Trinity Doctrine Archives » Page 14 of 31 » From Daniel to Revelation

2024-03-032024-06-27

Athanasius was justly deposed for violence.

Summary

We must not confuse the ‘Melitian Schism’ early in the fourth century and the ‘Meletian Schism’ later in that century:

The Meletian Schism was a dispute between two pro-Nicene groups about the number of hypostases in God.

The Melitians were the brave Christians in Egypt who, during the Great Persecution at the beginning of the fourth century refused to hide from that persecution. However, they also refused to receive back any Christian who had denied Christ during that persecution. This caused a division in the church, which the Nicene Council of 325 attempted to address.

Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, died in 328 and Athanasius was elected bishop in his place. A few years later, the Melitians appealed to the emperor for protection against Athanasius. They accused him of preventing people from entering church buildings, burning churches, imprisonments, beatings, and even murder. But their appeal failed.

Eusebius of Nicomedia, one of Arius’ supporters, was exiled after Nicaea but re-admitted within a few years and became influential with the emperor and the royal family. In the year 333 or 334, five years after Athanasius had become bishop of Alexandria and also after the Melitians’ failed appeal, Eusebius approached and negotiated an alliance with the Melitians: Eusebius promised to obtain an audience with the emperor for them if they would receive and champion Arius.

In 334, Eusebius called a council to assess Athanasius’ conduct but Athanasius refused to attend. The emperor then forced Athanasius to attend another council at Tyre in 335 for the same purpose. After the Council had sent a commission to Egypt, it excommunicated Athanasius for indefensible violence in the administration of his see and deposed him from being archbishop of Alexandria.

Athanasius responded in three ways:

Firstly, he claimed that these accusations were made by ‘Arians’ to eliminate him as their theological opponent. However, the ‘Arians’ allied with the Melitians only after the Melitians’ already had unsuccessful appealed to the emperor. Athanasius’ aggression was not aimed at ‘Arians.’ The fundamental cause of Athanasius’ aggression is that he did not accept the arrangement made about the Melitians at Nicaea.

Secondly, he claimed that the allegations were false. Some of the accusations were indeed false. However, papyrus letters discovered during the 20th century, which we cannot possibly dismiss as inventions, exaggerations, or propaganda, describe the barbaric treatment Athanasius had been dealing out. Hanson concludes that “he had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour in his see.” (Hanson, p. 254-5)

Thirdly, he defends by slandering his judges. “He represents the Council of Tyre, which was a properly constituted and entirely respectable gathering of churchmen, some of whom had been confessors in the Great Persecution, as a gang of disreputable conspirators, and brands all his opponents as favourers of heresy.” (Hanson, p. 262)

Purpose

Athanasius is traditionally regarded as the hero of the fourth-century Arian Controversy. However, this article shows that he was guilty of barbaric behavior.

Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria in 328. (Hanson, p. 246) Seven years later, in 335, he was condemned for violence against the Melitians, deposed from being archbishop of Alexandria, and excommunicated.

Athanasius claimed that these were false accusations made by heretics (Arians) to eliminate him as their theological opponent. Traditionally, the church had accepted his explanation.

This article is a summary of chapter 9 of the book by the eminent historian RPC Hanson in which he shows that Athanasius was truly guilty of serious misconduct and violence.¹

Newly discovered ancient documents confirm that Athanasius was justly condemned for violence by fourth-century church councils.

Hanson mentions several ancient sources but the most important evidence is ancient papyrus letters discovered during the 20^th century in the sands of Egypt.

Due to discoveries of ancient documents and significant progress, the scholarship of the past hundred years has concluded that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy presents history from the winner’s perspective and is a complete travesty. Hanson’s book reflects the revised account of that Controversy.

The Melitians were Christians who refused to hide from persecution but who also refused to accept back Christians who denied their faith during the Persecution.

The Melitians were a group of brave Christians in Egypt around the year 306 during the Great Persecution who, following Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis, taught that Christians should not hide from that persecution. However, they objected to the terms laid down by Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, for the readmission of ‘lapsed’ Christians.

Trouble began several years after 328.

Athanasius claimed that the Melitians began to complain about how they were treated as soon as Alexander died, implying that he was not the cause of their grievances. However, the Melitians began to complain about Athanasius’ treatment only several years later.

