{"collection":"chr","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/chr/ecf/201/2010135.htm","path":"chr/ecf/201/2010135.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/201/2010135.htm","text":"Chapter XXVI.\u2014Melito and the Circumstances which he records.\n1. In those days also Melito, 1276 bishop of the parish in Sardis, and Apolinarius, 1277 bishop of Hierapolis, enjoyed great distinction. Each of them on his own part addressed apologies in behalf of the faith to the above-mentioned emperor 1278 of the Romans who was reigning at that time.\n2. The following works of these writers have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, 1279 the two books On the Passover, 1280 and p. 204 one On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets, 1281 the discourse On the Church, 1282 and one On the Lord\u2019s Day, 1283 still further one On the Faith of Man, 1284 and one On his Creation, 1285 another also On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses; 1286 besides these the work On the Soul and Body, 1287 and that On Baptism, 1288 and the one On Truth, 1289 and On the Creation and Generation of Christ; 1290 his discourse also On Prophecy, 1291 and that On Hospitality; 1292 still further, The Key, 1293 and the books On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John, 1294 and the work On the Corporeality of God, 1295 and finally the book adp. 205 dressed to Antoninus. 1296\n3. In the books On the Passover he indicates the time at which he wrote, beginning with these words: \u201cWhile Servilius Paulus was proconsul of Asia, at the time when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, there arose in Laodicea a great strife concerning the Passover, which fell according to rule in those days; and these were written.\u201d 1297\n4. And Clement of Alexandria refers to this work in his own discourse On the Passover, 1298 which, he says, he wrote on occasion of Melito\u2019s work.\n5. But in his book addressed to the emperor he records that the following events happened to us under him: \u201cFor, what never before happened, 1299 the race of the pious is now suffering persecution, being driven about in Asia by new decrees. For the shameless informers and coveters of the property of others, taking occasion from the decrees, openly carry on robbery night and day, despoiling those who are guilty of no wrong.\u201d And a little further on he says: \u201cIf these things are done by thy command, well and good. For a just ruler will never take unjust measures; and we indeed gladly accept the honor of such a death.\n6. But this request alone we present to thee, that thou wouldst thyself first examine the authors of such strife, and justly judge whether they be worthy of death and punishment, or of safety and quiet. But if, on the other hand, this counsel and this new decree, which is not fit to be executed even against barbarian enemies, be not from thee, much more do we beseech thee not to leave us exposed to such lawless plundering by the populace.\u201d\n7. Again he adds the following: 1300 \u201cFor our philosophy formerly flourished among the Barbarians; but having sprung up among the nations under thy rule, during the great reign of thy ancestor Augustus, it became to thine empire especially a blessing of auspicious omen. For from that time the power of the Romans has grown in greatness and splendor. To this power thou hast succeeded, as the desired possessor, 1301 and such shalt thou continue with thy son, if thou guardest the philosophy which grew up with the empire and which came into existence with Augustus; that philosophy which thy ancestors also honored along with the other religions.\n8. And a most convincing proof that our doctrine flourished for the good of an empire happily begun, is this\u2014that there has no evil happened since Augustus\u2019 reign, but that, on the contrary, all things have been splendid and glorious, in accordance with the prayers of all.\n9. Nero and Domitian, alone, persuaded by certain calumniators, have wished to slander our doctrine, and from them it has come to pass that the falsehood 1302 has been p. 206 handed down, in consequence of an unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations against the Christians. 1303\n10. But thy pious fathers corrected their ignorance, having frequently rebuked in writing 1304 many who dared to attempt new measures against them. Among them thy grandfather Adrian appears to have written to many others, and also to Fundanus, 1305 the proconsul and governor of Asia. And thy father, when thou also wast ruling with him, wrote to the cities, forbidding them to take any new measures against us; among the rest to the Lariss\u00e6ans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and to all the Greeks. 1306\n11. And as for thee,\u2014since thy opinions respecting the Christians 1307 are the same as theirs, and indeed much more benevolent and philosophic,\u2014we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee.\u201d These words are found in the above-mentioned work.\n12. But in the Extracts 1308 made by him the same writer gives at the beginning of the introduction a catalogue of the acknowledged books of the Old Testament, which it is necessary to quote at this point. He writes as follows:\n13. \u201cMelito to his brother Onesimus, 1309 greeting: Since thou hast often, in thy zeal for the word, expressed a wish to have extracts made from the Law and the Prophets concerning the Saviour and concerning our entire faith, and hast also desired to have an accurate statement of the ancient book, as regards their number and their order, I have endeavored to perform the task, knowing thy zeal for the faith, and thy desire to gain information in regard to the word, and knowing that thou, in thy yearning after God, esteemest these things above all else, struggling to attain eternal salvation.