190 Chrysophora is an otherwise unknown person.
191 Eusebius is the only Eastern writer of the early centuries to mention Theophilus and his writings. Among the Latin Fathers, Lactantius and Gennadius refer to his work, ad Autolycum; and Jerome devotes chap. 25 of his de vir. ill. to him. Beyond this there is no direct mention of Theophilus, or of his works, during the early centuries (except that of Malalas, which will be referred to below). Eusebius here calls Theophilus bishop of Antioch, and in chap. 20 makes him the sixth bishop, as does also Jerome in his de vir. ill. chap. 25. But in his epistle, ad Algas. (Migne, Ep. 121), Jerome calls him the seventh bishop of Antioch, beginning his reckoning with the apostle Peter. Eusebius, in his Chron., puts the accession of Theophilus into the ninth year of Marcus Aurelius (169); and this may be at least approximately correct. The accession of his successor Maximus is put into the seventeenth year (177); but this date is at least four years too early, for his work, ad Autolycum, quotes from a work in which the death of Marcus Aurelius (who died in 180) was mentioned, and hence cannot have been written before 181 or 182. We know that his successor, Maximus, became bishop sometime between 189 and 192, and hence Theophilus died between 181 and that time. We have only Eusebius' words (Jerome simply repeats Eusebius' statement) for the fact that Theophilus was bishop of Antioch (his extant works do not mention the fact, nor do those who quote from his writings), but there is no good ground for doubting the truth of the report. We know nothing more about his life.
In addition to the works mentioned in this chapter, Jerome (de vir. ill.) refers to Commentaries upon the Gospel and the book of Proverbs, in the following words: Legi sub nomine ejus in Evengelium et in Praverbia Salomonis Commentarios qui mihi cum superiorum volumnum elegantia et phrasi non videntur congruere. The commentary upon the Gospel is referred to by Jerome again in the preface to his own commentary on Matthew; and in his epistle, ad Algasiam, he speaks of a harmony of the four Gospels, by Theophilus (qui quatuor Evangelistarum in unumopus dicta campingens), which may have been identical with the commentary, or may have formed a basis for it. This commentary is mentioned by none of the Fathers before or after Jerome; and Jerome himself expresses doubts as to its genuineness, or at least he does not think that its style compares with that of the other works ascribed to Theophilus. Whether the commentary was genuine or not we have no means of deciding, for it is no longer extant. There is in existence a Latin commentary on the Gospels in four books, which bears the name of Theophilus, and is published in Otto's Corpus Apol. Vol. VIII. p. 278-324. This was universally regarded as a spurious work until Zahn, in 1883 (in his Forschungen zur Gesch. des N. T. Canons, Theil II.) made an elaborate effort to prove it a genuine work of Theophilus of Antioch. Harnack, However, in his Texte und Unters. I. 4, p. 97-175, has shown conclusively that Zahn is mistaken, and that the extant commentary is nothing better than a Post-Nicene compilation from the works of various Latin Fathers. Zahn, in his reply to Harnack (Forschungen, Theil III. Bellage 3), still maintains that the Commentary is a genuine work of Theophilus, with large interpolations, but there is no adequate ground for such a theory; and it has found few, if any, supporters. We must conclude, then, that if Theophilus did write such a commentary, it is no longer extant.
The three books addressed to Autolycus (a heathen friend otherwise unknown to us) are still extant in three Mediaeval mss. and have been frequently published both in the original and in translation. The best edition of the original is that of Otto (Corp. Apol. Vol. VIII.); English translation by Dods, in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. II. p. 85-121. The work is an apology, designed to exhibit the falsehood of idolatry and the truth of Christianity. The author was a learned writer, well acquainted with Greek philosophy; and his literary style is of a high order. He acknowledges no good in the Greek philosophers, except what they have taken from the Old. Testament writers. The genuineness of the work has been attacked, but without sufficient reason.
From Book II. chap. 30 of his ad Autol. we learn that Theophilus had written also a work On History. No such work is extant, nor is it mentioned by Eusebius or any other Father. Malalas, however, cites a number of times "The chronologist Theophilus," and it is possible that he used this lost historical work. It is possible, on tne other hand, that he refers to some other unknown Theophilus (see Harnack, Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 291).
