The quality of his writings show that he was well educated, familiar with Platonism, and may have been well known and influential. Only two of his works, his Apology or Embassy for the Christians and Treatise on the Resurrection, have come down to us. The absence of any mention of his writings among other Christian writers may have been due to his anonymous writings having been thought to be the work of other writers.

His writings bear witness to his scholarship and culture, his power as a philosopher and rhetorician, his keen appreciation of the intellectual temper of his age, and his tact and delicacy in dealing with the powerful opponents of Christianity. Thus, his writings are credited by some later scholars as having had a more significant impact on their intended audience than the now better-known writings of his more polemical and religiously-grounded contemporaries. The Apology, the date of which is fixed by internal evidence as 176 or 177, was not, as the title Embassy (presbeia) suggests, an oral defense of Christianity, but a carefully written plea for justice to the Christians made by a philosopher, on philosophical grounds, to the Emperors Marcus Aurlius and his son Commodus, whom he flatters as conquerors, "but above all, philosophers". He first complains of the illogical and unjust discrimination against the Christians and of the calumnies they suffer, and then meets the charge of atheism. It should be noted that a major complaint directed at the Christians of his day was that by not believing in the Roman gods, Christians were showing themselves to be atheists. He establishes the principle of monotheism, citing pagan poets and philosophers in support of the very doctrines for which Christians are condemned, and argues for the superiority of the Christian belief in God to that of pagans. This first strongly-reasoned argument for the unity of God in Christian literature is supplemented by an able exposition of the Trinity. Then, taking the defensive, he justifies the Christian abstention from worship of the national deities on grounds of its absurdity and indecency, quoting at length the pagan poets and philosophers in support of his contention. Finally, he meets the charges of immorality by exposing the Christian ideal of purity, even in thought, and the inviolable sanctity of the marriagebond. The charge of cannibalism is refuted by showing the high regard for human life that leads the Christian to detest the crime of abortion. The treatise on the Resurrection of the Body, the first complete exposition of the doctrine in Christian literature, was written later than the Apology, to which it may be considered an appendix. Athenagoras brings to the defense of the doctrine the best that contemporary philosophy could adduce. After meeting the objections common to his time, he demonstrates the possibility of a resurrection in view either of the power of the Creator, or of the nature of our bodies. To exercise such powers is neither unworthy of God nor unjust to other creatures. He shows that the nature and end of man demand a perpetuation of the life of body and soul.

Athenagoras is mentioned neither by Eusebius nor by St. Jerome, and we know very little about him. He was an Athenian philosopher, though perhaps not born in Athens. According to a sketch in the Christian History of Philip of Side, who wrote c. 430, he was at first a heathen, and became a Christian by reading the Scriptures. Perhaps he lived for a time in Alexandria.

We can get an idea of his character and methods from what writings of his have come down to us. He is a philosopher in every sense of the term. His primary object is to instruct and to demonstrate. Whilst Justin is an apostle, and Tatian a polemist, Athenagoras is a professor who discourses according to all the rules of grammar and

logic. His composition is as lucid and orderly as that of Justin and Tatian is loose and careless. He never for a moment strays from his subject; he makes no display of rhetoric or figurative language. In all his writings we meet with forcible reasoning and a powerful style, so concise that it borders at times on dryness, truly the style of a philosopher. Strange to say, this convinced Christian, in writing against the pagans on the resurrection of bodies, draws no proof for this dogma from revelation and the Scriptures.

We have two of Athenagoras' works: an apology and a treatise On the Resurrection of Bodies.

1 The apology is entitled Supplication for the Christians (peri cristianwn). It was addressed to the Emperors Marcus Aurelius Antoninus and Lucius Aurelius Commodus. The titles given to Marcus Aurelius and to Commodus, as well as the reference, in the first chapter, to the profound peace then prevailing, enable us to fix the date of the composition of this work between December A. D. 176, and the first months of 178. The work was undoubtedly written at Athens.

The arrangement of ideas is most lucid. After soliciting the attention of the Emperors, Athenagoras enumerates the three chief accusations current against the Christians: atheism, immorality and anthropophagy (1-3). He refutes these three calumnies successively. The Christians are not atheists: they adore one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is true they do not offer any bloody sacrifices, nor do they worship the pagan gods; but the true God has no need of such crude sacrifices, and the gods of paganism are no gods at all, but men who have been deified (4-30).

The second accusation, that of immorality, is equally without foundation. Christians profess belief in the torments of hell; they condemn even the thought of evil. The pagans themselves commit the atrocities of which they accuse the Christians (31-34).

With regard to the Thyestean banquets, Christians are in no way guilty of such crimes, but hate homicide, avoid the gladiatorial fights, condemn the exposure of children, and believe in the resurrection of bodies (35-36).

He concludes with an appeal to the justice and clemency of the Emperors (37).

In ch. 36 of his apology, Athenagoras promised a discussion of the doctrine of the resurrection. This work must have followed very closely upon the former, and was perhaps written in 178 or 179. Certain details in chs. 1, 19, 23, and the order of ideas followed still more rigorously than in the apology, favor the opinion that it was a lecture or conference, first delivered orally and later circulated in written form.

The lecture is divided into two parts: (l) a refutation of the objections brought against the possibility of the resurrection (1-10), and (2) a demonstration of it as a fact (11-25). In the first part the author proves that there is nothing in the resurrection of bodies above the power of God and contrary to His attributes. In the second he emphasizes more especially the unity of the human person, concluding that the eternal life and happiness, which are the end of man, are for his body as much as for his soul, and that the body which participates in the good and bad actions of the soul, must be punished or rewarded with it. This cannot take place without the resurrection