hide Sorting

You can sort these results in two ways:

By entity
Chronological order for dates, alphabetical order for places and people.
By position (current method)
As the entities appear in the document.

You are currently sorting in ascending order. Sort in descending order.

hide Most Frequent Entities

The entities that appear most frequently in this document are shown below.

Entity Max. Freq Min. Freq
43 BC 170 170 Browse Search
44 BC 146 146 Browse Search
49 BC 140 140 Browse Search
45 BC 124 124 Browse Search
54 BC 121 121 Browse Search
46 BC 119 119 Browse Search
63 BC 109 109 Browse Search
48 BC 106 106 Browse Search
69 AD 95 95 Browse Search
59 BC 90 90 Browse Search
View all entities in this document...

Browsing named entities in a specific section of A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology (ed. William Smith). Search the whole document.

Found 9 total hits in 9 results.

on (Gregor. Nyssen. Oratio habit. in funere Meletii), and he probably inherited from them an estate which he possessed in Armenia. (Basil. Epist. 187, editt. vett., 99, ed. Benedict.) His gentleness of disposition, general excellence of charafter, and persuasive eloquence, acquired for him a high reputation: but his first bishopric, that of the Sebaste, in Armenia, in which he succeeded Eustathius [EUSTATHIUS, No. 7], apparently after the latter had been deposed in the council of Melitene (A. D. 357), proved so troublesome, through the contumacy of his people, that he withdrew from his charge and retired to Beroea, now Aleppo in Syria, of which city, according to one rendering of a doubtful expression in Socrates, he became bishop. The East was atthis time torn with the Arian controversy ; but the character of Meletius won the respect of both parties, and each appears to have regarded him as belonging to them, a result promoted by his dwelling, in his discourses, on practical rather t
ounds his assertion on two passages of Gregory Nyssen (ibid.), Meletius was twice banished under Valens, or three times in all, which supposes a return from his first banishment under that prince. Gregory's assertion, however, is not corroborated by any of the ecclesiastical historians; and we have no means of determining the dates of Meletius's return and subsequent exile, if they really took place. Tillemont thinks he was recalled in A. D. 367 at latest, and places his last banishment in A. D. 371. During his exile his party were directed by Flavian and Diodorus. [FLAVIANUS, No. 1; DIODORUS, No. 3.] He was recalled on the death of Valens A. D. 378, but the edict of Gratian, which recalled all those who were in exile, allowed the Arians (who had chosen Dorotheus their bishop in the room of Euzoius, now deceased) to retain the churches which they occupied; however they were after a time delivered up to Meletius, who again manifested his anxiety to heal the schism between his own party
ce to the orthodox doctrine, a scene of great excitement ensued, the people applauding, and the Arians among the clergy, especially the archdeacon, attempting to stop his mouth. Determined now to get rid of him, the Arians charged him with Sabellianism, and persuaded the emperor to depose him and banish him, apparently on a charge either of perjury or of having violated the discipline of the church, to his native country, Melitene, while Euzoius was appointed bishop of Antioch in his room (A. D. 361). This step led to an immediate and extensive schism: the orthodox party broke off from the communion of the Arians, and met in the church of the Apostles, in what was called the old town of Antioch. There had been a previous secession of the more zealous part of the orthodox on occasion of the deposition of Eustathius (A. D. 331),butthetwo seceding bodies remained separate, the Eustathians objecting that Meletius had been ordained by Arians. On the accession of the emperor Julian Meletius
immediate and extensive schism: the orthodox party broke off from the communion of the Arians, and met in the church of the Apostles, in what was called the old town of Antioch. There had been a previous secession of the more zealous part of the orthodox on occasion of the deposition of Eustathius (A. D. 331),butthetwo seceding bodies remained separate, the Eustathians objecting that Meletius had been ordained by Arians. On the accession of the emperor Julian Meletius returned to Antioch (A. D. 362), and the most earnest endeavours were made to reconcile the two sections of the orthodox party: but though the death of Eustathius seemed to present a fair opportunity for such reconciliation, all the efforts made were frustrated by the intemperate zeal of Lucifer of Cagliari [LUCIFER], who ordained Paulinus bishop of the Eustathians. Meanwhile, Arians appear to have retained possession of most of the churches, the orthodox having one or two assigned for their use, of which, however, on t
