Malchion, Presbyter of the Church of Antioch

ABOUT THE YEAR OF OUR LORD 260. MALCHIO, PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH. NOTICE.

(GALLAND., *Bibliotheca veterum Patrum*, III, Proleg. p. xxxii.)

I. Malchio, a most eloquent man, flourished at this time. An illustrious man in doctrine and learning, he was ordained presbyter of the Church of Antioch. He disputed sharply against Paul of Samosata. His memory is honored in the Greek Menologies.

II. The time is inquired into when the later Council of Antioch was celebrated, where Malchio's disputation was held. Pearson's opinion concerning a single Council of Antioch is refuted.

III. Malchio is said to have put the synodal epistle into writing. In what year the author wrote it. The same is exhibited from Eusebius. Fragments from the Acts of the Malchionite disputation are appended.

^A Malchio, a most eloquent man, says Eusebius (1), "a man learned in other respects as well," is found to have flourished around the year of Christ 270. Greatly cultivated in Greek literature, he presided over the school of sophistry at Antioch, or, as Jerome puts it (2), he taught rhetoric in the same city most brilliantly. Nor, indeed, did the excellent man excel in doctrine and secular learning alone, but also, on account of his eminent sincerity of Christian faith, he obtained the honor of the presbyterate in the Church of that place: "But not only so, but also on account of the superabundant genuineness of his faith in Christ, he was deemed worthy of the presbyterate of the parish there."

Malchio was present at the later Synod of Antioch, which Eusebius (3) calls the "last" synod—*having been assembled*—and in it he disputed sharply against Paul of Samosata, who, as bishop of the Church of Antioch, had restored the heresy of Artemon, with secretaries taking down everything; and he alone of all was able to uncover the hidden thoughts and frauds of the man. From which refutation our author derived such glory, says Valesius (4), that for this reason he deserved to be honored in the Menologies of the Greeks on the 28th day of October.

II. Malchio's memory—I should have supposed, indeed, that this synod was celebrated at the end of the year 269 and extended into the following year. It is confirmed, truly, by this chronological note from the epistle of the same council, addressed ^B to Dionysius, the Roman Pontiff, but delivered to Felix, his successor, because he had passed away toward the end of December of that same year 269, as was shown above (5). And this is again bolstered from the aforementioned synodal epistle, where the Fathers, speaking of Firmilian, the prelate of Cappadocia, say: "Now also," they say (6), "Firmilian was about to come; and he had already reached Tarsus. But when we had already gathered, meanwhile, while we summoned him, while we awaited his arrival, he departed from life." But the Greeks in the Menology celebrate on the 28th day of October the feast day of St. Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. Wherefore, as Pagius (7) rightly argues, if Firmilian passed to the heavens on that day, then the Council of Antioch had already been gathered.

And from these facts we truly conclude that Pearson wandered far from the truth, who recognizes only one Council of Antioch gathered in the case of Samosatenus in the year 266; from which view, on that account, his own associates deservedly dissent, Bull (8) and Dodwell (9), to say nothing of Tillemont (10) and others. Nor does that man, learned in other respects, notice that this synod of which we are speaking was called "last" by Eusebius for this reason, as we just saw, because he had mentioned a first one (11), in which Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, Gregory Thaumaturgus, and others especially stood out;

one of whom, however, had met his death at the time the latter [council] was convened; the other, too, had perhaps passed away, as he nowhere appears in the same. ^A Indeed, in the former, held in the year of Christ 264, the Samosatene, having attempted to conceal the novelty of his dogma, escaped unhurt; in the latter, however, held around the year 270, he is reported to have been excommunicated from the communion of the Church and deposed from the episcopal see.

III. Therefore, Paul having been condemned and Domnus having been appointed in his place, the Antiochene Fathers, Eusebius says, wrote a letter by common consent to Dionysius, bishop of the city of Rome, and to Maximus of Alexandria. That Malchion consigned this synodical letter to writing, the illustrious Jerome is witness: "But another long letter," he says, "written by him in the person of the synod, is directed to Dionysius and Maximus, bishops of the Roman and Alexandrian Churches." Nor is it any wonder, indeed, that the Antiochene prelates assigned this task to Malchion, a man who was evidently most eloquent; and who, having undertaken the disputation against Paul, as Eusebius writes, was alone of all able to uncover the hidden thoughts and frauds of the man; and on account of this, Cave and ^B Fabricius are by no means to be listened to, who attempt to elevate the authority of Jerome in some way: although the latter, better advised, subsequently changed his opinion, acknowledging Malchion as the author of that same synodical letter. We also know that the illustrious Harduin conceded to this very opinion, led no doubt by Jerome.

