Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Asia: Notices and Fragments

S. MELITO BISHOP OF SARDIS IN ASIA. NOTITIA AND FRAGMENTS

(Karl Christian Woog, *On Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Asia*; Dissertation I, *On the Life and Merits of S. Melito*, Leipzig 1744; Dissertation II, *On the Writings of S. Melito, with fragments of the same*, Leipzig 1751, in-4°.)

I. ON THE LIFE AND MERITS OF S. MELITO.

*The Undertaking.*

Among the chief ornaments of the Church in the second century after Christ, Saint Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Asia, deserves no last place—a man most celebrated for the holiness of his life, his illustrious erudition, his manly defense of the Christian religion, and his other merits toward the Church; inasmuch as the Greek and Latin Fathers, early, middle, and late, conspiring in friendship and in a certain holy emulation as it were, have praised him and rendered him venerable to posterity. Therefore, deliberating as to what subject I might choose as the primary topic to be treated in this study, since Melito offered himself to my mind among others, I did not hesitate long to set forth concerning him, and I reached a decision the more quickly, both because I knew that the merits of this man for the Christian cause were truly great, yet, as far as I know, had been recounted by no one in a special sketch; and because in this way an opportunity blossoms for me to act as the prompter of certain anecdotes, of which I was the keeper during my journey, and to bring to light certain fragments of this blessed Father, upon which, while turning the pages of the most excellent codices of the Bodleian Library in particular, I happened to stumble. I believe, therefore, that I shall be doing something worthwhile if I gather into one place all that it has been given me to find concerning the life, writings, and merits of Melito.

But that all things may be treated in order, I shall first bring forward what concerns his name, his homeland, his family, and the age in which he flourished; then I shall treat of his genius, his erudition, his chastity, and his other virtues, as also of the gift of prophecy with which he was divinely endowed. Furthermore, I am offered a wide field for discourse concerning the calming, through his apology, of the persecution of Christians under the Emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus, the peace restored to the Church of Laodicea, his various travels, and his care regarding the Canon—especially of the Old Testament—and, in a word, his merits toward the Church. The long list of writings composed by Melito, which Jerome, Eusebius, Rufinus, and Nicephorus have exhibited, will also deserve our diligence. But I shall be especially diligent in gathering the fragments of this most holy man, to which I shall add some that have not yet been printed.

Finally, I shall speak of the heresy which, as is commonly believed, derived its name from him, and I shall labor to remove him from the list of heretics. To contain myself in few words, I shall recall this entire treatise to these three heads: The first will narrate the life and merits of Melito. In the second, his writings will be reviewed and a diligent gleaning of the fragments existing here and there will be instituted. Finally, in the last place, the heresy of the Melitonians will be dealt with. Since the work has grown under my hands beyond expectation, lest an excessively long treatise provoke nausea in the readers, and our dissertation seem to labor under its own mass, I have decided to divide the field to be traversed into stages, and on this occasion to set forth only the life of Melito, presenting him as a man of prime learning, as one flourishing in virtues beyond all the men of his time, and as one having served the Church of God egregiously; the rest, however, I reserve for another dissertation which will follow shortly. I ask and beseech the benevolent Reader all the more to favor my endeavors and to regard this slight labor as fair and good.

§ 1. Observation regarding the name of Melito.

Concerning the actual name of Melito, some things must be noted at the very threshold of our treatise, and a certain grammatical observation must be premised, which, however much it may appear to many to be a matter of slight moment, does not seem to me to be one to be passed over in silence, for the reason that, having been neglected by some, it has produced an error

^A into which not a few learned men have allowed themselves to be led, and which can easily prove to be the parent of confusion and many complications. Specifically, when rendering in Latin the name of our confessor, which in origin is Greek and is called Mελίτων, there are to be found diverse opinions among different people. For by some he is termed Melitus, by others Miletus or Mileto, by others Meliton, and finally by others Melito. It is asked, therefore, which formation is to be preferred over the other, and with what ending in particular this name should come into Latin? The answer to this question will be very easy, provided that here too we are willing to follow the common beacon of the grammarians, and not depart from the analogy or similarity of other words. Now, all proper names ending with the syllable -των in Greek, analogy teaches that they should end in -to in Latin; thus, for example, Πλάτων and Πλούτων are not called Platon or Plutus in Latin, but rather Plato and Pluto; from this I also think it clear that Mελίτων is Melito in Latin. Therefore, Petrus Equilinus and Philippus Bergomensis are rightly reproved of error by Halloix, of whom the former called ours Melitus, but the latter called him Miletus or Miletones. Hence, one must also note Philippus Labbeus, to whom it is all the same whether our man is hailed by the name of Melito or Miletus. Yet I cannot deny that this error was committed many centuries ago, and that Melito was also called Miletus in Latin. For so it is read in a codex of sufficient antiquity and of excellent quality, which is preserved at Paris in the Collège de Clermont of the Society of Jesus, and which contains the book of Melito, called the *Clavis*, at the upper part of the preceding folio, written in the same hand as the entire codex: *Miletus, Asian bishop, published this book, which he also called by the fitting name Clavis*. And so, if antiquity can provide patronage for an error, Labbeus is to be excused in some measure for having also called our man Miletus.

§ II. Various men famous by this name.

^B The name of Melito is not infrequent in the monuments of history, nor has our own man alone handed it down to memory and posterity, but in both sacred and profane annals others appear, famous by the same or a not much different name. Philippus Ferrarius, a man of the Order of Servites, the general of the order, most instructed in every kind of learning, and especially deserving regarding the Lives of the saints whose names were not recorded in the Roman Martyrology, makes mention of a certain Melito of Sulcis, a bishop in Sardinia, and asserts that he has from the records and monuments of the Church of Sulcis the testimony of such a Melito, bishop and martyr of Sulci or Sulchi in Sardinia, and he holds him to be the first president of this see, and a disciple of Bonifacius, bishop of Calaris. The learned J. A. Fabricius—for what could escape him?—makes mention of this man also, and regarding the passage of Jerome where our Melito is treated, he diligently noted that he should by no means be confused with the one from Sulcis. In the *Acta Sanctorum*, which have been published and are still being published in many volumes at Antwerp thanks to the unique care of J. Bollandus, Henschenius, Papebrochius, and others, since the year 1643, certain things are committed to memory concerning the life of this Sulcitan. The Church of Laodicea also had a bishop of the same name, the martyrdom of whom, the holy John the Evangelist, is celebrated; this exists as a manuscript in Oxford among the codices which the man of indelible memory Thomas Bodley bequeathed to the public library, and which J. Maria Florentinius and the aforementioned Fabricius from him had copied for the press, though I do not know from which codex; this much I do not ignore: that Blessed Johann Ernst Grabe had the intention, if he had survived, of editing it again from an English codex. For so the papers of this excellent man taught me, which, after his death, were placed among the treasures of the Bodleian Library, as if among the stars, and were diligently preserved there, which the kindness of the most famous keepers allowed me to peruse not without significant gain. Concerning this Melito of Laodicea, those things are certainly to be seen which the incomparable Fabricius has noted here and there about him. Among the forty martyrs of Sebaste in Armenia who were frozen to death under the persecution of Licinius in A.D. 320, concerning whom there exist famous orations by Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem the Syrian, Gaudentius of Brescia, and others, one is also celebrated by the name of Melito, the fourth from the beginning, as appears from the Bollandists compared among themselves.

^A Theodoric Ruinart recorded the names of these in their catalogs. As the acts of his martyrdom testify, he merited memory above the rest primarily for this reason: his mother, fearing that he might fail under the torture, exhorted him with a manly spirit, saying: "My son, endure a little; behold, Christ stands at the door helping you. Finish the blessed journey with your companions, so that you are not the lone one missing from their chorus!" And when the agents of cruelty were carrying the bodies of the rest—who were now dead—piled on carts to be burned, but were leaving this Melito almost lifeless, his mother followed the cart with all the speed she could. She herself threw him, carried on her shoulders, onto the cart so that he who had been a partaker of their pain might also be a companion in their glory, and that he might not be adorned by the Lord with the crown of martyrdom later than the others.

The most famous Nicholas Lloyd, ^B a fellow of Wadham College at the University of Oxford, mentions a certain Melito who wrote a commentary on the Athenian families, mentioned by Valerius Harpocration, a rhetorician of Alexandria; but I have searched for it in vain in Fabricius's *Bibliotheca Graeca* and in G. J. Vossius's work *De historicis Graecis*. Blessed J. A. Fabricius, who with great industry compiled an index of ancient physicians, also notes that I am not unaware that a certain Melito was once famous in the medical arts; he recorded his name and observed that he was praised by Galen, the common father of physicians.

Furthermore, among the accusers of Socrates, there was one by the name of Meletus, as Xenophon, Diogenes Laertius, Tatian, and others testify. This man was an orator and a poet, a creator of both comedies and tragedies, but better known for his accusation of Socrates than for his own writings; he labored under a cold and convoluted style of speaking. Hence, Aristophanes, mocking the convoluted ways of a certain comic poet, thinks that this was borrowed from Meletus:

« He took these convoluted ways from Meletus, and from all the harlots. »

From this, and from Suidas and Bisetus—to say nothing of others—he was accustomed to be called "cold" in his poetry. The monuments of things done in the Church of God celebrate very many Meletiuses; but I would abuse the reader’s patience if I wished to enumerate them all man by man. Let him therefore allow himself to be referred to the most excellent Fabricius, who, as he always hits every mark in other matters, deserves to be compared to him in this matter also in the sense of being "worth many". Let it be allowed to add at least this much in three more words: that Homer in his poem ennobled a certain Melitides, whose stupidity passed into a proverb: "More foolish than Melitides."

III. Writers to be Compared Concerning Melito

All those whom I have named are held together by a certain affinity of names. But provided they are carefully distinguished from our own, they will give me no more trouble, as I am to deal solely with Melito, who, by the superadded cognomen of Asian and Sardian, or more correctly Sardian, is accustomed to be regarded as different from all of these and to be distinguished. ^A Many of the ancients were kindled with the desire to celebrate the name of this man and to preserve his memory; and so that it may be immediately evident what a light he was to his own age, let it be permitted here at least to name the ancient writers whom he has secured as admirers of himself and his own extraordinary virtues. From that same age in which he lived, I have detected a triad of most distinguished writers who made mention of him: Polycrates, that is to say, Bishop of Ephesus and primate of all Asia, who in his synodical epistle to Victor of Rome mentions Melito and introduces his most honorable memory; further, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. In the following century, Origen made mention of our Melito, and, if Theodoret is to be believed, reported some of his dogmas as suspect to the orthodox Church. In the fourth century, Eusebius of Caesarea, Bishop in Palestine, served the name of Melito better than all others; he not only made frequent and always laudatory mention of him, but also preserved for us certain fragments of his, more precious than any gold, being in this regard an author clearly classic and to be consulted above the rest, along with his interpreter Rufinus and his continuator Jerome. In the same age, he is also mentioned by Augustine, and by the unknown author of the Alexandrian Chronicle, whose date, however, I may be allowed to refer to this century, being greatly moved by the authority of Charles du Fresne. Nor do Gennadius of Marseilles, who flourished in the fifth century, nor Anastasius Sinaita, famous in the following century, nor the Venerable Bede ^B—

[alt-version omitted]

^A (37), Haymo of Halberstadt (38), nor finally Nicephorus Callistus (39), the by no means obscure compiler of the fourteenth-century ecclesiastical history, have kept silent about the name and praises of our Melito. These authors from the older age, whom I have had to study in particular regarding this blessed Father, have become known to me; and what and how great were those names! And if it is indeed a praise to be praised by the praised, it may certainly be reckoned as a unique honor to our own, that he had so many and such distinguished protectors and heralds of his fame. Indeed, I think that even from this alone everyone can immediately guess how great his merits must have been in the Christian commonwealth. I have indeed discovered that among the old writers to be consulted concerning the life of Melito, reference is also made to Flavius Dexter, a Spaniard by birth and Praetorian Prefect of the Eastern Empire, who flourished in the fourth century and compiled a certain Chronicle reaching from the birth of Christ to the year 330. But I have not made any mention of him for this reason: first, because the work itself has not reached my hands; and second, because it is an open secret that the Chronicle which is circulated under his name today, and which Fr. Bivarius of the Cistercian Order brought to light (40) and illustrated with very extensive commentaries, and reinforced with an appendix and two apologies, is a supposititious work, concocted in the last century from the brain of the notorious forger Hieronymus Romanus de la Higuera, who sold smoke to the Cistercian, so that the latter, chasing a shadow for a Juno, ought rightly to be judged to have achieved nothing with all his great effort. Among the more recent authors whose works I have used most of all, besides Cave (41)—whose book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, in the judgment of Pfaff (42), ought to be a manual for the student of sacred history—Sixtus of Siena (43), Trithemius (44), Tillemont (45), du Pin (46), Natalis Alexander (47), Papebroch and Bolland (48), Ittig (49), Weismann (50), Dodwell (51), Nic. le Nourry (52), William Whiston (53), Nathaniel Lardner (54), and others, one must read in particular Halloix (55), who dealt with him better than all others and easily stole the palm from the rest. Those who desire more should approach Fabricius (56), whom to name is to praise, who in his usual way has provided an extremely learned and copious catalog of authors to be consulted regarding Melito.

§ IV. Concerning the homeland of Melito.

Having thus named the writers who have made mention of our Melito, and having thereby indicated the sources from which we shall derive this our narrative, let us now inquire into his homeland itself. Asia produced this branch, from which in the second century after the birth of Christ, the most excellent men and those most deserving of the Church of God sprang up in the greatest number, just as in the following century Africa gave the most bountiful yield of them. From here, with the surname Asia…

Asian, he is greeted by Jerome 57 and the author of the Alexandrian Chronicle 58. But specifically which province of Asia he had as his fatherland, and which city above all gave him birth, I dare not define, as the monuments of history are silent. To Halloix 59, it seems indeed most probable that he was born at Sardis, and that he bore the surname Sardensis, or more correctly Sardianus, not only because of his habitation and the office of bishop which he held in the city of Sardis, but also because of his birth and fatherland. But since he has built his conjecture on no other foundation than that he was surnamed Sardensis, I cannot bring myself to subscribe to it, although I would not wish to accuse him of manifest error on this account. Nevertheless, the reasons why his opinion seems to me weak and precariously asserted are as follows: First, because he is nowhere called simply "Sardensis," but the words are always so ordered that it is effortlessly apparent that he earned this surname not because of his fatherland, but solely because of his ecclesiastical dignity. Thus, for instance, in Eusebius he is called: "Bishop of the parish in Sardis" 60; "Bishop of the Church in Sardis" 61; "Bishop of the Sardians of Lydia" 62; thus in Rufinus, "Sardensis prelate of the Church, bishop of the Church of Sardis" 63; thus in Jerome, Nicephorus, and others. I have never found him called by any of the ancient writers simply Sardianus, or "a Sardense" or "a Sardian." The second thing that moves me is that, in those times, it was not the custom so much for the doctors of the Church to take surnames from their fatherland, but rather they took them from the Church over which they presided. For thus to Ignatius, born at Nura in Sardinia 64, the surname "Antiochene" is added; to Clement 65, who certainly did not have Italy as his country, the surname "Roman" is added; to Irenaeus 66, to whom Asia gave life, the surname "Lugdunensis" is added—certainly not because of his fatherland, but because of the bishop's office administered in those regions. Conversely, others whom the course of events did not raise to any cathedra, even if their fatherland is known with the greatest certainty, have received no surname from it, lest they be falsely taken for bishops. Thus Justin, whose mother-land was Samaria, is not called a Samaritan, but is called a martyr *κατ' ἐξοχήν*. Thus Origen, born at Alexandria, is by no means called "Alexandrinus" from his fatherland, but is surnamed *Χαλκέντερος* or Adamantius because of the patience of his labors. Thus countless others, whose fatherland we have discovered, receive no gentile appellation from it. The ancients rather, when they wished to express a man's fatherland, were accustomed to indicate it only by a more general and loose surname, such as "Asian" or "African." This also happened to our Melito, so that it seems to me that it can be asserted with no small degree of probability that Halloix could not have concluded solely from the surname "Sardensis" that Lydia and its primary city, Sardes, were his only fatherland.

§ V. When Melito Flourished.

But leaving his fatherland, which we have less certainly discovered, let us pass to other matters which are more clearly known, and let us now inquire into the age in which our man was celebrated. In defining this, we discern moments upon which we can safely rely, and upon which we can, not without cause, build our computations. Jerome 67, Eusebius 68, and Nicephorus 69 and others make Hegesippus, Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, Pinytus, bishop of the Cretans, Philip, Apollinaris, Musanus, Modestus, Irenaeus, and Theophilus of Antioch his contemporaries and peers in time, all of whom flourished around the middle of the second century. Moreover, it is established from the same authors 70 that Melito, in his own time, successfully resolved a dissension that had arisen in the Church of Laodicea regarding the celebration of the Pasch. The time of this controversy he himself signified at the beginning of the work which he wrote for this cause concerning the Pasch, in these words:

^A “Under the proconsul Servilius Paulus, at which time Sagaris suffered martyrdom, a great controversy arose at Laodicea concerning the Pasch, which had fallen at that season in those days; and these things were written.” I have been unable, after diligent inquiry, to discover into which year the proconsular dignity of Servilius Paulus fell. However, the martyrdom of Sagaris, bishop of Laodicea, is referred by Ruinart to the times of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus, who ruled the Roman Empire from the year of Christ 161 until 176, and under whom the fifth persecution of the Christians was stirred up. To this same emperor our author presented a suppliant book or apology for the Christians; and that this was done in the 236th Olympiad is attested by Eusebius and the author of the Chronicon Alexandrinum; which, by the due computation of chronologers, corresponds to the years 169–172 after the birth of Christ. From all these things, therefore, not without the compelling light of truth, we may conclude and safely pronounce that Melito flourished about the middle times of the second century, as it was declining and verging toward its end. Hence his age is rightly set at 150 by Bellarmine, whom Cave, Tillemont, and Le Sueur, who reckon his life to the year 170, do not entirely contradict, nor do Baronius, who places him in 172, and Basnage, who expounded upon him in the year 177, as they principally looked to his final years. Moreover, there is a probable conjecture, though not entirely certain, that Melito was born about the year 100, under the early times of Trajan, judging from the divine utterance of David and daily experience. There have been some, however, who have drawn back his birth even to the time of the Emperor Nero, namely those who understand our Melito to be the angel of the Church of Sardis, to whom the divine John directed his epistle. I shall hereafter inquire more fully into their opinion, and from the difficulties, both chronological and others, by which this view is pressed, I shall demonstrate that Melito was not then bishop of Sardis when the blessed John committed his divine revelation to writing.

VI. Of the parents and teachers of Melito.

Who his parents were, and whether he was born of Christian, Gentile, or even Jewish blood, is entirely unknown. It remains, therefore, equally doubtful and uncertain whether our own author was raised in the true faith, or whether he passed to the Christians from the superstition of the Gentiles or Jews. But if there is any room for conjecture, it seems to me that he passed to the camp of the Christians from the heathens, and I conjecture this from the fact that, if one may judge from the titles of the books written by him, he was not lightly versed in the schools of the philosophers, and he well grasped their tenets—yet I will not write this as a reason for those who think otherwise. Furthermore, whether that Onesimus, or as Nicephorus calls him, Onesiphorus, whom he greeted by the name of brother, and to whom he wrote that most famous epistle which has been preserved for us by Eusebius, in which he enumerated the canonical books of the Old Testament, was his own brother by birth, or whether he bore this title merely because of the close bond of friendship that flourished between them, is likewise a question that can scarcely, if at all, be solved. In a word, concerning Melito’s parents and family, in such a remote memory of antiquity, and with monuments furthermore deficient, we can define nothing certain. As regards his teachers, the answer will be the same, and I think I have said all there is to say if I merely observe that he was instructed neither by the apostles nor by a certain Fronto. For both of these opinions, which some entertain concerning his teachers, are erroneous and therefore the less to be followed. ^B [alt-version omitted]

It stems from a preconceived and already noted opinion that Melito is that angel of the Church of Sardis whom the divine John reproaches. Hence, they necessarily make him contemporary with the age of the apostles and count him among the men instructed by the apostles, whom the ancients called apostolic. The other ^A opinion proceeds from a grave error and belongs to those whom Halloixius noted, who dream that Melito was a disciple of Fronto, or, as they call him not without impropriety, Frontonius. For they have read these words in Jerome: "Melito, an Asian, Bishop of Sardis, gave a book to the Emperor M. Aurelius Verus, who was a student of the orator Fronto, for the Christian dogma," and they attributed to Melito what was to be attributed to M. Aurelius. For indeed, that M. Aur. Antoninus was a disciple of Fronto is attested not only by the connection of the words themselves, but is also proven by the testimonies of the ancients on this matter. For ^B Jerome himself elsewhere handed down to memory concerning Fronto as follows: "Fronto is considered a distinguished orator, who instructed M. Antoninus Verus in Latin letters." And Jul. Capitolinus, in reviewing the masters of this emperor, whom he had in various capacities, says among other things: "He used the Greek orators Annius Madius, Caninius, Celer, and Herodes Atticus; and the Latinist Fronto Cornelius." But he deferred much to this Fronto, for whom he even sought a statue in the senate. He even made him consul, as the consular fasti attest, and besides Ausonius, there is also the witness of an ancient inscription brought from the temple of Fortune on the Adriatic coast and cited by Gruterus. This error, therefore, is significant, having been accepted by certain more negligent chroniclers and derived into others. These things be said concerning the first facts of our Melito, which are equally common to all men. These things concerning his country, age, parents, and teachers I have been able to produce, but I confess that I have said little, yet it is all that I have been able to find. ^C

§ VI. Concerning the erudition of Melito in general, and specifically concerning his oratory.

