ON ST. MELCHION, PRESBYTER OF ANTIOCH,
AFTER THE YEAR CCLXX.
HISTORICAL COMMENTARY.
Melchion, presbyter of Antioch (S.)
BY R. D. B.
Sole §. The cult of St. Melchion. His victory over Paul of Samosata in the council of Antioch.
St. Melchion [Metrical martyrology of the Greek Church, interpreter Siberus, page 551; Menology of Sirleto in Henry Canisius in the Thesaurus Monum. volume III, page 483; Synaxary of Margunius.], whom others call Malchus Ferrarius, Catalogus generalis SS. page 421., Malchion [Eusebius, Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter 29; Theodoret, Hæret. fabularum compendium, book II, Opp. omnia, volume IV, column 395; Nicephorus, Historia eccles. book VI, chapter 19, volume I, page 422; Peter the Deacon, Letter to Fulgentius and other bishops of Africa, chapter II, in Migne, Patrol volume LXV, column 442.], Malachion and Melchior Ferrarius, Catalogus generalis, page 421., and whose name betrays a Syriac origin, St. Melchion, whose memory is commemorated today in the Greek calendars, is inscribed on the roll of the Saints together with St. Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea of the Cappadocians, at the 28th of October. For in the metrical Martyrology of Siberus Metrical martyrology of the Greek Church, page 351., which was collected from the Menaea of the Greeks, one reads at the present day:
Εἰρηνικῶς θνήσκουσιν εἰρήνης τέκνα
Φιρμιλιανός καὶ σὺν αὐτῷ Μελχίων.
In peace the sons of peace meet their death,
Firmilian and Melchion the sophist.
Likewise in the Menology of Sirleto Menology of Sirleto, page 351.: On the same day the commemoration of our holy father Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, and of Melchion the sophist, presbyter of Antioch, who deposed Paul of Samosata. Which words Sirleto translated into Latin from an unknown Greek Synaxary; a certain copy of which also lit the way for Margunius, when he wrote his Synaxary in the vernacular language of the Greeks. But these are surpassed in antiquity by the Synaxary of Sirmond, excerpts of which, formerly made by Papebroch, are now preserved in the Royal Library of Brussels under number 11322. Rightly then he has not been omitted in the General Catalogue of the saints of Ferrarius who are not in the Roman Martyrology, nor in the Graeco-Slavic ecclesiastical Year of our Martinov.
[2] Paul of Samosata That St. Melchion was a most eloquent man, inasmuch as he had presided over the sophistic school at Antioch, and who on account of the genuineness of his Christian faith had obtained the honor of the presbyterate in the church of that place, is related by Eusebius of Caesarea Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter 29.: whom Theodoret Opp. omn. volume IV, column 395. and Nicephorus Historia eccles. book VI, chapter 19, volume I. page 422. copied nearly word for word. St. Jerome had the same before his eyes, when he wrote these things of him in chapter LXXI of the book on Illustrious Men: Malchion, a most eloquent presbyter of the church of Antioch, inasmuch as he had taught rhetoric most flourishingly in the same city, disputed, the notaries taking it down, against Paul of Samosata, who, bishop of the church of Antioch, had restored the doctrine of Artemon; which dialogue exists to this day. But another great letter too, written by him in the person of the synod, is directed to Dionysius and Maximus, bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian churches. He flourished under Claudius and Aurelian. In these things however the principal praise of St. Melchion is that he stood forth as a most sharp defender of the ancestral faith against Paul of Samosata, bishop of the church of Antioch, who had restored the impious doctrine of Artemon St. Jerome, de Viris illustribus, Opp. omn. volume III, column 682, edit. Migne.; or, as Eusebius says Hist. eccl. book VII, chapter 27., had begun, against the doctrine of the church, to think too abjectly and humbly of Christ, as though he had had nothing above the common nature of men. Yet that St. Melchion disputed against Paul of Samosata in the first council of Antioch, which Firmilian of Caesarea, Gregory Thaumaturgus and his brother Athenodorus and other bishops of the East held in the year 264 or 266, the ancients have not handed down to posterity: rather they hint that he then to the defense of the cause of Christ
was not called. For Eusebius reports Ibid. book VII, chapter 28. that under the emperor Gallienus many bishops came together often at Antioch to wash away the new doctrines of Paul; and enumerating some illustrious men who fought against Paul, he is altogether silent of St. Melchion.
