34. Let⁵⁷ it be considered then, that we have granted these things, by connivance at an unjust principle. For (in) this, that a man might imagine that which is adverse to the Scripture, and, that we should say of the common Saviour of all that He was a Teacher, not of righteous precepts, but of those of vice, fraud, and of every sort of abomination; and, that these His Disciples learned the same from Him, and were all lustful and vicious in every thing, beyond all men that ever existed; we allowed, by connivance, according to the statement (supposed), that which is of all things the most improper. For this would be, as if one should in a similar manner, injuriously accuse Moses who said in the law, "Thou shalt, not kill; neither shalt thou commit adultery ; neither shalt thou steal; neither shalt thou bear false witness;" and should say, that he uttered these things by way of irony and in hypocrisy; for, it was his wish (nevertheless) that his hearers should kill, commit adultery,

and act in direct opposition to the things, which he himself shewed the Law laid down; and put forth (merely) the form of an approach to purity of life! -- But there is nothing so shameless as this ! In like manner also, might any one arraign the positions⁵⁸ of the Philosophers among the Greeks, whose lives were those of patience, as were all their words, and might say, that they were in their conduct opposed to what they wrote; and so shewed themselves to have made a mere (hypocritical) approach to the life, which belongs to philosophy. And thus, we affirm, might any one simply arraign all the writings of the ancients, and shew cause against the truth which they contain; and might Himself receive that, which is diametrically opposed to these! But, as it cannot be difficult to any one possessed of common sense, to pronounce of this that it would be madness; so also, of the precepts of our Saviour and of His Disciples, should any one pervert the truth which is (found) in these, and then attempt to fix upon Him the things diametrically opposed to His teaching. --  But, let that be granted which the statement itself requires. How much more will it then appear, that the assertion of the opponent cannot stand, as (being grounded) in a connivance (concession) which it is improper to (allow) ?