Athanasius.

Athamanta to have existed a century before the Trojan war, and to have preserved their name and customs in the days of Alexander. It is said that there was a fountain in their territories, the waters of which became so sulphureous during the last quarter of the moon, that they burned wood. See Strabo, lib. vii.; Pliny, lib. ii. cap. 103.; Pompon. Mela. lib. ii. cap. 3.; and Ovid's Metamorph. xv. v. 311. (j).

ATHAMANTA, a genus of plants of the class Pentandria, and order Digynia. See BOTANY. (w) ATHAMAS, king of Thebes. See Apollodorus, lib. i. cap. 7. and 9.; Pausan. lib. ix. cap. 34. Hygin. Fab. 1, 2, 5.; and Lempriere's Classical Dictionary. (j)

ATHANASÍA, a genus of plants of the class Syngenesia, and order Polygamia Equalis. See BOTANY. (w)

;

ATHANASIUS, SAINT, flourished in the fourth century, and was the renowned champion of orthodoxy against the Arians. We have no certain accounts of his parentage; and all that we know of his younger years, is, that he was a native of Egypt, and probably distinguished by his proficiency in theological learning. He accompanied the bishop of Alexandria to the council of Nice, in the capacity of secretary; and though then only a deacon, distinguished himself greatly by his zeal and his eloquence against Arius, and his party. He recommended himself so much to his patron and employer, that, in the year 326, he succeeded him in the see of Alexandria, by his special nomination. He immediately devoted his time and his talents to a zealous support of the catholic doctrine of the Trinity, against the innovations of Arius; and never had any cause a more intrepid advocate. He was five times driven into exile, or forced to abdicate his episcopal see, by the intrigues of his enemies; but his zeal was never diminished by his misfortunes, and he at last triumphed over all his opponents, dying in quiet possession of his see in the year 373. He was first banished by the Emperor Constantine, on the unfounded accusation of detaining at Alexandria the ships which supplied Constantinople with corn. The place of his exile was Treves, in Gaul, where he remained about eighteen months, when he was honourably restored to his see by an edict of Constantius. A council of Arian bishops, held at Antioch, represented this restoration of Athanasius as an encroachment on synodical authority, and confirmed his former deposition. Upon this he fled to Julius, bishop of Rome, and was patronized by the Emperor Constans, who threatened to make war on his brother Constantius if Athanasius was not restored. The eastern emperor complied with this demand; but Athanasius was soon assailed by the violence of his adversaries, and, being again deprived of his episcopal authority, was forced to seek an asylum in the desert of Thebais, where he remained unheard of for the space of six years. He was again restored to his see under Julian, and afterwards banished by the same emperor, to whom he was particularly obnoxious. He was afterwards restored by Jovian, and again banished by Valens; he was finally restored under the latter emperor, and ended his days in tranquillity.

The character of Athanasius is thus drawn by

Atheism.

Gibbon, who cannot be supposed partial to his te- Athanor nets: "Amidst the storms of persection, he was patient of labour; jealous of fame; careless of safety: and though his mind was tainted by the contagion of fanaticism, Athanasius displayed a superiority of character and abilities, which would have qualified him, much better than the degenerate sons of Constantine, for the government of a great empire. His learning was much less profound and extensive than that of Eusebius of Caesaria, and his rude eloquence could not be compared with the polished oratory of Gregory, or Basil; but whenever the primate of Egypt was called upon to justify his sentiments, or his conduct, his unpremeditated style, either of speaking or writing, was clear, forcible, and persuasive."

Eusebius Renaudotus, in his history of the Patriarchs of Alexandria, has collected all the accounts which oriental writers give of Athanasius; and the celebrated Bernard Montfaucon has published a splendid edition of his works, in three volumes folio. His works consist chiefly of apologies for himself, or invectives against his enemies. The most valuable are, his first book " Against the Gentiles;" "Apologies;" "Letter to those who lead a Monastic Life;" "Letters to Serapion;" "Conference with the Arians," &c. &c. Dupin and Cave have enumerated both the genuine and the spurious works of Athanasius. For an account of what is commonly called the Athanasian Creed, see CREED. See Gibbon's Hist. vols. iii. and iv. Lardner's Works, vol. iv. (v).

