A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology. By various writers. Ed. by William Smith. Illustrated by numerous engravings on wood.

MELETIUS. MELETIUS. 1019
which is very'doubtful, charges him with-hypocrisy. (which left him the title of bishop, though it deHe enjoyed the friendship of Basil and other lead- prived him of the power to ordain) would have
ing men of the orthodox party. Epiphanius has dealt so leniently with him. The Council allowed
spoken favourably of him, but Jerome is less fa- those whom he had ordained to retain the priestly
vourable, owing, probably, to his connection with office, on condition of re-ordination, and of their
Paulinus. A part of the first sermon preached by yielding precedence to those whose first ordination
Meletius at Antioch has been preserved by Epi- had been regular. The schism begun in prison
phanius, and is given in the Bibliotheca Patrum of was continued in the mines of Phaenon, in Arabia
Galland, vol. v. A synodical epistle to the emperor Petraea, to which Meletius and others were baJovian, given by Socrates (H. E. iii. 25), and So- nished, and after their release. Meletius ordained
zomen (H. E. vi. 4), and reprinted in the Concilia, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and kept his folvol. i. col. 741, ed. Hardouin, and in the Billio- lowers a distinct body, under the title of " the
theca of Galland, vol. v., may perhaps be ascribed Church of the Martyrs." He even extended his
to him. The Greek Church honours his memory sect into Palestine, where he visited Jerusalem,
on February the 12th, and the Latin Church at Eleutheropolis, and Gaza, and ordained many in
last received him into the calendar on the same those towns to the priesthood. In this state
day. matters remained till the Nicene Council (A. D.
Meletius was succeeded in the see of Antioch 325), the sentence of which has been already
by Flavian [FLAVIANUS, No. 1], under whom the mentioned. The synodical letter to the Egyptian
Eustathian schism'was at length healed, and the clergy, which notifies the sentence, gives no insuppression of the Arians under Theodosius the formation as to the origin of the schism: it deGreat restored for a while the unity of the see. scribes, indeed, Meletius as disorderly, hasty, and
(Socrates, H. E. ii. 43, 44, iii. 6, 9, iv. 2, v. 3, 5, headstrong; characteristics more in harmony with
9; Sozomen, H. E. iv. 25, 28, v. 12, 13, vi. 7, the conduct ascribed to him by Epiphanius, than
vii. 3, 7. 8, 10; Theodoret. H. E. ii. 31, iii. 3, 4, with the charges of Athanasius.
iv. o. 25, v. 3, 8; Philostorg. H. E. v. 1, 5; There is no dispute that the theological sentiGreg. Nyssen. Orat. in Fun. Meletii hahita; Basil. ments of the Meletians were at first what is deemed
Episto/ae, J. lvi. lvii. lviii. lix. lxiv. cclxxiii. cccxxi. orthodox; and, according to Epiphanius, Meletius
cccxxv. cccxlix. editt. vett.,or lvii. lxvii. lxviii. lxxxix. was the first to detect the heretical teachings of
cxx. cxxix. ccx. ccxiv. cclviii. cclxvi. edit. Benedict.; Arius, and to report them to Alexander, bishop of
Epiph. Ilaeres. lxxiii. 28-35; Hieron. in Chro- Alexandria. Meletius died very shortly after the
nico; Concilia, vol. i. p. 731, 741, ed. Hardouin; Council of Nice, for Alexander, who himself only
Tillemont, l6moires, vol. viii. p. 341, &c.; Cave, survived the council about five months, lived long
Hist. Litt. ad ann. 360, vol. i. p. 223, ed. Oxford, enough to persecute the followers of Meletius after
1740-43; Fabric. Bibl. Graec.'vol. ix. p. 304; their leader's death, because, deeming Meletius illGalland. Biblioth. Patrun. Proleg. ad Vol. V. c. treated, they would not accept the terms of recon11; Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. i. col. 423, ciliation offered by the Council. The schism convol. ii. col. 713, &c., 781.) tinued under the leadership of John Arcaph, whom
2. IATROSOPHISTA. [No. 6.] Meletius had appointed to succeed him [JOANNES,
3. Of LYCOPOLIs,, a schismatical bishop of the No. 16]; and the Meletians co-operated with the
third and fourth centuries. There is a remarkable Arians in their hostility to Athanasius [ATHAdiscrepancy in the accounts given of this person. NASIUS]; an alliance more conducive to the gratiAccording to Athanasius, whose contests with the fication of their revenge than to the maintenance
Meletians render his testimony less trustworthy, of their orthodoxy. (Athanas. Apol. contra A rian.
Meletius, who was bishop of Lycopolis in Upper c. 59; Epiphan. Haeres. lxviii. 1- 5; Socrat. H.
Egypt at the time of the persecution under Diocle- E. i. 6, 9; Sozomen, Ii. E. i. 24, ii. 21; Theotian and his successors, yielded to fear. and. sacri- doret. H. E. i. 9; Tillemont, Mlmnoires, vol. v. p.
ficed to idols; and being subsequently deposed, on 453, &c.; Le Quien, Oriens Christian. vol. ii. col.
this and other charges, in a synod; over which 598.)
Petrus or Peter, bishop of Alexandria, presided, 4. Of MELITENE. [No. 1.].determined to separate from the church, and to 5. MEDICUS. [See below.]
constitute with his followers a separate community. 6. MONACHUS, the MONI. [See below.]
Epiphanius, on the. other hand, relates that both 7. Of MOPSUESTIA, an ardent supporter of the
Peter and Meletius being in confinement for the unfortunate Nestorins [NEsToRIUS], of Constantifaith, differed concerning the treatment to be used nople. He succeeded the celebrated Theodore as.
toward those who, after renouncing their Christian bishop of Mopsuestia, in Cilicia [THEODORUS MOPprofession, became peniteilt and wished to be re- SUESTENUS], probably in or about A. D. 427. He
stored to the communion of the Church. He states supported John, patriarch of Antioch [JOANNES,
that Peter, who was willing to receive them, was No. 9], in his opposition to the hasty and unjust
opposed by Meletius,. who was next to Peter in deposition of Nestorius by Cyril of Alexandria
influence, and had, in fact, the larger number of fol- and his party [CYRILLUS, ST. of ALEXANDRIA],
lowers on this question: and the schism which in the third general (Ephesian) council, A. D. 431:
arose on this account he represents as owing rather and when John was induced to come to terms with
to the former than to the latter.. Although the Cyril and to join in condemning Nestorius, Meleecclesiastical historians Socrates and Theodoret tius persisted in supporting the cause of the deposed
have adopted, wholly or partially, the account of patriarch, and refused to hold communion with
Athanasius, the statement of Epiphanius is the either Cyril or John, denouncing such communion
more probable. Had Meletius been convicted, as as diabolical; and when the latter sent a conAthanasius states, it is hardly probable that either ciliatory letter to him, he threw it in the mes;
he would have been able to raise and keep up so senger's face. Being forcibly expelled from his see
formidable a schism, or that the Council of Nice by the emperor Theodosius, II., at the desire of