Marcellus

 MARCELLUS was Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia. In the early years of S. Athanasius's episcopate, he wrote his Answer to the Arian Asterius and others, which was the occasion, and forms the subject of Eusebius's "contra Marcellum" and "Ecclesiastica Theologia," and which is the only authentic existing document recording his opinions. "Now he replies to Asterius," says Eusebius, "now to the great Eusebius [of Nicomedia], and then he turns upon that man of God, that indeed thrice blessed person, Paulinus [of Tyre]. Then he goes to war with Origen ... Next he marches out against Narcissus, and pursues the other Eusebius," himself. "In a word, he counts for nothing all the Ecclesiastical Fathers, being satisfied with no one but himself." contr. Marc. i. 4. He was in consequence condemned in several Arian Councils, and retired to Rome, as did S. Athanasius, about the year 341, when both of them were formally acquitted of heterodoxy by the Pope in Council. Both were present, and both were again acquitted, at the Council of Sardica in 347. From this very date, however, the charges against him, which had hitherto been confined to the Arians, begin to find a voice among the Catholics. S. Cyril in his Catechetical Lectures, A.D. 347, speaks of the heresy which had lately arisen in Galatia, which denied Christ's eternal reign, a description which both from country and tenet is evidently levelled at Marcellus. He is followed by S. Paulinus at the Council of Arles, and by S. Hilary, in the years which follow; but S. Athanasius seems to have acknowledged him down to about A.D. 360. At length the latter began to own that Marcellus "was not far from heresy," vid. below, and S. Hilary and S. Sulpicius say that he separated from his communion. S. Hilary adds (Fragm. ii. 21) that Athanasius was decided in this course, not by Marcellus's work against Asterius, but by publications posterior to the Council of Sardica. Photinus, the disciple of Marcellus, who had published the very heresy imputed to the latter before A.D. 345, had now been deposed for some years, with the unanimous consent of all parties.

 Thus for ten years Marcellus was disowned by the Saint with whom he had shared so many trials; but in the very end of S. Athanasius's life a transaction took place between himself, S. Basil, and the Galatian school, which issued in his being induced again to think more favourably of Marcellus, or at least to think it right in charity to consider him in communion with the Church. S. Basil had taken a strong part against him, and wrote to S. Athanasius on the subject, Ep. 69, 2, thinking that Athanasius's apparent countenance of him did harm to the Catholic cause. Upon this the accused party sent a deputation to Alexandria, with a view of setting themselves right with Athanasius. Eugenius, deacon of their Church, was their representative, and he, in behalf of his brethren, subscribed a statement in vindication of his and their orthodoxy, which was countersigned by the clergy of Alexandria and apparently by S. Athanasius, though his name does not appear among the extant signatures. This important document, which was brought to light and published by Montfaucon, speaks in the name of "the Clergy and the others assembled in Ancyra of Galatia, with our father Marcellus." He, as well as Athanasius himself, died immediately after this transaction, Marcellus in extreme age, being at least twenty years older than Athanasius, who himself lived till past the age of seventy. One might trust that the life of the former was thus prolonged, till he really recanted the opinions which go under his name; yet viewing him historically, and not in biography, it still seems right, and is in accordance with the usage of the Church in other cases, to consider him rather in his works and in his school and its developments, than in his own person and in his penitence.

 Whether S. Athanasius wrote the controversial passages which form Orat. iv. against him or against his school, in either case it was prior to the date of the explanatory document signed by Eugenius; nor is its interpretation affected by that explanation. As to S. Hilary's statement, that S. Athanasius did not condemn the particular work of Marcellus against Asterius, of which alone portions remain to us, his evidence in other parts of the history is not sufficiently exact for us to rely on his evidence in Marcellus's favour, against the plainly heretical import of the statements made in that work. Those statements were as follows:

 Marcellus held, according to Eusebius, that (1) there was but one person, [ prosopon ], in the Divine Nature; but he differed from Sabellius in maintaining, (2) not that the Father was the Son and the Son the Father, (which is called the doctrine of the [ huiopator ],) but that (3) Father and Son were mere names or titles, and ( 4) not expressive of essential characteristics, names or titles given to Almighty God and (5) to His Eternal Word, on occasion of the Word's appearing in the flesh, in the person, or subsistence ([ hypostasis ]) of Jesus Christ the Son of Mary. The Word, he considered, was from all eternity in the one God, being analogous to man's reason within him, or the [ endiathetos logos ] of the philosophical schools. (6) This One God or [ monas ], has condescended to extend or expand Himself, [ platunesthai ], to effect our salvation. (7 and 8) The expansion consists in the action, [ energeia ], of the [ logos ], which then becomes the [ logos prophorikos ] or voice of God, instead of His inward Reason. (9) The incarnation is a special divine expansion, viz. an expansion in the flesh of Jesus, Son of Mary; (10) in order to which the Word went forth, as at the end of the dispensation He will return. Consequently the [ logos ] is not (11) the Son, nor (12) the Image of God, nor the Christ, nor the First-begotten, nor King, but Jesus is all these; and if these titles are applied to the Word in Scripture, they are applied prophetically, in anticipation of His manifestation in the flesh. (13) And when He has accomplished the object of His coming, they will cease to apply to Him; for He will leave the flesh, return to God, and be merely the Word as before; and His Kingdom, as being the Kingdom of the flesh or manhood, will come to an end.

