text, "Then will I hear from heaven, and forgive their sin, and will heal the land." And if the nation at large will not follow our good example in this particular, and if God should not withdraw his chastening hand, the fault will not be ours, neither will the condemnation. If we repent, if we pray, if we take the measures a good Providence affords us, we have done our part, and we may rest serene and satisfied. Let us confide the whole matter to God: "The Lord killeth and maketh alive; he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up; he maketh sore, and bindeth up; he woundeth, and his hands make whole."* The Christian, even on human grounds, has the best chance of escape; for the disease is far most destructive where men have lived intemperate and dissolute lives; to such, indeed, it is almost always fatal. But the Christian, moderate in all things, and with a mind at peace, because he knows in whom he has trusted, is far less likely to be affected. Let him, in this and other times, when the judgments of God are abroad, take comfort from the frequent meditation of the ninety-first Psalm, with a few extracts from which I will conclude." He that dwelleth in the secret place of the Most High, shall abide under the shadow of the Almighty. He shall deliver thee from the snare of the fowler, and from the noisome pestilence. Thou shalt not be afraid for the terror by night; nor for the arrow that flieth by day; nor for the pestilence that walketh in darkness; nor for the destruction that wasteth at noon-day. A thousand shall fall at thy side, and ten thousand at thy right hand; but it shall not come nigh thee. Only with thine eyes shalt thou behold and see the reward of the wicked. Because thou hast made the Lord which is my refuge, even the Most High, thy habitation; there shall no evil befall thee, neither shall any plague come nigh thy dwelling." H. T. MISCELLANEOUS. ON THE EARLY FATHERS OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, No. XVII. Τὸν Ἰησοῦν καὶ τὴν ἀνάστασιν εὐηγγελίζετο. Act. Apost. XVII. 18. THERE are two treatises now extant, which bear the inscription of Athenagoras, an Athenian philosopher; one of which is a Legation or Apology for the Christians, addressed to the emperors Antoninus and Commodus, and the other, an essay on the Resurrection of the Dead. Of the author of these writings, nothing is certainly known beyond the age in which he flourished, and his name and designation as set forth in the titles. He is mentioned neither by Eusebius nor Jerome; and a passage of Methodius, preserved in Epiphanius (Hær. LXIV. 21.), and Job v. 18. Photius (Cod. 234.), and containing a brief citation from the Apology,* is the only reference, in any of the primitive Fathers, either to himself or to his works. There is, indeed, a fragment of the Church History of Philip Sidetes, a writer in the beginning of the fifth century, which gives a particular account of him; but the history itself does not appear to have borne any very high character for authenticity and, as the fragment plainly contradicts what is known of Athenagoras, little reliance can be placed in the remainder. According to this document, which is published by Dodwell (Append. Diss. Iræn. p. 488.), the Apology was presented to Adrian and Antoninus Pius; which is evidently a mistake. It may or may not be true, that the perusal of the Scriptures, with a view to the composition of a work against believers, effected his conversion from Heathenism to Christianity; that he was president of the catechetical school of Alexandria, and master of Clement, who wrote the Stromata. We may remark, however, that a work, combining history with romance, exists in the French language, on the subject of True and Perfect Love,† purporting to be a translation from the Greek of Athenagoras, and to have been written before his conversion. It was printed at Paris, in 1612; but the original has never been seen, nor is there any reasonable doubt of its being