__________________________________________________________________

           Title: ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian
      Creator(s): Schaff, Philip
                  Menzies, Allan (1845-1916) (Editor)
          Rights: Public Domain
   CCEL Subjects: All; Early Church; Proofed
      LC Call no: BR65
     LC Subjects:

                  Christianity

                  Early Christian Literature. Fathers of the Church, etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   The Writings of the Fathers Down to A.D. 325

   ANTE-NICENE FATHERS

   VOLUME 3.

   Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian

   I. Apologetic; II. Anti-Marcion; III. Ethical

   Edited by

   Allan Menzies, D.D.

   T&T CLARK

   EDINBURGH

   __________________________________________________

   WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY

   GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
     __________________________________________________________________

   LATIN CHRISTIANITY:

   ITS FOUNDER, TERTULLIAN

   THREE PARTS: I. APOLOGETIC; II. ANTI-MARCION; III. ETHICAL.

   --------------------

   AMERICAN EDITION.

   Ta archaia ethe krateito.

   The Nicene Council
     __________________________________________________________________

   Preface.

   ------------------------

   We present a volume widely differing, in its contents, from those which
   have gone before; it contains the works of the great founder of Latin
   Christianity, the versatile and brilliant Tertullian. Not all his
   works, indeed, for they could not be contained in one of our books.
   This book, however, considerably overruns the promised number of pages,
   and gives three complete parts of Tertullian's writings, according to
   the classification of our Editor-in-chief. The Fourth volume will begin
   with the fourth class of his works, those which exhibit our author's
   ascetic ideas and the minor morals of the Primitive Christians, that
   collection being closed by the four treatises which were written in
   support of a defined and schismatical Montanism.

   The Editor-in-chief has been in active correspondence with
   representative men of divers theological schools, hoping to secure
   their co-operation in editorial work.  As yet, however, the result has
   not enabled us to announce more than one additional collaborator: the
   rapidity with which the successive volumes must be furnished proving an
   almost insurmountable obstacle in the way of securing as co-workers,
   divines actively engaged in professional duties and literary tasks. The
   sympathy and encouragement which have been expressed by all with whom a
   correspondence has been opened, have been most cheering. To the Rev.
   Dr. Riddle, of Hartford, well known as one of the most learned of the
   AmericaHærn Revisers of the New Testament, we are indebted for his
   consent to edit one of the concluding volumes of the Series,
   accompanying it with a Bibliographical Review of the entire Literature
   of the Patrologia of the Ante-Nicene period: supplying therein a
   compendious view of all the writers upon this period and of the latest
   critical editions of the Ante-Nicene authors themselves. The
   editor-in-chief will continue his annotations and the usual prefaces,
   in Professor Riddle's volume, but will be relieved, in some degree, of
   the laborious and minute attention to details which earlier volumes
   have necessarily exacted.

   It is needful to remind the reader that he possesses in this volume
   what has long been a desideratum among divines. The crabbed Latin of
   the great Tertullian has been thought to defy translation: and the
   variety and uncertain dates of his works have rendered classification
   and arrangement almost an equal difficulty. But here is the work
   achieved by competent hands, and now, for the first time, reduced to
   orderly and methodical plan. We have little doubt that the student on
   comparing our edition with that of the Edinburgh Series, will
   congratulate himself on the great gain of the arrangement; and we trust
   the original matter with which it is illustrated may be found not less
   acceptable.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   Tertullian.

   ------------------------

   Part First.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Introductory Note.

   ------------------------

   [a.d. 145-220.] When our Lord repulsed the woman of Canaan (Matt. xv.
   22) with apparent harshness, he applied to her people the epithet dogs,
   with which the children of Israel had thought it piety to reproach
   them. When He accepted her faith and caused it to be recorded for our
   learning, He did something more: He reversed the curse of the Canaanite
   and showed that the Church was designed ?for all people;? Catholic
   alike for all time and for all sorts and conditions of men.

   Thus the North-African Church was loved before it was born: the Good
   Shepherd was gently leading those ?that were with young.?  Here was the
   charter of those Christians to be a Church, who then were Canaanites in
   the land of their father Ham.  It is remarkable indeed that among these
   pilgrims and strangers to the West the first elements of Latin
   Christianity come into view. Even at the close of the Second Century
   the Church in Rome is an inconsiderable, though prominent, member of
   the great confederation of Christian Churches which has its chief seats
   in Alexandria and Antioch, and of which the entire Literature is Greek.
   It is an African presbyter who takes from Latin Christendom the
   reproach of theological and literary barrenness and begins the great
   work in which, upon his foundations, Cyprian and Augustine built up,
   with incomparable genius, that Carthaginian School of Christian thought
   by which Latin Theology was dominated for centuries. It is important to
   note (1.) that providentially not one of these illustrious doctors died
   in Communion with the Roman See, pure though it was and venerable at
   that time; and (2.) that to the works of Augustine the Reformation in
   Germany and Continental Europe was largely due; while (3.) the
   specialties of the Anglican Reformation were, in like proportion, due
   to the writings of Tertullian and Cyprian. The hinges of great and
   controlling destinies for Western Europe and our own America are to be
   found in the period we are now approaching.

   The merest school-boy knows much of the history of Carthage, and how
   the North Africans became Roman citizens. How they became Christians is
   not so clear. A melancholy destiny has enveloped Carthage from the
   outset, and its glory and greatness as a Christian See were transient
   indeed. It blazed out all at once in Tertullian, after about a century
   of missionary labours had been exerted upon its creation: and having
   given a Minucius Felix, an Arnobius and a Lactantius to adorn the
   earliest period of Western Ecclesiastical learning, in addition to its
   nobler luminaries, it rapidly declined. At the beginning of the Third
   Century, at a council presided over by Agrippinus, Bishop of Carthage,
   there were present not less than seventy bishops of the Province. A
   period of cruel persecutions followed, and the African Church received
   a baptism of blood.

   Tertullian was born a heathen, and seems to have been educated at Rome,
   where he probably practiced as a jurisconsult. We may, perhaps, adopt
   most of the ideas of Allix, as conjecturally probable, and assign his
   birth to a.d. 145. He became a Christian about 185, and a presbyter
   about 190. The period of his strict orthodoxy very nearly expires with
   the century. He lived to an extreme old age, and some suppose even till
   a.d. 240. More probably we must adopt the date preferred by recent
   writers, a.d. 220.

   It seems to be the fashion to treat of Tertullian as a Montanist, and
   only incidentally to celebrate his services to the Catholic Orthodoxy
   of Western Christendom. Were I his biographer I should reverse this
   course, as a mere act of justice, to say nothing of gratitude to a man
   of splendid intellect, to whom the filial spirit of Cyprian accorded
   the loving tribute of a disciple, and whose genius stamped itself upon
   the very words of Latin theology, and prepared the language for the
   labours of a Jerome. In creating the Vulgate, and so lifting the
   Western Churches into a position of intellectual equality with the
   East, the latter as well as St. Augustine himself were debtors to
   Tertullian in a degree not to be estimated by any other than the
   Providential Mind that inspired his brilliant career as a Christian.

   In speaking of Tatian I laid the base for what I wished to say of
   Tertullian. Let God only be their judge; let us gratefully recognize
   the debt we owe to them. Let us read them, as we read the works of King
   Solomon. We must, indeed, approve of the discipline of the Primitive
   Age, which allowed of no compromises. The Church was struggling for
   existence, and could not permit any man to become her master.  The more
   brilliant the intellect, the more dangerous to the poor Church were its
   perversions of her Testimony.  Before the heathen tribunals, and in the
   market-places, it would not answer to let Christianity appear
   double-tongued. The orthodoxy of the Church, not less than her
   children, was undergoing an ordeal of fire.  It seems a miracle that
   her Testimony preserved its unity, and that heresy was branded as such
   by the instinct of the Faithful. Poor Tertullian was cut off by his own
   act. The weeping Church might bewail him as David mourned for Absalom,
   but like David, she could not give the Ark of God into other hands than
   those of the loyal and the true. I have set the writings of Tertullian
   in a natural and logical order [1] , so as to aid the student, and to
   relieve him from the distractions of such an arrangement as one finds
   in Oehler's edition.  Valuable as it is, the practical use of it is
   irritating and confusing. The reader of that edition may turn to the
   slightly differing schemes of Neander and Kaye, for a theoretical order
   of the works; but here he will find a classification which will aid his
   inquiries. He will find, first, those works which connect with the
   Apologists of the former volumes of this series: which illustrate the
   Church's position toward the outside world, the Jews as well as the
   Gentiles. Next come those works which contend with internal differences
   and heresies. And then, those which reflect the morals and manners of
   Christians. These are classed with some reference to their degrees of
   freedom from the Montanistic taint, and are followed, last of all, by
   the few tracts which belong to the melancholy period of his lapse, and
   are directed against the Church's orthodoxy.

   Let it be borne in mind, that if this sad close of Tertullian's career
   cannot be extenuated, the later history of Latin Christianity forbids
   us to condemn him, in the tones which proceeded from the Virgin Church
   with authority, and which the law of her testimony and the instinct of
   self-preservation forced her to utter. Let us reflect that St. Bernard
   and after him the Schoolmen, whom we so deservedly honour, separated
   themselves far more absolutely than ever Tertullian did from the
   orthodoxy of Primitive Christendom. The schism which withdrew the West
   from Communion with the original seats of Christendom, and from Nicene
   Catholicity, was formidable beyond all expression, in comparison with
   Tertullian's entanglements with a delusion which the See of Rome itself
   had momentarily patronized. Since the Council of Trent, not a
   theologian of the Latins has been free from organic heresies, compared
   with which the fanaticism of our author was a trifling aberration.
   Since the late Council of the Vatican, essential Montanism has become
   organized in the Latin Churches: for what are the new revelations and
   oracles of the pontiff but the deliria of another claimant to the voice
   and inspiration of the Paraclete? Poor Tertullian! The sad influences
   of his decline and folly have been fatally felt in all the subsequent
   history of the West, but, surely subscribers to the Modern Creed of the
   Vatican have reason to ?speak gently of their father's fall.? To
   Döllinger, with the ?Old Catholic? remnant only, is left the right to
   name the Montanists heretics, or to upbraid Tertullian as a lapser from
   Catholicity. [2]

   From Dr. Holmes, I append the following Introductory Notice: [3]

   (I.) Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, as our author is called in
   the mss. of his works, is thus noticed by Jerome in his Catalogus
   Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum: [4] ?Tertullian, a presbyter, the first
   Latin writer after Victor and Apollonius, was a native of the province
   of Africa and city of Carthage, the son of a proconsular centurion:  he
   was a man of a sharp and vehement temper, flourished under Severus and
   Antoninus Caracalla, and wrote numerous works, which (as they are
   generally known) I think it unnecessary to particularize.  I saw at
   Concordia, in Italy, an old man named Paulus. He said that when young
   he had met at Rome with an aged amanuensis of the blessed Cyprian, who
   told him that Cyprian never passed a day without reading some portion
   of Tertullian's works, and used frequently to say, Give me my master,
   meaning Tertullian. After remaining a presbyter of the church until he
   had attained the middle age of life, Tertullian was, by the envy and
   contumelious treatment of the Roman clergy, driven to embrace the
   opinions of Montanus, which he has mentioned in several of his works
   under the title of the New Prophecy....He is reported to have lived to
   a very advanced age, and to have composed many other works which are
   not extant.? We add Bishop Kaye's notes on this extract, in an abridged
   shape: ?The correctness of some parts of this account has been
   questioned. Doubts have been entertained whether Tertullian was a
   presbyter, although these have solely arisen from Roman Catholic
   objections to a married priesthood; for it is certain that he was
   married, there being among his works two treatises addressed to his
   wife....Another question has been raised respecting the place where
   Tertullian officiated as a presbyter--whether at Carthage or at Rome.
   That he at one time resided at Carthage may be inferred from Jerome's
   statement, and is rendered certain by several passages of his own
   writings. Allix supposes that the notion of his having been a presbyter
   of the Roman Church owed its rise to what Jerome said of the envy and
   abuse of the Roman clergy impelling him to espouse the party of
   Montanus.  Optatus, [5] and the author of the work de Hæresibus, which
   Sirmond edited under the title of Prædestinatus, expressly call him a
   Carthaginian presbyter. Semler, however, in a dissertation inserted in
   his edition of Tertullian's works, [6] contends that he was a presbyter
   of the Roman Church. Eusebius [7] tells us that he was accurately
   acquainted with the Roman laws, and on other accounts a distinguished
   person at Rome. [8] Tertullian displays, moreover, a knowledge of the
   proceedings of the Roman Church with respect to Marcion and Valentinus,
   who were once members of it, which could scarcely have been obtained by
   one who had not himself been numbered amongst its presbyters. [9]
   Semler admits that, after Tertullian seceded from the church, he left
   and returned to Carthage. Jerome does not inform us whether Tertullian
   was born of Christian parents, or was converted to Christianity. There
   are passages in his writings [10] which seem to imply that he had been
   a Gentile; yet he may perhaps mean to describe, not his own condition,
   but that of Gentiles in general, before their conversion. Allix and the
   majority of commentators understand them literally, as well as some
   other passages in which he speaks of his own infirmities and
   sinfulness. His writings show that he flourished at the period
   specified by Jerome--that is, during the reigns of Severus and
   Antoninus Caracalla, or between the years a.d. 193 and 216; but they
   supply no precise information respecting the date of his birth, or any
   of the principal occurrences of his life. Allix places his birth about
   145 or 150; his conversion to Christianity about a.d. 185; his marriage
   about 186; his admission to the priesthood [11] about 192; his adoption
   of the opinions of Montanus about 199; and his death about a.d. 220.
   But these dates, it must be understood, rest entirely on conjecture.?
   [12]

   (II.)  Tertullian's work against Marcion, as it happens, is, as to its
   date, the best authenticated--perhaps the only well
   authenticated--particular connected with the author's life. He himself
   [13] mentions the fifteenth year of the reign of Severus as the time
   when he was writing the work: ?Ad xv. jam Severi imperatoris.? This
   agrees with Jerome's Chronicle, where occurs this note: ?Anno 2223
   Severi xvº Tertullianus...celebratur.? [14] This year is assigned to
   the year of our Lord 207; [15] but notwithstanding the certainty of
   this date, it is far from clear that it describes more than the time of
   the publication of the first book. On the contrary, it is nearly
   certain that the other books, although connected manifestly enough in
   the author's argument and purpose (compare the initial and the final
   chapters of the several books), were yet issued at separate times.
   Noesselt [16] shows that between the Book i. and Books ii.-iv.
   Tertullian issued his De Præscript. Hæret., and previous to Book v. he
   published his tracts, De Carne Christi and De Resurrectione Carnis.
   After giving the incontestable date of the xv. of Severus for the first
   book, he says it is a mistake to suppose that the other books were
   published with it. He adds: ?Although we cannot undertake to determine
   whether Tertullian issued his Books ii., iii., iv., against Marcion,
   together or separately, or in what year, we yet venture to affirm that
   Book v. appeared apart from the rest. For the tract De Resurr. Carnis
   appears from its second chapter to have been published after the tract
   De Carne Christi, in which latter work (chap. vii.) he quotes a passage
   from the fourth book against Marcion.  But in his Book v. against
   Marcion (chap. x.), he refers to his work De Resurr. Carnis; which
   circumstance makes it evident that Tertullian published his Book v. at
   a different time from his Book iv. In his Book i. he announces his
   intention (chap. i.) of some time or other completing his tract De
   Præscript. Hæret., but in his book De Carne Christi (chap. ii.), he
   mentions how he had completed it,--a conclusive proof that his Book i.
   against Marcion preceded the other books.?

   (III.) Respecting Marcion himself, the most formidable heretic who had
   as yet opposed revealed truth, enough will turn up in this treatise,
   with the notes which we have added in explanation, to satisfy the
   reader. It will, however, be convenient to give here a few introductory
   particulars of him. Tertullian [17] mentions Marcion as being, with
   Valentinus, in communion with the Church at Rome, ?under the episcopate
   of the blessed Eleutherus.? He goes on to charge them with
   ?ever-restless curiosity, with which they infected even the brethren;?
   and informs us that they were more than once put out of
   communion--?Marcion, indeed, with the 200 sesterces which he brought
   into the church.? [18] He goes on to say, that ?being at last condemned
   to the banishment of a perpetual separation, they sowed abroad the
   poisons of their doctrines. Afterwards, when Marcion, having professed
   penitence, agreed to the terms offered to him, that he should receive
   reconciliation on condition that he brought back to the church the rest
   also, whom he had trained up for perdition, he was prevented by death.?
   He was a native of Sinope in Pontus, of which city, according to an
   account preserved by Epiphanius, [19] which, however, is somewhat
   doubtful, his father was bishop, and of high character both for his
   orthodoxy and exemplary practice. He came to Rome soon after the death
   of Hyginus, probably about a.d. 141 or 142; and soon after his arrival
   he adopted the heresy of Cerdon. [20]

   (IV.) It is an interesting question as to what edition of the Holy
   Scriptures Tertullian used in his very copious quotations. It may at
   once be asserted that he did not cite from the Hebrew, although some
   writers have claimed for him, among his varied learning, a knowledge of
   the sacred language. Bp. Kaye observes, page 61, n. 1, that ?he
   sometimes speaks as if he was acquainted with Hebrew,? and refers to
   the Anti-Marcion iv. 39, the Adv. Praxeam v., and the Adv. Judæos ix.
   Be this as it may, it is manifest that Tertullian's Scripture passages
   never resemble the Hebrew, but in nearly every instance the Septuagint,
   whenever, as is most frequently the case, that version differs from the
   original. In the New Testament there is, as might be expected, a
   tolerably close conformity to the Greek. There is, however, it must be
   allowed, a sufficiently frequent variation from the letter of both the
   Greek Testaments to justify Semler's suspicion that Tertullian always
   quoted from the old Latin version, [21] whatever that might have been,
   which was current in the African church in the second and third
   centuries. The most valuable part of Semler's Dissertatio de varia et
   incerta indole Librorum Q. S. F. Tertulliani is his investigation of
   this very point. In section iv. he endeavours to prove this
   proposition: ?Hic scriptor [22] non in manibus habuit Græcos libros
   sacros;? and he states his conclusion thus: ?Certissimum est nec
   Tertullianum nec Cyprianum nec ullum scriptorem e Latinis illis
   ecclesiasticis provocare unquam ad Græcorum librorum auctoritatem si
   vel maxime obscura aut contraria lectio occurreret;? and again: ?Ex his
   satis certum est, Latinos satis diu secutos fuisse auctoritatem suorum
   librorum adversus Græcos, nec concessisse nisi serius, cum Augustini et
   Hieronymi nova auctoritas juvare videretur.? It is not ignorance of
   Greek which is imputed to Tertullian, for he is said to have well
   understood that language, and even to have composed in it. He probably
   followed the Latin, as writers now usually quote the authorized
   English, as being current and best known among their readers.
   Independent feeling, also, would have weight with such a temper as
   Tertullian's, to say nothing of the suspicion which largely prevailed
   in the African branch of the Latin church, that the Greek copies of the
   Scriptures were much corrupted by the heretics, who were chiefly, if
   not wholly, Greeks or Greek-speaking persons.

   (V.) Whatever perverting effect Tertullian's secession to the sect of
   Montanus [23] may have had on his judgment in his latest writings, it
   did not vitiate the work against Marcion. With a few trivial
   exceptions, this treatise may be read by the strictest Catholic without
   any feeling of annoyance. His lapse to Montanism is set down
   conjecturally as having taken place a.d. 199. Jerome, we have seen,
   attributed the event to his quarrel with the Roman clergy, but this is
   at least doubtful; nor must it be forgotten that Tertullian's mind
   seems to have been peculiarly suited by nature [24] to adopt the
   mystical notions and ascetic principles of Montanus. It is satisfactory
   to find that, on the whole, ?the authority of Tertullian,? as the
   learned Dr. Burton says, ?upon great points of doctrine is considered
   to be little, if at all, affected by his becoming a Montanist.?
   (Lectures on Eccl. Hist. vol. ii. p. 234.) Besides the different works
   which are expressly mentioned in the notes of this volume, recourse has
   been had by the translator to Dupin's Hist. Eccl. Writers (trans.),
   vol. i. pp. 69-86; Tillemont's Mèmoires Hist. Eccl. iii. 85-103; Dr.
   Smith's Greek and Roman Biography, articles ?Marcion? and ?Tertullian;?
   Schaff's article, in Herzog's Cyclopædia, on ?Tertullian;? Munter's
   Primordia Eccl. Africanæ, pp. 118-150; Robertson's Church Hist. vol. i.
   pp. 70-77; Dr. P. Schaff's Hist. of Christian Church (New York, 1859,
   pp. 511-519), and Archdeacon Evans' Biography of the Early Church, vol.
   i. (Lives of ?Marcion,? pp. 93-122, and ?Tertullian,? pp. 325-363).
   This last work, though of a popular cast, shows a good deal of research
   and learning, expressed in the pleasant style of the once popular
   author of The Rectory of Vale Head. The translator has mentioned these
   works, because they are all quite accessible to the general reader, and
   will give him adequate information concerning the subject treated in
   the present volume.

   To this introduction of Dr. Holmes must be added that of Mr. Thelwall,
   the translator of the Third volume in the Edinburgh Series, as follows:

   To arrange chronologically the works (especially if numerous) of an
   author whose own date is known with tolerable precision, is not always
   or necessarily easy: witness the controversies as to the succession of
   St. Paul's epistles. To do this in the case of an author whose own date
   is itself a matter of controversy may therefore be reasonably expected
   to be still less so; and such is the predicament of him who attempts to
   perform this task for Tertullian. I propose to give a specimen or two
   of the difficulties with which the task is beset; and then to lay
   before the reader briefly a summary of the results at which eminent
   scholars, who have devoted much time and thought to the subject, have
   arrived. Such a course, I think, will at once afford him means of
   judging of the absolute impossibility of arriving at definite certainty
   in the matter; and induce him to excuse me if I prefer furnishing him
   with materials from which to deduce his own conclusions, rather than
   venturing on an ex cathedra decision on so doubtful a subject.

   I. The book, as Dr. Holmes has reminded us, [25] of the date of which
   we seem to have the surest evidence, is Adv. Marc. i. This book was in
   course of writing, as its author himself (c. 15) tells us, ?in the
   fifteenth year of the empire of Severus.? Now this date would be clear
   if there were no doubt as to which year of our era corresponds to
   Tertullian's fifteenth of Severus. Pamelius, however, says Dr. Holmes,
   makes it a.d. 208; Clinton, (whose authority is more recent and
   better,) 207.

   2. Another book which promises to give some clue to its date is the de
   Pallio. [26] The writer uses these phrases: ?præsentis imperii triplex
   virtus;? ?Deo tot Augustis in unum favente;? which show that there were
   at the time three persons unitedly bearing the title Augusti--not
   Cæsares only, but the still higher Augusti;--while the remainder of
   that context, as well as the opening of c. 1, indicates a time of peace
   of some considerable duration; a time of plenty; and a time during and
   previous to which great changes had taken place in the general aspect
   of the Roman Empire, and some particular traitor had been discovered
   and frustrated. Such a combination of circumstances might seem to fix
   the date with some degree of assurance. But unhappily, as Kaye reminds
   us, [27] commentators cannot agree as to who the three Augusti are.
   Some say Severus, Caracalla, and Albinus; some say Severus, Caracalla,
   and Geta.  Hence we have a difference of some twelve years or
   thereabouts in the computations. For Albinus was defeated by Severus in
   person, and fell by his own hand, in a.d. 197; and Geta, Severus'
   second son, brother of Caracalla, was not associated by his father with
   himself and his other son as Augustus until a.d. 208, though he had
   received the title of Cæsar ten years before, in the same year in which
   Caracalla had received that of Augustus. [28] For my own part, I may
   perhaps be allowed to say that I should incline to agree, like
   Salmasius, with those who assign the later date. The limits of the
   present Introduction forbid my entering at large into my reasons for so
   doing. I am, however, supported in it by the authority of Neander. [29]
   In one point, though, I should hesitate to agree with Oehler, who
   appears to follow Salmasius and others herein,--namely, in
   understanding the expression ?et cacto et rubo subdolæ familiaritatis
   convulso? of Albinus. It seems to me the words might with more
   propriety be applied to Plautianus; and that in the word
   ?familiaritatis? we may see (after Tertullian's fashion) a play upon
   the meaning, with a reference not only to the long-standing but
   mischievous intimacy which existed between Severus and his countryman
   (perhaps fellow-townsman) Plautianus, who for his harshness and cruelty
   is fitly compared to the prickly cactus.  He alludes likewise to the
   alliance which this ambitious prætorian præfect had contrived to
   contract with the family of the emperor, by the marriage of his
   daughter Plautilla to Caracalla,--an event which, as it turned out, led
   to his own death. Thus in the ?rubo? there may be a reference to the
   ambitious and conceited ?bramble? of Jotham's parable, [30] and
   perhaps, too, to the ?thistle? of Jehoash's. [31] If this be so, the
   date would be at least approximately fixed, as Plautianus did not marry
   his daughter to Caracalla till a.d. 203, and was himself put to death
   in the following year, 204, while Geta, as we have seen, was made
   Augustus in 208.

   3. The date of the Apology, however, is perhaps at once the most
   contested, and the most strikingly illustrative of the difficulties to
   which allusion has been made.  It is not surprising that its date
   should have been more disputed than that of other pieces, inasmuch as
   it is the best known, and (for some reasons) the most interesting and
   famous, of all our author's productions. In fact, the dates assigned to
   it by different authorities vary from Mosheim's 198 to that suggested
   by the very learned Allix, who assigns it to 217. [32]

   4. Once more.  In the tract de Monogamia (c. 3) the author says that
   since the date of St. Paul's first Epistle to the Corinthians ?about
   160 years had elapsed.?  Here, again, did we only know with certainty
   the precise date of that epistle, we could ascertain ?about? the date
   of the tract. But (a) the date of the epistle is itself variously
   given, Burton giving it as early as a.d. 52, Michaelis and Mill as late
   as 57; and (b) Tertullian only says, ?Armis circiter clx. exinde
   productis;? while the way in which, in the ad Natt., within the short
   space of three chapters, he states first [33] that 250, and then (in c.
   9) that 300, years had not elapsed since the rise of the Christian
   name, leads us to think that here again [34] he only desires to speak
   in round numbers, meaning perhaps more than 150, but less than 170.

   These specimens must suffice, though it might be easy to add to them.
   There is, however, another classification of our author's writings
   which has been attempted. Finding the haplessness of strict
   chronological accuracy, commentators have seized on the idea that
   peradventure there might be found at all events some internal marks by
   which to determine which of them were written before, which after, the
   writer's secession to Montanism. It may be confessed that this attempt
   has been somewhat more successful than the other. Yet even here there
   are two formidable obstacles standing in our way. The first and
   greatest is, that the natural temper of Tertullian was from the first
   so akin to the spirit of Montanism, that, unless there occur distinct
   allusions to the ?New Prophecy,? or expressions specially connected
   with Montanistic phraseology, the general tone of any treatise is not a
   very safe guide. The second is, that the subject-matter of some of the
   treatises is not such as to afford much scope for the introduction of
   the peculiarities of a sect which professed to differ in discipline
   only, not doctrine, from the church at large.

   Still the result of this classification seems to show one important
   feature of agreement between commentators, however they may differ upon
   details; and that is, that considerably the larger part of our author's
   rather voluminous productions [35] must have been subsequent to his
   lamented secession. I think the best way to give the reader means for
   forming his own judgment will be, as I have said, to lay before him in
   parallel columns a tabular view of the disposition of the books by Dr.
   Neander and Bishop Kaye. These two modern writers, having given
   particular care to the subject, bringing to bear upon it all the
   advantages derived from wide reading, eminent abilities, and a diligent
   study of the works of preceding writers on the same questions, [36]
   have a special right to be heard upon the matter in hand; and I think,
   if I may be allowed to say so, that, for calm judgment, and minute
   acquaintance with his author, I shall not be accused of undue
   partiality if I express my opinion that, as far as my own observation
   goes, the palm must be awarded to the Bishop. In this view I am
   supported by the fact that the accomplished Professor Ramsay, [37]
   follows Dr. Kaye's arrangement. I premise that Dr. Neander adopts a
   threefold division, into:

   1. Writings which were occasioned by the relation of the Christians to
   the heathen, and refer to their vindication of Christianity against the
   heathen; attacks on heathenism; the sufferings and conduct of
   Christians under persecution; and the intercourse of Christians with
   heathens:

   2. Writings which relate to Christian and church life, and to
   ecclesiastical discipline:

   3. The dogmatic and dogmatico-controversial treatises.

   And under each head he subdivides into:

   a. Pre-Montanist writings; b. Post-Montanist writings:

   thus leaving no room for what Kaye calls ?works respecting which
   nothing certain can be pronounced.? For the sake of clearness, this
   order has not been followed in the table. On the other side, it will be
   seen that Dr. Kaye, while not assuming to speak with more than a
   reasonable probability, is careful so to arrange the treatises under
   each head as to show the order, so far as it is discoverable, in which
   the books under that head were published; i.e., if one book is quoted
   in another book, the book so quoted, if distinctly referred to as
   already before the world, is plainly anterior to that in which it is
   quoted. Thus, then, have:

   Neander.

   I. Pre-Montanist.

   1. De Poenitentia.

   2. De Oratione.

   3. De Baptismo.

   4. Ad Uxorem i.

   5. Ad Uxorem ii.

   6. Ad Martyres.

   7. De Patientia.

   8. De Spectaculis.

   9. De Idololatria.

   10. 11. Ad Nationes i. ii.

   12. Apologeticus.

   13. De Testimonio Animæ.

   14. De Præscr. Hæreticorum.

   15. De Cult. Fem. i.

   16. De Cult. Fem. ii.

   II. Montanist.

   17-21. Adv. Marc. i. ii. iii. iv. v.

   22. De Anima.

   23. De Carne Christi.

   24. De Res. Carn.

   25. De Cor. Mil.

   26. De Virg. Vel.

   27. De Ex. Cast.

   28. De Monog.

   29. De Jejuniis.

   30. De Pudicitia.

   31. De Pallio.

   32. Scorpiace.

   33. Ad Scapulam.

   34. Adv. Valentinianos.

   35. Adv. Hermogenem.

   36. Adv. Praxeam.

   37. Adv. Judæos.

   38. De Fuga in Persecutione.

   Kaye.

   I. Pre-Montanist (probably).

   1. De Poenitentia. [38]

   2. De Oratione.

   3. De Baptismo.

   4. Ad Uxorem i.

   5. Ad Uxorem ii.

   6. Ad Martyres.

   7. De Patientia.

   8. Adv. Judæos.

   9. De Præscr. Hæreticorum. [39]

   II. Montanist (certainly).

   10. Adv. Marc. i.

   11. Adv. Marc. ii. [40]

   12. De Anima. [41]

   13. Adv. Marc. iii.

   14. Adv. Marc. iv. [42]

   15. De Carne Christi. [43]

   16. De Resurrectione Carnis. [44]

   17. Adv. Marc. v.

   18. Adv. Praxeam.

   19. Scorpiace. [45]

   20. De Corona Militis.

   21. De Virginibus Velandis.

   22. De Exhortatione Castitatis.

   23. De Fuga in Persecutione.

   24. De Monogamia. [46]

   25. De Jejuniis.

   26. De Pudicitia.

   III. Montanist (probably).

   27. Adv. Valentinianos.

   28. Ad Scapulam.

   29. De Spectaculis. [47]

   30. De Idololatria.

   31. De Cultu Feminarum i.

   32. De Cultu Feminarum ii.

   IV. Works respecting which nothing certain can be pronounced.

   33. The Apology. [48]

   34. Ad Nationes i.

   35. Ad Nationes ii.

   36. De Testimonio Animæ.

   37. De Pallio.

   38. Adv. Hermogenem.

   A comparison of these two lists will show that the difference between
   the two great authorities is, as Kaye remarks, ?not great; and with
   respect to some of the tracts on which we differ, the learned author
   expresses himself with great diffidence.? [49] The main difference, in
   fact, is that which affects two tracts upon kindred subjects, the de
   Spectaculis, and Idololatria, the de Cultu Feminarum (a subject akin to
   the other two), and the adv. Judæos. With reference to all these,
   except the last, to which I believe the Archdeacon does not once refer,
   the Bishop's opinion appears to have the support of Archdeacon Evans,
   whose learned and interesting essay, referred to in the note, appears
   in a volume published in 1837. Dr. Kaye's Lectures, on which his book
   is founded, were delivered in 1825.  Of the date of his first edition I
   am not aware. Dr. Neander's Antignostikus also first appeared in 1825.
   The preface to his second edition bears date July 1, 1849 [50] . As to
   the adv. Judæos, I confess I agree with Neander in thinking that, at
   all events from the beginning of c. 9, it is spurious.  If it be urged
   that Jerome expressly quotes it as Tertullian's, I reply, Jerome so
   quotes it, I believe, when he is expounding Daniel. Now all that the
   adv. Jud. has to say about Daniel ends with the end of c. 8. It is
   therefore quite compatible with the fact thus stated to recognize the
   earlier half of the book as genuine, and to reject the rest, beginning,
   as it happens, just after the eighth chapter, as spurious. Perhaps Dr.
   Neander's Jewish birth and training peculiarly fit him to be heard on
   this question. Nor do I think Professor Ramsay (in the article above
   alluded to) has quite seen the force of Kaye's own remarks on Neander.
   [51] What he does say is equally creditable to his candour and his
   accuracy; namely: ?The instances alleged by Dr. Neander, in proof of
   this position, are undoubtedly very remarkable; but if the concluding
   chapters of the tract are spurious, no ground seems to be left for
   asserting that the genuine portion was posterior to the third Book
   against Marcion, [52] --and none, consequently, for asserting that it
   was written by a Montanist.? With which remark I must draw these
   observations on the genuine extant works of Tertullian to a close.

   The next point to which a brief reference must be made is the lost
   works of Tertullian, lists of these are given both by Oehler and by
   Kaye, viz.:

   1. A Book on Aaron's Robes: mentioned by Jerome, Epist. 128, ad
   Fabiolam de Veste Sacerdotali (tom. ii. p. 586, Opp. ed. Bened.).

   2. A Book on the Superstition of the Age. [53]

   3. A Book on the Submission of the Soul.

   4. A Book on the Flesh and the Soul.

   Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are known only by their titles, which are found in the
   Index to Tertullian's works given in the Codex Agobardi; but the tracts
   themselves are not extant in the ms., which appears to have once
   contained--

   5. A Book on Paradise, named in the Index, and referred to in de Anima
   55, adv. Marc. iii. 12; and

   6. A Book on the Hope of the Faithful: also named in the Index, and
   referred to adv. Marc. iii. 24; and by Jerome in his account of Papias,
   [54] and on Ezek. xxxvi.; [55] and by Gennadius of Marseilles. [56]

   7. Six Books on Ecstasy, with a seventh in reply to Apollonius: [57]
   see Jerome. [58] See, too, J. A. Fabricius on the words of the unknown
   author whom the Jesuit Sirmond edited under the name Prædestinatus; who
   gathers thence that ?Soter, pope of the City, [59] and Apollonius,
   bishop [60] of the Ephesians, wrote a book against the Montanists; in
   reply to whom Tertullian, a Carthaginian presbyter, wrote.? J. Pamelius
   thinks these seven books were originally published in Greek.

   8. A Book in reply to the Apellesites (i.e. the followers of Apelles
   [61] ): referred to in de Carne Christi, c. 8.

   9. A Book on the Origin [62] of the Soul, in reply to Hermogenes:
   referred to in de Anima, cc. 1, 3, 22, 24.

   10. A Book on Fate: referred to by Fulgentius Planciades, p. 562,
   Merc.; also referred to as either written, or intended to be written,
   by Tertullian himself, de Anima, c. 20. Jerome [63] states that there
   was extant, or had been extant, a book on Fate under the name of
   Minucius Felix, written indeed by a perspicuous author, but not in the
   style of Minucius Felix. This, Pamelius judged, should perhaps be
   rather ascribed to Tertullian.

   11. A Book on the Trinity. Jerome [64] says: ?Novatian wrote....a large
   volume on the Trinity, as if making an epitome of a work of
   Tertullian's, which most men not knowing regard it as Cyprian's.?
   Novatian's book stood in Tertullian's name in the mss. of J. Gangneius,
   who was the first to edit it; in a Malmesbury ms. which Sig. Gelenius
   used; and in others.

   12. A Book addressed to a Philosophic Friend on the Straits of
   Matrimony. Both Kaye and Oehler [65] are in doubt whether Jerome's
   words, [66] by which some have been led to conclude that Tertullian
   wrote some book or books on this and kindred subjects, really imply as
   much, or whether they may not refer merely to those tracts and passages
   in his extant writings which touch upon such matters. Kaye hesitates to
   think that the ?Book to a Philosophic Friend? is the same as the de
   Exhortatione Castitatis, because Jerome says Tertullian wrote on the
   subject of celibacy ?in his youth;? but as Cave takes what Jerome
   elsewhere says of Tertullian's leaving the Church ?about the middle of
   his age? to mean his spiritual age, the same sense might attach to his
   words here too, and thus obviate the Bishop's difficulty.

   There are some other works which have been attributed to Tertullian--on
   Circumcision; on Animals Clean and Unclean; on the truth that God is a
   Judge--which Oehler likewise rejects, believing that the expressions of
   Jerome refer only to passages in the Anti-Marcion and other extant
   works. To Novatian Jerome does ascribe a distinct work on Circumcision,
   [67] and this may (comp. 11, just above) have given rise to the view
   that Tertullian had written one also.

   There were, moreover, three treatises at least written by Tertullian in
   Greek. They are:

   1. A Book on Public Shows. See de Cor. c. 6.

   2. A Book on Baptism. See de Bapt. c. 15.

   3. A Book on the Veiling of Virgins. See de V. V. c. 1.

   Oehler adds that J. Pamelius, in his epistle dedicatory to Philip II.
   of Spain, makes mention of a Greek copy of Tertullian in the library of
   that king. This report, however, since nothing has ever been seen or
   heard of the said copy from that time, Oehler judges to be erroneous.
   [68]

   It remains briefly to notice the confessedly spurious works which the
   editions of Tertullian generally have appended to them. With these Kaye
   does not deal. The fragment, adv. omnes Hæreses, Oehler attributes to
   Victorinus Petavionensis, i.e., Victorinus bishop of Pettaw, on the
   Drave, in Austrian Styria. It was once thought he ought to be called
   Pictaviensis, i.e. of Poictiers; but John Launoy [69] has shown this to
   be an error.  Victorinus is said by Jerome to have ?understood Greek
   better than Latin; hence his works are excellent for the sense, but
   mean as to the style.? [70] Cave believes him to have been a Greek by
   birth. Cassiodorus [71] states him to have been once a professor of
   rhetoric. Jerome's statement agrees with the style of the tract in
   question; and Jerome distinctly says Victorinus did write adversus
   omnes Hæreses. Allix leaves the question of its authorship quite
   uncertain. If Victorinus be the author, the book falls clearly within
   the Ante-Nicene period; for Victorinus fell a martyr in the Diocletian
   persecution, probably about a.d. 303.

   The next fragment--?Of the Execrable Gods of the Heathens?--is of quite
   uncertain authorship.  Oehler would attribute it ?to some declaimer not
   quite ignorant of Tertullian's writings,? but certainly not to
   Tertullian himself.

   Lastly we come to the metrical fragments. Concerning these, it is
   perhaps impossible to assign them to their rightful owners.  Oehler has
   not troubled himself much about them; but he seems to regard the Jonah
   as worthy of more regard than the rest, for he seems to have intended
   giving more labour to its editing at some future time. Whether he has
   ever done so, or given us his German version of Tertullian's own works,
   which, ?si Deus adjuverit,? he distinctly promises in his preface, I do
   not know. Perhaps the best thing to be done under the circumstances is
   to give the judgment of the learned Peter Allix. It may be premised
   that by the celebrated George Fabricius [72] --who published his great
   work, Poetarum Veterum Ecclesiasticorum Opera Christiana, etc., in
   1564--the Five Books in Reply to Marcion, and the Judgment of the Lord,
   are ascribed to Tertullian, the Genesis and Sodom to Cyprian. Pamelius
   likewise seems to have ascribed the Five Books, the Jonah, and the
   Sodom [73] to Tertullian; and according to Lardner, Bishop Bull
   likewise attributed the Five Books to him. [74] They have been
   generally ascribed to the Victorinus above mentioned. Tillemont, among
   others, thinks they may well enough be his. [75] Rigaltius is content
   to demonstrate that they are not Tertullian's, but leaves the real
   authorship without attempting to decide it. Of the others the same
   eminent critic says, ?They seem to have been written at Carthage, at an
   age not far removed from Tertullian's.? [76] Allix, after observing
   that Pamelius is inconsistent with himself in attributing the Genesis
   and Sodom at one time to Tertullian, at another to Cyprian, rejects
   both views equally, and assigns the Genesis with some confidence to
   Salvian, a presbyter of Marseilles, whose ?floruit? Cave gives cir.
   440, a contemporary of Gennadius, and a copious author. To this it is,
   Allix thinks, that Gennadius alludes in his Catalogue of Illustrious
   Men, c. 77.

   The Judgment of the Lord Allix ascribes to one Verecundus, an African
   bishop, whose date he finds it difficult to decide exactly. He refers
   to two of the name: one Bishop of Tunis, whom Victor of Tunis in his
   chronicle mentions as having died in exile at Chalcedon a.d. 552; the
   other Bishop of Noba, who visited Carthage with many others a.d. 482,
   at the summons of King Huneric, to answer there for their faith;--and
   would ascribe the poem to the former, thinking that he finds an
   allusion to it in the article upon that Verecundus in the de Viris
   Illustribus of Isidore of Seville.  Oehler agrees with him. The Five
   Books Allix seems to hint may be attributed to some imitator of the
   Victorinus of Pettaw named above. Oehler attributes them rather to one
   Victorinus, or Victor, of Marseilles, a rhetorician, who died a.d. 450.
   He appears in G. Fabricius as Claudius Marius Victorinus, writer of a
   Commentary on Genesis, and an epistle ad Salomonem Abbata, both in
   verse, and of some considerable length.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [1] Elucidation I.

   [2] The notes of Dr. Holmes were bracketted, and I have been forced to
   remove this feature, as brackets are tokens in this edition of the
   contributions of American editors. The perpetual recurrence of brackets
   in his translations has led me to improve the page by parenthetical
   marks instead, which answer as well and rarely can be mistaken for the
   author's parentheses, while these disfigure the printer's work much
   less. I have sometimes substituted italics for brackets, where an
   inconsiderable word, like and or for, was bracketted by the translator.
   In every case that I have noted, an intelligent reader will readily
   perceive such instances; but a critic who may wish to praise, or
   condemn, should carefully compare the Edinburgh pages with our own. I
   found them so painful to the eye and so needlessly annoying to the
   reader, that I have taken the responsibility of making what seems to me
   a very great typographical improvement.

   [3] (I.) Concerning Tertullian; (II.) Concerning his Work against
   Marcion, its date, etc.; (III.) Concerning Marcion; (IV.) Concerning
   Tertullian's Bible; (V.) Influence of his Montanism on his writings.

   [4] We quote Bishop Kaye's translation of Jerome's article; see his
   Account of the Writings of Tertullian, pp. 5-8.

   [5] Adv. Parmenianum, i.

   [6] Chap. ii.

   [7] Eccl. Hist., ii. 2.

   [8] Valesius, however, supposes the historian's words ton malista epi
   Romes lampron to mean, that Tertullian had obtained distinction among
   Latin writers.

   [9] See De Præscript. Hæretic. xxx.

   [10] De Poenitentia, i. Hoc genus hominum, quod et ipsi retro fuimus,
   cæci, sine Domini lumine, naturâ tenus norunt; De Fuga in Persecutione,
   vi. Nobis autem et via nationum patet, in quâ et inventi sumus; Adv.
   Marcionem, iii. 21. Et nationes, quod sumus nos; Apolog. xviii. Hæc et
   nos risimus aliquando; de vestris fuimus; also De Spectac. xix.

   [11] [Kaye, p. 9. A fair view of this point.]

   [12] These notes of Bishop Kaye may be found, in their fuller form, in
   his work on Tertullian, pp. 8-12.

   [13] Book i., chap. xv.

   [14] Jerome probably took this date as the central period, when
   Tertullian ?flourished,? because of its being the only clearly
   authenticated one, and because also (it may be) of the importance and
   fame of the Treatise against Marcion.

   [15] So Clinton, Fasti Romani, i. 204; or 208, Pamelius, Vita Tertull.

   [16] In his treatise, De vera ætate ac doctrina script. Tertulliani,
   sections 28, 45.

   [17] De Præscript. Hæret. xxx.

   [18] Comp. Adv. Marcionem, iv. 4.

   [19] I., Adv. Hæret. xlii. 1.

   [20] Dr. Burton's Lectures on Eccl. Hist. of First Three Centuries, ii.
   105-109.

   [21] Or versions.

   [22] Tertullianus.

   [23] Vincentius Lirinensis, in his celebrated Commonitorium, expresses
   the opinion of Catholic churchmen concerning Tertullian thus:
   ?Tertullian, among the Latins, without controversy, is the chief of all
   our writers. For who was more learned than he? Who in divinity or
   humanity more practised? For, by a certain wonderful capacity of mind,
   he attained to and understood all philosophy, all the sects of
   philosophers, all their founders and supporters, all their systems, all
   sorts of histories and studies.  And for his wit, was he not so
   excellent, so grave, so forcible, that he scarce ever undertook the
   overthrow of any position, but either by quickness of wit he
   undermined, or by weight of reason he crushed it? Further, who is able
   to express the praises which his style of speech deserves, which is
   fraught (I know none like it) with that cogency of reason, that such as
   it cannot persuade, it compels to assent; whose so many words almost
   are so many sentences; whose so many senses, so many victories? This
   know Marcion and Apelles, Praxeas and Hermogenes, Jews, Gentiles,
   Gnostics, and divers others, whose blasphemous opinions he hath
   overthrown with his many and great volumes, as it had been
   thunderbolts. And yet this man after all, this Tertullian, not
   retaining the Catholic doctrine--that is, the old faith--hath
   discredited with his later error his worthy writings,? etc.--Chap.
   xxiv. (Oxford trans. chap. xviii.)

   [24] Neander's introduction to his Antignostikus should be read in
   connection with this topic. He powerfully delineates the disposition of
   Tertullian and the character of Montanism, and attributes his secession
   to that sect not to outward causes, but to ?his internal congeniality
   of mind.?  But, inasmuch as a man's subjective development is very much
   guided by circumstances, it is not necessary, in agreeing with Neander,
   to disbelieve some such account as Jerome has given us of Tertullian
   (Neander's Antignostikus, etc. Bohn's trans., vol. ii. pp. 200-207).

   [25] Introductory Notice to the Anti-Marcion, pp. xiii., xiv.

   [26] In the end of Chapter Second.

   [27] Eccl. Hist. illust. from Tertullian's Writings, p. 36 sqq. (ed. 3,
   Lond. 1845).

   [28] See Kaye, as above.

   [29] Antignostikus, p. 424 (Bohn's tr., ed. 1851).

   [30] See Judg. ix. 2 sqq.

   [31] See 2 Kings (4 Kings in LXX. and Vulg.) xiv. 9.

   [32] Here, again, our limits forbid a discussion; but the allusion to
   the Rhone having ?scarcely yet lost the stain of blood? which we find
   in the ad. Natt. i. 17, compared with Apol. 35, seems to favour the
   idea of those who date the ad. Natt. earlier than the Apology, and
   consider the latter as a kind of new edition of the former: while it
   would fix the date of the ad. Natt. as not certainly earlier than 197,
   in which year (as we have seen) Albinus died. The fatal battle took
   place on the banks of the Rhone.

   [33] In c. 7.

   [34] Viz. in the de Monog.

   [35] It looks strange to see Tertullian's works referred to as
   consisting of ?about thirty short treatises? in Murdock's note on
   Moshiem. See the ed. of the Eccl. Hist. by Dr. J. Seaton Reid, p. 65,
   n. 2, Lond. and Bel. 1852.

   [36] This last qualification is very specially observable in Dr. Kaye.

   [37] In his article on Tertullian in Smith's Dict. of Biog. and Myth.

   [38] Referred to apparently in de Pudic. ad init.-Tr.

   [39] The de Præscr. is ref. to in adv. Marc. i.; adv Prax. 2; de Carne
   Christi, 2; adv. Hermog. 1.

   [40] Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2, 14; Scorp. 5; de Anima, 21. The only
   mark, as the learned Bishop's remarks imply, for fixing the date of
   publication as Montanistic, is the fact that Tertullian alludes, in the
   opening sentences, to B. i. Hence B. ii. could not, in its present
   form, have appeared till after B. i.  Now B. i. contains evident marks
   of Montanism: see the last chapter, for instance. But the writer speaks
   (in the same passage) of B. ii. as being the treatise, the ill fate of
   which in its unfinished condition he there relates--at least such seems
   the legitimate sense of his words--now remodelled. Hence, when
   originally written, it may not have been Montanistic.--Tr.

   [41] Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2, 17, 45; comp. cc. 18, 21.

   [42] Ref. to in de Carn. Chr. 7.

   [43] Ref. to in de Res. Carn. 2.

   [44] See the beginning and end of the de Carne Christi.--Tr.  Ref. to
   in adv. Marc. v. 10.

   [45] In c. 4 Tertullian speaks as if he had already refuted all the
   heretics.

   [46] Ref. to in de Jej. c. 1.

   [47] Ref. to in de Idolol. 13; in de Cult. Fem. i. 8. In the de Cor. 6
   is a reference to the Greek tract de Spectaculis by our author.

   [48] Archdeacon Evans, in his Biography of the Early Church (in the
   Theological Library), suggests that the success which the Apology met
   with, or at least the fame it brought its author, may have been the
   occasion of Tertullian's visit to Rome. He rejects entirely the
   supposition that Tertullian was a presbyter of the Roman church; nor
   does he think Eusebius' words, kai ton malista epi Romes lampron (Eccl.
   Hist. ii. 2. 47 ad fin., 48 ad init.), sufficiently plain to be relied
   on. One thing does seem pretty plain, that the rendering of them which
   Rufinus gives, and Valesius follows, ?inter nostros? (sc. Latinos)
   ?Scriptores admodum clarus,? cannot be correct.  That we find a famous
   Roman lawyer Tertullianus, or Tertyllianus, among the writers fragments
   of whom are preserved in the Pandects, Neander reminds us; but (as he
   says) it by no means follows, even if it could be proved that the date
   of the said lawyer corresponded with the supposed date of our
   Tertullian, that they were identical.  Still it is worth bearing in
   mind, especially as a similarity of language exists, or has been
   thought to exist, between the jurist and the Christian author. And the
   juridical language and tone of our author do seem to point to his
   having--though Mr. Evans regards that as doubtful--been a trained
   lawyer.--Tr.

   [49] Kaye, as above. Pref. to 2d ed. pp. xxi. xxii. incorporated in the
   3d ed., which I always quote.

   [50] i.e., four years after Kaye's third.

   [51] See Pref. 2d ed. p. xix. n. 9.

