Meletius

(Μελέτιος), literary and ecclesiastical.

1. Of Antioch, an eminent Greek ecclesiastic of the fourth century. He was born at Melitene, near the right bank of the Euphrates, in the district of Melitene, in Armenia Minor. His parents were persons of rank, at least of respectable condition (Gregor. Nyssen. Oratio habit. in funere Meletii), and he probably inherited from them an estate which he possessed in Armenia. (Basil. Epist. 187, editt. vett., 99, ed. Benedict.) His gentleness of disposition, general excellence of charafter, and persuasive eloquence, acquired for him a high reputation: but his first bishopric, that of the Sebaste, in Armenia, in which he succeeded Eustathius [Eustathius, No. 7], apparently after the latter had been deposed in the council of Melitene (A. D. 357), proved so troublesome, through the contumacy of his people, that he withdrew from his charge and retired to Beroea, now Aleppo in Syria, of which city, according to one rendering of a doubtful expression in Socrates, he became bishop. The East was atthis time torn with the Arian controversy ; but the character of Meletius won the respect of both parties, and each appears to have regarded him as belonging to them, a result promoted by his dwelling, in his discourses, on practical rather than polemical subjects. According to Philostorgius he feigned himself an Arian, and subscribed the Confession of the Western bishops, probably that of Ariminum; and, according to Socrates, he subscribed the creed of the Acacians, at Selenceia in A. D. 359. These concurrent testimonies fix on him the charge either of instability or dissimulation. Still his real tendency to the Homoousian doctrine was known to or suspected by many; and, therefore, when, by the influence of Acacius and the Arians, he was appointed to the see of Antioch (A. D. 360 or 361), all the bishops, clergy, and people of the city and neighbourhood, Arians and Orthodox, went out to meet him. Even the Jews and Heathens flocked to see a person who had already attained so great celebrity. For a time, but apparently a very short time, he confined himself to practical subjects, avoiding or speaking ambiguously on the doctrines in dispute between the contending parties, but presently gave more open indications of his adherence to the orthodox party. It was probably to draw out his sentiments more distinctly that he was desired by the emperor Constantius to give an exposition of the passage, Prov. 8.22. [Georgius, No. 29.] He was preceded in the pulpit by George of Laodiceia and by Acacius of Caesareia, who gave explanations more or less heterodox; and when Meletius in his turn came to speak, ann avowed his adherence to the orthodox doctrine, a scene of great excitement ensued, the people applauding, and the Arians among the clergy, especially the archdeacon, attempting to stop his mouth. Determined now to get rid of him, the Arians charged him with Sabellianism, and persuaded the emperor to depose him and banish him, apparently on a charge either of perjury or of having violated the discipline of the church, to his native country, Melitene, while Euzoius was appointed bishop of Antioch in his room (A. D. 361). This step led to an immediate and extensive schism: the orthodox party broke off from the communion of the Arians, and met in the church of the Apostles, in what was called the old town of Antioch. There had been a previous secession of the more zealous part of the orthodox on occasion of the deposition of Eustathius (A. D. 331),butthetwo seceding bodies remained separate, the Eustathians objecting that Meletius had been ordained by Arians. On the accession of the emperor Julian Meletius returned to Antioch (A. D. 362), and the most earnest endeavours were made to reconcile the two sections of the orthodox party: but though the death of Eustathius seemed to present a fair opportunity for such reconciliation, all the efforts made were frustrated by the intemperate zeal of Lucifer of Cagliari [Lucifer], who ordained Paulinus bishop of the Eustathians. Meanwhile, Arians appear to have retained possession of most of the churches, the orthodox having one or two assigned for their use, of which, however, on the accession of the emperor Valens, they were deprived, and Meletius was again (A. D. 365?) banished from the city. According to Tillemont, who grounds his assertion on two passages of Gregory Nyssen (ibid.), Meletius was twice banished under Valens, or three times in all, which supposes a return from his first banishment under that prince. Gregory's assertion, however, is not corroborated by any of the ecclesiastical historians; and we have no means of determining the dates of Meletius's return and subsequent exile, if they really took place. Tillemont thinks he was recalled in A. D. 367 at latest, and places his last banishment in A. D. 371. During his exile his party were directed by Flavian and Diodorus. [Flavianus, No. 1; Diodorus, No. 3.] He was recalled on the death of Valens A. D. 378, but the edict of Gratian, which recalled all those who were in exile, allowed the Arians (who had chosen Dorotheus their bishop in the room of Euzoius, now deceased) to retain the churches which they occupied; however they were after a time delivered up to Meletius, who again manifested his anxiety to heal the schism between his own party and the Eustathians; but his equitable offers were rejected by his more tenacious rival Paulinus. In A. D. 381 Meletius was at Constantinople at the second general council, and died in that city during its session. His body was conveyed with great honour to Antioch, and deposited close to the tomb of the martyr Babylas. His funeral oration, pronounced by Gregory Nyssen, is extant. There is no reason to doubt the truth of the encomiums bestowed on the gentleness of his temper and general kindness of his disposition: that these very qualities, combined perhaps with indifference to the points in dispute, rendered him more pliant in the earlier part of his life than was consistent with strict integrity, at least with consistency. But from the time of his elevation to the see of Antioch, there is no need to doubt his consistent adherence to what he judged to be the truth. In the Western church, indeed, which fraternized with the ultra party of the Eustathians, his reputation was lower: he was regarded as an Arian, and it was long before the imputation was removed. A short piece, ascribed to Athanasius, and published with his works (vol. ii. p. 30, ed. Benedict.), but the genuineness of which is very doubtful, charges him with hypocrisy. He enjoyed the friendship of Basil and other leading men of the orthodox party. Epiphanius has spoken favourably of him, but Jerome is less favourable, owing, probably, to his connection with Paulinus.

