My, my, my, Melitius

Engaged in a bit of religious skullduggery the other day, I was not too surprised when a monkish cleric whispered mischeviously in my ear: 'Ruth, remember the Melitian schism.'  Which one, I wondered? There were two, both in the fourth century. But I assume he meant the first. The world's leading expert on Melitius and his co-conservative, Arius (both pictured here) is of course none other than our own Father Rowan Williams. This is relevant today because of the debates sparked at StandFirm and Thinking Anglicans by the publication of the St Andrew's draft of the Anglican Covenant.

Even though Melitius lived and preached back in the fourth century, the parallels between then and now are obvious. Melitius broke clear rules already in place about not interfering in the provinces of others by ordaining pastors for himself in St Peter of Alexandria's patch of ecclesiastical territory. But Melitius would have argued that Peter's liberal theology made his actions necessary.

The problem was that St Peter's priests had been imprisoned or killed in the persecution of Diocletian. Those who escaped during a short break in Diocletian's mad tortures were allowed by Peter to return to the fold. But Melitius, Bishop of Lycopolis in Egypt, thought Peter had been too lax. As a result he set about creating his own, true church, aided by his priestly chum Arius. He started ordaining his own priests. In his book on Arius, Rowan Williams describes how four Egyptian imprisoned bishops wrote to their new bishop of Lycopolis, who was Melitius, complaining that he 'had entered their dioceses and performed ordinations, contrary to established law and custom.' They disputed Melitius' argument that there was 'grave pastoral need.'

Rowan Williams has dug out and translated a fascinating ancient codex from the Chapter Library at Verona to describe what happened next. Melitius waited until these poor imprisoned bishops had been martyred, along with their priests, and then: 'There was a man called Isidore in the city, a regular troublemaker, eager to be a teacher [or, eager to run his own faction]; and also a certain Arius, who had an outward appearance of piety, and he too was eager to be a teacher... they lost no time in joining up with him [Melitius], being envious of the authority of blessed Peter.'

The Archbishop writes that we are 'left with a straightforward picture of Melitius as an episcope vagans taking full advantage of the disorder of the Church in the Delta between 306 and 311 to establish a firmly-rooted rival jurisdiction, unhampered by the attentions of the persecutors.'

This was where Peter, a good bishop and revered saint to this day, made his mistake. Understandably angry, he excommunicated Melitius. Communion, already impaired, was finally broken. A monastic community, Melitius' church survived for a further four centuries, for about as long as the Anglican Church has survived since the Reformation in fact.

Inspired by Melitius, Arius went on to become one of the greatest heretics that has ever lived.

When he summoned the first Council of Nicea in 325, with the aim of securing unity in the face of Arius' teachings, Constantine invited all the 318 bishops, heretics and rebels alike. Admittedly, a couple among them were deposed and banished afterwards, but the council still led to the beginnings of a Creed which sustains churches of all denominations to this day.

I can't help thinking that one of the lessons of this enlightening tale is that Rowan Williams should have ignored the precedent of his immediate predecessor and looked a bit further back in history to Constantine. He should have invited Martyn Minns, Gene Robinson and indeed everyone else to Lambeth. It is possible then we might not now be facing the prospect of up to a quarter of Anglican bishops, including most from Sydney, Nigeria, Ugnanda, Rwanda and probably Kenya, not attending. And just think of the fascinating anathemas we'ld have had afterwards!

Instead, Bishop Robinson will be in Kent as a sort of invitee vagans and all the rest will be at Gafcon. And I understand that Gafcon, after all the dispute in Jerusalem, will probably be moved to Amman in Jordan for the first half, with a second half 'pilgrimage' in Jerusalem, a journey that will take it almost in the footsteps of Melitius himself.

The luxury of being able to indulge in writing posts such as this one is what I most love about my job. Please forgive me if some of the detail is wrong. 'It's complicated,' as we say on Facebook. I'm relying on all of you to correct my errors. In every sense.

Comments

[Michael Stevens]

"It's complicated" - But Ruth, you make it clear.

[Timothy Edwards]

Ruth,

The interesting comparison that struck me on reading the above was with Athanasius, the great champion of Nicene orthodoxy.

