *Against the Cataphrygians*, those things at least that Eusebius relates concerning the death of Montanus and Maximilla were extant; and perhaps it is owing to no other origin, that which he follows here—new and unheard of—concerning Theodotus the tanner, who denied that Christ was God, since there immediately after, a certain Montanist named Theodotus is commemorated. (70) Socrates says. Similar is Nicephorus lib. X, cap. 14 Hist. eccles. (71) Jerome indeed in lib. De viris ill. cap. 18, where he says of Papias that he published a Jewish D *deuterosis* of a thousand years, adds that Irenæus and Apollinaris followed him, and the others who say that after the resurrection the Lord will reign in the flesh with the saints. But another passage of Jerome, to be seen in the Fabrician notes in the same place, prevents me from believing that Apollinaris, the successor of Papias in the Hierapolitan see, is designated in this place; where the author, after he has mentioned Latin writers, defenders of the thousand-year reign, adds: "And that I may mention Greeks, that I may join the first and the last, Irenæus and Apollinaris, etc.," lib. XI Comm. in Ezech., cap. 36. But I had no doubt that by these words Apollinaris of Laodicea, a writer of the fourth century, was signified, even before I saw the same Jerome writing in the Prooemium in lib. XVIII Comm. Isaiae that he had answered Dionysius of Alexandria, who was mocking the thousand-year fable, [which] Jerome calls [the fable of] Apollinaris. It is therefore likely that this father of the second century, whom I have cited, Apollinaris of Hierapolis, ought to be excluded from the Chiliasts.