284. Aug. 29. Beginning of ‘ Diocletian era.’ 298. BIRTH OF S. ATHANASIUS about this year. 301. Death of Bishop Theonas. Peter, bishop of Alexandria. 303. «Feb. 23. First edict of persecution by Diocletian and Galerius.
December. Vicennalia of Diocletian at Rome. 304. ‘Fourth Edict’ of persecution. cy 305. Retirement of Diocletian (Constantine and Maximin ‘ Czsars 4 306. Constantine proclaimed ‘ Augustus’ at York. S 307. i Maximin assumes title of ‘ Augustus’ (holds Syria and Egypt). 311. First edict.of Toleration, and death of Galerius.
Renewed persecution by Maximin in Syria and Egypt. Martyrdom of Peter, &c., at Alexandria.: 312. Ldict of Toletation by Constantine at Milan.
Oct. 26, Constantine defeats Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge.
Achillas, bishop of Alexandria.. eg Bias Epict OF MILAN (third Edict of Toleration), by Constantine and Licinius.
ALEXANDER, bishop of Alexandria. Maximin defeated by Licinius. His Edict of Toleration, and death. Earliest possible date for the ‘doy-laptism’ of Athanasius.
318. Probable date of the coztra Gentes, his first book. 319. Commencement of Arian controversy.
B2toeee Deposition of Arius by an Egyptian Synod.
322. Marcotte defection to Arius.
Memorandum of deposition signed by Clergy of Alexandria. Schisut of Colluthus..
328. Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to his namesake of Byzantium. Sept. 18. Final defeat of Licinius. CONSTANTINE SOLE EMPEROR. 324. First intervention of Constantine in Arian question. : Hostus at Alexandria. Council there. 325. Summer. COUNCIL OF NICARA. 327. November. Entire Meletian Episcopate collected at Alexandria, and reconciled to the Church (p. 137). 328. April 17. Death of Alexander. June 8. Athanasius, bishop of Aiexandria. 329, 330. Visitation of the Thebaid: ordains Pachomius presbyter. * 330. Council at Antioch deposes Eustathius. 331. Athanasius defends himself before Constantine. 334. Council at Caesarea. Athan. refuses to attend. 335s july r1*. “Athanasius leaves Alex. for Council of Tyre (beginning of first exile, Epiphi 17). Aug.—Sept. Mareotic commission in Egypt. ‘ End of Sept.? Council at Jerusalem. Arius received to communion. Oct. 30. Athanasius at CP.
330.. Feb. 8. Athanasius starts for ‘ Treveri in Gaul.’ Council at CP., Marcellus (Asclepas), &c., deposed. Basil, bishop of Ancyra. Death of Arius at CP.
337. May 22. Death of Constantine at Nicomedia. June 17. Letter of ‘Constantinus Czsar’ ordering return of Athanasius (p. Ixxxii.). Noy. 23%. *Return of Athanasius to Alexandria.
338. July 25297. Visit of Antony to Alexandria. PISTUS intrusive bishop of Alexandria.
Winter. Council of Egyptian bishops at Alexandria. Envoys of both parties in Rome. 339. fanuary. Synod at Antioch appoint GrEGory bishop of Alexandria. 339. Mar. 19. Flight of Athanasius from ‘ Theonas.’ Mar. 22. Arrival of Gregory at Alexandria. April 16. “Departure of Athanasius for Rome (p. Ixxxii., the authorities agree as to the year and their data combine readily as to the exact day).; 340. Fanuary. Eusebian bishops meet at Antioch and reply to Julius. Their letter reaches Rome in spring. Autumn. Roman as and reply of Julius to Eusebians (eighteen months from arrival of Ath. in Rome). 341. Midsummer. CoUNCIL oF THE DEDICATION at Antioch. Four creeds. 342. May. Athanasius leaves Rome (after three years’ stay) for Milan. Constans leaves him there (Frankish Campaign). Summer. Constans repels Eusebian deputies at Treveri (p. xlv.).
Late autumn. Death of Eusebius of Nicomedia or CP.
Easter.
Fuly.
Easter.
After Easter. August. _Kaster, April 7.
