oldly accused him of violating the treaty which
had been ratified in the Nicene council, with the schismatic followers
of Meletius. [102] Athanasius had openly disapproved that ignominious
peace, and the emperor was disposed to believe that he had abused his
ecclesiastical and civil power, to prosecute those odious sectaries:
that he had sacrilegiously broken a chalice in one of their churches of
Mareotis; that he had whipped or imprisoned six of their bishops; and
that Arsenius, a seventh bishop of the same party, had been murdered,
or at least mutilated, by the cruel hand of the primate. [103] These
charges, which affected his honor and his life, were referred by
Constantine to his brother Dalmatius the censor, who resided at Antioch;
the synods of Caesarea and Tyre were successively convened; and the
bishops of the East were instructed to judge the cause of Athanasius,
before they proceeded to consecrate the new church of the Resurrection
at Jerusalem. The primate might be conscious of his innocence; but he
was sensible that the same implacable spirit which had dictated the
accusation, would direct the proceeding, and pronounce the sentence. He
prudently declined the tribunal of his enemies; despised the summons of
the synod of Caesarea; and, after a long and artful delay, submitted
to the peremptory commands of the emperor, who threatened to punish his
criminal disobedience if he refused to appear in the council of Tyre.
[104] Before Athanasius, at the head of fifty Egyptian prelates, sailed
from Alexandria, he had wisely secured the alliance of the Meletians;
and Arsenius himself, his imaginary victim, and his secret friend, was
privately concealed in his train. The synod of Tyre was conducted by
Eusebius of Caesarea, with more passion, and with less art, than his
learning and experience might promise; his numerous faction repeated the
names of homicide and tyrant; and their clamors were encouraged by the
seeming patience of Athanasius, who expected the decisive moment to
produce Arsenius alive and unhurt in the midst of the assembly. The
nature of the other charges did not admit of such clear and satisfactory
replies; yet the archbishop was able to prove, that in the village,
where he was accused of breaking a consecrated chalice, neither church
nor altar nor chalice could really exist.

The Arians, who had secretly determined the guilt and condemnation of
their enemy, attempted, however, to disguise their injustic