any real crimes were clearly adducible against us, their very names would condemn us, if found applicable,  so that distinct sentences would be pronounced against us in this wise: Let that murderer, or that incestuous criminal, or whatever it be that we are charged with, be led to execution, be crucified, or be thrown to the beasts. Your sentences, however,  import only that one has confessed himself a Christian. No name of a crime stands against us, but only the crime of a name. Now this in very deed is neither more nor less than  the entire odium which is felt against us. The name is the cause: some mysterious force intensified by your ignorance assails it, so that you do not wish to know for certain that which for certain you are sure you know nothing of; and therefore, further, you do not believe things which are not submitted to proof, and, lest they should be easily refuted,  you refuse to make inquiry, so that the odious name is punished under the presumption of (real) crimes. In order, therefore, that the issue may be withdrawn from the offensive name, we are compelled to deny it; then upon our denial we are acquitted, with an entire absolution  for the past: we are no longer murderers, no longer incestuous, because we have lost that name.  But since this point is dealt with in a place of its own,  do you tell us plainly why you are pursuing this name even to extirpation? What crime, what offence, what fault is there in a name? For you are barred by the rule  which puts it out of your power to allege crimes (of any man), which no legal action moots, no indictment specifies, no sentence enumerates. In any case which is submitted to the judge,  inquired into against the defendant, responded to by him or denied, and cited from the bench, I acknowledge a legal charge. Concerning, then, the merit of a name, whatever offence names may be charged with, whatever impeachment words may be amenable to, I for my part  think, that not even a complaint is due to a word or a name, unless indeed it has a barbarous sound, or smacks of ill-luck, or is immodest, or is indecorous for the speaker, or unpleasant to the hearer. These crimes in (mere) words and names are just like barbarous words and phrases, which have their fault, and their solecism, and their absurdity of figure. The name Christian, however, so far as its meaning goes, bears the sense of anointing. Even when by a faulty pronunciation you call us "Chrestians" (for you are not certain about even the sound of this noted name), you in fact lisp out the sense of pleasantness and goodness.  You are therefore vilifying  in harmless men even the harmless name we bear, which is not inconvenient for the tongue, nor harsh to the ear, nor injurious to a single being, nor rude for our country, being a good Greek word, as many others also are, and pleasant in sound and sense. Surely, surely,  names are not things which deserve punishment by the sword, or the cross, or the beasts.
 Comp. The Apology, cc. i. and ii.  Adeo si.  Si accommodarent.  Porro.  Hæc ratio est.  Reprobentur.  Impunitate.  i.e., the name "Christians."  By the "suo loco," Tertullian refers to The Apology.  Præscribitur vobis.  Præsidi.  Ego.  Chrestos means both "pleasant" and "good;" and the heathen founded this word with the sacred name Christos.  Detinetis.  Et utique.
 Adeo si.
 Si accommodarent.
 Hæc ratio est.
 i.e., the name "Christians."
 By the "suo loco," Tertullian refers to The Apology.
 Præscribitur vobis.
 Chrestos means both "pleasant" and "good;" and the heathen founded this word with the sacred name Christos.
 Et utique.