Letter Against Celsus - Origen - Book VII
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.
Book VII
Chapter I.
In the six former books we have endeavoured, reverend brother Ambrosius,
according to our ability to meet the charges brought by Celsus against the
Christians, and have as far as possible passed over nothing without first
subjecting it to a full and close examination. And now, while we enter upon
the seventh book, we call upon God through Jesus Christ, whom Celsus
accuses, that He who is the truth of God would shed light into our hearts
and scatter the darkness of error, in accordance with that saying of the
prophet which we now offer as our prayer, "Destroy them by Thy truth."
[4432] For it is evidently the words and reasonings opposed to the truth
that God destroys by His truth; so that when these are destroyed, all who
are delivered from deception may go on with the prophet to say, "I will
freely sacrifice unto Thee," [4433] and may offer to the Most High a
reasonable and smokeless sacrifice.
Chapter II.
Celsus now sets himself to combat the views of those who say that the Jewish
prophets foretold events which happened in the life of Christ Jesus. At the
outset let us refer to a notion he has, that those who assume the existence
of another God besides the God of the Jews have no ground on which to answer
his objections; while we who recognise the same God rely for our defence on
the prophecies which were delivered concerning Jesus Christ. His words are:
"Let us see how they can raise a defence. To those who admit another God, no
defence is possible; and they who recognise the same God will always fall
back upon the same reason 'This and that must have happened.' And why?
'Because it had been predicted long before.'" To this we answer, that the
arguments recently raised by Celsus against Jesus and Christians were so
utterly feeble, that they might easily be overthrown even by those who are
impious enough to bring in another God. Indeed, were it not dangerous to
give to the weak any excuse for embracing false notions, we could furnish
the answer ourselves, and show Celsus how unfounded is his opinion, that
those who admit another God are not in a position to meet his arguments.
However, let us for the present confine ourselves to a defence of the
prophets, in continuation of what we have said on the subject before.
Chapter III.
Celsus goes on to say of us: "They set no value on the oracles of the
Pythian priestess, of the priests of Dodona, of Clarus, of Branchidae, of
Jupiter Ammon, and of a multitude of others; although under their guidance
we may say that colonies were sent forth, and the whole world peopled. But
those sayings which were uttered or not uttered in Judea, after the manner
of that country, as indeed they are still delivered among the people of
Phoenicia and Palestine'these they look upon as marvellous sayings, and
unchangeably true." In regard to the oracles here enumerated, we reply that
it would be possible for us to gather from the writings of Aristotle and the
Peripatetic school not a few things to overthrow the authority of the
Pythian and the other oracles. From Epicurus also, and his followers, we
could quote passages to show that even among the Greeks themselves there
were some who utterly discredited the oracles which were recognised and
admired throughout the whole of Greece. But let it be granted that the
responses delivered by the Pythian and other oracles were not the utterances
of false men who pretended to a divine inspiration; and let us see if, after
all, we cannot convince any sincere inquirers that there is no necessity to
attribute these oracular responses to any divinities, but that, on the other
hand, they may be traced to wicked demons'to spirits which are at enmity
with the human race, and which in this way wish to hinder the soul from
rising upwards, from following the path of virtue, and from returning to God
in sincere piety. It is said of the Pythian priestess, whose oracle seems to
have been the most celebrated, that when she sat down at the mouth of the
Castalian cave, the prophetic Spirit of Apollo entered her private parts;
and when she was filled with it, she gave utterance to responses which are
regarded with awe as divine truths. Judge by this whether that spirit does
not show its profane and impure nature, by choosing to enter the soul of the
prophetess not through the more becoming medium of the bodily pores which
are both open and invisible, but by means of what no modest man would ever
see or speak of. And this occurs not once or twice, which would be more
permissible, but as often as she was believed to receive inspiration from
Apollo. Moreover, it is not the part of a divine spirit to drive the
prophetess into such a state of ecstasy and madness that she loses control
of herself. For he who is under the influence of the Divine Spirit ought to
be the first to receive the beneficial effects; and these ought not to be
first enjoyed by the persons who consult the oracle about the concerns of
natural or civil life, or for purposes of temporal gain or interest; and,
moreover, that should be the time of clearest perception, when a person is
in close intercourse with the Deity.
Chapter IV.
Accordingly, we can show from an examination of the sacred Scriptures, that
the Jewish prophets, who were enlightened as far as was necessary for their
prophetic work by the Spirit of God, were the first to enjoy the benefit of
the inspiration; and by the contact'if I may so say'of the Holy Spirit they
became clearer in mind, and their souls were filled with a brighter light.
And the body no longer served as a hindrance to a virtuous life; for to that
which we call "the lust of the flesh" it was deadened. For we are persuaded
that the Divine Spirit "mortifies the deeds of the body," and destroys that
enmity against God which the carnal passions serve to excite. If, then, the
Pythian priestess is beside herself when she prophesies, what spirit must
that be which fills her mind and clouds her judgment with darkness, unless
it be of the same order with those demons which many Christians cast out of
persons possessed with them? And this, we may observe, they do without the
use of any curious arts of magic, or incantations, but merely by prayer and
simple adjurations which the plainest person can use. Because for the most
part it is unlettered persons who perform this work; thus making manifest
the grace which is in the word of Christ, and the despicable weakness of
demons, which, in order to be overcome and driven out of the bodies and
souls of men, do not require the power and wisdom of those who are mighty in
argument, and most learned in matters of faith. [4434]
Chapter V.
Moreover, if it is believed not only among Christians and Jews, but also by
many others among the Greeks and Barbarians, that the human soul lives and
subsists after its separation from the body; and if reason supports the idea
that pure souls which are not weighed down with sin as with a weight of lead
ascend on high to the region of purer and more ethereal bodies, leaving here
below their grosser bodies along with their impurities; whereas souls that
are polluted and dragged down to the earth by their sins, so that they are
unable even to breathe upwards, wander hither and thither, at some times
about sepulchres, where they appear as the apparitions of shadowy spirits,
at others among other objects on the ground;'if this is so, what are we to
think of those spirits that are attached for entire ages, as I may say, to
particular dwellings and places, whether by a sort of magical force or by
their own natural wickedness? Are we not compelled by reason to set down as
evil such spirits as employ the power of prophesying'a power in itself
neither good nor bad -for the purpose of deceiving men, and thus turn them
away from God, and from the purity of His service? It is moreover evident
that this is their character, when we add that they delight in the blood of
victims, and in the smoke odour of sacrifices, and that they feed their
bodies on these, and that they take pleasure in such haunts as these, as
though they sought in them the sustenance of their lives; in this resembling
those depraved men who despise the purity of a life apart from the senses,
and who have no inclination except for the pleasures of the body, and for
that earthly and bodily life in which these pleasures are found. If the
Delphian Apollo were a god, as the Greeks suppose, would he not rather have
chosen as his prophet some wise man? or if such an one was not to be found,
then one who was endeavouring to become wise How came he not to prefer a man
to a woman for the utterance of his prophesies? And if he preferred the
latter sex, as though he could only find pleasure in the breast of a woman,
why did he not choose among women a virgin to interpret his will?
Chapter VI.
But no; the Pythian, so much admired among the Greeks, judged no wise man,
nay, no man at all, worthy of the divine possession, as they call it. And
among women he did not choose a virgin, or one recommended by her wisdom, or
by her attainments in philosophy; but he selects a common woman. Perhaps the
better class of men were too good to become the subjects of the inspiration.
Besides, if he were a god, he should have employed his prophetic power as a
bait, so to speak, with which he might draw men to a change of life, and to
the practice of virtue. But history nowhere makes mention of anything of the
kind. For if the oracle did call Socrates the wisest of all men, it takes
from the value of that eulogy by what is said in regard to Euripides and
Sophocles. The words are:'
"Sophocles is wise, and Euripides is wiser, But wiser than all men is
Socrates." [4435]
As, then, he gives the designation "wise" to the tragic poets, it is not on
account of his philosophy that he holds up Socrates to veneration, or
because of his love of truth and virtue. It is poor praise of Socrates to
say that he prefers him to men who for a paltry reward compete upon the
stage, and who by their representations excite the spectators at one time to
tears and grief, and at another to unseemly laughter (for such is the
intention of the satyric drama). And perhaps it was not so much in regard to
his philosophy that he called Socrates the wisest of all men, as on account
of the victims which he sacrificed to him and the other demons. For it seems
that the demons pay more regard in distributing their favours to the
sacrifices which are offered them than to deeds of virtue. Accordingly,
Homer, the best of the poets, who describes what usually took place, when,
wishing to show us what most influenced the demons to grant an answer to the
wishes of their votaries, introduces Chryses, who, for a few garlands and
the 'thighs of bulls and goats, obtained an answer to his prayers for his
daughter Chryseis, so that the Greeks were driven by a pestilence to restore
her back to him. And I remember reading in the book of a certain
Pythagorean, when writing on the hidden meanings in that poet, that the
prayer of Chryses to Apollo, and the plague which Apollo afterwards sent
upon the Greeks, are proofs that Homer knew of certain evil demons who
delight in the smoke of sacrifices, and who, to reward those who offer them,
grant in answer to their prayers the destruction of others. "He," that is,
Jupiter, "who rules over wintry Dodona, where his prophets have ever
unwashed feet, and sleep upon the ground," [4436] has rejected the male sex,
and, as Celsus observes, employs the women of Dodona for the prophetic
office. Granting that there are oracles similar to these, as that at Clarus,
another in Branchidae, another in the temple of Jupiter Ammon, or anywhere
else; yet how shall it be proved that these are gods, and not demons?
Chapter VII.
In regard to the prophets among the Jews, some of them were wise men before
they became divinely inspired prophets, while others became wise by the
illumination which their minds received when divinely inspired. They were
selected by Divine Providence to receive the Divine Spirit, and to be the
depositaries of His holy oracles, on the ground of their leading a life of
almost unapproachable excellence, intrepid, noble, unmoved by danger or
death. For reason teaches that such ought to be the character of the
prophets of the Most High, in comparison with which the firmness of
Antisthenes, Crates, and Diogenes will seem but as child's play. It was
therefore for their firm adherence to truth, and their faithfulness in the
reproof of the wicked, that "they were stoned; they were sawn asunder, were
tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and
goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented; they wandered in deserts
and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the earth, of whom the world was
not worthy: " [4437] for they looked always to God and to His blessings,
which, being invisible, and not to be perceived by the senses, are eternal.
We have the history of the life of each of the prophets; but it will be
enough at present to direct attention to the life of Moses, whose prophecies
are contained in the law; to that of Jeremiah, as it is given in the book
which bears his name; to that of Isaiah, who with unexampled austerity
walked naked and barefooted for the space of three years. [4438] Read and
consider the severe life of those children, Daniel and his companions, how
they abstained from flesh, and lived on water and pulse. [4439] Or if you
will go back to more remote times, think of the life of Noah, who
prophesied; [4440] and of Isaac, who gave his son a prophetic blessing; or
of Jacob, who addressed each of his twelve sons, beginning with "Come, that
I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days." [4441] These, and
a multitude of others, prophesying on behalf of God, foretold events
relating to Jesus Christ. We therefore for this reason set at nought the
oracles of the Pythian priestess, or those delivered at Dodona, at Clarus,
at Branchidae, at the temple of Jupiter Ammon, or by a multitude of other
so-called prophets; whilst we regard with reverent awe the Jewish prophets:
for we see that the noble, earnest, and devout lives of these men were
worthy of the inspiration of the Divine Spirit, whose wonderful effects were
widely different from the divination of demons.
Chapter VIII.
I do not know what led Celsus, when saying, "But what things were spoken or
not spoken in the land of Judea, according to the custom of the country," to
use the words "or not spoken," as though implying that he was incredulous,
and that he suspected that those things which were written were never
spoken. In fact, he is unacquainted with these times; and he does not know
that those prophets who foretold the coming of Christ, predicted a multitude
of other events many years beforehand. He adds, with the view of casting a
slight upon the ancient prophets, that "they prophesied in the same way as
we find them still doing among the inhabitants of Phoenicia and
Palestine." But he does not tell us whether he refers to persons who are of
different principles from those of the Jews and Christians, or to persons
whose prophecies are of the same character as those of the Jewish prophets.
However it be, his statement is false, taken in either way. For never have
any of those who have not embraced our faith done any thing approaching to
what was done by the ancient prophets; and in more recent times, since the
coming of Christ, no prophets have arisen among the Jews, who have
confessedly been abandoned by the Holy Spirit on account of their impiety
towards God, and towards Him of whom their prophets spoke. Moreover, the
Holy Spirit gave signs of His presence at the beginning of Christ's
ministry, and after His ascension He gave still more; but since that time
these signs have diminished, although there are still traces of His presence
in a few who have had their souls purified by the Gospel, and their actions
regulated by its influence. "For the holy Spirit of discipline will flee
deceit, and remove from thoughts that are without understanding." [4442]
Chapter IX.
But as Celsus promises to give an account of the manner in which prophecies
are delivered in Phoenicia and Palestine, speaking as though it were a
matter with which he had a full and personal acquaintance, let us see what
he has to say on the subject. First he lays it down that there arc several
kinds of prophecies, but he does not specify what they arc; indeed, he could
not do so, and the statement is a piece of pure ostentation. However, let us
see what he considers the most perfect kind of prophecy among these nations.
"There are many," he says, "who, although of no name, with the greatest
facility and on the slightest occasion, whether within or without temples,
assume the motions and gestures of inspired persons; while others do it in
cities or among armies, for the purpose of attracting attention and exciting
surprise. These are accustomed to say, each for himself, 'I am God; I am the
Son of God; or, I am the Divine Spirit; I have come because the world is
perishing, and you, O men, are perishing for your iniquities. But I wish to
save you, and you shall see me returning again with heavenly power. Blessed
is he who now does me homage. On all the rest I will send down eternal fire,
both on cities and on countries. And those who know not the punishments
which await. them shall repent and grieve in vain; while those who are
faithful to me I will preserve eternally.'" Then he goes on to say: "To
these promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite unintelligible words,
of which no rational person can find the meaning: for so dark are they, as
to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to every fool or impostor
to apply them to suit his own purposes."
Chapter X.
But if he were dealing honestly in his accusations, he ought to have given
the exact terms of the prophecies, whether those in which the speaker is
introduced as claiming to be God Almighty, or those in which the Son of God
speaks, or finally those under the name of the Holy Spirit. For thus he
might have endeavoured to overthrow these assertions, and have shown that
there was no divine inspiration in those words which urged men to forsake
their sins, which condemned the past and foretold the future. For the
prophecies were recorded and preserved by men living at the time, that those
who came after might read and admire them as the oracles of God, and that
they might profit not only by the warnings and admonitions, but also by the
predictions, which, being shown by events to have proceeded from the Spirit
of God, bind men to the practice of piety as set forth in the law and the
prophets. The prophets have therefore, as God commanded them, declared with
all plainness those things which it was desirable that the hearers should
understand at once for the regulation of their conduct; while in regard to
deeper and more mysterious subjects, which lay beyond the reach of the
common understanding, they set them forth in the form of enigmas and
allegories, or of what are called dark sayings, parables, or similitudes.
