' " Mendacem " is his word. I l<now not whether he intends to charge Pamelius with wilful fraud.
» Doctor of the Sorbonne, said by Bossuet to have proved himself " a semi-Pelagian and Jansenist! " bom in 1603, in Normandy, died in 1678.
5 He must not be confounded with the still more famous John' Albert Fabricius of the next century, referred to in p. xv. above.
* Whole of these metrical fragments.
7 Lardner, Credibility, vol. iii. p. 169, under " Victorinus of Pettaw," ed. Kippi5, Lond, 1838.
8 See Laidner, as above." ' ■9 Sea Migne, who prefixes this judgment of Rig. to the de Judicio Domini.
INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 1 5 The Judgment 0/ f/ic 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.n. 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 Jllustribus 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 rheto- rician, 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.
APOLOGY.
APOLOGY.
(TRANSLATED BY THE REV. S. THELWALL, LATE SCHOLAR OF CHRIST'S COLLEGE, CANTAB.]
THE APOLOGY.i CHAP. 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 Chris- tians; if in this case alone you are afraid or ashamed to exercise your authority in making public inquiry with the carefulness which be- comes justice; if, finally, the extreme se- verities inflicted on our people in recently private judgm.ents, 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.'' 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 anx- iously 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, sen- tence 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.
' [Great diversity exists among the critics as to the date of this Apology; see Kaye, pp. x-vi, 48, 65. Mosheim says, a.d. 198, Kaye a Elucidation II.
We lay this before you as the first grounrf 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 hirnvn 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 con- demning 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 con- dition, even high rank, are passing over to the profession of the Christian faith; and yet for ail, 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 i8 APOLOGY.
[chap. II.
desire to make closer trial. Here alone the curiosity of human nature slumbers. They like to be ignorant, though to others the knowl- edge 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 de- testation entertained for it being thus di- minished, 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 un- doubted. 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 in- stance, 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 iinpelled by sinful dispo- sitions, but they lay the blame either on fate or on the stars. They are unwilling to acknowl- edge 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 de- fence; interrogated, he makes voluntary con- fession; 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 con- victed of knowing nothing of the matter.
CHAP. II.
iif, 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 in- vestigations, 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. Noth- ing 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,' the reigning emperor, as to what he was to do with the rest, explaining to his master that, except an obstinate dis- inclination to offer sacrifices, he found in the religious services nothing but meetings at early morning for singing hymns to Christ and - God, and sealing home their way of life by a united pledge to be faithful to their religion, forbidding murder, adultery, dis- honesty, 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.
• [For chronological dates in our author's age, see Elucidaliot III. Tertullian places an interval of 115 years, 6 months and 15 days between Tiberius and Antoniniis Pius. See Atuiver to' tht Jews, cap. vii. in/ra.'\.._ " -.
2 Another reading is " ut Deo," af C7o<^.
'S CHAP. II.]
APOLOGY; 19 O miserable deliverance, — under the neces- sities 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 sol- dier; search is made even for their con- federates 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 no- body 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 con- fession, you had assumed that we were charge- able. 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 there- by innocent, when as innocent you are anx- ious that we do not persevere in a confession which you know will bring on us a condem- nation 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 in- fluence 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, in- deed, 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 ob- tained; 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 his 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 con- fession 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 every- thing you deal differently with us than with other criminals, bent upon the one object ot 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 20 APOLOGY.
[chap. IV.
against the truth, pursues with its enmity, doing this chiefly with the object of securing that men may have no desire to know for cer- tain what they know for certain they are entire- ly ignorant of. Hence, too, it is that they be- lieve 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 con- fession. 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 mur- derer, why not guilty, too, of incest, or any other vile thing you believe of us? In our case alone you are either ashamed or unwil- ling to mention the very names of our crimes. If to be called a " Christian " does not im- ply any crime, the name is surely very hate- ful, when that of itself is made a crime.
CHAP. 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 Chris- tian, 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 li- bidinous! — 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 in- jury, if they are kept free at home from the object of their bitter enmity. The wife, now chaste, the husband, now no longer jeal- ous, casts out of his house; the son, now obedient, the father, who used to be so pa- tient, 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 some- thing 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 reli- gious sect getting for its followers a designa- tion from its master? Are not the philoso- phers called from the founders of their sys- tems— 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 phy- sicians 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 con- sider 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 as- sailed, and a sound alone brings condemna- tion on ^ 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.
CHAP. 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 CHAP, v.]
APOl-OCiY.
21 to US, but I shall also retort them on the ob- jectors, 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 l>lush for their accusations against us, — accu- sations 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. l)ut since, when our truth meets you success- fully 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 abso- lutely conclusive, or the necessity of obedi- ence is, however unwillingly, preferred to the truth, I shall first, in this matter of the laws, grapple with you as with their chosen pro- tectors. 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