ATHANASItJS
38
ATHANASIUS
of a remnant of the Arian and Meletian factions in
the .Mexandrian Church, was welcomed bj- all classes
among the laity ("Apol. c. Arian", vi; Soz., "Hist.
Eccl. ", II, xvii, xxi, xxii).
The opening years of the saint's rule were occupied with the wonted episcopal routine of a fourth-century Eg}-ptian bishop. Episcopal visitations, synods, pastoral correspondence, preaching and the yearly round of churcli functions consumed the bulk of his time. The only noteworthy events of which an- tiquity furnishes at least probable data are connected with the successful efforts which he made to provide a hierarchy for the newly planted church in Etliiopia (Abyssinia) in the person of St. Frumentius (Ru- finusl.ix; Soc. I, xix; Soz., II, xxiv), and the friend- ship which appears to have begim about this time be- tween himself and the monks of St. Pachomius. But the seeds of disaster which the saint's piety had unflinchingly planted at Nicuea were beginning to bear a disquieting crop at last. Already events were happening at Constantinople which were soon to make him the most important figure of his time. Eusebius of Nicomedia, who had fallen into disgrace and been banished by the Emj^eror Constantine for his part in the earlier Arian controversies, had been recalled from exile. After an adroit campaign of intrigue, carried on chiefly through the instrumental- ity of the ladies of the imperial household, this smooth-mannered prelate so far prevailed over Constantine as to induce liim to order the recall of Arius likenise from exile. He himself sent a char- acteristic letter to the youthful Primate of .Alexandria, in which he bespoke his favour for the condemned heresiarch. who was described as a man whose opin- ions had been misrepresented. These events must have happened some time about the close of the year 330. Finally the emperor liimself was per- suaded to write to Athanasius, urging that all those who were ready to submit to the definitions of Nicaea should be re-admitted to ecclesiastical com- munion. This Athanasius stoutly refused to do, alleging that there could be no fellowship between the Church and one who denied the Divinity of Christ.
The Bishop of Nicomedia thereupon brought vari- ous ecclesiastical and political charges against Athana- sius, wMch, though unmistakably refuted at their first hearing, were aften\-ards refurbislied and made to do service at nearly everj- stage of his subsequent trials. Four of these were very definite, to wit: that he had not reached the canonical age at the time of his consecration; that he had imposed a linen tax upon the provinces; that his officers had, with liis connivance and authority, profaned the Sacred Mysteries in the case of an alleged priest named Ischyras; and lastly that he had put one Arsenius to death and afterwards dismembereti the body for purposes of magic. The nature of the charges and the method of supporting them were vividly characteristic of the age. The curious stu- dent will find them set forth in picturesque detail in the second part of the Saint's "Apologia", or "De- fense against the Arians ", written long after the events themselves, about the year 350, when the retractation of Ursacius and \'alens made their pub- lication triumphantly opportune. The whole un- happy storj' at this distance of time reads in parts more like a specimen of late Greek romance than the account of an inquisition gravely conducted by a synod of Christian prelates with the idea of getting at the truth of a series of odious accusations brouglit against one of their number. Summoned by the emperor's order after protracted delays extending over a period of thirty months (Soz., II, xxv). .\thanasius finally consented to meet the charges brought against him by appearing before a synod of prelates at Tyre in the year 33.'). Fifty of his suffragans went with him to vindicate his good name; but the complexion
of the ruling party in the sj-nod made it evident that
justice to the accused was the last thing that was
thought of. It can hardly be wondered at, that
Athanasius should have refused to be tried by such
a court. He. therefore, suddenly withdrew irom
Tyre, escaping in a boat %\dth some faithful friends
who accompanied him to Byzantimn, where he had
made up his mind to present himself to the emperor.
The circumstances in which the saint and the great catechumen met were dramatic enough. Constan- tine was returning from a hunt, when Athanasius unexpectedly stepped into the middle of the road and demaniled a hearing. The astonished emperor could hardl}' believe his eyes, and it needed the as- surance of one of the attendants to convince him that the petitioner was not an impostor, but none other than the great Bisliop of .Alexandria himself. "Give me", said the prelate, "a just tribunal, or allow me to meet my accusers face to face in your presence." His request was granted. An order was peremptorily sent to the bisiiops.who had tried Athanasius and, of course, condemned him in his absence, to repair at once to the imperial city. The command reached them while they were on their way to the great feast of the dedication of Constan- tine's new church at Jerusalem. It naturally caused some consternation; but the more influential mem- bers of the Eusebian faction never lacked either courage or resourcefulness. The saint was taken at his word; and the okl charges were renewed in the hearing of the emperor himself. Athanasius was condemned to go into exile at Treves, where he was received with the utmost kindness by the saintly Bishop Maximinus and the emperor's eldest son, Constantine. He began his journey probably in the month of Februarj-, 336, and arrived on the banks of the Moselle in the late autumn of the same year. His exile lasted nearly two years and a half. Public opinion in his own diocese remained loyal to him during all that time. It was not the least elo- quent testimony to the essential worth of his char- acter that he could inspire such faith. Constantine's treatment of .\thanasius at this crisis in liis fortunes has always been difficult to understand. Affecting, on the one hand, a show of indignation, as if he really believed in the political charge brought against the saint, he. on the other, refused to appoint a successor to the .Alexandrian See, a thing which he might in consistency have been obliged to do had he taken seriously the condemnation proceedings carried through by the Eusebians at "TjTe.
Meanwhile events of the greatest importance had taken place. Arius had died amid startlingly dra- matic circumstances at Constantinople in 336; and the death of Constantine himself had followed, on the 22nd of May the year after. Some three weeks later the younger Constantine invited the exiled primate to return to his see; and by the end of November of the same year Athanasius was once more established in his episcopal city. His return was the occasion of great rejoicing. The people, as he himself tells us, ran in crowds to see his face; the churches were given over to a kind of jubilee; thanksgivings were offered up everj"n'here; and clergj' and laity accounted the day the happiest in their lives. But already trouble was brewing in a quarter from which the saint might reasonably have expected it. The Eusebian faction, who from this time forth loom large as the disturbers of his peace, managed to win over to their side the weak-minded Emperor Constantius to whom the East had been assigned in the division of the empire that followed on the death of Constantine. The old charges were refurbished with a graver ecclesiastical accusation added by way of rider. Athanasius had ignored the decision of a dulj' authorized sj-nod. He had returned to his see without the summons of ecclesiastical autliority (.\pol. c. Ar., he. cit.). In