a forgery, to answer a particular end, and founded upon some oriental fiction. There are portions of it, which the reputed author never could have written, and altogether unsuited to the place and period in which he lived. Athenagoras has also been regarded, by some critics, as the writer of the Memoir de seipso, which is, beyond dispute, an autobiographical Treatise of M. Antoninus. Respecting the time and manner of the death of this Father nothing is known. From the sparing mention of Athenagoras by the primitive writers, some critics have imbibed the notion that the work which bears his name, is a third Apology of Justin. Not only, however, is the inscription decisive against this conclusion, but the positive testimony of antiquity to no more than two Apologies of the martyr, and the marked diversity of character in the writers respectively. It is also remarkable, that the work of Athenagoras is called IIpeoßeia, though, in some copies, 'Añoλoyía is added; and some have thought that he was deputed to wait upon the emperor with the address, in the name of the Christians among whom he lived. But the two words peoßeia and azoλoyia are frequently synonymous, and seem to mark a distinction between the authors who employed them, rather than to convey any different meaning in themselves. A question has arisen concerning the individuals to whom the appeal was addressed, some supposing that Lucius Verus, the brother; and others, that Lucius Commodus, the son of Antoninus, is joined with him in the inscription: and, as the date is involved in the discussion, it may be proper to investigate the point somewhat minutely. If the first supposition be correct, as Verus died πνεῦμα περὶ τὴν ὕλην ἔχον, See Athenag. Legat. c. 22. The passage runs thus: Τί οὖν Διάβολος λέξεται; καθάπερ ἐλέχθη τῷ ̓Αθηναγόρα, γενόμενον ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ. The work is entitled, "Du vray et parfait Amour; escrit en Grèc par Athenagoras. Philosophe Athenien: contenant les Amours honestes de Theogone et de Charide, de Phericydes et de Melangenie." in 169, the latest period that can be assigned to its presentation, is that assumed by Dodwell, who fixes it in 168. Now the Apology is inscribed to the emperors M. Aur. Antoninus, and L. Aur. Commodus, ̓Αρμενιακοῖς, Σαρματικοῖς, τὸ δὲ μεγιστον, Φιλοσόφοις. But it appears that L. Verus was also called Commodus; to whom alone the title of Armeniacus properly belongs, though it was equally assumed by his brother, as partner in the empire, if not in the subjugation of Parthia, in which the appellation originated. Sarmatia, however, was not conquered till after the death of Verus: so that the addition of the title Sarmatici, which appropriately designates Marcus Antoninus only, but was also assumed by his then co-emperor, Commodus, plainly indicates the father and son as the joint subjects of the address. To place the question, however, beyond all doubt, it will be amply sufficient to cite the following passage from the Apology itself; c. 15: "Exoire ap' έavτ@v καὶ τὴν ἐπουράνιον βασιλείαν ἐξετάζειν. Ὡς γὰρ ὑμῖν ΠΑΤΡΙ καὶ ὙΙΩ πάντα κεχείρωται, ἄνωθεν τὴν βασιλείαν εἰληφόσι· οὕτως ἑνὶ τῷ Θεῷ καὶ τῷ παρ' αὐτοῦ Λόγῳ, υἱῷ νοουμένῳ ἀμερίστῳ, πάντα ὑποτέτακται. Hence it is not only manifest that Antoninus and his son Commodus were the reigning emperors whom Athenagoras addressed; but it may also be fairly inferred, that the latter had been admitted to an equal share of the empire. Now Commodus, having been raised to the proconsular authority in A.D. 176, was elevated to the full imperial dignity in the year following; so that Tillemont and Lardner are, in all probability, correct in fixing the date of the Apology in 177, or a little later. The Apology opens with a complaint that, while all other subjects of the empire performed their religious ceremonies without molestation, the mere name of Christian exposed the professors of the Gospel to the most severe and unmerited persecution; and, praying