192 In chap. 20, above.
193 This work against Hermogenes is no longer extant. Harnack (p. 294 ff.) gives strong grounds for supposing that it was the common source from which Tertullian, in his work ad Hermogenem, Hippolytus, in his Phil. VIII. 10 and X. 24, and Clement of Alexandria, in his Proph. Selections, 56, all drew. If this be true, as seems probable, the Hermogenes attacked by these various writers. is one man, and his chief heresy, as we learn from Tertullian and Hippolytus, was that God did not create the world out of nothing, but only formed it out of matter which, like himself, was eternally existent.
194 These catechetical works (tina kathxhtika biblia), which were extant in the time of Eusebius, are now lost. They are mentioned by none of the Fathers except Jerome, who speaks of alii breves elegantesque tractatus ad aedificationem Ecclesiae perti-nentes as extant in his time. We know nothing more of their nature than is thus told us by Jerome.
195 This work, which is also now lost, is mentioned by no other Father except Jerome, who puts it first in his list of Theophilus' writings, but does not characterize it in any way, though he says it was extant in his time. Irenaeus, in four passages of his great work, exhibits striking parallels to Bk. II. chap. 25 of Theophilus' ad Autol., which have led to the assumption that he knew the latter work. Harnack, however, on account of the shortness of time which elapsed between the composition of the ad Autol. and Irenaeus' work, and also on account of the nature of the resemblances between the parallel passages, thinks it improbable that Iren`us used the ad Autol., and concludes that hew as acquainted rather with Theophilus' work against Marcion, a conclusion which accords best with the facts known to us.
196 Here, and in Bk. V. chap. 19, §1, Eusebius gives this hishop's name as Maximinus. In the Chron. we find Macimoj, and in Jerome's version Maximus, though one ms. of the latter gives Maximinus. According to the Chron. he became bishop in 177, and was succeeded by Serapion in 190. As remarked in note 1, above, the former date is incorrect, for Theophilus must have lived at least as late as 181 or 182. We cannot reach certainty in regard to the date either of his accession or of his death; but if Eusebius' statement (in Bk. V. chap. 19), that Serapion was bishop while Commodus was still emperor, is to be believed (see further, Bk. V. chap. 19, note 1), Maximinus must have died at least as early as 192, which gives us for his episcopate some part of the period from 181 to 192. We know no particulars in regard to the life of Maximinus.
197 See above, chap. 23, §5.
198 Philip's work against Marcion which Eusebius mentions here is no longer extant, and, so far as the writer knows, is mentioned by no other Father except Jerome (de vir. ill. 30), who tells us only what Eusebius records here, using, however, the adjective praeclarum for Eusebius' dpondaiotaton.
199 On Irenaeus, see above, chap. 21, note 9.
200 Modestus, also, is a writer known to us only from Eusebius (here, and in chap. 21) and from Jerome (de vir. ill. 32). According to the latter, the work against Marcion was still extant in his day, but he gives us no description of it. He adds, however, that a number of spurious works ascribed to Modestus were in circulation at that time (Feruntur sub nomine ejus et alia syntagmata, sed ab eruditis quasi yeudografa repundiantur). Neither these nor the genuine works are now extant, so far as we know.
201 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 Athenagores, by Tertullian, by Clement of Alexandria, by Cassianus (whose work on continence bore the title peri egkrateiaj, h peri eunouxiaj), 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.
Polycrates says nothing of the fact that Melito was a writer, but we learn from this chapter (§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's words in his de vir. ill. chap. 24 (where he refers to Tertullian's lost work, de Ecstasi): Hujus [i.e. Melitonis] elegans el declamatorium ingenium Tertullianus in septem libris, quos scripsit adversus ecclesiam pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nos- trorum prophetam putari. In spite of the fact that Tertullian satirized Melito'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' 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'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'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 at); 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's works simply in the order in which he found them arranged in the library of Caesarea, 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's Hodegos seu dux viae c. aceph. fragments from two other works entitled eij to paqoj and peri sarkwdewj xristou (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 peri yuxhj kai swmatoj, which is mentioned in this chapter by Eusebius. The second purports to be taken from a work, peri staurou, 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 peri pistewj, mentioned by Eusebius (as Otto regards it); but the same fragment is four times ascribed to Irenaeus by other early authorities, and an analysis of these authorities shows that the tradition in favor of Irenaeus is stronger than that in favor of Melito, and so Harnack mentions a work, peri pistewj, which is ascribed by Maximus Confessor to Iren`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's work, peri paqtouj, 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. 41-51). 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,-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 Mariae and de passione S. Joannis Evangelistae, and also a Catena of the latter Middle Ages on the Apocalypse, and a Clavis Scripturae of the Carlovingian period (see below, note 18), bear in some mss. the name of Melito. This fact shows that Melito'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's article in the Theol. Studien und Kritiken, 1838, p. 54-154; Salmon's article in Smith and Wace, and especially Harnack's Texte und Unters. I. 1, p. 240-278. The extant fragments of Melito's writings are given in Routh's Rel. Sac. I. 111-153, and in Otto's Corp. Apol. IX. 374-478, and an English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. VIII. p. 750-762.
