Essays on the work entitled "Supernatural Religion" Part 14

The genuineness of many of these fragments however has been seriously questioned. In one or two instances the grounds of hesitation deserve every consideration; but in the majority of cases the objections must be set aside as groundless. Thus it is sought to throw discredit on all those writings which are not named by Eusebius. The author of _Supernatural Religion_, for instance, says that 'Eusebius gives what he evidently considers a complete list of the works of Melito' [228:3]. On the contrary, Eusebius carefully guards himself against any such interpretation of his words. He merely professes to give a list of 'those works which have come to his own knowledge.' Obviously he either suspects or knows that there are other writings of Melito in circulation, of which he can give no account. Again, other fragments have been discredited, because they contain false sentiments or foolish interpretations, which are considered unworthy of a father in the second century. I cannot think that this is any argument at all; and I may confidently a.s.sume that the author of _Supernatural Religion_ will agree with me here. There is much that is foolish in Papias, in Justin Martyr, in Irenaeus, in Tertullian, even in Clement of Alexandria, and Origen.

Only it is frequently mixed up with the highest wisdom, which more than redeems it. Again others (and among these our author) would throw doubt on the genuineness of the Greek and Syriac fragments which were certainly in circulation some six centuries before, because some mediaeval Latin writers attach the name of Melito to forgeries or to anonymous writings, such as the _Clavis_, the _Pa.s.sing away of the Blessed Virgin Mary_, and the _Pa.s.sion of St John_ [229:1]. A moment's reflection will show that the two cla.s.ses of writings must be considered quite apart. When these groundless objections are set aside, the great majority of the Greek and Syriac fragments remain untouched. Otto, the most recent editor of Melito, takes a sensible view on the whole. I do not agree with him on some minor points, but I am quite content to take the fragments which he accepts, as representing the genuine Melito; and I refer those of my readers, who are really desirous to know what this ancient father taught and how he wrote, to this editor's collection.

We have fortunately the evidence of two writers, who lived in the next age to Melito, and therefore before any spurious works could have been in circulation--the one to his style, the other to his theology. On the former point our authority is Tertullian, who in a work now lost spoke of the 'elegans et declamatorium ingenium' of Melito [229:2]; on the latter, a writer quoted anonymously by Eusebius but now identified with Hippolytus, who exclaims, 'Who is ignorant of the books of Irenaeus and Melito and the rest, which declare Christ to be G.o.d and man' [230:1].

The fragments, and more especially the Syriac fragments, accord fully with both these descriptions. They are highly rhetorical, and their superior elegance of language (compared with other Christian writings of the same age) is apparent even through the medium of a Syriac version.

They also emphasize the two natures of Christ in many a pointed ant.i.thesis.

Of the Greek fragments, not mentioned by Eusebius, the following quoted by Anastasius of Sinai as from the third book on the Incarnation of Christ [230:2] is important in its bearing on our subject:--

The things done by Christ after the baptism, and especially the miracles (signs), showed his G.o.dhead concealed in the flesh, and a.s.sured the world of it. For being perfect G.o.d, and perfect man at the same time, He a.s.sured us of His two essences ([Greek: ousias])--of His G.o.dhead by miracles in the three years after His baptism, and of His manhood in the thirty seasons ([Greek: chronois]) before His baptism, during which, owing to his immaturity as regards the flesh ([Greek: dia to ateles to kata sarka]), He concealed the signs of His G.o.dhead, although He was true G.o.d from eternity ([Greek: kaiper Theos alethes proaionios huparchon]).

The genuineness of this fragment has been impugned, partly on the general considerations which have been already discussed, partly on special grounds. It has been said, for instance, that Anastasius must here be reproducing the general substance, and not the exact words, of Melito's statement; but he at all events gives it as a direct quotation.