“Though Athanasius declared that as soon as bishop Alexander died the Melitians began stirring up trouble again, we have no evidence of such trouble, even in Athanasius’ own Festal Letters, till the year 332.” (Hanson, p. 249) ²

“It is perhaps impossible to reconstruct the exact order of events, but the evidence seems to point clearly to the conclusion that several years must have elapsed between Athanasius succeeding to the see of Alexandria and the first moves of the Melitians against him.” (Hanson, p. 251)

Arians did not invent the accusations.

Athanasius claimed that ‘Arians’ invented false charges to eliminate him as their theological opponent. But the so-called Arians allied with the Melitians only after the Melitians already had unsuccessfully complained to the emperor.

Athanasius said that the Melitians and the ‘Arians’ were in cahoots from the beginning and that the ‘Arians’ were behind these false accusations.

Athanasius referred to his enemies as ‘Arians’, implying that they were followers of Arius, which they were not. (See – Athanasius invented Arianism.) Hanson refers to the so-called Arians as ‘Eusebians’ because their real leaders were Eusebius of Caesarea and Eusebius of Nicomedia.

But not even these ‘Eusebians’ were behind the allegations. Hanson says that that partnership was only formed after the Melitians had already unsuccessfully appealed to the emperor about how Athanasius treated them:

“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, p. 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, p. 250)

“In this year (333) or in the next the Melitians found an ally in the Eusebians.” (Hanson, p. 258)

This was, therefore, five years after Athanasius became bishop of Alexandria.

“The Melitians, harried unmercifully by Athanasius and unable at first to obtain help from the Emperor, turned to the only help available to them, that of the Eusebians.” (Hanson, p. 255)

Athanasius did not target Arians.

The fundamental cause of Athanasius’ aggression is that he did not accept the arrangement made about the Melitians at Nicaea.

“It seems clear also that Athanasius’ first efforts at gangsterism in his diocese had nothing to do with difference of opinion on the subject of the Arian Controversy, but were directed against the Melitians. He had not agreed with the arrangement made about the Melitians at Nicaea. Once he was in the saddle, he determined to suppress them with a strong hand, and was not at all scrupulous about the methods he used.” (Hanson, p. 254)

They accused Athanasius of assault.

The Melitians accused Athanasius of causing divisions and disturbances, preventing people from entering church buildings, murders, imprisonments, beatings, wounding, and burning of churches.

“Why should the Melitians have been discontented with Athanasius? If half of what Sozomenus said was alleged by them was true, they had every reason for hostility to Athanasius.” (Hanson, p. 251)

Sozomenus mentions:

“Accusation made by Melitians (not Arians) to the Emperor against Athanasius, charging him with causing divisions and disturbances in his diocese, with preventing people from entering the church (i.e. the church building) and (charges made particularly by ‘John’, that is John Arcaph the Melitian leader, and the clergy associated with him) of murders and imprisonments and undeserved beatings and woundings and burning of churches.” (Hanson, p. 249-250)

“Epiphanius at one point admits that Athanasius had used fairly strong measures.” (Hanson, p. 249)

Some allegations were true.

Some of the accusations were exaggerations but papyrus letters discovered in the 20th century, which we cannot possibly dismiss as inventions, exaggerations, or propaganda, describe the barbaric treatment Athanasius had been dealing out.

“Was this more than wild hearsay? Had they any genuine grievances? We might dismiss the accusations against Athanasius retailed by Sozomenus and Epiphanius as the product of sheer partisanship and not worthy of credence, as, for instance, Gwatkin does, and many a church historian before and after him who was willing to take Athanasius’ protestations of his innocence at their face value.” (Hanson, p. 251)

“But, accidentally or providentially, we have available to us contemporary evidence which we cannot possibly dismiss as invention or exaggeration or propaganda, to decide this point.” (Hanson, p. 251-2) “This evidence consists of papyrus letters discovered by British archaeologists and published by H. I. Bell in his book Jews and Christians in Egypt. … They plunge us into the middle of the events which concerned Athanasius between the years 331 and 335.” (Hanson, p. 252) “It is a factual account written for people under persecution, a private missive not intended for publication nor propaganda, and therefore all the more damning.” (Hanson, p. 252) “It describes … the barbarous treatment which he (Athanasius) is meanwhile dealing out to those Melitians who have opposed him.” (Hanson, p. 252)

The following is an example from those letters:

