MELDENIUS, RUPERTUS: The pseudonym of a German Lutheran theologian who, at the time of the Thirty Years' War, wrote a small tract in Latin, admonishing theologians in their disputes not to forget moderation and love. His tract bore the title: Paraenesis votiva pro pace ecclesiae ad theologos Augustanae confessionis auctore Ruperto Meldenio Theologo [Rottenburg, 1626]. The contents indicate that it was written after the death of Johann Arndt (q.v.; d. 1621), when there was a renewal of controversy over his orthodoxy. From the tenor of the closing words: "In a word, were we to observe unity in essentials, liberty in incidentals, and in all things charity, our affairs would be certainly in a most happy situation," Lucke (see bibliography) inferred the author to be the originator of the celebrated phrase In necessariis unites, in non necessariis libertas, in utrisque (or, in omnibus) caritas. The pseudonym "Rupertus Meldenius" resulted from transposing the letters of Petrus Meuderlinus, the Latinized name of Peter Meiderlin (b. at Oberacker, near Maulbronn, 26 m. n.w. of Heidelberg, in 1582; d. at Augsburg, 1651), ephor of St. Anne's in Augsburg, 1612-50. Meiderlin, in F. A. Veith's Bibliotheca Augustana (12 vols., Augsburg, 1785 96), is mentioned as author of the Paraenesis, hence Meiderlin is to be regarded as the originator of the phrase in question, since so far as is known it occurs nowhere any earlier than in his tract. All else known of him is eminently in accord with that utterance, as with the sentiments manifested in the Paraenesis. Richard Baxter (q.v.) refers to the phrase in his treatise: The True and Only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches (1680), and speaks of the same as "the Pacificator's old and despised words."

Carl Bertheau.

Bibliography: F. Lucke, Ueber das Alter, den Verfasser, die urapranpliche Form and den wahren Sinn des kireh lichen Priedeneprurhes In neeessariia unites, etc., Göttingen, 1850; idem; in TSK, 1851, pp. 905-938; L. Bauer, M. Peter Meiderlin, Augsburg, 1906; ADB, xxi. 293.

MELETIUS, me-li'shi-us, OF ANTIOCH AND THE MELETIAN SCHISM.

Personal History of Meletius (§ 1).

Origin of the Schism (§ 2).

Strengthening of Meletius' Position (§ 3).

Continuance of Schism after his Death (§ 4).

