| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
 Bad Advertisement? Are you a Christian? Online Store: |
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
(Meletian schism, p. 259.) The date of the Meletian schism is very much in need of elucidation. I follow Neale, however, as follows: Athanasius places its origin a.d. 306 (according to Tillemont and Baronius) or a.d. 301; the latter more probable, as demonstrated by the Benedictine editors. But the dates are, perhaps, the least of the difficulties which encumber the whole matter. Somewhat distrustfully I have, after several efforts to construct an original elucidation, adopted the theory of Neale, as a diligent and conscientious inquirer whose Oriental studies qualify him to utter almost a decisive voice, albeit he never forgets his Occidentalism, and hence fails to speak with absolute fidelity to the spirit of Catholic antiquity. We know something of Lycopolis from the blessed Alexander; it seems to have been a sort of centre to the bishoprics of the Thebais. It was just the sort of centre, in a region sufficient for a separate patriarchate, to suggest to an ambitious and unscrupulous prelate an effort at independency. Meletius, who succeeded the good Alexander, was just the man to set up for himself; a man not unlikely to be stimulated by the bad example of Paul of Samosata, and by the ingenuity that triumphed over the first council that called Paul to account. Bearing all this in mind, we may accept Neale’s conviction that Meletius had long been a scandal to the churches, and in the time of persecution had lapsed, and sacrificed to idols. Peter summoned him to a council, by which he was convicted and degraded; whereupon he not only refused to submit, but arrogated to himself the cathedra of Alexandria, and began to ordain other bishops, and, in short, to reorganize its jurisdiction.2390
(Canonical Epistle, p. 279.) The judgment of Dupin is so exceptionally eulogistic touching these canons, that I quote it, as follows:2393
“Of all the canons of antiquity concerning the discipline of the lapsed, there are none more judicious or more equitable than those we have now described. There appear in them a wisdom and prudence altogether singular in tempering the rigours of punishment by a reasonable moderation, without which justice would be weakened. He examines carefully all the circumstances which might augment or diminish the quality of the crime; and as he does not lengthen out penance by methods too severe, so neither does he deceive the sinner by a facility too remiss.” Like the famous Canonical Epistles of St. Basil, however, these are compilations of canons accepted by the churches of his jurisdiction. Dupin says of those of Basil2394
In the study of these volumes a table is useful, such as I find it convenient to place here, showing the Ante-Nicene succession of Cæsars. 1. Augustus—1 2. Tiberius—14 19. Didius Julianus (Niger)—193 24. Alexander Severus—222 29. Philip—244 38. Carus (Carinus, Numerian)—282 43. Constantine the Great (Licinius, Etc.)—307 Suetonius includes Julius, and therefore his Twelve Cæsars end with Domitian, the last of the Flavian family. With Nerva the “five good emperors” (so called) begin, but the “good Aurelius” was a persecutor. St. John, surviving the cruelty of Domitian, lived and died under Trajan. The “vision of Constantine” is dated, at Treves, a.d. 312. The Labarum became the Roman standard thenceforth. The Dominical ordinance dates from Milan, June 2, a.d. 321. He founds the city of Constantinople a.d. 324, convokes the Council of Nicæa a.d. 325.
 |
