The writings of Origen, Vol. 2 of 2




                              ANTE-NICENE

                           CHRISTIAN LIBRARY:


                            TRANSLATIONS OF
                      THE WRITINGS OF THE FATHERS
                           DOWN TO A.D. 325.


                             EDITED BY THE
                     REV. ALEXANDER ROBERTS, D.D.,
                                  AND
                         JAMES DONALDSON, LL.D.


                              VOL. XXIII.

                         ORIGEN CONTRA CELSUM.


                               EDINBURGH:
                   T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
                              MDCCCLXXII.




                      PRINTED BY MURRAY AND GIBB,

                                  FOR

                       T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.

                LONDON,        HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
                 DUBLIN,        JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.
                   NEW YORK,      C. SCRIBNER AND CO.




                        THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN.


                           TRANSLATED BY THE
                     REV. FREDERICK CROMBIE, D.D.,
   PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS.


                               VOLUME II.

                         ORIGEN CONTRA CELSUM,
                            BOOKS II.-VIII.


                               EDINBURGH:
                   T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
                              MDCCCLXXII.




Books VII. and VIII. have been translated by the late W. H. CAIRNS,
M.A., Rector of the Dumfries Academy, and the rest by PROFESSOR CROMBIE.




                         ANALYSIS OF CONTENTS.


VOLUME I.

BOOK I., 393-478

PREFACE.—Origen undertakes this treatise at the desire of Ambrose, but
thinks it unnecessary, as the facts and doctrines of Christianity form
its best defence—work begun on one plan and carried on on another.

First objection of Celsus is, that Christians enter into secret
associations, some of which are illegal,—his object being to discredit
the “love-feasts” of the Christians: Answer of Origen—chap. i. Second
objection of Celsus, that Judaism, on which Christianity depends, had a
barbarous origin: Answer—chap. ii. Celsus objects that Christians
practise their doctrines in secret to avoid the penalty of death:
Answer—chap. iii. Morality of Christianity neither venerable nor new:
Answer—chap. iv. Celsus approves of the views of Christians respecting
idolatry, but asserts that these views are prior to Christianity:
Answer—chap. v. Asserts that the miracles of Christianity were performed
by means of the invocation of demons: Answer—chap. vi. That Christianity
is a secret system of belief: Answer—chap. vii. Maintains that a man
should die for his belief; inconsistency of this with his profession as
an Epicurean—chap. viii. Maintains that reason ought to be the guide of
men in adopting opinions, and charges Christians with inculcating a
blind belief: Answer—chaps. ix.-xi. Boast of Celsus, that he is
acquainted with all the opinions of the Christians, shown to be
unfounded—chap. xii. Misrepresentation by Celsus of the statement in 1
Cor. iii. 18, 19: Correction and explanation—chap. xiii. Inconsistency
of Celsus in accepting the accounts of Greeks and barbarians as to their
antiquity, while rejecting the histories of the Jews—chaps. xiv.-xvi.
Celsus objects to giving an allegorical signification to the Jewish
history; inconsistency of this—chap. xvii. Challenges a comparison
between the writings of Linus, Musæus, etc., and the laws of Moses:
Answer—chap. xviii. Celsus holds that the world was uncreated, and yet
is led to admit that it is comparatively modern—chaps. xix., xx. Celsus
asserts that Moses borrowed his doctrines from wise nations and eloquent
men, and thus obtained the reputation of divinity: Answer—chap. xxi.
Circumcision, according to Celsus, first practised by the Egyptians:
Answer—chap. xxii. The followers of Moses, shepherds and herdsmen, were
led to believe in the unity of God through delusion and vulgar conceit:
Answer—chap. xxiii. Various names given to the one God by the followers
of Moses, all evincing their ignorance of His nature: Discussion
regarding the significance of the divine names in various
languages—chaps. xxiv., xxv. Celsus charges the Jews with worshipping
angels and practising sorcery: Answer—chaps. xxvi., xxvii. Inconsistency
of Celsus in introducing a Jew, as an opponent of Jesus, who does not
maintain the character of a Jew throughout the discussion: This Jew
represented as accusing Jesus of having “invented his birth from a
virgin,” and upbraiding Him with “being born in a certain Jewish village
of a poor woman of the country who gained her subsistence by spinning,
and who was turned out of doors by her husband, a carpenter by trade,
because she was convicted of adultery; and after being driven away by
her husband and wandering about for a time, she disgracefully gave birth
to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who, having hired himself out as a
servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and having there acquired
some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians greatly pride themselves,
returned to his own country, highly elated on account of them, and by
help of them proclaimed himself a god”—chap. xxviii. Preliminary remarks
to a full answer to these charges—chaps. xxix.-xxxii. Proof that the
birth of Christ from a virgin was predicted by the prophets—chaps.
xxxiii.-xxxv. Proof that prophets existed among the Jews—chap. xxxvi.
Possibility of the miraculous birth of Christ—chap. xxxvii. Answer to
the assertion that Jesus wrought His miracles by magic, and not by
divine power—chap. xxxviii. Scoffs of Celsus regarding the mother of
Jesus not deserving of answer—chap. xxxix. Celsus charges the narrative
in Matthew regarding the dove which alighted upon the Saviour at His
baptism with being fictitious; shows great want of method and order in
the manner in which he brings his charges—chap. xl. Answer—chaps.
xli.-xlviii. Celsus sets aside the fact that the coming of Jesus was
predicted by the Jewish prophets, perhaps because he was not acquainted
with the prophecies relating to Christ: Inconsistency of representing
the Jew as saying, “My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the Son
of God will come as the judge of the righteous and the punisher of the
wicked”—chaps. xlix., l. Detailed evidence from prophecy respecting the
birth of Christ—chaps. li.-liii. Answer to objection of Celsus regarding
the sufferings of Christ—chaps. liv.-lvi. Celsus asserts that every man,
born according to the decree of divine Providence, is a son of God:
Answer—chap. lvii. The Jew of Celsus goes on to misrepresent the Gospel
account of the visit of the Magi, and of the slaughter of the innocents
by Herod: Answer—chaps. lviii.-lxi. Calumnies of Celsus regarding the
number and character and conduct of the disciples of Jesus:
Answer—chaps. lxii.-lxv. The absurdity of the story of our Lord’s
removal when an infant, is, according to Celsus, a proof that He was not
divine: Answer—chap. lxvi. Celsus denies that the works of Jesus were at
all remarkable as compared with those attributed to Perseus and Amphion,
and other mythological personages, but admits afterwards that some of
them were remarkable,—such as His cures, and His resurrection, and the
feeding of the multitude,—although he immediately afterwards compares
them to the tricks of jugglers, and denies that they can furnish any
proof of His being “Son of God:” Answer—chaps. lxvii., lxviii. Objection
of Celsus that the body of Jesus could not have been that of a god, nor
could be nourished with such food as Jesus partook of: Answer—chaps.
lxix., lxx. Declares that opinions of Jesus were those of a wicked and
God-hated sorcerer: Answer—chap. lxxi.

VOLUME II.

BOOK II., 1 -84

This book contains Origen’s answers to the charges which Celsus, in the
person of a Jew, brings against the converts from Judaism to
Christianity. Main charge is, that “they have forsaken the law of their
fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus; that
they have been most ridiculously deceived; and that they have become
deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Answer to these
charges—chap. i. Digression upon certain declarations of Jesus in the
Gospels—chap. ii. Ignorance of Celsus evinced by the manner in which he
represents the Jew as addressing the Israelitish converts—chap. iii.
Objection of Jew, that Christianity takes its origin from Judaism, and
that after a certain point it discards Judaism: Answer—chap. iv.
Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus was punished by the Jews for His crimes,
already answered—chap. v. Observance by Jesus of Jewish usages and
sacrificial observances, no argument against His recognition as the Son
of God—chap. vi. Language of Jesus furnishes not the slightest evidence,
but the reverse, of arrogance: Quotations—chap. vii. Allegation, that
when men are willing to be deceived, many persons like Jesus would find
a friendly reception; inconsistency of this; various other charges
disposed of—chap. viii. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus could not be
deemed a god because he was currently reported to have performed none of
his promises, and, after conviction and sentence, was found attempting
to conceal himself and endeavouring to escape, and was then betrayed by
his disciples; impossibility of such things, according to Celsus,
happening to a god: Answer to these calumnies and objections—chaps.
ix.-xi. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus was inferior to a brigand chief,
because He was betrayed by His disciples: Answer—chap. xii. Celsus
asserts that he omits mention of many things in the life of Christ which
he could state to His disadvantage; challenged to produce such: Several
predictions of Jesus quoted and commented on—chap. xiii. Celsus makes
light of the admission that future events were predicted by Jesus:
Remarks of Origen in answer—chap. xiv. Assertion of Celsus, that the
disciples of Jesus devised the fiction that He foreknew everything
before it happened: Answer—chap. xv. Asserts that the disciples wrote
the accounts they have given by way of extenuating the charges against
Him: Answer—chap. xvi. Celsus alleges that a prudent man—much more a god
or spirit—would have tried to escape dangers that were foreseen, whereas
Jesus did the reverse: Answer—chap. xvii. Objection of Celsus, that the
announcements which Jesus made regarding those disciples who were to
betray and deny Him had not the effect of deterring them from their
treason and perjury, shown to be self-contradictory—chap. xviii. Further
statement of Celsus, that in such cases intending criminals abandon
their intentions, shown to be untrue—chap. xix. Objection, that if Jesus
had been a God, His predictions must infallibly have come to pass; and
assertion, that He plotted against the members of His own table:
Refuted—chaps. xx.-xxii. Assertion, that the things which He suffered
could have been neither painful nor distressing, because He submitted to
them voluntarily and as a God—chap. xxiii. Misrepresentation of Celsus
as to the language employed by Jesus during His sufferings—chaps. xxiv.,
xxv. Celsus charges the disciples with having invented statements:
Answer—chap. xxvi. Alleges that Christian believers have corrupted the
gospel in order to be able to reply to objections: Answer—chap. xxvii.
The Jew of Celsus reproaches Christians with making use of the prophets:
Answer—chap. xxviii. Assertion of Celsus, that from such signs and
misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove Jesus to
be God and the Son of God: Answer—chap. xxx. Charges Christians with
sophistical reasoning in saying that the Son of God is the Logos
Himself: Refutation—chap. xxxi. Objection of Celsus to our Lord’s
genealogy: Refutation—chap. xxxii. Celsus ridicules the actions of Jesus
as unworthy of a God: Refutation—chap. xxxiii. Inconsistency of Celsus
in representing the Jew as conversant with Greek literature; various
remarks of Celsus answered—chap. xxxiv. Question of Celsus, why Jesus
does not give some manifestation of His divinity by taking vengeance
upon those who insult Him and His Father: Answered—chap. xxxv. Celsus
scoffingly inquires, What was the nature of the ichor in the body of
Jesus? and asserts that Jesus rushed with open mouth to drink of the
vinegar and gall: Answer—chaps. xxxvi., xxxvii. Sneer of the Jew, that
Christians find fault with Jews for not recognising Jesus as God:
Answer—chap. xxxviii. Falsehood of the assertion of this Jew of Celsus,
that Jesus gained over to His cause no one during His life, not even His
own disciples—chap. xxxix. Jew goes on to assert that Jesus did not show
Himself to be pure from all evil: Answer—chaps. xli., xlii. Falsity of
the statement, that Jesus, after failing to gain over those who were in
this world, went to Hades to gain over those who were there—chap. xliii.
Celsus asserts further, that other individuals who have been condemned
and died miserable deaths ought to be regarded as greater and more
divine messengers of heaven than Jesus: Answer—chap. xliv. Argument of
Celsus against the truth of Christianity, from the different behaviour
of the actual followers of Jesus during His life and that of Christians
at the present day: Answer—chap. xlv. Falsehood of the assertion, that
Jesus when on earth gained over to Himself only sailors and
tax-gatherers of the most worthless character—chap. xlvi. Answer to the
question, By what train of argument were Christians led to regard Jesus
as the Son of God?—chap. xlvii. Assertion of Celsus, that Jesus is
deemed by Christians to be the Son of God because He healed the lame and
the blind and is asserted to have raised the dead: Answer—chap. xlviii.
Statement of Celsus, that Jesus convicted Himself of being a sorcerer:
Refuted by His predictions regarding false prophets, etc.—chaps. xlix.,
l. No resemblance between the works of Jesus and those of a
sorcerer—chap. li. Inconsistency of the Jew in raising the objections
which he does, seeing that the same objections might be raised against
the divinity of Mosaism—chaps. lii.-liv. Jew objects further, that the
predictions, although actually uttered, prove nothing, because many have
been deceived by juggling tricks; asserts also, that there is no
satisfactory evidence of the resurrection of Jesus, the report of which
can be explained in other ways: Answer—chaps. lv.-lxii. Celsus proceeds
to bring, as a serious charge against Jesus, that He did not appear
after His resurrection to those who had ill-treated Him and condemned
Him, and to men in general: Answer—chaps. lxiii.-lxvii. Celsus asserts,
that it would have helped to manifest His divinity if He had at once
disappeared from the cross: Answer—chaps. lxviii., lxix. Inconsistency
of Celsus’ statement (that Jesus concealed Himself) with the facts of
the case, pointed out—chap. lxx. Certain declarations of Jesus regarding
Himself, noticed—chap. lxxi. Celsus asks why, if Jesus wished to remain
hid, a voice was heard from heaven proclaiming Him to be the Son of God?
or, if He did not seek concealment, why was He punished? or, why did He
die? Answer—chap. lxxii. Celsus asserts, that no witness is needed to
refute the statements of the Christians, because these are taken from
their own books, which are self-contradictory: Answer—chap. lxxiv.
Impossibility, according to Celsus, that a god, who was expected to
appear among men, should be received with incredulity on his coming, or
should fail to be recognised by those who have been looking for him:
Answer—chap. lxxv. All objections brought by the Jew against
Christianity might be retorted on himself: Illustrations—chap. lxxvi.
Jew professes his belief in a bodily resurrection and in eternal
life—chap. lxxvii. Asks if Jesus came into the world to produce unbelief
in the minds of men: Answer—chap. lxxviii. Conclusion of the Jew is that
everything proves Jesus to have been a man: General refutation.

BOOK III., 85-160

Object of Book Third to refute the charges which Celsus makes against
Christianity in his own person. Assertion of Celsus that the controversy
between Jews and Christians is most foolish; that there is nothing of
importance in the investigations of Jews and Christians; because,
although both believe that a Saviour was predicted, yet they do not
agree on the point whether He has actually come or not. Refutation of
these statements generally—chaps. i.-iv. Celsus alleges that both
Judaism and Christianity originated in rebellion against the State;
impossibility of this—chaps. v.-vii. Jews shown from their language not
to be Egyptians—chap. viii. Falsehood of the assertion that Christians
do not desire to convert all men, even if they could—chap. ix. Proof of
Celsus in support of his assertion: Answer—chaps. x.-xiii. Union of
Christians alleged to rest upon no substantial reason, save on rebellion
and fear of external enemies: Answer—chaps. xiv., xv. Falsity of the
charge that Christians invent terrors—chap. xvi. Comparison of the
articles of the Christian faith to Egyptian temples, where, after
passing through imposing avenues, nothing is found as an object of
worship save a cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog:
Refutation of this—chaps. xvii.-xxi. Celsus asserts that the Dioscuri,
and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, are believed by the Greeks
to have become gods after being men; but that we refuse to recognise
them as such, although they manifested many noble qualities, displayed
for the benefit of mankind: General answer—chap. xxii. Comparison of our
Lord’s character with that of individuals referred to—chap. xxiii.
Unfairness of Celsus in requiring Christians to believe the stories
regarding such beings, and yet refusing his assent to the credibility of
the Gospel narratives regarding Jesus—chap. xxiv. Examination of the
case of Æsculapius—chaps. xxv., xxvi.; of Aristeas of Proconnesus—chaps.
xxvi.-xxix. Superiority of the churches of God over the public
assemblies—chaps. xxix., xxx. Comparison of the cases of Abaris the
Hyperborean and of the Clazomenian with Jesus—chaps. xxxi., xxxii.
Examination of the story of Cleomedes of Astypalea—chap. xxxiii. Celsus
alleges that there are many other similar instances: This statement,
even if true, shown to be inapplicable—chap. xxxiv. Celsus challenged to
say whether he believes such beings really to be demons, or heroes, or
gods: Consequences which will follow—chap. xxxv. Comparison of case of
Antinous, the favourite of Hadrian, shown to be absurd—chaps.
xxxvi.-xxxviii. Allegation of Celsus that faith alone leads Christians
to give their assent to the doctrines of Jesus: Examination of this
statement—chaps. xxxix.-xli. Comparison of mortal flesh of Jesus to
gold, silver, or stone, shown to be inept—chap. xlii. Celsus asserts,
that in ridiculing the worshippers of Jupiter, who was buried in Crete,
while worshipping Jesus, who rose from the grave, we are guilty of
inconsistency: Answer—chap. xliii. Various objections against
Christianity, gathered from the more unintelligent Christians, adduced
by Celsus; enumeration of these: Answers—chaps. xliv., xlv. Christians
do desire that there should be wise men among them—chaps. xlv.-xlviii.
Allegation that only the low, and the vile, and the ignorant, with women
and children, are desired as converts, shown to be false in the sense in
which it is advanced by Celsus—chaps. xlix.-liv. Charge brought against
teachers of Christianity of surreptitiously inculcating their doctrines
upon children without the knowledge of their parents—chap. lv.
Examination of this charge—chaps. lvi.-lviii. Answer to charge of
Celsus, that Christians invite the wicked alone to participation in
their sacred rites—chaps. lix.-lxii. Refutation of the charge that God
does not decide in accordance with truth, but with flattery—chap. lxiii.
Answer to question of Celsus, why sinners are preferred over
others—chap. lxiv. Falsehood of the assertion that Christians are able
to gain over none but sinners—chap. lxv. Error of Celsus in denying the
possibility of a complete transformation of character—chap. lxvi. His
meaning probably was, that such transformation could not be effected by
punishment; this shown to be false—chap. lxvii. Transformation of
character, in certain cases, by means of philosophical discourses, not a
matter to excite surprise: character of Christian preaching—chap.
lxviii. Examination of Celsus’ statement, that to change a nature
entirely is exceedingly difficult—chap. lxix. God can do all that it is
possible for Him to do without ceasing to be God—chap. lxx. Falsity of
statement that God alleviates the sufferings of the wicked through pity
for their wailings, but casts off the good—chap. lxxi. No truly wise man
could be misled by any statements of an unintelligent Christian—chap.
lxxii. Falsity of statements, that the ambassador of Christianity
relates only ridiculous things—chap. lxxiii. That he seeks after the
unintelligent alone—chap. lxxiv. That he acts like a person who promises
to restore patients to bodily health, but who prevents them from
consulting skilled physicians, who would expose his ignorance—chap.
lxxv. That the Christian teacher acts like a drunken man, who should
enter a company of drunkards, and accuse those who were sober of being
drunk—chap. lxxvi. That he is like one suffering from ophthalmia, who
should accuse the clear-sighted of blindness. Assertion of Celsus that
Christians lead on men by empty hopes: Answer—chap. lxxvii. Character of
those who become converts—chap. lxxviii. Christianity the best system
which men were capable of receiving—chaps. lxxix.-lxxxi.

BOOK IV., 161-267

Subject of Fourth Book mainly to show that the prophecies regarding
Christ are true predictions—chap. i. The position maintained by certain
Christians, that there has already descended upon the earth a certain
God, or Son of a God, who will make the inhabitants of the earth
righteous, and by the Jews, that the advent of this being is still
future, asserted by Celsus to be false: Answer—chap. ii. Question of
Celsus as to the meaning of such a descent: Answered—chap. iii. Argument
of Celsus turned against himself—chap. iv. Celsus misrepresents
Christians as saying that God Himself will come down to men, and that it
follows that He has left His own abode—chap. v. Celsus represents the
object of God’s descent to be a desire to make Himself known, and to
make trial of men; and this, he alleges, testifies to an excessive and
mortal ambition on the part of God: Answer—chaps. vi.-ix. Celsus
asserts, that Christians talk of God in a way that is neither holy nor
reverential, and likens them to those who in the Bacchic mysteries
introduce phantoms and objects of terror: Answer—chap. x. Celsus
endeavours to prove that the statements in the Christian records
regarding floods and conflagrations are neither new nor wonderful, but
may be paralleled and explained from the accounts of the Greeks:
Answer—chaps. xi.-xiii. Celsus returns to the subject of the descent of
God, alleging that if He came down among men, He must have undergone a
change from better to worse, which is impossible in the case of an
immortal being: Answer—chaps. xiv.-xvi. Superiority of the scriptural
accounts of these matters over those of the Greek mythology—chap. xvii.
Celsus repeats his objections: Answer—chaps. xviii., xix. Celsus’
representation of the manner in which the Jews maintain that the advent
of Jesus is still future—chap. xx. Absurdity of the statement of Celsus
that the overturning of the tower of Babel had the same object as the
Deluge, viz. the purification of the earth—chap. xxi. Proof that Jews
brought on themselves the divine wrath, because of their treatment of
Jesus—chap. xxii. Celsus insolently compares Jews and Christians to
bats, and ants, and frogs, and worms, etc.—chap. xxiii. Answer—chaps.
xxiv., xxv. Superiority of Christians in their opinions and practice to
idolaters—chaps. xxvi., xxvii. Celsus misrepresents the language of
Christians as to God’s descent among men, and His intercourse with
them—chaps. xxviii., xxix. Celsus, not understanding the words, “Let us
make man in our image and likeness,” has represented Christians as
saying that they _resemble_ God because created by Him: Answer—chap.
xxx. Celsus again asserts that the Jews were fugitives from Egypt, who
never performed anything of note, and were never held in any account:
Answer—chaps. xxxi., xxxii. Celsus, in very ambiguous language, asserts
that the Jews endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of
jugglers and deceivers, and appealed to the testimony of dark and
ambiguous words: Answer—chaps. xxxiii.-xxxv. Celsus adduces instances of
alleged great antiquity put forth by other nations, and asserts that the
Jews wove together some most incredible and stupid stories, regarding
the creation of man, the formation of the woman, the issuing of certain
commands by God, the opposition of the serpent, and the defeat of God,
who is thus shown to have been weak at the very beginning of things, and
unable to persuade a single individual to obey His will: Detailed
answers to these misrepresentations—chaps. xxxvi.-xl. Celsus next
ridicules the accounts of the Deluge and the Ark: Answers—chaps. xli.,
xlii. Goes on to carp at the histories of Abraham and Sarah, of Cain and
Abel, of Esau and Jacob, of Laban and Jacob—chap. xliii. Explanation of
the statement that “God gave wells to the righteous;” other matters,
also, to be allegorically understood—chap. xliv. Celsus does not
recognise the love of truth which characterizes the writers of
Scripture; figurative signification of Sodom, and of Lot and his
daughters; discussion on the nature of actions—chap. xlv. Spirit of
hostility which characterizes Celsus, in selecting from the narratives
of Scripture whatever may serve as ground of accusation against
Christians, while passing without notice whatever may redound to their
credit: Instances—chap. xlvi. Celsus refers vaguely to the dreams of the
butler and baker in the history of Joseph, and endeavours to find ground
of objection in the history of Joseph’s conduct towards his
brethren—chap. xlvii. Asserts that the more modest among Jews and
Christians endeavour to give these things an allegorical meaning,
because they are ashamed of them: Answer—chap. xlviii. Falsity of his
assertion that the scriptural writings are incapable of receiving an
allegorical meaning—chaps. xlix., l. The treatises which give
allegorical explanations of the law of Moses evidently unknown to
Celsus, otherwise he could not have said that these allegorical
explanations were more shameful than the fables themselves:
Illustrations—chap. li. Celsus refers to the work entitled “Controversy
between Papiscus and Jason,” in support of his assertions—chaps. lii.,
liii. Celsus conceals his real opinions, although he ought to have
avowed them, when quoting from the _Timæus_ of Plato, to the effect that
God made immortal things alone, while mortal things are the work of
others; that the soul is the work of God, while the body is different;
that there is no difference between the body of a man, and that of a
bat: Examination of these statements—chaps. liv.-lix. Asserts that a
common nature pervades all bodies, and that no product of matter is
immortal: Answers—chaps. lx., lxi. Maintains that the amount of evil is
a fixed quantity, which has never varied: Answers—chaps. lxii.-lxiv.
That it is difficult for any but a philosopher to ascertain the origin
of evils, but that it is sufficient for the multitude to say that they
do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter; and that, as the cause of
mortal events never varies, the same things must always return,
according to the appointed cycles: Answers—chaps. lxv.-lxix. Assertion
of Celsus that a thing which seems to be evil may not necessarily be so:
Examined—chap. lxx. Celsus misunderstands the anthropopathic language of
Scripture: Explanation—chaps. lxxi.-lxxiii. Celsus finds fault with
Christians for asserting that God made all things for the sake of man,
whereas they were made as much for the sake of the irrational animals:
Answer—chap. lxxiv. Celsus holds that thunders, and lightnings, and
rains are not the works of God; that even if they were, they were
brought into existence as much for the sake of plants, and trees, and
herbs, as for that of human beings: Answer—chaps. lxxv., lxxvi. Celsus
maintains that the verse of Euripides, viz. “The sun and night are to
mortals slaves,” is untrue, as these luminaries may be said to be
created for the use of ants and flies as much as of man: Answer—chap.
lxxvii. Asserts that we may be said to be created as much on account of
irrational animals as they on our account: Answer—chaps. lxxviii.-lxxx.
Celsus maintains that the superiority of man over irrational animals in
building cities and founding political communities is only apparent:
Examination of this assertion—chaps. lxxxi.-lxxxiv. No great difference,
according to Celsus, between the actions of men, and those of ants and
bees—chap. lxxxv. Certain irrational animals, according to Celsus,
possess the power of sorcery; instances: Examination of these—chaps.
lxxxvi., lxxxvii. Assertion that the thoughts entertained of God by
irrational animals are not inferior to those of men; illustrations:
Answer—chaps. lxxxviii., lxxxix. Degrading views of Celsus—chaps.
xc.-xcix.

BOOK V., 268-335

Continuation of the subject—chap. i. Celsus repeats his denial that no
God, or son of God, has either come, or will come, to earth; that if
certain angels did come, by what name are they to be called? whether by
that of gods or some other race of beings? in all probability such
angels were demons: Refutation—chaps. ii.-v. Celsus proceeds to express
surprise that the Jews should worship heaven and angels, and yet pass by
the heavenly bodies, as the sun and moon; which procedure is, according
to his view, most unreasonable: Refutation—chaps. vi.-x. Defence of
Christians against the same charge—chaps. x.-xiii. Celsus declares the
Christian belief in the future conflagration of the world, in the
salvation of the righteous, in the resurrection of the body, most
foolish and irrational, alleging that this belief is not held by some of
the Christian believers, and adducing certain considerations regarding
the character of God and the nature of bodies which render such things
impossible—chap. xiv. Refutation in detail of these objections—chaps.
xv.-xxiv. Examination of Celsus’ statement that the various quarters of
the earth were from the beginning allotted to different superintending
spirits, and that in this way the administration of the world is carried
on—chaps. xxv.-xxviii. Considerations of a profounder kind may be stated
regarding the original distribution of the various quarters of the earth
among different superintending spirits, which considerations may be
shown to be free from the absurd consequences which would follow from
the views of Celsus; enumeration of these—chaps. xxix.-xxxiii. Statement
of Celsus regarding the request of the people of Marea and Apis to the
oracle of Ammon, as related by Herodotus, and the inference which he
seems to draw from it and other similar instances adduced by him,
examined and refuted—chaps. xxxiv.-xxxix. Examination of Celsus’
quotation from Pindar, that “Law is king of all things”—chap. xl. Celsus
goes on to state objections which apply to Jews much more than to
Christians, viz. that the Jewish doctrine regarding heaven is not
peculiar to them, but has long ago been received by the Persians; and
proceeds to observe that it makes no difference by what name the Supreme
Being is called; nor are the Jews to be deemed holier than other nations
because abstaining from swine’s flesh, etc. Detailed examination and
refutation of these statements—chaps. xli.-xlix. Celsus denies that the
Jews were regarded by God with greater favour than other nations:
Answer—chap. l. Statement of Celsus that, admitting Jesus to have been
an angel, He was not the first who came to visit men, for the histories
relate that there have been many instances, several of which he
enumerates—chap. lii. Refutation—chaps. liii.-lviii. Conclusion of
Celsus that Jews and Christians have the same God, and that the latter
adopt the Jewish accounts regarding the six days; other points of
agreement mentioned: examination of these statements, as well as of his
admission that certain Christians will admit the identity, while others
will deny it—chaps. lix.-lxii. Argument of Celsus against Christianity,
founded upon the existence of those who have worshipped demons as their
teacher, and of sects that have hated each other, examined and
refuted—chap. lxiii. Celsus has misunderstood the prediction of the
apostle that deceivers will come in the last times—chap. lxiv. Falsity
of Celsus’ statement that all who differ so widely may be heard saying,
“The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world”—chap. lxv.

BOOK VI., 336-424

Object of Sixth Book specially to refute those objections which _Celsus_
brings against Christians, and not those derived from writers on
philosophy—chap. i. Explanation of the reasons which led the writers of
Scripture to adopt a simple style of address—chap. ii. Quotation from
Plato regarding the “chief good,” and remarks upon it—chap. iii.
Inconsistent conduct of those who can so express themselves pointed
out—chap. iv. Comparison of the Platonic phraseology, regarding the
kindling of a light in the soul, with the language of Scripture—chap. v.
Examination of the question whether Plato was acquainted with doctrines
more profound than those which are contained in his writings, and
demonstration of the fact that the prophets did know of greater things
than any in Scripture, but did not commit them to writing—chaps. vi.-x.
Celsus inquires whether, amid the perplexity arising from the existence
of different Christs, men are to cast the dice to divine which of them
they ought to follow? Answer—chap. xi. Perversion of the language of
Paul regarding wisdom corrected—chaps. xii., xiii. Examination of
Celsus’ charge that Christians are uninstructed, servile, and
ignorant—chap. xiv. Sneer of Celsus at the humility of Christians
answered—chap. xv. Celsus charges Jesus with having perverted the
language of Plato in His saying regarding the impossibility of a rich
man’s entering the kingdom of heaven: Answer—chap. xvi. Comparison of
some points of Scripture doctrine with statements of Plato—chaps. xvii.,
xviii. Charge of Celsus that Christians have misunderstood language of
Plato, in boasting of a “super-celestial” God: Answer—chap. xix.
Explanation of certain terms referring to heaven—chaps. xx., xxi.
Assertion of Celsus, that the Persian mysteries of Mithras contain many
obscure allusions to those heavenly things mentioned in the Christian
writings; absurdity of his statements—chaps. xxii., xxiii. Celsus refers
to a certain diagram, the statements regarding which he appears to have
borrowed from the sect of the Ophites; which statements, however, are of
no credibility—chap. xxiv. Description of said diagram, and explanation
of the names inscribed in it—chaps. xxv., xxvi. Certain statements of
Celsus regarding the “seal” examined—chap. xxvii. Celsus asserts that
Christians term the Creator an “accursed” divinity, and asks what could
be more foolish or insane than such senseless wisdom? Examination of
these statements—chaps. xxviii., xxix. Celsus returns to the subject of
the seven ruling demons, and makes reference to the diagram—chap. xxx.
Quotations illustrating the manner of invoking said demons—chap. xxxi.
Remarks on the procedure of Celsus—chap. xxxii. Further statements of
Celsus—chap. xxxiii. Continuation of statements of Celsus, to the effect
that Christians heap together one thing after another,—discourses of
prophets, circles upon circles, effluents from an earthly church, and
from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and
living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, etc. etc.—chap. xxxiv.
Detailed examination and answer to these statements—chaps. xxxv.-xxxvii.
Celsus introduces other charges, stating that there are inscriptions in
the diagram containing two words, “a greater and a less,” which are
referred to Father and Son: Answer—chap. xxxviii. Statement of Celsus,
that names of demons among the Greeks are different from what they are
among the Scythians; gives illustrations: Answer—chap. xxxix. Statement
of Celsus, on the authority of Dionysius, an Egyptian magician, that
magic arts have no power over philosophers, but only over uneducated men
and persons of corrupt morals: Falsity of this shown—chap. xli.
Allegation of Celsus, that Christians have invented the fiction of the
devil or Satan, as an adversary to God, who counterworks His plans and
defeats them; that the Son of God, even, has been vanquished by the
devil; and that the devil will exhibit great and marvellous works, and
claim for himself the glory of God: Examination and refutation of these
statements—chaps. xlii.-xliv. Celsus has misunderstood the statements of
Scripture regarding Antichrist: Explanation of these—chaps. xlv., xlvi.
Celsus perverts the language of Christians regarding the “Son of God:”
Answer—chap. xlvii. Mystical meaning of “Son of God” explained—chap.
xlviii. Celsus characterizes the Mosaic cosmogony as extremely silly,
and alleges that Moses and the prophets, from ignorance, have woven
together a web of sheer nonsense: Answers—chaps. xlix.-li. Celsus will
not decide whether the world was uncreated and indestructible, or
created but not destructible—chap. lii. Brings forward objections that
were raised against Marcion, and after several disparaging observations
on the manner of the divine procedure towards men, asks how it is that
God created evil, etc.—chap. liii. Answer to the foregoing—chaps.
liv.-lix. Celsus repeats charges formerly made regarding the days of
creation—chaps. lx., lxi. Comments on the expression, “The mouth of the
Lord hath spoken it:” Answer—chap. lxii. Asserts that “the first-born of
every creature” is the image of God, and that God did not make man in
His image, because he is unlike to any other species of being;
explanation of the expression, “Man is made after the image of
God”—chap. lxiii. God partakes neither of form nor colour, nor can
motion be predicated of Him; explanation of passages that seem to imply
the reverse—chap. lxiv. Inconsistency of Celsus with his declared
opinions, in saying that God is the source of all things; asserts that
He cannot be reached by word: Explanation and distinction—chap. lxv.
Celsus asks, in the person of another, how it is possible to know God,
or to learn the way that leads to Him, because darkness is thrown before
the eyes, and nothing distinctly seen: Answer to this query, and remark
of Celsus retorted upon himself—chaps. lxvi.-lxviii. Celsus represents
our answer as being this: “Since God is great and difficult to see, He
put His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to
us, that we might be enabled to hear Him, and become acquainted with
Him:” Examination of this statement—chaps. lxix., lxx. According to
Celsus, our doctrine regarding the spirit is the same as that of the
Stoics, who maintain that “God is a spirit, diffused through all things,
and containing all things within Himself:” Answer—chap. lxxi. Assertion
that the Son of God would not be immortal, because He was a spirit
existing in a human body: Answer—chap. lxxii. Criticises, in scoffing
language, the incarnation; exposure of his errors—chap. lxxiii. Returns
to the subject of Marcion’s opinions; introduces “two sons of God,” and
speaks scoffingly of the supposed controversies between them—chap.
lxxiv. Maintains that the body of Jesus must have been different from
that of other beings, in virtue of His divine qualities. Consideration
of the prophecies regarding Jesus: Answers to his statements—chaps.
lxxv.-lxxvii. Celsus ridicules the sending of God’s Spirit into _one_
corner of the world alone, and compares God to Jupiter in the comedy,
who sent Mercury to the Athenians and Lacedemonians: Answer—chaps.
lxxviii., lxxix. Celsus terms the Chaldeans a divinely-inspired nation;
speaks of the Egyptian people as also inspired, although he condemned
them formerly, and refuses this title to the Jews; inconsistency of all
this—chap. lxxx. Pretends not to understand how God could send His Son
amongst wicked men, who were to inflict punishment upon Him:
Answer—chap. lxxxi.

BOOK VII., 425-491

Celsus denies that the Jewish prophets predicted any of the events which
occurred in the life of Christ, and asserts that those who believe in
the existence of another God, besides that of the Jews, cannot refute
his objections; while Christians, who recognise the God of the Jews,
rely for their defence on the alleged predictions regarding Christ:
Remarks—chap. ii. Celsus declares Christians inconsistent in rejecting
the ancient Grecian oracles of Delphi, Dodona, Clarus, Branchidæ,
Jupiter Ammon, etc., which nevertheless were of high importance, while
insisting that the sayings uttered in Judea are marvellous and
unchangeably true: Detailed answer to this objection—chaps. iii.-viii.
Asserts that many individuals assume the attitude of inspiration, and
claim to be God, or the Son of God, or the divine Spirit, and to have
come down to save a perishing world, and promise rewards to those who do
them homage, and threaten vengeance upon others; and, moreover, to these
promises add strange and unintelligible words, which may be applied by
any impostor to his own purposes—chap. ix. Answer to these
charges—chaps. x.-xii. Falsity of Celsus’ statement that God favours the
commission of evil—chap. xiii. Celsus objects, that even if the prophets
foretold that the great God would become a slave, or die, there was no
necessity that He should do so simply because such things had been
predicted: Answers—chaps. xiv.-xvii. Celsus objects further, that if the
prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that Jesus was to be the Son of
the same God, how could commands have been given through Moses that the
Jews should accumulate wealth, extend their dominion, fill the earth,
put their enemies to the sword, under threat of being treated by God as
His enemies; whilst the man of Nazareth, His Son, delivered commands of
a totally opposite kind? Errors of Celsus pointed out in detail, and the
nature of the two dispensations explained—chaps. xviii.-xxvi. Falsity of
assertion that Christians believe the Divine Being to be corporeal in
His nature, and to possess a body like a man—chap. xxvii. Celsus alleges
that the idea of a better land than this, to which Christians hope to go
after death, has been borrowed from the divine men of a former age, and
quotes from Homer and Plato in support of his assertion: Answers—chaps.
xxviii.-xxxi. Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, and
asserts that we uphold this doctrine in order that we may see and know
God: Answer—chaps. xxxii.-xxxiv. The oracles of Trophonius, etc., to
which Celsus would direct Christians, assuring them that there they
would see God distinctly, shown to be demons—chap. xxxv. Language of
Christians as to the manner in which they see God misrepresented by
Celsus—chaps. xxxvi.-xxxix. Language of Celsus quite inappropriate as
addressed to Christians, and applicable only to those whose doctrines
differ widely from theirs—chap. xl. Celsus recommends Christians to
follow the guidance of divinely inspired poets, wise men, and
philosophers, without mentioning their names: Remarks on this—chap. xli.
Proceeds to name Plato as an effective teacher of theological truth,
quoting from the _Timæus_ to the effect that it is a hard matter to find
out the Maker and Father of the universe, and an impossibility to make
Him known to all after having found Him; and remarking that Christians
cannot follow the example of Plato and others, who proceed by analysis
and synthesis, because they are wedded to the flesh: Answers—chaps.
xlii.-xlv. General remarks upon the tone in which Christians carry on
controversy with their opponents—chap. xlvi. Actions of those who,
although seeming to be wise, did not yield themselves to the divine
teaching—chap. xlvii. Purity of life exhibited by Christians—chap.
xlviii. Even by those who are unable to investigate the deeper questions
of theology—chap. xlix. Explanation of certain scriptural expressions
regarding “birth” or “generation”—chap. l. Difference between Christians
and those who received a portion of the divine Spirit before the
dispensation of Christianity—chap. li. Celsus proceeds to say to
Christians that they would have done better to have selected as the
object of their homage some one who had died a glorious death, whose
divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his
memory, and names Hercules, Æsculapius, Anaxarchus, and Epictetus, as
instances, alleging that Jesus never uttered under suffering any words
that could be compared to their utterances—chap. liii. Answers—chaps.
liv.-lv. Sneering remark of Celsus that we might better have given the
name of Son of God to the Sibyl than to Jesus—chap. lvi. Scoffing advice
of Celsus, that we had better choose Jonah than Jesus for our God:
Answer—chap. lvii. Celsus asserts that the Christian precept, “Whosoever
shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other also,” is an
ancient saying, admirably expressed long ago, and reported by Christians
in a coarser way, and quotes from Plato in support of his statement:
Answer—chaps. lviii.-lxi. Celsus goes on to say that Christians cannot
tolerate temples, altars, or images, and that in this peculiarity they
resemble Scythians and other barbarous nations, adducing quotations from
Herodotus and Heraclitus in support of his opinion that none, save those
who are utterly childish, can take these things for gods—chap. lxii.
Detailed answer—chaps. lxiii.-lxvi. Celsus remarks that Christians will
not admit that these images are erected in honour of certain beings who
are gods, but maintain that these are demons, and ought not to be
worshipped: Remarks in answer—chap. lxvii. Asks why demons are not to be
worshipped, and asserts that everything, whether the work of angels,
demons, or heroes, is part of the providential government of the Most
High God: Answers—chaps. lxviii.-lxx.

BOOK VIII., 492-559

Celsus, after his question regarding the worship of demons, proceeds to
represent us as saying that it is impossible to serve many masters, and
remarks that this is the language of sedition, and used only by those
who stand aloof from all human society, etc. Consideration of the true
language of Scripture upon this and kindred points, in answer to this
statement—chaps. ii.-viii. Reckless language of Celsus, who would have
us believe that we are led by our worship of God to that of other things
which belong to God, without injury to ourselves, and who yet adds, “We
may honour none except those to whom that right has been given by God:”
Remarks—chap. ix. Nature of the honour which Christians pay to the Son
of God—chap. x. Celsus asserts that those who uphold the unity of God
are guilty of impiety: Answer—chap. xi. That if Christians worshipped
one God alone, they would have valid arguments against the worship of
others, but they pay excessive reverence to one who is the servant of
God: Refutation—chaps. xii.-xiv. Celsus quotes from the opinions of some
obscure heretical sect, contained in what is called a _Heavenly
Dialogue_, to the effect that we suppose another God, who is above the
heavens, to be the father of Him whom we honour, in order that we may
honour the Son of Man alone; whom also we assert to be stronger than
God, who rules the world and who rules over them: Answers—chaps.
xv.-xvi. Celsus goes on to say, that our shrinking from raising altars,
statues, and temples, has been agreed upon among us as the badge of a
secret society: Answer—chaps. xvii.-xx. Assertion of Celsus, that those
devoted to the service of God may take part in public feasts or idol
offerings: Answer—chap. xxi. Answer to objection that Christians
themselves observe certain days, as the Preparation, the Passover, and
Pentecost—chaps. xxii., xxiii. Reasons urged by Celsus why Christians
may make use of idol offerings and public sacrifices at public feasts;
examination of these—chaps. xxiv.-xxvii. Celsus proceeds to state that
if Christians abstain from idol offerings, they ought, in consistency,
to abstain from all animal food, like the Pythagoreans: Answer—chaps.
xxviii.-xxxii. Celsus alleges that if we come into the world at all, we
must give thanks, and first-fruits, and prayers to demons, that they may
prove good and kind: Answer—chaps. xxxiii., xxxiv. Celsus remarks that
the satraps of a Persian or Roman monarch could do great injury to those
who despised them, and asks, will the satraps and ministers of air and
earth be insulted with impunity? Answer—chaps. xxxv., xxxvi. Asserts
that if Christians invoke those whom they address by barbarous names
they will have power, but not if invoked in Latin and Greek; falsity and
absurdity of this statement—chap. xxxvii. Misrepresents the language
addressed by Christians to the Grecian statues—chap. xxxviii. Scoffing
language of Celsus to the Christians on the rejection of Jesus, whom he
terms a demon, and on his inability to save His followers from being put
to death—chap. xxxix. Contrast between the Christian and heathen
doctrine of punishment—chap. xl. Railing address of Celsus, to the
effect that although Christians may revile the statues of the gods, they
would not have reviled the gods themselves with impunity; that nothing
happened to those who crucified Jesus; that no father was ever so
inhuman as was the father of Jesus, etc. etc.: Answers—chaps. xli.-xliv.
Celsus asserts that it is of no use to collect all the oracular
responses that have been delivered, for the world is full of them, and
many remarkable events have happened in consequence of them, which
establish their reality and divinity; general remark in answer—chap.
xlv. Contrast between conduct of Pythian priestess, who frequently
allowed herself to be bribed, and that of the prophets, who were admired
for their downright truthfulness—chap. xlvi. Assertion of Greeks, that
the Jewish history contains fabulous accounts, refuted—chap. xlvii.
Endeavour of Celsus to show that the doctrines delivered at the
celebration of the pagan mysteries are the same as those of the
Christians; absurdity of this—chap. xlviii. Celsus reproaches Christians
with inconsistency in their treatment of the body: Answer—chaps. xlix.,
l. Celsus approves the Christian doctrine that the righteous shall enjoy
everlasting life, and the wicked shall suffer everlasting punishment;
inconsistency of this on the part of Celsus—chap. li. Anxiety of Origen
to bring all men to receive the whole system of Christian truth—chap.
lii. Doubtful manner in which Celsus speaks of certain weighty matters,
and reluctance on his part to set down any of them as false;
inconsistency of this with the manner in which he treats the doctrines
of Christianity, which he regards with a hostile spirit—chaps. liii.,
liv. Celsus asserts that Christians must make their choice between two
alternatives; nature of these: Answer—chaps. lv.-lvii. Seeks to degrade
the souls of men to the worship of demons, by referring to certain
practices and beliefs prevalent among the Egyptians: Answer—chaps.
lviii.-lix. Admits that there is a dangerous tendency in demon-worship:
Remarks—chaps. lx.-lxii. Yet adds that the more just opinion is that
demons desire and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who
discharge towards them offices of piety: Answer—chaps. lxiii.-lxv.
Celsus admits that no worshipper of God should submit to anything base,
but should encounter any torments or death, rather than do anything
unworthy of God; and yet to celebrate the sun, or the praises of
Minerva, is only to render higher praise to God; inconsistency of
this—chaps. lxvi., lxvii. Maintains that the Homeric saying must be
observed, “Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;”
sense in which this must be understood by Christians—chap. lxviii.
Inconsistency on the part of Celsus, after what he has said, in asking
whether God would fight for the Romans, if they were to become converts
to the worship of the Most High—chaps. lxix., lxx. Further
misrepresentations of Celsus pointed out—chap. lxxi. Time will come when
the Word will change every soul into His own perfections—chap. lxxii.
Celsus enjoins us to help the king with all our might, and, if required,
to fight under him, or lead an army along with him: Answer—chap. lxxiii.
Also to take office in the government of the country, if necessary for
the maintenance of the laws and the support of religion: Answer—chap.
lxxv. Conclusion, in which Origen mentions that Celsus had announced his
intention of writing a second treatise, which Origen requests Ambrose to
send him if he should have carried his intentions into execution.




                            LIFE OF ORIGEN.


Origen was born in all probability at Alexandria, about the year 185
A.D.[1] Notwithstanding that his name is derived from that of an
Egyptian deity (Horus or Or[2]), there seems no reason to doubt that his
parents were Christian at the time of his birth. His father Leonides was
probably, as has been conjectured,[3] one of the many teachers of
rhetoric or grammar who abounded in that city of Grecian culture, and
appears to have been a man of decided piety. Under his superintendence,
the youthful Origen was not only educated in the various branches of
Grecian learning, but was also required daily to commit to memory and to
repeat portions of Scripture prescribed him by his father; and while
under this training, the spirit of inquiry into the meaning of
Scripture, which afterwards formed so striking a feature in the literary
character of the great Alexandrine, began to display itself. Eusebius[4]
relates that he was not satisfied with the plain and obvious meaning of
the text, but sought to penetrate into its deeper signification, and
caused his father trouble by the questions which he put to him regarding
the sense of particular passages of Holy Writ. Leonides, like many
parents, assumed the appearance of rebuking the curiosity of the boy for
inquiring into things which were beyond his youthful capacity, and
recommended him to be satisfied with the simple and apparent meaning of
Scripture, while he is described as inwardly rejoicing at the signs of
talent exhibited by his son, and as giving thanks to God for having made
him the parent of such a child.[5] But this state of things was not to
last; for in the year 202, when Origen was about seventeen years of age,
the great persecution of the Christians under Septimius Severus broke
out, and among the victims was his father Leonides, who was apprehended
and put in prison. Origen wished to share the fate of his father, but
was prevented from quitting his home by the artifice of his mother, who
was obliged to conceal his clothes to prevent him from carrying out his
purpose! He wrote to his father, however, a letter, exhorting him to
constancy under his trials, and entreating him not to change his
convictions for the sake of his family.[6] By the death of his father,
whose property was confiscated to the imperial treasury, Origen was
left, with his mother and six younger brothers dependent upon him for
support. At this juncture, a wealthy and benevolent lady of Alexandria
opened to him her house, of which he became an inmate for a short time.
The society, however, which he found there was far from agreeable to the
feelings of the youth. The lady had adopted as her son one Paul of
Antioch, whom Eusebius terms an “advocate of the heretics then existing
at Alexandria.” The eloquence of the man drew crowds to hear him,
although Origen could never be induced to regard him with any favour,
nor even to join with him in any act of worship, giving then, as
Eusebius remarks, “unmistakeable specimens of the orthodoxy of his
faith.”[7]

Finding his position in this household so uncomfortable, he resolved to
enter upon the career of a teacher of grammar, and to support himself by
his own exertions. As he had been carefully instructed by his father in
Grecian literature, and had devoted himself to study after his death, he
was enabled successfully to carry out his intention. And now begins the
second stadium of his career.

The diligence and ability with which Origen prosecuted his profession
speedily attracted attention and brought him many pupils. Among others
who sought to avail themselves of his instructions in the principles of
the Christian religion, were two young men, who afterwards became
distinguished in the history of the Church,—Plutarch, who died the death
of martyrdom, and Heraclas, who afterwards became bishop of Alexandria.
It was not, however, merely by his success as a teacher that Origen
gained a reputation. The brotherly kindness and unwearied affection
which he displayed to all the victims of the persecution, which at that
time was raging with peculiar severity at Alexandria under the prefect
Aquila, and in which many of his old pupils and friends were martyred,
are described as being so marked and conspicuous, as to draw down upon
him the fury of the mob, so that he was obliged on several occasions to
flee from house to house to escape instant death. It is easy to
understand that services of this kind could not fail to attract the
attention of the heads of the Christian community at Alexandria; and
partly, no doubt, because of these, but chiefly on account of his high
literary reputation, Bishop Demetrius appointed him to the office of
master in the Catechetical School, which was at that time vacant (by the
departure of Clement, who had quitted the city on the outbreak of the
persecution), although he was still a layman, and had not passed his
eighteenth year. The choice of Demetrius was amply justified by the
result. Origen discontinued his instructions in literature, in order to
devote himself exclusively to the work of teaching in the Catechetical
School. For his labours he refused all remuneration. He sold the books
which he possessed,—many of them manuscripts which he himself had
copied,—on condition of receiving from the purchaser four obols[8] a
day; and on this scanty pittance he subsisted, leading for many years a
life of the greatest asceticism and devotion to study. After a day of
labour in the school, he used to devote the greater part of the night to
the investigation of Scripture, sleeping on the bare ground, and keeping
frequent fasts. He carried out literally the command of the Saviour, not
to possess two coats, or to wear shoes, and consummated his work of
mortification of the flesh by an act of self-mutilation, springing from
a perverted interpretation of our Lord’s words in Matt. xix. 12, and
undertaken from a desire to place himself beyond the reach of temptation
in the intercourse which he necessarily had to hold with his youthful
female catechumens.[9] This act was destined to exercise a baneful
influence upon his future fortunes in the Church.

During the episcopate of Zephyrinus (201-218) Origen visited Rome, and
on his return again resumed his duties in the Catechetical School,
transferring the care of the younger catechumens to his friend and
former pupil Heraclas, that he might devote himself with less
distraction to the instruction of the more advanced, and to the more
thorough investigation and exposition of Scripture. With a view to
accomplish this more successfully, it is probable that about this time
he set himself to acquire a knowledge of the Hebrew language, the fruit
of which may be seen in the fragments which remain to us of his _magnum
opus_, the _Hexapla_; and as many among the more cultured heathens,
attracted by his reputation, seem to have attended his lectures, he felt
it necessary to make himself more extensively acquainted with the
doctrines of the Grecian schools, that he might meet his opponents upon
their own ground, and for this purpose he attended the prelections of
Ammonius Saccas, at that time in high repute at Alexandria as an
expounder of the Neo-Platonic philosophy, of which school he has
generally been considered the founder. The influence which the study of
philosophical speculations exerted upon the mind of Origen may be traced
in the whole course of his after development, and proved the fruitful
source of many of those errors which were afterwards laid to his charge,
and the controversies arising out of which disturbed the peace of the
Church during the two following centuries. As was to be expected, the
fame of the great Alexandrine teacher was not confined to his native
city, but spread far and wide; and an evidence of this was the request
made by the Roman governor of the province of Arabia to Demetrius and to
the prefect of Egypt, that they would send Origen to him that he might
hold an interview with one whose reputation was so great. We have no
details of this visit, for all that Eusebius relates is that, “having
accomplished the objects of his journey, he again returned to
Alexandria.”[10] It was in the year 216 that the Emperor Caracalla
visited Alexandria, and directed a bloody persecution against its
inhabitants, especially the literary members of the community, in
revenge for the sarcastic verses which had been composed against him for
the murder of his brother Geta, a crime which he had perpetrated under
circumstances of the basest treachery and cruelty.

Origen occupied too prominent a position in the literary society of the
city to be able to remain with safety, and therefore withdrew to
Palestine to his friend Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, and afterwards to
Cæsarea, where he received an honourable welcome from Bishop
Theoctistus. This step proved the beginning of his after troubles. These
two men, filled with becoming admiration for the most learned teacher in
the Church, requested him to expound the Scriptures in their presence in
a public assembly of the Christians. Origen, although still a layman,
and without any sacerdotal dignity in the Church, complied with the
request. When this proceeding reached the ears of Demetrius, he was
filled with the utmost indignation. “Such an act was never either heard
or done before, that laymen should deliver discourses in the presence of
the bishops,”[11] was his indignant remonstrance to the two offending
bishops, and Origen received a command to return immediately to
Alexandria. He obeyed, and for some years appears to have devoted
himself solely to his studies in his usual spirit of self-abnegation.

It was probably during this period that the commencement of his
friendship with Ambrosius is to be dated. Little is known of this
individual. Eusebius[12] states that he had formerly been an adherent of
the Valentinian heresy, but had been converted by the arguments and
eloquence of Origen to the orthodox faith of the Church. They became
intimate friends; and as Ambrose seems to have been possessed of large
means, and entertained an unbounded admiration of the learning and
abilities of his friend, it was his delight to bear the expenses
attending the transcription and publication of the many works which he
persuaded him to give to the world. He furnished him “with more than
seven amanuenses, who relieved each other at stated times, and with an
equal number of transcribers, along with young girls who had been
practised in caligraphy,”[13] to make fair copies for publication of the
works dictated by Origen. The literary activity of these years must have
been prodigious, and probably they were among the happiest which Origen
ever enjoyed. Engaged in his favourite studies, surrounded by many
friends, adding yearly to his own stores of learning, and enriching the
literature of the Church with treatises of the highest value in the
department of sacred criticism and exegesis, it is difficult to conceive
a condition of things more congenial to the mind of a true scholar. Only
one incident of any importance seems to have taken place during these
peaceful years,—his visit to Julia Mammæa, the pious mother of Alexander
Severus. This noble lady had heard of the fame of Origen, and invited
him to visit her at Antioch, sending a military escort to conduct him
from Alexandria to the Syrian capital. He remained with her some time,
“exhibiting innumerable illustrations of the glory of the Lord, and of
the excellence of divine instruction, and then hastened back to his
accustomed studies.”[14]

These happy years, however, were soon to end. Origen was called to
Greece, probably about the year 228,[15] upon what Eusebius vaguely
calls “the pressing need of ecclesiastical affairs,”[16] but which has
generally been understood[17] to refer to the prevalence of heretical
views in the Church there, for the eradication of which the assistance
of Origen was invoked. Before entering on this journey, he obtained
letters of recommendation from his bishop.[18] He passed through
Palestine on his way to Greece, and at Cæsarea received at the hands of
his friends Alexander and Theoctistus the consecration to the office of
presbyter,—an honour which proved to him afterwards the source of much
persecution and annoyance. No doubt the motives of his friends were of
the highest kind, and among them may have been the desire to take away
the ground of objection formerly raised by Demetrius against the public
preaching of a mere layman in the presence of a bishop. But they little
dreamed of the storm which this act of theirs was to raise, and of the
consequences which it was to bring upon the head of him whom they had
sought to honour. After completing his journey through Greece, Origen
returned to Alexandria about the year 230. He there found his bishop
greatly incensed against him for what had taken place at Cæsarea. Nor
did his anger expend itself in mere objurgations and rebukes. In the
year 231 a synod was summoned by Demetrius, composed of Egyptian bishops
and Alexandrian presbyters, who declared Origen unworthy to hold the
office of teacher, and excommunicated him from the fellowship of the
church of Alexandria. Even this did not satisfy the vindictive feeling
of Demetrius. He summoned a second synod, in which the bishops alone
were permitted to vote, and by their suffrages Origen was degraded from
the office of presbyter, and intimation of this sentence was ordered to
be made by encyclical letter to the various churches. The validity of
the sentence was recognised by all of them, with the exception of those
in Palestine, Phœnicia, Arabia, and Achaia,—a remarkable proof of the
position of influence which was at that time held by the church of
Alexandria. Origen appears to have quitted the city before the bursting
of the storm, and betook himself to Cæsarea, which henceforth became his
home, and the seat of his future labours for a period of nearly a
quarter of a century. The motives which impelled Demetrius to this
treatment of Origen have been variously stated and variously criticised.
Eusebius[19] refers his readers for a full account of all the matters
involved to the treatise which he and Pamphilus composed in his defence;
but this work has not come down to us,[20] although we possess a brief
notice of it in the _Bibliotheca_ of Photius,[21] from which we derive
our knowledge of the proceedings of the two synods. There seems little
reason to doubt that jealousy of interference on the part of the bishops
of another diocese was one main cause of the resentment displayed by
Demetrius; while it is also possible that another alleged cause, the
heterodox character of some of Origen’s opinions, as made known in his
already published works, among which were his _Stromata_ and _De
Principiis_,[22] may have produced some effect upon the minds of the
hostile bishops. Hefele[23] asserts that the act of the Palestinian
bishops was contrary to the Church law of the time, and that Demetrius
was justified on that ground for his procedure against him. But it may
well be doubted whether there was any generally understood law or
practice existing at so early a period of the Church’s history. If so,
it is difficult to understand how it should have been unknown to the
Palestinian bishops; or, on the supposition of any such existing law or
usage, it is equally difficult to conceive that either they themselves
or Origen should have agreed to disregard it, knowing as they did the
jealous temper of Demetrius, displayed on the occasion of Origen’s
preaching at Cæsarea already referred to, and which had drawn from the
Alexandrine bishop an indignant remonstrance, in which he had asserted
that such an act was “quite unheard-of before.”[24] To this statement
the Cæsarean bishops had replied in a letter, in which they enumerated
several instances of laymen who had addressed the congregation.[25] The
probabilities, therefore, are in favour of there being no generally
understood law or practice on the subject, and that the procedure,
therefore, was dictated by hierarchical jealousy on the part of
Demetrius. According to Eusebius,[26] indeed, the act of mutilation
already referred to was made a ground of accusation against Origen; and
there seems no doubt that there existed an old canon of the Church,[27]
based upon the words in Deut. xxiii. 1, which rendered one who had
committed such an act ineligible for office in the Church. But there is
no trace of this act, as disqualifying Origen for the office of
presbyter, having been urged by Demetrius, so far as can be discovered
from the notices of the two synods which have been preserved by Rufinus
and Photius; and it seems extremely probable, as Redepenning
remarks,[28] that if Demetrius were acquainted with this act of Origen,
as Eusebius says he was,[29] he made no public mention of it, far less
that he made it a pretence for his deposition.

Demetrius did not long survive the execution of his vengeance against
his unfortunate catechist. He died about a year afterwards, and was
succeeded by Heraclas, the friend and former pupil of Origen. It does
not, however, appear that Heraclas made any effort to have the sentence
against Origen recalled, so that he might return to the early seat of
his labours. Origen devoted himself at Cæsarea chiefly to exegetical
studies upon the books of Scripture, enjoying the countenance and
friendship of the two bishops Alexander and Theoctistus, who are said by
Eusebius “to have attended him the whole time as pupils do their
master.” He speedily raised the theological school of that city to a
degree of reputation which attracted many pupils. Among those who placed
themselves under his instructions were two young Cappadocians, who had
come to Cæsarea with other intentions, but who were so attracted by the
whole character and personality of Origen, that they immediately became
his pupils. The former of these, afterwards Gregory Thaumaturgus, Bishop
of New Cæsarea, has left us, in the panegyric which he wrote after a
discipleship of five years, a full and admiring account of the method of
his great master.

The persecution under the Emperor Maximin obliged Origen to take refuge
in Cæsarea in Cappadocia, where he remained in concealment about two
years in the house of a Christian lady named Juliana, who was the
heiress of Symmachus, the Ebionite translator of the Septuagint, and
from whom he obtained several MSS. which had belonged to him. Here,
also, he composed his _Exhortation to Martyrdom_, which was expressly
written for the sake of his friends Ambrosius and Protoctetus, who had
been imprisoned on account of their Christian profession, but who
recovered their freedom after the death of Maximin,—an event which
allowed Origen to return to the Palestinian Cæsarea and to the
prosecution of his labours. A visit to Athens, where he seems to have
remained some time, and to Bostra in Arabia, in order to bring back to
the true faith Bishop Beryllus, who had expressed heterodox opinions
upon the subject of the divinity of Christ, and in which attempt he
proved successful, were the chief events of his life during the next
five years. On the outbreak of the Decian persecution, however, in 249,
he was imprisoned at Tyre, to which city he had gone from Cæsarea for
some unknown reason, and was made to suffer great cruelties by his
persecutors. The effect of these upon a frame worn out by ascetic
labours may be easily conceived. Although he survived his imprisonment,
his body was so weakened by his sufferings, that he died at Tyre in 254,
in the seventieth year of his age.

The character of Origen is singularly pure and noble; for his moral
qualities are as remarkable as his intellectual gifts. The history of
the church records the names of few whose patience and meekness under
unmerited suffering were more conspicuous than his. How very differently
would Jerome have acted under circumstances like those which led to
Origen’s banishment from Alexandria! and what a favourable contrast is
presented by the self-denying asceticism of his whole life, to the sins
which stained the early years of Augustine prior to his conversion! The
impression which his whole personality made upon those who came within
the sphere of his influence is evidenced in a remarkable degree by the
admiring affection displayed towards him by his friend Ambrose and his
pupil Gregory. Nor was it friends alone that he so impressed. To him
belongs the rare honour of convincing heretics of their errors, and of
leading them back to the church,—a result which must have been due as
much to the gentleness and earnestness of his Christian character, as to
the prodigious learning, marvellous acuteness, and logical power, which
entitle him to be regarded as the greatest of the Fathers. It is
singular, indeed, that a charge of heresy should have been brought, not
only after his death, but even during his life, against one who rendered
such eminent services to the cause of orthodox Christianity. But this
charge must be considered in reference to the times when he lived and
wrote. No General Council had yet been held to settle authoritatively
the doctrine of the church upon any of those great questions, the
discussion of which convulsed the Christian world during the two
following centuries; and in these circumstances greater latitude was
naturally permissible than would have been justifiable at a later
period. Moreover, a mind so speculative as that of Origen, and so
engrossed with the deepest and most difficult problems of human thought,
must sometimes have expressed itself in a way liable to be
misunderstood. But no doubt the chief cause of his being regarded as a
heretic is to be found in the haste with which he allowed many of his
writings to be published. Had he considered more carefully what he
intended to bring before the public eye, less occasion would have been
furnished to objectors, and the memory of one of the greatest scholars
and most devoted Christians that the world has ever seen would have been
freed, to a great extent at least, from the reproach of heresy.

Origen was a very voluminous author. Jerome says that he wrote more than
any individual could read; and Epiphanius (_Hœres._ lxiv. 63) relates
that his writings amounted to 6000 volumes, by which statement we are
probably to understand that every individual treatise, large or small,
including each of the numerous homilies, was counted as a separate
volume. The admiration entertained for him by his friend Ambrosius, and
the readiness with which the latter bore all the expenses of
transcription and publication, led Origen to give to the world much
which otherwise would never have seen the light.

The works of the great Adamantinus may be classed under the following
divisions:—


                           EXEGETICAL WORKS.


These comprise Σχόλια, brief notes on Scripture, of which only fragments
remain: Τόμοι, Commentaries, lengthened expositions, of which we possess
considerable portions, including those on Matthew, John, and Epistle to
the Romans; and about 200 Homilies, upon the principal books of the Old
and New Testaments, a full list of which may be seen in Migne’s edition.
In these works his peculiar system of interpretation found ample scope
for exercise; and although he carried out his principle of allegorizing
many things, which in their historical and literal signification
offended his exegetical sense, he nevertheless maintains that “the
passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much more
numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning;”[30] and
the student will find much that is striking and suggestive in his
remarks upon the various passages which he brings under review. For an
account of his method of interpreting Scripture, and the grounds on
which he based it, the reader may consult the fourth book of the
treatise _On the Principles_.


                            CRITICAL WORKS.


The great critical work of Origen was the Hexapla or Six-columned
Bible,—an attempt to provide a revised text of the Septuagint
translation of Old Testament Scripture. On this undertaking he is said
to have spent eight-and-twenty years of his life, and to have acquired a
knowledge of Hebrew in order to qualify himself for the task. Each page
of this work consisted, with the exception to be noticed immediately, of
six columns. In the first was placed the current Hebrew text; in the
second, the same represented in _Greek_ letters; in the third, the
version of Aquila; in the fourth, that of Symmachus; in the fifth, the
text of the LXX., as it existed at the time; and in the sixth, the
version of Theodotion. Having come into possession also of certain other
Greek translations of some of the books of Scripture, he added these in
their appropriate place, so that the work presented in some parts the
appearance of seven, eight, or nine columns, and was termed Heptapla,
Octopla, or Enneapla, in consequence. He inserted critical marks in the
text of the LXX., an asterisk to denote what ought to be added, and an
obelus to denote what ought to be omitted; taking the additions chiefly
from the version of Theodotion. The work, with the omission of the
Hebrew column, and that representing the Hebrew in Greek letters, was
termed Tetrapla; and with regard to it, it is uncertain whether it is to
be considered a preliminary work on the part of Origen, undertaken by
way of preparation for the larger, or merely as an excerpt from the
latter. The whole extended, it is said, to nearly fifty volumes, and
was, of course, far too bulky for common use, and too costly for
transcription. It was placed in some repository in the city of Tyre,
from which it was removed after Origen’s death to the library at
Cæsarea, founded by Pamphilus, the friend of Eusebius. It is supposed to
have been burnt at the capture of Cæsarea by the Arabs in 653 A.D. The
column, however, containing the version of the LXX. had been copied by
Pamphilus and Eusebius, along with the critical marks of Origen,
although, owing to carelessness on the part of subsequent transcribers,
the text was soon again corrupted. The remains of this work were
published by Montfaucon at Paris, 1713, 2 vols. folio; by Bahrdt at
Leipsic in 1769; and is at present again in course of publication from
the Clarendon Press, Oxford, under the editorship of Mr. Field, who has
made use of the Syriac-Hexaplar version, and has added various fragments
not contained in prior editions. (For a full and critical account of
this work, the English reader is referred to Dr. Sam. Davidson’s
_Biblical Criticism_, vol. i. ch. xii., which has been made use of for
the above notice.)


                          APOLOGETICAL WORKS.


His great apologetical work was the treatise undertaken at the special
request of his friend Ambrosius, in answer to the attack of the heathen
philosopher Celsus on the Christian religion, in a work which he
entitled Λόγος ἀληθής, or _A True Discourse_. Origen states that he had
heard that there were two individuals of this name, both of them
Epicureans, the earlier of the two having lived in the time of Nero, and
the other in the time of Adrian, or later.[31] Redepenning is of opinion
that Celsus must have composed his work in the time of Marcus Aurelius
(161-180 A.D.), on account of his supposed mention of the Marcionites
(whose leader did not make his appearance at Rome before 142 A.D.), and
of the Marcellians (followers of the Carpocratian Marcellina), a sect
which was founded after the year 155 A.D. under Bishop Anicetus.[32]
Origen believed his opponent to be an Epicurean, but to have adopted
other doctrines than those of Epicurus, because he thought that by so
doing he could assail Christianity to greater advantage.[33] The work
which Origen composed in answer to the so-styled _True Discourse_
consists of eight books, and belongs to the latest years of his life. It
has always been regarded as the great apologetic work of antiquity; and
no one can peruse it without being struck by the multifarious reading,
wonderful acuteness, and rare subtlety of mind which it displays. But
the rule which Origen prescribed to himself, of not allowing a single
objection of his opponent to remain unanswered, leads him into a
minuteness of detail, and into numerous repetitions, which fatigue the
reader, and detract from the interest and unity of the work. He himself
confesses that he began it on one plan, and carried it out on
another.[34] No doubt, had he lived to re-write and condense it, it
would have been more worthy of his reputation. But with all its defects,
it is a great work, and well deserves the notice of the students of
Apologetics. The table of contents prefixed to the translation will
convey a better idea of its nature than any description which our limits
would permit us to give.


                            DOGMATIC WORKS.


These include the Στρωματεῖς, a work composed in imitation of the
treatise of Clement of the same name, and consisting originally of ten
books, of which only three fragments exist in a Latin version by Jerome
(Migne, vol. i. pp. 102-107); a treatise on the Resurrection, of which
four fragments remain (Migne, vol. i. pp. 91-100); and the treatise Περὶ
Ἀρχῶν, _De Principiis_, which contains Origen’s views on the various
questions of systematic theology. The work has come down to us in the
Latin translation of his admirer Rufinus; but, from a comparison of the
few fragments of the original Greek which have been preserved, we see
that Rufinus was justly chargeable with altering many of Origen’s
expressions, in order to bring his doctrine on certain points more into
harmony with the orthodox views of the time. The _De Principiis_
consists of four books, and is translated in the first volume of the
works of Origen in this series, to which we refer the reader.


                            PRACTICAL WORKS.


Under this head we place the little treatise Περὶ Εὐχῆς, _On Prayer_,
written at the instance of his friend Ambrose, and which contains an
exposition of the Lord’s Prayer; the Λόγος προτρεπτικὸς εἰς μαρτύριον,
_Exhortation to Martyrdom_, composed at the outbreak of the persecution
by Maximian, when his friends Ambrose and Protoctetus were imprisoned.
Of his numerous letters only two have come down entire, viz. that which
was addressed to Julius Africanus, who had questioned the genuineness of
the history of Susanna in the apocryphal additions to the book of
Daniel, and that to Gregory Thaumaturgus on the use of Greek philosophy
in the explanation of Scripture, although, from the brevity of the
latter, it is questionable whether it is more than a fragment of the
original. (Both of these are translated in the first volume of Origen’s
works in this series.) The Φιλοκαλία, _Philocalia_, was a compilation
from the writings of Origen, intended to explain the difficult passages
of Scripture, and executed by Basil the Great and Gregory of Nazianzus;
large extracts of which have been preserved, especially of that part
which was taken from the treatise against Celsus. The remains were first
printed at Paris in 1618, and again at Cambridge in 1676, in the reprint
of Spencer’s edition of the _Contra Celsum_. In the Benedictine edition,
and in Migne’s reprint, the various portions are quoted in footnotes
under the respective passages of Origen’s writings.


                          EDITIONS OF ORIGEN.


The first published works of Origen were his Homilies, which appeared in
1475, although neither the name of the publisher nor the place of
publication is given. These were followed by the treatise against Celsus
in the translation of Christopher Persana, which appeared at Rome in
1481; and this, again, by an edition of the Homilies at Venice in 1503,
containing those on the four first books of Moses, Joshua, and Judges.
The first collective edition of the whole works was given to the world
in a Latin translation by James Merlin, and was published in two folio
volumes, first at Paris in 1512 and 1519, and afterwards at Paris in
1522 and 1530. A revision of Merlin’s edition was begun by Erasmus, and
completed, after his death, by Beatus Rhenanus. This appeared at Basle
in 1536 in two folio volumes, and again in 1557 and 1571. A much better
and more complete edition was undertaken by the Benedictine Gilbertus
Genebrardus, which was published also in two volumes folio at Paris in
1574, and again in 1604 and 1619. Hoeschel published the treatise
against Celsus at Augsburg in 1605; Spencer, at Cambridge in 1658 and
1677, to which was added the _Philocalia_, which had first appeared in a
Latin translation by Genebrardus, and afterwards in Greek by Tarinus at
Paris in 1618 and 1624, in quarto. Huet, Bishop of Avranches, published
the exegetical writings in Greek, including the Commentaries on Matthew
and John, in two volumes folio, of which the one appeared at Rouen in
1668, and the other at Paris in 1679. The great edition by the two
learned Benedictines of St. Maur—Charles de la Rue, and his nephew
Vincent de la Rue—was published at Paris between the years 1733 and
1759. This is a work of immense industry and labour, and remains the
standard to the present time. It has been reprinted by Migne in his
series of the Greek Fathers, in nine volumes, large 8vo. In Oberthür’s
series of the Greek Fathers, seven volumes contain the chief portion of
Origen’s writings; while Lommatzsch has published the whole in
twenty-five small volumes, Berlin 1831-48, containing the Greek text
alone.—[Abridged from Redepenning.]

For further information upon the life and opinions of Origen, the reader
may consult Redepenning’s _Origenes_, 2 vols., Bonn 1841, 1846; the
articles in Herzog’s _Encyclopädie_ and Wetzer’s and Wette’s
_Kirchen-Lexikon_, by Kling and Hefele respectively; the brilliant
sketch by Pressensé in his _Martyrs and Apologists_ (Harwood’s
translation); and the learned compilation of Huet, entitled
_Origeniana_, to be found in the ninth volume of Migne’s edition.

Footnote 1:

  Cf. Redepenning’s _Origenes_, vol. i. pp. 417-420 (Erste Beilage: über
  Origenes Geburtsjahr und den Ort, wo er geboren wurde).

Footnote 2:

  Cf. _Ibid._ (Zweite Beilage: über Namen und Beinamen der Origenes).

Footnote 3:

  _Encyclopaedie der Katholischen Theologie_, _s.v._ Origenes.

Footnote 4:

  _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. ii. § 9.

Footnote 5:

  _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. ii. §§ 10, 11.

Footnote 6:

  Eusebius, _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. ii.: Ἔπεχε, μὴ δι’ ἡμᾶς ἄλλο τὶ
  φρονήσης.

Footnote 7:

  τῆς ἐξ ἐκείνου περὶ τὴν πίστιν ὀρθοδοξίας ἐναργῆ παρείχετο δείγματα.

Footnote 8:

  The obol was about three-halfpence of our money.

Footnote 9:

  For a full discussion of the doubts which have been thrown upon the
  credibility of Eusebius in this matter by Schnitzer and Baur, cf.
  Redepenning, _Origenes_, vol. i. pp. 444-458, and Hefele,
  _Encyclopaedie der Katholischen Theologie_, _s.v._ Origenes.

Footnote 10:

  Euseb. _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 19, § 16.

Footnote 11:

  _Ibid._ b. vi. c. 19.

Footnote 12:

  _Ibid._ b. vi. c. 18.

Footnote 13:

  Euseb. _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 23.

Footnote 14:

  Euseb. _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 21: παρ’ ᾗ χρόνον διατρίψας, πλεῖστά
  τε ὅσα εἰς τὴν τοῦ Κυρίου δόξαν καὶ τῆς τοῦ θείου διδασκαλείον ἀρετῆς
  ἐπιδειξάμενος, ἐπὶ τὰς συνήθεις ἔσπευδε διατριβάς.

Footnote 15:

  Cf. Hefele, _Encyclopaedie_, etc., _s.v._ Origenes.

Footnote 16:

  Ἐπειγούσης χρείας ἐκκλησιαστικῶν ἕνεκα πραγμάτων.

Footnote 17:

  Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. p. 406, etc.

Footnote 18:

  Cf. _ibid._

Footnote 19:

  _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 22 and c. 33.

Footnote 20:

  With the exception of the first book; cf. Migne, vol. ix. pp. 542-632.

Footnote 21:

  Cf. Photii _Bibliotheca_, ed. Hoeschel, p. 298.

Footnote 22:

  Eusebius expressly mentions that both these works, among others, were
  published before he left Alexandria.—_Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 24.

Footnote 23:

  _s.v._ Origenes.

Footnote 24:

  _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 19.

Footnote 25:

  _Ibid._

Footnote 26:

  _Ibid._ b. vi. c. 8.

Footnote 27:

  ὁ ἀκρωτηριάσας ἑαυτὸν μὴ γενέσθω κληρικος. Cf. Redepenning, vol. i.
  pp. 208, 216, 218.

Footnote 28:

  Cf. Redepenning, vol. i. p. 409, note 2.

Footnote 29:

  _Hist. Eccles._ b. vi. c. 8.

Footnote 30:

  Origen’s Works, vol. i. pp. 323-4 (Ante-Nicene Library).

Footnote 31:

  Cf. _Contra Celsum_, i. c. viii. _ad fin._

Footnote 32:

  Cf. Redepenning, vol. ii. p. 131, note 2.

Footnote 33:

  _Contra Celsum_, i. ch. viii.

Footnote 34:

  Preface, § 6; cf. vol. i. p. 397.




                         ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.


                                BOOK II.


                               Chapter I.


The first book of our answer to the treatise of Celsus, entitled _A True
Discourse_, which concluded with the representation of the Jew
addressing Jesus, having now extended to a sufficient length, we intend
the present part as a reply to the charges brought by him against those
who have been converted from Judaism to Christianity. And we call
attention, in the first place, to this special question, viz. why
Celsus, when he had once resolved upon the introduction of individuals
upon the stage of his book, did not represent the Jew as addressing the
converts from heathenism rather than those from Judaism, seeing that his
discourse, if directed to us, would have appeared more likely to produce
an impression.[35] But probably this claimant to universal knowledge
does not know what is appropriate in the matter of such representations;
and therefore let us proceed to consider what he has to say to the
converts from Judaism. He asserts that “they have forsaken the law of
their fathers, in consequence of their minds being led captive by Jesus;
that they have been most ridiculously deceived, and that they have
become deserters to another name and to another mode of life.” Here he
has not observed that the Jewish converts have not deserted the law of
their fathers, inasmuch as they live according to its prescriptions,
receiving their very name from the poverty of the law, according to the
literal acceptation of the word; for Ebion signifies “poor” among the
Jews,[36] and those Jews who have received Jesus as Christ are called by
the name of Ebionites. Nay, Peter himself seems to have observed for a
considerable time the Jewish observances enjoined by the law of Moses,
not having yet learned from Jesus to ascend from the law that is
regulated according to the letter, to that which is interpreted
according to the spirit,—a fact which we learn from the Acts of the
Apostles. For on the day after the angel of God appeared to Cornelius,
suggesting to him “to send to Joppa, to Simon surnamed Peter,” Peter
“went up into the upper room to pray about the sixth hour. And he became
very hungry, and would have eaten: but while they made ready he fell
into a trance, and saw heaven opened, and a certain vessel descending
unto him, as it had been a great sheet knit at the four corners, and let
down to the earth; wherein were all manner of four-footed beasts, and
creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air. And there came a
voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat. But Peter said, Not so, Lord;
for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean. And the voice
spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call
thou not common.”[37] Now observe how, by this instance, Peter is
represented as still observing the Jewish customs respecting clean and
unclean animals. And from the narrative that follows, it is manifest
that he, as being yet a Jew, and living according to their traditions,
and despising those who were beyond the pale of Judaism, stood in need
of a vision to lead him to communicate to Cornelius (who was not an
Israelite according to the flesh), and to those who were with him, the
word of faith. Moreover, in the Epistle to the Galatians, Paul states
that Peter, still from fear of the Jews, ceased upon the arrival of
James to eat with the Gentiles, and “separated himself from them,
fearing them that were of the circumcision;”[38] and the rest of the
Jews, and Barnabas also, followed the same course. And certainly it was
quite consistent that those should not abstain from the observance of
Jewish usages who were sent to minister to the circumcision, when they
who “seemed to be pillars” gave the right hand of fellowship to Paul and
Barnabas, in order that, while devoting themselves to the circumcision,
the latter might preach to the Gentiles. And why do I mention that they
who preached to the circumcision withdrew and separated themselves from
the heathen, when even Paul himself “became as a Jew to the Jews, that
he might gain the Jews?” Wherefore also in the Acts of the Apostles it
is related that he even brought an offering to the altar, that he might
satisfy the Jews that he was no apostate from their law.[39] Now, if
Celsus had been acquainted with all these circumstances, he would not
have represented the Jew holding such language as this to the converts
from Judaism: “What induced you, my fellow-citizens, to abandon the law
of your fathers, and to allow your minds to be led captive by him with
whom we have just conversed, and thus be most ridiculously deluded, so
as to become deserters from us to another name, and to the practices of
another life?”

Footnote 35:

  πιθανώτατος.

Footnote 36:

  אֶבְיוֹן.

Footnote 37:

  Cf. Acts x. 9-15.

Footnote 38:

  Cf. Gal. ii. 12.

Footnote 39:

  Cf. Acts xxi. 26.




                              Chapter II.


Now, since we are upon the subject of Peter, and of the teachers of
Christianity to the circumcision, I do not deem it out of place to quote
a certain declaration of Jesus taken from the Gospel according to John,
and to give the explanation of the same. For it is there related that
Jesus said: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear
them now. Howbeit when He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide
you into all the truth: for He shall not speak of Himself; but
whatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak.”[40] And when we inquire
what were the “many things” referred to in the passage which Jesus had
to say to His disciples, but which they were not then able to bear, I
have to observe that, probably because the apostles were Jews, and had
been trained up according to the letter of the Mosaic law, He was unable
to tell them what was the true law, and how the Jewish worship consisted
in the pattern and shadow of certain heavenly things, and how future
blessings were foreshadowed by the injunctions regarding meats and
drinks, and festivals, and new moons, and sabbaths. These were many of
the subjects which He had to explain to them; but as He saw that it was
a work of exceeding difficulty to root out of the mind opinions that
have been almost born with a man, and amid which he has been brought up
till he reached the period of maturity, and which have produced in those
who have adopted them the belief that they are divine, and that it is an
act of impiety to overthrow them; and to demonstrate by the superiority
of Christian doctrine, that is, by the truth, in a manner to convince
the hearers, that such opinions were but “loss and dung,” He postponed
such a task to a future season—to that, namely, which followed His
passion and resurrection. For the bringing of aid unseasonably to those
who were not yet capable of receiving it, might have overturned the idea
which they had already formed of Jesus, as the Christ, and the Son of
the living God. And see if there is not some well-grounded reason for
such a statement as this, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye
cannot bear them now;” seeing there are many points in the law which
require to be explained and cleared up in a spiritual sense, and these
the disciples were in a manner unable to bear, having been born and
brought up amongst Jews. I am of opinion, moreover, that since these
rites were typical, and the truth was that which was to be taught them
by the Holy Spirit, these words were added, “When He is come who is the
Spirit of truth, He will lead you into all the truth;” as if He had
said, into all the truth about those things which, being to you but
types, ye believed to constitute a true worship which ye rendered unto
God. And so, according to the promise of Jesus, the Spirit of truth came
to Peter, saying to him, with regard to the four-footed beasts, and
creeping things of the earth, and fowls of the air: “Arise, Peter; kill,
and eat.” And the Spirit came to him while he was still in a state of
superstitious ignorance; for he said, in answer to the divine command,
“Not so, Lord; for I have never yet eaten anything common or unclean.”
He instructed him, however, in the true and spiritual meaning of meats,
by saying, “What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.” And so,
after that vision, the Spirit of truth, which conducted Peter into all
the truth, told him the many things which he was unable to bear when
Jesus was still with him in the flesh. But I shall have another
opportunity of explaining those matters, which are connected with the
literal acceptation of the Mosaic law.

Footnote 40:

  John xvi. 12, 13.




                              Chapter III.


Our present object, however, is to expose the ignorance of Celsus, who
makes this Jew of his address his fellow-citizen and the Israelitish
converts in the following manner: “What induced you to abandon the law
of your fathers?” etc. Now, how should they have abandoned the law of
their fathers, who are in the habit of rebuking those who do not listen
to its commands, saying, “Tell me, ye who read the law, do ye not hear
the law? For it is written, that Abraham had two sons;” and so on, down
to the place, “which things are an allegory,”[41] etc.? And how have
they abandoned the law of their fathers, who are ever speaking of the
usages of their fathers in such words as these: “Or does not the law say
these things also? For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God care for
oxen? or saith He it altogether for our sakes? for for our sakes it was
written,” and so on?[42] Now, how confused is the reasoning of the Jew
in regard to these matters (although he had it in his power to speak
with greater effect) when he says: “Certain among you have abandoned the
usages of our fathers under a pretence of explanations and allegories;
and some of you, although, as ye pretend, interpreting them in a
spiritual manner, nevertheless do observe the customs of our fathers;
and some of you, without any such interpretation, are willing to accept
Jesus as the subject of prophecy, and to keep the law of Moses according
to the customs of the fathers, as having in the words the whole mind of
the Spirit.” Now how was Celsus able to see these things so clearly in
this place, when in the subsequent parts of his work he makes mention of
certain godless heresies altogether alien from the doctrine of Jesus,
and even of others which leave the Creator out of account altogether,
and does not appear to know that there are Israelites who are converts
to Christianity, and who have not abandoned the law of their fathers? It
was not his object to investigate everything here in the spirit of
truth, and to accept whatever he might find to be useful; but he
composed these statements in the spirit of an enemy, and with a desire
to overthrow everything as soon as he heard it.

Footnote 41:

  Gal. iv. 21, 22.

Footnote 42:

  1 Cor. ix. 8.




                              Chapter IV.


The Jew, then, continues his address to converts from his own nation
thus: “Yesterday and the day before, when we visited with punishment the
man who deluded you, ye became apostates from the law of your fathers;”
showing by such statements (as we have just demonstrated) anything but
an exact knowledge of the truth. But what he advances afterwards seems
to have some force, when he says: “How is it that you take the beginning
of your system from our worship, and when you have made some progress
you treat it with disrespect, although you have no other foundation to
show for your doctrines than our law?” Now, certainly the introduction
to Christianity is through the Mosaic worship and the prophetic
writings; and after the introduction, it is in the interpretation and
explanation of these that progress takes place, while those who are
introduced prosecute their investigations into “the mystery according to
revelation, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made
manifest in the Scriptures of the prophets,”[43] and by the appearance
of our Lord Jesus Christ. But they who advance in the knowledge of
Christianity do not, as ye allege, treat the things written in the law
with disrespect. On the contrary, they bestow upon them greater honour,
showing what a depth of wise and mysterious reasons is contained in
these writings, which are not fully comprehended by the Jews, who treat
them superficially, and as if they were in some degree even
fabulous.[44] And what absurdity should there be in our system—that is,
the gospel—having the law for its foundation, when even the Lord Jesus
Himself said to those who would not believe upon Him: “If ye had
believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me. But if ye
do not believe his writings, how shall ye believe my words?”[45] Nay,
even one of the evangelists—Mark—says: “The beginning of the gospel of
Jesus Christ, as it is written in the prophet Isaiah, Behold, I send my
messenger before Thy face, who shall prepare Thy way before Thee,”[46]
which shows that the beginning of the gospel is connected with the
Jewish writings. What force, then, is there in the objection of the Jew
of Celsus, that “if any one predicted to us that the Son of God was to
visit mankind, he was one of our prophets, and the prophet of our God?”
Or how is it a charge against Christianity, that John, who baptized
Jesus, was a Jew? For although He was a Jew, it does not follow that
every believer, whether a convert from heathenism or from Judaism, must
yield a literal obedience to the law of Moses.

Footnote 43:

  Rom. xvi. 25.

Footnote 44:

  τῶν ἐπιπολαιότερον καὶ μυθικώτερον αὐτοῖς ἐντυγκανόντων.

Footnote 45:

  John v. 46, 47.

Footnote 46:

  Mark i. 1, 2.




                               Chapter V.


After these matters, although Celsus becomes tautological in his
statements about Jesus, repeating for the second time that “he was
punished by the Jews for his crimes,” we shall not again take up the
defence, being satisfied with what we have already said. But, in the
next place, as this Jew of his disparages the doctrine regarding the
resurrection of the dead, and the divine judgment, and of the rewards to
be bestowed upon the just, and of the fire which is to devour the
wicked, as being stale[47] opinions, and thinks that he will overthrow
Christianity by asserting that there is nothing new in its teaching upon
these points, we have to say to him, that our Lord, seeing the conduct
of the Jews not to be at all in keeping with the teaching of the
prophets, inculcated by a parable that the kingdom of God would be taken
from them, and given to the converts from heathenism. For which reason,
now, we may also see of a truth that all the doctrines of the Jews of
the present day are mere trifles and fables,[48] since they have not the
light that proceeds from the knowledge of the Scriptures; whereas those
of the Christians are the truth, having power to raise and elevate the
soul and understanding of man, and to persuade him to seek a
citizenship, not like the earthly[49] Jews here below, but in heaven.
And this result shows itself among those who are able to see the
grandeur of the ideas contained in the law and the prophets, and who are
able to commend them to others.

Footnote 47:

  ἕωλα.

Footnote 48:

  μύθους καὶ λήρους.

Footnote 49:

  τοῖς κάτω Ἰουδαίοις.




                              Chapter VI.


But let it be granted that Jesus observed all the Jewish usages,
including even their sacrificial observances, what does that avail to
prevent our recognising Him as the Son of God? Jesus, then, is the Son
of God, who gave the law and the prophets; and we, who belong to the
church, do not transgress the law, but have escaped the
mythologizings[50] of the Jews, and have our minds chastened and
educated by the mystical contemplation of the law and the prophets. For
the prophets themselves, as not resting the sense of these words in the
plain history which they relate, nor in the legal enactments taken
according to the word and letter, express themselves somewhere, when
about to relate histories, in words like this, “I will open my mouth in
parables, I will utter hard sayings of old;”[51] and in another place,
when offering up a prayer regarding the law as being obscure, and
needing divine help for its comprehension, they offer up this prayer,
“Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of Thy
law.”[52]

Footnote 50:

  μυθολογίας.

Footnote 51:

  Ps. lxxvii. 2.

Footnote 52:

  Ps. cxix. 18.




                              Chapter VII.


Moreover, let them show where there is to be found even the appearance
of language dictated by arrogance,[53] and proceeding from Jesus. For
how could an arrogant man thus express himself, “Learn of me, for I am
meek and lowly of heart, and you shall find rest for your souls?”[54] or
how can He be styled arrogant, who after supper laid aside His garments
in the presence of His disciples, and, after girding Himself with a
towel, and pouring water into a basin, proceeded to wash the feet of
each disciple, and rebuked him who was unwilling to allow them to be
washed, with the words, “Except I wash thee, thou hast no part with
me?”[55] Or how could He be called such who said, “I was amongst you,
not as he that sitteth at meat, but as he that serveth?”[56] And let any
one show what were the falsehoods which He uttered, and let him point
out what are great and what are small falsehoods, that he may prove
Jesus to have been guilty of the former. And there is yet another way in
which we may confute him. For as one falsehood is not less or more false
than another, so one truth is not less or more true than another. And
what charges of impiety he has to bring against Jesus, let the Jew of
Celsus especially bring forward. Was it impious to abstain from
corporeal circumcision, and from a literal Sabbath, and literal
festivals, and literal new moons, and from clean and unclean meats, and
to turn the mind to the good and true and spiritual law of God, while at
the same time he who was an ambassador for Christ knew how to become to
the Jews as a Jew, that he might gain the Jews, and to those who are
under the law, as under the law, that he might gain those who are under
the law?

Footnote 53:

  ἀλαζονεία.

Footnote 54:

  Matt. xi. 29.

Footnote 55:

  John xvi. 4.

Footnote 56:

  Luke xxii. 27.




                             Chapter VIII.


He says, further, that “many other persons would appear such as Jesus
was, to those who were willing to be deceived.” Let this Jew of Celsus
then show us, not many persons, nor even a few, but a single individual,
such as Jesus was, introducing among the human race, with the power that
was manifested in Him, a system of doctrine and opinions beneficial to
human life, and which converts men from the practice of wickedness. He
says, moreover, that this charge is brought against the Jews by the
Christian converts, that they have not believed in Jesus as in God. Now
on this point we have, in the preceding pages, offered a preliminary
defence, showing at the same time in what respects we understand Him to
be God, and in what we take Him to be man. “How should we,” he
continues, “who have made known to all men that there is to come from
God one who is to punish the wicked, treat him with disregard when he
came?” And to this, as an exceedingly silly argument, it does not seem
to me reasonable to offer any answer. It is as if some one were to say,
“How could we, who teach temperance, commit any act of licentiousness?
or we, who are ambassadors for righteousness, be guilty of any
wickedness?” For as these inconsistencies are found among men, so, to
say that they believed the prophets when speaking of the future advent
of Christ, and yet refused their belief to Him when He came, agreeably
to prophetic statement, was quite in keeping with human nature. And
since we must add another reason, we shall remark that this very result
was foretold by the prophets. Isaiah distinctly declares: “Hearing ye
shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall
not perceive: for the heart of this people has become fat,”[57] etc. And
let them explain why it was predicted to the Jews, that although they
both heard and saw, they would not understand what was said, nor
perceive what was seen as they ought. For it is indeed manifest, that
when they beheld Jesus they did not see who He was; and when they heard
Him, they did not understand from His words the divinity that was in
Him, and which transferred God’s providential care, hitherto exercised
over the Jews, to His converts from the heathen. Therefore we may see,
that after the advent of Jesus the Jews were altogether abandoned, and
possess now none of what were considered their ancient glories, so that
there is no indication of any Divinity abiding amongst them. For they
have no longer prophets nor miracles, traces of which to a considerable
extent are still found among Christians, and some of them more
remarkable than any that existed among the Jews; and these we ourselves
have witnessed, if our testimony may be received. But the Jew of Celsus
exclaims: “Why did we treat him, whom we announced beforehand, with
dishonour? Was it that we might be chastised more than others?” To which
we have to answer, that on account of their unbelief, and the other
insults which they heaped upon Jesus, the Jews will not only suffer more
than others in that judgment which is believed to impend over the world,
but have even already endured such sufferings. For what nation is an
exile from their own metropolis, and from the place sacred to the
worship of their fathers, save the Jews alone? And these calamities they
have suffered, because they were a most wicked nation, which, although
guilty of many other sins, yet has been punished so severely for none,
as for those that were committed against our Jesus.

Footnote 57:

  Isa. vi. 9.




                              Chapter IX.


The Jew continues his discourse thus: “How should we deem him to be a
God, who not only in other respects, as was currently reported,
performed none of his promises, but who also, after we had convicted
him, and condemned him as deserving of punishment, was found attempting
to conceal himself, and endeavouring to escape in a most disgraceful
manner, and who was betrayed by those whom he called disciples? And
yet,” he continues, “he who was a God could neither flee nor be led away
a prisoner; and least of all could he be deserted and delivered up by
those who had been his associates, and had shared all things in common,
and had had him for their teacher, who was deemed to be a Saviour, and a
Son of the greatest God, and an angel.” To which we reply, that even we
do not suppose the body of Jesus, which was then an object of sight and
perception, to have been God. And why do I say His body? Nay, not even
His soul, of which it is related, “My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even
unto death.”[58] But as, according to the Jewish manner of speaking, “I
am the Lord, the God of all flesh,” and, “Before me there was no God
formed, neither shall there be after me,” God is believed to be He who
employs the soul and body of the prophet as an instrument; and as,
according to the Greeks, he who says,

     “I know both the number of the sand, and the measures of the sea,
     And I understand a dumb man, and hear him who does not speak,”[59]

is considered to be a god when speaking, and making himself heard
through the Pythian priestess; so, according to our view, it was the
Logos God, and Son of the God of all things, who spake in Jesus these
words, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life;” and these, “I am the
door;” and these, “I am the living bread that came down from heaven;”
and other expressions similar to these. We therefore charge the Jews
with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in
many passages by the prophets, to the effect that He was a mighty power,
and a God next to[60] the God and Father of all things. For we assert
that it was to Him the Father gave the command, when in the Mosaic
account of the creation He uttered the words, “Let there be light,” and
“Let there be a firmament,” and gave the injunctions with regard to
those other creative acts which were performed; and that to Him also
were addressed the words, “Let us make man in our own image and
likeness;” and that the Logos, when commanded, obeyed all the Father’s
will. And we make these statements not from our own conjectures, but
because we believe the prophecies circulated among the Jews, in which it
is said of God, and of the works of creation, in express words, as
follows: “He spake, and they were made; He commanded, and they were
created.”[61] Now if God gave the command, and the creatures were
formed, who, according to the view of the spirit of prophecy, could he
be that was able to carry out such commands of the Father, save Him who,
so to speak, is the living Logos and the Truth? And that the Gospels do
not consider him who in Jesus said these words, “I am the way, and the
truth, and the life,” to have been of so circumscribed a nature,[62] as
to have an existence nowhere out of the soul and body of Jesus, is
evident both from many considerations, and from a few instances of the
following kind which we shall quote. John the Baptist, when predicting
that the Son of God was to appear immediately, not in that body and
soul, but as manifesting Himself everywhere, says regarding Him: “There
stands in the midst of you One whom ye know not, who cometh after
me.”[63] For if he had thought that the Son of God was only there, where
was the visible body of Jesus, how could he have said, “There stands in
the midst of you One whom ye know not?” And Jesus Himself, in raising
the minds of His disciples to higher thoughts of the Son of God, says:
“Where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the
midst of you.”[64] And of the same nature is His promise to His
disciples: “Lo, I am with you alway, even to the end of the world.”[65]
And we quote these passages, making no distinction between the Son of
God and Jesus. For the soul and body of Jesus formed, after the
οἰκονομία, one being with the Logos of God. Now if, according to Paul’s
teaching, “he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit,”[66] every one
who understands what being joined to the Lord is, and who has been
actually joined to Him, is one spirit with the Lord; how should not that
being be one in a far greater and more divine degree, which was once
united with the Logos of God?[67] He, indeed, manifested Himself among
the Jews as the power of God, by the miracles which He performed, which
Celsus suspected were accomplished by sorcery, but which by the Jews of
that time were attributed, I know not why, to Beelzebub, in the words:
“He casteth out devils through Beelzebub, the prince of the devils.”[68]
But these our Saviour convicted of uttering the greatest absurdities,
from the fact that the kingdom of evil was not yet come to an end. And
this will be evident to all intelligent readers of the Gospel narrative,
which it is not now the time to explain.

Footnote 58:

  Matt. xxvi. 38.

Footnote 59:

  Herodot. b. i. 47.

Footnote 60:

  καὶ Θεὸν κατὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα. “Ex mente Origenis, inquit
  Boherellus, vertendum ‘Secundo post universi Deum atque parentem
  loco;’ non cum interprete Gelenio, ‘Ipsius rerum universarum Dei atque
  Parentis testimonio.’ Nam si hic esset sensus, frustra post ὑπὸ τῶν
  προφητῶν, adderetur κατὰ τὸν Θεόν. Præterea, hæc epitheta, τὸν τῶν
  ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα, manifestam continent antithesin ad ista, μεγάλην
  ὄντα δύναμιν καὶ Θεόν, ut Pater supra Filium evehatur, quemadmodum
  evehitur ab Origene infra libro octavo, num. 15. Τοῦ, κατά, inferiorem
  ordinem denotantis exempla afferre supersedeo, cum obvia sint.”—RUÆUS.

Footnote 61:

  Ps. cxlviii. 5.

Footnote 62:

  περιγεγραμμένον τινα.

Footnote 63:

  John i. 26.

Footnote 64:

  Matt. xviii. 20.

Footnote 65:

  Matt. xxviii. 20.

Footnote 66:

  1 Cor. vi. 16.

Footnote 67:

  εἰ γὰρ κατὰ τὴν Παύλου διδασκαλίαν, λέγοντος· “ὁ κολλώμενος τῷ κυρίῳ,
  ἓν πνεῦμα ἐστι·” πᾶς ὁ νοήσας τί τὸ κολλᾶσθαι τῷ κυρίῳ, καὶ κολληθεὶς
  αὐτῷ, ἕν ἐστι πνεῦμα πρὸς τὸν κύριον· πῶς οὐ πολλῷ μᾶλλον θειοτέρως
  καὶ μειζόνως ἕν ἐστι τὸ ποτε σύνθετον πρὸς τὸν λόγον τοῦ Θεοῦ;

Footnote 68:

  Matt. xii. 24.




                               Chapter X.


But what promise did Jesus make which He did not perform? Let Celsus
produce any instance of such, and make good his charge. But he will be
unable to do so, especially since it is from mistakes, arising either
from misapprehension of the Gospel narratives, or from Jewish stories,
that he thinks to derive the charges which he brings against Jesus or
against ourselves. Moreover, again, when the Jew says, “We both found
him guilty, and condemned him as deserving of death,” let them show how
they who sought to concoct false witness against Him proved Him to be
guilty. Was not the great charge against Jesus, which His accusers
brought forward, this, that He said, “I am able to destroy the temple of
God, and after three days to raise it up again?”[69] But in so saying,
He spake of the temple of His body; while they thought, not being able
to understand the meaning of the speaker, that His reference was to the
temple of stone, which was treated by the Jews with greater respect than
He was who ought to have been honoured as the true Temple of God—the
Word, and the Wisdom, and the Truth. And who can say that “Jesus
attempted to make His escape by disgracefully concealing Himself?” Let
any one point to an act deserving to be called disgraceful. And when he
adds, “he was taken prisoner,” I would say that, if to be taken prisoner
implies an act done against one’s will, then Jesus was not taken
prisoner; for at the fitting time He did not prevent Himself falling
into the hands of men, as the Lamb of God, that He might take away the
sin of the world. For, knowing all things that were to come upon Him, He
went forth, and said to them, “Whom seek ye?” and they answered, “Jesus
of Nazareth;” and He said unto them, “I am He.” And Judas also, who
betrayed Him, was standing with them. When, therefore, He had said to
them, “I am He,” they went backwards and fell to the ground. Again He
asked them, “Whom seek ye?” and they said again, “Jesus of Nazareth.”
Jesus said to them, “I told you I am He; if then ye seek me, let these
go away.”[70] Nay, even to him who wished to help Him, and who smote the
high priest’s servant, and cut off his ear, He said: “Put up thy sword
into its sheath: for all they who draw the sword shall perish by the
sword. Thinkest thou that I cannot even now pray to my Father, and He
will presently give me more than twelve legions of angels? But how then
should the Scriptures be fulfilled, that thus it must be?”[71] And if
any one imagines these statements to be inventions of the writers of the
Gospels, why should not those statements rather be regarded as
inventions which proceeded from a spirit of hatred and hostility against
Jesus and the Christians? and these the truth, which proceed from those
who manifest the sincerity of their feelings towards Jesus, by enduring
everything, whatever it may be, for the sake of His words? For the
reception by the disciples of such power of endurance and resolution
continued even to death, with a disposition of mind that would not
invent regarding their Teacher what was not true, is a very evident
proof to all candid judges that they were fully persuaded of the truth
of what they wrote, seeing they submitted to trials so numerous and so
severe, for the sake of Him whom they believed to be the Son of God.

Footnote 69:

  Matt. xxvi. 61.

Footnote 70:

  John xviii. 4 sqq.

Footnote 71:

  Matt. xxvi. 52-54.




                              Chapter XI.


In the next place, that He was betrayed by those whom He called His
disciples, is a circumstance which the Jew of Celsus learned from the
Gospels; calling the one Judas, however, “many disciples,” that he might
seem to add force to the accusation. Nor did he trouble himself to take
note of all that is related concerning Judas; how this Judas, having
come to entertain opposite and conflicting opinions regarding his
Master, neither opposed Him with his whole soul, nor yet with his whole
soul preserved the respect due by a pupil to his teacher. For he that
betrayed Him gave to the multitude that came to apprehend Jesus, a sign,
saying, “Whomsoever I shall kiss, it is he; seize ye him,”—retaining
still some element of respect for his Master: for unless he had done so,
he would have betrayed Him, even publicly, without any pretence of
affection. This circumstance, therefore, will satisfy all with regard to
the purpose of Judas, that along with his covetous disposition, and his
wicked design to betray his Master, he had still a feeling of a mixed
character in his mind, produced in him by the words of Jesus, which had
the appearance (so to speak) of some remnant of good. For it is related
that, “when Judas, who betrayed Him, knew that He was condemned, he
repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the high
priest and elders, saying, I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the
innocent blood. But they said, What is that to us? see thou to
that;”[72]—and that, having thrown the money down in the temple, he
departed, and went and hanged himself. But if this covetous Judas, who
also stole the money placed in the bag for the relief of the poor,
repented, and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief
priests and elders, it is clear that the instructions of Jesus had been
able to produce some feeling of repentance in his mind, and were not
altogether despised and loathed by this traitor. Nay, the declaration,
“I have sinned, in that I have betrayed the innocent blood,” was a
public acknowledgment of his crime. Observe, also, how exceedingly
passionate[73] was the sorrow for his sins that proceeded from that
repentance, and which would not suffer him any longer to live; and how,
after he had cast the money down in the temple, he withdrew, and went
away and hanged himself: for he passed sentence upon himself, showing
what a power the teaching of Jesus had over this sinner Judas, this
thief and traitor, who could not always treat with contempt what he had
learned from Jesus. Will Celsus and his friends now say that those
proofs which show that the apostasy of Judas was not a complete
apostasy, even after his attempts against his Master, are inventions,
and that this alone is true, viz. that one of His disciples betrayed
Him; and will they add to the scriptural account that he betrayed Him
also with his whole heart? To act in this spirit of hostility with the
same writings, both as to what we are to believe and what we are not to
believe, is absurd.[74] And if we must make a statement regarding Judas
which may overwhelm our opponents with shame, we would say that, in the
book of Psalms, the whole of the 108th contains a prophecy about Judas,
the beginning of which is this: “O God, hold not Thy peace before my
praise; for the mouth of the sinner, and the mouth of the crafty man,
are opened against me.”[75] And it is predicted in this psalm, both that
Judas separated himself from the number of the apostles on account of
his sins, and that another was selected in his place; and this is shown
by the words: “And his bishopric let another take.”[76] But suppose now
that He had been betrayed by some one of His disciples, who was
possessed by a worse spirit than Judas, and who had completely poured
out, as it were, all the words which he had heard from Jesus, what would
this contribute to an accusation against Jesus or the Christian
religion? And how will this demonstrate its doctrine to be false? We
have replied in the preceding chapter to the statements which follow
this, showing that Jesus was not taken prisoner when attempting to flee,
but that He gave Himself up voluntarily for the sake of us all. Whence
it follows, that even if He were bound, He was bound agreeably to His
own will; thus teaching us the lesson that we should undertake similar
things for the sake of religion in no spirit of unwillingness.

Footnote 72:

  Matt. xxvii. 3-5.

Footnote 73:

  διάπυρος καὶ σφοδρά.

Footnote 74:

  ἀπίθανον.

Footnote 75:

  Ps. cix. 1, 2.

Footnote 76:

  Ps. cix. 8.




                              Chapter XII.


And the following appear to me to be childish assertions, viz. that “no
good general and leader of great multitudes was ever betrayed; nor even
a wicked captain of robbers and commander of very wicked men, who seemed
to be of any use to his associates; but Jesus, having been betrayed by
his subordinates, neither governed like a good general, nor, after
deceiving his disciples, produced in the minds of the victims of his
deceit that feeling of good-will which, so to speak, would be manifested
towards a brigand chief.” Now one might find many accounts of generals
who were betrayed by their own soldiers, and of robber chiefs who were
captured through the instrumentality of those who did not keep their
bargains with them. But grant that no general or robber chief was ever
betrayed, what does that contribute to the establishment of the fact as
a charge against Jesus, that one of His disciples became His betrayer?
And since Celsus makes an ostentatious exhibition of philosophy, I would
ask of him, If, then, it was a charge against Plato, that Aristotle,
after being his pupil for twenty years, went away and assailed his
doctrine of the immortality of the soul, and styled the ideas of Plato
the merest trifling?[77] And if I were still in doubt, I would continue
thus: Was Plato no longer mighty in dialectics, nor able to defend his
views, after Aristotle had taken his departure; and, on that account,
are the opinions of Plato false? Or may it not be, that while Plato is
true, as the pupils of his philosophy would maintain, Aristotle was
guilty of wickedness and ingratitude towards his teacher? Nay,
Chrysippus also, in many places of his writings, appears to assail
Cleanthes, introducing novel opinions opposed to his views, although the
latter had been his teacher when he was a young man, and began the study
of philosophy. Aristotle, indeed, is said to have been Plato’s pupil for
twenty years, and no inconsiderable period was spent by Chrysippus in
the school of Cleanthes; while Judas did not remain so much as three
years with Jesus. But from the narratives of the lives of philosophers
we might take many instances similar to those on which Celsus founds a
charge against Jesus on account of Judas. Even the Pythagoreans erected
cenotaphs[78] to those who, after betaking themselves to philosophy,
fell back again into their ignorant mode of life; and yet neither was
Pythagoras nor his followers, on that account, weak in argument and
demonstration.

Footnote 77:

  τερετίσματα.

Footnote 78:

  Cf. Clem. Alex. _Strom._ v. c. ix.




                             Chapter XIII.


This Jew of Celsus continues, after the above, in the following fashion:
“Although he could state many things regarding the events of the life of
Jesus which are true, and not like those which are recorded by the
disciples, he willingly omits them.” What, then, are those true
statements, unlike the accounts in the Gospels, which the Jew of Celsus
passes by without mention? Or is he only employing what appears to be a
figure of speech,[79] in pretending to have something to say, while in
reality he had nothing to produce beyond the Gospel narrative which
could impress the hearer with a feeling of its truth, and furnish a
clear ground of accusation against Jesus and His doctrine? And he
charges the disciples with having invented the statement that Jesus
foreknew and foretold all that happened to Him; but the truth of this
statement we shall establish, although Celsus may not like it, by means
of many other predictions uttered by the Saviour, in which He foretold
what would befall the Christians in after generations. And who is there
who would not be astonished at this prediction: “Ye shall be brought
before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and
the Gentiles;”[80] and at any others which He may have delivered
respecting the future persecution of His disciples? For what system of
opinions ever existed among men on account of which others are punished,
so that any one of the accusers of Jesus could say that, foreseeing the
impiety or falsity of his opinions to be the ground of an accusation
against them, he thought that this would redound to his credit, that he
had so predicted regarding it long before? Now if any deserve to be
brought, on account of their opinions, before governors and kings, what
others are they, save the Epicureans, who altogether deny the existence
of providence? And also the Peripatetics, who say that prayers are of no
avail, and sacrifices offered as to the Divinity? But some one will say
that the Samaritans suffer persecution because of their religion. In
answer to whom we shall state that the Sicarians,[81] on account of the
practice of circumcision, as mutilating themselves contrary to the
established laws and the customs permitted to the Jews alone, are put to
death. And you never hear a judge inquiring whether a Sicarian who
strives to live according to this established religion of his will be
released from punishment if he apostatizes, but will be led away to
death if he continues firm; for the evidence of the circumcision is
sufficient to ensure the death of him who has undergone it. But
Christians alone, according to the prediction of their Saviour, “Ye
shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake,” are urged up
to their last breath by their judges to deny Christianity, and to
sacrifice according to the public customs; and after the oath of
abjuration, to return to their homes, and to live in safety. And observe
whether it is not with great authority that this declaration is uttered:
“Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess
also before my Father who is in heaven. And whosoever shall deny me
before men,”[82] etc. And go back with me in thought to Jesus when He
uttered these words, and see His predictions not yet accomplished.
Perhaps you will say, in a spirit of incredulity, that he is talking
folly, and speaking to no purpose, for his words will have no
fulfilment; or, being in doubt about assenting to his words, you will
say, that if these predictions be fulfilled, and the doctrine of Jesus
be established, so that governors and kings think of destroying those
who acknowledge Jesus, then we shall believe that he utters these
prophecies as one who has received great power from God to implant this
doctrine among the human race, and as believing that it will prevail.
And who will not be filled with wonder, when he goes back in thought to
Him who then taught and said, “This gospel shall be preached throughout
the whole world, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles,” and
beholds, agreeably to His words, the gospel of Jesus Christ preached in
the whole world under heaven to Greeks and barbarians, wise and foolish
alike? For the word, spoken with power, has gained the mastery over men
of all sorts of nature, and it is impossible to see any race of men
which has escaped accepting the teaching of Jesus. But let this Jew of
Celsus, who does not believe that He foreknew all that happened to Him,
consider how, while Jerusalem was still standing, and the whole Jewish
worship celebrated in it, Jesus foretold what would befall it from the
hand of the Romans. For they will not maintain that the acquaintances
and pupils of Jesus Himself handed down His teaching contained in the
Gospels without committing it to writing, and left His disciples without
the memoirs of Jesus contained in their works. Now in these it is
recorded, that “when ye shall see Jerusalem compassed about with armies,
then shall ye know that the desolation thereof is nigh.”[83] But at that
time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing
and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero, and lasted
till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem,
on account, as Josephus says, of James the Just, the brother of Jesus
who was called Christ, but in reality, as the truth makes clear, on
account of Jesus Christ the Son of God.

Footnote 79:

  δοκούσῃ δεινότητι ῥητορικῇ.

Footnote 80:

  Matt. x. 18.

Footnote 81:

  Modestinus, lib. vi. _Regularum, ad legem Corneliam de Sicariis_:
  “Circumcidere filios suos Judæis tantum rescripto divi Pii
  permittitur: in non ejusdem religionis qui hoc fecerit, castrantis
  pœna irrogatur.”

Footnote 82:

  Matt. x. 18.

Footnote 83:

  Matt. xxiv. 14.




                              Chapter XIV.


Celsus, however, accepting or granting that Jesus foreknew what would
befall Him, might think to make light of the admission, as he did in the
case of the miracles, when he alleged that they were wrought by means of
sorcery; for he might say that many persons by means of divination,
either by auspices, or auguries, or sacrifices, or nativities, have come
to the knowledge of what was to happen. But this concession he would not
make, as being too great a one; and although he somehow granted that
Jesus worked miracles, he thought to weaken the force of this by the
charge of sorcery. Now Phlegon, in the thirteenth or fourteenth book, I
think, of his Chronicles, not only ascribed to Jesus a knowledge of
future events (although falling into confusion about some things which
refer to Peter, as if they referred to Jesus), but also testified that
the result corresponded to His predictions. So that he also, by these
very admissions regarding foreknowledge, as if against his will,
expressed his opinion that the doctrines taught by the fathers of our
system were not devoid of divine power.




                              Chapter XV.


Celsus continues: “The disciples of Jesus, having no undoubted fact on
which to rely, devised the fiction that he foreknew everything before it
happened;” not observing, or not wishing to observe, the love of truth
which actuated the writers, who acknowledged that Jesus had told His
disciples beforehand, “All ye shall be offended because of me this
night,”—a statement which was fulfilled by their all being offended; and
that He predicted to Peter, “Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me
thrice,” which was followed by Peter’s threefold denial. Now if they had
not been lovers of truth, but, as Celsus supposes, inventors of
fictions, they would not have represented Peter as denying, nor His
disciples as being offended. For although these events actually
happened, who could have proved that they turned out in that manner? And
yet, according to all probability, these were matters which ought to
have been passed over in silence by men who wished to teach the readers
of the Gospels to despise death for the sake of confessing Christianity.
But now, seeing that the word, by its power, will gain the mastery over
men, they related those facts which they have done, and which, I know
not how, were neither to do any harm to their readers, nor to afford any
pretext for denial.




                              Chapter XVI.


Exceedingly weak is his assertion, that “the disciples of Jesus wrote
such accounts regarding him, by way of extenuating the charges that told
against him: as if,” he says, “any one were to say that a certain person
was a just man, and yet were to show that he was guilty of injustice; or
that he was pious, and yet had committed murder; or that he was
immortal, and yet was dead; subjoining to all these statements the
remark that he had foretold all these things.” Now his illustrations are
at once seen to be inappropriate; for there is no absurdity in Him who
had resolved that He would become a living pattern to men, as to the
manner in which they were to regulate their lives, showing also how they
ought to die for the sake of their religion, apart altogether from the
fact that His death on behalf of men was a benefit to the whole world,
as we proved in the preceding book. He imagines, moreover, that the
whole of the confession of the Saviour’s sufferings confirms his
objection instead of weakening it. For he is not acquainted either with
the philosophical remarks of Paul,[84] or the statements of the
prophets, on this subject. And it escaped him that certain heretics have
declared that Jesus underwent His sufferings in appearance, not in
reality. For had he known, he would not have said: “For ye do not even
allege this, that he seemed to wicked men to suffer this punishment,
though not undergoing it in reality; but, on the contrary, ye
acknowledge that he openly suffered.” But we do not view His sufferings
as having been merely in appearance, in order that His resurrection also
may not be a false, but a real event. For he who really died, actually
arose, if he did arise; whereas he who appeared only to have died, did
not in reality arise. But since the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a
subject of mockery to unbelievers, we shall quote the words of
Plato,[85] that Herus the son of Armenius rose from the funeral pile
twelve days after he had been laid upon it, and gave an account of what
he had seen in Hades; and as we are replying to unbelievers, it will not
be altogether useless to refer in this place to what Heraclides[86]
relates respecting the woman who was deprived of life. And many persons
are recorded to have risen from their tombs, not only on the day of
their burial, but also on the day following. What wonder is it, then, if
in the case of one who performed many marvellous things, both beyond the
power of man and with such fulness of evidence, that he who could not
deny their performance, endeavoured to calumniate them by comparing them
to acts of sorcery, should have manifested also in His death some
greater display of divine power, so that His soul, if it pleased, might
leave its body, and having performed certain offices out of it, might
return again at pleasure? And such a declaration is Jesus said to have
made in the Gospel of John, when He said: “No man taketh my life from
me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have
power to take it again.”[87] And perhaps it was on this account that He
hastened His departure from the body, that He might preserve it, and
that His legs might not be broken, as were those of the robbers who were
crucified with Him. “For the soldiers broke the legs of the first, and
of the other who was crucified with Him; but when they came to Jesus,
and saw that He was dead, they brake not His legs.”[88] We have
accordingly answered the question, “How is it credible that Jesus could
have predicted these things?” And with respect to this, “How could the
dead man be immortal?” let him who wishes to understand know, that it is
not the dead man who is immortal, but He who rose from the dead. So far,
indeed, was the dead man from being immortal, that even the Jesus before
His decease—the compound being, who was to suffer death—was not
immortal.[89] For no one is immortal who is destined to die; but he is
immortal when he shall no longer be subject to death. But “Christ, being
raised from the dead, dieth no more: death hath no more dominion over
Him;”[90] although those may be unwilling to admit this who cannot
understand how such things should be said.

Footnote 84:

  ὅσα περὶ τούτου καὶ παρὰ τῷ Παύλῳ πεφιλοσόφηται.

Footnote 85:

  Cf. Plato, _de Rep._ x.

Footnote 86:

  Cf. Plin. _Nat. Hist._ vii. c. 52.

Footnote 87:

  John x. 18.

Footnote 88:

  John xix. 52.

Footnote 89:

  Οὐ μόνον οὖν οὐχ ὁ νεκρὸς ἀθάνατος, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ὁ πρὸ τοῦ νεκροῦ Ἰησοῦς
  ὁ σύνθετος ἀθάνατος ἦν, ὅς γε ἔμελλε τεθνήξεσθαι.

Footnote 90:

  Rom. vi. 9.




                             Chapter XVII.


Extremely foolish also is his remark, “What God, or spirit, or prudent
man would not, on foreseeing that such events were to befall him, avoid
them if he could; whereas he threw himself headlong into those things
which he knew beforehand were to happen?” And yet Socrates knew that he
would die after drinking the hemlock, and it was in his power, if he had
allowed himself to be persuaded by Crito, by escaping from prison, to
avoid these calamities; but nevertheless he decided, as it appeared to
him consistent with right reason, that it was better for him to die as
became a philosopher, than to retain his life in a manner unbecoming
one. Leonidas also, the Lacedemonian general, knowing that he was on the
point of dying with his followers at Thermopylæ, did not make any effort
to preserve his life by disgraceful means, but said to his companions,
“Let us go to breakfast, as we shall sup in Hades.” And those who are
interested in collecting stories of this kind, will find numbers of
them. Now, where is the wonder if Jesus, knowing all things that were to
happen, did not avoid them, but encountered what He foreknew; when Paul,
His own disciple, having heard what would befall him when he went up to
Jerusalem, proceeded to face the danger, reproaching those who were
weeping around him, and endeavouring to prevent him from going up to
Jerusalem? Many also of our contemporaries, knowing well that if they
made a confession of Christianity they would be put to death, but that
if they denied it they would be liberated, and their property restored,
despised life, and voluntarily selected death for the sake of their
religion.




                             Chapter XVIII.


After this the Jew makes another silly remark, saying, “How is it that,
if Jesus pointed out beforehand both the traitor and the perjurer, they
did not fear him as a God, and cease, the one from his intended treason,
and the other from his perjury?” Here the learned Celsus did not see the
contradiction in his statement: for if Jesus foreknew events as a God,
then it was impossible for His foreknowledge to prove untrue; and
therefore it was impossible for him who was known to Him as going to
betray Him not to execute his purpose, nor for him who was rebuked as
going to deny Him not to have been guilty of that crime. For if it had
been possible for the one to abstain from the act of betrayal, and the
other from that of denial, as having been warned of the consequences of
these actions beforehand, then His words were no longer true, who
predicted that the one would betray Him and the other deny Him. For if
He had foreknowledge of the traitor, He knew the wickedness in which the
treason originated, and this wickedness was by no means taken away by
the foreknowledge. And, again, if He had ascertained that one would deny
Him, He made that prediction from seeing the weakness out of which that
act of denial would arise, and yet this weakness was not to be taken
away thus at once[91] by the foreknowledge. But whence he derived the
statement, “that these persons betrayed and denied him without
manifesting any concern about him,” I know not; for it was proved, with
respect to the traitor, that it is false to say that he betrayed his
master without an exhibition of anxiety regarding Him. And this was
shown to be equally true of him who denied Him; for he went out, after
the denial, and wept bitterly.

Footnote 91:

  οὕτως ἀθρόως.




                              Chapter XIX.


Superficial also is his objection, that “it is always the case when a
man against whom a plot is formed, and who comes to the knowledge of it,
makes known to the conspirators that he is acquainted with their design,
that the latter are turned from their purpose, and keep upon their
guard.” For many have continued to plot even against those who were
acquainted with their plans. And then, as if bringing his argument to a
conclusion, he says: “Not because these things were predicted did they
come to pass, for that is impossible; but since they have come to pass,
their being predicted is shown to be a falsehood: for it is altogether
impossible that those who heard beforehand of the discovery of their
designs, should carry out their plans of betrayal and denial!” But if
his premisses are overthrown, then his conclusion also falls to the
ground, viz. “that we are not to believe, because these things were
predicted, that they have come to pass.” Now we maintain that they not
only came to pass as being possible, but also that, because they came to
pass, the fact of their being predicted is shown to be true; for the
truth regarding future events is judged of by results. It is false,
therefore, as asserted by him, that the prediction of these events is
proved to be untrue; and it is to no purpose that he says, “It is
altogether impossible for those who heard beforehand that their designs
were discovered, to carry out their plans of betrayal and denial.”




                              Chapter XX.


Let us see how he continues after this: “These events,” he says, “he
predicted as being a God, and the prediction must by all means come to
pass. God, therefore, who above all others ought to do good to men, and
especially to those of his own household, led on his own disciples and
prophets, with whom he was in the habit of eating and drinking, to such
a degree of wickedness, that they became impious and unholy men. Now, of
a truth, he who shared a man’s table would not be guilty of conspiring
against him; but after banqueting with God, he became a conspirator.
And, what is still more absurd, God himself plotted against the members
of his own table, by converting them into traitors and villains!” Now,
since you wish me to answer even those charges of Celsus which seem to
me frivolous,[92] the following is our reply to such statements. Celsus
imagines that an event, predicted through foreknowledge, comes to pass
because it was predicted; but we do not grant this, maintaining that he
who foretold it was not the cause of its happening, because he foretold
it would happen; but the future event itself, which would have taken
place though not predicted, afforded the occasion to him, who was
endowed with foreknowledge, of foretelling its occurrence. Now,
certainly this result is present to the foreknowledge of him who
predicts an event, when it is possible that it may or may not happen,
viz. that one or other of these things will take place. For we do not
assert that he who foreknows an event, by secretly taking away the
possibility of its happening or not, makes any such declaration as this:
“This shall infallibly happen, and it is impossible that it can be
otherwise.” And this remark applies to all the foreknowledge of events
dependent upon ourselves, whether contained in the sacred Scriptures or
in the histories of the Greeks. Now, what is called by logicians an
“idle argument,”[93] which is a sophism, will be no sophism as far as
Celsus can help, but according to sound reasoning it is a sophism. And
that this may be seen, I shall take from the Scriptures the predictions
regarding Judas, or the foreknowledge of our Saviour regarding him as
the traitor; and from the Greek histories the oracle that was given to
Laius, conceding for the present its truth, since it does not affect the
argument. Now, in Ps. cix., Judas is spoken of by the mouth of the
Saviour, in words beginning thus: “Hold not Thy peace, O God of my
praise; for the mouth of the wicked and the mouth of the deceitful are
opened against me.” Now, if you carefully observe the contents of the
psalm, you will find that, as it was foreknown that he would betray the
Saviour, so also was he considered to be himself the cause of the
betrayal, and deserving, on account of his wickedness, of the
imprecations contained in the prophecy. For let him suffer these things,
“because,” says the psalmist, “he remembered not to show mercy, but
persecuted the poor and needy man.” Wherefore it was possible for him to
show mercy, and not to persecute him whom he did persecute. But although
he might have done these things, he did not do them, but carried out the
act of treason, so as to merit the curses pronounced against him in the
prophecy.

And in answer to the Greeks we shall quote the following oracular
response to Laius, as recorded by the tragic poet, either in the exact
words of the oracle or in equivalent terms. Future events are thus made
known to him by the oracle: “Do not try to beget children against the
will of the gods. For if you beget a son, your son shall murder you; and
all your household shall wade in blood.”[94] Now from this it is clear
that it was within the power of Laius not to try to beget children, for
the oracle would not have commanded an impossibility; and it was also in
his power to do the opposite, so that neither of these courses was
compulsory. And the consequence of his not guarding against the
begetting of children was, that he suffered from so doing the calamities
described in the tragedies relating to Œdipus and Jocasta and their
sons. Now that which is called the “idle argument,” being a quibble, is
such as might be applied, say in the case of a sick man, with the view
of sophistically preventing him from employing a physician to promote
his recovery; and it is something like this: “If it is decreed that you
should recover from your disease, you will recover whether you call in a
physician or not; but if it is decreed that you should not recover, you
will not recover whether you call in a physician or no. But it is
certainly decreed either that you should recover, or that you should not
recover; and therefore it is in vain that you call in a physician.” Now
with this argument the following may be wittily compared: “If it is
decreed that you should beget children, you will beget them, whether you
have intercourse with a woman or not. But if it is decreed that you
should not beget children, you will not do so, whether you have
intercourse with a woman or no. Now, certainly, it is decreed either
that you should beget children or not; therefore it is in vain that you
have intercourse with a woman.” For, as in the latter instance,
intercourse with a woman is not employed in vain, seeing it is an utter
impossibility for him who does not use it to beget children; so, in the
former, if recovery from disease is to be accomplished by means of the
healing art, of necessity the physician is summoned, and it is therefore
false to say that “in vain do you call in a physician.” We have brought
forward all these illustrations on account of the assertion of this
learned Celsus, that “being a God he predicted these things, and the
predictions must _by all means_ come to pass.” Now, if by “_by all
means_” he means “_necessarily_,” we cannot admit this. For it was quite
possible, also, that they might _not_ come to pass. But if he uses “_by
all means_” in the sense of “_simple futurity_,”[95] which nothing
hinders from being true (although it was possible that they might not
happen), he does not at all touch my argument; nor did it follow, from
Jesus having predicted the acts of the traitor or the perjurer, that it
was the same thing with His being the cause of such impious and unholy
proceedings. For He who was amongst us, and knew what was in man, seeing
his evil disposition, and foreseeing what he would attempt from his
spirit of covetousness, and from his want of stable ideas of duty
towards his Master, along with many other declarations, gave utterance
to this also: “He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, the same
shall betray me.”[96]

Footnote 92:

  εὐτελέσι.

Footnote 93:

  ἀργὸς λόγος.

Footnote 94:

  Euripid. _Phœnissæ_, 18-20.

Footnote 95:

  ἀντὶ τοῦ ἔσται.

Footnote 96:

  Matt. xxvi. 23.




                              Chapter XXI.


Observe also the superficiality and manifest falsity of such a statement
of Celsus, when he asserts “that he who was partaker of a man’s table
would not conspire against him; and if he would not conspire against a
man, much less would he plot against a God after banqueting with him.”
For who does not know that many persons, after partaking of the salt on
the table,[97] have entered into a conspiracy against their
entertainers? The whole of Greek and barbarian history is full of such
instances. And the Iambic poet of Paros,[98] when upbraiding Lycambes
with having violated covenants confirmed by the salt of the table, says
to him:

    “But thou hast broken a mighty oath—that, viz., by the salt of the
    table.”

And they who are interested in historical learning, and who give
themselves wholly to it, to the neglect of other branches of knowledge
more necessary for the conduct of life,[99] can quote numerous
instances, showing that they who shared in the hospitality of others
entered into conspiracies against them.

Footnote 97:

  ἁλῶν καὶ τραπέζης.

Footnote 98:

  Archilochus.

Footnote 99:

  Guietus would expunge these words as “inept.”




                             Chapter XXII.


He adds to this, as if he had brought together an argument with
conclusive demonstrations and consequences, the following: “And, which
is still more absurd, God himself conspired against those who sat at his
table, by converting them into traitors and impious men.” But how Jesus
could either conspire or convert His disciples into traitors or impious
men, it would be impossible for him to prove, save by means of such a
deduction as any one could refute with the greatest ease.




                             Chapter XXIII.


He continues in this strain: “If he had determined upon these things,
and underwent chastisement in obedience to his Father, it is manifest
that, being a God, and submitting voluntarily, those things that were
done agreeably to his own decision were neither painful nor
distressing.” But he did not observe that here he was at once
contradicting himself. For if he granted that He was chastised because
He had determined upon these things, and had submitted Himself to His
Father, it is clear that He actually suffered punishment, and it was
impossible that what was inflicted on Him by His chastisers should not
be painful, because pain is an involuntary thing. But if, because He was
willing to suffer, His inflictions were neither painful nor distressing,
how did He grant that “He was chastised?” He did not perceive that when
Jesus had once, by His birth, assumed a body, He assumed one which was
capable both of suffering pains, and those distresses incidental to
humanity, if we are to understand by distresses what no one voluntarily
chooses. Since, therefore, He voluntarily assumed a body, not wholly of
a different nature from that of human flesh, so along with His body He
assumed also its sufferings and distresses, which it was not in His
power to avoid enduring, it being in the power of those who inflicted
them to send upon Him things distressing and painful. And in the
preceding pages we have already shown, that He would not have come into
the hands of men had He not so willed. But He did come, because He was
willing to come, and because it was manifest beforehand that His dying
upon behalf of men would be of advantage to the whole human race.




                             Chapter XXIV.


After this, wishing to prove that the occurrences which befell Him were
painful and distressing, and that it was impossible for Him, had He
wished, to render them otherwise, he proceeds: “Why does he mourn, and
lament, and pray to escape the fear of death, expressing himself in
terms like these: ‘O Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me?’”[100] Now in these words observe the malignity of Celsus, how not
accepting the love of truth which actuates the writers of the Gospels
(who might have passed over in silence those points which, as Celsus
thinks, are censurable, but who did not omit them for many reasons,
which any one, in expounding the Gospel, can give in their proper
place), he brings an accusation against the Gospel statement, grossly
exaggerating the facts, and quoting what is not written in the Gospels,
seeing it is nowhere found that Jesus lamented. And he changes the words
in the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from
me,” and does not give what follows immediately after, which manifests
at once the ready obedience of Jesus to His Father, and His greatness of
mind, and which runs thus: “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou
wilt.”[101] Nay, even the cheerful obedience of Jesus to the will of His
Father in those things which He was condemned to suffer, exhibited in
the declaration, “If this cup cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy
will be done,” he pretends not to have observed, acting here like those
wicked individuals who listen to the Holy Scriptures in a malignant
spirit, and “who talk wickedness with lofty head.” For they appear to
have heard the declaration, “I kill,”[102] and they often make it to us
a subject of reproach; but the words, “I will make alive,” they do not
remember,—the whole sentence showing that those who live amid public
wickedness, and who work wickedly, are put to death by God, and that a
better life is infused into them instead, even one which God will give
to those who have died to sin. And so also these men have heard the
words, “I will smite;” but they do not see these, “and I will heal,”
which are like the words of a physician, who cuts bodies asunder, and
inflicts severe wounds, in order to extract from them substances that
are injurious and prejudicial to health, and who does not terminate his
work with pains and lacerations, but by his treatment restores the body
to that state of soundness which he has in view. Moreover, they have not
heard the whole of the announcement, “For He maketh sore, and again
bindeth up;” but only this part, “He maketh sore.” So in like manner
acts this Jew of Celsus, who quotes the words, “O Father, would that
this cup might pass from me;” but who does not add what follows, and
which exhibits the firmness of Jesus, and His preparedness for
suffering. But these matters, which afford great room for explanation
from the wisdom of God, and which may reasonably be pondered over[103]
by those whom Paul calls “perfect” when he said, “We speak wisdom among
them who are perfect,”[104] we pass by for the present, and shall speak
for a little of those matters which are useful for our present purpose.

Footnote 100:

  Matt. xxvi. 39.

Footnote 101:

  Matt. xxvi. 39.

Footnote 102:

  Deut. xxxii. 39.

Footnote 103:

  καὶ ταῦτα δὲ, πολλὴν ἔχοντα διήγησιν ἀπὸ σοφίας Θεοῦ οἷς ὁ Παῦλος
  ὠνόμασε τελείοις εὐλόγως παραδοθησομένην.

Footnote 104:

  1 Cor. ii. 6.




                              Chapter XXV.


We have mentioned in the preceding pages that there are some of the
declarations of Jesus which refer to that Being in Him which was the
“first-born of every creature,” such as, “I am the way, and the truth,
and the life,” and such like; and others, again, which belong to that in
Him which is understood to be man, such as, “But now ye seek to kill me,
a man that hath told you the truth which I have heard of the
Father.”[105] And here, accordingly, he describes the element of
weakness belonging to human flesh, and that of readiness of spirit which
existed in His humanity: the element of weakness in the expression,
“Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me;” the readiness of
the spirit in this, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” And
since it is proper to observe the order of our quotations, observe that,
in the first place, there is mentioned only the single instance, as one
would say, indicating the weakness of the flesh; and afterwards those
other instances, greater in number, manifesting the willingness of the
spirit. For the expression, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup
pass from me,” is only one: whereas more numerous are those others,
viz., “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;” and, “O my Father, if this cup
cannot pass from me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” It is to be
noted also, that the words are not, “let this cup depart from me;” but
that the whole expression is marked by a tone of piety and reverence,
“Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.” I know, indeed,
that there is another explanation of this passage to the following
effect:—The Saviour, foreseeing the sufferings which the Jewish people
and the city of Jerusalem were to undergo in requital of the wicked
deeds which the Jews had dared to perpetrate upon Him, from no other
motive than that of the purest philanthropy towards them, and from a
desire that they might escape the impending calamities, gave utterance
to the prayer, “Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me.”
It is as if He had said, “Because of my drinking this cup of punishment,
the whole nation will be forsaken by Thee, I pray, if it be possible,
that this cup may pass from me, in order that Thy portion, which was
guilty of such crimes against me, may not be altogether deserted by
Thee.” But if, as Celsus would allege, “nothing at that time was done to
Jesus which was either painful or distressing,” how could men afterwards
quote the example of Jesus as enduring sufferings for the sake of
religion, if He did _not_ suffer what are human sufferings, but only had
the _appearance_ of so doing?

Footnote 105:

  John viii. 40.




                             Chapter XXVI.


This Jew of Celsus still accuses the disciples of Jesus of having
invented these statements, saying to them: “Even although guilty of
falsehood, ye have not been able to give a colour of credibility to your
inventions.” In answer to which we have to say, that there was an easy
method of concealing these occurrences,—that, viz., of not recording
them at all. For if the Gospels had not contained the accounts of these
things, who could have reproached us with Jesus having spoken such words
during His stay upon the earth? Celsus, indeed, did not see that it was
an inconsistency for the same persons both to be deceived regarding
Jesus, believing Him to be God, and the subject of prophecy, and to
invent fictions about Him, knowing manifestly that these statements were
false. Of a truth, therefore, they were not guilty of inventing
untruths, but such were their real impressions, and they recorded them
truly; or else they were guilty of falsifying the histories, and did not
entertain these views, and were not deceived when they acknowledged Him
to be God.




                             Chapter XXVII.


After this he says, that certain of the Christian believers, like
persons who in a fit of drunkenness lay violent hands upon themselves,
have corrupted the Gospel from its original integrity, to a threefold,
and fourfold, and many-fold degree, and have remodelled it, so that they
might be able to answer objections. Now I know of no others who have
altered the Gospel, save the followers of Marcion, and those of
Valentinus, and, I think, also those of Lucian. But such an allegation
is no charge against the Christian system, but against those who dared
so to trifle with the Gospels. And as it is no ground of accusation
against philosophy, that there exist Sophists, or Epicureans, or
Peripatetics, or any others, whoever they may be, who hold false
opinions; so neither is it against genuine Christianity that there are
some who corrupt the Gospel histories, and who introduce heresies
opposed to the meaning of the doctrine of Jesus.




                            Chapter XXVIII.


And since this Jew of Celsus makes it a subject of reproach that
Christians should make use of the prophets, who predicted the events of
Christ’s life, we have to say, in addition to what we have already
advanced upon this head, that it became him to spare individuals, as he
says, and to expound the prophecies themselves; and after admitting the
probability of the Christian interpretation of them, to show how the use
which they make of them may be overturned.[106] For in this way he would
not appear hastily to assume so important a position on small grounds,
and particularly when he asserts that the “prophecies agree with ten
thousand other things more credibly than with Jesus.” And he ought to
have carefully met this powerful argument of the Christians, as being
the strongest which they adduce, and to have demonstrated with regard to
each particular prophecy, that it can apply to other events with greater
probability than to Jesus. He did not, however, perceive that this was a
plausible argument to be advanced against the Christians only by one who
was an opponent of the prophetic writings; but Celsus has here put in
the mouth of a Jew an objection which a Jew would not have made. For a
Jew will not admit that the prophecies may be applied to countless other
things with greater probability than to Jesus; but he will endeavour,
after giving what appears to him the meaning of each, to oppose the
Christian interpretation, not indeed by any means adducing convincing
reasons, but only attempting to do so.

Footnote 106:

  The original here is probably corrupt: Ὅτι ἐχρῆν αὐτὸν (ὥς φησιν)
  φειδόμενον ἀνθρώπων αὐτὰς ἐκθέσθαι τὰς προφητείας, καὶ συναγορεύσαντα
  ταῖς πιθανότησιν αὐτῶν, τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῶν ἀνατροπὴν τῆς χρήσεως τῶν
  προφητικῶν ἐκθέσθαι. For φειδόμενον Boherellus would read κηδόμενον,
  and τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῷ ἀνατροπήν.




                             Chapter XXIX.


In the preceding pages we have already spoken of this point, viz. the
prediction that there were to be two advents of Christ to the human
race, so that it is not necessary for us to reply to the objection,
supposed to be urged by a Jew, that “the prophets declare the coming one
to be a mighty potentate, Lord of all nations and armies.” But it is in
the spirit of a Jew, I think, and in keeping with their bitter
animosity, and baseless and even improbable calumnies against Jesus,
that he adds: “Nor did the prophets predict such a pestilence.”[107] For
neither Jews, nor Celsus, nor any other, can bring any argument to prove
that a pestilence converts men from the practice of evil to a life which
is according to nature, and distinguished by temperance and other
virtues.

Footnote 107:

  ὄλεθρον.




                              Chapter XXX.


This objection also is cast in our teeth by Celsus: “From such signs and
misinterpretations, and from proofs so mean, no one could prove him to
be God, and the Son of God.” Now it was his duty to enumerate the
alleged misinterpretations, and to prove them to be such, and to show by
reasoning the meanness of the evidence, in order that the Christian, if
any of his objections should seem to be plausible, might be able to
answer and confute his arguments. What he said, however, regarding
Jesus, did indeed come to pass, because He was a mighty potentate,
although Celsus refuses to see that it so happened, notwithstanding that
the clearest evidence proves it true of Jesus. “For as the sun,” he
says, “which enlightens all other objects, first makes himself visible,
so ought the Son of God to have done.” We would say in reply, that so He
did; for righteousness has arisen in His days, and there is abundance of
peace, which took its commencement at His birth, God preparing the
nations for His teaching, that they might be under one prince, the king
of the Romans, and that it might not, owing to the want of union among
the nations, caused by the existence of many kingdoms, be more difficult
for the apostles of Jesus to accomplish the task enjoined upon them by
their Master, when He said, “Go and teach all nations.” Moreover it is
certain that Jesus was born in the reign of Augustus, who, so to speak,
fused together into one monarchy the many populations of the earth. Now
the existence of many kingdoms would have been a hindrance to the spread
of the doctrine of Jesus throughout the entire world; not only for the
reasons mentioned, but also on account of the necessity of men
everywhere engaging in war, and fighting on behalf of their native
country, which was the case before the times of Augustus, and in periods
still more remote, when necessity arose, as when the Peloponnesians and
Athenians warred against each other, and other nations in like manner.
How, then, was it possible for the gospel doctrine of peace, which does
not permit men to take vengeance even upon enemies, to prevail
throughout the world, unless at the advent of Jesus a milder spirit had
been everywhere introduced into the conduct of things?




                             Chapter XXXI.


He next charges the Christians with being “guilty of sophistical
reasoning, in saying that the Son of God is the Logos Himself.” And he
thinks that he strengthens the accusation, because “when we declare the
Logos to be the Son of God, we do not present to view a pure and holy
Logos, but a most degraded man, who was punished by scourging and
crucifixion.” Now, on this head we have briefly replied to the charges
of Celsus in the preceding pages, where Christ was shown to be the
first-born of all creation, who assumed a body and a human soul; and
that God gave commandment respecting the creation of such mighty things
in the world, and they were created; and that He who received the
command was God the Logos. And seeing it is a Jew who makes these
statements in the work of Celsus, it will not be out of place to quote
the declaration, “He sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them
from their destruction,”[108]—a passage of which we spoke a little ago.
Now, although I have conferred with many Jews who professed to be
learned men, I never heard any one expressing his approval of the
statement that the Logos is the Son of God, as Celsus declares they do,
in putting into the mouth of the Jew such a declaration as this: “If
your Logos is the Son of God, we also give our assent to the same.”

Footnote 108:

  Ps. cvi. 20.




                             Chapter XXXII.


We have already shown that Jesus can be regarded neither as an arrogant
man, nor a sorcerer; and therefore it is unnecessary to repeat our
former arguments, lest, in replying to the tautologies of Celsus, we
ourselves should be guilty of needless repetition. And now, in finding
fault with our Lord’s genealogy, there are certain points which occasion
some difficulty even to Christians, and which, owing to the discrepancy
between the genealogies, are advanced by some as arguments against their
correctness, but which Celsus has not even mentioned. For Celsus, who is
truly a braggart, and who professes to be acquainted with all matters
relating to Christianity, does not know how to raise doubts in a skilful
manner against the credibility of Scripture. But he asserts that the
“framers of the genealogies, from a feeling of pride, made Jesus to be
descended from the first man, and from the kings of the Jews.” And he
thinks that he makes a notable charge when he adds, that “the
carpenter’s wife could not have been ignorant of the fact, had she been
of such illustrious descent.” But what has this to do with the question?
Granted that she was not ignorant of her descent, how does that affect
the result? Suppose that she _were_ ignorant, how could her ignorance
prove that she was not descended from the first man, or could not derive
her origin from the Jewish kings? Does Celsus imagine that the poor must
always be descended from ancestors who are poor, or that kings are
always born of kings? But it appears folly to waste time upon such an
argument as this, seeing it is well known that, even in our own days,
some who are poorer than Mary are descended from ancestors of wealth and
distinction, and that rulers of nations and kings have sprung from
persons of no reputation.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


“But,” continues Celsus, “what great deeds did Jesus perform as being a
God? Did he put his enemies to shame, or bring to a ridiculous
conclusion what was designed against him?” Now to this question,
although we are able to show the striking and miraculous character of
the events which befell Him, yet from what other source can we furnish
an answer than from the Gospel narratives, which state that “there was
an earthquake, and that the rocks were split asunder, and the tombs
opened, and the veil of the temple rent in twain from top to bottom, and
that darkness prevailed in the day-time, the sun failing to give
light?”[109] But if Celsus believe the Gospel accounts when he thinks
that he can find in them matter of charge against the Christians, and
refuse to believe them when they establish the divinity of Jesus, our
answer to him is: “Sir,[110] either disbelieve all the Gospel
narratives, and then no longer imagine that you can found charges upon
them; or, in yielding your belief to their statements, look in
admiration on the Logos of God, who became incarnate, and who desired to
confer benefits upon the whole human race. And this feature evinces the
nobility of the work of Jesus, that, down to the present time, those
whom God wills are healed by His name. And with regard to the eclipse in
the time of Tiberius Cæsar, in whose reign Jesus appears to have been
crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon too,
I think, has written in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his
Chronicles.”[111]

Footnote 109:

  Cf. Matt. xxvii. 51, 52; cf. Luke xxiii. 44, 45.

Footnote 110:

  ὡ οὗτος.

Footnote 111:

  On Phlegon, cf. note in Migne, pp. 823, 854.




                             Chapter XXXIV.


This Jew of Celsus, ridiculing Jesus, as he imagines, is described as
being acquainted with the Bacchæ of Euripides, in which Dionysus says:

       “The divinity himself will liberate me whenever I wish.”[112]

Now the Jews are not much acquainted with Greek literature; but suppose
that there was a Jew so well versed in it [as to make such a quotation
on his part appropriate], how [does it follow] that Jesus _could_ not
liberate Himself, because He did not do so? For let him believe from our
own Scriptures that Peter obtained his freedom after having been bound
in prison, an angel having loosed his chains; and that Paul, having been
bound in the stocks along with Silas in Philippi of Macedonia, was
liberated by divine power, when the gates of the prison were opened. But
it is probable that Celsus treats these accounts with ridicule, or that
he never read them; for he would probably say in reply, that there are
certain sorcerers who are able by incantations to unloose chains and to
open doors, so that he would liken the events related in our histories
to the doings of sorcerers. “But,” he continues, “no calamity happened
even to him who condemned him, as there did to Pentheus, viz. madness or
discerption.”[113] And yet he does not know that it was not so much
Pilate that condemned Him (who knew that “for envy the Jews had
delivered Him”), as the Jewish nation, which _has_ been condemned by
God, and rent in pieces, and dispersed over the whole earth, in a degree
far beyond what happened to Pentheus. Moreover, why did he intentionally
omit what is related of Pilate’s wife, who beheld a vision, and who was
so moved by it as to send a message to her husband, saying: “Have thou
nothing to do with that just man; for I have suffered many things this
day in a dream because of him?”[114] And again, passing by in silence
the proofs of the divinity of Jesus, Celsus endeavours to cast reproach
upon Him from the narratives in the Gospel, referring to those who
mocked Jesus, and put on Him the purple robe, and the crown of thorns,
and placed the reed in His hand. From what source now, Celsus, did you
derive these statements, save from the Gospel narratives? And did you,
accordingly, see that they were fit matters for reproach, while they who
recorded them did not think that you, and such as you, would turn them
into ridicule; but that others would receive from them an example how to
despise those who ridiculed and mocked Him on account of His religion,
who appropriately laid down His life for its sake? Admire rather their
love of truth, and that of the Being who bore these things voluntarily
for the sake of men, and who endured them with all constancy and
long-suffering. For it is not recorded that He uttered any lamentation,
or that after His condemnation He either did or uttered anything
unbecoming.

Footnote 112:

  Eurip. _Bacchæ_, v. 498 (ed. Dindorf).

Footnote 113:

  Cf. Euseb. _Hist. Eccles._ b. ii. c. vii.

Footnote 114:

  Matt. xxvii. 19.




                             Chapter XXXV.


But in answer to this objection, “If not before, yet why now, at least,
does he not give some manifestation of his divinity, and free himself
from this reproach, and take vengeance upon those who insult both him
and his Father?” We have to reply, that it would be the same thing as if
we were to say to those among the Greeks who accept the doctrine of
providence, and who believe in portents, Why does God not punish those
who insult the Divinity, and subvert the doctrine of providence? For as
the Greeks would answer such objections, so would we, in the same, or a
more effective manner. There was not only a portent from heaven—the
eclipse of the sun—but also the other miracles, which show that the
crucified One possessed something that was divine, and greater than was
possessed by the majority of men.




                             Chapter XXXVI.