June 26. September. Octi2r. End of year.
May 19. Autumn.
mae ovember. Jan. 6. Feb. 8.
June Io. Summer. Lent. Ock2: May 22. May—Dec, Decwst. Jan.
Nov. 3. Feb. 9. Summer.
October 4.
June 26. August? Sep. 6. Sep. Winter. Autumn. Spring. May 5- Oct. 5. Feb. I. May 21. July 21. Aug. 7.
GENERAL CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE. Ixxxvii Athanasius at Treveri.
Assembly of CoUNCIL oF SARDICA, Athanasius at Naissus. ‘: Deposition of Stephen: Council at Antioch appoint Leontius and issue ‘Macrostich.’ Constantius writes forbidding persecution of orthodox at Alexandria, Athanasius at Aquileia.: Council at Milan. Photinus condemned.
Death of Gregory at Alexandria (about ten months after letter of Constantius). Interview of Ath. with Constantius at Antioch.
Return to Alexandria, Earliest possible date for consecration of Frumentius by Athanasius. First council at Sirmium against Photinus Controversy with Rome concerning Easter.
Murder of Constans.
Gallus prociaimed as ‘ Constantius Cesar.’
Battle of Mursa.
Second council of Sirmium. Photinus deposed Legation of Serapion, &c., to Constantius. Montanus at Alexandria, Council at Arles against Athanasius.
Execution of Gallus.
Council at Milan against Athanasius, Diogenes at Alexandria.
Julian ‘ Ceesar.’
Syrianus at Alexandria.
Church of Theonas stormed by Syrianus.
Beginning of third exile.
Cataphronius becomes Prefect of Egypt.
George enters Alexandria as Bishop.
Third council, and second creed (‘ blasphemy’) of Sirmium.
Council of Ancyra.
Expulsion of George from Alexandria.
Conference of Sirmium. The dated Creed.
Creed of Niké accepted by delegates at CP.
Julian proclaimed ‘ Augustus’ at Paris.
Dedication council at CP. (Homcean; deposition of ‘Semi-Arian’ leaders and excommunication of Aetius).
Meletius elected bishop of Antioch and deposed. Euzoius, Arian bishop. Death of Constantius. Julian’s edict (for recall of bishops) posted at Alexandria.
Return of Athanasius.
Council of the confessors at Alexandria, Lucifer founds the schism at Antioch.
Renewed order of Julian against Athanasius.
Retirement of Athanasius.
Death of Julian. Athan. in Upper Egypt.
Athanasius secretly in Alexandria.
Athan. crosses the Euphrates.
Meets Jovian at Edessa.
At Antioch.
Returns to Alexandria.
Death of Jovian. Ks Valens appointed ‘ Augustus’ by Valentinian.
Council of Lampsacus.
Valens at Antioch. Renewal of Arian persecutions.
Kescript arrives at Alexandria for expulsion of Athanasius. Athanasius retires to his country house Revolt of Procopius at CP.
Athanasius officially restored.
Defeat of Procopius.
Ceesareum burnt at Alexandria.
Attempt of Lucius to enter Alexandria.
Athanasius begins his Memorial Church.
Memorial Church dedicated., Correspondence between Athan. and Basil begins.
Deputation of the Marcellians of Ancyra to Athanasius, Two books against Apollinarianism.
Death of Athanasius.
A table of the Egyptian months, and a table of the date of Easter, &c., in each year of the episcopate of Athanasius, will be given at the end of the introduction to the collection of Letters at the close of this volume (p. 501 s.). A list of the consuls of each year is given in the Festal Lndex.
Ixxxvili PROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER V., TABLE II.
II. SYNOPTICAL TABLE OF THE BISHOPS OF THE CHIEF SEES, AND OF THE PRINCIPAL COUNCILS HELD, DURING THE LIFETIME OF ATHANASIUS, N.B.—The names of dzshops in italics are open to doubt regarding their date.
An asterisk prefixed to a bishop’s name means that he was elected when the see was not de facto vacant (the case of Ursinus of Rome in 366 is not free from doubt).
+ after the name of a synod indicates that although not formally Arian it was held under the influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia.