And this plan they have followed, that those who are ready to shun no labour
and spare no pains in their endeavours after truth and virtue might search
into their meaning, and having found it, might apply it as reason requires.
But Celsus, ever vigorous in his denunciations, as though he were angry at
his inability to understand the language of the prophets, scoffs at them
thus: "To these grand promises are added strange, fanatical, and quite
unintelligible words, of which no rational person can find the meaning; for
so dark are they as to have no meaning at all; but they give occasion to
every fool or impostor to apply them so as to suit his own purposes." This
statement of Celsus seems ingeniously designed to dissuade readers from
attempting any inquiry or careful search into their meaning. And in this he
is not unlike certain persons, who said to a man whom a prophet had visited
to announce future events, "Wherefore came this mad fellow to thee? "
[4443]
Chapter XI.
I am convinced, indeed, that much better arguments could be adduced than any
I have been able to bring forward, to show the falsehood of these
allegations of Celsus, and to set forth the divine inspiration of the
prophecies; but we have according to our ability, in our commentaries on
Isaiah, Ezekiel, and some of the twelve minor prophets, explained literally
and in detail what he calls "those fanatical and utterly unintelligible
passages." [4444] And if God give us grace in the time that He appoints
for us, to advance in the knowledge of His word, we shall continue our
investigation into the parts which remain, or into such at least as we are
able to make plain. And other persons of intelligence who wish to study
Scripture may also find out its meaning for themselves; for although there
are many places in which the meaning is not obvious, yet there are none
where, as Celsus affirms, "there is no sense at all." Neither is it true
that "any fool or impostor can explain the passages so as to make them suit
his own purposes." For it belongs only to those who are wise in the truth of
Christ (and to all them it does belong) to unfold the connection and meaning
of even the obscure parts of prophecy, "comparing spiritual things with
spiritual," and interpreting each passage according to the usage of
Scripture writers. And Celsus is not to be believed when he says that he has
heard such men prophesy; for no prophets bearing any resemblance to the
ancient prophets have appeared in the time of Celsus. If there had been any,
those who heard and admired them would have followed the example of the
ancients, and have recorded the prophecies in writing. And it seems quite
clear that Celsus is speaking falsely, when he says that "those prophets
whom he had heard, on being pressed by him, confessed their true motives,
and acknowledged that the ambiguous words they used really meant nothing."
He ought to have given the names of those whom he says he had heard, if he
had any to give, so that those who were competent to judge might decide
whether his allegations were true or false.
Chapter XII.
He thinks, besides, that those who support the cause of Christ by a
reference to the writings of the prophets can give no proper answer in
regard to statements in them which attribute to God that which is wicked,
shameful, or impure; and assuming that no answer can be given, he proceeds
to draw a whole train of inferences, none of which can be allowed. But he
ought to know that those who wish to live according to the teaching of
sacred Scripture understand the saying, "The knowledge of the unwise is as
talk without sense," [4445] and have learnt "to be ready always to give an
answer to every one that asketh us a reason for the hope that is in us."
[4446] And they are not satisfied with affirming that such and such things
have been predicted; but they endeavour to remove any apparent
inconsistencies, and to show that, so far from there being anything evil,
shameful, or impure in these predictions, everything is worthy of being
received by those who understand the sacred Scriptures. But Celsus ought to
have adduced from the prophets examples of what he thought bad, or shameful,
or impure, if he saw any such passages; for then his argument would have had
much more force, and would have furthered his purpose much better. He gives
no instances, however, but contents himself with loudly asserting the false
charge that these things are to be found in Scripture. There is no reason,
then, for us to defend ourselves against groundless charges, which are but
empty sounds, or to take the trouble of showing that in the writings of the
prophets there is nothing evil, shameful, impure, or abominable.
Chapter XIII.
And there is no truth in the statement of Celsus, that "God does the most
shameless deeds, or suffers the most shameless sufferings" or that "He
favours the commission of evil; for whatever he may say, no such things have
ever been foretold. He ought to have cited from the prophets the passages in
which God is represented as favouring evil, or as doing and enduring the
most shameless deeds, and not to have sought without foundation to prejudice
the minds of his readers. The prophets, indeed, foretold what Christ should
suffer, and set forth the reason why He should suffer. God therefore also
knew what Christ would suffer; but where has he learnt that those things
which the Christ of God should suffer were most base and dishonourable? He
goes on to explain what those most shameful and degrading things were which
Christ suffered, in these words: "For what better was it for God to eat the
flesh of sheep, or to drink vinegar and gall, than to feed on filth? "But
God, according to us, did not eat the flesh of sheep; and while it may seem
that Jesus ate, He did so only as possessing a body. But in regard to the
vinegar and gall mentioned in the prophecy, "They gave me also gall for my
meat; and in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink," [4447] we have
already referred [4448] to this point; and as Celsus compels us to recur
to it again, we would only say further, that those who resist the word of
truth do ever offer to Christ the Son of God the gall of their own
wickedness, and the vinegar of their evil inclinations; but though He tastes
of it, yet He will not drink it.
Chapter XIV.
In the next place, wishing to shake the faith of those who believe in Jesus
on the ground of the prophecies which were delivered in regard to Him,
Celsus says: "But pray, if the prophets foretold that the great God'not to
put it more harshly'would become a slave, or become sick or die; would there
be therefore any necessity that God should die, or suffer sickness, or
become a slave, simply because such things had been foretold? Must he die in
order to prove his divinity? But the prophets never would utter predictions
so wicked and impious. We need not therefore inquire whether a thing has
been predicted or not, but whether the thing is honourable in itself, and
worthy of God. In that which is evil and base, although it seemed that all
men in the world had foretold it in a fit of madness, we must not believe.
How then can the pious mind admit that those things which are said to have
happened to him, could have happened to one who is God? "From this it is
plain that Celsus feels the argument from prophecy to be very effective for
convincing those to whom Christ is preached; but he seems to endeavour to
overthrow it by an opposite probability, namely," that the question is not
whether the prophets uttered these predictions or not." But if he wished to
reason justly and without evasion, he ought rather to have said, "We must
show that these things were never predicted, or that those things which were
predicted of Christ have never been fulfilled in him," and in that way he
would have established the position which he holds. In that way it would
have been made plain what those prophecies are which we apply to Jesus, and
how Celsus could justify himself in asserting that that application was
false. And we should thus have seen whether he fairly disproved all that we
bring from the prophets in behalf of Jesus, or whether he himself is
convicted of a shameless endeavour to resist the plainest truths by violent
assertions.
Chapter XV.
After assuming that some things were foretold which are impossible in
themselves, and inconsistent with the character of God, he says: "If these
things were predicted of the Most High God, are we bound to believe them of
God simply because they were predicted? "And thus he thinks he proves, that
although the prophets may have foretold truly such things of the Son of God,
yet it is impossible for us to believe in those prophecies declaring that He
would do or suffer such things. To this our answer is that the supposition
is absurd, for it combines two lines of reasoning which are opposed to each
other, and therefore mutually destructive. This may be shown as follows. The
one argument is: "If any true prophets of the Most High say that God will
become a slave, or suffer sickness, or die, these things will come to God;
for it is impossible that the prophets of the great God should utter
lies." The other is: "If even true prophets of the Most High God say that
these same things shall come to pass, seeing that these things foretold are
by the nature of things impossible, the prophecies are not true, and
therefore those things which have been foretold will not happen to God."
When, then, we find two processes of reasoning in both of which the major
premiss is the same, leading to two contradictory conclusions, we use the
form of argument called "the theorem of two propositions," [4449] to prove
that the major premiss is false, which in the case before us is this, "that
the prophets have foretold that the great God should become a slave, suffer
sickness, or die." We conclude, then, that the prophets never foretold such
things; and the argument is formally expressed as follows: 1st, Of two
things, if the first is true, the second is true; 2d, if the first is
[4450] true, the second is not true, therefore the first is not true. The
concrete example which the Stoics give to illustrate this form of argument
is the following: 1st, If you know that you are dead, you are dead; 2d, if
you know that you are dead, you are not dead. And the conclusion is'"you do
not know that you are dead." These propositions are worked out as follows:
If you know that you are dead, that which you know is certain; therefore you
are dead. Again, if you know that you are dead, your death is an object of
knowledge; but as the dead know nothing, your knowing this proves that you
are not dead. Accordingly, by joining the two arguments together, you arrive
at the conclusion'"you do not know that you are dead." Now the hypothesis of
Celsus which we have given above is much of the same kind.
Chapter XVI.
But besides, the prophecies which he introduces into his argument are very
different from what the prophets actually foretold of Jesus Christ. For the
prophecies do not foretell that God will be crucified, when they say of Him
who should suffer, "We beheld Him, and He had no form or comeliness; but His
form was dishonoured and marred more than the sons of men; He was a man of
sorrows, and acquainted with grief." [4451] Observe, then, how distinctly
they say that it was a man who should endure these human sufferings. And
Jesus Himself, who knew perfectly that one who was to die must be a man,
said to His accusers: "But now ye seek to kill Me, a man that hath spoken
unto you the truth which I heard of God." [4452] And if in that man as He
appeared among men there was something divine, namely the only-begotten Son
of God, the first-born of all creation, one who said of Himself, "I am the
truth," "I am the life," "I am the door," "I am the way," "I am the living
bread which came down from heaven," of this Being and His nature we must
judge and reason in a way quite different from that in which we judge of the
man who was seen in Jesus Christ. Accordingly, you will find no Christian,
however simple he may be, and however little versed in critical studies, who
would say that He who died was "the truth," "the life," "the way," "the
living bread which came down from heaven," "the resurrection; "for it was He
who appeared to us in the form of the man Jesus, who taught us, saying, "I
am the resurrection." There is no one amongst us, I say, so extravagant as
to affirm "the Life died," "the Resurrection died." The supposition of
Celsus would have some foundation if we were to say that it had been
foretold by the prophets that death would befall God the Word, the Truth,
the Life, the Resurrection, or any other name which is assumed by the Son of
God.
Chapter XVII.
In one point alone is Celsus correct in his statements on this subject. It
is that in which he says: "The prophets would not foretell this, because it
involves that which is wicked and impious,"'namely, that the great God
should become a slave or suffer death. But that which is predicted by the
prophets is worthy of God, that He who is the brightness and express image
of the divine nature should come into the world with the holy human soul
which was to animate the body of Jesus, to sow the seed of His word, which
might bring all who received and cherished it into union with the Most High
God, and which would lead to perfect blessedness all those who felt within
them the power of God the Word, who was to be in the body and soul of a man.
He was to be in it indeed, but not in such a way as to confine therein all
the rays of His glory; and we are not to suppose that the light of Him who
is God the Word is shed forth in no other way than in this. If, then, we
consider Jesus in relation to the divinity that was in Him, the things which
He did in this capacity present nothing to offend our ideas of God, nothing
but what is holy; and if we consider Him as man, distinguished beyond all
other men by an intimate communion with the Eternal Word, with absolute
Wisdom, He suffered as one who was wise and perfect, whatever it behoved Him
to suffer who did all for the good of the human race, yea, even for the good
of all intelligent beings. And there is nothing absurd in a man having died,
and in His death being not only an example of death endured for the sake of
piety, but also the first blow in the conflict which is to overthrow the
power of that evil spirit the devil, who had obtained dominion over the
whole world. [4453] For we have signs and pledges of the destruction of
his empire, in those who through the coming of Christ are everywhere
escaping from the power of demons, and who, after their deliverance from
this bondage in which they were held, consecrate themselves to God, and
earnestly devote themselves day by day to advancement in a life of piety.
Chapter XVIII.
Celsus adds: "Will they not besides make this reflection? If the prophets of
the God of the Jews foretold that he who should come into the world would be
the Son of this same God, how could he command them through Moses to gather
wealth, to extend their dominion, to fill the earth, to put their enemies of
every age to the sword, and to destroy them utterly, which indeed he himself
did'as Moses says'threatening them, moreover, that if they did not obey his
commands, he would treat them as his avowed enemies; whilst, on the other
hand, his Son, the man of Nazareth, promulgated laws quite opposed to these,
declaring that no one can come to the Father who loves power, or riches, or
glory; that men ought not to be more careful in providing food than the
ravens; that they were to be less concerned about their raiment than the
lilies; that to him who has given them one blow, they should offer to
receive another? Whether is it Moses or Jesus who teaches falsely? Did the
Father, when he sent Jesus, forget the commands which he had given to Moses?
Or did he change his mind, condemn his own laws, and send forth a messenger
with counter instructions? "Celsus, with all his boasts of universal
knowledge, has here fallen into the most vulgar of errors, in supposing that
in the law and the prophets there is not a meaning deeper than that afforded
by a literal rendering of the words. He does not see how manifestly
incredible it is that worldly riches should be promised to those who lead
upright lives, when it is a matter of common observation that the best of
men have lived in extreme poverty. Indeed, the prophets themselves, who for
the purity of their lives received the Divine Spirit, "wandered about in
sheepskins and goatskins; being destitute, afflicted, tormented: they
wandered in deserts, and in mountains, and in dens and caves of the
earth." [4454] For, as the Psalmist, says, "many are the afflictions of
the righteous." [4455] If Celsus had read the writings of Moses, he would,
I daresay, have supposed that when it is said to him who kept the law, "Thou
shalt lend unto many nations, and thou thyself shalt not borrow," [4456]
the promise is made to the just man, that his temporal riches should be so
abundant, that he would be able to lend not only to the Jews, not only to
two or three nations, but "to many nations." What, then, must have been the
wealth which the just man received according to the law for his
righteousness, if he could lend to many nations? And must we not suppose
also, in accordance with this interpretation, that the just man would never
borrow anything? For it is written, "and thou shalt thyself borrow
nothing." Did then that nation remain for so long a period attached to the
religion which was taught by Moses, whilst, according to the supposition of
Celsus, they saw themselves so grievously deceived by that lawgiver? For
nowhere is it said of any one that he was so rich as to lend to many
nations. It is not to be believed that they would have fought so zealously
in defence of a law whose promises had proved glaringly false, if they
understood them in the sense which Celsus gives to them. And if any one
should say that the sins which are recorded to have been committed by the
people are a proof that they despised the law, doubtless from the feeling
that they had been deceived by it, we may reply that we have only to read
the history of the times in order to find it shown that the whole people,
after having done that which was evil in the sight of the Lord, returned
afterwards to their duty, and to the religion prescribed by the law.
Chapter XIX.
