In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those statements
about faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful thing for the
multitude, we admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons,
who are unable to abandon all other employments, and give themselves to
an examination of arguments; and our opponents, although they do not
acknowledge it, yet practically do the same. For who is there that, on
betaking himself to the study of philosophy, and throwing himself into
the ranks of some sect, either by chance,[1150] or because he is
provided with a teacher of that school, adopts such a course for any
other reason, except that he _believes_ his particular sect to be
superior to any other? For, not waiting to hear the arguments of all the
other philosophers, and of all the different sects, and the reasons for
condemning one system and for supporting another, he in this way elects
to become a Stoic, _e.g._, or a Platonist, or a Peripatetic, or an
Epicurean, or a follower of some other school, and is thus borne,
although they will not admit it, by a kind of irrational impulse to the
practice, say of Stoicism, to the disregard of the others; despising
either Platonism, as being marked by greater humility than the others;
or Peripateticism, as more human, and as admitting with more
fairness[1151] than other systems the blessings of human life. And some
also, alarmed at first sight[1152] about the doctrine of providence,
from seeing what happens in the world to the vicious and to the
virtuous, have rashly concluded that there is no divine providence at
all, and have adopted the views of Epicurus and Celsus.
Footnote 1150:
ἀποκληρωτικῶς.
Footnote 1151:
μᾶλλον εὐγνωμόνως.
Footnote 1152:
ἀπὸ πρώτης προσβολῆς.