1. Personal History of Meletius.

In his personal history Meletius forms a curious complement to Eustathius of Sebaste (q.v.), having come into possession of a large part of the esteem which has been withdrawn from Eustathius. He was spoken of in Rome as an Arian as late as 377, and his first deposition was inflicted on him, according to Philostorgius (v. 5), after conviction of perjury, according to the Chronicon paschale (362 A.D.) "for godlessness and other History of evil deeds"; while to-day he is reckoned as a saint by both the Roman and the Greek Churches. It might be thought that this reversal of judgment was due merely to ecclesiastical policy, if our knowledge of his virtues were confined to the letters of Basil and the pulpit rhetoric of Gregory of Nyssa ("Funeral Oration on Meletius," NPNF, 2 ser., v. 514 sqq.) and Chrysostom (Hom. in S. Meletium). But fortunately this hypothesis is ruled out by the honorable acknowledgment made by Epiphanius about 376 (Hær. lxxiii. 35) in favor of Meletius, with whom he had little dogmatic or partizan sympathy. It is clear that Meletius must have been a man of ascetic strictness of life and generally upright and amiable character, and honored as such widely. He was born at Melitene in the province of Armenia Minor, held property in the northern part of this province at Getasa, and had a good secular education. He makes his first appearance in history soon after 357 as an adherent of the compromise policy of Acacius, with whom he opposed the Homoiousians Basil of Ancyra, George of Laodicea, and Eustathius of Sebaste; and when the last-named was deposed at a synod held in Melitene (probably 358) he became his successor. Possibly on account of the opposition of the followers of Eustathius, he resigned his bishopric and retired to Beroea, then, according to Socrates (Hist. eccl. II., xliv., NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 73), attended the synod of Seleucia in the autumn of 359 and subscribed an Acacian confession. Even after the synod of Constantinople in the spring of 360, unfavorable as it was to the Homoiousians, he still possessed the confidence of the court party; and when Eudoxius of Antioch was translated to the see of Constantinople (Jan. 27, 360) he was chosen for the vacant bishopric. He was received with enthusiasm in Antioch when he took possession of his new see at the end of the year; but he had occupied it only a month when he lost it. The cause is not certain, but the old tradition asserts that his theological attitude disappointed the party with which he had been acting: Epiphanius indicates, and the orthodox historians of the fifth century say positively, that the special cause was a sermon, the orthodoxy of which embittered the opposite party. It was preached in the emperor's presence and by his command on Prov. viii. 22, after Acacius and a certain George, probably George of Alexandria, not of Laodicea, had already discoursed on the same text. But this was scarcely the cause of his deposition; the most decisive evidence against the tradition is the sermon itself, still extant (in Epiphanius, Haer. lxxiii. 29-33), which, while not Arian, is certainly not Homoousian nor even Homoiousian, but just what might have been expected from a Homoian court bishop who was not a crypto-Arian. The conclusion which best satisfies the conflicting authorities is that the first expulsion of Meletius was not on dogmatic grounds, but caused rather by some action of his which embittered opponents could construe as illegal.

288

2. Origin of the Schism.

But the origin of the orthodox tradition and the bearing of the faithful followers of Meletius would be alike inexplicable if he had not, before he left Antioch for his home, given a decided anti-Arian

impulse to those whom he could

a. Origin influence. The most logical interpreof the tation of the accounts is that when he

Schism. was replaced by Euzoius, an open

Arian, he warned his followers to hold no communion with this man. Part of the Antiochian church followed this admonition, and a state of schism was created. The Meletian party were not the only anti-Arians in Antioch. Ever since the deposition of Eustathius in 330, there had been a small Eustathian party there, whose leader at this time was the presbyter Paulinus. Taking the homoousios of the Nicene creed in the sense of min hypostasia 3 ousia, they considered the Meletian use of treis hypostawis as Arian; and thus, although the Meletians were more and more inclined to accept the homoauzios as the later "young Nicene "party held it, the two groups were unable to act together. The accession of Julian made it possible for Meletius, as for Athanasius, to return to his see, but he had apparently not availed himself of the permission when the synod of Alexandria met in the spring of 362. It sent Eusebius of Vercelli and Asterius of Petra to Antioch to arrange a basis of agreement; but their task was rendered more difficult by the fact that Lucifer of Calaris arrived before them and consecrated Paulinus as bishop. There were then three claimants for the see; and the continued antagonism between Eustathians and Meletians may be partly understood from the fact that when (363) Meletius, with a synod at Antioch, accepted the homoousios in the sense of homoim kit' ousian and condemned the view that the Holy Ghost was a creature, the decree of the synod was signed also by a man so suspected by the whole Nicene party as Aeacius. The Eustathians accordingly regarded the synodal decree as a repudiation of the Nicene faith; Athanasius recognized Paulinus, and when he came to Antioch in the end of 363 held communion with him alone. When the Emperor Valens in 365 banished anew from Antioch all who had been exiled under Constantine, Meletius was again driven out, to return on his own responsibility, taking advantage of the political eomplications of the time, in 367. A third exile began when Valens visited the East in the winter of 371-372, and lasted until the death of Valens (Aug. 9, 378) completely changed the situation. During this third exile Euzoius died (376), but he was immediately succeeded by another Homoian, the Thracian Dorotheus, and the threefold schism continued until Dorotheus was expelled by the government in 380. In fact, there was even a fourth claimant after 375, in which year Vitalius, a former adherent of Paulinus and then converted to Apollinarianism, was consecrated by Apollinaris; some of his followers were still traceable in the time of Sozomen (Hist. eccl., VI., xxv., NPNF, 2 ser., ii. 362).