Celsus next says: “What is the nature of the ichor in the body of the
crucified Jesus? Is it ‘such as flows in the bodies of the immortal
gods?’”[115] He puts this question in a spirit of mockery; but we shall
show from the serious narratives of the Gospels, although Celsus may not
like it, that it was no mythic and Homeric ichor which flowed from the
body of Jesus, but that, after His death, “one of the soldiers with a
spear pierced His side, and there came thereout blood and water. And he
that saw it bare record, and his record is true, and he knoweth that he
saith the truth.”[116] Now, in other dead bodies the blood congeals, and
pure water does not flow forth; but the miraculous feature in the case
of the dead body of Jesus was, that around the dead body blood and water
flowed forth from the side. But if this Celsus, who, in order to find
matter of accusation against Jesus and the Christians, extracts from the
Gospel even passages which are incorrectly interpreted, but passes over
in silence the evidences of the divinity of Jesus, would listen to
divine portents, let him read the Gospel, and see that even the
centurion, and they who with him kept watch over Jesus, on seeing the
earthquake, and the events that occurred, were greatly afraid, saying,
“This man was the son of God.”[117]

Footnote 115:

  Cf. _Iliad_, vi. 340.

Footnote 116:

  Cf. John xix. 34, 35.

Footnote 117:

  Cf. Matt. xxvii. 54.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


After this, he who extracts from the Gospel narrative those statements
on which he thinks he can found an accusation, makes the vinegar and the
gall a subject of reproach to Jesus, saying that “he rushed with open
mouth[118] to drink of them, and could not endure his thirst as any
ordinary man frequently endures it.” Now this matter admits of an
explanation of a peculiar and figurative kind; but on the present
occasion, the statement that the prophets predicted this very incident
may be accepted as the more common answer to the objection. For in the
sixty-ninth Psalm there is written, with reference to Christ: “And they
gave me gall for my meat, and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to
drink.”[119] Now, let the Jews say who it is that the prophetic writing
represents as uttering these words; and let them adduce from history one
who received gall for his food, and to whom vinegar was given as drink.
Would they venture to assert that the Christ whom they expect still to
come might be placed in such circumstances? Then we would say, What
prevents the prediction from having been already accomplished? For this
very prediction was uttered many ages before, and is sufficient, along
with the other prophetic utterances, to lead him who fairly examines the
whole matter to the conclusion that Jesus is He who was prophesied of as
Christ, and as the Son of God.

Footnote 118:

  χανδὸν.

Footnote 119:

  Ps. lxix. 21.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


The Jew next remarks: “You, O sincere believers,[120] find fault with
us, because we do not recognise this individual as God, nor agree with
you that he endured these [sufferings] for the benefit of mankind, in
order that we also might despise punishment.” Now, in answer to this, we
say that we blame the Jews, who have been brought up under the training
of the law and the prophets (which foretell the coming of Christ),
because they neither refute the arguments which we lay before them to
prove that He is the Messiah,[121] adducing such refutation as a defence
of their unbelief; nor yet, while not offering any refutation, do they
believe in Him who was the subject of prophecy, and who clearly
manifested through His disciples, even after the period of His
appearance in the flesh, that He underwent these things for the benefit
of mankind; having, as the object of His first advent, not to condemn
men and their actions[122] before He had instructed them, and pointed
out to them their duty,[123] nor to chastise the wicked and save the
good, but to disseminate His doctrine in an extraordinary[124] manner,
and with the evidence of divine power, among the whole human race, as
the prophets also have represented these things. And we blame them,
moreover, because they did not believe in Him who gave evidence of the
power that was in Him, but asserted that He cast out demons from the
souls of men through Beelzebub the prince of the demons; and we blame
them because they slander the philanthropic character of Him, who
overlooked not only no city, but not even a single village in Judea,
that He might everywhere announce the kingdom of God, accusing Him of
leading the wandering life of a vagabond, and passing an anxious
existence in a disgraceful body. But there is no disgrace in enduring
such labours for the benefit of all those who may be able to understand
Him.

Footnote 120:

  ὡ πιστότατοι.

Footnote 121:

  τὸν Χριστὸν.

Footnote 122:

  τὰ ἀνθρώπων.

Footnote 123:

  μαρτύρασθαι περὶ τῶν πρακτέων.

Footnote 124:

  παραδόξως.




                             Chapter XXXIX.


And how can the following assertion of this Jew of Celsus appear
anything else than a manifest falsehood, viz. that Jesus “having gained
over no one during his life, not even his own disciples, underwent these
punishments and sufferings?” For from what other source sprang the envy
which was aroused against Him by the Jewish high priests, and elders,
and scribes, save from the fact that multitudes obeyed and followed Him,
and were led into the deserts not only by the persuasive[125] language
of Him whose words were always appropriate to His hearers, but who also
by His miracles made an impression on those who were not moved to belief
by His words? And is it not a manifest falsehood to say that “he did not
gain over even his own disciples,” who exhibited, indeed, at that time
some symptoms of human weakness arising from cowardly fear—for they had
not yet been disciplined to the exhibition of full courage—but who by no
means abandoned the judgments which they had formed regarding Him as the
Christ? For Peter, after his denial, perceiving to what a depth of
wickedness he had fallen, “went out and wept bitterly;” while the
others, although stricken with dismay on account of what had happened to
Jesus (for they still continued to admire Him), had, by His glorious
appearance,[126] their belief more firmly established than before that
He was the Son of God.

Footnote 125:

  τῆς τῶν λόγων αὐτοῦ ἀκολουθίας.

Footnote 126:

  ἐπιφανείας.




                              Chapter XL.


It is, moreover, in a very unphilosophical spirit that Celsus imagines
our Lord’s pre-eminence among men to consist, not in the preaching of
salvation and in a pure morality, but in acting contrary to the
character of that personality which He had taken upon Him, and in not
dying, although He had assumed mortality; or, if dying, yet at least not
such a death as might serve as a pattern to those who were to learn by
that very act how to die for the sake of religion, and to comport
themselves boldly through its help, before those who hold erroneous
views on the subject of religion and irreligion, and who regard
religious men as altogether irreligious, but imagine those to be most
religious who err regarding God, and who apply to everything rather than
to God the ineradicable[127] idea of Him [which is implanted in the
human mind], and especially when they eagerly rush to destroy those who
have yielded themselves up with their whole soul (even unto death), to
the clear evidence of one God who is over all things.

Footnote 127:

  τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀδιάστροφον ἔννοιαν.




                              Chapter XLI.


In the person of the Jew, Celsus continues to find fault with Jesus,
alleging that “he did not show himself to be pure from all evil.” Let
Celsus state from what “evil” our Lord did not show Himself to be pure.
If he means that He was not pure from what is properly termed “evil,”
let him clearly prove the existence of any wicked work in Him. But if he
deems poverty and the cross to be evils, and conspiracy on the part of
wicked men, then it is clear that he would say that evil had happened
also to Socrates, who was unable to show himself pure from evils. And
how great also the other band of poor men is among the Greeks, who have
given themselves to philosophical pursuits, and have voluntarily
accepted a life of poverty, is known to many among the Greeks from what
is recorded of Democritus, who allowed his property to become pasture
for sheep; and of Crates, who obtained his freedom by bestowing upon the
Thebans the price received for the sale of his possessions. Nay, even
Diogenes himself, from excessive poverty, came to live in a tub; and
yet, in the opinion of no one possessed of moderate understanding, was
Diogenes on that account considered to be in an evil (sinful) condition.




                             Chapter XLII.


But further, since Celsus will have it that “Jesus was not
irreproachable,” let him instance any one of those who adhere to His
doctrine, who has recorded anything that could truly furnish ground of
reproach against Jesus; or if it be not from these that he derives his
matter of accusation against Him, let him say from what quarter he has
learned that which has induced him to say that He is not free from
reproach. Jesus, however, performed all that He promised to do, and by
which He conferred benefits upon His adherents. And we, continually
seeing fulfilled all that was predicted by Him before it happened, viz.
that this gospel of His should be preached throughout the whole world,
and that His disciples should go among all nations and announce His
doctrine; and, moreover, that they should be brought before governors
and kings on no other account than because of His teaching; we are lost
in wonder at Him, and have our faith in Him daily confirmed. And I know
not by what greater or more convincing proofs Celsus would have Him
confirm His predictions; unless, indeed, as seems to be the case, not
understanding that the Logos had become the man Jesus, he would have Him
to be subject to no human weakness, nor to become an illustrious pattern
to men of the manner in which they ought to bear the calamities of life,
although these appear to Celsus to be most lamentable and disgraceful
occurrences, seeing that he regards labour[128] to be the greatest of
evils, and pleasure the perfect good,—a view accepted by none of those
philosophers who admit the doctrine of providence, and who allow that
courage, and fortitude, and magnanimity are virtues. Jesus, therefore,
by His sufferings cast no discredit upon the faith of which He was the
object; but rather confirmed the same among those who would approve of
manly courage, and among those who were taught by Him that what was
truly and properly the happy life was not here below, but was to be
found in that which was called, according to His own words, the “coming
world;” whereas in what is called the “present world” life is a
calamity, or at least the first and greatest struggle of the soul.[129]

Footnote 128:

  πόνον.

Footnote 129:

  ἀγῶνα τὸν πρῶτον καὶ μέγιστον τῆς ψυχῆς.




                             Chapter XLIII.


Celsus next addresses to us the following remark: “You will not, I
suppose, say of him, that, after failing to gain over those who were in
this world, he went to Hades to gain over those who were there.” But
whether he like it or not, we assert that not only while Jesus was in
the body did He win over not a few persons merely, but so great a
number, that a conspiracy was formed against Him on account of the
multitude of His followers; but also, that when He became a soul,
without the covering of the body, He dwelt among those souls which were
without bodily covering, converting such of them as were willing to
Himself, or those whom He saw, for reasons known to Him alone, to be
better adapted to such a course.




                             Chapter XLIV.


Celsus in the next place says, with indescribable silliness: “If, after
inventing defences which are absurd, and by which ye were ridiculously
deluded, ye imagine that you really make a good defence, what prevents
you from regarding those other individuals who have been condemned, and
have died a miserable death, as greater and more divine messengers of
heaven [than Jesus]?” Now, that manifestly and clearly there is no
similarity between Jesus, who suffered what is described, and those who
have died a wretched death on account of their sorcery, or whatever else
be the charge against them, is patent to every one. For no one can point
to any acts of a sorcerer which turned away souls from the practice of
the many sins which prevail among men, and from the flood of wickedness
(in the world).[130] But since this Jew of Celsus compares Him to
robbers, and says that “any similarly shameless fellow might be able to
say regarding even a robber and murderer whom punishment had overtaken,
that such an one was not a robber, but a god, because he predicted to
his fellow-robbers that he would suffer such punishment as he actually
did suffer,” it might, in the first place, be answered, that it is not
because He predicted that He would suffer such things that we entertain
those opinions regarding Jesus which lead us to have confidence in Him,
as one who has come down to us from God. And, in the second place, we
assert that this very comparison[131] has been somehow foretold in the
Gospels; since God was numbered with the transgressors by wicked men,
who desired rather a “murderer” (one who for sedition and murder had
been cast into prison) to be released unto them, and Jesus to be
crucified, and who crucified Him between two robbers. Jesus, indeed, is
ever crucified with robbers among His genuine disciples and witnesses to
the truth, and suffers the same condemnation which they do among men.
And we say, that if those persons have any resemblance to robbers, who
on account of their piety towards God suffer all kinds of injury and
death, that they may keep it pure and unstained, according to the
teaching of Jesus, then it is clear also that Jesus, the author of such
teaching, is with good reason compared by Celsus to the captain of a
band of robbers. But neither was He who died for the common good of
mankind, nor they who suffered because of their religion, and alone of
all men were persecuted because of what appeared to them the right way
of honouring God, put to death in accordance with justice, nor was Jesus
persecuted without the charge of impiety being incurred by His
persecutors.

Footnote 130:

  τῆς κατὰ τὴν κακίαν φύσεως.

Footnote 131:

  καὶ ταῦτα.




                              Chapter XLV.


But observe the superficial nature of his argument respecting the former
disciples of Jesus, in which he says: “In the next place, those who were
his associates while alive, and who listened to his voice, and enjoyed
his instructions as their teacher, on seeing him subjected to punishment
and death, neither died with him, nor for him, nor were even induced to
regard punishment with contempt, but denied even that they were his
disciples, whereas now ye die along with him.” And here he believes the
sin which was committed by the disciples while they were yet beginners
and imperfect, and which is recorded in the Gospels, to have been
actually committed, in order that he may have matter of accusation
against the gospel; but their upright conduct after their transgression,
when they behaved with courage before the Jews, and suffered countless
cruelties at their hands, and at last suffered death for the doctrine of
Jesus, he passes by in silence. For he would neither hear the words of
Jesus, when He predicted to Peter, “When thou shalt be old, thou shalt
stretch forth thy hands,”[132] etc., to which the Scripture adds, “This
spake He, signifying by what death he should glorify God;” nor how James
the brother of John—an apostle, the brother of an apostle—was slain with
the sword by Herod for the doctrine of Christ; nor even the many
instances of boldness displayed by Peter and the other apostles because
of the gospel, and “how they went forth from the presence of the
Sanhedrim after being scourged, rejoicing that they were counted worthy
to suffer shame for His name,”[133] and so surpassing many of the
instances related by the Greeks of the fortitude and courage of their
philosophers. From the very beginning, then, this was inculcated as a
precept of Jesus among His hearers, which taught men to despise the life
which is eagerly sought after by the multitude, but to be earnest in
living the life which resembles that of God.

Footnote 132:

  John xxi. 18.

Footnote 133:

  Acts v. 41.




                             Chapter XLVI.


But how can this Jew of Celsus escape the charge of falsehood, when he
says that Jesus, “when on earth, gained over to himself only ten sailors
and tax-gatherers of the most worthless character, and not even the
whole of these?” Now it is certain that the Jews themselves would admit
that He drew over not ten persons merely, nor a hundred, nor a thousand,
but on one occasion five thousand at once, and on another four thousand;
and that He attracted them to such a degree that they followed Him even
into the deserts, which alone could contain the assembled multitude of
those who believed in God through Jesus, and where He not only addressed
to them discourses, but also manifested to them His works. And now,
through his tautology, he compels us also to be tautological, since we
are careful to guard against being supposed to pass over any of the
charges advanced by him; and therefore, in reference to the matter
before us, following the order of his treatise as we have it, he says:
“Is it not the height of absurdity to maintain, that if, while he
himself was alive, he won over not a single person to his views, after
his death any who wish are able to gain over such a multitude of
individuals?” Whereas he ought to have said, in consistency with truth,
that if, after His death, not simply those who will, but they who have
the will and the power, can gain over so many proselytes, how much more
consonant to reason is it, that while He was alive He should, through
the greater power of His words and deeds, have won over to Himself
manifold greater numbers of adherents?




                             Chapter XLVII.


He represents, moreover, a statement of his own as if it were an answer
to one of his questions, in which he asks: “By what train of argument
were you led to regard him as the Son of God?” For he makes us answer
that “we were won over to him, because[134] we know that his punishment
was undergone to bring about the destruction of the father of evil.” Now
we were won over to His doctrine by innumerable other considerations, of
which we have stated only the smallest part in the preceding pages; but,
if God permit, we shall continue to enumerate them, not only while
dealing with the so-called _True Discourse_ of Celsus, but also on many
other occasions. And, as if we said that we consider Him to be the Son
of God because He suffered punishment, he asks: “What then? have not
many others, too, been punished, and that not less disgracefully?” And
here Celsus acts like the most contemptible enemies of the gospel, and
like those who imagine that it follows as a consequence from our history
of the crucified Jesus, that we should worship those who have undergone
crucifixion!

Footnote 134:

  The reading in the text is εἰ καὶ ἔἴσμεν; for which both Bohereau and
  De la Rue propose ἐπεὶ ἴσμεν, which has been adopted in the
  translation: cf. ἐπεὶ ἔκολάσθη, _infra_.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


Celsus, moreover, unable to resist the miracles which Jesus is recorded
to have performed, has already on several occasions spoken of them
slanderously as works of sorcery; and we also on several occasions have,
to the best of our ability, replied to his statements. And now he
represents us as saying that “we deemed Jesus to be the Son of God,
because he healed the lame and the blind.” And he adds: “Moreover, as
you assert, he raised the dead.” That He healed the lame and the blind,
and that therefore we hold Him to be the Christ and the Son of God, is
manifest to us from what is contained in the prophecies: “Then the eyes
of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall hear; then
shall the lame man leap as an hart.”[135] And that He also raised the
dead, and that it is no fiction of those who composed the Gospels, is
shown by this, that if it had been a fiction, _many_ individuals would
have been represented as having risen from the dead, and these, too,
such as had been many years in their graves. But as it is no fiction,
they are very easily counted of whom this is related to have happened;
viz. the daughter of the ruler of the synagogue (of whom I know not why
He said, “She is not dead, but sleepeth,” stating regarding her
something which does not apply to all who die); and the only son of the
widow, on whom He took compassion and raised him up, making the bearers
of the corpse to stand still; and the third instance, that of Lazarus,
who had been four days in the grave. Now, regarding these cases we would
say to all persons of candid mind, and especially to the Jew, that as
there were many lepers in the days of Elisha the prophet, and none of
them was healed save Naaman the Syrian, and many widows in the days of
Elijah the prophet, to none of whom was Elijah sent save to Sarepta in
Sidonia (for the widow there had been deemed worthy by a divine decree
of the miracle which was wrought by the prophet in the matter of the
bread); so also there were many dead in the days of Jesus, but those
only rose from the grave whom the Logos knew to be fitted for a
resurrection, in order that the works done by the Lord might not be
merely symbols of certain things, but that by the very acts themselves
He might gain over many to the marvellous doctrine of the gospel. I
would say, moreover, that, agreeably to the promise of Jesus, His
disciples performed even greater works than these miracles of Jesus,
which were perceptible only to the senses.[136] For the eyes of those
who are blind in soul are ever opened; and the ears of those who were
deaf to virtuous words, listen readily to the doctrine of God, and of
the blessed life with Him; and many, too, who were lame in the feet of
the “inner man,” as Scripture calls it, having now been healed by the
word, do not simply leap, but leap as the hart, which is an animal
hostile to serpents, and stronger than all the poison of vipers. And
these lame who have been healed, receive from Jesus power to trample,
with those feet in which they were formerly lame, upon the serpents and
scorpions of wickedness, and generally upon all the power of the enemy;
and though they tread upon it, they sustain no injury, for they also
have become stronger than the poison of all evil and of demons.

Footnote 135:

  Cf. Isa. xxxv. 5, 6.

Footnote 136:

  ὧν Ἰησοῦς αἰσθητῶν.




                             Chapter XLIX.


Jesus, accordingly, in turning away the minds of His disciples, not
merely from giving heed to sorcerers in general, and those who profess
in any other manner to work miracles—for His disciples did not need to
be so warned—but from such as gave themselves out as the Christ of God,
and who tried by certain apparent[137] miracles to gain over to them the
disciples of Jesus, said in a certain passage: “Then, if any man shall
say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not. For there
shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall show great signs
and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the
very elect. Behold, I have told you before. Wherefore, if they shall say
unto you, Behold, he is in the desert, go not forth; behold, he is in
the secret chambers, believe it not. For as the lightning cometh out of
the east, and shineth even to the west, so also shall the coming of the
Son of man be.”[138] And in another passage: “Many will say unto me in
that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten and drunk in Thy name, and by
Thy name have cast out demons, and done many wonderful works? And then
will I say unto them, Depart from me, because ye are workers of
iniquity.”[139] But Celsus, wishing to assimilate the miracles of Jesus
to the works of human sorcery, says in express terms as follows: “O
light and truth! he distinctly declares, with his own voice, as ye
yourselves have recorded, that there will come to you even others,
employing miracles of a similar kind, who are wicked men, and sorcerers;
and he calls him who makes use of such devices, one Satan. So that Jesus
himself does not deny that these works at least are not at all divine,
but are the acts of wicked men; and being compelled by the force of
truth, he at the same time not only laid open the doings of others, but
convicted himself of the same acts. Is it not, then, a miserable
inference, to conclude from the same works that the one is God and the
others sorcerers? Why ought the others, because of these acts, to be
accounted wicked rather than this man, seeing they have him as their
witness against himself? For he has himself acknowledged that these are
not the works of a divine nature, but the inventions of certain
deceivers, and of thoroughly wicked men.” Observe, now, whether Celsus
is not clearly convicted of slandering the gospel by such statements,
since what Jesus says regarding those who are to work signs and wonders
is different from what this Jew of Celsus alleges it to be. For if Jesus
had simply told His disciples to be on their guard against those who
professed to work miracles, without declaring what they would give
themselves out to be, then perhaps there would have been some ground for
his suspicion. But since those against whom Jesus would have us to be on
our guard give themselves out as the Christ—which is not a claim put
forth by sorcerers—and since he says that even some who lead wicked
lives will perform miracles in the name of Jesus, and expel demons out
of men, sorcery in the case of these individuals, or any suspicion of
such, is rather, if we may so speak, altogether banished, and the
divinity of Christ established, as well as the divine mission[140] of
His disciples; seeing that it is possible that one who makes use of His
name, and who is wrought upon by some power, in some way unknown, to
make the pretence that he is the Christ, should seem to perform miracles
like those of Jesus, while others through His name should do works
resembling those of His genuine disciples.

Footnote 137:

  φαντασιῶν.

Footnote 138:

  Matt. xxiv. 23-27.

Footnote 139:

  Cf. Matt. vii. 22, 23, with Luke xiii. 26, 27.

Footnote 140:

  θειότης, lit. divinity.




                               Chapter L.


Paul, moreover, in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians, shows in
what manner there will one day be revealed “the man of sin, the son of
perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called
God, or that is worshipped; so that he sitteth in the temple of God,
showing himself that he is God.”[141] And again he says to the
Thessalonians: “And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be
revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work:
only He who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way: and
then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the
spirit of His mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of His
coming: even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan, with all
power, and signs, and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of
unrighteousness in them that perish.”[142] And in assigning the reason
why the man of sin is permitted to continue in existence, he says:
“Because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be
saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they
should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who believed not the
truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”[143] Let any one now say
whether any of the statements in the Gospel, or in the writings of the
apostle, could give occasion for the suspicion that there is therein
contained any prediction of sorcery. Any one, moreover, who likes may
find the prophecy in Daniel respecting antichrist.[144] But Celsus
falsifies the words of Jesus, since He did not say that others would
come working similar miracles to Himself, but who are wicked men and
sorcerers, although Celsus asserts that He uttered such words. For as
the power of the Egyptian magicians was not similar to the
divinely-bestowed grace of Moses, but the issue clearly proved that the
acts of the former were the effect of magic, while those of Moses were
wrought by divine power; so the proceedings of the antichrists, and of
those who feign that they can work miracles as being the disciples of
Christ, are said to be lying signs and wonders, prevailing with all
deceivableness of unrighteousness among them that perish; whereas the
works of Christ and His disciples had for their fruit, not deceit, but
the salvation of human souls. And who would rationally maintain that an
improved moral life, which daily lessened the number of a man’s
offences, could proceed from a system of deceit?

Footnote 141:

  2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

Footnote 142:

  2 Thess. ii. 6-10.

Footnote 143:

  2 Thess. ii. 10-12.

Footnote 144:

  Cf. Dan. vii. 26.




                              Chapter LI.


Celsus, indeed, evinced a slight knowledge of Scripture when he made
Jesus say, that it is “a certain Satan who contrives such devices;”
although he begs the question[145] when he asserts that “Jesus did not
deny that these works have in them nothing of divinity, but proceed from
wicked men,” for he makes things which differ in kind to be the same.
Now, as a wolf is not of the same species as a dog, although it may
appear to have some resemblance in the figure of its body and in its
voice, nor a common wood-pigeon[146] the same as a dove,[147] so there
is no resemblance between what is done by the power of God and what is
the effect of sorcery. And we might further say, in answer to the
calumnies of Celsus, Are those to be regarded as miracles which are
wrought through sorcery by wicked demons, but those not which are
performed by a nature that is holy and divine? and does human life
endure the worse, but never receive the better? Now it appears to me
that we must lay it down as a general principle, that as, wherever
anything that is evil would make itself to be of the same nature with
the good, there must by all means be something that is good opposed to
the evil; so also, in opposition to those things which are brought about
by sorcery, there must also of necessity be some things in human life
which are the result of divine power. And it follows from the same, that
we must either annihilate both, and assert that neither exists, or,
assuming the one, and particularly the evil, admit also the reality of
the good. Now, if one were to lay it down that works are wrought by
means of sorcery, but would not grant that there are also works which
are the product of divine power, he would seem to me to resemble him who
should admit the existence of sophisms and plausible arguments, which
have the appearance of establishing the truth, although really
undermining it, while denying that truth had anywhere a home among men,
or a dialectic which differed from sophistry. But if we once admit that
it is consistent with the existence of magic and sorcery (which derive
their power from evil demons, who are spell-bound by elaborate
incantations, and become subject to sorcerers) that some works must be
found among men which proceed from a power that is divine, why shall we
not test those who profess to perform them by their lives and morals,
and the consequences of their miracles, viz. whether they tend to the
injury of men or to the reformation of conduct? What minister of evil
demons, _e.g._, can do such things? and by means of what incantations
and magic arts? And who, on the other hand, is it that, having his soul
and his spirit, and I imagine also his body, in a pure and holy state,
receives a divine spirit, and performs such works in order to benefit
men, and to lead them to believe on the true God? But if we must once
investigate (without being carried away by the miracles themselves) who
it is that performs them by help of a good, and who by help of an evil
power, so that we may neither slander all without discrimination, nor
yet admire and accept all as divine, will it not be manifest, from what
occurred in the times of Moses and Jesus, when entire nations were
established in consequence of their miracles, that these men wrought by
means of divine power what they are recorded to have performed? For
wickedness and sorcery would not have led a whole nation to rise not
only above idols and images erected by men, but also above all created
things, and to ascend to the uncreated origin of the God of the
universe.

Footnote 145:

  συναρπάζει τὸν λόγον.

Footnote 146:

  φάσσα.

Footnote 147:

  περιστερά.




                              Chapter LII.


But since it is a Jew who makes these assertions in the treatise of
Celsus, we would say to him: Pray, friend, why do you believe the works
which are recorded in your writings as having been performed by God
through the instrumentality of Moses to be really divine, and endeavour
to refute those who slanderously assert that they were wrought by
sorcery, like those of the Egyptian magicians; while, in imitation of
your Egyptian opponents, you charge those which were done by Jesus, and
which, you admit, were actually performed, with not being divine? For if
the final result, and the founding of an entire nation by the miracles
of Moses, manifestly demonstrate that it was God who brought these
things to pass in the time of Moses the Hebrew lawgiver, why should not
such rather be shown to be the case with Jesus, who accomplished far
greater works than those of Moses? For the former took those of his own
nation, the descendants of Abraham, who had observed the rite of
circumcision transmitted by tradition, and who were careful observers of
the Abrahamic usages, and led them out of Egypt, enacting for them those
laws which you believe to be divine; whereas the latter ventured upon a
greater undertaking, and superinduced upon the pre-existing
constitution, and upon ancestral customs and modes of life agreeable to
the existing laws, a constitution in conformity with the gospel. And as
it was necessary, in order that Moses should find credit not only among
the elders, but the common people, that there should be performed those
miracles which he is recorded to have performed, why should not Jesus
also, in order that He may be believed on by those of the people who had
learned to ask for signs and wonders, require to work such miracles as,
on account of their greater grandeur and divinity (in comparison with
those of Moses), were able to convert men from Jewish fables, and from
the human traditions which prevailed among them, and make them admit
that He who taught and did such things was greater than the prophets?
For how was not He greater than the prophets, who was proclaimed by them
to be the Christ, and the Saviour of the human race?




                             Chapter LIII.


All the arguments, indeed, which this Jew of Celsus advances against
those who believe on Jesus, may, by parity of reasoning, be urged as
ground of accusation against Moses: so that there is no difference in
asserting that the sorcery practised by Jesus and that by Moses were
similar to each other,[148]—both of them, so far as the language of this
Jew of Celsus is concerned, being liable to the same charge; as, _e.g._,
when this Jew says of Christ, “But, O light and truth! Jesus with his
own voice expressly declares, as you yourselves have recorded, that
there will appear among you others also, who will perform miracles like
mine, but who are wicked men and sorcerers,” some one, either Greek or
Egyptian, or any other party who disbelieved the Jew, might say
respecting Moses, “But, O light and truth! Moses with his own voice
expressly declares, as ye also have recorded, that there will appear
among you others also, who will perform miracles like mine, but who are
wicked men and sorcerers. For it is written in your law, ‘If there arise
among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a
wonder, and the sign or wonder come to pass whereof he spake unto thee,
saying, Let us go after other gods which thou hast not known, and let us
serve them; thou shalt not hearken to the words of that prophet or
dreamer of dreams,’”[149] etc. Again, perverting the words of Jesus, he
says, “And he terms him who devises such things, one Satan;” while one,
applying this to Moses, might say, “And he terms him who devises such
things, a prophet who dreams dreams.” And as this Jew asserts regarding
Jesus, that “even he himself does not deny that these works have in them
nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked men;” so any one who
disbelieves the writings of Moses might say, quoting what has been
already said, the same thing, viz., that “even Moses does not deny that
these works have in them nothing of divinity, but are the acts of wicked
men.” And he will do the same thing also with respect to this: “Being
compelled by the force of truth, Moses at the same time both exposed the
doings of others, and convicted himself of the same.” And when the Jew
says, “Is it not a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude
that the one is a God, and the others sorcerers?” one might object to
him, on the ground of those words of Moses already quoted, “Is it not
then a wretched inference from the same acts, to conclude that the one
is a prophet and servant of God, and the others sorcerers?” But when, in
addition to those comparisons which I have already mentioned, Celsus,
dwelling upon the subject, adduces this also: “Why from these works
should the others be accounted wicked, rather than this man, seeing they
have him as a witness against himself?”—we, too, shall adduce the
following, in addition to what has been already said: “Why, from those
passages in which Moses forbids us to believe those who exhibit signs
and wonders, ought we to consider such persons as wicked, rather than
Moses, because he calumniates some of them in respect of their signs and
wonders?” And urging more to the same effect, that he may appear to
strengthen his attempt, he says: “He himself acknowledged that these
were not the works of a divine nature, but were the inventions of
certain deceivers, and of very wicked men.” Who, then, is “himself?”
You, O Jew, say that it is Jesus; but he who accuses you as liable to
the same charges, will transfer this “himself” to the person of Moses.

Footnote 148:

  ὥστε μηδὲν διαφέρειν παραπλήσιον εἶναι λέγειν γοητείαν τὴν Ἰησοῦ τῇ
  Μωϋσέως.

Footnote 149:

  Deut. xiii. 1-3.




                              Chapter LIV.


After this, forsooth, the Jew of Celsus, to keep up the character
assigned to the Jew from the beginning, in his address to those of his
countrymen who had become believers, says: “By what, then, were you
induced [to become his followers]? Was it because he foretold that after
his death he would rise again?” Now this question, like the others, can
be retorted upon Moses. For we might say to the Jew: “By what, then,
were _you_ induced [to become the follower of Moses]? Was it because he
put on record the following statement about his own death: ‘And Moses,
the servant of the Lord, died there, in the land of Moab, according to
the word of the Lord; and they buried him in Moab, near the house of
Phogor: and no one knoweth his sepulchre until this day?’”[150] For as
the Jew casts discredit upon the statement, that “Jesus foretold that
after His death He would rise again,” another person might make a
similar assertion about Moses, and would say in reply, that Moses also
put on record (for the book of Deuteronomy is his composition) the
statement, that “no one knoweth his sepulchre until this day,” in order
to magnify and enhance the importance of his place of burial, as being
unknown to mankind.

Footnote 150:

  Cf. Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6.




                              Chapter LV.


The Jew continues his address to those of his countrymen who are
converts, as follows: “Come now, let us grant to you that the prediction
was actually uttered. Yet how many others are there who practise such
juggling tricks, in order to deceive their simple hearers, and who make
gain by their deception?—as was the case, they say, with Zamolxis[151]
in Scythia, the slave of Pythagoras; and with Pythagoras himself in
Italy; and with Rhampsinitus[152] in Egypt (the latter of whom, they
say, played at dice with Demeter in Hades, and returned to the upper
world with a golden napkin which he had received from her as a gift);
and also with Orpheus[153] among the Odrysians, and Protesilaus in
Thessaly, and Hercules[154] at Cape Tænarus, and Theseus. But the
question is, whether any one who was really dead ever rose with a
veritable body.[155] Or do you imagine the statements of others not only
to be myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have
discovered a becoming and credible termination to your drama in the
voice from the cross, when he breathed his last, and in the earthquake
and the darkness? That while alive he was of no assistance to himself,
but that when dead he rose again, and showed the marks of his
punishment, and how his hands were pierced with nails: who beheld this?
A half-frantic[156] woman, as you state, and some other one, perhaps, of
those who were engaged in the same system of delusion, who had either
dreamed so, owing to a peculiar state of mind,[157] or under the
influence of a wandering imagination had formed to himself an appearance
according to his own wishes,[158] which has been the case with
numberless individuals; or, which is most probable, one who desired to
impress others with this portent, and by such a falsehood to furnish an
occasion to impostors like himself.”

Now, since it is a Jew who makes these statements, we shall conduct the
defence of our Jesus as if we were replying to a Jew, still continuing
the comparison derived from the accounts regarding Moses, and saying to
him: “How many others are there who practise similar juggling tricks to
those of Moses, in order to deceive their silly hearers, and who make
gain by their deception?” Now this objection would be more appropriate
in the mouth of one who did not believe in Moses (as we might quote the
instances of Zamolxis and Pythagoras, who were engaged in such juggling
tricks) than in that of a Jew, who is not very learned in the histories
of the Greeks. An Egyptian, moreover, who did not believe the miracles
of Moses, might credibly adduce the instance of Rhampsinitus, saying
that it was far more credible that he had descended to Hades, and had
played at dice with Demeter, and that after stealing from her a golden
napkin he exhibited it as a sign of his having been in Hades, and of his
having returned thence, than that Moses should have recorded that he
entered into the darkness, where God was, and that he alone, above all
others, drew near to God. For the following is his statement: “Moses
alone shall come near the Lord; but the rest shall not come nigh.”[159]
We, then, who are the disciples of Jesus, say to the Jew who urges these
objections: “While assailing our belief in Jesus, defend yourself, and
answer the Egyptian and the Greek objectors: what will you say to those
charges which you brought against our Jesus, but which also might be
brought against Moses first? And if you should make a vigorous effort to
defend Moses, as indeed his history does admit of a clear and powerful
defence, you will unconsciously, in your support of Moses, be an
unwilling assistant in establishing the greater divinity of Jesus.”

Footnote 151:

  Cf. Herodot. iv. 95.

Footnote 152:

  Cf. Herodot. ii. 122.

Footnote 153:

  Cf. Diodor. iv. _Bibl. Hist._

Footnote 154:

  Cf. Diodor. iv. _Bibl. Hist._

Footnote 155:

  αὐτῷ σώματι.

Footnote 156:

  γυνὴ πάροιστρος.

Footnote 157:

  κατά τινα διάθεσιν ὀνειρώξας.

Footnote 158:

  ἢ κατὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ βούλησιν δοξῇ πεπλανημένῃ φαντασιωθείς.

Footnote 159:

  Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.




                              Chapter LVI.


But since the Jew says that these histories of the alleged descent of
heroes to Hades, and of their return thence, are juggling
impositions,[160] maintaining that these heroes disappeared for a
certain time, and secretly withdrew themselves from the sight of all
men, and gave themselves out afterwards as having returned from
Hades,—for such is the meaning which his words seem to convey respecting
the Odrysian Orpheus, and the Thessalian Protesilaus, and the Tænarian
Hercules, and Theseus also,—let us endeavour to show that the account of
Jesus being raised from the dead cannot possibly be compared to these.
For each one of the heroes respectively mentioned might, had he wished,
have secretly withdrawn himself from the sight of men, and returned
again, if so determined, to those whom he had left; but seeing that
Jesus was crucified before all the Jews, and His body slain in the
presence of His nation, how can they bring themselves to say that He
practised a similar deception[161] with those heroes who are related to
have gone down to Hades, and to have returned thence? But we say that
the following consideration might be adduced, perhaps, as a defence of
the public crucifixion of Jesus, especially in connection with the
existence of those stories of heroes who are supposed to have been
compelled[162] to descend to Hades: that if we were to suppose Jesus to
have died an obscure death, so that the fact of His decease was not
patent to the whole nation of the Jews, and afterwards to have actually
risen from the dead, there would, in such a case, have been ground for
the same suspicion entertained regarding the heroes being also
entertained regarding Himself. Probably, then, in addition to other
causes for the crucifixion of Jesus, this also may have contributed to
His dying a conspicuous death upon the cross, that no one might have it
in his power to say that He voluntarily withdrew from the sight of men,
and seemed only to die, without really doing so; but, appearing again,
made a juggler’s trick[163] of the resurrection from the dead. But a
clear and unmistakeable proof of the fact I hold to be the undertaking
of His disciples, who devoted themselves to the teaching of a doctrine
which was attended with danger to human life,—a doctrine which they
would not have taught with such courage had they invented the
resurrection of Jesus from the dead; and who also, at the same time, not
only prepared others to despise death, but were themselves the first to
manifest their disregard for its terrors.

Footnote 160:

  τερατείας.

Footnote 161:

  πῶς οἴονται τὸ παραπλήσιον πλάσασθαι λέγειν αὐτὸν τοῖς ἰστορουμένοις,
  etc.

Footnote 162:

  καταβεβηκέναι βιᾷ. Bohereau proposes the omission of βιᾷ.

Footnote 163:

  ἐτερατεύσατο.




                             Chapter LVII.


But observe whether this Jew of Celsus does not talk very blindly, in
saying that it is impossible for any one to rise from the dead with a
veritable body, his language being: “But this is the question, whether
any one who was really dead ever rose again with a veritable body?” Now
a Jew would not have uttered these words, who believed what is recorded
in the third and fourth books of Kings regarding little children, of
whom the one was raised up by Elijah,[164] and the other by Elisha.[165]
And on this account, too, I think it was that Jesus appeared to no other
nation than the Jews, who had become accustomed to miraculous
occurrences; so that, by comparing what they themselves believed with
the works which were done by Him, and with what was related of Him, they
might confess that He, in regard to whom greater things were done, and
by whom mightier marvels were performed, was greater than all those who
preceded Him.

Footnote 164:

  Cf. 1 Kings xvii. 21, 22.

Footnote 165:

  Cf. 2 Kings iv. 34, 35.




                             Chapter LVIII.


Further, after these Greek stories which the Jew adduced respecting
those who were guilty of juggling practices,[166] and who pretended to
have risen from the dead, he says to those Jews who are converts to
Christianity: “Do you imagine the statements of others not only to be
myths, but to have the appearance of such, while you have discovered a
becoming and credible termination to your drama in the voice from the
cross, when he breathed his last?” We reply to the Jew: “What you adduce
as myths, we regard also as such; but the statements of the Scriptures
which are common to us both, in which not you only, but we also, take
pride, we do not at all regard as myths. And therefore we accord our
belief to those who have therein related that some rose from the dead,
as not being guilty of imposition; and to Him especially there mentioned
as having risen, who both predicted the event Himself, and was the
subject of prediction by others. And His resurrection is more miraculous
than that of the others in this respect, that they were raised by the
prophets Elijah and Elisha, while He was raised by none of the prophets,
but by His Father in heaven. And therefore His resurrection also
produced greater results than theirs. For what great good has accrued to
the world from the resurrection of the children through the
instrumentality of Elijah and Elisha, such as has resulted from the
preaching of the resurrection of Jesus, accepted as an article of
belief, and as effected through the agency of divine power?”

Footnote 166:

  τερατευομένοις.




                              Chapter LIX.


He imagines also that both the earthquake and the darkness were an
invention;[167] but regarding these, we have in the preceding pages made
our defence, according to our ability, adducing the testimony of
Phlegon, who relates that these events took place at the time when our
Saviour suffered. And he goes on to say, that “Jesus, while alive, was
of no assistance to himself, but that he arose after death, and
exhibited the marks of his punishment, and showed how his hands had been
pierced by nails.” We ask him what he means by the expression, “was of
no assistance to himself?” For if he means it to refer to want of
virtue, we reply that He _was_ of very great assistance. For He neither
uttered nor committed anything that was improper, but was truly “led as
a sheep to the slaughter, and was dumb as a lamb before the
shearer;”[168] and the Gospel testifies that He opened not His mouth.
But if Celsus applies the expression to things indifferent and
corporeal,[169] [meaning that in such Jesus could render no help to
Himself,] we say that we have proved from the Gospels that He went
voluntarily to encounter His sufferings. Speaking next of the statements
in the Gospels, that after His resurrection He showed the marks of His
punishment, and how His hands had been pierced, he asks, “Who beheld
this?” And discrediting the narrative of Mary Magdalene, who is related
to have seen Him, he replies, “A half-frantic woman, as ye state.” And
because she is not the only one who is recorded to have seen the Saviour
after His resurrection, but others also are mentioned, this Jew of
Celsus calumniates these statements also in adding, “And some one else
of those engaged in the same system of deception!”

Footnote 167:

  τερατείαν.

Footnote 168:

  Isa. liii. 7.

Footnote 169:

  εἰ δὲ τὸ “ἐπήρκεσεν” ἀπὸ τῶν μέσων καὶ σωματικῶν λαμβάνει.




                              Chapter LX.


In the next place, as if this were possible, viz. that the image of a
man who was dead could appear to another as if he were still living, he
adopts this opinion as an Epicurean, and says, “That some one having so
dreamed owing to a peculiar state of mind, or having, under the
influence of a perverted imagination, formed such an appearance as he
himself desired, reported that such had been seen; and this,” he
continues, “has been the case with numberless individuals.” But even if
this statement of his seems to have a considerable degree of force, it
is nevertheless only fitted to confirm a necessary doctrine, that the
soul of the dead exists in a separate state [from the body]; and he who
adopts such an opinion does not believe without good reason in the
immortality, or at least continued existence, of the soul, as even Plato
says in his treatise on the Soul that shadowy phantoms of persons
already dead have appeared to some around their sepulchres. Now the
phantoms which exist about the soul of the dead are produced by some
substance, and this substance is in the soul, which exists apart in a
body said to be of splendid appearance.[170] But Celsus, unwilling to
admit any such view, will have it that some dreamed a waking dream,[171]
and, under the influence of a perverted imagination, formed to
themselves such an image as they desired. Now it is not irrational to
believe that a dream may take place while one is asleep; but to suppose
a waking vision in the case of those who are not altogether out of their
senses, and under the influence of delirium or hypochondria, is
incredible. And Celsus, seeing this, called the woman “half-mad,”—a
statement which is not made by the history recording the fact, but from
which he took occasion to charge the occurrences with being untrue.

Footnote 170:

  τὰ μὲν οὖν γινόμενα περὶ ψυχῆς τεθνηκότων φαντάσματα ἀπό τινος
  ὑποκειμένου γίνεται, τοῦ κατὰ τὴν ὑφεστηκυῖαν ἐν τῷ καλουμένῳ
  αὐγοειδεῖ σώματι ψυχὴν. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

Footnote 171:

  ὑπαρ.




                              Chapter LXI.


Jesus accordingly, as Celsus imagines, exhibited after His death only
the appearance of wounds received on the cross, and was not in reality
so wounded as He is described to have been; whereas, according to the
teaching of the Gospel—some portions of which Celsus arbitrarily
accepts, in order to find ground of accusation, and other parts of which
he rejects—Jesus called to Him one of His disciples who was sceptical,
and who deemed the miracle an impossibility. That individual had,
indeed, expressed his belief in the statement of the woman who said that
she had seen Him, because he did not think it impossible that the soul
of a dead man could be seen; but he did not yet consider the report to
be true that He had been raised in a body, which was the antitype of the
former.[172] And therefore he did not merely say, “Unless I see, I will
not believe;” but he added, “Unless I put my hand into the print of the
nails, and lay my hands upon His side, I will not believe.” These words
were spoken by Thomas, who deemed it possible that the body of the soul
might be seen by the eye of sense, resembling in all respects its former
appearance,

                   “Both in size, and in beauty of eyes,
                   And in voice;”

and frequently, too,

    “Having, also, such garments around the person[173] [as when
       alive].”

Jesus accordingly, having called Thomas, said, “Reach hither thy finger,
and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my
side: and be not faithless, but believing.”[174]

Footnote 172:

  ἐν σώματι ἀντιτύπῳ ἐγηγέρθαι.

Footnote 173:

  Cf. Homer, _Iliad_, xxiii. 66, 67.

Footnote 174:

  Cf. John xx. 27.




                             Chapter LXII.


Now it followed from all the predictions which were uttered regarding
Him—amongst which was this prediction of the resurrection—and from all
that was done by Him, and from all the events which befell Him, that
this event should be marvellous above all others. For it had been said
beforehand by the prophet in the person of Jesus: “My flesh shall rest
in hope, and Thou wilt not leave my soul in Hades, and wilt not suffer
Thine Holy One to see corruption.”[175] And truly, after His
resurrection, He existed in a body intermediate, as it were, between the
grossness of that which He had before His sufferings, and the appearance
of a soul uncovered by such a body. And hence it was, that when His
disciples were together, and Thomas with them, there “came Jesus, the
doors being shut, and stood in the midst, and said, Peace be unto you.
Then saith He to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger,”[176] etc. And in the
Gospel of Luke also, while Simon and Cleopas were conversing with each
other respecting all that had happened to them, Jesus “drew near, and
went with them. And their eyes were holden, that they should not know
Him. And He said unto them, What manner of communications are these that
ye have one to another, as ye walk?” And when their eyes were opened,
and they knew Him, then the Scripture says, in express words, “And He
vanished out of their sight.”[177] And although Celsus may wish to place
what is told of Jesus, and of those who saw Him after His resurrection,
on the same level with imaginary appearances of a different kind, and
those who have invented such, yet to those who institute a candid and
intelligent examination, the events will appear only the more
miraculous.

Footnote 175:

  Ps. xvi. 9, 10.

Footnote 176:

  John xx. 26, 27.

Footnote 177:

  Luke xxiv. 15, 31.




                             Chapter LXIII.


After these points, Celsus proceeds to bring against the Gospel
narrative a charge which is not to be lightly passed over, saying that
“if Jesus desired to show that his power was really divine, he ought to
have appeared to those who had ill-treated him, and to him who had
condemned him, and to all men universally.” For it appears to us also to
be true, according to the Gospel account, that He was not seen after His
resurrection in the same manner as He used formerly to show
Himself—publicly, and to all men. But it is recorded in the Acts, that
“being seen during forty days,” He expounded to His disciples “the
things pertaining to the kingdom of God.”[178] And in the Gospels[179]
it is not stated that He was always with them; but that on one occasion
He appeared in their midst, after eight days, when the doors were shut,
and on another in some similar fashion. And Paul also, in the concluding
portions of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, in reference to His
not having publicly appeared as He did in the period before He suffered,
writes as follows: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I
also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures; and that He was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve: after
that He was seen of above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the
greater part remain unto the present time, but some are fallen asleep.
After that He was seen of James, then of all the apostles. And last of
all He was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.”[180] I am
of opinion now that the statements in this passage contain some great
and wonderful mysteries, which are beyond the grasp not merely of the
great multitude of ordinary believers, but even of those who are far
advanced [in Christian knowledge], and that in them the reason would be
explained why He did not show Himself, after His resurrection from the
dead, in the same manner as before that event. And in a treatise of this
nature, composed in answer to a work directed against the Christians and
their faith, observe whether we are able to adduce a few rational
arguments out of a greater number, and thus make an impression upon the
hearers of this apology.

Footnote 178:

  Acts i. 3.

Footnote 179:

  Cf. John xx. 26.

Footnote 180:

  1 Cor. xv. 3-8.




                             Chapter LXIV.


Although Jesus was only a single individual, He was nevertheless more
things than one, according to the different standpoint from which He
might be regarded;[181] nor was He seen in the same way by all who
beheld Him. Now, that He was more things than one, according to the
varying point of view, is clear from this statement, “I am the way, and
the truth, and the life;” and from this, “I am the bread;” and this, “I
am the door,” and innumerable others. And that when seen He did not
appear in like fashion to all those who saw Him, but according to their
several ability to receive Him, will be clear to those who notice why,
at the time when He was about to be transfigured on the high mountain,
He did not admit all His apostles [to this sight], but only Peter, and
James, and John, because they alone were capable of beholding His glory
on that occasion, and of observing the glorified appearance of Moses and
Elijah, and of listening to their conversation, and to the voice from
the heavenly cloud. I am of opinion, too, that before He ascended the
mountain where His disciples came to Him alone, and where He taught them
the beatitudes, when He was somewhere in the lower part of the mountain,
and when, as it became late, He healed those who were brought to Him,
freeing them from all sickness and disease, He did not appear the same
person to the sick, and to those who needed His healing aid, as to those
who were able by reason of their strength to go up the mountain along
with Him. Nay, even when He interpreted privately to His own disciples
the parables which were delivered to the multitudes without, from whom
the explanation was withheld, as they who heard them explained were
endowed with higher organs of hearing than they who heard them without
explanation, so was it altogether the same with the eyes of their soul,
and, I think, also with those of their body.[182] And the following
statement shows that He had not always the same appearance, viz. that
Judas, when about to betray Him, said to the multitudes who were setting
out with him, as not being acquainted with Him, “Whomsoever I shall
kiss, the same is he.”[183] And I think that the Saviour Himself
indicates the same thing by the words: “I was daily with you, teaching
in the temple, and ye laid no hold on me.”[184] Entertaining, then, such
exalted views regarding Jesus, not only with respect to the Deity
within, and which was hidden from the view of the multitude, but with
respect to the transfiguration of His body, which took place when and to
whom He would, we say, that before Jesus had “put off the governments
and powers,”[185] and while as yet He was not dead unto sin, all men
were capable of seeing Him; but that, when He had “put off the
governments and powers,” and had no longer anything which was capable of
being seen by the multitude, all who had formerly seen Him were not now
able to behold Him. And therefore, sparing them, He did not show Himself
to all after His resurrection from the dead.

Footnote 181:

  πλείονα τῇ ἐπινοίᾳ ἦν.

Footnote 182:

  οὕτω καὶ ταῖς ὄψεσι πάντως μὲν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἐγὼ δ’ ἡγοῦμαι, ὅτι καὶ τοῦ
  σώματος.

Footnote 183:

  Matt. xxvi. 48.

Footnote 184:

  Matt. xxvi. 55.

Footnote 185:

  τὸν μὴ ἀπεκδυσάμενον, etc. Cf. Alford, _in loco_ (Col. ii. 15).




                              Chapter LXV.


And why do I say “to all?” For even with His own apostles and disciples
He was not perpetually present, nor did He constantly show Himself to
them, because they were not able without intermission[186] to receive
His divinity. For His deity was more resplendent after He had finished
the economy[187] [of salvation]: and this Peter, surnamed Cephas, the
first-fruits as it were of the apostles, was enabled to behold, and
along with him the twelve (Matthias having been substituted in room of
Judas); and after them He appeared to the five hundred brethren at once,
and then to James, and subsequently to all the others besides the twelve
apostles, perhaps to the seventy also, and lastly to Paul, as to one
born out of due time, and who knew well how to say, “Unto me, who am
less than the least of all saints, is this grace given;” and probably
the expression “least of all” has the same meaning with “one born out of
due time.” For as no one could reasonably blame Jesus for not having
admitted all His apostles to the high mountain, but only the three
already mentioned, on the occasion of His transfiguration, when He was
about to manifest the splendour which appeared in His garments, and the
glory of Moses and Elias talking with Him, so none could reasonably
object to the statements of the apostles, who introduce the appearance
of Jesus after His resurrection as having been made not to all, but to
those only whom He knew to have received eyes capable of seeing His
resurrection. I think, moreover, that the following statement regarding
Him has an apologetic value[188] in reference to our subject, viz.: “For
to this end Christ died, and rose again, that He might be Lord both of
the dead and living.”[189] For observe, it is conveyed in these words,
that Jesus died that He might be Lord of the dead; and that He rose
again to be Lord not only of the dead, but also of the living. And the
apostle understands, undoubtedly, by the dead over whom Christ is to be
Lord, those who are so called in the first Epistle to the Corinthians,
“For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible;”[190] and by the living, those who are to be changed, and
who are different from the dead who are to be raised. And respecting the
living the words are these, “And we shall be changed;” an expression
which follows immediately after the statement, “The dead shall be raised
first.”[191] Moreover, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians,
describing the same change in different words, he says that they who
sleep are not the same as those who are alive; his language being, “I
would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them who are
asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. For if we
believe that Jesus died, and rose again, even so them also that sleep in
Jesus will God bring with Him. For this we say unto you by the word of
the Lord, that we who are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord,
shall not prevent them that are asleep.”[192] The explanation which
appeared to us to be appropriate to this passage, we gave in the
exegetical remarks which we have made on the first Epistle to the
Thessalonians.

Footnote 186:

  διηνεκῶς.

Footnote 187:

  τὴν οἰκονομίαν τελέσαντος.

Footnote 188:

  χρήσιμον δ’ οἶμαι πρὸς ἀπολογίαν τῶν προκειμένων.

Footnote 189:

  Cf. Rom. xiv. 9.

Footnote 190:

  1 Cor. xv. 52.

Footnote 191:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 52 with 1 Thess. iv. 16.

Footnote 192:

  Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 13-15.

                             Chapter LXVI.


And be not surprised if all the multitudes who have believed on Jesus do
not behold His resurrection, when Paul, writing to the Corinthians, can
say to them, as being incapable of receiving greater matters, “For I
determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified;”[193] which is the same as saying, “Hitherto ye were not
able, neither yet now are ye able, for ye are still carnal.”[194] The
Scripture, therefore, doing everything by appointment of God, has
recorded of Jesus, that before His sufferings He appeared to all
indifferently, but not always; while after His sufferings He no longer
appeared to all in the same way, but with a certain discrimination which
measured out to each his due. And as it is related that “God appeared to
Abraham,” or to one of the saints, and this “appearance” was not a thing
of constant occurrence, but took place at intervals, and not to all, so
understand that the Son of God appeared in the one case on the same
principle that God appeared to the latter.[195]

Footnote 193:

  1 Cor. ii. 2.

Footnote 194:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 2, 3.

Footnote 195:

  οὕτω μοι νόει καὶ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ ὦφθαι τῇ παραπλησίᾳ εἰς τὸ περὶ
  ἐκείνων, εἰς τὸ ὦφθαι αὐτοῖς τὸν Θεόν, κρίσει.




                             Chapter LXVII.


To the best of our ability, therefore, as in a treatise of this nature,
we have answered the objection, that “if Jesus had really wished to
manifest his divine power, he ought to have shown himself to those who
ill-treated him, and to the judge who condemned him, and to all without
reservation.” There was, however, no obligation on Him to appear either
to the judge who condemned Him, or to those who ill-treated Him. For
Jesus spared both the one and the other, that they might not be smitten
with blindness, as the men of Sodom were when they conspired against the
beauty of the angels entertained by Lot. And here is the account of the
matter: “But the men put forth their hand, and pulled Lot into the house
to them, and shut to the door. And they smote the men who were at the
door of the house with blindness, both small and great; so that they
wearied themselves to find the door.”[196] Jesus, accordingly, wished to
show that His power was divine to each one who was capable of seeing it,
and according to the measure of His capability. And I do not suppose
that He guarded against being seen on any other ground than from a
regard to the fitness of those who were incapable of seeing Him. And it
is in vain for Celsus to add, “For he had no longer occasion to fear any
man after his death, being, as you say, a God; nor was he sent into the
world at all for the purpose of being hid.” Yet He was sent into the
world not only to become known, but also to be hid. For all that He was,
was not known even to those to whom He was known, but a certain part of
Him remained concealed even from them; and to some He was not known at
all. And He opened the gates of light to those who were the sons of
darkness and of night, and had devoted themselves to becoming the sons
of light and of the day. For our Saviour Lord, like a good physician,
came rather to us who were full of sins, than to those who were
righteous.

Footnote 196:

  Cf. Gen. xix. 10, 11.




                            Chapter LXVIII.


But let us observe how this Jew of Celsus asserts that, “if this at
least would have helped to manifest his divinity, he ought accordingly
to have at once disappeared from the cross.” Now this seems to me to be
like the argument of those who oppose the doctrine of providence, and
who arrange things differently from what they are, and allege that the
world would be better if it were as they arrange it. Now, in those
instances in which their arrangement is a possible one, they are proved
to make the world, so far as depends upon them, worse by their
arrangement than it actually is; while in those cases in which they do
not portray things worse than they really are, they are shown, to desire
impossibilities; so that in either case they are deserving of ridicule.
And here, accordingly, that there was no impossibility in His coming, as
a being of diviner nature, in order to disappear when He chose, is clear
from the very nature of the case; and is certain, moreover, from what is
recorded of Him, in the judgment of those who do not adopt certain
portions merely of the narrative that they may have ground for accusing
Christianity, and who consider other portions to be fiction. For it is
related in St. Luke’s Gospel, that Jesus after His resurrection took
bread, and blessed it, and breaking it, distributed it to Simon and
Cleopas; and when they had received the bread, “their eyes were opened,
and they knew Him, and He vanished out of their sight.”[197]

Footnote 197:

  Cf. Luke xxiv. 30, 31.




                             Chapter LXIX.


But we wish to show that His instantaneous bodily disappearance from the
cross was not better fitted to serve the purposes of the whole economy
of salvation [than His remaining upon it was]. For the mere letter and
narrative of the events which happened to Jesus do not present the whole
view of the truth. For each one of them can be shown, to those who have
an intelligent apprehension of Scripture, to be a symbol of something
else. Accordingly, as His crucifixion contains a truth, represented in
the words, “I am crucified with Christ,” and intimated also in these,
“God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus
Christ, by whom the world is crucified to me, and I unto the
world;”[198] and as His death was necessary, because of the statement,
“For in that He died, He died unto sin once,”[199] and this, “Being made
conformable to His death,”[200] and this, “For if we be dead with Him,
we shall also live with Him:”[201] so also His burial has an application
to those who have been made conformable to His death, who have been both
crucified with Him, and have died with Him; as is declared by Paul, “For
we were buried with Him by baptism, and have also risen with Him.”[202]
These matters, however, which relate to His burial, and his sepulchre,
and him who buried Him, we shall expound at greater length on a more
suitable occasion, when it will be our professed purpose to treat of
such things. But, for the present, it is sufficient to notice the clean
linen in which the pure body of Jesus was to be enwrapped, and the new
tomb which Joseph had hewn out of the rock, where “no one was yet
lying,”[203] or, as John expresses it, “wherein was never man yet
laid.”[204] And observe whether the harmony of the three evangelists
here is not fitted to make an impression: for they have thought it right
to describe the tomb as one that was “quarried or hewn out of the rock;”
so that he who examines the words of the narrative may see something
worthy of consideration, both in them and in the _newness_ of the
tomb,—a point mentioned by Matthew and John,[205]—and in the statement
of Luke and John,[206] that no one had ever been interred therein
before. For it became Him, who was unlike other dead men (but who even
in death manifested signs of life in the water and the blood), and who
was, so to speak, a _new_ dead man, to be laid in a new and clean tomb,
in order that, as His birth was purer than any other (in consequence of
His being born, not in the way of ordinary generation, but of a virgin),
His burial also might have the purity symbolically indicated in His body
being deposited in a sepulchre which was new, not built of stones
gathered from various quarters, and having no natural unity, but
quarried and hewed out of _one_ rock, united together in all its parts.
Regarding the explanation, however, of these points, and the method of
ascending from the narratives themselves to the things which they
symbolized, one might treat more profoundly, and in a manner more
adapted to their divine character, on a more suitable occasion, in a
work expressly devoted to such subjects. The literal narrative, however,
one might thus explain, viz. that it was appropriate for Him who had
resolved to endure suspension upon the cross, to maintain all the
accompaniments of the character He had assumed, in order that He who as
a man had been put to death, and who as a man had died, might also as a
man be buried. But even if it had been related in the Gospels, according
to the view of Celsus, that Jesus had immediately disappeared from the
cross, he and other unbelievers would have found fault with the
narrative, and would have brought against it some such objection as
this: “Why, pray, did he disappear after he had been put upon the cross,
and not disappear before he suffered?” If, then, after learning from the
Gospels that He did not at once disappear from the cross, they imagine
that they can find fault with the narrative, because it did not invent,
as they consider it ought to have done, any such instantaneous
disappearance, but gave a true account of the matter, is it not
reasonable that they should accord their faith also to His resurrection,
and should believe that He, according to His pleasure, on one occasion,
when the doors were shut, stood in the midst of His disciples, and on
another, after distributing bread to two of His acquaintances,
immediately disappeared from view, after He had spoken to them certain
words?

Footnote 198:

  Cf. Gal. vi. 14.

Footnote 199:

  Rom. vi. 10.

Footnote 200:

  Phil. iii. 10.

Footnote 201:

  2 Tim. ii. 11.

Footnote 202:

  Cf. Rom. vi. 4.

Footnote 203:

  Luke xxiii. 53, οὐκ ἦν οὔπω οὐδεὶς κείμενος.

Footnote 204:

  John xix. 41, ἐν ᾧ οὐδέπω οὐδεὶς ἐτέθη.

Footnote 205:

  Cf. Matt. xxvii. 60 with John xix. 41.

Footnote 206:

  Cf. Luke xxiii. 53 with John xix. 41.




                              Chapter LXX.


But how is it that this Jew of Celsus could say that Jesus concealed
Himself? For his words regarding Him are these: “And who that is sent as
a messenger ever conceals himself when he ought to make known his
message?” Now, He did not conceal Himself, who said to those who sought
to apprehend Him, “I was daily teaching openly in the temple, and ye
laid no hold upon me.” But having once already answered this charge of
Celsus, now again repeated, we shall content ourselves with what we have
formerly said. We have answered, also, in the preceding pages, this
objection, that “while he was in the body, and no one believed upon him,
he preached to all without intermission; but when he might have produced
a powerful belief in himself after rising from the dead, he showed
himself secretly only to one woman, and to his own boon
companions.”[207] Now it is not true that He showed Himself only to one
woman; for it is stated in the Gospel according to Matthew, that “in the
end of the Sabbath, as it began to dawn towards the first day of the
week, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.
And, behold, there had been a great earthquake: for the angel of the
Lord had descended from heaven, and come and rolled back the
stone.”[208] And, shortly after, Matthew adds: “And, behold, Jesus met
_them_”—clearly meaning the afore-mentioned Marys—“saying, All hail. And
they came and held Him by the feet, and worshipped Him.”[209] And we
answered, too, the charge, that “while undergoing his punishment he was
seen by all, but after his resurrection only by one,” when we offered
our defence of the fact that “He was not seen by all.” And now we might
say that His merely human attributes were visible to all men, but those
which were divine in their nature—I speak of the attributes not as
related, but as distinct[210]—were not capable of being received by all.
But observe here the manifest contradiction into which Celsus falls. For
having said, a little before, that Jesus had appeared secretly to one
woman and His own boon companions, he immediately subjoins: “While
undergoing his punishment he was seen by all men, but after his
resurrection by one, whereas the opposite ought to have happened.” And
let us hear what he means by “ought to have happened.” The being seen by
all men while undergoing His punishment, but after His resurrection only
by one individual, are opposites.[211] Now, so far as his language
conveys a meaning, he would have that to take place which is both
impossible and absurd, viz., that while undergoing His punishment He
should be seen only by one individual, but after His resurrection by all
men! or else how will you explain his words, “The opposite ought to have
happened?”

Footnote 207:

  τοῖς ἑαυτοῦ θιασώταις.

Footnote 208:

  Matt. xxviii. 1, 2.

Footnote 209:

  Matt. xxviii. 9.

Footnote 210:

  λέγω δὲ οὐ περὶ τῶν σχέσιν πρὸς ἕτερα ἐχόντων, ἀλλὰ περὶ τῶν κατὰ
  διαφοράν.

Footnote 211:

  ἐναντίον τὸ μὲν κολαζόμενον πᾶσιν ἑωρᾶσθαι, ἀναστάντα δὲ πᾶσιν. The
  Benedictine editor reads τὸν μὲν κολαζόμενον, and Bohereau proposes
  ἐναντίον τῷ κολαζίόμενον μὲν, etc.




                             Chapter LXXI.


Jesus taught us who it was that sent Him, in the words, “None knoweth
the Father but the Son;”[212] and in these, “No man hath seen God at any
time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath
declared Him.”[213] He, treating of Deity, stated to His true disciples
the doctrine regarding God; and we, discovering traces of such teaching
in the Scripture narratives, take occasion from such to aid our
theological conceptions,[214] hearing it declared in one passage, that
“God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all;”[215] and in
another, “God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth.”[216] But the purposes for which the Father sent
Him are innumerable; and these any one may ascertain who chooses, partly
from the prophets who prophesied of Him, and partly from the narratives
of the evangelists. And not a few things also will he learn from the
apostles, and especially from Paul. Moreover, those who are pious He
leadeth to the light, and those who sin He will punish,—a circumstance
which Celsus not observing, has represented Him “as one who will lead
the pious to the light, and who will have mercy on others, whether they
sin or repent.”[217]

Footnote 212:

  Cf. Luke x. 22.

Footnote 213:

  John i. 18.

Footnote 214:

  ὧν ἴχνη ἐν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις εὑρίσκοντες ἀφορμὰς ἔχομεν θεολογεῖν.

Footnote 215:

  1 John i. 5.

Footnote 216:

  John iv. 24.

Footnote 217:

  The text is, τοὺς δὲ ἁμαρτάνοντας ἤ μεταγνόντας ἐλεήσων. Bohereau
  would read μὴ μεταγνόντας, or would render the passage as if the
  reading were ἤ ἁμαρτανόντας, ἤ μεταγνόντας. This suggestion has been
  adopted in the translation.




                             Chapter LXXII.


After the above statements, he continues: “If he wished to remain hid,
why was there heard a voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of
God? And if he did not seek to remain concealed, why was he punished? or
why did he die?” Now, by such questions he thinks to convict the
histories of discrepancy, not observing that Jesus neither desired all
things regarding Himself to be known to all whom He happened to meet,
nor yet all things to be unknown. Accordingly, the voice from heaven
which proclaimed Him to be the Son of God, in the words, “This is my
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased,”[218] is not stated to have been
audible to the multitudes, as this Jew of Celsus supposed. The voice
from the cloud on the high mountain, moreover, was heard only by those
who had gone up with Him. For the divine voice is of such a nature, as
to be heard only by those whom the speaker wishes to hear it. And I
maintain, that the voice of God which is referred to, is neither air
which has been struck, nor any concussion of the air, nor anything else
which is mentioned in treatises on the voice;[219] and therefore it is
heard by a better and more divine organ of hearing than that of sense.
And when the speaker will not have his voice to be heard by all, he that
has the finer ear hears the voice of God, while he who has the ears of
his soul deadened does not perceive that it is God who speaks. These
things I have mentioned because of his asking, “Why was there heard a
voice from heaven proclaiming him to be the Son of God?” while with
respect to the query, “Why was he punished, if he wished to remain hid?”
what has been stated at greater length in the preceding pages on the
subject of His sufferings may suffice.

Footnote 218:

  Matt. iii. 17.

Footnote 219:

  οὐδέπω δὲ λέγω, ὅτι οὐ πάντως ἐστὶν ἀὴρ πεπληγμένος, ἤ πληγὴ ἀέρος, ἤ
  ὅτι ποτὲ λέγεται ἐν τοῖς περί φωνης.




                            Chapter LXXIII.


The Jew proceeds, after this, to state as a consequence what does not
follow from the premises; for it does _not_ follow from “His having
wished, by the punishments which He underwent, to teach us also to
despise death,” that after His resurrection He should openly summon all
men to the light, and instruct them in the object of His coming. For He
had formerly summoned all men to the light in the words, “Come unto me,
all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.”[220]
And the object of His coming had been explained at great length in His
discourses on the beatitudes, and in the announcements which followed
them, and in the parables, and in His conversations with the scribes and
Pharisees. And the instruction afforded us by the Gospel of John, shows
that the eloquence of Jesus consisted not in words, but in deeds; while
it is manifest from the Gospel narratives that His speech was “with
power,” on which account also they marvelled at Him.

Footnote 220:

  Cf. Matt. xi. 28.




                             Chapter LXXIV.


In addition to all this, the Jew further says: “All these statements are
taken from your own books, in addition to which we need no other
witness; for ye fall upon your own swords.”[221]

Now we have proved that many foolish assertions, opposed to the
narratives of our Gospels, occur in the statements of the Jew, either
with respect to Jesus or ourselves. And I do not think that he has shown
that “we fall upon our own swords;” but he only so imagines. And when
the Jew adds, in a general way, this to his former remarks: “O most high
and heavenly one! what God, on appearing to men, is received with
incredulity?” we must say to him, that according to the accounts in the
law of Moses, God is related to have visited the Hebrews in a most
public manner, not only in the signs and wonders performed in Egypt, and
also in the passage of the Red Sea, and in the pillar of fire and cloud
of light, but also when the Decalogue was announced to the whole people,
and yet was received with incredulity by those who saw these things: for
had they believed what they saw and heard, they would not have fashioned
the calf, nor changed their own glory into the likeness of a
grass-eating calf; nor would they have said to one another with
reference to the calf, “These be thy gods, O Israel, who brought thee up
out of the land of Egypt.”[222] And observe whether it is not entirely
in keeping with the character of the same people, who formerly refused
to believe such wonders and such appearances of divinity, throughout the
whole period of wandering in the wilderness, as they are recorded in the
law of the Jews to have done, to refuse to be convinced also, on
occasion of the glorious advent of Jesus, by the mighty words which were
spoken by Him with authority, and the marvels which He performed in the
presence of all the people.

Footnote 221:

  αὐτοὶ γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς περιπίπτετε.

Footnote 222:

  Cf. Ex. xxxii. 4.




                             Chapter LXXV.


I think what has been stated is enough to convince any one that the
unbelief of the Jews with regard to Jesus was in keeping with what is
related of this people from the beginning. For I would say in reply to
this Jew of Celsus, when he asks, “What God that appeared among men is
received with incredulity, and that, too, when appearing to those who
expect him? or why, pray, is he not recognised by those who have been
long looking for him?” what answer, friends, would you have us return to
your[223] questions? Which class of miracles, in your judgment, do you
regard as the greater? Those which were wrought in Egypt and the
wilderness, or those which we declare that Jesus performed among you?
For if the former are in your opinion greater than the latter, does it
not appear from this very fact to be in conformity with the character of
those who disbelieved the greater to despise the less? And this is the
opinion entertained with respect to our accounts of the miracles of
Jesus. But if those related of Jesus are considered to be as great as
those recorded of Moses, what strange thing has come to pass among a
nation which has manifested incredulity with regard to the commencement
of both dispensations?[224] For the beginning of the legislation was in
the time of Moses, in whose work are recorded the sins of the
unbelievers and wicked among you, while the commencement of our
legislation and second covenant is admitted to have been in the time of
Jesus. And by your unbelief of Jesus ye show that ye are the sons of
those who in the desert discredited the divine appearances; and thus
what was spoken by our Saviour will be applicable also to you who
believed not on Him: “Therefore ye bear witness that ye allow the deeds
of your fathers.”[225] And there is fulfilled among you also the
prophecy which said: “Your life shall hang in doubt before your eyes,
and you will have no assurance of your life.”[226] For ye did not
believe in the life which came to visit the human race.

Footnote 223:

  The text reads ἡμῶν, for which Bohereau and the Benedictine editor
  propose either ὑμᾶς or ἡμᾶς, the former of which is preferred by
  Lommatzsch.

Footnote 224:

  κατ’ ἀμφοτέρας τὰς ἀρχὰς τῶν πραγμάτων ἀπιστοῦντι.

Footnote 225:

  Cf. Luke xi. 48.

Footnote 226:

  Cf. Deut. xxviii. 66.




                             Chapter LXXVI.


Celsus, in adopting the character of a Jew, could not discover any
objections to be urged against the gospel which might not be retorted on
him as liable to be brought also against the law and the prophets. For
he censures Jesus in such words as the following: “He makes use of
threats, and reviles men on light grounds, when he says, ‘Woe unto you,’
and ‘I tell you beforehand.’ For by such expressions he manifestly
acknowledges his inability to persuade; and this would not be the case
with a God, or even a prudent man.” Observe, now, whether these charges
do not manifestly recoil upon the Jew. For in the writings of the law
and the prophets God makes use of threats and revilings, when He employs
language of not less severity than that found in the Gospel, such as the
following expressions of Isaiah: “Woe unto them that join house to
house, and lay field to field;”[227] and, “Woe unto them that rise up
early in the morning that they may follow strong drink;”[228] and, “Woe
unto them that draw their sins after them as with a long rope;”[229]
and, “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil;”[230] and, “Woe
unto those of you who are mighty to drink wine;”[231] and innumerable
other passages of the same kind. And does not the following resemble the
threats of which he speaks: “Ah, sinful nation, a people laden with
iniquity, a seed of evil-doers, children that are corrupters?”[232] and
so on, to which he subjoins such threats as are equal in severity to
those which, he says, Jesus made use of. For is it not a threatening,
and a great one, which declares, “Your country is desolate, your cities
are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence,
and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers?”[233] And are there not
revilings in Ezekiel directed against the people, when the Lord says to
the prophet, “Thou dwellest in the midst of scorpions?”[234] Were you
serious, then, Celsus, in representing the Jew as saying of Jesus, that
“he makes use of threats and revilings on slight grounds, when he
employs the expressions, ‘Woe unto you,’ and ‘I tell you beforehand?’”
Do you not see that the charges which this Jew of yours brings against
Jesus might be brought by him against God? For the God who speaks in the
prophetic writings is manifestly liable to the same accusations, as
Celsus regards them, of inability to persuade. I might, moreover, say to
this Jew, who thinks that he makes a good charge against Jesus by such
statements, that if he undertakes, in support of the scriptural account,
to defend the numerous curses recorded in the books of Leviticus and
Deuteronomy, we should make as good, or better, a defence of the
revilings and threatenings which are regarded as having been spoken by
Jesus. And as respects the law of Moses itself, we are in a position to
make a better defence of it than the Jew is, because we have been taught
by Jesus to have a more intelligent apprehension of the writings of the
law. Nay, if the Jew perceive the meaning of the prophetic Scriptures,
he will be able to show that it is for no light reason that God employs
threatenings and revilings, when He says, “Woe unto you,” and “I tell
you beforehand.” And how should God employ such expressions for the
conversion of men, which Celsus thinks that even a prudent man would not
have recourse to? But Christians, who know only one God—the same who
spoke in the prophets and in the Lord [Jesus]—can prove the
reasonableness of those threatenings and revilings, as Celsus considers
and entitles them. And here a few remarks shall be addressed to this
Celsus, who professes both to be a philosopher, and to be acquainted
with all our system. How is it, friend, when Hermes, in Homer, says to
Odysseus,

    “Why, now, wretched man, do you come wandering alone over the
    mountain-tops?”[235]

that you are satisfied with the answer, which explains that the Homeric
Hermes addresses such language to Odysseus to remind him of his
duty,[236] because it is characteristic of the Sirens to flatter and to
say pleasing things, around whom

                      “Is a huge heap of bones,”[237]

and who say,

    “Come hither, much lauded Odysseus, great glory of the Greeks;”[238]

whereas, if our prophets and Jesus Himself, in order to turn their
hearers from evil, make use of such expressions as “Woe unto you,” and
what you regard as revilings, there is no condescension in such language
to the circumstances of the hearers, nor any application of such words
to them as healing[239] medicine? Unless, indeed, you would have God, or
one who partakes of the divine nature, when conversing with men, to have
regard to His own nature alone, and to what is worthy of Himself, but to
have no regard to what is fitting to be brought before men who are under
the dispensation and leading of His word, and with each one of whom He
is to converse agreeably to his individual character. And is it not a
ridiculous assertion regarding Jesus, to say that He was unable to
persuade men, when you compare the state of matters not only among the
Jews, who have many such instances recorded in the prophecies, but also
among the Greeks, among whom all of those who have attained great
reputation for their wisdom have been unable to persuade those who
conspired against them, or to induce their judges or accusers to cease
from evil, and to endeavour to attain to virtue by the way of
philosophy?

Footnote 227:

  Isa. v. 8.

Footnote 228:

  Isa. v. 11.

Footnote 229:

  Isa. v. 18.

Footnote 230:

  Isa. v. 20.

Footnote 231:

  Isa. v. 22.

Footnote 232:

  Cf. Isa. i. 4.

Footnote 233:

  Isa. i. 7.

Footnote 234:

  Ezek. ii. 6.

Footnote 235:

  Cf. _Odyss._ x. 281.

Footnote 236:

  ὑπὲρ ἐπιστροφῆς.

Footnote 237:

  Cf. _Odyss._ xii. 45.

Footnote 238:

  _Ibid._ xii. 184.

Footnote 239:

  παιώνιον φαρμάκον.




                            Chapter LXXVII.


After this the Jew remarks, manifestly in accordance with the Jewish
belief: “We certainly hope that there will be a bodily resurrection, and
that we shall enjoy an eternal life; and the example and archetype of
this will be He who is sent to us, and who will show that nothing is
impossible with God.” We do not know, indeed, whether the Jew would say
of the expected Christ, that He exhibits in Himself an example of the
resurrection; but let it be supposed that he both thinks and says so. We
shall give this answer, then, to him who has told us that he drew his
information from our own writings: “Did you read those writings, friend,
in which you think you discover matter of accusation against us, and not
find there the resurrection of Jesus, and the declaration that He was
the first-born from the dead? Or because you will not allow such things
to have been recorded, were they not actually recorded?” But as the Jew
still admits the resurrection of the body, I do not consider the present
a suitable time to discuss the subject with one who both believes and
says that there is a bodily resurrection, whether he has an
articulate[240] understanding of such a topic, and is able to plead well
on its behalf,[241] or not, but has only given his assent to it as being
of a legendary character.[242] Let the above, then, be our reply to this
Jew of Celsus. And when he adds, “Where, then, is he, that we may see
him and believe upon him?” we answer: Where is He now who spoke in the
prophecies, and who wrought miracles, that we may see and believe that
He is part of God? Are _you_ to be allowed to meet the objection, that
God does not perpetually show Himself to the Hebrew nation, while _we_
are not to be permitted the same defence with regard to Jesus, who has
both once risen Himself, and led His disciples to believe in His
resurrection, and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth, that they
show to all men by their sufferings how they are able to laugh at all
the troubles of life, beholding the life eternal and the resurrection
clearly demonstrated to them both in word and deed?

Footnote 240:

  εἶτε διαρθροῦντα τὸ τοιοῦτον παρ’ ἑαυτῷ.

Footnote 241:

  καὶ δυνάμενον πρεσβεῦσαι περὶ τοῦ λόγου καλῶς.

Footnote 242:

  ἀττὰ μυθικώτερον συγκατατιθέμενον τῷ λόγῳ.




                            Chapter LXXVIII.


The Jew continues: “Did Jesus come into the world for this purpose, that
we should not believe him?” To which we immediately answer, that He did
not come with the object of producing incredulity among the Jews; but
knowing beforehand that such would be the result, He foretold it, and
made use of their unbelief for the calling of the Gentiles. For through
their sin salvation came to the Gentiles, respecting whom the Christ who
speaks in the prophecies says, “A people whom I did not know became
subject to me: they were obedient to the hearing of my ear;”[243] and,
“I was found of them who sought me not; I became manifest to those who
inquired not after me.”[244] It is certain, moreover, that the Jews were
punished even in this present life, after treating Jesus in the manner
in which they did. And let the Jews assert what they will when we charge
them with guilt, and say, “Is not the providence and goodness of God
most wonderfully displayed in your punishment, and in your being
deprived of Jerusalem, and of the sanctuary, and of your splendid
worship?” For whatever they may say in reply with respect to the
providence of God, we shall be able more effectually to answer it by
remarking, that the providence of God was wonderfully manifested in
using the transgression of that people for the purpose of calling into
the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ, those from among the Gentiles
who were strangers to the covenant and aliens to the promises. And these
things were foretold by the prophets, who said that, on account of the
transgressions of the Hebrew nation, God would make choice, not of a
nation, but of individuals chosen from all lands;[245] and, having
selected the foolish things of the world, would cause an ignorant nation
to become acquainted with the divine teaching, the kingdom of God being
taken from the one and given to the other. And out of a larger number it
is sufficient on the present occasion to adduce the prediction from the
song in Deuteronomy regarding the calling of the Gentiles, which is as
follows, being spoken in the person of the Lord: “They have moved me to
jealousy with those who are not gods; they have provoked me to anger
with their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those who are
not a people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.”[246]

Footnote 243:

  Cf. 2 Sam. xxii. 44, 45.

Footnote 244:

  Cf. Isa. lxv. 1.

Footnote 245:

  οὐχὶ ἔθνος, ἀλλὰ λογάδας πανταχόθεν.

Footnote 246:

  Cf. Deut. xxxii. 21.




                             Chapter LXXIX.


The conclusion of all these arguments regarding Jesus is thus stated by
the Jew: “He was therefore a man, and of such a nature, as the truth
itself proves, and reason demonstrates him to be.” I do not know,
however, whether a man who had the courage to spread throughout the
entire world his doctrine of religious worship and teaching,[247] could
accomplish what he wished without the divine assistance, and could rise
superior to all who withstood the progress of his doctrine—kings and
rulers, and the Roman senate, and governors in all places, and the
common people. And how could the nature of a man possessed of no
inherent excellence convert so vast a multitude? For it would not be
wonderful if it were only the wise who were so converted; but it is the
most irrational of men, and those devoted to their passions, and who, by
reason of their irrationality, change with the greater difficulty so as
to adopt a more temperate course of life. And yet it is because Christ
was the power of God and the wisdom of the Father that He accomplished,
and still accomplishes, such results, although neither the Jews nor
Greeks who disbelieve His word will so admit. And therefore we shall not
cease to believe in God, according to the precepts of Jesus Christ, and
to seek to convert those who are blind on the subject of religion,
although it is they who are truly blind themselves that charge us with
blindness: and they, whether Jews or Greeks, who lead astray those that
follow them, accuse us of seducing men—a good seduction, truly!—that
they may become temperate instead of dissolute, or at least may make
advances to temperance; may become just instead of unjust, or at least
may tend to become so; prudent instead of foolish, or be on the way to
become such; and instead of cowardice, meanness, and timidity, may
exhibit the virtues of fortitude and courage, especially displayed in
the struggles undergone for the sake of their religion towards God, the
Creator of all things. Jesus Christ therefore came announced beforehand,
not by one prophet, but by all; and it was a proof of the ignorance of
Celsus, to represent a Jew as saying that one prophet only had predicted
the advent of Christ. But as this Jew of Celsus, after being thus
introduced, asserting that these things were indeed in conformity with
his own law, has somewhere here ended his discourse, with a mention of
other matters not worthy of remembrance, I too shall here terminate this
second book of my answer to his treatise. But if God permit, and the
power of Christ abide in my soul, I shall endeavour in the third book to
deal with the subsequent statements of Celsus.

Footnote 247:

  τὴν κατ’ αὐτὸν θεοσέβειαν καὶ διδασκαλίαν.




                               BOOK III.


                               Chapter I.


In the first book of our answer to the work of Celsus, who had
boastfully entitled the treatise which he had composed against us _A
True Discourse_, we have gone through, as you enjoined, my faithful
Ambrosius, to the best of our ability, his preface, and the parts
immediately following it, testing each one of his assertions as we went
along, until we finished with the tirade[248] of this Jew of his,
feigned to have been delivered against Jesus. And in the second book we
met, as we best could, all the charges contained in the invective of the
said Jew, which were levelled at us who are believers in God through
Christ; and now we enter upon this third division of our discourse, in
which our object is to refute the allegations which he makes in his own
person.

He gives it as his opinion, that “the controversy between Jews and
Christians is a most foolish one,” and asserts that “the discussions
which we have with each other regarding Christ differ in no respect from
what is called in the proverb ‘a fight about the shadow of an
ass;’”[249] and thinks that “there is nothing of importance[250] in the
investigations of the Jews and Christians: for both believe that it was
predicted by the Divine Spirit that one was to come as a Saviour to the
human race, but do not yet agree on the point whether the person
predicted has actually come or not.” For we Christians, indeed, have
believed in Jesus, as He who came according to the predictions of the
prophets. But the majority of the Jews are so far from believing in Him,
that those of them who lived at the time of His coming conspired against
Him; and those of the present day, approving of what the Jews of former
times dared to do against Him, speak evil of Him, asserting that it was
by means of sorcery[251] that he passed himself off for Him who was
predicted by the prophets as the One who was to come, and who was
called, agreeably to the traditions of the Jews,[252] the Christ.

Footnote 248:

  δημηγορία; cf. book i. c. 71.

Footnote 249:

  κατὰ τὴν παροιμίαν καλουμένης ὄνου σκιᾶς μάχης. On this proverb, see
  Zenobius, _Centuria Sexta_, adag. 28, and the note of Schottius. Cf.
  also Suidas, _s.v._ ὄνου σκία.—DE LA RUE.

Footnote 250:

  σεμνὸν.

Footnote 251:

  διά τινος γοητείας.

Footnote 252:

  κατὰ τὰ Ἰουδαίων πάτρια.




                              Chapter II.


But let Celsus, and those who assent to his charges, tell us whether it
is at all like “an ass’s shadow,” that the Jewish prophets should have
predicted the birth-place of Him who was to be the ruler of those who
had lived righteous lives, and who are called the “heritage” of
God;[253] and that Emmanuel should be conceived by a virgin; and that
such signs and wonders should be performed by Him who was the subject of
prophecy; and that His word should have such speedy course, that the
voice of His apostles should go forth into all the earth; and that He
should undergo certain sufferings after His condemnation by the Jews;
and that He should rise again from the dead. For was it by chance[254]
that the prophets made these announcements, with no persuasion of their
truth in their minds,[255] moving them not only to speak, but to deem
their announcements worthy of being committed to writing? And did so
great a nation as that of the Jews, who had long ago received a country
of their own wherein to dwell, recognise certain men as prophets, and
reject others as utterers of false predictions, without any conviction
of the soundness of the distinction? And was there no motive which
induced them to class with the books of Moses, which were held as
sacred, the words of those persons who were afterwards deemed to be
prophets? And can those who charge the Jews and Christians with folly,
show us how the Jewish nation could have continued to subsist, had there
existed among them no promise of the knowledge of future events? and
how, while each of the surrounding nations believed, agreeably to their
ancient institutions, that they received oracles and predictions from
those whom they accounted gods, this people alone, who were taught to
view with contempt all those who were considered gods by the heathen, as
not being gods, but demons, according to the declaration of the
prophets, “For all the gods of the nations are demons,”[256] had among
them no one who professed to be a prophet, and who could restrain such
as, from a desire to know the future, were ready to desert[257] to the
demons of other nations? Judge, then, whether it were not a necessity,
that as the whole nation had been taught to despise the deities of other
lands, they should have had an abundance of prophets, who made known
events which were of far greater importance in themselves,[258] and
which surpassed the oracles of all other countries.

Footnote 253:

  τῶν χρηματιζόντων μερίδος Θεοῦ.

Footnote 254:

  ἆρα γὰρ ὡς ἔτυχε.

Footnote 255:

  σὺν οὐδεμιᾷ πιθανότητι.

Footnote 256:

  Ps. xcvi. 5, δαιμόνια; “idols,” Auth. Vers. We have in this passage,
  and in many others, the identification of the δαίμονες or gods of the
  heathen with the δαίμονες or δαιμόνια, “evil spirits,” or angels,
  supposed to be mentioned in Gen. vi. 2.

Footnote 257:

  The reading in the text is αὐτομολεῖν, on which Bohereau, with whom
  the Benedictine editor agrees, remarks that we must either read
  αὐτομολήσοντας, or understand some such word as ἑτοίμους before
  αὐτομολεῖν.

Footnote 258:

  τὸ μεῖζον αὐτόθεν.




                              Chapter III.


In the next place, miracles were performed in all countries, or at least
in many of them, as Celsus himself admits, instancing the case of
Esculapius, who conferred benefits on many, and who foretold future
events to entire cities, which were dedicated to him, such as Tricca,
and Epidaurus, and Cos, and Pergamus; and along with Esculapius he
mentions Aristeas of Proconnesus, and a certain Clazomenian, and
Cleomedes of Astypalæa. But among the Jews alone, who say they are
dedicated to the God of all things, there was wrought no miracle or sign
which might help to confirm their faith in the Creator of all things,
and strengthen their hope of another and better life! But how can they
imagine such a state of things? For they would immediately have gone
over to the worship of those demons which gave oracles and performed
cures, and deserted the God who was believed, as far as words went,[259]
to assist them, but who never manifested to them His visible presence.
But if this result has not taken place, and if, on the contrary, they
have suffered countless calamities rather than renounce Judaism and
their law, and have been cruelly treated, at one time in Assyria, at
another in Persia, and at another under Antiochus, is it not in keeping
with the probabilities of the case[260] for those to suppose who do not
yield their belief to their miraculous histories and prophecies, that
the events in question could not be inventions, but that a certain
divine Spirit being in the holy souls of the prophets, as of men who
underwent any labour for the cause of virtue, _did_ move them to
prophesy some things relating to their contemporaries, and others to
their posterity, but chiefly regarding a certain personage who was to
come as a Saviour to the human race?

Footnote 259:

  μέχρι λόγου.

Footnote 260:

  πῶς οὐχὶ ἐξ εἰκότων κατασκευάζεται.




                              Chapter IV.


And if the above be the state of the case, how do Jews and Christians
search after “the shadow of an ass,” in seeking to ascertain from those
prophecies which they believe in common, whether He who was foretold has
come, or has not yet arrived, and is still an object of expectation? But
even suppose[261] it be granted to Celsus that it was not Jesus who was
announced by the prophets, then, even on such a hypothesis, the
investigation of the sense of the prophetic writings is no search after
“the shadow of an ass,” if he who was spoken of can be clearly pointed
out, and it can be shown both what sort of person he was predicted to
be, and what he was to do, and, if possible, when he was to arrive. But
in the preceding pages we have already spoken on the point of Jesus
being the individual who was foretold to be the Christ, quoting a few
prophecies out of a larger number. Neither Jews nor Christians, then,
are wrong in assuming that the prophets spoke under divine
influence;[262] but they are in error who form erroneous opinions
respecting Him who was expected by the prophets to come, and whose
person and character were made known in their “true discourses.”

Footnote 261:

  καθ’ ὑπόθεσιν.

Footnote 262:

  θεόθεν.




                               Chapter V.


Immediately after these points, Celsus, imagining that the Jews are
Egyptians by descent, and had abandoned Egypt, after revolting against
the Egyptian state, and despising the customs of that people in matters
of worship, says that “they suffered from the adherents of Jesus, who
believed in Him as the Christ, the same treatment which they had
inflicted upon the Egyptians; and that the cause which led to the new
state of things[263] in either instance was rebellion against the
state.” Now let us observe what Celsus has here done. The ancient
Egyptians, after inflicting many cruelties upon the Hebrew race, who had
settled in Egypt owing to a famine which had broken out in Judea,
suffered, in consequence of their injustice to strangers and suppliants,
that punishment which divine Providence had decreed was to fall on the
whole nation for having combined against an entire people, who had been
their guests, and who had done them no harm; and after being smitten by
plagues from God, they allowed them, with difficulty, and after a brief
period, to go wherever they liked, as being unjustly detained in
slavery. Because, then, they were a selfish people, who honoured those
who were in any degree related to them far more than they did strangers
of better lives, there is not an accusation which they have omitted to
bring against Moses and the Hebrews,—not altogether denying, indeed, the
miracles and wonders done by him, but alleging that they were wrought by
sorcery, and not by divine power. Moses, however, not as a magician, but
as a devout man, and one devoted to the God of all things, and a
partaker in the divine Spirit, both enacted laws for the Hebrews,
according to the suggestions of the Divinity, and recorded events as
they happened with perfect fidelity.

Footnote 263:

  Τῆς καινοτομίας.




                              Chapter VI.


Celsus, therefore, not investigating in a spirit of impartiality the
facts, which are related by the Egyptians in one way, and by the Hebrews
in another, but being bewitched, as it were,[264] in favour of the
former, accepted as true the statements of those who had oppressed the
strangers, and declared that the Hebrews, who had been unjustly treated,
had departed from Egypt after revolting against the Egyptians,—not
observing how impossible it was for so great a multitude of rebellious
Egyptians to become a nation, which, dating its origin from the said
revolt, should change its language at the time of its rebellion, so that
those who up to that time made use of the Egyptian tongue, should
completely adopt, all at once, the language of the Hebrews! Let it be
granted, however, according to his supposition, that on abandoning Egypt
they did conceive a hatred also of their mother tongue,[265] how did it
happen that after so doing they did not rather adopt the Syrian or
Phœnician language, instead of preferring the Hebrew, which is different
from both? But reason seems to me to demonstrate that the statement is
false, which makes those who were Egyptians by race to have revolted
against Egyptians, and to have left the country, and to have proceeded
to Palestine, and occupied the land now called Judea. For Hebrew was the
language of their fathers before their descent into Egypt; and the
Hebrew letters, employed by Moses in writing those five books which are
deemed sacred by the Jews, were different from those of the Egyptians.

Footnote 264:

  Προκαταληφθεὶς ὡς ὑπὸ φίλτρων τῶν Αἰγυπτίων.

Footnote 265:

  Τὴν σύντροφον φωνὴν.




                              Chapter VII.


In like manner, as the statement is false “that the Hebrews, being
[originally] Egyptians, dated the commencement [of their political
existence] from the time of their rebellion,” so also is this, “that in
the days of Jesus others who were Jews rebelled against the Jewish
state, and became His followers;” for neither Celsus nor they who think
with him are able to point out any act on the part of Christians which
savours of rebellion. And yet, if a revolt had led to the formation of
the Christian commonwealth, so that it derived its existence in this way
from that of the Jews, who were permitted to take up arms in defence of
the members of their families, and to slay their enemies, the Christian
Lawgiver would not have altogether forbidden the putting of men to
death; and yet He nowhere teaches that it is right for His own disciples
to offer violence to any one, however wicked. For He did not deem it in
keeping with such laws as His, which were derived from a divine source,
to allow the killing of any individual whatever. Nor would the
Christians, had they owed their origin to a rebellion, have adopted laws
of so exceedingly mild a character as not to allow them, when it was
their fate to be slain as sheep, on any occasion to resist their
persecutors. And truly, if we look a little deeper into things, we may
say regarding the exodus from Egypt, that it is a miracle if a whole
nation _at once_ adopted the language called Hebrew, as if it had been a
gift from heaven, when one of their own prophets said, “As they went
forth from Egypt, they heard a language which they did not
understand.”[266]

Footnote 266:

  Cf. Ps. lxxxi. 5.




                             Chapter VIII.


In the following way, also, we may conclude that they who came out of
Egypt with Moses were not Egyptians; for if they had been Egyptians,
their _names_ also would be Egyptian, because in every language the
designations [of persons and things] are kindred to the language.[267]
But if it is certain, from the names being Hebrew, that the people were
not Egyptians,—and the Scriptures are full of Hebrew names, and these
bestowed, too, upon their children while they were in Egypt,—it is clear
that the Egyptian account is false, which asserts that they were
Egyptians, and went forth from Egypt with Moses. Now it is absolutely
certain[268] that, being descended, as the Mosaic history records, from
Hebrew ancestors, they employed a language from which they also took the
names which they conferred upon their children. But with regard to the
Christians, because they were taught not to avenge themselves upon their
enemies (and have thus observed laws of a mild and philanthropic
character); and because they would not, although able, have made war
even if they had received authority to do so,—they have obtained this
reward from God, that He has always warred in their behalf, and on
certain occasions has restrained those who rose up against them and
desired to destroy them. For in order to remind others, that by seeing a
_few_ engaged in a struggle for their religion, they also might be
better fitted to despise death, some, on special occasions, and these
individuals who can be easily numbered, have endured death for the sake
of Christianity,—God not permitting the whole nation to be exterminated,
but desiring that it should continue, and that the whole world should be
filled with this salutary and religious doctrine. And again, on the
other hand, that those who were of weaker minds might recover their
courage and rise superior to the thought of death, God interposed His
providence on behalf of believers, dispersing by an act of His will
alone all the conspiracies formed against them; so that neither kings,
nor rulers, nor the populace, might be able to rage against them beyond
a certain point. Such, then, is our answer to the assertions of Celsus,
“that a revolt was the original commencement of the ancient Jewish
state, and subsequently of Christianity.”

Footnote 267:

  Συγγενεῖς εἰσιν αἱ προσηγορίαι.

Footnote 268:

  Σαφῶς ἐναργές.




                              Chapter IX.


But since he is manifestly guilty of falsehood in the statements which
follow, let us examine his assertion when he says, “If all men wished to
become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result.” Now that
the above statement is false is clear from this, that Christians do not
neglect, as far as in them lies, to take measures to disseminate their
doctrine throughout the whole world. Some of them, accordingly, have
made it their business to itinerate not only through cities, but even
villages and country houses,[269] that they might make converts to God.
And no one would maintain that they did this for the sake of gain, when
sometimes they would not accept even necessary sustenance; or if at any
time they were pressed by a necessity of this sort, were contented with
the mere supply of their wants, although many were willing to share
[their abundance] with them, and to bestow help upon them far above
their need. At the present day, indeed, when, owing to the multitude of
Christian believers, not only rich men, but persons of rank, and
delicate and high-born ladies, receive the teachers of Christianity,
some perhaps will dare to say that it is for the sake of a little
glory[270] that certain individuals assume the office of Christian
instructors. It is impossible, however, rationally to entertain such a
suspicion with respect to Christianity in its beginnings, when the
danger incurred, especially by its teachers, was great; while at the
present day the discredit attaching to it among the rest of mankind is
greater than any supposed honour enjoyed among those who hold the same
belief, especially when such honour is not shared by all. It is false,
then, from the very nature of the case, to say that “if all men wished
to become Christians, the latter would not desire such a result.”

Footnote 269:

  Ἐπαύλεις.

Footnote 270:

  Δοξάριον.




                               Chapter X.


But observe what he alleges as a proof of his statement: “Christians at
first were few in number, and held the same opinions; but when they grew
to be a great multitude, they were divided and separated, each wishing
to have his own individual party:[271] for this was their object from
the beginning.” That Christians at first were few in number, in
comparison with the multitudes who subsequently became Christian, is
undoubted; and yet, all things considered, they were not so very
few.[272] For what stirred up the envy of the Jews against Jesus, and
aroused them to conspire against Him, was the great number of those who
followed Him into the wilderness,—five thousand men on one occasion, and
four thousand on another, having attended Him thither, without including
the women and children. For such was the charm[273] of Jesus’ words,
that not only were _men_ willing to follow Him to the wilderness, but
_women_ also, forgetting[274] the weakness of their sex and a regard for
outward propriety[275] in thus following their Teacher into desert
places. Children, too, who are altogether unaffected by such
emotions,[276] either following their parents, or perhaps attracted also
by His divinity, in order that it might be implanted within them, became
His followers along with their parents. But let it be granted that
Christians were few in number at the beginning, how does that help to
prove that Christians would be unwilling to make all men believe the
doctrine of the gospel?

Footnote 271:

  στάσεις ἰδίας.

Footnote 272:

  καί τοι οὐ πάντη ἦσαν ὀλίγοι.

Footnote 273:

  ἴυγξ.

Footnote 274:

  The reading in Spencer’s and the Benedictine edition is ὑποτεμνομένας,
  for which Lommatzsch reads ὑπομεμνημένας.

Footnote 275:

  καὶ τὸ δοκοῦν.

Footnote 276:

  ἀπαθέστατα.




                              Chapter XI.


He says, in addition, that “all the Christians were of one mind,” not
observing, even in this particular, that from the beginning there were
differences of opinion among believers regarding the meaning[277] of the
books held to be divine. At all events, while the apostles were still
preaching, and while eye-witnesses of [the works of] Jesus were still
teaching His doctrine, there was no small discussion among the converts
from Judaism regarding Gentile believers, on the point whether they
ought to observe Jewish customs, or should reject the burden of clean
and unclean meats, as not being obligatory on those who had abandoned
their ancestral Gentile customs, and had become believers in Jesus. Nay,
even in the epistles of Paul, who was contemporary with those who had
seen Jesus, certain particulars are found mentioned as having been the
subject of dispute,—viz. respecting the resurrection,[278] and whether
it were already past, and the day of the Lord, whether it were nigh at
hand[279] or not. Nay, the very exhortation to “avoid profane and vain
babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: which some
professing, have erred concerning the faith,”[280] is enough to show
that from the very beginning, when, as Celsus imagines, believers were
few in number, there were certain doctrines interpreted in different
ways.[281]

Footnote 277:

  Ἐκδοχήν.

Footnote 278:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 12 sqq.

Footnote 279:

  Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 2.

Footnote 280:

  Cf. 1 Tim. vi. 20.

Footnote 281:

  Τινες παρεκδοχαὶ.




                              Chapter XII.


In the next place, since he reproaches us with the existence of heresies
in Christianity as being a ground of accusation against it, saying that
“when Christians had greatly increased in numbers, they were divided and
split up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party;”
and further, that “being thus separated through their numbers, they
confute one another, still having, so to speak, one _name_ in common, if
indeed they still retain it. And this is the only thing which they are
yet ashamed to abandon, while other matters are determined in different
ways by the various sects.” In reply to which, we say that heresies of
different kinds have never originated from any matter in which the
principle involved was not important and beneficial to human life. For
since the science of medicine is useful and necessary to the human race,
and many are the points of dispute in it respecting the manner of curing
bodies, there are found, for this reason, numerous heresies confessedly
prevailing in the science of medicine among the Greeks, and also, I
suppose, among those barbarous nations who profess to employ medicine.
And, again, since philosophy makes a profession of the truth, and
promises a knowledge of existing things with a view to the regulation of
life, and endeavours to teach what is advantageous to our race, and
since the investigation of these matters is attended with great
differences of opinion,[282] innumerable heresies have consequently
sprung up in philosophy, some of which are more celebrated than others.
Even Judaism itself afforded a pretext for the origination of heresies,
in the different acceptation accorded to the writings of Moses and those
of the prophets. So, then, seeing Christianity appeared an object of
veneration to men, not to the more servile class alone, as Celsus
supposes, but to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary
pursuits,[283] there necessarily originated heresies,—not at all,
however, as the result of faction and strife, but through the earnest
desire of many literary men to become acquainted with the doctrines of
Christianity. The consequence of which was, that, taking in different
acceptations those discourses which were believed by all to be divine,
there arose heresies, which received their names from those individuals
who admired, indeed, the origin of Christianity, but who were led, in
some way or other, by certain plausible reasons, to discordant views.
And yet no one would act rationally in avoiding medicine because of its
heresies; nor would he who aimed at that which is seemly[284] entertain
a hatred of philosophy, and adduce its many heresies as a pretext for
his antipathy. And so neither are the sacred books of Moses and the
prophets to be condemned on account of the heresies in Judaism.

Footnote 282:

  πολλὴν ἔχει διολκήν.

Footnote 283:

  φιλολόγων.

Footnote 284:

  τὸ πρέπον.




                             Chapter XIII.


Now, if these arguments hold good, why should we not defend, in the same
way, the existence of heresies in Christianity? And respecting these,
Paul appears to me to speak in a very striking manner when he says, “For
there must be heresies among you, that they who are approved may be made
manifest among you.”[285] For as that man is “approved” in medicine who,
on account of his experience in various [medical] heresies, and his
honest examination of the majority of them, has selected the preferable
system,—and as the great proficient in philosophy is he who, after
acquainting himself experimentally with the various views, has given in
his adhesion to the best,—so I would say that the wisest Christian was
he who had carefully studied the heresies both of Judaism and
Christianity. Whereas he who finds fault with Christianity because of
its heresies would find fault also with the teaching of Socrates, from
whose school have issued many others of discordant views. Nay, the
opinions of Plato might be chargeable with error, on account of
Aristotle’s having separated from his school, and founded a new one,—on
which subject we have remarked in the preceding book. But it appears to
me that Celsus has become acquainted with certain heresies which do not
possess even the _name_ of Jesus in common with us. Perhaps he had heard
of the sects called Ophites and Cainites, or some others of a similar
nature, which had departed in all points from the teaching of Jesus. And
yet surely this furnishes no ground for a charge against the _Christian_
doctrine.

Footnote 285:

  1 Cor. xi. 19.




                              Chapter XIV.


After this he continues: “Their union is the more wonderful, the more it
can be shown to be based on no substantial reason. And yet rebellion is
a substantial reason, as well as the advantages which accrue from it,
and the fear of external enemies. Such are the causes which give
stability to their faith.” To this we answer, that our union does thus
rest upon a reason, or rather not upon a reason, but upon the divine
working,[286] so that its commencement was God’s teaching men, in the
prophetical writings, to expect the advent of Christ, who was to be the
Saviour of mankind. For in so far as this point is not really refuted
(although it may _seem_ to be by unbelievers), in the same proportion is
the doctrine commended as the doctrine of God, and Jesus shown to be the
Son of God both before and after His incarnation. I maintain, moreover,
that even after His incarnation, He is always found by those who possess
the acutest spiritual vision to be most God-like, and to have really
come down to us from God, and to have derived His origin or subsequent
development not from human wisdom, but from the manifestation[287] of
God within Him, who by His manifold wisdom and miracles established
Judaism first, and Christianity afterwards; and the assertion that
rebellion, and the advantages attending it, were the originating causes
of a doctrine which has converted and improved so many men was
effectually refuted.

Footnote 286:

  θείας ἐνεργείας.

Footnote 287:

  ἐπιφανείας.




                              Chapter XV.


But again, that it is not the fear of external enemies which strengthens
our union, is plain from the fact that this cause, by God’s will, has
already, for a considerable time, ceased to exist. And it is probable
that the secure existence, so far as regards the world, enjoyed by
believers at present, will come to an end, since those who calumniate
Christianity in every way are again attributing the present frequency of
rebellion to the multitude of believers, and to their not being
persecuted by the authorities as in old times. For we have learned from
the gospel neither to relax our efforts in days of peace, and to give
ourselves up to repose, nor, when the world makes war upon us, to become
cowards, and apostatize from the love of the God of all things which is
in Jesus Christ. And we clearly manifest the illustrious nature of our
origin, and do not (as Celsus imagines) conceal it, when we impress upon
the minds of our first converts a contempt for idols, and images of all
kinds, and, besides this, raise their thoughts from the worship of
created things instead of God, and elevate them to the universal
Creator; clearly showing Him to be the subject of prophecy, both from
the predictions regarding Him—of which there are many—and from those
traditions which have been carefully investigated by such as are able
intelligently to understand the Gospels, and the declarations of the
apostles.




                              Chapter XVI.


“But what the legends are of every kind which we gather together, or the
terrors which we invent,” as Celsus without proof asserts, he who likes
may show. I know not, indeed, what he means by “inventing terrors,”
unless it be our doctrine of God as Judge, and of the condemnation of
men for their deeds, with the various proofs derived partly from
Scripture, partly from probable reason. And yet—for truth is
precious—Celsus says, at the close, “Forbid that either I, or these, or
any other individual should ever reject the doctrine respecting the
future punishment of the wicked and the reward of the good!” What
terrors, then, if you except the doctrine of punishment, do we invent
and impose upon mankind? And if he should reply that “we weave together
erroneous opinions drawn from ancient sources, and trumpet them aloud,
and sound them before men, as the priests of Cybele clash their cymbals
in the ears of those who are being initiated in their mysteries;”[288]
we shall ask him in reply, “Erroneous opinions from what ancient
sources?” For, whether he refers to Grecian accounts, which taught the
existence of courts of justice under the earth, or Jewish, which, among
other things, predicted the life that follows the present one; he will
be unable to show that we who, striving to believe on grounds of reason,
regulate our lives in conformity with such doctrines, have failed
correctly to ascertain the truth.[289]

Footnote 288:

  τὰ τοῦ παλαιοῦ λόγου παρακούσματα συμπλάττοντες, τούτοις
  προκαταυλοῦμεν καὶ προκατηχοῦμεν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· ὡς οἱ τοὺς
  κορυβαντιζομένους περιβομβοῦντες.

Footnote 289:

  οὐκ ἄν ἔχοι παραστῆσαι, ὅτι ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐν παρακούσμασι γενόμενοι τῆς
  ἀληθείας, ὅσοι γε πειρώμεθα μετὰ λόγου πιστεύειν, πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα
  ζῶμεν δόγματα.




                             Chapter XVII.


He wishes, indeed, to compare the articles of our faith to those of the
Egyptians; “among whom, as you approach their sacred edifices, are to be
seen splendid enclosures, and groves, and large and beautiful
gateways,[290] and wonderful temples, and magnificent tents around them,
and ceremonies of worship full of superstition and mystery; but when you
have entered, and passed within, the object of worship is seen to be a
cat, or an ape, or a crocodile, or a goat, or a dog!” Now, what is the
resemblance[291] between us and the splendours of Egyptian worship which
are seen by those who draw near their temples? And where is the
resemblance to those irrational animals which are worshipped within,
after you pass through the splendid gateways? Are our prophecies, and
the God of all things, and the injunctions against images, objects of
reverence in the view of Celsus also, and Jesus Christ crucified, the
analogue to the worship of the irrational animal? But if he should
assert this—and I do not think that he will maintain anything else—we
shall reply that we have spoken in the preceding pages at greater length
in defence of those charges affecting Jesus, showing that what appeared
to have happened to Him in the capacity of His human nature, was fraught
with benefit to all men, and with salvation to the whole world.

Footnote 290:

  προπυλαίων μεγέθη τε καὶ κάλλη.

Footnote 291:

  τὸ ἀνάλογον.




                             Chapter XVIII.


In the next place, referring to the statements of the Egyptians, who
talk loftily about irrational animals, and who assert that they are a
sort of symbols of God, or anything else which their prophets, so
termed, are accustomed to call them, Celsus says that “an impression is
produced in the minds of those who have learned these things; that they
have not been initiated in vain;”[292] while with regard to the truths
which are taught in our writings to those who have made progress in the
study of Christianity (through that which is called by Paul the gift
consisting in the “word of wisdom” through the Spirit, and in the “word
of knowledge” according to the Spirit), Celsus does not seem even to
have formed an idea,[293] judging not only from what he has already
said, but from what he subsequently adds in his attack upon the
Christian system, when he asserts that Christians “repel every wise man
from the doctrine of their faith, and invite only the ignorant and the
vulgar;” on which assertions we shall remark in due time, when we come
to the proper place.

Footnote 292:

  φαντασίαν ἐξαποστέλλειν τοῖς ταῦτα μεμαθηκόσιν, ὅτι μὴ μάτην
  μεμύηνται.

Footnote 293:

  πεφαντάσθαι.




                              Chapter XIX.


He says, indeed, that “we ridicule the Egyptians, although they present
many by no means contemptible mysteries[294] for our consideration, when
they teach us that such rites are acts of worship offered to eternal
ideas, and not, as the multitude think, to ephemeral animals; and that
we are silly, because we introduce nothing nobler than the goats and
dogs of the Egyptian worship in our narratives about Jesus.” Now to this
we reply, “Good sir,[295] [suppose that] you are right in eulogizing the
fact that the Egyptians present to view many by no means contemptible
mysteries, and obscure explanations about the animals [worshipped] among
them, you nevertheless do not act consistently in accusing us as if you
believed that _we_ had nothing to state which was worthy of
consideration, but that all _our_ doctrines were contemptible and of no
account, seeing we unfold[296] the narratives concerning Jesus according
to the ‘wisdom of the word’ to those who are ‘perfect’ in Christianity.
Regarding whom, as being competent to understand the wisdom that is in
Christianity, Paul says: ‘We speak wisdom among them that are perfect;
yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who
come to nought, but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the
hidden wisdom which God ordained before the world unto our glory, which
none of the princes of this world knew.’”[297]

Footnote 294:

  αἰνίγματα.

Footnote 295:

  ὦ γενναῖε.

Footnote 296:

  διεξοδεύωμεν.

Footnote 297:

  1 Cor. ii. 6-8.




                              Chapter XX.


And we say to those who hold similar opinions to those of Celsus: “Paul
then, we are to suppose, had before his mind the idea of no pre-eminent
wisdom when he professed to speak wisdom among them that are perfect?”
Now, as he spoke with his customary boldness when in making such a
profession he said that _he_ was possessed of no wisdom, we shall say in
reply: first of all examine the epistles of him who utters these words,
and look carefully at the meaning of each expression in them—say, in
those to the Ephesians, and Colossians, and Thessalonians, and
Philippians, and Romans,—and show two things, both that you understand
Paul’s words, and that you can demonstrate any of them to be silly or
foolish. For if any one give himself to their attentive perusal, I am
well assured either that he will be amazed at the understanding of the
man who can clothe great ideas in common language; or if he be not
amazed, he will only exhibit himself in a ridiculous light, whether he
simply state the meaning of the writer as if he had comprehended it, or
try to controvert and confute what he only imagined that he understood!




                              Chapter XXI.


And I have not yet spoken of the observance[298] of all that is written
in the Gospels, each one of which contains much doctrine difficult to be
understood, not merely by the multitude, but even by certain of the more
intelligent, including a very profound explanation of the parables which
Jesus delivered to “those without,” while reserving the exhibition of
their full meaning[299] for those who had passed beyond the stage of
exoteric teaching, and who came to Him privately in the house. And when
he comes to understand it, he will admire the reason why some are said
to be “without,” and others “in the house.” And again, who would not be
filled with astonishment that is able to comprehend the movements[300]
of Jesus; ascending at one time a mountain for the purpose of delivering
certain discourses, or of performing certain miracles, or for His own
transfiguration, and descending again to heal the sick and those who
were unable to follow Him whither His disciples went? But it is not the
appropriate time to describe at present the truly venerable and divine
contents of the Gospels, or the mind of Christ—that is, the wisdom and
the word—contained in the writings of Paul. But what we have said is
sufficient by way of answer to the unphilosophic sneers[301] of Celsus,
in comparing the inner mysteries of the church of God to the cats, and
apes, and crocodiles, and goats, and dogs of Egypt.

Footnote 298:

  τηρήσεως.

Footnote 299:

  σαφήνειαν.

Footnote 300:

  μεταβάσεις.

Footnote 301:

  ἀφιλόσοφον χλεύην.




                             Chapter XXII.


But this low jester[302] Celsus, omitting no species of mockery and
ridicule which can be employed against us, mentions in his treatise the
Dioscuri, and Hercules, and Æsculapius, and Dionysus, who are believed
by the Greeks to have become gods after being men, and says that “we
cannot bear to call such beings gods, because they were at first
men,[303] and yet they manifested many noble qualities, which were
displayed for the benefit of mankind, while we assert that Jesus was
seen after His death by His own followers;” and he brings against us an
additional charge, as if we said that “He was seen indeed, but was only
a shadow!” Now to this we reply, that it was very artful of Celsus not
here clearly to indicate that he did not regard these beings as gods,
for he was afraid of the opinion of those who might peruse his treatise,
and who might suppose him to be an atheist; whereas, if he had paid
respect to what appeared to him to be the truth, he would not have
_feigned_ to regard them as gods.[304] Now to either of the allegations
we are ready with an answer. Let us, accordingly, to those who do _not_
regard them as gods reply as follows: These beings, then, are not gods
at all; but agreeably to the view of those who think that the soul of
man perishes immediately [after death], the souls of these men also
perished; or according to the opinion of those who say that the soul
continues to subsist or is immortal, these men continue to exist or are
immortal, and they are not gods but heroes,—or not even heroes, but
simply souls. If, then, on the one hand, you suppose them _not_ to
exist, we shall have to prove the doctrine of the soul’s immortality,
which is to us a doctrine of pre-eminent importance;[305] if, on the
other, they _do_ exist, we have _still_ to prove[306] the doctrine of
immortality, not only by what the Greeks have so well said regarding it,
but also in a manner agreeable to the teaching of Holy Scripture. And we
shall demonstrate that it is impossible for those who were polytheists
during their lives to obtain a better country and position after their
departure from this world, by quoting the histories that are related of
them, in which is recorded the great dissoluteness of Hercules, and his
effeminate bondage with Omphale, together with the statements regarding
Æsculapius, that their Zeus struck him dead by a thunderbolt. And of the
Dioscuri, it will be said that they die often—

            “At one time live on alternate days, and at another
            Die, and obtain honour equally with the gods.”[307]

How, then, can they reasonably imagine that one of these is to be
regarded as a god or a hero?

Footnote 302:

  βωμολόχος.

Footnote 303:

  The reading in the text is καὶ πρῶτοι, for which Bohereau proposes τὸ
  πρῶτον, which we have adopted in the translation.

Footnote 304:

  We have followed in the translation the emendation of Guietus, who
  proposed εἰ δὲ τὴν φαινομένην αὐτῷ ἀλήθειαν ἐπρέσβευσεν, οὐκ ἄν,
  κ.τ.λ., instead of the textual reading, εἴ τε τῆς φαινομένης αὐτῷ
  ἀληθείας ἐπρέσβευσεν, οὐκ ἄν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 305:

  τὸν προηγούμενον ἡμῖν περὶ ψυχῆς κατασκευαστέον λόγον.

Footnote 306:

  Bohereau conjectures, with great probability, that instead of
  ἀποδέκτεον, we ought to read ἀποδεικτέον.

Footnote 307:

  Cf. Hom. _Odyss._ xi. 303 and 304.




                             Chapter XXIII.


But we, in proving the facts related of our Jesus from the prophetic
Scriptures, and comparing afterwards His history with them, demonstrate
that no dissoluteness on his part is recorded. For even they who
conspired against Him, and who sought false witnesses to aid them, did
not find even any plausible grounds for advancing a false charge against
Him, so as to accuse Him of licentiousness; but His death was indeed the
result of a conspiracy, and bore no resemblance to the death of
Æsculapius by lightning. And what is there that is venerable in the
madman Dionysus, and his female garments, that _he_ should be worshipped
as a god? And if they who would defend such beings betake themselves to
allegorical interpretations, we must examine each individual instance,
and ascertain whether it is well founded,[308] and also in each
particular case, whether those beings can have a real existence, and are
deserving of respect and worship who were torn by the Titans, and cast
down from their heavenly throne. Whereas our Jesus, who appeared to the
members of His own troop[309]—for I will take the word that Celsus
employs—did _really_ appear, and Celsus makes a false accusation against
the gospel in saying that what appeared was a shadow. And let the
statements of their histories and that of Jesus be carefully compared
together. Will Celsus have the former to be true, but the latter,
although recorded by eye-witnesses who showed by their acts that they
clearly understood the nature of what they had seen, and who manifested
their state of mind by what they cheerfully underwent for the sake of
His gospel, to be inventions? Now, who is there that, desiring to act
always in conformity with right reason, would yield his assent at
random[310] to what is related of the one, but would rush to the history
of Jesus, and without examination refuse to believe what is recorded of
Him?[311]

Footnote 308:

  εἰ τὸ ὑγιὲς ἔχουσιν.

Footnote 309:

  θιασωταῖς.

Footnote 310:

  ἀποκληρωτικῶς.

Footnote 311:

  εἰς δὲ τὰ περὶ τούτου ἀνεξετάστως ὁρμῶν ἀπιστήσαι τοῖς περὶ αὐτοῦ.




                             Chapter XXIV.


And again, when it is said of Æsculapius that a great multitude both of
Greeks and barbarians acknowledge that they have frequently seen, and
still see, no mere phantom, but Æsculapius himself, healing and doing
good, and foretelling the future; Celsus requires us to believe this,
and finds no fault with the believers in Jesus, when we express our
belief in such stories, but when we give our assent to the disciples,
and eye-witnesses of the miracles of Jesus, who clearly manifest the
honesty of their convictions (because we see their guilelessness, as far
as it is possible to see the conscience revealed in writing), we are
called by him a set of “silly” individuals, although he cannot
demonstrate that an incalculable[312] number, as he asserts, of Greeks
and barbarians acknowledge the existence of Æsculapius; while we, if we
deem this a matter of importance, can clearly show a countless multitude
of Greeks and barbarians who acknowledge the existence of Jesus. And
some give evidence of their having received through this faith a
marvellous power by the cures which they perform, invoking no other name
over those who need their help than that of the God of all things, and
of Jesus, along with a mention of His history. For by these means we too
have seen many persons freed from grievous calamities, and from
distractions of mind,[313] and madness, and countless other ills, which
could be cured neither by men nor devils.

Footnote 312:

  ἀμύθητον.

Footnote 313:

  ἐκστάσεων.




                              Chapter XXV.


Now, in order to grant that there did exist a healing spirit named
Æsculapius, who used to cure the bodies of men, I would say to those who
are astonished at such an occurrence, or at the prophetic knowledge of
Apollo, that since the cure of bodies is a thing indifferent,[314] and a
matter within the reach not merely of the good,[315] but also of the
bad; and as the foreknowledge of the future is also a thing
indifferent—for the possessor of foreknowledge does not necessarily
manifest the possession of virtue—you must show that they who practise
healing or who foretell the future are in no respect wicked, but exhibit
a perfect pattern of virtue, and are not far from being regarded as
gods. But they will _not_ be able to show that they are virtuous who
practise the art of healing, or who are gifted with foreknowledge,
seeing many who are not fit to live are related to have been healed; and
these, too, persons whom, as leading improper lives, no wise physician
would wish to heal. And in the responses of the Pythian oracle also you
may find some injunctions which are not in accordance with reason, two
of which we will adduce on the present occasion; viz. when it gave
commandment that Cleomedes[316]—the boxer, I suppose—should be honoured
with divine honours, seeing some great importance or other attaching to
his pugilistic skill, but did not confer either upon Pythagoras or upon
Socrates the honours which it awarded to pugilism; and also when it
called Archilochus “the servant of the Muses”—a man who employed his
poetic powers upon topics of the most wicked and licentious nature, and
whose public character was dissolute and impure—and entitled him
“pious,”[317] in respect of his being the servant of the Muses, who are
deemed to be goddesses! Now I am inclined to think that no one would
assert that he was a “pious” man who was not adorned with all moderation
and virtue, or that a decorous[318] man would utter such expressions as
are contained in the unseemly[319] iambics of Archilochus. And if
nothing that is divine in itself is shown to belong either to the
healing skill of Æsculapius or the prophetic power of Apollo, how could
any one, even were I to grant that the facts are as alleged, reasonably
worship them as pure divinities?—and especially when the prophetic
spirit of Apollo, pure from any body of earth, secretly enters through
the private parts the person of her who is called the priestess, as she
is seated at the mouth of the Pythian cave![320] Whereas regarding Jesus
and His power we have no such notion; for the body which was born of the
Virgin was composed of human material, and capable of receiving human
wounds and death.

Footnote 314:

  μέσον.

Footnote 315:

  ἀστείους.

Footnote 316:

  Cf. Smith’s _Dict. of Biograph._ _s.v._

Footnote 317:

  εὐσεβῆ.

Footnote 318:

  κόσμιος.

Footnote 319:

  οἱ μὴ σεμνοὶ.

Footnote 320:

  ὅτε διὰ τοῦ Πυθίου στομίου περικαθεζομένῃ τῇ καλουμένῃ προφήτιδι
  πνεῦμα διὰ τῶν γυναικείων ὑπεισέρχεται τὸ μαντικὸν, ὁ Ἀπόλλων, τὸ
  καθαρὸν ἀπὸ γηΐνου σώματος. Boherellus conjectures τὸ μαντικὸν τοῦ
  Ἀπόλλωνος τὸ καθαρόν.




                             Chapter XXVI.


Let us see what Celsus says next, when he adduces from history
marvellous occurrences, which in themselves seem to be incredible, but
which are not discredited by him, so far at least as appears from his
words. And, in the first place, regarding Aristeas of Proconnesus, of
whom he speaks as follows: “Then, with respect to Aristeas of
Proconnesus, who disappeared from among men in a manner so indicative of
divine intervention,[321] and who showed himself again in so
unmistakeable a fashion, and on many subsequent occasions visited many
parts of the world, and announced marvellous events, and whom Apollo
enjoined the inhabitants of Metapontium to regard as a god, no one
considers him to be a god.” This account he appears to have taken from
Pindar and Herodotus. It will be sufficient, however, at present to
quote the statement of the latter writer from the fourth book of his
histories, which is to the following effect: “Of what country Aristeas,
who made these verses, was, has already been mentioned, and I shall now
relate the account I heard of him in Proconnesus and Cyzicus. They say
that Aristeas, who was inferior to none of the citizens by birth,
entering into a fuller’s shop in Proconnesus, died suddenly, and that
the fuller, having closed his workshop, went to acquaint the relatives
of the deceased. When the report had spread through the city that
Aristeas was dead, a certain Cyzicenian, arriving from Artace, fell into
a dispute with those who made the report, affirming that he had met and
conversed with him on his way to Cyzicus, and he vehemently disputed the
truth of the report; but the relations of the deceased went to the
fuller’s shop, taking with them what was necessary for the purpose of
carrying the body away; but when the house was opened, Aristeas was not
to be seen, either dead or alive. They say that afterwards, in the
seventh year, he appeared in Proconnesus, composed those verses which by
the Greeks are now called Arimaspian, and having composed them,
disappeared a second time. Such is the story current in these cities.
But these things I know happened to the Metapontines in Italy 340 years
after the second disappearance of Aristeas, as I discovered by
computation in Proconnesus and Metapontium. The Metapontines say that
Aristeas himself, having appeared in their country, exhorted them to
erect an altar to Apollo, and to place near it a statue bearing the name
of Aristeas the Proconnesian; for he said that Apollo had visited their
country only of all the Italians, and that he himself, who was now
Aristeas, accompanied him; and that when he accompanied the god he was a
crow; and after saying this he vanished. And the Metapontines say they
sent to Delphi to inquire of the god what the apparition of the man
meant; but the Pythian bade them obey the apparition, and if they obeyed
it would conduce to their benefit. They accordingly, having received
this answer, fulfilled the injunctions. And now, a statue bearing the
name of Aristeas is placed near the image of Apollo, and around it
laurels are planted: the image is placed in the public square. Thus much
concerning Aristeas.”[322]

Footnote 321:

  οὕτω δαιμονίως.

Footnote 322:

  Herod. book iv. chap. 14 and 15 (Cary’s transl.).




                             Chapter XXVII.


Now, in answer to this account of Aristeas, we have to say, that if
Celsus had adduced it as history, without signifying his own assent to
its truth, it is in a different way that we should have met his
argument. But since he asserts that he “disappeared through the
intervention of the divinity,” and “showed himself again in an
unmistakeable manner,” and “visited many parts of the world,” and “made
marvellous announcements;” and, moreover, that there was “an oracle of
Apollo, enjoining the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god,” he gives
the accounts relating to him as upon his own authority, and with his
full assent. And [this being the case], we ask, How is it possible that,
while supposing the marvels related by the disciples of Jesus regarding
their Master to be wholly fictitious, and finding fault with those who
believe them, you, O Celsus, do not regard these stories of yours to be
either products of jugglery[323] or inventions? And how,[324] while
charging others with an irrational belief in the marvels recorded of
Jesus, can you show yourself justified in giving credence to such
statements as the above, without producing some proof or evidence of the
alleged occurrences having taken place? Or do Herodotus and Pindar
appear to you to speak the truth, while they who have made it their
concern to _die_ for the doctrine of Jesus, and who have left to their
successors writings so remarkable on the truths which they believed,
entered upon a struggle for the sake of “fictions” (as you consider
them), and “myths,” and “juggleries,” which entails a life of danger and
a death of violence? Place yourself, then, as a neutral party, between
what is related of Aristeas and what is recorded of Jesus, and see
whether, from the result, and from the benefits which have accrued to
the reformation of morals, and to the worship of the God who is over all
things, it is not allowable to conclude that we must believe the events
recorded of Jesus not to have happened without the divine intervention,
but that this was not the case with the story of Aristeas the
Proconnesian.

Footnote 323:

  τερατείαν.

Footnote 324:

  Guietus conjectures, καὶ πῶς, ὦ λῷστε.




                            Chapter XXVIII.


For with what purpose in view did Providence accomplish the marvels
related of Aristeas? And to confer what benefit upon the human race did
such remarkable events, as you regard them, take place? You cannot
answer. But we, when we relate the events of the history of Jesus, have
no ordinary defence to offer for their occurrence;—this, viz., that God
desired to commend the doctrine of Jesus as a doctrine which was to save
mankind, and which was based, indeed, upon the apostles as foundations
of the rising[325] edifice of Christianity, but which increased in
magnitude also in the succeeding ages, in which not a few cures are
wrought in the name of Jesus, and certain other manifestations of no
small moment have taken place. Now what sort of person is Apollo, who
enjoined the Metapontines to treat Aristeas as a god? And with what
object does he do this? And what advantage was he procuring to the
Metapontines from this divine worship, if they were to regard him as a
god, who a little ago was a mortal? And yet the recommendations of
Apollo (viewed by us as a demon who has obtained the honour of libation
and sacrificial odours[326]) regarding this Aristeas appear to you to be
worthy of consideration; while those of the God of all things, and of
His holy angels, made known beforehand through the prophets—not _after_
the birth of Jesus, but _before_ He appeared among men—do not stir you
up to admiration, not merely of the prophets who received the Divine
Spirit, but of Him also who was the object of their predictions, whose
entrance into life was so clearly predicted many years beforehand by
numerous prophets, that the whole Jewish people who were hanging in
expectation of the coming of Him who was looked for, did, after the
advent of Jesus, fall into a keen dispute with each other; and that a
great multitude of them acknowledged Christ, and believed Him to be the
object of prophecy, while others did not believe in Him, but, despising
the meekness of those who, on account of the teaching of Jesus, were
unwilling to cause even the most trifling sedition, dared to inflict on
Jesus those cruelties which His disciples have so truthfully and
candidly recorded, without secretly omitting from their marvellous
history of Him what seems to the multitude to bring disgrace upon the
doctrine of Christianity. But both Jesus Himself and His disciples
desired that His followers should believe not merely in His Godhead and
miracles, as if He had not also been a partaker of human nature, and had
assumed the human flesh which “lusteth against the Spirit;”[327] but
they saw also that the power which had descended into human nature, and
into the midst of human miseries, and which had assumed a human soul and
body, contributed through faith, along with its divine elements, to the
salvation of believers,[328] when they see that from Him there began the
union of the divine with the human nature, in order that the human, by
communion with the divine, might rise to be divine, not in Jesus alone,
but in all those who not only believe, but[329] enter upon the life
which Jesus taught, and which elevates to friendship with God and
communion with Him every one who lives according to the precepts of
Jesus.

Footnote 325:

  τῆς καταβαλλομένης οἰκοδομῆς.

Footnote 326:

  τοῦ καθ’ ἡμᾶς δαίμονος, λαχόντος γέρας λοιβῆς τε κνίσσης τε.

Footnote 327:

  ὡς οὐ κοινωνήσαντος τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει, οὐδ’ ἀναλαβόντος τὴν ἐν
  ἀνθρώποις σάρκα ἐπιθυμοῦσαν κατὰ τοῦ πνεύματος.

Footnote 328:

  Ἀλλὰ γὰρ καὶ τὴν καταβᾶσαν εἰς ἀνθρωπίνην φύσιν καὶ εἰς ἀνθρωπίνας
  περιστάσεις δύναμιν, καὶ ἀναλαβοῦσαν ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα ἀνθρώπινον, ἑώρων
  ἐκ τοῦ πιστεύεσθαι μετὰ τῶν θειοτέρων συμβαλλομένην εἰς σωτηρίαν τοῖς
  πιστεύουσιν.

Footnote 329:

  μετὰ τοῦ πιστεύειν. Others read, μετὰ τὸ πιστεύειν.




                             Chapter XXIX.


According to Celsus, then, Apollo wished the Metapontines to treat
Aristeas as a god. But as the Metapontines considered the evidence in
favour of Aristeas being a man—and probably not a virtuous one—to be
stronger than the declaration of the oracle to the effect that he was a
god or worthy of divine honours, they for that reason would not obey
Apollo, and consequently no one regarded Aristeas as a god. But with
respect to Jesus we would say that, as it was of advantage to the human
race to accept him as the Son of God—God come in a human soul and
body—and as this did not seem to be advantageous to the gluttonous
appetites[330] of the demons which love bodies, and to those who deem
them to be gods on that account, the demons that are on earth (which are
supposed to be gods by those who are not instructed in the nature of
demons), and also their worshippers, were desirous to prevent the spread
of the doctrine of Jesus; for they saw that the libations and odours in
which they greedily delighted were being swept away by the prevalence of
the instructions of Jesus. But the God who sent Jesus dissipated all the
conspiracies of the demons, and made the gospel of Jesus to prevail
throughout the whole world for the conversion and reformation of men,
and caused churches to be everywhere established in opposition to those
of superstitious and licentious and wicked men; for such is the
character of the multitudes who constitute the citizens[331] in the
assemblies of the various cities. Whereas the churches of God which are
instructed by Christ, when carefully contrasted with the assemblies of
the districts in which they are situated, are as beacons[332] in the
world; for who would not admit that even the inferior members of the
church, and those who in comparison with the better are less worthy, are
nevertheless more excellent than many of those who belong to the
assemblies in the different districts?

Footnote 330:

  λιχνείᾳ.

Footnote 331:

  τοιαῦτα γὰρ τὰ πανταχοῦ πολιτευόμενα ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν πόλεων
  πλήθη.

Footnote 332:

  φωστῆρες.




                              Chapter XXX.


For the church[333] of God, _e.g._ which is at Athens, is a meek and
stable body, as being one which desires to please God, who is over all
things; whereas the assembly[334] of the Athenians is given to sedition,
and is not at all to be compared to the church of God in that city. And
you may say the same thing of the church of God at Corinth, and of the
assembly of the Corinthian people; and also of the church of God at
Alexandria, and of the assembly of the people of Alexandria. And if he
who hears this be a candid man, and one who investigates things with a
desire to ascertain the truth, he will be filled with admiration of Him
who not only conceived the design, but also was able to secure in all
places the establishment of churches of God alongside[335] of the
assemblies of the people in each city. In like manner, also, in
comparing the council[336] of the church of God with the council in any
city, you would find that certain councillors[337] of the church are
worthy to rule in the city of God, if there be any such city in the
whole world;[338] whereas the councillors in all other places exhibit in
their characters no quality worthy of the conventional[339] superiority
which they appear to enjoy over their fellow-citizens. And so, too, you
must compare the ruler of the _church_ in each city with the ruler of
the _people_ of the city, in order to observe that even amongst those
councillors and rulers of the church of God who come very far short of
their duty, and who lead more indolent lives than others who are more
energetic, it is nevertheless possible to discover a general superiority
in what relates to the progress of virtue over the characters of the
councillors and rulers in the various cities.[340]

Footnote 333:

  ἐκκλησία.

Footnote 334:

  ἐκκλησία.

Footnote 335:

  παροικούσας.

Footnote 336:

  βουλὴν.

Footnote 337:

  βουλευταὶ.

Footnote 338:

  εὕροις ἂν τίνες μὲν τῆς ἐκκλησίας βουλευταὶ ἄξιοί εἰσιν, εἴ τίς ἐστιν
  ἐν τῷ πάντι πόλις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν ἐκεινῇ πολιτεύεσθαι. Boherellus
  conjectures εὕροις ἂν ὅτι τινὲς μὲν, κ.τ.λ.

Footnote 339:

  τῆς ἐκ κατατάξεως ὑπεροχῆς.

Footnote 340:

  ὅτι καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν σφόδρα ἀποτυγχανομένων βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων
  ἐκκλησίας Θεοῦ, καὶ ῥαθυμότερον παρὰ τοὺς εὐτονωτέρως βιοῦντας, οὐδὲν
  ἧττόν ἐστιν εὑρεῖν ὡς ἐπίπαν ὑπεροχὴν, τὴν ἐν τῇ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀρετὰς
  προκοπῇ, παρὰ τὰ ἤθη τῶν ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι βουλευτῶν καὶ ἀρχόντων.
  Boherellus conjectures ῥαθυμότερων.




                             Chapter XXXI.


Now if these things be so, why should it not be consistent with reason
to hold with regard to Jesus, who was able to effect results so great,
that there dwelt in _Him_ no ordinary divinity? while this was not the
case either with the Proconnesian Aristeas (although Apollo would have
him regarded as a god), or with the other individuals enumerated by
Celsus when he says, “No one regards Abaris the Hyperborean as a god,
who was possessed of such power as to be borne along like an arrow from
a bow.”[341] For with what object did the deity who bestowed upon this
Hyperborean Abaris the power of being carried along like an arrow,
confer upon him such a gift? Was it that the human race might be
benefited thereby,[342] or did he himself obtain any advantage from the
possession of such a power?—always supposing it to be conceded that
these statements are not wholly inventions, but that the thing actually
happened through the co-operation of some demon. But if it be recorded
that my Jesus was received up into glory,[343] I perceive the divine
arrangement[344] in such an act, viz. because God, who brought this to
pass, commends in this way the Teacher to those who witnessed it, in
order that as men who are contending not for human doctrine, but for
divine teaching, they may devote themselves as far as possible to the
God who is over all, and may do all things in order to please Him, as
those who are to receive in the divine judgment the reward of the good
or evil which they have wrought in this life.

Footnote 341:

  ὥστε ὀϊστῷ βέλει συμφέρεσθαι. Spencer and Bohereau would delete βέλει
  as a gloss.

Footnote 342:

  Guietus would insert ἤ before ἵνα τὶ ὠφεληθῇ. This emendation is
  adopted in the translation.

Footnote 343:

  Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16.

Footnote 344:

  τὴν οἰκονομίαν.




                             Chapter XXXII.


But as Celsus next mentions the case of the Clazomenian, subjoining to
the story about him this remark, “Do they not report that his soul
frequently quitted his body, and flitted about in an incorporeal form?
and yet men did not regard him as a god,” we have to answer that
probably certain wicked demons contrived that such statements should be
committed to writing (for I do not believe that they contrived that such
a thing should actually _take place_), in order that the predictions
regarding Jesus, and the discourses uttered by Him, might either be evil
spoken of, as inventions like these, or might excite no surprise, as not
being more remarkable than other occurrences. But my Jesus said
regarding His own soul (which was separated from the body, not by virtue
of any human necessity, but by the miraculous power which was given Him
also for this purpose): “No one taketh my life from me, but I lay it
down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it
again.”[345] For as He had power to lay it down, He laid it down when He
said, “Father, why hast Thou forsaken me? And when He had cried with a
loud voice, He gave up the ghost,”[346] anticipating the public
executioners of the crucified, who break the legs of the victims, and
who do so in order that their punishment may not be further prolonged.
And He “took His life,” when He manifested Himself to His disciples,
having in their presence foretold to the unbelieving Jews, “Destroy this
temple, and in three days I will raise it up again,”[347] and “He spake
this of the temple of His body;” the prophets, moreover, having
predicted such a result in many other passages of their writings, and in
this, “My flesh also shall rest in hope: for Thou wilt not leave my soul
in hell, neither wilt Thou suffer thine holy One to see
corruption.”[348]

Footnote 345:

  Cf. John x. 18.

Footnote 346:

  Cf. Matt. xxvii. 46-50.

Footnote 347:

  Cf. John ii. 19.

Footnote 348:

  Ps. xvi. 9, 10.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


Celsus, however, shows that he has read a good many Grecian histories,
when he quotes further what is told of Cleomedes of Astypalea, “who,” he
relates, “entered into an ark, and although shut up within it, was not
found therein, but through some arrangement of the divinity, flew out,
when certain persons had cut open the ark in order to apprehend him.”
Now this story, if an invention, as it appears to be, cannot be compared
with what is related of Jesus, since in the lives of such men there is
found no indication of their possessing the divinity which is ascribed
to them; whereas the divinity of Jesus is established both by the
existence of the churches of the saved,[349] and by the prophecies
uttered concerning Him, and by the cures wrought in His name, and by the
wisdom and knowledge which are in Him, and the deeper truths which are
discovered by those who know how to ascend from a simple faith, and to
investigate the meaning which lies in the divine Scriptures, agreeably
to the injunctions of Jesus, who said, “Search the Scriptures,”[350] and
to the wish of Paul, who taught that “we ought to know how to answer
every man;”[351] nay, also of him who said, “Be ready always to give an
answer to every man that asketh of you a reason of the faith[352] that
is in you.”[353] If he wishes to have it conceded, however, that it is
not a fiction, let him show with what object this supernatural power
made him, through some arrangement of the divinity, flee from the ark.
For if he will adduce any reason worthy of consideration, and point out
any purpose worthy of God in conferring such a power on Cleomedes, we
will decide on the answer which we ought to give; but if he fail to say
anything convincing on the point, clearly because no reason _can_ be
discovered, then we shall either speak slightingly of the story to those
who have not accepted it, and charge it with being false, or we shall
say that some demoniac power, casting a glamour over the eyes, produced,
in the case of the Astypalean, a result like that which is produced by
the performers of juggling tricks,[354] while Celsus thinks that with
respect to him he has spoken like an oracle, when he said that “by some
divine arrangement he flew away from the ark.”

Footnote 349:

  τῶν ὠφελουμένων.

Footnote 350:

  John v. 39.

Footnote 351:

  Cf. Col. iv. 6.

Footnote 352:

  πίστεως.

Footnote 353:

  1 Pet. iii. 15.

Footnote 354:

  ἤτοι διαβαλοῦμεν τοῖς αὐτὴν μὴ παραδεξαμένοις, καὶ ἐγκαλέσομεν τῇ
  ἱστορίᾳ ὡς οὐκ ἀληθεῖ· ἤ δαιμόνιόν τι φήσομεν παραπλήσιον τοῖς
  ἐπιδεικνυμένοις γόησιν ἀπατῇ ὀφθαλμῶν πεποιηκέναι καὶ περὶ τὸν
  Ἀστυπαλαιέα. Spencer in his edition includes μὴ in brackets, and
  renders, “Aut eos incusabimus, qui istam virtutem admiserint.”




                             Chapter XXXIV.


I am, however, of opinion that these individuals are the only instances
with which Celsus was acquainted. And yet, that he might appear
voluntarily to pass by other similar cases, he says, “And one might name
many others of the same kind.” Let it be granted, then, that many such
persons have existed who conferred no benefit upon the human race: what
would each one of their acts be found to amount to in comparison with
the work of Jesus, and the miracles related of Him, of which we have
already spoken at considerable length? He next imagines that, “in
worshipping him who,” as _he_ says, “was taken prisoner and put to
death, we are acting like the Getæ who worship Zamolxis, and the
Cilicians who worship Mopsus, and the Acarnanians who pay divine honours
to Amphilochus, and like the Thebans who do the same to Amphiaraus, and
the Lebadians to Trophonius.” Now in these instances we shall prove that
he has compared us to the foregoing without good grounds. For these
different tribes erected temples and statues to those individuals above
enumerated, whereas we have refrained from offering to the divinity
honour by any such means (seeing they are adapted rather to demons,
which are somehow fixed in a certain place which they prefer to any
other, or which take up their dwelling, as it were, after being removed
[from one place to another] by certain rites and incantations), and are
lost in reverential wonder at Jesus, who has recalled our minds from all
sensible things, as being not only corruptible, but destined to
corruption, and elevated them to honour the God who is over all with
prayers and a righteous life, which we offer to Him as being
intermediate between the nature of the uncreated and that of all created
things,[355] and who bestows upon us the benefits which come from the
Father, and who as High Priest conveys our prayers to the supreme God.

Footnote 355:

  οἳς προσάγομεν αὐτῷ, ὡς διὰ μεταξὺ ὄντος τῆς τοῦ ἀγενήτου καὶ τῆς τῶν
  γενητῶν πάντων φύσεως. “Hoeschel (itemque Spencerus ad marg.)
  suspicabatur legendum: ὡς δὴ μεταξὺ ὄντος. Male. Nihil mutari necesse
  est. Agitur quippe de precibus, quas offerimus Deo ‘per eum, qui
  veluti medius est inter increatam naturam et creatam.’”—RUÆUS.




                             Chapter XXXV.


But I should like, in answer to him who for some unknown reason advances
such statements as the above, to make in a conversational way[356] some
such remarks as the following, which seem not inappropriate to him. Are
then those persons whom you have mentioned nonentities, and is there no
power in Lebadea connected with Trophonius, nor in Thebes with the
temple of Amphiaraus, nor in Acarnania with Amphilochus, nor in Cilicia
with Mopsus? Or is there in such persons some being, either a demon, or
a hero, or even a god, working works which are beyond the reach of man?
For if he answer that there is nothing either demoniacal or divine about
these individuals more than others, then let him at once make known his
own opinion, as being that of an Epicurean, and of one who does not hold
the same views with the Greeks, and who neither recognises demons nor
worships gods as do the Greeks; and let it be shown that it was to no
purpose that he adduced the instances previously enumerated (as if he
believed them to be true), together with those which he adds in the
following pages. But if he will assert that the persons spoken of are
either demons, or heroes, or even gods, let him notice that he will
establish by what he has admitted a result which he does not desire,
viz. that Jesus also was some such being; for which reason, too, he was
able to demonstrate to not a few that He had come down from God to visit
the human race. And if he once admit this, see whether he will not be
forced to confess that He is mightier than those individuals with whom
he classed Him, seeing none of the latter forbids the offering of honour
to the others; while He, having confidence in Himself, because He is
more powerful than all those others, forbids them to be received as
divine[357] because they are wicked demons, who have taken possession of
places on earth, through inability to rise to the purer and diviner
region, whither the grossnesses of earth and its countless evils cannot
reach.

Footnote 356:

  ἀδολεσχῆσαι.

Footnote 357:

  τὰς τουτῶν ἀποδοχὰς.




                             Chapter XXXVI.


But as he next introduces the case of the favourite of Adrian (I refer
to the accounts regarding the youth Antinous, and the honours paid him
by the inhabitants of the city of Antinous in Egypt), and imagines that
the honour paid to him falls little short of that which we render to
Jesus, let us show in what a spirit of hostility this statement is made.
For what is there in common between a life lived among the favourites of
Adrian, by one who did not abstain even from unnatural lusts, and that
of the venerable Jesus, against whom even they who brought countless
other charges, and who told so many falsehoods, were not able to allege
that He manifested, even in the slightest degree, any tendency to what
was licentious?[358] Nay, further, if one were to investigate, in a
spirit of truth and impartiality, the stories relating to Antinous, he
would find that it was due to the magical arts and rites of the
Egyptians that there was even the _appearance_ of his performing
anything [marvellous] in the city which bears his name, and that too
only after his decease,—an effect which is said to have been produced in
other temples by the Egyptians, and those who are skilled in the arts
which they practise. For they set up in certain places demons claiming
prophetic or healing power, and which frequently torture those who seem
to have committed any mistake about ordinary kinds of food, or about
touching the dead body of a man, that they may have the appearance of
alarming the uneducated multitude. Of this nature is the being that is
considered to be a god in Antinoopolis in Egypt, whose [reputed] virtues
are the lying inventions of some who live by the gain derived
therefrom;[359] while others, deceived by the demon placed there, and
others again convicted by a weak conscience, actually think that they
are paying a divine penalty inflicted by Antinous. Of such a nature also
are the mysteries which they perform, and the seeming predictions which
they utter. Far different from such are those of Jesus. For it was no
company of sorcerers, paying court to a king or ruler at his bidding,
who seemed to have made him a god; but the Architect of the universe
Himself, in keeping with the marvellously persuasive power of His
words,[360] commended Him as worthy of honour, not only to those men who
were well disposed, but to demons also, and other unseen powers, which
even at the present time show that they either fear the name of Jesus as
that of a being of superior power, or reverentially accept Him as their
legal ruler.[361] For if the commendation had not been given Him by God,
the demons would not have withdrawn from those whom they had assailed,
in obedience to the mere mention of His name.

Footnote 358:

  ὡς κἂν τὸ τυχὸν ἀκολασίας κἂν ἐπ’ ὀλιγὸν γευσαμένου;

Footnote 359:

  οὗ ἀρετὰς οἱ μέν τινες κυβευτικώτερον ζῶντες καταψεύδονται.

Footnote 360:

  ἀκολούθως τῇ ἐν τῷ λέγειν τεραστίως πιστικῇ δυνάμει.

Footnote 361:

  ὡς κατὰ νόμους αὐτῶν ἄρχοντος.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


The Egyptians, then, having been taught to worship Antinous, will, if
you compare him with Apollo or Zeus, endure such a comparison, Antinous
being magnified in their estimation through being classed with these
deities; for Celsus is clearly convicted of falsehood when he says,
“that they will not endure his being compared with Apollo or Zeus.”
Whereas Christians (who have learned that their eternal life consists in
knowing the only true God, who is over all, and Jesus Christ, whom He
has sent; and who have learned also that all the gods of the heathen are
greedy demons, which flit around sacrifices and blood, and other
sacrificial accompaniments,[362] in order to deceive those who have not
taken refuge with the God who is over all, but that the divine and holy
angels of God are of a different nature and will[363] from all the
demons on earth, and that they are known to those exceedingly few
persons who have carefully and intelligently investigated these matters)
will not endure a comparison to be made between them and Apollo or Zeus,
or any being worshipped with odours and blood and sacrifices; some of
them, so acting from their extreme simplicity, not being able to give a
reason for their conduct, but sincerely observing the precepts which
they have received; others, again, for reasons not to be lightly
regarded, nay, even of a profound description, and (as a Greek would
say) drawn from the inner nature of things;[364] and amongst the latter
of these God is a frequent subject of conversation, and those who are
honoured by God, through His only-begotten Word, with participation in
His divinity, and therefore also in His name. They speak much, too, both
regarding the angels of God and those who are opposed to the truth, but
have been deceived; and who, in consequence of being deceived, call them
gods or angels of God, or good demons, or heroes who have become such by
the transference into them of a good human soul.[365] And such
Christians will also show, that as in philosophy there are many who
appear to be in possession of the truth, who have yet either deceived
themselves by plausible arguments, or by rashly assenting to what was
brought forward and discovered by others; so also, among those souls
which exist apart from bodies, both angels and demons, there are some
which have been induced by plausible reasons to declare themselves gods.
And because it was impossible that the reasons of such things could be
discovered by men with perfect exactness, it was deemed safe that no
mortal should entrust himself to any being as to God, with the exception
of Jesus Christ, who is, as it were, the Ruler over all things, and who
both beheld these weighty secrets, and made them known to a few.