ATHANOR, or ACANOR, a species of furnace used by the alchemists in the tedious processes, by means of which they expected to produce the precious from the baser metals. It is derived from abavares, immortal, denoting its property of maintaining a long continued heat without attendance, by means of a magazine of fuel connected with it. This instrument is now superseded by furnaces of a more useful kind. (j)

ATHAPUSCOW, or SLAVE LAKE, the name of a large lake in North America, about 120 leagues long, and 20 wide. It is variegated with a number of islands covered with trees, and abounds in various kinds of fish. It is connected by rivers with a great number of smaller lakes to the east and north of it, and with the North Sea by Mackenzie's River. According to some maps, it is separate from Slave Lake, and lies to the south of it. N. Lat. 61°, and between the parallels of 112° and 120° west." (w)

ATHEISM, (from priv. and Osos, God,) may be defined to be, the total want of religious principle. The word is generally employed by modern writers to signify, the absolute denial of an Intelligent First Cause. This has been called pure atheism. But we conceive, that those who habitually doubt this fundamental doctrine, or who object to all the proofs which have ever been offered in its support, must be considered as subjecting themselves to the same charge, although they may not have arrived at such a degree of hardiness, as formally to avow their unqualified disbelief. Lord Shaftesbury thinks it hard that any man should be pronounced an atheist, whose whole thoughts are not steadily and invariably bent, at all times, and in all circumstances, against

Atheism. and whom they believed to have sprung, like themselves, from the air, or the ocean.

Sentiments like these we find in the most ancient poets of Greece. Thus Homer says, xevov Te γενεσιν, και μητέρα Τηθυν. Hesiod is less distinct; but he ascribes the same origin to gods and men, Quader gevanos Deos SEATOL & dude wool. The scholiast explains ouodev,'EX TOU άUTOU YEVOUs. Aristophanes says, that Love, the offspring of Night and Chaos, generated all the gods, as well as other animals. gargoy δ' οὐκ ἦν γενος αθανατων, πριν Εξως συνέμιξεν άπαντα. Pindar also says, Εν ἀνδρῶν, ἐν θέων γένος. We could quote many other expressions from the poets, which even the ingenuity of Aristotle has failed to reconcile with the principles of theism. Longinus, speaking of the gross ideas of the Deity conveyed by Homer, acknowledges, that they are completely atheistical

πανταπασιν άθεα

v

We are aware, however, that the same writers appear elsewhere to recognise a sovereign God, as the father of all inferior divinities, and the ruler of nature. But as the expressions of the poets are very unsatisfactory, let us inquire how far the opinions of the philosophers were rational and consistent.

If we recur to the earliest times, we are compelled to acknowledge, that the notions of the wise men, as they were called, were at least as chimerical and false as atheism itself: and in the more enlightened periods, we are mortified to find, that though there were a few who ascribed the formation of worlds to a Supreme Mind, there was not one who honoured him as the original creator of matter itself. The substance of which all things are framed, was supposed, by the theists, to be co-eternal with the prime mover, who bestowed on it form, and life, and activity. In vain do we look for the belief in a Being who gave origin to all dependent existences; and if the creation of matter itself is to be considered as an essential attribute of the divinity, we must admit that it does not seem to have entered into the conceptions of the founders of any of the schools. It is perfectly evident, that Anaxagoras, Plato, and Aristotle, the three greatest luminaries of Athens, held the eternity of matter, and applied the incontrovertible axiom, nothing can proceed from nothing, to prove that to the production of the present system, the pre-existence of a material cause was not less necessary, than the pre-existence of an omnipotent energy or mind.

For an account of the opinions of other Grecian theologists, we would willingly refer to Cicero's treatise De Natura Deorum; but we must caution our readers against relying implicitly on his authority. His enumeration is not complete, and his view of the different systems is not only incorrect, but sometimes contradictory. Neither can we vouch for the accuracy of the laborious Cudworth, who, in his attempt to overthrow the different atheistical hypotheses, was anxious to avail himself of every expression in the writings of the ancients which could be interpreted so as to support his peculiar system. Bayle and Lord Bolingbroke have many observations on the subject, but they also had preconceived notions to

Support.

Till the time of Anaxagoras, the leaders of the Atheism. Ionic school were atheists in the strictest sense of the word. There is some doubt with regard to Thales, whose language is extremely ambiguous; but the tenets of his immediate,followers, Anaximander and Anaximenes, are decidedly hostile to the sup position, that mind was the first principle of things. If there were gods, they were either air itself, or the progeny of air. Diogenes Apolloniates held a similar opinion, which approached very nearly to the system of Spinoza.

