COMMITTEE. Chairman-The Right Hon. LORD BROUGHAM, F.R.S., Member of the National Institute of France. William Allen. Esq., F.R. and R.A.S Chas. Ansell, Esq. Captain Beaufort, R.N., F.R. and R.A.S., Hydrographer to the Admiralty. George Birkbeck, M.D. George Burrows, M.D. Peter Stafford Carey, Esq., A.M. John Conolly, M.D. William Coulson, Esq. R. D. Craig, Esq. J. F. Davis, Esq., F.R.S. H. T. Dela Beche, Esq., F.R.S. The Right Hon. Lord Denman. Samuel Duckworth, Esq. The Right Rev. the Bishop of Durham, D.D. Sir Henry Ellis, Prin, Lib. Brit. Mus. T. F. Ellis, Esq., A.M., F.R.A.S. John Elliotson, M.D.. F.R.S.. George Evans, Esq., M.P. Thomas Falconer, Esq. R. I. Murchison, Esa.. F.R.S., F.G.S. The Right Hon. Lord Nugent. W. S. O'Brien, Esq., M.P. The Right Hon. Sir Henry Parnell, Bt, M.P. Richard Quain. Esq. P. M. Roget, M.D. Sec. R.S., F.R.A.S. Edward Romilly, Esq., A.M. R. W. Rothman, Esq., A.M. Sir Martin Archer Shee, P.R.A., F.R.S. The Right Hon. Earl Spencer. Sir George T. Staunton, Bart., M.P. John Taylor, Esq. F.R.S. A. T. Thomson, M.D. F.L.S. Thomas Vardon, Esq. Jas. Walker, Esq., F.R.S., Pr. Inst., Civ. Eng H. Waymouth, Esq. Thos. Webster, Esq., A.M. J. Whishaw, Esq., A.M., F.R.S. The Hon. John Wrottesiey, A.M., F.R.A.S. J. A. Yates, Esq., M.P. LOCAL COMMITTEES. Lt. Col. C. Hamilton Smith, F.R.S. John Milford, Esq. (Coaver.) Alexander McGrigor, Esq. Liverpool Loc. As.-W. W. Currie, Esq. Ch. Manchester Loc. As.-G. W. Wood, Esq., Sir Benjamin Heywood, Bt., Treasurer. Masham-Rev. George Waddington, M.A. T. Sopwith, Esq., F.G.S., Newport, Isle of Wight-Ab. Clarke, Esq. T. Cooke, Jun., Esq. R. G. Kirkpatrick, Esq. Newport Pagnell-J. Millar, Esq. A. W. Davis, M.D. Ripon Rev. H.P. Hamilton,M.A., F.R.S.,G.S. Rev. P. Ewart, M.A. Ruthin-Rev. the Warden of Humphreys Jones, Esq. Ryde, I. of Wight-Sir Rd. Simeon, Bt. Sheffield-J. H. Abrahams, Esq. Shepton Mallet-G. F. Burroughs, Esq. Henry Coppock, Esq., Secretary. John Rundle, Esq., M.P. Yarmouth-C. E. Rumbold, Esq. York-Rev. J. Kenrick, M.A. John Phillips, Esq., F.R.S., F.G.S. THOMAS COATES, Esq., Secretary, No. 59, Lincoln's Inn Fields. London: Printed by WILLIAM CLOWES and Sons, Stamford Streee. AUG 1 0 1921 3-4 THE PENNY CYCLOPEDIA OF THE SOCIETY FOR THE DIFFUSION OF USEFUL KNOWLEDGE. АТН ATHA'NARIC, a chief or judge of the Goths who had settled themselves on the borders of the Roman empire, north of the Danube, about the middle of the fourth century. Having aided Procopius in his rebellion, the Goths were attacked and defeated by the emperor Valens in 369. They then sued for peace, and an interview took place on this occasion between Valens and Athanaric, in a boat in the middle of the Danube. Some years after, the Huns having come down from the banks of the Volga, threatening the territory of the Goths, Athanaric opposed the barbarians at the passage of the river Dniester, but he was surprised, and obliged to retire with a part of his followers into the fastnesses of the Carpathian mountains. The rest of the Goths, under Fritigern, threw themselves on the empire for protection, and were allowed to cross the Danube and settle in Thrace. They afterwards quarrelled with the emperor Valens, whom they defeated and killed in the battle of Adrian ople, in August, A.D. 378. After the death of Fritigern, and the elevation of Theodosius to the empire, Athanaric, who had remained in his fastnesses, was elected king of the Goths. He then concluded a peace with Theodosius, and repaired to Constantinople, where he was received with great pomp, in January, A.D. 381; but having surfeited himself at the emperor's table, he soon after died, and was buried with great magnificence by order of Theodosius. (Gibbon, c. xxv.) ATHANAS (Leach), a genus of the long-tailed crustaceans, bearing much resemblance to Lysmata (Risso), from which it differs in having the first pair of feet of larger size than the rest; while the second pair of Lysmata are the largest. It is small in size, and has been taken on the south coast of England and on the shores of France. ATHANASIAN CREED, or Symbolum Athanasianum, which is also called from the words of its beginning the Symbolum Quicunque, is not extant in the works of Athanasius (which contain, vol. i. part i. p. 98, seq. another creed, stating the same doctrine, but differently expressed), and is not quoted by contemporary writers: it seems to refer to the later Nestorian and Eutychian controversies-has a Latinized character, or it sounds in Greek like a translation from a Latin