red on the great day of unleavened
bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they
interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the
law ([Greek: asumphonos nomo]), and on their showing the Gospels
seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei
kat' autous ta euangelia]).

The second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the
same context.

The fourteenth was the true passover of the Lord, the great
sacrifice, the Son of God substituted for the lamb, the same that
was bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being
judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands
of sinners to be crucified; the same that was lifted on the horns
of the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side; the same
that poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and
blood, word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the
passover, the stone being laid against His sepulchre.

If the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's treatise on
the same subject, as seems probable, it must have been written about
A.D. 164-166, or soon after. The references to the Gospels are obvious.
In the first extract Apollinaris has in view the difficulty of
reconciling the chronology of the Paschal week as given by St John with
the narratives of the Synoptic Evangelists; and he asserts that the date
fixed for the Passion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can
only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two
accounts; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts are
reconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is not in
harmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, was slain on the
14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the antitype, must have been
crucified on the same day. I am not concerned here with the question
whether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed
is that he speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at
least St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received
documents to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this
respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century, or
in the nineteenth, who was led by circumstances to notice a difficulty
in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears
out the impression left