In describing the disposition of his mind, a very wide and nearly immeasurable field for discourse offers itself to me. For he had nature as a guide entirely benign and favorable in bestowing the gifts of the mind, and he himself made excellent use of the gifts granted to him by nature. For he so polished a happy genius with various arts and sciences, and he so accustomed his will, which was most prone to any goodness, to the exercise of virtues, that he earned commendation no less for his learning than for his piety. With what ardor he indulged in meditations, and with what patience of labor and assiduity he gave himself to his studies, is attested not only by his notable progress in various sciences, but also by the most ample number of books which the tireless diligence of this excellent man left behind him, despite being oppressed ^D besides by other most serious ecclesiastical occupations. A long catalog of these books has been exhibited by Eusebius, Jerome, Ruffinus, and Nicephorus; and we justly grieve that by the injury of time all these excellent fruits of his genius have perished, and that besides titles and a few remaining fragments—yet golden and of great value—our age has brought forward nothing. That Melito stood out as being, in his own time, one of the most famous of all for his erudition and writings is further proven by the testimonies of the ancients on this matter. Ruffinus, bringing forward a fragment from his apology, adds: "that these and many other things were nobly written by him." Eusebius, recounting the writings elaborated against the heresy of Artemon and Paul of Samosata, finally exclaims: «Τὰ δὲ Εἰρηναίου τε καὶ Μελίτωνος καὶ τῶν λοιπῶν τίς ἀγνοεῖ βιβλία;» which is, in the interpretation of Ruffinus: "But who is ignorant of the volumes of Irenaeus and Melito and the rest who were at the same time?" And both also record thus for memory: "Melito, the bishop of the Church of Sardis, and Apollinaris, governing the Church at Hierapolis, were held as most famous among the others." You ask who these other men were, among whom our most famous one was held; I respond that they were those very same men whom Eusebius had previously named as his contemporaries, namely Hegesippus, Dionysius, Pinytus, Philippus, Musanus, Modestus, Irenaeus and

Theophilus of Antioch, men of the Church who are all and each most deserving, both in fame and in writings. He did not reign as a one-eyed man among the blind, but rather stood out as the best among the best. Let us go directly to the matter, and also make it clear now in which kinds of studies our man proved himself outstanding. Seeing perfectly well how much power resides in the enrichment of words, and how much a polished and gentle speech conciliates minds, he exercised himself strenuously in the faculty of speaking with gravity. For it can happen not rarely that someone thinks correctly but cannot express what he thinks with polish; hence, our man worked above all to remove this impediment, and he worked so successfully that he made genuinely remarkable progress in rhetorical and soul-moving arts. And since, as Tullius testifies, speech should be more decorated with thoughts than with words, he also occupied himself with higher disciplines, dedicating himself entirely to both philosophical and more divine sciences, and he joined both together in such a happy union that he attained the praises of an outstanding philosopher and a most consummate theologian. Instructed in these sciences, he was able not only to crush with ease the objections brought by the heathens against Christian truth, but also to encounter the heretics, and to defend the divine republic against all assaults, both external and internal. Thus, I see it is incumbent upon me to prove that Melito was a suitable man, not only as an orator but also as an eminent philosopher, and a philosopher no less than a theologian. We are taught that he was an elegant orator by the authority of Tertullian in Jerome. For this eminent writer of the second century, who later, however, went over to the Montanists to the great detriment of the Church, praised the elegant and declamatory genius of Melito in the seven books which he wrote against the Church on behalf of Montanus. Furthermore, we can discern the ornament of his style of speaking sufficiently and more than enough even from the single oration which he composed for the defense of our faith, a fragment of which survives in Eusebius, judging—as the proverb says—the lion by his claw.

§ VIII. Concerning the philosophical erudition of Melito.

How much he achieved in philosophy is testified to by the books written by him on the most weightiest points of this science, the titles of which the authors named just now have given. He published, that is to say, individual and diverse treatises: *On the creation of this universe* (Περὶ πλάσεως); *On the nature of man* (Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου); *On the senses, on the soul and body and mind* (Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἢ καὶ νοός), etc. But since a perfect knowledge of these things always paves the way to eternal life, by leading men bit by bit to the necessity of higher revelation, and thus their treatment has always been most useful and necessary; so it was highly advantageous in those times in which our man flourished to properly expound upon these heads of philosophy, times when heathens had to be drawn away from their superstition, and when reply had to be made to philosophers who were making many preposterous exceptions against the truth of the Christian religion and holding many erroneous opinions about such dogmas. For the blessed Melito saw well enough how much power certain tenets of these philosophers had either to retard the progress of the Christian religion or to weaken its structure, unless their primary foundations were undermined. Hence, he voluntarily took upon himself this task, that he should diligently handle these heads of philosophy, which are of the greatest moment for the faith, and without which true piety towards God cannot arise or stand, and that he should support them with the clearest reasoning as far as his powers allowed. For certainly, unless it is established, who of this whole universe

^A has been the architect, from whence all things which are contained in this vast expanse derived their origin, who fixed the sun, the moon, and the stars in the heavens; who fashioned the first man, what nature and disposition he implanted in him, to whose happiness he decreed he should be a participant, for what end he destined his body and senses, with what immortality he endowed his soul, and what bond may be detected between the body and the soul: unless there be assurance on these points, I say, few will be able to be led from unbelief to faith, and the disputation against those who feel otherwise will be weak. The mind, rather wavering and uncertain, will be hurried now to the fortuitous concurrence of atoms, now to—I know not what—eternal soul of the world, now to the death of our soul along with the body, now to other things and still more absurd things than these. Therefore, our author happily applied himself to removing these and other obstacles of this kind, and gained for himself a not insignificant name among the philosophers.

IX. On the theological erudition of Melito.

He has accomplished nothing, or very little, for a traveler who has slipped off the path of duty, who merely signals to him that he is treading paths different from his intended course, but does not at the same time point out the right way. Thus, Melito did not stop merely at removing obstacles to the faith through his writings, but turned his mind also to producing other treatises to this end, deeming it of little worth to remove impediments unless the faith itself were clearly set forth, ^B and all the duties necessary for life and eternal salvation were declared according to its precepts by clear and distinct documents. Therefore, he published many books on the various and most important points of this divine discipline, and he did not allow it to remain obscure how great was the science and learning in which he abounded regarding sacred matters and those things pertaining to the faith. Since it is my intention to deal with his writings in a more formal manner below, I do not believe it necessary—lest I now preempt what must be said later—to enumerate extensively the arguments of the many subjects he undertook, and on which specific articles of faith he wrote. I shall rather win faith for myself if, to prove the singular dexterity of Melito in sacred matters, I simply call as witnesses a few of the fruits of his genius published in this art, and refer the reader again to Eusebius and his followers. Moreover, I am very pleased with the division of his writings elaborated on theological matters which was brought forward by the frequently cited Halloix, to whom some seem to have been prepared for the sake of the Gentiles, others for the sake of Christians. Thus, the books *On Faith*, *On Truth*, and *On the Obedience of Faith* bear in their very names and arguments that they were published ^C primarily for the sake of the former. Others, however—and he penned many of these as well—pertain more to those who are already walking in the camps of Christ, or, having given their name to his militia, await admission and meanwhile linger at the threshold of the Church. Such are *On Baptism*, *On the Church*, *On the Generation of Christ*, *On the Incarnate Word*, and others, a catalog of which I shall provide below. With what diligence he handled the sacred Scriptures by day and night, and how assiduous he was in reading them, we can infer not without foundation from the books of *Selections*, or *Testimonies excerpted from the sacred Bibles*, divided into six books. He drew this honey of the divine Scriptures most especially for the sake of Onesimus, as is clear from his very epistle to Onesimus. Therefore, from his frequent reading of the sacred letters, as from the best and only source and fountainhead of all divine doctrine, he also derived into himself that outstanding abundance of this science with which he was endowed; and since to be not ignorant of Jesus Christ as God and man is the chief article of our faith, he studied this truth above all, and stood forth as a most vigorous defender and champion of the nature of the God-man (θεανθρώπου). One must consult Eusebius ^D on this matter, who recorded for us that his writings, "in which Christ is theologized, and in which Christ is proclaimed God and man," were known, indeed most well known, to all. Most excellent, in particular, is Melito’s passage on the divinity and humanity of Christ, which Anastasius Sinaita brought forward, and from him Cave and Whiston, and which Weismann defended against Le Clerc. Furthermore, he showed his rare dexterity in divine matters in this, that he was so great a lover and tenacious guardian of the purer doctrine that he deemed it necessary not to recede from it by so much as a nail's breadth, but fought strongly against heretics.

For it is of great value for abstracting the mind from error to know the causes of an erroneous opinion; and our author also placed his efforts in this task most excellently: as Jerome (78) attests, he demonstrated from which school of philosophers each of the heresies in the Church drew its birth and origin. By this one work alone, therefore, it can be sufficiently and more than sufficiently proven that he was endowed with no meager knowledge in the vast fields of philosophical as well as theological matters. For this reason, because of his truly singular erudition, he earned a perennial memory among posterity. He earned the name of orator, philosopher, and theologian, and he earned it with the highest praise.

§ X. Concerning the chastity of Melito

The man whom I have hitherto proven by the weightiest arguments to be most learned, I must now also present as pious and flourishing greatly in virtues, and I trust that this will be done with no less fortunate success or weaker arguments. For those fruits that are wont to flow from a diligent cultivation of the mind in various arts and sciences and from the frequent reading of sacred scripture into the well-prepared hearts of men—namely, that their morals are softened and men are not permitted to be wicked—flowed all the more copiously into the most pious soul of Melito, the more zealously we have seen him devote himself to both studies hitherto. From this, therefore, arose the purity of his soul and morals, and from this his celibacy and chastity, whereby he was conspicuous among other exercises of virtue, and for which he received the surname of eunuch. For thus he is called by Polycrates (79) in the synodical epistle to Pope Victor: «Τί γὰρ δεῖ λέγειν Σάγαριν ἐπίσκοπον καὶ μάρτυρα, ὃς Λαοδικείᾳ κεκοίμηται; ἔτι γὰρ καὶ Παπείμον τὸν μακάριον, καὶ Μελίτωνα τὸν εὐνοῦχον; τὸν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι πάντα πολιτευσάμενον;» etc., which is as divine Jerome (80) interpreted the words of Polycrates: «What need is there to recall Sagaris the bishop and martyr, who rests in Laodicea, and Papirius the blessed, and Melito the eunuch in the Holy Spirit, who always serves the Lord?» Therefore, our man is called a eunuch. And since the best and greatest Savior in the Gospel (81) establishes three kinds of eunuchs—one clearly of those, «οἵτινες ἐκ κοιλίας μητρὸς ἐγεννήθησαν οὕτω, "from the womb," such as were born incapable of Venus; another of those, «οἵτινες εὐνουχίσθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων, "who were made such by men"; and lastly that of those, «οἵτινες εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτοὺς διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν,» "who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven"—it will not be irrelevant to inquire to which class our Melito should be referred. That he is to be numbered among the last is proved beyond a doubt by two reasons. First, it seems to me that Polycrates honors Melito with the name of eunuch for no other reason than to add something to his praise and esteem; and thus to add no small weight to his own opinion, which he was maintaining against Victor, insofar as it is supported by the authority of so many most holy men. Therefore, for the same reason for which he had called Sagaris a martyr and Papirius blessed, he also called Melito a eunuch; otherwise, he would have added this epithet without any purpose, for whether it had happened to him on account of a defect of nature or the violence of other men, it could have contributed absolutely nothing to his praise and commendation, and indeed nothing to the purpose at hand. But in such an epistle, which Polycrates did not give as a private man to a private man, but which he wrote in a public capacity—in the name of all the churches of all Asia—to Victor and the Roman Church on a most serious matter, and which so many bishops in a solemn synod had approved and confirmed with their subscription, I can hardly, indeed hardly, conceive in my mind that anything could have been added rashly or irrelevantly. The second argument can be taken from the Latin version of these words by Jerome and Rufinus, one of whom (82) called Melito a eunuch in the Holy Spirit, while the other (83) interpreted the words of Polycrates as follows: «But also Papirius, Macarius (84), and Melito, because of the kingdom of God, both a eunuch and full of the Holy Spirit.» So that it clearly appears from this that by the «εὐνοῦχον τὸν ἐν ἁγίῳ Πνεύματι πάντα πολιτευσάμενον» of Polycrates, no other kind of eunuch is to be understood than those «οἵτινες διὰ τὴν βασιλείαν τῶν οὐρανῶν εὐνούχισαν ἑαυτούς,» "who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven." Therefore, did Melito emasculate himself for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? Therefore...

did he provide an example of such a kind to those who—if one is to believe the records of historical events—report and recoil at the simplicity of those who mutilate themselves with a bloody hand? ^A By no means. Rather, he abstained of his own volition from all the pleasures of marriage, however lawful they may be, and however much they were instituted by God, because of the persecutions concerning the Christian religion that were imminent at that time. For these are truly eunuchs in the Holy Spirit, and they are the ones of whom Christ speaks in the Gospel for the commendation of chastity, not those who cast out nature with iron and cut themselves off, but those who, by the peculiar grace of the Holy Spirit, are so adorned with the gift of a more distinguished continence that they are able to repress the stimulants of nature for the sake of those incomparable delights that await the blessed in heaven. Thus, that this divine oracle should be understood in this way is shown not only by reason itself, but it is also proven by the unanimous interpretation of the Fathers (88), among whom, moreover, *eunouchia* often signifies chastity as well, and we find the word *eunouchizein* used metaphorically for "to live chastely" (89). Furthermore, the canons and constitutions of the Church (90) decreed that those who mutilate themselves are not only to be denied admission to any sacred office, but that if they are already clergy, they are to be deposed from it and struck from the number of the clergy. Since, therefore, our Melito was raised to the dignity of a bishop, he certainly did not castrate himself; rather, he belonged to the most praiseworthy class of eunuchs, to whom such a cognomen was added due to their exceptional zeal for chastity. Halluixius raises a pertinent question on this occasion: what could have been the reason, when there were so many holy men and chaste bishops in Melito’s own century, why this particular cognomen was attributed most especially to ours? And he conjectures, not without foundation, that he must surely have exhibited some rare example of chastity.

XI. On other virtues of Melito.

With the same ardor with which he strove for chastity, he also applied himself to other exercises of virtue, and when he saw himself established in an illustrious place in the Church, he provided an excellent example for his own people to imitate, following the practice of other virtues that befit the worshippers of Christ. For indeed, only one virtue is given (91), yet its works, exercises, and objects are many, and the zeal to direct all of one’s actions toward the will of God remains one and the same in its various objects, nor is it made diverse by their variety. Melito, therefore, who with all the strength he could muster, tempered his own carnal appetite toward the divine will with happy and praiseworthy success, could not act in his other propensities toward his own corrupt will, or against the divine decrees; but in those matters, too, he had to be held fast by the zeal of pleasing God, mindful of the words of the divine James (92): "For He who said, Do not commit adultery, also said, Do not murder. Now, if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder,"

you have become a transgressor of the law. Nor are testimonies of the ancients wanting regarding this matter. For those writers who extolled our Melito with praises on account of his zeal for chastity, also delivered him to posterity as venerable for the exercise of other virtues. ^A Thus, Polycrates (93) did not hesitate to adorn him with that distinguished commemoration of praise, by which he called him "living in all things in the Holy Spirit," that is, a man conducting all his affairs by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Likewise, Jerome (94), making the words of Polycrates his own by bringing them forward here, further handed down to memory regarding Melito that "he always served the Lord." ^B And Ruffinus (95), that most noted interpreter of Eusebius, testifies with like consensus concerning our author, that he was always filled with the Holy Spirit; so that I believe I have sufficiently given proof that Melito, just as he excelled the rest in chastity, so he also shone in other virtues.

§ XII. On the Prophetic Gift of Melito.

Being, therefore, entirely intent upon the one God, there fell to him also some peculiar gift of divine grace, full of miracles, namely, the [i]charisma[/i] of prophecy, which, as Origen (96) has notably said, has always been both the character of the divine word and the familiar companion and associate of a life acceptable to God. For to foresee future things and to announce them without suspicion of falsehood is the power and prerogative of God alone, to which none of mortals ^C or demons can attain, except by the indication of God Himself, who knows neither how to be deceived nor to deceive. For it is God—if I may use the words of Chrysostom (97)—to whom it is most proper to predict future things; and by this very character He willed to be distinguished in the sacred pages from the false gods of the gentiles and their fictitious idols. So that the father of honeyed eloquence, whose words I have just brought forward on the same matter, has also pronounced very admirably, when he called the faculty of predicting future things the "work of God," ^D which "not even the demons can imitate, however much they may struggle," that is, the work of God, which demons cannot imitate, even though they strive to the greatest degree. For although the demons have often attempted to act as imitators of this divine power through oracles among the gentiles, they have nevertheless acted as unhappy rivals of the Godhead even in this respect, to such an extent that, being so often convicted of falsehood, they have finally become a mockery even to their own worshippers. For their revelations consisted partly of falsehoods and partly of flexiloquent and obscure utterances, so that the interpreters of future events themselves stood in need of an interpreter, as not a few gentile writers testify and mock (99). That therefore the supreme Godhead adorned Melito also with the knowledge of future things is certainly a great document of the grace poured out upon him.

But certainly that he was a prophet is testified by Jerome (1) himself, writing of him thus: "Tertullian, praising the elegant and declamatory genius of this man in the seven books which he wrote against the Church on behalf of Montanus, says that he is considered a prophet by most of our people." God, namely, mindful of the promise by which He had long ago bound Himself through the messenger Joel, and not willing that this [i]charisma[/i] of prophecy should be entirely absent from the New Testament Church, or contained within the narrow straits of the apostolic age, but that it should still be communicated to one or another, albeit more sparingly according to the condition of the times, cannot be denied. And although "the law and the prophets" are said to have "lasted until John" (5), yet those words are to be received with a milder interpretation, such as does not exclude all use of prophecy, as can be proven by the examples of Agabus and others who are mentioned as having traveled from Jerusalem to Antioch, and by very many other testimonies which Pfannerus (2) has collected from the first three centuries. And certainly among the other gifts of the Holy Spirit which the supreme Godhead distributes in the Church of the new covenant, prophecy is also listed by Paul (3), by which—as much as other things are contained therein—the knowledge of future things seems, by the very nature of the words and their usage, to be especially signified. Therefore, we need not doubt that this gift was also bestowed upon our blessed Melito. But this [i]charisma[/i], which has always been held in every age by the faithful of both…

^A the covenant as a matter of the greatest moment, was truly a grand document of the divine favor most inclined toward us, and it ought to win for him all the more authority, since it happened to him in those last times in which the supreme Moderator of all things was more sparing in distributing gifts of this kind. I am surprised, therefore, that Melito was not commemorated by Pfanner and Grabe among the examples of men adorned with the gift of prophecy, since I see absolutely nothing that can rightfully be objected to the truth of this matter. Indeed, I think I see in it rather clear traces of the providence of God, who is vigilant for the safety of His Church, in that He instructed Melito with the true gift of prophecy in that very age when the pseudo-prophet Montanus with his team of mad seers, Priscilla and Maximilla, began to disturb the Church and to draw many men into following him under the guise of prophecy and great virtues; for the darkness of the prophecy falsely claimed by Montanus could be dissipated by the most clear light of the true prophecy coming from the opposite direction, just as clouds are by the sun. ^B Thus, divinely instructed by these gifts, and especially moved, as is highly probable, by the heresy of Montanus, our author also wrote the books *On Prophecy* and *On the Life of the Prophets*, in which he undoubtedly showed what true and divine prophecy was, and by what signs it ought to be distinguished from fictitious and false vaticinations; and he depicted the lives of the prophets with vivid and certain colors in such a way that if anyone had wished to turn his attention to the soft manner of life of Montanus and his prophetesses, immersed in every kind of pleasure, he could have distinguished with no difficulty what separates "bronze" from "lupine seeds." The kind reader should also be warned in a few words not to consider the book published in French at Paris in 1662 under the title *L'Apocalypse de Méliton* as a genuine work of our Melito and as a testimony to his prophecy, since that book is said to contain a satire against the monks of our age.

XIII. Melito is created bishop of Sardis.

Being thus excellently instructed in resources and disciplines, and with the integrity of morals and the innocence of life joining them as companions, he was justly and deservedly raised to the highest dignity in the Church, and was ordered to preside over the sacred rites of the Christians in Sardis, a great city, and formerly the royal seat of the most wealthy Croesus.