However, since Eusebius records that this last Antiochene council was held in the times of the Emperor Aurelian, who we reckon, with Tillemont, to have succeeded Claudius II in the year 270, around the month of April; therefore we believe this synodical letter was written by Malchion in that same passing year, since the news of the death of the Roman pontiff Dionysius had not yet reached Antioch.

Moreover, we have transcribed a monument of such ecclesiastical antiquity from the Valesian Eusebius, having also added fragments of the same letter, as it seems, which are preserved by Leontius of Byzantium. Furthermore, we have appended from the same Leontius and Peter the Deacon what remains from the Acts of the disputation held by Malchion against the Samosatene, whom we mentioned a little before.

THE EPISTLE OF MALCHION, PRESBYTER OF THE CHURCH OF ANTIOCH, WRITTEN IN THE PERSON OF THE ANTIOC HENE SYNOD, AGAINST PAUL OF SAMOSATA

I. (In Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., Book VII, Chapter 30)

To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellow-ministers, bishops, presbyters, and deacons ^C throughout the world; and to the whole catholic Church which is under heaven, Helenus and Hymenæus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proculus, Nicomas, Ælianus, Paulus, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, and Malchion and Lucius; and all the others who are with us, bishops of the neighboring cities and provinces, ^D

and the ^A Churches of God, to our beloved brethren in the Lord, greeting.

I. A little further on, they add these things: "We also wrote to many of the bishops further afield, and exhorted them to come to the healing of this deadly doctrine; as for instance to Dionysius of Alexandria and Firmilianus of Cappadocia, men of blessed memory. Of these, the one wrote to Antioch, but did not even deign to greet the leader of the error, nor did he write to him personally, but to the whole community of the Antiochenes; of which we have attached a copy. Firmilianus, however, having come twice, condemned the innovations of the one in question, as we who were present know and bear witness, and as many others also know. But since he promised that he would change, Firmilianus, trusting him and hoping that without any reproach or loss to our religion, the matter could be brought to a satisfactory state, delayed his own decision—deceived, of course, by a man who denied his own God and Lord, and who had not kept the faith which he formerly professed. Firmilianus was about to go to Antioch again even now; and he had reached as far as Tarsus, having already learned ^B by experience of the man’s godless malice; but since we were assembled in the meantime, and were calling him, and waiting until he should come, he reached the end of his life."

II. Then, a little later, they explain what the manner of the man's life was like in these words: "But since, departing from the rule of faith, he turned himself toward counterfeit and spurious doctrines, there is no need for one who is outside the Church to judge his actions. Nor that, whereas he was formerly poor and a beggar and had neither received any substance inherited from his parents nor acquired anything through any trade or profession, he has now arrived at incredible wealth through iniquities and sacrileges and the extortion of the brethren; ^C robbing the injured ones, and defrauding those who have been wronged, and promising to help them for a fee; ^D while he is a liar and also these men, and..."

^A in vain reaps the readiness of those involved in affairs to pay for their release from those who are molesting them, counting godliness as a means of gain. He does not think lofty thoughts, nor does he don worldly dignities, but rather desires to be called a ^B ducenarius than a bishop; strutting through the marketplaces, and reading letters and dictating them as he walks in public, surrounded by a crowd — some walking before him, others following him— in such numbers that his pride and the haughtiness of his heart cause our faith to be envied and hated. Nor does he shrink from the charlatanry ^C in ecclesiastical synods which he contrives, pursuing glory and acting a part, and terrifying the souls of the simpler folk with such things. For he has constructed for himself a tribunal and a high throne, not as a disciple of Christ, and a ^D secretum, just as the rulers of the world have, and he so styles it; and striking his thigh with his hand, and stamping the tribunal with his feet; and those who do not applaud him, nor wave their handkerchiefs as is done in the theaters, nor rise up and shout like the men and women of his faction who listen disorderly, but who listen with the gravity and modesty befitting the house of God—these he rebukes and insults. And he behaves wantonly toward the teachers of our law who have already departed from this life, in the assembly, and speaks boastfully of himself, like not a bishop, but a sophist and a magician.

