A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

MELETIUS.

MELETIUS was of Melitine. He was at first engag'd in the Party of the Acacians, and sign'd their Confession of Faith in the Council of Seleucia. St. Jerom, Socrates, Sozomen, * 1.1 and Theodoret, say, that he was first Ordain'd Bishop of Sebastea, a City of Armenia, in the Council of Constantinople in the Year 360. After that, if you will believe Socrates, he was Translated to Beraea, and from thence to Antioch: But it is more probable, that he was never Ordain'd Bishop of Beraea, and that when he could not be receiv'd at Sebastea, he retir'd to Beraea, from whence he was call'd to Antioch, after Eudoxus had quitted that See to go to Constantinople. The Arians thinking that he would be of their Opinion, propos'd him for Bishop of that City in a Council held at Anti∣och in 361, and the Orthodox knowing him better than the Arians, consented to his Election. Some time after the Emperour Constantius, who was then at Antioch, desir'd those Bishops who were most able, to Discourse in Publick, to Explain these Words of Scripture; The Lord created me in the be∣ginning of his Ways for his Works; and Order'd their Expositions to be written down, that they might be oblig'd to make them the more exact. George Bishop of Laodicea did first explain those Words, and diffused all the poison of his Errors. Acacius Bishop of Caesarea, did next give an Explication, which held the middle way between the Impiety of Arius and the Catholick Doctrine. But Mele∣tius propos'd the Orthodox Doctrine of the Church. 'Tis also said, that his Arch-Deacon having stopp'd his Mouth, he made known his Doctrine by Signs. The Arians assembled immediately to Depose him, and having Ordain'd in his Room an Arian nam'd Euzoïus, they caus'd Meletius to be banish'd to the place of his Birth. Then the sounder part of the People separated themselves from those that were infected with the Error of Arius, and assembled in the Church of the Apostles, which was in the old City. But besides the Catholicks, there were at Antioch a small number of the ancient Orthodox, who after the Deposition of Eustathius continued without Bishops. These would not be reunited to Meletius and those of his Party, tho' they had separated themselves from the Arians: Lucifer coming to Antioch after the death of Constantius, ordain'd Paulinus for their Bishop; but they were but few in number, and Meletius's Congregation was more numerous. When all the Orthodox Bishops after the death of Constantius had liberty to return to their Diocesses, Meletius re∣turn'd to Antioch; but Euzïous continued Minister of the Churches, till the Acacians were reconcil'd to Meletius under the Reign of Jovian, and made Profession of the Orthodox Faith in the Council of Antioch in the Year 363.

Under the Reign of Valens, Meletius was persecuted again and sent into Banishment, but he was no less odious to the Orthodox of the West than to the Arians. For the Church of Alexandria and the Churches of the West, supported Paulinus and those of his Party, and would have no Communion with Meletius. We have already seen the trouble and labour that St. Basil underwent to reconcile Meletius to them, yet he could not compass his Design while he liv'd. But Nine Months after his Death, it was agreed between Meletius and Paulinus, that whensoever one of them two should die, no Person should be Ordain'd in his Room, but the Surviver should continue sole Bishop of the Place. Meletius coming in the Year 380. to the first Council of Constantinople, in which he presided, died in that City to the great grief of all the Bishops. After his death the Eastern Bishops, without any regard to the Agreement made with Paulinus, chose in his room Flavianus. This Election renew'd the Schism of the Church of Antioch, which was not ended even at the death of Paulinus which happen'd in the Year 389, for before he died he Ordain'd Evagrius for his Successor. This Difference was car∣ried to the Council of Capua, which nam'd Theophilus and the Bishops of Egypt for Judges in this Cause. But Flavianus refusing him address'd himself to the Emperour, whom he persuaded of the goodness of his Cause. This Conduct of Flavianus very much disgusted the Western Bishops, as St. Ambrose informs us in the ninth Letter of his first Book. However he had so much Interest, as to hinder the placing of a Bishop in the room of Evagrius who died in 393, and he reconciled himself to the We∣stern Bishops in 398, by means of St. Chrysostom who persuaded Theophilus to make up this Peace. Yet there were still some obstinate Persons at Antioch, who notwithstanding the Agreement of the whole Church, would keep up a Faction by themselves, and would neither be reconcil'd to Flavianus nor to his Successors; so difficult it is to bring those back to the Church, who have gone astray through too much Zeal for Religion, and have made a separation under pretence of Purity of Doctrine, and strictness of Discipline. St. Epiphanius has preserv'd for us in Haeres. 73. the Discourse of Meletius which contains clearly the Doctrine of the Church, and the proofs of the Eternity and Divinity of the Word. We may attribute to him also the Creed of the Council of Antioch in the Year 393, related by Socrates Ch. 25. of the 3d. B. of his History. These Monuments are authentick Proofs that Meletius was a Catholick, which was acknowledg'd by almost all the Fathers, and even by St. Athanasius. Neither can any one blame him for the Holiness of his Life; but his Ordination for some time was encumbred with great Difficulties: First, because it was believ'd, that he was Tran∣slated from one Church to another; Secondly, because he was Chosen and Ordain'd by the Arians, to whose Party he was addicted. But as to the first Difficulty, besides that we have in Antiquity some examples of Translations that have been approv'd of, when they were made for the Good of the Church, as the Event did plainly show this to be: It cannot be said, properly speaking, that Meletius was Translated from one Bishoprick to another. For tho' he had been Ordain'd Bishop of Sebastea in Armenia, yet the People of that Church not being willing to receive him, he was ob∣lig'd to withdraw immediately to Beraea. Now the Canons are so far from forbidding to give Bi∣shopricks

upon such Occasions to those who could not take possession of that which was design'd for them, that on the contrary they Ordain, That if it can be done, another Bishoprick should be given unto them as soon as possible. The •…•…r •…•…lty is of much greater consequence, and upon it especially those grounded their separation who would not communicate with him. They said, that they could not acknowledge for a lawful Bishop one that was Ordain'd by Hereticks. But it must be consider'd that when he was Ordain'd; 〈◊〉〈◊〉 was Master of the Empire, and the Church of Antioch could have no Bishop that was Ordain'd by others; that tho' Acacius of Caesarea and the other Eastern Eishops were in as Error, yet they were neither depos'd nor deprivid of their Bishopricks, and therefore they might act in such Matters as concern'd the Government of the Church, that when the Bishops ordain'd by Hereticks return'd to the Church, she left them almost always in possession of their Sees; that the Orthodox had consented to the Ordination of Meletius; that all the Catholick Bishops of the East approv'd it; that Eusebius of Samosata, and Eusebius of Verceilles acknowledg'd his Ordination to be valid; and in short, that the Council of Constantinople put it past all doubt. But if we ought to approve the Ordination of Meletius, what can we say of that of Paulinus, but that it was done with much indiscretion and rashness? As to that of Flavianus, it cannot be altogether approv'd, since it was made contrary to an Agreement concluded between Meletius and Paulinus. Yet the Eastern Bishops may be excus'd, because perhaps they had no hand in this Agreement, and they fore saw that the People of Antioch could never agree with Paulinus. In a word, the Ordination of Evagrius can be approv'd by no body, since it tended only to perpetuate the Division and Schism in the Church of Antioch.

Notes

• * 1.1

  Meletius.