It has been urged again, that linguistic reasons condemn this fragment, since the use of 'seasons' or 'times' for 'years' betrays a later age; but abundant instances of the use are found in earlier writers, even if so very natural a device for avoiding the repet.i.tion of the same word ([Greek: etos]) needed any support at all. It has been suggested that there may possibly be some confusion between Melito and Meletius. But the work from which this pa.s.sage comes is distinctly stated by Anastasius to have been written against Marcion, who by his docetism attacked the true humanity of Christ. Now Melito lived in the very thick of the Marcionite controversy, and must have taken his part in it. On the other hand, Meletius, who held the see of Antioch in the latter part of the fourth century, was one of the princ.i.p.al figures in the Arian controversy and, as such, far too intimately involved in the questions of his own day to think of writing an elaborate work on a subject so comparatively dead as the docetism of Marcion. Moreover, there is no instance in any Greek writer, so far as I have observed, of a confusion between the names Melito and Meletius. Again it is suggested that the Christological views of the writer are too definite for the age of Melito, and point to a later date; but to this the distinct statement of Hippolytus respecting Melito's opinions, which has been already quoted, is a complete answer; and indeed the Ignatian Epistles, which (even if their genuineness should not be accepted) cannot reasonably be placed later than the age of Melito, are equally precise in their doctrinal statements.

But if this be a genuine fragment, the inference is obvious. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ will no doubt be ready here, as elsewhere, to postulate any number of unknown apocryphal Gospels which shall supply the facts thus a.s.sumed by Melito. The convenience of drawing unlimited cheques on the bank of the unknown is obvious. But most readers will find themselves unable to resist the inference, that for the thirty years of our Lord's silence this father is indebted to a familiar pa.s.sage in St Luke [231:1], while, in fixing three years as the duration of His ministry, he is thinking of the three Pa.s.sovers mentioned by St John.

Of the other fragments ascribed to Melito one deserves to be quoted, not only because the author has made it the subject of some criticisms, but because it exhibits in a concentrated form Melito's views of evangelical history and doctrine [232:1].

We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, that we might prove to your love that He is the perfect Reason, the Word of G.o.d: who was begotten before the light, who was Creator together with the Father, who was the fashioner of man, who was all things in all, who among the patriarchs was Patriarch, who in the law was Law, among the priests Chief-priest, among the kings Governor, among the prophets Prophet, among the angels Archangel, and among voices [232:2] the Word, among spirits the Spirit, in the Father the Son, in G.o.d G.o.d, the King for ever and ever. For this is He who was pilot to Noah, who conducted Abraham, who was bound with Isaac, who was in exile with Jacob, who was sold with Joseph, who was captain with Moses, who was divider of the inheritance with Joshua the son of Nun, who foretold His own sufferings in David and the prophets, who was incarnate in the Virgin, who was born at Bethlehem, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes in the manger, who was seen of the shepherds, who was glorified of the Angels, who was worshipped by the Magi, who was pointed out by John, who gathered together the Apostles, who preached the Kingdom, who healed the maimed, who gave light to the blind, who raised the dead, who appeared in the temple, who was not believed on by the people, who was betrayed by Judas, who was laid hold on by the priests, who was condemned by Pilate, who was transfixed in the flesh, who was hanged on the tree, who was buried in the earth, who rose from the dead, who appeared to the Apostles, who ascended into heaven, who sitteth on the right hand of the Father, who is the rest of those that are departed, the recoverer of those that are lost, the light of those that are in darkness, the deliverer of those that are captives, the guide of those that have gone astray, the refuge of the afflicted, the Bridegroom of the Church, the Charioteer of the Cherubim, the Captain of the Angels, G.o.d who is of G.o.d, the Son who is of the Father, Jesus Christ, the King for ever and ever. Amen.

This fragment is not in any way exceptional. The references to evangelical history, the modes of expression, the statements of doctrine, all have close parallels scattered through the other fragments ascribed to Melito. Indeed it is the remarkable resemblance of these fragments to each other in thought and diction (with one or two exceptions), though gathered together from writers of various ages, in Greek and in Syriac, which is a strong argument for their genuineness.

But the special value of this particular pa.s.sage is that it gathers into a focus the facts of the evangelical history, on which the faith of Melito rested.