was atthis time torn with the Arian controversy ; but the character of Meletius won the respect of both parties, and each appears to have regarded him as belonging to them, a result promoted by his dwelling, in his discourses, on practical rather than polemical subjects. According to Philostorgius he feigned himself an Arian, and subscribed the Confession of the Western bishops, probably that of Ariminum; and, according to Socrates, he subscribed the creed of the Acacians, at Selenceia in A. D. 359. These concurrent testimonies fix on him the charge either of instability or dissimulation. Still his real tendency to the Homoousian doctrine was known to or suspected by many; and, therefore, when, by the influence of Acacius and the Arians, he was appointed to the see of Antioch (A. D. 360 or 361), all the bishops, clergy, and people of the city and neighbourhood, Arians and Orthodox, went out to meet him. Even the Jews and Heathens flocked to see a person who had already attained so gr
rom his first banishment under that prince. Gregory's assertion, however, is not corroborated by any of the ecclesiastical historians; and we have no means of determining the dates of Meletius's return and subsequent exile, if they really took place. Tillemont thinks he was recalled in A. D. 367 at latest, and places his last banishment in A. D. 371. During his exile his party were directed by Flavian and Diodorus. [FLAVIANUS, No. 1; DIODORUS, No. 3.] He was recalled on the death of Valens A. D. 378, but the edict of Gratian, which recalled all those who were in exile, allowed the Arians (who had chosen Dorotheus their bishop in the room of Euzoius, now deceased) to retain the churches which they occupied; however they were after a time delivered up to Meletius, who again manifested his anxiety to heal the schism between his own party and the Eustathians; but his equitable offers were rejected by his more tenacious rival Paulinus. In A. D. 381 Meletius was at Constantinople at the sec
rgius he feigned himself an Arian, and subscribed the Confession of the Western bishops, probably that of Ariminum; and, according to Socrates, he subscribed the creed of the Acacians, at Selenceia in A. D. 359. These concurrent testimonies fix on him the charge either of instability or dissimulation. Still his real tendency to the Homoousian doctrine was known to or suspected by many; and, therefore, when, by the influence of Acacius and the Arians, he was appointed to the see of Antioch (A. D. 360 or 361), all the bishops, clergy, and people of the city and neighbourhood, Arians and Orthodox, went out to meet him. Even the Jews and Heathens flocked to see a person who had already attained so great celebrity. For a time, but apparently a very short time, he confined himself to practical subjects, avoiding or speaking ambiguously on the doctrines in dispute between the contending parties, but presently gave more open indications of his adherence to the orthodox party. It was probably
e orthodox party: but though the death of Eustathius seemed to present a fair opportunity for such reconciliation, all the efforts made were frustrated by the intemperate zeal of Lucifer of Cagliari [LUCIFER], who ordained Paulinus bishop of the Eustathians. Meanwhile, Arians appear to have retained possession of most of the churches, the orthodox having one or two assigned for their use, of which, however, on the accession of the emperor Valens, they were deprived, and Meletius was again (A. D. 365?) banished from the city. According to Tillemont, who grounds his assertion on two passages of Gregory Nyssen (ibid.), Meletius was twice banished under Valens, or three times in all, which supposes a return from his first banishment under that prince. Gregory's assertion, however, is not corroborated by any of the ecclesiastical historians; and we have no means of determining the dates of Meletius's return and subsequent exile, if they really took place. Tillemont thinks he was recalled i
banished from the city. According to Tillemont, who grounds his assertion on two passages of Gregory Nyssen (ibid.), Meletius was twice banished under Valens, or three times in all, which supposes a return from his first banishment under that prince. Gregory's assertion, however, is not corroborated by any of the ecclesiastical historians; and we have no means of determining the dates of Meletius's return and subsequent exile, if they really took place. Tillemont thinks he was recalled in A. D. 367 at latest, and places his last banishment in A. D. 371. During his exile his party were directed by Flavian and Diodorus. [FLAVIANUS, No. 1; DIODORUS, No. 3.] He was recalled on the death of Valens A. D. 378, but the edict of Gratian, which recalled all those who were in exile, allowed the Arians (who had chosen Dorotheus their bishop in the room of Euzoius, now deceased) to retain the churches which they occupied; however they were after a time delivered up to Meletius, who again manifest