Rise Of Schisms In Consequence O

The Diocletian persecution and its various continuations, on account of

the severity of the persecution and its great extent, seriously strained

the organization of the Church for a time, and in at least three important

Church centres gave rise to schisms, of which two were of some duration.

The causes for these schisms, as in the case of the schisms connected with

the Decian persecution, are to be found in the confusion caused by he

enforced absence of bishops from their sees and in the administration of

discipline. In the latter point the activity of the confessors no longer

plays any part, as the authority of the bishops in the various communities

is now undisputed by rival. It was a question of greater or less rigor in

readmitting the lapsed to the communion of the Church. For the canons of

discipline in force in Alexandria, see the Canonical Epistle of Peter of

Alexandria, ANF, VI, 269 ff. (MSG, 18:467.) They were regarded by the

rigorist party in Alexandria as too lax. Of the three schisms known to

have arisen from the Diocletian persecution, that in Alexandria is known

as the Meletian schism, and three selections are given bearing on it. For

the proposals of the Council of Nicaea to bring about a settlement and

union, see the Epistle of the Synod of Nicaea, Socrates, Hist. Ec., I,

9 (given below, § 61, II, b). The schism continued until the fifth

century. The schism at Rome, known as the schism of Heraclius, was much

less important. It was caused by the party advocating greater laxity in

discipline, and was for a time difficult to deal with on account of long

vacancies in the Roman episcopate. The duration of the schism could not

have been long, but the solution of the questions raised by it is unknown.

In fact, the history of the Roman church is exceedingly obscure in the

half-century preceding the Council of Nicaea. The third schism, that of the

Donatists in North Africa, which broke out in Carthage, was the most

considerable in the Church before the schisms arising from the

christological controversies. For the Donatist schism, see §§ 61, 67, 72.





(a) Epistle of Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas to

Meletius. (MSG, 10:1565.)





The Meletian schism.





The following epistle was written in the name of these four

bishops, probably by Phileas, bishop of Thmuis, one of the number,

to Meletius, bishop of Lycopolis. The four were in prison when it

was written. It is the most important document bearing on the

schism, and is important as setting forth the generally accepted

legal opinion of the time regarding ordination and the authority

of bishops. The document exists only in a Latin translation from a

Greek original, and appears to form, with the two following

fragments, a continuous narrative, possibly a history of the

Church, but nothing further is known of it. For an account of the

Meletian schism see Socrates, Hist. Ec., 1, 6 ff. The text of

these selections bearing on the Meletian schism is to be found in

Routh, op. cit., IV, 91 ff.





Hesychius, Pachomius, Theodorus, and Phileas to Meletius, our friend and

fellow-minister in the Lord, greeting. In simple faith, regarding as

uncertain the things which have been heard concerning thee, since some

have come to us and certain things are reported foreign to divine order

and ecclesiastical rule which are being attempted, yea, rather, which are

being done by thee, we were not willing to credit them when we thought of

the audacity implied by their magnitude, and we thought that they were

uncertain attempts. But since so many coming to us at the present time

have lent some credibility to these reports, and have not hesitated to

attest them as facts, we, greatly astonished, have been compelled to write

this letter to thee. And what agitation and sadness have been caused to us

all in common and to each of us individually by the ordination performed

by thee in parishes not pertaining to thee, we are unable sufficiently to

express. We have not delayed, however, by a short statement, to prove thy

practice wrong.



In the law of our fathers and forefathers, of which thou also art not

thyself ignorant, it is established, according to the divine and

ecclesiastical order (for it is all for the good pleasure of God and the

zealous regard for better things), that it has been determined and settled

by them that it is not lawful for any bishop to perform ordinations in

other parishes than his own. This law is exceedingly important and wisely

devised. For, in the first place, it is but right that the conversation

and life of those who are ordained should be examined with great care;

and, in the second place, that all confusion and turbulence should be done

away with. For every one shall have enough to do in managing his own

parish, and in finding, with great care and many anxieties, suitable

subordinates among those with whom he has passed his whole life, and who

have been trained under his hands. But thou, considering none of these

things, nor regarding the future, nor considering the law of our holy

Fathers and those who have put on Christ in long succession, nor the honor

of our great bishop and father, Peter,(89) on whom we all depend in the

hope which we have in the Lord Jesus Christ, nor softened by our

imprisonments and trials, and daily and multiplied reproaches, nor the

oppressions and distress of all, hast ventured on subverting all things at

once. And what means will be left for thee for justifying thyself with

respect to these things?