III. That the Son of God descended from heaven.

while he himself has two flourishing and fair-faced women with him; and even if he goes anywhere, he takes them along; and this while living in luxury ^A and gorging himself?

IV. On these accounts, indeed, all sigh and lament to themselves; but they so fear his power and tyranny that they do not dare to accuse him. Concerning these matters, however, as we have said before, one might perhaps examine and call to judgment a man of the Catholic profession, and one joined to us in the kinship of faith and ministry. But from him who has danced away ^B the mystery and who parades—being led by the foul heresy of Artemas (for why shouldn't we at last reveal his father to you?)—we do not think it necessary to demand such accounts.

V. At the end of the letter, they add these things: We were therefore compelled, since he set himself against God and would not yield, and since we had excommunicated him, to appoint another bishop in his place for the Catholic Church, by the providence of God, as we are convinced: Domnus, the son of the blessed ^C Demetrianus, who had previously presided over this same diocese with glorious renown, a man gifted with all the graces that become a bishop. We have made this known to you, so that you may write to him, and receive communion letters from him. And let him write, if he wishes, to Artemas; and let those who follow Artemas communicate with him.

II. Fragments of the Epistle, as it seems, of the same Synod of Antioch, namely of that part which it is established was omitted by Eusebius.

He says, therefore, in the commentaries (they are speaking of Paul) that He preserves the dignity of wisdom. And after other things: But if He was united according to formation and generation ^A to wisdom, as we believe, substantially, [but] to a man—this happening to the man. And again: For it was not conjoined with humanity according to quality. And after other things:

What does he mean to say—that the formation of Christ is other and different from ours, since we wish that in this greatest matter his constitution differs from ours—namely, that the Word is in him as the interior man is in us. And afterwards:

If one says that wisdom dwelt in him, as in no one else, this indeed declares the same mode of indwelling, but it excels in measure and multitude: for example, twice as much, or however much more, or less than double that of others, while he himself is cognizant of wisdom. But the Catholic and ecclesiastical canons do not wish this, but rather [they declare] that those [others] indeed participated in wisdom which inspires from without, which is different among them; but that wisdom itself, by itself, came substantially into the body from Mary. And after other things:

And they say that there are not two sons. But if Jesus Christ is the Son of God; the Son is also wisdom; and wisdom is one thing, and Jesus Christ another: there are two sons. And afterwards: But understand the conjunction ^B with wisdom otherwise, not according to substance in the formed body, but according to discipline and participation. And after other things:

Nor was God, who bore and had put on a human body, principally devoid of human passions; nor was the human body principally devoid of divine works in him in whom it was, and through whom He performed these works. He was formed principally as man in the womb; and secondarily God was in the womb *synousiōmenos tō anthrōpinō*, that is, His substance was coupled with man.

III. From the Acts of the Disputation held by Malchion against Paul of Samosata.

From simple elements, surely, a composite comes to be, as in Christ Jesus, who has been made one from God the Word and a human body which is from the seed of David, in no way existing further by any division, but by unity. You, however, seem to me to be unwilling to confess composition according to this; so that the Son of God is not in Him by substance, but wisdom [is in Him] according to participation. For you said this: because wisdom would suffer loss, and therefore it could not be composite: nor do you reflect that just as the divine wisdom, before it emptied itself, remained undiminished; so too in this emptying which it mercifully undertook, it remained undiminished and immutable. And you even say this, that wisdom dwelt in him, as we too dwell in houses, so that one is in the other; ^C but we are not a part of the house, nor is the house a part of us.

IV. From the same Acts from Leontius, l. c.

Did I not say before, that you do not concede that the only-begotten Son who is from eternity before every creature, is in the whole Savior *ousiōs*, that is, united according to substance?