Now if these words in the law, "Thou shalt have dominion over many nations,
and no one shall rule over thee," were simply a promise to them of dominion,
and if they contain no deeper meaning than this, then it is certain that the
people would have had still stronger grounds for despising the promises of
the law. Celsus brings forward another passage, although he changes the
terms of it, where it is said that the whole earth shall be filled with the
Hebrew race; which indeed, according to the testimony of history, did
actually happen after the coming of Christ, although rather as a result of
God's anger, if I may so say, than of His blessing. As to the promise made
to the Jews that they should slay their enemies, it may be answered that any
one who examines carefully into the meaning of this passage will find
himself unable to interpret it literally. It is sufficient at present to
refer to the manner in which in the Psalms the just man is represented as
saying, among other things, "Every morning will I destroy the wicked of the
land; that I may cut off all workers of iniquity from the city of
Jehovah." [4457] Judge, then, from the words and spirit of the speaker,
whether it is conceivable that, after having in the preceding part of the
Psalm, as any one may read for himself, uttered the noblest thoughts and
purposes, he should in the sequel, according to the literal rendering of his
words, say that in the morning, and at no other period of the day, he would
destroy all sinners from the earth, and leave none of them alive, and that
he would slay every one in Jerusalem who did iniquity. And there are many
similar expressions to be found in the law, as this, for example: "We left
not anything alive." [4458]
Chapter XX.
Celsus adds, that it was foretold to the Jews, that if they did not obey the
law, they would be treated in the same way as they treated their enemies;
and then he quotes from the teaching of Christ some precepts which he
considers contrary to those of the law, and uses that as an argument against
us. But before proceeding to this point, we must speak of that which
precedes. We hold, then, that the law has a twofold sense, 'the one literal,
the other spiritual,'as has been shown by some before us. Of the first or
literal sense it is said, not by us, but by God, speaking in one of the
prophets, that "the statutes are not good, and the judgments not good; "
[4459] whereas, taken in a spiritual sense, the same prophet makes God say
that "His statutes are good, and His judgments good." Yet evidently the
prophet is not saying things which are contradictory of each other. Paul in
like manner says, that "the letter killeth, and the spirit giveth life,"
[4460] meaning by "the letter" the literal sense, and by "the spirit" the
spiritual sense of Scripture. We may therefore find in Paul, as well as in
the prophet, apparent contradictions. Indeed, if Ezekiel says in one place,
"I gave them commandments which were not good, and judgments whereby they
should not live," and in another, "I gave them good commandments and
judgments, which if a man shall do, he shall live by them," [4461] Paul in
like manner, when he wishes to disparage the law taken literally, says, "If
the ministration of death, written and engraven in stones, was glorious, so
that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses
for the glory of his countenance, which glory was to be done away; how shall
not the ministration of the Spirit be rather glorious? " [4462] But when
in another place he wishes to praise and recommend the law, he calls it
"spiritual," and says, "We know that the law is spiritual; "and, "Wherefore
the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good." [4463]
Chapter XXI.
When, then, the letter of the law promises riches to the just, Celsus may
follow the letter which killeth, and understand it of worldly riches, which
blind men; but we say that it refers to those riches which enlighten the
eyes, and which enrich a man "in all utterance and in all knowledge." And in
this sense we "charge them that are rich in this world, that they be not
high-minded, nor trust in uncertain riches but in the living God, who giveth
us richly all things to enjoy; that they do good, that they be rich in good
works, ready to distribute, willing to communicate." [4464] For, as
Solomon says, "riches" are the true good, which "are the ransom of the life
of a man; "but the poverty which is the opposite of these riches is
destructive, for by it "the poor cannot bear rebuke." [4465] And what has
been said of riches applies to dominion, in regard to which it is said, "The
just man shall chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight."
[4466] Now if riches are to be taken in the sense we have just explained,
consider if it is not according to God's promise that he who is rich in all
utterance, in all knowledge, in all wisdom, in all good works, may not out
of these treasures of utterance, of wisdom, and of knowledge, lend to many
nations. It was thus that Paul lent to all the nations that he visited,
"carrying the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem, and round about unto
Illyricum." [4467] And as the divine knowledge was given to him by
revelation, and his mind was illumined by the Divine Word, he himself
therefore needed to borrow from no one, and required not the ministry to any
man to teach him the word of truth. Thus, as it had been written, "Thou
shalt have dominion over many nations, and they shall not have dominion over
thee," he ruled over the Gentiles whom he brought under the teaching Of
Jesus Christ; and he never "gave place by subjection to men, no, not for an
hour, [4468] as being himself mightier than they. And thus also he "filled
the earth."
Chapter XXII.
If I must now explain how the just man "slays his enemies," and prevails
everywhere, it is to be observed that, when he says, "Every morning will I
destroy the wicked of the land, that I may cut off all workers of iniquity
from the city of Jehovah," by "the land" he means the flesh whose lusts are
at enmity with God; and by "the city of Jehovah" he designates his own soul,
in which was the temple of God, containing the true idea and conception of
God, which makes it to be admired by all who look upon it. As soon, then, as
the rays of the Sun of righteousness shine into his soul, feeling
strengthened and invigorated by their influence, he sets himself to destroy
all the lusts of the flesh, which are called "the wicked of the land," and
drives out of that city of the Lord which is in his soul all thoughts which
work iniquity, and all suggestions which are opposed to the truth. And in
this way also the just give up to destruction all their enemies, which are
their vices, so that they do not spare even the children, that is, the early
beginnings and promptings of evil. In this sense also we understand the
language of the Psalms 137: "O daughter of Babylon, who art to be destroyed;
happy shall he be that rewardeth thee as thou hast served us: happy shall he
be that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones." [4469] For
"the little ones" of Babylon (which signifies confusion) are those
troublesome sinful thoughts which arise in the soul and he who subdues them
by striking, as it were, their heads against the firm and solid strength of
reason and truth, is the man who "dasheth the little ones against the
stones; "and he is therefore truly blessed. God may therefore have commanded
men to destroy all their vices utterly, even at their birth, without having
enjoined anything contrary to the teaching of Christ; and He may Himself
have destroyed before the eyes of those who were "Jews inwardly" [4470]
all the offspring of evil as His enemies. And, in like manner, those who
disobey the law and word of God may well be compared to His enemies led
astray by sin; and they may well be said to suffer the same fate as they
deserve who have proved traitors to the truth of God.
Chapter XXIII.
From what has been said, it is clear then that Jesus, "the man of
Nazareth," did not promulgate laws opposed to those just considered in
regard to riches, when He said, "It is hard for the rich man to enter into
the kingdom of God; " [4471] whether we take the word "rich" in its
simplest sense, as referring to the man whose mind is distracted by his
wealth, and, as it were, entangled with thorns, so that he brings forth no
spiritual fruit; or whether it is the man who is rich in the sense of
abounding in false notions, of whom it is written in the Proverbs, "Better
is the poor man who is just, than the rich man who is false." [4472]
Perhaps it is the following passages which have led Celsus to suppose that
Jesus forbids ambition to His disciples: "Whoever of you will be the
chiefest, shall be servant of all; " [4473] "The princes of the Gentiles
exercise dominion over them," [4474] and "they that exercise authority
upon them are called benefactors." [4475] But there is nothing here
inconsistent with the promise, "Thou shalt rule over many nations, and they
shall not rule over thee," especially after the explanation which we have
given of these words. Celsus next throws in an expression in regard to
wisdom, as though he thought that, according to the teaching of Christ, no
wise man could come to the Father. But we would ask in what sense he speaks
of a wise man. For if he means one who is wise in "the wisdom of this
world," as it is called, "which is foolishness with God," [4476] then we
would agree with him in saying that access to the Father is denied to one
who is wise in that sense. But if by wisdom any one means Christ, who is
"the power and wisdom of God," far from such a wise man being refused access
to the Father, we hold that he who is adorned by the Holy Spirit with that
gift which is called "the word of wisdom," far excels all those who have not
received the same grace.
Chapter XXIV.
The pursuit of human glory, we maintain, is forbidden not only by the
teaching of Jesus, but also by the Old Testament. Accordingly we find one of
the prophets, when imprecating upon himself certain punishments for the
commission of certain sins, includes among the punishments this one of
earthly glory. He says, "O Lord my God, if I have done this; if there be
iniquity in my hands; if I have rewarded evil unto him that was at peace
with me; (yea, rather, I have delivered him that without cause is mine
enemy;) let the enemy persecute my soul, and take it; yea, let him tread
down my life upon the earth, and set my glory up an high." [4477] And
these precepts of our Lord, "Take no thought what ye shall eat, or what ye
shall drink. Behold the fowls of the air, or behold the ravens: for they sow
not, neither do they reap; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. How much
better are ye than they! And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the
lilies of the field; " [4478] 'these precepts, and those which follow, are
not inconsistent with the promised blessings of the law, which teaches that
the just "shall eat their bread to the full; [4479] nor with that saying
of Solomon, "The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the
belly of the wicked shall want." [4480] For we must consider the food
promised in the law as the food of the soul, which is to satisfy not both
parts of man's nature, but the soul only. And the words of the Gospel,
although probably containing a deeper meaning, may yet be taken in their
more simple and obvious sense. as teaching us not to be disturbed with
anxieties about our food and clothing, but, while living in plainness, and
desiring only what is needful, to put our trust in the providence of God.
Chapter XXV.
Celsus then extracts from the Gospel the precept, "To him who strikes thee
once, thou shalt offer thyself to be struck again," although without giving
any passage from the Old Testament which he considers opposed to it. On the
one hand, we know that "it was said to them in old time, An eye for an eye,
and a tooth for a tooth; " [4481] and on the other, we have read, "I say
unto you, Whoever shall smite thee on the one cheek, turn to him the other
also." [4482] But as there is reason to believe that Celsus produces the
objections which he has heard from those who wish to make a difference
between the God of the Gospel and the God of the law, we must say in reply,
that this precept, "Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn to
him the other," is not unknown in the older Scriptures. For thus, in the
Lamentations of Jeremiah, it is said, "It is good for a man that he bear the
yoke in his youth: he sitteth alone, and keepeth silence, because he hath
borne it upon him. He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him; he is filled
full with reproach." [4483] There is no discrepancy, then, between the God
of the Gospel and the God of the law, even when we take literally the
precept regarding the blow on the face. So, then, we infer that neither
"Jesus nor Moses has taught falsely." The Father in sending Jesus did not
"forget the commands which He had given to Moses: "He did not "change His
mind, condemn His own laws, and send by His messenger counter
instructions."
Chapter XXVI.
However, if we must refer briefly to the difference between the constitution
which was given to the Jews of old by Moses, and that which the Christians,
under the direction of Christ's teaching, wish now to establish, we would
observe that it must be impossible for the legislation of Moses, taken
literally, to harmonize with the calling of the Gentiles, and with their
subjection to the Roman government; and on the other hand, it would be
impossible for the Jews to preserve their civil economy unchanged, supposing
that they should embrace the Gospel. For Christians could not slay their
enemies, or condemn to be burned or stoned, as Moses commands, those who had
broken the law, and were therefore condemned as deserving of these
punishments; since the Jews themselves, however desirous of carrying out
their law, are not able to inflict these. punishments. But in the case of
the ancient Jews, who had a land and a form of government of their own, to
take from them the right of making war upon their enemies, of fighting for
their country, of putting to death or otherwise punishing adulterers,
murderers, or others who were guilty of similar crimes, would be to subject
them to sudden and utter destruction whenever the enemy fell upon them; for
their very laws would in that case restrain them, and prevent them from
resisting the enemy. And that same providence which of old gave the law, and
has now given the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not wishing the Jewish state to
continue longer, has destroyed their city and their temple: it has abolished
the worship which was offered to God in that temple by the sacrifice of
victims, and other ceremonies which He had prescribed. And as it has
destroyed these things, not wishing that they should longer continue, in
like manner it has extended day by day the Christian religion, so that it is
now preached everywhere with boldness, and that in spite of the numerous
obstacles which oppose the spread of Christ's teaching in the world. But
since it was the purpose of God that the nations should receive the benefits
of Christ's teaching, all the devices of men against Christians have been
brought to sought; for the more that kings, and rulers, and peoples have
persecuted them everywhere, the more have they increased in number and grown
in strength.
Chapter XXVII.
After this Celsus relates at length opinions which he ascribes to us, but
which we do not hold, regarding the Divine Being, to the effect that "he is
corporeal in his nature, and possesses a body like a man." As he undertakes
to refute opinions which are none of ours, it would be needless to give
either the opinions themselves or their refutation. Indeed, if we did hold
those views of God which he ascribes to us, and which he opposes, we would
be bound to quote his words, to adduce our own arguments, and to refute his.
But if he brings forward opinions which he has either heard from no one, or
if it be assumed that he has heard them, it must have been from those who
are very simple and ignorant of the meaning of Scripture, then we need not
undertake so superfluous a task as that of refuting them. For the Scriptures
plainly speak of God as of a being without body. Hence it is said, "No man
hath seen God at any time; " [4484] and the First-born of all creation is
called "the image of the invisible God," [4485] which is the same as if it
were said that He is incorporeal. However, we have already said something on
the nature of God while examining into the meaning of the words, "God is a
Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth."
Chapter XXVIII.
After thus misrepresenting our views of the nature of God, Celsus goes on to
ask of us "where we hope to go after death; "and he makes our answer to be,
"to another land better than this." On this he comments as follows: "The
divine men of a former age have spoken of a happy life reserved for the
souls of the blessed. Some designated it 'the isles of the blest, 'and
others 'the Elysian plain, 'so called because they were there to be
delivered from their present evils. Thus Homer says: 'But the gods shall
send thee to the Elysian plain, on the borders of the earth, where they lead
a most quiet life.' [4486] Plato also, who believed in the immortality of
the soul, distinctly gives the name 'land' to the place where it is sent.
'The extent of it,' [4487] says he, 'is immense, and we only occupy a
small portion of it, from the Phasis to the Pillars of Hercules, where we
dwell along the shores of the sea, as grasshoppers and frogs beside a marsh.
But there are many other places inhabited in like manner by other men. For
there are in different parts of the earth cavities, varying in form and in
magnitude, into which run water, and clouds, and air. But that land which is
pure lies in the pure region of heaven.'" Celsus therefore supposes that
what we say of a land which is much better and more excellent than this, has
been borrowed from certain ancient writers whom he styles "divine," and
chiefly from Plato, who in his Phaedon discourses on the pure land lying in
a pure heaven. But he does not see that Moses, who is much older than the
Greek literature, introduces God as promising to those who lived according
to His law the holy land, which is "a good land and a large, a land flowing
with milk and honey; " [4488] which promise is not to be understood to
refer, as some suppose, to that part of the earth which we call Judea; for
it, however good it may be, still forms part of the earth, which was
originally cursed for the transgression of Adam. For these words, "Cursed
shall the ground be for what thou hast done; with grief, that is, with
labour, shalt thou eat of the fruit of it all the days of thy life,"
[4489] were spoken of the whole earth, the fruit of which every man who died
in Adam eats with sorrow or labour all the days of his life. And as all the
earth has been cursed, it brings forth thorns and briers all the days of the
life of those who in Adam were driven out of paradise; and in the sweat of
his face every man eats bread until he returns to the ground from which he
was taken. For the full exposition of all that is contained in this passage
much might be said; but we have confined ourselves to these few words at
present, which are intended to remove the idea, that what is said of the
good land promised by God to the righteous, refers to the land of Judea.
