alone is consonant with historical probability. It is a fact that half a
century, or even more, before Melito wrote, the author of the epistle
bearing the name of Barnabas quotes as 'Scripture' a passage found in St
Matthew's Gospel, and not known to have existed elsewhere [227:1]. It is
a fact that about that same time, or earlier, Polycarp wrote a letter
which is saturated with the thoughts and language of the Apostolic
Epistles [227:2]. It is a fact that some twenty or thirty years before
Melito, Justin Martyr speaks of certain Gospels (whether our Canonical
Gospels or not, it is unnecessary for my present purpose to inquire) as
being read together with the writings of the prophets at the religious
services of the Christians on Sundays, and taken afterwards as the
subject of exhortation and comment by the preacher [227:3]. It is a fact
that about the same time when Justin records this as the habitual
practice of the Church, the heretic Marcion, himself a native of Asia
Minor, constructed a Canon for himself by selecting from and mutilating
the Apostolic and Evangelical writings which he found in circulation. It
is a fact that Dionysius of Corinth, a contemporary of Melito, speaks of
certain writings as 'the Scriptures of the Lord,' or 'the Dominical
Scriptures.' and denounces those who tamper with them [228:1]. It is a
fact that Irenæus, who had received his early education in Asia Minor,
writing within some ten or twenty years after the death of Melito,
quotes the Four Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, the great majority of
the Apostolic Epistles, and the Apocalypse, as Scripture, declaring more
especially of the Four Gospels, that they had been received by the
Churches from the beginning, and treating all these writings alike with
the same deference which they have received from subsequent generations
of Christians ever since. The inference from these facts (and they do
not stand alone) is obvious. If Melito knew nothing about books of the
New Testament, he must have been the only bishop of the Church from the
banks of the Euphrates to the pillars of Hercules, who remained in this
state of dense ignorance--Melito, who could refer to the Hebrew and the
Syriac while interpreting a passage of Genesis, and who made careful
inquiries respecting the Canon of the Old Testament Scriptures in the
very land where those Scriptures had their birth.
The extant fragments attributed to Melito are meagre and scattered
[228:2]; but, supposing them to be genuine, they afford ample evidence
of the theological views of this father, while indirectly they indicate
his general relation to the Canon in a way which can hardly be mistaken.
The genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously
questioned. In one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve
every consideration; but in the majority of cases the objections must be
set aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit on all
those writings which are not named by Eusebius. The author of
_Supernatural Religion_, for instance, says that 'Eusebius gives what he
evidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito' [228:3]. On
the contrary, Eusebius carefully guards himself against any such
interpretation of his words. He merely professes to give a list of
'those works which have come to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either
suspects or knows that there are other writings of Melito in
circulation, of which he can give no account. Again, other fragments
have been discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish
interpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in the second
century. I cannot think that this is any argument at all; and I may
confidently assume that the author of _Supernatural Religion_ will agree
with me here. There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr,
in Irenæus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.
Only it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than
redeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would throw doubt
on the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac fragments which were
certainly in circulation some six centuries before, because some
mediæval Latin writers attach the name of Melito to forgeries or to
anonymous writings, such as the _Clavis_, the _Passing away of the
Blessed Virgin Mary_, and the _Passion of St John_ [229:1]. A moment's
reflection will show that the two classes of writings must be considered
quite apart. When these groundless objections are set aside, the great
majority of the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the
most recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. I do
not agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite content to take
the fragments which he accepts, as representing the genuine Melito; and
I refer those of my readers, who are really desirous to know what this
ancient father taught and how he wrote, to this editor's collection.
We have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived in the next
age to Melito, and therefore before any spurious works could have been
in circulation--the one to his style, the other to his theology. On the
former point our authority is Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke
of the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of Melito [229:2]; on the
latter, a writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with
Hippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of Irenæus and
Melito and the rest, which declare Christ to be God and man' [230:1].
The fragments, and more especially the Syriac fragments, accord fully
with both these descriptions. They are highly rhetorical, and their
superior elegance of language (compared with other Christian writings of
the same age) is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version.
They also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a pointed
antithesis.
Of the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the following quoted
by Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book on the Incarnation of
Christ [230:2] is important in its bearing on our subject:--
The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the
miracles (signs), showed his Godhead concealed in the flesh, and
assured the world of it. For being perfect God, and perfect man at
the same time, He assured us of His two essences ([Greek:
ousias])--of His Godhead by miracles in the three years after His
baptism, and of His manhood in the thirty seasons ([Greek:
chronois]) before His baptism, during which, owing to his
immaturity as regards the flesh ([Greek: dia to ateles to kata
sarka]), He concealed the signs of His Godhead, although He was
true God from eternity ([Greek: kaiper Theos alêthês proaiônios
huparchôn]).
The genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly on the
general considerations which have been already discussed, partly on
special grounds. It has been said, for instance, that Anastasius must
here be reproducing the general substance, and not the exact words, of
Melito's statement; but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation.
