Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T12:42:53.596Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Basil of Caesarea, Marcellus of Ancyra, and “Sabellius”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

Joseph T. Lienhard
Joseph T. Lienhard
Affiliation:
Fr. Lienhard is professor of theology inMarquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In textbooks on the history of early Christianity Marcellus of Ancyra usually merits one footnote, as the fourth-century oddity refuted by the Creed of Constantinople in the clause “and his kingdom will have no end,” since Marcellus taught that Christ's kingdom would end. But his significance is greater than that. Marcellus enjoyed notoriety in the 330s. Four decades later, in the 370s, opposition to Marcellus had all but ceased. But Basil of Caesarea, the first of the three Cappadocian fathers, campaigned relentlessly against Marcellus and his followers. Basil's virulent opposition to Marcellus still needs interpretation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , June 1989 , pp. 157 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Church History 1989

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Asterius the Sophist wrote an open letter (ca. 327) as an apology for a letter Eusebius had written to Paulinus of Tyre. Eusebius was Paulinus's teacher, and Paulinus was Asterius's patron. Asterius may have been working to have Eusebius restored to his see. Besides Asterius's letter, Marcellus refuted four other letters, all dating from between 318 and 325: Eusebius of Caesarea to Euphration of Balaneae; Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre; Paulinus of Tyre perhaps to Alexander of Alexandria; and Narcissus of Neronias to Eusebius of Nicomedia. The fragments of Asterius's letter are in Bardy, G., Recherches sursaint Lucien d'Antioche et son école (Paris, 1936).Google Scholar Extant parts of the other four letters are in Opitz, H.G., ed., Athanasius Werke, volume 3, Urkunden zur Geschichte des arianischen Streites, 318–328 (Berlin, 1935),Google ScholarUrkunden 3, 8, 9, 19.

2. Klostermann, E., ed., Eusebius Werke, volume 4, Gegen Marcell. Über die kirchliche Theologie. Die Fragmente Marcells, 2d ed., ed. Hansen, G. C. (Berlin, 1972).Google Scholar

3. Schneemelcher, W., “Zur Chronologie des arianischen Streites,” Theotogische Literaturzeitung 79 (1954): 393–400Google Scholar suggests 330/331 or 334; Moreau, J., “Eusèbe de Césarée de Palestine,” Dictionnaire d'Histoire et de géographie eccléiasttques 15 (1963): 1443,Google Scholar and “Eusebius von Caesarea,” Reallexion fü Antike und Christentum 6 (1966): 1061,Google Scholar prefer 330.

4. In the past few decades six or eight other works have been attributed to Marcellus, but there is no unanimity on their authenticity. See Lienhard, J. T., “Marcellus of Ancyra in Modern Research,” Theological Studies 43 (1982): 486–503,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Hanson, R. P. C., “The Date and Authorship of Pseudo-Anthimus De sancta ecclesia,” Proceedings of the Royal Irish Academy 83 (1983): 351C–354C.Google Scholar

5. See Kelly, J. N. D., Early Christian Creeds, 3d ed. (London, 1972), pp. 266–268.Google Scholar Theophronius of Tyana in Cappadocia was suspected of heresy and cleared his name by offering the council this creed as a statement of his beliefs. Theophronius's creed volubly anathematizes Marcellus, Sabellius, and Paul of Samosata by name and insists that the Son was with God hypostatically (en hypostasei). Theophronius was apparently inclined to neo-Sabellianism (Kelly's useful term) until enlightened by his fellow bishops.

6. See Tetz, M., “Markellianer und Athanasios von Alexandrien. Die markelliansische Expositio fidei ad Athanasium des Diakons Eugenios von Ankyra,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 64 (1973): 75–121,CrossRefGoogle Scholar who includes a critical edition of the text.

