Letter Against Celsus - Origen - Book I
Advanced Information
Translated by the Rev. Frederick Crombie, D.D.
Text edited by Rev. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson and
first published by T&T Clark in Edinburgh in 1867. Additional
introductionary material and notes provided for the American
edition by A. Cleveland Coxe, 1886.
Origen Against Celsus
Book I
Preface.
1. When false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ,
He remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought against Him, He
returned no answer, believing that His whole life and conduct among the Jews
were a better refutation than any answer to the false testimony, or than any
formal defence against the accusations. And I know not, my pious Ambrosius,
[2821] why you wished me to write a reply to the false charges brought by
Celsus against the Christians, and to his accusations directed against the
faith of the Churches in his treatise; as if the facts themselves did not
furnish a manifest refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any
writing, seeing it both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave
to the accusations any credibility or validity. Now, with respect to our
Lord's silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at
present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to the
same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow: "And the high priest
and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to death, but
found none, although many false witnesses came forward. At last two false
witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple
of God, and after three days to build it up. And the high priest arose, and
said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these witness against thee? But
Jesus held His peace." [2822] And that He returned no answer when falsely
accused, the following is the statement: "And Jesus stood before the
governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art Thou the King of the Jews? And Jesus
said to him, Thou sayest. And when He was accused of the chief priests and
elders, He answered nothing. Then said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how
many things they witness against Thee? And He answered him to never a word,
insomuch that the governor marvelled greatly." [2823]
2. It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of ordinary intelligence,
that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony, but who was able
to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of none of the charges
(alleged), and who might have enumerated the praiseworthy deeds of His own
life, and His miracles wrought by divine power, so as to give the judge an
opportunity of delivering a more honourable judgment regarding Him, should
not have done this, but should have disdained such a procedure, and in the
nobleness of His nature have contemned His accusers. That the judge would,
without any hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence,
is clear from what is related of him when he said, "Which of the two do ye
wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called
Christ? " [2824] and from what the Scripture adds, "For he knew that for
envy they had delivered Him." [2825] Jesus, however, is at all times
assailed by false witnesses, hand, while wickedness remains in the world, is
ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent before
these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence in the
lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent testimony, and one
that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes and overthrows all
unfounded accusations and charges.
3. I venture, then, to say that this "apology" which you require me to
compose will somewhat weaken that defence (of Christianity) which rests on
facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not
altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have the
appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have enjoined,
we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest, by way of
answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what seemed to us
adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no power to shake the
faith of any (true) believer. And forbid, indeed, that any one should be
found who, after having been a partaker in such a love of God as was
(displayed) in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his purpose by the arguments
of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul, when enumerating the innumerable
causes which generally separate men from the love of Christ and from the
love of God in Christ Jesus (to all of which, the love that was in himself
rose superior), did not set down argument among the grounds of separation.
For observe that he says, firstly: "Who shall separate us from the love of
Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or
nakedness, or peril, or sword? (as it is written, For Thy sake we are killed
all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.) Nay, in all
these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us." [2826]
And secondly, when laying down another series of causes which naturally tend
to separate those who are not firmly grounded in their religion, he says:
"For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor
principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from
the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." [2827]
4. Now, truly, it is proper that we should feel elated because afflictions,
or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate us (from Christ);
but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any other resembling them,
(should entertain that feeling), because they were far exalted above such
things when they said, "In all these things we are more than conquerors
through Him that loved us," [2828] which is a stronger statement than that
they are simply "conquerors." But if it be proper for apostles to entertain
a feeling of elation in not being separated from the love of God that is in
Christ Jesus our Lord, that feeling will be entertained by them, because
neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor any of the
things that follow, can separate them from the love of God which is in
Christ Jesus our Lord. And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in
Christ whose faith can be shaken by Celsus'who no longer shares the common
life of men, but has long since departed'or by any apparent plausibility of
argument. [2829] For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need of
arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against the
Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith, and
confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those who are
considered believers some such persons might be found as would have their
faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but who might be
preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute his statements
and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to yield to your
injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which you sent us, but
which I do not think that any one, although only a short way advanced in
philosophy, will allow to be a "True Discourse," as Celsus has entitled it.
5. Paul, indeed, observing that there are in Greek philosophy certain things
not to be lightly esteemed, which are plausible in the eyes of the many, but
which represent falsehood as truth, says with regard to such: "Beware lest
any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of
men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." [2830] And
seeing that there was a kind of greatness manifest in the words of the
world's wisdom, he said that the words of the philosophers were "according
to the rudiments of the world." No man of sense, however, would say that
those of Celsus were "according to the rudiments of the world." Now those
words, which contained some element of deceitfulness, the apostle named
"vain deceit," probably by way of distinction from a deceit that was not
"vain; "and the prophet Jeremiah observing this, ventured to say to God," O
Lord, Thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived; Thou art stronger than I,
and hast prevailed." [2831] But in the language of Celsus there seems to
me to be no deceitfulness at all, not even that which is "vain; "such
deceitfulness, viz., as is found in the language of those who have founded
philosophical sects, and who have been endowed with no ordinary talent for
such pursuits. And as no one would say that any ordinary error in
geometrical demonstrations was intended to deceive, or would describe it for
the sake of exercise in such matters; [2832] so those opinions which are
to be styled "vain deceit," and the "tradition of men," and "according to
the rudiments of the world," must have some resemblance to the views of
those who have been the founders of philosophical sects, (if such titles are
to be appropriately applied to them).
6. After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus
introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this preface
to the beginning (of the treatise), in order that the reader of our reply to
Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book has been composed
not for those who are thorough believers, but for such as are either wholly
unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those who, as the apostle
terms them, are "weak in the faith; "regarding whom he says, "Him that is
weak in the faith receive ye." [2833] And this preface must be my apology
for beginning my answer to Celsus on one plan, and carrying it on on
another. For my first intention was to indicate his principal objections,
and then briefly the answers that were returned to them, and subsequently to
make a systematic treatise of the whole discourse. [2834] But afterwards,
circumstances themselves suggested to me that I should be economical of my
time, and that, satisfied with what I had already stated at the
commencement, I should in the following part grapple closely, to the best of
my ability, with the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence
for those portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the
book. And if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed,
then, asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if
you still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to
those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and treatises
to overthrow the charges which he brings against us. But better is the man
who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs no answer to it at all,
but who despises all its contents, since they are contemned, and with good
reason, by every believer in Christ, through the Spirit that is in him.
Chapter I.
The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw
discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret
associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that "of associations
some are public, and that these are in accordance with the laws; others,
again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws." And his wish is to
bring into disrepute what are termed the "love-feasts " [2835] of the
Christians, as if they had their origin in the common danger, and were more
binding than any oaths. Since, then, he babbles about the public law,
alleging that the associations of the Christians are in violation of it, we
have to reply, that if a man were placed among Scythians, whose laws were
unholy, [2836] and having no opportunity of escape, were compelled to live
among them, such an one would with good reason, for the sake of the law of
truth, which the Scythians would regard as wickedness, [2837] enter into
associations contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself;
so, if truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to images,
and an atheistical polytheism, are "Scythian" laws, or more impious even
than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to form
associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the
truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret
association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the
liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him who is
called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the laws of the
devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others whom they may
succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which is, as it were,
"Scythian," and despotic.
Chapter II.
Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz., Judaism,
upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And with an
appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity [2838] because
of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for their
ability in discovering (such) doctrines. To this, however, he adds the
statement, that the Greeks are more skilful than any others in judging,
establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of barbarous nations.
Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our defence of the truths
contained in Christianity, that if any one were to come from the study of
Grecian opinions and usages to the Gospel, he would not only decide that its
doctrines were true, but would by practice establish their truth, and supply
whatever seemed wanting, from a Grecian point of view, to their
demonstration, and thus confirm the truth of Christianity. We have to say,
moreover, that the Gospel has a demonstration of its own, more divine than
any established by Grecian dialectics. And this diviner method is called by
the apostle the "manifestation of the Spirit and of power: "of "the
Spirit," on account of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith
in any one who reads them, especially in those things which relate to
Christ; and of "power," because of the signs and wonders which we must
believe to have been performed, both on many other grounds, and on this,
that traces of them are still preserved among those who regulate their lives
by the precepts of the Gospel.
Chapter III.
After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and
practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do this
to, some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is imminent,
he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by such men as
Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have mentioned
Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers. But our answer to this is, that
in the case of Socrates the Athenians immediately afterwards repented; and
no feeling of bitterness remained in their minds regarding him, as also
happened in the history, of Pythagoras. The followers of the latter, indeed,
for a considerable time established their schools in that part of Italy
called Magna Graecia; but in the case of the Christians, the Roman Senate,
and the princes of the time, and the soldiery, and the people, and the
relatives of those who had become converts to the faith, made war upon their
doctrine, and would have prevented (its progress), overcoming it by a
confederacy of so powerful a nature, had it not, by the help of God, escaped
the danger, and risen above it, so as (finally) to defeat the whole world in
its conspiracy against it.
Chapter IV.
Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit upon our system of
morals, [2839] alleging that it is only common to us with other
philosophers, and no venerable or new branch of instruction. In reply to
which we have to say, that unless all men had naturally impressed upon their
minds sound ideas of morality, the doctrine of the punishment of sinners
would have been excluded by those who bring upon themselves the righteous
judgments of God. It is not therefore matter of surprise that the same God
should have sown in the hearts of all men those truths which He taught by
the prophets and the Saviour, in order that at the divine judgment every man
may be without excuse, having the "requirements [2840] of the law written
upon his heart,"'a truth obscurely alluded to by the Bible [2841] in what
the Greeks regard as a myth, where it represents God as having with His own
finger written down the commandments, and given them to Moses, and which the
wickedness of the worshippers of the calf made him break in pieces, as if
the flood of wickedness, so to speak, had swept them away. But Moses having
again hewn tables of stone, God wrote the commandments a second time, and
gave them to him; the prophetic word preparing the soul, as it were, after
the first transgression, for the writing of God a second time.
