MELEZIO (MELIZIO) of ANTIOCHIA, saint. - Bishop of Antiochia, b. at Metilene, in second Armenia, at the beginning of the fourth century, d. at Costantinopoli in May 381. His name is bound up with the history of the disturbances, the confusion of ideas, and the personal situations unleashed at Antiochia between 330 and 378 by the Arian reaction against Nicene orthodoxy. Two points in M.'s life raise difficult questions: that of the evolution of his personal opinions concerning the Trinity, on which the ancient sources themselves are uncertain and divided; and that of the doctrinal nuances and terminological differences which, in this same matter, appeared among the various orthodox parties that confronted one another during his lifetime.
The explanation of Loofs, based on the hypothesis that among the bishops of the second half of the fourth century there existed a party called “neo-Nicene,” of which M., together with the great Cappadocians, would have been a representative, must be set aside as unfounded. This party, contrary to the original meaning still maintained by the Alexandrians and Westerners, would have interpreted the omoousios as meaning merely specific and not numerical unity among the divine persons in God; and thus, indirectly, would have introduced a genuine tritheism into the Eastern Church, first fostering suspicions and misunderstandings between the two parties (M., the Meletians, the Cappadocians; Rome, Alessandria, the Eustathians of Antiochia), and finally an understanding based on the equivocation of a common word, omoousios, interpreted differently. Nevertheless, the reality remains of an evolution in M.'s own Trinitarian ideas: he began under suspicion of Homoianism (v. ARIANESIMO) and only later attained clear orthodoxy through Homoiousian formulas. There remains especially the diversity of formulas between the two parties mentioned above for expressing a substantially identical doctrine; and finally there remain the complicated questions of persons. In this sense, the principal features of the troubled events of M.'s life may be presented as follows. He appears in history from 358, the year in which he was elected successor to the deposed bishop Eustazio of Sebaste. In 360, through the action of Acacio of Cesarea, head of the Arian faction of the Homoians, he was raised to the see of Antiochia, a sign that M. had hitherto maintained a doctrinal attitude that could appear to the Homoians a sufficient guarantee.
St. Epifanio regarded him as a Homoian of Acacio's party (Haer., 73, 23: PG 42, 445 A), in conflict with the Homoiousian Arian faction led by Basilio of Ancira and Eustazio of Sebaste. The same Epifanio seems to say that M. attended the Homoian Council of Seleucia (359; ibid., 445, 448 B), while Socrate and Filostorgio expressly state that he signed the formula of that Synod (Hist. eccl., II, 44: PG 67, 356-57; Hist. eccl., V, 1, ed. J. Bidez [CB, 21], p. 67).
In any case, upon arriving at Antiochia, M. so disappointed the hopes of the Homoians and gave such impetus to the anti-Arian movement that Acacio's party, scarcely a month after his arrival, obtained from Emperor Costanzo his banishment into exile (360-62). The reason was certainly doctrinal in substance; otherwise the Homoians would not have insisted upon certain pretexts of canonical irregularities in M.'s conduct. Orthodox tradition has seen a profession of Nicene faith, and the true cause of the exile, in the discourse delivered by M. before the Emperor on the text of Prov. 8, 22, then so much debated in the Arian controversies; this discourse has been preserved by Epifanio (Haer., 73, 29-33: PG 42, 457-65). In any event, Costanzo had M. replaced by Euzio, a friend of Ario.
But the mass of the anti-Arians remained faithful to M. and, led by Flaviano, M.'s future successor, formed a community called that of the Meletians. This was separated not only from the Arians of Euzio, but also from that group of believers, strict Nicene orthodox, who since 330 had remained faithful to the deposed orthodox bishop Eustazio of Antiochia, had never recognized other bishops, and, directed by the priest Paolino, were called Eustathians. The cause of this separation of the orthodox into two factions was essentially a question of Trinitarian terminology. The Meletians accepted the formula that in God there is one substance or usia (οὐσία) in three hypostases in the sense of persons; this formula, by explicitly expressing the real distinction of the persons in God, seemed to them necessary in order to remove from Nicene doctrine every suspicion of Sabellianism. The Eustathians, on the other hand, regarded this formula with suspicion of Arianism and, adhering with the Alexandrians and Westerners to the ancient terminology which identified usia and hypostasis, said that in God there is a single usia, that is, hypostasis, and three procopa, a formula which the Meletians suspected of Sabellianism.
