Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Apology

Tertullian

Chapter 3

About this work

A forceful Latin defense of Christians against legal injustice and popular accusation, explaining Christian worship and ethics while challenging Roman religious, political, and judicial assumptions.

Author: Tertullian
Date: c. AD 197
Origin: Carthage, North Africa
Genre: Apology

What are we to think of it, that most people so

‹ Chapter 2 Chapter 4 ›

blindly

knock

their

heads

against

the

hatred

of

the

Christian

name

;

that

when

they

bear

favourable

testimony

to

any

one

,

they

mingle

with

it

abuse

of

the

name

he

bears

?

“

A

good

man

,

”

says

one

,

“

is

Gaius

Seius

,

only

that

he

is

a

Christian

.

”

So

another

,

“

I

am

astonished

that

a

wise

man

like

Lucius

should

have

suddenly

become

a

Christian

.

”

Nobody

thinks

it

needful

to

consider

whether

Gaius

is

not

good

and

Lucius

wise

,

on

this

very

account

that

he

is

a

Christian

;

or

a

Christian

,

for

the

reason

that

he

is

wise

and

good

.

They

praise

what

they

know

,

they

abuse

what

they

are

ignorant

of

,

and

they

inspire

their

knowledge

with

their

ignorance

;

though

in

fairness

you

should

rather

judge

of

what

is

unknown

from

what

is

known

,

than

what

is

known

from

what

is

unknown

.

Others

,

in

the

case

of

persons

whom

,

before

they

took

the

name

of

Christian

,

they

had

known

as

loose

,

and

vile

,

and

wicked

,

put

on

them

a

brand

from

the

very

thing

which

they

praise

.

In

the

blindness

of

their

hatred

,

they

fall

foul

of

their

own

approving

judgment

!

“

What

a

woman

she

was

!

how

wanton

!

how

gay

!

What

a

youth

he

was

!

how

profligate

!

how

libidinous

!

—

they

have

become

Christians

!

”

So

the

hated

name

is

given

to

a

reformation

of

character

.

Some

even

barter

away

their

comforts

for

that

hatred

,

content

to

bear

injury

,

if

they

are

kept

free

at

home

from

the

object

of

their

bitter

enmity

.

The

wife

,

now

chaste

,

the

husband

,

now

no

longer

jealous

,

casts

out

of

his

house

;

the

son

,

now

obedient

,

the

father

,

who

used

to

be

so

patient

,

disinherits

;

the

servant

,

now

faithful

,

the

master

,

once

so

mild

,

commands

away

from

his

presence

;

it

is

a

high

offence

for

any

one

to

be

reformed

by

the

detested

name

.

Goodness

is

of

less

value

than

hatred

of

Christians

.

Well

now

,

if

there

is

this

dislike

of

the

name

,

what

blame

can

you

attach

to

names

?

What

accusation

can

you

bring

against

mere

designations

,

save

that

something

in

the

word

sounds

either

barbarous

,

or

unlucky

,

or

scurrilous

,

or

unchaste

?

But

Christian

,

so

far

as

the

meaning

of

the

word

is

concerned

,

is

derived

from

anointing

.

Yes

,

and

even

when

it

is

wrongly

pronounced

by

you

“

Chrestianus

”

(

for

you

do

not

even

know

accurately

the

name

you

hate

)

,

it

comes

from

sweetness

and

benignity

.

You

hate

,

therefore

,

in

the

guiltless

,

even

a

guiltless

name

.

But

the

special

ground

of

dislike

to

the

sect

is

,

that

it

bears

the

name

of

its

Founder

.

Is

there

anything

new

in

a

religious

sect

getting

for

its

followers

a

designation

from

its

master

?

Are

not

the

philosophers

called

from

the

founders

of

their

systems

—

Platonists

,

Epicureans

,

Pythagoreans

?

Are

not

the

Stoics

and

Academics

so

called

also

from

the

places

in

which

they

assembled

and

stationed

themselves

?

and

are

not

physicians

named

from

Erasistratus

,

grammarians

from

Aristarchus

,

cooks

even

from

Apicius

?

And

yet

the

bearing

of

the

name

,

transmitted

from

the

original

institutor

with

whatever

he

has

instituted

,

offends

no

one

.

No

doubt

,

if

it

is

proved

that

the

sect

is

a

bad

one

,

and

so

its

founder

bad

as

well

,

that

will

prove

that

the

name

is

bad

and

deserves

our

aversion

,

in

respect

of

the

character

both

of

the

sect

and

its

author

.

Before

,

therefore

,

taking

up

a

dislike

to

the

name

,

it

behoved

you

to

consider

the

sect

in

the

author

,

or

the

author

in

the

sect

.

But

now

,

without

any

sifting

and

knowledge

of

either

,

the

mere

name

is

made

matter

of

accusation

,

the

mere

name

is

assailed

,

and

a

sound

alone

brings

condemnation

on

a

sect

and

its

author

both

,

while

of

both

you

are

ignorant

,

because

they

have

such

and

such

a

designation

,

not

because

they

are

convicted

of

anything

wrong

.