[3] he conquered in the other council of Antioch, But when Paul, who in the councils under Gallienus had striven to hide the novelty of his doctrine, tried again to spread his depraved doctrine, a synod of nearly innumerable bishops was gathered anew at Antioch Eusebius, Hist. eccles book VII, chapter 28.. St. Athanasius reports that they were seventy De Synodis, Opp. omnia, volume II, column 770, edit. Migne., St. Hilary Ibid column 538. and Facundus [De defensione trium capitul. book X, chapter VI, in Migne, Patrologia, volume LXVIII, column 788.] eighty, Basil the Deacon a hundred and eighty Supplication of Basil and others, in Labbe, Concilia, volume III, column 425.; among whom Helenus of Tarsus, Hymenaeus of Jerusalem, Theotecnus of Caesarea in Palestine, Maximus of Bostra and Nicomas of Iconium; to whom St. Melchion joined himself with other presbyters and deacons. (There is an error, however, in the Synaxaries of Sirleto and Margunius, where it is related that Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, deposed Paul and therefore sat in the later synod of Antioch; for the Fathers of that council wrote in their synodal letter that Firmilian, proceeding to Antioch, departed from life at Tarsus Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter 30..) St. Melchion had the principal part there, who beyond the others refuted Paul of Samosata and altogether confuted him as he desired to lie hidden Ibid. loc. cit.. And indeed it seems worthy of note that it not rarely happened that the Fathers of councils, when they had before them propagators of depraved doctrine, whom they themselves could not easily refute on account of their fallacious subtleties and cunning eloquence, used the skill of presbyters or even of deacons: in which way it came about that Origen in the council of Bostra in Arabia [Labbe, Collectio conciliorum, volume I, column 650 and following; Eusebius, Hist. eccles. book VI, chapter 31.] against those contending that the human soul is mortal, and St. Athanasius in the council of Nicaea Acta SS. volume I of May, page 190 and following., at the request of the bishops, took up the cause of the catholic faith.
[4] Of this disputation Further when the Fathers had been gathered in assembly, and Paul of Samosata stood accused before them, there was proposed, as Peter the Deacon narrates, writing to St. Fulgentius and other bishops of Africa Letter to Fulgentius, Biblioth. Lugd. Patrum, volume VII, page 190., the catholic faith: God, namely the Word, not by an empty name, not by a particle of himself, but God by nature as great as the Father also is, equal to the Father in all things, except only in this, that the one is Father, the other Son, uniting himself to human nature was made man: hence too by the holy Fathers Christ our Lord is proclaimed to be composed by union from divinity and humanity. Which Paul of Samosata being unwilling to confess, was condemned by the council of Antioch, Malchion, presbyter of the same church of Antioch, a man most learned in all things, having been then chosen by all the priests who had come together against the same Paul; who, taking up the supreme contest of disputation from the aforesaid council, among other things so refuted the same heretic, saying: "From simple things there is certainly made a compound, as in Christ Jesus, who from God the Word and a human body, which is from the seed of David, was made one, subsisting no longer in any division, but in unity. You however seem to me according to this to be unwilling to confess the composition, so that the Son of God is not in him by substance, but wisdom by participation. For you have said this, that wisdom suffers loss, and therefore could not be composed, nor do you consider that the divine wisdom, as before it emptied itself, remained undiminished; so also in this emptying, which it carried out mercifully, it stood undiminished and unchangeable. And you say this too, that wisdom dwelt in him. We too dwell in houses, as one in another, but neither are we part of the houses, nor is the house a part of us."