original, and appears to contain phrases taken from the writings of Augustine, the bishop of Hippo. Hence we conclude that it was composed about the middle of the fifth century. Some have supposed that Vincentius Lerinensis; others, that Venantius Fortunatus; others again, that Hilarius Arelatensis wrote what is now called the Athanasian creed. According to Paschasius Quesnel, Virgilius of Tapsus, who has been considered to have interpolated the passage, 1 John. v. 7, was also the author of the Athanasian creed. From the seventh century we find that the Athanasian creed has been considered in the western churches to be the most genuine document of the ecclesiastical trinity. It is remarkable that the Athanasian creed was not introduced by the authority of ecclesiastical councils, nor by any external compulsion, but was generally received by the free conviction of the churches that it contained a correct expo No. 136. АТН sition of christian doctrine, and that it was necessary to give some ecclesiastical definitions of the statements of the New Testament. This important document may illustrate the difference between the solution of an historical question concerning authenticity, and one involving the internal truth of doctrinal contents. (See Cave, Historia Litter., vol. i. p. 189; Oudin, de Scriptor Eccles., vol. i. p. 312; Fabricius, Biblioth. Gr., vol. v. p. 297; Montfaucon, Præf. ad Op. Athanasii; and Schröckh, Kirchengesch. vol. xii. pp. 93-252.) Sherlock has also written on the Athanasian creed. Dr. Waterland supposed it, without much foundation, to have been made by Hilary, bishop of Arles; and Archbishop Tillotson said, 'The church were well rid of it. (See Clarke's Succession of Sacred Literature: London, 1830, p. 274.) A defence of the Athanasian creed on physiological principles, by Thomas William Chevalier, Esq., has been printed in the Morning-Watch, and published separately: London, 1830. In this dissertation a surgeon refutes the attack of some clergymen. Before the close of the sixth century, the Athanasian Creed had become so well known, that comments were written upon it; it was not, however, then styled the Athanasian Creed, but simply the Catholic Faith. Before the expiration of another century, it had obtained the appellation which it has since preserved. It is supposed to have received the epithet Athanasian,' on account of its reference to the subjects of the controversy between the orthodox and the Arians. But Athanasius himself confined his exertions to the establishment of the doctrine of the incarnation, and seems not to have insisted much upon the doctrines relative to the Spirit. This creed was used in France about the year 850; was received in Spain about a hundred years later, and in Germany about the same time. It was both said and sung in England in the tenth century; was commonly used in Italy at the expiration of that century, and at Rome a little later. Many learned men, especially Cardinal Bona, Petavius, Bellarmine, and Rivet, are of opinion that the creed which bears the name of Athanasius was really the production of that bishop. Baronius maintains this opinion, and suggests that it was composed by Athanasius when at Rome, and offered to Julius as a confession of his faith. The controversy on the Athanasian creed has produced in England a great number of works: the most learned and impartial work on this subject is, A Critical History of the Athanasian Creed, by Daniel Waterland, D.D.; the second edition, corrected and improved: Cambridge, 1728. ATHANA'SIUS, ST., surnamed Apostolicus, was one of the most noted divines and theological controversialists of the fourth century. The ecclesiastical history of that period is chiefly occupied with the narration of events in which he either bore a part or was closely concerned. Athanasius was born at or near Alexandria, about the close of the third century. The Benedictines of St. Maur give A.D. 296 as the year of his birth. Elmarın relates that the mother of Athanasius belonged to a noble Alexandrine, to the Nicene decrees. From this time the Meletians an family, and that she was an idolater. She gave to Athana-Eusebians sought the ruin of Athanasius. In A.D. 332 they sius a good education. On her endeavouring to persuade her accused him before the emperor of having, without the imson to marry, he would not listen to her advice. The mother perial sanction, imposed, for the benefit of the churches, taxes then assailed his chastity by introducing harlots into his apart- upon