   [52] It being from that book that the quotations are taken which make
   up the remainder of the tract, as Semler, worthless as his theories
   are, has well shown.

   [53] ?Sæculi? or ?of the world,? or perhaps ?of heathenism.?

   [54] Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 18.

   [55] P. 952, tom. iii. Opp. ed. Bened.

   [56] De Ecclesiæ dogmatibus, c. 55.

   [57] Referred to in Adv. Marc. iv. 22.  So Kaye thinks; but perhaps the
   reference is doubtful. See, however, the passage in Dr. Holmes'
   translation in the present series, with his note thereon.

   [58] De Scriptt. Eccles. 53, 24, 40.

   [59] i.e., Rome.

   [60] Antistes.

   [61] A Marcionite at one time: he subsequently set up a sect of his
   own. He is mentioned in the adv. omn. Hær. c. 6.

   [62] Censu.

   [63] Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 58.

   [64] Catal. Scrippt. Eccles. c. 70.

   [65] Oehler speaks more decidedly than Kaye.

   [66] Epist. ad Eustochium de Custodia Virginitatis, p. 37, tom. iv.
   Opp. ed. Bened.; adv. Jovin. i. p. 157, tom. iv. Opp. ed. Bened.

   [67] In the Catal. Scrippt. Eccles.

   [68] ?Mendacem? is his word. I know not whether he intends to charge
   Pamelius with wilful fraud.

   [69] Doctor of the Sorbonne, said by Bossuet to have proved himself ?a
   semi-Pelagian and Jansenist!? born in 1603, in Normandy, died in 1678.

   [70] Jer. de Vir. Illust. c. 74.

   [71] B. 470, d. 560.

   [72] He must not be confounded with the still more famous John Albert
   Fabricius of the next century, referred to in p. xv. above.

   [73] Whole of these metrical fragments.

   [74] Lardner, Credibility, vol. iii. p. 169, under ?Victorinus of
   Pettaw,? ed. Kippis, Lond. 1838.

   [75] See Lardner, as above.

   [76] See Migne, who prefixes this judgment of Rig. to the de Judicio
   Domini.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   I.

   Apology.

   [Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall, Late Scholar of Christ's College,
   Cantab.]

   ------------------------

   The Apology. [77]

   Chapter I.

   Rulers of the Roman Empire, if, seated for the administration of
   justice on your lofty tribunal, under the gaze of every eye, and
   occupying there all but the highest position in the state, you may not
   openly inquire into and sift before the world the real truth in regard
   to the charges made against the Christians; if in this case alone you
   are afraid or ashamed to exercise your authority in making public
   inquiry with the carefulness which becomes justice; if, finally, the
   extreme severities inflicted on our people in recently private
   judgments, stand in the way of our being permitted to defend ourselves
   before you, you cannot surely forbid the Truth to reach your ears by
   the secret pathway of a noiseless book. [78] She has no appeals to make
   to you in regard of her condition, for that does not excite her wonder.
   She knows that she is but a sojourner on the earth, and that among
   strangers she naturally finds foes; and more than this, that her
   origin, her dwelling-place, her hope, her recompense, her honours, are
   above. One thing, meanwhile, she anxiously desires of earthly
   rulers--not to be condemned unknown. What harm can it do to the laws,
   supreme in their domain, to give her a hearing?  Nay, for that part of
   it, will not their absolute supremacy be more conspicuous in their
   condemning her, even after she has made her plea? But if, unheard,
   sentence is pronounced against her, besides the odium of an unjust
   deed, you will incur the merited suspicion of doing it with some idea
   that it is unjust, as not wishing to hear what you may not be able to
   hear and condemn.  We lay this before you as the first ground on which
   we urge that your hatred to the name of Christian is unjust.  And the
   very reason which seems to excuse this injustice (I mean ignorance) at
   once aggravates and convicts it.  For what is there more unfair than to
   hate a thing of which you know nothing, even though it deserve to be
   hated?  Hatred is only merited when it is known to be merited. But
   without that knowledge, whence is its justice to be vindicated? for
   that is to be proved, not from the mere fact that an aversion exists,
   but from acquaintance with the subject. When men, then, give way to a
   dislike simply because they are entirely ignorant of the nature of the
   thing disliked, why may it not be precisely the very sort of thing they
   should not dislike? So we maintain that they are both ignorant while
   they hate us, and hate us unrighteously while they continue in
   ignorance, the one thing being the result of the other either way of
   it. The proof of their ignorance, at once condemning and excusing their
   injustice, is this, that those who once hated Christianity because they
   knew nothing about it, no sooner come to know it than they all lay down
   at once their enmity.  From being its haters they become its disciples.
   By simply getting acquainted with it, they begin now to hate what they
   had formerly been, and to profess what they had formerly hated; and
   their numbers are as great as are laid to our charge. The outcry is
   that the State is filled with Christians--that they are in the fields,
   in the citadels, in the islands: they make lamentation, as for some
   calamity, that both sexes, every age and condition, even high rank, are
   passing over to the profession of the Christian faith; and yet for all,
   their minds are not awakened to the thought of some good they have
   failed to notice in it. They must not allow any truer suspicions to
   cross their minds; they have no desire to make closer trial. Here alone
   the curiosity of human nature slumbers. They like to be ignorant,
   though to others the knowledge has been bliss.  Anacharsis reproved the
   rude venturing to criticise the cultured; how much more this judging of
   those who know, by men who are entirely ignorant, might he have
   denounced! Because they already dislike, they want to know no more.
   Thus they prejudge that of which they are ignorant to be such, that, if
   they came to know it, it could no longer be the object of their
   aversion; since, if inquiry finds nothing worthy of dislike, it is
   certainly proper to cease from an unjust dislike, while if its bad
   character comes plainly out, instead of the detestation entertained for
   it being thus diminished, a stronger reason for perseverance in that
   detestation is obtained, even under the authority of justice itself.
   But, says one, a thing is not good merely because multitudes go over to
   it; for how many have the bent of their nature towards whatever is bad!
   how many go astray into ways of error! It is undoubted. Yet a thing
   that is thoroughly evil, not even those whom it carries away venture to
   defend as good. Nature throws a veil either of fear or shame over all
   evil. For instance, you find that criminals are eager to conceal
   themselves, avoid appearing in public, are in trepidation when they are
   caught, deny their guilt, when they are accused; even when they are put
   to the rack, they do not easily or always confess; when there is no
   doubt about their condemnation, they grieve for what they have done. In
   their self-communings they admit their being impelled by sinful
   dispositions, but they lay the blame either on fate or on the stars.
   They are unwilling to acknowledge that the thing is theirs, because
   they own that it is wicked. But what is there like this in the
   Christian's case? The only shame or regret he feels, is at not having
   been a Christian earlier. If he is pointed out, he glories in it; if he
   is accused, he offers no defence; interrogated, he makes voluntary
   confession; condemned he renders thanks. What sort of evil thing is
   this, which wants all the ordinary peculiarities of evil--fear, shame,
   subterfuge, penitence, lamenting?  What! is that a crime in which the
   criminal rejoices? to be accused of which is his ardent wish, to be
   punished for which is his felicity? You cannot call it madness, you who
   stand convicted of knowing nothing of the matter.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [77] [Great diversity exists among the critics as to the date of this
   Apology; see Kaye, pp. xvi. 48, 65. Mosheim says, a.d. 198, Kaye a.d.
   204.]

   [78] Elucidation II.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter II.

   If, again, it is certain that we are the most wicked of men, why do you
   treat us so differently from our fellows, that is, from other
   criminals, it being only fair that the same crime should get the same
   treatment? When the charges made against us are made against others,
   they are permitted to make use both of their own lips and of hired
   pleaders to show their innocence. They have full opportunity of answer
   and debate; in fact, it is against the law to condemn anybody
   undefended and unheard. Christians alone are forbidden to say anything
   in exculpation of themselves, in defence of the truth, to help the
   judge to a righteous decision; all that is cared about is having what
   the public hatred demands--the confession of the name, not examination
   of the charge: while in your ordinary judicial investigations, on a
   man's confession of the crime of murder, or sacrilege, or incest, or
   treason, to take the points of which we are accused, you are not
   content to proceed at once to sentence,--you do not take that step till
   you thoroughly examine the circumstances of the confession--what is the
   real character of the deed, how often, where, in what way, when he has
   done it, who were privy to it, and who actually took part with him in
   it. Nothing like this is done in our case, though the falsehoods
   disseminated about us ought to have the same sifting, that it might be
   found how many murdered children each of us had tasted; how many
   incests each of us had shrouded in darkness; what cooks, what dogs had
   been witness of our deeds. Oh, how great the glory of the ruler who
   should bring to light some Christian who had devoured a hundred
   infants! But, instead of that, we find that even inquiry in regard to
   our case is forbidden. For the younger Pliny, when he was ruler of a
   province, having condemned some Christians to death, and driven some
   from their stedfastness, being still annoyed by their great numbers, at
   last sought the advice of Trajan, [79] the reigning emperor, as to what
   he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an
   obstinate disinclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious
   services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to
   Christ and [80] God, and sealing home their way of life by a united
   pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery,
   dishonesty, and other crimes. Upon this Trajan wrote back that
   Christians were by no means to be sought after; but if they were
   brought before him, they should be punished. O miserable
   deliverance,--under the necessities of the case, a self-contradiction!
   It forbids them to be sought after as innocent, and it commands them to
   be punished as guilty. It is at once merciful and cruel; it passes by,
   and it punishes. Why dost thou play a game of evasion upon thyself, O
   Judgment?  If thou condemnest, why dost thou not also inquire. If thou
   does not inquire, why dost thou not also absolve? Military stations are
   distributed through all the provinces for tracking robbers. Against
   traitors and public foes every man is a soldier; search is made even
   for their confederates and accessories. The Christian alone must not be
   sought, though he may be brought and accused before the judge; as if a
   search had any other end than that in view! And so you condemn the man
   for whom nobody wished a search to be made when he is presented to you,
   and who even now does not deserve punishment, I suppose, because of his
   guilt, but because, though forbidden to be sought, he was found. And
   then, too, you do not in that case deal with us in the ordinary way of
   judicial proceedings against offenders; for, in the case of others
   denying, you apply the torture to make them confess--Christians alone
   you torture, to make them deny; whereas, if we were guilty of any
   crime, we should be sure to deny it, and you with your tortures would
   force us to confession. Nor indeed should you hold that our crimes
   require no such investigation merely on the ground that you are
   convinced by our confession of the name that the deeds were done,--you
   who are daily wont, though you know well enough what murder is, none
   the less to extract from the confessed murderer a full account of how
   the crime was perpetrated. So that with all the greater perversity you
   act, when, holding our crimes proved by our confession of the name of
   Christ, you drive us by torture to fall from our confession, that,
   repudiating the name, we may in like manner repudiate also the crimes
   with which, from that same confession, you had assumed that we were
   chargeable. I suppose, though you believe us to be the worst of
   mankind, you do not wish us to perish.  For thus, no doubt, you are in
   the habit of bidding the murderer deny, and of ordering the man guilty
   of sacrilege to the rack if he persevere in his acknowledgment! Is that
   the way of it? But if thus you do not deal with us as criminals, you
   declare us thereby innocent, when as innocent you are anxious that we
   do not persevere in a confession which you know will bring on us a
   condemnation of necessity, not of justice, at your hands. ?I am a
   Christian,? the man cries out. He tells you what he is; you wish to
   hear from him what he is not. Occupying your place of authority to
   extort the truth, you do your utmost to get lies from us. ?I am,? he
   says, ?that which you ask me if I am. Why do you torture me to sin? I
   confess, and you put me to the rack. What would you do if I denied?
   Certainly you give no ready credence to others when they deny. When we
   deny, you believe at once. Let this perversity of yours lead you to
   suspect that there is some hidden power in the case under whose
   influence you act against the forms, against the nature of public
   justice, even against the very laws themselves. For, unless I am
   greatly mistaken, the laws enjoin offenders to be searched out, and not
   to be hidden away. They lay it down that persons who own a crime are to
   be condemned, not acquitted. The decrees of the senate, the commands of
   your chiefs, lay this clearly down. The power of which you are servants
   is a civil, not a tyrannical domination.  Among tyrants, indeed,
   torments used to be inflicted even as punishments: with you they are
   mitigated to a means of questioning alone. Keep to your law in these as
   necessary till confession is obtained; and if the torture is
   anticipated by confession, there will be no occasion for it: sentence
   should be passed; the criminal should be given over to the penalty
   which is his due, not released. Accordingly, no one is eager for the
   acquittal of the guilty; it is not right to desire that, and so no one
   is ever compelled to deny. Well, you think the Christian a man of every
   crime, an enemy of the gods, of the emperor, of the laws, of good
   morals, of all nature; yet you compel him to deny, that you may acquit
   him, which without him denial you could not do. You play fast and loose
   with the laws. You wish him to deny his guilt, that you may, even
   against his will, bring him out blameless and free from all guilt in
   reference to the past! Whence is this strange perversity on your part?
   How is it you do not reflect that a spontaneous confession is greatly
   more worthy of credit than a compelled denial; or consider whether,
   when compelled to deny, a man's denial may not be in good faith, and
   whether acquitted, he may not, then and there, as soon as the trial is
   over, laugh at your hostility, a Christian as much as ever? Seeing,
   then, that in everything you deal differently with us than with other
   criminals, bent upon the one object of taking from us our name (indeed,
   it is ours no more if we do what Christians never do), it is made
   perfectly clear that there is no crime of any kind in the case, but
   merely a name which a certain system, ever working against the truth,
   pursues with its enmity, doing this chiefly with the object of securing
   that men may have no desire to know for certain what they know for
   certain they are entirely ignorant of. Hence, too, it is that they
   believe about us things of which they have no proof, and they are
   disinclined to have them looked into, lest the charges, they would
   rather take on trust, are all proved to have no foundation, that the
   name so hostile to that rival power--its crimes presumed, not
   proved--may be condemned simply on its own confession. So we are put to
   the torture if we confess, and we are punished if we persevere, and if
   we deny we are acquitted, because all the contention is about a name.
   Finally, why do you read out of your tablet-lists that such a man is a
   Christian?  Why not also that he is a murderer?  And if a Christian is
   a murderer, why not guilty, too, of incest, or any other vile thing you
   believe of us? In our case alone you are either ashamed or unwilling to
   mention the very names of our crimes--If to be called a ?Christian?
   does not imply any crime, the name is surely very hateful, when that of
   itself is made a crime.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [79] [For chronological dates in our author's age, see Elucidation
   III.  Tertullian places an interval of 115 years, 6 months, and 15 days
   between Tiberius and Antoninus Pius. See Answer to the Jews, cap. vii.
   infra.]

   [80] Another reading is ?ut Deo,? as God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter III.

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

   Chapter IV.

   And so, having made these remarks as it were by way of preface, that I
   might show in its true colours the injustice of the public hatred
   against us, I shall now take my stand on the plea of our blamelessness;
   and I shall not only refute the things which are objected to us, but I
   shall also retort them on the objectors, that in this way all may know
   that Christians are free from the very crimes they are so well aware
   prevail among themselves, that they may at the same time be put to the
   blush for their accusations against us,--accusations I shall not say of
   the worst of men against the best, but now, as they will have it,
   against those who are only their fellows in sin. We shall reply to the
   accusation of all the various crimes we are said to be guilty of in
   secret, such as we find them committing in the light of day, and as
   being guilty of which we are held to be wicked, senseless, worthy of
   punishment, deserving of ridicule. But since, when our truth meets you
   successfully at all points, the authority of the laws as a last resort
   is set up against it, so that it is either said that their
   determinations are absolutely conclusive, or the necessity of obedience
   is, however unwillingly, preferred to the truth, I shall first, in this
   matter of the laws grapple with you as with their chosen protectors.
   Now first, when you sternly lay it down in your sentences, ?It is not
   lawful for you to exist,? and with unhesitating rigour you enjoin this
   to be carried out, you exhibit the violence and unjust domination of
   mere tyranny, if you deny the thing to be lawful, simply on the ground
   that you wish it to be unlawful, not because it ought to be. But if you
   would have it unlawful because it ought not to be lawful, without doubt
   that should have no permission of law which does harm; and on this
   ground, in fact, it is already determined that whatever is beneficial
   is legitimate. Well, if I have found what your law prohibits to be
   good, as one who has arrived at such a previous opinion, has it not
   lost its power to debar me from it, though that very thing, if it were
   evil, it would justly forbid to me? If your law has gone wrong, it is
   of human origin, I think; it has not fallen from heaven. Is it
   wonderful that man should err in making a law, or come to his senses in
   rejecting it? Did not the Lacedæmonians amend the laws of Lycurgus
   himself, thereby inflicting such pain on their author that he shut
   himself up, and doomed himself to death by starvation? Are you not
   yourselves every day, in your efforts to illumine the darkness of
   antiquity, cutting and hewing with the new axes of imperial rescripts
   and edicts, that whole ancient and rugged forest of your laws? Has not
   Severus, that most resolute of rulers, but yesterday repealed the
   ridiculous Papian laws [81] which compelled people to have children
   before the Julian laws allow matrimony to be contracted, and that
   though they have the authority of age upon their side? There were laws,
   too, in old times, that parties against whom a decision had been given
   might be cut in pieces by their creditors; however, by common consent
   that cruelty was afterwards erased from the statutes, and the capital
   penalty turned into a brand of shame. By adopting the plan of
   confiscating a debtor's goods, it was sought rather to pour the blood
   in blushes over his face than to pour it out.  How many laws lie hidden
   out of sight which still require to be reformed! For it is neither the
   number of their years nor the dignity of their maker that commends
   them, but simply that they are just; and therefore, when their
   injustice is recognized, they are deservedly condemned, even though
   they condemn.  Why speak we of them as unjust? nay, if they punish mere
   names, we may well call them irrational. But if they punish acts, why
   in our case do they punish acts solely on the ground of a name, while
   in others they must have them proved not from the name, but from the
   wrong done? I am a practiser of incest (so they say); why do they not
   inquire into it? I am an infant-killer; why do they not apply the
   torture to get from me the truth? I am guilty of crimes against the
   gods, against the Cæsars; why am I, who am able to clear myself, not
   allowed to be heard on my own behalf? No law forbids the sifting of the
   crimes which it prohibits, for a judge never inflicts a righteous
   vengeance if he is not well assured that a crime has been committed;
   nor does a citizen render a true subjection to the law, if he does not
   know the nature of the thing on which the punishment is inflicted. It
   is not enough that a law is just, nor that the judge should be
   convinced of its justice; those from whom obedience is expected should
   have that conviction too. Nay, a law lies under strong suspicions which
   does not care to have itself tried and approved: it is a positively
   wicked law, if, unproved, it tyrannizes over men.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [81] [A reference in which Kaye sees no reason to doubt that the
   Apology was written during the reign under the emperor. See Kaye's
   Tertullian, p. 49.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter V.

   To say a word about the origin of laws of the kind to which we now
   refer, there was an old decree that no god should be consecrated by the
   emperor till first approved by the senate. Marcus Æmilius had
   experience of this in reference to his god Alburnus.  And this, too,
   makes for our case, that among you divinity is allotted at the judgment
   of human beings. Unless gods give satisfaction to men, there will be no
   deification for them: the god will have to propitiate the man. Tiberius
   [82] accordingly, in whose days the Christian name made its entry into
   the world, having himself received intelligence from Palestine of
   events which had clearly shown the truth of Christ's divinity, brought
   the matter before the senate, with his own decision in favour of
   Christ.  The senate, because it had not given the approval itself,
   rejected his proposal. Cæsar held to his opinion, threatening wrath
   against all accusers of the Christians. Consult your histories; you
   will there find that Nero was the first who assailed with the imperial
   sword the Christian sect, making progress then especially at Rome.  But
   we glory in having our condemnation hallowed by the hostility of such a
   wretch. For any one who knows him, can understand that not except as
   being of singular excellence did anything bring on it Nero's
   condemnation.  Domitian, too, a man of Nero's type in cruelty, tried
   his hand at persecution; but as he had something of the human in him,
   he soon put an end to what he had begun, even restoring again those
   whom he had banished. Such as these have always been our
   persecutors,--men unjust, impious, base, of whom even you yourselves
   have no good to say, the sufferers under whose sentences you have been
   wont to restore. But among so many princes from that time to the
   present day, with anything of divine and human wisdom in them, point
   out a single persecutor of the Christian name.  So far from that, we,
   on the contrary, bring before you one who was their protector, as you
   will see by examining the letters of Marcus Aurelius, that most grave
   of emperors, in which he bears his testimony that that Germanic drought
   was removed by the rains obtained through the prayers of the Christians
   who chanced to be fighting under him.  And as he did not by public law
   remove from Christians their legal disabilities, yet in another way he
   put them openly aside, even adding a sentence of condemnation, and that
   of greater severity, against their accusers. What sort of laws are
   these which the impious alone execute against us--and the unjust, the
   vile, the bloody, the senseless, the insane? which Trajan to some
   extent made naught by forbidding Christians to be sought after; which
   neither a Hadrian, though fond of searching into all things strange and
   new, nor a Vespasian, though the subjugator of the Jews, nor a Pius,
   nor a Verus, ever enforced? It should surely be judged more natural for
   bad men to be eradicated by good princes as being their natural
   enemies, than by those of a spirit kindred with their own.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [82] [Elucidation IV.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VI.

   I would now have these most religious protectors and vindicators of the
   laws and institutions of their fathers, tell me, in regard to their own
   fidelity and the honour, and submission they themselves show to
   ancestral institutions, if they have departed from nothing--if they
   have in nothing gone out of the old paths--if they have not put aside
   whatsoever is most useful and necessary as rules of a virtuous life.
   What has become of the laws repressing expensive and ostentatious ways
   of living? which forbade more than a hundred asses to be expended on a
   supper, and more than one fowl to be set on the table at a time, and
   that not a fatted one; which expelled a patrician from the senate on
   the serious ground, as it was counted, of aspiring to be too great,
   because he had acquired ten pounds of silver; which put down the
   theatres as quickly as they arose to debauch the manners of the people;
   which did not permit the insignia of official dignities or of noble
   birth to be rashly or with impunity usurped? For I see the Centenarian
   suppers must now bear the name, not from the hundred asses, but from
   the hundred sestertia [83] expended on them; and that mines of silver
   are made into dishes (it were little if this applied only to senators,
   and not to freedmen or even mere whip-spoilers [84] ). I see, too, that
   neither is a single theatre enough, nor are theatres unsheltered: no
   doubt it was that immodest pleasure might not be torpid in the
   wintertime, the Lacedæmonians invented their woollen cloaks for the
   plays. I see now no difference between the dress of matrons and
   prostitutes. In regard to women, indeed, those laws of your fathers,
   which used to be such an encouragement to modesty and sobriety, have
   also fallen into desuetude, when a woman had yet known no gold upon her
   save on the finger, which, with the bridal ring, her husband had
   sacredly pledged to himself; when the abstinence of women from wine was
   carried so far, that a matron, for opening the compartments of a wine
   cellar, was starved to death by her friends,--while in the times of
   Romulus, for merely tasting wine, Mecenius killed his wife, and
   suffered nothing for the deed. With reference to this also, it was the
   custom of women to kiss their relatives, that they might be detected by
   their breath. Where is that happiness of married life, ever so
   desirable, which distinguished our earlier manners, and as the result
   of which for about 600 years there was not among us a single divorce?
   Now, women have every member of the body heavy laden with gold;
   wine-bibbing is so common among them, that the kiss is never offered
   with their will; and as for divorce, they long for it as though it were
   the natural consequence of marriage. The laws, too, your fathers in
   their wisdom had enacted concerning the very gods themselves, you their
   most loyal children have rescinded.  The consuls, by the authority of
   the senate, banished Father Bacchus and his mysteries not merely from
   the city, but from the whole of Italy. The consuls Piso and Gabinius,
   no Christians surely, forbade Serapis, and Isis, and Arpocrates, with
   their dogheaded friend, [85] admission into the Capitol--in the act
   casting them out from the assembly of the gods--overthrow their altars,
   and expelled them from the country, being anxious to prevent the vices
   of their base and lascivious religion from spreading. These, you have
   restored, and conferred highest honours on them. What has come to your
   religion--of the veneration due by you to your ancestors? In your
   dress, in your food, in your style of life, in your opinions, and last
   of all in your very speech, you have renounced your progenitors. You
   are always praising antiquity, and yet every day you have novelties in
   your way of living. From your having failed to maintain what you
   should, you make it clear, that, while you abandon the good ways of
   your fathers, you retain and guard the things you ought not. Yet the
   very tradition of your fathers, which you still seem so faithfully to
   defend, and in which you find your principal matter of accusation
   against the Christians--I mean zeal in the worship of the gods, the
   point in which antiquity has mainly erred--although you have rebuilt
   the altars of Serapis, now a Roman deity, and to Bacchus, now become a
   god of Italy, you offer up your orgies,--I shall in its proper place
   show that you despise, neglect, and overthrow, casting entirely aside
   the authority of the men of old. I go on meantime to reply to that
   infamous charge of secret crimes, clearing my way to things of open
   day.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [83] As = 2-1/8 farthings. Sestertium = £7, 16s. 3d.

   [84] Slaves still bearing the marks of the scourge.

   [85] Anubis.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VII.

   Monsters of wickedness, we are accused of observing a holy rite in
   which we kill a little child and then eat it; in which, after the
   feast, we practise incest, the dogs--our pimps, forsooth, overturning
   the lights and getting us the shamelessness of darkness for our impious
   lusts. This is what is constantly laid to our charge, and yet you take
   no pains to elicit the truth of what we have been so long accused.
   Either bring, then, the matter to the light of day if you believe it,
   or give it no credit as having never inquired into it. On the ground of
   your double dealing, we are entitled to lay it down to you that there
   is no reality in the thing which you dare not expiscate. You impose on
   the executioner, in the case of Christians, a duty the very opposite of
   expiscation: he is not to make them confess what they do, but to make
   them deny what they are. We date the origin of our religion, as we have
   mentioned before, from the reign of Tiberius. Truth and the hatred of
   truth come into our world together. As soon as truth appears, it is
   regarded as an enemy. It has as many foes as there are strangers to
   it:  the Jews, as was to be looked for, from a spirit of rivalry; the
   soldiers, out of a desire to extort money; our very domestics, by their
   nature. We are daily beset by foes, we are daily betrayed; we are
   oftentimes surprised in our meetings and congregations. Whoever
   happened withal upon an infant wailing, according to the common story?
   Whoever kept for the judge, just as he had found them, the gory mouths
   of Cyclops and Sirens? Whoever found any traces of uncleanness in their
   wives? Where is the man who, when he had discovered such atrocities,
   concealed them; or, in the act of dragging the culprits before the
   judge, was bribed into silence? If we always keep our secrets, when
   were our proceedings made known to the world?  Nay, by whom could they
   be made known?  Not, surely, by the guilty parties themselves; even
   from the very idea of the thing, the fealty of silence being ever due
   to mysteries. The Samothracian and Eleusinian make no disclosures--how
   much more will silence be kept in regard to such as are sure, in their
   unveiling, to call forth punishment from man at once, while wrath
   divine is kept in store for the future?  If, then, Christians are not
   themselves the publishers of their crime, it follows of course it must
   be strangers.  And whence have they their knowledge, when it is also a
   universal custom in religious initiations to keep the profane aloof,
   and to beware of witnesses, unless it be that those who are so wicked
   have less fear than their neighbors? Every one knows what sort of thing
   rumour is. It is one of your own sayings, that ?among all evils, none
   flies so fast as rumour.? Why is rumour such an evil thing? Is it
   because it is fleet? Is it because it carries information? Or is it
   because it is in the highest degree mendacious?--a thing, not even when
   it brings some truth to us, without a taint of falsehood, either
   detracting, or adding, or changing from the simple fact? Nay more, it
   is the very law of its being to continue only while it lies, and to
   live but so long as there is no proof; for when the proof is given, it
   ceases to exist; and, as having done its work of merely spreading a
   report, it delivers up a fact, and is henceforth held to be a fact, and
   called a fact.  And then no one says, for instance, ?They say that it
   took place at Rome,? or, ?There is a rumour that he has obtained a
   province,? but, ?He has got a province,? and, ?It took place at Rome.?
   Rumour, the very designation of uncertainty, has no place when a thing
   is certain. Does any but a fool put his trust in it? For a wise man
   never believes the dubious. Everybody knows, however zealously it is
   spread abroad, on whatever strength of asseveration it rests, that some
   time or other from some one fountain it has its origin. Thence it must
   creep into propagating tongues and ears; and a small seminal blemish so
   darkens all the rest of the story, that no one can determine whether
   the lips, from which it first came forth, planted the seed of
   falsehood, as often happens, from a spirit of opposition, or from a
   suspicious judgment, or from a confirmed, nay, in the case of some, an
   inborn, delight in lying. It is well that time brings all to light, as
   your proverbs and sayings testify, by a provision of Nature, which has
   so appointed things that nothing long is hidden, even though rumour has
   not disseminated it.  It is just then as it should be, that fame for so
   long a period has been alone aware of the crimes of Christians.  This
   is the witness you bring against us--one that has never been able to
   prove the accusation it some time or other sent abroad, and at last by
   mere continuance made into a settled opinion in the world; so that I
   confidently appeal to Nature herself, ever true, against those who
   groundlessly hold that such things are to be credited.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VIII.

   See now, we set before you the reward of these enormities. They give
   promise of eternal life. Hold it meanwhile as your own belief. I ask
   you, then, whether, so believing, you think it worth attaining with a
   conscience such as you will have. Come, plunge your knife into the
   babe, enemy of none, accused of none, child of all; or if that is
   another's work, simply take your place beside a human being dying
   before he has really lived, await the departure of the lately given
   soul, receive the fresh young blood, saturate your bread with it,
   freely partake. The while as you recline at table, take note of the
   places which your mother and your sister occupy; mark them well, so
   that when the dog-made darkness has fallen on you, you may make no
   mistake, for you will be guilty of a crime--unless you perpetrate a
   deed of incest. Initiated and sealed into things like these, you have
   life everlasting. Tell me, I pray you, is eternity worth it? If it is
   not, then these things are not to be credited.  Even although you had
   the belief, I deny the will; and even if you had the will, I deny the
   possibility. Why then can others do it, if you cannot? why cannot you,
   if others can? I suppose we are of a different nature--are we Cynopæ or
   Sciapodes? [86] You are a man yourself as well as the Christian: if you
   cannot do it, you ought not to believe it of others, for a Christian is
   a man as well as you. But the ignorant, forsooth, are deceived and
   imposed on. They were quite unaware of anything of the kind being
   imputed to Christians, or they would certainly have looked into it for
   themselves, and searched the matter out. Instead of that, it is the
   custom for persons wishing initiation into sacred rites, I think, to go
   first of all to the master of them, that he may explain what
   preparations are to be made. Then, in this case, no doubt he would say,
   ?You must have a child still of tender age, that knows not what it is
   to die, and can smile under thy knife; bread, too, to collect the
   gushing blood; in addition to these, candlesticks, and lamps, and
   dogs--with tid-bits to draw them on to the extinguishing of the
   lights:  above all things, you will require to bring your mother and
   your sister with you.? But what if mother and sister are unwilling? or
   if there be neither the one nor the other? What if there are Christians
   with no Christian relatives? He will not be counted, I suppose, a true
   follower of Christ, who has not a brother or a son. And what now, if
   these things are all in store for them without their knowledge?  At
   least afterwards they come to know them; and they bear with them, and
   pardon them. They fear, it may be said, lest they have to pay for it if
   they let the secret out: nay, but they will rather in that case have
   every claim to protection; they will even prefer, one might think,
   dying by their own hand, to living under the burden of such a dreadful
   knowledge. Admit that they have this fear; yet why do they still
   persevere? For it is plain enough that you will have no desire to
   continue what you would never have been, if you had had previous
   knowledge of it.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [86] Fabulous monsters.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IX.

   That I may refute more thoroughly these charges, I will show that in
   part openly, in part secretly, practices prevail among you which have
   led you perhaps to credit similar things about us. Children were openly
   sacrificed in Africa to Saturn as lately as the proconsulship of
   Tiberius, who exposed to public gaze the priests suspended on the
   sacred trees overshadowing their temple--so many crosses on which the
   punishment which justice craved overtook their crimes, as the soldiers
   of our country still can testify who did that very work for that
   proconsul. And even now that sacred crime still continues to be done in
   secret. It is not only Christians, you see, who despise you; for all
   that you do there is neither any crime thoroughly and abidingly
   eradicated, nor does any of your gods reform his ways. When Saturn did
   not spare his own children, he was not likely to spare the children of
   others; whom indeed the very parents themselves were in the habit of
   offering, gladly responding to the call which was made on them, and
   keeping the little ones pleased on the occasion, that they might not
   die in tears. At the same time, there is a vast difference between
   homicide and parricide. A more advanced age was sacrificed to Mercury
   in Gaul. I hand over the Tauric fables to their own theatres. Why, even
   in that most religious city of the pious descendants of Æneas, there is
   a certain Jupiter whom in their games they lave with human blood. It is
   the blood of a beast-fighter, you say. Is it less, because of that, the
   blood of a man? [87] Or is it viler blood because it is from the veins
   of a wicked man? At any rate it is shed in murder. O Jove, thyself a
   Christian, and in truth only son of thy father in his cruelty! But in
   regard to child murder, as it does not matter whether it is committed
   for a sacred object, or merely at one's own self-impulse--although
   there is a great difference, as we have said, between parricide and
   homicide--I shall turn to the people generally. How many, think you, of
   those crowding around and gaping for Christian blood,--how many even of
   your rulers, notable for their justice to you and for their severe
   measures against us, may I charge in their own consciences with the sin
   of putting their offspring to death? As to any difference in the kind
   of murder, it is certainly the more cruel way to kill by drowning, or
   by exposure to cold and hunger and dogs. A maturer age has always
   preferred death by the sword. In our case, murder being once for all
   forbidden, we may not destroy even the foetus in the womb, while as yet
   the human being derives blood from other parts of the body for its
   sustenance. To hinder a birth is merely a speedier man-killing; nor
   does it matter whether you take away a life that is born, or destroy
   one that is coming to the birth. That is a man which is going to be
   one; you have the fruit already in its seed. As to meals of blood and
   such tragic dishes, read--I am not sure where it is told (it is in
   Herodotus, I think)--how blood taken from the arms, and tasted by both
   parties, has been the treaty bond among some nations. I am not sure
   what it was that was tasted in the time of Catiline. They say, too,
   that among some Scythian tribes the dead are eaten by their friends.
   But I am going far from home. At this day, among ourselves, blood
   consecrated to Bellona, blood drawn from a punctured thigh and then
   partaken of, seals initiation into the rites of that goddess. Those,
   too, who at the gladiator shows, for the cure of epilepsy, quaff with
   greedy thirst the blood of criminals slain in the arena, as it flows
   fresh from the wound, and then rush off--to whom do they belong? those,
   also, who make meals on the flesh of wild beasts at the place of
   combat--who have keen appetites for bear and stag? That bear in the
   struggle was bedewed with the blood of the man whom it lacerated:  that
   stag rolled itself in the gladiator's gore. The entrails of the very
   bears, loaded with as yet undigested human viscera, are in great
   request. And you have men rifting up man-fed flesh? If you partake of
   food like this, how do your repasts differ from those you accuse us
   Christians of? And do those, who, with savage lust, seize on human
   bodies, do less because they devour the living? Have they less the
   pollution of human blood on them because they only lick up what is to
   turn into blood? They make meals, it is plain, not so much of infants,
   as of grown-up men. Blush for your vile ways before the Christians, who
   have not even the blood of animals at their meals of simple and natural
   food; who abstain from things strangled and that die a natural death,
   for no other reason than that they may not contract pollution, so much
   as from blood secreted in the viscera. To clench the matter with a
   single example, you tempt Christians with sausages of blood, just
   because you are perfectly aware that the thing by which you thus try to
   get them to transgress they hold unlawful. [88] And how unreasonable it
   is to believe that those, of whom you are convinced that they regard
   with horror the idea of tasting the blood of oxen, are eager after
   blood of men; unless, mayhap, you have tried it, and found it sweeter
   to the taste! Nay, in fact, there is here a test you should apply to
   discover Christians, as well as the fire-pan and the censer. They
   should be proved by their appetite for human blood, as well as by their
   refusal to offer sacrifice; just as otherwise they should be affirmed
   to be free of Christianity by their refusal to taste of blood, as by
   their sacrificing; and there would be no want of blood of men, amply
   supplied as that would be in the trial and condemnation of prisoners.
   Then who are more given to the crime of incest than those who have
   enjoyed the instruction of Jupiter himself? Ctesias tells us that the
   Persians have illicit intercourse with their mothers.  The Macedonians,
   too, are suspected on this point; for on first hearing the tragedy of
   OEdipus they made mirth of the incest-doer's grief, exclaiming, helaune
   eis ten metera. Even now reflect what opportunity there is for mistakes
   leading to incestuous comminglings--your promiscuous looseness
   supplying the materials. You first of all expose your children, that
   they may be taken up by any compassionate passer-by, to whom they are
   quite unknown; or you give them away, to be adopted by those who will
   do better to them the part of parents. Well, some time or other, all
   memory of the alienated progeny must be lost; and when once a mistake
   has been made, the transmission of incest thence will still go on--the
   race and the crime creeping on together. Then, further, wherever you
   are--at home, abroad, over the seas--your lust is an attendant, whose
   general indulgence, or even its indulgence in the most limited scale,
   may easily and unwittingly anywhere beget children, so that in this way
   a progeny scattered about in the commerce of life may have intercourse
   with those who are their own kin, and have no notion that there is any
   incest in the case. A persevering and stedfast chastity has protected
   us from anything like this:  keeping as we do from adulteries and all
   post-matrimonial unfaithfulness, we are not exposed to incestuous
   mishaps. Some of us, making matters still more secure, beat away from
   them entirely the power of sensual sin, by a virgin continence, still
   boys in this respect when they are old.  If you would but take notice
   that such sins as I have mentioned prevail among you, that would lead
   you to see that they have no existence among Christians. The same eyes
   would tell you of both facts. But the two blindnesses are apt to go
   together; so that those who do not see what is, think they see what is
   not. I shall show it to be so in everything. But now let me speak of
   matters which are more clear.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [87] [Another example of what Christianity was doing for man as man.]

   [88] [See Elucidation VII., p. 58, infra in connection with usages in
   cap. xxxix.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter X.

   ?You do not worship the gods,? you say; ?and you do not offer
   sacrifices for the emperors.? Well, we do not offer sacrifice for
   others, for the same reason that we do not for ourselves,--namely, that
   your gods are not at all the objects of our worship.  So we are accused
   of sacrilege and treason. This is the chief ground of charge against
   us--nay, it is the sum-total of our offending; and it is worthy then of
   being inquired into, if neither prejudice nor injustice be the judge,
   the one of which has no idea of discovering the truth, and the other
   simply and at once rejects it. We do not worship your gods, because we
   know that there are no such beings.  This, therefore, is what you
   should do:  you should call on us to demonstrate their non-existence,
   and thereby prove that they have no claim to adoration; for only if
   your gods were truly so, would there be any obligation to render divine
   homage to them. And punishment even were due to Christians, if it were
   made plain that those to whom they refused all worship were indeed
   divine. But you say, They are gods. We protest and appeal from
   yourselves to your knowledge; let that judge us; let that condemn us,
   if it can deny that all these gods of yours were but men. If even it
   venture to deny that, it will be confuted by its own books of
   antiquities, from which it has got its information about them, bearing
   witness to this day, as they plainly do, both of the cities in which
   they were born, and the countries in which they have left traces of
   their exploits, as well as where also they are proved to have been
   buried.  Shall I now, therefore, go over them one by one, so numerous
   and so various, new and old, barbarian, Grecian, Roman, foreign,
   captive and adopted, private and common, male and female, rural and
   urban, naval and military? It were useless even to hunt out all their
   names: so I may content myself with a compend; and this not for your
   information, but that you may have what you know brought to your
   recollection, for undoubtedly you act as if you had forgotten all about
   them. No one of your gods is earlier than Saturn: from him you trace
   all your deities, even those of higher rank and better known. What,
   then, can be proved of the first, will apply to those that follow. So
   far, then, as books give us information, neither the Greek Diodorus or
   Thallus, neither Cassius Severus or Cornelius Nepos, nor any writer
   upon sacred antiquities, have ventured to say that Saturn was any but a
   man: so far as the question depends on facts, I find none more
   trustworthy than those--that in Italy itself we have the country in
   which, after many expeditions, and after having partaken of Attic
   hospitalities, Saturn settled, obtaining cordial welcome from Janus,
   or, as the Salii will have it, Janis. The mountain on which he dwelt
   was called Saturnius; the city he founded is called Saturnia to this
   day; last of all, the whole of Italy, after having borne the name of
   Oenotria, was called Saturnia from him.  He first gave you the art of
   writing, and a stamped coinage, and thence it is he presides over the
   public treasury.  But if Saturn were a man, he had undoubtedly a human
   origin; and having a human origin, he was not the offspring of heaven
   and earth. As his parents were unknown, it was not unnatural that he
   should be spoken of as the son of those elements from which we might
   all seem to spring. For who does not speak of heaven and earth as
   father and mother, in a sort of way of veneration and honour? or from
   the custom which prevails among us of saying that persons of whom we
   have no knowledge, or who make a sudden appearance, have fallen from
   the skies? In this way it came about that Saturn, everywhere a sudden
   and unlooked-for guest, got everywhere the name of the Heaven-born.
   For even the common folk call persons whose stock is unknown, sons of
   earth. I say nothing of how men in these rude times were wont to act,
   when they were impressed by the look of any stranger happening to
   appear among them, as though it were divine, since even at this day men
   of culture make gods of those whom, a day or two before, they
   acknowledged to be dead men by their public mourning for them. Let
   these notices of Saturn, brief as they are, suffice. It will thus also
   be proved that Jupiter is as certainly a man, as from a man he sprung;
   and that one after another the whole swarm is mortal like the primal
   stock.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XI.

   And since, as you dare not deny that these deities of yours once were
   men, you have taken it on you to assert that they were made gods after
   their decease, let us consider what necessity there was for this. In
   the first place, you must concede the existence of one higher God--a
   certain wholesale dealer in divinity, who has made gods of men.  For
   they could neither have assumed a divinity which was not theirs, nor
   could any but one himself possessing it have conferred it on them. If
   there was no one to make gods, it is vain to dream of gods being made
   when thus you have no god-maker. Most certainly, if they could have
   deified themselves, with a higher state at their command, they never
   would have been men. If, then, there be one who is able to make gods, I
   turn back to an examination of any reason there may be for making gods
   at all; and I find no other reason than this, that the great God has
   need of their ministrations and aids in performing the offices of
   Deity. But first it is an unworthy idea that He should need the help of
   a man, and in fact a dead man, when, if He was to be in want of this
   assistance from the dead, He might more fittingly have created some one
   a god at the beginning.  Nor do I see any place for his action.  For
   this entire world-mass--whether self-existent and uncreated, as
   Pythagoras maintains, or brought into being by a creator's hands, as
   Plato holds--was manifestly, once for all in its original construction,
   disposed, and furnished, and ordered, and supplied with a government of
   perfect wisdom. That cannot be imperfect which has made all perfect.
   There was nothing waiting on for Saturn and his race to do. Men will
   make fools of themselves if they refuse to believe that from the very
   first rain poured down from the sky, and stars gleamed, and light
   shone, and thunders roared, and Jove himself dreaded the lightnings you
   put in his hands; that in like manner before Bacchus, and Ceres, and
   Minerva, nay before the first man, whoever that was, every kind of
   fruit burst forth plentifully from the bosom of the earth, for nothing
   provided for the support and sustenance of man could be introduced
   after his entrance on the stage of being. Accordingly, these
   necessaries of life are said to have been discovered, not created.  But
   the thing you discover existed before; and that which had a
   pre-existence must be regarded as belonging not to him who discovered
   it, but to him who made it, for of course it had a being before it
   could be found. But if, on account of his being the discoverer of the
   vine, Bacchus is raised to godship, Lucullus, who first introduced the
   cherry from Pontus into Italy, has not been fairly dealt with; for as
   the discoverer of a new fruit, he has not, as though he were its
   creator, been awarded divine honours.  Wherefore, if the universe
   existed from the beginning, thoroughly furnished with its system
   working under certain laws for the performance of its functions, there
   is, in this respect, an entire absence of all reason for electing
   humanity to divinity; for the positions and powers which you have
   assigned to your deities have been from the beginning precisely what
   they would have been, although you had never deified them.  But you
   turn to another reason, telling us that the conferring of deity was a
   way of rewarding worth. And hence you grant, I conclude, that the
   god-making God is of transcendent righteousness,--one who will neither
   rashly, improperly, nor needlessly bestow a reward so great. I would
   have you then consider whether the merits of your deities are of a kind
   to have raised them to the heavens, and not rather to have sunk them
   down into lowest depths of Tartarus,--the place which you regard, with
   many, as the prison-house of infernal punishments. For into this dread
   place are wont to be cast all who offend against filial piety, and such
   as are guilty of incest with sisters, and seducers of wives, and
   ravishers of virgins, and boy-polluters, and men of furious tempers,
   and murderers, and thieves, and deceivers; all, in short, who tread in
   the footsteps of your gods, not one of whom you can prove free from
   crime or vice, save by denying that they had ever a human existence.
   But as you cannot deny that, you have those foul blots also as an added
   reason for not believing that they were made gods afterwards. For if
   you rule for the very purpose of punishing such deeds; if every
   virtuous man among you rejects all correspondence, converse, and
   intimacy with the wicked and base, while, on the other hand, the high
   God has taken up their mates to a share of His majesty, on what ground
   is it that you thus condemn those whose fellow-actors you adore? Your
   goodness is an affront in the heavens. Deify your vilest criminals, if
   you would please your gods. You honour them by giving divine honours to
   their fellows. But to say no more about a way of acting so unworthy,
   there have been men virtuous, and pure, and good. Yet how many of these
   nobler men you have left in the regions of doom! as Socrates, so
   renowned for his wisdom, Aristides for his justice, Themistocles for
   his warlike genius, Alexander for his sublimity of soul, Polycrates for
   his good fortune, Croesus for his wealth, Demosthenes for his
   eloquence. Which of these gods of yours is more remarkable for gravity
   and wisdom than Cato, more just and warlike than Scipio? which of them
   more magnanimous than Pompey, more prosperous than Sylla, of greater
   wealth than Crassus, more eloquent than Tullius? How much better it
   would have been for the God Supreme to have waited that He might have
   taken such men as these to be His heavenly associates, prescient as He
   must have surely been of their worthier character! He was in a hurry, I
   suppose, and straightway shut heaven's gates; and now He must surely
   feel ashamed at these worthies murmuring over their lot in the regions
   below.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XII.

   But I pass from these remarks, for I know and I am going to show what
   your gods are not, by showing what they are. In reference, then, to
   these, I see only names of dead men of ancient times; I hear fabulous
   stories; I recognize sacred rites founded on mere myths.  As to the
   actual images, I regard them as simply pieces of matter akin to the
   vessels and utensils in common use among us, or even undergoing in
   their consecration a hapless change from these useful articles at the
   hands of reckless art, which in the transforming process treats them
   with utter contempt, nay, in the very act commits sacrilege; so that it
   might be no slight solace to us in all our punishments, suffering as we
   do because of these same gods, that in their making they suffer as we
   do themselves. You put Christians on crosses and stakes: [89] what
   image is not formed from the clay in the first instance, set on cross
   and stake?  The body of your god is first consecrated on the gibbet.
   You tear the sides of Christians with your claws; but in the case of
   your own gods, axes, and planes, and rasps are put to work more
   vigorously on every member of the body. We lay our heads upon the
   block; before the lead, and the glue, and the nails are put in
   requisition, your deities are headless. We are cast to the wild beasts,
   while you attach them to Bacchus, and Cybele, and Cælestis. We are
   burned in the flames; so, too, are they in their original lump. We are
   condemned to the mines; from these your gods originate. We are banished
   to islands; in islands it is a common thing for your gods to have their
   birth or die. If it is in this way a deity is made, it will follow that
   as many as are punished are deified, and tortures will have to be
   declared divinities. But plain it is these objects of your worship have
   no sense of the injuries and disgraces of their consecrating, as they
   are equally unconscious of the honours paid to them. O impious words! O
   blasphemous reproaches! Gnash your teeth upon us--foam with maddened
   rage against us--ye are the persons, no doubt, who censured a certain
   Seneca speaking of your superstition at much greater length and far
   more sharply! In a word, if we refuse our homage to statues and frigid
   images, the very counterpart of their dead originals, with which hawks,
   and mice, and spiders are so well acquainted, does it not merit praise
   instead of penalty, that we have rejected what we have come to see is
   error? We cannot surely be made out to injure those who we are certain
   are nonentities. What does not exist, is in its nonexistence secure
   from suffering.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [89] [Inconsistent this with Gibbon's minimizing theory of the number
   of the Christian martyrs.]  Elucidation VIII.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIII.

   ?But they are gods to us,? you say. And how is it, then, that in utter
   inconsistency with this, you are convicted of impious, sacrilegious,
   and irreligious conduct to them, neglecting those you imagine to exist,
   destroying those who are the objects of your fear, making mock of those
   whose honour you avenge? See now if I go beyond the truth. First,
   indeed, seeing you worship, some one god, and some another, of course
   you give offence to those you do not worship. You cannot continue to
   give preference to one without slighting another, for selection implies
   rejection. You despise, therefore, those whom you thus reject; for in
   your rejection of them, it is plain you have no dread of giving them
   offence. For, as we have already shown, every god depended on the
   decision of the senate for his godhead. No god was he whom man in his
   own counsels did not wish to be so, and thereby condemned. The family
   deities you call Lares, you exercise a domestic authority over,
   pledging them, selling them, changing them--making sometimes a
   cooking-pot of a Saturn, a firepan of a Minerva, as one or other
   happens to be worn down, or broken in its long sacred use, or as the
   family head feels the pressure of some more sacred home necessity. In
   like manner, by public law you disgrace your state gods, putting them
   in the auction-catalogue, and making them a source of revenue. Men seek
   to get the Capitol, as they seek to get the herb market, under the
   voice of the crier, under the auction spear, under the registration of
   the quæstor. Deity is struck off and farmed out to the highest bidder.
   But indeed lands burdened with tribute are of less value; men under the
   assessment of a poll-tax are less noble; for these things are the marks
   of servitude. In the case of the gods, on the other hand, the
   sacredness is great in proportion to the tribute which they yield; nay,
   the more sacred is a god, the larger is the tax he pays. Majesty is
   made a source of gain. Religion goes about the taverns begging. You
   demand a price for the privilege of standing on temple ground, for
   access to the sacred services; there is no gratuitous knowledge of your
   divinities permitted--you must buy their favours with a price. What
   honours in any way do you render to them that you do not render to the
   dead? You have temples in the one case just as in the other; you have
   altars in the one case as in the other. Their statues have the same
   dress, the same insignia. As the dead man had his age, his art, his
   occupation, so it is with the deity. In what respect does the funeral
   feast differ from the feast of Jupiter? or the bowl of the gods from
   the ladle of the manes? or the undertaker from the soothsayer, as in
   fact this latter personage also attends upon the dead? With perfect
   propriety you give divine honours to your departed emperors, as you
   worship them in life. The gods will count themselves indebted to you;
   nay, it will be matter of high rejoicing among them that their masters
   are made their equals.  But when you adore Larentina, a public
   prostitute--I could have wished that it might at least have been Lais
   or Phryne--among your Junos, and Cereses, and Dianas; when you instal
   in your Pantheon Simon Magus, [90] giving him a statue and the title of
   Holy God; when you make an infamous court page a god of the sacred
   synod, although your ancient deities are in reality no better, they
   will still think themselves affronted by you, that the privilege
   antiquity conferred on them alone, has been allowed to others.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [90] [Confirming the statement of Justin Martyr. See Vol. I., p. 187,
   note 1, and p. 193, this Series.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIV.