\n14. Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, 1310 Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, 1311 the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, 1312 Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book 1313 ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. 1314 From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.\u201d Such are the words of Melito.\nThe first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190\u2013202 a.d.) in support of the Quartodeciman practice of the Asia Minor churches. A fragment of this letter is given by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 24, and from it we learn that Melito also favored the Quartodeciman practice, that he was a man whose walk and conversation were altogether under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and that he was buried at Sardis. Polycrates in this fragment calls Melito a eunuch. Whether the word is to be understood in its literal sense or is to be taken as meaning simply that Melito lived in \u201cvirgin continence\u201d is disputed. In favor of the latter interpretation may be urged the fact that the Greek word and its Latin equivalent were very commonly used by the Fathers in this figurative sense, e.g. by Athenagoras, by Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by Cassianus (whose work on continence bore the title \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, \u1f22 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b5\u1f50\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c7\u03af\u03b1\u03c2), by Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory Nazianzen, &c. (see Smith and Wace\u2019s Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Melito, and Suicer\u2019s Thesaurus). On the other hand, such continence cannot have been a rare thing in Asia Minor in the time of Polycrates, and the fact that Melito is called specifically \u201cthe eunuch\u201d looks peculiar if nothing more than that is meant by it. The case of Origen, who made himself a eunuch for the sake of preserving his chastity, at once occurs to us in this connection (see Renan, L\u2019eglise chret. p. 436, and compare Justin Martyr\u2019s Apol. I. 29). The canonical rule that no such eunuch could hold clerical office came later, and hence the fact that Melito was a bishop cannot be urged against the literal interpretation of the word here. Polycrates\u2019 meaning hardly admits of an absolute decision, but at least it cannot be looked upon as it is by most historians as certain that he uses the word here in its figurative sense.\nPolycrates says nothing of the fact that Melito was a writer, but we learn from this chapter (\u00a74), and from Bk. VI. chap. 13, that Clement of Alexandria, in a lost work, mentioned his writings and even wrote a work in reply to one of his (see below, note 23). According to the present chapter he was a very prolific writer, and that he was a man of marked talent is clear from Jerome\u2019s words in his de vir. ill. chap. 24 (where he refers to Tertullian\u2019s lost work, de Ecstasi): Hujus [i.e. Melitonis] elegans et declamatorium ingenium Tertullianus in septem libris, quos scripsit adversus ecclesiam pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nostrorum prophetam putari. In spite of the fact that Tertullian satirized Melito\u2019s talent, he nevertheless was greatly influenced by his writings and owed much to them (see the points of contact between the two men given by Harnack, p. 250 sqq.). The statement that he was regarded by many as a prophet accords well with Polycrates\u2019 description of him referred to above. The indications all point to the fact that Melito was decidedly ascetic in his tendencies, and that he had a great deal in common with the spirit which gave rise to Montanism and even made Tertullian a Montanist, and yet at the same time he opposed Montanism, and is therefore spoken of slightingly by Tertullian. His position, so similar to that of the Montanists, was not in favor with the orthodox theologians of the third century, and this helps to explain why, although he was such a prolific and talented writer, and although he remained orthodox, he nevertheless passed almost entirely out of the memory of the Church of the third and following centuries. To this is to be added the fact that Melito was a chiliast; and the teachings of the Montanists brought such disrepute upon chiliasm that the Fathers of the third and following centuries did not show much fondness for those who held or had held these views. Very few notices of Melito\u2019s works are found among the Fathers, and none of those works is to-day extant. Eusebius is the first to give us an idea of the number and variety of his writings, and he does little more than mention the titles, a fact to be explained only by his lack of sympathy with Melito\u2019s views.