Temple CHEVALLIER, A translation of the Apology of Tertullian, 2nd edition, London:Rivington (1851)

A TRANSLATION

OF
THE EPISTLES
OF

CLEMENT OF ROME, POLYCARP, 
AND IGNATIUS;
AND OF
THE APOLOGIES
OF
JUSTIN MARTYR AND TERTULLIAN:
[Online: Tertullian only]

WITH AN INTRODUCTION,
AND BRIEF NOTES ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF 
THE FIRST TWO CENTURIES.
----------

BY THE REV.
TEMPLE CHEVALLIER, B.D.
LATE FELLOW AND TUTOR OF CATHARINE HALL, CAMBRIDGE,
PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS AND ASTRONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF DURHAM 
AND HONORARY CANON OF DURHAM,
----------

Second Edition.
----------

LONDON:
FRANCIS & JOHN RIVINGTON,
ST. PAUL'S CHURCH YARD, AND WATERLOO PLACE; AND

JOHN DEIGHTON,
CAMBRIDGE.

1851.

LONDON:
GILBERT AND RIVINGTON, PRINTERS, 
ST. JOHN'S SQUARE.

INTRODUCTION.

IN the history of the Christian Church, there are few periods of greater interest and importance than that which succeeded the death of the Apostles. As long as any of those holy men survived, who had personally received instruction from our Lord, they connected the Church on earth with its spiritual Head. The miraculous powers with which the Apostles were endowed, and the undisputed authority with which their high office invested them, placed them in a position, which none of their successors could ever occupy. In. cases of difficulty and doubt, an appeal to their more than human wisdom was the last resource: in times of peril, their example and their prayers strengthened the wavering, and confirmed the faithful: and at all periods they were justly regarded as the pillars, on which the Christian Church securely rested.

But when the Apostles were removed from the scene of their earthly labours, the condition of the Church was changed. The efforts of its enemies were exerted with greater energy to suppress Christianity, as the numbers of those who professed the faith increased; while the apparent means of defence were |iv materially impaired. Our attention is therefore roused to inquire what men they were, who, on this trying occasion, stood forth in defence of Christianity; with what weapons they combated their enemies; with what zeal they laid down their lives for the sake of the Gospel.

These early ages of the Church claim our attention for another reason. In contemplating the history of that period, we view Christianity, as a system of ecclesiastical polity, in its nascent state. It was then that the Canon of Scripture was formed; that Church government took a consistent form. The oral teaching of the Apostles and their immediate successors was still vividly impressed upon the minds of those who had heard them; and many passages of Scripture, which to us appear ambiguous, might by such means be then clearly understood.

Hence the conclusions, which the primitive Christian Church formed, respecting questions, which in after ages have been fruitful subjects of controversy, are entitled to the highest regard: not, indeed, as infallible; but as representing the doctrines maintained by sincere and earnest inquirers after the truth, by men who were best able to form a sound determination, before their judgment was warped by prejudice, or modified by system.

The writings of the early Christian Fathers will therefore be carefully consulted by all who would trace the Scriptures up to the period in which they were written, and learn the doctrines which were taught as essential, in the times nearest to the Apostolic age. |v 

These early ages of the Church possess also a charm peculiar to themselves. The records of ecclesiastical history in subsequent years too often display a melancholy picture. The turbulent passions of the worldly-minded, the fiery zeal of the intemperate, the arts of the designing, the follies of the weak, all present themselves in dazzling colours and in prominent positions: while it requires a practised eye and a patient investigation to discover the milder and retiring forms of unobtrusive Christian piety. The earlier Christians were not, as individuals, free from the infirmities and sins of human nature. But the primitive Christian Church did certainly stand forth in a purity and simplicity which it has never since enjoyed. And the contemplation of the age in which this goodly spectacle was presented to the world, has ever been a delightful employment to minds endowed with a kindred feeling.

Of late years a considerable impulse has been given, among ourselves, to the study of the early Christian writers. The labours of the learned Bishop of Lincoln, in elucidating the works of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, and those of Dr. Burton, are specimens of the valuable matter which is yet to be extracted from the stores of Christian antiquity.

The present work lays claim to no such pretensions. Its object is to put the English reader in possession of some of the genuine remains of Christian writers of the first and second centuries, and to furnish occasional information upon such points as seem to require explanation. For this purpose it appeared more advisable to give the whole of such pieces as should be |vi selected, than to select certain parts only. Extracts must always fail to give a faithful representation of the whole manner of reasoning and train of thought which characterized the first advocates of Christianity; and may unintentionally give erroneous notions of their opinions. It is well known that detached passages are quoted from these writings, in favour of very different notions. To judge therefore of the real sentiments of the writers, the general tendency of their argument is to be regarded, more than the mere verbal expression of particular parts. If we would know how these Fathers of the Church thought and wrote, we are not at liberty to omit what may appear to us superfluous and fanciful in illustration, or diffuse and inconclusive in reasoning; or simply uninteresting, because it refers to errors which have long since passed away. The very manner of treating a subject is an indication of the habits of thought and of the moral condition of the age in which it was discussed. A more striking and graphic representation is often given of the state of society, and of the condition of the Christian world in general, by an application of a passage of Scripture, by a slight allusion to an objection against the religion of the Gospel, by a casual reference to some difficulty which its professors encountered, or by some elaborate refutation of an absurd calumny, than we should have received from a detailed description of the circumstances.

Besides, those very parts of the writings of the early Fathers, which seem least valuable both for style and matter, have this incidental advantage, that they set in a clear point of view the immeasurable |vii superiority of the Scriptures of the New Testament. The inspired books were written principally by men who had not the same advantages of education and literary training, as some of the Ecclesiastical writers enjoyed : yet they are totally free from the blemishes which disfigure the most elaborate productions of later ages of the Church.

Had not the pens of the Evangelists and Apostles been guided by a wisdom superior to any which those writers possessed by ordinary means, they never could have produced a work, which, even as a specimen of plain yet majestic narration, and of consistent, sober, rational discussion of the most abstruse questions, is entirely unrivalled. We should have found--as we do find in the writings even of those who had been thoroughly instructed in Scriptural truth, and had deeply imbibed the spirit of Christianity--some error mixed with truth; some inconclusive reasoning; some vague declamation; some incautious over-statement of doctrine or fact; some merely mystical application of the Scriptures of the Old Testament; some exaggerated sentiment.

In uninspired writers we should have detected the prejudices of their education and of the age in which they lived. We should have found some extravagant eulogies of martyrdom; some fanciful notions respecting spiritual beings; some captious and scrupulous objection to practices in themselves indifferent. And, in their public defences of the faith before their adversaries, we should have perceived them, not only speaking boldly, as they ought to speak, but sometimes displaying a subtilty too nearly allied to the craftiness |viii of the disputer of this world; and on other occasions indulging in sarcasm or invective against the various errors of heathen worship.

In the Scriptures of the New Testament, we find none of these faults: they are uniformly dignified, simple, reasonable. But a very limited acquaintance with the writings of those who endeavoured to follow their steps will show that, if the Apostles and Evangelists were preserved from such extravagance and error, they owed it to a wisdom which was not of this world.

The works, which have been chosen for the present purpose, are the Epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians; that of Polycarp; the genuine Epistles of Ignatius, with the accounts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarp; the first Apology of Justin Martyr; and the Apology of Tertullian.

These Epistles, and the short histories of the Martyrdoms, have been long known to the English reader, in Archbishop Wake's very valuable translation. It may appear presumptuous to have changed, in any degree, language which is at once so faithful and so Scriptural as that which he has employed. And no alteration has been made, except after due deliberation. In Archbishop Wake's translation, however, the quotations from the Scriptures are given in the words of the authorised English Version. Now the original quotations from the Old Testament are often taken from the Septuagint or some other Version, so as to differ considerably from the Hebrew text, and consequently from the English Version: and in other instances, references are made to the Old and New |ix Testaments in such a manner as to express the general sense of passages, rather than the words. As the intention of this work is to give as accurate a representation of these writings of the Fathers as the difference of idiom will admit, it seemed advisable to translate these quotations also as faithfully as possible, even in the instances in which they deviate from the literal sense of the original Scriptures. It is not always easy to determine how closely a writer intended to quote a passage; and in many cases, such references may be regarded as a kind of comment upon the text to which allusion is made.

[Introductions to other writers on pp. x-lxvi have been omitted from the online text]

|lxvi

TERTULLIAN.

QUINTUS SEPTIMUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS, as he is usually called, was born at Carthage, about the year His father was a soldier, a centurion in constant |lxvii attendance upon the Proconsul of Africa. Tertullian is believed to have been a Gentile : and the supposition is favoured by several passages of his works ¹ in which he seems to describe himself as having been among those whose errors he exposes. His education appears to have extended to every kind of literature which was studied at the period in which he lived. His knowledge of the Greek language is evident from the fact of his having composed ² three treatises in it, which are now lost. And the quotations with which his works abound imply a wide range of knowledge in poetry, natural philosophy, and medical science. Eusebius ³ observes that he was particularly well skilled in the Roman laws, as is indicated indeed by his familiar use of legal terms. His ability and learning were always highly celebrated. Jerome informs us⁴ that Cyprian never passed a day without reading some of the works of Tertullian, whom he called "his master."

Jerome also says that Tertullian was a Presbyter; and it is believed that he held that office in the Church of Rome. That he was a married man, is known from the writings which he has left addressed to his wife.

Whether Tertullian were educated as a Christian, or converted after he had reached a mature age, the number of his works shows that he was a most zealous and active defender of the opinions which he embraced. |lxviii It would be difficult to point out a writer whose style of thought and expression is so peculiar as Tertullian's. He pours forth with profusion, and with little discrimination, the varied stores of acquired knowledge with which his mind was enriched; displaying unrivalled keenness of sarcasm, and great brilliancy of imagination. Yet with these advantages he could scarcely have been an attractive writer, even to those who were familiar with his frequent and pointed allusions to facts now little known.