Chapter V.
Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to
Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the
Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, On the
ground that it is not in conformity with right reason (to suppose) that
images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen, and in many
instances also provided by wicked men, can be (regarded as) gods. In what
follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common opinion, and one not
first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a saying of Heraclitus to this
effect: "That those who draw near to lifeless images, as if they were gods,
act in a similar manner to those who would enter into conversation with
houses." Respecting this, then, we have to say, that ideas were implanted in
the minds of men like the principles of morality, from which not only
Heraclitus, but any other Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have
deduced the same conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of
the same opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to
these Zeno of Citium, who in his Polity, says: "And there will be no need to
build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much value,
or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men." It is evident,
then, with respect to this opinion (as well as others), that there has been
en-graven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a sense of the duty
that is required.
Chapter VI.
After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to me,
Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the use of
incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of (miraculous)
power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who expel evil spirits
by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to malign the Gospel. For it
is not by incantations that Christians seem to prevail (over evil spirits),
but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by the announcement of the narratives
which relate to Him; for the repetition of these has frequently been the
means of driving demons out of men, especially when those who repeated them
did so in a sound and genuinely believing spirit. Such power, indeed, does
the name of Jesus possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances
where it was effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men, which Jesus
Himself taught (would be the case), when He said: "Many shall say to Me in
that day, In Thy name we have cast out devils, and done many wonderful
works." [2842] Whether Celsus omitted this from intentional malignity, or
from ignorance, I do not know. And he next proceeds to bring a charge
against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it was by means of sorcery that
He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; and that
foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge, and do the same
things, making a boast of doing them by help of the power of God, He
excludes such from His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if they are
justly excluded, while He Himself is guilty of the same practices, He is a
wicked man; but if He is not guilty of wickedness in doing such things,
neither are they who do the same as He. But even if it be impossible to show
by what power Jesus wrought these miracles, it is clear that Christians
employ no spells or incantations, but the simple, name of Jesus, and certain
other words in which they repose faith, according to the holy Scriptures.
Chapter VII.
Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian doctrine a secret system
(of belief), we must confute him on this point also, since almost the entire
world is better acquainted with what Christians preach than with the
favourite opinions of philosophers. For who is ignorant of the statement
that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He was crucified, and that His
resurrection is an article of faith among many, and that a general judgment
is announced to come, in which the wicked are to be punished according to
their deserts, and the righteous to be duly rewarded? And yet the mystery of
the resurrection, not being understood, [2843] is made a subject of
ridicule among unbelievers. In these circumstances, to speak of the
Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there
should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are
(revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of
Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths
are exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of Pythagoras were
content with his ipse dixit; while others were taught in secret those
doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated to profane and
insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the mysteries that are
celebrated everywhere throughout Greece and barbarous countries, although
held in secret, have no discredit thrown upon them, so that it is in vain
that he endeavours to calumniate the secret doctrines of Christianity,
seeing he does not correctly understand its nature.
Chapter VIII.
It is with a certain eloquence, [2844] indeed, that he appears to advocate
the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of Christianity by their
death, in the following words: "And I do not maintain that if a man, who has
adopted a system of good doctrine, is to incur danger from men on that
account, he should either apostatize, or feign apostasy, or openly deny his
opinions." And he condemns those who, while holding the Christian views,
either pretend that they do not, or deny them, saying that "he who holds a
certain opinion ought not to feign recantation, or publicly disown it." And
here Celsus must be convicted of self-contradiction. For from other
treatises of his it is ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here,
because he thought that he could assail Christianity with better effect by
not professing the opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a
something better in man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin
to God, and says that "they in whom this element, viz., the soul, is in a
healthy condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, mean ing
God, and are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to
remembrance." Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said a
little before, that "the man who had embraced a system of good doctrine
ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men, to disavow
it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown it," he now
involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he knew that if he
acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain any credit when
accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the doctrine of Providence, and
who place a God over the world. And we have heard that there were two
individuals of the name of Celsus, both of whom were Epicureans; the earlier
of the two having lived in the time of Nero, but this one in that of Adrian,
and later.
Chapter IX.
He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should follow
reason and a rational guide, [2845] since he who assents to opinions
without following this course is very liable to be deceived. And he compares
inconsiderate believers to Metragyrtae, and soothsayers, and Mithrae, and
Sabbadians, and to anything else that one may fall in with, and to the
phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or demons. For as amongst such
persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who, taking advantage of the
ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead them away whither they
will, so also, he says, is the case among Christians. And he asserts that
certain persons who do not wish either to give or receive a reason for their
belief, keep repeating, "Do not examine, but believe!" and, "Your faith will
save you!" And he alleges that such also say, "The wisdom of this life is
bad, but that foolishness is a good thing!" To which we have to answer, that
if it were possible for all to leave the business of life, and devote
themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by any one,
but this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be found that there
is, not to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much of investigation into
articles of belief, and of explanation of dark sayings, occurring in the
prophetical writings, and of the parables in the Gospels, and of countless
other things, which either were narrated or enacted with a symbolical
signification, [2846] (as is the case with other systems). But since the
course alluded to is impossible, partly on account of the necessities of
life, partly on account of the weakness of men, as only a very few
individuals devote themselves earnestly to study, [2847] what better
method could be devised with a view of assisting the multitude, than that
which was delivered by Jesus to the heathen? And let us inquire, with
respect to the great multitude of believers, who have washed away the mire
of wickedness in which they formerly wallowed, whether it were better for
them to believe without a reason, and (so) to have become reformed and
improved in their habits, through the belief that men are chastised for
sins, and honoured for good works or not to have allowed themselves to be
converted on the strength of mere faith, but have waited) until they could
give themselves to a thorough examination of the (necessary) reasons. For it
is manifest that, (on such a plan), all men, with very few exceptions, would
not obtain this (amelioration of conduct) which they have obtained through a
simple faith, but would continue to remain in the practice of a wicked life.
Now, whatever other evidence can be furnished of the fact, that it was not
without divine intervention that the philanthropic scheme of Christianity
was introduced among men, this also must be added. For a pious man will not
believe that even a physician of the body, who restores the sick to better
health, could take up his abode in any city or country without divine
permission, since no good happens to men without the help of God. And if he
who has cured the bodies of many, or restored them to better health, does
not effect his cures without the help of God, how much more He who has
healed the souls of many, and has turned them (to virtue), and improved
their nature, and attached them to God who is over all things, and taught
them to refer every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all that is
displeasing to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds, or even of
the thoughts of their hearts?
Chapter X.
In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those statements about
faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful thing for the multitude,
we admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons, who are unable
to abandon all other employments, and give themselves to an examination of
arguments; and our opponents, although they do not acknowledge it, yet
practically do the same. For who is there that, on betaking himself to the
study of philosophy, and throwing himself into the ranks of some sect,
either by chance, [2848] or because he is provided with a teacher of that
school, adopts such a course for any other reason, except that he believes
his particular sect to be superior to any other? For, not waiting to hear
the arguments of all the other philosophers, and of all the different sects,
and the reasons for condemning one system and for supporting another, he in
this way elects to become a Stoic, e.g., or a Platonist, or a Peripatetic,
or an Epicurean, or a follower of some other school, and is thus borne,
although they will not admit it, by a kind of irrational impulse to the
practice, say of Stoicism, to the disregard of the others; despising either
Platonism, as being marked by greater humility than the others; or
Peripateticism, as more human, and as admitting with more fairness [2849]
than other systems the blessings of human life. And some also, alarmed at
first sight [2850] about the doctrine of providence, from seeing what
happens in the world to the vicious and to the virtuous, have rashly
concluded that there is no divine providence at all, and have adopted the
views of Epicurus and Celsus.
Chapter XI.
Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one of those
who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or Barbarians, why
should we not rather believe in God who is over all things, and in Him who
teaches that worship is due to God alone, and that other things are to be
passed by, either as non-existent, or as existing indeed, and worthy of
honour, but not of worship and reverence? And respecting these things, he
who not only believes, but who contemplates things with the eye of reason,
will state the demonstrations that occur to him, and which are the result of
careful investigation. And why should it not be more reasonable, seeing all
human things are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than them? For
who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the father of
children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing that better
things will result from so doing, although the contrary might and sometimes
does happen? And yet the belief that better things, even agreeably to their
wishes, will follow, makes all men venture upon uncertain enterprises, which
may turn out differently from what they expect. And if the hope and belief
of a better future be the support of life in every uncertain enterprise, why
shall not this faith rather be rationally accepted by him who believes on
better grounds than he who sails the sea, or tills the ground, or marries a
wife, or engages in any other human pursuit, in the existence of a God who
was the Creator of all these things, and in Him who with surpassing wisdom
and divine greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in
every part of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death
considered infamous, which He underwent for the sake of the human race;
having also taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the
first, to proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending
death, to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?
Chapter XII.
In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, "If they would answer
me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted with all
their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them all, it would
be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating, as they generally
do, 'Do not investigate,' etc., they must, he continues, explain to me at
least of what nature these things are of which they speak, and whence they
are derived," etc. Now, with regard to his statement that he "is acquainted
with all our doctrines," we have to say that this is a boastful and daring
assertion; for if he had read the prophets in particular, which are full of
acknowledged difficulties, and of declarations that are obscure to the
multitude, and if he had perused the parables of the Gospels, and the other
writings of the law and of the Jewish history, and the utterances of the
apostles, and had read them candidly, with a desire to enter into their
meaning, he would not have expressed himself with such boldness, nor said
that he "was acquainted with all their doctrines." Even we ourselves, who
have devoted much study to these writings, would not say that "we were
acquainted with everything," for we have a regard for truth. Not one of us
will assert, "I know all the doctrines of Epicurus," or will be confident
that he knows all those of Plato, in the knowledge of the fact that so many
differences of opinion exist among the expositors of these systems. For who
is so daring as to say that he knows all the opinions of the Stoics or of
the Peripatetics? Unless, indeed, it should be the case that he has heard
this boast, "I know them all," from some ignorant and senseless individuals,
who do not perceive their own ignorance, and should thus imagine, from
having had such persons as his teachers, that he was acquainted with them
all. Such an one appears to me to act very much as a person would do who had
visited Egypt (where the Egyptian savans, learned in their country's
literature, are greatly given to philosophizing about those things which are
regarded among them as divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain myths,
the reasons of which they do not understand, are greatly elated because of
their fancied knowledge), and who should imagine that he is acquainted with
the whole circle of Egyptian knowledge, after having been a disciple of the
ignorant alone, and without having associated with any of the priests, or
having learned the mysteries of the Egyptians from any other source. And
what I have said regarding the learned and ignorant among the Egyptians, I
might have said also of the Persians; among whom there are mysteries,
conducted on rational principles by the learned among them, but understood
in a symbolical sense by the more superficial of the multitude. [2851] And
the same remark applies to the Syrians, and Indians, and to all those who
have a literature and a mythology.
