Listed 7 sub titles with search on: Religious figures biography for wider area of: "MALATYA Province TURKEY" .
d. 4th century, feastday: April 19
Meletius of Antioch. Bishop, b. in Melitene, Lesser Armenia; d. at Antioch, 381.
Before occupying the see of Antioch he had been Bishop of Sebaste, capital of
Armenia Prima. Socrates supposes a transfer from Sebaste to Ber?a and thence to
Antioch; his elevation to Sebaste may date from the year 358 or 359. His sojourn
in that city was short and not free from vexations owing to popular attachment
to his predecessor Eustathius. Asia Minor and Syria were troubled at the time
by theological disputes of an Arian, or semi-Arian character. Under Eustathius
(324-330) Antioch had been one of the centres of Nicene orthodoxy. This great
man was set aside, and his first successors, Paulinus and Eulalius held the see
just a short time (330-332). Others followed, most of them unequal to their task,
and the Church of Antioch was rent in twain by schism. The Eustathians remained
an ardent and ungovernable minority in the orthodox camp, but details of this
division escape us until the election of Leonatius (344-358). His sympathy for
the Arian heresy was open, and his disciple ?tius preached pure Arianism which
did not hinder his being ordained deacon. This was too much for the patience of
the orthodox under the leadership of Flavius and Diodorus. ?tius had to be removed.
On the death of Leontius, Eudoxius of Germanicia, one of the most influential
Arians, speedily repaired to Antioch, and by intrigue secured his appointment
to the vacant see. He held it only a short time, was banished to Armenia, and
in 359 the Council of Seleucia appointed a successor named Annanius, who was scarcely
installed when he was exiled. Eudoxius was restored to favour in 360, and made
Bishop of Constantinople, whereby the Antiochene episcopal succession was re-opened.
From all sides tbishops assembled for the election. The Acacians were the dominant
party. Nevertheless the choice seems to have been a compromise. Meletius, who
had resigned his see of Sebaste and who was a personal friend of Acacius, was
elected. The choice was generally satisfactory, for Meletius had made promises
to both parties so that orthodox and Arians thought him to be on their side.
Meletius doubtless believed that truth lay in delicate distinctions,
but his formula was so indefinite that even to-day, it is difficult to seize it
with precision. He was neither a thorough Nicene nor a decided Arian. Meanwhile
he passed alternately for an Anomean, an Homoiousian, an Homoian, or a Neo-Nicene,
seeking always to remain outside any inflexible classification. It is possible
that he was yet uncertain and that he expected from the contemporary theological
ferment some new and ingenious doctrinal combination, satisfactory to himself,
but above all non-committal. Fortune had favoured him thus far; he was absent
from Antioch when elected, and had not been even sounded concerning his doctrinal
leanings. Men were weary of interminable discussion, and the kindly, gentle temper
of Meletius seemed to promise the much- desired peace. He was no Athanasius, nor
did unheroic Antioch wish for a man of that stamp. The qualities of Meletius were
genuine; a simple life, pure morals, sincere piety and affable manners. He had
no transcendent merit, unless the even harmonious balance of his Christian virtues
might appear transcendent. The new bishop held the affection of the large and
turbulent population he governed, and was esteemed by such men as St. John Chrysostom,
St. Gregory Nazianzen, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Basil, and even his adversary
St. Epiphanius. St. Gregory Nazianzen tells us that he was a very pious man, simple
and without guile, full of godliness; peace shone on his countenance, and those
who saw him trusted and respected him. He was what he was called, and his Greek
name revealed it, for there was honey in his disposition as well as his name.
On his arrival at Antioch he was greeted by an immense concourse of Christians
and Jews; every one wondered for which faction he would proclaim himself, and
already the report was spread abroad that he was simply a partisan of the Necene
Creed. Meletius took his own time. He began by reforming certain notorious abuses
and instructing his people, in which latter work he might have aroused enmity
had he not avoided all questions in dispute. Emperor Constans, a militant Arian,
called a conference calculated to force from Meletius his inmost thought. The
emperor invited several bishops then at Antioch to speak upon the chief test in
the Arian controversy. "The Lord possessed me in the beginning of His way" (Prov.,
viii, 22).
In the beginning Meletius was somewhat long and tedious, but exhibited
a great Scriptural knowledge. He cautiously declared that Scripture does not contradict
itself, that all language is adequate when it is a question of explaining the
nature of God's only begotten Son. One does not get beyond an approximation which
permits us to understand to a certain extent, and which brings us gently and progressively
from visible things to hidden ones. Now, to believe in Christ is to believe that
the Son is like unto the Father, His image, Who is in everything, creator of all;
and not an imperfect but an adequate image, even as the effect corresponds to
the cause. The generation of the only begotten Son, anterior to all time, carries
with it the concepts of subsistence, stability, and exclusivism. Meletius then
turned to moral considerations, but he had satisfied his hearers, chiefly by refraining
from technical language and vain discussion. The orthodoxy of the bishop was fully
established, and his profession of faith was a severe blow for the Arian party.