202 On Apolinarius and his writings, see chap. 27.
203 Marcus Aurelius.
204 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.
205 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.
206 The exact reading at this point is disputed. I read, with a number of mss. to peri politeiaj kai profhtwn, 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 politeiaj kai peri profhtwn. 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 twn profhtwn instead of kai profhtwn. But this is supported by no ms. authority, and cannot be accepted.
No fragments of this work are extant.
207 o peri ekklhsiaj. Jerome, de ecclesia librum unum.
208 o peri kuriakhj logoj. Jerome, de Die Dominica librum unum.
209 Valesius, Otto, Heinichen, and other editors, following the majority of the mss., read peri fusewj anqrwpou, On the Nature of Man. Four important mss., however, read peri pistewj anqrwpou, 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 pistewj anqrwpou. The text of Jerome is unfortunately very corrupt at this point. In the present passage pistewj is better supported by tradition than fusewj, and at the same time is the more difficult reading, and hence I have adopted it as more probably representing the original.
210 o peri plasewj. Jerome, de plasmate librum unum.
211 All the Greek mss. combine these two titles into one, reading o peri upakohj pistewj aisqhthriwn: "On the subjection (or obedience) of the senses to faith." This reading is adopted by Valesius, Heinichen, Otto, and others; but Nicephorus reads o peri upakohj pistewj, kai o peri aisqhthriwn, 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 untranstated, and reads only de sensibus, while the Syriac reproduces only the words o peri upakohj (or akohj) pistewj, omitting the second clause. Christophorsonus, Stroth, Zimmermann, Burton, and Harnack consequently read o peri upakohj pistewj, o peri aisqhthriwn, concluding that the words o peri after pistewj have fallen out of the Greek text. I have adopted this reading in my translation.
212 A serious difficulty arises in connection with this title from the fact that most of the Greek mss. read o peri yuxhj kai swmatoj h nooj, while the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome omit the h nooj entirely. Nicephorus and two of the Greek mss. meanwhile read hn en oij, which is evidently simply a corruption of h nooj, so that the Greek mss. are unanimous for this reading. Otto, Crusè, and Salmon read kai nooj, but there is no authority for kai instead of h, and the change cannot be admitted. The explanation which Otto gives (p. 376) of the change of h to kai will not hold, as Harnack shows on p. 247, note 346. It seems to me certain that the words h nooj did not stand in the original, but that the word nooj, (either alone or preceded by h or kai) was written upon the margin by some scribe perhaps as an alternative to yuxhj, perhaps as an addition in the interest of trichotomy, and was later inserted in the text after yuxhj and swmatoj, 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 nooj, the impossibility of explaining the h before nooj in the original text, the fact that in the Greek mss., in Rufinus, and in the Syriac, the words kai peri yuxhj kai swmatoj are repeated further down in the list,-a repetition which Harnack thinks was made inadvertently by Eusebius himself, and which in omitting nooj 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 nooj, follows instead of precedes the swmatoj, and thus breaks the logical order, which would certainly have been preserved in the title of a book.
213 o peri loutrou; Jerome, de baptismate.
214 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. Melitos work on the same subject very likely bore a similar character, as suggested by Salmon.
215 Six mss., with Nicephorus, read ktisewj, "creation," but five mss., with the Syriac and Rufinus, and possibly Jerome, read pistewj. 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 ktisij 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 pistewj instead of ktisewj, and like Rufinus divides the one work of Ensebius into two.