7. Epiphanius of Salamis, , Panarion, 72, 1, 1.Google Scholar

8. Ibid., 72,11–12.

9. See Lienhard, J. T., “Ps-Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos, and Basil of Caesarea, Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos: Analysis and Comparison,” Vigiliae Christanae 40 (1986): 365–389,CrossRefGoogle Scholar esp. 386–387 and 388 n. 15, on Basil's varying use of hypostasis and prosopon for what is plural in God.

10. This sentence summarizes one answer to a complex problem, that is, the meaning of dynamis and energeia in Marcellus. Zahn, Theodor, Marcellus von Ancyra. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Theologie (Gotha, 1867), pp. 121–128,Google Scholar recognized that the meaning of these words is crucial to understanding Marcellus's theology. The words do not have the Aristotelian sense of “potency” and “act.” Marcellu's, fragment 61 (neglected by Zahn), is a key. Dynamis, in Marcellus's understanding, is already real, as real as a man who can speak. When he does speak, his energeia (“active power”) results.

11. Eustathius, bishop of Antioch at the time of Nicaea, was deposed by the Eusebians (perhaps as early as 326) for views that may have been akin to Marcellus's. Paulinus later headed Eustathius's followers. Meletius was appointed to the see of Antioch in 360 by the “Arianizers” but was hastily deposed after he preached an unacceptable sermon on Proverbs 8:22. The “Arianizers” then appointed Euzoius.

12. Ep. 69, 1. Translations of passages from Basil's letters are mine, but they have been compared with the translations by Deferrari, R. J., Saint Basil: The Letters, 4 vols. (Cambridge, 1926–1934,Google Scholar and Courtonne, Y., Saint Basile: Lettres, 3 vols. (Paris, 1957–1966).Google Scholar

13. Epp. 61, 66, 67, 69, 80, 82.

14. Athanasius's reputed rejection of Marcellus is problematic. So long as the pseudo-Athanasian Fourth Oration against the Arians (which is a tract against Marcellus) was considered authentic, authors such as J. H. Newman could say that Athanasius definitively and vehemently rejected Marcellus. In his authentic writings, however, Athanasius never rejects him. But the outdated thesis dies slowly. For example, Courtonne, Y., Un témoin do IVe siècle oriental. Sainte Basile et son temps d'aprs sa correspondance (Paris, 1973), pp. 167–174,Google Scholar repeats this and many other outdated judgments on Marcellus. Two texts are relevant to the question. One is in Hilary of Poitiers, Fragmenta historica B. IIs. 9, 1–3 S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictauiensis Opera, vol. 4, Corpus Scriptorom Ecciesiasticorum Latinornm, ed. Alfredus Feder, vol. 65 [Vienna and Leipzig, 1916], pp. 146–147).Google Scholar Hilary seems to report (the text is not easy to interpret) that between the Council ol Sardica (342 or 343) and the Synod of Milan (345), Marcellus was flirting with the doctrines of his disciple Photinus of Sirmium. (Photinus was declared a heretic at Milan in 345.) For this reason, Hilary continues, Athanasius privately broke off communion with Marcellus. Thereafter, Marcellus would not even enter a church. Hilary stresses that Athanasius's enemies were trying to defame him by connecting him with Photinus through Marcellus. To refute the charge, Hilary stresses the following: Marcellus was tried before one synod only (Sardica) and acquitted. Athanasius broke off communion with Marcellus before Photinus was convicted. Athanasius never rejected Marcellus for the Contra Asterium. Furthermore, Athanasius's breaking off communion with Marcellus was a private act. The apologetic tone of the passage suggests that the break was only temporary. The other text is in Epiphanius, (Ancoratus und Panarion, vol. 3, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte, Karl Holl, ed., vol. 37 [Leipzig, 1931], p. 259),Google Scholar who writes: “I myself once asked the blessed pope Athanasius about this Marcellus, what his opinion of him was. He neither defended him nor expressed hostility towards him. He only smiled, and indicated that he was not far from error, but he considered him excused.” Again, this passage hardly suggests permanent rejection.

