sented an Apology to the emperor M. Antoninus. Cave considers him to have flourished about the year 170, Lardner in 177. A catalogue of his works may be seen in Eusebius" but nothing has come down to us except a few fragments, which are collected by Dr. Routh in his Reliquiæ Sacræ. These fragments will perhaps be thought to confirm the impression which they had produced upon the mind of Eusebius, who asks, "Who is ignorant of the "books of Irenæus and Melito, which declare Christ "to be God and man?"

Jerom as well as Eusebius mention a book to have been written by him, which was entitled, Пepì ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ. We might naturally have considered this work to have treated of the incarnation of Christ; but some writers have charged Melito with heresy in the composition of this book, supposing him to have maintained the notion that God had a body such as we have. Coteler, Grabe, and Beausobre a are of this opinion, whose authority I do not venture to question: but it may be mentioned, that Anastasius Sinaita, a writer of the sixth century, has given an extract from a work of Melito, called Пepì σaρKwσews Xpioтou, which contains, as will be seen, the most unequivocal assertions of the divinity of Christ. The writers above named did not however think that the work entitled Περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ, and that Περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ, were the same.

42. Melito ex Apol. (Rel. Sacr. vol. I. p. 112.) "We are not worshippers of senseless stones, but "of the only God, who was before all things, and is

u IV. 26. x V. 28. a Hist. de Manichée. vol. I. y Clem. Hom. XVII. p. 738. p. 474. z Annotata in Bull. Def. II. 5.

66

"above all things: and also of his Christ, who was verily God, the Word, before the worlds b." It may be said, that I have not translated these words fairly, and that Oeo Aóyou means the word of God, and not God the Word. It is however only necessary to read the Fathers, to be convinced that these words can have but one meaning, which is to give the appellation of God to the Word. We find in a multiplicity of instances Θεός Λόγος, τῷ Θεῷ Λόγῳ, τὸν Θεόν Λόγον, where there is no room for a difference of interpretation and though I would not contend that cou Aóyou cannot signify the word of God, it is surely not too much to say, that the position of the Greek words, standing as they do without any article, requires us to translate them as I have done. I consider them as equivalent to God who was the Word, or the Word who was God, for the idiom of our language compels us to add something to the simplicity of the Greek; and, according to our form of expression, they contain a plainer and fuller assertion of Christ's divinity than the more usual expression, which calls Christ the Word of God.

It has often been shewn, that the Logos, or Word, was understood by the Jews and Gentiles, as well as by Christians, to mean, not something created by God, and distinct from Him, but a coexistent and consubstantial emanation from the Deity; so that

ὁ Οὐκ ἐσμὲν λίθων οὐδεμίαν αἴσθησιν ἐχόντων θεραπευταὶ, ἀλλὰ μόνου Θεοῦ, τοῦ πρὸ πάντων καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων· καὶ ἔτι τοῦ Χριστοῦ αὐτοῦ, ὄντως Θεοῦ Λόγου πρὸ αἰώνων, ἔσμεν θρησκευταί.

Philo Judæus often speaks of the Logos, or Word, per

forming those acts of interpo sition in human affairs, which in the Old Testament are ascribed to God. This is observed by bishop Bull, Defens. I. 1. 16, &c. and many instances are given by Townsend in his Arrangement of the New

when Christ was called the Word of God, the expression conveyed a more intelligible notion of his divinity in those early times than it does now. The Christians of those days had as full a notion of Christ being God, when they called him & Aóyos toũ Ocoũ, the Word of God, as when they called him i Beds Aoyos, God the Word, or the Word who was God: but it is perhaps more satisfactory to us, as it is certainly more intelligible, to find the Fathers constantly applying to Jesus Christ the above expression Oeds Aóyos, God the Word, which it may be remembered is precisely what we read in the Gospel itself, where St. John says, the Word was God.

I have only one more remark to make upon the words of Melito, which is, that he expressly says that the Christians worshipped Christ, and yet he says that they worshipped only one God: which two assertions can only be reconciled by our concluding, that the unity of that Godhead which they worshipped, comprehended the Son as well as the Father.