^A of which we shall provide this brief and elegant geographical description. Sardis, in the plural number of the Sardians, was a city of Lydia, ^B very well known in Asia Minor for the gold-bearing river Pactolus, which, bathed by the winding recurves of the river Maeander, proceeds above Ionia, being near to Phrygia from the sunrise, to the north of Mysia, and embracing a part of Caria in the southern region. The city and capital of this Lydia was therefore the city of Sardis, called in Greek by some Σάρις but by others Σάρδεις, situated between Thyatira and Philadelphia, adjacent to the fortunate Mount Tmolus, of which Strabo gave this description: « Ἡ δὲ Σάρδεις πόλις ἐστὶ μεγάλη, νεωτέρα μὲν τῶν Τρωϊκῶν, ἀρχαία δὲ ὅμως, ἄκρα εὐερκῆ ἔχουσα, βασίλειον δὲ ὑπῆρξε τῶν Λυδῶν. » "Sardis is a great city, later indeed than the Trojan cities, but ancient nonetheless, possessing a very secure citadel, and it was once the kingdom of the Lydians." Whence also Horace: ^C

*Quid concinna Samos, quid Croesi regia Sardis?*

This city, and the whole region of Lydia, greatly abounded in riches and wealth, whence also proverbs became known: "Richer than Croesus" and "The wealth of Midas." It is celebrated especially for the art of purple dyeing and for the most excellent tapestries, upon which the ancients slept, a texture, whence that saying of Varro: "I lie upon Sardianian tapestries between cloaks and purple garments." This city, moreover, should not be confused with the city of Sardica, which is reckoned by Claudius Ptolemy among the inland cities of Thrace, and is illustrious because of the Council of Sardica, held in the Athanasian cause, nor with the island of Sardinia, whose inhabitants are also called Sardi, Sardoi, and Sardenses, and concerning whom two proverbs are known: "Sardi for sale," meaning those who are vile and despised, and "Sardonic laughter," of feigned laughter or laughter fatal to him who laughs. Therefore, a Sardus and Sardensis is from Sardinia, Sardicensis from Thrace, but Sardianus from Lydia. Hence, as we observed a little earlier in a note, Melito is less correctly called Sardensis from his ecclesiastical dignity; hence, furthermore, the interpreter of the Alexandrian Chronicle, who rendered that of the author, ^D *Melito Sardianon* as "Melito, pontiff of the Sardicenses," is to be corrected; it ought to have been *Sardianorum*. Today the city, formerly most flourishing, is an ignoble village which the Turks hold and call Sart; it has narrow and humble houses, without splendor, without ornament: there is no church there, no Christians, nor does it have almost any other inhabitants except shepherds and herdsmen, who tend to the flocks and herds grazing there in the wide and most pleasant plain which extends before this village. There is indeed a public inn there, but it receives no travelers except Persians engaged in collective trading (caravans). In the southern region, huge ruins of the ancient city still exist today, upon seeing which anyone can easily conceive in their mind how magnificent, how splendid, and how proud it once was before it was overturned. I owe this report to the most celebrated Th. Smith.

^A

He who gave the description of the seven Churches of Asia, and himself undertook a journey to these parts of the world, having also subjected the regions themselves to his gaze, sought out Sardis in Sardis and had a most mournful spectacle, nor was he ashamed to weep over the ruins of such a great city. The Christian faith once flourished in this city, for the monuments of sacred history do not allow us to be ignorant that all of Asia Minor was, at a very early date, illuminated by the preaching of the Gospel by Paul and Peter. But especially Asia fell to Saint John, who resided there for a long time, established various Churches, and finally died as bishop of Ephesus. Perchance, therefore, he also founded the Church of Sardis here, of which Melito was later established as presiding officer. But who succeeded him in this dignity, and who followed him, I cannot define; I ought only to mention this, that the Sardian Church is one of those seven Asian ones of which the Divine John speaks in the Apocalypse, and in order it is the fifth, which, as Spanheim observes, claimed the first place for itself in the ecclesiastical province of Lydia.

§ XIV. Whether Melito is to be understood by the Angel of the Church of Sardis (Apoc. III).

There are, therefore, some among the learned who, because they find mention of the bishop of the Sardian Church made in the Apocalypse by John, believe him to be Melito, to whom the Blessed John directed his words; and they contend that no one else is to be understood by the angel of the Church of Sardis, to whom the holy prophet wrote: "I know thy works, that thou hast the name of being alive, and thou art dead," etc., than our own. Halloius names as patrons of this opinion Peter Aureol, Aeneas Sylvius, Philip of Bergamo, and Antiochus Brondus. Among them, Brondus most confidently of all pronounced in this manner: "It is clearly evident from ecclesiastical history that Melito presided over the Sardian Church at the time when the archprophet John was writing this. Since Eusebius of Caesarea writes thus in lib. IV, cap. 13 about Melito: 'Melito, bishop of the parish of Sardis, also testifies to these deeds,' etc." Thus far he. But his is a weak opinion, proven by no learned man of keener judgment. You ask what led these excellent men to this opinion; I answer, nothing other than that they could find no mention of any other Sardian bishop in the sacred annals besides Melito. As if indeed he were the only, and the same first and last, presiding officer of this chair! If we press them to bring forth the reasons from which it could be concluded that Melito was then the bishop of Sardis when John wrote these things, there is deep silence everywhere. Brondus indeed appealed to Eusebius to stabilize his opinion, but the words of this writer suggest nothing of the sort. Here they are for you: *Toutois outo chorēsasi, martyron Melitōn, tēs en Sardesin Ekklēsias episkopos, kat' auto gnōrizomenos tou chronou, dēlos estin ek tōn eirēmenōn autō en hēi pepoiētai pros ton autokratora Ouaroun hyper tou kath' hēmas dogmatos chrēsimōtatē apologia*, i.e., "That these things happened thus, Melito, bishop of the Sardian Church, who flourished in that same time, manifests by testifying to those things which he placed in his most useful apology regarding the dogma of our religion, written to the emperor Verus." But not even a word that Melito was the Sardian bishop in the time of John. For he only says that those things which he himself had brought forward immediately before regarding the benevolence of the previous emperors toward the Christians, namely Hadrian and Antoninus Pius, could also be confirmed from the Apology of Melito himself to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, which Melito had lived and flourished in the same age as Saint Justin, concerning whose Apology he had dealt in the preceding chapter. Moreover, the following reasons militate against this opinion. First, the ratio of time does not seem to permit it, unless we wish to assert that our man extended his own life to almost a century and a half, and presided over the Sardian Church for eighty and more years; which, as it lacks every appearance of probability in itself, so it is found to have been committed to memory or consigned to letters by no writer. ^B For the Divine John wrote his revelation from Patmos in the 14th year of Domitian, which fell in the year of Christ 95. Melito, therefore, must have already presided over his Church for some years at that time, and before he was appointed to it, he must also have reached the pontifical age, or that established for a bishop. Now the so-called Apostolic Constitutions require that a bishop should have passed fifty years of his life before he is ordained.

^A for he is to preside over a certain major see, such as Sardis was, the metropolis of all Lydia. Therefore, in the year of Christ 95, Melito would have already existed as a man of about sixty; ^B yet he delivered his apology to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the seventy-first or seventy-second year of the following century. Thus, he would have reached approximately one hundred and forty years of age—an age which, as it is acknowledged by no writer, we are rightly led to doubt that he was Bishop of Sardis during the time John was in exile on Patmos. Furthermore, he is numbered by no one among the apostolic men, or men of that ilk whom the apostles instructed; and surely the ancient writers would not have passed over this in silence, since they labored most assiduously to ensure that those upon whom this honor had fallen would not be hidden from posterity. Nay, rather, they place him after Irenaeus and others, whom they called ^C *eggys tōn apostolōn genomenon* ("one who has become close to the apostles"), or "not far removed from the times of the apostles." Finally, the very words "I know thy works, that thou hast a name that thou livest, and art dead," do not in the least fit Melito, for these appear to denote the most miserable state of that bishop, whoever he may have been, and a conscience oppressed by fatal sin; whereas concerning Melito, we have heard above how greatly he occupied himself with virtues and a life acceptable to God. This sad oracle, therefore, can prove that it was written about someone other than our own.

§ XV. Concerning the Canon of the Old Testament as recounted by Melito.

But leaving this controversy aside, let us see, in a few words, how egregiously he discharged the office of bishop committed to him, and how wonderfully he promoted the advantages not only of the Sardians, but also of the universal Church, by his own defense. It is not the least duty of an administrator of the divine word, and especially of a bishop, to have the most accurate care of the sacred canon—*theias paradoseis katechein*—and so to guard the divine books contained in the sacred canon that nothing is added or taken away. This was especially necessary in those times in which there was almost no end to the interpolation, supposition, and adulteration of sacred books. To this office, therefore, our Melito did not retreat, but set out into the Orient and instituted a journey to the very place where the events related in the Scriptures once occurred, so that he might diligently ascertain the books of the Old Testament, an index of which he also subsequently transmitted to his brother Onesimus, whom Nicephorus calls Onesiphorus, just as Eusebius recited it from the preface of a certain book of Melito’s which he titled *Excerpta*: « The books of Moses five: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings, two of Chronicles, the Psalms of David; the Proverbs of Solomon, which is also Wisdom, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, Job; of the Prophets, namely Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the twelve prophets, one book; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. »

...not without foundation, yet they cannot deny that they contain the remains of the old Constitutions and *diataxeōn apostolikōn*, intermixed with many interpolations by a perhaps Arian impostor. Therefore, I have no doubt in believing that this law of the Constitutions was laid down by the apostles themselves and observed at that time in which Melito lived; for an Arian, or another addicted to any sect whatsoever, would have had no cause to lay adulterous hands upon this place, as he could find in it no patronage for any erroneous opinion of his own. Whiston, in the singular book which he inscribed, *An Essay on the Apostolical Constitutions, wherein is proved, that they are the most sacred of the canonical Books of the New Testament*, and which constitutes volume III of his *Primitive Christianity*, dealt with them, and proved them not only to be genuine, but also most canonical, and instructed with the same divine authority as the books of the New Testament, and he proved it in such a way that,

^D *Si Pergama dextra* *Defendi possent, etiam hac defensa fuissent.* (If Troy could have been defended by any right hand, it would have been defended by this one.)

The most illustrious and precocious intellect Baraterius, whose premature death the world of letters rightly laments, in two most elaborate dissertations on the Apostolic Constitutions, not only asserted their sincerity and antiquity by many arguments down to the times of Eusebius, but also referred their age to the very first beginnings of the century. He appended these dissertations to his *Disquisitio Chronologica de successione antiquissima episcoporum Romanorum inde a Petro usque ad Victorem*, which was published in quarto at Utrecht in 1740. And these received such applause from Whiston that he not only had them translated into the English language and published anew in London, but also did not blush to call Baraterius his own teacher and to confess for me, more than once, that he had been taught many things from this writing of which he had previously been ignorant. Indeed, he was thoroughly persuaded that Baraterius held the same opinion on these Constitutions as he did, and that he had only lacked the courage to profess it openly. Let these things be said at least to the end that it may be clear that I have not referred to a work—already interpolated, in any case—of antiquity out of pure frivolity, inasmuch as it contains not only the shavings of genuine gold, but also, as some learned men have believed, it existed at the very beginnings of the second century even if the whole work be supposititious.

For thus the same Constitutions *l.c.* further pronounce: "But if in a small parish a man of advanced age is not found, and there is someone with whom those who have associated have given testimony that he is worthy to be made bishop, who in his youth has lived meekly and composedly, plainly showing the demeanor of an old man, if he is proven by the testimony of such, let him be made bishop in peace." More recent councils, in ordaining a bishop, require the same age or at least thirty years, and render two reasons: that our Savior himself did not begin to teach before he was thirty years old, and that this is the age of a perfect man. Conf. Bingham in *Origines ecclesiasticae*, book II, chapter 10, vol. I, p. 142 sq.

^A The books of Nehemiah and Esther are missing there. But the former is contained under the name of Ezra, which the highly venerable Carpzovius shows was familiar to the ancients; yet the latter is omitted by others also, e.g., by Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, and Leontius. Sixtus Senensis conjectures the cause of this in his *Additamenta*: that the seven final chapters, which conclude that book, a great part of which are added from the 11th book of Josephus's *Jewish Antiquities* by an unknown author, and translated from the Greek codices into the Vulgate, are today also referred to the canon by the authority of the Council of Trent; therefore, that this book of Ezra was passed over by Melito and Gregory Nazianzen, and Athanasius indeed ejected it from the catalogue of sacred books as spurious. To me, however, it seems more probable that it was omitted by the carelessness of a copyist, whether because of haste or because the similarity of the names Ezra and Esther caused him to take each for the same. For Melito received this list from the Jews; and they numbered the canonical books of the O.T. at twenty-two, as is evident from Josephus's catalogue of the canonical books of the O.T., which Eusebius also cites, and Origen reveals the cause of this to us, writing thus: "As the introduction to wisdom impressed upon men seems to be in the twenty-two letters of the Hebrews, so the twenty-two books of Scripture are the foundation and introduction to the wisdom of God and the knowledge of divine things." Melito therefore ought to have followed the same number. But since only twenty-one books are placed in his recension, and since in the list of the Jews the books of Ezra and Esther immediately follow one another, so that an error in transcribing could very easily have occurred, it is highly probable that this book dropped out of Melito's catalogue merely through the carelessness of scribes. Moreover, our bishop deserves excellent credit for this work of his regarding the whole Church, inasmuch as he was the first among Christian writers to provide a most accurate canon of the O.T.

^B From that canon, however, it would be wrongly concluded that St. Melito included the book of Wisdom among the canonical books of the Old Testament. For I shall prove with the following arguments that by "Wisdom," which he subjoins to the Proverbs of Solomon, he did not understand the book of Wisdom, composed in the Greek language by an unknown author, but the Proverbs of Solomon themselves. First, the genuine reading must be used, which does not have, as some editions of Eusebius read: Παροιμίαι καὶ ἡ Σοφία, but as restored by Valesius from the faith of the most excellent codices: Παροιμίαι αἱ καὶ Σοφία, so that the Proverbs of Solomon are also called Wisdom by grammatical apposition. Then, it was familiar to the whole choir of the ancients to call the Proverbs of Solomon "Wisdom," as testified by Eusebius and Lombard, who many centuries after Christ cited the Proverbs under the title of Wisdom. Whence Valesius himself admits against others that Melito by "Wisdom" indicated the Proverbs in this place. Furthermore, I appeal to the version of Rufinus, who translated it thus: "Solomon's Proverbs, which are also Wisdom." And that I may at last completely settle the matter and remove every doubt, I shall bring forward a passage from Melito's own book, which he called the *Key*, in which he cited words found in the Proverbs from the book of Wisdom. For this precious monument of antiquity, which he called the *Key*, is in my possession, copied from a double Parisian codex, and there in that chapter which treats *Of the various nouns of buildings*, at the word *Domus* (House) I found the following explanation: "House, the flesh assumed by the Savior, or the holy Church; in Solomon's Wisdom: *Wisdom hath built herself a house*; and in the Psalm: *We shall go into the house of the Lord with consent*." The passage, moreover, concerning Wisdom building a house for herself is to be found in Proverbs, chapter ix, verse 1. Therefore, it is clearer than meridian light that Melito understood Proverbs by the Wisdom of Solomon. Therefore, he did not enumerate more books in the canon than we do.

XVI. Concerning the controversy settled in the Laodicean Church regarding the celebration of the Pasch.

^A Furthermore, our man discharged the duties of a bishop excellently in that he exerted every effort to preserve peace in the Church and to settle the dissensions that had arisen among the household of faith. The neighboring Laodicean Church, in which disturbances had arisen over the celebration of the Pasch, experienced this prudent care of Melito. For it is agreed among all—and it can be proven by the testimony of Socrates (48) in addition—that neither Christ nor the apostles prescribed a specific law for the day on which the Pasch was to be celebrated, but left the time for this festival to the judgment of the Churches. Therefore, while some, out of a great conformity of the nascent Church with Jewish rites, thought that it should be celebrated at the same time as the Jews, others preferred to conduct this feast on the Lord's Day. Nevertheless, this diversity did not create discord from the beginning, but each Church, using its own freedom in this indifferent rite, did not envy others their freedom, until a great controversy regarding the paschal solemnity was excited at Laodicea. ^B In the persecution of M. Aurelius Antoninus, the Laodiceans had lost their bishop, Sagaris, and it is credible that some men had arisen there who attempted to introduce a custom other than what they had seen at Rome or elsewhere—a custom unknown and alien to Asia; however, the Laodiceans, since they had been taught otherwise from childhood, resisted them, and thus the dissension was born. Melito therefore interposed his authority, and, as Eusebius relates (49) from the work of Melito himself, during the time of Servilius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, when Sagaris suffered martyrdom, he wrote with a hasty pen two books concerning the Pasch. In these, he taught that each Church must observe its own custom, and that it must not depart from that which they had received from their holy prelate—who is now a glorious martyr—and that the custom handed down from antiquity, of observing the Pasch on the fourteenth day, must be steadfastly retained. For the Synodical Epistle (50) of Polycrates, in whose time—under the reign of Commodus and the pontificate of Victor—much greater ^C disturbances arose regarding the paschal solemnity, professes this. Therefore, by his books written on the Pasch, Melito settled the entire controversy and restored unity and peace to the Church. Eusebius adds that even Clement of Alexandria (51) makes mention of this work, edited by Melito, and that this very writing of Melito provided Clement of Alexandria with the occasion to edit a book of his own, *On the Pasch*; but neither of these has reached our age.

XVII. Concerning Melito’s Apology for the Christians.

Now, it remains to speak briefly regarding the industry he employed—not unsuccessfully—in settling the bitter vexation of the Christians. Therefore, our man was eager not only to strengthen and promote the faith in the peace and tranquil state of the Church, but also, in war and persecutions, he did not cease to deserve well of the assembly of God at the hazard of his own life. For when, during the reign of the two Augusti, the brothers M. Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Verus, a fierce storm ^D had descended upon the Asiatic Churches (52), our man sought no idle hiding-places; but, not broken in spirit and trusting in God, he stood at the helm of the Church and fought bravely against the insane insults of the unrighteous magistrates, whether proconsuls or prefects, who had especially incited this storm. Therefore, just as the skill of a good navigator reveals itself among the raging waves and billows of the sea, so did the virtue of the blessed Melito shine forth in the midst of the whirlwinds of the persecutions. For by the protection of his learned and elegant discourse, he made a way for himself to the ears of the Emperor M. Aurelius Antoninus; he pleaded his own cause and that of his brethren before him, and offered an *Apology* (53-54), in which he demonstrated to the emperor that it was none other than tyrants and wicked princes who had until then afflicted the Church, and in which he recalled to his memory...

the benevolence of his ancestors toward the Christians, whose examples of clemency he counseled him to imitate rather than the outrages of their predecessors. The very Apology itself—a fact much to be lamented—has perished, though a few fragments of it, of no small value, have been preserved by Eusebius ^A, which I shall insert into my other dissertation on this subject along with certain observations. Eusebius reports that Melito delivered his Apology to the emperor in the 237th Olympiad, which, as we observed above, falls in the years of Christ 169-172; but Dodwell and Ant. Pagi have gone further, teaching that this occurred in the year 170, after the first vicennial, on March 17th—though I do not inquire into their reasoning. Valesius, moreover, conjectures from the fragment of Melito’s oration provided by Eusebius that it was nothing other than a suppliant pamphlet presented to the emperor on behalf of the Christians. Others also presented to the same Emperor M. Antoninus apologies written by them during that same persecution: Justin, to wit, the martyr and philosopher, Apollinaris, and Athenagoras, under the title of an embassy on behalf of the Christians; to whom, as participants in the same struggle, the same honor is due in books, and the same glory shall remain in heaven. Tillemont, ^B from the word ἐπέδωκεν which Eusebius used in his *Chronicle*, and which Jerome also retained in his own version, concludes that Melito himself, having undertaken a journey to Rome, presented his Apology to the emperor; and for this reason, among others, it does not seem improbable to me, since it is evident from § 15 that he was not at all averse to the hardships of such a journey.

§ XVIII. Concerning the death of Melito. Finally, he undertook the journey common to all in about the year 175, and trod the paths that lead from this to the other life, which all must tread. But that Melito died around this very time is what convinces me: it is clear from the letter of Polycrates to Victor ^C that he was already deceased when this controversy concerning Easter was set in motion; and I conclude from this that he died not long before, since Polycrates, in listing the more illustrious teachers of the Asian Churches, places Melito in the final position, serving as an indication that he died last, and that no others famous in the Church died after him. Moreover, Melito was the author of very many books, and thus did not easily rest from writing. Nevertheless, Eusebius indicates that his Apology was the final work he wrote. For after listing the others, he says, "And above all, the Apology." Therefore, he died about five years before the disputes regarding Easter between Victor and Polycrates were again stirred up. He departed this life at Sardis, and was laid to rest there. "Who," says Polycrates ^D of him, "is to be named, Melito the eunuch, who lived entirely in the Holy Spirit, who lies in Sardis, awaiting the visitation from heaven, in which he shall rise again." Although he was by no means gifted with the crown of martyrdom, his natal day was nevertheless recorded in the sacred calendars of the Church, and is now found inscribed in certain Martyrologies on the Kalends of April. Let these remarks concerning the life and virtues of the blessed Melito suffice.

II. ON THE WRITINGS OF SAINT MELITO. The undertaking. I have decided to weave and continue, in this present writing, the web I began some years ago concerning Melito, Bishop of Sardis in Asia. In my previous work on this subject, I set forth the life of Melito and his merits toward the Church; a vast number of writings composed by him now deserves my diligence, and shall constitute the subject matter of this minor treatise. And so that this undertaking may not be altogether displeasing, I pray and entreat the benevolent reader in the greatest measure, relying on the hope that I shall not be ill-deserving of the favor of those learned investigators of sacred antiquity, if, in gathering from all sides the works of this man...

I have been diligent, and indeed have brought to light into the public domain some of them not yet printed.

§ I. Melito wrote much with erudition. Testimonies regarding his erudition.