linen; of affording pecuniary aid to the rebels; of ments; but Athanasius flogged them and drove them away. ordering, during a visitation of the Mareotic congregations, The mother now invited a Sabæan magician to dine with him; that the chalice of the Meletian bishop, Ischeras, should be but this sorcerer told her that Athanasius was already a broken, and that his liturgical volumes should be burned; of Galilæan beyond the power of magic, and that he would having caused the Meletian bishop Arsenius to be murbecome a great man. After nearing this, the mother intro- dered; and of having employed the hand of Arsenius, when duced Athanasius to the Patriarch Alexander, and was severed from his body, for magical purposes. Athanasius baptized with her son. The mother died, and Athanasius, refuted the first two accusations by witnesses, proved that like another Samuel, remained with the patriarch. Ru- Ischeras was not a legitimately ordained priest at the time finus, in his continuation of the ecclesiastical history of Eu- of this episcopal visitation, and that his chalice was not an sebius, relates, that Athanasius, while yet a boy, baptized ecclesiastical chalice. His success in refuting the last other boys in play, and that this first introduced him to charge was complete: Arsenius was still alive, and with the notice of Alexander, who became bishop of Alex- two hands. But this acquittal, and the imperial letters, andria, A.D. 313, and was the nineteenth patriarch of that which fully acknowledged his innocence and justified his see. This statement is supported by the Benedictine editors proceedings, were insufficient to defend him against new of the works of Athanasius, by Tillemont, J. A. Schmidt, attacks. The Eusebians induced the emperor, A.D. 334, to S. Basnage, and others, but is rejected by many on the cite him before a synod at Cesaræa; but Athanasius refused ground of there being an anachronism in assigning the to appear before this tribunal, in which his opponents were childhood of Athanasius to the period of Alexander's posses- at the same time accusers and judges. The emperor, much sion of the bishopric. displeased by his disobedience, commanded him to appear before a synod at Tyre, A.D. 335, to which Athanasius went with forty-nine bishops. The former charges were repeated, but the presence of Arsenius again disproved the accusation of murder. Fresh crimes were now imputed to him: a woman with whom it was alleged that the bishop of Alexandria had committed fornication, was brought forward, but when confronted with Athanasius, she mistook for the bishop a friend who assisted in his defence, and thus committed herself as a false accuser. Finding that charges from which he had already been acquitted were perpetually revived, and that new accusations were invented, he conthe accusation about the broken chalice had been fully investigated, and during the absence of the Arian bishops sent to Mareotis to examine into the charges relative to Ischeras, he secretly retired, under the protection of the imperial plenipotentiary, from Tyre to Constantinople. The synod of Tyre, notwithstanding the protestation of the Egyptian and Mareotic clergy, decreed the deposition and excommunication of Athanasius, and his exile from Alexandria: they grounded their sentence on his disobedience to the commands of the emperor; want of respect to the synod; and alleged desecration of ecclesiastical vessels. The emperor, desirous of doing justice to the bishop of Alexandria, cited the judges of Tyre to account in his own presence for the sentence which they had pronounced. The bishops pleaded in justification of their sentence, and induced the emperor to banish Athanasius to Treves, A.D. 336. This sentence was procured by means of a new accusation against him, that of having impeded the exportation of corn from Alexandria to Constantinople. Athanasius himself states that the emperor exiled him in order to protect him from the rage of his enemies. The bishopric of Alexandria reinained vacant by the express command of the emperor. The writings of Athanasius prove that he received a learned education, and that he was acquainted with both the theological and profane literature of his age; though Gregorius of Nazianzus praises the contempt of Athanasius for heathen learning. During some part of his earlier life, Athanasius, attracted by the great reputation of St. Anthony, led for a time an ascetic life with that celebrated anchorite. In whatever way the notice of Alexander was first