First Synod of Tyre

Athanasius was elected bishop or Patriarch of Alexandria in 328. (Hanson, p. 246) However, seven years later, at the First Synod of Tyre or the Council of Tyre (335 AD), a gathering of bishops called together by Emperor Constantine I to evaluate charges brought against him, he was found guilty of barbaric violence against the Melitians, deposed from being archbishop of Alexandria, and excommunicated.

We must distinguish the ‘Melitian Schism’ early in the fourth century from the ‘Meletian Schism’ later in that century. The latter was a dispute between two pro Nicene groups in Antioch, primarily about the number of hypostases in God. In contrast, the Melitians were the brave Christians in Egypt who, during the Great Persecution at the beginning of the fourth century, following Bishop Melitius of Lycopolis, refused to hide from that persecution. However, the Melitians also refused to receive back into communion the Christians who had denied their faith during that persecution. They objected to the terms laid down by Peter, the bishop of Alexandria, for the readmission of 'lapsed' Christians. This caused division in the church but the Nicene Council of 325 made arrangements about the Melitians. Alexander died in 328 and Athanasius was elected as bishop or patriarch of Alexandria. 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 of churches, imprisonments, beatings, and even of murder. But their appeal failed. Eusebius of Nicomedia was one of Arius’ supporters who were exiled after Nicaea but who were re admitted within a few years and who 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 after the Melitians’ failed appeal, Eusebius approached them and negotiated an alliance with them: Eusebius “promised that he would obtain for them an audience with the Emperor if they would receive and champion Arius.”

In 334, Eusebius called a council to evaluate Athanasius' conduct but Athanasius refused to attend.

In 335. 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. The emperor forced Athanasius to attend this council. Emperor sent a letter to Athanasius, making clear that if he did not attend voluntarily, he would be brought to the Synod forcibly. "It was not a vast assemblage, there were only about sixty bishops present, but it held a wide representation." Eusebius of Nicomedia played a major role in the council and, according to Epiphanius of Salamis, presided over the assembly. 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.“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)

"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." For Hanson, the most important evidence was in papyrus letters discovered in the sands of Egypt during the 20th century.

Athanasius claimed that the allegations were false. Traditionally, the church had accepted his explanation. Some of the accusations were indeed proven to be 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. Therefore, “he had been justly convicted of disgraceful behaviour in his see.” (Hanson, p. 254 5)"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. "Since the Eusebians allied with the Melitians, Athanasius claimed that he was being persecuted for his theology and that these accusations were formulated by ‘Arians’ to eliminate him as their theological opponent. However, “his conviction had nothing to do with doctrinal issues.” (Hanson, p. 255) The so called Arians allied with the Melitians only after the Melitians already had unsuccessfully 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. Athanasius defends by slandering his opponents. “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)

"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," 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. After Constantine death, his sons divided the empire between them. This allowed the churches in the West and East to develop in different directions. After Athanasius was exiled in 335, he formed an alliance with the Sabellian Marcellus. With his support, Athanasius developed his polemical strategy which claims that all opponents of Nicaea are followers of Arius and that he himself had been exiled for his support for Nicaea. In 340, he appealed to the West and in 341, at the Council of Rome, the Western church evaluated Athanasius and Marcellus and declared them orthodox. In the 340's the empire remained divided. In response to the West's acceptance of Athanasius and Marcellus, the East issued the Dedication Creed in 341 which primarily opposed Sabellianism. At the failed Council at Serdica, the West issued an explicit one hypostasis creed. The East responded with the Macrostich in 344. See Arian Creeds. In this period, Athanasius became very powerful, both politically and theologically. He was the “paragon” of the West (Hanson, p. 304)

In the early 350s, the empire united again under Constantius. he attempted (and succeeded to a great extent) to convince the West to accept the Homoian Creeds of the East, but his main enemy was Athanasius.