He spoke well and wisely, who said that erudition ought neither to be boasted of, nor hidden (65); and that poetic sentiment, *well he who lived hidden, lived well,* ^A can aid only those whose consciousness of their own inadequacy always imposes silence in the society of men of letters. But the blessed Melito did not hide his erudition; rather, he testified to it by the singular fruits of his genius, and propagated it to posterity in such a way that he made for himself a fame of his name that would never die, because he did not abstain from writing books. For however much he may have been oppressed by the many occupations that befit a bishop well-deserving of the Church, he never held back his mind and hands from composing and polishing books of excellent fruit; but rather, by their most abundant number, he made for himself a place among the "polygraphers," even among writers. To be called a polygrapher is not always high praise, nor should one be judged more learned or superior to others simply because he has compiled more or larger books; for not a few, held by the incurable itch of writing, become lesser men through the very mass of their works. Therefore, the first and sole praise of Melito should by no means be that he was merely the author of many books; but rather, let this redound to his honor: that for the abundance of his most elaborate writings, he ought to be numbered among the polygraphers of most learned genius who have rendered their names illustrious through the publication of many volumes. For in this, all writers whom the ancient and medieval ^B age have produced agree in a wonderful way, and with one voice, as it were, confess that Melito, on account of his remarkable erudition and the abundance of his excellent writings, was one of the most celebrated men of all in his own time. Polycrates (66), Bishop of Ephesus, in his synodical letter to Victor, made most honorable mention of him, and numbered him among the leading men of all Asia for genius and doctrine. Rufinus (67), bringing forward a fragment from his Apology, adds that "these and many other things were notably written by him." Eusebius (68), reviewing the writings published against Artemon and Paul of Samosata, exclaims at length: *“But the books of Irenaeus and Melito and the rest, who is ignorant of them?”* The same Eusebius (69), enumerating the principal ecclesiastical writers of that age, did not leave out Melito, but added thus at the end of the chapter: *“...from whom both to us the written orthodoxy of the apostolic tradition and of the sound faith has come down,”* that is, "the books of all of whom, containing the sincere doctrine of the apostolic tradition and true faith, have reached even unto us." And elsewhere (70): *“In these times also Melito, Bishop of the parish in Sardis, and Apollinaris, Bishop of Hierapolis, flourished with the highest praise.”* Tertullian, as witness Jerome (71), was wonderfully pleased by his ornate style of speaking and writing, who recorded that Tertullian had praised his elegant and declamatory genius. And he himself, regarding our Melito, says elsewhere (72): *“What shall I say of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, what of Apollinaris, etc., who explained in many volumes the origins of individual heresies, and from what sources of the philosophers they emanated?”* ^C These things now sufficiently and more than sufficiently prove that Melito’s writings were not common, but altogether exceptional, and that he himself was most famous among the other men of his age who, for the Church of God, were most deserving both in fame and in writings. I could, moreover, in commendation of the writings composed by Melito, examine more carefully that which Eusebius (73) recorded generally to his memory, where he says that *"the divinity of Christ is established in them, and the same one is proclaimed there as both God and man,”* in which all Christ is theologically described... *“books proclaiming Christ to be God and man.”* I could, furthermore, appeal to Anastasius Sinaita (74), who called the same man "divine and most wise among teachers," and "theophoros," excellent in celestial knowledge. I could bring forward testimonies of Nicephorus and other more recent writers, by which no small value is set upon the Melitonian writings.

§ II. Many have provided a catalog of the books written by Melito. The catalog of Eusebius thereof.

But I dismiss these things, and I do not wish to linger too long at the very threshold; rather, I hasten to enumerate the writings of Melito, for which not one or two, but very many of the ancients labored to provide an exact catalog. Not only did Eusebius (75), the fountain and foundation of all sacred history, compose a list of them... ^D

but others also have done the same: Jerome (76), Ruffinus (77), Honorius of Augustodunum (78), Nicephorus (79), Trithemius (80), Sixtus Senensis (81), and other more recent authors whom I pass over in silence. But since almost all of these draw their information from Jerome, and Jerome in turn from Eusebius, I shall append the words of Eusebius himself for the sake of greater clarity; because he is the most ancient of all the writers, and the waters are more pleasant to drink from the very fountainhead; and also because he is the most wealthy and accurate; and finally, because he seems to have compiled his catalog from the very books of Melito himself, which the most well-stocked library of Caesarea preserved. Furthermore, I will indicate in the briefest manner in what respects the others differ, and what errors have been committed by them.

Thus, therefore, Eusebius: "From the books of both of those men (namely, Melito of Sardis and Apollinaris, bishop of Hierapolis), those which we have listed below have come to our knowledge. Those of Melito are:

1. Two books On the Passover. 2. One book On the Way of Life and the Prophets. 3. Another book on the Church. 4. Another on the Lord's Day. 5. And a book On the Nature of Man. 6. And a book On Creation. 7. Another On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith. 8. Furthermore, a book On the Soul and Body. 9. Among these also is that On Baptism. 10. A book On Truth. 11. And another On the Creation and Birth of Christ. 12. And his book On Prophecy. 13. And one On Hospitality. 14. And another inscribed The Key. 15. Also writings On the Devil. 16. And one On the Revelation of John. 17. And one On God Incarnate. 18. Last of all is the little book To Antoninus."

To these, after some fragments have been interspersed, they are finally added at the end of the chapter:

19. Six books of Selections.

In this order and sequence the Caesarean enumerated the writings of Melito, and from the same author Halloixius (82) also gave a catalog, but one very different from ours; for he counts twenty-one, in such a way that I am at a loss to know which edition of Eusebius he used. I had the editions of Valesius and Reading at hand, from which I have departed only once.

§ III. The Catalog of Eusebius compared with that of Jerome.

Jerome differs from Eusebius in a few matters. For instance, he listed the Apology first, whereas Eusebius placed it last, without regard for chronology. Next, he omitted the book *On the Nature of Man*. Furthermore, he divided the book *On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith*, which we noted in the seventh place from Eusebius, into two, so that one is *On Faith* and the other *On the Senses*. And finally, concerning the book *On Prophecy*, he diverges somewhat from the wording of Eusebius. I do not care—nor shall I care—to examine the remaining trifles among the other writers.

§ IV. Eusebius compared with Ruffinus.

Ruffinus differs from Eusebius in that he splits the book which the Caesarean placed second, *On the Way of Life and the Prophets*, in this manner: one book *On Proper Conduct*, and another *On the Prophets*. Then, in the fifth number, instead of *Nature*, he reads *Faith*, and indicates that Melito wrote a book *On the Faith of Man*. Furthermore, he makes two books out of the seventh, as Jerome did, and likewise divides the eleventh into two, one *On Faith* and the other *On the Creation of Christ and His Prophecy*, although Eusebius and Jerome both treat the book *On Prophecy* as a single work and distinguish it as such. In the twelfth place, after the book *On Prophecy*, he again places the book *On the Soul and Body*, which, however, he had already named a little before, adding the third part of man, the mind. These are the remarks regarding Ruffinus.

§ V. Honorius is compared with Eusebius.

§ VI. The catalogs of Eusebius and Nicephorus are compared with each other.

§ VII. The collation of Trithemius and Eusebius.

§ VIII. Comparison of the catalog of Sixtus of Siena with the Eusebian one.

§ IX. Sandius is noted.

§ X. Did Melito write others besides the books commemorated by Eusebius and Jerome?

^A appears to shine forth from this opinion, namely that Eusebius, having reviewed all the books I just enumerated, says: "And above all, the little book to Antoninus," implying that this is the last of all, the little book to the Emperor Antoninus; and since, having brought forward certain fragments of Melito's writings, he adds continuously at the end of the chapter: *Kai ta men Melitonos toiauta*, "and such are the books of Melito," he intends to indicate that he has enumerated them all. Yet, having weighed the matters carefully, it appears otherwise to me. For nowhere does Eusebius assert in explicit terms that he was going to provide a catalogue of all the books that Melito had ever written; rather, he quite clearly signified that others had perhaps still been written by him, thus beginning the catalogue of Melito's books: *Touton eis hemeteran gnosin aphiktai ta hypotetagmena*, "of the books of both of them (that is to say, of Melito and of Apollinaris), those which we have set out below have come to our knowledge." S. Jerome testifies to the same thing even more clearly with these words: "He also wrote other things, of which those are that we have set out below." And since, furthermore, Anastasius Sinaita makes mention of two other books not recorded by Eusebius and Jerome, namely *Peri sarkoseos Christou* (88), *On the Incarnation of Christ*, and *Logos eis to Pathos Christou* (89), *Oration on the Passion of the Lord*, I do not see at all why one should hesitate to include these as well among the genuine works of Melito; unless, perhaps, someone, out of an ill-disposed mind toward our orthodox faith, might wish to render doubtful the fragments that Anastasius has brought forward from them, one of which contains a testimony of great value regarding both the divine and the human nature of Christ. We can and ought to interpret the words of Eusebius, in which he asserts that there are so many of Melito's writings, and that the Apology is the last of them all, as referring conveniently at least to the books which came to his knowledge.

§ XI. On Melito’s books regarding the Pasch.

But come, let us now look individually at one or another of the books. Concerning the books *On the Pasch*, we note that that most famous controversy—which was stirred up with great fervor of spirit between the Eastern and Western Church in the centuries after Christ—regarding the day for the celebration of the Pasch, provided the occasion for these to be written. The question was, indeed, whether the sacred paschal rites were to be celebrated precisely with the Jews, on the 14th day of the month of Nisan, on whatever day of the week it might fall; or whether they were to be celebrated on no other day than the Lord's Day, in memory of the Lord's resurrection. The Asian and Eastern Churches followed the former manner; but those who worshipped Christ in Rome and in other regions situated toward the setting of the sun, followed the latter. Both parties urged apostolic traditions; the former said that they received their custom from S. John and Philip; the latter, however, appealed to Peter and Paul. Nor did this diversity produce discord from the beginning, but each Church used its own liberty in this indifferent rite. Irenaeus (90) reports that S. Polycarp, having traveled to Rome, instituted a conversation among other things with Anicetus, at that time the Roman prelate, concerning the time of the Pasch, but that neither was able to persuade the other to depart from his own ancient custom; nevertheless, peace was preserved between them both. In Melito's age, in the Church of Laodicea, after Sagaris, the bishop of this see, had been removed by martyrdom, and others were succeeding him who were attempting to introduce the Western custom, dissensions arose for this reason as well. Therefore, our author interposed his services, and on this occasion, with a hurried pen, as Eusebius says (91), he wrote two books in which he taught that each Church's own custom was to be retained, and that the Pasch was to be celebrated on the 14th as of old. Thus he settled the whole controversy—O happy times!—and thus he restored peace to the Church. So Polycrates (92) reports in his synodical letter to Victor, in whose age and by whose wicked daring this controversy surfaced anew, having been agitated for a long time afterward with great contention of spirit, and not put to rest until the Council of Nicaea. Melito's work *On the Pasch* afterward provided the occasion for Clement of Alexandria to write, he too, a book *On the Pasch*, in which he made an honorable mention of the Melitonian work, as Eusebius (93) relates: *Toutou de tou logou*, he says, *memnetai Klemens ho Alexandreus en idio Peri tou Pascha logo, hon ex aitias tes tou Melitonos graphes phesin heauton syntaxai*, "Of this work, moreover, Clement of Alexandria makes mention in his own book *On the Pasch*. He testifies, indeed, that Melito's book provided him the cause to write it." Both works, however, have perished, and there remains of the Melitonian work only a small fragment, which Eusebius preserved for posterity, [and which is to be] exhibited below.

§ XII. On the book *Peri politeias kai propheton*.

Regarding the other little book of Melito, which is inscribed *To Peri politeias kai propheton*, it must be held that some codices written by hand, which Valesius mentions in the notes to Eusebius, read *Peri k. k. p.*

^A If our author wrote several books on this subject, this contradicts the common testimony of Jerome and the others. Furthermore, Rufinus and Christophorsonus, elegant interpreters of Eusebius prior to Valesius, as well as Halloixius, have made two books out of this one, the one *On Right Conduct* and the other *On the Prophets*, as if it were read in Greek *και τὸ Περὶ προφητῶν*; a reading which all codices steadfastly reject. Moreover, Jerome, Honorius, Trithemius, and Sixtus of Siena all possess one book, *On the Life of the Prophets*; and Nicephorus adds: "Another discourse of Melito is in circulation, *On Conduct and the Prophets*." Hence we rightly reject their opinion. In this work, therefore, our author expounded on the right way of living and manner of life that becomes prophets, and it seems to have been written against Montanus and his followers, who at that time were strangely disturbing the Church of God and deceiving many of the faithful away from the right path by feigning the gift of prophecy through affected ecstasies, various bodily contortions, black melancholy, and frenzied convulsions, after the manner of pythonesses. ^B In it, he demonstrated without doubt—as one may divine with very probable conjecture—that a prophet truly moved by the Spirit of God ought not to violate the rules of decorum with his outward behavior, but that he can and must be both a prophet and one who lives decorously. Eusebius mentions that Miltiades, who was not much later in time, had the same intention in order to check the incredible progress of Montanism, and wrote a book against Montanus, *On the Fact That a Prophet Should Not Speak in Ecstasy*, which he also exhibits in summary.

§ XIII. *On the book On the Lord's Day.*

The book which we placed in the fourth position, *On the Lord's Day*, he expounded regarding the Lord's Day. *Kyriake*, in memory of the Lord's resurrection, was the common name for the first day of the week among the primitive Christians, yet sometimes, when they wrote to the Gentiles, they did not hesitate to call it also "the day of the sun." ^C Much is disputed concerning its divine institution. There are indeed some who think that the day of the sun was consecrated only after the destruction of Jerusalem, or indeed only toward the end of the first century; however, the opinion of those who believe its celebration was instituted not long after the Lord was taken up to the heavens is without doubt more true, which is learnedly defended by, among others, Justus Henning Boehmer. That Christians met publicly for the purpose of performing sacred rites on the Sabbath and on the first day of the week from the very first times is evident even from the sacred sources. It is certainly a great loss to sacred antiquity that this book of Melito has perished, the occasion for writing which was perhaps provided by the controversy over the celebration of Easter. This book, as far as I remember, was the first composed on such a noble subject; in it we might perhaps have read the enactments of Christ and the apostles regarding the abrogation of the Sabbath. ^D Irenæus asserted the mystery of the Lord's resurrection must be celebrated only on the Lord's Day. On the Lord's Day, *On the Day of the Lord*, the blessed Eusebius, a bishop of Alexandria famous in the third century, wrote a treatise, which the blessed Jo. Guil. Janus edited from manuscripts, translated into Latin, and illustrated with annotations, mostly pertaining to the public sacred rites of the ancient Church, which should be compared here.

§ XIV. *On the book On the Nature of Man.*

Regarding the following book, *On the Nature of Man* (on which same subject an certainly remarkable Greek-Latin book by Nemesius, bishop of Emesa, still exists today, neatly edited at Oxford in 1671, in 8vo, by Jo. Fell, bishop of Oxford—though here the text says "Cistriensi," a typo for Oxoniensi), I have nothing to advise, except that Jerome, Honorius, Trithemius, and Sixtus of Siena omitted it from the catalog of Melito's writings. Rufinus reads *On the Faith of Man*. Nicephorus, however, makes one book out of this and the immediately following *On the Creation*, in which the latter, Trithemius is also deceived, who reports that Melito wrote a book not "on the creature" (*de plasmate*), but *On the Fallen* (*De lapsis*). Perhaps in the end it may not yet be certain that either book is by our author.

^A it was written to counter the depraved opinions of the heretics of that age, who sometimes posited a twofold principle, one good and one evil; sometimes claimed that the world was the work of evil spirits; sometimes dreamt, regarding the nature and creation of man, that man, through the weakness of those spirits, could not become better, and would have been far worse, had not a supreme virtue sent in a spark of the divine spirit and life, and raised him up, though he had previously been crawling on the ground like a worm; sometimes imagined a twofold race of men, good and evil, or rather a threefold one: the pneumatic, the psychic, and the hylic or earthly (*χοϊκόν*).

^B § XV. *On the book entitled "On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith".* But let these things pass, and let us rather look at the book which he entitled *On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith* (Περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων). Jerome, Rufinus, Nicephorus, and Trithemius consistently divide this into two different books, so that they make one a special book *On the Obedience of the Faith*, and another, again, *On the Senses*. For a long time I hesitated whether to side with Eusebius or with the others. But since, as Valesius testifies, it is read in all the manuscript codices as *And the [book] On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith* (καὶ ὁ Περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αἰσθητηρίων), without the distinction which Robert Stephanus was the first to place after the word *faith* (*πίστεως*), I take the words of Eusebius as the title of only one book, which was inscribed *On the Obedience of the Senses to Faith*, or, which is the same thing, *On the Obedience of the Faith that is through the Senses*. Tillemont and Dupin support me in this opinion, although Halloix and others prefer to subscribe to the other view. The conjecture of Valesius and Dupin is quite probable: that this book also was written by Melito against certain heretics of that age who asserted that a certain natural faith was given, and that it could be produced by the operation of the senses. For some heretics, as Valesius says, used to claim that animal or physical men believe through the operation of the senses, but spiritual men [believe] through reason. Heracleon thus explained that passage from the Gospel of John 10: "Unless you see signs and wonders, you do not believe." These words of Christ, Heracleon said, are said properly to those who by their works and senses have a nature predisposed to obeying, but not to believing through reason. Origen reports these things in the thirteenth tome of his *Commentary on the Gospel of John*, where he also refutes them and teaches that both the spiritual and the animal cannot believe except through sense. So says Valesius.

^C § XVI. *On the book "On the Soul and Body".* The title of the next little book which we shall examine is: *On the Soul and Body* (Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος). Here, first of all, I must provide my reasons for departing slightly from the common reading in presenting the title of this book, which Valesius and Reading approve. They read as follows: *And in addition to these, [the book] On the Soul, Body and Mind* (*καὶ πρὸς τούτοις ὁ περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἢ νοός*), as if Melito had expounded in this work on the three parts of man, and had set forth his thoughts on the soul. The Mazarine, Medicean, and Fuketian codices support this common reading. The interpretation of Rufinus also seems to confirm it, which runs as follows: *"On the senses. On the soul, and body, and mind. On the bath," etc.* Yet in that same list of Melito’s books by Rufinus, after a few others are inserted, the title of the same work recurs again in this form: *On the soul and body*, so that the common reading finds very little support from Rufinus's interpretation. Nevertheless, almost all the more recent scholars—Tillemont, Nat. Alexander, Dupin, Cave, Benthemi, Lardner, Bolland, and others—approve the same, except perhaps for Halloix, who read and punctuated it as follows: *"And in addition to these was [the book] On the Soul and Body. Among which [is also] the one on the Bath."* But this punctuation is still unsatisfactory. I therefore absolutely align myself with the Royal codex, which, as Valesius testifies, reads it as Halloix presented it; but I would prefer to place the punctuation mark after the word *body* (*σώματος*), in this manner: *"And in addition to these, [the book] On the Soul and Body. There were among these also the one on the Bath,"* so that a new period might begin from the words *ἐν οἷς* (from which, through the drowsiness of the scribes, the other reading *ἢ νοός*, which we reject, could easily have been born), in which the rest of Melito’s books are listed. My amendment here is excellently supported by Nicephorus, who has the following: *"In addition to these, he labored on the [book] On the Soul and Body. Among which [is] also the one on the Bath,"* etc. And since, furthermore, Jerome, Honorius of Autun, and Trithemius unanimously hand down that Melito wrote one book *On the Soul and Body*, it is entirely

unclear to me why we should wish to prefer the other reading, which moreover would still lie in error, for it ought not to be *ñ*, but *καὶ νοός*, as Whiston correctly observed. Furthermore, I would say to that most learned Englishman, along with S. R. Wollio, that I would not wish to write, for the reason that he asserts that this triple division of man—which he himself does not even approve of—prevailed among Christians who lived in the first and second centuries; although I firmly deny that the same can be proven from the book of Melito. The Platonic philosophy was indeed adopted by the Fathers early enough; and Philo had already admitted this Platonic division of man, from whom almost all the early Fathers draw their wisdom. Irenaeus certainly said in the most explicit words: "There are three things of which the perfect man consists: flesh, soul, and spirit." You may learn the reason why this book of Melito perhaps either perished or was suppressed, not from my words, but from those of the most renowned editor of Nemesius; whether that reason holds weight, as it seems to hold for Whiston, you yourself shall judge, benevolent reader. For he says the following: "For after the dogma of Apollinaris and his followers, the Dimeritae, gained strength—who asserted that our Lord was constituted of three parts, *out of flesh, and soul, and divinity, instead of mind* (these are the words of Epiphanius, p. 1016)—the orthodox, to defeat them more certainly, subsequently renounced the previously accepted opinion regarding the three parts of the soul, although it may seem to claim support for itself from the words of the Apostle, 1 Thess. v, 23; and finally, it was accused by later writers of being a heresy to separate the soul from the spirit: by a law clearly similar to that by which immersion in baptism, now triple, then single, and again triple, was approved in accordance with the variety of doctrines that were constantly harassing the Church." So far the Cistriensis.

§ XVII. On the book On the Creation and Generation of Christ.

Regarding the book mentioned eleventh under the title *Περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ*, "On the Creation and Generation of Christ," it may be noted that the common reading in the Eusebian editions is *Περὶ πίστεως καὶ γενέσεως*, which Rufinus also follows, who, moreover, contrary to the form of the Greek language, made two different books out of this one. However, in the Mazarine, Medicean, and Fuketian codices, and in Nicephorus, it is read as *Περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστοῦ*, which we do not doubt to be the true reading, being aided in this matter by the approval of Valesius. Jerome, and those who for the most part follow him more closely, Honorius and Trithemius, content with the one word "generation," omitted the word *κτίσεως* in the Latin interpretation, as being too harsh, fearing without doubt that they might appear to be demoting Christ into the order of created things. Yet Melito did not fall into this error, having spoken somewhat incautiously before the notable controversy: for the Fathers prior to the Council of Nicaea used the word *κτίσεως* not only concerning creation out of nothing, but also concerning every kind of production, and indeed concerning the very eternal and economic generation of the Word. This, therefore, was the reason for Melito, in the title of the book in which he discoursed on the eternal generation of Christ, and His generation in time from Mary, to use the harsher word, having without doubt paid respect to that passage, Prov. viii, 22: *Κύριος ἔκτισέ με ἀρχὴν ὁδῶν αὐτοῦ*, as Cave luckily surmises. For the ante-Nicene Fathers explained this passage, along with others of the same kind, as referring to that eternal generation. Whiston therefore gains nothing when, from this book of Melito, he seeks support for his Arian dogma that Christ was created by God the Father before the foundations of the world were laid.

§ XVIII. On the book On Prophecy.