His style is thus described with great accuracy and discrimination by one who is peculiarly well qualified for forming a correct opinion upon such a subject. "He frequently hurries his hearers along by his vehemence, and surprises them by the vigour, as well as inexhaustible fertility of his imagination; but his copiousness is without selection, and there was in his character a propensity to exaggeration, which affected his language, and rendered it inflated and unnatural. He is indeed the harshest and most obscure of writers, and the least capable of being accurately represented in a translation⁵."

Still, there is in the writings of Tertullian a manly vigour of conception and a vivacity of expression, which amply repay the labour which must be undergone in order to comprehend them.

Jerome, in his account of Tertullian, asserts that he was driven to embrace the errors of Montanus, in |lxix consequence of the contumelious treatment of the Romish Clergy. The year 199 is usually assigned as the probable period of this remarkable change in Tertullian's views. From a passage in his works⁶, it is evident that he was attached to that sect before the year 207, the fifteenth year of the Emperor Severus. The greater part of his writings, which have been preserved, were composed after he became a Montanist⁷. Whether his Apology was one of these is doubted. The subject of that address did not call upon him to profess any of the peculiar opinions of that sect; and the marks of time which are found in it have led to different conclusions respecting its date. Mosheim in his Dissertation on the date of this Apology⁸, fixes on the year 198. Du Pin assigns it to the year 200, and conceives that it was written before Tertullian embraced the opinions of Montanus. Tillemont is in favour of the same date. Cave and Dodwell think that it was composed in 202, Basnage in 203, Pagi in 205, Scaliger in 211, and Allix assigns so late a date as 217.

The Bishop of Lincoln ⁹, after observing that "the allusion to conspiracies which were daily detected at the very time when the book was written¹⁰, as well as the enumeration of the barbarous nations¹¹ which either then were, or had recently been, at war with Rome, correspond to the events which took place during the reign of Severus," suggests that the work |lxx may with probability be referred to about the year 204.

The Apology was written at Carthage, and addressed to the governors of Proconsular Africa¹². The Christians, at the time in which it was written, were exposed to great sufferings, as well from the unrestrained violence of the people, as from the action of laws which were still in force¹³. "How frequently," he says¹⁴, "do ye use violence against the Christians, sometimes at the instigation of private malice, and sometimes according to the forms of law. How often also--not to mention yourselves--do the common people in their rage attack us of their own accord with stones and flames:" and, in another place¹⁵, "there are no greater persecutors of the Christians than the vulgar." Their general insecurity was increased when the governor of the province in which they lived was cruel or rapacious; and, on the other hand, they enjoyed a temporary security, if, from a sense of justice or the feelings of humanity, he chanced to treat them with indulgence.

The Christians at Carthage were not thus favoured.  Just before the period at which Tertullian's Apology was written, the governors had proceeded with great severity against some members of their own families¹⁶, in consequence of their professing the Christian faith. And, the way of public justice being obstructed, Tertullian was anxious that the truth might still be |lxxi presented to the governors, by the means of a written Apology.

He demands, therefore, that before the Christians are condemned, they may be allowed to answer for themselves; alleging, with great truth, that the refusal to hear them was a tacit confession that the charges against them were unfounded¹⁷. He shows that all other criminals, however guilty, enjoy every legal privilege; are heard in their own defence, and permitted to have an advocate to plead their cause. He dwells upon the injustice and contradictory character of the edict of Trajan; and complains that while others are tortured only to compel them to confess their guilt, the Christians are racked, to force them to deny the charge of which they are accused ¹⁸.

Tertullian then appeals to the indirect testimony which even their adversaries bore to the strictly moral conduct which characterized those who were converted to Christianity: and obviates an objection which was brought against the very name which they bore¹⁹. He shows, by examples of recent changes in the laws, that those which existed against the Christians might be also abrogated ²⁰; that those sanguinary laws had been invariably proposed by emperors of the most cruel and unjust character, while the mild and just princes had favoured the Christians²¹. But Tertullian is not contented with resting merely on the defensive. He makes vigorous attacks upon his adversaries themselves; and shows in a strain of bitter satire how much the |lxxii subjects of the Roman Empire had degenerated from their ancestors ²².

He next notices the horrible calumnies which were circulated respecting the Christians,--such as the murder of children, and incest--shows that they originate in nothing but mere common report²³, and are utterly incredible and false²⁴. On this point also Tertullian assails his opponents, and shows that the abominations and cruelties of heathen nations might make them credit such unnatural charges, although the purity of life which marked the Christians, was a complete proof of their innocence of these specific crimes²⁵. Another frequent accusation against the Christians was that they refused to worship the gods of the heathen, and to offer sacrifice for the safety of the emperors. This charge Tertullian repels by at once showing that the gods so worshipped were merely men, to whom, after their death, divine honours were paid ²⁶: and argues closely and forcibly that the supposition, that they were deified, necessarily implies the existence of some Supreme Deity, who had the power of conferring so high a privilege: that he could have no need of such agents, and would never have extended his favour to such unworthy objects ²⁷.

Tertullian proceeds to show the absurdity of idol-worship²⁸, and the indignity with which the heathens themselves treated their divinities, by making them the object of sale²⁹, defrauding them by the sacrifice of imperfect victims; degrading them by absurd fables ³⁰; |lxxiii and making them the subject of ridicule in their dramatic exhibitions³¹.

Tertullian, after refuting³² calumnies which were circulated respecting the object of Christian worship, declares, in a passage of great beauty³³, who the God is whom they adore: that he is one God, the Creator and sustainer of all things, immensely great, and, although faintly discernible in these his lowest works, yet fully intelligible to himself alone: that the soul of man itself, when not disturbed by any delusion, recognizes this One God, by the phrases which it involuntarily uses, as "God knows," "I leave it to God," and the like. He shows that God had from the beginning made known his will, by inspiring the prophets with his Holy Spirit; and that the writings of those prophets still remained, both in the original Hebrew and in the Greek translation ³⁴.

Tertullian advances the high antiquity of Moses, and the priority of the prophets to the heathen philosophers, as an argument of the superiority of the doctrines contained in the Scriptures of the Old Testament³⁵; and refers to the prophecies, which had been fulfilled and were fulfilling, as a proof of the inspiration of Scripture³⁶.

Such having been the origin of the Jewish religion, Tertullian shows in what manner the Christian religion is founded upon it, and connected with it by a chain of prophecy. He declares that Jesus Christ was the Son of God; and endeavours to illustrate the manner of his generation, by a comparison with the procession of |lxxiv a ray of light from a luminous body. He shows that the miracles of Christ proved him to be the Word of God: declares that his sufferings and death were voluntary, the fulfilment of his own predictions; and appeals to the annals of the Roman Empire in attestation of the miraculous darkness at the crucifixion. Tertullian relates the resurrection and ascension of Christ; and asserts that Pontius Pilate sent a written account of those transactions to Tiberius. He makes a strong appeal to the testimony which the Christians gave even unto death; and desires to put the question upon the issue whether the divinity of Christ be real or not³⁷.

After this, Tertullian declares his opinions respecting the existence and employment of evil spirits, or demons ³⁸: and demands that any one confessedly under the influence of demoniacal possession may be brought out before the tribunal; and promises that, at the bidding of any Christian, the demon shall depart³⁹.

Tertullian then shows how unjustly the Christians are treated, since, when all others are permitted to choose their own divinities for worship, the Christians alone are prevented ⁴⁰.

An objection was sometimes brought against Christianity, that the prosperity which the Roman Empire had attained was a proof of the Divine favour. Tertullian meets that objection by showing that the worship which the Romans paid to many of their deities was not established till long after their power had greatly increased; and that their conquests, which spared not the temples more than the houses of the |lxxv vanquished, ought rather to have brought down upon them the vengeance of the gods, had they been really divine⁴¹. This therefore was rather an argument in favour of the existence of One Supreme God, who governs the whole world ⁴².

Tertullian then refers to a temptation to which Christians were sometimes exposed, by their adversaries suggesting that they might outwardly comply with the rites of heathenism, while they mentally retained their own sentiments. He rejects such a notion with disdain, as unworthy of a true Christian, and as a suggestion of evil spirits ⁴³. He shows, that although the Christians refused to sacrifice for the emperors, which was, in the eyes of their accusers, a worse offence than neglecting the worship of idols, they acted with a proper sense of the dignity of the emperor, in not subjecting him to his inferiors⁴⁴: but that they did pray for the safety of the emperor, not to dumb idols, but to the living God; lifting up holy hands, and beseeching him to grant to the emperor a happy reign and a long life, with all prosperity for himself and his people ⁴⁵: and that in so doing they fulfilled the commands given them in the Word of God, their Scriptures ⁴⁶. Another reason for their praying for the safety of the emperor was, their conviction that the day of judgment was delayed only by the continuance of the Roman Empire⁴⁷.

While the Christians reverenced the emperor as their sovereign, they paid him greater honour than if they flattered him with a title to which he had no |lxxvi claim; a title which the best of emperors refused to receive ⁴⁸.

Tertullian then exposes the folly of showing loyalty to the emperor by rioting and festivity; when the conspiracies which were daily occurring showed that this attachment was merely feigned⁴⁹.

The Christians, on the other hand, are required to do good to all men, and therefore especially to the sovereign : they are bound to love their enemies, and the proof that they do so is found in their forbearance, when their numbers are already so great that, if they chose, they might set the empire at defiance, or destroy it effectually by merely withdrawing themselves to some distant part of the world ⁵⁰.

The innocent lives of the Christians furnish another reason for their being leniently treated ⁵¹.