Chapter XXIX.
If, then, the whole earth has been cursed in the deeds of Adam and of those
who died in him, it is plain that all parts of the earth share in the curse,
and among others the land of Judea; so that the words, "a good land and a
large, a land flowing with milk and honey, cannot apply to it, although we
may say of it, that both Judea and Jerusalem were the shadow and figure of
that pure land, goodly and large, in the pure region of heaven, in which is
the heavenly Jerusalem. And it is in reference to this Jerusalem that the
apostle spoke, as one who, "being risen with Christ, and seeking those
things which are above," had found a truth which formed no part of the
Jewish mythology. "Ye are come," says he, "unto Mount Sion, and unto the
city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels." [4490] And in order to be assured that our explanation
of "the good and large land" of Moses is not contrary to the intention of
the Divine Spirit, we have only to read in all the prophets what they say of
those who, after having left Jerusalem, and wandered astray from it, should
afterwards return and be settled in the place which is called the habitation
and city of God, as in the words, "His dwelling is in the holy place; "
[4491] and, "Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised in the city of our
God, in the mountain of His holiness, beautiful for situation, the joy of
the whole earth." [4492] It is enough at present to quote the words of the
Psalms 37, which speaks thus of the land of the righteous, "Those that wait
upon the Lord they shall inherit the earth; "and a little after, "But the
meek shall inherit the earth, and shall delight themselves in the abundance
of peace; "and again, "Those who bless Him shall inherit the earth; "and,
"The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever." [4493]
And consider whether it is not evident to intelligent readers that the
following words from this same Psalm refer to the pure land in the pure
heaven: "Wait on the Lord, and keep His way; and He shall exalt thee to
inherit the land."
Chapter XXX
It seems to me also that the fancy of Plato, that those stones which we call
precious stones derive their lustre from a reflection, as it were, of the
stones in that better land, is taken from the words of Isaiah in describing
the city of God, "I will make thy battlements of jasper, thy stones shall be
crystal, and thy borders of precious stones; " [4494] and, "I will lay thy
foundations with sapphires." Those who hold in greatest reverence the
teaching of Plato, explain this myth of his as an allegory. And the
prophecies from which, as we conjecture, Plato has borrowed, will be
explained by those who, leading a godly life like that of the prophets,
devote all their time to the study of the sacred Scriptures, to those who
are qualified to learn by purity of life, and their desire to advance in
divine knowledge. For our part, our purpose has been simply to say that what
we affirm of that sacred land has not been taken from Plato or any of the
Greeks, but that they rather'living as they did not only after Moses, who
was the oldest, but even after most of the prophets'borrowed from them, and
in so doing either misunderstood their obscure intimations on such subjects,
or else endeavoured, in their allusions to the better land, to imitate those
portions of Scripture which had fallen into their hands. Haggai expressly
makes a distinction between the earth and the dry land, meaning by the
latter the land in which we live. He says: "Yet once, and I will shake the
heavens, and the earth, and the dry land, and the sea." [4495]
Chapter XXXI.
Referring to the passage in the Phaedon of Plato, Celsus says: "It is not
easy for every one to understand the meaning of Plato's words, when he says
that on account of our weakness and slowness we are unable to reach the
highest region of the air; but that if our nature were capable of so sublime
a contemplation, we would then be able to understand that that is the true
heaven, and that the true light." As Celsus has deferred to another
opportunity the explanation of Plato's idea, we also think that it does not
fall within our purpose at present to enter into any full description of
that holy and good land, and of the city of God which is in it; but reserve
the consideration of it for our Commentary on the Prophets, having already
in part, according to our power, treated of the city of God in our remarks
on the Psalms 46 and Psalms 48. The writings of Moses and the prophets'the
most ancient of all books'teach us that all things here on earth which are
in common use among men, have other things corresponding to them in name
which are alone real. Thus, for instance, there is the true light, and
another heaven beyond the firmament, and a Sun of righteousness other than
the sun we see. In a word, to distinguish those things from the objects of
sense, which have no true reality, they say of God that "His works are
truth; " [4496] thus making a distinction between the works of God and the
works of God's hands, which latter are of an inferior sort. Accordingly, God
in Isaiah complains of men, that "they regard not the works of the Lord, nor
consider the operation of His hands." [4497] But enough on this point.
Chapter XXXII.
Celsus next assails the doctrine of the resurrection, which is a high and
difficult doctrine, and one which more than others requires a high and
advanced degree of wisdom to set forth how worthy it is of God; and how
sublime a truth it is which teaches us that there is a seminal principle
lodged in that which Scripture speaks of as the "tabernacle" of the soul, in
which the righteous "do groan, being burdened, not for that they would be
unclothed, but clothed upon." [4498] Celsus ridicules this doctrine
because he does not understand it, and because he has learnt it from
ignorant persons, who were unable to support it on any reasonable grounds.
It will be profitable, therefore, that in addition to what we have said
above, we should make this one remark. Our teaching on the subject of the
resurrection is not, as Celsus imagines, derived from anything that we have
heard on the doctrine of metempsychosis; but we know that the soul, which is
immaterial and invisible in its nature, exists in no material place, without
having a body suited to the nature of that place. Accordingly, it at one
time puts off one body which was necessary before, but which is no longer
adequate in its changed state, and it exchanges it for a second; and at
another time it assumes another in addition to the former, which is needed
as a better covering, suited to the purer ethereal regions of heaven. When
it comes into the world at birth, it casts off the integuments which it
needed in the womb; and before doing this, it puts on another body suited
for its life upon earth. Then, again, as there is "a tabernacle" and "an
earthly house" which is in some sort necessary for this tabernacle,
Scripture teaches us that "the earthly house of this tabernacle shall be
dissolved," but that the tabernacle shall "be clothed upon with a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens." [4499] The men of God say also
that "the corruptible shall put on incorruption," [4500] which is a
different thing from "the incorruptible; "and "the mortal shall put on
immortality," which is different from "the immortal." Indeed, what
"wisdom" is to "the wise," and "justice" to "the just," and "peace" to "the
peaceable," the same relation does "incorruption" hold to "the
incorruptible," and "immortality" to "the immortal." Behold, then, to what a
prospect Scripture encourages us to look, when it speaks to us of being
clothed with incorruption and immortality, which are, as it were, vestments
which will not suffer those who are covered with them to come to corruption
or death. Thus far I have taken the liberty of referring to this subject, in
answer to one who assails the doctrine of the resurrection without
understanding it, and who, simply because he knew nothing about it, made it
the object of contempt and ridicule.
Chapter XXXIII.
As Celsus supposes that we uphold the doctrine of the resurrection in order
that we may see and know God, he thus follows out his notions on the
subject: "After they have been utterly refuted and vanquished, they still,
as if regardless of all objections, come back again to the same question,
'How then shall we see and know God? how shall we go to Him? '" Let any,
however, who are disposed to hear us observe, that if we have need of a body
for other purposes, as for occupying a material locality to which this body
must be adapted, and if on that account the "tabernacle" is clothed in the
way we have shown, we have no need of a body in order to know God. For that
which sees God is not the eye of the body; it is the mind which is made in
the image of the Creator, [4501] and which God has in His providence
rendered capable of that knowledge. To see God belongs to the pure heart,
out of which no longer proceed "evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,
fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies, the evil eye," [4502] or
any other evil thing. Wherefore it is said, "Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they shall see God." [4503] But as the strength of our will is not
sufficient to procure the perfectly pure heart, and as we need that God
should create it, he therefore who prays as he ought, offers this petition
to God, "Create in me a clean heart, O God." [4504]
Chapter XXXIV.
And we do not ask the question, "How shall we go to God? "as though we
thought that God existed in some place. God is of too excellent a nature for
any place: He holds all things in His power, and is Himself not confined by
anything whatever. The precept, therefore, "Thou shall walk after the Lord
thy God," [4505] does not command a bodily approach to God; neither does
the prophet refer to physical nearness to God, when he says in his prayer,
"My soul followeth hard after Thee." [4506] Celsus therefore misrepresents
us, when he says that we expect to see God with our bodily eyes, to hear Him
with our ears, and to touch Him sensibly with our hands. We know that the
holy Scriptures make mention of eyes, of ears, and of hands, which have
nothing but the name in common with the bodily organs; and what is more
wonderful, they speak of a diviner sense, which is very different from the
senses as commonly spoken of. For when the prophet says, "Open Thou mine
eyes, that I may behold wondrous things out of thy law," [4507] or, "the
commandment of the Lord is pure, enlightening the eyes," [4508] or,
"Lighten mine eyes, lest I sleep the sleep of death," [4509] no one is so
foolish as to suppose that the eyes of the body behold the wonders of the
divine law, or that the law of the Lord gives light to the bodily eyes, or
that the sleep of death falls on the eyes of the body. When our Saviour
says, "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," [4510] any one will
understand that the ears spoken of are of a diviner kind. When it is said
that the word of the Lord was "in the hand" of Jeremiah or of some other
prophet; or when the expression is used, "the law by the hand of Moses," or,
"I sought the Lord with my hands, and was not deceived, [4511] 'no one is
so foolish as not to see that the word "hands" is taken figuratively, as
when John says, "Our hands have handled the Word of life." [4512] And if
you wish further to learn from the sacred writings that there is a diviner
sense than the senses of the body, you have only to hear what Solomon says,
"Thou shalt find a divine sense." [4513]
Chapter XXXV.
Seeking God, then, in this way, we have no need to visit the oracles of
Trophonius, of Amphiaraus, and of Mopsus, to which Celsus would send us,
assuring us that we would there "see the gods in human form, appearing to us
with all distinctness, and without illusion." For we know that these are
demons, feeding on the blood, and smoke, and odour of victims, and shut up
by their base desires in prisons, which the Greeks call temples of the gods,
but which we know are only the dwellings of deceitful demons. To this Celsus
maliciously adds, in regard to these gods which, according to him, are in
human form, "they do not show themselves for once, or at intervals, like him
who has deceived men, but they are ever open to intercourse with those who
desire it." From this remark, it would seem that Celsus supposes that the
appearance of Christ to His disciples after His resurrection was like that
of a spectre flitting before their eyes; whereas these gods, as he calls
them, in human shape always present themselves to those who desire it. But
how is it possible that a phantom which, as he describes it, flew past to
deceive the beholders, could produce such effects after it had passed away,
and could so turn the hearts of men as to lead them to regulate their
actions according to the will of God, as in view of being hereafter judged
by Him? And how could a phantom drive away demons, and show other
indisputable evidences of power, and that not in any one place, like these
so-called gods in human form, but making its divine power felt through the
whole world, in drawing and congregating together all who are found disposed
to lead a good and noble life?
Chapter XXXVI.
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have endeavoured to answer as we
could, he goes on to say, speaking of us: "Again they will ask, 'How can we
know God, unless by the perception of the senses? for how otherwise than
through the senses are we able to gain any knowledge? '" To this he replies:
"This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul, but from the
flesh. Let them hearken to us, if such a spiritless and carnal race are able
to do so: if, instead of exercising the senses, you look upwards with the
soul; if, turning away the eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind
thus and thus only will you be able to see God. And if you seek one to be
your guide along this way, you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who
will introduce you to phantoms. Otherwise you will be acting the most
ridiculous part, if, whilst you pronounce imprecations upon those others
that are recognised as gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a
more wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a
phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to him." The first
remark which we have to make on this passage is in regard to his use of
personification, by which he makes us defend in this way the doctrine of the
resurrection. This figure of speech is properly employed when the character
and sentiments of the person introduced are faithfully preserved; but it is
an abuse of the figure when these do not agree with the character and
opinions of the speaker. Thus we should justly condemn a man who put into
the mouths of barbarians, slaves, or uneducated'. people the language of
philosophy; because we know that the philosophy belonged to the author, and
not to such persons, who could not know anything of philosophy. And in like
manner we should condemn a man for introducing persons who are represented
as wise and well versed in divine knowledge, and should make them give
expression to language which could only come out of the mouths of those who
are ignorant or under the influence of vulgar passions. Hence Homer is
admired, among other things, for preserving a consistency of character in
his heroes, as in Nestor, Ulysses, Diomede, Agamemnon, Telemachus, Penelope,
and the rest. Euripides, on the contrary, was assailed in the comedies of
Aristophanes as a frivolous talker, often putting into the mouth of a
barbarian woman, a wretched slave, the wise maxims which he had learned from
Anaxagoras or some other philosophers.
Chapter XXXVII.
Now if this is a true account of what constitutes the right and the wrong
use of personification, have we not grounds for holding Celsus up to
ridicule for thus ascribing to Christians words which they never uttered?
For if those whom he represents as speaking are the unlearned, how is it
possible that such persons could distinguish between "sense" and "reason,"
between "objects of sense" and "objects of the reason? "To argue in this
way, they would require to have studied under the Stoics, who deny all
intellectual existences, and maintain that all that we apprehend is
apprehended through the senses, and that all knowledge comes through the
senses. But if, on the other hand, he puts these words into the mouth of
philosophers who search carefully into the meaning of Christian doctrines,
the statements in question do not agree with their character and principles.
For no one who has learnt that God is invisible, and that certain of His
works are invisible, that is to say, apprehended by the reason, [4514] can
say, as if to justify his faith in a resurrection, "How can they know God,
except by the perception of the senses? "or, "How otherwise than through the
senses can they gain any knowledge? "For it is not in any secret writings,
perused only by a few wise men, but in such as are most widely diffused and
most commonly known among the people, that these words are written: "The
invisible things of God from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by the things that are made." [4515] From whence it is to
be inferred, that though men who live upon the earth have to begin with the
use of the senses upon sensible objects, in order to go on from them to a
knowledge of the nature of things intellectual, yet their knowledge must not
stop short with the objects of sense. And thus, while Christians would not
say that it is impossible to have a knowledge of intellectual objects
without the senses, but rather that the senses supply the first means of
obtaining knowledge, they might well ask the question, "Who can gain any
knowledge without the senses? "without deserving the abuse of Celsus, when
he adds, "This is not the language of a man; it comes not from the soul, but
from the flesh."
Chapter XXXVIII.