The book which follows in the next place, *Λόγος αὐτοῦ Περὶ προφητείας*, is the one which Rufinus joined with the later words of the immediately preceding book in this way: "On the generation of Christ and his prophecy," as if he had discoursed on the prophetic office of the best Savior in the same book. According to Jerome, whom the Augustodunensis also follows, the words of this title would have to be ordered thus: *Λόγος περὶ τῆς αὐτοῦ προφητείας*, for he translates it thus: "Item of his prophecy one book." Valesius approves of this, but I do not agree with him; although I in no way wish to deny that Melito was endowed with the charisma of prophecy, which we know was still communicated by God to one or another of the Christians in the first three or four centuries. Certainly, that he was considered a prophet by most is taught by the testimony of Tertullian in Jerome: "Praising the elegant and declamatory genius of this man in the seven books which he wrote against the Church on behalf of Montanus, Tertullian says that he is considered a prophet by most of our people." Where, however, I would have you observe that in some copies, for "says," is found "cavitils." Concerning the prophetic gift of Melito, consult, if you please, § 12 of the former dissertation.

§ XIX. On the book called the Key.

The book which is titled *Ἡ κλείς*, the "Key," contained an explanation of various words of the Holy Scripture.

used in an improper sense, in a manner almost identical to that which one may read in the *Formula spiritualis intelligentiae* of St. Eucherius of Lyon, which exists among his works and in the *Bibliotheca Patrum maxima*, volume VI. You may learn the meaning of the word "Key," which is used in the title of this work, from Melito himself, who in chapter 9 ^A of his *Key* explained the sense of this metaphorical word in this way: "A Key, a spiritual opening. In the Gospel [Luke 11:52]: You have taken away the key of knowledge; you yourselves have not entered in, and those who were entering you have hindered. Likewise, Keys, the virtues of justice, mercy, and piety. In the Gospel [Matt. 16:19]: I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. A Key, the opening of the Holy Scriptures, or the power of binding and loosing, or the right of introducing to life or excluding to death. Just as it is said through Isaiah [22:22] concerning the Savior: I will give the key of the house of David upon his shoulders; and he shall open, and there is no one who shall shut. And in the Apocalypse [1:18]: I have the keys of death and of hell." ^B

That this excellent work of Melito still exists and lies hidden in manuscript in the libraries, the editors of the *Bibliotheca Patrum maxima* of Lyon and Labbé not only testify; but I myself can also assert it, as one who has become the possessor of this precious monument of antiquity during my travels, and who has it in mind to communicate it to the learned world one day, although I can easily foresee a certain malevolent and immoderate censor, who contributes his own shards to the Halle Library, objecting to me that which, among other unjust and less-well-founded things, he recently threw at me when I published the encyclical epistle of the presbyters and deacons of Achaia concerning the martyrdom of the holy apostle Andrew from manuscripts; namely, that for that very reason the brief work is of no value, because Grabe did not bring it to light in his *Spicilegium*. A fine argument indeed, as if indeed the single Grabe either wanted or was able to unearth all the treasures hidden in English libraries. Therefore, let those immense treasures of manuscript codices, in which the Bodleian library boasts, be considered by those standards to have been now completely exhausted by Grabe; and to all seekers of these delights, after the death of this learned man, let that be said: *Non plus, non ultra*. But let these things pass with the rest of the errors. ^C I return rather to the *Key* of Melito, and I add that I possess a Latin copy of it, which the most learned Michael Lequien had transcribed from a double codex—one at Clermont, the other at the Mesmes library—at the back of the Bibles of Theodulph, Bishop of Orléans, a codex about a thousand years old, and had forwarded it to Grabe. Magnus Crusius, not long ago deceased—a man to be revered by me even after death, a teacher who, while he lived, easily yielded his rights to me—had promised that he would edit this monument of great value, with the emendations of Jacques Sirmond, from whom the learned world had expected many other things. This rather large work of Melito is divided into various chapters, of which here is the syllabus for you: Chapter 1, which appears without a title in both codices, explains what those members attributed to God the Father in Holy Scripture by way of *anthropopatheia* signify, which I shall provide below among the fragments by way of a specimen. Chapter 2 is titled "On the Son of God according to the flesh," and teaches what the members ascribed to Christ denote. Chapter 3 deals with celestial creatures. Chapter 4, on days, years, and times. Chapter 5, on numbers. Chapter 6, on the world and its parts. Chapter 7, on unfruitful trees. Chapter 8, on various men. ^D

^A Chapter 9, on various names for buildings: in which chapter, however, far more things are handled. Chapter 10, on metals and other things, or those which are made from metals. Chapter 11, on military instruments and warfare. Chapter 12, on creatures. Chapter 13, on beasts and other living things. So far, the Mesmian codex. Note that the things handled in this chapter can still be divided into more sections: for it treats besides of water and the sea, of the names of provinces, regions, and cities, of fishes, and of rivers. In another codex, other chapters still follow: Chapter 14, on cities or provinces. Chapter 15, on rivers and fish-ponds. Chapter 16, on peoples and nations. Chapter 17, on Hebrew names. But enough now about this Key.

§ XX. Of the book

On the Apocalypse of John

On the Apocalypse of John

Apocalypse

On the Apocalypse

§ XXI. Of the book

On the Incarnate God

On the Incarnate God

On God clothed in flesh

the corporealized

On the incorporeal God

On God in the body

On the Incarnation

On the Incarnate God

On the corporeality of God

On the fact that God is corporeal

perhaps retained the Greek words of Eusebius, though it is uncertain, without doubt, how he might express Melito’s meaning in Latin without the suspicion of heresy. All these things will be able to prove that, on account of this writing, our author was not immediately reputed a heretic by the ancients. What if I should offer the hope that, through these very pages, I might perhaps present Melito’s booklet *On the Corporeal God*, and through the inspection of the booklet itself, convince the benevolent reader that Melito was as far removed as possible from this grave error?

XXII. On the Apology of St. Melito.

I now come to his Apology, or the ^A *Πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνον βιβλίδιον*: it seems this Apology for the Christians was inscribed to the emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, surnamed the Philosopher, who presided over the Roman Empire from the year of Christ 161 until 180, and for the 9 previous years held the empire in common with Lucius Verus, his brother. It is called a *biblidion* for the reason that it was properly a booklet of petitions and a supplication offered to the emperor, not a longer and complete defense of Christian dogmas against the objections and calumnies of the pagans, as is evident even from the fragment of it which Eusebius brings forward: *Ταύτην δὲ μόνην προσεφέρομεν δέξιν*. The same was also the title of the Apology of Justin Martyr, as is evident from the end of his later Apologetic, where he speaks thus: *Καὶ ὑμᾶς οὖν ἀξιοῦμεν ὑπογράψαντας τὸ ὑμῖν δοκοῦν, προθεῖναι τουτὶ τὸ βιβλίδιον*, "Wherefore we ask you, that appending what seems good to you, you may propose this booklet." The occasion for writing this *Apologia* was provided to him by the fifth persecution stirred up against the Christians under these emperors. For when the report of the Gallic tragedies had crossed ^B from Hellas to Asia Minor, and with the report, madness against the Christians; a storm, having arisen in those regions through the fury of wicked magistrates and proconsuls, seems to have given the occasion for the *Apologies* of Melito and Apollinaris, written at one and the same time. Whether Melito himself, having undertaken a journey to Rome, offered his Apology to the emperor—which Tillemont gathers from the phrase *ἐπέδωκε*, which Eusebius used in the *Chronicon*, and which Jerome also retained in his version as well as in his *Catalogue of Illustrious Men*—is not certainly known; yet it seems placed beyond doubt that this was the last of Melito’s writings, by which he merited well of the Church; for, having listed the other books, "Above all," says Eusebius, "is the *Πρὸς τὸν Ἀντωνῖνον βιβλίδιον*"; which, when at last it may have been offered in the emperor's reign, will now be seen in a few words. If we unfold the *Chronicon* of Eusebius, we find the following things handed down there to memory: "OA. ΕΑΖ'. Ι. ΡΟΑ'. ΚΛΑΡΟΣ ΤΟ Β' ΚΑΙ ΚΑΘΗΓΟΣ, Melito, bishop of the Sardians of Lydia, gave a book of Apology to Antoninus on behalf of the Christians," that is to say, that it was delivered when Clarus and Cethegus were consuls, in the 237th Olympiad, ^C which, according to the due computation established by chronologers, corresponds to the years after Christ 169–172, and falls in the tenth year of Aurelius Antoninus. The author of the *Alexandrian Chronicle* has the same. Indeed, from the fragments of this Apology that survive today, it is to be gathered with a certain appearance of truth that it was not offered before the year 170, which is the 10th of Aurelius Antoninus, by which time Lucius was already dead. For otherwise he would certainly have inscribed it to Lucius equally as to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, especially since he deals in it with a part of the empire which pertained more to the jurisdiction of Lucius than to that of Antoninus; nor would he have said, wishing the emperor a prosperous reign, *μετὰ τοῦ παιδός*, but rather *μετὰ τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ*. Furthermore, only one son of the emperor is mentioned; yet Antoninus had two, Annius Verus and Commodus, the former of whom had succumbed to fate in the year 170. Again, Commodus, for whom he prays for a happy empire, seems to have already possessed the tribunician power when Melito wrote this, which he finally obtained in the year 170. These things, I say, all evince with a sufficiently probable conjecture that this Apology was not consigned before the emperor's tenth year. Whether, however, one should proceed further with Tillemont, and the time of the delivered suppliant booklet should be fixed at the year 175, I shall leave in the middle; yet the opinion, when well weighed, does not seem to be above every exception. Indeed, Commodus does not seem to have been made a partner in the empire when Melito wrote this, otherwise his name would not have been passed over in the title; nor could he have wished him an empire which he would have already held, if Tillemont’s conjecture were safe; but since our author does this in his Apology, he intimates at the same time that he was not yet emperor at that time. Here, the error of Dupin must be noted in passing, which however I believe is rather a fault of the printers, who writes that our author's Apology was delivered in the year 182, by which time the emperor had long been dead. Furthermore, the writers of sacred history report that Marcus Aurelius, moved by the supplications of Melito and other Christians, wrote a letter to the commune of Asia, *Πρὸς τὸ κοινὸν τῆς Ἀσίας*, in which ^D

he forbade anyone from henceforth maligning Christians on account of their religion. There exists a double Greek version of this epistle, one in Justin Martyr 39, the other in Eusebius 40; yet both attribute it to Antoninus Pius—a fact noted by Valesius 41 and Kortholt 42, who praise the author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, in that he correctly observed that this epistle ought to be attributed not to Antoninus Pius, but rather to Marcus. Moreover, in the very text of this epistle, such a discrepancy occurs between the copy of Eusebius and that appended to Justin’s *Apology* that John Clericus 43, according to his custom, believes the entire matter was concocted through pious fraud. A double fragment exists of this *Apology*, which has not survived to our age: one in Eusebius, the other in the aforementioned author of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, both of which I shall set forth below.

§ XXIII. Concerning the six books of the *Excerpts* (Ἐκλογῶν).

§ XXIV. Observation concerning the books of Melito against heresies. Concerning the book *On the Incarnation of Christ* (Περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ).

XXV. Concerning the book *On the Transitus of Mary*.

^A It is usually found in certain manuscripts under the title *On the Assumption of Mary*, or *On the Passing of Mary*, or other titles still. The book is indeed ancient, but certainly adulterated, and already proscribed by the censure of Gelasius in the Roman synod as follows: "The book which is called *Transitus*, that is, the *Assumption of the Blessed Mary*, is apocryphal." The Venerable Bede mentions it as a spurious and suppositious writing, and puts forward many things thence that are fabricated against the appearance of truth; this is entirely to be seen. Since it is not said by whom this little book was written, we think, with Baronius, that it was published without the author's title, to which some idle person later prefixed the prestigious title of Melito, Bishop of Sardis. It has been published frequently in Latin in the *Bibliothecae Patrum*, e.g., in the *Bibliotheca Patrum et veterum auctorum ecclesiasticorum*, which was produced at Paris by Margarin de la Bigne, Doctor of the Sorbonne, in 1624, in ten volumes, and called the fourth edition, in volume VII, folio 580; likewise in that great collection which was published in 27 volumes at Lyons in 1677, enriched after Bigne and the Cologne edition with over a hundred authors and works hitherto desired, volume II, part 2, page 212, and in the *Bibliotheca concionatoria* of Combefis, volume VII, page 646. It is, however, always added that this little book is ordered to be expunged in the Spanish Index of Prohibited Books from chapter 8 to the end, because there are written in it things most unworthy of so great a man, and of such a kind as would be repugnant to the Acts of the Apostles, which Rivet, Nourry, Natalis Alexander, Lambecius, and others have demonstrated with further arguments; so that Trithemius made a wondrous error, who, as we have seen above, numbered it among the genuine works of Melito. ^B

FRAGMENTS OF THE LOST WORKS OF ST. MELITO

But now I proceed to recite the fragments, of which I have made passing mention until now. With all equitable censors of Christian antiquity agreeing, the undertaking of those who have been studious in collecting the fragments of lost books, found here and there among authors, has always been deemed useful. Grabe, on this account, earned great merit in his *Spicilegium Patrum*, and likewise of the heretics of the first, second, and third centuries, regarding the learned world; but nothing concerning our Melito occurs in him. In this respect, the work of Halloix is greatly to be praised, who was the most diligent collector of all the Melitonian fragments, and moreover thus adjured all learned men: "If anyone can obtain anything new beyond these, let him, I pray, bring it into the public, and he will deserve well of the Church; for the writings of such men are like sacred relics." Since, therefore, it is permitted to me to be so fortunate as to be able to append here many more fragments than he has, I shall close the present little composition with these displayed here at the same time, carefully noting from whom these were preserved from destruction, and which are new, and which, ^C indeed, Halloix already has.

§ I. Fragment from the book *On the Pasch*.

The first fragment from his books which he composed *On the Pasch* is taken and exists in Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, book IV, chapter 26, page 189, of the Reading edition. The Caesarean prefaces it thus: "Now in the things regarding the Pasch, he indicates the time at which he was writing at the beginning of his work in these words:"

"In the time of Servilius Paulus, proconsul of Asia, at which time Sagaris suffered martyrdom, a great controversy arose at Laodicea concerning the solemnity of the Pasch ^D that had fallen [at that time], and these things were written."

Ἐπὶ Σερουιλίου Παύλου ἀνθυπάτου τῆς Ἀσίας, ᾧ Σάγαρις καιρῷ ἐμαρτύρησεν, ἐγένετο ζήτησις πολλὴ ἐν Λαοδικείᾳ περὶ τοῦ Πάσχα, ἐμπεσόντος [κατὰ καιρὸν ἐν ἐκείναις ταῖς ἡμέραις], καὶ ἐγράφη ταῦτα.

ταῦτα. ^A

It seems to us that in those days [the controversy] fell out, and these things were written. ^B

We find this fragment, which you will also encounter in Rufinus and Nicephorus, to be the beginning of the work itself, wherein he accurately explains the occasion of his writing. Halloix, Tillemont, and Benthem present it.

II. Fragments from the Apology of Melito.

Eusebius will again provide another fragment in the location cited, which offers a few items, though of great value, from the *Apology to the Emperor Marcus Aurelius Antoninus*, concerning which Eusebius writes: "In his book dedicated to the emperor, he records that certain things were done against us under his reign."

"For the race of those who fear God is now suffering persecution, as never before, harassed by strange decrees throughout Asia. For the most shameless informers and covetous seekers of others' goods, having found occasion in the decrees, rob openly, plundering by night and by day those who do no wrong."

And after other matters he says: ^C

"And if this is done by your command, let it be considered well-done. For a just king could never resolve upon anything unjustly, and we gladly bear the prize of such a death. This request alone we present to you, that you yourself would first gain knowledge of the perpetrators of such strife and judge them justly, whether they are worthy of death and punishment or of safety and peace. But if this counsel and this new decree, which does not befit even barbarians who are our enemies, is not from you, we beseech you all the more, do not allow us to be any longer vexed by such public rapine."

To these he adds further: ^D

"For this philosophy of ours originally flourished among the barbarians; but blossoming in your... [the text breaks off]"

^A province during the great principate of Augustus, your progenitor, it became especially beneficial to your reign. For from that time the Roman power increased to greatness and splendor, of which you have become the wished-for successor, and will be so along with your son, if you but guard this philosophy, which was reared with the empire and began simultaneously with Augustus, and which your ancestors honored along with the other religions. And this is the greatest proof that our doctrine flourished for the good of the empire, which had such a propitious beginning, that from the time of Augustus's reign nothing evil has happened, but on the contrary, all things have been brilliant and glorious, according to the prayers of all. Nero and Domitian alone of all, persuaded by certain envious men, desired to bring our doctrine into disrepute ^B. From them it happened that, through the foolish custom of calumny, a false report against such as us has flowed down to posterity. But your pious fathers corrected their ignorance, often rebuking by rescript those who dared to attempt any innovations against those of our religion. Among these, your grandfather Adrian appears to have written to many others, and to Fundanus, the proconsul governing Asia. Your father, also, while you were administering all things with him, wrote to the cities that they should not stir up any tumults against us. He wrote to the Larissaeans, to the Thessalonians, to the Athenians, and to all the Greeks. We are convinced that you, having the same sentiment concerning us as they did, and indeed one much more humane and philosophical, will do all that we ask of you. These things likewise are shown by Rufinus and Nicephorus. Among the more recent writers, besides Halloix and Benthem, Ceillier has also inserted this—translated into French—in his general *History of Ecclesiastical Writers*. From these few fragments of his lost *Apology*, it is enough to note—nay, one must admire—the holy man's pre-eminent modesty and prudence, in that he submits himself in his judgment to the emperor's will and kindly entreats him, while at the same time he works to dispel from him the odium of such great cruelty against the Christians, and to transfer it to others who were driven by the sacred hunger for gold.

Chap. 19, he calls the sect of the Christians a barbarian achievement.

(72) He refers to Commodus; it does not appear that he was yet an associate in the empire when Melito wrote this, although Tillemont thinks the opposite, whose opinion I have set forth above. (73) Valesius reads "the philosophy that began with Augustus." (74) Perhaps he refers to Tiberius's proposal to refer Christ to the gods, concerning which, among others, [consult] Tertullian, *Apology*, ch. 5, and Euseb. *Hist. eccles.*, bk. II, ch. 2. Cf. *Mystagogi*, i.e., T. Woolston's *Dissertation on the Epistle of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius concerning the acts of Jesus Christ*, London, 1720. Or [he refers to] temples erected without images according to Adrian's institution; concerning which see Spartianus in *Vita Alexandri Severi*, ch. 43. (75) Another reading is *kalokagathou* ("of the noble and good"). (76) The Valesian edition incorrectly reads *arxamenēn* ("beginning"). (77) Tertullian in *Apology*, ch. 5, says the same: "You will find," he says, "that Nero was the first to rage with the Caesarean sword against this sect, which was then especially rising at Rome. Domitian also had attempted it, a portion of Nero in his cruelty. But as for all the princes since then down to the present, produce some destroyer of the Christians. What kind of laws, therefore, are those which only the impious, the unjust, the shameful, the cruel, the vain, the insane enforce against us? Which Trajan frustrated in part; which no Adrian, no Pius, no Verus imprinted." Cf. Ceillier in his note to this passage, p. 77. (78) Reading reads *epanōrthōsanto* ("corrected"), with a double augment. (79) One may read the rescript of Adrian to Minucius Fundanus concerning the Christians in Euseb. *Hist. eccles.*, bk. IV, ch. 8. Grabe also exhibits it at the end of the first *Apology* of Justin Martyr, in his edition of that *Apology*, p. 134. (80) Valesius prefers to write: "and your father, who was managing all things with him." (81) This rescript of Antoninus Pius no longer exists today. For what the editors of Justin M. exhibit at the end of *Apology* I, and Eusebius in *Hist. eccles.*, bk. IV, ch. 15, under the name of Antoninus Pius, belongs to Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, as we noted above, not to Pius; yet mention of it is made in the edict of Aurelius to the commune of Asia. By all means consult Baraterius in *Disquisit. chronol.*, p. 197, where he proposes a new opinion concerning the controversy over this edict, namely, that it was issued by Pius and Marcus conjunctively. (82) Cf. Dodwell in *Diss. Cyprian.*, p. 266.

FRAGMENTS. III. Fragment of the same Apology from the Alexandrian Chronicle.

^ATo this I shall immediately append a fragment taken from the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, which is also called the *Paschal Chronicle*. The author of this Chronicle, at the second year of the 236th Olympiad, during the third indiction, in the 6th year of the two Augusti, M. Aurelius Antoninus and L. Verus, under the consuls Orphitus and Pudens, notes among other things the following (83):

236th Olympiad, 4th year, 3rd indiction. Under the consuls Orphitus and Pudens.

"But also Melito, an Asian, bishop of the Sardians, gave a book of *Apology* to the aforementioned emperors, and many others, one of whom—the aforementioned Justin—enclosed this also after some other things he wrote: 'And I myself await...' etc." And after a lengthy fragment from Justin, he proceeds immediately: "Melito, bishop of the Sardians, after many things related by the same Justin, says thus: ^B 'We are not worshippers of stones that have no sensation, but worshippers of the only God, who is before all, and in all, and further of his Christ, who is truly God the Word before the ages.'"

You have this fragment also in Halloix, who however considers it uncertain from which book of the holy man it is taken. To me, regarding the antecedent context, there remains almost no doubt that I should believe it to be from the *Apology for the Christians*, in which conjecture I see that Tillemont and Dupin also concur. You will note, moreover, from the authority of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum*, that Melito said nearly the same things in his *Apology* as Justin Martyr did in his *Apologetic* to Antoninus Pius. Whiston (84) frequently appeals to this fragment, having been ejected from the Anglican Church and the University of Cambridge due to Arian heresy. Thus, for example, he attempts to prove from it that God the Father is to be worshipped solely, and that he is to be worshipped primarily alone (85). ^C Furthermore, he wishes to elicit from this also that Christ, as to his nature, attributes, and divine perfections, is much inferior to God the Father (86). Sandius also (87) openly professes from this passage that Melito felt regarding the divinity of Christ as Arius did; I judge that there is no need for me to defend our own against their calumnies, for in the judgment of Eusebius, he rather marvelously constructed the divinity of Christ in his writings, and demonstrated our Savior to be God and at the same time true man.