[5] and fragments of the synodal letter survive. Besides these words of Peter the Deacon and some fragments collected by Leontius of Byzantium nothing of this disputation survives, although, as Eusebius and St. Jerome say, it was taken down by notaries, and survived in their time, or was so excellent that by means of it St. Melchion alone of all was able to lay bare in the council the hidden opinions and frauds of Paul. Add that a great letter written by Melchion in the person of the synod was directed to Dionysius and Maximus, bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian churches; of which this was the inscription: To Dionysius and Maximus and to all our fellow ministers throughout the whole world; bishops, presbyters and deacons; and to the whole catholic church which is under heaven, Helenus and Hymenaeus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proculus, Nicomas, Aelian, Paul, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodore, and Malchion, and Lucius; and all the rest who are with us, bishops, presbyters and deacons of the neighboring cities and provinces, and the churches of God: to their dearest brothers in the Lord, greeting. Where the Malchion who appears was not a bishop (as he seemed to himself to see, Hefele Conciliengeschichte, volume I, page 136.), but a presbyter, representing the college of presbyters; as the name of Lucius has been set down in the place, as it were, of the deacons. Further in this letter, which Eusebius inserted almost entire in his Ecclesiastical History, the Fathers set forth that Paul of Samosata had come to incredible opulence through crimes and sacrileges and extortions from the brothers; … and that he sought nothing other than empty glory and affected pomp; … indeed that he abolished the psalms which were customarily sung in honor of the Lord Jesus Christ, as new and composed by recent men; and that he instituted women to sing certain psalms on the great day of Easter in the middle of the church in his own praise. He refused to confess that the Son of God had descended from heaven, but taught that Jesus Christ had arisen from the earth. The people of Antioch had seen too the women brought in both by himself and by his presbyters and deacons. Such had been the infamous manner of acting of Paul of Samosata before the synod. Nor does the matter seem so to have succeeded for St. Melchion that Paul returned to better things: for, when he had fallen from the right faith and at the same time from the episcopate, and accordingly Domnus had taken up the administration of the church of Antioch, he was in no way willing to leave the house of the church, until the emperor Aurelian, being appealed to, judged this affair most rightly, commanding the house to be handed over to those to whom the Italian prelates of the Christian religion and the bishop of Rome should write Eusebius, Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter 30..
[6] The council of Antioch, to which Paul did not submit, was held in the year 270. There has been much dispute among the learned about the year of the holding of the Council of Antioch. For Henri de Valois Annotationes in Eusebium, page 155., Petavius Rationarium temporum, book V, chapter XIII, page 203, edit. Leiden 1710., Papebroch Acta SS. Propylæum Maji, page 38., Henschen Acta SS. volume I of April, page XXVIII. and Tillemont mémoires ecclésiastiques, volume IV, pages 297 – 665. edit. 1732. assign the year 270; Baronius Annales ecclesiastici, at the year 272, number 1. the year 272, both Pagis [Antony Pagi, Critice at the year 272, number 1; Pagi, Breviarium Romanorum Pontificum, volume I, page 41 and following.] and Remi Ceillier Histoire des Autheurs ecclésiastiques, volume III, page 600. the autumn of the year 269. And indeed the difficulty lies in this, that Eusebius Eusebius, Hist. eccles. book VII, chapter 30. on the one hand affirms that the last synod of Antioch was gathered under the emperor Aurelian, who put on the imperial purple in the month of March of the year 270, on the other hand wove into his ecclesiastical history the aforesaid letter of the people of Antioch to Dionysius, the Roman pontiff, whose death is referred to the month of December of the year 269. But the opinion of Valesius, Henschen and others is preferred: without our being much moved by the disorder of things under which the narrative of Eusebius labors in the present case, because, as our Henschen says Acta SS. volume I of Apr. page XXVIII., the people of Antioch seem in the following year (in the month of March, the sea being scarcely open Ibid. volume X of Oct. page 621.) to have been ignorant of the death of Dionysius, when they wrote the synodal letter to him, which Eusebius writes was penned in the time of Aurelian (who reigned from March of the year 270). In what year and where St. Melchion died has not been handed down to memory by the ancient writers.