Since we hold that the great God is in essence simple, invisible, and
incorporeal, Himself pure intelligence, or something transcending
intelligence and existence, we can never say that God is apprehended by any
other means than through the intelligence which is formed in His image,
though now, in the words of Paul, "we see in a glass obscurely, but then
face to face." [4516] And if we use the expression "face to face," let no
one pervert its meaning; but let it be explained by this passage, "Beholding
with open face the glory of the Lord, we are changed into the same image,
from glory to glory," which shows that we do not use the word in this
connection to mean the visible face, but take it figuratively, in the same
way as we have shown that the eyes, the ears, and the other parts of the
body are employed. And it is certain that a man'I mean a soul using a body,
otherwise called "the inner man," or simply "the soul"'would answer, not as
Celsus makes us answer, but as the man of God himself teaches. It is certain
also that a Christian will not make use of "the language of the flesh,"
having learnt as he has "to mortify the deeds of the body" [4517] by the
spirit, and "to bear about in his body the dying of Jesus; " [4518] and
"mortify your members which are on the earth," [4519] and with a true
knowledge of these words, "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for
that he also is flesh," [4520] and again, "They that are in the flesh
cannot please God," [4521] he strives in every way to live no longer
according to the flesh, but only according to the Spirit.
Chapter XXXIX.
Now let us hear what it is that he invites us to learn, that we may
ascertain from him how we are to know God, although he thinks that his words
are beyond the. capacity of all Christians. "Let them hear," says he, "if
they are able to do so." We have then to consider what the philosopher
wishes us to hear from him. But instead of instructing us as he ought, he
abuses us; and while he should have shown his goodwill to those whom he
addresses at the outset of his discourse, he stigmatizes as "a cowardly
race" men who would rather die than abjure Christianity even by a word, and
who are ready to suffer every form of torture, or any kind of death. He also
applies to us that epithet "carnal" or "flesh-indulging," "although," as we
are wont to say, "we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth
we know Him no more," [4522] and although we are so ready to lay down our
lives for the cause of religion, that no philosopher could lay aside his
robes more readily. He then addresses to us these words: "If, instead of
exercising your senses, you look upwards with the soul; if, turning away the
eye of the body, you open the eye of the mind, thus and thus only you will
be able to see God." He is not aware that this reference to the two eyes,
the eye of the body and the eye of the mind, which he has borrowed from the
Greeks, was in use among our own writers; for Moses, in his account of the
creation of the world, introduces man before his transgression as both
seeing and not seeing: seeing, when it is said of the woman, "The woman saw
that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a
tree to be desired to make one wise; " [4523] and again not seeing, as
when he introduces the serpent saying to the woman, as if she and her
husband had been blind, "God knows that on the day that ye eat thereof your
eyes shall be opened; " [4524] and also when it is said, "They did eat,
and the eyes of both of them were opened." [4525] The eyes of sense were
then opened, which they had done well to keep shut, that they might not be
distracted, and hindered from seeing with the eyes of the mind; and it was
those eyes of the mind which in consequence of sin, as I imagine, were then
closed, with which they had up to that time enjoyed the delight of beholding
God and His paradise. This twofold kind of vision in us was familiar to our
Saviour, who says," For judgment I am come into this world, that they which
see not, might see, and that they which see might be made blind," [4526]
'meaning, by the eyes that see not; the eyes of the mind, which are
enlightened by His teaching; and the eyes which see are the eyes of sense,
which His words do render blind, in order that the soul may look without
distraction upon proper objects. All true Christians therefore have the eye
of the mind sharpened, and the eye of sense closed; so that each one,
according to the degree in which his better eye is quickened, and the eye of
sense darkened, sees and knows the Supreme God, and His Son, who is the
Word, Wisdom, and so forth.
Chapter XL.
Next to the remarks of Celsus on which we have already commented, come
others which he addresses to all Christians, but which, if applicable to
any, ought to be addressed to persons whose doctrines differ entirely from
those taught by Jesus. For it is the Ophians who, as we have before shown,
[4527] have utterly renounced Jesus, and perhaps some others of similar
opinions who are "the impostors and jugglers, leading men away to idols and
phantoms; "and it is they who with miserable pains learn off the names of
the heavenly doorkeepers. These words are therefore quite inappropriate as
addressed to Christians: "If you seek one to be your guide along this way,
you must shun all deceivers and jugglers, who will introduce you to
phantoms." And, as though quite unaware that these impostors entirely agree
with him, and are not behind him in speaking ill of Jesus and His religion,
he thus continues, confounding us with them: "otherwise you will be acting
the most ridiculous part, if, whilst you pronounce imprecations upon those
other recognised gods, treating them as idols, you yet do homage to a more
wretched idol than any of these, which indeed is not even an idol or a
phantom, but a dead man, and you seek a father like to himself." That he is
ignorant of the wide difference between our opinions and those of the
inventors of these fables, and that he imagines the charges which he makes
against them applicable to us, is evident from the following passage: "For
the sake of such a monstrous delusion, and in support of those wonderful
advisers, and those wonderful words which you address to the lion, to the
amphibious creature, to the creature in the form of an ass, and to others,
for the sake of those divine doorkeepers whose names you commit to memory
with such pains, in such a cause as this you suffer cruel tortures, and
perish at the stake." Surely, then, he is unaware that none of those who
regard beings in the form of an ass a lion, or an amphibious animal, as the
doorkeepers or guides on the way to heaven, ever expose themselves to death
in defence of that which they think the truth. That excess of zeal, if it
may be so called, which leads us for the sake of religion to submit to every
kind of death, and to perish at the stake, is ascribed by Celsus to those
who endure no such sufferings; and he reproaches us who suffer crucifixion
for our faith, with believing in fabulous creatures'in the lion, the
amphibious animal, and other such monsters. If we reject all these fables,
it is not out of deference to Celsus, for we have never at any time held any
such fancies; but it is in accordance with the teaching of Jesus that we
oppose all such notions, and will not allow to Michael, or to any others
that have been referred to, a form and figure of that sort.
Chapter XLI.
But let us consider who those persons are whose guidance Celsus would have
us to follow, so that we may not be in want of guides who are recommended
both by their antiquity and sanctity. He refers us to divinely inspired
poets, as he calls them, to wise men and philosophers, without mentioning
their names; so that, after promising to point out those who should guide
us, he simply hands us over in a general way to divinely inspired poets,
wise men, and philosophers. If he had specified their names in particular,
we should have felt ourselves bound to show him that he wished to give us as
guides men who were blinded to the truth, and who must therefore lead us
into error; or that if not wholly blinded, yet they are in error in many
matters of belief. But whether Orpheus, Parmenides, Empedocles, or even
Homer himself, and Hesiod, are the persons whom he means by "inspired
poets," let any one show how those who follow their guidance walk in a
better way, or lead a more excellent life, than those who, being taught in
the school of Jesus Christ, have rejected all images and statues, and even
all Jewish superstition, that they may look upward through the Word of God
to the one God, who is the Father of the Word. Who, then, are those wise men
and philosophers from whom Celsus would have us to learn so many divine
truths, and for whom we are to give up Moses the servant of God, the
prophets of the Creator of the world, who have spoken so many things by a
truly divine inspiration, and even Him who has given light and taught the
way of piety to the whole human race, so that no one can reproach Him if he
remains without a share in the knowledge of His mysteries? Such, indeed, was
the abounding love which He had for men, that He gave to the more learned a
theology capable of raising the soul far above all earthly things; while
with no less consideration He comes down to the weaker capacities of
ignorant men, of simple women, of slaves, and, in short, of all those who
from Jesus alone could have received that help for the better regulation of
their lives which is supplied by his instructions in regard to the Divine
Being, adapted to their wants and capacities.
Chapter XLII.
Celsus next refers us to Plato as to a more effective teacher of theological
truth, and quotes the following passage from the Timaeus: "It is a hard
matter to find out the Maker and Father of this universe; and after having
found Him, it is impossible to make Him known to all." To which he himself
adds this remark: "You perceive, then, how divine men seek after the way of
truth, and how well Plato knew that it was impossible for all men to walk in
it. But as wise men have found it for the express purpose of being able to
convey to us some notion of Him who is the first, the unspeakable Being,'a
notion, namely; which may represent Him to us through the medium of other
objects,'they endeavour either by synthesis, which is the combining of
various qualities, or by analysis, which is the separation and setting aside
of some qualities, or finally by analogy;'in these ways, I say, they
endeavour to set before us that which it is impossible to express in words.
I should therefore be surprised if you could follow in that course, since
you are so completely wedded to the flesh as to be incapable of seeing ought
but what is impure." These words of Plato are noble and admirable; but see
if Scripture does not give us an example of a regard for mankind still
greater in God the Word, who was "in the beginning with God," and "who was
made flesh," in order that He might reveal to all men truths which,
according to Plato, it would be impossible to make known to all men, even
after he had found them himself. Plato may say that "it is a hard thing to
find out the Creator and Father of this universe; "by which language he
implies that it is not wholly beyond the power of human nature to attain to
such a knowledge as is either worthy of God, or if not, is far beyond that
which is commonly attained (although if it were true that Plato or any other
of the Greeks had found God. they would never have given homage and worship,
or ascribed the name of God, to any other than to Him: they would have
abandoned all others, and would not have associated with this great God
objects which can have nothing in common with Him). [4528] For ourselves,
we maintain that human nature is in no way able to seek after God, or to
attain a clear knowledge of Him without the help of Him whom it seeks. He
makes Himself known to those who, after doing all that their powers will
allow, confess that they need help from Him, who discovers Himself to those
whom He approves, in so far as it is possible for man and the soul still
dwelling in the body to know God.
Chapter XLIII.
Observe that when Plato says, that "after having found out the Creator and
Father of the universe, it is impossible to make Him known to all men," he
does not speak of Him as unspeakable, and as incapable of being expressed in
words. On the contrary, he implies that He may be spoken of, and that there
are a few to whom He may be made known. But Celsus, as if forgetting the
language which he had just quoted from Plato, immediately gives God the name
of "the unspeakable." He says: "since the wise men have found out this way,
in order to be able to give us some idea of the First of Beings, who is
unspeakable." For ourselves, we hold that not God alone is unspeakable, but
other things also which are inferior to Him. Such are the things which Paul
labours to express when he says, "I heard unspeakable words, which it is not
lawful for a man to utter," [4529] where the word "heard" is used in the
sense of "understood; "as in the passage, "He who hath ears to hear, let him
hear." We also hold that it is a hard matter to see the Creator and Father
of the universe; but it is possible to see Him in the way thus referred to,
"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God; " [4530] and not
only so, but also in the sense of the words of Him "who is the image of the
invisible God; "He who hath seen Me hath seen the Father who sent Me."
[4531] No sensible person could suppose that these last words were spoken in
reference to His bodily presence, which was open to the view of all;
otherwise all those who said, "Crucify him, crucify him," and Pilate, who
had power over the humanity of Jesus, were among those who saw God the
Father, which is absurd. Moreover, that these words, "He that hath seen Me,
hath seen the Father who sent Me," are not to be taken in their grosser
sense, is plain from the answer which He gave to Philip, "Have I been so
long time with you, and yet dost thou not know Me, Philip? "after Philip had
asked, "Show us the Father, and it sufficeth us." He, then, who perceives
how these words, "The Word was made flesh," are to be understood of the
only-begotten Son of God, the first-born of all creation, will also
understand how, in seeing the image of the invisible God, we see "the
Creator and Father of the universe."
Chapter XLIV.
Celsus supposes that we may arrive at a knowledge of God either by combining
or separating certain things after the methods which mathematicians call
synthesis and analysis, or again by analogy, which is employed by them also,
and that in this way we may as it were gain admission to the chief good. But
when the Word of God says, "No man knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to
whomsoever the Son will reveal Him," [4532] He declares that no one can
know God but by the help of divine grace coming from above, with a certain
divine inspiration. Indeed, it is reasonable to suppose that the knowledge
of God is beyond the reach of human nature, and hence the many errors into
which men have fallen in their views of God. It is, then, through the
goodness and love of God to mankind, and by a marvellous exercise of divine
grace to those whom He saw in His foreknowledge, and knew that they would
walk worthy of Him who had made Himself known to them, and that they would
never swerve from a faithful attachment to His service, although they were
condemned to death or held up to ridicule by those who, in ignorance of what
true religion is, give that name to what deserves to be called anything
rather than religion. God doubtless saw the pride and arrogance of those
who, with contempt for all others, boast of their knowledge of God, and of
their profound acquaintance with divine things obtained from philosophy, but
who still, not less even than the most ignorant, run after their images, and
temples, and famous mysteries; and seeing this, He "has chosen the foolish
things of this world" [4533] 'the simplest of Christians, who lead,
however, a life of greater moderation and purity than many philosophers'"to
confound the wise," who are not ashamed to address inanimate things as gods
or images of the gods. For what reasonable man can refrain from smiling when
he sees that one who has learned from philosophy such profound and noble
sentiments about God or the gods, turns straightway to images and offers to
them his prayers, or imagines that by gazing upon these material things he
can ascend from the visible symbol to that which is spiritual and
immaterial. [4534] But a Christian, even of the common people, is assured
that every place forms part of the universe, and that the whole universe is
God's temple. In whatever part of the world he is, he prays; but he rises
above the universe, "shutting the eyes of sense, and raising upwards the
eyes of the soul." And he stops not at the vault of heaven; but passing in
thought beyond the heavens, under the guidance of the Spirit of God, and
having thus as it were gone beyond the visible universe, he offers prayers
to God. But he prays for no trivial blessings, for he has learnt from Jesus
to seek for nothing small or mean, that is, sensible objects, but to ask
only for what is great and truly divine; and these things God grants to us,
to lead us to l that blessedness which is found only with Him through His
Son, the Word, who is God.
Chapter XLV.
But let us see further what the things are which he proposes to teach us, if
indeed we can comprehend them, since he speaks of us as being "utterly
wedded to the flesh; "although if we live well, and in accordance with the
teaching of Jesus, we hear this said of us: "Ye are not in the flesh, but in
the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwelleth in you." [4535] He says also
that we look upon nothing that is pure, although our endeavour is to keep
even our thoughts free from all defilement of sin, and although in prayer we
say, "Create in me a clean heart, O God, and renew a right spirit within
me," [4536] so that we may behold Him with that "pure heart" to which
alone is granted the privilege of seeing Him. This, then, is what he
proposes for our instruction: "Things are either intelligible, which we call
substance'being; or visible, which we call becoming: [4537] with the
former is truth; from the latter arises error. Truth is the object of
knowledge; truth and error form opinion. Intelligible objects are known by
the reason, visible objects by the eyes; the action of the reason is called
intelligent perception, that of the eyes vision. As, then, among visible
things the sun is neither the eye nor vision, but that which enables the eye
to see, and renders vision possible, and in consequence of it visible things
are seen, all sensible things exist and itself is rendered visible; so among
things intelligible, that which is neither reason, nor intelligent
perception, nor knowledge, is yet the cause which enables the reason to
know, which renders intelligent perception possible; and in consequence of
it knowledge arises, all things intelligible, truth itself and substance
have their existence; and itself, which is above all these things, becomes
in some ineffable way intelligible. These things are offered to the
consideration of the intelligent; and if even you can understand any of
them, it is well. And if you think that a Divine Spirit has descended from
God to announce divine things to men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that
reveals these truths, and it was under the same influence that men of old
made known many important truths. But if you cannot comprehend these things,
then keep silence; do not expose your own ignorance, and do not accuse of
blindness those who see, or of lameness those who run, while you yourselves
are utterly lamed and mutilated in mind, and lead a merely animal life'the
life of the body, which is the dead part of our nature."