attracted, Athanasius early conciliated, and by his abilities retained, the favour of that prelate, who raised him rapidly from the lower ecclesiastical degrees to the office of deacon, and employed him as an assistant in his literary under-sidered even his life to be endangered; and therefore, before takings. In the Synod held at Alexandria, A.D. 321, against the Arians, Athanasius occupied the fourth place among the deacons of the Alexandrine church. In A.D. 325 he was archdeacon, and exerted considerable influence over his bishop, Alexander, and the proceedings at Nicæa. In that Synod he represented his bishop against the Arian party. Here Athanasius laid the foundation of his fame by his powerful refutation of Arianism; and notwithstanding his youth, he was from this time considered the first champion of the orthodox church. Alexander died in April, A.D. 326; and in the same year Athanasius was unanimously chosen bishop of Alexandria by the other orthodox bishops and by the inhabitants of the city. It is an established fact, that in those days the clergy and laity concurred in the choice of ecclesiastical superiors. It is related that Athanasius, anticipating that he might be elected, concealed himself during six months, and only re-appeared when he expected that the vacant see would be already filled. According to the Arian statements, Athanasius was consecrated bishop with illegal secrecy. It is probable that the numerous parties of the Meletians and Arians opposed the appointment of Athanasius; yet it is certain that at this period the orthodox party preponderated. A synodal report, which states the particulars of the bishops' proceedings in the choice of the new bishop of Alexandria, still exists, and has been appended to the works of Athanasius. Athanasius, as the twentieth metropolitan of Alexandria and Patriarch of eastern Africa, obtained an extensive sphere for exertion in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis, the first rank after the Roman bishop, and the highest ecclesiastical dignity in the East; but he was surrounded by bitter opponents, against whom he endeavoured to put in execution the decrees of Nicæa. About A.D. 326 (according to some reckonings: see ABYSSINIA, vol. i. p.58), after the conversion of the Ethiopians to christianity, Athanasius sent Frumentius, who was instrumental in their conversion, as their first bishop. But the joy which this event occasioned to Athanasius was marred by the increase of power obtained at this time by the Arian party. Among the most formidable opponents of Athanasius was Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, who having been previously deposed on account of his Arian sentiments, was reinstated A.D. 328, and, in conjunction with the Meletians, obtained considerable influence at the court of Constantine. Athanasius declined to comply with the proposal of Eusebius to re-admit Arius into church communion, and retorted the threats of the emperor by referring Athanasius was well received at Treves by Constans; and here he had many opportunities of strengthening his party in the West, and frequent means of communicating with Egypt. Athanasius wrote at this time a letter to the bishop Serapion on the death of Arius. The Alexandrians deeply mourned the absence of their much-revered bishop; they pathetically addressed the emperor, pleading for his restoration-an appeal which was seconded by the representations of the celebrated and esteemed hermit Anthony. The banished bishop was recalled, and restored to his see, A.D. 338, after having travelled through Germany, Pannonia, Mosia, and Thrace, to Constantinople; and from thence through Bithynia, Cappadocia, Syria, and Palestine, to Egypt. Constantine had conceded this point shortly before his death, but the actual restoration of Athanasius did not take place until the reign of his sons. The inhabitants of Alexandria received their long-absent bishop with joyful enthusiasm, but found that the demonstration of their grateful affection could not induce him to relax the reins of discipline, and that his past misfortunes had not taught him, in the least degree, to compromise the cause which he had espoused. Athanasius deposed throughout his own patriarchate the Arian bishops, and put orthodox prelates in their place. By his influence he also effected similar changes in other bishoprics. The Eusebians protested contest. against the return of Athanasius, alleging that the de-, cree of the synod of Tyre remained unrepealed. They