| « Prev | Council of Tyre; Illegal Deposition of St.… | Next » |
Chapter XXV.—Council of Tyre; Illegal Deposition of St. Athanasius.
The plots of the enemies of
Athanasius involved him in fresh troubles, excited the hatred of the
emperor against him, and stirred up a multitude of accusers. Wearied by
their importunity, the emperor convened a council at Cæsarea in
Palestine. Athanasius was summoned thither; but fearing the artifices
of Eusebius, bishop of the city, of Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and
of their party, he refused to attend, and for thirty months, although
pressed to attend, persisted in his refusal. At the end of that period,
however, he was forced more urgently and repaired to Tyre, where a
great number of the bishops of the East were assembled,11871187
Eus. V. C. iv. 41, 42; the letter in 42 has a
late addition in Theodoret, H. E. i. 29 (27); Athan. Apol.
cont. Arian. 8–12, 71–83; Ruf. H. E. i. 16, 17;
Soc. i. 27–32.
who commanded him to undergo the charges of those who accused him. Of
John’s party, Callinicus, a bishop, and a certain Ischurias,
accused him of breaking a mystical chalice and of throwing down an
episcopal chair; and of often causing Ischurias, although he was a
presbyter, to be loaded with chains; and by falsely informing Hyginus,
governor of Egypt, that he had cast stones at the statues of the
emperor of occasioning his being thrown into prison; of deposing
Callinicus, bishop of the Catholic Church at Pelusium, and of saying
that he would debar him from fellowship unless he could remove certain
suspicions concerning his having broken a mystical chalice; of
committing the Church of Pelusium to Mark, a deposed presbyter; and of
placing Callinicus under a military guard, and of putting him under
judicial tortures. Euplus, Pachomius, Isaac, Achillas,11881188
In the brief by Melitius, Achilles and Hermæon
are given as bishops respectively of Cusæ and Cynus (Cynopolis).
Athan. Apol. cont. Arian. 71.
and Hermæon, bishops of John’s party, accused him of
inflicting blows. They all concurred in maintaining that he obtained
the episcopal dignity by means of the perjury of certain individuals,
it having been decreed that no one should receive ordination, who could
not clear himself of any crime laid to his charge. They further
alleged, that having been deceived by him, they had separated
themselves from communion with him, and that, so far from satisfying
their scruples, he had treated them with violence and thrown them into
prison.
Further, the affair of Arsenius was again agitated; and
as generally happens in such a studiously concocted plot, many even of
those considered his friends loomed up unexpectedly as accusers. A
document was then read, containing popular complaints that the people
of Alexandria could not continue their attendance at church on his
account. Athanasius, having been urged to justify himself, presented
himself repeatedly before the tribunal; successfully repelled some of
the allegations, and requested delay for investigation as to the
others. He was exceedingly perplexed when he reflected on the favor in
which his accusers were held by his judges, on the number of witnesses
belonging to the sects of Arius and Melitius who appeared against him,
and on the indulgence that was manifested towards the informers, whose
allegations had been overcome. And especially in the indictment
concerning Arsenius, whose arm he was charged with having cut off for
purposes of magic, and in the indictment concerning a certain woman to
whom he was charged with having given gifts for uncleanness, and with
having corrupted her by night, although she was unwilling. Both these
indictments were proved to be ridiculous and full of false espionage.
When this female made the deposition before the bishops, Timothy, a
presbyter of Alexandria, who stood by Athanasius, approached her
according to a plan he had secretly concerted, and said to her,
“Did I then, O woman, violate your chastity?”11891189
Ruf. H. E. i. 17.
