MELITO of Sardis. — Polycrates of Ephesus, in a letter to Pope Victor, mentions M. among the great luminaries of the Church in Asia Minor, calling him a “cunuco,” full of the Holy Spirit, who awaits the resurrection from the dead (presumably presupposed is the old idea, widespread even among the Encratites, of a relationship between virgin life and resurrection: Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, V, 24, 25). Tertullian speaks of M.’s “elegance and declamatory genius,” but knows that in ecclesiastical circles he was regarded as a “prophet” (Tertullian, in Jerome, *De vir. ill.*, 24). It is known that he was bishop of Sardis in Lydia in the time of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius and that he had been in Jerusalem to inform himself about ecclesiastical tradition (v. B. Kötting, *Peregrinatio religiosa*, Münster 1950, p. 85). He died before 1900.
He was the author of a short apology in defense of the “philosophy” (form of life) of Christianity, addressed to Marcus Aurelius (Eusebius, *Hist. eccl.*, IV, 26, 11), notable for the Roman patriotism of the author. Another work dealt with Easter, in which the tradition of the Quartodecimans was defended; another: *On the Right Way of Life and the Prophets* (cf. St. Jerome, *On the Lives of the Prophets*), not necessarily antimontanist, since nothing is known of any antimontanist activity on M.’s part. Other titles of writings are, for example, *On Hospitality*, *On Sunday*, *On the Corporeality of God*, the last of which was attacked by Origen (v. also Gennadius, *De Eccles. dogmat.*, 4). The title of the book, *De oboedientia fidei sensuum*, becomes understandable when reading Pseudo-Cyprian, *Adversus Iudaeos*, 1. A fragment of the book *De lavacro* has been preserved in Greek (v. ADE. Harnack, *Marcion*, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1924, p. 421 ff). Fragments of M. in the Syriac language are found in the *Florilegium Edessenum anonymum* (Syriac before 562), published by J. Rucker (1933). The most important surviving remnant of M.’s works is the homily “On the Passion,” preserved in a papyrus text and published by C. Bonner (*The Homily on the Passion by Melito* [*Studies and Documents*, 12], London 1940). This text not only demonstrates the author’s theology but also helps to understand the origin of the grand official rhetoric of the Byzantine Church.
Other writings have been wrongly attributed to M.: an apology in the Syriac language; a *Clavis scripturae* in the Latin language (ed. G. B. Pitra, in *Anal. sacra*, II, Tivoli 1884); noteworthy is the already cited *Adversus Iudaeos*. This writing, which in the 4th century was attributed to St. Cyprian (Mommsen’s list), cannot, however, be his work: it is a sermon which from the first to the last chapter reveals the theology and language of M. The homily, if it is not a Latin translation of a homily by M., is certainly the work of someone who knew him thoroughly. The attribution of the *Adversus Iudaeos* to Novatian is impossible: it was probably written in the 3rd century and not in Africa.