In the concluding part of the Apology, Tertullian gives an instructive and interesting account of the Christian Church in his time. He describes their meeting for the purposes of prayer, for reading the Holy Scriptures, and receiving instruction: their government, under the presidency of "certain approved elders, who have obtained that honour not by purchase but by public testimony:" and their monthly or occasional contributions for the relief of the aged and destitute. He dwells upon the exemplary love which the Christians displayed towards one another; and alludes to the temperate banquets which they held in common, seasoned with holy conversation, and sanctified with prayer ⁵².

Notwithstanding their blameless lives, Tertullian |lxxvii shows that every national calamity, the overflowing of the waters of the Tiber, or the failure of those of the Nile, were all attributed to the Christians : yet nothing could be more absurd than such an accusation; since, as he had before shown, the like calamities occurred before the Christian religion began ⁵³; and the Romans themselves were more truly the cause of such misfortunes, since they despised the true God, and worshipped images. The temporal dispensations of Providence, however, form no sure mark of the favour or anger of God. The troubles of the world are sent for the purpose of admonition, as well as of punishment⁵⁴.

Another accusation against the Christians was that they were unfit for the ordinary business of life. Tertullian refutes this charge, by showing that they refused compliance with no innocent custom; and were useless to none but to those whose occupations were disgraceful⁵⁵. The records of the courts of justice would prove that no Christian was ever accused of a crime ⁵⁶. This freedom from open guilt arose from the superiority which divine laws possess over those which are of human invention ⁵⁷.

There were others who represented Christianity as merely a system of philosophy. Had this been the case, Tertullian argues that those who professed it were entitled to the same tolerance as was extended to other philosophers. But Christianity is actually as superior to any philosophy in morality as in its authority⁵⁸. Indeed, the poets and philosophers of old were indebted to Christianity for many of their tenets, which they |lxxviii borrowed without acknowledgment, and distorted to serve their own purposes⁵⁹. Yet philosophers were permitted to hold their doctrines, such as that of the transmigration of souls, without any interference; while Christians were punished for believing the resurrection. Tertullian argues that a resurrection is necessary, in order that man should be judged in the same body, which had been the instrument of his actions: that it is not so incredible, that a body should be restored to life, as that it should have been formed at first: and that this restoration is rendered highly probable by the analogy with many changes in the natural world. Thus the succession of day and night, the order of the seasons, the decay and growth of the seed in the earth, are all emblems of a resurrection. Tertullian anticipates. the objection,--that these vicissitudes would rather imply a succession of changes from death to life, than a single death followed by an unchangeable eternity, --by observing, that had such been the will of God, man must have submitted : but that the Word of God establishes the fact that there shall be one final resurrection of all mankind; after which the righteous shall be for ever clothed upon with immortality in the presence of God; and the wicked shall be consigned to everlasting punishment⁶⁰.

It is, then, most unreasonable that the Christians should be punished for maintaining opinions, which, if sincerely entertained, must make them better members of society; while tenets, for which the philosophers are indebted to their imitation of Christianity, |lxxix are eulogized as the highest attainments of human wisdom. Christians suffer for their religion; but they suffer voluntarily: choosing rather to be condemned by men, than to fail in their duty towards God ⁶¹.

Tertullian answers an objection, which the patience of the Christians might suggest, that they really took delight in the sufferings which they endured with so great fortitude. He observes that Christians did, indeed, submit to persecution; but they did it with the feelings of a soldier whose duty called upon him to expose his life. He would gladly escape the peril, although, when necessary, he shrinks not from it. Yet this contempt of pain and death, which is eulogized in patriots and philosophers, when practised by Christians is derided and despised. Tertullian, in conclusion, defies the utmost malice of the enemies of the faith: declaring that, if they were bent on destroying Christianity, their attempt would be fruitless; and that the example of patience, exhibited by those who were called to suffer, was the most convincing argument of the truth of their religion ⁶².

There is no record of the effect which this Apology produced. It was, however, most highly prized by Christians in all ages. It was at an early period translated into Greek, and is the only writing of Tertullian which is expressly quoted by Eusebius ⁶³. Cyprian not only looked up to Tertullian as his master, and frequently copied him, but especially in his Treatise de Idolorum Vanitate, closely imitated parts of Tertullian's Apology.

The object of Tertullian in this Apology did not |lxxx lead him to make frequent mention of the Scriptures of the New Testament. We find him, however, referring to them on several occasions, under the title of "Scriptures," and "Holy Scriptures⁶⁴," appealing to them as "the Word of God, our Scriptures⁶⁵," open and accessible to all; and declaring that one of the principal objects of the Christians publicly assembling was to read the Scriptures⁶⁶.

In the passage⁶⁷ in which an appeal is made to the Scriptures, Tertullian quotes words now found in the Gospels of St. Matthew and St. Luke; and others which are in substance written in the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, the first Epistle to Timothy, the Epistle to Titus, and the first Epistle of St. Peter.

There is probably also an allusion to the first Epistle of St. Paul to the Corinthians⁶⁸; and to the Epistle to the Hebrews⁶⁹.

In other parts of his writings, the testimony of Tertullian to the inspiration ⁷⁰ and sufficiency⁷¹ of the Holy Scriptures, his frequent quotation of the books of the New Testament, his reference to four Gospels, and no more, written by Apostles, or apostolic men ⁷², and the deference which he always pays to the Holy Scriptures, render his works most valuable as tending to prove the genuineness and integrity of the Scriptures |lxxxi of the New Testament. So copious are these allusions, that Lardner remarks⁷³, "There are perhaps more and larger quotations of the small volume of the New Testament, in this one Christian author, than of all the works of Cicero, though of so uncommon excellence for thought and style, in the writers for several ages."

Tertullian's Apology contains very interesting information respecting the condition of the Christian Church, especially in Africa, in the second and third centuries. He bears testimony to the wide diffusion of Christianity in his time⁷⁴; and shows that the Christians were distinguished, both by themselves, and by their adversaries, for their mutual love⁷⁵. Their harmless and tranquil life⁷⁶; their habits of domestic piety; their constant use of prayer, in private and in public⁷⁷; their charity towards all men; their love of their enemies⁷⁸; their patience under persecution and distress⁷⁹, complete a picture which is the more striking when contrasted with the scene which the pagan world presented at the same time. The character of Tertullian himself is a proof of the power of religion : no other influence could have subdued the fiery spirit of such a man.

The Apology forms so small a portion of Tertullian's works, that any conclusions from it, respecting the doctrine of the Church in his time, would be very incomplete, unless supported by numerous references to his other writings.

The limits of this Introduction will not admit of |lxxxii so extended an examination; and the task has been lately performed with such accuracy and judgment by the learned Bishop of Lincoln, that any further labours in the same field would be superfluous.

Little is necessary to be said of the remaining part of Tertullian's life. At a period, which was either a little before, or soon after, the publication of his Apology, he avowed himself a follower of Montanus. The harsh and ascetic tenets of that visionary heretic agreed with the naturally austere character of Tertullian. But his defection was in matters rather of discipline than of faith: and in the latter period of his life he again seceded from the Montanists, and founded a sect, called after his name, Tertullianists. The remnants of this sect continued to exist after his death till they were finally dispersed by Augustin⁸⁰.

The period of Tertullian's death is unknown. Jerome informs us that he lived to a great age: and the year 220 is usually assigned. There is every reason to believe that he died a natural death.

The heretical opinions of Tertullian doubtless threw a cloud over his fame; but they were not able to eclipse the reputation which his great talents, piety, and learning, had deservedly acquired. Hence, even those who blamed his errors united in paying a just tribute to his sincerity and great mental endowments. The character given to him by Vincentius Lirinensis, in the fifth century, may be taken as a proof of the great estimation in which he was held. It is conceived in terms of high panegyric: but the context shows |lxxxiii that it was written by one, who was as sensible of the errors as of the excellencies of Tertullian. After having shown the dangerous innovations which Origen introduced, he describes Tertullian, notwithstanding his erroneous opinions, as far superior to all the Latin Christian writers. "Who," says he, "ever excelled him in learning? Who had greater proficiency in all knowledge, sacred and profane? His astonishing capacity embraced in its comprehensive grasp all the various branches and sects of philosophy, the original founders and supporters of the different schools, and the course of discipline adopted by each, together with a wide range of history and other studies. Such also was the vigour and force of his intellect, that, whatever position he attacked, he either penetrated it by his subtilty, or crushed it with the weight of his reasoning. The peculiar character of his style surpasses all praise. The arguments are connected in so indissoluble a chain of reasoning, as to compel the assent of those who would not be persuaded : every word is a sentence; every sentence a victory over his adversaries. The followers of Marcion, Apelles, Praxeas, and Hermogenes; the Jew, the Gentile, the Gnostic, had full experience of this: against all their blasphemies he hurled the ponderous masses of his voluminous works, and overthrew them, as with a thunderbolt⁸¹." |lxxxiv 

With respect to the present translations, it has already been observed, that the Epistles of Clement, Polycarp, and Ignatius, and the accounts of the Martyrdom of the two last, are in substance taken from Archbishop Wake's version. The language of that version has been happily styled by Lardner "Apostolical English:" and it would have been a needless affectation of originality to have injured, by any unnecessary alteration, what had already been expressed so faithfully and so well. My first intention was to have simply reprinted those Epistles, with such illustrations as they might seem to require. A comparison of the present translation with that of Archbishop Wake will show that, with the exception of the quotations, his version has been here closely, but not servilely, followed.