   I wish now to review your sacred rites; and I pass no censure on your
   sacrificing, when you offer the worn-out, the scabbed, the corrupting;
   when you cut off from the fat and the sound the useless parts, such as
   the head and the hoofs, which in your house you would have assigned to
   the slaves or the dogs; when of the tithe of Hercules you do not lay a
   third upon his altar (I am disposed rather to praise your wisdom in
   rescuing something from being lost); but turning to your books, from
   which you get your training in wisdom and the nobler duties of life,
   what utterly ridiculous things I find!--that for Trojans and Greeks the
   gods fought among themselves like pairs of gladiators; that Venus was
   wounded by a man, because she would rescue her son Æneas when he was in
   peril of his life from the same Diomede; that Mars was almost wasted
   away by a thirteen months' imprisonment; that Jupiter was saved by a
   monster's aid from suffering the same violence at the hands of the
   other gods; that he now laments the fate of Sarpedon, now foully makes
   love to his own sister, recounting (to her) former mistresses, now for
   a long time past not so dear as she. After this, what poet is not found
   copying the example of his chief, to be a disgracer of the gods? One
   gives Apollo to king Admetus to tend his sheep; another hires out the
   building labours of Neptune to Laomedon. A well-known lyric poet,
   too--Pindar, I mean--sings of Æsculapius deservedly stricken with
   lightning for his greed in practising wrongfully his art.  A wicked
   deed it was of Jupiter--if he hurled the bolt--unnatural to his
   grandson, and exhibiting envious feeling to the Physician. Things like
   these should not be made public if they are true; and if false, they
   should not be fabricated among people professing a great respect for
   religion.  Nor indeed do either tragic or comic writers shrink from
   setting forth the gods as the origin of all family calamities and sins.
   I do not dwell on the philosophers, contenting myself with a reference
   to Socrates, who, in contempt of the gods, was in the habit of swearing
   by an oak, and a goat, and a dog. In fact, for this very thing Socrates
   was condemned to death, that he overthrew the worship of the gods.
   Plainly, at one time as well as another, that is, always truth is
   disliked. However, when rueing their judgment, the Athenians inflicted
   punishment on his accusers, and set up a golden image of him in a
   temple, the condemnation was in the very act rescinded, and his witness
   was restored to its former value. Diogenes, too, makes utter mock of
   Hercules and the Roman cynic Varro brings forward three hundred Joves,
   or Jupiters they should be called, all headless.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XV.

   Others of your writers, in their wantonness, even minister to your
   pleasures by vilifying the gods. Examine those charming farces of your
   Lentuli and Hostilii, whether in the jokes and tricks it is the
   buffoons or the deities which afford you merriment; such farces I mean
   as Anubis the Adulterer, and Luna of the masculine gender, and Diana
   under the lash, and the reading the will of Jupiter deceased, and the
   three famishing Herculeses held up to ridicule. Your dramatic
   literature, too, depicts all the vileness of your gods.  The Sun mourns
   his offspring [91] cast down from heaven, and you are full of glee;
   Cybele sighs after the scornful swain, [92] and you do not blush; you
   brook the stage recital of Jupiter's misdeeds, and the shepherd [93]
   judging Juno, Venus, and Minerva. Then, again, when the likeness of a
   god is put on the head of an ignominious and infamous wretch, when one
   impure and trained up for the art in all effeminacy, represents a
   Minerva or a Hercules, is not the majesty of your gods insulted, and
   their deity dishonored? Yet you not merely look on, but applaud. You
   are, I suppose, more devout in the arena, where after the same fashion
   your deities dance on human blood, on the pollutions caused by
   inflicted punishments, as they act their themes and stories, doing
   their turn for the wretched criminals, except that these, too, often
   put on divinity and actually play the very gods. We have seen in our
   day a representation of the mutilation of Attis, that famous god of
   Pessinus, and a man burnt alive as Hercules. We have made merry amid
   the ludicrous cruelties of the noonday exhibition, at Mercury examining
   the bodies of the dead with his hot iron; we have witnessed Jove's
   brother, [94] mallet in hand, dragging out the corpses of the
   gladiators. But who can go into everything of this sort? If by such
   things as these the honour of deity is assailed, if they go to blot out
   every trace of its majesty, we must explain them by the contempt in
   which the gods are held, alike by those who actually do them, and by
   those for whose enjoyment they are done. This it will be said, however,
   is all in sport. But if I add--it is what all know and will admit as
   readily to be the fact--that in the temples adulteries are arranged,
   that at the altars pimping is practised, that often in the houses of
   the temple-keepers and priests, under the sacrificial fillets, and the
   sacred hats, [95] and the purple robes, amid the fumes of incense,
   deeds of licentiousness are done, I am not sure but your gods have more
   reason to complain of you than of Christians. It is certainly among the
   votaries of your religion that the perpetrators of sacrilege are always
   found, for Christians do not enter your temples even in the day-time.
   Perhaps they too would be spoilers of them, if they worshipped in them.
   What then do they worship, since their objects of worship are different
   from yours? Already indeed it is implied, as the corollary from their
   rejection of the lie, that they render homage to the truth; nor
   continue longer in an error which they have given up in the very fact
   of recognizing it to be an error.  Take this in first of all, and when
   we have offered a preliminary refutation of some false opinions, go on
   to derive from it our entire religious system.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [91] Phaethon.

   [92] Atys or Attis.

   [93] Paris.

   [94] Pluto.

   [95] [?Sacred hats and purple robes and incense fumes? have been
   associated with the same crimes, alas! in widely different relations.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVI.

   For, like some others, you are under the delusion that our god is an
   ass's head. [96] Cornelius Tacitus first put this notion into people's
   minds. In the fifth book of his histories, beginning the (narrative of
   the) Jewish war with an account of the origin of the nation; and
   theorizing at his pleasure about the origin, as well as the name and
   the religion of the Jews, he states that having been delivered, or
   rather, in his opinion, expelled from Egypt, in crossing the vast
   plains of Arabia, where water is so scanty, they were in extremity from
   thirst; but taking the guidance of the wild asses, which it was thought
   might be seeking water after feeding, they discovered a fountain, and
   thereupon in their gratitude they consecrated a head of this species of
   animal. And as Christianity is nearly allied to Judaism, from this, I
   suppose, it was taken for granted that we too are devoted to the
   worship of the same image.  But the said Cornelius Tacitus (the very
   opposite of tacit in telling lies) informs us in the work already
   mentioned, that when Cneius Pompeius captured Jerusalem, he entered the
   temple to see the arcana of the Jewish religion, but found no image
   there. Yet surely if worship was rendered to any visible object, the
   very place for its exhibition would be the shrine; and that all the
   more that the worship, however unreasonable, had no need there to fear
   outside beholders.  For entrance to the holy place was permitted to the
   priests alone, while all vision was forbidden to others by an outspread
   curtain. You will not, however, deny that all beasts of burden, and not
   parts of them, but the animals entire, are with their goddess Epona
   objects of worship with you.  It is this, perhaps, which displeases you
   in us, that while your worship here is universal, we do homage only to
   the ass. Then, if any of you think we render superstitious adoration to
   the cross, in that adoration he is sharer with us. If you offer homage
   to a piece of wood at all, it matters little what it is like when the
   substance is the same: it is of no consequence the form, if you have
   the very body of the god.  And yet how far does the Athenian Pallas
   differ from the stock of the cross, or the Pharian Ceres as she is put
   up uncarved to sale, a mere rough stake and piece of shapeless wood?
   Every stake fixed in an upright position is a portion of the cross; we
   render our adoration, if you will have it so, to a god entire and
   complete. We have shown before that your deities are derived from
   shapes modelled from the cross.  But you also worship victories, for in
   your trophies the cross is the heart of the trophy. [97] The camp
   religion of the Romans is all through a worship of the standards, a
   setting the standards above all gods. Well, as those images decking out
   the standards are ornaments of crosses.  All those hangings of your
   standards and banners are robes of crosses. I praise your zeal: you
   would not consecrate crosses unclothed and unadorned. Others, again,
   certainly with more information and greater verisimilitude, believe
   that the sun is our god. We shall be counted Persians perhaps, though
   we do not worship the orb of day painted on a piece of linen cloth,
   having himself everywhere in his own disk. The idea no doubt has
   originated from our being known to turn to the east in prayer. [98] But
   you, many of you, also under pretence sometimes of worshipping the
   heavenly bodies, move your lips in the direction of the sunrise. In the
   same way, if we devote Sun-day to rejoicing, from a far different
   reason than Sun-worship, we have some resemblance to those of you who
   devote the day of Saturn to ease and luxury, though they too go far
   away from Jewish ways, of which indeed they are ignorant. But lately a
   new edition of our god has been given to the world in that great city:
   it originated with a certain vile man who was wont to hire himself out
   to cheat the wild beasts, and who exhibited a picture with this
   inscription: The God of the Christians, born of an ass. [99] He had the
   ears of an ass, was hoofed in one foot, carried a book, [100] and wore
   a toga. Both the name and the figure gave us amusement. But our
   opponents ought straightway to have done homage to this biformed
   divinity, for they have acknowledged gods dog-headed and lion-headed,
   with horn of buck and ram, with goat-like loins, with serpent legs,
   with wings sprouting from back or foot. These things we have discussed
   ex abundanti, that we might not seem willingly to pass by any rumor
   against us unrefuted. Having thoroughly cleared ourselves, we turn now
   to an exhibition of what our religion really is.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [96] [Caricatures of the Crucifixion are extant which show how greedily
   the heathen had accepted this profane idea.]

   [97] [A premonition of the Labarum.]

   [98] [As noted by Clement of Alexandria. See p. 535, Vol. II., and
   note.]

   [99] Onocoites. If with Oehler, Onochoietes, the meaning is ?asinarius
   sacerdos? (Oehler).

   [100] Referring evidently to the Scriptures; and showing what the Bible
   was to the early Christians.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVII.

   The object of our worship is the One God, [101] He who by His
   commanding word, His arranging wisdom, His mighty power, brought forth
   from nothing this entire mass of our world, with all its array of
   elements, bodies, spirits, for the glory of His majesty; whence also
   the Greeks have bestowed on it the name of Kosmos. The eye cannot see
   Him, though He is (spiritually) visible. He is incomprehensible, though
   in grace He is manifested. He is beyond our utmost thought, though our
   human faculties conceive of Him. He is therefore equally real and
   great. But that which, in the ordinary sense, can be seen and handled
   and conceived, is inferior to the eyes by which it is taken in, and the
   hands by which it is tainted, and the faculties by which it is
   discovered; but that which is infinite is known only to itself. This it
   is which gives some notion of God, while yet beyond all our
   conceptions--our very incapacity of fully grasping Him affords us the
   idea of what He really is.  He is presented to our minds in His
   transcendent greatness, as at once known and unknown. And this is the
   crowning guilt of men, that they will not recognize One, of whom they
   cannot possibly be ignorant. Would you have the proof from the works of
   His hands, so numerous and so great, which both contain you and sustain
   you, which minister at once to your enjoyment, and strike you with awe;
   or would you rather have it from the testimony of the soul itself?
   Though under the oppressive bondage of the body, though led astray by
   depraving customs, though enervated by lusts and passions, though in
   slavery to false gods; yet, whenever the soul comes to itself, as out
   of a surfeit, or a sleep, or a sickness, and attains something of its
   natural soundness, it speaks of God; using no other word, because this
   is the peculiar name of the true God.  ?God is great and good?--?Which
   may God give,? are the words on every lip. It bears witness, too, that
   God is judge, exclaiming, ?God sees,? and, ?I commend myself to God,?
   and, ?God will repay me.? O noble testimony of the soul by nature [102]
   Christian! Then, too, in using such words as these, it looks not to the
   Capitol, but to the heavens. It knows that there is the throne of the
   living God, as from Him and from thence itself came down.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [101] [Kaye, p. 168. Remarks on natural religion.]

   [102] [Though we are not by nature good, in our present estate; this is
   elsewhere demonstrated by Tertullian, as see cap. xviii.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVIII.

   But, that we might attain an ampler and more authoritative knowledge at
   once of Himself, and of His counsels and will, God has added a written
   revelation for the behoof of every one whose heart is set on seeking
   Him, that seeking he may find, and finding believe, and believing obey.
   For from the first He sent messengers into the world,--men whose
   stainless righteousness made them worthy to know the Most High, and to
   reveal Him,--men abundantly endowed with the Holy Spirit, that they
   might proclaim that there is one God only who made all things, who
   formed man from the dust of the ground (for He is the true Prometheus
   who gave order to the world by arranging the seasons and their
   course),--these have further set before us the proofs He has given of
   His majesty in His judgments by floods and fires, the rules appointed
   by Him for securing His favour, as well as the retribution in store for
   the ignoring, forsaking and keeping them, as being about at the end of
   all to adjudge His worshippers to everlasting life, and the wicked to
   the doom of fire at once without ending and without break, raising up
   again all the dead from the beginning, reforming and renewing them with
   the object of awarding either recompense. Once these things were with
   us, too, the theme of ridicule. We are of your stock and nature: men
   are made, not born, Christians. The preachers of whom we have spoken
   are called prophets, from the office which belongs to them of
   predicting the future. Their words, as well as the miracles which they
   performed, that men might have faith in their divine authority, we have
   still in the literary treasures they have left, and which are open to
   all. Ptolemy, surnamed Philadelphus, the most learned of his race, a
   man of vast acquaintance with all literature, emulating, I imagine, the
   book enthusiasm of Pisistratus, among other remains of the past which
   either their antiquity or something of peculiar interest made famous,
   at the suggestion of Demetrius Phalereus, who was renowned above all
   grammarians of his time, and to whom he had committed the management of
   these things, applied to the Jews for their writings--I mean the
   writings peculiar to them and in their tongue, which they alone
   possessed, for from themselves, as a people dear to God for their
   fathers' sake, their prophets had ever sprung, and to them they had
   ever spoken. Now in ancient times the people we call Jews bare the name
   of Hebrews, and so both their writings and their speech were Hebrew.
   But that the understanding of their books might not be wanting, this
   also the Jews supplied to Ptolemy; for they gave him seventy-two
   interpreters--men whom the philosopher Menedemus, the well-known
   asserter of a Providence, regarded with respect as sharing in his
   views. The same account is given by Aristæus. So the king left these
   works unlocked to all, in the Greek language. [103] To this day, at the
   temple of Serapis, the libraries of Ptolemy are to be seen, with the
   identical Hebrew originals in them. The Jews, too, read them publicly.
   Under a tribute-liberty, they are in the habit of going to hear them
   every Sabbath. Whoever gives ear will find God in them; whoever takes
   pains to understand, will be compelled to believe.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [103] [Kaye, p. 291. See Elucidation I. Also Vol. II., p. 334.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIX.

   Their high antiquity, first of all, claims authority for these
   writings.  With you, too, it is a kind of religion to demand belief on
   this very ground. Well, all the substances, all the materials, the
   origins, classes, contents of your most ancient writings, even most
   nations and cities illustrious in the records of the past and noted for
   their antiquity in books of annals,--the very forms of your letters,
   those revealers and custodiers of events, nay (I think I speak still
   within the mark), your very gods themselves, your very temples and
   oracles, and sacred rites, are less ancient than the work of a single
   prophet, in whom you have the thesaurus of the entire Jewish religion,
   and therefore too of ours. If you happen to have heard of a certain
   Moses, I speak first of him: he is as far back as the Argive Inachus;
   by nearly four hundred years--only seven less--he precedes Danaus, your
   most ancient name; while he antedates by a millennium the death of
   Priam. I might affirm, too, that he is five hundred years earlier than
   Homer, and have supporters of that view. The other prophets also,
   though of later date, are, even the most recent of them, as far back as
   the first of your philosophers, and legislators, and historians.  It is
   not so much the difficulty of the subject, as its vastness, that stands
   in the way of a statement of the grounds on which these statements
   rest; the matter is not so arduous as it would be tedious. It would
   require the anxious study of many books, and the fingers busy
   reckoning.  The histories of the most ancient nations, such as the
   Egyptians, the Chaldeans, the Phoenicians, would need to be ransacked;
   the men of these various nations who have information to give, would
   have to be called in as witnesses. Manetho the Egyptian, and Berosus
   the Chaldean, and Hieromus the Phoenician king of Tyre; their
   successors too, Ptolemy the Mendesian, and Demetrius Phalereus, and
   King Juba, and Apion, and Thallus, and their critic the Jew Josephus,
   the native vindicator of the ancient history of his people, who either
   authenticates or refutes the others. Also the Greek censors' lists must
   be compared, and the dates of events ascertained, that the
   chronological connections may be opened up, and thus the reckonings of
   the various annals be made to give forth light. We must go abroad into
   the histories and literature of all nations. And, in fact, we have
   already brought the proof in part before you, in giving those hints as
   to how it is to be effected. But it seems better to delay the full
   discussion of this, lest in our haste we do not sufficiently carry it
   out, or lest in its thorough handling we make too lengthened a
   digression.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XX.

   To make up for our delay in this, we bring under your notice something
   of even greater importance; we point to the majesty of our Scriptures,
   if not to their antiquity. If you doubt that they are as ancient as we
   say, we offer proof that they are divine.  And you may convince
   yourselves of this at once, and without going very far. Your
   instructors, the world, and the age, and the event, are all before
   you.  All that is taking place around you was fore-announced; all that
   you now see with your eye was previously heard by the ear. The
   swallowing up of cities by the earth; the theft of islands by the sea;
   wars, bringing external and internal convulsions; the collision of
   kingdoms with kingdoms; famines and pestilences, and local massacres,
   and widespread desolating mortalities; the exaltation of the lowly, and
   the humbling of the proud; the decay of righteousness, the growth of
   sin, the slackening interest in all good ways; the very seasons and
   elements going out of their ordinary course, monsters and portents
   taking the place of nature's forms--it was all foreseen and predicted
   before it came to pass. While we suffer the calamities, we read of them
   in the Scriptures; as we examine, they are proved. Well, the truth of a
   prophecy, I think, is the demonstration of its being from above.  Hence
   there is among us an assured faith in regard to coming events as things
   already proved to us, for they were predicted along with what we have
   day by day fulfilled. They are uttered by the same voices, they are
   written in the same books--the same Spirit inspires them. All time is
   one to prophecy foretelling the future. Among men, it may be, a
   distinction of times is made while the fulfilment is going on: from
   being future we think of it as present, and then from being present we
   count it as belonging to the past. How are we to blame, I pray you,
   that we believe in things to come as though they already were, with the
   grounds we have for our faith in these two steps?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXI.

   But having asserted that our religion is supported by the writings of
   the Jews, the oldest which exist, though it is generally known, and we
   fully admit that it dates from a comparatively recent period--no
   further back indeed than the reign of Tiberius--a question may perhaps
   be raised on this ground about its standing, as if it were hiding
   something of its presumption under shadow of an illustrious religion,
   one which has at any rate undoubted allowance of the law, or because,
   apart from the question of age, we neither accord with the Jews in
   their peculiarities in regard to food, nor in their sacred days, nor
   even in their well-known bodily sign, nor in the possession of a common
   name, which surely behoved to be the case if we did homage to the same
   God as they. Then, too, the common people have now some knowledge of
   Christ, and think of Him as but a man, one indeed such as the Jews
   condemned, so that some may naturally enough have taken up the idea
   that we are worshippers of a mere human being. But we are neither
   ashamed of Christ--for we rejoice to be counted His disciples, and in
   His name to suffer--nor do we differ from the Jews concerning God. We
   must make, therefore, a remark or two as to Christ's divinity. In
   former times the Jews enjoyed much of God's favour, when the fathers of
   their race were noted for their righteousness and faith. So it was that
   as a people they flourished greatly, and their kingdom attained to a
   lofty eminence; and so highly blessed were they, that for their
   instruction God spake to them in special revelations, pointing out to
   them beforehand how they should merit His favor and avoid His
   displeasure. But how deeply they have sinned, puffed up to their fall
   with a false trust in their noble ancestors, turning from God's way
   into a way of sheer impiety, though they themselves should refuse to
   admit it, their present national ruin would afford sufficient proof.
   Scattered abroad, a race of wanderers, exiles from their own land and
   clime, they roam over the whole world without either a human or a
   heavenly king, not possessing even the stranger's right to set so much
   as a simple footstep in their native country. The sacred writers
   withal, in giving previous warning of these things, all with equal
   clearness ever declared that, in the last days of the world, God would,
   out of every nation, and people, and country, choose for Himself more
   faithful worshippers, upon whom He would bestow His grace, and that
   indeed in ampler measure, in keeping with the enlarged capacities of a
   nobler dispensation.  Accordingly, He appeared among us, whose coming
   to renovate and illuminate man's nature was pre-announced by God--I
   mean Christ, that Son of God. And so the supreme Head and Master of
   this grace and discipline, the Enlightener and Trainer of the human
   race, God's own Son, was announced among us, born--but not so born as
   to make Him ashamed of the name of Son or of His paternal origin. It
   was not His lot to have as His father, by incest with a sister, or by
   violation of a daughter or another's wife, a god in the shape of
   serpent, or ox, or bird, or lover, for his vile ends transmuting
   himself into the gold of Danaus. They are your divinities upon whom
   these base deeds of Jupiter were done. But the Son of God has no mother
   in any sense which involves impurity; she, whom men suppose to be His
   mother in the ordinary way, had never entered into the marriage bond.
   [104] But, first, I shall discuss His essential nature, and so the
   nature of His birth will be understood. We have already asserted that
   God made the world, and all which it contains, by His Word, and Reason,
   and Power. It is abundantly plain that your philosophers, too, regard
   the Logos--that is, the Word and Reason--as the Creator of the
   universe. For Zeno lays it down that he is the creator, having made all
   things according to a determinate plan; that his name is Fate, and God,
   and the soul of Jupiter, and the necessity of all things. Cleanthes
   ascribes all this to spirit, which he maintains pervades the universe.
   And we, in like manner, hold that the Word, and Reason, and Power, by
   which we have said God made all, have spirit as their proper and
   essential substratum, in which the Word has in being to give forth
   utterances, and reason abides to dispose and arrange, and power is over
   all to execute. We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God,
   and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God,
   and is called God from unity of substance with God.  For God, too, is a
   Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the
   parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of
   the sun--there is no division of substance, but merely an extension.
   Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is
   kindled. [105] The material matrix remains entire and unimpaired,
   though you derive from it any number of shoots possessed of its
   qualities; so, too, that which has come forth out of God is at once God
   and the Son of God, and the two are one. In this way also, as He is
   Spirit of Spirit and God of God, He is made a second in manner of
   existence--in position, not in nature; and He did not withdraw from the
   original source, but went forth.  This ray of God, then, as it was
   always foretold in ancient times, descending into a certain virgin, and
   made flesh in her womb, is in His birth God and man united. The flesh
   formed by the Spirit is nourished, grows up to manhood, speaks,
   teaches, works, and is the Christ. Receive meanwhile this fable, if you
   choose to call it so--it is like some of your own--while we go on to
   show how Christ's claims are proved, and who the parties are with you
   by whom such fables have been set a going to overthrow the truth, which
   they resemble. The Jews, too, were well aware that Christ was coming,
   as those to whom the prophets spake. Nay, even now His advent is
   expected by them; nor is there any other contention between them and
   us, than that they believe the advent has not yet occurred. For two
   comings of Christ having been revealed to us:  a first, which has been
   fulfilled in the lowliness of a human lot; a second, which impends over
   the world, now near its close, in all the majesty of Deity unveiled;
   and, by misunderstanding the first, they have concluded that the
   second--which, as matter of more manifest prediction, they set their
   hopes on--is the only one. It was the merited punishment of their sin
   not to understand the Lord's first advent: for if they had, they would
   have believed; and if they had believed, they would have obtained
   salvation. They themselves read how it is written of them that they are
   deprived of wisdom and understanding--of the use of eyes and ears.
   [106] As, then, under the force of their pre-judgment, they had
   convinced themselves from His lowly guise that Christ was no more than
   man, it followed from that, as a necessary consequence, that they
   should hold Him a magician from the powers which He
   displayed,--expelling devils from men by a word, restoring vision to
   the blind, cleansing the leprous, reinvigorating the paralytic,
   summoning the dead to life again, making the very elements of nature
   obey Him, stilling the storms and walking on the sea; proving that He
   was the Logos of God, that primordial first-begotten Word, accompanied
   by power and reason, and based on Spirit,--that He who was now doing
   all things by His word, and He who had done that of old, were one and
   the same. But the Jews were so exasperated by His teaching, by which
   their rulers and chiefs were convicted of the truth, chiefly because so
   many turned aside to Him, that at last they brought Him before Pontius
   Pilate, at that time Roman governor of Syria; and, by the violence of
   their outcries against Him, extorted a sentence giving Him up to them
   to be crucified. He Himself had predicted this; which, however, would
   have signified little had not the prophets of old done it as well. And
   yet, nailed upon the cross, He exhibited many notable signs, by which
   His death was distinguished from all others. At His own free-will, He
   with a word dismissed from Him His spirit, anticipating the
   executioner's work. In the same hour, too, the light of day was
   withdrawn, when the sun at the very time was in his meridian blaze.
   Those who were not aware that this had been predicted about Christ, no
   doubt thought it an eclipse. You yourselves have the account of the
   world-portent still in your archives. [107] Then, when His body was
   taken down from the cross and placed in a sepulchre, the Jews in their
   eager watchfulness surrounded it with a large military guard, lest, as
   He had predicted His resurrection from the dead on the third day, His
   disciples might remove by stealth His body, and deceive even the
   incredulous. But, lo, on the third day there a was a sudden shock of
   earthquake, and the stone which sealed the sepulchre was rolled away,
   and the guard fled off in terror:  without a single disciple near, the
   grave was found empty of all but the clothes of the buried One. But
   nevertheless, the leaders of the Jews, whom it nearly concerned both to
   spread abroad a lie, and keep back a people tributary and submissive to
   them from the faith, gave it out that the body of Christ had been
   stolen by His followers. For the Lord, you see, did not go forth into
   the public gaze, lest the wicked should be delivered from their error;
   that faith also, destined to a great reward, might hold its ground in
   difficulty. But He spent forty days with some of His disciples down in
   Galilee, a region of Judea, instructing them in the doctrines they were
   to teach to others.  Thereafter, having given them commission to preach
   the gospel through the world, He was encompassed with a cloud and taken
   up to heaven,--a fact more certain far than the assertions of your
   Proculi concerning Romulus. [108] All these things Pilate did to
   Christ; and now in fact a Christian in his own convictions, he sent
   word of Him to the reigning Cæsar, who was at the time Tiberius.  Yes,
   and the Cæsars too would have believed on Christ, if either the Cæsars
   had not been necessary for the world, or if Christians could have been
   Cæsars. His disciples also, spreading over the world, did as their
   Divine Master bade them; and after suffering greatly themselves from
   the persecutions of the Jews, and with no unwilling heart, as having
   faith undoubting in the truth, at last by Nero's cruel sword sowed the
   seed of Christian blood at Rome. [109] Yes, and we shall prove that
   even your own gods are effective witnesses for Christ.  It is a great
   matter if, to give you faith in Christians, I can bring forward the
   authority of the very beings on account of whom you refuse them credit.
   Thus far we have carried out the plan we laid down. We have set forth
   this origin of our sect and name, with this account of the Founder of
   Christianity. Let no one henceforth charge us with infamous wickedness;
   let no one think that it is otherwise than we have represented, for
   none may give a false account of his religion. For in the very fact
   that he says he worships another god than he really does, he is guilty
   of denying the object of his worship, and transferring his worship and
   homage to another; and, in the transference, he ceases to worship the
   god he has repudiated. We say, and before all men we say, and torn and
   bleeding under your tortures, we cry out, ?We worship God through
   Christ.? Count Christ a man, if you please; by Him and in Him God would
   be known and be adored.  If the Jews object, we answer that Moses, who
   was but a man, taught them their religion; against the Greeks we urge
   that Orpheus at Pieria, Musæus at Athens, Melampus at Argos, Trophonius
   in Boeotia, imposed religious rites; turning to yourselves, who
   exercise sway over the nations, it was the man Numa Pompilius who laid
   on the Romans a heavy load of costly superstitions. Surely Christ,
   then, had a right to reveal Deity, which was in fact His own essential
   possession, not with the object of bringing boors and savages by the
   dread of multitudinous gods, whose favour must be won into some
   civilization, as was the case with Numa; but as one who aimed to
   enlighten men already civilized, and under illusions from their very
   culture, that they might come to the knowledge of the truth. Search,
   then, and see if that divinity of Christ be true. If it be of such a
   nature that the acceptance of it transforms a man, and makes him truly
   good, there is implied in that the duty of renouncing what is opposed
   to it as false; especially and on every ground that which, hiding
   itself under the names and images of dead, the labours to convince men
   of its divinity by certain signs, and miracles, and oracles.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [104] [That is, by the consummation of her marriage with Joseph.]

   [105] [Language common among Christians, and adopted afterwards into
   the Creed.]

   [106] Isa. vi. 10.

   [107] Elucidation V.

   [108] Proculus was a Roman senator who affirmed that Romulus had
   appeared to him after his death.

   [109] [Chapter l. at close. ?The blood of Christians is the seed of the
   Church.?]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXII.

   And we affirm indeed the existence of certain spiritual essences; nor
   is their name unfamiliar. The philosophers acknowledge there are
   demons; Socrates himself waiting on a demon's will. Why not? since it
   is said an evil spirit attached itself specially to him even from his
   childhood--turning his mind no doubt from what was good. The poets are
   all acquainted with demons too; even the ignorant common people make
   frequent use of them in cursing. In fact, they call upon Satan, the
   demon-chief, in their execrations, as though from some instinctive
   soul-knowledge of him. Plato also admits the existence of angels. The
   dealers in magic, no less, come forward as witnesses to the existence
   of both kinds of spirits. We are instructed, moreover, by our sacred
   books how from certain angels, who fell of their own free-will, there
   sprang a more wicked demon-brood, condemned of God along with the
   authors of their race, and that chief we have referred to. It will for
   the present be enough, however, that some account is given of their
   work.  Their great business is the ruin of mankind. So, from the very
   first, spiritual wickedness sought our destruction. They inflict,
   accordingly, upon our bodies diseases and other grievous calamities,
   while by violent assaults they hurry the soul into sudden and
   extraordinary excesses. Their marvellous subtleness and tenuity give
   them access to both parts of our nature. As spiritual, they can do no
   harm; for, invisible and intangible, we are not cognizant of their
   action save by its effects, as when some inexplicable, unseen poison in
   the breeze blights the apples and the grain while in the flower, or
   kills them in the bud, or destroys them when they have reached
   maturity; as though by the tainted atmosphere in some unknown way
   spreading abroad its pestilential exhalations. So, too, by an influence
   equally obscure, demons and angels breathe into the soul, and rouse up
   its corruptions with furious passions and vile excesses; or with cruel
   lusts accompanied by various errors, of which the worst is that by
   which these deities are commended to the favour of deceived and deluded
   human beings, that they may get their proper food of flesh-fumes and
   blood when that is offered up to idol-images. What is daintier food to
   the spirit of evil, than turning men's minds away from the true God by
   the illusions of a false divination? And here I explain how these
   illusions are managed. Every spirit is possessed of wings. This is a
   common property of both angels and demons. So they are everywhere in a
   single moment; the whole world is as one place to them; all that is
   done over the whole extent of it, it is as easy for them to know as to
   report. Their swiftness of motion is taken for divinity, because their
   nature is unknown. Thus they would have themselves thought sometimes
   the authors of the things which they announce; and sometimes, no doubt,
   the bad things are their doing, never the good. The purposes of God,
   too, they took up of old from the lips of the prophets, even as they
   spoke them; and they gather them still from their works, when they hear
   them read aloud. Thus getting, too, from this source some intimations
   of the future, they set themselves up as rivals of the true God, while
   they steal His divinations.  But the skill with which their responses
   are shaped to meet events, your Croesi and Pyrrhi know too well. On the
   other hand, it was in that way we have explained, the Pythian was able
   to declare that they were cooking a tortoise [110] with the flesh of a
   lamb; in a moment he had been to Lydia. From dwelling in the air, and
   their nearness to the stars, and their commerce with the clouds, they
   have means of knowing the preparatory processes going on in these upper
   regions, and thus can give promise of the rains which they already
   feel.  Very kind too, no doubt, they are in regard to the healing of
   diseases. For, first of all, they make you ill; then, to get a miracle
   out of it, they command the application of remedies either altogether
   new, or contrary to those in use, and straightway withdrawing hurtful
   influence, they are supposed to have wrought a cure. What need, then,
   to speak of their other artifices, or yet further of the deceptive
   power which they have as spirits: of these Castor apparitions, [111] of
   water carried by a sieve, and a ship drawn along by a girdle, and a
   beard reddened by a touch, all done with the one object of showing that
   men should believe in the deity of stones, and not seek after the only
   true God?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [110] Herodotus, I. 47. [See Wilberforce's Five Empires, p. 67.]

   [111] [Castor and Pollux. Imitated in saint worship.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIII.

   Moreover, if sorcerers call forth ghosts, and even make what seem the
   souls of the dead to appear; if they put boys to death, in order to get
   a response from the oracle; if, with their juggling illusions, they
   make a pretence of doing various miracles; if they put dreams into
   people's minds by the power of the angels and demons whose aid they
   have invited, by whose influence, too, goats and tables are made to
   divine,--how much more likely is this power of evil to be zealous in
   doing with all its might, of its own inclination, and for its own
   objects, what it does to serve the ends of others! Or if both angels
   and demons do just what your gods do, where in that case is the
   pre-eminence of deity, which we must surely think to be above all in
   might? Will it not then be more reasonable to hold that these spirits
   make themselves gods, giving as they do the very proofs which raise
   your gods to godhead, than that the gods are the equals of angels and
   demons? You make a distinction of places, I suppose, regarding as gods
   in their temple those whose divinity you do not recognize elsewhere;
   counting the madness which leads one man to leap from the sacred
   houses, to be something different from that which leads another to leap
   from an adjoining house; looking on one who cuts his arms and secret
   parts as under a different furor from another who cuts his throat. The
   result of the frenzy is the same, and the manner of instigation is one.
   But thus far we have been dealing only in words:  we now proceed to a
   proof of facts, in which we shall show that under different names you
   have real identity.  Let a person be brought before your tribunals, who
   is plainly under demoniacal possession. The wicked spirit, bidden to
   speak by a follower of Christ, [112] will as readily make the truthful
   confession that he is a demon, as elsewhere he has falsely asserted
   that he is a god.  Or, if you will, let there be produced one of the
   god-possessed, as they are supposed, who, inhaling at the altar,
   conceive divinity from the fumes, who are delivered of it by retching,
   who vent it forth in agonies of gasping. Let that same Virgin Cælestis
   herself the rain-promiser, let Æsculapius discoverer of medicines,
   ready to prolong the life of Socordius, and Tenatius, and
   Asclepiodotus, now in the last extremity, if they would not confess, in
   their fear of lying to a Christian, that they were demons, then and
   there shed the blood of that most impudent follower of Christ. What
   clearer than a work like that? what more trustworthy than such a
   proof?  The simplicity of truth is thus set forth; its own worth
   sustains it; no ground remains for the least suspicion.  Do you say
   that it is done by magic, or some trick of that sort? You will not say
   anything of the sort, if you have been allowed the use of your ears and
   eyes. For what argument can you bring against a thing that is exhibited
   to the eye in its naked reality? If, on the one hand, they are really
   gods, why do they pretend to be demons? Is it from fear of us? In that
   case your divinity is put in subjection to Christians; and you surely
   can never ascribe deity to that which is under authority of man, nay
   (if it adds aught to the disgrace) of its very enemies. If, on the
   other hand, they are demons or angels, why, inconsistently with this,
   do they presume to set themselves forth as acting the part of gods?
   For as beings who put themselves out as gods would never willingly call
   themselves demons, if they were gods indeed, that they might not
   thereby in fact abdicate their dignity; so those whom you know to be no
   more than demons, would not dare to act as gods, if those whose names
   they take and use were really divine. For they would not dare to treat
   with disrespect the higher majesty of beings, whose displeasure they
   would feel was to be dreaded. So this divinity of yours is no divinity;
   for if it were, it would not be pretended to by demons, and it would
   not be denied by gods.  But since on both sides there is a concurrent
   acknowledgment that they are not gods, gather from this that there is
   but a single race--I mean the race of demons, the real race in both
   cases.  Let your search, then, now be after gods; for those whom you
   had imagined to be so you find to be spirits of evil. The truth is, as
   we have thus not only shown from our own gods that neither themselves
   nor any others have claims to deity, you may see at once who is really
   God, and whether that is He and He alone whom we Christians own; as
   also whether you are to believe in Him, and worship Him, after the
   manner of our Christian faith and discipline. But at once they will
   say, Who is this Christ with his fables? is he an ordinary man? is he a
   sorcerer? was his body stolen by his disciples from its tomb? is he now
   in the realms below? or is he not rather up in the heavens, thence
   about to come again, making the whole world shake, filling the earth
   with dread alarms, making all but Christians wail--as the Power of God,
   and the Spirit of God, as the Word, the Reason, the Wisdom, and the Son
   of God? Mock as you like, but get the demons if you can to join you in
   your mocking; let them deny that Christ is coming to judge every human
   soul which has existed from the world's beginning, clothing it again
   with the body it laid aside at death; let them declare it, say, before
   your tribunal, that this work has been allotted to Minos and
   Rhadamanthus, as Plato and the poets agree; let them put away from them
   at least the mark of ignominy and condemnation. They disclaim being
   unclean spirits, which yet we must hold as indubitably proved by their
   relish for the blood and fumes and foetid carcasses of sacrificial
   animals, and even by the vile language of their ministers. Let them
   deny that, for their wickedness condemned already, they are kept for
   that very judgment-day, with all their worshippers and their works.
   Why, all the authority and power we have over them is from our naming
   the name of Christ, and recalling to their memory the woes with which
   God threatens them at the hands of Christ as Judge, and which they
   expect one day to overtake them. Fearing Christ in God, and God in
   Christ, they become subject to the servants of God and Christ. So at
   our touch and breathing, overwhelmed by the thought and realization of
   those judgment fires, they leave at our command the bodies they have
   entered, unwilling, and distressed, and before your very eyes put to an
   open shame. You believe them when they lie; give credit to them, then,
   when they speak the truth about themselves. No one plays the liar to
   bring disgrace upon his own head, but for the sake of honour rather.
   You give a readier confidence to people making confessions against
   themselves, than denials in their own behalf. It has not been an
   unusual thing, accordingly, for those testimonies of your deities to
   convert men to Christianity; for in giving full belief to them, we are
   led to believe in Christ. Yes, your very gods kindle up faith in our
   Scriptures, they build up the confidence of our hope. You do homage, as
   I know, to them also with the blood of Christians. On no account, then,
   would they lose those who are so useful and dutiful to them, anxious
   even to hold you fast, lest some day or other as Christians you might
   put them to the rout,--if under the power of a follower of Christ, who
   desires to prove to you the Truth, it were at all possible for them to
   lie.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [112] [This testimony must be noted as something of which Tertullian
   confidently challenges denial.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIV.

   This whole confession of these beings, in which they declare that they
   are not gods, and in which they tell you that there is no God but one,
   the God whom we adore, is quite sufficient to clear us from the crime
   of treason, chiefly against the Roman religion. For if it is certain
   the gods have no existence, there is no religion in the case. If there
   is no religion, because there are no gods, we are assuredly not guilty
   of any offence against religion. Instead of that, the charge recoils on
   your own head: worshipping a lie, you are really guilty of the crime
   you charge on us, not merely by refusing the true religion of the true
   God, but by going the further length of persecuting it. But now,
   granting that these objects of your worship are really gods, is it not
   generally held that there is one higher and more potent, as it were the
   world's chief ruler, endowed with absolute power and majesty? For the
   common way is to apportion deity, giving an imperial and supreme
   domination to one, while its offices are put into the hands of many, as
   Plato describes great Jupiter in the heavens, surrounded by an array at
   once of deities and demons. It behooves us, therefore, to show equal
   respect to the procurators, prefects, and governors of the divine
   empire. And yet how great a crime does he commit, who, with the object
   of gaining higher favour with the Cæsar, transfers his endeavours and
   his hopes to another, and does not confess that the appellation of God
   as of Emperor belongs only to the Supreme Head, when it is held a
   capital offence among us to call, or hear called, by the highest title
   any other than Cæsar himself! Let one man worship God, another Jupiter;
   let one lift suppliant hands to the heavens, another to the altar of
   Fides; let one--if you choose to take this view of it--count in prayer
   the clouds, and another the ceiling panels; let one consecrate his own
   life to his God, and another that of a goat. For see that you do not
   give a further ground for the charge of irreligion, by taking away
   religious liberty, [113] and forbidding free choice of deity, so that I
   may no longer worship according to my inclination, but am compelled to
   worship against it. Not even a human being would care to have unwilling
   homage rendered him; and so the very Egyptians have been permitted the
   legal use of their ridiculous superstition, liberty to make gods of
   birds and beasts, nay, to condemn to death any one who kills a god of
   their sort. Every province even, and every city, has its god. Syria has
   Astarte, Arabia has Dusares, the Norici have Belenus, Africa has its
   Cælestis, Mauritania has its own princes. I have spoken, I think, of
   Roman provinces, and yet I have not said their gods are Roman; for they
   are not worshipped at Rome any more than others who are ranked as
   deities over Italy itself by municipal consecration, such as
   Delventinus of Casinum, Visidianus of Narnia, Ancharia of Asculum,
   Nortia of Volsinii, Valentia of Ocriculum, Hostia of Satrium, Father
   Curis of Falisci, in honour of whom, too, Juno got her surname. In,
   fact, we alone are prevented having a religion of our own. We give
   offence to the Romans, we are excluded from the rights and privileges
   of Romans, because we do not worship the gods of Rome. It is well that
   there is a God of all, whose we all are, whether we will or no. But
   with you liberty is given to worship any god but the true God, as
   though He were not rather the God all should worship, to whom all
   belong.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [113] [Observe our author's assertion that in its own nature, worship
   must be a voluntary act, and note this expression libertatem
   religionis.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXV.

   I think I have offered sufficient proof upon the question of false and
   true divinity, having shown that the proof rests not merely on debate
   and argument, but on the witness of the very beings whom you believe
   are gods, so that the point needs no further handling. However, having
   been led thus naturally to speak of the Romans, I shall not avoid the
   controversy which is invited by the groundless assertion of those who
   maintain that, as a reward of their singular homage to religion, the
   Romans have been raised to such heights of power as to have become
   masters of the world; and that so certainly divine are the beings they
   worship, that those prosper beyond all others, who beyond all others
   honour them. [114] This, forsooth, is the wages the gods have paid the
   Romans for their devotion. The progress of the empire is to be ascribed
   to Sterculus, the Mutunus, and Larentina! For I can hardly think that
   foreign gods would have been disposed to show more favour to an alien
   race than to their own, and given their own fatherland, in which they
   had their birth, grew up to manhood, became illustrious, and at last
   were buried, over to invaders from another shore! As for Cybele, if she
   set her affections on the city of Rome as sprung of the Trojan stock
   saved from the arms of Greece, she herself forsooth being of the same
   race,--if she foresaw her transference [115] to the avenging people by
   whom Greece the conqueror of Phrygia was to be subdued, let her look to
   it (in regard of her native country's conquest by Greece). Why, too,
   even in these days the Mater Magna has given a notable proof of her
   greatness which she has conferred as a boon upon the city; when, after
   the loss to the State of Marcus Aurelius at Sirmium, on the sixteenth
   before the Kalends of April, that most sacred high priest of hers was
   offering, a week after, impure libations of blood drawn from his own
   arms, and issuing his commands that the ordinary prayers should be made
   for the safety of the emperor already dead. O tardy messengers! O
   sleepy despatches! through whose fault Cybele had not an earlier
   knowledge of the imperial decease, that the Christians might have no
   occasion to ridicule a goddess so unworthy. Jupiter, again, would
   surely never have permitted his own Crete to fall at once before the
   Roman Fasces, forgetful of that Idean cave and the Corybantian cymbals,
   and the sweet odour of her who nursed him there. Would he not have
   exalted his own tomb above the entire Capitol, that the land which
   covered the ashes of Jove might rather be the mistress of the world?
   Would Juno have desired the destruction of the Punic city, beloved even
   to the neglect of Samos, and that by a nation of Æneadæ? As to that I
   know, ?Here were her arms, here was her chariot, this kingdom, if the
   Fates permit, the goddess tends and cherishes to be mistress of the
   nations.? [116] Jove's hapless wife and sister had no power to prevail
   against the Fates! ?Jupiter himself is sustained by fate.? And yet the
   Romans have never done such homage to the Fates, which gave them
   Carthage against the purpose and the will of Juno, as to the abandoned
   harlot Larentina. It is undoubted that not a few of your gods have
   reigned on earth as kings. If, then, they now possess the power of
   bestowing empire, when they were kings themselves, from whence had they
   received their kingly honours? Whom did Jupiter and Saturn worship? A
   Sterculus, I suppose. But did the Romans, along with the native-born
   inhabitants, afterwards adore also some who were never kings? In that
   case, however, they were under the reign of others, who did not yet bow
   down to them, as not yet raised to godhead. It belongs to others, then,
   to make gift of kingdoms, since there were kings before these gods had
   their names on the roll of divinities. But how utterly foolish it is to
   attribute the greatness of the Roman name to religious merits, since it
   was after Rome became an empire, or call it still a kingdom, that the
   religion she professes made its chief progress! Is it the case now? Has
   its religion been the source of the prosperity of Rome? Though Numa set
   agoing an eagerness after superstitious observances, yet religion among
   the Romans was not yet a matter of images or temples. It was frugal in
   its ways, its rites were simple, and there were no capitols struggling
   to the heavens; but the altars were offhand ones of turf, and the
   sacred vessels were yet of Samian earthen-ware, and from these the
   odours rose, and no likeness of God was to be seen. For at that time
   the skill of the Greeks and Tuscans in image-making had not yet overrun
   the city with the products of their art. The Romans, therefore, were
   not distinguished for their devotion to the gods before they attained
   to greatness; and so their greatness was not the result of their
   religion. Indeed, how could religion make a people great who have owed
   their greatness to their irreligion? For, if I am not mistaken,
   kingdoms and empires are acquired by wars, and are extended by
   victories. More than that, you cannot have wars and victories without
   the taking, and often the destruction, of cities. That is a thing in
   which the gods have their share of calamity. Houses and temples suffer
   alike; there is indiscriminate slaughter of priests and citizens; the
   hand of rapine is laid equally upon sacred and on common treasure. Thus
   the sacrileges of the Romans are as numerous as their trophies. They
   boast as many triumphs over the gods as over the nations; as many
   spoils of battle they have still, as there remain images of captive
   deities. And the poor gods submit to be adored by their enemies, and
   they ordain illimitable empire to those whose injuries rather than
   their simulated homage should have had retribution at their hands. But
   divinities unconscious are with impunity dishonoured, just as in vain
   they are adored. You certainly never can believe that devotion to
   religion has evidently advanced to greatness a people who, as we have
   put it, have either grown by injuring religion, or have injured
   religion by their growth. Those, too, whose kingdoms have become part
   of the one great whole of the Roman empire, were not without religion
   when their kingdoms were taken from them.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [114] [See Augustine's City of God, III. xvii. p. 95, Ed. Migne.]

   [115] Her image was taken from Pessinus to Rome.

   [116] [Familiar reference to Virgil, Æneid, I. 15.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXVI.

   Examine then, and see if He be not the dispenser of kingdoms, who is
   Lord at once of the world which is ruled, and of man himself who rules;
   if He have not ordained the changes of dynasties, with their appointed
   seasons, who was before all time, and made the world a body of times;
   if the rise and the fall of states are not the work of Him, under whose
   sovereignty the human race once existed without states at all.  How do
   you allow yourselves to fall into such error? Why, the Rome of rural
   simplicity is older than some of her gods; she reigned before her
   proud, vast Capitol was built. The Babylonians exercised dominion, too,
   before the days of the Pontiffs; and the Medes before the
   Quindecemvirs; and the Egyptians before the Salii; and the Assyrians
   before the Luperci; and the Amazons before the Vestal Virgins. And to
   add another point: if the religions of Rome give empire, ancient Judea
   would never have been a kingdom, despising as it did one and all these
   idol deities; Judea, whose God you Romans once honoured with victims,
   and its temple with gifts, and its people with treaties; and which
   would never have been beneath your sceptre but for that last and
   crowning offence against God, in rejecting and crucifying Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXVII.

   Enough has been said in these remarks to confute the charge of treason
   against your religion: for we cannot be held to do harm to that which
   has no existence. When we are called therefore to sacrifice, we
   resolutely refuse, relying on the knowledge we possess, by which we are
   well assured of the real objects to whom these services are offered,
   under profaning of images and the deification of human names. Some,
   indeed, think it a piece of insanity that, when it is in our power to
   offer sacrifice at once, and go away unharmed, holding as ever our
   convictions, we prefer an obstinate persistence in our confession to
   our safety. You advise us, forsooth, to take unjust advantage of you;
   but we know whence such suggestions come, who is at the bottom of it
   all, and how every effort is made, now by cunning suasion, and now by
   merciless persecution, to overthrow our constancy. No other than that
   spirit, half devil and half angel, who, hating us because of his own
   separation from God, and stirred with envy for the favour God has shown
   us, turns your minds against us by an occult influence, moulding and
   instigating them to all that perversity in judgment, and that
   unrighteous cruelty, which we have mentioned at the beginning of our
   work, when entering on this discussion. For, though the whole power of
   demons and kindred spirits is subject to us, yet still, as ill-disposed
   slaves sometimes conjoin contumacy with fear, and delight to injure
   those of whom they at the same time stand in awe, so is it here.  For
   fear also inspires hatred.  Besides, in their desperate condition, as
   already under condemnation, it gives them some comfort, while
   punishment delays, to have the usufruct of their malignant
   dispositions. And yet, when hands are laid on them, they are subdued at
   once, and submit to their lot; and those whom at a distance they
   oppose, in close quarters they supplicate for mercy. So when, like
   insurrectionary workhouses, or prisons, or mines, or any such penal
   slaveries, they break forth against us their masters, they know all the
   while that they are not a match for us, and just on that account,
   indeed, rush the more recklessly to destruction. We resist them,
   unwillingly, as though they were equals, and contend against them by
   persevering in that which they assail; and our triumph over them is
   never more complete than when we are condemned for resolute adherence
   to our faith.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXVIII.

