Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| The Council of Tyre and First Exile of Athanasius, 335-337.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
§5. The
Council of Tyre and First Exile of Athanasius, 335–337.
Many of the bishops who were making their way to
the great festival met at Tyre. The Arian element was very strong.
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Narcissus, Maris, Theognis, Patrophilus, George,
now bishop of Laodicea, are all familiar names. Ursacius and Valens,
‘young47
| 47 p. 107:
Euseb. V. C. iv. 43, calls them ‘the fairest of
God’s youthful flock.’ The Council of Sardica in 343
describes them as ‘ungodly and foolish youths,’ Hil.
Frag. ii., cf. pp. 120, 122. | both in years and in mind’ make
their first entrance on the stage of ecclesiastical intrigue; Eusebius
of Cæsarea headed a large body of ‘conservative’
malcontents: in the total number of perhaps 150, the friends of
Athanasius were outnumbered by nearly two to one. (See Gwatkin’s
note, p. 85, Hefele ii. 17, Eng Tra.) Eusebius of Cæsarea
took the chair (yet see D.C.B. ii. 316b). The proceedings of
the Council were heated and disorderly; promiscuous accusations were
flung from side to side; the president himself was charged by an
excited Egyptian Confessor with having sacrificed to idols (p. 104, n.
2), while against Athanasius every possible charge was raked up. The
principal one was that of harshness and violence. Callinicus, bishop of
Pelusium, according to a later story48
| 48 Soz. ii.
25. But Callinicus was a Meletian all along: pp. 132, 137,
517. | , had taken up the
cause of Ischyras, and been deposed by Athanasius in consequence. A
certain Mark had been appointed to supersede him, and he had been
subjected to military force. Certain Meletian bishops who had refused
to communicate with Athanasius on account of his irregular election,
had been beaten and imprisoned. A document from Alexandria testified
that the Churches were emptied on account of the strong popular feeling
against these proceedings. The number of witnesses, and the evident
readiness of the majority of bishops to believe the worst against him,
inspired Athanasius with profound misgivings as to his chance of
obtaining justice. He had in vain objected to certain bishops as
biassed judges; when it was decided to investigate the case of Ischyras
on the spot, the commission of six was chosen from among the very
persons challenged (p. 138). Equally unsuccessful was the protest of
the Egyptian bishops against the credit of the Meletian witnesses (p.
140). But on one point the accusers walked into a trap. The ‘hand
of Arsenius’ was produced, and naturally made a deep impression
(Thdt. H. E. i. 30). But Athanasius was ready. ‘Did you
know Arsenius personally?’ ‘Yes’ is the eager reply
from many sides. Promptly Arsenius is ushered in alive, wrapped up in a
cloak. The Synod expected an explanation of the way he had lost his
hand. Athanasius turned up his
cloak and shewed that one hand at least was there. There was a moment
of suspense, artfully managed by Athanasius. Then the other hand was
exposed, and the accusers were requested to point out whence the third
had been cut off (Socr. i. 29). This was too much for John Arcaph, who
precipitately fled (so Socr., he seems to have gone to Egypt with the
couriers mentioned below, cf. p. 142). But the Eusebians were made of
sterner stuff: the whole affair was a piece of magic; or there had been
an attempt to murder Arsenius, who had hid himself from fear. At any
rate Athanasius must not be allowed to clear himself so easily.
Accordingly, in order partly to gain time and partly to get up a more
satisfactory case, they prevailed on Count Dionysius, in the face of
strong remonstrances from Athanasius (p. 138), to despatch a commission
of enquiry to the Mareotis in order to ascertain the real facts about
Ischyras. The nature of the commission may be inferred, firstly, from
its composition, four strong Arians and two (Theodore of Heraclea, and
Macedonius of Mopsuestia) reactionaries; secondly, from the fact that
they took Ischyras with them, but left Macarius behind in custody;
thirdly, from the fact that couriers were sent to Egypt with four
days’ start, and with an urgent message to the Meletians to
collect at once in as large numbers as possible at Irene, so as to
impress the commissioners with the importance of the Meletian community
at that place. The Egyptian bishops present at Tyre handed in
strongly-worded protests to the Council, and to Count Dionysius, who
received also a weighty remonstrance from the respected Alexander,
Bishop of Thessalonica. This drew forth from him an energetic protest
to the Eusebians (p. 142 sq.) against the composition of the
commission. His protest was not, however, enforced in any practical
way, and the Egyptians thereupon appealed to the Emperor (ib.).
Athanasius himself escaped in an open boat with four of his bishops,
and found his way to Constantinople, where he arrived on October 30.