Meletius was succeeded in the see of Antioch by Flavian [Flavianus, No. 1], under whom the Eustathian schism was at length healed, and the suppression of the Arians under Theodosius the Great restored for a while the unity of the see.

The Greek Church honours his memory on February the 12th, and the Latin Church at last received him into the calendar on the same day. Works Sermon at Antioch

A part of the first sermon preached by Meletius at Antioch has been preserved by Epiphnius, and is given in the Biblotheca Patrum of Galland, vol. v. A synodical epistle to the emperor Jovian

given by Socrates (H. E. 3.25), and Sozomen (H. E. 6.4). Editions

reprinted in the Concilia, vol. i. col. 741, ed. Hardouin, and in the Bibliotheca of Galland, vol. v., may perhaps be ascribed to him. Further Information

Socrates, H. E. 2.43, 44, 3.6, 9, 4.2, 5.3, 5, 9; Sozomen, H. E. 4.25, 28, 5.12, 13, 6.7, 7.3, 7. 8, 10; Theodoret. H. E. 2.31, 3.3, 4, 4.13, 25, 5.3, 8; Philostorg. H. E. 5.1, 5; Greg. Nvssen. Orat. in Fun. Meletii habita; Basil. Epistolae, i. lvi. lvii. Iviii. lix. lxiv. cclxxiii. cccxxi. cccxxv. cccxlix. editt. vett., or lvii. lxvii. lxviii. lxxxix. cxx. cxxix. ccx. ccxiv. cclviii. cclxvi. edit. Benedict.; Epiph. Haeres. 73.28-35; Hieron. in Chronico; Concilia, vol. i. p. 731, 741, ed. Hardouin ; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. viii. p. 341, &c.; Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 360, vol. i. p. 223, ed. Oxford, 1740-43; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. p. 304; Galland. Biblioth. Patrum. Proleg. ad Vol. V. c. 11; Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. i. col. 423, vol. ii. col. 713, &c., 781.