* denotes a synod more or less implicated in Arianism by its creeds (N.B. no creed at Arles or Milan, 353—355).
** denote a formally Arian synod.
‘Semi-Arian ’ synods are printed in italics.
EMPEROR, | Rome. ALEXANDRIA. ANTIOCH. | CONSTANTINOPLE. | SyNopDs. W. Eye | ZOD p POLED yilioodeotaynn ieante ae eal sadam ae see telosek tiare _ 305. Galerius...Sil's sotingis nj slcateate tele etiate osceacitas sie ee eltcieutye nctasecrae tier neste tama ate oO csc e 305. Ilhiberis. BoomC@onstantinel -a-aataeesceecsen sees i erolaree ococlerslove fates vtellteteroateisiesscesstovetatsel averseTs ete ete te aerae Isc | eaterese cI nRTarS eRe eae oe 307 SLACIMIUS eves, veenones oe ceetgadl setae aoetetasceloeseussmccaemeaeemaltee on caer meeer inet cae 309. Eusebius 308—313. Maximin|310. Melchiades 312. Achillas. 313. Alexan- Ore oaaltdomsasvciacoce cent ellisinasecetacsootne. Mace 313. Rome. 314. Silvester (i335) alescescens caceasad ctotnatacmeccade heal cues etacesseee caer cere 314. ARLES.
319. Philogonius, faulinus. 320? Alexander. 2a i 323. Constantine, sole Augustus awe Cs Bt Es 324. Alexandria. ius.
slus. 330. ‘Paulinus?’ |[330. ‘Constanti- |330. Antioch. nople’made the} new Rome]. Eulalius. 332. Luphro- HLS. 333. Flacillus(or Placitus) 334. Ceesarea+, 335. Tyret and Jerusalem t. Os Markee alsaractvecencorsucictaeee faves geariceaau 3 Constantiusiee ese 367401) Wis eee eee eee eee Swmiaiah ide ct Wor tomtetencete Bei walter 338. *Pistus. 3372 *Eusebius (d. 33950 GLESONY | 5 casermamsack naalecen eee Sean 339&40. Antiocht 340. Rome.
344) Lieomtis: aiseteee eee ee 344. ARHGERM: 345. Milan.
347. Sirmium I*, EPROLEGOMENA, CHAPTER Y., TABLE 11, Emperor. W. E. 350. Constantius, sole Augustus.
361. Julian.
363. Jovian.
364. Valentinian. Valens.
Rome, ALEXANDRIA. ANTIOCH. CONSTANTINOPLE, 35 Zap alberiUsnlpermesecse cuted sell teat enimedtirce ess pelieti tssSesder Seamouanh q S57 Hela So 7am COlSS. 5 TEC OXIUS Millrsatsssuueennnedeeeers RC Oya AIIANUS al Csseeeeeineaeasecincer | 360. *Eudoxius.../361. Meletius. *Euzoius. NOP saa eKUUUS sal cesesttorersdeest sti (schism). 366. Damasus | 370. Demophilus [Evagrius. ] 373. Peter GQ Ixxxix Synops.
3. Antioch. 4. Lampsacus.
. Lyana.
APPENDIX.
Tue Crit anp Mivitary GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT IN THE LIFETIME OF ATHANASIUS.
THE name Egypt in the fourth century was applied firstly to the ‘diocese’ or group of provinces governed by the Prefectus Aigypti or ‘ Prafectus Augustalis,’ secondly to the Delta or AZgyptus Propria, one of the provinces of which the diocese was made up. These provinces (Ammian. Marc. XXII. xvi.) were originally three in number; Egypt proper, Libya, and the Thebais. During our period they became five, firstly by the separation of the Eastern Delta from Egypt proper under the name of Augustamnica in 341 (if. pp. 130, 504, note 17 a); secondly by the subdivision of Libya (at an uncertain date) into Hither Libya (Libya ‘Inferior,’ or ‘Siccior’), and the Pentapolis or Libya Superior of which Ptolemais was the capital, At a later date still the Heptanomis was separated from ‘ A‘gyptus’ under the name of Arcadia, given in honour of the Emperor Arcadius. These then are the six provinces which make up ‘Egypt’ in the JVotitia (shortly after a.p. 400). Each province, with the exception of Augustamnica, whose governor enjoyed the title of ‘corrector,’ was under a preeses (jryodpevos): not one of the six was of consular rank. ‘This regulation was due to the peculiar constitution of the diocese or province of Egypt in the wider sense. At the head of this latter, and subordinate in rank, though scarcely second in dignity, to the Comes Orientis, was the Prefect of Egypt, who enjoyed an exceptional position among the greater provincial officers. He appears to have been, at least in practice, directly under the Praefectus Preetorio per Orientem, the supreme civil representative of ‘ Augustus’ throughout the Eastern Empire.