The Emperor was out riding when he was accosted by one of a group of
pedestrians. He could scarcely credit his eyes and the assurance of his
attendants that the stranger was none other than the culprit of Tyre.
Much annoyed at his appearance, he refused all communication; but the
persistency of Athanasius and the reasonableness of his demand
prevailed. The Emperor wrote to Jerusalem to summon to his presence all
who had been at the Council of Tyre (pp. 105, 145).
Meanwhile the Mareotic
Commission had proceeded with its task. Their report was kept
secret, but eventually sent to Julius of Rome, who handed it over to
Athanasius in 339 (p. 143). Their enquiry was carried on with the aid
of Philagrius the prefect, a strong Arian sympathiser, whose guard
pricked the witnesses if they failed to respond to the hints of the
commissioners and the threats of the prefect himself. The clergy of
Alexandria and the Mareotis were excluded from the court, and
catechumens, Jews and heathen, none of whom could properly have been
present on the occasion, were examined as to the interruption of the
eucharistic service by Macarius (p. 119). Even with these precautions
the evidence was not all that could be wished. To begin with, it had
all taken place on an ordinary week-day, when there would be no
Communion (pp. 115, 125, 143); secondly, when Macarius came in Ischyras
was in bed; thirdly, certain witnesses whom Athanasius had been accused
of secreting came forward in evidence of the contrary (p. 107). The
prefect consoled himself by letting loose the violence of the heathen
mob (p. 108) against the ‘virgins’ of the Church. The
catholic party were helpless; all they could do was to protest in
writing to the commission, the council, and the prefect (pp.
138–140. The latter protest is dated 10th of Thoth, i.e. Sep. 8,
335, Diocletian leap-year).
The commission returned to Tyre, where the
council passed a resolution (Soz. ii. 25) deposing Athanasius. They
then proceeded to Jerusalem for the Dedication49
| 49 The Greek
Church still commemorates this Festival on Sep. 13; the Chron.
Pasch. gives Sep. 17 for the Dedication. But if the Mareotic
Commissioners returned to Tyre, as they certainly did (Soz. l.c.),
these dates are untrustworthy. | of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Here Arius with certain others (probably
including Euzoius) was received to communion on the strength of the
confession of faith he had presented to Constantine a few years before,
and the assembled bishops drew up a synodal letter announcing the fact
to Egypt and the Church at large (pp. 144, 460). At this juncture the
summons from Constantine arrived. The terms of it shewed that the
Emperor was not disposed to hear more of the broken chalice or the
murdered Arsenius: but the Eusebians were not at a loss. They advised
the bishops to go quietly to their homes, while five of the inner
circle, accompanied by Eusebius of Cæsarea, who had a panegyric to
deliver in the imperial presence, responded to the summons of royalty.
They made short work of Athanasius. The whole farrago of charges
examined at Tyre was thrown aside. He had threatened to starve the
πανευδαίμων
πατρίς, the chosen capital of
Constantine, by stopping the grain ships which regularly left
Alexandria every autumn. It was in vain for Athanasius to protest that
he had neither the means nor the power to do anything of the kind.
‘You are a rich man,’ replied Eusebius of Nicomedia,
‘and can do whatever you like.’ The Emperor was touched in
a sore place50
| 50 The
philosopher Sopater had been put to death on a similar charge a few
years before, D.C.B. i. 631. | . He promptly ordered the banishment of
Athanasius to Treveri, whither he started, as it would seem, on Feb. 5,
336 (pp. 105, 146, 503, note 11). The friends of Athanasius professed
to regard the banishment as an act of imperial clemency, in view of
what might have been treated as a capital matter, involving as it did
the charge of treason (p. 105); and Constantine II., immediately after
his father’s death, stated (pp. 146, 272, 288) in a letter
(written before he became Augustus in Sept. 337) that he had been sent
to Treveri merely to keep him out of danger, and that Constantine had
been prevented only by death from carrying out his intention of
restoring him. These charitable constructions need not be rudely
ignored; but in all probability the anxiety to be rid of a cause of
disturbance was at least one motive with the peace-loving Emperor. At
any rate the Eusebians could not
obtain the imperial sanction to their proposed election of a successor
(Pistus?) to Athanasius. On his return after the death of Constantine
he found his see waiting for him unoccupied (Apol. c. Ar. 29, p.
115).
The close of the Tricennalia was made the
occasion of a council at Constantinople (winter 335–336).
Marcellus was deposed for heresy and Basil nominated to the see of
Ancyra, Eusebius of Cæsarea undertaking to refute the ‘new
Samosatene.’ Other minor depositions were apparently carried out
at the same time, and several Western bishops, including Protogenes of
Sardica, had reason later on to repent of their signatures to the
proceedings (Hil. Fragm. iii.).