She replied, “But didst thou not?” and mentioned the place
and the attendant circumstances, in which she had been forced. He
likewise led Arsenius into the midst of them, showed both his hands to
the judges, and requested them to make the accusers account for the arm
which they had exhibited. For it happened that Arsenius, either driven
by a Divine influence, or, as it is said, having been concealed by the
plans of Athanasius, when the danger to that bishop on his account was
announced, escaped by night, and arrived at Tyre the day before the
trial. But these allegations having been thus summarily dismissed, so
that no defense was necessary, no mention of the first was made in the
transactions; most probably, I think, because the whole affair was
considered too indecorous and absurd for insertion. As to the second,
the accusers strove to justify themselves by saying that a bishop under
the jurisdiction of Athanasius, named Plusian,11901190
Mention is made of a bishop of this name in the
Epistle of Arsenius to Athanasius, which is preserved in the Apol.
cont. Arian. 69.
had, at the command of his chief, burnt the house of Arsenius, fastened
him to a column, and maltreated him with thongs, and then chained him
in a cell. They further stated that Arsenius escaped from the 276cell through a window, and while he was
sought for remained a while in concealment; that as he did not appear,
they naturally supposed him to be dead; that the reputation he had
acquired as a man and confessor, had endeared him to the bishops of
John’s party; and that they sought for him, and applied on his
behalf to the magistrates.
Athanasius was filled with apprehension when he
reflected on these subjects, and began to suspect that his enemies were
secretly scheming to effect his ruin. After several sessions, when the
Synod was filled with tumult and confusion, and the accusers and a
multitude of persons around the tribunal were crying aloud that
Athanasius ought to be deposed as a sorcerer and a ruffian, and as
being utterly unworthy the priesthood, the officers, who had been
appointed by the emperor to be present at the Synod for the maintenance
of order, compelled the accused to quit the judgment hall secretly; for
they feared lest they might become his murderers, as is apt to be the
case in the rush of a tumult. On finding that he could not remain in
Tyre without peril of his life, and that there was no hope of obtaining
justice against his numerous accusers, from judges who were inimical to
him, he fled to Constantinople. The Synod condemned him during his
absence, deposed him from the bishopric, and prohibited his residing at
Alexandria, lest, said they, he should excite disturbances and
seditions. John and all his adherents were restored to communion, as if
they had been unjustly suffering wrongs, and each was reinstated in his
own clerical rank. The bishops then gave an account of their
proceedings to the emperor, and wrote to the bishops of all regions,
enjoining them not to receive Athanasius into fellowship, and not to
write to him or receive letters from him, as one who had been convicted
of the crimes which they had investigated, and on account of his
flight, as also guilty in those indictments which had not been tried.
They likewise declared, in this epistle, that they had been obliged to
pass such condemnation upon him, because, when commanded by the emperor
the preceding year to repair to the bishops of the East, who were
assembled at Cæsarea, he disobeyed the injunction, kept the
bishops waiting for him, and set at naught the commands of the ruler.
They also deposed that when the bishops had assembled at Tyre, he went
to that city, attended by a large retinue, for the purpose of exciting
disturbances and tumults in the Synod; that when there, he sometimes
refused to reply to the charges preferred against him; sometimes
insulted the bishops individually; when summoned by them, sometimes not
obeying, at others not deigning to be judged. They specified in the
same letter, that he was manifestly guilty of having broken a mystical
chalice, and that this fact was attested by Theognis, bishop of
Nicæa; by Maris, bishop of Chalcedonia; by Theodore, bishop of
Heraclea; by Valentinus and Ursacius; and by Macedonius, who had been
sent to the village in Egypt, where the chalice was said to have been
broken, in order to ascertain the truth. Thus did the bishops detail
successively each of the allegations against Athanasius, with the same
art to which sophists resort when they desire to heighten the effect of
their calumnies. Many of the priests, however, who were present at the
trial, perceived the injustice of the accusation. It is related that
Paphnutius, the confessor,11911191
This is in Ruf. H. E. i. 17. He also signs
the first letter of the Egyptian bishops at Tyre to Dionysius; Athan.
Apol. cont. Arian. 79; he presumably subscribed to the second.
Ibid.
who was present at the Synod, arose, and took the hand of Maximus, the
bishop of Jerusalem, to lead him away, as if those who were confessors,
and had their eyes dug out for the sake of piety, ought not to
participate in an assembly of wicked men.
| « Prev | Council of Tyre; Illegal Deposition of St.… | Next » |