The title Praefectus had in fact a different history as applied to the Prefect of the East and the Prefect of Egypt respectively. As applied to the latter, it was as old as Augustus. The importance of Egypt, mainly but not solely as a granary of Rome, had led the politic heir of Julius Czesar to ensure its complete and peculiar dependence on the emperor. For this object, its government was committed to a nominee of the emperor, who must be not a Senator but an Eques only; i.e. he must never have held one of the great offices of state from Consul to questor. No one of senatorial rank was to be permitted to set foot in Egypt. (For the prerogatives of the prefectus A.gypti under Augustus see Tacitus Am. xii. 60, also Ulp. Digest. I. xvii.). This arrangement survived the various vicissitudes of Egypt in the third century, and even the reorganisation of the Empire by Diocletian. Egypt was severed off between 365 and 386 from the Eastern ‘ Diocese’ (Sievers, p. 117, appealing to Mommsen in Adhandl, der Berliner Akad. 1862). Upon the above facts was founded the (perhaps merely popular) title ‘Augustalis’ which we find already applied to the Prefect of Egypt about a.p. 350 (injfr. p. 143, cf. p. 93 note). But Sievers (wd supr.), following Mommsen, contends that there is reason to think that the dignity of ‘ Augustal’ Prefect was officially created about A.D. 367. This view cannot be adequately discussed here, but it rests only in part upon the series of governors furnished by the Festal Index.
From that document we learn that the prefect of ‘Egypt’ in the wider sense in almost every case held also the office of ‘ governor’ of Egypt in the narrower sense. The exceptions noted by Sievers (§ 14) are in most cases based on the errors of Larsow. But in 365 Flavianus is ‘ governor’ only, next year ‘ Prefect’ also: his successors Proclianus and Tatianus are each ‘governor’ only (366-7), but the latter is Prefect in 368, and ‘governor’ only in 369-70, as also is Palladius, 370—371, who is yet succeeded by Olympius as ‘ Prefect.’ These variations may be due merely to careless use of language, or possibly to some change about the time referred to.
The list of prefects of Egypt is fuller than ary that exists fora Roman province over so long a period, and on the whole it is in the highest degree trustworthy. But there are one or two drawbacks to take account of. Firstly, there are the discrepancies between the Jndez iii., Vi., vil.,and the headings to the corresponding letters (see notes). Also, the heading to Letter x. presupposes a change of governor in the previous year of which the Index tells us nothing. Again, a letter of Julian’s (No. 23) is addressed to a ‘ Hermogenes, governor of Egypt,’ for CHAPTER V. APPENDIX. GOVERNMENT OF EGYPT. x¢cl whom it is difficult to find room in the following list at the date required (end of 361, when Gerontius was prefect). Julianus, uncle of the Emperor, if not disguised under the name Italicianus (see below), possibly ruled Egypt (Jul. Z/. rr), as Comes Orientis, which office he held in 362. On the other hand the Olympus of /ndex xxxiv., and the Ecdikius of Julian, Epp. 6, 50, and Cod. Theod. xv. i. 8, are probably one and the same (Sievers, p. 124).
