NCP es, 2. Alexandria, . Laodicea??
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 cen- tury, 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 car- ried 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 Li- carnatione.; * 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, sacri- fices, &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, CONTRA GENTES. 3 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.
§ 30. (a) The soul of man akin to GOd...cssscesseessnsenceereenseresseereune eeecseeeneasees 20 (4) Proofs of its existence:— § 31. (1) Man and animals...sscceceessescessessessesseseesseneecsnteecencenieeceneaeeae 20 (2) Objectivity of thought...:.cecesssesrese see tstseeeeseeteeeecenerereneees es 20 § 32. (3) Soul and Dody...:ccceessecerteerseresseecenssesesseestetencreeneeeseeeeceanee 21 § 33. (c) Proofs of its immortality...ccscececsecnreerere eee eee eee cette 21 § 34. (¢) The soul, the mirror of the Logos, can know God, at least through creation 22 8§ 35—44. THIRD PART. NATuRE A REVELATION OF GOD. 1. Nature a revelation:— §§ 35—37. (2) Of God...::sscccccessersrrreccessrencnssecesensnrsssecenearsenssseaseseoeraaens 22 §§ 38, 39. (5) Of His Unity...ccccccceeeecesseesesseesnereettecsseaeeeneeeceseeneeseeceeees 24 § 40. (c) Of the Reason or ‘ Word? of God...sesesee ce seseestrsetteeseeeteete ees 25 8$ 41, 42. 2. The cosmic function of the Word, original and permanent...+...++ oo 26 8$ 43, 44. Three similes to illustrate this...c-sssosssccersersercnresecscegsescscvensonses 27 §§ 45—47. CONCLUSION:— a. The teaching of Scripture on the subjects of Parts I. and ITT...28 $, Transition to the theme of the next treatise...::cecreerererr en Zr BZ AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
$1. Introduction:— The purpose of the book a vindication of Christian doctrine, and espectally of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main vindication.
THE knowledge of our religion and of the truth of things is independently manifest rather than in need of human teachers, for almost day by day it asserts itself by facts, and manifests itself brighter than the sun by the doctrine of Christ. 2. Still, as you nevertheless desire to hear about it, Macarius *, come let us as we may be able set forth a few points of the faith of Christ: able though you are to find it out from the divine oracles, but yet generously desiring to hear from others as well. 3. For although the sacred and inspired Scriptures are sufficient 2 to declare the truth,—while there are other works of our blessed teachers 3 compiled for this purpose, if he meet with which a man will gain some knowledge of the interpretation of the Scriptures, and be able to learn what he wishes to know,—still, as we have not at present in our hands the compositions of our teachers, we must communicate in writing to you what we learned from them,—the faith, namely, of Christ the Saviour; lest any should hold cheap the doctrine taught among us, or think faith | in Christ unreasonable. For this is what the Gentiles traduce and scoff at, and laugh loudly at us, insisting on the one fact of the Cross of Christ; and it is just here that one must pity their want of sense, because when they traduce the Cross of Christ they do not see that its power has filled all the world, and that by it the effects of the knowledge of God are made manifest to all. 4. For they would not have scoffed at such a fact, had they, too, been men who genuinely gave | t See de ncarn. x and note there. 2 Constantly insisted on by Athan. note on de Deer. 32.
Cf. de Incarn. 5, and 3 De Incarn. 56. 2; he may also he referring to works from | the Alex. school, such as Orig. de Princ, heed to His divine Nature. On the contrary, they in their turn would have recognised this man as Saviour of the world, and that the Cross has been not a disaster, but a healing of Crea- tion. 5. For if after the Cross all idolatry was overthrown, while every manifestation of demons is driven away by this Sign 4, and Christ alone is worshipped and the Father known through Him, and, while gainsayers are put to shame, He daily invisibly wins over the souls of these gainsayers%,—-how, one might fairly ask them, is it still open to us to regard the matter as human, instead of confessing that He Who ascended the Cross is Word of God and Saviour of the World? But these men seem to me quite as bad as one who should traduce the sun when covered by clouds, while yet wondering at his light, seeing how the whole of creation is illu- mined by him. 6. For as the light is noble, and the sun, the chief cause of light, is nobler still, so, as it is a divine thing for the whole world to be filled with his knowledge, it follows that the orderer and chief cause of such an achievement is God and the Word of God. 7. We speak then as lies within our power, first refuting the ignorance of the unbelieving; so that what is false being refuted, the truth may then shine forth of itself, and that you yourself, friend, may be reassured that you have believed what is true, and in coming to know Christ have not been deceived. Moreover, I think it becoming to discourse to you, as a lover of Christ, about Christ, since I am sure that you rate faith in and knowledge of Him above anything else whatsoever.
2. Evil no part of the essential nature of things. The original creation and constitution of man in grace and in the knowledge of God.
In the beginning wickedness did not exist.
Nor indeed does it exist even now in those who are holy, nor does it in any way belong to their § 4 Ci. de Incarn. 47. 2, 48. 3, Vit. Ant. passim, AGAINST THE HEATHEN.
nature. But men later on began to contrive it, and to elaborate it to their own hurt. Whence also they devised the invention of idols, treating what was not as though it were. 2. For God, Maker of all and King of all, that has His Being beyond ® all substance and human dis- covery, inasmuch as He is good and exceeding noble, made, through His own Word our Saviour Jesus Christ, the human race after His own image, and constituted man able to see and know realities by means of this assimilation to Himself, giving him also a conception? and knowledge even of His own eternity, in order that, preserving his nature intact, he might not ever either depart from his idea of God, nor‘