And I do not think it can be reasonably doubted whence these facts are derived. The author of _Supernatural Religion_ of course suggests some unknown apocryphal Gospel. But this summary will strike most readers as wonderfully like what a writer might be expected to make who recognized our four canonical Gospels as the sources of evangelical truth. And, when they remember that within a very few years (some twenty at most) Irenaeus, who was then a man past middle life, who had intimate relations with the region in which Melito lived, and who appeals again and again to the Asiatic Elders as his chief authorities for the traditional doctrine and practice, declares in perfect good faith that the Church had received these four, and these only, from the beginning, it will probably seem to them irrational to look elsewhere, when the solution is so very obvious.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ writes that this fragment taken from a treatise _On Faith_, together with another which purports to be a work on the _Soul and Body_, though these two works 'are mentioned by Eusebius,' must nevertheless 'for every reason be p.r.o.nounced spurious' [233:1]. Let us see what these reasons are.

1. He writes first:

They have in fact no attestation whatever except that of the Syriac translation, which is unknown, and which therefore is worthless.

The fact is that in a very vast number of literary remains, cla.s.sical and ecclesiastical, whether excerpts or entire works, we are entirely dependent on the scribe for their authentication. Human experience has shown that such authentication is generally trustworthy, and hence it is accepted. In forty-nine cases out of fifty, or probably more, it is found to be satisfactory, and _a priori_ probabilities are very strongly against the a.s.sumption that any particular case is this fiftieth exception. If there is substantial ground for suspicion, the suspicion has its weight, but not otherwise. A man who would act on any other principle is as unreasonable as a visitor to London, who refuses to believe or trust any one there, because the place is known to harbour thieves and liars.

2. We come therefore to the positive grounds of our author's suspicions, and here he tells us that--

The whole style and thought of the fragments are unlike anything else of Melito's time, and clearly indicate a later stage of theological development.

It is to be regretted that he has not explained himself more fully on this point. I have already pointed out that the theology and the style of these fragments generally are exactly what the notices of Hippolytus and Tertullian would lead us to expect in Melito. And this is especially true of the pa.s.sage under consideration. What the 'later stage of theological development' indicated may be, I am unable to say. On the contrary, the leading conception of this pa.s.sage, which sees all theology through the medium of the Logos, and therefore identifies all the theophanies in the Old Testament with the Person of Christ, though it lingers on through the succeeding ages, is essentially characteristic of the second century. The apologists generally exhibit this phenomenon; but in none is it more persistent than in Justin Martyr, who wrote a quarter of a century before Melito. Even the manner in which the conception is worked out by Melito has striking parallels in Justin.

Thus Justin states that this Divine Power, who was begotten by G.o.d before all creation, is called sometimes 'the glory of the Lord, sometimes Son, sometimes Wisdom, sometimes G.o.d, sometimes Lord and Word, while sometimes He calls Himself Chief-captain ([Greek: archistrategos]), appearing in the form of man to Joshua the son of Nun ([Greek: to tou Naue Iesou])' [235:1]. Elsewhere he states that Christ is 'King and Priest and G.o.d and Lord and Angel and Man and Chief-captain and Stone,' etc., and he undertakes to show this 'from all the Scriptures' [235:2]. And again, in a third pa.s.sage he says that the same Person, who is called Son of G.o.d in the memoirs of the Apostles, went forth from the Father before all created things through His power and counsel,' being designated 'Wisdom and Day and Orient and Sword and Stone and Staff and Jacob and Israel, now in one way, and now in another, in the sayings of the prophets,' and that 'He became man through the Virgin' [235:3]. Nor do these pa.s.sages stand alone. This same conception pervades the whole of Justin's _Dialogue_, and through it all the phenomena of the Old Testament are explained.

Only on one point has our author thought fit to make a definite statement. 'It is worthy of remark,' he writes, 'that the Virgin is introduced into all these fragments [the five Syriac fragments which he has mentioned just before] in a manner quite foreign to the period at which Melito lived.' What can this mean? In the pa.s.sage before us the only allusion to the subject is in the words 'incarnate in the Virgin'

(or 'a virgin'); and the references in the other fragments are of the same kind. It is difficult to see how any one, recognizing the statements of the Synoptic Gospels, could pa.s.s over the mention of the Virgin more lightly. Here again, if he will turn to Justin Martyr, he will find a far fuller and more emphatic reference [236:1].