revived the former accusations, and added the charge of having sold, for his own benefit, the grain and corn belonging to the church and the poor. They also imputed to his instigation the popular disturbances which took place on his return. The Eusebian party, intending to embarrass Athanasius still further, brought back to Alexandria the Arian bishop Pistus, whom Alexander had exiled; and finding that the new Roman emperor of the East, Constantius, sided with them, threatened more violent measures. Nearly a hundred of the bishops in the patriarchate of Alexandria appeared at a synod summoned by Athanasius, and refuted in a synodal letter the accusations of the Eusebians, A.D. 340. They bore a noble testimony in his favour, and called upon the whole of Christendom to rise in his defence. Athanasius despatched messengers to Julius, bishop of Rome; and the Eusebians at the same time sent delegates to Julius, requesting him to recognise Pistus. Thus were the Roman and other western churches involved in the Athanasian Athanasius went again to Rome in the year 340, accompanied by a few monks, in order to attend the synod convened by Pope Julius. Antony, the esteemed friend and revered instructor of the early manhood of Athanasius, having collected, about the year 305, a society of religious recluses from among the hermits of Africa, associated them into a community settled in Egypt, and regulated their mode of life by civil and religious rules. Baronius maintains, and his opinion is the most generally received, that it was Athanasius, who, about the year 340, transplanted the regular monastic institutions from Egypt into Italy, and erected the first monastery at Rome (Mabillon, Præf. ad Acta Sanctorum: ord. Benedict. tom. i. p. 9, &c.) Other opinions assign different localities to the first European monastic community. It is however probable that, during this visit of Athanasius to Rome, be excited there the spirit of monasticism. But, while approving the practice of monasticism, Athanasius did not sanction or overlook its abuses. Amongst many instances of his discreet interference and counsel, he thus writes to a monk who had been appointed to a bishopric, but who sought to avoid the labours of the office :-A bishop may both abstain from wine and fast frequently. We have known both fasting bishops and feasting monks. We have known both bishops who abstained from wine, and monks who indulged in it. Many among the bishops have not entered into matrimony; while, on the contrary, many monks have become fathers of children. Let every one, therefore, fight how he will the good fight. (Ep. ad Dracont.) Athanasius also seriously refuted the indiscreet opinions of some on the subject of matrimony, and assigned to each state of celibacy and matrimony its own place in the ordinance of God. Many persons were greatly offended by this, and seriously blamed Athanasius. Julius had declared himself in favour of Athanasius, but, in compliance with the request of the Eusebian delegates, he appointed a synod to be held at Rome. But before the assenbling of this synod the Eusebians had convened another at Antioch, A.D. 341, in which it was declared that Athanasius was for ever excluded from the bishopric of Alexandria. They offered the vacant see first to Eusebius of Emesa; and on his declining the offer, it was bestowed upon Gregory of Cappadocia, who, assisted by the imperial troops, expelled Athanasius (who had returned from Rome, and held private meetings with his followers) from Alexandria about Easter, A.D. 341, and committed many acts of violence against the Homoousiasts. Philagrius, the Roman governor of Alexandria, combining his efforts with those of Gregory, sought the life of Athanasius, who fled for refuge to Rome. In the same year Julius held at Rome a synod of fifty bishops, which rejected all the accusations against Athanasius, and re-admitted him, with high encomiums, into church communion. Julius wrote energetically to the Eusebian bishops in behalf of Athanasius, but in vain; and even after the death of Eusebius, his party and that of the Arians still retained so much power as to render impracticable the return of Athanasius to Alexandria. The cause of Athanasius was the more encumbered with difficulties by the tumultuous manner in which his adherents demanded his restoration. The ex-primate of Alexandria while resident at Rome applied to Constans, the emperor of tbs west, for protection. Constans several times granted him a private audience. The cause of