Opening the library…

Search the Bible

Apology

Tertullian

Chapter 46

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

We have sufficiently met, as I think, the accusation of

‹ Chapter 45 Chapter 47 ›

the

various

crimes

on

the

ground

of

which

these

fierce

demands

are

made

for

Christian

blood

.

We

have

made

a

full

exhibition

of

our

case

;

and

we

have

shown

you

how

we

are

able

to

prove

that

our

statement

is

correct

,

from

the

trustworthiness

,

I

mean

,

and

antiquity

of

our

sacred

writings

,

and

from

the

confession

likewise

of

the

powers

of

spiritual

wickedness

themselves

.

Who

will

venture

to

undertake

our

refutation

;

not

with

skill

of

words

,

but

,

as

we

have

managed

our

demonstration

,

on

the

basis

of

reality

?

But

while

the

truth

we

hold

is

made

clear

to

all

,

unbelief

meanwhile

,

at

the

very

time

it

is

convinced

of

the

worth

of

Christianity

,

which

has

now

become

well

known

for

its

benefits

as

well

as

from

the

intercourse

of

life

,

takes

up

the

notion

that

it

is

not

really

a

thing

divine

,

but

rather

a

kind

of

philosophy

.

These

are

the

very

things

,

it

says

,

the

philosophers

counsel

and

profess

—

innocence

,

justice

,

patience

,

sobriety

,

chastity

.

Why

,

then

,

are

we

not

permitted

an

equal

liberty

and

impunity

for

our

doctrines

as

they

have

,

with

whom

,

in

respect

of

what

we

teach

,

we

are

compared

?

or

why

are

not

they

,

as

so

like

us

,

not

pressed

to

the

same

offices

,

for

declining

which

our

lives

are

imperilled

?

For

who

compels

a

philosopher

to

sacrifice

or

take

an

oath

,

or

put

out

useless

lamps

at

midday

?

Nay

,

they

openly

overthrow

your

gods

,

and

in

their

writings

they

attack

your

superstitions

;

and

you

applaud

them

for

it

.

Many

of

them

even

,

with

your

countenance

,

bark

out

against

your

rulers

,

and

are

rewarded

with

statues

and

salaries

,

instead

of

being

given

to

the

wild

beasts

.

And

very

right

it

should

be

so

.

For

they

are

called

philosophers

,

not

Christians

.

This

name

of

philosopher

has

no

power

to

put

demons

to

the

rout

.

Why

are

they

not

able

to

do

that

too

?

since

philosophers

count

demons

inferior

to

gods

.

Socrates

used

to

say

,

“

If

the

demon

grant

permission

.

”

Yet

he

,

too

,

though

in

denying

the

existence

of

your

divinities

he

had

a

glimpse

of

the

truth

,

at

his

dying

ordered

a

cock

to

be

sacrificed

to

Æsculapius

,

I

believe

in

honour

of

his

father

,

for

Apollo

pronounced

Socrates

the

wisest

of

men

.

Thoughtless

Apollo

!

testifying

to

the

wisdom

of

the

man

who

denied

the

existence

of

his

race

.

In

proportion

to

the

enmity

the

truth

awakens

,

you

give

offence

by

faithfully

standing

by

it

;

but

the

man

who

corrupts

and

makes

a

mere

pretence

of

it

precisely

on

this

ground

gains

favour

with

its

persecutors

.

The

truth

which

philosophers

,

these

mockers

and

corrupters

of

it

,

with

hostile

ends

merely

affect

to

hold

,

and

in

doing

so

deprave

,

caring

for

nought

but

glory

,

Christians

both

intensely

and

intimately

long

for

and

maintain

in

its

integrity

,

as

those

who

have

a

real

concern

about

their

salvation

.

So

that

we

are

like

each

other

neither

in

our

knowledge

nor

our

ways

,

as

you

imagine

.

For

what

certain

information

did

Thales

,

the

first

of

natural

philosophers

,

give

in

reply

to

the

inquiry

of

Crœsus

regarding

Deity

,

the

delay

for

further

thought

so

often

proving

in

vain

?

There

is

not

a

Christian

workman

but

finds

out

God

,

and

manifests

Him

,

and

hence

assigns

to

Him

all

those

attributes

which

go

to

constitute

a

divine

being

,

though

Plato

affirms

that

it

is

far

from

easy

to

discover

the

Maker

of

the

universe

;

and

when

He

is

found

,

it

is

difficult

to

make

Him

known

to

all

.