In translating the Apologies of Justin Martyr and Tertullian, my object has been to express with fidelity the sentiments of the originals, in such a manner as to be intelligible to a reader who may not be able to consult the works themselves. Those who are best acquainted with the nature of such a task will be the most lenient in overlooking any harshness or want of fluency, which, in such a translation, it is so difficult to |lxxxv avoid. The version of Tertullian is necessarily more paraphrastic than that of Justin, in order to render intelligible the brief allusions and sudden transitions which characterize his style. Should there be any instances in which I have not succeeded in representing the sense of Tertullian, I would willingly refer to the character of his writings, which has before been quoted, that "he is indeed the harshest and most obscure of writers; and the least capable of being accurately represented in a translation."

[Footnotes to the introduction have been moved here]

1. ² Apol. c. 18. p. 362. De Poenitentia, c. 1. De Fuga in Persecut. c. 6. Adv. Marcion. iii. c. 21.

2. ³ De Corona, cf. 6. De Baptismo, c. 19. De Resurrectione Carnis c. 49.

3. ⁴ H. E. ii. 2. 

4. ⁵ Catalogus Scriptorum Eccles.

5. ⁶ Bishop of Lincoln's Tertullian, c. 1. p. 66.

Lactantius, v. 1. says, Septimius quoque Tertullianus fuit omni genere literarum peritus, sed in eloquendo parum facilis, et minus comptus, et multum obscurus fuit.

6. ⁷ Adv. Marcion. i. cc. 15. 63. 

7. ⁸ See Bp. of Lincoln's Tertullian, c. 1. p. 61.

8. ⁹ Disquisitio Chronologico-critica de vera aetate Apologetici a Tertulliano Conscripti. Lug. Bat. 1720.

9. ¹ Tertullian, c. 1. p. 53. 

10. ² c. 35. 

11. ³ c. 37.

12. ⁴ See note (1), c. 1 

13. ⁵ See note (1), c. 4. 

14. ⁶ Apol. c. 37. p. 430.

15. ⁷ c. 35.

16. ⁸ Apol. c. 1.

17. ⁹ c. 1.

18. ¹ c. 2.

19. ² c. 3 

20. ³ c. 4.

21. ⁴ c. 5.

22. ⁵ c. 6. 

23. ⁶ c. 7. 

24. ⁷ c. 8. 

25. ⁸ c. 9. 

26. ⁹ c. 10. 

27. ¹ c. 11. 

28. ² c. 12.

29. ³ c. 13.

30. ⁴ c. 14.

31. ⁵ c. 15. 

32. ⁶ c. 16. 

33. ⁷ c. 17. 

34. ⁸ c. 18. 

35. ⁹ c. 19. 

36. ¹ c. 20.

37. ² c. 21.

38. ³ c. 22.

39. ⁴ c. 23.

40. ⁵ c. 24.

41. ⁶ c. 25. 

42. ⁷ c. 26. 

43. ⁸ c. 27. 

44. ⁹ cc. 28, 29. 

45. ¹ c. 30. 

46. ² c. 31. 

47. ³ c. 32.

48. ⁴ cc. 33, 34.

49. ⁵ c. 35.

50. ⁶ c. 36.

51. ⁷ c. 38.

52. ⁸ c. 39

53. ⁹ c. 40.

54. ¹ c. 41.

55. ² cc. 42, 43.

56. ³ c. 44.

57. ⁴ c. 45.

58. ⁵ c. 46.

59. ⁶ c. 47.

60. ⁷ c. 48.

61. ⁸ c. 49.

62. ⁹ c. 50.

63. ¹ H. E. ii. 2.

64. ² c. 22, p. 380. Apud literas sanctas ordine cognoscitur, c. 23, p. 391. Ipsi literarum nostrarum fidem accendunt.

65. ³ c. 31, p. 414. Inspice Dei voces, literas nostras, quas neque ipsi supprimimus, et plerique casus ad extraneos referunt.

66. ⁴ c. 39, p. 436. Coimus ad literarum divinarum commemorationem.

67. ⁵ c. 31, p. 414.

68. ⁶ c. 12, p. 340. Compare c. 10, p. 329. 

69. ⁷ c. 30, p. 412.

70. ⁸ Adv. Marcion, v. c. 7. De Anima, c. 2. 

71. ⁹ Contra Hermogenem, c. 22. Adoro Scripturae plenitudinem. 

72. ¹ Adv. Marcion, iv. c. 2. 5.

73.  ² Credibility, part ii. 27. 23.

74. ³ cc. 1. 37.

75. ⁴ c. 39.

76. ⁵ c. 42.

77. ⁶ cc. 30. 39.

78. ⁷ cc. 31.37.

79. ⁸ cc. 37. 50.

80. ⁹ Augustin de Haeres, c. 86.

81. ¹ Sed et Tertulliani quoque eadem ratio est. Nam sicut ille (Origenes) apud Graecos, ita hic apud Latinos nostrorum omnium facile princeps judicandus est. Quid enim hoc viro doctius? quid in divinis atque humanis rebus exercitatius? Nempe omnem Philosophiam et cunctas philosophorum sectas, auctores adsertoresque sectarum, omnesque eorum disciplinas, omnem historiarum ac studiorum varietatem, mira quadam mentis capacitate complexus est. Ingenio vero nonne tam gravi ac vehementi excelluit, ut nihil sibi paene ad expugnandum proposuerit, quod non aut acumine inruperit, aut pondere eliserit? Jam porro orationis suae laudes quis exequi valeat? quae tanta nescio qua rationum necessitate conserta est, ut ad consensum sui, quos suadere non potuerit, impellat. Cujus quot paene verba, tot sententiae sunt; quot sensus, tot victoriae. Sciunt hoc Marciones, Apelles, Praxeae, Hermogenes, Judaei, Gentiles, ceterique quorum ille blasphemias multis ac magnis voluminum suorum molibus, velut quibusdam fulminibus evertit.

Vincentius Lirinensis Commonitorium, Lib. i. c. 26.

CONTENTS
---------

|xcvii

THE APOLOGY OF TERTULLIAN.

THE APOLOGY

OF

QUINTUS SEPTIMIUS FLORENS TERTULLIANUS.

--------

CHAPTER I.

IF ye, rulers ¹ of the Roman Empire, sitting judicially upon your open and lofty seat of judgment, and occupying, as it were, the most elevated position in the state, are yet unable openly to inquire, and closely to examine, what is the real truth, in questions respecting the Christian religion,--if in this case alone your authority in matters of justice is either afraid or ashamed to inquire,--or if, as hath recently occurred², |229 the great severity with which ye have persecuted this sect in your own families prevents your listening to an impartial defence,--the truth may still be permitted to reach your ears by the secret means of a written apology. Truth demands no favour in her cause; for she wonders not at her own condition. She knows that she is a sojourner upon earth; that she must find enemies among strangers; but that her origin, her home, her hopes, her honours, her dignities are placed in heaven. She hath but one desire, not to be condemned unknown. What injury can the authority of the laws suffer, which are absolute in their own realm, if the truth be heard³? Nay, their power will be more manifested, if they even condemn her, after she is heard. But if they condemn her unheard, in addition to the odium attached to injustice, they will deservedly incur the suspicion, that they wilfully refused to hear, knowing that, if they had heard, they could not have condemned her.

This, therefore, is the first reason which we allege, to prove how unjust is the hatred borne towards the name of Christian; an injustice, which is at once aggravated and proved to exist, by the very cause, which at first appears to excuse it, namely, ignorance ⁴. For what can be more unjust than that men should hate that of which they are ignorant, even if the subject should deserve their hatred? For then only can any thing be said to deserve such treatment, when the fact |230 is clearly ascertained. And where there is no knowledge of what are the true merits of the case, upon what grounds can the justice of the hatred be defended, when that justice must be proved, not from the fact that hatred exists, but from previous knowledge of the grounds on which it rests? Since, therefore, their only reason for hatred is that they are ignorant what it is which they hate, why may not the subject be really of such a nature as not to deserve hatred? Hence we establish the unreasonableness of our adversaries in each case, by proving that they are in ignorance, while they hate, and that, while they are thus in ignorance, their hatred is unjust. A proof of this ignorance, which, while it excuses their injustice, doth yet condemn it, is this, that all who once were enemies, through ignorance, as soon as they have ceased to be ignorant, cease also to hate. They are changed from what they were, and become Christians, as soon as they learn what that religion really is⁵; they begin to hate what they were, and to profess the opinions which they hated, and are become as numerous as we are shown to be. Our enemies exclaim that the whole state is overrun with us ⁶: they lament it as a great calamity, that Christians are found in the country, in cities, in the islands; that persons of each sex, and of all ages, and station, and dignity, come over to that name. Yet not even this fact is sufficient to rouse their minds to imagine that there is some latent good in Christianity. They permit themselves not to entertain any more reasonable suspicion, nor to investigate the truth more clearly. In this instance alone the curiosity natural to man is not excited; they please |231 themselves in ignorance of that, which others are delighted to have known. Anacharsis ⁷ permitted none but those skilled in the science, to judge of music : with how much greater justice might he have accused these men of folly, who, in their utter ignorance, presume to form a judgment respecting those, who have diligently inquired and learned the truth? They prefer ignorance of Christianity, because they already hate it : yet, by thus voluntarily encouraging ignorance, they tacitly confess their conviction that, if they did know what it was, they would be unable to hate it: since, if no just ground of hatred should be discovered, they would certainly act a wiser part in dismissing an unjust hatred; but if, on the other hand, sufficient cause for hatred should appear, the hostility, which now exists, would not only be continued, but acquire fresh reason and encouragement, even on the authority of justice itself.

