Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Argument: The Impious Temerity of Theodorus, Diagoras, and Protagoras is Not at All to Be Acquiesced In, Who Wished Either Altogether to Get Rid of the Religion of the Gods, or at Least to Weaken It. But Infinitely Less to Be Endured is that Skulking and Light-Shunning People of the Christians, Who Reject the Gods, and Who, Fearing to Die After Death, Do Not in the Meantime Fear to Die. PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP
Chapter
VIII.—Argument: The Impious Temerity of Theodorus,
Diagoras, and Protagoras is Not at All to Be Acquiesced In, Who Wished
Either Altogether to Get Rid of the Religion of the Gods, or at Least
to Weaken It. But Infinitely Less to Be Endured is that Skulking
and Light-Shunning People of the Christians, Who Reject the Gods, and
Who, Fearing to Die After Death, Do Not in the Meantime Fear to
Die.
“Therefore, since the consent of all nations
concerning the existence of the immortal gods remains established,
although their nature or their origin remains uncertain, I suffer
nobody swelling with such boldness, and with I know not what
irreligious wisdom, who would strive to undermine or weaken this
religion, so ancient, so useful, so wholesome, even although he may be
Theodorus of Cyrene, or one who is before him, Diagoras the
Melian,1736
1736 According to the
codex, “the Milesian.” [See note in Reeve’s
Apologies of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Minucius
Felix, vol. ii. p. 59. S.] | to whom antiquity
applied the surname of Atheist,—both of whom, by asseverating
that there were no gods, took away all the fear by which humanity is
ruled, and all veneration absolutely; yet never will they prevail in
this discipline of impiety, under the name and authority of their
pretended philosophy. When the men of Athens both expelled
Protagoras of Abdera, and in public assembly burnt his writings,
because he disputed deliberately1737
1737 Some have corrected
this word, reading “without consideration,” scil.
“inconsulte;” and the four first editions omit the
subsequent words, “concerning the divinity.” | rather than
profanely concerning the divinity, why is it not a thing to be
lamented, that men (for you will bear with my making use pretty freely
of the force of the plea that I have undertaken)—that men, I say,
of a reprobate, unlawful, and desperate faction, should rage against
the gods? who, having gathered together from the lowest dregs the more
unskilled, and women, credulous and, by the facility of their sex,
yielding, establish a herd of a profane conspiracy, which is leagued
together by nightly meetings, and solemn fasts and inhuman
meats—not by any sacred rite, but by that which requires
expiation—a people skulking and shunning the light, silent in
public, but garrulous in corners. They despise the temples as
dead-houses, they reject the gods, they laugh at sacred things;
wretched, they pity, if they are allowed, the priests; half naked
themselves, they despise honours and purple robes. Oh, wondrous
folly and incredible audacity! they despise present torments, although
they fear those which are uncertain and future; and while they fear to
die after death, they do not fear to die for the present: so does
a deceitful hope soothe their fear with the solace of a
revival.1738
1738 There are various
emendations of this passage, but their meaning is somewhat
obscure. One is elaborately ingenious: “Ita illis
pavorum fallax spes solatio redivivo blanditur,” which is said to
imply, “Thus the hope that deceives their fears, soothes them
with the hope of living again.” | E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|