Chapter XIII.
But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians, that
"the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good," we
have to answer that he slanders the Gospel, not giving the words as they
actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow: "If any
one among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that
he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God."
[2852] The apostle, therefore, does not say simply that "wisdom is
foolishness with God," but "the wisdom of this world." And again, not, "If
any one among you seemeth to be wise, let him become a fool universally;
"but, "let him become a fool in this world, that he may become wise." We
term, then, "the wisdom of this world," every false system of philosophy,
which, according to the Scriptures, is brought to nought; and we call
foolishness good, not without restriction, but when a man becomes foolish as
to this world. As if we were to say that the Platonist, who believes in the
immortality of the soul, and in the doctrine of its metempsychosis, [2853]
incurs the charge of folly with the Stoics, who discard this opinion; and
with the Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato; and with
the Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and to
place a God over all things. Moreover, that it is in agreement with the
spirit of Christianity, of much more importance to give our assent to
doctrines upon grounds of reason and wisdom than on that of faith merely,
and that it was only in certain circumstances that the latter course was
desired by Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether without help,
is shown by that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he says: "For after
that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God
by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe." [2854] Now by
these words it is clearly shown that it is by the wisdom of God that God
ought to be known. But as this result did not follow, it pleased God a
second time to save them that believe, not by "folly" universally, but by
such foolishness as depended on preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ
as crucified is the "foolishness" of preaching, as Paul also perceived, when
he said, "But we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and
to the Greeks foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God, and wisdom of God." [2855]
Chapter XIV.
Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many nations a
general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations which gave rise
to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown to me, he casts a
slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the others, as having
either laboured along with them, and arrived at the same conclusions, or as
having entertained similar opinions on many subjects. It is proper,
therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to the histories of Barbarians
and Greeks respecting the antiquity of those nations of whom he speaks, but
stamps the histories of this nation alone as false. For if the respective
writers related the events which are found in these works in the spirit of
truth, why should we distrust the prophets of the Jews alone? And if Moses
and the prophets have recorded many things in their history from a desire to
favour their own system, why should we not say the same of the historians of
other countries? Or, when the Egyptians or their histories speak evil of the
Jews, are they to be believed on that point; but the Jews, when saying the
same things of the Egyptians, and declaring that they had suffered great
injustice at their hands, and that on this account they had been punished by
God, are to be charged with falsehood? And this applies not to the Egyptians
alone, but to others; for we shall find that there was a connection between
the Assyrians and the Jews, and that this is recorded in the ancient
histories of the Assyrians. And so also the Jewish historians (I avoid using
the word "prophets," that I may not appear to prejudge the case) have
related that the Assyrians were enemies of the Jews. Observe at once, then,
the arbitrary procedure of this individual, who believes the histories of
these nations on the ground of their being learned, and condemns others as
being wholly ignorant. For listen to the statement of Celsus: "There is," he
says, "an authoritative account from the very beginning, respecting which
there is a constant agreement among all the most learned nations, and
cities, and men." And yet he will not call the Jews a learned nation in the
same way in which he does the Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and
Persians, and Odrysians, and Samothracians, and Eleusinians.
How much more impartial than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean, who has
given many proofs of being a very eloquent man, and who has carefully tested
many opinions, and collected together from many sources what had the
appearance of truth; for, in the first hook of his treatise On the Good,
speaking of those nations who have adopted the opinion that God is
incorporeal, he enumerates the Jews also among those who hold this view; not
showing any reluctance to use even the language of their prophets in his
treatise, and to give it a metaphorical signification. It is said, moreover,
that Hermippus has recorded in his first book, On Lawgivers, that it was
from the Jewish people that Pythagoras derived the philosophy which he
introduced among the Greeks. And there is extant a work by the historian
Hecataeus, treat ing of the Jews, in which so high a character is bestowed
upon that nation for its learning, that Herennius Philo, in his treatise on
the Jews, has doubts in the first place, whether it is really the
composition of the historian; and says, in the second place, that if really
his, it is probable that he was carried away by the plausible nature of the
Jewish history, and so yielded his assent to their system.
Chapter XVI.
I must express my surprise that Celsus should class the Odrysians, and
Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among the most ancient and
learned nations, and should not deem the Jews worthy of a place among such,
either for their learning or their antiquity, although there are many
treatises in circulation among the Egyptians, and Phoenicians, and Greeks,
which testify to their existence as an ancient people, but which I have
considered it unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses may read what
Florins Josephus has recorded in his two books, On the Antiquity [2856] of
the Jews, where he brings together a great collection of writers, who bear
witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people; and there exists the
Discourse to the Greeks of Tatian the younger, [2857] in which with very
great learning he enumerates those historians who have treated of the
antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems, then, to be not from
a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that Celsus makes these
statements, his object being to asperse the origin of Christianity, which is
connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the Galactophagi of Homer, and the
Druids of the Gauls, and the Getae, most learned and ancient tribes, on
account of the resemblance between their traditions and those of the Jews,
although I know not whether any of their histories survive; but the Hebrews
alone, as far as in him lies, he deprives of the honour both of antiquity
and learning. And again, when making a list of ancient and learned men who
have conferred benefits upon their contemporaries (by their deeds), and upon
posterity by their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of
Linus, to whom Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exists
neither laws nor discourses which produced a change for the better among any
tribes; whereas a whole nation, dispersed throughout the entire world, obey
the laws of Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not from open malevolence
that he has expelled Moses from his catalogue of learned men, while
asserting that Linus, and Musaeus, and Orpheus, and Pherecydes, and the
Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these topics, and that their
opinions were deposited in books, and have thus been preserved down to the
present time. And it is intentionally also that he has omitted to take
notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by Orpheus, in which the gods are
described as affected by human weaknesses and passions.
Chapter XVII.
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with
those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one
might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title of a
True Discourse, "Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it recorded
that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described by your
learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable intrigues, and
of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of cutting off their
secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer such enormities; while
Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God, nor even regarding the
holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less atrocity regarding men (for
in his writings no one ever ventured to commit such crimes as Kronos did
against Uranus, or Zeus against his father, or that of the father of men and
gods, who had intercourse with his own daughter), should be considered as
having deceived those who were placed under his laws, and to have led them
into error? "And here Celsus seems to me to act somewhat as Thrasymachus the
Platonic philosopher did, when he would not allow Socrates to answer
regarding justice, as he wished, but said, "Take care not to say that
utility is justice, or duty, or anything of that kind." For in like manner
Celsus as sails (as he thinks) the Mosaic histories, and finds fault with
those who understand them allegorically, at the same time bestowing also
some praise upon those who do so, to the effect that they are more impartial
(than those who do not); and thus, as it were, he prevents by his cavils
those who are able to show the true state of the case from offering such a
defence as they would wish to offer. [2858]
Chapter XVIII.
And challenging a comparison of book with book, I would say, "Come now, good
sir, take down the poems of Linus, and of Musaeus, and of Orpheus, and the
writings of Pherecydes, and carefully compare these with the laws of
Moses'histories with histories, and ethical discourses with laws and
commandments'and see which of the two are the better fitted to change the
character of the hearer on the very spot, and which to harden [2859] him
in his wickedness; and observe that your series of writers display little
concern for those readers who are to peruse them at once unaided, [2860]
but have composed their philosophy (as you term it) for those who are able
to comprehend its metaphorical and allegorical signification; whereas Moses,
like a distinguished orator who meditates some figure of Rhetoric, and who
carefully introduces in every part language of twofold meaning, has done
this in his five books: neither affording, in the portion which relates to
morals, any handle to his Jewish subjects for committing evil; nor yet
giving to the few individuals who were endowed with greater wisdom, and who
were capable of investigating his meaning, a treatise devoid of material for
speculation. But of your learned poets the very writings would seem no
longer to be preserved, although they would have been carefully treasured up
if the readers had perceived any benefit (likely to be derived from them);
whereas the works of Moses have stirred up many, who were even aliens to the
manners of the Jews, to the belief that, as these writings testify, the
first who enacted these laws and delivered them to Moses, was the God who
was the Creator of the world. For it became the Creator of the universe,
after laying down laws for its government, to confer upon His words a power
which might subdue all men in every part of the earth. [2861] And this I
maintain, having as yet entered into no investigation regarding Jesus, but
still demonstrating that Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord, is, as the
Discourse will show, greatly superior to your wise poets and
philosophers."
Chapter XIX.
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit upon
the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is not yet
ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while concealing his wish,
intimates his agreement with those who hold that the world is uncreated.
For, maintaining that there have been, from all eternity, many
conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which lately took place
in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he clearly demonstrates to
those who are able to understand him, that, in his opinion, the world was
uncreated. But let this assailant of the Christian faith tell us by what
arguments he was compelled to accept the statement that there have been many
conflagrations and many cataclysms, and that the flood which occurred in the
time of Deucalion, and the conflagration in that of Phaethon, were more
recent than any others. And if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato
(as evidence) on these subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable
for us also to believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of
Moses, who ascended above all created things, and united himself to the
Creator of the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater
clearness than Plato, or those other wise men (who lived) among the Greeks
and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demands of us our reasons
for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own unsupported
assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is the correct
one.