IV. Fragm. ex Exlogon libris.

The next fragment, which is taken from the preface of the *Exlogae* (Selections), Eusebius will give again, in the cited passage, prefacing it thus: i.e., "These are contained in the aforementioned book of Melito (the *Apology*, specifically). The same man in the *Selections*, composed by himself, lists at the very beginning of the work all the books of the Old Testament that are received by the consensus of all. Which list I have deemed necessary to append in this place. Now it reads word for word thus:"

^DMelito to Onesimus (88) his brother (89) greeting. Since you have often requested, in the zeal you possess for the word, that selections be made for you from the Law and the Prophets regarding the Savior and our entire faith, and furthermore you desired to learn the accuracy of the ancient books, how many they are in number and what is their order, I have labored to do this,

[The remainder of the text on this page consists of scholarly notes 83-89, which are omitted per instructions.]

faith, and your love of learning concerning the Word; and because you prefer these things before all else out of your love for God, struggling for your eternal salvation.

Having therefore gone up to the East (90), and having reached the place where these things were preached and done, and having carefully learned the books of the Old Testament, I have submitted them and sent them to you, the names of which are:

Of Moses five: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kingdoms, two of Chronicles, Psalms of David, Proverbs of Solomon, which is also Wisdom (91), Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, of the prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, of the twelve in one book, Daniel, Ezekiel, Ezra. From which I have also made the extracts, dividing them into six books.

This fragment should be considered highly valuable, because it contains an accurate catalog of the sacred books accepted into the canon of the Old Testament, which is the first of all such that we find among Christian writers. Gerhard van Maastricht, a former syndic of the illustrious Republic of Bremen, adorned the various constitutions of the holy canon of Scripture from the Fathers, in the *Bibliotheca Bremensis* class VII, fascicle 1, which were later reprinted, and which may be compared with the 135 schemata in which biblical books are shown in a different order, by H. Hody at the end of his excellent book *De bibliorum textibus originalibus*, which was published at Oxford in 1705 in a large format. The reasoning offered by Whiston (92) does not seem entirely worthy of dismissal as to why Melito, when asked about the canon of the sacred books, had first to visit the East, although he could have transcribed the canon received by his own Church, which it must be believed that Church did not lack; namely, that the canon of the sacred books together with the apostolic constitutions was not entrusted to all churches indiscriminately, but only to those which the apostles themselves had planted, of which he (93) numbers 19, among which the Sardian church does not appear. However, I find it more difficult to agree with the same most learned man when he contends that Melito's canon was transcribed from that canon which occurs in the book called *Apostolic Canons*, chapter 85, whose authenticity he deemed it worth his labor to demonstrate with all his might, nay, even from this very catalog of Melito's biblical books.

V. Fragment from a Catena on Genesis.

The other fragments which I shall now provide were transcribed from a certain manuscript catena by Jacques Sirmond and communicated to Halloix, who also saw to it that they were printed in part. The same fragments, and still more that have hitherto gone unpublished, were transcribed from a double codex for the benefit of J. Ernest Grabe by the most learned Michel Le Quien, from whose autograph I have transcribed these, translated them, and noted the variants with Halloix.

Melito of Sardis.

For the just Isaac, a ram appeared for slaughter, that Isaac might be released from his bonds. That ram slaughtered, redeemed Isaac: so also the Lord, slaughtered, saved us, and bound, released us, and sacrificed, redeemed us.

And after a few words:

For the Lord was the lamb, like that ram which Abraham saw caught in the thicket of Sabeck (95). But that thicket showed the cross...

and that place, Jerusalem, and the lamb, the Lord bound for slaughter.

Of the blessed Melito of Sardis (97). For as a ram was bound, he says of our Lord Jesus Christ (98), and as a lamb he was shorn, and as a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb he was crucified, and he carried the wood on his shoulders (99), being led up to be slaughtered, like Isaac (1), by his father. But Christ suffered, whereas Isaac did not suffer; for he was a type of the one who was to suffer (2). Yet even the one who became the type of Christ caused ^B amazement and fear in men (3). For it was to witness a new mystery, a son led by his father up a mountain to slaughter, whom he bound and placed upon the wood of the burnt-offering, preparing with haste the things necessary for his slaughter (4). But Isaac, silent, bound like a ram, opening not his mouth, nor uttering a voice, for he did not fear the sword, nor was he terrified by the fire, nor was he distressed by suffering; he patiently sustained the type of the Lord. Isaac therefore was placed in the midst, bound like a ram, and his father stood by, and ^C holding the naked sword, he did not fear to slay his son.

These fragments, presented thus far from the Catenae on Genesis, seem to be taken from Melito’s books of *Selections*. In the judgment of Dupin (5), these appear unworthy of Melito, stuffed with puerile notions, and savoring more of the genius of the moderns than of the ancients. But it seems to me that Dupin has pronounced this incorrectly; for if one were to care to unfold Tertullian (6), he would find almost the same things said. I pass over the passages of other ancient Fathers, in which they declare Isaac to have been a type of Christ, adding at least that Hugh of Saint Victor, who flourished in the twelfth century, in *Allegories on both Testaments* (7), book 11, ch. 7, entirely explains the mystical meaning of the immolation of Isaac, which is to be compared here. ^D

VI. Fragment from the Greek Bible of the Seventy

In the Roman edition of the Greek Bible of the Seventy, which was produced in Rome in 1581 under the auspices of the Roman Pontiff Sixtus V, by the care of Cardinal Carafa, printed in Greek with Greek scholia collected from manuscripts, in a very elegant folio volume by the press of Francesco Zannetti, on the frontispiece: *The Old Testament according to the Seventy, by the authority of Sixtus V, Supreme Pontiff, published*, fol. 15, at the passage Gen. xx, ver. 13, *And behold, a ram caught in a thicket*, etc., there occurs a twofold scholium, marked with the name of Melito. The first is, indeed, briefer, regarding the words "of the horns." ^A The Syrian and the Hebrew say "suspended," that they might more clearly prefigure the cross.

The other, however, is longer, and regarding the words "in a thicket" (Sabek): Some have translated *Sabek* as "remission," "dismissal," or "liberation"; others, however, as "upright" or "erect," so that it means the same as if one were to say a "goat standing upright, proceeding into a thicket, yet caught there by its horns," so that it might be a manifest type of the cross. But because it is not converted into another language, this is because the Hebrew word, although it is one, signifies many things if it is to be translated. ^B But to those who ask, one must respond and say that *Sabek* is translated as "lifted up."

These likewise seem to be from the books of *Selections*, in which he collected those things above all which pertained to our Savior. They cohere with the preceding fragments from the Catena, and show that Isaac was a type of Christ. Halloix does not have this fragment, nor is it commemorated by any of the writers regarding Melito, except for Colomies (14), who points a finger toward it.

VII. Fragment from Anastasius Sinaita

Another fragment of Melito of great value was preserved by Anastasius Sinaita in his *Odegos*, or *Guide of the Way*, ch. 13, in which he argues against the Acephali, who were attacking the divine incarnation of the Lord Christ, p. 260, in the edition of Gretser, in these words: "For when you wish to show that Christ is wholly nothing else than divinity, you are injurious and contumelious toward that very divinity, like the Manichaeans and Arians; because you subject it to passions and mutations, in the manner of created things." Certainly the divine and most wise doctor Melito, in his third sermon *On the Incarnation*, inveighs gravely against those interpreters who strive to prove, from the acts of Christ after his baptism, the reality of both body and soul, and likewise of his natural operations—those free of all sin—I mean hunger, thirst, sleep, labor, tears, spittle, sweat, excretion through the nostrils, and the egestion of corrupt and naturally digested food and drink; ^C and not only of these, but also of those things which are accustomed to be in our soul by nature, that is, sadness, sorrow, and dejection. For arguing against Marcion, he says thus, being excellent in heavenly knowledge: for he even denied that he dreamed: "The plant Sabek," he says, "is a venerable cross. According to the Hebrews, it seems to be remission and pardon. But the ram, which was stuck in the Sabek at the plant, figured Christ offered for us on the cross." But indeed, others observed that the Hebrew word does not signify either "remission" or "plant." Yet Jo. Is. Vossius, *On the translation of the LXX*, ch. 12, p. 38, excused the ancients in a certain way.

Marcion, like Severus and Gaianus, used the same testimonies from the Gospel against Melito that these disciples of Marcion the Pontic now use against us. To whom Melito replied most wisely and opportunely in this manner:

^A It is not necessary for those whom reason does not desert, to prove and demonstrate from the actions of Christ after his baptism the truth of his soul and body, and of the human nature compatible with us, and their removal from all fiction. For the things done by Christ after his baptism, and especially the miracles, manifested and confirmed to the world his divinity hidden in the flesh. For being at once God and perfect man, he proved his two substances to us: his divinity, through the signs in the three years after his baptism; but his humanity, in the thirty years before his baptism, during which, on account of the imperfection according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his divinity, although he was truly God and pre-eternal. ^B

Of Melito, Bishop of Sardis, from the discourse on the Passion.

This fragment is not in Halloix, but Cave has inserted it into his *Historia literaria*, subjoining: "Let the Eutychians mark these words, the opponents of the two natures in Christ; let the Arians mark them, and those of the troop of Socinus, who do not fear to deny brazenly that our Lord is true and eternal God." One cannot therefore marvel enough at the benevolent reader who, like Whiston (15), for the sake of defending the Arian heresy recalled from hell, could frequently appeal to this passage. Thus, for example, he contends that by this testimony of Melito, the Son is proven to be like the Father, not in essence, but merely by the will of God the Father; that he is the first creature produced by God the Father before the foundations of the world were laid; that he is by nature, attributes, and perfections far inferior, so that I pass over other blasphemies of this kind in silence. Perhaps there will not be wanting those who will conjecture or affirm that these were falsely attributed to Melito by a more recent hand, as I find the author of a certain learned French periodical has done (16). But I desire those people to be referred to the blessed Weismann (17), who, on the occasion of this very fragment, inveighs gravely against rash critics of this kind and the Anaxagoras of our time, and vindicates this place of Melito against their exceptions. I return once more to Whiston, and warn him that he also labored to prove from this that the longer edition of the Ignatian Epistles is the genuine one and to be preferred to the shorter (18), which opinion we can most easily concede to him.

VIII. Fragment from the oration on the Passion of the Lord.

Another fragment of Melito, though small, was preserved by the same Anastasius just cited, in the aforementioned book, ch. 12, p. 216.

"God has suffered by the right hand of the Israelite."

Anastasius warns the Theodosians and Gaianians that, in order to prove that even the Word of God Himself was subject to the passion along with His flesh, they are accustomed to cite these words of Melito, upon which, however, as is manifest, they have imposed a figurative force; nor was our own side ever suspected of this error. I do not recall that this fragment has been observed by anyone.

IX. Fragment from Faber Stapulensis.

I marvel, however, that among the Melitonian fragments, something is commemorated by B. Ittigius, which Colomesius produced from Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, who prefaces it thus: "A very good man, and for the time in which he lived adorned with varied erudition, Jacobus Faber Stapulensis, in his book *On the One of the Three Marys*, reports the following from Melito concerning the apostle John: 'When he was ninety years of age, the Lord Jesus Christ appeared to him with His disciples, and said to him: Come to me, for it is time for you to feast at my banquet with your brothers.'" Colomesius suspects this was taken from his book on the Apocalypse of John, but the learned man erred, and with him the blessed Ittigius. For these are not at all of Melito of Sardis, but of the Laodicean who wrote a booklet on the passion of St. John the Evangelist, published after others by the most celebrated J. A. Fabricius also, in the *Codex Apocryphus N. T.*, tom. III, where, on p. 620, these same words may be read.

X. From the small portion of the Key.

Let a small portion from his book called the *Key* finally conclude the collection, which exists in both codices at the beginning of the work without a title, and in publishing which I have taken care to seek out the locations diligently in the Holy Scriptures, and to cite them below in the notes.

^A The Head of the Lord, the Divinity itself. Because He is the beginning and creator of all things: in Daniel. The hair of the Lord is white, because He is the Ancient of Days, as above. The eyes of the Lord, divine inspection: because He sees all things. As it is in the Apostle: "For all things are naked and open to his eyes." The eyelids of the Lord, the hidden spiritual mysteries in the divine precepts. In the psalm: "His eyelids inquire; this is, they prove, the children of men." The sense of smell of the Lord, His delight in the prayers or works of the saints. In Genesis: "And the Lord smelled a sweet savor." The mouth of the Lord, His Son, or the Word to men. In the prophet: "The mouth of the Lord has spoken"; and elsewhere: "They have provoked His mouth to anger." The tongue of the Lord, His Holy Spirit. In the psalm: "My tongue is a pen." The face of the Lord, His manifestation. In Exodus: "My face shall go before you"; and in the prophet: "The face of the Lord has divided them." The Word of the Lord, the Son. In the psalm: "My heart has uttered a good word." The arm of the Lord, the Son, through whom He has wrought all things. In the prophet Isaiah: "And to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?" The right hand of the Lord, that is, the Son, who is also mentioned above in the psalm: "The right hand of the Lord has done mightily." The right hand of the Lord, all election. As in Deuteronomy: "In His right hand was a fiery law." The wings of the Lord, divine protection. In the psalm: "In the shadow of your wings I will hope." The shoulder of the Lord, divine power, by which He deigns to carry the infirm. In Deuteronomy: "He took them up and placed them upon his shoulders." The hand of the Lord, divine operation. In the prophet: "Have not my hands made all these things?" The finger of the Lord, the Holy Spirit, by whose operation the tablets of the law are recorded as written in Exodus: and in the Gospel: "If I cast out devils with the finger of God." The fingers of the Lord, the lawgiver Moses, or the prophets. In the psalm: "I will see the heavens," that is, the books of the law and the prophets, "the works of your fingers." The Wisdom of the Lord, the Son. In the Apostle: "Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God"; and in Solomon: "The wisdom of the Lord reaches from end to end mightily." The womb of the Lord, the secret of the divinity, from which He brought forth the Son. In the psalm: "From the womb before the day-star have I begotten you." The feet of the Lord, stability and eternity. In the psalm: "And darkness was under his feet." The throne of the Lord, the angels, or the saints, or the power of reigning itself. In the psalm: "Your throne, O God, is for ever and ever." The seat, the same as above, the angels or saints, because the Lord sits in them. In the psalm: "God sat upon his holy seat." The descent of the Lord, His visitation to men. As in Micah: "Behold the Lord will go forth from his place, he will descend treading upon the extremes of the earth." Also, in a negative sense. In Genesis: "The Lord descended to see the tower." The ascent of the Lord, the elevation of the man assumed from the earth into the heavens. In the psalm: "Who ascends above the heavens of heavens to the east." The standing of the Lord, ^B the patience of the divinity, by which He sustains sinners unto repentance. As in Habakkuk: "He stood and measured the earth"; and in the Gospel: "Jesus stood and ordered him to be called," that is, the blind man. The passing of the Lord, the assumption of flesh, through which, by being born, dying, rising again, and ascending into the heavens, He made certain passings. In the Song of Songs: "Behold this one comes leaping upon the mountains, skipping over the hills." The steps of the Lord, His advent or visitation. In the psalm. The way of the Lord, the operation of the divinity. As in Job concerning the devil: "He is the beginning of the ways of the Lord."

^A Item: The ways of the Lord, His precepts. In Hosea: "For the ways of the Lord are right, and the just shall walk in them." The footprints of the Lord, signs of secret works. As in the psalm: "And Thy footprints shall not be known." The knowledge of the Lord, that which makes those who know Him attain. To Abraham: "Now I know that thou fearest the Lord," that is, I have made thee know. To not know God, is to be rejected. In the Gospel: "I know you not." The remembrance of the Lord, His mercy, by which He rejects and has mercy on whom He wills. Thus in Genesis: "The Lord remembered Noah;" and elsewhere: "He remembered the people of His own." The repentance of the Lord, a change of things. As in the Book of Kings: "It repenteth Me that I have made Saul king." The anger and fury of the Lord, the vengeance of the Divinity upon sinners according to the retribution of the one suffering, and not according to the equity of one judging. As in the psalm: "In His anger and in His fury He shall trouble them." The sleeping of the Lord, while His faith does not at all watch in the hearts of certain men. In the psalm: "Arise, why sleepest Thou, O Lord?" The vigils of the Lord, in the keeping of His elect, He is always present through the presence of the Divinity. In the psalm: "Behold, He shall neither slumber nor sleep." The sitting of the Lord, to reign. In the psalm: "The Lord sitteth upon His holy throne." The footstool of the Lord, the man assumed by the Word, or His saints, as some think. In the psalm: "Adore His footstool, for it is holy." The walking of God, the delight of the Divinity in the works of His elect. In the prophet: "And I will walk in them, and I will be their Lord." The trumpet of God, a manifest voice. In the Apostle: "By the command and in the voice of the archangel, and in the trumpet of God, He shall descend from heaven." Perhaps this is that very book of Melito, most celebrated, *On the Incarnate God*, which, however, I shall unfold more fully at another time and by another writing; and I shall labor to confirm the same thing even from the very passage of Theodoret, who, as we have seen above, was pressing so hard upon the orthodoxy of Melito.

FRAGMENT

From the Apology of Melito to Antoninus Caesar.

The words of Melito the philosopher which were spoken before Antoninus Caesar. And he addressed Caesar so that he might make God known to him, and he indicated to him the way of truth, and thus he spoke. Melito said: It is difficult to induce into the way of truth one who has for a long time been wandering in error; this, however, can happen: for a man who acknowledges error even a little, the memory of truth immediately comes upon him. Just as when darkness is dispersed the sky clears, so a man, when he is converted to God, is released from the nebula of error under which the truth was hiding. For error is like a sickness or madness, delaying the sick or the mad for a time, but truth applies the word as a key [for their healing]. It awakens the sleepers, and when awakened they see, understand, and hear, and distinguish that which is from that which is not. For some call injustice justice and think that the laws of justice are safe if they err with many. These I cannot hold as excused. For if the folly of one is great, how much greater is the insanity of many? But that is truly foolishness, which I say, that a man should depart from the truth and embrace that which truly is not. But that which is, is that which truly exists, and is named God, and is. All things exist by His power; He was never made nor did He have a beginning, but He is from eternity and unto the ages; He remains immutable while all things change: He can be neither seen by the eyes, nor comprehended by thought, nor expressed by word. By those who know and love Him He is called Father and true God. If anyone therefore, receding from the light, says that there is another God, whatsoever he may conceive, he calls created substance God. For if anyone calls fire or water God, it is not God, because it is fire or water; and if he calls earth or heaven, sun or moon or any of those stars, which without intermission complete their prescribed course and are not moved by their own will; and if anyone calls gold and silver gods, they are not gods, since we use them at our will; and if this wood which is burned, if these stones which are broken,

d by their own will; and if anyone calls gold and silver gods, they are not gods, since we use them at our will; and if this wood which is burned, if these stones which are broken, how could these be held as gods, since they are applied to our own uses? How grievously, therefore, are they to be blamed who place these things which He created in the stead of the great God! But I say: when it has not been revealed to a man, nor does he himself perceive that these creatures are subject to the Lord, perhaps he is without blame; for the blind man is not to be reproached because he walks stumbling; thus, men, when they were seeking God, encountered stone and wood; and those among them who abounded in wealth encountered gold and silver; and so they did not find what they were seeking. But now, when the voice has resounded throughout the whole earth that there is a true God, and an eye has been given to every man that he might see, they are no longer to be excused who, because many are erring with them, are ashamed to tread the straight path, even if they wish to. Wherefore, we give them counsel that they should open their eyes and see; for behold, we have been illuminated by the light which does not deceive, so that we might see by it. But if, after the light has risen, a man closes his eyes so as not to see, he proceeds to the pit although he follows the straight path. For why is a man ashamed among those who err with him? Rather, let him lead them to follow him, and if they do not acquiesce, let him deliver his soul from the midst of them. Earthly men constitute for themselves gods from the earth their mother; they are subject to judgment while they impose an immutable name upon mutable things, and they are not ashamed to worship as gods things made by the hand of man, and they dare to fashion an image to God whom they have not seen.

I, however, am not afraid to say again what I have already said, that images of dead kings are worshipped by them. And in very truth, even in our own time, the images of the Caesars are worshipped, and are honored more than the ancient ancestral gods. Tributes also and a census are paid to Caesar, since he is greater than those gods; therefore those who despise the gods and do not obey the decrees of Caesar are punished with death equally. It is also determined by the same decree what tax the worshippers must pay to the king's treasury, and what returns they must bring as sacks full of water from the sea ^A. But this is the most lamentable thing, that those who worship and fear things which are not grasped by the senses (and these are the greatest among the wise), for the love of gain, or empty glory, or power, are faint-heartedly dissuaded from worshipping the same. But I, that I may speak as I feel, will reveal how and for what reasons images have been erected to kings and tyrants and have been held as gods. The Argives sacrificed to Hercules because Hercules himself was an Argive, who furthermore, being endowed with great bodily strength, killed noxious animals by his power, but much more because they feared him; for he was violent and abducted the wives of great men; for he was very lustful, just like Zarades the Persian, his friend. The Actaeans worshipped King Dionysus, because he had planted the vine in their region; the Egyptians [worshipped] Joseph the Hebrew, who is also Serapis, because he provided them with corn in the years of famine. The Athenians worshipped Athena, the daughter of Jupiter, king of the island of Crete, because she built the citadel of the Athenians, and made there Archetypus her son as king, whom she had had by adultery with Hephaestus the smith, the son of her father’s wife. And at all times she had association with Hercules, because he was her brother by her father. For King Zeus loved Alcumena, the wife of Alcumene from Argos, and begat Hercules. The Phoenicians worshipped Venus, queen of Cyprus, because she loved Adonis, son of Cytherus, king of the Phoenicians; who, having abandoned her kingdom, lived in Gabala, a citadel of the Phoenicians, and at the same time subjected all his towns to King Cytherus. But before Adonis she loved Ares, and Hephaestus her husband discovered it, and killed Adonis on Mount Lebanon, and turned Cynira into a boar. Afterwards, Venus remained in Gabala and died in ^B the city of Aphaca, where Adonis was buried. The Elamites worshipped Noe, a daughter of the king of Elam; who, when she had been led captive by the enemy, her father made for her an idol and a temple in Susa, in the citadel which is in the region of Elam. The Syrians worshipped Ati of Adiabene, who sent her daughter Balat, a physician, and she healed Sime, daughter of Hadad, king of Syria; and after an interval of time, when Hadad had been seized by leprosy, he asked for the Hebrew Eubseus, who came and healed him. The nations of Mesopotamia also worshipped the Hebrew Cuteba, who freed Bacru, king of Edessa, from his enemies. But concerning Nebo, who is in the city of Mabug, what shall I say to you, since all the Mabugesian priests know him to be an idol of Orpheus the Thracian magus; and Hedron is an idol of Zoroaster the Persian magus; which two magi expelled the impure spirit which was infesting the Mabugesian plain, and by their command Sima, daughter of Hadad, filled this plain with water drawn from the sea, so that that wicked spirit might not rise again to infest the region. Thus, among various nations, statues ^C were placed to kings by their worshippers; but we forbear to write more of these.

