MELETIUS (MELITIUS) of ANTIOCH, St. — Bishop of Antioch, born at Melitene in Second Armenia at the beginning of the 4th century, died at Constantinople in May 381. His name is linked to the history of the disturbances, the confusion of ideas, and the personal rivalries that the Arian reaction against Nicene orthodoxy unleashed at Antioch between 330 and 378. Two points in M.’s life raise difficult questions: that of the evolution of his personal opinions on the Trinitarian question, on which even the ancient sources are uncertain and divided; and that of the doctrinal nuances and terminological differences that emerged on the same subject among the various orthodox parties that clashed during his lifetime.
The explanation proposed by Loofs, based on the hypothesis of the existence, among the bishops of the second half of the 4th century, of a party called “Neo-Nicene,” of which M., together with the great Cappadocian leaders, would be a representative and which would have interpreted *homoousios*, contrary to the original meaning still held by the Alexandrians and the Westerners, as a single specific rather than numerical unity among the divine persons in God—an interpretation that would indirectly have introduced a true Tritheism into the Eastern Church and first fomented suspicions and misunderstandings between the two parties (M., Meletians, Cappadocians; Rome, Alexandria, and the Eustathians of Antioch), and finally a reconciliation based on the equivocal use of the common word *homoousios*, interpreted differently—this explanation must be set aside as unfounded. What remains is the reality of an evolution in M.’s own Trinitarian ideas: he began under suspicion of Semi-Arianism (v. ARIANISM) and only later attained clear orthodoxy through *homoousian* formulas. What also remains is the diversity of formulas between the two parties mentioned above for expressing a substantially identical doctrine, and finally the complicated personal issues. Here, in this sense, are the principal features of the turbulent events of M.’s life.
He appears in history from 338, the year in which he was elected to succeed the deposed Bishop Eustathius of Sebaste. In 360, through the efforts of Acacius of Caesarea, leader of the Arian Homoean faction, he was elevated to the see of Antioch, a sign that M. had until then held doctrinal positions that seemed to the Homoeans a sufficient guarantee.
St. Epiphanius considered him a Homoean of the party of Acacius (Haer., 73, 23; PG 42, 445 A) in conflict with the Homoean Arian faction led by Basil of Ancyra and Eustathius of Sebaste. The same Epiphanius seems to say that M. attended the Homoean Council of Seleucia (359; ibid., 445, 448 B), while Socrates and Philostorgius explicitly state that he signed the formulary of that synod (Hist. eccl., II, 44; PG 67, 356–57; Hist. eccl., V, 1, ed. J. Bidez [CB, 21], p. 67).
However, once installed at Antioch, M. so disappointed the hopes of the Homoeans and so strengthened the anti-Arian movement that the party of Acacius, barely a month after his arrival, obtained from the emperor Constantius that he be sent into exile (360–62). The motive was certainly substantially doctrinal, otherwise the Homoeans would not have insisted on certain pretexts of canonical irregularities in M.’s conduct. The orthodox tradition has seen in this a profession of Nicene faith and the true cause of his exile in the discourse delivered by M. before the emperor on the then much-debated text of Prov. 8:22 in the Arian controversies; this discourse is preserved by Epiphanius (Haer., 73, 29–33; PG 42, 457–65). In any case, Constantius replaced M. with an Arian sympathizer, Euzoius.
But the mass of anti-Arians remained loyal to M., and under the leadership of Flavian, his future successor, formed a community known as the Meletians. This community was separated not only from the Arians of Euzoius but also from a group of strict Nicene orthodox believers who, since 330, had remained faithful to the deposed orthodox bishop Eustathius of Antioch, had never recognized any other bishops, and, led by the priest Paulinus, were called Eustathians. The cause of this division of the orthodox into two factions was essentially a question of Trinitarian terminology. The Meletians accepted the formula that there is in God one substance or *ousia* (οὐσία) in three *hypostases* in the sense of persons, a formula that, by explicitly expressing the real distinction of the persons in God, seemed to them necessary to remove from Nicene doctrine any suspicion of Sabellianism; the Eustathians, on the other hand, suspected this formula of Arianism and, adhering—together with the Alexandrians and the Westerners—to the ancient terminology that identified *ousia* and *hypostasis*, said that there is in God a single *ousia*, i.e., *hypostasis*, and three *prosopa*, a formula that the Meletians suspected of Sabellianism.