St. Basil wrote the hesitating St. Epiphanius that "Meletius was the first to
speak freely in favour of the truth and to fight the good fight in the reign of
Constans". As Meletius ended his discourse his audience asked him for a summary
of his teaching. He extended three fingers towards the people, then closed two
and said, "Three Persons are conceived in the mind but it as though we addressed
one only". This gesture remained famous and became a rallying sign. The Arians
were not slow to avenge themselves. On vague pretexts the emperor banished Meletius
to his native Armenia. He had occupied his see less than a month.
This exile was the immediate cuase of a long and deplorable schism
between the Catholics of Antioch, henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians.
The churches remaining in the hands of the Arians, Paulinus governed the Eustathians,
while Flavius and Diodorus were the chiefs of the Meletian flock. In every family
one child bore the name of Meletius, whose portrait was engraved on rings, reliefs,
cups, and the walls of apartments. Meletius went into exile in the early part
of the year 361. A few months later Emperor Constans died suddenly, and one of
the first measures of his successor Julian was to revoke his predecessor's decrees
of banishment. Meletius quite probably returned at once to Antioch, but his position
was a difficult one in presence of the Eustathians. The Council of Alexandria
(362) tried to re-establish harmony and put an end to the schism, but failed.
Both parties were steadfast in their claims, while the vehemence and injudiciousness
of the orthodox mediator increased the dissension, and ruined all prospects of
peace. Though the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the hot-headed
Lucifer Cagliari yielded to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead
of temporizing and awaiting Meletius's approaching return from exile, assisted
by two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader,
Paulinus. This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established
the schism. Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar
injustice of history that this division should be known as the Meletian schism
when the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for it. Meletius's return
soon followed, also the arrival of Eusebius of Vercelli, but he could accomplish
nothing under the circumstances. The persecution of Emperor Julian, whose chief
residence was Antioch, brought new vexations. Both factions of the orthodox party
were equally harassed and tormented, and both bore bravely their trials.
An unexpected incident made the Meletians prominent. An anti-Christian
writing of Julian was answered by the aforesaid Meletian Diodorus, whom the emperor
had coarsely reviled. "For many years", said the imperial apologist of Hellenism,
"his chest has been sunken, his limbs withered, his cheeks flabby, his countenance
livid". So intent was Julian upon describing the morbid symptoms of Diodorus that
he seemed to forget Bishop Meletius. The latter doubtless had no desire to draw
attention and persecution upon himself, aware that his flock was more likely to
lose than to gain by it. He and two of his chorepiscopi, we are told, accompanied
to the place of martyrdom two officers, Bonosus and Maximilian. Meletius also
is said to have sent a convert from Antioch to Jerusalem. This, and a mention
of the flight of all Antiochene ecclesiastics, led to the arbitrary supposition
that the second banishment of Meletius came during Julian's reign. Be that as
it may, the sudden end of the persecuting emperor and Jovian's accession must
have greatly shortened the exile of Meletius. Jovian met Meletius at Antioch and
showed him great respect. Just then St. Athanasius came to Antioch by order of
the emperor, and expresed to Meletius his wish of entering into communion with
him. Meletius, ill-advised, delayed answering him, and St. Athanasius went away
leaving with Paulinus, whom he had not yet recognized as bishop, the declaration
that he admitted him to his communion. Such blundering resulted in sad consequences
for the Meletian cause. The moderation constantly shown by Athanasius, who thoroughly
believed in Meletius's orthodoxy, was not found in his successor, Peter of Alexandria,
who did not conceal his belief that Meletius was an heretic. For a long time the
position of Meletius was contested by the very ones who, it seemed, should have
established it more firmly. A council of 26 bishops at Antioch presided over by
Meletius was of more consequence, but a pamphlet ascribed to Paulinus again raised
doubts as to the orthodoxy of Meletius. Moreover, new and unsuspected difficulties
soon arose.
Jovian's death made Arianism again triumphant and a violent persecution
broke out under Emperor Valens. At the same time the quiet but persistent rivalry
between Alexandria and Antioch helped the cause of Meletius. However illustrious
an Egyptian patriarch might be, the Christian episcopate of Syria and Asia Minor
was too national or racial, too self-centered, to seek or accept his leadership.
Athanasius, indeed, remained an authoritative power in the East, but only a bishop
of Antioch could unite all three who were now ready to frankly accept the Nicene
Creed. In this way the role of Meletius became daily more prominent. While in
his own city a minority contested his right to the see and questioned his orthodoxy,
his influence was spreading in the East, and from various parts of the empire
bishops accepted his leadership. Chalcedon, Ancyra, Melitene, Pergama, C?sarea
of Cappadocia, Bostra, parts of Syria and Palestine, looked to him for direction,
and this movement grew rapidly. In 363 Meletius could count on 26 bishops, in
379 more than 150 rallied around him. Theological unity was at least restored
in Syria and Asia Minor. Meletius and his disciples, however, had not been spared
by the Arians. While Paulinus and his party were seemingly neglected by them,
Meletius was again exiled (May, 365) to Armenia. His followers expelled from the
churches, sought meeting places for worship wherever they could. This new exile,
owing to a lull in the persecution, was of short duration, and probably in 367
Meletius took up again the government of his see. It was then that John, the future
Chrysostom, entered the ranks of the clergy. The lull was soon over. In 371 persecution
raged anew in Antioch, where Valens resided almost to the time of his death. At
this time St. Basil occupied the see of C?sarea (370) and was a strong supporter
of Meletius. With rare insight Basil thoroughly understood the situation, which
made impossible the restoration of religious peace in the East. It was clear that
the antagonism between Athanasius and Meletius protracted endlessly the conflict.