216 All the Greek mss. read kai logoj autou peri profhteiaj, 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 tnj profhteiaj autou. All three therefore connect the autou with the profhteiaj instead of with the logoj, which of course is much more natural, since the autou with the logoj seems quite unnecessary at this point. The translation of the Syriac, Rufinus, and Jerome, however, would require peri profhteiaj autou or peri thj autou profhteiaj, and there is no sign that the autou originally stood in such connection with the profhteiaj. We must, therefore, reject the rendering of these three versions as incorrect.
217 peri filoceniaj. After this title a few of the mss., with Rufinus and the Syriac, add the words kai peri yuxhj kai swmatoj, a repetition of a title already given (see above, note 12).
218 h kleij; 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 kleij 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`val dictionary of allegorical interpolations of Scripture, compiled from the Latin Fathers. There is, therefore, no trace extant of Melito's Key.
219 All the Greek mss. read kai ta peri tou diabolou, kai tnj apokaluyewj 'Iwannou, 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).
220 o peri enswmatou qeou. 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 peri enswmatwewj feou, 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 enswmaton einai ton qeon. 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.
221 epi pasi kai to proj 'Antwninon biblision. biblision (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 conuected 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 Cornmodus 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 Cornmodus 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).
222 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 empesontoj kata kairon have unnecessarily caused Salmon considerable trouble. The words kata kairon mean no more than "properly, regularly, according to appointment or rule," and do not render ekeinaij taij hmeraij superfluous, as he thinks. The clause kai egrafh tauta ("and these were written") expresses result,-it was in consequence of the passover strife that Melito wrote this work.
223 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).
224 This statement of Melito's is a very remarkable one. See chap. 8, note 14.
225 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.
227 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.
228 af wn kai to thj sukofantiaj alogw sunhqeia peri touj toioutouj ruhnai sumbebhke yeudoj. 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.
229 ellrafwj: i.e. in edicts or rescripts.
230 This epistle to Fundanus is given in chap. 9, above. Upon its genuineness, see chap. 8, note 14.
231 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.
232 peri toutwn.
233 en dh taij grafeisaij autw eklogaij. Jerome speaks of this work as Eklogwn, 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 'Antibolh Papisou kai filwnoj, New York, 1889).
On the canon which Melito gives, see Bk. III. chap. 10, note 1.
234 This Onesimus is an otherwse unknown person.
235 Some mss., with Rufinus, place Leviticus before Numbers, but the best mss., followed by Heinichen, Burton, and others, give the opposite order.
236 yalmwn Dabid. Literally, "of the Psalms of David" [one book].
237 h kai Sofia: i.e. the Book of Proverbs (see above, p. 200).
238 Literally, "in one book" (twn dwdeka en monobiblw).
239 'Esdraj: the Greek form of the Hebrew name )rz;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).
240 The first extant notice of Apolinarius is that of Serapion, bishop of Antioch from about 192 to 209 (see Harnack, Zeit des Ignatius, p. 46), in the epistle quoted by Eusebius in V. 19. We learn from this notice that Apolinarius was already dead when Serapion wrote (he calls him "most blessed bishop"; makariwtatoj), and that he had been a skillful opponent of Montanism. His name is not mentioned again, so far as we know, by any Father of the second or third century. Jerome (de vir. ill. 26) simply repeats the account of Eusebius, but in his Epist. ad Magnum, c. 4 (Migne, I. 607), he enumerates Apolinarius among those Christian writers who were acquainted with heathen literature, and made use of it in the refutation of heresies. Photius (Cod. 14) praises his literary style in high terms. Socrates (H. E. III. 7) names Apolinarius with Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Serapion as holding that the incarnate Christ had a human soul (emyuxon ton enanmqrwphsanta). Jerome, in his de vir. ill. chap. 18, mentions an Apolinarius in connection with Irenaeus as a chiliast. But in his Comment. in Ezech. Bk. XI. chap. 36, he speaks of Irenaeus as the first, and Apolinarius as the last, of the Greek Millenarians, which shows that some other