Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Church History of Eusebius/Book IV/Chapter 26

Melito and the Circumstances which he records.

1. those days also Melito, The first extant notice of Melito, bishop of Sardis, is found in the letter addressed by Polycrates to Bishop Victor of Rome (c. 190&#8211;202 ) 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 &#8220;virgin continence&#8221; 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 &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#7952;&#947;&#954;&#961;&#945;&#964;&#949;&#8055;&#945;&#962;, &#7970; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#949;&#8016;&#957;&#959;&#965;&#967;&#8055;&#945;&#962;), by Jerome, Epiphanius, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Gregory Nazianzen, &amp;c. (see Smith and Wace&#8217;s Dict. of Christ. Biog., article Melito, and Suicer&#8217;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 &#8220;the eunuch&#8221; 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&#8217;eglise chret. p. 436, and compare Justin Martyr&#8217;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&#8217; 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.

Polycrates says nothing of the fact that Melito was a writer, but we learn from this chapter (&#167;4), 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&#8217;s words in his ''de vir. ill.'' chap. 24 (where he refers to Tertullian&#8217;s 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&#8217;s 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&#8217; 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&#8217;s 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&#8217;s views.

The 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&#8217;s works simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the library of C&#230;sarea, 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.

In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius, who does not pretend to give a full list, we find in Anastasius Sinaita&#8217;s Hodegos seu dux vi&#230; c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled &#949;&#7984;&#962; &#964;&#8056; &#960;&#8364;&#952;&#959;&#962; and &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#963;&#945;&#961;&#954;&#8061;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#962; &#967;&#961;&#953;&#963;&#964;&#959;&#8166; (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 &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#968;&#965;&#967;&#8134;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#963;&#8061;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#962;, which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The second purports to be taken from a work, &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#963;&#964;&#945;&#965;&#961;&#959;&#8166;, 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 &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#960;&#8055;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#969;&#962;, mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Iren&#230;us by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Iren&#230;us is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#960;&#8055;&#963;&#964;&#949;&#969;&#962;, which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Iren&#230;us, 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&#8217;s work, &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#960;&#8364;&#952;&#959;&#965;&#962;, mentioned by Anastasius. An Apology in Syriac, bearing the name of Melito, is extant in another of the Nitrian in the British Museum (No. 14,658), and has been published with an English translation by Cureton, in his ''Spic. Syr.'' (p. 41&#8211;51). 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,&#8212;whether 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&#230; and de passione S. Joannis Evangelist&#230;, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a Clavis Scriptur&#230; of the Carlovingian period (see below, note 18), bear in some the name of Melito. This fact shows that Melito&#8217;s name was not entirely forgotten in the Occidental Church of the Middle Ages, though little exact knowledge of him seems to have existed.

On Melito and his writings, see Piper&#8217;s article in the ''Theol. Studien und Kritiken,'' 1838, p. 54&#8211;154; Salmon&#8217;s article in Smith and Wace, and especially Harnack&#8217;s Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 240&#8211;278. The extant fragments of Melito&#8217;s writings are given in Routh&#8217;s ''Rel. Sac. I. 111&#8211;153, and in Otto&#8217;s Corp. Apol.'' IX. 374&#8211;478, and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 750&#8211;762. bishop of the parish in Sardis, and Apolinarius, 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 of the Romans who was reigning at that time.