Footnote 362:

  ἀποφορὰς.

Footnote 363:

  προαιρέσεως.

Footnote 364:

  ἐσωτερικῶν καὶ ἐποπτικῶν.

Footnote 365:

  ἢ ἥρωας ἐκ μεταβολῆς συστάντας ἀγαθῆς ἀνθρωπίνης ψυχῆς.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


The belief, then, in Antinous, or any other such person, whether among
the Egyptians or the Greeks, is, so to speak, unfortunate; while the
belief in Jesus would seem to be either a fortunate one, or the result
of thorough investigation, having the appearance of the former to the
multitude, and of the latter to exceedingly few.[366] And when I speak
of a certain belief being, as the multitude would call it, unfortunate,
I in such a case refer the cause to God, who knows the reasons of the
various fates allotted to each one who enters human life. The Greeks,
moreover, will admit that even amongst those who are considered to be
most largely endowed with wisdom, good fortune has had much to do, as in
the choice of teachers of one kind rather than another, and in meeting
with a better class of instructors (there being teachers who taught the
most opposite doctrines), and in being brought up in better
circumstances; for the bringing up of many has been amid surroundings of
such a kind, that they were prevented from ever receiving any idea of
better things, but constantly passed their life, from their earliest
youth, either as the favourites of licentious men or of tyrants, or in
some other wretched condition which forbade the soul to look upwards.
And the causes of these varied fortunes, according to all probability,
are to be found in the reasons of providence, though it is not easy for
men to ascertain these; but I have said what I have done by way of
digression from the main body of my subject, on account of the proverb,
that “such is the power of faith, because it seizes that which first
presents itself.”[367] For it was necessary, owing to the different
methods of education, to speak of the differences of belief among men,
some of whom are more, others less fortunate in their belief; and from
this to proceed to show that what is termed good or bad fortune would
appear to contribute, even in the case of the most talented, to their
appearing to be more fully endowed with reason, and to give their assent
on grounds of reason to the majority of human opinions. But enough on
these points.

Footnote 366:

  περὶ δὲ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἤτοι δόξασα ἂν εἶναι εὐτυχὴς, ἢ καὶ βεβασανισμένως
  ἐξητασμένη, δοκοῦσα μὲν εὐτυχὴς παρὰ τοῖς πολλοῖς, βεβασανισμένως δὲ
  ἐξητασμένη παρὰ πάνυ ὀλιγωτάτοις.

Footnote 367:

  τοσοῦτον ποιεῖ πίστις, ὁποία δὴ προκατασχοῦσα.




                             Chapter XXXIX.


We must notice the remarks which Celsus next makes, when he says to us,
that “faith, having taken possession of our minds, makes us yield the
assent which we give to the doctrine of Jesus;” for of a truth it is
faith which does produce such an assent. Observe, however, whether that
faith does not of itself exhibit what is worthy of praise, seeing we
entrust ourselves to the God who is over all, acknowledging our
gratitude to Him who has led us to such a faith, and declaring that He
could not have attempted or accomplished such a result without the
divine assistance. And we have confidence also in the intentions of the
writers of the Gospels, observing their piety and conscientiousness,
manifested in their writings, which contain nothing that is spurious, or
deceptive,[368] or false, or cunning; for it is evident to us that souls
unacquainted with those artifices which are taught by the cunning
sophistry of the Greeks (which is characterized by great plausibility
and acuteness), and by the kind of rhetoric in vogue in the courts of
justice, would not have been able thus to invent occurrences which are
fitted of themselves to conduct to faith, and to a life in keeping with
faith. And I am of opinion that it was on this account that Jesus wished
to employ such persons as teachers of His doctrines, viz. that there
might be no ground for any suspicion of plausible sophistry, but that it
might clearly appear to all who were capable of understanding, that the
guileless purpose of the writers being, so to speak, marked with great
simplicity, was deemed worthy of being accompanied by a diviner power,
which accomplished far more than it seemed possible could be
accomplished by a periphrasis of words, and a weaving of sentences,
accompanied by all the distinctions of Grecian art.

Footnote 368:

  κυβευτικόν.




                              Chapter XL.


But observe whether the principles of our faith, harmonizing with the
general ideas implanted in our minds at birth, do not produce a change
upon those who listen candidly to its statements; for although a
perverted view of things, with the aid of much instruction to the same
effect, has been able to implant in the minds of the multitude the
belief that images are gods, and that things made of gold, and silver,
and ivory, and stone are deserving of worship, yet common sense[369]
forbids the supposition that God is at all a piece of corruptible
matter, or is honoured when made to assume by men a form embodied in
dead matter, fashioned according to some image or symbol of His
appearance. And therefore we say at once of images that they are not
gods, and of such creations (of art) that they are not to be compared
with the Creator, but are small in contrast with the God who is over
all, and who created, and upholds, and governs the universe. And the
rational soul recognising, as it were, its relationship [to the divine],
at once rejects what it for a time supposed to be gods, and resumes its
natural love[370] for its Creator; and because of its affection towards
Him, receives Him also who first presented these truths to all nations
through the disciples whom He had appointed, and whom He sent forth,
furnished with divine power and authority, to proclaim the doctrine
regarding God and His kingdom.

Footnote 369:

  ἡ κοινὴ ἔννοια.

Footnote 370:

  φίλτρον φυσικὸν.




                              Chapter XLI.


But since he has charged us, I know not how often already, “with
regarding this Jesus, who was but a mortal body, as a God, and with
supposing that we act piously in so doing,” it is superfluous to say any
more in answer to this, as a great deal has been said in the preceding
pages. And yet let those who make this charge understand that He whom we
regard and believe to have been from the beginning God, and the Son of
God, is the very Logos, and the very Wisdom, and the very Truth; and
with respect to His mortal body, and the human soul which it contained,
we assert that not by their communion merely with Him, but by their
unity and intermixture,[371] they received the highest powers, and after
participating in His divinity, were changed into God. And if any one
should feel a difficulty at our saying this regarding His body, let him
attend to what is said by the Greeks regarding matter, which, properly
speaking, being without qualities, receives such as the Creator desires
to invest it with, and which frequently divests itself of those which it
formerly possessed, and assumes others of a different and higher kind.
And if these opinions be correct, what is there wonderful in this, that
the mortal quality of the body of Jesus, if the providence of God has so
willed it, should have been changed into one that was ethereal and
divine?

Footnote 371:

  ἀλλὰ καὶ ἑνώσει καὶ ἀνακράσει.




                             Chapter XLII.


Celsus, then, does not speak as a good reasoner,[372] when he compares
the mortal flesh of Jesus to gold, and silver, and stone, asserting that
the former is more liable to corruption than the latter. For, to speak
correctly, that which is incorruptible is not more free from corruption
than another thing which is incorruptible, nor that which is corruptible
more liable to corruption than another corruptible thing. But, admitting
that there are degrees of corruptibility, we can say in answer, that if
it is possible for the matter which underlies all qualities to exchange
some of them, how should it be impossible for the flesh of Jesus also to
exchange qualities, and to become such as it was proper for a body to be
which had its abode in the ether and the regions above it, and
possessing no longer the infirmities belonging to the flesh, and those
properties which Celsus terms “impurities,” and in so terming them,
speaks unlike a philosopher? For that which is properly impure, is so
because of its wickedness. Now the nature of body is not impure; for in
so far as it is bodily nature, it does not possess vice, which is the
generative principle of impurity. But, as he had a suspicion of the
answer which we would return, he says with respect to the change of the
body of Jesus, “Well, after he has laid aside these qualities, he will
be a God:” [and if so], why not rather Æsculapius, and Dionysus, and
Hercules? To which we reply, “What great deed has Æsculapius, or
Dionysus, or Hercules wrought?” And what individuals will they be able
to point out as having been improved in character, and made better by
their words and lives, so that they may make good their claim to be
gods? For let us peruse the many narratives regarding them, and see
whether they were free from licentiousness, or injustice, or folly, or
cowardice. And if nothing of that kind be found in them, the argument of
Celsus might have force, which places the forenamed individuals upon an
equality with Jesus. But if it is certain that, although some things are
reported of them as reputable, they are recorded, nevertheless, to have
done innumerable things which are contrary to right reason, how could
you any longer say, with any show of reason, that these men, on putting
aside their mortal body, became gods rather than Jesus?

Footnote 372:

  διαλεκτικὸς.




                             Chapter XLIII.


He next says of us, that “we ridicule those who worship Jupiter, because
his tomb is pointed out in the island of Crete; and yet we worship him
who rose from the tomb,[373] although ignorant of the grounds[374] on
which the Cretans observe such a custom.” Observe now that he thus
undertakes the defence of the Cretans, and of Jupiter, and of his tomb,
alluding obscurely to the allegorical notions, in conformity with which
the myth regarding Jupiter is said to have been invented; while he
assails us who acknowledge that our Jesus has been buried, indeed, but
who maintain that He has also been _raised_ from the tomb,—a statement
which the Cretans have not yet made regarding Jupiter. But since he
appears to admit that the tomb of Jupiter is in Crete, when he says that
“we are ignorant of the grounds on which the Cretans observe such a
custom,” we reply that Callimachus the Cyrenian, who had read
innumerable poetic compositions, and nearly the whole of Greek history,
was not acquainted with any allegorical meaning which was contained in
the stories about Jupiter and his tomb; and accordingly he accuses the
Cretans in his hymn addressed to Jupiter, in the words:[375]

            “The Cretans are always liars: for thy tomb, O king,
            The Cretans have reared; and yet thou didst not die,
            For thou ever livest.”

Now he who said, “Thou didst not die, for thou ever livest,” in denying
that Jupiter’s tomb was in Crete, records nevertheless that in Jupiter
there was the beginning of death.[376] But birth upon earth is the
beginning of death. And his words run:

                “And Rhea bore thee among the Parrhasians;”—

whereas he ought to have seen, after denying that the birth of Jupiter
took place in Crete because of his tomb, that it was quite congruous
with his birth in Arcadia that he who was born should also die. And the
following is the manner in which Callimachus speaks of these things: “O
Jupiter, some say that thou wert born on the mountains of Ida, others in
Arcadia. Which of them, O father, have lied? The Cretans are always
liars,” etc. Now it is Celsus who made us discuss these topics, by the
unfair manner in which he deals with Jesus, in giving his assent to what
is related about His death and burial, but regarding as an invention His
resurrection from the dead, although this was not only foretold by
innumerable prophets, but many proofs also were given of His having
appeared after death.

Footnote 373:

  τὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ τάφου.

Footnote 374:

  οὐκ εἰδότες πῶς καὶ καθὸ.

Footnote 375:

  Cf. Callimach. Hymn i. Cf. also Tit. i. 12.

Footnote 376:

  τὴν ἀρχὴν τοῦ θανάτου γεγονέναι περὶ τὸν Δία.




                             Chapter XLIV.


After these points Celsus quotes some objections against the doctrine of
Jesus, made by a very few individuals who are considered Christians, not
of the more intelligent, as he supposes, but of the more ignorant class,
and asserts that “the following are the rules laid down by them. Let no
one come to us who has been instructed, or who is wise or prudent (for
such qualifications are deemed evil by us); but if there be any
ignorant, or unintelligent, or uninstructed, or foolish persons, let
them come with confidence. By which words, acknowledging that such
individuals are worthy of their God, they manifestly show that they
desire and are able to gain over only the silly, and the mean, and the
stupid, with women and children.” In reply to which, we say that, as if,
while Jesus teaches continence, and says, “Whosoever looketh upon a
woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her in his
heart,” one were to behold a few of those who are deemed to be
Christians living licentiously, he would most justly blame them for
living contrary to the teaching of Jesus, but would act most
unreasonably if he were to charge the gospel with their censurable
conduct; so, if he found nevertheless that the doctrine of the
Christians invites men to wisdom, the blame then must remain with those
who rest in their own ignorance, and who utter, not what Celsus relates
(for although some of them are simple and ignorant, they do not speak so
shamelessly as he alleges), but other things of much less serious
import, which, however, serve to turn aside men from the practice of
wisdom.




                              Chapter XLV.


But that the object of Christianity[377] is that we should become wise,
can be proved not only from the ancient Jewish writings, which _we_ also
use, but especially from those which were composed after the time of
Jesus, and which are believed among the churches to be divine. Now, in
the fiftieth Psalm, David is described as saying in his prayer to God
these words: “The unseen and secret things of Thy wisdom Thou hast
manifested to me.”[378] Solomon, too, because he asked for wisdom,
received it; and if any one were to peruse the Psalms, he would find the
book filled with many maxims of wisdom; and the evidences of his wisdom
may be seen in his treatises, which contain a great amount of wisdom
expressed in few words, and in which you will find many laudations of
wisdom, and encouragements towards obtaining it. So wise, moreover, was
Solomon, that “the queen of Sheba, having heard his name, and the name
of the Lord, came to try him with difficult questions, and spake to him
all things, whatsoever were in her heart; and Solomon answered her all
her questions. There was no question omitted by the king which he did
not answer her. And the queen of Sheba saw all the wisdom of Solomon,
and the possessions which he had,[379] and there was no more spirit in
her.[380] And she said to the king, The report is true which I heard in
mine own land regarding thee and thy wisdom; and I believed not them who
told me, until I had come, and mine eyes have seen it. And, lo, they did
not tell me the half. Thou hast added wisdom and possessions above all
the report which I heard.”[381] It is recorded also of him, that “God
gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of
heart, even as the sand that is on the sea-shore. And the wisdom that
was in Solomon greatly excelled the wisdom of all the ancients, and of
all the wise men of Egypt; and he was wiser than all men, even than
Gethan the Ezrahite, and Emad, and Chalcadi, and Aradab, the sons of
Madi. And he was famous among all the nations round about. And Solomon
spake three thousand proverbs, and his songs were five thousand. And he
spake of trees, from the cedar that is in Lebanon even to the hyssop
which springeth out of the wall; and also of fishes and of beasts. And
all nations came to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and from all the kings
of the earth who had heard of the fame of his wisdom.”[382]

And to such a degree does the gospel desire that there should be wise
men among believers, that for the sake of exercising the understanding
of its hearers, it has spoken certain truths in enigmas, others in what
are called “dark” sayings, others in parables, and others in
problems.[383] And one of the prophets—Hosea—says at the end of his
prophecies: “Who is wise, and he will understand these things? or
prudent, and he shall know them?”[384] Daniel, moreover, and his
fellow-captives, made such progress in the learning which the wise men
around the king in Babylon cultivated, that they were shown to excel all
of them in a tenfold degree. And in the book of Ezekiel it is said to
the ruler of Tyre, who greatly prided himself on his wisdom, “Art thou
wiser than Daniel? Every secret was not revealed to thee.”[385]

Footnote 377:

  ὁ λόγος.

Footnote 378:

  τὰ ἄδηλα καὶ τὰ κρύφια τῆς σοφίας σου ἐδήλωσας μοι.

Footnote 379:

  τὰ κατ’ αὐτόν.

Footnote 380:

  καὶ ἐξ αὑτῆς ἐγένετο.

Footnote 381:

  Cf. 1 Kings x. 1-9.

Footnote 382:

  Cf. 1 Kings iv. 29-34. The text reads, περὶ πάντων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς
  γῆς, for which παρὰ has been substituted.

Footnote 383:

  καὶ ἄλλα διὰ προβλημάτων.

Footnote 384:

  Hos. x. 9.

Footnote 385:

  Cf. Ezek. xx. 3.




                             Chapter XLVI.


And if you come to the books written after the time of Jesus, you will
find that those multitudes of believers who hear the parables are, as it
were, “without,” and worthy only of exoteric doctrines, while the
disciples learn in private the explanation of the parables. For,
privately, to His own disciples did Jesus open up all things, esteeming
above the multitudes those who desired to know His wisdom. And He
promises to those who believe upon Him to send them wise men and
scribes, saying, “Behold, I will send unto you wise men and scribes, and
some of them they shall kill and crucify.”[386] And Paul also, in the
catalogue of “Charismata” bestowed by God, placed first “the word of
wisdom,” and second, as being inferior to it, “the word of knowledge,”
but third, and lower down, “faith.”[387] And because he regarded “the
word” as higher than miraculous powers, he for that reason places
“workings of miracles” and “gifts of healings” in a lower place than the
gifts of the word. And in the Acts of the Apostles Stephen bears witness
to the great learning of Moses, which he had obtained wholly from
ancient writings not accessible to the multitude. For he says: “And
Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians.”[388] And
therefore, with respect to his miracles, it was suspected that he
wrought them perhaps, not in virtue of his professing to come from God,
but by means of his Egyptian knowledge, in which he was well versed. For
the king, entertaining such a suspicion, summoned the Egyptian
magicians, and wise men, and enchanters, who were found to be of no
avail as against the wisdom of Moses, which proved superior to all the
wisdom of the Egyptians.

Footnote 386:

  Cf. Matt. xxiii. 34.

Footnote 387:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xii. 8.

Footnote 388:

  Acts vii. 22.




                             Chapter XLVII.


But it is probable that what is written by Paul in the First Epistle to
the Corinthians,[389] as being addressed to Greeks who prided themselves
greatly on their Grecian wisdom, has moved some to believe that it was
not the object of the gospel to win wise men. Now, let him who is of
this opinion understand that the gospel, as censuring wicked men, says
of them that they are wise not in things which relate to the
understanding, and which are unseen and eternal; but that in busying
themselves about things of sense alone, and regarding these as
all-important, they are wise men of the world: for as there are in
existence a multitude of opinions, some of them espousing the cause of
matter and bodies,[390] and asserting that everything is corporeal which
has a substantial existence,[391] and that besides these nothing else
exists, whether it be called invisible or incorporeal, it says also that
these constitute the wisdom of the world, which perishes and fades away,
and belongs only to this age, while those opinions which raise the soul
from things here to the blessedness which is with God, and to His
kingdom, and which teach men to despise all sensible and visible things
as existing only for a season, and to hasten on to things invisible, and
to have regard to those things which are not seen,—these, it says,
constitute the wisdom of God. But Paul, as a lover of truth, says of
certain wise men among the Greeks, when their statements are true, that
“although they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were
thankful.”[392] And he bears witness that they knew God, and says, too,
that this did not happen to them without divine permission, in these
words: “For God showed it unto them;”[393] dimly alluding, I think, to
those who ascend from things of sense to those of the understanding,
when he adds, “For the invisible things of God from the creation of the
world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made,
even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither
were thankful.”[394]

Footnote 389:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 18, etc.

Footnote 390:

  τὰ μὲν συναγορεύοντα ὑλῇ καὶ σώμασι.

Footnote 391:

  τὰ προηγουμένως ὑφεστηκότα.

Footnote 392:

  Cf. Rom. i. 21.

Footnote 393:

  Rom. i. 19.

Footnote 394:

  Cf. Rom. i. 20-22.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


And perhaps also from the words, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how
that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble,
are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to
confound the wise; and the base things, and the things which are
despised, hath God chosen, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are, that no flesh may glory in His presence;”[395] some
have been led to suppose that no one who is instructed, or wise, or
prudent, embraces the gospel. Now, in answer to such an one, we would
say that it has not been stated that “_no_ wise man according to the
flesh,” but that “not _many_ wise men according to the flesh,” are
called. It is manifest, further, that amongst the characteristic
qualifications of those who are termed “bishops,” Paul, in describing
what kind of man the bishop ought to be, lays down as a qualification
that he should also be a teacher, saying that he ought to be able to
convince the gainsayers, that by the wisdom which is in him he may stop
the mouths of foolish talkers and deceivers.[396] And as he selects for
the episcopate a man who has been once married[397] rather than he who
has twice entered the married state, and a man of blameless life rather
than one who is liable to censure, and a sober man rather than one who
is not such, and a prudent man rather than one who is not prudent, and a
man whose behaviour is decorous rather than he who is open to the charge
even of the slightest indecorum, so he desires that he who is to be
chosen by preference for the office of a bishop should be apt to teach,
and able to convince the gainsayers. How then can Celsus justly charge
us with saying, “Let no one come to us who is ‘instructed,’ or ‘wise,’
or ‘prudent?’” Nay, let him who wills come to us “instructed,” and
“wise,” and “prudent;” and none the less, if any one be ignorant and
unintelligent, and uninstructed and foolish, let him also come: for it
is these whom the gospel promises to cure, when they come, by rendering
them all worthy of God.

Footnote 395:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26-28.

Footnote 396:

  Cf. Tit. i. 9, 10.

Footnote 397:

  Μονόγαμον. Cf. _Can. Apost._ c. xvii.: “ὁ δυσὶ γάμοις συμπλακεὶς μετὰ
  τὸ βάπτισμα, ἢ παλλακὴν κτησάμενος, οὐ δύναται εἶναι ἐπίσκοπος, ἢ
  πρεσβύτερος, ἢ διάκονος, ἢ ὅλως τοῦ καταλόγου τοῦ ἱερατικοῦ.” Cf. note
  in Benedictine ed.




                             Chapter XLIX.


This statement also is untrue, that it is “only foolish and low
individuals, and persons devoid of perception, and slaves, and women,
and children, of whom the teachers of the divine word wish to make
converts.” Such indeed does the gospel invite, in order to make them
better; but it invites also others who are very different from these,
since Christ is the Saviour of all men, and especially of them that
believe, whether they be intelligent or simple; and “He is the
propitiation with the Father for our sins; and not for ours only, but
also for the sins of the whole world.”[398] After this it is superfluous
for us to wish to offer a reply to such statements of Celsus as the
following: “For why is it an evil to have been educated, and to have
studied the best opinions, and to have both the reality and appearance
of wisdom? What hindrance does this offer to the knowledge of God? Why
should it not rather be an assistance, and a means by which one might be
better able to arrive at the truth?” Truly it is no evil to have been
educated, for education is the way to virtue; but to rank those amongst
the number of the educated who hold erroneous opinions is what even the
wise men among the Greeks would not do. On the other hand, who would not
admit that to have studied the best opinions is a blessing? But what
shall we call the best, save those which are true, and which incite men
to virtue? Moreover, it is an excellent thing for a man to _be_ wise,
but not to _seem_ so, as Celsus says. And it is no hindrance to the
knowledge of God, but an assistance, to have been educated, and to have
studied the best opinions, and to be wise. And it becomes us rather than
Celsus to say this, especially if it be shown that he is an Epicurean.

Footnote 398:

  Cf. 1 John ii. 2.




                               Chapter L.


But let us see what those statements of his are which follow next in
these words: “Nay, we see, indeed, that even those individuals, who in
the market-places perform the most disgraceful tricks, and who gather
crowds around them, would never approach an assembly of wise men, nor
dare to exhibit their arts among them; but wherever they see young men,
and a mob of slaves, and a gathering of unintelligent persons, thither
they thrust themselves in, and show themselves off.” Observe, now, how
he slanders us in these words, comparing us to those who in the
market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and gather crowds
around them! What disreputable tricks, pray, do we perform? Or what is
there in _our_ conduct that resembles theirs, seeing that by means of
readings, and explanations of the things read, we lead men to the
worship of the God of the universe, and to the cognate virtues, and turn
them away from contemning Deity, and from all things contrary to right
reason? Philosophers verily would wish to collect together such hearers
of their discourses as exhort men to virtue,—a practice which certain of
the Cynics especially have followed, who converse publicly with those
whom they happen to meet. Will they maintain, then, that these who do
not gather together persons who are considered to have been educated,
but who invite and assemble hearers from the public street, resemble
those who in the market-places perform the most disreputable tricks, and
gather crowds around them? Neither Celsus, however, nor any one who
holds the same opinions, will blame those who, agreeably to what they
regard as a feeling of philanthropy, address their arguments to the
ignorant populace.




                              Chapter LI.


And if they are not to be blamed for so doing, let us see whether
Christians do not exhort multitudes to the practice of virtue in a
greater and better degree than they. For the philosophers who converse
in public do not pick and choose their hearers, but he who likes stands
and listens. The Christians, however, having previously, so far as
possible, tested the souls of those who wish to become their hearers,
and having previously instructed[399] them in private, when they appear
(before entering the community) to have sufficiently evinced their
desire towards a virtuous life, introduce them then, and not before,
privately forming one class of those who are beginners, and are
receiving admission, but who have not yet obtained the mark of complete
purification; and another of those who have manifested to the best of
their ability their intention to desire no other things than are
approved by Christians; and among these there are certain persons
appointed to make inquiries regarding the lives and behaviour of those
who join them, in order that they may prevent those who commit acts of
infamy from coming into their public assembly, while those of a
different character they receive with their whole heart, in order that
they may daily make them better. And this is their method of procedure,
both with those who are sinners, and especially with those who lead
dissolute lives, whom they exclude from their community, although,
according to Celsus, they resemble those who in the market-places
perform the most shameful tricks. Now the venerable school of the
Pythagoreans used to erect a cenotaph to those who had apostatized from
their system of philosophy, treating them as dead; but the Christians
lament as dead those who have been vanquished by licentiousness or any
other sin, because they are lost and dead to God, and as being risen
from the dead (if they manifest a becoming change) they receive them
afterwards, at some future time, after a greater interval than in the
case of those who were admitted at first, but not placing in any office
or post of rank in the church of God those who, after professing the
gospel, lapsed and fell.

Footnote 399:

  προεπάσαντες.




                              Chapter LII.


Observe now with regard to the following statement of Celsus, “We see
also those persons who in the market-places perform most disreputable
tricks, and collect crowds around them,” whether a manifest falsehood
has not been uttered, and things compared which have no resemblance. He
says that these individuals, to whom he compares us, who “perform the
most disreputable tricks in the market-places and collect crowds, would
never approach an assembly of wise men, nor dare to show off their
tricks before them; but wherever they see young men, and a mob of
slaves, and a gathering of foolish people, thither do they thrust
themselves in and make a display.” Now, in speaking thus he does nothing
else than simply load us with abuse, like the women upon the public
streets, whose object is to slander one another; for we do everything in
our power to secure that our meetings should be composed of wise men,
and those things among us which are especially excellent and divine we
then venture to bring forward publicly in our discussions when we have
an abundance of intelligent hearers, while we conceal and pass by in
silence the truths of deeper import when we see that our audience is
composed of simpler minds, which need such instruction as is
figuratively termed “milk.”




                             Chapter LIII.


For the word is used by our Paul in writing to the Corinthians, who were
Greeks, and not yet purified in their morals: “I have fed you with milk,
not with meat; for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now
are ye able, for ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you
envying and strife, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?” Now the same
writer, knowing that there was a certain kind of nourishment better
adapted for the soul, and that the food of those young[400] persons who
were admitted was compared to milk, continues: “And ye are become such
as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth
milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But
strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age, even those who by
reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and
evil.”[401] Would then those who believe these words to be well spoken,
suppose that the noble doctrines of our faith would never be mentioned
in an assembly of wise men, but that wherever [our instructors] see
young men, and a mob of slaves, and a collection of foolish individuals,
they bring publicly forward divine and venerable truths, and before such
persons make a display of themselves in treating of them? But it is
clear to him who examines the whole spirit of our writings, that Celsus
is animated with a hatred against the human race resembling that of the
ignorant populace, and gives utterance to these falsehoods without
examination.

Footnote 400:

  νηπίων.

Footnote 401:

  Heb. v. 12-14.




                              Chapter LIV.


We acknowledge, however, although Celsus will not have it so, that we
_do_ desire to instruct all men in the word of God, so as to give to
young men the exhortations which are appropriate to them, and to show to
slaves how they may recover freedom of thought,[402] and be ennobled by
the word. And those amongst us who are the ambassadors of Christianity
sufficiently declare that they are debtors[403] to Greeks and
barbarians, to wise men and fools, (for they do not deny their
obligation to cure the souls even of foolish persons,) in order that as
far as possible they may lay aside their ignorance, and endeavour to
obtain greater prudence, by listening also to the words of Solomon: “Oh,
ye fools, be of an understanding heart,”[404] and “Who is the most
simple among you, let him turn unto me;”[405] and wisdom exhorts those
who are devoid of understanding in the words, “Come, eat of my bread,
and drink of the wine which I have mixed for you. Forsake folly that ye
may live, and correct understanding in knowledge.”[406] This too would I
say (seeing it bears on the point),[407] in answer to the statement of
Celsus: Do not philosophers invite young men to their lectures? and do
they not encourage young men to exchange a wicked life for a better? and
do they not desire slaves to learn philosophy? Must we find fault, then,
with philosophers who have exhorted slaves to the practice of virtue?
with Pythagoras for having so done with Zamolxis, Zeno with Perseus, and
with those who recently encouraged Epictetus to the study of philosophy?
Is it indeed permissible for you, O Greeks, to call youths and slaves
and foolish persons to the study of philosophy, but if _we_ do so, we do
not act from philanthropic motives in wishing to heal every rational
nature with the medicine of reason, and to bring them into fellowship
with God, the Creator of all things? These remarks, then, may suffice in
answer to what are slanders rather than accusations[408] on the part of
Celsus.

Footnote 402:

  ἐλεύθερον ἀναλαβόντες φρόνημα.

Footnote 403:

  Cf. Rom. i. 14.

Footnote 404:

  Cf. Prov. viii. 5.

Footnote 405:

  Cf. Prov. ix. 4.

Footnote 406:

  Cf. Prov. ix. 5, 6.

Footnote 407:

  διὰ τὰ ἐγκείμενα.

Footnote 408:

  λοιδορίας μᾶλλον ἢ κατηγορίας.




                              Chapter LV.


But as Celsus delights to heap up calumnies against us, and, in addition
to those which he has already uttered, has added others, let us examine
these also, and see whether it be the Christians or Celsus who have
reason to be ashamed of what is said. He asserts, “We see, indeed, in
private houses workers in wool and leather, and fullers, and persons of
the most uninstructed and rustic character, not venturing to utter a
word in the presence of their elders and wiser masters;[409] but when
they get hold of the children privately, and certain women as ignorant
as themselves, they pour forth wonderful statements, to the effect that
they ought not to give heed to their father and to their teachers, but
should obey them; that the former are foolish and stupid, and neither
know nor can perform anything that is really good, being preoccupied
with empty trifles; that _they_ alone know how men ought to live, and
that, if the children obey them, they will both be happy themselves, and
will make their home happy also. And while thus speaking, if they see
one of the instructors of youth approaching, or one of the more
intelligent class, or even the father himself, the more timid among them
become afraid, while the more forward incite the children to throw off
the yoke, whispering that in the presence of father and teachers they
neither will nor can explain to them any good thing, seeing they turn
away with aversion from the silliness and stupidity of such persons as
being altogether corrupt, and far advanced in wickedness, and such as
would inflict punishment upon them; but that if they wish [to avail
themselves of their aid,] they must leave their father and their
instructors, and go with the women and their playfellows to the women’s
apartments, or to the leather shop, or to the fuller’s shop, that they
may attain to perfection;—and by words like these they gain them over.”

Footnote 409:

  The allusion is to the practice of wealthy Greeks and Romans having
  among their slaves artificers of various kinds, for whose service
  there was constant demand in the houses and villas of the rich, and
  who therefore had their residence in or near the dwelling of their
  master. Many of these artificers seem, from the language of Celsus, to
  have been converts to Christianity.




                              Chapter LVI.


Observe now how by such statements he depreciates those amongst us who
are teachers of the word, and who strive in every way to raise the soul
to the Creator of all things, and who show that we ought to despise
things “sensible,” and “temporal,” and “visible,” and to do our utmost
to reach communion with God, and the contemplation of things that are
“intelligent,” and “invisible,” and a blessed life with God, and the
friends of God; comparing them to “workers in wool in private houses,
and to leather-cutters, and to fullers, and to the most rustic of
mankind, who carefully incite young boys to wickedness, and women to
forsake their fathers and teachers, and follow them.” Now let Celsus
point out from what wise parent, or from what teachers, we keep away
children and women, and let him ascertain by comparison among those
children and women who are adherents of our doctrine, whether any of the
opinions which they formerly heard are better than ours, and in what
manner we draw away children and women from noble and venerable studies,
and incite them to worse things. But he will not be able to make good
any such charge against us, seeing that, on the contrary, we turn away
women from a dissolute life, and from being at variance with those with
whom they live, from all mad desires after theatres and dancing, and
from superstition; while we train to habits of self-restraint boys just
reaching the age of puberty, and feeling a desire for sexual pleasures,
pointing out to them not only the disgrace which attends those sins, but
also the state to which the soul of the wicked is reduced through
practices of that kind, and the judgments which it will suffer, and the
punishments which will be inflicted.




                             Chapter LVII.


But who are the teachers whom we call triflers and fools, whose defence
is undertaken by Celsus, as of those who teach better things? [I know
not,] unless he deem those to be good instructors of women, and no
triflers, who invite them to superstition and to unchaste spectacles,
and those, moreover, to be teachers not devoid of sense who lead young
men to the communion of all those disorderly acts which we know are
often committed by them. We indeed call away these also, as far as we
can, from the dogmas of philosophy to our worship of God, by showing
forth its excellence and purity. But as Celsus, by his statements, has
declared that we do not do so, but that we call only the foolish, I
would say to him, “If you had charged us with withdrawing from the study
of philosophy those who were already preoccupied with it, you would not
have spoken the truth, and yet your charge would have had an appearance
of probability; but when you now say that we draw away our adherents
from good teachers, show who are those other teachers save the teachers
of philosophy, or those who have been appointed to give instruction in
some useful branch of study.”[410]

He will be unable, however, to show any such; while we promise, openly
and not in secret, that _they_ will be happy who live according to the
word of God, and who look to Him in all things, and who do everything,
whatever it is, as if in the presence of God. Are these the instructions
of workers in wool, and of leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated
rustics? But such an assertion he cannot make good.

Footnote 410:

  Παράστησον τοὺς διδασκάλους ἄλλους παρὰ τοὺς φιλοσοφίας διδασκάλους, ἢ
  τοὺς κατὰ τὶ τῶν χρησίμων πεποιημένους.




                             Chapter LVIII.


But those who, in the opinion of Celsus, resemble the workers in wool in
private houses, and the leather-cutters, and fullers, and uneducated
rustics, will, he alleges, in the presence of father or teachers be
unwilling to speak, or unable to explain to the boys anything that is
good. In answer to which, we would say, What kind of father, my good
sir, and what kind of teacher, do you mean? If you mean one who approves
of virtue, and turns away from vice, and welcomes what is better, then
know, that with the greatest boldness will we declare our opinions to
the children, because we will be in good repute with such a judge. But
if, in the presence of a father who has a hatred of virtue and goodness,
we keep silence, and also before those who teach what is contrary to
sound doctrine, do not blame us for so doing, since you will blame us
without good reason. You, at all events, in a case where fathers deemed
the mysteries of philosophy an idle and unprofitable occupation for
their sons, and for young men in general, would not, in teaching
philosophy, make known its secrets before worthless parents; but,
desiring to keep apart those sons of wicked parents who had been turned
towards the study of philosophy, you would observe the proper seasons,
in order that the doctrines of philosophy might reach the minds of the
young men. And we say the same regarding our teachers. For if we turn
[our hearers] away from those instructors who teach obscene comedies and
licentious iambics, and many other things which neither improve the
speaker nor benefit the hearers (because the latter do not know how to
listen to poetry in a philosophic frame of mind, nor the former how to
say to each of the young men what tends to his profit), we are not, in
following such a course, ashamed to confess what we do. But if you will
show me teachers who train young men for philosophy, and who exercise
them in it, I will not from such turn away young men, but will try to
raise them, as those who have been previously exercised in the whole
circle of learning and in philosophical subjects, to the venerable and
lofty height of eloquence which lies hid from the multitude of
Christians, where are discussed topics of the greatest importance, and
where it is demonstrated and shown that they have been treated
philosophically both by the prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus.




                              Chapter LIX.


Immediately after this, Celsus, perceiving that he has slandered us with
too great bitterness, as if by way of defence expresses himself as
follows: “That I bring no heavier charge than what the truth compels me,
any one may see from the following remarks. Those who invite to
participation in other mysteries, make proclamation as follows: ‘Every
one who has clean hands, and a prudent tongue;’[411] others again thus:
‘He who is pure from all pollution, and whose soul is conscious of no
evil, and who has lived well and justly.’ Such is the proclamation made
by those who promise purification from sins. But let us hear what kind
of persons these Christians invite. Every one, they say, who is a
sinner, who is devoid of understanding, who is a child, and, to speak
generally, whoever is unfortunate, him will the kingdom of God receive.
Do you not call him a sinner, then, who is unjust, and a thief, and a
housebreaker, and a poisoner, and a committer of sacrilege, and a robber
of the dead? What others would a man invite if he were issuing a
proclamation for an assembly of robbers?” Now, in answer to such
statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who are
_sick in soul_ to be _cured_, and those who are _in health_ to the
_knowledge_ and _study_ of divine things. We, however, keeping both
these things in view, at first invite all men to be healed, and exhort
those who are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines
which teach men not to sin, and those who are devoid of understanding to
those which beget wisdom, and those who are children to rise in their
thoughts to manhood, and those who are simply[412] unfortunate to good
fortune,[413] or—which is the more appropriate term to use—to
blessedness.[414] And when those who have been turned towards virtue
have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the
word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before
do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. “For we speak
wisdom among them that are perfect.”[415]

Footnote 411:

  φωνὴν συνετός.

Footnote 412:

  ἁπλῶς.

Footnote 413:

  εὐδαιμονίαν.

Footnote 414:

  μακαριότητα.

Footnote 415:

  Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.




                              Chapter LX.


And as we teach, moreover, that “wisdom will not enter into the soul of
a base man, nor dwell in a body that is involved in sin,”[416] we say,
Whoever has clean hands, and therefore lifts up holy hands to God, and
by reason of being occupied with elevated and heavenly things, can say,
“The lifting up of my hands is as the evening sacrifice,”[417] let him
come to us; and whoever has a wise tongue through meditating on the law
of the Lord day and night, and by “reason of habit has his senses
exercised to discern between good and evil,” let him have no reluctance
in coming to the strong and rational sustenance which is adapted to
those who are athletes in piety and every virtue. And since the grace of
God is with all those who love with a pure affection the teacher of the
doctrines of immortality, whoever is pure not only from all defilement,
but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly
initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only
to the holy and the pure. The initiated of Celsus accordingly says, “Let
him whose soul is conscious of no evil come.” But he who acts as
initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who
have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been
conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the
healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were
spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.” Therefore in the
comparison which he institutes between the procedure of the initiators
into the Grecian mysteries, and the teachers of the doctrine of Jesus,
he does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be
healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries!

Footnote 416:

  Wisd. Solom. i. 4.

Footnote 417:

  Cf. Ps. cxli. 2.




                              Chapter LXI.


Not to _participation in mysteries_, then, and to _fellowship in the
wisdom hidden in a mystery_, which God ordained before the world to the
glory of His saints,[418] do we invite the _wicked_ man, and the
_thief_, and the _housebreaker_, and the _poisoner_, and the _committer
of sacrilege_, and the _plunderer of the dead_, and all those others
whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerating style, but such as these
we invite to be _healed_. For there are in the divinity of the word some
helps towards the cure of those who are sick, respecting which the word
says, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are
sick;”[419] others, again, which to the pure in soul and body exhibit
“the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world
began, but now is made manifest by the Scriptures of the prophets,”[420]
and “by the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,”[421] which “appearing”
is manifested to each one of those who are perfect, and which enlightens
the reason[422] in the true[423] knowledge of things. But as he
exaggerates the charges against us, adding, after his list of those vile
individuals whom he has mentioned, this remark, “What other persons
would a robber summon to himself by proclamation?” we answer such a
question by saying that a robber summons around him individuals of such
a character, in order to make use of their villany against the men whom
they desire to slay and plunder. A Christian, on the other hand, even
though he invite those whom the robber invites, invites them to a very
different vocation, viz. to bind up these wounds by His word, and to
apply to the soul, festering amid evils, the drugs obtained from the
word, and which are analogous to the wine and oil, and plasters, and
other healing appliances which belong to the art of medicine.

Footnote 418:

  Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7.

Footnote 419:

  Matt. ix. 12.

Footnote 420:

  Rom. xvi. 25, 26.

Footnote 421:

  Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 10.

Footnote 422:

  τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.

Footnote 423:

  ἀψευδῆ.




                             Chapter LXII.


In the next place, throwing a slur[424] upon the exhortations spoken and
written to those who have led wicked lives, and which invite them to
repentance and reformation of heart, he asserts that we say “that it was
to sinners that God has been sent.” Now this statement of his is much
the same as if he were to find fault with certain persons for saying
that on account of the sick who were living in a city, a physician had
been sent them by a very benevolent monarch. God the Word was sent,
indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries
to those who are already pure and who sin no more. But Celsus, unable to
see this distinction,—for he had no desire to be animated with a love of
truth,—remarks, “Why was he not sent to those who were without sin? What
evil is it not to have committed sin?” To which we reply, that if by
those “who were without sin” he means those who sin no more, then our
Saviour Jesus was sent even to such, but not as a physician. While if by
those “who were without sin” he means such as have never at any time
sinned,—for he made no distinction in his statement,—we reply that it is
impossible for a man thus to be without sin. And this we say, excepting,
of course, the man understood to be in Christ Jesus,[425] who “did no
sin.” It is with a malicious intent, indeed, that Celsus says of us that
we assert that “God will receive the unrighteous man if he humble
himself on account of his wickedness, but that He will not receive the
righteous man, although he look up to Him, [adorned] with virtue from
the beginning.” Now we assert that it is impossible for a man to look up
to God [adorned] with virtue from the beginning. For wickedness must
necessarily first exist in men. As Paul also says, “When the commandment
came, sin revived, and I died.”[426] Moreover, we do not teach regarding
the unrighteous man, that it is sufficient for him to humble himself on
account of his wickedness in order to his being accepted by God, but
that God will accept him if, after passing condemnation upon himself for
his past conduct, he walk humbly on account of it, and in a becoming
manner for the time to come.

Footnote 424:

  συκοφαντῶν.

Footnote 425:

  ὑπεξαιρομένου τοῦ κατὰ τὸν Ζησοῦν νοουμένου ἀνθρώπου.

Footnote 426:

  Rom. vii. 9.




                             Chapter LXIII.


After this, not understanding how it has been said that “every one who
exalteth himself shall be abased;”[427] nor (although taught even by
Plato) that “the good and virtuous man walketh humbly and orderly;” and
ignorant, moreover, that we give the injunction, “Humble yourselves,
therefore, under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due
time;”[428] he says that “those persons who preside properly over a
trial make those individuals who bewail before them their evil deeds to
cease from their piteous wailings, lest their decisions should be
determined rather by compassion than by a regard to truth; whereas God
does not decide in accordance with truth, but in accordance with
flattery.”[429] Now, what words of flattery and piteous wailing are
contained in the Holy Scriptures when the sinner says in his prayers to
God, “I have acknowledged my sin, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I
said, I will confess my transgression to the Lord,” etc. etc.? For is he
able to show that a procedure of this kind is not adapted to the
conversion of sinners, who humble themselves in their prayers under the
hand of God? And, becoming confused by his effort to accuse us, he
contradicts himself; appearing at one time to know a man “without sin,”
and “a righteous man, who can look up to God [adorned] with virtue from
the beginning;” and at another time accepting our statement that there
is no man altogether righteous, or without sin;[430] for, as if he
admitted its truth, he remarks, “This is indeed apparently true, that
somehow the human race is naturally inclined to sin.” In the next place,
as if all men were not invited by the word, he says, “All men, then,
without distinction, ought to be invited, since all indeed are sinners.”
And yet, in the preceding pages, we have pointed out the words of Jesus:
“Come unto me, _all_ ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give
you rest.”[431] _All_ men, therefore, labouring and being heavy laden on
account of the nature of sin, are invited to the rest spoken of in the
word of God, “for God sent His word, and healed them, and delivered them
from their destructions.”[432]

Footnote 427:

  Cf. Matt. xxiii. 12.

Footnote 428:

  1 Pet. v. 6.

Footnote 429:

  πρὸς κολακείαν.

Footnote 430:

  In the text it is put interrogatively: τίς ἄνθρωπος τελέως δίκαιος; ἢ
  τίς ἀναμάρτητος; The allusion seems to be to Job xv. 14: τίς γὰρ ὤν
  βροτὸς, ὅτι ἔσται ἄμεμπτος; ἢ ὡς ἐσόμενος δίκαιος γεννητὸς γυναικός.

Footnote 431:

  Matt. xi. 28.

Footnote 432:

  Ps. cvii. 20.




                             Chapter LXIV.


But since he says, in addition to this, “What is this preference of
sinners over others?” and makes other remarks of a similar nature, we
have to reply that absolutely a sinner is not preferred before one who
is not a sinner; but that sometimes a sinner, who has become conscious
of his own sin, and for that reason comes to repentance, being humbled
on account of his sins, is preferred before one who is accounted a
lesser sinner, but who does not consider himself one, but exalts himself
on the ground of certain good qualities which he thinks he possesses,
and is greatly elated on their account. And this is manifest to those
who are willing to peruse the Gospels in a spirit of fairness, by the
parable of the publican, who said, “Be merciful to me a sinner,”[433]
and of the Pharisee who boasted with a certain wicked self-conceit in
the words, “I thank Thee that I am not as other men are, extortioners,
unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”[434] For Jesus subjoins
to His narrative of them both the words: “This man went down to his
house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth
himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be
exalted.”[435] We utter no blasphemy, then, against God, neither are we
guilty of falsehood, when we teach that every man, whoever he may be, is
conscious of human infirmity in comparison with the greatness of God,
and that we must ever ask from Him, who alone is able to supply our
deficiencies, what is wanting to our [mortal] nature.

Footnote 433:

  Luke xviii. 13.

Footnote 434:

  Luke xviii. 11.

Footnote 435:

  Luke xviii. 14.




                              Chapter LXV.


He imagines, however, that we utter these exhortations for the
conversion of sinners, because we are able to gain over no one who is
really good and righteous, and therefore open our gates to the most
unholy and abandoned of men. But if any one will fairly observe our
assemblies, we can present a greater number of those who have been
converted from not a very wicked life, than of those who have committed
the most abominable sins. For naturally those who are conscious to
themselves of better things, desire that those promises may be true
which are declared by God regarding the reward of the righteous, and
thus assent more readily to the statements [of Scripture] than those do
who have led very wicked lives, and who are prevented by their very
consciousness [of evil] from admitting that they will be punished by the
Judge of all with such punishment as befits those who have sinned so
greatly, and as would not be inflicted by the Judge of all contrary to
right reason.[436] Sometimes, also, when very abandoned men are willing
to accept the doctrine of [future] punishment, on account of the hope
which is based upon repentance, they are prevented from so doing by
their habit of sinning, being constantly dipped, and, as it were, dyed
in wickedness, and possessing no longer the power to turn from it easily
to a proper life, and one regulated according to right reason. And
although Celsus observes this, he nevertheless, I know not why,
expresses himself in the following terms: “And yet, indeed, it is
manifest to every one that no one by chastisement, much less by merciful
treatment, could effect a complete change in those who are sinners both
by nature and custom, for to change nature is an exceedingly difficult
thing. But they who are without sin are partakers of a better life.”

Footnote 436:

  καὶ οὐ παρὰ τὸν ὀρθὸν λόγον προσάγοιτο ὑπὸ τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι δικαστοῦ.




                             Chapter LXVI.


Now here Celsus appears to me to have committed a great error, in
refusing to those who are sinners by nature, and also by habit, the
possibility of a complete transformation, alleging that they cannot be
cured even by punishment. For it clearly appears that all men are
inclined to sin by nature, and some not only by nature but by practice,
while not all men are incapable of an entire transformation. For there
are found in every philosophical sect, and in the word of God, persons
who are related to have undergone so great a change that they may be
proposed as a model of excellence of life. Among the names of the heroic
age some mention Hercules and Ulysses, among those of later times,
Socrates, and of those who have lived very recently, Musonius.[437] Not
only against us, then, did Celsus utter the calumny, when he said that
“it was manifest to every one that those who were given to sin by nature
and habit could not by any means—even by punishments—be completely
changed for the better,” but also against the noblest names in
philosophy, who have not denied that the recovery of virtue was a
possible thing for men. But although he did not express his meaning with
exactness, we shall nevertheless, though giving his words a more
favourable construction, convict him of unsound reasoning. For his words
were: “Those who are inclined to sin by nature and habit, no one could
completely reform even by chastisement;” and his words, as we understood
them, we refuted to the best of our ability.[438]

Footnote 437:

  He is said to have been either a Babylonian or Tyrrhenian, and to have
  lived in the reign of Nero. Cf. Philostratus, iv. 12.—RUÆUS.

Footnote 438:

  καὶ τὸ ἐξακουόμενον ἀπὸ τῆς λέξεως, ὡς δυνατὸν ἡμῖν, ἀνετρέψαμεν.




                             Chapter LXVII.


It is probable, however, that he meant to convey some such meaning as
this, that those who were both by nature and habit given to the
commission of those sins which are committed by the most abandoned of
men, could not be completely transformed even by punishment. And yet
this is shown to be false from the history of certain philosophers. For
who is there that would not rank among the most abandoned of men the
individual who somehow submitted to yield himself to his master, when he
placed him in a brothel,[439] that he might allow himself to be polluted
by any one who liked? And yet such a circumstance is related of Phædo!
And who will not agree that he who burst, accompanied with a
flute-player and a party of revellers, his profligate associates, into
the school of the venerable Xenocrates, to insult a man who was the
admiration of his friends, was not one of the greatest miscreants[440]
among mankind? Yet, notwithstanding this, reason was powerful enough to
effect their conversion, and to enable them to make such progress in
philosophy, that the one was deemed worthy by Plato to recount the
discourse of Socrates on immortality, and to record his firmness in
prison, when he evinced his contempt of the hemlock, and with all
fearlessness and tranquillity of mind treated of subjects so numerous
and important, that it is difficult even for those to follow them who
are giving their utmost attention, and who are disturbed by no
distraction; while Polemon, on the other hand, who from a profligate
became a man of most temperate life, was successor in the school of
Xenocrates, so celebrated for his venerable character. Celsus then does
not speak the truth when he says “that sinners by nature and habit
cannot be completely reformed even by chastisement.”

Footnote 439:

  ἐπὶ τέγους.

Footnote 440:

  μιαρώτατον ἀνθρώπων.




                            Chapter LXVIII.


That philosophical discourses, however, distinguished by orderly
arrangement and elegant expression,[441] should produce such results in
the case of those individuals just enumerated, and upon others[442] who
have led wicked lives, is not at all to be wondered at. But when we
consider that those discourses, which Celsus terms “vulgar,”[443] are
filled with power, as if they were spells, and see that they at once
convert multitudes from a life of licentiousness to one of extreme
regularity,[444] and from a life of wickedness to a better, and from a
state of cowardice or unmanliness to one of such high-toned courage as
to lead men to despise even death through the piety which shows itself
within them, why should we not justly admire the power which they
contain? For the words of those who at the first assumed the office of
[Christian] ambassadors, and who gave their labours to rear up the
churches of God,—nay, their preaching also,—were accompanied with a
persuasive power, though not like that found among those who profess the
philosophy of Plato, or of any other merely human philosopher, which
possesses no other qualities than those of human nature. But the
demonstration which followed the words of the apostles of Jesus was
given from God, and was accredited[445] by the Spirit and by power. And
therefore _their_ word ran swiftly and speedily, or rather the word of
_God_ through their instrumentality, transformed numbers of persons who
had been sinners both by nature and habit, whom no one could have
reformed by punishment, but who were changed by the word, which moulded
and transformed them according to its pleasure.

Footnote 441:

  Ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν τάξιν καὶ σύνθεσιν καὶ φράσιν τῶν ἀπὸ φιλοσοφίας λόγων.

Footnote 442:

  The reading in the text is ἄλλως, for which ἄλλους has been
  conjectured by Ruæus and Boherellus, and which has been adopted in the
  translation.

Footnote 443:

  ἰδιωτικοὺς.

Footnote 444:

  εὐσταθέστατον.

Footnote 445:

  πιστικὴ ἀπὸ πνεύματος.




                             Chapter LXIX.


Celsus continues in his usual manner, asserting that “to change a nature
entirely is exceedingly difficult.” We, however, who know of only one
nature in every rational soul, and who maintain that none has been
created evil by the Author of all things, but that many have _become_
wicked through education, and perverse example, and surrounding
influences,[446] so that wickedness has been naturalized[447] in some
individuals, are persuaded that for the word of God to change a nature
in which evil has been naturalized is not only not impossible, but is
even a work of no very great difficulty, if a man only believe that he
must entrust himself to the God of all things, and do everything with a
view to please Him with whom

              “Both good and bad are not in the same honour,
              Nor do the idle man and he who has laboured much
              Perish alike.”[448]

But even if it be exceedingly difficult to effect a change in some
persons, the cause must be held to lie in their own will, which is
reluctant to accept the belief that the God over all things is a just
Judge of all the deeds done during life. For deliberate choice and
practice[449] avail much towards the accomplishment of things which
appear to be very difficult, and, to speak hyperbolically, almost
impossible. Has the nature of man, when desiring to walk along a rope
extended in the air through the middle of the theatre, and to carry at
the same time numerous and heavy weights, been able by practice and
attention to accomplish such a feat; but when desiring to live in
conformity with the practice of virtue, does it find it impossible to do
so, although formerly it may have been exceedingly wicked? See whether
he who holds such views does not bring a charge against the nature of
the Creator of the rational animal[450] rather than against the
creature, if He has formed the nature of man with powers for the
attainment of things of such difficulty, and of no utility whatever, but
has rendered it incapable of securing its own blessedness. But these
remarks may suffice as an answer to the assertion that “entirely to
change a nature is exceedingly difficult.” He alleges, in the next
place, that “they who are without sin are partakers of a better life;”
not making it clear what he means by “those who are without sin,”
whether those who are so from the beginning [of their lives], or those
who become so by a transformation. Of those who were so from the
beginning of their lives, there cannot possibly be any; while those who
are so after a transformation [of heart] are found to be few in number,
being those who have become so after giving in their allegiance to the
saving word. And they were not such when they gave in their allegiance.
For, apart from the aid of the word, and that too the word of
perfection, it is impossible for a man to become free from sin.

Footnote 446:

  παρὰ τὰς ἀνατροφὰς, καὶ τὰς διαστροφὰς, καὶ τὰς περιηχήσεις.

Footnote 447:

  φυσιωθῆναι.

Footnote 448:

  Cf. _Iliad_, ix. 319, 320.

Footnote 449:

  προαίρεσις καὶ ἄσκησις.

Footnote 450:

  τοῦ λογικοῦ ζώου.




                              Chapter LXX.


In the next place, he objects to the statement, as if it were maintained
by us, that “God will be able to do all things,” not seeing even here
how these words are meant, and what the “_all things_” are which are
included in it, and how it is said that God “will be able.” But on these
matters it is not necessary now to speak; for although he might with a
show of reason have opposed this proposition, he has not done so.
Perhaps he did not understand the arguments which might be plausibly
used against it, or if he did, he saw the answers that might be
returned. Now in our judgment God can do everything which it is possible
for Him to do without ceasing to be God, and good, and wise. But Celsus
asserts—not comprehending the meaning of the expression “God can do all
things”—“that He will not desire to do anything wicked,” admitting that
He has the _power_, but not the _will_, to commit evil. We, on the
contrary, maintain that as that which by nature possesses the property
of sweetening other things through its own inherent sweetness cannot
produce bitterness contrary to its own peculiar nature,[451] nor that
whose nature it is to produce light through its being light can cause
darkness; so neither is God able to commit wickedness, for the power of
doing evil is contrary to His deity and its omnipotence. Whereas if any
one among existing things is able to commit wickedness from being
inclined to wickedness by nature, it does so from not having in its
nature the ability not to do evil.

Footnote 451:

  ὥσπερ οὐ δύναται τὸ πεφυκὸς γλυκαίνειν τῷ γλυκὺ τυγχάνειν πικράζειν,
  παρὰ τὴν αὐτοῦ μόνην αἰτίαν.




                             Chapter LXXI.


He next assumes what is not granted by the more rational class of
believers, but what perhaps is considered to be true by some who are
devoid of intelligence,—viz. that “God, like those who are overcome with
pity, being Himself overcome, alleviates the sufferings of the wicked
through pity for their wailings, and casts off the good, who do nothing
of that kind, which is the height of injustice.” Now, in our judgment,
God lightens the suffering of no wicked man who has not betaken himself
to a virtuous life, and casts off no one who is already good, nor yet
alleviates the suffering of any one who mourns, simply because he utters
lamentation, or takes pity upon him, to use the word pity in its more
common acceptation.[452] But those who have passed severe condemnation
upon themselves because of their sins, and who, as on that account,
lament and bewail themselves as lost, so far as their previous conduct
is concerned, and who have manifested a satisfactory change, are
received by God on account of their repentance, as those who have
undergone a transformation from a life of great wickedness. For virtue,
taking up her abode in the souls of these persons, and expelling the
wickedness which had previous possession of them, produces an oblivion
of the past. And even although virtue do not effect an entrance, yet if
a considerable progress take place in the soul, even that is sufficient,
in the proportion that it is progressive, to drive out and destroy the
flood of wickedness, so that it almost ceases to remain in the soul.

Footnote 452:

  ἵνα κοινότερον τῷ ἐλέει χρήσωμαι.




                             Chapter LXXII.


In the next place, speaking as in the person of a teacher of our
doctrine, he expresses himself as follows: “Wise men reject what we say,
being led into error, and ensnared by their wisdom.” In reply to which
we say that, since wisdom is the knowledge of divine and human things
and of their causes, or, as it is defined by the word of God, “the
breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory
of the Almighty, and the brightness of the everlasting light, and the
unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of His
goodness,”[453] no one who was really wise would reject what is said by
a Christian acquainted with the principles of Christianity, or would be
led into error, or ensnared by it. For true wisdom does not mislead, but
ignorance does, while of existing things knowledge alone is permanent,
and the truth which is derived from wisdom. But if, contrary to the
definition of wisdom, you call any one whatever who dogmatizes with
sophistical opinions wise, we answer that in conformity with what _you_
call wisdom, such an one rejects the words of God, being misled and
ensnared by plausible sophisms. And since, according to our doctrine,
wisdom is not the knowledge of evil, but the knowledge of evil, so to
speak, is in those who hold false opinions and who are deceived by them,
I would therefore in such persons term it ignorance rather than wisdom.

Footnote 453:

  Cf. Wisd. of Solom. vii. 25, 26.




                            Chapter LXXIII.


After this he again slanders the ambassador of Christianity, and gives
out regarding him that he relates “ridiculous things,” although he does
not show or clearly point out what are the things which he calls
“ridiculous.” And in his slanders he says that “no wise man believes the
gospel, being driven away by the multitudes who adhere to it.” And in
this he acts like one who should say that owing to the multitude of
those ignorant persons who are brought into subjection to the laws, no
wise man would yield obedience to Solon, for example, or to Lycurgus, or
Zaleucus, or any other legislator, and especially if by wise man he
means one who is wise [by living] in conformity with virtue. For, as
with regard to these ignorant persons, the legislators, according to
their ideas of utility, caused them to be surrounded with appropriate
guidance and laws, so God, legislating through Jesus Christ for men in
all parts of the world, brings to Himself even those who are not wise in
the way in which it is possible for such persons to be brought to a
better life. And God, well knowing this, as we have already shown in the
preceding pages, says in the books of Moses: “They have moved me to
jealousy with that which is not God; they have provoked me to anger with
their idols: and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a
people; I will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.”[454] And
Paul also, knowing this, said, “But God hath chosen the foolish things
of the world to confound the wise,”[455] calling, in a general way, wise
all who appear to have made advances in knowledge, but have fallen into
an atheistic polytheism, since “professing themselves to be wise they
became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things.”[456]

Footnote 454:

  Cf. Deut. xxxii. 21.

Footnote 455:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27.

Footnote 456:

  Rom. i. 22, 23.




                             Chapter LXXIV.


He accuses the Christian teacher, moreover, of “seeking after the
unintelligent.” In answer, we ask, Whom do you mean by the
“unintelligent?” For, to speak accurately, every wicked man is
“unintelligent.” If then by “unintelligent” you mean the wicked, do you,
in drawing men to philosophy, seek to gain the wicked or the
virtuous?[457] But it is impossible to gain the virtuous, because they
have already given themselves to philosophy. The wicked, then, [you try
to gain;] but if they are wicked, are they “unintelligent?” And many
such you seek to win over to philosophy, and you therefore seek the
“unintelligent.” But if I seek after those who are thus termed
“unintelligent,” I act like a benevolent physician, who should seek
after the sick in order to help and cure them. If, however, by
“unintelligent” you mean persons who are not clever,[458] but the
inferior class of men intellectually,[459] I shall answer that I
endeavour to improve such also to the best of my ability, although I
would not desire to build up the Christian community out of such
materials. For I seek in preference those who are more clever and acute,
because they are able to comprehend the meaning of the hard sayings, and
of those passages in the law, and prophecies, and Gospels, which are
expressed with obscurity, and which you have despised as not containing
anything worthy of notice, because you have not ascertained the meaning
which they contain, nor tried to enter into the aim of the writers.

Footnote 457:

  ἀστείους.

Footnote 458:

  τοὺς μὴ ἐντρεχεῖς.

Footnote 459:

  The reading in the text is τερατωδεστέρους, of which Ruæus remarks,
  “Hic nullum habet locum.” Καταδεεστέρους has been conjectured instead,
  and has been adopted in the translation.




                             Chapter LXXV.


But as he afterwards says that “the teacher of Christianity acts
like a person who promises to restore patients to bodily health, but
who prevents them from consulting skilled physicians, by whom his
ignorance would be exposed,” we shall inquire in reply, “What are
the physicians to whom you refer, from whom we turn away ignorant
individuals? For you do not suppose that we exhort those to embrace
the gospel who are devoted to philosophy, so that you would regard
the latter as the physicians from whom we keep away such as we
invite to come to the word of God.” He indeed will make no answer,
because he cannot name the physicians; or else he will be obliged to
betake himself to those of them who are ignorant, and who of their
own accord servilely yield themselves to the worship of many gods,
and to whatever other opinions are entertained by ignorant
individuals. In either case, then, he will be shown to have employed
to no purpose in his argument the illustration of “one who keeps
others away from skilled physicians.” But if, in order to preserve
from the philosophy of Epicurus, and from such as are considered
physicians after his system, those who are deceived by them, why
should we not be acting most reasonably in keeping such away from a
dangerous disease caused by the physicians of Celsus,—that, viz.,
which leads to the annihilation of providence, and the introduction
of pleasure as a good? But let it be conceded that we do keep away
those whom we encourage to become our disciples from other
philosopher-physicians,—from the Peripatetics, for example, who deny
the existence of providence and the relation of Deity to man,—why
shall we not piously[460] train and heal those who have been thus
encouraged, persuading them to devote themselves to the God of all
things, and free those who yield obedience to us from the great
wounds inflicted by the words of such as are deemed to be
philosophers? Nay, let it also be admitted that we turn away from
physicians of the sect of the Stoics, who introduce a corruptible
god, and assert that his essence consists of a body, which is
capable of being changed and altered in all its parts,[461] and who
also maintain that all things will one day perish, and that God
alone will be left; why shall we not even thus emancipate our
subjects from evils, and bring them by pious arguments to devote
themselves to the Creator, and to admire the Father of the Christian
system, who has so arranged that instruction of the most benevolent
kind, and fitted for the conversion of souls,[462] should be
distributed throughout the whole human race? Nay, if we should cure
those who have fallen into the folly of believing in the
transmigration of souls through the teaching of physicians, who will
have it that the rational nature descends sometimes into all kinds
of irrational animals, and sometimes into that state of being which
is incapable of using the imagination,[463] why should we not
improve the souls of our subjects by means of a doctrine which does
not teach that a state of insensibility or irrationalism is produced
in the wicked instead of punishment, but which shows that the
labours and chastisements inflicted upon the wicked by God are a
kind of medicines leading to conversion? For those who are
intelligent Christians,[464] keeping this in view, deal with the
simple-minded, as parents do with very young[465] children. We do
not betake ourselves then to young persons and silly rustics, saying
to them, “Flee from physicians.” Nor do we say, “See that none of
you lay hold of knowledge;” nor do we assert that “knowledge is an
evil;” nor are we mad enough to say that “knowledge causes men to
lose their soundness of mind.” We would not even say that any one
ever perished through wisdom; and although we give instruction, we
never say, “Give heed to me,” but “Give heed to the God of all
things, and to Jesus, the giver of instruction concerning Him.” And
none of us is so great a braggart[466] as to say what Celsus put in
the mouth of one of our teachers to his acquaintances, “I alone will
save you.” Observe here the lies which he utters against us!
Moreover, we do _not_ assert that “true physicians destroy those
whom they promise to cure.”

Footnote 460:

  For εὐσεβεῖς in the text, Boherellus conjectures εὐσεβῶς.

Footnote 461:

  θεὸν φθαρτὸν εἰσαγόντων, καὶ τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ λεγόντων σῶμα τρεπτὸν
  διόλου καὶ ἀλλοιωτὸν, καὶ μεταβλητὸν.

Footnote 462:

  The words in the text are, φιλανθρωπότατα ἐπιστρεπτικὸν, καὶ ψυχῶν
  μαθήματα οἰκονομήσαντα, for which we have adopted in the translation
  the emendation of Boherellus, φιλανθρωπότατα καὶ ψυχῶν ἐπιστρεπτικὰ
  μαθήματα.

Footnote 463:

  ἀλλὰ κἂν τοὺς πεπονθότας τὴν περὶ τῆς μετενσωματώσεως ἄνοιαν ἀπὸ
  ἰατρῶν, τῶν καταβιβαζόντων τὴν λογικὴν φύσιν ὁτὲ μὲν ἐπὶ τὴν ἄλογον
  πᾶσαν, ὁτὲ δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν ἀφάνταστον.

Footnote 464:

  Instead of οἱ φρονίμως Χριστιανοὶ ζῶντες, as in the text, Ruæus and
  Boherellus conjecture οἱ φρονίμως Χριστιανίζοντες, etc.

Footnote 465:

  τοὺς κομιδῇ νηπίους.

Footnote 466:

  ἀλαζὼν.




                             Chapter LXXVI.


And he produces a second illustration to our disadvantage, saying that
“our teacher acts like a drunken man, who, entering a company of
drunkards, should accuse those who are sober of being drunk.” But let
him show, say from the writings of Paul, that the apostle of Jesus gave
way to drunkenness, and that his words were not those of soberness; or
from the writings of John, that his thoughts do not breathe a spirit of
temperance and of freedom from the intoxication of evil. No one, then,
who is of sound mind, and teaches the doctrines of Christianity, gets
drunk with wine; but Celsus utters these calumnies against us in a
spirit very unlike that of a philosopher. Moreover, let Celsus say who
those “sober” persons are whom the ambassadors of Christianity accuse.
For in our judgment all are intoxicated who address themselves to
inanimate objects as to God. And why do I say “intoxicated?” “Insane”
would be the more appropriate word for those who hasten to temples and
worship images or animals as divinities. And they too are not less
insane who think that images, fashioned by men of worthless and
sometimes most wicked character, confer any honour upon genuine
divinities.




                            Chapter LXXVII.


He next likens our teacher to one suffering from ophthalmia, and his
disciples to those suffering from the same disease, and says that “such
an one amongst a company of those who are afflicted with ophthalmia,
accuses those who are sharp-sighted of being blind.” Who, then, would we
ask, O Greeks, are they who in our judgment do not see, save those who
are unable to look up from the exceeding greatness of the world and its
contents, and from the beauty of created things, and to see that they
ought to worship, and admire, and reverence Him alone who made these
things, and that it is not befitting to treat with reverence anything
contrived by man, and applied to the honour of God, whether it be
without a reference to the Creator, or with one?[467] For, to compare
with that illimitable excellence, which surpasses all created being,
things which ought not to be brought into comparison with it, is the act
of those whose understanding is darkened. We do not then say that those
who are sharp-sighted are suffering from ophthalmia or blindness; but we
assert that those who, in ignorance of God, give themselves to temples
and images, and so-called sacred seasons,[468] are blinded in their
minds, and especially when, in addition to their impiety, they live also
in licentiousness, not even inquiring after any honourable work
whatever, but doing everything that is of a disgraceful character.

Footnote 467:

  εἴτε χωρὶς τοῦ δημιουργοῦ θεοῦ εἴτε καὶ μετ’ ἐκείνου.

Footnote 468:

  ἱερομηνίας.




                            Chapter LXXVIII.


After having brought against us charges of so serious a kind, he wishes
to make it appear that, although he has others to adduce, he passes them
by in silence. His words are as follow: “These charges I have to bring
against them, and others of a similar nature, not to enumerate them one
by one, and I affirm that they are in error, and that they act
insolently towards God, in order to lead on wicked men by empty hopes,
and to persuade them to despise better things, saying that if they
refrain from them it will be better for them.” In answer to which, it
might be said that from the power which shows itself in those who are
converted to Christianity, it is not at all the “wicked” who are won
over to the gospel, as the more simple class of persons, and, as many
would term them, the “unpolished.”[469] For such individuals, through
fear of the punishments that are threatened, which arouses and exhorts
them to refrain from those actions which are followed by punishments,
strive to yield themselves up to the Christian religion, being
influenced by the power of the word to such a degree, that through fear
of what are called in the word “everlasting punishments,” they despise
all the tortures which are devised against them among men,—even death
itself, with countless other evils,—which no wise man would say is the
act of persons of wicked mind. How can temperance and sober-mindedness,
or benevolence and liberality, be practised by a man of wicked mind?
Nay, even the fear of God cannot be felt by such an one, with respect to
which, because it is useful to the many, the gospel encourages those who
are not yet able to choose that which ought to be chosen for its own
sake, to select it as the greatest blessing, and one above all promise;
for this principle cannot be implanted in him who prefers to live in
wickedness.

Footnote 469:

  The reading in the text is κομψοί, which is so opposed to the sense of
  the passage, that the conjecture of Guietus, ἄκομψοι, has been adopted
  in the translation.




                             Chapter LXXIX.


But if in these matters any one were to imagine that it is superstition
rather than wickedness which appears in the multitude of those who
believe the word, and should charge our doctrine with making men
superstitious, we shall answer him by saying that, as a certain
legislator replied to the question of one who asked him whether he had
enacted for his citizens the best laws, that he had not given them
absolutely the best, but the best which they were capable of receiving;
so it might be said by the Father of the Christian doctrine, I have
given the best laws and instruction for the improvement of morals of
which the many were capable, not threatening sinners with imaginary
labours and chastisements, but with such as are real, and necessary to
be applied for the correction of those who offer resistance, although
they do not at all understand the object of him who inflicts the
punishment, nor the effect of the labours. For the doctrine of
punishment is both attended with utility, and is agreeable to truth, and
is stated in obscure terms with advantage. Moreover, as for the most
part it is not the wicked whom the ambassadors of Christianity gain
over, neither do we insult God. For we speak regarding Him both what is
true, and what appears to be clear to the multitude, but not so clear to
them as it is to those few who investigate the truths of the gospel in a
philosophical manner.




                             Chapter LXXX.


Seeing, however, that Celsus alleges that “Christians are won over by us
through vain hopes,” we thus reply to him when he finds fault with our
doctrine of the blessed life, and of communion with God: “As for you,
good sir, they also are won over by vain hopes who have accepted the
doctrine of Pythagoras and Plato regarding the soul, that it is its
nature to ascend to the vault[470] of heaven, and in the super-celestial
space to behold the sights which are seen by the blessed spectators
above.” According to you, O Celsus, they also who have accepted the
doctrine of the duration of the soul [after death], and who lead a life
through which they become heroes, and make their abodes with the gods,
are won over by vain hopes. Probably also they who are persuaded that
the soul comes [into the body] from without, and that it will be
withdrawn from the power of death,[471] would be said by Celsus to be
won over by empty hopes. Let him then come forth to the contest, no
longer concealing the sect to which he belongs, but confessing himself
to be an Epicurean, and let him meet the arguments, which are not
lightly advanced among Greeks and barbarians, regarding the immortality
of the soul, or its duration [after death], or the immortality of the
thinking principle;[472] and let him prove that these are words which
deceive with empty hopes those who give their assent to them; but that
the adherents of his philosophical system are pure from empty hopes, and
that they indeed lead to hopes of good, or—what is more in keeping with
his opinions—give birth to no hope at all, on account of the immediate
and complete destruction of the soul [after death]. Unless, perhaps,
Celsus and the Epicureans will deny that it is a vain hope which they
entertain regarding _their_ end,—pleasure,—which, according to them, is
the supreme good, and which consists in the permanent health of the
body, and the hope regarding it which is entertained by Epicurus.[473]

Footnote 470:

  ἁψῖδα.

Footnote 471:

  Τάχα δὲ καὶ οἱ πεισθέντες περὶ τοῦ θύραθεν νοῦ, ὡς θανάτου καινοῦ
  διεξαγωγὴν ἕξοντος, etc. Locus certe obscurus, cui lucem afferre
  conatur Boherellus, legendo divisim ὡς θανάτου καὶ νοῦ διεξαγωγὴν
  ἕξοντος, ut sensus sit “morti etiam mentem subductum iri.” Nam si
  θύραθεν ἥκει νοῦς, consequens est ut θανάτου καὶ νοῦς διεξαγωγὴν ἔχη.
  Cf. Aristot. lib. ii. c. 3, _de generatione animalium_.—SPENCER.

Footnote 472:

  ἢ τῆς τοῦ νοῦ ἀθανασίας.

Footnote 473:

  Εἰ μὴ ἄρα Κέλσος καὶ οἱ Ἐπικούρειοι οὐ φήσουσι κούφην εἶναι ἐλπίδα τὴν
  περὶ τοῦ τέλους αὐτῶν τῆς ἡδονῆς, ἥτις κατ’ αὐτούς ἐστι τὸ ἀγαθὸν, τὸ
  τῆς σαρκὸς εὐσταθὲς κατάστημα, καὶ τὸ περὶ ταύτης πιστὸν Ἐπικούρῳ
  ἔλπισμα.




                             Chapter LXXXI.


And do not suppose that it is not in keeping with the Christian religion
for me to have accepted, against Celsus, the opinions of those
philosophers who have treated of the immortality or after-duration of
the soul; for, holding certain views in common with them, we shall more
conveniently establish our position, that the future life of blessedness
shall be for those only who have accepted the religion which is
according to Jesus, and that devotion towards the Creator of all things
which is pure and sincere, and unmingled with any created thing
whatever. And let him who likes show what “better things” we persuade
men to despise, and let him compare the blessed end with God in
Christ,—that is, the word, and the wisdom, and all virtue,—which,
according to our view, shall be bestowed, by the gift of God, on those
who have lived a pure and blameless life, and who have felt a single and
undivided love for the God of all things, with that end which is to
follow according to the teaching of each philosophic sect, whether it be
Greek or barbarian, or according to the professions of religious
mysteries;[474] and let him prove that the end which is predicted by any
of the others is superior to that which we promise, and consequently
that that is true, and ours not befitting the gift of God, nor those who
have lived a good life; or let him prove that these words were not
spoken by the divine Spirit, who filled the souls of the holy prophets.
And let him who likes show that those words which are acknowledged among
all men to be human, are superior to those which are proved to be
divine, and uttered by inspiration. And what are the “better” things
from which we teach those who receive them that it would be better to
abstain? For if it be not arrogant so to speak, it is self-evident that
nothing can be denied which is better than to entrust oneself to the God
of all, and yield oneself up to the doctrine which raises us above all
created things, and brings us, through the animate and living word—which
is also living wisdom and the Son of God—to God who is over all.
However, as the third book of our answers to the treatise of Celsus has
extended to a sufficient length, we shall here bring our present remarks
to a close, and in what is to follow shall meet what Celsus has
subsequently written.

Footnote 474:

  τῷ καθ’ ἑκάστην φιλοσόφων αἵρεσιν ἐν Ἕλλησιν ἢ βαρβάροις, ἢ μυστηριώδη
  ἐπαγγελίαν, τέλει.




                                BOOK IV.


                               Chapter I.


Having, in the three preceding books, fully stated what occurred to us
by way of answer to the treatise of Celsus, we now, reverend Ambrosius,
with prayer to God through Christ, offer this fourth book as a reply to
what follows. And we pray that words may be given us, as it is written
in the book of Jeremiah that the Lord said to the prophet: “Behold, I
have put my words in thy mouth as fire. See, I have set thee this day
over the nations, and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull down,
and to destroy, and to throw down, and to build and to plant.”[475] For
we need words now which will root out of every wounded soul the
reproaches uttered against the truth by this treatise of Celsus, or
which proceed from opinions like his. And we need also thoughts which
will pull down all edifices based on false opinions, and especially the
edifice raised by Celsus in his work, which resembles the building of
those who said, “Come, let us build us a city, and a tower whose top
shall reach to heaven.”[476] Yea, we even require a wisdom which will
throw down all high things that rise against the knowledge of God,[477]
and especially that height of arrogance which Celsus displays against
us. And in the next place, as we must not stop with rooting out and
pulling down the hindrances which have just been mentioned, but must, in
room of what has been rooted out, plant the plants of “God’s
husbandry;”[478] and in place of what has been pulled down, rear up the
building of God, and the temple of His glory,—we must for that reason
pray also to the Lord, who bestowed the gifts named in the book of
Jeremiah, that He may grant even to us words adapted both for building
up the [temple] of Christ, and for planting the spiritual law, and the
prophetic words referring to the same.[479] And above all is it
necessary to show, as against the assertions of Celsus which follow
those he has already made, that the prophecies regarding Christ are true
predictions. For, arraying himself at the same time against both
parties—against the Jews on the one hand, who deny that the advent of
Christ has taken place, but who expect it as future, and against
Christians on the other, who acknowledge that Jesus is the Christ spoken
of in prophecy—he makes the following statement:—

Footnote 475:

  Cf. Jer. i. 9, 10.

Footnote 476:

  Cf. Gen. xi. 4.

Footnote 477:

  Cf. 2 Cor. x. 5.

Footnote 478:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 9.

Footnote 479:

  τοὺς ἀνάλογον αὐτῷ προφητικοὺς λόγους.




                              Chapter II.


“But that certain Christians and [all] Jews should maintain, the former
that there _has_ already descended, the latter that there _will_
descend, upon the earth a certain God, or Son of a God, who will make
the inhabitants of the earth righteous,[480] is a most shameless
assertion, and one the refutation of which does not need many words.”
Now here he appears to pronounce correctly regarding not “certain” of
the Jews, but _all_ of them, that they imagine that there is a certain
[God] who will descend upon the earth; and with regard to Christians,
that _certain of them_ say that he has already come down. For he means
those who prove from the Jewish Scriptures that the advent of Christ has
already taken place, and he seems to know that there are certain
heretical sects which deny that Christ Jesus was predicted by the
prophets. In the preceding pages, however, we have already discussed, to
the best of our ability, the question of Christ having been the subject
of prophecy, and therefore, to avoid tautology, we do not repeat much
that might be advanced upon this head. Observe, now, that if he had
wished with a kind of apparent force[481] to subvert faith in the
prophetic writings, either with regard to the future or past advent of
Christ, he ought to have set forth the prophecies themselves which we
Christians and Jews quote in our discussions with each other. For in
this way he would have appeared to turn aside those who are carried away
by the plausible character[482] of the prophetic statements, as he
regards it, from assenting to their truth, and from believing, on
account of these prophecies, that Jesus is the Christ; whereas now,
being unable to answer the prophecies relating to Christ, or else not
knowing at all what are the prophecies relating to Him, he brings
forward no prophetic declaration, although there are countless numbers
which refer to Christ; but he thinks that he prefers an accusation
against the prophetic Scriptures, while he does not even state what he
himself would call their “plausible character!” He is not, however,
aware that it is not at all the Jews who say that Christ will descend as
a God, or the Son of a God, as we have shown in the foregoing pages. And
when he asserts that “he is said by us to have already come, but by the
Jews that his advent as Messiah[483] is still future,” he appears by the
very charge to censure our statement as one that is most shameless, and
which needs no lengthened refutation.

Footnote 480:

  δικαιωτὴς.

Footnote 481:

  ἀκολουθίας.

Footnote 482:

  πιθανότητος.

Footnote 483:

  Δικαιωτὴς, not Δικαστής.




                              Chapter III.


And he continues: “What is the meaning of such a descent upon the part
of God?” not observing that, according to our teaching, the meaning of
the descent is pre-eminently to convert what are called in the Gospel
the lost “sheep of the house of Israel;” and secondly, to take away from
them, on account of their disobedience, what is called the “kingdom of
God,” and to give to other husbandmen than the ancient Jews, viz. to the
Christians, who will render to God the fruits of His kingdom in due
season (each action being a “fruit of the kingdom”).[484] We shall
therefore, out of a greater number, select a few remarks by way of
answer to the question of Celsus, when he says, “What is the meaning of
such a descent upon the part of God?” And Celsus here returns to himself
an answer which would have been given neither by Jews nor by us, when he
asks, “Was it in order to learn what goes on amongst men?” For not one
of us asserts that it was in order to learn what goes on amongst men
that Christ entered into this life. Immediately after, however, as if
some would reply that it _was_ “in order to learn what goes on among
men,” he makes this objection to his own statement: “Does he not know
all things?” Then, as if we were to answer that He _does_ know all
things, he raises a new question, saying, “Then he does know, but does
not make [men] better, nor is it possible for him by means of his divine
power to make [men] better.” Now all this on his part is silly
talk;[485] for God, by means of His word, which is continually passing
from generation to generation into holy souls, and constituting them
friends of God and prophets, _does_ improve those who listen to His
words; and by the coming of Christ He improves, through the doctrine of
Christianity, not those who are unwilling, but those who have chosen the
better life, and that which is pleasing to God. I do not know, moreover,
what kind of improvement Celsus wished to take place when he raised the
objection, asking, “Is it then not possible for him, by means of his
divine power, to make [men] better, unless he send some one for that
special purpose?”[486] Would he then have the improvement to take place
by God’s filling the minds of men with new ideas, removing at once the
[inherent] wickedness, and implanting virtue [in its stead]?[487]
Another person now would inquire whether this was not inconsistent or
impossible in the very nature of things; we, however, would say, “Grant
it to be so, and let it be possible.” Where, then, is our free
will?[488] and what credit is there in assenting to the truth? or how is
the rejection of what is false praiseworthy? But even if it were once
granted that such a course was not only possible, but could be
accomplished with propriety [by God], why would not one rather inquire
(asking a question like that of Celsus) why it was not possible for God,
by means of His divine power, to create men who needed no improvement,
but who were of themselves virtuous and perfect, evil being altogether
non-existent? These questions may perplex ignorant and foolish
individuals, but not him who sees into the nature of things; for if you
take away the spontaneity of virtue, you destroy its essence. But it
would need an entire treatise to discuss these matters; and on this
subject the Greeks have expressed themselves at great length in their
works on providence. They truly would not say what Celsus has expressed
in words, that “God knows [all things] indeed, but does not make [men]
better, nor is able to do so by His divine power.” We ourselves have
spoken in many parts of our writings on these points to the best of our
ability, and the Holy Scriptures have established the same to those who
are able to understand them.

Footnote 484:

  τοὺς καρποὺς τῆς τοῦ Θεοῦ βασιλείας ἀποδώσουσι τῷ Θεῷ, ἐν τοῖς ἑκάστης
  πράξεως οὔσης καρποῦ τῆς βασιλείας καιροῖς.

Footnote 485:

  εὐήθως.

Footnote 486:

  The word φυσει which is found in the text seems out of place, and has
  been omitted in the translation, agreeably to the emendation of
  Boherellus.

Footnote 487:

  Ἆρα γὰρ ἤθελε φαντασιουμένοις τοῖς ἀνθρώποις ὑπὸ Θεοῦ, ἀπειληφότος μὲν
  ἀθρόως τὴν κακίαν, ἐμφύοντος δὲ τὴν ἀρετην, τὴν ἐπανόρθωσιν γενέσθαι;

Footnote 488:

  ποῦ οὖν τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν;




                              Chapter IV.


The argument which Celsus employs against us and the Jews will be turned
against himself thus: My good sir, does the God who is over all things
know what takes place among men, or does He not know? Now if you admit
the existence of a God and of providence, as your treatise indicates, He
must of necessity know. And if He does know, why does He not make [men]
better? Is it obligatory, then, on _us_ to defend God’s procedure in not
making men better, although He knows their state, but not equally
binding on _you_, who do not distinctly show by your treatise that you
are an Epicurean, but pretend to recognise a providence, to explain why
God, although knowing all that takes place among men, does not make them
better, nor by divine power liberate all men from evil? We are not
ashamed, however, to say that God is constantly sending [instructors] in
order to make men better; for there are to be found amongst men
reasons[489] given by God which exhort them to enter on a better life.
But there are many diversities amongst those who serve God, and they are
few in number who are perfect and pure ambassadors of the truth, and who
produce a complete reformation, as did Moses and the prophets. But above
all these, great was the reformation effected by Jesus, who desired to
heal not only those who lived in one corner of the world, but as far as
in Him lay, men in every country, for He came as the Saviour of _all_
men.

Footnote 489:

  οἱ γὰρ ἐπὶ τὰ βέλτιστα προκαλούμενοι λόγοι, Θεοῦ αὐτοὺς δεδωκότος,
  εἰσὶν ἐν ἀνθρώποις.




                               Chapter V.


The illustrious[490] Celsus, taking occasion I know not from what, next
raises an additional objection against us, as if we asserted that “God
Himself will come down to men.” He imagines also that it follows from
this, that “He has left His own abode;” for he does not know the power
of God, and that “the Spirit of the Lord filleth the world, and that
which upholdeth all things hath knowledge of the voice.”[491] Nor is he
able to understand the words, “Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the
Lord.”[492] Nor does he see that, according to the doctrine of
Christianity, we all “in Him live, and move, and have our being,”[493]
as Paul also taught in his address to the Athenians; and therefore,
although the God of the universe should through His own power descend
with Jesus into the life of men, and although the Word which was in the
beginning with God, which is also God Himself, should come to us, He
does not give His place or vacate His own seat, so that one place should
be empty of Him, and another which did not formerly contain Him be
filled. But the power and divinity of God comes through him whom God
chooses, and resides in him in whom it finds a place, not changing its
situation, nor leaving its own place empty and filling another: for, in
speaking of His quitting one place and occupying another, we do not mean
such expressions to be taken _topically_; but we say that the soul of
the bad man, and of him who is overwhelmed in wickedness, is abandoned
by God, while we mean that the soul of him who wishes to live
virtuously, or of him who is making progress [in a virtuous life], or
who is already living conformably thereto, is filled with or becomes a
partaker of the Divine Spirit. It is not necessary, then, for the
descent of Christ, or for the coming of God to men, that He should
abandon a greater seat, and that things on earth should be changed, as
Celsus imagines when he says, “If you were to change a single one, even
the least, of things on earth, all things would be overturned and
disappear.” And if we must speak of a change in any one by the appearing
of the power of God, and by the entrance of the word among men, we shall
not be reluctant to speak of changing from a wicked to a virtuous, from
a dissolute to a temperate, and from a superstitious to a religious
life, the person who has allowed the word of God to find entrance into
his soul.

Footnote 490:

  γενναιότατος.

Footnote 491:

  Wisd. Solom. i. 7, καὶ τὸ συνέχον τὰ πάντα γνῶσιν ἔχει φωνῆς.

Footnote 492:

  Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.

Footnote 493:

  Cf. Acts xvii. 28.




                              Chapter VI.


But if you will have us to meet the most ridiculous among the charges of
Celsus, listen to him when he says: “Now God, being unknown amongst men,
and deeming himself on that account to have less than his due,[494]
would desire to make himself known, and to make trial both of those who
believe upon him and of those who do not, like those of mankind who have
recently come into the possession of riches, and who make a display of
their wealth; and thus they testify to an excessive but very mortal
ambition on the part of God.”[495] We answer, then, that God, not being
known by wicked men, would desire to make Himself known, not because He
thinks that He meets with less than His due, but because the knowledge
of Him will free the possessor from unhappiness. Nay, not even with the
desire to try those who do or who do not believe upon Him, does He, by
His unspeakable and divine power, Himself take up His abode in certain
individuals, or send His Christ; but He does this in order to liberate
from all their wretchedness those who do believe upon Him, and who
accept His divinity, and that those who do _not_ believe may no longer
have this as a ground of excuse, viz. that their unbelief is the
consequence of their not having heard the word of instruction. What
argument, then, proves that it follows from our views that God,
according to our representations, is “like those of mankind who have
recently come into the possession of riches, and who make a display of
their wealth?” For God makes no display towards us, from a desire that
we should understand and consider His pre-eminence; but desiring that
the blessedness which results from His being known by us should be
implanted in our souls, He brings it to pass through Christ, and His
ever-indwelling word, that we come to an intimate fellowship[496] with
Him. No mortal ambition, then, does the Christian doctrine testify as
existing on the part of God.

Footnote 494:

  καὶ παρὰ τοῦτ’ ἔλαττον ἔχειν δοκῶν.

Footnote 495:

  καθάπερ οἱ νεόπλουτοι τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐπιδεικτιῶντες, πολλήν τινα καὶ
  πάνυ θνητὴν φιλοτιμίαν τοῦ Θεοῦ καταμαρτυροῦσι.

Footnote 496:

  οἰκείωσιν.




                              Chapter VII.


I do not know how it is, that after the foolish remarks which he has
made upon the subject which we have just been discussing, he should add
the following, that “God does not desire to make himself known for his
own sake, but because he wishes to bestow upon us the knowledge of
himself for the sake of our salvation, in order that those who accept it
may become virtuous and be saved, while those who do not accept may be
shown to be wicked and be punished.” And yet, after making such a
statement, he raises a new objection, saying: “After so long a period of
time,[497] then, did God now bethink himself of making men live
righteous lives,[498] but neglect to do so before?” To which we answer,
that there never was a time when God did not wish to make men live
righteous lives; but He continually evinced His care for the improvement
of the rational animal,[499] by affording him occasions for the exercise
of virtue. For in every generation the wisdom of God, passing into those
souls which it ascertains to be holy, converts them into friends and
prophets of God. And there may be found in the sacred books [the names
of] those who in each generation were holy, and were recipients of the
Divine Spirit, and who strove to convert their contemporaries so far as
in their power.

Footnote 497:

  μετὰ τοσοῦτον αἰῶνα.

Footnote 498:

  δικαιῶσαι.

Footnote 499:

  τὸ λογικὸν ζῶον.




                             Chapter VIII.


And it is not matter of surprise that in certain generations there have
existed prophets who, in the reception of divine influence,[500]
surpassed, by means of their stronger and more powerful [religious]
life, other prophets who were their contemporaries, and others also who
lived before and after them. And so it is not at all wonderful that
there should also have been a time when something of surpassing
excellence[501] took up its abode among the human race, and which was
distinguished above all that preceded or even that followed it. But
there is an element of profound mystery in the account of these things,
and one which is incapable of being received by the popular
understanding. And in order that these difficulties should be made to
disappear, and that the objections raised against the advent of Christ
should be answered—viz. that, “after so long a period of time, then, did
God now bethink himself of making men live righteous lives, but neglect
to do so before?”—it is necessary to touch upon the narrative of the
divisions [of the nations], and to make it evident why it was, that
“when the Most High divided the nations, when He separated the sons of
Adam, He set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the
angels of God, and the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, Israel
the cord of His inheritance;”[502] and it will be necessary to state the
reason why the birth of each man took place within each particular
boundary, under him who obtained the boundary by lot, and how it rightly
happened that “the portion of the Lord was His people Jacob, and Israel
the cord of His inheritance,” and why formerly the portion of the Lord
was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His inheritance. But with
respect to those who come after, it is said to the Saviour by the
Father, “Ask of me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for Thy
possession.”[503] For there are certain connected and related reasons,
bearing upon the different treatment of human souls, which are difficult
to state and to investigate.[504]

Footnote 500:

  ἐν τῇ παραδοχῇ τῆς θειότητος.

Footnote 501:

  ἐξαίρετον τί χρῆμα.

Footnote 502:

  Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (according to the LXX.).

Footnote 503:

  Cf. Ps. ii. 8.

Footnote 504:

  Εἰσὶ γάρ τινες εἱρμοὶ καὶ ἀκολουθίαι ἄφατοι καὶ ἀνεκδιήγητοι περὶ τῆς
  κατὰ τὰς ἀνθρωπίνας ψυχὰς διαφόρου οἰκονομίας.




                              Chapter IX.


There came, then, although Celsus may not wish to admit it, after the
numerous prophets who were the reformers of that well-known Israel, the
Christ, the Reformer of the whole world, who did not need to employ
against men whips, and chains, and tortures, as was the case under the
former economy. For when the sower went forth to sow, the doctrine
sufficed to sow the word everywhere. But if there is a time coming which
will necessarily circumscribe the duration of the world, by reason of
its having had a beginning, and if there is to be an end to the world,
and after the end a just judgment of all things, it will be incumbent on
him who treats the declarations of the Gospels philosophically, to
establish these doctrines by arguments of all kinds, not only derived
directly from the sacred Scriptures, but also by inferences deducible
from them; while the more numerous and simpler class of believers, and
those who are unable to comprehend the many varied aspects of the divine
wisdom, must entrust themselves to God, and to the Saviour of our race,
and be contented with His “ipse dixit,”[505] instead of this or any
other demonstration whatever.

Footnote 505:

  αὐτὸς ἔφα.




                               Chapter X.


In the next place, Celsus, as is his custom, having neither proved nor
established anything, proceeds to say, as if we talked of God in a
manner that was neither holy nor pious, that “it is perfectly manifest
that they babble about God in a way that is neither holy nor
reverential;” and he imagines that we do these things to excite the
astonishment of the ignorant, and that we do not speak the truth
regarding the necessity of punishments for those who have sinned. And
accordingly he likens us to those who “in the Bacchic mysteries
introduce phantoms and objects of terror.” With respect to the
mysteries of Bacchus, whether there is any reliable account of them,
or none that is such, let the Greeks tell, and let Celsus and his
boon-companions[506] listen. But we defend our own procedure, when we
say that our object is to reform the human race, either by the threats
of punishments which we are persuaded are necessary for the whole
world,[507] and which perhaps are not without use[508] to those who
are to endure them; or by the promises made to those who have lived
virtuous lives, and in which are contained the statements regarding
the blessed termination which is to be found in the kingdom of God,
reserved for those who are worthy of becoming His subjects.

Footnote 506:

  συνθιασῶται.

Footnote 507:

  τῷ παντὶ.

Footnote 508:

  οὐκ ἀχρήστους. On Origen’s views respecting rewards and punishments,
  cf. Huet’s _Origeniana_, Book ii. question xi.




                              Chapter XI.


After this, being desirous to show that it is nothing either wonderful
or new which we state regarding floods or conflagrations, but that, from
misunderstanding the accounts of these things which are current among
Greeks or barbarous nations, we have accorded our belief to our own
Scriptures when treating of them, he writes as follows: “The belief has
spread among them, from a misunderstanding of the accounts of these
occurrences, that after lengthened cycles of time, and the returns and
conjunctions of planets, conflagrations and floods are wont to happen,
and because after the last flood, which took place in the time of
Deucalion, the lapse of time, agreeably to the vicissitude of all
things, requires a conflagration; and this made them give utterance to
the erroneous opinion that God will descend, bringing fire like a
torturer.” Now in answer to this we say, that I do not understand how
Celsus, who has read a great deal, and who shows that he has perused
many histories, had not his attention arrested[509] by the antiquity of
Moses, who is related by certain Greek historians to have lived about
the time of Inachus the son of Phoroneus, and is acknowledged by the
Egyptians to be a man of great antiquity, as well as by those who have
studied the history of the Phœnicians. And any one who likes may peruse
the two books of Flavius Josephus on the antiquities of the Jews, in
order that he may see in what way Moses was more ancient than those who
asserted that floods and conflagrations take place in the world after
long intervals of time; which statement Celsus alleges the Jews and
Christians to have misunderstood, and, not comprehending what was said
about a conflagration, to have declared that “God will descend, bringing
fire like a torturer.”[510]

Footnote 509:

  οὐκ ἐπέστη.

Footnote 510:

  δίκην βασανιστοῦ πῦρ φέρων.




                              Chapter XII.


Whether, then, there are cycles of time, and floods, or conflagrations
which occur periodically or not, and whether the Scripture is aware of
this, not only in many passages, but especially where Solomon says,
“What is the thing which hath been? Even that which shall be. And what
is the thing which hath been done? Even that which shall be done,”[511]
etc. etc., belongs not to the present occasion to discuss. For it is
sufficient only to observe, that Moses and certain of the prophets,
being men of very great antiquity, did not receive from others the
statements relating to the [future] conflagration of the world; but, on
the contrary (if we must attend to the matter of time[512]), others
rather misunderstanding them, and not inquiring accurately into their
statements, invented the fiction of the same events recurring at certain
intervals, and differing neither in their essential nor accidental
qualities.[513] But we do not refer either the deluge or the
conflagration to cycles and planetary periods; but the cause of them we
declare to be the extensive prevalence of wickedness,[514] and its
[consequent] removal by a deluge or a conflagration. And if the voices
of the prophets say that God “comes down,” who has said, “Do I not fill
heaven and earth? saith the Lord,”[515] the term is used in a figurative
sense. For God “comes down” from His own height and greatness when He
arranges the affairs of men, and especially those of the wicked. And as
custom leads men to say that teachers “condescend”[516] to children, and
wise men to those youths who have just betaken themselves to philosophy,
not by “descending” in a _bodily_ manner; so, if God is said anywhere in
the Holy Scriptures to “come down,” it is understood as spoken in
conformity with the usage which so employs the word, and in like manner
also with the expression “go up.”

Footnote 511:

  Cf. Eccles. i. 9.

Footnote 512:

  εἰ χρὴ ἐπιστήσαντα τοῖς χρόνοις εἰπεῖν.

Footnote 513:

  ἀνέπλασαν κατὰ περιόδους ταυτότητας, καὶ ἀπαραλλάκτους τοῖς ἰδίοις
  ποιοῖς καὶ τοῖς συμβεβηκόσιν αὐτοῖς.

Footnote 514:

  κακίαν ἐπὶ πλεῖον χεομένην.

Footnote 515:

  Cf. Jer. xiii. 24.

Footnote 516:

  συγκαταβαίνειν.




                             Chapter XIII.


But as it is in mockery that Celsus says we speak of “God coming down
like a torturer bearing fire,” and thus compels us unseasonably to
investigate words of deeper meaning, we shall make a few remarks,
sufficient to enable our hearers to form an idea[517] of the defence
which disposes of the ridicule of Celsus against us, and then we shall
turn to what follows. The divine word says that our God is “a consuming
fire,”[518] and that “He draws rivers of fire before Him;”[519] nay,
that He even entereth in as “a refiner’s fire, and as a fuller’s
herb,”[520] to purify His own people. But when He is said to be a
“consuming fire,” we inquire what are the things which are appropriate
to be consumed by God. And we assert that they are wickedness, and the
works which result from it, and which, being figuratively called “wood,
hay, stubble,”[521] God consumes as a fire. The wicked man, accordingly,
is said to build up on the previously-laid foundation of reason, “wood,
and hay, and stubble.” If, then, any one can show that these words were
differently understood by the writer, and can prove that the wicked man
_literally_[522] builds up “wood, or hay, or stubble,” it is evident
that the fire must be understood to be material, and an object of sense.
But if, on the contrary, the works of the wicked man are spoken of
_figuratively_ under the names of “wood, or hay, or stubble,” why does
it not at once occur [to inquire] in what sense the word “fire” is to be
taken, so that “wood” of such a kind should be consumed? for [the
Scripture] says: “The fire will try each man’s work of what sort it is.
If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive
a reward. If any man’s work be burned, he shall suffer loss.”[523] But
what work can be spoken of in these words as being “burned,” save all
that results from wickedness? Therefore our God is a “consuming fire” in
the sense in which we have taken the word; and thus He enters in as a
“refiner’s fire,” to refine the rational nature, which has been filled
with the lead of wickedness, and to free it from the other impure
materials, which adulterate the natural gold or silver, so to speak, of
the soul.[524] And, in like manner, “rivers of fire” are said to be
before God, who will thoroughly cleanse away the evil which is
intermingled throughout the whole soul. But these remarks are sufficient
in answer to the assertion, “that thus they were made to give expression
to the erroneous opinion that God will come down bearing fire like a
torturer.”

Footnote 517:

  γεῦσαι.

Footnote 518:

  Cf. Deut. iv. 24, ix. 3.

Footnote 519:

  Cf. Dan. vii. 10.

Footnote 520:

  Cf. Mal. iii. 2.

Footnote 521:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.

Footnote 522:

  σωματικῶς.

Footnote 523:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 13-15.

Footnote 524:

  τὴν τοῦ χρυσοῦ (ἵν’ οὕτως ὀνομάσω), φύσιν τῆς ψυχῆς, ἢ τὴν ἀργύρου,
  δολωσάντων.




                              Chapter XIV.


But let us look at what Celsus next with great ostentation announces in
the following fashion: “And again,” he says, “let us resume the subject
from the beginning, with a larger array of proofs. And I make no new
statement, but say what has been long settled. God is good, and
beautiful, and blessed, and that in the best and most beautiful
degree.[525] But if he come down among men, he must undergo a change,
and a change from good to evil, from virtue to vice, from happiness to
misery, and from best to worst. Who, then, would make choice of such a
change? It is the nature of a mortal, indeed, to undergo change and
remoulding, but of an immortal to remain the same and unaltered. God,
then, could not admit of such a change.” Now it appears to me that the
fitting answer has been returned to these objections, when I have
related what is called in Scripture the “condescension”[526] of God to
human affairs; for which purpose He did not need to undergo a
transformation, as Celsus thinks we assert, nor a change from good to
evil, nor from virtue to vice, nor from happiness to misery, nor from
best to worst. For, continuing unchangeable in His essence, He
condescends to human affairs by the economy of His providence.[527] We
show, accordingly, that the Holy Scriptures represent God as
unchangeable, both by such words as “Thou art the same,”[528] and “I
change not;”[529] whereas the gods of Epicurus, being composed of atoms,
and, so far as their structure is concerned, capable of dissolution,
endeavour to throw off the atoms which contain the elements of
destruction. Nay, even the god of the Stoics, as being corporeal, at one
time has his whole essence composed of the guiding principle[530] when
the conflagration [of the world] takes place; and at another, when a
rearrangement of things occurs, he again becomes partly material.[531]
For even the Stoics were unable distinctly to comprehend the natural
idea of God, as of a being altogether incorruptible and simple, and
uncompounded and indivisible.

Footnote 525:

  Ὁ Θεὸς ἀγαθός ἐστι, καὶ καλὸς, καὶ εὐδαίμων, καὶ ἐν τῷ καλλίστῳ καὶ
  ἀρίστῳ.

Footnote 526:

  κατάβασιν.

Footnote 527:

  τῇ προνοίᾳ καὶ τῇ οἰκονομίᾳ.

Footnote 528:

  Ps. cii. 27.

Footnote 529:

  Mal. iii. 6.

Footnote 530:

  ἡγεμονικὸν.

Footnote 531:

  The reading in the text is, ἐπὶ μέρους γίνεται αὐτῆς, which is thus
  corrected by Guietus: ἐπιμερὴς γίνεται αὐτὸς.




                              Chapter XV.


And with respect to His having descended among men, He was “previously
in the form of God;”[532] and through benevolence, divested Himself [of
His glory], that He might be capable of being received by men. But He
did not, I imagine, undergo any change from “good to evil,” for “He did
no _sin_;”[533] nor from “virtue to vice,” for “He knew no _sin_.”[534]
Nor did He pass from “happiness to misery,” but He humbled Himself, and
nevertheless was blessed, even when His humiliation was undergone in
order to benefit our race. Nor was there any change in Him from “best to
worst,” for how can goodness and benevolence be of “the worst?” Is it
befitting to say of the physician, who looks on dreadful sights and
handles unsightly objects in order to cure the sufferers, that he passes
from “good to evil,” or from “virtue to vice,” or from “happiness to
misery?” And yet the physician, in looking on dreadful sights and
handling unsightly objects, does not wholly escape the possibility of
being involved in the same fate. But He who heals the wounds of our
souls, through the word of God that is in Him, is Himself incapable of
admitting any wickedness. But if the immortal God—the Word—by assuming a
mortal body and a human soul, appears to Celsus to undergo a change and
transformation, let him learn that the Word, still remaining essentially
the Word, suffers none of those things which are suffered by the body or
the soul; but, condescending occasionally to [the weakness of] him who
is unable to look upon the splendours and brilliancy of Deity, He
becomes as it were flesh, speaking with a literal voice, until he who
has received Him in such a form is able, through being elevated in some
slight degree by the teaching of the Word, to gaze upon what is, so to
speak, His real and pre-eminent appearance.[535]

Footnote 532:

  Cf. Phil. ii. 6, 7.

Footnote 533:

  Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 22.

Footnote 534:

  Cf. 2 Cor. v. 21.

Footnote 535:

  προηγουμένην.




                              Chapter XVI.


For there are different appearances, as it were, of the Word, according
as He shows Himself to each one of those who come to His doctrine; and
this in a manner corresponding to the condition of him who is just
becoming a disciple, or of him who has made a little progress, or of him
who has advanced further, or of him who has already _nearly_ attained to
virtue, or who has even _already_ attained it. And hence it is not the
case, as Celsus and those like him would have it, that our God was
transformed, and ascending the lofty mountain, showed that His real
appearance was something different, and far more excellent than what
those who remained below, and were unable to follow Him on high, beheld.
For those below did not possess eyes capable of seeing the
transformation of the Word into His glorious and more divine condition.
But with difficulty were they able to receive Him as He was; so that it
might be said of Him by those who were unable to behold His more
excellent nature: “We saw Him, and He had no form nor comeliness; but
His form was mean,[536] and inferior to that of the sons of men.”[537]
And let these remarks be an answer to the suppositions of Celsus, who
does not understand the changes or transformations of Jesus, as related
in the histories, nor His mortal and immortal nature.

Footnote 536:

  ἄτιμον.

Footnote 537:

  ἐκλεῖπον.




                             Chapter XVII.


But will not those narratives, especially when they are understood in
their proper sense, appear far more worthy of respect than the story
that Dionysus was deceived by the Titans, and expelled from the throne
of Jupiter, and torn in pieces by them, and his remains being afterwards
put together again, he returned as it were once more to life, and
ascended to heaven? Or are the Greeks at liberty to refer such stories
to the doctrine of the soul, and to interpret them figuratively, while
the door of a consistent explanation, and one everywhere in accord and
harmony with the writings of the Divine Spirit, who had His abode in
pure souls, is closed against _us_? Celsus, then, is altogether ignorant
of the purpose of our writings, and it is therefore upon his own
acceptation of them that he casts discredit, and not upon their real
meaning; whereas, if he had reflected on what is appropriate[538] to a
soul which is to enjoy an everlasting life, and on the opinion which we
are to form of its essence and principles, he would not so have
ridiculed the entrance of the immortal into a mortal body, which took
place not according to the metempsychosis of Plato, but agreeably to
another and higher view of things. And he would have observed one
“descent,” distinguished by its great benevolence, undertaken to convert
(as the Scripture mystically terms them) the “lost sheep of the house of
Israel,” which had strayed down from the mountains, and to which the
Shepherd is said in certain parables to have gone down, leaving on the
mountains those “which had not strayed.”

Footnote 538:

  τί ἀκολουθεῖ.




                             Chapter XVIII.


But Celsus, lingering over matters which he does not understand, leads
us to be guilty of tautology, as we do not wish even in appearance to
leave any one of his objections unexamined. He proceeds, accordingly, as
follows: “God either really changes himself, as these assert, into a
mortal body, and the impossibility of that has been already declared; or
else he does _not_ undergo a change, but only causes the beholders to
imagine so, and thus deceives them, and is guilty of falsehood. Now
deceit and falsehood are nothing but evils, and would only be employed
as a medicine, either in the case of sick and lunatic friends, with a
view to their cure, or in that of enemies when one is taking measures to
escape danger. But no sick man or lunatic is a friend of God, nor does
God fear any one to such a degree as to shun danger by leading him into
error.” Now the answer to these statements might have respect partly to
the nature of the Divine Word, who is God, and partly to the soul of
Jesus. As respects the nature of the Word, in the same way as the
quality of the food changes in the nurse into milk with reference to the
nature of the child, or is arranged by the physician with a view to the
good of his health in the case of a sick man, or [is specially] prepared
for a stronger man, because he possesses greater vigour, so does God
appropriately change, in the case of each individual, the power of the
Word to which belongs the natural property of nourishing the human soul.
And to one is given, as the Scripture terms it, “the sincere milk of the
word;” and to another, who is weaker, as it were, “herbs;” and to
another who is full-grown, “strong meat.” And the Word does not, I
imagine, prove false to His own nature, in contributing nourishment to
each one, according as he is capable of receiving Him. Nor does He
mislead or prove false. But if one were to take the change as referring
to the soul of Jesus after it had entered a body, we would inquire in
what sense the term “change” is used. For if it be meant to apply to its
essence, such a supposition is inadmissible, not only in relation to the
soul of Jesus, but also to the rational soul of any other being. And if
it be alleged that it suffers anything from the body when united with
it, or from the place to which it has come, then what inconvenience[539]
can happen to the Word who, in great benevolence, brought down a Saviour
to the human race?—seeing none of those who formerly professed to effect
a cure could accomplish so much as that soul showed _it_ could do, by
what it performed, even by voluntarily descending to the level of human
destinies for the benefit of our race. And the Divine Word, well knowing
this, speaks to that effect in many passages of Scripture, although it
is sufficient at present to quote one testimony of Paul to the following
effect: “Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who,
being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God,
but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the likeness of men; and being found in fashion
as a man, He humbled Himself, and became obedient unto death, even the
death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and
given Him a name which is above every name.”[540]

Footnote 539:

  τί ἄτοπον.

Footnote 540:

  Phil. ii. 5-9.




                              Chapter XIX.


Others, then, may concede to Celsus that God does not undergo a change,
but leads the spectators to imagine that He does; whereas we who are
persuaded that the advent of Jesus among men was no mere appearance, but
a real manifestation, are not affected by this charge of Celsus. We
nevertheless will attempt a reply, because you assert, Celsus, do you
not, that it is sometimes allowable to employ deceit and falsehood by
way, as it were, of medicine?[541] Where, then, is the absurdity, if
such a saving result were to be accomplished, that some such events
should have taken place? For certain words, when savouring of falsehood,
produce upon such characters a corrective effect (like the similar
declarations of physicians to their patients), rather than when spoken
in the spirit of truth. This, however, must be our defence against other
opponents. For there is no absurdity in Him who healed sick friends,
healing the dear human race by means of such remedies as He would not
employ preferentially, but only according to circumstances.[542] The
human race, moreover, when in a state of mental alienation, had to be
cured by methods which the Word saw would aid in bringing back those so
afflicted to a sound state of mind. But Celsus says also, that “one acts
thus towards enemies when taking measures to escape danger. But God does
not fear any one, so as to escape danger by leading into error those who
conspire against him.” Now it is altogether unnecessary and absurd to
answer a charge which is advanced by no one against our Saviour. And we
have already replied, when answering other charges, to the statement
that “no one who is either in a state of sickness or mental alienation
is a friend of God.” For the answer is, that such arrangements have been
made, not for the sake of those who, being already friends, afterwards
fell sick or became afflicted with mental disease, but in order that
those who were still enemies through sickness of the soul, and
alienation of the natural reason, might become the friends of God. For
it is distinctly stated that Jesus endured all things on behalf of
sinners, that He might free them from sin, and convert them to
righteousness.

Footnote 541:

  ὅμως δ’ ἀπολογησόμεθα, ὅτι οὐ φῂς, ὦ Κέλσε, ὡς ἐν φαρμάκου μοίρᾳ ποτὲ
  δίδοται χρῆσθαι τῷ πλανᾶν καὶ τῷ ψεύδεσθαι.

Footnote 542:

  προηγουμένως, ἀλλ’ ἐκ περιστάσεως.




                              Chapter XX.


In the next place, as he represents the Jews accounting in a way
peculiar to themselves for their belief that the advent of Christ among
them is still in the future, and the Christians as maintaining in
_their_ way that the coming of the Son of God into the life of men has
already taken place, let us, as far as we can, briefly consider these
points. According to Celsus, the Jews say that “[human] life, being
filled with all wickedness, needed one sent from God, that the wicked
might be punished, and all things purified in a manner analogous to the
first deluge which happened.” And as the Christians are said to make
statements additional to this, it is evident that he alleges that they
admit these. Now, where is the absurdity in the coming of one who is, on
account of the prevailing flood of wickedness, to purify the world, and
to treat every one according to his deserts? For it is not in keeping
with the character of God that the diffusion of wickedness should not
cease, and all things be renewed. The Greeks, moreover, know of the
earth’s being purified at certain times by a deluge or a fire, as Plato,
too, says somewhere to this effect: “And when the gods overwhelm the
earth, purifying it with water, some of them on the mountains,”[543]
etc. etc. Must it be said, then, that if the Greeks make such
assertions, they are to be deemed worthy of respect and consideration,
but that if we too maintain certain of these views, which are quoted
with approval by the Greeks, they cease to be honourable? And yet they
who care to attend to the connection and truth of all our records, will
endeavour to establish not only the antiquity of the writers, but the
venerable nature of their writings, and the consistency of their several
parts.

Footnote 543:

  Cf. Plato in the _Timæus_, and Book iii. _de legibus_.




                              Chapter XXI.


But I do not understand how he can imagine the overturning of the tower
[of Babel] to have happened with a similar object to that of the deluge,
which effected a purification of the earth, according to the accounts
both of Jews and Christians. For, in order that the narrative contained
in Genesis respecting the tower may be held to convey no secret meaning,
but, as Celsus supposes, may be taken as true to the letter,[544] the
event does not on such a view appear to have taken place for the purpose
of purifying the earth; unless, indeed, he imagines that the so-called
confusion of tongues is such a purificatory process. But on this point,
he who has the opportunity will treat more seasonably when his object is
to show not only what is the meaning of the narrative in its historical
connection, but what metaphorical meaning may be deduced from it.[545]
Seeing that he imagines, however, that Moses, who wrote the account of
the tower, and the confusion of tongues, has perverted the story of the
sons of Aloeus,[546] and referred it to the tower, we must remark that I
do not think any one prior to the time of Homer[547] has mentioned the
sons of Aloeus, while I am persuaded that what is related about the
tower has been recorded by Moses as being much older not only than
Homer, but even than the invention of letters among the Greeks. Who,
then, are the perverters of each other’s narratives? Whether do they who
relate the story of the Aloadæ pervert the history of the time, or he
who wrote the account of the tower and the confusion of tongues the
story of the Aloadæ? Now to impartial hearers Moses appears to be more
ancient than Homer. The destruction by fire, moreover, of Sodom and
Gomorrha on account of their sins, related by Moses in Genesis, is
compared by Celsus to the story of Phaethon,—all these statements of his
resulting from one blunder, viz. his not attending to the [greater]
antiquity of Moses. For they who relate the story of Phaethon seem to be
younger even than Homer, who, again, is much younger than Moses. We do
not deny, then, that the purificatory fire and the destruction of the
world took place in order that evil might be swept away, and all things
be renewed; for we assert that we have learned these things from the
sacred books of the prophets. But since, as we have said in the
preceding pages, the prophets, in uttering many predictions regarding
future events, show that they have spoken the truth concerning many
things that are past, and thus give evidence of the indwelling of the
Divine Spirit, it is manifest that, with respect to things still future,
we should repose faith in them, or rather in the Divine Spirit that is
in them.

Footnote 544:

  σαφὴς.

Footnote 545:

  Ἐπὰν τὸ προκείμενον ᾖ παραστῆσαι καὶ τὰ τῆς κατὰ τὸν τόπον ἱστορίας
  τίνα ἔχοι λόγον, καὶ τὰ τῆς περὶ αὐτοῦ ἀναγωγῆς.

Footnote 546:

  Otus and Ephialtes. Cf. Smith’s _Dict. of Myth. and Biog._ _s.v._

Footnote 547:

  Cf. Hom. _Odyss._ xi. 305.




                             Chapter XXII.


But, according to Celsus, “the Christians, making certain additional
statements to those of the Jews, assert that the Son of God has been
already sent on account of the sins of the Jews; and that the Jews
having chastised Jesus, and given him gall to drink, have brought upon
themselves the divine wrath.” And any one who likes may convict this
statement of falsehood, if it be not the case that the whole Jewish
nation was overthrown within one single generation after Jesus had
undergone these sufferings at their hands. For forty and two years, I
think, after the date of the crucifixion of Jesus, did the destruction
of Jerusalem take place. Now it has never been recorded, since the
Jewish nation began to exist, that they have been expelled for so long a
period from their venerable temple-worship[548] and service, and
enslaved by more powerful nations; for if at any time they appeared to
be abandoned because of their sins, they were notwithstanding visited
[by God],[549] and returned to their own country, and recovered their
possessions, and performed unhindered the observances of their law. One
fact, then, which proves that Jesus was something divine and
sacred,[550] is this, that Jews should have suffered on His account now
for a lengthened time calamities of such severity. And we say with
confidence that they will never be restored to their former
condition.[551] For they committed a crime of the most unhallowed kind,
in conspiring against the Saviour of the human race in that city where
they offered up to God a worship containing the symbols of mighty
mysteries. It accordingly behoved that city where Jesus underwent these
sufferings to perish utterly, and the Jewish nation to be overthrown,
and the invitation to happiness offered them by God to pass to
others,—the Christians, I mean, to whom has come the doctrine of a pure
and holy worship, and who have obtained new laws, in harmony with the
established constitution in all countries;[552] seeing those which were
formerly imposed, as on a single nation which was ruled by princes of
its own race and of similar manners,[553] could not now be observed in
all their entireness.

Footnote 548:

  ἁγιστειας.

Footnote 549:

  ἐπεσκοπηθήσαν.

Footnote 550:

  Θεῖον τι καὶ ἱερὸν χρῆμα γεγονέναι τὸν Ἰησοῦν.

Footnote 551:

  οὐδ’ ἀποκατασταθήσονται.

Footnote 552:

  καὶ ἁρμόζοντας τῇ πανταχοῦ καθεστώσῃ πολιτείᾳ.

Footnote 553:

  ὑπὸ οἰκείων καὶ ὁμοήθων.




                             Chapter XXIII.


In the next place, ridiculing after his usual style the race of Jews and
Christians, he compares them all “to a flight of bats or to a swarm of
ants issuing out of their nest, or to frogs holding council in a marsh,
or to worms crawling together in the corner of a dunghill, and
quarrelling with one another as to which of them were the greater
sinners, and asserting that God shows and announces to us all things
beforehand; and that, abandoning the whole world, and the regions of
heaven,[554] and this great earth, he becomes a citizen[555] among us
alone, and to us alone makes his intimations, and does not cease sending
and inquiring, in what way we may be associated with him for ever.” And
in his fictitious representation, he compares us to “worms which assert
that there is a God, and that immediately after him, we who are made by
him are altogether like unto God, and that all things have been made
subject to us,—earth, and water, and air, and stars,—and that all things
exist for our sake, and are ordained to be subject to us.” And,
according to his representation, the worms—that is, we ourselves—say
that “now, since certain amongst us commit sin, God will come or will
send his Son to consume the wicked with fire, that the rest of us may
have eternal life with him.” And to all this he subjoins the remark,
that “such wranglings would be more endurable amongst worms and frogs
than betwixt Jews and Christians.”

Footnote 554:

  τὴν οὐράνιον φορὰν.

Footnote 555:

  ἐμπολιτεύεται.




                             Chapter XXIV.


In reply to these, we ask of those who accept such aspersions as are
scattered against us, Do you regard all men as a collection of bats, or
as frogs, or as worms, in consequence of the pre-eminence of God? or do
you not include the rest of mankind in this proposed comparison, but on
account of their possession of reason, and of the established laws,
treat _them_ as men, while you hold cheap[556] _Christians_ and _Jews_,
because their opinions are distasteful to you, and compare them to the
animals above mentioned? And whatever answer you may return to our
question, we shall reply by endeavouring to show that such assertions
are most unbecoming, whether spoken of all men in general, or of us in
particular. For, let it be supposed that you say justly that all men, as
compared with God, are [rightly] likened to these worthless[557]
animals, since their littleness is not at all to be compared with the
superiority of God, what then do you mean by littleness? Answer me, good
sirs. If you refer to littleness of body, know that superiority and
inferiority, if truth is to be judge, are not determined by a bodily
standard.[558] For, on such a view, vultures[559] and elephants would be
superior to us men; for they are larger, and stronger, and longer-lived
than we. But no sensible person would maintain that these irrational
creatures are superior to rational beings, merely on account of their
bodies: for the possession of reason raises a rational being to a vast
superiority over all irrational creatures. Even the race of virtuous and
blessed beings would admit this, whether they are, as ye say, good
demons, or, as we are accustomed to call them, the angels of God, or any
other natures whatever superior to that of man, since the rational
faculty within them has been made perfect, and endowed with all virtuous
qualities.[560]

Footnote 556:

  ἐξευτελίζοντες.

Footnote 557:

  εὐτελέσι.

Footnote 558:

  οὐκ ἐν σώματι κρίνεται.

Footnote 559:

  γύπες; γρύπες?

Footnote 560:

  καὶ κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀρετὴν πεποίωται.




                              Chapter XXV.


But if you depreciate the littleness of man, not on account of his body,
but of his soul, regarding it as inferior to that of other rational
beings, and especially of those who are virtuous; and inferior, because
evil dwells in it,—why should those among Christians who are wicked, and
those among the Jews who lead sinful lives, be termed a collection of
bats, or ants, or worms, or frogs, rather than those individuals among
other nations who are guilty of wickedness?—seeing, in this respect, any
individual whatever, especially if carried away by the tide of evil, is,
in comparison with the rest of mankind, a bat, and worm, and frog, and
ant. And although a man may be an orator like Demosthenes, yet, if
stained with wickedness like his,[561] and guilty of deeds proceeding,
like his, from a wicked nature; or an Antiphon, who was also considered
to be indeed an orator, yet who annihilated the doctrine of providence
in his writings, which were entitled _Concerning Truth_, like that
discourse of Celsus,—such individuals are notwithstanding worms, rolling
in a corner of the dung-heap of stupidity and ignorance. Indeed,
whatever be the nature of the rational faculty, it could not reasonably
be compared to a worm, because it possesses capabilities of virtue.[562]
For these adumbrations[563] towards virtue do not allow of those who
possess the power of acquiring it, and who are incapable of wholly
losing its seeds, to be likened to a worm. It appears, therefore, that
neither can men in general be deemed worms in comparison with God. For
reason, having its beginning in the reason of God, cannot allow of the
rational animal being considered wholly alien from Deity. Nor can those
among Christians and Jews who are wicked, and who, in truth, are neither
Christians nor Jews, be compared, more than other wicked men, to worms
rolling in a corner of a dunghill. And if the nature of reason will not
permit of such comparisons, it is manifest that we must not calumniate
human nature, which has been formed for virtue, even if it should sin
through ignorance, nor liken it to animals of the kind described.

Footnote 561:

  The allusion may possibly be to his flight from the field of Chæronea,
  or to his avarice, or to the alleged impurity of his life, which is
  referred to by Plutarch in his _Lives of the Ten Orators_.—SPENCER.

Footnote 562:

  ἀφορμὰς ἔχον πρὸς ἀρετὴν.

Footnote 563:

  ὑποτυπώσεις.




                             Chapter XXVI.


But if it is on account of those opinions of the Christians and Jews
which displease Celsus (and which he does not at all appear to
understand) that they are to be regarded as worms and ants, and the rest
of mankind as different, let us examine the acknowledged opinions of
Christians and Jews,[564] and compare them with those of the rest of
mankind, and see whether it will not appear to those who have once
admitted that certain men are worms and ants, that _they_ are the worms
and ants and frogs who have fallen away from sound views of God, and,
under a vain appearance of piety,[565] worship either irrational
animals, or images, or other objects, the works of men’s hands;[566]
whereas, from the beauty of such, they ought to admire the Maker of
them, and worship Him: while those are indeed men, and more honourable
than men (if there be anything that is so), who, in obedience to their
reason, are able to ascend from stocks and stones,[567] nay, even from
what is reckoned the most precious of all matter—silver and gold; and
who ascend up also from the beautiful things in the world to the Maker
of all, and entrust themselves to Him who alone is able to satisfy[568]
all existing things, and to overlook the thoughts of all, and to hear
the prayers of all; who send up their prayers to Him, and do all things
as in the presence of Him who beholds everything, and who are careful,
as in the presence of the Hearer of all things, to say nothing which
might not with propriety be reported to God. Will not such piety as
this—which can be overcome neither by labours, nor by the dangers of
death, nor by logical plausibilities[569]—be of no avail in preventing
those who have obtained it from being any longer compared to worms, even
if they had been so represented before their assumption of a piety so
remarkable? Will they who subdue that fierce longing for sexual
pleasures which has reduced the souls of many to a weak and feeble
condition, and who subdue it because they are persuaded that they cannot
otherwise have communion with God, unless they ascend to Him through the
exercise of temperance, appear to you to be the brothers of worms, and
relatives of ants, and to bear a likeness to frogs? What! is the
brilliant quality of justice, which keeps inviolate the rights common to
our neighbour, and our kindred, and which observes fairness, and
benevolence, and goodness, of no avail in saving him who practises it
from being termed a bird of the night? And are not they who wallow in
dissoluteness, as do the majority of mankind, and they who associate
promiscuously with common harlots, and who teach that such practices are
not wholly contrary to propriety, worms who roll in mire?—especially
when they are compared with those who have been taught not to take the
“members of Christ,” and the body inhabited by the Word, and make them
the “members of a harlot;” and who have already learned that the body of
the rational being, as consecrated to the God of all things, is the
temple of the God whom they worship, becoming such from the pure
conceptions which they entertain of the Creator, and who also, being
careful not to corrupt the temple of God by unlawful pleasure, practise
temperance as constituting piety towards God!

Footnote 564:

  τὰ αὐτόθεν πᾶσι προφαινόμενα δόγματα Χριστιανῶν καὶ Ἰουδαίων.

Footnote 565:

  φαντασίᾳ δ’ εὐσεβείας.

Footnote 566:

  ἢ καὶ τὰ δημιουργήματα.

Footnote 567:

  λίθων καὶ ξύλων.

Footnote 568:

  διαοκεῖν.

Footnote 569:

  ὑπὸ λογικῶν πιθανοτήτων.




                             Chapter XXVII.


And I have not yet spoken of the other evils which prevail amongst men,
from which even those who have the appearance of philosophers are not
speedily freed, for in philosophy there are many pretenders. Nor do I
say anything on the point that many such evils are found to exist among
those who are neither Jews nor Christians. Of a truth, such evil
practices do not at all prevail among _Christians_, if you properly
examine what constitutes a Christian. Or, if any persons of that kind
should be discovered, they are at least not to be found among those who
frequent the assemblies, and come to the public prayers, without their
being excluded from them, unless it should happen, and that rarely, that
some one individual of such a character escapes notice in the crowd. We,
then, are not worms who assemble together; who take our stand against
the Jews on those Scriptures which they believe to be divine, and who
show that He who was spoken of in prophecy _has_ come, and that _they_
have been abandoned on account of the greatness of their sins, and that
_we_ who have accepted the Word have the highest hopes in God, both
because of our faith in Him, and of His ability to receive us into His
communion pure from all evil and wickedness of life. If a man, then,
should call himself a Jew or a Christian, he would not say without
qualification that God had made the whole world, and the vault of
heaven[570] for us in particular. But if a man is, as Jesus taught, pure
in heart, and meek, and peaceful, and cheerfully submits to dangers for
the sake of his religion, such an one might reasonably have confidence
in God, and with a full apprehension of the word contained in the
prophecies, might say this also: “All these things has God shown
beforehand, and announced to us who believe.”

Footnote 570:

  τὴν οὐράνιον φοράν.




                            Chapter XXVIII.


But since he has represented those whom he regards as worms, viz. the
Christians, as saying that “God, having abandoned the heavenly regions,
and despising this great earth, takes up His abode amongst us alone, and
to us alone makes His announcements, and ceases not His messages and
inquiries as to how we may become His associates for ever,” we have to
answer that he attributes to us words which we never uttered, seeing we
both read and know that God loves all existing things, and loathes[571]
nothing which He has made, for He would not have created anything in
hatred. We have, moreover, read the declaration: “And Thou sparest all
things, because they are Thine, O lover of souls. For Thine
incorruptible Spirit is in all. And therefore those also who have fallen
away for a little time Thou rebukest, and admonishest, reminding them of
their sins.”[572] How can we assert that “God, leaving the regions of
heaven, and the whole world, and despising this great earth, takes up
His abode amongst us only,” when we have found that all thoughtful
persons must say in their prayers, that “the earth is full of the mercy
of the Lord,”[573] and that “the mercy of the Lord is upon all
flesh;”[574] and that God, being good, “maketh His sun to arise upon the
evil and the good, and sendeth His rain upon the just and the
unjust;”[575] and that He encourages us to a similar course of action,
in order that we may become His sons, and teaches us to extend the
benefits which we enjoy, so far as in our power, to all men? For He
Himself is said to be the Saviour of all men, especially of them that
believe;[576] and His Christ to be the “propitiation for our sins, and
not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.”[577] And
this, then, is our answer to the allegations of Celsus. Certain other
statements, in keeping with the character of the Jews, might be made by
some of that nation, but certainly not by the Christians, who have been
taught that “God commendeth His love towards us, in that, while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us;”[578] and although “scarcely for a
righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man some would
even dare to die.”[579] But now is Jesus declared to have come for the
sake of sinners in all parts of the world (that they may forsake their
sin, and entrust themselves to God), being called also, agreeably to an
ancient custom of these Scriptures, the “Christ of God.”

Footnote 571:

  βδελύσσεται.

Footnote 572:

  Cf. Wisd. of Solom. xi. 26, xii. 1, 2.

Footnote 573:

  Ps. xxxiii. 5.

Footnote 574:

  Ecclus. xviii. 13.

Footnote 575:

  Cf. Matt. v. 45.

Footnote 576:

  Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 10.

Footnote 577:

  Cf. 1 John ii. 2.

Footnote 578:

  Cf. Rom. v. 8.

Footnote 579:

  Cf. Rom. v. 7.




                             Chapter XXIX.


But Celsus perhaps has misunderstood certain of those whom he has termed
“worms,” when they affirm that “God exists, and that _we_ are next to
Him.” And he acts like those who would find fault with an entire sect of
philosophers, on account of certain words uttered by some rash youth
who, after a three days’ attendance upon the lectures of a philosopher,
should exalt himself above other people as inferior to himself, and
devoid of philosophy. For we know that there are many creatures more
honourable[580] than man; and we have read that “God standeth in the
congregation of gods,”[581] but of gods who are not worshipped by the
nations, “for all the gods of the nations are idols.”[582] We have read
also, that “God, standing in the congregation of the gods, judgeth among
the gods.”[583] We know, moreover, that “though there be that are called
gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many and lords
many), but to us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things,
and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we
by Him.”[584] And we know that in this way the angels are superior to
men; so that men, when made perfect, become like the angels. “For in the
resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but the
righteous are as the angels in heaven,”[585] and also become “equal to
the angels.”[586] We know, too, that in the arrangement of the universe
there are certain beings termed “thrones,” and others “dominions,” and
others “powers,” and others “principalities;” and we see that we men,
who are far inferior to these, may entertain the hope that by a virtuous
life, and by acting in all things agreeably to reason, we may rise to a
likeness with all these. And, lastly, because “it doth not yet appear
what we shall be; but we know that when He shall appear, we shall be
like God, and shall see Him as He is.”[587] And if any one were to
maintain what is asserted by some (either by those who possess
intelligence or who do not, but have misconceived sound reason), that
“God exists, and _we_ are next to Him,” I would interpret the word “we,”
by using in its stead, “We who act according to reason,” or rather, “We
_virtuous_, who act according to reason.”[588] For, in our opinion, the
same virtue belongs to _all_ the blessed, so that the virtue of man and
of God is identical.[589] And therefore we are taught to become
“perfect,” as our Father in heaven is perfect.[590] No good and virtuous
man, then, is a “worm rolling in filth,” nor is a pious man an “ant,”
nor a righteous man a “frog;” nor could one whose soul is enlightened
with the bright light of truth be reasonably likened to a “bird of the
night.”

Footnote 580:

  τιμιώτερα.

Footnote 581:

  Cf. Ps. lxxxii. 1.

Footnote 582:

  δαιμόνια. Cf. Ps. xcvi. 5.

Footnote 583:

  Cf. Ps. lxxxii. 1.

Footnote 584:

  1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

Footnote 585:

  Cf. Matt. xxii. 30.

Footnote 586:

  Cf. Luke xx. 36.

Footnote 587:

  Cf. 1 John iii. 2.

Footnote 588:

  καὶ τοῦτό γ’ ἄν ἑρμηνεύοιμι, τὸ “ἡμεῖς” λέγων ἀντὶ τοῦ οἱ λογικοὶ, καὶ
  ἔτι μᾶλλον, οἱ σπουδαῖοι λογικοί.

Footnote 589:

  ὥστε καὶ ἡ αὐτὴ ἀρετὴ ἀνθρώπου καὶ Θεοῦ. Cf. Cicero, _de leg._ i.:
  “Jam vero virtus eadem in homine ac deo est, neque ullo alio in genio
  præterea. Est autem virtus nihil aliud, quam in se perfecta, et ad
  summum perducta natura. Est igitur homini cum Deo similitudo.” Cf.
  also Clemens Alex. _Strom._ vii.: Οὐ γὰρ, καθάπερ οἱ Στωϊκοὶ, ἀθέως,
  πάνυ τὴν αὐτὴν ἀρετὴν ἀνθρώπου λέγομεν καὶ Θεοῦ. Cf. Theodoret,
  _Serm._ xi.—SPENCER.

Footnote 590:

  Cf. Matt. v. 48.




                              Chapter XXX.


It appears to me that Celsus has also misunderstood this statement, “Let
us make man in our image and likeness;”[591] and has therefore
represented the “worms” as saying that, being created by God, we
altogether resemble Him. If, however, he had known the difference
between man being created “in the image of God” and “after His
likeness,” and that God is recorded to have said, “Let us make man after
our image and likeness,” but that He made man “after the image” of God,
but not then also “after His likeness,”[592] he would not have
represented us as saying that “we are altogether like Him.” Moreover, we
do not assert that the stars are subject to us; since the resurrection
which is called the “resurrection of the just,” and which is understood
by wise men, is compared to the sun, and moon, and stars, by him who
said, “There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in
glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.”[593] Daniel also
prophesied long ago regarding these things.[594] Celsus says further,
that we assert that “all things have been arranged so as to be subject
to us,” having perhaps heard some of the intelligent among us speaking
to that effect, and perhaps also not understanding the saying, that “he
who is the greatest amongst us is the servant of all.”[595] And if the
Greeks say, “Then sun and moon are the slaves of mortal men,”[596] they
express approval of the statement, and give an explanation of its
meaning; but since such a statement is either not made at all by us, or
is expressed in a different way, Celsus here too falsely accuses us.
Moreover, we who, according to Celsus, are “worms,” are represented by
him as saying that, “seeing some among us are guilty of sin, God will
come to us, or will send His own Son, that He may consume the wicked,
and that we other frogs may enjoy eternal life with Him.” Observe how
this venerable philosopher, like a low buffoon,[597] turns into ridicule
and mockery, and a subject of laughter, the announcement of a divine
judgment, and of the punishment of the wicked, and of the reward of the
righteous; and subjoins to all this the remark, that “such statements
would be more endurable if made by worms and frogs than by Christians
and Jews who quarrel with one another!” We shall not, however, imitate
his example, nor say similar things regarding those philosophers who
profess to know the nature of all things, and who discuss with each
other the manner in which all things were created, and how the heaven
and earth originated, and all things in them; and how the souls [of
men], being either unbegotten, and not created by God, are yet governed
by Him, and pass from one body to another;[598] or being formed at the
same time with the body, exist for ever or pass away. For instead of
treating with respect and accepting the intention of those who have
devoted themselves to the investigation of the truth, one might
mockingly and revilingly say that such men were “worms,” who did not
measure themselves by their corner of their dung-heap in human life, and
who accordingly gave forth their opinions on matters of such importance
as if they understood them, and who strenuously assert that they have
obtained a view of those things which cannot be seen without a higher
inspiration and a diviner power. “For no man knoweth the things of a
man, save the spirit of man which is in him: even so the things of God
knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.”[599] We are not, however, mad,
nor do we compare such human wisdom (I use the word “wisdom” in the
common acceptation), which busies itself not about the affairs of the
multitude, but in the investigation of truth, to the wrigglings of worms
or any other such creatures; but in the spirit of truth, we testify of
certain Greek philosophers that they knew God, seeing “He manifested
Himself to them,”[600] although “they glorified Him not as God, neither
were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations; and professing
themselves to be wise, they became foolish, and changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to
birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”[601]

Footnote 591:

  Cf. Gen. i. 26.

Footnote 592:

  Cf. Gen. i. 27.

Footnote 593:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

Footnote 594:

  Cf. Dan. xii. 3.

Footnote 595:

  Cf. Matt. xx. 28.

Footnote 596:

  Cf. Eurip. _Phœniss._ 512.

Footnote 597:

  βωμολόχος.

Footnote 598:

  καὶ ἀμείβουσι σώματα.

Footnote 599:

  Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 11.

Footnote 600:

  Cf. Rom. i. 19.

Footnote 601:

  Rom. i. 21-23.




                             Chapter XXXI.


After this, wishing to prove that there is no difference between Jews
and Christians, and those animals previously enumerated by him, he
asserts that the Jews were “fugitives from Egypt, who never performed
anything worthy of note, and never were held in any reputation or
account.”[602] Now, on the point of their not being fugitives, nor
Egyptians, but Hebrews who settled in Egypt, we have spoken in the
preceding pages. But if he thinks his statement, that “they were never
held in any reputation or account,” to be proved, because no remarkable
event in their history is found recorded by the Greeks, we would answer,
that if one will examine their polity from its first beginning, and the
arrangement of their laws, he will find that they were men who
represented upon earth the shadow of a heavenly life, and that amongst
them God is recognised as nothing else, save He who is over all things,
and that amongst them no maker of images was permitted to enjoy the
rights of citizenship.[603] For neither painter nor image-maker existed
in their state, the law expelling all such from it; that there might be
no pretext for the construction of images,—an art which attracts the
attention of foolish men, and which drags down the eyes of the soul from
God to earth. There was, accordingly, amongst them a law to the
following effect: “Do not transgress the law, and make to yourselves a
graven image, any likeness of male or female; either a likeness of any
one of the creatures that are upon the earth, or a likeness of any
winged fowl that flieth under the heaven, or a likeness of any creeping
thing that creepeth upon the earth, or a likeness of any of the fishes
which are in the waters under the earth.”[604] The law, indeed, wished
them to have regard to the truth of each individual thing, and not to
form representations of things contrary to reality, feigning the
appearance merely of what was really male or really female, or the
nature of animals, or of birds, or of creeping things, or of fishes.
Venerable, too, and grand was this prohibition of theirs: “Lift not up
thine eyes unto heaven, lest, when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and
the stars, and all the host of heaven, thou shouldst be led astray to
worship them, and serve them.”[605] And what a _régime_[606] was that
under which the whole nation was placed, and which rendered it
impossible for any effeminate person to appear in public;[607] and
worthy of admiration, too, was the arrangement by which harlots were
removed out of the state, those incentives to the passions of the youth!
Their courts of justice also were composed of men of the strictest
integrity, who, after having for a lengthened period set the example of
an unstained life, were entrusted with the duty of presiding over the
tribunals, and who, on account of the superhuman purity of their
character,[608] were said to be gods, in conformity with an ancient
Jewish usage of speech. Here was the spectacle of a whole nation devoted
to philosophy; and in order that there might be leisure to listen to
their sacred laws, the days termed “Sabbath,” and the other festivals
which existed among them, were instituted. And why need I speak of the
orders of their priests and sacrifices, which contain innumerable
indications [of deeper truths] to those who wish to ascertain the
signification of things?

Footnote 602:

  οὔτ’ ἐν λόγῳ, οὔτ’ ἐν ἀριθμῷ αὐτοὺς πότε γεγενημένους.

Footnote 603:

  ἐπολιτεύετο.

Footnote 604:

  Cf. Deut. iv. 16-18.

Footnote 605:

  Cf. Deut. iv. 19.

Footnote 606:

  πολιτεία.

Footnote 607:

  οὐδὲ φαίνεσθαι θηλυδρίαν οἷον τ’ ἦν.

Footnote 608:

  οἵ τινες διὰ τὸ καθαρὸν ἦθος, καὶ τὸ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον.




                             Chapter XXXII.


But since nothing belonging to human nature is permanent, this polity
also must gradually be corrupted and changed. And Providence, having
remodelled their venerable system where it needed to be changed, so as
to adapt it to men of all countries, gave to believers of all nations,
in place of the Jews, the venerable religion of Jesus, who, being
adorned not only with understanding, but also with a share of
divinity,[609] and having overthrown the doctrine regarding earthly
demons, who delight in frankincense, and blood, and in the exhalations
of sacrificial odours, and who, like the fabled Titans or Giants, drag
down men from thoughts of God; and having Himself disregarded their
plots, directed chiefly against the better class of men, enacted laws
which ensure happiness to those who live according to them, and who do
not flatter the demons by means of sacrifices, but altogether despise
them, through help of the word of God, which aids those who look upwards
to Him. And as it was the will of God that the doctrine of Jesus should
prevail amongst men, the demons could effect nothing, although straining
every nerve[610] to accomplish the destruction of Christians; for they
stirred up both princes, and senates, and rulers in every place,—nay,
even nations themselves, who did not perceive the irrational and wicked
procedure of the demons,—against the word, and those who believed in it;
yet, notwithstanding, the word of God, which is more powerful than all
other things, even when meeting with opposition, deriving from the
opposition, as it were, a means of increase, advanced onwards, and won
many souls, such being the will of God. And we have offered these
remarks by way of a necessary digression. For we wished to answer the
assertion of Celsus concerning the Jews, that they were “fugitives from
Egypt, and that these men, beloved by God, never accomplished anything
worthy of note.” And further, in answer to the statement that “they were
never held in any reputation or account,” we say, that living apart as a
“chosen nation and a royal priesthood,” and shunning intercourse with
the many nations around them, in order that their morals might escape
corruption, they enjoyed the protection of the divine power, neither
coveting like the most of mankind the acquisition of other kingdoms, nor
yet being abandoned so as to become, on account of their smallness, an
easy object of attack to others, and thus be altogether destroyed; and
this lasted so long as they were worthy of the divine protection. But
when it became necessary for them, as a nation wholly given to sin, to
be brought back by their sufferings to their God, they were abandoned
[by Him], sometimes for a longer, sometimes for a shorter period, until
in the time of the Romans, having committed the greatest of sins in
putting Jesus to death, they were completely deserted.

Footnote 609:

  θείᾳ μοίρᾳ.

Footnote 610:

  καίτοιγε πάντα κάλων κινήσαντες.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


Immediately after this, Celsus, assailing the contents of the first book
of Moses, which is entitled “Genesis,” asserts that “the Jews
accordingly endeavoured to derive their origin from the first race of
jugglers and deceivers,[611] appealing to the testimony of dark and
ambiguous words, whose meaning was veiled in obscurity, and which they
misinterpreted[612] to the unlearned and ignorant, and that, too, when
such a point had never been called in question during the long preceding
period.” Now Celsus appears to me in these words to have expressed very
obscurely the meaning which he intended to convey. It is probable,
indeed, that his obscurity on this subject is intentional, inasmuch as
he saw the strength of the argument which establishes the descent of the
Jews from their ancestors; while again, on the other hand, he wished not
to appear ignorant that the question regarding the Jews and their
descent was one that could not be lightly disposed of. It is certain,
however, that the Jews trace their genealogy back to the three fathers,
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. And the names of these individuals possess
such efficacy, when united with the name of God, that not only do those
belonging to the nation employ in their prayers to God, and in the
exorcising of demons, the words, “God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and
God of Jacob,” but so also do almost all those who occupy themselves
with incantations and magical rites. For there is found in treatises on
magic in many countries such an invocation of God, and assumption of the
divine name, as implies a familiar use of it by these men in their
dealings with demons. These facts, then—adduced by Jews and Christians
to prove the sacred character of Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, the
fathers of the Jewish race—appear to me not to have been altogether
unknown to Celsus, but not to have been distinctly set forth by him,
because he was unable to answer the argument which might be founded on
them.

Footnote 611:

  ἀπὸ πρώτης σπορᾶς γοήτων καὶ πλάνων ἀνθρώπων.

Footnote 612:

  παρεξηγούμενοι.




                             Chapter XXXIV.


For we inquire of all those who employ such invocations of God, saying:
Tell us, friends, who was Abraham, and what sort of person was Isaac,
and what power did Jacob possess, that the appellation “God,” when
joined with their name, could effect such wonders? And from whom have
you learned, or can you learn, the facts relating to these individuals?
And who has occupied himself with writing a history about them, either
directly magnifying these men by ascribing to them mysterious powers, or
hinting obscurely at their possession of certain great and marvellous
qualities, patent to those who are qualified to see them?[613] And when,
in answer to our inquiry, no one can show from what history—whether
Greek or barbarian—or, if not a history, yet at least from what mystical
narrative,[614] the accounts of these men are derived, we shall bring
forward the book entitled “Genesis,” which contains the acts of these
men, and the divine oracles addressed to them, and will say, Does not
the use by you of the names of these three ancestors of the race,
establishing in the clearest manner that effects not to be lightly
regarded are produced by the invocation of them, evidence the divinity
of the men?[615] And yet we know them from no other source than the
sacred books of the Jews! Moreover, the phrases, “the God of Israel,”
and “the God of the Hebrews,” and “the God who drowned in the Red Sea
the king of Egypt and the Egyptians,” are _formulæ_ frequently employed
against demons and certain wicked powers. And we learn the history of
the names and their interpretation from those Hebrews, who in their
national literature and national tongue dwell with pride upon these
things, and explain their meaning. How, then, should the Jews attempt to
derive their origin from the first race of those whom Celsus supposed to
be jugglers and deceivers, and shamelessly endeavour to trace themselves
and their beginning back to these?—whose names, being Hebrew, are an
evidence to the Hebrews, who have their sacred books written in the
Hebrew language and letters, that their nation is akin to these men. For
up to the present time, the Jewish names belonging to the Hebrew
language were either taken from their writings, or generally from words
the meaning of which was made known by the Hebrew language.

Footnote 613:

  εἴτε καὶ αὐτόθεν σεμνύνουσαν ἐν ἀποῤῥήτοις τοὺς ἄνδρας, εἴτε καὶ δι’
  ὑπονοιῶν αἰνισσομένην τινὰ μεγάλα καὶ θαυμάσια τοῖς θεωρῆσαι αὐτὰ
  δυναμένοις.

Footnote 614:

  μυστικῆς ἀναγραφῆς.

Footnote 615:

  ἐροῦμεν τὲ· ὅτι μήποτε τὸ καὶ ὑφ’ ὑμῶν παραλαμβάνεσθαι τὰ ὀνάματα τῶν
  τριῶν τούτων γεναρχῶν τοῦ ἔθνους, τῇ ἐναργείᾳ καταλαμβανόντων, οὐκ
  εὐκαταφρόνητα ἀνύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς κατεπικλήσεως αὐτῶν, παρίστησι τὸ θεῖον
  τῶν ἀνδρῶν; Guietus would expunge the words τῇ ἐναργείᾳ
  καταλαμβανόντων.




                             Chapter XXXV.


And let any one who peruses the treatise of Celsus observe whether it
does not convey some such insinuation as the above, when he says: “And
they attempted to derive their origin from the first race of jugglers
and deceivers, appealing to the testimony of dark and ambiguous words,
whose meaning was veiled in obscurity.” For these names are indeed
obscure, and not within the comprehension and knowledge of many, though
not in our opinion of doubtful meaning, even although assumed by those
who are aliens to our religion; but as, according to Celsus, they do
not[616] convey any ambiguity, I am at a loss to know why he has
rejected them. And yet, if he had wished honestly to overturn the
genealogy which he deemed the Jews to have so shamelessly arrogated, in
boasting of Abraham and his descendants [as their progenitors], he ought
to have quoted _all_ the passages bearing on the subject; and, in the
first place, to have advocated his cause with such arguments as he
thought likely to be convincing, and in the next to have bravely[617]
refuted, by means of what appeared to him to be the true meaning, and by
arguments in its favour, the errors existing on the subject. But neither
Celsus nor any one else will be able, by their discussions regarding the
nature of names employed for miraculous purposes, to lay down the
correct doctrine regarding them, and to demonstrate that those men were
to be lightly esteemed whose names merely, not among their countrymen
alone, but also amongst foreigners, could accomplish [such results]. He
ought to have shown, moreover, how we, in misinterpreting[618] the
passages in which these names are found, deceive our hearers, as he
imagines, while he himself, who boasts that he is not ignorant or
unintelligent, gives the true interpretation of them. And he hazarded
the assertion,[619] in speaking of those names, from which the Jews
deduce their genealogies, that “never, during the long antecedent
period, has there been any dispute about these names, but that at the
present time the Jews dispute about them with certain others,” whom he
does not mention. Now, let him who chooses show who these are that
dispute with the Jews, and who adduce even probable arguments to show
that Jews and Christians do not decide correctly on the points relating
to these names, but that there are others who have discussed these
questions with the greatest learning and accuracy. But we are well
assured that none can establish anything of the sort, it being manifest
that these names are derived from the Hebrew language, which is found
only among the Jews.