   But as it was easily seen to be unjust to compel freemen against their
   will to offer sacrifice (for even in other acts of religious service a
   willing mind is required), it should be counted quite absurd for one
   man to compel another to do honour to the gods, when he ought ever
   voluntarily, and in the sense of his own need, to seek their favour,
   lest in the liberty which is his right he should be ready to say, ?I
   want none of Jupiter's favours; pray who art thou? Let Janus meet me
   with angry looks, with whichever of his faces he likes; what have you
   to do with me?? You have been led, no doubt, by these same evil spirits
   to compel us to offer sacrifice for the well-being of the emperor; and
   you are under a necessity of using force, just as we are under an
   obligation to face the dangers of it.  This brings us, then, to the
   second ground of accusation, that we are guilty of treason against a
   majesty more august; for you do homage with a greater dread and an
   intenser reverence to Cæsar, than Olympian Jove himself. And if you
   knew it, upon sufficient grounds. For is not any living man better than
   a dead one, whoever he be? But this is not done by you on any other
   ground than regard to a power whose presence you vividly realize; so
   that also in this you are convicted of impiety to your gods, inasmuch
   as you show a greater reverence to a human sovereignty than you do to
   them. Then, too, among you, people far more readily swear a false oath
   in the name of all the gods, than in the name of the single genius of
   Cæsar.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIX.

   Let it be made clear, then, first of all, if those to whom sacrifice is
   offered are really able to protect either emperor or anybody else, and
   so adjudge us guilty of treason, if angels and demons, spirits of most
   wicked nature, do any good, if the lost save, if the condemned give
   liberty, if the dead (I refer to what you know well enough) defend the
   living. For surely the first thing they would look to would be the
   protection of their statues, and images, and temples, which rather owe
   their safety, I think, to the watch kept by Cæsar's guards. Nay, I
   think the very materials of which these are made come from Cæsar's
   mines, and there is not a temple but depends on Cæsar's will. Yes, and
   many gods have felt the displeasure of the Cæsar. It makes for my
   argument if they are also partakers of his favour, when he bestows on
   them some gift or privilege. How shall they who are thus in Cæsar's
   power, who belong entirely to him, have Cæsar's protection in their
   hands, so that you can imagine them able to give to Cæsar what they
   more readily get from him? This, then, is the ground on which we are
   charged with treason against the imperial majesty, to wit, that we do
   not put the emperors under their own possessions; that we do not offer
   a mere mock service on their behalf, as not believing their safety
   rests in leaden hands. But you are impious in a high degree who look
   for it where it is not, who seek it from those who have it not to give,
   passing by Him who has it entirely in His power. Besides this, you
   persecute those who know where to seek for it, and who, knowing where
   to seek for it, are able as well to secure it.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXX.

   For we offer prayer for the safety of our princes to the eternal, the
   true, the living God, whose favour, beyond all others, they must
   themselves desire.  They know from whom they have obtained their power;
   they know, as they are men, from whom they have received life itself;
   they are convinced that He is God alone, on whose power alone they are
   entirely dependent, to whom they are second, after whom they occupy the
   highest places, before and above all the gods. Why not, since they are
   above all living men, and the living, as living, are superior to the
   dead? They reflect upon the extent of their power, and so they come to
   understand the highest; they acknowledge that they have all their might
   from Him against whom their might is nought. Let the emperor make war
   on heaven; let him lead heaven captive in his triumph; let him put
   guards on heaven; let him impose taxes on heaven! He cannot. Just
   because he is less than heaven, he is great. For he himself is His to
   whom heaven and every creature appertains. He gets his sceptre where he
   first got his humanity; his power where he got the breath of life.
   Thither we lift our eyes, with hands outstretched, because free from
   sin; with head uncovered, for we have nothing whereof to be ashamed;
   finally, without a monitor, because it is from the heart we supplicate.
   Without ceasing, for all our emperors we offer prayer.  We pray for
   life prolonged; for security to the empire; for protection to the
   imperial house; for brave armies, a faithful senate, a virtuous people,
   the world at rest, whatever, as man or Cæsar, an emperor would wish.
   These things I cannot ask from any but the God from whom I know I shall
   obtain them, both because He alone bestows them and because I have
   claims upon Him for their gift, as being a servant of His, rendering
   homage to Him alone, persecuted for His doctrine, offering to Him, at
   His own requirement, that costly and noble sacrifice of prayer [117]
   despatched from the chaste body, an unstained soul, a sanctified
   spirit, not the few grains of incense a farthing buys [118] --tears of
   an Arabian tree,--not a few drops of wine,--not the blood of some
   worthless ox to which death is a relief, and, in addition to other
   offensive things, a polluted conscience, so that one wonders, when your
   victims are examined by these vile priests, why the examination is not
   rather of the sacrificers than the sacrifices. With our hands thus
   stretched out and up to God, rend us with your iron claws, hang us up
   on crosses, wrap us in flames, take our heads from us with the sword,
   let loose the wild beasts on us,--the very attitude of a Christian
   praying is one of preparation for all punishment. [119] Let this, good
   rulers, be your work: wring from us the soul, beseeching God on the
   emperor's behalf. Upon the truth of God, and devotion to His name, put
   the brand of crime.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [117] Heb. x. 22. [See cap. xlii. infra. p. 49.]

   [118] [Once more this reflection on the use of material incense, which
   is common to early Christians, as in former volumes noted.]

   [119] [A reference to kneeling, which see the de Corona cap. 3, infra.
   Christians are represented as standing at prayer, in the delineations
   of the Catacombs.  But, see Nicene Canon, xx.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXI.

   But we merely, you say, flatter the emperor, and feign these prayers of
   ours to escape persecution. Thank you for your mistake, for you give us
   the opportunity of proving our allegations. Do you, then, who think
   that we care nothing for the welfare of Cæsar, look into God's
   revelations, examine our sacred books, which we do not keep in hiding,
   and which many accidents put into the hands of those who are not of us.
   Learn from them that a large benevolence is enjoined upon us, even so
   far as to supplicate God for our enemies, and to beseech blessings on
   our persecutors. [120] Who, then, are greater enemies and persecutors
   of Christians, than the very parties with treason against whom we are
   charged? Nay, even in terms, and most clearly, the Scripture says,
   ?Pray for kings, and rulers, and powers, that all may be peace with
   you.? [121] For when there is disturbance in the empire, if the
   commotion is felt by its other members, surely we too, though we are
   not thought to be given to disorder, are to be found in some place or
   other which the calamity affects.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [120] Matt. v. 44.

   [121] 1 Tim. ii. 2.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXII.

   There is also another and a greater necessity for our offering prayer
   in behalf of the emperors, nay, for the complete stability of the
   empire, and for Roman interests in general. For we know that a mighty
   shock impending over the whole earth--in fact, the very end of all
   things threatening dreadful woes--is only retarded by the continued
   existence of the Roman empire. [122] We have no desire, then, to be
   overtaken by these dire events; and in praying that their coming may be
   delayed, we are lending our aid to Rome's duration. More than this,
   though we decline to swear by the genii of the Cæsars, we swear by
   their safety, which is worth far more than all your genii. Are you
   ignorant that these genii are called ?Dæmones,? and thence the
   diminutive name ?Dæmonia? is applied to them? We respect in the
   emperors the ordinance of God, who has set them over the nations.  We
   know that there is that in them which God has willed; and to what God
   has willed we desire all safety, and we count an oath by it a great
   oath. But as for demons, that is, your genii, we have been in the habit
   of exorcising them, not of swearing by them, and thereby conferring on
   them divine honour.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [122] [Cap. xxxix. infra.  And see Kaye, pp. 20, 348. A subject of
   which more hereafter.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXIII.

   But why dwell longer on the reverence and sacred respect of Christians
   to the emperor, whom we cannot but look up to as called by our Lord to
   his office?  So that on valid grounds I might say Cæsar is more ours
   than yours, for our God has appointed him. Therefore, as having this
   propriety in him, I do more than you for his welfare, not merely
   because I ask it of Him who can give it, or because I ask it as one who
   deserves to get it, but also because, in keeping the majesty of Cæsar
   within due limits, and putting it under the Most High, and making it
   less than divine, I commend him the more to the favour of Deity, to
   whom I make him alone inferior. But I place him in subjection to one I
   regard as more glorious than himself.  Never will I call the emperor
   God, and that either because it is not in me to be guilty of falsehood;
   or that I dare not turn him into ridicule; or that not even himself
   will desire to have that high name applied to him. If he is but a man,
   it is his interest as man to give God His higher place. Let him think
   it enough to bear the name of emperor.  That, too, is a great name of
   God's giving. To call him God, is to rob him of his title. If he is not
   a man, emperor he cannot be. Even when, amid the honours of a triumph,
   he sits on that lofty chariot, he is reminded that he is only human. A
   voice at his back keeps whispering in his ear, ?Look behind thee;
   remember thou art but a man.? And it only adds to his exultation, that
   he shines with a glory so surpassing as to require an admonitory
   reference to his condition. [123] It adds to his greatness that he
   needs such a reminiscence, lest he should think himself divine.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [123] [A familiar story of Alexander is alluded to.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXIV.

   Augustus, the founder of the empire, would not even have the title
   Lord; for that, too, is a name of Deity. For my part, I am willing to
   give the emperor this designation, but in the common acceptation of the
   word, and when I am not forced to call him Lord as in God's place. But
   my relation to him is one of freedom; for I have but one true Lord, the
   God omnipotent and eternal, who is Lord of the emperor as well. How can
   he, who is truly father of his country, be its lord?  The name of piety
   is more grateful than the name of power; so the heads of families are
   called fathers rather than lords. Far less should the emperor have the
   name of God. We can only profess our belief that he is that by the most
   unworthy, nay, a fatal flattery; it is just as if, having an emperor,
   you call another by the name, in which case will you not give great and
   unappeasable offence to him who actually reigns?--an offence he, too,
   needs to fear on whom you have bestowed the title. Give all reverence
   to God, if you wish Him to be propitious to the emperor. Give up all
   worship of, and belief in, any other being as divine. Cease also to
   give the sacred name to him who has need of God himself. If such
   adulation is not ashamed of its lie, in addressing a man as divine, let
   it have some dread at least of the evil omen which it bears. It is the
   invocation of a curse, to give Cæsar the name of god before his
   apotheosis.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXV.

   This is the reason, then, why Christians are counted public enemies:
   that they pay no vain, nor false, nor foolish honours to the emperor;
   that, as men believing in the true religion, they prefer to celebrate
   their festal days with a good conscience, instead of with the common
   wantonness. It is, forsooth, a notable homage to bring fires and
   couches out before the public, to have feasting from street to street,
   to turn the city into one great tavern, to make mud with wine, to run
   in troops to acts of violence, to deeds of shamelessness to lust
   allurements! What! is public joy manifested by public disgrace? Do
   things unseemly at other times beseem the festal days of princes? Do
   they who observe the rules of virtue out of reverence for Cæsar, for
   his sake turn aside from them? Shall piety be a license to immoral
   deeds, and shall religion be regarded as affording the occasion for all
   riotous extravagance? Poor we, worthy of all condemnation! For why do
   we keep the votive days and high rejoicings in honour of the Cæsars
   with chastity, sobriety, and virtue? Why, on the day of gladness, do we
   neither cover our door-posts with laurels, nor intrude upon the day
   with lamps? It is a proper thing, at the call of a public festivity, to
   dress your house up like some new brothel. [124] However, in the matter
   of this homage to a lesser majesty, in reference to which we are
   accused of a lower sacrilege, because we do not celebrate along with
   you the holidays of the Cæsars in a manner forbidden alike by modesty,
   decency, and purity,--in truth they have been established rather as
   affording opportunities for licentiousness than from any worthy
   motive;--in this matter I am anxious to point out how faithful and true
   you are, lest perchance here also those who will not have us counted
   Romans, but enemies of Rome's chief rulers, be found themselves worse
   than we wicked Christians! I appeal to the inhabitants of Rome
   themselves, to the native population of the seven hills: does that
   Roman vernacular of theirs ever spare a Cæsar? The Tiber and the wild
   beasts' schools bear witness. Say now if nature had covered our hearts
   with a transparent substance through which the light could pass, whose
   hearts, all graven over, would not betray the scene of another and
   another Cæsar presiding at the distribution of a largess? And this at
   the very time they are shouting, ?May Jupiter take years from us, and
   with them lengthen like to you,?--words as foreign to the lips of a
   Christian as it is out of keeping with his character to desire a change
   of emperor. But this is the rabble, you say; yet, as the rabble, they
   still are Romans, and none more frequently than they demand the death
   of Christians. [125] Of course, then, the other classes, as befits
   their higher rank, are religiously faithful.  No breath of treason is
   there ever in the senate, in the equestrian order, in the camp, in the
   palace.  Whence, then, came a Cassius, a Niger, an Albinus? Whence they
   who beset the Cæsar [126] between the two laurel groves? Whence they
   who practised wrestling, that they might acquire skill to strangle him?
   Whence they who in full armour broke into the palace, [127] more
   audacious than all your Tigerii and Parthenii. [128] If I mistake not,
   they were Romans; that is, they were not Christians. Yet all of them,
   on the very eve of their traitorous outbreak, offered sacrifices for
   the safety of the emperor, and swore by his genius, one thing in
   profession, and another in the heart; and no doubt they were in the
   habit of calling Christians enemies of the state. Yes, and persons who
   are now daily brought to light as confederates or approvers of these
   crimes and treasons, the still remnant gleanings after a vintage of
   traitors, with what verdant and branching laurels they clad their
   door-posts, with what lofty and brilliant lamps they smoked their
   porches, with what most exquisite and gaudy couches they divided the
   Forum among themselves; not that they might celebrate public
   rejoicings, but that they might get a foretaste of their own votive
   seasons in partaking of the festivities of another, and inaugurate the
   model and image of their hope, changing in their minds the emperor's
   name. The same homage is paid, dutifully too, by those who consult
   astrologers, and soothsayers, and augurs, and magicians, about the life
   of the Cæsars,--arts which, as made known by the angels who sinned, and
   forbidden by God, Christians do not even make use of in their own
   affairs. But who has any occasion to inquire about the life of the
   emperor, if he have not some wish or thought against it, or some hopes
   and expectations after it? For consultations of this sort have not the
   same motive in the case of friends as in the case of sovereigns. The
   anxiety of a kinsman is something very different from that of a
   subject.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [124] [Note this reference to a shameless custom of the heathen in Rome
   and elsewhere.]

   [125] [See cap. l. and Note on cap. xl. infra.]

   [126] Commodus.

   [127] To murder Pertinax.

   [128] Tigerius and Parthenius were among the murderers of Commodus.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXVI.

   If it is the fact that men bearing the name of Romans are found to be
   enemies of Rome, why are we, on the ground that we are regarded as
   enemies, denied the name of Romans? We may be at once Romans and foes
   of Rome, when men passing for Romans are discovered to be enemies of
   their country.  So the affection, and fealty, and reverence, due to the
   emperors do not consist in such tokens of homage as these, which even
   hostility may be zealous in performing, chiefly as a cloak to its
   purposes; but in those ways which Deity as certainly enjoins on us, as
   they are held to be necessary in the case of all men as well as
   emperors. Deeds of true heart-goodness are not due by us to emperors
   alone. We never do good with respect of persons; for in our own
   interest we conduct ourselves as those who take no payment either of
   praise or premium from man, but from God, who both requires and
   remunerates an impartial benevolence. [129] We are the same to emperors
   as to our ordinary neighbors. For we are equally forbidden to wish ill,
   to do ill, to speak ill, to think ill of all men. The thing we must not
   do to an emperor, we must not do to any one else: what we would not do
   to anybody, a fortiori, perhaps we should not do to him whom God has
   been pleased so highly to exalt.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [129] [Cap. ix. p. 25, note 1 supra.  Again, Christian democracy,
   ?honouring all men.?]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXVII.

   If we are enjoined, then, to love our enemies, as I have remarked
   above, whom have we to hate? If injured, we are forbidden to retaliate,
   lest we become as bad ourselves: who can suffer injury at our hands? In
   regard to this, recall your own experiences. How often you inflict
   gross cruelties on Christians, partly because it is your own
   inclination, and partly in obedience to the laws! How often, too, the
   hostile mob, paying no regard to you, takes the law into its own hand,
   and assails us with stones and flames! With the very frenzy of the
   Bacchanals, they do not even spare the Christian dead, but tear them,
   now sadly changed, no longer entire, from the rest of the tomb, from
   the asylum we might say of death, cutting them in pieces, rending them
   asunder. Yet, banded together as we are, ever so ready to sacrifice our
   lives, what single case of revenge for injury are you able to point to,
   though, if it were held right among us to repay evil by evil, a single
   night with a torch or two could achieve an ample vengeance? But away
   with the idea of a sect divine avenging itself by human fires, or
   shrinking from the sufferings in which it is tried. If we desired,
   indeed, to act the part of open enemies, not merely of secret avengers,
   would there be any lacking in strength, whether of numbers or
   resources?  The Moors, the Marcomanni, the Parthians themselves, or any
   single people, however great, inhabiting a distinct territory, and
   confined within its own boundaries, surpasses, forsooth, in numbers,
   one spread over all the world! We are but of yesterday, and we have
   filled every place among you--cities, islands, fortresses, towns,
   market-places, the very camp, tribes, companies, palace, senate,
   forum,--we have left nothing to you but the temples of your gods. For
   what wars should we not be fit, not eager, even with unequal forces, we
   who so willingly yield ourselves to the sword, if in our religion it
   were not counted better to be slain than to slay? Without arms even,
   and raising no insurrectionary banner, but simply in enmity to you, we
   could carry on the contest with you by an ill-willed severance alone.
   For if such multitudes of men were to break away from you, and betake
   themselves to some remote corner of the world, why, the very loss of so
   many citizens, whatever sort they were, would cover the empire with
   shame; nay, in the very forsaking, vengeance would be inflicted. Why,
   you would be horror-struck at the solitude in which you would find
   yourselves, at such an all-prevailing silence, and that stupor as of a
   dead world. You would have to seek subjects to govern. You would have
   more enemies than citizens remaining. For now it is the immense number
   of Christians which makes your enemies so few,--almost all the
   inhabitants of your various cities being followers of Christ. [130] Yet
   you choose to call us enemies of the human race, rather than of human
   error.  Nay, who would deliver you from those secret foes, ever busy
   both destroying your souls and ruining your health?  Who would save
   you, I mean, from the attacks of those spirits of evil, which without
   reward or hire we exorcise?  This alone would be revenge enough for us,
   that you were henceforth left free to the possession of unclean
   spirits.  But instead of taking into account what is due to us for the
   important protection we afford you, and though we are not merely no
   trouble to you, but in fact necessary to your well-being, you prefer to
   hold us enemies, as indeed we are, yet not of man, but rather of his
   error.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [130] [Elucidation VI.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXVIII.

   Ought not Christians, therefore, to receive not merely a somewhat
   milder treatment, but to have a place among the law-tolerated
   societies, seeing they are not chargeable with any such crimes as are
   commonly dreaded from societies of the illicit class? For, unless I
   mistake the matter, the prevention of such associations is based on a
   prudential regard to public order, that the state may not be divided
   into parties, which would naturally lead to disturbance in the
   electoral assemblies, the councils, the curiæ, the special conventions,
   even in the public shows by the hostile collisions of rival parties;
   especially when now, in pursuit of gain, men have begun to consider
   their violence an article to be bought and sold. But as those in whom
   all ardour in the pursuit of glory and honour is dead, we have no
   pressing inducement to take part in your public meetings; nor is there
   aught more entirely foreign to us than affairs of state. We acknowledge
   one all-embracing commonwealth--the world. We renounce all your
   spectacles, as strongly as we renounce the matters originating them,
   which we know were conceived of superstition, when we give up the very
   things which are the basis of their representations.  Among us nothing
   is ever said, or seen, or heard, which has anything in common with the
   madness of the circus, the immodesty of the theatre, the atrocities of
   the arena, the useless exercises of the wrestling-ground. Why do you
   take offence at us because we differ from you in regard to your
   pleasures?  If we will not partake of your enjoyments, the loss is
   ours, if there be loss in the case, not yours. We reject what pleases
   you. You, on the other hand, have no taste for what is our delight.
   The Epicureans were allowed by you to decide for themselves one true
   source of pleasure--I mean equanimity; the Christian, on his part, has
   many such enjoyments--what harm in that?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXXIX.

   I shall at once go on, then, to exhibit the peculiarities of the
   Christian society, that, as I have refuted the evil charged against it,
   I may point out its positive good. [131] We are a body knit together as
   such by a common religious profession, by unity of discipline, and by
   the bond of a common hope. We meet together as an assembly and
   congregation, that, offering up prayer to God as with united force, we
   may wrestle with Him in our supplications. This violence God delights
   in. We pray, too, for the emperors, for their ministers and for all in
   authority, for the welfare of the world, for the prevalence of peace,
   for the delay of the final consummation. [132] We assemble to read our
   sacred writings, if any peculiarity of the times makes either
   forewarning or reminiscence needful. [133] However it be in that
   respect, with the sacred words we nourish our faith, we animate our
   hope, we make our confidence more stedfast; and no less by inculcations
   of God's precepts we confirm good habits. In the same place also
   exhortations are made, rebukes and sacred censures are administered.
   For with a great gravity is the work of judging carried on among us, as
   befits those who feel assured that they are in the sight of God; and
   you have the most notable example of judgment to come when any one has
   sinned so grievously as to require his severance from us in prayer, in
   the congregation and in all sacred intercourse. The tried men of our
   elders preside over us, obtaining that honour not by purchase, but by
   established character. There is no buying and selling of any sort in
   the things of God. Though we have our treasure-chest, it is not made up
   of purchase-money, as of a religion that has its price. On the monthly
   day, [134] if he likes, each puts in a small donation; but only if it
   be his pleasure, and only if he be able: for there is no compulsion;
   all is voluntary. These gifts are, as it were, piety's deposit fund.
   For they are not taken thence and spent on feasts, and drinking-bouts,
   and eating-houses, but to support and bury poor people, to supply the
   wants of boys and girls destitute of means and parents, and of old
   persons confined now to the house; such, too, as have suffered
   shipwreck; and if there happen to be any in the mines, or banished to
   the islands, or shut up in the prisons, for nothing but their fidelity
   to the cause of God's Church, they become the nurslings of their
   confession. But it is mainly the deeds of a love so noble that lead
   many to put a brand upon us. See, they say, how they love one [135]
   another, for themselves are animated by mutual hatred; how they are
   ready even to die for one another, for they themselves will sooner put
   to death. And they are wroth with us, too, because we call each other
   brethren; for no other reason, as I think, than because among
   themselves names of consanguinity are assumed in mere pretence of
   affection.  But we are your brethren as well, by the law of our common
   mother nature, though you are hardly men, because brothers so unkind.
   At the same time, how much more fittingly they are called and counted
   brothers who have been led to the knowledge of God as their common
   Father, who have drunk in one spirit of holiness, who from the same
   womb of a common ignorance have agonized into the same light of truth!
   But on this very account, perhaps, we are regarded as having less claim
   to be held true brothers, that no tragedy makes a noise about our
   brotherhood, or that the family possessions, which generally destroy
   brotherhood among you, create fraternal bonds among us. One in mind and
   soul, we do not hesitate to share our earthly goods with one another.
   All things are common among us but our wives. We give up our community
   where it is practised alone by others, who not only take possession of
   the wives of their friends, but most tolerantly also accommodate their
   friends with theirs, following the example, I believe, of those wise
   men of ancient times, the Greek Socrates and the Roman Cato, who shared
   with their friends the wives whom they had married, it seems for the
   sake of progeny both to themselves and to others; whether in this
   acting against their partners' wishes, I am not able to say. Why should
   they have any care over their chastity, when their husbands so readily
   bestowed it away? O noble example of Attic wisdom, of Roman
   gravity--the philosopher and the censor playing pimps! What wonder if
   that great love of Christians towards one another is desecrated by
   you!  For you abuse also our humble feasts, on the ground that they are
   extravagant as well as infamously wicked.  To us, it seems, applies the
   saying of Diogenes: ?The people of Megara feast as though they were
   going to die on the morrow; they build as though they were never to
   die!? But one sees more readily the mote in another's eye than the beam
   in his own.  Why, the very air is soured with the eructations of so
   many tribes, and curiæ, and decuriæ. The Salii cannot have their feast
   without going into debt; you must get the accountants to tell you what
   the tenths of Hercules and the sacrificial banquets cost; the choicest
   cook is appointed for the Apaturia, the Dionysia, the Attic mysteries;
   the smoke from the banquet of Serapis will call out the firemen. Yet
   about the modest supper-room of the Christians alone a great ado is
   made.  Our feast explains itself by its name.  The Greeks call it
   agapè, i.e., affection. Whatever it costs, our outlay in the name of
   piety is gain, since with the good things of the feast we benefit the
   needy; not as it is with you, do parasites aspire to the glory of
   satisfying their licentious propensities, selling themselves for a
   belly-feast to all disgraceful treatment,--but as it is with God
   himself, a peculiar respect is shown to the lowly. If the object of our
   feast be good, in the light of that consider its further regulations.
   As it is an act of religious service, it permits no vileness or
   immodesty. The participants, before reclining, taste first of prayer to
   God. As much is eaten as satisfies the cravings of hunger; as much is
   drunk as befits the chaste.  They say it is enough, as those who
   remember that even during the night they have to worship God; they talk
   as those who know that the Lord is one of their auditors. After manual
   ablution, and the bringing in of lights, each [136] is asked to stand
   forth and sing, as he can, a hymn to God, either one from the holy
   Scriptures or one of his own composing,--a proof of the measure of our
   drinking. As the feast commenced with prayer, so with prayer it is
   closed. We go from it, not like troops of mischief-doers, nor bands of
   vagabonds, nor to break out into licentious acts, but to have as much
   care of our modesty and chastity as if we had been at a school of
   virtue rather than a banquet. Give the congregation of the Christians
   its due, and hold it unlawful, if it is like assemblies of the illicit
   sort: by all means let it be condemned, if any complaint can be validly
   laid against it, such as lies against secret factions. But who has ever
   suffered harm from our assemblies? We are in our congregations just
   what we are when separated from each other; we are as a community what
   we are individuals; we injure nobody, we trouble nobody. When the
   upright, when the virtuous meet together, when the pious, when the pure
   assemble in congregation, you ought not to call that a faction, but a
   curia--[i.e., the court of God.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [131] [Elucidation VII.]

   [132] [Chap. xxxii. supra p. 43.]

   [133] [An argument for Days of Public Thanksgiving, Fasting and the
   like.]

   [134] [On ordinary Sundays, ?they laid by in store,? apparently: once a
   month they offered.]

   [135] [A precious testimony, though the caviller asserts that
   afterwards the heathen used this expression derisively.]

   [136] [Or, perhaps--?One is prompted to stand forth and bring to God,
   as every one can, whether from the Holy Scriptures, or of his own
   mind?--i.e. according to his taste.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XL.

   On the contrary, they deserve the name of faction who conspire to bring
   odium on good men and virtuous, who cry out against innocent blood,
   offering as the justification of their enmity the baseless plea, that
   they think the Christians the cause of every public disaster, of every
   affliction with which the people are visited.  If the Tiber rises as
   high as the city walls, if the Nile does not send its waters up over
   the fields, if the heavens give no rain, if there is an earthquake, if
   there is famine or pestilence, straightway the cry [137] is, ?Away with
   the Christians to the lion!?  What! shall you give such multitudes to a
   single beast? Pray, tell me how many calamities befell the world and
   particular cities before Tiberius reigned--before the coming, that is,
   of Christ? We read of the islands of Hiera, and Anaphe, and Delos, and
   Rhodes, and Cos, with many thousands of human beings, having been
   swallowed up. Plato informs us that a region larger than Asia or Africa
   was seized by the Atlantic Ocean. An earthquake, too, drank up the
   Corinthian sea; and the force of the waves cut off a part of Lucania,
   whence it obtained the name of Sicily. These things surely could not
   have taken place without the inhabitants suffering by them. But
   where--I do not say were Christians, those despisers of your gods--but
   where were your gods themselves in those days, when the flood poured
   its destroying waters over all the world, or, as Plato thought, merely
   the level portion of it?  For that they are of later date than that
   calamity, the very cities in which they were born and died, nay, which
   they founded, bear ample testimony; for the cities could have no
   existence at this day unless as belonging to postdiluvian times.
   Palestine had not yet received from Egypt its Jewish swarm (of
   emigrants), nor had the race from which Christians sprung yet settled
   down there, when its neighbors Sodom and Gomorrah were consumed by fire
   from heaven. The country yet smells of that conflagration; and if there
   are apples there upon the trees, it is only a promise to the eye they
   give--you but touch them, and they turn to ashes. Nor had Tuscia and
   Campania to complain of Christians in the days when fire from heaven
   overwhelmed Vulsinii, and Pompeii was destroyed by fire from its own
   mountain.  No one yet worshipped the true God at Rome, when Hannibal at
   Cannæ counted the Roman slain by the pecks of Roman rings. Your gods
   were all objects of adoration, universally acknowledged, when the
   Senones closely besieged the very Capitol. And it is in keeping with
   all this, that if adversity has at any time befallen cities, the
   temples and the walls have equally shared in the disaster, so that it
   is clear to demonstration the thing was not the doing of the gods,
   seeing it also overtook themselves. The truth is, the human race has
   always deserved ill at God's hand.  First of all, as undutiful to Him,
   because when it knew Him in part, it not only did not seek after Him,
   but even invented other gods of its own to worship; and further,
   because, as the result of their willing ignorance of the Teacher of
   righteousness, the Judge and Avenger of sin, all vices and crimes grew
   and flourished. But had men sought, they would have come to know the
   glorious object of their seeking; and knowledge would have produced
   obedience, and obedience would have found a gracious instead of an
   angry God. They ought then to see that the very same God is angry with
   them now as in ancient times, before Christians were so much as spoken
   of. It was His blessings they enjoyed--created before they made any of
   their deities: and why can they not take it in, that their evils come
   from the Being whose goodness they have failed to recognize? They
   suffer at the hands of Him to whom they have been ungrateful. And, for
   all that is said, if we compare the calamities of former times, they
   fall on us more lightly now, since God gave Christians to the world;
   for from that time virtue put some restraint on the world's wickedness,
   and men began to pray for the averting of God's wrath. In a word, when
   the summer clouds give no rain, and the season is matter of anxiety,
   you indeed--full of feasting day by day, and ever eager for the
   banquet, baths and taverns and brothels always busy--offer up to
   Jupiter your rain-sacrifices; you enjoin on the people barefoot
   processions; you seek heaven at the Capitol; you look up to the
   temple-ceilings for the longed-for clouds--God and heaven not in all
   your thoughts. We, dried up with fastings, and our passions bound
   tightly up, holding back as long as possible from all the ordinary
   enjoyments of life, rolling in sackcloth and ashes, assail heaven with
   our importunities--touch God's heart--and when we have extorted divine
   compassion, why, Jupiter gets all the honour!
     __________________________________________________________________

   [137] [Christianos ad leonem. From what class, chiefly, see cap. xxxv.
   supra. Elucidation VIII.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLI.

   You, therefore, are the sources of trouble in human affairs; on you
   lies the blame of public adversities, since you are ever attracting
   them--you by whom God is despised and images are worshipped. It should
   surely seem the more natural thing to believe that it is the neglected
   One who is angry, and not they to whom all homage is paid; or most
   unjustly they act, if, on account of the Christians, they send trouble
   on their own devotees, whom they are bound to keep clear of the
   punishments of Christians. But this, you say, hits your God as well,
   since He permits His worshippers to suffer on account of those who
   dishonour Him. But admit first of all His providential arrangings, and
   you will not make this retort. For He who once for all appointed an
   eternal judgment at the world's close, does not precipitate the
   separation, which is essential to judgment, before the end.  Meanwhile
   He deals with all sorts of men alike, so that all together share His
   favours and reproofs. His will is, that outcasts and elect should have
   adversities and prosperities in common, that we should have all the
   same experience of His goodness and severity. Having learned these
   things from His own lips, we love His goodness, we fear His wrath,
   while both by you are treated with contempt; and hence the sufferings
   of life, so far as it is our lot to be overtaken by them, are in our
   case gracious admonitions, while in yours they are divine punishments.
   We indeed are not the least put about: for, first, only one thing in
   this life greatly concerns us, and that is, to get quickly out of it;
   and next, if any adversity befalls us, it is laid to the door of your
   transgressions. Nay, though we are likewise involved in troubles
   because of our close connection with you, we are rather glad of it,
   because we recognize in it divine foretellings, which, in fact, go to
   confirm the confidence and faith of our hope. But if all the evils you
   endure are inflicted on you by the gods you worship out of spite to us,
   why do you continue to pay homage to beings so ungrateful, and unjust;
   who, instead of being angry with you, should rather have been aiding
   and abetting you by persecuting Christians--keeping you clear of their
   sufferings?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLII.

   But we are called to account as harm-doers on another [138] ground, and
   are accused of being useless in the affairs of life. How in all the
   world can that be the case with people who are living among you, eating
   the same food, wearing the same attire, having the same habits, under
   the same necessities of existence? We are not Indian Brahmins or
   Gymnosophists, who dwell in woods and exile themselves from ordinary
   human life. We do not forget the debt of gratitude we owe to God, our
   Lord and Creator; we reject no creature of His hands, though certainly
   we exercise restraint upon ourselves, lest of any gift of His we make
   an immoderate or sinful use. So we sojourn with you in the world,
   abjuring neither forum, nor shambles, nor bath, nor booth, nor
   workshop, nor inn, nor weekly market, nor any other places of commerce.
   We sail with you, and fight with you, [139] and till the ground with
   you; and in like manner we unite with you in your traffickings--even in
   the various arts we make public property of our works for your benefit.
   How it is we seem useless in your ordinary business, living with you
   and by you as we do, I am not able to understand. But if I do not
   frequent your religious ceremonies, I am still on the sacred day a man.
   I do not at the Saturnalia bathe myself at dawn, that I may not lose
   both day and night; yet I bathe at a decent and healthful hour, which
   preserves me both in heat and blood. I can be rigid and pallid like you
   after ablution when I am dead. I do not recline in public at the feast
   of Bacchus, after the manner of the beast-fighters at their final
   banquet.  Yet of your resources I partake, wherever I may chance to
   eat. I do not buy a crown for my head. What matters it to you how I use
   them, if nevertheless the flowers are purchased? I think it more
   agreeable to have them free and loose, waving all about. Even if they
   are woven into a crown, we smell the crown with our nostrils: let those
   look to it who scent the perfume with their hair. We do not go to your
   spectacles; yet the articles that are sold there, if I need them, I
   will obtain more readily at their proper places. We certainly buy no
   frankincense. If the Arabias complain of this, let the Sabæans be well
   assured that their more precious and costly merchandise is expended as
   largely in the burying of Christians [140] as in the fumigating of the
   gods. At any rate, you say, the temple revenues are every day falling
   off: [141] how few now throw in a contribution! In truth, we are not
   able to give alms both to your human and your heavenly mendicants; nor
   do we think that we are required to give any but to those who ask for
   it. Let Jupiter then hold out his hand and get, for our compassion
   spends more in the streets than yours does in the temples. But your
   other taxes will acknowledge a debt of gratitude to Christians; for in
   the faithfulness which keeps us from fraud upon a brother, we make
   conscience of paying all their dues: so that, by ascertaining how much
   is lost by fraud and falsehood in the census declarations--the
   calculation may easily be made--it would be seen that the ground of
   complaint in one department of revenue is compensated by the advantage
   which others derive.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [138] [Elucidation IX. See Kaye, p. 361.]

   [139] [The occupation of a soldier was regarded as lawful therefore.
   But see, afterwards, the De Corona cap. xi.]

   [140] [An interesting fact as to the burial-rites of Early Christians.
   As to incense, see cap. xxx. supra. p. 42.]

   [141] An index of the growth of Christianity.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLIII.

   I will confess, however, without hesitation, that there are some who in
   a sense may complain of Christians that they are a sterile race:  as,
   for instance, pimps, and panders, and bath-suppliers; assassins, and
   poisoners, and sorcerers; soothsayers, too, diviners, and astrologers.
   But it is a noble fruit of Christians, that they have no fruits for
   such as these.  And yet, whatever loss your interests suffer from the
   religion we profess, the protection you have from us makes amply up for
   it. What value do you set on persons, I do not here urge who deliver
   you from demons, I do not urge who for your sakes present prayers
   before the throne of the true God, for perhaps you have no belief in
   that--but from whom you can have nothing to fear?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLIV.

   Yes, and no one considers what the loss is to the common weal,--a loss
   as great as it is real, no one estimates the injury entailed upon the
   state, when, men of virtue as we are, we are put to death in such
   numbers; when so many of the truly good suffer the last penalty. And
   here we call your own acts to witness, you who are daily presiding at
   the trials of prisoners, and passing sentence upon crimes. Well, in
   your long lists of those accused of many and various atrocities, has
   any assassin, any cutpurse, any man guilty of sacrilege, or seduction,
   or stealing bathers' clothes, his name entered as being a Christian
   too? Or when Christians are brought before you on the mere ground of
   their name, is there ever found among them an ill-doer of the sort? It
   is always with your folk the prison is steaming, the mines are sighing,
   the wild beasts are fed: it is from you the exhibitors of gladiatorial
   shows always get their herds of criminals to feed up for the occasion.
   You find no Christian there, except simply as being such; or if one is
   there as something else, a Christian he is no longer. [142]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [142] [An appeal so defiant that its very boldness confirms this
   tribute to the character of our Christian fathers, p. 42.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLV.

   We, then, alone are without crime. Is there ought wonderful in that, if
   it be a very necessity with us? For a necessity indeed it is. Taught of
   God himself what goodness is, we have both a perfect knowledge of it as
   revealed to us by a perfect Master; and faithfully we do His will, as
   enjoined on us by a Judge we dare not despise. But your ideas of virtue
   you have got from mere human opinion; on human authority, too, its
   obligation rests: hence your system of practical morality is deficient,
   both in the fulness and authority requisite to produce a life of real
   virtue. Man's wisdom to point out what is good, is no greater than his
   authority to exact the keeping of it; the one is as easily deceived as
   the other is despised. And so, which is the ampler rule, to say, ?Thou
   shalt not kill,? or to teach, ?Be not even angry?? Which is more
   perfect, to forbid adultery, or to restrain from even a single lustful
   look?  Which indicates the higher intelligence, interdicting
   evil-doing, or evil-speaking? Which is more thorough, not allowing an
   injury, or not even suffering an injury done to you to be repaid?
   Though withal you know that these very laws also of yours, which seem
   to lead to virtue, have been borrowed from the law of God as the
   ancient model.  Of the age of Moses we have already spoken. But what is
   the real authority of human laws, when it is in man's power both to
   evade them, by generally managing to hide himself out of sight in his
   crimes, and to despise them sometimes, if inclination or necessity
   leads him to offend?  Think of these things, too, in the light of the
   brevity of any punishment you can inflict--never to last longer than
   till death. On this ground Epicurus makes light of all suffering and
   pain, maintaining that if it is small, it is contemptible; and if it is
   great, it is not long-continued.  No doubt about it, we, who receive
   our awards under the judgment of an all-seeing God, and who look
   forward to eternal punishment from Him for sin,--we alone make real
   effort to attain a blameless life, under the influence of our ampler
   knowledge, the impossibility of concealment, and the greatness of the
   threatened torment, not merely long-enduring but everlasting, fearing
   Him, whom he too should fear who the fearing judges,--even God, I mean,
   and not the proconsul.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLVI.

   We have sufficiently met, as I think, the accusation of 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,
   [143] 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 Croesus 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. [144] 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?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [143] [Tertullian's exposition of this enigmatical fact (see the Phædo)
   is better than divers other ingenious theories.]

   [144] [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.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLVII.

   Unless I am utterly mistaken, there is nothing so old as the truth; and
   the already proved antiquity of the divine writings is so far of use to
   me, that it leads men more easily to take it in that they are the
   treasure-source whence all later wisdom has been taken. And were it not
   necessary to keep my work to a moderate size, I might launch forth also
   into the proof of this. What poet or sophist has not drunk at the
   fountain of the prophets? Thence, accordingly, the philosophers watered
   their arid minds, so that it is the things they have from us which
   bring us into comparison with them. For this reason, I imagine,
   philosophy was banished by certain states--I mean by the Thebans, by
   the Spartans also, and the Argives--its disciples sought to imitate our
   doctrines; and ambitious, as I have said, of glory and eloquence alone,
   if they fell upon anything in the collection of sacred Scriptures which
   displeased them, in their own peculiar style of research, they
   perverted it to serve their purpose: for they had no adequate faith in
   their divinity to keep them from changing them, nor had they any
   sufficient understanding of them, either, as being still at the time
   under veil--even obscure to the Jews themselves, whose peculiar
   possession they seemed to be. For so, too, if the truth was
   distinguished by its simplicity, the more on that account the
   fastidiousness of man, too proud to believe, set to altering it; so
   that even what they found certain they made uncertain by their
   admixtures.  Finding a simple revelation of God, they proceeded to
   dispute about Him, not as He had revealed to them, but turned aside to
   debate about His properties, His nature, His abode. Some assert Him to
   be incorporeal; others maintain He has a body,--the Platonists teaching
   the one doctrine, and the Stoics the other.  Some think that He is
   composed of atoms, others of numbers: such are the different views of
   Epicurus and Pythagoras. One thinks He is made of fire; so it appeared
   to Heraclitus. The Platonists, again, hold that He administers the
   affairs of the world; the Epicureans, on the contrary, that He is idle
   and inactive, and, so to speak, a nobody in human things. Then the
   Stoics represent Him as placed outside the world, and whirling round
   this huge mass from without like a potter; while the Platonists place
   Him within the world, as a pilot is in the ship he steers. So, in like
   manner, they differ in their views about the world itself, whether it
   is created or uncreated, whether it is destined to pass away or to
   remain for ever. So again it is debated concerning the nature of the
   soul, which some contend is divine and eternal, while others hold that
   it is dissoluble. According to each one's fancy, He has introduced
   either something new, or refashioned the old. Nor need we wonder if the
   speculations of philosophers have perverted the older Scriptures. Some
   of their brood, with their opinions, have even adulterated our
   new-given Christian revelation, and corrupted it into a system of
   philosophic doctrines, and from the one path have struck off many and
   inexplicable by-roads. [145] And I have alluded to this, lest any one
   becoming acquainted with the variety of parties among us, this might
   seem to him to put us on a level with the philosophers, and he might
   condemn the truth from the different ways in which it is defended. But
   we at once put in a plea in bar against these tainters of our purity,
   asserting that this is the rule of truth which comes down from Christ
   by transmission through His companions, to whom we shall prove that
   those devisers of different doctrines are all posterior. Everything
   opposed to the truth has been got up from the truth itself, the spirits
   of error carrying on this system of opposition. By them all corruptions
   of wholesome discipline have been secretly instigated; by them, too,
   certain fables have been introduced, that, by their resemblance to the
   truth, they might impair its credibility, or vindicate their own higher
   claims to faith; so that people might think Christians unworthy of
   credit because the poets or philosophers are so, or might regard the
   poets and philosophers as worthier of confidence from their not being
   followers of Christ. Accordingly, we get ourselves laughed at for
   proclaiming that God will one day judge the world. For, like us, the
   poets and philosophers set up a judgment-seat in the realms below.  And
   if we threaten Gehenna, which is a reservoir of secret fire under the
   earth for purposes of punishment, we have in the same way derision
   heaped on us. For so, too, they have their Pyriphlegethon, a river of
   flame in the regions of the dead. And if we speak of Paradise, [146]
   the place of heavenly bliss appointed to receive the spirits of the
   saints, severed from the knowledge of this world by that fiery zone as
   by a sort of enclosure, the Elysian plains have taken possession of
   their faith. Whence is it, I pray you have all this, so like us, in the
   poets and philosophers?  The reason simply is, that they have been
   taken from our religion. But if they are taken from our sacred things,
   as being of earlier date, then ours are the truer, and have higher
   claims upon belief, since even their imitations find faith among you.
   If they maintain their sacred mysteries to have sprung from their own
   minds, in that case ours will be reflections of what are later than
   themselves, which by the nature of things is impossible, for never does
   the shadow precede the body which casts it, or the image the reality.
   [147]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [145] [See Irenæus, vol. i. p. 377 this Series.]

   [146] [Elucidation X.]

   [147] True, in the sense that a shadow cannot be projected by a body
   not yet existent.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLVIII.

   Come now, if some philosopher affirms, as Laberius holds, following an
   opinion of Pythagoras, that a man may have his origin from a mule, a
   serpent from a woman, and with skill of speech twists every argument to
   prove his view, will he not gain acceptance for and work in some the
   conviction that, on account of this, they should even abstain from
   eating animal food? May any one have the persuasion that he should so
   abstain, lest by chance in his beef he eats of some ancestor of his?
   But if a Christian promises the return of a man from a man, and the
   very actual Gaius from Gaius, [148] the cry of the people will be to
   have him stoned; they will not even so much as grant him a hearing. If
   there is any ground for the moving to and fro of human souls into
   different bodies, why may they not return into the very substance they
   have left, seeing this is to be restored, to be that which had been?
   They are no longer the very things they had been; for they could not be
   what they were not, without first ceasing to be what they had been. If
   we were inclined to give all rein upon this point, discussing into what
   various beasts one and another might probably be changed, we would need
   at our leisure to take up many points. But this we would do chiefly in
   our own defence, as setting forth what is greatly worthier of belief,
   that a man will come back from a man--any given person from any given
   person, still retaining his humanity; so that the soul, with its
   qualities unchanged, may be restored to the same condition, thought not
   to the same outward framework. Assuredly, as the reason why restoration
   takes place at all is the appointed judgment, every man must needs come
   forth the very same who had once existed, that he may receive at God's
   hands a judgment, whether of good desert or the opposite. And therefore
   the body too will appear; for the soul is not capable of suffering
   without the solid substance (that is, the flesh; and for this reason,
   also) that it is not right that souls should have all the wrath of God
   to bear: they did not sin without the body, within which all was done
   by them. But how, you say, can a substance which has been dissolved be
   made to reappear again?  Consider thyself, O man, and thou wilt believe
   in it! Reflect on what you were before you came into existence.
   Nothing. For if you had been anything, you would have remembered it.
   You, then, who were nothing before you existed, reduced to nothing also
   when you cease to be, why may you not come into being again out of
   nothing, at the will of the same Creator whose will created you out of
   nothing at the first? Will it be anything new in your case? You who
   were not, were made; when you cease to be again, you shall be made.
   Explain, if you can, your original creation, and then demand to know
   how you shall be re-created. Indeed, it will be still easier surely to
   make you what you were once, when the very same creative power made you
   without difficulty what you never were before. There will be doubts,
   perhaps, as to the power of God, of Him who hung in its place this huge
   body of our world, made out of what had never existed, as from a death
   of emptiness and inanity, animated by the Spirit who quickens all
   living things, its very self the unmistakable type of the resurrection,
   that it might be to you a witness--nay, the exact image of the
   resurrection.  Light, every day extinguished, shines out again; and,
   with like alternation, darkness succeeds light's outgoing. The defunct
   stars re-live; the seasons, as soon as they are finished, renew their
   course; the fruits are brought to maturity, and then are reproduced.
   The seeds do not spring up with abundant produce, save as they rot and
   dissolve away;--all things are preserved by perishing, all things are
   refashioned out of death. Thou, man of nature so exalted, if thou
   understandest thyself, taught even by the Pythian [149] words, lord of
   all these things that die and rise,--shalt thou die to perish evermore?
   Wherever your dissolution shall have taken place, whatever material
   agent has destroyed you, or swallowed you up, or swept you away, or
   reduced you to nothingness, it shall again restore you. Even
   nothingness is His who is Lord of all. You ask, Shall we then be always
   dying, and rising up from death? If so the Lord of all things had
   appointed, you would have to submit, though unwillingly, to the law of
   your creation. But, in fact, He has no other purpose than that of which
   He has informed us. The Reason which made the universe out of diverse
   elements, so that all things might be composed of opposite substances
   in unity--of void and solid, of animate and inanimate, of
   comprehensible and incomprehensible, of light and darkness, of life
   itself and death--has also disposed time into order, by fixing and
   distinguishing its mode, according to which this first portion of it,
   which we inhabit from the beginning of the world, flows down by a
   temporal course to a close; but the portion which succeeds, and to
   which we look forward continues forever. When, therefore, the boundary
   and limit, that millennial interspace, has been passed, when even the
   outward fashion of the world itself--which has been spread like a veil
   over the eternal economy, equally a thing of time--passes away, then
   the whole human race shall be raised again, to have its dues meted out
   according as it has merited in the period of good or evil, and
   thereafter to have these paid out through the immeasurable ages of
   eternity. Therefore after this there is neither death nor repeated
   resurrections, but we shall be the same that we are now, and still
   unchanged--the servants of God, ever with God, clothed upon with the
   proper substance of eternity; but the profane, and all who are not true
   worshippers of God, in like manner shall be consigned to the punishment
   of everlasting fire--that fire which, from its very nature indeed,
   directly ministers to their incorruptibility. The philosophers are
   familiar as well as we with the distinction between a common and a
   secret fire. Thus that which is in common use is far different from
   that which we see in divine judgments, whether striking as thunderbolts
   from heaven, or bursting up out of the earth through mountain-tops; for
   it does not consume what it scorches, but while it burns it repairs. So
   the mountains continue ever burning; and a person struck by lighting is
   even now kept safe from any destroying flame. A notable proof this of
   the fire eternal! a notable example of the endless judgment which still
   supplies punishment with fuel! The mountains burn, and last. How will
   it be with the wicked and the enemies of God? [150]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [148] [i.e., Caius, used (like John Doe with us) in Roman Law.]

   [149] Know thyself. [Juvenal, xi. 27, on which see great wealth of
   reference in J.E.B. Mayor's Juvenal (xiii. Satires), and note
   especially, Bernard, Serm. De Divers xl. 3. In Cant. Cantic. xxxvi.
   5-7.]

   [150] [Our author's philosophy may be at fault, but his testimony is
   not to be mistaken.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XLIX.

   These are what are called presumptuous speculations in our case alone;
   in the philosophers and poets they are regarded as sublime speculations
   and illustrious discoveries. They are men of wisdom, we are fools. They
   are worthy of all honour, we are folk to have the finger pointed at;
   nay, besides that, we are even to have punishments inflicted on us. But
   let things which are the defence of virtue, if you will, have no
   foundation, and give them duly the name of fancies, yet still they are
   necessary; let them be absurd if you will, yet they are of use: they
   make all who believe them better men and women, under the fear of
   never-ending punishment and the hope of never-ending bliss.  It is not,
   then, wise to brand as false, nor to regard as absurd, things the truth
   of which it is expedient to presume.  On no ground is it right
   positively to condemn as bad what beyond all doubt is profitable. Thus,
   in fact, you are guilty of the very presumption of which you accuse us,
   in condemning what is useful. It is equally out of the question to
   regard them as nonsensical; at any rate, if they are false and foolish,
   they hurt nobody. For they are just (in that case) like many other
   things on which you inflict no penalties--foolish and fabulous things,
   I mean, which, as quite innocuous, are never charged as crimes or
   punished. But in a thing of the kind, if this be so indeed, we should
   be adjudged to ridicule, not to swords, and flames, and crosses, and
   wild beasts, in which iniquitous cruelty not only the blinded populace
   exults and insults over us, but in which some of you too glory, not
   scrupling to gain the popular favour by your injustice. As though all
   you can do to us did not depend upon our pleasure.  It is assuredly a
   matter of my own inclination, being a Christian. Your condemnation,
   then, will only reach me in that case, if I wish to be condemned; but
   when all you can do to me, you can do only at my will, all you can do
   is dependent on my will, and is not in your power. The joy of the
   people in our trouble is therefore utterly reasonless.  For it is our
   joy they appropriate to themselves, since we would far rather be
   condemned than apostatize from God; on the contrary, our haters should
   be sorry rather than rejoice, as we have obtained the very thing of our
   own choice.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter L.

