[1277] On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.
[1278] Marcus Aurelius.
[1279] 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.
[1280] 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 Waddington 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.
[1281] The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. to peri politeias kai propheton, making but one work, On the Conduct of Life and the Prophets. Many mss. followed by Valesius, Heinichen, and Burton, read ta instead of to, 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 kai peri politeias kai peri propheton. 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 ton propheton instead of kai propheton. But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted. No fragments of this work are extant.
[1282] ho peri ekklesias. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.
[1283] ho peri kuriakes logos. Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.
[1284] Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss., read peri phuseos anthropou, On the Nature of Man. Four important mss., however, read peri pisteos anthropou, 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 peri pisteos anthropou. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage pisteos is better supported by tradition than phuseos, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.
[1285] ho peri pl?seos. Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.
[1286] All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading ho peri hupakoes pisteos aistheterion: "On the subjection (or obedience) of the senses to faith." This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads ho peri hupakoes pisteos, kai ho peri aistheterion, 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 ho peri hupakoes (or akoes) pisteos, omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read ho peri hupakoes pisteos, ho peri aistheterion, concluding that the words ho peri after pisteos have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.
[1287] A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read ho peri psuches kai somatos e noos, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the e noos entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read en en hois, which is evidently simply a corruption of e noos, so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crusè, and Salmon read kai noos, but there is no authority for kai instead of e, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of e to kai will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words e noos did not stand in the original, but that the word noos, (either alone or preceded by e or kai) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to psuches, perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after psuches and somatos, 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 noos, the impossibility of explaining the e before noos in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words kai peri psuches kai somatos are repeated further down in the list,--a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting noos 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 noos, follows instead of precedes the somatos, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.
[1288] ho peri loutrou; Jerome, de baptismate.
[1289] 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.
[1290] Six mss., with Nicephorus, read ktiseos, "creation," but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read pisteos. 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 ktisis 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 pisteos instead of ktiseos, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Eusebius into two.
[1291] All the Greek mss. read kai logos autou peri propheteias, 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 peri logou tes propheteias autou. All three therefore connect the autou with the propheteias instead of with the logos, which of course is much more natural, since the autou with the logos seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require peri propheteias autou or peri tes autou propheteias, and there is no sign that the autou originally stood in such connection with the propheteias. We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.
[1292] peri philoxenias. After this title a few of the mss., with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words kai peri psuches kai somatos, a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).
[1293] he kleis; 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--not allegorical--in his interpretation of Scripture. A Latin work bearing the title Melitonis Clavis Sanctæ Scripturæ 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 kleis 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.
[1294] All the Greek mss. read kai ta peri tou diabolou, kai tes apokalupseos 'Io?nnou, 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).
[1295] ho peri ensom?tou theou. 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's meaning, the words peri ensomatoseos theou, or rather logou. 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 peri tou ensomaton einai ton theon. 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.
[1296] epi pasi kai to pros 'Antoninon biblidion biblidion (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).