?M ATHANASIUS. his birth cannot be ascertained with exactness ; but it is assigned by Montfaucon, on grounds suffi- ciently probable, to A. D. 296. No particulars are recorded of the lineage or the parents of Athana- sius. The dawn of his character and genius seems to have given fair promise of his subsequent emi- nence ; for Alexander, then primate of Egypt, brought him up in his own family, and superintend- ed his education with the view of dedicating him to the Christian ministry. We have no account of the studies pursued by Athanasius in his youth, except the vague statement of Gregory Nazianzen, that he devoted comparatively little attention to general literature, but acquired an extraordinary knowledge of the Scriptures. His early proficiency in Biblical knowledge is credible enough ; but though he was much inferior in general learning to such men as Clemens Alexandrinus, Origen, and Eusebius, his Oration against the Greeks, itself a juvenile performance, evinces no contemptible ac- quaintance with the literature of heathen mytho- logy. "While a young man, Athanasius frequent- ly visited the celebrated heimit St. Antony, of whom he eventually became the biographer ; and this early acquaintance laid the foundation of a friendship which was interrupted only by the death of the aged recluse. [ Antonius, St.] At what age Athanasius was ordained a deacon is nowhere stated ; but he was young both in years and in office when he vigorously supported Alexander in maintaining the orthodox faith against the earliest assjxults of the Arians. He was still only a deacon when appointed a member of the famous council of Nice (a. d. 325), in which he distinguished him- self as an able opponent of the Arian doctrine, and assisted in drawing up the creed that takes its name from that assembly. In the following year Alexander died; and Athanasius, whom he had strongly recommended as his successor, was raised to the vacant see of Alexandria, the voice of the people as well as the suffrages of the ecclesiastics being decisively in his favour. The manner in which he discharged the duties of his new office was highly exemplary ; but he had not long enjoyed his elevation, before he encountered the commencement of that long series of trials which darkened the eventful re- mainder of his life. About tlie year 331, Arius, who had been banished by Constantine after the condemnation of his doctrine by the council of Nice, made a professed submission to the Catholic faith, which satisfied the emperor; and shortly after, Athanasius received an imperial order to ad- mit the heresiarch once more into the church of Alexandria. The archbishop had the courage to disobey, and justified his conduct in a letter which seems, at the time, to have been satisfactory to Constantine. Soon after this, complaints were lodged against Athanasius by certain enemies of his, belonging to the obscure sect of the Meletians. One of the charges involved nothing short of high treason. Others related to acts of sacrilege alleged to have been committed in a church where a priest named Ischyras or Ischyrion officiated. It was averred that Macarius, a priest acting under the orders of Athanasius, had forcibly entered this church while Ischyras was performing divine ser- vice, had broken one of the consecrated chalices, overturned the communion-table, burned the sacred books, demolished the pulpit, and razed the edifice to its foundations. Athanasius made his defence ATHANASIUS. before the emperor in person, and was honourably acquitted. With regard to the pretended acts of sacrilege, it was proved that Ischyras had never received regular orders; that, in consequence of his unduly assuming the priestly office, Athanasius in one of his episcopal visitations had sent Maca- rius and another ecclesiastic to inquire into the matter ; that these had found Ischyras ill in bed, and had contented themselves with advising his father to dissuade him from all such irregularities for the future. Ischyras himself afterwards con- fessed with tears the groundlessness of the charges preferred against Macarius; and gave Athanasius a written disavowal of them, signed by six priests and seven deacons. Notwithstanding these proofs of the primate's innocence, his enemies renewed their attack in an aggravated form ; accusing Atha- nasius himself of the acts previously imputed to Macarius, and charging him moreover with the murder of Arsenius, bishop of Hypselis in Upper Egypt. To give colour to this latter accusation Arsenius absconded, and lay concealed for a con- siderable time. The emperor before whom the charges were laid, already knew that those relat- ing to Ischyras were utterly unfounded. He re- ferred it to his brother Dalmatiiis, the Censor, to inquire into the alleged murder of Arsenius. Dal- matius wrote to Athanasius, commanding him to prepare his defence. The primate was at first in- clined to leave so monstrous a calumny to its own fate ; but finding that the anger of the emperor had been excited against him, he instituted an active search after Arsenius, and in the end learned that he had been discovered and identified at Tyre. The Arians meanwhile had urged the convention of a council at Caesareia, for the purpose of in- quiring into the crimes imputed to Athanasius. But he, unwilling to trust his cause to such a tri- bunal, sent to the emperor a full account of the ex- posiu:e of the pretended homicide. On this, Con- stantine ordered Dalmatius to stay all proceedings against Athanasius, and commanded the Arian bishops, instead of holding their intended synod at Caesareia, to return home. Undeterred by this failure, the enemies of Atha- nasius, two years after, prevailed upon Constantine to summon a council at Tyre, in which they re- j peated the old accusations concerning Ischyras and a Arsenius, and urged new matter of crimination. ^ The pretended sacrilege in the church of Ischyras was disproved by the bishops who were present from Egypt. The murder of Arsenius was satis- factorily disposed of by producing the man himself alive and well, in the midst of the council. The adversaries of the primate succeeded, however, in appointing a commission to visit Egypt and tjike cognizance of the matters laid to his charge. The il proceedings of this commission are described by M Athanasius as having been in the highest degree corrupt, iniquitous, and disorderly. On the return of the commissioners to Tyre, whence Athanasius had meanwhile withdrawn, the council deposed him from his office, interdicted him from visiting Alexandria, and sent copies of his sentence to all the bishops in the Christian world, forbidding them to receive him into their communion. On a calm review of all the proceedings in this case, it seems impossible to doubt that the condemnation of Athanasius was flagrantly unjust, and was en- tirely provoked by his uncompromising opposition to the tenets of the Arians, who had secured a ms-