But you, who pride yourself on a free mind, if you wish to be held a knower of the truth, study to be such within; even if you have put on feminine adornment, remember that you are a man; believe in Him who is truly God and expand and commend your soul to Him; and He Himself is able to give you eternal life which has no end; for He is omnipotent. But the rest are to be esteemed for what they are: images as images, carved things as carved things; and beware that you do not put a creature in the place of the ^D Creator. God lives at all times, He fills your intellect: for your intellect represents the image of His person; for He Himself is invisible, immutable, and incomprehensible, and at His nod all bodies are moved. Know this, therefore: if you worship Him who is immutable, as He Himself is eternal, so also you, when you have put off that which is visible and corruptible, will stand before Him forever living and knowing, and your works will be for you riches which do not perish. Remember, moreover, that the beginning and foundation of your good works is God.

^A For he who is far from the knowledge of the living God is already dead and buried. You pursue demons and shades in vain with prayers, for they can give you nothing. ^B For he who is far from the knowledge of the living God is already dead and buried. You pursue demons and shades in vain with prayers, for they can give you nothing.

No longer, therefore, have fellowship with those who prostrate themselves on the ground and kiss stones, and give their own food as fodder to the fire, and move their garments toward idols; and who, though endowed with sense, worship without sense. Pour out incorruptible prayers to the incorruptible God for your own incorruptible soul, and then you shall appear free. Give thanks to God, who created you endowed with a free mind, so that you might be directed according to your own will. For if you choose evil, you will be subject to condemnation for your evil deeds; if good, you will enjoy many good things with eternal life. What, therefore, hinders you, since you are free, from bidding farewell to your evil conversation, and seeking who is the Lord of all, and finding Him? For He does not hide the knowledge of Himself from those who seek Him, as far as it can be known. Beware first that you be not false within your own soul. If you say that a thing which is not God is God, you lie in your soul and sin before the true God. Foolish man, do you wish to buy God? Is God in need? Is God guarded? Do you buy Him like a slave and worship Him like a Lord? You ask Him for riches that He might grant them to you, and you give to Him as if He were in need. How do you trust that He will grant you victory over your enemies, while your enemies, having already conquered you, despise Him? Will you say: "Because I am a king, I cannot but assent to the will of the multitude"? Words truly worthy of laughter! For why should a king not lead the people subject to him into the right path, and in himself ^C set forth examples of good works? This would be to his own praise; for it is contrary to reason for a king who walks crookedly to judge and condemn the perverse. I think that such a kingdom can be governed peacefully, whose king knows and fears the true God, so that he may render his people understanding and may always judge rightly, like a man who never forgets that he himself must also be judged before God. Then his subjects also, because of God, abstain from doing injury to their king and to one another. Thus, through the knowledge and fear of God, evil is eradicated from the kingdom; for if a king rules his subjects justly, they act justly towards him and amongst themselves, which certainly indicates a region dwelling in peace and enjoying many good things, because all praise the name of God. For if a king recalls his subjects from error, what is more worthy of praise? Thus it pleases God, for error introduces all evils. But the fountain of error is this, if man is ignorant of God, and instead of God, worships that which is not God. Some say: "By worshiping an image, we worship God"; they are ignorant, therefore, of God who is present everywhere, who never fails; they are ignorant that nothing is done without His knowledge. But you, O base man, to whom God is present within you, outside you, and above you, you purchase for a price from a craftsman carved woods to the injury of God; you sacrifice to them, and you do not know that His eye, which nothing escapes, sees you, and that the word of truth convicts you, saying: "God, whom no eye has seen, how can He be carved?" But you make and worship an image of yourself. Is not carved wood always wood? The weight of stone and gold ^D

falls the same on the scales, and the idol which you have fashioned is now the same; why do you care for it? Do you love gold, therefore, and not God? But if the craftsman has stolen anything, you are not ashamed to demand it back from him. You have eyes and do not see; you have understanding and do not understand. Why do you grovel on the ground and pray to insensitive things? Fear Him through whom the earth is moved, the heaven is revolved, and the waves of the sea are stirred up; Him who, like fire, can consume all things.

But again, some say: "We worship what our fathers have handed down to us." Why, then, do the children of poor or illiterate parents acquire riches or learning? Why, then, do the children of the blind see, and the children of the lame walk? For it is not right that a man should follow his ancestors who walked perversely, but rather that he should depart from their way lest he perish as they did. See, therefore, if your father followed the right way, and then follow in his footsteps; if he followed a perverse way, depart from it and enter the right way, and let your children follow you; you should even grieve that your father walked perversely, for your grief may be of benefit to him. Speak to your children thus: God is the father of all; God is without beginning, nor was He made: all things subsist by His will. He made the luminaries so that His servants might see one another, yet He hides Himself from the eyes of His servants; for it is not possible for a mutable creature to see the Immutable. ^B Those, however, who are in that state which no longer admits of mutability, they see God as they are able to see Him. The flame will spare them, when the world is overturned by a deluge of fire. For the first was a deluge of wind, and a violent tempest killed certain men, while the just remained safe to demonstrate the truth. Then, indeed, there was a deluge of water, and all men and all animals were suffocated, with the just being saved in the wooden ark by the command of God. Now, a deluge of fire is to come; the earth will burn with the mountains, and men with the idols and statues which they made and worshipped; the sea will burn with the islands, but the just will be saved from the fire, just as the early just were from the waters. Then those who did not know God and worshipped idols will be confounded, when, deprived of the hope of aid, they see their idols burning with them.

When you have learned these things, O Antoninus Caesar, and your children with you, you will transmit to them as an inheritance the eternal riches which do not perish; you will save your own soul and the souls of your children from those things which are about to befall the inhabitants of the whole earth in a true and just judgment. For there God will know you, if you have known Him here. If you have neglected Him here, you will not be counted among those who know Him and give Him thanks. These things are sufficient for your Majesty, nay, even more, if you wish.

SPURIA: THE BOOK OF ST. MELITO ON THE TRANSIT OF THE VIRGIN MARY

^C CAPUT PRIMUM.

Melito, servant of Christ, bishop of the Church of Sardis, to the venerable brothers in the Lord established at Laodicea, in peace, greeting. I remember having often written concerning a certain Leucius, who, having lived with us among the apostles, departed from the way of righteousness with an alien sense and a rash mind, and inserted many things into his books concerning the Acts of the apostles; and while he said many and various things about their virtues, he nevertheless lied about much of their doctrine, asserting that they taught otherwise, and establishing his own nefarious arguments as if from their words. And not only did he consider it enough for himself, but he also so impiously corrupted with his style the transit of the blessed ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, that it is a sin not only to read but even to hear it in the Church of God. We, therefore, at your request, writing the things which we heard from the apostle John in simplicity, have sent them to your fraternity; believing not in strange dogmas sprouting from heretics, but in the Father in the Son, and the Son in the Father, with the Deital and indivisible substance remaining a Trinity of persons; and that not two human natures were created—namely, a good one and a bad one—but one good nature created by the good God, which was vitiated by the guile of the serpent through sin, and has been repaired by the grace of Christ.

CAPUT II.

Therefore, when our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ was fastened to the nails for the life of the whole world, as He hung upon the wood of the cross, He saw His Mother standing near the cross, and John the Evangelist, whom He loved more peculiarly than the other apostles, because he alone of them remained a virgin in body. He therefore entrusted to him the care of the holy virgin mother Mary, saying to him: Behold your mother; and to her He said:

Behold your son. And from that holy hour, the Mother of God remained more specially in the care of John for as long as she passed the sojourn of this life; and when the apostles had taken their lots throughout the world for preaching, she dwelt in the house of his parents, near the Mount of Olives. ^A

CHAPTER III.

In the twenty-second year, therefore, after Christ, having overcome death, had ascended into heaven, while Mary one day was burning with longing for Christ, and was weeping alone within the retreat of that house: behold an angel, resplendent in the habit of great light, stood before her, and fulfilled the words of greeting, saying: Hail, blessed by the Lord; receive the salvation of Him who commanded salvation for Jacob through His prophets. Behold, he said, I have brought to you a palm branch from the Paradise of God, which you shall cause to be carried before your bier, when on the third day you shall have been taken up from the body. For behold, your Son awaits you, with the thrones and angels, and all the powers of heaven. Then Mary said to the angel: I ask of you, therefore, that all the apostles of my Lord Jesus Christ be gathered to me. To whom the angel said: Behold, he said, today, through the power of my Lord Jesus Christ, all the apostles, taken up, will come here to you. And Mary said to him: I pray that you send your blessing upon me, that no power of hell may meet me in that hour in which my soul shall have departed from the body, and that I may not see the prince of darkness. But the angel said to her: The power ^B of hell shall not harm you; for your Lord God, whose servant and messenger I am, has given you eternal blessing; but do not think that the effect of not seeing the prince of darkness is to be given by me, but by Him whom you carried in your holy womb; for His is the power of all things for ever and ever. And saying these things, the angel departed with great splendor. But that palm shone with excessive light. Then Mary, taking off her previous garments, put on better ones. And taking the palm which she had received from the hand of the angel, she went out to the Mount of Olives, and began to pray, and to say: I was not worthy, Lord, to receive you, had you not had mercy upon me; but yet I have guarded your treasure, which you entrusted to me. And therefore I ask of you, King of glory, that the power of Gehenna may not harm me. For if the heavens and the angels tremble before you daily, how much more man fashioned from the earth, to whom nothing good resides, unless as much as he shall have received from your goodness. For you are the Lord God, always blessed for ever! And when she had said these things, she returned to her lodging.

CAPUT IV.

And behold suddenly, while the blessed John was preaching in Ephesus, on the Lord’s day, at the third hour of the day, there was a great earthquake; and a cloud raised him up, and caught him from the eyes of all, and brought him before the door of the house where the Virgin Mother of God Mary was. And knocking at the door, he entered immediately. When he appeared to her, the most holy virgin Mary rejoiced ^C in joy, and said: I pray you, son John, be mindful of the words of the Lord Jesus Christ, your master, by which He entrusted me to you. For behold, on the third day I am to depart from the body; but I have heard the counsel of the Jews saying: Let us await the day when she who bore that seducer dies, and we shall burn her body with fire. He therefore called the holy apostle John, and brought him into the inner chamber of the house, and showed him the garment for her burial, and that palm of light, which she had received from the angel, premonishing him that he should have it carried before her bed, when she should be led to burial, and he should go to the monument.

CAPUT V.

To whom the blessed and beloved apostle John said: How shall I alone, Lady, prepare your funeral rites, unless my brothers, the disciples and fellow-apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ, come to render honor to your little body? And it happened: and behold suddenly, by the command of God, all the apostles were lifted up in a cloud from the places in which they were preaching the word of God, and set down before the door of the house in which Mary the Mother of the Lord was living, and greeting one another, they were wondering, saying: What is the cause for which the Lord has gathered us here into one? But Paul also arrived with them, converted from circumcision, who had been taken up with Barnabas into the ministry of the Gentiles. And when there was among them a pious ^D contention, which of them should pray first to the Lord, to show them the cause of their presence, and Peter was urging Paul to pray first, Paul replied, saying: It is your duty to begin first, especially since you are chosen by God as a pillar of the Church, and you precede all in the apostolate; mine is not at all; for I am the least of you all, and Christ has appeared to me as to one born out of due time, nor do I presume to equal myself to you; yet by the grace of God I am what I am.

CAPUT VI.

Then all the apostles, rejoicing over the humility of Paul, unanimously finished their prayer. And when they had made an end of their prayer, and had said, Amen, behold suddenly the apostle John, worthy of God, came to them, and told them all these things. The apostles therefore having entered the house, found Mary the Mother of our Lord, and they saluted her saying: Blessed are you by the Lord, who made heaven and earth. To whom she said: Peace be with you, brothers chosen by the Lord; and she questioned them saying: How have you come hither? Who straightway told her how each one of them had been lifted up by the Spirit of God in a cloud, and arrived set down in that place. To whom she said: The Lord has brought you here to bring consolation to the anguish that is to come upon me. Now, therefore, I entreat you, that we all unanimously keep watch without intermission, until that hour in which the Lord is to come, and I am to depart from this body.

^A And when they had sat down and were comforting her, having persisted for three days in the praises of God, behold, on the third day, about the third hour of the day, a sleep suddenly fell upon all who were in that house, and no one at all could stay awake except the apostles alone and the three virgins who were the attendants of the holy Virgin. And behold, suddenly the Lord Jesus arrived with a great multitude of angels, and a great splendor descended into that place, and the angels were chanting a hymn and praising the Lord. Then the Savior spoke, saying: "Come, my chosen one, most precious pearl, enter now into the vessel of eternal life."

CHAPTER VIII.

Then Mary prostrated herself on the floor, worshiping the Lord, and said: "Blessed be the name of thy glory, O Lord my God, who hast deigned to choose me, thy most humble handmaid, and to entrust to me the secret of thy mystery. Be mindful, therefore, of me, O King of glory, for thou knowest that I have loved thee with all my heart and have kept the treasure entrusted to me by thee. Receive me, therefore, O Lord, thy handmaid, and deliver me from the power of darkness, that no assault of Satan may encounter me, nor may I see the hideous spirits meeting me." To whom the Savior replied: "When I, sent by the Father for the salvation of the world, was suspended on the cross, the prince of darkness came to me, but as he was unable to find any trace of his own work in me, he departed defeated and trampled. I have seen, and thou too shalt see him, indeed, by the common law of the human race through which thou art attaining the end of mortality, but he shall not be able to harm thee, because he has nothing in thee, and because I am with thee to deliver thee. Come therefore now, secure, for the host of the heavenly life awaits thee, that I may lead thee into the joys of paradise." And as the Lord said this, the most blessed Virgin arose from the floor, lay down upon her bed, and giving thanks to the Lord God, she breathed forth her spirit. The apostles, however, saw such a brightness of light that no tongue of mortals could worthily describe it. For it surpassed every whiteness of snow and of all metal, and of silver radiating with great brilliance.

CAPUT IX.

Then the Savior spoke, saying: "Rise, Peter, thou and the rest of the apostles, and take the body of my beloved Mary and carry it toward the right side of the city to the east, and ye shall find a new tomb, in which, placing her, wait until I come to you." And saying this, the Lord delivered the soul of our holy mother Mary to Michael his archangel, who is set over paradise and the prince of the Hebrew race; and Gabriel the archangel went with him. But our Lord Savior was immediately received into heaven with the angels.

CAPUT X.

And the three virgins who were there and were keeping watch received the body of the most blessed mother, Mary, and washed itd it after the manner of funerals. And when they had taken off her clothes, that sacred body shone with such brightness that it could indeed be touched for the sake of the funeral rites, but it could not be looked upon, because of the brilliance of the light shining forth, and a great splendor appeared, and nothing was felt while the most pure body was being washed, and it was untouched by any horror of filth. And when they had clothed her in linens and mortal garments, that light gradually vanished. And the face of the blessed Mother of God, Mary, was like the flowers of the lily, and an odor of great sweetness proceeded from her, so that no sweetness like it could be found.

CAPUT XI.

Then, therefore, they placed the holy body on the bier, and the apostles said to one another: "Who shall carry this palm before her bier?" Then John said to Peter: "Thou who leadest us in the apostolate, thou oughtest by right to carry this palm before the bier." To whom Peter replied: "Thou alone among us art a virgin chosen by the Lord, and thou hast found such grace that thou couldst rest upon his breast. Moreover, while he himself was hanging on the wood of the cross for our salvation, he commended her to thee with his own mouth. Thou, therefore, oughtest to carry this palm, and I shall take up the task of supporting this most sacred and venerable body as far as the place of the monument." To whom Paul said: "And I, who am the youngest of you all, will carry it with you." And when all had agreed, Peter, lifting the bier from the head, began to chant and to say: *Exiit Israel de Ægypto*, Alleluia. And Paul supported it with him, the sacred body of the ever-virgin Mother of God, Mary, and John carried the palm of light before the bier. The other apostles, truly, chanted with a most sweet voice.

Chapter XII.

And behold, a new miracle occurred. For a crown of cloud appeared over the bier, very great, just as a large circle is wont to appear around the brilliance of the moon. And the host of angels was in the clouds, emitting a song of sweetness, and the earth resounded with the sound of great pleasantness. Then, having gone out from the city, the people, about fifteen thousand men, were ^C wondering, saying: "What is this sound of such sweetness?" Then one stood, who said to them: "Mary, the Mother of Jesus, has just departed from her body, and the disciples of Jesus are singing praises around her." And looking, they saw the couch of the bier crowned with great glory, and the apostles singing with a loud voice. And behold, one of them, who was the chief of the priests of the Jews in his order, was filled with fury and anger, and said to the others: "Behold the tabernacle of her who troubled us and all our race; what glory does she now receive?" And approaching, he wanted to overturn the bier and cast the body to the ground. And immediately his hands withered from the elbows and stuck to the couch. And as the apostles were lifting the bier, part of him hung down, and part stuck to the couch of the bier, and he was tormented with a vehement torture, while the apostles were walking, and chanting ^D

hymns to the Lord: "The angels who were in the cloud struck the people with blindness."

CHAPTER XIII

Then that prince cried out, saying: "I beseech you, O Peter, beloved of God, do not despise me in such great necessity, for I am being tormented, sorely suffering great pains. Remember that when in the praetorium the servant girl who kept the door recognized you, and told the others that they should accuse you, I spoke good words on your behalf." Then Peter, answering, said: "It is not for me to help you; but if you will believe with all your heart in the Lord Jesus Christ, whom this woman—to whom you have shown enmity—brought forth as a virgin in her holy womb, and after the birth remained a virgin, the mercy of the Lord and His abundant compassion, which saves the unworthy, will grant you salvation." To this he replied: "Do we not believe? But what shall we do, since the enemy of the human race has blinded our hearts, and confusion has covered our faces, so that we cannot confess the great works of God, especially since we ourselves cursed Christ, crying out openly: 'His blood be upon us and upon our children'?" ^A Then Peter said: "This curse will harm only those who have remained unbelievers. But to those who turn themselves to God, mercy is not denied." And he said: "I believe all that you say, only I pray, have mercy that I may not die."

CHAPTER XIV

Then Peter made the bed stand still, and said to him: "If you believe with all your heart in the Lord Jesus Christ, your hands will be loosened from the bier." And when he had said, "I believe this," immediately his hands were loosened from the bier, and he began to stand on his feet, but his arms were withered, and the punishment did not depart from him. Then Peter said to him: "Approach the body, and kiss the couch also, and say: 'I believe in God, and in the Son of God, whom this woman bore, Jesus Christ, and I believe everything that Peter, the apostle of God, has spoken to me.'" And approaching, he kissed the couch, and immediately all pain departed from him, and his hands were healed. ^B Then he began to praise and bless God abundantly; and from the books of Moses to render testimony to the praises of Christ, so that even the apostles themselves marveled, and wept for joy, praising under that the name of the Lord.

CHAPTER XV

But Peter said to him: "Take this palm from the hand of our brother John: and entering the city, you will find a great multitude of people blind, and announce to them the great works of God, and whoever shall believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, you shall lay this palm upon their eyes, and the blind shall see: but those who have not believed, shall remain blind." When he had done so, he found a great multitude of people lamenting, and saying: "Woe to us, because we have become like the Sodomites struck with blindness! Nothing remains for us now but to perish." ^C But when they had heard the words of the prince who was speaking, who had been restored to health, they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ; and as he laid the palm upon their eyes, they received their sight. However, as many of them as remained in the hardness of their hearts died blind. And the high priest, having gone out to the apostles, returned the palm, reporting all things that had been done.

CHAPTER XVI

But the apostles, carrying Mary, arrived at the place of the valley of Jehoshaphat, which the Lord had shown to them. And they placed her in a new monument, and closed the sepulcher. But they themselves sat at the door of the monument, just as the Lord had commanded them. And behold, suddenly the Lord Jesus arrived with an innumerable host of angels, with a ray of great brightness flashing, and said to the apostles: "Peace be with you." But they, answering, said: "May Thy mercy, O Lord, be upon us, just as we have hoped in Thee." ^D Then the Savior spoke to them, saying: "Before I ascended to my Father, I promised you, saying, that you who have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall have sat on the throne of his majesty, you shall also sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This one, therefore, from the tribes of Israel, the command of my Father has chosen, that I should dwell in her; what therefore do you wish that I should do to her?" Then Peter and the other apostles said: "Lord, Thou didst preëlect this Thy handmaid to become an immaculate bridal chamber for Thee, and us as Thy servants into Thy ministry. Thou didst foreknow all things before the ages with the Father and the Holy Spirit, with whom there is one deity to Thee, equal and infinite power. So therefore it has seemed right to us, Thy servants, that just as Thou, having conquered death, reignest in glory, so, raising up the small body of Thy mother, Thou mightest take her with Thee in joy into heaven."