It has been urged again, that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment,
since the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age;
but abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even if
so very natural a device for avoiding the repetition of the same word
([Greek: etos]) needed any support at all. It has been suggested that
there may possibly be some confusion between Melito and Meletius. But
the work from which this passage comes is distinctly stated by
Anastasius to have been written against Marcion, who by his docetism
attacked the true humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick
of the Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. On
the other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in the latter part
of the fourth century, was one of the principal figures in the Arian
controversy and, as such, far too intimately involved in the questions
of his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so
comparatively dead as the docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no
instance in any Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion
between the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the
Christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of
Melito, and point to a later date; but to this the distinct statement of
Hippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has been already quoted,
is a complete answer; and indeed the Ignatian Epistles, which (even if
their genuineness should not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed
later than the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal
statements.
But if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. The author
of _Supernatural Religion_ will no doubt be ready here, as elsewhere, to
postulate any number of unknown apocryphal Gospels which shall supply
the facts thus assumed by Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited
cheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will
find themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty
years of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar
passage in St Luke [231:1], while, in fixing three years as the duration
of His ministry, he is thinking of the three Passovers mentioned by St
John.
Of the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be quoted, not
only because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms, but
because it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical
history and doctrine [232:1].
We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to
those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,
that we might prove to your love that He is the perfect Reason, the
Word of God: who was begotten before the light, who was Creator
together with the Father, who was the fashioner of man, who was all
things in all, who among the patriarchs was Patriarch, who in the
law was Law, among the priests Chief-priest, among the kings
Governor, among the prophets Prophet, among the angels Archangel,
and among voices [232:2] the Word, among spirits the Spirit, in the
Father the Son, in God God, the King for ever and ever. For this is
He who was pilot to Noah, who conducted Abraham, who was bound with
Isaac, who was in exile with Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who
was captain with Moses, who was divider of the inheritance with
Joshua the son of Nun, who foretold His own sufferings in David and
the prophets, who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at
Bethlehem, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who
was seen of the shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was
worshipped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered
together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the
maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who
appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people, who
was betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was
condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was
hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the
dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who
sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those
that are departed, the recoverer of those that are lost, the light
of those that are in darkness, the deliverer of those that are
captives, the guide of those that have gone astray, the refuge of
the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the
Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, God who is of God, the Son who
is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen.
This fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references to
evangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements of
doctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments
ascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these
fragments to each other in thought and diction (with one or two
exceptions), though gathered together from writers of various ages, in
Greek and in Syriac, which is a strong argument for their genuineness.
But the special value of this particular passage is that it gathers into
a focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of
Melito rested.
And I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are
derived. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ of course suggests some
unknown apocryphal Gospel. But this summary will strike most readers as
wonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized
our four canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And,
when they remember that within a very few years (some twenty at most)
Irenæus, who was then a man past middle life, who had intimate
relations with the region in which Melito lived, and who appeals again
and again to the Asiatic Elders as his chief authorities for the
traditional doctrine and practice, declares in perfect good faith that
the Church had received these four, and these only, from the beginning,
it will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the
solution is so very obvious.
But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ writes that this fragment
taken from a treatise _On Faith_, together with another which purports
to be a work on the _Soul and Body_, though these two works 'are
mentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 'for every reason be
pronounced spurious' [233:1]. Let us see what these reasons are.
1. He writes first:
They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac
translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is worthless.
The fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, classical
and ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we are entirely
dependent on the scribe for their authentication. Human experience has
shown that such authentication is generally trustworthy, and hence it is
accepted. In forty-nine cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is
found to be satisfactory, and _à priori_ probabilities are very strongly
against the assumption that any particular case is this fiftieth
exception. If there is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion
has its weight, but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other
principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses to
believe or trust any one there, because the place is known to harbour
thieves and liars.
2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions,
and here he tells us that--
The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything
else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of
theological development.
It is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on
this point. I have already pointed out that the theology and the style
of these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of Hippolytus
and Tertullian would lead us to expect in Melito. And this is especially
true of the passage under consideration. What the 'later stage of
theological development' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the
contrary, the leading conception of this passage, which sees all
theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all
the theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though
it lingers on through the succeeding ages, is essentially characteristic
of the second century. The apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon;
but in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a
quarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the
conception is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin.
Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by God
before all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord,
sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes God, sometimes Lord and Word,
while sometimes He calls Himself Chief-captain ([Greek:
archistratêgos]), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun
([Greek: tô tou Nauê Iêsou])' [235:1]. Elsewhere he states that Christ
is 'King and Priest and God and Lord and Angel and Man and Chief-captain
and Stone,' etc., and he undertakes to show this 'from all the
Scriptures' [235:2]. And again, in a third passage he says that the same
Person, who is called Son of God in the memoirs of the Apostles, went
forth from the Father before all created things through His power and
counsel,' being designated 'Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and
Stone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now in
another, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He became man
through the Virgin' [235:3]. Nor do these passages stand alone. This
same conception pervades the whole of Justin's _Dialogue_, and through
it all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained.