But, it is said, the numbers, who are persuaded to embrace Christianity, afford no proof that the religion is good in itself; for how many are prone to evil? how many desert the paths of truth for error? Doubtless : yet not even they, who are led away by that which is evil in itself, dare to defend it, as good. Nature herself hath spread over every thing which is evil, either fear or shame. Evil doers are anxious for concealment; avoid publicity; when detected, tremble; when accused, deny; even under torture, do not readily, nor always, confess: at all events, when they are condemned, they grieve; they reflect upon themselves |232 with remorse; they attribute the sins, which arise from an evil heart, either to fate, or to the stars: for they would not have that, which they acknowledge to be evil, to belong to themselves. But what similarity is there between this and the conduct of a Christian? No one is ashamed, no one is sorry, except that he was not a Christian long before. If he is pointed out, he glories in the charge: if accused, he makes no defence; if questioned, he confesses, even of his own accord; if condemned, he returns thanks. What kind of evil, then, is this, which hath none of the natural attributes of evil, fear, shame, subterfuge, repentance, sorrow? What kind of evil is this, in which the culprit delights; the accusation of which is the completion of his wishes; and its punishment, his happiness? You cannot call this madness, since you are proved to be entirely ignorant of the real cause.

CHAPTER II.

IF, however, it be ascertained that we are really most guilty, why are we treated differently from other criminals, our fellows? since similar offences ought to receive the same treatment. When others are accused of the offences, which are laid to our charge, they are permitted freely to speak, and to employ an advocate to prove their innocence: they have the privilege of replying, and objecting; since it is illegal that any should be condemned, entirely undefended or unheard. Christians alone are not permitted to advance any thing which may repel the charge, or defend the truth, or justify the judge. That alone is required, which the public hatred renders necessary, a confession of the name of Christian, not any inquiry into the offence. |233 Whereas when ye examine any other accused person, ye are not induced to pronounce sentence, as soon as he hath confessed himself guilty of murder, or sacrilege, or incest, or treason, (to speak of the ordinary heads of accusation against ourselves,) without demanding in corroboration proof of the nature of the act, the number of the perpetrators, the place, manner, time, accomplices, companions. In our case, no care of this kind is taken; although it is equally necessary that whatever is now falsely asserted should be elicited; upon how many infants each had already fed ⁸; how many incestuous crimes he had hidden in darkness; who were employed to prepare the human banquet; what dogs to extinguish the lights. Great would be the glory of that president, who could discover one who had already devoured an hundred infants! Yet we find that even inquiry into our cases has been forbidden. For the younger Pliny, when he had the command of a province, and had condemned some Christians, and removed others from their offices, was yet perplexed at their number, and at that time consulted the emperor Trajan⁹ what he should do with the remainder, declaring that, with the exception of their obstinate refusal to sacrifice, he had discovered nothing respecting their religious obligations, than that they assembled at daybreak to sing to Christ as God, and to unite in the exercises of their religion, prohibiting murder, adultery, fraud, perfidy, and all other crimes. Upon this, Trajan returned for answer, that persons of this persuasion should not be inquired after, but should be punished if brought before him. |234 What a self-contradictory sentence! He assumes their innocence, when he directs inquiry not to be made; yet commands them to be punished, as guilty. He is lenient, and cruel; he connives, and censures. Why do you thus contradict yourself in your own determination? If you condemn, why do you not also inquire? If you inquire, why do you not also acquit? Throughout every province, military stations are established for the discovery of robbers. Against those guilty of treason and public offences every man is a soldier: strict inquiry is made even into the companions and accomplices of such offenders. In the case of a Christian alone, inquiry is forbidden, accusation is permitted: as if inquiry itself were intended for any other purpose than as the foundation of an accusation. Ye condemn, therefore, him who is brought before you, although no one wished him to be inquired for; and it seems, that the accused did not deserve punishment, because he was guilty, but because he was discovered, in opposition to the edict which forbade inquiry to be made. Again, ye violate, in our case, the ordinary process, which is followed in the investigation of crimes; since ye torture other criminals, to make them confess; Christians alone, to compel them to deny: whereas, if that of which we are accused were evil, we should deny the fact, and ye, would compel us by tortures to confess. For ye ought not to think it needless to make inquiry respecting the crimes alleged, on the plea that they are admitted, by the very confession of the name of Christian; since, at this day, although ye well know what murder is, ye still think it necessary to extract the circumstances of his crime, even from one who confesses himself guilty of murder. Nay, still more unreasonably, having presumed our guilt, from the mere confession of the name of Christian, ye compel us by tortures to retract our |235 confession; as if, by denying the name, we should at once deny the crimes, which, from that confession, ye had presumed to exist. But, we are, perhaps, to imagine, ye wish us not to perish, bad as ye consider us to be. Your custom may be to entreat the murderer to deny his crime; to torture the sacrilegious, if he persists in his confession. If this is not the principle upon which ye act towards us, as guilty, then ye consider us most innocent; since, as most innocent, ye will not permit us to continue in that confession, which, as ye well know, ye condemn from compulsion; rather than from a sense of justice. A man exclaims, I am a Christian. He speaks the truth: ye desire to hear what is not the truth. Ye, who preside for the purpose of extorting truth, from us alone endeavour to hear falsehood. The accused declares, I am, such as ye inquire whether I am. Why do ye seek to mislead me by torture? I confess; and ye torture me: what would ye do, if I denied? When others deny, ye believe them not readily; when we deny, ye believe us at once. This contradiction might alone lead you to suspect, that there is some secret force, which instigates you in opposition to the very forms and nature of judicial proceedings, and to the very laws themselves. For, if I rightly judge, the laws require the guilty to be discovered, not concealed; they pronounce that those who confess should be punished, not acquitted. The decrees of the senate, the commands of princes, the supreme power, of which ye are the ministers, dictate this. Your authority is legal, not tyrannical: for with tyrants, tortures form also a part of punishment: with you, they are used only for eliciting the truth. Maintain this your law, respecting the application of torture, until confession is made. And if torture is anticipated by a confession, it will be superseded, and sentence should be passed. The |236 malefactor is to be discharged ¹⁰ from the punishment due to his offences, by its infliction, not by its remission. No one, in fact, desires to release him, or is permitted to entertain such a wish. Hence, no one is ever compelled to deny. Whereas ye regard a Christian as a man stained with every crime, the enemy of the gods, of the emperors, of the laws, of morals, of all nature; and compel him to deny, that ye may absolve him; since, without his denial, ye could not extend mercy to him. Thus ye pervert the laws¹¹. Would ye then have him deny his guilt, that ye may treat him as innocent, and absolve him, even against his will, of all previous guilt? Whence is this inconsistency? Consider ye not, that his voluntary confession was far more credible than his compulsory denial? Or that, if he be compelled to retract, his disavowal may be insincere; and that, when dismissed, he will again become a Christian, and smile, behind your judgment seat, at the absurdity of your hatred?

Since, then, your treatment of us is entirely different from that of other criminals; since this is your only object, that we should be deprived of the name of Christians,--for we are deprived of it, if we act as those who are not Christians--ye may understand¹² that there is no crime in the fact itself; but that some active principle of hatred pursues the very name of Christian, and produces especially this effect, that men are determined not to acquire any certain knowledge of a subject, of which they well know they are totally |237 ignorant. Hence it is, that they believe circumstances respecting us, which are not proved; and will not inquire, lest those accusations should be proved to be false, which they would rather wish to be believed; that the name, which is so opposed to that principle of hatred, should be condemned simply on its confession; upon the presumption, not upon the proof, of guilt. Hence we are tortured, if we confess; and punished, if we persevere; and absolved, if we deny; because the question regards the name only.

Moreover, why, in the accusation, do ye charge a person as a Christian? If a Christian be a murderer, or incestuous, why not accuse him of murder, or of any other crime, of which ye believe us guilty¹³? In our case alone, is there the least scruple or hesitation to declare the crimes of which any one is accused. The term Christian¹⁴, if it implies no crime, is nugatory; if it implies merely the crime of professing that name, it must surely possess some very peculiar and hateful meaning.

CHAPTER III.

IT is almost needless to observe, that the greater part follow their hatred of Christianity so blindly, that, even when they bear testimony to any one's good qualities, they still upbraid him with the name which he bears. "Caius Seius," they say, "is a good man, except that he is a Christian." Another observes, "I |238 am quite surprised that so wise a man as Lucius Titius should have suddenly become a Christian." No one thinks of demanding in return, whether Caius is not good, or Lucius prudent, because he is a Christian; or a Christian, because he is prudent and good. They praise what they know; they blame what they know not; at the same time distorting what they know, by reasons drawn from that of which they are ignorant; although justice would rather require them to form an opinion of that which is unknown, from that which is known, than to condemn what is evident, from that which is secret. Others, in describing persons, whom, before their profession of Christianity, they had known to be given up to licentiousness, to every base lust, and immorality, use terms, which are really those of approbation; thus, in the blindness of their hatred, bearing unwilling testimony to the excellence of that which they condemn. They say of a woman, "How wanton, how gay she used to be!" of a young man, "What a libertine, what a profligate, he was! now they are both become Christians!" Thus the name is coupled with their reformation.

Some would even make a compromise with their hatred of Christianity, to their own disadvantage; being well satisfied to be injured in the tenderest points, provided they are freed from the intrusion of such objects of hatred in their own homes. The husband, who hath now no longer any reason for jealousy, expels his now virtuous wife from his house: the father, formerly indulgent, disinherits his now obedient son: the master, once lenient, sends his now faithful servant from his sight. Each one becomes hateful, in proportion as he is amended by the profession of this faith. The improvement, which hath followed from it, is not sufficient to counteract the general hatred towards the Christians. |239 

Further, then, if the hatred belongs to the name, what guilt can be attached to any appellation? what accusation can be founded on a word? unless it be said, that the very name itself hath a barbarous sound, or is of evil omen, or scandalous, or immodest. Now the term Christian, as to its meaning, is derived from a word, which signifies to anoint. And even when ft is mis-pronounced Chrestian by you¹⁵,--for ye are in ignorance even of the name itself--that appellation would, from its derivation, imply sweetness or benignity. Hence even a harmless name is hated, in men who are harmless too.

