waxed worse, the more honourable and powerful could sin with impunity, and only the poor and the unfortunate felt the severity of the laws. § 18. This century was fruitful in controversies among Christians; for as is common with mankind, external peace made room for internal discords and contentions. We shall here mention the more considerable ones which did not give rise to obstinate heresies. In Egypt, soon after the century began, or about the year 306, commenced the long continued schism, which from the author of it was called the Meletian controversy. Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, deposed Meletius the bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais. The cause is involved in uncertainty. The friends of Peter represent Meletius as one who had sacrificed to the gods, and had committed other crimes. Others report him to have been guilty of no other offence than that of excessive severity against the lapsed.9 Meletius disregarded the sentence of Peter, and not only continued to exercise the functions of his office, but also assumed to himself the power of consecrating presbyters; a right which, according to established usage in Egypt, belonged exclusively to the bishop of Alexandria. The partizans of this serious and eloquent man were numerous; and at length not a few of the monks espoused his cause. The Nicene council attempted in vain to heal this breach. The Meletians, on the contrary, whose chief aim was to oppose the authority claimed by the bishop of Alexandria, afterwards joined themselves to his great enemies, namely, the Arians.2 Thus a contest which at first 1 Athanasius, Apologia secunda; Opp. tom. i. p. 777. &c. Epiphanius. Hæres. lxviii. Opp. tom. i. p. 716, &c. See Dion. Petavius, note on Epiphan. tom. ii. p. 274; and Sam. Basnage, Exercitatio de Rebus Sacris contra Baronium, p. 305, &c. [The attempt of this council is worthy of particular attention, because from it may be drawn a conclusion which is in opposition to the statement of Athanasius. If Meletius had really sacrificed to idols, as Athanasius represents, the council would not have treated him so mildly as they actually did. Socrates (Hist. Eccles. 1. i. c. 9.) has preserved the epistle of the fathers assembled at Nice, which they addressed to the church of Alexandria, and the Egyptian Christians. In this epistle they say, they had decreed that Meletius should remain in his city, but should have no power either to perform ordination or to appoint teachers, nor should he appear either in the country or in any town for such an object; but still that he should retain the title of bishop. The sixth canon of this council refers also to this subject. "The existing laws in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis, shall hereafter be observed; that the bishop of Alexandria shall have the oversight of all theseand if any one shall be made a bishop, without the previous consent of the metropolitan, he shall not hold the office." See Mansi, Collectio Ampliss. Concilior. tom. ii. p. 670; and the younger Walch's Ketzerhistoric, vol. iv. p. 385, &c. Schl.] 2 [See the younger Walch's Ketzerhistorie, vol. iv. p. 393, &c. Schl.] related only to the limits of the Alexandrian bishop's powers became, through the influence of heated passions, a controversy respecting an article of faith. The Meletian party was still existing in the fifth century.3 3 Socrates, Hist. Eccles. l. i. c. 6. Theodoret, Hist. Eccles. 1. i. c. 8. [On the history of this controversy, it is proper to remark, in general, that some reject altogether the account which is given of it by Epiphanius, regarding the account of Athanasius as more worthy of credit. This is the prevailing opinion in the Roman Catholic church. Others consider the account of Epiphanius as most worthy to be received, for the following reasons: --- 1. Epiphanius was prepossessed in favour of neither party. He speaks respectfully of the bishops opposed to Meletius, and he censures the Meletians with caution. 2. On the contrary, Athanasius was a strenuous foe to the Meletians, and every where shows his bitter hatred of them. 3. Yet he mentions the crime of Meletius but once, and then very concisely. The subsequent writers, who were more free from the heat of passion, do not follow him exactly. Only Socrates coincides with him. Theodoret omits the circumstance of Meletius's fall. Sozomen is wholly silent about it. Yet it is not probable that these writers, who were by no means partial to the Meletians, would have so deviated from Athanasius, if they had held his statement to be uncontrovertible. 4. Epiphanius is not inclined to say favourable things of other sectarians without good reason; and the evil which Athanasius had said of Meletius, could not probably have been unknown to him. 5. The statement of Epiphanius has too much selfconsistency for a fabrication. 6. What Epiphanius states of the views of bishop Peter in regard to admitting the lapsed to communion, agrees with the fourteenth and fifteenth canons of this bishop; on which, se. Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr. vol. viii. p. 411, and Tillemont, tom. V. p. 450, &c. 7. It is incomprehensible are undecided, and not established in their judgment. Sam. Basnage, in his Exercitat. Antibaron. referred to above in note", declares the accusation of Athanasius, in regard to the idolatrous sacrifice, to be false; and in his Annales Politico-ecclesiast. tom. ii. p. 608, &c. he rejects the account of Epiphanius. Dr. Baumgarten, in his Auszug der Kirchengesh, vol. ii. p. 681, gives the preference to the statement of Athanasius; but in his Geschichte der Religionspartheyen, p. 506, he follows Epiphanius exclusively. Even Mosheim, in the first edition of his Institutes of Christian Church History, p. 253, says: "Notwithstanding the objections of Petavius, perhaps the statement of Epiphanius is the most correct.' But in the new edition, this remark is omitted. Also in his lectures, during his last years, he expressed