Only on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite
statement. 'It is worthy of remark,' he writes, 'that the Virgin is
introduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac fragments which he
has mentioned just before] in a manner quite foreign to the period at
which Melito lived.' What can this mean? In the passage before us the
only allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the Virgin'
(or 'a virgin'); and the references in the other fragments are of the
same kind. It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the
statements of the Synoptic Gospels, could pass over the mention of the
Virgin more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he
will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference [236:1].
3. But our author states also:
In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of
the same passage in a Syriac MS, and an Armenian version of the
extract as given above, in both of which the passage is distinctly
ascribed to Irenæus.
This is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly directed
attention. It would have been well if he had been a little more accurate
in his statement. The extract in the Armenian version (of which the
shorter Syriac form is obviously an abridgment), though mainly the same
as our passage, begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences,
'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to
those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc.,
as quoted above, the Armenian extract, ascribed to Irenæus, runs thus:
'The Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists have declared that Christ
was born of a virgin and suffered on the cross, and that he was raised
from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth
for ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of God,' etc.
[236:2]. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings, that
in the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the passage in its original
setting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to Irenæus, it has been
altered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently.
The reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted,
while the 'Evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the Law and the
Prophets' for the sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know,
did make such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as
is here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here stated; and
the correspondence of language in this opening passage with the
dedication of his collection to Onesimus, referred to above, is
sufficiently striking. To Melito therefore evidence, internal and
external alike, requires us to ascribe the passage. But, if so, how came
the name of Irenæus to be attached to it? Was this mere accident? I
think not. Nothing would be more natural than that Irenæus should
introduce a passage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either
anonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I have already
had occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of
their predecessors, frequently without any acknowledgement [237:1]. In
this particular case, Irenæus may or may not have acknowledged his
obligation. I venture to think that this solution of the double
ascription will appear not only plausible, but probable, when I mention
another fact. In a second Armenian extract I find a passage headed, 'The
saying of Irenæus' [237:2]. I turn to the passage, and I find that it
contains not the words of Irenæus himself, but of Papias quoted by
Irenæus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original author has
entirely disappeared, though in this case Irenæus directly mentions
Papias as his authority.
The attitude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles appears
clearly enough from the title of one of his works, 'On the Obedience of
Faith,' which is a characteristic expression of St Paul [237:3], and
also from occasional coincidences of language, such as 'putting on the
form of a servant' [237:4].
CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, was a contemporary of
Melito, but apparently a younger man, though only by a very few years.
His date is fixed approximately by the extant notices. He addressed an
Apology to the Emperor M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.D. 161-180; and
as in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering
Legion, which happened between A.D. 172-174, it cannot have been written
before that date [238:1]. At the same time there are some reasons,
though not conclusive, for thinking that it should not be placed much
later [238:2]. On the other hand, when Serapion writes towards the close
of the century, he speaks of Apollinaris as no longer living; and
judging from the language used, we may infer that his death had not been
very recent [238:3].
Like Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed only gives the
titles of four works by this father, the _Apology_ (already mentioned),
_Against the Greeks_ (five treatises or books), _On Truth_ (two books),
_Against the Jews_ (two books), besides referring to certain writings
_Against the Montanists_ [Greek: kata tês Phrugôn haireseôs], which he
places later than the others. But he is careful to say that his list
comprises only those works which he had seen, and that many others were
extant in different quarters [238:4]. Photius mentions reading three
works only by this father, of which one, the treatise _On Godliness_, is
not in Eusebius' list; but he too adds, 'Other writings of this author
also are said to be notable, but I have not hitherto met with them'
[238:5]. Besides these, the author of the Paschal Chronicle quotes from
a treatise of Apollinaris _On the Paschal Festival_ [238:6], and
Theodoret speaks of his writing against the Severians or Encratites
[238:7]. As in the case of Melito, the character and variety of his
works, so long as they were extant, must have afforded ample material
for a judgment on his theological views. More especially his writings
against the Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his
relations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His orthodoxy is
attested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by Theodoret, by Socrates,
and by Photius [239:1], from different points of view.
Besides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which hardly deserves
the name of a quotation, only two short extracts remain of these
voluminous writings. They are taken from the work on the Paschal
Festival, and are preserved, as I have already stated, in the _Paschal
Chronicle_.
The first runs as follows:--
There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions,
acting in a way that is pardonable; for ignorance is no proper
subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that on the
fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb ([Greek: to probaton]) with His
disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened
bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they
interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the
law ([Greek: asumphônos nomô]), and on their showing the Gospels
seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei
kat' autous ta euangelia]).
The second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the
same context.