Footnote 616:

  κατὰ δὲ Κέλσον, οὐ παριστάντα. _Libri editi ad oram_ ὡς παριστάντα.

Footnote 617:

  γενναίως.

Footnote 618:

  παρεξηγούμενοι.

Footnote 619:

  παρέῤῥιψε.




                             Chapter XXXVI.


Celsus in the next place, producing from history other than that of the
divine record, those passages which bear upon the claims to great
antiquity put forth by many nations, as the Athenians, and Egyptians,
and Arcadians, and Phrygians, who assert that certain individuals have
existed among them who sprang from the earth, and who each adduce proofs
of these assertions, says: “The Jews, then, leading a grovelling
life[620] in some corner of Palestine, and being a wholly uneducated
people, who had not heard that these matters had been committed to verse
long ago by Hesiod and innumerable other inspired men, wove together
some most incredible and insipid stories,[621] viz. that a certain man
was formed by the hands of God, and had breathed into him the breath of
life, and that a woman was taken from his side, and that God issued
certain commands, and that a serpent opposed these, and gained a victory
over the commandments of God; thus relating certain old wives’ fables,
and most impiously representing God as weak at the very beginning [of
things], and unable to convince even a single human being whom He
Himself had formed.” By these instances, indeed, this deeply read and
learned Celsus, who accuses Jews and Christians of ignorance and want of
instruction, clearly evinces the accuracy of his knowledge of the
chronology of the respective historians, whether Greek or Barbarian,
since he imagines that Hesiod and the “innumerable” others, whom he
styles “inspired” men, are older than Moses and his writings—that very
Moses who is shown to be much older than the time of the Trojan war! It
is not the Jews, then, who have composed incredible and insipid stories
regarding the birth of man from the earth, but these “inspired” men of
Celsus, Hesiod and his other “innumerable” companions, who, having
neither learned nor heard of the far older and most venerable accounts
existing in Palestine, have written such histories as their Theogonies,
attributing, so far as in their power, “generation” to their deities,
and innumerable other absurdities. And these are the writers whom Plato
expels from his “State” as being corrupters of the youth,[622]—Homer,
viz., and those who have composed poems of a similar description! Now it
is evident that Plato did not regard as “inspired” those men who had
left behind them such works. But perhaps it was from a desire to cast
reproach upon us, that this Epicurean Celsus, who is better able to
judge than Plato (if it be the same Celsus who composed two other books
against the Christians), called those individuals “inspired” whom he did
not in reality regard as such.

Footnote 620:

  συγκύψαντες.

Footnote 621:

  ἀμουσότατα.

Footnote 622:

  Cf. Plato, _de Repub._ Book ii. etc.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


He charges us, moreover, with introducing “a man formed by the _hands_
of God,” although the book of Genesis has made no mention of the “hands”
of God, either when relating the creation or the “fashioning”[623] of
the man; while it is Job and David who have used the expression, “Thy
hands have made me and fashioned me;”[624] with reference to which it
would need a lengthened discourse to point out the sense in which these
words were understood by those who used them, both as regards the
difference between “making” and “fashioning,” and also the “hands” of
God. For those who do not understand these and similar expressions in
the sacred Scriptures, imagine that we attribute to the God who is over
all things a form[625] such as that of man; and according to their
conceptions, it follows that we consider the body of God to be furnished
with wings, since the Scriptures, literally understood, attribute such
appendages to God. The subject before us, however, does not require us
to interpret these expressions; for, in our explanatory remarks upon the
book of Genesis, these matters have been made, to the best of our
ability, a special subject of investigation. Observe next the
malignity[626] of Celsus in what follows. For the Scripture, speaking of
the “fashioning”[627] of the man, says, “And breathed into his face the
breath of life, and the man became a living soul.”[628] Whereon Celsus,
wishing maliciously to ridicule the “inbreathing into his face of the
breath of life,” and not understanding the sense in which the expression
was employed, states that “they composed a story that a man was
fashioned by the hands of God, and was inflated by breath blown into
him,”[629] in order that, taking the word “inflated” to be used in a
similar way to the inflation of skins, he might ridicule the statement,
“He breathed into his face the breath of life,”—terms which are used
figuratively, and require to be explained in order to show that God
communicated to man of His incorruptible Spirit; as it is said, “For
Thine incorruptible Spirit is in all things.”[630]

Footnote 623:

  ἐπὶ τῆς πλάσεως.

Footnote 624:

  Cf. Job x. 8 and Ps. cxix. 73.

Footnote 625:

  σχῆμα.

Footnote 626:

  κακοήθειαν.

Footnote 627:

  πλάσεως.

Footnote 628:

  Gen. ii. 7; Heb. בְּאֵַפָּיו , LXX. πρόσωπον.

Footnote 629:

  ἐμφυσώμενον.

Footnote 630:

  Wisd. of Solom. xii. 1.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


In the next place, as it is his object to slander our Scriptures, he
ridicules the following statement: “And God caused a deep sleep to fall
upon Adam, and he slept: and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the
flesh instead thereof. And the rib, which He had taken from the man,
made He a woman,”[631] and so on; without quoting the words, which would
give the hearer the impression that they are spoken with a figurative
meaning. He would not even have it appear that the words were used
allegorically, although he says afterwards, that “the more modest among
Jews and Christians are ashamed of these things, and endeavour to give
them somehow an allegorical signification.” Now we might say to him, Are
the statements of your “inspired” Hesiod, which he makes regarding the
woman in the form of a myth, to be explained allegorically, in the sense
that she was given by Jove to men as an evil thing, and as a retribution
for the theft of “the fire;”[632] while that regarding the woman who was
taken from the side of the man (after he had been buried in deep
slumber), and was formed by God, appears to you to be related without
any rational meaning and secret signification?[633] But is it not
uncandid, not to ridicule the former as myths, but to admire them as
philosophical ideas in a mythical dress, and to treat with contempt[634]
the latter, as offending the understanding, and to declare that they are
of no account? For if, because of the mere phraseology, we are to find
fault with what is intended to have a secret meaning, see whether the
following lines of Hesiod, a man, as you say, “inspired,” are not better
fitted to excite laughter:

           “‘Son of Iapetus!’ with wrathful heart,
           Spake the cloud-gatherer: ‘Oh, unmatched in art!
           Exultest thou in this the flame retrieved,
           And dost thou triumph in the God deceived?
           But thou, with the posterity of man,
           Shalt rue the fraud whence mightier ills began;
           I will send evil for thy stealthy fire,
           While all embrace it, and their bane desire.’
           The sire, who rules the earth, and sways the pole,
           Had said, and laughter fill’d his secret soul.
           He bade the artist-god his hest obey,
           And mould with tempering waters ductile clay:
           Infuse, as breathing life and form began,
           The supple vigour, and the voice of man:
           Her aspect fair as goddesses above,
           A virgin’s likeness, with the brows of love.
           He bade Minerva teach the skill that dyes
           The web with colours, as the shuttle flies;
           He called the magic of Love’s Queen to shed
           A nameless grace around her courteous head;
           Instil the wish that longs with restless aim,
           And cares of dress that feed upon the frame:
           Bade Hermes last implant the craft refined
           Of artful manners, and a shameless mind.
           He said; their king th’ inferior powers obeyed:
           The fictile likeness of a bashful maid
           Rose from the temper’d earth, by Jove’s behest,
           Under the forming God; the zone and vest
           Were clasp’d and folded by Minerva’s hand:
           The heaven-born graces, and persuasion bland
           Deck’d her round limbs with chains of gold: the hours
           Of loose locks twined her temples with spring flowers.
           The whole attire Minerva’s curious care
           Form’d to her shape, and fitted to her air.
           But in her breast the herald from above,
           Full of the counsels of deep thundering Jove,
           Wrought artful manners, wrought perfidious lies,
           And speech that thrills the blood, and lulls the wise.
           Her did th’ interpreter of Gods proclaim,
           And named the woman with Pandora’s name;
           Since all the gods conferr’d their gifts, to charm,
           For man’s inventive race, this beauteous harm.”[635]

Moreover, what is said also about the casket is fitted of itself to
excite laughter; for example:

             “Whilome on earth the sons of men abode
             From ills apart, and labour’s irksome load,
             And sore diseases, bringing age to man;
             Now the sad life of mortals is a span.
             The woman’s hands a mighty casket bear;
             She lifts the lid; she scatters griefs in air:
             Alone, beneath the vessels’ rims detained,
             Hope still within th’ unbroken cell remained,
             Nor fled abroad; so will’d cloud-gatherer Jove:
             The woman’s hand had dropp’d the lid above.”[636]

Now, to him who would give to these lines a grave allegorical meaning
(whether any such meaning be contained in them or not), we would say:
Are the Greeks alone at liberty to convey a philosophic meaning in a
secret covering? or perhaps also the Egyptians, and those of the
barbarians who pride themselves upon their mysteries and the truth
[which is concealed within them]; while the Jews alone, with their
lawgiver and historians, appear to you the most unintelligent of men?
And is this the only nation which has not received a share of divine
power, and which yet was so grandly instructed how to rise upwards to
the uncreated nature of God, and to gaze on Him alone, and to expect
from Him alone [the fulfilment of] their hopes?

Footnote 631:

  Cf. Gen. ii. 21, 22.

Footnote 632:

  ἀντὶ τοῦ πυρός.

Footnote 633:

  χωρὶς παντὸς λόγου καί τινος ἐπικρύψεως.

Footnote 634:

  μοχθίζειν.

Footnote 635:

  Hesiod, _Works and Days_, i. v. 73-114 (Elton’s translation).

Footnote 636:

  Hesiod, _Works and Days_, i. v. 125-134 (Elton’s translation).




                             Chapter XXXIX.


But as Celsus makes a jest also of the serpent, as counteracting the
injunctions given by God to the man, taking the narrative to be an old
wife’s fable,[637] and has purposely neither mentioned the paradise[638]
of God, nor stated that God is said to have planted it in Eden towards
the east, and that there afterwards sprang up from the earth every tree
that was beautiful to the sight, and good for food, and the tree of life
in the midst of the paradise, and the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil, and the other statements which follow, which might of themselves
lead a candid reader to see that all these things had not
inappropriately an allegorical meaning, let us contrast with this the
words of Socrates regarding Eros in the Symposium of Plato, and which
are put in the mouth of Socrates as being more appropriate than what was
said regarding him by all the others at the Symposium. The words of
Plato are as follow: “When Aphrodite was born, the gods held a banquet,
and there was present, along with the others, Porus the son of Metis.
And after they had dined, Penia[639] came to beg for something (seeing
there was an entertainment), and she stood at the gate. Porus meantime,
having become intoxicated with the nectar (for there was then no wine),
went into the garden of Zeus, and being heavy with liquor, lay down to
sleep. Penia accordingly formed a secret plot, with a view of freeing
herself from her condition of poverty,[640] to get a child by Porus, and
accordingly lay down beside him, and became pregnant with Eros. And on
this account Eros has become the follower and attendant of Aphrodite,
having been begotten on her birth-day feast,[641] and being at the same
time by nature a lover of the beautiful, because Aphrodite too is
beautiful. Seeing, then, that Eros is the son of Porus and Penia, the
following is his condition.[642] In the first place, he is always poor,
and far from being delicate and beautiful, as most persons imagine; but
is withered, and sunburnt,[643] and unshod, and without a home, sleeping
always upon the ground, and without a covering; lying in the open air
beside gates, and on public roads; possessing the nature of his mother,
and dwelling continually with indigence.[644] But, on the other hand, in
conformity with the character of his father, he is given to plotting
against the beautiful and the good, being courageous, and hasty, and
vehement;[645] a keen[646] hunter, perpetually devising contrivances;
both much given to forethought, and also fertile in resources;[647]
acting like a philosopher throughout the whole of his life; a
terrible[648] sorcerer, and dealer in drugs, and a sophist as well;
neither immortal by nature nor yet mortal, but on the same day, at one
time he flourishes and lives when he has plenty, and again at another
time dies, and once more is recalled to life through possessing the
nature of his father. But the supplies furnished to him are always
gradually disappearing, so that he is never at any time in want, nor yet
rich; and, on the other hand, he occupies an intermediate position
between wisdom and ignorance.” Now, if those who read these words were
to imitate the malignity of Celsus—which be it far from Christians to
do!—they would ridicule the myth, and would turn this great Plato into a
subject of jest; but if, on investigating in a philosophic spirit what
is conveyed in the dress of a myth, they should be able to discover the
meaning of Plato, [they will admire][649] the manner in which he was
able to conceal, on account of the multitude, in the form of this myth,
the great ideas which presented themselves to him, and to speak in a
befitting manner to those who know how to ascertain from the myths the
true meaning of him who wove them together. Now I have brought forward
this myth occurring in the writings of Plato, because of the mention in
it of the garden of Zeus, which appears to bear some resemblance to the
paradise of God, and of the comparison between Penia and the serpent,
and the plot against Porus by Penia, which may be compared with the plot
of the serpent against the man. It is not very clear, indeed, whether
Plato fell in with these stories by chance, or whether, as some think,
meeting during his visit to Egypt with certain individuals who
philosophized on the Jewish mysteries, and learning some things from
them, he may have preserved a few of their ideas, and thrown others
aside, being careful not to offend the Greeks by a complete adoption of
all the points of the philosophy of the Jews, who were in bad repute
with the multitude, on account of the foreign character of their laws
and their peculiar polity. The present, however, is not the proper time
for explaining either the myth of Plato, or the story of the serpent and
the paradise of God, and all that is related to have taken place in it,
as in our exposition of the book of Genesis we have especially occupied
ourselves as we best could with these matters.

Footnote 637:

  “μῦθόν τινα” παραπλήσιον τοῖς παραδιδομένοις ταῖς γραυσὶν.

Footnote 638:

  παράδεισος.

Footnote 639:

  Penia, poverty; Porus, abundance.

Footnote 640:

  διὰ τὴν αὑτῆς ἀπορίαν.

Footnote 641:

  ἐν τοῖς ἐκείνης γενέθλιοις.

Footnote 642:

  ἐν τοιαύτῃ τύχῃ καθέστηκε.

Footnote 643:

  σκληρὸς καὶ αὐχμηρὸς.

Footnote 644:

  ἐνδείᾳ.

Footnote 645:

  σύντονος.

Footnote 646:

  δεινός.

Footnote 647:

  καὶ φρονήσεως ἐπιθυμητὴς καὶ πόριμος.

Footnote 648:

  δεινὸς γόης.

Footnote 649:

  Boherellus, quem Ruæeus sequitur, in notis; “Ante voces: τίνα τρόπον,
  videtur deesse: θαυμάσονται, aut quid simile.”—LOMMATZSCH.




                              Chapter XL.


But as he asserts that “the Mosaic narrative most impiously represents
God as in a state of weakness from the very commencement [of things],
and as unable to gain over [to obedience] even one single man whom He
Himself had formed,” we say in answer that the objection[650] is much
the same as if one were to find fault with the existence of evil, which
God has not been able to prevent even in the case of a single
individual, so that _one_ man might be found from the very beginning of
things who was born into the world untainted by sin. For as those whose
business it is to defend the doctrine of providence do so by means of
arguments which are not to be despised,[651] so also the subjects of
Adam and his son will be philosophically dealt with by those who are
aware that in the Hebrew language Adam signifies man; and that in those
parts of the narrative which appear to refer to Adam as an individual,
Moses is discoursing upon the nature of man in general.[652] For “in
Adam” (as the Scripture[653] says) “all die,” and were condemned in the
likeness of Adam’s transgression, the word of God asserting this not so
much of _one particular individual_ as of the _whole human race_. For in
the connected series of statements which appears to apply as to one
particular individual, the curse pronounced upon Adam is regarded as
common to all [the members of the race], and what was spoken with
reference to the woman is spoken of _every_ woman without
exception.[654] And the expulsion of the man and woman from paradise,
and their being clothed with tunics of skins (which God, because of the
transgression of men, made for those who had sinned), contain a certain
secret and mystical doctrine (far transcending that of Plato) of the
soul’s losing its wings,[655] and being borne downwards to earth, until
it can lay hold of some stable resting-place.

Footnote 650:

  τὸ λεγόμενον.

Footnote 651:

  εὐκαταφρονήτων.

Footnote 652:

  φυσιολογεῖ Μωϋσῆς τὰ περὶ τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου φύσεως.

Footnote 653:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22 with Rom. v. 14.

Footnote 654:

  οὐκ ἔστι καθ’ ἧς οὐ λέγεται.

Footnote 655:

  πτεροῤῥυούσης. This is a correction for πτεροφυούσης, the textual
  reading in the Benedictine and Spencer’s edd.




                              Chapter XLI.


After this he continues as follows: “They speak, in the next place, of a
deluge, and of a monstrous[656] ark, having within it all things, and of
a dove and a crow[657] as messengers, falsifying and recklessly
altering[658] the story of Deucalion; not expecting, I suppose, that
these things would come to light, but imagining that they were inventing
stories merely for young children.” Now in these remarks observe the
hostility—so unbecoming a philosopher—displayed by this man towards this
very ancient Jewish narrative. For, not being able to say anything
against the history of the deluge, and not perceiving what he might have
urged against the ark and its dimensions,—viz. that, according to the
general opinion, which accepted the statements that it was three hundred
cubits in length, and fifty in breadth, and thirty in height, it was
impossible to maintain that it contained [all] the animals that were
upon the earth, fourteen specimens of every clean and four of every
unclean beast,—he merely termed it “monstrous, containing all things
within it.” Now wherein was its “monstrous” character, seeing it is
related to have been a hundred years in building, and to have had the
three hundred cubits of its length and the fifty of its breadth
contracted, until the thirty cubits of its height terminated in a top
one cubit long and one cubit broad? Why should we not rather admire a
structure which resembled an extensive city, if its measurements be
taken to mean what they are capable of meaning,[659] so that it was nine
myriads of cubits long in the base, and two thousand five hundred in
breadth? And why should we not admire the design evinced in having it so
compactly built, and rendered capable of sustaining a tempest which
caused a deluge? For it was not daubed with pitch, or any material of
that kind, but was securely coated with bitumen. And is it not a subject
of admiration, that by the providential arrangement of God, the elements
of all the races were brought into it, that the earth might receive
again the seeds of all living things, while God made use of a most
righteous man to be the progenitor of those who were to be born after
the deluge?

Footnote 656:

  ἀλλόκοτον.

Footnote 657:

  κορώνη.

Footnote 658:

  παραχαράττοντες καὶ ῥαδιουργοῦντες.

Footnote 659:

  τῷ δυνάμει λέγεσθαι τὰ μέτρα.




                             Chapter XLII.


In order to show that he had read the book of Genesis, Celsus rejects
the story of the dove, although unable to adduce any reason which might
prove it to be a fiction. In the next place, as his habit is, in order
to put the narrative in a more ridiculous light, he converts the “raven”
into a “crow,” and imagines that Moses so wrote, having recklessly
altered the accounts related of the Grecian Deucalion; unless perhaps he
regards the narrative as not having proceeded from Moses, but from
_several_ individuals, as appears from his employing the _plural_ number
in the expressions, “falsifying and recklessly altering the story of
Deucalion,”[660] as well as from the words, “For _they_ did not expect,
I suppose, that these things would come to light.” But how should they,
who gave their Scriptures to the _whole_ nation, not expect that they
would come to light, and who predicted, moreover, that this religion
should be proclaimed to _all_ nations? Jesus declared, “The kingdom of
God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the
fruits thereof;”[661] and in uttering these words to the Jews, what
other meaning did He intend to convey than this, viz. that He Himself
should, through His divine power, bring forth into light the whole of
the Jewish Scriptures, which contain the mysteries of the kingdom of
God? If, then, they peruse the Theogonies of the Greeks, and the stories
about the twelve gods, they impart to them an air of dignity, by
investing them with an allegorical signification; but when they wish to
throw contempt upon our biblical narratives, they assert that they are
fables, clumsily invented for infant children!

Footnote 660:

  παραχαράττοντες καὶ ῥᾳδιουργοῦντες.

Footnote 661:

  Cf. Matt. xxi. 43.




                             Chapter XLIII.


“Altogether absurd, and out of season,”[662] he continues, “is the
[account of the] begetting of children,” where, although he has
mentioned no names, it is evident that he is referring to the history of
Abraham and Sarah. Cavilling also at the “conspiracies of the brothers,”
he alludes either to the story of Cain plotting against Abel,[663] or,
in addition, to that of Esau against Jacob;[664] and [speaking] of “a
father’s sorrow,” he probably refers to that of Isaac on account of the
absence of Jacob, and perhaps also to that of Jacob because of Joseph
having been sold into Egypt. And when relating the “crafty procedure of
mothers,” I suppose he means the conduct of Rebecca, who contrived that
the blessing of Isaac should descend, not upon Esau, but upon Jacob. Now
if we assert that in all these cases God interposed in a very marked
degree,[665] what absurdity do we commit, seeing we are persuaded that
He never withdraws His providence[666] from those who devote themselves
to Him in an honourable and vigorous[667] life? He ridicules, moreover,
the acquisition of property made by Jacob while living with Laban, not
understanding to what these words refer: “And those which had no spots
were Laban’s, and those which were spotted were Jacob’s;”[668] and he
says that “God presented his sons with asses, and sheep, and
camels,”[669] and did not see that “all these things happened unto them
for ensamples, and were written for our sake, upon whom the ends of the
world are come.”[670] The varying customs [prevailing among the
different nations] becoming famous,[671] are regulated by the word of
God, being given as a possession to him who is figuratively termed
Jacob. For those who become converts to Christ from among the heathen,
are indicated by the history of Laban and Jacob.

Footnote 662:

  ἔξωρον.

Footnote 663:

  Cf. Gen. iv. 8.

Footnote 664:

  Cf. Gen. xxi. 2.

Footnote 665:

  ἄγχιστα δὲ τούτοις πᾶσι συμπολιτεύομενον.

Footnote 666:

  θειότητα.

Footnote 667:

  ἐῤῥωμένως.

Footnote 668:

  Cf. Gen. xxx. 42 (LXX.). “The feebler were Laban’s, and the stronger
  Jacob’s” (Auth. Vers.).

Footnote 669:

  Cf. Gen. xxx. 43.

Footnote 670:

  Cf. 1 Cor. x. 11.

Footnote 671:

  παρ’ οἷς τὰ ποικίλα ἤθη ἐπίσημα γενόμενα, τῷ λογῷ τοῦ Θεοῦ
  πολιτεύεται, δυθέντα κτῆσις τῷ τροπικῶς καλουμένῳ Ἰακώβ: ἐπίσημα is
  the term employed to denote the “spotted” cattle of Laban, and is here
  used by Origen in its figurative sense of “distinguished,” thus
  playing on the double meaning of the word.




                             Chapter XLIV.


And erring widely from the meaning of Scripture, he says that “God gave
wells[672] also to the righteous.” Now he did not observe that the
righteous do not construct cisterns,[673] but dig wells, seeking to
discover the inherent ground and source of potable blessings,[674]
inasmuch as they receive in a figurative sense the commandment which
enjoins, “Drink waters from your own vessels, and from your own wells of
fresh water. Let not your water be poured out beyond your own fountain,
but let it pass into your own streets. Let it belong to you alone, and
let no alien partake with thee.”[675] Scripture frequently makes use of
the histories of real events, in order to present to view more important
truths, which are but obscurely intimated; and of this kind are the
narratives relating to the “wells,” and to the “marriages,” and to the
various acts of “sexual intercourse” recorded of righteous persons,
respecting which, however, it will be more seasonable to offer an
explanation in the exegetical writings referring to those very passages.
But that wells were constructed by righteous men in the land of the
Philistines, as related in the book of Genesis,[676] is manifest from
the wonderful wells which are shown at Ascalon, and which are deserving
of mention on account of their structure, so foreign and peculiar
compared with that of other wells. Moreover, that both young women[677]
and female servants are to be understood metaphorically, is not _our_
doctrine merely, but one which we have received from the beginning from
wise men, among whom a certain one said, when exhorting his hearers to
investigate the figurative meaning: “Tell me, ye that read the law, do
ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons; the
one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the
bond woman was born after the flesh; but he of the free woman was by
promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants;
the one from the Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is
Agar.”[678] And a little after, “But Jerusalem which is above is free,
which is the mother of us all.” And any one who will take up the Epistle
to the Galatians may learn how the passages relating to the “marriages,”
and the intercourse with “the maid-servants,” have been allegorized; the
Scripture desiring us to imitate not the literal acts of those who did
these things, but (as the apostles of Jesus are accustomed to call them)
the spiritual.

Footnote 672:

  φρέατα.

Footnote 673:

  λάκκους.

Footnote 674:

  τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν γῆν καὶ ἀρχὴν τῶν ποτίμων ἀγαθῶν. Boherellus
  proposes: τὴν ἐνυπάρχουσαν πηγὴν καὶ ἀρχὴν τῶν ποτίμων ὑδάτων.

Footnote 675:

  Cf. Prov. v. 15-17.

Footnote 676:

  Cf. Gen. xxvi. 15.

Footnote 677:

  νύμφας.

Footnote 678:

  Cf. Gal. iv. 21-24.




                              Chapter XLV.


And whereas Celsus ought to have recognised the love of truth displayed
by the writers of sacred Scripture, who have not concealed even what is
to their discredit,[679] and thus been led to accept the other and more
marvellous accounts as true, he has done the reverse, and has
characterized the story of Lot and his daughters (without examining
either its literal or its figurative meaning) as “worse than the crimes
of Thyestes.” The figurative signification of that passage of history it
is not necessary at present to explain, nor what is meant by Sodom, and
by the words of the angels to him who was escaping thence, when they
said: “Look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the surrounding
district; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed;”[680] nor what
is intended by Lot and his wife, who became a pillar of salt because she
turned back; nor by his daughters intoxicating their father, that they
might become mothers by him. But let us in a few words soften down the
repulsive features of the history. The nature of actions—good, bad, and
indifferent—has been investigated by the Greeks; and the more successful
of such investigators[681] lay down the principle that intention alone
gives to actions the character of good or bad, and that all things which
are done without a purpose are, strictly speaking, indifferent; that
when the intention is directed to a becoming end, it is praiseworthy;
when the reverse, it is censurable. They have said, accordingly, in the
section relating to “things indifferent,” that, strictly speaking, for a
man to have sexual intercourse with his daughters is a thing
indifferent, although such a thing ought not to take place in
established communities. And for the sake of hypothesis, in order to
show that such an act belongs to the class of things indifferent, they
have assumed the case of a wise man being left with an only daughter,
the entire human race besides having perished; and they put the question
whether the father can fitly have intercourse with his daughter, in
order, agreeably to the supposition, to prevent the extermination of
mankind. Is this to be accounted sound reasoning among the Greeks, and
to be commended by the influential[682] sect of the Stoics; but when
young maidens, who had heard of the burning of the world, though without
comprehending [its full meaning], saw fire devastating their city and
country, and supposing that the only means left of rekindling the
flame[683] of human life lay in their father and themselves, should, on
such a supposition, conceive the desire that the world should continue,
shall their conduct be deemed worse than that of the wise man who,
according to the hypothesis of the Stoics, acts becomingly in having
intercourse with his daughters in the case already supposed, of all men
having been destroyed? I am not unaware, however, that some have taken
offence at the desire[684] of Lot’s daughters, and have regarded their
conduct as very wicked; and have said that two accursed nations—Moab and
Ammon—have sprung from that unhallowed intercourse. And yet truly sacred
Scripture is nowhere found distinctly approving of their conduct as
good, nor yet passing sentence upon it as blameworthy. Nevertheless,
whatever be the real state of the case, it admits not only of a
figurative meaning, but also of being defended on its own merits.[685]

Footnote 679:

  τὰ ἀπεμφαίνοντα.

Footnote 680:

  Gen. xix. 17.

Footnote 681:

  οἱ ἐπιτυγχάνοντες γε αὐτῶν.

Footnote 682:

  οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητος αὐτοῖς.

Footnote 683:

  ζώπυρον.

Footnote 684:

  βουλήματι.

Footnote 685:

  ἔχει δέ τινα καὶ καθ’ αὑτὸ ἀπολογίαν.




                             Chapter XLVI.


Celsus, moreover, sneers at the “hatred” of Esau (to which, I suppose,
he refers) against Jacob, although he was a man who, according to the
Scriptures, is acknowledged to have been wicked; and not clearly stating
the story of Simeon and Levi, who sallied out [on the Shechemites] on
account of the insult offered to their sister, who had been violated by
the son of the Shechemite king, he inveighs against their conduct. And
passing on, he speaks of “brothers selling [one another],” alluding to
the sons of Jacob; and of “a brother sold,” Joseph to wit; and of “a
father deceived,” viz. Jacob, because he entertained no suspicion of his
sons when they showed him Joseph’s coat of many colours, but believed
their statement, and mourned for his son, who was a slave in Egypt, as
if he were dead. And observe in what a spirit of hatred and falsehood
Celsus collects together the statements of the sacred history; so that
wherever it appeared to him to contain a ground of accusation he
produces the passage, but wherever there is any exhibition of virtue
worthy of mention—as when Joseph would not gratify the lust of his
mistress, refusing alike her allurements and her threats—he does not
even mention the circumstance! He should see, indeed, that the conduct
of Joseph was far superior to what is related of Bellerophon,[686] since
the former chose rather to be shut up in prison than do violence to his
virtue. For although he might have offered a just defence against his
accuser, he magnanimously remained silent, entrusting his cause to God.

Footnote 686:

  Cf. Homer, _Iliad_, vi. 160.




                             Chapter XLVII.


Celsus next, for form’s sake,[687] and with great want of precision,
speaks of “the dreams of the chief butler and chief baker, and of
Pharaoh, and of the explanation of them, in consequence of which Joseph
was taken out of prison in order to be entrusted by Pharaoh with the
second place in Egypt.” What absurdity, then, did the history contain,
looked at even in itself, that it should be adduced as matter of
accusation by this Celsus, who gave the title of _True Discourse_ to a
treatise not containing doctrines, but full of charges against Jews and
Christians? He adds: “He who had been sold behaved kindly to his
brethren (who had sold him), when they were suffering from hunger, and
had been sent with their asses to purchase [provisions];” although he
has not related these occurrences [in his treatise]. But he _does_
mention the circumstance of Joseph making himself known to his brethren,
although I know not with what view, or what absurdity he can point out
in such an occurrence; since it is impossible for Momus himself, we
might say, to find any reasonable fault with events which, apart from
their figurative meaning, present so much that is attractive. He
relates, further, that “Joseph, who had been sold as a slave, was
restored to liberty, and went up with a solemn procession to his
father’s funeral,” and thinks that the narrative furnishes matter of
accusation against us, as he makes the following remark: “By whom
(Joseph, namely) the illustrious and divine nation of the Jews, after
growing up in Egypt to be a multitude of people, was commanded to
sojourn somewhere beyond the limits of the kingdom, and to pasture their
flocks in districts of no repute.” Now the words, “that they were
commanded to pasture their flocks in districts of no repute,” are an
addition, proceeding from his own feelings of hatred; for he has not
shown that Goshen, the district of Egypt, is a place of no repute. The
exodus of the people from Egypt he calls a flight, not at all
remembering what is written in the book of Exodus regarding the
departure of the Hebrews from the land of Egypt. We have enumerated
these instances to show that what, literally considered, might appear to
furnish ground of accusation, Celsus has not succeeded in proving to be
either objectionable or foolish, having utterly failed to establish the
evil character, as he regards it, of our Scriptures.

Footnote 687:

  ὁσίας ἕνεκεν.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


In the next place, as if he had devoted himself solely to the
manifestation of his hatred and dislike of the Jewish and Christian
doctrine, he says: “The more modest of Jewish and Christian writers give
all these things an allegorical meaning;” and, “Because they are ashamed
of these things, they take refuge in allegory.” Now one might say to
him, that if we must admit fables and fictions, whether written with a
concealed meaning or with any other object, to be shameful narratives
when taken in their literal acceptation,[688] of what histories can this
be said more truly than of the Grecian? In these histories, gods who are
sons castrate the gods who are their fathers, and gods who are parents
devour their own children, and a goddess-mother gives to the “father of
gods and men” a stone to swallow instead of his own son, and a father
has intercourse with his daughter, and a wife binds her own husband,
having as her allies in the work the brother of the fettered god and his
own daughter! But why should I enumerate these absurd stories of the
Greeks regarding their gods, which are most shameful in themselves, even
though invested with an allegorical meaning? [Take the instance] where
Chrysippus of Soli, who is considered to be an ornament of the Stoic
sect, on account of his numerous and learned treatises, explains a
picture at Samos, in which Juno was represented as committing
unspeakable abominations with Jupiter. This reverend philosopher says in
his treatises, that matter receives the spermatic words[689] of the god,
and retains them within herself, in order to ornament the universe. For
in the picture at Samos Juno represents matter, and Jupiter God. Now it
is on account of these, and of countless other similar fables, that we
would not even in word call the God of all things Jupiter, or the sun
Apollo, or the moon Diana. But we offer to the Creator a worship which
is pure, and speak with religious respect of His noble works of
creation, not contaminating even in word the things of God; approving of
the language of Plato in the _Philebus_, who would not admit that
pleasure was a goddess, “so great is my reverence, Protarchus,” he says,
“for the very names of the gods.” We verily entertain such reverence for
the name of God, and for His noble works of creation, that we would not,
even under pretext of an allegorical meaning, admit any fable which
might do injury to the young.

Footnote 688:

  κατὰ τὴν πρώτην ἐκδοχὴν.

Footnote 689:

  τοὺς σπερματικοὺς λόγους.




                             Chapter XLIX.


If Celsus had read the Scriptures in an impartial spirit, he would not
have said that “our writings are incapable of admitting an allegorical
meaning.” For from the prophetic Scriptures, in which historical events
are recorded (not from the historical), it is possible to be convinced
that the historical portions also were written with an allegorical
purpose, and were most skilfully adapted not only to the multitude of
the simpler believers, but also to the few who are able or willing to
investigate matters in an intelligent spirit. If, indeed, those writers
at the present day who are deemed by Celsus the “more modest of the Jews
and Christians” were the [first] allegorical interpreters of our
Scriptures, he would have the appearance, perhaps, of making a plausible
allegation. But since the very fathers and authors of the doctrines
themselves give them an allegorical signification, what other inference
can be drawn than that they were composed so as to be allegorically
understood in their chief signification?[690] And we shall adduce a few
instances out of very many to show that Celsus brings an empty charge
against the Scriptures, when he says “that they are incapable of
admitting an allegorical meaning.” Paul, the apostle of Jesus, says: “It
is written in the law, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that
treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith He it
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that
he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope
of partaking.”[691] And in another passage the same Paul says: “For it
is written, For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and
shall be joined to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a
great mystery; but I speak concerning Christ and the church.”[692] And
again, in another place: “We know that all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses
in the cloud, and in the sea.”[693] Then, explaining the history
relating to the manna, and that referring to the miraculous issue of the
water from the rock, he continues as follows: “And they did all eat the
same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink. For
they drank of that spiritual rock that followed them, and that rock was
Christ.”[694] Asaph, moreover, who, in showing the histories in Exodus
and Numbers to be full of difficulties and parables,[695] begins in the
following manner, as recorded in the book of Psalms, where he is about
to make mention of these things: “Give ear, O my people, to my law:
incline your ears to the words of my mouth. I will open my mouth in
parables; I will utter dark sayings of old, which we have heard and
known, and our fathers have told us.”[696]

Footnote 690:

  κατὰ τὸν ποοηγούμενον νοῦν.

Footnote 691:

  Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, and Deut. xxv. 4.

Footnote 692:

  Cf. Eph. v. 31, 32. Cf. Gen. ii. 24.

Footnote 693:

  Cf. 1 Cor. x. 1, 2.

Footnote 694:

  Cf. 1 Cor. x. 3, 4.

Footnote 695:

  προβλήματα καὶ παραβολαί.

Footnote 696:

  Cf. Ps. lxxxvii. 1, 2.




                               Chapter L.


Moreover, if the law of Moses had contained nothing which was to be
understood as having a secret meaning, the prophet would not have said
in his prayer to God, “Open Thou mine eyes, and I will behold wondrous
things out of Thy law;”[697] whereas he knew that there was a veil of
ignorance lying upon the heart of those who read but do not understand
the figurative meaning, which veil is taken away by the gift of God,
when He hears him who has done all that he can,[698] and who by reason
of habit has his senses exercised to distinguish between good and evil,
and who continually utters the prayer, “Open Thou mine eyes, and I will
behold wondrous things out of Thy law.” And who is there that, on
reading of the dragon that lives in the Egyptian river,[699] and of the
fishes which lurk in his scales, or of the excrement of Pharaoh which
fills the mountains of Egypt,[700] is not led at once to inquire who he
is that fills the Egyptian mountains with his stinking excrement, and
what the Egyptian mountains are; and what the rivers in Egypt are, of
which the aforesaid Pharaoh boastfully says, “The rivers are mine, and I
have made them;”[701] and who the dragon is, and the fishes in its
scales,—and this so as to harmonize with the interpretation to be given
of the rivers? But why establish at greater length what needs no
demonstration? For to these things applies the saying: “Who is wise, and
he shall understand these things? or who is prudent, and he shall know
them?”[702] Now I have gone at some length into the subject, because I
wished to show the unsoundness of the assertion of Celsus, that “the
more modest among the Jews and Christians endeavour somehow to give
these stories an allegorical signification, although some of them do not
admit of this, but on the contrary are exceedingly silly inventions.”
Much rather are the stories of the Greeks not only very silly, but very
impious inventions. For our narratives keep expressly in view the
multitude of simpler believers, which was not done by those who invented
the Grecian fables. And therefore not without propriety does Plato expel
from his state all fables and poems of such a nature as those of which
we have been speaking.

Footnote 697:

  Cf. Ps. cxix. 18.

Footnote 698:

  ἐπὰν ἐπακούσῃ τοῦ παρ’ ἑαυτοῦ πάντα ποιήσαντος.

Footnote 699:

  Cf. Ezek. xxix. 3.

Footnote 700:

  Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 6.

Footnote 701:

  Cf. Ezek. xxix. 3.

Footnote 702:

  Cf. Hos. xiv. 9.




                              Chapter LI.


Celsus appears to me to have heard that there are treatises in existence
which contain allegorical explanations of the law of Moses. These,
however, he could not have read; for if he had, he would not have said:
“The allegorical explanations, however, which have been devised, are
much more shameful and absurd than the fables themselves, inasmuch as
they endeavour to unite with marvellous and altogether insensate folly
things which cannot at all be made to harmonize.” He seems to refer in
these words to the works of Philo, or to those of still older writers,
such as Aristobulus. But I conjecture that Celsus has not read their
books, since it appears to me that in many passages they have so
successfully hit the meaning [of the sacred writers], that even Grecian
philosophers would have been captivated by their explanations; for in
their writings we find not only a polished style, but exquisite thoughts
and doctrines, and a rational use of what Celsus imagines to be fables
in the sacred writings. I know, moreover, that Numenius the
Pythagorean—a surpassingly excellent expounder of Plato, and who held a
foremost place as a teacher of the doctrines of Pythagoras—in many of
his works quotes from the writings of Moses and the prophets, and
applies to the passages in question a not improbable allegorical
meaning, as in his work called _Epops_, and in those which treat of
“Numbers” and of “Place.” And in the third book of his dissertation on
_The Good_, he quotes also a narrative regarding Jesus—without, however,
mentioning His name—and gives it an allegorical signification, whether
successfully or the reverse I may state on another occasion. He relates
also the account respecting Moses, and Jannes, and Jambres.[703] But we
are not elated on account of this instance, though we express our
approval of Numenius, rather than of Celsus and other Greeks, because he
was willing to investigate our histories from a desire to acquire
knowledge, and was [duly] affected by them as narratives which were to
be allegorically understood, and which did not belong to the category of
foolish compositions.

Footnote 703:

  Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 8.




                              Chapter LII.


After this, selecting from all the treatises which contain allegorical
explanations and interpretations, expressed in a language and style not
to be despised, the least important,[704] such as might contribute,
indeed, to strengthen the faith of the multitude of simple believers,
but were not adapted to impress those of more intelligent mind, he
continues: “Of such a nature do I know the work to be, entitled
_Controversy between one Papiscus and Jason_, which is fitted to excite
pity and hatred instead of laughter. It is not my purpose, however, to
confute the statements contained in such works; for their fallacy is
manifest to all, especially if any one will have the patience to read
the books themselves. Rather do I wish to show that Nature teaches this,
that God made nothing that is mortal, but that His works, whatever they
are, are immortal, and theirs mortal. And the soul[705] is the work of
God, while the nature of the body is different. And in this respect
there is no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a
frog, and that of a man; for the matter[706] is the same, and their
corruptible part is alike.” Nevertheless I could wish that every one who
heard Celsus declaiming and asserting that the treatise entitled
_Controversy between Jason and Papiscus regarding Christ_ was fitted to
excite not laughter, but hatred, could take the work into his hands, and
patiently listen to its contents; that, finding in it nothing to excite
hatred, he might condemn Celsus out of the book itself. For if it be
impartially perused, it will be found that there is nothing to excite
even laughter in a work in which a Christian is described as conversing
with a Jew on the subject of the Jewish Scriptures, and proving that the
predictions regarding Christ fitly apply to Jesus; although the other
disputant maintains the discussion in no ignoble style, and in a manner
not unbecoming the character of a Jew.

Footnote 704:

  τὸ εὐτελέστερον.

Footnote 705:

  ψυχὴ.

Footnote 706:

  ὕλη.




                             Chapter LIII.


I do not know, indeed, how he could conjoin things that do not admit of
union, and which cannot exist together at the same time in human nature,
in saying, as he did, that “the above treatise deserved to be treated
both with pity and hatred.” For every one will admit that he who is the
object of pity is not at the same moment an object of hatred, and that
he who is the object of hatred is not at the same time a subject of
pity. Celsus, moreover, says that it was not his purpose to refute such
statements, because he thinks that their absurdity is evident to all,
and that, even before offering any logical refutation, they will appear
to be bad, and to merit both pity and hatred. But we invite him who
peruses this reply of ours to the charges of Celsus to have patience,
and to listen to our sacred writings themselves, and, as far as
possible, to form an opinion from their _contents_ of the purpose of the
writers, and of their consciences and disposition of mind; for he will
discover that they are men who strenuously contend for what they uphold,
and that some of them show that the history which they narrate is one
which they have both seen and experienced,[707] which was miraculous,
and worthy of being recorded for the advantage of their future hearers.
Will any one indeed venture to say that it is not the source and
fountain of all blessing[708] [to men] to believe in the God of all
things, and to perform all our actions with the view of pleasing Him in
everything whatever, and not to entertain even a thought unpleasing to
Him, seeing that not only our words and deeds, but our very thoughts,
will be the subject of future judgment? And what other arguments would
more effectually lead human nature to adopt a virtuous life, than the
belief or opinion that the supreme God beholds all things, not only what
is said and done, but even what is thought by us? And let any one who
likes compare any other system which at the same time converts and
ameliorates, not merely one or two individuals, but, as far as in it
lies, countless numbers, that by the comparison of both methods he may
form a correct idea of the arguments which dispose to a virtuous life.

Footnote 707:

  The reading in the text of Spencer and of the Benedictine ed. is
  καταλειφθεῖσαν, for which Lommatzsch has adopted the conjecture of
  Boherellus, καταληφθεῖσαν.

Footnote 708:

  ὠφελείας.




                              Chapter LIV.


But as in the words which I quoted from Celsus, which are a paraphrase
from the _Timœus_, certain expressions occur, such as, “God made nothing
mortal, but immortal things alone, while mortal things are the works of
others, and the soul is a work of God, but the nature of the body is
different, and there is no difference between the body of a man and that
of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog; for the matter is the same, and
their corruptible part alike,”—let us discuss these points for a little;
and let us show that Celsus either does not disclose his Epicurean
opinions, or, as might be said by one person, has exchanged them for
better, or, as another might say, has nothing in common save the name,
with Celsus, the Epicurean. For he ought, in giving expression to such
opinions, and in proposing to contradict not only us, but the by no
means obscure sect of philosophers who are the adherents of Zeno of
Citium, to have proved that the bodies of animals are not the work of
God, and that the great skill displayed in their construction did not
proceed from the highest intelligence. And he ought also, with regard to
the countless diversities of plants, which are regulated by an inherent,
incomprehensible nature,[709] and which have been created for the by no
means despicable[710] use of man in general, and of the animals which
minister to man, whatever other reasons may be adduced for their
existence,[711] not only to have stated his opinion, but also to have
shown us that it was no perfect intelligence which impressed these
qualities upon the matter of plants. And when he had once represented
[various] divinities as the creators of all the bodies, the soul alone
being the work of God, why did not he, who separated these great acts of
creation, and apportioned them among a plurality of creators, next
demonstrate by some convincing reason the existence of these diversities
among divinities, some of which construct the bodies of men, and
others—those, say, of beasts of burden, and others—those of wild
animals? And he who saw that some divinities were the creators of
dragons, and of asps, and of basilisks, and others of each plant and
herb according to its species, ought to have explained the causes of
these diversities. For probably, had he given himself carefully to the
investigation of each particular point, he would either have observed
that it was one God who was the creator of all, and who made each thing
with a certain object and for a certain reason; or if he had failed to
observe this, he would have discovered the answer which he ought to
return to those who assert that corruptibility is a thing indifferent in
its nature; and that there was no absurdity in a world which consists of
diverse materials, being formed by one architect, who constructed the
different kinds of things so as to secure the good of the whole. Or,
finally, he ought to have expressed no opinion at all on so important a
doctrine, since he did not intend to prove what he professed to
demonstrate; unless, indeed, he who censures others for professing a
simple faith, would have us to believe his mere assertions, although he
gave out that he would not merely assert, but would prove his
assertions.

Footnote 709:

  ὑπ’ ἐνυπαρχούσης ἀφαντάστου φύσεως διοικουμένων.

Footnote 710:

  πρὸς χρείαν οὐκ εὐκαταφρόνητον.

Footnote 711:

  ὅπως ποτὲ ἄλλως ὄντων.




                              Chapter LV.


But I maintain that, if he had had the patience (to use his own
expression) to listen to the writings of Moses and the prophets, he
would have had his attention arrested by the circumstance that the
expression “God made” is applied to heaven and earth, and to what is
called the firmament, and also to the lights and stars; and after these,
to the great fishes, and to every living thing among creeping animals
which the waters brought forth after their kinds, and to every fowl of
heaven after its kind; and after these, to the wild beasts of the earth
after their kind, and the beasts after their kind, and to every creeping
thing upon the earth after its kind; and last of all to man. The
expression “made,” however, is not applied to other things; but it is
deemed sufficient to say regarding light, “And it was light;” and
regarding the one gathering together of all the waters that are under
the whole heaven, “It was so.” And in like manner also, with regard to
what grew upon the earth, where it is said, “The earth brought forth
grass, and herb yielding seed after its kind and after its likeness, and
the fruit-tree yielding fruit, whose seed is in itself, after its kind,
upon the earth.” He would have inquired, moreover, whether the recorded
commands of God respecting the coming into existence of each part of the
world were addressed to one thing or to several;[712] and he would not
lightly have charged with being unintelligible, and as having no secret
meaning, the accounts related in these books, either by Moses, or, as
_we_ would say, by the Divine Spirit speaking in Moses, from whom also
he derived the power of prophesying; since he “knew both the present,
and the future, and the past,” in a higher degree than those priests who
are alleged by the poets to have possessed a knowledge of these things.

Footnote 712:

  τίνι ἢ τίσιν.




                              Chapter LVI.


Moreover, since Celsus asserts that “the soul is the work of God, but
that the nature of body is different; and that in this respect there is
no difference between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and
that of a man, for the matter is the same, and their corruptible part
alike,”—we have to say in answer to this argument of his, that if, since
the same matter underlies the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog,
or of a man, these bodies will differ in no respect from one another, it
is evident then that these bodies also will differ in no respect from
the sun, or the moon, or the stars, or the sky, or any other thing which
is called by the Greeks a god, cognisable by the senses.[713] For the
same matter, underlying _all_ bodies, is, properly speaking, without
qualities and without form, and derives its qualities from some [other]
source, I know not whence, since Celsus will have it that nothing
corruptible can be the work of God. Now the corruptible part of
everything whatever, being produced from the same underlying matter,
must necessarily be the same, by Celsus’ own showing; unless, indeed,
finding himself here hard pressed, he should desert Plato, who makes the
soul arise from a certain bowl,[714] and take refuge with Aristotle and
the Peripatetics, who maintain that the ether is _immaterial_,[715] and
consists of a fifth nature, separate from the other four elements,[716]
against which view both the Platonists and the Stoics have nobly
protested. And we too, who are despised by Celsus, will contravene it,
seeing we are required to explain and maintain the following statement
of the prophet: “The heavens shall perish, but Thou remainest: and they
all shall wax old as a garment; and as a vesture shalt Thou fold them
up, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same.”[717] These
remarks, however, are sufficient in reply to Celsus, when he asserts
that “the soul is the work of God, but that the nature of body is
different;” for from his argument it follows that there is no difference
between the body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a
heavenly[718] being.

Footnote 713:

  αἰσθητοῦ θεοῦ.

Footnote 714:

  Cf. Plato in _Timæo_.

Footnote 715:

  ἄϋλον.

Footnote 716:

  πέμπτης παρὰ τὰ τέσσαρα στοιχεῖα εἶναι φύσεως.

Footnote 717:

  Cf. Ps. cii. 26, 27.

Footnote 718:

  αἰθερίου.




                             Chapter LVII.


See, then, whether we ought to yield to one who, holding such opinions,
calumniates the Christians, and thus abandon a doctrine which explains
the difference existing among bodies as due to the different qualities,
internal and external, which are implanted in them. For we, too, know
that there are “bodies celestial, and bodies terrestrial;” and that “the
glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial
another;” and that even the glory of the celestial bodies is not alike:
for “one is the glory of the sun, and another the glory of the stars;”
and among the stars themselves, “one star differeth from another star in
glory.”[719] And therefore, as those who expect the resurrection of the
dead, we assert that the qualities which are in bodies undergo change:
since some bodies, which are sown in corruption, are raised in
incorruption; and others, sown in dishonour, are raised in glory; and
others, again, sown in weakness, are raised in power; and those which
are sown natural bodies, are raised as spiritual.[720] That the matter
which underlies bodies is capable of receiving those qualities which the
Creator pleases to bestow, is a point which all of us who accept the
doctrine of providence firmly hold; so that, if God so willed, one
quality is at the present time implanted in this portion of matter, and
afterwards another of a different and better kind. But since there are,
from the beginning of the world, laws[721] established for the purpose
of regulating the changes of bodies, and which will continue while the
world lasts, I do not know whether, when a new and different order of
things has succeeded[722] after the destruction of the world, and what
our Scriptures call the end[723] [of the ages], it is not wonderful that
at the present time a snake should be formed out of a dead man, growing,
as the multitude affirm, out of the marrow of the back,[724] and that a
bee should spring from an ox, and a wasp from a horse, and a beetle from
an ass, and, generally, worms from the most of bodies. Celsus, indeed,
thinks that this can be shown to be the consequence of none of these
bodies being the work of God, and that qualities (I know not whence it
was so arranged that one should spring out of another) are not the work
of a divine intelligence, producing the changes which occur in the
qualities of matter.

Footnote 719:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 41, etc.

Footnote 720:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 44.

Footnote 721:

  ὁδοὶ.

Footnote 722:

  καινῆς διαδεξαμένης ὁδοῦ καὶ ἀλλοίας, etc. For διαδεξαμένης,
  Boherellus would read διαδεξομένης. Cf. Origen, _de Princip._ iii. c.
  v.

Footnote 723:

  συντέλεια.

Footnote 724:

  Cf. Pliny, x. c. 66: “Anguem ex medullâ hominis spinæ gigni accepimus
  a multis.” Cf. also Ovid, _Metamorphos._ xv. fab. iv.




                             Chapter LVIII.


But we have something more to say to Celsus, when he declares that “the
soul is the work of God, and that the nature of body is different,” and
puts forward such an opinion not only without proof, but even without
clearly defining his meaning; for he did not make it evident, whether he
meant that every soul is the work of God, or only the rational soul.
This, then, is what we have to say: If every soul is the work of God, it
is manifest that those of the meanest irrational animals are God’s work,
so that the nature of all bodies is different from that of the soul. He
appears, however, in what follows, where he says that “irrational
animals are more beloved by God than we, and have a purer knowledge of
divinity,” to maintain that not only is the soul of man, but in a much
greater degree that of irrational animals, the work of God; for this
follows from their being said to be more beloved by God than we. Now if
the rational soul alone be the work of God, then, in the first place, he
did not clearly indicate that such was his opinion; and in the second
place, this deduction follows from his indefinite language regarding the
soul—viz. whether not every one, but only the rational, is the work of
God—that neither is the nature of all bodies different [from the soul].
But if the nature of all bodies be not different, although the body of
each animal correspond to its soul, it is evident that the body of that
animal whose soul was the work of God, would differ from the body of
that animal in which dwells a soul which was not the work of God. And so
the assertion will be false, that there is no difference between the
body of a bat, or of a worm, or of a frog, and that of a man.




                              Chapter LIX.


For it would, indeed, be absurd that certain stones and buildings should
be regarded as more sacred or more profane than others, according as
they were constructed for the honour of God, or for the reception of
dishonourable and accursed persons;[725] while bodies should not differ
from bodies, according as they are inhabited by rational or irrational
beings, and according as these rational beings are the most virtuous or
most worthless of mankind. Such a principle of distinction, indeed, has
led some to deify the bodies of distinguished men,[726] as having
received a virtuous soul, and to reject and treat with dishonour those
of very wicked individuals. I do not maintain that such a principle has
been always soundly exercised, but that it had its origin in a correct
idea. Would a wise man, indeed, after the death of Anytus and Socrates,
think of burying the bodies of both with like honours? And would he
raise the same mound or tomb to the memory of both? These instances we
have adduced because of the language of Celsus, that “none of these is
the work of God” (where the words “of these” refer to the body of a man,
or to the snakes which come out of the body; and to that of an ox, or of
the bees which come from the body of an ox; and to that of a horse, or
of an ass, and to the wasps which come from a horse, and the beetles
which proceed from an ass); for which reason we have been obliged to
return to the consideration of his statement, that “the soul is the work
of God, but that the nature of body is different.”

Footnote 725:

  σωμάτων.

Footnote 726:

  τῶν διαφερόντων.




                              Chapter LX.


He next proceeds to say, that “a common nature pervades all the
previously mentioned bodies, and one which goes and returns the same
amid recurring changes.”[727] In answer to this, it is evident from what
has been already said, that not only does a common nature pervade those
bodies which have been previously enumerated, but the heavenly bodies as
well. And if this is the case, it is clear also that, according to
Celsus (although I do not know whether it is according to truth), it is
one nature which goes and returns the same through all bodies amid
recurring changes. It is evident also that this is the case in the
opinion of those who hold that the world is to perish; while those also
who hold the opposite view will endeavour to show, without the
assumption of a fifth substance,[728] that in their judgment too it is
one nature “which goes and returns the same through all bodies amid
recurring changes.” And thus, even that which is perishable remains in
order to undergo a change;[729] for the matter which underlies [all
things], while its properties perish, still abides, according to the
opinion of those who hold it to be uncreated. If, however, it can be
shown by any arguments not to be uncreated, but to have been created for
certain purposes, it is clear that it will not have the same nature of
permanency which it would possess on the hypothesis of being uncreated.
But it is not our object at present, in answering the charges of Celsus,
to discuss these questions of natural philosophy.

Footnote 727:

  καὶ μία εἰς ἀμοιβὴν παλίντροπον ἰοῦσα καὶ ἐπανιοῦσα.

Footnote 728:

  σῶμα.

Footnote 729:

  οὕτω δὲ καὶ τὸ ἀπολλύμενον εἰς μεταβολὴν διαμένει.




                              Chapter LXI.


He maintains, moreover, that “no product of matter is immortal.” Now, in
answer to this it may be said, that if no product of matter is immortal,
then either the whole world is immortal, and thus not a product of
matter, or it is _not_ immortal. If, accordingly, the world is immortal
(which is agreeable to the view of those who say that the soul alone is
the work of God, and was produced from a certain bowl), let Celsus show
that the world was not produced from a matter devoid of qualities,
remembering his own assertion that “no product of matter is immortal.”
If, however, the world is not immortal (seeing it is a product of
matter), but mortal, does it also perish, or does it not? For if it
perish, it will perish as being a work of God; and then, in the event of
the _world_ perishing, what will become of the _soul_, which is also a
work of God? Let Celsus answer this! But if, perverting the notion of
immortality, he will assert that, although _perishable_, it is immortal,
because it does not _really_ perish; that it is _capable_ of dying, but
does not _actually_ die,—it is evident that, according to him, there
will exist something which is at the same time mortal and immortal, by
being capable of both conditions; and that which does not die will be
mortal, and that which is not immortal by nature will be termed in a
peculiar sense immortal, because it does not die! According to what
distinction, then, in the meaning of words, will he maintain that no
product of matter is immortal? And thus you see that the ideas contained
in his writings, when closely examined and tested, are proved _not_ to
be sound and incontrovertible.[730] And after making these assertions he
adds: “On this point these remarks are sufficient; and if any one is
capable of hearing and examining further, he will come to know [the
truth].” Let us, then, who in his opinion are unintelligent individuals,
see what will result from our being able to listen to him for a little,
and so continue our investigation.

Footnote 730:

  διελέγχεται οὐκ ἐπιδεχόμενα τὸ γενναῖον καὶ ἀναντίῤῥητον.




                             Chapter LXII.


After these matters, then, he thinks that he can make us acquainted in a
few words with the questions regarding the nature of evil, which have
been variously discussed in many important treatises, and which have
received very opposite explanations. His words are: “There neither were
formerly, nor are there now, nor will there be again, more or fewer
evils in the world [than have always been]. For the nature of all things
is one and the same, and the generation of evils is always the same.” He
seems to have paraphrased these words from the discussions in the
_Theœtetus_, where Plato makes Socrates say: “It is neither possible for
evils to disappear from among men, nor for them to become established
among the gods,” and so on. But he appears to me not to have understood
Plato correctly, although professing to include all truth[731] in this
one treatise, and giving to his own book against us the title of _A True
Discourse_. For the language in the _Timœus_, where it is said, “When
the gods purify the earth with water,” shows that the earth, when
purified with water, contains less evil than it did before its
purification. And this assertion, that there at one time were fewer
evils in the world, is one which we make, in harmony with the opinion of
Plato, because of the language in the _Theœtetus_, where he says that
“evils cannot disappear from among men.”

Footnote 731:

  ὁ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἐκπεριλαμβάνων.




                             Chapter LXIII.


I do not understand how Celsus, while admitting the existence of
Providence, at least so far as appears from the language of this book,
can say that there never existed [at any time] either more or fewer
evils, but, as it were, a fixed number; thus annihilating the beautiful
doctrine regarding the indefinite[732] nature of evil, and asserting
that evil, even in its own nature,[733] is infinite. Now it appears to
follow from the position, that there never have been, nor are now, nor
ever will be, more or fewer evils in the world; that as, according to
the view of those who hold the indestructibility of the world, the
equipoise of the elements is maintained by a Providence (which does not
permit one to gain the preponderance over the others, in order to
prevent the destruction of the world), so a kind of Providence presides,
as it were, over evils (the number of which is fixed),[734] to prevent
their being either increased or diminished! In other ways, too, are the
arguments of Celsus concerning evil confuted, by those philosophers who
have investigated the subjects of good and evil, and who have proved
also from history that in former times it was without the city, and with
their faces concealed by masks, that loose women hired themselves to
those who wanted them; that subsequently, becoming more impudent, they
laid aside their masks, though not being permitted by the laws to enter
the cities, they [still] remained without them, until, as the
dissoluteness of manners daily increased, they dared [finally] even to
enter the cities. Such accounts are given by Chrysippus in the
introduction to his work on _Good and Evil_. From this also it may be
seen that evils both increase and decrease, viz. that those individuals
who were called “Ambiguous”[735] used formerly to present themselves
openly to view, suffering and committing all shameful things, while
subserving the passions of those who frequented their society; but
recently they have been expelled [from the city] by the
authorities.[736] And of countless evils which, owing to the spread of
wickedness, have made their appearance in human life, we may say that
formerly they did _not_ exist. For the most ancient histories, which
bring innumerable other accusations against sinful men, know nothing of
the perpetrators of abominable[737] crimes.

Footnote 732:

  ἀόριστον.

Footnote 733:

  καὶ τῷ ἰδίῳ λόγῳ.

Footnote 734:

  τοσοῖσδε τυγχάνουσιν.

Footnote 735:

  Ἀμφίβολοι.

Footnote 736:

  Ἀγορανόμοι.

Footnote 737:

  ἀῤῥητοποιοὺς οὐκ ἴσασι.




                             Chapter LXIV.


And now, after these arguments, and others of a similar kind, how can
Celsus escape appearing in a ridiculous light, when he imagines that
there never has been in the past, nor will be in the future, a greater
or less number of evils? For although the nature of all things is one
and the same, it does not at all follow that the production of evils is
a constant quantity.[738] For although the nature of a certain
individual is one and the same, yet his mind, and his reason, and his
actions, are not always alike:[739] there being a time when he had not
yet attained to reason; and another, when, with the possession of
reason, he had become stained with wickedness, and when this increased
to a greater or less degree; and again, a time when he devoted himself
to virtue, and made greater or less progress therein, attaining
sometimes the very summit of perfection, through longer or shorter
periods of contemplation.[740] In like manner, we may make the same
assertion in a higher degree of the nature of the universe,[741] that
although it is one and the same in kind, yet neither do exactly the same
things, nor yet things that are similar, occur in it; for we neither
have invariably productive nor unproductive seasons, nor yet periods of
continuous rain or of drought. And so in the same way, with regard to
virtuous souls, there are neither appointed periods of fertility nor of
barrenness; and the same is the case with the greater or less spread of
evil. And those who desire to investigate all things to the best of
their ability, must keep in view this estimate of evils, that their
amount is not always the same, owing to the working of a Providence
which either preserves earthly things, or purges them by means of floods
and conflagrations; and effects this, perhaps, not merely with reference
to things on earth, but also to the whole universe of things[742] which
stands in need of purification, when the wickedness that is in it has
become great.

Footnote 738:

  οὐ πάντως καὶ ἡ τῶν κακῶν γένεσις ἀεὶ ἡ αὐτή.

Footnote 739:

  οὐκ ἀεὶ τὰ αὐτά ἐστι περὶ τὸ ἡγεμονικὸν αὐτοῦ, καὶ τὸν λόγον αὐτοῦ,
  καὶ τὰς πράξεις.

Footnote 740:

  θεωρίαις.

Footnote 741:

  τῶν ὅλων.

Footnote 742:

  τὰ ἐν ὁλῳ τῷ κόσμῳ.




                              Chapter LXV.


After this Celsus continues: “It is not easy, indeed, for one who is not
a philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils, though it is sufficient
for the multitude to say that they do not proceed from God, but cleave
to matter, and have their abode among mortal things; while the
course[743] of mortal things being the same from beginning to end, the
same things must always, agreeably to the appointed cycles,[744] recur
in the past, present, and future.” Celsus here observes that it is not
easy for one who is not a philosopher to ascertain the origin of evils,
as if it were an easy matter for a philosopher to gain this knowledge,
while for one who is not a philosopher it was difficult, though still
possible, for such an one, although with great labour, to attain it.
Now, to this we say, that the origin of evils is a subject which is not
easy even for a philosopher to master, and that perhaps it is impossible
even for such to attain a clear understanding of it, unless it be
revealed to them by divine inspiration, both what evils are, and how
they originated, and how they shall be made to disappear. But although
ignorance of God is an evil, and one of the greatest of these is not to
know how God is to be served and worshipped, yet, as even Celsus would
admit, there are undoubtedly some philosophers who have been ignorant of
this, as is evident from the views of the different philosophical sects;
whereas, according to our judgment, no one is capable of ascertaining
the origin of evils who does not know that it is wicked to suppose that
piety is preserved uninjured amid the laws that are established in
different states, in conformity with the generally prevailing ideas of
government.[745] No one, moreover, who has not heard what is related of
him who is called “devil,” and of his “angels,” and what he was before
he became a devil, and _how_ he became such, and what was the cause of
the simultaneous apostasy of those who are termed his angels, will be
able to ascertain the origin of evils. But he who would attain to this
knowledge must learn more accurately the nature of demons, and know that
they are not the work of God so far as respects their demoniacal nature,
but only in so far as they are possessed of reason; and also what their
origin was, so that they became beings of such a nature, that while
converted into demons, the powers of their mind[746] remain. And if
there be any topic of human investigation which is difficult for our
nature to grasp, certainly the origin of evils may be considered to be
such.

Footnote 743:

  περίοδος.

Footnote 744:

  κατὰ τὰς τεταγμένας ἀνακυκλήσεις.

Footnote 745:

  μὴ ἐγνωκὼς κακὸν εἶναι τὸ νομίζειν εὐσέβειαν σώζεσθαι ἐν τοῖς
  καθεστηκόσι κατὰ τὰς κοινότερον νοουμένας πολιτείας νόμοις.

Footnote 746:

  τὸ ἡγεμονικόν.




                             Chapter LXVI.


Celsus in the next place, as if he were able to tell certain secrets
regarding the origin of evils, but chose rather to keep silence, and say
only what was suitable to the multitude, continues as follows: “It is
sufficient to say to the multitude regarding the origin of evils, that
they do not proceed from God, but cleave to matter, and dwell among
mortal things.” It is true, certainly, that evils do not proceed from
God; for according to Jeremiah, one of our prophets, it is certain that
“out of the mouth of the Most High proceedeth not evil and good.”[747]
But to maintain that matter, dwelling among mortal things, is the cause
of evils, is in our opinion not true. For it is the mind of each
individual which is the cause of the evil which arises in him, and this
is evil in the abstract;[748] while the actions which proceed from it
are wicked, and there is, to speak with accuracy, nothing else in our
view that is evil. I am aware, however, that this topic requires very
elaborate treatment, which (by the grace of God enlightening the mind)
may be successfully attempted by him who is deemed by God worthy to
attain the necessary knowledge on this subject.

Footnote 747:

  Cf. Lam. iii. 38.

Footnote 748:

  ἥτις ἐστὶ τὸ κακόν.




                             Chapter LXVII.


I do not understand how Celsus should deem it of advantage, in writing a
treatise against us, to adopt an opinion which requires at least much
plausible reasoning to make it appear, as far as he can do so, that “the
course of mortal things is the same from beginning to end, and that the
same things must always, according to the appointed cycles, recur in the
past, present, and future.” Now, if this be true, our free-will is
annihilated.[749] For if, in the revolution of mortal things, the same
events must perpetually occur in the past, present, and future,
according to the appointed cycles, it is clear that, of necessity,
Socrates will always be a philosopher, and be condemned for introducing
strange gods and for corrupting the youth. And Anytus and Melitus must
always be his accusers, and the council of the Areopagus must ever
condemn him to death by hemlock. And in the same way, according to the
appointed cycles, Phalaris must always play the tyrant, and Alexander of
Pheræ commit the same acts of cruelty, and those condemned to the
[torture of the brazen] bull of Phalaris continually pour forth their
wailings from it. But if these things be granted, I do not see how our
free-will can be preserved, or how praise or blame can be administered
with propriety. We may say further to Celsus, in answer to such a view,
that “if the course of mortal things be always the same from beginning
to end, and if, according to the appointed cycles, the same events must
always occur in the past, present, and future,” then, according to the
appointed cycles, Moses must again come forth from Egypt with the Jewish
people, and Jesus again come to dwell in human life, and perform the
same actions which, [according to this view], he has done not once, but
countless times, as the periods have revolved. Nay, Christians too will
be the same in the appointed cycles; and Celsus will again write this
treatise of his, which he has done innumerable times before!

Footnote 749:

  τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν ἀνῄρηται.




                            Chapter LXVIII.


Celsus, however, says that it is only “the course of _mortal_ things
which, according to the appointed cycles, must always be the same in the
past, present, and future;” whereas the majority of the Stoics maintain
that this is the case not only with the course of mortal, but also with
that of immortal things, and of those whom they regard as gods. For
after the conflagration of the world,[750] which has taken place
countless times in the past, and will happen countless times in the
future, there has been, and will be, the same arrangement of all things
from the beginning to the end. The Stoics, indeed, in endeavouring to
parry, I don’t know how, the objections raised to their views, allege
that as cycle after cycle returns, all men will be altogether
unchanged[751] from those who lived in former cycles; so that Socrates
will not live again, but one altogether like to Socrates, who will marry
a wife exactly like Xanthippe, and will be accused by men exactly like
Anytus and Melitus. I do not understand, however, how the world is to be
always the same, and one individual not different from another, and yet
the things in it not the same, though exactly alike. But the main
argument in answer to the statements of Celsus and of the Stoics will be
more appropriately investigated elsewhere, since on the present occasion
it is not consistent with the purpose we have in view to expatiate on
these points.

Footnote 750:

  τοῦ παντός.

Footnote 751:

  ἀπαραλλάκτους.




                             Chapter LXIX.


He continues to say, that “neither have visible things[752] been given
to man [by God], but each individual thing comes into existence and
perishes for the sake of the safety of the whole, passing agreeably to
the change, which I have already mentioned, from one thing to another.”
It is unnecessary, however, to linger over the refutation of these
statements, which have been already refuted to the best of my ability.
And the following, too, has been answered, viz. that “there will neither
be more nor less good and evil among mortals.” This point also has been
referred to, viz. that “God does not need to amend His work
afresh.”[753] But it is not as a man who has imperfectly designed some
piece of workmanship, and executed it unskilfully, that God administers
correction to the world, in purifying it by a flood or by a
conflagration, but in order to prevent the tide of evil from rising to a
greater height; and, moreover, I am of opinion that it is at periods
which are precisely determined beforehand that He sweeps wickedness
away, so as to contribute to the good of the whole world.[754] If,
however, he should assert that, after the disappearance of evil, it
again comes into existence, such questions will have to be examined in a
special treatise. It is, then, always in order to repair what has become
faulty[755] that God desires to amend His work afresh. For although, in
the creation of the world, all things had been arranged by Him in the
most beautiful and stable manner, He nevertheless needed to exercise
some healing power upon those who were labouring under the disease of
wickedness, and upon a whole world, which was polluted as it were
thereby. But nothing has been neglected by God, or will be neglected by
Him; for He does at each particular juncture what it becomes Him to do
in a perverted and changed world. And as a husbandman performs different
acts of husbandry upon the soil and its productions, according to the
varying seasons of the year, so God administers entire ages of time, as
if they were, so to speak, so many individual years, performing during
each one of them what is requisite with a reasonable regard to the care
of the world; and this, as it is truly understood by God alone, so also
is it accomplished by Him.

Footnote 752:

  τὰ ὁρώμενα.

Footnote 753:

  οὔτε τῷ Θεῷ καινοτέρας δεῖ διορθώσεως.

Footnote 754:

  ὅτι καὶ πάντη τεταγμένως αὐτὴν ἀφανίζων συμφερόντως τῷ παντί.

Footnote 755:

  τὰ σφάλματα ἀναλαμβάνειν.




                              Chapter LXX.


Celsus has made a statement regarding evils of the following nature,
viz., that “although a thing may seem to you to be evil, it is by no
means certain that it is so; for you do not know what is of advantage to
yourself, or to another, or to the whole world.” Now this assertion is
made with a certain degree of caution;[756] and it hints that the nature
of evil is not wholly wicked, because that which may be considered so in
individual cases, may contain something which is of advantage to the
whole community. However, lest any one should mistake my words, and find
a pretence of wrongdoing, as if his wickedness were profitable to the
world, or at least _might_ be so, we have to say, that although God, who
preserves the free-will of each individual, may make use of the evil of
the wicked for the administration of the world, so disposing them as to
conduce to the benefit of the whole; yet, notwithstanding, such an
individual is deserving of censure, and as such has been appointed for a
use, which is a subject of loathing to each separate individual,
although of advantage to the whole community.[757] It is as if one were
to say that in the case of a city, a man who had committed certain
crimes, and on account of these had been condemned to serve in public
works that were useful to the community, did something that was of
advantage to the entire city, while he himself was engaged in an
abominable task,[758] in which no one possessed of moderate
understanding would wish to be engaged. Paul also, the apostle of Jesus,
teaches us that even the very wicked will contribute to the good of the
whole, while in themselves they will be amongst the vile, but that the
most virtuous men, too, will be of the greatest advantage to the world,
and will therefore on that account occupy the noblest position. His
words are: “But in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and
silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to
dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto
honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, prepared unto every
good work.”[759] These remarks I have thought it necessary to make in
reply to the assertion, that “although a thing may seem to you to be
evil, it is by no means certain that it is so, for you do not know what
is of advantage either to yourself or to another,” in order that no one
may take occasion from what has been said on the subject to commit sin,
on the pretext that he will thus be useful to the world.

Footnote 756:

  ἔχει τὶ εὐλαβές.

Footnote 757:

  καὶ ὡς ψεκτὸς κατατέτακται εἰς χρείαν ἀπευκταίαν μὲν ἑκάστῳ, χρήσιμον
  δὲ τῷ παντί.

Footnote 758:

  ἐν ἀπευκταίῳ πράγματι.

Footnote 759:

  Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 20, 21.




                             Chapter LXXI.


But as, in what follows, Celsus, not understanding that the language of
Scripture regarding God is adapted to an anthropopathic point of view,
ridicules those passages which speak of words of anger addressed to the
ungodly, and of threatenings directed against sinners, we have to say
that, as we ourselves, when talking with very young children, do not aim
at exerting our own power of eloquence,[760] but, adapting ourselves to
the weakness of our charge, both say and do those things which may
appear to us useful for the correction and improvement of the children
as children, so the word of God appears to have dealt with the history,
making the capacity of the hearers, and the benefit which they were to
receive, the standard of the appropriateness of its announcements
[regarding Him]. And, generally, with regard to such a style of speaking
about God, we find in the book of Deuteronomy the following: “The Lord
thy God bare with your manners, as a man would bear with the manners of
his son.”[761] It is, as it were, assuming the manners of a man in order
to secure the advantage of men that the Scripture makes use of such
expressions; for it would not have been suitable to the condition of the
multitude, that what God had to say to them should be spoken by Him in a
manner more befitting the majesty of His own person. And yet he who is
anxious to attain a true understanding of Holy Scripture, will discover
the spiritual truths which are spoken by it to those who are called
“spiritual,” by comparing the meaning of what is addressed to those of
weaker mind with what is announced to such as are of acuter
understanding, both meanings being frequently found in the same passage
by him who is capable of comprehending it.

Footnote 760:

  οὐ τοῦ ἑαυτῶν ἐν τῷ λέγειν στοχαζόμεθα δυνατοῦ.

Footnote 761:

  Cf. Deut. i. 31. Origen appears to have read, not ἐτροφορησεν, the
  common reading (Heb. נָשָׂא), but ἐτροποφορησεν, the reading of the
  Codex Alex.




                             Chapter LXXII.


We speak, indeed, of the “wrath” of God. We do not, however, assert that
it indicates any “passion” on His part, but that it is something which
is assumed in order to discipline by stern means those sinners who have
committed many and grievous sins. For that which is called God’s
“wrath,” and “anger,” is a means of discipline; and that such a view is
agreeable to Scripture, is evident from what is said in the sixth Psalm,
“O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, neither chasten me in Thy hot
displeasure;”[762] and also in Jeremiah, “O Lord, correct me, but with
judgment: not in Thine anger, lest Thou bring me to nothing.”[763] Any
one, moreover, who reads in the second book of Kings of the “wrath” of
God, inducing David to number the people, and finds from the first book
of Chronicles that it was the devil who suggested this measure, will, on
comparing together the two statements, easily see for what purpose the
“wrath” is mentioned, of which “wrath,” as the Apostle Paul declares,
all men are children: “We were by nature children of wrath, even as
others.”[764] Moreover, that “wrath” is no passion on the part of God,
but that each one brings it upon himself by his sins, will be clear from
the further statement of Paul: “Or despisest thou the riches of His
goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering, not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But after thy hardness and
impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of
wrath, and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.” How, then, can
any one treasure up for himself “wrath” against a “day of wrath,” if
“wrath” be understood in the sense of “passion?” or how can the “passion
of wrath” be a help to discipline? Besides, the Scripture, which tells
us not to be angry at all, and which says in the thirty-seventh Psalm,
“Cease from anger, and forsake wrath,”[765] and which commands us by the
mouth of Paul to “put off all these, anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy,
filthy communication,”[766] would not involve God in the same passion
from which it would have us to be altogether free. It is manifest,
further, that the language used regarding the wrath of God is to be
understood _figuratively_ from what is related of His “sleep,” from
which, as if awaking Him, the prophet says: “Awake, why sleepest Thou,
Lord?”[767] and again: “Then the Lord awaked as one out of sleep, and
like a mighty man that shouteth by reason of wine.”[768] If, then,
“sleep” must mean something else, and not what the first acceptation of
the word conveys, why should not “wrath” also be understood in a similar
way? The “threatenings,” again, are intimations of the [punishments]
which are to befall the wicked: for it is as if one were to call the
words of a physician “threats,” when he tells his patients, “I will have
to use the knife, and apply cauteries, if you do not obey my
prescriptions, and regulate your diet and mode of life in such a way as
I direct you.” It is no human passions, then, which we ascribe to God,
nor impious opinions which we entertain of Him; nor do we err when we
present the various narratives concerning Him, drawn from the Scriptures
themselves, after careful comparison one with another. For those who are
wise ambassadors of the “word” have no other object in view than to free
as far as they can their hearers from weak opinions, and to endue them
with intelligence.

Footnote 762:

  Cf. Ps. vi. 1.

Footnote 763:

  Cf. Jer. x. 24.

Footnote 764:

  Cf. Eph. ii. 3.

Footnote 765:

  Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 8.

Footnote 766:

  Cf. Col. iii. 8.

Footnote 767:

  Ps. xliv. 23.

Footnote 768:

  Cf. Ps. lxxviii. 65.




                            Chapter LXXIII.


And as a sequel to his non-understanding of the statements regarding the
“wrath” of God, he continues: “Is it not ridiculous to suppose that,
whereas a _man_, who became angry with the Jews, slew them all from the
youth upwards, and burned their city (so powerless were they to resist
him), the mighty _God_, as they say, being angry, and indignant, and
uttering threats, should, [instead of punishing them,] send His own
_Son_, who endured the sufferings which He did?” If the Jews, then,
after the treatment which they dared to inflict upon Jesus, perished
with all their youth, and had their city consumed by fire, they suffered
this punishment in consequence of no other wrath than that which they
treasured up for themselves; for the judgment of God against them, which
was determined by the divine appointment, is termed “wrath” agreeably to
a traditional usage of the Hebrews. And what the Son of the mighty God
suffered, He suffered voluntarily for the salvation of men, as has been
stated to the best of my ability in the preceding pages. He then
continues: “But that I may speak not of the Jews alone (for that is not
my object), but of the whole of nature, as I promised, I will bring out
more clearly what has been already stated.” Now what modest man, on
reading these words, and knowing the weakness of humanity, would not be
indignant at the offensive nature of the promise to give an account of
the “whole of nature,” and at an arrogance like that which prompted him
to inscribe upon his book the title which he ventured to give it [of a
True Discourse]? But let us see what he has to say regarding the “whole
of nature,” and what he is to place “in a clearer light.”




                             Chapter LXXIV.


He next, in many words, blames us for asserting that God made all things
for the sake of man. Because from the history of animals, and from the
sagacity manifested by them, he would show that all things came into
existence not more for the sake of man than of the irrational animals.
And here he seems to me to speak in a similar manner to those who,
through dislike of their enemies, accuse them of the same things for
which their own friends are commended. For as, in the instance referred
to, hatred blinds these persons from seeing that they are accusing their
very dearest friends by the means through which they think they are
slandering their enemies; so in the same way, Celsus also, becoming
confused in his argument, does not see that he is bringing a charge
against the philosophers of the Porch, who, not amiss, place man in the
foremost rank, and rational nature in general before irrational animals,
and who maintain that Providence created all things mainly on account of
rational nature. Rational beings, then, as being the principal ones,
occupy the place, as it were, of children in the womb, while irrational
and soulless beings hold that of the envelope which is created along
with the child.[769] I think, too, that as in cities the superintendents
of the goods and market discharge their duties for the sake of no other
than human beings, while dogs and other irrational animals have the
benefit of the superabundance; so Providence provides _in a special
manner_ for rational creatures; while this also follows, that irrational
creatures likewise enjoy the benefit of what is done for the sake of
man. And as he is in error who alleges that the superintendents of the
markets[770] make provision in no greater degree for men than for dogs,
because dogs also get their share of the goods; so in a far greater
degree are Celsus and they who think with him guilty of impiety towards
the God who makes provision for rational beings, in asserting that His
arrangements are made in no greater degree for the sustenance of human
beings than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and thorns.

Footnote 769:

  καὶ λόγον μὲν ἔχει τὰ λογικὰ, ἅπερ ἐστὶ προηγούμενα, παίδων
  γεννωμένων· τὰ δ’ ἄλογα καὶ τὰ ἄψυχα χωρίου συγκτιζομένου τῷ παιδίῳ.

Footnote 770:

  ἀγορανόμοι.




                             Chapter LXXV.


For, in the first place, he is of opinion that “thunders, and
lightnings, and rains are not the works of God,”—thus showing more
clearly at last his Epicurean leanings; and in the second place, that
“even if one were to grant that these were the works of God, they are
brought into existence not more for the support of us who are human
beings, than for that of plants, and trees, and herbs, and
thorns,”—maintaining, like a true Epicurean, that these things are the
product of chance, and not the work of Providence. For if these things
are of no more use to us than to plants, and trees, and herbs, and
thorns, it is evident either that they do not proceed from Providence at
all, or from a providence which does not provide for us in a greater
degree than for trees, and herbs, and thorns. Now, either of these
suppositions is impious in itself, and it would be foolish to refute
such statements by answering any one who brought against us the charge
of impiety; for it is manifest to every one, from what has been said,
who is the person guilty of impiety. In the next place, he adds:
“Although you may say that these things, viz. plants, and trees, and
herbs, and thorns, grow for the use of men, why will you maintain that
they grow for the use of men rather than for that of the most savage of
irrational animals?” Let Celsus then say distinctly that the great
diversity among the products of the earth is not the work of Providence,
but that a certain fortuitous concurrence of atoms[771] gave birth to
qualities so diverse, and that it was owing to chance that so many kinds
of plants, and trees, and herbs resemble one another, and that no
disposing reason gave existence to them,[772] and that they do _not_
derive their origin from an understanding that is beyond all admiration.
We Christians, however, who are devoted to the worship of the only God,
who created these things, feel grateful for them to Him who made them,
because not only for us, but also (on our account) for the animals which
are subject to us, He has prepared such a home,[773] seeing “He causeth
the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the service of man, that
He may bring forth food out of the earth, and wine that maketh glad the
heart of man, and oil to make his face to shine, and bread which
strengtheneth man’s heart.”[774] But that He should have provided food
even for the most savage animals is not matter of surprise, for these
very animals are said by some who have philosophized [upon the subject]
to have been created for the purpose of affording exercise to the
rational creature. And one of our own wise men says somewhere: “Do not
say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for all things have been made
for their uses. And do not say, What is this? or Wherefore is that? for
everything shall be sought out in its season.”[775]

Footnote 771:

  συντυχία τις ἀτόμων.

Footnote 772:

  οὐδεὶς λόγος τεχνικὸς ὑπέστησεν αὐτά.

Footnote 773:

  ἑστίαν.

Footnote 774:

  Cf. Ps. civ. 14, 15.

Footnote 775:

  Cf. Ecclus. xxxix. 21, and 16, 17.




                             Chapter LXXVI.


After this, Celsus, desirous of maintaining that Providence created the
products of the earth, not more on our account than on that of the most
savage animals, thus proceeds: “We indeed by labour and suffering earn a
scanty and toilsome subsistence,[776] while all things are produced for
them without their sowing and ploughing.” He does not observe that God,
wishing to exercise the human understanding in all countries (that it
might not remain idle and unacquainted with the arts), created man a
being full of wants,[777] in order that by virtue of his very needy
condition he might be compelled to be the inventor of arts, some of
which minister to his subsistence, and others to his protection. For it
was better that those who would not have sought out divine things, nor
engaged in the study of philosophy, should be placed in a condition of
want, in order that they might employ their understanding in the
invention of the arts, than that they should altogether neglect the
cultivation of their minds, because their condition was one of
abundance. The want of the necessaries of human life led to the
invention on the one hand of the art of husbandry, on the other to that
of the cultivation of the vine; again, to the art of gardening, and the
arts of carpentry and smithwork, by means of which were formed the tools
required for the arts which minister to the support of life. The want of
covering, again, introduced the art of weaving, which followed that of
wool-carding and spinning; and again, that of house-building: and thus
the intelligence of men ascended even to the art of architecture. The
want of necessaries caused the products also of other places to be
conveyed, by means of the arts of sailing and pilotage,[778] to those
who were without them; so that even on that account one might admire the
Providence which made the rational being subject to want in a far higher
degree than the irrational animals, and yet all with a view to his
advantage. For the irrational animals have their food provided for them,
because there is not in them even an impulse[779] towards the invention
of the arts. They have, besides, a natural covering; for they are
provided either with hair, or wings, or scales, or shells. Let the
above, then, be our answer to the assertions of Celsus, when he says
that “we indeed by labour and suffering earn a scanty and toilsome
subsistence, while all things are produced for them without their sowing
and ploughing.”

Footnote 776:

  μόλις καὶ ἐπιπόνως.

Footnote 777:

  ἐπιδεῆ.

Footnote 778:

  διὰ ναυτικῆς καὶ κυβερνητικῆς.

Footnote 779:

  ἀφορμήν.




                            Chapter LXXVII.


In the next place, forgetting that his object is to accuse both Jews and
Christians, he quotes against himself an iambic verse of Euripides,
which is opposed to his view, and joining issue with the words, charges
them with being an erroneous statement. His words are as follow: “But if
you will quote the saying of Euripides, that

              ‘The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves,’[780]

why should they be so in a greater degree to us than to ants and flies?
For the night is created for them in order that they may rest, and the
day that they may see and resume their work.” Now it is undoubted, that
not only have certain of the Jews and Christians declared that the sun
and the heavenly bodies[781] are our servants; but he also has said
this, who, according to some, is the philosopher of the stage,[782] and
who was a hearer of the lectures on the philosophy of nature delivered
by Anaxagoras. But this man asserts that all things in the world are
subject to all rational beings,—one rational nature being taken to
represent all, on the principle of a part standing for the whole;[783]
which, again, clearly appears from the verse:

                 “The Sun and Night are to mortals slaves.”

Perhaps the tragic poet meant the day when he said the sun, inasmuch as
it is the cause of the day,—teaching that those things which most need
the day and night are the things which are under the moon, and other
things in a less degree than those which are upon the earth. Day and
night, then, are subject to mortals, being created for the sake of
rational beings. And if ants and flies, which labour by day and rest by
night, have, besides, the benefit of those things which were created for
the sake of men, we must not say that day and night were brought into
being for the sake of ants and flies, nor must we suppose that they were
created for the sake of nothing, but, agreeably to the design of
Providence, were formed for the sake of man.

Footnote 780:

  Cf. Eurip. _Phœniss._ v. 512.

Footnote 781:

  τὰ ἐν οὐρανῷ.

Footnote 782:

  ὁ κατά τινας Σκηνικὸς φιλόσοφος. Euripides himself is the person
  alluded to. He is called by Athenæus and Clemens Alexandrinus
  (_Strom._ v.), ὁ ἐπὶ τῆς σκηνῆς φιλόσοφος.—DE LA RUE.

Footnote 783:

  συνεκδοχικῶς.




                            Chapter LXXVIII.


He next proceeds further to object against himself[784] what is said on
behalf of man, viz. that the irrational animals were created on his
account, saying: “If one were to call us the lords of the animal
creation because we hunt the other animals and live upon their flesh, we
would say, Why were not _we_ rather created on _their_ account, since
they hunt and devour us? Nay, _we_ require nets and weapons, and the
assistance of many persons, along with dogs, when engaged in the chase;
while they are immediately and spontaneously provided by nature with
weapons which easily bring us under their power.” And here we may
observe, that the gift of understanding has been bestowed upon us as a
mighty aid, far superior to any weapon which wild beasts may seem to
possess. We, indeed, who are far weaker in bodily strength than the
beasts, and shorter in stature than some of them, yet by means of our
understanding obtain the mastery, and capture the huge elephants. We
subdue by our gentle treatment those animals whose nature it is to be
tamed, while with those whose nature is different, or which do not
appear likely to be of use to us when tamed, we take such precautionary
measures, that when we desire it, we keep such wild beasts shut up; and
when we need the flesh of their bodies for food, we slaughter them, as
we do those beasts which are not of a savage nature. The Creator, then,
has constituted all things the servants of the rational being and of his
natural understanding. For some purposes we require dogs, say as
guardians of our sheep-folds, or of our cattle-yards, or goat-pastures,
or of our dwellings; and for other purposes we need oxen, as for
agriculture; and for others, again, we make use of those which bear the
yoke, or beasts of burden. And so it may be said that the race of lions,
and bears, and leopards, and wild boars, and such like, has been given
to us in order to call into exercise the elements of the manly character
that exists within us.

Footnote 784:

  ἑαυτῷ ἀνθυποφέρει.




                             Chapter LXXIX.


In the next place, in answer to the human race, who perceive their own
superiority, which far exceeds that of the irrational animals, he says:
“With respect to your assertion, that God gave you the power to capture
wild beasts, and to make your own use of them, we would say that, in all
probability, before cities were built, and arts invented, and societies
such as now exist were formed, and weapons and nets employed, men were
generally caught and devoured by wild beasts, while wild beasts were
very seldom captured by men.” Now, in reference to this, observe that
although men catch wild beasts, and wild beasts make prey of men, there
is a great difference between the case of such as by means of their
understanding obtain the mastery over those whose superiority consists
in their savage and cruel nature, and that of those who do not make use
of their understanding to secure their safety from injury by wild
beasts. But when Celsus says, “before cities were built, and arts
invented, and societies such as now exist were formed,” he appears to
have forgotten what he had before said, that “the world was uncreated
and incorruptible, and that it was only the things on earth which
underwent deluges and conflagrations, and that all these things did not
happen at the same time.” Now let it be granted that these admissions on
his part are entirely in harmony with our views, though not at all with
him and his statements made above; yet what does it all avail to prove
that in the beginning men were mostly captured and devoured by wild
beasts, while wild beasts were never caught by men? For, since the world
was created in conformity with the will of Providence, and God presided
over the universe of things, it was necessary that the elements[785] of
the human race should at the commencement of its existence be placed
under some protection of the higher powers, so that there might be
formed from the beginning a union of the divine nature with that of men.
And the poet of Ascra, perceiving this, sings:

           “For common then were banquets, and common were seats,
           Alike to immortal gods and mortal men.”[786]

Footnote 785:

  ζώπυρα.

Footnote 786:

  Cf. Hesiod, _Fragmenta Incerta_, ed. Goettling, p. 231.




                             Chapter LXXX.


Those Holy Scriptures, moreover, which bear the name of Moses, introduce
the first men as hearing divine voices and oracles, and beholding
sometimes the angels of God coming to visit them. For it was probable
that in the beginning of the world’s existence human nature would be
assisted to a greater degree [than afterwards], until progress had been
made towards the attainment of understanding and the other virtues, and
the invention of the arts, and they should thus be able to maintain life
of themselves, and no longer stand in need of superintendents, and of
those to guide them who do so with a miraculous manifestation of the
means which subserve the will of God. Now it follows from this, that it
is false that “in the beginning men were captured and devoured by wild
beasts, while wild beasts were very seldom caught by men.” And from
this, too, it is evident that the following statement of Celsus is
untrue, that “in this way God rather subjected men to wild beasts.” For
God did not subject men to wild beasts, but gave wild beasts to be a
prey to the understanding of man, and to the arts, which are directed
against them, and which are the product of the understanding. For it was
not without the help of God[787] that men desired for themselves the
means of protection against wild beasts, and of securing the mastery
over them.

Footnote 787:

  οὐ γὰρ ἀθεεί.




                             Chapter LXXXI.


Our noble opponent, however, not observing how many philosophers there
are who admit the existence of Providence, and who hold that Providence
created all things for the sake of rational beings, overturns as far as
he can those doctrines which are of use in showing the harmony that
prevails in these matters between Christianity and philosophy; nor does
he see how great is the injury done to religion from accepting the
statement that before God there is no difference between a man and an
ant or a bee, but proceeds to add, that “if men appear to be superior to
irrational animals on this account, that they have built cities, and
make use of a political constitution, and forms of government, and
sovereignties,[788] this is to say nothing to the purpose, for ants and
bees do the same. Bees, indeed, have a sovereign, who has followers and
attendants; and there occur among them wars and victories, and
slaughterings of the vanquished,[789] and cities and suburbs, and a
succession of labours, and judgments passed upon the idle and the
wicked; for the drones are driven away and punished.” Now here he did
not observe the difference that exists between what is done after reason
and consideration, and what is the result of an irrational nature, and
is purely mechanical. For the origin of these things is not explained by
the existence of any rational principle in those who make them, because
they do not possess any such principle; but the most ancient Being, who
is also the Son of God, and the King of all things that exist, has
created an irrational nature, which, as being irrational, acts as a help
to those who are deemed worthy of reason. Cities, accordingly, were
established among men, with many arts and well-arranged laws; while
constitutions, and governments, and sovereignties among men are either
such as are properly so termed, and which exemplify certain virtuous
tendencies and workings, or they are those which are improperly so
called, and which were devised, so far as could be done, in imitation of
the former: for it was by contemplating these that the most successful
legislators established the best constitutions, and governments, and
sovereignties. None of these things, however, can be found among
irrational animals, although Celsus may transfer rational names, and
arrangements which belong to rational beings, as cities and
constitutions, and rulers and sovereignties, even to ants and bees; in
respect to which matters, however, ants and bees merit no approval,
because they do not act from reflection. But we ought to admire the
divine nature, which extended even to irrational animals the capacity,
as it were, of imitating rational beings, perhaps with a view of putting
rational beings to shame; so that by looking upon ants, for instance,
they might become more industrious and more thrifty in the management of
their goods; while, by considering the bees, they might place themselves
in subjection to their Ruler, and take their respective parts in those
constitutional duties which are of use in ensuring the safety of cities.

Footnote 788:

  ἡγεμονίαις.

Footnote 789:

  τῶν ἡττημένων αἱρέσεις. “Nota αἱρέσεις hoc loco sumi pro
  internecionibus, cædibus. Haud scio an alibi reperiatur pari
  significatu. Forte etiam scribendum καθαιρέσεις.”—RUÆUS.




                            Chapter LXXXII.


Perhaps also the so-called wars among the bees convey instruction as to
the manner in which wars, if ever there arise a necessity for them,
should be waged in a just and orderly way among men. But the bees have
no cities or suburbs; while their hives and hexagonal cells, and
succession of labours, are for the sake of men, who require honey for
many purposes, both for cure of disordered bodies, and as a pure article
of food. Nor ought we to compare the proceedings taken by the bees
against the drones with the judgments and punishments inflicted on the
idle and wicked in cities. But, as I formerly said, we ought on the one
hand in these things to admire the divine nature, and on the other to
express our admiration of man, who is capable of considering and
admiring all things (as co-operating with Providence), and who executes
not merely the works which are determined by the providence of God, but
also those which are the consequences of his own foresight.




                            Chapter LXXXIII.


After Celsus has finished speaking of the bees, in order to depreciate
(as far as he can) the cities, and constitutions, and governments, and
sovereignties not only of us Christians, but of all mankind, as well as
the wars which men undertake on behalf of their native countries, he
proceeds, by way of digression, to pass a eulogy upon the ants, in order
that, while praising them, he may compare the measures which men take to
secure their subsistence with those adopted by these insects,[790] and
so evince his contempt for the forethought which makes provision for
winter, as being nothing higher than the irrational providence of the
ants, as he regards it. Now might not some of the more simple-minded,
and such as know not how to look into the nature of all things, be
turned away (so far, at least, as Celsus could accomplish it) from
helping those who are weighed down with the burdens [of life], and from
sharing their toils, when he says of the ants, that “they help one
another with their loads, when they see one of their number toiling
under them?” For he who needs to be disciplined by the word, but who
does not at all understand[791] its voice, will say: “Since, then, there
is no difference between us and the ants, even when we help those who
are weary with bearing their heavy burdens, why should we continue to do
so to no purpose?” And would not the ants, as being irrational
creatures, be greatly puffed up, and think highly of themselves, because
their works were compared to those of men? while men, on the other hand,
who by means of their reason are enabled to hear how their
philanthropy[792] towards others is contemned, would be injured, so far
as could be effected by Celsus and his arguments: for he does not
perceive that, while he wishes to turn away from Christianity those who
read his treatise, he turns away also the sympathy of those who are not
Christians from those who bear the heaviest burdens [of life]. Whereas,
had he been a philosopher, who was capable of perceiving the good which
men may do each other, he ought, in addition to not removing along with
Christianity the blessings which are found amongst men, to have lent his
aid to co-operate (if he had it in his power) with those principles of
excellence which are common to Christianity and the rest of mankind.
Moreover, even if the ants set apart in a place by themselves those
grains which sprout forth, that they may not swell into bud, but may
continue throughout the year as their food, this is not to be deemed as
evidence of the existence of _reason_ among ants, but as the work of the
universal mother, Nature, which adorned even irrational animals, so that
even the most insignificant is not omitted, but bears traces of the
reason implanted in it by nature. Unless, indeed, by these assertions
Celsus means obscurely to intimate (for in many instances he would like
to adopt Platonic ideas) that all souls are of the same species, and
that there is no difference between that of a man and those of ants and
bees, which is the act of one who would bring down the soul from the
vault of heaven, and cause it to enter not only a human body, but that
of an animal. Christians, however, will not yield their assent to such
opinions: for they have been instructed before now that the human soul
was created in the image of God; and they see that it is impossible for
a nature fashioned in the divine image to have its [original] features
altogether obliterated, and to assume others, formed after I know not
what likeness of irrational animals.

Footnote 790:

  παραβάλῃ τῷ λόγῳ πρὸς τοὺς μύρμηκας. “Verba: τῷ λόγῳ πρὸς τοὺς
  μύρμηκας addititia videntur et recidenda.”—RUÆUS.

Footnote 791:

  ἐπαΐων.

Footnote 792:

  τὸ κοινωνικόν.




                            Chapter LXXXIV.


And since he asserts that, “when ants die, the survivors set apart a
special place [for their interment], and that their ancestral sepulchres
such a place is,” we have to answer, that the greater the laudations
which he heaps upon irrational animals, so much the more does he magnify
(although against his will) the work of that reason which arranged all
things in order, and points out the skill[793] which exists among men,
and which is capable of adorning by its reason even the gifts which are
bestowed by nature on the irrational creation. But why do I say
“irrational,” since Celsus is of opinion that these animals, which,
agreeably to the common ideas of all men, are termed irrational, are not
really so? Nor does _he_ regard the ants as devoid of reason, who
professed to speak of “universal nature,” and who boasted of his
truthfulness in the inscription of his book. For, speaking of the ants
conversing with one another, he uses the following language: “And when
they meet one another they enter into conversation, for which reason
they never mistake their way; consequently they possess a full endowment
of reason, and some common ideas on certain general subjects, and a
voice by which they express themselves regarding accidental
things.”[794] Now conversation between one man and another is carried on
by means of a voice, which gives expression to the meaning intended, and
which also gives utterances concerning what are called “accidental
things;” but to say that this was the case with ants would be a most
ridiculous assertion.

Footnote 793:

  ἐντρέχειαν.

Footnote 794:

  οὐκοῦν καὶ λόγου συμπλήρωσίς ἐστι παρ’ αὐτοῖς, καὶ κοιναὶ ἔννοιαι
  καθολικῶν, τινων καὶ φωνὴ, καὶ τυγχάνοντα σημαινόμενα.




                             Chapter LXXXV.


He is not ashamed, moreover, to say, in addition to these statements
(that the unseemly character[795] of his opinions may be manifest to
those who will live after him): “Come now, if one were to look down from
heaven upon earth, in what respect would _our_ actions appear to differ
from those of ants and bees?” Now does he who, according to his own
supposition, looks from heaven upon the proceedings of men and ants,
look upon their bodies alone, and not rather have regard to the
controlling reason which is called into action by reflection;[796]
while, on the other hand, the guiding principle of the latter is
irrational, and set in motion irrationally by impulse and fancy, in
conjunction with a certain natural apparatus?[797] But it is absurd to
suppose that he who looks from heaven upon earthly things would desire
to look from such a distance upon the _bodies_ of men and ants, and
would not rather consider the nature of the guiding principles, and the
source of impulses, whether that be rational or irrational. And if he
once look upon the source of all impulses, it is manifest that he would
behold also the difference which exists, and the superiority of man, not
only over ants, but even over elephants. For he who looks from heaven
will see among irrational creatures, however large their bodies, no
other principle[798] than, so to speak, irrationality;[799] while
amongst rational beings he will discover reason, the common possession
of men, and of divine and heavenly beings, and perhaps of the supreme
God Himself, on account of which man is said to have been created in the
image of God, for the image of the Supreme God is his reason.[800]

Footnote 795:

  ἀσχημοσύνην.

Footnote 796:

  οὐ κατανοεῖ δὲ τὸ λογικὸν ἡγεμονικὸν καὶ λογισμῷ κινούμενον;

Footnote 797:

  μετά τινος φυσικῆς ὑποκατασκευῆς.

Footnote 798:

  ἀρχήν.

Footnote 799:

  τὴν ἀλογίαν.

Footnote 800:

  λόγος.




                            Chapter LXXXVI.


Immediately after this, as if doing his utmost to reduce the human race
to a still lower position, and to bring them to the level of the
irrational animals, and desiring to omit not a single circumstance
related of the latter which manifests their greatness, he declares that
“in certain individuals among the irrational creation there exists the
power of sorcery;” so that even in this particular men cannot specially
pride themselves, nor wish to arrogate a superiority over irrational
creatures. And the following are his words: “If, however, men entertain
lofty notions because of their possessing the power of sorcery, yet even
in that respect are serpents and eagles their superiors in wisdom; for
they are acquainted with many prophylactics against persons and
diseases, and also with the virtues of certain stones which help to
preserve their young. If men, however, fall in with these, they think
that they have gained a wonderful possession.” Now, in the first place,
I know not why he should designate as sorcery the knowledge of natural
prophylactics displayed by animals,—whether that knowledge be the result
of experience, or of some natural power of apprehension;[801] for the
term “sorcery” has by usage been assigned to something else. Perhaps,
indeed, he wishes quietly, as an Epicurean, to censure the entire use of
such arts, as resting only on the professions of sorcerers. However, let
it be granted him that men _do_ pride themselves greatly upon the
knowledge of such arts, whether they are sorcerers or not: how can
serpents be in this respect wiser than men, when they make use of the
well-known fennel[802] to sharpen their power of vision and to produce
rapidity of movement, having obtained this natural power not from the
exercise of reflection, but from the constitution of their body,[803]
while men do not, like serpents, arrive at such knowledge merely by
nature, but partly by experiment, partly by reason, and sometimes by
reflection and knowledge? So, if eagles, too, in order to preserve their
young in the nest, carry thither the eagle-stone when they have
discovered it, how does it appear that they are wise, and more
intelligent than men, who find out by the exercise of their reflective
powers and of their understanding what has been bestowed by nature upon
eagles as a gift?

Footnote 801:

  φυσικήν τινα κατάληψιν.

Footnote 802:

  τῷ μαράθρῳ.

Footnote 803:

  ἀλλ’ ἐκ κατασκευῆς.




                            Chapter LXXXVII.


Let it be granted, however, that there are other prophylactics against
poisons known to animals: what does that avail to prove that it is not
nature, but reason, which leads to the discovery of such things among
them? For if reason were the discoverer, this one thing (or, if you
will, one or two more things) would not be (exclusive[804] of all
others) the sole discovery made by serpents, and some other thing the
sole discovery of the eagle, and so on with the rest of the animals; but
as many discoveries would have been made amongst them as among men. But
now it is manifest from the determinate inclination of the nature of
each animal towards certain kinds of help, that they possess neither
wisdom nor reason, but a natural constitutional tendency implanted by
the Logos[805] towards such things in order to ensure the preservation
of the animal. And, indeed, if I wished to join issue with Celsus in
these matters, I might quote the words of Solomon from the book of
Proverbs, which run thus: “There be four things which are little upon
the earth, but these are wiser than the wise: The ants are a people not
strong, yet they prepare their meat in the summer; the conies[806] are
but a feeble folk, yet make they their houses in the rocks; the locusts
have no king, yet go they forth in order at one command; and the spotted
lizard,[807] though leaning upon its hands, and being easily captured,
dwelleth in kings’ fortresses.”[808] I do not quote these words,
however, as taking them in their literal signification, but, agreeably
to the title of the book (for it is inscribed “Proverbs”), I investigate
them as containing a secret meaning. For it is the custom of these
writers [of Scripture] to distribute into many classes those writings
which express one sense when taken literally,[809] but which convey a
different signification as their hidden meaning; and one of these kinds
of writing is “Proverbs.” And for this reason, in our Gospels too, is
our Saviour described as saying: “These things have I spoken to you in
proverbs, but the time cometh when I shall no more speak unto you in
proverbs.”[810] It is not, then, the _visible_ ants which are “wiser
even than the wise,” but they who are indicated as such under the
“proverbial” style of expression. And such must be our conclusion
regarding the rest of the animal creation, although Celsus regards the
books of the Jews and Christians as exceedingly simple and
commonplace,[811] and imagines that those who give them an allegorical
interpretation do violence to the meaning of the writers. By what we
have said, then, let it appear that Celsus calumniates us in vain, and
let his assertions that serpents and eagles are wiser than men also
receive their refutation.

Footnote 804:

  ἀποτεταγμένως.

Footnote 805:

  ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου γεγενημένη.

Footnote 806:

  χοιρογρύλλιοι. Heb. שְׁפַנִּים.

Footnote 807:

  ἀσκαλαβώτης.

Footnote 808:

  Cf. Prov. xxx. 24-28.

Footnote 809:

  αὐτόθεν.

Footnote 810:

  John xvi. 25.

Footnote 811:

  ἰδιωτικά.




                           Chapter LXXXVIII.


And wishing to show at greater length that even the thoughts of God
entertained by the human race are not superior to those of all other
mortal creatures, but that certain of the irrational animals are capable
of thinking about Him regarding whom opinions so discordant have existed
among the most acute of mankind—Greeks and Barbarians—he continues: “If,
because man has been able to grasp the idea of God, he is deemed
superior to the other animals, let those who hold this opinion know that
this capacity will be claimed by many of the other animals; and with
good reason: for what would any one maintain to be more divine than the
power of foreknowing and predicting future events? Men accordingly
acquire the art from the other animals, and especially from birds. And
those who listen to the indications furnished by them, become possessed
of the gift of prophecy. If, then, birds, and the other prophetic
animals, which are enabled by the gift of God to foreknow events,
instruct us by means of signs, so much the nearer do they seem to be to
the society of God, and to be endowed with greater wisdom, and to be
more beloved by Him. The more intelligent of men, moreover, say that the
animals hold meetings which are more sacred than our assemblies, and
that they know what is said at these meetings, and show that in reality
they possess this knowledge, when, having previously stated that the
birds have declared their intention of departing to some particular
place, and of doing this thing or the other, the truth of their
assertions is established by the departure of the birds to the place in
question, and by their doing what was foretold. And no race of animals
appears to be more observant of oaths than the elephants are, or to show
greater devotion to divine things; and this, I presume, solely because
they have some knowledge of God.” See here now how he at once lays hold
of, and brings forward as acknowledged facts, questions which are the
subject of dispute among those philosophers, not only among the Greeks,
but also among the Barbarians, who have either discovered or learned
from certain demons some things about birds of augury and other animals,
by which certain prophetic intimations are said to be made to men. For,
in the first place, it has been disputed whether there _is_ an art of
augury, and, in general, a method of divination by animals, or not. And,
in the second place, they who admit that there is an art of divination
by birds, are not agreed about the manner of the divination; since some
maintain that it is from certain demons or gods of divination[812] that
the animals receive their impulses to action—the birds to flights and
sounds of different kinds, and the other animals to movements of one
sort or another. Others, again, believe that their souls are more divine
in their nature, and fitted to operations of that kind, which is a most
incredible supposition.

Footnote 812:

  θεῶν μαντικῶν.




                            Chapter LXXXIX.


Celsus, however, seeing he wished to prove by the foregoing statements
that the irrational animals are more divine and intelligent than human
beings, ought to have established at greater length the actual existence
of such an art of divination, and in the next place have energetically
undertaken its defence, and effectually refuted the arguments of those
who would annihilate such arts of divination, and have overturned in a
convincing manner also the arguments of those who say that it is from
demons or from gods that animals receive the movements which lead them
to divination, and to have proved in the next place that the soul of
irrational animals is more divine than that of man. For, had he done so,
and manifested a philosophical spirit in dealing with such things, we
should to the best of our power have met his confident assertions,
refuting in the first place the allegation that irrational animals are
wiser than men, and showing the falsity of the statement that they have
ideas of God more sacred than ours, and that they hold among themselves
certain sacred assemblies. But now, on the contrary, _he_ who accuses us
because we believe in the Supreme God, requires us to believe that the
souls of birds entertain ideas of God more divine and distinct than
those of men. Yet if this is true, the birds have clearer ideas of God
than Celsus himself; and it is not matter of surprise that it should be
so with him, who so greatly depreciates human beings. Nay, so far as
Celsus can make it appear, the birds possess grander and more divine
ideas than, I do not say we Christians do, or than the Jews, who use the
same Scriptures with ourselves, but even than are possessed by the
theologians among the Greeks, for they were only human beings. According
to Celsus, indeed, the tribe of birds that practise divination,
forsooth, understand the nature of the Divine Being better than
Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates, and Plato! We ought then to go
to the birds as our teachers, in order that as, according to the view of
Celsus, they instruct us by their power of divination in the knowledge
of future events, so also they may free men from doubts regarding the
Divine Being, by imparting to them the clear ideas which they have
obtained respecting Him! It follows, accordingly, that Celsus, who
regards birds as superior to men, ought to employ them as his
instructors, and not one of the Greek philosophers!




                              Chapter XC.


But we have a few remarks to make, out of a larger number, in answer to
these statements of Celsus, that we may show the ingratitude towards his
Maker which is involved in his holding these false opinions.[813] For
Celsus, although a man, and “being in honour,”[814] does not possess
understanding, and therefore he did not compare himself with the birds
and the other irrational animals, which he regards as capable of
divining; but yielding to them the foremost place, he lowered himself,
and as far as he could the whole human race with him (as entertaining
lower and inferior views of God than the irrational animals), beneath
the Egyptians, who worship irrational animals as divinities. Let the
principal point of investigation, however, be this: whether there
actually is or not an art of divination, by means of birds and other
living things believed to have such power. For the arguments which tend
to establish either view are not to be despised. On the one hand, it is
pressed upon us not to admit such an art, lest the rational being should
abandon the divine oracles, and betake himself to birds; and on the
other, there is the energetic testimony of many, that numerous
individuals have been saved from the greatest dangers by putting their
trust in divination by birds. For the present, however, let it be
granted that an art of divination does exist, in order that I may in
this way show to those who are prejudiced on the subject, that if this
be admitted, the superiority of man over irrational animals, even over
those that are endowed with power of divination, is great, and beyond
all reach of comparison with the latter. We have then to say, that if
there was in them any divine nature capable of foretelling future
events, and so rich [in that knowledge] as out of its superabundance to
make them known to any man who wished to know them, it is manifest that
they would know what concerned themselves far sooner [than what
concerned others]; and had they possessed this knowledge, they would
have been upon their guard against flying to any particular place where
men had planted snares and nets to catch them, or where archers took aim
and shot at them in their flight. And especially, were eagles aware
beforehand of the designs formed against their young, either by serpents
crawling up to their nests and destroying them, or by men who take them
for their amusement, or for any other useful purpose or service, they
would not have placed their young in a spot where they were to be
attacked; and, in general, not one of these animals would have been
captured by men, because they were more divine and intelligent than
they.

Footnote 813:

  τὴν ἀχάριστον ψευδοδοξίαν.

Footnote 814:

  Ps. xlix. 12.




                              Chapter XCI.


But besides, if birds of augury converse with one another,[815] as
Celsus maintains they do, the prophetic birds having a divine nature,
and the other rational animals also ideas of the divinity and
foreknowledge of future events; and if they had communicated this
knowledge to others, the sparrow mentioned in Homer would not have built
her nest in the spot where a serpent was to devour her and her young
ones, nor would the serpent in the writings of the same poet have failed
to take precautions against being captured by the eagle. For this
wonderful poet says, in his poem regarding the former:

           “A mighty dragon shot, of dire portent;
           From Jove himself the dreadful sign was sent.
           Straight to the three his sanguine spires he rolled,
           And curled around in many a winding fold.
           The topmost branch a mother bird possessed;
           Eight callow infants filled the mossy nest;
           Herself the ninth: the serpent, as he hung,
           Stretched his black jaws, and crushed the dying young;
           While hovering near, with miserable moan,
           The drooping mother wailed her children gone.
           The mother last, as round the nest she flew,
           Seized by the beating wing, the monster slew:
           Nor long survived: to marble turned, he stands
           A lasting prodigy on Aulis sands.
           Such was the will of Jove; and hence we dare
           Trust in his omen, and support the war.”[816]

And regarding the second—the bird—the poet says:

           “Jove’s bird on rounding pinions beat the skies,
           A bleeding serpent of enormous size,
           His talons twined; alive, and curling round,
           He stung the bird, whose throat received the wound.
           Mad with the smart, he drops the fatal prey,
           In airy circles wings his painful way,
           Floats on the winds, and rends the heaven with cries;
           Amidst the host, the fallen serpent lies.
           They, pale with terror, mark its spires unrolled,
           And Jove’s portent with beating hearts behold.”[817]

Did the eagle, then, possess the power of divination, and the serpent
(since this animal also is made use of by the augurs) not? But as this
distinction can be easily refuted, cannot the assertion that both were
capable of divination be refuted also? For if the serpent had possessed
this knowledge, would not he have been on his guard against suffering
what he did from the eagle? And innumerable other instances of a similar
character may be found, to show that animals do not possess a prophetic
soul, but that, according to the poet and the majority of mankind, it is
the “Olympian himself who sent him to the light.” And it is with a
symbolical meaning[818] that Apollo employs the hawk[819] as his
messenger, for the hawk[820] is called the “swift messenger of
Apollo.”[821]

Footnote 815:

  εἴπερ οἰωνοὶ οἰωνοῖς μάχονται. For μάχονται Ruæus conjectures
  διαλέγονται, which is adopted by Lommatzsch.

Footnote 816:

  Homer, _Ilias_, ii. 308 sq. (Pope’s translation.)

Footnote 817:

  Homer, _Ilias_, xii. 290 sq. (Pope’s translation.)

Footnote 818:

  κατὰ δέ τι σημεῖον.

Footnote 819:

  ἱέραξ.

Footnote 820:

  κίρκος, “the hen-harrier,” “Falco,” or “Circus pygargus.” Cf. Liddell
  and Scott, _s.v._

Footnote 821:

  Cf. Homer, _Odyss._ xv. v. 526.




                             Chapter XCII.


In my opinion, however, it is certain wicked demons, and, so to speak,
of the race of Titans or Giants, who have been guilty of impiety towards
the true God, and towards the angels in heaven, and who have fallen from
it, and who haunt the denser parts of bodies, and frequent unclean
places upon earth, and who, possessing some power of distinguishing
future events, because they are without bodies of earthly material,
engage in an employment of this kind, and desiring to lead the human
race away from the true God, secretly enter the bodies of the more
rapacious and savage and wicked of animals, and stir them up to do
whatever they choose, and at whatever time they choose: either turning
the fancies of these animals to make flights and movements of various
kinds, in order that men may be caught by the divining power that is in
the irrational animals, and neglect to seek after the God who contains
all things; or to search after the pure worship of God, but allow their
reasoning powers to grovel on the earth, and amongst birds and serpents,
and even foxes and wolves. For it has been observed by those who are
skilled in such matters, that the clearest prognostications are obtained
from animals of this kind; because the demons cannot act so effectively
in the milder sort of animals as they can in these, in consequence of
the similarity between them in point of wickedness; and yet it is not
wickedness, but something like wickedness,[822] which exists in these
animals.

Footnote 822:

  καὶ οὐ κακίαν μὲν, οἱονεὶ δὲ κακίαν οὖσαν.




                             Chapter XCIII.


For which reason, whatever else there may be in the writings of Moses
which excites my wonder, I would say that the following is worthy of
admiration, viz. that Moses, having observed the varying natures of
animals, and having either learned from God what was peculiar to them,
and to the demons which are kindred to each of the animals, or having
himself ascertained these things by his own wisdom, has, in arranging
the different kinds of animals, pronounced all those which are supposed
by the Egyptians and the rest of mankind to possess the power of
divination to be unclean, and, as a general rule, all that are not of
that class to be clean. And amongst the unclean animals mentioned by
Moses are the wolf, and fox, and serpent, and eagle, and hawk, and such
like. And, generally speaking, you will find that not only in the law,
but also in the prophets, these animals are employed as examples of all
that is most wicked; and that a wolf or a fox is never mentioned for a
good purpose. Each species of demon, consequently, would seem to possess
a certain affinity with a certain species of animal. And as among men
there are some who are stronger than others, and this not at all owing
to their moral character, so, in the same way, some demons will be more
powerful in things indifferent than others;[823] and one class of them
employs one kind of animal for the purpose of deluding men, in
accordance with the will of him who is called in our Scriptures the
“prince of this world,” while others predict future events by means of
another kind of animal. Observe, moreover, to what a pitch of wickedness
the demons proceed, so that they even assume the bodies of weasels in
order to reveal the future! And now, consider with yourself whether it
is better to accept the belief that it is the Supreme God and His Son
who stir up the birds and the other living creatures to divination, or
that those who stir up these creatures, and not human beings (although
they are present before them), are wicked, and, as they are called by
our Scriptures, unclean demons.

Footnote 823:

  ἐν μέσοις.




                             Chapter XCIV.


But if the soul of birds is to be esteemed divine because future events
are predicted by them, why should we not rather maintain, that when
omens[824] are accepted by men, the souls of those are divine through
which the omens are heard? Accordingly, among such would be ranked the
female slave mentioned in Homer, who ground the corn, when she said
regarding the suitors:

          “For the very last time, now, will they sup here.”[825]

This slave, then, was divine, while the great Ulysses, the friend of
Homer’s Pallas Athene, was _not_ divine, but understanding the words
spoken by this “divine” grinder of corn as an omen, rejoiced, as the
poet says:

              “The divine Ulysses rejoiced at the omen.”[826]

Observe, now, as the birds are possessed of a divine soul, and are
capable of perceiving God, or, as Celsus says, the gods, it is clear
that when we men also sneeze, we do so in consequence of a kind of
divinity that is within us, and which imparts a prophetic power to our
soul. For this belief is testified by many witnesses, and therefore the
poet also says:

                  “And while he prayed, he sneezed.”[827]

And Penelope, too, said:

      “Perceiv’st thou not that at every word my son did sneeze?”[828]

Footnote 824:

  κληδόνες.

Footnote 825:

  Cf. Homer, _Odyss._ iv. v. 685; cf. also xx. vv. 116, 119.

Footnote 826:

  Cf. Homer, _Odyss._ xx. 120.

Footnote 827:

  Cf. Homer, _Odyss._ xvii. 541.

Footnote 828:

  Cf. Homer, _Odyss._ xvii. 545.




                              Chapter XCV.


The true God, however, neither employs irrational animals, nor any
individuals whom chance may offer,[829] to convey a knowledge of the
future; but, on the contrary, the most pure and holy of human souls,
whom He inspires and endows with prophetic power. And therefore,
whatever else in the Mosaic writings may excite our wonder, the
following must be considered as fitted to do so: “Ye shall not practise
augury, nor observe the flight of birds;”[830] and in another place:
“For the nations whom the Lord thy God will destroy from before thy
face, shall listen to omens and divinations; but as for thee, the Lord
thy God has not suffered thee to do so.”[831] And he adds: “A prophet
shall the Lord your God raise up unto you from among your
brethren.”[832] On one occasion, moreover, God, wishing by means of an
augur to turn away [His people] from the practice of divination, caused
the spirit that was in the augur to speak as follows: “For there is no
enchantment in Jacob, nor is there divination in Israel. In due time
will it be declared to Jacob and Israel what the Lord will do.”[833] And
now, we who knew these and similar sayings wish to observe this precept
with the mystical meaning, viz. “Keep thy heart with all
diligence,”[834] that nothing of a demoniacal nature may enter into our
minds, or any spirit of our adversaries turn our imagination whither it
chooses. But we pray that the light of the knowledge of the glory of God
may shine in our hearts, and that the Spirit of God may dwell in our
imaginations, and lead them to contemplate the things of God; for “as
many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.”[835]

Footnote 829:

  οὔτε τοῖς τυχοῦσι τῶν ἀνθρώπων.

Footnote 830:

  Cf. Lev. xix. 26. The Septuagint here differs from the Masoretic text.

Footnote 831:

  Cf. Deut. xviii. 14, cf. 12.

Footnote 832:

  Cf. Deut. xviii. 15.

Footnote 833:

  Cf. Num. xxiii. 23.

Footnote 834:

  Prov. iv. 23.

Footnote 835:

  Cf. Rom. viii. 14.




                             Chapter XCVI.


We ought to take note, however, that the power of foreknowing the future
is by no means a proof of divinity; for in itself it is a thing
indifferent, and is found occurring amongst both good and bad.
Physicians, at any rate, by means of their professional skill foreknow
certain things, although their character may happen to be bad. And in
the same way also pilots, although perhaps wicked men, are able to
foretell the signs[836] [of good or bad weather], and the approach of
violent tempests of wind, and atmospheric changes,[837] because they
gather this knowledge from experience and observation, although I do not
suppose that on that account any one would term them “gods” if their
characters happened to be bad. The assertion, then, of Celsus is false,
when he says: “What could be called more divine than the power of
foreknowing and foretelling the future?” And so also is this, that “many
of the animals claim to have ideas of God;” for none of the irrational
animals possess any idea of God. And wholly false, too, is his
assertion, that “the irrational animals are nearer the society of God
[than men],” when even men who are still in a state of wickedness,
however great their progress in knowledge, are far removed from that
society. It is, then, those alone who are truly wise and sincerely
religious who are nearer to God’s society; such persons as were our
prophets, and Moses, to the latter of whom, on account of his exceeding
purity, the Scripture said: “Moses alone shall come near the Lord, but
the rest shall not come nigh.”[838]

Footnote 836:

  ἐπισημασίας.

Footnote 837:

  τροπάς.

Footnote 838:

  Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.




                             Chapter XCVII.


How impious, indeed, is the assertion of this man, who charges us with
impiety, that “not only are the irrational animals wiser than the human
race, but that they are more beloved by God [than they]!” And who would
not be repelled [by horror] from paying any attention to a man who
declared that a serpent, and a fox, and a wolf, and an eagle, and a
hawk, were more beloved by God than the human race? For it follows from
his maintaining such a position, that if these animals be more beloved
by God than human beings, it is manifest that they are dearer to God
than Socrates, and Plato, and Pythagoras, and Pherecydes, and those
theologians whose praises he had sung a little before. And one might
address him with the prayer: “If these animals be dearer to God than
men, may you be beloved of God along with them, and be made like to
those whom you consider as dearer to Him than human beings!” And let no
one suppose that such a prayer is meant as an imprecation; for who would
not pray to resemble in all respects those whom he believes to be dearer
to God than others, in order that he, like them, may enjoy the divine
love? And as Celsus is desirous to show that the assemblies of the
irrational animals are more sacred than ours, he ascribes the statement
to that effect not to any ordinary individuals, but to persons of
intelligence. Yet it is the virtuous alone who are truly wise, for no
wicked man is so. He speaks, accordingly, in the following style:
“Intelligent men say that these animals hold assemblies which are more
sacred than ours, and that they know what is spoken at them, and
actually prove that they are not without such knowledge, when they
mention beforehand that the birds have announced their intention of
departing to a particular place, or of doing this thing or that, and
then show that they _have_ departed to the place in question, and have
done the particular thing which was foretold.” Now, truly, no person of
intelligence ever related such things; nor did any wise man ever say
that the assemblies of the irrational animals were more sacred than
those of men. But if, for the purpose of examining [the soundness of]
his statements, we look to their consequences, it is evident that, in
his opinion, the assemblies of the irrational animals are more sacred
than those of the venerable Pherecydes, and Pythagoras, and Socrates,
and Plato, and of philosophers in general; which assertion is not only
incongruous[839] in itself, but full of absurdity. In order that we may
believe, however, that certain individuals _do_ learn from the
indistinct sound of birds that they are about to take their departure,
and do this thing or that, and announce these things beforehand, we
would say that this information is imparted to men by demons by means of
signs, with the view of having men deceived by demons, and having their
understanding dragged down from God and heaven to earth, and to places
lower still.

Footnote 839:

  ἀπεμφαῖνον.




                            Chapter XCVIII.


I do not know, moreover, how Celsus could hear of the elephants’
[fidelity to] oaths, and of their great devotedness to our God, and of
the knowledge which they possess of Him. For I know many wonderful
things which are related of the nature of this animal, and of its gentle
disposition. But I am not aware that any one has spoken of its
observance of oaths; unless indeed to its gentle disposition, and its
observance of compacts, so to speak, when once concluded between it and
man, he give the name of keeping its oath, which statement also in
itself is false. For although rarely, yet sometimes it has been recorded
that, after their apparent tameness, they have broken out against men in
the most savage manner, and have committed murder, and have been on that
account condemned to death, because no longer of any use. And seeing
that after this, in order to establish (as he thinks he does) that the
stork is more pious than any human being, he adduces the accounts which
are narrated regarding that creature’s display of filial affection[840]
in bringing food to its parents for their support, we have to say in
reply, that this is done by the storks, not from a regard to what is
proper, nor from reflection, but from a natural instinct; the nature
which formed them being desirous to show an instance among the
irrational animals which might put men to shame, in the matter of
exhibiting their gratitude to their parents. And if Celsus had known how
great the difference is between acting in this way from reason, and from
an irrational natural impulse, he would not have said that storks are
more pious than human beings. But further, Celsus, as still contending
for the piety of the irrational creation, quotes the instance of the
Arabian bird the phœnix, which after many years repairs to Egypt, and
bears thither its parent, when dead and buried in a ball of myrrh, and
deposits its body in the Temple of the Sun. Now this story is indeed
recorded, and, if it be true, it is possible that it may occur in
consequence of some provision of nature; divine providence freely
displaying to human beings, by the differences which exist among living
things, the variety of constitution which prevails in the world, and
which extends even to birds, and in harmony with which He has brought
into existence one creature, the only one of its kind, in order that by
it men may be led to admire, not the creature, but Him who created it.

Footnote 840:

  ἀντιπελαργοῦντος.




                             Chapter XCIX.


In addition to all that he has already said, Celsus subjoins the
following: “All things, accordingly, were not made for man, any more
than they were made for lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but that this
world, as being God’s work, might be perfect and entire in all respects.
For this reason all things have been adjusted, not with reference to
each other, but with regard to their bearing upon the whole.[841] And
God takes care of the whole, and [His] providence will never forsake it;
and it does not become worse; nor does God after a time bring it back to
himself; nor is He angry on account of men any more than on account of
apes or flies; nor does He threaten these beings, each one of which has
received its appointed lot in its proper place.” Let us then briefly
reply to these statements. I think, indeed, that I have shown in the
preceding pages that all things were created for man, and every rational
being, and that it was chiefly for the sake of the rational creature
that the creation took place. Celsus, indeed, may say that this was done
not more for man than for lions, or the other creatures which he
mentions; but we maintain that the Creator did not form these things for
lions, or eagles, or dolphins, but all for the sake of the rational
creature, and “in order that this world, as being God’s work, might be
perfect and complete in all things.” For to this sentiment we must yield
our assent as being well said. And God takes care, not, as Celsus
supposes, merely of the _whole_, but beyond the whole, in a special
degree of every rational being. Nor will Providence ever abandon the
whole; for although it should become more wicked, owing to the sin of
the rational being, which is a portion of the whole, He makes
arrangements to purify it, and after a time to bring back the whole to
Himself. Moreover, He is not angry with apes or flies; but on human
beings, as those who have transgressed the laws of nature, He sends
judgments and chastisements, and threatens them by the mouth of the
prophets, and by the Saviour who came to visit the whole human race,
that those who hear the threatenings may be converted by them, while
those who neglect these calls to conversion may deservedly suffer those
punishments which it becomes God, in conformity with that will of His
which acts for the advantage of the whole, to inflict upon those who
need such painful discipline and correction. But as our fourth book has
now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall here terminate our
discourse. And may God grant, through His Son, who is God the Word, and
Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, and everything else which the
sacred Scriptures when speaking of God call Him, that we may make a good
beginning of the fifth book, to the benefit of our readers, and may
bring it to a successful conclusion, with the aid of His word abiding in
our soul.

Footnote 841:

  ἀλλ’ εἰ μὴ πᾶν ἔργον. “Gelenius does not recognise these words, and
  Guietus regards them as superfluous.” They are omitted in the
  translation.




                                BOOK V.


                               Chapter I.


It is not, my reverend Ambrosius, because we seek after many words—a
thing which is forbidden, and in the indulgence of which it is
impossible to avoid sin[842]—that we now begin the fifth book of our
reply to the treatise of Celsus, but with the endeavour, so far as may
be within our power, to leave none of his statements without
examination, and especially those in which it might appear to some that
he had skilfully assailed us and the Jews. If it were possible, indeed,
for me to enter along with my words into the conscience of every one
without exception who peruses this work, and to extract each dart which
wounds him who is not completely protected with the “whole armour” of
God, and apply a rational medicine to cure the wound inflicted by
Celsus, which prevents those who listen to his words from remaining
“sound in the faith,” I would do so. But since it is the work of God
alone, in conformity with His own Spirit, and along with that of Christ,
to take up His abode invisibly in those persons whom He judges worthy of
being visited; so, on the other hand, is _our_ object to try, by means
of arguments and treatises, to confirm men in their faith, and to earn
the name of “workmen needing not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the
word of truth.”[843] And there is one thing above all which it appears
to us we ought to do, if we would discharge faithfully the task enjoined
upon us by you, and that is to overturn to the best of our ability the
confident assertions of Celsus. Let us then quote such assertions of his
as follow those which we have already refuted (the reader must decide
whether we have done so successfully or not), and let us reply to them.
And may God grant that we approach not our subject with our
understanding and reason empty and devoid of divine inspiration, that
the faith of those whom we wish to aid may not depend upon human wisdom,
but that, receiving the “mind” of Christ from His Father, who alone can
bestow it, and being strengthened by participating in the word of God,
we may pull down “every high thing that exalteth itself against the
knowledge of God,”[844] and the imagination of Celsus, who exalts
himself against us, and against Jesus, and also against Moses and the
prophets, in order that He who “gave the word to those who published it
with great power”[845] may supply us also, and bestow upon us “great
power,” so that faith in the word and power of God may be implanted in
the minds of all who will peruse our work.

Footnote 842:

  Cf. Prov. x. 19.

Footnote 843:

  Cf. 2 Tim. ii. 15.

Footnote 844:

  Cf. 2 Cor. x. 5.

Footnote 845:

  Cf. Ps. lxviii. 11.




                              Chapter II.


We have now, then, to refute that statement of his which runs as
follows: “O Jews and Christians, no God or son of a God either came or
will come down [to earth]. But if you mean that certain angels did so,
then what do you call them? Are they gods, or some other race of beings?
Some other race of beings [doubtless], and in all probability demons.”
Now as Celsus here is guilty of repeating himself (for in the preceding
pages such assertions have been frequently advanced by him), it is
unnecessary to discuss the matter at greater length, seeing what we have
already said upon this point may suffice. We shall mention, however, a
few considerations out of a greater number, such as we deem in harmony
with our former arguments, but which have not altogether the same
bearing as they, and by which we shall show that in asserting generally
that no God, or son of God, ever descended [among men], he overturns not
only the opinions entertained by the majority of mankind regarding the
manifestation of Deity, but also what was formerly admitted by himself.
For if the general statement, that “no God or son of God has come down
or will come down,” be truly maintained by Celsus, it is manifest that
we have here overthrown the belief in the existence of gods upon the
earth who had descended from heaven either to predict the future to
mankind or to heal them by means of divine responses; and neither the
Pythian Apollo, nor Esculapius, nor any other among those supposed to
have done so, would be a god descended from heaven. He might, indeed,
either be a god who had obtained as his lot [the obligation] to dwell on
earth for ever, and be thus a fugitive, as it were, from the abode of
the gods, or he might be one who had no power to share in the society of
the gods in heaven;[846] or else Apollo, and Esculapius, and those
others who are believed to perform acts on earth, would not be gods, but
only certain demons, much inferior to those wise men among mankind, who
on account of their virtue ascend to the vault[847] of heaven.

Footnote 846:

  τοῖς ἐκεῖ θεοῖς.

Footnote 847:

  ἁψίδα.




                              Chapter III.


But observe how, in his desire to subvert our opinions, he who never
acknowledged himself throughout his whole treatise to be an Epicurean,
is convicted of being a deserter to that sect. And now is the time for
you, [reader], who peruse the works of Celsus, and give your assent to
what has been advanced, either to overturn the belief in a God who
visits the human race, and exercises a providence over each individual
man, or to grant this, and prove the falsity of the assertions of
Celsus. If you, then, wholly annihilate providence, you will falsify
those assertions of his in which he grants the existence of “God and a
providence,” in order that you may maintain the truth of your own
position; but if, on the other hand, you still admit the existence of
providence, because you do not assent to the dictum of Celsus, that
“neither has a God nor the son of a God come down nor is to come
down[848] to mankind,” why not rather carefully ascertain from the
statements made regarding Jesus, and the prophecies uttered concerning
Him, who it is that we are to consider as having come down to the human
race as God, and the Son of God?—whether that Jesus who said and
ministered so much, or those who, under pretence of oracles and
divinations, do not reform the morals of their worshippers, but who have
besides apostatized from the pure and holy worship and honour due to the
Maker of all things, and who tear away the souls of those who give heed
to them from the one only visible and true God, under a pretence of
paying honour to a multitude of deities?

Footnote 848:

  κατέρχεσθαι.




                              Chapter IV.


But since he says, in the next place, as if the Jews or Christians had
answered regarding those who come down to visit the human race, that
they were angels: “But if ye say that they are angels, what do you call
them?” he continues, “Are they gods, or some other race of beings?” and
then again introduces us as if answering, “Some other race of beings,
and probably demons,”—let us proceed to notice these remarks. For we
indeed acknowledge that angels are “ministering spirits,” and we say
that “they are sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of
salvation;”[849] and that they ascend, bearing the supplications of men,
to the purest of the heavenly places in the universe, or even to
supercelestial regions purer still;[850] and that they come down from
these, conveying to each one, according to his deserts, something
enjoined by God to be conferred by them upon those who are to be the
recipients of His benefits. Having thus learned to call these beings
“angels” from their employments, we find that because they are divine
they are sometimes termed “God” in the sacred Scriptures,[851] but not
so that we are commanded to honour and worship in place of God those who
minister to us, and bear to us His blessings. For every prayer, and
supplication, and intercession, and thanksgiving, is to be sent up to
the Supreme God through the High Priest, who is above all the angels,
the living Word and God. And to the Word Himself shall we also pray and
make intercessions, and offer thanksgivings and supplications to Him, if
we have the capacity of distinguishing between the proper use and abuse
of prayer.[852]

Footnote 849:

  Cf. Heb. i. 14.

Footnote 850:

  ἐν τοῖς καθαρωτάτοις τοῦ κόσμου χωρίοις ἐπουρανίοις, ἢ καὶ τοῖς τούτων
  καθαρωτέροις ὑπερουρανίοις.

Footnote 851:

  Cf. Ps. lxxxvi. 8, xcvi. 4, cxxxvi. 2.

Footnote 852:

  ἐὰν δυνώμεθα κατακούειν τῆς περὶ προσευχῆς κυριολεξίας καὶ
  καταχρήσεως.




                               Chapter V.


For to invoke angels without having obtained a knowledge of their nature
greater than is possessed by men, would be contrary to reason. But,
conformably to our hypothesis, let this knowledge of them, which is
something wonderful and mysterious, be obtained. Then this knowledge,
making known to us their nature, and the offices to which they are
severally appointed, will not permit us to pray with confidence to any
other than to the Supreme God, who is sufficient for all things, and
that through our Saviour the Son of God, who is the Word, and Wisdom,
and Truth, and everything else which the writings of God’s prophets and
the apostles of Jesus entitle Him. And it is enough to secure that the
holy angels of God be propitious to us, and that they do all things on
our behalf, that our disposition of mind towards God should imitate as
far as it is within the power of human nature the example of these holy
angels, who again follow the example of their God; and that the
conceptions which we entertain of His Son, the Word, so far as
attainable by us, should not be opposed to the clearer conceptions of
Him which the holy angels possess, but should daily approach these in
clearness and distinctness. But because Celsus has not read our Holy
Scriptures, he gives himself an answer as if it came from us, saying
that we “assert that the angels who come down from heaven to confer
benefits on mankind are a different race from the gods,” and adds that
“in all probability they would be called demons by us:” not observing
that the name “demons” is not a term of indifferent meaning like that of
“men,” among whom some are good and some bad, nor yet a term of
excellence like that of “the gods,” which is applied not to wicked
demons, or to statues, or to animals, but (by those who know divine
things) to what is truly divine and blessed; whereas the term “demons”
is always applied to those wicked powers, freed from the encumbrance of
a grosser body, who lead men astray, and fill them with distractions,
and drag them down from God and supercelestial thoughts to things here
below.




                              Chapter VI.


He next proceeds to make the following statement about the Jews:—“The
first point relating to the Jews which is fitted to excite wonder, is
that they should worship the heaven and the angels who dwell therein,
and yet pass by and neglect its most venerable and powerful parts, as
the sun, and moon, and the other heavenly bodies, both fixed stars and
planets, as if it were possible that ‘the whole’ could be God, and yet
its parts not divine; or [as if it were reasonable] to treat with the
greatest respect those who are said to appear to such as are in darkness
somewhere, blinded by some crooked sorcery, or dreaming dreams through
the influence of shadowy spectres,[853] while those who prophesy so
clearly and strikingly to all men, by means of whom rain, and heat, and
clouds, and thunder (to which they offer worship), and lightnings, and
fruits, and all kinds of productiveness, are brought about,—by means of
whom God is revealed to them,—the most prominent heralds among those
beings that are above,—those that are truly heavenly angels,—are to be
regarded as of no account!” In making these statements, Celsus appears
to have fallen into confusion, and to have penned them from false ideas
of things which he did not understand; for it is patent to all who
investigate the practices of the Jews, and compare them with those of
the Christians, that the Jews who follow the law, which, speaking in the
person of God, says, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me: thou
shalt not make unto thee an image, nor a likeness of anything that is in
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the waters
under the earth; thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them,”[854]
worship nothing else than the Supreme God, who made the heavens, and all
things besides. Now it is evident that those who live according to the
law, and worship the _Maker_ of heaven, will not worship the heaven at
the same time with God. Moreover, no one who obeys the law of Moses will
bow down to the angels who are in heaven; and, in like manner, as they
do not bow down to sun, moon, and stars, the host of heaven, they
refrain also from doing obeisance to heaven and its angels, obeying the
law which declares: “Lest thou lift up thine eyes to heaven, and when
thou seest the sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of
heaven, shouldst be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the
Lord thy God hath divided unto all nations.”[855]

Footnote 853:

  ἢ τοὺς μὲν ἐν σκότῳ ποῦ ἐκ γοητείας οὐκ ὀρθῆς τυφλώττουσιν, ἢ δι’
  ἀμυδρῶν φασμάτων ὀνειρώττουσιν ἐγχρίμπτειν λεγομένους, εὖ μάλα
  θρησκεύειν.

Footnote 854:

  Cf. Ex. xx. 3, 4, 5.

Footnote 855:

  Cf. Deut. iv. 19.




                              Chapter VII.


Having, moreover, assumed that the Jews consider the heaven to be God,
he adds that this is absurd; finding fault with those who bow down to
the heaven, but not also to the sun, and moon, and stars, saying that
the Jews do this, as if it were possible that “the whole” should be God,
and its several parts not divine. And he seems to call the heaven “a
whole,” and sun, moon, and stars its several parts. Now, certainly
neither Jews nor Christians call the “heaven” God. Let it be granted,
however, that, as he alleges, the heaven _is_ called God by the Jews,
and suppose that sun, moon, and stars _are_ parts of “heaven,”—which is
by no means true, for neither are the animals and plants upon the earth
any portion of it,—how is it true, even according to the opinions of the
Greeks, that if God be a whole, His parts also are divine? Certainly
they say that the Cosmos taken as the whole[856] is God, the Stoics
calling it the First God, the followers of Plato the Second, and some of
them the Third. According to these philosophers, then, seeing the whole
Cosmos is God, its parts also are divine; so that not only are human
beings divine, but the whole of the irrational creation, as being
“_portions_” of the Cosmos; and besides these, the plants also are
divine. And if the rivers, and mountains, and seas are portions of the
Cosmos, then, since the whole Cosmos is God, are the rivers and seas
also gods? But this even the Greeks will not assert. Those, however, who
preside over rivers and seas (either demons or gods, as they call them),
they would term gods. Now from this it follows that the general
statement of Celsus, even according to the Greeks, who hold the doctrine
of Providence, is false, that if any “whole” be a god, its parts
necessarily are divine. But it follows from the doctrine of Celsus, that
if the Cosmos be God, all that is in it is divine, being parts of the
Cosmos. Now, according to this view, animals, as flies, and gnats, and
worms, and every species of serpent, as well as of birds and fishes,
will be divine,—an assertion which would not be made even by those who
maintain that the Cosmos is God. But the Jews, who live according to the
law of Moses, although they may not know how to receive the secret
meaning of the law, which is conveyed in obscure language, will not
maintain that either the heaven or the angels are God.

Footnote 856:

  τὸ ὅλον ὁ κόσμος.




                             Chapter VIII.


As we allege, however, that he has fallen into confusion in consequence
of false notions which he has imbibed, come and let us point them out to
the best of our ability, and show that although Celsus considers it to
be a Jewish custom to bow down to the heaven and the angels in it, such
a practice is not at all Jewish, but is in violation of Judaism, as it
also is to do obeisance to sun, moon, and stars, as well as images. You
will find at least in the book of Jeremiah the words of God censuring by
the mouth of the prophet the Jewish people for doing obeisance to such
objects, and for sacrificing to the queen of heaven, and to all the host
of heaven.[857] The writings of the Christians, moreover, show, in
censuring the sins committed among the Jews, that when God abandoned
that people on account of certain sins, these sins [of idol-worship]
also were committed by them. For it is related in the Acts of the
Apostles regarding the Jews, that “God turned, and gave them up to
worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the
prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and
sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? Yea, ye took
up the tabernacle of Moloch, and the star of your god Remphan, figures
which you made to worship them.”[858] And in the writings of Paul, who
was carefully trained in Jewish customs, and converted afterwards to
Christianity by a miraculous appearance of Jesus, the following words
may be read in the Epistle to the Colossians: “Let no man beguile you of
your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding
into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his
fleshly mind; and not holding the head, from which all the body by joint
and bands having nourishment ministered, and knit together, increaseth
with the increase of God.”[859] But Celsus, having neither read these
verses, nor having learned their contents from any other source, has
represented, I know not how, the Jews as not transgressing their law in
bowing down to the heavens, and to the angels therein.

Footnote 857:

  Cf. Jer. vii. 17, 18.

Footnote 858:

  Cf. Acts vii. 42, 43.

Footnote 859:

  Cf. Col. ii. 18, 19.




                              Chapter IX.


And still continuing a little confused, and not taking care to see what
was relevant to the matter, he expressed his opinion that the Jews were
induced by the incantations employed in jugglery and sorcery (in
consequence of which certain phantoms appear, in obedience to the spells
employed by the magicians) to bow down to the angels in heaven, not
observing that this was contrary to their law, which said to them who
practised such observances: “Regard not them which have familiar
spirits,[860] neither seek after wizards,[861] to be defiled by them: I
am the Lord your God.”[862] He ought, therefore, either not to have at
all attributed this practice to the Jews, seeing he has observed that
they keep their law, and has called them “those who live according to
their law;” or if he did attribute it, he ought to have shown that the
Jews did this in violation of their code. But again, as they transgress
their law who offer worship to those who are said to appear to them who
are involved in darkness and blinded by sorcery, and who dream dreams,
owing to obscure phantoms presenting themselves; so also do they
transgress the law who offer sacrifice to sun, moon, and stars.[863] And
there is thus great inconsistency in the same individual saying that the
Jews are careful to keep their law by not bowing down to sun, and moon,
and stars, while they are not so careful to keep it in the matter of
heaven and the angels.

Footnote 860:

  ἐγγαστριμύθοις.

Footnote 861:

  ἐπαοιδοῖς.

Footnote 862:

  Cf. Lev. xix. 31.

Footnote 863:

  The emendations of Ruæus have been adopted in the translation, the
  text being probably corrupt. Cf. Ruæus, _in loc._




                               Chapter X.


And if it be necessary for us to offer a defence of our refusal to
recognise as gods, equally with angels, and sun, and moon, and stars,
those who are called by the Greeks “manifest and visible” divinities, we
shall answer that the law of Moses knows that these latter have been
apportioned by God among all the nations under the heaven, but not
amongst those who were selected by God as His chosen people above all
the nations of the earth. For it is written in the book of Deuteronomy:
“And lest thou lift up thine eyes unto heaven, and when thou seest the
sun, and the moon, and the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldst
be driven to worship them, and serve them, which the Lord thy God hath
divided unto all nations under the whole heaven. But the Lord hath taken
us, and brought us forth out of the iron furnace, even out of Egypt, to
be unto Him a people of inheritance, as ye are this day.”[864] The
Hebrew people, then, being called by God a “chosen generation, and a
royal priesthood, and a holy nation, and a purchased people,”[865]
regarding whom it was foretold to Abraham by the voice of the Lord
addressed to him, “Look now towards heaven, and tell the stars, if thou
be able to number them: and He said unto him, So shall thy seed
be;”[866] and having thus a hope that they would become as the stars of
heaven, were not likely to bow down to those objects which they were to
resemble as a result of their understanding and observing the law of
God. For it was said to them: “The Lord our God hath multiplied us; and,
behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude.”[867] In
the book of Daniel, also, the following prophecies are found relating to
those who are to share in the resurrection: “And at that time thy people
shall be delivered, every one that has been written in the book. And
many of them that sleep in the dust[868] of the earth shall awake; some
to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And
they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and
[those] of the many righteous[869] as the stars for ever and ever,”[870]
etc. And hence Paul, too, when speaking of the resurrection, says: “And
there are also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory
of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another.
There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and
another glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star in
glory. So also is the resurrection of the dead.”[871] It was not
therefore consonant to reason that those who had been taught
sublimely[872] to ascend above all created things, and to hope for the
enjoyment of the most glorious rewards with God on account of their
virtuous lives, and who had heard the words, “Ye are the light of the
world,”[873] and, “Let your light so shine before men, that they, seeing
your good works, may glorify your Father who is in heaven,”[874] and who
possessed through practice this brilliant and unfading wisdom, or who
had secured even the “very reflection of everlasting light,”[875] should
be so impressed with the [mere] _visible_ light of sun, and moon, and
stars, that, on account of that sensible light of theirs, they should
deem themselves (although possessed of so great a rational light of
knowledge, and of the true light, and the light of the world, and the
light of men) to be somehow inferior to them, and to bow down to them;
seeing they ought to be worshipped, if they are to receive worship at
all, not for the sake of the sensible light which is admired by the
multitude, but because of the rational and true light, if indeed the
stars in heaven are rational and virtuous beings, and have been
illuminated with the light of knowledge by that wisdom which is the
“reflection of everlasting light.” For that sensible light of theirs is
the work of the Creator of all things, while that rational light is
derived perhaps from the principle of free-will within them.[876]

Footnote 864:

  Cf. Deut. iv. 19, 20.

Footnote 865:

  Cf. 1 Pet. ii. 9.

Footnote 866:

  Cf. Gen. xv. 5.

Footnote 867:

  Cf. Deut. i. 10.

Footnote 868:

  χώματι.

Footnote 869:

  ἀπὸ τῶν δικαίων τῶν πολλῶν.

Footnote 870:

  Cf. Dan. xii. 1, 2, 3.

Footnote 871:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 40-42.

Footnote 872:

  μεγαλοφυῶς.

Footnote 873:

  Matt. v. 14.

Footnote 874:

  Cf. Matt. v. 16.

Footnote 875:

  Cf. Origen, _de Principiis_, i. c. vii.

Footnote 876:

  ἐκ τοῦ ἐν αὐτοῖς αὐτεξουσίου ἐληλυθός.




                              Chapter XI.