43. Melito ex l. de Incarn. Christi. (Rel. Sacr. vol. I. p. 115.)

Whatever doubts may be entertained concerning the proper translation of the last passage, there can be no question whatever as to the doctrine which is contained in the example now to be produced. "To "those persons, who have any sense, there is no ne"cessity to prove, from the actions performed by

Testament, I. p. JO. Tertullian also tells the heathen, that their philosophers had ascribed the

creation of the world to a Logos. Apol. c. 21. p. 19. See Lactantius, Instit. IV. 9.

"Christ after his baptism, that he had a real and "not apparent soul and body, a human nature such "as ours. For the actions performed by Christ after " his baptism, and particularly the miracles, shewed "and demonstrated to the world his divinity which "was hidden in the flesh. For he, being at once "perfect God and man, has demonstrated his two "substances to us; his divinity, by the miracles "worked in the three years which followed his bap"tism; and his humanity, in the thirty years which

66

preceded his baptism: during which period, owing "to the imperfection which he had from the flesh, " the signs of his divinity were hidden, although he "was very God existing before the worlds e." 44. Melito ex l. de Passione. (Rel. Sacr. vol. I. p. 116.)

The same conclusion may be drawn from another expression of Melito, where he says, that " God suf"fered by the right hand of Israelf." These words can only allude to the sufferings, which Jesus Christ experienced from the children of Israel. The manner in which they are quoted by Anastasius shews that Melito was speaking of Christ, and they therefore prove to us that Melito considered Christ to be God.

This work was written against Marcion, who believed that Christ had only an apparent body.

• Τὰ γὰρ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα ὑπὸ Χριστοῦ πραχθέντα, καὶ μάλιστα τὰ σημεῖα, τὴν αὐτοῦ κεκρυμμένην ἐν σαρκὶ Θεότητα ἐδηλοῦν, καὶ ἐπιστοῦντο τῷ κόσμῳ. Θεὸς γὰρ ὢν ὁμοῦ τε καὶ ἄνθρωπος τέλειος ὁ αὐτὸς, τὰς δύο αὐτοῦ οὐσίας ἐπιστώσατο

ἡμῖν· τὴν μὲν Θεότητα αὐτοῦ διὰ τῶν σημείων ἐν τῇ τριετίᾳ τῇ μετὰ τὸ βάπτισμα, τὴν δὲ ἀνθρωπότητα αὐτοῦ, ἐν τοῖς τριάκοντα χρόνοις τοῖς πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος· ἐν οἷς διὰ τὸ ἀτελὲς τὸ κατὰ σάρκα ἀπεκρύβη τὰ σημεῖα τῆς αὐτοῦ Θεότητος· καίπερ Θεὸς ἀληθὴς προαιώνιος ὑπάρχων.

† Ὁ Θεὸς πέπονθεν ὑπὸ δεξίας Ἰσραηλίτιδος.

IRENEUS. A. D. 185.

Irenæus is supposed to have been a native of Asia; and he himself tells us, that in his younger days he had seen Polycarp, who had been appointed to the bishopric of Smyrna by the apostles, and who had conversed with many persons who had seen Christ". Polycarp suffered martyrdom about the year 166. It is probable therefore that Irenæus was born about the year 140, though some writers place his birth many years earlier. We are not informed what was the cause which brought him from Asia into Gaul; but we know that when Pothinus, bishop of Lyons, was martyred in the year 177, Irenæus was chosen to succeed him. The latest date assigned to his death is the year 202; and there is no reason to think that he suffered martyrdom.

Some of his writings are mentioned by Eusebius', but the only one which has come down to us is his Work against Heresies, in five books. It was written in Greek, but we have only a translation in rather barbarous Latin, which is supposed to be as old as the second century. In a few places fragments of the original Greek have been preserved. Some writers have supposed that these five books against Heresies were written in the year 176; others bring down the composition of them to 192.

Irenæus having seen Polycarp, who was an im

8 III. 3. 4. p. 176. Fragm. P. 339.

It was the opinion of Usher, that Polycarp was the angel or bishop of the church of Smyrna, addressed in the Revelations ii.

8. and he must have been so, if he was appointed by the apostles, i. e. by some one or more of the apostles who then survived.

i V. 20.