Chapter XLVI.
We are careful not to oppose fair arguments even if they proceed from those
who are not of our faith; we strive not to be captious, or to seek to
overthrow any sound reasonings. But here we have to reply to those who
slander the character of persons wishing to do their best in the service of
God, who accepts the faith which the meanest place in Him, as well as the
more refined and intelligent piety of the learned; seeing that both alike
address to the Creator of the world their prayers and thanksgivings through
the High Priest who has set before men the nature of pure religion. We say,
then, that those who are stigmatized as "lamed and mutilated in spirit," as
"living only for the sake of the body which is dead," are persons whose
endeavour it is to say with sincerity: "For though we live [4538] in the
flesh, we do not war according to the flesh; for the weapons of our warfare
are not fleshly, but mighty through God." It is for those who throw out such
vile accusations against men' who desire to be God's servants, to beware
lest, by the calumnies which they cast upon others who strive to live well,
they "lame" their own souls, and "mutilate" the inner man, by severing from
it that justice and moderation of mind which the Creator has planted in the
nature of all His rational creatures. As for those, however, who, along with
other lessons given by the Divine Word, have learned and practised this,
"when reviled to bless, when persecuted to endure, when defamed to
entreat," [4539] they may be said to be walking in spirit in the ways of
uprightness, to be purifying and setting in order the whole soul. They
distinguish'and to them the distinction is not one of words merely'between
"substance," or that which is, and that which is "becoming; "between things
apprehended by reason, and things apprehended by sense; and they connect
truth with the one, and avoid the errors arising out of the other; looking,
as they have been taught, not at the things "becoming" or phenomenal, which
are seen, and therefore temporary, but at better things than these, whether
we call them "substance," or "spiritual" things, as being apprehended by
reason, or "invisible," because they lie out of the reach of the senses. The
disciples of Jesus regard these phenomenal things only that they may use
them as steps to ascend to the knowledge of the things of reason. For "the
invisible things of God," that is, the objects of the reason, "from the
creation of the world are clearly seen" by the reason, "being understood by
the things that are made." And when they have risen from the created things
of this world to the invisible things of God, they do not stay there; but
after they have sufficiently exercised their minds upon these, and have
understood their nature, they ascend to "the eternal power of God," in a
word, to His divinity. For they know that God, in His love to men, has
"manifested" His truth, and "that which is known of Him," not only to those
who devote themselves to His service, but also to some who are far removed
from the purity of worship and service which He requires; and that some of
those who by the providence of God had attained a knowledge of them truths,
were yet doing things unworthy of, that knowledge, and "holding the truth in
unrighteousness," and who are unable to find any excuse before God after the
knowledge of such great truths which He has given them.
Chapter XLVII.
For Scripture testifies, in regard to those who have a knowledge of those
things of which Celsus speaks, and who profess a philosophy founded on these
principles, that they, "when they knew God, glorified Him not as God,
neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations; "and
notwithstanding the bright light of knowledge with which God had enlightened
them, "their foolish heart" was carried away, and became "darkened."
[4540] Thus we may see how those who accounted themselves wise gave proofs
of great folly, when, alter such grand arguments delivered in the schools on
God and on things apprehended by the reason, they "changed the glory of the
incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds,
and four-footed beasts, and creeping things." [4541] As, then, they lived
in a way unworthy of the knowledge which they had received from God, His
providence leaving them to themselves, they were given "up to uncleanness,
through the lusts of their own hearts to dishonour their own bodies,"
[4542] in shamelessness and licentiousness, because they "changed the truth
of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the
Creator."
Chapter XLVIII.
But those who are despised for their ignorance, and set down as fools and
abject slaves, no sooner commit themselves to God's guidance by accepting
the teaching of Jesus, than, so far from defiling themselves by licentious
indulgence or the gratification of shameless passion, they in many cases,
like perfect priests, for whom such pleasures have no charm, keep themselves
in act and in thought in a state of virgin purity. The Athenians have one
hierophant, who, not having confidence in his power to restrain his passions
within the limits he, prescribed for himself, determined to check them at
their seat by the application of hemlock; and thus he was accounted pure,
and fit for the celebration of religious worship among the Athenians. But
among Christians may be found men who have no need of hemlock to fit them
for the pure service of God, and for whom the Word in place of hemlock is
able to drive all evil desires from their thoughts, so that they may present
their prayers to the Divine Being. And attached to the other so-called gods
are a select number of virgins, who are guarded by men, or it may be not
guarded (for that is not the point in question at present), and who are
supposed to live in purity for the honour of the god they serve. But among
Christians, those who maintain a perpetual virginity do so for no human
honours, for no fee or reward, from no motive of vainglory; [4543] but
"as they choose to retain God in their knowledge," [4544] they are
preserved by God in a spirit well-pleasing to Him, and in the discharge of
every duty, being filled with all righteousness and goodness.
Chapter XLIX.
What I have now said, then, is offered not for the purpose of cavilling with
any right opinions or sound doctrines held even by Greeks, but with the
desire of showing that the same things, and indeed much better and diviner
things than these, have been said by those divine men, the prophets of God
and the apostles of Jesus. These truths are fully investigated by all who
wish to attain a perfect knowledge of Christianity, and who know that "the
mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment;
the law of his God is in his heart." [4545] But even in regard to those
who, either from deficiency or knowledge or want of inclination, or from not
having Jesus to lead them to a rational view of religion, have not gone into
these deep questions, we find that they believe in the Most High God, and in
His Only-begotten Son, the Word and God, and that they often exhibit in
their character a high degree of gravity, of purity, and integrity; while
those who call themselves wise have despised these virtues, and have
wallowed in the filth of sodomy, in lawless lust, "men with men working that
which is unseemly." [4546]
Chapter L.
Celsus has not explained how error accompanies the "becoming," or product of
generation; nor has he expressed himself with sufficient clearness to enable
us to compare his ideas with ours, and to pass judgment on them. But the
prophets, who have given some wise suggestions on the subject of things
produced by generation, tell us that a sacrifice for sin was offered even
for new-born infants, as not being free from sin. [4547] They say, "I was
shapen in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me; " [4548] also,
"They are estranged from the womb; "which is followed by the singular
expression, "They go astray as soon as they are born, speaking lies."
[4549] Besides, our wise men have such a contempt for all sensible objects,
that sometimes they speak of all material things as vanity: thus, "For the
creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him
that subjected the same in hope; " [4550] at other times as vanity of
vanities, "Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher, all is vanity." [4551]
Who has given so severe an estimate of the life of the human soul here on
earth, as he who says: "Verily every man at his best estate is altogether
vanity? " [4552] He does not hesitate at all as to the difference between
the present life of the soul and that which it is to lead hereafter. He does
not say, "Who knows if to die is not to live, and if to live is not
death" [4553] But he boldly proclaims the truth, and says, "Our soul is
bowed down to the dust; " [4554] and, "Thou hast brought me into the dust
of death; " [4555] and similarly, "Who will deliver me from the body of
this death? " [4556] also, "Who will change the body of our
humiliation." [4557] It is a prophet also who says, "Thou hast brought us
down in a place of affliction; " [4558] meaning by the "place of
affliction" this earthly region, to which Adam, that is to say, man, came
after he was driven out of paradise for sin. Observe also how well the
different life of the soul here and hereafter has been recognised by him who
says, "Now we see in a glass, obscurely, but then face to face; " [4559]
and, "Whilst we are in our home in the body, we are away from our home in
the Lord; "wherefore "we are well content to go from our home in the body,
and to come to our home with the Lord." [4560]
Chapter LI.
But what need is there to quote any more passages against Celsus, in order
to prove that his words contain nothing which was not said long before among
themselves, since that has been sufficiently established by what we have
said? It seems that what follows has some reference to this: "If you think
that a Divine Spirit has descended from God to announce divine things to
men, it is doubtless this same Spirit that reveals these truths; and it was
under the same influence that men of old made known many important
truths." But he does not know how great is the difference between those
things and the clear and certain teaching of those who say to us, "Thine
incorruptible spirit is in all things, wherefore God chasteneth them by
little and little that offend; " [4561] and of those who, among their
other instructions, teach us that words, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost,"
[4562] refer to a degree of spiritual influence higher than that in the
passage, "Ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence."
[4563] But it is a difficult matter, even after much careful consideration,
to perceive the difference between those who have received a knowledge of
the truth and a notion of God at different intervals and for short periods
of time, and those who are more fully inspired by God, who have constant
communion with Him, and are always led by His Spirit. Had Celsus set himself
to understand this, he would not have reproached as with ignorance, or
forbidden us to characterize as "blind" those who believe that religion
shows itself in such products of man's mechanical art as images. For every
one who sees with eyes of his soul serves the Divine Being in no other way
than in that which leads him ever to have regard to the Creator of all, to
address his prayers to Him alone, and to do all things as in the sight of
God, who sees us altogether, even to our thoughts. Our earnest desire then
is both to see for ourselves, and to be leaders of the blind, to bring them
to the Word of God, that He may take away from their minds the blindness of
ignorance. And if our actions are worthy of Him who taught His disciples,
"Ye are the light of the world," [4564] and of the Word, who says, "The
light shineth in darkness," [4565] then we shall be light to those who
are in darkness we shall give wisdom to those who are without it, and we
shall instruct the ignorant.
Chapter LII.
And let not Celsus be angry if we describe as Fame and mutilated in soul
those who run to the temples as to places having a real sacredness and who
cannot see that no mere mechanical work of man can be truly sacred. Those
whose piety is grounded on the teaching of Jesus also run until they come to
the end of their course, when they can say in all truth and confidence: "I
have fought a good fight, I have finished my course I have kept the faith;
henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness." [4566] And
each of us runs "not as uncertain," and he so fights with evil "not as one
beating the air," [4567] but as against those who are subject to "the
prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children
of disobedience." [4568] Celsus may indeed say of us that we "live with
the body which is a dead thing; "but we have learnt, "If ye live after the
flesh, ye shall die; but if ye by the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the
body, ye shall live; " [4569] and, "If we live in the Spirit, let us also
walk in the Spirit." [4570] Would that we might convince him by our
actions that he did us wrong, when he said that we "live with the body which
is dead!"
Chapter LIII.
After these remarks of Celsus, which we have done our best to refute, he
goes on to address us thus: "Seeing you are so eager for some novelty, how
much better it would have been if you had chosen as the object of your
zealous homage some one of those who died a glorious death, and whose
divinity might have received the support of some myth to perpetuate his
memory! Why, if you were not satisfied with Hercules or Aesculapius, and
other heroes of antiquity, you had Orpheus, who was confessedly a divinely
inspired man, who died a violent death. But perhaps some others have taken
him up before you. You may then take Anaxarchus, who, when cast into a
mortar, and beaten most barbarously, showed a noble contempt for his
suffering, and said, 'Beat, beat the shell of Anaxarchus, for himself you do
not beat, ''a speech surely of a spirit truly divine. But others were before
you in following his interpretation of the laws of nature. Might you not,
then, take Epictetus, who, when his master was twisting his leg, said,
smiling and. unmoved, 'You will break my leg; 'and when it was broken, he
added, 'Did I not tell you that you would break it? 'What saying equal to
these did your god utter under suffering? If you had said even of the Sibyl,
whose authority some of you acknowledge, that she was a child of God, you
would have said something more reasonable. But you have had the presumption
to include in her writings many impious things, [4571] and set up as a
god one who ended a most infamous life by a most miserable death. How much
more suitable than he would have been Jonah in the whale's belly, or Daniel
delivered from the wild beasts, or any of a still more portentous kind!"
Chapter LIV.
But since he sends us to Hercules, let him repeat to us any of his sayings,
and let him justify his shameful subjection to Omphale. Let him show that
divine honours should be paid to one who, like a highway robber, carries off
a farmer's ox by force, and afterwards devours it, amusing himself meanwhile
with the curses of the owner; in memory of which even to this day sacrifices
offered to the demon of Hercules are accompanied with curses. Again he
proposes Aesculapius to us, as if to oblige us to repeat what we have said
already; but we forbear. In regard to Orpheus, what does he admire in him to
make him assert that, by common consent, he was regarded as a divinely
inspired man, and lived a noble life? I am greatly deceived if it is not the
desire which Celsus has to oppose us and put down Jesus that leads him to
sound forth the praises of Orpheus; and whether, when he made himself
acquainted with his impious fables about the gods, he did not cast them
aside as deserving, even more than the poems of Homer, to be excluded from a
well-ordered state. For, indeed, Orpheus says much Worse things than Homer
of those whom they call gods. Noble, indeed, it was in Anaxarchus to say to
Aristocreon, tyrant of Cyprus, "Beat on, beat the shell of Anaxarchus," but
it is the one admirable incident in the life of Anaxarchus known to the
Greeks; and although, on the strength of that, some like Celsus might
deservedly honour the man for his courage, yet to look up to Anaxarchus as a
god is not consistent with reason. He also directs us to Epictetus, whose
firmness is justly admired, although his saying when his leg was broken by
his master is not to be compared with the marvellous acts and words of Jesus
which Celsus refuses to believe; and these words were accompanied by such a
divine power, that even to this day they convert not only some of the more
ignorant and simple, but many also of the most enlightened of men.
Chapter LV.
When, to his enumeration of those to whom he would send us, he adds, "What
saying equal to these did your god utter under sufferings? "we would reply,
that the silence of Jesus under scourgings, and amidst all His sufferings,
spoke more for His firmness and submission than all that was said by the
Greeks when beset by calamity. Perhaps Celsus may believe what was recorded
with all sincerity by trustworthy men, who, while giving a truthful account
of all the wonders performed by Jesus, specify among these the silence which
He preserved when subjected to scourgings; showing the same singular
meekness Under the insults which were heaped upon Him, when they put upon
Him the purple robe, and set the crown of thorns upon His head, and when
they put in His hand a reed in place of a sceptre: no unworthy or angry word
escaped Him against those who subjected Him to such outrages. Since, then,
He received the scourgings with silent firmness, and bore with meekness all
the insults of those who outraged Him, it cannot be said, as is said by
some, that it was in cowardly weakness that He uttered the words: "Father,
if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me: nevertheless, not as I will,
but as Thou wilt." [4572] The prayer which seems to be contained in these
words for the removal of what He calls "the cup" bears a sense which we have
elsewhere examined and set forth at large. But taking it in its more obvious
sense, consider if it be not a prayer offered to God with all piety. For no
man naturally regards anything which may befall him as necessary and
inevitable; though he may submit to what is not inevitable, if occasion
requires. Besides, these words, "nevertheless, not as I will, but as Thou
wilt," are not the language of one who yielded to necessity, but of one who
was contented with what was befalling Him, and who submitted with reverence
to the arrangements of Providence.
Chapter LVI.