Chapter XX.
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the
world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when he
says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing to the
deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any memorials
of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for the myth
regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons who, in his
opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of whose wisdom are
to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and in arguments which
prove that such a worship of God is in conformity with reason, and of a
secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians, then, when they boastfully
give their own account of the divinity of animals, are to be considered
wise; but if any Jew, who has signified his adherence to the law and the
lawgiver, refer everything to the Creator of the universe, and the only God,
he is, in the opinion of Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him
who degrades the Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal
animals, but even to that of irrational also!'a view which goes far beyond
the mythical doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls
down from the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts,
both tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they
are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and
mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws for
an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the language of
which admits of no allegorical meaning!
Chapter XXI.
The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: "Moses having," he
says, "learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise nations
and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity." Now, in answer to
this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that. Moses did indeed hear
a somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the Hebrews; that
if the doctrine which he heard was false, and neither pious nor venerable,
and if notwithstanding, he received it and handed it down to those under his
authority, he is liable to censure; but if, as you assert, he gave his
adherence to opinions that were wise and true, and educated his people by
means of them, what, pray, has he done deserving of condemnation? Would,
indeed, that not only Epicurus, but Aristotle, whose sentiments regarding
providence are not so impious (as those of the former), and the Stoics, who
assert that God is a body, had heard such a doctrine! Then the world would
not have been filled with opinions which either disallow or enfeeble the
action of providence, or introduce a corrupt corporeal principle, according
to which the god of the Stoics is a body, with respect to whom they are not
afraid to say that he is capable of change, and may be altered and
transformed in all his parts, and, generally, that he is capable of
corruption, if there be any one to corrupt him, but that he has the good
fortune to escape corruption, because there is none to corrupt. Whereas the
doctrine of the Jews and Christians, which preserves the immutability and
unalterableness of the divine nature, is stigmatized as impious, because it
does not partake of the profanity of those whose notions of God are marked
by impiety, but because it says in the supplication addressed to the
Divinity, "Thou art the same," [2862] it being, moreover, an article of
faith that God has said, "I change not." [2863]
Chapter XXII.
After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the
Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus believing
the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the first among
men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who mentions the name
of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God; but many also of those
who give themselves to the practice of the conjuration of evil spirits,
employ in their spells the expression "God of Abraham," pointing out by the
very name the friendship (that existed) between that just man and God. And
yet, while making use of the phrase "God of Abraham," they do not know who
Abraham is! And the same remark applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel;
which names, although confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those
Egyptians who profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their
knowledge. The rite of circumcision, however, which began with Abraham, and
was discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not
practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present occasion does
not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to refute the
charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus, who thinks that
he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity of Christianity,
if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show that the latter also is
untrue.
Chapter XXIII.
After this, Celsus next asserts that "Those herdsmen and shepherds who
followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar deceits,
and so supposed that there was one God." Let him show, then, how, after this
irrational departure, as he regards it, of the herdsmen and shepherds from
the worship of many gods, he himself is able to establish the multiplicity
of deities that are found amongst the Greeks, or among those other nations
that are called Barbarian. Let him establish, therefore, the existence of
Mnemosyne, the mother of the Muses by Zeus; or of Themis, the parent of the
Hours; or let him prove that the ever naked Graces can have a real,
substantial existence. But he will not be able to show, from any actions of
theirs, that these fictitious representations [2864] of the Greeks, which
have the appearance of being invested with bodies, are (really) gods. And
why should the fables of the Greeks regarding the gods be true, any more
than those of the Egyptians for example, who in their language know nothing
of a Mnemosyne, mother of the nine Muses; nor of a Themis, parent of the
Hours; nor of a Euphrosyne, one of the Graces; nor of any other of these
names? How much more manifest (and how much better than all these
inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the admirable order of
the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the one Author of one
effect, and which, as being wholly in harmony with itself, cannot on that
account have been the work of many makers; and that we should believe that
the whole heaven is not held together by the movements of many souls, for
one is enough, which bears the whole of the non-wandering [2865] sphere
from east to west, and embraces within it all things which the world
requires, and which are not self-existing! For all are parts of the world,
while God is no part of the whole. But God cannot be imperfect, as a part is
imperfect. And perhaps profounder consideration will show, that as God is
not a part, so neither is He properly the whole, since the whole is composed
of parts; and reason will not allow us to believe that the God who is over
all is composed of parts, each one of which cannot do what all the other
parts, can.
Chapter XXIV.
After this he continues: "These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that there
was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the Heavenly, or
Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they delight to give
this world; and they knew nothing beyond that." And in a subsequent part of
his work he says, that "It makes no difference whether the God who is over
all things be called by the name of Zeus, which is current among the Greeks,
or by that, e.g., which is in use among the Indians or Egyptians," Now, in
answer to this, we have to remark that this involves a deep and mysterious
subject'that, viz., respecting the nature of names: it being a question
whether, as Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the
Stoics hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things,
agreeably to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they
introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus teaches
(differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by nature,'the first
men having uttered certain words varying with the circumstances in which
they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able to establish, in reference
to the preceding statement, the nature of powerful names, some of which are
used by the learned amongst the Egyptians, or by the Magi among the
Persians, and by the Indian philosophers called Brahmans, or by the
Samanaeans, and others in different countries; and shall be able to make out
that the so-called magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle
suppose, an altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it
prove, a consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few;
then we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated
with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any ordinary
created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to the Framer
of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with that attendant
train of circumstances which is appropriate to their nature, are possessed
of great power; and other names, again, current in the Egyptian tongue, are
efficacious against certain demons who can only do certain things; and other
names in the Persian language have corresponding power over other spirits;
and so on in every individual nation, for different purposes. And thus it
will be found that, of the various demons upon the earth, to whom different
localities have been assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the
several dialects of place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea,
however small, of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing
names to different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly
apply the name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of "the
Good" from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to
blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh and
blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth. [2866]
Chapter XXV.
And perhaps there is a danger as great as that which degrades the name of
"God," or of "the Good," to improper objects, in changing the name of God
according to a secret system, and applying those which belong to inferior
beings to greater, and vice versa. And I do not dwell on this, that when the
name of Zeus is uttered, there is heard at the same time that of the son of
Kronos and Rhea, and the husband of Hera, and brother of Poseidon, and
father of Athene, and Artemis, who was guilty of incest with his own
daughter Persephone; or that Apollo immediately suggests the son of Leto and
Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and half-brother of Hermes; and so with
all the other names invented by these wise men of Celsus, who are the
parents of these opinions, and the ancient theologians of the Greeks. For
what are the grounds for deciding that he should on the one hand be properly
called Zeus, and yet on the other should not have Kronos for his father and
Rhea for his mother? And the same argument applies to all the others that
are called gods. But this charge does not at all apply to those who, for
some mysterious reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any of the
other names to the (true) God. And when one is able to philosophize about
the mystery of names, he will find much to say respecting the titles of the
angels of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel, and
another Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge in the
world, according to the will of the God of all things. And a similar
philosophy of names applies also to our Jesus, whose name has already been
seen, in an unmistakeable manner, to have expelled myriads of evil spirits
from the souls and bodies (of men), so great was the power which it exerted
upon those from whom the spirits were driven out. And while still upon the
subject of names, we have to mention that those who are skilled in the use
of incantations, relate that the utterance of the same incantation in its
proper language can accomplish what the spell professes to do; but when
translated into any other tongue, it is observed to become inefficacious and
feeble. And thus it is not the things signified, but the qualities and
peculiarities of words, which possess a certain power for this or that
purpose. And so on such grounds as these we defend the conduct of the
Christians, when they struggle even to death to avoid calling God by the
name of Zeus, or to give Him a name from any other language. For they either
use the common name'God'indefinitely, or with some such addition as that of
the "Maker of all things," "the Creator of heaven and earth"'He who sent
down to the human race those good men, to whose names that of God being
added, certain mighty works are wrought among men. And much more besides
might be said on the subject of names, against those who think that we ought
to be indifferent as to our use of them. And if the remark of Plato in the
Philebus should surprise us, when he says, "My fear, O Protagoras, about the
names of the gods is no small one," seeing Philebus in his discussion with
Socrates had called pleasure a "god," how shall we not rather approve the
piety of the Christians, who apply none of the names used in the mythologies
to the Creator of the world? And now enough on this subject for the present.
Chapter XXVI.
But let us see the manner in which this Celsus, who professes to know
everything, brings a false accusation against the Jews, when he alleges that
"they worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses was their
instructor." Now, in what part of the writings of Moses he found the
lawgiver laying down the worship of angels, let him tell, who professes to
know all about Christianity and Judaism; and let him show also how sorcery
can exist among those who have accepted the Mosaic law, and read the
injunction, "Neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by them." [2867]
Moreover, he promises to show afterwards "how it was through ignorance that
the Jews were deceived and led into error." Now, if he had discovered that
the ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ was the effect of their not
having heard the prophecies about Him, he would show with truth how the Jews
fell into error. But without any wish whatever that this should appear, he
views as Jewish errors what are no errors at all. And Celsus having promised
to make us acquainted, in a subsequent part of his work, with the doctrines
of Judaism, proceeds in the first place to speak of our Saviour as having
been the leader of our generation, in so far as we are Christians, [2868]
and says that "a few years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being
regarded by Christians as the Son of God." Now, with respect to this
point'His prior existence a few years ago'we have to remark as follows.