3. But our author states also:

In the Mechitarist Library at Venice there is a shorter version of the same pa.s.sage in a Syriac MS, and an Armenian version of the extract as given above, in both of which the pa.s.sage is distinctly ascribed to Irenaeus.

This is a fact of some importance, to which he has rightly directed attention. It would have been well if he had been a little more accurate in his statement. The extract in the Armenian version (of which the shorter Syriac form is obviously an abridgment), though mainly the same as our pa.s.sage, begins in quite a different way. While Melito commences, 'We have made collections from the Law and the Prophets relating to those things which are declared concerning our Lord Jesus Christ,' etc., as quoted above, the Armenian extract, ascribed to Irenaeus, runs thus: 'The Law and the Prophets and the Evangelists have declared that Christ was born of a virgin and suffered on the cross, and that he was raised from the dead, and ascended into heaven, and was glorified and reigneth for ever. The same is called the perfect Reason, the Word of G.o.d,' etc.

[236:2]. Now it is obvious from a comparison of these two openings, that in the former, ascribed to Melito, we have the pa.s.sage in its original setting, whereas in the latter, ascribed to Irenaeus, it has been altered to suit some other context or to explain itself independently.

The reference to the author and the occasion of writing is omitted, while the 'Evangelists' are introduced by the side of 'the Law and the Prophets' for the sake of completeness. Melito, as we happen to know, did make such a collection of extracts from the Law and the Prophets as is here mentioned, and for the very purpose which is here stated; and the correspondence of language in this opening pa.s.sage with the dedication of his collection to Onesimus, referred to above, is sufficiently striking. To Melito therefore evidence, internal and external alike, requires us to ascribe the pa.s.sage. But, if so, how came the name of Irenaeus to be attached to it? Was this mere accident? I think not. Nothing would be more natural than that Irenaeus should introduce a pa.s.sage of Melito, as a famous Asiatic elder, either anonymously or otherwise, into one of his own writings. I have already had occasion to refer to the free use which the early fathers made of their predecessors, frequently without any acknowledgement [237:1]. In this particular case, Irenaeus may or may not have acknowledged his obligation. I venture to think that this solution of the double ascription will appear not only plausible, but probable, when I mention another fact. In a second Armenian extract I find a pa.s.sage headed, 'The saying of Irenaeus' [237:2]. I turn to the pa.s.sage, and I find that it contains not the words of Irenaeus himself, but of Papias quoted by Irenaeus. In the Armenian extract the name of the original author has entirely disappeared, though in this case Irenaeus directly mentions Papias as his authority.

The att.i.tude of Melito towards the Apostle of the Gentiles appears clearly enough from the t.i.tle of one of his works, 'On the Obedience of Faith,' which is a characteristic expression of St Paul [237:3], and also from occasional coincidences of language, such as 'putting on the form of a servant' [237:4].

CLAUDIUS APOLLINARIS, bishop of Hierapolis, was a contemporary of Melito, but apparently a younger man, though only by a very few years.

His date is fixed approximately by the extant notices. He addressed an Apology to the Emperor M. Aurelius, who reigned from A.D. 161-180; and as in this work he mentioned the incident of the so-called Thundering Legion, which happened between A.D. 172-174, it cannot have been written before that date [238:1]. At the same time there are some reasons, though not conclusive, for thinking that it should not be placed much later [238:2]. On the other hand, when Serapion writes towards the close of the century, he speaks of Apollinaris as no longer living; and judging from the language used, we may infer that his death had not been very recent [238:3].