The reason that that struck me as relevant was because Athanasius too ordained presbyters (and, if memory serves, at least one bishop - wanting to be cautious about making statements for which I cannot at this precise moment provide evidence) outside of his own area of jurisdiction.

[Doug Chaplin]

The most intriguing thing about this story is that, in the end, it's the conservatives who end up in serious heresy.

[John]

Such an untidy world! But was not the great theologian St Augustine - no less - irregularly consecrated as Bishop Coadjutor of Hippo?

Sometimes the rules prove less important than the gospel which they are meant to safeguard.

[Stephen]

A timely reminder that 'there is nothing new under the sun'. I'd be curious to know who the erudite 'monkish cleric' is. If he's Anglican the list won't be a long one.

[William Tighe]

On Athanasius ordaining presbyters (and others among his friends ordaining even bishops), see:

http://touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-03-036-f

[Malcolm+]

John: "Sometimes the rules prove less important than the gospel which they are meant to safeguard."

In other words: "Rules are rules when they apply to someone else, but they are dispensible when they apply to me."

Now John will doubtless tell me that this thread is really about the use of altar candles in the Diocese of Qunicy.

[John]

The first Bishop in the United States was consecrated "irregularly". No doubt Malcolm would have condemned the Scottish bishops who carried out the consecration.

[pendennis88]

I think that it is a mistake to work too hard to stretch past events to cover current controversies. Would the Melitians be the Anglicans separating from the Church of Rome? Or would they be the Methodists? Probably a closer parallel is between the elitist position of TEC and the Arians, though I think it is a stretch to tie TEC's experential theology to Arianism's view of Christ just as it is a stretch to tie orthodox Anglican views on repentence to that of the Melitians. Ultimately, I think the lesson of history, if there is one, is that the theology most closely based on scripture tends to win in the long run. Though even there, it has helped to have the emperor on your side.

[Malcolm+]

There was no bishop with jurisdiction in the United States following the revolution.

The Church of England (who arguably would have had a claim to jurisdiction) had no objection to consecrating a bishop for the United States, and would happily have done so themselves were it not for a canonical technicality.

QED, no irregularity.

By analogy, therefore, were Peter Abuja wandering about consecrating bishops for Antarctica (where, to my knowledge, no Anglican bishop claims jurisdiction) I would have no issue with it.

[John]

The parishes of the Church in America were under the jurisdiction of the Church of England. The Episcopal Church in Scotland was a continuing church, in today's terminology. Bishop Seabury therefore began as an episcopus vagans but you have no difficulty with such a "canonical technicality" when it suits you, Malcolm. Suddenly boundaries are irrelevant and canon law no longer matters! Welcome to the real world.

[Malcolm+]

John, John, John. I refer you again to the ninth commandment.

The Bishops of the Church of England could have made a claim to ecclesiastical jurisdiction over the former American colonies. They did not.

Indeed, they very clearly took the view that they were prepared to consecrate Seabury. What constrained them was not an objection to the American church developing its own indigenous leadership, but rather a particular legal issue in England that any bishop they would consecrate would have to take an oath to the British sovreign.

You are entitled to your own opinion, John. You are not entitled to your own facts.

For the good of your soul, John, ponder the ninth commandment and stop telling fibs on line.

[Oliver NIcholson]

For what it's worth there were not 318 bishops at Nicaea. Eusebius of Caesarea who was there says 'over 250' (Vita Con. III,8). The number 318 became current because it is the number of Abraham's household in Genesis 14, 14 - Constantine was no doubt fancied as the new Abraham (as well as the new Moses).

You might also mention that despite his approval of flight from persecution Peter of Alexandria was eventually martyred. The charitable line is sometimes more productive of heroic witness than the hard line.

[John]

The facts are to be found in the recent history of the Episcopal Church in America by the former Scottish Primus, Ted Luscombe.

I suggest you acquaint yourself, Malcolm, with the facts.

[Malcolm+]

So, which fact are you disputing, John? Are you claiming that the Church of England was still claiming ecclesiastical jurisdiction? That would simply be false. The Church of England had no objection to the establishment of an American episcopate, and were only precluded from consecrating Seabury by a canonical technicality that was actually irrelevant to the matter at hand - and which was soon corrected.