Apolinarius is meant in that place, and therefore without doubt in the former passage also; and in another place (Prooem. in lib. XVIII. Comm. in Esaiam) he says that Apolinarius replied to Dionysius of Alexandria on the subject of the Millenium, and we are therefore led to conclude that Apolinarius, bishop of Laodicea (of the fourth century), is meant (see Routh, Rel. Sac. I. 174). Of the bishops of Hierapolis, besides Apolinarius, we know only Papias and Abircius Marcellus (of whom we have a Martyrdom, belonging to the second century; see Pitra, Spic. Solesm. III. 533), who, if he be identical with the Abircius Marcellus of Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 16 (as Harneck conjectures) must have been bishop after, not before Apelinerius (see note 6 on Bk. V. chap. 16). It is impossible to determine the exact date of Apolinarins' episcopate, or of his death. As we see from Serapion's notice of him, he must have been dead at least before 202. And if Abircius Marcellus was bishop after him, and also bishop in the second century, Apolinarius must have died some years before the year see, and thus about the same time as Melito. The fact that he is mentioned so commonly in connection with Melito, sometimes before and sometimes after him, confirms this conclusion. The Chron. mentions him as flourishing in the tenth (Syncellus and Jerome), or the eleventh (Armenian) year of Marcus Aurelius. His Apology was addressed, as we learn from Eusebius, to Marcus Anrelius; and the fact that only the one emperor is mentioned may perhaps be taken (as some have taken it) as a sign that it was written while Marcus Aurelius was sole emperor (i.e. between 169 and 176). In Bk. V. chap. 5, Eusebius speaks of the story of the thundering legion as recorded by Apolinarius, and it has been thought (e.g. by Salmon, in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.) that this circumstance was recorded in the Apology, which cannot then have been written before the year 174. Harnack, however, remarks that this venturesome report can hardly have stood in a work addressed to the emperor himself. But that seems to assume that the story was not fully believed by Apolinarius, which can hardly have been the case. The truth is, the matter cannot be decided; and no more exact date can be given for the Apology. Eusebius, in the present chapter, informs us that he has seen four works by Apolinarius, but says that there were many others extant in his day. In addition to the ones mentioned by Eusebius, we know of a work of his, On the Passover (peri tou pasxa), which is mentioned by the Chron. Paschale, and two brief fragments of which are preserved by it. These fragments have caused a discussion as to whether Apolinarius was a Quartodeciman or not. The language of the first fragment would seem to show clearly that he was opposed to the Quartodecimans, and this explains the fact that he is never cited by the later Quartodecimans as a witness for their opinions. The tone of the work, however, as gathered from the fragments, shows that it must have been written before the controversy had assumed the bitter tone which it took when Victor became bishop of Rome; i.e. it was written, probably, in the seventies (see, also, Bk. V. chap. 23, note 1). Photius (Cod. 14) mentions three apologetic works by Apolinarius known to him: proj Ellhnaj, peri eusebeiaj, and peri alhqeiaj. The first and last are mentioned by Eusebius, but the second is a work otherwise unknown to us. There is no reason to suppose, as some have done, that the peri eusebeiaj does not designate a separate work (cf. e.g., Donaldson, Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doctrine, III. 243), for Eusebius expressly says that he mentions only a part of Apolinarius' writings. Theodoret (Haer. Fab. I. 21) mentions Apolinarius, together with Musanus and Clement, as having written against the Severians (see chap. 29, below). But, as Harnack justly remarks (p. 235), the most we can conclude from this is that Apolmarius in his Anti-Montanistic work, bad mentioned the Severians with disapproval. Five mss., of Eusebius, and the Church Hist. of Nicephorus, mention just after the work On Truth, a work Against the Jews, in two books (kai proj 'Ioudaiouj prwton kai deuteron). The words are found in manyof our editions, but are omitted by the majority of the best Greek mss., and also by Rufinus and Jerome, and therefore must be regarded as an interpolation; and so they are viewed by Heinichen, Laemmer, Otto, Harnack, and others. Harnack suggests that they were inserted under the influence of Bk. V. chap. 17, §5, where the works of Miltiades are given. We thus have knowledge of six, and only six, distinct works of Apolinarius, though, since no writer has pretended to give a complete list, it is quite probable that he wrote many others.