But

if

we

challenge

you

to

comparison

in

the

virtue

of

chastity

,

I

turn

to

a

part

of

the

sentence

passed

by

the

Athenians

against

Socrates

,

who

was

pronounced

a

corrupter

of

youth

.

The

Christian

confines

himself

to

the

female

sex

.

I

have

read

also

how

the

harlot

Phryne

kindled

in

Diogenes

the

fires

of

lust

,

and

how

a

certain

Speusippus

,

of

Plato’s

school

,

perished

in

the

adulterous

act

.

The

Christian

husband

has

nothing

to

do

with

any

but

his

own

wife

.

Democritus

,

in

putting

out

his

eyes

,

because

he

could

not

look

on

women

without

lusting

after

them

,

and

was

pained

if

his

passion

was

not

satisfied

,

owns

plainly

,

by

the

punishment

he

inflicts

,

his

incontinence

.

But

a

Christian

with

grace

-

healed

eyes

is

sightless

in

this

matter

;

he

is

mentally

blind

against

the

assaults

of

passion

.

If

I

maintain

our

superior

modesty

of

behaviour

,

there

at

once

occurs

to

me

Diogenes

with

filth

-

covered

feet

trampling

on

the

proud

couches

of

Plato

,

under

the

influence

of

another

pride

:

the

Christian

does

not

even

play

the

proud

man

to

the

pauper

.

If

sobriety

of

spirit

be

the

virtue

in

debate

,

why

,

there

are

Pythagoras

at

Thurii

,

and

Zeno

at

Priene

,

ambitious

of

the

supreme

power

:

the

Christian

does

not

aspire

to

the

ædileship

.

If

equanimity

be

the

contention

,

you

have

Lycurgus

choosing

death

by

self

-

starvation

,

because

the

Lacons

had

made

some

emendation

of

his

laws

:

the

Christian

,

even

when

he

is

condemned

,

gives

thanks

.

If

the

comparison

be

made

in

regard

to

trustworthiness

,

Anaxagoras

denied

the

deposit

of

his

enemies

:

the

Christian

is

noted

for

his

fidelity

even

among

those

who

are

not

of

his

religion

.

If

the

matter

of

sincerity

is

to

be

brought

to

trial

,

Aristotle

basely

thrust

his

friend

Hermias

from

his

place

:

the

Christian

does

no

harm

even

to

his

foe

.

With

equal

baseness

does

Aristotle

play

the

sycophant

to

Alexander

,

instead

of

exercising

to

keep

him

in

the

right

way

,

and

Plato

allows

himself

to

be

bought

by

Dionysius

for

his

belly’s

sake

.

Aristippus

in

the

purple

,

with

all

his

great

show

of

gravity

,

gives

way

to

extravagance

;

and

Hippias

is

put

to

death

laying

plots

against

the

state

:

no

Christian

ever

attempted

such

a

thing

in

behalf

of

his

brethren

,

even

when

persecution

was

scattering

them

abroad

with

every

atrocity

.

But

it

will

be

said

that

some

of

us

,

too

,

depart

from

the

rules

of

our

discipline

.

In

that

case

,

however

,

we

count

them

no

longer

Christians

;

but

the

philosophers

who

do

such

things

retain

still

the

name

and

the

honour

of

wisdom

.

So

,

then

,

where

is

there

any

likeness

between

the

Christian

and

the

philosopher

?

between

the

disciple

of

Greece

and

of

heaven

?

between

the

man

whose

object

is

fame

,

and

whose

object

is

life

?

between

the

talker

and

the

doer

?

between

the

man

who

builds

up

and

the

man

who

pulls

down

?

between

the

friend

and

the

foe

of

error

?

between

one

who

corrupts

the

truth

,

and

one

who

restores

and

teaches

it

?

between

its

chief

and

its

custodier

?

Notes

1
[Tertullian’s exposition of this enigmatical fact (see the Phædo) is better than divers other ingenious theories.]
2
[John xxi. 19. A pious habit which long survived among Christians, when learning that death was at hand: as in Shakespeare’s Henry IV., “Laud be to God, ev’n there my life must end.” See 1 Thess. v. 18.]