The Synod of Alessandria of 362, presided over by Atanasio, recognized the legitimacy of both formulas (Tomas ad Antiochenos: PG 25, 796-809); nevertheless, the two orthodox communities of Antiochia did not achieve reconciliation. Indeed, Paolino, head of the Eustathians, was irregularly consecrated bishop by the fiery Cagliari (v.), and shortly afterward (363) Atanasio himself, having found no response to his offer of communion to M. (s. Basilio, Ep., 189: PG 32, 472), seems to have granted it to the Eustathians alone. Henceforth the Church of Alessandria employed all its influence at Rome in their favor.
At that time (363), M. seems to have undertaken efforts to gather support around a formula which explained the Nicene omoustos by the expression: “similar according to essence,” a formula, moreover, so little binding that Acacio and his followers could subscribe to it (Socrate, Hist. eccl., III, 25: PG 67, 452-56; Sozomeno, Hist. eccl., VI, 4: ibid., 1301). M.'s position then appeared clear to no party: the Eustathians rejected it (v. anonymous pamphlet: PG 28, 85-88); shortly thereafter the Homoians obtained from Emperor Valente M.'s second and third exiles (365-67; 371-78); the Homoiousian Arians, among whom were some friends of M. himself, seem to have ignored him when they negotiated with Pope Liberio (ca. 366); finally, Rome for a full thirteen more years (366-79) regarded him with suspicion, granting its recognition and support to his Eustathian rival Paolino. But St. Basilio of Cesarea, who, despite his scrupulous orthodoxy, believed that he had sufficient guarantees of M.'s sound sentiments and considered that a gathering of all the orthodox in the East was possible only around his person, from 371 onward multiplied repeated efforts in his favor both at Alessandria and with Pope Damaso (numerous letters of the years 371-78: PG 32), not without allowing expressions of disappointed bitterness regarding their practical attitude to escape him during the negotiations (Ep., 215: ibid., 32, 792).
Only after the civil power, under the orthodox emperor Graziano, by restoring to M., returned from his third exile, the churches taken from the Arians, had recognized him as the legitimate representative of the orthodox (378), and after M. himself, together with another 150 bishops, had adhered at an Antiochene Synod of 379 to the doctrinal decisions of the Roman councils of the preceding years under Pope Damaso (v. Teodoreto, Hist. eccl., V, 9: PG 82, 1216 D, and among the letters of Pope Damaso, Ep., 2, fragmenta: PL 13, 353-54), the situation between M. and Rome was clarified.
In 381 M. was present at the Council of Constantinople, of which he was elected president—an evident sign of the enormous influence he by then enjoyed throughout the East. He died before the end of that same Council, around the middle of May, and was given a triumphant funeral, which the emperor Theodosius himself wished to attend. Gregory of Nyssa, among others, delivered his funeral oration (PG 46, 852–64), and John Chrysostom, who had been ordained deacon by M., pronounced a magnificent panegyric 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 M.’s death because, despite the efforts of Rome and Gregory Nazianzen to ensure that all the Antiochene Orthodox should now gather around Paulinus, the Eastern bishops elected Flavian as M.’s successor (381); nor did Paulinus’s death (388) restore unity, because before dying he had ordained Evagrius as his successor. It is true that neither Rome nor Alexandria recognized Evagrius, but recognition of Flavian was also delayed, since he refused to submit his case to a council (v. s. Ambrogio, Ep., 56: PL 16, 1220–22). Only around 394 did the Alexandrians, at the urging of s. Ambrogio (Ep., 56, 6, 7: ibid., 1221–22) and in conformity with the wishes of Pope Siricius, recognize Flavian at a synod in Caesarea of Palestine (v. Severo d'Antiochia, in E. W. Brooks, The sixth book of the select letters of Severus, English trans., II, Oxford 1903, p. 223). Around the same time Evagrius died, and Flavian was able to prevent a successor from being appointed to him. It is probable that Flavian was recognized at Rome during this same period, although some, following Sozomen (Hist. eccl., VIII, 3:
PG 67, 1520–21), wish to attribute the credit to the efforts of s. Giovanni Crisostomo in 398. The remnants of the Eustathians rejoined the larger community in 413 under Bishop Alexander (Theodoret, Hist. eccl., V, 35: ibid., 82, 1265).