for the infliction of punishment upon convicted offenders, denounced the injustice of condemning Christians alone, unheard, for crimes of which they are innocent. (c. 1-3.) After stating that there were three specific accusations alleged against the brethren, who were stigmatized as Atheists, Cannibals, and given to incestuous practices (c. 4.), Athenagoras proceeds to the refutation of each separately, and in order. With respect to the first charge, he exposes (c. 5-26.) the absurdities and impurities of the Pagan mythology, and contrasts them with the pure and spiritual worship of the Christian. "We are not Atheists," he observes," who believe in one God, unbegotten, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, omnipresent, conceivable only by the mind and reason, surrounded also by ineffable light and beauty, and spirit and power, by whom, through his Word, every thing was made, adorned, and is preserved. We believe also in a Son of God, by whom, and through whom, all things were made, the Father and the Son being one; the Son being in the Father, the Father in the Son, by the unity and power of the Spirit. The mind and word of God is the Son of God." In reply to the two remaining charges (c. 27-31.), Jul. Capitol. Vit. Veri : - Post excessum Divi Pii a Senatu, coactus Marcus regimen publicum capere, fratrem sibi participem in imperio designavit, quem L. Aur. Verum Commodum, appellavit Cæsaremque atque Augustum dixit. + Legat. §. 9. Τὸ μὲν οὖν ἄθεοι μὴ εἶναι, κ. τ. λ. Athenagoras contends that the purity of the Christians was not confined to their actions, but that their thoughts and desires were equally under restraint; and arguing, not very scripturally indeed, upon the merits of celibacy, maintains that those who renounce the libidinous wish, would not easily be guilty of the act." And how," he asks, "can they be justly accused of homicide and eating human flesh, who would not witness even the execution of a criminal; and who shun the popular combat of gladiators with wild beasts, thinking that there is little difference between witnessing and committing murder?" An elegant peroration, indicative of the Christian duty of submission to governors, and conciliating the imperial favour and protection, concludes the address. Adverting briefly, in the close of the Apology, to the doctrine of the Resurrection, Athenagoras promises a recurrence to the subject at a future opportunity. It should seem therefore, that the Treatise De Resurrectione Carnis was written at a short interval after the presentation of the Legatio. It is divided into two parts: in the former of which, he endeavours to eradicate from the mind any preconceived opinions respecting the improbability of the doctrine, as connected with a want of power or of will in the Almighty to raise the dead. Proving God's ability, both as regards might and wisdom, from his acknowledged creative power; and his will, from the equity and fitness of the object; he concludes with a reply to the objections commonly urged against the doctrine by Gentile philosophers. In the second part he advances a variety of solid arguments in support of a resurrection; laying peculiar stress upon that " longing after immortality" which is naturally implanted in the human mind. The style of Athenagoras is purely Attic, and formed with a degree of studied elegance, and all the ornaments of composition. His figures are bold and well sustained; and his construction easy, though somewhat involved with parentheses, which tend to impede the sense. The depth of his arguments, and the mysteries, both of the Platonic philosophy and revelation, on which they are founded, render his language occasionally obscure, and his reasonings prolix and tedious. But in his appeals to the justice and common understanding of the philosophic Antoninus, his commanding eloquence breaks forth in an elegant simplicity of diction, which together are absolutely irresistible. Let the subjoined passage