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.

CAP. III.

Odii eorum caecitatem ostendit, qui quos vituperant eo ipso elogio laudare coguntur, sed qui tam sunt efferati, ut malint uxorem familiamque probris onustam pati, quam Christianam, id est emendatam. Cum itaque nudum illud Nomen tantas concitet rixas, 0279B inquirit in illud, quod nusquam spernendum, vel perperam ab illis pronuntiatum, amabile quid continet, et id commune habet cum reliquis Sectis, quod Nomen ab Auctore mutuetur, cum tamen nunquam Secta quaedam ob Nomen solum persequatur. At Christiani, et quoad Sectam, et quoad Nomen probi, justi, ob Nominis tantum odium, inauditi, incogniti condemnantur.

0280A Quid? quod ita plerique clausis oculis in odium ejus impingunt, ut bonum alicui testimonium ferentes admisceant nominis exprobrationem: Bonus vir Caïus Seius , tantum quod Christianus. Item alius: Ego miror Lucium sapientem virum repente factum Christianum. Nemo retractat: Nonne ideo bonus Caïus, et prudens Lucius , quia Christianus? aut ideo Christianus, quia prudens et bonus? Laudant quae sciunt, vituperant quae ignorant, et id quod sciunt, eo quod ignorant, corrumpunt; cum sit justius occulta de manifestis praejudicare, quam manifesta de occultis praedamnare. Alii, quos retro ante hoc nomen vagos, viles, improbos noverant, ex ipso denotant , quo laudant ; 0280B caecitate odii in suffragium impingunt. Quae mulier! quam lasciva, quam festiva! Qui juvenis! quam lascivus, quam amasius! Facti sunt Christiani. Ita nomen emendationi imputatur. Nonnulli etiam de utilitatibus suis cum odio isto paciscuntur, contenti injuria, dum ne domi habeant, quod oderunt. Uxorem jam pudicam maritus jam non zelotypus ejecit, filium jam subjectum pater retro patiens abdicavit, 0281A servum jam fidelem dominus olim mitis ab oculis relegavit: ut quisque hoc nomine emendatur offendit. Tanti non est bonum, quanti est odium Christianorum. Nunc igitur, si nominis odium est, quis nominum reatus? Quae accusatio vocabulorum, nisi si aut barbarum sonat aliqua vox nominis, aut infaustum, aut maledicum, aut impudicum? Christianus vero , quantum interpretatio est, de unctione deducitur. Sed et cum perperam Chrestianus pronuntiatur a vobis (nam nec nominis certa est notitia penes vos), de suavitate vel benignitate compositum est. Oditur ergo in hominibus 0282A innocuis etiam nomen innocuum. At enim secta oditur in nomine utique sui auctoris. Quid novi, si aliqua disciplina de magistro cognomentum sectatoribus suis inducit? Nonne philosophi de auctoribus suis nuncupantur Platonici, Epicurei, Pythagorici? etiam a locis conventiculorum et stationum suarum Stoici, Academici? atque medici ab Erasistrato, et grammatici ab Aristarcho, coci etiam ab Apicio? Nec tamen quemquam offendit professio nominis, cum institutione transmissa ab institutore. Plane si qui probet malam sectam et ita malum auctorem, is probabit et nomen malum dignum odio de 0283A reatu sectae et auctoris. Ideoque ante odium nominis competebat prius de auctore sectam recognoscere, vel auctorem de secta. At nunc utriusque inquisitione et agnitione neglecta nomen detinetur, nomen expugnatur, et ignotam sectam, ignotum et auctorem vox sola praedamnat, quia nominantur, non quia revincuntur.