Like Melito, he was a voluminous writer. Eusebius indeed only gives the t.i.tles of four works by this father, the _Apology_ (already mentioned), _Against the Greeks_ (five treatises or books), _On Truth_ (two books), _Against the Jews_ (two books), besides referring to certain writings _Against the Montanists_ [Greek: kata tes Phrugon haireseos], which he places later than the others. But he is careful to say that his list comprises only those works which he had seen, and that many others were extant in different quarters [238:4]. Photius mentions reading three works only by this father, of which one, the treatise _On G.o.dliness_, is not in Eusebius' list; but he too adds, 'Other writings of this author also are said to be notable, but I have not hitherto met with them'

[238:5]. Besides these, the author of the Paschal Chronicle quotes from a treatise of Apollinaris _On the Paschal Festival_ [238:6], and Theodoret speaks of his writing against the Severians or Encrat.i.tes [238:7]. As in the case of Melito, the character and variety of his works, so long as they were extant, must have afforded ample material for a judgment on his theological views. More especially his writings against the Montanists and on the Paschal Festival would indicate his relations to the Canonical books of the New Testament. His orthodoxy is attested by Serapion, by Eusebius, by Jerome, by Theodoret, by Socrates, and by Photius [239:1], from different points of view.

Besides a reference in Eusebius to his Apology, which hardly deserves the name of a quotation, only two short extracts remain of these voluminous writings. They are taken from the work on the Paschal Festival, and are preserved, as I have already stated, in the _Paschal Chronicle_.

The first runs as follows:--

There are persons who from ignorance dispute about these questions, acting in a way that is pardonable; for ignorance is no proper subject for blame, but needs instruction. And they say that on the fourteenth the Lord ate the lamb ([Greek: to probaton]) with His disciples, but Himself suffered on the great day of unleavened bread, and they affirm that Matthew represents it so, as they interpret him. Thus their interpretation is out of harmony with the law ([Greek: asumphonos nomo]), and on their showing the Gospels seem to be at variance with one another ([Greek: stasiazein dokei kat' autous ta euangelia]).

The second fragment is taken from the same book, and apparently from the same context.

The fourteenth was the true pa.s.sover of the Lord, the great sacrifice, the Son of G.o.d subst.i.tuted for the lamb, the same that was bound and Himself bound the strong man, that was judged being judge of the quick and dead, and that was delivered into the hands of sinners to be crucified; the same that was lifted on the horns of the unicorn, and that was pierced in His holy side; the same that poured forth again the two purifying elements, water and blood, word and spirit, and that was buried on the day of the pa.s.sover, the stone being laid against His sepulchre.

If the publication of this work was suggested by Melito's treatise on the same subject, as seems probable, it must have been written about A.D. 164-166, or soon after. The references to the Gospels are obvious.

In the first extract Apollinaris has in view the difficulty of reconciling the chronology of the Paschal week as given by St John with the narratives of the Synoptic Evangelists; and he a.s.serts that the date fixed for the Pa.s.sion by some persons (the 15th instead of 14th) can only be maintained at the expense of a discrepancy between the two accounts; whereas, if the 14th be taken, the two accounts are reconcilable. At the same time he urges that their view is not in harmony with the law, since the paschal lamb, the type, was slain on the 14th, and therefore it follows that Christ, the ant.i.type, must have been crucified on the same day. I am not concerned here with the question whether Apollinaris or his opponents were right. The point to be noticed is that he speaks of 'the Gospels' (under which term he includes at least St Matthew and St John) as any one would speak of received doc.u.ments to which the ultimate appeal lies. His language in this respect is such as might be used by a writer in the fourth century, or in the nineteenth, who was led by circ.u.mstances to notice a difficulty in harmonizing the accounts of the Evangelists. The second extract bears out the impression left by the first. The incident of the water and the blood is taken from the Fourth Gospel; but a theological interpretation is forced upon it which cannot have been intended by the Evangelist.

Some time must have elapsed before the narrative could well be made the subject of a speculative comment like this. Thus both extracts alike suggest that the Fourth Gospel was already a time-honoured book when they were written.