 This account of the tenets of Marcellus comes, it is true, from an enemy, who was writing against him, and moreover from an Arian or Arianiser, who was least qualified to judge of the character of tenets which were so opposite to his own. Yet there is no reason to doubt its correctness on this account. Eusebius supports his charges by various extracts from Marcellus's works, and he is corroborated by the testimony of others. Moreover, if Athanasius's account of the tenets against which he himself writes in his fourth Oration, answers to what Eusebius tells us of those of Marcellus, as in fact they do, the coincidence confirms Eusebius as well as explains Athanasius. And further, the heresy of Photinus, the disciple of Marcellus, which consisted in the very doctrines which Eusebius deduces from the work of Marcellus, gives an additional weight to such deductions.

 He wrote his work against Asterius not later than 335, the year of the Arian Council of Jerusalem, which at once took cognisance of it, and cited Marcellus to appear before them. The same year a Council held at Constantinople condemned and deposed him, about the time that Arius came thither for re-admission into the Church. From that time his name is frequently introduced into the Arian anathemas, vid. Macrostich, Syn. § 26. By adding in that document "those who communicate with him," the Eusebians intended to strike at the Roman see, which had acquitted Marcellus in a Council held in June of the same year.

 The Arians of Alexandria, writing to Alexander, (Syn. § 16) speak of the Son "not as existing before, and afterwards generated or new created into a Son." One school of theologians may be aimed at, who held our Lord's [ sunkatabasis ] to create the world was His [ gennesis ], and certainly such language as that of Hippol. contr. Noet. § 15, favours the supposition. But a class of the Sabellians may more probably be intended, who held that the Word became the Son, on His incarnation, such as Marcellus, vid. Euseb. Eccles. Theol. i. 1. contr. Marc. ii. 3. vid. also Eccles. Theol ii. 9, p. 114. b. [ med' allote allen k. t. l. ]. Also the Macrostich says, "We anathematise those who call Him the mere Word of God, ... not allowing Him to be Christ and Son of God before all ages, but from the time He took on Him our flesh ... such are the followers of Marcellus and Photinus, etc." Syn. § 26. Again, Athanasius, Orat. iv. 15, says that of those who divide the Word from the Son, some called our Lord's manhood the Son, some the two Natures together, and some said "that the Word Himself became the Son when He was made man." It makes it the more likely that Marcellus is meant, that Asterius seems to have written against him before the Nicene Council, and that Arius in other of his writings borrowed from Asterius, vid. de Decret. § 8; though it must not be forgotten that some of the early Fathers spoke unadvisedly on this subject, vid. the author's Theological Tracts .

 In the fourth (Arian) Confession of Antioch (supr. vol. i. p. 101) words are used which answer to those added in the second General Council (381) to the Creed, and are directed against the doctrine of Marcellus, who taught that the Word was but a divine energy, manifested in Christ and retiring from Him at the consummation of all things, when the manhood or flesh of Christ would consequently no longer reign. "How can we admit," says Marcellus in Eusebius, "that that flesh, which is from the earth and profiteth nothing, should co-exist with the Word in the ages to come as serviceable to Him?" de Eccl. Theol. iii. 8. Again, "If He has received a beginning of His Kingdom not more than four hundred years past, it is no paradox that He who gained that kingdom so short a while since, should be said by the Apostle to deliver it up to God. What are we to gather about the human flesh, which the Word bore for us, not four hundred years since? will the Word have it in the ages to come, or only to the judgment season?" iii. 17. And, "Should any ask whether that flesh which is in the Word has become immortal, we say to him, that we count it not safe to pronounce on points of which we learn not for certain from divine Scripture." Ibid. 10.

 Pope Julius acquitted Marcellus, Athan. Apol. Ar. 32, A.D. 341, but it would seem that he did not eventually preserve himself from heresy, even if he deserved a favourable judgment at that time. Athan. also sides with him, de Fug. 3. Hist. Arian. 6, but Epiphanius records, that, once on his asking Athan. what he (Athan.) thought of Marcellus, a smile came on his face, as if he had an opinion of him which he did not like to express, or which Epiphanius ought not to have asked for. Hær. 72, 4. And S. Hilary says that Athan. separated Marcellus from his communion, because he agreed with his disciple, Photinus. He is considered heretical by Epiphanius, l.c.; by Basil, Epp. 69, 125, 263, 265; Chrysost. in Heb. i. 8; Theod. Hær. ii. 10; by Petavius, far more strongly by Bull. Montfaucon defends him, Tillemont, and Natal. Alex.