   In that case, you say, why do you complain of our persecutions? You
   ought rather to be grateful to us for giving you the sufferings you
   want. Well, it is quite true that it is our desire to suffer, but it is
   in the way that the soldier longs for war. No one indeed suffers
   willingly, since suffering necessarily implies fear and danger.  Yet
   the man who objected to the conflict, both fights with all his
   strength, and when victorious, he rejoices in the battle, because he
   reaps from it glory and spoil. It is our battle to be summoned to your
   tribunals that there, under fear of execution, we may battle for the
   truth. But the day is won when the object of the struggle is gained.
   This victory of ours gives us the glory of pleasing God, and the spoil
   of life eternal. But we are overcome. Yes, when we have obtained our
   wishes. Therefore we conquer in dying; [151] we go forth victorious at
   the very time we are subdued. Call us, if you like, Sarmenticii and
   Semaxii, because, bound to a half-axle stake, we are burned in a
   circle-heap of fagots. This is the attitude in which we conquer, it is
   our victory-robe, it is for us a sort of triumphal car. Naturally
   enough, therefore, we do not please the vanquished; on account of this,
   indeed, we are counted a desperate, reckless race. But the very
   desperation and recklessness you object to in us, among yourselves lift
   high the standard of virtue in the cause of glory and of fame. Mucius
   of his own will left his right hand on the altar: what sublimity of
   mind! Empedocles gave his whole body at Catana to the fires of Ætna:
   what mental resolution! A certain foundress of Carthage gave herself
   away in second marriage to the funeral pile: what a noble witness of
   her chastity! Regulus, not wishing that his one life should count for
   the lives of many enemies, endured these crosses over all his frame:
   how brave a man--even in captivity a conqueror! Anaxarchus, when he was
   being beaten to death by a barley-pounder, cried out, ?Beat on, beat on
   at the case of Anaxarchus; no stroke falls on Anaxarchus himself.? O
   magnanimity of the philosopher, who even in such an end had jokes upon
   his lips! I omit all reference to those who with their own sword, or
   with any other milder form of death, have bargained for glory.  Nay,
   see how even torture contests are crowned by you. The Athenian
   courtezan, having wearied out the executioner, at last bit off her
   tongue and spat it in the face of the raging tyrant, that she might at
   the same time spit away her power of speech, nor be longer able to
   confess her fellow-conspirators, if even overcome, that might be her
   inclination. Zeno the Eleatic, when he was asked by Dionysius what good
   philosophy did, on answering that it gave contempt of death, was all
   unquailing, given over to the tyrant's scourge, and sealed his opinion
   even to the death. We all know how the Spartan lash, applied with the
   utmost cruelty under the very eyes of friends encouraging, confers on
   those who bear it honor proportionate to the blood which the young men
   shed. O glory legitimate, because it is human, for whose sake it is
   counted neither reckless foolhardiness, nor desperate obstinacy, to
   despise death itself and all sorts of savage treatment; for whose sake
   you may for your native place, for the empire, for friendship, endure
   all you are forbidden to do for God!  And you cast statues in honour of
   persons such as these, and you put inscriptions upon images, and cut
   out epitaphs on tombs, that their names may never perish. In so far you
   can by your monuments, you yourselves afford a sort of resurrection to
   the dead. Yet he who expects the true resurrection from God, is insane,
   if for God he suffers!  But go zealously on, good presidents, you will
   stand higher with the people if you sacrifice the Christians at their
   wish, kill us, torture us, condemn us, grind us to dust; your injustice
   is the proof that we are innocent. Therefore God suffers that we thus
   suffer; for but very lately, in condemning a Christian woman to the
   leno rather than to the leo you made confession that a taint on our
   purity is considered among us something more terrible than any
   punishment and any death. [152] Nor does your cruelty, however
   exquisite, avail you; it is rather a temptation to us.  The oftener we
   are mown down by you, the more in number we grow; the blood of
   Christians is seed. [153] Many of your writers exhort to the courageous
   bearing of pain and death, as Cicero in the Tusculans, as Seneca in his
   Chances, as Diogenes, Pyrrhus, Callinicus; and yet their words do not
   find so many disciples as Christians do, teachers not by words, but by
   their deeds. That very obstinacy you rail against is the preceptress.
   For who that contemplates it, is not excited to inquire what is at the
   bottom of it? who, after inquiry, does not embrace our doctrines? and
   when he has embraced them, desires not to suffer that he may become
   partaker of the fulness of God's grace, that he may obtain from God
   complete forgiveness, by giving in exchange his blood? For that secures
   the remission of all offences. On this account it is that we return
   thanks on the very spot for your sentences. As the divine and human are
   ever opposed to each other, when we are condemned by you, we are
   acquitted by the Highest.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [151] [Vicimus cum occidimur.]

   [152] [Elucidation XI.]

   [153] [Elucidation XII.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Elucidations.

   ------------------------

   I.

   (Arrangement, p. 4, supra.)

   The arrangement I have adopted in editing these Edinburgh Translations
   of Tertullian is a practical one. It will be found logical and helpful
   to the student, who is referred to the Prefatory pages of this volume
   for an Elucidation of the difficulties, with which any arrangement of
   these treatises is encumbered. For, first, an attempt to place them in
   chronological order is out of the question; [154] and, second, all
   efforts to separate precisely the Orthodox from the Montanistic or
   Montanist works of our author have hitherto defied the acumen of
   critics.  It would be mere empiricism for me to attempt an original
   classification in the face of questions which even experts have been
   unable to determine.

   If we bear in mind, however, a few guiding facts, we shall see that
   difficulties are less than might appear, assuming our object to be a
   practical one. (1.) Only four of these essays were written against
   Orthodoxy; (2.) five more are reckoned as wholly uncertain, which
   amounts to saying that they are not positively heretical. (3.) Again,
   five are colourless, as to Montanism, and hence should be reputed
   Orthodox.  (4.) Of others, written after the influences of Montanism
   had, more or less, tainted his doctrine, the whole are yet valuable and
   some are noble defences of the Catholic Faith. (5.) Finally eight or
   ten of his treatises were written while he was a Catholic, and are
   precious contributions to the testimony of the Primitive Church.

   From these facts, we may readily conclude that the mass of Tertullian's
   writings is Orthodox.  Some of them are to be read with caution;
   others, again, must be rejected for their heresy; but yet all are most
   instructive historically, and as defining even by errors ?the faith
   once delivered to the Saints.? I propose to note those which require
   caution as we pass them in review. Those written against the Church are
   classed by themselves, at the end of the list, and all the rest may be
   read with confidence. A most interesting inquiry arises in connection
   with the quotations from Scripture to be found in our author. Did a
   Latin version exist in his day, or does he translate from the Greek of
   the New Testament and the LXX? A paradoxical writer (Semler) contends
   that Tertullian ?never used a Greek ms.? (see Kaye, p. 106.) But
   Tertullian's rugged Latin betrays everywhere his familiarity with Greek
   idioms and forms of thought. He wrote, also, in Greek, and there is no
   reason to doubt that he knew the Greek Scriptures primarily, if he knew
   any Greek whatever. Possibly we owe to Tertullian the primordia of the
   Old African Latin Versions, some of which seem to have contained the
   disputed text 1 John v. 7; of which more when we come to the Praxeas.
   For the present in the absence of definite evidence we must infer that
   Tertullian usually translated from the LXX, and from the originals of
   the New Testament. But Mosheim thinks the progress of the Gospel in the
   West was now facilitated by the existence of Latin Versions.  Observe,
   also, Kaye's important note, p. 293, and his reference to Lardner,
   Cred. xxvii. 19.

   II.

   (Address to Magistrates, cap. i., p. 17.)

   The Apology comes first in order, on logical grounds. It is classed
   with our author's orthodox works by Neander, and pronounced colourless
   by Kaye. It is the noblest of his productions in its purpose and
   spirit, and it falls in with the Primitive System of Apologetics. I
   have placed next in order to it several treatises, mostly unblemished,
   which are of the same character; which defend the cause of Christians
   against Paganism, against Gentile Philosophy, and against Judaism;
   closing this portion by the two books Ad Nationes, which may be
   regarded as a recapitulation of the author's arguments, especially
   those to be found in the Apology. In these successive works, as
   compared with those of Justin Martyr, we obtain a fair view of the
   progressive relations of the Church with the Roman Empire and with
   divers antagonistic systems in the East and West.

   III.

   (History of Christians, cap. ii., p. 18.)

   The following Chronological outline borrowed from the Benedictines and
   from Bishop Kaye, will prove serviceable here. [155]

   Tertullian born (circa) a.d. 150.

   Tertullian converted (surmise) 185.

   Tertullian married (say) 186.

   Tertullian ordained presbyter (circa) 192.

   Tertullian lapsed (circa) 200.

   Tertullian deceased (extreme surmise) 240.

   The Imperial history of his period may be thus arranged:

   Birth of Caracalla a.d. 188.

   Birth of Geta 189.

   Reign of Severus 193.

   Defeat of Niger 195.

   Caracalla made a Cæsar 196.

   Capture of Byzantium 196.

   Defeat of Albinus 197.

   Geta made a Cæsar 198.

   Caracalla called Augustus 198.

   Caracalla associated in the Empire 198.

   War against the Parthians 198.

   Severus returns from the war 203.

   Celebration of the Secular Games 204.

   Plautianus put to death (circa) 205.

   Geta called Augustus 208.

   War in Britain 208.

   Wall of Severus 210.

   Death of Severus 211.

   IV.

   (Tiberius, capp. v. and xxiv., pp. 22 and 35.)

   A fair examination of what has been said on this subject, pro and con,
   may be found in Kaye's Tertullian, [156] pp. 102-105. In his abundant
   candour this author leans to the doubters, but in stating the case he
   seems to me to fortify the position of Lardner and Mosheim.  What the
   brutal Tiberius may have thought or done with respect to Pilate's
   report concerning the holy victim of his judicial injustice is of
   little importance to the believer.  Nevertheless, as matter of history
   it deserves attention. Great stress is to be placed on the fact that
   Tertullian was probably a jurisconsult, familiar with the Roman
   archives, and influenced by them in his own acceptance of Divine Truth.
   It is not supposable that such a man would have hazarded his bold
   appeal to the records, in remonstrating with the Senate and in the very
   faces of the Emperor and his colleagues, had he not known that the
   evidence was irrefragable.

   V.

   (The darkness at the Crucifixion, cap. xxi., p. 35.)

   Kaye disappoints us (p. 150) in his slight notice of this most
   interesting subject. Without attempting to discuss the story of Phlegon
   and other points which afford Gibbon an opportunity for misplaced
   sneering, such as even a Pilate would have rebuked, while it may be
   well to recall the exposition of Milman, [157] at the close of Gibbon's
   fifteenth chapter, I must express my own preference for another view.
   This will be found candidly summed up and stated, in the Speaker's
   Commentary, in the concise note on St. Matt. xxvii. 45.

   VI.

   (Numbers of the Faithful, cap. xxxvii., p. 45.)

   Kaye, as usual, gives this vexed question a candid survey. [158] Making
   all allowances, however, I accept the conjecture of some reputable
   authorities, that there were 2,000,000 of Christians, in the bounds of
   the Roman Empire at the close of the Second Century. So mightily grew
   the testimony of Jesus and prevailed. When we reflect that only a
   century intervened between the times of Tertullian and the conversion
   of the Roman Emperor, it is not easy to regard our author's language as
   merely that of fervid genius and of rhetorical hyperbole. He could not
   have ventured upon exaggeration without courting scorn as well as
   defeat.  What he affirms is probable in the nature of the case. Were it
   otherwise, then the conditions, which, in a single century rendered it
   possible for Constantine to effect the greatest revolution in mind and
   manners that has ever been known among men, would be a miracle compared
   with which that of his alleged Vision of the Cross sinks into
   insignificance. To this subject it will be necessary to recur
   hereafter.

   VII.

   (Christian usages, cap. xxxix., p. 46.)

   A candid review of the matters discussed in this chapter will be found
   in Kaye (pp. 146, 209.) The important fact is there clearly stated that
   ?the primitive Christians scrupulously complied with the decree
   pronounced by the Apostles at Jerusalem in abstaining from things
   strangled and from blood? (Acts xv. 20). On this subject consult the
   references given in the Speaker's Commentary, ad locum. The Greeks, to
   their honour, still maintain this prohibition, but St. Augustine's
   great authority relaxed the Western scruples on this matter, for he
   regarded it as a decree of temporary obligation, while the Hebrew and
   Gentile Christians were in peril of misunderstanding and estrangement.
   [159]

   On the important question as to the cessation of miracles Kaye takes a
   somewhat original position. But see his interesting discussion and that
   of the late Professor Hey, in Kaye's Tertullian, pp. 80-102, 151-161. I
   do not think writers on these subjects have sufficiently distinguished
   between miracles properly so called, and providences vouchsafed in
   answer to prayer. There was no miracle in the case of the Thundering
   Legion, assuming the story to be true; and I dare to affirm that marked
   answers to prayer, by providential interpositions, but wholly distinct
   from miraculous agencies, have never ceased among those who ?ask in the
   Son's Name.? Such interpositions are often preternatural only; that is,
   they economize certain powers which, though natural in themselves, lie
   outside of the System of Nature with which we happen to be familiar.
   This distinction has been overlooked.

   VIII.

   (Multitudes, cap. xl., p. 47.)

   Note the words--?multitudes to a single beast.? Can it be possible that
   Tertullian would use such language to the magistrates, if he knew that
   such sentences were of rare occurrence? The disposition of our times to
   minimize the persecutions of our Christian forefathers calls upon us to
   note such references, all the more important because occurring obiter
   and mentioned as notorious. Note also, the closing chapter of this
   Apology, and reference to the outcries of the populace, in Cap. xxxv.
   [160] See admirable remarks on the benefits derived by the Church from
   the sufferings of Christian martyrs, with direct reference to
   Tertullian, Wordsworth, Church Hist. to Council of Nicæa, cap. xxiv.,
   p. 374.

   IX.

   (Christian manners, cap. xlii., p. 49.)

   A study of the manners of Christians, in the Ante-Nicene Age, as
   sketched by the unsparing hand of Tertullian, will convince any
   unprejudiced mind of the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, in framing
   such characters out of heathen originals. When, under Montanistic
   influences our severely ascetic author complains of the Church's
   corruptions, and turns inside-out the whole estate of the faithful, we
   see all that can be pressed on the other side; but, this very important
   chapter must be borne in mind, together with the closing sentence of
   chap. xliv., as evidence that whatever might be said by a rigid
   disciplinarian, the Church, as compared with our day, was still a
   living embodiment of Philippians iv. 8.

   X.

   (Paradise, cap. xlvii., p. 52.)

   See Kaye, p. 248. Our author seems not always consistent with himself
   in his references to the Places of departed spirits. Kaye thinks he
   identifies Paradise with the Heaven of the Most High, in one place (the
   De Exhort. Cast., xiii.) where he probably confuses the Apostle's
   ideas, in Galatians v. 12, and Ephesians v. 5. Commonly, however,
   though he is not consistent with himself, this would be his scheme:--

   1. The Inferi, or Hades, where the soul of Dives was in one continent
   and that of Lazarus in another, with a gulf between. Our author places
   ?Abraham's bosom? in Hades.

   2. Paradise. In Hades, but in a superior and more glorious region. This
   more blessed abode was opened to the souls of the martyrs and other
   greater saints, at our Lord's descent into the place of the dead.
   After the General Resurrection and Judgment, there remain:

   1. Gehenna, for the lost, prepared for the devil and his angels.

   2. The Heaven of Heavens, the eternal abode of the righteous, in the
   vision of the Lord and His Eternal Joy.

   Tertullian's variations on this subject will force us to recur to it
   hereafter; but, here it may be noted that the confusions of Latin
   Christianity received their character in this particular, from the
   genius of our author. Augustine caught from him a certain indecision
   about the terms and places connected with the state of the departed
   which has continued, to this day, to perplex theologians in the West.
   Taking advantage of such confusions, the stupendous Roman system of
   ?Purgatory? was fabricated in the middle ages; but the Greeks never
   accepted it, and it differs fundamentally from what the earlier Latin
   Fathers, including Tertullian, have given us as speculations.

   XI.

   (The Leo and the Leno, cap. l., p. 55.)

   Here we find the alliterative and epigrammatic genius of Tertullian
   anticipating a similar poetic charm in Augustine. The Christian maid or
   matron preferred the Leo to the leno; to be devoured rather than to be
   debauched. Our author wrests a tribute to the chastity of Christian
   women from the cruelty of their judges, who recognizing this fact, were
   accustomed as a refinement of their injustice to give sentence against
   them, refusing the mercy of a horrible death, by committing them to the
   ravisher: ?damnando Christianam ad lenonem potius quam ad leonem.?

   XII.

   (The Seed of the Church, cap. l., p. 55.)

   Kaye has devoted a number of his pages [161] to the elucidation of this
   subject, not only showing the constancy of the martyrs, but
   illustrating the fact that Christians, like St. Paul, were forced to
   ?die daily,? even when they were not subjected to the fiery trial. He
   who confessed himself a Christian made himself a social outcast. All
   manner of outrages and wrongs could be committed against him with
   impunity. Rich men, who had joined themselves to Christ, [162] were
   forced to accept ?the spoiling of their goods.? Brothers denounced
   brothers, and husbands their wives; ?a man's foes were they of his own
   household.? But the Church triumphed through suffering, and ?out of
   weakness was made strong.?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [154] Kaye, p. 36. Also, p. 8, supra.

   [155] Kaye (following L'Art de verifier les Dates) pp. 11 and 456.

   [156] My references are to the Third Edition, London, Rivingtons, 1845.

   [157] In his edition of The Decline and Fall, Vol. I., p. 589, American
   reprint.

   [158] pp. 85-88.

   [159] Ep. ad Faust. xxxii. 13. and see Conybeare and Howson.

   [160] Compare Kaye on Mosheim, p. 107.

   [161] pp. 129-140.

   [162] Even under Commodus, vol. ii. p. 598, this series.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   II.

   On Idolatry.

   [Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]

   ------------------------

   Chapter I.--Wide Scope of the Word Idolatry.

   The principal crime of the human race, the highest guilt charged upon
   the world, the whole procuring cause of judgment, is idolatry. [163]
   For, although each single fault retains its own proper feature,
   although it is destined to judgment under its own proper name also, yet
   it is marked off under the general account of idolatry. Set aside
   names, examine works, the idolater is likewise a murderer. Do you
   inquire whom he has slain? If it contributes ought to the aggravation
   of the indictment, no stranger nor personal enemy, but his own self. By
   what snares? Those of his error. By what weapon? The offence done to
   God. By how many blows? As many as are his idolatries. He who affirms
   that the idolater perishes not, [164] will affirm that the idolater has
   not committed murder. Further, you may recognize in the same crime
   [165] adultery and fornication; for he who serves false gods is
   doubtless an adulterer [166] of truth, because all falsehood is
   adultery.  So, too, he is sunk in fornication.  For who that is a
   fellow-worker with unclean spirits, does not stalk in general pollution
   and fornication? And thus it is that the Holy Scriptures [167] use the
   designation of fornication in their upbraiding of idolatry. The essence
   of fraud, I take it, is, that any should seize what is another's, or
   refuse to another his due; and, of course, fraud done toward man is a
   name of greatest crime. Well, but idolatry does fraud to God, by
   refusing to Him, and conferring on others, His honours; so that to
   fraud it also conjoins contumely. But if fraud, just as much as
   fornication and adultery, entails death, then, in these cases, equally
   with the former, idolatry stands unacquitted of the impeachment of
   murder. After such crimes, so pernicious, so devouring of salvation,
   all other crimes also, after some manner, and separately disposed in
   order, find their own essence represented in idolatry. In it also are
   the concupiscences of the world. For what solemnity of idolatry is
   without the circumstance of dress and ornament? In it are
   lasciviousnesses and drunkennesses; since it is, for the most part, for
   the sake of food, and stomach, and appetite, that these solemnities are
   frequented. In it is unrighteousness. For what more unrighteous than
   it, which knows not the Father of righteousness?  In it also is vanity,
   since its whole system is vain. In it is mendacity, for its whole
   substance is false. Thus it comes to pass, that in idolatry all crimes
   are detected, and in all crimes idolatry. Even otherwise, since all
   faults savour of opposition to God, and there is nothing which savours
   of opposition to God which is not assigned to demons and unclean
   spirits, whose property idols are; doubtless, whoever commits a fault
   is chargeable with idolatry, for he does that which pertains to the
   proprietors of idols.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [163] [This solemn sentence vindicates the place I have given to the De
   Idololatria in the order adopted for this volume.  After this and the
   Apology come three treatises confirming its positions, and vindicating
   the principles of Christians in conflict with Idolatry, the great
   generic crime of a world lying in wickedness. These three are the De
   Spectaculis, the De Corona and the Ad Scapulam. The De Spectaculis was
   written after this treatise, in which indeed it is mentioned (Cap.
   xiii.), but logically it follows, illustrates and enforces it.  Hence
   my practical plan: which will be concluded by a scheme (conjectural in
   part) of chronological order in which precision is affirmed by all
   critics to be impossible, but, by which we may reach approximate
   accuracy, with great advantage. The De Idololatria is free from
   Montanism. But see Kaye, p. xvi.]

   [164] Lit., ?has not perished,? as if the perishing were already
   complete; as, of course, it is judicially as soon as the guilt is
   incurred, though not actually.

   [165] i.e., in idolatry.

   [166] A play on the word: we should say, ?an adulterator.?

   [167] Oehler refers to Ezek. xxiii.; but many other references might be
   given--in the Pentateuch and Psalms, for instance.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter II.--Idolatry in Its More Limited Sense. Its Copiousness.

   But let the universal names of crimes withdraw to the specialities of
   their own works; let idolatry remain in that which it is itself.
   Sufficient to itself is a name so inimical to God, a substance of crime
   so copious, which reaches forth so many branches, diffuses so many
   veins, that from this name, for the greatest part, is drawn the
   material of all the modes in which the expansiveness of idolatry has to
   be foreguarded against by us, since in manifold wise it subverts the
   servants of God; and this not only when unperceived, but also when
   cloaked over.  Most men simply regard idolatry as to be interpreted in
   these senses alone, viz.: if one burn incense, or immolate a victim, or
   give a sacrificial banquet, or be bound to some sacred functions or
   priesthoods; just as if one were to regard adultery as to be accounted
   in kisses, and in embraces, and in actual fleshly contact; or murder as
   to be reckoned only in the shedding forth of blood, and in the actual
   taking away of life. But how far wider an extent the Lord assigns to
   those crimes we are sure: when He defines adultery to consist even in
   concupiscence, [168] ?if one shall have cast an eye lustfully on,? and
   stirred his soul with immodest commotion; when He judges murder [169]
   to consist even in a word of curse or of reproach, and in every impulse
   of anger, and in the neglect of charity toward a brother just as John
   teaches, [170] that he who hates his brother is a murderer.  Else, both
   the devil's ingenuity in malice, and God the Lord's in the Discipline
   by which He fortifies us against the devil's depths, [171] would have
   but limited scope, if we were judged only in such faults as even the
   heathen nations have decreed punishable.  How will our ?righteousness
   abound above that of the Scribes and Pharisees,? as the Lord has
   prescribed, [172] unless we shall have seen through the abundance of
   that adversary quality, that is, of unrighteousness? But if the head of
   unrighteousness is idolatry, the first point is, that we be
   fore-fortified against the abundance of idolatry, while we recognise it
   not only in its palpable manifestations.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [168] Matt. v. 28.

   [169] Matt. v. 22.

   [170] 1 John. iii. 15.

   [171] Rev. ii. 24.

   [172] Matt. v. 20.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter III.--Idolatry: Origin and Meaning of the Name.

   Idol in ancient times there was none. Before the artificers of this
   monstrosity had bubbled into being, [173] temples stood solitary and
   shrines empty, just as to the present day in some places traces of the
   ancient practice remain permanently. Yet idolatry used to be practised,
   not under that name, but in that function; for even at this day it can
   be practised outside a temple, and without an idol.  But when the devil
   introduced into the world artificers of statues and of images, and of
   every kind of likenesses, that former rude business of human disaster
   attained from idols both a name and a development. Thenceforward every
   art which in any way produces an idol instantly became a fount of
   idolatry. For it makes no difference whether a moulder cast, or a
   carver grave, or an embroiderer weave the idol; because neither is it a
   question of material, whether an idol be formed of gypsum, or of
   colors, or of stone, or of bronze, [174] or of silver, or of thread.
   For since even without an idol idolatry is committed, when the idol is
   there it makes no difference of what kind it be, of what material, or
   what shape; lest any should think that only to be held an idol which is
   consecrated in human shape. To establish this point, the interpretation
   of the word is requisite. Eidos, in Greek, signifies form; eidolon,
   derived diminutively from that, by an equivalent process in our
   language, makes formling. [175] Every form or formling, therefore,
   claims to be called an idol. Hence idolatry is ?all attendance and
   service about every idol.? Hence also, every artificer of an idol is
   guilty of one and the same crime, [176] unless, the People [177] which
   consecrated for itself the likeness of a calf, and not of a man, fell
   short of incurring the guilt of idolatry. [178]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [173] ?Boiled out,? ?bubbled out.?

   [174] Or, brass.

   [175] i.e., a little form.

   [176] Idolatry, namely.

   [177] [Capitalized to mark its emphatic sense, i.e., the People of God
   = the Jews.]

   [178] See Ex. xxxii.; and compare 1 Cor. x. 7, where the latter part of
   Ex. xxxii. 6 is quoted.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IV.--Idols Not to Be Made, Much Less Worshipped. Idols and
   Idol-Makers in the Same Category.

   God prohibits an idol as much to be made as to be worshipped. In so far
   as the making what may be worshipped is the prior act, so far is the
   prohibition to make (if the worship is unlawful) the prior prohibition.
   For this cause--the eradicating, namely, of the material of
   idolatry--the divine law proclaims, ?Thou shalt make no idol;? [179]
   and by conjoining, ?Nor a similitude of the things which are in the
   heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea,? has
   interdicted the servants of God from acts of that kind all the universe
   over. Enoch had preceded, predicting that ?the demons, and the spirits
   of the angelic apostates, [180] would turn into idolatry all the
   elements, all the garniture of the universe, all things contained in
   the heaven, in the sea, in the earth, that they might be consecrated as
   God, in opposition to God.? All things, therefore, does human error
   worship, except the Founder of all Himself.  The images of those things
   are idols; the consecration of the images is idolatry. Whatever guilt
   idolatry incurs, must necessarily be imputed to every artificer of
   every idol. In short, the same Enoch fore-condemns in general menace
   both idol-worshippers and idol-makers together. And again:  ?I swear to
   you, sinners, that against the day of perdition of blood [181]
   repentance is being prepared. Ye who serve stones, and ye who make
   images of gold, and silver, and wood, and stones and clay, and serve
   phantoms, and demons, and spirits in fanes, [182] and all errors not
   according to knowledge, shall find no help from them.? But Isaiah [183]
   says, ?Ye are witnesses whether there is a God except Me.? ?And they
   who mould and carve out at that time were not: all vain! who do that
   which liketh them, which shall not profit them!? And that whole ensuing
   discourse sets a ban as well on the artificers as the worshippers:  the
   close of which is, ?Learn that their heart is ashes and earth, and that
   none can free his own soul.? In which sentence David equally includes
   the makers too. ?Such,? says he, ?let them become who make them.? [184]
   And why should I, a man of limited memory, suggest anything further?
   Why recall anything more from the Scriptures? As if either the voice of
   the Holy Spirit were not sufficient; or else any further deliberation
   were needful, whether the Lord cursed and condemned by priority the
   artificers of those things, of which He curses and condemns the
   worshippers!
     __________________________________________________________________

   [179] Lev. xxvi. 1; Ex. xx. 4; Deut. v. 8. It must of course be borne
   in mind that Tertullian has defined the meaning of the word idol in the
   former chapter, and speaks with reference to that definition.

   [180] Compare de Oratione, c. 23, and de Virg. Vel. c. 7.

   [181] ?Sanguinis perditionis:? such is the reading of Oehler and
   others. If it be correct, probably the phrase ?perdition of blood? must
   be taken as equivalent to ?bloody perdition,? after the Hebrew fashion.
   Compare, for similar instances, 2 Sam. xvi. 7; Ps. v. 6; xxvi. 9; lv.
   23; Ezek. xxii. 2, with the marginal readings. But Fr. Junius would
   read, ?Of blood and of perdition?--sanguinis et perditionis. Oehler's
   own interpretation of the reading he gives--?blood-shedding?--appears
   unsatisfactory.

   [182] ?In fanis.? This is Oehler's reading on conjecture. Other
   readings are--infamis, infamibus, insanis, infernis.

   [183] Isa. xliv. 8 et seqq.

   [184] Ps. cxv. 8. In our version, ?They that make them are like unto
   them.? Tertullian again agrees with the LXX.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter V. [185] --Sundry Objections or Excuses Dealt with.

   We will certainly take more pains in answering the excuses of
   artificers of this kind, who ought never to be admitted into the house
   of God, if any have a knowledge of that Discipline. [186] To begin
   with, that speech, wont to be cast in our teeth, ?I have nothing else
   whereby to live,? may be more severely retorted, ?You have, then,
   whereby to live?  If by your own laws, what have you to do with God??
   [187] Then, as to the argument they have the hardihood to bring even
   from the Scriptures, ?that the apostle has said, As each has been
   found, so let him persevere.'? [188] We may all, therefore, persevere
   in sins, as the result of that interpretation! for there is not any one
   of us who has not been found as a sinner, since no other cause was the
   source of Christ's descent than that of setting sinners free. Again,
   they say the same apostle has left a precept, according to his own
   example, ?That each one work with his own hands for a living.? [189] If
   this precept is maintained in respect to all hands, I believe even the
   bath-thieves [190] live by their hands, and robbers themselves gain the
   means to live by their hands; forgers, again, execute their evil
   handwritings, not of course with their feet, but hands; actors,
   however, achieve a livelihood not with hands alone, but with their
   entire limbs. Let the Church, therefore, stand open to all who are
   supported by their hands and by their own work; if there is no
   exception of arts which the Discipline of God receives not. But some
   one says, in opposition to our proposition of ?similitude being
   interdicted,? ?Why, then, did Moses in the desert make a likeness of a
   serpent out of bronze?? The figures, which used to be laid as a
   groundwork for some secret future dispensation, not with a view to the
   repeal of the law, but as a type of their own final cause, stand in a
   class by themselves. Otherwise, if we should interpret these things as
   the adversaries of the law do, do we, too, as the Marcionites do,
   ascribe inconsistency to the Almighty, whom they [191] in this manner
   destroy as being mutable, while in one place He forbids, in another
   commands? But if any feigns ignorance of the fact that that effigy of
   the serpent of bronze, after the manner of one uphung, denoted the
   shape of the Lord's cross, [192] which was to free us from
   serpents--that is, from the devil's angels--while, through itself, it
   hanged up the devil slain; or whatever other exposition of that figure
   has been revealed to worthier men [193] no matter, provided we remember
   the apostle affirms that all things happened at that time to the People
   [194] figuratively. [195] It is enough that the same God, as by law He
   forbade the making of similitude, did, by the extraordinary precept in
   the case of the serpent, interdict similitude. [196] If you reverence
   the same God, you have His law, ?Thou shalt make no similitude.? [197]
   If you look back, too, to the precept enjoining the subsequently made
   similitude, do you, too, imitate Moses: make not any likeness in
   opposition to the law, unless to you, too, God have bidden it. [198]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [185] Cf. chaps. viii. and xii.

   [186] i.e., the Discipline of the house of God, the Church. Oehler
   reads, ?eam disciplinam,? and takes the meaning to be that no artificer
   of this class should be admitted into the Church, if he applies for
   admittance, with a knowledge of the law of God referred to in the
   former chapters, yet persisting in his unlawful craft. Fr. Junius would
   read, ?ejus disciplinam.?

   [187] i.e., If laws of your own, and not the will and law of God, are
   the source and means of your life, you owe no thanks and no obedience
   to God, and therefore need not seek admittance into His house (Oehler).

   [188] 1 Cor. vii. 20. In Eng. ver., ?Let every man abide in the same
   calling wherein he was called.?

   [189] 1 Thess. iv. 11; 2 Thess. iii. 6-12.

   [190] i.e., thieves who frequented the public baths, which were a
   favorite resort at Rome.

   [191] The Marcionites.

   [192] [The argument amounts to this, that symbols were not idols:  yet
   even so, God only could ordain symbols that were innocent. The
   Nehushtan of King Hezekiah teaches us the ?peril of Idolatry? (2 Kings
   xviii. 4) and that even a divine symbol may be destroyed justly if it
   be turned to a violation of the Second Commandment.]

   [193] [On which see Dr. Smith, Dict. of the Bible, ad vocem ?Serpent.?]

   [194] i.e., the Jewish people, who are generally meant by the
   expression ?the People? in the singular number in Scripture. We shall
   endeavour to mark that distinction by writing the word, as here, with a
   capital.

   [195] See 1 Cor. x. 6, 11.

   [196] On the principle that the exception proves the rule. As Oehler
   explains it: ?By the fact of the extraordinary precept in that
   particular case, God gave an indication that likeness-making had before
   been forbidden and interdicted by Him.?

   [197] Ex. xx. 4, etc. [The absurd ?brazen serpent? which I have seen in
   the Church of St. Ambrose, in Milan, is with brazen hardihood affirmed
   to be the identical serpent which Moses lifted up in the wilderness.
   But it lacks all symbolic character, as it is not set upon a pole nor
   in any way fitted to a cross. It greatly resembles a vane set upon a
   pivot.]

   [198] [Elucidation I.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VI.--Idolatry Condemned by Baptism. To Make an Idol Is, in
   Fact, to Worship It.

   If no law of God had prohibited idols to be made by us; if no voice of
   the Holy Spirit uttered general menace no less against the makers than
   the worshippers of idols; from our sacrament itself we would draw our
   interpretation that arts of that kind are opposed to the faith. For how
   have we renounced the devil and his angels, if we make them? What
   divorce have we declared from them, I say not with whom, but dependent
   on whom, we live? What discord have we entered into with those to whom
   we are under obligation for the sake of our maintenance? Can you have
   denied with the tongue what with the hand you confess? unmake by word
   what by deed you make? preach one God, you who make so many? preach the
   true God, you who make false ones? ?I make,? says one, ?but I worship
   not;? as if there were some cause for which he dare not worship,
   besides that for which he ought not also to make,--the offence done to
   God, namely, in either case.  Nay, you who make, that they may be able
   to be worshipped, do worship; and you worship, not with the spirit of
   some worthless perfume, but with your own; nor at the expense of a
   beast's soul, but of your own. To them you immolate your ingenuity; to
   them you make your sweat a libation; to them you kindle the torch of
   your forethought. More are you to them than a priest, since it is by
   your means they have a priest; your diligence is their divinity. [199]
   Do you affirm that you worship not what you make? Ah! but they affirm
   not so, to whom you slay this fatter, more precious and greater victim,
   your salvation.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [199] i.e., Unless you made them, they would not exist, and therefore
   [would not be regarded as divinities; therefore] your diligence gives
   them their divinity.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VII.--Grief of the Faithful at the Admission of Idol-Makers
   into the Church; Nay, Even into the Ministry.

   A whole day the zeal of faith will direct its pleadings to this
   quarter: bewailing that a Christian should come from idols into the
   Church; should come from an adversary workshop into the house of God;
   should raise to God the Father hands which are the mothers of idols;
   should pray to God with the hands which, out of doors, are prayed to in
   opposition to God; should apply to the Lord's body those hands which
   confer bodies on demons. Nor is this sufficient. Grant that it be a
   small matter, if from other hands they receive what they contaminate;
   but even those very hands deliver to others what they have
   contaminated. Idol-artificers are chosen even into the ecclesiastical
   order. Oh wickedness! Once did the Jews lay brands on Christ; these
   mangle His body daily.  Oh hands to be cut off! Now let the saying, ?If
   thy hand make thee do evil, amputate it,? [200] see to it whether it
   were uttered by way of similitude merely. What hands more to be
   amputated than those in which scandal is done to the Lord's body?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [200] Matt. xviii. 8.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VIII.--Other Arts Made Subservient to Idolatry. Lawful Means of
   Gaining a Livelihood Abundant.

   There are also other species of very many arts which, although they
   extend not to the making of idols, yet, with the same criminality,
   furnish the adjuncts without which idols have no power. For it matters
   not whether you erect or equip: if you have embellished his temple,
   altar, or niche; if you have pressed out gold-leaf, or have wrought his
   insignia, or even his house:  work of that kind, which confers not
   shape, but authority, is more important. If the necessity of
   maintenance [201] is urged so much, the arts have other species withal
   to afford means of livelihood, without outstepping the path of
   discipline, that is, without the confiction of an idol. The plasterer
   knows both how to mend roofs, and lay on stuccoes, and polish a
   cistern, and trace ogives, and draw in relief on party-walls many other
   ornaments beside likenesses. The painter, too, the marble mason, the
   bronze-worker, and every graver whatever, knows expansions [202] of his
   own art, of course much easier of execution. For how much more easily
   does he who delineates a statue overlay a sideboard! [203] How much
   sooner does he who carves a Mars out of a lime-tree, fasten together a
   chest!  No art but is either mother or kinswoman of some neighbour
   [204] art: nothing is independent of its neighbour. The veins of the
   arts are many as are the concupiscences of men.  ?But there is
   difference in wages and the rewards of handicraft;? therefore there is
   difference, too, in the labour required. Smaller wages are compensated
   by more frequent earning. How many are the party-walls which require
   statues? How many the temples and shrines which are built for idols?
   But houses, and official residences, and baths, and tenements, how many
   are they?  Shoe- and slipper-gilding is daily work; not so the gilding
   of Mercury and Serapis. Let that suffice for the gain [205] of
   handicrafts. Luxury and ostentation have more votaries than all
   superstition.  Ostentation will require dishes and cups more easily
   than superstition. Luxury deals in wreaths, also, more than ceremony.
   When, therefore, we urge men generally to such kinds of handicrafts as
   do not come in contact with an idol indeed and with the things which
   are appropriate to an idol; since, moreover, the things which are
   common to idols are often common to men too; of this also we ought to
   beware that nothing be, with our knowledge, demanded by any person from
   our idols' service.  For if we shall have made that concession, and
   shall not have had recourse to the remedies so often used, I think we
   are not free of the contagion of idolatry, we whose (not unwitting)
   hands [206] are found busied in the tendence, or in the honour and
   service, of demons.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [201] See chaps. v. and xii.

   [202] See chap. ii., ?The expansiveness of idolatry.?

   [203] Abacum. The word has various meanings; but this, perhaps, is its
   most general use: as, for instance, in Horace and Juvenal.

   [204] Alterius = heteron which in the New Testament is = to ?neighbour?
   in Rom. xiii. 8, etc. [Our author must have borne in mind Cicero's
   beautiful words--?Etenim omnes artes quæ ad humanitatem pertinent
   habent quoddam commune vinculum,? etc. Pro Archia, i. tom. x. p. 10.
   Ed. Paris, 1817.]

   [205] Quæstum. Another reading is ?questum,? which would require us to
   translate ?plaint.?

   [206] ?Quorum manus non ignorantium,? i.e., ?the hands of whom not
   unwitting;? which may be rendered as above, because in English, as in
   the Latin, in adjective ?unwitting? belongs to the ?whose,? not to the
   ?hands.?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IX.--Professions of Some Kinds Allied to Idolatry. Of Astrology
   in Particular.

   We observe among the arts [207] also some professions liable to the
   charge of idolatry. Of astrologers there should be no speaking even;
   [208] but since one in these days has challenged us, defending on his
   own behalf perseverance in that profession, I will use a few words. I
   allege not that he honours idols, whose names he has inscribed on the
   heaven, [209] to whom he has attributed all God's power; because men,
   presuming that we are disposed of by the immutable arbitrament of the
   stars, think on that account that God is not to be sought after. One
   proposition I lay down: that those angels, the deserters from God, the
   lovers of women, [210] were likewise the discoverers of this curious
   art, on that account also condemned by God. Oh divine sentence,
   reaching even unto the earth in its vigour, whereto the unwitting
   render testimony! The astrologers are expelled just like their angels.
   The city and Italy are interdicted to the astrologers, just as heaven
   to their angels. [211] There is the same penalty of exclusion for
   disciples and masters. ?But Magi and astrologers came from the east.?
   [212] We know the mutual alliance of magic and astrology. The
   interpreters of the stars, then, were the first to announce Christ's
   birth the first to present Him ?gifts.? By this bond, [must] I imagine,
   they put Christ under obligation to themselves?  What then? Shall
   therefore the religion of those Magi act as patron now also to
   astrologers? Astrology now-a-days, forsooth, treats of Christ--is the
   science of the stars of Christ; not of Saturn, or Mars, and whomsoever
   else out of the same class of the dead [213] it pays observance to and
   preaches? But, however, that science has been allowed until the Gospel,
   in order that after Christ's birth no one should thence forward
   interpret any one's nativity by the heaven. For they therefore offered
   to the then infant Lord that frankincense and myrrh and gold, to be, as
   it were, the close of worldly [214] sacrifice and glory, which Christ
   was about to do away. What, then?  The dream--sent, doubtless, of the
   will of God--suggested to the same Magi, namely, that they should go
   home, but by another way, not that by which they came. It means this:
   that they should not walk in their ancient path. [215] Not that Herod
   should not pursue them, who in fact did not pursue them; unwitting even
   that they had departed by another way, since he was withal unwitting by
   what way they came. Just so we ought to understand by it the right Way
   and Discipline. And so the precept was rather, that thence forward they
   should walk otherwise. So, too, that other species of magic which
   operates by miracles, emulous even in opposition to Moses, [216] tried
   God's patience until the Gospel.  For thenceforward Simon Magus, just
   turned believer, (since he was still thinking somewhat of his juggling
   sect; to wit, that among the miracles of his profession he might buy
   even the gift of the Holy Spirit through imposition of hands) was
   cursed by the apostles, and ejected from the faith. [217] Both he and
   that other magician, who was with Sergius Paulus, (since he began
   opposing himself to the same apostles) was mulcted with loss of eyes.
   [218] The same fate, I believe, would astrologers, too, have met, if
   any had fallen in the way of the apostles. But yet, when magic is
   punished, of which astrology is a species, of course the species is
   condemned in the genus. After the Gospel, you will nowhere find either
   sophists, Chaldeans, enchanters, diviners, or magicians, except as
   clearly punished. ?Where is the wise, where the grammarian, where the
   disputer of this age? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
   age?? [219] You know nothing, astrologer, if you know not that you
   should be a Christian. If you did know it, you ought to have known this
   also, that you should have nothing more to do with that profession of
   yours which, of itself, fore-chants the climacterics of others, and
   might instruct you of its own danger. There is no part nor lot for you
   in that system of yours. [220] He cannot hope for the kingdom of the
   heavens, whose finger or wand abuses [221] the heaven.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [207] ?Ars? in Latin is very generally used to mean ?a scientific art.?
   [See Titus iii. 14. English margin.]

   [208] See Eph. v. 11, 12, and similar passages.

   [209] i.e., by naming the stars after them.

   [210] Comp. chap. iv., and the references there given. The idea seems
   founded on an ancient reading found in the Codex Alexandrinus of the
   LXX. in Gen. vi. 2, ?angels of God,? for ?sons of God.?

   [211] See Tac. Ann. ii. 31, etc. (Oehler.)

   [212] See Matt. ii.

   [213] Because the names of the heathen divinities, which used to be
   given to the stars, were in many cases only names of dead men deified.

   [214] Or, heathenish.

   [215] Or, sect.

   [216] See Ex. vii., viii., and comp. 2 Tim. iii. 8.

   [217] See Acts viii. 9-24.

   [218] See Acts xiii. 6-11.

   [219] 1 Cor. i. 20.

   [220] See Acts viii. 21.

   [221] See 1 Cor. vii. 31, ?They that use this world as not abusing it.?
   The astrologer abuses the heavens by putting the heavenly bodies to a
   sinful use.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter X.--Of Schoolmasters and Their Difficulties.

   Moreover, we must inquire likewise touching schoolmasters; nor only of
   them, but also all other professors of literature. Nay, on the
   contrary, we must not doubt that they are in affinity with manifold
   idolatry: first, in that it is necessary for them to preach the gods of
   the nations, to express their names, genealogies, honourable
   distinctions, all and singular; and further, to observe the solemnities
   and festivals of the same, as of them by whose means they compute their
   revenues. What schoolmaster, without a table of the seven idols, [222]
   will yet frequent the Quinquatria? The very first payment of every
   pupil he consecrates both to the honour and to the name of Minerva; so
   that, even though he be not said ?to eat of that which is sacrificed to
   idols? [223] nominally (not being dedicated to any particular idol), he
   is shunned as an idolater.  What less of defilement does he recur on
   that ground, [224] than a business brings which, both nominally and
   virtually, is consecrated publicly to an idol? The Minervalia are as
   much Minerva's, as the Saturnalia Saturn's; Saturn's, which must
   necessarily be celebrated even by little slaves at the time of the
   Saturnalia. New-year's gifts likewise must be caught at, and the
   Septimontium kept; and all the presents of Midwinter and the feast of
   Dear Kinsmanship must be exacted; the schools must be wreathed with
   flowers; the flamens' wives and the ædiles sacrifice; the school is
   honoured on the appointed holy-days. The same thing takes place on an
   idol's birthday; every pomp of the devil is frequented. Who will think
   that these things are befitting to a Christian master, [225] unless it
   be he who shall think them suitable likewise to one who is not a
   master?  We know it may be said, ?If teaching literature is not lawful
   to God's servants, neither will learning be likewise;? and, ?How could
   one be trained unto ordinary human intelligence, or unto any sense or
   action whatever, since literature is the means of training for all
   life? How do we repudiate secular studies, without which divine studies
   cannot be pursued??  Let us see, then, the necessity of literary
   erudition; let us reflect that partly it cannot be admitted, partly
   cannot be avoided. Learning literature is allowable for believers,
   rather than teaching; for the principle of learning and of teaching is
   different. If a believer teach literature, while he is teaching
   doubtless he commends, while he delivers he affirms, while he recalls
   he bears testimony to, the praises of idols interspersed therein. He
   seals the gods themselves with this name; [226] whereas the Law, as we
   have said, prohibits ?the names of gods to be pronounced,? [227] and
   this name [228] to be conferred on vanity. [229] Hence the devil gets
   men's early faith built up from the beginnings of their erudition.
   Inquire whether he who catechizes about idols commit idolatry. But when
   a believer learns these things, if he is already capable of
   understanding what idolatry is, he neither receives nor allows them;
   much more if he is not yet capable. Or, when he begins to understand,
   it behoves him first to understand what he has previously learned, that
   is, touching God and the faith. Therefore he will reject those things,
   and will not receive them; and will be as safe as one who from one who
   knows it not, knowingly accepts poison, but does not drink it. To him
   necessity is attributed as an excuse, because he has no other way to
   learn. Moreover, the not teaching literature is as much easier than the
   not learning, as it is easier, too, for the pupil not to attend, than
   for the master not to frequent, the rest of the defilements incident to
   the schools from public and scholastic solemnities.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [222] i.e., the seven planets.

   [223] See 1 Cor. viii. 10.

   [224] i.e., because ?he does not nominally eat,? etc.

   [225] [Note the Christian Schoolmaster, already distinguished as such,
   implying the existence and the character of Christian schools. Of
   which, learn more from the Emperor Julian, afterwards.]

   [226] i.e., the name of gods.

   [227] Ex. xxiii. 13; Josh. xxiii. 7; Ps. xvi. 4; Hos. ii. 17; Zech.
   xiii. 2.

   [228] i.e., the name of God.

   [229] i.e., on an idol, which, as Isaiah says, is ?vanity.?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XI.--Connection Between Covetousness and Idolatry. Certain
   Trades, However Gainful, to Be Avoided.

   If we think over the rest of faults, tracing them from their
   generations, let us begin with covetousness, ?a root of all evils,?
   [230] wherewith, indeed, some having been ensnared, ?have suffered
   shipwreck about faith.? [231] Albeit covetousness is by the same
   apostle called idolatry. [232] In the next place proceeding to
   mendacity, the minister of covetousness (of false swearing I am silent,
   since even swearing is not lawful [233] )--is trade adapted for a
   servant of God? But, covetousness apart, what is the motive for
   acquiring? When the motive for acquiring ceases, there will be no
   necessity for trading. Grant now that there be some righteousness in
   business, secure from the duty of watchfulness against covetousness and
   mendacity; I take it that that trade which pertains to the very soul
   and spirit of idols, which pampers every demon, falls under the charge
   of idolatry. Rather, is not that the principal idolatry? If the
   selfsame merchandises--frankincense, I mean, and all other foreign
   productions--used as sacrifice to idols, are of use likewise to men for
   medicinal ointments, to us Christians also, over and above, for solaces
   of sepulture, let them see to it. At all events, while the pomps, while
   the priesthoods, while the sacrifices of idols, are furnished by
   dangers, by losses, by inconveniences, by cogitations, by runnings to
   and fro, or trades, what else are you demonstrated to be but an idols'
   agent? Let none contend that, in this way, exception may be taken to
   all trades. All graver faults extend the sphere for diligence in
   watchfulness proportionably to the magnitude of the danger; in order
   that we may withdraw not only from the faults, but from the means
   through which they have being. For although the fault be done by
   others, it makes no difference if it be by my means. In no case ought I
   to be necessary to another, while he is doing what to me is unlawful.
   Hence I ought to understand that care must be taken by me, lest what I
   am forbidden to do be done by my means. In short, in another cause of
   no lighter guilt I observe that fore-judgment. In that I am interdicted
   from fornication, I furnish nothing of help or connivance to others for
   that purpose; in that I have separated my own flesh itself from stews,
   I acknowledge that I cannot exercise the trade of pandering, or keep
   that kind of places for my neighbour's behoof.  So, too, the
   interdiction of murder shows me that a trainer of gladiators also is
   excluded from the Church; nor will any one fail to be the means of
   doing what he subministers to another to do. Behold, here is a more
   kindred fore-judgment: if a purveyor of the public victims come over to
   the faith, will you permit him to remain permanently in that trade? or
   if one who is already a believer shall have undertaken that business,
   will you think that he is to be retained in the Church?  No, I take it;
   unless any one will dissemble in the case of a frankincense-seller too.
   In sooth, the agency of blood pertains to some, that of odours to
   others. If, before idols were in the world, idolatry, hitherto
   shapeless, used to be transacted by these wares; if, even now, the work
   of idolatry is perpetrated, for the most part, without the idol, by
   burnings of odours; the frankincense-seller is a something even more
   serviceable even toward demons, for idolatry is more easily carried on
   without the idol, than without the ware of the frankincense-seller.
   [234] Let us interrogate thoroughly the conscience of the faith itself.
   With what mouth will a Christian frankincense-seller, if he shall pass
   through temples, with what mouth will he spit down upon and blow out
   the smoking altars, for which himself has made provision? With what
   consistency will he exorcise his own foster-children, [235] to whom he
   affords his own house as store-room?  Indeed, if he shall have ejected
   a demon, [236] let him not congratulate himself on his faith, for he
   has not ejected an enemy; he ought to have had his prayer easily
   granted by one whom he is daily feeding. [237] No art, then, no
   profession, no trade, which administers either to equipping or forming
   idols, can be free from the title of idolatry; unless we interpret
   idolatry to be altogether something else than the service of
   idol-tendence.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [230] 1 Tim. vi. 10.