But the author of _Supernatural Religion_ meets the inference by denying the genuineness of the extracts. I hardly think, however, that he can have seen what havoc he was making in his own ranks by this movement. He elsewhere a.s.serts very decidedly (without however giving reasons) that the Quartodeciman controversy turned on the point whether the 14th Nisan was the day of the Last Supper or the day of the Crucifixion, the Quartodecimans maintaining the former [240:1]. In other words, he believes that it was the anniversary, not of the Pa.s.sion, but of the Last Supper, which the Quartodecimans kept so scrupulously on the 14th, and that therefore, as they pleaded the authority of St John for their practice, the Fourth Gospel cannot have been written by this Apostle, since it represents the Pa.s.sion as taking place on the 14th. As I have before intimated, this view of the Paschal dispute seems to me to be altogether opposed to the general tenor of the evidence. But it depends, for such force or plausibility as it has, almost solely on these fragments from ancient writers quoted in the _Paschal Chronicle_, of which the extracts from Apollinaris are the most important. If therefore he refuses to accept the testimony of the _Paschal Chronicle_ to their authorship, he undermines the very foundation on which his theory rests.

On this inconsistency however I need not dwell. The authorship of these extracts was indeed questioned by some earlier writers [241:1], but on entirely mistaken grounds; and at the present time the consensus among critics of the most opposite schools is all but universal. 'On the genuineness of these fragments, which Neander questioned, there is now no more dispute, writes Scholten [242:1]. Our author however is far too persistent to let them pa.s.s. Their veracity has once been questioned, and therefore they shall never again be suffered to enter the witness-box.

It may be presumed that he has alleged those arguments against their genuineness which seemed to him to be the strongest, and I will therefore consider his objections. They are twofold.

1. He urges that the external testimony to their authorship is defective. His reasoning is as follows [242:2]:--

Eusebius was acquainted with the work of Melito on the Pa.s.sion, and quotes it, which must have referred to his contemporary and antagonist, Apollinaris, had he written such a work as this fragment denotes. Not only, however, does Eusebius know nothing of his having composed such a work, but neither do Theodoret, Jerome, Photius, nor other writers, who enumerate other of his works; nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, nor by any of those who took part in the great controversy.

Here is a tissue of fallacies and a.s.sumptions. In the first place, it is a _pet.i.tio principii_, as will be seen presently, that Apollinaris was an antagonist of Melito. Even, if this were so, there is not the smallest evidence, nor any probability, that Apollinaris would have written before Melito, so that the latter could have quoted him. How, again, has our author learnt that Eusebius 'knows nothing of his having composed such a work'? It is certain, indeed, that Eusebius had not seen the work when he composed his list of the writings of Apollinaris; but it nowhere appears that he was unaware of its existence. The very language in which he disclaims any pretension of giving a complete list seems to imply that he had observed other books quoted in other writers, which he had not read or seen himself. Theodoret does not 'enumerate other of his works,' as the looseness of the English would suggest to the reader. He only mentions incidentally, when describing the sects of the Severians and Montanists respectively, that Apollinaris had written against them [243:1]. There is not the smallest reason why he should have gone out of his way in either pa.s.sage to speak of the work on the Paschal Festival, supposing him to have known of it. And if not, where else does our author find in Theodoret any notice which can be made to yield the inference that he was unacquainted with this treatise? Nor again does Jerome, in the pa.s.sage to which our author refers in his note [243:2], allude to a single work by this writer, but simply mentions him by name among those versed in profane as well as sacred literature.

Elsewhere indeed he does give a catalogue of Apollinaris' writings [243:3], but there he simply copies Eusebius. With regard to Photius again, the statement, though not so directly inaccurate, is altogether misleading. Photius simply mentions three works of Apollinaris, which he read during his emba.s.sy, but he does not profess to give a list; and he says distinctly that there were other famous works by the same author which he had not seen. Who the 'other writers' may be, who 'enumerate other of his works,' I am altogether at a loss to imagine. But the last sentence, 'Nor is he mentioned in any way by Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus, etc.,' is the most calculated to mislead the reader. Of the treatise of Clement on the Paschal Festival only two short fragments are preserved. He does not mention any person in these, nor could he have done so without going out of his way. For the rest, Clement is reported by Eusebius to have stated in his work that he was prompted to write it by Melito's treatise on the same subject [243:4]. Eusebius is there discussing Melito, and any mention of Apollinaris would have been quite out of place. What ground is there then for the a.s.sumption that Clement did not mention Apollinaris, because Eusebius has not recorded the fact?