2. Iatrosophista. [No. 6.]

3. Of Lycopolis, a schismatical bishop of the third and fourth centuries. There is a remarkable discrepancy in the accounts given of this person. According to Athanasius, whose contests with the Meletians render his testimony less trustworthy, Meletius, who was bishop of Lycopolis in Upper Egypt at the time of the persecution under Diocletian and his successors, yielded to fear and sacrificed to idols; and being subsequently deposed, on this and other charges, in a synod, over which Petrus or Peter, bishop of Alexandria, presided, determined to separate from the church, and to constitute with his followers a separate community. Epiphanius, on the other hand, relates that both Peter and Meletius being in confinement for the faith, differed concerning the treatment to be used toward those who, after renouncing their Christian profession, became penitent and wished to be restored to the communion of the Church. He states that Peter, who was willing to receive them, was opposed by Meletius, who was next to Peter in influence, and had, in fact, the larger number of followers on this question: and the schism which arose on this account he represents as owing rather to the former than to the latter. Although the ecclesiastical historians Socrates and Theodoret have adopted, wholly or partially, the account of Athanasius, the statement of Epiphanius is the more probable. Had Meletius been convicted, as Athanasius states, it is hardly probable that either he would have been able to raise and keep up so formidable a schism, or that the Council of Nice (which left him the title of bishop, though it deprived him of the power to ordain) would have dealt so leniently with him. The Council allowed those whom he had ordained to retain the priestly office, on condition of re-ordination, and of their yielding precedence to those whose first ordination had been regular. The schisn begun in prison was continued in the mines of Phaeinon, in Arabia Petraea, to which Meletius and others were banished, and after their release. Meletius ordained bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and kept his followers a distinct body, under the title of " the Church of the Martyrs." He even extended his sect into Palestine, where he visited Jerusalem, Eleutheropolis, and Gaza, and ordained many in those towns to the priesthood. In this state matters remained till the Nicene Council (A. D. 325), the sentence of which has been already Mentioned. The synodical letter to the Egyptian clergy, which notifies the sentence, gives no informaation as to the origin of the schism: it describes, indeed, Meletius as disorderly, hasty, and headstrong; characteristics more in harmony with the conduct ascribed to him by Epiphanius, than with the charges of Athanasius.

There is no dispute that the theological sentiments of the Meletians were at first what is deemed orthodox; and, according to Epiphanius. Meletius was the first to detect the heretical teachings ,f Arius, and to report them to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. Meletius died very shortly after the Council of Nice, for Alexander, who himself only survived the council about five months, lived long enough to persecute the followers of Meletius after their leader's death, because, deeming Meletius illtreated, they would not accept the terms of reconciliation offered by the Council. The schism continued under the leadership of John Arcaph, whom Meletius had appointed to succeed him [Joannes, No. 16]; sand the Meletians co-operated with the Arians in their hostility to Athanasius [Athanasius] ; an alliance more conducive to the gratification of their revenge than to the maintenance of their orthodoxy. (Athanas. Apol. contra Arian. 100.59; Epiphan. Haeres. 68.1-5; Socrat. H. E. 1.6, 9; Sozomen, H. E. 1.24, 2.21; Theodoret. H. E. 1.9; Tillemont, Memoires, vol. v. p. 453, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christian.vol. ii. col. 598.)

4. Of MELITENE. [No. 1.]

5. Medicus. [See below.]

6. Monachus, the Monk. [See below.]

7. Of Mopsuestia, an ardent supporter of the unfortunate Nestorius [Nestorius], of Constantinople.

He succeeded the celebrated Theodore as bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia [Theodorus Mopsuestenus], probably in or about A. D. 427. lHe supported John, patriarch of Antioch [Joannes, No. 9], in his opposition to the hasty and unjust deposition of Nestorius by Cyril of Alexandria and his party [Cyrillus, St. of Alexandria], in the third general (Ephesian) council, A. D. 431 and when John was induced to come to terms with Cyril and to join in condemning Nestorius, Meletius persisted in supporting the cause of the deposed patriarch, and refused to hold communion with either Cyril or John, denouncing such communion as diabolical; and when the latter sent a conciliatory letter to him, he threw it in the messenger's face. Being forcibly expelled front his see by the emperor Theodosius II., at the desire of John, on account of his pertinacious support of Nestorius, he induced many persons to secede from the church, and, forming them into separate communities, continued to exercise the priestly office among them. This being regarded as an aggravation of his offence, he was banished by the emperor's order, issued at John's instigation, to Melitene in Armenia Minor, and placed in the charge of Acacius, bishop of that city, from whom he endured much hard usage. In this exile Meletius died, retaining his zeal for the cause of Nestorius till the last. Works Epistles