You can tout your fabrication about Seabury's irregular consecration all you want. It won't make your latest slander true.

You really have no remit to lecture anyone else on facts, dear John, since you seem to have so little use for them yourself.

[John]

Malcolm, your ignorance is spectacularly invincible! Again, I commend to you the book by Bp Luscombe, which will clear up some of your wilder mythologies.

The parishes in America were under the jurisdiction of the Diocese of London, and it was the Crown which refused to permit the consecration of a bishop. The consecration of Seabury was illegally carried out in a church which was itself a continuing church, because it had been outlawed by the Crown, and Seabury went to the colonies without the consent of the Crown, which was the lawful ecclesiastical jurisdiction, the political situation in the USA being a matter of civil, not ecclesiastical law.

By any definition this was illegal, and boundary-crossing, all the things which you are so ludicrously swift to condemn anywhere else. To this day the title deeds of many of the old parishes in New England show that they belong to the Church of England, and there are places scattered about in the Caribbean which are still formally under the jurisdiction of London.

You like to call Seabury's unlawful consecration a "canonical technicality". Just like the recent AMiA consecrations, and the CANA consecrations, which have provided bishops for Christians in the USA whose former church, ECUSA, has become formally apostate. In due course they will be the de jure Anglican bishops in the USA and history will view them with the same respect in which Bp Seabury is held.

[Malcolm+]

The Crown's objection was political.

The United States was an independent country.

Your analogy is false - and just another part of your usual pattern of trying to turn all discussions of on to irrelevant sidelines.

Your heroes are schismatics, dedicated to the fragmentation of the church and the imposition of a false puritan orthodoxy.

[Malcolm+]

BTW, your fanciful prediction about AMiA and CANA bishops becoming de jure is exactly the same deluded boast of every "continuing Anglican" splinter group from the RE until now.

Sorry, John. AMiA, CANA and the rest will simply join the assorted other "Anglican" alphabet soup jurisdictions as curious footnotes to the history of Anglicanism in North America.

Especially so since their foreign sponsors have all but severed their relationship with the Communion already.

[pendennis88]

Malcolm - You are channeling Clement VII!

[Malcolm+]

It is curious to see the "conservatives" looking to Rome and to the Kirk to defend their schismatical schemes.

[John]

Malcolm, ecclesiastical jurisdiction is not the same thing as political boundaries. Except when it suits you.

[David Kemball-Cook]

Ruth

You refer to the Nicene Creed as sustaining the faith of all denominations today. What about the many Christians who deny the Trinity, from the biblical unitarians to the oneness pentecostals? Perhaps you meant all 'orthodox' denominations - in which case your comment is not incorrect but is highly misleading.

For a criticism of the Trinity from a biblical perspective, you and readers might want to see my book 'Is God a Trinity?' available from Lulu.com (downloads are free). Briefly, there is no biblical evidence for the so-called 'threeness' of God anywhere in scripture, and verses that appear to speak of a Trinity or of ann Eternal Son have much better interpretations.

[Malcolm+]

Then let us look at the issue of ecclesiastical jurisdiction in your dishonest analogy.

FACT - The Church of England was not pressing a claim of jurisdiction in the Americas following the American Revolution.

FACT - The only reason the Church of England declined to consecrate Seabury was the secular legal requirement that any bishop they consecrated would have had to swear allegiance to the secular authority in the UK.

FACT - the Church of England acted soon afterwards to repair this quirk, and were thus able to assist the new American Church by consecrating subsequent bishops.

I realize that facts rather get in the way of your fuzzy-headed prejudice, but there you are.

[pendennis88]

FACT - someone is now channeling not Clement VII but Dwight Schrute II (couldn't resist - this is for fans of the US version of The Office not the UK version).

[Malcolm+]

I've never seen the show, Pendennis.

But I note you won't quibble with the facts.

Refreshing.

[pendennis88]

See the comments above. Yours are but distinctions without differences. But, really, stop with the Dwight Schrute impersonation.

[Malcolm+]

As indicated, never seen the show - and understand it isn't as insightful as the English version - which I likewise have never seen.

But I do see you've run out of substance.

Again.