parallel of 2 Cor. iii. 14 ([Greek:  epi tae anagnosei taes palaias diathaekaes]), which is ably pointed to in ‘Supernatural Religion’ [Endnote 245:2], is too close to allow the inference of a written New Testament.  And yet, though the word has not actually acquired this meaning, it was in process of acquiring it, and had already gone some way to acquire it.  The books were already there, and, as we see from Irenaeus, critical collections of them had already begun to be made.  Within thirty years of the time when Melito is writing Tertullian uses the phrase Novum Testamentum precisely in our modern sense, intimating that it had then become the current designation [Endnote 245:3].  This being the case we cannot wonder that there should be a certain reflex hint of such a sense in the words of Melito.

The tract ‘On Faith,’ published in Syriac by Dr. Cureton and attributed to Melito, is not sufficiently authenticated to have value as evidence.

It should be noted that Melito’s fragments contain nothing especially on the Gospels.

2.

Some time between 176-180 A.D.  Claudius Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius an apology of which rather more than three lines have come down to us.  A more important fragment however is assigned to this writer in the Paschal Chronicle, a work of the seventh century.  Here it is said that ’Apollinaris, the most holy bishop of Hierapolis in Asia, who lived near the times of the Apostles, in his book about Easter, taught much the same, saying thus:  “There are some who through ignorance wrangle about these matters, in a pardonable manner; for ignorance does not admit of blame but rather needs instruction.  And they say that on the 14th the Lord ate the lamb with His disciples, and that on the great day of unleavened bread He himself suffered; and they relate that this is in their view the statement of Matthew.  Whence their opinion is in conflict with the law, and according to them the Gospels are made to be at variance"’ [Endnote 246:1].  This variance or disagreement in the Gospels evidently has reference to the apparent discrepancy between the Synoptics, especially St. Matthew and St. John, the former treating the Last Supper as the Paschal meal, the latter placing it before the Feast of the Passover and making the Crucifixion coincide with the slaughter of the Paschal lamb.  Apollinaris would thus seem to recognise both the first and the fourth Gospels as authoritative.

Is this fragment of Apollinaris genuine?  It is alleged against it [Endnote 247:1] (1) that Eusebius was ignorant of any such work on Easter, and that there is no mention of it in such notices of Apollinaris and his writings as have come down to us from Theodoret, Jerome, and Photius.  There are some good remarks on this point by Routh (who is quoted in ‘Supernatural Religion’ apparently as adverse to the genuineness of the fragments).  He says:  ’There seems to me to be nothing in these extracts