Celsus then adds, for what reason I know not, that instead of calling Jesus
the Son of God, we had better have given that honour to the Sibyl, in whose
books he maintains we have interpolated many impious statements, though he
does not mention what those interpolations are. [4573] He might have
proved his assertion by producing some older copies which are free from the
interpolations which he attributes to us; but he does not do so even to
justify his statement that these passages are of an impious character.
Moreover, he again speaks of the life of Jesus as "a most infamous life," as
he has done before, not once or twice, but many times, although he does not
stay to specify any of the actions of His life which he thinks most
infamous. He seems to think that he may in this way make assertions without
proving them, and rail against one of whom he knows nothing. Had he set
himself to show what sort of infamy he found in the actions of Jesus, we
should have repelled the several charges brought against Him. Jesus did
indeed meet with a most sad death; but the same might be said of Socrates,
and of Anaxarchus, whom he had just mentioned, and a multitude of others. If
the death of Jesus was a miserable one, was not that of the others so too?
And if their death was not miserable, can it be said that the death of Jesus
was? You see from this, then, that the object of Celsus is to vilify the
character of Jesus; and I can only suppose that he is driven to it by some
spirit akin to those whose power has been broken and vanquished by Jesus,
and which now finds itself deprived of the smoke and blood on which it
lived, whilst deceiving those who sought for God here upon earth in images,
instead of looking up to the true God, the Governor of all things.
Chapter LVII.
After this, as though his object was to swell the size of his book, he
advises us "to choose Jonah rather than Jesus as our God; "thus setting
Jonah, who preached repentance to the single city of Nineveh, before Jesus,
who has preached repentance to the whole world, and with much greater
results. He would have us to regard as God a man who, by a strange miracle,
passed three days and three nights in the whale's belly; and he is unwilling
that He who submitted to death for the sake of men, He to whom God bore
testimony through the prophets, and who has done great things in heaven and
earth, should receive on that ground honour second only to that which is
given to the Most High God. Moreover, Jonah was swallowed by the whale for
refusing to preach as God had commanded him; while Jesus suffered death for
men after He had given the instructions which God wished Him to give. Still
further, he adds that Daniel rescued from the lions is more worthy of our
adoration than Jesus, who subdued the fierceness of every opposing power,
and gave to us "authority to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all
the power of the enemy." [4574] Finally, having no other names to offer
us, he adds, "and others of a still more monstrous kind," thus casting a
slight upon both Jonah and Daniel, for the spirit which is in Celsus cannot
speak well of the righteous.
Chapter LVIII.
Let us now consider what follows. "They have also," says he, "a precept to
this effect, that we ought not to avenge ourselves on one who injures us,
or, as he expresses it, 'Whosoever shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn
to him the other also.' This is an ancient saying, which had been admirably
expressed long before, and which they have only reported in a coarser way.
For Plato introduces Socrates conversing with Crito as follows: 'Must we
never do injustice to any? ''Certainly not.' 'And since we must never do
injustice, must we not return injustice for an injustice that has been done
to us, as most people think? ''It seems to me that we should not.' 'But tell
me, Crito, may we do evil to any one or not? ''Certainly not, O Socrates.'
'Well, is it just, as is commonly said, for one who has suffered wrong to do
wrong in return, or is it unjust? ''It is unjust. Yes; for to do harm to a
man is the same as to do him injustice.' 'You speak truly. We must then not
do injustice in return for injustice, nor must we do evil to any one,
whatever evil we may have suffered from him.' Thus Plato speaks; and he
adds, 'Consider, then, whether you are at one with me, and whether, starting
from this principle, we may not come to the conclusion that it is never
right to do injustice, even in return for an injustice which has been
received; or whether, on the other hand, you differ from me, and do not
admit the principle from which we started. That has always been my opinion,
and is so still.' [4575] Such are the sentiments of Plato, and indeed
they were held by divine men before his time. But let this suffice as one
example of the way in which this and other truths have been borrowed and
corrupted. Any one who wishes can easily by searching find more of them."
Chapter LIX.
When Celsus here or elsewhere finds himself unable to dispute the truth of
what we say, but avers that the same things were said by the Greeks, our
answer is, that if the doctrine be sound, and the effect of it good, whether
it was, made known to the Greeks by Plato or any of the wise men of Greece,
or whether it was delivered to the Jews by Moses or any of the prophets, or
whether it was given to the Christians in the recorded teaching of Jesus
Christ, or in the instructions of His apostles, that does not affect the
value of the truth communicated. It is no objection to the principles of
Jews or Christians, that the same things were also said by the Greeks,
especially if it be proved that the writings of the Jews are older than
those of the Greeks. And further, we are not to imagine that a truth adorned
with the graces of Grecian speech is necessarily better than the same when
expressed in the more humble and unpretending language used by Jews and
Christians, although indeed the language of the Jews, in which the prophets
wrote the books which have come down to us, has a grace of expression
peculiar to the genius of the Hebrew tongue. And even if we were required to
show that the same doctrines have been better expressed among the Jewish
prophets or in Christian writings, however paradoxical it may seem, we are
prepared to prove this by an illustration taken from different kinds of
food, and from the different modes of preparing them. Suppose that a kind of
food which is wholesome and nutritious has been prepared and seasoned in
such a way as to be fit, not for the simple tastes of peasants and poor
labourers, but for those only who are rich and dainty in their tastes.
Suppose, again, that that same food is prepared not to suit the tastes of
the more delicate, but for the peasants, the poor labourers, and the common
people generally, in short, so that myriads of persons might eat of it. Now
if, according to the supposition, the food prepared in the one way promotes
the health of those only who are styled the better classes, while none of
the others could taste it, whereas when prepared in the other way it
promoted the health of great multitudes of men, which shall we esteem as
most contributing to the public welfare,'those who prepare food for persons
of mark, or those who prepare it for the multitudes?'taking for granted that
in both cases the food is equally wholesome and nourishing; while it is
evident that the welfare of mankind and the common good are promoted better
by that physician who attends to the health of the many, than by one who
confines his attention to a few.
Chapter LX.
Now, after understanding this illustration, we have to apply it to the
qualities of spiritual food with which the rational part of man is
nourished. See, then, if Plato and the wise men among the Greeks, in the
beautiful things they say, are not like those physicians who confine their
attentions to what are called the better classes of society, and despise the
multitude; whereas the prophets among the Jews, and the disciples of Jesus,
who despise mere elegances of style, and what is called in Scripture "the
wisdom of men," "the wisdom according to the flesh," which delights in what
is obscure, resemble those who study to provide the most wholesome food for
the largest number of persons. For this purpose they adapt their language
and style to the capacities of the common people, and avoid whatever would
seem foreign to them, lest by the introduction of strange forms of
expression they should produce a distaste for their teaching. Indeed, if the
true use of spiritual food, to keep up the figure, is to produce in him who
partakes of it the virtues of patience and gentleness, must that discourse
not be better prepared when it produces patience and gentleness in
multitudes, or makes them grow in these virtues, than that which confines
its effects to a select few, supposing that it does really make them gentle
and patient? If a Greek wished by wholesome instruction to benefit people
who understood only Egyptian or Syriac, the first thing that he would do
would be to learn their language; and he would rather pass for a Barbarian
among the Greeks, by speaking as the Egyptians or Syrians, in order to be
useful to them, than always remain Greek, and be without the means of
helping them. In the same way the divine nature, having the purpose of
instructing not only those who are reputed to be learned in the literature
of Greece, but also the rest of mankind, accommodated itself to the
capacities of the simple multitudes whom it addressed. It seeks to win the
attention of the more ignorant by the use of language which is familiar to
them, so that they may easily be induced, after their first introduction, to
strive after an acquaintance with the deeper truths which lie hidden in
Scripture. For even the ordinary reader of Scripture may see that it
contains many things which are too deep to be apprehended at first; but
these are understood by such as devote themselves to a careful study of the
divine word, and they become plain to them in proportion to the pains and
zeal which they expend upon its investigation.
Chapter LXI.
From these remarks it is evident, that when Jesus said "coarsely," as Celsus
terms it, "To him who shall strike thee on the one cheek, turn the other
also; and if any man be minded to sue thee at the law, and take away thy
coat, let him have thy cloak also," [4576] He expressed Himself in such a
way as to make the precept have more practical effect than the words of
Plato in the Crito; for the latter is so far from being intelligible to
ordinary persons, that even those have a difficulty in understanding him,
who have been brought up in the schools of learning, and have been initiated
into the famous philosophy of Greece. It may also be observed, that the
precept enjoining patience under injuries is in no way corrupted or degraded
by the plain and simple language which our Lord employs, but that in this,
as in other cases, it is a mere calumny against our religion which he utters
when he says: "But let this suffice as one example of the way in which this
and other truths have been borrowed and corrupted. Any one who wishes can
easily by searching find more of them."
Chapter LXII.
Let us now see what follows. "Let us pass on," says he, "to another point.
They cannot tolerate temples, altars, or images. [4577] In this they are
like the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya, the Seres who worship no
god, and some other of the most barbarous and impious nations in the world.
That the Persians hold the same notions is shown by Herodotus in these
words: 'I know that among the Persians it is considered unlawful to erect
images, altars, or temples; but they charge those with folly who do so,
because, as I conjecture, they do not, like the Greeks, suppose the gods to
be of the nature of men.' [4578] Heraclitus also says in one place:
'Persons who address prayers to these images act like those who speak to the
walls, without knowing who the gods or the heroes are.' And what wiser
lesson have they to teach us than Heraclitus? He certainly plainly enough
implies that it is a foolish thing for a man to offer prayers to images,
whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are. This is the opinion of
Heraclitus; but as for them, they go further, and despise without exception
all images. If they merely mean that the stone, wood, brass, or gold which
has been wrought by this or that workman cannot be a god, they are
ridiculous with their wisdom. For who, unless he be utterly childish in his
simplicity, can take these for gods, and not for offerings consecrated to
the service of the gods, or images representing them? But if we are not to
regard these as representing the Divine Being, seeing that God has a
different form, as the Persians concur with them in saying, then let them
take care that they do not contradict themselves; for they say that God made
man His own image, and that He gave him a form like to Himself. However,
they will admit that these images, whether they are like or not, are made
and dedicated to the honour of certain beings. But they will hold that the
beings to whom they are dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a
worshipper of God ought not to worship demons."
Chapter LXIII.
To this our answer is, that if the Scythians, the nomadic tribes of Libya,
the Seres, who according to Celsus have no god, if those other most
barbarous and impious nations in the world, and if the Persians even cannot
bear the sight of temples, altars, and images, it does not follow because we
cannot suffer them any more than they, that the grounds on which we object
to them are the same as theirs. We must inquire into the principles on which
the objection to temples and images is rounded, in order that we may approve
of those who object on sound principles, and condemn those whose principles
are false. For one and the same thing may be done for different reasons. For
example, the philosophers who follow Zeno of Citium abstain from committing
adultery, the followers of Epicurus do so too, as well as others again who
do so on no philosophical principles; but observe what different reasons
determine the conduct of these different classes. The first consider the
interests of society, and hold it to be forbidden by nature that a man who
is a reasonable being should corrupt a woman whom the laws have already
given to another, and should thus break up the household of another man. The
Epicureans do not reason in this way; but if they abstain from adultery, it
is because, regarding pleasure as the chief end of man, they perceive that
one who gives himself up to, adultery, encounters for the sake of this one
pleasure a multitude of obstacles to pleasure, such as imprisonment, exile,
and death itself. They often, indeed, run considerable risk at the outset,
while watching for the departure from the house of the master and those in
his interest. So that, supposing it possible for a man to commit adultery,
and escape the knowledge of the husband, of his servants, and of others
whose esteem he would forfeit, then the Epicurean would yield to the
commission of the crime for the sake of pleasure. The man of no
philosophical system, again, who abstains from adultery when the opportunity
comes to him, does so generally from dread of the law and its penalties, and
not for the sake of enjoying a greater number of other pleasures. You see,
then, that an act which passes for being one and the same'namely, abstinence
from adultery'is not the same, but differs in different men according to the
motives which actuate it: one man refraining for sound reasons, another for
such bad and impious ones as those of the Epicurean, and the common person
of whom we have spoken.
Chapter LXIV.
As, then, this act of self-restraint, which in appearance is one and the
same, is found in fact to be different in different persons, according to
the principles and motives which lead to it; so in the same way with those
who cannot allow in the worship of the Divine Being altars, or temples, or
images. The Scythians, the Nomadic Libyans, the godless Seres, and the
Persians, agree in this with the Christians and Jews, but they are actuated
by very different principles. For none of these former abhor altars and
images on the ground that they arc afraid of degrading the worship of God,
and reducing it to the worship of material things wrought by the hands of
men. [4579] Neither do they object to them from a belief that the demons
choose certain forms and places, whether because they are detained there by
virtue of certain charms, or because for some other possible reason they
have selected these haunts, where they may pursue their criminal pleasures,
in partaking of the smoke of sacrificial victims. But Christians and Jews
have regard to this command, "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and serve
Him alone; " [4580] and this other, "Thou shalt have no other gods before
Me: thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of
anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that
is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them,
nor serve them; " [4581] and again, "Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and Him only shalt thou serve." [4582] It is in consideration of these
and many other such commands, that they not only avoid temples, altars, and
images, but are ready to suffer death when it is necessary, rather than
debase by any such impiety the conception which they have of the Most High
God.
Chapter LXV.
In regard to the Persians, we have already said that though they do not
build temples, yet they worship the sun and the other works of God. This is
forbidden to us, for we have been taught not to worship the creature instead
of the Creator, but to know that "the creation shall be delivered from the
bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God;
"and "the earnest expectation of the creation is waiting for the revelation
of the sons of God; "and "the creation was made subject to vanity, not
willingly, but by; reason of him who made it subject:, in hope." [4583]
We believe, therefore, that things "under the bondage of corruption," and
"subject to vanity," which remain in this condition "in hope" of a better
state, ought not in our worship to hold the place of God, the
all-sufficient, and of His Son, the First-born of all creation. Let this
suffice, in addition to what we have already said of the Persians, who abhor
altars and images, but who serve the creature instead of the Creator. As to
the passage quoted by Celsus from Heraclitus, the purport of which he
represents as being, "that it is childish folly for one to offer prayers to
images, whilst he knows not who the gods and heroes are," we may reply that
it is easy to know that God and the Only-begotten Son of God, and those whom
God has honoured with the title of God, and who partake of His divine
nature, are very different from all the gods of the nations which are
demons; but it is not possible at the same time to know God and to address
prayers to images. [4584]
Chapter LXVI.