“Isaac bishop of Leto came to Heraiscus (evidently an eminent Melitian bishop) in Alexandria, wanting to have supper with the bishop in the camp (near Alexandria, called Nicopolis). Some drunken adherents of Athanasius arrived at the 9th hour (3 p.m.), with soldiers. They shut the gates of the camp and began searching for Isaac and Heraiscus. Some soldiers in the camp had hidden them and when the Athanasian party could not find them, they attacked some Melitians whom they met coming into the camp and maltreated them and threw them out of Nicopolis. They then arrested five Melitians who were in a hostel imprisoned them for a time and then threw them too out of Nicopolis, and beat the keeper of the hostel for putting up Melitian monks. And they shut up somebody called Ammon in the camp because he welcomed Melitians into his house. So Callistus and his friends are afraid to visit Heraiscus in the camp.” (Hanson, p. 252-3)

Athanasius is traditionally described as a tender, gentle, and patient peacemaker but he behaved like an employer of thugs.

Athanasius is generally seen as the hero of the fourth century. While scholars in previous centuries have described Athanasius as:

“’The tenderness which could not but be loved’, the gentleness which made him … so patient and equitable as a peacemaker, the ‘majestic moral unity’ of his conduct and the freedom from anything ignoble in it.”

But Hanson says:

“We find Athanasius behaving like an employer of thugs hired to intimidate his enemies.” (RH 254)

The charge against him of the unscrupulous use of strong-arm tactics against his opponents was abundantly justified.

Not all accusations were true. One of the accusations was “that Athanasius had either murdered a bishop called Arsenius or … practised sorcery by using the severed hand of his corpse.” (Hanson, p. 256) However, “the agents of Athanasius discovered that Arsenius was alive and in possession of both his hands … and had him identified’ before Paul, bishop of Tyre.” (Hanson, p. 257). However, the accusations were not all false. Bell is cautious in his conclusions:

“The evidence of papyrus 1914, Bell remarks, makes it certain that the charges of violent and unscrupulous behaviour made against Athanasius at Caesarea in 334, at Tyre in 335, at Serdica in 343 and many times thereafter were not baseless.” (RH 254)

“’It was always suspicious’, says Bell, that Athanasius, while dwelling on the charges … which he could refute, says nothing of those which accused him of violence and oppression towards the Melitians. The reason is now clear: these charges were in part true … We must conclude that there was a germ of truth in the picture given of Athanasius by his enemies as a self-willed, unruly man apt to treat even the Imperial authority with contempt.’” (RH 254)

But Hanson concludes:

“The charge against him at Tyre was the unscrupulous use of strong-arm methods against his opponents, and that charge as a general accusation … was abundantly justified.” (Hanson, p. 255)

Tyre condemned Athanasius.

In 333, the Eusebians allied with the Melitians. In 334, Eusebius called a council to evaluate Athanasius’ conduct but Athanasius refused to attend. The emperor forced Athanasius to attend another council for the same purpose in 335. The Council sent a commission to Egypt. As a result, Athanasius was excommunicated for indefensible violence in the administration of his see.

“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.” (Hanson, p. 258)

“Athanasius was summoned to it, but refused to attend.” (Hanson, p. 259)

“Next year, however, in the summer of 335, the Council of Caesarea was re-constituted or re-summoned in Tyre. And on this occasion Constantine showed openly his support of this move by appointing an imperial official, the consular Dionysius, to oversee it. It was not a vast assemblage, there were only about sixty bishops present, but it held a wide representation. … Athanasius was unwillingly compelled to attend by threats from Constantine. … He also knew that they had a strong case” (Hanson, p. 259)

“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.” (Hanson, p. 260)

“After some time the Council decided to send a Commission (to Egypt) … to collect evidence on the spot.” (Hanson, p. 260)

“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.” (Hanson, p. 261)

“His conviction had nothing to do with doctrinal issues.” (Hanson, p. 255)

“It must have been clear to everybody that he had been for some time using indefensible violence in the administration of his see, even though it was not easy to bring him to book on exact charges.” (Hanson, p. 262)

“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.” (Hanson, p. 254-5)

Athanasius defended by attacking.

Since the Eusebians allied with the Melitians, Athanasius claimed that he was being persecuted for his theology, which was untrue. Athanasius never denies that Ischyras was assaulted but brands all his opponents as disreputable conspirators and heretics.

