The works of Nathaniel Lardner - The Christian Researcher - Home

240 Credibility of the Gospel History.
I do not reckon myself obliged to give a particular history
of that affair; but 1 beg liberty to say, that 1 cannot easily
assent to xAthanasius's account of the rise and occasion of it,
Avhich is to this purpose :
' Peter" in a full synod of bishops
' deposed 31eletius, an Egyptian bishop ; who was convicted
' of several crimes, and particularly of having sacrificed.
' Meletius neither appealed to another synod, nor took any
' pains to vindicate himself, but presently made a schism.
' And to this day^ his followers, instead of christians, are
' called Melctians. From that time Meletius took great
' liberties in calumniating Peter, and then Achillas.'
There are several considerations tending to weaken the
credit of this account: 1. Athanasius is a prejudiced person.
After the council of Nice, if not before, the Meletiansy
joined interests with the Arians ; and certainly they were
always enemies to the bishop of Alexandria. 2. Athanasius
writes with passion. Meletius, he says, was convicted of
many crimes ; but he does not name them : he only mentions
sacrificing. Nor is it likely that the Meletians quitted the
name of christians. They were often called Meletians by
others, and sometimes possibly by themselves : but to say
that instead of christians they were called Meletians, is invidious.
How unreasonable is this in Athanasius, when
Meletius and his followers at first, and for a good while, if
not all along, agreed with him in every point of doctrine !
Epiphanius,^ to \^hora* others assent, expressly says that
Meletius made a schism, but attempted not any innovation
in the faith. Nor does'' Athanasius differ from them. 3.
If Meletius had been convicted of apostasy, or of sacrificing
to idols in time of persecution, the sentence passed upon
him and his adherents in the council of Nice would have
been different. What it was may be seen in several '^ ancient
writers of ecclesiastical history. 4. Meletius"^ always com-
" OvroQ M(\iriov, airo Trjg AiyvTTTn XsyonivoT nnaKOTrov, tni TroXAatc;
e\iy)(9ev-a vapavofiiaiQ, Kai Bvmq., iv Koiv-g avvoSii) tojv tTnaKorrojv KadtiXsv,
K \. Athan. ap. conlr. Aiian. n. 97. T. i. p. 177.
" Knt ciVTi xptTtavoiv, MtXiriavoi /ifxP' '^^*' "' '"'/C SKtivs [itpiSoc ovofial^ovrai..
ibid. y Vid. Socrat. H. E. 1. i. c. G. p. 14. Sozom. 1. ii. c. 21.
^ Y-xiaiia tTTOitjTtv, « n>iv fitraWayfievoQ tt]v ttitiv ytytvvTjrai. Epiph.
H. 68. n. i. VkI. ib. rt-liqua. * AXXn Tmira fiiv ry iKicXrfata
ipncviov. Theodore!. H. E. 1. iv. c. 7. p. 239. AXX' ekuvoc ^uv aliv tujv tt]^
ivat(itiaQ ioyfiaTwv tKcavorofiijatv. Id. ib. p. 240.
•^ This appears, in that Athanasius calls the Arians heretics, the Meletians
schismatics only, and thus distinguisheth their several crimes. AXA' oi niv
TTpo 7rtvrt]Kovra kui Trtvrt tTwv ff^icr/iariKot ytyovaaiv' o't Se Trpo rpiaicovra ktoi
f'S iTojv antdnxOriaav a'iotnKot. k. X. Ep. ad EpifC. ^g. et Lib. n. 22. T. i. p.
203.