241 On the approximate date of this Apology, see the previous note. No fragments of the work are now extant, unless the account of the thundering legion mentioned by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 5 belong to it (see the previous note). Jerome speaks of the work as an insigne volumen pro fide Christianorum, and in chap. 26, §1, Eusebius speaks of it as logoj uper thj mistewj. This has given rise to the idea that the peri eusebeiaj mentioned by Photius may be identical with this Apology (see the previous note). But such an important work would certainly not have been mentioned with such an ambiguous title by Photius. We may conclude, in fact, that Photius had not seen the Apology. The Chron. Paschale mentions the Apology in connection with those of "Melito and many others," as addressed to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius.
242 No fragments of this work are known to us. Nicephorus (H. E. IV. 11) says that it was in the form of a dialogue, and it is quite possible that he speaks in this case from personal knowledge, for the work was still extant in the time of Photius, who mentions it in Cod. 14 (see Harnack, p. 236).
243 No fragments of this work are extant, and its nature is unknown to us. It may have resembled the work of Melito upon the same subject (see the previous chapter). The work is mentioned by Photius as one of three, which he had himself seen.
244 Eusebius states here that the works against the Montanists were written later than the other works mentioned. Where he got this information we do not know; it is possible, as Harnack suggests, that he saw from the writings themselves that Marcus Aurelius was no longer alive when they were composed. Eusebius speaks very highly of these Anti-Montanistic works, and in Bk. V. chap. 16, §1, he speaks of Apolinarius as a "powerful weapon and antagonist" of the Montanists. And yet it is a remarkable fact that he does not take his account of the Montanists from the works of Apolinarius, but from later writings. This fact can be explained only as Harnack explains it by supposing that Apolinarius was not decided and clear enough in his opposition to the sect. The writer from whom Eusebius quotes is certainly strong enough in his denunciations to suit Eusebius or any one else. Eusebius' statement, that the Montanistic movement was only beginning at the time Apolinarius wrote against it (i.e. according to him between 175 and 180), is far from the truth (see on this subject, Bk. V. chap. 16, note 12). How many of these works Apolinarius wrote, and whether they were books, or merely letters, we do not know. Eusebius says simply kai a meta tauta sunegraye. Serapion (in Eusebius, Bk. V. chap. 19) calls them grammata, which Jerome (de vir. ill. chap. 41) translates litteras. These grammata are taken as "letters" by Valesius, Stroth, Danz, and Salmon; but Otto contends that the word grammata, in the usage of Eusebius (cf. Eusebius, V. 28. 4), properly means "writings" or "books" (scripta or libri), not "letters," and so the word is translated by Closs. The word itself is not absolutely decisive, but it is more natural to translate it "writings," and the circumstances of the case seem to favor that rather than the rendering "letters." I have therefore translated it thus in Bk. VI. chap. 19. On the life and writings of Apolinarius, see especially Salmon's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog. and Harnack's Texte und Untersuch. I. 1, 232-239. The few extant fragments of his works are published by Routh (I. 151-174), and by Otto (IX. 479-495); English translation in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, VIII. 772.
246 Of this Musanus, we know only what Eusebius tells us here, for Jerome (de vir. ill. 31) and Theodoret (Haer. Fab. I. 21) simply repeat the account of Eusebius. It is clear from Eusebius' language, that he had not himself seen this work of Musanus; he had simply heard of it. Here, and in chap. 21, Eusebius assigns the activity of Musanus to the reign of Marcus Aurelius, making him a contemporary of Melito, Apolinarius, Irenaeus, &c. But in the Chron. he is put much later. The Armenian version, under the year of Abr. 2220 (the eleventh year of Septimius), has the entry Musanus noster scriptor cognoscebatur. Jerome, under the same year (2220 of Abr., but twelfth year of Severus) has Musanus nostrae filosofiae scriptor agnoscitur; while Syncellus, under the year of Abr. 2231 (fourth year of Caracalla) has Mousianoj ekklhsiastikoj suggrafeuj egnwrizeto. All of them, therefore, speak of Musanus (or Musianus) as a writer, but do not specify any of his works. The dates in the Chron. (whichever be taken as original) and in the History are not mutually exclusive; at the same time it is clear that Eusebius was not working upon the same information in the two cases. We have no means of testing the correctness of either statement.