   [231] 1 Tim. i. 19.

   [232] Col. iii. 5. It has been suggested that for ?quamvis? we should
   read ?quum bis;? i.e., ?seeing covetousness is twice called,? etc. The
   two places are Col. iii. 5, and Eph. v. 5.

   [233] Matt. v. 34-37; Jas. v. 12.

   [234] [The aversion of the early Christian Fathers passim to the
   ceremonial use of incense finds one explanation here.]

   [235] i.e., the demons, or idols, to whom incense is burned.

   [236] i.e., from one possessed.

   [237] i.e., The demon, in gratitude for the incense which the man daily
   feeds him with, ought to depart out of the possessed at his request.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XII.--Further Answers to the Plea, How Am I to Live?

   In vain do we flatter ourselves as to the necessities of human
   maintenance, if--after faith sealed [238] --we say, ?I have no means to
   live?? [239] For here I will now answer more fully that abrupt
   proposition. It is advanced too late. For after the similitude of that
   most prudent builder, [240] who first computes the costs of the work,
   together with his own means, lest, when he has begun, he afterwards
   blush to find himself spent, deliberation should have been made before.
   But even now you have the Lord's sayings, as examples taking away from
   you all excuse.  For what is it you say? ?I shall be in need.? But the
   Lord calls the needy ?happy.? [241] ?I shall have no food.? But ?think
   not,? says He, ?about food;? [242] and as an example of clothing we
   have the lilies. [243] ?My work was my subsistence.? Nay, but ?all
   things are to be sold, and divided to the needy.? [244] ?But provision
   must be made for children and posterity.? ?None, putting his hand on
   the plough, and looking back, is fit? for work. [245] ?But I was under
   contract.? ?None can serve two lords.? [246] If you wish to be the
   Lord's disciple, it is necessary you ?take your cross, and follow the
   Lord:? [247] your cross; that is, your own straits and tortures, or
   your body only, which is after the manner of a cross. Parents, wives,
   children, will have to be left behind, for God's sake. [248] Do you
   hesitate about arts, and trades, and about professions likewise, for
   the sake of children and parents? Even there was it demonstrated to us,
   that both ?dear pledges,? [249] and handicrafts, and trades, are to be
   quite left behind for the Lord's sake; while James and John, called by
   the Lord, do leave quite behind both father and ship; [250] while
   Matthew is roused up from the toll-booth; [251] while even burying a
   father was too tardy a business for faith. [252] None of them whom the
   Lord chose to Him said, ?I have no means to live.? Faith fears not
   famine. It knows, likewise, that hunger is no less to be contemned by
   it for God's sake, than every kind of death. It has learnt not to
   respect life; how much more food? [You ask] ?How many have fulfilled
   these conditions?? But what with men is difficult, with God is easy.
   [253] Let us, however, comfort ourselves about the gentleness and
   clemency of God in such wise, as not to indulge our ?necessities? up to
   the point of affinities with idolatry, but to avoid even from afar
   every breath of it, as of a pestilence. [And this] not merely in the
   cases forementioned, but in the universal series of human superstition;
   whether appropriated to its gods, or to the defunct, or to kings, as
   pertaining to the selfsame unclean spirits, sometimes through
   sacrifices and priesthoods, sometimes through spectacles and the like,
   sometimes through holy-days.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [238] i.e., in baptism.

   [239] See above, chaps. v. and viii. [One is reminded here of the
   famous pleasantry of Dr. Johnson; see Boswell.]

   [240] See Luke xiv. 28-30.

   [241] Luke vi. 20.

   [242] Matt. vi. 25, 31, etc.; Luke xii. 22-24.

   [243] Matt. vi. 28; Luke xii. 28.

   [244] Matt. xix. 21; Luke xviii. 22.

   [245] Luke ix. 62, where the words are, ?is fit for the kingdom of
   God.?

   [246] Matt. vi. 24; Luke xvi. 13.

   [247] Matt. xvi. 24; Mark viii. 34; Luke ix. 23; xiv. 27.

   [248] Luke xiv. 26; Mark x. 29, 30; Matt. xix. 27-30. Compare these
   texts with Tertullian's words, and see the testimony he thus gives to
   the deity of Christ.

   [249] i.e., any dear relations.

   [250] Matt. iv. 21, 22; Mark i. 19, 20; Luke v. 10, 11.

   [251] Matt. ix. 9; Mark ii. 14; Luke v. 29.

   [252] Luke ix. 59, 60.

   [253] Matt. xix. 26; Luke i. 37; xviii. 27.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIII.--Of the Observance of Days Connected with Idolatry.

   But why speak of sacrifices and priesthoods? Of spectacles, moreover,
   and pleasures of that kind, we have already filled a volume of their
   own. [254] In this place must be handled the subject of holidays and
   other extraordinary solemnities, which we accord sometimes to our
   wantonness, sometimes to our timidity, in opposition to the common
   faith and Discipline. The first point, indeed, on which I shall join
   issue is this:  whether a servant of God ought to share with the very
   nations themselves in matters of his kind either in dress, or in food,
   or in any other kind of their gladness. ?To rejoice with the rejoicing,
   and grieve with the grieving,? [255] is said about brethren by the
   apostle when exhorting to unanimity. But, for these purposes, ?There is
   nought of communion between light and darkness,? [256] between life and
   death or else we rescind what is written, ?The world shall rejoice, but
   ye shall grieve.? [257] If we rejoice with the world, there is reason
   to fear that with the world we shall grieve too. But when the world
   rejoices, let us grieve; and when the world afterward grieves, we shall
   rejoice. Thus, too, Eleazar [258] in Hades, [259] (attaining
   refreshment in Abraham's bosom) and the rich man, (on the other hand,
   set in the torment of fire) compensate, by an answerable retribution,
   their alternate vicissitudes of evil and good.  There are certain
   gift-days, which with some adjust the claim of honour, with others the
   debt of wages. ?Now, then,? you say, ?I shall receive back what is
   mine, or pay back what is another's.? If men have consecrated for
   themselves this custom from superstition, why do you, estranged as you
   are from all their vanity, participate in solemnities consecrated to
   idols; as if for you also there were some prescript about a day, short
   of the observance of a particular day, to prevent your paying or
   receiving what you owe a man, or what is owed you by a man? Give me the
   form after which you wish to be dealt with.  For why should you skulk
   withal, when you contaminate your own conscience by your neighbour's
   ignorance?  If you are not unknown to be a Christian, you are tempted,
   and you act as if you were not a Christian against your neighbour's
   conscience; if, however, you shall be disguised withal, [260] you are
   the slave of the temptation. At all events, whether in the latter or
   the former way, you are guilty of being ?ashamed of God.? [261] But
   ?whosoever shall be ashamed of Me in the presence of men, of him will I
   too be ashamed,? says He, ?in the presence of my Father who is in the
   heavens.? [262]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [254] The treatise De Spectaculis [soon to follow, in this volume.]

   [255] Rom. xii. 15.

   [256] See 2 Cor. vi. 14. In the De Spect. xxvi. Tertullian has the same
   quotation (Oehler). And there, too, he adds, as here, ?between life and
   death.?

   [257] John xvi. 20. It is observable that Tertullian here translates
   kosmon by ?seculum.?

   [258] i.e., Lazarus, Luke xvi. 19-31.

   [259] ?Apud inferos,? used clearly here by Tertullian of a place of
   happiness. Augustine says he never finds it so used in Scripture. See
   Ussher's ?Answer to a Jesuit? on the Article, ?He descended into hell.?
   [See Elucid. X. p. 59, supra.]

   [260] i.e., if you are unknown to be a Christian: ?dissimulaberis.?
   This is Oehler's reading; but Latinius and Fr. Junis would read
   ?Dissimulaveris,? ="if you dissemble the fact? of being a Christian,
   which perhaps is better.

   [261] So Mr. Dodgson renders very well.

   [262] Matt. x. 33; Mark viii. 38; Luke ix. 26; 2 Tim. ii. 12.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIV.--Of Blasphemy. One of St. Paul's Sayings.

   But, however, the majority (of Christians) have by this time induced
   the belief in their mind that it is pardonable if at any time they do
   what the heathen do, for fear ?the Name be blasphemed.? Now the
   blasphemy which must quite be shunned by us in every way is, I take it,
   this: If any of us lead a heathen into blasphemy with good cause,
   either by fraud, or by injury, or by contumely, or any other matter of
   worthy complaint, in which ?the Name? is deservedly impugned, so that
   the Lord, too, be deservedly angry.  Else, if of all blasphemy it has
   been said, ?By your means My Name is blasphemed,? [263] we all perish
   at once; since the whole circus, with no desert of ours, assails ?the
   Name? with wicked suffrages. Let us cease (to be Christians) and it
   will not be blasphemed! On the contrary, while we are, let it be
   blasphemed: in the observance, not the overstepping, of discipline;
   while we are being approved, not while we are being reprobated. Oh
   blasphemy, bordering on martyrdom, which now attests me to be a
   Christian, [264] while for that very account it detests me! The cursing
   of well-maintained Discipline is a blessing of the Name.  ?If,? says
   he, ?I wished to please men, I should not be Christ's servant.? [265]
   But the same apostle elsewhere bids us take care to please all: ?As I,?
   he says, ?please all by all means.? [266] No doubt he used to please
   them by celebrating the Saturnalia and New-year's day!  [Was it so] or
   was it by moderation and patience? by gravity, by kindness, by
   integrity? In like manner, when he is saying, ?I have become all things
   to all, that I may gain all,? [267] does he mean ?to idolaters an
   idolater?? ?to heathens a heathen?? ?to the worldly worldly?? But
   albeit he does not prohibit us from having our conversation with
   idolaters and adulterers, and the other criminals, saying, ?Otherwise
   ye would go out from the world,? [268] of course he does not so slacken
   those reins of conversation that, since it is necessary for us both to
   live and to mingle with sinners, we may be able to sin with them too.
   Where there is the intercourse of life, which the apostle concedes,
   there is sinning, which no one permits. To live with heathens is
   lawful, to die with them [269] is not. Let us live with all; [270] let
   us be glad with them, out of community of nature, not of superstition.
   We are peers in soul, not in discipline; fellow-possessors of the
   world, not of error.  But if we have no right of communion in matters
   of this kind with strangers, how far more wicked to celebrate them
   among brethren! Who can maintain or defend this? The Holy Spirit
   upbraids the Jews with their holy-days. ?Your Sabbaths, and new moons,
   and ceremonies,? says He, ?My soul hateth.? [271] By us, to whom
   Sabbaths are strange, [272] and the new moons and festivals formerly
   beloved by God, the Saturnalia and New-year's and Midwinter's festivals
   and Matronalia are frequented--presents come and go--New-year's
   gifts--games join their noise--banquets join their din! Oh better
   fidelity of the nations to their own sect, which claims no solemnity of
   the Christians for itself! Not the Lord's day, not Pentecost, even it
   they had known them, would they have shared with us; for they would
   fear lest they should seem to be Christians. We are not apprehensive
   lest we seem to be heathens! If any indulgence is to be granted to the
   flesh, you have it. I will not say your own days, [273] but more too;
   for to the heathens each festive day occurs but once annually:  you
   have a festive day every eighth day. [274] Call out the individual
   solemnities of the nations, and set them out into a row, they will not
   be able to make up a Pentecost. [275]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [263] Isa. lii. 5; Ezek. xxxvi. 20, 23. Cf. 2 Sam. xii. 14; Rom. ii.
   24.

   [264] [This play on the words is literally copied from the
   original--?quæ tunc me testatur Christianum, cum propter ea me
   detestatur.?]

   [265] St. Paul. Gal. i. 10.

   [266] 1 Cor. x. 32, 33.

   [267] 1 Cor. ix. 22.

   [268] 1 Cor. v. 10.

   [269] i.e., by sinning (Oehler), for ?the wages of sin is death.?

   [270] There seems to be a play on the word ?convivere? (whence
   ?convivium,? etc.), as in Cic. de Sen. xiii.

   [271] Isa. i. 14, etc.

   [272] [This is noteworthy. In the earlier days sabbaths (Saturdays)
   were not unobserved, but, it was a concession pro tempore, to Hebrew
   Christians.]

   [273] i.e., perhaps your own birthdays. [See cap. xvi. infra.]  Oehler
   seems to think it means, ?all other Christian festivals beside Sunday.?

   [274] [?An Easter Day in every week.?--Keble.]

   [275] i.e., a space of fifty days, see Deut. xvi. 10; and comp. Hooker,
   Ecc. Pol. iv. 13, 7, ed. Keble.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XV.--Concerning Festivals in Honour of Emperors, Victories, and
   the Like.  Examples of the Three Children and Daniel.

   But ?let your works shine,? saith He; [276] but now all our shops and
   gates shine!  You will now-a-days find more doors of heathens without
   lamps and laurel-wreaths than of Christians. What does the case seem to
   be with regard to that species (of ceremony) also? If it is an idol's
   honour, without doubt an idol's honour is idolatry. If it is for a
   man's sake, let us again consider that all idolatry is for man's sake;
   [277] let us again consider that all idolatry is a worship done to men,
   since it is generally agreed even among their worshippers that
   aforetime the gods themselves of the nations were men; and so it makes
   no difference whether that superstitious homage be rendered to men of a
   former age or of this. Idolatry is condemned, not on account of the
   persons which are set up for worship, but on account of those its
   observances, which pertain to demons. ?The things which are Cæsar's are
   to be rendered to Cæsar.? [278] It is enough that He set in apposition
   thereto, ?and to God the things which are God's.? What things, then,
   are Cæsar's? Those, to wit, about which the consultation was then held,
   whether the poll-tax should be furnished to Cæsar or no. Therefore,
   too, the Lord demanded that the money should be shown Him, and inquired
   about the image, whose it was; and when He had heard it was Cæsar's,
   said, ?Render to Cæsar what are Cæsar's, and what are God's to God;?
   that is, the image of Cæsar, which is on the coin, to Cæsar, and the
   image of God, which is on man, [279] to God; so as to render to Cæsar
   indeed money, to God yourself. Otherwise, what will be God's, if all
   things are Cæsar's? ?Then,? do you say, ?the lamps before my doors, and
   the laurels on my posts are an honour to God?? They are there of
   course, not because they are an honour to God, but to him who is honour
   in God's stead by ceremonial observances of that kind, so far as is
   manifest, saving the religious performance, which is in secret
   appertaining to demons. For we ought to be sure if there are any whose
   notice it escapes through ignorance of this world's literature, that
   there are among the Romans even gods of entrances; Cardea
   (Hinge-goddess), called after hinges, and Forculus (Door-god) after
   doors, and Limentinus (Threshold-god) after the threshold, and Janus
   himself (Gate-god) after the gate: and of course we know that, though
   names be empty and feigned, yet, when they are drawn down into
   superstition, demons and every unclean spirit seize them for
   themselves, through the bond of consecration. Otherwise demons have no
   name individually, but they there find a name where they find also a
   token. Among the Greeks likewise we read of Apollo Thyræus, i.e. of the
   door, and the Antelii, or Anthelii, demons, as presiders over
   entrances. These things, therefore, the Holy Spirit foreseeing from the
   beginning, fore-chanted, through the most ancient prophet Enoch, that
   even entrances would come into superstitious use. For we see too that
   other entrances [280] are adored in the baths. But if there are beings
   which are adored in entrances, it is to them that both the lamps and
   the laurels will pertain. To an idol you will have done whatever you
   shall have done to an entrance. In this place I call a witness on the
   authority also of God; because it is not safe to suppress whatever may
   have been shown to one, of course for the sake of all. I know that a
   brother was severely chastised, the same night, through a vision,
   because on the sudden announcement of public rejoicings his servants
   had wreathed his gates.  And yet himself had not wreathed, or commanded
   them to be wreathed; for he had gone forth from home before, and on his
   return had reprehended the deed.  So strictly are we appraised with God
   in matters of this kind, even with regard to the discipline of our
   family. [281] Therefore, as to what relates to the honours due to kings
   or emperors, we have a prescript sufficient, that it behoves us to be
   in all obedience, according to the apostle's precept, [282] ?subject to
   magistrates, and princes, and powers;? [283] but within the limits of
   discipline, so long as we keep ourselves separate from idolatry. For it
   is for this reason, too, that that example of the three brethren has
   forerun us, who, in other respects obedient toward king Nebuchodonosor
   rejected with all constancy the honour to his image, [284] proving that
   whatever is extolled beyond the measure of human honour, unto the
   resemblance of divine sublimity, is idolatry.  So too, Daniel, in all
   other points submissive to Darius, remained in his duty so long as it
   was free from danger to his religion; [285] for, to avoid undergoing
   that danger, he feared the royal lions no more than they the royal
   fires. Let, therefore, them who have no light, light their lamps daily;
   let them over whom the fires of hell are imminent, affix to their
   posts, laurels doomed presently to burn:  to them the testimonies of
   darkness and the omens of their penalties are suitable. You are a light
   of the world, [286] and a tree ever green. [287] If you have renounced
   temples, make not your own gate a temple. I have said too little. If
   you have renounced stews, clothe not your own house with the appearance
   of a new brothel.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [276] Matt. v. 16.

   [277] See chap. ix. p. 152, note 4.

   [278] Matt. xxii. 21; Mark xii. 17; Luke xx. 25.

   [279] See Gen. i. 26, 27; ix. 6; and comp. 1 Cor. xi. 7.

   [280] The word is the same as that for ?the mouth? of a river, etc.
   Hence Oehler supposes the ?entrances? or ?mouths? here referred to to
   be the mouths of fountains, where nymphs were supposed to dwell. Nympha
   is supposed to be the same word as Lympha. See Hor. Sat. i. 5, 97; and
   Macleane's note.

   [281] [He seems to refer to some Providential event, perhaps announced
   in a dream, not necessarily out of the course of common occurrences.]

   [282] Rom. xiii. 1, etc.; 1 Pet. ii, 13, 14.

   [283] Tit. iii. 1.

   [284] Dan. iii.

   [285] Dan. vi.

   [286] Matt. v. 14; Phil. ii. 15.

   [287] Ps. i. 1-3; xcii. 12-15.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVI.--Concerning Private Festivals.

   Touching the ceremonies, however, of private and social solemnities--as
   those of the white toga, of espousals, of nuptials, of name-givings--I
   should think no danger need be guarded against from the breath of the
   idolatry which is mixed up with them. For the causes are to be
   considered to which the ceremony is due. Those above-named I take to be
   clean in themselves, because neither manly garb, nor the marital ring
   or union, descends from honours done to any idol. In short, I find no
   dress cursed by God, except a woman's dress on a man: [288] for
   ?cursed,? saith He, ?is every man who clothes himself in woman's
   attire.? The toga, however, is a dress of manly name as well as of
   manly use. [289] God no more prohibits nuptials to be celebrated than a
   name to be given. ?But there are sacrifices appropriated to these
   occasions.? Let me be invited, and let not the title of the ceremony be
   ?assistance at a sacrifice,? and the discharge of my good offices is at
   the service of my friends. Would that it were ?at their service?
   indeed, and that we could escape seeing what is unlawful for us to do.
   But since the evil one has so surrounded the world with idolatry, it
   will be lawful for us to be present at some ceremonies which see us
   doing service to a man, not to an idol.  Clearly, if invited unto
   priestly function and sacrifice, I will not go, for that is service
   peculiar to an idol; but neither will I furnish advice, or expense, or
   any other good office in a matter of that kind. If it is on account of
   the sacrifice that I be invited, and stand by, I shall be partaker of
   idolatry; if any other cause conjoins me to the sacrificer, I shall be
   merely a spectator of the sacrifice. [290]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [288] Tertullian should have added, ?and a man's on a woman.? See Deut.
   xxii. 5. Moreover, the word ?cursed? is not used there, but
   ?abomination? is.

   [289] Because it was called toga virilis--?the manly toga.?

   [290] [1 Cor. viii. The law of the inspired apostle seems as rigorous
   here and in 1 Cor. x. 27-29.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVII.--The Cases of Servants and Other Officials. What Offices
   a Christian Man May Hold.

   But what shall believing servants or children [291] do? officials
   likewise, when attending on their lords, or patrons, or superiors, when
   sacrificing? Well, if any one shall have handed the wine to a
   sacrificer, nay, if by any single word necessary or belonging to a
   sacrifice he shall have aided him, he will be held to be a minister of
   idolatry. Mindful of this rule, we can render service even ?to
   magistrates and powers,? after the example of the patriarchs and the
   other forefathers, [292] who obeyed idolatrous kings up to the confine
   of idolatry. Hence arose, very lately, a dispute whether a servant of
   God should take the administration of any dignity or power, if he be
   able, whether by some special grace, or by adroitness, to keep himself
   intact from every species of idolatry; after the example that both
   Joseph and Daniel, clean from idolatry, administered both dignity and
   power in the livery and purple of the prefecture of entire Egypt or
   Babylonia. And so let us grant that it is possible for any one to
   succeed in moving, in whatsoever office, under the mere name of the
   office, neither sacrificing nor lending his authority to sacrifices;
   not farming out victims; not assigning to others the care of temples;
   not looking after their tributes; not giving spectacles at his own or
   the public charge, or presiding over the giving them; making
   proclamation or edict for no solemnity; not even taking oaths: moreover
   (what comes under the head of power), neither sitting in judgment on
   any one's life or character, for you might bear with his judging about
   money; neither condemning nor fore-condemning; [293] binding no one,
   imprisoning or torturing no one--if it is credible that all this is
   possible.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [291] This is Oehler's reading; Regaltius and Fr. Junius would read
   ?liberti? = freedmen. I admit that in this instance I prefer their
   reading; among other reasons it answers better to ?patronis?
   ="patrons.?

   [292] Majores. Of course the word may be rendered simply ?ancients;?
   but I have kept the common meaning ?forefathers.?

   [293] ?The judge condemns, the legislator fore-condemns.?--Rigaltius
   (Oehler.)
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVIII.--Dress as Connected with Idolatry.

   But we must now treat of the garb only and apparatus of office. There
   is a dress proper to every one, as well for daily use as for office and
   dignity. That famous purple, therefore, and the gold as an ornament of
   the neck, were, among the Egyptians and Babylonians, ensigns of
   dignity, in the same way as bordered, or striped, or palm-embroidered
   togas, and the golden wreaths of provincial priests, are now; but not
   on the same terms. For they used only to be conferred, under the name
   of honour, on such as deserved the familiar friendship of kings
   (whence, too, such used to be styled the ?purpled-men? [294] of kings,
   just as among us, [295] some, from their white toga, are called
   ?candidates? [296] ); but not on the understanding that that garb
   should be tied to priesthoods also, or to any idol-ceremonies. For if
   that were the case, of course men of such holiness and constancy [297]
   would instantly have refused the defiled dresses; and it would
   instantly have appeared that Daniel had been no zealous slave to idols,
   nor worshipped Bel, nor the dragon, which long after did appear. That
   purple, therefore, was simple, and used not at that time to be a mark
   of dignity [298] among the barbarians, but of nobility. [299] For as
   both Joseph, who had been a slave, and Daniel, who through [300]
   captivity had changed his state, attained the freedom of the states of
   Babylon and Egypt through the dress of barbaric nobility; [301] so
   among us believers also, if need so be, the bordered toga will be
   proper to be conceded to boys, and the stole to girls, [302] as ensigns
   of birth, not of power; of race, not of office; of rank, not of
   superstition. But the purple, or the other ensigns of dignities and
   powers, dedicated from the beginning to idolatry engrafted on the
   dignity and the powers, carry the spot of their own profanation; since,
   moreover, bordered and striped togas, and broad-barred ones, are put
   even on idols themselves; and fasces also, and rods, are borne before
   them; and deservedly, for demons are the magistrates of this world:
   they bear the fasces and the purples, the ensigns of one college. What
   end, then, will you advance if you use the garb indeed, but administer
   not the functions of it? In things unclean, none can appear clean. If
   you put on a tunic defiled in itself, it perhaps may not be defiled
   through you; but you, through it, will be unable to be clean. Now by
   this time, you who argue about ?Joseph? and ?Daniel,? know that things
   old and new, rude and polished, begun and developed, slavish and free,
   are not always comparable. For they, even by their circumstances, were
   slaves; but you, the slave of none, [303] in so far as you are the
   slave of Christ alone, [304] who has freed you likewise from the
   captivity of the world, will incur the duty of acting after your Lord's
   pattern.  That Lord walked in humility and obscurity, with no definite
   home: for ?the Son of man,? said He, ?hath not where to lay His head;?
   [305] unadorned in dress, for else He had not said, ?Behold, they who
   are clad in soft raiment are in kings' houses:? [306] in short,
   inglorious in countenance and aspect, just as Isaiah withal had
   fore-announced. [307] If, also, He exercised no right of power even
   over His own followers, to whom He discharged menial ministry; [308]
   if, in short, though conscious of His own kingdom, [309] He shrank back
   from being made a king, [310] He in the fullest manner gave His own an
   example for turning coldly from all the pride and garb, as well of
   dignity as of power. For if they were to be used, who would rather have
   used them than the Son of God? What kind and what number of fasces
   would escort Him? what kind of purple would bloom from His shoulders?
   what kind of gold would beam from His head, had He not judged the glory
   of the world to be alien both to Himself and to His? Therefore what He
   was unwilling to accept, He has rejected; what He rejected, He has
   condemned; what He condemned, He has counted as part of the devil's
   pomp.  For He would not have condemned things, except such as were not
   His; but things which are not God's, can be no other's but the devil's.
   If you have forsworn ?the devil's pomp,? [311] know that whatever there
   you touch is idolatry.  Let even this fact help to remind you that all
   the powers and dignities of this world are not only alien to, but
   enemies of, God; that through them punishments have been determined
   against God's servants; through them, too, penalties prepared for the
   impious are ignored.  But ?both your birth and your substance are
   troublesome to you in resisting idolatry.? [312] For avoiding it,
   remedies cannot be lacking; since, even if they be lacking, there
   remains that one by which you will be made a happier magistrate, not in
   the earth, but in the heavens. [313]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [294] Or, ?purpurates.?

   [295] [Not us Christians, but us Roman citizens.]

   [296] Or, ?white-men.?

   [297] Or, ?consistency.?

   [298] i.e., Official character.

   [299] Or, ?free? or ?good? ?birth.?

   [300] Or, ?during.?

   [301] i.e., the dress was the sign that they had obtained it.

   [302] I have departed from Oehler's reading here, as I have not
   succeeded in finding that the ?stola? was a boy's garment; and, for
   grammatical reasons, the reading of Gelenius and Pamelius (which I have
   taken) seems best.

   [303] See 1 Cor. ix. 19.

   [304] St. Paul in his epistle glories in the title, ?Paul, a slave,? or
   ?bondman,? ?of Christ Jesus.?

   [305] Luke ix. 58; Matt. viii. 20.

   [306] Matt. xi. 8; Luke vii. 25.

   [307] Isa. liii. 2.

   [308] See John xiii. 1-17.

   [309] See John xviii. 36.

   [310] John vi. 15.

   [311] In baptism.

   [312] i.e., From your birth and means, you will be expected to fill
   offices which are in some way connected with idolatry.

   [313] i.e., Martyrdom (La Cerda, quoted by Oehler).  For the idea of
   being ?a magistrate in the heavens,? [sitting on a throne] compare such
   passages as Matt. xix. 28; Luke xxii. 28, 30; 1 Cor. vi. 2, 3; Rev. ii.
   26, 27; iii. 21.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIX.--Concerning Military Service.

   In that last section, decision may seem to have been given likewise
   concerning military service, which is between dignity and power. [314]
   But now inquiry is made about this point, whether a believer may turn
   himself unto military service, and whether the military may be admitted
   unto the faith, even the rank and file, or each inferior grade, to whom
   there is no necessity for taking part in sacrifices or capital
   punishments. There is no agreement between the divine and the human
   sacrament, [315] the standard of Christ and the standard of the devil,
   the camp of light and the camp of darkness. One soul cannot be due to
   two masters--God and Cæsar. And yet Moses carried a rod, [316] and
   Aaron wore a buckle, [317] and John (Baptist) is girt with leather
   [318] and Joshua the son of Nun leads a line of march; and the People
   warred: if it pleases you to sport with the subject. But how will a
   Christian man war, nay, how will he serve even in peace, without a
   sword, which the Lord has taken away? [319] For albeit soldiers had
   come unto John, and had received the formula of their rule; [320]
   albeit, likewise, a centurion had believed; [321] still the Lord
   afterward, in disarming Peter, unbe**d every soldier.  No dress is
   lawful among us, if assigned to any unlawful action.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [314] Elucidation II.

   [315] ?Sacramentum? in Latin is, among other meanings, ?a military
   oath.?

   [316] ?Virgam.? The vine switch, or rod, in the Roman army was a mark
   of the centurion's (i.e., captain's) rank.

   [317] To fasten the ephod; hence the buckle worn by soldiers here
   referred to would probably be the belt buckle. Buckles were sometimes
   given as military rewards (White and Riddle).

   [318] As soldiers with belts.

   [319] Matt. xxvi. 52; 2 Cor. x. 4; John xviii. 36.

   [320] See Luke iii. 12, 13.

   [321] Matt. viii. 5, etc.; Luke vii. 1, etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XX.--Concerning Idolatry in Words.

   But, however, since the conduct according to the divine rule is
   imperilled, not merely by deeds, but likewise by words, (for, just as
   it is written, ?Behold the man and his deeds;? [322] so, ?Out of thy
   own mouth shalt thou be justified? [323] ), we ought to remember that,
   even in words, also the inroad of idolatry must be foreguarded against,
   either from the defect of custom or of timidity. The law prohibits the
   gods of the nations from being named, [324] not of course that we are
   not to pronounce their names, the speaking of which common intercourse
   extorts from us: for this must very frequently be said, ?You find him
   in the temple of Æsculapius;? and, ?I live in Isis Street;? and, ?He
   has been made priest of Jupiter;? and much else after this manner,
   since even on men names of this kind are bestowed. I do not honour
   Saturnus if I call a man so, by his own name. I honour him no more than
   I do Marcus, if I call a man Marcus. But it says, ?Make not mention of
   the name of other gods, neither be it heard from thy mouth.? [325] The
   precept it gives is this, that we do not call them gods. For in the
   first part of the law, too, ?Thou shalt not,? saith He, ?use the name
   of the Lord thy God in a vain thing,? [326] that is, in an idol. [327]
   Whoever, therefore, honours an idol with the name of God, has fallen
   into idolatry.  But if I speak of them as gods, something must be added
   to make it appear that I do not call them gods. For even the Scripture
   names ?gods,? but adds ?their,? viz. ?of the nations:? just as David
   does when he had named ?gods,? where he says, ?But the gods of the
   nations are demons.? [328] But this has been laid by me rather as a
   foundation for ensuing observations.  However, it is a defect of custom
   to say, ?By Hercules, So help me the god of faith;? [329] while to the
   custom is added the ignorance of some, who are ignorant that it is an
   oath by Hercules. Further, what will an oath be, in the name of gods
   whom you have forsworn, but a collusion of faith with idolatry? For who
   does not honour them in whose name he swears?
     __________________________________________________________________

   [322] Neither Oehler nor any editor seems to have discovered the
   passage here referred to.

   [323] Matt. xii. 37.

   [324] Ex. xxiii. 13. [St. Luke, nevertheless, names Castor and Pollux,
   Acts xxviii. 2., on our author's principle.]

   [325] Ex. xxiii. 13.

   [326] Ex. xx. 7.

   [327] Because Scripture calls idols ?vanities? and ?vain things.? See 2
   Kings xvii. 15, Ps. xxiv. 4, Isa. lix. 4, Deut. xxxii. 21, etc.

   [328] Ps. xcvi. 5. The LXX. in whose version ed. Tisch. it is Ps. xcv.
   read daimonia, like Tertullian. Our version has ?idols.?

   [329] Mehercule. Medius Fidius. I have given the rendering of the
   latter, which seems preferred by Paley (Ov. Fast. vi. 213, note), who
   considers it = me dius (i.e., Deus) fidius juvet.  Smith (Lat. Dict.
   s.v.) agrees with him, and explains it, me deus fidius servet. White
   and Riddle (s.v.) take the me (which appears to be short) as a
   ?demonstrative? particle or prefix, and explain, ?By the God of truth!?
   ?As true as heaven,? ?Most certainly.?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXI.--Of Silent Acquiescence in Heathen Formularies.

   But it is a mark of timidity, when some other man binds you in the name
   of his gods, by the making of an oath, or by some other form of
   attestation, and you, for fear of discovery, [330] remain quiet. For
   you equally, by remaining quiet, affirm their majesty, by reason of
   which majesty you will seem to be bound.  What matters it, whether you
   affirm the gods of the nations by calling them gods, or by hearing them
   so called?  Whether you swear by idols, or, when adjured by another,
   acquiesce? Why should we not recognize the subtleties of Satan, who
   makes it his aim that, what he cannot effect by our mouth, he may
   effect by the mouth of his servants, introducing idolatry into us
   through our ears? At all events, whoever the adjurer is, he binds you
   to himself either in friendly or unfriendly conjunction. If in
   unfriendly, you are now challenged unto battle, and know that you must
   fight. If in friendly, with how far greater security will you transfer
   your engagement unto the Lord, that you may dissolve the obligation of
   him through whose means the Evil One was seeking to annex you to the
   honour of idols, that is, to idolatry!  All sufferance of that kind is
   idolatry.  You honour those to whom, when imposed as authorities, you
   have rendered respect. I know that one (whom the Lord pardon!), when it
   had been said to him in public during a law-suit, ?Jupiter be wroth
   with you,? answered, ?On the contrary, with you.? What else would a
   heathen have done who believed Jupiter to be a god? For even had he not
   retorted the malediction by Jupiter (or other such like), yet, by
   merely returning a curse, he would have confirmed the divinity of Jove,
   showing himself irritated by a malediction in Jove's name. For what is
   there to be indignant at, (if cursed) in the name of one whom you know
   to be nothing? For if you rave, you immediately affirm his existence,
   and the profession of your fear will be an act of idolatry. How much
   more, while you are returning the malediction in the name of Jupiter
   himself, are you doing honour to Jupiter in the same way as he who
   provoked you! But a believer ought to laugh in such cases, not to rave;
   nay, according to the precept, [331] not to return a curse in the name
   of God even, but dearly to bless in the name of God, that you may both
   demolish idols and preach God, and fulfil discipline.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [330] i.e., for fear of being discovered to be a Christian (Oehler).

   [331] See Matt. v. 44, 1 Pet. iii. 9, etc.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXII.--Of Accepting Blessing in the Name of Idols.

   Equally, one who has been initiated into Christ will not endure to be
   blessed in the name of the gods of the nations, so as not always to
   reject the unclean benediction, and to cleanse it out for himself by
   converting it Godward.  To be blessed in the name of the gods of the
   nations is to be cursed in the name of God. If I have given an alms, or
   shown any other kindness, and the recipient pray that his gods, or the
   Genius of the colony, may be propitious to me, my oblation or act will
   immediately be an honour to idols, in whose name he returns me the
   favour of blessing. But why should he not know that I have done it for
   God's sake; that God may rather be glorified, and demons may not be
   honoured in that which I have done for the sake of God? If God sees
   that I have done it for His sake, He equally sees that I have been
   unwilling to show that I did it for His sake, and have in a manner made
   His precept [332] a sacrifice to idols. Many say, ?No one ought to
   divulge himself;? but I think neither ought he to deny himself. For
   whoever dissembles in any cause whatever, by being held as a heathen,
   does deny; and, of course, all denial is idolatry, just as all idolatry
   is denial, whether in deeds or in words. [333]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [332] i.e., the precept which enjoins me to ?do good and lend.?

   [333] Elucidation III.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIII.--Written Contracts in the Name of Idols. Tacit Consent.

   But there is a certain species of that class, doubly sharpened in deed
   and word, and mischievous on either side, although it flatter you, as
   if it were free of danger in each; while it does not seem to be a deed,
   because it is not laid hold of as a word. In borrowing money from
   heathens under pledged [334] securities, Christians give a guarantee
   under oath, and deny themselves to have done so. Of course, the time of
   the prosecution, and the place of the judgment seat, and the person of
   the presiding judge, decide that they knew themselves to have so done.
   [335] Christ prescribes that there is to be no swearing. ?I wrote,?
   says the debtor, ?but I said nothing. It is the tongue, not the written
   letter, which kills.?  Here I call Nature and Conscience as my
   witnesses: Nature, because even if the tongue in dictating remains
   motionless and quiet, the hand can write nothing which the soul has not
   dictated; albeit even to the tongue itself the soul may have dictated
   either something conceived by itself, or else something delivered by
   another. Now, lest it be said, ?Another dictated,? I here appeal to
   Conscience whether, what another dictated, the soul entertains, [336]
   and transmits unto the hand, whether with the concomitance or the
   inaction of the tongue. Enough, that the Lord has said faults are
   committed in the mind and the conscience. If concupiscence or malice
   have ascended into a man's heart, He saith it is held as a deed. [337]
   You therefore have given a guarantee; which clearly has ?ascended into
   your heart,? which you can neither contend you were ignorant of nor
   unwilling; for when you gave the guarantee, you knew that you did it;
   when you knew, of course you were willing: you did it as well in act as
   in thought; nor can you by the lighter charge exclude the heavier,
   [338] so as to say that it is clearly rendered false, by giving a
   guarantee for what you do not actually perform. ?Yet I have not denied,
   because I have not sworn.? But you have sworn, since, even if you had
   done no such thing, you would still be said to swear, if you have even
   consented to so doing. Silence of voice is an unavailing plea in a case
   of writing; and muteness of sound in a case of letters. For Zacharias,
   when punished with a temporary privation of voice, holds colloquy with
   his mind, and, passing by his bootless tongue, with the help of his
   hands dictates from his heart, and without his mouth pronounces the
   name of his son. [339] Thus, in his pen there speaks a hand clearer
   than every sound, in his waxen tablet there is heard a letter more
   vocal that every mouth. [340] Inquire whether a man have spoken who is
   understood to have spoken. [341] Pray we the Lord that no necessity for
   that kind of contract may ever encompass us; and if it should so fall
   out, may He give our brethren the means of helping us, or give us
   constancy to break off all such necessity, lest those denying letters,
   the substitutes for our mouth, be brought forward against us in the day
   of judgment, sealed with the seals, not now of witnesses, but of
   angels!
     __________________________________________________________________

   [334] Or, ?mortgaged.?

   [335] This is, perhaps, the most obscure and difficult passage in the
   entire treatise. I have followed Oehler's reading, and given what
   appears to be his sense; but the readings are widely different, and it
   is doubtful whether any is correct. I can scarcely, however, help
   thinking that the ?se negant? here, and the ?tamen non negavi? below,
   are to be connected with the ?puto autem nec negare? at the end of the
   former chapter; and that the true rendering is rather: ?And [by so
   doing] deny themselves,? i.e., deny their Christian name and faith.
   ?Doubtless a time of persecution,? such as the present time is--or ?of
   prosecution,? which would make very good sense--?and the place of the
   tribunal, and the person of the presiding judge, require them to know
   themselves,? i.e., to have no shuffling or disguise. I submit this
   rendering with diffidence; but it does seem to me to suit the context
   better, and to harmonize better with the ?Yet I have not denied,? i.e.,
   my name and faith, which follows, and with the ?denying letters? which
   are mentioned at the end of the chapter.--Tr.

   [336] Mr. Dodgson renders ?conceiveth;? and the word is certainly
   capable of that meaning.

   [337] See Matt. v. 28.

   [338] Oehler understands ?the lighter crime? or ?charge? to be
   ?swearing;? the ?heavier,? to be ?denying the Lord Christ.?

   [339] See Luke i. 20, 22, 62, 63.

   [340] This is how Mr. Dodgson renders, and the rendering agrees with
   Oehler's punctuation. [So obscure however, is Dodgson's rendering that
   I have slightly changed the punctuation, to clarify it, and subjoin
   Oehler's text.] But perhaps we may read thus: ?He speaks in his pen; he
   is heard in his waxen tablet: the hand is clearer than every sound; the
   letter is more vocal than every mouth.? [Oehler reads thus: ?Cum
   manibus suis a corde dictat et nomen filii sine ore pronuntiat:
   loquitur in stilo, auditur in cera manus omni sono clarior, littera
   omni ore vocalior.? I see no difficulty here.]

   [341] Elucidation IV.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIV.--General Conclusion.

   Amid these reefs and inlets, amid these shallows and straits of
   idolatry, Faith, her sails filled by the Spirit of God, navigates; safe
   if cautious, secure if intently watchful. But to such as are washed
   overboard is a deep whence is no out-swimming; to such as are run
   aground is inextricable shipwreck; to such as are engulphed is a
   whirlpool, where there is no breathing--even in idolatry. All waves
   thereof whatsoever suffocate; every eddy thereof sucks down unto Hades.
   Let no one say, ?Who will so safely foreguard himself? We shall have to
   go out of the world!? [342] As if it were not as well worth while to go
   out, as to stand in the world as an idolater!  Nothing can be easier
   than caution against idolatry, if the fear of it be our leading fear;
   any ?necessity? whatever is too trifling compared to such a peril. The
   reason why the Holy Spirit did, when the apostles at that time were
   consulting, relax the bond and yoke for us, [343] was that we might be
   free to devote ourselves to the shunning of idolatry. This shall be our
   Law, the more fully to be administered the more ready it is to hand; (a
   Law) peculiar to Christians, by means whereof we are recognised and
   examined by heathens. This Law must be set before such as approach unto
   the Faith, and inculcated on such as are entering it; that, in
   approaching, they may deliberate; observing it, may persevere; not
   observing it, may renounce their name. [344] We will see to it, if,
   after the type of the Ark, there shall be in the Church raven, kite,
   dog, and serpent. At all events, an idolater is not found in the type
   of the Ark: no animal has been fashioned to represent an idolater. Let
   not that be in the Church which was not in the Ark. [345]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [342] 1 Cor. v. 10.

   [343] Acts xv. 1-31.

   [344] i.e., cease to be Christians (Rigalt., referred to by Oehler).

   [345] [General references to Kaye (3d edition), which will be useful to
   those consulting that author's Tertullian, for Elucidations of the De
   Idololatria, are as follows: Preface, p. xxiii. Then, pp. 56, 141, 206,
   231, 300, 360, 343, 360 and 362.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Elucidations.

   ------------------------

   I.

   (The Second Commandment, p. 64.)

   Tertullian's teaching agrees with that of Clement of Alexandria [346]
   and with all the Primitive Fathers. But compare the Trent Catechism,
   (chapter ii., quest. 17.)--?Nor let any one suppose that this
   commandment prohibits the arts of painting, modelling or sculpture,
   for, in the Scriptures we are informed that God himself commanded
   images of cherubim, and also of the brazen serpent, to be made, etc.?
   So far, the comparison is important, because while our author limits
   any inference from this instance as an exception, this Catechism turns
   it into a rule: and so far, we are only looking at the matter with
   reference to Art. But, the Catechism, (quest. xxiii. xxiv.), goes on to
   teach that images of the Saints, etc. ought to be made and honoured ?as
   a holy practice.? It affirms, also, that it is a practice which has
   been attended with the greatest advantage to the faithful: which admits
   of a doubt, especially when the honour thus mentioned is everywhere
   turned into worship, precisely like that offered to the Brazen Serpent,
   when the People ?burned incense to it,? and often much more. But even
   this is not my point; for that Catechism, with what verity need not be
   argued, affirms, also, that this doctrine ?derives confirmation from
   the monuments of the Apostolic age, the general Councils of the Church,
   and the writings of so many most holy and learned Fathers, who are of
   one accord upon the subject.? Doubtless they are ?of one accord,? but
   all the other way.

   II.

   (Military service, cap. xix., p. 73.)

   This chapter must prepare us for a much more sweeping condemnation of
   the military profession in the De Spectaculis and the De Corona; but
   Neander's judgment seems to me very just. The Corona, itself, is rather
   Montanistic than Montanist, in the opinion of some critics, among whom
   Gibbon is not to count for much, for the reasons given by Kaye (p. 52),
   and others hardly less obvious. Surely, if this ascetic opinion and
   some similar instances were enough to mark a man as a heretic, what are
   we to say of the thousand crotchets maintained by good Christians, in
   our day?

   III.

   (Passive idolatry, cap. xxii., pp. 74, 75.)

   Neander's opinion as to the freedom of De Idololatria from Montanistic
   taint, is mildly questioned by Bp. Kaye, chiefly on the ground of the
   agreement of this chapter with the extravagances of the Scorpiace. He
   thinks ?the utmost pitch? of such extravagance is reached in the
   positions here taken. But Neander's judgment seems to me preferable.
   Lapsers usually give tokens of the bent of their minds, and
   unconsciously betray their inclinations before they themselves see
   whither they are tending.  Thus they become victims of their own
   plausible self-deceptions.

   IV.

   (Tacit consents and reservations, cap. xxiii., p. 75.)

   It cannot be doubted that apart from the specific case which Tertullian
   is here maintaining, his appeal to conscience is maintained by reason,
   by the Morals of the Fathers and by Holy Scripture. Now compare with
   this the Morality which has been made dogmatic, among Latins, by the
   elevation of Liguori to the dignities of a ?Saint? and a ?Doctor of the
   Church.? Even Cardinal Newman cannot accept it without reservations, so
   thoroughly does it commit the soul to fraud and hypocrisy.  See
   Liguori, Opp. Tom. II., pp. 34-44, and Meyrick, Moral Theology of the
   Church of Rome, London, 1855.  Republished, with an Introduction, by
   the Editor of this Series, Baltimore, 1857. Also Newman, Apologia, p.
   295 et seqq.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [346] See vol. II., p. 186, this series.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   III.

   The Shows, or De Spectaculis. [347]

   [Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]

   ------------------------

   Chapter I.

   Ye Servants of God, about to draw near to God, that you may make solemn
   consecration of yourselves to Him, [348] seek well to understand the
   condition of faith, the reasons of the Truth, the laws of Christian
   Discipline, which forbid among other sins of the world, the pleasures
   of the public shows. Ye who have testified and confessed [349] that you
   have done so already, review the subject, that there may be no sinning
   whether through real or wilful ignorance.  For such is the power of
   earthly pleasures, that, to retain the opportunity of still partaking
   of them, it contrives to prolong a willing ignorance, and bribes
   knowledge into playing a dishonest part. To both things, perhaps, some
   among you are allured by the views of the heathens who in this matter
   are wont to press us with arguments, such as these: (1) That the
   exquisite enjoyments of ear and eye we have in things external are not
   in the least opposed to religion in the mind and conscience; and (2)
   That surely no offence is offered to God, in any human enjoyment, by
   any of our pleasures, which it is not sinful to partake of in its own
   time and place, with all due honour and reverence secured to Him. But
   this is precisely what we are ready to prove:  That these things are
   not consistent with true religion and true obedience to the true God.
   There are some who imagine that Christians, a sort of people ever ready
   to die, are trained into the abstinence they practise, with no other
   object than that of making it less difficult to despise life, the
   fastenings to it being severed as it were. They regard it as an art of
   quenching all desire for that which, so far as they are concerned, they
   have emptied of all that is desirable; and so it is thought to be
   rather a thing of human planning and foresight, than clearly laid down
   by divine command. It were a grievous thing, forsooth, for Christians,
   while continuing in the enjoyment of pleasures so great, to die for
   God! It is not as they say; though, if it were, even Christian
   obstinacy might well give all submission to a plan so suitable, to a
   rule so excellent.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [347] [It is the opinion of Dr. Neander that this treatise proceeded
   from our author before his lapse: but Bp. Kaye (p. xvi.) finds some
   exaggerated expressions in it, concerning the military life, which
   savour of Montanism. Probably they do, but had he written the tract as
   a professed Montanist, they would have been much less ambiguous, in all
   probability. At all events, a work so colourless that doctors can
   disagree about even its shading, must be regarded as practically
   orthodox.  Exaggerated expressions are but the characteristics of the
   author's genius. We find the like in all writers of strongly marked
   individuality.  Neander dates this treatise circa a.d. 197. That it was
   written at Carthage is the conviction of Kaye and Dr. Allix; see Kaye,
   p. 55.]

   [348] [He speaks of Catechumens, called elsewhere Novitioli. See
   Bunsen, Hippol. III. Church and House-book, p. 5.]

   [349] [Here he addresses the Fideles or Communicants, as we call them.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter II.