From these letters of Meletius, and from other letters in the same collection, the foregoing facts of his history are derived. The letters of Meletius are contained in Cap. seu Epist. 92 (not 82, as Cave has it), 119, 124, 141, 145, 155, 158, 163, 171,174, and 177, in the work of Lupus. The memorandum of his death is in Cap. 190. In the editions of Garnier and Schulze they are Epist. 76, 101, 105, 121,125, 133, 136, 141, 149, 152, 155. The memorandum of Meletius' death is inserted after Epist. 164. Editions

Various epistles of Meletius were published in a Latin version, in the Ad Ephesinum Concilium Variorum Patrum Epistolae of Christianus Lupus of Ypres, 4to. Louvain, 1682; and were re-published by Baluzius, in his Nova Concilior. Collectio, by Garnier, in his Auctarium Theodoreti, fol. Paris, 1684, and by Schulze, in his edition of Theodoret, 5 vols. 8vo., Halae, 1769-1774. Further Information

Cave, Hist. Litt. ad ann. 428, vol. i. p. 414 ;-Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, vol ii. col. 891; Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. ix. p. 305, vol. x. p. 348; Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. xiv.

8. Philosophus. [See below.]

9. Scriptor de Azymis. Works Περὶ τῶν ἀζύμων, De Azymis

There are extant two short treatises, Περὶ τῶν ἀζύμων, De Azymis, one of them being a compendium or abridgment of the other, which in the MSS. are ascribed to Joannes Damascenus [Damascenus]. But Le Quien has observed that they are not his: they distinctly deny the general tradition of the fathers, that our Lord celebrated the passover with his disciples the day before the regular time, which tradition Damascenus certainly held. But this is not the only evidence; an anonymous preface to the larger tract states, that it was written by "one Meletius, a pious man (θεοφόρος), and a diligent student of the Scriptures," and was addressed to one Syncellus, who had asked his opinion on the subject. Of the time or place where this Meletius lived nothing is known. Editions

They are inserted by Le Quien in his edition of the works of that father (Opera Damasceni, fol. Paris, 1712, vol. i. p. 647.) Further Information

Fabric. Biblioth. Graec. vol. ix. p. 307.

10. Of Tiberiopolis. [Seebelow.] [J.C.M]

(Μελέτιος), the author of a short Greek work, entitled Περί τῆς τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου Κατασκευῆς, De Natura (or Fabrica) Hominis.

He appears from the inscription at the beginning of the work to have been a Christian and a monk, and to have belonged to the city of Tiberiopolis in Phrygia Magna. The time at which he lived is unknown, but he probably cannot be placed earlier than the sixth or seventh century after Christ. Works Περί τῆς τοῦ Ἀνθρώπου Κατασκευῆς, De Natura (or Fabrica) Hominis.

His work (the subject-matter of which is sufficiently indicated by the title) is interesting, and evidently written by a religious man, but is of no particular value in a physiological point of view. Editions Latin Edition

It was first published in a Latin translation by Nicolaus Petreius, Venet. 1552, 4to. Greek Edition

The Greek text, though existing in MS. in several European libraries, remained unpublished till 1836, when Dr. Cramer inserted in the third volume of his " Anecdota Graeca," 8vo. Oxon. It is badly edited, and the text contains numerous errors, some arising from the editor's evident ignorance of the subject-matter of the treatise, and others apparently from haste and carelessness. The beginning of the work was published by Fred. Ritschel, Vratislav. 4to. 1837. Further Information

There is an essay by L. E. Bachmann, entitled "Quaestio de Meletio Graece inedito, ejusque Latino Interprete Nic. Petreio," Rostoch. 4to. 1833. Commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates

It is uncertain whether this is the same person who wrote a commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates, some extracts from which are inserted by Dietz in the second volume of his " Scholia in Hippocratem et Galenum," Regim. Pruss. 8vo. 1834. It is indeed doubtful whether the commentary is the work of Meletius or Stephanus Atheniensis. Letter of St. Basil addressed to a physician named Meletius

One of the letters of St. Basil, dated A. D. 375 (Epist. 193, vol. iii. p. 285, ed. Bened.) is addressed to a physician named Meletius, who is called by the title Archiater, but of whom no particulars are known. [W.A.G]