\nThe time at which Melito lived is indicated with sufficient exactness by the fact that he wrote his Apology during the reign of Marcus Aurelius, but after the death of his brother Lucius, i.e. after 169 (see below, note 21); and that when Polycrates wrote his epistle to Victor of Rome, he had been dead already some years. It is possible (as held by Piper, Otto, and others) that his Apology was his last work, for Eusebius mentions it last in his list. At the same time, it is quite as possible that Eusebius enumerates Melito\u2019s works simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the library of C\u00e6sarea, where he had perhaps seen them. Of the dates of his episcopacy, and of his predecessors and successors in the see of Sardis, we know nothing.\nIn addition to the works mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius, who does not pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita\u2019s Hodegos seu dux vi\u00e6 c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u20ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c2 and \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03b1\u03c1\u03ba\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 (the latter directed against Marcion), which cannot be identified with any mentioned by Eusebius (see Harnack, I. 1, p. 254). The Codex Nitriacus Musei Britannici 12,156 contains four fragments ascribed to Melito, of which the first belongs undoubtedly to his genuine work \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The second purports to be taken from a work, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03c5\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6, of which we hear nowhere else, and which may or may not have been by Melito. The third fragment bears the title Melitonis episcopi de fide, and might be looked upon as an extract from the work \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Iren\u00e6us by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Iren\u00e6us is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Iren\u00e6us, and from which the quotation may have been taken (see Harnack, ibid. p. 266 ff.). The fourth fragment was taken in all probability from Melito\u2019s work, \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u20ac\u03b8\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2, mentioned by Anastasius. An Apology in Syriac, bearing the name of Melito, is extant in another of the Nitrian mss. in the British Museum (No. 14,658), and has been published with an English translation by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. (p. 41\u201351). It has been proved, however, that this Apology (which we have entire) was not written by Melito, but probably by an inhabitant of Syria, in the latter part of the second, or early part of the third century,\u2014whether originally in the Greek or Syriac language is uncertain (see Harnack, p. 261 ff., and Smith and Wace, Vol. III. p. 895). In addition to the genuine writings, there must be mentioned also some spurious works which are still extant. Two Latin works of the early Middle Ages, entitled de transitu Mari\u00e6 and de passione S. Joannis Evangelist\u00e6, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a Clavis Scriptur\u00e6 of the Carlovingian period (see below, note 18), bear in some mss. the name of Melito. This fact shows that Melito\u2019s name was not entirely forgotten in the Occidental Church of the Middle Ages, though little exact knowledge of him seems to have existed.\nOn Melito and his writings, see Piper\u2019s article in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1838, p. 54\u2013154; Salmon\u2019s article in Smith and Wace, and especially Harnack\u2019s Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 240\u2013278. The extant fragments of Melito\u2019s writings are given in Routh\u2019s Rel. Sac. I. 111\u2013153, and in Otto\u2019s Corp. Apol. IX. 374\u2013478, and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 750\u2013762.\n203:1277\nOn Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.\n203:1278 203:1279\nThe following list of Melito\u2019s works is at many points very uncertain, owing to the various readings of the mss. and versions. We have as authorities for the text, the Greek mss. of Eusebius, the History of Nicephorus, the translation of Rufinus, chap. 24 of Jerome\u2019s de vir. ill., and the Syriac version of this passage of Eusebius\u2019 History, which has been printed by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. p. 56 ff.\n203:1280\nThe quotation from this work given by Eusebius in \u00a77, perhaps enables us to fix approximately the date at which it was written. Rufinus reads Sergius Paulus, instead of Servilius Paulus, which is found in all the Greek mss. Sergius Paulus is known to have had his second consulship in 168, and it is inferred by Waddington that he was proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, chap. 2, \u00a7148). No Servilius Paulus is known in connection with the province of Asia, and hence it seems probable that Rufinus is correct; and if so, the work on the Passover was written early in the sixties. The fragment which Eusebius gives in this chapter is the only part of his work that is extant. It was undoubtedly in favor of the Quartodeciman practice, for Polycrates, who was a decided Quartodeciman, cites Melito in support of his position.