But even this rational light itself ought not to be worshipped by him
who beholds and understands the true light, by sharing in which these
also are enlightened; nor by him who beholds God, the Father of the true
light,—of whom it has been said, “God is light, and in Him there is no
darkness at all.”[877] Those, indeed, who worship sun, moon, and stars
because their light is visible and celestial, would not bow down to a
spark of fire or a lamp upon earth, because they see the incomparable
superiority of those objects which are deemed worthy of homage to the
light of sparks and lamps. So those who understand that God is light,
and who have apprehended that the Son of God is “the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and who comprehend also
how He says, “I am the light of the world,” would not rationally offer
worship to that which is, as it were, a spark in sun, moon, and stars,
in comparison with God, who is light of the true light. Nor is it with a
view to depreciate these great works of God’s creative power, or to call
them, after the fashion of Anaxagoras, “fiery masses,”[878] that we thus
speak of sun, and moon, and stars; but because we perceive the
inexpressible superiority of the divinity of God, and that of His
only-begotten Son, which surpasses all other things. And being persuaded
that the sun himself, and moon, and stars pray to the Supreme God
through His only-begotten Son, we judge it improper to pray to those
beings who themselves offer up prayers [to God], seeing even they
themselves would prefer that we should send up our requests to the God
to whom they pray, rather than send them downwards to themselves, or
apportion our power of prayer[879] between God and them. And here I may
employ this illustration, as bearing upon this point: Our Lord and
Saviour, hearing Himself on one occasion addressed as “Good
Master,”[880] referring him who used it to His own Father, said, “Why
callest thou me good? There is none good but one, that is, God the
Father.”[881] And since it was in accordance with sound reason that this
should be said by the Son of His Father’s love, as being the image of
the goodness of God, why should not the sun say with greater reason to
those that bow down to him, Why do you worship me? “for thou wilt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve;”[882] for it is
He whom I and all who are with me serve and worship. And although one
may not be so exalted [as the sun], nevertheless let such an one pray to
the Word of God (who is able to heal him), and still more to His Father,
who also to the righteous of former times “sent His word, and healed
them, and delivered them from their destructions.”[883]

Footnote 877:

  Cf. 1 John i. 5.

Footnote 878:

  μύδρον διάπυρον.

Footnote 879:

  τὴν εὐκτικὴν δύναμιν.

Footnote 880:

  Cf. Matt. xix. 17; cf. Mark x. 18.

Footnote 881:

  Ibid.

Footnote 882:

  Cf. Deut. vi. 13.

Footnote 883:

  Cf. Ps. cvii. 20.




                              Chapter XII.


God accordingly, in His kindness, condescends to mankind, not in any
local sense, but through His providence;[884] while the Son of God, not
only [when on earth], but at _all_ times, is with His own disciples,
fulfilling the promise, “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of
the world.”[885] And if a branch cannot bear fruit except it abide in
the vine, it is evident that the disciples also of the Word, who are the
rational branches of the Word’s true vine, cannot produce the fruits of
virtue unless they abide in the true vine, the Christ of God, who is
with us locally here below upon the earth, and who is with those who
cleave to Him in all parts of the world, and is also in all places with
those who do not know Him. Another is made manifest by that John who
wrote the Gospel, when, speaking in the person of John the Baptist, he
said, “There standeth one among you whom ye know not; He it is who
cometh after me.”[886] And it is absurd, when He who fills heaven and
earth, and who said, “Do I not fill heaven and earth? saith the
Lord,”[887] is with us, and near us (for I believe Him when He says, “I
am a God nigh at hand, and not afar off, saith the Lord”[888]), to seek
to pray to sun or moon, or one of the stars, whose influence does not
reach the whole of the world.[889] But, to use the very words of Celsus,
let it be granted that “the sun, moon, and stars _do_ foretell rain, and
heat, and clouds, and thunders,” why, then, if they really do foretell
such great things, ought we not rather to do homage to God, whose
servant they are in uttering these predictions, and show reverence to
_Him_ rather than His _prophets_? Let them predict, then, the approach
of lightnings, and fruits, and all manner of productions, and let all
such things be under their administration; yet we shall not on that
account worship those who themselves offer worship, as we do not worship
even Moses, and those prophets who came from God after him, and who
predicted better things than rain, and heat, and clouds, and thunders,
and lightnings, and fruits, and all sorts of productions visible to the
senses. Nay, even if sun, and moon, and stars were able to prophesy
better things than rain, not even then shall we worship _them_, but the
_Father_ of the prophecies which are in them, and the _Word_ of God,
their minister. But grant that they are His heralds, and truly
messengers of heaven, why, even then ought we not to worship the _God_
whom they only proclaim and announce, rather than those who are the
_heralds_ and _messengers_?

Footnote 884:

  προνοητικῶς.

Footnote 885:

  Matt. xxviii. 20.

Footnote 886:

  Cf. John i. 26, 27.

Footnote 887:

  Cf. Jer. xxiii. 24.

Footnote 888:

  Cf. Jer. xxiii. 23.

Footnote 889:

  ζητεῖν εὔχεσθαι τῷ μὴ φθάνοντι ἐπὶ τὰ σύμπαντα.




                             Chapter XIII.


Celsus, moreover, assumes that sun, and moon, and stars are regarded by
us as of no account. Now, with regard to these, we acknowledge that they
too are “waiting for the manifestation of the sons of God,” being for
the present subjected to the “vanity” of their material bodies, “by
reason of Him who has subjected the same in hope.”[890] But if Celsus
had read the innumerable other passages where we speak of sun, moon, and
stars, and especially these,—“Praise Him, all ye stars, and thou, O
light,”[891] and, “Praise Him, ye heaven of heavens,”—he would not have
said of us that we regard such mighty beings, which “greatly praise” the
Lord God, as of no account. Nor did Celsus know the passage: “For the
earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the
sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly,
but by reason of Him who hath subjected the same in hope; because the
creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption
into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”[892] And with these
words let us terminate our defence against the charge of not worshipping
sun, moon, and stars. And let us now bring forward those statements of
his which follow, that we may, God willing, address to him in reply such
arguments as shall be suggested by the light of truth.

Footnote 890:

  Cf. Rom. viii. 19-21.

Footnote 891:

  Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 3.

Footnote 892:

  Cf. Rom. viii. 19-21.




                              Chapter XIV.


The following, then, are his words: “It is folly on their part to
suppose that when God, as if He were a cook,[893] introduces the fire
[which is to consume the world], all the rest of the human race will be
burnt up, while they alone will remain, not only such of them as are
then alive, but also those who are long since dead, which latter will
arise from the earth clothed with the self-same flesh [as during life];
for such a hope is simply one which might be cherished by worms. For
what sort of human soul is that which would still long for a body that
had been subject to corruption? Whence, also, this opinion of yours is
not shared by some of the Christians, and they pronounce it to be
exceedingly vile, and loathsome, and impossible; for what kind of body
is that which, after being completely corrupted, can return to its
original nature, and to that self-same first condition out of which it
fell into dissolution? Being unable to return any answer, they betake
themselves to a most absurd refuge, viz. that all things are possible to
God. And yet God _cannot_ do things that are disgraceful, nor does He
wish to do things that are contrary to His nature; nor, if (in
accordance with the wickedness of your own heart) you desired anything
that was evil, would God accomplish it; nor must you believe at once
that it will be done. For God does not rule the world in order to
satisfy inordinate desires, or to allow disorder and confusion, but to
govern a nature that is upright and just.[894] For the _soul_, indeed,
He might be able to provide an everlasting life; while dead _bodies_, on
the contrary, are, as Heraclitus observes, more worthless than dung.
God, however, neither can nor will declare, contrary to all reason, that
the flesh, which is full of those things which it is not even honourable
to mention, is to exist for ever. For He is the reason of all things
that exist, and therefore can do nothing either contrary to reason or
contrary to Himself.”

Footnote 893:

  ὥσπερ μάγειρος.

Footnote 894:

  οὐ γὰρ τῆς πλημμελοῦς ὀρέξεως, οὐδὲ τῆς πεπλανημένης ἀκοσμίας, ἀλλὰ
  τῆς ὀρθῆς καὶ δικαίας φύσεως Θεός ἐστιν ἀρχηγέτης.




                              Chapter XV.


Observe, now, here at the very beginning, how, in ridiculing the
doctrine of a conflagration of the world, held by certain of the Greeks
who have treated the subject in a philosophic spirit not to be
depreciated, he would make us, “representing God, as it were, as a cook,
hold the belief in a general conflagration;” not perceiving that, as
certain Greeks were of opinion (perhaps having received their
information from the ancient nation of the Hebrews), it is a
purificatory fire which is brought upon the world, and probably also on
each one of those who stand in need of chastisement by the fire and
healing at the same time, seeing it _burns_ indeed, but does not
_consume_, those who are without a material body,[895] which needs to be
consumed by that fire, and which burns and consumes those who by their
actions, words, and thoughts have built up wood, or hay, or stubble, in
that which is figuratively termed a “building.”[896] And the Holy
Scriptures say that the Lord will, like a refiner’s fire and fuller’s
soap,[897] visit each one of those who require purification, because of
the intermingling in them of a flood of wicked matter proceeding from
their evil nature; who need fire, I mean, to refine, as it were, [the
dross of] those who are intermingled with copper, and tin, and lead. And
he who likes may learn this from the prophet Ezekiel.[898] But that we
say that God brings fire upon the world, not like a cook, but like a
God, who is the benefactor of them who stand in need of the discipline
of fire,[899] will be testified by the prophet Isaiah, in whose writings
it is related that a sinful nation was thus addressed: “Because thou
hast coals of fire, sit upon them: they shall be to thee a help.”[900]
Now the Scripture is appropriately adapted to the multitudes of those
who are to peruse it, because it speaks obscurely of things that are sad
and gloomy,[901] in order to terrify those who cannot by any other means
be saved from the flood of their sins, although even then the attentive
reader will clearly discover the end that is to be accomplished by these
sad and painful punishments upon those who endure them. It is
sufficient, however, for the present to quote the words of Isaiah: “For
my name’s sake will I show mine anger, and my glory I will bring upon
thee, that I may not destroy thee.”[902] We have thus been under the
necessity of referring in obscure terms to questions not fitted to the
capacity of simple believers, who require a simpler instruction in
words, that we might not appear to leave unrefuted the accusation of
Celsus, that “God introduces the fire, [which is to destroy the world],
as if He were a cook.”

Footnote 895:

  ὕλην.

Footnote 896:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.

Footnote 897:

  Cf. Mal. iii. 2.

Footnote 898:

  Cf. Ezek. xxii. 18, 20.

Footnote 899:

  πόνου καὶ πυρός.

Footnote 900:

  Cf. Isa. xlvii. 14, 15.

Footnote 901:

  τὰ σκυθρωπά.

Footnote 902:

  Cf. Isa. xlviii. 9 (Septuagint).




                              Chapter XVI.


From what has been said, it will be manifest to intelligent hearers how
we have to answer the following: “All the rest of the race will be
completely burnt up, and they alone will remain.” It is not to be
wondered at, indeed, if such thoughts have been entertained by those
amongst us who are called in Scripture the “foolish things” of the
world, and “base things,” and “things which are despised,” and “things
which are not,” because “by the foolishness of preaching it pleased God
to save them that believe on Him, after that, in the wisdom of God, the
world by wisdom knew not God,”[903]—because such individuals are unable
to see distinctly the sense of each particular passage,[904] or
unwilling to devote the necessary leisure to the investigation of
Scripture, notwithstanding the injunction of Jesus, “Search the
Scriptures.”[905] The following, moreover, are his ideas regarding the
fire which is to be brought upon the world by God, and the punishments
which are to befall sinners. And perhaps, as it is appropriate to
children that some things should be addressed to them in a manner
befitting their infantile condition, to convert them, as being of very
tender age, to a better course of life; so, to those whom the word terms
“the foolish things of the world,” and “the base,” and “the despised,”
the just and obvious meaning of the passages relating to punishments is
suitable, inasmuch as they cannot receive any other mode of conversion
than that which is by fear and the presentation of punishment, and thus
be saved from the many evils [which would befall them].[906] The
Scripture accordingly declares that only those who are unscathed by the
fire and the punishments are to remain,—those, viz., whose opinions, and
morals, and mind have been purified to the highest degree; while, on the
other hand, those of a different nature—those, viz., who, according to
their deserts, require the administration of punishment by fire—will be
involved in these sufferings with a view to an end which it is suitable
for God to bring upon those who have been created in His image, but who
have lived in opposition to the will of that nature which is according
to His image. And this is our answer to the statement, “All the rest of
the race will be completely burnt up, but they alone are to remain.”

Footnote 903:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 21.

Footnote 904:

  τὰ κατὰ τοὺς τόπους.

Footnote 905:

  Cf. John v. 39.

Footnote 906:

  καὶ τῶν πολλῶν κακῶν ἀποχήν.




                             Chapter XVII.


Then, in the next place, having either himself misunderstood the sacred
Scriptures, or those [interpreters] by whom they were not understood, he
proceeds to assert that “it is said by us that there will remain at the
time of the visitation which is to come upon the world by the fire of
purification, not only those who are then alive, but also those who are
long ago dead;” not observing that it is with a secret kind of wisdom
that it was said by the apostle of Jesus: “We shall not all sleep, but
we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump; for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.”[907] Now he ought to have
noticed what was the meaning of him who uttered these words, as being
one who was by no means dead, who made a distinction between himself and
those like him and the dead, and who said afterwards, “The dead shall be
raised incorruptible,” and “we shall be changed.” And as a proof that
such was the apostle’s meaning in writing those words which I have
quoted from the First Epistle to the Corinthians, I will quote also from
the First to the Thessalonians, in which Paul, as one who is alive and
awake, and different from those who are asleep, speaks as follows: “For
this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and
remain unto the coming of the Lord, shall not prevent them who are
asleep; for the Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout,
with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God.”[908] Then,
again, after this, knowing that there were others dead in Christ besides
himself and such as he, he subjoins the words, “The dead in Christ shall
rise first; then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together
with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air.”[909]

Footnote 907:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 51, 52.

Footnote 908:

  Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15, 16.

Footnote 909:

  Cf. 1 Thess. iv. 16, 17.




                             Chapter XVIII.


But since he has ridiculed at great length the doctrine of the
resurrection of the flesh, which has been preached in the churches, and
which is more clearly understood by the more intelligent believer; and
as it is unnecessary again to quote his words, which have been already
adduced, let us, with regard to the problem[910] (as in an apologetic
work directed against an alien from the faith, and for the sake of those
who are still “children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every
wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby
they lie in wait to deceive”[911]), state and establish to the best of
our ability a few points expressly intended for our readers. Neither we,
then, nor the Holy Scriptures, assert that with the same bodies, without
a change to a higher condition, “shall those who were long dead arise
from the earth and live again;” for in so speaking, Celsus makes a false
charge against us. For we may listen to many passages of Scripture
treating of the resurrection in a manner worthy of God, although it may
suffice for the present to quote the language of Paul from the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, where he says: “But some man will say, How
are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come? Thou fool, that
which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die. And that which thou
sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may
chance of wheat, or of some other grain; but God giveth it a body as it
hath pleased Him, and to every seed his own body.”[912] Now, observe how
in these words he says that there is sown, “not that body that shall
be;” but that of the body which is sown and cast naked into the earth
(God giving to each seed its own body), there takes place as it were a
resurrection: from the seed that was cast into the ground there arising
a stalk, _e.g._ among such plants as the following, viz. the mustard
plant, or of a larger tree, as in the olive,[913] or one of the
fruit-trees.

Footnote 910:

  περὶ τοῦ προβλήματος τούτου.

Footnote 911:

  Cf. Eph. iv. 14.

Footnote 912:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 35-38.

Footnote 913:

  ἐν ἐλαίας πυρῆνι.




                              Chapter XIX.


God, then, gives to each thing its own body as He pleases: as in the
case of plants that are sown, so also in the case of those beings who
are, as it were, sown in dying, and who in due time receive, out of what
has been “sown,” the body assigned by God to each one according to his
deserts. And we may hear, moreover, the Scripture teaching us at great
length the difference between that which is, as it were, “sown,” and
that which is, as it were, “raised” from it, in these words: “It is sown
in corruption, it is raised in incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it
is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is
sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.”[914] And let him
who has the capacity understand the meaning of the words: “As is the
earthy, such are they also that are earthy; and as is the heavenly, such
are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the
earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly.”[915] And although
the apostle wished to conceal the secret meaning of the passage, which
was not adapted to the simpler class of believers, and to the
understanding of the common people, who are led by their faith to enter
on a better course of life, he was nevertheless obliged afterwards to
say (in order that we might not misapprehend his meaning), after “Let us
bear the image of the heavenly,” these words also: “Now this I say,
brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God;
neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.”[916] Then, knowing that
there was a secret and mystical meaning in the passage, as was becoming
in one who was leaving, in his epistles, to those who were to come after
him words full of significance, he subjoins the following, “Behold, I
show you a mystery;”[917] which is his usual style in introducing
matters of a profounder and more mystical nature, and such as are
fittingly concealed from the multitude, as is written in the book of
Tobit: “It is good to keep close the secret of a king, but honourable to
reveal the works of God,”[918]—in a way consistent with truth and God’s
glory, and so as to be to the advantage of the multitude. Our hope,
then, is _not_ “the hope of worms, nor does our soul long for a body
that has seen corruption;” for although it may require a body, for the
sake of moving from place to place,[919] yet it understands (as having
meditated on the wisdom [that is from above], agreeably to the
declaration, “The mouth of the righteous will speak wisdom”[920]) the
difference between the “earthly house,” in which is the tabernacle of
the building that is to be dissolved, and that in which the righteous do
groan, being burdened,—not wishing to “put off” the tabernacle, but to
be “clothed therewith,” that by being clothed upon, mortality might be
swallowed up of life. For, in virtue of the whole nature of the body
being corruptible, the corruptible tabernacle must put on incorruption;
and its other part, being mortal, and becoming liable to the death which
follows sin, must put on immortality, in order that, when the
corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the mortal immortality,
then shall come to pass what was predicted of old by the prophets,—the
annihilation of the “victory” of death (because it had conquered and
subjected us to his sway), and of its “sting,” with which it stings the
imperfectly defended soul, and inflicts upon it the wounds which result
from sin.

Footnote 914:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 42, 43.

Footnote 915:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 48, 49.

Footnote 916:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 49.

Footnote 917:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 50.

Footnote 918:

  Cf. Tobit xii. 7.

Footnote 919:

  διὰ τὰς τοπικὰς μεταβάσεις.

Footnote 920:

  Cf. Ps. xxxvii. 30.




                              Chapter XX.


But since our views regarding the resurrection have, as far as time
would permit, been stated in part on the present occasion (for we have
systematically examined the subject in greater detail in other parts of
our writings); and as now we must by means of sound reasoning refute the
fallacies of Celsus, who neither understands the meaning of our
Scripture, nor has the capacity of judging that the meaning of our wise
men is not to be determined by those individuals who make no profession
of anything more than of a [simple] faith in the Christian system, let
us show that men, not to be lightly esteemed on account of their
reasoning powers and dialectic subtleties, have given expression to very
absurd[921] opinions. And if we must sneer[922] at them as contemptible
old wives’ fables, it is at them rather than at our narrative that we
must sneer. The disciples of the Porch assert, that after a period of
years there will be a conflagration of the world, and after that an
arrangement of things in which everything will be unchanged, as compared
with the former arrangement of the world. Those of them, however, who
evinced their respect for this doctrine have said that there will be a
change, although exceedingly slight, at the end of the cycle, from what
prevailed during the preceding. And these men maintain, that in the
succeeding cycle the same things will occur, and Socrates will be again
the son of Sophroniscus, and a native of Athens; and Phænarete, being
married to Sophroniscus, will again become his mother. And although they
do not mention the word “resurrection,” they show in reality that
Socrates, who derived his origin from seed, will spring from that of
Sophroniscus, and will be fashioned in the womb of Phænarete; and being
brought up at Athens, will practise the study of philosophy, as if his
former philosophy had arisen again, and were to be in no respect
different from what it was before. Anytus and Melitus, too, will arise
again as accusers of Socrates, and the Council of Areopagus will condemn
him to death! But what is more ridiculous still, is that Socrates will
clothe himself with garments not at all different from those which he
wore during the former cycle, and will live in the same unchanged state
of poverty, and in the same unchanged city of Athens! And Phalaris will
again play the tyrant, and his brazen bull will pour forth its
bellowings from the voices of victims within, unchanged from those who
were condemned in the former cycle! And Alexander of Pheræ, too, will
again act the tyrant with a cruelty unaltered from the former time, and
will condemn to death the same “unchanged” individuals as before. But
what need is there to go into detail upon the doctrine held by the Stoic
philosophers on such things, and which escapes the ridicule of Celsus,
and is perhaps even venerated by him, since he regards Zeno as a wiser
man than Jesus?

Footnote 921:

  σφόδρ’ ἀπεμφαίνοντα.

Footnote 922:

  μυχθίζειν.




                              Chapter XXI.


The disciples of Pythagoras, too, and of Plato, although they appear to
hold the incorruptibility of the world, yet fall into similar errors.
For as the planets, after certain definite cycles, assume the same
positions, and hold the same relations to one another, all things on
earth will, they assert, be like what they were at the time when the
same state of planetary relations existed in the world. From this view
it necessarily follows, that when, after the lapse of a lengthened
cycle, the planets come to occupy towards each other the same relations
which they occupied in the time of Socrates, Socrates will again be born
of the same parents, and suffer the same treatment, being accused by
Anytus and Melitus, and condemned by the Council of Areopagus! The
learned among the Egyptians, moreover, hold similar views, and yet they
are treated with respect, and do not incur the ridicule of Celsus and
such as he; while we, who maintain that all things are administered by
God in proportion to the relation of the free-will of each individual,
and are ever being brought into a better condition, so far as they admit
of being so,[923] and who know that the nature of our free-will admits
of the occurrence of contingent events[924] (for it is incapable of
receiving the wholly unchangeable character of God), yet do not appear
to say anything worthy of a testing examination.

Footnote 923:

  κατὰ τὸ ἐνδεχόμενον.

Footnote 924:

  καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν φύσιν γιγνώσκοντες ἐνδεχομένον ἃ ἐνδέχεται.




                             Chapter XXII.


Let no one, however, suspect that, in speaking as we do, we belong to
those who are indeed called Christians, but who set aside the doctrine
of the resurrection as it is taught in Scripture. For these persons
cannot, so far as their principles apply, at all establish that the
stalk or tree which springs up comes from the grain of wheat, or
anything else [which was cast into the ground]; whereas we, who believe
that that which is “sown” is not “quickened” unless it die, and that
there is sown not that body that shall be (for God gives it a body as it
pleases Him, raising it in incorruption after it is sown in corruption;
and after it is sown in dishonour, raising it in glory; and after it is
sown in weakness, raising it in power; and after it is sown a natural
body, raising it a spiritual),—we preserve both the doctrine[925] of the
church of Christ and the grandeur of the divine promise, proving also
the possibility of its accomplishment not by mere assertion, but by
arguments; knowing that although heaven and earth, and the things that
are in them, may pass away, yet His words regarding each individual
thing, being, as parts of a whole, or species of a genus, the utterances
of Him who was God the Word, who was in the beginning with God, shall by
no means pass away. For we desire to listen to Him who said: “Heaven and
earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”[926]

Footnote 925:

  βούλημα.

Footnote 926:

  Cf. Matt. xxiv. 35; cf. Mark xiii. 31.




                             Chapter XXIII.


We, therefore, do not maintain that the body which has undergone
corruption resumes its original nature, any more than the grain of wheat
which has decayed returns to its former condition. But we do maintain,
that as above the grain of wheat there arises a stalk, so a certain
power[927] is implanted in the body, which is not destroyed, and from
which the body is raised up in incorruption. The philosophers of the
Porch, however, in consequence of the opinions which they hold regarding
the unchangeableness of things after a certain cycle, assert that the
body, after undergoing complete corruption, will return to its original
condition, and will again assume that first nature from which it passed
into a state of dissolution, establishing these points, as they think,
by irresistible arguments.[928] We, however, do not betake ourselves to
a most absurd refuge, saying that with God _all_ things are possible;
for we know how to understand this word “all” as not referring either to
things that are “non-existent” or that are inconceivable. But we
maintain, at the same time, that God cannot do what is disgraceful,
since then He would be capable of ceasing to be God; for if He do
anything that is disgraceful, He is not God. Since, however, he lays it
down as a principle, that “God does not desire what is contrary to
nature,” we have to make a distinction, and say that if any one asserts
that wickedness is contrary to nature, while we maintain that “God does
not desire what is contrary to nature,”—either what springs from
wickedness or from an irrational principle,—yet, if such things happen
according to the word and will of God, we must at once necessarily hold
that they are not contrary to nature. Therefore things which are done by
God, although they may be, or may _appear_ to some to be incredible, are
not contrary to nature. And if we must press the force of words,[929] we
would say that, in comparison with what is generally understood as
“nature,” there _are_ certain things which are _beyond_ its power, which
God could at any time do; as, _e.g._, in raising man above the level of
human nature, and causing him to pass into a better and more divine
condition, and preserving him in the same, so long as he who is the
object of His care shows by his actions that he desires [the continuance
of His help].

Footnote 927:

  λόγος.

Footnote 928:

  διαλεκτικαῖς ἀνάγκαις.

Footnote 929:

  εἰ δὲ χρὴ βεβιασμένως ὀνομάσαι.




                             Chapter XXIV.


Moreover, as we have already said that for God to desire anything
unbecoming Himself would be destructive of His existence as Deity, we
will add that if man, agreeably to the wickedness of his nature, should
desire anything that is abominable,[930] God cannot grant it. And now it
is from no spirit of contention that we answer the assertions of Celsus;
but it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate them, as assenting
to his view that “He is the God, not of inordinate desires, nor of error
and disorder, but of a nature just and upright,” because He is the
source of all that is good. And that He is able to provide an eternal
life for the soul we acknowledge; and that He possesses not only the
“power,” but the “will.” In view, therefore, of these considerations, we
are not at all distressed by the assertion of Heraclitus, adopted by
Celsus, that “dead bodies are to be cast out as more worthless than
dung;” and yet, with reference even to this, one might say that dung,
indeed, ought to be cast out, while the dead bodies of men, on account
of the soul by which they were inhabited, especially if it had been
virtuous, ought not to be cast out. For, in harmony with those laws
which are based upon the principles of equity, bodies are deemed worthy
of sepulture, with the honours accorded on such occasions, that no
insult, so far as can be helped, may be offered to the soul which dwelt
within, by casting forth the body (after the soul has departed) like
that of the animals. Let it not then be held, contrary to reason, that
it is the will of God to declare that the grain of wheat is not
immortal, but the stalk which springs from it, while the body which is
sown in corruption is not, but that which is raised by Him in
incorruption. But according to Celsus, God Himself is the reason of all
things, while according to our view it is His Son, of whom we say in
philosophic language, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God;”[931] while in our judgment also, God
cannot do anything which is contrary to reason, or contrary to Himself.

Footnote 930:

  βδελυρὸν.

Footnote 931:

  Cf. John i. 1.




                              Chapter XXV.


Let us next notice the statements of Celsus, which follow the preceding,
and which are as follow: “As the Jews, then, became a peculiar people,
and enacted laws in keeping with the customs of their country,[932] and
maintain them up to the present time, and observe a mode of worship
which, whatever be its nature, is yet derived from their fathers, they
act in these respects like other men, because each nation retains its
ancestral customs, whatever they are, if they happen to be established
among them. And such an arrangement appears to be advantageous, not only
because it has occurred to the mind of other nations to decide some
things differently, but also because it is a duty to protect what has
been established for the public advantage; and also because, in all
probability, the various quarters of the earth were from the beginning
allotted to different superintending spirits,[933] and were thus
distributed among certain governing powers,[934] and in this manner the
administration of the world is carried on. And whatever is done among
each nation in this way would be rightly done, wherever it was agreeable
to the wishes [of the superintending powers], while it would be an act
of impiety to get rid of[935] the institutions established from the
beginning in the various places.” By these words Celsus shows that the
Jews, who were formerly Egyptians, subsequently became a “peculiar
people,” and enacted laws which they carefully preserve. And not to
repeat his statements, which have been already before us, he says that
it is advantageous to the Jews to observe their ancestral worship, as
other nations carefully attend to theirs. And he further states a deeper
reason why it is of advantage to the Jews to cultivate their ancestral
customs, in hinting dimly that those to whom was allotted the office of
superintending the country which was being legislated for, enacted the
laws of each land in co-operation with its legislators. He appears,
then, to indicate that both the country of the Jews, and the nation
which inhabits it, are superintended by one or more beings, who, whether
they were one or more, co-operated with Moses, and enacted the laws of
the Jews.

Footnote 932:

  καὶ κατὰ τὸ ἐπιχώριον νόμους θέμενοι.

Footnote 933:

  τὰ μέρη τῆς γῆς ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἄλλα ἄλλοις ἐπόπταις νενεμημένα.

Footnote 934:

  καὶ κατά τινας ἐπικρατείας διειλημμένα.

Footnote 935:

  παραλύειν.




                             Chapter XXVI.


“We must,” he says, “observe the laws, not only because it has occurred
to the mind of others to decide some things differently, but because it
is a duty to protect what has been enacted for the public advantage, and
also because, in all probability, the various quarters of the earth were
from the beginning allotted to different superintending spirits, and
were distributed among certain governing powers, and in this manner the
administration of the world is carried on.” Thus Celsus, as if he had
forgotten what he had said against the Jews, now includes them in the
general eulogy which he passes upon all who observe their ancestral
customs, remarking: “And whatever is done among each nation in this way,
would be rightly done whenever agreeable to the wishes [of the
superintendents].” And observe here, whether he does not openly, so far
as he can, express a wish that the Jew should live in the observance of
his own laws, and not depart from them, because he would commit an act
of impiety if he apostatized; for his words are: “It would be an act of
impiety to get rid of the institutions established from the beginning in
the various places.” Now I should like to ask him, and those who
entertain his views, who it was that distributed the various quarters of
the earth from the beginning among the different superintending spirits;
and especially, who gave the country of the Jews, and the Jewish people
themselves, to the one or more superintendents to whom it was allotted?
Was it, as Celsus would say, Jupiter who assigned the Jewish people and
their country to a certain spirit or spirits? And was it _his_ wish, to
whom they were thus assigned, to enact among them the laws which
prevail, or was it _against_ his will that it was done? You will observe
that, whatever be his answer, he is in a strait. But if the various
quarters of the earth were _not_ allotted by some one being to the
various superintending spirits, then each one at random, and without the
superintendence of a higher power, divided the earth according to
chance; and yet such a view is absurd, and destructive in no small
degree of the providence of the God who presides over all things.




                             Chapter XXVII.


Any one, indeed, who chooses, may relate how the various quarters of the
earth, being distributed among certain governing powers, are
administered by those who superintend them; but let him tell us also how
what is done among each nation is done rightly when agreeable to the
wishes of the superintendents. Let him, for example, tell us whether the
laws of the Scythians, which permit the murder of parents, are right
laws; or those of the Persians, which do not forbid the marriages of
sons with their mothers, or of daughters with their own fathers. But
what need is there for me to make selections from those who have been
engaged in the business of enacting laws among the different nations,
and to inquire how the laws are rightly enacted among each, according as
they please the superintending powers? Let Celsus, however, tell us how
it would be an act of impiety to get rid of those ancestral laws which
permit the marriages of mothers and daughters; or which pronounce a man
happy who puts an end to his life by hanging, or declare that they
undergo entire purification who deliver themselves over to the fire, and
who terminate their existence by fire; and how it is an act of impiety
to do away with those laws which, for example, prevail in the Tauric
Chersonese, regarding the offering up of strangers in sacrifice to
Diana, or among certain of the Libyan tribes regarding the sacrifice of
children to Saturn. Moreover, this inference follows from the dictum of
Celsus, that it is an act of impiety on the part of the Jews to do away
with those ancestral laws which forbid the worship of any other deity
than the Creator of all things. And it will follow, according to his
view, that piety is not divine by its own nature, but by a certain
[external] arrangement and appointment. For it is an act of piety among
certain tribes to worship a crocodile, and to eat what is an object of
adoration among other tribes; while, again, with others it is a pious
act to worship a calf, and among others, again, to regard the goat as a
god. And, in this way, the same individual will be regarded as acting
piously according to one set of laws, and impiously according to
another; and this is the most absurd result that can be conceived!




                            Chapter XXVIII.


It is probable, however, that to such remarks as the above, the answer
returned would be, that he was pious who kept the laws of his _own_
country, and not at all chargeable with impiety for the non-observance
of those of _other_ lands; and that, again, he who was deemed guilty of
impiety among certain nations was not really so, when he worshipped his
own gods, agreeably to his country’s laws, although he made war against,
and even feasted on,[936] those who were regarded as divinities among
those nations which possessed laws of an opposite kind. Now, observe
here whether these statements do not exhibit the greatest confusion of
mind regarding the nature of what is just, and holy, and religious;
since there is no accurate definition laid down of these things, nor are
they described as having a peculiar character of their own, and stamping
as religious those who act according to their injunctions. If, then,
religion, and piety, and righteousness belong to those things which are
so only by comparison, so that the same act may be both pious and
impious, according to different relations and different laws, see
whether it will not follow that temperance[937] also is a thing of
comparison, and courage as well, and prudence, and the other virtues,
than which nothing could be more absurd! What we have said, however, is
sufficient for the more general and simple class of answers to the
allegations of Celsus. But as we think it likely that some of those who
are accustomed to deeper investigation will fall in with this treatise,
let us venture to lay down some considerations of a profounder kind,
conveying a mystical and secret view respecting the original
distribution of the various quarters of the earth among different
superintending spirits; and let us prove to the best of our ability,
that our doctrine is free from the absurd consequences enumerated above.

Footnote 936:

  καταθοινᾶται.

Footnote 937:

  σωφροσύνη.




                             Chapter XXIX.


It appears to me, indeed, that Celsus has misunderstood some of the
deeper reasons relating to the arrangement of terrestrial affairs, some
of which are touched upon[938] even in Grecian history, when certain of
those who are considered to be gods are introduced as having contended
with each other about the possession of Attica; while in the writings of
the Greek poets also, some who are called gods are represented as
acknowledging that certain places here are preferred by them[939] before
others. The history of barbarian nations, moreover, and especially that
of Egypt, contains some such allusions to the division of the so-called
Egyptian nomes, when it states that Athena, who obtained Saïs by lot, is
the same who also has possession of Attica. And the learned among the
Egyptians can enumerate innumerable instances of this kind, although I
do not know whether they include the Jews and their country in this
division. And now, so far as testimonies outside the word of God bearing
on this point are concerned, enough have been adduced for the present.
We say, moreover, that our prophet of God and His genuine servant Moses,
in his song in the book of Deuteronomy, makes a statement regarding the
portioning out of the earth in the following terms: “When the Most High
divided the nations, when He dispersed the sons of Adam, He set the
bounds of the people according to the number of the angels of God; and
the Lord’s portion was His people Jacob, and Israel the cord of His
inheritance.”[940] And regarding the distribution of the nations, the
same Moses, in his work entitled Genesis, thus expresses himself in the
style of a historical narrative: “And the whole earth was of one
language and of one speech; and it came to pass, as they journeyed from
the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt
there.”[941] A little further on he continues: “And the Lord came down
to see the city and the tower, which the children of men had built. And
the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one
language; and this they have begun to do: and now nothing will be
restrained from them which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go
down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand
one another’s speech. And the Lord scattered them abroad from thence
upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city and
the tower. Therefore is the name of it called Confusion;[942] because
the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from
thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the
earth.”[943] In the treatise of Solomon, moreover, on “Wisdom,” and on
the events at the time of the confusion of languages, when the division
of the earth took place, we find the following regarding Wisdom:
“Moreover, the nations. in their wicked conspiracy being confounded, she
found out the righteous, and preserved him blameless unto God, and kept
him strong in his tender compassion towards his son.”[944] But on these
subjects much, and that of a mystical kind, might be said; in keeping
with which is the following: “It is good to keep close the secret of a
king,”[945]—in order that the doctrine of the entrance of souls into
bodies (not, however, that of the transmigration from one body into
another) may not be thrown before the common understanding, nor what is
holy given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine. For such a
procedure would be impious, being equivalent to a betrayal of the
mysterious declarations of God’s wisdom, of which it has been well said:
“Into a malicious soul wisdom shall not enter, nor dwell in a body
subject to sin.”[946] It is sufficient, however, to represent in the
style of a historic narrative what is intended to convey a secret
meaning in the garb of history, that those who have the capacity may
work out for themselves all that relates to the subject.

Footnote 938:

  ἐφάπτεται.

Footnote 939:

  οἰκειοτέρους.

Footnote 940:

  Cf. Deut. xxxii. 8, 9 (LXX.).

Footnote 941:

  Cf. Gen. xi. 1, 2.

Footnote 942:

  σύγχυσις.

Footnote 943:

  Cf. Gen. xi. 5-9.

Footnote 944:

  Cf. Wisd. of Sol. x. 5.

Footnote 945:

  Cf. Tobit xii. 7.

Footnote 946:

  Cf. Wisd. of Sol. i. 4.




                              Chapter XXX.


[The narrative, then, may be understood as follows.] All the people upon
the earth are to be regarded as having used one divine language, and so
long as they lived harmoniously together were preserved in the use of
this divine language, and they remained without moving from the east so
long as they were imbued with the sentiments of the “light,” and of the
“reflection” of the eternal light.[947] But when they departed from the
east, and began to entertain sentiments alien to those of the east,[948]
they found a place in the land of Shinar (which, when interpreted, means
“gnashing of teeth,” by way of indicating symbolically that they had
lost the means of their support), and in it they took up their abode.
Then, desiring to gather together material things,[949] and to join to
heaven what had no natural affinity for it, that by means of material
things they might conspire against such as were immaterial, they said,
“Come, let us make bricks, and burn them with fire.” Accordingly, when
they had hardened and compacted these materials of clay and matter, and
had shown their desire to make brick into stone, and clay into bitumen,
and by these means to build a city and a tower, the head of which was,
at least in their conception, to reach up to the heavens, after the
manner of the “high things which exalt themselves against the knowledge
of God,” each one was handed over (in proportion to the greater or less
departure from the east which had taken place among them, and in
proportion to the extent in which bricks had been converted into stones,
and clay into bitumen, and building carried on out of these materials)
to angels of character more or less severe, and of a nature more or less
stern, until they had paid the penalty of their daring deeds; and they
were conducted by those angels, who imprinted on each his native
language, to the different parts of the earth according to their
deserts: some, for example, to a region of burning heat, others to a
country which chastises its inhabitants by its cold; others, again, to a
land exceedingly difficult of cultivation, others to one less so in
degree; while a fifth were brought into a land filled with wild beasts,
and a sixth to a country comparatively free of these.

Footnote 947:

  ἐς ὅσον εἰσὶ τὰ τοῦ φωτὸς καὶ τοῦ ἀπὸ φωτὸς ἀϊδίου ἀπαυγάσματος
  φρονοῦντες.

Footnote 948:

  ἀλλότρια ἀνατολῶν φρονοῦντες.

Footnote 949:

  τὰ τῆς ὕλης.




                             Chapter XXXI.


Now, in the next place, if any one has the capacity, let him understand
that in what assumes the form of history, and which contains some things
that are literally true, while yet it conveys a deeper meaning, those
who preserved their original language continued, by reason of their not
having migrated from the east, in possession of the east, and of their
eastern language. And let him notice, that these alone became the
portion of the Lord, and His people who were called Jacob, and Israel
the cord of His inheritance; and these alone were governed by a ruler
who did not receive those who were placed under him for the purpose of
punishment, as was the case with the others. Let him also, who has the
capacity to perceive as far as mortals may, observe that in the body
politic[950] of those who were assigned to the Lord as His pre-eminent
portion, sins were committed, first of all, such as might be forgiven,
and of such a nature as not to make the sinner worthy of entire
desertion, while subsequently they became more numerous, though still of
a nature to be pardoned. And while remarking that this state of matters
continued for a considerable time, and that a remedy was always applied,
and that after certain intervals these persons returned to their duty,
let him notice that they were given over, in proportion to their
transgressions, to those to whom had been assigned the other quarters of
the earth; and that, after being at first slightly punished, and having
made atonement,[951] they returned, as if they had undergone
discipline,[952] to their proper habitations. Let him notice also that
afterwards they were delivered over to rulers of a severer character—to
Assyrians and Babylonians, as the Scriptures would call them. In the
next place, notwithstanding that means of healing were being applied,
let him observe that they were still multiplying their transgressions,
and that they were on that account dispersed into other regions by the
rulers of the nations that oppressed them. And their own ruler
intentionally overlooked their oppression at the hands of the rulers of
the other nations, in order that he also with good reason, as avenging
himself, having obtained power to tear away from the other nations as
many as he can, may do so, and enact for them laws, and point out a
manner of life agreeably to which they ought to live, that so he may
conduct them to the end to which those of the former people were
conducted who did not commit sin.

Footnote 950:

  πολιτείᾳ.

Footnote 951:

  καὶ τίσαντας δίκην.

Footnote 952:

  ὡσπερεὶ παιδευθέντας.




                             Chapter XXXII.


And by this means let those who have the capacity of comprehending
truths so profound, learn that he to whom were allotted those who had
not formerly sinned is far more powerful than the others, since he has
been able to make a selection of individuals from the portion of the
whole,[953] and to separate them from those who received them for the
purpose of punishment, and to bring them under the influence of laws,
and of a mode of life which helps to produce an oblivion of their former
transgressions. But, as we have previously observed, these remarks are
to be understood as being made by us with a concealed meaning, by way of
pointing out the mistakes of those who asserted that “the various
quarters of the earth were from the beginning distributed among
different superintending spirits, and being allotted among certain
governing powers, were administered in this way;” from which statement
Celsus took occasion to make the remarks referred to. But since those
who wandered away from the east were delivered over, on account of their
sins, to “a reprobate mind,” and to “vile affections,” and to
“uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts,”[954] in order that,
being sated with sin, they might hate it, we shall refuse our assent to
the assertion of Celsus, that “because of the superintending spirits
distributed among the different parts of the earth, what is done among
each nation is rightly done;” for our desire is to do what is _not_
agreeable to these spirits.[955] For we see that it is a religious act
to do away with the customs originally established in the various places
by means of laws of a better and more divine character, which were
enacted by Jesus, as one possessed of the greatest power, who has
rescued us “from the present evil world,” and “from the princes of the
world that come to nought;” and that it is a mark of irreligion not to
throw ourselves at the feet of Him who has manifested Himself to be
holier and more powerful than all other rulers, and to whom God said, as
the prophets many generations before predicted: “Ask of me, and I shall
give Thee the heathen for Thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of
the earth for Thy possession.”[956] For He, too, has become the
“expectation” of us who from among the heathen have believed upon Him,
and upon His Father, who is God over all things.

Footnote 953:

  ἀπὸ τῆς πάντων μερίδος.

Footnote 954:

  Cf. Rom. i. 24, 26, 28.

Footnote 955:

  ἀλλὰ καὶ βουλόμεθα, οὐχ ὅπη ᾖ ἐκείνοις φίλον, ποιεῖν τὰ ἐκείνων.

Footnote 956:

  Ps. ii. 8.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


The remarks which we have made not only answer the statements of Celsus
regarding the superintending spirits, but anticipate in some measure
what he afterwards brings forward, when he says: “Let the second party
come forward; and I shall ask them whence they come, and whom they
regard as the originator of their ancestral customs. They will reply, No
one, because they spring from the same source as the Jews themselves,
and derive their instruction and superintendence[957] from no other
quarter, and notwithstanding they have revolted from the Jews.” Each one
of us, then, is come “in the last days,” when one Jesus has visited us,
to the “visible mountain of the Lord,” the Word that is above every
word, and to the “house of God,” which is “the church of the living God,
the pillar and ground of the truth.”[958] And we notice how it is built
upon “the tops of the mountains,” _i.e._ the predictions of all the
prophets, which are its foundations. And this house is exalted above the
hills, _i.e._ those individuals among men who make a profession of
superior attainments in wisdom and truth; and all the nations come to
it, and the “many nations” go forth, and say to one another, turning to
the religion which in the last days has shone forth through Jesus
Christ: “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the
house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will
walk in them.”[959] For the law came forth from the dwellers in Sion,
and settled among us as a spiritual law. Moreover, the word of the Lord
came forth from that very Jerusalem, that it might be disseminated
through all places, and might judge in the midst of the heathen,
selecting those whom it sees to be submissive, and rejecting[960] the
disobedient, who are many in number. And to those who inquire of us
whence we come, or who is our founder,[961] we reply that we are come,
agreeably to the counsels of Jesus, to “cut down our hostile and
insolent ‘wordy’[962] swords into ploughshares, and to convert into
pruning-hooks the spears formerly employed in war.”[963] For we no
longer take up “sword against nation,” nor do we “learn war any more,”
having become children of peace, for the sake of Jesus, who is our
leader, instead of those whom our fathers followed, among whom we were
“strangers to the covenant,” and having received a law, for which we
give thanks to Him that rescued us from the error [of our ways], saying,
“Our fathers honoured lying idols, and there is not among them one that
causeth it to rain.”[964] Our Superintendent, then, and Teacher, having
come forth from the Jews, regulates the whole world by the word of His
teaching. And having made these remarks by way of anticipation, we have
refuted as well as we could the untrue statements of Celsus, by
subjoining the appropriate answer.

Footnote 957:

  χοροστάτην.

Footnote 958:

  Cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15.

Footnote 959:

  Cf. Isa. ii. 3.

Footnote 960:

  ἐλένχῃ.

Footnote 961:

  ἀρχηγέτην.

Footnote 962:

  συγκόψαι τὰς πολεμικὰς ἡμῶν λογικὰς μαχαίρας καὶ ὑβριστικὰς εἰς
  ἄροτρα, καὶ τὰς κατὰ τὸ πρότερον ἡμῶν μάχιμον ζιβύνας εἰς δρέπανα
  μετασκευάζομεν.

Footnote 963:

  Cf. Isa. ii. 4.

Footnote 964:

  Cf. Jer. xvi. 19 and xiv. 22: ὡς ψευδῆ ἐκτήσαντο οἱ πατέρες ἡμῶν
  εἴδωλα, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς ὑετίζων.




                             Chapter XXXIV.


But, that we may not pass without notice what Celsus has said between
these and the preceding paragraphs, let us quote his words: “We might
adduce Herodotus as a witness on this point, for he expresses himself as
follows: ‘For the people of the cities Marea and Apis, who inhabit those
parts of Egypt that are adjacent to Libya, and who look upon themselves
as Libyans, and not as Egyptians, finding their sacrificial worship
oppressive, and wishing not to be excluded from the use of cows’ flesh,
sent to the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, saying that there was no
relationship between them and the Egyptians, that they dwelt outside the
Delta, that there was no community of sentiment between them and the
Egyptians, and that they wished to be allowed to partake of all kinds of
food. But the god would not allow them to do as they desired, saying
that that country was a part of Egypt, which was watered by the
inundation of the Nile, and that those were Egyptians who dwell to the
south of the city of Elephantine, and drink of the river Nile.’[965]
Such is the narrative of Herodotus. But,” continues Celsus, “Ammon in
divine things would not make a worse ambassador than the angels of the
Jews,[966] so that there is nothing wrong in each nation observing its
established method of worship. Of a truth, we shall find very great
differences prevailing among the nations, and yet each seems to deem its
own by far the best. Those inhabitants of Ethiopia who dwell in Meroe
worship Jupiter and Bacchus alone; the Arabians, Urania and Bacchus
only; all the Egyptians, Osiris and Isis; the Saïtes, Minerva; while the
Naucratites have recently classed Serapis among their deities, and the
rest according to their respective laws. And some abstain from the flesh
of sheep, and others from that of crocodiles; others, again, from that
of cows, while they regard swine’s flesh with loathing. The Scythians,
indeed, regard it as a noble act to banquet upon human beings. Among the
Indians, too, there are some who deem themselves discharging a holy duty
in eating their fathers, and this is mentioned in a certain passage by
Herodotus. For the sake of credibility, I shall again quote his very
words, for he writes as follows: ‘For if any one were to make this
proposal to all men, viz. to bid him select out of all existing laws the
best, each would choose, after examination, those of his own country.
Men each consider their own laws much the best, and therefore it is not
likely that any other than a madman would make these things a subject of
ridicule. But that such are the conclusions of all men regarding the
laws, may be determined by many other evidences, and especially by the
following illustration. Darius, during his reign, having summoned before
him those Greeks who happened to be present at the time, inquired of
them for how much they would be willing to eat their deceased fathers;
their answer was, that for no consideration would they do such a thing.
After this, Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatians, who
are in the habit of eating their parents, and asked of them in the
presence of these Greeks, who learned what passed through an
interpreter, for what amount of money they would undertake to burn their
deceased fathers with fire; on which they raised a loud shout, and bade
the king say no more.’[967] Such is the way, then, in which these
matters are regarded. And Pindar appears to me to be right in saying
that ‘law’ is the king of all things.”[968]

Footnote 965:

  Cf. Herodot. ii. 18.

Footnote 966:

  ὁ δὲ Ἄμμων οὐδέν τι κακίων διαπρεσβεῦσαι τὰ δαιμόνια, ἢ οἱ Ἰουδαίων
  ἄγγελοι.

Footnote 967:

  εὐφημεῖν μὲν ἐκέλευον.

Footnote 968:

  Cf. Herodot. iii. 38.




                             Chapter XXXV.


The argument of Celsus appears to point by these illustrations to this
conclusion: that it is “an obligation incumbent on all men to live
according to their country’s customs, in which case they will escape
censure; whereas the Christians, who have abandoned their native usages,
and who are not one nation like the Jews, are to be blamed for giving
their adherence to the teaching of Jesus.” Let him then tell us whether
it is a becoming thing for philosophers, and those who have been taught
not to yield to superstition, to abandon their country’s customs, so as
to eat of those articles of food which are prohibited in their
respective cities? or whether this proceeding of theirs is opposed to
what is becoming? For if, on account of their philosophy, and the
instructions which they have received against superstition, they should
eat, in disregard of their native laws, what was interdicted by their
fathers, why should the Christians (since the gospel requires _them_ not
to busy themselves about statues and images, or even about any of the
created works of God, but to ascend on high, and present the soul to the
Creator), when acting in a similar manner to the philosophers, be
censured for so doing? But if, for the sake of defending the theses
which he has proposed to himself, Celsus, or those who think with him,
should say, that even one who had studied philosophy would keep his
country’s laws, then philosophers in Egypt, for example, would act most
ridiculously in avoiding the eating of onions, in order to observe their
country’s laws, or certain parts of the body, as the head and shoulders,
in order not to transgress the traditions of their fathers. And I do not
speak of those Egyptians who shudder with fear at the discharge of wind
from the body, because if any one of these were to become a philosopher,
and still observe the laws of his country, he would be a ridiculous
philosopher, acting very unphilosophically.[969] In the same way, then,
he who has been led by the gospel to worship the God of all things, and,
from regard to his country’s laws, lingers here below among images and
statues of men, and does not desire to ascend to the Creator, will
resemble those who have indeed learned philosophy, but who are afraid of
things which ought to inspire no terrors, and who regard it as an act of
impiety to eat of those things which have been enumerated.

Footnote 969:

  γέλοιος ἂν εἴη φιλόσοφος ἀφιλόσοφα πράττων.




                             Chapter XXXVI.


But what sort of being is this Ammon of Herodotus, whose words Celsus
has quoted, as if by way of demonstrating how each one ought to keep his
country’s laws? For this Ammon would not allow the people of the cities
of Marea and Apis, who inhabit the districts adjacent to Libya, to treat
as a matter of indifference the use of cows’ flesh, which is a thing not
only indifferent in its own nature, but which does not prevent a man
from being noble and virtuous. If Ammon, then, forbade the use of cows’
flesh, because of the advantage which results from the use of the animal
in the cultivation of the ground, and in addition to this, because it is
by the female that the breed is increased, the account would possess
more plausibility. But now he simply requires that those who drink of
the Nile should observe the laws of the Egyptians regarding kine. And
hereupon Celsus, taking occasion to pass a jest upon the employment of
the angels among the Jews as the ambassadors of God, says that “Ammon
did not make a worse ambassador of divine things than did the angels of
the Jews,” into the meaning of whose words and manifestations he
instituted no investigation; otherwise he would have seen, that it is
not for oxen that God is concerned, even where He may appear to
legislate for them, or for irrational animals, but that what is written
for the sake of men, under the appearance of relating to irrational
animals, contains certain truths of nature.[970] Celsus, moreover, says
that no wrong is committed by any one who wishes to observe the
religious worship sanctioned by the laws of his country; and it follows,
according to his view, that the Scythians commit no wrong, when, in
conformity with their country’s laws, they eat human beings. And those
Indians who eat their own fathers are considered, according to Celsus,
to do a religious, or at least not a wicked act. He adduces, indeed, a
statement of Herodotus which favours the principle that each one ought,
from a sense of what is becoming, to obey his country’s laws; and he
appears to approve of the custom of those Indians called Callatians, who
in the time of Darius devoured their parents, since, on Darius inquiring
for how great a sum of money they would be willing to lay aside this
usage, they raised a loud shout, and bade the king say no more.

Footnote 970:

  φυσιολογίαν.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


As there are, then, generally two laws presented to us, the one being
the law of nature, of which God would be the legislator, and the other
being the written law of cities, it is a proper thing, when the written
law is not opposed to that of God, for the citizens not to abandon it
under pretext of foreign customs; but when the law of nature, that is,
the law of God, commands what is opposed to the written law, observe
whether reason will not tell us to bid a long farewell to the written
code, and to the desire of its legislators, and to give ourselves up to
the legislator God, and to choose a life agreeable to His word, although
in doing so it may be necessary to encounter dangers, and countless
labours, and even death and dishonour. For when there are some laws in
harmony with the will of God, which are opposed to others which are in
force in cities, and when it is impracticable to please God (and those
who administer laws of the kind referred to), it would be absurd to
contemn those acts by means of which we may please the Creator of all
things, and to select those by which we shall become displeasing to God,
though we may satisfy unholy laws, and those who love them. But since it
is reasonable in other matters to prefer the law of nature, which is the
law of God, before the written law, which has been enacted by men in a
spirit of opposition to the law of God, why should we not do this still
more in the case of those laws which relate to God? Neither shall we,
like the Ethiopians who inhabit the parts about Meroe, worship, as is
their pleasure, Jupiter and Bacchus only; nor shall we at all reverence
Ethiopian gods in the Ethiopian manner; nor, like the Arabians, shall we
regard Urania and Bacchus alone as divinities; nor in any degree at all
deities in which the difference of sex has been a ground of distinction
(as among the Arabians, who worship Urania as a female, and Bacchus as a
male deity); nor shall we, like all the Egyptians, regard Osiris and
Isis as gods; nor shall we enumerate Athena among these, as the Saïtes
are pleased to do. And if to the ancient inhabitants of Naucratis it
seemed good to worship other divinities, while their modern descendants
have begun quite recently to pay reverence to Serapis, who never was a
god at all, we shall not on that account assert that a new being who was
not formerly a god, nor at all known to men, is a deity. For the Son of
God, “the First-born of all creation,” although He seemed recently to
have become incarnate, is not by any means on that account recent. For
the Holy Scriptures know Him to be the most ancient of all the works of
creation;[971] for it was to Him that God said regarding the creation of
man, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.”[972]

Footnote 971:

  πρεσβύτατον πάντων τῶν δημιουργημάτων.

Footnote 972:

  Cf. Gen. i. 26.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


I wish, however, to show how Celsus asserts without any good reason,
that each one reveres his domestic and native institutions. For he
declares that “those Ethiopians who inhabit Meroe know only of two gods,
Jupiter and Bacchus, and worship these alone; and that the Arabians also
know only of two, viz. Bacchus, who is also an Ethiopian deity, and
Urania, whose worship is confined to them.” According to his account,
neither do the Ethiopians worship Urania, nor the Arabians Jupiter. If,
then, an Ethiopian were from any accident to fall into the hands of the
Arabians, and were to be judged guilty of impiety because he did not
worship Urania, and for this reason should incur the danger of death,
would it be proper for the Ethiopian to die, or to act contrary to his
country’s laws, and do obeisance to Urania? Now, if it would be proper
for him to act contrary to the laws of his country, he will do what is
not right, so far as the language of Celsus is any standard; while, if
he should be led away to death, let him show the reasonableness of
selecting such a fate. I know not whether, if the Ethiopian doctrine
taught men to philosophize on the immortality of the soul, and the
honour which is paid to religion, they would reverence those as deities
who are deemed to be such by the laws of the country.[973] A similar
illustration may be employed in the case of the Arabians, if from any
accident they happened to visit the Ethiopians about Meroe. For, having
been taught to worship Urania and Bacchus alone, they will not worship
Jupiter along with the Ethiopians; and if, adjudged guilty of impiety,
they should be led away to death, let Celsus tell us what it would be
reasonable on their part to do. And with regard to the fables which
relate to Osiris and Isis, it is superfluous and out of place at present
to enumerate them. For although an allegorical meaning may be given to
the fables, they will nevertheless teach us to offer divine worship to
cold water, and to the earth, which is subject to men, and all the
animal creation. For in this way, I presume, they refer Osiris to water,
and Isis to earth; while with regard to Serapis the accounts are
numerous and conflicting, to the effect that very recently he appeared
in public, agreeably to certain juggling tricks performed at the desire
of Ptolemy, who wished to show to the people of Alexandria as it were a
visible god. And we have read in the writings of Numenius the
Pythagorean regarding his formation, that he partakes of the essence of
all the animals and plants that are under the control of nature, that he
may appear to have been fashioned into a god, not by the makers of
images alone, with the aid of profane mysteries, and juggling tricks
employed to invoke demons, but also by magicians and sorcerers, and
those demons who are bewitched by their incantations.[974]

Footnote 973:

  This sentence is regarded by Guietus as an interpolation, which should
  be struck out of the text.

Footnote 974:

  ἵνα δόξῃ μετὰ τῶν ἀτελέστων τελετῶν, καὶ τῶν καλουσῶν δαίμονας
  μαγγανειῶν, οὐχ ὑπὸ ἀγαλματοποιῶν μόνων κατασκευάζεσθαι θεὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ
  ὑπὸ μάγων, καὶ φαρμακῶν, καὶ τῶν ἐπῳδαῖς αὐτῶν κηλουμένων δαιμόνων.




                             Chapter XXXIX.


We must therefore inquire what may be fittingly eaten or not by the
rational and gentle[975] animal, which acts always in conformity with
reason; and not worship at random, sheep, or goats, or kine; to abstain
from which is an act of moderation,[976] for much advantage is derived
by men from these animals. Whereas, is it not the most foolish of all
things to spare crocodiles, and to treat _them_ as sacred to some
fabulous divinity or other? For it is a mark of exceeding stupidity to
spare those animals which do not spare us, and to bestow care on those
which make a prey of human beings. But Celsus approves of those who, in
keeping with the laws of their country, worship and tend crocodiles, and
not a word does he say against them, while the Christians appear
deserving of censure, who have been taught to loath evil, and to turn
away from wicked works, and to reverence and honour virtue as being
generated by God, and as being His Son. For we must not, on account of
their feminine name and nature, regard wisdom and righteousness as
females;[977] for these things are in our view the Son of God, as His
genuine disciple has shown, when he said of Him, “Who of God is made to
us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”[978]
And although we may call Him a “second” God, let men know that by the
term “second God” we mean nothing else than a virtue capable of
including all other virtues, and a reason capable of containing all
reason whatsoever which exists in all things, which have arisen
naturally, directly, and for the general advantage, and which “reason,”
we say, dwelt in the soul of Jesus, and was united to Him in a degree
far above all other souls, seeing He alone was enabled completely to
receive the highest share in the absolute reason, and the absolute
wisdom, and the absolute righteousness.

Footnote 975:

  ἡμέρῳ.

Footnote 976:

  μέτριον.

Footnote 977:

  οὐ γὰρ παρὰ τὸ θηλυκὸν ὄνομα, καὶ τῇ οὐσίᾳ θήλειαν νομιστέον εἶναι τὴν
  σοφίαν, καὶ τὴν δικαιοσύνην.

Footnote 978:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 30.




                              Chapter XL.


But since, after Celsus had spoken to the above effect of the different
kinds of laws, he adds the following remark, “Pindar appears to me to be
correct in saying that law is king of all things,” let us proceed to
discuss this assertion. What law do you mean to say, good sir, is “king
of all things?” If you mean those which exist in the various cities,
then such an assertion is not true. For all men are not governed by the
same law. You ought to have said that “laws are kings of all men,” for
in every nation some law is king of all. But if you mean that which is
law in the proper sense, then it is this which is by nature “king of all
things;” although there are some individuals who, having like robbers
abandoned the law, deny its validity, and live lives of violence and
injustice. We Christians, then, who have come to the knowledge of the
law which is by nature “king of all things,” and which is the same with
the law of God, endeavour to regulate our lives by its prescriptions,
having bidden a long farewell to those of an unholy kind.




                              Chapter XLI.


Let us notice the charges which are next advanced by Celsus, in which
there is exceedingly little that has reference to the Christians, as
most of them refer to the Jews. His words are: “If, then, in these
respects the Jews were carefully to preserve their own law, they are not
to be blamed for so doing, but those persons rather who have forsaken
their own usages, and adopted those of the Jews. And if they pride
themselves on it, as being possessed of superior wisdom, and keep aloof
from intercourse with others, as not being equally pure with themselves,
they have already heard that their doctrine concerning heaven is not
peculiar to them, but, to pass by all others, is one which has long ago
been received by the Persians, as Herodotus somewhere mentions. ‘For
they have a custom,’ he says, ‘of going up to the tops of the mountains,
and of offering sacrifices to Jupiter, giving the name of Jupiter to the
whole circle of the heavens.’[979] And I think,” continues Celsus, “that
it makes no difference whether you call the highest being Zeus, or Zen,
or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or Ammoun like the Egyptians, or Pappæus like the
Scythians. Nor would they be deemed at all holier than others in this
respect, that they observe the rite of circumcision, for this was done
by the Egyptians and Colchians before them; nor because they abstain
from swine’s flesh, for the Egyptians practised abstinence not only from
it, but from the flesh of goats, and sheep, and oxen, and fishes as
well; while Pythagoras and his disciples do not eat beans, nor anything
that contains life. It is not probable, however, that they enjoy God’s
favour, or are loved by Him differently from others, or that angels were
sent from heaven to them alone, as if they had had allotted to them
‘some region of the blessed,’[980] for we see both themselves and the
country of which they were deemed worthy. Let this band,[981] then, take
its departure, after paying the penalty of its vaunting, not having a
knowledge of the great God, but being led away and deceived by the
artifices of Moses, having become his pupil to no good end.”

Footnote 979:

  Cf. Herodot. i. 135.

Footnote 980:

  οἷον δή τινα μακάρων χώραν λαχοῦσιν.

Footnote 981:

  χορός.




                             Chapter XLII.


It is evident that, by the preceding remarks, Celsus charges the Jews
with falsely giving themselves out as the chosen portion of the Supreme
God above all other nations. And he accuses them of boasting, because
they gave out that they knew the great God, although they did not really
know Him, but were led away by the artifices of Moses, and were deceived
by him, and became his disciples to no good end. Now we have in the
preceding pages already spoken in part of the venerable and
distinguished polity of the Jews, when it existed amongst them as a
symbol of the city of God, and of His temple, and of the sacrificial
worship offered in it and at the altar of sacrifice. But if any one were
to turn his attention to the meaning of the legislator, and to the
constitution which he established, and were to examine the various
points relating to him, and compare them with the present method of
worship among other nations, there are none which he would admire to a
greater degree; because, so far as can be accomplished among mortals,
everything that was not of advantage to the human race was withheld from
them, and only those things which are useful bestowed. And for this
reason they had neither gymnastic contests, nor scenic representations,
nor horse-races; nor were there among them women who sold their beauty
to any one who wished to have sexual intercourse without offspring, and
to cast contempt upon the nature of human generation. And what an
advantage was it to be taught from their tender years to ascend above
all visible nature, and to hold the belief that God was not fixed
anywhere within its limits, but to look for Him on high, and beyond the
sphere of all bodily substance![982] And how great was the advantage
which they enjoyed in being instructed almost from their birth, and as
soon as they could speak,[983] in the immortality of the soul, and in
the existence of courts of justice under the earth, and in the rewards
provided for those who have lived righteous lives! These truths, indeed,
were proclaimed in the veil of fable to children, and to those whose
views of things were childish; while to those who were already occupied
in investigating the truth, and desirous of making progress therein,
these fables, so to speak, were transfigured into the truths which were
concealed within them. And I consider that it was in a manner worthy of
their name as the “portion of God” that they despised all kinds of
divination, as that which bewitches men to no purpose, and which
proceeds rather from wicked demons than from anything of a better
nature; and sought the knowledge of future events in the souls of those
who, owing to their high degree of purity, received the spirit of the
Supreme God.

Footnote 982:

  ὑπὲρ τὰ σώματα.

Footnote 983:

  συμπληρώσει τοῦ λόγου.




                             Chapter XLIII.


But what need is there to point out how agreeable to sound reason, and
unattended with injury either to master or slave, was the law that one
of the same faith[984] should not be allowed to continue in slavery more
than six years?[985] The Jews, then, cannot be said to preserve their
own law in the same points with the other nations. For it would be
censurable in them, and would involve a charge of insensibility to the
superiority of their law, if they were to believe that they had been
legislated for in the same way as the other nations among the heathen.
And although Celsus will not admit it, the Jews nevertheless _are_
possessed of a wisdom superior not only to that of the multitude, but
also of those who have the appearance of philosophers; because those who
engage in philosophical pursuits, after the utterance of the most
venerable philosophical sentiments, fall away into the worship of idols
and demons, whereas the very lowest Jew directs his look to the Supreme
God alone; and they do well, indeed, so far as this point is concerned,
to pride themselves thereon, and to keep aloof from the society of
others as accursed and impious. And would that they had not sinned, and
transgressed the law, and slain the prophets in former times, and in
these latter days conspired against Jesus, that we might be in
possession of a pattern of a heavenly city which even Plato would have
sought to describe; although I doubt whether he could have accomplished
as much as was done by Moses and those who followed him, who nourished a
“chosen generation,” and “a holy nation,” dedicated to God, with words
free from all superstition.

Footnote 984:

  τὸν ἀπὸ τῶν αὐτῶν ὁρώμενον δογμάτων.

Footnote 985:

  Cf. Ex. xxi. 2 and Jer. xxxiv. 14.




                             Chapter XLIV.


But as Celsus would compare the venerable customs of the Jews with the
laws of certain nations, let us proceed to look at them. He is of
opinion, accordingly, that there is no difference between the doctrine
regarding “heaven” and that regarding “God;” and he says that “the
Persians, like the Jews, offer sacrifices to Jupiter upon the tops of
the mountains,”—not observing that, as the Jews were acquainted with one
God, so they had only one holy house of prayer, and one altar of whole
burnt-offerings, and one censer for incense, and one high priest of God.
The Jews, then, had nothing in common with the Persians, who ascend the
summits of their mountains, which are many in number, and offer up
sacrifices which have nothing in common with those which are regulated
by the Mosaic code,—in conformity to which the Jewish priests “served
unto the example and shadow of heavenly things,” explaining
enigmatically the object of the law regarding the sacrifices, and the
things of which these sacrifices were the symbols. The Persians
therefore may call the “whole circle of heaven” Jupiter; but we maintain
that “the heaven” is neither Jupiter nor God, as we indeed know that
certain beings of a class inferior to God have ascended above the
heavens and all visible nature: and in this sense we understand the
words, “Praise God, ye heaven of heavens, and ye waters that be above
the heavens; let them praise the name of the Lord.”[986]

Footnote 986:

  Cf. Ps. cxlviii. 4, 5.




                              Chapter XLV.


As Celsus, however, is of opinion that it matters nothing whether the
highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth, or
Ammoun (as the Egyptians term him), or Pappæus (as the Scythians entitle
him), let us discuss the point for a little, reminding the reader at the
same time of what has been said above upon this question, when the
language of Celsus led us to consider the subject. And now we maintain
that the nature of names is not, as Aristotle supposes, an enactment of
those who impose them.[987] For the languages which are prevalent among
men do not derive their origin from men, as is evident to those who are
able to ascertain the nature of the charms which are appropriated by the
inventors of the languages differently, according to the various
tongues, and to the varying pronunciations of the names, on which we
have spoken briefly in the preceding pages, remarking that when those
names which in a certain language were possessed of a natural power were
translated into another, they were no longer able to accomplish what
they did before when uttered in their native tongues. And the same
peculiarity is found to apply to men; for if we were to translate the
name of one who was called from his birth by a certain appellation in
the Greek language into the Egyptian or Roman, or any other tongue, we
could not make him do or suffer the same things which he would have done
or suffered under the appellation first bestowed upon him. Nay, even if
we translated into the Greek language the name of an individual who had
been originally invoked in the Roman tongue, we could not produce the
result which the incantation professed itself capable of accomplishing
had it preserved the name first conferred upon him. And if these
statements are true when spoken of the names of _men_, what are we to
think of those which are transferred, for any cause whatever, to the
_Deity_? For example, something is transferred[988] from the name
Abraham when translated into Greek, and something is signified by that
of Isaac, and also by that of Jacob; and accordingly, if any one, either
in an invocation or in swearing an oath, were to use the expression,
“the God of Abraham,” and “the God of Isaac,” and “the God of Jacob,” he
would produce certain effects, either owing to the nature of these names
or to their powers, since even demons are vanquished and become
submissive to him who pronounces these names; whereas if we say, “the
god of the chosen father of the echo, and the god of laughter, and the
god of him who strikes with the heel,”[989] the mention of the name is
attended with no result, as is the case with other names possessed of no
power. And in the same way, if we translate the word “Israel” into Greek
or any other language, we shall produce no result; but if we retain it
as it is, and join it to those expressions to which such as are skilled
in these matters think it ought to be united, there would then follow
some result from the pronunciation of the word which would accord with
the professions of those who employ such invocations. And we may say the
same also of the pronunciation of “Sabaoth,” a word which is frequently
employed in incantations; for if we translate the term into “Lord of
hosts,” or “Lord of armies,” or “Almighty” (different acceptations of it
having been proposed by the interpreters), we shall accomplish nothing;
whereas if we retain the original pronunciation, we shall, as those who
are skilled in such matters maintain, produce some effect. And the same
observation holds good of Adonai. If, then, neither “Sabaoth” nor
“Adonai,” when rendered into what appears to be their meaning in the
Greek tongue, can accomplish anything, how much less would be the result
among those who regard it as a matter of indifference whether the
highest being be called Jupiter, or Zen, or Adonai, or Sabaoth!

Footnote 987:

  ὅτι ἡ τῶν ὀνομάτων φύσις οὐ θεμένων εἰσὶ νόμοι.

Footnote 988:

  μεταλαμβάνεται γάρ τι, φερ’ εἰπεῖν. In the editions of Hœschel and
  Spencer, τι is wanting.

Footnote 989:

  ὁ θεὸς πατρὸς ἐκλεκτοῦ τῆς ἠχοῦς, καὶ ὁ θεὸς τοῦ γέλωτος, καὶ ὁ θεὸς
  τοῦ πτερνιστοῦ. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.




                             Chapter XLVI.


It was for these and similar mysterious reasons, with which Moses and
the prophets were acquainted, that they forbade the name of other gods
to be pronounced by him who bethought himself of praying to the one
Supreme God alone, or to be remembered by a heart which had been taught
to be pure from all foolish thoughts and words. And for these reasons we
should prefer to endure all manner of suffering rather than acknowledge
Jupiter to be God. For we do not consider Jupiter and Sabaoth to be the
same, nor Jupiter to be at all divine, but that some demon, unfriendly
to men and to the true God, rejoices under this title.[990] And although
the Egyptians were to hold Ammon before us under threat of death, we
would rather die than address him as God, it being a name used in all
probability in certain Egyptian incantations in which this demon is
invoked. And although the Scythians may call Pappæus the supreme God,
yet we will not yield our assent to this; granting, indeed, that there
_is_ a Supreme Deity, although we do not give the name Pappæus to Him as
His proper title, but regard it as one which is agreeable to the demon
to whom was allotted the desert of Scythia, with its people and its
language. He, however, who gives God His title in the Scythian tongue,
or in the Egyptian or in any language in which he has been brought up,
will not be guilty of sin.

Footnote 990:

  δαίμονα δέ τινα χαίρειν οὕτως ὀνομαζόμενον.




                             Chapter XLVII.


Now the reason why circumcision is practised among the Jews is not the
same as that which explains its existence among the Egyptians and
Colchians, and therefore it is not to be considered the same
circumcision. And as he who sacrifices does not sacrifice to the same
god, although he appears to perform the rite of sacrifice in a similar
manner, and he who offers up prayer does not pray to the same divinity,
although he asks the same things in his supplication; so, in the same
way, if one performs the rite of circumcision, it by no means follows
that it is not a different act from the circumcision performed upon
another. For the purpose, and the law, and the wish of him who performs
the rite, place the act in a different category. But that the whole
subject may be still better understood, we have to remark that the term
for “righteousness”[991] is the same among all the Greeks; but
righteousness is shown to be one thing according to the view of
Epicurus; and another according to the Stoics, who deny the threefold
division of the soul; and a different thing again according to the
followers of Plato, who hold that righteousness is the proper business
of the parts of the soul.[992] And so also the “courage”[993] of
Epicurus is one thing, who would undergo some labours in order to escape
from a greater number; and a different thing that of the philosopher of
the Porch, who would choose all virtue for its own sake; and a different
thing still that of Plato, who maintains that virtue itself is the act
of the irascible part of the soul, and who assigns to it a place about
the breast.[994] And so circumcision will be a different thing according
to the varying opinions of those who undergo it. But on such a subject
it is unnecessary to speak on this occasion in a treatise like the
present; for whoever desires to see what led us to the subject, can read
what we have said upon it in the Epistle of Paul to the Romans.

Footnote 991:

  δικαιοσύνη.

Footnote 992:

  ἰδιοπραγίαν τῶν μερῶν τῆς ψυχῆς.

Footnote 993:

  ἀνδρεία.

Footnote 994:

  τοῦ θυμικοῦ μέρους τῆς ψυχῆς φάσκοντος αὐτὸ εἶναι ἀρετὴν, καὶ
  ἀποτάσσοντος αὐτῇ τόπον τὸν περὶ τὸν θωράκα.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


Although the Jews, then, pride themselves on circumcision, they will
separate it not only from that of the Colchians and Egyptians, but also
from that of the Arabian Ishmaelites; and yet the latter was derived
from their ancestor Abraham, the father of Ishmael, who underwent the
rite of circumcision along with his father. The Jews say that the
circumcision performed on the eighth day is the principal circumcision,
and that which is performed according to circumstances is different; and
probably it was performed on account of the hostility of some angel
towards the Jewish nation, who had the power to injure such of them as
were not circumcised, but was powerless against those who had undergone
the rite. This may be said to appear from what is written in the book of
Exodus, where the angel before the circumcision of Eliezer[995] was able
to work against[996] Moses, but could do nothing after his son was
circumcised. And when Zipporah had learned this, she took a pebble and
circumcised her child, and is recorded, according to the reading of the
common copies, to have said, “The blood of my child’s circumcision is
stayed,” but according to the Hebrew text, “A bloody husband art thou to
me.”[997] For she had known the story about a certain angel having power
before the shedding of the blood, but who became powerless through the
blood of circumcision. For which reason the words were addressed to
Moses, “A bloody husband art thou to me.” But these things, which appear
rather of a curious nature, and not level to the comprehension of the
multitude, I have ventured to treat at such length; and now I shall only
add, as becomes a Christian, one thing more, and shall then pass on to
what follows. For this angel might have had power, I think, over those
of the people who were not circumcised, and generally over all who
worshipped only the Creator; and this power lasted so long as Jesus had
not assumed a human body. But when He had done this, and had undergone
the rite of circumcision in His own person, all the power of the angel
over those who practise the same worship, but are not circumcised,[998]
was abolished; for Jesus reduced it to nought by [the power of] His
unspeakable divinity. And therefore His disciples are forbidden to
circumcise themselves, and are reminded [by the apostle]: “If ye be
circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.”[999]

Footnote 995:

  Cf. Ex. iv. 24, 25. Eliezer was one of the two sons of Moses. Cf. Ex.
  xviii. 4.

Footnote 996:

  ἐνεργεῖν κατὰ Μωϋσέως.

Footnote 997:

  Cf. Ex. iv. 25, 26.

Footnote 998:

  κατὰ τῶν ἐν τῇ θεοσεβείᾳ ταύτῃ περιτεμνομένων δύναμις. Boherellus
  inserts μὴ before περιτεμνομένων, which has been adopted in the text.

Footnote 999:

  Gal. v. 2.




                             Chapter XLIX.


But neither do the Jews pride themselves upon abstaining from swine’s
flesh, as if it were some great thing; but upon their having ascertained
the nature of clean and unclean animals, and the cause of the
distinction, and of swine being classed among the unclean. And these
distinctions were signs of certain things until the advent of Jesus;
after whose coming it was said to His disciple, who did not yet
comprehend the doctrine concerning these matters, but who said, “Nothing
that is common or unclean hath entered into my mouth,”[1000] “What God
hath cleansed, call not thou common.” It therefore in no way affects
either the Jews or us that the Egyptian priests abstain not only from
the flesh of swine, but also from that of goats, and sheep, and oxen,
and fish. But since it is not that “which entereth into the mouth that
defiles a man,” and since “meat does not commend us to God,” we do not
set great store on refraining from eating, nor yet are we induced to eat
from a gluttonous appetite. And therefore, so far as we are concerned,
the followers of Pythagoras, who abstain from all things that contain
life, may do as they please; only observe the different reason for
abstaining from things that have life on the part of the Pythagoreans
and our ascetics. For the former abstain on account of the fable about
the transmigration of souls, as the poet says:

            “And some one, lifting up his beloved son,
            Will slay him after prayer; O how foolish he!”[1001]

We, however, when we do abstain, do so because “we keep under our body,
and bring it into subjection,”[1002] and desire “to mortify our members
that are upon the earth, fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection,
evil concupiscence;”[1003] and we use every effort to “mortify the deeds
of the flesh.”[1004]

Footnote 1000:

  Cf. Acts x. 14.

Footnote 1001:

  A quotation:

                       καί τις φίλον υἱὸν ἀείρας,
                       σφάξει ἐπευχόμενος μέγα νήπιος.

  —A verse of Empedocles, quoted by Plutarch, _de Superstitione_, c.
  xii. Spencer. Cf. note _in loc._ in Benedictine edition.

Footnote 1002:

  Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27.

Footnote 1003:

  Cf. Col. iii. 5.

Footnote 1004:

  Cf. Rom. viii. 13.




                               Chapter L.


Celsus, still expressing his opinion regarding the Jews, says: “It is
not probable that they are in great favour with God, or are regarded by
Him with more affection than others, or that angels are sent by Him to
them alone, as if to them had been allotted some region of the blessed.
For we may see both the people themselves, and the country of which they
were deemed worthy.” We shall refute this, by remarking that it is
evident that this nation _was_ in great favour with God, from the fact
that the God who presides over all things was called the God of the
Hebrews, even by those who were aliens to our faith. And because they
were in favour with God, they were not abandoned by Him;[1005] but
although few in number, they continued to enjoy the protection of the
divine power, so that in the reign of Alexander of Macedon they
sustained no injury from him, although they refused, on account of
certain covenants and oaths, to take up arms against Darius. They say
that on that occasion the Jewish high priest, clothed in his sacred
robe, received obeisance from Alexander, who declared that he had beheld
an individual arrayed in this fashion, who announced to him in his sleep
that he was to be the subjugator of the whole of Asia. Accordingly, we
Christians maintain that “it was the fortune of that people in a
remarkable degree to enjoy God’s favour, and to be loved by Him in a way
different from others;” but that this economy of things and this divine
favour were transferred to us, after Jesus had conveyed the power which
had been manifested among the Jews to those who had become converts to
Him from among the heathen. And for this reason, although the Romans
desired to perpetrate many atrocities against the Christians, in order
to ensure their extermination, they were unsuccessful; for there was a
divine hand which fought on their behalf, and whose desire it was that
the word of God should spread from one corner of the land of Judea
throughout the whole human race.

Footnote 1005:

  καὶ ὡς εὐδοκιμοῦντες γε ὅσον οὐκ ἐγκατελείποντο. The negative particle
  (οὐκ) is wanting in the editions of Hœschel and Spencer, but is found
  in the Royal, Basil, and Vatican MSS. Guietus would delete ὅσον (which
  emendation has been adopted in the translation), while Boherellus
  would read ὅσοι instead.—RUÆUS.




                              Chapter LI.


But seeing that we have answered to the best of our ability the charges
brought by Celsus against the Jews and their doctrine, let us proceed to
consider what follows, and to prove that it is no empty boast on our
part when we make a profession of knowing the great God, and that we
have not been led away by any juggling tricks[1006] of Moses (as Celsus
imagines), or even of our own Saviour Jesus; but that for a good end we
listen to the God who speaks in Moses, and have accepted Jesus, whom he
testifies to be God, as the Son of God, in hope of receiving the best
rewards if we regulate our lives according to His word. And we shall
willingly pass over what we have already stated by way of anticipation
on the points, “whence we came, and who is our leader, and what law
proceeded from Him.” And if Celsus would maintain that there is no
difference between us and the Egyptians, who worship the goat, or the
ram, or the crocodile, or the ox, or the river-horse, or the dog-faced
baboon,[1007] or the cat, he can ascertain if it be so, and so may any
other who thinks alike on the subject. We, however, have to the best of
our ability defended ourselves at great length in the preceding pages on
the subject of the honour which we render to our Jesus, pointing out
that we have found the better part;[1008] and that in showing that the
truth which is contained in the teaching of Jesus Christ is pure and
unmixed with error, we are not commending ourselves, but our Teacher, to
whom testimony was borne through many witnesses by the Supreme God and
the prophetic writings among the Jews, and by the very clearness of the
case itself, for it is demonstrated that He could not have accomplished
such mighty works without the divine help.

Footnote 1006:

  γοητείᾳ.

Footnote 1007:

  τὸν κυνοκέφαλον.

Footnote 1008:

  ὅτι κρεῖττον εὕρομεν.




                              Chapter LII.


But the statement of Celsus which we wish to examine at present is the
following: “Let us then pass over the refutations which might be adduced
against the claims of their teacher, and let him be regarded as really
an angel. But is he the first and only one who came [to men], or were
there others before him? If they should say that he is the only one,
they would be convicted of telling lies against themselves. For they
assert that on many occasions others came, and sixty or seventy of them
together, and that these became wicked, and were cast under the earth
and punished with chains, and that from this source originate the warm
springs, which are their tears; and, moreover, that there came an angel
to the tomb of this said being—according to some, indeed, one, but
according to others, two—who answered the women that he had arisen. For
the Son of God could not himself, as it seems, open the tomb, but needed
the help of another to roll away the stone. And again, on account of the
pregnancy of Mary, there came an angel to the carpenter, and once more
another angel, in order that they might take up the young child and flee
away [into Egypt]. But what need is there to particularize everything,
or to count up the number of angels said to have been sent to Moses, and
others amongst them? If, then, others were sent, it is manifest that he
also came from the same God. But he may be supposed to have the
appearance of announcing something of greater importance [than those who
preceded him], as if the Jews had been committing sin, or corrupting
their religion, or doing deeds of impiety; for these things are
obscurely hinted at.”




                             Chapter LIII.


The preceding remarks might suffice as an answer to the charges of
Celsus, so far as regards those points in which our Saviour Jesus Christ
is made the subject of special investigation. But that we may avoid the
appearance of intentionally passing over any portion of his work, as if
we were unable to meet him, let us, even at the risk of being
tautological (since we are challenged to this by Celsus), endeavour as
far as we can with all due brevity to continue our discourse, since
perhaps something either more precise or more novel may occur to us upon
the several topics. He says, indeed, that “he has omitted the
refutations which have been adduced against the claims which Christians
advance on behalf of their teacher,” although he has _not_ omitted
anything which he was able to bring forward, as is manifest from his
previous language, but makes this statement only as an empty rhetorical
device. That we are not refuted, however, on the subject of our great
Saviour, although the accuser may _appear_ to refute us, will be
manifest to those who peruse in a spirit of truth-loving investigation
all that is predicted and recorded of Him. And, in the next place, since
he considers that he makes a concession in saying of the Saviour, “Let
him appear to be really an angel,” we reply that we do not accept of
such a concession from Celsus; but we look to the work of Him who came
to visit the whole human race in His word and teaching, as each one of
His adherents was capable of receiving Him. And this was the work of one
who, as the prophecy regarding Him said, was not simply an angel, but
the “Angel of the great council:”[1009] for He announced to men the
great counsel of the God and Father of all things regarding them,
[saying] of those who yield themselves up to a life of pure religion,
that they ascend by means of their great deeds to God; but of those who
do not adhere to Him, that they place themselves at a distance from God,
and journey on to destruction through their unbelief of Him. He then
continues: “If even the angel came to men, is he the first and only one
who came, or did others come on former occasions?” And he thinks he can
meet either of these dilemmas at great length, although there is not a
single real Christian who asserts that Christ was the only being that
visited the human race. For, as Celsus says, “If they should say the
only one,” there are others who appeared to different individuals.

Footnote 1009:

  Cf. Isa. ix. 6.




                              Chapter LIV.


In the next place, he proceeds to answer himself as he thinks fit in the
following terms: “And so he is not the only one who is recorded to have
visited the human race, as even those who, under pretext of teaching in
the name of Jesus, have apostatized from the Creator as an inferior
being, and have given in their adherence to one who is a superior God
and father of him who visited [the world], assert that before him
certain beings came from the Creator to visit the human race.” Now, as
it is in the spirit of truth that we investigate all that relates to the
subject, we shall remark that it is asserted by Apelles, the celebrated
disciple of Marcion, who became the founder of a certain sect, and who
treated the writings of the Jews as fabulous, that Jesus is the only one
that came to visit the human race. Even against him, then, who
maintained that Jesus was the only one that came from God to men, it
would be in vain for Celsus to quote the statements regarding the
descent of other angels, seeing Apelles discredits, as we have already
mentioned, the miraculous narratives of the Jewish Scriptures; and much
more will he decline to admit what Celsus has adduced, from not
understanding the contents of the book of Enoch. No one, then, convicts
us of falsehood, or of making contradictory assertions, as if we
maintained both that our Saviour was the only being that ever came to
men, and yet that many others came on different occasions. And in a most
confused manner, moreover, does he adduce, when examining the subject of
the visits of angels to men, what he has derived, without seeing its
meaning, from the contents of the book of Enoch; for he does not appear
to have read the passages in question, nor to have been aware that the
books which bear the name of Enoch do not at all circulate in the
churches as divine, although it is from this source that he might be
supposed to have obtained the statement, that “sixty or seventy angels
descended at the same time, who fell into a state of wickedness.”




                              Chapter LV.


But, that we may grant to him in a spirit of candour what he has not
discovered in the contents of the book of Genesis, that “the sons of
God, seeing the daughters of men, that they were fair, took to them
wives of all whom they chose,” we shall nevertheless even on this point
persuade those who are capable of understanding the meaning of the
prophet, that even before us there was one who referred this narrative
to the doctrine regarding souls, which became possessed with a desire
for the corporeal life of men, and this in metaphorical language, he
said, was termed “daughters of men.” But whatever may be the meaning of
the “sons of God desiring to possess the daughters of men,” it will not
at all contribute to prove that Jesus was not the only one who visited
mankind as an angel, and who manifestly became the Saviour and
benefactor of all those who depart from the flood of wickedness. Then,
mixing up and confusing whatever he had at any time heard, or had
anywhere found written—whether held to be of divine origin among
Christians or not—he adds: “The sixty or seventy who descended together
were cast under the earth, and were punished with chains.” And he quotes
(as from the book of Enoch, but without naming it) the following: “And
hence it is that the tears of these angels are warm springs,”—a thing
neither mentioned nor heard of in the churches of God! For no one was
ever so foolish as to materialize into human tears those which were shed
by the angels who had come down from heaven. And if it were right to
pass a jest upon what is advanced against us in a serious spirit by
Celsus, we might observe that no one would ever have said that hot
springs, the greater part of which are fresh water, were the tears of
the angels, since tears are saltish in their nature, unless indeed the
angels, in the opinion of Celsus, shed tears which are fresh.




                              Chapter LVI.


Proceeding immediately after to mix up and compare with one another
things that are dissimilar, and incapable of being united, he subjoins
to his statement regarding the sixty or seventy angels who came down
from heaven, and who, according to him, shed fountains of warm water for
tears, the following: “It is related also that there came to the tomb of
Jesus himself, according to some, two angels, according to others, one;”
having failed to notice, I think, that Matthew and Mark speak of one,
and Luke and John of two, which statements are not contradictory. For
they who mention “one,” say that it was he who rolled away the stone
from the sepulchre; while they who mention “two,” refer to those who
appeared in shining raiment to the women that repaired to the sepulchre,
or who were seen within sitting in white garments. Each of these
occurrences might now be demonstrated to have actually taken place, and
to be indicative of a figurative meaning existing in these “phenomena,”
[and intelligible] to those who were prepared to behold the resurrection
of the Word. Such a task, however, does not belong to our present
purpose, but rather to an exposition of the gospel.




                             Chapter LVII.


Now, that miraculous appearances have sometimes been witnessed by human
beings, is related by the Greeks; and not only by those of them who
might be suspected of composing fabulous narratives, but also by those
who have given every evidence of being genuine philosophers, and of
having related with perfect truth what had happened to them. Accounts of
this kind we have read in the writings of Chrysippus of Soli, and also
some things of the same kind relating to Pythagoras; as well as in some
of the more recent writers who lived a very short time ago, as in the
treatise of Plutarch of Chæronea “on the Soul,” and in the second book
of the work of Numenius the Pythagorean on the “Incorruptibility of the
Soul.” Now, when such accounts are related by the Greeks, and especially
by the philosophers among them, they are not to be received with mockery
and ridicule, nor to be regarded as fictions and fables; but when those
who are devoted to the God of all things, and who endure all kinds of
injury, even to death itself, rather than allow a falsehood to escape
their lips regarding God, announce the appearances of angels which they
have themselves witnessed, they are to be deemed unworthy of belief, and
their words are not to be regarded as true! Now it is opposed to sound
reason to judge in this way whether individuals are speaking truth or
falsehood. For those who act honestly, only after a long and careful
examination into the details of a subject, slowly and cautiously express
their opinion of the veracity or falsehood of this or that person with
regard to the marvels which they may relate; since it is the case that
neither do all men show themselves worthy of belief, nor do all make it
distinctly evident that they are relating to men only fictions and
fables. Moreover, regarding the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, we
have this remark to make, that it is not at all wonderful if, on such an
occasion, either one or two angels should have appeared to announce that
Jesus had risen from the dead, and to provide for the safety of those
who believed in such an event to the advantage of their souls. Nor does
it appear to me at all unreasonable, that those who believe in the
resurrection of Jesus, and who manifest, as a fruit of their faith not
to be lightly esteemed, their possession of a virtuous[1010] life, and
their withdrawal from the flood of evils, should not be unattended by
angels who lend their help in accomplishing their conversion to God.

Footnote 1010:

  τὸν ἐῤῥωμένον βίον.




                             Chapter LVIII.


But Celsus challenges the account also that an angel rolled away the
stone from the sepulchre where the body of Jesus lay, acting like a lad
at school, who should bring a charge against any one by help of a string
of commonplaces. And, as if he had discovered some clever objection to
the narrative, he remarks: “The Son of God, then, it appears, could not
open his tomb, but required the aid of another to roll away the stone.”
Now, not to overdo the discussion of this matter, or to have the
appearance of unreasonably introducing philosophical remarks, by
explaining the figurative meaning at present, I shall simply say of the
narrative alone, that it does appear in itself a more respectful
proceeding, that the servant and inferior should have rolled away the
stone, than that such an act should have been performed by Him whose
resurrection was to be for the advantage of mankind. I do not speak of
the desire of those who conspired against the Word, and who wished to
put Him to death, and to show to all men that He _was_ dead and
non-existent,[1011] that His tomb should not be opened, in order that no
one might behold the Word alive after their conspiracy; but the “Angel
of God” who came into the world for the salvation of men, with the help
of another angel, proved more powerful than the conspirators, and rolled
away the weighty stone, that those who deemed the Word to be dead might
be convinced that He is not with the “departed,” but is alive, and
precedes those who are willing to follow Him, that He may manifest to
them those truths which come after those which He formerly showed them
at the time of their first entrance [into the school of Christianity],
when they were as yet incapable of receiving deeper instruction. In the
next place, I do not understand what advantage he thinks will accrue to
his purpose when he ridicules the account of “the angel’s visit to
Joseph regarding the pregnancy of Mary;” and again, that of the angel to
warn the parents “to take up the new-born child, whose life was in
danger, and to flee with it into Egypt.” Concerning these matters,
however, we have in the preceding pages answered his statements. But
what does Celsus mean by saying, that “according to the Scriptures,
angels are recorded to have been sent to Moses, and others as well?” For
it appears to me to contribute nothing to his purpose, and especially
because none of them made any effort to accomplish, as far as in his
power, the conversion of the human race from their sins. Let it be
granted, however, that other angels were sent from God, but that he came
to announce something of greater importance [than any others who
preceded him]; and when the Jews had fallen into sin, and corrupted
their religion, and had done unholy deeds, transferred the kingdom of
God to other husbandmen, who in all the churches take special care of
themselves,[1012] and use every endeavour by means of a holy life, and
by a doctrine conformable thereto, to win over to the God of all things
those who would rush away from the teaching of Jesus.[1013]

Footnote 1011:

  καὶ τὸ μηδὲν τυγχάνοντα.

Footnote 1012:

  ἑαυτῶν. Guietus would read αὐτῶν, to agree with τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν.

Footnote 1013:

  Instead of τὰς ἀπὸ τῆς διδασκαλίας τοῦ Ἰησοῦ ἀφορμάς, Boherellus
  conjectures τοὺς ... ἀφορμῶντας, which has been adopted in the
  translation.




                              Chapter LIX.


Celsus then continues: “The Jews accordingly, and these (clearly meaning
the Christians), have the same God;” and as if advancing a proposition
which would not be conceded, he proceeds to make the following
assertion: “It is certain, indeed, that the members of the great
church[1014] admit this, and adopt as true the accounts regarding the
creation of the world which are current among the Jews, viz. concerning
the six days and the seventh;” on which day, as the Scripture says, God
“ceased”[1015] from His works, retiring into the contemplation of
Himself, but on which, as Celsus says (who does not abide by the letter
of the history, and who does not understand its meaning), God
“rested,”[1016]—a term which is not found in the record. With respect,
however, to the creation of the world, and the “rest[1017] which is
reserved after it for the people of God,” the subject is extensive, and
mystical, and profound, and difficult of explanation. In the next place,
as it appears to me, from a desire to fill up his book, and to give it
an appearance of importance, he recklessly adds certain statements, such
as the following, relating to the first man, of whom he says: “We give
the same account as do the Jews, and deduce the same genealogy from him
as they do.” However, as regards “the conspiracies of brothers against
one another,” we know of none such, save that Cain conspired against
Abel, and Esau against Jacob; but not Abel against Cain, nor Jacob
against Esau: for if this had been the case, Celsus would have been
correct in saying that we give the same accounts as do the Jews of “the
conspiracies of brothers against one another.” Let it be granted,
however, that we speak of the same descent into Egypt as they, and of
their return[1018] thence, which was not a “flight,”[1019] as Celsus
considers it to have been, what does that avail towards founding an
accusation against us or against the Jews? Here, indeed, he thought to
cast ridicule upon us, when, in speaking of the Hebrew people, he termed
their exodus a “flight;” but when it was his business to investigate the
account of the punishments inflicted by God upon Egypt, that topic he
purposely passed by in silence.

Footnote 1014:

  τῶν ἀπὸ μεγάλης ἐκκλησίας.

Footnote 1015:

  κατέπαυσεν.

Footnote 1016:

  ἀναπαυσάμενος.

Footnote 1017:

  σαββατισμοῦ.

Footnote 1018:

  τὴν ἐκεῖθεν ἐπάνοδον.

Footnote 1019:

  φυγὴν.




                              Chapter LX.


If, however, it be necessary to express ourselves with precision in our
answer to Celsus, who thinks that we hold the same opinions on the
matters in question as do the Jews, we would say that we both agree that
the books [of Scripture] were written by the Spirit of God, but that we
do _not_ agree about the meaning of their contents; for we do not
regulate our lives like the Jews, because we are of opinion that the
literal acceptation of the laws is not that which conveys the meaning of
the legislation. And we maintain, that “when Moses is read, the veil is
upon their heart,”[1020] because the meaning of the law of Moses has
been concealed from those who have not welcomed[1021] the way which is
by Jesus Christ. But we know that if one turn to the Lord (for “the Lord
is that Spirit”), the veil being taken away, “he beholds, as in a mirror
with unveiled face, the glory of the Lord” in those thoughts which are
concealed in their literal expression, and to his own glory becomes a
participator of the divine glory; the term “face” being used
figuratively for the “understanding,” as one would call it without a
figure, in which is the face of the “inner man,” filled with light and
glory, flowing from the true comprehension of the contents of the law.

Footnote 1020:

  2 Cor. iii. 15.

Footnote 1021:

  ἀσπασαμένοις.




                              Chapter LXI.


After the above remarks he proceeds as follows: “Let no one suppose that
I am ignorant that some of them will concede that their God is the same
as that of the Jews, while others will maintain that he is a different
one, to whom the latter is in opposition, and that it was from the
former that the Son came.” Now, if he imagine that the existence of
numerous heresies among the Christians is a ground of accusation against
Christianity, why, in a similar way, should it not be a ground of
accusation against philosophy, that the various sects of philosophers
differ from each other, not on small and indifferent points, but upon
those of the highest importance? Nay, medicine also ought to be a
subject of attack, on account of its many conflicting schools. Let it be
admitted, then, that there are amongst us some who deny that our God is
the same as that of the Jews: nevertheless, on that account those are
not to be blamed who prove from the same Scriptures that one and the
same Deity is the God of the Jews and of the Gentiles alike, as Paul,
too, distinctly says, who was a convert from Judaism to Christianity, “I
thank my God, whom I serve from my forefathers with a pure
conscience.”[1022] And let it be admitted also, that there is a third
class who call certain persons “carnal,” and others “spiritual” (I think
he here means the followers of Valentinus): yet what does this avail
against us, who belong to the church, and who make it an accusation
against such as hold that certain natures are saved, and that others
perish in consequence of their natural constitution?[1023] And let it be
admitted further, that there are some who give themselves out as
Gnostics, in the same way as those Epicureans who call themselves
philosophers: yet neither will they who annihilate the doctrine of
providence be deemed true philosophers, nor those true Christians who
introduce monstrous inventions, which are disapproved of by those who
are the disciples of Jesus. Let it be admitted, moreover, that there are
some who accept Jesus, and who boast on that account of being
Christians, and yet would regulate their lives, like the Jewish
multitude, in accordance with the Jewish law,—and these are the twofold
sect of Ebionites, who either acknowledge with us that Jesus was born of
a virgin, or deny this, and maintain that He was begotten like other
human beings,—what does that avail by way of charge against such as
belong to the church, and whom Celsus has styled “those of the
multitude?”[1024] He adds, also, that certain of the Christians are
believers in the Sibyl,[1025] having probably misunderstood some who
blamed such as believed in the existence of a prophetic Sibyl, and
termed those who held this belief Sibyllists.

Footnote 1022:

  2 Tim. i. 3.

Footnote 1023:

  ἐκ κατασκευῆς.

Footnote 1024:

  ἀπὸ τοῦ πλήθους.

Footnote 1025:

  Σιβυλλιστάς.




                             Chapter LXII.


He next pours down upon us a heap of names, saying that he knows of the
existence of certain Simonians who worship Helene, or Helenus, as their
teacher, and are called Helenians. But it has escaped the notice of
Celsus that the Simonians do not at all acknowledge Jesus to be the Son
of God, but term Simon the “power” of God, regarding whom they relate
certain marvellous stories, saying that he imagined that if he could
become possessed of similar powers to those with which he believed Jesus
to be endowed, he too would become as powerful among men as Jesus was
amongst the multitude. But neither Celsus nor Simon could comprehend how
Jesus, like a good husbandman of the word of God, was able to sow the
greater part of Greece, and of barbarian lands, with His doctrine, and
to fill these countries with words which transform the soul from all
that is evil, and bring it back to the Creator of all things. Celsus
knows, moreover, certain Marcellians, so called from Marcellina, and
Harpocratians from Salome, and others who derive their name from
Mariamne, and others again from Martha. We, however, who from a love of
learning examine to the utmost of our ability not only the contents of
Scripture, and the differences to which they give rise, but have also,
from love to the truth, investigated as far as we could the opinions of
philosophers, have never at any time met in with these sects. He makes
mention also of the Marcionites, whose leader was Marcion.




                             Chapter LXIII.


In the next place, that he may have the appearance of knowing still more
than he has yet mentioned, he says, agreeably to his usual custom, that
“there are others who have wickedly invented some being as their teacher
and demon, and who wallow about in a great darkness, more unholy and
accursed than that of the companions of the Egyptian Antinous.” And he
seems to me, indeed, in touching on these matters, to say with a certain
degree of truth, that there are certain others who have wickedly
invented another demon, and who have found him to be their lord, as they
wallow about in the great darkness of their ignorance. With respect,
however, to Antinous, who is compared with our Jesus, we shall not
repeat what we have already said in the preceding pages. “Moreover,” he
continues, “these persons utter against one another dreadful
blasphemies, saying all manner of things shameful to be spoken; nor will
they yield in the slightest point for the sake of harmony, hating each
other with a perfect hatred.” Now, in answer to this, we have already
said that in philosophy and medicine sects are to be found warring
against sects. We, however, who are followers of the word of Jesus, and
have exercised ourselves in thinking, and saying, and doing what is in
harmony with His words, “when reviled, bless; being persecuted, we
suffer it; being defamed, we entreat;”[1026] and we would _not_ utter
“all manner of things shameful to be spoken” against those who have
adopted different opinions from ours, but, if possible, use every
exertion to raise them to a better condition through adherence to the
Creator alone, and lead them to perform every act as those who will [one
day] be judged. And if those who hold different opinions will not be
convinced, we observe the injunction laid down for the treatment of
such: “A man that is a heretic, after the first and second admonition,
reject, knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being
condemned of himself.”[1027] Moreover, we who know the maxim, “Blessed
are the peacemakers,” and this also, “Blessed are the meek,” would not
regard with hatred the corrupters of Christianity, nor term those who
had fallen into error Circes and flattering deceivers.[1028]

Footnote 1026:

  1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.

Footnote 1027:

  Tit. iii. 10.

Footnote 1028:

  Κίρκας καὶ κύκηθρα αἱμύλα.




                             Chapter LXIV.


Celsus appears to me to have misunderstood the statement of the apostle,
which declares that “in the latter times some shall depart from the
faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, speaking
lies in hypocrisy, having their conscience seared with a hot iron,
forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God
hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them who
believe;”[1029] and to have misunderstood also those who employed these
declarations of the apostle against such as had corrupted the doctrines
of Christianity. And it is owing to this cause that Celsus has said that
“certain among the Christians are called ‘cauterized in the
ears;’”[1030] and also that some are termed “enigmas,”[1031]—a term
which we have never met. The expression “stumbling-block”[1032] is,
indeed, of frequent occurrence in these writings,—an appellation which
we are accustomed to apply to those who turn away simple persons, and
those who are easily deceived, from sound doctrine. But neither we, nor,
I imagine, any other, whether Christian or heretic, know of any who are
styled Sirens, who betray and deceive,[1033] and stop their ears, and
change into swine those whom they delude. And yet this man, who affects
to know everything, uses such language as the following: “You may hear,”
he says, “all those who differ so widely, and who assail each other in
their disputes with the most shameless language, uttering the words,
‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.’” And this is the
only phrase which, it appears, Celsus could remember out of Paul’s
writings; and yet why should we not also employ innumerable other
quotations from the Scriptures, such as, “For though we do walk in the
flesh, we do not war after the flesh; (for the weapons of our warfare
are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of
strongholds,) casting down imaginations, and every high thing that
exalteth itself against the knowledge of God?”[1034]

Footnote 1029:

  Cf. 1 Tim. iv. 1-3.

Footnote 1030:

  ἀκοῆς καυστήρια. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

Footnote 1031:

  αἰνίγματα. Cf. note in Benedictine ed.

Footnote 1032:

  σκανδάλου.

Footnote 1033:

  ἐξορχουμένας καὶ σοφιστρίας.

Footnote 1034:

  Cf. 2 Cor. x. 3.




                              Chapter LXV.


But since he asserts that “you may hear all those who differ so widely
saying, ‘The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world,’” we shall
show the falsity of such a statement. For there are certain heretical
sects which do not receive the epistles of the Apostle Paul, as the two
sects of Ebionites, and those who are termed Encratites. Those, then,
who do not regard the apostle as a holy and wise man, will not adopt his
language, and say, “The world is crucified to me, and I unto the world.”
And consequently in this point, too, Celsus is guilty of falsehood. He
continues, moreover, to linger over the accusations which he brings
against the diversity of sects which exist, but does not appear to me to
be accurate in the language which he employs, nor to have carefully
observed or understood how it is that those Christians who have made
progress in their studies say that they are possessed of greater
knowledge than the Jews; and also, whether they acknowledge the same
Scriptures, but interpret them differently, or whether they do not
recognise these books as divine. For we find both of these views
prevailing among the sects. He then continues: “Although they have no
foundation for their doctrine, let us examine the system itself; and, in
the first place, let us mention the corruptions which they have made
through ignorance and misunderstanding, when in the discussion of
elementary principles they express their opinions in the most absurd
manner on things which they do not understand, such as the following.”
And then, to certain expressions which are continually in the mouths of
the believers in Christianity, he opposes certain others from the
writings of the philosophers, with the object of making it appear that
the noble sentiments which Celsus supposes to be used by Christians have
been expressed in better and clearer language by the philosophers, in
order that he might drag away to the study of philosophy those who are
caught by opinions which at once evidence their noble and religious
character. We shall, however, here terminate the fifth book, and begin
the sixth with what follows.




                                BOOK VI.




                               Chapter I.


In beginning this our sixth book, we desire, my reverend Ambrosius, to
answer in it those accusations which Celsus brings against the
_Christians_, not, as might be supposed, those objections which he has
adduced from _writers on philosophy_. For he has quoted a considerable
number of passages, chiefly from Plato, and has placed alongside of
these such declarations of Holy Scripture as are fitted to impress even
the intelligent mind; subjoining the assertion, that “these things are
stated much better among the Greeks [than in the Scriptures], and in a
manner which is free from all exaggerations[1035] and promises on the
part of God, or the Son of God.” Now we maintain, that if it is the
object of the ambassadors of the truth to confer benefits upon the
greatest possible number, and, so far as they can, to win over to its
side, through their love to men, every one without exception—intelligent
as well as simple—not Greeks only, but also barbarians (and great,
indeed, is the humanity which should succeed in converting the rustic
and the ignorant[1036]), it is manifest that they must adopt a style of
address fitted to do good to all, and to gain over to them men of every
sort. Those, on the other hand, who turn away[1037] from the ignorant as
being mere slaves,[1038] and unable to understand the flowing periods of
a polished and logical discourse, and so devote their attention solely
to such as have been brought up amongst literary pursuits,[1039] confine
their views of the public good within very strait and narrow limits.

Footnote 1035:

  ἀνατάσεως.

Footnote 1036:

  πολὺ δὲ τὸ ἥμερον ἐὰν ... οἷος τέ τις γένηται ἐπιστρέφειν.

Footnote 1037:

  πολλὰ χαίρειν φράσαντες.

Footnote 1038:

  ἀνδραπόδοις.

Footnote 1039:

  καὶ μὴ οἵοις τε κατακούειν τῆς ἐν φράσει λόγων καὶ τάξει
  ἀπαγγελλομένων ἀκολουθίας, μόνων ἐφρόντισαν τῶν ἀνατραφέντων ἐν λόγοις
  καὶ μαθήμασιν.




                              Chapter II.


I have made these remarks in reply to the charges which Celsus and
others bring against the simplicity of the language of Scripture, which
appears to be thrown into the shade by the splendour of polished
discourse. For our prophets, and Jesus Himself, and His apostles, were
careful to adopt[1040] a style of address which should not merely convey
the truth, but which should be fitted to gain over the multitude, until
each one, attracted and led onwards, should ascend as far as he could
towards the comprehension of those mysteries which are contained in
these apparently simple words. For, if I may venture to say so, few have
been benefited (if they have indeed been benefited at all) by the
beautiful and polished style of Plato, and those who have written like
him; while, on the contrary, many have received advantage from those who
wrote and taught in a simple and practical manner, and with a view to
the wants of the multitude. It is easy, indeed, to observe that Plato is
found only in the hands of those who profess to be literary men;[1041]
while Epictetus is admired by persons of ordinary capacity, who have a
desire to be benefited, and who perceive the improvement which may be
derived from his writings. Now we make these remarks, not to disparage
Plato (for the great world of men has found even him useful), but to
point out the aim of those who said: “And my speech and my preaching was
not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God.”[1042] For the word of God declares that
the preaching (although in itself true and most worthy of belief) is not
sufficient to reach the human heart, unless a certain power be imparted
to the speaker from God, and a grace appear upon his words; and it is
only by the divine agency that this takes place in those who speak
effectually. The prophet says in the sixty-seventh Psalm, that “the Lord
will give a word with great power to them who preach.”[1043] If, then,
it should be granted with respect to certain points, that the same
doctrines are found among the Greeks as in our own Scriptures, yet they
do not possess the same power of attracting and disposing the souls of
men to follow them. And therefore the disciples of Jesus, men ignorant
so far as regards Grecian philosophy, yet traversed many countries of
the world, impressing, agreeably to the desire of the Logos, each one of
their hearers according to his deserts, so that they received a moral
amelioration in proportion to the inclination of their will to accept of
that which is good.

Footnote 1040:

  ἐνεῖδον.

Footnote 1041:

  φιλολόγων.

Footnote 1042:

  1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.

Footnote 1043:

  Such is the reading of the Septuagint version. The Masoretic text has:
  “The Lord gave a word; of them who published it there was a great
  host.”




                              Chapter III.


Let the ancient sages, then, make known their sayings to those who are
capable of understanding them. Suppose that Plato, for example, the son
of Ariston, in one of his Epistles, is discoursing about the “chief
good,” and that he says, “The chief good can by no means be described in
words, but is produced by long habit, and bursts forth suddenly as a
light in the soul, as from a fire which had leapt forth.” We, then, on
hearing these words, admit that they are well said, for it is God who
revealed to men these as well as all other noble expressions. And for
this reason it is that we maintain that those who have entertained
correct ideas regarding God, but who have not offered to Him a worship
in harmony with the truth, are liable to the punishments which fall on
sinners. For respecting such Paul says in express words: “The wrath of
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness
of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; because that which may be
known of God is manifest in them; for God hath showed it unto them. For
the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly
seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal
power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when
they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but
became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the
glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible
man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.”[1044]
The truth, then, is verily held [in unrighteousness], as our Scriptures
testify, by those who are of opinion that “the chief good cannot be
described in words,” but who assert that, “after long custom and
familiar usage,[1045] a light becomes suddenly kindled in the soul, as
if by a fire springing forth, and that it now supports itself alone.”

Footnote 1044:

  Cf. Rom. i. 18-23.

Footnote 1045:

  ἐκ πολλῆς συνουσίας γινομένης περὶ τὸ πρᾶγμα αὐτὸ, καὶ τοῦ συζῆν.




                              Chapter IV.


Notwithstanding, those who have written in this manner regarding the
“chief good” will go down to the Piræus and offer prayer to Artemis, as
if she were God, and will look [with approval] upon the solemn assembly
held by ignorant men; and after giving utterance to philosophical
remarks of such profundity regarding the soul, and describing its
passage [to a happier world] after a virtuous life, they pass from those
great topics which God has revealed to them, and adopt mean and trifling
thoughts, and offer a cock to Esculapius![1046] And although they had
been enabled to form representations both of the “invisible things” of
God and of the “archetypal forms” of things from the creation of the
world, and from [the contemplation of] sensible things, from which they
ascend to those objects which are comprehended by the understanding
alone,—and although they had no mean glimpses of His “eternal power and
Godhead,”[1047] they nevertheless became “foolish in their
imaginations,” and their “foolish heart” was involved in darkness and
ignorance as to the [true] worship of God. Moreover, we may see those
who greatly pride themselves upon their wisdom and theology worshipping
the image of a corruptible man, _in honour_, they say, of Him, and
sometimes even descending, with the Egyptians, to the worship of birds,
and four-footed beasts, and creeping things! And although some may
appear to have risen above such practices, nevertheless they will be
found to have changed the truth of God into a lie, and to worship and
serve the “creature more than the Creator.”[1048] As the wise and
learned among the Greeks, then, commit errors in the service which they
render to God, God “chose the foolish things of the world to confound
the wise; and base things of the world, and things that are weak, and
things which are despised, and things which are not, to bring to nought
things that are;”[1049] and this, truly, “that no flesh should glory in
the presence of God.” _Our_ wise men, however,—Moses, the most ancient
of them all, and the prophets who followed him,—knowing that the chief
good could by no means be described in words, were the first who wrote
that, as God manifests Himself to the deserving, and to those who are
qualified to behold Him,[1050] He appeared to Abraham, or to Isaac, or
to Jacob. But who He was that appeared, and of what form, and in what
manner, and like to which of mortal beings,[1051] they have left to be
investigated by those who are able to show that they resemble those
persons to whom God showed Himself: for He was seen not by their bodily
eyes, but by the pure heart. For, according to the declaration of our
Jesus, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”[1052]

Footnote 1046:

  Cf. Plato, _Phædo_.

Footnote 1047:

  καὶ τὰ ἀόρατα τοῦ Θεοῦ, καὶ τὰς ἰδέας φαντασθέντες ἀπὸ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ
  κόσμου, καὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν, ἀφ’ ὧν ἀναβαίνουσιν ἐπὶ τὰ νοούμενα· τὴν τε
  ἀΐδιον αὐτοὺ δύναμιν καὶ θεότητα οὐκ ἀγεννῶς ἰδόντες, etc.

Footnote 1048:

  Rom. i. 25.

Footnote 1049:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 27, 28, 29.

Footnote 1050:

  ἐπιτηδείοις.

Footnote 1051:

  καὶ τίνι τῶν ἐν ἡμῖν. Boherellus understands ὅμοιος, which has been
  adopted in the translation.

Footnote 1052:

  Cf. Matt. v. 8.




                               Chapter V.


But that a light is suddenly kindled in the soul, as by a fire leaping
forth, is a fact known long ago to our Scriptures; as when the prophet
said, “Light ye for yourselves the light of knowledge.”[1053] John also,
who lived after him, said, “That which was in the Logos was life, and
the life was the light of men;”[1054] which “true light lighteneth every
man that cometh into the world” (_i.e._ the true world, which is
perceived by the understanding[1055]), and maketh him a light of the
world: “For this light shone in our hearts, to give the light of the
glorious gospel of God in the face of Christ Jesus.”[1056] And therefore
that very ancient prophet, who prophesied many generations before the
reign of Cyrus (for he was older than he by more than fourteen
generations), expressed himself in these words: “The Lord is my light
and my salvation: whom shall I fear?”[1057] and, “Thy law is a lamp unto
my feet, and a light unto my path;”[1058] and again, “The light of Thy
countenance, O Lord, was manifested towards us;”[1059] and, “In Thy
light we shall see light.”[1060] And the Logos, exhorting us to come to
this light, says, in the prophecies of Isaiah: “Enlighten thyself,
enlighten thyself, O Jerusalem; for thy light is come, and the glory of
the Lord is risen upon thee.”[1061] The same prophet also, when
predicting the advent of Jesus, who was to turn away men from the
worship of idols, and of images, and of demons, says, “To those that sat
in the land and shadow of death, upon them hath the light arisen;”[1062]
and again, “The people that sat in darkness saw a great light.”[1063]
Observe now the difference between the fine phrases of Plato respecting
the “chief good,” and the declarations of our prophets regarding the
“light” of the blessed; and notice that the truth as it is contained in
Plato concerning this subject did not at all help his readers to attain
to a pure worship of God, nor even himself, who could philosophize so
grandly about the “chief good,” whereas the simple language of the Holy
Scriptures has led to their honest readers being filled with a divine
spirit;[1064] and this light is nourished within them by the oil, which
in a certain parable is said to have preserved the light of the torches
of the five wise virgins.[1065]

Footnote 1053:

  Hos. x. 12. φωτίσατε ἑαυτοῖς φῶς γνῶσεως (LXX.). The Masoretic
  text is, נִ֥ירוּ לָכֶ֖ם נִ֑יר וְעֵת, where for וְעֵת (_and time_)
  the Septuagint translator apparently read דעת (_knowledge_), ד and
  ו being interchanged from their similarity.

Footnote 1054:

  Cf. John i. 3, 4.

Footnote 1055:

  τὸν ἀληθινὸν καὶ νοητόν.

Footnote 1056:

  Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 6.

Footnote 1057:

  Ps. xxvii. 1 (attributed to David).

Footnote 1058:

  Ps. cxix. 105.

Footnote 1059:

  Ps. iv. 6 (Heb. “Lift upon us,” etc.).

Footnote 1060:

  Ps. xxxvi. 9.

Footnote 1061:

  Cf. Isa. lx. 1.

Footnote 1062:

  Cf. Isa. ix. 2.

Footnote 1063:

  Cf. Isa. ix. 2.

Footnote 1064:

  ἐνθουσιᾶν.

Footnote 1065:

  Cf. Matt. xxv. 4.




                              Chapter VI.


Seeing, however, that Celsus quotes from an epistle of Plato another
statement to the following effect, viz.: “If it appeared to me that
these matters could be adequately explained to the multitude in writing
and in oral address, what nobler pursuit in life could have been
followed by me, than to commit to writing what was to prove of such
advantage to human beings, and to lead the nature of all men onwards to
the light?”—let us then consider this point briefly, viz. whether or not
Plato were acquainted with any doctrines more profound than are
contained in his writings, or more divine than those which he has left
behind him, leaving it to each one to investigate the subject according
to his ability, while we demonstrate that our prophets did know of
greater things than any in the Scriptures, but which they did not commit
to writing. Ezekiel, _e.g._, received a roll,[1066] written within and
without, in which were contained “lamentations,” and “songs,” and
“denunciations;”[1067] but at the command of the Logos he swallowed the
book, in order that its contents might not be written, and so made known
to unworthy persons. John also is recorded to have seen and done a
similar thing.[1068] Nay, Paul even heard “unspeakable words, which it
is not lawful for a man to utter.”[1069] And it is related of Jesus, who
was greater than all these, that He conversed with His disciples in
private, and especially in their secret retreats, concerning the gospel
of God; but the words which He uttered have not been preserved, because
it appeared to the evangelists that they could not be adequately
conveyed to the multitude in writing or in speech. And if it were not
tiresome to repeat the truth regarding these illustrious individuals, I
would say that they saw better than Plato (by means of the intelligence
which they received by the grace of God), what things were to be
committed to _writing_, and how this was to be done, and what was by no
means to be written to the multitude, and what was to be expressed in
_words_, and what was not to be so conveyed. And once more, John, in
teaching us the difference between what ought to be committed to writing
and what not, declares that he heard seven thunders instructing him on
certain matters, and forbidding him to commit their words to
writing.[1070]

Footnote 1066:

  κεφαλίδα βιβλίου.

Footnote 1067:

  οὐαί; cf. Ezek. ii. 9, 10.

Footnote 1068:

  Cf. Apoc. x. 9.

Footnote 1069:

  2 Cor. xii. 4.

Footnote 1070:

  Cf. Apoc. x. 4.




                              Chapter VII.


There might also be found in the writings of Moses and of the prophets,
who are older not only than Plato, but even than Homer and the invention
of letters among the Greeks, passages worthy of the grace of God
bestowed upon them, and filled with great thoughts, to which they gave
utterance, but not because they understood Plato imperfectly, as Celsus
imagines. For how was it possible that they should have heard one who
was not yet born? And if any one should apply the words of Celsus to the
apostles of Jesus, who were younger than Plato, say whether it is not on
the very face of it an incredible assertion, that Paul the tentmaker,
and Peter the fisherman, and John who left his father’s nets, should,
through misunderstanding the language of Plato in his Epistles, have
expressed themselves as they have done regarding God? But as Celsus now,
after having often required of us immediate assent [to his views], as if
he were babbling forth something new in addition to what he has already
advanced, only repeats himself,[1071] what we have said in reply may
suffice. Seeing, however, he produces another quotation from Plato, in
which he asserts that the employment of the method of question and
answer sheds light on the thoughts of those who philosophize like him,
let us show from the Holy Scriptures that the word of God also
encourages us to the practice of dialectics: Solomon, _e.g._ declaring
in one passage, that “instruction unquestioned goes astray;”[1072] and
Jesus the son of Sirach, who has left us the treatise called “Wisdom,”
declaring in another, that “the knowledge of the unwise is as words that
will not stand investigation.”[1073] Our methods of discussion, however,
are rather of a gentle kind; for we have learned that he who presides
over the preaching of the word ought to be able to confute gainsayers.
But if some continue indolent, and do not train themselves so as to
attend to the reading of the word, and “to search the Scriptures,” and,
agreeably to the command of Jesus, to investigate the _meaning_ of the
sacred writings, and to ask of God concerning them, and to keep
“knocking” at what may be closed within them, the Scripture is not on
that account to be regarded as devoid of wisdom.

Footnote 1071:

  πολλάκις δὲ ἤδη ὁ Κέλσος θρυλλήσας ὡς ἀξιούμενον εὐθέως πιστεύειν, ὡς
  καινόν τι παρὰ τὰ πρότερον εἰρημένα. Guietus thus amends the passage:
  πολλάκις δὲ ἤδη ὁ Κέλσος ἀξιούμενος εὐθέως πιστεύειν, ὡς καινόν τι
  παρὰ τὰ πρότερον εἰρημένα θρυλλήσας, etc. Boherellus would change
  ἀξιούμενον into ἀξιοῦμεν.

Footnote 1072:

  παιδεία ἀνεξέλεγκτος πλανᾶται; cf. Prov. x. 17.

Footnote 1073:

  γνῶσις ἀσυνέτου, ἀδιεξέταστοι λόγοι; cf. Ecclus. xxi. 18.




                             Chapter VIII.


In the next place, after other Platonic declarations, which demonstrate
that “the good” can be known by few, he adds: “Since the multitude,
being puffed up with a contempt for others, which is far from right, and
being filled with vain and lofty hopes, assert that, because they have
come to the knowledge of some venerable doctrines, certain things are
true.” “Yet although Plato predicted these things, he nevertheless does
not talk marvels,[1074] nor shut the mouth of those who wish to ask him
for information on the subject of his promises; nor does he command them
to come at once and believe that a God of a particular kind exists, and
that he has a son of a particular nature, who descended [to earth] and
conversed with me.” Now, in answer to this we have to say, that with
regard to Plato, it is Aristander, I think, who has related that he was
not the son of Ariston, but of a phantom, which approached Amphictione
in the guise of Apollo. And there are several other of the followers of
Plato who, in their lives of their master, have made the same statement.
What are we to say, moreover, about Pythagoras, who relates the greatest
possible amount of wonders, and who, in a general assembly of the
Greeks, showed his ivory thigh, and asserted that he recognised the
shield which he wore when he was Euphorbus, and who is said to have
appeared on one day in two different cities! He, moreover, who will
declare that what is related of Plato and Socrates belongs to the
marvellous, will quote the story of the swan which was recommended to
Socrates while he was asleep, and of the master saying when he met the
young man, “This, then, was the swan!”[1075] Nay, the third eye which
Plato saw that he himself possessed, he will refer to the category of
prodigies.[1076] But occasion for slanderous accusations will never be
wanting to those who are ill-disposed, and who wish to speak evil of
what has happened to such as are raised above the multitude. Such
persons will deride as a fiction even the demon of Socrates. We do not,
then, relate marvels when we narrate the history of Jesus, nor have His
genuine disciples recorded any such stories of Him; whereas this Celsus,
who professes universal knowledge, and who quotes many of the sayings of
Plato, is, I think, intentionally silent on the discourse concerning the
Son of God which is related in Plato’s epistle to Hermeas and Coriscus.
Plato’s words are as follows: “And calling to witness the God of all
things—the ruler both of things present and things to come, father and
lord both of the ruler and cause—whom, if we are philosophers indeed, we
shall all clearly know, so far as it is possible for happy human beings
to attain such knowledge.”[1077]

Footnote 1074:

  οὐ τερατεύεται.

Footnote 1075:

  The night before Ariston brought Plato to Socrates as his pupil, the
  latter dreamed that a swan from the altar of Cupid alighted on his
  bosom. Cf. Pausanias in _Atticis_, p. 58.

Footnote 1076:

  “Alicubi forsan occurrit: me vero uspiam legisse non memini. Credo
  Platonem per tertium oculum suam πολυμάθειαν et scientiam, quâ ceteris
  anteibat, denotare voluisse.”—SPENCER.

Footnote 1077:

  Plato, _Epist._ vi.




                              Chapter IX.


Celsus quotes another saying of Plato to the following effect: “It has
occurred to me to speak once more upon these subjects at greater length,
as perhaps I might express myself about them more clearly than I have
already done: for there is a certain ‘real’ cause, which proves a
hindrance in the way of him who has ventured, even to a slight extent,
to write on such topics; and as this has been frequently mentioned by me
on former occasions, it appears to me that it ought to be stated now. In
each of existing things, which are necessarily employed in the
acquisition of knowledge, there are three elements; knowledge itself is
the fourth; and that ought to be laid down as the fifth which is both
capable of being known and is true. Of these, one is ‘name;’ the second
is ‘word;’ the third, ‘image;’ the fourth, ‘knowledge.’”[1078] Now,
according to this division, John is introduced before Jesus as the voice
of one crying in the wilderness, so as to correspond with the “name” of
Plato; and the second after John, who is pointed out by him, is Jesus,
with whom agrees the statement, “The Word became flesh,” and that
corresponds to the “word” of Plato. Plato terms the third “image;” but
we, who apply the expression “image” to something different, would say
with greater precision, that the mark of the wounds which is made in the
soul by the word is the Christ which is in each one of us, and this mark
is impressed by Christ the Word.[1079] And whether Christ, the wisdom
which is in those of us who are perfect, correspond to the “fourth”
element—knowledge—will become known to him who has the capacity to
ascertain it.

Footnote 1078:

  ὧν ἓν μὲν, ὄνομα· δεύτερον δὲ, λόγος· τὸ δὲ τρίτον, εἴδωλον· τὸ
  τέταρτον δὲ, ἐπιστήμη.

Footnote 1079:

  τρανότερον φήσομεν ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ γινόμενον μετὰ τὸν λόγον τῶν τραυμάτων
  τύπον, τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἐν ἑκάστῳ Χριστὸν, ἀπὸ Χριστοῦ λόγου.




                               Chapter X.


He next continues: “You see how Plato, although maintaining that [the
chief good] cannot be described in words, yet, to avoid the appearance
of retreating to an irrefutable position, subjoins a reason in
explanation of this difficulty, as even ‘nothing’[1080] might perhaps be
explained in words.” But as Celsus adduces this to prove that we ought
not to yield a simple assent, but to furnish a reason for our belief, we
shall quote also the words of Paul, where he says, in censuring the
hasty[1081] believer, “unless ye have believed inconsiderately.”[1082]
Now, through his practice of repeating himself, Celsus, so far as he
can, forces us to be guilty of tautology, reiterating, after the
boastful language which has been quoted, that “Plato is not guilty of
boasting and falsehood, giving out that he has made some new discovery,
or that he has come down from heaven to announce it, but acknowledges
whence these statements are derived.” Now, if one wished to reply to
Celsus, one might say in answer to such assertions, that even Plato _is_
guilty of boasting, when in the _Timœus_ he puts the following language
in the mouth of Zeus: “Gods of gods, whose creator and father I am,” and
so on. And if any one will defend such language on account of the
meaning which is conveyed under the name of Zeus, thus speaking in the
dialogue of Plato, why should not he who investigates the meaning of the
words of the Son of God, or those of the Creator[1083] in the prophets,
express a profounder meaning than any conveyed by the words of Zeus in
the _Timœus_? For the characteristic of divinity is the announcement of
future events, predicted not by human power, but shown by the result to
be due to a divine spirit in him who made the announcement. Accordingly,
we do not say to each of our hearers, “Believe, first of all, that He
whom I introduce to thee is the Son of God;” but we put the gospel
before each one, as his character and disposition may fit him to receive
it, inasmuch as we have learned to know “how we ought to answer every
man.”[1084] And there are some who are capable of receiving nothing more
than an exhortation to believe, and to these we address that alone;
while we approach others, again, as far as possible, in the way of
demonstration, by means of question and answer. Nor do we at all say, as
Celsus scoffingly alleges, “Believe that He whom I introduce to thee is
the Son of God, although He was shamefully bound, and disgracefully
punished, and very recently[1085] was most contumeliously treated before
the eyes of all men;” neither do we add, “Believe it even the more [on
that account].” For it is our endeavour to state, on each individual
point, arguments more numerous even than we have brought forward in the
preceding pages.

Footnote 1080:

  τὸ μηδέν.

Footnote 1081:

  εἰκῆ πιστεύοντι.

Footnote 1082:

  1 Cor. xv. 2.

Footnote 1083:

  τοῦ δημιουργοῦ.

Footnote 1084:

  Cf. Col. iv. 6.

Footnote 1085:

  χθὲς καὶ πρώην.




                              Chapter XI.


After this Celsus continues: “If these (meaning the Christians) bring
forward this person, and others, again, a different individual [as the
Christ], while the common and ready cry[1086] of all parties is,
‘Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or else begone,’ what shall those do
who are in earnest about their salvation? Shall they cast the dice, in
order to divine whither they may betake themselves, and whom they shall
join?” Now we shall answer this objection in the following manner, as
the clearness of the case impels us to do. If it had been recorded that
several individuals had appeared in human life as sons of God in the
manner in which Jesus did, and if each of them had drawn a party of
adherents to his side, so that, on account of the similarity of the
profession [in the case of each individual] that he was the Son of God,
he to whom his followers bore testimony to that effect was an object of
dispute, there would have been ground for his saying, “If these bring
forward this person, and others a different individual, while the common
and ready cry of all parties is, ‘Believe, if thou wilt be saved, or
else begone,’” and so on; whereas it has been proclaimed to the entire
world that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God who visited the human
race: for those who, like Celsus, have supposed that [the acts of Jesus]
were a series of prodigies,[1087] and who for that reason wished to
perform acts of the same kind,[1088] that they, too, might gain a
similar mastery over the minds of men, were convicted of being utter
nonentities.[1089] Such were Simon, the Magus of Samaria, and Dositheus,
who was a native of the same place; since the former gave out that he
was the power of God that is called great,[1090] and the latter that he
was the Son of God. Now Simonians are found nowhere throughout the
world; and yet, in order to gain over to himself many followers, Simon
freed his disciples from the danger of death, which the Christians were
taught to prefer, by teaching them to regard idolatry as a matter of
indifference. But even at the beginning of their existence the followers
of Simon were not exposed to persecution. For that wicked demon who was
conspiring against the doctrine of Jesus, was well aware that none of
his own maxims would be weakened by the teaching of Simon. The
Dositheans, again, even in former times, did not rise to any eminence,
and now they are completely extinguished, so that it is said their whole
number does not amount to thirty. Judas of Galilee also, as Luke relates
in the Acts of the Apostles,[1091] wished to call himself some great
personage, as did Theudas before him; but as their doctrine was not of
God, they were destroyed, and all who obeyed them were immediately
dispersed. We do not, then, “cast the dice in order to divine whither we
shall betake ourselves, and whom we shall join,” as if there were many
claimants able to draw us after them by the profession of their having
come down from God to visit the human race. On these points, however, we
have said enough.

Footnote 1086:

  κοινὸν δὲ πάντων ἢ καὶ πρόχειρον. For ἤ, Boherellus reads ᾖ.

Footnote 1087:

  οἱ γὰρ ὁμοίως Κελσῷ ὑπολαβόντες τετερατεῦσθαι. The word ὁμοίως
  formerly stood, in the text of Spencer and Ruæeus, before
  τετερατεῦσθαι, but is properly expunged, as arising from the preceding
  ὁμοίως. Boherellus remarks: “Forte aliud quid exciderit, verbi gratiâ,
  τὰ τοῦ Ιησοῦ.”

Footnote 1088:

  τερατεύσασθαι.

Footnote 1089:

  τὸ οὐδέν.

Footnote 1090:

  Cf. Acts viii. 10.

Footnote 1091:

  Cf. Acts v. 36, 37.




                              Chapter XII.


Accordingly, let us pass on to another charge made by Celsus, who is not
even acquainted with the words [of our sacred books], but who, from
misunderstanding them, has said that “we declare the wisdom that is
among men to be foolishness with God;” Paul having said that “the wisdom
of the _world_ is foolishness with God.”[1092] Celsus says that “the
reason of this has been stated long ago.” And the reason he imagines to
be, “our desire to win over by means of this saying the ignorant and
foolish alone.” But, as he himself has intimated, he has said the same
thing before; and we, to the best of our ability, replied to it.
Notwithstanding this, however, he wished to show that this statement was
an invention[1093] of ours, and borrowed from the Grecian sages, who
declare that human wisdom is of one kind, and divine of another. And he
quotes the words of Heraclitus, where he says in one passage, that
“man’s method of action is not regulated by fixed principles, but that
of God is;”[1094] and in another, that “a foolish man listens to a
demon, as a boy does to a man.” He quotes, moreover, the following from
the _Apology of Socrates_, of which Plato was the author: “For I, O men
of Athens, have obtained this name by no other means than by my wisdom.
And of what sort is this wisdom? Such, probably, as is human; for in
that respect I venture to think that I am in reality wise.”[1095] Such
are the passages adduced by Celsus. But I shall subjoin also the
following from Plato’s letter to Hermeas, and Erastus, and Coriscus: “To
Erastus and Coriscus I say, although I am an old man, that, in addition
to this noble knowledge of ‘forms’ [which they possess], they need a
wisdom, with regard to the class of wicked and unjust persons, which may
serve as a protective and repelling force against them. For they are
inexperienced, in consequence of having passed a large portion of their
lives with us, who are moderate[1096] individuals, and not wicked. I
have accordingly said that they need these things, in order that they
may not be compelled to neglect the true wisdom, and to apply themselves
in a greater degree than is proper to that which is necessary and
human.”

Footnote 1092:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19.

Footnote 1093:

  πεπλασμένον ἡμῖν.

Footnote 1094:

  ἦθος γὰρ ἀνθρώπειον μὲν οὐκ ἔχει γνώμας, θεῖον δὲ ἔχει.

Footnote 1095:

  Cf. Plato’s _Apolog._

Footnote 1096:

  μετρίων ὄντων.




                             Chapter XIII.


According to the foregoing, then, the one kind of wisdom is human, and
the other divine. Now the “human” wisdom is that which is termed by us
the wisdom of the “world,” which is “foolishness with God;” whereas the
“divine”—being different from the “human,” because it is “divine”—comes,
through the grace of God who bestows it, to those who have evinced their
capacity for receiving it, and especially to those who, from knowing the
difference between either kind of wisdom, say, in their prayers to God,
“Even if one among the sons of men be perfect, while the wisdom is
wanting that comes from Thee, he shall be accounted as nothing.”[1097]
We maintain, indeed, that “human” wisdom is an exercise for the soul,
but that “divine” wisdom is the “end,” being also termed the “strong”
meat of the soul by him who has said that “strong meat belongeth to them
that are perfect,[1098] even those who by reason of use have their
senses exercised to discern both good and evil.”[1099] This opinion,
moreover, is truly an ancient one, its antiquity not being referred
back, as Celsus thinks, merely to Heraclitus and Plato. For before these
individuals lived, the prophets distinguished between the two kinds of
wisdom. It is sufficient for the present to quote from the words of
David what he says regarding the man who is wise, according to divine
wisdom, that “he will not see corruption when he beholds wise men
dying.”[1100] Divine wisdom, accordingly, being different from faith, is
the “first” of the so-called “charismata” of God; and the “second” after
it—in the estimation of those who know how to distinguish such things
accurately—is what is called “knowledge;”[1101] and the “third”—seeing
that even the more simple class of men who adhere to the service of God,
so far as they can, must be saved—is faith. And therefore Paul says: “To
one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of
knowledge by the same Spirit, to another faith by the same
Spirit.”[1102] And therefore it is no ordinary individuals whom you will
find to have participated in the “divine” wisdom, but the more excellent
and distinguished among those who have given in their adherence to
Christianity; for it is not “to the most ignorant, or servile, or most
uninstructed of mankind,” that one would discourse upon the topics
relating to the divine wisdom.

Footnote 1097:

  Cf. Wisd. of Sol. ix. 6.

Footnote 1098:

  τέλειοι.

Footnote 1099:

  Heb. v. 14.

Footnote 1100:

  Ps. xlix. 9, 10 (LXX.).

Footnote 1101:

  γνῶσις.

Footnote 1102:

  1 Cor. xii. 8, 9.




                              Chapter XIV.


In designating others by the epithets of “uninstructed, and servile, and
ignorant,” Celsus, I suppose, means those who are not acquainted with
his laws, nor trained in the branches of Greek learning; while we, on
the other hand, deem those to be “uninstructed” who are not ashamed to
address [supplications] to inanimate objects, and to call upon those for
health that have no strength, and to ask the dead for life, and to
entreat the helpless for assistance.[1103] And although some may say
that these objects are not gods, but only imitations and symbols of real
divinities, nevertheless these very individuals, in imagining that the
hands of low mechanics[1104] can frame imitations of divinity, are
“uninstructed, and servile, and ignorant;” for we assert that the
lowest[1105] among us have been set free from this ignorance and want of
knowledge, while the most intelligent can understand and grasp the
divine hope. We do _not_ maintain, however, that it is impossible for
one who has not been trained in earthly wisdom to receive the “divine,”
but we _do_ acknowledge that all human wisdom is “folly” in comparison
with the “divine.” In the next place, instead of endeavouring to adduce
reasons, as he ought, for his assertions, he terms us “sorcerers,”[1106]
and asserts that “we flee away with headlong speed[1107] from the more
polished[1108] class of persons, because they are not suitable subjects
for our impositions, while we seek to decoy[1109] those who are more
rustic.” Now he did not observe that from the very beginning our wise
men were trained in the external branches of learning: Moses, _e.g._, in
all the wisdom of the Egyptians; Daniel, and Ananias, and Azariah, and
Mishael, in all Assyrian learning, so that they were found to surpass in
tenfold degree all the wise men of that country. At the present time,
moreover, the churches have, in proportion to the multitudes [of
ordinary believers], a few “wise” men, who have come over to them from
that wisdom which is said by us to be “according to the flesh;”[1110]
and they have also some who have advanced from it to that wisdom which
is “divine.”

Footnote 1103:

  τοὺς μὴ αἰσχυνομένους ἐν τῷ τοῖς ἀψύχοις προσλαλεῖν, καὶ περὶ μὲν
  ὑγείας τὸ ἀσθενὲς ἐπικαλουμένους, περὶ δὲ ζωῆς τὸ νεκρὸν ἀξιοῦντας,
  περὶ δὲ ἐπικουρίας τὸ ἀπορώτατον ἱκετεύοντας.

Footnote 1104:

  βαναύσων.

Footnote 1105:

  τοὺς ἐσχάτους.

Footnote 1106:

  γόητας.

Footnote 1107:

  προτροπάδην.

Footnote 1108:

  τοὺς χαριεστέρους.

Footnote 1109:

  παλεύομεν.

Footnote 1110:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26.




                              Chapter XV.


Celsus, in the next place, as one who has heard the subject of humility
greatly talked about,[1111] but who has not been at the pains to
understand it,[1112] would wish to speak evil of that humility which is
practised among us, and imagines that it is borrowed from some words of
Plato imperfectly understood, where he expresses himself in the _Laws_
as follows: “Now God, according to the ancient account, having in
Himself both the beginning and end and middle of all existing things,
proceeds according to nature, and marches straight on.[1113] He is
constantly followed by justice, which is the avenger of all breaches of
the divine law: he who is about to become happy follows her closely in
humility, and becomingly adorned.”[1114] He did not observe, however,
that in writers much older than Plato the following words occur in a
prayer: “Lord, my heart is not haughty, nor mine eyes lofty, neither do
I walk in great matters, nor in things too wonderful for me; if I had
not been humble,”[1115] etc. Now these words show that he who is of
humble mind does not by any means humble himself in an unseemly or
inauspicious manner, falling down upon his knees, or casting himself
headlong on the ground, putting on the dress of the miserable, or
sprinkling himself with dust. But he who is of humble mind in the sense
of the prophet, while “walking in great and wonderful things,” which are
above his capacity—viz. those doctrines that are truly great, and those
thoughts that are wonderful—“humbles himself under the mighty hand of
God.” If there are some, however, who through their stupidity[1116] have
not clearly understood the doctrine of humiliation, and act as they do,
it is not our doctrine which is to be blamed; but we must extend our
forgiveness to the stupidity[1117] of those who aim at higher things,
and owing to their fatuity of mind[1118] fail to attain them. He who is
“humble and becomingly adorned,” is so in a greater degree than Plato’s
“humble and becomingly adorned” individual: for he is becomingly
adorned, on the one hand, because “he walks in things great and
wonderful,” which are beyond his capacity; and humble, on the other
hand, because, while being in the midst of such, he yet voluntarily
humbles himself, not under any one at random, but under “the mighty hand
of God,” through Jesus Christ, the teacher of such instruction, “who did
not deem equality with God a thing to be eagerly clung to, but made
Himself of no reputation, and took on Him the form of a servant, and
being found in fashion as a man, humbled Himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross.”[1119] And so great is this
doctrine of humiliation, that it has no ordinary individual as its
teacher; but our great Saviour Himself says: “Learn of me, for I am meek
and lowly of heart, and ye shall find rest for your souls.”[1120]

Footnote 1111:

  ὡς περιηχηθεὶς τὰ περὶ ταπεινοφροσύνης.

Footnote 1112:

  μὴ ἐπιμελῶς αὐτὴν νοήσας.

Footnote 1113:

  εὐθείᾳ περαίνει κατὰ φύσιν παραπορευόμενος.

Footnote 1114:

  Plato, _de Legibus_, iv.

Footnote 1115:

  Ps. cxxxi. 1, 2 (LXX.). The clause, “If I had not been humble,” seems
  to belong to the following verse.

Footnote 1116:

  τῇ ἰδιωτείᾳ.

Footnote 1117:

  τῇ ἰδιωτείᾳ.

Footnote 1118:

  διὰ τὸν ἰδιωτισμόν.

Footnote 1119:

  Cf. Phil. ii. 6, 8.

Footnote 1120:

  Cf. Matt. xi. 20.




                              Chapter XVI.


In the next place, with regard to the declaration of Jesus against rich
men, when He said, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a
needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God,”[1121]
Celsus alleges that this saying manifestly proceeded from Plato, and
that Jesus perverted the words of the philosopher, which were, that “it
was impossible to be distinguished for goodness, and at the same time
for riches.”[1122] Now who is there that is capable of giving even
moderate attention to affairs—not merely among the believers on Jesus,
but among the rest of mankind—that would not laugh at Celsus, on hearing
that Jesus, who was born and brought up among the Jews, and was supposed
to be the son of Joseph the carpenter, and who had not studied
literature—not merely that of the Greeks, but not even that of the
Hebrews—as the truth-loving Scriptures testify regarding Him,[1123] had
read Plato, and being pleased with the opinion he expressed regarding
rich men, to the effect that “it was impossible to be distinguished for
goodness and riches at the same time,” had perverted this, and changed
it into, “It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle,
than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God!” Now, if Celsus
had not perused the Gospels in a spirit of hatred and dislike, but had
been imbued with a love of truth, he would have turned his attention to
the point why a camel—that one of animals which, as regards its physical
structure, is crooked—was chosen as an object of comparison with a rich
man, and what signification the “narrow eye of a needle” had for him who
saw that “strait and narrow was the way that leadeth unto life;”[1124]
and to this point also, that this animal, according to the law, is
described as “unclean,” having one element of acceptability, viz. that
it ruminates, but one of condemnation, viz. that it does not divide the
hoof. He would have inquired, moreover, how often the camel was adduced
as an object of comparison in the sacred Scriptures, and in reference to
what objects, that he might thus ascertain the meaning of the Logos
concerning the rich men. Nor would he have left without examination the
fact that “the poor” are termed “blessed” by Jesus, while “the rich” are
designated as “miserable;” and whether these words refer to the rich and
poor who are visible to the senses, or whether there is any kind of
poverty known to the Logos which is to be deemed “altogether blessed,”
and any rich man who is to be wholly condemned. For even a common
individual would not thus indiscriminately have praised the poor, many
of whom lead most wicked lives. But on this point we have said enough.

Footnote 1121:

  Cf. Matt. xix. 24.

Footnote 1122:

  Cf. Plato, v. _de Legibus_.

Footnote 1123:

  Cf. Matt. xiii. 54, Mark vi. 2, and John vii. 15.

Footnote 1124:

  Cf. Matt. vii. 14.




                             Chapter XVII.


Since Celsus, moreover, from a desire to depreciate the accounts which
our Scriptures give of the kingdom of God, has quoted none of them, as
if they were unworthy of being recorded by him (or perhaps because he
was unacquainted with them), while, on the other hand, he quotes the
sayings of Plato, both from his _Epistles_ and the _Phœdrus_, as if
these were divinely inspired, but our Scriptures were not, let us set
forth a few points, for the sake of comparison with these plausible
declarations of Plato, which did not, however, dispose the philosopher
to worship in a manner worthy of him the Maker of all things. For he
ought not to have adulterated or polluted this worship with what we call
“idolatry,” but what the many would describe by the term “superstition.”
Now, according to a Hebrew figure of speech, it is said of God in the
eighteenth Psalm, that “He made darkness His secret place,”[1125] to
signify that those notions which should be worthily entertained of God
are invisible and unknowable, because God conceals Himself in darkness,
as it were, from those who cannot endure the splendours of His
knowledge, or are incapable of looking at them, partly owing to the
pollution of their understanding, which is clothed with the body of
mortal lowliness, and partly owing to its feebler power of comprehending
God. And in order that it may appear that the knowledge of God has
rarely been vouchsafed to men, and has been found in very few
individuals, Moses is related to have entered into the darkness where
God was.[1126] And again, with regard to Moses it is said: “Moses alone
shall come near the Lord, but the rest shall not come nigh.”[1127] And
again, that the prophet may show the depth of the doctrines which relate
to God, and which is unattainable by those who do not possess the
“Spirit which searcheth all things, even the deep things of God,” he
added: “The abyss like a garment is His covering.”[1128] Nay, our Lord
and Saviour, the Logos of God, manifesting that the greatness of the
knowledge of the Father is appropriately comprehended and known
pre-eminently by Him alone, and in the second place by those whose minds
are enlightened by the Logos Himself and God, declares: “No man knoweth
the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father but the Son,
and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.”[1129] For no one can
worthily know the “uncreated”[1130] and first-born of all created nature
like the Father who begat Him, nor any one the Father like the living
Logos, and His Wisdom and Truth. By sharing in Him who takes away from
the Father what is called “darkness,” which He “made His secret place,”
and “the abyss,” which is called His “covering,” and in this way
unveiling the Father, every one knows the Father who[1131] is capable of
knowing Him.

Footnote 1125:

  Cf. Ps. xviii. 11.

Footnote 1126:

  Cf. Ex. xx. 21.

Footnote 1127:

  Cf. Ex. xxiv. 2.

Footnote 1128:

  Cf. Ps. civ. 6.

Footnote 1129:

  Cf. Matt. xi. 27.

Footnote 1130:

  ἀγένητον. Locus diligenter notandus, ubi filius e creaturarum numero
  diserte eximitur, dum ἀγένητος dicitur. At non dissimulandum in unico
  Cod. Anglicano secundo legi: τὸν γεννητόν: cf. _Origenianorum_, lib.
  ii. quæstio 2, num. 23.—RUÆUS.

Footnote 1131:

  ὅτί ποτ’ ἂν χωρῇ γιγνώσκειν. Boherellus proposes ὅστις ποτ’ ἂν χωρῇ,
  etc.




                             Chapter XVIII.


I thought it right to quote these few instances from a much larger
number of passages, in which our sacred writers express their ideas
regarding God, in order to show that, to those who have eyes to behold
the venerable character of Scripture, the sacred writings of the
prophets contain things more worthy of reverence than those sayings of
Plato which Celsus admires. Now the declaration of Plato, quoted by
Celsus, runs as follows: “All things are around the King of all, and all
things exist for his sake, and he is the cause of all good things. With
things of the second rank he is second, and with those of the third rank
he is third. The human soul, accordingly, is eager to learn what these
things are, looking to such things as are kindred to itself, none of
which is perfect. But as regards the King and those things which I
mentioned, there is nothing which resembles them.”[1132] I might have
mentioned, moreover, what is said of those beings which are called
seraphim by the Hebrews, and described in Isaiah,[1133] who cover the
face and feet of God, and of those called cherubim, whom Ezekiel[1134]
has described, and the postures of these, and of the manner in which God
is said to be borne upon the cherubim. But since they are mentioned in a
very mysterious manner, on account of the unworthy and the indecent, who
are unable to enter into the great thoughts and venerable nature of
theology, I have not deemed it becoming to discourse of them in this
treatise.

Footnote 1132:

  Cf. Plato, _Epist._ ii. ad Dionys.

