MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA: Bishop of Ancyra (the modern Angora, 220 m. s.e. of Constantinople); b. probably in the latter part of the third century; d. about 374. He took part as bishop in the synod

held at Ancyra apparently in 314, and

Early Life; eleven years later was a somewhat in

Trinitarian conspicuous opponent of the Ariana at

Doctrine. Nima. In 335, however, he attracted attention by a book of which little is known, being extant only in fragments. His work was evoked primarily by a treatise of the Lucian iatic Asterius, although it formed a general attack upon both the living and the dead leaders of the great Eusebian party. His polemic was aimed against the Eusebian and Arian doctrine of three divine hypostasea, which had been received from the teachings of Origen. Perceiving the pagan basis of this doctrine, Marcellus opposed not only the doc

trine of Christ's inferiority which it implied but also its polytheistic coloring. A rigid defender of mono theism, he acknowledged only one God, although he recognized a certain differentiation in him. Pre vious to the creation of the wOrid God

Doctrine had been simply a "monad," but with

of the the formation of the universe the first

Trinity. period of salvation was introduced by

the "procession" of the Logos, which

was eternal in God and has since remained the " op

erative activity" of God. In the incarnation of

the Logos it became, in a somewhat stronger form,

"divided from the Father by the weakness of the

flesh," though it existed potentially in the Father

not only throughout the period between the creation and the incarnation, but also afterwards, so that God and the Logos are not to be separated, and

the eye of faith accordingly sees the Father in

Christ (John xiv. 9). In like manner Marcellus re

gards the Spirit as contained within the Logos until

Jesus breathed on his disciples and bade them re ceive the Holy Ghost (John xx. 22), after which it proceeded operatively from the Father and the Son.

Up to the time of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit,

therefore, Marcellus taught binitarianism, but after

this event "the monad was extended into a triad."

Nevertheless, this "extension" did not produce a

disruption of the "monad," which is "potentially

indivisible," so that the Father, the Logos, and

the Spirit are one God. After the paruaia, when

171

Christ will appear in the flesh, both the Logos and the Spirit will be wholly reunited with God, and the "monad" will again exist as it existed before the creation of the world. The kingdom of the man Christ will then have an end (cf. I Cor. xv. 28), but the Logos, whose power has neither beginning nor interruption, will then, again existing in the Father, retain the divine omnipotence which he had never lost.

Marcellus of Ancyra accordingly taught trinitarian monotheism, which in its development from a "monad " to a "triad "formed part of the plan of salvation, and in this teaching his theological interestswerecentered. He emphasized the thought that the "non-incarnate Word" is called merely Logos and not Son in the Scriptures, and he accordingly referred the terms " Son of God," "image of the invisible God," and "first-born of every creature " (Col. i. 15), as well as all Biblical designations of Christ except the Logos-concept, to the incarnate Logos. He thus escaped the Eusebian assumption of a "creation" of the Logos, which destroyed the doctrine of its eternity; and at the same time found a confirmation of his theory that the historic Christ was " God appearing in human form "and at the same time " the perfect man."

The Euaebian Synod of Constantinople in 336 condemned the work of Marcellus as heretical, since it assumed that the Son began with his birth by Mary and also postulated an end of his kingdom.

He was accordingly anathematized, the

Teachings destruction of his book was ordered, Condemned; his followers, who seem to have been

Later Life. numerous in Galatia, were bidden to return to orthodoxy, and Basil was apparently appointed to succeed him as bishop of Ancyra. Where Marcellus went after his deposition is unknown, but the death of Constantine in 337 permitted him to return to his see. That he was formally reinstated seems scarcely probable, but at all events his reappearance in Ancyra resulted in tumultuous scenes. He was again condemned at a second synod in Constantinople in the latter part of 338 or the early part of 339, and in the summer of the latter year went to Rome, where he was declared to be innocent. He then left Rome, and is next found at the Synod of Sardica. in 343, where he was condemned for the third time by the Eastern Church, but was again acquitted by the Western. Of his subsequent fortunes little is known. According to Sozomen, he returned to Ancyra as bishop, only to be again expelled in 350, but the assertion is supported by scant evidence. He was repeatedly condemned both by the Homoiousiansand the younger Nicene school, while in the West, on the other hand, his doctrines were not discussed at any synod between 343 and c. 380, although Basil complained that the Occident had no words of blame for the teachings of Marcellus. Where he passed the last thirty yearn of his long life is unknown, nor are the place and exact date of his death determined. He is said by Jerome to have written many works against the Ariana, although none are now extant. At the time of his death he had many followers in Galatia, though it is uncertain how far they actually understood and accepted his teachings. A committee sent apparently in the early part of the eighth decade of the fourth century, from Ancyra to Athanasius, who was mistrustful of Marcellus, though he never polemized against him, presented a symbol which accepted the definition of the Son given in the Nicene Creed, but spoke of only one hypostasis of the Trinity, and also revealed other traces of the influence of Mar cellos. He left no representative of his theology, however, and Marcellianism remained an impersonal heresy. It was condemned by Pope Damasus c. 380, and with the acceptance of the first canon of the synod held at Constantinople in 381, the name of Marcellus was placed on the list of heretics in the West after the middle of the fifth century.

While it is true that the Christology of Marcellus recalls the doctrine of Paul of Samosata (see Monarchianism), if the historic Christ be regarded as the "new man" and the Logos or Spirit in him be considered undivided from God, on the other hand, the historic Christ is, in his Position in teaching, also " God manifest in the the History flesh." Both these views appear aide of Dogma. by side in the system of Marcellus, as they do in almost all the Chris tology of the early Church before Apollinaris and the Nestorian controversy. Any estimate of the position of Marcellus in the history of dogma must proceed, therefore, from the twofold assumption that his general conception of Christianity was closely akin to that of Irenaeus and that the creed of Sardica represented his economic trinitarian "monotheism." A remarkable similarity with the latter document is shown by the views of Phaeba dius of Aginnum and the older writings of Hilary, while both Tertullian and Novatian are in harmony with Marcellus in their development of the "monad" into a "triad" in the course of the plan of salvation. These points of resemblance, as well as the agreement of Marcellus with Irenaeus, find their explanation in the fact that he represents the tra dition of the pre-apologetic age, as it is found in the "binitarianism" of Herman, the Epistle of Bar nabas, and the Second Epistle of Clement, as well as in many Gnostic systems; nor is it impossible that these traditions may have originated in Asia Minor, where both Marcellua and Irenmus lived, and where both modaliatic Monarchianism and Montanism flourished.

(F. Loofs.)

Bibliography: In MarceRiana (Göttingen, 1794) C. H. G. Rettberg carefully collected the fragments of Marcellud writings, cf. MPG, xviii.; they are also in Kloatermann's ed. of Eusebius' "Against Marcellus;" Leipsic,1908. Earlier discussions are antiquated by T. Zahn, Marcellue roan Arr. cgra, Gotha, 1867. Consult further: Hefele, Concilienpo schichte, vol. i.; Harnack, Dogma, passim, consult -Index; R. Seeberg, Lehrbuch der Dogmenpeadtichk, i. 175-178, Leipsic, 1895; F, Loafs, in Sitzungsberiehte der Berliner Akademie, philosophiech-historische Klasse, 1902; idem, in

AbAandluapen der Berliner Akademie, 1909, pp. 1 sqq.; DCB, iii. 808-813 (excellent).