himself dubiously, without declaring for either party. The most full and soundly critical examination of the Meletian controversy, is that of Dr. Walch, in his Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iv. p. 355–410. He also remarks, from Tillemont, vol. v. p. 455, that likewise one Meletius of Syria caused a schism, which, in its consequences, was more important than the preceding; and that Erasmus and Prateolus confound the two schisms. the council of Nice, Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, very strenuously opposed the progress of Arian doctrines, and was therefore deprived of his office; and another was elected in his place who was more favourable to the Arians; and after him succeeded others, all holding Arian sentiments. The last of these was Eudoxius, who was removed to Constantinople on the deposition of Macedonius, bishop of that city (A.D. 360.) Meletius, of Syria, was now chosen bishop of Antioch by a council. He had before been bishop of Sebaste, and the heads of the Arian party supposed him to hold the Arian sentiments. He at least held communion with Arians, and had by his virtuous life obtained a high reputation. At first Meletius concealed his sentiments, and in his public discourses treated only on practical subjects. But as one part of his hearers were orthodox, and the other part that the Nicene fathers should have treated Meletius so indulgently, if they regarded the accusation of Athanasius as well founded. 8. As the Meletians were so strict in their intercourse with the lapsed, it is inconceivable that they could receive for their leader any person who had been guilty of a fall of the grossest kind. There are others who After § 19. Not long after Meletius, one Eustathius excited great commotions in Armenia, Pontus, and the neighbouring countries; and was therefore condemned in the council of Gangra, which was held not long after the Nicene council. Whether this man was Eustathius the bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, or whether the ancients confounded two persons of the same name, is debated with about equal weight of argument on both Arians, he did not long leave them in uncertainty, but acknowledged to them his conviction of the correctness of the Nicene faith. This acknowledgment was the source of much suffering to Meletius. The Arians resented it very highly, that he should disappoint their expectations; and as he would not retract, they deprived him of his office, A.D. 362, by the aid of the emperor Constantius, and banished him from the country. Meletius now left Antioch and went to his native city Melitene. In his place, Euzoius, one of the oldest friends of Arius, was appointed. But the orthodox, who would not acknowledge him as a bishop, now wholly ceased to worship with the Arians, which they had done up to this time. Thus there were now three parties at Antioch. The Arians who acknowledged Euzoius for their bishop; the Eustathians, who ever since the deposition of Eustathius, (A. D. 327,) whom they regarded as the legitimate bishop of Antioch, had ceased to worship with the Arians, and held their separate meetings without making disturbance and the Meletians who were the majority, and who acknowledged Meletius for the legitimate bishop. The Meletians were willing to unite with the Eustathians, on condition that they would look upon Meletius as themselves did. But the Eustathians refused to do so, and would not acknowledge the Meletians for brethren, because they considered both them and their bishop as not pure enough from the Arian infection. Athanasius, Eusebius of Vercelli, and Lucifer attempted to reconcile these divisions. Lucifer (A. D. 362,) consecrated a new bishop of Antioch; whom, however, the Eustathians only would receive. Meletius now came back to Antioch; and thus there were two bishops of Antioch, Paulinus, (the Eustathian bishop,) and Meletius; and the difficulties were increased, rather than settled, by the procedure of Lucifer. The foreign bishops took part in this controversy. Athanasius looked on Paulinus as the most orthodox, and therefore he and the greater part of the West took the side of Paulinus. The eastern bishops were on the side of Meletius; who was exiled by the emperor Valens, but returned after that emperor's death, and suddenly died. (A. D. 381.) The Greek and the Latin churches enrolled him among the saints after his death. As respects the Latin church, this was a very extraordinary transaction. Meletius died entirely out of communion with the Romish see; and yet he is numbered among their saints! Either the pope then must be not infallible, or the Romish church worships as saints persons who, according to her own principles, are unworthy of worship. The death of Meletius did not restore peace at Antioch. The Meletians instead of acknowledging Paulinus for a legitimate bishop, elected Flavianus, an orthodox and irreproachable character, for a successor to Meletius. This Flavianus was supported by the bishops of Syria, Palestine, Phoenicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, the lesser Asia, and Thrace; on the side of Paulinus were the bishops of Rome and Italy, and of Egypt and Arabia, who wished for the deposition of Flavianus. Paulinus died (in 389); but instead of giving peace to the church, influenced probably by a fanatical obstinacy, he consecrated over his little party, before his death, one Evagrius as his successor. Soon after (A.D. 393,) Evagrius died; but the disunion still continued. Finally, through the prudence and the peace-making temper of Chrysostom, peace and ecclesiastical communion between the two parties were restored. Flavianus was acknowledged by the foreign bishops as the bishop of Antioch. Yet there remained a little handful of Eustathians, who did not unite with the general church till Flavianus was succeeded by other bishops. See Walch, Ketzerhistorie, vol. iv. p. 410 -502. Schl.] sides. The founder of the Eustathian sect is charged, not so much with unsoundness