attest the truth of these observations. Εἰ δὲ ἀκριβῶς διέξειμι τὸν καθ' ἡμᾶς λόγον, μὴ θαυμάσητε ἵνα γὰρ μὴ τῇ κοινῇ καὶ ἀλόγῳ συναποφέρησθε γνώμη, ἔχητε δὲ τἀληθὲς εἰδέναι, ἀκριβολογοῦμαι. Ἐπεὶ καὶ δι' αὐτῶν τῶν δογμάτων οἷς προσέχομεν, οὐκ ἀνθρωπικοῖς οὖσιν, ἀλλὰ θεοφάτοις καὶ θεοδιδάκτοις, πεῖσαι ὑμᾶς, μὴ ὡς περὶ ἀθέων ἔχειν, δυνάμεθα. Τίνες οὖν ἡμῶν οἱ λόγοι οἷς ἐντρεφόμεθα ; λέγω ὑμῖν, ἀγαπᾶτε τοὺς ἐχθροὺς ὑμῶν, εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους, προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν διωκόντων ὑμᾶς, ὅπως γένησθε υἱοὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ὑμῶν τοῦ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, ὃς τὸν ἥλιον αὑτοῦ ἀνατέλλει ἐπὶ πονηροὺς * Legat. §. 30. Οὓς γὰρ ἴσασιν οὐδ ̓ ἰδεῖν κἄν δικαίως φονεύομενον, κ. τ. λ. καὶ ἀγαθοὺς, καὶ βρέχει ἐπὶ δικαίους καὶ ἀδίκους. Ἐπιτρέψατε ἐνταῦθα τοῦ λόγου ἐξακούστου μετὰ πολλῆς κραυγῆς γεγονότος, ἐπὶ παῤῥησίαν ἀναγαγεῖν, ὡς ἐπὶ βασιλέων φιλοσόφων ἀπολογούμενον. Τίνες γὰρ ἡ τῶν τοὺς συλλογισμοὺς ἀναλυόντων, καὶ τὰς ἀμφιβολίας διαλυόντων, καὶ τὰς ἐτυμολογίας σαφηνιζόντων, ἢ τῶν τὰ ὁμώνυμα καὶ συνώνυμα καὶ κατηγορήματα καὶ ἀξιώματα, καὶ τί τὸ ὑποκείμενον, καὶ τί τὸ κατηγορούμενον, οἳ εὐδαίμονας ἀποτελεῖν διὰ τούτων καὶ τῶν τοιούτων λόγων ὑπισχνοῦνται τοὺς συνόντας, οὕτως ἐκκεκαθαρμένοι εἰσὶ τὰς ψυχὰς, ὡς ἀντὶ τοῦ μισεῖν τοὺς ἐχθροὺς, ἀγαπᾷν, καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ τὸ μετριώτατον) κακῶς ἀγορεύειν τοὺς προκατάρξαντας λοιδορίας, εὐλογεῖν, καὶ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐπιβουλευόντων εἰς τὸ ζῆν, προσεύχεσθαι; οἱ τοὐναν τίον ἀεὶ διατελοῦσι κακῶς τὰ ἀποῤῥητα ἐπ ̓ αὐτοὺς ταῦτα μεταλλεύοντες, καὶ ἀεί τι ἐργάσασθαι ἐπιθυμοῦντες κακὸν, τέχνην λόγων, καὶ οὐκ ἐπίδειξιν ἔργων, τὸ πρᾶγμα πεποιημένοι. Παρὰ δ ̓ ἡμῖν εὕροιτε ἂν ἰδιώ τας καὶ χειροτέχνας καὶ γραΐδια, εἰ λόγῳ τὴν ὠφέλειαν παριστᾷν εἰσιν ἀδύνατοι τὴν παρὰ τοῦ λόγου, ἔργῳ τὴν ἀπὸ τῆς προαιρέσεως ὠφέλειαν ἐπιδεικνυμένους. Οὐ γὰρ λόγους διαμνημονεύουσιν, ἀλλὰ πράξεις ἀγαθὰς ἐπιδεικνύουσιν, παιόμενοι μὴ ἀντιτύπτειν, καὶ ἁρπαζόμενοι μὴ δικάζεσθαι, τοῖς αἰτοῦσι διδόναι, καὶ τοῦς πλησίον ἀγαπᾷν ὡς ἑαυτούς. Αρα τοίνυν, εἰ μὴ ἐφεστηκέναι Θεὸν τῷ τῶν ἀνθρώπων γένει ἐνομίζομεν, οὕτως ἂν ἑαυτοὺς ἐξεκαθαίρομεν; οὐκ ἔστιν εἰπεῖν. Αλλ' ἐπεὶ πεπείσμεθα ὑφέξειν παντὸς τοῦ ἐνταῦθα βίου λόγον τῷ πεποιηκότι καὶ ἡμᾶς καὶ τὸν κόσ Θεῷ, τὸν μέτριον καὶ φιλάνθρωπον καὶ εὐκαταφρόνητον βίον αἱρούμε οὐδὲν τηλικοῦτον πείσεσθαι κακὸν ἐνταῦθα νομίζοντες, καν τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ ἀφαιρῶνταί τινες, ὧν ἐκεῖ κομιούμεθα, τοῦ πρᾴου καὶ φιλανθρώπου καὶ ἐπιεικοῦς βίου, παρὰ τοῦ μεγάλου δικαστοῦ. With respect to the doctrinal system of Athenagoras, a passage has already been cited, in which the Godhead of the Son is distinctly upheld; and to this may be added the following, selected from a variety of others to the same effect, in reference to the Trinity in Unity. (Legat. c. 10.) Τίς οὖν οὐκ ἂν ἀπορήσαι, λέγοντας Θεὸν πατέρα καὶ υἱὸν Θεὸν, καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα ἄγιον, δεικνύντας αὐτῶν καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ ἑνώσει δύναμιν, καὶ τὴν ἐν τῇ τάξει διαίρεσιν, ἀκούσας ἀθέους καλουμένους. In the midst of frequent allusions to angels, he gives not the slightest appearance of sanction to the worship of them, as practised by the Romanists; and though there is little in his writings that bears even indirectly upon the Calvinistic errors, there is nothing whatever in support of them. The first edition of the Tract De Resurectione, is that of P. Nannius, Gr. Lat. 4to. Par. 1541; and of the Legatio, that of Stephens, Gr. Lat. 8vo. Tigur. 1557. By far the best edition of both was published by Edward Dechair, (Lond. 8vo. 1706), with the Greek and Latin in columns, and accompanied with the notes of Stephens, Gesner, Langius, Kortholt, Richenberg, and others, with sundry additional matter. They are also attached to the Paris and other editions of Justin. |