Could it have come to pass without divine assistance, that Jesus, desiring
during these years to spread abroad His words and teaching, should have been
so successful, that everywhere throughout the world, not a few persons,
Greeks as well as Barbarians, learned as well as ignorant, adopted His
doctrine, so that they struggled, even to death in its defence, rather than
deny it, which no one is ever related to have done for any other system? I
indeed, from no wish to flatter [2869] Christianity, but from a desire
thoroughly to examine the facts, would say that even those who are engaged
in the healing of numbers of sick persons, do not attain their object'the
cure of the body'without divine help; and if one were to succeed in
delivering souls from a flood of wickedness, and excesses, and acts of
injustice, and from a contempt of God, and were to show, as evidence of such
a result, one hundred persons improved in their natures (let us suppose the
number to be so large), no one would reasonably say that it was without
divine assistance that he had implanted in those hundred individuals a
doctrine capable of removing so many evils. And if any one, on a candid
consideration of these things, shall admit that no improvement ever takes
place among men without divine help, how much more confidently shall he make
the same assertion regarding Jesus, when he compares the former lives of
many converts to His doctrine with their after conduct, and reflects in what
acts of licentiousness and injustice and covetousness they formerly
indulged, until, as Celsus, and they who think with him, allege, "they were
deceived," and accepted a doctrine which, as these individuals assert, is
destructive of the life of men; but who, from the time that they adopted it,
have become in some way meeker, and more religious, and more consistent, so
that certain among them, from a desire of exceeding chastity, and a wish to
worship God with greater purity, abstain even from the permitted indulgences
of (lawful) love.
Chapter XXVII.
Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus attempted and
successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human power. For
although, from the very beginning, all things opposed the spread of His
doctrine in the world, 'both the princes of the times, and their chief
captains and generals, and all, to speak generally, who were possessed of
the smallest influence, and in addition to these, the rulers of the
different cities, and the soldiers, and the people,'yet it proved
victorious, as being the Word of God, the nature of which is such that it
cannot be hindered; and becoming more powerful than all such adversaries, it
made itself master of the whole of Greece, and a considerable portion of
Barbarian lands, and convened countless numbers of souls to His religion.
And although, among the multitude of converts to Christianity, the simple
and ignorant necessarily outnumbered the more intelligent, as the former
class always does the latter, yet Celsus, unwilling to take note of this,
thinks that this philanthropic doctrine, which reaches to every soul under
the sun, is vulgar, [2870] and on account of its vulgarity and its want of
reasoning power, obtained a hold only over the ignorant. And yet he himself
admits that it was not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of
Jesus to adopt His religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst
them some persons of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and
possessed of understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories.
Chapter XXVIII.
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces a
Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a very
childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a philosopher, let
me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his statements, and show
that he does not maintain, throughout the discussion, the consistency due to
the character of a Jew. For he represents him disputing with Jesus, and
confuting Him, as he thinks, on many points; and in the first place, he
accuses Him of having "invented his birth from a virgin," and upbraids 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; that 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 means of these proclaimed himself a
God." Now, as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain
unexamined, but must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as
my opinion that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions
that Jesus is the Son of God.
Chapter XXIX.
For birth is an aid towards an individual's becoming famous, and
distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man's parents happen to be in
a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth, and are able
to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the country of one's
birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having all these things
against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances, to make himself
known, and to produce an impression on those who hear of him, and to become
distinguished and visible to the whole world, which speaks of him as it did
not do before, how can we help admiring such a nature as being both noble in
itself, and devoting itself to great deeds, and possessing a courage which
is not by any means to be despised? And if one were to examine more fully
the history of such an individual, why should he not seek to know in what
manner, after being reared up in frugality and poverty, and without
receiving any complete education, and without having studied systems and
opinions by means of which he might have acquired confidence to associate
with multitudes, and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many
hearers, he nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions,
introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs of the
Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which especially
overturned the established observances of the Greeks regarding the Divinity?
And how could such a person'one who had been so brought up, and who, as his
calumniators admit, had learned nothing great from men'have been able to
teach, in a manner not at all to be despised, such doctrines as he did
regarding the divine judgment, and the punishments that are to overtake
wickedness, and the rewards that are to be conferred upon virtue; so that
not only rustic and ignorant individuals were won by his words, but also not
a few of those who were distinguished by their wisdom, and who were able to
discern the hidden meaning in those more common doctrines, as they were
considered, which were in circulation, and which secret meaning enwrapped,
so to speak, some more recondite' signification still? The Seriphian, in
Plato, who reproaches Themistocles after he had become celebrated for his
military skill, saying that his reputation was due not to his own merits,
but to his good fortune in having been born in the most illustrious country
in Greece, received from the good-natured Athenian, who saw that his native
country did contribute to his renown, the following reply: "Neither would I,
had I been a Seriphian, have been so distinguished as I am, nor would you
have been a Themistocles, even if you had had the good fortune to be an
Athenian!" And now, our Jesus, who is reproached with being born in a
village, and that not a Greek one, nor belonging to any nation widely
esteemed, and being despised as the son of a poor labouring woman, and as
having on account of his poverty left his native country and hired himself
out in Egypt, and being, to use the instance already quoted, not only a
Seriphian, as it were, a native of a very small and undistinguished island,
but even, so to speak, the meanest of the Seriphians, has yet been able to
shake [2871] the whole inhabited world not only to a degree far above what
Themistocles the Athenian ever did, but beyond what even Pythagoras, or
Plato, or any other wise man in any part of the world whatever, or any
prince or general, ever succeeded in doing. [2872]
Chapter XXX.
Now, would not any one who investigated with ordinary care the nature of
these facts, be struck with amazement at this man's victory?'with his
complete success in surmounting by his reputation all causes that tended to
bring him into disrepute, and with his superiority over all other
illustrious individuals in the world? And yet it is a rate thing for
distinguished men to succeed in acquiring a reputation for several things at
once. For one man is admired on account of his wisdom, another for his
military skill, and some of the Barbarians for their marvellous powers of
incantation, and some for one quality, and others for another; but not many
have been admired and acquired a reputation for many things at the same
time; whereas this man, in addition to his other merits, is an object of
admiration both for his wisdom, and for his miracles, and for his powers of
government. For he persuaded some to withdraw themselves from their laws,
and to secede to him, not as a tyrant would do, nor as a robber, who arms
[2873] his followers against men; nor as a rich man, who bestows help upon
those who come to him; nor as one of those who confessedly are deserving of
censure; but as a teacher of the doctrine regarding the God of all things,
and of the worship which belongs to Him, and of all moral precepts which are
able to secure the favour of the Supreme God to him who orders his life in
conformity therewith. Now, to Themistocles, or to any other man of
distinction, nothing happened to prove a hindrance to their reputation;
whereas to this man, besides what we have already enumerated, and which are
enough to cover with dishonour the soul of a man even of the most noble
nature, there was that apparently infamous death of crucifixion, which was
enough to efface his previously acquired glory, and to lead those who, as
they who disavow his doctrine assert, were formerly deluded by him to
abandon their delusion, and to pass condemnation upon their deceiver.
Chapter XXXI.
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the disciples'if,
as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see Him after His
resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of His divinity'were not
afraid to endure the same sufferings with their Master, and to expose
themselves to danger, and to leave their native country to teach, according
to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine delivered to them by Him. For I think
that no one who candidly examines the facts would say that these men devoted
themselves to a life of danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus,
without profound belief which He had wrought in their minds of its truth,
not only teaching them to conform to His precepts, but others also, and to
conform, moreover, when manifest destruction to life impended over him who
ventured to introduce these new opinions into all places and before all
audiences, and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to
the former opinions and usages. For did not the disciples of Jesus see, when
they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their prophetic Scriptures
that this is He who was spoken of by the prophets, but also to the other
heathen nations, that He who was crucified yesterday or the day before
underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of the human race,'that this was
analogous to the case of those who have died for their country in order to
remove pestilence, or barrenness, or tempests? For it is probable that there
is in the nature of things, for certain mysterious tea-sons which are
difficult to be understood by the multitude, such a virtue that one just
man, dying a voluntary death for the common good, might be the means of
removing wicked spirits, which are the cause of plagues, or barrenness, or
tempests, or similar calamities. Let those, therefore, who would disbelieve
the statement that Jesus died on the cross on behalf of men, say whether
they also refuse to accept the many accounts current both among Greeks and
Barbarians, of persons who have laid down their lives for the public
advantage, in order to remove those evils which had fallen upon cities and
countries? Or will they say that such events actually happened, but that no
credit is to be attached to that account which makes this so-called man to
have died to ensure the destruction of a mighty evil spirit, the ruler of
evil spirits, who had held in subjection the souls of all men upon earth?
And the disciples of Jesus, seeing this and much more (which, it is
probable, they learned from Jesus in private), and being filled, moreover,
with a divine power (since it was no mere poetical virgin that endowed them
with strength and courage, but the true wisdom and understanding of God),
exerted all their efforts "to become distinguished among all men," not only
among the Argives, but among all the Greeks and Barbarians alike, and "so
bear away for themselves a glorious renown." [2874]
Chapter XXXII.
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the mother
of Jesus, and saying that "when she was pregnant she was turned out of doors
by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having been guilty of
adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier named Panthera;
"and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted these fables about
the adultery of the Virgin with Panthera, and her rejection by the
carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His miraculous
conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified the history in a
different manner, on account of its extremely miraculous character, and not
have admitted, as it were against their will, that Jesus was born of no
ordinary human marriage. It was to be expected, indeed, that those who would
not believe the miraculous birth of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And
their not doing this in a credible manner, but (their) preserving the fact
that it was not by Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the
falsehood very palpable to those who can understand and detect such
inventions. Is it at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so
much for the human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks
and Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from
evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the Creator
of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one the vilest and
most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as Greeks, and particularly
of Celsus, who either holds or not the sentiments of Plato, and at any rate
quotes them, whether He who sends souls down into the bodies of men,
degraded Him who was to dare such mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and
to reform so many from the mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more
disgraceful than any other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world
through a lawful marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that
every soul, for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the
opinion of Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently
names), is introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts
and former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also, which
conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many men
(to avoid prejudice, I do not say "all"), stood in need of a body not only
superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.
Chapter XXXIII.
Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not deserving
of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor yet in that of
one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous body, so that reason
cannot discharge its functions in one so fashioned, which has the head
disproportioned to the other parts, and altogether too short; and another
receives such a body that the soul is a little more rational than the other;
and another still more so, the nature of the body counteracting to a greater
or less degree the reception of the reasoning principle; why should there
not be also some soul which receives an altogether miraculous body,
possessing some qualities common to those of other men, so that it may be
able to pass through life with them, but possessing also some quality of
superiority, so that the soul may be able to remain untainted by sin? And if
there be any truth in the doctrine of the physiognomists, whether Zopyrus,
or Loxus, or Polemon, or any other who wrote on such a subject, and who
profess to know in some wonderful way that all bodies are adapted to the
habits of the souls, must there have been for that soul which was to dwell
with miraculous power among men, and work mighty deeds, a body produced, as
Celsus thinks, by an act of adultery between Panthera and the Virgin? ! Why,
from such unhallowed intercourse there must rather have been brought forth
some fool to do injury to mankind,'a teacher of licentiousness and
wickedness, and other evils; and not of temperance, and righteousness, and
the other virtues!
Chapter XXXIV.
But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that there was to
be born, according to the promised sign, one who was to give His name to the
fact, showing that at His birth God was to be with man. Now it seems to me
appropriate to the character of a Jew to have quoted the prophecy of Isaiah,
which says that Immanuel was to be born of a virgin. This, however, Celsus,
who professes to know everything, has not done, either from ignorance or
from an unwillingness (if he had read it and voluntarily passed it by in
silence) to furnish an argument which might defeat his purpose. And the
prediction runs thus: "And the Lord spake again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee
a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it either in the depth or in the height
above· But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he
said, Hear ye now, O house of David; is it a small thing for you to weary
men, but will ye weary my God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give
you a sign. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call
His name Immanuel, which is, being interpreted, God with us." [2875] And
that it was from intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy,
is clear to me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations from
the Gospel according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at the birth
of Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mention at all
of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are not,
"Lo, a virgin," but, "Lo, a young woman," [2876] we reply that the word
"Olmah"'which the Septuagint have rendered by "a virgin," and others by "a
young woman"'occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as applied to a
"virgin," in the following connection: "If a damsel that is a virgin be
betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;
then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall
stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, [2877] because she cried
not, being in the city; and the man, because he humbled his neighbour's
wife." [2878] And again: "But if a man find a betrothed damsel in a field,
and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her
shall die: but unto the damsel [2879] ye shall do nothing; there is in her
no sin worthy of death."
Chapter XXXV.
But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour to persuade
those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe it or not,
that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin, because at his
birth these words, "God with us," were uttered, let us make good our point
from the words themselves. The Lord is related to have spoken to Ahaz thus:
"Ask a sign for thyself from the Lord thy God, either in the depth or height
above; " [2880] and afterwards the sign is given, Behold, a virgin shall
conceive, and bear a son." [2881] What kind of sign, then, would that have
been'a young woman who was not a virgin giving birth to a child? And which
of the two is the more appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (i.e., "God
with us"),'whether a woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has
conceived after the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy
virgin? Surely it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at
whose birth it is said, "God with us." And should he be so captious l as to
say that it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, "Ask for thyself a
sign from the Lord thy God," we shall ask in return, who in the times of
Ahaz bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, "Immanuel,"
i.e., "God with us? "And if no one can be found. then manifestly what was
said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written that the
Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh; and this sign
is said to be "in the depth or in the height," since "He that descended is
the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fill all
things." [2882] And these arguments I employ as against a Jew who believes
in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any of those who think with him,
with what meaning the prophet utters either these statements about the
future, or the others which are contained in the prophecies? Is it with any
foresight of the future or not? If with a foresight of the future, then the
prophets were divinely inspired; if with no foresight of the future, let him
explain the meaning of one who speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and
who is an object of admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic
powers.
Chapter XXXVI.
And now, since we have touched upon the subject of the prophets, what we are
about to advance will be useful not only to the Jews, who believe that they
spake by divine inspiration, but also to the more candid among the Greeks.
To these we say that we must necessarily admit that the Jews had prophets,
if they were to be kept together under that system of law which had been
given them, and were to believe in the Creator of the world, as they had
learned, and to be without pretexts, so far as the law was concerned, for
apostatizing to the polytheism of the heathen· And we establish this
necessity in the following manner. "For the nations," as it is written in
the law of the Jews itself, "shall hearken unto observers of times, and
diviners; " [2883] but to that people it is said: "But as for thee, the
Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to do." [2884] And to this is
subjoined the promise: "A prophet shall the Lord thy God raise up unto thee
from among thy brethren." [2885] Since, therefore, the heathen employ
modes of divination either by oracles or by omens, or by birds, or by
ventriloquists, or by those who profess the art of sacrifice, or by Chaldean
genealogists'all which practices were forbidden to the Jews'this people, if
they had no means of attaining a knowledge of futurity, being led by the
passion common to humanity of ascertaining the future would have despised
their own prophets, as not having in them any particle of divinity; and
would not have accepted any prophet after Moses, nor committed their words
to writing, but would have spontaneously betaken themselves to the divining
usages of the heathen, or attempted to establish some such practices amongst
themselves. There is therefore no absurdity in their prophets having uttered
predictions even about events of no importance, to soothe those who desire
such things, as when Samuel prophesies regarding three she-asses which were
lost, [2886] or when mention is made in the third book of Kings respecting
the sickness of a king's son. [2887] And why should not those who desired
to obtain auguries from idols be severely rebuked by the administrators of
the law among the Jews?'as Elijah is found rebuking Ahaziah, and saying, "Is
it because there is not a God in Israel that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub,
god of Ekron? " [2888]
Chapter XXXVII.
I think, then, that it has been pretty well established not only that our
Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but also that there were prophets among
the Jews who uttered not merely general predictions about the future,'as,
e.g., regarding Christ and the kingdoms of the world, and the events that
were to happen to Israel, and those nations which were to believe on the
Saviour, and many other things concerning Him,'but also prophecies
respecting particular events; as, for instance, how the asses of Kish, which
were lost, were to be discovered, and regarding the sickness which had
fallen upon the son of the king of Israel, and any other recorded
circumstance of a similar kind. But as a further answer to the Greeks, who
do not believe in the birth of Jesus from a virgin, we have to say that the
Creator has shown, by the generation of several kinds of animals, that what
He has done in the instance of one animal, He could do, if it pleased Him,
in that of others, and also of man himself. For it is ascertained that there
is a certain female animal which has no intercourse with the male (as
writers on animals say is the case with vultures), and that this animal,
without sexual intercourse, preserves the succession of race. What
incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God wished to send
a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be born in some manner
different from the common! [2889] Nay, according to the Greeks themselves,
all men were not born of a man and woman. For if the world has been created,
as many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit, then the first men must
have been produced not from sexual intercourse, but from the earth, in which
spermatic elements existed; which, however, I consider more incredible than
that Jesus was born like other men, so far as regards the half of his birth.
And there is no absurdity in employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks,
with the view of showing that we are not the only persons who have recourse
to miraculous narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in
regard to ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very
recent occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of
Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse with
his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was pregnant by
Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which have led to the invention
of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as possessing greater
wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having received the beginning of
his corporeal substance from better and diviner elements than others,
because they thought that this was appropriate to persons who were too great
to be human beings. And since Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with
Jesus, and tearing in pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from
a virgin, comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge,
and Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, land not
one who is writing in a serious tone.
Chapter XXXVIII.
But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to
Matthew, of our Lord's descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the
miraculous circumstances attending it, viz., either that the angel gave the
divine intimation, or that our Lord's quitting Judea and residing in Egypt
was an event of any significance; but he invents something altogether
different, admitting somehow the miraculous works done by Jesus, by means of
which He induced the multitude to follow Him as the Christ. And yet he
desires to throw discredit on them, as being done by help of magic and not
by divine power; for he asserts "that he (Jesus), having been brought up as
an illegitimate child, and having served for hire in Egypt, and then coming
to the knowledge of certain miraculous powers, returned from thence to his
own country, and by means of those powers proclaimed himself a god." Now I
do not understand how a magician should exert himself to teach a doctrine
which persuades us always to act as if God were to judge every man for his
deeds; and should have trained his disciples, whom he was to employ as the
ministers of his doctrine, in the same belief. For did the latter make an
impression upon their hearers, after they had been so taught to work
miracles; or was it without the aid of these? The assertion, therefore, that
they did no miracles at all, but that, after yielding their belief to
arguments which were not at all convincing, like the wisdom of Grecian
dialectics, [2890] they gave themselves up to the task of teaching the new
doctrine to those persons among whom they happened to take up their abode,
is altogether absurd. For in what did they place their confidence when they
taught the doctrine and disseminated the new opinions? But if they indeed
wrought miracles, then how can it be believed that magicians exposed
themselves to such hazards to introduce a doctrine which forbade the
practice of magic?
Chapter XXXIX.
I do not think it necessary to grapple with an argument advanced not in a
serious but in a scoffing spirit, such as the following: "If the mother of
Jesus was beautiful, then the god whose nature is not to love a corruptible
body, had intercourse with her because she was beautiful; "or, "It was
improbable that the god would entertain a passion for her, because she was
neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of her neighbours, knew
her." And it is in the same scoffing spirit that he adds: "When hated by her
husband, and turned out of doors, she was not saved by divine power, nor was
her story believed. Such things, he says, have no connection with the
kingdom of heaven." In what respect does such language differ from that of
those who pour abuse on others on the public streets, and whose words are
unworthy of any serious attention?
Chapter XL.