   Then, again, every one is ready with the argument [350] that all
   things, as we teach, were created by God, and given to man for his use,
   and that they must be good, as coming all from so good a source; but
   that among them are found the various constituent elements of the
   public shows, such as the horse, the lion, bodily strength, and musical
   voice. It cannot, then, be thought that what exists by God's own
   creative will is either foreign or hostile to Him; and if it is not
   opposed to Him, it cannot be regarded as injurious to His worshippers,
   as certainly it is not foreign to them.  Beyond all doubt, too, the
   very buildings connected with the places of public amusement, composed
   as they are of rocks, stones, marbles, pillars, are things of God, who
   has given these various things for the earth's embellishment; nay, the
   very scenes are enacted under God's own heaven. How skilful a pleader
   seems human wisdom to herself, especially if she has the fear of losing
   any of her delights--any of the sweet enjoyments of worldly existence!
   In fact, you will find not a few whom the imperilling of their
   pleasures rather than their life holds back from us.  For even the
   weakling has no strong dread of death as a debt he knows is due by him;
   while the wise man does not look with contempt on pleasure, regarding
   it as a precious gift--in fact, the one blessedness of life, whether to
   philosopher or fool. Now nobody denies what nobody is ignorant of--for
   Nature herself is teacher of it--that God is the Maker of the universe,
   and that it is good, and that it is man's by free gift of its Maker.
   But having no intimate acquaintance with the Highest, knowing Him only
   by natural revelation, and not as His ?friends?--afar off, and not as
   those who have been brought nigh to Him--men cannot but be in ignorance
   alike of what He enjoins and what He forbids in regard to the
   administration of His world. They must be ignorant, too, of the hostile
   power which works against Him, and perverts to wrong uses the things
   His hand has formed; for you cannot know either the will or the
   adversary of a God you do not know. We must not, then, consider merely
   by whom all things were made, but by whom they have been perverted. We
   shall find out for what use they were made at first, when we find for
   what they were not. There is a vast difference between the corrupted
   state and that of primal purity, just because there is a vast
   difference between the Creator and the corrupter. Why, all sorts of
   evils, which as indubitably evils even the heathens prohibit, and
   against which they guard themselves, come from the works of God. Take,
   for instance, murder, whether committed by iron, by poison, or by
   magical enchantments. Iron and herbs and demons are all equally
   creatures of God. Has the Creator, withal, provided these things for
   man's destruction? Nay, He puts His interdict on every sort of
   man-killing by that one summary precept, ?Thou shalt not kill.?
   Moreover, who but God, the Maker of the world, put in its gold, brass,
   silver, ivory, wood, and all the other materials used in the
   manufacture of idols? Yet has He done this that men may set up a
   worship in opposition to Himself? On the contrary idolatry in His eyes
   is the crowning sin. What is there offensive to God which is not God's?
   But in offending Him, it ceases to be His; and in ceasing to be His, it
   is in His eyes an offending thing. Man himself, guilty as he is of
   every iniquity, is not only a work of God--he is His image, and yet
   both in soul and body he has severed himself from his Maker. For we did
   not get eyes to minister to lust, and the tongue for speaking evil
   with, and ears to be the receptacle of evil speech, and the throat to
   serve the vice of gluttony, and the belly to be gluttony's ally, and
   the genitals for unchaste excesses, and hands for deeds of violence,
   and the feet for an erring life; or was the soul placed in the body
   that it might become a thought-manufactory of snares, and fraud, and
   injustice? I think not; for if God, as the righteous ex-actor of
   innocence, hates everything like malignity--if He hates utterly such
   plotting of evil, it is clear beyond a doubt, that, of all things that
   have come from His hand, He has made none to lead to works which He
   condemns, even though these same works may be carried on by things of
   His making; for, in fact, it is the one ground of condemnation, that
   the creature misuses the creation. We, therefore, who in our knowledge
   of the Lord have obtained some knowledge also of His foe--who, in our
   discovery of the Creator, have at the same time laid hands upon the
   great corrupter, ought neither to wonder nor to doubt that, as the
   prowess of the corrupting and God-opposing angel overthrew in the
   beginning the virtue of man, the work and image of God, the possessor
   of the world, so he has entirely changed man's nature--created, like
   his own, for perfect sinlessness--into his own state of wicked enmity
   against his Maker, that in the very thing whose gift to man, but not to
   him, had grieved him, he might make man guilty in God's eyes, and set
   up his own supremacy. [351]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [350] [Kaye (p. 366), declares that all the arguments urged in this
   tract are comprised in two sentences of the Apology, cap. 38.]

   [351] [For the demonology of this treatise, compare capp. 10, 12, 13,
   23, and see Kaye's full but condensed statement (pp. 201-204), in his
   account of the writings, etc.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter III.

   Fortified by this knowledge against heathen views, let us rather turn
   to the unworthy reasonings of our own people; for the faith of some,
   either too simple or too scrupulous, demands direct authority from
   Scripture for giving up the shows, and holds out that the matter is a
   doubtful one, because such abstinence is not clearly and in words
   imposed upon God's servants. Well, we never find it expressed with the
   same precision, ?Thou shalt not enter circus or theatre, thou shalt not
   look on combat or show;? as it is plainly laid down, ?Thou shalt not
   kill; thou shalt not worship an idol; thou shalt not commit adultery or
   fraud.? [352] But we find that that first word of David bears on this
   very sort of thing:  ?Blessed,? he says, ?is the man who has not gone
   into the assembly of the impious, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor
   sat in the seat of scorners.? [353] Though he seems to have predicted
   beforehand of that just man, that he took no part in the meetings and
   deliberations of the Jews, taking counsel about the slaying of our
   Lord, yet divine Scripture has ever far-reaching applications: after
   the immediate sense has been exhausted, in all directions it fortifies
   the practice of the religious life, so that here also you have an
   utterance which is not far from a plain interdicting of the shows. If
   he called those few Jews an assembly of the wicked, how much more will
   he so designate so vast a gathering of heathens! Are the heathens less
   impious, less sinners, less enemies of Christ, than the Jews were then?
   And see, too, how other things agree. For at the shows they also stand
   in the way. For they call the spaces between the seats going round the
   amphitheatre, and the passages which separate the people running down,
   ways. The place in the curve where the matrons sit is called a chair.
   Therefore, on the contrary, it holds, unblessed is he who has entered
   any council of wicked men, and has stood in any way of sinners, and has
   sat in any chair of scorners. We may understand a thing as spoken
   generally, even when it requires a certain special interpretation to be
   given to it. For some things spoken with a special reference contain in
   them general truth. When God admonishes the Israelites of their duty,
   or sharply reproves them, He has surely a reference to all men; when He
   threatens destruction to Egypt and Ethiopia, He surely pre-condemns
   every sinning nation, whatever. If, reasoning from species to genus,
   every nation that sins against them is an Egypt and Ethiopia; so also,
   reasoning from genus to species, with reference to the origin of shows,
   every show is an assembly of the wicked.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [352] Ex. xx. 14.

   [353] Ps. i. 1. [Kaye's censure of this use of the text, (p. 366) seems
   to me gratuitous.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IV.

   Lest any one think that we are dealing in mere argumentative
   subtleties, I shall turn to that highest authority of our ?seal?
   itself. When entering the water, we make profession of the Christian
   faith in the words of its rule; we bear public testimony that we have
   renounced the devil, his pomp, and his angels. Well, is it not in
   connection with idolatry, above all, that you have the devil with his
   pomp and his angels? from which, to speak briefly--for I do not wish to
   dilate--you have every unclean and wicked spirit. If, therefore, it
   shall be made plain that the entire apparatus of the shows is based
   upon idolatry, beyond all doubt that will carry with it the conclusion
   that our renunciatory testimony in the laver of baptism has reference
   to the shows, which, through their idolatry, have been given over to
   the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. We shall set forth, then,
   their several origins, in what nursing-places they have grown to
   manhood; next the titles of some of them, by what names they are
   called; then their apparatus, with what superstitions they are
   observed; (then their places, to what patrons they are dedicated;) then
   the arts which minister to them, to what authors they are traced. If
   any of these shall be found to have had no connection with an idol-god,
   it will be held as free at once from the taint of idolatry, and as not
   coming within the range of our baptismal abjuration. [354]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [354] [Neander argues with great force that in referring to Scripture
   and not at all to the ?new Prophecy,? our author shows his orthodoxy.
   We may add ? that highest authority? to which he appeals in this
   chapter.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter V.

   In the matter of their origins, as these are somewhat obscure and but
   little known to many among us, our investigations must go back to a
   remote antiquity, and our authorities be none other than books of
   heathen literature.  Various authors are extant who have published
   works on the subject. The origin of the games as given by them is this.
   Timæus tells us that immigrants from Asia, under the leadership of
   Tyrrhenus, who, in a contest about his native kingdom, had succumbed to
   his brother, settled down in Etruria. Well, among other superstitious
   observances under the name of religion, they set up in their new home
   public shows. The Romans, at their own request, obtain from them
   skilled performers--the proper seasons--the name too, for it is said
   they are called Ludi, from Lydi. And though Varro derives the name of
   Ludi from Ludus, that is, from play, as they called the Luperci also
   Ludii, because they ran about making sport; still that sporting of
   young men belongs, in his view, to festal days and temples, and objects
   of religious veneration. However, it is of little consequence the
   origin of the name, when it is certain that the thing springs from
   idolatry. The Liberalia, under the general designation of Ludi, clearly
   declared the glory of Father Bacchus; for to Bacchus these festivities
   were first consecrated by grateful peasants, in return for the boon he
   conferred on them, as they say, making known the pleasures of wine.
   Then the Consualia were called Ludi, and at first were in honour of
   Neptune, for Neptune has the name of Consus also. Thereafter Romulus
   dedicated the Equiria to Mars, though they claim the Consualia too for
   Romulus, on the ground that he consecrated them to Consus, the god, as
   they will have it, of counsel; of the counsel, forsooth, in which he
   planned the rape of the Sabine virgins for wives to his soldiers. An
   excellent counsel truly; and still I suppose reckoned just and
   righteous by the Romans themselves, I may not say by God. This goes
   also to taint the origin: you cannot surely hold that to be good which
   has sprung from sin, from shamelessness, from violence, from hatred,
   from a fratricidal founder, from a son of Mars. Even now, at the first
   turning-post in the circus, there is a subterranean altar to this same
   Consus, with an inscription to this effect:  ?Consus, great in counsel,
   Mars, in battle mighty tutelar deities.? The priests of the state
   sacrifice at it on the nones of July; the priest of Romulus and the
   Vestals on the twelfth before the Kalends of September. In addition to
   this, Romulus instituted games in honor of Jupiter Feretrius on the
   Tarpeian Hill, according to the statement Piso has handed down to us,
   called both Tarpeian and Capitoline. After him Numa Pompilius
   instituted games to Mars and Robigo (for they have also invented a
   goddess of rust); then Tullus Hostilius; then Ancus Martius; and
   various others in succession did the like. As to the idols in whose
   honour these games were established, ample information is to be found
   in the pages of Suetonius Tranquillus.  But we need say no more to
   prove the accusation of idolatrous origin.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VI.

   To the testimony of antiquity is added that of later games instituted
   in their turn, and betraying their origin from the titles which they
   bear even at the present day, in which it is imprinted as on their very
   face, for what idol and for what religious object games, whether of the
   one kind or the other, were designed. You have festivals bearing the
   name of the great Mother [355] and Apollo of Ceres too, and Neptune,
   and Jupiter Latiaris, and Flora, all celebrated for a common end; the
   others have their religious origin in the birthdays and solemnities of
   kings, in public successes in municipal holidays.  There are also
   testamentary exhibitions, in which funeral honours are rendered to the
   memories of private persons; and this according to an institution of
   ancient times. For from the first the ?Ludi? were regarded as of two
   sons, sacred and funereal, that is in honour of the heathen deities and
   of the dead. But in the matter of idolatry, it makes no difference with
   us under what name or title it is practised, while it has to do with
   the wicked spirits whom we abjure.  If it is lawful to offer homage to
   the dead, it will be just as lawful to offer it to their gods: you have
   the same origin in both cases; there is the same idolatry; there is on
   our part the same solemn renunciation of all idolatry.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [355] [Cybele.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VII.

   The two kinds of public games, then, have one origin; and they have
   common names, as owning the same parentage. So, too, as they are
   equally tainted with the sin of idolatry, their foundress, they must
   needs be like each other in their pomp. But the more ambitious
   preliminary display of the circus games to which the name procession
   specially belongs, is in itself the proof to whom the whole thing
   appertains, in the many images the long line of statues, the chariots
   of all sorts, the thrones, the crowns, the dresses. What high religious
   rites besides, what sacrifices precede, come between, and follow. How
   many guilds, how many priesthoods, how many offices are set astir, is
   known to the inhabitants of the great city in which the demon
   convention has its headquarters. If these things are done in humbler
   style in the provinces, in accordance with their inferior means, still
   all circus games must be counted as belonging to that from which they
   are derived; the fountain from which they spring defiles them. The tiny
   streamlet from its very spring-head, the little twig from its very
   budding, contains in it the essential nature of its origin. It may be
   grand or mean, no matter, any circus procession whatever is offensive
   to God.  Though there be few images to grace it, there is idolatry in
   one; though there be no more than a single sacred car, it is a chariot
   of Jupiter: anything of idolatry whatever, whether meanly arrayed or
   modestly rich and gorgeous, taints it in its origin.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VIII.

   To follow out my plan in regard to places: the circus is chiefly
   consecrated to the Sun, whose temple stands in the middle of it, and
   whose image shines forth from its temple summit; for they have not
   thought it proper to pay sacred honours underneath a roof to an object
   they have itself in open space. Those who assert that the first
   spectacle was exhibited by Circe, and in honour of the Sun her father,
   as they will have it, maintain also the name of circus was derived from
   her. Plainly, then, the enchantress did this in the name of the parties
   whose priestess she was--I mean the demons and spirits of evil. What an
   aggregation of idolatries you see, accordingly, in the decoration of
   the place! Every ornament of the circus is a temple by itself. The eggs
   are regarded as sacred to the Castors, by men who are not ashamed to
   profess faith in their production from the egg of a swan, which was no
   other than Jupiter himself. The Dolphins vomit forth in honour of
   Neptune. Images of Sessia, so called as the goddess of sowing; of
   Messia, so called as the goddess of reaping; of Tutulina, so called as
   the fruit-protecting deity--load the pillars. In front of these you
   have three altars to these three gods--Great, Mighty, Victorious.  They
   reckon these of Samo-Thrace.  The huge Obelisk, as Hermeteles affirms,
   is set up in public to the Sun; its inscription, like its origin,
   belongs to Egyptian superstition. Cheerless were the demon-gathering
   without their Mater Magna; and so she presides there over the Euripus.
   Consus, as we have mentioned, lies hidden under ground at the Murcian
   Goals. These two sprang from an idol. For they will have it that Murcia
   is the goddess of love; and to her, at that spot, they have consecrated
   a temple. See, Christian, how many impure names have taken possession
   of the circus! You have nothing to do with a sacred place which is
   tenanted by such multitudes of diabolic spirits. And speaking of
   places, this is the suitable occasion for some remarks in anticipation
   of a point that some will raise. What, then, you say; shall I be in
   danger of pollution if I go to the circus when the games are not being
   celebrated? There is no law forbidding the mere places to us.  For not
   only the places for show-gatherings, but even the temples, may be
   entered without any peril of his religion by the servant of God, if he
   has only some honest reason for it, unconnected with their proper
   business and official duties. Why, even the streets and the
   market-place, and the baths, and the taverns, and our very
   dwelling-places, are not altogether free from idols. Satan and his
   angels have filled the whole world. It is not by merely being in the
   world, however, that we lapse from God, but by touching and tainting
   ourselves with the world's sins. I shall break with my Maker, that is,
   by going to the Capitol or the temple of Serapis to sacrifice or adore,
   as I shall also do by going as a spectator to the circus and the
   theatre. The places in themselves do not contaminate, but what is done
   in them; from this even the places themselves, we maintain, become
   defiled.  The polluted things pollute us.  It is on this account that
   we set before you to whom places of the kind are dedicated, that we may
   prove the things which are done in them to belong to the idol-patrons
   to whom the very places are sacred. [356]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [356] [Very admirable reflections on this chapter may be found in Kaye,
   pp. 362-3.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IX.

   Now as to the kind of performances peculiar to the circus exhibitions.
   In former days equestrianism was practised in a simple way on
   horseback, and certainly its ordinary use had nothing sinful in it; but
   when it was dragged into the games, it passed from the service of God
   into the employment of demons.  Accordingly this kind of circus
   performances is regarded as sacred to Castor and Pollux, to whom,
   Stesichorus tells us, horses were given by Mercury. And Neptune, too,
   is an equestrian deity, by the Greeks called Hippius.  In regard to the
   team, they have consecrated the chariot and four to the sun; the
   chariot and pair to the moon.  But, as the poet has it, ?Erichthonius
   first dared to yoke four horses to the chariot, and to ride upon its
   wheels with victorious swiftness.? Erichthonius, the son of Vulcan and
   Minerva, fruit of unworthy passion upon earth, is a demon-monster, nay,
   the devil himself, and no mere snake. But if Trochilus the Argive is
   maker of the first chariot, he dedicated that work of his to Juno. If
   Romulus first exhibited the four-horse chariot at Rome, he too, I
   think, has a place given him among idols, at least if he and Quirinus
   are the same. But as chariots had such inventors, the charioteers were
   naturally dressed, too, in the colours of idolatry; for at first these
   were only two, namely white and red,--the former sacred to the winter
   with its glistening snows, the latter sacred to the summer with its
   ruddy sun: but afterwards, in the progress of luxury as well as of
   superstition, red was dedicated by some to Mars, and white by others to
   the Zephyrs, while green was given to Mother Earth, or spring, and
   azure to the sky and sea, or autumn. But as idolatry of every kind is
   condemned by God, that form of it surely shares the condemnation which
   is offered to the elements of nature.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter X.

   Let us pass on now to theatrical exhibitions, which we have already
   shown have a common origin with the circus, and bear like idolatrous
   designations--even as from the first they have borne the name of
   ?Ludi,? and equally minister to idols.  They resemble each other also
   in their pomp, having the same procession to the scene of their display
   from temples and altars, and that mournful profusion of incense and
   blood, with music of pipes and trumpets, all under the direction of the
   soothsayer and the undertaker, those two foul masters of funeral rites
   and sacrifices. So as we went on from the origin of the ?Ludi? to the
   circus games, we shall now direct our course thence to those of the
   theatre, beginning with the place of exhibition. At first the theatre
   was properly a temple of Venus; and, to speak briefly, it was owing to
   this that stage performances were allowed to escape censure, and got a
   footing in the world. For ofttimes the censors, in the interests of
   morality, put down above all the rising theatres, foreseeing, as they
   did, that there was great danger of their leading to a general
   profligacy; so that already, from this accordance of their own people
   with us, there is a witness to the heathen, and in the anticipatory
   judgment of human knowledge even a confirmation of our views.
   Accordingly Pompey the Great, less only than his theatre, when he had
   erected that citadel of all impurities, fearing some time or other
   censorian condemnation of his memory, superposed on it a temple of
   Venus; and summoning by public proclamation the people to its
   consecration, he called it not a theatre, but a temple, ?under which,?
   said he, ?we have placed tiers of seats for viewing the shows.? So he
   threw a veil over a structure on which condemnation had been often
   passed, and which is ever to be held in reprobation, by pretending that
   it was a sacred place; and by means of superstition he blinded the eyes
   of a virtuous discipline. But Venus and Bacchus are close allies. These
   two evil spirits are in sworn confederacy with each other, as the
   patrons of drunkenness and lust. So the theatre of Venus is as well the
   house of Bacchus: for they properly gave the name of Liberalia also to
   other theatrical amusements--which besides being consecrated to Bacchus
   (as were the Dionysia of the Greeks), were instituted by him; and,
   without doubt, the performances of the theatre have the common
   patronage of these two deities. That immodesty of gesture and attire
   which so specially and peculiarly characterizes the stage are
   consecrated to them--the one deity wanton by her sex, the other by his
   drapery; while its services of voice, and song, and lute, and pipe,
   belong to Apollos, and Muses, and Minervas, and Mercuries. You will
   hate, O Christian, the things whose authors must be the objects of your
   utter detestation. So we would now make a remark about the arts of the
   theatre, about the things also whose authors in the names we execrate.
   We know that the names of the dead are nothing, as are their images;
   but we know well enough, too, who, when images are set up, under these
   names carry on their wicked work, and exult in the homage rendered to
   them, and pretend to be divine--none other than spirits accursed, than
   devils. We see, therefore, that the arts also are consecrated to the
   service of the beings who dwell in the names of their founders; and
   that things cannot be held free from the taint of idolatry whose
   inventors have got a place among the gods for their discoveries. Nay,
   as regards the arts, we ought to have gone further back, and barred all
   further argument by the position that the demons, predetermining in
   their own interests from the first, among other evils of idolatry, the
   pollutions of the public shows, with the object of drawing man away
   from his Lord and binding him to their own service, carried out their
   purpose by bestowing on him the artistic gifts which the shows require.
   For none but themselves would have made provision and preparation for
   the objects they had in view; nor would they have given the arts to the
   world by any but those in whose names, and images, and histories they
   set up for their own ends the artifice of consecration.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XI.

   In fulfilment of our plan, let us now go on to consider the combats.
   Their origin is akin to that of the games (ludi). Hence they are kept
   as either sacred or funereal, as they have been instituted in honour of
   the idol-gods of the nations or of the dead.  Thus, too, they are
   called Olympian in honour of Jupiter, known at Rome as the Capitoline;
   Nemean, in honour of Hercules; Isthmian, in honour of Neptune; the rest
   mortuarii, as belonging to the dead. What wonder, then, if idolatry
   pollutes the combat-parade with profane crowns, with sacerdotal chiefs,
   with attendants belonging to the various colleges, last of all with the
   blood of its sacrifices? To add a completing word about the ?place?--in
   the common place for the college of the arts sacred to the Muses, and
   Apollo, and Minerva, and also for that of the arts dedicated to Mars,
   they with contest and sound of trumpet emulate the circus in the arena,
   which is a real temple--I mean of the god whose festivals it
   celebrates. The gymnastic arts also originated with their Castors, and
   Herculeses, and Mercuries.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XII.

   It remains for us to examine the ?spectacle? most noted of all, and in
   highest favour. It is called a dutiful service (munus), from its being
   an office, for it bears the name of ?officium? as well as ?munus.? The
   ancients thought that in this solemnity they rendered offices to the
   dead; at a later period, with a cruelty more refined, they somewhat
   modified its character.  For formerly, in the belief that the souls of
   the departed were appeased by human blood, they were in the habit of
   buying captives or slaves of wicked disposition, and immolating them in
   their funeral obsequies. Afterwards they thought good to throw the veil
   of pleasure over their iniquity. [357] Those, therefore, whom they had
   provided for the combat, and then trained in arms as best they could,
   only that they might learn to die, they, on the funeral day, killed at
   the places of sepulture. They alleviated death by murders. Such is the
   origin of the ?Munus.? But by degrees their refinement came up to their
   cruelty; for these human wild beasts could not find pleasure exquisite
   enough, save in the spectacle of men torn to pieces by wild beasts.
   Offerings to propitiate the dead then were regarded as belonging to the
   class of funeral sacrifices; and these are idolatry: for idolatry, in
   fact, is a sort of homage to the departed; the one as well as the other
   is a service to dead men. Moreover, demons have abode in the images of
   the dead. To refer also to the matter of names, though this sort of
   exhibition has passed from honours of the dead to honours of the
   living, I mean, to quæstorships and magistracies--to priestly offices
   of different kinds; yet, since idolatry still cleaves to the dignity's
   name, whatever is done in its name partakes of its impurity. The same
   remark will apply to the procession of the ?Munus,? as we look at that
   in the pomp which is connected with these honours themselves; for the
   purple robes, the fasces, the fillets, the crowns, the proclamations
   too, and edicts, the sacred feasts of the day before, are not without
   the pomp of the devil, without invitation of demons. What need, then,
   of dwelling on the place of horrors, which is too much even for the
   tongue of the perjurer? For the amphitheatre [358] is consecrated to
   names more numerous and more dire [359] than is the Capitol itself,
   temple of all demons as it is. There are as many unclean spirits there
   as it holds men. To conclude with a single remark about the arts which
   have a place in it, we know that its two sorts of amusement have for
   their patrons Mars and Diana.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [357] [The authority of Tertullian, in this matter, is accepted by the
   critics, as of historic importance.]

   [358] [Though this was probably written at Carthage, his reference to
   the Flavian theatre in this place is plain from the immediate
   comparison with the Capitol.]

   [359] [To the infernal deities and first of all to Pluto. See vol. I.
   note 6, p. 131, this Series.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIII.

   We have, I think, faithfully carried out our plan of showing in how
   many different ways the sin of idolatry clings to the shows, in respect
   of their origins, their titles, their equipments, their places of
   celebration, their arts; and we may hold it as a thing beyond all
   doubt, that for us who have twice [360] renounced all idols, they are
   utterly unsuitable. ?Not that an idol is anything,? [361] as the
   apostle says, but that the homage they render is to demons, who are the
   real occupants of these consecrated images, whether of dead men or (as
   they think) of gods. On this account, therefore, because they have a
   common source--for their dead and their deities are one--we abstain
   from both idolatries.  Nor do we dislike the temples less than the
   monuments: we have nothing to do with either altar, we adore neither
   image; we do not offer sacrifices to the gods, and we make no funeral
   oblations to the departed; nay, we do not partake of what is offered
   either in the one case or the other, for we cannot partake of God's
   feast and the feast of devils. [362] If, then, we keep throat and belly
   free from such defilements, how much more do we withhold our nobler
   parts, our ears and eyes, from the idolatrous and funereal enjoyments,
   which are not passed through the body, but are digested in the very
   spirit and soul, whose purity, much more than that of our bodily
   organs, God has a right to claim from us.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [360] [Bunsen, Hippol. Vol. III. pp. 20-22.]

   [361] 1 Cor. viii. 4.

   [362] 1 Cor. x. 21.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIV.

   Having sufficiently established the charge of idolatry, which alone
   ought to be reason enough for our giving up the shows, let us now ex
   abundanti look at the subject in another way, for the sake of those
   especially who keep themselves comfortable in the thought that the
   abstinence we urge is not in so many words enjoined, as if in the
   condemnation of the lusts of the world there was not involved a
   sufficient declaration against all these amusements. For as there is a
   lust of money, or rank, or eating, or impure enjoyment, or glory, so
   there is also a lust of pleasure. But the show is just a sort of
   pleasure. I think, then, that under the general designation of lusts,
   pleasures are included; in like manner, under the general idea of
   pleasures, you have as a specific class the ?shows.? But we have spoken
   already of how it is with the places of exhibition, that they are not
   polluting in themselves, but owing to the things that are done in them
   from which they imbibe impurity, and then spirt it again on others.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XV.

   Having done enough, then, as we have said, in regard to that principal
   argument, that there is in them all the taint of idolatry--having
   sufficiently dealt with that, let us now contrast the other
   characteristics of the show with the things of God. God has enjoined us
   to deal calmly, gently, quietly, and peacefully with the Holy Spirit,
   because these things are alone in keeping with the goodness of His
   nature, with His tenderness and sensitiveness, and not to vex Him with
   rage, ill-nature, anger, or grief. Well, how shall this be made to
   accord with the shows? For the show always leads to spiritual
   agitation, since where there is pleasure, there is keenness of feeling
   giving pleasure its zest; and where there is keenness of feeling, there
   is rivalry giving in turn its zest to that.  Then, too, where you have
   rivalry, you have rage, bitterness, wrath and grief, with all bad
   things which flow from them--the whole entirely out of keeping with the
   religion of Christ. For even suppose one should enjoy the shows in a
   moderate way, as befits his rank, age or nature, still he is not
   undisturbed in mind, without some unuttered movings of the inner man.
   No one partakes of pleasures such as these without their strong
   excitements; no one comes under their excitements without their natural
   lapses. These lapses, again, create passionate desire. If there is no
   desire, there is no pleasure, and he is chargeable with trifling who
   goes where nothing is gotten; in my view, even that is foreign to us.
   Moreover, a man pronounces his own condemnation in the very act of
   taking his place among those with whom, by his disinclination to be
   like them, he confesses he has no sympathy. It is not enough that we do
   no such things ourselves, unless we break all connection also with
   those who do. ?If thou sawest a thief,? says the Scripture, ?thou
   consentedst with him.? [363] Would that we did not even inhabit the
   same world with these wicked men! But though that wish cannot be
   realized, yet even now we are separate from them in what is of the
   world; for the world is God's, but the worldly is the devil's.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [363] Ps. xlix. 18. [This chapter bears on modern theatres.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVI.

   Since, then, all passionate excitement is forbidden us, we are debarred
   from every kind of spectacle, and especially from the circus, where
   such excitement presides as in its proper element. See the people
   coming to it already under strong emotion, already tumultuous, already
   passion-blind, already agitated about their bets. The prætor is too
   slow for them: their eyes are ever rolling as though along with the
   lots in his urn; then they hang all eager on the signal; there is the
   united shout of a common madness. Observe how ?out of themselves? they
   are by their foolish speeches. ?He has thrown it!? they exclaim; and
   they announce each one to his neighbour what all have seen. I have
   clearest evidence of their blindness; they do not see what is really
   thrown. They think it a ?signal cloth,? but it is the likeness of the
   devil cast headlong from on high. And the result accordingly is, that
   they fly into rages, and passions, and discords, and all that they who
   are consecrated to peace ought never to indulge in. Then there are
   curses and reproaches, with no cause of hatred; there are cries of
   applause, with nothing to merit them.  What are the partakers in all
   this--not their own masters--to obtain of it for themselves? unless, it
   may be, that which makes them not their own: they are saddened by
   another's sorrow, they are gladdened by another's joy. Whatever they
   desire on the one hand, or detest on the other, is entirely foreign to
   themselves. So love with them is a useless thing, and hatred is unjust.
   Or is a causeless love perhaps more legitimate than a causeless hatred?
   God certainly forbids us to hate even with a reason for our hating; for
   He commands us to love our enemies. God forbids us to curse, though
   there be some ground for doing so, in commanding that those who curse
   us we are to bless. But what is more merciless than the circus, where
   people do not spare even their rulers and fellow-citizens? If any of
   its madnesses are becoming elsewhere in the saints of God, they will be
   seemly in the circus too; but if they are nowhere right, so neither are
   they there.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVII.

   Are we not, in like manner, enjoined to put away from us all
   immodesty?  On this ground, again, we are excluded from the theatre,
   which is immodesty's own peculiar abode, where nothing is in repute but
   what elsewhere is disreputable. So the best path to the highest favour
   of its god is the vileness which the Atellan [364] gesticulates, which
   the buffoon in woman's clothes exhibits, destroying all natural
   modesty, so that they blush more readily at home than at the play,
   which finally is done from his childhood on the person of the
   pantomime, that he may become an actor. The very harlots, too, victims
   of the public lust, are brought upon the stage, their misery increased
   as being there in the presence of their own sex, from whom alone they
   are wont to hide themselves:  they are paraded publicly before every
   age and every rank--their abode, their gains, their praises, are set
   forth, and that even in the hearing of those who should not hear such
   things. I say nothing about other matters, which it were good to hide
   away in their own darkness and their own gloomy caves, lest they should
   stain the light of day. Let the Senate, let all ranks, blush for very
   shame! Why, even these miserable women, who by their own gestures
   destroy their modesty, dreading the light of day, and the people's
   gaze, know something of shame at least once a year. But if we ought to
   abominate all that is immodest, on what ground is it right to hear what
   we must not speak? For all licentiousness of speech, nay, every idle
   word, is condemned by God.  Why, in the same way, is it right to look
   on what it is disgraceful to do? How is it that the things which defile
   a man in going out of his mouth, are not regarded as doing so when they
   go in at his eyes and ears--when eyes and ears are the immediate
   attendants on the spirit--and that can never be pure whose
   servants-in-waiting are impure? You have the theatre forbidden, then,
   in the forbidding of immodesty.  If, again, we despise the teaching of
   secular literature as being foolishness in God's eyes, our duty is
   plain enough in regard to those spectacles, which from this source
   derive the tragic or comic play. If tragedies and comedies are the
   bloody and wanton, the impious and licentious inventors of crimes and
   lusts, it is not good even that there should be any calling to
   remembrance the atrocious or the vile. What you reject in deed, you are
   not to bid welcome to in word.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [364] [The ludi Atellani were so called from Atella, in Campania, where
   a vast amphitheatre delighted the inhabitants. Juvenal, Sat. vi. 71.
   The like disgrace our times.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XVIII.

   But if you argue that the racecourse is mentioned in Scripture, I grant
   it at once. But you will not refuse to admit that the things which are
   done there are not for you to look upon: the blows, and kicks, and
   cuffs, and all the recklessness of hand, and everything like that
   disfiguration of the human countenance, which is nothing less than the
   disfiguration of God's own image. You will never give your approval to
   those foolish racing and throwing feats, and yet more foolish leapings;
   you will never find pleasure in injurious or useless exhibitions of
   strength; certainly you will not regard with approval those efforts
   after an artificial body which aim at surpassing the Creator's work;
   and you will have the very opposite of complacency in the athletes
   Greece, in the inactivity of peace, feeds up. And the wrestler's art is
   a devil's thing. The devil wrestled with, and crushed to death, the
   first human beings.  Its very attitude has power in it of the serpent
   kind, firm to hold--tortures to clasp--slippery to glide away.  You
   have no need of crowns; why do you strive to get pleasures from crowns?
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIX.

   We shall now see how the Scriptures condemn the amphitheatre. If we can
   maintain that it is right to indulge in the cruel, and the impious, and
   the fierce, let us go there. If we are what we are said to be, let us
   regale ourselves there with human blood. It is good, no doubt, to have
   the guilty punished. Who but the criminal himself will deny that? And
   yet the innocent can find no pleasure in another's sufferings:  he
   rather mourns that a brother has sinned so heinously as to need a
   punishment so dreadful. But who is my guarantee that it is always the
   guilty who are adjudged to the wild beasts, or to some other doom, and
   that the guiltless never suffer from the revenge of the judge, or the
   weakness of the defence, or the pressure of the rack? How much better,
   then, is it for me to remain ignorant of the punishment inflicted on
   the wicked, lest I am obliged to know also of the good coming to
   untimely ends--if I may speak of goodness in the case at all! At any
   rate, gladiators not chargeable with crime are offered in sale for the
   games, that they may become the victims of the public pleasure. Even in
   the case of those who are judicially condemned to the amphitheatre,
   what a monstrous thing it is, that, in undergoing their punishment,
   they, from some less serious delinquency, advance to the criminality of
   manslayers! But I mean these remarks for heathen. As to Christians, I
   shall not insult them by adding another word as to the aversion with
   which they should regard this sort of exhibition; though no one is more
   able than myself to set forth fully the whole subject, unless it be one
   who is still in the habit of going to the shows. I would rather withal
   be incomplete than set memory a-working. [365]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [365] [See Kaye, p. 11. This expression is thought to confirm the
   probability of Tertullian's original Gentilism.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XX.

   How vain, then--nay, how desperate--is the reasoning of persons, who,
   just because they decline to lose a pleasure, hold out that we cannot
   point to the specific words or the very place where this abstinence is
   mentioned, and where the servants of God are directly forbidden to have
   anything to do with such assemblies! I heard lately a novel defence of
   himself by a certain play-lover. ?The sun,? said he, ?nay, God Himself,
   looks down from heaven on the show, and no pollution is contracted.?
   Yes, and the sun, too, pours down his rays into the common sewer
   without being defiled. As for God, would that all crimes were hid from
   His eye, that we might all escape judgment! But He looks on robberies
   too; He looks on falsehoods, adulteries, frauds, idolatries, and these
   same shows; and precisely on that account we will not look on them,
   lest the All-seeing see us. You are putting on the same level, O man,
   the criminal and the judge; the criminal who is a criminal because he
   is seen, and the Judge who is a Judge because He sees.  Are we set,
   then, on playing the madman outside the circus boundaries? Outside the
   gates of the theatre are we bent on lewdness, outside the course on
   arrogance, and outside the amphitheatre on cruelty, because outside the
   porticoes, the tiers and the curtains, too, God has eyes? Never and
   nowhere is that free from blame which God ever condemns; never and
   nowhere is it right to do what you may not do at all times and in all
   places.  It is the freedom of the truth from change of opinion and
   varying judgments which constitutes its perfection, and gives it its
   claims to full mastery, unchanging reverence, and faithful obedience.
   That which is really good or really evil cannot be ought else. But in
   all things the truth of God is immutable.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXI.

   The heathen, who have not a full revelation of the truth, for they are
   not taught of God, hold a thing evil and good as it suits self-will and
   passion, making that which is good in one place evil in another, and
   that which is evil in one place in another good. So it strangely
   happens, that the same man who can scarcely in public lift up his
   tunic, even when necessity of nature presses him, takes it off in the
   circus, as if bent on exposing himself before everybody; the father who
   carefully protects and guards his virgin daughter's ears from every
   polluting word, takes her to the theatre himself, exposing her to all
   its vile words and attitudes; he, again, who in the streets lays hands
   on or covers with reproaches the brawling pugilist, in the arena gives
   all encouragement to combats of a much more serious kind; and he who
   looks with horror on the corpse of one who has died under the common
   law of nature, in the amphitheatre gazes down with most patient eyes on
   bodies all mangled and torn and smeared with their own blood; nay, the
   very man who comes to the show, because he thinks murderers ought to
   suffer for their crime, drives the unwilling gladiator to the murderous
   deed with rods and scourges; and one who demands the lion for every
   manslayer of deeper dye, will have the staff for the savage swordsman,
   and rewards him with the cap of liberty. Yes and he must have the poor
   victim back again, that he may get a sight of his face--with zest
   inspecting near at hand the man whom he wished torn in pieces at safe
   distance from him: so much the more cruel he if that was not his wish.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXII.

   What wonder is there in it? Such inconsistencies as these are just such
   as we might expect from men, who confuse and change the nature of good
   and evil in their inconstancy of feeling and fickleness in judgment.
   Why, the authors and managers of the spectacles, in that very respect
   with reference to which they highly laud the charioteers, and actors,
   and wrestlers, and those most loving gladiators, to whom men prostitute
   their souls, women too their bodies, slight and trample on them, though
   for their sakes they are guilty of the deeds they reprobate; nay, they
   doom them to ignominy and the loss of their rights as citizens,
   excluding them from the Curia, and the rostra, from senatorial and
   equestrian rank, and from all other honours as well as certain
   distinctions. What perversity! They have pleasure in those whom yet
   they punish; they put all slights on those to whom, at the same time,
   they award their approbation; they magnify the art and brand the
   artist. What an outrageous thing it is, to blacken a man on account of
   the very things which make him meritorious in their eyes! Nay, what a
   confession that the things are evil, when their authors, even in
   highest favour, are not without a mark of disgrace upon them!
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIII.

   Seeing, then, man's own reflections, even in spite of the sweetness of
   pleasure, lead him to think that people such as these should be
   condemned to a hapless lot of infamy, losing all the advantages
   connected with the possession of the dignities of life, how much more
   does the divine righteousness inflict punishment on those who give
   themselves to these arts! Will God have any pleasure in the charioteer
   who disquiets so many souls, rouses up so many furious passions, and
   creates so many various moods, either crowned like a priest or wearing
   the colours of a pimp, decked out by the devil that he may be whirled
   away in his chariot, as though with the object of taking off Elijah?
   Will He be pleased with him who applies the razor to himself, and
   completely changes his features; who, with no respect for his face, is
   not content with making it as like as possible to Saturn and Isis and
   Bacchus, but gives it quietly over to contumelious blows, as if in
   mockery of our Lord? The devil, forsooth, makes it part, too, of his
   teaching, that the cheek is to be meekly offered to the smiter. In the
   same way, with their high shoes, he has made the tragic actors taller,
   because ?none can add a cubit to his stature.? [366] His desire is to
   make Christ a liar. And in regard to the wearing of masks, I ask is
   that according to the mind of God, who forbids the making of every
   likeness, and especially then the likeness of man who is His own image?
   The Author of truth hates all the false; He regards as adultery all
   that is unreal.  Condemning, therefore, as He does hypocrisy in every
   form, He never will approve any putting on of voice, or sex, or age; He
   never will approve pretended loves, and wraths, and groans, and tears.
   Then, too, as in His law it is declared that the man is cursed who
   attires himself in female garments, [367] what must be His judgment of
   the pantomime, who is even brought up to play the woman! And will the
   boxer go unpunished? I suppose he received these cæstus-scars, and the
   thick skin of his fists, and these growths upon his ears, at his
   creation! God, too, gave him eyes for no other end than that they might
   be knocked out in fighting! I say nothing of him who, to save himself,
   thrusts another in the lion's way, that he may not be too little of a
   murderer when he puts to death that very same man on the arena.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [366] Matt. vi. 27.

   [367] Deut. xxii.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIV.

   In how many other ways shall we yet further show that nothing which is
   peculiar to the shows has God's approval, or without that approval is
   becoming in God's servants? If we have succeeded in making it plain
   that they were instituted entirely for the devil's sake, and have been
   got up entirely with the devil's things (for all that is not God's, or
   is not pleasing in His eyes, belongs to His wicked rival), this simply
   means that in them you have that pomp of the devil which in the ?seal?
   of our faith we abjure. We should have no connection with the things
   which we abjure, whether in deed or word, whether by looking on them or
   looking forward to them; but do we not abjure and rescind that
   baptismal pledge, when we cease to bear its testimony? Does it then
   remain for us to apply to the heathen themselves. Let them tell us,
   then, whether it is right in Christians to frequent the show. Why, the
   rejection of these amusements is the chief sign to them that a man has
   adopted the Christian faith. If any one, then, puts away the faith's
   distinctive badge, he is plainly guilty of denying it. What hope can
   you possibly retain in regard to a man who does that? When you go over
   to the enemy's camp, you throw down your arms, desert the standards and
   the oath of allegiance to your chief:  you cast in your lot for life or
   death with your new friends.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXV.

   Seated where there is nothing of God, will one be thinking of his
   Maker? Will there be peace in his soul when there is eager strife there
   for a charioteer?  Wrought up into a frenzied excitement, will he learn
   to be modest? Nay, in the whole thing he will meet with no greater
   temptation than that gay attiring of the men and women. The very
   intermingling of emotions, the very agreements and disagreements with
   each other in the bestowment of their favours, where you have such
   close communion, blow up the sparks of passion. And then there is
   scarce any other object in going to the show, but to see and to be
   seen.  When a tragic actor is declaiming, will one be giving thought to
   prophetic appeals? Amid the measures of the effeminate player, will he
   call up to himself a psalm? And when the athletes are hard at struggle,
   will he be ready to proclaim that there must be no striking again? And
   with his eye fixed on the bites of bears, and the sponge-nets of the
   net-fighters, can he be moved by compassion? May God avert from His
   people any such passionate eagerness after a cruel enjoyment!  For how
   monstrous it is to go from God's church to the devil's--from the sky to
   the stye, [368] as they say; to raise your hands to God, and then to
   weary them in the applause of an actor; out of the mouth, from which
   you uttered Amen over the Holy Thing, to give witness in a gladiator's
   favour; to cry ?forever? to any one else but God and Christ!
     __________________________________________________________________

   [368] [De Cælo in Cænum: (sic) Oehler.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXVI.

   Why may not those who go into the temptations of the show become
   accessible also to evil spirits? We have the case of the woman--the
   Lord Himself is witness--who went to the theatre, and came back
   possessed. In the outcasting, [369] accordingly, when the unclean
   creature was upbraided with having dared to attack a believer, he
   firmly replied, [370] ?And in truth I did it most righteously, for I
   found her in my domain.? Another case, too, is well known, in which a
   woman had been hearing a tragedian, and on the very night she saw in
   her sleep a linen cloth--the actor's name being mentioned at the same
   time with strong disapproval--and five days after that woman was no
   more. How many other undoubted proofs we have had in the case of
   persons who, by keeping company with the devil in the shows, have
   fallen from the Lord! For no one can serve two masters. [371] What
   fellowship has light with darkness, life with death? [372]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [369] [The exorcism. For the exorcism in Baptism, see Bunsen, Hippol.
   iii. 19.]

   [370] See Neander's explanation in Kaye, p. xxiii. But, let us observe
   the entire simplicity with which our author narrates a sort of incident
   known to the apostles. Acts xvi. 16.]

   [371] Matt. vi. 24.

   [372] 2 Cor. iv. 14.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXVII.

   We ought to detest these heathen meetings and assemblies, if on no
   other account than that there God's name is blasphemed--that there the
   cry ?To the lions!? is daily raised against us [373] --that from thence
   persecuting decrees are wont to emanate, and temptations are sent
   forth. What will you do if you are caught in that heaving tide of
   impious judgments? Not that there any harm is likely to come to you
   from men: nobody knows that you are a Christian; but think how it fares
   with you in heaven. For at the very time the devil is working havoc in
   the church, do you doubt that the angels are looking down from above,
   and marking every man, who speaks and who listens to the blaspheming
   word, who lends his tongue and who lends his ears to the service of
   Satan against God? Shall you not then shun those tiers where the
   enemies of Christ assemble, that seat of all that is pestilential, and
   the very super incumbent atmosphere all impure with wicked cries? Grant
   that you have there things that are pleasant, things both agreeable and
   innocent in themselves; even some things that are excellent. Nobody
   dilutes poison with gall and hellebore: the accursed thing is put into
   condiments well seasoned and of sweetest taste. So, too, the devil puts
   into the deadly draught which he prepares, things of God most pleasant
   and most acceptable. Everything there, then, that is either brave,
   noble, loud-sounding, melodious, or exquisite in taste, hold it but as
   the honey drop of a poisoned cake; nor make so much of your taste for
   its pleasures, as of the danger you run from its attractions.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [373] [Observe--?daily raised.? On this precarious condition of the
   Christians, in their daily life, see the calm statement of Kaye, pp.
   110, 111.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXVIII.

   With such dainties as these let the devil's guests be feasted. The
   places and the times, the inviter too, are theirs. Our banquets, our
   nuptial joys, are yet to come. We cannot sit down in fellowship with
   them, as neither can they with us.  Things in this matter go by their
   turns.  Now they have gladness and we are troubled. ?The world,? says
   Jesus, ?shall rejoice; ye shall be sorrowful.? [374] Let us mourn,
   then, while the heathen are merry, that in the day of their sorrow we
   may rejoice; lest, sharing now in their gladness, we share then also in
   their grief. Thou art too dainty, Christian, if thou wouldst have
   pleasure in this life as well as in the next; nay, a fool thou art, if
   thou thinkest this life's pleasures to be really pleasures. The
   philosophers, for instance, give the name of pleasure to quietness and
   repose; in that they have their bliss; in that they find entertainment:
   they even glory in it. You long for the goal, and the stage, and the
   dust, and the place of combat!  I would have you answer me this
   question: Can we not live without pleasure, who cannot but with
   pleasure die? For what is our wish but the apostle's, to leave the
   world, and be taken up into the fellowship of our Lord? [375] You have
   your joys where you have your longings.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [374] John xvi. 20.

   [375] Phil. i. 23.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXIX.

   Even as things are, if your thought is to spend this period of
   existence in enjoyments, how are you so ungrateful as to reckon
   insufficient, as not thankfully to recognize the many and exquisite
   pleasures God has bestowed upon you? For what more delightful than to
   have God the Father and our Lord at peace with us, than revelation of
   the truth than confession of our errors, than pardon of the innumerable
   sins of our past life? What greater pleasure than distaste of pleasure
   itself, contempt of all that the world can give, true liberty, a pure
   conscience, a contented life, and freedom from all fear of death? What
   nobler than to tread under foot the gods of the nations--to exorcise
   evil spirits [376] --to perform cures--to seek divine revealings--to
   live to God? These are the pleasures, these the spectacles that befit
   Christian men--holy, everlasting, free. Count of these as your circus
   games, fix your eyes on the courses of the world, the gliding seasons,
   reckon up the periods of time, long for the goal of the final
   consummation, defend the societies of the churches, be startled at
   God's signal, be roused up at the angel's trump, glory in the palms of
   martyrdom. If the literature of the stage delight you, we have
   literature in abundance of our own--plenty of verses, sentences, songs,
   proverbs; and these not fabulous, but true; not tricks of art, but
   plain realities.  Would you have also fightings and wrestlings? Well,
   of these there is no lacking, and they are not of slight account.
   Behold unchastity overcome by chastity, perfidy slain by faithfulness,
   cruelty stricken by compassion, impudence thrown into the shade by
   modesty: these are the contests we have among us, and in these we win
   our crowns. Would you have something of blood too? You have Christ's.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [376] [See cap. 26, supra.  On this claim to such powers still
   remaining in the church. See Kaye, p. 89.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XXX.

   But what a spectacle is that fast-approaching advent [377] of our Lord,
   now owned by all, now highly exalted, now a triumphant One! What that
   exultation of the angelic hosts! What the glory of the rising saints!
   What the kingdom of the just thereafter! What the city New Jerusalem!
   [378] Yes, and there are other sights: that last day of judgment, with
   its everlasting issues; that day unlooked for by the nations, the theme
   of their derision, when the world hoary with age, and all its many
   products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle
   then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? what my
   derision?  Which sight gives me joy? which rouses me to exultation?--as
   I see so many illustrious monarchs, whose reception into the heavens
   was publicly announced, groaning now in the lowest darkness with great
   Jove himself, and those, too, who bore witness of their exultation;
   governors of provinces, too, who persecuted the Christian name, in
   fires more fierce than those with which in the days of their pride they
   raged against the followers of Christ. What world's wise men besides,
   the very philosophers, in fact, who taught their followers that God had
   no concern in ought that is sublunary, and were wont to assure them
   that either they had no souls, or that they would never return to the
   bodies which at death they had left, now covered with shame before the
   poor deluded ones, as one fire consumes them! Poets also, trembling not
   before the judgment-seat of Rhadamanthus or Minos, but of the
   unexpected Christ! I shall have a better opportunity then of hearing
   the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; of viewing the
   play-actors, much more ?dissolute? in the dissolving flame; of looking
   upon the charioteer, all glowing in his chariot of fire; of beholding
   the wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows;
   unless even then I shall not care to attend to such ministers of sin,
   in my eager wish rather to fix a gaze insatiable on those whose fury
   vented itself against the Lord. ?This,? I shall say, ?this is that
   carpenter's or hireling's son, that Sabbath-breaker, that Samaritan and
   devil-possessed! This is He whom you purchased from Judas! This is He
   whom you struck with reed and fist, whom you contemptuously spat upon,
   to whom you gave gall and vinegar to drink! This is He whom His
   disciples secretly stole away, that it might be said He had risen
   again, or the gardener abstracted, that his lettuces might come to no
   harm from the crowds of visitants!? What quæstor or priest in his
   munificence will bestow on you the favour of seeing and exulting in
   such things as these? And yet even now we in a measure have them by
   faith in the picturings of imagination. But what are the things which
   eye has not seen, ear has not heard, and which have not so much as
   dimly dawned upon the human heart? Whatever they are, they are nobler,
   I believe, than circus, and both theatres, [379] and every race-course.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [377] [Kaye, p. 20. He doubtless looked for a speedy appearance of the
   Lord: and note the apparent expectation of a New Jerusalem, on earth,
   before the Consummation and Judgment.]

   [378] [This New Jerusalem gives Bp. Kaye (p. 55) ?decisive proof? of
   Montanism, especially as compared with the Third Book against Marcion.
   I cannot see it, here.]

   [379] Viz., the theatre and amphitheatre. [This concluding chapter,
   which Gibbon delights to censure, because its fervid rhetoric so
   fearfully depicts the punishments of Christ's enemies, ?appears to Dr.
   Neander to contain a beautiful specimen of lively faith and Christian
   confidence.? See Kaye, p. xxix.]
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   IV.

   The Chaplet, or De Corona. [380]

   ------------------------

   Chapter I.