But, it will be said, the sect¹⁶ is hated for the name of its author. Is it then a new thing that persons, holding peculiar tenets, should receive an appellation from the name of the author of them? Are not philosophers denominated from Plato, Epicurus, and Pythagoras; or even Stoics and Academics from their places of meeting, and ordinary resort? Have not physicians been named from Erasistratus, grammarians from Aristarchus, and even cooks from Apicius? Yet no one ever took offence at a name, thus |240 transmitted from the founder of a system with his peculiar tenets.

If, indeed, any one proves that the author of any opinions was bad, or his sect bad, he will then prove that the name ought to be hated for the faults of the sect, and of its author. Wherefore, before hatred of the name of Christian should have been indulged, a judgment ought to have been formed, either of the sect from its author, or of the author from his sect. But now, without the slightest inquiry or knowledge of either, the name is made the subject of detention and accusation: and the appellation alone at once condemns the sect, and the author, equally unknown; because they bear this name, not because their guilt is proved.

CHAPTER IV.

HAVING, then, premised these remarks, to expose the injustice of the public hatred against us, I shall now proceed to establish the plea of our innocence; and not only disprove what is objected against us, but also retort the charge upon our accusers: that hence all may know, that practices do not prevail among the Christians, which actually exist among themselves, without their knowledge: and that they may be put to the blush, when accusations are thus brought--I say not by men of the worst character against the best,--but, if they will have it so, against men like themselves. We shall answer every separate charge, both what we are accused of doing in secret, and what we openly avow: the actions in which we are regarded as impious, or foolish, or culpable, or ridiculous. But since, even when our plain statement of the truth hath |241 removed all reasonable objections, we are, after all, borne down by the authority of the laws themselves, and ¹⁷ by the assertion, that, when laws are once established, no alteration must be made in them, or that judges must, however unwillingly, prefer absolute obedience to the laws, to the plain investigation of truth; I will first argue with you, as with the guardians of the laws.

Now, in the first place, when ye pronounce your decision, in these words, "Ye are not permitted to exist;" and deliver this command, without any more lenient modification, ye act by arbitrary force, and an iniquitous and absolute power, if ye forbid our existence, because it is contrary to your will, not because we ought not to be. But, if ye determine that, because we ought not to exist, therefore we shall, not; doubtless that which is evil in itself ought not to be allowed; yet this very conclusion implies that what is good ought to be permitted. If I shall discover that what your law forbids is in itself good, shall I not at once prove, that the law cannot forbid that which, if it |242 were evil, it might justly prohibit¹⁸? If your law hath erred, it is, I imagine, of human origin; it fell not from heaven¹⁹. Is it astonishing, that man could either err in framing laws, or show his better judgment in amending them? Did not the amendment of the laws of Lycurgus himself by the Lacedaemonians cause such grief to their author, that he starved himself to death in his retirement²⁰. Do not even ye yourselves, in daily endeavouring to throw light upon the darkness of antiquity, clear away and fell all the old and unsightly forest of laws, by the renovating axes of the rescripts and edicts of your princes? Did not Severus, that most determined of your emperors, but yesterday abrogate those most absurd Papian laws²¹, |243 which inflicted a penalty, if children were not born to persons, before they had attained the age, at which the Julian laws required them to have contracted marriage; and that too, after the laws had acquired all the authority of long duration? There were also laws²² providing, that those, who were previously condemned, might be cut in pieces by their creditors: but by public consent this cruel enactment was erased : and the capital punishment was commuted for a mark of disgrace. The confiscation of a man's goods was directed against his feelings of shame, not against his |244 life²³. How many laws of yours yet remain to be reformed, which are maintained neither by their own antiquity, nor by the dignity of those who enacted them, but by justice alone; and, therefore, when they are proved to be unjust, they, which condemn others, are justly condemned themselves. But why should we call them simply unjust? If they punish a mere name, they are foolish too. And if they punish men for, their actions, why, in our case, do they punish such actions on the presumption of the name alone, while, in other cases, they require them to be proved from circumstances, not from the mere name? Suppose I am guilty of incest: why do not the laws inquire into the offence? Suppose I have murdered an infant: why do they not put me to the torture? Suppose I have committed a crime against the gods, against Caesar: why am I not heard, when I have the means of clearing myself? No law forbids the investigation of an action which it disallows. Since not even a judge can rightly put the law in force, unless he first ascertains that a crime hath been committed : neither can a citizen faithfully obey the law, while he is ignorant what offence is punished. Every law is required to give proof of its justice, not only to itself, but to those from whom it expects obedience. And any law is justly suspected, which will not submit to proof; and unjust, if, without proof, it yet exercises arbitrary power, |245 

CHAPTER V.

Now, to refer in some measure to the origin of laws of this kind, there was an old decree ²⁴, that no Deity should be consecrated by the Emperor, without the approbation of the senate. Marcus Emilius knows this well, in the matter of his god Alburnus. This circumstance also is in our favour, that the divinity of your gods depends upon the estimation of man. A god is no god, unless he pleases man; and man must now be propitious to the god. Tiberius²⁵, then, in |246 whose time the name of Christian entered into the world, laid before the senate intelligence, which had been sent from Palestine, and proved the truth of the Divine power there displayed, and added the influence of his own vote. The Senate rejected the proposal, because it had not itself first approved it. The Emperor persisted in his opinion; and threatened those with punishment, who should accuse the Christians. Consult your own records; ye will there find that Nero was the first who wielded the sword of the empire against the Christian religion, then first springing up in Rome. And we justly glory in the fact, that our first persecutor was such a man. For whoever knows his character may understand that nothing but what was excellently good would be persecuted by Nero. Domitian also, who had a portion of Nero's cruelty, made a similar attempt; but retaining some sentiments of humanity ²⁶, soon desisted, and even permitted those whom he had banished to return. Such have ever been our persecutors; the unjust, the ungodly the vile; men of such character, that ye yourselves have been accustomed to condemn them, and to restore those whom they have condemned. But from that time down to the present reign, out of so many emperors who were acquainted with religion or humanity, we |247 challenge you to mention one, who was an enemy of the Christians. On the contrary, we appeal to a protector, if the letters of that most worthy Emperor Marcus Aurelius are examined²⁷, in which he testifies, that, in Germany, the thirst of his troops was dispelled by a shower, obtained by the prayers of some Christian |248 soldiers, who happened to be in his army. That Emperor, although he did not publicly abrogate the punishments directed against the Christians, averted them by another public act, by subjecting their accusers to a punishment of a still more severe nature.

What then are these laws, which none but the impious, the unjust, the vile, the trifling, the insane enforce? of which Trajan partly frustrated the effect, by forbidding inquiry to be made after Christians? which neither Adrian, although a searcher out of all new and curious doctrines, nor Vespasian, although the conqueror of the Jews, nor Pius ²⁸, nor Verus put into action. Now it is plain, that men, as bad as Christians are represented to be, would be destroyed by all the best princes, who would naturally be opposed to them, rather than by those who were like themselves.

CHAPTER VI.

I SHOULD now wish that they who make such a profession of scrupulously protecting and observing the laws and institutions of their fathers, would answer a question as to the faithfulness with which they have themselves honoured and respected them. Is there no law which they have violated? none which they have transgressed? Have they not abrogated the most necessary and wholesome parts of ancient discipline? What is become of those laws, which were enacted to restrain luxury and ostentation; which commanded |249 that no more than an hundred pence should be expended upon an entertainment, nor more than one fowl, and that not fatted, should be set before the guests; which removed from the Senate, as a man of notorious ostentation, one who possessed ten pounds of silver; which immediately destroyed the theatres, which were then beginning to be raised, as tending to the destruction of morals; and permitted no one, without just and sufficient cause, to assume the dignity, and adopt the distinctions, of noble birth? For now I see that the expense of entertainments is to be reckoned by hundreds, not of pence, but of pounds; and that massive silver is formed into dishes, not for senators only, but for men just freed from slavery, and hardly yet escaped from the lash. I see that one theatre alone is not sufficient; they must be both numerous and covered ²⁹: and we are to suppose the Lacedaemonians invented that odious cloak, lest winter should throw a chill upon the immodest pleasures of the theatre ³⁰. I recognize no longer any distinction of dress, between a matron and a prostitute. And all those regulations of our ancestors have fallen into disuse, which favoured modesty and sobriety in the conduct of women : when no woman wore a gold ring on more than one finger, that, namely, on which it was placed at her espousal: when women abstained from the use of wine so scrupulously, that a matron was starved to death by her family, for having broken open the vaults of a wine cellar: and, in the time of |250 Romulus, a woman, who had touched wine, was killed with impunity by her husband Mecenius. Hence the custom arose for them to salute their near relations with a kiss, that their breath might detect them. Where is now that happiness of the marriage state, which accompanied the severity of ancient manners, so that not one family was sullied by a divorce for nearly six hundred years after the foundation of the city of Rome? Now, as for your women, their whole person is weighed down with gold; their breath universally betrays their indulgence in wine; and divorce is now a part of the marriage vow, as if it were the natural consequence of matrimony. Even the very decrees, which your ancestors have wisely enacted respecting your gods, ye, their most obedient followers, have rescinded. The consuls, with the authority of the Senate, banished the worship of Bacchus, with its mysteries, not only from the city (of Rome), but from all Italy. Although Piso and Gabinius were no Christians, yet in their consulship they forbade Serapis, Isis, and Harpocrates, with his accompanying deity having a dog's head, to be brought into the capitol; which was, in fact, expelling them from the assembly of the gods; and overthrew their altars, in their anxiety to suppress the abuses of their base and idle superstitions. Now these very deities ye have restored, and invested with supreme authority. Where, then, is your religion? Where is the reverence which ye owe to your ancestors? In dress, in diet, in equipage, in expense, nay, even in language, ye have degenerated from your forefathers. Ye are constantly praising the ancients; ye live daily as moderns. And in this it is made manifest, that, in departing from the good institutions of your ancestors, ye retain and observe what ye ought not, while ye observe not what ye ought. Thus ye maintain, with the utmost fidelity, the law |251 delivered down from your ancestors, by which ye principally condemn the Christians, that law respecting the worship of strange gods, which was one of the greatest errors of antiquity. Still, although ye have restored the altars of Serapis, now made a Roman god; although ye have introduced all the furious orgies dedicated to Bacchus, now naturalized in Italy, I will yet take occasion to show in its proper place³¹, that ye have in fact despised, and neglected, and destroyed, the authority of your ancestors. For at present I shall answer the infamous accusation of secret atrocities, with which we are charged, to clear the way for the vindication of the actions which we avowedly perform.

