• Military Menu                       

• Introduction
• Systems
• Facilities
• Agencies
• Industry
• Operations
• Countries
• Hot Documents
• News
• Reports
• Policy
• Budget
• Congress
• Links

• WMD
• Intelligence
• Homeland Security
• Space

306 - Meletian

A schismatical party in the Church of Alexandria, formed [a.d. 306] by Meletius, Bishop of Lycopolis. Athanasius, in his Epistle to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, written AD 361, says that the schism had then lasted fifty-five years. No heresy is charged to the sect until after the Council of Nicsea, when the Meletians embraced Arianism, influenced by a common hostility against Athanasius.

The schism arose from a refusal of Meletius to submit to a sentence passed on him by his metropolitan, Peter of Alexandria. In a full synod of bishops Meletius was convicted of certain crimes, and particularly of sacrificing. He was therefore deposed. The sentence, it must be observed, did not imply suspension from communion. Meletius neither appealed to another synod, nor took any pains to vindicate himself, but presently made a schism [Atlian.]. Theodoret gives the same account of the origin of the schism. He writes, that Meletius being convicted of certain crimes, and deposed, would not submit to the sentence, but rebelled against the primacy of Alexandria, and fdled the Thebaïd and the neighbouring part of Egypt with strife and tumult [Hist. i. 9].

That at an early period he took the final step of schism, by intruding into other dioceses, and erecting altar against altar, is shewn by the letter addressed to him by certain Egyptian bishops who were then in prison. The letter was probably written by Phileas. It states, "Qualem etiam commotionen et tristitiam communiter omnibus, et singillatim unicuique, ????buit a te facta ordinatio in paroecus ad te minime pertinentibus, nee dicere etiam prsevalemus."

Meletius paid no attention to the remonstrance, but continued his irregular ordinations. Consequently, Peter, by letter to the Church of Alexandria, suspended him from communion un til the case should be duly heard. The result of this hearing we may conclude to be that which is told by Sozomenus, that Peter excommunicated the adherents of Meletius, and rejected their baptism. The defence set up by Meletius appears to have been, that it was necessary for him to act in Peter's absence, in order that a sufficient supply of clergy might be maintained. Peter had fled to avoid persecution, and the Bishop of Lycopolis, ranked next to him, was the first of the suffragans of Alexandria.

The numbers that adhered to Meletius were considerable. Athanasius mentions twentyeight bishops of his party, but of these the largei number at least were Meletius' own consecration. Socrates speaks of his many followers. He did not yield therefore to this second sentence, but ordained bishops as well as priests and deacons, and even extended his sect into Palestine, where he visited Jerusalem, Eleutheropolis and Gaza.

In these later proceedings against Meletius he is dealt with simply as a schismatic : the crimes of which he had been convicted, and the subsequent deposition, are not noticed. Particularly Peter, in his letter to the Alexandrians, charges him, so far as appears, only with coveting the primacy. Whether any doubt had arisen as to the validity of the sentence of deposition, or whether some motive of prudence dictated its suppression, it is impossible to say. But Meletius had passed from the simple sin of disobedience to the sentence into the wider sin of creating a schism, and that wider sin appears to have been dealt with exclusively.

In this light the matter was presented to the Council of Niesea, but we can only understand the language of the Council by supposing that it contains at least an allusion to the earlier proceedings. The Council declared by canon [Can. vi.] that the bishop of Alexandria by ancient custom, the maintenance of which it enjoined, had power over the Bishops of Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. It decreed that Meletius should remain in his own city Lycopolis, retaining the title and dignity of a bishop, but without the power of ordaining, or of promoting any one to an ecclesiastical office ; that those whom he had ordained were capable of reordination, and might be so admitted to communion, and to the same grade of the ministry, provided that they always ranked after the clergy of Alexander's ordination. They were not to elect to any office in the Church, nor to do any thing without the consent of the Catholic bishop. They might, however, be made bishops, if the Bishop of Alexandria should confirm their election by the people.

The Nicene Fathers take credit to themselves for dealing leniently with Meletius. This is intelligible only on the supposition that they waived inquiry into the earlier charges. Against Meletius and his party, as schismatics, the sentence was not lenient, it was just. It may be contrasted with the terms on which the Church received back the Donatists, whose ordinations were admitted. "The Church did not always allow of the ordinations of schismatical or heretical bishops, but sometimes for discipline's sake, and to put a mark of infamy on their errors, made them take a new ordination" [Bingham's example in illustration of this remark in the case of the Meletians]. He adds, "In pursuance of this decree, Theodore, Bishop of Oxyrinchus, reordained the Meletian presbyters upon their return to the Church ; as Valesius shews out of Marcellinus' and Faustinus' petition to the Emperor Theodosius".

Meletius lived but a few months after the Council of Nicea. During this time, in obedience to the council, he remained at Lycopolis, and when Alexander returned to Egypt, restored the churches which had been unjustly taken from him. But his obedience was not sincere ; for shortly before his death ho appointed John Archaph his successor. This was contrary to the conciliar decree, and can only have been done from a desire to keep up the schism. Alexander died shortly after Meletius, and in the absence of Athanasius, who was recommended to bo his successor, the Meletians consecrated Theonas. But Theonas died in three months, and Athanasius was elected. The Meletians now joined the Arians at the solicitation of Eusebias of Nicomedia, and the larger number of them adopted the Arian heresy [arians]; but the schism continued, and adopted childish practices, lustrations, with clapping of hands, dancing with the tinkling of little bells [Theod. Hor. fab. iv. 7].

Epiphanius gives an account of the origin of the Meletian schism altogether différent from the foregoing. He states as follows :-In the Diocletian persecution, Peter, Meletius, and other confessors were together in prison. Upon the application of certain who had fallen in the persecution to be admitted to penance, disputea arose regarding their reception. Meletius, Peleas, ami very many others, held, that when the persecution had ceased, they might be received after a fitting period of penance, but the clergy to lay-communion only. Peter, on the other hand, thought they might be admitted immediately upon repentance. The separation was caused by Peter rather than by Meletius, for Peter called for a division: "Let those who think with me stand by me "-from which time they refused to communicate with one another. When Peter was put to death, and Alexander succeeded him, Meletius was sent to the Phoenician mines in Arabia Petraea.2 In his journey he ordained bishops, priests, and deacons wherever he could. When liberated from the mines, he lived in friendship with Alexander, to whom he reported the heretical teaching of Arius. After the death of Meletius, Alexander began to persecute the Meletians, upon which, through the intervention of Eusebius of Nicomedia, they joined the Arians. Epiphanius' authority for this statement is not given. Athanasius, from his friendship with Alexander, and his possession of the records of the see, had the best possible means of information. It is a singular estimate of evidence which sets aside his testimony on the authority of Epiphauius' anonymous report.