247 On Tattan and the Encratites, see the next chapter.
248 From his Oratio (chap. 42) we learn that Tatian was born in Assyria, and that he was early educated in Greek philosophy, from which we may conclude that he was of Greek parentage,-a conclusion confirmed by the general tone of the Oratio (cf. Harnack, Ueberlieferung der Griech. Apol. p. 199 sq., who refutes Zahn's opinion that Tartan was a.Syrian by race). We learn from his Oratio also that he was converted to Christianity in mature life (cf. chap. 29 sq.). From the passage quoted in the present chapter from Irenaeus, we learn that Tatian, after the death of Justin (whose disciple he was; see also chap. 16, above), fell into heresy, and the general fact is confirmed by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Beyond these meager notices we have little information in regard to Tatian's life. Rhodo (quoted in Bk. V. chap. 13, below) mentions him, and "confesses" that he was a pupil of Tatian's in Rome, perhaps implying that this was after Tatian had left the Catholic Church (though inasmuch as the word "confesses" is Eusebius', not Rhodo's, we can hardly lay the stress that Harnack does upon its use in this connection). Epiphanius gives quite an account of Tatian in his Haer. XLVI. 1, but as usual he falls into grave errors (especially in his chronology). The only trustworthy information that can be gathered from him is that Tatian, after becoming a Christian, returned to Mesopotamia and taught for a while there (see Harnack, ibid. p. 208 sq.). We learn from his Oratio that he was already in middle life at the time when he wrote it, i.e. about 152 a.d. (see note 13, below), and as a conseqnence it is commonly assumed that he cannot have been born much later than 110 a.d. Eusebius in his Chron. (XII. year of Marcus Aurelius, 172 a.d.) says, Tatianus haeretics agnoscitur, a quo Encratitae. There is no reason to doubt that this represents with reasonable accuracy the date of Tatian's break with the Catholic Church. We know at any rate that it did not take place until after Justin's death (165 a.d.). In possession of these various facts in regard to Tation, his life has been constructed in various ways by historians, but Harnack seems to have come nearest to the truth in his account of him on p. 212 sq. He holds that he was converted about 150, but soon afterward left for the Orient, and while there wrote his Oratio ad Graecos; that afterward he returned to Rome and was an honored teacher in the Church for some time but finally becoming heretical, broke with the Church about the year 172. The arguments which Harnack urges over against Zahn (who maintains that he was but once in Rome, and that he became a heretic in the Orient and spent the remainder of his life there) seem fully to establish his main positions. Of the date, place, and circumstances of Tatian's death, we know nothing.
Eusebius informs us in this chapter that Tation left "a great many writings," but he mentions the titles of only two, the Address to the Greeks and the Diatessaron (see below, notes 11 and 13). He seems, however, in §6, to refer to another work on the Pauline Epistles,-a work of which we have no trace anywhere else, though we learn from Jerome's preface to his Commentary on Titus thai Tatian rejected some of Paul's epistles, as Marcion did, but unlike Marcion accepted the epistle to Titus. We know the titles of some other works written by Tatian. He himself, in his Oratio 15, mentions a work which he had written On Animals. The work is no longer extant, nor do we know anything about it. Rhodo (as we are told by Eusebius in Bk. V. chap. 13) mentioned a book of Problems which Tation had written. Of this, too, all traces have perished. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. III. 12) mentions an heretical work of Tatian's, entitled peri tou kata ton swthra katartismou, On Perfection according to the Saviour, which has likewise perished. Clement (as also Origen) was evidently acquainted with still other heretical works, especially one on Genesis (see below, note 7), but he mentions the title only of the one referred to. Rufinus (H.E. VI. 11) says that Tatian composed a Chronicon, which we hear about from no other writer. Malalas calls Tatian a chronographer, but he is evidently thinking of the chronological passages in his Oratio, and in the absence of all trustworthy testimony we must reject Rufinus' notice as a mistake. In his Oratio, chap. 40, Tatian speaks of a work Against those who have discoursed on Divine Things, in which he intends to show "what the learned among the Greeks have satd concerning our polity and the history of our laws and how many and what kind of men have written of these things." Whether he ever wrote the work or not we do not know; we find no other notice of it. Upon Tatian, see especially Zahn's Tatian's Diatessaron and Harnack's Ueberlieferung, &c., p. 196; also Donaldson's Hist. of Christ. Lit. and Doct. II. p. 3 sqq., and J. M. Fuller's article in the Dict. of Christ. Biog.
