Church History

Notes

1. The first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190-202 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 “virgin continence” 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 περι εγκρατειας, η περι ευνουχιας), by Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory Nazianzen, &c. (see Smith and Wace’s Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Melito, and Suicer’s 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 “the eunuch” 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’eglise chret. p. 436, and compare Justin Martyr’s 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’ 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.
2. On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.
3. Marcus Aurelius.
4. The following list of Melito’s 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’s de vir. ill., and the Syriac version of this passage of Eusebius’ History, which has been printed by Cureton, in his Spic. Syr. p. 56 ff.
5. The quotation from this work given by Eusebius in §7, 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 Wad-dington that he was proconsul about 164 to 166 (see Fastes des provinces Asiatiques, chap. 2, §148). 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.
6. The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. το περι πολιτειας και προφητων, making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. Many mss. followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read τα instead of το, 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 και περι πολιτειας και περι προφητων. 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 των προφητων instead of και προφητων. But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted.
7. ο περι εκκλησιας. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.
8. ο περι κυριακης λογος. Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.
9. Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss., read περι φυσεως ανθρωπου, On the Nature of Man. Four important mss., however, read περι πιστεως ανθρωπου, 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’ 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 περι πιστεως ανθρωπου. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage πιστεως is better supported by tradition than φυσεως, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.
10. ο περι πλασεως. Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.
11. All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading ο περι υπακοης πιστεως αισθητηριων: “On the subjection (or obedience) of the senses to faith.” This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads ο περι υπακοης πιστεως, και ο περι αισθητηριων, 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 ο περι υπακοης (or ακοης) πιστεως, omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read ο περι υπακοης πιστεως, ο περι αισθητηριων, concluding that the words ο περι after πιστεως have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.
12. A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read ο περι ψυχης και σωματος η νος, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the η νος entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read ην εν οις, which is evidently simply a corruption of η νος, so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crusè, and Salmon read και νος, but there is no authority for και instead of η, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of η to και will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words η νος did not stand in the original, but that the word νος, (either alone or preceded by η or και) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to ψυχης, perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after ψυχης and σωματος, 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 νος, the impossibility of explaining the η before νος in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words και περι ψυχης και σωματος are repeated further down in the list,—a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting νος confirms the omission of it in the present case,—and finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently hitherto escaped notice, that the νος, follows instead of precedes the σωματος, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.
13. ο περι λουτρου; Jerome, de baptismate.
14. Apolinarius (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’s work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.
15. Six mss., with Nicephorus, read κτισεως, “creation,” but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read πιστεως. 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 κτισις in connection with Christ. Rufinus divides the one work On the Creation and Generation of Christ into two,—On 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 πιστεως instead of κτισεως, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.
16. All the Greek mss. read και λογος αυτου περι προφητειας, which can rightly mean only “his work on Prophecy”; but Jerome translates de prophetia sua librum unum, and Rufinus de prophetia ejus, while the Syriac reads as if there stood in the Greek περι λογου τνς προφητειας αυτου. All three therefore connect the αυτου with the προφητειας instead of with the λογος, which of course is much more natural, since the αυτου with the λογος seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require περι προφητειας αυτου or περι της αυτου προφητειας, and there is no sign that the αυτου originally stood in such connection with the προφητειας. We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.
17. περι φιλοξενιας. After this title a few of the mss., with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words και περι ψυχης και σωματος, a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).
18. η κλεις; 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 (cr. 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-not allegorical-in his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title Melitonis Clavis Sanctae Scripturae 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 κλεις 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 mediæval dictionary of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito’s Key.
19. All the Greek mss. read και τα περι του διαβολου, και τνς αποκαλυψεως Ἰωαννου, 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’s, 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).
20. ο περι ενσωματου θεου. Jerome does not translate this phrase, but simply gives the Greek. Rufinus renders de cleo 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’s meaning, the words περι ενσωματωεως φεου, or rather λογου. 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 περι του ενσωματον ειναι τον θεον. It is possible, of course, that he may not have seen Melito’s 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’s 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’s 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.
21. επι πασι και το προς Ἀντωνινον βιβλισιον. βιβλισιον (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’s. The Apology is mentioned in Jerome’s 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 §7, 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’s latest work; but that, though not at all unlikely, does not necessarily follow (see above, note 1).
22. A 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 εμπεσοντος κατα καιρον have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble. The words κατα καιρον mean no more than “properly, regularly, according to appointment or rule,” and do not render εκειναις ταις ημεραις superfluous, as he thinks. The clause και εγραφη ταυτα (“and these were written”) expresses result,—it was in consequence of the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.
23. This work of Clement’s, On the Passover, which he says he wrote on occasion of Melito’s 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’s writings) is no longer extant, but some brief fragments of it have been preserved (see Bk. VI. chap. 13, note 8).
24. This statement of Melito’s is a very remarkable one. See chap. 8, note 14.
25. The resemblance between this extract from Melito’s Apology and the fifth chapter of Tertullian’s Apology is close enough to tie striking, and too close to be accidental. Tertullian’s 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’s Apology, as well as with others of his works.
26. ευκταιος.
27. The 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.
28. αφ ων και το της συκοφαντιας αλογω συνηθεια περι τους τοιουτους ρυηναι συμβεβηκε ψευδος. 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’s meaning.
29. ελλραφως: i.e. in edicts or rescripts.
30. This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.
31. On these epistles of Antoninus Pius, see chap. 13, note 9. These ordinances to the Larisseans, Thessalonians, Athenians, and all the Greeks, are no longer extant. What their character must have been is explained in the note just referred to.
32. περι τουτων.
33. εν δη ταις γραφεισαις αυτω εκλογαις. Jerome speaks of this work as Εκλογων, 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’s Testimonia, and the Testimonia of Pseudo-Gregory, and other anti-Jewish works, in which the appeal was made to the Old Testament-the common ground accepted by both parties-for proof of the truth of Christianity. Although the Eclogae 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’s article on Christian Polemics against the Jews, in the Pres. Review, July, 1888, and also the writer’s Dialogue between a Christian and a Jew, entitled Ἀντιβολη Παπισου και φιλωνος, New York, 1889).
34. This Onesimus is an otherwise unknown person.
35. Some mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order.
36. ψαλμων Δαβιδ. Literally, “of the Psalms of David” [one book].
37. η και Σοφια: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).
38. Literally, “in one book” (των δωδεκα εν μονοβιβλω).
39. Ἐσδρας: the Greek form of the Hebrew name עֶזְרָא, 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).