3. Strengthening of Meletius' Position.

Between his second return and his third exile Meletius had been in correspondence with Basil of Cæsarea, to whose view of him he owes the high position which he takes in the traditions of the "young Nicene" party. Through Basil his position in the controversies of the moment became a decisive one. The West, like Athanasius, had recognized Paulinus, whom the "young Nicene" party suspected, as they did the entire "Old Nicene" view, of Sabellian or Marcellian tendencies. The recognition of Meletius in the West thus became an object of primary importance for the young Nicene party. But though the negotiations brought them a little closer to the West, nothing more could be obtained for Meletius than that the western bishops recog nized the orthodoxy of Meletius, saving the rights of Paulinus, and recommended an agreement which would at least provide against the continuance of the schism on the death of either. The renown of Meletius in the East, however, was all the more increased by this, and when he returned from Armenia to Antioch in 379 he was the most promi nent of all the eastern orthodox leaders. Under his presidency assembled in Antioch (Sept. or Oct., 379) a synod attended by 153 bishops which attested the doctrinal unity between East and West. He had a hand in the appointment of Gregory Nazianzen to the see of Constantinople, and presided over the ecumenical council of 381, being singled out for special favor by Theodosius, the new ruler of the East. He died, however, soon after the council began its work.

The schism would soon have been ended if the Meletians of Antioch and the "young Nicene" party in general would have acknowledged Paulinus, as Gregory Nazianzen warmly urged at the council of Constantinople. But his appeal fell on deaf ears, and the schism was perpetuated by the election of Flavian. The West regarded q. Contin- his position as wholly indefensible; a

uance of synod held in Milan (381) under Schism Ambrose's presidency pronounced after His strongly against him, . and another Death. in Rome (382) excommunicated Dio-

dorus of Tarsus and Acacius of Beraea who had consecrated him. Theodosius, who was anxious for an agreement between East and West, apparently did not approve the new election. On the death of Paulinus (c. 388) the Eustathians elected Evagrius, the friend of Jerome, who was recognized scarcely anywhere outside of Antioch, and xoward whom the West assumed a friendly but non-committal attitude. Theodosius had a synod called at Capua in the winter of 391-392 to decide the controversy. This gathering committed the question as between Flavian and Evagrius to Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops, hitherto neutral. Flavian won the confidence of the emperor, and made a successful protest against any investigation of his title; and when Evagrius died (c. 393) he succeeded in preventing the election of another contestant. The Eustathians, however, still maintained their schismatic attitude, and Flavian was not recognized by Rome or Alexandria. Peace was finally made by the efforts of Chrysostom, himself a native of Antioch, who on his consecration as bishop of Constantinople (Feb. 26, 398) induced Theophilus of Alexandria to plead for Flavian at

289

Rome. The diminishing Eustathian party gradually yielded to Flavian, although they finally disap peared only in the time of Alexander, the second from Flavian, eighty-five years after the out break of the schism, or in the year 415. See Damasus I.

(F. Loofs.)

Bibliography: The sources have already been indicated in the text. Consult: C. W. F. Waleh, Historie der Keb zereien, iv. 410-502, Leipsic, 1768; J. H. Blunt, Diction ary of Sects, Heresies, pp. 306-308, Philadelphia, 1874; Neander, Christian Church, vol. ii. passim; Hefele, Con ciliengeschichte, i. 726 sqq., Eng. transl., ii. 275 sqq.; Schaff, Christian Church, iii. 372-374; Harnack, Dogma, vol. iv. passim; Ceillier, Auteurs sacrés, v. 5-12, and con sult Index; DCB, iii. 891-893; KL, viii. 1221-34.