CHAPTER VII.

IT is said, then, that we are guilty of most horrible crimes; that, in the celebration of our sacrament, we put a child to death ³², which we afterwards devour; and at the end of our banquet revel in incest; that we employ dogs, as ministers of our impure delights, to overthrow the lights, and thus to provide darkness, and remove all shame, which might interfere with these impious lusts. But this is always mere assertion : and ye take no pains to prove what for so long a time, ye continue to assert. Either therefore investigate the truth, if ye believe the charge, or cease to believe, what ye have not proved. Your dissimulation in this matter plainly implies, that crimes, which ye |252 dare not investigate, have no existence. Ye impose upon your executioner very different commands respecting the Christians; not that they should confess what they do, but deny what they are.

That religion, as we have already declared, arose in the reign of Tiberius. At its very first appearance, truth was an object of detestation and hostility. It had as many enemies, as there were strangers: for instance, the Jews from a spirit of envy; the soldiers, from interested motives; our very domestics, from their natural hostility to their superiors. We are every day pursued and betrayed; we are especially attacked in our very places of public resort, and in our religious assemblies. Yet who ever surprised us with an infant weeping in the manner described? Who ever kept us to be brought before the judge, with our faces red with blood, as he found us, like the Cyclops or Syrens? Who ever detected the slightest traces of indelicacy, even in their wives (who have become Christians?) who is there, who having made such discoveries, was either silent, or bribed to conceal them ³³, thus betraying his duty towards mankind? Besides, if our actions are always so secret, when were they ever made known? Nay, by whom could they be made public? not, certainly, by those who committed them; since a profound silence is part of the very essence of all mysteries. No one divulges the secrets of the Samothra-cian and Eleusinian mysteries; how much more, then, would such rites be kept secret, as, if once betrayed would provoke the rigour of human laws, while they are exposed to the vengeance of divine wrath?

If, then, our accusation comes not from ourselves, it |253 comes from strangers. And whence have strangers this knowledge? since even in initiations, which are regarded as religious, the profane are excluded, and no witnesses admitted; unless it can be conceived that they, who are conscious of impiety, would be less fearful.

The nature of common fame is known to all. One of your own poets ³⁴ declares,

"Fame is an ill, swifter than all besides :"

Why doth he call fame an evil? is it because she is swift? because she gives intelligence? or because she is generally mendacious? For even when what she reports is true, she still is not free from the guilt of falsehood, by diminishing, or increasing, or distorting the plain truth. In fact, her condition is such, that, as soon as she ceases to be false, she ceases to exist. She lives no longer, than while she fails to prove her assertions. For as soon as she hath proved them, she ceases to be. Her office of relating being, as it were, at an end, she declares a fact; and thenceforth it is considered as a fact, and so denominated. No one, for instance, says, "It is reported that such a circumstance hath happened at Rome," or, "The rumour is, that he hath obtained such a province;" but, "He hath the province," and "It hath taken place at Rome." Fame, the very name of which implies that it is uncertain, hath no existence when a fact is certain. And who, but a man of no reflection, would ever believe common report? for no wise man trusts to what is uncertain. All men are competent to judge upon this point; with whatever perseverance it is disseminated, upon whatever strength of asseveration it is built. It must have had its origin from one source, and thence have been |254 transmitted through many tongues and ears. Thus the circumstances, which have gathered round a rumour, so hide the error and meanness of its origin, that no one inquires whether the first reporter did not disseminate a falsehood; a circumstance which frequently happens, either from an envious disposition, or by the aggravation of a mere suspicion, or by the habitual and natural pleasure which some take in lying.

Well is it, that according to your own proverbs and sayings, Time reveals all things; that events are so ordered by the constitution of nature, that nothing is long concealed, even though fame should never have reported it.

Yet this common fame is the only accuser, which ye bring against us; an accuser, which hath never yet been able to prove, what it hath at different times asserted, and for so long a period endeavoured to corroborate.

CHAPTER VIII.

IN answer to those who think these accusations credible, I would appeal to the testimony of nature herself. Suppose that we promise a reward for these atrocities, even eternal life. Conceive this for a moment. And then I demand, whether, if you believed this, you would think eternity itself worth purchasing at the price of such a burden on the conscience? Suppose a man were thus addressed: "Come, plunge your steel into an infant, who can have committed no offence, can be no one's enemy, and may be anyone's child. Or, if this murderous office falls to another, merely be present, while a human being dies, almost before he is brought to life; wait for the departure of the soul but just united with the body; catch the scarcely-formed |255 blood, saturate your bread with it, eat freely. Meanwhile, as you recline at the banquet, observe the places where your mother and your sister sit; mark them well; that when the dogs shall have put out the lights, you may be sure to make no mistake; for it will be a mortal sin, if you fail to commit incest. Thus initiated and thus sealed you shall live for ever." I would have you answer me, whether eternity is worth all this; and if not, that you will allow the charge to be incredible. Even if you believed such promises as these, I am persuaded you would not comply; even if you would, I know you could not. Why, then, should others be able to do so, if ye cannot? why are ye unable to do it, if others can? Are we conceived to be of a different nature from yourselves³⁵, monsters, like those described in India and in Africa, with the heads of dogs, and feet which would overshadow the body? Are our teeth set differently from yours, or our bodies so framed as to be peculiarly fitted for incestuous passion? If you can believe this of any human being, you are yourself capable of committing it: you yourself are a man; and so is a Christian. What you could not do, you ought not to believe. For a Christian too is a human being; and in all respects such as you are.

But, it will be said, none but the ignorant are imposed upon, and seduced into the commission of these atrocities: men who never knew that crimes like these were ascribed to the Christians. But surely, in such cases, every one would observe and diligently examine for himself.

It is, I imagine, customary for all those, who are desirous of being initiated, first to apply to the chief |256 priest, and to ascertain what preparation is to be made. We are to believe, then, that when this enquiry is made by any one who is desirous of becoming a Christian, he is told, "You must procure a young and tender child, one who knows not what death is, and will smile under your knife: you must have some bread too, to suck up every drop of blood which flows; and besides these, candlesticks and lights; and some dogs, and bits of meat to draw them off, so as to throw down the candles. Above all, take care and come with your mother and your sister." What is the poor candidate to do, if he cannot persuade them to accompany him, or should have none at all? What becomes of all Christians who have no such relations? No one, I suppose, can be a regular Christian, unless he be a brother, or a son.

But suppose that all these preparations are made without the knowledge of the new Christians. At all events, they know all this afterwards, and yet submit to it, and allow it. They fear to be punished, while, if they proclaimed the truth, they would deserve universal approbation; and ought rather to prefer death, than submit to live with such a burden on their conscience. And even if they feared to disclose the past, why do they also persevere for the future? For surely no one would continue to be such as he would never have been, had he been forewarned.

CHAPTER IX.

FOR the more complete refutation of these accusations, I will now show, that these very atrocities are committed by yourselves, partly in public, and partly in secret, whence probably ye are so ready to believe us |257 also guilty of them. In Africa, infants were openly sacrificed, until the time of Tiberius³⁶, who exposed the priests themselves alive, upon crosses made of the trees, to which their votive offerings used to be suspended, in the very groves of the temples which had overshadowed their murderous rites. In proof of this fact, we can appeal to the soldiers of our own country, who were employed by the proconsul in the execution of this very duty. And even now the same horrible sacrifice is secretly continued. Your ordinances are despised by others besides the Christians; no atrocity is for ever abrogated: no deity changes his habits³⁷. Since Saturn spared not his own children, he continued implacable to those of others. Nay, the very parents offered up their own children, paid their vows with the greatest alacrity, and soothed their infants, that they might not be sacrificed while in tears. Surely this murder of children by their parents is a far greater crime than homicide itself.

Adults were sacrificed to Mercury by the Gauls. I refer to the fables of the Tauric Chersonese, to the theatres, where they are such favourite subjects: but even in the most religious city of the pious descendants of Aeneas, there is a Jupiter (Latiaris), whom they sprinkle with human blood at his annual games.

But the blood thus shed, ye will say, is merely that of men already condemned to the beasts. As if this were not equally the murder of a human being; and an offering still more dishonourable to a god, inasmuch as it is that of a bad man. At all events, such bloodshed is murder. How truly is Jupiter thus a Christian, |258 as ye conceive Christians to be, and the only son of his father for cruelty!

But since the guilt of infanticide is by no means different, whether the crime be committed out of superstition or voluntarily,--although it is a great aggravation that the parents should be the agents--I will turn to the people. How many of those who stand around, and are so eager to shed the blood of the Christians, nay, how many of you who preside with such justice and severity in receiving the accusations against us, will be cut to the heart, when your consciences accuse you of the murder of your own children!

There is a difference also in the manner of inflicting death; and yours is more cruel than any of which we are accused; ye drown the breath of infants in the waters, or expose them to perish by cold, or famine, or the dogs. Surely any one able to make a choice would prefer the sword to such an end as this.