15. For this and what follows, see Tetz, , “Markellianer und Athanasios,” pp. 116–121.Google Scholar

16. This fact is mentioned explicitly in the Marcellians' later confession to the Egyptian bishops; see Epiphanius, Panarion, 72, 11, 3.

17. Damasus, , ep. 4, in Patrologia Latina, vol. 13 (Paris, 1845), pp. 358–364;Google Scholar see also Theodoret, Historia ecclesiastica, 5, 11.

18. The Neocaesareans thought that Basil was admitting former Arians to communion too easily. Basil defends himself a little testily, saying that he has a letter from Athanasius on this topic and will show it to anyone who asks (ep. 204, 6).

19. In epistle 210 to the leading citizens of Neocaesarea Basil openly accuses Atarbius of Sabellianism.

20. See Socrates, , Historia ecclesiastica, 4, 20–22;Google ScholarSozomen, , Historia ecciesiastica, 6, 19;Google Scholar and Theodoret, , Historia ecclesiastica, 4, 20–22.Google Scholar The last includes parts of the encyclical letter Peter wrote from Rome.

21. Text in Epiphanius, , Panarion, 72, 11–12.Google Scholar The eleven bishops are Eulogius, Adeiphius, Alexander, Ammonius, Harpocration, Isaac, Isidore, Annubion, Pitimus, Euphration, and Aaron. Most are otherwise unknown, but on Harpocation, probably bishop of Bubastus, see Athanasius, Apologia contra Ariarios 50 and 78. These bishops were quite famous in their day. Jerome admires them as confessors who were, in will, already martyrs (ep. 3, 2, written from Antioch in 374). He later wrote to Pope Damasus (ep. 15, 2, from 376 or 377) that he follows the Egyptian confessors in matters of faith, rather than any one of the three bishops of Antioch. In the same letter Jerome vehemently professes his inability to understand the phrase “three hypostases” and his dislike for it.

22. Apollinaris had also courted these celebrated confessor-bishops. He sent them a confession of faith (lost) and asked for communion with them. When he received no answer, he wrote again, appealing to their communion with Athanasius. (Text of the letter in Lietzmann, H., Apollinaris von Laodicea und seine Schule [Tübingen, 1904], pp. 255–256.)Google Scholar But the bishops had already accepted communion with Paulinus of Antioch and wrote to Apollinaris that they would accept communion with him only if he recognized Paulinus's orthodoxy. This he would not do, and the bishops then rejected Apollinaris's teaching as heretical. Thereupon Basil praised them. The events are narrated by, ibid., pp. 21–24. See also P.Maran, “Vita S.Basilii” 37, 3 Patrologia Graeca, ed. J.-P. Migne vol. 29, [Paris, 1857], p. cli).

23. Contra Sabellianos et Arium et Anomoeos; text in Patrologia Graeca, 31:600–617.Google Scholar

24. Dörries, H., De Spirtu Sancto. Der Beitrag des Basilius zum Abschluss des trinitarischen Dogmas (Göttingen, 1956), pp. 94–97.Google Scholar

25. Text in Patrologia Graeca, 28:96–121.Google Scholar See also Lienhard, “Ps-Athanasius.”

26. Hübner, R. M., “Die Hauptquelle des Epiphanius (Panarion, haer. 65) über Paulus von Samosata: Ps-Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos,” Zeitschriftflr Kirchengeschichte 90 (1979): 201–220;Google Scholaridem, “Epiphanius, Ancoratus und Ps-Athanasius, Contra Sabellianos,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 92 (1981): 323–333. According to Hübner “Hauptquelle,” pp. 206, 208, 218; “Epiphanius,” p. 328) Epiphanius used the Contra Sabellianos as his source of information on Sabellius, Paul of Samosata, and Photinus (Panaruon, 62, 65, 71).

27. Zahn, , Marcellus von Ancyra, p. 208,Google Scholar already recognized this. See also Lienhard, , “PsAthanasius,” p. 368.Google Scholar