The Military command of Egypt was now in the hand of the ‘ dux,’ who had the disposal of the troops in Egypt proper; those of Libya and of the Thebais were, at any rate later on, entrusted to separate ‘duces.’ In the /Vo?ztza, while the two latter ‘duces’ remain, the Dux AXgypti is replaced by a higher official, entitled the ‘Comes Rei Militaris per A2gyptum.’ But this belongs to a later date. In the time of Athanasius ‘Counts’ appear in Egypt only as extraordinary or special commissioners whose authority is exercised concurrently with that of the Dux, as, e.g., Count Heraclianus or Heraclius (¢z/r. pp. 290, 292), whose commission runs parallel with the command of the new ‘dux’ Sebastianus; and Count Asterius (p. 289), who was in Egypt when Felicissimus was ‘ Duke.’: We now give a list of the governors and dukes of Egypt, with references to the Festa/ Index: these must also be supplemented by the general index to this volume:— (1) Prefect and Governor. 328, 329. Septimius Zenius (Zzdex i., Heading i.).
330. Magninianus (dex ii., Heading ii.).
Bon Hyginus (or ‘ Eugenius,’ /vdex iii.), but Florentius (Heading iii.). Bear Hyginus (Heading iv. and Zzdex iv.).
Bae Paternus (Heading v. and Jnidex v.).
334, 335. Paternus (/zdex), but Philagrius (Heading iv., v.).
336-7. Philagrius (Z7dex vili., ix.).
338. Theodorus (Zzdex x.), superseded by Philagrius (Headinc x.), 339, 340. Philagrius (/zdex xi., xii., Heading xi.).
341—343. Longinus (/dex xili.—xv., Headings xiii., xiv., and cf. Cod. Th. XVI. ii. 10, 11, correcting date by Sievers, p. 114).
344. Palladius of Italy (Zdex xvi.).
345—352. Nestorius of Gaza (Ludex xvii.—xxiv., Headings xvii.—xx., also zn/r. pp. 218, 219, notes, &c.).
353, 354. Sebastianus of Thrace (/idex xxv., xxvi.).
355, 350. Maximus ‘the elder’ of Niczea (/ndex xxvii., xxviii., and see pp. 246, 301).
356, 7. Cataphronius (dex xxviii., xxix.; he arrived on June 10, 356, see p. 290, note 9; alsocf. Liban.
357-359. Parnassius (/mdex xxix., xxxi., cf. for the latter year Amm. Marc. XIX., xii.).
359- (For 3 months only) ‘Italicianus of Italy,’ perhaps for Julianus (so Siev., p. 121, cf. Lidex xxxi.).
362, 363. Ecdikius Olympus (Jdex xxxiv., xxxv., cf. remarks above).
364. Hierius or Aerius (/vdex xxxvi., Sievers, Leben des Libanius, Appendix A).
364. Maximus (/zdex 26., Liban. ZZ. 1050, written in July or Aug.), for a short time only.
364—366. Flavianus (Jvdex xxxvi., xxxvili., Liban. Zp. 569, supr. ch. v. § 3, k).
366, 367. Proclianus (dex xxxviii., xxxix.).
367—370. Tatianus (Index xxxix., xlii., see Gibbon ch. xxix. and notes 6-8, for references).
370, 371. Olympius Palladius (Jzdex xlii,, xliii.).; 371—373. Aelius Palladius (Zzdex xliii.—xlv., Socr. iv. 21, &c.).
(2) Dux digypte. Our materials for this list are very scanty, but we can verify the following:— 340 and 345. Balacius or Valacius (pp. 219, 273, &c.).
356. (Jan. and Feb.) Syrianus (dex xxviii., &c.).: r 350. (Apparently after Midsummer, cf. p. 292 with 290.) Sebastianus (“successor of Syrianus,’ Zp. Ammon. 21); he remains till after 358 (cf. Siev. p. 125 for references to letters of Libanius).
367, 368. Traianus (/ndex xxxix., Sievers, pp. 146, sg.).
