Английская Википедия:First Synod of Tyre
Шаблон:More footnotes The First Synod of Tyre or the Council of Tyre (335 AD) was a gathering of bishops called together by Emperor Constantine I to evaluate charges brought against Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria.
Background
Athanasius was involved in the early Christian christological and trinitarian debates, and supported the position of the Council of Nicaea in opposition to that of Arius and his followers. However, R.P.C. Hanson[1] says, “There was … no reason to regard Athanasius as a zealous supporter of the doctrine of Nicaea until at earliest his second exile (339-346).” “He could not possibly have been, as he was later erroneously represented to have been, a leading figure at the Council of Nicaea.” [2]
In 328, Athanasius was elected as bishop or patriarch of Alexandria. Alexandria happened to be the city in which Arius was a priest.
Athanasius blamed the ‘Arians’ for the trouble. He said that the Melitians and the 'Arians' were in cahoots from the beginning and that the ‘Arians’ formulated these 'false' accusations. However, Hanson says that that partnership was only formed after the Melitians had already unsuccessfully appealed to the emperor about how Athanasius treated them.[3][4] The Melitians accused Athanasius of causing divisions and disturbances, preventing people from entering church buildings, murders, imprisonments, beatings, wounding, and burning of churches.[5]
Constantine was persuaded to ask Athanasius to re-admit Arius to the church—which he would not do.
The Synod
“In this year (333) or in the next the Melitians found an ally in the Eusebians. … But it was not till the next year, 334, that the fruit of this alliance appeared. A Council was called to Caesarea in Palestine … to examine the conduct, not the doctrine, of Athanasius." “Athanasius was summoned to it, but refused to attend.” “Next year, however, in the summer of 335, the Council of Caesarea was re-constituted or re-summoned in Tyre."[6]
The emperor Constantine had ordered a Synod of bishops to be present at the consecration of the church which he had erected at Jerusalem (the precursor to the Holy Sepulchre). He directed that, as a secondary matter, they should on their way first assemble at Tyre, to examine charges that had been brought against Athanasius.[7] "And on this occasion Constantine showed openly his support of this move by appointing an imperial official, the consular Dionysius, to oversee it."[8]
"It was not a vast assemblage, there were only about sixty bishops present, but it held a wide representation."[9] Eusebius of Nicomedia played a major role in the council and, according to Epiphanius of Salamis, presided over the assembly.[10] About 310 members attended.
"Athanasius was unwillingly compelled to attend by threats from Constantine. … He also knew that they had a strong case”[11] The Emperor sent a letter to Athanasius, making clear that if he did not attend voluntarily, he would be brought to the Synod forcibly.
“Athanasius had arrived (July 11th) accompanied by 30 Egyptian bishops who were his supporters, and who behaved during the session of Council in a disturbing and threatening manner. His encouragement over several years to his supporters to behave like hooligans was now recoiling on his own head.”[12]
“After some time the Council decided to send a Commission (to Egypt) … to collect evidence on the spot.” “The result was that the Council of Tyre condemned Athanasius on a number of charges, deposed him from being archbishop of Alexandria, excommunicated him, and forbade him to return to his former see. Precisely what the charges upon which he was condemned is not altogether clear. … They had not convicted Athanasius of murdering Arsenius nor of any doctrinal error at all.”[13] “His conviction had nothing to do with doctrinal issues.” “We can now see why, for at least twenty years after 335, no Eastern bishops would communicate with Athanasius. He had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour in his see.”[14]
“Even if some of the proceedings of the Council of Tyre were high-handed, it was beyond doubt that Athanasius had behaved with violence against the Melitians and evinced in his general conduct an authoritarian character determined to exploit the influence of his see.”[15] For Hanson, the most important evidence papyrus letters discovered in the sands of Egypt during the 20th century.
The Council Tyre “condemned Athanasius on a number of charges, deposed him from being archbishop of Alexandria, excommunicated him, and forbade him to return to his former see.” “This verdict was a crushing blow for Athanasius, one from which it took him a long time to recover; and perhaps only he could have recovered from it.”[16]
Aftermath
“When the commission returned and upheld some charges, Athanasius was deposed.” “Athanasius … fled to Constantinople to press his case directly before the Emperor.” “But when his enemies also charged him with interrupting the grain supply from Egypt Constantine turned against him: Athanasius was exiled to Trier.”[17] The Emperor to exile Athanasius to Trier, then part of the Gallic prefecture of Rome (in present-day Germany).
Athanasius did not return from exile until the death of Constantine in 337, when all exiles were allowed to return. However, after he returned, the 'East' instituted new charges against Athanasius:
The year 338 “was to see a renewal of the opposition to Athanasius on the part of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his party. After all, Athanasius had been formally deposed by a properly constituted synod on charges which could hardly be refuted. It was against all church order and tradition that he should be readmitted to his see on the bare word of an Emperor who did not even have any jurisdiction in Egypt.”[18]
Athanasius then appealed to the West. At the Council of Rome in 340, under Julius, bishop of Rome, Athanasius was vindicated.
See also
References
- Socrates Scholasticus & Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, Book II: from the Council of Nicea to Constantine's death
- Westminster Dictionary of Church History, ed. Jerald C. Brauer (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1971)
- ↑ Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988
- ↑ Hanson, page 275
- ↑ “Athanasius in his account of the incidents leading up to Constantine's letter puts the blame on the Arians and gives the impression that by this time the Melitians and the Arians had formed a deliberate alliance against him. But it is very likely that this alliance had not yet been formed.” (Hanson, page 250)
- ↑ “Epiphanius goes on to say that the leaders of the Melitians were, after their discomfiture [their failed appeal to the emperor], near the court … and were at that point taken in hand by Eusebius of Nicomedia who promised that he would obtain for them an audience with the Emperor if they would receive and champion Arius, and, on their agreeing, the fusion of the causes of Arius and of Melitius took place.” (Hanson, page 250)
- ↑ Hanson p. 249-250
- ↑ Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988, page 258-9
- ↑ Socrates Scholasticus, “The Eccesiastical History, by Socrates Scholasticus,” in Socrates, Sozomenus: Church Histories, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, trans. A. C. Zenos, vol. 2, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1890), p.30.
- ↑ Hanson, p259
- ↑ Hanson p. 259
- ↑ Philip Schaff and David Schley Schaff, History of the Christian Church, vol. 3 (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910), p.874.
- ↑ Hanson, p259
- ↑ Hanson, p260
- ↑ Hanson, p260-1
- ↑ Hanson, p254-5
- ↑ Hanson, p272
- ↑ Hanson, p261-2
- ↑ Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004, pages 102-3
- ↑ Hanson, 266