And the charge of folly applies not only to those who offer prayers to
images, but also to such as pretend to do so in compliance with the example
of the multitude: and to this class belong the Peripatetic philosophers and
the followers of Epicurus and Democritus. For there is no falsehood or
pretence in the soul which is possessed with true piety towards God. Another
reason also why we abstain from doing honour to images, is that we may give
no support to the notion that the images are gods. It is on this ground that
we condemn Celsus, and all others who, while admitting that they are not
gods, yet, with the reputation of being wise men, render to them what passes
for homage. In this way they lead into sin the multitude who follow their
example, and who worship these images not simply out of deference to custom,
but from a belief into which they have fallen that they are true gods, and
that those are not to be listened to who hold that the objects of their
worship are not true gods. Celsus, indeed, says that "they do not take them
for gods, but only as offerings dedicated to the gods." But he does not
prove that they are not rather dedicated to men than, as he says, to the
honour of the gods themselves; for it is clear that they are the offerings
of men who were in error in their views of the Divine Being. Moreover, we do
not imagine that these images are representations of God, for they cannot
represent a being who is invisible and incorporeal. [4585] But as Celsus
supposes that we fall into a contradiction, whilst on the one hand we say
that God has not a human form, and on the other we profess to believe that
God made man the image of Himself, and created man the image of God; our
answer is the same as has been given already, that we hold the resemblance
to God to be preserved in the reasonable soul, which is formed to virtue,
although Celsus, who does not see the difference between "being the image of
God," and "being created after the image of God," pretends that we said,
"God made man His own image, and gave him a form like to His own." But this
also has been examined before.
Chapter LXVII.
His next remark upon the Christians is: "They will admit that these images,
whether they are like or not, are made and dedicated to the honour of
certain beings; but they will hold that the beings to whom they are
dedicated are not gods, but demons, and that a worshipper of God ought not
to worship demons." If he had been acquainted with the nature of demons, and
with their several operations, whether led on to them by the conjurations of
those who are skilled in the art, or urged on by their own inclination to
act according to their power and inclination; if, I say, he had thoroughly
understood this subject, which is both wide in extent and difficult for
human comprehension, he would not have condemned us for saying that those
who worship the Supreme Being should not serve demons. For ourselves, so far
are we from wishing to serve demons, that by the use of prayers and other
means which we learn from Scripture, we drive them out of the souls of men,
out of places where they have established themselves, and even sometimes
from the bodies of animals; for even these creatures often suffer from
injuries inflicted upon them by demons.
Chapter LXVIII.
After all that we have already said concerning Jesus, it would be a useless
repetition for us to answer these words of Celsus: "It is easy to convict
them of worshipping not a god, not even demons, but a dead person." Leaving,
then, this objection for the reason assigned, let us pass on to what
follows: "In the first place, I would ask why we are not to serve demons? Is
it not true that all things are ordered according to God's will, and that
His providence governs all things? Is not everything which happens in the
universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of
heroes, regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had
assigned them various departments of which they were severally deemed
worthy? it not just, therefore, that he who worships God should serve those
also to whom God has assigned such power? Yet it is impossible, he says, for
a man to serve many masters." Observe here again how he settles at once a
number of questions which require considerable research, and a profound
acquaintance with what is most mysterious in the government of the universe.
For we must inquire into the meaning of the statement, that "all things are
ordered according to God's will," and ascertain whether sins are or are not
included among the things which God orders. For if God's government extends
to sins not only in men, but also in demons and in any other spiritual
beings who are capable of sin, it is for those who speak in this manner to
see how inconvenient is the expression that "all things are ordered by the
will of God." For it follows from it that all sins and all their
consequences are ordered by the will of God, which is a different thing from
saying that they come to pass with God's permission. For if we take the word
"ordered" in its proper signification, and say that "all the results of sin
were ordered," then it is evident that all things are ordered according to
God's will, and that all, therefore, who do evil do not offend against His
government. And the same distinction holds in regard to "providence." When
we say that "the providence of God regulates all things," we utter a great
truth if we attribute to that providence nothing but what is just and right.
But if we ascribe to the providence of God all things whatsoever, however
unjust they rusty be, then it is no longer true that the providence of God
regulates all things, unless we refer directly to God's providence things
which flow as results from His arrangements. Celsus maintains also, that
"whatever happens in the universe, whether it be the work of God, of angels,
of other demons, or of heroes, is regulated by the law of the Most High
God." But this also is incorrect; for we cannot say that transgressors
follow the law of God when they transgress; and Scripture declares that it
is not only wicked men who are transgressors, but also wicked demons and
wicked angels.
Chapter LXIX.
And it is not we alone who speak of wicked demons, but almost all who
acknowledge the existence of demons. Thus, then, it is not true that all
observe the law of the Most High; for all who fall away from the divine law,
whether through heedlessness, or through depravity and vice, or through
ignorance of what is right, all such do not keep the law of God, but, to use
a new phrase which we find in Scripture, "the law of sin. I say, then, that
in the opinion of most of those who believe in the existence of demons, some
of them are wicked; and these, instead of keeping the law of God, offend
against it. But, according to our belief, it is true of all demons, that
they were not demons originally, but they became so in departing from the
true way; so that the name "demons" is given to those beings who have fallen
away from God. Accordingly, those who worship God must not serve demons. We
may also learn the true nature of demons if we consider the practice of
those who call upon them by charms to prevent certain things, or for many
other purposes. For this is the method they adopt, in order by means of
incantations and magical arts to invoke the demons, and induce them to
further their wishes. Wherefore, the worship of all demons would be
inconsistent in us who worship the Supreme God; and the service of demons is
the service of so-called gods, for "all the gods of the heathen are
demons." [4586] The same thing also appears from the fact that the
dedication of the most famous of the so-called sacred places, whether
temples or statues, was accompanied by curious magical incantations, which
were performed by those who zealously served the demons with magical arts.
Hence we are determined to avoid the worship of demons even as we would
avoid death; and we hold that the worship, which is supposed among the
Greeks to be rendered to gods at the altars, and images, and temples, is in
reality offered to demons.
Chapter LXX.
His next remark was, "Have not these inferior powers had assigned to them by
God different departments, according as each was deemed worthy? "But this is
a question which requires a very profound knowledge. For we must determine
whether the Word of God, who governs all things, has appointed wicked demons
for certain employments, in the same way as in states executioners are
appointed, and other officers with creel but needful duties to discharge; or
whether as among robbers, who infest desert places, it is customary for them
to choose out of their number one who may be their leader,'so the demons,
who are scattered as it were in troops in different parts of the earth, have
chosen for themselves a chief under whose command they may plunder and
pillage the souls of men. To explain this fully, and to justify the conduct
of the Christians in refusing homage to any object except the Most High God,
and the First-born of all creation, who is His Word and God, we must quote
this from Scripture, "All that ever came before Me are thieves and robbers:
but the sheep did not hear them; "and again, "The thief cometh not, but for
to steal, and to kill, and to destroy; " [4587] and other similar
passages, as, "Behold, I have given you authority to tread on serpents and
scorpions, and over all the power. of the enemy: and nothing shall by any
means hurt you; " [4588] and again, "Thou shall tread upon the lion and
adder: the young lion and the dragon shall thou trample under feet."
[4589] But of these things Celsus knew nothing, or he would not have made
use of language like this: "Is not everything which happens in the universe,
whether it be the work of God, of angels, of other demons, or of heroes,
regulated by the law of the Most High God? Have these not had assigned to
them various departments of which they were severally deemed worthy? Is it
not just, therefore, that he who serves God should serve those also to whom
God has assigned such power? "To which he adds, "It is impossible, they say,
for a man to serve many masters." This last point we must postpone to the
next book; for this, which is the seventh book which we have written in
answer to the treatise of Celsus, is already of sufficient length.
Footnotes
[4432] Ps. liv. 5.
[4433] Ps. liv. 6.
[4434] [See Dr. Lee on "the immemorial doctrine of the Church of God" as to
the Divine influence upon the intellectual faculties of the prophets:
Inspiration of Holy Scripture: its Nature and Proof, pp. 78, 79. S.]
[4435] Suidas in SophoÌs.
[4436] Homer, Iliad, xvi. 234, etc.
[4437] Heb. xi. 37, 38.
[4438] [Isa. xx. 3. S.]
[4439] [Dan. i. 16. S.]
[4440] [Gen. ix. 25-27. S.]
[4441] [Gen. xlix. 1. S.]
[4442] Wisd. of Sol. i. 5.
[4443] 2 Kings ix. 11.
[4444] [See note supra, p. 612. S.]
[4445] Ecclus. xxi. 18.
[4446] 1 Pet. iii. 15.
[4447] Ps. lxix. 21.
[4448] Book ii. cap. xxxvii.
[4449]
[4450] We follow Bouhèreau and Valesius, who expunge the negative
particle in this clause.
[4451] Isa. liii. 2, 3.
[4452] John viii. 40.
[4453] [John xii. 31 and xvi. 11.]
[4454] Heb. xi. 37, 38.
[4455] Ps. xxiv. 19.
[4456] Deut. xxviii. 12.
[4457] Ps. ci. 8.
[4458] Deut. ii. 34.
[4459] Ezek. xx. 25.
[4460] 2 Cor. iii. 6.
[4461] [Ezek. xx. 21, 25. S.]
[4462] 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8.
[4463] Rom. vii. 12, 14.
[4464] 1 Tim. vi. 17, 18.
[4465] Prov. xiii. 8.
[4466] Deut. xxxii. 30.
[4467] Rom. xv. 19.
[4468] Gal. ii. 5.
[4469]Ps. cxxxvii. 8, 9. [An instance of Origen's characteristic
spiritualizing.]
[4470] Rom. ii. 29.
[4471] Matt. xix. 23.
[4472] Prov. xxviii. 6.
[4473] Mark x. 44.
[4474]Matt. xx. 25.
[4475] Luke xxii. 25.
[4476] 1 Cor. iii. 19.
[4477] Ps. vii. 3-5. Origen follows the reading eis (LXX.) instead
of eis , "make my glory abide in the dust."
[4478] Matt. vi. 25-28.
[4479] Lev. xxvi. 5.
[4480] Prov. xiii. 25.
[4481] Ex. xxi. 24.
[4482] Matt. v. 39.
[4483] Lam. iii. 27, 28, 30.
[4484] John i. 18.
[4485] Col. i. 15.
[4486] Odyss., iv. 563.
[4487] Phoedo, lviii. p. 109.
[4488] Ex. iii. 8.
[4489] Gen. iii. 17.
[4490] Heb. xii. 22.
[4491] Ps. lxxvi. 2; English version, "In Salem is His tabernacle."
[4492] Ps. xlviii. 1, 2.
[4493] Ps. xxxvii. 9, 11, 22, 29, 34.
[4494] Isa. liv. 12, 11.
[4495] Hagg. ii. 6.
[4496] Dan. iv. 37.
[4497] Isa. v. 12.
[4498] 2 Cor. v. 1, 4.
[4499] 2 Cor. v. 1.
[4500] 1 Cor. xv. 53.
[4501] Bouhèreau follows the reading, "the mind which sees what is made
in the image of the Creator."
[4502] Matt. xv. 19 and vi. 23.
[4503] Matt. v. 8.
[4504] Ps. li. 10.
[4505] Deut. xiii. 4.
[4506] Ps. lxiii. 8.
[4507] Ps. cxix. 18.
[4508] Ps. xix. 8.
[4509] Ps. xiii. 3.
[4510] Matt. xiii. 9.
[4511] Ps. lxxvii. 2, according to the LXX.
[4512] 1 John i. 1.
[4513] Prov. ii. 5, Eng. Vers. and LXX., "Thou shalt find the knowledge
of God."
[4514] falling under the province of the reason. For
convenience, we translate it elsewhere "intellectual."
[4515] Rom. i. 20.
[4516] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[4517] Rom. viii. 13.
[4518] 2 Cor. iv. 10.
[4519] Col. iii. 5.
[4520] Gen. vi. 3.
[4521]Rom. viii. 8.
[4522] 2 Cor. v. 16.
[4523] Gen. iii. 6.
[4524] Gen. iii. 5.
[4525] Gen. iii. 7.
[4526] John ix. 39.
[4527] See book vi. cap. xxx., etc.
[4528] [See note supra, p. 573. S.]
[4529] 2 Cor. xii. 4.
[4530] Matt. v. 8.
[4531] John xiv. 9.
[4532] Matt. xi. 27.
[4533] 1 Cor. i. 27.
[4534] [Vol. ii. p. 186, this series.]
[4535] Rom. viii. 9.
[4536] Ps. li. 10.
[4537] For the distinction between see
Plato's Sophista, p. 246.
[4538] 2 Cor. x. 3, 4. The received text has "walk" instead of "live."
[4539] 1 Cor. iv. 12, 13.
[4540] Rom. i. 21.
[4541] Rom. i. 23.
[4542] Rom. i. 24, 25.
[4543] [See Robertson's History of the Church, vol. i. p. 145. S.]
[4544] Rom. i. 28.
[4545] Ps. xxxvii. 30, 31.
[4546] Rom. i. 27.
[4547] [The noteworthy testimony of the Alexandrian school to the
doctrine of birth-sin.
[4548] Ps. li. 5.
[4549] Ps. lviii. 3.
[4550] Rom. viii. 20.
[4551] Eccles. i. 2.
[4552] Ps. xxxix. 5.
[4553] Euripides. [See De la Rue's note ad loc. in his edition of
Origen's Works. S.]
[4554] Ps. xliv. 25.
[4555] Ps. xxii. 15.
[4556] Rom. vii. 24.
[4557] Phil. iii. 21.
[4558] Ps. xliii. 20 (LXX.).
[4559] 1 Cor. xiii. 12.
[4560] 2 Cor. v. 6, 8.
[4561] Wisd. xii. 1, 2.
[4562] John xx. 22.
[4563] Acts i. 5.
[4564] Matt. v. 14.
[4565] John i. 5.
[4566] 2 Tim. iv. 7.
[4567] 1 Cor. ix. 26.
[4568] Eph. ii. 2.
[4569] Rom. viii. 13.
[4570] Gal. v. 25.
[4571] [See vol. i. p. 169, note 9, and cap. lvi. infra.]
[4572] Matt. xxvi. 39.
[4573] [Vol. i. pp. 280, 288, 289; vol. ii. pp. 192, 194, 346, and 622.]
[4574] Luke x. 19.
[4575] Plato's Crito, p. 49.
[4576] Matt. v. 39, 40.
[4577] [The temples here meant are such as enshrined images.]
[4578] Herod., i. 131.
[4579] [Note this wholesome fear of early Christians.]
[4580] Deut. vi. 13.
[4581] Ex. xx. 3, 4.
[4582] Matt. iv. 10.
[4583] Rom. viii. 19-21.
[4584] [Let this be noted; and see book viii. 20, infra.]
[4585] [Vol. ii. p. 186, note 1.]
[4586] Ps. xcv. 5 (LXX.); xcvi. 5 (Heb.)
[4587] John x. 8-10.
[4588] Luke x. 19.
[4589] Ps. xci. 13.
Also, see links to 3500 other Manuscripts:
/believe/txv/earlychs.htm
E-mail to: BELIEVE
The main BELIEVE web-page (and the index to subjects) is at:
BELIEVE Religious Information Source - By Alphabet
http://mb-soft.com/believe/indexaz.html