We shall only mention the names of Democritus, Leucippus, Diagoras, Protagoras, Epicurus, Theodorus, Strato of Lampsacus, Eumerus, Hippo, and Bion of Borysthenes; all of whom either rejected the 'belief in God altogether, or insisted that it was unnecessary to have recourse to this supposition in order to account for the formation of things; or at least professed themselves unable to perceive any evi. dences that a God exists.

At a period equally ancient, Confucius, though he spoke sometimes of the Spirit of Heaven, is generally believed to have propagated an atheistical creed among his followers, insomuch that from his time the literati of China have been considered as a race of atheists. It is alleged by others, that Foë, before his death, revealed to a few disciples his secret doctrine, that inanity and vacuity were the principles of all things; and this incomprehensible dogma having transpired, is said to have given rise to the infidel notions of the philosophers. Couplet the Jesuit endeavours to vindicate Confucius from the charge, and Sir William Jones subscribes to the opinion of that missionary; but we must own, that neither in the writings of Confucius, nor in the religious worship of the people, is there any trace of a belief in a Supreme God, or in any powers much superior to human beings. Sir William Temple is said to have been a follower of Confucius, and to have believed that this world existed in its present form from all eternity.

In modern times, the systems of Spinoza and Hobbes have been the most remarkable. The followers of the former call themselves Pantheists, as they maintain God and the universe to be the same. The most impious among them were Meier a phy. sician, Lucas, also a physician, Count Boulainvilliers,

and John Toland.

Among modern atheists we may also mention Barbara, the wife of the Emperor Sigismund, a rare instance, says Bayle, of such an error being maintained by a woman. Averroës, Campanella, the Popes Leo X. and Clement VII., Caesalpinus, Des Barreaux, and Charron, have also been accused by different writers; but with what degree of justice, we do not pretend to decide. We know well, that the following persons suffered death for their perverted zeal in endeavouring to disseminate atheistical principles. Giordano Bruno, the author of many im pious works, was burnt at Rome in 1600.* Vanini was burnt at Toulouse, in 1629, and to the last moment obstinately adhered to the profession of his unbelief. Casimir Leszynski, a Polish knight, was burnt at Warsaw in 1689, and, after the body was

Atheism. consumed, his ashes were collected and shot from the mouth of a cannon. Cosmo Ruggeri, a Florentine, one of the most audacious infidels of any age, died at Paris in 1615, uttering the most horrible impieties. We might have mentioned also, that among the ancients, Protagoras and Diagoras, followers of Democritus, and Theodorus one of the Cyrenaic sect, were accounted martyrs for atheism. The first was banished, the second condemned and obliged to flee from his country, and the last underwent the punishment of death.

It has been common to reduce this variety of professed atheists to a few general classes. In the first volume of Observationes Select. ad Rem. lit. Spectant. it is said that there were three degrees of atheism among the ancients. 1. The denial of the existence of God: 2. Denying that the world is the work of the God or Gods who are acknowledged: and, 3. Asserting that God, in creating the world, was moved, not by his own free will, but by the invincible necessity of nature. Under the last head, Aristotle and the Stoics are comprehended.

We may in general terms refer all atheists to two principal divisions, those who accounted for the present system of things on the supposition of chance, and those who ascribed all things to fate. Cudworth subdivides these classes into four; two of whom believed matter to be animated, and the two others inanimate. The first class were the Hylozoists, or Stratonici, (so named from Strato of Lampsacus,) who believed all the particles of matter to have life essentially, though without sense or knowledge. Hobbes is supposed to have borrowed some of his notions from this school. A second scheme, called the Pseudo-Zenonian, or Stoical, supposes the universe to be disposed. and ordered by one regular and methodical, but senseless plastic nature. Seneca, and the younger Pliny, appear to have adopted this opiBion. The third form, denominated the Hylopathian, or Anaximandrian, resolves every thing into A, matter, and its rata, affections, forms, and qualities. This was the unintelligible language of the Ionic philosophers. The last form, the Democritic system of atoms, is by far the most considerable, and the best known, chiefly in consequence of its having been adopted by Epicurus, and illustrated by Lucretius in one of the most beautiful productions of the Roman muse, the poem De Rerum Natura. The Anaximandrian and Democritic atheists derive all things from a fortuitous nature, and assert the eternity of matter, but not of the world. The Stratonical and Stoical atheists suppose some life to be fundamental and original, ingenerable and incorruptible; but they do not admit that it possesses consciousness or perception.

