Age iam, si qui philosophus adfirmet, ut ait Laberius de sententia Pythagorae, hominem fieri ex mulo, colubram ex muliere, et in eam opinionem omnia argumenta eloquii virtute distorserit, nonne consensum movebit et fidem infiget etiam ab animalibus abstinendi propterea?
Come, suppose some philosopher affirm (like Laberiusa talking of Pythagoreanism) that a mule becomes a man, and a woman a snake; suppose that by force of eloquence he twists all the arguments to support that opinion; it will find (wont it?) acceptance, it will implant the conviction that we must on that account abstain from eating animals.
final_alignments\Tertullian_Apology.json