\n204:1281\nThe exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd, making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. Many mss. followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read \u03c4\u1f70 instead of \u03c4\u03cc, thus making either two works (one On the Conduct of Life, and the other On the Prophets), or one work containing more than one book. Rufinus translates de optima conversatione liber unus, sed et de prophetis, and the Syriac repeats the preposition, as if it read \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. It is not quite certain whether Rufinus and the Syriac thought of two works in translating thus, or of only one. Jerome translates, de vita prophetarum librum unum, and in accordance with this translation Otto proposes to read \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd instead of \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd. But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted.\nNo fragments of this work are extant.\n204:1282\n\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.\n204:1283\n\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03c5\u03c1\u03b9\u03b1\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2. Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.\n204:1284\nValesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss., read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, On the Nature of Man. Four important mss., however, read \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5, and this reading is confirmed both by Rufinus and by the Syriac; whether by Jerome also, as claimed by Harnack, is uncertain, for he omits both this work and the one On the Obedience of Faith, given just below, and mentions a de fide librum unum, which does not occur in Eusebius\u2019 list, and which may have arisen through mistake from either of the titles given by Eusebius, or, as seems more probable, may have been derived from the title of the work mentioned below, On the Creation and Generation of Christ, as remarked in note 15. If this supposition be correct, Jerome omits all reference to this work \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03ce\u03c0\u03bf\u03c5. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 is better supported by tradition than \u03c6\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.\n204:1285\n\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u20ac\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.\n204:1286\nAll the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd: \u201cOn the subjection (or obedience) of the senses to faith.\u201d This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, and Rufinus translates, de obedientia fidei, de sensibus, both of them making two works, as I have done in the text. Jerome leaves the first part untranslated, and reads only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2 (or \u1f00\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2) \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03ba\u03bf\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03b1\u1f30\u03c3\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03b7\u03c1\u03af\u03c9\u03bd, concluding that the words \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 after \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.\n204:1287\nA serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read \u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f22 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the \u1f22 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read \u1f26\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03bf\u1f37\u03c2, which is evidently simply a corruption of \u1f22 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crus\u00e8, and Salmon read \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, but there is no authority for \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 instead of \u1f24, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of \u1f24 to \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words \u1f22 \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 did not stand in the original, but that the word \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, (either alone or preceded by \u1f24 or \u03ba\u03b1\u03af) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2, perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 and \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, under the impression that it was an alternative title of the book. My reasons for this opinion are the agreement of the versions in the omission of \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, the impossibility of explaining the \u1f22 before \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 are repeated further down in the list,\u2014a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2 confirms the omission of it in the present case,\u2014and finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently hitherto escaped notice, that the \u03bd\u03bf\u03cc\u03c2, follows instead of precedes the \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.\n204:1288\n\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03bf\u03c5\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u1fe6; Jerome, de baptismate.\n204:1289\nApolinarius (according to chap. 27) also wrote a work On Truth, and the place which it holds in that list, between an apologetical work addressed to the Greeks and one addressed to the Jews, makes it probable that it too bore an apologetic character, being perhaps devoted to showing that Christianity is pre-eminently the truth. Melito\u2019s work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.