After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps
also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our
Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the
statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely
disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord's birth from a virgin, he
does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the accounts that follow
it; since passion and hatred observe no order, but angry and vindictive men
slander those whom they hate, as the feeling comes upon them, being
prevented by their passion from arranging their accusations on a careful and
orderly plan. For if he had observed a proper arrangement, he would have
taken up the Gospel, and, with the view of assailing it, would. have
objected to the first narrative, then passed on to the second, and so on to
the others. But now, after the birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who
professes to be acquainted with all our history, attacks the account of the
appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then,
after that, tries to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was
to come into the world. In the next place, he runs away to what immediately
follows the narrative of the birth of Jesus'the account of the star, and of
the wise men who came from the east to worship the child. And you yourself
may find, if you take the trouble, many confused statements made by Celsus
throughout his whole book; so that even in this account he may, by those who
know how to observe and require an orderly method of arrangement, be
convicted of great rashness and boasting, in having inscribed upon his work
the title of A True Discourse,'a thing which is never done by a learned
philosopher. For Plato says, that it is not an indication of an intelligent
man to make strong assertions respecting those matters which are somewhat
uncertain; and the celebrated Chrysippus even, who frequently states the
reasons by which he is decided, refers us to those whom we shall find to be
abler speakers than himself. This man, however, who is wiser than those
already named, and than all the other Greeks, agreeably to his assertion of
being acquainted with everything, inscribed upon his book the words, A True
Discourse!
Chapter XLI.
But, that we may not have the appearance of intentionally passing by his
charges through inability to refute them, we have resolved to answer each
one of them separately according to our ability, attending not to the
connection and sequence of the nature of the things themselves, but to the
arrangement of the subjects as they occur in this book. Let us therefore
notice what he has to say by way of impugning the bodily appearance of the
Holy Spirit to our Saviour in the form of a dove. And it is a Jew who
addresses the following language to Him whom we acknowledge to be our Lord
Jesus: "When you were bathing," says the Jew, "beside John, you say that
what had the appearance of a bird from the air alighted upon you." And then
this same Jew of his, continuing his interrogations, asks, "What credible
witness beheld this appearance? or who heard a voice from heaven declaring
you to be the Son of God? What proof is there of it, save your own
assertion, and the statement of another of those individuals who have been
punished along with you? "
Chapter XLII.
Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to show,
with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually occurred,
and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one of the most
difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some instances an
impossibility. For suppose that some one were to assert that there never had
been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the impossible narrative
interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles being the son of a
sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon being the son of Zeus,
or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or Aeneas that of Aphrodite,
how should we prove that such was the case, especially under the weight of
the fiction attached, I know not how, to the universally prevalent opinion
that there was really a war in Ilium between Greeks and Trojans? And
suppose, also, that some one disbelieved the story of Oedipus and Jocasta,
and of their two sons Eteocles and Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of
half-virgin, was introduced into the narrative, how should we demonstrate
the reality of such a thing? And in like manner also with the history of the
Epigoni, although there is no such marvellous event interwoven with it, or
with the return of the Heracleidae, or countless other historical events.
But he who deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep himself
also from being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as to what
statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept figuratively,
seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such inventions, and from
what statements he will withhold his belief, as having been written for the
gratification of certain individuals. And we have said this by way of
anticipation respecting the whole history related in the Gospels concerning
Jesus, not as inviting men of acuteness to a simple and unreasoning faith,
but wishing to show that there is need of candour in those who are to read,
and of much investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of
the writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be
discovered.
Chapter XLIII.
We shall therefore say, in the first place, that if he who disbelieves the
appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove had been described as an
Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus, or a Peripatetic, the statement
would have been in keeping with the character of such an objector. But now
even this Celsus, wisest of all men, did not perceive that it is to a Jew,
who believes more incredible things contained in the writings of the
prophets than the narrative of the appearance of the dove, that he
attributes such an objection! For one might say to the Jew, when expressing
his disbelief of the appearance, and thinking to assail it as a fiction,
"How are you able to prove, sir, that the Lord spake to Adam, or to Eve, or
to Cain, or to Noah, or to Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, those words
which He is recorded to have spoken to these men? "And, to compare history
with history, I would say to the Jew, "Even your own Ezekiel writes, saying,
'The heavens were opened, and I saw a vision of God.' [2891] After
relating which, he adds, 'This was the appearance of the likeness of the
glory of the Lord; and He said to me, '" [2892] etc. Now, if what is
related of Jesus be false, since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly prove it
to be true, it being seen or heard by Himself alone, and, as you appear to
have observed, also by one of those who were punished, why should we not
rather say that Ezekiel also was dealing in the marvellous when he said,
"The heavens were opened," etc.? Nay, even Isaiah asserts, "I saw the Lord
of hosts sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and the seraphim stood
round about it: the one had six wings, and the other had six wings."
[2893] How can we tell whether he really saw them or not? Now, O Jew, you
have believed these visions to be true, and to have been not only shown to
the prophet by a diviner Spirit, but also to have been both spoken and
recorded by the same. And who is the more worthy of belief, when declaring
that the heavens were opened before him, and that he heard a voice, or
beheld the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne high and lifted up,'whether
Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former, indeed, no work has been found
equal to those of the latter; whereas the good deeds of Jesus have not been
confined solely to the period of His tabernacling in the flesh, but up to
the present time His power still produces conversion and amelioration of
life in those who believe in God through Him. And a manifest proof that
these things are done by His power, is the fact that, although, as He
Himself said, and as is admitted, there are not labourers enough to gather
in the harvest of souls, there really is nevertheless such a great harvest
of those who are gathered together and conveyed into the everywhere existing
threshing-floors and Churches of God.
Chapter XLIV.
And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not disbelieving, I who am a
Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very desirous to show, on the
footing of our common belief, that this man is far more worthy of credit
than they are when He says that He beheld such a sight, and, as is probable,
related to His disciples the vision which He saw, and told them of the voice
which He heard. But another party might object, that not all those who have
narrated the appearance of the dove and the voice from heaven heard the
accounts of these things from Jesus, but that that Spirit which taught Moses
the history of events before his own time, beginning with the creation, and
descending down to Abraham his father, taught also the writers of the Gospel
the miraculous occurrence which took place at the time of Jesus' baptism.
And he who is adorned with the spiritual gift, [2894] called the "word of
wisdom," will explain also the reason of the heavens opening, and the dove
appearing, and why the Holy Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form of no other
living thing than that of a dove. But our present subject does not require
us to explain this, our purpose being to show that Celsus displayed no sound
judgment in representing a Jew as disbelieving, on such grounds, a fact
which has greater probability in its favour than many events in which he
firmly reposes confidence.
Chapter XLV.
And I remember on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews who
were reputed learned men, having employed the following argument in the
presence of many judges: "Tell me, sirs," I said, "since there are two
individuals who have visited the human race, regarding whom are related
marvellous works surpassing human power'Moses, viz., your own legislator,
who wrote about himself, and Jesus our teacher, who has left no writings
regarding Himself, but to whom testimony is borne by the disciples in the
Gospels'what are the grounds for deciding that Moses is to be believed as
speaking the truth, although the Egyptians slander him as a sorcerer, and as
appearing to have wrought his mighty works by jugglery, while Jesus is not
to be believed because you are His accusers? And yet there are nations which
bear testimony in favour of both: the Jews to Moses; and the Christians, who
do not deny the prophetic mission of Moses, but proving from that very
source the truth of the statement regarding Jesus, accept as true the
miraculous circumstances related of Him by His disciples. Now, if ye ask us
for the reasons of our faith in Jesus, give yours first for believing in
Moses, who lived before Him, and then we shall give you ours for accepting
the latter. But if you draw back, and shirk a demonstration, then we,
following your own example, decline for the present to offer any
demonstration likewise; Nevertheless, admit that ye have no proof to offer
for Moses, and then listen to our defence of Jesus derived from the law and
the prophets. And now observe what is almost incredible! It is shown from
the declarations concerning Jesus, contained in the law and the prophets,
that both Moses and the prophets were truly prophets of God."
Chapter XLVI.
For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those recorded
of Jesus at His baptism, viz., regarding the dove and the voice from heaven.
And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof of the Holy Spirit's
having then appeared in the form of a dove, although Celsus, from a desire
to cast discredit upon them, alleges that He performed only what He had
learned among the Egyptians. And I shall refer not only to His miracles,
but, as is proper, to those also of the apostles of Jesus. For they could
not without the help of miracles and wonders have prevailed on those who
heard their new doctrines and new teachings to abandon their national
usages, and to accept their instructions at the danger to themselves even of
death. And there are still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy
Spirit which appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits, and
perform many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the
Logos. And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, may treat
with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it nevertheless,'that many
have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some sort of
spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of the doctrine
to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared to them either in
a waking vision or a dream of the night. Many such instances have we known,
which, if we were to commit to writing, although they were seen and
witnessed by ourselves, we should afford great occasion for ridicule to
unbelievers, who would imagine that we, like those whom they suppose to have
invented such things, had ourselves also done the same. But God is witness
of our conscientious desire, not by false statements, but by testimonies of
different kinds, to establish the divinity of the doctrine of Jesus. And as
it is a Jew who is perplexed about the account of the Holy Spirit having
descended upon Jesus in the form of a dove, we would say to him, "Sir, who
is it that says in Isaiah, 'And now the Lord hath sent me and His
Spirit?'" [2895] In which sentence, as the meaning is doubtful'viz.,
whether the Father and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both
Christ and the Holy Spirit'the latter is correct. For, because the Saviour
was sent, afterwards the Holy Spirit was sent also, that the prediction of
the prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfilment
of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for
that reason committed the result to writing.
Chapter XLVII.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow
John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the
Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no
great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his
Antiquities [2896] of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having
been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the
rite. Now this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in
seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the
temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was
the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death
Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless'being, although against his
will, not far from the truth'that these disasters happened to the Jews as a
punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus
(called Christ),'the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man
most distinguished for his justice. [2897] Paul, a genuine disciple of
Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so
much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up
together, as because of his virtue and doctrine. [2898] If, then, he says
that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to
overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to
say that it happened on account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose
divinity so many Churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been
convened from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves to the
Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure.
Chapter XLVIII.
Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the instances of
Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the heavens to Jesus; and
the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar cases which we find recorded
in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the prophets, we nevertheless, so far
as we can, shall support our position, maintaining that, as it is a matter
of belief that in a dream impressions have been brought before the minds of
many, some relating to divine things, and others to future events of this
life, and this either with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,'a fact which
is manifest to all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it
absurd to say that the mind which could receive impressions in a dream
should be impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him
on whom the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of
them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the organs
of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our eyes'although
neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are affected, but it is the
mind alone which has these sensations'so there is no absurdity in believing
that similar things occurred to the prophets, when it is recorded that they
witnessed occurrences of a rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard
the words of the Lord or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose
that the visible heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure
divided, in order that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence.