2. The following works of these writers have come to our knowledge. Of Melito, the two books On the Passover, and one On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets, the discourse On the Church, and one On the Lord&#8217;s Day, still further one On the Faith of Man, and one On his Creation, another also On the Obedience of Faith, and one On the Senses; besides these the work On the Soul and Body, A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek read &#8001; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#968;&#965;&#967;&#8134;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#963;&#8061;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#962; &#7970; &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962;, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the &#7970; &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962; entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek meanwhile read &#7974;&#957; &#7952;&#957; &#959;&#7991;&#962;, which is evidently simply a corruption of &#7970; &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962;, so that the Greek are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crus&#232;, and Salmon read &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962;, but there is no authority for &#954;&#945;&#8054; instead of &#7972;, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of &#7972; to &#954;&#945;&#8054; will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words &#7970; &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962; did not stand in the original, but that the word &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962;, (either alone or preceded by &#7972; or &#954;&#945;&#8055;) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to &#968;&#965;&#967;&#8134;&#962;, perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after &#968;&#965;&#967;&#8134;&#962; and &#963;&#8061;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#962;, 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 &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962;, the impossibility of explaining the &#7970; before &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962; in the original text, the fact that in the Greek, in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#968;&#965;&#967;&#8134;&#962; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#963;&#8061;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#962; are repeated further down in the list,&#8212;a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962; confirms the omission of it in the present case,&#8212;and finally, a fact which seems to me decisive, but which has apparently hitherto escaped notice, that the &#957;&#959;&#8057;&#962;, follows instead of precedes the &#963;&#8061;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#962;, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book. and that On Baptism, and the one On Truth, and On the Creation and Generation of Christ; his discourse also On Prophecy, and that On Hospitality; still further, The Key, and the books On the Devil and the Apocalypse of John, and the work On the Corporeality of God, &#8001; &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#7952;&#957;&#963;&#969;&#956;&#8364;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8166;. 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&#8217;s meaning, the words &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#7952;&#957;&#963;&#969;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#8061;&#963;&#949;&#969;&#962; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8166;, or rather &#955;&#8057;&#947;&#959;&#965;. 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 &#960;&#949;&#961;&#8054; &#964;&#959;&#8166; &#7952;&#957;&#963;&#8061;&#956;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#957; &#949;&#7990;&#957;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#8056;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#8057;&#957;. It is possible, of course, that he may not have seen Melito&#8217;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&#8217;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&#8217;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. and finally the book addressed to Antoninus. &#7952;&#960;&#8054; &#960;&#8118;&#963;&#953; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#964;&#8056; &#960;&#961;&#8056;&#962; &#8125;&#913;&#957;&#964;&#969;&#957;&#8150;&#957;&#959;&#957; &#946;&#953;&#946;&#955;&#8055;&#948;&#953;&#959;&#957; &#946;&#953;&#946;&#955;&#8055;&#948;&#953;&#959;&#957; (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&#8217;s. The Apology is mentioned in Jerome&#8217;s version of the Chron., and is assigned to the tenth year of Marcus Aurelius, 120 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 &#167;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&#8217;s latest work; but that, though not at all unlikely, does not necessarily follow (see above, note 1).

3. In the books On the Passover he indicates the time at which he wrote, beginning with these words: &#8220;While 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.&#8221;

4. And Clement of Alexandria refers to this work in his own discourse On the Passover, which, he says, he wrote on occasion of Melito&#8217;s work.

5. But in his book addressed to the emperor he records that the following events happened to us under him: &#8220;For, what never before happened, 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.&#8221; And a little further on he says: &#8220;If 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.

6. 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.&#8221;

7. Again he adds the following: &#8220;For 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, 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.

8. And a most convincing proof that our doctrine flourished for the good of an empire happily begun, is this&#8212;that there has no evil happened since Augustus&#8217; reign, but that, on the contrary, all things have been splendid and glorious, in accordance with the prayers of all.

9. 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 has been handed down, in consequence of an unreasonable practice which prevails of bringing slanderous accusations against the Christians.

10. But thy pious fathers corrected their ignorance, having frequently rebuked in writing 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, 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&#230;ans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and to all the Greeks.

11. And as for thee,&#8212;since thy opinions respecting the Christians are the same as theirs, and indeed much more benevolent and philosophic,&#8212;we are the more persuaded that thou wilt do all that we ask of thee.&#8221; These words are found in the above-mentioned work.

12. But in the Extracts 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:

13. &#8220;Melito to his brother Onesimus, 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.

14. 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, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books; of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books.&#8221; Such are the words of Melito.