Part I

Against the Heathen (Contra Gentes) · Saint Athanasius the Great of Alexandria

1. Introduction:--The purpose of the book a vindication of Christian doctrine, and especially of the Cross, against the scoffing objection of Gentiles. The effects of this doctrine its main vindication.
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.
3. The decline of man from the above condition, owing to his absorption in material things.
4. The gradual abasement of the Soul from Truth to Falsehood by the abuse of her freedom of Choice.
5. Evil, then consists essentially in the choice of what is lower in preference to what is higher.
6. False views of the nature of evil: viz., that evil is something in the nature of things, and has substantive existence. (a) Heathen thinkers: (evil resides in matter). Their refutation. (b) Heretical teachers: (Dualism). Refutation from Scripture.
7. Refutation of dualism from reason. Impossibility of two Gods. The truth as to evil is that which the Church teaches: that it originates, and resides, in the perverted choice of the darkened soul.
8. The origin of idolatry is similar. The soul, materialised by forgetting God, and engrossed in earthly things, makes them into gods. The race of men descends into a hopeless depth of delusion and superstition.
9. The various developments of idolatry: worship of the heavenly bodies, the elements, natural objects, fabulous creatures, personified lusts, men living and dead. The case of Antinous, and of the deified Emperors.
10. Similar human origin of the Greek gods, by decree of Theseus. The process by which mortals became deified.
11. The deeds of heathen deities, and particularly of Zeus.
12. Other shameful actions ascribed to heathen deities. All prove that they are but men of former times, and not even good men.
13. The folly of image worship and its dishonour to art.
14. Image worship condemned by Scripture.
15. The details about the gods conveyed in the representations of them by poets and artists shew that they are without life, and that they are not gods, nor even decent men and women.
16. Heathen arguments in palliation of the above: and (1) 'the poets are responsible for these unedifying tales.' But are the names and existence of the gods any better authenticated? Both stand or fall together. Either the actions must be defended or the deity of the gods given up. And the heroes are not credited with acts inconsistent with their nature, as, on this plea, the gods are.
17. The truth probably is, that the scandalous tales are true, while the divine attributes ascribed to them are due to the flattery of the poets.
18. Heathen defence continued. (2) 'The gods are worshipped for having invented the Arts of Life.' But this is a human and natural, not a divine, achievement. And why, on this principle, are not all inventors deified?
19. The inconsistency of image worship. Arguments in palliation. (1) The divine nature must be expressed in a visible sign. (2) The image a means of supernatural communications to men through angels.
20. But where does this supposed virtue of the image reside? in the material, or in the form, or in the maker's skill? Untenability of all these views.
21. The idea of communications through angels involves yet wilder inconsistency, nor does it, even if true, justify the worship of the image.
22. The image cannot represent the true form of God, else God would be corruptible.
23. The variety of idolatrous cults proves that they are false.
24. The so-called gods of one place are used as victims in another.
25. Human sacrifice. Its absurdity. Its prevalence. Its calamitous results.
26. The moral corruptions of Paganism all admittedly originated with the gods.
27. The refutation of popular Paganism being taken as conclusive, we come to the higher form of nature-worship. How Nature witnesses to God by the mutual dependence of all her parts, which forbid us to think of any one of them as the supreme God. This shewn at length.
28. But neither can the cosmic organism be God. For that would make God consist of dissimilar parts, and subject Him to possible dissolution.
29. The balance of powers in Nature shews that it is not God, either collectively, or in parts.