Death of Arius. From Jerusalem Arius had
gone to Alexandria, but (Soz. ii. 29) had not succeeded in obtaining
admission to the Communion of the Church there. Accordingly he repaired
to the capital about the time of the Council just mentioned. The
Eusebians resolved that here at any rate he should not be repelled.
Arius appeared before the Emperor and satisfied him by a sworn
profession of orthodoxy, and a day was fixed for his reception to
communion. The story of the distress caused to the aged bishop
Alexander is well known. He was heard to pray in the church that either
Arius or himself might be taken away before such an outrage to the
faith should be permitted. As a matter of fact Arius died suddenly the
day before his intended reception. His friends ascribed his death to
magic, those of Alexander to the judgment of God, the public generally
to the effect of excitement on a diseased heart (Soz. l. c.).
Athanasius, while taking the second view, describes the occurrence with
becoming sobriety and reserve (pp. 233, 565). Alexander himself died
very soon after, and Paul was elected in his place (D.C.B. art. Macedonius (2)), but was soon banished on some
unknown charge, whereupon Eusebius of Nicomedia was translated to the
capital see (between 336 and 340; date uncertain. Cf. D.C.B. ii.
367a).
Of the sojourn of Athanasius at Treveri, the
noble home of the Emperors on the banks of the Mosel, we know few
details, but his presence there appeals to the historic imagination.
(See D.C.B. i. 186a.) He cannot have been there much above a year. He
kept the Easter festival, probably of 336, certainly of 337, in the
still unfinished Church (p. 244: the present Cathedral is said to
occupy the site of what was then an Imperial palace: but the main
palace is apparently represented by the ‘Roman baths).’ He
was not suffered to want (p. 146): he had certain Egyptian brethren
with him; and found a sympathetic friend in the good Bishop Maximinus
(cf. p. 239). The tenth festal letter, §1, preserves a short
extract from a letter written from Trier to his clergy.
Constantine died at Nicomedia, having previously
received baptism from the hands of Eusebius, on Whit-Sunday, May 22,
337. None of his sons were present, and the will is said to have been
entrusted to the Arian chaplain mentioned above (p. xxxiv). Couriers
carried the news to the three Cæsars, and at a very moderate51
| 51 The
courier Palladius, who was considered a marvel, could carry a message
from Nisibis to CP. on horseback in three days, about 250 miles a day,
Socr. vii. 19. At 100 miles a day, i.e. eight miles an hour for
12½ hours out of the 24, the 1,300 miles from Nicomedia to Treveri
would be easily covered by a horseman in the time specified; see Gibbon
quoted p. 115, note 1, and for other examples, Gwatkin, p.
137. | rate of reckoning, it may have been known at
Trier by about June 4. Constantine, as the eldest son, probably
expected more from his father’s will than he actually obtained.
At any rate, on June 17 he wrote a letter to the people and clergy of
Alexandria, announcing the restoration of their bishop in pursuance of
an intention of his father’s, which only death had cut short.
Constantius meanwhile hastened (from the East, probably Antioch) to
Constantinople (D.C.B. i. 651): he too had expectations, for he was his
father’s favourite. The brothers met at Sirmium, and agreed upon
a division of the Empire, Constantius taking the East, Constans Italy
and Illyricum, and Constantine the Gauls and Africa. On Sep. 9 they
formally assumed the title Augustus52
| 52 This date
is certain (Gwatk., 108, note), but the meeting at Sirmium may possibly
fall in the following summer. | . Athanasius had
apparently accompanied Constantine to Sirmium, and on his way eastward
met Constantius at Viminacium (p. 240), his first interview with his
future persecutor. He presently reached Constantinople (p. 272), and on
his way southward, at Cæsarea in Cappadocia, again met
Constantius, who was hurrying to the Persian frontier. On Nov. 23 he
reached Alexandria amid great rejoicings (pp. 104, 503, Fest.
Ind. x.), the clergy especially ‘esteeming that the happiest
day of their lives.’ But the happiness was marred by tumults
(Soz. ii. 2, 5, Hil. Fragm. iii. 8, Fest. Ind. xi., next
year ‘again’), which were, however, checked by the civil
power, the prefect Theodorus being, apparently, favourable to
Athanasius (pp. 102, 527, note 2). The festal letter for 338 would seem
to have been finished at Alexandria, but the point is not absolutely
clear. Here begins his second period of ‘quiet,’ of one
year, four months and twenty-four days, i.e., from Athyr 27 (Nov. 23),
337, to Pharmuthi 21 (April 16), 339.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