All these sects, it will be observed, undertook to solve the phenomena of nature by means of hypotheses, which excluded the operation of mind; but which, it must at once be perceived, were altogether unsusceptible of proof. Modern atheists have in general been more cautious. They have contented themselves with endeavouring to refute the arguments on which the belief in a Deity is founded; and some of them have thought it prudent, like the ancient Pyrrhonists, to entrench themselves in unli

mited scepticism. mited scepticism. By the aid of metaphysical sub- Atheism. tleties, they have sometimes confounded the ignorant, and perplexed even the rational believer. But we are confident, that the wonderful economy of the material world, the evident adaptation of means to ends, the mutual subserviency of different parts of nature, the symmetry, the harmony, the manifest unity of design, and the numerous beneficial provisions for the accommodation and enjoyment of sentient beings, which every moment burst on our notice, cannot be contemplated by a sound and reflecting mind, without irresistibly impressing a conviction, incomparably more powerful than any of the transient doubts, resulting from objections which insinuate that all our knowledge is delusive.

If the indications of design be so abundant, and if the idea of Deity be so natural and obvious, whence is it, that a multiplicity of systems have been contrived by speculative men, to account for the creation of the world without the aid of intelligent power? and what have been the causes which have led numbers to embrace these unsatisfactory tenets, or at least to reject the belief in a God? Lord Bacon says, in one part of his writings, that the principal causes of atheism are curious controversies, and profane scoffing. In another place he adds to these, the unworthiness of priests, and what he calls learned times, especially when attended with peace and prosperity. He says also, that atheism proceeds from folly and ignorance; because, though in the threshhold of philosophy, the mind, dwelling on second causes, may be apt to overlook the first cause, yet, by proceeding farther, and marking the dependence and concatenation of the great series of causes, we are brought to believe that the highest link is fixed to the throne of God. These, and similar expressions which occur often in the works of this distinguished man, are singular in one respect: For in his Essays, he seems to doubt if there were ever any contemplative atheists, except perhaps Bias, Diagoras, and Lucian; and yet he is not struck with the inconsistency of assigning causes for a phenomenon, the occurrence of which appeared to be so questionable. He maintains another position, which most people will think paradoxical: He insists, that the atomical. school of Democritus and Leucippus, "which is most accused of atheism, doth most demonstrate religion;" because (as is no doubt true) it is inconceivable that an army of minute particles should have produced this orderly and beautiful universe, without a divine marshall to allot them their several stations. He defends Epicurus against the charge of atheism and of dissimulation; and yet, amidst all his incredulity with regard to the existence of atheists, he says, that no heretics are more anxious to gain proselytes than they, and that they will even suffer in the cause, and not recant. We advert to these inconsistences, because we have seen the authority of Bacon quoted in favour of the opinion, that there can scarcely be a contemplative atheist; whereas it is evident that his lordship's opinion was very fluctuating; and we may have occasion to shew hereafter, that some of his other expressions on the subject are still more apt to mislead the inattentive reader.

