Claudius Apollinaris, Eusebius says, was Bishop of Hierapolis, and there is the fragment of a letter of Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, which supports the statement, and in which Apollinaris is referred to as the "most blessed." The date of his writings, in consequence of an allusion to the Thundering Legion of the army of Marcus Aurelius, may be fixed at about A.D. 174. None of them are extant. We have only two brief fragments, in which the controversy respecting the observance of the Christian Passover is alluded to. The following passage is important: "There are some, however, who through ignorance raise contentions regarding these matters in a way which should be pardoned, for ignorance must not be pursued with accusation, but requires instruction. And they say that the Lord, together with His disciples, ate the lamb on the great day of unleavened bread, and they state that Matthew says precisely what they have understood; hence their understanding of it is at variance with the law, and according to them the Gospels seem to contradict each other." Tischendorf and Westcott naturally adduce this passage in support of the position of the four canonical Gospels. Our author demurs, arguing that "there is such exceedingly slight reason for attributing these fragments to Claudius Apollinaris, and so many strong grounds for believing that he cannot have written them, that they have no material value as evidence for the antiquity of the Gospels" (p. 191). Athenagoras wrote an apology, entitled "The Embassy of Athenagoras the Athenian, a Philosopher and a Christian, concerning Christians, to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus, Armeniaci Surmatici, and, above all, Philosophers;" and also a "Treatise on the Resurrection of the Body." A passage from the former occurs in the work of Methodius on the Resurrection, and is preserved by Epiphanius and by Photius. "For we have learnt not only not to render a blow, nor to go to law with those who spoil and plunder us; but, to those who inflict a blow on one side, also to present the other side of the head in return for smiting; and to those who take away the coat, also to give besides the cloke."[51] [51] "Leg. pro Christ." § 1. Of this our author says: "No echo of the words of Matthew has lingered in the ear of the writer, for he employs utterly different phraseology throughout; and _nothing can be more certain than the fact_ that there is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics" (p. 194). The value of our author's conclusions may be measured by what he here asserts. It seems to me that the reverse may be asserted. (1) That words in Matthew _did_ "linger in the ear of the writer;" (2) that he _does not_ "employ utterly different phraseology throughout;" and (3) that many things "_can_ be more certain than the fact that there is not a linguistic trace in it of acquaintance with our Synoptics."