Athanasius was espoused by most of the On the demand of Constans, a synod was convened at Sardica in the dominions of the Western Emperor, but on the borders of the two imperial territories, A.D. 346. Ninety-four bishops of the West and seventy-six bishops from the East assembled there. The friends of Athanasius claimed that he should take his seat and vote among the congregated bishops. The orientals required that he should appear as a yet unacquitted defendant. Upon this point of dispute the contest ran so high, that most of the eastern bishops left Sardica and retired to Philippopolis. The orthodox bishops remained at Sardica, and acquitted Athanasius of the charges brought against him. The bishops assembled at Philippopolis, as a retaliation for their own excommunication and deposition pronounced by the adherents of Athanasius, excommunicated the bishops at Sardica. The synod at Sardica will be always remembered as having first established and promulgated the canons recognising the right of the bishop of Rome to act as arbitrator in all cases concerning the deposition of bishops. Athanasius remained during a considerable time at Aquileia, and obtained much influence with the emperor Constans. By means of strong threats, that prince induced his brother Constantius to re-instate the orthodox bishops who had been exiled by the Eusebians. Athanasius, after a thrice-repeated invitation, repaired to the court of the eastern empire, the imperial sincerity being attested by the officers of state, and evidenced by the public and imperative orders which were issued for the recall of all the banished adherents of Athanasius, the restitution of their privileges, and the acknowledgment of their innocence, accompanied by the reversal of all illegal proceedings of the adverse party. Constantius received the venerable primate with seeming pleasure and approbation, asking from him the single concession of permission to the Arians to hold public worship in one church in Alexandria. Athanasius replied to this request by the nullifying promise to grant it on condition that a similar liberty should be allowed to the orthodox party in every city throughout the empire. Athanasius, on his return to Alexandria, passed through Jerusalem, and was there re-admitted into church communion by sixteen bishops. In his progress he deposed the Arian bishops, and substituted in their room ecclesiastics of the orthodox faith. On his arrival at Alexandria he was welcomed with the most joyful enthusiasm. The bishops Ursacius and Valens recanted their accusations, and others of the inimical prelates sought his favour and forgiveness. The powerful protection of Constantius procured him so much tranquillity that he was able to convene a synod at Alexandria, in which the decrees of Sardica were confirmed. The year 351 was marked by the untimely death of Constans. The hatred to Athanasius, which the power of Constans had restrained, again broke forth with redoubled force, after all fear from the pretensions of Magnentius had subsided. Athanasius was charged with having excited enmity between the imperial brothers. This charge seemed to have some foundation, as Constans had, in behalf of Athanasius, interfered with the government of Constantius. While a rival disputed the empire of the west, Constantius appeared as the friend of Athanasius; but as soon as the countenance of the venerated bishop of Alexandria ceased to be of importance to the policy of Constantius, Athanasius found that he ranked as both the personal and the theological enemy of the emperor. The sentence of Tyre could still be urged against him; but, anxious for the consent of the western church, Constantius summoned a synod at Arles, A.D. 353, and another, A.D. 355, of 300 bishops, at Milan. Corruption, the most infallible symptom of constitutional liberty, was successfully practised: honours, gifts, and immunities were offered and accepted as the price of an episcopal vote; and the condemnation of the Alexandrian primate was artfully represented as the only measure which could restore the peace and union of the catholic church. The friends of Athanasius were not however wanting to their leader or to their cause. With a manly spirit, which the sanctity of their character rendered less dangerous, they maintained in pub lic debate and in private conference with the emperor, the eternal obligation of religion and justice. They declared that neither the hope of his favour nor the fear of his displeasure should prevail on them to