But perhaps thou wilt say, I did this to prevent many from being drawn

away with the unbelief of many, because the flocks were in need and

forsaken, there being no pastor with them. Well, but it is most certain

that they were in no such destitution; in the first place, because there

were many going among them and able to visit them; and, in the second

place, even it there were some things neglected by them, representation

should have come from the people, and we should have duly considered the

matter. But they knew that they were in no want of ministers, and

therefore they did not come to seek thee. They knew that either we were

wont to warn them from such complaint or there was done, with all

carefulness, what seemed profitable; for it was done under correction and

all was considered with well-approved honesty. Thou, however, giving such

careful attention to the deceits of certain men and their vain words,(90)

hast, as it were, stealthily leaped forward to the performance of

ordinations. For if, indeed, those accompanying thee constrained thee to

this and compelled thee and were ignorant of the ecclesiastical order,

thou oughtest to have followed the rule and have informed us by letter;

and in that way what seemed expedient would have been done. And if

perchance some persuaded thee to credit their story, who said to thee that

it was all over with us--a matter which could not have been unknown to

thee, because there were many passing and repassing by us who might visit

thee--even if this had been so, yet oughtest thou to have waited for the

judgment of the superior father and his allowance of this thing. But

thinking nothing of these matters, and hoping something different, or

rather having no care for us, thou hast provided certain rulers for the

people. For now we learn that there are also divisions, because thy

unwarrantable ordination displeased many.



And thou wert not readily persuaded to delay such procedure or restrain

thy purpose, no, not even by the word of the Apostle Paul, the most

blessed seer and the man who put on Christ, the Apostle of us all; for he,

in writing to his dearly loved Timothy, says: "Lay hands suddenly on no

man, neither be partaker of other men's sins." [I Tim. 5:22.] And thus he

at once shows his own consideration of him, and gives his example and

exhibits the law according to which, with all carefulness and caution,

candidates are chosen for the honor of ordination. We make this

declaration to thee, that in the future thou mayest study to keep within

the safe and salutary limits of the law.





(b) Fragment on the Meletian Schism. (MSG, 10:1567.)





For the connection of the Meletians with Arianism, see Socrates,

Hist. Ec., I, 6. Text in Routh, op. cit., IV, 94.





Meletius received and read this epistle, and he neither wrote a reply, nor

repaired to them in prison, nor went to the blessed Peter [bishop of

Alexandria]. But when all these bishops, presbyters, and deacons had

suffered in the prison,(91) he at once entered Alexandria. Now in that

city there was a certain person, Isidorus by name, turbulent in character,

and possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And there was also a

certain Arius, who wore the habit of piety and was in like manner

possessed with the ambition of being a teacher. And when they discovered

the object of Meletius's passion and what it was he sought, hastening to

him and regarding with malice the episcopal authority of the blessed

Peter, that the aim and desire of Meletius might be made manifest, they

discovered to Meletius certain presbyters, then in hiding, to whom the

blessed Peter had given authority to act as diocesan visitors for



Alexandria. And Meletius, recommending them to improve the opportunity

given them for rectifying their error, suspended them for a time, and by

his authority ordained two persons in their places, one of whom was in

prison and the other in the mines. On learning these things, the blessed

Peter, with much endurance, wrote to the people of Alexandria in the

following terms. [See next selection.]





(c) Peter of Alexandria. Epistle to the Church in Alexandria. (MSG,

18:510.)





For Peter of Alexandria, see DCB. Peter was in hiding when he

wrote the following to the Alexandrian church in 306. He died 312

as a martyr.





Peter to the brethren in the Lord, beloved and established in the faith of

God, peace. Since I have discovered that Meletius acts in no way for the

common good, for he does not approve the letter of the most holy bishops

and martyrs, and invading my parish, has assumed so much to himself as to

endeavor to separate from my authority the priests and those who had been

intrusted with visiting the needy, and, giving proof of his desire for

pre-eminence, has ordained in the prison several unto himself; now take ye

heed to this and hold no communion with him, until I meet him in company

with some wise men, and see what designs they are which he has thought

upon. Fare ye well.





(d) Epitaph of Eusebius, Bishop of Rome. Cf. Kirch, n. 534.





Schism of Heraclius.





The following epitaph was placed on the tomb of Eusebius, bishop of Rome

(April 18 to August 17, 310 A. D.), by Damasus, bishop of Rome (366-384.)



I, Damasus, have made this:

Heraclius forbade the fallen to lament their sin,

Eusebius taught the wretched ones to weep for their crimes.

The people was divided into parties by the increasing madness.

Sedition, bloodshed, war, discord, strife arose.

At once they were equally smitten by the ferocity of the tyrant.(92)

Although the guide of the Church(93) maintained intact the bonds of peace.

He endured exile joyful under the Lord as judge,

And gave up this earthly life on the Trinacrian shore.(94)