Übersetzung
ausblenden
Apologie des Chrétiens
XXXV.
Après cela, quel homme assez insensé, puisque telle est notre conduite, pourrait nous traiter d'homicides? Et dès lors si nous ne sommes point homicides, que devient l'accusation de manger de la chair humaine? On ne peut en manger sans avoir d'abord égorgé un homme. Qu'on demande donc à ceux qui nous accusent de ces horribles festins si jamais ils nous ont vu égorger quelqu'un : personne parmi eux, j'en suis sûr, ne serait assez impudent pour oser l'assurer. Il en est parmi nous qui ont des esclaves, les uns plus, les autres moins ; il ne serait pas possible de se cacher d'eux, et aucun de ces esclaves n'a inventé contre nous de pareilles calomnies. Comment, en effet, pourrait-on accuser sérieusement de tuer et de manger des hommes ceux qui ne se permettent pas même, comme on le sait, d'assister aux exécutions des criminels ? Qui de vos sujets n'est avide des spectacles de gladiateurs et de bêtes féroces, surtout si c'est vous-mêmes qui les donnez? Pour nous, persuadés qu'il y a peu de différence entre regarder avec plaisir un meurtre et le commettre, nous fuyons avec horreur ces spectacles. Comment donc pourrions-nous tremper nos mains dans le sang, nous qui croyons ne devoir pas même assister à un meurtre, de peur que le crime et l'expiation de ce crime ne retombent sur nous? Comment pourrions-nous égorger un homme nous qui traitons d'homicides les femmes qui se font avorter, persuadés comme nous le sommes qu'elles seront sévèrement punies au jugement de Dieu? Certes, le même homme ne peut regarder l'enfant encore dans le sein de sa mère comme un être dont Dieu s'occupe, et le tuer aussitôt après sa naissance; le même homme qui se reprocherait d'être un parricide, s'il exposait son enfant, est incapable de le tuer de sa main quand il l'aura nourri et élevé. Non, non, notre conduite ne se dément point de la sorte; mais, toujours semblables à nous-mêmes, nous agissons conformément à la raison, sans prétendre l'asservir à nos passions.
Übersetzung
ausblenden
A Plea for the Christians
Chapter XXXV.--The Christians Condemn and Detest All Cruelty.
What man of sound mind, therefore, will affirm, while such is our character, that we are murderers? For we cannot eat human flesh till we have killed some one. The former charge, therefore, being false, if any one should ask them in regard to the second, whether they have seen what they assert, not one of them would be so barefaced as to say that he had. And yet we have slaves, some more and some fewer, by whom we could not help being seen; but even of these, not one has been found to invent even such things against us. For when they know that we cannot endure even to see a man put to death, though justly; who of them can accuse us of murder or cannibalism? Who does not reckon among the things of greatest interest the contests of gladiators and wild beasts, especially those which are given by you? But we, deeming that to see a man put to death is much the same as killing him, have abjured such spectacles. 1 How, then, when we do not even look on, lest we should contract guilt and pollution, can we put people to death? And when we say that those women who use drugs to bring on abortion commit murder, and will have to give an account to God 2 for the abortion, on what principle should we commit murder? For it does not belong to the same person to regard the very foetus in the womb as a created being, and therefore an object of God's care, and when it has passed into life, to kill it; and not to expose an infant, because those who expose them are chargeable with child-murder, and on the other hand, when it has been reared to destroy it. But we are in all things always alike and the same, submitting ourselves to reason, and not ruling over it.
-
[See Tatian, cap xxiii., supra, p. 75. But here the language of Gibbon is worthy to be quoted: though the icy-hearted infidel failed to understand that just such philosophers as he enjoyed these spectacles, till Christianity taught even such to profess a refined abhorrence of what the Gospel abolished, with no help from them. He says, "the first Christian emperor may claim the honour of the first edict which condemned the art and amusement of shedding human blood; but this benevolent law expressed the wishes of the prince, without reforming an inveterate abuse which degraded a civilized (?) nation below the condition of savage cannibals. Several hundred, perhaps several thousand, victims were annually slaughtered in the great cities of the empire." He tells the story of the heroic Telemachus, without eulogy; how his death, while struggling to separate the combatants abolished forever the inhuman sports and sacrifices of the amphitheatre. This happened under Honorius. Milman's Gibbon, iii. 210.] ↩
-
[Let Americans read this, and ask whether a relapse into heathenism is not threatening our civilization, in this respect. May I venture to refer to Moral Reforms (ed. 1869, Lippincotts, Philadelphia), a little book of my own, rebuking this inquity, and tracing the earliest violation of this law of Christian morals, and of nature itself, to an unhappy Bishop of Rome, rebuked by Hippolytus. See vol. vi. p. 345, Edinburgh Series of Ante-Nicene Fathers.] ↩