join in the condemnation of an absent, an innocent, a respectable brother. They affirmed, with apparent reason, that the illegal and obsolete decrees of the council of Tyre had long since been tacitly abolished by the imperial edicts, the honourable re-establishment of the archbishop of Alexandria, and the silence or recantation of his most clamorous adversaries. They alleged that his innocence had been attested by the unanimous bishops of Egypt, and had been acknowledged in the councils of Rome and Sardica by the impartial judgment of the Latin church. They deplored the hard condition of Athanasius, who, after enjoying so many years his seat, his reputation, and the seeming confidence of his sovereign, was again called upon to confute the most groundless and extravagant accusations. Their language was specious; their conduct was honourable; but in this long and obstinate contest, which fixed the eyes of a whole empire on a single bishop, the ecclesiastical factions were prepared to sacrifice truth and justice to the more interesting object of defending or removing the intrepid champion of the Nicene faith. The Arians still thought it prudent to disguise in ambiguous language their real sentiments and designs; but the orthodox bishops, armed with the favour of the people, and the decrees of a general council, insisted on every occasion, and particularly at Milan, that their adversaries should purge themselves from the suspicion of heresy, before they presumed to arraign the conduct of Athanasius. (Gibbon, chap. xxi.) The councils of Arles and Milan were not dissolved till the archbishop of Alexandria had been solemnly condemned and deposed by the judgment of the western as well as of the eastern church. A formulary of consent was transmitted by the messengers of state to the absent bishops; and all those who refused to submit their private opinion to the public and inspired wisdom of the councils of Arles and Milan were immediately banished by the emperor, who affected to execute the decrees of the catholic church. Among those prelates who led the honourable band of confessors and exiles, Liberius of Rome, Osius of Cordova, Paulanus of Treves, Dionysius of Milan, Eusebius of Vercella, Lucifer of Cagliari, and Hilary of Poitiers, may deserve to be particularly distinguished. The eminent station of Liberius, who governed the capital of the empire; the personal merit and long experience of the venerable Osius, who was revered as the favourite of the great Constantine, and the father of the Nicene faith, placed those prelates at the head of the Latin church; and their example, either of submission or resistance, would probably be imitated by the episcopal crowd. But the repeated attempts of the emperor to seduce or to intimidate the bishops of Rome and Cordova were for some time ineffectual. The Spaniard declared himself ready to suffer under Constantius, as he had suffered threescore years before under his grandfather Maximian. The Roman, in the presence of his sovereign, asserted the innocence of Athanasius and his own freedom. The resolution of Liberius and Osius was at length subdued by the hardships of exile and confinement. The Roman pontiff purchased his return by some criminal compliances, and afterwards expiated his guilt by a seasonable repentance. Persuasion and violence were employed to extort the reluctant signature of the decrepid bishop of Cordova, whose strength was broken, and whose faculties were perhaps impaired by the weight of a hundred years. The fall of Liberius and Osius reflected a brighter lustre on the firmness of those bishops who still adhered with unshaken fidelity to the cause of Athanasius and religious truth.' (Gibbon, ibid.) The next step was to remove Athanasius himself-a purpose long held, but restrained by fear of popular resentment at the removal of a beloved and respected pastor. Even when sanctioned by the decrees of the Latin church, Constantius did not dare to give his written sanction to the order for the displacement of Athanasius. The unsigned decree could reasonably be rejected, and the bishop refused the invitation of the municipal governor to abdicate. A nominal agreement was interposed for the suspension of proceedings till the emperor's real intention should be declared; but this proved but a stratagem to lull the vigilance of the Athanasian interest. The capital was surrounded and entered by the imperial troops. During four months, under the guise of zeal for religion, ravages the most horrible were carried