Footnote 1133:

  Cf. Isa. vi. 2.

Footnote 1134:

  Cf. Ezek. i. and x.




                              Chapter XIX.


Celsus in the next place alleges, that “certain Christians, having
misunderstood the words of Plato, loudly boast of a ‘super-celestial’
God, thus ascending beyond the heaven of the Jews.” By these words,
indeed, he does not make it clear whether they also ascend beyond the
_God_ of the Jews, or only beyond the heaven by which they swear. It is
not our purpose at present, however, to speak of those who acknowledge
another god than the one worshipped by the Jews, but to defend
ourselves, and to show that it was impossible for the prophets of the
Jews, whose writings are reckoned among ours, to have borrowed anything
from Plato, because they were older than he. They did not then borrow
from him the declaration, that “all things are around the King of all,
and that all exist on account of him;” for we have learned that nobler
thoughts than these have been uttered by the prophets, by Jesus Himself
and His disciples, who have clearly indicated the meaning of the spirit
that was in them, which was none other than the spirit of Christ. Nor
was the philosopher the first to present to view the “super-celestial”
place; for David long ago brought to view the profundity and multitude
of the thoughts concerning God entertained by those who have ascended
above visible things, when he said in the book of Psalms: “Praise God,
ye heaven of heavens; and ye waters that be above the heavens, let them
praise the name of the Lord.”[1135] I do not, indeed, deny that Plato
learned from certain Hebrews the words quoted from the _Phœdrus_, or
even, as some have recorded, that he quoted them from a perusal of our
prophetic writings, when he said: “No poet here below has ever sung of
the super-celestial place, or ever will sing in a becoming manner,” and
so on. And in the same passage is the following: “For the essence, which
is both colourless and formless, and which cannot be touched, which
really exists, is the pilot of the soul, and is beheld by the
understanding alone; and around it the genus of true knowledge holds
this place.”[1136] Our Paul, moreover, educated by these words, and
longing after things “supra-mundane” and “super-celestial,” and doing
his utmost for their sake to attain them, says in the second Epistle to
the Corinthians: “For our light affliction, which is but for a moment,
worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; while
we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are
not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things
which are unseen are eternal.”[1137]

Footnote 1135:

  Ps. cxlviii. 4.

Footnote 1136:

  Cf. Plato in _Phædro_.

Footnote 1137:

  Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 17, 18.




                              Chapter XX.


Now, to those who are capable of understanding him, the apostle
manifestly presents to view “things which are the objects of
perception,” calling them “things seen;” while he terms “unseen,” things
which are the object of the understanding, and cognisable by it alone.
He knows, also, that things “seen” and visible are “temporal,” but that
things cognisable by the mind, and “not seen,” are “eternal;” and
desiring to remain in the contemplation of these, and being assisted by
his earnest longing for them, he deemed all affliction as “light” and as
“nothing,” and during the season of afflictions and troubles was not at
all bowed down by them, but by his contemplation of [divine] things
deemed every calamity a light thing, seeing we also have “a great High
Priest,” who by the greatness of His power and understanding “has passed
through the heavens, even Jesus the Son of God,” who has promised to all
that have truly learned divine things, and have lived lives in harmony
with them, to go before them to the things that are supra-mundane; for
His words are: “That where I go, ye may be also.”[1138] And therefore we
hope, after the troubles and struggles which we suffer here, to reach
the highest heavens,[1139] and receiving, agreeably to the teaching of
Jesus, the fountains of water that spring up unto eternal life, and
being filled with the rivers of knowledge,[1140] shall be united with
those waters that are said to be above the heavens, and which praise His
name. And as many of us[1141] as praise Him shall not be carried about
by the revolution of the heaven, but shall be ever engaged in the
contemplation of the invisible things of God, which are no longer
understood by us through the things which He hath made from the creation
of the world, but seeing, as it was expressed by the true disciple of
Jesus in these words, “then face to face;”[1142] and in these, “When
that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part will be done
away.”[1143]

Footnote 1138:

  Cf. John xiv. 3.

Footnote 1139:

  πρὸς ἄκροις τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.

Footnote 1140:

  ποταμοὺς τῶν θεωρήματων.

Footnote 1141:

  For ὅσον γε Boherellus proposes ὅσοι γε, which is adopted in the
  translation.

Footnote 1142:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Footnote 1143:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 10.




                              Chapter XXI.


The Scriptures which are current in the churches of God do not speak of
“seven” heavens, or of any definite number at all, but they do appear to
teach the existence of “heavens,” whether that means the “spheres” of
those bodies which the Greeks call “planets,” or something more
mysterious. Celsus, too, agreeably to the opinion of Plato,[1144]
asserts that souls can make their way to and from the earth through the
planets; while Moses, our most ancient prophet, says that a divine
vision was presented to the view of our prophet Jacob,[1145]—a ladder
stretching to heaven, and the angels of God ascending and descending
upon it, and the Lord supported[1146] upon its top,—obscurely pointing,
by this matter of the ladder, either to the same truths which Plato had
in view, or to something greater than these. On this subject Philo has
composed a treatise which deserves the thoughtful and intelligent
investigation of all lovers of truth.

Footnote 1144:

  Cf. Plato in _Timæo_.

Footnote 1145:

  Cf. Gen. xxviii. 12, 13.

Footnote 1146:

  ἐπεστηριγμένον.




                             Chapter XXII.


After this, Celsus, desiring to exhibit his learning in his treatise
against us, quotes also certain Persian mysteries, where he says: “These
things are obscurely hinted at in the accounts of the Persians, and
especially in the mysteries of Mithras, which are celebrated amongst
them. For in the latter there is a representation of the two heavenly
revolutions,—of the movement, viz., of the fixed[1147] stars, and of
that which takes place among the planets, and of the passage of the soul
through these. The representation is of the following nature: There is a
ladder with lofty gates,[1148] and on the top of it an eighth gate. The
first gate consists of lead, the second of tin, the third of copper, the
fourth of iron, the fifth of a mixture of metals,[1149] the sixth of
silver, and the seventh of gold. The first gate they assign to Saturn,
indicating by the ‘lead’ the slowness of this star; the second to Venus,
comparing her to the splendour and softness of tin; the third to
Jupiter, being firm[1150] and solid; the fourth to Mercury, for both
Mercury and iron are fit to endure all things, and are money-making and
laborious;[1151] the fifth to Mars, because, being composed of a mixture
of metals, it is varied and unequal; the sixth, of silver, to the Moon;
the seventh, of gold, to the Sun,—thus imitating the different colours
of the two latter.” He next proceeds to examine the reason of the stars
being arranged in this order, which is symbolized by the names of the
rest of matter.[1152] Musical reasons, moreover, are added or quoted by
the Persian theology; and to these, again, he strives to add a second
explanation, connected also with musical considerations. But it seems to
me, that to quote the language of Celsus upon these matters would be
absurd, and similar to what he himself has done, when, in his
accusations against Christians and Jews, he quoted, most
inappropriately, not only the words of Plato; but, dissatisfied even
with these,[1153] he adduced in addition the mysteries of the Persian
Mithras, and the explanation of them. Now, whatever be the case with
regard to these,—whether the Persians and those who conduct the
mysteries of Mithras give false or true accounts regarding them,—why did
he select these for quotation, rather than some of the other mysteries,
with the explanation of them? For the mysteries of Mithras do not appear
to be more famous among the Greeks than those of Eleusis, or than those
in Egina, where individuals are initiated in the rites of Hecate. But if
he must introduce barbarian mysteries with their explanation, why not
rather those of the Egyptians, which are highly regarded by many,[1154]
or those of the Cappadocians regarding the Comanian Diana, or those of
the Thracians, or even those of the Romans themselves, who initiate the
noblest members of their senate?[1155] But if he deemed it inappropriate
to institute a comparison with any of these, because they furnished no
aid in the way of accusing Jews or Christians, why did it not also
appear to him inappropriate to adduce the instance of the mysteries of
Mithras?

Footnote 1147:

  τῆς τε ἀπλανοῦς.

Footnote 1148:

  κλίμαξ ὑψίπυλος. Boherellus conjectures ἑπτάπυλος.

Footnote 1149:

  κεραστοῦ νομίσματος.

Footnote 1150:

  τὴν χαλκοβάτην καὶ στεῤῥάν.

Footnote 1151:

  τλήμονα γὰρ ἔργων ἁπάντων, καὶ χρηματιστὴν, καὶ πολύκμητον εἶναι, τόν
  τε σίδηρον καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν.

Footnote 1152:

  τῆς λοιπῆς ὕλης. For ὕλης, another reading is πύλης.

Footnote 1153:

  For ὡς ἐκείνοις ἀρκεῖσθαι, Spencer introduced into his text, οὐδ’
  ἐκείνοις ἀρκεῖσθαι, which has been adopted in the translation.

Footnote 1154:

  ἐν οἷς πολλοὶ σεμνύνονται.

Footnote 1155:

  ἀπὸ τῆς συγκλήτου βουλῆς.




                             Chapter XXIII.


If one wished to obtain means for a profounder contemplation of the
entrance of souls into divine things, not from the statements of that
very insignificant sect from which he quoted, but from books—partly
those of the Jews, which are read in their synagogues, and adopted by
Christians, and partly from those of Christians alone—let him peruse, at
the end of Ezekiel’s prophecies, the visions beheld by the prophet, in
which gates of different kinds are enumerated,[1156] which obscurely
refer to the different modes in which divine souls enter into a better
world;[1157] and let him peruse also, from the Apocalypse of John, what
is related of the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and of its
foundations and gates.[1158] And if he is capable of finding out also
the road, which is indicated by symbols, of those who will march on to
divine things, let him read the book of Moses entitled Numbers, and let
him seek the help of one who is capable of initiating him into the
meaning of the narratives concerning the encampments of the children of
Israel; viz. of what sort those were which were arranged towards the
east, as was the case with the first; and what those towards the
south-west and south; and what towards the sea; and what the last were,
which were stationed towards the north. For he will see that there is in
the respective places a meaning[1159] not to be lightly treated, nor, as
Celsus imagines, such as calls only for silly and servile listeners: but
he will distinguish in the encampments certain things relating to the
numbers that are enumerated, and which are specially adapted to each
tribe, of which the present does not appear to us to be the proper time
to speak. Let Celsus know, moreover, as well as those who read his book,
that in no part of the genuine and divinely accredited Scriptures are
“seven” heavens mentioned; neither do our prophets, nor the apostles of
Jesus, nor the Son of God Himself, repeat anything which they borrowed
from the Persians or the Cabiri.

Footnote 1156:

  Cf. Ezek. xlviii.

Footnote 1157:

  ἐπὶ τὰ κρείττονα.

Footnote 1158:

  Cf. Apoc. xxi.

Footnote 1159:

  θεωρήματα.




                             Chapter XXIV.


After the instance borrowed from the Mithraic mysteries, Celsus declares
that he who would investigate the Christian mysteries, along with the
aforesaid Persian, will, on comparing the two together, and on unveiling
the rites of the Christians, see in this way the difference between
them. Now, wherever he was able to give the names of the various sects,
he was nothing loth to quote those with which he thought himself
acquainted; but when he ought most of all to have done this, if they
were really known to him, and to have informed us which was the sect
that makes use of the diagram he has drawn, he has not done so. It seems
to me, however, that it is from some statements of a very insignificant
sect called Ophites, which he has misunderstood, that, in my opinion, he
has partly borrowed what he says about the diagram.[1160] Now, as we
have always been animated by a love of learning,[1161] we have fallen in
with this diagram, and we have found in it the representations of men
who, as Paul says, “creep into houses, and lead captive silly women
laden with sins, led away with divers lusts; ever learning, and never
able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”[1162] The diagram was,
however, so destitute of all credibility, that neither these easily
deceived women, nor the most rustic class of men, nor those who were
ready to be led away by any plausible pretender whatever, ever gave
their assent to the diagram. Nor, indeed, have we ever met any
individual, although we have visited many parts of the earth, and have
sought out all those who anywhere made profession of knowledge, that
placed any faith in this diagram.

Footnote 1160:

  “Utinam exstaret! Multum enim lucis procul dubio antiquissimorum
  Patrum libris, priscæ ecclesiæ temporibus, et quibusdam sacræ
  Scripturæ locis, accederet.”—SPENCER.

Footnote 1161:

  κατὰ τὸ φιλομαθὲς ἡμῶν.

Footnote 1162:

  Cf. 2 Tim. iii. 6, 7.




                              Chapter XXV.


In this diagram were described ten circles, distinct from each other,
but united by one circle, which was said to be the soul of all things,
and was called “Leviathan.”[1163] This Leviathan, the Jewish Scriptures
say, whatever they mean by the expression, was created by God for a
plaything;[1164] for we find in the Psalms: “In wisdom hast Thou made
all things: the earth is full of Thy creatures; so is this great and
wide sea. There go the ships; small animals with great; there is this
dragon, which Thou hast formed to play therein.”[1165] Instead of the
word “dragon,” the term “leviathan” is in the Hebrew. This impious
diagram, then, said of this leviathan, which is so clearly depreciated
by the psalmist, that it was the soul which had travelled through all
things! We observed, also, in the diagram, the being named “Behemoth,”
placed as it were under the lowest circle. The inventor of this accursed
diagram had inscribed this leviathan at its circumference and centre,
thus placing its name in two separate places. Moreover, Celsus says that
the diagram was “divided by a thick black line, and this line he
asserted was called Gehenna, which is Tartarus.” Now as we found that
Gehenna was mentioned in the Gospel as a place of punishment, we
searched to see whether it is mentioned anywhere in the ancient
Scriptures, and especially because the Jews too use the word. And we
ascertained that where the valley of the son of Ennom was named in
Scripture in the Hebrew, instead of “valley,” with fundamentally the
same meaning, it was termed both the valley of Ennom and also Geenna.
And continuing our researches, we find that what was termed “Geenna,” or
“the valley of Ennom,” was included in the lot of the tribe of Benjamin,
in which Jerusalem also was situated. And seeking to ascertain what
might be the inference from the heavenly Jerusalem belonging to the lot
of Benjamin and the valley of Ennom, we find a certain confirmation of
what is said regarding the place of punishment, intended for the
purification of such souls as are to be purified by torments, agreeably
to the saying: “The Lord cometh like a refiner’s fire, and like fuller’s
soap: and He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver and of
gold.”[1166]

Footnote 1163:

  Cf. note in Spencer’s ed.

Footnote 1164:

  παίγνιον.

Footnote 1165:

  Cf. Ps. civ. 24-26.

Footnote 1166:

  Cf. Mal. iii. 2, 3.




                             Chapter XXVI.


It is in the precincts of Jerusalem, then, that punishments will be
inflicted upon those who undergo the process of purification,[1167] who
have received into the substance of their soul the elements of
wickedness, which in a certain place[1168] is figuratively termed
“lead,” and on that account iniquity is represented in Zechariah as
sitting upon a “talent of lead.”[1169] But the remarks which might be
made on this topic are neither to be made to all, nor to be uttered on
the present occasion; for it is not unattended with danger to commit to
writing the explanation of such subjects, seeing the multitude need no
further instruction than that which relates to the punishment of
sinners; while to ascend beyond this is not expedient, for the sake of
those who are with difficulty restrained, even by fear of eternal
punishment, from plunging into any degree of wickedness, and into the
flood of evils which result from sin. The doctrine of Geenna, then, is
unknown both to the Diagram and to Celsus: for had it been otherwise,
the framers of the former would not have boasted of their pictures of
animals and diagrams, as if the truth were represented by these; nor
would Celsus, in his treatise against the Christians, have introduced
among the charges directed against them statements which they never
uttered, instead of what was spoken by some who perhaps are no longer in
existence, but have altogether disappeared, or been reduced to a very
few individuals, and these easily counted. And as it does not beseem
those who profess the doctrines of Plato to offer a defence of Epicurus
and his impious opinions, so neither is it for us to defend the diagram,
or to refute the accusations brought against it by Celsus. We may
therefore allow his charges on these points to pass as superfluous and
useless,[1170] for we would censure more severely than Celsus any who
should be carried away by such opinions.

Footnote 1167:

  χωνευομένων.

Footnote 1168:

  ποῦ.

Footnote 1169:

  Cf. Zech. v. 7.

Footnote 1170:

  μάτην ἐκκείμενα.




                             Chapter XXVII.


After the matter of the Diagram, he brings forward certain monstrous
statements, in the form of question and answer,[1171] regarding what is
called by ecclesiastical writers the “seal,” statements which did not
arise from imperfect information; such as that “he who impresses the
seal is called father, and he who is sealed is called young man and
son;” and who answers, “I have been anointed with white ointment from
the tree of life,”—things which we never heard to have occurred even
among the heretics. In the next place, he determines even the number
mentioned by those who deliver over the seal, as that “of _seven_
angels, who attach themselves to both sides of the soul of the dying
body; the one party being named angels of light, the others
‘archontics;’”[1172] and he asserts that the “ruler of those named
‘archontics’ is termed the ‘accursed’ God.” Then, laying hold of the
expression, he assails, not without reason, those who venture to use
such language; and on that account we entertain a similar feeling of
indignation with those who censure such individuals, if indeed there
exist any who call the God of the Jews—who sends rain and thunder, and
who is the Creator of this world, and the God of Moses, and of the
cosmogony which he records—an “accursed” divinity. Celsus, however,
appears to have had in view, in employing these expressions, not a
_rational_[1173] object, but one of a most irrational kind, arising out
of his hatred towards us, which is so unlike a philosopher. For his aim
was, that those who are unacquainted with our customs should, on
perusing his treatise, at once assail us as if we called the noble
Creator of this world an “accursed divinity.” He appears to me, indeed,
to have acted like those Jews who, when Christianity began to be first
preached, scattered abroad false reports of the gospel, such as that
“Christians offered up an infant in sacrifice, and partook of its
flesh;” and again, “that the professors of Christianity, wishing to do
the ‘works of darkness,’ used to extinguish the lights [in their
meetings], and each one to have sexual intercourse with any woman whom
he chanced to meet.” These calumnies have long exercised, although
unreasonably, an influence over the minds of very many, leading those
who are aliens to the gospel to believe that Christians are men of such
a character; and even at the present day they mislead some, and prevent
them from entering even into the simple intercourse of conversation with
those who are Christians.

Footnote 1171:

  ἀλλόκοτα καὶ ἀμοιβαίας φωνάς.

Footnote 1172:

  ἀρχοντικῶν.

Footnote 1173:

  οὐκ εὔγνωμον ἀλλά ... πάνυ ἀγνωμονέστατον.




                            Chapter XXVIII.


With some such object as this in view does Celsus seem to have been
actuated, when he alleged that Christians term the Creator an “accursed
divinity;” in order that he who believes these charges of his against
us, should, if possible, arise and exterminate the Christians as the
most impious of mankind. Confusing, moreover, things that are
distinct,[1174] he states also the reason why the God of the Mosaic
cosmogony is termed “accursed,” asserting that “such is his character,
and worthy of execration in the opinion of those who so regard him,
inasmuch as he pronounced a curse upon the serpent, who introduced the
first human beings to the knowledge of good and evil.” Now he ought to
have known that those who have espoused the cause of the serpent,
because he gave good advice to the first human beings, and who go far
beyond the Titans and Giants of fable, and are on this account called
Ophites, are so far from being Christians, that they bring accusations
against Jesus to as great a degree as Celsus himself; and they do not
admit any one into their assembly[1175] until he has uttered
maledictions against Jesus. See, then, how irrational is the procedure
of Celsus, who, in his discourse against the Christians, represents as
such those who will not even listen to the _name_ of Jesus, or admit
even that He was a wise man, or a person of virtuous[1176] character!
What, then, could evince greater folly or madness, not only on the part
of those who wish to derive their name from the serpent as the author of
good,[1177] but also on the part of Celsus, who thinks that the
accusations with which the Ophites[1178] are charged, are chargeable
also against the Christians! Long ago, indeed, that Greek philosopher
who preferred a state of poverty,[1179] and who exhibited the pattern of
a happy life, showing that he was not excluded from happiness although
he was possessed of nothing,[1180] termed himself a Cynic; while these
impious wretches, as not being human beings, whose enemy the serpent is,
but as being serpents, pride themselves upon being called Ophites from
the serpent, which is an animal most hostile to and greatly dreaded by
man, and boast of one Euphrates[1181] as the introducer of these
unhallowed opinions.

Footnote 1174:

  φύρων δὲ τὰ πράγματα.

Footnote 1175:

  συνέδριον.

Footnote 1176:

  μέτριος τὰ ἤθη.

Footnote 1177:

  ἀρχηγοῦ τῶν καλῶν.

Footnote 1178:

  Ὀφιᾶνοι; cf. Irenæus, vol. i. pp. 104-112 (_Ante-Nicene Library_).

Footnote 1179:

  τὴν εὐτέλειαν ἀγαπήσας.

Footnote 1180:

  ἀπὸ τῆς παντελοῦς ἀκτημοσύνης.

Footnote 1181:

  “Euphraten hujus hæresis auctorem solus Origenes tradit.”—SPENCER; cf.
  note in Spencer’s ed.




                             Chapter XXIX.


In the next place, as if it were the Christians whom he was
calumniating, he continues his accusations against those who termed the
God of Moses and of his law an “accursed” divinity; and imagining that
it is the Christians who so speak, he expresses himself thus: “What
could be more foolish or insane than such senseless[1182] wisdom? For
what blunder has the Jewish lawgiver committed? and why do you accept,
by means, as you say,[1183] of a certain allegorical and typical method
of interpretation, the cosmogony which he gives, and the law of the
Jews, while it is with unwillingness, O most impious man, that you give
praise to the Creator of the world, who promised to give them all
things; who promised to multiply their race to the ends of the earth,
and to raise them up from the dead with the same flesh and blood, and
who gave inspiration[1184] to their prophets; and, again, you slander
Him! When you feel the force of such considerations, indeed, you
acknowledge that you worship the same God; but when your teacher Jesus
and the Jewish Moses give contradictory decisions,[1185] you seek
another God, instead of Him, and the Father!” Now, by such statements,
this illustrious philosopher Celsus distinctly slanders the Christians,
asserting that, when the Jews press them hard, they acknowledge the same
God as they do; but that when Jesus legislates differently from Moses,
they seek another god instead of Him. Now, whether we are conversing
with the Jews, or are alone with ourselves, we know of only one and the
same God, whom the Jews also worshipped of old time, and still profess
to worship as God, and we are guilty of no impiety towards Him. We do
_not_ assert, however, that God will raise men from the dead with the
same flesh and blood, as has been shown in the preceding pages; for we
do not maintain that the natural[1186] body, which is sown in
corruption, and in dishonour, and in weakness, will rise again such as
it was sown. On such subjects, however, we have spoken at adequate
length in the foregoing pages.

Footnote 1182:

  ἀναισθήτου.

Footnote 1183:

  Boherellus proposes φῇς for the textual reading φησι.

Footnote 1184:

  καὶ τοῖς προφήταις ἐμπνέοντα.

Footnote 1185:

  ὅταν δὲ τὰ ἐναντία ὁ σὸς διδάσκαλος Ἰησοῦς, καὶ ὁ Ἰουδαίων Μωϋσῆς,
  νομοθετῆ.

Footnote 1186:

  ψυχικόν.




                              Chapter XXX.


He next returns to the subject of the Seven ruling Demons,[1187] whose
names are not found among Christians, but who, I think, are accepted by
the Ophites. We found, indeed, that in the Diagram, which on their
account we procured a sight of, the same order was laid down as that
which Celsus has given. Celsus says that “the goat was shaped like a
lion,” not mentioning the name given him by those who are truly the most
impious of individuals; whereas _we_ discovered that He who is honoured
in Holy Scripture as the angel of the Creator is called by this accursed
Diagram Michael the Lion-like. Again, Celsus says that the “second in
order is a bull;” whereas the Diagram which we possessed made him to be
Suriel, the bull-like. Further, Celsus termed the third “an amphibious
sort of animal, and one that hissed frightfully;” while the Diagram
described the third as Raphael, the serpent-like. Moreover, Celsus
asserted that the “fourth had the form of an eagle;” the Diagram
representing him as Gabriel, the eagle-like. Again, the “fifth,”
according to Celsus, “had the countenance of a bear;” and this,
according to the Diagram, was Thauthabaoth,[1188] the bear-like. Celsus
continues his account, that the “sixth was described as having the face
of a dog;” and him the Diagram called Erataoth. The “seventh,” he adds,
“had the countenance of an ass, and was named Thaphabaoth or Onoel;”
whereas we discovered that in the Diagram he is called Onoel, or
Thartharaoth, being somewhat asinine in appearance. We have thought it
proper to be exact in stating these matters, that we might not appear to
be ignorant of those things which Celsus professed to know, but that we
Christians, knowing them better than he, may demonstrate that these are
not the words of Christians, but of those who are altogether alienated
from salvation, and who neither acknowledge Jesus as Saviour, nor God,
nor teacher, nor Son of God.

Footnote 1187:

  Cf. Spencer’s note, as quoted in Benedictine ed.

Footnote 1188:

  “Nescio, an hæresium Scriptores hujus Thauthabaoth, Erataoth,
  Thaphabaoth, Onoeles, et Thartharaoth, usquam meminerint. Hujus
  generis vocabula innumera invenies apud Epiphan. _Hær._ 31, quæ est
  Valentinianorum, pp. 165-171.”—SPENCER.




                             Chapter XXXI.


Moreover, if any one would wish to become acquainted with the artifices
of those sorcerers, through which they desire to lead men away by their
teaching (as if they possessed the knowledge of certain secret rites),
but are not at all successful in so doing, let him listen to the
instruction which they receive after passing through what is termed the
“fence of wickedness,”[1189]—gates which are subjected to the world of
ruling spirits.[1190] [The following, then, is the manner in which they
proceed]: “I salute the one-formed[1191] king, the bond of blindness,
complete[1192] oblivion, the first power, preserved by the spirit of
providence and by wisdom, from whom I am sent forth pure, being already
part of the light of the son and of the father: grace be with me; yea, O
father, let it be with me.” They say also that the beginnings of the
Ogdoad[1193] are derived from this. In the next place, they are taught
to say as follows, while passing through what they call Ialdabaoth:
“Thou, O first and seventh, who art born to command with confidence,
thou, O Ialdabaoth, who art the rational ruler of a pure mind, and a
perfect work to son and father, bearing the symbol of life in the
character of a type, and opening to the world the gate which thou didst
close against thy kingdom, I pass again in freedom through thy realm.
Let grace be with me; yea, O father, let it be with me.” They say,
moreover, that the star Phænon[1194] is in sympathy[1195] with the
lion-like ruler. They next imagine that he who has passed through
Ialdabaoth and arrived at Iao ought thus to speak: “Thou, O second Iao,
who shinest by night,[1196] who art the ruler of the secret mysteries of
son and father, first prince of death, and portion of the innocent,
bearing now mine own beard as symbol, I am ready to pass through thy
realm, having strengthened him who is born of thee by the living word.
Grace be with me; father, let it be with me.” They next come to Sabaoth,
to whom they think the following should be addressed: “O governor of the
fifth realm, powerful Sabaoth, defender of the law of thy creatures, who
are liberated by thy grace through the help of a more powerful
Pentad,[1197] admit me, seeing the faultless symbol of their art,
preserved by the stamp of an image, a body liberated by a Pentad. Let
grace be with me, O father, let grace be with me.” And after Sabaoth
they come to Astaphæus, to whom they believe the following prayer should
be offered: “O Astaphæus, ruler of the third gate, overseer of the first
principle of water, look upon me as one of thine initiated,[1198] admit
me who am purified with the spirit of a virgin, thou who seest the
essence of the world. Let grace be with me, O father, let grace be with
me.” After him comes Aloæus, who is to be thus addressed: “O Aloæus,
governor of the second gate, let me pass, seeing I bring to thee the
symbol of thy mother, a grace which is hidden by the powers of the
realms.[1199] Let grace be with me, O father, let it be with me.” And
last of all they name Horæus, and think that the following prayer ought
to be offered to him: “Thou who didst fearlessly overleap the rampart of
fire, O Horæus, who didst obtain the government of the first gate, let
me pass, seeing thou beholdest the symbol of thine own power,
sculptured[1200] on the figure of the tree of life, and formed after
this image, in the likeness of innocence. Let grace be with me, O
father, let grace be with me.”

Footnote 1189:

  φραγμὸν κακίας.

Footnote 1190:

  πύλας ἀρχόντων αἰῶνι δεδεμένας.

Footnote 1191:

  μονότροπον.

Footnote 1192:

  λήθην ἀπερίσκεπτον.

Footnote 1193:

  Ὀγδοάδος. Cf. Tertullian, _de præscript. adv. Hæreticos_, c. 33
  (_Ante-Nicene Library_; Writings of Tertullian, vol. ii. p. 39), and
  other references in Benedictine ed.

Footnote 1194:

  Φαίνων. “Ea, quæ Saturni stella dicitur, Φαίνων a Græcis
  dicitur.”—CICERO, _de Nat. Deorum_, book ii.

Footnote 1195:

  συμπαθεῖν.

Footnote 1196:

  νυκτοφαής.

Footnote 1197:

  πεντάδι δυνατωτέρᾳ.

Footnote 1198:

  μύστην.

Footnote 1199:

  χάριν κρυπτομένην δυνάμεσιν ἐξουσιῶν.

Footnote 1200:

  For καταλυθέν Boherellus conjectures καταγλυφθέν, which has been
  adopted in the translation.




                             Chapter XXXII.


The supposed great learning of Celsus, which is composed, however,
rather of curious trifles and silly talk than anything else, has made us
touch upon these topics, from a wish to show to every one who peruses
his treatise and our reply, that we have no lack of information on those
subjects, from which he takes occasion to calumniate the Christians, who
neither are acquainted with, nor concern themselves about, such matters.
For we, too, desired both to learn and set forth these things, in order
that sorcerers might not, under pretext of knowing more than we, delude
those who are easily carried away by the glitter[1201] of names. And I
could have given many more illustrations to show that we are acquainted
with the opinions of these deluders,[1202] and that we disown them, as
being alien to ours, and impious, and not in harmony with the doctrines
of true Christians, of which we are ready to make confession even to the
death. It must be noticed, too, that those who have drawn up this array
of fictions, have, from neither understanding magic, nor discriminating
the meaning of Holy Scripture, thrown everything into confusion; seeing
that they have borrowed from magic the names of Ialdabaoth, and
Astaphæus, and Horæus, and from the Hebrew Scriptures him who is termed
in Hebrew Iao or Jah, and Sabaoth, and Adonæus, and Eloæus. Now the
names taken from the Scriptures are names of one and the same God;
which, not being understood by the enemies of God, as even themselves
acknowledge, led to their imagining that Iao was a different God, and
Sabaoth another, and Adonæus, whom the Scriptures term Adonai, a third
besides, and that Eloæus, whom the prophets name in Hebrew Eloi, was
also different.

Footnote 1201:

  φαντασίας.

Footnote 1202:

  ἀπατεώνων.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


Celsus next relates other fables, to the effect that “certain persons
return to the shapes of the archontics,[1203] so that some are called
lions, others bulls, others dragons, or eagles, or bears, or dogs.” We
found also in the Diagram which we possessed, and which Celsus called
the “square pattern,” the statements[1204] made by these unhappy beings
concerning the gates of Paradise. The flaming sword was depicted as the
diameter of a flaming circle, and as if mounting guard over the tree of
knowledge and of life. Celsus, however, either would not or could not
repeat the harangues which, according to the fables of these impious
individuals, are represented as spoken at each of the gates by those who
pass through them; but this we have done in order to show to Celsus and
those who read his treatise, that we know the depth of these unhallowed
mysteries,[1205] and that they are far removed from the worship which
Christians offer up to God.

Footnote 1203:

  εἰς τὰς ἀρχοντικὰς μορφάς.

Footnote 1204:

  Guietus thinks that some word has been omitted here, as ξίφος, which
  seems very probable.

Footnote 1205:

  τὸ τῆς ἀτελέστου τελετῆς πέρας.




                             Chapter XXXIV.


After finishing the foregoing, and those analogous matters which we
ourselves have added, Celsus continues as follows: “They continue to
heap together one thing after another,—discourses of prophets, and
circles upon circles, and effluents[1206] from an earthly church, and
from circumcision; and a power flowing from one Prunicos, a virgin and a
living soul; and a heaven slain in order to live, and an earth
slaughtered by the sword, and many put to death that they may live, and
death ceasing in the world, when the sin of the world is dead; and,
again, a narrow way, and gates that open spontaneously. And in all their
writings [is mention made] of the tree of life, and a resurrection of
the flesh by means[1207] of the ‘tree,’ because, I imagine, their
teacher was nailed to a cross, and was a carpenter by trade; so that if
he had chanced to have been cast from a precipice, or thrust into a pit,
or suffocated by hanging, or had been a leather-cutter, or stone-cutter,
or worker in iron, there would have been [invented] a precipice of life
beyond the heavens, or a pit of resurrection, or a cord of immortality,
or a blessed stone, or an iron of love, or a sacred leather! Now what
old woman would not be ashamed to utter such things in a whisper, even
when making stories to lull an infant to sleep?” In using such language
as this, Celsus appears to me to confuse together matters which he has
imperfectly heard. For it seems likely that, even supposing that he had
heard a few words traceable to some existing heresy, he did not clearly
understand the meaning intended to be conveyed; but heaping the words
together, he wished to show before those who knew nothing either of our
opinions or of those of the heretics, that he was acquainted with all
the doctrines of the Christians. And this is evident also from the
foregoing words.

Footnote 1206:

  ἀποῤῥοίας.

Footnote 1207:

  ἀπὸ ξύλου.




                             Chapter XXXV.


It is our practice, indeed, to make use of the words of the prophets,
who demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ predicted by them, and who show
from the prophetic writings that the events in the Gospels regarding
Jesus have been fulfilled. But when Celsus speaks of “circles upon
circles,” [he perhaps borrowed the expression] from the aforementioned
heresy, which includes in one circle (which they call the soul of all
things, and Leviathan) the seven circles of archontic demons, or perhaps
it arises from misunderstanding the preacher, when he says: “The wind
goeth in a circle of circles, and returneth again upon its
circles.”[1208] The expression, too, “effluents of an earthly church and
of circumcision,” was probably taken from the fact that the church on
earth was called by some an effluent from a heavenly church and a better
world; and that the circumcision described in the law was a symbol of
the circumcision performed there, in a certain place set apart for
purification. The adherents of Valentinus, moreover, in keeping with
their system of error,[1209] give the name of Prunicos to a certain kind
of wisdom, of which they would have the woman afflicted with the twelve
years’ issue of blood to be the symbol; so that Celsus, who confuses
together all sorts of opinions—Greek, Barbarian, and Heretical—having
heard of her, asserted that it was a power flowing forth from one
Prunicos, a virgin. The “living soul,” again, is perhaps mysteriously
referred by some of the followers of Valentinus to the being whom they
term the psychic[1210] creator of the world; or perhaps, in
contradistinction to a “dead” soul, the “living” soul is termed by some,
not inelegantly,[1211] the soul of “him who is saved.” I know nothing,
however, of a “heaven which is said to be slain,” or of an “earth
slaughtered by the sword,” or of many persons slain in order that they
might live; for it is not unlikely that these were coined by Celsus out
of his own brain.

Footnote 1208:

  Eccles. i. 6 (literally rendered).

Footnote 1209:

  κατὰ τὴν πεπλανημένην ἑαυτῶν σοφίαν.

Footnote 1210:

  ψυχικὸν δημιουργόν.

Footnote 1211:

  οὐκ ἀγεννῶς.




                             Chapter XXXVI.


We would say, moreover, that death ceases in the world when the sin of
the world dies, referring the saying to the mystical words of the
apostle, which run as follows: “When He shall have put all enemies under
His feet, then the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.”[1212]
And also: “When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, then
shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed
up in victory.”[1213] The “strait descent,”[1214] again, may perhaps be
referred by those who hold the doctrine of transmigration of souls to
that view of things. And it is not incredible that the gates which are
said to open spontaneously are referred obscurely by some to the words,
“Open to me the gates of righteousness, that I may go into them, and
praise the Lord; this gate of the Lord, into it the righteous shall
enter;”[1215] and again, to what is said in the ninth psalm, “Thou that
liftest me up from the gates of death, that I may show forth all Thy
praise in the gates of the daughter of Zion.”[1216] The Scripture
further gives the name of “gates of death” to those sins which lead to
destruction, as it terms, on the contrary, good actions the “gates of
Zion.” So also “the gates of righteousness,” which is an equivalent
expression to “the gates of virtue,” and these are ready to be opened to
him who follows after virtuous pursuits. The subject of the “tree of
life” will be more appropriately explained when we interpret the
statements in the book of Genesis regarding the paradise planted by God.
Celsus, moreover, has often mocked at the subject of a resurrection,—a
doctrine which he did not comprehend; and on the present occasion, not
satisfied with what he has formerly said, he adds, “And there is said to
be a resurrection of the flesh by means of the tree;” not understanding,
I think, the symbolical expression, that “through the tree came death,
and through the tree comes life,”[1217] because death was in Adam, and
life in Christ. He next scoffs at the “tree,” assailing it on two
grounds, and saying, “For this reason is the tree introduced, either
because our teacher was nailed to a cross, or because he was a carpenter
by trade;” not observing that the tree of life is mentioned in the
Mosaic writings, and being blind also to this, that in none of the
Gospels current in the churches is Jesus Himself ever described as being
a carpenter.[1218]

Footnote 1212:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 25, 26.

Footnote 1213:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 54; cf. Hos. xiii. 14.

Footnote 1214:

  κάθοδον στενήν.

Footnote 1215:

  Cf. Ps. cxviii. 19, 20.

Footnote 1216:

  Cf. Ps. ix. 13, 14.

Footnote 1217:

  Cf. 1 Cor. xv. 22.

Footnote 1218:

  Cf., however, Mark vi. 3.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


Celsus, moreover, thinks that we have invented this “tree of life” to
give an allegorical meaning to the cross; and in consequence of his
error upon this point, he adds: “If he had happened to be cast down a
precipice, or shoved into a pit, or suffocated by hanging, there would
have been invented a precipice of life far beyond the heavens, or a pit
of resurrection, or a cord of immortality.” And again: “If the ‘tree of
life’ were an invention, because he (Jesus) [is reported] to have been a
carpenter, it would follow that if he had been a leather-cutter,
something would have been said about holy leather; or had he been a
stone-cutter, about a blessed stone; or if a worker in iron, about an
iron of love.” Now, who does not see at once[1219] the paltry nature of
his charge, in thus calumniating men whom he professed to convert on the
ground of their being deceived? And after these remarks, he goes on to
speak in a way quite in harmony with the tone of those who have invented
the fictions of lion-like, and ass-headed, and serpent-like ruling
angels,[1220] and other similar absurdities, but which does not affect
those who belong to the church. Of a truth, even a drunken old woman
would be ashamed to chaunt or whisper to an infant, in order to lull him
to sleep, any such fables as those have done who invented the beings
with asses’ heads, and the harangues, so to speak, which are delivered
at each of the gates. But Celsus is not acquainted with the doctrines of
the members of the church, which very few have been able to comprehend,
even of those who have devoted all their lives, in conformity with the
command of Jesus, to the searching of the Scriptures, and have laboured
to investigate the meaning of the sacred books, to a greater degree than
Greek philosophers in their efforts to attain a so-called wisdom.

Footnote 1219:

  αὐτόθεν.

Footnote 1220:

  ἄρχοντας.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


Our noble [friend], moreover, not satisfied with the objections which he
has drawn from the Diagram, desires, in order to strengthen his
accusations against us, who have nothing in common with it, to introduce
certain other charges, which he adduces from the same [heretics], but
yet as if they were from a different source. His words are: “And that is
not the least of their marvels, for there are between the upper
circles—those that are above the heavens—certain inscriptions of which
they give the interpretation, and among others two words especially, ‘a
greater and a less,’ which they refer to Father and Son.”[1221] Now, in
the Diagram referred to, we found the greater and the lesser circle,
upon the diameter of which was inscribed “Father and Son;” and between
the greater circle (in which the lesser was contained) and another[1222]
composed of two circles,—the outer one of which was yellow, and the
inner blue,—a barrier inscribed in the shape of a hatchet. And above it,
a short circle, close to the greater of the two former, having the
inscription “Love;” and lower down, one touching the same circle, with
the word “Life.” And on the second circle, which was intertwined with
and included two other circles, another figure, like a rhomboid,
[entitled] “The foresight of wisdom.” And within their point of common
section was “The nature of wisdom.” And above their point of common
section was a circle, on which was inscribed “Knowledge;” and lower down
another, on which was the inscription, “Understanding.” We have
introduced these matters into our reply to Celsus, to show to our
readers that we know better than he, and not by mere report, those
things, even although we also disapprove of them. Moreover, if those who
pride themselves upon such matters profess also a kind of magic and
sorcery,—which, in their opinion, is the summit of wisdom,—we, on the
other hand, make no affirmation about it, seeing we never have
discovered anything of the kind. Let Celsus, however, who has been
already often convicted of false witness and irrational accusations, see
whether he is not guilty of falsehood in these also, or whether he has
not extracted and introduced into his treatise, statements taken from
the writings of those who are foreigners and strangers to our Christian
faith.

Footnote 1221:

  ἄλλα τε, καὶ δύο ἄττα, μεῖζον τε καὶ μικρότερον υἱοῦ καὶ πατρός.

Footnote 1222:

  For ἄλλους, the textual reading, Gelenius, with the approval of
  Boherellus, proposes καὶ ἄλλου συγκειμένου, which has been followed in
  the translation.




                             Chapter XXXIX.


In the next place, speaking of those who employ the arts of magic and
sorcery, and who invoke the barbarous names of demons, he remarks that
such persons act like those who, in reference to the same things,[1223]
perform marvels before those who are ignorant that the names of demons
among the Greeks are different from what they are among the Scythians.
He then quotes a passage from Herodotus, stating that “Apollo is called
Gongosyrus by the Scythians; Poseidon, Thagimasada; Aphrodite,
Argimpasan; Hestia, Tabiti.”[1224] Now, he who has the capacity can
inquire whether in these matters Celsus and Herodotus are not both
wrong; for the Scythians do not understand the same thing as the Greeks,
in what relates to those beings which are deemed to be gods. For how is
it credible[1225] that Apollo should be called Gongosyrus by the
Scythians? I do not suppose that Gongosyrus, when transferred into the
Greek language, yields the same etymology as Apollo; or that Apollo, in
the dialect of the Scythians, has the signification of Gongosyrus. Nor
has any such assertion hitherto been made regarding the other
names,[1226] for the Greeks took occasion from different circumstances
and etymologies to give to those who are by them deemed gods the names
which they bear; and the Scythians, again, from another set of
circumstances; and the same also was the case with the Persians, or
Indians, or Ethiopians, or Libyans, or with those who delight to bestow
names [from fancy], and who do not abide by the just and pure idea of
the Creator of all things. Enough, however, has been said by us in the
preceding pages, where we wished to demonstrate that Sabaoth and Zeus
were not the same deity, and where also we made some remarks, derived
from the Holy Scriptures, regarding the different dialects. We
willingly, then, pass by these points, on which Celsus would make us
repeat ourselves. In the next place, again, mixing up together matters
which belong to magic and sorcery, and referring them perhaps to no
one,—because of the non-existence of any who practise magic under
pretence of a worship of this character,—and yet, perhaps, having in
view some who _do_ employ such practices in the presence of the simple
(that they may have the appearance of acting by divine power), he adds:
“What need to number up all those who have taught methods of
purification, or expiatory hymns, or spells for averting evil, or [the
making of] images, or resemblances of demons, or the various sorts of
antidotes against poison [to be found][1227] in clothes, or in numbers,
or stones, or plants, or roots, or generally in all kinds of things?” In
respect to these matters, reason does not require us to offer any
defence, since we are not liable in the slightest degree to suspicions
of such a nature.

Footnote 1223:

  ἐπὶ τοῖς αὐτοῖς ὑποκειμένοις.

Footnote 1224:

  Cf. Herodot. iv. 9.

Footnote 1225:

  ποία γὰρ πιθανότης.

Footnote 1226:

  For the textual reading, οὔπω δὲ οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν λοιπῶν ταὐτόν τι ἐρεῖ,
  Boherellus conjectures εἴρηται, which has been adopted in the
  translation.

Footnote 1227:

  For αἰσθητῶν, Lommatzsch adopts the conjecture of Boherellus, approved
  by Ruæus, ἐσθήτων.




                              Chapter XL.


After these things, Celsus appears to me to act like those who, in their
intense hatred of the Christians, maintain, in the presence of those who
are utterly ignorant of the Christian faith, that they have actually
ascertained that Christians devour the flesh of infants, and give
themselves without restraint to sexual intercourse with their women.
Now, as these statements have been condemned as falsehoods invented
against the Christians, and this admission made by the multitude and
those altogether aliens to our faith; so would the following statements
of Celsus be found to be calumnies invented against the Christians,
where he says that “he has seen in the hands of certain presbyters
belonging to our faith[1228] barbarous books, containing the names and
marvellous doings of demons;” asserting further, that “these presbyters
of our faith professed to do no good, but all that was calculated to
injure human beings.” Would, indeed, that all that is said by Celsus
against the Christians was of such a nature as to be refuted by the
multitude, who have ascertained by experience that such things are
untrue, seeing that most of them have lived as neighbours with the
Christians, and have not even heard of the existence of any such alleged
practices!

Footnote 1228:

  δόξης.




                              Chapter XLI.


In the next place, as if he had forgotten that it was his object to
write against the Christians, he says that, “having become acquainted
with one Dionysius, an Egyptian musician, the latter told him, with
respect to magic arts, that it was only over the uneducated and men of
corrupt morals that they had any power, while on philosophers they were
unable to produce any effect, because they were careful to observe a
healthy manner of life.” If, now, it had been our purpose to treat of
magic, we could have added a few remarks in addition to what we have
already said on this topic; but since it is only the more important
matters which we have to notice in answer to Celsus, we shall say of
magic, that any one who chooses to inquire whether philosophers were
ever led captive by it or not, can read what has been written by
Moiragenes regarding the memoirs of the magician and philosopher
Apollonius of Tyana, in which this individual, who is not a Christian,
but a philosopher, asserts that some philosophers of no mean note were
won over by the magic power possessed by Apollonius, and resorted to him
as a sorcerer; and among these, I think, he especially mentioned
Euphrates and a certain Epicurean. Now _we_, on the other hand, affirm,
and have learned by experience, that they who worship the God of all
things in conformity with the Christianity which comes by Jesus, and who
live according to His gospel, using night and day, continuously and
becomingly, the prescribed prayers, are not carried away either by magic
or demons. For verily “the angel of the Lord encamps round about them
that fear Him, and delivereth them”[1229] from all evil; and the angels
of the little ones in the church, who are appointed to watch over them,
are said always to behold the face of their Father who is in
heaven,[1230] whatever be the meaning of “face” or of “behold.”

Footnote 1229:

  Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 7.

Footnote 1230:

  Cf. Matt. xviii. 10.




                             Chapter XLII.


After these matters, Celsus brings the following charges against us from
another quarter: “Certain most impious errors,” he says, “are committed
by them, due to their extreme ignorance, in which they have wandered
away from the meaning of the divine enigmas, creating an adversary to
God, the devil, and naming him in the Hebrew tongue, Satan. Now, of a
truth, such statements are altogether of mortal invention,[1231] and not
even proper to be repeated, viz. that the mighty God, in His desire to
confer good upon men, has yet one counterworking Him, and is helpless.
The Son of God, it follows, is vanquished by the devil; and being
punished by him, teaches us also to despise the punishments which he
inflicts, telling us beforehand that Satan, after appearing to men as He
Himself had done, will exhibit great and marvellous works, claiming for
himself the glory of God, but that those who wish to keep him at a
distance ought to pay no attention to these works of Satan, but to place
their faith in Him alone. Such statements are manifestly the words of a
deluder, planning and manœuvring against those who are opposed to his
views, and who rank themselves against them.” In the next place,
desiring to point out the “enigmas,” our mistakes regarding which lead
to the introduction of our views concerning Satan, he continues: “The
ancients allude obscurely to a certain war among the gods, Heraclitus
speaking thus of it: ‘If one must say that there is a general war and
discord, and that all things are done and administered in strife.’
Pherecydes, again, who is much older than Heraclitus, relates a myth of
one army drawn up in hostile array against another, and names Kronos as
the leader of the one, and Ophioneus of the other, and recounts their
challenges and struggles, and mentions that agreements were entered into
between them, to the end that whichever party should fall into the
Ocean[1232] should be held as vanquished, while those who had expelled
and conquered them should have possession of heaven. The mysteries
relating to the Titans and Giants also had some such [symbolical]
meaning, as well as the Egyptian mysteries of Typhon, and Horus, and
Osiris.” After having made such statements, and not having got over the
difficulty[1233] as to the way in which these accounts contain a higher
view of things, while our accounts are erroneous copies of them, he
continues his abuse of us, remarking that “these are not like the
stories which are related of a devil, or demon, or, as he remarks with
more truth, of a man who is an impostor, who wishes to establish an
opposite doctrine.” And in the same way he understands Homer, as if he
referred obscurely to matters similar to those mentioned by Heraclitus,
and Pherecydes, and the originators of the mysteries about the Titans
and Giants, in those words which Hephæstus addresses to Hera, as
follows:

         “Once in your cause I felt his matchless might,
         Hurled headlong downward from the ethereal height.”[1234]

And in those of Zeus to Hera:

         “Hast thou forgot, when bound and fix’d on high
         From the vast concave of the spangled sky,
         I hung thee trembling on a golden chain,
         And all the raging gods opposed in vain?
         Headlong I hurled them from the Olympian hall,
         Stunn’d in the whirl, and breathless with the fall.”[1235]

Interpreting, moreover, the words of Homer, he adds: “The words of Zeus
addressed to Hera are the words of God addressed to matter; and the
words addressed to matter obscurely signify that the matter which at the
beginning was in a state of discord [with God], was taken by Him, and
bound together and arranged under laws, which may be analogically
compared to chains;[1236] and that by way of chastising the demons who
create disorder in it, he hurls them down headlong to this lower world.”
These words of Homer, he alleges, were so understood by Pherecydes, when
he said that beneath that region is the region of Tartarus, which is
guarded by the Harpies and Tempest, daughters of Boreas, and to which
Zeus banishes any one of the gods who becomes disorderly. With the same
ideas also are closely connected the _peplos_ of Athena, which is beheld
by all in the procession of the _Panathenæa_. For it is manifest from
this, he continues, that a motherless and unsullied demon[1237] has the
mastery over the daring of the Giants. While accepting, moreover, the
fictions of the Greeks, he continues to heap against us such accusations
as the following, viz., that “the Son of God is punished by the devil,
and teaches us that we also, when punished by him, ought to endure it.
Now these statements are altogether ridiculous. For it is the devil, I
think, who ought rather to be punished, and those human beings who are
calumniated by him ought not to be threatened with chastisement.”

Footnote 1231:

  θνητά. Instead of this reading, Guietus conjectures πτηκτά, which is
  approved of by Ruæus.

Footnote 1232:

  Ὠγηνόν, _i.e._ in Oceanum, Hesych.; Ὠγην, ὠκεανός, Suid.

Footnote 1233:

  καὶ μὴ παραμυθησάμενος.

Footnote 1234:

  Cf. _Iliad_, book i. v. 590, Pope’s translation.

Footnote 1235:

  Cf. _Iliad_, book xv. vv. 18-24, Pope’s translation.

Footnote 1236:

  ἀναλογίαις τισὶ συνέδησε καὶ ἐκόσμησεν ὁ Θεός.

Footnote 1237:

  ἀμήτωρ τις καὶ ἄχραντος δαίμων.




                             Chapter XLIII.


Mark now, whether he who charges us with having committed errors of the
most impious kind, and with having wandered away from the [true meaning]
of the divine enigmas, is not himself clearly in error, from not
observing that in the writings of Moses, which are much older not merely
than Heraclitus and Pherecydes, but even than Homer, mention is made of
this wicked one, and of his having fallen from heaven. For the
serpent[1238]—from whom the Ophioneus spoken of by Pherecydes is
derived—having become the cause of man’s expulsion from the divine
Paradise, obscurely shadows forth something similar, having deceived the
woman[1239] by a promise of divinity and of greater blessings; and her
example is said to have been followed also by the man. And, further, who
else could the destroying angel mentioned in the Exodus of Moses[1240]
be, than he who was the author of destruction to them that obeyed him,
and did not withstand his wicked deeds, nor struggle against them?
Moreover, [the goat], which in the book of Leviticus[1241] is sent away
[into the wilderness], and which in the Hebrew language is named Azazel,
was none other than this; and it was necessary to send it away into the
desert, and to treat it as an expiatory sacrifice, because on it the lot
fell. For all who belong to the “worse” part, on account of their
wickedness, being opposed to those who are God’s heritage, are deserted
by God. Nay, with respect to the sons of Belial in the book of
Judges,[1242] whose sons are they said to be, save his, on account of
their wickedness? And besides all these instances, in the book of Job,
which is older even than Moses himself, the devil is distinctly
described as presenting himself before God,[1243] and asking for power
against Job, that he might involve him in trials[1244] of the most
painful kind; the first of which consisted in the loss of all his goods
and of his children, and the second in afflicting the whole body of Job
with the so-called disease of elephantiasis.[1245] I pass by what might
be quoted from the Gospels regarding the devil who tempted the Saviour,
that I may not appear to quote in reply to Celsus from more recent
writings on this question. In the last [chapter][1246] also of Job, in
which the Lord utters to Job amid tempest and clouds what is recorded in
the book which bears his name, there are not a few things referring to
the serpent. I have not yet mentioned the passages in Ezekiel,[1247]
where he speaks, as it were, of Pharaoh, or Nebuchadnezzar, or the
prince of Tyre; or those in Isaiah,[1248] where lament is made for the
king of Babylon, from which not a little might be learned concerning
evil, as to the nature of its origin and generation, and as to how it
derived its existence from some who had lost their wings,[1249] and who
had followed him who was the first to lose his own.

Footnote 1238:

  Cf. Gen. iii.

Footnote 1239:

  τὸ θηλύτερον γένος.

Footnote 1240:

  Cf. Ex. xii. 23.

Footnote 1241:

  Cf. Lev. xvi. 8.

Footnote 1242:

  ἐναντίοι ὄντες τοῖς ἀπὸ τοῦ κλήρου τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἔρημοί εἰσι Θεοῦ.

Footnote 1243:

  Cf. Job i., ii.

Footnote 1244:

  περιστάσεσι.

Footnote 1245:

  ἀγρίῳ ἐλέφαντι.

Footnote 1246:

  Cf. Job xl. 20.

Footnote 1247:

  Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 1-28.

Footnote 1248:

  Isa. xiv. 4 sqq.

Footnote 1249:

  πτεροῤῥυησάντων. Cf. Book iv. c. 40.




                             Chapter XLIV.


For it is impossible that the good which is the result of accident, or
of communication, should be like that good which comes by nature; and
yet the former will never be lost by him who, so to speak, partakes of
the “living” bread with a view to his own preservation. But if it
should fail any one, it must be through his own fault, in being
slothful to partake of this “living bread” and “genuine drink,” by
means of which the wings, nourished and watered, are fitted for their
purpose, even according to the saying of Solomon, the wisest of men,
concerning the truly rich man, that “he made to himself wings like an
eagle, and returns to the house of his patron.”[1250] For it became
God, who knows how to turn to proper account even those who in their
wickedness have apostatized from Him, to place wickedness of this sort
in some part of the universe, and to appoint a training-school of
virtue, wherein those must exercise themselves who would desire to
recover in a “lawful manner”[1251] the possession [which they had
lost]; in order that being tested, like gold in the fire, by the
wickedness of these, and having exerted themselves to the utmost to
prevent anything base injuring their rational nature, they may appear
deserving of an ascent to divine things, and may be elevated by the
Word to the blessedness which is above all things, and so to speak, to
the very summit of goodness. Now he who in the Hebrew language is
named Satan, and by some Satanas—as being more in conformity with the
genius of the Greek language—signifies, when translated into Greek,
“adversary.” But every one who prefers vice and a vicious life, is
(because acting in a manner contrary to virtue) Satanas, that is, an
“adversary” to the Son of God, who is righteousness, and truth, and
wisdom.[1252] With more propriety, however, is _he_ called
“adversary,” who was the first among those that were living a peaceful
and happy life to lose his wings, and to fall from blessedness; he
who, according to Ezekiel, walked faultlessly in all his ways, “until
iniquity was found in him,”[1253] and who being the “seal of
resemblance” and the “crown of beauty” in the paradise of God, being
filled as it were with good things, fell into destruction, in
accordance with the word which said to him in a mystic sense: “Thou
hast fallen into destruction, and shalt not abide for ever.”[1254] We
have ventured somewhat rashly to make these few remarks, although in
so doing we have added nothing of importance to this treatise. If any
one, however, who has leisure for the examination of the sacred
writings, should collect together from all sources and form into one
body of doctrine what is recorded concerning the origin of evil, and
the manner of its dissolution, he would see that the views of Moses
and the prophets regarding Satan had not been even dreamed of either
by Celsus or any one of those whose soul had been dragged down, and
torn away from God, and from right views of Him, and from His word, by
this wicked demon.

Footnote 1250:

  Cf. Prov. xxiii. 5.

Footnote 1251:

  Cf. 1 Tim. ii. 5.

Footnote 1252:

  Cf. 1 Cor. i. 30.

Footnote 1253:

  Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 15.

Footnote 1254:

  Cf. Ezek. xxviii. 19.




                              Chapter XLV.


But since Celsus rejects the statements concerning Antichrist, as it is
termed, having neither read what is said of him in the book of
Daniel[1255] nor in the writings of Paul,[1256] nor what the Saviour in
the Gospels[1257] has predicted about his coming, we must make a few
remarks upon this subject also; because, “as faces do not resemble
faces,”[1258] so also neither do men’s “hearts” resemble one another. It
is certain, then, that there will be diversities amongst the hearts of
men,—those which are inclined to virtue not being all modelled and
shaped towards it in the same or like degree; while others, through
neglect of virtue, rush to the opposite extreme. And amongst the latter
are some in whom evil is deeply engrained, and others in whom it is less
deeply rooted. Where is the absurdity, then, in holding that there exist
among men, so to speak, two extremes,[1259]—the one of virtue, and the
other of its opposite; so that the perfection of virtue dwells in the
man who realizes the ideal given in Jesus, from whom there flowed to the
human race so great a conversion, and healing, and amelioration, while
the opposite extreme is in the man who embodies the notion of him that
is named Antichrist? For God, comprehending all things by means of His
foreknowledge, and foreseeing what consequences would result from both
of these, wished to make these known to mankind by His prophets, that
those who understand their words might be familiarized with the good,
and be on their guard against its opposite. It was proper, moreover,
that the one of these extremes, and the best of the two, should be
styled the Son of God, on account of His pre-eminence; and the other,
who is diametrically opposite, be termed the son of the wicked demon,
and of Satan, and of the devil. And, in the next place, since evil is
specially characterized by its diffusion, and attains its greatest
height when it simulates the appearance of the good, for that reason are
signs, and marvels, and lying miracles found to accompany evil, through
the co-operation of its father the devil. For, far surpassing the help
which these demons give to jugglers (who deceive men for the basest of
purposes), is the aid which the devil himself affords in order to
deceive the human race. Paul, indeed, speaks of him who is called
Antichrist, describing, though with a certain reserve,[1260] both the
manner, and time, and cause of his coming to the human race. And notice
whether his language on this subject is not most becoming, and
undeserving of being treated with even the slightest degree of ridicule.

Footnote 1255:

  Cf. Dan. viii. 23.

Footnote 1256:

  Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 3, 4.

Footnote 1257:

  Cf. Matt. xxiv. 4.

Footnote 1258:

  Cf. Prov. xxvii. 19.

Footnote 1259:

  ἀκρότητας.

Footnote 1260:

  μετά τινος ἐπικρύψεως. Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 9.




                             Chapter XLVI.


It is thus that the apostle expresses himself: “We beseech you,
brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering
together unto Him, that ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled,
neither by word, nor by spirit, nor by letter as from us, as that the
day of the Lord is at hand. Let no man deceive you by any means: for
_that day shall not come_, except there come a falling away first, and
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so
that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.
Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?
And now ye know what withholdeth, that he might be revealed in his time.
For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only He who now letteth
_will let_, until he be taken out of the way. And then shall that Wicked
be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of His mouth,
and shall destroy with the brightness of His coming: _even him_, whose
coming is after the working of Satan, with all power, and signs, and
lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them
that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they
might be saved. And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie; that they all might be damned who
believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.”[1261] To
explain each particular here referred to does not belong to our present
purpose. The prophecy also regarding Antichrist is stated in the book of
Daniel, and is fitted to make an intelligent and candid reader admire
the words as truly divine and prophetic; for in them are mentioned the
things relating to the coming kingdom, beginning with the times of
Daniel, and continuing to the destruction of the world. And any one who
chooses may read it. Observe, however, whether the prophecy regarding
Antichrist be not as follows: “And at the latter time of their kingdom,
when their sins are coming to the full, there shall arise a king, bold
in countenance, and understanding riddles. And his power shall be great,
and he shall destroy wonderfully, and prosper, and practise; and shall
destroy mighty men, and the holy people. And the yoke of his chain shall
prosper: there is craft in his hand, and he shall magnify himself in his
heart, and by craft shall destroy many; and he shall stand up for the
destruction of many, and shall crush them as eggs in his hand.”[1262]
What is stated by Paul in the words quoted from him, where he says, “so
that he sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is
God,”[1263] is in Daniel referred to in the following fashion: “And on
the temple shall be the abomination of desolations, and at the end of
the time an end shall be put to the desolation.”[1264] So many, out of a
greater number of passages, have I thought it right to adduce, that the
hearer may understand in some slight degree the meaning of Holy
Scripture, when it gives us information concerning the devil and
Antichrist; and being satisfied with what we have quoted for this
purpose, let us look at another of the charges of Celsus, and reply to
it as we best may.

Footnote 1261:

  2 Thess. ii. 1-12.

Footnote 1262:

  Cf. Dan. viii. 23-25 (LXX.).

Footnote 1263:

  Cf. 2 Thess. ii. 4.

Footnote 1264:

  Cf. Dan. ix. 27.




                             Chapter XLVII.


Celsus, after what has been said, goes on as follows: “I can tell how
the very thing occurred, viz. that they should call him ‘Son of God.’
Men of ancient times termed this world, as being born of God, both his
child and his son.[1265] Both the one and other ‘Son of God,’ then,
greatly resembled each other.” He is therefore of opinion that we
employed the expression “Son of God,” having perverted[1266] what is
said of the world, as being born of God, and being His “Son,” and “a
God.” For he was unable so to consider the times of Moses and the
prophets, as to see that the Jewish prophets predicted generally that
there was a “Son of God” long before the Greeks and those men of ancient
time of whom Celsus speaks. Nay, he would not even quote the passage in
the letters of Plato, to which we referred in the preceding pages,
concerning Him who so beautifully arranged this world, as being the Son
of God; lest he too should be compelled by Plato, whom he often mentions
with respect, to admit that the architect of this world _is_ the Son of
God, and that His Father is the first God and Sovereign Ruler over all
things. Nor is it at all wonderful if we maintain that the soul of Jesus
is made one with so great a Son of God through the highest union with
Him, being no longer in a state of separation from Him. For the sacred
language of Holy Scripture knows of other things also, which, although
“dual” in their own nature, are considered to be, and really are, “one”
in respect to one another. It is said of husband and wife, “They are no
longer twain, but one flesh;”[1267] and of the perfect man, and of him
who is joined to the true Lord, Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, that “he
who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.”[1268] And if he who “is joined
to the Lord is one spirit,” who has been joined to the Lord, the Very
Word, and Wisdom, and Truth, and Righteousness, in a more intimate
union, or even in a manner at all approaching to it than the soul of
Jesus? And if this be so, then the soul of Jesus and God the Word—the
first-born of every creature—are no longer two, [but one].

Footnote 1265:

  παῖδά τε αὐτοῦ καὶ ἠΐθεον.

Footnote 1266:

  παραποιήσαντας.

Footnote 1267:

  Cf. Gen. ii. 24.

Footnote 1268:

  Cf. 1 Cor. vi. 17.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


In the next place, when the philosophers of the Porch, who assert that
the virtue of God and man is the same, maintain that the God who is over
all things is not happier than _their_ wise man, but that the happiness
of both is equal, Celsus neither ridicules nor scoffs at their opinion.
If, however, Holy Scripture says that the perfect man is joined to and
made one with the Very Word by means of virtue, so that we infer that
the soul of Jesus is not separated from the first-born of all creation,
he laughs at Jesus being called “Son of God,” not observing what is said
of Him with a secret and mystical signification in the Holy Scriptures.
But that we may win over to the reception of our views those who are
willing to accept the inferences which flow from our doctrines, and to
be benefited thereby, we say that the Holy Scriptures declare the body
of Christ, animated by the Son of God, to be the whole church of God,
and the members of this body—considered as a whole—to consist of those
who are believers; since, as a soul vivifies and moves the body, which
of itself has not the natural power of motion like a living being, so
the Word, arousing and moving the whole body, the church, to befitting
action, awakens, moreover, each individual member belonging to the
church, so that they do nothing apart from the Word. Since all this,
then, follows by a train of reasoning not to be depreciated, where is
the difficulty in maintaining that, as the _soul_ of Jesus is joined in
a perfect and inconceivable manner with the very Word, so the person of
Jesus, generally speaking,[1269] is not separated from the only-begotten
and first-born of all creation, and is not a different being from Him?
But enough here on this subject.

Footnote 1269:

  ἁπαξαπλῶς.




                             Chapter XLIX.


Let us notice now what follows, where, expressing in a single word his
opinion regarding the Mosaic cosmogony, without offering, however, a
single argument in its support, he finds fault with it, saying:
“Moreover, their cosmogony is extremely silly.”[1270] Now, if he had
produced some credible proofs of its silly character, we should have
endeavoured to answer them; but it does not appear to me reasonable that
I should be called upon to demonstrate, in answer to his mere
_assertion_, that it is _not_ “silly.” If any one, however, wishes to
see the reasons which led us to accept the Mosaic account, and the
arguments by which it may be defended, he may read what we have written
upon Genesis, from the beginning of the book up to the passage, “And
this is the book of the generation of men,”[1271] where we have tried to
show from the Holy Scriptures themselves what the “heaven” was which was
created in the beginning; and what the “earth,” and the “invisible part
of the earth,” and that which was “without form;”[1272] and what the
“deep” was, and the “darkness” that was upon it; and what the “water”
was, and the “Spirit of God” which was “borne over it;” and what the
“light” which was created, and what the “firmament,” as distinct from
the “heaven” which was created in the beginning; and so on with the
other subjects that follow. Celsus has also expressed his opinion that
the narrative of the creation of man is “exceedingly silly,” without
stating any proofs, or endeavouring to answer our arguments; for he had
no evidence, in my judgment, which was fitted to overthrow the statement
that “man has been made in the image of God.”[1273] He does not even
understand the meaning of the “Paradise” that was planted by God, and of
the life which man first led in it; and of that which resulted from
accident,[1274] when man was cast forth on account of his sin, and was
settled opposite the Paradise of delight. Now, as he asserts that these
are silly statements, let him turn his attention not merely to each one
of them [in general], but to this in particular, “He placed the
cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned every way, to keep the way
of the tree of life,”[1275] and say whether Moses wrote these words with
no serious object in view, but in the spirit of the writers of the old
Comedy, who have sportively related that “Prœtus slew Bellerophon,” and
that “Pegasus came from Arcadia.” Now their object was to create
laughter in composing such stories; whereas it is incredible that he who
left behind him laws[1276] for a whole nation, regarding which he wished
to persuade his subjects that they were given by God, should have
written words so little to the purpose,[1277] and have said without any
meaning, “He placed the cherubim, and the flaming sword, which turned
every way, to keep the way of the tree of life,” or made any other
statement regarding the creation of man, which is the subject of
philosophic investigation by the Hebrew sages.

Footnote 1270:

  μάλα εὐηθική.

Footnote 1271:

  Cf. Gen. v. 1.

Footnote 1272:

  ἀκατασκεύαστον.

Footnote 1273:

  Cf. Gen. i. 26.

Footnote 1274:

  τὴν ἐκ περιστάσεως γενομένην.

Footnote 1275:

  Gen. iii. 24.

Footnote 1276:

  γραφάς.

Footnote 1277:

  ἀπρόσλογα.




                               Chapter L.


In the next place, Celsus, after heaping together, simply as mere
assertions, the varying opinions of some of the ancients regarding the
world, and the origin of man, alleges that “Moses and the prophets, who
have left to us our books, not knowing at all what the nature of the
world is, and of man, have woven together a web of sheer
nonsense.”[1278] If he had shown, now, _how_ it appeared to him that the
Holy Scriptures contained “sheer nonsense,” we should have tried to
demolish the arguments which appeared to him to establish their
nonsensical character; but on the present occasion, following his own
example, we also sportively give it as our opinion that Celsus, knowing
nothing at all about the nature of the meaning and language of the
prophets,[1279] composed a work which contained “sheer nonsense,” and
boastfully gave it the title of a “true discourse.” And since he makes
the statements about the “days of creation” ground of accusation,—as if
he understood them clearly and correctly, some of which elapsed _before_
the creation of light and heaven, and sun, and moon, and stars, and some
of them _after_ the creation of these,—we shall only make this
observation, that Moses must then have forgotten that he had said a
little before, “that in six days the creation of the world had been
finished,” and that in consequence of this act of forgetfulness he
subjoins to these words the following: “This is the book of the creation
of man, in the day when God made the heaven and the earth!” But it is
not in the least credible, that after what he had said respecting the
six days, Moses should immediately add, without a special meaning, the
words, “in the day that God made the heavens and the earth;” and if any
one thinks that these words may be referred to the statement, “In the
beginning, God made the heaven and the earth,” let him observe that
before the words, “Let there be light, and there was light,” and these,
“God called the light day,” it has been stated that “in the beginning
God made the heaven and the earth.”

Footnote 1278:

  συνθεῖναι λῆρον βαθύν.

Footnote 1279:

  ὅτι τίς ποτέ ἐστιν ἡ φύσις τοῦ νοῦ, καὶ τοῦ ἐν τοῖς προφήταις λόγου.




                              Chapter LI.


On the present occasion, however, it is not our object to enter into an
explanation of the subject of intelligent and sensible beings,[1280] nor
of the manner in which the different kinds[1281] of days were allotted
to both sorts, nor to investigate the details which belong to the
subject, for we should need whole treatises for the exposition of the
Mosaic cosmogony; and that work we had already performed, to the best of
our ability, a considerable time before the commencement of this answer
to Celsus, when we discussed with such measure of capacity as we then
possessed the question of the Mosaic cosmogony of the six days. We must
keep in mind, however, that the Word promises to the righteous through
the mouth of Isaiah, that days will come[1282] when not the sun, but the
Lord Himself, will be to them an everlasting light, and God will be
their glory.[1283] And it is from misunderstanding, I think, some
pestilent heresy which gave an erroneous interpretation to the words,
“Let there be light,” as if they were the expression of a _wish_[1284]
merely on the part of the Creator, that Celsus made the remark: “The
Creator did not borrow light from above, like those persons who kindle
their lamps at those of their neighbours.” Misunderstanding, moreover,
another impious heresy, he has said: “If, indeed, there did exist an
accursed god opposed to the great God, who did this contrary to his
approval, why did he lend him the light?” So far are we from offering a
defence of such puerilities, that we desire, on the contrary, distinctly
to arraign the statements of these heretics as erroneous, and to
undertake to refute, not those of their opinions with which we are
_unacquainted_, as Celsus does, but those of which we have attained an
accurate knowledge, derived in part from the statements of their own
adherents, and partly from a careful perusal of their writings.

Footnote 1280:

  περὶ νοητῶν καὶ αἰσθητῶν.

Footnote 1281:

  αἱ φύσεις τῶν ἡμερῶν.

Footnote 1282:

  ἐν καταστάσει ἔσεσθαι ἡμέρας.

Footnote 1283:

  Cf. Isa. lx. 19.

Footnote 1284:

  εὐκτικῶς.




                              Chapter LII.


Celsus proceeds as follows: “With regard to the origin of the world and
its destruction, whether it is to be regarded as uncreated and
indestructible, or as created indeed, but not destructible, or the
reverse, I at present say nothing.” For this reason we too say nothing
on these points, as the work in hand does not require it. Nor do we
allege that the Spirit of the universal God mingled itself in things
here below as in things alien to itself,[1285] as might appear from the
expression, “The Spirit of God moved upon the water;” nor do we assert
that certain wicked devices directed against His Spirit, as if by a
different creator from the great God, and which were tolerated by the
Supreme Divinity, needed to be completely frustrated. And, accordingly,
I have nothing further to say to those[1286] who utter such absurdities;
nor to Celsus, who does not refute them with ability. For he ought
either _not_ to have mentioned such matters at all, or else, in keeping
with that character for philanthropy which he assumes, have carefully
set them forth, and then endeavoured to rebut these impious assertions.
Nor have we ever heard that the great God, after giving his spirit to
the creator, demands it back again. Proceeding next foolishly to assail
these impious assertions, he asks: “What god gives anything with the
intention of demanding it back? For it is the mark of a needy person to
demand back [what he has given], whereas God stands in need of nothing.”
To this he adds, as if saying something clever against certain parties:
“Why, when he lent [his spirit], was he ignorant that he was lending it
to an evil being?” He asks, further: “Why does he pass without
notice[1287] a wicked creator who was counter-working his purposes?”

Footnote 1285:

  ὡς ἐν ἀλλοτρίοις τοῖς τῇδε.

Footnote 1286:

  μακρὰν χαιρέτωσαν.

Footnote 1287:

  περιορᾷ.




                             Chapter LIII.


In the next place, mixing up together various heresies, and not
observing that some statements are the utterances of one heretical sect,
and others of a different one, he brings forward the objections which we
raised against Marcion.[1288] And, probably, having heard them from some
paltry and ignorant individuals,[1289] he assails the very arguments
which combat them, but not in a way that shows much intelligence.
Quoting then our arguments against Marcion, and not observing that it is
_against_ Marcion that he is speaking, he asks: “Why does he send
secretly, and destroy the works which he has created? Why does he
secretly employ force, and persuasion, and deceit? Why does he allure
those who, as ye assert, have been condemned or accused by him, and
carry them away like a slave-dealer? Why does he teach them to steal
away from their Lord? Why to flee from their father? Why does he claim
them for himself against the father’s will? Why does he profess to be
the father of strange children?” To these questions he subjoins the
following remark, as if by way of expressing his surprise:[1290]
“Venerable, indeed, is the god who desires to be the father of those
sinners who are condemned by another [god], and of the needy,[1291] and,
as themselves say, of the very offscourings[1292] [of men], and who is
unable to capture and punish his messenger, who escaped from him!” After
this, as if addressing us who acknowledge that this world is not the
work of a different and strange god, he continues in the following
strain: “If these are his works, how is it that God created evil? And
how is it that he cannot persuade and admonish [men]? And how is it that
he repents on account of the ingratitude and wickedness of men? He finds
fault, moreover, with his own handwork,[1293] and hates, and threatens,
and destroys his own offspring? Whither can he transport them out of
this world, which he himself has made?” Now it does not appear to me
that by these remarks he makes clear what “evil” is; and although there
have been among the Greeks many sects who differ as to the nature of
good and evil, he hastily concludes, as if it were a consequence of our
maintaining that this world also is a work of the universal God, that in
_our_ judgment _God_ is the author of evil. Let it be, however,
regarding evil as it may—whether created by God or not—it nevertheless
follows only as a _result_ when you compare the principal design.[1294]
And I am greatly surprised if the inference regarding God’s authorship
of evil, which he thinks follows from our maintaining that this world
also is the work of the universal God, does not follow too from his
_own_ statements. For one might say to Celsus: “If these are His works,
how is it that God created evil? and how is it that He cannot persuade
and admonish men?” It is indeed the greatest error in reasoning to
accuse those who are of different opinions of holding unsound doctrines,
when the accuser himself is much more liable to the same charge with
regard to his own.

Footnote 1288:

  Cf. Book v. c. 54.

Footnote 1289:

  The textual reading is, ἀπό τινων εὐτελῶς καὶ ἰδιωτικῶς, for which
  Ruæus reads, ἀπό τινων εὐτελῶν καὶ ἰδιωτικῶν, which emendation has
  been adopted in the translation.

Footnote 1290:

  οἱονεὶ θαυμαστικῶς.

Footnote 1291:

  ἀκλήρων.

Footnote 1292:

  σκυβάλων.

Footnote 1293:

  τέχνην.

Footnote 1294:

  ἐκ παρακολουθήσεως γεγένηται τῆς πρὸς τὰ προηγούμενα.




                              Chapter LIV.


Let us see, then, briefly what Holy Scripture has to say regarding good
and evil, and what answer we are to return to the questions, “How is it
that God created evil?” and, “How is He incapable of persuading and
admonishing men?” Now, according to Holy Scripture, properly speaking,
virtues and virtuous actions are good, as, properly speaking, the
reverse of these are evil. We shall be satisfied with quoting on the
present occasion some verses from the 34th Psalm, to the following
effect: “They that seek the Lord shall not want any good thing. Come, ye
children, hearken unto me; I will teach you the fear of the Lord. What
man is he that desireth life, and loveth many days, that he may see
good? Keep thy tongue from evil, and thy lips from speaking guile.
Depart from evil, and do good.”[1295] Now, the injunctions to “depart
from evil, and to do good,” do not refer either to _corporeal_ evils or
_corporeal_ blessings, as they are termed by some, nor to external
things at all, but to blessings and evils of a _spiritual_ kind; since
he who departs from such evils, and performs such virtuous actions,
will, as one who desires the true life, come to the enjoyment of it; and
as one loving to see “good days,” in which the word of righteousness
will be the Sun, he will see them, God taking him away from this
“present evil world,”[1296] and from those evil days concerning which
Paul said: “Redeeming the time, because the days are evil.”[1297]

Footnote 1295:

  Cf. Ps. xxxiv. 10-14.

Footnote 1296:

  Cf. Gal. i. 4.

Footnote 1297:

  Cf. Eph. v. 16.




                              Chapter LV.


Passages, indeed, might be found where corporeal and external [benefits]
are improperly[1298] called “good,”—those things, viz., which contribute
to the natural life, while those which do the reverse are termed “evil.”
It is in this sense that Job says to his wife: “If we have received good
at the hand of the Lord, shall we not also receive evil?”[1299] Since,
then, there is found in the sacred Scriptures, in a certain passage,
this statement put into the mouth of God, “I make peace, and create
evil;”[1300] and again another, where it is said of Him that “evil came
down from the Lord to the gate of Jerusalem, the noise of chariots and
horsemen,”[1301]—passages which have disturbed many readers of
Scripture, who are unable to see what Scripture means by “good” and
“evil,”—it is probable that Celsus, being perplexed thereby, gave
utterance to the question, “How is it that God created evil?” or,
perhaps, having heard some one discussing the matters relating to it in
an ignorant manner, he made this statement which we have noticed. We, on
the other hand, maintain that “evil,” or “wickedness,” and the actions
which proceed from it, were _not_ created by God. For if God created
that which is _really_ evil, how was it possible that the proclamation
regarding [the last] judgment should be confidently announced,[1302]
which informs us that the wicked are to be punished for their evil deeds
in proportion to the amount of their wickedness, while those who have
lived a virtuous life, or performed virtuous actions, will be in the
enjoyment of blessedness, and will receive rewards from God? I am well
aware that those who would daringly assert that these evils were created
by God will quote certain expressions of Scripture [in their support],
because we are not able to show one consistent series[1303] of passages;
for although Scripture [generally] blames the wicked and approves of the
righteous, it nevertheless contains some statements which, although
comparatively[1304] few in number, seem to disturb the minds of ignorant
readers of Holy Scripture. I have not, however, deemed it appropriate to
my present treatise to quote on the present occasion those discordant
statements, which are many in number,[1305] and their explanations,
which would require a long array of proofs. Evils, then, if those be
meant which are _properly_ so called, were _not_ created by God; but
some, although _few_ in comparison with the order of the _whole_ world,
_have_ resulted from His principal works, as there follow from the chief
works of the carpenter such things as spiral shavings and sawdust,[1306]
or as architects might appear to be the cause of the rubbish[1307] which
lies around their buildings in the form of the filth which drops from
the stones and the plaster.

Footnote 1298:

  καταχρηστικώτερον.

Footnote 1299:

  Cf. Job ii. 10.

Footnote 1300:

  Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.

Footnote 1301:

  Cf. Mic. i. 12, 13. The rendering of the Heb. in the first clause of
  the thirteenth verse is different from that of the LXX.

Footnote 1302:

  παῤῥησίαν ἔχειν.

Footnote 1303:

  ὕφος.

Footnote 1304:

  ὀλίγα must be taken _comparatively_, on account of the πολλάς that
  follows afterwards.

Footnote 1305:

  πολλάς. See note 3.

Footnote 1306:

  τὰ ἑλικοειδῆ ξέσματα καὶ πρίσματα.

Footnote 1307:

  τὰ παρακείμενα.




                              Chapter LVI.


If we speak, however, of what are called “corporeal” and “external”
evils,—which are improperly so termed,—then it may be granted that
there _are_ occasions when some of these have been called into
existence by God, in order that by their means the conversion of
certain individuals might be effected. And what absurdity would follow
from such a course? For as, if we should hear those sufferings[1308]
improperly termed “evils” which are inflicted by fathers, and
instructors, and pedagogues upon those who are under their care, or
upon patients who are operated upon or cauterized by the surgeons in
order to effect a cure, we were to say that a father was ill-treating
his son, or pedagogues and instructors their pupils, or physicians
their patients, no blame would be laid upon the operators or
chastisers; so, in the same way, if God is said to bring upon men such
evils for the conversion and cure of those who need this discipline,
there would be no absurdity in the view, nor would “evils come down
from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem,”[1309]—which evils consist
of the punishments inflicted upon the Israelites by their enemies with
a view to their conversion; nor would one visit “with a rod the
transgressions of those who forsake the law of the Lord, and their
iniquities with stripes;”[1310] nor could it be said, “Thou hast coals
of fire to set upon them; they shall be to thee a help.”[1311] In the
same way also we explain the expressions, “I, who make peace, and
create evil;”[1312] for He calls into existence “corporeal” or
“external” evils, while purifying and training those who would not be
disciplined by the word and sound doctrine. This, then, is our answer
to the question, “How is it that God created evil?”

Footnote 1308:

  πόνους.

Footnote 1309:

  Cf. Mic. i. 12.

Footnote 1310:

  Cf. Ps. lxxxix. 32.

Footnote 1311:

  Cf. Isa. xlvii. 14, 15.

Footnote 1312:

  Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.




                             Chapter LVII.


With respect to the question, “How is he incapable of persuading and
admonishing men?” it has been already stated that, if such an objection
were really a ground of charge, then the objection of Celsus might be
brought against those who accept the doctrine of providence. Any one
might answer the charge that God is incapable of admonishing men; for He
conveys His admonitions throughout the whole of Scripture, and by means
of those persons who, through God’s gracious appointment, are the
instructors of His hearers. Unless, indeed, some peculiar meaning be
understood to attach to the word “admonish,” as if it signified both to
penetrate into the mind of the person admonished, and to make him hear
the words of his[1313] instructor, which is contrary to the usual
meaning of the word. To the objection, “How is he incapable of
persuading?”—which also might be brought against all who believe in
providence,—we have to make the following remarks. Since the expression
“to be persuaded” belongs to those words which are termed, so to speak,
“reciprocal”[1314] (compare the phrase “to shave a man,” when he makes
an effort to submit himself to the barber[1315]), there is for this
reason needed not merely the effort of him who persuades, but also the
submission, so to speak, which is to be yielded to the persuader, or the
acceptance of what is said by him. And therefore it must not be said
that it is because God is _incapable_ of persuading men that they are
not persuaded, but because they will not accept the faithful words of
God. And if one were to apply this expression to men who are the
“artificers of persuasion,”[1316] he would not be wrong; for it is
possible for a man who has thoroughly learned the principles of
rhetoric, and who employs them properly, to do his utmost to persuade,
and yet appear to fail, because he cannot overcome the will of him who
ought to yield to his persuasive arts. Moreover, that persuasion does
not come from God, although persuasive words may be uttered by him, is
distinctly taught by Paul, when he says: “This persuasion cometh not of
him that calleth you.”[1317] Such also is the view indicated by these
words: “If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the
land; but if ye refuse and rebel, a sword shall devour you.”[1318] For
that one may [really] desire what is addressed to him by one who
admonishes, and may become deserving of those promises of God which he
hears, it is necessary to secure the will of the hearer, and his
inclination to what is addressed to him. And therefore it appears to me,
that in the book of Deuteronomy the following words are uttered with
peculiar emphasis: “And now, O Israel, what doth the Lord thy God
require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all His
ways, and to love Him, and to keep His commandments?”[1319]

Footnote 1313:

  τὸ καὶ ἐπιτυγχάνειν ἐν τῷ νουθετουμένῳ καὶ ἀκούειν τὸν τοῦ διδάσκοντος
  λόγον.

Footnote 1314:

  ὡσπερεὶ τῶν καλουμένων ἀντιπεπονθότων ἔστιν.

Footnote 1315:

  ἀνάλογον τῷ κείρεσθαι ἄνθρωπον, ἐνεργοῦντα τὸ παρέχειν ἑαυτὸν τῷ
  κείροντι.

Footnote 1316:

  πειθοῦς δημιουργῶν.

Footnote 1317:

  Cf. Gal. v. 8.

Footnote 1318:

  Cf. Isa. i. 19, 20.

Footnote 1319:

  Cf. Deut. x. 12, 13.




                             Chapter LVIII.


There is next to be answered the following query: “And how is it that he
repents when men become ungrateful and wicked; and finds fault with his
own handwork, and hates, and threatens, and destroys his own offspring?”
Now Celsus here calumniates and falsifies what is written in the book of
Genesis to the following effect: “And the Lord God, seeing that the
wickedness of men upon the earth was increasing, and that every one in
his heart carefully meditated to do evil continually, was grieved[1320]
He had made man upon the earth. And God meditated in His heart, and
said, I will destroy man, whom I have made, from the face of the earth,
both man and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air, because I
am grieved[1321] that I made them;”[1322] quoting words which are not
written in Scripture, as if they conveyed the meaning of what was
actually written. For there is no mention in these words of the
repentance of God, nor of His blaming and hating His own handwork. And
if there is the appearance of God threatening the catastrophe of the
deluge, and thus destroying His own children in it, we have to answer
that, as the soul of man is immortal, the supposed threatening has for
its object the conversion of the hearers, while the destruction of men
by the flood is a purification of the earth, as certain among the Greek
philosophers of no mean repute have indicated by the expression: “When
the gods purify the earth.”[1323] And with respect to the transference
to God of those anthropopathic phrases, some remarks have been already
made by us in the preceding pages.

Footnote 1320:

  ἐνεθυμήθη, in all probability a corruption for ἐθυμώθη, which Hoeschel
  places in the text, and Spencer in the margin of his ed.: Heb. וַיִּנָּחֶם.

Footnote 1321:

  ἐνεθυμήθην. Cf. remark in note 2.

Footnote 1322:

  Cf. Gen. vi. 5, 6.

Footnote 1323:

  Cf. Plato in _Timæo_.




                              Chapter LIX.


Celsus, in the next place, suspecting, or perhaps seeing clearly enough,
the answer which might be returned by those who defend the destruction
of men by the deluge, continues: “But if he does not destroy his own
offspring, whither does he convey them out of this world[1324] which he
himself created?” To this we reply, that God by no means removes out of
the whole world, consisting of heaven and earth, those who suffered
death by the deluge, but removes them from a life in the flesh, and,
having set them free from their bodies, liberates them at the same time
from an existence upon earth, which in many parts of Scripture it is
usual to call the “world.” In the Gospel according to John especially,
we may frequently find the regions of earth[1325] termed “world,” as in
the passage, “He was the true light, which lighteneth every man that
cometh into the ‘world;’”[1326] as also in this, “In the world ye shall
have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the
world.”[1327] If, then, we understand by “removing out of the world” a
transference from “regions on earth,” there is nothing absurd in the
expression. If, on the contrary, the system of things which consists of
heaven and earth be termed “world,” then those who perished in the
deluge are by no means removed out of the so-called “world.” And yet,
indeed, if we have regard to the words, “Looking not at the things which
are seen, but at the things which are not seen;”[1328] and also to
these, “For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world
are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are
made,”[1329]—we might say that he who dwells amid the “invisible”
things, and what are called generally “things not seen,” _is_ gone out
of the world, the Word having removed him hence, and transported him to
the heavenly regions, in order to behold all beautiful things.

Footnote 1324:

  κόσμος.

Footnote 1325:

  τὸν περίγειον τόπον.

Footnote 1326:

  Cf. John i. 9.

Footnote 1327:

  Cf. John xvi. 33.

Footnote 1328:

  Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 18.

Footnote 1329:

  Cf. Rom. i. 20.




                              Chapter LX.


But after this investigation of his assertions, as if his object were to
swell his book by many words, he repeats, in different language, the
same charges which we have examined a little ago, saying: “By far the
most silly thing is the distribution of the creation of the world over
certain days, _before days existed_: for, as the heaven was not yet
created, nor the foundation of the earth yet laid,[1330] nor the sun yet
revolving,[1331] how could there be _days_?” Now, what difference is
there between these words and the following: “Moreover, taking and
looking at these things from the beginning, would it not be absurd in
the first and greatest God to issue the command, Let this [first thing]
come into existence, and this second thing, and this [third]; and after
accomplishing so much on the first day, to do so much more again on the
second, and third, and fourth, and fifth, and sixth?” We answered to the
best of our ability this objection to God’s “commanding this first,
second, and third thing to be created,” when we quoted the words, “He
said, and it was done; He commanded, and all things stood fast;”[1332]
remarking that the immediate[1333] Creator, and, as it were, very
Maker[1334] of the world was the Word, the Son of God; while the Father
of the Word, by commanding His own Son—the Word—to create the world, is
_primarily_ Creator. And with regard to the creation of the light upon
the first day, and of the firmament upon the second, and of the
gathering together of the waters that are under the heaven into their
several reservoirs[1335] on the third (the earth thus causing to sprout
forth those [fruits] which are under the control of nature alone[1336]),
and of the [great] lights and stars upon the fourth, and of
aquatic[1337] animals upon the fifth, and of land animals and man upon
the sixth, we have treated to the best of our ability in our notes upon
Genesis, as well as in the foregoing pages, when we found fault with
those who, taking the words in their _apparent_ signification, said that
the time of six days was occupied in the creation of the world, and
quoted the words: “These are the generations of the heavens and of the
earth when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens.”[1338]

Footnote 1330:

  ἐρηρεισμένης.

Footnote 1331:

  τῇδε φερομένου.

Footnote 1332:

  Cf. Ps. xxxiii. 9.

Footnote 1333:

  τὸν προσεχῶς δημιουργόν.

Footnote 1334:

  αὐτουργόν.

Footnote 1335:

  συναγωγὰς.

Footnote 1336:

  τὰ ὑπὸ μόνης φύσεως διοικούμενα.

Footnote 1337:

  τὰ νηκτά.

Footnote 1338:

  Cf. Gen. ii. 4.




                              Chapter LXI.


Again, not understanding the meaning of the words, “And God ended on the
sixth day His works which He had made, and ceased[1339] on the seventh
day from all His works which He had made: and God blessed the seventh
day, and hallowed it, because on it He had ceased[1340] from all His
works which He had begun to make;”[1341] and imagining the expression,
“He _ceased_ on the seventh day,” to be the same as this, “He
_rested_[1342] on the seventh day,” he makes the remark: “After this,
indeed, he is weary, like a very bad workman, who stands in need of rest
to refresh himself!” For he knows nothing of the day of the Sabbath and
rest of God, which follows the completion of the world’s creation, and
which lasts during the duration of the world, and in which all those
will keep festival with God who have done all _their_ works in _their_
six days, and who, because they have omitted none of their duties,[1343]
will ascend to the contemplation [of celestial things], and to the
assembly of righteous and blessed beings. In the next place, as if
either the Scriptures made such a statement, or as if we ourselves so
spoke of God as having rested from fatigue, he continues: “It is not in
keeping with the fitness of things[1344] that the first God should feel
fatigue, or work with His hands,[1345] or give forth commands.” Celsus
says, that “it is not in keeping with the fitness of things that the
first God should feel fatigue.” Now we would say that neither does God
the Word feel fatigue, nor any of those beings who belong to a better
and diviner order of things, because the sensation of fatigue is
peculiar to those who are in the body. You can examine whether this is
true of those who possess a body of any kind, or of those who have an
_earthly_ body, or one a little better than this. But “neither is it
consistent with the fitness of things that the first God should work
with His own hands.” If you understand the words “work with His own
hands” _literally_, then neither are they applicable to the _second_
God, nor to any other being partaking of divinity. But suppose that they
are spoken in an improper and figurative sense, so that we may translate
the following expressions, “And the firmament showeth forth His
handywork,”[1346] and “the heavens are the work of Thy hands,”[1347] and
any other similar phrases, in a figurative manner, so far as respects
the “hands” and “limbs” of Deity, where is the absurdity in the words,
“God thus working with His own hands?” And as there is no absurdity in
God thus working, so neither is there in His issuing “commands;” so that
what is done at His bidding should be beautiful and praiseworthy,
because it was God who commanded it to be performed.

Footnote 1339:

  κατέπαυσεν.

Footnote 1340:

  κατέπαυσεν.

Footnote 1341:

  Cf. Gen. ii. 2, 3.

Footnote 1342:

  ἀνεπαύσατο.

Footnote 1343:

  τῶν ἐπιβαλλόντων.

Footnote 1344:

  οὐ θέμις.

Footnote 1345:

  χειρουργεῖν.

Footnote 1346:

  Cf. Ps. xix. 1.

Footnote 1347:

  Cf. Ps. cii. 25.




                             Chapter LXII.


Celsus, again, having perhaps misunderstood the words, “For the mouth of
the Lord hath spoken it,”[1348] or perhaps because some ignorant
individuals had rashly ventured upon the explanation of such things, and
not understanding, moreover, on what principles parts called after the
names of the bodily members are assigned to the attributes[1349] of God,
asserts: “He has neither mouth nor voice.” Truly, indeed, God can have
no voice, if the voice is a concussion of the air, or a stroke on the
air, or a species of air, or any other definition which may be given to
the voice by those who are skilled in such matters; but what is called
the “voice of God” is said to be _seen_ as “God’s voice” by the people
in the passage, “And all the people saw the voice of God;”[1350] the
word “saw” being taken, agreeably to the custom of Scripture, in a
spiritual sense. Moreover, he alleges that “God possesses nothing else
of which _we_ have any knowledge;” but of what things _we_ have
knowledge he gives no indication. If he means “limbs,” we agree with
him, understanding the things “of which we have knowledge” to be those
called corporeal, and pretty generally so termed. But if we are to
understand the words “of which _we_ have knowledge” in a universal
sense, then there are many things of which we have knowledge, [and which
may be attributed to God]; for He possesses virtue, and blessedness, and
divinity. If we, however, put a higher meaning upon the words, “of which
_we_ have knowledge,” since all that we know is less than God, there is
no absurdity in our also admitting that God possesses none of those
things “of which _we_ have knowledge.” For the attributes which belong
to God are far superior to all things with which not merely the nature
of man is acquainted, but even that of those who have risen far above
it. And if he had read the writings of the prophets, David on the one
hand saying, “But Thou art the same,”[1351] and Malachi on the other, “I
am [the Lord], and change not,”[1352] he would have observed that none
of us assert that there is any change in God, either in act or thought.
For abiding the same, He administers mutable things according to their
nature, and His word elects to undertake their administration.

Footnote 1348:

  Cf. Isa. i. 20.

Footnote 1349:

  ἐπὶ τῶν δυνάμεων.

Footnote 1350:

  Cf. Ex. xx. 18 (LXX.). The Masoretic text is different.

Footnote 1351:

  Cf. Ps. cii. 27.

Footnote 1352:

  Cf. Mal. iii. 6.




                             Chapter LXIII.


Celsus, not observing the difference between “after the image of God”
and “God’s image,” next asserts that the “first-born of every creature”
is the image of God,—the very word and truth, and also the very wisdom,
being the image of His goodness, while man has been created _after_ the
image of God; moreover, that every man whose head is Christ is the image
and glory of God;—and further, not observing to which of the
characteristics of humanity the expression “after the image of God”
belongs, and that it consists in a nature which never had or no longer
has “the old man with his deeds,” being called “after the image of Him
who created it,” from its not possessing these qualities,—he maintains:
“Neither did He make man His image; for God is not such an one, nor like
any other species of [visible] being.” Is it possible to suppose that
the element which is “after the image of God” should exist in the
inferior part—I mean the body—of a compound being like man, because
Celsus has explained that to be made after the image of God? For if that
which is “after the image of God” be in the body only, the better part,
the soul, has been deprived of that which is “after His image,” and this
[distinction] exists in the corruptible body,—an assertion which is made
by none of us. But if that which is “after the image of God” be in _both
together_, then God must necessarily be a compound being, and consist,
as it were, of soul and body, in order that the element which is “after
God’s image,” the better part, may be in the soul; while the inferior
part, and that which “is according to the body,” may be in the body,—an
assertion, again, which is made by none of us. It remains, therefore,
that that which is “after the image of God” must be understood to be in
our “inner man,” which is also renewed, and whose nature it is to be
“after the image of Him who created it,” when a man becomes “perfect,”
as “our Father in heaven is perfect,” and hears the command, “Be ye
holy, for I the Lord your God am holy,”[1353] and learning the precept,
“Be ye followers of God,”[1354] receives into his virtuous soul the
traits of God’s image. The body, moreover, of him who possesses such a
soul is a temple of God; and in the soul God dwells, because it has been
made after His image.[1355]

Footnote 1353:

  Lev. xi. 44.

Footnote 1354:

  Cf. Eph. v. 1 (μιμηταί).

Footnote 1355:

  The words as they stand in the text are probably corrupt: we have
  adopted in the translation the emendation of Guietus: ἔτι καὶ ναός
  ἐστι τοῦ Θεοῦ το σῶμα τοῦ τοιαύτην ἔχοντος ψυχὴν, καὶ ἐν τῇ ψυχῇ διὰ
  τὸ κατ’ εἰκόνα, τὸν Θεόν.




                             Chapter LXIV.


Celsus, again, brings together a number of statements, which he gives as
admissions on our part, but which no intelligent Christian would allow.
For not one of us asserts that “God partakes of form or colour.” Nor
does He even partake of “motion,” because He stands firm, and His nature
is permanent, and He invites the righteous man also to do the same,
saying: “But as for thee, stand thou here by me.”[1356] And if certain
expressions indicate a kind of motion, as it were, on his part, such as
this, “They heard the voice of the Lord God _walking_ in the garden in
the cool of the day,”[1357] we must understand them in this way, that it
is by sinners that God is understood as moving, or as we understand the
“sleep” of God, which is taken in a figurative sense, or His “anger,” or
any other similar attribute. But “God does not partake even of
substance.”[1358] For He is partaken of [by others] rather than that
Himself partakes of them, and He is partaken of by those who have the
Spirit of God. Our Saviour, also, does not partake of righteousness; but
being Himself “righteousness,” He is partaken of _by_ the righteous. A
discussion about “substance” would be protracted and difficult, and
especially if it were a question whether that which is permanent and
immaterial be “substance” properly so called, so that it would be found
that God is _beyond_ “substance,” communicating of His “substance,” by
means of office and power,[1359] to those to whom He communicates
Himself by His Word, as He does to the Word Himself; or even if He _is_
“substance,” yet He is said to be in His nature “invisible,” in these
words respecting our Saviour, who is said to be “the image of the
_invisible_ God,”[1360] while from the term “invisible” it is indicated
that He is “immaterial.” It is also a question for investigation,
whether the “only-begotten” and “first-born of every creature” is to be
called “substance of substances,” and “idea of ideas,” and the
“principle of all things,” while above all there is His Father and God.

Footnote 1356:

  Deut. v. 31.

Footnote 1357:

  Cf. Gen. iii. 8.

Footnote 1358:

  οὐσία.

Footnote 1359:

  πρεσβείᾳ καὶ δυνάμει.

Footnote 1360:

  Cf. Col. i. 15.




                              Chapter LXV.


Celsus proceeds to say of God that “of Him are all things,” abandoning
[in so speaking], I know not how, all his principles;[1361] while our
Paul declares, that “of Him, and through Him, and to Him are all
things,”[1362] showing that He is the beginning of the substance of all
things by the words “of Him,” and the bond of their subsistence by the
expression “through Him,” and their final end by the terms “to Him.” Of
a truth, God is of nothing. But when Celsus adds, that “He is not to be
reached by word,”[1363] I make a distinction, and say that if he means
the word that is in _us_—whether the word conceived in the mind, or the
word that is uttered[1364]—I, too, admit that God is not to be reached
by word. If, however, we attend to the passage, “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,”[1365] we are
of opinion that God is to be reached by _this_ Word, and is comprehended
not by Him only, but by any one whatever to whom He may reveal the
Father; and thus we shall prove the falsity of the assertion of Celsus,
when he says, “Neither is God to be reached by word.” The statement,
moreover, that “He cannot be expressed by name,” requires to be taken
with a distinction. If he means, indeed, that there is no word or
sign[1366] that can represent the attributes of God, the statement is
true, since there are many qualities which cannot be indicated by words.
Who, for example, could describe in words the difference betwixt the
quality of sweetness in a palm and that in a fig? And who could
distinguish and set forth in words the peculiar qualities of each
individual thing? It is no wonder, then, if in this way God cannot be
described by name. But if you take the phrase to mean that it is
possible to represent by words something of God’s attributes, in order
to lead the hearer by the hand,[1367] as it were, and so enable him to
comprehend something of God, so far as attainable by human nature, then
there is no absurdity in saying that “He _can_ be described by name.”
And we make a similar distinction with regard to the expression, “for He
has undergone no suffering that can be conveyed by words.” It _is_ true
that the Deity is beyond all suffering. And so much on this point.

Footnote 1361:

  For αὐτοῦ Boherellus conjectures αὑτοῦ, and translates, “_Propria ipse
  principia_, quæ sunt Epicuri, _subruens_.”

Footnote 1362:

  Rom. xi. 36.

Footnote 1363:

  οὐδὲ λογῷ ἐφικτός.

Footnote 1364:

  εἴτε ἐνδιαθέτῳ εἴτε καὶ προφορικῷ.

Footnote 1365:

  John i. 1.

Footnote 1366:

  οὐδὲν τῶν ἐν λέξεσι καὶ σημαινομένοις.

Footnote 1367:

  χειραγωγῆσαι.




                             Chapter LXVI.


Let us look also at his next statement, in which he introduces, as it
were, a certain person, who, after hearing what has been said, expresses
himself in the following manner, “How, then, shall I know God? and how
shall I learn the way that leads to Him? And how will you show Him to
me? Because now, indeed, you throw darkness before my eyes, and I see
nothing distinctly.” He then answers, as it were, the individual who is
thus perplexed, and thinks that he assigns the reason why darkness has
been poured upon the eyes of him who uttered the foregoing words, when
he asserts that “those whom one would lead forth out of darkness into
the brightness of light, being unable to withstand its splendours, have
their power of vision affected[1368] and injured, and so imagine that
they are smitten with blindness.” In answer to this, we would say that
all those indeed sit in darkness, and are rooted in it, who fix their
gaze upon the evil handiwork of painters, and moulders and sculptors,
and who will not look upwards, and ascend in thought from all visible
and sensible things, to the Creator of all things, who is light; while,
on the other hand, every one is in light who has followed the radiance
of the Word, who has shown in consequence of what ignorance, and
impiety, and want of knowledge of divine things these objects were
worshipped instead of God, and who has conducted the soul of him who
desires to be saved towards the uncreated God, who is over all. For “the
people that sat in darkness—the Gentiles—saw a great light, and to them
who sat in the region and shadow of death light is sprung up,”[1369]—the
God Jesus. No Christian, then, would give Celsus, or any accuser of the
divine Word, the answer, “How shall I know God?” for each one of them
knows God according to his capacity. And no one asks, “How shall I learn
the way which leads to Him?” because he has heard Him who says, “I am
the way, and the truth, and the life,”[1370] and has tasted, in the
course of the journey, the happiness which results from it. And not a
single Christian would say to Celsus, “How will you show me God?”

Footnote 1368:

  κολάζεσθαι.

Footnote 1369:

  Cf. Matt. iv. 16 and Isa. ix. 2.

Footnote 1370:

  John xiv. 6.




                             Chapter LXVII.


The remark, indeed, was true which Celsus made, that any one, on hearing
his words, would answer, seeing that his words _are_ words of darkness,
“You pour darkness before my eyes.” Celsus verily, and those like him,
do desire to pour darkness before our eyes: we, however, by means of the
light of the Word, disperse the darkness of their impious opinions. The
Christian, indeed, could retort on Celsus, who says nothing that is
distinct or true, “I see nothing that is distinct among all _your_
statements.” It is not, therefore, “out of darkness” into “the
brightness of light” that Celsus leads us forth: he wishes, on the
contrary, to transport us from light into darkness, making the darkness
light and the light darkness, and exposing himself to the woe well
described by the prophet Isaiah in the following manner: “Woe unto them
that put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”[1371] But we, the
eyes of whose soul have been opened by the Word, and who see the
difference between light and darkness, prefer by all means to take our
stand “in the light,” and will have nothing to do with darkness at all.
The true light, moreover, being endued with life, knows to whom his full
splendours are to be manifested, and to whom his light; for he does not
display his brilliancy on account of the still existing weakness in the
eyes of the recipient. And if we must speak at all of “sight being
affected and injured,” what other eyes shall we say are in this
condition, than his who is involved in ignorance of God, and who is
prevented by his passions from seeing the truth? Christians, however, by
no means consider that they are blinded by the words of Celsus, or any
other who is opposed to the worship of God. But let those who perceive
that they are blinded by following multitudes who are in error, and
tribes of those who keep festivals to demons, draw near to the Word, who
can bestow the gift of sight,[1372] in order that, like those poor and
blind who had thrown themselves down by the wayside, and who were healed
by Jesus because they said to Him, “Son of David, have mercy upon me,”
they too may receive mercy and recover their eyesight,[1373] fresh and
beautiful, as the Word of God can create it.

Footnote 1371:

  Cf. Isa. v. 20.

Footnote 1372:

  ὀφθαλμοὺς.

Footnote 1373:

  ὀφθαλμοὺς.




                            Chapter LXVIII.


Accordingly, if Celsus were to ask us how we think we know God, and how
we shall be saved by Him, we would answer that the Word of God, which
entered into those who seek Him, or who accept Him when He appears, is
able to make known and to reveal the Father, who was not seen [by any
one] before the appearance of the Word. And who else is able to save and
conduct the soul of man to the God of all things, save God the Word,
who, “being in the beginning with God,” became flesh for the sake of
those who had cleaved to the flesh, and had become as flesh, that He
might be received by those who could not behold Him, inasmuch as He was
the Word, and was with God, and was God? And discoursing in human
form,[1374] and announcing Himself as flesh, He calls to Himself those
who are flesh, that He may in the first place cause them to be
transformed according to the Word that was made flesh, and afterwards
may lead them upwards to behold Him as He was before He became flesh; so
that they, receiving the benefit, and ascending from their great
introduction to Him, which was according to the flesh, say, “Even if we
have known Christ after the flesh, yet henceforth know we Him no more.”
Therefore He became flesh, and having become flesh, “He tabernacled
among us,” not dwelling without us; and after tabernacling and dwelling
_within_ us, He did not continue in the form in which He first presented
Himself, but caused us to ascend to the lofty mountain of His word, and
showed us His own glorious form, and the splendour of His garments; and
not His own form alone, but that also of the spiritual law, which is
Moses, seen in glory along with Jesus. He showed to us, moreover, all
prophecy, which did not perish even after His incarnation, but was
received up into heaven, and whose symbol was Elijah. And he who beheld
these things could say, “We beheld His glory, the glory as of the
only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth.”[1375] Celsus,
then, has exhibited considerable ignorance in the imaginary answer to
his question which he puts into our mouth, “How we think we can know
God? and how we know we shall be saved by Him?” for our answer is what
we have just stated.

Footnote 1374:

  σωματικῶς.

Footnote 1375:

  Cf. John i. 14.




                             Chapter LXIX.


Celsus, however, asserts that the answer which we give is based upon a
probable conjecture,[1376] admitting that he describes our answer in the
following terms: “Since God is great and difficult to see,[1377] He put
His own Spirit into a body that resembled ours, and sent it down to us,
that we might be enabled to hear Him and become acquainted with Him.”
But the God and Father of all things is not the only being that is great
in our judgment; for He has imparted [a share] of Himself and His
greatness to His only-begotten and first-born of every creature, in
order that He, being the image of the invisible God, might preserve,
even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible
that there could exist a well-proportioned,[1378] so to speak, and
beautiful image of the invisible God, which did not at the same time
preserve the image of His greatness. God, moreover, is in our judgment
invisible, because He is not a body, while He _can_ be seen by those who
see with the heart, that is, the understanding; not indeed with any kind
of heart, but with one which is pure. For it is inconsistent with the
fitness of things that a polluted heart should look upon God; for that
must be itself pure which would worthily behold that which is pure. Let
it be granted, indeed, that God is “difficult to see,” yet He is not the
only being who is so; for His Only-begotten also is “difficult to see.”
For God the Word is “difficult to see,” and so also is His[1379] wisdom,
by which God created all things. For who is capable of seeing the wisdom
which is displayed in each individual part of the whole system of
things, and by which God created every individual thing? It was not,
then, because God was “difficult to see” that He sent God His Son to be
an object “easy to be seen.”[1380] And because Celsus does not
understand this, he has represented us as saying, “Because God was
‘difficult to see,’ He put His own Spirit in a body resembling ours, and
sent it down to us, that we might be enabled to hear Him and become
acquainted with Him.” Now, as we have stated, the Son also is “difficult
to see,” because He is God the Word, through whom all things were made,
and who “tabernacled amongst us.”

Footnote 1376:

  εἰκότι στοχασμῷ.

Footnote 1377:

  δυσθεώρητος.

Footnote 1378:

  σύμμετρον.

Footnote 1379:

  For οὑτωσὶ we have adopted the conjecture of Guietus, τούτου.

Footnote 1380:

  ὡς εὐθεώρητον.




                              Chapter LXX.


If Celsus, indeed, had understood our teaching regarding the Spirit of
God, and had known that “as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these
are the sons of God,”[1381] he would not have returned to himself the
answer which he represents as coming from us, that “God put His own
Spirit into a body, and sent it down to us;” for God is perpetually
bestowing of His own Spirit to those who are capable of receiving it,
although it is not by way of division and separation that He dwells in
[the hearts of] the deserving. Nor is the Spirit, in our opinion, a
“body,” any more than fire is a “body,” which God is said to be in the
passage, “Our God is a consuming fire.”[1382] For all these are
figurative expressions, employed to denote the nature of “intelligent
beings” by means of familiar and corporeal terms. In the same way, too,
if sins are called “wood, and straw, and stubble,” we shall not maintain
that sins are corporeal; and if blessings are termed “gold, and silver,
and precious stones,”[1383] we shall not maintain that blessings are
“corporeal;” so also, if God be said to be a fire that consumes wood,
and straw, and stubble, and all substance[1384] of sin, we shall not
understand Him to be a “body,” so neither do we understand Him to be a
body if He should be called “fire.” In this way, if God be called
“spirit,”[1385] we do not mean that He is a “body.” For it is the custom
of Scripture to give to “intelligent beings” the names of “spirits” and
“spiritual things,” by way of distinction from those which are the
objects of “sense;” as when Paul says, “But our sufficiency is of God,
who hath also made us able ministers of the New Testament; not of the
letter, but of the spirit; for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth
life,”[1386] where by the “letter” he means that “exposition of
Scripture which is apparent to the senses,”[1387] while by the “spirit”
that which is the object of the “understanding.” It is the same, too,
with the expression, “God is a Spirit.” And because the prescriptions of
the law were obeyed both by Samaritans and Jews in a corporeal and
literal[1388] manner, our Saviour said to the Samaritan woman, “The hour
is coming, when neither in Jerusalem, nor in this mountain, shall ye
worship the Father. God is a Spirit, and they that worship Him must
worship Him in spirit and in truth.”[1389] And by these words He taught
men that God must be worshipped not in the flesh, and with fleshly
sacrifices, but in the spirit. And He will be understood to be a Spirit
in proportion as the worship rendered to Him is rendered in spirit, and
with understanding. It is not, however, with images[1390] that we are to
worship the Father, but “in truth,” which “came by Jesus Christ,” after
the giving of the law by Moses. For when we turn to the Lord (and the
Lord is a Spirit[1391]), He takes away the veil which lies upon the
heart when Moses is read.

Footnote 1381:

  Rom. viii. 14.

Footnote 1382:

  Cf. Heb. xii. 29.

Footnote 1383:

  Cf. 1 Cor. iii. 12.

Footnote 1384:

  πᾶσαν οὐσίαν.

Footnote 1385:

  πνεῦμα. There is an allusion to the two meanings of πνεῦμα, “wind” and
  “spirit.”

Footnote 1386:

  2 Cor. iii. 5, 6.

Footnote 1387:

  τὴν αἰσθητὴν ἐκδοχὴν.

Footnote 1388:

  τυπικῶς here evidently must have the above meaning.

Footnote 1389:

  Cf. John iv. 21, 24.

Footnote 1390:

  ἐν τύποις.

Footnote 1391:

  Cf. 2 Cor. iii. 17.




                             Chapter LXXI.


Celsus accordingly, as not understanding the doctrine relating to the
Spirit of God (“for the natural man receiveth not the things of the
Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him; neither can he know
them, because they are spiritually discerned”[1392]), weaves together
[such a web] as pleases himself,[1393] imagining that we, in calling God
a Spirit, differ in no respect in this particular from the Stoics among
the Greeks, who maintain that “God is a Spirit, diffused through all
things, and containing all things within Himself.” Now the
superintendence and providence of God does extend through all things,
but not in the way that spirit does, according to the Stoics. Providence
indeed contains all things that are its objects, and comprehends them
all, but not as a containing body includes its contents, because they
also are “body,”[1394] but as a _divine_ power does it comprehend what
it contains. According to the philosophers of the Porch, indeed, who
assert that principles are “corporeal,” and who on that account make all
things perishable, and who venture even to make the God of all things
capable of perishing, the very Word of God, who descends even to the
lowest of mankind, would be—did it not appear to them to be too gross an
incongruity[1395]—nothing else than a “corporeal” spirit; whereas, in
our opinion,—who endeavour to demonstrate that the rational soul is
superior to all “corporeal” nature, and that it is an invisible
substance, and incorporeal,—God the Word, by whom all things were made,
who came, in order that all things might be made by the Word, not to men
only, but to what are deemed the very lowest of things, under the
dominion of nature alone, would be no body. The Stoics, then, may
consign all things to destruction by fire; we, however, know of no
incorporeal substance that is destructible by fire, nor [do we believe]
that the soul of man, or the substance of “angels,” or of “thrones,” or
“dominions,” or “principalities,” or “powers,” can be dissolved by fire.

Footnote 1392:

  Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 14.

Footnote 1393:

  ἑαυτῷ συνάπτει.

Footnote 1394:

  οὐχ ὡς σῶμα δὲ περιέχον περιέχει, ὅτι καὶ σῶμα ἐστι τὸ περιεχόμενον.

Footnote 1395:

  πάνυ ἀπεμφαῖνον.




                             Chapter LXXII.


It is therefore in vain that Celsus asserts, as one who knows not the
nature of the Spirit of God, that “as the Son of God, who existed in a
human body, is a Spirit, this very Son of God would not be immortal.” He
next becomes confused in his statements, as if there were some of us who
did not admit that God is a Spirit, but maintain that only with regard
to His Son, and he thinks that he can answer us by saying that there “is
no kind of spirit which lasts for ever.” This is much the same as if,
when we term God a “consuming fire,” he were to say that there “is no
kind of fire which lasts for ever;” not observing the sense in which we
say that our God is a fire, and what the things are which He consumes,
viz. sins, and wickedness. For it becomes a God of goodness, after each
individual has shown, by his efforts, what kind of combatant he has
been, to consume vice by the fire of His chastisements. He proceeds, in
the next place, to assume what we do not maintain, that “God must
necessarily have given up the ghost;” from which also it follows that
Jesus could not have risen again with His body. For God would not have
received back the spirit which He had surrendered after it had been
stained by contact with the body. It is foolish, however, for us to
answer statements as ours which were never made by us.




                            Chapter LXXIII.


He proceeds to repeat himself, and after saying a great deal which he
had said before, and ridiculing the birth of God from a virgin,—to which
we have already replied as we best could,—he adds the following: “If God
had wished to send down His Spirit from Himself, what need was there to
breathe it into the womb of a woman? For as one who knew already how to
form men, He could also have fashioned a body for this person, without
casting His own Spirit into so much pollution;[1396] and in this way He
would not have been received with incredulity, if He had derived His
existence immediately from above.” He has made these remarks, because he
knows not the pure and virgin birth, unaccompanied by any corruption, of
that body which was to minister to the salvation of men. For, quoting
the sayings of the Stoics,[1397] and affecting not to know the doctrine
about “things indifferent,” he thinks that the divine nature was cast
amid pollution, and was stained either by being in the body of a woman,
until a body was formed around it, or by assuming a body. And in this he
acts like those who imagine that the sun’s rays are polluted by dung and
by foul-smelling bodies, and do not remain pure amid such things. If,
however, according to the view of Celsus, the body of Jesus had been
fashioned without generation, those who beheld the body would at once
have believed that it had not been formed by generation; and yet an
object, when seen, does not at the same time indicate the nature of that
from which it has derived its origin. For example, suppose that there
were some honey [placed before one] which had not been manufactured by
bees, no one could tell from the taste or sight that it was not their
workmanship, because the honey which comes from bees does not make known
its origin by the senses,[1398] but experience alone can tell that it
does not proceed from them. In the same way, too, experience teaches
that wine comes from the vine, for taste does not enable us to
distinguish [the wine] which comes from the vine. In the same manner,
therefore, the visible[1399] body does not make known the manner of its
existence. And you will be induced to accept this view,[1400] by
[regarding] the heavenly bodies, whose existence and splendour we
perceive as we gaze at them; and yet, I presume, their appearance does
not suggest to us whether they are created or uncreated; and accordingly
different opinions have existed on these points. And yet those who say
that they are created are not agreed as to the manner of their creation,
for their appearance does not suggest it, although the force of
reason[1401] may have discovered that they are created, and how their
creation was effected.

Footnote 1396:

  εἰς τοσοῦτον μίασμα.

Footnote 1397:

  Cf. Book iv. cc. 14 and 68.

Footnote 1398:

  τῇ αἰσθήσει τὴν ἀρχὴν.

Footnote 1399:

  τὸ αἰσθητὸν σῶμα.

Footnote 1400:

  προσαχθήσῃ δὲ τῷ λεγομένῳ.

Footnote 1401:

  κἂν βιασάμενος ὁ λόγος εὕρῃ.




                             Chapter LXXIV.


After this he returns to the subject of Marcion’s opinions (having
already spoken frequently of them), and states some of them correctly,
while others he has misunderstood; these, however, it is not necessary
for us to answer or refute. Again, after this he brings forward the
various arguments that may be urged on Marcion’s behalf, and also
against him, enumerating what the opinions are which exonerate him from
the charges, and what expose him to them; and when he desires to support
the statement which declares that Jesus has been the subject of
prophecy,—in order to found a charge against Marcion and his
followers,—he distinctly asks, “How could he, who was punished in such a
manner, be shown to be God’s Son, unless these things had been predicted
of him?” He next proceeds to jest, and, as his custom is, to pour
ridicule upon the subject, introducing “two sons of God, one the son of
the Creator,[1402] and the other the son of Marcion’s God; and he
portrays their single combats, saying that the Theomachies of the
Fathers are like the battles between quails;[1403] or that the Fathers,
becoming useless through age, and falling into their dotage,[1404] do
not meddle at all with one another, but leave their sons to fight it
out.” The remark which he made formerly we will turn against himself:
“What old woman would not be ashamed to lull a child to sleep with such
stories as he has inserted in the work which he entitles _A True
Discourse?_ For when he ought seriously[1405] to apply himself to
argument, he leaves serious argument aside, and betakes himself to
jesting and buffoonery, imagining that he is writing mimes or scoffing
verses; not observing that such a method of procedure defeats his
purpose, which is to make us abandon Christianity and give in our
adherence to his opinions, which, perhaps, had they been stated with
some degree of gravity,[1406] would have appeared more likely to
convince, whereas, since he continues to ridicule, and scoff, and play
the buffoon, we answer that it is because he has no argument of
weight[1407] (for such he neither had, nor could understand) that he has
betaken himself to such drivelling.”[1408]

Footnote 1402:

  τοῦ δημιουργοῦ.

Footnote 1403:

  ὀρτύγων.

Footnote 1404:

  ληροῦντας.

Footnote 1405:

  πραγματικῶς.

Footnote 1406:

  ἐσεμνολόγει.

Footnote 1407:

  σεμνῶν λόγων.

Footnote 1408:

  τοσαύτην φλυαρίαν.




                             Chapter LXXV.


To the preceding remarks he adds the following: “Since a divine Spirit
inhabited the body [of Jesus], it must certainly have been different
from that of other beings, in respect of grandeur, or beauty, or
strength, or voice, or impressiveness,[1409] or persuasiveness. For it
is impossible that He, to whom was imparted some divine quality beyond
other beings, should not differ from others; whereas this person did not
differ in any respect from another, but was, as they report, little, and
ill-favoured, and ignoble.”[1410] Now it is evident by these words, that
when Celsus wishes to bring a charge against Jesus, he adduces the
sacred writings, as one who believed them to be writings apparently
fitted to afford a handle for a charge against Him; but wherever, in the
same writings, statements would appear to be made opposed to those
charges which are adduced, he pretends not even to know them! There are,
indeed, admitted to be recorded some statements respecting the body of
Jesus having been “ill-favoured;” not, however, “ignoble,” as has been
stated, nor is there any certain evidence that he was “little.” The
language of Isaiah runs as follows, who prophesied regarding Him that He
would come and visit the multitude, not in comeliness of form, nor in
any surpassing beauty: “Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom
was the arm of the Lord revealed? He made announcement before Him, as a
child, as a root in a thirsty ground. He has no form nor glory, and we
beheld Him, and He had no form nor beauty; but His form was without
honour, and inferior to that of the sons of men.”[1411] These passages,
then, Celsus listened to, because he thought they were of use to him in
bringing a charge against Jesus; but he paid no attention to the words
of the 45th Psalm, and why it is then said, “Gird Thy sword upon Thy
thigh, O most mighty, with Thy comeliness and beauty, and continue, and
prosper, and reign.”[1412]

Footnote 1409:

  κατάπληξιν.

Footnote 1410:

  ἀγενὲς.

Footnote 1411:

  Cf. Isa. liii. 1-3 (LXX.).

Footnote 1412:

  Cf. Ps. xlv. 3, 4 (LXX.).




                             Chapter LXXVI.


Let it be supposed, however, that he had not read the prophecy, or that
he _had_ read it, but had been drawn away by those who misinterpreted it
as not being spoken of Jesus Christ. What has he to say of the Gospel,
in the narratives of which Jesus ascended up into a high mountain, and
was transfigured before the disciples, and was seen in glory, when both
Moses and Elias, “being seen in glory, spake of the decease which He was
about to accomplish at Jerusalem?” or when the prophet says, “We beheld
Him, and He had no form nor beauty,” etc.? and Celsus accepts this
prophecy as referring to Jesus, being blinded in so accepting it, and
not seeing that it is a great proof that the Jesus who appeared to be
“without form” was the Son of God, that His very appearance should have
been made the subject of prophecy many years before His birth. But if
another prophet speak of His comeliness and beauty, he will no longer
accept the prophecy as referring to Christ! And if it were to be clearly
ascertained from the Gospels that “He had no form nor beauty, but that
His appearance was without honour, and inferior to that of the sons of
men,” it might be said that it was not with reference to the prophetic
writings, but to the Gospels, that Celsus made his remarks. But now, as
neither the Gospels nor the apostolic writings indicate that “He had no
form nor beauty,” it is evident that we must accept the declaration of
the prophets as true of Christ, and this will prevent the charge against
Jesus from being advanced.[1413]

Footnote 1413:

  προβαίνειν.




                            Chapter LXXVII.


But again, how did he who said, “Since a divine Spirit inhabited the
body [of Jesus], it must certainly have been different from that of
other beings in respect of grandeur, or voice, or strength, or
impressiveness, or persuasiveness,” not observe the changing relation of
His body according to the capacity of the spectators (and therefore its
corresponding utility), inasmuch as it appeared to each one of such a
nature as it was requisite for him to behold it? Moreover, it is not a
subject of wonder that the matter, which is by nature susceptible of
being altered and changed, and of being transformed into anything which
the Creator chooses, and is capable of receiving all the qualities which
the Artificer desires, should at one time possess a quality, agreeably
to which it is said, “He had no form nor beauty,” and at another, one so
glorious, and majestic, and marvellous, that the spectators of such
surpassing loveliness—three disciples who had ascended [the mount] with
Jesus—should fall upon their faces. He will say, however, that these are
inventions, and in no respect different from myths, as are also the
other marvels related of Jesus; which objection we have answered at
greater length in what has gone before. But there is also something
mystical in this doctrine, which announces that the varying appearances
of Jesus are to be referred to the nature of the divine Word, who does
not show Himself in the same manner to the multitude as He does to those
who are capable of following Him to the high mountain which we have
mentioned; for to those who still remain below, and are not yet prepared
to ascend, the Word “has neither form nor beauty,” because to such
persons His form is “without honour,” and inferior to the words given
forth by men, which are figuratively termed “sons of men.” For we might
say that the words of philosophers—who are “sons of men”—appear far more
beautiful than the Word of God, who is proclaimed to the multitude, and
who also exhibits [what is called] the “foolishness of preaching,” and
on account of this apparent “foolishness of preaching” those who look at
this alone say, “We saw Him, but He had no form nor beauty.” To those,
indeed, who have received power to follow Him, in order that they may
attend Him even when He ascends to the “lofty mount,” He _has_ a diviner
appearance, which they behold, if there happens to be [among them] a
Peter, who has received within himself the edifice of the church based
upon the Word, and who has gained such a habit [of goodness] that none
of the gates of Hades will prevail against him, having been exalted by
the Word from the gates of death, that he may “publish the praises of
God in the gates of the daughter of Sion,” and any others who have
derived their birth from impressive preaching,[1414] and who are not at
all inferior to “sons of thunder.” But how can Celsus and the enemies of
the divine Word, and those who have not examined the doctrines of
Christianity in the spirit of truth, know the meaning of the different
appearances of Jesus? And I refer also to the different stages of His
life, and to any actions performed by Him before His sufferings, and
after His resurrection from the dead.

Footnote 1414:

  καὶ εἴ τινές εἰσιν ἐκ λόγων τὴν γένεσιν λαχόντες μεγαλοφώνων.




                            Chapter LXXVIII.


Celsus next makes certain observations of the following nature: “Again,
if God, like Jupiter in the comedy, should, on awaking from a lengthened
slumber, desire to rescue the human race from evil, why did He send this
Spirit of which you speak into one corner [of the earth]? He ought to
have breathed it alike into many bodies, and have sent them out into all
the world. Now the comic poet, to cause laughter in the theatre, wrote
that Jupiter, after awakening, despatched Mercury to the Athenians and
Lacedæmonians; but do not you think that you have made the Son of God
more ridiculous in sending Him to the Jews?” Observe in such language as
this the irreverent character of Celsus, who, unlike a philosopher,
takes the writer of a comedy, whose business is to cause laughter, and
compares our God, the Creator of all things, to the being who, as
represented in the play, on awaking, despatches Mercury [on an errand]!
We stated, indeed, in what precedes, that it was not as if awakening
from a lengthened slumber that God sent Jesus to the human race, who has
now, for good reasons, fulfilled the economy of His incarnation, but who
has always conferred benefits upon the human race. For no noble deed has
ever been performed amongst men, where the divine Word did not visit the
souls of those who were capable, although for a little time, of
admitting such operations of the divine Word. Moreover, the advent of
Jesus apparently to one corner [of the earth] was founded on good
reasons, since it was necessary that He who was the subject of prophecy
should make His appearance among those who had become acquainted with
the doctrine of one God, and who perused the writings of His prophets,
and who had come to know the announcement of Christ, and that He should
come to them at a time when the Word was about to be diffused from one
corner over the whole world.




                             Chapter LXXIX.


And therefore there was no need that there should everywhere exist many
bodies, and many spirits like Jesus, in order that the whole world of
men might be enlightened by the Word of God. For the one Word was
enough, having arisen as the “Sun of righteousness,” to send forth from
Judea His coming rays into the soul of all who were willing to receive
Him. But if any one desires to see many bodies filled with a divine
Spirit, similar to the one Christ, ministering to the salvation of men
everywhere, let him take note of those who teach the gospel of Jesus in
all lands in soundness of doctrine and uprightness of life, and who are
themselves termed “christs” by the Holy Scriptures, in the passage,
“Touch not mine anointed,[1415] and do not my prophets any harm.”[1416]
For as we have heard that Antichrist cometh, and yet have learned that
there are many antichrists in the world, in the same way, knowing that
Christ has come, we see that, owing to Him, there are many christs in
the world, who, like Him, have loved righteousness and hated iniquity,
and therefore God, the God of Christ, anointed them also with the “oil
of gladness.” But inasmuch as He loved righteousness and hated iniquity
above those who were His partners,[1417] He also obtained the
first-fruits of His anointing, and, if we must so term it, the entire
unction of the oil of gladness; while they who were His partners shared
also in His unction, in proportion to their individual capacity.
Therefore, since Christ is the head of the church, so that Christ and
the church form one body, the ointment descended from the head to the
beard of Aaron,—the symbols of the perfect man,—and this ointment in its
descent reached to the very skirt of his garment. This is my answer to
the irreverent language of Celsus when he says, “He ought to have
breathed [His Spirit] alike into many bodies, and have sent it forth
into all the world.” The comic poet, indeed, to cause laughter, has
represented Jupiter asleep and awaking from slumber, and despatching
Mercury to the Greeks; but the Word, knowing that the nature of God is
unaffected by sleep, may teach us that God administers in due season,
and as right reason demands, the affairs of the world. It is not,
however, a matter of surprise that, owing to the greatness and
incomprehensibility[1418] of the divine judgments, ignorant persons
should make mistakes, and Celsus among them. There is therefore nothing
ridiculous in the Son of God having been sent to the Jews, amongst whom
the prophets had appeared, in order that, making a commencement among
them in a bodily shape, He might arise with might and power upon a world
of souls, which no longer desired to remain deserted by God.

Footnote 1415:

  τῶν χριστῶν μου.

Footnote 1416:

  Cf. 1 Chron. xvi. 22 and Ps. cv. 15.

Footnote 1417:

  τοὺς μετόχους αὐτοῦ.

Footnote 1418:

  δυσδιηγήτους τὰς κρίσεις.




                             Chapter LXXX.


After this, it seemed proper to Celsus to term the Chaldeans a most
divinely-inspired nation from the very earliest times,[1419] from whom
the delusive system of astrology[1420] has spread abroad among men. Nay,
he ranks the Magi also in the same category, from whom the art of magic
derived its name and has been transmitted to other nations, to the
corruption and destruction of those who employ it. In the preceding part
of this work, [we mentioned] that, in the opinion even of Celsus, the
Egyptians also were guilty of error, because they had indeed solemn
enclosures around what they considered their temples, while within them
there was nothing save apes, or crocodiles, or goats, or asps, or some
other animal; but on the present occasion it pleases him to speak of the
Egyptian people too as most divinely inspired, and that, too, from the
earliest times,—perhaps because they made war upon the Jews from an
early date. The Persians, moreover, who marry their own mothers, and
have intercourse with their own daughters, are, in the opinion of
Celsus, an inspired race; nay, even the Indians are so, some of whom, in
the preceding, he mentioned as eaters of human flesh. To the Jews,
however, especially those of ancient times, who employ none of these
practices, he did not merely refuse the name of inspired, but declared
that they would immediately perish. And this prediction he uttered
respecting them, as being doubtless endued with prophetic power, not
observing that the whole history of the Jews, and their ancient and
venerable polity, were administered by God; and that it is by their fall
that salvation has come to the Gentiles, and that “their fall is the
riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the
Gentiles,”[1421] until the fulness of the Gentiles come, that after that
the whole of Israel, whom Celsus does not know, may be saved.

Footnote 1419:

  ἐξ ἀρχῆς.

Footnote 1420:

  γενεθλιαλογία.

Footnote 1421:

  Cf. Rom. xi. 11, 12.




                             Chapter LXXXI.


I do not understand, however, how he should say of God, that although
“knowing all things, He was not aware of this, that He was sending His
Son amongst wicked men, who were both to be guilty of sin, and to
inflict punishment upon Him.” Certainly he appears, in the present
instance, to have forgotten that all the sufferings which Jesus was to
undergo were foreseen by the Spirit of God, and foretold by His
prophets; from which it does not follow that “God did not know that He
was sending His Son amongst wicked and sinful men, who were also to
inflict punishment upon Him.” He immediately adds, however, that “our
defence on this point is that all these things were predicted.” But as
our sixth book has now attained sufficient dimensions, we shall stop
here, and begin, God willing, the argument of the seventh, in which we
shall consider the reasons which he thinks furnish an answer to our
statement, that everything regarding Jesus was foretold by the prophets;
and as these are numerous, and require to be answered at length, we
wished neither to cut the subject short, in consequence of the size of
the present book, nor, in order to avoid doing so, to swell this sixth
book beyond its proper proportions.




                               BOOK VII.




                               Chapter I.


In the six former books we have endeavoured, reverend brother Ambrosius,
according to our ability to meet the charges brought by Celsus against
the Christians, and have as far as possible passed over nothing without
first subjecting it to a full and close examination. And now, while we
enter upon the seventh book, we call upon God through Jesus Christ, whom
Celsus accuses, that He who is the truth of God would shed light into
our hearts and scatter the darkness of error, in accordance with that
saying of the prophet which we now offer as our prayer, “Destroy them by
Thy truth.”[1422] For it is evidently the words and reasonings opposed
to the truth that God destroys by His truth; so that when these are
destroyed, all who are delivered from deception may go on with the
prophet to say, “I will freely sacrifice unto Thee,”[1423] and may offer
to the Most High a reasonable and smokeless sacrifice.

Footnote 1422:

  Ps. liv. 5.

Footnote 1423:

  Ps. liv. 6.




                              Chapter II.


Celsus now sets himself to combat the views of those who say that the
Jewish prophets foretold events which happened in the life of Christ
Jesus. At the outset let us refer to a notion he has, that those who
assume the existence of another God besides the God of the Jews have no
ground on which to answer his objections; while we who recognise the
same God rely for our defence on the prophecies which were delivered
concerning Jesus Christ. His words are: “Let us see how they can raise a
defence. To those who admit another God, no defence is possible; and
they who recognise the same God will always fall back upon the same
reason, ‘This and that must have happened.’ And why? ‘Because it had
been predicted long before.’” To this we answer, that the arguments
recently raised by Celsus against Jesus and Christians were so utterly
feeble, that they might easily be overthrown even by those who are
impious enough to bring in another God. Indeed, were it not dangerous to
give to the weak any excuse for embracing false notions, we could
furnish the answer ourselves, and show Celsus how unfounded is his
opinion, that those who admit another God are not in a position to meet
his arguments. However, let us for the present confine ourselves to a
defence of the prophets, in continuation of what we have said on the
subject before.




                              Chapter III.


Celsus goes on to say of us: “They set no value on the oracles of the
Pythian priestess, of the priests of Dodona, of Clarus, of Branchidæ, of
Jupiter Ammon, and of a multitude of others; although under their
guidance we may say that colonies were sent forth, and the whole world
peopled. But those sayings which were uttered or not uttered in Judea,
after the manner of that country, as indeed they are still delivered
among the people of Phœnicia and Palestine—these they look upon as
marvellous sayings, and unchangeably true.” In regard to the oracles
here enumerated, we reply that it would be possible for us to gather
from the writings of Aristotle and the Peripatetic school not a few
things to overthrow the authority of the Pythian and the other oracles.
From Epicurus also, and his followers, we could quote passages to show
that even among the Greeks themselves there were some who utterly
discredited the oracles which were recognised and admired throughout the
whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the responses delivered by
the Pythian and other oracles were not the utterances of false men who
pretended to a divine inspiration; and let us see if, after all, we
cannot convince any sincere inquirers that there is no necessity to
attribute these oracular responses to any divinities, but that, on the
other hand, they may be traced to wicked demons—to spirits which are at
enmity with the human race, and which in this way wish to hinder the
soul from rising upwards, from following the path of virtue, and from
returning to God in sincere piety. It is said of the Pythian priestess,
whose oracle seems to have been the most celebrated, that when she sat
down at the mouth of the Castalian cave, the prophetic spirit of Apollo
entered her private parts; and when she was filled with it, she gave
utterance to responses which are regarded with awe as divine truths.
Judge by this whether that spirit does not show its profane and impure
nature, by choosing to enter the soul of the prophetess not through the
more becoming medium of the bodily pores which are both open and
invisible, but by means of what no modest man would ever see or speak
of. And this occurs not once or twice, which would be more permissible,
but as often as she was believed to receive inspiration from Apollo.
Moreover, it is not the part of a divine spirit to drive the prophetess
into such a state of ecstasy and madness that she loses control of
herself. For he who is under the influence of the Divine Spirit ought to
be the first to receive the beneficial effects; and these ought not to
be first enjoyed by the persons who consult the oracle about the
concerns of natural or civil life, or for purposes of temporal gain or
interest; and, moreover, that should be the time of clearest perception,
when a person is in close intercourse with the Deity.




                              Chapter IV.


Accordingly, we can show from an examination of the sacred Scriptures,
that the Jewish prophets, who were enlightened as far as was necessary
for their prophetic work by the Spirit of God, were the first to enjoy
the benefit of the inspiration; and by the contact—if I may so say—of
the Holy Spirit they became clearer in mind, and their souls were filled
with a brighter light. And the body no longer served as a hindrance to a
virtuous life; for to that which we call “the lust of the flesh” it was
deadened. For we are persuaded that the Divine Spirit “mortifies the
deeds of the body,” and destroys that enmity against God which the
carnal passions serve to excite. If, then, the Pythian priestess is
beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit must that be which fills
her mind and clouds her judgment with darkness, unless it be of the same
order with those demons which many Christians cast out of persons
possessed with them? And this, we may observe, they do without the use
of any curious arts of magic, or incantations, but merely by prayer and
simple adjurations which the plainest person can use. Because for the
most part it is unlettered persons who perform this work; thus making
manifest the grace which is in the word of Christ, and the despicable
weakness of demons, which, in order to be overcome and driven out of the
bodies and souls of men, do not require the power and wisdom of those
who are mighty in argument, and most learned in matters of faith.




                               Chapter V.


Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also
by many others among the Greeks and barbarians, that the human soul
lives and subsists after its separation from the body; and if reason
supports the idea that pure souls which are not weighed down with sin as
with a weight of lead ascend on high to the region of purer and more
etherial bodies, leaving here below their grosser bodies along with
their impurities; whereas souls that are polluted and dragged down to
the earth by their sins, so that they are unable even to breathe
upwards, wander hither and thither, at some times about sepulchres,
where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits, at others among
other objects on the ground;—if this is so, what are we to think of
those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to
particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or
by their own natural wickedness? Are we not compelled by reason to set
down as evil such spirits as employ the power of prophesying—a power in
itself neither good nor bad—for the purpose of deceiving men, and thus
turn them away from God, and from the purity of His service? It is
moreover evident that this is their character, when we add that they
delight in the blood of victims, and in the smoke and odour of
sacrifices, and that they feed their bodies on these, and that they take
pleasure in such haunts as these, as though they sought in them the
sustenance of their lives; in this resembling those depraved men who
despise the purity of a life apart from the senses, and who have no
inclination except for the pleasures of the body, and for that earthly
and bodily life in which these pleasures are found. If the Delphian
Apollo were a god, as the Greeks suppose, would he not rather have
chosen as his prophet some wise man? or if such an one was not to be
found, then one who was endeavouring to become wise? How came he not to
prefer a man to a woman for the utterance of his prophecies? And if he
preferred the latter sex, as though he could only find pleasure in the
breast of a woman, why did he not choose among women a virgin to
interpret his will?




                              Chapter VI.


But no; the Pythian, so much admired among the Greeks, judged no wise
man, nay, no man at all, worthy of the divine possession, as they call
it. And among women he did not choose a virgin, or one recommended by
her wisdom, or by her attainments in philosophy; but he selects a common
woman. Perhaps the better class of men were too good to become the
subjects of the inspiration. Besides, if he were a god, he should have
employed his prophetic power as a bait, so to speak, with which he might
draw men to a change of life, and to the practice of virtue. But history
nowhere makes mention of anything of the kind. For if the oracle did
call Socrates the wisest of all men, it takes from the value of that
eulogy by what is said in regard to Euripides and Sophocles. The words
are:

                “Sophocles is wise, and Euripides is wiser,
                But wiser than all men is Socrates.”[1424]

As, then, he gives the designation “wise” to the tragic poets, it is not
on account of his philosophy that he holds up Socrates to veneration, or
because of his love of truth and virtue. It is poor praise of Socrates
to say that he prefers him to men who for a paltry reward compete upon
the stage, and who by their representations excite the spectators at one
time to tears and grief, and at another to unseemly laughter (for such
is the intention of the satiric drama). And perhaps it was not so much
in regard to his philosophy that he called Socrates the wisest of all
men, as on account of the victims which he sacrificed to him and the
other demons. For it seems that the demons pay more regard in
distributing their favours to the sacrifices which are offered them than
to deeds of virtue. Accordingly, Homer, the best of the poets, who
describes what usually took place, when, wishing to show us what most
influenced the demons to grant an answer to the wishes of their
votaries, introduces Chryses, who, for a few garlands and the thighs of
bulls and goats, obtained an answer to his prayers for his daughter
Chryseis, so that the Greeks were driven by a pestilence to restore her
back to him. And I remember reading in the book of a certain
Pythagorean, when writing on the hidden meanings in that poet, that the
prayer of Chryses to Apollo, and the plague which Apollo afterwards sent
upon the Greeks, are proofs that Homer knew of certain evil demons who
delight in the smoke of sacrifices, and who, to reward those who offer
them, grant in answer to their prayers the destruction of others. “He,”
that is, Jupiter, “who rules over wintry Dodona, where his prophets have
ever unwashed feet, and sleep upon the ground,”[1425] has rejected the
male sex, and, as Celsus observes, employs the women of Dodona for the
prophetic office. Granting that there are oracles similar to these, as
that at Clarus, another in Branchidæ, another in the temple of Jupiter
Ammon, or anywhere else; yet how shall it be proved that these are gods,
and not demons?

Footnote 1424:

  Suidas in Σοφός.

Footnote 1425:

  Homer, _Iliad_, xvi. 234, etc.




                              Chapter VII.


In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of them were wise men
before they became divinely inspired prophets, while others became wise
by the illumination which their minds received when divinely inspired.
They were selected by Divine Providence to receive the Divine Spirit,
and to be the depositaries of His holy oracles, on the ground of their
leading a life of almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid, noble,
unmoved by danger or death. For reason teaches that such ought to be the
character of the prophets of the Most High, in comparison with which the
firmness of Antisthenes, Crates, and Diogenes will seem but as child’s
play. It was therefore for their firm adherence to truth, and their
faithfulness in the reproof of the wicked, that they were “stoned; they
were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they
wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted,
tormented; they wandered in deserts and in mountains, and in dens and
caves of the earth, of whom the world was not worthy:”[1426] for they
looked always to God and to His blessings, which, being invisible, and
not to be perceived by the senses, are eternal. We have the history of
the life of each of the prophets; but it will be enough at present to
direct attention to the life of Moses, whose prophecies are contained in
the law; to that of Jeremiah, as it is given in the book which bears his
name; to that of Isaiah, who with unexampled austerity walked naked and
barefooted for the space of three years. Read and consider the severe
life of those children, Daniel and his companions, how they abstained
from flesh, and lived on water and pulse. Or if you will go back to more
remote times, think of the life of Noah, who prophesied; and of Isaac,
who gave his son a prophetic blessing; or of Jacob, who addressed each
of his twelve sons, beginning with “Come, that I may tell you what shall
befall you in the last days.” These, and a multitude of others,
prophesying on behalf of God, foretold events relating to Jesus Christ.
We therefore for this reason set at nought the oracles of the Pythian
priestess, or those delivered at Dodona, at Clarus, at Branchidæ, at the
temple of Jupiter Ammon, or by a multitude of other so-called prophets;
whilst we regard with reverent awe the Jewish prophets: for we see that
the noble, earnest, and devout lives of these men were worthy of the
inspiration of the Divine Spirit, whose wonderful effects were widely
different from the divination of demons.

Footnote 1426:

  Heb. xi. 37, 38.




                             Chapter VIII.


I do not know what led Celsus, when saying, “But what things were spoken
or not spoken in the land of Judea, according to the custom of the
country,” to use the words “or not spoken,” as though implying that he
was incredulous, and that he suspected that those things which were
written were never spoken. In fact, he is unacquainted with these times;
and he does not know that those prophets who foretold the coming of
Christ, predicted a multitude of other events many years beforehand. He
adds, with the view of casting a slight upon the ancient prophets, that
“they prophesied in the same way as we find them still doing among the
inhabitants of Phœnicia and Palestine.” But he does not tell us whether
he refers to persons who are of different principles from those of the
Jews and Christians, or to persons whose prophecies are of the same
character as those of the Jewish prophets. However it be, his statement
is false, taken in either way. For never have any of those who have not
embraced our faith done anything approaching to what was done by the
ancient prophets; and in more recent times, since the coming of Christ,
no prophets have arisen among the Jews, who have confessedly been
abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their impiety towards God,
and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke. Moreover, the Holy Spirit
gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ’s ministry, and
after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time these signs
have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence in a
few who have had their souls purified by the gospel, and their actions
regulated by its influence. “For the holy spirit of discipline will flee
deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding.”[1427]

Footnote 1427:

  Wisd. of Sol. i. 5.




                              Chapter IX.


But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which
prophecies are delivered in Phœnicia and Palestine, speaking as though
it were a matter with which he had a full and personal acquaintance, let
us see what he has to say on the subject. First he lays it down that
there are several kinds of prophecies, but he does not specify what they
are; indeed, he could not do so, and the statement is a piece of pure
ostentation. However, let us see what he considers the most perfect kind
of prophecy among these nations. “There are many,” he says, “who,
although of no name, with the greatest facility and on the slightest
occasion, whether within or without temples, assume the motions and
gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in cities or among
armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting surprise.
These are accustomed to say, each for himself, ‘I am God; I am the Son
of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have come because the world is
perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your iniquities. But I wish
to save you, and you shall see me returning again with heavenly power.
Blessed is he who now does me homage. On all the rest I will send down
eternal fire, both on cities and on countries. And those who know not
the punishments which await them shall repent and grieve in vain; while
those who are faithful to me I will preserve eternally.’” Then he goes
on to say: “To these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite
unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning:
for so dark are they, as to have no meaning at all; but they give
occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them to suit his own
purposes.”




                               Chapter X.


But if he were dealing honestly in his accusations, he ought to have
given the exact terms of the prophecies, whether those in which the
speaker is introduced as claiming to be God Almighty, or those in which
the Son of God speaks, or finally those under the name of the Holy
Spirit. For thus he might have endeavoured to overthrow these
assertions, and have shown that there was no divine inspiration in those
words which urged men to forsake their sins, which condemned the past
and foretold the future. For the prophecies were recorded and preserved
by men living at the time, that those who came after might read and
admire them as the oracles of God, and that they might profit not only
by the warnings and admonitions, but also by the predictions, which
being shown by events to have proceeded from the Spirit of God, bind men
to the practice of piety as set forth in the law and the prophets. The
prophets have therefore, as God commanded them, declared with all
plainness those things which it was desirable that the hearers should
understand at once for the regulation of their conduct; while in regard
to deeper and more mysterious subjects, which lay beyond the reach of
the common understanding, they set them forth in the form of enigmas and
allegories, or of what are called dark sayings, parables, or
similitudes. And this plan they have followed, that those who are ready
to shun no labour and spare no pains in their endeavours after truth and
virtue might search into their meaning, and having found it, might apply
it as reason requires. But Celsus, ever vigorous in his denunciations,
as though he were angry at his inability to understand the language of
the prophets, scoffs at them thus: “To these grand promises are added
strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational
person can find the meaning; for so dark are they as to have no meaning
at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor to apply them
so as to suit his own purposes.” This statement of Celsus seems
ingeniously designed to dissuade readers from attempting any inquiry or
careful search into their meaning. And in this he is not unlike certain
persons, who said to a man whom a prophet had visited to announce future
events, “Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee?”[1428]

Footnote 1428:

  2 Kings ix. 11.




                              Chapter XI.


