apocrypha were current in thousands. Yet it must
be confessed that the early Fathers, and the (^hurcli,
during the first three centuries, were more indulgent
towards Jewish pseudographs circulating under ven-
erable Old Testament names. The Book of Henoch
and the Assumption of Moses had been cited Ijy the
canonical Kpistle of Jude. .Many Fathers admitted
the inspiration of Fourth E.s<lras. Not to mention
the Shepherd of Hcrm;us, the .Acts of St. Paul (at
least in the Theda jjortion) and the ApocaIy|se of
St. Peter were liiglily reeretl at this and later periods.
Vet, withal, no apocryphal work found of-
ficial recognition in tlic Western Church. In 447
Pope Leo the tireat wrote (jointedly against the
pseudo-apostolic writings, "which contained the germ
of so many errors . . . they should not only be for-
bidden but completely suppres.sed and burned"
(Epist. XV, lo). The so-called "Decretum de re-
cipiendis et non reci])iendLs libris" is attributed to
Pojx; Cielasius (49.5), but in reality is a compilation
dating from the beginning of the sixth century, and
containing collections made earlier than (ielasius. It
is an official document, the first of the kind we pos-
sess, and contained a list of 39 works besides those
ascribed to Leucius, "disciple of the devil", all of
which it condemns as apocryphal. From this cata-
logue it is evident that in the Latin Church by this
time, ajxjcryplia in general, including those of
Catholic origin, had fallen under the ecclesiastical
ban, always, however, with a preoccupation against
the danger of heterodoxy. The Synod of Braga, in
Spain, held in the year .56.3, anathematizes any one
"who reads, approves, or defends the injurious fic-
tions -set in circulation by heretics". Although in
the Middle .ges these condemnations were forgotten
and many of the p.seudographic writings enjoyed a
high degree of fa'our among both clerics and the
laity, still we find superior minds, such as Alcuin,
St. Bernard, St. Thomas Aquinas, pointing out their
want of authority. An echo of the ancient condem-
nations occurs in the work De Festis B. M. V. of
Benedict XIV, declaring certain popular apocrj'pha
to be impure sources of tradition. (See Canon of
S.ACKED Scripture.)
Tappehorn, AtiaafrbiblUche Nachrichten (Podcrbom, 1835).
George J. Reid.
Apodosis (Gr. dir65o<ris, a giving back), a usage of the Cireek Church corresponding .somewhat to the octave of a feast in the Latin Chiircli. For .several days after a great feast the celebrant turns back to certain prayers of the feast and repeats them in commemoration of it. The last day of such repeti- tion of the prayers of the previous feast is called the apmlnsis. This time may be longer or shorter than the Latin octave of one week, because great feasts in the Greek Church are commemorateil for a longer time than minor ones.
PETRIDES. in Dict. darch. chrH., I, 2589; Chahro.v, Sainlcnet dirinrs lituraua (Paris, 1904).
Andrew J. Shipman.
Apollinarianism, a Christological theory, accord- ing to which Christ had a human body and a human sensitive soul, but no human rational mind, the Divine Logon taking the place of this last. The author of this theory, Apollinaris (Άπολινάριος) the Younger, Bishop of Laodicea, flourished in the hitter half of the fourth century and was at first highly esteemed by men like St. .thanasius, St. Basil, and St. Jerome for his classical culture, his Biblical learning, his defence of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene faith. He assisted his father, Apollinaris the Elder, in reconstnicting the Scriptures on classical models in order to compensate the Christians for the loss of (Ireek literature of which the edict of Julian h.ad deprived them. St. Jerome credits him with "innumerable volumes on the Scriptures"; two apolo- gies of Christianity, one against Porphyry, and the other against Julian; a refutation of Eunomius, a radical .rian, etc.; but all these works are lost. With regard to .Vpollinaris's writings which bear on the present theory, we are more fortunate. A contemporary anonymous book: "AdversiLs fraudes Apollinaristarum", informs us that the Ajjollinarists, in order to win credence for their error, circulated a number of tracts under the approved names of such men as Gregory Thaumaturgus ('H (tard lUpot wlffrtt, E.xposition of Faith), Athaiiasius {repl <rop(tii(rfujs. On the Incarnation), Pope Julius ("pl ttjs iv Xpiarf ivlmiTos, On Unity in Christ), etc. Following that clue, Leciuien (1740), Caspari (1879), and Dra.seke (1K92), have shown that in all probability the.se are Apollinaris's writings. Moreover, the Fathers of the Church who wrote in defence of orthodoxy, e. g., Athanasius, in two books against ApoUinaris; Greg- ory Nazianzen, in several letters; Gregory of Nyssa in his " 'Amp^TjTiifis "; Theodoret, in his " Ha>retica! Fabuhe" and " Dialogues ", etc., incidentally give us ample information on the real system of the Laodi- cean. The precise time at which .pollinaris came fonvard with his heresy is uncertain. There are clearly two periods in the .pollinarist controversy. Up to 376, either because of his covert attitude or of the respect in which he was held, .Xpollinaris's name was never mentioned by his opi)oncnts, i. e. by individuals like .•Vtlianasius and Pope Damasus, or by councils like the .Mexandrian (362), and the Roman (.376). From this latter tlate it is open war. Two more Roman councils, 377 and 381, and a number of Fathers, plainly denounce anti condemn iis heretical the views of .pollinaris. He failed to submit even to the more solemn condemnation of the Council of Constanti- nople, 381, whose first canon entered Apollinarianism on the list of heresies, and he died in his error, alxjut 39'J. His following, at one time considerable in C<m.stantinople, Syria, and Phcrnicia. hardly survived him. Some few disciples, hke Vitalis, alentinus, Polemon, ami Timothy, tried to perpetuate the error of the master and probably are responsible for the forgeries noticed above. The sect itself soon became extinct. Towards 416, many retumeti to the mother- Church, while the rest drifted away into Monophys- itism. Theory. — .pollinaris based his theory on two principles or suppositions, one ontological or objec- tive, and one psychological or subjective. Onto- logically, it appt^ared to him that the union of com- plete God with complete man could not be more than a juxtaposition or collocation. Two perfect beings with all their attributes, he argued, cannot be one. They are at most an incongruous compound, not unlike the monsters of mytholoj^. Inasmuch as the Nicene faith forbade him to belittle the Logos, as Arius had done, he forthwith proceeded to maim the humanity of Christ, and divest it of its noblest attribute, and this, he claimed, for the siike of true Unity and veritable Incarnation. Psychologically, Apollinaris, con.sidering the r.ition.al soul or spirit as essentially liable to sin and capable, at its best, of only precarious efforts, saw no way of .saving Christ's impeccability and the infinite value of Redemption, except by the chmination of the human spirit from Jesus' humanity, and the substitution of the Divine Logon in its stead. For the ccmstructive part of his theorj', .pollinaris appealed to the well-known Platonic division of human nature: body (dpi. ituiim), soul (f ux") 4^0705), spirit (wOs. Trvfviia, xf'i'xil oyiK-/i). Christ, he s:iid, a.ssumed the human body and the human .soul or principle of animal life, but not the human spirit. The I^gos Him.self is. or takes the place of. the human spirit, thus becoming the rational and spiritual centre, the seat of .sclf-consciousne.ss and self-determination. By this simple device