On the matters dealt with in this appendix, consult Mommsen, Provinces (Eng. ‘Tra.), vol. ii., pp. 233, 246; the /Votitia (ed. Panciroli, Genev., 1623, Bocking, Bonn, 1839—1853, Seeck, Berlin, 1876); Gibbon, ch. xvii.; Marquardt, Rom. S/aats-verwaltung, vol. i.; and Kuhn, Die stédtische, @c., Verfassung des R. Reiches, vol. ii.; also Sievers on the Hist. Aceph. (sup7 On the Egyptian bishoprics, see, in addition to Le Quien, a Coptic list of sees in De Rougé, Géographie de la Basse-Egypte, Paris, 1891, which came out too late to be used for this volume.
oe i foi Me froin ant av he ae bod le * cores i ben ctl hs SE aur Suan eon Cen aeeeee Yi gy) 2 j “ iat a 4 ciohiles See ty vce £ * Q ’ FWY SUID ee) a ste ry vail eal a tyyined ie Hi ae b a de ‘ f 4 an ‘ 82 Set I SE. PO pe cata oT He A me llip f Opt 5 iL Ae a a ¥9 7 A - DA 7 hy te i » ee ye ‘. ie Seed or ett; c - i Saleh - ke P f! 2. say Bee? 2 ee ate i Se eh * ss. - ee woree (he oto BARS Pelee 422) | 22 Ha bh ’ wa 1S att a: ae ty iq0g tae; 7 *; PERG OD TS Le ok aa Bors ee WAR) APA ey eRe Sahl “iy Tate ¥ et, sings, eis et; ‘ s semua clttrel t ile tL. y i; le it ‘ és ' ms y te. bs bey p=. Mie Perel ae; i oat; a f / ' al qd ae j ° Gee a Salen oh) GLE cif alts; ul sae. ' ‘ hohe;, i ‘ PAR het ISS. ewe ah .; Alen Sie: ase guesee Dad EGSS: 3 ‘ es ar awe, Ne SA eS ’ G5 Ul Te A8} Hi Sey; ‘ 4. qué vi a s i; ‘ ua 3 neve ' vis ‘: aes | * fe SL WE me, a i we a; ao Er see > hd ythag ye ie? ae 7 i ; a Sate.: 2> * i f VUE y oe ‘ en; Se ca a; A f at INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE DN es gan ant Nu LEAS.
Tus treatise and that which follows it form in reality two parts of a single work. Jerome (De Script. Eccl.) refers to them as ‘Adversus Gentes Libri Duo.’ They are, however, more commonly distinguished by the titles given them in the present volume. Both books, indeed, are mainly directed against the Gentiles, but in the present treatise the refutation is carried out with more special reference to the beliefs and worship of the heathen. The two books belong to the earlier years of Athanasius. The Arian controversy which broke out (319 a.D.) probably before his twenty-second year has left no trace upon them (not even c¢. Gent. 46. 8, see note there). How long before the limit thus fixed the work was composed it is impossible to say with certainty. The hint (c Gent. 9. 5) that the time for the deification of emperors by decree of the Senate might have come to an end points to the conversion of Constantine as a terminus a guo. And the full maturity of power which marks out the de /ucarnatione as a master-piece of Christian theology inclines us to put the composition as late as we can. Hence the date usually adopted, viz. in or shortly before 318 B.c., the twenty-first year (probably) of Athanasius’ age.
The position of the book in relation to the general history of the theology of Athanasius and of the Church has been pointed out in the Prolegomena. It remains to sketch its argument, and tabulate its arrangement: a somewhat more extended summary is prefixed to each section.