I am convinced, indeed, that much better arguments could be adduced than
any I have been able to bring forward, to show the falsehood of these
allegations of Celsus, and to set forth the divine inspiration of the
prophecies; but we have according to our ability, in our commentaries on
Isaiah, Ezekiel, and some of the twelve minor prophets, explained
literally and in detail what he calls “those fanatical and utterly
unintelligible passages.” And if God give us grace in the time that He
appoints for us, to advance in the knowledge of His word, we shall
continue our investigation into the parts which remain, or into such at
least as we are able to make plain. And other persons of intelligence
who wish to study Scripture may also find out its meaning for
themselves; for although there are many places in which the meaning is
not obvious, yet there are none where, as Celsus affirms, “there is no
sense at all.” Neither is it true that “any fool or impostor can explain
the passages so as to make them suit his own purposes.” For it belongs
only to those who are wise in the truth of Christ (and to all them it
does belong) to unfold the connection and meaning of even the obscure
parts of prophecy, “comparing spiritual things with spiritual,” and
interpreting each passage according to the usage of Scripture writers.
And Celsus is not to be believed when he says that he has heard such men
prophesy; for no prophets bearing any resemblance to the ancient
prophets have appeared in the time of Celsus. If there had been any,
those who heard and admired them would have followed the example of the
ancients, and have recorded the prophecies in writing. And it seems
quite clear that Celsus is speaking falsely, when he says that “those
prophets whom he had heard, on being pressed by him, confessed their
true motives, and acknowledged that the ambiguous words they used really
meant nothing.” He ought to have given the names of those whom he says
he had heard, if he had any to give, so that those who were competent to
judge might decide whether his allegations were true or false.




                              Chapter XII.


He thinks, besides, that those who support the cause of Christ by a
reference to the writings of the prophets can give no proper answer in
regard to statements in them which attribute to God that which is
wicked, shameful, or impure; and assuming that no answer can be given,
he proceeds to draw a whole train of inferences, none of which can be
allowed. But he ought to know that those who wish to live according to
the teaching of sacred Scripture understand the saying, “The knowledge
of the unwise is as talk without sense,”[1429] and have learnt “to be
ready always to give an answer to every one that asketh us a reason for
the hope that is in us.”[1430] And they are not satisfied with affirming
that such and such things have been predicted; but they endeavour to
remove any apparent inconsistencies, and to show that, so far from there
being anything evil, shameful, or impure in these predictions,
everything is worthy of being received by those who understand the
sacred Scriptures. But Celsus ought to have adduced from the prophets
examples of what he thought bad, or shameful, or impure, if he saw any
such passages; for then his argument would have had much more force, and
would have furthered his purpose much better. He gives no instances,
however, but contents himself with loudly asserting the false charge
that these things are to be found in Scripture. There is no reason,
then, for us to defend ourselves against groundless charges, which are
but empty sounds, or to take the trouble of showing that in the writings
of the prophets there is nothing evil, shameful, impure, or abominable.

Footnote 1429:

  Ecclus. xxi. 18.

Footnote 1430:

  1 Pet. iii. 15.




                             Chapter XIII.


And there is no truth in the statement of Celsus, that “God does the
most shameless deeds, or suffers the most shameless sufferings,” or that
“He favours the commission of evil;” for whatever he may say, no such
things have ever been foretold. He ought to have cited from the prophets
the passages in which God is represented as favouring evil, or as doing
and enduring the most shameless deeds, and not have sought without
foundation to prejudice the minds of his readers. The prophets, indeed,
foretold what Christ should suffer, and set forth the reason why He
should suffer. God therefore also knew what Christ would suffer; but
where has he learnt that those things which the Christ of God should
suffer were most base and dishonourable? He goes on to explain what
those most shameful and degrading things were which Christ suffered, in
these words: “For what better was it for God to eat the flesh of sheep,
or to drink vinegar and gall, than to feed on filth?” But God, according
to us, did not eat the flesh of sheep; and while it may seem that Jesus
ate, He did so only as possessing a body. But in regard to the vinegar
and gall mentioned in the prophecy, “They gave me also gall for my meat,
and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink,”[1431] we have already
referred[1432] to this point; and as Celsus compels us to recur to it
again, we would only say further, that those who resist the word of
truth do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of their own
wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He
tastes of it, yet He will not drink it.

Footnote 1431:

  Ps. lxix. 21.

Footnote 1432:

  Book ii. chap. 37.




                              Chapter XIV.


In the next place, wishing to shake the faith of those who believe in
Jesus on the ground of the prophecies which were delivered in regard to
Him, Celsus says: “But pray, if the prophets foretold that the great
God—not to put it more harshly—would become a slave, or become sick, or
die; would there be therefore any necessity that God should die, or
suffer sickness, or become a slave, simply because such things had been
foretold? Must he die in order to prove his divinity? But the prophets
never would utter predictions so wicked and impious. We need not
therefore inquire whether a thing has been predicted or not, but whether
the thing is honourable in itself, and worthy of God. In that which is
evil and base, although it seemed that all men in the world had foretold
it in a fit of madness, we must not believe. How then can the pious mind
admit that those things which are said to have happened to him, could
have happened to one who is God?” From this it is plain that Celsus
feels the argument from prophecy to be very effective for convincing
those to whom Christ is preached; but he seems to endeavour to overthrow
it by an opposite probability, namely, “that the question is not whether
the prophets uttered these predictions or not.” But if he wished to
reason justly and without evasion, he ought rather to have said, “We
must show that these things were never predicted, or that those things
which were predicted of Christ have never been fulfilled in him,” and in
that way he would have established the position which he holds. In that
way it would have been made plain what those prophecies are which we
apply to Jesus, and how Celsus could justify himself in asserting that
that application was false. And we should thus have seen whether he
fairly disproved all that we bring from the prophets in behalf of Jesus,
or whether he is himself convicted of a shameless endeavour to resist
the plainest truths by violent assertions.




                              Chapter XV.


After assuming that some things were foretold which are impossible in
themselves, and inconsistent with the character of God, he says: “If
these things were predicted of the Most High God, are we bound to
believe them of God simply because they were predicted?” And thus he
thinks he proves, that although the prophets may have foretold truly
such things of the Son of God, yet it is impossible for us to believe in
those prophecies declaring that He would do or suffer such things. To
this our answer is that the supposition is absurd, for it combines two
lines of reasoning which are opposed to each other, and therefore
mutually destructive. This may be shown as follows. The one argument is:
“If any true prophets of the Most High say that God will become a slave,
or suffer sickness, or die, these things will come to God; for it is
impossible that the prophets of the great God should utter lies.” The
other is: “If even true prophets of the Most High God say that these
same things shall come to pass, seeing that these things foretold are by
the nature of things impossible, the prophecies are not true, and
therefore those things which have been foretold will not happen to God.”
When, then, we find two processes of reasoning in both of which the
major premiss is the same, leading to two contradictory conclusions, we
use the form of argument called “the theorem of two propositions,”[1433]
to prove that the major premiss is false, which in the case before us is
this, “that the prophets have foretold that the great God should become
a slave, suffer sickness, or die.” We conclude, then, that the prophets
never foretold such things; and the argument is formally expressed as
follows: _1st_, Of two things, if the first is true, the second is true;
_2d_, if the first is[1434] true, the second is not true, therefore the
first is not true. The concrete example which the Stoics give to
illustrate this form of argument is the following: _1st_, If you know
that you are dead, you are dead; _2d_, if you know that you are dead,
you are not dead. And the conclusion is—“you do not know that you are
dead.” These propositions are worked out as follows: If you know that
you are dead, that which you know is certain; therefore you are dead.
Again, if you know that you are dead, your death is an object of
knowledge; but as the dead know nothing, your knowing this proves that
you are not dead. Accordingly, by joining the two arguments together,
you arrive at the conclusion—“you do not know that you are dead.” Now
the hypothesis of Celsus which we have given above is much of the same
kind.

Footnote 1433:

  διὰ δύο τροπικῶν θεωρήμα.

Footnote 1434:

  We follow Bouhereau and Valesius, who expunge the negative particle in
  this clause.




                              Chapter XVI.


But besides, the prophecies which he introduces into his argument are
very different from what the prophets actually foretold of Jesus Christ.
For the prophecies do not foretell that God will be crucified, when they
say of Him who should suffer, “We beheld Him, and He had no form or
comeliness; but His form was dishonoured and marred more than the sons
of men; He was a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief.”[1435]
Observe, then, how distinctly they say that it was a man who should
endure these human sufferings. And Jesus Himself, who knew perfectly
that one who was to die must be a man, said to His accusers: “But now ye
seek to kill me, a man that hath spoken unto you the truth which I heard
of God.”[1436] And if in that man as He appeared among men there was
something divine, namely the only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of
all creation, one who said of Himself, “I am the truth,” “I am the
life,” “I am the door,” “I am the way,” “I am the living bread which
came down from heaven,” of this Being and His nature we must judge and
reason in a way quite different from that in which we judge of the man
who was seen in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, you will find no Christian,
however simple he may be, and however little versed in critical studies,
who would say that He who died was “the truth,” “the life,” “the way,”
“the living bread which came down from heaven,” “the resurrection;” for
it was He who appeared to us in the form of the man Jesus, who taught
us, saying, “I am the resurrection.” There is no one amongst us, I say,
so extravagant as to affirm “the Life died,” “the Resurrection died.”
The supposition of Celsus would have some foundation if we were to say
that it had been foretold by the prophets that death would befall God
the Word, the Truth, the Life, the Resurrection, or any other name which
is assumed by the Son of God.

Footnote 1435:

  Isa. liii. 2, 3.

Footnote 1436:

  John viii. 40.




                             Chapter XVII.


In one point alone is Celsus correct in his statements on this subject.
It is that in which he says: “The prophets would not foretell this,
because it involves that which is wicked and impious,”—namely, that the
great God should become a slave or suffer death. But that which is
predicted by the prophets is worthy of God, that He who is the
brightness and express image of the divine nature should come into the
world with the holy human soul which was to animate the body of Jesus,
to sow the seed of His word, which might bring all who received and
cherished it into union with the Most High God, and which would lead to
perfect blessedness all those who felt within them the power of God the
Word, who was to be in the body and soul of a man. He was to be in it
indeed, but not in such a way as to confine therein all the rays of His
glory; and we are not to suppose that the light of Him who is God the
Word is shed forth in no other way than in this. If, then, we consider
Jesus in relation to the divinity that was in Him, the things which He
did in this capacity present nothing to offend our ideas of God, nothing
but what is holy; and if we consider Him as man, distinguished beyond
all other men by an intimate communion with the Eternal Word, with
absolute Wisdom, He suffered as one who was wise and perfect, whatever
it behoved Him to suffer who did all for the good of the human race,
yea, even for the good of all intelligent beings. And there is nothing
absurd in a man having died, and in His death being not only an example
of death endured for the sake of piety, but also the first blow in the
conflict which is to overthrow the power of that evil spirit the devil,
who had obtained dominion over the whole world. For we have signs and
pledges of the destruction of his empire, in those who through the
coming of Christ are everywhere escaping from the power of demons, and
who, after their deliverance from this bondage in which they were held,
consecrate themselves to God, and earnestly devote themselves day by day
to advancement in a life of piety.




                             Chapter XVIII.


Celsus adds: “Will they not besides make this reflection? If the
prophets of the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into
the world would be the Son of this same God, how could he command them
through Moses to gather wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the
earth, to put their enemies of every age to the sword, and to destroy
them utterly, which indeed he himself did—as Moses says—threatening
them, moreover, that if they did not obey his commands, he would treat
them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other hand, his Son, the man
of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these, declaring that no
one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or glory; that
men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the ravens; that
they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the lilies; that
to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to receive
another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the
Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to
Moses? Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a
messenger with counter instructions?” Celsus, with all his boasts of
universal knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in
supposing that in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper
than that afforded by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see
how manifestly incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised
to those who lead upright lives, when it is a matter of common
observation that the best of men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed,
the prophets themselves, who for the purity of their lives received the
Divine Spirit, “wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins; being
destitute, afflicted, tormented: they wandered in deserts, and in
mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth.”[1437] For, as the
Psalmist says, “many are the afflictions of the righteous.”[1438] If
Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would, I daresay, have
supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, “Thou shalt lend
unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow,”[1439] the promise
is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so abundant,
that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only to two or
three nations, but “to many nations.” What, then, must have been the
wealth which the just man received according to the law for his
righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose
also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would
never borrow anything? For it is written, “and thou shalt thyself borrow
nothing.” Did then that nation remain for so long a period attached to
the religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according to the
supposition of Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously deceived by
that lawgiver? For nowhere is it said of any one that he was so rich as
to lend to many nations. It is not to be believed that they would have
fought so zealously in defence of a law whose promises had proved
glaringly false, if they understood them in the sense which Celsus gives
to them. And if any one should say that the sins which are recorded to
have been committed by the people are a proof that they despised the
law, doubtless from the feeling that they had been deceived by it, we
may reply that we have only to read the history of the times in order to
find it shown that the whole people, after having done that which was
evil in the sight of the Lord, returned afterwards to their duty, and to
the religion prescribed by the law.

Footnote 1437:

  Heb. xi. 37, 38.

Footnote 1438:

  Ps. xxxiv. 19.

Footnote 1439:

  Deut. xxviii. 12.




                              Chapter XIX.


Now if these words in the law, “Thou shalt have dominion over many
nations, and no one shall rule over thee,” were simply a promise to them
of dominion, and if they contain no deeper meaning than this, then it is
certain that the people would have had still stronger grounds for
despising the promises of the law. Celsus brings forward another
passage, although he changes the terms of it, where it is said that the
whole earth shall be filled with the Hebrew race; which indeed,
according to the testimony of history, did actually happen after the
coming of Christ, although rather as a result of God’s anger, if I may
so say, than of His blessing. As to the promise made to the Jews that
they should slay their enemies, it may be answered that any one who
examines carefully into the meaning of this passage will find himself
unable to interpret it literally. It is sufficient at present to refer
to the manner in which in the Psalms the just man is represented as
saying, among other things, “Every morning will I destroy the wicked of
the land, that I may cut off all workers of iniquity from the city of
Jehovah.”[1440] Judge, then, from the words and spirit of the speaker,
whether it is conceivable that, after having in the preceding part of
the Psalm, as any one may read for himself, uttered the noblest thoughts
and purposes, he should in the sequel, according to the literal
rendering of his words, say that in the morning, and at no other period
of the day, he would destroy all sinners from the earth, and leave none
of them alive, and that he would slay every one in Jerusalem who did
iniquity. And there are many similar expressions to be found in the law,
as this, for example: “We left not anything alive.”[1441]

Footnote 1440:

  Ps. ci. 9.

Footnote 1441:

  Deut. ii. 34.




                              Chapter XX.


Celsus adds, that it was foretold to the Jews, that if they did not obey
the law, they would be treated in the same way as they treated their
enemies; and then he quotes from the teaching of Christ some precepts
which he considers contrary to those of the law, and uses that as an
argument against us. But before proceeding to this point, we must speak
of that which precedes. We hold, then, that the law has a twofold
sense,—the one literal, the other spiritual,—as has been shown by some
before us. Of the first or literal sense it is said, not by us, but by
God, speaking in one of the prophets, that “the statutes are not good,
and the judgments not good;”[1442] whereas, taken in a spiritual sense,
the same prophet makes God say that “His statutes are good, and His
judgments good.” Yet evidently the prophet is not saying things which
are contradictory of each other. Paul in like manner says, that “the
letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life,”[1443] meaning by “the
letter” the literal sense, and by “the spirit” the spiritual sense of
Scripture. We may therefore find in Paul, as well as in the prophet,
apparent contradictions. Indeed, if Ezekiel says in one place, “I gave
them commandments which were not good, and judgments whereby they should
not live,” and in another, “I gave them good commandments and judgments,
which if a man shall do, he shall live by them,” Paul in like manner,
when he wishes to disparage the law taken literally, says, “If the
ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of
Moses for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away,
how shall not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious?”[1444]
But when in another place he wishes to praise and recommend the law, he
calls it “spiritual,” and says, “We know that the law is spiritual;”
and, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and
good.”[1445]

Footnote 1442:

  Ezek. xx. 25.

Footnote 1443:

  2 Cor. iii. 6.

Footnote 1444:

  2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.

Footnote 1445:

  Rom. vii. 12, 14.




                              Chapter XXI.


When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus
may follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly
riches, which blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which
enlighten the eyes, and which enrich a man “in all utterance and in all
knowledge.” And in this sense we “charge them that are rich in this
world, that they be not high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches, but
in the living God, who giveth us richly all things to enjoy; that they
do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute, willing
to communicate.”[1446] For, as Solomon says, “riches” are the true good,
which “are the ransom of the life of a man;” but the poverty which is
the opposite of these riches is destructive, for by it “the poor cannot
bear rebuke.”[1447] And what has been said of riches applies to
dominion, in regard to which it is said, “The just man shall chase a
thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight.”[1448] Now if riches are
to be taken in the sense we have just explained, consider if it is not
according to God’s promise that he who is rich in all utterance, in all
knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out of these
treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many
nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited,
“carrying the gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto
Illyricum.”[1449] And as the divine knowledge was given to him by
revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself
therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry of
any man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written,
“Thou shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have
dominion over thee,” he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under
the teaching of Jesus Christ; and he never “gave place by subjection to
men, no, not for an hour,”[1450] as being himself mightier than they.
And thus also he “filled the earth.”

Footnote 1446:

  1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.

Footnote 1447:

  Prov. xiii. 8.

Footnote 1448:

  Deut. xxxii. 30.

Footnote 1449:

  Rom. xv. 19.

Footnote 1450:

  Gal. ii. 5.




                             Chapter XXII.


If I must now explain how the just man “slays his enemies,” and prevails
everywhere, it is to be observed that, when he says, “Every morning will
I destroy the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all workers of
iniquity from the city of Jehovah,” by “the land” he means the flesh
whose lusts are at enmity with God; and by “the city of Jehovah” he
designates his own soul, in which was the temple of God, containing the
true idea and conception of God, which makes it to be admired by all who
look upon it. As soon, then, as the rays of the Sun of righteousness
shine into his soul, feeling strengthened and invigorated by their
influence, he sets himself to destroy all the lusts of the flesh, which
are called “the wicked of the land,” and drives out of that city of the
Lord which is in his soul all thoughts which work iniquity, and all
suggestions which are opposed to the truth. And in this way also the
just give up to destruction all their enemies, which are their vices, so
that they do not spare even the children, that is, the early beginnings
and promptings of evil. In this sense also we understand the language of
the 137th Psalm: “O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed; happy
shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us: happy shall he
be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.”[1451]
For “the little ones” of Babylon (which signifies confusion) are those
troublesome sinful thoughts which arise in the soul; and he who subdues
them by striking, as it were, their heads against the firm and solid
strength of reason and truth, is the man who “dasheth the little ones
against the stones;” and he is therefore truly blessed. God may
therefore have commanded men to destroy all their vices utterly, even at
their birth, without having enjoined anything contrary to the teaching
of Christ; and He may Himself have destroyed before the eyes of those
who were “Jews inwardly”[1452] all the offspring of evil as His enemies.
And, in like manner, those who disobey the law and word of God may well
be compared to His enemies led astray by sin; and they may well be said
to suffer the same fate as they deserve who have proved traitors to the
truth of God.

Footnote 1451:

  Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9.

Footnote 1452:

  Rom. ii. 29.




                             Chapter XXIII.


From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, “the man of
Nazareth,” did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in
regard to riches, when He said, “It is hard for the rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God;”[1453] whether we take the word “rich” in its
simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his
wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth
no spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of
abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs,
“Better is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is
false.”[1454] Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus
to suppose that Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: “Whoever of you
will be the chiefest shall be servant of all;”[1455] “The princes of the
Gentiles exercise dominion over them,”[1456] and “they that exercise
authority upon them are called benefactors.”[1457] But there is nothing
here inconsistent with the promise, “Thou shalt rule over many nations,
and they shall not rule over thee,” especially after the explanation
which we have given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression
in regard to wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the
teaching of Christ, no wise man could come to the Father. But we would
ask in what sense he speaks of a wise man. For if he means one who is
wise in “the wisdom of this world,” as it is called, “which is
foolishness with God,”[1458] then we would agree with him in saying that
access to the Father is denied to one who is wise in that sense. But if
by wisdom any one means Christ, who is “the power and wisdom of God,”
far from such a wise man being refused access to the Father, we hold
that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that gift which is called
“the word of wisdom,” far excels all those who have not received the
same grace.

Footnote 1453:

  Matt. xix. 23.

Footnote 1454:

  Prov. xxviii. 6.

Footnote 1455:

  Mark x. 44.

Footnote 1456:

  Matt. xx. 25.

Footnote 1457:

  Luke xxii. 25.

Footnote 1458:

  1 Cor. iii. 19.




                             Chapter XXIV.


The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is forbidden not only by the
teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old Testament. Accordingly we find
one of the prophets, when imprecating upon himself certain punishments
for the commission of certain sins, includes among the punishments this
one of earthly glory. He says, “O Lord my God, if I have done this; if
there be iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that was
at peace with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered him that without cause
is mine enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let
him tread down my life upon the earth, and _set my glory up on
high_.”[1459] And these precepts of our Lord, “Take no thought what ye
shall eat, or what ye shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air, or
behold the ravens: for they sow not, neither do they reap; yet your
heavenly Father feedeth them. How much better are ye than they! And why
take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the
field;”[1460]—these precepts, and those which follow, are not
inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that
the just “shall eat their bread to the full;”[1461] nor with that saying
of Solomon, “The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the
belly of the wicked shall want.”[1462] For we must consider the food
promised in the law as the food of the soul, which is to satisfy not
both parts of man’s nature, but the soul only. And the words of the
Gospel, although probably containing a deeper meaning, may yet be taken
in their more simple and obvious sense, as teaching us not to be
disturbed with anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living
in plainness, and desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the
providence of God.

Footnote 1459:

  Ps. vii. 3-5. Origen follows the reading εἰς χοῦν instead of εἰς
  χνοῦν, “make my glory abide _in the dust_.”

Footnote 1460:

  Matt. vi. 25-28.

Footnote 1461:

  Lev. xxvi. 5.

Footnote 1462:

  Prov. xiii. 25.




                              Chapter XXV.


Celsus then extracts from the Gospel the precept, “To him who strikes
thee once, thou shalt offer thyself to be struck again,” although
without giving any passage from the Old Testament which he considers
opposed to it. On the one hand, we know that “it was said to them in old
time, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth;”[1463] and on the
other, we have read, “I say unto you, Whoever shall smite thee on the
one cheek, turn to him the other also.”[1464] But as there is reason to
believe that Celsus produces the objections which he has heard from
those who wish to make a difference between the God of the gospel and
the God of the law, we must say in reply, that this precept, “Whosoever
shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other,” is not
unknown to the older Scriptures. For thus, in the Lamentations of
Jeremiah, it is said, “It is good for a man that he beareth the yoke in
his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth silence, because he hath borne
it upon him: he giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled
full with reproach.”[1465] There is no discrepancy, then, between the
God of the gospel and the God of the law, even when we take literally
the precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we infer that
neither “Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely.” The Father in sending
Jesus did not “forget the commands which He had given to Moses:” He did
not “change His mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger
counter instructions.”

Footnote 1463:

  Ex. xxi. 24.

Footnote 1464:

  Matt. v. 39.

Footnote 1465:

  Lam. iii. 27, 29, 30.




                             Chapter XXVI.


However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the
constitution which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which
the Christians, under the direction of Christ’s teaching, wish now to
establish, we would observe that it must be impossible for the
legislation of Moses, taken literally, to harmonize with the calling of
the Gentiles, and with their subjection to the Roman government; and on
the other hand, it would be impossible for the Jews to preserve their
civil economy unchanged, supposing that they should embrace the gospel.
For Christians could not slay their enemies, or condemn to be burned or
stoned, as Moses commands, those who had broken the law, and were
therefore condemned as deserving of these punishments; since the Jews
themselves, however desirous of carrying out their law, are not able to
inflict these punishments. But in the case of the ancient Jews, who had
a land and a form of government of their own, to take from them the
right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for their country,
of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers, murderers, or
others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject them to
sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for
their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from
resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the law,
and has now given the gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish
state to continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it
has abolished the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the
sacrifice of victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And
as it has destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer
continue, in like manner it has extended day by day the Christian
religion, so that it is now preached everywhere with boldness, and that
in spite of the numerous obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ’s
teaching in the world. But since it was the purpose of God that the
nations should receive the benefits of Christ’s teaching, all the
devices of men against Christians have been brought to nought; for the
more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have persecuted them
everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown in
strength.




                             Chapter XXVII.


After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to us,
but which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect that
“he is corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man.” As he
undertakes to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be
needless to give either the opinions themselves or their refutation.
Indeed, if we did hold those views of God which he ascribes to us, and
which he opposes, we would be bound to quote his words, to adduce our
own arguments, and to refute his. But if he brings forward opinions
which he has either heard from no one, or if it be assumed that he has
heard them, it must have been from those who are very simple and
ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not undertake so
superfluous a task as that of refuting them. For the Scriptures plainly
speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, “No man hath
seen God at any time;”[1466] and the First-born of all creation is
called “the image of the invisible God,”[1467] which is the same as if
it were said that He is incorporeal. However, we have already said
something on the nature of God while examining into the meaning of the
words, “God is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth.”

Footnote 1466:

  John i. 18.

Footnote 1467:

  Col. i. 15.




                            Chapter XXVIII.


After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes
on to ask of us “where we hope to go after death;” and he makes our
answer to be, “to another land better than this.” On this he comments as
follows: “The divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life
reserved for the souls of the blessed. Some designated it ‘the isles of
the blest,’ and others ‘the Elysian plain,’ so called because they were
there to be delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: ‘But
the gods shall send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the
earth, where they lead a most quiet life.’[1468] Plato also, who
believed in the immortality of the soul, distinctly gives the name
‘land’ to the place where it is sent. ‘The extent of it,’[1469] says he,
‘is immense, and we only occupy a small portion of it, from the Phasis
to the Pillars of Hercules, where we dwell along the shores of the sea,
as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh. But there are many other
places inhabited in like manner by other men. For there are in different
parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in magnitude, into
which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is pure lies
in the pure region of heaven.’” Celsus therefore supposes that what we
say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has
been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles “divine,” and
chiefly from Plato, who in his _Phœdon_ discourses on the pure land
lying in a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much
older than the Greek literature, introduces God as promising to those
who lived according to His law the holy land, which is “a good land and
a large, a land flowing with milk and honey;”[1470] which promise is not
to be understood to refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth
which we call Judæa; for it, however good it may be, still forms part of
the earth, which was originally cursed for the transgression of Adam.
For these words, “Cursed shall the ground be for what thou hast done;
with grief, that is, with labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all
the days of thy life,”[1471] were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit
of which every man who died in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the
days of his life. And as all the earth has been cursed, it brings forth
thorns and briers all the days of the life of those who in Adam were
driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of his face every man eats
bread until he returns to the ground from which he was taken. For the
full exposition of all that is contained in this passage much might be
said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at present,
which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the good
land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judæa.

Footnote 1468:

  _Odys._ iv. 563.

Footnote 1469:

  _Phædon_, p. 109.

Footnote 1470:

  Ex. iii. 8.

Footnote 1471:

  Gen. iii. 17.




                             Chapter XXIX.


If, then, the whole earth has been cursed in the deeds of Adam and of
those who died in him, it is plain that all parts of the earth share in
the curse, and among others the land of Judæa; so that the words, “a
good land and a large, a land flowing with milk and honey,” cannot apply
to it, although we may say of it, that both Judæa and Jerusalem were the
shadow and figure of that pure land, goodly and large, in the pure
region of heaven, in which is the heavenly Jerusalem. And it is in
reference to this Jerusalem that the apostle spoke, as one who, “being
risen with Christ, and seeking those things which are above,” had found
a truth which formed no part of the Jewish mythology. “Ye are come,”
says he, “unto Mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the
heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels.”[1472] And
in order to be assured that our explanation of “the good and large land”
of Moses is not contrary to the intention of the Divine Spirit, we have
only to read in all the prophets what they say of those who, after
having left Jerusalem, and wandered astray from it, should afterwards
return and be settled in the place which is called the habitation and
city of God, as in the words, “His dwelling is in the holy place;”[1473]
and, “Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our
God, in the mountain of His holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy
of the whole earth.”[1474] It is enough at present to quote the words of
the thirty-seventh Psalm, which speaks thus of the land of the
righteous, “Those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the
earth;” and a little after, “But the meek shall inherit the earth, and
shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace;” and again, “Those
who bless Him shall inherit the earth;” and, “The righteous shall
inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.”[1475] And consider
whether it is not evident to intelligent readers that the following
words from this same Psalm refer to the pure land in the pure heaven:
“Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He shall exalt thee to inherit
the land.”

Footnote 1472:

  Heb. xii. 22.

Footnote 1473:

  Ps. lxxvi. 2; English version, “In Salem is His tabernacle.”

Footnote 1474:

  Ps. xlviii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1475:

  Ps. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34.




                              Chapter XXX.


It seems to me also that that fancy of Plato, that those stones which we
call precious stones derive their lustre from a reflection, as it were,
of the stones in that better land, is taken from the words of Isaiah in
describing the city of God, “I will make thy battlements of jasper, thy
stones shall be crystal, and thy borders of precious stones;”[1476] and,
“I will lay thy foundations with sapphires.” Those who hold in greatest
reverence the teaching of Plato, explain this myth of his as an
allegory. And the prophecies from which, as we conjecture, Plato has
borrowed, will be explained by those who, leading a godly life like that
of the prophets, devote all their time to the study of the sacred
Scriptures, to those who are qualified to learn by purity of life, and
their desire to advance in divine knowledge. For our part, our purpose
has been simply to say that what we affirm of that sacred land has not
been taken from Plato or any of the Greeks, but that they rather—living
as they did not only after Moses, who was the oldest, but even after
most of the prophets—borrowed from them, and in so doing either
misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects, or else
endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate those
portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai
expressly makes a distinction between the earth and the dry land,
meaning by the latter the land in which we live. He says: “Yet once, and
I will shake the heavens and the earth, and the dry land, and the
sea.”[1477]

Footnote 1476:

  Isa. liv. 12, 11.

Footnote 1477:

  Hagg. ii. 6.




                             Chapter XXXI.


Referring to the passage in the _Phœdon_ of Plato, Celsus says: “It is
not easy for every one to understand the meaning of Plato’s words, when
he says that on account of our weakness and slowness we are unable to
reach the highest region of the air; but that if our nature were capable
of so sublime a contemplation, we would then be able to understand that
that is the true heaven, and that the true light.” As Celsus has
deferred to another opportunity the explanation of Plato’s idea, we also
think that it does not fall within our purpose at present to enter into
any full description of that holy and good land, and of the city of God
which is in it; but reserve the consideration of it for our Commentary
on the Prophets, having already in part, according to our power, treated
of the city of God in our remarks on the forty-sixth and forty-eighth
Psalms. The writings of Moses and the prophets—the most ancient of all
books—teach us that all things here on earth which are in common use
among men, have other things corresponding to them in name which are
alone real. Thus, for instance, there is the true light, and another
heaven beyond the firmament, and a Sun of righteousness other than the
sun we see. In a word, to distinguish those things from the objects of
sense, which have no true reality, they say of God that “His works are
truth;”[1478] thus making a distinction between the works of God and the
works of God’s hands, which latter are of an inferior sort. Accordingly,
God in Isaiah complains of men, that “they regard not the works of the
Lord, nor consider the operation of His hands.”[1479] But enough on this
point.

Footnote 1478:

  Dan. iv. 37.

Footnote 1479:

  Isa. v. 12.




                             Chapter XXXII.


Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high
and difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high
and advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and
how sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal
principle lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the “tabernacle”
of the soul, in which the righteous “do groan, being burdened, not for
that they would be unclothed, but clothed upon.”[1480] Celsus ridicules
this doctrine because he does not understand it, and because he has
learnt it from ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on any
reasonable grounds. It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition
to what we have said above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching
on the subject of the resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived
from anything that we have heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but
we know that the soul, which is immaterial and invisible in its nature,
exists in no material place, without having a body suited to the nature
of that place. Accordingly, it at one time puts off one body which was
necessary before, but which is no longer adequate in its changed state,
and it exchanges it for a second; and at another time it assumes another
in addition to the former, which is needed as a better covering, suited
to the purer etherial regions of heaven. When it comes into the world at
birth, it casts off the integuments which it needed in the womb; and
before doing this, it puts on another body suited for its life upon
earth. Then, again, as there is “a tabernacle” and “an earthly house”
which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle, Scripture teaches
us that “the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be dissolved,” but
that the tabernacle shall “be clothed upon with a house not made with
hands, eternal in the heavens.”[1481] The men of God say also that “the
corruptible shall put on incorruption,”[1482] which is a different thing
from “the incorruptible;” and “the mortal shall put on immortality,”
which is different from “the immortal.” Indeed, what “wisdom” is to “the
wise,” and “justice” to “the just,” and “peace” to “the peaceable,” the
same relation does “incorruption” hold to “the incorruptible,” and
“immortality” to “the immortal.” Behold, then, to what a prospect
Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us of being clothed
with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it were, vestments
which will not suffer those who are covered with them to come to
corruption or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of referring to
this subject, in answer to one who assails the doctrine of the
resurrection without understanding it, and who, simply because he knew
nothing about it, made it the object of contempt and ridicule.

Footnote 1480:

  2 Cor. v. 1, 4.

Footnote 1481:

  2 Cor. v. 1.

Footnote 1482:

  1 Cor. xv. 53.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of the resurrection in
order that we may see and know God, he thus follows out his notions on
the subject: “After they have been utterly refuted and vanquished, they
still, as if regardless of all objections, come back again to the same
question, ‘How then shall we see and know God? how shall we go to Him?’”
Let any, however, who are disposed to hear us observe, that if we have
need of a body for other purposes, as for occupying a material locality
to which this body must be adapted, and if on that account the
“tabernacle” is clothed in the way we have shown, we have no need of a
body in order to know God. For that which sees God is not the eye of the
body; it is the mind which is made in the image of the Creator,[1483]
and which God has in His providence rendered capable of that knowledge.
To see God belongs to the pure heart, out of which no longer proceed
“evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false
witness, blasphemies, the evil eye,”[1484] or any other evil thing.
Wherefore it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God.”[1485] But as the strength of our will is not sufficient to procure
the perfectly pure heart, and as we need that God should create it, he
therefore who prays as he ought, offers this petition to God, “Create in
me a clean heart, O God.”[1486]

Footnote 1483:

  Bouhéreau follows the reading, “the mind which sees what is made in
  the image of the Creator.”

Footnote 1484:

  Matt. xv. 19 and vi. 23.

Footnote 1485:

  Matt. v. 8.

Footnote 1486:

  Ps. li. 10.




                             Chapter XXXIV.


And we do not ask the question, “How shall we go to God?” as though we
thought that God existed in some place. God is of too excellent a nature
for any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not
confined by anything whatever. The precept, therefore, “Thou shalt walk
after the Lord thy God,”[1487] does not command a bodily approach to
God; neither does the prophet refer to physical nearness to God, when he
says in his prayer, “My soul followeth hard after Thee.”[1488] Celsus
therefore misrepresents us, when he says that we expect to see God with
our bodily eyes, to hear Him with our ears, and to touch Him sensibly
with our hands. We know that the holy Scriptures make mention of eyes,
of ears, and of hands, which have nothing but the name in common with
the bodily organs; and what is more wonderful, they speak of a diviner
sense, which is very different from the senses as commonly spoken of.
For when the prophet says, “Open Thou mine eyes, that I may behold
wondrous things out of Thy law,”[1489] or, “The commandment of the Lord
is pure, enlightening the eyes,”[1490] or, “Lighten mine eyes, lest I
sleep the sleep of death,”[1491] no one is so foolish as to suppose that
the eyes of the body behold the wonders of the divine law, or that the
law of the Lord gives light to the bodily eyes, or that the sleep of
death falls on the eyes of the body. When our Saviour says, “He that
hath ears to hear, let him hear,”[1492] any one will understand that the
ears spoken of are of a diviner kind. When it is said that the word of
the Lord was “in the hand” of Jeremiah or of some other prophet; or when
the expression is used, “the law by the hand of Moses,” or, “I sought
the Lord with my hands, and was not deceived,”[1493]—no one is so
foolish as not to see that the word “hands” is taken figuratively, as
when John says, “Our hands have handled the Word of life.”[1494] And if
you wish further to learn from the sacred writings that there is a
diviner sense than the senses of the body, you have only to hear what
Solomon says, “Thou shalt find a divine sense.”[1495]

Footnote 1487:

  Deut. xiii. 4.

Footnote 1488:

  Ps. lxiii. 8.

Footnote 1489:

  Ps. cxix. 18.

Footnote 1490:

  Ps. xix. 8.

Footnote 1491:

  Ps. xiii. 3.

Footnote 1492:

  Matt. xiii. 9.

Footnote 1493:

  Ps. lxxvii. 2, according to the LXX.

Footnote 1494:

  1 John i. 1.

Footnote 1495:

  Prov. ii. 5. E. V. and LXX., “Thou shalt find the knowledge of God.”




                             Chapter XXXV.


Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the oracles of
Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus would send us,
assuring us that we would there “see the gods in human form, appearing
to us with all distinctness, and without illusion.” For we know that
these are demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and odour of victims,
and shut up by their base desires in prisons, which the Greeks call
temples of the gods, but which we know are only the dwellings of
deceitful demons. To this Celsus maliciously adds, in regard to these
gods which, according to him, are in human form, “they do not show
themselves for once, or at intervals, like him who has deceived men, but
they are ever open to intercourse with those who desire it.” From this
remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that the appearance of Christ
to His disciples after His resurrection was like that of a spectre
flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls them, in
human shape always present themselves to those who desire it. But how is
it possible that a phantom which, as he describes it, flew past to
deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed
away, and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead them to regulate
their actions according to the will of God, as in view of being
hereafter judged by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and
show other indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one
place, like these so-called gods in human form, but making its divine
power felt through the whole world, in drawing and congregating together
all who are found disposed to lead a good and noble life?




                             Chapter XXXVI.


After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to answer as we
could, he goes on to say, speaking of us: “Again they will ask, ‘How can
we know God, unless by the perception of the senses? for how otherwise
than through the senses are we able to gain any knowledge?’” To this he
replies: “This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul,
but from the flesh. Let them hearken to us, if such a spiritless and
carnal race are able to do so: if, instead of exercising the senses, you
look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you
open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only will you be able to see
God. And if you seek one to be your guide along this way, you must shun
all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to phantoms.
Otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst you
pronounce imprecations upon those others that are recognised as gods,
treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than
any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead
man, and you seek a father like to him.” The first remark which we have
to make on this passage is in regard to his use of personification, by
which he makes us defend in this way the doctrine of the resurrection.
This figure of speech is properly employed when the character and
sentiments of the person introduced are faithfully preserved; but it is
an abuse of the figure when these do not agree with the character and
opinions of the speaker. Thus we should justly condemn a man who put
into the mouths of barbarians, slaves, or uneducated people the language
of philosophy; because we know that the philosophy belonged to the
author, and not to such persons, who could not know anything of
philosophy. And in like manner we should condemn a man for introducing
persons who are represented as wise and well versed in divine knowledge,
and should make them give expression to language which could only come
out of the mouths of those who are ignorant or under the influence of
vulgar passions. Hence Homer is admired, among other things, for
preserving a consistency of character in his heroes, as in Nestor,
Ulysses, Diomede, Agamemnon, Telemachus, Penelope, and the rest.
Euripides, on the contrary, was assailed in the comedies of Aristophanes
as a frivolous talker, often putting into the mouth of a barbarian
woman, a wretched slave, the wise maxims which he had learned from
Anaxagoras or some other philosophers.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


Now if this is a true account of what constitutes the right and the
wrong use of personification, have we not grounds for holding Celsus up
to ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they never
uttered? For if those whom he represents as speaking are the unlearned,
how is it possible that such persons could distinguish between “sense”
and “reason,” between “objects of sense” and “objects of the reason?” To
argue in this way, they would require to have studied under the Stoics,
who deny all intellectual existences, and maintain that all that we
apprehend is apprehended through the senses, and that all knowledge
comes through the senses. But if, on the other hand, he puts these words
into the mouth of philosophers who search carefully into the meaning of
Christian doctrines, the statements in question do not agree with their
character and principles. For no one who has learnt that God is
invisible, and that certain of His works are invisible, that is to say,
apprehended by the reason,[1496] can say, as if to justify his faith in
a resurrection, “How can they know God, except by the perception of the
senses?” or, “How otherwise than through the senses can they gain any
knowledge?” For it is not in any secret writings, perused only by a few
wise men, but in such as are most widely diffused and most commonly
known among the people, that these words are written: “The invisible
things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made.”[1497] From whence it is to be
inferred, that though men who live upon the earth have to begin with the
use of the senses upon sensible objects, in order to go on from them to
a knowledge of the nature of things intellectual, yet their knowledge
must not stop short with the objects of sense. And thus, while
Christians would not say that it is impossible to have a knowledge of
intellectual objects without the senses, but rather that the senses
supply the first means of obtaining knowledge, they might well ask the
question, “Who can gain any knowledge without the senses?” without
deserving the abuse of Celsus, when he adds, “This is not the language
of a man; it comes not from the soul, but from the flesh.”

Footnote 1496:

  νοητά, falling under the province of νοῦς, the reason. For
  convenience, we translate it elsewhere “intellectual.”

Footnote 1497:

  Rom. i. 20.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


Since we hold that the great God is in essence simple, invisible, and
incorporeal, Himself pure intelligence, or something transcending
intelligence and existence, we can never say that God is apprehended by
any other means than through the intelligence which is formed in His
image, though now, in the words of Paul, “we see in a glass obscurely,
but then face to face.”[1498] And if we use the expression “face to
face,” let no one pervert its meaning; but let it be explained by this
passage, “Beholding with open face the glory of the Lord, we are changed
into the same image, from glory to glory,” which shows that we do not
use the word in this connection to mean the visible face, but take it
figuratively, in the same way as we have shown that the eyes, the ears,
and the other parts of the body are employed. And it is certain that a
man—I mean a soul using a body, otherwise called “the inner man,” or
simply “the soul”—would answer, not as Celsus makes us answer, but as
the man of God himself teaches. It is certain also that a Christian will
not make use of “the language of the flesh,” having learnt as he has “to
mortify the deeds of the body”[1499] by the spirit, and “to bear about
in his body the dying of Jesus;”[1500] and “mortify your members which
are on the earth,”[1501] and with a true knowledge of these words, “My
Spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is
flesh,”[1502] and again, “They that are in the flesh cannot please
God,”[1503] he strives in every way to live no longer according to the
flesh, but only according to the Spirit.

Footnote 1498:

  1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Footnote 1499:

  Rom. viii. 13.

Footnote 1500:

  2 Cor. iv. 10.

Footnote 1501:

  Col. iii. 5.

Footnote 1502:

  Gen. vi. 3.

Footnote 1503:

  Rom. viii. 8.




                             Chapter XXXIX.


Now let us hear what it is that he invites us to learn, that we may
ascertain from him how we are to know God, although he thinks that his
words are beyond the capacity of all Christians. “Let them hear,” says
he, “if they are able to do so.” We have then to consider what the
philosopher wishes us to hear from him. But instead of instructing us as
he ought, he abuses us; and while he should have shown his goodwill to
those whom he addresses at the outset of his discourse, he stigmatizes
as “a cowardly race” men who would rather die than abjure Christianity
even by a word, and who are ready to suffer every form of torture, or
any kind of death. He also applies to us the epithet “carnal” or
“flesh-indulging,” “although,” as we are wont to say, “we have known
Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth we know Him no more,”[1504]
and although we are so ready to lay down our lives for the cause of
religion, that no philosopher could lay aside his robes more readily. He
then addresses to us these words: “If, instead of exercising your
senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the eye of the
body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only you will be able
to see God.” He is not aware that this reference to the two eyes, the
eye of the body and the eye of the mind, which he has borrowed from the
Greeks, was in use among our own writers; for Moses, in his account of
the creation of the world, introduces man before his transgression as
both seeing and not seeing: seeing, when it is said of the woman, “The
woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to
the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise;”[1505] and again
not seeing, as when he introduces the serpent saying to the woman, as if
she and her husband had been blind, “God knows that on the day that ye
eat thereof your eyes shall be opened;”[1506] and also when it is said,
“They did eat, and the eyes of both of them were opened.”[1507] The eyes
of sense were then opened, which they had done well to keep shut, that
they might not be distracted, and hindered from seeing with the eyes of
the mind; and it was those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin,
as I imagine, were then closed, with which they had up to that time
enjoyed the delight of beholding God and His paradise. This twofold kind
of vision in us was familiar to our Saviour, who says, “For judgment I
am come into this world, that they which see not might see, and that
they which see might be made blind,”[1508]—meaning by the eyes that see
not the eyes of the mind, which are enlightened by His teaching; and the
eyes which see are the eyes of sense, which His words do render blind,
in order that the soul may look without distraction upon proper objects.
All true Christians therefore have the eye of the mind sharpened, and
the eye of sense closed; so that each one, according to the degree in
which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of sense darkened, sees
and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the Word, Wisdom, and so
forth.

Footnote 1504:

  2 Cor. v. 16.

Footnote 1505:

  Gen. iii. 6.

Footnote 1506:

  Gen. iii. 5.

Footnote 1507:

  Gen. iii. 7.

Footnote 1508:

  John ix. 39.




                              Chapter XL.


Next to the remarks of Celsus on which we have already commented, come
others which he addresses to all Christians, but which, if applicable to
any, ought to be addressed to persons whose doctrines differ entirely
from those taught by Jesus. For it is the Ophians who, as we have before
shown,[1509] have utterly renounced Jesus, and perhaps some others of
similar opinions who are “the impostors and jugglers, leading men away
to idols and phantoms;” and it is they who with miserable pains learn
off the names of the heavenly doorkeepers. These words are therefore
quite inappropriate as addressed to Christians: “If you seek one to be
your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who
will introduce you to phantoms.” And, as though quite unaware that these
impostors entirely agree with him, and are not behind him in speaking
ill of Jesus and His religion, he thus continues, confounding us with
them: “otherwise you will be acting the most ridiculous part, if, whilst
you pronounce imprecations upon those other recognised gods, treating
them as idols, you yet do homage to a more wretched idol than any of
these, which indeed is not even an idol or a phantom, but a dead man,
and you seek a father like to himself.” That he is ignorant of the wide
difference between our opinions and those of the inventors of these
fables, and that he imagines the charges which he makes against them
applicable to us, is evident from the following passage: “For the sake
of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful
advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to
the amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to
others, for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit
to memory with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel
tortures, and perish at the stake.” Surely, then, he is unaware that
none of those who regard beings in the form of an ass, a lion, or an
amphibious animal, as the doorkeepers or guides on the way to heaven,
ever expose themselves to death in defence of that which they think the
truth. That excess of zeal, if it may be so called, which leads us for
the sake of religion to submit to every kind of death, and to perish at
the stake, is ascribed by Celsus to those who endure no such sufferings;
and he reproaches us who suffer crucifixion for our faith, with
believing in fabulous creatures—in the lion, the amphibious animal, and
other such monsters. If we reject all these fables, it is not out of
deference to Celsus, for we have never at any time held any such
fancies; but it is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus that we
oppose all such notions, and will not allow to Michael, or to any others
that have been referred to, a form and figure of that sort.

Footnote 1509:

  See Book vi. chap. xxx. etc.




                              Chapter XLI.


But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus would
have us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who are
recommended both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to
divinely inspired poets, as he calls them, to wise men and philosophers,
without mentioning their names; so that, after promising to point out
those who should guide us, he simply hands us over in a general way to
divinely inspired poets, wise men, and philosophers. If he had specified
their names in particular, we should have felt ourselves bound to show
him that he wished to give us as guides men who were blinded to the
truth, and who must therefore lead us into error; or that if not wholly
blinded, yet they are in error in many matters of belief. But whether
Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even Homer himself, and Hesiod, are
the persons whom he means by “inspired poets,” let any one show how
those who follow their guidance walk in a better way, or lead a more
excellent life, than those who, being taught in the school of Jesus
Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even all Jewish
superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of God to the
one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those wise men
and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so many divine
truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of God, the
prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many things by
a truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light and taught
the way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can reproach
Him if he remains without a share in the knowledge of His mysteries?
Such, indeed, was the abounding love which He had for men, that He gave
to the more learned a theology capable of raising the soul far above all
earthly things; while with no less consideration He comes down to the
weaker capacities of ignorant men, of simple women, of slaves, and, in
short, of all those who from Jesus alone could have received that help
for the better regulation of their lives which is supplied by His
instructions in regard to the Divine Being, adapted to their wants and
capacities.




                             Chapter XLII.


Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective teacher of
theological truth, and quotes the following passage from the _Timœus_:
“It is a hard matter to find out the Maker and Father of this universe;
and after having found Him, it is impossible to make Him known to all.”
To which he himself adds this remark: “You perceive, then, how divine
men seek after the way of truth, and how well Plato knew that it was
impossible for all men to walk in it. But as wise men have found it for
the express purpose of being able to convey to us some notion of Him who
is the first, the unspeakable Being,—a notion, namely, which may
represent Him to us through the medium of other objects,—they endeavour
either by synthesis, which is the combining of various qualities, or by
analysis, which is the separation and setting aside of some qualities,
or finally by analogy;—in these ways, I say, they endeavour to set
before us that which it is impossible to express in words. I should
therefore be surprised if you could follow in that course, since you are
so completely wedded to the flesh as to be incapable of seeing aught but
what is impure.” These words of Plato are noble and admirable; but see
if Scripture does not give us an example of a regard for mankind still
greater in God the Word, who was “in the beginning with God,” and “who
was made flesh,” in order that He might reveal to all men truths which,
according to Plato, it would be impossible to make known to all men,
even after he had found them himself. Plato may say that “it is a hard
thing to find out the Creator and Father of this universe;” by which
language he implies that it is not wholly beyond the power of human
nature to attain to such a knowledge as is either worthy of God, or if
not, is far beyond that which is commonly attained (although if it were
true that Plato or any other of the Greeks had found God, they would
never have given homage and worship, or ascribed the name of God, to any
other than to Him: they would have abandoned all others, and would not
have associated with this great God objects which can have nothing in
common with Him). For ourselves, we maintain that human nature is in no
way able to seek after God, or to attain a clear knowledge of Him
without the help of Him whom it seeks. He makes Himself known to those
who, after doing all that their powers will allow, confess that they
need help from Him, who discovers Himself to those whom He approves, in
so far as it is possible for man and the soul still dwelling in the body
to know God.




                             Chapter XLIII.


Observe that when Plato says, that “after having found out the Creator
and Father of the universe, it is impossible to make Him known to all
men,” he does not speak of Him as unspeakable, and as incapable of being
expressed in words. On the contrary, he implies that He may be spoken
of, and that there are a few to whom He may be made known. But Celsus,
as if forgetting the language which he had just quoted from Plato,
immediately gives God the name of “the unspeakable.” He says: “since the
wise men have found out this way, in order to be able to give us some
idea of the First of Beings, who is unspeakable.” For ourselves, we hold
that not God alone is unspeakable, but other things also which are
inferior to Him. Such are the things which Paul labours to express when
he says, “I heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to
utter,”[1510] where the word “heard” is used in the sense of
“understood;” as in the passage, “He who hath ears to hear, let him
hear.” We also hold that it is a hard matter to see the Creator and
Father of the universe; but it is possible to see Him in the way thus
referred to, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God;”[1511] and not only so, but also in the sense of the words of Him
“who is the image of the invisible God;” “He who hath seen me hath seen
the Father who sent me.”[1512] No sensible person could suppose that
these last words were spoken in reference to His bodily presence, which
was open to the view of all; otherwise all those who said, “Crucify him,
crucify him,” and Pilate, who had power over the humanity of Jesus, were
among those who saw God the Father, which is absurd. Moreover, that
these words, “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father who sent me,”
are not to be taken in their grosser sense, is plain from the answer
which He gave to Philip, “Have I been so long time with you, and yet
dost thou not know me, Philip?” after Philip had asked, “Show us the
Father, and it sufficeth us.” He, then, who perceives how these words,
“The Word was made flesh,” are to be understood of the only-begotten Son
of God, the first-born of all creation, will also understand how, in
seeing the image of the invisible God, we see “the Creator and Father of
the universe.”

Footnote 1510:

  2 Cor. xii. 4.

Footnote 1511:

  Matt. v. 8.

Footnote 1512:

  John xiv. 9.




                             Chapter XLIV.


Celsus supposes that we may arrive at a knowledge of God either by
combining or separating certain things after the methods which
mathematicians call synthesis and analysis, or again by analogy, which
is employed by them also, and that in this way we may as it were gain
admission to the chief good. But when the Word of God says, “No man
knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal
Him,”[1513] He declares that no one can know God but by the help of
divine grace coming from above, with a certain divine inspiration.
Indeed, it is reasonable to suppose that the knowledge of God is beyond
the reach of human nature, and hence the many errors into which men have
fallen in their views of God. It is, then, through the goodness and love
of God to mankind, and by a marvellous exercise of divine grace to those
whom He saw in His foreknowledge, and knew that they would walk worthy
of Him who had made Himself known to them, and that they would never
swerve from a faithful attachment to His service, although they were
condemned to death or held up to ridicule by those who, in ignorance of
what true religion is, give that name to what deserves to be called
anything rather than religion. God doubtless saw the pride and arrogance
of those who, with contempt for all others, boast of their knowledge of
God, and of their profound acquaintance with divine things obtained from
philosophy, but who still, not less even than the most ignorant, run
after their images, and temples, and famous mysteries; and seeing this,
He “has chosen the foolish things of this world”[1514]—the simplest of
Christians, who lead, however, a life of greater moderation and purity
than many philosophers—“to confound the wise,” who are not ashamed to
address inanimate things as gods or images of the gods. For what
reasonable man can refrain from smiling when he sees that one who has
learned from philosophy such profound and noble sentiments about God or
the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to them his prayers, or
imagines that by gazing upon these material things he can ascend from
the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and immaterial. But a
Christian, even of the common people, is assured that every place forms
part of the universe, and that the whole universe is God’s temple. In
whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises above the
universe, “shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the eyes of
the soul.” And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in
thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and
having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers
prayers to God. But he prays for no trivial blessings, for he has learnt
from Jesus to seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects,
but to ask only for what is great and truly divine; and these things God
grants to us, to lead us to that blessedness which is found only with
Him through His Son, the Word, who is God.

Footnote 1513:

  Matt. xi. 27.

Footnote 1514:

  1 Cor. i. 27.




                              Chapter XLV.


But let us see further what the things are which he proposes to teach
us, if indeed we can comprehend them, since he speaks of us as being
“utterly wedded to the flesh;” although if we live well, and in
accordance with the teaching of Jesus, we hear this said of us: “Ye are
not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in
you.”[1515] He says also that we look upon nothing that is pure,
although our endeavour is to keep even our thoughts free from all
defilement of sin, and although in prayer we say, “Create in me a clean
heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within me,”[1516] so that we may
behold Him with that “pure heart” to which alone is granted the
privilege of seeing Him. This, then, is what he proposes for our
instruction: “Things are either _intelligible_, which we call
substance—being; or _visible_, which we call _becoming_:[1517] with the
former is truth; from the latter arises error. Truth is the object of
knowledge; truth and error form opinion. Intelligible objects are known
by the reason, visible objects by the eyes; the action of the reason is
called intelligent perception, that of the eyes vision. As, then, among
visible things the sun is neither the eye nor vision, but that which
enables the eye to see, and renders vision possible, and in consequence
of it visible things are seen, all sensible things exist, and itself is
rendered visible; so among things intelligible, that which is neither
reason, nor intelligent perception, nor knowledge, is yet the cause
which enables the reason to know, which renders intelligent perception
possible; and in consequence of it knowledge arises, all things
intelligible, truth itself and substance have their existence; and
itself, which is above all these things, becomes in some ineffable way
intelligible. These things are offered to the consideration of the
intelligent; and if even you can understand any of them, it is well. And
if you think that a Divine Spirit has descended from God to announce
divine things to men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that reveals
these truths, and it was under the same influence that men of old made
known many important truths. But if you cannot comprehend these things,
then keep silence; do not expose your own ignorance, and do not accuse
of blindness those who see, or of lameness those who run, while you
yourselves are utterly lamed and mutilated in mind, and lead a merely
animal life—the life of the body, which is the dead part of our nature.”

Footnote 1515:

  Rom. viii. 9.

Footnote 1516:

  Ps. li. 10.

Footnote 1517:

  γένεσις. For the distinction between οὐσία and γένεσις, see Plato’s
  _Sophista_, p. 246.




                             Chapter XLVI.


We are careful not to oppose fair arguments even if they proceed from
those who are not of our faith; we strive not to be captious, or to seek
to overthrow any sound reasonings. But here we have to reply to those
who slander the character of persons wishing to do their best in the
service of God, who accepts the faith which the meanest place in Him, as
well as the more refined and intelligent piety of the learned; seeing
that both alike address to the Creator of the world their prayers and
thanksgivings through the High Priest who has set before men the nature
of pure religion. We say, then, that those who are stigmatized as “lamed
and mutilated in spirit,” as “living only for the sake of the body which
is dead,” are persons whose endeavour it is to say with sincerity: “For
though we live[1518] in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh;
for the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly, but mighty through God.”
It is for those who throw out such vile accusations against men who
desire to be God’s servants, to beware lest, by the calumnies which they
cast upon others who strive to live well, they “lame” their own souls,
and “mutilate” the inner man, by severing from it that justice and
moderation of mind which the Creator has planted in the nature of all
His rational creatures. As for those, however, who, along with other
lessons given by the Divine Word, have learned and practised this, “when
reviled to bless, when persecuted to endure, when defamed to
entreat,”[1519] they may be said to be walking in spirit in the ways of
uprightness, to be purifying and setting in order the whole soul. They
distinguish—and to them the distinction is not one of words
merely—between “substance,” or that which is, and that which is
“becoming;” between things apprehended by reason, and things apprehended
by sense; and they connect truth with the one, and avoid the errors
arising out of the other; looking, as they have been taught, not at the
things “becoming” or phenomenal, which are seen, and therefore
temporary, but at better things than these, whether we call them
“substance,” or “spiritual” things, as being apprehended by reason, or
“invisible,” because they lie out of the reach of the senses. The
disciples of Jesus regard these phenomenal things only that they may use
them as steps to ascend to the knowledge of the things of reason. For
“the invisible things of God,” that is, the objects of the reason, “from
the creation of the world are clearly seen” by the reason, “being
understood by the things that are made.” And when they have risen from
the created things of this world to the invisible things of God, they do
not stay there; but after they have sufficiently exercised their minds
upon these, and have understood their nature, they ascend to “the
eternal power of God,” in a word, to His divinity. For they know that
God, in His love to men, has “manifested” His truth, and “that which is
known of Him,” not only to those who devote themselves to His service,
but also to some who are far removed from the purity of worship and
service which He requires; and that some of those who by the providence
of God had attained a knowledge of these truths, were yet doing things
unworthy of that knowledge, and “holding the truth in unrighteousness,”
and who are unable to find any excuse before God after the knowledge of
such great truths which He has given them.

Footnote 1518:

  1 Cor. x. 3, 4. The received text has “walk” instead of “live.”

Footnote 1519:

  1 Cor. iv. 11, 12.




                             Chapter XLVII.


For Scripture testifies, in regard to those who have a knowledge of
those things of which Celsus speaks, and who profess a philosophy
founded on these principles, that they, “when they knew God, glorified
Him not as God, neither were thankful, but became vain in their
imaginations;” and notwithstanding the bright light of knowledge with
which God had enlightened them, “their foolish heart” was carried away,
and became “darkened.”[1520] Thus we may see how those who accounted
themselves wise gave proofs of great folly, when, after such grand
arguments delivered in the schools on God and on things apprehended by
the reason, they “changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an
image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed
beasts, and creeping things.”[1521] As, then, they lived in a way
unworthy of the knowledge which they had received from God, His
providence leaving them to themselves, they were given “up to
uncleanness, through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their
own bodies,”[1522] in shamelessness and licentiousness, because they
“changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the
creature more than the Creator.”

Footnote 1520:

  Rom. i. 21.

Footnote 1521:

  Rom. i. 25.

Footnote 1522:

  Rom. i. 24, 25.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


But those who are despised for their ignorance, and set down as fools
and abject slaves, no sooner commit themselves to God’s guidance by
accepting the teaching of Jesus, than, so far from defiling themselves
by licentious indulgence or the gratification of shameless passion, they
in many cases, like perfect priests, for whom such pleasures have no
charm, keep themselves in act and in thought in a state of virgin
purity. The Athenians have one hierophant, who, not having confidence in
his power to restrain his passions within the limits he prescribed for
himself, determined to check them at their seat by the application of
hemlock; and thus he was accounted pure, and fit for the celebration of
religious worship among the Athenians. But among Christians may be found
men who have no need of hemlock to fit them for the pure service of God,
and for whom the Word in place of hemlock is able to drive all evil
desires from their thoughts, so that they may present their prayers to
the Divine Being. And attached to the other so-called gods are a select
number of virgins, who are guarded by men, or it may be not guarded (for
that is not the point in question at present), and who are supposed to
live in purity for the honour of the god they serve. But among
Christians, those who maintain a perpetual virginity do so for no human
honours, for no fee or reward, from no motive of vainglory; but “as they
choose to retain God in their knowledge,”[1523] they are preserved by
God in a spirit well-pleasing to Him, and in the discharge of every
duty, being filled with all righteousness and goodness.

Footnote 1523:

  Rom. i. 28.




                             Chapter XLIX.


What I have now said, then, is offered not for the purpose of cavilling
with any right opinions or sound doctrines held even by Greeks, but with
the desire of showing that the same things, and indeed much better and
diviner things than these, have been said by those divine men, the
prophets of God and the apostles of Jesus. These truths are fully
investigated by all who wish to attain a perfect knowledge of
Christianity, and who know that “the mouth of the righteous speaketh
wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment; the law of his God is in his
heart.”[1524] But even in regard to those who, either from deficiency of
knowledge or want of inclination, or from not having Jesus to lead them
to a rational view of religion, have not gone into these deep questions,
we find that they believe in the Most High God, and in His only-begotten
Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in their character a
high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while those who call
themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have wallowed in the
filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, “men with men working that which is
unseemly.”[1525]

Footnote 1524:

  Ps. xxxvii. 30, 31.

Footnote 1525:

  Rom. i. 27.




                               Chapter L.


Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the “becoming,” or
product of generation; nor has he expressed himself with sufficient
clearness to enable us to compare his ideas with ours, and to pass
judgment on them. But the prophets, who have given some wise suggestions
on the subject of things produced by generation, tell us that a
sacrifice for sin was offered even for new-born infants, as not being
free from sin. They say, “I was shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my
mother conceive me;”[1526] also, “They are estranged from the womb;”
which is followed by the singular expression, “They go astray as soon as
they are born, speaking lies.”[1527] Besides, our wise men have such a
contempt for all sensible objects, that sometimes they speak of all
material things as vanity: thus, “For the creature was made subject to
vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him that subjected the same in
hope;”[1528] at other times as vanity of vanities, “Vanity of vanities,
saith the Preacher, all is vanity.”[1529] Who has given so severe an
estimate of the life of the human soul here on earth, as he who says:
“Verily every man at his best estate is altogether vanity?”[1530] He
does not hesitate at all as to the difference between the present life
of the soul and that which it is to lead hereafter. He does not say,
“Who knows if to die is not to live, and if to live is not death?”[1531]
But he boldly proclaims the truth, and says, “Our soul is bowed down to
the dust;”[1532] and, “Thou hast brought me into the dust of
death;”[1533] and similarly, “Who will deliver me from the body of this
death?”[1534] also, “Who will change the body of our humiliation.”[1535]
It is a prophet also who says, “Thou hast brought us down in a place of
affliction;”[1536] meaning by the “place of affliction” this earthly
region, to which Adam, that is to say, man, came after he was driven out
of paradise for sin. Observe also how well the different life of the
soul here and hereafter has been recognised by him who says, “Now we see
in a glass, obscurely, but then face to face;”[1537] and, “Whilst we are
in our home in the body, we are away from our home in the Lord;”
wherefore “we are well content to go from our home in the body, and to
come to our home with the Lord.”[1538]

Footnote 1526:

  Ps. li. 5.

Footnote 1527:

  Ps. lviii. 3.

Footnote 1528:

  Rom. viii. 20.

Footnote 1529:

  Eccles. i. 2.

Footnote 1530:

  Ps. xxxix. 5.

Footnote 1531:

  Euripides.

Footnote 1532:

  Ps. xliv. 25.

Footnote 1533:

  Ps. xxii. 15.

Footnote 1534:

  Rom. vii. 24.

Footnote 1535:

  Phil. iii. 21.

Footnote 1536:

  Ps. xliii. 19, LXX.

Footnote 1537:

  1 Cor. xiii. 12.

Footnote 1538:

  2 Cor. v. 6, 8.




                              Chapter LI.


But what need is there to quote any more passages against Celsus, in
order to prove that his words contain nothing which was not said long
before among ourselves, since that has been sufficiently established by
what we have said? It seems that what follows has some reference to
this: “If you think that a Divine Spirit has descended from God to
announce divine things to men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that
reveals these truths; and it was under the same influence that men of
old made known many important truths.” But he does not know how great is
the difference between those things and the clear and certain teaching
of those who say to us, “Thine incorruptible spirit is in all things,
wherefore God chasteneth them by little and little that offend;”[1539]
and of those who, among their other instructions, teach us that the
words, “Receive ye the Holy Ghost,”[1540] refer to a degree of spiritual
influence higher than that in the passage, “Ye shall be baptized with
the Holy Ghost not many days hence.”[1541] But it is a difficult matter,
even after much careful consideration, to perceive the difference
between those who have received a knowledge of the truth and a notion of
God at different intervals and for short periods of time, and those who
are more fully inspired by God, who have constant communion with Him,
and are always led by His Spirit. Had Celsus set himself to understand
this, he would not have reproached us with ignorance, or forbidden us to
characterize as “blind” those who believe that religion shows itself in
such products of man’s mechanical art as images. For every one who sees
with the eyes of his soul serves the Divine Being in no other way than
in that which leads him ever to have regard to the Creator of all, to
address his prayers to Him alone, and to do all things as in the sight
of God, who sees us altogether, even to our thoughts. Our earnest desire
then is both to see for ourselves, and to be leaders of the blind, to
bring them to the Word of God, that He may take away from their minds
the blindness of ignorance. And if our actions are worthy of Him who
taught His disciples, “Ye are the light of the world,”[1542] and of the
Word, who says, “The light shineth in darkness,”[1543] then we shall be
light to those who are in darkness; we shall give wisdom to those who
are without it, and we shall instruct the ignorant.

Footnote 1539:

  Wisd. xii. 1, 2.

Footnote 1540:

  John xx. 22.

Footnote 1541:

  Acts i. 5.

Footnote 1542:

  Matt. v. 14.

Footnote 1543:

  John i. 5.




                              Chapter LII.


And let not Celsus be angry if we describe as lame and mutilated in soul
those who run to the temples as to places having a real sacredness, and
who cannot see that no mere mechanical work of man can be truly sacred.
Those whose piety is grounded on the teaching of Jesus also run until
they come to the end of their course, when they can say in all truth and
confidence: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I
have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of
righteousness.”[1544] And each of us runs “not as uncertain,” and he so
fights with evil “not as one beating the air,”[1545] but as against
those who are subject to “the prince of the power of the air, the spirit
that now worketh in the children of disobedience.”[1546] Celsus may
indeed say of us that we “live with the body which is a dead thing;” but
we have learnt, “If ye live after the flesh, ye shall die; but if ye by
the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live;”[1547] and,
“If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.”[1548] Would
that we might convince him by our actions that he did us wrong, when he
said that we “live with the body which is dead!”

Footnote 1544:

  2 Tim. iv. 7.

Footnote 1545:

  1 Cor. ix. 26.

Footnote 1546:

  Eph. ii. 2.

Footnote 1547:

  Rom. viii. 13.

Footnote 1548:

  Gal. v. 25.




                             Chapter LIII.


After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he
goes on to address us thus: “Seeing you are so eager for some novelty,
how much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of
your zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and
whose divinity might have received the support of some myth to
perpetuate his memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or
Æsculapius, and other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was
confessedly a divinely inspired man, who died a violent death. But
perhaps some others have taken him up before you. You may then take
Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a mortar, and beaten most barbarously,
showed a noble contempt for his suffering, and said, ‘Beat, beat the
shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do not beat,’—a speech surely of a
spirit truly divine. But others were before you in following his
interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not, then, take
Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said, smiling and
unmoved, ‘You will break my leg;’ and when it was broken, he added, ‘Did
I not tell you that you would break it?’ What saying equal to these did
your god utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl, whose
authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you
would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the
presumption to include in her writings many impious things, and set up
as a god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miserable death.
How much more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale’s
belly, or Daniel delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more
portentous kind!”




                              Chapter LIV.


But since he sends us to Hercules, let him repeat to us any of his
sayings, and let him justify his shameful subjection to Omphale. Let him
show that divine honours should be paid to one who, like a highway
robber, carries off a farmer’s ox by force, and afterwards devours it,
amusing himself meanwhile with the curses of the owner; in memory of
which even to this day sacrifices offered to the demon of Hercules are
accompanied with curses. Again he proposes Æsculapius to us, as if to
oblige us to repeat what we have said already; but we forbear. In regard
to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to make him assert that, by
common consent, he was regarded as a divinely inspired man, and lived a
noble life? I am greatly deceived if it is not the desire which Celsus
has to oppose us and put down Jesus that leads him to sound forth the
praises of Orpheus; and whether, when he made himself acquainted with
his impious fables about the gods, he did not cast them aside as
deserving, even more than the poems of Homer, to be excluded from a
well-ordered state. For, indeed, Orpheus says much worse things than
Homer of those whom they call gods. Noble, indeed, it was in Anaxarchus
to say to Aristocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, “Beat on, beat the shell of
Anaxarchus,” but it is the one admirable incident in the life of
Anaxarchus known to the Greeks; and although, on the strength of that,
some like Celsus might deservedly honour the man for his courage, yet to
look up to Anaxarchus as a god is not consistent with reason. He also
directs us to Epictetus, whose firmness is justly admired, although his
saying when his leg was broken by his master is not to be compared with
the marvellous acts and words of Jesus which Celsus refuses to believe;
and these words were accompanied by such a divine power, that even to
this day they convert not only some of the more ignorant and simple, but
many also of the most enlightened of men.




                              Chapter LV.


When, to his enumeration of those to whom he would send us, he adds,
“What saying equal to these did your god utter under sufferings?” we
would reply, that the silence of Jesus under scourgings, and amidst all
His sufferings, spoke more for His firmness and submission than all that
was said by the Greeks when beset by calamity. Perhaps Celsus may
believe what was recorded with all sincerity by trustworthy men, who,
while giving a truthful account of all the wonders performed by Jesus,
specify among these the silence which He preserved when subjected to
scourgings; showing the same singular meekness under the insults which
were heaped upon Him, when they put upon Him the purple robe, and set
the crown of thorns upon His head, and when they put in His hand a reed
in place of a sceptre: no unworthy or angry word escaped Him against
those who subjected Him to such outrages. Since, then, He received the
scourgings with silent firmness, and bore with meekness all the insults
of those who outraged Him, it cannot be said, as is said by some, that
it was in cowardly weakness that He uttered the words: “Father, if it be
possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless, not as I will, but as
Thou wilt.”[1549] The prayer which seems to be contained in these words
for the removal of what He calls “the cup” bears a sense which we have
elsewhere examined and set forth at large. But taking it in its more
obvious sense, consider if it be not a prayer offered to God with all
piety. For no man naturally regards anything which may befall him as
necessary and inevitable; though he may submit to what is not
inevitable, if occasion requires. Besides, these words, “nevertheless,
not as I will, but as Thou wilt,” are not the language of one who
yielded to necessity, but of one who was contented with what was
befalling Him, and who submitted with reverence to the arrangements of
Providence.

Footnote 1549:

  Matt. xxvi. 39.




                              Chapter LVI.


Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of calling
Jesus the Son of God, we had better have given that honour to the Sibyl,
in whose books he maintains we have interpolated many impious
statements, though he does not mention what those interpolations are. He
might have proved his assertion by producing some older copies which are
free from the interpolations which he attributes to us; but he does not
do so even to justify his statement that these passages are of an
impious character. Moreover, he again speaks of the life of Jesus as “a
most infamous life,” as he has done before, not once or twice, but many
times, although he does not stay to specify any of the actions of His
life which he thinks most infamous. He seems to think that he may in
this way make assertions without proving them, and rail against one of
whom he knows nothing. Had he set himself to show what sort of infamy he
found in the actions of Jesus, we should have repelled the several
charges brought against Him. Jesus did indeed meet with a most sad
death; but the same might be said of Socrates, and of Anaxarchus, whom
he had just mentioned, and a multitude of others. If the death of Jesus
was a miserable one, was not that of the others so too? And if their
death was not miserable, can it be said that the death of Jesus was? You
see from this, then, that the object of Celsus is to vilify the
character of Jesus; and I can only suppose that he is driven to it by
some spirit akin to those whose power has been broken and vanquished by
Jesus, and which now finds itself deprived of the smoke and blood on
which it lived, whilst deceiving those who sought for God here upon
earth in images, instead of looking up to the true God, the Governor of
all things.




                             Chapter LVII.


After this, as though his object was to swell the size of his book, he
advises us “to choose Jonah rather than Jesus as our God;” thus setting
Jonah, who preached repentance to the single city of Nineveh, before
Jesus, who has preached repentance to the whole world, and with much
greater results. He would have us to regard as God a man who, by a
strange miracle, passed three days and three nights in the whale’s
belly; and he is unwilling that He who submitted to death for the sake
of men, He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has
done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on that ground
honour second only to that which is given to the Most High God.
Moreover, Jonah was swallowed by the whale for refusing to preach as God
had commanded him; while Jesus suffered death for men after He had given
the instructions which God wished Him to give. Still further, he adds
that Daniel rescued from the lions is more worthy of our adoration than
Jesus, who subdued the fierceness of every opposing power, and gave to
us “authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power
of the enemy.”[1550] Finally, having no other names to offer us, he
adds, “and others of a still more monstrous kind,”—thus casting a slight
upon both Jonah and Daniel; for the spirit which is in Celsus cannot
speak well of the righteous.

Footnote 1550:

  Luke x. 19.




                             Chapter LVIII.


Let us now consider what follows. “They have also,” says he, “a precept
to this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one who injures
us, or, as he expresses it, ‘Whosoever shall strike thee on the one
cheek, turn to him the other also.’ This is an ancient saying, which had
been admirably expressed long before, and which they have only reported
in a coarser way. For Plato introduces Socrates conversing with Crito as
follows: ‘Must we never do injustice to any?’ ‘Certainly not.’ ‘And
since we must never do injustice, must we not return injustice for an
injustice that has been done to us, as most people think?’ ‘It seems to
me that we should not.’ ‘But tell me, Crito, may we do evil to any one
or not?’ ‘Certainly not, O Socrates.’ ‘Well, is it just, as is commonly
said, for one who has suffered wrong to do wrong in return, or is it
unjust?’ ‘It is unjust. Yes; for to do harm to a man is the same as to
do him injustice.’ ‘You speak truly. We must then not do injustice in
return for injustice, nor must we do evil to any one, whatever evil we
may have suffered from him.’ Thus Plato speaks; and he adds, ‘Consider,
then, whether you are at one with me, and whether, starting from this
principle, we may not come to the conclusion that it is never right to
do injustice, even in return for an injustice which has been received;
or whether, on the other hand, you differ from me, and do not admit the
principle from which we started. That has always been my opinion, and is
so still.’[1551] Such are the sentiments of Plato, and indeed they were
held by divine men before his time. But let this suffice as one example
of the way in which this and other truths have been borrowed and
corrupted. Any one who wishes can easily by searching find more of
them.”

Footnote 1551:

  Plato’s _Crito_, p. 49.




                              Chapter LIX.


When Celsus here or elsewhere finds himself unable to dispute the truth
of what we say, but avers that the same things were said by the Greeks,
our answer is, that if the doctrine be sound, and the effect of it good,
whether it was made known to the Greeks by Plato or any of the wise men
of Greece, or whether it was delivered to the Jews by Moses or any of
the prophets, or whether it was given to the Christians in the recorded
teaching of Jesus Christ, or in the instructions of His apostles, that
does not affect the value of the truth communicated. It is no objection
to the principles of Jews or Christians, that the same things were also
said by the Greeks, especially if it be proved that the writings of the
Jews are older than those of the Greeks. And further, we are not to
imagine that a truth adorned with the graces of Grecian speech is
necessarily better than the same when expressed in the more humble and
unpretending language used by Jews and Christians, although indeed the
language of the Jews, in which the prophets wrote the books which have
come down to us, has a grace of expression peculiar to the genius of the
Hebrew tongue. And even if we were required to show that the same
doctrines have been better expressed among the Jewish prophets or in
Christian writings, however paradoxical it may seem, we are prepared to
prove this by an illustration taken from different kinds of food, and
from the different modes of preparing them. Suppose that a kind of food
which is wholesome and nutritious has been prepared and seasoned in such
a way as to be fit, not for the simple tastes of peasants and poor
labourers, but for those only who are rich and dainty in their tastes.
Suppose, again, that that same food is prepared not to suit the tastes
of the more delicate, but for the peasants, the poor labourers, and the
common people generally, in short, so that myriads of persons might eat
of it. Now if, according to the supposition, the food prepared in the
one way promotes the health of those only who are styled the better
classes, while none of the others could taste it, whereas when prepared
in the other way it promoted the health of great multitudes of men,
which shall we esteem as most contributing to the public welfare,—those
who prepare food for persons of mark, or those who prepare it for the
multitudes?—taking for granted that in both cases the food is equally
wholesome and nourishing; while it is evident that the welfare of
mankind and the common good are promoted better by that physician who
attends to the health of the many, than by one who confines his
attention to a few.




                              Chapter LX.


Now, after understanding this illustration, we have to apply it to the
qualities of spiritual food with which the rational part of man is
nourished. See, then, if Plato and the wise men among the Greeks, in the
beautiful things they say, are not like those physicians who confine
their attentions to what are called the better classes of society, and
despise the multitude; whereas the prophets among the Jews, and the
disciples of Jesus, who despise mere elegances of style, and what is
called in Scripture “the wisdom of men,” “the wisdom according to the
flesh,” which delights in what is obscure, resemble those who study to
provide the most wholesome food for the largest number of persons. For
this purpose they adapt their language and style to the capacities of
the common people, and avoid whatever would seem foreign to them, lest
by the introduction of strange forms of expression they should produce a
distaste for their teaching. Indeed, if the true use of spiritual food,
to keep up the figure, is to produce in him who partakes of it the
virtues of patience and gentleness, must that discourse not be better
prepared when it produces patience and gentleness in multitudes, or
makes them grow in these virtues, than that which confines its effects
to a select few, supposing that it does really make them gentle and
patient? If a Greek wished by wholesome instruction to benefit people
who understood only Egyptian or Syriac, the first thing that he would do
would be to learn their language; and he would rather pass for a
barbarian among the Greeks, by speaking as the Egyptians or Syrians, in
order to be useful to them, than always remain Greek, and be without the
means of helping them. In the same way the divine nature, having the
purpose of instructing not only those who are reputed to be learned in
the literature of Greece, but also the rest of mankind, accommodated
itself to the capacities of the simple multitudes whom it addressed. It
seeks to win the attention of the more ignorant by the use of language
which is familiar to them, so that they may easily be induced, after
their first introduction, to strive after an acquaintance with the
deeper truths which lie hidden in Scripture. For even the ordinary
reader of Scripture may see that it contains many things which are too
deep to be apprehended at first; but these are understood by such as
devote themselves to a careful study of the divine word, and they become
plain to them in proportion to the pains and zeal which they expend upon
its investigation.




                              Chapter LXI.


From these remarks it is evident, that when Jesus said “coarsely,” as
Celsus terms it, “To him who shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn
the other also; and if any man be minded to sue thee at the law, and
take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also,”[1552] He expressed
Himself in such a way as to make the precept have more practical effect
than the words of Plato in the _Crito_; for the latter is so far from
being intelligible to ordinary persons, that even those have a
difficulty in understanding him, who have been brought up in the schools
of learning, and have been initiated into the famous philosophy of
Greece. It may also be observed, that the precept enjoining patience
under injuries is in no way corrupted or degraded by the plain and
simple language which our Lord employs, but that in this, as in other
cases, it is a mere calumny against our religion which he utters when he
says: “But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this and
other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes can
easily by searching find more of them.”

Footnote 1552:

  Matt. v. 39, 40.




                             Chapter LXII.


Let us now see what follows. “Let us pass on,” says he, “to another
point. They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. In this they are
like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship
no god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the
world. That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in
these words: ‘I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful
to erect images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly
who do so, because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks,
suppose the gods to be of the nature of men.’[1553] Heraclitus also says
in one place: ‘Persons who address prayers to these images act like
those who speak to the walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes
are.’ And what wiser lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He
certainly plainly enough implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to
offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes
are. This is the opinion of Heraclitus; but as for them, they go
further, and despise without exception all images. If they merely mean
that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which has been wrought by this or
that workman cannot be a god, they are ridiculous with their wisdom. For
who, unless he be utterly childish in his simplicity, can take these for
gods, and not for offerings consecrated to the service of the gods, or
images representing them? But if we are not to regard these as
representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a different form, as
the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them take care that
they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made man His
own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However, they
will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made and
dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the
beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a
worshipper of God ought not to worship demons.”

Footnote 1553:

  Herod. i. 131.




                             Chapter LXIII.


To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of
Libya, the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those other
most barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the Persians
even cannot bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not
follow because we cannot suffer them any more than they, that the
grounds on which we object to them are the same as theirs. We must
inquire into the principles on which the objection to temples and images
is founded, in order that we may approve of those who object on sound
principles, and condemn those whose principles are false. For one and
the same thing may be done for different reasons. For example, the
philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing adultery,
the followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others again who do so
on no philosophical principles; but observe what different reasons
determine the conduct of these different classes. The first consider the
interests of society, and hold it to be forbidden by nature that a man
who is a reasonable being should corrupt a woman whom the laws have
already given to another, and should thus break up the household of
another man. The Epicureans do not reason in this way; but if they
abstain from adultery, it is because, regarding pleasure as the chief
end of man, they perceive that one who gives himself up to adultery,
encounters for the sake of this one pleasure a multitude of obstacles to
pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile, and death itself. They often,
indeed, run considerable risk at the outset, while watching for the
departure from the house of the master and those in his interest. So
that, supposing it possible for a man to commit adultery, and escape the
knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others whose esteem he
would forfeit, then the Epicurean would yield to the commission of the
crime for the sake of pleasure. The man of no philosophical system,
again, who abstains from adultery when the opportunity comes to him,
does so generally from dread of the law and its penalties, and not for
the sake of enjoying a greater number of other pleasures. You see, then,
that an act which passes for being one and the same—namely, abstinence
from adultery—is not the same, but differs in different men according to
the motives which actuate it: one man refraining for sound reasons,
another for such bad and impious ones as those of the Epicurean, and the
common person of whom we have spoken.




                             Chapter LXIV.


As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the
same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according
to the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with
those who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or
temples, or images. The Scythians, the nomadic Libyans, the godless
Seres, and the Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but
they are actuated by very different principles. For none of these former
abhor altars and images on the ground that they are afraid of degrading
the worship of God, and reducing it to the worship of material things
wrought by the hands of men. Neither do they object to them from a
belief that the demons choose certain forms and places, whether because
they are detained there by virtue of certain charms, or because for some
other possible reason they have selected these haunts, where they may
pursue their criminal pleasures, in partaking of the smoke of
sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews have regard to this
command, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve Him alone;”[1554]
and this other, “Thou shalt have no other gods before me: thou shalt not
make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in
heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water
under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve
them;”[1555] and again, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him
only shalt thou serve.”[1556] It is in consideration of these and many
other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and
images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than
debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most
High God.

Footnote 1554:

  Deut. vi. 13.

Footnote 1555:

  Ex. xx. 3, 4.

Footnote 1556:

  Matt. iv. 10.




                              Chapter LXV.


In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they do not
build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of God. This
is forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship the creature
instead of the Creator, but to know that “the creation shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory
of the children of God;” and “the earnest expectation of the creation is
waiting for the revelation of the sons of God;” and “the creation was
made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who made it
subject, in hope.”[1557] We believe, therefore, that things “under the
bondage of corruption,” and “subject to vanity,” which remain in this
condition “in hope” of a better state, ought not in our worship to hold
the place of God, the all-sufficient, and of His Son, the first-born of
all creation. Let this suffice, in addition to what we have already said
of the Persians, who abhor altars and images, but who serve the creature
instead of the Creator. As to the passage quoted by Celsus from
Heraclitus, the purport of which he represents as being, “that it is
childish folly for one to offer prayers to images, whilst he knows not
who the gods and heroes are,” we may reply that it is easy to know that
God and the only-begotten Son of God, and those whom God has honoured
with the title of God, and who partake of His divine nature, are very
different from all the gods of the nations which are demons; but it is
not possible at the same time to know God and to address prayers to
images.

Footnote 1557:

  Rom. viii. 19-21.




                             Chapter LXVI.


And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer prayers to
images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance with the
example of the multitude: and to this class belong the Peripatetic
philosophers and the followers of Epicurus and Democritus. For there is
no falsehood or pretence in the soul which is possessed with true piety
towards God. Another reason also why we abstain from doing honour to
images, is that we may give no support to the notion that the images are
gods. It is on this ground that we condemn Celsus, and all others who,
while admitting that they are not gods, yet, with the reputation of
being wise men, render to them what passes for homage. In this way they
lead into sin the multitude who follow their example, and who worship
these images not simply out of deference to custom, but from a belief
into which they have fallen that they are true gods, and that those are
not to be listened to who hold that the objects of their worship are not
true gods. Celsus, indeed, says that “they do not take them for gods,
but only as offerings dedicated to the gods.” But he does not prove that
they are not rather dedicated to men than, as he says, to the honour of
the gods themselves; for it is clear that they are the offerings of men
who were in error in their views of the Divine Being. Moreover, we do
not imagine that these images are representations of God, for they
cannot represent a being who is invisible and incorporeal. But as Celsus
supposes that we fall into a contradiction, whilst on the one hand we
say that God has not a human form, and on the other we profess to
believe that God made man the image of Himself, and created man the
image of God; our answer is the same as has been given already, that we
hold the resemblance to God to be preserved in the reasonable soul,
which is formed to virtue, although Celsus, who does not see the
difference between “being the image of God,” and “being created after
the image of God,” pretends that we said, “God made man His own image,
and gave him a form like to His own.” But this also has been examined
before.




                             Chapter LXVII.


His next remark upon the Christians is: “They will admit that these
images, whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the
honour of certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to whom
they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of
God ought not to worship demons.” If he had been acquainted with the
nature of demons, and with their several operations, whether led on to
them by the conjurations of those who are skilled in the art, or urged
on by their own inclination to act according to their power and
inclination; if, I say, he had thoroughly understood this subject, which
is both wide in extent and difficult for human comprehension, he would
not have condemned us for saying that those who worship the Supreme
Being should not serve demons. For ourselves, so far are we from wishing
to serve demons, that by the use of prayers and other means which we
learn from Scripture, we drive them out of the souls of men, out of
places where they have established themselves, and even sometimes from
the bodies of animals; for even these creatures often suffer from
injuries inflicted upon them by demons.




                            Chapter LXVIII.


After all that we have already said concerning Jesus, it would be a
useless repetition for us to answer these words of Celsus: “It is easy
to convict them of worshipping not a god, not even demons, but a dead
person.” Leaving, then, this objection for the reason assigned, let us
pass on to what follows: “In the first place, I would ask why we are not
to serve demons? Is it not true that all things are ordered according to
God’s will, and that His providence governs all things? Is not
everything which happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God,
of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, regulated by the law of the
Most High God? Have these not had assigned them various departments of
which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that
he who worships God should serve those also to whom God has assigned
such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for a man to serve many
masters.” Observe here again how he settles at once a number of
questions which require considerable research, and a profound
acquaintance with what is most mysterious in the government of the
universe. For we must inquire into the meaning of the statement, that
“all things are ordered according to God’s will,” and ascertain whether
sins are or are not included among the things which God orders. For if
God’s government extends to sins not only in men, but also in demons and
in any other spiritual beings who are capable of sin, it is for those
who speak in this manner to see how inconvenient is the expression that
“all things are ordered by the will of God.” For it follows from it that
all sins and all their consequences are ordered by the will of God,
which is a different thing from saying that they come to pass with God’s
permission. For if we take the word “ordered” in its proper
signification, and say that “all the results of sin were ordered,” then
it is evident that all things are ordered according to God’s will, and
that all, therefore, who do evil do not offend against His government.
And the same distinction holds in regard to “providence.” When we say
that “the providence of God regulates all things,” we utter a great
truth if we attribute to that providence nothing but what is just and
right. But if we ascribe to the providence of God all things whatsoever,
however unjust they may be, then it is no longer true that the
providence of God regulates all things, unless we refer directly to
God’s providence things which flow as results from His arrangements.
Celsus maintains also, that “whatever happens in the universe, whether
it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes, is
regulated by the law of the Most High God.” But this also is incorrect;
for we cannot say that transgressors follow the law of God when they
transgress; and Scripture declares that it is not only wicked men who
are transgressors, but also wicked demons and wicked angels.




                             Chapter LXIX.


And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons, but almost all who
acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus, then, it is not true that all
observe the law of the Most High; for all who fall away from the divine
law, whether through heedlessness, or through depravity and vice, or
through ignorance of what is right, all such do not keep the law of God,
but, to use a new phrase which we find in Scripture, “the law of sin.” I
say, then, that in the opinion of most of those who believe in the
existence of demons, some of them are wicked; and these, instead of
keeping the law of God, offend against it. But, according to our belief,
it is true of all demons, that they were not demons originally, but they
became so in departing from the true way; so that the name “demons” is
given to those beings who have fallen away from God. Accordingly, those
who worship God must not serve demons. We may also learn the true nature
of demons if we consider the practice of those who call upon them by
charms to prevent certain things, or for many other purposes. For this
is the method they adopt, in order by means of incantations and magical
arts to invoke the demons, and induce them to further their wishes.
Wherefore the worship of all demons would be inconsistent in us who
worship the supreme God; and the service of demons is the service of
so-called gods, for “all the gods of the heathen are demons.”[1558] The
same thing also appears from the fact that the dedication of the most
famous of the so-called sacred places, whether temples or statues, was
accompanied by curious magical incantations, which were performed by
those who zealously served the demons with magical arts. Hence we are
determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would avoid death;
and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the Greeks to be
rendered to gods at the altars, and images, and temples, is in reality
offered to demons.

Footnote 1558:

  Ps. xcvi. 5 (LXX.).




                              Chapter LXX.


His next remark was, “Have not these inferior powers had assigned to
them by God different departments, according as each was deemed worthy?”
But this is a question which requires a very profound knowledge. For we
must determine whether the Word of God, who governs all things, has
appointed wicked demons for certain employments, in the same way as in
states executioners are appointed, and other officers with cruel but
needful duties to discharge; or whether as among robbers, who infest
desert places, it is customary for them to choose out of their number
one who may be their leader,—so the demons, who are scattered as it were
in troops in different parts of the earth, have chosen for themselves a
chief under whose command they may plunder and pillage the souls of men.
To explain this fully, and to justify the conduct of the Christians in
refusing homage to any object except the Most High God, and the
First-born of all creation, who is His Word and God, we must quote this
from Scripture, “All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers;
but the sheep did not hear them;” and again, “The thief cometh not but
for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy;”[1559] and other similar
passages, as, “Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents
and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy; and nothing shall by
any means hurt you;”[1560] and again, “Thou shalt tread upon the lion
and adder: the young lion and the dragon shalt thou trample under
feet.”[1561] But of these things Celsus knew nothing, or he would not
have made use of language like this: “Is not everything which happens in
the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons,
or of heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not
had assigned to them various departments of which they were severally
deemed worthy? Is it not just, therefore, that he who serves God should
serve those also to whom God has assigned such power?” To which he adds,
“It is impossible, they say, for a man to serve many masters.” This last
point we must postpone to the next book; for this, which is the seventh
book which we have written in answer to the treatise of Celsus, is
already of sufficient length.

Footnote 1559:

  John x. 8-10.

Footnote 1560:

  Luke x. 19.

Footnote 1561:

  Ps. xci. 13.




                               BOOK VIII.




                               Chapter I.


Having completed seven books, I now propose to begin the eighth. And may
God and His only-begotten Son the Word be with us, to enable us
effectively to refute the falsehoods which Celsus has published under
the delusive title of _A True Discourse_, and at the same time to unfold
the truths of Christianity with such fulness as our purpose requires.
And as Paul said, “We are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did
beseech you by us,”[1562] so would we in the same spirit and language
earnestly desire to be ambassadors for Christ to men, even as the Word
of God beseeches them to the love of Himself, seeking to win over to
righteousness, truth, and the other virtues, those who, until they
receive the doctrines of Jesus Christ, live in darkness about God and in
ignorance of their Creator. Again, then, I would say, may God bestow
upon us His pure and true Word, even “the Lord strong and mighty in
battle”[1563] against sin. We must now proceed to state the next
objection of Celsus, and afterwards to answer it.

Footnote 1562:

  2 Cor. v. 20.

Footnote 1563:

  Ps. xxiv. 8.




                              Chapter II.


In a passage previously quoted Celsus asks us why we do not worship
demons, and to his remarks on demons we gave such an answer as seemed to
us in accordance with the divine word. After having put this question
for the purpose of leading us to the worship of demons, he represents us
as answering that it is impossible to serve many masters. “This,” he
goes on to say, “is the language of sedition, and is only used by those
who separate themselves and stand aloof from all human society. Those
who speak in this way ascribe,” as he supposes, “their own feelings and
passions to God. It does hold true among men, that he who is in the
service of one master cannot well serve another, because the service
which he renders to the one interferes with that which he owes to the
other; and no one, therefore, who has already engaged himself to the
service of one, must accept that of another. And, in like manner, it is
impossible to serve at the same time heroes or demons of different
natures. But in regard to God, who is subject to no suffering or loss,
it is,” he thinks, “absurd to be on our guard against serving more gods,
as though we had to do with demi-gods, or other spirits of that sort.”
He says also, “He who serves many gods does that which is pleasing to
the Most High, because he honours that which belongs to Him.” And he
adds, “It is indeed wrong to give honour to any to whom God has not
given honour.” “Wherefore,” he says, “in honouring and worshipping all
belonging to God, we will not displease Him to whom they all belong.”




                              Chapter III.


Before proceeding to the next point, it may be well for us to see
whether we do not accept with approval the saying, “No man can serve two
masters,” with the addition, “for either he will hate the one, and love
the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other,” and
further, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”[1564] The defence of this
passage will lead us to a deeper and more searching inquiry into the
meaning and application of the words “gods” and “lords.” Divine
Scripture teaches us that there is “a great Lord above all gods.”[1565]
And by this name “gods” we are not to understand the objects of heathen
worship (for we know that “all the gods of the heathen are
demons”[1566]), but the gods mentioned by the prophets as forming an
assembly, whom God “judges,” and to each of whom He assigns his proper
work. For “God standeth in the assembly of the gods: He judgeth among
the gods.”[1567] For “God is Lord of gods,” who by His Son “hath called
the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.”[1568]
We are also commanded to “give thanks to the God of gods.”[1569]
Moreover, we are taught that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the
living.”[1570] Nor are these the only passages to this effect; but there
are very many others.

Footnote 1564:

  Matt. vi. 24.

Footnote 1565:

  Ps. xcvii. 9.

Footnote 1566:

  Ps. xcvi. 5.

Footnote 1567:

  Ps. lxxxii. 1.

Footnote 1568:

  Ps. l. 1.

Footnote 1569:

  Ps. cxxxvi. 2.

Footnote 1570:

  Matt. xxii. 32.




                              Chapter IV.


The sacred Scriptures teach us to think, in like manner, of the Lord of
lords. For they say in one place, “Give thanks to the God of gods, for
His mercy endureth for ever. Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His
mercy endureth for ever;” and in another, “God is King of kings, and
Lord of lords.” For Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are
such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are
called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to the use of
the word “lords.” To this effect Paul says, “For though there be that
are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many,
and lords many.”[1571] But as the God of gods calls whom He pleases
through Jesus to his inheritance, “from the east and from the west,” and
the Christ of God thus shows His superiority to all rulers by entering
into their several provinces, and summoning men out of them to be
subject to Himself, Paul therefore, with this in view, goes on to say,
“But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and
one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him;” adding,
as if with a deep sense of the marvellous and mysterious nature of the
doctrine, “Howbeit, there is not in every man that knowledge.” When he
says, “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things;
and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,” by “us” he means
himself and all those who have risen up to the supreme God of gods and
to the supreme Lord of lords. Now he has risen to the supreme God who
gives Him an entire and undivided worship through His Son—the word and
wisdom of God made manifest in Jesus. For it is the Son alone who leads
to God those who are striving, by the purity of their thoughts, words,
and deeds, to come near to God the Creator of the universe. I think,
therefore, that the prince of this world, who “transforms himself into
an angel of light,”[1572] was referring to this and such like statements
in the words, “Him follows a host of gods and demons, arranged in eleven
bands.” Speaking of himself and the philosophers, he says, “We are of
the party of Jupiter; others belong to other demons.”[1573]

Footnote 1571:

  1 Cor. viii. 5, etc.

Footnote 1572:

  2 Cor. xi. 14.

Footnote 1573:

  Plato, _Phædrus_, p. 246.




                               Chapter V.


Whilst there are thus many gods and lords, whereof some are such in
reality, and others are such only in name, we strive to rise not only
above those whom the nations of the earth worship as gods, but also
beyond those spoken of as gods in Scripture, of whom they are wholly
ignorant who are strangers to the covenants of God given by Moses and by
our Saviour Jesus, and who have no part in the promises which He has
made to us through them. That man rises above all demon-worship who does
nothing that is pleasing to demons; and he rises to a blessedness beyond
that of those whom Paul calls “gods,” if he is enabled, like them, or in
any way he may, “to look not at the things which are seen, but at the
things which are unseen.” And he who considers that “the earnest
expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of
God, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the same in
hope,” whilst he praises the creature, and sees how “it shall be freed
altogether from the bondage of corruption, and restored to the glorious
liberty of the children of God,”[1574]—such a one cannot be induced to
combine with the service of God the service of any other, or to serve
two masters. There is therefore nothing seditious or factious in the
language of those who hold these views, and who refuse to serve more
masters than one. To them Jesus Christ is an all-sufficient Lord, who
Himself instructs them, in order that when fully instructed He may form
them into a kingdom worthy of God, and present them to God the Father.
But indeed they do in a sense separate themselves and stand aloof from
those who are aliens from the commonwealth of God and strangers to His
covenants, in order that they may live as citizens of heaven, “coming to
the living God, and to the city of God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to
an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of
the first-born, which are written in heaven.”[1575]

Footnote 1574:

  Rom. viii. 19, 20.

Footnote 1575:

  Heb. xii. 22, 23.




                              Chapter VI.


But when we refuse to serve any other than God through His word and
wisdom, we do so, not as though we would thereby be doing any harm or
injury to God, in the same way as injury would be done to a man by his
servant entering into the service of another, but we fear that we
ourselves should suffer harm by depriving ourselves of our portion in
God, through which we live in the participation of the divine
blessedness, and are imbued with that excellent spirit of adoption which
in the sons of the heavenly Father cries, not with words, but with deep
effect in the inmost heart, “Abba, Father.” The Lacedæmonian
ambassadors, when brought before the king of Persia, refused to
prostrate themselves before him, when the attendants endeavoured to
compel them to do so, out of respect for that which alone had authority
and lordship over them, namely, the law of Lycurgus.[1576] But they who
have a much greater and diviner embassy in “being ambassadors for
Christ” should not worship any ruler among Persians, or Greeks, or
Egyptians, or of any nation whatever, even although their officers and
ministers, demons and angels of the devil, should seek to compel them to
do so, and should urge them to set at nought a law which is mightier
than all the laws upon earth. For the Lord of those who are “ambassadors
for Christ” is Christ Himself, whose ambassadors they are, and who is
“the Word, who was in the beginning, was with God, and was God.”[1577]

Footnote 1576:

  Herod. vii. 136.

Footnote 1577:

  John i. 1.




                              Chapter VII.


But when Celsus speaks of heroes and demons, he starts a deeper question
than he is aware of. For after the statement which he made in regard to
service among men, that “the first master is injured when any of his
servants wishes at the same time to serve another,” he adds, that “the
same holds true of heroes, and other demons of that kind.” Now we must
inquire of him what nature he thinks those heroes and demons possess of
whom he affirms that he who serves one hero may not serve another, and
he who serves one demon may not serve another, as though the former hero
or demon would be injured in the same way as men are injured when they
who serve them first afterwards give themselves to the service of
others. Let him also state what loss he supposes those heroes or demons
will suffer. For he will be driven either to plunge into endless
absurdities, and first repeat, then retract his previous statements; or
else to abandon his frivolous conjectures, and confess that he
understands nothing of the nature of heroes and demons. And in regard to
his statement, that men suffer injury when the servant of one man enters
the service of a second master, the question arises: “What is the nature
of the injury which is done to the former master by a servant who, while
serving him, wishes at the same time to serve another?”




                             Chapter VIII.


For if he answers, as one who is unlearned and ignorant of philosophy,
that the injury sustained is one which regards things that are outside
of us, it will be plainly manifest that he knows nothing of that famous
saying of Socrates, “Anytus and Melitus may kill me, but they cannot
injure me; for it is impossible that the better should ever be injured
by the worse.” But if by injury he means a wicked impulse or an evil
habit, it is plain that no injury of this kind would befall the wise, by
one man serving two wise men in different places. If this sense does not
suit his purpose, it is evident that his endeavours are vain to weaken
the authority of the passage, “No man can serve two masters;” for these
words can be perfectly true only when they refer to the service which we
render to the Most High through His Son, who leadeth us to God. And we
will not serve God as though He stood in need of our service, or as
though He would be made unhappy if we ceased to serve Him; but we do it
because we are ourselves benefited by the service of God, and because we
are freed from griefs and troubles by serving the Most High God through
His only begotten Son, the Word and Wisdom.




                              Chapter IX.


And observe the recklessness of that expression, “For if thou worship
any other of the things in the universe,” as though he would have us
believe that we are led by our service of God to the worship of any
other things which belong to God, without any injury to ourselves. But,
as if feeling his error, he corrects the words, “If thou worship any
other of the things in the universe,” by adding, “We may honour none,
however, except those to whom that right has been given by God.” And we
would put to Celsus this question in regard to those who are honoured as
gods, as demons, or as heroes: “Now, sir, can you prove that the right
to be honoured has been given to these by God, and that it has not
arisen from the ignorance and folly of men who in their wanderings have
fallen away from Him to whom alone worship and service are properly due?
You said a little ago, O Celsus, that Antinous, the favourite of Adrian,
is honoured; but surely you will not say that the right to be worshipped
as a god was given to him by the God of the universe? And so of the
others, we ask proof that the right to be worshipped was given to them
by the Most High God.” But if the same question is put to us in regard
to the worship of Jesus, we will show that the right to be honoured was
given to Him by God, “that all may honour the Son, even as they honour
the Father.”[1578] For all the prophecies which preceded His birth were
preparations for His worship. And the wonders which He wrought—through
no magical art, as Celsus supposes, but by a divine power, which was
foretold by the prophets—have served as a testimony from God in behalf
of the worship of Christ. He who honours the Son, who is the Word and
Reason, acts in nowise contrary to reason, and gains for himself great
good; he who honours Him, who is the Truth, becomes better by honouring
truth: and this we may say of honouring wisdom, righteousness, and all
the other names by which the sacred Scriptures are wont to designate the
Son of God.

Footnote 1578:

  John v. 23.




                               Chapter X.


But that the honour which we pay to the Son of God, as well as that
which we render to God the Father, consists of an upright course of
life, is plainly taught us by the passage, “Thou that makest thy boast
of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God?”[1579] and
also, “Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought
worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the
blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and
hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”[1580] For if he who
transgresses the law dishonours God by his transgression, and he who
treads under foot the word treads under foot the Son of God, it is
evident that he who keeps the law honours God, and that the worshipper
of God is he whose life is regulated by the principles and precepts of
the divine word. Had Celsus known who they are who are God’s people, and
that they alone are wise,—and who they are who are strangers to God, and
that these are all the wicked who have no desire to give themselves to
virtue,—he would have considered before he gave expression to the words,
“How can he who honours any of those whom God acknowledges as His own be
displeasing to God, to whom they all belong?”

Footnote 1579:

  Rom. ii. 23.

Footnote 1580:

  Heb. x. 29.




                              Chapter XI.


He adds, “And indeed he who, when speaking of God, asserts that there is
only one who may be called Lord, speaks impiously, for he divides the
kingdom of God, and raises a sedition therein, implying that there are
separate factions in the divine kingdom, and that there exists one who
is His enemy.” He might speak after this fashion, if he could prove by
conclusive arguments that those who are worshipped as gods by the
heathens are truly gods, and not merely evil spirits, which are supposed
to haunt statues and temples and altars. But we desire not only to
understand the nature of that divine kingdom of which we are continually
speaking and writing, but also ourselves to be of those who are under
the rule of God alone, so that the kingdom of God may be ours. Celsus,
however, who teaches us to worship many gods, ought in consistency not
to speak of “the kingdom of God,” but of “the kingdom of the gods.”
There are therefore no factions in the kingdom of God, nor is there any
god who is an adversary to Him, although there are some who, like the
giants and Titans, in their wickedness wish to contend with God in
company with Celsus, and those who declare war against Him who has by
innumerable proofs established the claims of Jesus, and against Him who,
as the Word, did, for the salvation of our race, show Himself before all
the world in such a form as each was able to receive Him.




                              Chapter XII.


In what follows, some may imagine that he says something plausible
against us. “If,” says he, “these people worshipped one God alone, and
no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the
worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but
lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if
they worship also His servant.” To this we reply, that if Celsus had
known that saying, “I and my Father are one,”[1581] and the words used
in prayer by the Son of God, “As Thou and I are one,”[1582] he would not
have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the supreme
God. “For,” says He, “my Father is in me, and I in Him.”[1583] And if
any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of
those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him
weigh that passage, “And the multitude of them that believed were of one
heart and of one soul,”[1584] that he may understand the meaning of the
saying, “I and my Father are one.” We worship one God, the Father and
the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the
worship of other gods still continues valid. And we do not “reverence
beyond measure one who has but lately appeared,” as though He did not
exist before; for we believe Himself when He says, “Before Abraham was,
I am.”[1585] Again He says, “I am the truth;”[1586] and surely none of
us is so simple as to suppose that truth did not exist before the time
when Christ appeared. We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and
the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as
persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in
identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the
Son, “who is the brightness of God’s glory, and the express image of His
person,”[1587] has seen in Him who is the image of God, God Himself.

Footnote 1581:

  John x. 30.

Footnote 1582:

  John xvii. 22.

Footnote 1583:

  John xiv. 11, and xvii. 21.

Footnote 1584:

  Acts iv. 32.

Footnote 1585:

  John viii. 58.

Footnote 1586:

  John xiv. 6.

Footnote 1587:

  Heb. i. 3.




                             Chapter XIII.


He further supposes, that “because we join along with the worship of God
the worship of His Son, it follows that, in our view, not only God, but
also the servants of God, are to be worshipped.” If he had meant this to
apply to those who are truly the servants of God, after His
only-begotten Son,—to Gabriel and Michael, and the other angels and
archangels,—and if he had said of these that they ought to be
worshipped,—if also he had clearly defined the meaning of the word
“worship,” and the duties of the worshippers,—we might perhaps have
brought forward such thoughts as have occurred to us on so important a
subject. But as he reckons among the servants of God the demons which
are worshipped by the heathen, he cannot induce us, on the plea of
consistency, to worship such as are declared by the word to be servants
of the evil one, the prince of this world, who leads astray from God as
many as he can. We decline, therefore, altogether to worship and serve
those whom other men worship, for the reason that they are not servants
of God. For if we had been taught to regard them as servants of the Most
High, we would not have called them demons. Accordingly, we worship with
all our power the one God, and His only Son, the Word and the Image of
God, by prayers and supplications; and we offer our petitions to the God
of the universe through His only-begotten Son. To the Son we first
present them, and beseech Him, as “the propitiation for our sins,”[1588]
and our High Priest, to offer our desires, and sacrifices, and prayers,
to the Most High. Our faith, therefore, is directed to God through His
Son, who strengthens it in us; and Celsus can never show that the Son of
God is the cause of any sedition or disloyalty in the kingdom of God. We
honour the Father when we admire His Son, the Word, and Wisdom, and
Truth, and Righteousness, and all that He who is the Son of so great a
Father is said in Scripture to be. So much on this point.

Footnote 1588:

  1 John ii. 2.




                              Chapter XIV.


Again Celsus proceeds: “If you should tell them that Jesus is not the
Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone ought
to be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their
worship of him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call him
Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an
extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ.” We, however, have learned who the
Son of God is, and know that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the
express image of His person,” and “the breath of the power of God, and a
pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty;” moreover, “the
brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power
of God, and the image of His goodness.”[1589] We know, therefore, that
He is the Son of God, and that God is His Father. And there is nothing
extravagant or unbecoming the character of God in the doctrine that He
should have begotten such an only Son; and no one will persuade us that
such a one is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father. If Celsus has
heard something of certain persons holding that the Son of God is not
the Son of the Creator of the universe, that is a matter which lies
between him and the supporters of such an opinion. Jesus is, then, not
the leader of any seditious movement, but the promoter of peace. For He
said to His disciples, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto
you;” and as He knew that it would be men of the world, and not men of
God, who would wage war against us, he added, “Not as the world giveth
peace, do I give peace unto you.”[1590] And even although we are
oppressed in the world, we have confidence in Him who said, “In the
world ye shall have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome
the world.” And it is He whom we call Son of God—Son of that God,
namely, whom, to quote the words of Celsus, “we most highly reverence;”
and He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Grant
that there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who
are not in entire agreement with us, and who incautiously assert that
the Saviour is the Most High God; however, we do not hold with them, but
rather believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent me is greater than
I.”[1591] We would not therefore make Him whom we call Father
inferior—as Celsus accuses us of doing—to the Son of God.

Footnote 1589:

  Wisd. vii. 25, 26.

Footnote 1590:

  John xiv. 27.

Footnote 1591:

  John xiv. 28.




                              Chapter XV.


Celsus goes on to say: “That I may give a true representation of their
faith, I will use their own words, as given in what is called _A
Heavenly Dialogue_: ‘If the Son is mightier than God, and the Son of man
is Lord over Him, who else than the Son can be Lord over that God who is
the ruler over all things? How comes it, that while so many go about the
well, no one goes down into it? Why art thou afraid when thou hast gone
so far on the way? Answer: Thou art mistaken, for I lack neither courage
nor weapons.’ Is it not evident, then, that their views are precisely
such as I have described them to be? They suppose that another God, who
is above the heavens, is the Father of him whom with one accord they
honour, that they may honour this Son of man alone, whom they exalt
under the form and name of the great God, and whom they assert to be
stronger than God, who rules the world, and that he rules over Him. And
hence that maxim of theirs, ‘It is impossible to serve two masters,’ is
maintained for the purpose of keeping up the party who are on the side
of this Lord.” Here, again, Celsus quotes opinions from some most
obscure sect of heretics, and ascribes them to all Christians. I call it
“a most obscure sect;” for although we have often contended with
heretics, yet we are unable to discover from what set of opinions he has
taken this passage, if indeed he has quoted it from any author, and has
not rather concocted it himself, or added it as an inference of his own.
For we who say that the visible world is under the government of Him who
created all things, do thereby declare that the Son is not mightier than
the Father, but inferior to Him. And this belief we ground on the saying
of Jesus Himself, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” And none
of us is so insane as to affirm that the Son of man is Lord over God.
But when we regard the Saviour as God the Word, and Wisdom, and
Righteousness, and Truth, we certainly do say that He has dominion over
all things which have been subjected to Him in this capacity, but not
that His dominion extends over the God and Father who is Ruler over all.
Besides, as the Word rules over none against their will, there are still
wicked beings—not only men, but also angels, and all demons—over whom we
say that in a sense He does not rule, since they do not yield Him a
willing obedience; but, in another sense of the word, He rules even over
them, in the same way as we say that man rules over the irrational
animals,—not by persuasion, but as one who tames and subdues lions and
beasts of burden. Nevertheless, He leaves no means untried to persuade
even those who are still disobedient to submit to His authority. So far
as we are concerned, therefore, we deny the truth of that which Celsus
quotes as one of our sayings, “Who else than He can be Lord over Him who
is God over all?”




                              Chapter XVI.


The remaining part of the extract given by Celsus seems to have been
taken from some other form of heresy, and the whole jumbled together in
strange confusion: “How is it, that while so many go about the well, no
one goes down into it? Why dost thou shrink with fear when thou hast
gone so far on the way? Answer: Thou art mistaken, for I lack neither
courage nor weapons.” We who belong to the church which takes its name
from Christ, assert that none of these statements are true. For he seems
to have made them simply that they might harmonize with what he had said
before; but they have no reference to us. For it is a principle with us,
not to worship any god whom we merely “suppose” to exist, but Him alone
who is the Creator of this universe, and of all things besides which are
unseen by the eye of sense. These remarks of Celsus may apply to those
who go on another road and tread other paths from us,—men who deny the
Creator, and make to themselves another god under a new form, having
nothing but the name of God, whom they esteem higher than the Creator;
and with these may be joined any that there may be who say that the Son
is greater than the God who rules all things. In reference to the
precept that we ought not to serve two masters, we have already shown
what appears to us the principle contained in it, when we proved that no
sedition or disloyalty could be charged against the followers of Jesus
their Lord, who confess that they reject every other lord, and serve Him
alone who is the Son and Word of God.




                             Chapter XVII.


Celsus then proceeds to say that “we shrink from raising altars,
statues, and temples; and this,” he thinks, “has been agreed upon among
us as the badge or distinctive mark of a secret and forbidden society.”
He does not perceive that we regard the spirit of every good man as an
altar from which arises an incense which is truly and spiritually
sweet-smelling, namely, the prayers ascending from a pure conscience.
Therefore it is said by John in the Revelation, “The odours are the
prayers of saints;”[1592] and by the Psalmist, “Let my prayer come up
before Thee as incense.”[1593] And the statues and gifts which are fit
offerings to God are the work of no common mechanics, but are wrought
and fashioned in us by the Word of God, to wit, the virtues in which we
imitate “the First-born of all creation,” who has set us an example of
justice, of temperance, of courage, of wisdom, of piety, and of the
other virtues. In all those, then, who plant and cultivate within their
souls, according to the divine word, temperance, justice, wisdom, piety,
and other virtues, these excellences are their statues they raise, in
which we are persuaded that it is becoming for us to honour the model
and prototype of all statues: “the image of the invisible God,” God the
only-begotten. And again, they who “put off the old man with his deeds,
and put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of
Him that hath created him,” in taking upon them the image of Him who
hath created them, do raise within themselves a statue like to what the
Most High God Himself desires. And as among statuaries there are some
who are marvellously perfect in their art, as for example Pheidias and
Polycleitus, and among painters, Zeuxis and Apelles, whilst others make
inferior statues, and others, again, are inferior to the second-rate
artists,—so that, taking all together, there is a wide difference in the
execution of statues and pictures,—in the same way there are some who
form images of the Most High in a better manner and with a more perfect
skill; so that there is no comparison even between the Olympian Jupiter
of Pheidias and the man who has been fashioned according to the image of
God the Creator. But by far the most excellent of all these throughout
the whole of creation is that image in our Saviour who said, “My Father
is in me.”

Footnote 1592:

  Rev. v. 8.

Footnote 1593:

  Ps. cxli. 2.




                             Chapter XVIII.


And every one who imitates Him according to his ability, does by this
very endeavour raise a statue according to the image of the Creator, for
in the contemplation of God with a pure heart they become imitators of
Him. And, in general, we see that all Christians strive to raise altars
and statues as we have described them, and these not of a lifeless and
senseless kind, and not to receive greedy spirits intent upon lifeless
things, but to be filled with the Spirit of God who dwells in the images
of virtue of which we have spoken, and takes His abode in the soul which
is conformed to the image of the Creator. Thus the Spirit of Christ
dwells in those who bear, so to say, a resemblance in form and feature
to Himself. And the Word of God, wishing to set this clearly before us,
represents God as promising to the righteous, “I will dwell in them, and
walk among them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my
people.”[1594] And the Saviour says, “If any man hear my words, and do
them, I and my Father will come to him, and make our abode with
him.”[1595] Let any one, therefore, who chooses compare the altars which
I have described with those spoken of by Celsus, and the images in the
souls of those who worship the Most High God with the statues of
Pheidias, Polycleitus, and such like, and he will clearly perceive, that
while the latter are lifeless things, and subject to the ravages of
time, the former abide in the immortal spirit as long as the reasonable
soul wishes to preserve them.

Footnote 1594:

  2 Cor. vi. 16.

Footnote 1595:

  John xiv. 23.




                              Chapter XIX.


And if, further, temples are to be compared with temples, that we may
prove to those who accept the opinions of Celsus that we do not object
to the erection of temples suited to the images and altars of which we
have spoken, but that we do refuse to build lifeless temples to the
Giver of all life, let any one who chooses learn how we are taught, that
our bodies are the temple of God, and that if any one by lust or sin
defiles the temple of God, he will himself be destroyed, as acting
impiously towards the true temple. Of all the temples spoken of in this
sense, the best and most excellent was the pure and holy body of our
Saviour Jesus Christ. When He knew that wicked men might aim at the
destruction of the temple of God in Him, but that their purposes of
destruction would not prevail against the divine power which had built
that temple, He says to them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I
will raise it again.... This He said of the temple of His body.”[1596]
And in other parts of holy Scripture where it speaks of the mystery of
the resurrection to those whose ears are divinely opened, it says that
the temple which has been destroyed shall be built up again of living
and most precious stones, thereby giving us to understand that each of
those who are led by the word of God to strive together in the duties of
piety, will be a precious stone in the one great temple of God.
Accordingly, Peter says, “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a
spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices,
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ;”[1597] and Paul also says, “Being
built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ our
Lord being the chief corner-stone.”[1598] And there is a similar hidden
allusion in this passage in Isaiah, which is addressed to Jerusalem:
“Behold, I will lay thy stones with carbuncles, and lay thy foundations
with sapphires. And I will make thy battlements of jasper, and thy gates
of crystal, and all thy borders of pleasant stones. And all thy children
shall be taught of the Lord; and great shall be the peace of thy
children. In righteousness shalt thou be established.”[1599]

Footnote 1596:

  John ii. 19, 21.

Footnote 1597:

  1 Pet. ii. 5.

Footnote 1598:

  Eph. ii. 20.

Footnote 1599:

  Isa. liv. 11-14.




                              Chapter XX.


There are, then, among the righteous some who are carbuncles, others
sapphires, others jaspers, and others crystal, and thus there is among
the righteous every kind of choice and precious stone. As to the
spiritual meaning of the different stones,—what is their nature, and to
what kind of soul the name of each precious stone especially applies,—we
cannot at present stay to examine. We have only felt it necessary to
show thus briefly what we understand by temples, and what the one Temple
of God built of precious stones truly means. For as if in some cities a
dispute should arise as to which had the finest temples, those who
thought their own were the best would do their utmost to show the
excellence of their own temples and the inferiority of the others,—in
like manner, when they reproach us for not deeming it necessary to
worship the Divine Being by raising lifeless temples, we set before them
our temples, and show to such at least as are not blind and senseless,
like their senseless gods, that there is no comparison between our
statues and the statues of the heathen, nor between our altars, with
what we may call the incense ascending from them, and the heathen
altars, with the fat and blood of the victims; nor, finally, between the
temples of senseless gods, admired by senseless men, who have no divine
faculty for perceiving God, and the temples, statues, and altars which
are worthy of God. It is not therefore true that we object to building
altars, statues, and temples, because we have agreed to make this the
badge of a secret and forbidden society; but we do so, because we have
learnt from Jesus Christ the true way of serving God, and we shrink from
whatever, under a pretence of piety, leads to utter impiety those who
abandon the way marked out for us by Jesus Christ. For it is He who
alone is the way of piety, as He truly said, “I am the way, the truth,
the life.”




                              Chapter XXI.


Let us see what Celsus further says of God, and how he urges us to the
use of those things which are properly called idol offerings, or, still
better, offerings to demons, although, in his ignorance of what true
sanctity is, and what sacrifices are well-pleasing to God, he call them
“holy sacrifices.” His words are, “God is the God of all alike; He is
good, He stands in need of nothing, and He is without jealousy. What,
then, is there to hinder those who are most devoted to His service from
taking part in public feasts?” I cannot see the connection which he
fancies between God’s being good, and independent, and free from
jealousy, and His devoted servants taking part in public feasts. I
confess, indeed, that from the fact that God is good, and without want
of anything, and free from jealousy, it would follow as a consequence
that we might take part in public feasts, if it were proved that the
public feasts had nothing wrong in them, and were grounded upon true
views of the character of God, so that they resulted naturally from a
devout service of God. If, however, the so-called public festivals can
in no way be shown to accord with the service of God, but may on the
contrary be proved to have been devised by men when occasion offered to
commemorate some human events, or to set forth certain qualities of
water or earth, or the fruits of the earth,—in that case, it is clear
that those who wish to offer an enlightened worship to the Divine Being
will act according to sound reason, and not take part in the public
feasts. For “to keep a feast,” as one of the wise men of Greece has well
said, “is nothing else than to do one’s duty;”[1600] and that man truly
celebrates a feast who does his duty and prays always, offering up
continually bloodless sacrifices in prayer to God. That therefore seems
to me a most noble saying of Paul, “Ye observe days, and months, and
times, and years. I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed upon you
labour in vain.”[1601]

Footnote 1600:

  Thucyd. i.

Footnote 1601:

  Gal. iv. 10, 11.



                             Chapter XXII.


If it be objected to us on this subject that we ourselves are accustomed
to observe certain days, as for example the Lord’s day, the Preparation,
the Passover, or Pentecost, I have to answer, that to the perfect
Christian, who is ever in his thoughts, words, and deeds serving his
natural Lord, God the Word, all his days are the Lord’s, and he is
always keeping the Lord’s day. He also who is unceasingly preparing
himself for the true life, and abstaining from the pleasures of this
life which lead astray so many,—who is not indulging the lust of the
flesh, but “keeping under his body, and bringing it into
subjection,”—such a one is always keeping Preparation-day. Again, he who
considers that “Christ our Passover was sacrificed for us,” and that it
is his duty to keep the feast by eating of the flesh of the Word, never
ceases to keep the paschal feast; for the _pascha_ means a “passover,”
and he is ever striving in all his thoughts, words, and deeds, to pass
over from the things of this life to God, and is hastening towards the
city of God. And, finally, he who can truly say, “We are risen with
Christ,” and “He hath exalted us, and made us to sit with Him in
heavenly places in Christ,” is always living in the season of Pentecost;
and most of all, when going up to the upper chamber, like the apostles
of Jesus, he gives himself to supplication and prayer, that he may
become worthy of receiving “the mighty wind rushing from heaven,” which
is powerful to destroy sin and its fruits among men, and worthy of
having some share of the tongue of fire which God sends.




                             Chapter XXIII.


But the majority of those who are accounted believers are not of this
advanced class; but from being either unable or unwilling to keep every
day in this manner, they require some sensible memorials to prevent
spiritual things from passing altogether away from their minds. It is to
this practice of setting apart some days distinct from others, that Paul
seems to me to refer in the expression, “part of the feast;”[1602] and
by these words he indicates that a life in accordance with the divine
word consists not “in a part of the feast,” but in one entire and
never-ceasing festival. Again, compare the festivals, observed among us
as these have been described above, with the public feasts of Celsus and
the heathen, and say if the former are not much more sacred observances
than those feasts in which the lust of the flesh runs riot, and leads to
drunkenness and debauchery. It would be too long for us at present to
show why we are required by the law of God to keep its festivals by
eating “the bread of affliction,”[1603] or “leaven with bitter
herbs,”[1604] or why it says, “Humble your souls,”[1605] and such like.
For it is impossible for man, who is a compound being, in which “the
flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against the
flesh,”[1606] to keep the feast with his whole nature; for either he
keeps the feast with his spirit and afflicts the body, which through the
lust of the flesh is unfit to keep it along with the spirit, or else he
keeps it with the body, and the spirit is unable to share in it. But we
have for the present said enough on the subject of feasts.

Footnote 1602:

  Col. ii. 16. The whole passage in the English version is, “Let no man
  judge you in meat, or in drink, or in _respect of an holyday_” (ἐν
  μέρει ἑορτῆς). Origen’s interpretation is not followed by any modern
  expositors. It is adopted by Chrysostom and Theodoret.

Footnote 1603:

  Deut. xvi. 3.

Footnote 1604:

  Ex. xii. 8.

Footnote 1605:

  Lev. xvi. 29.

Footnote 1606:

  Gal. v. 17.




                             Chapter XXIV.


Let us now see on what grounds Celsus urges us to make use of the idol
offerings and the public sacrifices in the public feasts. His words are,
“If these idols are nothing, what harm will there be in taking part in
the feast? On the other hand, if they are demons, it is certain that
they too are God’s creatures, and that we must believe in them,
sacrifice to them according to the laws, and pray to them that they may
be propitious.” In reference to this statement, it would be profitable
for us to take up and clearly explain the whole passage of the First
Epistle to the Corinthians, in which Paul treats of offerings to
idols.[1607] The apostle draws from the fact that “an idol is nothing in
the world,” the consequence that it is injurious to use things offered
to idols; and he shows to those who have ears to hear on such subjects,
that he who partakes of things offered to idols is worse than a
murderer, for he destroys his own brethren, for whom Christ died. And
further, he maintains that the sacrifices are made to demons; and from
that he proceeds to show that those who join the table of demons become
associated with the demons; and he concludes that a man cannot both be a
partaker of the table of the Lord and of the table of demons. But since
it would require a whole treatise to set forth fully all that is
contained on this subject in the Epistle to the Corinthians, we shall
content ourselves with this brief statement of the argument; for it will
be evident to any one who carefully considers what has been said, that
even if idols are nothing, nevertheless it is an awful thing to join in
idol festivals. And even supposing that there are such beings as demons
to whom the sacrifices are offered, it has been clearly shown that we
are forbidden to take part in these festivals, when we know the
difference between the table of the Lord and the table of demons. And
knowing this, we endeavour as much as we can to be always partakers of
the Lord’s table, and beware to the utmost of joining at any time the
table of demons.

Footnote 1607:

  1 Cor. viii. 4, 11.




                              Chapter XXV.


Celsus says that “the demons belong to God, and are therefore to be
believed, to be sacrificed to according to laws, and to be prayed to
that they may be propitious.” Those who are disposed to learn, must know
that the word of God nowhere says of evil things that they belong to
God, for it judges them unworthy of such a Lord. Accordingly, it is not
all men who bear the name of “men of God,” but only those who are worthy
of God,—such as Moses and Elias, and any others who are so called, or
such as resemble those who are so called in Scripture. In the same way,
all angels are not said to be angels of God, but only those that are
blessed: those that have fallen away into sin are called “angels of the
devil,” just as bad men are called “men of sin,” “sons of perdition,” or
“sons of iniquity.” Since, then, among men some are good and others bad,
and the former are said to be God’s and the latter the devil’s, so among
angels some are angels of God, and others angels of the devil. But among
demons there is no such distinction, for all are said to be wicked. We
do not therefore hesitate to say that Celsus is false when he says, “If
they are demons, it is evident that they must also belong to God.” He
must either show that this distinction of good and bad among angels and
men has no foundation, or else that a similar distinction may be shown
to hold among demons. If that is impossible, it is plain that demons do
not belong to God; for their prince is not God, but, as holy Scripture
says, “Beelzebub.”




                             Chapter XXVI.


And we are not to believe in demons, although Celsus urges us to do so;
but if we are to obey God, we must die, or endure anything sooner than
obey demons. In the same way, we are not to propitiate demons; for it is
impossible to propitiate beings that are wicked and that seek the injury
of men. Besides, what are the laws in accordance with which Celsus would
have us propitiate the demons? For if he means laws enacted in states,
he must show that they are in agreement with the divine laws. But if
that cannot be done, as the laws of many states are quite inconsistent
with each other, these laws, therefore, must of necessity either be no
laws at all in the proper sense of the word, or else the enactments of
wicked men; and these we must not obey, for “we must obey God rather
than men.” Away, then, with this counsel, which Celsus gives us, to
offer prayer to demons: it is not to be listened to for a moment; for
our duty is to pray to the Most High God alone, and to the
only-begotten, the first-born of the whole creation, and to ask Him as
our High Priest to present the prayers which ascend to Him from us, to
His God and our God, to His Father and the Father of those who direct
their lives according to His word. And as we would have no desire to
enjoy the favour of those men who wish us to follow their wicked lives,
and who give us their favour only on condition that we choose nothing
opposed to their wishes, because their favour would make us enemies of
God, who cannot be pleased with those who have such men for their
friends,—in the same way those who are acquainted with the nature, the
purposes, and the wickedness of demons, can never wish to obtain their
favour.




                             Chapter XXVII.


And Christians have nothing to fear, even if demons should not be
well-disposed to them; for they are protected by the supreme God, who is
well pleased with their piety, and who sets His divine angels to watch
over those who are worthy of such guardianship, so that they can suffer
nothing from demons. He who by his piety possesses the favour of the
Most High, who has accepted the guidance of Jesus, the “Angel of the
great counsel,”[1608] being well contented with the favour of God
through Christ Jesus, may say with confidence that he has nothing to
suffer from the whole host of demons. “The Lord is my light and my
salvation; whom shall I fear? The Lord is the strength of my life; of
whom shall I be afraid? Though an host should encamp against me, my
heart shall not fear.”[1609] So much, then, in reply to those statements
of Celsus: “If they are demons, they too evidently belong to God, and
they are to be believed, to be sacrificed to according to the laws, and
prayers are to be offered to them that they may be propitious.”

Footnote 1608:

  Isa. ix. 6 (LXX.).

Footnote 1609:

  Ps. xxvii. 1, 3.




                            Chapter XXVIII.


We shall now proceed to the next statement of Celsus, and examine it
with care: “If in obedience to the traditions of their fathers they
abstain from such victims, they must also abstain from all animal food,
in accordance with the opinions of Pythagoras, who thus showed his
respect for the soul and its bodily organs. But if, as they say, they
abstain that they may not eat along with demons, I admire their wisdom,
in having at length discovered, that whenever they eat they eat with
demons, although they only refuse to do so when they are looking upon a
slain victim; for when they eat bread, or drink wine, or taste fruits,
do they not receive these things, as well as the water they drink and
the air they breathe, from certain demons, to whom have been assigned
these different provinces of nature?” Here I would observe that I cannot
see how those whom he speaks of as abstaining from certain victims, in
accordance with the traditions of their fathers, are consequently bound
to abstain from the flesh of all animals. We do not indeed deny that the
divine word does seem to command something similar to this, when to
raise us to a higher and purer life it says, “It is good neither to eat
flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or
is offended, or is made weak;”[1610] and again, “Destroy not him with
thy meat, for whom Christ died;”[1611] and again, “If meat make my
brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I
make my brother to offend.”[1612]

Footnote 1610:

  Rom. xiv. 21.

Footnote 1611:

  Rom. xiv. 15.

Footnote 1612:

  1 Cor. viii. 13.




                             Chapter XXIX.


But it is to be observed that the Jews, who claim for themselves a
correct understanding of the law of Moses, carefully restrict their food
to such things as are accounted clean, and abstain from those that are
unclean. They also do not use in their food the blood of an animal nor
the flesh of an animal torn by wild beasts, and some other things which
it would take too long for us at present to detail. But Jesus, wishing
to lead all men by His teaching to the pure worship and service of God,
and anxious not to throw any hindrance in the way of many who might be
benefited by Christianity, through the imposition of a burdensome code
of rules in regard to food, has laid it down, that “not that which goeth
into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth;
for whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is
cast out into the draught. But those things which proceed out of the
mouth are evil thoughts when spoken, murders, adulteries, fornications,
thefts, false witness, blasphemies.”[1613] Paul also says, “Meat
commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better;
neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.”[1614] Wherefore, as there is
some obscurity about this matter, without some explanation is given, it
seemed good to the apostles of Jesus and the elders assembled together
at Antioch, and also, as they themselves say, to the Holy Spirit, to
write a letter to the Gentile believers, forbidding them to partake of
those things from which alone they say it is necessary to abstain,
namely, “things offered to idols, things strangled, and blood.”[1615]

Footnote 1613:

  Matt. xv. 11, 17-19.

Footnote 1614:

  1 Cor. viii. 8.

Footnote 1615:

  Acts xv. 28, 29. It was at Jerusalem.




                              Chapter XXX.


For that which is offered to idols is sacrificed to demons, and a man of
God must not join the table of demons. As to things strangled, we are
forbidden by Scripture to partake of them, because the blood is still in
them; and blood, especially the odour arising from blood, is said to be
the food of demons. Perhaps, then, if we were to eat of strangled
animals, we might have such spirits feeding along with us. And the
reason which forbids the use of strangled animals for food is also
applicable to the use of blood. And it may not be amiss, as bearing on
this point, to recall a beautiful saying in the writings of Sextus,
which is known to most Christians: “The eating of animals,” says he, “is
a matter of indifference; but to abstain from them is more agreeable to
reason.” It is not, therefore, simply on account of some traditions of
our fathers that we refrain from eating victims offered to those called
gods or heroes or demons, but for other reasons, some of which I have
here mentioned. It is not to be supposed, however, that we are to
abstain from the flesh of animals in the same way as we are bound to
abstain from all vice and wickedness: we are indeed to abstain not only
from the flesh of animals, but from all other kinds of food, if we
cannot partake of them without incurring evil, and the consequences of
evil. For we are to avoid eating for gluttony, or for the mere
gratification of the appetite, without regard to the health and
sustenance of the body. We do not believe that souls pass from one body
to another, and that they may descend so low as to enter the bodies of
the brutes. If we abstain at times from eating the flesh of animals, it
is evidently, therefore, not for the same reason as Pythagoras; for it
is the reasonable soul alone that we honour, and we commit its bodily
organs with due honours to the grave. For it is not right that the
dwelling-place of the rational soul should be cast aside anywhere
without honour, like the carcases of brute beasts; and so much the more
when we believe that the respect paid to the body redounds to the honour
of the person who received from God a soul which has nobly employed the
organs of the body in which it resided. In regard to the question, “How
are the dead raised up, and with what body do they come?” we have
already answered it briefly, as our purpose required.




                             Chapter XXXI.


Celsus afterwards states what is adduced by Jews and Christians alike in
defence of abstinence from idol sacrifices, namely, that it is wrong for
those who have dedicated themselves to the Most High God to eat with
demons. What he brings forward against this view, we have already seen.
In our opinion, a man can only be said to eat and drink with demons when
he eats the flesh of what are called sacred victims, and when he drinks
the wine poured out to the honour of the demons. But Celsus thinks that
we cannot eat bread or drink wine in any way whatever, or taste fruits,
or even take a draught of water, without eating and drinking with
demons. He adds also, that the air which we breathe is received from
demons, and that not an animal can breathe without receiving the air
from the demons who are set over the air. If any one wishes to defend
this statement of Celsus, let him show that it is not the divine angels
of God, but demons, the whole race of whom are bad, that have been
appointed to communicate all those blessings which have been mentioned.
We indeed also maintain with regard not only to the fruits of the earth,
but to every flowing stream and every breath of air, that the ground
brings forth those things which are said to grow up naturally,—that the
water springs in fountains, and refreshes the earth with running
streams,—that the air is kept pure, and supports the life of those who
breathe it only in consequence of the agency and control of certain
beings whom we may call invisible husbandmen and guardians; but we deny
that those invisible agents are demons. And if we might speak boldly, we
would say that if demons have any share at all in these things, to them
belong famine, blasting of the vine and fruit trees, pestilence among
men and beasts: all these are the proper occupations of demons, who in
the capacity of public executioners receive power at certain times to
carry out the divine judgments, for the restoration of those who have
plunged headlong into wickedness, or for the trial and discipline of the
souls of the wise. For those who through all their afflictions preserve
their piety pure and unimpaired, show their true character to all
spectators, whether visible or invisible, who behold them; while those
who are otherwise minded, yet conceal their wickedness, when they have
their true character exposed by misfortunes, become manifest to
themselves as well as to those whom we may also call spectators.




                             Chapter XXXII.


The Psalmist bears witness that divine justice employs certain evil
angels to inflict calamities upon men: “He cast upon them the fierceness
of His anger, wrath, and indignation, and trouble, sent by evil
angels.”[1616] Whether demons ever go beyond this when they are suffered
to do what they are ever ready, though through the restraint put upon
them they are not always able to do, is a question to be solved by that
man who can conceive, in so far as human nature will allow, how it
accords with the divine justice, that such multitudes of human souls are
separated from the body while walking in the paths which lead to certain
death. “For the judgments of God are so great,” that a soul which is
still clothed with a mortal body cannot comprehend them; “and they
cannot be expressed: therefore by unnurtured souls”[1617] they are not
in any measure to be understood. And hence, too, rash spirits, by their
ignorance in these matters, and by recklessly setting themselves against
the Divine Being, multiply impious objections against providence. It is
not from demons, then, that men receive any of those things which meet
the necessities of life, and least of all ourselves, who have been
taught to make a proper use of these things. And they who partake of
corn and wine, and the fruits of trees, of water and of air, do not feed
with demons, but rather do they feast with divine angels, who are
appointed for this purpose, and who are as it were invited to the table
of the pious man, who hearkens to the precept of the word, which says,
“Whether ye eat or drink, or whatever ye do, do all to the glory of
God.”[1618] And again, in another place it is written, “Do all things in
the name of God.”[1619] When, therefore, we eat and drink and breathe to
the glory of God, and act in all things according to what is right, we
feast with no demons, but with divine angels: “For every creature is
good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:
for it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.”[1620] But it could
not be good, and it could not be sanctified, if these things were, as
Celsus supposes, entrusted to the charge of demons.

Footnote 1616:

  Ps. lxxviii. 49.

Footnote 1617:

  Wisdom of Sol. xvii. 1.

Footnote 1618:

  Col. iii. 17.

Footnote 1619:

  1 Cor. x. 31.

Footnote 1620:

  1 Tim. iv. 4, 5.




                            Chapter XXXIII.


From this it is evident that we have already met the next statement of
Celsus, which is as follows: “We must either not live, and indeed not
come into this life at all, or we must do so on condition that we give
thanks and first-fruits and prayers to demons, who have been set over
the things of this world: and that we must do as long as we live, that
they may prove good and kind.” We must surely live, and we must live
according to the word of God, as far as we are enabled to do so. And we
are thus enabled to live, when, “whether we eat or drink, we do all to
the glory of God;” and we are not to refuse to enjoy those things which
have been created for our use, but must receive them with thanksgiving
to the Creator. And it is under these conditions, and not such as have
been imagined by Celsus, that we have been brought into life by God; and
we are not placed under demons, but we are under the government of the
Most High God, through Him who hath brought us to God—Jesus Christ. It
is not according to the law of God that any demon has had a share in
worldly affairs, but it was by their own lawlessness that they perhaps
sought out for themselves places destitute of the knowledge of God and
of the divine life, or places where there are many enemies of God.
Perhaps also, as being fit to rule over and punish them, they have been
set by the Word, who governs all things, to rule over those who
subjected themselves to evil and not to God. For this reason, then, let
Celsus, as one who knows not God, give thank-offerings to demons. But we
give thanks to the Creator of all, and, along with thanksgiving and
prayer for the blessings we have received, we also eat the bread
presented to us; and this bread becomes by prayer a sacred body, which
sanctifies those who sincerely partake of it.




                             Chapter XXXIV.


Celsus would also have us to offer first-fruits to demons. But we would
offer them to Him who said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose
seed is in itself upon the earth.”[1621] And to Him to whom we offer
first-fruits we also send up our prayers, “having a great high priest,
that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God,” and “we hold
fast this profession”[1622] as long as we live; for we find God and His
only-begotten Son, manifested to us in Jesus, to be gracious and kind to
us. And if we would wish to have besides a great number of beings who
shall ever prove friendly to us, we are taught that “thousand thousands
stood before Him, and ten thousand times ten thousand ministered unto
Him.”[1623] And these, regarding all as their relations and friends who
imitate their piety towards God, and in prayer call upon Him with
sincerity, work along with them for their salvation, appear unto them,
deem it their office and duty to attend to them, and as if by common
agreement they visit with all manner of kindness and deliverance those
who pray to God, to whom they themselves also pray: “For they are all
ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for those who shall be heirs
of salvation.”[1624] Let the learned Greeks say that the human soul at
its birth is placed under the charge of demons: Jesus has taught us not
to despise even the little ones in His church, saying, “Their angels do
always behold the face of my Father which is in heaven.”[1625] And the
prophet says, “The angel of the Lord encampeth round about them that
fear Him, and delivereth them.”[1626] We do not, then, deny that there
are many demons upon earth, but we maintain that they exist and exercise
power among the wicked, as a punishment of their wickedness. But they
have no power over those who “have put on the whole armour of God,” who
have received strength to “withstand the wiles of the devil,”[1627] and
who are ever engaged in contests with them, knowing that “we wrestle not
against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers,
against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual
wickedness in high places.”[1628]

Footnote 1621:

  Gen. i. 11.

Footnote 1622:

  Heb. iv. 14.

Footnote 1623:

  Dan. vii. 10.

Footnote 1624:

  Heb. i. 14.

Footnote 1625:

  Matt. xviii. 10.

Footnote 1626:

  Ps. xxxiv. 7.

Footnote 1627:

  Eph. vi. 11.

Footnote 1628:

  Eph. vi. 12.




                             Chapter XXXV.


Now let us consider another saying of Celsus, which is as follows: “The
satrap of a Persian or Roman monarch, or ruler or general or governor,
yea, even those who fill lower offices of trust or service in the state,
would be able to do great injury to those who despised them; and will
the satraps and ministers of earth and air be insulted with impunity?”
Observe now how he introduces servants of the Most High—rulers,
generals, governors, and those filling lower offices of trust and
service—as, after the manner of men, inflicting injury upon those who
insult them. For he does not consider that a wise man would not wish to
do harm to any, but would strive to the utmost of his power to change
and amend them; unless, indeed, it be that those whom Celsus makes
servants and rulers appointed by the Most High are behind Lycurgus, the
law-giver of the Lacedæmonians, or Zeno of Citium. For when Lycurgus had
had his eye put out by a man, he got the offender into his power; but
instead of taking revenge upon him, he ceased not to use all his arts of
persuasion until he induced him to become a philosopher. And Zeno, on
the occasion of some one saying, “Let me perish rather than not have my
revenge on thee,” answered him, “But rather let me perish if I do not
make a friend of thee.” And I am not yet speaking of those whose
characters have been formed by the teaching of Jesus, and who have heard
the words, “Love your enemies, and pray for them which despitefully use
you, that ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven; for
He maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain
on the just and on the unjust.”[1629] And in the prophetical writings
the righteous man says, “O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be
iniquity in my hands; if I have returned evil to those who have done
evil to me, let me fall helpless under mine enemies: let my enemy
persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread down my life upon the
earth.”[1630]

Footnote 1629:

  Matt. v. 44, 45.

Footnote 1630:

  Ps. vii. 3-6.




                             Chapter XXXVI.


But the angels, who are the true rulers and generals and ministers of
God, do not, as Celsus supposes, “injure those who offend them;” and if
certain demons, whom Celsus had in mind, do inflict evils, they show
that they are wicked, and that they have received no office of the kind
from God. And they even do injury to those who are under them, and who
have acknowledged them as their masters; and accordingly, as it would
seem that those who break through the regulations which prevail in any
country in regard to matters of food, suffer for it if they are under
the demons of that place, while those who are not under them, and have
not submitted to their power, are free from all harm, and bid defiance
to such spirits; although if, in ignorance of certain things, they have
come under the power of other demons, they may suffer punishment from
them. But the Christian—the true Christian, I mean—who has submitted to
God alone and His Word, will suffer nothing from demons, for He is
mightier than demons. And the Christian will suffer nothing, for “the
angel of the Lord will encamp about them that fear Him, and will deliver
them,”[1631] and his “angel,” who “always beholds the face of his Father
in heaven,”[1632] offers up his prayers through the one High Priest to
the God of all, and also joins his own prayers with those of the man who
is committed to his keeping. Let not, then, Celsus try to scare us with
threats of mischief from demons, for we despise them. And the demons,
when despised, can do no harm to those who are under the protection of
Him who can alone help all who deserve His aid; and He does no less than
set His own angels over His devout servants, so that none of the hostile
angels, nor even he who is called “the prince of this world,”[1633] can
effect anything against those who have given themselves to God.

Footnote 1631:

  Ps. xxxiv. 7.

Footnote 1632:

  Matt. xviii. 10.

Footnote 1633:

  John xiv. 30.




                            Chapter XXXVII.


In the next place, Celsus forgets that he is addressing Christians, who
pray to God alone through Jesus; and mixing up other notions with
theirs, he absurdly attributes them all to Christians. “If,” says he,
“they who are addressed are called upon by barbarous names, they will
have power, but no longer will they have any if they are addressed in
Greek or Latin.” Let him, then, state plainly whom we call upon for help
by barbarous names. Any one will be convinced that this is a false
charge which Celsus brings against us, when he considers that Christians
in prayer do not even use the precise names which divine Scripture
applies to God; but the Greeks use Greek names, the Romans Latin names,
and every one prays and sings praises to God as he best can, in his
mother tongue. For the Lord of all the languages of the earth hears
those who pray to Him in each different tongue, hearing, if I may so
say, but one voice, expressing itself in various dialects. For the Most
High is not as one of those who select one language, barbarian or Greek,
knowing nothing of any other, and caring nothing for those who speak in
other tongues.




                            Chapter XXXVIII.


He next represents Christians as saying what he never heard from any
Christian; or if he did, it must have been from one of the most ignorant
and lawless of the people. “Behold,” they are made to say, “I go up to a
statue of Jupiter or Apollo, or some other god: I revile it, and beat
it, yet it takes no vengeance on me.” He is not aware that among the
prohibitions of the divine law is this, “Thou shalt not revile the
gods,”[1634] and this is intended to prevent the formation of the habit
of reviling any one whatever; for we have been taught, “Bless, and curse
not,”[1635] and it is said that “revilers shall not inherit the kingdom
of God.”[1636] And who amongst us is so foolish as to speak in the way
Celsus describes, and to fail to see that such contemptuous language can
be of no avail for removing prevailing notions about the gods? For it is
matter of observation that there are men who utterly deny the existence
of a God or of an overruling providence, and who by their impious and
destructive teaching have founded sects among those who are called
philosophers, and yet neither they themselves, nor those who have
embraced their opinions, have suffered any of those things which mankind
generally account evils: they are both strong in body and rich in
possessions. And yet if we ask what loss they have sustained, we shall
find that they have suffered the most certain injury. For what greater
injury can befall a man than that he should be unable amidst the order
of the world to see Him who has made it? and what sorer affliction can
come to any one than that blindness of mind which prevents him from
seeing the Creator and Father of every soul?

Footnote 1634:

  Ex. xxii. 28.

Footnote 1635:

  Rom. xii. 14.

Footnote 1636:

  1 Cor. vi. 10.




                             Chapter XXXIX.


After putting such words into our mouth, and maliciously charging
Christians with sentiments which they never held, he then proceeds to
give to this supposed expression of Christian feeling an answer, which
is indeed more a mockery than an answer, when he says, “Do you not see,
good sir, that even your own demon is not only reviled, but banished
from every land and sea, and you yourself, who are as it were an image
dedicated to him, are bound and led to punishment, and fastened to the
stake, whilst your demon—or, as you call him, ‘the Son of God’—takes no
vengeance on the evil-doer?” This answer would be admissible if we
employed such language as he ascribes to us; although even then he would
have no right to call the Son of God a demon. For as we hold that all
demons are evil, He who turns so many men to God is in our view no
demon, but God the Word, and the Son of God. And I know not how Celsus
has so far forgotten himself as to call Jesus Christ a demon, when he
nowhere alludes to the existence of any evil demons. And finally, as to
the punishments threatened against the ungodly, these will come upon
them after they have refused all remedies, and have been, as we may say,
visited with an incurable malady of sinfulness.




                              Chapter XL.


Such is our doctrine of punishment; and the inculcation of this doctrine
turns many from their sins. But let us see, on the other hand, what is
the response given on this subject by the priest of Jupiter or Apollo of
whom Celsus speaks. It is this: “The mills of God grind slowly.”[1637]
Another describes punishment as reaching “to children’s children, and to
those who came after them.”[1638] How much better are those words of
Scripture: “The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor
the children for the fathers. Every man shall be put to death for his
own sin.”[1639] And again, “Every man that eateth the sour grape, his
teeth shall be set on edge.”[1640] And, “The son shall not bear the
iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of
the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the
wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”[1641] If any shall say that
the response, “To children’s children, and to those who come after
them,” corresponds with that passage, “Who visits the iniquity of the
fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them
that hate me,”[1642] let him learn from Ezekiel that this language is
not to be taken literally; for he reproves those who say, “Our fathers
have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge,”[1643]
and then he adds, “As I live, saith the Lord, every one shall die for
his own sin.” As to the proper meaning of the figurative language about
sins being visited unto the third and fourth generation, we cannot at
present stay to explain.

Footnote 1637:

  “The mills of the gods grind slowly, but they grind to powder”
  (Plutarch).