\n204:1290\nSix mss., with Nicephorus, read \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, \u201ccreation,\u201d but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2. The latter reading therefore has the strongest external testimony in its favor, but must be rejected (with Stroth, Otto, Heinichen, Harnack, etc.) as evidently a dogmatic correction of the fourth century, when there was an objection to the use of the word \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03c2 in connection with Christ. Rufinus divides the one work On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two,\u2014On Faith and On the Generation of Christ, and his prophecy, connecting the second with the next-mentioned work. Jerome omits the first clause entirely at this point, and translates simply de generatione Christi librum unum. The de fide, however, which he inserts earlier in his list, where there is no corresponding word in the Greek, may be the title which he omits here (see above, note 9), displaced, as the title de sensibus is also displaced. If this be true, he becomes with Rufinus and the Syriac a witness to the reading \u03c0\u03af\u03c3\u03c4\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 instead of \u03ba\u03c4\u03af\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.\n204:1291\nAll the Greek mss. read \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, which can rightly mean only \u201chis work on Prophecy\u201d; but Jerome translates de prophetia sua librum unum, and Rufinus de prophetia ejus, while the Syriac reads as if there stood in the Greek \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6. All three therefore connect the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 with the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 instead of with the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2, which of course is much more natural, since the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 with the \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c2 seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 or \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2, and there is no sign that the \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 originally stood in such connection with the \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03b7\u03c4\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.\n204:1292\n\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b9\u03bb\u03bf\u03be\u03b5\u03bd\u03af\u03b1\u03c2. After this title a few of the mss., with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2, a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).\n204:1293\n\u1f21 \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c2; Jerome, et alium librum qui Clavis inscribitur. The word is omitted in the Syriac version. The nature of this work we have no means of determining. It is possible that it was a key to the interpretation of the Scriptures, designed to guide the reader in the study especially of the figures of the prophecies (cf. Otto, p. 401) and of the Apocalypse. Piper is right, however, in saying that it cannot have been intended to supply the allegorical meaning of Scripture words, like the extant Latin Clavis of Pseudo-Melito, mentioned just below; for Melito, who like Tertullian taught the corporeality of God, must have been very literal\u2014not allegorical\u2014in his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title Melitonis Clavis Sanct\u00e6 Scriptur\u00e6 was mentioned by Labbe in 1653 as contained in the library of Clermont College, and after years of search was recovered and published by Pitra in 1855 in his Spicileg. Solesm. Vols. II. and III. He regarded the work as a translation, though with interpolations, of the genuine \u03ba\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c2 of Melito, but this hypothesis has been completely disproved (see the article by Steitz in the Studien und Kritiken, 1857, p. 184 sqq.), and the work has been shown to be nothing more than a medi\u00e6val dictionary of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito\u2019s Key.\n204:1294\nAll the Greek mss. read \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b1\u03b2\u03cc\u03bb\u03bf\u03c5, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03cd\u03c8\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1fbd\u0399\u03c9\u20ac\u03bd\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5, making but one work, with two or more books, upon the general subject, The Devil and the Apocalypse of John. The Syriac apparently agrees with the Greek in this respect (see Harnack, p. 248, note 350); but Jerome and Rufinus make two works, the latter reading de diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi Joannis librum unum. Origen, in Psalm. III. (ed. Lommatzsch, XI. p. 411), says that Melito treated Absalom as a type of the devil warring against the kingdom of Christ. It has been conjectured that the reference may be to this work of Melito\u2019s, and that reference is an argument for the supposition that Melito treated the devil and the Apocalypse in one work (cf. Harnack, p. 248, and Smith and Wace, p. 898).