Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 2.djvu/902

828 ATHANASIUS,, Bishop of Alexandria, and one of the most illustrious defenders of the Christian faith, was born at Alexandria about the year 297. Of his family, circumstances, or early education nothing can be said to be known, although a legendary story has been preserved by llufinus of Aquileia as to the manner in which he came, while yet a boy, under the notice of his predecessor, Alexander. It seems certain that Alexander became his patron, took him as a youth into his house, and employed him as his secretary. This was probably about 313, and from this time Athanasius may be said to have been devoted to the Christian ministry. He was, no doubt, a student in the &quot; Didascaleion,&quot; or famous &quot;catecheti cal school&quot; of Alexandria, which included amongst its already illustrious teachers the names of Clement and Origen. In the museum, the ancient seat of the Alex andrian university, he may have learned grammar, logic, and rhetoric. His mind was certainly well disciplined, and accustomed to discuss from an early period the chief questions both in philosophy and religion. The per- secution under which the Alexandrian Church suffered at this time, and his intimacy with the great hermit Antony, of which he himself has told us, had all their effect upon his character, and served to nurture in him that undaunted fortitude and high spirit of faith by which he became distinguished. Before the outbreak of the Arian controversy, which began in 319, Athanasius had made himself known as the author of two essays addressed to a convert from heath enism, one of them entitled Against the Gentiles, and the other On the Incarnation of the Word. Both are of the nature of apologctical treatises, arguing such questions as monotheism, and the necessity of divine interposition for the salvation of the world ; and already in the second may be traced that tone of thought respecting the essen tial divinity of Christ as the &quot; God-man &quot; for which he afterwards became conspicuous. The origin of the Arian controversy has been already described under the heading ARIUS. There is no distinct evidence of the connection of Athanasius with the first contentions of Arius and his bishop, which ended in the exile of the former, and his entrance into Palestine under the protection of Eusebius the historian, who was bishop of Cassarea, and subsequently of his namesake the bishop of Nicomedia. It can hardly be doubted, however, that Athanasius would be a cordial assistant of his friend and patron Alexander, and that the latter was strengthened in his theological position by the young enthusiastic student who had already expounded the nature of the divine Incarnation, and who seems about this time to have become archdeacon of Alexandria. At the Council of Nicaea, in the year 325, he appears pro minently in connection with the dispute. He attended the council, not as one of its members (who were properly only bishops or delegates of bishops), but merely as the attendant of Alexander. In this capacity, however, he was apparently allowed to take part in its discussions, for Theodoret (i. 2G) states that &quot;he contended earnestly for the apostolic doctrines, and was applauded by their champions, while he earned the hostility of their opponents. Within five months after the return of Alexander to the scene of his episcopal labours he expired, and his friend and archdeacon was chosen to succeed him. He was elected in the sight and amidst the acclamations of the people. He was now about 30 years of age, and is spoken of as remarkable both for his physical and mental characteristics. He was small in stature, but his face was radiant with intelligence, as the face of an angel. This is the expression of Gregory of Nazianzus (Orat., xxii. 9), who has written an elabo rate panegyric upon his friend, describing him as fit to keep on a level with common-place views, yet also to soar high above the more aspiring, as accessible to all, slow to anger, quick in sympathy, pleasant in conversation, and still more pleasant in temper, effective alike in discourse and in action, assiduous in devotions, helpful to Christians of every class and age, a theologian with the speculative, a comforter of the afflicted, a staff to the aged, a guide of the young.&quot; The first few years of the episcopate of Athanasius were tranquil ; but the storms in which the remainder of his life was passed soon began to gather around him. The Coun cil of Nicaea had settled the creed of Christendom, but had by no means composed the divisions in the church which the Arian controversy had provoked. Arius himself still lived, and his friend Eusebius of Nicomedia rapidly regained influence over the Emperor Constantino. The result of this was a demand made by the emperor that Arius should be re-admitted to communion. Athanasius stood firm, and refused to have any communion with the advocates of a &quot;heresy that was fighting against Christ.&quot; Constantino was baffled for the moment ; but many accusers soon rose up against one who was known to be under the frown of imperial displeasure. The archbishop of Alexandria was charged with cruelty, even with sorcery and murder. It was reported that a Meletian bishop in the Thebaid, of the name of Arsenius, had been unlawfully put to death by him. He was easily able to clear himself of such charges, but the hatred of his enemies was not relaxed, and in the summer of 335 he was peremptorily ordered to appear at Tyre, where a council had been summoned to sit in judgment upon his conduct. He did not venture to disobey the imperial order, and a commission was appointed to inquire into an alleged instance of cruelty urged against him, notwithstanding the explanations which he had made. There appeared plainly a predetermination to condemn him, and he fled from Tyre to Constantinople to appeal to the emperor himself. &quot; He resolved,&quot; says Gibbon, &quot; to make a bold and dangerous experiment, whether the throne was inaccessible to the voice of truth.&quot; He presented himself suddenly with five of his suffragans before the emperor, while riding into his new capital. Refused at first a hearing, his perseverance was at length rewarded by the emperor s consent to his reasonable request that his accusers should be brought face to face with him in the imperial presence. The leaders of the Tyrian council, amongst the most conspicuous of whom were the two Eusebii, were accordingly summoned to Constantinople, just after they had celebrated, at a great dedication festival at Jerusalem, the condemnation of Athanasius and the restoration of Arius to church communion. In confronting the former before Constantino they did not attempt to repeat the charge of cruelty, but found a more ready and effective weapon to their hands in a new charge of a poli tical kind that Athanasius had threatened to stop the Alexandrian corn-ships bound for Constantinople. Here, as in other matters, it is very difficult to understand how far there was any truth in the persistent accusations made against the prince-bishop of Alexandria. Probably there was in the very greatness of his character and the extent of his popular influence a certain species of dominance which lent a colour of truth to some of the things said against him. On the present occasion his accusers suc ceeded in at once arousing the imperial jealousy ; and the consequence was, that, notwithstanding his earnest denial of the act attributed to him, he was banished to Trier, or Treves, the capital of Gaul. This was the first banishment of Athanasius, which lasted about two years and a half. It was only brought to a close by the death of Constantine, and the accession of Constantine II. as emperor of the West. It is recorded by himself (Awl. 7) that, on his return to Alexandria, 