Footnote 1638:

  Hom. _Il._ xx. 308.

Footnote 1639:

  Deut. xxiv. 16.

Footnote 1640:

  Jer. xxxi. 30.

Footnote 1641:

  Ezek. xviii. 20.

Footnote 1642:

  Ex. xx. 5.

Footnote 1643:

  Ezek. xviii. 2-4.




                              Chapter XLI.


He then goes on to rail against us after the manner of old wives. “You,”
says he, “mock and revile the statues of our gods; but if you had
reviled Bacchus or Hercules in person, you would not perhaps have done
so with impunity. But those who crucified your God when present among
men, suffered nothing for it, either at the time or during the whole of
their lives. And what new thing has there happened since then to make us
believe that he was not an impostor, but the Son of God? And forsooth,
he who sent his Son with certain instructions for mankind, allowed him
to be thus cruelly treated, and his instructions to perish with him,
without ever during all this long time showing the slightest concern.
What father was ever so inhuman? Perhaps, indeed, you may say that he
suffered so much, because it was his wish to bear what came to him. But
it is open to those whom you maliciously revile, to adopt the same
language, and say that they wish to be reviled, and therefore they bear
it with patience; for it is best to deal equally with both
sides,—although these [gods] severely punish the scorner, so that he
must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish.” Now to these
statements I would answer that we revile no one, for we believe that
“revilers will not inherit the kingdom of God.”[1644] And we read,
“Bless them that curse you; bless, and curse not;” also, “Being reviled,
we bless.” And even although the abuse which we pour upon another may
seem to have some excuse in the wrong which we have received from him,
yet such abuse is not allowed by the word of God. And how much more
ought we to abstain from reviling others, when we consider what a great
folly it is! And it is equally foolish to apply abusive language to
stone or gold or silver, turned into what is supposed to be the form of
God by those who have no knowledge of God. Accordingly, we throw
ridicule not upon lifeless images, but upon those only who worship them.
Moreover, if certain demons reside in certain images, and one of them
passes for Bacchus, another for Hercules, we do not vilify them: for, on
the one hand, it would be useless; and, on the other, it does not become
one who is meek, and peaceful, and gentle in spirit, and who has learnt
that no one among men or demons is to be reviled, however wicked he may
be.

Footnote 1644:

  1 Cor. vi. 10.




                             Chapter XLII.


There is an inconsistency into which, strangely enough, Celsus has
fallen unawares. Those demons or gods whom he extolled a little before,
he now shows to be in fact the vilest of creatures, punishing more for
their own revenge than for the improvement of those who revile them. His
words are, “If you had reviled Bacchus or Hercules when present in
person, you would not have escaped with impunity.” How any one can hear
without being present in person, I leave any one who will to explain; as
also those other questions, “Why he is sometimes present, and sometimes
absent?” and, “What is the business which takes demons away from place
to place?” Again, when he says, “Those who crucified your God himself,
suffered no harm for doing so,” he supposes that it is the body of Jesus
extended on the cross and slain, and not His divine nature, that we call
God; and that it was as God that Jesus was crucified and slain. As we
have already dwelt at length on the sufferings which Jesus suffered as a
man, we shall purposely say no more here, that we may not repeat what we
have said already. But when he goes on to say that “those who inflicted
death upon Jesus suffered nothing afterwards through so long a time,” we
must inform him, as well as all who are disposed to learn the truth,
that the city in which the Jewish people called for the crucifixion of
Jesus with shouts of “Crucify him, crucify him,”[1645] preferring to
have the robber set free, who had been cast into prison for sedition and
murder, and Jesus, who had been delivered through envy, to be
crucified,—that this city not long afterwards was attacked, and, after a
long siege, was utterly overthrown and laid waste; for God judged the
inhabitants of that place unworthy of living together the life of
citizens. And yet, though it may seem an incredible thing to say, God
spared this people in delivering them to their enemies; for He saw that
they were incurably averse to any amendment, and were daily sinking
deeper and deeper into evil. And all this befell them, because the blood
of Jesus was shed at their instigation and on their land; and the land
was no longer able to bear those who were guilty of so fearful a crime
against Jesus.

Footnote 1645:

  Luke xxiii. 21, 25.




                             Chapter XLIII.


Some new thing, then, has come to pass since the time that Jesus
suffered,—that, I mean, which has happened to the city, to the whole
nation, and in the sudden and general rise of a Christian community. And
that, too, is a new thing, that those who were strangers to the
covenants of God, with no part in His promises, and far from the truth,
have by a divine power been enabled to embrace the truth. These things
were not the work of an impostor, but were the work of God, who sent His
Word, Jesus Christ, to make known His purposes.[1646] The sufferings and
death which Jesus endured with such fortitude and meekness, show the
cruelty and injustice of those who inflicted them, but they did not
destroy the announcement of the purposes of God; indeed, if we may so
say, they served rather to make them known. For Jesus Himself taught us
this when He said, “Except a grain of wheat fall into the ground and
die, it abideth by itself alone: but if it die, it bringeth forth much
fruit.”[1647] Jesus, then, who is this grain of wheat, died, and brought
forth much fruit. And the Father is ever looking forward for the results
of the death of the grain of wheat, both those which are arising now,
and those which shall arise hereafter. The Father of Jesus is therefore
a tender and loving Father, though “He spared not His own Son, but
delivered Him up” as His lamb “for us all,”[1648] that so “the Lamb of
God,” by dying for all men, might “take away the sin of the world.” It
was not by compulsion, therefore, but willingly, that He bore the
reproaches of those who reviled Him. Then Celsus, returning to those who
apply abusive language to images, says: “Of those whom you load with
insults, you may in like manner say that they voluntarily submit to such
treatment, and therefore they bear insults with patience; for it is best
to deal equally with both sides. Yet these severely punish the scorner,
so that he must either flee and hide himself, or be taken and perish.”
It is not, then, because Christians cast insults upon demons that they
incur their revenge, but because they drive them away out of the images,
and from the bodies and souls of men. And here, although Celsus
perceives it not, he has on this subject spoken something like the
truth; for it is true that the souls of those who condemn Christians,
and betray them, and rejoice in persecuting them, are filled with wicked
demons.

Footnote 1646:

  ἀγγελμάτων. Spencer reads ἀγαλμάτων in this and the following
  sentences.

Footnote 1647:

  John xii. 24.

Footnote 1648:

  Rom. viii. 32.




                             Chapter XLIV.


But when the souls of those who die for the Christian faith depart from
the body with great glory, they destroy the power of the demons, and
frustrate their designs against men. Wherefore I imagine, that as the
demons have learnt from experience that they are defeated and
overpowered by the martyrs for the truth, they are afraid to have
recourse again to violence. And thus, until they forget the defeats they
have sustained, it is probable that the world will be at peace with the
Christians. But when they recover their power, and, with eyes blinded by
sin, wish again to take their revenge on Christians, and persecute them,
then again they will be defeated, and then again the souls of the godly,
who lay down their lives for the cause of godliness, shall utterly
destroy the army of the wicked one. And as the demons perceive that
those who meet death victoriously for the sake of religion destroy their
authority, while those who give way under their sufferings, and deny the
faith, come under their power, I imagine that at times they feel a deep
interest in Christians when on their trial, and keenly strive to gain
them over to their side, feeling as they do that their confession is
torture to them, and their denial is a relief and encouragement to them.
And traces of the same feeling may be seen in the demeanour of the
judges; for they are greatly distressed at seeing those who bear outrage
and torture with patience, but are greatly elated when a Christian gives
way under it. Yet it is from no feeling of humanity that this arises.
They see well, that, while “the tongues” of those who are overpowered by
the tortures “may take the oath, the mind has not sworn.”[1649] And this
may serve as an answer to the remark of Celsus: “But they severely
punish one who reviles them, so that he must either flee and hide
himself, or be taken and perish.” If a Christian ever flees away, it is
not from fear, but in obedience to the command of his Master, that so he
may preserve himself, and employ his strength for the benefit of others.

Footnote 1649:

  Euripides, Hippolytus.




                              Chapter XLV.


Let us see what Celsus next goes on to say. It is as follows: “What need
is there to collect all the oracular responses, which have been
delivered with a divine voice by priests and priestesses, as well as by
others, whether men or women, who were under a divine influence?—all the
wonderful things that have been heard issuing from the inner
sanctuary?—all the revelations that have been made to those who
consulted the sacrificial victims?—and all the knowledge that has been
conveyed to men by other signs and prodigies? To some the gods have
appeared in visible forms. The world is full of such instances. How many
cities have been built in obedience to commands received from oracles;
how often, in the same way, delivered from disease and famine! Or again,
how many cities, from disregard or forgetfulness of these oracles, have
perished miserably! How many colonies have been established and made to
flourish by following their orders! How many princes and private persons
have, from this cause, had prosperity or adversity! How many who mourned
over their childlessness, have obtained the blessing they asked for! How
many have turned away from themselves the anger of demons! How many who
were maimed in their limbs, have had them restored! And again, how many
have met with summary punishment for showing want of reverence to the
temples—some being instantly seized with madness, others openly
confessing their crimes, others having put an end to their lives, and
others having become the victims of incurable maladies! Yea, some have
been slain by a terrible voice issuing from the inner sanctuary.” I know
not how it comes that Celsus brings forward these as undoubted facts,
whilst at the same time he treats as mere fables the wonders which are
recorded and handed down to us as having happened among the Jews, or as
having been performed by Jesus and His disciples. For why may not our
accounts be true, and those of Celsus fables and fictions? At least,
these latter were not believed by the followers of Democritus, Epicurus,
and Aristotle, although perhaps these Grecian sects would have been
convinced by the evidence in support of our miracles, if Moses or any of
the prophets who wrought these wonders, or Jesus Christ Himself, had
come in their way.




                             Chapter XLVI.


It is related of the priestess of Apollo, that she at times allowed
herself to be influenced in her answers by bribes; but our prophets were
admired for their plain truthfulness, not only by their contemporaries,
but also by those who lived in later times. For through the commands
pronounced by the prophets cities were founded, men were cured, and
plagues were stayed. Indeed, the whole Jewish race went out as a colony
from Egypt to Palestine, in accordance with the divine oracles. They
also, when they followed the commands of God, were prosperous; when they
departed from them, they suffered reverses. What need is there to quote
all the princes and private persons in Scripture history who fared well
or ill according as they obeyed or despised the words of the prophets?
If we refer to those who were unhappy because they were childless, but
who, after offering prayers to the Creator of all, became fathers and
mothers, let any one read the accounts of Abraham and Sarah, to whom at
an advanced age was born Isaac, the father of the whole Jewish nation:
and there are other instances of the same thing. Let him also read the
account of Hezekiah, who not only recovered from his sickness, according
to the prediction of Isaiah, but was also bold enough to say,
“Afterwards I shall beget children, who shall declare Thy
righteousness.”[1650] And in the fourth book of Kings we read that the
prophet Elisha made known to a woman who had received him hospitably,
that by the grace of God she should have a son; and through the prayers
of Elisha she became a mother. The maimed were cured by Jesus in great
numbers. And the books of the Maccabees relate what punishments were
inflicted upon those who dared to profane the Jewish service in the
temple at Jerusalem.

Footnote 1650:

  Isa. xxxviii. 19 (according to the LXX.).




                             Chapter XLVII.


But the Greeks will say that these accounts are fabulous, although two
whole nations are witnesses to their truth. But why may we not consider
the accounts of the Greeks as fabulous rather than those? Perhaps some
one, however, wishing not to appear blindly to accept his own statements
and reject those of others, would conclude, after a close examination of
the matter, that the wonders mentioned by the Greeks were performed by
certain demons; those among the Jews by prophets or by angels, or by God
through the means of angels, and those recorded by Christians by Jesus
Himself, or by His power working in His apostles. Let us, then, compare
all these accounts together; let us examine into the aim and purpose of
those who performed them; and let us inquire what effect was produced
upon the persons on whose account these acts of kindness were performed,
whether beneficial or hurtful, or neither the one nor the other. The
ancient Jewish people, before they sinned against God, and were for
their great wickedness cast off by Him, must evidently have been a
people of great wisdom.[1651] But Christians, who have in so wonderful a
manner formed themselves into a community, appear at first to have been
more induced by miracles than by exhortations to forsake the
institutions of their fathers, and to adopt others which were quite
strange to them. And indeed, if we were to reason from what is probable
as to the first formation of the Christian society, we should say that
it is incredible that the apostles of Jesus Christ, who were unlettered
men of humble life, could have been emboldened to preach Christian truth
to men by anything else than the power which was conferred upon them,
and the grace which accompanied their words and rendered them effective;
and those who heard them would not have renounced the old-established
usages of their fathers, and been induced to adopt notions so different
from those in which they had been brought up, unless they had been moved
by some extraordinary power, and by the force of miraculous events.

Footnote 1651:

  φιλόσοφον.




                            Chapter XLVIII.


In the next place, Celsus, after referring to the enthusiasm with which
men will contend unto death rather than abjure Christianity, adds
strangely enough some remarks, in which he wishes to show that our
doctrines are similar to those delivered by the priests at the
celebration of the heathen mysteries. He says, “Just as you, good sir,
believe in eternal punishments, so also do the priests who interpret and
initiate into the sacred mysteries. The same punishments with which you
threaten others, they threaten you. Now it is worthy of examination,
which of the two is more firmly established as true; for both parties
contend with equal assurance that the truth is on their side. But if we
require proofs, the priests of the heathen gods produce many that are
clear and convincing, partly from wonders performed by demons, and
partly from the answers given by oracles, and various other modes of
divination.” He would, then, have us believe that we and the
interpreters of the mysteries equally teach the doctrine of eternal
punishment, and that it is a matter for inquiry on which side of the two
the truth lies. Now I should say that the truth lies with those who are
able to induce their hearers to live as men who are convinced of the
truth of what they have heard. But Jews and Christians have been thus
affected by the doctrines they hold about what we speak of as the world
to come, and the rewards of the righteous, and the punishments of the
wicked. Let Celsus then, or any one who will, show us who have been
moved in this way in regard to eternal punishments by the teaching of
heathen priests and mystagogues. For surely the purpose of him who
brought to light this doctrine was not only to reason upon the subject
of punishments, and to strike men with terror of them, but to induce
those who heard the truth to strive with all their might against those
sins which are the causes of punishment. And those who study the
prophecies with care, and are not content with a cursory perusal of the
predictions contained in them, will find them such as to convince the
intelligent and sincere reader that the Spirit of God was in those men,
and that with their writings there is nothing in all the works of
demons, responses of oracles, or sayings of soothsayers, for one moment
to be compared.




                             Chapter XLIX.


Let us see in what terms Celsus next addresses us: “Besides, is it not
most absurd and inconsistent in you, on the one hand, to make so much of
the body as you do—to expect that the same body will rise again, as
though it were the best and most precious part of us; and yet, on the
other, to expose it to such tortures as though it were worthless? But
men who hold such notions, and are so attached to the body, are not
worthy of being reasoned with; for in this and in other respects they
show themselves to be gross, impure, and bent upon revolting without any
reason from the common belief. But I shall direct my discourse to those
who hope for the enjoyment of eternal life with God by means of the soul
or mind, whether they choose to call it a spiritual substance, an
intelligent spirit, holy and blessed, or a living soul, or the heavenly
and indestructible offspring of a divine and incorporeal nature, or by
whatever name they designate the spiritual nature of man. And they are
rightly persuaded that those who live well shall be blessed, and the
unrighteous shall all suffer everlasting punishments. And from this
doctrine neither they nor any other should ever swerve.” Now, as he has
often already reproached us for our opinions on the resurrection, and as
we have on these occasions defended our opinions in what seemed to us a
reasonable way, we do not intend, at each repetition of the one
objection, to go into a repetition of our defence. Celsus makes an
unfounded charge against us when he ascribes to us the opinion that
“there is nothing in our complex nature better or more precious than the
body;” for we hold that far beyond all bodies is the soul, and
especially the reasonable soul; for it is the soul, and not the body,
which bears the likeness of the Creator. For, according to us, God is
not corporeal, unless we fall into the absurd errors of the followers of
Zeno and Chrysippus.




                               Chapter L.


But since he reproaches us with too great an anxiety about the body, let
him know that when that feeling is a wrong one we do not share in it,
and when it is indifferent we only long for that which God has promised
to the righteous. But Celsus considers that we are inconsistent with
ourselves when we count the body worthy of honour from God, and
therefore hope for its resurrection, and yet at the same time expose it
to tortures as though it were not worthy of honour. But surely it is not
without honour for the body to suffer for the sake of godliness, and to
choose afflictions on account of virtue: the dishonourable thing would
be for it to waste its powers in vicious indulgence. For the divine word
says: “What is an honourable seed? The seed of man. What is a
dishonourable seed? The seed of man.”[1652] Moreover, Celsus thinks that
he ought not to reason with those who hope for the good of the body, as
they are unreasonably intent upon an object which can never satisfy
their expectations. He also calls them gross and impure men, bent upon
creating needless dissensions. But surely he ought, as one of superior
humanity, to assist even the rude and depraved. For society does not
exclude from its pale the coarse and uncultivated, as it does the
irrational animals, but our Creator made us on the same common level
with all mankind. It is not an undignified thing, therefore, to reason
even with the coarse and unrefined, and to try to bring them as far as
possible to a higher state of refinement—to bring the impure to the
highest practicable degree of purity—to bring the unreasoning multitude
to reason, and the diseased in mind to spiritual health.

Footnote 1652:

  Ecclus. x. 19. In the LXX. the last clause is, “What is a
  dishonourable seed? They that transgress the commandments.”




                              Chapter LI.


In the next place, he expresses his approval of those who “hope that
eternal life shall be enjoyed with God by the soul or mind, or, as it is
variously called, the spiritual nature, the reasonable soul,
intelligent, holy, and blessed;” and he allows the soundness of the
doctrine, that “those who had a good life shall be happy, and the
unrighteous shall suffer eternal punishments.” And yet I wonder at what
follows, more than at anything that Celsus has ever said; for he adds,
“And from this doctrine let not them or any one ever swerve.” For
certainly in writing against Christians, the very essence of whose faith
is God, and the promises made by Christ to the righteous, and His
warnings of punishment awaiting the wicked, he must see that, if a
Christian were brought to renounce Christianity by his arguments against
it, it is beyond doubt that, along with his Christian faith, he would
cast off the very doctrine from which he says that no Christian and no
man should ever swerve. But I think Celsus has been far surpassed in
consideration for his fellow-men by Chrysippus in his treatise, _On the
Subjugation of the Passions_. For when he sought to apply remedies to
the affections and passions which oppress and distract the human spirit,
after employing such arguments as seemed to himself to be strong, he did
not shrink from using in the second and third place others which he did
not himself approve of. “For,” says he, “if it were held by any one that
there are three kinds of good, we must seek to regulate the passions in
accordance with that supposition; and we must not too curiously inquire
into the opinions held by a person at the time that he is under the
influence of passion, lest, if we delay too long for the purpose of
overthrowing the opinions by which the mind is possessed, the
opportunity for curing the passion may pass away.” And he adds, “Thus,
supposing that pleasure were the highest good, or that he was of that
opinion whose mind was under the dominion of passion, we should not the
less give him help, and show that, even on the principle that pleasure
is the highest and final good of man, all passion is disallowed.” And
Celsus, in like manner, after having embraced the doctrine, “that the
righteous shall be blessed, and the wicked shall suffer eternal
punishments,” should have followed out his subject; and, after having
advanced what seemed to him the chief argument, he should have proceeded
to prove and enforce by further reasons the truth that the unjust shall
surely suffer eternal punishment, and those who lead a good life shall
be blessed.




                              Chapter LII.


For we who have been persuaded by many, yea by innumerable, arguments to
lead a Christian life, are especially anxious to bring all men as far as
possible to receive the whole system of Christian truth; but when we
meet with persons who are prejudiced by the calumnies thrown out against
Christians, and who, from a notion that Christians are an impious
people, will not listen to any who offer to instruct them in the
principles of the divine word, then, on the common principles of
humanity, we endeavour to the best of our ability to convince them of
the doctrine of the punishment of the wicked, and to induce even those
who are unwilling to become Christians to accept that truth. And we are
thus anxious to persuade them of the rewards of right living, when we
see that many things which we teach about a healthy moral life are also
taught by the enemies of our faith. For you will find that they have not
entirely lost the common notions of right and wrong, of good and evil.
Let all men, therefore, when they look upon the universe, observe the
constant revolution of the unerring stars, the converse motion of the
planets, the constitution of the atmosphere, and its adaptation to the
necessities of the animals, and especially of man, with all the
innumerable contrivances for the wellbeing of mankind; and then, after
thus considering the order of the universe, let them beware of doing
aught which is displeasing to the Creator of this universe, of the soul
and its intelligent principle; and let them rest assured that punishment
shall be inflicted on the wicked, and rewards shall be bestowed upon the
righteous, by Him who deals with every one as he deserves, and who will
proportion His rewards to the good that each has done, and to the
account of himself that he is able to give. And let all men know that
the good shall be advanced to a higher state, and that the wicked shall
be delivered over to sufferings and torments, in punishment of their
licentiousness and depravity, their cowardice, timidity, and all their
follies.




                             Chapter LIII.


Having said so much on this subject, let us proceed to another statement
of Celsus: “Since men are born united to a body, whether to suit the
order of the universe, or that they may in that way suffer the
punishment of sin; or because the soul is oppressed by certain passions
until it is purged from these at the appointed period of time,—for,
according to Empedocles, all mankind must be banished from the abodes of
the blessed for 30,000 periods of time,—we must therefore believe that
they are entrusted to certain beings as keepers of this prison-house.”
You will observe that Celsus, in these remarks, speaks of such weighty
matters in the language of doubtful human conjecture. He adds also
various opinions as to the origin of man, and shows considerable
reluctance to set down any of these opinions as false. When he had once
come to the conclusion neither indiscriminately to accept nor recklessly
to reject the opinions held by the ancients, would it not have been in
accordance with that same rule of judging, if, when he found himself not
disposed to believe the doctrines taught by the Jewish prophets and by
Jesus, at any rate to have held them as matters open to inquiry? And
should he not have considered whether it is very probable that a people
who faithfully served the Most High God, and who ofttimes encountered
numberless dangers, and even death, rather than sacrifice the honour of
God, and what they believed to be the revelations of His will, should
have been wholly overlooked by God? Should it not rather be thought
probable that people who despised the efforts of human art to represent
the Divine Being, but strove rather to rise in thought to the knowledge
of the Most High, should have been favoured with some revelation from
Himself? Besides, he ought to have considered that the common Father and
Creator of all, who sees and hears all things, and who duly esteems the
intention of every man who seeks Him and desires to serve Him, will
grant unto these also some of the benefits of His rule, and will give
them an enlargement of that knowledge of Himself which He has once
bestowed upon them. If this had been remembered by Celsus and the others
who hate Moses and the Jewish prophets, and Jesus, and His faithful
disciples, who endured so much for the sake of His word, they would not
thus have reviled Moses, and the prophets, and Jesus, and His apostles;
and they would not have singled out for their contempt the Jews beyond
all the nations of the earth, and said they were worse even than the
Egyptians,—a people who, either from superstition or some other form of
delusion, went as far as they could in degrading the Divine Being to the
level of brute beasts. And we invite inquiry, not as though we wished to
lead any to doubt regarding the truths of Christianity, but in order to
show that it would be better for those who in every way revile the
doctrines of Christianity, at any rate to suspend their judgment, and
not so rashly to state about Jesus and His apostles such things as they
do not know, and as they cannot prove, either by what the Stoics call
“apprehensive perception,”[1653] or by any other methods used by
different sects of philosophers as criteria of truth.

Footnote 1653:

  καταληπτικὴ φαντασία.




                              Chapter LIV.


When Celsus adds, “We must therefore believe that men are entrusted to
certain beings who are the keepers of this prison-house,” our answer is,
that the souls of those who are called by Jeremiah “prisoners of the
earth,”[1654] when eager in the pursuit of virtue, are even in this life
delivered from the bondage of evil; for Jesus declared this, as was
foretold long before His advent by the prophet Isaiah, when he said that
“the prisoners would go forth, and they that were in darkness would show
themselves.”[1655] And Jesus Himself, as Isaiah also foretold of Him,
arose as “a light to them that sat in darkness and in the shadow of
death,”[1656] so that we may therefore say, “Let us break their bands
asunder, and cast their cords from us.”[1657] If Celsus, and those who
like him are opposed to us, had been able to sound the depths of the
gospel narratives, they would not have counselled us to put our
confidence in those beings whom they call “the keepers of the
prison-house.” It is written in the Gospel that a woman was bowed
together, and could in no wise lift up herself. And when Jesus beheld
her, and perceived from what cause she was bowed together, he said,
“Ought not this daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound, lo, these
eighteen years, to be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath day?”[1658]
And how many others are still bowed down and bound by Satan, who hinders
them from looking up at all, and who would have us to look down also!
And no one can raise them up, except the Word, that came by Jesus
Christ, and that aforetime inspired the prophets. And Jesus came to
release those who were under the dominion of the devil; and, speaking of
him, He said with that depth of meaning which characterized His words,
“Now is the prince of this world judged.” We are, then, indulging in no
baseless calumnies against demons, but are condemning their agency upon
earth as destructive to mankind, and show that, under cover of oracles
and bodily cures, and such other means, they are seeking to separate
from God the soul which has descended to this “body of humiliation;” and
those who feel this humiliation exclaim, “O wretched man that I am! who
shall deliver me from the body of this death?”[1659] It is not in vain,
therefore, that we expose our bodies to be beaten and tortured; for
surely it is not in vain for a man to submit to such sufferings, if by
that means he may avoid bestowing the name of gods on those earthly
spirits that unite with their worshippers to bring him to destruction.
Indeed, we think it both reasonable in itself and well-pleasing to God,
to suffer pain for the sake of virtue, to undergo torture for the sake
of piety, and even to suffer death for the sake of holiness; for
“precious in the sight of God is the death of His saints;”[1660] and we
maintain that to overcome the love of life is to enjoy a great good. But
when Celsus compares us to notorious criminals, who justly suffer
punishment for their crimes, and does not shrink from placing so
laudable a purpose as that which we set before us upon the same level
with the obstinacy of criminals, he makes himself the brother and
companion of those who accounted Jesus among criminals, fulfilling the
Scripture, which saith, “He was numbered with transgressors.”[1661]

Footnote 1654:

  Lam. iii. 34.

Footnote 1655:

  Isa. xlix. 9.

Footnote 1656:

  Isa. ix. 2.

Footnote 1657:

  Ps. ii. 3.

Footnote 1658:

  Luke xiii. 11, 16.

Footnote 1659:

  Rom. vii. 24.

Footnote 1660:

  Ps. cxvi. 15.

Footnote 1661:

  Isa. liii. 12.




                              Chapter LV.


Celsus goes on to say: “They must make their choice between two
alternatives. If they refuse to render due service to the gods, and to
respect those who are set over this service, let them not come to
manhood, or marry wives, or have children, or indeed take any share in
the affairs of life; but let them depart hence with all speed, and leave
no posterity behind them, that such a race may become extinct from the
face of the earth. Or, on the other hand, if they will take wives, and
bring up children, and taste of the fruits of the earth, and partake of
all the blessings of life, and bear its appointed sorrows (for nature
herself hath allotted sorrows to all men; for sorrows must exist, and
earth is the only place for them), then must they discharge the duties
of life until they are released from its bonds, and render due honour to
those beings who control the affairs of this life, if they would not
show themselves ungrateful to them. For it would be unjust in them,
after receiving the good things which they dispense, to pay them no
tribute in return.” To this we reply, that there appears to us to be no
good reason for our leaving this world, except when piety and virtue
require it; as when, for example, those who are set as judges, and think
that they have power over our lives, place before us the alternative
either to live in violation of the commands of Jesus, or to die if we
continue obedient to them. But God has allowed us to marry, because all
are not fit for the higher, that is, the perfectly pure life; and God
would have us to bring up all our children, and not to destroy any of
the offspring given us by His providence. And this does not conflict
with our purpose not to obey the demons that are on the earth; for,
“being armed with the whole armour of God, we stand”[1662] as athletes
of piety against the race of demons that plot against us.

Footnote 1662:

  Eph. vi. 11.




                              Chapter LVI.


Although, therefore, Celsus would, in his own words, “drive us with all
haste out of life,” so that “such a race may become extinct from the
earth;” yet we, along with those who worship the Creator, will live
according to the laws of God, never consenting to obey the laws of sin.
We will marry if we wish, and bring up the children given to us in
marriage; and if need be, we will not only partake of the blessings of
life, but bear its appointed sorrows as a trial to our souls. For in
this way is divine Scripture accustomed to speak of human afflictions,
by which, as gold is tried in the fire, so the spirit of man is tried,
and is found to be worthy either of condemnation or of praise. For those
things which Celsus calls evils we are therefore prepared, and are ready
to say, “Try me, O Lord, and prove me; purge my reins and my
heart.”[1663] For “no one will be crowned,” unless here upon earth, with
this body of humiliation, “he strive lawfully.”[1664] Further, we do not
pay honours supposed to be due to those whom Celsus speaks of as being
set over the affairs of the world. For we worship the Lord our God, and
Him only do we serve, and desire to be followers of Christ, who, when
the devil said to Him, “All these things will I give thee if thou wilt
fall down and worship me,” answered him by the words, “Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.”[1665]
Wherefore we do not render the honour supposed to be due to those who,
according to Celsus, are set over the affairs of this world; for “no man
can serve two masters,” and we “cannot serve God and mammon,” whether
this name be applied to one or more. Moreover, if any one “by
transgressing the law dishonours the lawgiver,” it seems clear to us
that if the two laws, the law of God and the law of mammon, are
completely opposed to each other, it is better for us by transgressing
the law of mammon to dishonour mammon, that we may honour God by keeping
His law, than by transgressing the law of God to dishonour God, that by
obeying the law of mammon we may honour mammon.

Footnote 1663:

  Ps. xxvi. 2.

Footnote 1664:

  2 Tim. ii. 5.

Footnote 1665:

  Matt. iv. 9, 10.




                             Chapter LVII.


Celsus supposes that men “discharge the duties of life until they are
loosened from its bonds,” when, in accordance with commonly received
customs, they offer sacrifices to each of the gods recognised in the
state; and he fails to perceive the true duty which is fulfilled by an
earnest piety. For we say that he truly discharges the duties of life
who is ever mindful who is his Creator, and what things are agreeable to
Him, and who acts in all things so that he may please God. Again, Celsus
wishes us to be thankful to these demons, imagining that we owe them
thankofferings. But we, while recognising the duty of thankfulness,
maintain that we show no ingratitude by refusing to give thanks to
beings who do us no good, but who rather set themselves against us when
we neither sacrifice to them nor worship them. We are much more
concerned lest we should be ungrateful to God, who has loaded us with
His benefits, whose workmanship we are, who cares for us in whatever
condition we may be, and who has given us hopes of things beyond this
present life. And we have a symbol of gratitude to God in the bread
which we call the Eucharist. Besides, as we have shown before, the
demons have not the control of those things which have been created for
our use; we commit no wrong, therefore, when we partake of created
things, and yet refuse to offer sacrifices to beings who have no concern
with them. Moreover, as we know that it is not demons, but angels, who
have been set over the fruits of the earth, and over the birth of
animals, it is the latter that we praise and bless, as having been
appointed by God over the things needful for our race; yet even to them
we will not give the honour which is due to God. For this would not be
pleasing to God, nor would it be any pleasure to the angels themselves
to whom these things have been committed. Indeed, they are much more
pleased if we refrain from offering sacrifices to them than if we offer
them; for they have no desire for the sacrificial odours which rise from
the earth.




                             Chapter LVIII.


Celsus goes on to say: “Let any one inquire of the Egyptians, and he
will find that everything, even to the most insignificant, is committed
to the care of a certain demon. The body of man is divided into
thirty-six parts, and as many demons of the air are appointed to the
care of it, each having charge of a different part, although others make
the number much larger. All these demons have in the language of that
country distinct names; as Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, Biou,
Erou, Erebiou, Ramanor, Reianoor, and other such Egyptian names.
Moreover, they call upon them, and are cured of diseases of particular
parts of the body. What, then, is there to prevent a man from giving
honour to these or to others, if he would rather be in health than be
sick, rather have prosperity than adversity, and be freed as much as
possible from all plagues and troubles?” In this way, Celsus seeks to
degrade our souls to the worship of demons, under the assumption that
they have possession of our bodies, and that each one has power over a
separate member. And he wishes us on this ground to put confidence in
these demons of which he speaks, and to serve them, in order that we may
be in health rather than be sick, have prosperity rather than adversity,
and may as far as possible escape all plagues and troubles. The honour
of the Most High God, which cannot be divided or shared with another, is
so lightly esteemed by him, that he cannot believe in the ability of
God, if called upon and highly honoured, to give to those who serve Him
a power by which they may be defended from the assaults directed by
demons against the righteous. For he has never beheld the efficacy of
those words, “in the name of Jesus,” when uttered by the truly faithful,
to deliver not a few from demons and demoniacal possessions and other
plagues.




                              Chapter LIX.


Probably those who embrace the views of Celsus will smile at us when we
say, “At the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in heaven, of
things on earth, and of things under the earth, and every tongue” is
brought to “confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the
Father.”[1666] But although they may ridicule such a statement, yet they
will receive much more convincing arguments in support of it than Celsus
brings in behalf of Chnoumen, Chnachoumen, Cnat, Sicat, and the rest of
the Egyptian catalogue, whom he mentions as being called upon, and as
healing the diseases of different parts of the human body. And observe
how, while seeking to turn us away from our faith in the God of all
through Jesus Christ, he exhorts us for the welfare of our bodies to
faith in six-and-thirty barbarous demons, whom the Egyptian magi alone
call upon in some unknown way, and promise us in return great benefits.
According to Celsus, then, it would be better for us now to give
ourselves up to magic and sorcery than to embrace Christianity, and to
put our faith in an innumerable multitude of demons than in the
almighty, living, self-revealing God, who has manifested Himself by Him
who by His great power has spread the true principles of holiness among
all men throughout the world; yea, I may add without exaggeration, He
has given this knowledge to all beings everywhere possessed of reason,
and needing deliverance from the plague and corruption of sin.

Footnote 1666:

  Phil. ii. 10, 11.




                              Chapter LX.


Celsus, however, suspecting that the tendency of such teaching as he
here gives is to lead to magic, and dreading that harm may arise from
these statements, adds: “Care, however, must be taken lest any one, by
familiarizing his mind with these matters, should become too much
engrossed with them, and lest, through an excessive regard for the body,
he should have his mind turned away from higher things, and allow them
to pass into oblivion. For perhaps we ought not to despise the opinion
of those wise men who say that most of the earth-demons are taken up
with carnal indulgence, blood, odours, sweet sounds, and other such
sensual things; and therefore they are unable to do more than heal the
body, or foretell the fortunes of men and cities, and do other such
things as relate to this mortal life.” If there is, then, such a
dangerous tendency in this direction, as even the enemy of the truth of
God confesses, how much better is it to avoid all danger of giving
ourselves too much up to the power of such demons, and of becoming
turned aside from higher things, and suffering them to pass into
oblivion through an excessive attention to the body; by entrusting
ourselves to the Supreme God through Jesus Christ, who has given us such
instruction, and asking of Him all help, and the guardianship of holy
and good angels, to defend us from the earth-spirits intent on lust, and
blood, and sacrificial odours, and strange sounds, and other sensual
things! For even, by the confession of Celsus, they can do nothing more
than cure the body. But, indeed, I would say that it is not clear that
these demons, however much they are reverenced, can even cure the body.
But in seeking recovery from disease, a man must either follow the more
ordinary and simple method, and have recourse to medical art; or if he
would go beyond the common methods adopted by men, he must rise to the
higher and better way of seeking the blessing of Him who is God over
all, through piety and prayers.




                              Chapter LXI.


For consider with yourself which disposition of mind will be more
acceptable to the Most High, whose power is supreme and universal, and
who directs all for the welfare of mankind in body, and in mind, and in
outward things,—whether that of the man who gives himself up to God in
all things, or that of the man who is curiously inquisitive about the
names of demons, their powers and agency, the incantations, the herbs
proper to them, and the stones with the inscriptions graven on them,
corresponding symbolically or otherwise to their traditional shapes? It
is plain even to the least intelligent, that the disposition of the man
who is simple-minded, and not given to curious inquiries, but in all
things devoted to the divine will, will be most pleasing to God, and to
all those who are like God; but that of the man who, for the sake of
bodily health, of bodily enjoyment, and outward prosperity, busies
himself about the names of demons, and inquires by what incantations he
shall appease them, will be condemned by God as bad and impious, and
more agreeable to the nature of demons than of men, and will be given
over to be torn and otherwise tormented by demons. For it is probable
that they, as being wicked creatures, and, as Celsus confesses, addicted
to blood, sacrificial odours, sweet sounds, and such like, will not keep
their most solemn promises to those who supply them with these things.
For if others invoke their aid against the persons who have already
called upon them, and purchase their favour with a larger supply of
blood, and odours, and such offerings as they require, they will take
part against those who yesterday sacrificed and presented pleasant
offerings to them.




                             Chapter LXII.


In a former passage, Celsus had spoken at length on the subject of
oracles, and had referred us to their answers as being the voice of the
gods; but now he makes amends, and confesses that “those who foretell
the fortunes of men and cities, and concern themselves about mortal
affairs, are earth-spirits, who are given up to fleshly lust, blood,
odours, sweet sounds, and other such things, and who are unable to rise
above these sensual objects.” Perhaps, when we opposed the theological
teaching of Celsus in regard to oracles, and the honour done to those
called gods, some one might suspect us of impiety when we alleged that
these were stratagems of demoniacal powers, to draw men away to carnal
indulgence. But any who entertained this suspicion against us, may now
believe that the statements put forth by Christians were well-founded,
when they see the above passage from the writings of one who is a
professed adversary of Christianity, but who now at length writes as one
who has been overcome by the spirit of truth. Although, therefore,
Celsus says that “we must offer sacrifices to them, in so far as they
are profitable to us, for to offer them indiscriminately is not allowed
by reason,” yet we are not to offer sacrifices to demons addicted to
blood and odours; nor is the Divine Being to be profaned in our minds,
by being brought down to the level of wicked demons. If Celsus had
carefully weighed the meaning of the word “profitable,” and had
considered that the truest profit lies in virtue and in virtuous action,
he would not have applied the phrase “as far as it is profitable” to the
service of such demons, as he has acknowledged them to be. If, then,
health of body and success in life were to come to us on condition of
our serving such demons, we should prefer sickness and misfortune
accompanied with the consciousness of our being truly devoted to the
will of God. For this is preferable to being mortally diseased in mind,
and wretched through being separate and outcasts from God, though
healthy in body and abounding in earthly prosperity. And we would rather
go for help to one who seeks nothing whatever but the well-being of men
and of all rational creatures, than to those that delight in blood and
sacrificial odours.




                             Chapter LXIII.


After having said so much of the demons, and of their fondness for blood
and the odour of sacrifices, Celsus adds, as though wishing to retract
the charge he had made: “The more just opinion is, that demons desire
nothing and need nothing, but that they take pleasure in those who
discharge towards them offices of piety.” If Celsus believed this to be
true, he should have said so, instead of making his previous statements.
But, indeed, human nature is never utterly forsaken by God and His
only-begotten Son, the truth. Wherefore even Celsus spoke the truth when
he made the demons take pleasure in the blood and smoke of victims;
although, by the force of his own evil nature, he falls back into his
errors, and compares demons with men who rigorously discharge every
duty, even to those who show no gratitude; while to those who are
grateful they abound in acts of kindness. Here Celsus appears to me to
get into confusion. At one time his judgment is darkened by the
influence of demons, and at another he recovers from their deluding
power, and gets some glimpses of the truth. For again he adds: “We must
never in any way lose our hold of God, whether by day or by night,
whether in public or in secret, whether in word or in deed, but in
whatever we do, or abstain from doing.” That is, as I understand it,
whatever we do in public, in all our actions, in all our words, “let the
soul be constantly fixed upon God.” And yet again, as though, after
struggling in argument against the insane inspirations of demons, he
were completely overcome by them, he adds: “If this is the case, what
harm is there in gaining the favour of the rulers of the earth, whether
of a nature different from ours, or human princes and kings? For these
have gained their dignity through the instrumentality of demons.” In a
former part, Celsus did his utmost to debase our souls to the worship of
demons; and now he wishes us to seek the favour of kings and princes, of
whom, as the world and all history are full of them, I do not consider
it necessary to quote examples.




                             Chapter LXIV.


There is therefore One whose favour we should seek, and to whom we ought
to pray that He would be gracious to us—the Most High God, whose favour
is gained by piety and the practice of every virtue. And if he would
have us to seek the favour of others after the Most High God, let him
consider that, as the motion of the shadow follows that of the body
which casts it, so in like manner it follows, that when we have the
favour of God, we have also the goodwill of all angels and spirits who
are friends of God. For they know who are worthy of the divine approval,
and they are not only well disposed to them, but they co-operate with
them in their endeavours to please God: they seek His favour on their
behalf; with their prayers they join their own prayers and intercessions
for them. We may indeed boldly say, that men who aspire after better
things have, when they pray to God, tens of thousands of sacred powers
upon their side. These, even when not asked, pray with them, they bring
succour to our mortal race, and if I may so say, take up arms alongside
of it: for they see demons warring and fighting most keenly against the
salvation of those who devote themselves to God, and despise the
hostility of demons; they see them savage in their hatred of the man who
refuses to serve them with the blood and fumes of sacrifices, but rather
strives in every way, by word and deed, to be in peace and union with
the Most High through Jesus, who put to flight multitudes of demons when
He went about “healing,” and delivering “all who were oppressed by the
devil.”[1667]

Footnote 1667:

  Acts x. 38.




                              Chapter LXV.


Moreover, we are to despise ingratiating ourselves with kings or any
other men, not only if their favour is to be won by murders,
licentiousness, or deeds of cruelty, but even if it involves impiety
towards God, or any servile expressions of flattery and obsequiousness,
which things are unworthy of brave and high-principled men, who aim at
joining with their other virtues that highest of virtues, patience and
fortitude. But whilst we do nothing which is contrary to the law and
word of God, we are not so mad as to stir up against us the wrath of
kings and princes, which will bring upon us sufferings and tortures, or
even death. For we read: “Let every soul be subject unto the higher
powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are
ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the
ordinance of God.”[1668] These words we have in our exposition of the
Epistle to the Romans, to the best of our ability, explained at length,
and with various applications; but for the present we have taken them in
their more obvious and generally received acceptation, to meet the
saying of Celsus, that “it is not without the power of demons that kings
have been raised to their regal dignity.” Here much might be said on the
constitution of kings and rulers, for the subject is a wide one,
embracing such rulers as reign cruelly and tyrannically, and such as
make the kingly office the means of indulging in luxury and sinful
pleasures. We shall therefore, for the present, pass over the full
consideration of this subject. We will, however, never swear by “the
fortune of the king,” nor by aught else that is considered equivalent to
God. For if the word “fortune” is nothing but an expression for the
uncertain course of events, as some say, although they seem not to be
agreed, we do not swear by that as God which has no existence, as though
it did really exist and was able to do something, lest we should bind
ourselves by an oath to things which have no existence. If, on the other
hand (as is thought by others, who say that to swear by the fortune of
the king of the Romans is to swear by his demon), what is called the
fortune of the king is in the power of demons, then in that case we must
die sooner than swear by a wicked and treacherous demon, that ofttimes
sins along with the man of whom it gains possession, and sins even more
than he.

Footnote 1668:

  Rom. xiii. 1, 2.




                             Chapter LXVI.


Then Celsus, following the example of those who are under the influence
of demons—at one time recovering, at another relapsing, as though he
were again becoming sensible—says: “If, however, any worshipper of God
should be ordered to do anything impious, or to say anything base, such
a command should in no wise be regarded; but we must encounter all kinds
of torment, or submit to any kind of death, rather than say or even
think anything unworthy of God.” Again, however, from ignorance of our
principles, and in entire confusion of thought, he says: “But if any one
commands you to celebrate the sun, or to sing a joyful triumphal song in
praise of Minerva, you will by celebrating their praises seem to render
the higher praise to God; for piety, in extending to all things, becomes
more perfect.” To this our answer is, that we do not wait for any
command to celebrate the praises of the sun; for we have been taught to
speak well not only of those creatures that are obedient to the will of
God, but even of our enemies. We therefore praise the sun as the
glorious workmanship of God, which obeys His laws and hearkens to the
call, “Praise the Lord, sun and moon,”[1669] and with all your powers
show forth the praises of the Father and Creator of all. Minerva,
however, whom Celsus classes with the sun, is the subject of various
Grecian myths, whether these contain any hidden meaning or not. They say
that Minerva sprang fully armed from the brain of Jupiter; that when she
was pursued by Vulcan, she fled from him to preserve her honour; and
that from the seed which fell to the ground in the heat of Vulcan’s
passion, there grew a child whom Minerva brought up and called
Erichthonius,

             “That owed his nurture to the blue-eyed maid,
             But from the teeming furrow took his birth,
             The mighty offspring of the foodful earth.”[1670]

It is therefore evident, that if we admit Minerva the daughter of
Jupiter, we must also admit many fables and fictions which can be
allowed by no one who discards fables and seeks after truth.

Footnote 1669:

  Ps. cxlviii. 3.

Footnote 1670:

  Homer’s _Iliad_, ii. 547, 548.




                             Chapter LXVII.


And to regard these myths in a figurative sense, and consider Minerva as
representing prudence, let any one show what were the actual facts of
her history, upon which this allegory is based. For, supposing honour
was given to Minerva as having been a woman of ancient times, by those
who instituted mysteries and ceremonies for their followers, and who
wished her name to be celebrated as that of a goddess, much more are we
forbidden to pay divine honours to Minerva, if we are not permitted to
worship so glorious an object as the sun, although we may celebrate its
glory. Celsus, indeed, says that “we seem to do the greater honour to
the great God when we sing hymns in honour of the sun and Minerva;” but
we know it to be the opposite of that. For we sing hymns to the Most
High alone, and His Only-begotten, who is the Word and God; and we
praise God and His Only-begotten, as do also the sun, the moon, the
stars, and all the host of heaven. For these all form a divine chorus,
and unite with the just among men in celebrating the praises of the Most
High God and His Only-begotten. We have already said that we must not
swear by a human king, or by what is called “the fortune of the king.”
It is therefore unnecessary for us again to refute these statements: “If
you are commanded to swear by a human king, there is nothing wrong in
that. For to him has been given whatever there is upon earth; and
whatever you receive in this life, you receive from him.” We deny,
however, that all things which are on the earth have been given to the
king, or that whatever we receive in this life we receive from him. For
whatever we receive rightly and honourably we receive from God, and by
His providence, as ripe fruits, and “corn which strengtheneth man’s
heart, and the pleasant vine, and wine which rejoiceth the heart of
man.”[1671] And moreover, the fruit of the olive-tree, to make his face
to shine, we have from the providence of God.

Footnote 1671:

  Ps. civ. 15.




                            Chapter LXVIII.


Celsus goes on to say: “We must not disobey the ancient writer, who said
long ago,

     ‘Let one be king, whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;’”[1672]

and adds: “If you set aside this maxim, you will deservedly suffer for
it at the hands of the king. For if all were to do the same as you,
there would be nothing to prevent his being left in utter solitude and
desertion, and the affairs of the earth would fall into the hands of the
wildest and most lawless barbarians; and then there would no longer
remain among men any of the glory of your religion or of the true
wisdom.” If, then, “there shall be one lord, one king,” he must be, not
the man “whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed,” but the man to whom
He gave the power, who “removeth kings and setteth up kings,”[1673] and
who “raiseth up the useful man in time of need upon earth.”[1674] For
kings are not appointed by that son of Saturn, who, according to Grecian
fable, hurled his father from his throne, and sent him down to Tartarus
(whatever interpretation may be given to this allegory), but by God, who
governs all things, and who wisely arranges whatever belongs to the
appointment of kings. We therefore do set aside the maxim contained in
the line,

                 “Whom the son of crafty Saturn appointed;”

for we know that no god or father of a god ever devises anything crooked
or crafty. But we are far from setting aside the notion of a providence,
and of things happening directly or indirectly through the agency of
providence. And the king will not “inflict deserved punishment” upon us,
if we say that not the son of crafty Saturn gave him his kingdom, but He
who “removeth and setteth up kings.” And would that all were to follow
my example in rejecting the maxim of Homer, maintaining the divine
origin of the kingdom, and observing the precept to honour the king! In
these circumstances the king will not “be left in utter solitude and
desertion,” neither will “the affairs of the world fall into the hands
of the most impious and wild barbarians.” For if, in the words of
Celsus, “they do as I do,” then it is evident that even the barbarians,
when they yield obedience to the word of God, will become most obedient
to the law, and most humane; and every form of worship will be destroyed
except the religion of Christ, which will alone prevail. And indeed it
will one day triumph, as its principles take possession of the minds of
men more and more every day.

Footnote 1672:

  Homer’s _Iliad_, ii. 205.

Footnote 1673:

  Dan. ii. 21.

Footnote 1674:

  Ecclus. x. 4.




                             Chapter LXIX.


Celsus, then, as if not observing that he was saying anything
inconsistent with the words he had just used, “if all were to do the
same as you,” adds: “You surely do not say that if the Romans were, in
compliance with your wish, to neglect their customary duties to gods and
men, and were to worship the Most High, or whatever you please to call
him, that he will come down and fight for them, so that they shall need
no other help than his. For this same God, as yourselves say, promised
of old this and much more to those who served him, and see in what way
he has helped them and you! They, in place of being masters of the whole
world, are left with not so much as a patch of ground or a home; and as
for you, if any of you transgresses even in secret, he is sought out and
punished with death.” As the question started is, “What would happen if
the Romans were persuaded to adopt the principles of the Christians, to
despise the duties paid to the recognised gods and to men, and to
worship the Most High?” this is my answer to the question. We say that
“if two” of us “shall agree on earth as touching anything that they
shall ask, it shall be done for them of the Father” of the just, “which
is in heaven;”[1675] for God rejoices in the agreement of rational
beings, and turns away from discord. And what are we to expect, if not
only a very few agree, as at present, but the whole of the empire of
Rome? For they will pray to the Word, who of old said to the Hebrews,
when they were pursued by the Egyptians, “The Lord shall fight for you,
and ye shall hold your peace;”[1676] and if they all unite in prayer
with one accord, they will be able to put to flight far more enemies
than those who were discomfited by the prayer of Moses when he cried to
the Lord, and of those who prayed with him. Now, if what God promised to
those who keep His law has not come to pass, the reason of its
non-fulfilment is not to be ascribed to the unfaithfulness of God. But
He had made the fulfilment of His promises to depend on certain
conditions,—namely, that they should observe and live according to His
law; and if the Jews have not a plot of ground nor a habitation left to
them, although they had received these conditional promises, the entire
blame is to be laid upon their crimes, and especially upon their guilt
in the treatment of Jesus.

Footnote 1675:

  Matt. xviii. 19.

Footnote 1676:

  Ex. xiv. 14.




                              Chapter LXX.


But if all the Romans, according to the supposition of Celsus, embrace
the Christian faith, they will, when they pray, overcome their enemies;
or rather, they will not war at all, being guarded by that divine power
which promised to save five entire cities for the sake of fifty just
persons. For men of God are assuredly the salt of the earth: they
preserve the order of the world; and society is held together as long as
the salt is uncorrupted: for “if the salt have lost its savour, it is
neither fit for the land nor for the dunghill; but it shall be cast out,
and trodden under foot of men. He that hath ears, let him hear”[1677]
the meaning of these words. When God gives to the tempter permission to
persecute us, then we suffer persecution; and when God wishes us to be
free from suffering, even in the midst of a world that hates us, we
enjoy a wonderful peace, trusting in the protection of Him who said, “Be
of good cheer, I have overcome the world.”[1678] And truly He has
overcome the world. Wherefore the world prevails only so long as it is
the pleasure of Him who received from the Father power to overcome the
world; and from His victory we take courage. Should He even wish us
again to contend and struggle for our religion, let the enemy come
against us, and we will say to them, “I can do all things, through
Christ Jesus our Lord, which strengtheneth me.”[1679] For of “two
sparrows which are sold for a farthing,” as the Scripture says, “not one
of them falls on the ground without our Father in heaven.”[1680] And so
completely does the divine providence embrace all things, that not even
the hairs of our head fail to be numbered by Him.

Footnote 1677:

  Luke xiv. 34, 35; Matt. v. 13.

Footnote 1678:

  John xvi. 33.

Footnote 1679:

  Phil. iv. 13.

Footnote 1680:

  Matt. x. 29, 30.




                             Chapter LXXI.


Celsus again, as is usual with him, gets confused, and attributes to us
things which none of us have ever written. His words are: “Surely it is
intolerable for you to say, that if our present rulers, on embracing
your opinions, are taken by the enemy, you will still be able to
persuade those who rule after them; and after these have been taken you
will persuade their successors, and so on, until at length, when all who
have yielded to your persuasion have been taken, some prudent ruler
shall arise, with a foresight of what is impending, and he will destroy
you all utterly before he himself perishes.” There is no need of any
answer to these allegations: for none of us says of our present rulers,
that if they embrace our opinions, and are taken by the enemy, we shall
be able to persuade their successors; and when these are taken, those
who come after them, and so on in succession. But on what does he ground
the assertion, that when a succession of those who have yielded to our
persuasion have been taken because they did not drive back the enemy,
some prudent ruler shall arise, with a foresight of what is impending,
who shall utterly destroy us? But here he seems to me to delight in
inventing and uttering the wildest nonsense.




                             Chapter LXXII.


Afterwards he says: “If it were possible,” implying at the same time
that he thought it most desirable, “that all the inhabitants of Asia,
Europe, and Libya, Greeks and barbarians, all to the uttermost ends of
the earth, were to come under one law;” but judging this quite
impossible, he adds, “Any one who thinks this possible, knows nothing.”
It would require careful consideration and lengthened argument to prove
that it is not only possible, but that it will surely come to pass, that
all who are endowed with reason shall come under one law. However, if we
must refer to this subject, it will be with great brevity. The Stoics,
indeed, hold that, when the strongest of the elements prevails, all
things shall be turned into fire. But our belief is, that the Word shall
prevail over the entire rational creation, and change every soul into
His own perfection; in which state every one, by the mere exercise of
his power, will choose what he desires, and obtain what he chooses. For
although, in the diseases and wounds of the body, there are some which
no medical skill can cure, yet we hold that in the mind there is no evil
so strong that it may not be overcome by the Supreme Word and God. For
stronger than all the evils in the soul is the Word, and the healing
power that dwells in Him; and this healing He applies, according to the
will of God, to every man. The consummation of all things is the
destruction of evil, although as to the question whether it shall be so
destroyed that it can never anywhere arise again, it is beyond our
present purpose to say. Many things are said obscurely in the prophecies
on the total destruction of evil, and the restoration to righteousness
of every soul; but it will be enough for our present purpose to quote
the following passage from Zephaniah: “Prepare and rise early; all the
gleanings of their vineyards are destroyed. Therefore wait ye upon me,
saith the Lord, on the day that I rise up for a testimony; for my
determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kings,
to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all
the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. For then will
I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the
name of the Lord, to serve Him with one consent. From beyond the rivers
of Ethiopia my suppliants, even the daughter of my dispersed, shall
bring my offering. In that day shalt thou not be ashamed for all thy
doings, wherein thou hast transgressed against me: for then I will take
away out of the midst of thee them that rejoice in thy pride; and thou
shalt no more be haughty because of my holy mountain. I will also leave
in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they shall trust
in the name of the Lord. The remnant of Israel shall not do iniquity,
nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in their
mouth: for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them
afraid.”[1681] I leave it to those who are able, after a careful study
of the whole subject, to unfold the meaning of this prophecy, and
especially to inquire into the signification of the words, “When the
whole earth is destroyed, there will be turned upon the peoples a
language according to their race,”[1682] as things were before the
confusion of tongues. Let them also carefully consider the promise, that
all shall call upon the name of the Lord, and serve Him with one
consent; also that all contemptuous reproach shall be taken away, and
there shall be no longer any injustice, or vain speech, or a deceitful
tongue. And thus much it seemed needful for me to say briefly, and
without entering into elaborate details, in answer to the remark of
Celsus, that he considered any agreement between the inhabitants of
Asia, Europe, and Libya, as well Greeks as barbarians, was impossible.
And perhaps such a result would indeed be impossible to those who are
still in the body, but not to those who are released from it.

Footnote 1681:

  Zeph. iii. 7-13.

Footnote 1682:

  “A language to last as long as the world.”—BOUHEREAU.




                            Chapter LXXIII.


In the next place, Celsus urges us “to help the king with all our might,
and to labour with him in the maintenance of justice, to fight for him;
and if he requires it, to fight under him, or lead an army along with
him.” To this our answer is, that we do, when occasion requires, give
help to kings, and that, so to say, a divine help, “putting on the whole
armour of God.”[1683] And this we do in obedience to the injunction of
the apostle, “I exhort, therefore, that first of all, supplications,
prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for
kings, and for all that are in authority;”[1684] and the more any one
excels in piety, the more effective help does he render to kings, even
more than is given by soldiers, who go forth to fight and slay as many
of the enemy as they can. And to those enemies of our faith who require
us to bear arms for the commonwealth, and to slay men, we can reply: “Do
not those who are priests at certain shrines, and those who attend on
certain gods, as you account them, keep their hands free from blood,
that they may with hands unstained and free from human blood offer the
appointed sacrifices to your gods; and even when war is upon you, you
never enlist the priests in the army. If that, then, is a laudable
custom, how much more so, that while others are engaged in battle, these
too should engage as the priests and ministers of God, keeping their
hands pure, and wrestling in prayers to God on behalf of those who are
fighting in a righteous cause, and for the king who reigns righteously,
that whatever is opposed to those who act righteously may be destroyed!”
And as we by our prayers vanquish all demons who stir up war, and lead
to the violation of oaths, and disturb the peace, we in this way are
much more helpful to the kings than those who go into the field to fight
for them. And we do take our part in public affairs, when along with
righteous prayers we join self-denying exercises and meditations, which
teach us to despise pleasures, and not to be led away by them. And none
fight better for the king than we do. We do not indeed fight under him,
although he require it; but we fight on his behalf, forming a special
army—an army of piety—by offering our prayers to God.

Footnote 1683:

  Eph. vi. 11.

Footnote 1684:

  1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.




                             Chapter LXXIV.


And if Celsus would have us to lead armies in defence of our country,
let him know that we do this too, and that not for the purpose of being
seen by men, or of vainglory. For “in secret,” and in our own hearts,
there are prayers which ascend as from priests in behalf of our
fellow-citizens. And Christians are benefactors of their country more
than others. For they train up citizens, and inculcate piety to the
Supreme Being; and they promote those whose lives in the smallest cities
have been good and worthy, to a divine and heavenly city, to whom it may
be said, “Thou hast been faithful in the smallest city, come into a
great one,”[1685] where “God standeth in the assembly of the gods, and
judgeth the gods in the midst;” and He reckons thee among them, if thou
no more “die as a man, or fall as one of the princes.”[1686]

Footnote 1685:

  Luke xix. 17.

Footnote 1686:

  Ps. lxxxii. 1, 7.




                             Chapter LXXV.


Celsus also urges us to “take office in the government of the country,
if that is required for the maintenance of the laws and the support of
religion.” But we recognise in each state the existence of another
national organization,[1687] founded by the Word of God, and we exhort
those who are mighty in word and of blameless life to rule over
churches. Those who are ambitious of ruling we reject; but we constrain
those who, through excess of modesty, are not easily induced to take a
public charge in the church of God. And those who rule over us well are
under the constraining influence of the great King, whom we believe to
be the Son of God, God the Word. And if those who govern in the church,
and are called rulers of the divine nation—that is, the church—rule
well, they rule in accordance with the divine commands, and never suffer
themselves to be led astray by worldly policy. And it is not for the
purpose of escaping public duties that Christians decline public
offices, but that they may reserve themselves for a diviner and more
necessary service in the church of God—for the salvation of men. And
this service is at once necessary and right. They take charge of all—of
those that are within, that they may day by day lead better lives, and
of those that are without, that they may come to abound in holy words
and in deeds of piety; and that, while thus worshipping God truly, and
training up as many as they can in the same way, they may be filled with
the word of God and the law of God, and thus be united with the supreme
God through His Son the Word, wisdom, truth, and righteousness, who
unites to God all who are resolved to conform their lives in all things
to the law of God.

Footnote 1687:

  σύστημα πατρίδος.




                             Chapter LXXVI.


You have here, reverend Ambrosius, the conclusion of what we have been
enabled to accomplish by the power given to us in obedience to your
command. In eight books we have embraced all that we considered it
proper to say in reply to that book of Celsus which he entitles _A True
Discourse_. And now it remains for the readers of his discourse and of
my reply to judge which of the two breathes most of the Spirit of the
true God, of piety towards Him, and of that truth which leads men by
sound doctrines to the noblest life. You must know, however, that Celsus
had promised another treatise as a sequel to this one, in which he
engaged to supply practical rules of living to those who felt disposed
to embrace his opinions. If, then, he has not fulfilled his promise of
writing a second book, we may well be contented with these eight books
which we have written in answer to his discourse. But if he has begun
and finished that second book, pray obtain it and send it to us, that we
may answer it as the Father of truth may give us ability, and either
overthrow the false teaching that may be in it, or laying aside all
jealousy, we may testify our approval of whatever truth it may contain.

                GLORY BE TO THEE, OUR GOD; GLORY BE TO THEE.




                                INDEXES.


                   I.—INDEX OF PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE.


                             OLD TESTAMENT.


 Genesis.
   i. 1,     i. 127, 271
   i. 2,     i. 349
   i. 11,     ii. 519
   i. 24,     i. 110
   i. 26,     i. 262, ii. 190, 391
   i. 27,     ii. 190
   i. 27, 28,     i. 263
   ii. 2, 3,     ii. 403
   ii. 4,     ii. 403
   ii. 7,     i. 39, ii. 200
   ii. 21, 22,     ii. 201
   ii. 24,     i. 109, ii. 216, 389
   iii.      i. 222, ii. 383
   iii. 5,     ii. 461
   iii. 6,     ii. 461
   iii. 7,     ii. 461
   iii. 8,     ii. 406
   iii. 17,     ii. 451
   iii. 19,     i. 269
   iii. 24,     ii. 391
   iv. 8,     ii. 208
   iv. 10,     i. 251
   v. 1,     ii. 390
   v. 3,     i. 23, 119
   vi. 3,     i. 39, ii. 460
   vi. 5, 6,     ii. 400
   ix. 10, 11,     ii. 70
   xi. 1, 2,     ii. 297
   xi. 4,     ii. 161
   xi. 5-7,     ii. 298
   xv. 5,     ii. 277
   xvii. 14,     i. 318
   xix. 17,     ii. 211
   xxi. 2,     ii. 208
   xxvi. 15,     ii. 210
   xxvii. 12, 13,     ii. 359
   xxvii. 27,     i. 449
   xxx. 42,     ii. 209
   xxx. 43,     ii. 209
   xlviii. 22,     i. 323
   xlix. 1,     i. 253
   xlix.,     i. 456

 Exodus.
   iii. 2,     i. 122
   iii. 6,     i. 92
   iii. 8,     ii. 451
   iii. 14,     i. 38
   iv. 21,     i. 169
   iv. 23,     i. 175
   iv. 24, 25,     ii. 318
   iv. 24-26,     i. 222
   iv. 25, 26,     ii. 319
   vii. 3,     i. 169
   viii. 28, 29,     i. 179
   ix. 12,     i. 175
   ix. 17,     i. 175
   xii. 8,     ii. 510
   xii. 23,     i. 223, ii. 383
   xvi. 29,     i. 319
   xviii. 4,     ii. 318
   xix. 19,     i. 216
   xx. 3, 4,     ii. 485
   xx. 12,     i. 94, 324 _bis_
   xx. 13,     i. 324
   xx. 18,     ii. 404
   xx. 21,     ii. 355
   xxi. 2,     ii. 318
   xxi. 24,     ii. 448
   xxii. 28,     ii. 523
   xxiii. 20,     i. 96
   xxiv. 2,     ii. 263, 356
   xxv. 5,     i. 293
   xxv. 40,     i. 272
   xxx. 34, 35,     ii. 273
   xxxii.,     i. 281
   xxxii. 4,     ii. 77
   xxxii. 21,     i. 281
   xxxiv. 2,     ii. 59
   xxxv. 2,     i. 387
   xxxv. 40,     i. 306

 Leviticus.
   xi. 44,     ii. 406
   xvi. 8,     ii. 383
   xvi. 18,     i. 223
   xvi. 29,     ii. 510
   xvii. 10,     i. 119
   xvii. 14,     i. 118, 246
   xix. 26,     ii. 262
   xix. 31,     i. 424, ii. 276
   xxvi. 5,     ii. 447

 Numbers.
   xv. 32,     i. 387
   xxiii. 23,     ii. 262
   xxiv. 17,     i. 463, 464

 Deuteronomy.
   i. 10,     ii. 277
   ii. 34,     ii. 443
   iii. 1-3,     ii. 56
   iii. 8,     ii. 406
   iv. 16-18,     ii. 193
   iv. 19,     ii. 193, 274
   iv. 19, 20,     ii. 277
   iv. 24,     i. 8, 122, ii. 173
   vi. 13,     ii. 279, 485
   viii. 3,     i. 148
   ix. 3,     ii. 173
   x. 12, 13,     ii. 40
   xiii. 4,     ii. 456
   xvi. 3,     ii. 510
   xviii. 14,     i. 436 _bis_, ii. 262
   xviii. 15,     i. 436, ii. 262
   xxiv. 16,     ii. 524
   xxv. 4,     i. 94, 304, ii. 216
   xxviii.,    i. 142, 304
   xxviii. 12,     ii. 444
   xxviii. 66,     ii. 79
   xxxii. 8,     i. 46
   xxxii. 8, 9,     ii. 169, 297
   xxxii. 9,     i. 46
   xxxii. 21,     ii. 83, 151
   xxxii. 23, 24,     i. 434
   xxxii. 30,     ii. 444
   xxxii. 39,     ii. 31
   xxxiv. 5, 6,     ii. 57

 Joshua.
   xxiv. 32,     i. 323

 1 Samuel.
   ix. 10,     i. 436
   xv. 11,     i. 293
   xvi. 15,     i. 293
   xviii. 10,     i. 293

 2 Samuel.
   xxii. 44, 45,     ii. 83

 1 Kings.
   iii. 16,     i. 382, 383
   iv. 29-34,     ii. 127
   x. 1-9,     ii. 126
   xii. 14,     i. 389
   xiv. 12,     i. 436
   xvii. 21, 22,     ii. 61
   xix. 18,     i. 308
   xxii. 19-23,     i. 223

 2 Kings.
   i. 3,     i. 436
   iv. 34, 35,     ii. 61
   ix. 11,     ii. 434

 1 Chronicles.
   xvi. 8,     i. 387
   xvi. 22,     ii. 422

 Job.
   i. and ii.,     ii. 283
   i. 10, 11,     i. 235
   ii. 10,     ii. 396
   vii. 1,     i. 236
   viii. 12,     i. 113
   x. 8,     ii. 200
   xv. 14,     i. 347, ii. 143
   xxv. 5,     i. 61
   xl.,     i. 284
   xl. 20,     i. 53, ii. 384
   xli.,     i. 284
   xli. 34,     i. 123

 Psalms.
   i. 1,     i. 383
   ii. 2,     i. 239
   ii. 3,     ii. 538
   ii. 5,     i. 97
   ii. 8,     ii. 169
   iv. 6,     ii. 341
   vi. 1,     ii. 237
   vii. 3-5,     ii. 447
   vii. 3-6,     ii. 521
   viii. 3,     i. 89
   ix. 13, 14,     ii. 375
   xiii. 3,     ii. 456
   xiv. 3, 4,     ii. 418
   xvi. 9, 10,     ii. 65, 113
   xviii. 11,     ii. 355
   xix. 1,     ii. 404
   xix. 4,     i. 467
   xix. 8,     ii. 456
   xxii. 15,     ii. 473
   xxii. 20, 21,     i. 120
   xxiv. 8,     ii. 492
   xxvi. 2,     ii. 541
   xxvii. 1,     ii. 341
   xxvii. 1-3,     i. 234
   xxvii. 1, 3,     ii. 513
   xxxiii.,     ii. 402
   xxxiii. 5,     ii. 188
   xxxiii. 6,     i. 40, 345
   xxxiv. 7,     i. 66, ii. 380, 520, 522
   xxxiv. 10-14,     ii. 396
   xxxiv. 19,     ii. 441
   xxxvi. 9,     i. 8, ii. 341
   xxxvii. 8,     ii. 238
   xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34,     ii. 452
   xxxvii. 30, 31,     ii. 472
   xxxvii. 34,     i. 90
   xxxix. 5,     ii. 473
   xliii. 19,     ii. 473
   xliv. 19,     i. 126
   xliv. 23,     ii. 238
   xlv. 1, 2,     i. 282
   xlv. 2-5,     i. 459
   xlv. 6, 7,     i. 459
   xlv. 7,     i. 109, 111, 347
   xlv. 8,     i. 111
   xlv. 25,     ii. 473
   xlviii. 1, 2,     ii. 452
   xlix. 9, 10,     ii. 351
   l. 1,     ii. 493
   li. 5,     ii. 472
   li. 10,     i. 34
   li. 11,     ii. 468
   li. 12,     ii. 455
   liv. 5,     i. 478, ii. 425
   liv. 6,     ii. 425
   lviii. 3,     ii. 472
   lxii. 1,     i. 283
   lxiii. 8,     ii. 456
   lxviii. 11,     i. 467
   lxix. 21,     ii. 41, 436
   lxxii. 7,     i. 283
   lxxii. 8,     i. 283
   lxxii. 11,     i. 115
   lxxiii. 1,     i. 104
   lxxvi. 2,     ii. 452
   lxxvi. 10,     i. 230
   lxxvii. 2,     ii. 8, 456
   lxxviii. 34,     i. 102
   lxxviii. 49,     ii. 517
   lxxviii. 65,     ii. 238
   lxxx. 13, 14,     i. 166
   lxxxi. 5,     ii. 91
   lxxxii. 1,     ii. 189 _bis_, 493
   lxxxii. 1, 7,     ii. 558
   lxxxiv. 3,     i. 230
   lxxxvi. 8,     ii. 271
   lxxxvii. 1, 2,     ii. 216
   lxxxix. 32,     ii. 398
   lxxxix. 50, 51,     ii. 112
   xci. 13,     ii. 490
   xcvi. 4,     ii. 271
   xcvi. 5,     ii. 189, 489, 493
   xcvii. 6,     i. 124
   xcvii. 9,     ii. 493
   ci. 9,     ii. 442
   cii. 25,     ii. 404
   cii. 26, 27,     i. 254, 271, ii. 223
   cii. 27,     i. 419, ii. 174, 405
   cii. 46,     i. 58
   civ. 4,     i. 122
   civ. 6,     ii. 356
   civ. 14, 15,     ii. 241
   civ. 15,     ii. 551
   civ. 24,     i. 29, 130
   civ. 24-26,     ii. 263
   civ. 29, 30,     i. 39
   cv. 15,     ii. 422
   cvi. 20,     ii. 36
   cvii. 20,     i. 470, ii. 143, 279
   cix.,     ii. 27
   cix. 1, 2,     ii. 16
   cix. 8,     ii. 16
   cx. 1,     i. 154
   cxv. 13,     i. 383
   cxvi.,     ii. 539
   cxviii. 2,     i. 104
   cxviii. 19, 20,     ii. 375
   cxix. 18,     ii. 8, 216, 456
   cxix. 73,     ii. 200
   cxix. 105,     ii. 341
   cxxvi.,     i. 205
   cxxxi. 1, 2,     ii. 353
   cxxxvi. 2,     ii. 271, 493
   cxxxvii. 8, 9,     ii. 445
   cxxxix.,     i. 351
   cxli.,     ii. 140, 505
   cxlvii. 15,     i. 467
   cxlviii. 3,     ii. 281, 549
   cxlviii. 4,     ii. 358
   cxlviii. 4, 5,     ii. 315
   cxlviii. 5,     i. 77

 Proverbs.
   ii. 5,     i. 17, 355, ii. 448, 457
   iv. 23,     i. 232
   v. 15-17,     ii. 210
   viii. 5,     ii. 134
   viii. 22-15,     i. 18
   ix. 1-5,     i. 147
   ix. 4,     ii. 134
   ix. 5, 6,     ii. 134
   x. 17,     ii. 343
   x. 19,     ii. 268
   xiii. 8,     ii. 144
   xiii. 25,     ii. 447
   xxii. 20, 21,     i. 300
   xxii. 28,     ii. 374
   xxiii. 5,     ii. 384
   xxvii. 19,     ii. 386
   xxviii. 6,     ii. 446
   xxx. 24-28,     ii. 253

 Ecclesiastes.
   i. 1-14,     i. 64
   i. 2,     ii. 472
   i. 6,     ii. 374
   i. 9,     i. 255, ii. 172
   x. 4,     i. 223, 230

 Song.
   i. 3,     i. 11

 Isaiah.
   i. 4,     ii. 79
   i. 7,     ii. 80
   i. 11,     i. 140
   i. 13, 14,     i. 119
   i. 19, 20,     i. 165, ii. 399
   i. 20,     ii. 404
   ii. 2,     i. 386
   iii. 24,     i. 86
   iv. 4,     i. 143
   v. 8,     ii. 79
   v. 11,     ii. 79
   v. 12,     ii. 453
   v. 18,     ii. 79
   v. 20,     ii. 79, 410
   v. 22,     ii. 79
   vi. 1, 2,     i. 443
   vi. 2,     ii. 357
   vi. 3,     i. 25, 340
   vi. 9,     ii. 10
   vii. 10-14,     i. 434
   vii. 11,     i. 435
   vii. 14,     i. 435
   vii. 15,     i. 292
   vii. 16,     i. 110
   viii. 4,     i. 110
   viii. 8, 9,     i. 283
   ix. 2,     ii. 341 _bis_, 409, 538
   ix. 6,     ii. 323, 513
   x. 17,     i. 143, 349
   xi. 6, 7,     i. 292
   xiv. 4,     ii. 384
   xiv. 12-22,     i. 52
   xxv. 8,     i. 80
   xxvii. 1,     i. 123, 224
   xxviii. 19,     ii. 530
   xxxv. 5, 6,     ii. 49
   xli. 22, 23,     i. 340
   xlii. 4,     i. 456
   xlii. 5,     i. 35
   xliv. 11-14,     ii. 507
   xlv. 3,     i. 335
   xlv. 6,     i. 92
   xlv. 7,     i. 293, ii. 396, 398
   xlv. 12,     i. 61
   xlvii. 14, 15,     i. 102, 143, ii. 283, 398
   xlviii. 9,     ii. 283
   xlviii. 16,     i. 456
   xlix. 8, 9,     i. 456
   xlix. 9,     i. 456, ii. 538
   xlix. 12,     ii. 257
   lii. 3, 15,     i. 457
   lii. 12,     ii. 539
   liii. 1-3,     ii. 418
   liii. 1-8,     i. 457
   liii. 2, 3,     ii. 439
   liii. 7,     ii. 62
   liii. 9,     i. 110
   liv. 12, 11,     ii. 452
   lx. 1,     ii. 341
   lx. 19,     ii. 393
   lxiii. 17, 18,     i. 182
   lxiv. 8,     i. 267
   lxv. 1,     ii. 83
   lxvi. 1,     i. 74, 92
   lxvi. 2,     i. 89
   lxvi. 16,     i. 143
   lxvi. 22,     i. 255

 Jeremiah.
   i. 5, 6,     i. 242
   i. 9,     i. 122
   i. 9, 10,     ii. 161
   i. 14,     i. 123
   vii. 17, 18,     ii. 275
   vii. 18,     i. 62
   x. 24,     ii. 237
   xiii. 24,     ii. 172
   xv. 14,     i. 293
   xvii. 21-24,     i. 387
   xx. 7,     i. 182, 397
   xxiii. 23,     ii. 280
   xxiii. 24,     i. 74, ii. 166, 280
   xxv. 15, 16,     i. 143
   xxv. 28, 29,     i. 143
   xxix. 22,     i. 376
   xxxi. 10,     ii. 526
   xxxiv. 14,     ii. 313

 Lamentations.
   iii. 25,     i. 104
   iii. 27, 29, 30,     ii. 448
   iii. 34,     ii. 538
   iii. 38,     ii. 232
   iv. 20,     i. 112, 339

 Ezekiel.
   i.,     i. 357
   i. 1,     i. 443
   i. 19, 20,     i. 169
   i. 28,     i. 443
   ii. 1,     i. 443
   ii. 6,     ii. 80
   ii. 9, 10,     ii. 342
   iii. 2, 3,     i. 449
   x.,     ii. 357
   xi. 19, 20,     i. 191
   xvi. 55,     i. 102
   xviii. 2-4,     ii. 525
   xviii. 3,     ii. 99
   xviii. 4,     i. 123
   xviii. 4, 19,     i. 123
   xviii. 20,     ii. 524
   xx. 3,     ii. 127
   xx. 5,     ii. 525
   xx. 25,     ii. 443
   xxii. 18, 20,     ii. 283
   xxvi.,     i. 239
   xxviii. 11-19,     i. 50
   xxviii. 12,     i. 224
   xxviii. 15,     ii. 385
   xxviii. 19,     ii. 385
   xxix. 3,     ii. 217 _bis_
   xxxii. 1-28,     ii. 384
   xxxii. 2,     i. 123
   xxxii. 6,     ii. 217
   xliii.-xlvi.,     i. 387
   xlviii.,     ii. 361

 Daniel.
   ii. 21,     ii. 551
   iv. 8,     i. 34
   iv. 37,     ii. 453
   vii. 10,     ii. 173, 519
   vii. 26,     ii. 52
   viii. 23,     ii. 385
   viii. 23-25,     ii. 388
   ix. 24,     i. 284
   ix. 27,     ii. 388
   x.,     i. 239
   xii. 1, 2, 3,     ii. 277
   xii. 3,     ii. 191

 Hosea.
   iii. 4,     i. 279
   viii. 12,     ii. 340
   x. 9,     ii. 127
   x. 12,     i. 7
   xiii. 14,     i. 80, ii. 127
   xiv. 9,     ii. 217

 Joel.
   ii. 28,     150

 Amos.
   iii. 6,     i. 293
   ix. 3,     i. 123

 Micah.
   i. 12,     i. 293, ii. 398
   i. 12, 13,     ii. 396
   iv. 1,     i. 387
   v. 2,     i. 284, 453
   vi. 8,     i. 165

 Habakkuk.
   iii. 2,     i. 36

 Zephaniah.
   iii. 7-13,     ii. 556

 Haggai.
   ii. 6,     ii. 453

 Zechariah.
   i. 14,     i. 230
   iii, 1,     i. 224
   v. 7,     ii. 363
   ix. 10,     i. 292

 Malachi.
   iii. 2,     ii. 173, 283
   iii. 2, 3,     ii. 364
   iii. 3,     i. 143
   iii. 6,     i. 419, ii. 174, 405


                               APOCRYPHA.


 Tobit.
   i. 12,     i. 384
   i. 19,     i. 385
   i. 22,     i. 385
   ii. 3,     i. 370
   xii. 7,     ii. 287, 298

 Wisdom.
   i. 4,     ii. 140, 298
   i. 5,     ii. 432
   i. 7,     ii. 166
   vii. 16,     i. 191
   vii, 25,     i. 22
   vii. 25, 26,     i. 26, ii. 150, 502
   ix. 6,     ii. 350
   x. 5,     ii. 298
   x. 19,     ii. 534
   xi. 17,     i. 349
   xi. 20,     i. 127
   xi. 26,     ii. 188
   xii. 1,     ii. 201
   xii. 1, 2,     ii. 188, 473
   xvii. 1,     ii. 518
   xviii. 24,     i. 86

 Ecclesiasticus.
   vi. 4,     i. 123
   x. 4,     ii. 551
   xvi. 21,     i. 341
   xviii. 13,     ii. 188
   xxi. 18,     ii. 344, 435
   xxxix. 21, 16, 17,     ii. 242
   xliii. 20,     i. 123

 Susannah.
   Ver. 52, 53,     i. 376
   Ver. 56,     i. 377

 Song of the Three Holy Children, i. 372

 2 Maccabees.
   vii. 28,     i. 77


                             NEW TESTAMENT.


 Matthew.
   i. 20,     i. 472
   i. 23,     i. 434
   ii. 6,     i. 284, 453
   ii. 13,     i. 472
   iii. 17,     ii. 76
   iv. 9, 10,     ii. 541
   iv. 10,     ii. 485
   iv. 12,     i. 170
   iv. 16,     i. 170
   iv. 19,     i. 466
   v. 3,     ii. 409
   v. 5,     i. 90
   v. 6,     i. 146
   v. 8,     i. 17, ii. 340, 455, 466
   v. 13,     ii. 553
   v. 14,     ii. 278, 474
   v. 16,     ii. 278
   v. 22,     i. 166, 325
   v. 28,     i. 325
   v. 34,     i. 74
   v. 34, 35,     i. 92
   v. 39,     i. 166, ii. 448
   v. 39, 40,     ii. 482
   v. 44, 45,     ii. 521
   v. 45,     ii. 188
   v. 48,     i. 355, ii. 190
   v. 48, 49,     i. 91
   vi. 9,     i. 92
   vi. 24,     ii. 493
   vi. 25-28,     ii. 447
   vii. 7,     i. 390
   vii. 14,     ii. 354
   vii. 18,     i. 103
   vii. 22,     i. 402
   vii. 22, 23,     i. 278, ii. 51
   vii. 24,     i. 166
   vii. 26,     i. 167
   viii. 3,     i. 449
   ix. 12,     ii. 141
   ix. 23,     ii. 446
   ix. 37, 38,     i. 468
   x. 3,     i. 466
   x. 18,     i. 278, ii. 18, 19
   x. 23,     i. 471
   x. 29,     i. 236
   x. 29, 30,     ii. 554
   xi. 20,     ii. 253
   xi. 27,     i. 16, 96, 106, ii. 466
   xi. 28,     ii. 77, 143
   xi. 29,     ii. 8
   xii. 24,     ii. 13
   xii. 32,     i. 34
   xii. 33,     i. 103
   xii. 35,     i. 104
   xii. 42,     i. 237, 238
   xii. 44,     i. 334
   xiii. 9,     ii. 456
   xiii. 54,     ii. 354
   xv. 11, 17-19,     ii. 515
   xv. 19,     ii. 455
   xv. 24,     i. 329
   xvii. 9,     i. 450
   xviii. 10,     i. 329, ii. 380, 520, 522
   xviii. 19,     ii. 553
   xviii. 20,     ii. 12
   xix. 14,     i. 254
   xix. 17,     i. 104, ii. 279
   xix. 24,     ii. 354
   xx. 25,     ii. 446
   xx. 28,     ii. 191
   xxi. 2,     ii. 208
   xxii. 12, 13,     i. 100
   xxii. 30,     i. 345, ii. 189
   xxii. 32,     i. 92, ii. 494
   xxii. 37, 39, 40,     i. 93
   xxiii. 12,     ii. 142
   xxiii. 29-36,     i. 378
   xxiii. 30,     i. 397
   xxiii. 34,     ii. 127
   xxiv. 4,     ii. 385
   xxiv. 12,     i. 122
   xxiv. 14,     i. 278, ii. 20
   xxiv. 21,     i. 256
   xxiv. 23-27,     ii. 51
   xxiv. 27,     i. 52
   xxiv. 35,     i. 254, ii. 291
   xxv. 4,     ii. 341
   xxv. 29,     i. 149
   xxv. 34,     i. 167
   xxv. 35,     i. 169
   xxvi. 3,     i. 105
   xxvi. 23,     ii. 28
   xxvi. 29,     i. 146
   xxvi. 38,     i. 125, 346, ii. 11
   xxvi. 39,     ii. 30, 31, 477
   xxvi. 48,     ii. 67
   xxvi. 52-54,     ii. 14
   xxvi. 55,     ii. 67
   xxvi. 59-61,     i. 394
   xxvi. 61,     ii. 13
   xxvii. 3-5,     ii. 15
   xxvii. 11-14,     ii. 394
   xxvii. 17,     i. 394
   xxvii. 18,     i. 394
   xxvii. 19,     ii. 39
   xxvii. 46-50,     ii. 113
   xxvii. 51, 52,     ii. 38
   xxvii. 54,     ii. 41
   xxvii. 60,     ii. 72
   xxvii. 63,     i. 235
   xxviii. 1, 2,     ii. 74
   xxviii. 9,     ii. 74
   xxviii. 20,     ii. 12, 280

 Mark.
   i. 12,     ii. 6
   iii. 18,     i. 466
   iv. 12,     i. 194
   vi. 2,     ii. 354
   vi. 3,     ii. 375
   x. 8,     i. 109
   x. 18,     ii. 279
   x. 44,     ii. 446
   xiii. 31,     ii. 291

 Luke.
   i. 35,     i. 34, 113
   v. 8,     i. 468
   vi. 36,     i. 355
   vi. 4,     i. 25
   viii. 10,     i. 170
   x. 4,     i. 320
   x. 18,     i. 52
   x. 19,     i. 284, ii. 479, 490
   x. 22,     i. 36, ii. 75
   xi. 9,     i. 39
   xi. 48,     ii. 79
   xi. 52,     i. 299
   xii. 10,     i. 34
   xii. 45, 46,     i. 376
   xiii. 11, 16,     ii. 538
   xiii. 26, 27,     ii. 51
   xiv. 11,     i. 185
   xiv. 34, 35,     ii. 553
   xvii. 20, 21,     i. 38
   xviii. 11,     ii. 144
   xviii. 13,     ii. 144
   xviii. 14,     ii. 144
   xix. 14,     i. 97
   xix. 17,     ii. 558
   xix. 17, 19,     i. 147
   xix. 26,     i. 149
   xx. 36,     i. 345, ii. 189
   xxii. 25,     ii. 446
   xxii. 27,     ii. 8
   xxiii. 21, 25,     ii. 526
   xxiii. 44, 45,     ii. 38
   xxiii. 53,     ii. 72 _bis_
   xxiv. 15, 31,     ii. 65
   xxiv. 30, 31,     ii. 71

 John.
   i. 1,     ii. 293, 408, 456, 496
   i. 1, 2,     i. 130
   i. 1-3,     i. 59
   i. 3,     i. 329, 345
   i. 3, 4,     ii. 341
   i. 5,     ii. 75, 474
   i. 9,     ii. 404
   i. 14,     ii. 411
   i. 18,     i. 16, 95, ii. 75, 450
   i. 26,     ii. 12
   i. 26, 27,     i. 346, ii. 280
   i. 32-34,     i. 449
   i. 52,     i. 450
   ii. 16,     i. 92
   ii. 19,     ii. 113
   ii. 19, 21,     ii. 507
   iii. 8,     ii. 36
   iv. 19,     i. 31
   iv. 20,     i. 10
   iv. 21,     i. 8
   iv. 21-24,     ii. 413
   iv. 23, 24,     i. 10
   iv. 24,     i. 75
   v. 23,     ii. 498
   v. 31,     i. 450
   v. 39,     i. 325, ii. 44, 284
   v. 46, 47,     ii. 6
   vii. 15,     ii. 354
   vii. 42,     i. 453
   viii. 40,     i. 472, ii. 32, 439
   viii. 46,     i. 110
   viii. 58,     ii. 500
   ix. 39,     ii. 461
   x. 3,     i. 390
   x. 8-10,     ii. 490
   x. 18,     i. 108, 125, 346, ii. 23, 113
   x. 24,     i. 450
   x. 30,     ii. 500
   xii. 24,     ii. 527
   xii. 27,     i. 125, 346
   xiii. 2,     i. 232
   xiii. 27,     i. 224
   xiv. 2,     i. 152, ii. 359
   xiv. 6,     i. 1, ii. 409, 500
   xiv. 9,     i. 24, 93
   xiv. 11,     ii. 500
   xiv. 16,     i. 472
   xiv. 23,     i. 9, ii. 506
   xiv. 26,     i. 36
   xiv. 27,     ii. 502
   xiv. 28,     ii. 502
   xiv. 30,     i. 110
   xv. 22,     i. 38
   xvi. 4,     ii. 8
   xvi. 12, 13,     i. 36, ii. 3
   xvi. 28,     ii. 254
   xvi. 33,     i. 233, ii. 401, 554
   xvii. 10,     i. 29
   xvii. 16,     i. 87
   xvii. 20, 21,     i. 56
   xvii. 21,     ii. 500
   xvii. 22,     ii. 50
   xvii. 22, 23,     i. 56
   xvii. 24 (21, 22),     i. 85, 263
   xvii. 25,     i. 104
   xviii. 4, etc.,     ii. 14
   xviii. 36,     i. 465
   xix. 2,     i. 242
   xix. 11,     i. 235
   xix. 34, 35,     ii. 40
   xix. 41,     ii. 72 _bis_
   xix. 52,     ii. 23
   xx. 22,     i. 34, 39, ii. 473
   xx. 26,     ii. 66
   xx. 26, 27,     ii. 65
   xx. 27,     ii. 64
   xxi. 18,     ii. 47

 Acts.
   i. 3,     ii. 66
   i. 5,     ii. 474
   i. 8,     i. 40
   iv. 32,     ii. 500
   v. 36, 37,     ii. 349
   v. 38, 39,     i. 461
   v. 41,     ii. 47
   vii.,     i. 98
   vii. 22,     ii. 128
   vii. 42, 43,     ii. 275
   vii. 52,     i. 379
   viii. 10,     ii. 348
   viii. 18,     i. 34
   ix. 15,     i. 233
   x. 9-15,     ii. 2
   x. 14,     ii. 319
   x. 38,     ii. 548
   xv. 28, 29,     ii. 515
   xvii. 28,     i. 74, ii. 166
   xxi. 26,     ii. 3

 Romans.
   i. 1-4,     i. 94
   i. 3, 4,     i. 248
   i. 14,     ii. 134
   i. 18-23,     ii. 339
   i. 19,     ii. 129, 192
   i. 20,     ii. 401, 459
   i. 20-22,     ii. 129
   i. 21,     ii. 129, 470
   i. 21-23,     ii. 192
   i. 22, 23,     ii. 152
   i. 23,     ii. 498
   i. 24, 25,     ii. 471
   i. 24, 26, 28,     ii. 301
   i. 25,     ii. 340, 470
   i. 26-28,     ii. 129
   i. 27,     ii. 472
   i. 28,     ii. 471
   ii. 4, 5,     i. 181
   ii. 4-10,     i. 168
   ii. 11,     i. 63, 69
   ii. 13-16,     i. 141
   ii. 23,     ii. 498
   ii. 28,     i. 327
   ii. 29,     ii. 445
   v. 7,     ii. 189
   v. 8,     ii. 188
   v. 14,     ii. 206
   vi. 4,     ii. 72
   vi. 9,     ii. 23
   vi. 10,     ii. 72
   vii. 9,     ii. 142
   vii. 12,     i. 103
   vii. 12, 14,     ii. 444
   vii. 13,     i. 103
   vii. 23,     i. 246, 251
   vii. 24,     ii. 473, 539
   viii. 2,     i. 251
   viii. 7,     i. 252
   viii. 8,     ii. 460
   viii. 9,     i. 247, ii. 468
   viii. 13,     ii. 320, 460, 475
   viii. 14,     ii. 262
   viii. 16,     ii. 460
   viii. 19,     i. 63
   viii. 19, 20,     ii. 495
   viii. 19-21,     ii. 281 _bis_, 486
   viii. 20,     ii. 472
   viii. 20, 21,     i. 63, 135, 254, 258-264
   viii. 22,     i. 63
   viii. 32,     ii. 527
   viii. 35-37,     ii. 395
   viii. 37,     i. 396
   viii. 38, 39,     i. 233, 395
   ix. 6,     i. 336
   ix. 6, 8,     i. 327
   ix. 8,     i. 329
   ix. 11, 12,     i. 133
   ix. 14,     i. 63
   ix. 16,     i. 170, 203
   ix. 18,     i. 171
   ix. 20, 21,     i. 171
   x. 6-8,     i. 38
   xi. 4,     i. 308
   xi. 11, 12,     ii. 424
   xi. 33,     i. 339 _bis_
   xi. 36,     ii. 407
   xii. 11,     i. 122
   xii. 14,     ii. 523
   xiii. 1, 2,     ii. 548
   xiii. 14,     i. 81
   xiv. 1,     i. 396
   xiv. 9,     ii. 68, 466
   xiv. 15,     i. 374, ii. 514
   xiv. 21,     ii. 514
   xv. 19,     ii. 444
   xvi. 15,     ii. 6
   xvi. 25, 26,     ii. 141

 1 Corinthians.
   i. 15,     i. 18
   i. 18,     ii. 128
   i. 21,     ii. 284
   i. 23, 24,     i. 411
   i. 24,     i. 18, 28
   i. 26,     i. 247, ii. 352
   i. 26-28,     i. 282
   i. 27,     ii. 151, 467
   i. 27, 28, 29,     ii. 340
   i. 29,     i. 185
   i. 30,     ii. 310, 385
   ii. 2,     i. 348, ii. 69
   ii. 2, 3,     i. 69
   ii. 4, 5,     i. 467, ii. 337
   ii. 6,     i. 225, ii. 31, 139
   ii. 6, 7,     i. 301
   ii. 6-8,     i. 237, 239, 304, ii. 100
   ii. 7,     i. 237, ii. 140
   ii. 9,     i. 267
   ii. 10,     i. 36
   ii. 11,     ii. 192
   ii. 11, 12, 13,     i. 298
   ii. 14,     ii. 414
   iii. 6, 7,     i. 207
   iii. 9,     ii. 161
   iii. 12,     i. 146, ii. 173, 283, 413
   iii. 13-15,     ii. 173
   iii. 18, 19,     i. 410
   iii. 19,     ii. 349, 446
   iv. 11, 12,     ii. 469
   iv. 12, 13,     ii. 333
   v. 1,     i. 267
   vi. 10,     ii. 523, 525
   vi. 16,     ii. 13
   vi. 17,     i. 108, ii. 389
   vi. 20,     i. 374
   vii. 18,     i. 321
   vii. 31,     i. 58, 86
   viii. 4, 11,     ii. 511
   viii. 5,     ii. 495
   viii. 5, 6,     ii. 189
   viii. 8,     ii. 514
   viii. 13,     ii. 514
   ix. 8,     ii. 5
   ix. 9,     i. 304
   ix. 9, 10,     i. 305, ii. 216
   ix. 26,     ii. 474
   ix. 27,     ii. 320
   x. 1, 2,     ii. 216
   x. 3, 4,     ii. 216, 469
   x. 4,     i. 306
   x. 11,     i. 306, ii. 209
   x. 13,     i. 227, 228, 229
   x. 18,     i. 327
   x. 23,     i. 117
   x. 31,     ii. 518
   xi. 3,     i. 106
   xi. 19,     ii. 96
   xii. 3,     i. 34, 40
   xii. 4-7,     i. 41
   xii. 6,     i. 42
   xii. 8,     ii. 128
   xii. 8, 9,     ii. 351
   xii. 11,     ii. 41
   xiii. 10,     ii. 359
   xiii. 12,     ii. 359, 460, 473
   xiv. 15,     i. 121
   xv. 2,     ii. 346
   xv. 3-8,     ii. 66
   xv. 9,     i. 67
   xv. 10,     i. 233
   xv. 12,     ii. 94
   xv. 22,     ii. 206, 375
   xv. 25,     i. 54
   xv. 25, 26,     ii. 374
   xv. 28,     i. 260, 270
   xv. 35-38,     ii. 286
   xv. 39-42,     i. 138
   xv. 40-42,     ii. 278
   xv. 41,     i. 129, ii. 224
   xv. 41, 42,     ii. 191
   xv. 42,     i. 4
   xv. 42, 43,     ii. 287
   xv. 44,     i. 137, ii. 224
   xv. 48, 49,     ii. 287
   xv. 49,     ii. 287
   xv. 50,     ii. 287
   xv. 51, 52,     ii. 285
   xv. 52,     ii. 69 _bis_
   xv. 53,     ii. 454
   xv. 53-56,     i. 80
   xv. 54,     ii. 374

 2 Corinthians.
   i. 10,     i. 56
   ii. 4,     i. 116, 289
   iii. 6,     i. 9, ii. 443
   iii. 7, 8,     ii. 443
   iii. 15,     ii. 330
   iii. 15-17,     i. 9
   iv. 4,     i. 355
   iv. 6,     ii. 341
   iv. 10,     ii. 460
   iv. 18,     i. 89, 267, ii. 401
   v. 1,     i. 89, ii. 454
   v. 1-4,     ii. 454
   v. 6, 8,     ii. 473
   v. 10,     i. 213
   v. 13,     i. 113
   v. 16,     ii. 461
   v. 20,     ii. 492
   v. 21,     ii. 175
   vi. 16,     ii. 506
   viii. 16,     i. 230
   ix. 9, 10,     i. 94
   x. 3,     ii. 334
   x. 5,     i. 230, ii. 161, 269
   xi. 14,     ii. 494
   xi. 22,     i. 94
   xii. 2,     ii. 450
   xii. 4,     ii. 342, 465
   xiii. 3,     i. 3, 112, 344
   xiii. 4,     i. 348

 Galatians.
   i. 4,     ii. 396
   i. 19,     i. 447
   ii. 5,     ii. 445
   ii. 12,     ii. 2
   ii. 20,     i. 344
   iii. 3,     i. 35
   iv. 10, 11,     ii. 509
   iv. 21, 22,     ii. 5
   iv. 21-24,     ii. 210
   iv. 26,     i. 329
   v. 2,     ii. 219
   v. 8,     i. 171, ii. 399
   v. 17,     i. 227, 245, 247, ii. 510
   v. 19-21,     i. 247
   v. 22,     i. 35
   v. 25,     ii. 475
   vi. 14,     ii. 72

 Ephesians.
   i. 4,     i. 256
   i. 21,     i. 45
   ii. 2,     i. 151, ii. 475
   ii. 3,     ii. 238
   ii. 7,     i. 85
   ii. 20,     ii. 507
   iv. 10,     i. 435
   iv. 13,     i. 56
   iv. 14,     ii. 286
   iv. 27,     i. 232
   v. 1,     ii. 406
   v. 16,     ii. 396
   v. 31, 32,     ii. 216
   vi. 2, 3,     i. 94, 324
   vi. 11,     ii. 520, 540, 556
   vi. 12,     i. 225, 232, ii. 520
   vi. 13,     i. 224

 Philippians.
   i. 23,     i. 64, 149
   ii. 5-9,     ii. 178
   ii. 6, 7,     i. 348, ii. 175
   ii. 6-8,     ii. 353
   ii. 10, 11,     i. 29, ii. 543
   ii. 13,     i. 170, 209
   iii. 10,     ii. 72
   iii. 21,     ii. 473
   iv. 8, 9,     i. 101
   iv. 13,     i. 233, ii. 554

 Colossians.
   i. 15,     i. 22, 95, 105, 355, ii. 407, 450
   i. 16,     i. 130
   i. 16, 17,     i. 106
   i. 16-18,     i. 59
   ii. 8,     i. 396
   ii. 9,     i. 110
   ii. 15,     ii. 67
   ii. 16,     i. 307, ii. 510
   ii. 18, 19,     ii. 275
   iii. 3,     i. 112, 347
   iii. 5,     ii. 320, 460
   iii. 8,     ii. 238
   iii, 17,     ii. 518
   iv. 6,     ii. 114, 347

 1 Thessalonians.
   ii. 14-16,     i. 379
   iv. 13-15,     i. 69
   iv. 15, 16,     ii. 285
   iv. 16,     ii. 69
   iv. 16, 17,     ii. 285
   iv. 17,     i. 151
   v. 14,     i. 325

 2 Thessalonians.
   ii. 1-12,     ii. 387
   ii. 2,     ii. 94
   ii. 3, 4,     ii. 52, 385
   ii. 4,     ii. 388
   ii. 6-10,     ii. 52
   ii. 9,     ii. 389
   ii. 10-12,     ii. 52

 1 Timothy.
   i. 15,     ii. 469
   ii. 1, 2,     ii. 556
   ii. 5,     ii. 384
   ii. 20, 21,     ii. 236
   iii. 16,     ii. 112
   iv. 1-3,     i. 116, ii. 334
   iv. 4, 5,     ii. 518
   iv. 10,     ii. 188
   vi. 17, 18,     ii. 444
   vi. 20, 21,     ii. 94

 2 Timothy.
   i. 3,     i. 93, ii. 331
   i. 16-18,     i. 212
   ii. 5,     ii. 541
   ii. 10,     ii. 141
   ii. 11,     ii. 72
   ii. 15,     ii. 268
   ii. 20,     i. 135
   ii. 20, 21,     i. 214
   ii. 21,     i. 135
   iii. 6,     ii. 363
   iii. 8,     ii. 218
   iv. 7,     ii. 474

 Titus.
   i. 9, 10,     ii. 129
   i. 12,     ii. 124
   iii. 3-6,     i. 470
   iii. 10,     ii. 333

 Hebrews.
   i. 3,     i. 22, 24, 25, 343
   i. 7,     i. 122
   i. 8,     ii. 500
   i. 14,     i. 45, 244, ii. 271, 520
   ii. 1,     i. 232
   iii. 14,     i. 390
   iv. 12,     i. 20
   iv. 14,     ii. 519
   iv. 15,     i. 110
   v. 12-14,     ii. 134
   v. 14,     ii. 350
   vi. 7, 8,     i. 177
   viii. 5,     i. 113, 271, 306, 307
   ix. 26,     i. 85
   x. 29,     ii. 499
   xi. 24-26,     i. 1
   xi. 28,     i. 377
   xi. 37, 38,     ii. 431, 441
   xii. 22,     ii. 451
   xii. 22,     i. 330, ii. 495
   xii. 29,     ii. 413

 James.
   iv. 17,     i. 38

 1 Peter.
   i. 9,     i. 121
   ii. 5,     ii. 507
   ii. 9,     ii. 277
   ii. 22,     ii. 175
   iii. 15,     ii. 114, 435
   iii. 18-21,     i. 102
   v. 6,     ii. 142
   v. 8,     i. 244

 1 John.
   i. 5,     i. 449
   i. 5,     i. 8, 343, ii. 278
   ii. 1, 2,     i. 117
   ii. 2,     ii. 130, 188, 505
   ii. 6,     i. 347
   iii. 2,     i. 263, ii. 190
   v. 19,     i. 52, 86

 Revelation.
   i. 8,     i. 29
   v. 8,     ii. 505
   x. 4,     ii. 243
   x. 9,     ii. 342
   xiv. 6,     i. 339
   xxi.,     ii. 262


                    II.—INDEX OF PRINCIPAL SUBJECTS.


 Abaris, the Hyperborean, ii. 112.

 Abraham, i. 419;
   and Isaac and Jacob, the names of, united with that of God, potent
      against demons, ii. 195-197.

 Abstinence, the, practised by the Pythagoreans and Christians, the
    different reasons for, ii. 320.

 _Acts of Paul_, _The_, quoted, i. 20.

 Adam, not the name of an individual but of the whole race, ii. 206.

 Ader [Hadad], i. 389.

 Adrian and Jesus, ii. 117, 118.

 Adultery, reasons why the followers of Zeno and Epicurus abstain from,
    ii. 484.

 Advents of Christ, two, predicted, i. 459.

 Æsculapius and his supposed heavenly power, ii. 102, 103, 104.

 Africanus, the letter of, to Origen, i. 369, 370;
   reply of Origen to, 371, etc.

 Ages, the, i. 85.

 Allegories in Scripture, ii. 209, 210;
   Celsus accuses Christians of having recourse to, when ashamed of
      Scripture histories, 214;
   Celsus’ objection to, refuted, 215-217.

 Altar, the only, recognised by Christians, ii. 505.

 Altars, images, and temples, why Christians reject and abhor, ii.
    480-487.

 Ammon forbids the use of cows’ flesh, ii. 306.

 Anaxarchus, anecdote of, ii. 475, 476.

 Angel, the, who had power to hurt the uncircumcised, ii. 318, 319.

 Angels, doctrine of the Church respecting, i. 7;
   how referred to by Paul, 45;
   a particular office assigned to each, 65;
   diversities among, the result of merit, 66;
   capable of good or evil, 67, 69;
   the substance of, 122, 123;
   superior to men, ii. 189, 190;
   employment and dignity of, 271, 519, 520;
   not to be worshipped or invoked, 272;
   that waited on Jesus, 327, 328.

 Angels, evil, ii. 517.

 Animal man, the, i. 120, 121.

 Animals, irrational, the superiority of man to, ii. 244-256;
   power of sorcery attributed to, by Celsus, 252;
   knowledge of God attributed to, by Celsus, 254-256;
   division of, by Moses, into clean and unclean, 260;
   according to Celsus, nearer to God and more beloved by Him than men,
      263, 264.

 Annihilation of material substances not possible, i. 58.

 Anthropopathy, the, of Scripture, ii. 236, 239.

 Antichrist, ii. 385-388.

 Antinous, ii. 117, 118, 119.

 Ἀντίχθονες, i. 86.

 Ants and bees asserted by Celsus to be not inferior in intelligence to
    man, ii. 246-248.

 Apollonius of Tyana, ii. 380.

 _Apopompœus_, i. 223.

 Apostles, the subjects of their preaching, i. 3, etc.

 Archilochus, the poet, ii. 105.

 Aristeas of Proconnesus, the story of, ii. 106-108;
   and Jesus, 108-111.

 Aristotle flees from persecution, i. 471.

 Ark, the, of Noah, ii. 207.

 Artaxerxes and Mordecai, i. 231.

 _Ascension of Moses, The_, quoted, i. 222.

 Ἀσώματον, i. 5.

 Augury, ii. 252, 253, 254, 255, 256, 257;
   demons the real source of, 259-261;
   forbidden by Moses, 262.

 Avenging injuries, ii. 479, 480.


 Babel, the overthrow of the tower of, ii. 180, 181.

 _Barnabas, The Epistle of_, quoted respecting the two ways, i. 231;
   respecting the disciples of Jesus, 468.

 Bees and ants asserted by Celsus to be not inferior to man in
    intelligence, ii. 246-256.

 Betrayal, the, of Jesus by Judas, ii. 15, etc., 17, etc.

 Bethlehem, Jesus born in, i. 453.

 Birds, divination or augury by, ii. 254, 255, etc., 258, 259.

 Birth, the influence of, i. 427.

 Blessedness, the future, of the saints, not carnal, i. 145, 146;
   but spiritual, 147-153.

 Bodily nature, the perpetuity of the, i. 77-79.

 Body, the, can rational creatures live without?, i. 80, 82;
   to be made immortal and incorruptible, the resurrection of, 137, ii.
      284-292;
   varieties in the resurrection body, i. 138;
   a word to weak believers respecting the resurrection body, 139, etc.;
   as well as the soul, the work of God, Celsus refuted, ii. 220-224,
      225, 226;
   Celsus misrepresents the views of Christians respecting, 533, 534;
   the care of, assigned by the Egyptians to thirty-six demons, 542,
      543.

 Breath of the power of God, the, i. 26-28.

 Brightness of the Father’s glory, Christ the, i. 24.


 Calimachus, his hymn to Jupiter quoted, ii. 124, 125.

 Callatians, a horrid custom of, ii. 307.

 Camel, easier for a, to go through the eye of a needle, etc., ii. 354,
    355.

 Chæremon, his _Treatise on Comets_ cited, i. 462.

 Christ, the words of, i. 1;
   apostolical doctrine respecting, 3;
   the only-begotten Son of God, 18;
   the wisdom of God, 18, 19, 20;
   the eternal generation of, 19, 22;
   generated by the divine will, 23;
   the image of the invisible God, 23, 24;
   the brightness of the glory of God, 24, 25;
   the figure of God’s person or subsistence, 25;
   the breath of the power of God, 26;
   the efflux of God’s glory, 28;
   the splendour of eternal light, 30;
   the stainless mirror of God’s ἐνέργεια, 31;
   the image of God’s goodness, 31, 32;
   the incarnation of, 106;
   His union with God, 108;
   His union with God the reward of His love, 109;
   possessed a human and rational soul, 110, 111;
   anointed with the oil of joy, 111, 112;
   and Moses, as lawgivers, 275, etc.;
   predicted, 279, etc., 285, etc.;
   all the majesty of His divinity not confined within the limits of the
      body of, 345-347;
   Jacob’s prophecy of, 454;
   sufferings of, predicted, 456;
   two advents of, predicted, 459, etc.;
   the belief of Jews and Christians in the advent of, Celsus answered,
      ii. 180.
   _See_ Jesus.

 Christianity, the power of, i. 277, etc., 424, 425, 426;
   its own defence, 393, 395;
   its real evidence, 399, 400;
   general conspiracy against, 400;
   not a secret system, 403;
   martyrs for, praised by Celsus, 404;
   adaptability of, to all orders of mind, ii. 464;
   the object of, to make all men wise, 126, 127, 128, 152;
   Celsus’ slanders of the teachers of, refuted, 153, 154, 155, 156.

 Christians, the, accused of entering into secret associations, i. 398,
    399;
   hostility of the heathen to, 400;
   the morals of, 400, 401;
   regulations of, relating to idolatry, 401, 402;
   use no incantations in casting out demons, 402, 403;
   do not believe without a reason, 405;
   reformed by the power of their religion, 406;
   the points of difference between the Jews and, not trifling, ii. 85,
      86, 88;
   not rebels against the Jewish State, 90, 91;
   the zeal of, to diffuse their principles, 92;
   few at first, yet not very few, 93;
   differences of opinion among, from the first, 94;
   existence of heresies among, no reproach to, 94-96;
   the basis of the union of, 96, 97;
   charged with inventing terrors, 98;
   the religion of, compared by Celsus with that of the Egyptians, 98,
      99;
   charged by Celsus with inviting to their ranks the ignorant only,
      125-131;
   further calumnies of Celsus against, 131, 133;
   their mode of admitting members, 132;
   instructions given by, graduated to the capacity of the hearers, 133;
   desire to instruct all classes of men, 134;
   Celsus’ calumnies respecting the way their teachers deal with the
      young and ignorant, 135-138;
   the worst invited by, to do them good, 139, 140, 141;
   slander of Celsus, that wise men are driven from the religion of,
      151;
   charged with seeking after the unintelligent, 152;
   other charges against the teachers of, repelled, 153-156;
   not won by vain hopes, 158;
   Celsus’ ridicule of, as bats and ants, etc., 183, 184;
   the acknowledged opinions of, which make them noble, 185, 186;
   the character of, 187, 188;
   do not profess to monopolize God, 188, 189;
   the argument between the Jews and, 329;
   sects and heresies among, 331, 333, 335;
   old calumnies against, 365, 366;
   Celsus confounds them with certain silly errorists, 365, etc.;
   Celsus reviles—answer to Celsus’ revilings of, 373-376;
   their views of God misrepresented by Celsus, 449-450;
   their hope after death, 450-451;
   further calumnies of Celsus, 462;
   instructed and stigmatized by Celsus, 468, 469;
   how they live, 471;
   why they reject images, temples, and altars, 483-487;
   not inconsistent in their rejection of images, 487;
   use no barbarous words in prayer, 522;
   do not revile the statues of the gods, 523, 524, 525;
   the loving zeal of, for the salvation of men, 536;
   the liberty of, 538, 539, 540;
   urged by Celsus to help the king and fight for him—how they do this,
      556-558;
   why they refuse to take office under government, 558.

 Christs, false, 460, 461.

 Chrysippus’ treatise _On the Cure of the Passions_ quoted, i. 470;
   _On the Subjugation of the Passions_, ii. 535.

 Churches of the Christians, and heathen assemblies, compared and
    contrasted, ii. 110, 112.

 Circumcision, i. 419;
   as practised by the Jews different from that practised by the
      Gentiles, ii. 316, 318;
   of Moses’ son, 318, 319;
   abolished by Christ, 319.

 Clean and unclean animals, the reason of the Mosaic division into, ii.
    260.

 Clement of Rome quoted, i. 86, 87.

 Cleomedes, the boxer, of Astypalea, ii. 105, 114.

 Clothing, the, of the soul and of the body, i. 81.

 Condescension, the, of God, ii. 172, 174, 175.

 Conflagration, the, of the world, Celsus’ cavils against, ii. 281-285.

 Conflict, the, with the powers of evil, i. 232, etc.

 Confusion of tongues, the, at Babel, ii. 297-299.

 Consummation, the, i. 53-59.

 _Controversy between Jason and Papiscus, The_, concerning Christ,
    referred to, 218, 219.

 Conversion possible for the very worst, ii. 145-148.

 Converts from Judaism do not desert the law of their fathers, ii. 1, 2.

 Corporeal and incorporeal being, i. 59-65.

 Corporeity, will it ever be destroyed?, i. 82, 83, etc.

 Corruptible, the, putting on incorruption, i. 80, 81.

 Cosmogony, the Mosaic, the criticism of Celsus on, answered, ii.
    390-392, 402, 403.

 Cows’ flesh forbidden by Ammon, ii. 306.

 Creation, the, of the world in time, i. 253, etc.;
   objection to the creation of the world in time answered, 255;
   the peculiar term employed in Scripture to express, 258.

 Creation of man, the, ridiculed by Celsus, ii. 199, 200;
   and of beast, the work of God, 220-224.

 Creature, the, subjected to vanity, i. 63-65, 257, 258.

 Creatures, made by God in the beginning, i. 126;
   changeable and mutable, 128;
   varieties of, 129, 130.

 Crocodiles, Celsus has no fault to find with the worshippers of, ii.
    310.

 Cup, the prayer of Jesus respecting the, ii. 32.

 Customs, ought those of our respective countries to be followed?, ii.
    305, etc.;
   the variety and absurdity of, 306, etc.

 Cycles of mortal things, asserted by Celsus, refutation of the notion
    of, ii. 232, 233;
   taught by the Stoics, 389, 390.


 Dan and Bethel, i. 390.

 Daniel, the wisdom of, ii. 127.

 Daniel, additions to the book of, in the LXX., i. 371, 372, 373.

 Darkness, outer, i. 144.

 Darkness, the rulers and powers of, obtained their degrees of evil by
    their own conduct, i. 69.

 Darkness, the, round about God, ii. 355.

 Days, sacred, ii. 509, 510.

 Death, how could the Jews in captivity pass the sentence of?, i. 385.

 Death, the hope of Christians after, ii. 450, 451.

 Death, the last enemy, destroyed, i. 268, 269.

 Defection, the, of men, i. 43.

 Deluge, the, the cavils of Celsus respecting, ii. 206-208, 401.

 Demons, _formulœ_ used against, ii. 195, 196, 197;
   the source of augury by birds, etc., 259, 260, 261;
   the seven ruling, referred to by Celsus, 368, 369;
   cast out by Christians, 487;
   the worship of, inconsistent with the worship of God, 488-490;
   eating things offered to, 514-517;
   have nothing to do with food and drink, 516-518;
   first-fruits not to be offered to, 519;
   can inflict no injury on Christians, 521, 522;
   Jesus not a demon, 524;
   afraid of martyrs, 528;
   not set over the fruits of the earth, 542;
   thirty-six, among the Egyptians, have assigned to them the care of
      the human body, 542;
   caution, according to Celsus, required in the service of, 544-546;
   other references to, 110, 113, 114, 115, 117, 194, 232, 259, 260,
      261, 264, 272, 512, 544.

 Desire of knowledge, the, to be satisfied in a future state, i.
    146-151.

 Deuteronomy, the book of, i. 338, 339.


 Devil, the, and his angels, the doctrine of the Church respecting, i.
    5;
   the titles of, 45;
   not incapable of goodness, 68;
   the agency of, as set forth in the Old Testament, 222;
   as revealed in the New Testament, 224;
   not the prompter to all sins, 227-229;
   how he and his allied powers tempt, 229;
   the contest against, 232, etc.;
   the charges of Celsus against the Christians in relation to, refuted,
      ii. 380-384;
   the fall of, 385.

 Diagram, a curious, referred to by Celsus as in use among certain
    heretics, ii. 362, 363, 368, 369, 376, 377.

 Disciples, the, of Jesus, their devotion to their Master, i. 430;
   defended against Celsus, 466-470;
   justified in fleeing from persecution, 471;
   truthfulness of, ii. 21, 23.

 Dionysius, ii. 103.

 Dioscuri, the, and Hercules, and Æsculapius, no gods, ii. 102, 103.

 Divination, ii. 254, 255, 256, 257, 258, 259.

 _Doctrine of Peter, The_, the apocryphal work so called, quoted, i. 6.

 Dositheans, the, ii. 349.

 Dove, the descent of a, on Jesus, i. 440, 441, 442-446.


 Earth, the distribution of the several parts of, among superintending
    spirits, according to Celsus, ii. 293, etc.;
   the correct view respecting, 296, 297.

 Ebionite, meaning of the name, i. 329.

 Ebionites, who so called, ii. 1.

 Efflux of the glory of God, Christ the, i. 28.

 Egypt, how the Hebrews were delivered from, ii. 89, 90.

 Egyptians, the, what the Israelites did with the spoil of, i. 388, 389;
   the Jews not descended from, ii. 88-90;
   the religion of, foolishly compared by Celsus to that of the
      Christians, 98, 99;
   inconsistently lauded by Celsus, 423;
   assign the care of the human body to thirty-six demons, 542, 543.

 Elephants, the fidelity of, to oaths, according to Celsus, ii. 265.

 End, the, when it will come, i. 54;
   and the beginning, 55;
   what shall be after, 58;
   admonitory remarks respecting, 262-273.

 Enemy, the last, destroyed, i. 268, 269.

 _Enoch, The book of_, quoted, i. 352, ii. 325.

 Epictetus, an anecdote of, ii. 475, 476.

 Epicureans, reasons of the, for abstaining from adultery, ii. 484.

 Eros, the story of, from the _Symposium_ of Plato, ii. 203-205.

 Esaias sawn asunder, i. 377, 378.

 Esoteric and exoteric doctrines of Christianity, the, i. 403.

 Eternal generation of Christ, the, i. 19, 23.

 Etymological fancies in Scripture, i. 383.

 Euphrates, ii. 367.

 Euripides quoted, ii. 243.

 Eve, the formation of, ridiculed by Celsus, ii. 201.

 Evidences of the truth of Christianity, i. 445, 446.

 Evil, or good, every rational created nature capable of, i. 68;
   God, not the author of, 395-398;
   what sort of, God may be said to cause, 398;
   the final complete destruction of, 555.

 Evil beings, made such by themselves in their respective degrees, i.
    69.

 Evils, never more nor fewer, according to Celsus—refutation of this
    opinion, ii. 228, 229, 230;
   the inquiry into the origin of, difficult, 231, 232;
   the source of, 232;
   seeming, 235, 236;
   allowed for good ends, 398.

 Eyes, open and shut,—the inner and outer, ii. 461.


 Faith, the reforming power of the Christian, i. 406;
   the call to, rational, 407.

 Faith in Jesus, ii. 120.

 Fallen spirits, i. 57;
   the restoration of, 57, 58.

 Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a summary of the doctrine of the, i. 342,
    etc.

 Figure of the Father’s person, Christ the, i. 25.

 Fire, eternal, the threatening of, i. 40-43.

 Fire, God a consuming, i. 9;
   why God is represented as, ii. 172, 173.

 Flesh and spirit, i. 245-248.

 Floods and conflagrations, ii. 171.

 Food, spiritual, i. 147;
   different ways of preparing, i. 480, 481.

 Foolishness, the kind recommended by Christianity, i. 410.

 Foreknowledge, does not necessitate the events foreseen, ii. 25, 26,
    27, 28;
   the gift of, does not necessarily imply virtue, 105;
   no proof of divinity, 262, 263.

 Foundation of the world, the, i. 256.

 Free-will, i. 4, 132, 133;
   fully asserted, 157, etc.;
   able to resist external causes, 161;
   proved from Scripture, 165, etc.;
   passages of Scripture apparently opposed to, explained, 168-221.


 Gehenna, ii. 263, 264.

 Generation, eternal, the, of Christ, i. 19, 22, 23.

 Glory, human, forbidden, ii. 447.

 God, apostolic doctrine respecting, i. 3;
   a Spirit, 8-11;
   light, _ibid._;
   fire, 9;
   incomprehensible, 11;
   revealed in His works, 12, 13;
   simple and uncompounded in His nature, 12, 15;
   the nature of, surpasses natural bodies, 15, 16;
   invisible,—how said to be seen, 16, 17;
   the image of, 23, 24, 262, 263;
   omnipotent, 28, 301, ii. 149;
   nature of His power, 31;
   created all things, i. 34;
   the, of the law and the prophets the same as the Father of Jesus
      Christ, 91, etc.;
   not a body, 91;
   anthropopathic expressions respecting, in the Old Testament,
      explained, 96, 97;
   the justice and goodness of, 97-105;
   the soul of, 125, 126;
   nothing happens without the permission of, 235;
   what was He doing before He created the world?, 256;
   in the end, all in all, 264, 265;
   one, believed in by the Jews, 420, 421;
   His dealing with the good and the bad, ii. 149, 150;
   His descent upon earth objected to by Celsus,—meaning of His descent,
      162-166, 172;
   by descending on earth He does not vacate heaven, 166;
   why He desires to make Himself known to men, 167, 168;
   in every age has passed into the souls of men, 168;
   has revealed Himself to some preeminently, 169;
   Celsus accuses Christians of babbling about, 171;
   a consuming fire, 172, 173;
   the condescension of, 172, 173, 174, 175;
   further objections of Celsus to the descent of, to earth,
      answered—object of the incarnation of, 177, 178;
   figurative language used to describe, 200, 404;
   the one Creator of body and soul, man and beast, 220-224;
   anger, wrath, etc., ascribed to—how this is to be understood,
      237-239;
   made all things for the sake of man, 239, 240, 241, 242;
   ever near His people, 280;
   the name given to, is not unimportant, but the contrary, 315-317;
   darkness round about, 355;
   those who call Him “accursed,” 365, 366, 367;
   in what sense said to make evil, 395, 397;
   not incapable of persuading men, 398, 399;
   in what sense said to repent, 399, 400;
   the resting attributed to, 403;
   man made in the image of, 405, 406;
   can He be reached by a word?, 408;
   how to know, 408, 409, 410, 411;
   the Spirit of, 413, 414;
   Celsus misrepresents the views of Christians respecting, 449, 450;
   how seen, 455;
   not confined to place, 456;
   not known by the senses, 457, etc.;
   hard to find out, 464, 465;
   adapts His truth to all classes, 464; seen in Christ, 465, 466;
   known by the simplest Christian, through the help of divine grace,
      466, 467;
   the worship of Christ consistent with the sole worship of, 500, 501;
   worshipped equally well in different languages, 522.

 Gods, Scythian and Greek, ii. 377, 378;
   many, not to be served, 492, etc., 496-500;
   Christians do not revile the statues of the, 523.

 Goodness, divine, i. 32;
   and justice, 97, etc.;
   consistent with the infliction of punishment, 98, etc.

 Gospel, the, not perverted by Christians, ii. 33.

 Gospels, the, not all pure history, i. 315, 317, 320;
   their character and authors, ii. 121.

 Greek philosophy and learning to be made subservient to Christianity,
    i. 388.

 Gregory Thaumaturgus, letter of Origen to, i. 388.


 Hardening, the, of Pharaoh’s heart, i. 169, etc., 176-191.

 Healing art, the possession of the, does not necessarily imply virtue,
    ii. 105.

 Heaven, i. 88, 89, 90, 152.

 Heavenly bodies, the, animated and endowed with souls, i. 59-65.

 _Heavenly Dialogue, A_, quoted by Celsus, ii. 503.

 Heavens, the, opened to Jesus at His baptism, i. 448, 449, 450;
   not called God, nor worshipped by the Jews, ii. 275-279.

 Hebrew Master, the, of Origen, cited, i. 35.

 Hebrews, the, not Egyptians by descent,—how freed from Egyptian
    bondage, ii. 88-92.

 Hercules, proposed by Celsus to Christians as an object of homage,—the
    character of, ii. 475, 476.

 Heresies among Christians no reproach, ii. 96-98, 331-333, 335.

 _Hermas, The Shepherd of_, quoted, i. 34, 35, 230, 301.

 Herod seeks to destroy the child Jesus, i. 464, 465.

 Heroes proposed by Celsus to the Christians as objects of homage
    superior to their own, ii. 475.

 Hesiod quoted as to the formation of Pandora, ii. 201, 202.

 Holy Spirit, the, the apostolic doctrine of, i. 3;
   what, 10;
   the existence of, 33;
   what we are taught in Scripture respecting, 34;
   not created, 35;
   one of the two seraphim of Isaiah, _ibid._;
   reveals God, 36;
   the nature of His working as distinguished from that of the Father
      and the Son, 37-40, 41, 43;
   taken from the unworthy, 39;
   dwells in the renewed, 39, 40;
   bestowed on the saints, 40;
   one, 114;
   every rational creature receives a share of, 114, 115;
   the advent of, after the ascension of Christ, 115;
   gifts of, 116;
   the Paraclete, 116, 117.

 Homer quoted respecting the sparrow, serpent, and eagle, ii. 258.

 Hope, the, of Christians after death, ii. 450, 451.

 Human nature, the dignity of, ii. 183-186.

 Humility, ii. 352, 353.


 Idol festivals, why not take part in?, ii, 511, 512.

 Idolatry, even heathen philosophers condemn, i. 401.

 Idols, abstinence from meats offered to, ii. 514, 515, 516.

 Ignorance receives no sanction from Christianity, ii. 125-131, 154.

 Image of God, the, man made in, i. 262-264, ii. 405, 487.

 Image of God’s goodness, the, i. 32.

 Image of the invisible God, Christ the, i. 23, 24.

 Images, not gods, ii. 121;
   the making of, forbidden to the Jews, 193;
   why Christians reject, 480-487;
   the true, of God, 505, 506.

 Immortality, the, of rational natures, i. 353.

 Incantations, not used by Christians, i. 402, 403;
   the power of names in, ii. 315, 316.

 Incarnation, the, of Christ, i. 105;
   the wonderfulness of, 106, 107;
   the intermediacy of Christ’s soul between the flesh and God in, 108,
      109;
   the assumption of the soul in, a reward of that soul’s virtues, 109;
   difficulty as to Christ’s possessing a human soul, removed, 110;
   the subject illustrated, 111, 112;
   implies no change in God, the object of, ii. 174, 175, 176-179;
   cavilled at and ridiculed by Celsus, 415, 416, 421, 422.

 Incorporeal, meaning of the term, i. 5, 6.

 Inspiration, the, of the Scriptures, i. 274, 285.

 Instinct and reason, ii. 250-253.

 Interpretation, of the promises, not literal, but spiritual, i.
    143-148;
   of the Scriptures, the true method of, 291-323.

 Isis and Osiris, ii. 309.

 Israel, the carnal and spiritual, i. 327.


 Jacob, and Esau, i. 133, 134;
   wrestles with an angel, 234;
   his prophecy of Christ, 455.

 James, the brother of our Lord, i. 447.


 Jesus, His conversation with the woman of Samaria, i. 11;
   silence of, before His judges, 393;
   charge of sorcery against, power of His name, 402, 403;
   acted by a divine power, 424, 425, 426;
   Celsus introduces a Jew disputing with, and refuting, 426, 427;
   Celsus’ defamation of, turned into an argument to enhance the glory
      and divine power of, 427, 430;
   the attachment of His disciples to, and His death for men, 430, 431;
   the miraculous birth of, vindicated against Celsus, 431, 432;
   predicted to be born of a virgin, 433;
   no rational objection to the birth of, from a virgin, 437;
   absurdity of imputing the miracles of, to magic, 438, 439;
   descent of a dove on, 440, 441, 442, 443;
   no grounds for believing in Moses while He is rejected, 444, 445;
   evidence of the divinity of the doctrine of, 445, 446;
   the heavens open to, 448, 449, 450;
   prophecies relating to, 451, 452, etc.;
   born in Bethlehem, 453;
   the disciples of, Celsus’ account of them, 466-470;
   flight of, into Egypt, justified against Celsus, 472, 473;
   the miracles of, defended, 474;
   the miracles of, not wrought by magic, 474-476;
   Celsus’ silly carping about the body of, exposed, 476, 477;
   His promise of the Spirit of truth, ii. 3;
   observed the Jewish law, 7, 8;
   not arrogant, but meek and lowly, 8;
   inconsistency of the Jews in rejecting, 9, 10;
   Celsus’ impeachment of the Godhead of, answered, 10, 11;
   never broke His promise, 13;
   never attempted disgracefully to hide from His enemies, 14;
   the betrayal of, 15;
   the argument of Celsus founded on the betrayal of, answered, 17,
      etc.;
   predictions respecting,—Celsus’ mode of dealing with the predictions
      respecting, refuted, 18, 21;
   the disciples of, lovers of truth, 21;
   really suffered, died, and was raised from the dead,—an objection
      met, 22-24;
   if He foreknew the traitor and perjurer, why did they not desist from
      their purpose?, 24, 25;
   His foreknowledge did not compel the events foreknown, 25-28;
   His suffering real, and voluntarily and submissively endured, 29-33;
   predictions concerning the life of, 34, 35;
   the union of kingdoms at the time of the birth of, 35, 36;
   objection of Celsus drawn from the genealogies of, 37;
   ‘what great deeds did He perform, being a God?’ answered, 37, 38;
   could He not have delivered Himself from His enemies?—punishment of
      the enemies of, 38, 39, 40;
   blood and water flow from the side of,—Celsus’ mockery of this, 40;
   vinegar and gall given to, 41;
   objection of Celsus that He gained over no one in His life,—why the
      Jews are blamed for not believing in, 42-45;
   Celsus’ assertion that He did not show Himself pure from evil, 43,
      44;
   numbered with transgressors, 45, 46;
   conduct of the disciples on His being apprehended,—Celsus’ argument
      founded on this refuted, 47;
   Celsus’ assertion that He only gained over ten sailors and
      tax-gatherers, 47, 48;
   why Christians were won over to, 48, 49;
   refutation of Celsus concerning the miracles of, 49-57;
   and the heroes of heathenism compared, 59, 60;
   the resurrection of, 60;
   ought He to have appeared after His resurrection to His persecutors?,
      65-70;
   why did He not escape from the cross?, 71, 72;
   to whom He appeared after His resurrection, 74;
   purposes of His mission, 75;
   Celsus’ argument derived from the incredulity of the Jews, answered,
      77-81;
   censured by Celsus for using threats, 79, etc.;
   unbelief of the Jews as to, predicted and punished, 82, 83;
   the power of, to diffuse His doctrine and convert men, 83, 84;
   not to be compared with Æsculapius, Hercules, etc., 102, 103;
   nor with Aristeas of Proconnesus—advantages derived from, 106-111;
   nor with Abaris the Hyperborean, 112;
   nor with the Clazomenean, 113;
   nor with Cleomedes of Astypalea, 114;
   nor with Zamolxis, 115, 116;
   nor with Adrian, 117, 118;
   nor with Antinous, 119, 120;
   the human nature of, changed into God, 122, 123;
   and Cretan Jove, 124, 125;
   Celsus’ objection that He was sent to sinners, 141, 142, 143;
   suffering of the Jews for their crime against, 182, 526, 527;
   cavils of Celsus respecting—not the only one sent from God to men,
      321, 322;
   angels wait on—reply to Celsus on this point, 327, 328;
   the soul of, joined to the Word, 389, 390;
   personal appearance of—Celsus’ reproaches respecting this, 418-420;
   appearances after His resurrection not shadowy, 456;
   conduct of, under His sufferings, 476, 477;
   death of, 478;
   the worship of, consistent with the worship of the one God, 500, 501;
   the Son of God, 501, 502;
   not a demon, 523, 524;
   fruitfulness of the death of, 527.

 Jews, the, mutilated the Scriptures of the Old Testament, i. 377, 379;
   Celsus casts a slight upon, 411, 412;
   Numenius and others speak favourably of, 412, 413;
   the antiquity of, 413;
   believe in one God, 420, 421;
   falsely accused by Celsus of angel-worship and sorcery, 424;
   the inconsistency of, in rejecting Jesus,—their unbelief foretold,
      ii. 9, 10, 77, 82, 83;
   punishment of their unbelief, 10;
   what they are to be blamed for respecting Jesus, 41;
   the points of difference between Christians and, not foolish, 85, 86,
      88;
   how they adhere to their religion, 87, 88;
   blunder of Celsus as to the Egyptian descent of, 88, 89;
   the punishment of, for their treatment of Jesus, 182;
   Celsus’ ridicule of Christians and, 183;
   vindicated against Celsus, the law and polity of, 192, 193;
   the genealogy of, 195, 197, 198;
   do not worship the heavens, 272, 273;
   do not consider the heavens to be God, 274;
   do not bow down to angels, 276, 277, 278;
   defended against the false charges of Celsus, 312, 313;
   have nothing in common with the Persians in the worship of God, 314;
   the circumcision practised by, different from that of other nations,
      317, 318;
   reason of their abstinence from swine’s flesh, 319, 320;
   were highly favoured by God, 320, 321, 530, 531.

 Job, additions to the book of, in the LXX., i. 378;
   and in the Hebrew text, _ibid._

 John the Baptist referred to by Josephus, i. 447.

 Jonah and Jesus, ii. 478.

 Joseph, Celsus’ cavils respecting, ii. 213.

 Judaism, converts from, do not desert the law of their fathers, ii. 1,
    5, 6.

 Judas, the conduct of, in betraying, and after betraying, Jesus, ii.
    15, 16;
   foretold, 27.

 Judea and Jerusalem, figures of a heavenly land, ii. 451.

 Jupiter, the Cretan, ii. 124, 125.

 Just man, the, promised riches, ii. 444;
   how he slays and prevails, 445.

 Justice and goodness, their harmony and consistency, i. 97-105.


 Καταβολή, i. 256, 258.

 Kings, the favour of, according to Celsus, to be sought, ii. 547, 548;
   swearing by the fortune of, 549;
   how Christians fight for and help, 556, 557.

 Knowledge, the increase of, in the future state, i. 148-151.

 Κόσμος, i. 86.


 Labour, the wisdom of the necessity of, laid on man, ii. 242.

 Laius, and the oracle given to, ii. 26, 27.

 Land, the good, promised by God to the righteous, ii. 450, 451, 452.

 Languages, the confusion of, at Babel, ii. 297, 298, 299.

 Law, is it the king of all things?, ii. 310, 311.

 Law of Moses, the, the irrationality and impossibility of some of its
    precepts taken literally, i. 317-320;
   twofold, ii. 443, 444;
   promises riches to the just, 444.

 Laws, ancestral, is it impiety to abandon them?, ii. 293-298;
   when those of states and natural, are opposed, which to be followed?,
      307, 308.

 Light, the, not to be worshipped, ii. 278, 279;
   and darkness, 409, 410.

 Light, God is, i. 8, 31.

 Lot and his daughters, the story of, assailed by Celsus,—explanation
    of, ii. 211, 212.

 Lucifer, his fall from heaven, i. 51-53.


 Magi, the visit of the, to Jesus, i. 461, 464.

 Magic, the miracles of Jesus not wrought by, i. 474-476;
   over whom it has power, ii. 379, 380.

 Man, the account of the creation of, ridiculed by Celsus, ii. 199, 200;
   all things made for the sake of, 239, 240-244;
   superiority of, over irrational animals, 244-256.

 Marcion, ii. 324, 417.

 Martyrs, demons afraid of, ii. 528.

 Masters, no man can serve two, ii. 493.

 Meats and drinks, abstaining from, ii. 514, 515, 516.

 Mediator, the, through whom we come to God, ii. 271, 272.

 Men, not be compared to bats and worms, as Celsus compares them,—the
    dignity of their nature, ii. 182-185;
   God’s care over the first, 246.

 Minerva, ii. 550.

 Miracles of Jesus, the, their greatness, i. 474;
   not wrought by magic, 474-476;
   vindicated against Celsus, ii. 49-57.

 Miraculous appearances, on Greek testimony, witnessed by men, ii. 326,
    327.

 Mithrus, the mysteries of, referred to by Celsus, ii. 260, 262.

 Moses, his history assailed by Celsus, i. 414, 415;
   a challenge on behalf of the laws of, 415, 416;
   Celsus strives to discredit his account of creation, 416;
   a divine spirit in, 417;
   excellency of the history transmitted by, 418;
   no reason for believing in, while rejecting Christ, 444, 445;
   and Jesus, the miracles of, ii. 54-57, 58, 59;
   the antiquity of, 171;
   his division of animals into clean and unclean, 260, 261;
   the cosmogony of, taken exception to by Celsus, 390-392, 402, 403.


 Name of Jesus, the power of, i. 403.

 Names, the origin, power, and mystery of, i. 421, 422, 423;
   not unimportant, ii. 315;
   the power of, in invocations, 316.

 New heavens and new earth, the, i. 56, 58.

 Numenius, his treatise on _The Good_, i. 412.


 Old Testament, the, and the New, their teaching harmonious, ii. 444,
    etc., 447.

 Only-begotten Son of God, Christ the, i. 18;
   the self-abasement of, 259.

 Ophites, the, referred to, ii. 362, 365, 366, 367, 462.

 Opposing powers, or powers of darkness, the, i. 222, etc.;
   our conflict with, 232, etc.

 Oracles, ii. 426, 456;
   and responses, 529;
   and the words of the prophets, 530.

 Orpheus, proposed by Celsus to Christians as an object of homage, ii.
    275, 276.

 Osiris and Isis, ii. 309.


 Pandora, Hesiod’s description of the formation of, ii. 201, 202.

 Pappæus, ii. 315-317.

 Parables, why Jesus spoke in, i. 195-202.

 Paraclete, the, i. 114, 116.

 Paradise, the, prepared for departed saints, i. 151.

 Passions, the, which affect the soul, i. 141.

 _Pastor, The, of Hermas_, quoted, i. 34, 35, 230, 301.

 Paul, his desire to depart, i. 159, 160;
   his wisdom, ii. 100, 101.

 Persecution, Jesus and His disciples justified in avoiding, i. 471.

 Persians, and Jews hold nothing in common in the worship of God, ii.
    214;
   mysteries of the, 360;
   have no temples, 483;
   worship the creature, 485, 486.

 Peter, his superstitious adherence to Jewish observances,—how delivered
    from it, ii. 1-3.

 Pharaoh, the hardening of the heart of, i. 171-191.

 Philosophers, the folly and error of, ii. 470.

 Phœnix, the, ii. 265.

 Planets, the, i. 87.

 Plato, quoted respecting Eros, ii. 203-205;
   and Scripture, the respective styles of, 336-338;
   the inefficacy of his teaching compared with that of the Scriptures,
      339-341;
   Jesus does not quote and pervert the words of, as Celsus asserts,
      354;
   excelled by the Scriptures in his idea of God, 355, 366;
   quoted as to _Elysium_, 450;
   quoted as to certain precious stones, 452;
   his _Timœus_ quoted, 464;
   on the avenging of injuries, 479.

 Potter, the, his power over the clay, i. 211, etc.

 Power of God, the, i. 26, 28.

 Prayer, to whom it is to be made, ii. 272, 273;
   Christians use no barbarous names in, 522.

 Precious stones, certain, spoken of by Plato, ii. 452.

 Predictions, respecting India, Egypt, and Babylon, etc., 331, 332;
   respecting Jesus Christ. _See_ Prophecies.

 Pre-existence, the, of rational creatures, i. 256-258.

 Prejudice, the power of, i. 455.

 Principalities and powers of darkness, the, i. 68-70.

 _Prino-prisein_ and _Schino-schisein_ difficulty of interpretation,
    the, i. 375, 381, 383.

 Promises, the, of future good, not to be interpreted literally and
    carnally, i. 145-153.

 Prophecies, the, the cavils of Celsus respecting, answered, ii.
    431-440, 441, etc.;
   relating to Christ, 451, 453, etc., 456-458, 459.

 Prophets, the, the various ways God spake to, i. 380;
   quoted from each other, 386;
   necessary for the Jews, 436, 437;
   the character of, ii. 430, 431;
   power of the words of, 530.

 Providence, divine, maintained against Celsus, ii. 240-244, 266;
   incorrect views of, rectified, 488, 489.

 Πσυχή, i. 123.

 Punishment, future, the Christian doctrine of, i. 140, etc., ii. 524,
    532, 534, 535.

 Pythagoreans, the abstinence practised by, ii. 320.

 Pythian oracle, the, ii. 426, 429.


 Qualities always belong to substances, i. 351.

 Queen of Sheba, the, ii. 126.


 Rational natures, various, i. 44, 45;
   capable of sin, 45;
   evil, 45, 46;
   whether any were created so as to be incapable of sin or of virtue,
      46, 47;
   the glory of some and the wickedness of others not original and
      essential to their being, but the result of desert, 48, 69;
   never sink into the condition of irrational animals, 70;
   can they lead an existence out of the body, 82;
   the immortality of, 353, etc.

 Repentance, attributed to God, ii. 399, 400.

 Resting, predicated of God, ii. 403.

 Restoration, the, of fallen beings, i. 56, 57.

 Resurrection, the, of the body, i. 136;
   weak believers instructed on the subject, 139;
   ridiculed by Celsus, explained and defended, ii. 282, 285, 286-288,
      454, 455.

 Resurrection, the, of Jesus, ii. 59-62;
   the belief of, not the product of a dream, 63;
   why did not Jesus show Himself to His enemies after, 65-70;
   His appearances after, not phantom-like, 457.

 Riches, promised to the just man, in what sense, ii. 444;
   Jesus gave no laws contrary to this promise of, 446.


 Samaritan woman, Jesus converses with a, i. 11.

 Satan, ii. 385;
   and Antichrist, 385, 386. _See_ Devil.

 Scriptures, the, the teaching of the Church respecting, i. 5;
   the inspiration of, 274, etc., 285, etc.;
   the superhuman element in, does not present itself to the
      uninstructed, 287-290;
   how to be regarded and understood, 291, 294, 299;
   a threefold sense in, 300;
   the soul of, 303-308;
   the mysteries contained in, 308, etc.;
   stumbling-blocks in, 212;
   the histories of, not all pure history, but some to be mystically
      understood, 313-322;
   in regard to many things, the historical and literal sense of, the
      true sense, 323;
   passages of, which are true in their historical sense, more numerous
      than those which are to be spiritually understood, 324;
   the need of careful search to distinguish between what is literal in,
      and what is not, 325;
   our duty to grasp the whole meaning of, 326;
   etymological fancies in, 383;
   exhortation to the study of, 390;
   many of the histories of, allegories, ii. 209, 210;
   simplicity of the style of, compared with that of Plato, 326-338;
   the inefficacy of the teaching of Plato compared with that of,
      339-341;
   exceed Plato in the idea they give of God, 355, 356.

 Scythian and Greek names of God, ii. 377, 378.

 Secret associations, Christians charged by Celsus with entering
    into,—reply, i. 390.

 Sects among Christians, ii. 331-333, 335.

 Seeing God, i. 16, 17, ii. 465, 466.

 Sense and the senses, i. 15.

 Septuagint, additions to the Scripture in the—defence of these
    additions, i. 371-373.

 Seraphim, the, i. 35, 340, 341.

 Serapis, ii. 309.

 Seriphian and Themistocles, i. 428.

 Serpent, the, Celsus ridicules the story of the temptation by, ii. 203;
   is the devil, 483.

 _Shepherd of Hermas, The_, i. 34, 35, 230, 301.

 Sicarians, the, ii. 19.

 Silence, the, of Jesus before His judges, i. 393.

 Simonians, the, ii. 332, 348.

 Sin, incentives to, ii. 226.

 Sinners, Christianity invites and restores to virtue, ii. 139-144;
   a change of life possible for, asserted against Celsus, 145-149.

 Sneezing, according to the poets, prophetic, ii. 261.

 Socrates pronounced the wisest of men, ii. 429.

 Son, the only-begotten, of God, Christ the, i. 18;
   self-abasement of, 257;
   subjection of, to the Father, 260-262;
   the generation of, 342, 343;
   the advent and incarnation of, 345-347;
   the dignity of, ii. 308, 388, 389, 502;
   the soul of Jesus joined with, 389, 390;
   Celsus misrepresents the views of Christians respecting, 503.

 “Sons of God” and “daughters of men,” ii. 325.

 Sorcery, Jesus charged with, by Celsus, i. 402, 403;
   the Jews charged with, 424;
   the miracles of Jesus not wrought by, ii. 49-56;
   the power of, attributed by Celsus to certain animals, 252, etc.

 Soul, the, apostolic teaching respecting, i. 4;
   a lost, 121, 122;
   meaning of the word, 123, 124;
   and spirit of Christ, 125;
   why acted on sometimes by evil spirits and sometimes by good, 242,
      etc.;
   and body alike the work of God, ii. 220-226.

 Souls, various sorts of, 118, 119;
   of angels and of God, 119, 120;
   has man two?—three theories discussed, 244-252;
   good and bad, ii. 428.

 Spirit,—what?, i. 9.

 Spirit of truth, the, promised by Jesus, ii. 3, 4;
   perpetually bestowed, 412, 413.

 Spirits, wicked, their mode of operation, i. 241;
   good, their agency, 242.

 Spiritual body, the, i. 266, 267.

 Splendour of the eternal light, Christ the, i. 30.

 Spoiling the Egyptians, i. 388, 389.

 Star, the, of the wise men, i. 462, 464.

 Stars, living rational beings capable of sin, i. 61, 62.

 Stony heart, the, how taken away, i. 191, etc.

 Stumbling-blocks designedly placed in the Scriptures, i. 312.

 Subjection, the, of the Son to the Father, i. 260, etc.

 Substance, i. 350.

 Suffering of Christ, the, predicted, i. 456, 457.

 Sun, the, and other planets endowed with life and souls, i. 59-65.

 Superiority and inferiority, not to be decided by a bodily standard,
    ii. 184.

 Susanna, the story of, inquiry of Africanus respecting the genuineness
    of, i. 369, 370;
   Origen’s defence of the genuineness of, 371, etc.

 Swine’s flesh, abstinence from, ii. 319, 320.


 Temple, the true, of God, i. 506, 507.

 Temptations, proportioned to the strength of the tempted, ii. 227-229;
   human, treated of at large, 244, etc.

 “Things in heaven, earth, and under the earth,” ii. 57.

 Thomas, the scepticism of, ii. 64, 65.

 Thoughts, how suggested, i. 229, 230.

 Threefold sense of Scripture, the, i. 300, etc.

 Thrones, dominions, etc., i. 56.

 Tobias, i. 384.

 Trinity, the, the unity and operations of the persons of, i. 37-41;
   the sum of the doctrine of, 342, etc.

 Truth is truth, by whomsoever spoken, ii. 480;
   how served up as food by philosophers and prophets and the disciples
      of Christ, 480, 481.

 Typical interpretation, i. 306.

 Tyre, the prince of, i. 49-51.


 Union among Christians, the basis of, ii. 96, etc.

 Unity of opinion, not characteristic of Christians from the beginning,
    ii. 94.


 Vanity, the creature made subject to, i. 63-65, 257, 258.

 Variety, the, of creatures in the world, i. 128;
   accordance of this with righteousness and reason, 131, etc.;
   brought to pass by the free-will of individuals, 132-136.

 Veil on the heart, the, i. 9.

 Vessels to honour and to dishonour, i. 213.

 Vinegar and gall, the, predicted, ii. 41.

 Virgin Mother, the, vilified by Celsus, vindication of, i. 426, 427,
    431, 433;
   prediction of the birth of Christ of, 434, 435;
   the birth of Jesus of, open to no fair objection, 437, 438.


 Will, the free, i. 4, 132, 133, 157, etc.;
   able to resist external causes, 161;
   its freedom proved from Scripture, 165.

 Wisdom, threefold, i. 237;
   of the world, 238;
   of the princes of the world, 239;
   the sort condemned by Christianity, 410;
   of Christianity, 100, 101;
   Christianity designed to impart, 126, etc.;
   human and divine, 350, 351, 352.

 Wisdom of God, Christ the, i. 19, 20, 26, 28.

 “Wood, hay, stubble,” ii. 173.

 Word, the incarnation of the, ii. 174, 175;
   different appearances of the, 176;
   final universal victory of the, 555.

 Words, not to be specially considered by searchers after truth, but the
    meaning of, i. 339, 341.

 Words of Christ, the, i. 1.

 World, the, the doctrine of the Church respecting, i. 5;
   the great variety in, 72;
   cause of the variety in, 72, 73;
   the unity of, in diversity, 73, 74;
   the oneness of, proved from Scripture, 75;
   the matter of, and its transformations and qualities, 75;
   the matter of, not uncreated, 76, 77;
   the beginning of,—was there one before, and shall there be one
      after?, 79;
   this, the conclusion of many ages, 85;
   different meanings of the word in Scripture, 86;
   another besides this, 86, 87, etc.;
   comprehensiveness of, and variety of creatures in, 128-130;
   the accordance of this variety in, with righteousness and reason,
      131, etc.;
   the cause of the variety in, 134-136;
   had its beginning in time, 253;
   shall come to an end, 255, etc.;
   another shall exist after this, 255;
   the end of, 262, etc.

 Worlds, the, not similar, but dissimilar, i. 84.

 Worship, to be given to God alone, and not to gods or demons, ii.
    489-500;
   of the Father and the Son, 500, 501;
   equally acceptable to God in different languages, 522.

 Wrath of God, the, ii. 237-239.


 Zeno, the reasons why the followers of, abstain from adultery, ii. 484.

 Zipporah, and the circumcision of Moses’ son, ii. 318, 319.


END OF VOL. II.


                MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
                PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE.




 ● Transcriber’s Notes:
    ○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
    ○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are
      referenced.