\n204:1295\n\u1f41 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u20ac\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6. Jerome does not translate this phrase, but simply gives the Greek. Rufinus renders de deo corpore induto, thus understanding it to refer to the incarnation of God, and the Syriac agrees with this rendering. But as Harnack rightly remarks, we should expect, if this were the author\u2019s meaning, the words \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c3\u03c9\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03ce\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u1fe6, or rather \u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u03bf\u03c5. Moreover, Origen (Selecta in Gen. I. 26; Lommatzsch, VIII. p. 49) enumerates Melito among those who taught the corporeality of God, and says that he had written a work \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c3\u03ce\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f36\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03bd. It is possible, of course, that he may not have seen Melito\u2019s work, and that he may have misunderstood its title and have mistaken a work on the incarnation for one on the corporeality of God; but this is not at all likely. Either he had read the book, and knew it to be upon the subject he states, or else he knew from other sources that Melito believed in the corporeality of God, and hence had no doubt that this work was upon that subject. There is no reason in any case for doubting the accuracy of Origen\u2019s statement, and for hesitating to conclude that the work mentioned by Eusebius was upon the corporeality of God. The close relationship existing between Melito and Tertullian has already been referred to, and this fact furnishes confirmation for the belief that Melito held God to be corporeal, for we know Tertullian\u2019s views on that subject. Gennadius (de eccles. dogmat. chap. 4) classes Melito and Tertullian together, as both teaching a corporeality in the Godhead. What was the source of his statement, and how much dependence is to be put upon it, we cannot say, but it is at least a corroboration of the conclusion already reached. We conclude then that Rufinus and the Syriac were mistaken in their rendering, and that this work discussed the corporeality, not the incarnation, of God.\n205:1296\n\u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c0\u03c1\u1f78\u03c2 \u1fbd\u0391\u03bd\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd \u03b2\u03b9\u03b2\u03bb\u03af\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03bd (libellus) was the technical name for a petition addressed to the emperor, and does not imply that the work was a brief one, as Piper supposes. The Apology is mentioned also in chap. 13, above, and at the beginning of this chapter. Jerome puts it first in his list, with the words: Melito Asianus, Sardensis episcopus, librum imperatori M. Antonini Vero, qui Frontonis oratoris discipulus fuit, pro christiano dogmate dedit. This Apology is no longer extant, and we have only the fragments which Eusebius gives in this chapter. As remarked in note 1, above, the extant Syriac Apology is not a work of Melito\u2019s. The Apology is mentioned in Jerome\u2019s version of the Chron., and is assigned to the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, 120 a.d. The notice is omitted in the Armenian, which, however, assigns to the eleventh year of Marcus Aurelius the Apology of Apolinarius, which is connected with that of Melito in the Ch. Hist. Moreover, a notice of the Apology is given by Syncellus in connection with the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, and also by the Chron. Pasch.; so that it is not improbable that Eusebius himself mentioned it in his Chron., and that its omission in the Armenian is a mistake (as Harnack thinks likely). But though the notice may thus have been made by Eusebius himself, we are nevertheless not at liberty to accept the date given as conclusive. We learn from the quotations given by Eusebius that the work was addressed to the emperor after the death of Lucius Verus, i.e. after the year 169. Whether before or after the association of Commodus with his father in the imperial power, which took place in 176, is uncertain; but I am inclined to think that the words quoted in \u00a77, below, point to a prospective rather than to a present association of Commodus in the empire, and that therefore the work was written between 169 and 176. It must be admitted, however, that we can say with certainty only that the work was written between 169 and 180. Some would put the work at the beginning of those persecutions which raged in 177, and there is much to be said for this. But the dates of the local and minor persecutions, which were so frequent during this period, are so uncertain that little can be based upon the fact that we know of persecutions in certain parts of the empire in 177. Piper, Otto, and others conclude from the fact that the Apology is mentioned last by Eusebius that it was Melito\u2019s latest work; but that, though not at all unlikely, does not necessarily follow (see above, note 1).\n205:1297\nA Sagaris, bishop and martyr, and probably the same man, is mentioned by Polycrates in his epistle to Victor (Euseb. V. 24) as buried in Laodicea. This is all we know of him. The date of his martyrdom, and of the composition of the work On the Passover, depends upon the date of the proconsulship of Servilius (or Sergius) Paulus (see above, note 5). The words \u1f10\u03bc\u03c0\u03ad\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble. The words \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd mean no more than \u201cproperly, regularly, according to appointment or rule,\u201d and do not render \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f21\u03bc\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 superfluous, as he thinks. The clause \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u1f10\u03b3\u03c1\u20ac\u03c6\u03b7 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b1 (\u201cand these were written\u201d) expresses result,\u2014it was in consequence of the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.