5-6. Of Marcellus and Athanasius
So in the next few years we have a series of depositions of Nicene leaders. By 335 the Church was fairly cleared of all but the two chief of them, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Athanasius of Alexandria (since 328). Marcellus was already in middle life when he refuted the Arians at Nicaea; and in a diocese full of the strife and debate of endless Gaulish sects and superstitions he had learned that the Gospel is wider than Greek philosophy, and that simpler forms may better suit a rude flock. So his system is an appeal from Origen to St John. He begins with the Logos as impersonal — as at once the thinking principle which is in God and the active creating principle which comes forth from God, and yet remains with God. Thus the Logos came forth from the Father for the work of creation, and in the fulness of time descended into human flesh, becoming the Son of God in becoming the Son of Man. Only in virtue of this humiliating separation did the Logos acquire personality for a time: but when the work is done, the human flesh will be thrown aside, and the Logos will return to the Father and be immanent and impersonal as before.
Marcellus has got away from Arianism as far as he can: but he is involved in much the same difficulties. If for example the idea of an eternal Son is polytheistic, nothing is gained by transferring the eternity to an impersonal Logos; and if the work of creation is unworthy of God, it matters little whether it is delegated to a created Son or to a transitory Logos. Marcellus misses as completely as Arius the Christian conception of the Incarnation.
Then they turned to a greater than Marcellus. Athanasius was a Greek by birth and education; Greek also in subtle thought and philosophic insight, in oratorical power and skilful statesmanship. Of Coptic influence he scarcely shows a sign. His very style is clear and simple, without a trace of Egyptian involution and obscurity. Athanasius was born about 297, so that he must have well remembered the last years of the Great Persecution, which lasted till 313. He may have been a lawyer for a short time, and seems to have known Latin; but his main training was Greek and scriptural. As a man of learning or a skilful party-leader Athanasius was not beyond the reach of rivals. But he was more than this. His whole spirit is lighted up with vivid faith in the reality and eternal meaning of the Incarnation. His small work de Incarnatione, written before the rise of Arianism, ranks with the Epistle to Diognetus as the most brilliant pamphlet of early Christian times. Even there he rises far above the level of Arianism and Sabellianism; and throughout his long career we catch glimpses of a spiritual depth which few of his contemporaries could reach. And Athanasius was before all things a man whose life was consecrated to a simple purpose. Through five exiles and fifty years of controversy he stood in defence of the great council. The care of many churches rested on him, the pertinacity of many enemies wore out his life; yet he is never soured but for a moment by the atrocious treachery of 356. At the first gleam of hope he is himself again, full of brotherly consideration and respectful sympathy for old enemies returning to a better mind. Even Gibbon is awed for once before “the immortal name of Athanasius.”
Marcellus had fairly exposed himself to a doctrinal attack, but against Athanasius the most convenient charge was that of episcopal tyranny. In 335 the Eastern bishops gathered to Jerusalem to dedicate the splendid church which Constantine had built on Golgotha. First however a synod was held at Tyre to restore peace in Egypt. The Eusebians had the upper hand, and they used their power shamelessly. Scandal succeeded scandal, till the iniquity culminated in the despatch of an openly partisan commission (including two young Pannonian bishops, Ursacius and Valens) to get up evidence in Egypt. Moderate men protested, and Athanasius took ship for Constantinople. The council condemned him by default and the condemnation was repeated at Jerusalem, where also proceedings were commenced against Marcellus. They also restored Arius; but his actual reception was prevented by his sudden death the evening before the day appointed.
Meanwhile Athanasius had appealed to Constantine in person, who summoned the bishops at once to Constantinople. They dropped the charges of sacrilege and tyranny, and brought forward a new charge of political intrigue. Athauasius was allowed no reply, but sent into exile at Trier in Gaul, where he was honourably received by the younger Constantine. The emperor seems as usual to have been aiming at peace and unity. Athanasius was evidently a centre of disturbance, and the Asiatic bishops disliked him: he was therefore best kept out of the way for the present.
To obtain a deluxe leatherbound edition of THE CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE, subscribe to Castalia History.