on within the walls of Alexandria. Athanasius with difficulty saved his life by means of a rapid and secret flight. George, who was, according to Athanasius and Gregory Nazianzen, a native of Cappadocia, but who, according to Ammianus Marcellinus, was sprung from a tanner at Epiphaneia in Cilicia-a man regardless alike of religion and humanity, was placed in the episcopal chair, and caused the horrid and disgraceful scenes of bloodshed and crime which had been enacted in Alexandria to be repeated in ninety of the episcopal cities of Egypt. During six years Athanasius evaded the pursuits of the imperial emissaries. He lived concealed chiefly among the monks of the Egyptian desert, who chose rather to die than betray their revered associate. Sometimes he approached near the towns in order to learn the proceedings of his enemies. While thus proscribed and pursued, he wrote and circulated his letters against the Arians addressed to the bishops of Egypt and Libya, and others of his controversial treatises. Gibbon has eloquently described the romantic adventures of Athanasius during this period. Athanasius was at last recalled from his seclusion by the permission given by the emperor Julian to the exiled bishops to return to their sees. The first care of Athanasius was the restoration of peace and orthodoxy to the church. He convened, A.D. 362, a synod, which offered church communion to all those bishops who, during the reign of Constantius, had been awed or seduced into the abandonment of orthodoxy: he only required that they should subscribe, and henceforward strictly adhere, to the words of the Nicene creed, receiving it as an unalterable rule of faith. By his constant and uniform labours, unwarped by prosperity and undismayed by adversity, Athanasius obtained the appellation of the Father of Orthodoxy.' Many bishops gladly embraced this opportunity of forsaking the Arians and reuniting themselves with the church. This Alexandrine synod left the subject of peace with the Meletians where it found it. It condemned the pertinacious Arians and other heretics. The power of the Arians was now so much impaired, that henceforward Athanasius had nothing to fear from them. But he suffered from the hatred of Julian, to whom the primate of Egypt had become peculiarly obnoxious. Repenting of the indulgence which had been extended to tnis vigorous and uncomprising supporter of the Christian faith, Julian condemned, with severe expressions of censure, the proceedings of Athanasius, asserting that, in granting liberty to return, he had been far from intending the resumption of ecclesiastical functions. To rebuke this imputed presumption, Julian exiled Athanasius. The unpopularity, and even impolicy, of this measure, was soon proved by the complaints and appeal of the Alexandrians. But Julian was resolved: the prefect of Egypt, who delayed the sentence, was reproved, and might have found even the death of Athanasius necessary to his own safety, had not the retreat and impenetrable concealment of the bishop prevented his apprehension. The emperor Jovian, the successor of Julian, favoured the orthodox views. He revoked the decree of Julian, and wrote a respectful letter to Athanasius, requesting instruction in the true faith. Athanasius assembled, A.D. 363, a synod at Alexandria, which replied to the emperor's letter; and himself repaired to Antioch at the invitation of Jovian. About this time Athanasius composed several works; among others, a life of Anthony, which is still extant, but has possibly become interpolated; a work on the Incarnation of the Word of God, which sometimes bears also the title On the Trinity and Incarnation; and a work on the Trinity and Holy Spirit,' which is extant only in a Latin edition, and is perhaps but an imitation of the manner of Athanasius. Another change of affairs took place, on the death of Jovian, under Valens, who was a zealous Arian. Banished by this emperor also, Athanasius lived during several months in his father's tomb. But a rebellion being excited by this compulsory removal from his see, the emperor granted to Athanasius a safe residence in Alexandria, and allowed him to resume his episcopal rank and functions. Athanasius employed this season of security for the confirmation of orthodoxy. He wrote circular letters to the bishops and held a synod at Alexandria, A.D. 369. In the name of this synod, he addressed a circular letter to the African bishops, which is extant, under the title Epistola ad Afros. The epistle entitled |