[574] Sed species ejus inhonorata, deficiens ultra omnes homines.—Contra Marc., iii, 17.
[575] Si inglorius, si ignobilis, si inhonorabilis; meus erit Christus.—Ibid.
[576] Ἀλλὰ τὸ εἶδος αὐτοῦ ἄτιμον ἔκλιπον παρὰ πάντας τοὺς υἱοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων.—De Nudatione Noe, lib. ii, vol. i, p. 13.
[577] Nisi enim habuisset et in vultu quiddam et in oculis sidereum, nunquam eum statim secuti fuissent apostoli.—Epis. ad Princip. Virginem.
[578] Certe fulgor ipsa et majestas divinitatis occultæ, quæ etiam in humanâ facie relucebat, ex primo ad se venientes trahere poterat aspectu.—Hieronym. in Matth., ix, 9.
[579] Qua fuerit ille facie nos penitus ignoramus: nam et ipsius Dominicæ facies carnis innumerabilium cogitationum diversitate variatur et fingitur, quæ tamen una erat, quæcunque erat.—De Trin., lib. vii, c. 4, 5.
[580] Tableau des Catacombes, p. 164.
[581] Rom. Sott., p. 252.
[582] Hist. Eccl., vii, 18. From this frequent association St. Paul as well as St. Peter was frequently regarded as being both among the original disciples. “Justly do they deserve to err,” says Augustine, speaking of this mistake, “who seek Christ and his apostles, not in the holy volumes, but on painted walls.”—De Consens. Evang., lib. i, cx.
[583] This statue, it has been suggested, probably represented the philosopher Apollonius or the Emperor Vespasian, and the suppliant female figure a personified city or province. Gibbon thinks it impossible that it could be intended for the poor woman mentioned in the gospel. Eusebius mentions the belief as a mere popular tradition. “They say that this statue bears the likeness of Jesus”—Τοῦτον δὲ τὸν ἀνδριάντα εἰκόνα τοῦ Ἰησοῦ φέρειν ἔλεγον.—Hist. Eccl., viii, 18.