Περὶ πολιτείας καὶ προφητῶν, (s. de Recta Conversatione) et de Prophetis. Some interpreters, including Rufinus, have inaccurately rendered this passage, as if it spoke of two distinct works. Jerome ( 100.24) gives the title of this work in Latin, which his translator, the so-called Sophronius, re-translates into Greek, Περὶ βίου προφητικοῦ, giving reason to think that the original text of Eusebius was Περρὶ τῆς πολιτείας τῶν προφητῶν; but all the MSS. and the text of Nicephorus Callisti support the common rending.

Περὶ ἐκκλησίας,

Περὶ κυριακῆς,

Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρῶπου, Rufinus appears to have read Περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου, for he renders it

Περὶ πλάσρεως, or according to Jerome, and according to Rufinus, Nicephorus Callisti, who, like Rufinus, read Πίστεως in the title of No. 5, speaks of Nos. 5 and 6 as one work. Περὶ πίστεως ἀνθρώπου καὶ πλάσεως, .

Περὶ ὑπακοῆς πίστεως αισθητηρίων, Nicephorus Callisti speaks of two works, Περὶ ὑπακοῆς πιστεως, and Περὶ αἰσθητηρίων; and Jerome, in his catalogue of the works of Melito, enumerates consecutively and which Sophronius renders Περὶ διανοίας and Περὶ τῶν πιστῶν Rufinus also gives two titles as of separate books, De and which two titles represent the one title given in the present text of Eusebius.

Περὶ ψυχῆς καὶ σώματος ἢ νοός, or, as Rufinus renders it, Jerome has only

Περὶ λουτροῦ , s. One MS. of Eusebius, supported by Nicephorus Callisti, speaks of this work as a portion of No. 8.

Περὶ ἀληθείας, .

Περὶ κτίσεως καὶ γενέσεως Χριστου, Some MSS. read Περὶ πίστεως instead of κτισεως; but this reading was probably introduced after the rise of the Arian controversy caused the word κτίσεως to be regarded as heterodox. Rufinus has (as if he had read Περὶ pistews instead of Περὶ κτίεως) and as the titles of two separate books. Jerome has only omitting to render the obnoxious word κτίσεως.

Περὶ προφητείας, . Jerome renders the title Rufinus, who has connects this title by the conjunction et with the title of the latter work mentioned under No. 11, It may be mentioned, in vindication of Jerome's version, that according to the testimony of Tertullian (in a work now lost, but which Jerome (l.c.) cites, and which was written after he became a Montanist), Melito was regarded by many persons (whether among the Montanists or the Catholics, is not clear) as a prophet.

Περὶ φιλοξενίας,

Ἡ κλείς, (Clais; of which we shall speak presently.

Περὶ τοῦ διαβόλου καὶ τῆς ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου, Both Rufinus and Jerome speak of two books, one the other they are perhaps right.

Περὶ ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ, From a passage in Origen, quoted by Theodoret ( 100.20), Melito appears to have believed that God possessed a bodily form, and to have written in support of that doctrine. This work was probably the one referred to by Origen; and it is in vain that some modern critics have argued that it was written on the incarnation of Christ. Anastasius Sinaita, in his , 100.13, has, indeed, quoted a passage from Melito's book, Περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ, but this appears to be a different work from the present, and is not mentioned by Eusebius.

Πρὸς Ἀντωνῖνονρ Βιβλίδιου, (sc. supplex) ad Antoninum. This was the or defence of Christianity already mentioned.

Ἐκλογωαι, sc. ex Libris Vet. Testamenti, comprised, according to Jerome, in six books. This last work is not mentioned by Eusebius when enumerating the works of Melito, but he afterwards gives a quotation from it. (Euseb. Hist. Eccl. 4.26.) To this catalogue, furnished by Eusebius, we may add the following works on the authority of Anastasius Sinaita, who lived in the middle of the sixth century.

Περὶ σαρκώσεως Χριστοῦ, consisting of at least three books, and directed, partly or wholly, against Marcion. (See above, No. 16.)

Λόγος εἰς τὸ πάθος,

Besides these genuine writings of Melito, another has been ascribed to him, , which is extant in Latin, and appears in most editions of the but it is generally allowed to be spurious. It is mentioned, but without the author's name, in the of Pope Gelasius I., in which it is placed among the spurious books; and is mentioned as extant, under the name of Melito, by the venerable Beda (Retractat. in Acta, cap. 8, Opera, vol. vi. col. 15, ed. Col. 1612), who describes it as a forgery, and points out its inconsistencies with the Scripture narratives.

The number of his genuine works sufficiently shows the industry of Melito, and their subjects indicate the variety of his attainments; and the eulogies of the most learned fathers, and their testimony of the high reputation which Melito enjoyed, make us regret that of all these writings only a few fragments have descended to our times. It is, however, to be observed that these eulogies are qualified by intimations of his gross error as to the Deity. The express declaration of Origen as to his belief that God had a bodily form is supported by the testimony of (Gennadius of Massilia (Lib. Dogm. Eccles. 100.4). Modern writers seek in vain to exculpate him; and Tillemont, though unwilling to conclude positively that a writer so eminent could have held so gross an error, admits that, possibly, this imputation, or the ascription to him of the book may have prevented the church from honouring his memory by an appointed office. Modern Roman Catholics, as Bellarmin, Baronius, Halloix, Tillemont, Ceillier, &c., do not hesitate to give him the title of "Saint," and Tillemont pleads that they are in this only following the tradition of the Asiatic church.

The book published in French (12mo. 1662), under the title of was a satire against the monks.

The fragments of Melito's writings are as follows. We prefix to the notice of each the number of the work, from which it is taken, in the catalogue of the works of this father already given.

Labbe, in his book De Scriptorib. Ecclesiast. (vol. ii. p. 87), mentions a Latin version of the of Melito, as being in his time extant in MS. in the College of Clermont, at Paris. From a transcript of this MS. (collated with another), which is among the papers of Grabe, in the Bodleian Library at Oxford, it appears to be much interpolated, if indeed any part of it is genuine. It is a sort of vocabulary of the figurative terms of Scripture, somewhat similar to the of Eucherius of Lyon. Crusius, and after his death Woog, had intended to publish it; but it remains still in MS. Woog, in his has given a syllabus of the and printed the first Caput as a specimen. In the MS. in the Clermont College the author is termed Melitus or Miletus. It is possible that the fourth extract, given by Routh from the is from the original Clavis of Melito.