   Very lately it happened thus: while the bounty of our most excellent
   emperors [381] was dispensed in the camp, the soldiers, laurel-crowned,
   were approaching. One of them, more a soldier of God, more stedfast
   than the rest of his brethren, who had imagined that they could serve
   two masters, his head alone uncovered, the useless crown in his
   hand--already even by that peculiarity known to every one as a
   Christian--was nobly conspicuous. Accordingly, all began to mark him
   out, jeering him at a distance, gnashing on him near at hand. The
   murmur is wafted to the tribune, when the person had just left the
   ranks. The tribune at once puts the question to him, Why are you so
   different in your attire? He declared that he had no liberty to wear
   the crown with the rest.  Being urgently asked for his reasons, he
   answered, I am a Christian. O soldier! boasting thyself in God. Then
   the case was considered and voted on; the matter was remitted to a
   higher tribunal; the offender was conducted to the prefects. At once he
   put away the heavy cloak, his disburdening commenced; he loosed from
   his foot the military shoe, beginning to stand upon holy ground; [382]
   he gave up the sword, which was not necessary either for the protection
   of our Lord; from his hand likewise dropped the laurel crown; and now,
   purple-clad with the hope of his own blood, shod with the preparation
   of the gospel, girt with the sharper word of God, completely equipped
   in the apostles' armour, and crowned more worthily with the white crown
   of martyrdom, he awaits in prison the largess of Christ. Thereafter
   adverse judgments began to be passed upon his conduct--whether on the
   part of Christians I do not know, for those of the heathen are not
   different--as if he were headstrong and rash, and too eager to die,
   because, in being taken to task about a mere matter of dress, he
   brought trouble on the bearers of the Name, [383] --he, forsooth, alone
   brave among so many soldier-brethren, he alone a Christian. It is plain
   that as they have rejected the prophecies of the Holy Spirit, [384]
   they are also purposing the refusal of martyrdom. So they murmur that a
   peace so good and long is endangered for them. Nor do I doubt that some
   are already turning their back on the Scriptures, are making ready
   their luggage, are equipped for flight from city to city; for that is
   all of the gospel they care to remember. I know, too, their pastors are
   lions in peace, deer in the fight. As to the questions asked for
   extorting confessions from us, we shall teach elsewhere.  Now, as they
   put forth also the objection--But where are we forbidden to be
   crowned?--I shall take this point up, as more suitable to be treated of
   here, being the essence, in fact, of the present contention. So that,
   on the one hand, the inquirers who are ignorant, but anxious, may be
   instructed; and on the other, those may be refuted who try to vindicate
   the sin, especially the laurel-crowned Christians themselves, to whom
   it is merely a question of debate, as if it might be regarded as either
   no trespass at all, or at least a doubtful one, because it may be made
   the subject of investigation.  That it is neither sinless nor doubtful,
   I shall now, however, show.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [380] [Kaye, apparently accepting the judgment of Dr. Neander, assigns
   this treatise to a.d. 204. The bounty here spoken of, then, must be
   that dispensed in honour of the victories over the Parthians, under
   Severus.]

   [381] ?Emperors.? The Emperor Severus associated his two sons with him
   in the possession of the imperial power; Caracalla in the year 198,
   Geta in 208.--Tr.

   [382] [A touch of our author's genius, inspired by the Phrygian
   enthusiasm for martyrdom. The ground on which a martyr treads begins to
   be holy, even before the sacrifice, and in loosing his shoe the victim
   consecrates the spot and at the same time pays it homage.]

   [383] [The name of Christ: and the Antiochian name of Christians.]

   [384] [Gibbon will have it that the De Corona was written while
   Tertullian was orthodox, but this reference to the Montanist notion of
   ?New Prophecy? seems to justify the decision of critics against Gibbon,
   who, as Kaye suggests (p. 53) was anxious to make Christianity itself
   responsible for military insubordination and for offences against
   Imperial Law.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter II.

   I affirm that not one of the Faithful has ever a crown upon his head,
   except at a time of trial. That is the case with all, from catechumens
   to confessors and martyrs, [385] or (as the case may be) deniers.
   Consider, then, whence the custom about which we are now chiefly
   inquiring got its authority. But when the question is raised why it is
   observed, it is meanwhile evident that it is observed. Therefore that
   can neither be regarded as no offence, or an uncertain one, which is
   perpetrated against a practice which is capable of defence, on the
   ground even of its repute, and is sufficiently ratified by the support
   of general acceptance. It is undoubted, so that we ought to inquire
   into the reason of the thing; but without prejudice to the practice,
   not for the purpose of overthrowing it, but rather of building it up,
   that you may all the more carefully observe it, when you are also
   satisfied as to its reason. But what sort of procedure is it, for one
   to be bringing into debate a practice, when he has fallen from it, and
   to be seeking the explanation of his having ever had it, when he has
   left it off? Since, although he may wish to seem on this account
   desirous to investigate it, that he may show that he has not done wrong
   in giving it up, it is evident that he nevertheless transgressed
   previously in its presumptuous observance.  If he has done no wrong
   to-day in accepting the crown he offended before in refusing it. This
   treatise, therefore, will not be for those who not in a proper
   condition for inquiry, but for those who, with the real desire of
   getting instruction, bring forward, not a question for debate, but a
   request for advice. For it is from this desire that a true inquiry
   always proceeds; and I praise the faith which has believed in the duty
   of complying with the rule, before it has learned the reason of it. An
   easy thing it is at once to demand where it is written that we should
   not be crowned.  But is it written that we should be crowned? Indeed,
   in urgently demanding the warrant of Scripture in a different side from
   their own, men prejudge that the support of Scripture ought no less to
   appear on their part. For if it shall be said that it is lawful to be
   crowned on this ground, that Scripture does not forbid it, it will as
   validly be retorted that just on this ground is the crown unlawful,
   because the Scripture does not enjoin it. What shall discipline do?
   Shall it accept both things, as if neither were forbidden? Or shall it
   refuse both, as if neither were enjoined? But ?the thing which is not
   forbidden is freely permitted.? I should rather say [386] that what has
   not been freely allowed is forbidden.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [385] [Kaye (p. 231) notes this as a rare instance of classing
   Catechumens among ?the Faithful.?]

   [386] [This is said not absolutely but in contrast with extreme
   license; but it shows the Supremacy of Scripture. Compare De Monogam,
   cap. 4.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter III.

   And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when
   we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the
   state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed
   it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has
   confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first
   been handed down?  Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you
   say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition,
   unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say
   that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which,
   without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition
   alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any
   precedent.  To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with
   baptism. [387] When we are going to enter the water, but a little
   before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the
   president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp,
   and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat
   ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we
   are taken up (as new-born children), [388] we taste first of all a
   mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily
   bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak,
   and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the
   Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and
   enjoined to be taken by all alike. [389] As often as the anniversary
   comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We
   count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord's day to be unlawful.
   We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We
   feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon
   the ground.  At every forward step and movement, at every going in and
   out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit
   at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the
   ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.
   [390]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [387] [Elucidation I., and see Bunsen's Church and House Book, pp.
   19-24.]

   [388] [There is here an allusion to the Roman form of recognizing a
   lawful child. The father, taking up the new-born infant, gave him
   adoption into the family, and recognised him as a legitimate son and
   heir.]

   [389] [Men and women, rich and poor.]

   [390] i.e., of the Cross.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IV.

   If, for these and other such rules, you insist upon having positive
   Scripture injunction, you will find none. Tradition will be held forth
   to you as the originator of them, custom as their strengthener, and
   faith as their observer. That reason will support tradition, and
   custom, and faith, you will either yourself perceive, or learn from
   some one who has. Meanwhile you will believe that there is some reason
   to which submission is due. I add still one case more, as it will be
   proper to show you how it was among the ancients also. Among the Jews,
   so usual is it for their women to have the head veiled, that they may
   thereby be recognised. I ask in this instance for the law. I put the
   apostle aside. If Rebecca at once drew down her veil, when in the
   distance she saw her betrothed, this modesty of a mere private
   individual could not have made a law, or it will have made it only for
   those who have the reason which she had. Let virgins alone be veiled,
   and this when they are coming to be married, and not till they have
   recognised their destined husband. If Susanna also, who was subjected
   to unveiling on her trial, [391] furnishes an argument for the veiling
   of women, I can say here also, the veil was a voluntary thing. She had
   come accused, ashamed of the disgrace she had brought on herself,
   properly concealing her beauty, even because now she feared to please.
   But I should not suppose that, when it was her aim to please, she took
   walks with a veil on in her husband's avenue. Grant, now, that she was
   always veiled. In this particular case, too, or, in fact, in that of
   any other, I demand the dress-law.  If I nowhere find a law, it follows
   that tradition has given the fashion in question to custom, to find
   subsequently (its authorization in) the apostle's sanction, from the
   true interpretation of reason. This instances, therefore, will make it
   sufficiently plain that you can vindicate the keeping of even unwritten
   tradition established by custom; the proper witness for tradition when
   demonstrated by long-continued observance. [392] But even in civil
   matters custom is accepted as law, when positive legal enactment is
   wanting; and it is the same thing whether it depends on writing or on
   reason, since reason is, in fact, the basis of law. But, (you say), if
   reason is the ground of law, all will now henceforth have to be counted
   law, whoever brings it forward, which shall have reason as its ground.
   [393] Or do you think that every believer is entitled to originate and
   establish a law, if only it be such as is agreeable to God, as is
   helpful to discipline, as promotes salvation, when the Lord says, ?But
   why do you not even of your own selves judge what is right?? [394] And
   not merely in regard to a judicial sentence, but in regard to every
   decision in matters we are called on to consider, the apostle also
   says, ?If of anything you are ignorant, God shall reveal it unto you;?
   [395] he himself, too, being accustomed to afford counsel though he had
   not the command of the Lord, and to dictate of himself [396] as
   possessing the Spirit of God who guides into all truth. Therefore his
   advice has, by the warrant of divine reason, become equivalent to
   nothing less than a divine command. Earnestly now inquire of this
   teacher, [397] keeping intact your regard for tradition, from
   whomsoever it originally sprang; nor have regard to the author, but to
   the authority, and especially that of custom itself, which on this very
   account we should revere, that we may not want an interpreter; so that
   if reason too is God's gift, you may then learn, not whether custom has
   to be followed by you, but why.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [391] Vulgate, Dan. xiii. 32. [See Apocrypha, Hist. of Susanna, v. 32.]

   [392] [Observe it must (1.) be based on Apostolic grounds; (2.) must
   not be a novelty, but derived from a time ?to which the memory of men
   runneth not contrary.?]

   [393] [I slightly amend the translation to bring out the force of an
   objection to which our author gives a Montanistic reply.]

   [394] Luke xii. 27.

   [395] Phil. iii. 15.

   [396] [See luminous remarks in Kaye, pp. 371-373.]

   [397] [This teacher, i.e., right reason, under the guidance of the Holy
   Ghost.  He is here foisting in a plea for the ?New Prophecy,?
   apparently, and this is one of the most decided instances in the
   treatise.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter V.

   The argument for Christian practices becomes all the stronger, when
   also nature, which is the first rule of all, supports them. Well, she
   is the first who lays it down that a crown does not become the head.
   But I think ours is the God of nature, who fashioned man; and, that he
   might desire, (appreciate, become partaker of) the pleasures afforded
   by His creatures, endowed him with certain senses, (acting) through
   members, which, so to speak, are their peculiar instruments. The sense
   of hearing he has planted in the ears; that of sight, lighted up in the
   eyes; that of taste, shut up in the mouth; that of smell, wafted into
   the nose; that of touch, fixed in the tips of the fingers. By means of
   these organs of the outer man doing duty to the inner man, the
   enjoyments of the divine gifts are conveyed by the senses to the soul.
   [398] What, then, in flowers affords you enjoyment? For it is the
   flowers of the field which are the peculiar, at least the chief,
   material of crowns. Either smell, you say, or colour, or both together.
   What will be the senses of colour and smell? Those of seeing and
   smelling, I suppose. What members have had these senses allotted to
   them? The eyes and the nose, if I am not mistaken.  With sight and
   smell, then, make use of flowers, for these are the senses by which
   they are meant to be enjoyed; use them by means of the eyes and nose,
   which are the members to which these senses belong. You have got the
   thing from God, the mode of it from the world; but an extraordinary
   mode does not prevent the use of the thing in the common way. Let
   flowers, then, both when fastened into each other and tied together in
   thread and rush, be what they are when free, when loose--things to be
   looked at and smelt. You count it a crown, let us say, when you have a
   bunch of them bound together in a series, that you may carry many at
   one time that you may enjoy them all at once.  Well, lay them in your
   bosom if they are so singularly pure, and strew them on your couch if
   they are so exquisitely soft, and consign them to your cup if they are
   so perfectly harmless.  Have the pleasure of them in as many ways as
   they appeal to your senses. But what taste for a flower, what sense for
   anything belonging to a crown but its band, have you in the head, which
   is able neither to distinguish colour, nor to inhale sweet perfumes,
   nor to appreciate softness? It is as much against nature to long after
   a flower with the head, as it is to crave food with the ear, or sound
   with the nostril. But everything which is against nature deserves to be
   branded as monstrous among all men; but with us it is to be condemned
   also as sacrilege against God, the Lord and Creator of nature.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [398] Kaye [p. 187,] has some valuable remarks on this testimony to the
   senses in Christian Philosophy, and compares Cicero, I. Tusc. cap. xx.
   or xlvi.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VI.

   Demanding then a law of God, you have that common one prevailing all
   over the world, engraven on the natural tables to which the apostle too
   is wont to appeal, as when in respect of the woman's veil he says,
   ?Does not even Nature teach you?? [399] --as when to the Romans,
   affirming that the heathen do by nature those things which the law
   requires, [400] he suggests both natural law and a law-revealing
   nature. Yes, and also in the first chapter of the epistle he
   authenticates nature, when he asserts that males and females changed
   among themselves the natural use of the creature into that which is
   unnatural, [401] by way of penal retribution for their error.  We first
   of all indeed know God Himself by the teaching of Nature, calling Him
   God of gods, taking for granted that He is good, and invoking Him as
   Judge. Is it a question with you whether for the enjoyment of His
   creatures, Nature should be our guide, that we may not be carried away
   in the direction in which the rival of God has corrupted, along with
   man himself, the entire creation which had been made over to our race
   for certain uses, whence the apostle says that it too unwillingly
   became subject to vanity, completely bereft of its original character,
   first by vain, then by base, unrighteous, and ungodly uses? It is thus,
   accordingly, in the pleasures of the shows, that the creature is
   dishonoured by those who by nature indeed perceive that all the
   materials of which shows are got up belong to God, but lack the
   knowledge to perceive as well that they have all been changed by the
   devil. But with this topic we have, for the sake of our own
   play-lovers, sufficiently dealt, and that, too, in a work in Greek.
   [402]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [399] 1 Cor. xi. 14.

   [400] Rom. ii. 14.

   [401] Rom. i. 26.

   [402] [Plays were regarded as pomps renounced in Baptism.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VII.

   Let these dealers in crowns then recognize in the meantime the
   authority of Nature, on the ground of a common sense as human beings,
   and the certifications of their peculiar religion, as, according to the
   last chapter, worshippers of the God of nature; and, as it were, thus
   over and above what is required, let them consider those other reasons
   too which forbid us wearing crowns, especially on the head, and indeed
   crowns of every sort. For we are obliged to turn from the rule of
   Nature, which we share with mankind in general, that we may maintain
   the whole peculiarity of our Christian discipline, in relation also to
   other kinds of crowns which seem to have been provided for different
   uses, as being composed of different substances, lest, because they do
   not consist of flowers, the use of which nature has indicated (as it
   does in the case of this military laurel one itself), they may be
   thought not to come under the prohibition of our sect, since they have
   escaped any objections of nature. I see, then, that we must go into the
   matter both with more research, and more fully, from its beginnings on
   through its successive stages of growth to its more erratic
   developments. For this we need to turn to heathen literature, for
   things belonging to the heathen must be proved from their own
   documents. The little of this I have acquired, will, I believe, be
   enough.  If there really was a Pandora, whom Hesiod mentions as the
   first of women, hers was the first head the graces crowned, for she
   received gifts from all the gods whence she got her name Pandora. But
   Moses, a prophet, not a poet-shepherd, shows us the first woman Eve
   having her loins more naturally girt about with leaves than her temples
   with flowers.  Pandora, then, is a myth. And so we have to blush for
   the origin of the crown, even on the ground of the falsehood connected
   with it; and, as will soon appear, on the ground no less of its
   realities. For it is an undoubted fact that certain persons either
   originated the thing, or shed lustre on it. Pherecydes relates that
   Saturn was the first who wore a crown; Diodorus, that Jupiter, after
   conquering the Titans, was honoured with this gift by the rest of the
   gods. To Priapus also the same author assigns fillets; and to Ariadne a
   garland of gold and of Indian gems, the gift of Vulcan, afterwards of
   Bacchus, and subsequently turned into a constellation. Callimachus has
   put a vine crown upon Juno. So too at Argos, her statue, vine-wreathed,
   with a lion's skin placed beneath her feet, exhibits the stepmother
   exulting over the spoils of her two step-sons. Hercules displays upon
   his head sometimes poplar, sometimes wild-olive, sometimes parsley. You
   have the tragedy of Cerberus; you have Pindar; and besides Callimachus,
   who mentions that Apollo, too when he had killed the Delphic serpent,
   as a suppliant, put on a laurel garland; for among the ancients
   suppliants were wont to be crowned. Harpocration argues that Bacchus
   the same as Osiris among the Egyptians, was designedly crowned with
   ivy, because it is the nature of ivy to protect the brain against
   drowsiness. But that in another way also Bacchus was the originator of
   the laurel crown (the crown) in which he celebrated his triumph over
   the Indians, even the rabble acknowledge, when they call the days
   dedicated to him the ?great crown.? If you open, again, the writings of
   the Egyptian Leo, you learn that Isis was the first who discovered and
   wore ears of corn upon her head--a thing more suited to the belly.
   Those who want additional information will find an ample exposition of
   the subject in Claudius Saturninus, a writer of distinguished talent
   who treats this question also, for he has a book on crowns, so
   explaining their beginnings as well as causes, and kinds, and rites,
   that you find all that is charming in the flower, all that is beautiful
   in the leafy branch, and every sod or vine-shoot has been dedicated to
   some head or other; making it abundantly clear how foreign to us we
   should judge the custom of the crowned head, introduced as it was by,
   and thereafter constantly managed for the honour of, those whom the
   world has believed to be gods. If the devil, a liar from the beginning,
   is even in this matter working for his false system of godhead
   (idolatry), he had himself also without doubt provided for his god-lie
   being carried out. What sort of thing, then, must that be counted among
   the people of the true God, which was brought in by the nations in
   honour of the devil's candidates, and was set apart from the beginning
   to no other than these; and which even then received its consecration
   to idolatry by idols and in idols yet alive?  Not as if an idol were
   anything, but since the things which others offer up to idols belong to
   demons. But if the things which others offer to them belong to demons
   how much more what idols offered to themselves, when they were in life!
   The demons themselves, doubtless, had made provision for themselves by
   means of those whom they had possessed, while in a state of desire and
   craving, before provision had been actually made.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter VIII.

   Hold fast in the meantime this persuasion, while I examine a question
   which comes in our way. For I already hear it is said, that many other
   things as well as crowns have been invented by those whom the world
   believes to be gods, and that they are notwithstanding to be met with
   both in our present usages and in those of early saints, and in the
   service of God, and in Christ Himself, who did His work as man by no
   other than these ordinary instrumentalities of human life. Well, let it
   be so; nor shall I inquire any further back into the origin of this
   things. Let Mercury have been the first who taught the knowledge of
   letters; I will own that they are requisite both for the business and
   commerce of life, and for performing our devotion to God. Nay, if he
   also first strung the chord to give forth melody, I will not deny, when
   listening to David, that this invention has been in use with the
   saints, and has ministered to God. Let Æsculapius have been the first
   who sought and discovered cures: Esaias [403] mentions that he ordered
   Hezekiah medicine when he was sick. Paul, too, knows that a little wine
   does the stomach good. [404] Let Minerva have been the first who built
   a ship: I shall see Jonah and the apostles sailing. Nay, there is more
   than this: for even Christ, we shall find, has ordinary raiment; Paul,
   too, has his cloak. [405] If at once, of every article of furniture and
   each household vessel, you name some god of the world as the
   originator, well, I must recognise Christ, both as He reclines on a
   couch, and when He presents a basin for the feet of His disciples, and
   when He pours water into it from a ewer, and when He is girt about with
   a linen towel [406] --a garment specially sacred to Osiris. It is thus
   in general I reply upon the point, admitting indeed that we use along
   with others these articles, but challenging that this be judged in the
   light of the distinction between things agreeable and things opposed to
   reason, because the promiscuous employment of them is deceptive,
   concealing the corruption of the creature, by which it has been made
   subject to vanity. For we affirm that those things only are proper to
   be used, whether by ourselves or by those who lived before us, and
   alone befit the service of God and Christ Himself, which to meet the
   necessities of human life supply what is simply; useful and affords
   real assistance and honourable comfort, so that they may be well
   believed to have come from God's own inspiration, who first of all no
   doubt provided for and taught and ministered to the enjoyment, I should
   suppose, of His own man. As for the things which are out of this class,
   they are not fit to be used among us, especially those which on that
   account indeed are not to be found either with the world, or in the
   ways of Christ.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [403] Isa. xxxviii. 21.

   [404] 1 Tim. v. 23.

   [405] 2 Tim. iv. 13. [This is a useful comment as showing what this
   phailone was. Our author translates it by pænula. Of which more when we
   reach the De Pallio.]

   [406] John xiii. 1-5.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter IX.

   In short, what patriarch, what prophet, what Levite, or priest, or
   ruler, or at a later period what apostle, or preacher of the gospel, or
   bishop, do you ever find the wearer of a crown? [407] I think not even
   the temple of God itself was crowned; as neither was the ark of the
   testament, nor the tabernacle of witness, nor the altar, nor the
   candlestick crowned though certainly, both on that first solemnity of
   the dedication, and in that second rejoicing for the restoration,
   crowning would have been most suitable if it were worthy of God. But if
   these things were figures of us (for we are temples of God, and altars,
   and lights, and sacred vessels), this too they in figure set forth,
   that the people of God ought not to be crowned. The reality must always
   correspond with the image. If, perhaps, you object that Christ Himself
   was crowned, to that you will get the brief reply: Be you too crowned,
   as He was; you have full permission. Yet even that crown of insolent
   ungodliness was not of any decree of the Jewish people. It was a device
   of the Roman soldiers, taken from the practice of the world,--a
   practice which the people of God never allowed either on the occasion
   of public rejoicing or to gratify innate luxury: so they returned from
   the Babylonish captivity with timbrels, and flutes, and psalteries,
   more suitably than with crowns; and after eating and drinking,
   uncrowned, they rose up to play. Neither would the account of the
   rejoicing nor the exposure of the luxury have been silent touching the
   honour or dishonour of the crown. Thus too Isaiah, as he says, ?With
   timbrels, and psalteries, and flutes they drink wine,? [408] would have
   added ?with crowns,? if this practice had ever had place in the things
   of God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [407] [But see Eusebius, Hist. B. v., cap. 24, whose story is examined
   by Lardner, Cred., vol. iv., p. 448.]

   [408] Isa. v. 12.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter X.

   So, when you allege that the ornaments of the heathen deities are found
   no less with God, with the object of claiming among these for general
   use the head-crown, you already lay it down for yourself, that we must
   not have among us, as a thing whose use we are to share with others,
   what is not to be found in the service of God. Well, what is so
   unworthy of God indeed as that which is worthy of an idol? But what is
   so worthy of an idol as that which is also worthy of a dead man? For it
   is the privilege of the dead also to be thus crowned, as they too
   straightway become idols, both by their dress and the service of
   deification, which (deification) is with us a second idolatry. Wanting,
   then, the sense, it will be theirs to use the thing for which the sense
   is wanting, just as if in full possession of the sense they wished to
   abuse it.  When there ceases to be any reality in the use, there is no
   distinction between using and abusing. Who can abuse a thing, when the
   precipient nature with which he wishes to carry out his purpose is not
   his to use it? The apostle, moreover, forbids us to abuse, while he
   would more naturally have taught us not to use, unless on the ground
   that, where there is no sense for things, there is no wrong use of
   them.  But the whole affair is meaningless, and is, in fact, a dead
   work so far as concerns the idols; though, without doubt, a living one
   as respects the demons [409] to whom the religious rite belongs. ?The
   idols of the heathen,? says David, ?are silver and gold.? ?They have
   eyes, and see not; a nose, and smell not; hands, and they will not
   handle.? [410] By means of these organs, indeed, we are to enjoy
   flowers; but if he declares that those who make idols will be like
   them, they already are so who use anything after the style of idol
   adornings. ?To the pure all things are pure: so, likewise, all things
   to the impure are impure;? [411] but nothing is more impure than
   idols.  The substances are themselves as creatures of God without
   impurity, and in this their native state are free to the use of all;
   but the ministries to which in their use they are devoted, makes all
   the difference; for I, too, kill a cock for myself, just as Socrates
   did for Æsculapius; and if the smell of some place or other offends me,
   I burn the Arabian product myself, but not with the same ceremony, nor
   in the same dress, nor with the same pomp, with which it is done to
   idols. [412] If the creature is defiled by a mere word, as the apostle
   teaches, ?But if any one say, This is offered in sacrifice to idols,
   you must not touch it,? [413] much more when it is polluted by the
   dress, and rites, and pomp of what is offered to the gods. Thus the
   crown also is made out to be an offering to idols; [414] for with this
   ceremony, and dress, and pomp, it is presented in sacrifice to idols,
   its originators, to whom its use is specially given over, and chiefly
   on this account, that what has no place among the things of God may not
   be admitted into use with us as with others.  Wherefore the apostle
   exclaims, ?Flee idolatry:? [415] certainly idolatry whole and entire he
   means. Reflect on what a thicket it is, and how many thorns lie hid in
   it.  Nothing must be given to an idol, and so nothing must be taken
   from one. If it is inconsistent with faith to recline in an idol
   temple, what is it to appear in an idol dress? What communion have
   Christ and Belial? Therefore flee from it; for he enjoins us to keep at
   a distance from idolatry--to have no close dealings with it of any
   kind. Even an earthly serpent sucks in men at some distance with its
   breath.  Going still further, John says, ?My little children, keep
   yourselves from idols,? [416] --not now from idolatry, as if from the
   service of it, but from idols--that is, from any resemblance to them:
   for it is an unworthy thing that you, the image of the living God,
   should become the likeness of an idol and a dead man. Thus far we
   assert, that this attire belongs to idols, both from the history of its
   origin, and from its use by false religion; on this ground, besides,
   that while it is not mentioned as connected with the worship of God, it
   is more and more given over to those in whose antiquities, as well as
   festivals and services, it is found. In a word, the very doors, the
   very victims and altars, the very servants and priests, are crowned.
   You have, in Claudius, the crowns of all the various colleges of
   priests. We have added also that distinction between things altogether
   different from each other--things, namely, agreeable, and things
   contrary to reason--in answer to those who, because there happens to be
   the use of some things in common, maintain the right of participation
   in all things. With reference to this part of the subject, therefore,
   it now remains that the special grounds for wearing crowns should be
   examined, that while we show these to be foreign, nay, even opposed to
   our Christian discipline, we may demonstrate that none of them have any
   plea of reason to support it, on the basis of which this article of
   dress might be vindicated as one in whose use we can participate, as
   even some others may whose instances are cast up to us.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [409] [Compare De Idololatria, cap. xv., p. 70, supra.]

   [410] Ps. cxv. 4-8.

   [411] Tit. i. 15.

   [412] [He seems to know no use for incense except for burials and for
   fumigation.]

   [413] 1 Cor. x. 28.

   [414] [Kaye (p. 362) defends our author against Barbeyrac's
   animadversions, by the maxim, ?put yourself in his place? i.e. among
   the abominations of Paganism.]

   [415] 1 Cor. x. 14.

   [416] 1 John v. 21.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XI.

   To begin with the real ground of the military crown, I think we must
   first inquire whether warfare is proper at all for Christians. What
   sense is there in discussing the merely accidental, when that on which
   it rests is to be condemned? Do we believe it lawful for a human oath
   [417] to be superadded to one divine, for a man to come under promise
   to another master after Christ, and to abjure father, mother, and all
   nearest kinsfolk, whom even the law has commanded us to honour and love
   next to God Himself, to whom the gospel, too, holding them only of less
   account than Christ, has in like manner rendered honour? Shall it be
   held lawful to make an occupation of the sword, when the Lord proclaims
   that he who uses the sword shall perish by the sword?  And shall the
   son of peace take part in the battle when it does not become him even
   to sue at law? And shall he apply the chain, and the prison, and the
   torture, and the punishment, who is not the avenger even of his own
   wrongs?  Shall he, forsooth, either keep watch-service for others more
   than for Christ, or shall he do it on the Lord's day, when he does not
   even do it for Christ Himself? And shall he keep guard before the
   temples which he has renounced? And shall he take a meal where the
   apostle has forbidden him? [418] And shall he diligently protect by
   night those whom in the day-time he has put to flight by his exorcisms,
   leaning and resting on the spear the while with which Christ's side was
   pierced? Shall he carry a flag, [419] too, hostile to Christ? And shall
   he ask a watchword from the emperor who has already received one from
   God? Shall he be disturbed in death by the trumpet of the trumpeter,
   who expects to be aroused by the angel's trump? And shall the Christian
   be burned according to camp rule, when he was not permitted to burn
   incense to an idol, when to him Christ remitted the punishment of
   fire?  Then how many other offences there are involved in the
   performances of camp offices, which we must hold to involve a
   transgression of God's law, you may see by a slight survey. The very
   carrying of the name over from the camp of light to the camp of
   darkness is a violation of it. Of course, if faith comes later, and
   finds any preoccupied with military service, their case is different,
   as in the instance of those whom John used to receive for baptism, and
   of those most faithful centurions, I mean the centurion whom Christ
   approves, and the centurion whom Peter instructs; yet, at the same
   time, when a man has become a believer, and faith has been sealed,
   there must be either an immediate abandonment of it, which has been the
   course with many; or all sorts of quibbling will have to be resorted to
   in order to avoid offending God, and that is not allowed even outside
   of military service; [420] or, last of all, for God the fate must be
   endured which a citizen-faith has been no less ready to accept. Neither
   does military service hold out escape from punishment of sins, or
   exemption from martyrdom. Nowhere does the Christian change his
   character. There is one gospel, and the same Jesus, who will one day
   deny every one who denies, and acknowledge every one who acknowledges
   God,--who will save, too, the life which has been lost for His sake;
   but, on the other hand, destroy that which for gain has been saved to
   His dishonour. With Him the faithful citizen is a soldier, just as the
   faithful soldier is a citizen. [421] A state of faith admits no plea of
   necessity; they are under no necessity to sin, whose one necessity is,
   that they do not sin. For if one is pressed to the offering of
   sacrifice and the sheer denial of Christ by the necessity of torture or
   of punishment, yet discipline does not connive even at that necessity;
   because there is a higher necessity to dread denying and to undergo
   martyrdom, than to escape from suffering, and to render the homage
   required. In fact, an excuse of this sort overturns the entire essence
   of our sacrament, removing even the obstacle to voluntary sins; for it
   will be possible also to maintain that inclination is a necessity, as
   involving in it, forsooth, a sort of compulsion. I have, in fact,
   disposed of this very allegation of necessity with reference to the
   pleas by which crowns connected with official position are vindicated,
   in support of which it is in common use, since for this very reason
   offices must be either refused, that we may not fall into acts of sin,
   or martyrdoms endured that we may get quit of offices. Touching this
   primary aspect of the question, as to the unlawfulness even of a
   military life itself, I shall not add more, that the secondary question
   may be restored to its place. Indeed, if, putting my strength to the
   question, I banish from us the military life, I should now to no
   purpose issue a challenge on the matter of the military crown. Suppose,
   then, that the military service is lawful, as far as the plea for the
   crown is concerned. [422]
     __________________________________________________________________

   [417] [He plays on this word Sacramentum. Is the military sacrament to
   be added to the Lord's?]

   [418] 1 Cor. viii. 10.

   [419] [Vexillum. Such words as these prepared for the Labarum.]

   [420] ?Outside of the military service.? By substituting ex militia for
   the corresponding words extra militiam, as has been proposed by
   Rigaltius, the sentence acquires a meaning such that desertion from the
   army is suggested as one of the methods by which a soldier who has
   become a Christian may continue faithful to Jesus. But the words extra
   militiam are a genuine part of the text. There is no good ground,
   therefore, for the statement of Gibbon:  ?Tertullian (de Corona
   Militis, c. xi.) suggests to them the expedient of deserting; a counsel
   which, if it had been generally known, was not very proper to
   conciliate the favour of the emperors toward the Christian sect.?--Tr.

   [421] ?The faithful,? etc.; i.e., the kind of occupation which any one
   has cannot be pleaded by him as a reason for not doing all that Christ
   has enjoined upon His people.--Tr.

   [422] [He was not yet quite a Montanist.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XII.

   But I first say a word also about the crown itself. This laurel one is
   sacred to Apollo or Bacchus--to the former as the god of archery, to
   the latter as the god of triumphs. In like manner Claudius teaches;
   when he tells us that soldiers are wont too to be wreathed in myrtle.
   For the myrtle belongs to Venus, the mother of the Æneadæ, the mistress
   also of the god of war, who, through Ilia and the Romuli is Roman.  But
   I do not believe that Venus is Roman as well as Mars, because of the
   vexation the concubine gave her. [423] When military service again is
   crowned with olive, the idolatry has respect to Minerva, who is equally
   the goddess of arms--but got a crown of the tree referred to, because
   of the peace she made with Neptune. In these respects, the superstition
   of the military garland will be everywhere defiled and all-defiling.
   And it is further defiled, I should think, also in the grounds of it.
   Lo the yearly public pronouncing of vows, what does that bear on its
   face to be?  It takes place first in the part of the camp where the
   general's tent is, and then in the temples. In addition to the places,
   observe the words also:  ?We vow that you, O Jupiter, will then have an
   ox with gold-decorated horns.? What does the utterance mean? Without a
   doubt the denial (of Christ). Albeit the Christian says nothing in
   these places with the mouth, he makes his response by having the crown
   on his head. The laurel is likewise commanded (to be used) at the
   distribution of the largess. So you see idolatry is not without its
   gain, selling, as it does, Christ for pieces of gold, as Judas did for
   pieces of silver. Will it be ?Ye cannot serve God and mammon? [424] to
   devote your energies to mammon, and to depart from God? Will it be
   ?Render unto Cæsar the things which are Cæsar's, and unto God the
   things which are God's,? [425] not only not to render the human being
   to God, but even to take the denarius from Cæsar? Is the laurel of the
   triumph made of leaves, or of corpses? Is it adorned with ribbons, or
   with tombs? Is it bedewed with ointments, or with the tears of wives
   and mothers? It may be of some Christians too; [426] for Christ is also
   among the barbarians. [427] Has not he who has carried (a crown for)
   this cause on his head, fought even against himself?  Another son of
   service belongs to the royal guards. And indeed crowns are called
   (Castrenses), as belonging to the camp; Munificæ likewise, from the
   Cæsarean functions they perform. But even then you are still the
   soldier and the servant of another; and if of two masters, of God and
   Cæsar: but assuredly then not of Cæsar, when you owe yourself to God,
   as having higher claims, I should think, even in matters in which both
   have an interest.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [423] i.e., Ilia.

   [424] Matt. vi. 24.

   [425] Matt. xxii. 21.

   [426] [Such considerations may account for our author's abandonment of
   what he says in the Apology; which compare in capp. xlii. and xxxix.]

   [427] [Et apud barbaros enim Christus. See Kaye's argument, p. 87.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIII.

   For state reasons, the various orders of the citizens also are crowned
   with laurel crowns; but the magistrates besides with golden ones, as at
   Athens, and at Rome. Even to those are preferred the Etruscan. This
   appellation is given to the crowns which, distinguished by their gems
   and oak leaves of gold, they put on, with mantles having an embroidery
   of palm branches, to conduct the chariots containing the images of the
   gods to the circus. There are also provincial crowns of gold, needing
   now the larger heads of images instead of those of men. But your
   orders, and your magistracies, and your very place of meeting, the
   church, are Christ's. You belong to Him, for you have been enrolled in
   the books of life. [428] There the blood of the Lord serves for your
   purple robe, and your broad stripe is His own cross; there the axe is
   already laid to the trunk of the tree; [429] there is the branch out of
   the root of Jesse. [430] Never mind the state horses with their crown.
   Your Lord, when, according to the Scripture, He would enter Jerusalem
   in triumph, had not even an ass of His own. These (put their trust) in
   chariots, and these in horses; but we will seek our help in the name of
   the Lord our God. [431] From so much as a dwelling in that Babylon of
   John's Revelation [432] we are called away; much more then from its
   pomp. The rabble, too, are crowned, at one time because of some great
   rejoicing for the success of the emperors; at another, on account of
   some custom belonging to municipal festivals. For luxury strives to
   make her own every occasion of public gladness. But as for you, you are
   a foreigner in this world, a citizen of Jerusalem, the city above. Our
   citizenship, the apostle says, is in heaven. [433] You have your own
   registers, your own calendar; you have nothing to do with the joys of
   the world; nay, you are called to the very opposite, for ?the world
   shall rejoice, but ye shall mourn.? [434] And I think the Lord affirms,
   that those who mourn are happy, not those who are crowned.  Marriage,
   too, decks the bridegroom with its crown; and therefore we will not
   have heathen brides, lest they seduce us even to the idolatry with
   which among them marriage is initiated.  You have the law from the
   patriarchs indeed; you have the apostle enjoining people to marry in
   the Lord. [435] You have a crowning also on the making of a freeman;
   but you have been already ransomed by Christ, and that at a great
   price.  How shall the world manumit the servant of another? Though it
   seems to be liberty, yet it will come to be found bondage. In the world
   everything is nominal, and nothing real.  For even then, as ransomed by
   Christ, you were under no bondage to man; and now, though man has given
   you liberty, you are the servant of Christ. If you think freedom of the
   world to be real, so that you even seal it with a crown, you have
   returned to the slavery of man, imagining it to be freedom; you have
   lost the freedom of Christ, fancying it is slavery. Will there be any
   dispute as to the cause of crown-wearing, which contests in the games
   in their turn supply, and which, both as sacred to the gods and in
   honour of the dead, their own reason at once condemns? It only remains,
   that the Olympian Jupiter, and the Nemean Hercules, and the wretched
   little Archemorus, and the hapless Antinous, should be crowned in a
   Christian, that he himself may become a spectacle disgusting to behold.
   We have recounted, as I think, all the various causes of the wearing of
   the crown, and there is not one which has any place with us: all are
   foreign to us, unholy, unlawful, having been abjured already once for
   all in the solemn declaration of the sacrament. For they were of the
   pomp of the devil and his angels, offices of the world, [436] honours,
   festivals, popularity huntings, false vows, exhibitions of human
   servility, empty praises, base glories, and in them all idolatry, even
   in respect of the origin of the crowns alone, with which they are all
   wreathed. Claudius will tell us in his preface, indeed, that in the
   poems of Homer the heaven also is crowned with constellations, and that
   no doubt by God, no doubt for man; therefore man himself, too, should
   be crowned by God.  But the world crowns brothels, and baths, and
   bakehouses, and prisons, and schools, and the very amphitheatres, and
   the chambers where the clothes are stripped from dead gladiators, and
   the very biers of the dead. How sacred and holy, how venerable and pure
   is this article of dress, determine not from the heaven of poetry
   alone, but from the traffickings of the whole world.  But indeed a
   Christian will not even dishonour his own gate with laurel crowns, if
   so be he knows how many gods the devil has attached to doors; Janus
   so-called from gate, Limentinus from threshold, Forcus and Carna from
   leaves and hinges; among the Greeks, too, the Thyræan Apollo, and the
   evil spirits, the Antelii.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [428] Phil. iv. 3.

   [429] Matt. iii. 10.

   [430] Isa. xi. 1.

   [431] Ps. xx. 7.

   [432] Rev. xviii. 4. [He understands this of Rome.]

   [433] Phil. iii. 20.

   [434] John xvi. 20.

   [435] 1 Cor. vii. 39.

   [436] [A suggestive interpretation of the baptismal vow, of which see
   Bunsen, Hippol., Vol. III., p. 20.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XIV.

   Much less may the Christian put the service of idolatry on his own
   head--nay, I might have said, upon Christ, since Christ is the Head of
   the Christian man--(for his head) is as free as even Christ is, under
   no obligation to wear a covering, not to say a band. But even the head
   which is bound to have the veil, I mean woman's, as already taken
   possession of by this very thing, is not open also to a band. She has
   the burden of her own humility to bear. If she ought not to appear with
   her head uncovered on account of the angels, [437] much more with a
   crown on it will she offend those (elders) who perhaps are then wearing
   crowns above. [438] For what is a crown on the head of a woman, but
   beauty made seductive, but mark of utter wantonness,--a notable casting
   away of modesty, a setting temptation on fire?  Therefore a woman,
   taking counsel from the apostles' foresight, [439] will not too
   elaborately adorn herself, that she may not either be crowned with any
   exquisite arrangement of her hair.  What sort of garland, however, I
   pray you, did He who is the Head of the man and the glory of the woman,
   Christ Jesus, the Husband of the church, submit to in behalf of both
   sexes? Of thorns, I think, and thistles,--a figure of the sins which
   the soil of the flesh brought forth for us, but which the power of the
   cross removed, blunting, in its endurance by the head of our Lord,
   death's every sting. Yes, and besides the figure, there is contumely
   with ready lip, and dishonour, and infamy, and the ferocity involved in
   the cruel things which then disfigured and lacerated the temples of the
   Lord, that you may now be crowned with laurel, and myrtle, and olive,
   and any famous branch, and which is of more use, with hundred-leaved
   roses too, culled from the garden of Midas, and with both kinds of
   lily, and with violets of all sorts, perhaps also with gems and gold,
   so as even to rival that crown of Christ which He afterwards obtained.
   For it was after the gall He tasted the honeycomb [440] and He was not
   greeted as King of Glory in heavenly places till He had been condemned
   to the cross as King of the Jews, having first been made by the Father
   for a time a little less than the angels, and so crowned with glory and
   honour. If for these things, you owe your own head to Him, repay it if
   you can, such as He presented His for yours; or be not crowned with
   flowers at all, if you cannot be with thorns, because you may not be
   with flowers.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [437] 1 Cor. xi. 10. [Does he here play on the use of the word angels
   in the Revelation? He seems to make it = elders.]

   [438] Rev. iv. 4.

   [439] 1 Tim. ii. 9; 1 Pet. iii. 3.

   [440] [A very striking collocation of Matt. xxvii. 34, and Luke xxiv.
   42.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter XV.

   Keep for God His own property untainted; He will crown it if He choose.
   Nay, then, He does even choose. He calls us to it. To him who conquers
   He says, ?I will give a crown of life.? [441] Be you, too, faithful
   unto death, and fight you, too, the good fight, whose crown the apostle
   [442] feels so justly confident has been laid up for him. The angel
   [443] also, as he goes forth on a white horse, conquering and to
   conquer, receives a crown of victory; and another [444] is adorned with
   an encircling rainbow (as it were in its fair colours)--a celestial
   meadow. In like manner, the elders sit crowned around, crowned too with
   a crown of gold, and the Son of Man Himself flashes out above the
   clouds. If such are the appearances in the vision of the seer, of what
   sort will be the realities in the actual manifestation?  Look at those
   crowns. Inhale those odours. Why condemn you to a little chaplet, or a
   twisted headband, the brow which has been destined for a diadem? For
   Christ Jesus has made us even kings to God and His Father. What have
   you in common with the flower which is to die? You have a flower in the
   Branch of Jesse, upon which the grace of the Divine Spirit in all its
   fulness rested--a flower undefiled, unfading, everlasting, by choosing
   which the good soldier, too, has got promotion in the heavenly ranks.
   Blush, ye fellow-soldiers of his, henceforth not to be condemned even
   by him, but by some soldier of Mithras, who, at his initiation in the
   gloomy cavern, in the camp, it may well be said, of darkness, when at
   the sword's point a crown is presented to him, as though in mimicry of
   martyrdom, and thereupon put upon his head, is admonished to resist and
   cast it off, and, if you like, transfer it to his shoulder, saying that
   Mithras is his crown. And thenceforth he is never crowned; and he has
   that for a mark to show who he is, if anywhere he be subjected to trial
   in respect of his religion; and he is at once believed to be a soldier
   of Mithras if he throws the crown away--if he say that in his god he
   has his crown. Let us take note of the devices of the devil, who is
   wont to ape some of God's things with no other design than, by the
   faithfulness of his servants, to put us to shame, and to condemn us.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [441] Rev. ii. 10; Jas. i. 22.

   [442] 2 Tim. iv. 8.

   [443] Rev. vi. 2.

   [444] Rev. x. 1.
     __________________________________________________________________

   Elucidations.

   ------------------------

   I.

   (Usages, p. 94.)

   Here a reference to Bunsen's Hippolytus, vol. III., so often referred
   to in the former volume, will be useful. A slight metaphrase will bring
   out the sense, perhaps, of this most interesting portrait of early
   Christian usages.

   In baptism, we use trine immersion, in honour of the trinal Name, after
   renouncing the devil and his angels and the pomps and vanities of his
   kingdom. [445] But this trinal rite is a ceremonial amplification of
   what is actually commanded.  It was heretofore tolerated in some places
   that communicants should take each one his portion, with his own hand,
   but now we suffer none to receive this sacrament except at the hand of
   the minister.  By our Lord's own precept and example, it may be
   received at the hour of ordinary meals, and alike by all the faithful
   whether men or women, yet we usually do this in our gatherings before
   daybreak. Offerings are made in honour of our departed friends, on the
   anniversaries of their deaths, which we esteem their true birthdays, as
   they are born to a better life.  We kneel at other times, but on the
   Lord's day, and from the Paschal Feast to Pentecost we stand in prayer,
   nor do we count it lawful to fast on Sundays. We are concerned if even
   a particle of the wine or bread, made ours, in the Lord's Supper, falls
   to the ground, by our carelessness. In all the ordinary occasions of
   life we furrow our foreheads with the sign of the Cross, in which we
   glory none the less because it is regarded as our shame by the heathen
   in presence of whom it is a profession of our faith.

   He owns there is no Scripture for any of these usages, in which there
   was an amplifying of the precepts of Christ. Let us note there was yet
   no superstitious usage even of this sign of the Cross. It was an act by
   which, in suffering ?shame for Jesus' name,? they fortified themselves
   against betraying the Master. It took the place, be it remembered, of
   innumerable heathen practices, and was a protest against them.  It
   meant--?God forbid that I should glory, save in the Cross.? I express
   no personal opinion as to this observance, but give the explanation
   which the early Christians would have given. Tertullian touched with
   Montanism, but not yet withdrawn from Catholic Communion, pleads the
   common cause of believers.

   II.

   (Traditions, cap. iv., p. 95.)

   The traditions here argued for respect things in their nature
   indifferent.  And as our author asserts the long continuance of such
   usages to be their chief justification, it is evident that he supposed
   them common from the Sub-apostolic age. There is nothing here to
   justify amplifications and traditions which, subsequently, came in like
   a flood to change principles of the Faith once delivered to the
   Saints.  Even in his little plea for Montanistic revelations of some
   possible novelties, he pre-supposes that reason must be subject to
   Scripture and Apostolic Law.  In a word, his own principle of
   ?Prescription? must be honoured even in things indifferent; if novel
   they are not Catholic.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [445] See Kaye, pp. 408-415.
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________
     __________________________________________________________________

   V.

   To Scapula. [446]

   [Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall.]

   ------------------------

   Chapter I.

   We are not in any great perturbation or alarm about the persecutions we
   suffer from the ignorance of men; for we have attached ourselves to
   this sect, fully accepting the terms of its covenant, so that, as men
   whose very lives are not their own, we engage in these conflicts, our
   desire being to obtain God's promised rewards, and our dread lest the
   woes with which He threatens an unchristian life should overtake us.
   Hence we shrink not from the grapple with your utmost rage, coming even
   forth of our own accord to the contest; and condemnation gives us more
   pleasure than acquittal. We have sent, therefore, this tract to you in
   no alarm about ourselves, but in much concern for you and for all our
   enemies, to say nothing of our friends. For our religion commands us to
   love even our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us, aiming
   at a perfection all its own, and seeking in its disciples something of
   a higher type than the commonplace goodness of the world. For all love
   those who love them; it is peculiar to Christians alone to love those
   that hate them. Therefore mourning over your ignorance, and
   compassionating human error, and looking on to that future of which
   every day shows threatening signs, necessity is laid on us to come
   forth in this way also, that we may set before you the truths you will
   not listen to openly.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [446] [See Elucidation I. Written late in our author's life, this tract
   contains no trace of Montanism, and shows that his heart was with the
   common cause of all Christians. Who can give up such an Ephraim without
   recalling the words of inspired love for the erring?-- Jer. xxxi. 20;
   Hos. xi. 8.]
     __________________________________________________________________

   Chapter II.

   We are worshippers of one God, of whose existence and character Nature
   teaches all men; at whose lightnings and thunders you tremble, whose
   benefits minister to your happiness. You think that others, too, are
   gods, whom we know to be devils.  However, it is a fundamental human
   right, a privilege of nature, that every man should worship according
   to his own convictions: one man's religion neither harms nor helps
   another man. It is assuredly no part of religion to compel religion--to
   which free-will and not force should lead us--the sacrificial victims
   even being required of a willing mind. You will render no real service
   to your gods by compelling us to sacrifice. For they can have no desire
   of offerings from the unwilling, unless they are animated by a spirit
   of contention, which is a thing altogether undivine. Accordingly the
   true God bestows His blessings alike on wicked men and on His own
   elect; upon which account He has appointed an eternal judgment, when
   both thankful and unthankful will have to stand before His bar. Yet you
   have never detected us--sacrilegious wretches though you reckon us to
   be--in any theft, far less in any sacrilege. But the robbers of your
   temples, all of them swear by your gods, and worship them; they are not
   Christians, and yet it is they who are found guilty of sacrilegious
   deeds. We have not time to unfold in how many other ways your gods are
   mocked and despised by their own votaries. So, too, treason is falsely
   laid to our charge, though no one has ever been able to find followers
   of Albinus, or Niger, or Cassius, among Christians; while the very men
   who had sworn by the genii of the emperors, who had offered and vowed
   sacrifices for their safety, who had often pronounced condemnation on
   Christ's disciples, are till this day found traitors to the imperial
   throne. A Christian is enemy to none, least of all to the Emperor of
   Rome, whom he knows to be appointed by his God, and so cannot but love
   and honour; and whose well-being moreover, he must needs desire, with
   that of the empire over which he reigns so long as the world shall
   stand--for so long as that shall Rome continue. [447] To the emperor,
   therefore, we render such reverential homage as is lawful for us and
   good for him; regarding him as the human being next to God who from God
   has received all his power, and is less than God alone. And this will
   be according to his own desires. For thus--as less only than the true
   God--he is greater than all besides. Thus he is greater than the very
   gods themselves, even they, too, being subject to him. We therefore
   sacrifice for the emperor's safety, but to our God and his, and after
   the manner God has enjoined, in simple prayer. For God, Creator of the
   universe, has no need of odours or of blood. These things are the food
   of devils. [448] But we not only reject those wicked spirits: we
   overcome them; we daily hold them up to contempt; we exorcise them from
   their victims, as multitudes can testify. So all the more we pray for
   the imperial well-being, as those who seek it at the hands of Him who
   is able to bestow it. And one would think it must be abundantly clear
   to you that the religious system under whose rules we act is one
   inculcating a divine patience; since, though our numbers are so
   great--constituting all but the majority in every city--we conduct
   ourselves so quietly and modestly; I might perhaps say, known rather as
   individuals than as organized communities, and remarkable only for the
   reformation of our former vices. For far be it from us to take it ill
   that we have laid on us the very things we wish, or in any way plot the
   vengeance at our own hands, which we expect to come from God.
     __________________________________________________________________

   [447] [Kaye points out our author's inconsistencies on this matter.  If
   Caractacus ever made the speech ascribed to him (Bede, or Gibbon, cap.
   lxxi.) it would confirm the opinion of those who make him a convert to
   Chris