in the faith, as with ill-advised piety. For he is said not only to have prohibited marriage, eating flesh, love-feasts and the like, but also to have recommended divorce to married persons, and to have granted to children and servants the liberty of violating the commands of their parents and masters, under pretext of religion." § 20. Lucifer, bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, a man of decision, sternness and vigour, who was driven into exile by the emperor Constantius, for defending the Nicene doctrine of three persons in one God, first separated from Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli, in the year 363, because the latter was displeased at his consecration of Paulinus to preside over the church of Antioch; and afterwards separated himself from the communion of the whole church, because it had decreed that absolution might be granted to those bishops who under Constantius had deserted to the Arians. 4 See Sam. Basnage, Annales PoliticoEcclesiast. tom. ii. p. 840, &c. 5 Socrates, Hist. Eccles. l. ii. c. 43. Sozomen, Hist. Eccles. 1. lii. c. 14, l. ii. c. 24. Epiphanius, Hares. lxvi. p. 910. Philostorgius, Hist. Eccles. 1. iii. c. 16. Wolfg. Gundling, Notæ ad Concilium Gangrense, p. 9, &c.-[The younger Walch, in his Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 536-577, has treated, circumstantially and solidly, concerning the Eustathians. See also his Historie der Kirchenversammlungen, p. 216, &c. The chief sources for a history of the Eustathians, are the documents of the council of Gangra, consisting of a synodical epistle, and twenty canons. From these sources both Socrates and Sozomen derived their information. The author of the Life of St. Basil, which is prefixed to the third vol. of the works of Basil, maintains, (ch. v. § 4, &c.) that the founder of this party was not Eustathius, but rather Aërius; and also that the persons with whom the council of Gangra had to do, should not be called Eustathians, but Aërians. But the arguments are not so powerful as to compel a reflecting reader to abandon the common opinion. Whether the bishop of Sebaste in Armenia, who is so famous in the history of the Arian heresy, and who had some connexion wlth Aërius, or another Eustathius, was the origin of this controversy, cannot be determined At least this is certain, that the with certainty. Yet the arguments for They 6 Rufinus, Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. 30. Socrates, Hist. Eccles. lib. iii. c. 9. See also Tillemont, Mémoires pour servir à little company of his followers, or the Luciferians, would have no intercourse with the bishops who had joined themselves to the Arian sect, nor with those who had pardoned these bishops after confessing their fault; and thus they renounced the whole church. They are likewise reported to have held erroneous sentiments respecting the human soul, viewing it as generated from the bodies of the parents, or as transfused by the parents into their children.s § 21. About the same time, or not much after, Aërius, a presbyter, monk, and semi-Arian, rent Armenia, Pontus and Cappadocia, by opinions wide of those commonly received, and thus founded a sect. First, he maintained that, by divine appointment, there was no difference between bishops and presbyters. Yet it is not very clear, how far he carried this sentiment; though it is certain, that it was very pleasing to many who were disgusted with the pride of the bishops of that age. In the next place, Aerius disapproved of prayers for the dead, the stated fasts, the celebration of Easter, and other things, l'Histoire de l'Eglise, tom. vii. p. 521. ed. Paris:-[and, above all others, Walch, Historie der Ketzereyen, vol. iii. p. 338-377. From him, we shall enlarge the account given by Dr. Mosheim. When the orthodox party under Constantius, after the adverse result to them of the council of Arles, found themselves in great danger, and were deliberating about requesting the emperor to summon a new council, Lucifer proceeded to Rome, and being constituted envoy of the Romish bishop Liberius, he thence repaired to the imperial court in Gaul, and obtained of the emperor the council of Milan; by which, however, the emperor intended to further his own purposes. And as Lucifer was one of those who in that council zealously espoused the cause of the orthodox, he fell under the emperor's displeasure, and was sent among others into banishment. When the death of the emperor left him at liberty to return from exile, he became involved in the Meletian controversy at Antioch, and this occasioned his falling out with Eusebius, bishop of Vercelli. For he led on and consecrated the aged Paulinus, bishop, which Eusebius greatly disapproved; because, according to the decrees of the council held at Alexandria by Athanasius, he with Lucifer was commissioned to heal the division at Antioch, which was now widened still more by the unwise step of Lucifer. The same council had also decreed, that the Arian bishops, after acceding to the Nicene creed, might be received into the church and remain in their offices. But the refusal of Eusebius to approve of the proceedings of Lucifer at Antioch, and the mild regulations of the Alexandrian council respecting those whom he accounted apostate bishops, which he could by no means approve, induced him to break off all church communion with such as approved those regulations: and thence arose the schism which bears his name. After this separation, he continued to exercise his functions at Cagliari for nine years, and at last died at an advanced age. Schl.-See, for account of his writings, Note, p. 343. Tr.] 7 See the petition addressed to Theodosius, by Marcellinus and Faustinus, two Luciferians, in the Works of Is. Sirmond, tom. ii. p. 229, &c. 8 See Augustine, de Hares. c. 81; and on that passage, Lamb. Danæus, p. 346. [This account is very uncertain; and Augustine himself does not state it as a matter of certainty. See Walch, 1. c. p. 368. Schl.] 9 Jure divino. |