CHAPTER XVII

Then the Savior said: "Let it be according to your word," and He commanded the archangel Michael that he should bring the soul of holy Mary. And behold, suddenly the archangel Gabriel rolled away the stone from the door of the monument, and the Lord said: "Arise, my friend, and my neighbor; thou who hast not felt corruption through the touch of a man, shalt not suffer the dissolution of the body in the sepulcher." And immediately Mary arose from the tomb, and was blessing the Lord, and falling down at the feet of the Lord, she worshiped God, saying: "I cannot return to Thee worthy thanks, Lord, for the benefits bestowed which Thou hast deigned to confer upon me, Thy handmaid. May Thy name, Redeemer of the world, God of Israel, be blessed for ages."

CHAPTER XVIII

And the Lord kissed her and departed, and delivered her to the angels, that they might carry her into paradise. And He said to the apostles: "Draw near to me." And when they had drawn near, He kissed them, and said: "Peace be with you; for I am always with you even unto the consummation of the age." And immediately when the Lord had said these things, He was lifted up in a cloud, and received into heaven, and the angels

came to Him, carrying the most blessed Mother of God, Mary, into the paradise of God. But the apostles were taken up by the clouds, and returned each one to the lot of his own preaching, narrating the divine greatness, and praising our Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with the Father and the Holy Spirit, in perfect unity and in one substance of divinity, forever and ever. Amen.

BOOK OF MILETUS, BISHOP, ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLE JOHN WRITTEN BY LEUCIUS

NOTICE

Incipit Prologus of Miletus the Bishop on the Acts of the Apostle and Evangelist John.

Miletus, servant of Jesus Christ, bishop of Laodicea, to all the Catholic Churches, eternal salvation. ^A I wish your fraternity to be concerned about a certain Leucius, who wrote the Acts of the apostles John the evangelist and the holy apostles Andrew and Thomas; who said what was true, indeed, concerning the virtues which the Lord performed through them, but lied much concerning their doctrine. For he said they taught two principles—which the Church of Christ execrates—and whereas the holy John himself testifies in the beginning of his Gospel to one principle, in which the Word was always, through whom all things were created, visible and invisible, Leucius says they taught two principles, of good and evil, and that good things are from the good, but evil things ^B from an evil principle, when it is clear that evil is nothing substantial, but is actual, and that there is absolutely no creature, neither visible nor invisible, which can be understood as evil by nature. For whether an evil angel or an evil man, he was made good by God, but ^C is evil for this reason, because he presumed against the will of his creator; for even the angels and men who are known to be evil are condemned by a just God. But the just God punishes injustice, which men or angels are known to have incurred not by being born [evil], but by acting [wickedly]. For a servant who, when forbidden by his master, has perpetrated [the act], and has not done what is just, knows that he is justly to be punished. Whoever, however, humbles himself for his own presumption and says from his whole heart, "I have sinned against Thee, Lord, have mercy on me," help ^D will come to him.

^A For as the one who does not fornicate, or the one who does not envy, or the one who does not steal, or the one who does not commit some crime, is shown to be unable to live [without God's providence], so also, when a person is taught to live without fornication—who yet cannot live without food and clothing—it is manifest that he was created by a good Creator in such a way that he can subsist without sins, even though he cannot possibly exist without sustenance. Finally, we know that one shut up in prison, held in chains, and sent into exile can live without crimes, while we prove that he cannot live at all without food, drink, digestion, and sleep. Now, let us turn our discourse to the holy apostle and evangelist John, and explain how he departed from this world to the Lord. ^B Explicit Prologue.

The Acts or Miracles of the holy Apostle and Evangelist John

Domitian exercised the second persecution of the Christians after Nero, from which it came to pass that the holy John was taken away from Ephesus and sent into exile on the island of Patmos, on which island he wrote with his own hand the Apocalypse which the Lord revealed to him. Now, in the same year that Domitian ordered holy John to be exiled, he was killed by the Roman senate. And when God had a care for His apostle, it was decided by the decree of the whole senate that whatever Domitian had wished to be done should be rescinded. Hence it happened that the holy John, who had been deported through the will of Domitian, returned to Ephesus with honor. And the whole populace of men and women met him, all exulting and saying: *Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord* (Ps. CXVII, 26). ^C When he was entering the city, Drusiana, who had always followed him and had been wearied by the desire for his arrival, was being carried out dead. Then the holy John, seeing the weeping poor, and the parents, and the widows with the orphans crying out and saying: "Holy apostle John, behold, we are carrying out Drusiana, who, obeying your holy admonitions, used to feed us all, serving the Lord in chastity and humility; and she daily desired your return, saying: 'If I look upon the apostle of God with my eyes before I die'; behold, you have come and she could not see you." Then the blessed John ordered the bier to be set down and her body to be uncovered, and with a clear voice he said in the presence of all: "My Lord Jesus Christ, wake her up, Drusiana; arise and with your feet return to your house and prepare a meal for me." At this voice she arose and began to walk, anxious about the command of the apostle, so that it seemed to Drusiana herself that she had not been awakened from death but from ^D sleep. Moreover, a clamor of the people lasted for three hours, saying: "One is the God whom John preaches, one and true is the Lord Jesus Christ."

On the following day, Craton the philosopher had proposed in the forum a spectacle representing contempt for the world, such that he produced two very wealthy brothers whom he had made, after their patrimony was sold off, buy individual gems, which the youths broke before the eyes of all the people. When they were doing this, it happened that the apostle John was passing by, and, calling Craton the philosopher to himself, he said: "Foolish is this contempt for the world which is praised by the mouths of men but condemned by divine judgment; for just as a medicine is vain from which the sickness is not cut away, so a doctrine is vain from which the vices of souls and manners are not cured. My Master, therefore, instructed a youth desiring to reach eternal life with these words: if he wished to be perfect, he should sell all his possessions and give to the poor; which being done, he would acquire treasure in heaven and find the life that has no end." Craton said to him: "The fruit of human greed has been broken in the midst of men; but if your Master is truly God, and He wills that this be done so that the price of these two gems may be dispensed to the poor, make the gems be reintegrated, so that what I did for the fame of men, you may do for the glory of Him whom you commemorate as being your Master." Then the blessed John, gathering the fragments of the gems and placing them in his hands, lifted his eyes to heaven and said: "Lord Jesus Christ, to whom nothing is impossible, who didst restore the fractured world through the wood of the crucifixion for the faithful inwardly—thou who, when born..."

^A blind, didst restore the eyes which nature had denied; who didst recall to the world above Lazarus, dead and buried after the fourth day, and didst heal all diseases and all infirmities by the word of your power; be present over these precious stones, which those who knew not the fruit of almsgiving had shattered for the applause of men, and do thou, Lord, restore them through the hands of your angels, that the use of their value, fulfilled in mercy, may cause those who believe in you to attain to that kingdom of yours, inasmuch as you live and reign with the unbegotten Father and the Holy Spirit, the illuminator and sanctifier of the whole Church, God for ever and ever. And when the faithful who were with the apostle had answered Amen, the fragments of the gems were so solidified that no sign of any fracture remained in them. Then the philosopher Craton, together with these youths and with all his disciples, fell at his feet, believed, and was baptized with them all, and began to preach the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ in public. Then those two brothers, selling the gems which they had bought with their sold patrimony, distributed them to the poor. And an infinite crowd began to cling to the apostle. ^B

Then two honorable men of the city of the Ephesians, following their example, selling all that they were able to have and giving everything to the needy, followed the apostle as he went through the cities and preached the words of the Lord. It happened, however, that on entering the city of Pergamum, they saw their own servants dressed in silken garments, proceeding and shining in worldly glory. Whence it happened that, struck by the arrow of the devil, they became sad, because they saw themselves in a single cloak, needy, while their own servants were most powerful and shining. But the apostle, understanding these snares of the devil, said: I see that you have changed both your minds and your countenances on account of the fact that you have followed the teaching of my Lord Jesus Christ, and have bestowed upon the poor all that you could have. Whence if you wish to recover all that you had, in gold and in silver and in precious stones, bring to me straight rods in individual bundles. And when they had done this, the name of the Lord having been invoked, they were turned into gold. He also said to them: Bring to me small stones from the seashore. And when they had done this, the majesty of the Lord having been invoked, they were turned into gems. Then the holy apostle John says to them: Go for seven days through the goldsmiths and jewelers, and when you have proved that it is true gold and true gems, announce it to me. But both of them going, after seven days they returned to the apostle saying: Lord, we have gone about the workshops of all the goldsmiths, who all said that they had never seen such pure and such excellent gold; and the jewelers said the same, that they had never seen such excellent and such precious stones. Then the holy John said to them: Go and redeem for yourselves the lands which you sold, since you have lost the rewards of heaven. Buy yourselves silken garments, that for a time you may shine like a rose; which, while its flower displays its odor and likewise its redness, suddenly withers. You have sighed ^C for the poor of your servants and have groaned. Be therefore flourishing, that you may wither; be rich temporally, that you may beg eternally. Is the hand of the Lord then powerless, such that it cannot make its servants to be overflowing with riches and incomparably splendid? But he has ordained a contest of souls, that those who have not wished to have temporal riches for his name's sake may believe that they shall have eternal ones. In conclusion, our Lord Jesus Christ told us of a certain rich man, who feasted sumptuously every day and shone in gold and purple, at whose doors lay the beggar Lazarus, who desired to receive even the crumbs which fell from his table, and no one gave to him. It happened, however, that both died, and that beggar was carried into the rest which is in the bosom of Abraham; but that rich man was sent into the flame of a fire, from whence, lifting up his eyes, he saw Lazarus sitting in the bosom of Abraham and cried out, saying: Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame. To whom Abraham, responding, said: Remember, son, that you received good things in your life, and Lazarus likewise bad; but now he is comforted here, while you are tormented. And in all these things a great chaos is fixed between us and you, so that neither can any pass from thence hither nor from hence thither. But he answered: I have five brothers, I beseech you that someone may rise who may warn them not to come hither into this flame. To whom Abraham said: They have Moses and the prophets, let them hear them. To these things he answered: Unless someone shall have risen, they will not believe. To whom Abraham said: If they do not believe Moses and the prophets, neither will they be able to believe him even if someone should rise (b). Our Lord, however, as our master, was confirming these words of his with examples of virtues. For when they said to him: Who comes from thence hither, that we may believe him? he said: Bring hither the dead whom you have. And when they had brought before him three bodies of the dead, like ones sleeping they were awakened by him, and they gave faith to all his words. But why do I relate these things about my Lord, when there are present those whom I have raised in his name, you being present, in whose name you have seen even paralytics healed, and lepers cleansed, and the blind illuminated, and men liberated from demons? But they cannot have these riches of virtues who have wished to have earthly riches. Consequently, when you yourselves entered to the infirm, they were saved when the name of our Lord Jesus Christ was invoked; you put demons to flight, and you even returned light to the blind. Behold, this grace has been taken away from you, and you who were strong and great have become miserable. And whereas there was such great fear of you among the demons that they left the possessed men at your command, now you fear the demons; for a lover of money is a slave of mammon. Mammon, however, is the name of the demon who presides over carnal gains and dominates those who love the world. For when there is one belly and there are things stored up in such quantity that they would suffice for a thousand bellies, and when there is

one body and there are such garments that they might provide clothing for the bodies of a thousand men, then surely what is not used is guarded, and one is completely ignorant of for whom it is guarded, as the Holy Spirit says through the prophet: "Every man is troubled in vain, he heapeth up, and knoweth not for whom he shall gather these things" (Ps. XXXVIII, 7). Naked did the throes of women bring us into the light, needing food, raiment, and drink; and naked shall the earth that bore us receive us back. But in truth we possess the riches of heaven in common. The splendor of the sun is equally common to the rich and the poor; likewise the light of the moon and the stars, the mildness of the air, the drops of rain, the doors of the Church, the sanctification of the font, the remission of sins, the participation of the altar, the meat of the Body, the drink of the holy Blood, the anointing of the chrism, the grace of the Giver, the visitation of the Lord, and the indulgence for all sin—of all these, the dispensation of the Creator is equal, without the acceptance of any person. For neither does the rich man use these gifts otherwise than the poor man; but the wretched and unhappy man, while he wishes to have more than suffices, subjects himself to many sorrows and anxieties. For from this are born the fevers of heat, the rigors of cold, and various pains in all the members of the body; and he can be sated neither by the food of bread nor by drink, so that his greed might learn that it will not profit from the riches it piles up, which, once stored, provoke daily and nightly anxiety in their guardians, and do not allow them to be quiet or secure for the space of a single hour. For while the house is guarded against thieves, while property is cultivated, while they attend to the plows, while they pay their taxes, while they build granaries, while they study how to gain, while they strive to mitigate the attacks of those more powerful, while they endeavor to strip those less powerful, while they inflict their anger on whom they can and can hardly or not at all bear the injuries brought upon themselves, while they consent to the blandishments of their flesh, while they do not blush to play with dice and at spectacles, while they do not fear to pollute and be polluted, suddenly they depart from this world naked, carrying only their sins with them, for which they are about to suffer perpetual punishments.

^B Indeed, while the holy apostle John was saying these things, a youth was being carried by a widowed mother; it had been thirty days since he had taken a wife. The crowds, however, who were performing the funeral rites together with his widowed mother, cast themselves at his feet, all alike pouring out wails, tears, and groans, and they begged him to raise this dead man also, in the name of their God, just as he had Drusiana. So great, moreover, was the weeping of all that even the apostle himself could hardly restrain himself from weeping and tears. Then, casting himself down in prayer, he wept for a long time; and rising from prayer, he stretched out his hands to heaven and poured out a silent prayer for a very long time. When he had done this a third time, he ordered the wrapped corpse to be untied and said: "O youth, who, led by the love of your flesh, quickly lost your soul—O youth, who did not know your Creator, did not know the Savior of men, did not know the true friend, and therefore incurred the worst enemy—for your ignorance, I shed tears along with prayers to the Lord, that you may rise from the dead, the bond of death being resolved, and may announce to these two, Atticus and Eugenius, how great a glory they have lost and how great a punishment they have incurred." Then, rising, Stacteus—for so the youth was called—worshipped the apostle and began to rebuke his disciples, saying: "I saw your angels weeping and the angels of Satan rejoicing at your fall. Already the kingdom was prepared for you, and you have lost chambers furnished with sparkling gems, full of joys, full of feasts, full of delights, full of the perpetuity of life, full of eternal light, full of such enjoyments, and you have acquired for yourselves places of shadows full of dragons, full of hissing flames, full of tortures and incomprehensible punishments, full of stenches, full of sorrows, full of straits, full of horrific fear and trembling. And you have lost places full of unfading flowers, full of the voices of instruments, and you have acquired for yourselves places in which day and night there is no cessation of wailing, howling, and mourning. Nothing now remains for you except to beg the apostle of the Lord that, just as he raised me to life, so also he may raise you from destruction to salvation, and may cause your names, which have now been blotted out of the book of life, to be rewritten." Then this same person who had been raised, casting himself down with all the people and with Atticus and Eugenius, all alike besought the apostle to intercede for them with the Lord. But the holy apostle gave this in response to Atticus and Eugenius: that for thirty days they should offer penance to God, during which interval they should pray most of all that the golden rods might return to their own nature; likewise, that the stones might return to the vileness in which they were born. ^C It came to pass that the space of thirty days passed; and when the golden rods and the stones were changed and returned to their own nature, Atticus and Eugenius came to the apostle and said: "You have always taught mercy, you have always preached indulgence, and you have commanded that man should be indulgent to man. And if man is indulgent to man, how much more does God indulge and spare? We have committed these things into our sin, but what we have done wrong in the world with concupiscent eyes, we make amends for with weeping eyes. We pray to you, therefore, Lord, we pray, O apostle, that the indulgence which you always taught in words, you may show in deeds." Then the blessed John said to all those weeping and doing penance, and also to those intervening for them: "The Lord our God made use of these words when it was a matter of sinners, saying: 'I desire ^D not the death of the sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live' (Ezech. XXXIII, 11). For when the Lord Jesus Christ was teaching us about penitents, he said: 'I say to you that there is great joy in heaven among the angels over one sinner who does penance and turns from his sins; and there is more joy for them than over ninety-nine just who have not sinned' (Luc. XV, 7). Whence I wish you to know that the Lord has accepted their penance." Then, turning to Atticus and Eugenius, he said:

"Go and return the rods to the forest from whence you brought them, ^A so that they may return to their own nature; and return the stones to the seashore, that they may be as they were, once they have become rocks." When this had been carried out, they recovered the grace they had lost, so that they might again put demons to flight as before, both curing the infirm and giving light to the blind, and the Lord did many virtues through them.

When all the city of Ephesus and the entire province of Asia were revering and preaching John, it happened that the worshippers of idols stirred up a sedition; whence it came about that they dragged John to the temple of Diana and urged him to offer to her the filth of sacrifices. Then holy John said: "Let us all go to the church of my Lord Jesus Christ, and by invoking the name of your Diana, make the church fall, and thus I will consent to you. If, however, you cannot do this, I shall invoke the name of my Lord Jesus Christ, and He shall make this temple fall, and its idol be ground to dust." When this had been done, it ought to seem just to you that, having left behind the superstition of this goddess, who has been conquered and crushed by my God, you should turn to Him. At this voice, the people fell silent, and although there were a few who contradicted this definition, the greatest part nevertheless gave their consent. ^B Then blessed John with gentle words entreated the people that they should move far from the temple. And when all had gone outside from the inner part, he said with a clear voice before everyone: "So that all this crowd may know that this idol of Diana is a demon, let it fall together with all the man-made idols that are worshipped in it, in such a way that it does no harm to men!" Immediately, at the voice of the apostle, all the idols together with their temple fell in such a way that they were turned into dust, which the wind casts from the face of the earth. On that same day, twelve thousand Gentiles were converted, excluding children and women, and they were consecrated by the virtue of baptism. Then Aristodimus, who was the high priest of all the idols, filled with a most wicked spirit, stirred up a revolt among the people, so that the people were readied for war against the people. But blessed John said: "Tell me, Aristodimus, what shall I do to remove the indignation from your spirit?" To which Aristodimus said: "If you wish me to believe in your God, I shall give you poison to drink; which, when you have drunk it, if you are not dead, it will appear that your God is the true one." To whom the apostle said: "If you give me poison to drink, with the name of my Lord Jesus Christ invoked, it shall not be able to harm me." To whom Aristodimus said: "It is better that you see those drinking and dying immediately so that, if only in this way, your heart may fear this cup." To whom blessed John replied: "I have already told you, you merely be prepared to believe in my God, Jesus Christ, when you see me healthy after the cup of poison." Aristodimus therefore reached out to the proconsul and asked him for two men who were to be beheaded for their crimes, and setting them in the middle of the forum before all the people, in the sight of the apostle, he made them drink the poison. They, as soon as they had drunk, breathed out their spirit. Then Aristodimus said: "Hear me, ^C John, and either withdraw from this doctrine by which you have recalled the people from the worship of the gods, or accept and drink, so that you may show that your God is omnipotent, if after you have drunk you can remain unharmed." Then blessed John, with those dead men who had drunk the poison lying there, intrepid and constant, taking the chalice and making the sign of the cross over it, said: "God and Father of my Lord Jesus Christ, by whose word the heavens were confirmed, to whom all things are subject, to whom every creature serves, to whom every power is subject and fears and trembles when we call upon Thee for help, whose name being heard the serpent grows still, the dragon flees, the viper is hushed, and that toad which is called the restless frog becomes torpid, the scorpion is extinguished; the basilisk is conquered and the venomous spider does no harm, and all poisonous creeping things and even more ferocious animals are pierced, and all roots adverse to human salvation wither—do Thou, Lord, extinguish the virus of this poison, extinguish its deadly operations, and evacuate the harmful powers which it contains, and give in Thy sight to all whom Thou hast created, eyes that they may see, and ears that they may hear, and a heart that they may understand Thy greatness." And when he had said this, he armed his mouth and his entire self with the sign of the cross, and drank all that was in the chalice. And after he drank, he said: "I ask that those for whom I have drunk may believe in Thee, Lord, and may deserve to receive the salvation which is with Thee, while Thou enlightenest them." The people, observing that John’s face remained cheerful for three hours and that he had no signs at all of pallor or trembling, began to cry out: "The one and true God is He whom John worships." Aristodimus, however, did not even then believe, but the people reproached him. He, however, turned to John and said: "A doubt still remains in me, but if you wake those who have died with this poison in the name of your God, my heart will be cleansed from all doubt." But the people rose up against Aristodimus, saying: "We will burn both you and your house, if you dare to continue making the apostle of God labor in your speech." John, seeing that a most bitter sedition was taking place, asked for silence and said to all who were listening: "The first thing which you ought to imitate from divine virtues is patience, through which you may be able to bear the folly of incredulous men; wherefore, if Aristodimus is still held by his infidelity, let us loosen the knots of his incredulity, and even if it is late, let us make him acknowledge his Creator. And just as physicians having a sick man in their hands, needing various medicine, so also let us do, if Aristodimus is not yet cured by that which has already been done. For I will not cease from this work until medicine can come to his wounds." And calling Aristodimus to him, he gave him his tunic, while he stood clad in his cloak. To whom Aristodimus said: "For what reason did you give me your tunic?" John says to him: "So that, even in this way, you may depart confused by your own infidelity." To whom Aristodimus said: "And how will your tunic make me depart from my infidelity?" To whom the apostle replied: "Go and place it upon the bodies of the dead, and