Our religion, on the contrary, not only forbids murder, but protects the fruit conceived in the womb, while yet the tender elements are scarcely formed into a human being. To prevent the birth is anticipated homicide: to take away life or to interrupt it in its natural course is equally culpable. That, which is to be a man, hath all the rights of humanity; the whole future fruit is concentrated in the seed.

With respect to feeding upon human blood, and other tragic banquets of a like nature, see if it be not related, I believe by Herodotus ³⁸, that certain nations ratified their treaties by mutually tasting the blood drawn from each other's arms. Something of the same kind is told of Catiline³⁹. And it is reported that, |259 among some nations of the Scythians, every one, as soon as he dies, is devoured by his own family. But I need not seek so far for an example. At this very day, blood drawn by incisions in the thighs and given in the hand ⁴⁰ to drink, marks those who are consecrated to Bellona. Again, where are those who, for the cure of epilepsy, eagerly drink the fresh blood which flows from the throats of the condemned gladiators, who are stabbed in the arena? those too who feed upon the animals which are slain in public combat; who ask with eagerness for a piece of the boar or the stag? That boar tore, in the mortal struggle, the man whose blood he shed : that stag lay down in the gore which flowed from the gladiator's wound. The very entrails of wild boars are required for food, before they have themselves digested the human flesh, which they have devoured: and one human being is gorged to repletion with the flesh of animals which lived upon men. While ye practise such atrocities, how far are ye yourselves from the horrible banquets of which ye accuse the Christians? And the still more ineffable abominations, which some of you commit⁴¹, exceed in enormity even the crime of devouring children which is ascribed to us. Ye, who act thus, may blush at the Christians, who consider the blood even of animals forbidden food; and abstain from things strangled, and from such as die naturally, lest we should contract impurity by unwittingly feeding upon some portion of blood contained in the body. |260 

Besides, among the trials to which ye expose Christians, one is to offer him to eat food prepared with the blood of animals, well knowing that the act, by which ye thus tempt them to transgress, is forbidden by our laws. Now, how can it be believed, that those, who thus abhor the blood of animals, should eagerly devour human blood? unless perhaps ye have yourselves tasted it, and found it sweeter. If that be the case, he who undertakes to examine a Christian should offer this to him, instead of the fire and incense, which is now used for the purpose. Christians would be known, by their taste for human blood, as well as they now are, by refusing to offer sacrifice; and should be put to death, if they tasted the blood, as they now are, if they sacrifice not. And, as long as ye conduct the accusation and condemnation of prisoners in the same manner as at present, there would be no lack of human blood, with which to make the experiment.

With respect to the alleged crime of incest, who was ever so great an example of this crime as Jupiter himself? Ctesias relates, how common the union of sons with their own mothers was, among the Persians. And the Macedonians are suspected of the same enormity, since, when they first witnessed the representation of the tragedy of Oedipus, they ridiculed the grief which he expressed for his involuntary crime, crying out ἤλαυνε τὴν ματέρα.

Consider, now, how wide a field is opened to the involuntary commission of this crime of incest among yourselves, by the universal licentiousness which prevails. In the first place, ye expose your sons, as soon as they are born, to be taken up by the casual pity of some passing stranger; or give them up for adoption to others, who will make better parents than yourselves. The memory of a race thus dispersed must sometimes be lost. And if once such an error is committed, it |261 will soon be aggravated by the addition of the crime of incest to the original guilt. Wherever ye go, at home, abroad, or beyond the sea, ye carry your unbridled passions with you: and this licentiousness may well, in some instances, produce a race of children springing up, without their fathers' knowledge, as if they grew from seed scattered at random: and this promiscuous race, in the ordinary vicissitudes of human intercourse, is liable to unite with those of their own blood, and thus fall unwittingly into the perpetration of incest.

The constant and entire chastity, which we observe, defends us from this danger: we are as secure from the commission of incest, as we are free from all excesses and licentiousness after marriage. Some of us, with still greater security, prevent the possibility of errors of this nature, by preserving an immaculate continence, retaining in their old age the virgin purity of youth.

If ye properly consider, that all these enormities exist among yourselves, ye would at once perceive, that they are not found among the Christians. The same light would inform you of both these facts. But two kinds of blindness are frequently united, that which sees not what is, and that which thinks it sees what is not.

I shall show how true this is, in all particulars. But first I will treat of what is most obvious.

CHAPTER X.

YE accuse us Christians, of neither worshipping the gods, nor offering sacrifice for the safety of the Emperors. It follows, as a necessary consequence, that we |262 sacrifice not for others, since we do not sacrifice even for ourselves, nor ever pay reverence to the gods. Hence we are accused at once of sacrilege and treason. This is the main part of the accusation against us; nay, it is the whole of it, and well worthy to be investigated, if judgment be formed without prejudice, and without injustice; the former of which hath no hope that the truth can be established, and the latter refuses to hear its voice.

We have refused to worship your gods, from the time that we were convinced that they were no gods ⁴², Ye ought, therefore, to require us to prove that they are no gods, and therefore ought not to be worshipped : for undoubtedly they are worthy of all reverence, if only they be truly gods. Then also ought the Christians to be punished, if it should appear, that those are gods, whom they refused to worship, believing them not to be so. But, ye say, in our estimation they are gods. Here, then, we appeal at once from yourselves to your own conscience. That shall judge us; that shall condemn us, if it can deny that all those, whom ye consider gods, were once men. If your conscience denies this, it shall be convinced by a reference to your own works of antiquity, from which your knowledge of your deities is derived: for these bear testimony at the present day, both to the cities, in which they were born, and to the countries, in which they left traces of their achievements, and where their burial-places are even now shown. It will be needless for me to enumerate every individual of such an endless variety, new and old, barbarian, Greek, Roman, or foreign; such as were captives, or adopted; national or general; male or female; attached to the country or the town; naval or |263 military. It would be tedious and useless even to mention all their titles. I will then make a compendious summary; and this, not for the purpose of instructing, but of reminding you, for ye act as if ye had forgotten the facts.

There is, among you, no god before Saturn: from his date, every other deity, although more esteemed or better known, is to be reckoned. Whatever, then, is established respecting the origin, will be true of those derived from it. Now, as far as your records extend, neither Diodorus the Greek, nor Thallus, nor Cassius Severus, nor Cornelius Nepos, nor any other writer of antiquity of the same kind, speaks of Saturn as any other than a man. If we refer to facts, I find none better attested any where than in Italy itself, in which Saturn took up his abode, after many wanderings, and after he had been entertained in Attica, being received by Janus, or Janes, as the Salii call him. The mountain, in which he dwelt, is called Saturnius; the city, which he founded, retains the name of Saturnia to this day: and all Italy, which before was called Oenotria, received the appellation of Saturnia. From him was first received the knowledge of written characters, and the art of making impressions upon coins: whence he is the deity, who is supposed to preside over the treasury. If, then, Saturn was a man, he was of human birth; and if of human birth, he derived not his origin from the heaven and the earth. It was however an easy fiction to call him, whose true parents were unknown, the son of those elements, of which we all may seem to be the offspring. For who is there, who speaks not of the heaven and the earth as his mother and father, under a feeling of reverence and honour, or by the ordinary custom, by which those, who appear suddenly or unexpectedly, are said to have come from the skies? Hence it happened, that, wherever Saturn |264 came suddenly, he received the appellation of heaven-born ⁴³. Just as even now those, whose descent is unknown, are commonly said to spring from the earth. I say nothing of the fact, that men were then in so rude and uncultivated a state, that they regarded the appearance of every stranger as something divine: since, even civilized as they now are, they consecrate among the gods those, whom, but a few days before, they confessed to be mortal, by the public mourning for their death. These few words are sufficent to show, what Saturn really was.

We shall hereafter show, that Jupiter is also a man, and of human origin; and that the whole swarm of that race of beings are both mortal, and of the same nature with the stock whence they arose.

CHAPTER XI.

SINCE, then, ye dare not deny that these were men, but have taken upon yourselves to assert that they were made gods, after their death, let us consider the causes, which have produced this. Now, first ye must admit, that there is some superior Deity, who hath the power of conferring divinity, and thus deifies mortals. For they could not themselves assume a divine nature, which they never had; nor could any one confer it, upon those who possessed it not, unless it were inherent in himself. And, if there were no person to make |265 them gods, by removing the supposition of such an agent, ye destroy the possibility that they ever should have been made gods. For, assuredly, had they been able to make themselves, they never would have existed as men, while they had the power of assuming a more excellent nature. If, therefore, there exists some Being, who hath the power of making men into gods, I return to the consideration of the causes, which should induce him to exercise this power; and I find none, except that such a supreme Deity might require instruments and agents, for performing the offices belonging to divinity. Now, in the first place, it is a supposition unworthy of the Divine nature, that the Supreme Being should stand in need of the aid of any one, much less of a dead man; since, had he been liable to require such assistance, it would have been more conformable with his dignity, to have at once created some god. But I see no room for such a supposition. For the universe, whether we regard it, with Pythagoras, as self-existent and uncreated, or, with Plato, as taking its origin from a creator, was, at all events, disposed once for all in the original design, and so framed and ordered; since every part is regulated by the guidance of reason. Now that, which brought every thing to perfection ⁴⁴, could not itself be imperfect. It required not the aid of Saturn and his race. Men would be foolish indeed, not to be certain, that, from the beginning of the world, rain fell from heaven, and the stars sent forth their beams, and the light shone, and the thunder roared, so that Jupiter, in whose hand ye place the thunderbolt, did himself tremble at it. In like manner it must be conceived, that all kinds of fruit abounded, before the time of Bacchus, and Ceres, and |266 Minerva; nay, even before the existence of the first man, whoever he was; since nothing, which was devised for the support and maintenance of man, could be introduced after man himself. Besides, those deities' are said to have discovered those necessaries of life, not to have created them: now that which is disc