When at a later point Eusebius comes to speak of Clement, he says of this father that in the treatise of which we are speaking he 'mentions Melito and Irenaeus and _certain others_, whose explanations also he has given' [244:1]. Why may not Apollinaris have been included among these 'certain others' whom Clement quoted? The same fallacy underlies our author's reference to Irenaeus. The work of Irenaeus is lost. Eusebius, it is true, preserves some very meagre fragments [244:2]; but in these not a single writer on either side in the Quartodeciman controversy is mentioned, not even Melito. Irenaeus may have quoted Apollinaris by name in this lost treatise, just as he quotes Papias by name in his extant work on heresies, where nevertheless Eusebius does not care to record the fact. All this a.s.sumed silence of writers whose works are lost is absolutely valueless against the direct and explicit testimony of the _Paschal Chronicle_.

2. But secondly; our author considers that the contents of these fragments are inconsistent with their attribution to Apollinaris. His argument is instructive [244:3].

It is stated that all the Churches of Asia, including some of the most distinguished members of the Church, such as Polycarp, and his own contemporary Melito, celebrated the Christian festival on the 14th Nisan, the practice almost universal, therefore, in the country in which Claudius Apollinaris is supposed to write this fragment. How is it possible, therefore, that this isolated convert to the views of Victor and the Roman Church could write of so vast and distinguished a majority as 'some who through ignorance raised contentions' on this point, when notably all the Asiatic Churches at that time were agreed to keep the fourteenth of Nisan, and in doing so raised no new contention at all, but, as Polycrates represented, followed the tradition handed down to them from their fathers, and authorized by the practice of the Apostle John himself?

with more to the same effect.

I will hand over this difficulty to those who share our author's views on the point at issue in the Quartodeciman controversy. Certainly I cannot suggest any satisfactory mode of escape from the dilemma which is here put. But what, if the writer of these fragments was not an 'isolated convert to the views of Victor,' but a Quartodeciman himself?

What, if the Quartodecimans kept the 14th, not as the commemoration of the last Supper, but of the Pa.s.sion, so that Melito himself would have heartily a.s.sented to the criticisms in these fragments? [245:1] This is the obvious view suggested by the account of the controversy in Eusebius, and in Irenaeus as quoted by Eusebius; and it gains confirmation from these fragments of Apollinaris. It seems to me highly improbable that Apollinaris should have been an exception to the practice of the Asiatic Churches. So far I agree with our author. But this is a reason for questioning the soundness of his own views on the Quartodeciman controversy, rather than for disputing the genuineness of the fragments attributed to Apollinaris.

After this account of Melito and Apollinaris, the two chief representatives of the later school of St John, it will be worth while to call attention to a statement of Irenaeus in which he professes to record the opinion of the Asiatic elders on a point intimately affecting the credibility of the Fourth Gospel, the chronology of our Lord's life and ministry [245:2].

The Valentinians, against whom this father is arguing, sought for a.n.a.logies to the thirty aeons of their pleroma, or supra-sensual world, in the Gospel history. Among other examples they alleged the thirty years' duration of our Lord's life. This computation of the Gospel chronology they derived from the notices in St Luke as interpreted by themselves. At the commencement of His ministry, so they maintained, He had completed His twenty-ninth and was entering upon His thirtieth year, and His ministry itself did not extend beyond a twelve-month, 'the acceptable _year_ of the Lord' foretold by the prophet. Irenaeus expresses his astonishment that persons professing to understand the deep things of G.o.d should have overlooked the commonest facts of the evangelical narrative, and points to the three pa.s.sovers recorded in St John's Gospel during the term of our Lord's ministry. Independently of the chronology of the Fourth Gospel, Irenaeus has an _a priori_ reason of his own, why the Saviour must have lived more than thirty years. He came to sanctify every period of life--infancy, childhood, youth, declining age. It was therefore necessary that He should have pa.s.sed the turn of middle life. From thirty to forty, he argues, a man is still reckoned young (_juvenis_).