| « Prev | The variety of idolatrous cults proves that they… | Next » |
§23. The variety of idolatrous cults proves that they are false.
But not only from these considerations may one
appreciate their godlessness, but also from their discordant opinions
about the idols themselves. For if they be gods according to their
assertion and their speculations, to which of them is one to give
allegiance, and which of them is one to judge to be the higher, so as
either to worship God with confidence, or as they say to recognise the
Deity by them without ambiguity? For not the same beings are called
gods among all; on the contrary, for every nation almost there is a
separate god imagined. And there are cases of a single district and a
single town being at internal discord about the superstition of their
idols. 2. The Phœnicians, for example, do not know those who are
called gods among the Egyptians, nor do the Egyptians worship the same
idols as the Phœnicians have. And while the Scythians reject the
gods of the Persians, the Persians reject those of the Syrians. But the
Pelasgians also repudiate the gods in Thrace, while the Thracians know
not those of Thebes. The Indians moreover differ from the Arabs, the
Arabs from the Ethiopians, and the Ethiopians from the Arabs in their
idols. And the Syrians worship not the idols of the Cilicians, while
the Cappadocian nation call gods beings different from these. And while
the Bithynians have adopted others, the Armenians have imagined others
again. And what need is there for me to multiply examples? The men on
the continent worship other gods than the islanders, while these latter
serve other gods than those of the main lands. 3. And, in general,
every city and village, not knowing the gods of its neighbours, prefers
its own, and deems that these alone are gods. For concerning the
abominations in Egypt there is no need even to speak, as they are
before the eyes of all: how the cities have religions which are
opposite and incompatible, and neighbours always make a point of
worshipping the opposite of those next to them138138 Hdt.
ii. 69; cf. Juv. Sat. xv. 36,
‘numina
vicinorum
Odit uterque
locus.’
This is one of the few
places where Athanasius has any Egyptian ‘local colour’
(cf. supra 9 and 10). M. Fialon is certainly too imaginative (p. 86
contradicted p. 283), when he sees in the contra Gentes an
appreciation of the higher religious principles which the modern
science (‘toute Francaise’) of Egyptology has enabled us to
read behind the grotesque features of popular Egyptian
polytheism.: so
much so that the crocodile, prayed to by some, is held in abomination
by their neighbours, while the lion, worshipped as a god by others,
their neighbours, so far from worshipping, slay, if they find it, as a
wild beast; and the fish, consecrated by some people, is used as food
in another place. And thus arise fights and riots and frequent
occasions of bloodshed, and every indulgence of the passions among
them. 4. And strange to say, according to the statement of historians,
the very Pelasgians, who learned from the Egyptians the names of the
gods, do not know the gods of Egypt, but worship others instead. And,
speaking generally, all the nations that are infatuated with idols have
different opinions and religions, and consistency is not to be met with
in any one case. Nor is this surprising. 5. For having fallen from the
contemplation of the one God, they have come down to many and diverse
objects; and having turned from the Word of the Father, Christ the
Saviour of all, they naturally have their understanding wandering in
many directions. And just as men who have turned from the sun and are
come into dark places go round by many pathless ways, and see not those
who are present, while they imagine those to be there who are not, and
seeing see not; so they that have turned from God and whose soul is
darkened, have their mind in a roving state, and like men who are drunk
and cannot see, imagine what is not true.
| « Prev | The variety of idolatrous cults proves that they… | Next » |