\n205:1298\nThis work of Clement\u2019s, On the Passover, which he says he wrote on occasion of Melito\u2019s work, was clearly written in reply to and therefore against the work of Melito, not as a supplement to it, as Hefele supposes (Conciliengesch. I. 299). The work of Clement (which is mentioned by Eusebius, VI. 13, in his list of Clement\u2019s writings) is no longer extant, but some brief fragments of it have been preserved (see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 8).\n205:1299\nThis statement of Melito\u2019s is a very remarkable one. See chap. 8, note 14.\n205:1300\nThe resemblance between this extract from Melito\u2019s Apology and the fifth chapter of Tertullian\u2019s Apology is close enough to be striking, and too close to be accidental. Tertullian\u2019s chapter is quite different from this, so far as its arrangement and language are concerned, but the same thought underlies both: That the emperors in general have protected Christianity; only Nero and Domitian, the most wicked of them, have persecuted it; and that Christianity has been a blessing to the reigns of all the better emperors. We cannot doubt that Tertullian was acquainted with Melito\u2019s Apology, as well as with others of his works.\n205:1301 205:1302\nThe reference here seems to be to the common belief that the Christians were responsible for all the evils which at any time happened, such as earthquakes, floods, famines, etc.\n206:1303\n\u1f00\u03c6\u1fbd \u1f67\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1f78 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03c3\u03c5\u03ba\u03bf\u03c6\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bb\u03cc\u03b3\u1ff3 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b8\u03b5\u03af& 139\u00b7 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u1f76 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03c5\u03c2 \u1fe5\u03c5\u1fc6\u03bd\u03b1\u03b9 \u03c3\u03c5\u03bc\u03b2\u03ad\u03b2\u03b7\u03ba\u03b5 \u03c8\u03b5\u1fe6\u03b4\u03bf\u03c2. The sentence is a difficult one and has been interpreted in various ways, but the translation given in the text seems to me best to express the writer\u2019s meaning.\n206:1304\n\u1f10\u03b3\u03b3\u03c1\u20ac\u03c6\u03c9\u03c2: i.e. in edicts or rescripts.\n206:1305\nThis epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.\n206:1306\nOn these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap. 13, note 9. These ordinances to the Lariss\u00e6ans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and all the Greeks, are no longer extant. What their character must have been is explained in the note just referred to.\n206:1307 206:1308\n\u1f10\u03bd \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2 \u03b3\u03c1\u03b1\u03c6\u03b5\u03af\u03c3\u03b1\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1ff7 \u1f10\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b1\u1fd6\u03c2. Jerome speaks of this work as \u1fbd\u0395\u03ba\u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u1ff6\u03bd, libros sex. There are no fragments of it extant except the single one from the preface given here by Eusebius. The nature of the work is clear from the words of Melito himself. It was a collection of testimonies to Christ and to Christianity, drawn from the Old Testament law and prophets. It must, therefore, have resembled closely such works as Cyprian\u2019s Testimonia, and the Testimonia of Pseudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament\u2014the common ground accepted by both parties\u2014for proof of the truth of Christianity. Although the Eclog\u00e6 of Melito were not anti-Jewish in their design, their character leads us to classify them with the general class of anti-Jewish works whose distinguishing mark is the use of Old Testament prophecy in defense of Christianity (cf. the writer\u2019s article on Christian Polemics against the Jews, in the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer\u2019s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled \u1fbd\u0391\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03b2\u03bf\u03bb\u1f74 \u03a0\u03b1\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03af\u03bb\u03c9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, New York, 1889).\nOn the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.\n206:1309\nThis Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person.\n206:1310\nSome mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order.\n206:1311\n\u03c8\u03b1\u03bb\u03bc\u1ff6\u03bd \u0394\u03b1\u03b2\u03af\u03b4. Literally, \u201cof the Psalms of David\u201d [one book].\n206:1312\n\u1f23 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03a3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).\n206:1313\nLiterally, \u201cin one book\u201d (\u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03ce\u03b4\u03b5\u03ba\u03b1 \u1f10\u03bd \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b2\u03af\u03b2\u03bb\u1ff3).\n206:1314\n\u1fce\u0395\u03c3\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2: the Greek form of the Hebrew name \u05e2\u05b6\u05d6\u05b0\u05e8\u05b8\u05d0, Ezra. Melito refers here to the canonical Book of Ezra, which, among the Jews, commonly included our Ezra and Nehemiah (see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1).","title":"Nicene and Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ser. II, Vol I: The Church History of Eusebius.: Chapter XXVI","type":"page"}