Meletius, the only legitimate Bishop of Antioch, was the only acceptable one for
the East; unfortunately he was going into exile for the third time. In these circumstances
Basil began negotiations with Meletius and Athanasius for the pacification of
the East.
Aside from the inherent difficulties of the situation, the slowness
of communication was an added hindrance. Not only did Basil's representative have
to travel from C?sarea to Armenia, and from Armenia to Alexandria, he also had
to go to Rome to obtain the sanction of Pope Damasus and the acquiescence of the
West. Notwithstanding the blunder committed at Antioch in 363, the generous spirit
of Athanasius gave hope of success, his sudden death, however (May, 373), caused
all efforts to be abandoned. Even at Rome and in the West, Basil and Meletius
were to meet with disappointement. While they wrought persistently to restore
peace, a new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius,
increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the disputes.
There were now three Antiochene churches that formally adopted the Nicene Creed.
The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately,
and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation,
once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to
the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any
declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus,
recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate
in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which
in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus,
encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil.
Though disheartened, the latter did not entirely give up hope of bringing the
West, especially the pope, to a fuller understanding of the situation of the Antiochene
Church. But the West did not grasp the complex interests and personal issues,
nor appreciate the violence of the persecution against which the orthodox parties
were struggling. In order to enlighten these well-intentioned men, closer relations
were needed and deputies of more heroic character; but the difficulties were great
and the "statu quo" remained.
After many disheartening failures, there was finally a glimpse of
hope. Two legates sent to Rome, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, returned in the spring
of 377, bringing with them cordial declarations which St. Basil instantly proceeded
to publish everywhere. These declarations pronounced anathemas against Arius and
the heresy of Apollinaris then spreading at Antioch, condemnations all the more
timely, as theological excitement was then at its highest in Antioch, and was
gradually reaching Palestine. St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without
having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and
Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but
which the pope did not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself
be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations
against Meletius and his following. In 378 Dorotheus and Sanctissimus returned
from Rome, bearers of a formal condemnation of the errors pointed out by the Orientals;
this decree definitively united the two halves of the Christian world. It seemed
as though St. Basil was but waiting for this object of all his efforts, for he
died 1 Jan., 379. The cause he had served so well seemed won, and Emperor Valens's
death five months earlier warranted a hopeful outlook. One of the first measures
of the new emperor, Gratian, was the restoration of peace in the Church and the
recall of the banished bishops. Meletius therefore was reinstated (end of 378),
and his flock probably met for worship in the "Palaia" or old church. It was a
heavy task for the aged bishop to re-establish the shattered fortunes of the orthodox
party. The most urgent step was the ordination of bishops for the sees which had
become vacant during the persecution. In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops
in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession
of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382).
The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the
Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult
move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor
to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution
Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals
were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement.
Meanwhile, a great council of Eastern bishops was convoked at Constantinople to
appoint a bishop for the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.
In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully
fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked
deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality
of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop
of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius
who enthroned him. The Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith,
but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end
was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and
peaced. The death of one whose firmness and gentleness had kindled great expectations
caused universal sorrow. The obsequies, at which Emperor Theodosius was present,
took place in the church of the Apostles. The funeral panegyrics were touching
and magnificent. His death blasted many hopes and justified grave forebodings.
The body was transferred from Constantinople to Antioch, where, after a second
and solemn funeral service, the body of the aged bishop was laid beside his predecessor
St. Babylas. But his name was to live after him, and long remained for the Eastern
faithful a rallying sign and a synonym of orthodoxy.
H. Lecrercq, ed.
Transcribed by: WGKofron
This text is cited July 2004 from The Catholic Encyclopedia, New Advent online edition URL below.
Acacius Reader at (A. D. 390), then the Bishop of Melitene (A. D. 431). He wrote A. D. 431, against Nestorius. His zeal led him to use expressions, apparently savouring of the contrary heresy, which, for a time, prejudiced the emperor Theodosius II. against St. Cyril. He was present at the Oecumenical Council of Ephesus A. D. 431, and constantly maintained its authority. There remain of his productions a Homily (in Greek) delivered at the Council, and a letter written after it to St. Cyril, which we have in a Latin translation.
Receive our daily Newsletter with all the latest updates on the Greek Travel industry.
Subscribe now!