CHAPTER XLVI.

4. Our sect is regarded as a school of philosophy, yet you refuse us the licence you grant to philosophers. In reality, we differ from the philosophers both in the extent and definiteness of our knowledge, and in our moral standard.

WE have, as I think, held our position against that accusation which charges us with every crime, and which demands the blood of the Christians. We have presented an account of our whole condition, and shewn by what means we can be proved to be such as we have said; namely, by the trustworthiness and antiquity of our divine writings, and also by the confession of spiritual powers. Who will dare to confute us on the point of truth, not by verbal artifice, but by the same method as that by which we have established our proof?

But whilst the truth of our cause is manifested to every one, unbelief meantime, although convicted on the point of the goodness of our sect, which is now well-known by experience and intercourse, refuses to regard it as at all a divine question, and looks upon it rather as a kind of philosophy. 'The philosophers also,' it says, 'teach and profess the same things, —innocence, justice, patience, sobriety, modesty.' Why, then, when we are compared with them in our system of ethics, are we not just as much placed on the same footing with them in respect of the licence and impunity allowed to their system? or why are not [130] they too, if they resemble us, compelled to perform duties which jeopardize us who refuse to discharge them? For who compels a philosopher to offer sacrifice, or to swear, or to publicly expose useless lamps at midday? Why, they even attack your gods openly, and blame your superstitions in their writings, with your approval. Most of them bark against your princes with your support and countenance. And they are more readily rewarded with statues and salaries than sentenced to the beasts. And justly so, for they are termed philosophers, not Christians. This name of philosophers does not put daemons to flight. Why should it, when philosophers rank daemons next to gods? It is the expression of Socrates : 'If the daemon permit.' The same philosopher, too, when he had acquired wisdom on some points of the truth, in that he denied your gods, nevertheless just before his death bade a cock be sacrificed to Aesculapius; I suppose in honour of his father, because Apollo oracularly declared that Socrates was the wisest of all men. How ill-advised of Apollo! He bore testimony to the wisdom of the very man who denied the existence of the gods. In the same proportion as truth excites hatred, so does that man offend who truly sets it forth; but he who adulterates and dissimulates the truth, by this very action gains favour with those who assail it, [inasmuch as they are its scoffers and despisers ¹¹⁹]. The philosophers counterfeit the truth in mimicry, and in their imitation [131] corrupt it, being seekers after fame: Christians necessarily desire the truth eagerly, and maintain it intact, being anxious about their own salvation.

Thus we resemble the philosophers neither in knowledge nor in system of ethics, as you suppose ¹²⁰. For what definite answer did Thales, that first of natural philosophers, give to Croesus who enquired of him concerning the Divinity, although he had repeatedly employed to no purpose the extensions of time allowed him for deliberation? Yet any Christian working-man you please both finds and declares what God is, and thence by that manifestation ascribes also to Him all that is sought for in God; notwithstanding that Plato ¹²¹ says the Maker of the universe is not easily found, and when found is with difficulty explained to the multitude.

Moreover if we base our appeal on the point of chastity, I read that one portion of the Athenian sentence against Socrates adjudged him to be a corruptor of youths. The Christian does not change the natural use of the woman. I know also that the harlot Phryne gratified the lust of Diogenes. I hear, too, that a certain Speusippus, of the school of Plato, [132] died in the act of adultery. A Christian is naturally a husband to his own wife only. Democritus blinded himself, because he could not look upon women without lusting for them, and grieving if he could not possess them; and thus he professed his incontinence by the remedy he adopted. But a Christian looks at a woman with safe glances, for he is blinded against lust in his heart.

If I ground a defence on the point of humility, look at Diogenes with muddy feet trampling, with a pride of his own, on the proud couches of Plato: a Christian is not proud even towards a poor man.

If I contend on the point of contentment, look at Pythagoras at Thurii, and Zeno at Priene, eagerly striving for the tyranny: a Christian seeks not even the aedileship.

If I argue on the point of equanimity, Lycurgus chose a death by starvation because the Spartans altered his laws : a Christian, even when condemned, returns thanks.

If I draw a comparison on the point of integrity, Anaxagoras refused to return the deposit of his guests: a Christian is called faithful even to outsiders.

If I take up a position on the ground of sincerity, Aristotle disgracefully ousted his own familiar friend Hermias: a Christian does not injure even his foe. The same Aristotle as disgracefully fawns upon Alexander, whom he ought rather to have ruled, as Plato sells himself to Dionysius for his belly's sake. Aristippus lives a profligate life in his purple, under a [133] great appearance of gravity; and Hippias is slain whilst plotting intrigues against the state. No Christian ever attempted this on behalf of his friends scattered abroad with every kind of cruelty.

But some one may say that even certain of our own members deviate from our rule of discipline : in that case, however, they cease to be regarded as Christians by us; whereas philosophers, in spite of such misdeeds, continue amongst you to enjoy the reputation and honour of wisdom. Where then is the resemblance between the philosopher and the Christian, between the disciple of Greece and of Heaven, between the bargainer for fame and for salvation, between the creator of words and of deeds, between the builder and destroyer of things ¹²², between the falsifier of error and the restorer of truth, between truth's despoiler and its guardian?