The Synod of Alexandria in 362, presided over by Athanasius, recognized the legitimacy of both formulas (Tomus ad Antiochenos: PG 25, 796–809), but despite this the two orthodox communities at Antioch did not reconcile. Indeed, Paulinus, leader of the Eustathians, was irregularly consecrated bishop by the fiery Cagliari (v.), and shortly afterward (363) Athanasius himself, having found no response to his offer of communion to M. (cf. St. Basil, Ep., 189: PG 32, 472), seems to have granted it only to the Eustathians, so that thereafter the Church of Alexandria used all its influence in their favor at Rome.
At this point (363), M. appears to have engaged in a work of rallying around a formula that explained the Nicene *homoousios* with the expression “the same in essence,” a formula that was in any case so noncommittal that Acacius and his like could subscribe to it (Socrates, Hist. eccl., III, 25: PG 67, 452–56; Sozomen, Hist. eccl., VI, 4: ibid., 1301). M.’s position was then unclear to every party: the Eustathians rejected it (v. anonymous pamphlet: PG 38, 85–88); the Homoeans soon afterward obtained from Emperor Valens M.’s second and third exiles (365–67; 371–78); the Arian Homoeans, among whom were some of M.’s own friends, seem to have ignored him when they negotiated (c. 366) with Pope Liberius; and Rome, for no less than thirteen years more (366–79), held him in suspicion, giving its recognition and support to his Eustathian rival Paulinus. But St. Basil of Caesarea, who, despite his scrupulous orthodoxy, believed he had sufficient guarantees of M.’s right sentiments and judged that a rallying of all the orthodox in the East was possible only around M. himself, from 371 onward redoubled his efforts in M.’s favor both at Alexandria and at the court of Pope Damasus (many letters from 371–78: PG 32), not without occasionally letting slip in the course of negotiations expressions of disappointed bitterness at the practical attitude of these (Ep., 215: ibid., 32, 792).
Only after the civil power, under the orthodox emperor Gratian, restored to M.—returned from his third exile—the churches taken from the Arians and recognized him as the legitimate representative of the orthodox (378), and M. himself, together with 150 other bishops, had subscribed at an Antiochene synod in 379 to the doctrinal decisions of the Roman councils of the preceding years under Pope Damasus (v. Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 9: PG 82, 1216 D, and among the letters of Pope Damasus, Ep., 2, fragmenta: PL 13, 353–54), did the situation between M. and Rome become clear.
In 381 M. was present at the Council of Constantinople, of which he was elected president, a clear sign of the immense influence he now enjoyed throughout the East. He died before the end of the same council, around the middle of May, and was accorded a triumphal funeral which the emperor Theodosius himself attended. Among others, Gregory of Nyssa delivered his funeral oration (PG 46, 852-64), and John Chrysostom, who had been ordained a deacon by M., delivered a magnificent panegyric on him in 386-87 (ibid., 50, 515-20). He is venerated as a saint both by the Greek Church (12 Feb., 23 and 24 Aug.) and by the Latin Church (12 Feb.).
The Antiochene schism did not end with the death of M., for despite the efforts of Rome and Gregory Nazianzen to bring all the orthodox Antiochenes together around Paulinus, the Eastern bishops elected Flavian as M.’s successor in 381, and even the death of Paulinus in 388 did not restore unity, since Paulinus had ordained Evagrius as his successor before his death. It is true that neither Rome nor Alexandria recognized Evagrius, but recognition of Flavian was also delayed, as he refused to submit his case to a council (v. S. Ambrose, Ep., 56: PL 16, 1220-22). Only around 394 did the Alexandrians, at the urging of St Ambrose (Ep., 56, 6: ibid., 1221-22) and in conformity with the mind of Pope Siricius, recognize Flavian at a synod in Caesarea in Palestine (v. Severus of Antioch, in E. W. Brooks, The sixth book of the select letters of Severus, English trans., II, Oxford 1903, p. 223). About the same time Evagrius died, and Flavian was able to prevent a successor being appointed for him. It is probable that recognition of Flavian took place in Rome at about the same period, although some, following Sozomen (Hist. eccl., VIII, 3: PG 67, 1520-21), attribute the credit to the efforts of St John Chrysostom in 398. The remnants of the Eustathians reunited with the great community in 413 under Bishop Alexander (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 35; ibid., 82, 1265).