We are convinced that atheism must, in all cases,

Atheism. procced from one or more of the following causes : 1. Gross ignorance and inattention. We know that some protest against branding those with the name of atheists, who have no idea of God, and have never thought of any thing like religion, as we are assured by Leri and Richier, missionaries from Geneva, was the condition of some islanders whom they visited, (Calvin. Epist. ccxxxvii.) But we do But we do not know what other name to apply to them. 2. Observation of the apparent inequalities in the government of the world, and particularly the experience of calamity resulting from successful villainy, is said to have precipitated some into atheism. Dum rapiunt mala fata bonos (says Ovid), sollicitor nullos esse putare Deos. The stories concerning Diagoras are well known: The infidelity of a friend, and the fall of his country, are said to have led him to doubt of the superintendence of Providence; and thence he was gradually led to deny the first truths of religion. 3. Extreme depravity of manners, and a perverse determination to admit no considerations into the mind which are unfavourable to profligate and vicious habits, is mentioned by Clarke as a source of the most incurable error; and on this also great stress is laid by Bacon, in his paraphrase on the first verse of the 14th Psalm. 4. The enormous absurdity of the vulgar superstitions disgusted many of the ancient philosophers so much, as to induce them to reject all religion. And there can be little doubt that superstitious misapprehensions concerning the divine character, have driven some into atheism, as preferable to the belief in a being whose attributes inspire horror rather than love. Ουκ όιεται Θεος ειναι ὁ άθεος, ὁ δε δεισιδαίμων ου βουλεται, (Plut.) 5. Plato assigns another cause, the affectation of singularity, and a desire of seeming wiser than others. He describes atheism as pada pada xadenn doxovca είναι μέγιστη φρόνησις. Some may think that this cause can account only for the profession of an atheistical creed; but it must be recollected, that the mind may gradually, and almost insensibly, be led to the belief of the most pernicious errors, by repeated attempts to defend them. 6. Dr Clarke (in his Evidences of Natural and Revealed Religion) endeavours to prove, that since the appearance of revelation, every deistical pretence (of which he enumerates four) must of necessity terminate in downright atheism. We have no doubt that scepticism on the one subject has a natural tendency to extend itself to the other; and we agree with Butler, that the chief objections which are brought against the gospel may with equal force be urged against the constitution of nature." 7. The refinements of false science have been a prolific source of errors, and, among others, of atheism. Last of all, we are persuaded, that, in modern times particularly, atheism has proceeded more from the weak and inconclusive arguments which have occasionally been employed to prove the being of God, than froin any other cause whatever. The detection of a vulnerable argument is always regarded as a triumph by the atheist; and, therefore, it would be a real service to the cause of religion, if those untenable positions were at once abandoned. We do not wonder at the assertion of Plutarch, that some have been converted from atheism by the sight of apparitions; but surely

we must be mortified to find Christian divines, at a Atheism. later period than the Reformation, gravely asserting, that the existence of devils, as testified by conjurers and necromancers, is a proof that there is a being su perior to these malicious spirits, who, if not controuled by a higher power, would speedily sink the whole human race into the most deplorable misery, (Lud. Viv. de ver. Fid. Christ. Leigh's Body of Divinity, &c.) Cudworth has, with singular indiscretion, employed several pages to prove the reality of spirit, from the phenomena of apparitions, witches, demoniacs, magic and divination. Even Dr Barrow has not scrupled to derive one of the proofs of the being of God from supernatural effects, in the list of which he includes the divination of the Greek oracles, presignifications of events by dreams, the power of enchantments implying the co-operation of invisible powers, intercourse with bad spirits, strange detections of murders, conspiracies and treasons, and many other supposed interpositions from above, which the soundest believers of this age will hesitate to admit, and which every infidel will treat with derision, (Barrow, vol. ii. serm. 9.) A similar imprudence on the part of Archbishop Tillotson, in thinking it necessary to prove the beginning of the world from the books of Moses, considered as a historical testimony, and connecting this argument with that for the belief in God, gave occasion to a letter of Lord Bolingbroke, more replete with infidelity than almost any other part of his works.-Nay, what is most extraordinary of all, some pious persons have argued thus: There must be a God, for we have his own testimony in his word; and this, say they, is the strongest possible testimony, (Atheomastix, by Fotherby, bishop of Salisbury). We are inclined to think also, that too great weight has been laid on the argument, from universal consent. Though no nation has been discovered that professes atheism, we do not see that it is by any means clear, that idolatry is a decisive indication of an original sense of deity, which has been gradually corrupted. It may be true, that idolatry and hero-worship are the traces of more enlightened conceptions; but this opinion cannot be proved, and ought not therefore to be assumed. These superstitions, however, may suggest other important conclusions, which we shall take a future opportunity of stating. ty of stating. Of the five arguments proposed by Aquinas, some Catholic divines have rejected four. Herminier says, that it is a paralogism to attempt to prove that there is a deity by any of the following reasons: That there must be a self-existent being; that there cannot be an infinite succession of causes; that matter cannot begin to move of itself; and that, as different degrees of perfection are observable in different beings, there must be a being infinitely perfect. The only argument which this learned person retains, is that which is derived from the structure and government of the universe. Many orthodox writers have, with the same view, endeavoured to prove that the Cartesian argument is inadmissible. And some scholastics have gone so far as to affirm, that all the arguments furnished by human reason amount only to probability. This is a way of talking which we cannot too severely condemn. Much harm has been done by injudiciously depreciating the