His aim is to vindicate (§ 1) the Dignity and reasonableness of the Christian Faith. The main vindication of the Faith is seen in its practical results. But, that these may produce their proper effect, a removal of error from the mind is needed. Hence the necessity of refuting idolatry, which is deduced from the same cause as evil in general, namely, the departure of man from his original exemplar, the Logos (§§ 2—5). By the misuse of his power of conscious choice, man fell (6—8) into the degradation and illusions (9—15) of idolatry. He then examines the popular and learned pleas on behalf of idolatry (16—26), and thus arrives at the central problem of the conception of God. That God is not Nature is shewn (27—29) by the mutual dependence of the various constituents of the Universe: no one of these, therefore, can be God: nor can their totality; for God is not compounded of parts on which He depends, but is Himself the cause of existence to all. Such a God as this, the soul of man (30—33) can and, if purified from sin, will (34) recognise; if her imperfections hinder this, the spectacle of Reason and Order in the Universe (35—46) will assist her to recognise the handiwork of God, and the presence of the Logos, and through him the Father. The reclamation and restoration of sinful and degraded man can only be effected (47) by a return to the Logos. This opens the question dealt with in the second book, de Licarnatione.; * Such is the general drift of the c. Gentes, and its high interest is beyond question. At the same time it may be admitted that to modern readers much of it fails to commend itself. In the two-fold work before us Athanasius ‘looks before and after.’ The second portion, on the Incarnation, waxes rather than wanes in its significance for modern theology. n, VOL. IV. B 2 INTRODUCTION TO THE TREATISE It is more modern to us than the theology of any generation since then. But the « Genfes, with its retrospect upon a past utterly dead‘ to the human spirit, its arguments addressed to a range of ideas widely remote from our own, its inadequate view of the genesis and history of heathen religions, its antiquated physics (36, 44, and the qvotxds Adyos of 39), its occasional glaring fallacies of argument (16 sud jiz., 33. 1), is apt to disappoint the modern student who reads it for the first time. This may explain its not having been translated before now. But while the defects of the book are evident at a glance, it grows upon the reader with repeated study. The moral elevation of its tone,—the firm grasp of central Christian truths, — the sure insight in dealing with such problems as evil and sin,—the relation of God to Nature,— the ethical contrast of Christian theism and heathen polytheism,—the grave humour of such passages as 16. 5; 10. 4 fin.; 11. 2 jo#., &c.,—and beyond all this a certain largeness of mind and simple unostentatious fervour of conviction, stamp the book as a great one, and as the worthy complement of its more renowned companion.
The two together ‘are, next to Origen’s de Principiis, the first attempt to construct a scientific system of the Christian religion upon certain fundamental ideas of God and world, sin and redemption; and they form the ripe fruit of the positive apology in the Greek Church,’ (Schaff, Nicene Christianity, p. 82.) The polemic against idolatry and heathen mythology is common to the general class of Christian apologists, and is to be found in heathen writers like Lucian and even Porphyry (letter to Anebo). But what distinguishes Athanasius from previous apologists (excepting Origen) is the novel nature of his problem. The alliance between philosophy and gross popular idolatry had given Christian apology a new task. From Porphyry downwards (Porphyry himself was not consistent in this respect) the Neo-platonist school, in alarm at the progress of Christianity, had taken up the defence of popular paganism, endeavouring to subsume its grosser manifestations, its images, sacrifices, &c., under philosophico-religious principles (7zfra § 19, &c.). The idea of ‘theurgy’ as the necessary initiation into the higher life colours the teaching of Porphyry, but more strongly that of his pupil Iamblichus, who died early in the fourth century, and whose pupils (AZdesius, &c.) were contemporaries of Athanasius. This degeneration of Platonism, however, went along with the continued study of Plato, whose dialogues are to some extent common ground between Athanasius and his opponents (Phaedrus, § 5, 33, Laws, 33, Timzus, 41, &c., &c.; but it is not in every case easy to say whether Athan. quotes Plato merely at second hand, or directly, as he certainly does ro. 4).
It may be remarked finally that in these early treatises the influence of Origen and his school is more distinct than in the later works of Athanasius. Not to lay too much stress on his proof of God’s existence and unity from the Cosmos (cf. Orig. c. Ce/s. I. 23), the prominence of the philosophic doctrine of the Logos as a cosmic mediatorial Principle (compare Alexander’s peotrevovea Picts povoyerys) stands in contrast with his later insistence (cf. Orat. ii. 24, sg.) on the directness of the personal agency of God (see also below, note on ‘Jn I/lud’ 2). The Platonist idea of the Logos is utilised (de Zucarn. 41) without sufficient explanation of its fundamental difference from the Christian doctrine. The influence of Origenism is traceable in his theory of the nature of evil as purely negative (cf. § 5 with Orig. ¢. Ce/s, iv. 66), in the explanation (to which I recall nothing parallel in his later works) of the garden of Eden as figurative (2. 4, cf. 3. 3), the stress laid on the restoration of knowledge of God through the Logos, and perhaps in the deification of man through Christ (Orig. ¢. Cels. iii. 28 sub, fin.), a thought which Athanasius brings forward in his later at least as often as in his earlier writings (see note on de Jncarn. 54. 3). On the whole, however, the tendency of Athanasius in the course of the Arian controversy is to move away from Origen and toward the Western habit of thought: this is especially exemplified in the history of the term t In heathen countries the case is different.