The alliance between the Eusebians and Melitians “gave Athanasius an opportunity of clouding the issue by ascribing all protest against his outrageous conduct to bias towards Arianism, an opportunity of which he strove earnestly to take advantage. But … Athanasius’ offence had nothing to do with doctrine.” (Hanson, p. 255)

“Athanasius never actually denies that Ischyras was assaulted. ‘He confines his defence to pointing out that Ischyras was not in a strict sense a presbyter at all; he came from the sect of Colluthus and Colluthus had never been consecrated bishop. … In short, his opponents cried ‘Violence and sacrilege’ and Athanasius replies ‘No: only violence’.” (Hanson, p. 256-7)

“He switches the attention from what was actually done to the status and history of Ischyras himself. He completely ignores the serious and well-attested evidence of his own continual use of violence.” (Hanson, p. 262)

“He represents the Council of Tyre, which was a properly constituted and entirely respectable gathering of churchmen, some of whom had been confessors in the Great Persecution, as a gang of disreputable conspirators, and brands all his opponents as favourers of heresy.” (Hanson, p. 262)

Arian writings were not preserved.

Since Athanasius’ theology ultimately prevailed, the church, over the centuries, has preserved his writings but not his opponents’ writings. As a result, most of the available information about Athanasius and the Melitians is in the writing of Athanasius himself, and he was determined to conceal his violent behavior:

“We must bear in mind that our main informant (Athanasius himself) is determined to conceal his violent behaviour by alleging that all was invented by people who were dangerous heretics, and that most of the rest of the sources, and most writers since, have taken this plea at its face value.” (Hanson, p. 255)

Conclusions

Athanasius began to defend the Nicene Creed only long after he was exiled.

At the time of his conflict with the Melitians, Athanasius had not yet begun his defense of the Nicene Creed. Another article shows that the Nicene Creed and the term homoousios fell out of the Controversy soon after Nicaea and were only brought back in the mid-350s when Athanasius began to use it to defend against emperor Constantius. At the time of the Melitian conflict, the Eusebians had no theological axe to grind with Athanasius.

Athanasius’ behavior had a lasting impact on the church and set the stage for the persecutions during the Middle Ages.

“We can see by virtue of historical hindsight that Athanasius in following this policy set an evil example to his successors of the use of force and intrigue.” (Hanson, p. 255)

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.

For a further discussion, see – Estimates of Athanasius’ Character.

The Council of Constantinople in AD 381 was not ecumenical.

“The Council of Constantinople met during May, June and July 381.” (RH, 805)

Authors quoted

LA = Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its Legacy, An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology, 2004

RH = Hanson RPC, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy, 318-381. 1988

Due to discoveries of ancient documents and significant progress, the scholarship of the past hundred years has concluded that the traditional account of the fourth-century Arian Controversy presents history from the perspective of the winner and is a complete travesty. These books reflect the revised account of that Controversy.

It was not an ecumenical council.

It is known as the Second Ecumenical Council. ‘Ecumenical’ that it represents all churches and perspectives. However, that council was far from ecumenical. It was a regional council of Antioch. For example, the Western church did not attend. ¹

Furthermore, already in the previous year, the emperor Theodosius had made the Trinitarian version of Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire, exiled the Homoian bishop of the Capital, and outlawed all forms of non-Trinitarian Christianity, with threats of punishment. Consequently, no ‘Arian’ was allowed into the Council. It was attended only by pro-Nicenes:

“When Theodosius had entered Constantinople in November 380,” (the year before the council) he immediately exiled the Homoian bishop Demophilus and “accepted Gregory Nazianzen as de facto bishop.” (LA, 253)

“Only about 150 bishops attended and they appear to have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius, who was its president, that is areas under the influence of the see of Antioch.” (RH, 806) ² ³

“Negotiations with the Macedonians … were undertaken but no agreement could be reached and the Macedonian bishops, about 30 in number, left the council.” (RH, 807)

“The details … of this council indicate the problems with later presentation of the meeting as an ‘ecumenical’ reaffirmation of Nicaea.” (LA, 255)

The emperor controlled the meeting.

The emperor summoned the council; not the church. (LA, 253)

“Theodosius welcomed the participants in his magnificent throne-room in the Imperial palace, but the Council did not meet there. … After receiving the bishops, Theodosius did not appear at any session of the Council, but remained in the wings, as it were, holding a watching brief.” (RH, 806)

“The first act of the Council was to affirm that Gregory of Nazianzus was the Catholic and legitimate bishop of Constantinople.” (RH, 806; cf. LA, 253-4) Gregory was the person whom the emperor in the previous year unilaterally appointed as bishop of the Capital after he had exiled the incumbent Arian bishop.