Should not, therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every
intelligent hearer of the Gospels?'although such an occurrence may be a
stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the whole
world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty body of the
whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more profoundly will say,
that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a kind of general divine
perception which the blessed man alone knows how to discover, according to
the saying of Solomon, "Thou shall find the knowledge of God; " [2899] and
as there are various forms of this perceptive power, such as a faculty of
vision which can naturally see things that are better than bodies, among
which are ranked the cherubim and seraphim; and a faculty of hearing which
can perceive voices which have not their being in the air; and a sense of
taste which can make use of living bread that has come down from heaven, and
that giveth life unto the world; and so also a sense of smelling, which
scents such things as leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ
unto God; [2900] and a sense of touch, by which John says that he "handled
with his hands of the Word of life; " [2901] 'the blessed prophets having
discovered this divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine
manner, and tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible
organs of perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a
healing effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they
record as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected
in a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book
that was given them. [2902] And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his
son's divine garments, [2903] and added to the spiritual blessing these
words: "See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which the
Lord blessed." [2904] And similarly to this, and more as a matter to be
understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus touched the
leper, [2905] to cleanse him, as I think, in a twofold sense,'freeing him
not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible leprosy by visible
contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His truly divine touch. It is
in this way, accordingly, that John testifies when he says, "I beheld the
Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon Him. And I knew
Him not; but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said to me,
Upon whom you will see the Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same
is He that baptizeth with the Holy Ghost And I saw, and bear witness, that
this is the Son of God." [2906] Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were
opened; and on that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen
them opened. But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour,
foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would see
it, says, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens opened,
and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man."
[2907] And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having previously
seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does not, however,
belong to our present object to explain why Paul says, "Whether in the body,
I know not; or whether out of the body, I know not: God knoweth." [2908]
But I shall add to my argument even those very points which Celsus imagines,
viz., that Jesus Himself related the account of the opening of the heavens,
and the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a
dove, although the Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it.
For this great man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who
commanded His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, "Tell
what ye have seen to no man, until the Son of man he risen from the dead,"
[2909] to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at
the Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus,
that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on that
account said, "If I speak of Myself, My witness is not true." [2910] And
since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to show by
acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that reason said
to Him, "If Thou art the Christ, tell us plainly." [2911] And as it is a
Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus regarding the
appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, "This is your own
testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers of your
punishment, whom you adduce," it is necessary for us to show him that such a
statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew. For the Jews do
not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John with that of Christ.
And by this instance, this man who boasts of universal knowledge is
convicted of not knowing what words he ought to ascribe to a Jew engaged in
a disputation with Jesus.
Chapter XLIX.
After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest evidence in
confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz., that His coming was predicted by
the Jewish prophets'Moses, and those who succeeded as well as preceded that
legislator'from inability, as I think, to meet the argument that neither the
Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to believe that Christ was the
subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was unacquainted with the prophecies
relating to Christ. For no one who was acquainted with the statements of the
Christians, that many prophets foretold the advent of the Saviour, would
have ascribed to a Jew sentiments which it would have better befitted a
Samaritan or a Sadducee to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have
expressed himself in language like the following: "But 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." Now it is not one of the prophets
merely who predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and
Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there were
contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not in
Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the
prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of
Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts, but
of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults against
it, that their arguments might not have the least available influence in
shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little faith of unstable and
temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit that any prophet used
the expression, "The 'Son of God' will come; "for the term which they employ
is, "The 'Christ of God' will come." And many a time indeed do they directly
interrogate us about the "Son of God," saying that no such being exists, or
was made the subject of prophecy. We do not of course assert that the "Son
of God" is not the subject of prophecy; but we assert that he most
inappropriately attributes to the Jewish disputant, who would not allow that
He was, such language as, "My prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the
'Son of God' will come."
Chapter L.
In the next place, as if the only event predicted were this, that He was to
be "the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked," and as if
neither the place of His birth, nor the sufferings which He was to endure at
the hands of the Jews, nor His resurrection, nor the wonderful works which
He was to perform, had been made the subject of prophecy, he continues "Why
should it be you alone, rather than innumerable others, who existed after
the prophecies were published, to whom these predictions are applicable?
"And desiring, I know not how, to suggest to others the possibility of the
notion that they themselves were the persons referred to by the prophets, he
says that "some, carried away by enthusiasm, and others having gathered a
multitude of followers, give out that the Son of God is come down from
heaven." Now we have not ascertained that such occurrences are admitted to
have taken place among the Jews. we have to remark then, in the first place,
that many of the prophets have uttered predictions! in all kinds of ways
[2912] regarding Christ; some by means of dark sayings, others in allegories
or in some other manner, and some also in express words. And as in what
follows he says, in the character of the Jew addressing the converts from
his own nation, and repeating emphatically and malevolently, that "the
prophecies referred to the events of his life may also suit other events as
well," we shall state a few of them out of a greater number; and with
respect to these, any one who chooses may say what he thinks fitted to
ensure a refutation of them, and which may turn away intelligent believers
from the faith.
Chapter LI.
Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour's birth'that
the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem'in the following manner: "And
thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among the thousands of
Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto Me who is to be Ruler in
Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from everlasting." [2913]
Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those who, as Celsus' Jew says,
were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave out that they had come from
heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He had been born in Bethlehem, or,
as another might say, had come forth from Bethlehem to be the leader of the
people. With respect to the birth of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires,
after the prophecy of Micah and after the history recorded in the Gospels by
the disciples of Jesus, to have additional evidence from other sources, let
him know that, in conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His
birth, there is shown at Bethlehem the cave [2914] where He was born, and
the manger in the cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this
sight is greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of
the faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is
worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. [2915] Moreover, I am of
opinion that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of
the people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy,
taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had
prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is related
that Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the people,
heard from them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of Judea,
"whence David was." It is stated also in the Gospel according to John, that
the Jews declared that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem, "whence David
was." [2916] But after our Lord's coming, those who busied themselves with
overthrowing the belief that the place of His birth had been the subject of
prophecy from the beginning, withheld such teaching from the people; acting
in a similar manner to those individuals who won over those soldiers of the
guard stationed around the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and
who instructed these eye-witnesses to report as follows: "Say that His
disciples, while we slept, came and stole Him away. And if this come to the
governor's ears, we shall persuade him, and secure you." [2917]
Chapter LII.
Strife and prejudice are powerful instruments in leading men to disregard
even those things which are abundantly clear; so that they who have somehow
become familiar with certain opinions, which have deeply imbued their minds,
and stamped them with a certain character, will not give them up. For a man
will abandon his habits in respect to other things, although it may be
difficult for him to tear himself from them, more easily than he will
surrender his opinions. Nay, even the former are not easily put aside by
those who have become accustomed to them; and so neither houses, nor cities,
nor villages, nor intimate acquaintances, are willingly forsaken when we are
prejudiced in their favour. This, therefore, was a reason why many of the
Jews at that time disregarded the clear testimony of the prophecies, and
miracles which Jesus wrought, and of the sufferings which He is related to
have endured. And that human nature is thus affected, will be manifest to
those who observe that those who have once been prejudiced in favour of the
most contemptible and paltry traditions of their ancestors and
fellow-citizens, with difficulty lay them aside. For example, no one could
easily persuade an Egyptian to despise what he had learned from his fathers,
so as no longer to consider this or that irrational animal as a god, or not
to guard against eating, even under the penalty of death, of the flesh of
such an animal. Now, if in carrying our examination of this subject to a
considerable length, we have enumerated the points respecting Bethlehem, and
the prophecy regarding it, we consider that we were obliged to do this, by
way of defence against those who would assert that if the prophecies current
among the Jews l regarding Jesus were so clear as we represent them, why did
they not at His coming give in their adhesion to His doctrine, and betake
them selves to the better life pointed out by Him? Let no one, however,
bring such a reproach against believers, since he may see that reasons of no
light weight are assigned by those who have learned to state them, for their
faith in Jesus.
Chapter LIII.
And if we should ask for a second prophecy, which may appear to us to have a
clear reference to Jesus, we would quote that which was written by Moses
very many years before the advent of Christ, when he makes Jacob, on his
departure from this life, to have uttered predictions regarding each of his
sons, and to have said of Judah along with the others: "The ruler will not
fail from Judah, and the governor from his loins, until that which is
reserved for him come." [2918] Now, any one meeting with this prophecy,
which is in reality much older than Moses, so that one who was not a
believer might suspect that it was not written by him, would be surprised
that Moses should be able to predict that the princes of the Jews, seeing
there are among them twelve tribes, should be born of the tribe of Judah,
and should be the rulers of the people; for which reason also the whole
nation are called Jews, deriving their name from the ruling tribe. And, in
the second place, one who candidly considers the prophecy, would be
surprised how, after declaring that the rulers and governors of the people
were to proceed from the tribe of Judah, he should determine also the limit
of their rule, saying that "the ruler should not fail from Judah, nor the
governor from his loins, until there should come that which was reserved for
him, and that He is the expectation of the Gentiles." [2919] For He came
for whom these things were reserved, viz., the Christ of God, the ruler of
the promises of God. And manifestly He is the only one among those who
preceded, and, I might make bold to say, among those also who followed Him,
who was the expectation of the Gentiles; for converts from among all the
Gentile nations have believed on God through Him, and that in conformity
with the prediction of Isaiah, that in His name the Gentiles had hoped: "In
Thy name shall the Gentiles hope." [2920] And this man said also to those
who are in prison, as every man is a captive to the chains of his sins,
"Come forth; "and to the ignorant, "Come into the light: "these things also
having been thus foretold: "I have given Thee for a covenant of the people,
to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate heritage; saying to
the prisoners, Go forth; and to them that are in darkness, Show
yourselves." [2921] And we may see at the appearing of this man, by means
of those who everywhere throughout the world have repo