Marcellus of Ancyra and how he would have saved us from the "Cappadocian compromise"

Marcellus of Ancyra (died ca. 374 CE) is an enigmatic figure. He was a staunch Nicene, friend of Athanasius, defended by popes but also reviled as a heretic. Eusebius of Caesarea wrote two polemical tracts against Marcellus, Contra Marcellum and De Ecceiastica Theologia

Joseph  Lienhard wrote a fundamental book about him, Contra Marcellum: Marcellus of Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology (Washington, D.C., 1999).

The beginning of Lienhard’s the book is an account of Marcellus' life (pages 1-19) and a list of nine works that can possibly be attributed to him (pages 19-27). Marcellus' major work, the Contra Asterium, published in 336, only survives in fragments, mainly quotations by Eusebius. The rest of the book is an account of what people said Marcellus' heresy was and investigation into the truthfulness of the claims (pages 28 to 240). By 355 Marcellus retired into obscurity.

Critics claimed that Marcellus believed that God was a Monad and only emerged as a Trinity for the sake of salvation (page 50). Marcellus was labelled as a Sabellian. Lienhard points out this comes from his opponents and not from Marcellus's own writings. In the end Lienhard affirms that Marcellus was guilty of a bit too much speculation (which he somewhat disavowed in the end) and some inconsistencies in his christological/theological terminology.

One of the useful aspects of Lienhard’s book is that it makes one understand better that the Arian controversy was much more complex than most textbooks let on.

Two passages from Lienhard’s book, in particular, are worth quoting.

Epiphanius of Salamis 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'. (page 9)

But Athanasius never betrayed Marcellus. Basil of Caesarea, the leading figure of the Cappadocians, wrote to Athanasius to secure a Western condemnation of Marcellus (Ep. 69, 2; 82). Athanasius left Basil’s letters unanswered, and never acted. Basil later complained that his letters to Athanasius had accomplished nothing (Ep. 89, 2 to Meletius).

Lienhard writes, 'Marcellus of Ancyra is one of the more intriguing figures of the fourth century. While he is hardly the most important theologian of that century, he played a small but significant role in the development of doctrine in that era' (page 141).

But it is the concluding paragraph of the book that, somehow, indicates that Lienhard didn’t say all that he wanted to say:

Marcellus, and many who though as he did, finally snapped the great chain of being and freed Christian doctrine from one of the most perduring assumptions of the Platonic world-view. As the eastern Church accepted the formula "one ousia, three hypostaseis", it gained clarity in its doctrine. But Marcellus may still say to the Church that the phrase remains in need of careful explanation and that there are other ways, too, of speaking about the mystery of God, One and Three. (Contra Marcellum, cit, p. 244 - emphasis added)

What "other ways"? The options are not unlimited. The "Cappadocian settlement" is unsatisfactory (besides being un-scriptural), because it is an unstable compromise, permanently oscillating between tritheism and modalism. Then, what are the other options we are left with?

Having read Marcellus’ excerpts, in particular in the quotations from the books that Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to attack him (Contra Marcellum and De Ecclesiastica Theologia) I am believe that the correct interpretation of Marcellus' central thought is this: God is one ousia, one hypostasis and one prosopon. He is also, ab aeterno, endowed with two essential attributes, His Word (logos, dabar) and His Spirit (pneuma, ruach).

Jesus is, indeed, the Incarnation of God’s eternal Word and, after the Resurrection and the Ascension, forever seated at God’s right, as Lord.