358

CHAV.

XXI,

THE DECLINE AND FALL

scattered rumours and suspicions, representedthe archbishop as a proud and oppressive ty-rant, and boldly accused him of violating thetreaty which had been ratified in the iSicenecouncil, with the schismatic followers of Mele-tius. h Athanasius had openly disapproved thatignominious peace, and the emperor was dis-posed to believe that he had abused his eccle-siastical and civil power, to persecute thoseodious sectaries; that he had sacrilegiouslybroken a chalice in one of their churches ofMareotis; that he had whipped or imprisonedsix of their bishops ; and that Arsenius , a se-venth bishop of the same party, had been mur-dered, or at least mutilated, by the cruel handof the primate.' These charges, which affectedhis honour and his life, were referred by Con-stantine to his brother Dalmatius the censor,who resided at Antioch; the synods of Caesareaand Tyre were successively convened ; and thebishops of the East were instructed to judge thecause of Athanasius , before they proceeded toconsecrate the new church of the resurrectionat Jerusalem . The primate might be consciousof his innocence; but he was sensible that thesame implacable spirit which had dictated the

k The mektians in Egypt, like the donatists in Africa , were produc-ed by an episcopal quarrel which arose from the persecution. 1 havenot leisure to pursue the obscme controversy, which seems to havebeen misrepresented by the partiality of Athanasius^ and the ignoranceof Epiphanius . See Mosheim’s General History of the Church, vol. i,

p. 201.

1 The treatment of the six bishops is specified by Sozomen (1. ii, c. 25) jbut Athanasius himself, so copious on the subject of Arsenius and thechalice, leaves this grave accusation without a reply.