249 In chap. 16.
250 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 28. 1.
251 'Egkrateij, a word meaning "temperate" or "continent." These Encratites were heretics who abstained from flesh, from wine and from marriage, not temporarily but permanently, and because of a belief in the essential impurity of those things. They are mentioned also by Hippolytus (Phil. VIII. 13), who calls them egkratitai; by Clement of Alexandria (Paed. II. 2, Strom. I. 15, &c.), who calls them egkrathtai; by Epiphanius (Haer. 47), who agrees with Hippolytus in the form of the name, and by others. The Encratites whom Irenaeus describes seem to have constituted a distinct sect, anti-Jewish and Gnostic in its character. As described by Hippolytus they appear to have been mainly orthodox in doctrine but heretical in their manner of life, and we may perhaps gather the same thing from Clement's references to them. It is evident, therefore, that Irenaeus and the others are not referring to the same men. So Theodoret, Haer. Fab. I. 21, speaks of the Severian Encratites; but the Severians, as we learn from this chapter of Eusebius and from Epiphanius (Haer. XLV.), were Ebionitic and anti-Pauline in their tendencies-the exact opposites, therefore, of the Encratites referred to by Irenaeus. That there was a distinct sect of Encratites of the character described by Irenaeus cannot be denied, but we must certainly conclude that the word was used very commonly in a wider sense to denote men of various schools who taught excessive and heretical abstinence. Of course the later writers may have supposed that they all belonged to one compact sect, but it is certain that they did not. As to the particular sect which Irenaeus describes, the statement made by Eusebius at the close of the preceding chapter is incorrect, if we are to accept Irenaeus' account. For the passage quoted in this chapter states that they sprung from Marcion and Saturninus, evidently implying that they were not founded by Tatian, but that he found them already in existence when he became heretical. It is not surprising, however that his name should become connected with them as their founder-for he was the best-known man among them. That the Encratites as such (whether a single sect or a general tendency) should be opposed by the Fathers, even by those of ascetic tendencies, was natural. It was not always easy to distinguish between orthodox and heretical asceticism, and yet there was felt to be a difference. The fundamental distinction was held by the Church-whenever it came to self-consciousness on the subject-to lie in the fact that the heretics pronounced the things from which they abstained essentially evil in themselves, thus holding a radical dualism, while the orthodox abstained only as a matter of discipline. The distinction, it is true, was not always preserved, but it was this essentially dualistic principle of the Encratites which the early Fathers combated; it is noticeable, however, that they do not expend as much vigor in combating it as in refuting errors in doctrine. In fact, they seem themselves to have been somewhat in doubt as to the proper attitude to take toward these extreme ascetics.
252 On Saturninus and on Marcion, see chap. 7, note 6, and 11, note 15. On their asceticism, see especially Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 24.
253 twn legomenwn emyuxwn: i.e. animal food in general.
254 Cf. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. III. 23, where this opinion of Tatian's is refuted at considerable length. The opinion seems a little peculiar, but was a not unnatural consequence of Tatian's strong dualism, and of his doctrine of a conditional immortality for those who have been reunited with the Holy Spirit who took his departure at the time of the fall (cf. especially his Oratio, chap. 15). That Adam, who, by his fall, brought about this separation, which has been of such direful consequence to the race, should be saved, was naturally to Tation a very repugnant thought. He seems, moreover, to have based his opinion, as Donaldson remarks, npon exegetical grounds interpreting the passage in regard to Adam (1 Cor. xv. 22) as meaning that Adam is and remains the principle of death, and as such, of course, cannot himself enjoy life (see Irenaeus, ibid.). This is quite in accord with the distinction between the psychical and physical man which he draws in his Oratio. It is quite possible that he was moved in part also by the same motive which led Marcion to deny the salvation of Abraham and the other patriarchs (see Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 27 and IV. 8), namely, the opposition between the God of the Old Testament and the Christ of the New Testament, which led him to assert that those who depended on the former were lost. We learn from Clement (Strom. III. 12) and from Origen (de Orat. chap. 24) that among Tatian's heretical works was one in which he discussed the early chapters of Genesis and perhaps it was in this work that he developed his peculiar views' in regard to Adam.