An English translation was made a few years since for dissemination in India by the members of the Oxford Mission at Calcutta, 5, Hypostasis (see above, Prolegg. chap. II. § 3 (2) b, and below Introd. to Zom. ad Ant.; cf. also Introductions to de Sent. Dionys. and ad Afros). Some of the more characteristic speculations of Origen have left no trace even on the earliest works of Athanasius (see Introd. to the next Treatise). The translation (here as elsewhere, except where it is otherwise stated) is from the Benedictine text.
The contents of the contra Gentes fall into the following scheme:— Sit — Introduction mm otarement Of the! purpose ON tnestreatiSewmncdssvesmssccsrevmscnsaniirertecss coeeeteiieseecosenestes ac §$ 2—29.—FIRST PART. REFUTATION OF HEATHENISM. §§ 2—5. a. The nature of evil. § 2. (1) Not substantially, nor originally existent...ceccceseeseeneee Rene ceere rect 4 S§ 3, 4. (2) tsuhistory.- Ox soca decrster cans secs aeeacts tim ateeciies ns si aes easie oe cute cataaiaiashic obk tone Eanes 5 § 5. (g)eits'essential nature) vizer, determinationvol will Grn nciucasonsooomedcaee sere 6 § 6. False views of evil refuted. (r)mibleathent a Hivilumaturalig en.ascasecsusecsectatessesss sire suen cee sorei a danametenmtaneokons 6 (2) iitereticall Dwalismissi acca aneteceestcectcaa Maes Macs cherasalvaaeeackehom sareaeine eiiales: 7 §7. This latter refuted, and the doctrine of the Church stated...548 anes 7 6. Idolatry. §§ 8—ro. (re ltsubistoryyands Varletlesenesessccuds reat vasssecncsdncaaeeaecnenetearticase Sisuaaineae pete 7 §$ 11, 12. (2)plramorality ofitsomythologtesia, cscncssneercutedactemwririea acre sence seer enters 10 §§ 13, 14. (3), Bollysot image worship ay. caster mcr aie, stomata Teena ariamaas marcy sey “ail § 15. (4) Heathen deities, as popularly represented, are not godS...cc00eeeesseeveeees 12 §§ 16—22. c. Arguments in favour of heathenism considered.
§§ 16, 17. (1) ‘Immoral features due to the poets.’ But (a) they come to us with the same credentials as the names and existence of the gods; (8) The poets more likely to have invented the divine than the human features of these Deingsmet span cossdessreece mest teeter one enceisaeaten fromaseceecrm esse rdnenanee 12 § 18. (2) ‘The gods worshipped for beneficent inventions,’ &c. But this is no title tomdeification weredaerensr eet acne tieattonacednace eset wamemtomarnascencitaye ao ites 13 § 19. (3) ‘Images (a) necessary to represent invisible beings, (4) a means of inter-COUTSelWittheCOdS oe cessearaamscnndonteess race seriesislscst sen deliesdclisena rates tas 14 §§ 20—22. eDdcpre tite cmneeee ae scent da ainetetat ale stetesctesiriolela iiectiistte steise sina eec ssi ieritetocte a 14 §§ 23—206. d. Supplementary proofs against idolatry. (1) Variety of cults...ccccsseseeeeeeee 16 (2) Human sacrifice. (3) The gods the cause of moral corruption...+0+0 17 e. Theism established against philosophic pantheism. § 27. (1) No part of the universe identical with God..eceesesseesessssseseeeeeeene ese nenees 18 § 28. (2) The whole universe not identical with God...sssseeeseesenesstserseseeseenee 18 § 29. (3) Nature and God distinct...:.ccccesecseceecenenseeeeeseseeseeeeeeeeiaeaeeeeeceneas 19 §$ 30—34. SECOND PART. KNOWLEDGE OF GoD POSSIBLE. THE SOUL.