The chairperson was the emperor’s agent:

The first chairperson was Meletius, but he died soon and was replaced as chairperson by Gregory Nazianzen – the person whom the emperor appointed as bishop of Constantinople. ⁴

But Gregory resigned⁵ and was replaced by a person (Nectarius) who was the equivalent to the mayor of the city (“praetor urbanus in Constantinople” (RH, 811)), but who was a mere lay-person in the church. “It was as if today the cardinals had chosen as Pope … the mayor of Rome.” (RH, 811) ⁶ ⁷ Now the chairperson was fully under the emperor’s control.

Nectarius was also elected as bishop of Constantinople:

“The Council found itself in a quandary over the choice of a new bishop of the capital city. … They finally picked … an unbaptised layman, Nectarius, who had been praetor urbanus in Constantinople. … The bishop-elect was hastily baptised and ordained.” (RH, 811) ⁸

That the Council elected a civil servant as chairperson and as bishop of the Capital reveals the unity of church and state. The same person now managed both the city and the church. It also shows the control which the emperor had over the council.

It concluded the Meletian Schism.

As stated, Meletius, the bishop of Antioch and the first chairperson of the council, suddenly died. The meeting then discussed a replacement for Meletius as bishop of Antioch. The Meletian Schism is named after Meletius. It was a schism within the pro-Nicene camp, particularly over the rightful bishop of Antioch:

On the one side of that schism were the bishops of Rome and Alexandria (Athanasius, and his successor Peter, and Damasus, the bishop of Rome). They supported Paulinus as bishop of Antioch. All of them believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Rational Faculty (one hypostasis).

In the third main center of the Empire, Constantinople, the bishop was a Homoian until the emperor exiled him. But the most important pro-Nicenes in the East were the Cappadocians and they, like the Homoians, taught three Rational Faculties (three hypostases). In this camp, Basil of Caesarea supported his friend Meletius as bishop of Antioch.

This tension continued in the council. For example:

“Paulinus had been for years steadily supported by Damasus and Peter against Meletius, the leader of the party of the Easterners at the council. Considerable antagonism between him and the followers of Meletius must have been aroused.” (RH, 810)

“It is wholly improbable that the bishop of Alexandria would have attended the council as long as Meletius was presiding over it, and if the bishop of Thessalonica regarded himself as in any sense representing the bishop of Rome (and he may have done so), it is not likely that he would have been content to attend a council with Meletius at the head of it either.” (RH, 808-9)

The selection of the bishop of Antioch intensified this conflict. Gregory proposed Paulinus but the meeting elected Flavian:

“Gregory wanted the council to elect Paulinus in place of Meletius as bishop of Antioch, but it preferred to choose Flavian.” (RH, 807)

Flavian was “a prominent presbyter of the party of Paulinus.” (RH, 810) So, he was on the same side as Paulinus.

Nectarius, the praetor urbanus in Constantinople, who was elected as bishop of the Capital (Constantinople), supported “the Eustathian cause in Antioch.” (RH, 811) Eustathius was the leading Sabellian when the Arian Controversy began. Like the bishops of Rome and Alexandria, the Sabellians taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are one single Rational Faculty (hypostasis). Nectarius, therefore, was also in the ‘one-hypostasis camp’.

It is interesting that Gregory proposed Paulinus because Gregory, presumably, since he was one of the Cappadocians, supported Basil in this dispute. Perhaps the emperor instructed Gregory to propose Paulinus. The emperor’s Edict of Thessalonica of the previous year also took the one hypostasis side of that schism. It explicitly mentions Peter and Damasus in that edict as role models for the Trinity doctrine.

In conclusion, the delegates “have been carefully chosen from areas which would be friendly to Meletius.” (RH, 806) But the meeting ends with Meletius dead and his opponents in the Meletian Schism appointed as Bishops of Antioch and Constantinople, and as chairperson of the council. One wonders whether the emperor contributed more than his prayers to Meletius’ death. It seems as if the emperor fully hijacked Meletius’ meeting.

Other Decisions

“The council re-affirmed N but also produced the creed C. … All this lasted three months from May to July 381.” (RH, 807) See – Was the creed of AD 381 an update of the Nicene Creed of 325?

The council agreed that “the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy precedence in honour next after the bishop of Rome because it is the New Rome’. It is very likely that this was intended to reduce the pretensions of the archbishop of Alexandria.” (RH, 808)

Category: Trinity Doctrine