PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER II., § I.

It is first of all necessary to state that it was not our intention to enumerate every event relating to Arius, the Arians, and other heretics of that age, nor to catalog every detail concerning Alexander of Alexandria, Hosius, Marcellus, Serapion, other associates of Athanasius, or the various synods. Instead, we aim only to recount those matters that pertain to the life of Athanasius or are closely connected to it. — MONTFAUCON.

Athanasius was born between 296 and 298¹. According to later writers, his parents were of high rank and wealthy. In any case, their son received a liberal education. In his earliest work, we find him repeatedly quoting Plato and ready with a definition from the Organon of Aristotle. He was also familiar with the theories of various philosophical schools, particularly the developments of Neo-Platonism. In later works, he quotes Homer more than once (Hist. Ar. 68, Orat. iv. 29), and he addressed a defense to Constantius that bears unmistakable traces of a study of Demosthenes' On the Crown (Fialon, pp. 286 sq., 293). His education was that of a Greek; Egyptian antiquities and religion, along with their monuments and history, held no special interest for him, and he nowhere betrays any trace of Egyptian national feeling. However, from his early years, another element took a primary place in his training and interests: the Holy Scriptures. His martyr-teachers had instructed him in them, and his mind and writings were saturated with them. Ignorant of Hebrew and only rarely appealing to other Greek versions (to Aquila once in the Ecthesis, and to other versions once or twice regarding the Psalms), his knowledge of the Old Testament was limited to the Septuagint. Yet, he possessed an astonishing command of both the Old and New Testaments. He was, in the words of scripture, "An Alexandrian by birth, an eloquent man, and mighty in the Scriptures" (Acts 18:24). The combination of scriptural study and Greek learning was to be expected in a pupil of the famous Alexandrian School—the school of Clement, Origen, Dionysius, and Theognostus. It was here that young Athanasius learned, possibly first from the lips of Peter, the bishop and martyr of 311². The influence of Origen still colored the traditions of the theological school of Alexandria. It was from Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria (312–328)—himself an Origenist "of the right wing"—that Athanasius received his training during the critical period of his late teens.

A famous story regarding his first introduction to Alexander is told by Rufinus (Hist. Eccl. I. xiv.). The Bishop, on the anniversary of the martyrdom of his predecessor, Peter, was expecting some clergy for dinner after the service in a house by the sea. Looking out the window, he saw some boys playing on the shore; as he watched, he realized they were imitating the sacred rites of the Church. Fearing they were going too far, he sent some of his clergy to bring them in. At first, the boys responded to his inquiries with an alarmed denial. Eventually, he elicited that one of them had acted as the Bishop and had baptized some of the others in the role of catechumens. Upon ascertaining that all the details had been duly observed, he consulted his clergy and decided that the baptisms should be treated as valid. He concluded that the "boy-bishop" and his "clergy" had given such clear proof of their vocation that their parents must be instructed to hand them over to be educated for the sacred profession. Accordingly, after completing his elementary studies, young Athanasius was handed over to the bishop to be brought up, like Samuel, in the Temple of God. This, adds Sozomen (ii. 17), was the origin of his subsequent attachment to Alexander as deacon and secretary. The story is credited by some writers of weight (most recently Archdeacon Farrar), but it seems highly improbable. It depends on the single authority of a writer not famed for historical judgment, and on the very first anniversary of Peter's martyrdom, when Alexander had barely ascended the episcopal throne, Athanasius would have been at least fourteen years old. The probability that the anniversary would have been other than the first, and the possibility that Athanasius was even older—coupled with the certainty that his theological study began before Peter's martyrdom—compel us to mark the story with at least a strong note of skepticism. However, it may be allowed to confirm our belief that Alexander early singled out the promise of ability and devotion that marked Athanasius as his right-hand man long before the crisis that first proved his unique value.

His years of study and work in the bishop's household bore rich fruit in the two youthful works already alluded to. These works bear traces of Alexandrian theology and the influence of Origen more than any of his later writings; yet, even then, we can trace the independent grasp of Christian principles that marked Athanasius as the representative of something more than just a school, however noble and many-sided. It was not as a mere theologian, but as a believing soul in need of a Savior, that Athanasius approached the mystery of Christ. Throughout the mazes of the Arian controversy, his tenacious hold upon this fundamental principle steered his course and balanced his theology. This is what, above all else, characterizes the golden treatise on the Incarnation of the Word.

¹ He was unable to speak from memory of the events of the persecution of 303 (Hist. Ar. 64), but (de Incarn. 56. 2) had been instructed in religion by persons who had suffered as martyrs. This must have been before 311, the date of the last persecution in Egypt under Maximin. Before 319 he had written his first books "against the Gentiles," the latter of which, on the Incarnation, implies a full maturity of power in the writer, while the former is full of philosophical and mythological knowledge, arguing an advanced education. However, from several sources, we learn that his election to the episcopate in 328 was impugned—at any rate in later years—on the ground of his not having attained the canonical age of thirty. There is no ground for supposing this was true, but such a charge would not be made without some degree of plausibility. We must therefore suppose that on June 8, 328, he was not much beyond his thirtieth year. His parents, moreover, were living after the year 358 (see below, p. 562, note 6); allowing them over eighty years at that date, 298 is a reasonable birth date for their son. We must remember that in southern climates, mind and body mature more rapidly than with us, and the Contra Gentes and De Incarnatione will scarcely appear precocious.
² The statement of Gregory of Nazianzus that he frequented classes of grammar and rhetoric is probable enough; the claim of Sulpitius Severus that he was a lawyer (juris consultus) lacks corroboration.